Transcript M&E in the GEF (presentation)

M&E in the GEF
Kseniya Temnenko
Knowledge Management Officer
 RBM, Monitoring & Evaluation
 M&E in the GEF
 M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies
 M&E Policy
 Minimum Requirements
 Role of the Focal Points
 Evaluations Streams
 Performance
 Impact
 Country Level Evaluations
 Thematic




OPS5
Knowledge Sharing
GEF Portfolio – Regional
Q&A
2
 Result based management - Setting goals and objectives,
Monitoring, learning and decision making
 Evaluation is a “reality check” on RBM
 RBM, especially monitoring, tell whether the organization is
“on track”
 Evaluation could tell whether the organization is “on the
right track”
3
Two overarching objectives:
 Promote accountability for the achievement of GEF
objectives through the assessment of results, effectiveness,
processes, and performance of the partners involved in GEF
activities
 Promote learning, feedback, and knowledge sharing on
results and lessons learned among the GEF and its partners
as a basis for decision making on policies, strategies, program
management, programs, and projects; and to improve
knowledge and performance
4
Enabling
Environment
M&E Policy
COUNCIL
Oversight
GEF
Evaluation
Office
GEF
Evaluation
Office,
Evaluation
Partners
Advice
STAP
GEF
Secretariat,
GEF
Agencies
Partner
Countries,
NGOs, Private
Sector,
Communities
5
 Design of M&E Plans
 Completed and fully budgeted M&E plans by CEO
endorsement for FSPs, and CEO approval for MSPs.
Project log frames should align with GEF Focal Area result
frameworks contained in the GEF-5 RBM.
 Implementation of M&E Plans
 Project/program monitoring and supervision will include
execution of the M&E Plan
 Project/Program Evaluations
 All full and medium size projects will be evaluated.
Reports should be sent to the GEF EO within 12 months
of project completion.
 Engagement of Operational Focal Points
 M&E Plans should explain how GEF OFPs will be engaged
in M&E activities.
6
Engagement of Operational Focal Points
 M&E plans should include how OFPs will be engaged
 OFPs will be informed on M&E activities, including Mid Term
Reviews and Terminal Evaluations, receiving drafts for
comments and final reports
 OFPs will be invited to contribute to the management
response (where applicable)
 GEF Agencies keep track of the application of this
requirement in their GEF financed projects and programs
7
 Keep track of GEF support at the national level
 Keep stakeholders informed and consulted in plans,
implementation and results of GEF activities in the country
 Disseminate M&E information, promoting use of evaluation
recommendations and lessons learned
 Assist the Evaluation Office, as the first point of entry into a
country:
 identify major relevant stakeholders
 coordinate meetings
 assist with agendas
 coordinate country responses to these evaluations
8
 Fifth component: enhancing capacities to monitor and
evaluate environmental impacts and trends. This should
be identified as a priority in the NCSA capacity
development action plan
 The capacity development plan should be formulated as
a medium size project, or it should be integrated into a
broader proposal that would be formulated as MSP or
FSP – if MSP it should have 1:1 cofunding
 Development of regional partnerships could be
considered
 Funding available from $44m set-aside for capacity
development
9
 A management response is required for all evaluation reports
presented to the GEF Council by the GEF EO
 GEF Council takes into account both the evaluation and the
management response when taking a decision
 GEF EO reports on implementation of decisions annually
(Management Action Record)
 In the case of Country Portfolio Evaluations countries have
the opportunity to provide their perspective to Council as
well
10
Evaluation Streams
11
 Performance Evaluations assess:
 institutional and procedural issues across the GEF
focal areas
 experience with GEF strategies and policies.
 Annual Performance Report assesses:
 Project Outcomes
 Sustainability of Outcomes
 Quality of Monitoring and Evaluation
 Quality of Implementation & Execution
 Quality of Terminal Evaluation
 The APR also includes periodic reviews of:
 Quality at Entry
 Quality of Supervision
 Co-Financing
 Other performance issues
12
 Reviews recently completed and in progress:
 APR 2010 and 2011
 Earth Fund
 Planned reviews:
 APRs 2012 -13
 STAR Mid-Term Review
 Direct Access Mid-Term Review
13
