Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF

1
Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF
GEF Familiarization Seminar Washington,
D.C. April 2009
2
Objectives of ME in the GEF

• 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

3
Key Government Department Political Focal
Point Operational Focal Point
Other Government Departments (Global
conventions)
Implementing Agencies Executing Agencies
Stakeholders - NGOs - Private Sector -
Civil Society - Other Institutions
4
IAs/EAs
UNDP
Evaluation Office
Donor Replenishment Group
UNEP
STAP
CBD
WB
UNFCC
Assembly
ADB
NGOs
POPs
AfDB
Council
CCD
EBRD
CEO/Chair
GEF Secretariat
FAO
Multilateral Fund of Montreal Protocol
IDB
IFAD
International Waters
UNIDO
5
Who does what?
6
Key roles and responsibilities
7
GEF Evaluation Office

• Mission
• Enhance global environmental benefits
  through excellence, independence and
  partnership in monitoring and evaluation
• Principles
• Impartiality
• Professionalism
• Transparency

8
(No Transcript)
9
What is the ME Policy?

• Document that contains minimum requirements for
  monitoring and evaluation (ME) for GEF-funded
  activities covering project design, application
  of ME 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.

10
Key Concepts (1)

• Evaluation
• Systematic and impartial assessment of an
  activity, project, program, strategy, policy,
  sector, focal area, or other topics
• Provides evidence-based information
• Feeds into management and decision-making
  processes
• Contributes to institutional learning and
  evidence-based policy-making
• Informs the planning, programming, budgeting,
  implementation, and reporting cycle.
• Aims at improving the institutional relevance and
  the achievement of results

11
Uses of Evaluations (examples)
12
Key Concepts (2)

• Monitoring
• Continuous or periodic function that uses
  systematic collection of data, qualitative and
  quantitative, for the purposes of keeping
  activities on track
• Provides management with indications of the
  extent of progress and achievement of objectives
  and progress in the use of allocated funds

13
Monitoring in the GEF Roles and Responsibilities

• The GEF Secretariat is responsible for monitoring
  the overall GEF portfolio.
• The GEF Agencies are responsible for developing
  ME plans and performance and results indicators
  for projects, and for adequately monitoring
  project activities, production of outputs, and
  progress toward outcomes.

14
Key Concepts (3)

• Criteria in GEF evaluations
• Relevance. The extent to which the activity is
  suited to local and national development
  priorities and organizational policies, including
  changes over time
• Effectiveness. The extent to which an objective
  has been achieved or how likely it is to be
  achieved
• Efficiency. The extent to which results have been
  delivered with the least costly resources
  possible also called cost effectiveness or
  efficacy
• Results. The positive and negative, and foreseen
  and unforeseen, changes to and effects produced
  by a development intervention
• Sustainability. The likely ability of an
  intervention to continue to deliver benefits for
  an extended period of time after completion.
  Projects need to be environmentally as well as
  financially and socially sustainable

15
GEF Evaluation Office guiding principles

• Independence
• Impartiality
• Transparency
• Disclosure
• Ethical
• Partnership
• Competencies and Capacities
• Credibility
• Utility

16
Minimum ME Requirements for GEF Projects

• Project Design All projects will include a
  concrete and fully budgeted ME plan
• Application of Project ME Project monitoring
  and supervision will include implementation of
  the ME plan
• Project Evaluation Each Full Sized Project (and
  Medium Sized Project) will be evaluated at end of
  implementation

17
GEF EO Work Program 2008-2009

• RAF Mid Term Review
• Draft for comments mid-September 2008
• Report to Council November 2008
• Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report
• Egypt and Syria
• Report to Council June 2009
• Annual Performance Report 2008
• Report to Council June 2009
• Annual Report on GEF Impact Ozone Depletion
  Substance
• Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia
• Report to Council November 2009
• OPS4 (Overall Performance Study of the GEF)

18
Overall Performance Study of the GEF (OPS4)

• Overall Objective To assess the extent to which
  the GEF is achieving its objectives and to
  identify potential improvements
• TOR Council approved in September 2008
• Key areas (clusters)
• Role and added value of the GEF
• Results
• Relevance
• Performance issues affecting results
• Resource mobilization and financial management

19
OPS4 Implementation Plan

• Implementation Aug. 2008-June 2009
• Country visits
• Consultation with stakeholders
• Interim Report (Replenishment) April 2009
• Progress Report (to Council) June 2009
• Final Report (Replenishment) Aug. 2009
• Publication Dissemination Nov. 2009-Jan. 2010

20
Results and Findings from recent Evaluations

• APR 2007
• Annual CPE

21
Annual Performance Report 2007

• Findings
• The percentage of competed projects with outcome
  ratings in the satisfactory range is close to the
  75 target agreed on in GEF-4 replenisment
• Materialization of cofinancing reported by the
  GEF Agencies was about ¾ of that promised at
  project approval
• A common underlying weakness is the tendency to
  plan and execute training as a one shot
  solution with little consideration for national
  or regional context
• Quality at entry of ME arrangelents is strongly
  associated with actual quality of ME
• The overall quality of terminal evaluation
  reports has significantly improved, yet further
  improvement is needed in reporting financial
  information.

22
Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation 2008

• First report summarizes 3 CPEs Benin,
  Madagascar, South Africa
• Other CPE reports Costa Rica, The Philippines,
  Samoa, Benin, Cameroon, Madagascar, South Africa
• Findings
• GEF support was found to be relevant to national
  environmental and sustainable pdevelopment
  priorities
• Ownership of GEF portfolio needs to be enhanced
• Significant biodiversity environmental benefits
  with GEF support
• Although examples of catalytic effect and
  replication exist, the long-term sustainability
  of the global benefits achieved so far is
  uncertain
• Focal point mechanisms were found to be weak,
  particularly regarding strategic guidance,
  promoting coordination, ME, information sharing
  and learning and synergies

23
Knowledge Sharing

• Publications
• Full Reports
• Signposts
• Web Site
• www.gefeo.org
• Country Support Program

24
In summary

• GEF EO seeks to assess results and promote
  accountability in the GEF by
• Addressing the concerns of Council, countries,
  GEF Agencies, GEF Sec, NGOs and other
  stakeholders
• Providing feedback that helps improve operations
  and results