Mark Zimsky, Senior Biodiversity Specialist Biodiversity Focal Area Coordinator

1. Mark Zimsky, Senior Biodiversity Specialist Biodiversity Focal Area Coordinator Regional Program Manager-Latin America and the Caribbean

2. GEF-Institutional Context • Weight of the numbers in the biodiversity focal area • Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF • Portfolio/project monitoring in the biodiversity focal area • The next step to move this system forward • Learning objectives in the GEF-5 strategy to advance implementation science • Experimental design in projects

3. IAs/EAs UNDP Donor Replenishment Group Evaluation Office UNEP CBD STAP WB UNFCC Assembly ADB POPs NGOs AfDB Council CCD EBRD CEO/Chair GEF Secretariat FAO Multilateral Fund of Montreal Protocol IDB IFAD International Waters UNIDO

4. Weight of the Numbers: Biodiversity Focal Area • $ 2.9 billion in grants, average of $ 250 million per year • $ 8.2 billion in cofinancing • 990 projects in more than 150 countries, average 40-50 projects per year • 2302 protected areas covering 634 million hectares • Biodiversity mainstreamed in 265 million hectares of productive landscapes • 123 national biosafety frameworks

6. GEF ME Policy Document that contains minimum requirements for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for GEF-funded activities covering project design, application of M&E at the project level, and project evaluation. This policy aims to explain the concept, role, and use of monitoring and evaluation within the GEF and define the institutional framework and define responsibilities. Currently under review

8. GEF Evaluation Office Mission “Enhance global environmental benefits through excellence, independence and partnership in monitoring and evaluation” Principles • Impartiality • Professionalism • Transparency

9. Types of Activities in GEFEO • Implementation of GEF M&E Policy • Annual Reporting to Council: • Country Portfolio Evaluations • Performance and process issues • Impact • Thematic/Cross-sectoral evaluations • Active participation evaluation communities (UN/MDBs) • Knowledge Sharing • dissemination of lessons • Overall Performance Studies – replenishment process

10. Every Four Years….

11. Biodiversity Portfolio Monitoring: Challenges • Challenges: • Very large & heterogeneous portfolio of projects • 2) Projects are relatively short-term investments therefore outcomes and impact may not be seen or measurable until after project closure (particularly with biodiversity mainstreaming). • 3a) Portfolio monitoring can add costs to project level monitoring (data is at project level). • 3b) GEF as a networked institutional arrangement-many partners and many systems of monitoring at work. • Working solutions: • Limit portfolio indicators to a few key indicators that all projects can easily deliver. • Use proxies that are reliable indicators of progress towards the outcomes and impacts sought; follow up with post-project monitoring on the ground. • Identify indicators that add value to project level monitoring to minimize all transaction costs--rolling up • Create simple tools for data collection

12. Measuring Portfolio Performance with Tracking Tools Objective: To measure progress in achieving outputs, outcomes and impacts established at the portfolio level under GEF strategies (GEF-3 and GEF-4). Rationale: Project data from the GEF-3 and GEF-4 project cohort, respectively, are aggregated for analysis of directional trends and patterns at a portfolio-wide level to both inform the evolution of the biodiversity strategy of the GEF and to report to GEF Council on portfolio-level performance in the biodiversity focal area. Links GEF support directly to global monitoring processes (2010 indicators, e.g., coverage of PAs and management effectiveness of PAs, sustainable use, etc.) Process: The tracking tool is to be submitted at project start, mid-term evaluation.

13. GEF-4 Strategy

14. Objective One: Catalyze Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

15. Objective Two: Mainstream Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use into Production Landscapes/Seascapes and Sectors

16. Objective Three: Safeguard Biodiversity

17. Objective Four: Build Capacity in Access and Benefit Sharing

18. Building the Evidence Base • Why? Clear and credible evidence about “what works and under what conditions” catalyzes change. • Three Learning Objectives established for the Biodiversity Focal Area from 2010-2014

19. Enhancing Impact and Results through Improved Understanding of Protected Area Management Effectiveness Establish an evidence base that is able to better correlate the METT score of a protected area (including each of its six elements of protected area management) to the successful conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within a protected area. This learning objective will be accomplished through a series of country case studies and field visits to select countries The case study results will also help inform a broader quantitative analysis to further elucidate the causal relationships between the METT scores, the six elements of protected area management, and successful conservation within protected areas.

20. Enhancing Social Impacts through Improved Understanding of the Causal Relationships between Protected Area Management and Local Community Welfare. Given that the GEF is a global leader in supporting protected areas, an improved understanding of the impacts of protected areas on human welfare is an important area for increasing understanding. This learning objective will contribute to the evidence base about these impacts by supporting work to answer the following question, “What has been the impact of protected areas in GEF-recipient countries on human welfare in neighboring communities, and under what circumstances has the impact been positive?” This learning objective will be accomplished through a series of country-level, quantitative retrospective studies, as well as complementary case studies when these are designed to focus on elucidating potential causal relationships. In a few cases in which new protected areas are being established, the GEF may support prospective studies that track health and livelihood outcomes on a sample of households close to the protected area and a sample of households that live outside the influence of the same parks

21. Enhancing Impacts through Improved Understanding of the Causal Relationships between Popular Mainstreaming Approaches and Conservation Outcomes. The GEF has supported innovative approaches to mainstreaming biodiversity in the productive landscape in GEF-4 and will continue to do so in GEF-5. Three approaches that are becoming increasingly popular globally and in the GEF pipeline are: (1) certification; (2) payments for environmental services; and (3) information transfer on the spatial distribution of species and ecosystem service and the valuation of these species and services. The learning objective will ask “How do certification, PES and transfers of information about the distribution and values of ecosystem services affect conservation and sustainable use outcomes, and in what circumstances are they likely to be most effective?” This learning objective will be accomplished primarily through support of prospective experimental and quasi-experimental project designs. When feasible, quantitative retrospective studies in programs that have received GEF funding will also be supported.

22. Thank you for your attention.