GEF M&E Policy and the role of GEF Focal Points

1. GEF M&E Policy and the role of GEF Focal Points Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points Claudio Volonte’ Chief Evaluation Officer, GEFEO 3-4 November, 2010 Johannesburg, South Africa

2. Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF Monitoring provides management with a basis for decision making on progress and GEF with information on results. Involves: Ongoing, systematic gathering of qualitative and quantitative information to track progress on project outcomes & outputs Identify implementation issues and propose solutions Evaluation provides lessons learned and recommendations for future projects, polices and portfolios. Involves: Periodic assessment of results according to the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability

3. Monitoring vs. Evaluation

4. 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.

5. GEF M&E Policy GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy was approved by Council in 2006 Policy sets norms and standards for M&E Contains minimum requirements for M&E of GEF activities Council requested the Evaluation Office to revise the policy for GEF-5

6. Process to revise the GEF M&E Policy Revision of GEF M&E policy for GEF-5 Update of “Monitoring” led by the GEF Secretariat Update of “Evaluation” led by the GEF Evaluation Office Wide consultation and interaction with stakeholders through e-survey, interviews, and interagency meetings Interaction with focal points through e-survey, questionnaire and sub-regional workshops Revised Policy will be presented to Council in November 2010

7. Proposed revisions Reference to GEF results-based management 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 Deletion of GEF EO chapter; some elements moved to roles and responsibilities Deletion of Use of Evaluations chapter; some elements moved to follow-up and knowledge sharing Project baseline to be established by CEO endorsement New Minimum Requirement on engagement of GEF Operational Focal Points in project and program M&E activities

8. Role of GEF Focal Points - revisions Agencies to encourage focal points to be involved in M&E activities Fully informed and share documentation Encourage focal points to participate in M&E activities Provide access to necessary information New Minimum Requirement No. 4: Engagement of Operational Focal Points M&E plans will include how project or program will keep GEF Focal Point informed and involved Agencies will inform focal points of project M&E activities during implementation Agencies will inform and involve focal points in mid-term reviews and terminal evaluations GEF Sec and GEF EO can provide support for M&E activities through GEF Country Support Programme

9. Proposed Key roles and responsibilities

10. M&E Minimum Requirements • Design of M&E Plans • Concrete and fully budgeted M&E plan by CEO endorsement for FSP and CEO approval by MSP • SMART indicators • Project logframes should align with GEF focal area results frameworks • Baseline by CEO endorsement • MTRs and TEs • Organizational set up and budget • Application of M&E Plans: project and program monitoring and supervision will include implementation of the M&E plan • Project and Program Evaluations: for all FS projects and programs • Independent of project management or revised by GEF Agency evaluation office • Assessment of outputs and outcomes, likelihood of sustainability, compliance with M&E minimum requirements • Should be sent to GEFEO within 12 months of completion of project or program • (guidelines for evaluating MSPs/EAs will be developed) • Engagement of Operational Focal Points • M&E plans should include how FPs will be included • FPs to be informed on M&E activities, including MTRs and TEs, receiving drafts for comments and final reports

11. Sources of Information for M&E • Annual Project Implementation Reports (PIR) prepared by projects and GEF Agencies (self-assessments) • GEF Agency supervision documents • Project mid-term reviews • Project terminal evaluation • Evaluation Office verifications of terminal evaluationswww.gefeo.org • GEF Country Portfolio Evaluations in en Costa Rica, the Philippines, Samoa, Benin, Cameroon, Madagascar, South Africa, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Moldova • GEF PMIS (Project Management Information System) • GEF Corporate evaluations and lessons learned • Country Support Programme Web site

12. GEF Evaluation Office • Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs) • November 2010 Council Documents

13. Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs) Background • Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs) are conducted by the GEF Evaluation Office to assess the totality of GEF support across all GEF Agencies and programs in a country • CPEs are conducted by a team of independent international and national experts • CPEs assess the relevance, efficiency and results of GEF projects at the country level, to see: • How these projects perform in producing results • How the results are linked to national environmental and sustainable development agendas as well as to global environmental benefits • Purpose of CPEs: to provide feedback and knowledge sharing to GEF Council, national governments and agencies and organizations.

