M&E in the GEF

Aaron Zazueta

GEF Evaluation Office

Expanded Constituency WorkshopDalat, Vietnam - April 2011

Overview Results-based management (RBM),

and Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in GEF-5

M&E policy for GEF-5 M&E Minimum Requirements Involvement of focal points Questions on NCSA evaluation Evaluation planning for GEF-5

2

3

RBM, Monitoring & Evaluation

Result based management - Setting goals and objectives, Monitoring, learning and decision making

Evaluation is a “reality check” on RBM RBM, especially monitoring, tell whether

the organization is “on track” Evaluation could tell whether the

organization is “on the right track”

M&E in the GEFTwo 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.

4

New M&E Policy (Nov 2010): What’s New?

Reference to GEF Results-based Management (RBM) Strengthened knowledge sharing and learningClarification of roles and responsibilities Stronger role for GEF Operational Focal Points in M&E Inclusion of programs and jointly implemented projectsBaseline data for M&E to be established by CEO

endorsementNew Minimum Requirement on engagement of GEF

Operational Focal Points in project and program M&E activities

5

RBM Framework for the GEF

Operating Level

(bottom-up)

Institutional Level

(top-down)

Project Objectives

Focal Area Goal

GEF Strategic

Goals

Focal Area Objectives

GEBImpacts

OutcomesOutputs

6

RBM and Tracking Results

Project and Program Design Implementation Evaluation

LFA/Results frameworkM&E Plan

Management, monitoring, and learning

Monitoring of progress; midpoint course correction as needed

Terminal EvaluationsLessons Learned

Lessons learned; Good practices

Adapted from the World Bank’s Results Focus in Country Assistance Strategies, July 2005, p. 13

7

Knowledge Sharing 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 strategyKnowledge 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

8

Knowledge

management is

a process for

improving

performance by

learning

Separate reporting lines for Monitoring (through Secretariat) and Evaluation (through

Evaluation Office)

9

GEF Council

Project and Program Implementation Reports Agency Portfolio Reports Project documents with M&E plans

Corporate evaluations Project and Program Independent evaluations

Project and Program evaluations

GEF Secretariat GEF

Evaluation Office Agency

evaluation units

Agency GEF coordination units

GEF projects and programs

Project and Program Implementation Reports Project and Program monitoring documentation Terminal evaluations

Annual evaluation reports Overall Performance Study (to Assembly) Annual Work Program and Budget

Annual Monitoring Report Evaluation Management Response Programming documents and indicators Results Based Management

M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies

10

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

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

11

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

12

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

13

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 14

M&E: Minimum Requirement 3

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

15

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.

16

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

17

18

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: International Waters, Climate

Change and 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

OPS5 will include:

Verification and ratings of outcome and progress toward impact

Coverage of the reform process: GEF project cycle and modalities, direct access, STAR, paragraph 28

Increased attention to the catalytic role of the GEFTrends in ownership and country drivennessTrends in global environmental problems and relevance

of the GEF to the conventionsMore in-depth look at the focal area strategies,

including sustainable forestry managementBetter understanding of the longer term impact of the

GEF19

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

20

Key questions for consultation/discussion

Issues that will be tackled in the NCSA evaluation and that can be raised with us at this meeting: 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?

21

Thank you!

Discussion

Q&A on the new GEF M&E PolicyAny comments on the issues that will be

tackled in the NCSA evaluation? Other issues to be included?