Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF.  The GEF M&E Policy  M&E objectives  M&E levels and responsible agencies  M&E minimum requirements  Role of.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF.  The GEF M&E Policy  M&E objectives  M&E levels and responsible agencies  M&E minimum requirements  Role of."— Presentation transcript:

1 Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF

2  The GEF M&E Policy  M&E objectives  M&E levels and responsible agencies  M&E minimum requirements  Role of the Focal Points  Follow up to evaluations  Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5)  Objective of the Overall Performance Studies  EO evaluation streams & OPS5  Theory of Change  Content of OPS5 reports  Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2012 (ACPER 2012)  Questions & Answers 2

3 The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy

4 4  Result-Based Management (RBM) - setting goals and objectives, monitoring, learning and decision making  Evaluation: a “reality check” on RBM  RBM, which includes Monitoring, tells whether the organization is “on track”  Evaluation tells whether the organization is “on the right track”

5  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  M&E contributes to Knowledge Sharing 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 Knowledge Sharing in the GEF includes  Promotion of a culture of learning  Application of lessons learned  Feedback to new activities 6

7 7

8  MR1: 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  MR2: Implementation of M&E Plans  Project/program monitoring and supervision will include execution of the M&E plan  MR3: Project/Program Evaluations  All FSPs and MSPs will be evaluated  Reports should be sent to the GEF EO within 12 months of project completion  MR4: Engagement of Operational Focal Points  M&E plans should explain how GEF OFPs will be engaged in M&E activities 8

9  MR4: Engagement of Operational Focal Points  M&E plans should include how OFPs will be engaged  OFPs will be informed on M&E activities, including Mid-Term Reviews and Terminal Evaluations, receiving drafts for comments and final reports  OFPs will be 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 9

10  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 10

11  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 through the Management Action Record  For Country Portfolio Evaluations countries have the opportunity to provide their perspective to Council as well 11

12 Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5)

13  To assess the extent to which the GEF is achieving its objectives:  As laid down in the GEF Instrument and reviews by the Assembly  As developed and adopted by the GEF Council in operational policies and programs for GEF financed activities  And to identify potential improvements 13

14  Four streams of evaluative evidence will be integrated into OPS5  Country Portfolio Evaluations: evidence from 15+ countries  Impact Evaluations: International Waters, Climate Change, Biodiversity  Performance Evaluations: APR trends  Thematic Evaluations: focal area strategies and adaptation  Integration through meta-evaluation into first report; update in final report 14

15  OPS4 brought evaluative evidence on three catalytic elements in GEF support:  Foundation: role of governments  Demonstration: introduction of new approaches  Investment: broad implementation of new approaches  New evidence since OPS4 has refined elements:  Elements are mixed according to country/local needs  Each focal area has a unique mixture of elements, aiming at different intermediate states  Focal area strategies evaluation is now exploring these 15

16 GEF OUTPUTS & OUTCOMESINTERMEDIATE STATESIMPACT General Framework for GEF Theory of Change Learning & adaptive management / Positive reinforcement cycle IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Technologies & approaches Implementing mechanisms & bodies Financial mechanisms for implementation & sustainability Promoting champions Building on promising initiatives Raising profile of initiatives Removal of barriers Innovation INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY Policy, legal & regulatory frameworks Governmental structures & arrangements Informal processes for trust-building & conflict resolution KNOWLEDGE & INFORMATION Information -sharing & access Awareness- raising Knowledge generation M & E Skills- building ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND BEHAVIORAL CHANGE BROADER ADOPTION Sustaining Mainstreaming Replication Scaling-up Market change Stress reduction Improved environmental status TRAJECTORY GEF initiative/ result Progress towards impact Impact/ GEB LEGEND

17  First report: at start of replenishment  A meta-evaluation approach, drawing on existing GEF evaluations  Final report: end of 2013 or early 2014  Final report will update meta-evaluation and include findings of additional studies 17

18  Relevance to conventions guidance; for IW relevance to transboundary issues  Ratings on outcomes and sustainability of finished projects  Ratings of progress toward impact of finished projects  Trends in GEF catalytic role (foundation, demonstration, investment)  Trends in country ownership and relevance of GEF’s support to country needs, including obligations to conventions  Trends in performance issues  project cycle, co-financing, management costs and project fees, quality at entry, supervision.  Trends in the implementation and achievements of the GEF focal areas 18

19  Trends in global environmental problems and the relevance and added value of the GEF, also in view of other funding channels  Ability of the GEF to mobilize sufficient funding for a meaningful role in focal areas  A more in-depth look at impact of the GEF focal area strategies, including multi-focal area support  Extent to which the GEF reform processes have achieved enhanced country ownership and improved effectiveness and efficiency  Governance of the GEF and donor performance  Trends in the involvement of stakeholders, the private sector and civil society  Cross-cutting policies: gender, participation, knowledge sharing  Update of the SGP evaluation (since 2009)  Role of STAP  Health of the GEF Network 19

20  OPS5 audience includes  Replenishment participants  GEF Council  Assembly  Through the Assembly the members of GEF  Findings will be shared with other GEF partners  GEF Secretariat  STAP  GEF Agencies  NGO Network  Project proponents and others 20

21  Three quality assurance advisors  Recognized experts from developed, newly emerging, and developing nations  Reference group  Formed by staff from the GEF Agencies independent evaluation offices  Stakeholder interaction  Main venue: Extended Constituency Workshops  Interaction with GEF Partners  New media will be explored  Interaction with Council/Replenishment  Presentation of products to both  Update on progress at each Council/Replenishment meeting 21

22  There is no formal track record of the adoption of findings and recommendations of the Overall Performance Studies in the GEF  No formal management response, no formal linkage of Council decisions to OPS4 recommendations  Replenishment negotiations ran in parallel to OPS4  With the introduction of a first report at the start of the replenishment, negotiation documents can now also formally track emerging decisions on OPS5 findings and recommendations 22

23 Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2012 (ACPER 2012)

24  ACPER 12 reports on country level evaluations conducted in the LAC region (Nicaragua, OECS, Brazil, Cuba, El Salvador and Jamaica)  Several SIDS were evaluated (6 OECS, Cuba, Jamaica)  Conclusion on efficiency:  SIDSs face challenges due to the specificities in which they operate. This hampers achieving greater global environmental benefits.  Recommendation:  Project approval and implementation in SIDSs should be more flexible and context-specific. 24

25  Samoa CPE, 2007: The proposed programmatic approach for the Pacific SIDS should consider Samoa’s experience (such as limited capacity, high transaction costs of doing business, high vulnerability, fragile ecosystems)  Jamaica CPS, 2010: Many Agency procedures are not appropriate for small countries in regions with limited resources. This is seriously hampering the efficiency of GEF implementation  OECS CPE, 2011: The design and implementation of future regional projects in SIDS should be based on a participatory, stakeholder-driven process, and include tangible, on-the-ground activities in participating countries as well as adequate resources for coordination 25 Previous SIDS issues from CPEs/CPSs

26 The Council requests the Secretariat that:  Project approval and implementation in Small Island Developing States should be more flexible and context- specific 26 Council Decision on ACPER 2012

27 Questions & Answers Thank you 27

Download ppt "Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF.  The GEF M&E Policy  M&E objectives  M&E levels and responsible agencies  M&E minimum requirements  Role of."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google