14. Selection of Countries for CPEs • Selection process has quantitative and qualitative criteria • Will select two countries every 6 to 9 months • Nicaragua and a cluster of countries in the Caribbean (Organization of Eastern Caribbean States) have been selected (FY11-FY12) • Four African countries will be evaluated in FY13-FY14 (first ones selected end of 2012) • Also pursue collaboration with GEF Agency evaluation offices: two examples right now - with UNDP Evaluation Office: El Salvador and Jamaica

15. Methodology and Process • Desk review of project documents and literature review • Protocols for project reviews • Global environmental benefits assessment • Country’s environmental legal framework • Portfolio analysis • Field visits • Two Review of Outcomes to Impact studies • Triangulation analysis matrix of findings • Key preliminary findings discussed in stakeholder workshop • Draft CPE report circulated for comments • Final CPE report, which includes • Ask for a management response (Council and Governments) • Consolidate CPEs in the ACPER, and present it to GEF Council (end of June)

16. November 2010 CouncilGEFEO Documents • Working Documents (Council decision) • Progress Report by the Director • Review of the Earth Fund (main conclusions and recommendations) • Evaluation of the Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA) • Revised GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy • Information Documents (no Council decision) • GEF Annual Impact Report 2010 • Review of the Earth Fund (full report) • Related documents available in GEFEO • Evaluation of the SPA (full report)

17. Director’s Progress Report The Council, having reviewed document GEF/ME/C.39/1 “GEF Evaluation Office: Progress Report from the Director”, takes note of the on-going work of the Office and the outlines of the work plan for GEF-5 that the Office is preparing, and requests the Office to prepare a detailed work plan and budget for the GEF-5 period at its meeting in May 2011, taking into account comments made.

18. GEF Earth Fund Review Background • GEF Council approved the creation of the Earth Fund in May 2008. • The initiative would establish a system of governance and administration more conducive to private sector creativity, investment and participation and as an effective mechanism for private sector entities to access the GEF • The Council committed $50 million for this initiative, from GEF4 resources, to be disbursed through “Platforms.” • These platforms are portfolios of individual activities that have to be aligned with the GEF focal areas strategies and be thematic or programmatic. They are prepared by GEF Agencies and approved on no-objection basis by GEF Council following recommendation by the GEF Earth Fund Board.

19. GEF Earth Fund Review • 5 Platforms were created: • IFC: eight Innovative and market-base projects in Bio, CC and IW (GEF EF: US$30 million – IFC: US$10 million) • UNEP Platform: Global Market Transformation for Efficient Lighting (GEF EF: US$5 million – Co-financing: US$15 million) • IBRD/CI Platform: Conservation Agreement Private Partnership Program (GEF EF: US$5 million – Co-financing: US$15 million) • UNEP/Rainforest Alliance: Greening the Cocoa industry (GEF EF: US$5 million – Co-financing: US$15 million) • IDB/TNC: Public-Private Funding Mechanisms for Watershed Protection (GEF EF: US$5 million – Co-financing: US$15 million)

20. GEF Earth Fund Review • Objective:The review is expected to provide donors, Council members, GEF Secretariat and other key stakeholders with an assessment of the Earth Fund activities implemented so far as well as a report on the way the fund functions. • Key Questions: • Compliance with Council decisions • Review of Earth Fund activities • Engagement of the private sector • Efficiency. • Final report to be presented during November 2010 GEF Council Meetings Evaluation Team: Claudio Volonté, Juan Portillo, Leni Berliner

21. Conclusions • The EF did not achieve its purpose • Although the EF was intended and expected to be set up as Fund, over time it became a granting mechanism • The EF committed the allocated $50 million in five platforms in just over two years, bud did so by falling back on GEF business as usual. • Engagement with the private sector, the purpose of setting up the EF, was relegated mostly to the project level. • Expectations regarding co-financing and reflows were unrealistic. • The EF did not clearly communicate its purpose internally or externally, nor was there a plan for learning from its experience, that of the broader GEF or that of others. • The EF governance and management structure had several weaknesses, revealed during implementation. Recommendations • The Council should request the GEFSEC to revise the EF for its second phase. • Redefine EF objectives, niche and market barriers • Clarify access to the redefined EF • Strengthen the management

