Monitoring & Reporting 2019

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reasons for Monitoring and Evaluation at the Project Level
Advertisements

1 UN Coherence: High level monitoring and evaluation approach.
The European Shared Environmental Information System Meropi Paneli
HOW TO WRITE A GOOD TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR FOR EVALUATION Programme Management Interest Group 19 October 2010 Pinky Mashigo.
Leonardo da Vinci Project BLENDED LEARNING TRANSFER Rationalising, Learning and Transferring the use of technological platforms to enterprise-based learning.
MSFD Interactions EMODNET Chemistry 2 Kick-off meeting Giordano Giorgi Trieste (Italy), 3-5 June 2013.
18 March th meeting of the Evaluation Expert Committie 1 Thematic Working Group „Ex post Evaluation Guidelines” State of play Jela Tvrdonova.
KEYWORDS REFRESHMENT. Activities: in the context of the Logframe Matrix, these are the actions (tasks) that have to be taken to produce results Analysis.
Ex-ante evaluation for RDPs 4 th International Evaluation Conference Budapest, 26th September 2013 Zélie Peppiette, DG AGRI Rural Development.
Regional Seminar 2005 EVALUATING POLICY Are your policies working? How do you know? School Development Planning Initiative.
Environmental Management System Definitions
Aaron Zazueta Chief Evaluation Officer 2013 EVALUATION IN THE GEF.
Recommendation 2001/331/EC: Review and relation to sectoral inspection requirements Miroslav Angelov European Commission DG Environment, Unit A 1 Enforcement,
1 - DG ENV Brussels, 5 March 2003 Draft INSPIRE Legislative proposal The key issues 9th INSPIRE Expert Group Meeting Brussels.
ECENA Workshop on Benchmarking and Progress Monitoring in Environmental Enforcement and Compliance Szentendre, March 29-30, 2007 Assessment Tools and Methods.
1 Results-based Monitoring, Training Workshop, Windhoek, Results-based Monitoring Purpose and tasks Steps 1 to 5 of establishing a RbM.
Support the spread of “good practice” in generating, managing, analysing and communicating spatial information Evaluating and Reflecting on the Map-making.
Integrating Evaluation into the Design of the Minnesota Demonstration Project Paint Product Stewardship Initiative St. Paul, MN May 1, 2008 Matt Keene,
Evaluation of NRNs Andreas Resch, Evaluation Advisor.
Monitoring Afghanistan, 2015 Food Security and Agriculture Working Group – 9 December 2015.
Service Equality Team Equalities Impact Assessment Overview.
Results Oriented Monitoring & Evaluation Model (ROMEM) Presented by Shawn Grey Ministry of Transport and Works Jamaica. Model developed by MTW and DPMI.
Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation Giovanni Rum, Chao Xing GEO Secretariat GEO Work Programme Symposium Geneva, 2-4 May 2016.
Stages of Research and Development
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for NARS Organisations in Papua New Guinea Day 3. Session 9. Periodic data collection methods.
GUIDELINES Evaluation of National Rural Networks
Eastern European Partner countries
List of priority spatial data sets
CARF Canada Performance Measurement Outcomes
CRE8TIVE KO Meeting, Rome Italy Quality Assurance
Strategic Planning for Learning Organizations
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for NARS Organisations in Papua New Guinea Day 3. Session 7. Managers’ and stakeholders’ information needs.
38th MIG-T meeting, Ghent 28 – 29 March 2017
Relationship between EUROWATERNET and the Water Framework Directive, and for broader water reporting Steve Nixon ETC/WTR.
14th MEETING OF WORKING GROUP F ON FLOODS Thursday 17 October 2013
Common Monitoring and Evaluation System for Rural Development
The role of the Passport Indicators in Monitoring PFM Strategy
14th MEETING OF WORKING GROUP F ON FLOODS Thursday 17 October 2013
Euro-indicators Working Group
UNDP-UNEP POVERTY & ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE (PEI): MID-TERM REVIEW
منهج الإطار المنطقي وإطار الرصد والتقييم وإطار النتائج
MIWP Action ”Priority List of E-Reporting Datasets”
MIWP MIWP actions follow-up
MIG-T meeting, 19th April 2016, Ispra End-user applications
3. Art. 21 Monitoring & Reporting [DOC2]
Fitness Check of environmental reporting
WWater reuse Water Directors 24/11/2014 Nicola NOTARO
Session 9 Recap on LFM and IL.
Amending the Performance Framework
Preparing to Use This Video with Staff:
Agenda Item No. 25 KSC Work Plan
Gender mainstreaming in environmental
Commission's activities
WHAT is evaluation and WHY is it important?
MIWP MIWP actions status reports MIG Technical subgroup meeting
Relevance of GNB for CAP monitoring and evaluation system
monitoring & evaluation THD Unit, Stop TB department WHO Geneva
European Commission, DG Environment Air & Industrial Emissions Unit
Results Based Management for Monitoring & Evaluation
A Sea for Life MSFD related projects under Integrated Maritime Policy
OGB Partner Advocacy Workshop 18th & 19th March 2010
4th Meeting of the MIG-P, Brussels, June 2016
5.b3 Monitoring & Reporting 2019
MIWP Action on « List of priority data sets »
Concept paper on the assessment of WFD River Basin Management Plans
Integrating Gender into Rural Development M&E in Projects and Programs
- Kick-off meeting - ERANET Cofund BlueBio WP4 (Leader: AEI)
Data for PRS Monitoring: Institutional and Technical Challenges
© Fresh Thoughts Consulting
WISE and INSPIRE By Albrecht Wirthmann, GISCO, Eurostat
Presentation transcript:

