M&E in the GEF: Enhancing Accountability and Learning

1. M&E in the GEF BaljitWadhwa Senior Evaluation Officer GEF Expanded Constituency Workshop February 8-10, 2012 Bujumbura, Burundi

2. Overview • RBM, Monitoring & Evaluation • M&E in the GEF • M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies • M&E Policy • Minimum Requirements • Role of the Focal Points • Evaluations Streams • Performance • Impact • Country Level Evaluations • Thematic • OPS5 • Knowledge Sharing • GEF Portfolio – Regional • Q&A

3. RBM, Monitoring & Evaluation • 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”

4. M&E in the GEF Two overarching objectives: • Promote accountability for the achievement of GEF objectives through the assessment of results, effectiveness, processes, and performanceof 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. M&E Levels and Responsible Agencies

6. M&E: Minimum Requirements • 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. • Implementation of M&E Plans • Project/program monitoring and supervision will include execution of the M&E Plan • Project/Program Evaluations • All full and medium size projects will be evaluated. Reports should be sent to the GEF EO within 12 months of project completion. • Engagement of Operational Focal Points • M&E Plans should explain how GEF OFPs will be engaged in M&E activities.

7. M&E: Minimum Requirement 4 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

8. Role of GEF Focal Points in M&E • 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

9. 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 available from $44m set-aside for capacity development

10. Follow-up to Evaluations • 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. Evaluation Streams

12. Performance • Performance Evaluations assess: • institutional and procedural issues across the GEFfocal areas • experience with GEF strategies and policies. • Annual Performance Report assesses: • Project Outcomes • Sustainability of Outcomes • Quality of Monitoring and Evaluation • Quality of Implementation & Execution • Quality of Terminal Evaluation • The APR also includes periodic reviews of: • Quality at Entry • Quality of Supervision • Co-Financing • Other performance issues

13. Performance • Reviews recently completed and in progress: • APR 2010 and 2011 • Earth Fund • Planned reviews: • APRs 2012 -13 • STAR Mid-Term Review • Direct Access Mid-Term Review

14. Impact evaluation in the GEF Impact evaluation assess the positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Themes addressed: • GEF contributions to progress towards impact • Impact pathways and factors affecting further progress towards impact • GEF Contributions to changes in environmental stress, environmental status and socio-economic status

15. Completed and planned impact evaluations • Recently completed and in progress: • Impact evaluation on biodiversity in Peru • International waters (South China Sea), and climate change • Planned: • Biodiversity and one more focal area to be determined • ROtI analysis of closed projects

16. Country Level Evaluations • Country Level Evaluations assess GEF support in a country across all GEF focal areas, Agencies, projects and programs. • The country is used as the unit of analysis. • CPEs assess the relevance, results, and efficiencyof GEF projects at the country level, to see: • How these projects perform in producing results; • How these results are linked to national environmental and sustainable development agendas as well as to the GEF mandate of achieving global environmental benefits.

17. Country Level Evaluations • Two Country Level Evaluations modalities: • Fully-fledged Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs), and • Country Portfolio Studies (CPSs); reduced in scope, they provide additional evaluative coverage of country portfolios in each GEF geographic region. • CPSs are conducted in parallel and in collaboration with a country evaluation of a GEF Agency, to reduce the evaluation burden to countries. • Completed, ongoing and planned country level evaluations: • Recently completed and in progress: Nicaragua, OECS, Jamaica, El Salvador (completed) Brazil, Cuba, India, Timor Leste, Sri Lanka (ongoing) • Planned FY13-15 : Asia, Africa, MENA, ECA

18. Thematic • Evaluations on topics of cross-cutting issues: • Programs, processes, focal area strategies, cross-sectoral and other thematic issues and special reviews • Recently completed evaluations: • Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA) • National Capacity Self-Assessments (NCSA) • Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) • Planned reviews: • Enabling Activities • Focal Area Strategies

19. Fifth Overall Performance Study OPS 5

20. GEF EO vision for GEF-5 • 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

21. OPS5 will include: • 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

22. Further issues for OPS5 • Project cycle issues: efficiency of decision making in the GEF? • Stakeholder consultations: are the ECW developing in a continuous consultation process? • What more would be needed? • Is e-survey sufficient? • Global and regional projects? • Specific sub-regional issues?

23. Knowledge Sharing • 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

24. GEF Portfolio – Central Africa Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe

25. Burundi Cameroon Central African Republic Congo Democratic Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Gabon Sao Tome and Principe Portfolio Overview Total Portfolio (1.65 Billion USD) Active (31 M) & Completed (1.61 B)

26. Burundi Cameroon Central African Republic Congo Democratic Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Gabon Sao Tome and Principe GEF Grant and Co-Financing National Portfolio (606.5 Million USD) 68 Projects (6 Active, 62 Complete) Completed (62 Projects - 604.6 M) Active (6 Projects - 1.8 M)

27. Burundi Cameroon Central African Republic Congo Democratic Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Gabon Sao Tome and Principe Regional Portfolio – Central Africa Funding per Focal Area Number of Projects per Focal Area

28. Burundi Cameroon Central African Republic Congo Democratic Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Gabon Sao Tome and Principe Distribution of Projects – I Number of Projects per Project Size Amount of Funding per Project Size Number of Projects per Focal Area Amount of Funding per Focal Area

29. Burundi Cameroon Central African Republic Congo Democratic Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Gabon Sao Tome and Principe Distribution of Projects – II Number of Projects per Implementing Agency Amount of Funding per Implementing Agency

30. Thank you www.gefeo.org 30