1st Steering Committee Meeting

Minsk, October 1-3, 2013

Results Monitoring at Program and Country Levels

Overview

1. Results Monitoring & Challenges in Phase I

2. Lessons Learned & Results Framework for FLEG II Program

3. Reporting on Program & Country Level

Results Monitoring - FLEG I

• FLEG I Program monitored progress for seven results areas – Tracked results in each country and regionally– Based on qualitative assessments by the

country teams and anecdotal evidence

• No results framework with measurable indicators was developed

Challenges

• How to monitor the impacts of FLEG Program interventions?– With hundreds of activities implemented, there is

anecdotal evidence that the impact of FLEG I has been large

– No baseline survey conducted– Progress towards higher level outcomes is difficult to

judge quantitatively

E.g., development of forest-related educational

materials in Azerbaijan (“Young Foresters’ School”)

Results and achievements

FLEG Final Report (June 2013)

Lessons Learned

Robust and comprehensive results monitoring is key to measuring impacts

and judging higher level impacts quantitatively

Measuring Results for FLEG II

• New Feature for Phase II: Detailed Results Framework developed

• Indicators track progress at regional, national, and sub-national level

• Responsibility for monitoring and data collection: PCTs and/or PMT

Types of Indicators

• Project Development Objective (PDO) Indicators – 3 Core Sector Indicators (World Bank-wide)– 4 Custom Indicators (FLEG II Program

specific)

• Intermediate Results Indicators – 7 Custom Indicators

(FLEG II Program specific)

Project Development Objective Indicators

Core Sector Indicators (CSI) 1. Reforms in forest policy, legislation or other

regulations supported

2. Government institutions provided with capacity building to improve management of forest resources

3. Forest users trained (by gender and ethnicity)

Reforms in forest policy, legislation or other regulations supported

• Linked with PDO 1 (regional level): make progress implementing the 2005 St. Petersburg FLEG Ministerial Declaration in the participating countries and support the participating countries commit to a time-bound action plan to ensure its implementation and follow-up activities.

– Measures whether a project has supported forest sector reforms (Yes/No)• General ongoing policy dialogue with

stakeholders should not be included

– Baseline: ‘No’– Frequency: annual

Core Sector Indicator 1

Government institutions provided with capacity building to improve management of forest

resources

• Linked with PDO 1 (regional level)– Covers capacity-building aimed at

strengthening forest administration institutions to deliver services to the forest sector• Refers to the number of national or sub-national

institutions that have received capacity building • Targeted institutions may be outside of the

forestry sector

– Baseline: ‘zero’– Frequency: annual

Core Sector Indicator 2

Forest users trained

• Linked with PDO 1 (regional level)• Refers to the number of forest users

and community members that have received capacity building through training – 2 Sub-indicators by:

• gender (female)• ethnic minority/indigenous people

– Baseline: ‘zero’– Frequency: annual Core Sector Indicator

3

Results FrameworkProject Development Objective Indicators

Indicator NameCore

Unit of Measure

Baseline

Cumulative Target values

Frequency

Data Source/ Methodology

Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4

End Targe

tCredible process

toward the implementation of the St. Petersburg

declaration launched

Percentage 0.00         100 annualProgram reports

PCT/PMT

Understanding and implementation of FLEG principles by forest practitioners

and other stakeholders

improved

Percentage of

practitioners

x% Based

on survey results

TBD

Twice, baseline and final surveys

Repeated perception surveys of

key decision makers

PMT

Custom Indicators (PDO level)

Results FrameworkProject Development Objective Indicators

Indicator Name CoreUnit of

MeasureBaseline

Cumulative Target values

Frequency

Data Source/ Methodology

Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4

End Targe

t

Uptake of best practice models on sustainable forest

management

Yes/No No Yes annualProgram reports

PCT/PMT

Increased awareness of

decision makers of modern technology and information to improve forest law enforcement and

governance

Percentage of

Decision Makers

x% Based

on survey results

TBD

Twice, baseline and final surveys

Repeated perception surveys of

key decision makers

PMT

Custom Indicators (PDO level)

Intermediate Results Indicators

Tracking progress along the way…

…towards achieving the Project Development

Objectives

Results FrameworkIntermediate Results Indicators

Indicator Name CoreUnit of

MeasureBaselin

e

Cumulative Target values

Frequency

Data Source/ Methodology

Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4

End Targe

tMonitoring plan for implementation of

St. Petersburg declaration

designed and regularly updated in

participating countries

No Number 0.00         7.00 annualProgram reports

PCTs

Regional studies under the

framework of the St. Petersburg declaration

undertaken and disseminated

No Number 0.00 TBD annualProgram reports

PCTs, PMT

Intermediate Results Indicators

Results FrameworkIntermediate Results Indicators

Indicator NameCore

Unit of Measure

Baseline

Cumulative Target values

Frequency

Data Source/ Methodology

Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4

End Targe

tEU Member States’

forest sector knowledge is made

available to participating countries

and knowledge exchange between

participating countries and EU Member

States is ongoing

No Number 0.00TBD(7)

annualProgram reports

PCTs, PMT

Sustainable forest management and improved forest governance best practice models

developed, tested and used for

demonstration purposes by the

Program

No Number 0.00         TBD annualProgram reports

PCTs

Intermediate Results Indicators

Results FrameworkIntermediate Results Indicators

Indicator NameCore

Unit of Measure

Baseline

Cumulative Target values

Frequency

Data Source/ Methodology

Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4

End Targe

t

Modern technology trialed and systems to

improve forest governance developed

by the Program

No Number 0.00 TBD annualProgram reports

PCTs

Awareness, ownership and capacity of key

stakeholders enhancedNo

Percentage of

stakeholders

x% Based

on survey results

TBD

Twice, baseline and final surveys

Repeated perception surveys of

key decision makers

PMT

Media coverage of FLEG issues has

increasedNo Number 0.00 7.00 annual

Repeated media

monitoringPCTs

Intermediate Results Indicators

Defining End Targets

• Action needed by PCTs, PMT to determine end targets for remaining indicators based on– proposed country and regional activities– planned baseline survey

• Discussion at SC meeting

END TARGETS?

Reporting under FLEG II Program

Program-level

Reporting

• Three streams of reporting:

• Country-level (PCT to PMT)

• Organizational-level (WWF & ICUN to WB)

• Program-level (WB to EC)

• Internal Reporting by the World Bank

Reporting under FLEG II Program

Internal WB Reporting

PCTs

PMT

Country-level Organizational-level

IUCN & WWF

WB

Organizational level

WB

EC

Program-level

Country-level Reporting

• Narrative Progress Reports– Quantitative (on the basis of the

Results Framework and indicators)

– “Results Stories”, quotes

• Frequency: semi-annual– Reports for period July to December

due January 31

– Reports for period January to June due July 31

– Final report needs to be prepared prior to activity completion

PCTs

PMT

Country-level

Organizational-level Reporting

• Organizational Reports• Frequency: semi-annual

– Reports for period July to December due January 31

– Reports for period January to June due July 31

– Final narrative report due 6 month after end date of activity implementation, but can be prepared at the end of activity implementation

IUCN & WWF

WB

Organizational level

In accordance with the Grant Agreements

Program-level Reporting

• Narrative Progress Reports: • Summary and Context of Project• Activities carried out during the

reporting period• Difficulties encountered and

measures taken to overcome challenges

• Changes introduced in implementation, including in the procurement plan

• Final Narrative Report • 6 months after end

disbursement date

In accordance with the Administration

Agreement

WB

EC

Program-level

Questions?

Thank you for your attention!