Transcript English

M&E in the GEF
Kseniya Temnenko
Knowledge Management Officer
Extended Constituency Workshop
11 – 13 October 2011
Tashkent, Uzbekistan
 Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and
results-based management (RBM) in GEF-5
 M&E policy for GEF-5
 M&E Minimum Requirements
 Involvement of focal points
 Evaluation planning for GEF-5
 ASK ME database
 Climate-Eval: community of practice
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
 Reference to GEF Results-based Management (RBM)
 Strengthened knowledge sharing and learning
 Clarification of roles and responsibilities
 Stronger role for GEF Operational Focal Points in M&E
 Inclusion of programs and jointly implemented
projects
 Baseline data for M&E to be established by CEO
endorsement
 New Minimum Requirement on engagement of GEF
Operational Focal Points in project and program M&E
activities
5
Institutional
Level
(top-down)
GEB
Impacts
GEF
Strategic
Goals
Focal Area
Goal
Operating
Level
(bottom-up)
Outcomes
Outputs
Focal Area
Objectives
Project
Objectives
6
Project and Program Design
LFA/Results framework
M&E Plan
Implementation
Monitoring of progress; midpoint
course correction as needed
Evaluation
Terminal Evaluations
Lessons Learned
Management, monitoring, and learning
Lessons learned; Good practices
Adapted from the World Bank’s Results Focus in Country Assistance Strategies, July 2005, p. 13
7
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
8
GEF Council
Annual evaluation reports
Overall Performance Study
(to Assembly)
Annual Work Program
and Budget
Agency
evaluation units
GEF
Evaluation Office
Corporate
Project and Program
evaluations
evaluations
Project and Program
Independent evaluations
Annual Monitoring Report
Evaluation Management Response
Programming documents and indicators
Results Based Management
GEF Secretariat
Project and Program Implementation Reports
Agency Portfolio Reports
Project documents with M&E plans
Agency GEF
coordination units
Project and Program Implementation Reports
Project and Program monitoring documentation
Terminal evaluations
9
GEF projects and
programs
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
10
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
11
Design of M&E Plans
Concrete and fully budgeted M&E plan by CEO
endorsement for FSP and CEO approval for MSP.
Project logical frameworks should align with GEF
focal area results frameworks. M&E Plan should
include:
 SMART indicators
 Baseline data for M&E by CEO endorsement
 Mid Term Reviews (where required or foreseen)
and Terminal Evaluations included in plan
 Organizational set up and budget for M&E
12
Implementation of M&E Plans
Project/program monitoring and supervision will
include execution of the M&E plan:
 Use of SMART indicators for process and
implementation
 Use of SMART indicators for results
 Baseline for the project is fully established and
data are compiled to review progress
 Organizational set up for M&E is operational and
its budget is spent as planned
13
Project/Program Evaluations:
 All full sized projects and programs will be
evaluated at the end of implementation
 Evaluations should:
 Be independent of project management or reviewed by
GEF Agency evaluation unit
 Apply evaluation norms and standards of the GEF Agency
 Assess, as a minimum, outputs and outcomes, likelihood
of sustainability, compliance with Minimum
Requirements 1 & 2
 Contain basic project data and lessons on the evaluation
itself (including TORs)
 Should be sent to GEF EO within 12 months of completion
of project/program
Guidelines for evaluating14 MSPs/EAs will be developed
Engagement of Operational Focal Points
 M&E plans should include how OFPs will be
engaged
 OFPs to be informed on M&E activities,
including Mid Term Reviews and Terminal
Evaluations, receiving drafts for comments and
final reports
 OFPs 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
15
 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
16
GEF-5 cross-cutting capacity development strategy:
 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 from $44m set-aside for capacity development
17
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
18
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
19
Project cycle issues: efficiency of decision making
in the GEF?
SIDS issues?
Stakeholder consultations: are the ECW developing
in a continuous consultation process?
 What more would be needed?
 Is e-survey sufficient?
Follow-up from OPS4 – governance,
Global and regional projects
20
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Projects Approved: Active and Completed
TOTAL 238 Projects
NATIONAL 185 Projects
61 BD, 64 CC, 22 IW, 19 LD, 35 MF, 21 POPs, 16 ODS
176 Active, 62 Completed
Number
Focal Area
Grant and Co-finanicng
59
54
28
17
12
12
3
CC
BD
MF
POPs
ODS
LD
IW
2.7 B
350 M
628 M
141 M
227 M
259 M
34 M
148 Active, 37 Completed
GEF Grant
$610 M
Co Financing
$3.72 B
REGIONAL 41 Projects
GEF Grant $165 M
Co Financing $804 M
6 BD, 2 CC, 19 IW, 5 LD 6 MF, 4
POPs, 4 ODS
21
GLOBAL 12 Projects
GEF Grant $196 M
Co Financing $216 M
1 BD, 3 CC, 2 LD, 6 MF
22
23
Biodiversity in the GEF
Climate Change in the GEF
24

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!)
25
 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
26
Knowledge Sharing of Evaluations:
 Are you receiving GEF Evaluations?
 What format of communication of evaluation findings is
the most useful for your work?
27
Thank you
www.gefeo.org
28