2016.2 Monitoring & Reporting 2019

EU Monitoring & Reporting Monitoring is a continuous and systematic process of data collection about an intervention. It generates factual information for future evaluation and impact assessments and helps identify actual implementation problems. Monitoring is necessary to allow policy makers and stakeholders to check if policy implementation is ‘on track’ and to generate information that can be used to evaluate whether it has achieved its objectives. While monitoring looks at “what” changes have occurred since the entry into force of a policy intervention, evaluation looks at "whether" the intervention has been effective in reaching its objectives, and whether the objectives have been met efficiently (i.e. at least cost), as well as the reasons for the success or otherwise of an intervention.

Objectives 2016.2 Gather information on M&R issues, information needs, relevant indicators Survey needed? Can we reuse MS 2016 reports? Review monitoring and reporting Review monitoring/reporting indicators and process To be metadata-based Maximally automated In line with better regulation intervention logic Serving implementation, application, compliance progress monitoring Priorities Objective 1: Make a list of proposed (legal) changes (corrections, technological /scientific adaptations, legal chanegs)to the Reporting Decision for the MIG/Committee June 2017 Objective 2: Draft indicator framework.

"Better regulation" intervention logic a guide for developing indicators

Indicator framework Methodology Doc metadata Prepared by Date of preparation Revised by Date of revision Indicator info Indicator name Related INSPIRE objective Related activity Position in the result chain

Indicator metadata template (1/2) Doc metadata Prepared by / Date of preparation Revised by / Date of revision Indicator process info Related INSPIRE objective Related activity Position in the result chain

Indicator metadata template (2/2) Indicator info Indicator name Definition Rationale and interpretation Method of computation & unit of expression Baseline value & Target value Sources and data collection Use of the indicator (e.g. in view of SDG, compliance, progress) Guide for data acquisition Data reporting Comments, limitations, supplementary information

(Draft … very draft ) Proposal for example to elaborate the approach on the indicator framework Part of the indicator screening will be the definition of a comprehensive set of KPI’s (Output, Outcome and Impact) and objectives that guide and monitor INSPIRE implementation. Example (for scene-setting purposes): Objective: "Spatial data relevant to environmental reporting obligations is available" Action plan: Develop a rolling list of priority data sets. Make available as-is by Q2/2017. Include EUR-Lex keyword in metadata. Possible key indicators to measure the performance of the action (KPI): Output indicator: Number/Percentage of data sets with Eur-Lex keyword Output indicator: Accessibility of spatial data to be reported under environmental reporting obligations for viewing (%) Output indicator: Accessibility of spatial data to be reported under environmental reporting obligations for downloading (%) Outcome indicator: Accessibility of spatial data to be reported under the AQD (%) Outcome indicator: Availability of required spatial data for the integrated assessment of biodiversity and agricultural land use (%) Impact indicator: Number of priority spatial datasets available in the European open data portal.