1. M&E in the GEF Carlo Carugi Sr. Evaluation Officer Expanded Constituency Workshop Belize City, March 2011

2.  Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and results-based management (RBM) in GEF-5  M&E policy for GEF-5  M&E Minimum Requirements  Involvement of focal points  Questions on NCSA evaluation  Evaluation planning for GEF-5 2

3. M&E and RBM in GEF 5

4. 4  Monitoring is one of the main instruments of Results Based Management  Evaluation is a “reality check” on monitoring and RBM  Monitoring & RBM tell whether the organization is “on track”  Evaluation could tell whether the organization is “on the right track”

5. Two overarching objectives:  Promote accountability for the achievement of GEF objectives through the assessment of results, effectiveness, processes, and performance of 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

6. 6 Portfolio level: tracking progress toward achieving outcomes Standardized terminology: achieving coherence across Focal Areas Learning: integrating lessons in management decisions Feedback: Coherent framework for improved decision-making

7. Project and Program DesignImplementationEvaluation LFA/Results framework M&E Plan Management, monitoring, and learning Monitoring of progress; midpoint course correction as needed Terminal Evaluations Lessons Learned Lessons learned; Good practices Adapted from the World Bank’s Results Focus in Country Assistance Strategies, July 2005, p. 13 7

8. Operating Level (bottom-up) Institutional Level (top-down) Project Objectives Focal Area Goal GEF Strategic Goals Focal Area Objectives GEB Impacts Outcomes Outputs 8

9.  Project Level:  Report on Project Start, Project Delays, Project Cancellations  Submission of Project Implementation Report (PIR)  Submission of Tracking Tools  Agency:  Portfolio Overview Report  Focal Area Reports Input to Annual Monitoring Report Information should be made available to Focal Points 9

10.  The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) is the principal reporting instrument of the GEF Secretariat’s monitoring system  Provides a snap shot of the overall health of the GEF’s active portfolio of projects each fiscal year  Report is based on Agency PIR submissions 10

11. M&E Policy in GEF 5: New policy approved by GEF Council in November 2010

12.  Reference to GEF Results-based Management (RBM)  Clarification of roles and responsibilities  Stronger role for GEF Operational Focal Points in M&E  Strengthened knowledge sharing and learning  Inclusion of programs and jointly implemented projects  Baseline data for M&E to be established by CEO endorsement  New Minimum Requirement on engagement of GEF Operational Focal Points in project and program M&E activities 12

13. 13

14.  A management response is required for all evaluations and performance 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 14

15.  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 15 Knowledge management is a process for improving performance by learning

16. 16

17. PartnerKey Roles and Responsibilities GEF Council Policy making on M&E/ Oversight of M&E functions / Enabling environment for M&E GEF Evaluation Office Independent GEF evaluation / Oversight of project and program evaluations Oversight of the relevance, performance, and overall quality of monitoring systems Setting of minimum requirements for GEF M&E/ Evaluative knowledge sharing and dissemination GEF Secretariat Establishing results frameworks at the focal area and corporate levels GEF portfolio monitoring across Agencies and focal areas Reporting on and incorporating lessons from portfolio monitoring Review of GEF M&E requirements in project and program proposals Coordination of partnership knowledge management activities GEF Agency operational units Monitoring of the Agency GEF portfolio Reporting on Agency project, program, and portfolio progress, results, learning, and lessons/ Ensuring monitoring at the project and program level / Adaptive management of project and program implementation/ Systematic involvement of national partners and sharing of project M&E information at the national level GEF Agency evaluation units Project and program and/or corporate Agency independent evaluations Mainstreaming of the GEF into relevant Agency evaluations STAP Advise on scientific/technical matters in M&E Support to scientific and technical indicators Support knowledge management and information sharing GEF operational focal pointsCollaboration on M&E at the portfolio, project, and program levels Other stakeholders (ie, NGOs, CSOs, academia) Participation in monitoring activities and mechanisms Provision of views and perceptions to evaluations 17

18. Efficiency Effectiveness (Efficacy) Relevance (to needs/problems) Sustainability Input Output Outcome Impact 18 Is it any good or useful? Did I get value for money (or efforts)? Did I pay or do too much? Results Will it last?