22. Evaluation of Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA) • UNFCCC requested the GEF to establish the SPA in 2001 • GEF Council approved the SPA with $50 million in Nov. 2003 and the SPA guidelines in May 2004 • Closed financially (all funds allocated) in June 2010 • Council requested GEFEO to conduct evaluation • SPA aims at reducing vulnerability and increasing adaptive capacity to adverse effects of climate change in any or a combination of the GEF focal areas • 26 projects and programs ($50 million SPA, $777 million co-financing) $ per region

23. SPA Evaluation: Objectives and Approaches Evaluation Objectives • Assessment of SPA strategy and its implementation • Assessment of the SPA projects • Identification of lessons on how to increase the resilience of the GEF portfolio. Evaluation processes and tasks • Approach paper • Literature review • Interviews • Project review protocol • Field visits • Comparative analysis with non-SPA projects • Preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations • Consultation workshop • Final report to November 2010 Council meeting • Management response Evaluation Team: Claudio Volonté, Sandra Romboli, JoanaTalafré

24. SPA - Main conclusions • All SPA projects fulfilled the GEF requirement regarding GEBs and explicitly included climate change impacts on these, and are relevant to the GEF. • The $50 million SPA initiative has the potential, to varying degrees, of providing climate resilience to $780 million of investments. • The portfolio of projects represents diversity in sectors, themes and focal areas, with an emphasis on biodiversity and land degradation. • Projects were developed in accordance with the elements and requirements of the SPA operational guidelines, with some exceptions. • Adaptation measures proposed in SPA projects were found to be generally “no-regrets” measures, dealing with management of natural resources. • Results achieved so far have been at the output level. • There was evidence of mainstreaming of adaptation at the GEF – mainly at strategic level and to some extent in project design- but some limitation s are preventing this integration from becoming fully effective. • Although the portfolio is still in early stages of implementation some lessons could be extracted for the GEF as a whole. • There were weaknesses in the management of the SPA portfolio but there is still time to correct them. • As a learning pilot within the GEF, the SPA has yet to achieve its full effectiveness.

25. SPA - Main Recommendations • The GEF should continue providing explicit incentives to carry on the mainstreaming of resilience and adaptation into the GEF focal areas, as a means of reducing risks to the GEF portfolio. • To continue to manage the implementation of the SPA, the GEF needs to provide sufficient resources to the GEF Secretariat, beyond resources dedicated to the processing of a pipeline of projects. • Given that adaptation measures in SPA projects are still under implementation, further evaluations could provide opportunities to learn from outcomes and progress toward impact. Council decision … requests GEFSEC to ensure that the mainstreaming of resilience and adaptation in the GEF focal areas continues, as a means of reducing risks of climate change impacts to the GEF portfolio, and requests the GEFSEC to report to its November 2012 meeting on steps taken and progress made.

26. Annual Impact Report 2010 The report will have two main sections • Impact of the GEF in the South China Sea • The evaluation is under development • Approach paper was discussed at a workshop in Bangkok and is being finalized • Evaluation will be completed in 2012 • Evaluation team: Aaron Zazueta, NeerajNegi

27. Annual Impact Report 2010 2. Impacts of GEF/WB Biodiversity projects in Peru • Looks at five completed World Bank projects and was conducted in the context of IEG country evaluation • Objective: assess impact on the global environment and on local communities’ socio-economic conditions • Uses Outcomes to Impact (ROtI) methodology • Findings: • GEF has been a key contributor to biodiversity conservation in and around protected areas in Peru • Sustainability of improved livelihoods is limited • Baseline and M&E systems were found to be weak limiting ability to measure impact • Evaluation Team: Claudio Volonte, Marina Cracco

28. Thank you Claudio Volonte’ www.gefeo.org