Effective GEF IW Indicators

1. Effective GEF IW Indicators EXPERIENCE WITH THE DESIGN OF LOGICAL FRAMEWORKS AND THE EVALUATION OF DELIVERY BASED ON QUANTIFIABLE TARGETS AND MEASURABLE INDICATORS David Vousden

2. How to ensure that targets and indicators are appropriate Targets need to be based on real interventions and ‘concrete’ activities. Some examples…. Process Indicators: legislative reform for sustainable fisheries or water quality Stress Reduction Indicators: Sewage treatment systems up and running; Gear changes/modification in fisheries Environment/socioeconomic Indicators: By-catch reduced; catches of threatened species reduced (landing figures/observers); nutrient loads down; nutrient –demanding algal levels down THESE ARE ALL MEASURABLE AND CREDIBLE

3. Inappropriate Targets and Indicators! Targets should NOT be based on intangeable or unmeasurable/impractical indicators (some examples!) Political will for improving fisheries and water quality approaches raised/improved Management practices for stress reduction expanded Improved water quality on coral reefs Raised quality of life in communities These are difficult or often impossible to quantify and are subjective in any evaluation process

4. Are their special challenges that relate to IW Log Frame design? There are… in terms of the need to focus on transboundary deliverables at a regional level These can be hard to quantify because of the need to show a balanced set of deliveries across a number of countries that should represent an equitable regional effort As an example, the ASCLME project is dealing with this problem by undertaking a national Marine Ecosystem Diagnostic Analysis (MEDA) in each country first…. This is then reflected synergistically in the overall TDA

5. Use of Process, Stress Reduction and Environmental/Socioeconomic Status indicators This is a logical and effective approach as it provides a clear flow from concept to concrete action…. 1. Changes in approach, policy and legislation (process reforms) 2. Actual efforts to deliver these reforms as concrete actions for reducing stresses on the ‘system’ Leading to… 3. Measurable improvements at the ecosystem/biological community/social community/ species levels (which can feed back to 1. above)

6. Some weaknesses in Log Frame design A. Log Frames are frequently out-of-date at Project Inception (may be several years old!) therefore…. B. Review and revision of Log Frames is often one of the first important activities for the Project C. This agreement/ approval of a reviewed and revised Log Frame by participating countries and the Project Steering Committee can be extremely valuable and critical in building country ownership and support (especially as the PSC members and National Focal Institutions and their policies/priorities may have changes since the original Log Frame was designed)

7. Risks and Assumptions These are a very useful component of the Log Frame but also they DO need to be reviewed at Project Inception/Implementation along with this rest of the Log Frame for the same reasons as stated in the previous slide (changes over time, country agreement and ownership) One clear example would be in the ASCLME Project in the western Indian Ocean where the original document did not identify piracy as a risk but which has now become one the greatest transboundary threats to the project It is important to realise that the Project (and therefore its Log Frame) is not written in stone and SHOULD be reviewed from time to time as part of a flexible, evolving and dynamic project

8. Better use of Log Frames in Project Design and Management A. There is a need to develop some standardised Indicators for certain situations and projects to allow for a more comparable review process. (e.g. LME indicators could focus on the 5 modules of the LMEs) B. A review of the Logical Framework Matrix at Inception or soon after should be a standard requirement to ensure accuracy of evaluation and true country ownership C. Part of the mandate of the Mid Term Reviewers should be to re-visit the Log Frame with the stakeholders and to advise the Project on any appropriate modifications or additions to the Log Frame to ensure a more accurate and representative Terminal Evaluation

9. Other improvements to the use of GEF IW Indicators • On-going ‘progress-chasing’ of deliverables during the Project lifetime using Log Frame indicators (continuous assessment and fine-tuning) • Post-Project Evaluation of Indicators to ensure sustainability of Project objectives and GEF Investment

10. Effective GEF IW Indicators THANK YOU!