Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF. The GEF M&E Policy M&E objectives M&E levels and responsible agencies M&E minimum requirements Role of.
Post on 26-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF
Rob D. van den BergDirector
GEF Expanded Constituency WorkshopJuly 10-12, 2012
Nadi, Fiji
Overview The GEF M&E Policy
M&E objectives M&E levels and responsible agencies M&E minimum requirements Role of the Focal Points Follow up to evaluations
Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5) Objective of the Overall Performance Studies EO evaluation streams & OPS5 Theory of Change Content of OPS5 reports
Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2012 (ACPER 2012)
Questions & Answers2
4
RBM, Monitoring & Evaluation
Result-Based Management (RBM) - setting goals and objectives, monitoring, learning and decision making
Evaluation: a “reality check” on RBM
RBM, which includes Monitoring, tells whether the organization is “on track”
Evaluation tells whether the organization is “on the right track”
M&E 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
5
Knowledge Sharing
M&E contributes to Knowledge Sharing 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 Knowledge Sharing in the GEF includes
Promotion of a culture of learning Application of lessons learned Feedback to new activities
6
M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies
7
Advice
Oversight
M&E Policy
GEF Evaluation
Office, Evaluation Partners
COUNCIL
Enabling Environment
STAP
GEF Evaluation
Office
GEF Secretariat,
GEF Agencies
Partner Countries,
NGOs, Private Sector,
Communities
M&E: Minimum Requirements MR1: 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
MR2: Implementation of M&E Plans Project/program monitoring and supervision will include
execution of the M&E plan MR3: Project/Program Evaluations
All FSPs and MSPs will be evaluated Reports should be sent to the GEF EO within 12 months of
project completion MR4: Engagement of Operational Focal Points
M&E plans should explain how GEF OFPs will be engaged in M&E activities
8
M&E: Minimum Requirement 4
MR4: 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
9
Role of GEF Focal Points in M&E
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
evaluations10
Follow-Up to Evaluations 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 through the Management Action Record
For Country Portfolio Evaluations countries have the opportunity to provide their perspective to Council as well
11
Objective of Overall Performance Studies
To assess the extent to which the GEF is achieving its objectives: As laid down in the GEF Instrument and reviews by
the Assembly As developed and adopted by the GEF Council in
operational policies and programs for GEF financed activities
And to identify potential improvements
13
EO Evaluation Streams & OPS5
Four streams of evaluative evidence will be integrated into OPS5 Country Portfolio Evaluations: evidence from 15+
countries Impact Evaluations: International Waters, Climate
Change, Biodiversity Performance Evaluations: APR trends Thematic Evaluations: focal area strategies and
adaptationIntegration through meta-evaluation into first
report; update in final report
14
Overall Analytical Framework: GEF’s Catalytic Role
OPS4 brought evaluative evidence on three catalytic elements in GEF support: Foundation: role of governments Demonstration: introduction of new approaches Investment: broad implementation of new
approachesNew evidence since OPS4 has refined elements:
Elements are mixed according to country/local needs Each focal area has a unique mixture of elements,
aiming at different intermediate states Focal area strategies evaluation is now exploring
these
15
GEF OUTPUTS & OUTCOMES INTERMEDIATE STATES IMPACT
General Framework for GEF Theory of Change
Learning & adaptive management / Positive
reinforcement cycle
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Technologies &
approaches
Implementing mechanisms & bodies
Financial mechanisms for implementation &
sustainability
• Promoting champions• Building on promising
initiatives• Raising profile of
initiatives
• Removal of barriers• Innovation
INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
Policy, legal &
regulatory frameworks
Governmental structures &
arrangements
Informal processes for trust-building & conflict resolution
KNOWLEDGE & INFORMATION
Information-sharing &
access
Awareness-raising
Knowledge generationM & E
Skills-building
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLESOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
BEHAVIORAL CHANGE
BROADER ADOPTION
• Sustaining• Mainstreami
ng
• Replication• Scaling-up• Market
change
Stress reduction
Improved environmental statusTRAJECTORY
GEF initiative/ result
Progress towards impact
Impact/ GEBLEGEND
OPS5: Two Reports
First report: at start of replenishment A meta-evaluation approach, drawing on
existing GEF evaluations
Final report: end of 2013 or early 2014 Final report will update meta-evaluation and
include findings of additional studies
17
Key Issues in the First OPS5 Report:
Relevance to conventions guidance; for IW relevance to transboundary issues
Ratings on outcomes and sustainability of finished projects Ratings of progress toward impact of finished projects Trends in GEF catalytic role (foundation, demonstration,
investment) Trends in country ownership and relevance of GEF’s support
to country needs, including obligations to conventions Trends in performance issues
project cycle, co-financing, management costs and project fees, quality at entry, supervision.
Trends in the implementation and achievements of the GEF focal areas
18
Key Issues in the Final OPS5 Report: Trends in global environmental problems and the relevance and added
value of the GEF, also in view of other funding channels Ability of the GEF to mobilize sufficient funding for a meaningful role in
focal areas A more in-depth look at impact of the GEF focal area strategies, including
multi-focal area support Extent to which the GEF reform processes have achieved enhanced
country ownership and improved effectiveness and efficiency Governance of the GEF and donor performance Trends in the involvement of stakeholders, the private sector and civil
society Cross-cutting policies: gender, participation, knowledge sharing Update of the SGP evaluation (since 2009) Role of STAP Health of the GEF Network
19
OPS5 Audience
OPS5 audience includes Replenishment participants GEF Council Assembly Through the Assembly the members of GEF
Findings will be shared with other GEF partners GEF Secretariat STAP GEF Agencies NGO Network Project proponents and others
20
Organizational Issues
Three quality assurance advisors Recognized experts from developed, newly emerging, and
developing nations
Reference group Formed by staff from the GEF Agencies independent evaluation
offices
Stakeholder interaction Main venue: Extended Constituency Workshops Interaction with GEF Partners New media will be explored
Interaction with Council/Replenishment Presentation of products to both Update on progress at each Council/Replenishment meeting
21
Response on Recommendations
There is no formal track record of the adoption of findings and recommendations of the Overall Performance Studies in the GEF No formal management response, no formal linkage of
Council decisions to OPS4 recommendations Replenishment negotiations ran in parallel to OPS4
With the introduction of a first report at the start of the replenishment, negotiation documents can now also formally track emerging decisions on OPS5 findings and recommendations
22
ACPER 2012
ACPER 12 reports on country level evaluations conducted in the LAC region (Nicaragua, OECS, Brazil, Cuba, El Salvador and Jamaica)
Several SIDS were evaluated (6 OECS, Cuba, Jamaica)
Conclusion on efficiency: SIDSs face challenges due to the specificities in which
they operate. This hampers achieving greater global environmental benefits.
Recommendation: Project approval and implementation in SIDSs should be
more flexible and context-specific. 24
Samoa CPE, 2007: The proposed programmatic approach for the Pacific SIDS should consider Samoa’s experience (such as limited capacity, high transaction costs of doing business, high vulnerability, fragile ecosystems)
Jamaica CPS, 2010: Many Agency procedures are not appropriate for small countries in regions with limited resources. This is seriously hampering the efficiency of GEF implementation
OECS CPE, 2011: The design and implementation of future regional projects in SIDS should be based on a participatory, stakeholder-driven process, and include tangible, on-the-ground activities in participating countries as well as adequate resources for coordination
25
Previous SIDS issues from CPEs/CPSs
The Council requests the Secretariat that: Project approval and implementation in Small Island
Developing States should be more flexible and context-specific
26
Council Decision on ACPER 2012
top related