M&E in the GEF

Kseniya TemnenkoKnowledge Management Officer

Extended Constituency Workshop11 – 13 October 2011

Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and results-based management (RBM) in GEF-5

M&E policy for GEF-5 M&E Minimum Requirements Involvement of focal points Evaluation planning for GEF-5 ASK ME database Climate-Eval: community of practice

2

3

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”

Two 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

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

Operating Level

(bottom-up)

Institutional Level

(top-down)

Project Objectives

Focal Area Goal

GEF Strategic

Goals

Focal Area Objectives

GEBImpacts

OutcomesOutputs

6

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. 137

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

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

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

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 (Management Action Record)

In the case of Country Portfolio Evaluations countries have the opportunity to provide their perspective to Council as well

11

Design of M&E PlansConcrete and fully budgeted M&E plan by CEO endorsement for FSP and CEO approval for MSP. Project logical frameworks should align with GEF focal area results frameworks. M&E Plan should include:

SMART indicatorsBaseline data for M&E by CEO endorsementMid Term Reviews (where required or foreseen) and Terminal Evaluations included in planOrganizational set up and budget for M&E

12

Implementation of M&E Plans Project/program monitoring and supervision will

include execution of the M&E plan:

Use of SMART indicators for process and implementation

Use of SMART indicators for results Baseline for the project is fully established and

data are 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 Minimum Requirements 1 & 2

Contain basic project data and lessons on the evaluation itself (including TORs)

Should be sent to GEF EO within 12 months of completion of project/program

Guidelines for evaluating MSPs/EAs will be developed14

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

Keep track of GEF support at the national levelKeep 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

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

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

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

Project cycle issues: efficiency of decision making in the GEF?

SIDS issues?Stakeholder consultations: are the ECW developing

in a continuous consultation process? What more would be needed? Is e-survey sufficient?

Follow-up from OPS4 – governance, Global and regional projects

20

21

Projects Approved: Active and Completed

TOTAL 238 Projects61 BD, 64 CC, 22 IW, 19 LD, 35 MF, 21 POPs, 16 ODS

176 Active, 62 Completed

NATIONAL 185 Projects Number Focal Area Grant and Co-finanicng

148 Active, 37 Completed 5954281712123

CCBDMF

POPsODSLDIW

2.7 B350 M628 M141 M 227 M 259 M

34 M

GEF Grant $610 M

Co Financing $3.72 B

REGIONAL 41 Projects GEF Grant $165 M Co Financing $804 M

6 BD, 2 CC, 19 IW, 5 LD 6 MF, 4 POPs, 4 ODS

GLOBAL 12 Projects GEF Grant $196 M Co Financing $216 M

1 BD, 3 CC, 2 LD, 6 MF

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

22

23

Biodiversity in the GEF

Climate Change in the GEF

24

Community of practice on evaluation of climate change and development

Sharing best practices on climate change and development evaluation

500+ members

Online tools for participation: Website: www.climate-eval.org Linkedin Group Social media News letters Blog (soon!)

25

International Conference in Alexandria in 2008 World Bank publication (book)

Evaluating Climate Change and Development (van den Berg and Feinstein, 2009)

Electronic library (400+ reports) Webinars Studies

Meta-Evaluation of Mitigation Studies Adaptation Framework for M&E 3 more underway

Partnership – SEA Change , IDEAS Supporters

SIDA, FOEN, GEFEO

26

Knowledge Sharing of Evaluations:

Are you receiving GEF Evaluations? What format of communication of evaluation findings is

the most useful for your work?

27

Thank you

www.gefeo.org

28