1 / 18

JICA-NEDA JOINT EVALUATION

JICA-NEDA JOINT EVALUATION. EVALUATION THEORY, APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES 1st M&E Network Forum 7-8 November 2011 Crown Plaza Manila Galleria, Ortigas Avenue, Ortigas Center. How findings are utilized. Policy Environment. Managing for Development Results

becka
Download Presentation

JICA-NEDA JOINT EVALUATION

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. JICA-NEDA JOINT EVALUATION EVALUATION THEORY, APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES 1st M&E Network Forum 7-8 November 2011 Crown Plaza Manila Galleria, Ortigas Avenue, Ortigas Center

  2. How findings are utilized

  3. Policy Environment • Managing for Development Results • Strengthening internal mechanisms (national strategic planning, public expenditure management, results-based M&E systems, etc.) • Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

  4. JICA Initiatives for M&E BASIC PRINCIPLE: NEEDS-DRIVEN • Thailand: JICA expert on M&E • Indonesia: Joint Evaluation MOU in 2006 • India: TA on sector-wide reporting system • Peru: Aid memoire of joint evaluation with implementing agencies • Nepal: TA on TOT on monitoring development projects

  5. Challenges for the Philippines • Weak feedback loop: ex-post to ex-ante evaluation • Limited capacity and resources for M&E

  6. Joint Evaluation • MOU signed in May 2006 between NEDA and JBIC (now JICA) • OBJECTIVES: • Effective and efficient project implementation • Effective and efficient implementation of overall development operations • Institutional improvement through harmonization of evaluation mechanism

  7. Joint Evaluation • APPROACH: Institutional capacity development alongside improvement of evaluation and feedback mechanism • ACTIVITIES: • Introduction to the JICA Evaluation System • Actual/Hands-on Ex-post Evaluation (OJT) • Feedback • Enhancement of the Action Plan for M&E

  8. Delineation of Roles

  9. Projects for Joint Evaluation 2006-2007 • Nationwide Air Navigation Facilities Modernization Project III/DOTC • Philippine-Japan Friendship Highway Rehabilitation Project Phase I and II/DPWH • Maritime Safety Improvement Project 2007-2008 • Metro Manila Interchange Construction Project Phase IV/ DPWH • Pinatubo Hazard Urgent Mitigation Project I/ DPWH • Special Economic Zones Environment Management Project/ PEZA 2008-2009 • Fisheries Resource Management Project/DA-BFAR • Metro Manila Strategic Mass Rail Transit Development (Line 2) Projects I, II, III/DOTC-LRTA

  10. Projects for Joint Evaluation 2009-2010 • Lower Agusan Development Project/DPWH and NIA • Rural Road Network Development, Phase II/DPWH 2010-2011 • Metro Manila Flood Control Project – West Mangahan Floodway/DPWH • Cordillera Road Implementation Project/DPWH 2011-2012 • Pampanga Delta Development Project (Irrigation)/NIA • Batangas Port Development Project Phase II/DPWH

  11. Case Study: Cordillera Road Improvement Project (CRIP) • In general, the CRIP is one strategy for physical integration of CAR; as the RDP 2008-2010 also mentions, the target of paving national roads within CAR, is from 34 to 40 percent. Therefore, DPWH should consider other CAR roads for improvement to further enhance mobility in the region (road network context).

  12. LESSONS • Ensure due diligence in Detailed Engineering to avoid circumstances that delay project implementation (i.e., final road alignment should have been established during DE stage, hence, NPC’s opposition to utilize Ambuklao dam crest and spillway could have been recognized in advance). • Consider increasing the national standard of laborer per km ratio for road projects in mountainous areas.

  13. Case Study: Cordillera Road Improvement Project (CRIP) Rating: B Satisfactory Relevance 3 Effectiveness (including Impact) 3 Efficiency 2 Sustainability 2

  14. A Highly Satisfactory B Satisfactory Sustainable Effective Impact Effective Impact Efficiency Sustainable Relevance Efficiency Efficiency Sustainable Sustainable 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C Moderately Satisfactory D Unsatisfactory Rating Flowchart

  15. Lessons Learned (Project-Level) Need for • Realistic planning and budgeting • Mechanism to address cost and time overrun • Sustainable O&M arrangements • Stronger commitment of LGUs and other stakeholders

  16. Lessons Learned (System-Wide) Need for • Proper archiving of project documents • Baseline indicators • Resource allocation for evaluation • Stronger cooperation from implementing agencies • Improvements in the rating system • Joint evaluation with other development partners • Continuous capacity building

  17. Future Directions • Continued utilization and improvements • Policy implications (End)

More Related