M&E in the GEFRob D. van den Berg

Director

Extended Constituency WorkshopKinshasa, February 2011

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

Monitoring and evaluation policy for GEF-5

M&E Minimum Requirements Involvement of focal points Evaluation planning for GEF-5

2

M&E and RBM in GEF 5

4

Monitoring is one of the main instruments of Results Based Management

Evaluation is a “reality check” on monitoring and RBM

Monitoring & RBM 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.

5

6

• Portfolio level: tracking progress toward achieving outcomes

• Standardized terminology: achieving coherence across Focal Areas

• Learning: integrating lessons in management decisions

• Feedback: Coherent framework for improved decision-making

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

Operating Level

(bottom-up)

Institutional Level

(top-down)

Project Objectives

Focal Area Goal

GEF Strategic

Goals

Focal Area Objectives

GEBImpacts

OutcomesOutputs

8

Project Level: Report on Project Start, Project Delays, Project

Cancellations Submission of Project Implementation Report (PIR) Submission of Tracking Tools

Agency: Portfolio Overview Report Focal Area Reports

Input to Annual Monitoring Report

Information should be made available to Focal Points

9

The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) is the principal reporting instrument of the GEF Secretariat’s monitoring system

Provides a snap shot of the overall health of the GEF’s active portfolio of projects each fiscal year

Report is based on Agency PIR submissions

10

NEW GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy was approved by Council in November 2010 Based on previous GEF M&E Policy (2006)

Policy confirms norms and standards for M&EContains minimum requirements for M&E of GEF

activities and roles and responsibilities for GEF stakeholders

The Policy will be operationalized through guidelines on specific issues

11

M&E Policy in GEF 5

Reference to GEF Results-based Management (RBM)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

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

13

14

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

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

15

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 strategy

Knowledge 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 16

Knowledge

management is

a process for

improving

performance by

learning

17

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

Partner Key Roles and Responsibilities

GEF Council Policy making on M&E/ Oversight of M&E functions / Enabling environment for M&E

GEF Evaluation Office Independent GEF evaluation / Oversight of project and program evaluationsOversight of the relevance, performance, and overall quality of monitoring systemsSetting of minimum requirements for GEF M&E/ Evaluative knowledge sharing and dissemination

GEF Secretariat Establishing results frameworks at the focal area and corporate levels GEF portfolio monitoring across Agencies and focal areasReporting on and incorporating lessons from portfolio monitoringReview of GEF M&E requirements in project and program proposalsCoordination of partnership knowledge management activities

GEF Agency operational units Monitoring of the Agency GEF portfolio Reporting on Agency project, program, and portfolio progress, results, learning, and lessons/ Ensuring monitoring at the project and program level / Adaptive management of project and program implementation/ Systematic involvement of national partners and sharing of project M&E information at the national level

GEF Agency evaluation units Project and program and/or corporate Agency independent evaluationsMainstreaming of the GEF into relevant Agency evaluations

STAP Advise on scientific/technical matters in M&ESupport to scientific and technical indicators Support knowledge management and information sharing

GEF operational focal points Collaboration on M&E at the portfolio, project, and program levels Other stakeholders (ie, NGOs, CSOs, academia)

Participation in monitoring activities and mechanisms Provision of views and perceptions to evaluations 18

Sustainability

Input

Output

Outcome

Impact

19

Is it any good or useful?

Did I get value for money (or efforts)?

Did I pay or do too much?

ResultsWill it last?

20

M&E Minimum Requirements

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

22

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

23

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 developed24

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

25

Involvement of operational focal points

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.

27

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

28

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

29

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?

30

Evaluation planning for GEF-5

32

Consolidation and strengthening of the four streams of evaluative evidence: Country Portfolio Evaluations: up to 15 during GEF-5 Impact Evaluations: main effort on International

Waters and additional impact work on 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

Verification and ratings of outcome and progress toward impact

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

Increased understanding of the catalytic role of the GEF Trends in ownership and country drivenness Trends in global environmental problems and relevance of

the GEF to the conventions More in-depth look at the focal area strategies, including

sustainable forestry management Better understanding of the longer term impact of the GEF

33

Sub-Sahara Africa has been visited in 2007-2008 In this constituency: Cameroon (report # 46) Experience in Cameroon was very educational and

positiveNext visit to Sub-Saharan Africa will be in 2013, in

time to be included in OPS5 EO aims to increase number of CPEs in Sub-Saharan

Africa from 4 to 5 – but this will also depend on EO budget for GEF-5

Selection is not finished yet but in this constituency Congo and Central African Republic are candidates

34

Thank you!