ME in the GEF Kseniya Temnenko Knowledge Management
- Slides: 26
M&E in the GEF Kseniya Temnenko Knowledge Management Officer GEF Expanded Constituency Workshop March 27 -29, 2012 Tirana, Albania
Overview q RBM, Monitoring & Evaluation § M&E in the GEF § M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies q M&E Policy § Minimum Requirements § Role of the Focal Points q Evaluations Streams § Performance § Impact § Country Level Evaluations § Thematic q q OPS 5 Knowledge Sharing GEF Portfolio – Regional Q&A 2
RBM, Monitoring & Evaluation q Result based management - Setting goals and objectives, Monitoring, learning and decision making q Evaluation is a “reality check” on RBM q RBM, especially monitoring, tell whether the organization is “on track” q Evaluation could tell whether the organization is “on the right track” 3
M&E in the GEF Two overarching objectives: q Promote accountability for the achievement of GEF objectives through the assessment of results, effectiveness, processes, and performance of the partners involved in GEF activities q 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
M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies 5
M&E: Minimum Requirements q 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. q Implementation of M&E Plans § Project/program monitoring and supervision will include execution of the M&E Plan q Project/Program Evaluations § All full and medium size projects will be evaluated. Reports should be sent to the GEF EO within 12 months of project completion. q Engagement of Operational Focal Points § M&E Plans should explain how GEF OFPs will be engaged in M&E activities. 6
M&E: Minimum Requirement 4 Engagement of Operational Focal Points q M&E plans should include how OFPs will be engaged q OFPs will be informed on M&E activities, including Mid Term Reviews and Terminal Evaluations, receiving drafts for comments and final reports q OFPs will be invited to contribute to the management response (where applicable) q GEF Agencies keep track of the application of this requirement in their GEF financed projects and programs 7
Role of GEF Focal Points in M&E q Keep track of GEF support at the national level q Keep stakeholders informed and consulted in plans, implementation and results of GEF activities in the country q Disseminate M&E information, promoting use of evaluation recommendations and lessons learned q 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 8
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 available from $44 m set-aside for capacity development 9
Follow-up to Evaluations q A management response is required for all evaluation reports presented to the GEF Council by the GEF EO q GEF Council takes into account both the evaluation and the management response when taking a decision q GEF EO reports on implementation of decisions annually (Management Action Record) q In the case of Country Portfolio Evaluations countries have the opportunity to provide their perspective to Council as well 10
Evaluation Streams
Performance q Performance Evaluations assess: § institutional and procedural issues across the GEF focal areas § experience with GEF strategies and policies. q Annual Performance Report assesses: § Project Outcomes § Sustainability of Outcomes § Quality of Monitoring and Evaluation § Quality of Implementation & Execution § Quality of Terminal Evaluation q The APR also includes periodic reviews of: § Quality at Entry § Quality of Supervision § Co-Financing § Other performance issues 12
Performance q Reviews recently completed and in progress: § APR 2010 and 2011 § Earth Fund q Planned reviews: § APRs 2012 -13 § STAR Mid-Term Review § Direct Access Mid-Term Review 13
Impact evaluation in the GEF Impact evaluation assess the positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Themes addressed: q GEF contributions to progress towards impact q Impact pathways and factors affecting further progress towards impact q GEF Contributions to changes in environmental stress, environmental status and socio-economic status 14
Completed and planned impact evaluations q Recently completed and in progress: § Impact evaluation on biodiversity in Peru § International waters (South China Sea), and climate change q Planned: § Biodiversity and one more focal area to be determined § ROt. I analysis of closed projects 15
Country Level Evaluations q Country Level Evaluations assess GEF support in a country across all GEF focal areas, Agencies, projects and programs. q The country is used as the unit of analysis. q CPEs assess the relevance, results, and efficiency of GEF projects at the country level, to see: § How these projects perform in producing results; § How these results are linked to national environmental and sustainable development agendas as well as to the GEF mandate of achieving global environmental benefits. 16
Country Level Evaluations q Two Country Level Evaluations modalities: § Fully-fledged Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs), and § Country Portfolio Studies (CPSs); reduced in scope, they provide additional evaluative coverage of country portfolios in each GEF geographic region. q CPSs are conducted in parallel and in collaboration with a country evaluation of a GEF Agency, to reduce the evaluation burden to countries. q Completed, ongoing and planned country level evaluations: § Recently completed and in progress: Nicaragua, OECS, Jamaica, El Salvador (completed) Brazil, Cuba, India, Timor Leste, Sri Lanka (ongoing) § Planned FY 13 -15 : Asia, Africa, MENA, ECA 17
Thematic q Evaluations on topics of cross-cutting issues: § Programs, processes, focal area strategies, cross-sectoral and other thematic issues and special reviews q Recently completed evaluations: § Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA) § National Capacity Self-Assessments (NCSA) § Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) q Planned reviews: § Enabling Activities § Focal Area Strategies 18
Fifth Overall Performance Study OPS 5
GEF EO vision for GEF-5 q 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 20
OPS 5 will include: q Verification and ratings of outcome and progress toward impact q Coverage of the reform process: GEF project cycle and modalities, direct access, STAR, Paragraph 28 q Increased attention to the catalytic role of the GEF q Trends in ownership and country drivenness q Trends in global environmental problems and relevance of the GEF to the conventions q More in-depth look at the focal area strategies, including sustainable forestry management q Better understanding of the longer term impact of the GEF 21
Further issues for OPS 5 q Project cycle issues: efficiency of decision making in the GEF? q Stakeholder consultations: are the ECW developing in a continuous consultation process? § What more would be needed? § Is e-survey sufficient? q Global and regional projects? q Specific sub-regional issues? 22
Knowledge Sharing q 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 q Knowledge sharing enables partners to capitalize on lessons learned from experiences q Purpose of KM in the GEF: § Promotion of a culture of learning § Application of lessons learned § Feedback to new activities 23
Climate-Eval: introduction Community of practice on evaluation of climate change and development q q Sharing best practices on climate change and development evaluation q 500+ members Online tools for participation: q § § § Website: www. climate-eval. org Linkedin Group Social media News letters Blog (soon!) 24
Climate-Eval: activities q International Conference in Alexandria in 2008 q World Bank publication (book) § Evaluating Climate Change and Development (van den Berg and Feinstein, 2009) q Electronic library (400+ reports) q Webinars q Studies § Meta-Evaluation of Mitigation Studies § Adaptation Framework for M&E § 3 more underway q Partnership – SEA Change , IDEAS q Supporters § SIDA, FOEN, GEFEO 25
Thank you www. gefeo. org 26
- Kseniya khromova
- Gef history
- Gef focal points
- Https://mifactura.ggef.mx
- Gef project cycle
- Gef project cycle
- Gef project cycle
- Office of registrar wvu
- Alteracion matricula ugr
- Focal point officer
- Ran gef
- If abc and gef are congruent by the asa criterion
- Gef tutorial
- Gef project cycle
- Gef project cycle
- Gef sap
- Gef star allocation
- E student gef
- Gef
- Gef project cycle
- Gef project cycle
- Gef project cycle
- Gef
- Gef
- Gef sap
- Gef
- Gef eclipse