ME in the GEF Robert van den Berg

M&E in the GEF Robert van den Berg Director, Evaluation Office GEF Expanded Constituency Workshop 27 - 29 September 2011 Honiara, Solomon Islands

Overview q Results-based management (RBM), and Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in GEF-5 q M&E policy for GEF-5 q M&E Minimum Requirements q Involvement of focal points q Evaluation planning for GEF-5 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

New M&E Policy (Nov 2010): What’s New? q Reference to GEF Results-based Management (RBM) q Strengthened knowledge sharing and learning q Clarification of roles and responsibilities q Stronger role for GEF Operational Focal Points in M&E q Inclusion of programs and jointly implemented projects q Baseline data for M&E to be established by CEO endorsement q New Minimum Requirement on engagement of GEF Operational Focal Points in project and program M&E activities 5

RBM Framework for the GEF Institutional Level (top-down) GEB Impacts GEF Strategic Goals Focal Area Goal Focal Area Objectives Operating Level (bottom-up) Outcomes Outputs Project Objectives 6

RBM and Tracking Results Project and Program Design LFA/Results framework M&E Plan Implementation Monitoring of progress; midpoint course correction as needed Evaluation Terminal Evaluations Lessons Learned Management, monitoring, and learning Lessons learned; Good practices Adapted from the World Bank’s Results Focus in Country Assistance Strategies, July 2005, p. 13 7

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 8

M&E Reporting in the GEF 9

M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies 10

q A management response is required for all evaluations and performance 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 11

Design of M&E Plans Concrete 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: q SMART indicators q Baseline data for M&E by CEO endorsement q Mid Term Reviews (where required or foreseen) and Terminal Evaluations included in plan q Organizational 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: q Use of SMART indicators for process and implementation q Use of SMART indicators for results q Baseline for the project is fully established and data are compiled to review progress q Organizational set up for M&E is operational and its budget is spent as planned 13

Project/Program Evaluations: q All full sized projects and programs will be evaluated at the end of implementation q 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 developed 14

Engagement of Operational Focal Points q M&E plans should include how OFPs will be engaged q OFPs to be informed on M&E activities, including Mid Term Reviews and Terminal Evaluations, receiving drafts for comments and final reports q OFPs 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 15

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 16

q 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 $44 m set-aside for capacity development 17

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 18

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 19

q Support to NCSAs was one of the approaches to implement the GEF capacity development strategy and UN conventions guidance to GEF q 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 q Evaluation is ongoing; next week the consultant will be in Dakar and Banjul; the report expected for the November 2011 GEF Council 20

Cook Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu Projects Approved: Active and Completed TOTAL 272 Projects NATIONAL 185 Projects 138 Active, 47 Completed GEF Grant $393 M Co Financing $2. 98 B 87 BD, 85 CC, 20 IW, 16 LD, 39 MF, 25 POPs 206 Active, 66 Completed Number Focal Area Grant and Co-finanicng 62 24 63 3 17 16 CC MF BD IW POPs LD 2. 25 B 445 M 414 M 162 M 81 M 19 M REGIONAL 49 Projects GEF Grant $302 M Co Financing $1. 4 B 11 BD, 11 CC, 15 IW, 7 MF, 5 POPs GLOBAL 38 Projects GEF Grant $312 M Co Financing $390 M 13 BD, 12 CC, 2 IW, 8 MF, 3 POPs 21