1. M&E in the GEF

2.  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 2

3. 3  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. 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 4

5. 5

6.  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. 6

7. 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 7

8.  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 8

9.  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 9

10.  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 10

11. Evaluation Streams 11

12.  Performance Evaluations assess:  institutional and procedural issues across the GEF focal 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 12

13.  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 13

14. 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 14

15.  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 15

16.  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 efficiency of 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. 16

17.  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 17

18.  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 18

19. Fifth Overall Performance Study OPS 5 19

20. 20  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.  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 21

22.  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? 22

23.  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 23

24.  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 www.climate-eval.org  Linkedin Group  Social media  News letters  Blog (soon!) 24

25.  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 25

26. Thank you www.gefeo.org 26