M&E in the GEF Kseniya Temnenko Knowledge Management Officer Extended Constituency Workshop 11 – 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 learning  Clarification of roles and responsibilities  Stronger role for GEF Operational Focal Points in M&E  Inclusion of programs and jointly implemented projects  Baseline data for M&E to be established by CEO endorsement  New 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 GEB Impacts Outcomes Outputs 6

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

 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 8

9

10

 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 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:  SMART indicators  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 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 developed 14

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 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 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 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 19

 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 TOTAL238 Projects 61 BD, 64 CC, 22 IW, 19 LD, 35 MF, 21 POPs, 16 ODS 176 Active, 62 Completed NATIONAL185 Projects NumberFocal AreaGrant and Co-finanicng 148 Active, 37 Completed CC BD MF POPs ODS LD IW 2.7 B 350 M 628 M 141 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:  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 28