M&E in the GEF

1. M&E in the GEF KseniyaTemnenko Knowledge Management Officer GEF Expanded Constituency Workshop March 27-29, 2012 Tirana, Albania

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. Climate-Eval: introduction • 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: www.climate-eval.org • Linkedin Group • Social media • News letters • Blog (soon!)

25. Climate-Eval: activities • 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. Thank you www.gefeo.org 26