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

The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy

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

Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5)

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

Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2012

(ACPER 2012)

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

Questions & Answers

Thank you

www.gefeo.org

27