Impact evaluation assess the positive and negative, primary and
secondary long-term effects produced by a development
intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
Themes addressed:
 GEF contributions to progress towards impact
 Impact pathways and factors affecting further progress
towards impact
 GEF Contributions to changes in environmental stress,
environmental status and socio-economic status
14
 Recently completed and in progress:
 Impact evaluation on biodiversity in Peru
 International waters (South China Sea), and climate
change
 Planned:
 Biodiversity and one more focal area to be determined
 ROtI analysis of closed projects
15
 Country Level Evaluations assess GEF support in a country
across all GEF focal areas, Agencies, projects and programs.
 The country is used as the unit of analysis.
 CPEs assess the relevance, results, and efficiency of GEF
projects at the country level, to see:
 How these projects perform in producing results;
 How these results are linked to national environmental
and sustainable development agendas as well as to the
GEF mandate of achieving global environmental benefits.
16
 Two Country Level Evaluations modalities:
 Fully-fledged Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs), and
 Country Portfolio Studies (CPSs); reduced in scope, they
provide additional evaluative coverage of country
portfolios in each GEF geographic region.
 CPSs are conducted in parallel and in collaboration with a
country evaluation of a GEF Agency, to reduce the evaluation
burden to countries.
 Completed, ongoing and planned country level evaluations:
 Recently completed and in progress: Nicaragua, OECS,
Jamaica, El Salvador (completed) Brazil, Cuba, India,
Timor Leste, Sri Lanka (ongoing)
 Planned FY13-15 : Asia, Africa, MENA, ECA
17
 Evaluations on topics of cross-cutting issues:
 Programs, processes, focal area strategies, cross-sectoral
and other thematic issues and special reviews
 Recently completed evaluations:
 Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA)
 National Capacity Self-Assessments (NCSA)
 Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF)
 Planned reviews:
 Enabling Activities
 Focal Area Strategies
18
Fifth Overall Performance Study
OPS 5
19
 Consolidation and strengthening of the four streams of evaluative
evidence:
 Country Portfolio Evaluations: up to 15 during GEF-5
 Impact Evaluations: International Waters, Climate Change and
other focal areas
 Performance Evaluations: APR continued and strengthened as well
as independent process reviews
 Thematic Evaluations: focal area strategies and adaptation
20
 Verification and ratings of outcome and progress toward
impact
 Coverage of the reform process: GEF project cycle and
modalities, direct access, STAR, Paragraph 28
 Increased attention to the catalytic role of the GEF
 Trends in ownership and country drivenness
 Trends in global environmental problems and relevance of
the GEF to the conventions
 More in-depth look at the focal area strategies, including
sustainable forestry management
 Better understanding of the longer term impact of the GEF
21
 Project cycle issues: efficiency of decision making in the GEF?
 Stakeholder consultations: are the ECW developing in a
continuous consultation process?
 What more would be needed?
 Is e-survey sufficient?
 Global and regional projects?
 Specific sub-regional issues?
22
 M&E contributes to knowledge building and organizational
improvement:
 Findings and lessons should be accessible to target
audiences in a user-friendly way
 Evaluation reports should be subject to a dynamic
dissemination strategy
 Knowledge sharing enables partners to capitalize on lessons
learned from experiences
 Purpose of KM in the GEF:
 Promotion of a culture of learning
 Application of lessons learned
 Feedback to new activities
23

Community of practice on evaluation of climate change and
development
 Sharing best practices on climate change and
development evaluation
 500+ members

Online tools for participation:





Website: www.climate-eval.org
Linkedin Group
Social media
News letters
Blog (soon!)
24
 International Conference in Alexandria in 2008
 World Bank publication (book)

Evaluating Climate Change and Development (van den Berg and
Feinstein, 2009)
 Electronic library (400+ reports)
 Webinars
 Studies
 Meta-Evaluation of Mitigation Studies
 Adaptation Framework for M&E
 3 more underway
 Partnership – SEA Change , IDEAS
 Supporters

SIDA, FOEN, GEFEO
25
Thank you
www.gefeo.org
26