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

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

 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  Evaluation is ongoing; next week the consultant will be in Dakar and Banjul; the report expected for the November 2011 GEF Council 20

21 Projects Approved: Active and Completed TOTAL272 Projects 87 BD, 85 CC, 20 IW, 16 LD, 39 MF, 25 POPs 206 Active, 66 Completed NATIONAL185 Projects NumberFocal AreaGrant and Co-finanicng 138 Active, 47 Completed CC MF BD IW POPs LD 2.25 B 445 M 414 M 162 M 81 M 19 M GEF Grant $393 M Co Financing $2.98 B 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 Cook Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu

22 Active & Completed National Projects

24 National Portfolio Indonesia & Philippines SIDS 3, 261 3, 159 2,295

Thank you GEF EO CPE webpage Senior Evaluation Officer 25