19. 19 Indicators T ime bound, trackable, targeted S pecific M easurable A chievable and Attributable R elevant and Realistic

20. M&E Minimum Requirements

21. Design of M&E Plans  Concrete and fully budgeted M&E plan by CEO endorsement for FSP and CEO approval for MSP  SMART indicators  Projects should align with GEF focal area results frameworks  Baseline data for M&E by CEO endorsement  Mid Term Reviews (where required or foreseen) and Terminal Evaluations included in plan  Organizational set up and budget for M&E 21

22. Implementation of M&E Plans Project/program monitoring and supervision will include execution of the M&E plan:  SMART indicators for process/implementation  SMART indicators for results  Baseline for the project fully established and data compiled to review progress  Organizational set up for M&E is operational and its budget is spent as planned 22

23. Project/Program Evaluations:  All full sized projects and programs will be evaluated at the end of implementation.  Evaluations should:  Be independent of project management or reviewed by GEF Agency evaluation unit  Apply evaluation norms and standards of the GEF Agency  Assess, as a minimum, outputs and outcomes, likelihood of sustainability, compliance with M&E minimum requirements 1 & 2  Contain: data on the evaluation itself (including TORs); basic project data, lessons  Should be sent to GEF EO within 12 months of completion of project/program Guidelines for evaluating MSPs/EAs will be developed 23

24. Engagement of Operational Focal Points  M&E plans should include how OFPs will be engaged  OFPs to be informed on M&E activities, including Mid Term Reviews and Terminal Evaluations, receiving drafts for comments and final reports  OFPs 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 24

25. Involvement of operational focal points

26.  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. 26

27.  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 from $44m set-aside for capacity development 27

28. Questions on NCSA evaluation

29.  Support to NCSAs was one of the approaches to implement the GEF capacity development strategy and UN conventions guidance to GEF  NCSA aimed to identify country level priorities and needs for capacity development to address global environmental issues, holistic and long-term approach, country driven and led  As of August 2010:  153 NCSAs approved ($28.7 million), 119 completed (UNDP: 76%; UNEP: 23%; WB: 1%)  23 approved second phases to implement NCSAs recommendations (more in GEF5)  Global Support Programme for NCSA (completed)  Evaluation under preparation, report expected for the November 2011 GEF Council 29

30. Issues that will be tackled in the NCSA evaluation and that can be raised with us at this meeting:  To what extent have NCSAs been relevant to your country’s needs and priorities? Have they been relevant to support the implementation of conventions?  What was the process of NCSA preparation? Who participated?  What are the main achievements and results of the NCSAs?  Was capacity development improved during the implementation or NCSAs? Any specific examples?  What is the sustainability of the capacity developed? Any specific examples?  Other issues to be included? 30

31. Evaluation planning for GEF-5

32. 32  Consolidation and strengthening of the four streams of evaluative evidence:  Country Portfolio Evaluations: up to 15 during GEF-5  Impact Evaluations: main effort on International Waters and additional impact work on other focal areas  Performance Evaluations: APR continued and strengthened as well as independent process reviews  Thematic Evaluations: focal area strategies and adaptation  These streams of evaluative evidence will enable a timely OPS5 for which less additional work should be needed than for OPS4

33.  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 understanding of 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 33

34.  The LAC region has been visited in 2006-2007  In this constituency: Costa Rica (report # 32)  1 st pilot experience of country portfolio evaluation  The new CPE cycle has started in the LAC region:  Ongoing CPE in Nicaragua and in OECS member countries  Ongoing Country Portfolio Studies parallel to country level evaluation work by UNDP Evaluation Office in El Salvador and in Jamaica  Two more countries are foreseen in the LAC region (still to be determined) 34

35. Thank you! Discussion  Any comments on the issues that will be tackled in the NCSA evaluation? Other issues to be included?  Q&A on the new GEF M&E Policy  Ongoing and future CPE evaluations in the LAC region