1 / 35

M&E in the GEF

M&E in the GEF. Rob D. van den Berg Director Extended Constituency Workshop Kinshasa, February 2011. Overview. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and results-based management (RBM) in GEF-5 Monitoring and evaluation policy for GEF-5 M&E Minimum Requirements Involvement of focal points

Download Presentation

M&E in the GEF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. M&E in the GEF Rob D. van den Berg Director Extended Constituency Workshop Kinshasa, February 2011

  2. Overview • Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and results-based management (RBM) in GEF-5 • Monitoring and evaluation policy for GEF-5 • M&E Minimum Requirements • Involvement of focal points • Evaluation planning for GEF-5

  3. M&E and RBM in GEF 5

  4. M&E and RBM • Monitoring is one of the main instruments of Results Based Management • Evaluation is a “reality check” on monitoring and RBM • Monitoring & RBM tell whether the organization is “on track” • Evaluation could tell whether the organization is “on the right track”

  5. M&E in the GEF 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.

  6. RBM in GEF-5 • Portfolio level: tracking progress toward achieving outcomes • Standardized terminology: achieving coherence across Focal Areas • Learning: integrating lessons in management decisions • Feedback: Coherent framework for improved decision-making

  7. Project and Program Design Implementation Evaluation LFA/Results framework M&E Plan Monitoring of progress; midpoint course correction as needed Terminal Evaluations Lessons Learned Management, monitoring, and learning Lessons learned; Good practices Tracking Results Adapted from the World Bank’s Results Focus in Country Assistance Strategies, July 2005, p. 13

  8. GEF Strategic Goals Institutional Level (top-down) GEB Impacts Outcomes Outputs Focal Area Goal Focal Area Objectives Operating Level (bottom-up) Project Objectives RBM Framework for the GEF

  9. Current Reporting Requirements: After Project Approval • Project Level: • Report on Project Start, Project Delays, Project Cancellations • Submission of Project Implementation Report (PIR) • Submission of Tracking Tools • Agency: • Portfolio Overview Report • Focal Area Reports Information should be made available to Focal Points Input to Annual Monitoring Report

  10. Annual Monitoring Report • The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) is the principal reporting instrument of the GEF Secretariat’s monitoring system • Provides a snap shot of the overall health of the GEF’s active portfolio of projects each fiscal year • Report is based on Agency PIR submissions

  11. M&E in GEF-5 • NEW GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy was approved by Council in November 2010 • Based on previous GEF M&E Policy (2006) • Policy confirms norms and standards for M&E • Contains minimum requirements for M&E of GEF activities and roles and responsibilities for GEF stakeholders • The Policy will be operationalized through guidelines on specific issues

  12. M&E Policy in GEF 5

  13. What’s New? Highlights • Reference to GEF Results-based Management (RBM) • Clarification of roles and responsibilities • Stronger role for GEF Operational Focal Points in M&E • Strengthened knowledge sharing and learning • 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

  14. Flowchart of M&E Reporting in the GEF

  15. Follow up to Evaluations • A management response is required for all evaluations and performance 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

  16. Knowledge Sharing Knowledge management is a process for improving performance by learning • 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

  17. M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies

  18. Evaluation Criteria Did I pay or do too much? Did I get value for money (or efforts)? Results Is it any good or useful? Will it last? Sustainability

  19. Monitoring Criteria: SMART indicators

  20. M&E Minimum Requirements

  21. M&E Minimum Requirement 1 Design of M&E Plans • Concrete and fully budgeted M&E plan by CEO endorsement for FSP and CEO approval for MSP • SMART indicators • Projects should align with GEF focal area results frameworks • 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

  22. M&E: Minimum Requirement 2 Implementation of M&E Plans Project/program monitoring and supervision will include execution of the M&E plan: • SMART indicators for process/implementation • SMART indicators for results • Baseline for the project fully established and data compiled to review progress • Organizational set up for M&E is operational and its budget is spent as planned

  23. M&E: Minimum Requirement 3 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 M&E minimum requirements 1 & 2 • Contain: data on the evaluation itself (including TORs); basic project data, lessons • Should be sent to GEF EO within 12 months of completion of project/program Guidelines for evaluating MSPs/EAs will be developed

  24. New Minimum Requirement 4 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

  25. Involvement of operational focal points

  26. 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 evaluations.

  27. Support to GEF focal points • 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

  28. Evaluation of National Capacity Self-Assessments (NCSAs) • Support to NCSAs was one of the approaches to implement the GEF capacity development strategy and UN conventions guidance to GEF • NCSA aimed to identify country level priorities and needs for capacity development to address global environmental issues, holistic and long-term approach, country driven and led • As of August 2010: • 153 NCSAs approved ($28.7 million), 119 completed (UNDP: 76%; UNEP: 23%; WB: 1%) • 23 approved second phases to implement NCSAs recommendations (more in GEF5) • Global Support Programme for NCSA (completed) • Evaluation under preparation, report expected for the November 2011 GEF Council

  29. Key questions for consultation/discussion • To what extent have NCSAs been relevant to your country’s needs and priorities? Have they been relevant to support the implementation of conventions? • What was the process of NCSA preparation? Who participated? • What are the main achievements and results of the NCSAs? • Was capacity development improved during the implementation or NCSAs? Any specific examples? • What is the sustainability of the capacity developed? Any specific examples? • Other issues to be included?

  30. Evaluation planning for GEF-5

  31. Vision for GEF-5 • Consolidation and strengthening of the four streams of evaluative evidence: • Country Portfolio Evaluations: up to 15 during GEF-5 • Impact Evaluations: main effort on International Waters and additional impact work on other focal areas • Performance Evaluations: APR continued and strengthened as well as independent process reviews • Thematic Evaluations: focal area strategies and adaptation • These streams of evaluative evidence will enable a timely OPS5 for which less additional work should be needed than for OPS4

  32. OPS5 envisaged… • Verification and ratings of outcome and progress toward impact • Maintaining coverage of the reform process: GEF project cycle and modalities, direct access, STAR, paragraph 28 • Increased understanding of 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

  33. Country Portfolio Evaluations • Sub-Sahara Africa has been visited in 2007-2008 • In this constituency: Cameroon (report # 46) • Experience in Cameroon was very educational and positive • Next visit to Sub-Saharan Africa will be in 2013, in time to be included in OPS5 • EO aims to increase number of CPEs in Sub-Saharan Africa from 4 to 5 – but this will also depend on EO budget for GEF-5 • Selection is not finished yet but in this constituency Congo and Central African Republic are candidates

  34. Thank you!

More Related