Monitoring and Evaluation
in the GEF
Rob D. van den Berg
Director
 The GEF M&E Policy





M&E objectives
M&E levels and responsible agencies
M&E minimum requirements
Role of the Focal Points
Follow up to evaluations
 Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5)




Objective of the Overall Performance Studies
EO evaluation streams & OPS5
Theory of Change
Content of OPS5 reports
 Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2012
(ACPER 2012)
 Questions & Answers
2
The GEF Monitoring and
Evaluation Policy
 Result-Based Management (RBM) - setting goals
and objectives, monitoring, learning and decision
making
 Evaluation: a “reality check” on RBM
 RBM, which includes Monitoring, tells whether the
organization is “on track”
 Evaluation tells whether the organization is “on
the right track”
4
 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
 M&E contributes to Knowledge Sharing 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 Knowledge Sharing in the GEF includes
 Promotion of a culture of learning
 Application of lessons learned
 Feedback to new activities
6
Enabling
Environment
M&E Policy
COUNCIL
Oversight
GEF
Evaluation
Office
GEF
Evaluation
Office,
Evaluation
Partners
Advice
STAP
GEF
Secretariat,
GEF
Agencies
Partner
Countries,
NGOs, Private
Sector,
Communities
7
 MR1: 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
 MR2: Implementation of M&E Plans
 Project/program monitoring and supervision will include
execution of the M&E plan
 MR3: Project/Program Evaluations
 All FSPs and MSPs will be evaluated
 Reports should be sent to the GEF EO within 12 months of
project completion
 MR4: Engagement of Operational Focal Points
 M&E plans should explain how GEF OFPs will be engaged in
M&E activities
8
MR4: 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
9
 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
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 through the Management Action Record
 For Country Portfolio Evaluations countries have the
opportunity to provide their perspective to Council
as well
11
Fifth Overall Performance Study
(OPS5)
To assess the extent to which the GEF is
achieving its objectives:
 As laid down in the GEF Instrument and reviews by
the Assembly
 As developed and adopted by the GEF Council in
operational policies and programs for GEF financed
activities
 And to identify potential improvements
13
Four streams of evaluative evidence will be
integrated into OPS5
 Country Portfolio Evaluations: evidence from 15+
countries
 Impact Evaluations: International Waters, Climate
Change, Biodiversity
 Performance Evaluations: APR trends
 Thematic Evaluations: focal area strategies and
adaptation
Integration through meta-evaluation into first
report; update in final report
14
OPS4 brought evaluative evidence on three
catalytic elements in GEF support:
 Foundation: role of governments
 Demonstration: introduction of new approaches
 Investment: broad implementation of new
approaches
New evidence since OPS4 has refined elements:
 Elements are mixed according to country/local needs
 Each focal area has a unique mixture of elements,
aiming at different intermediate states
 Focal area strategies evaluation is now exploring
these
15
General Framework for GEF Theory of Change
GEF OUTPUTS & OUTCOMES
INTERMEDIATE STATES
BROADER
ADOPTION
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Implementing
mechanisms & bodies
Technologies
&
approaches
IMPACT
•Sustaining
•Replication
•Mainstreaming •Scaling-up
•Market change
Financial mechanisms
for implementation &
sustainability
•Promoting champions
•Building on promising
initiatives
KNOWLEDGE &
INFORMATION
Information
-sharing &
access
M&E
Awarenessraising
•Raising profile of initiatives
•Removal of barriers
•Innovation
INSTITUTIONAL
CAPACITY
Policy, legal
&
regulatory
frameworks
Stress reduction
Governmental
structures &
arrangements
Knowledge
generation
Skillsbuilding
Improved
environmental status
TRAJECTORY
Informal processes
for trust-building &
conflict resolution
LEGEND
BEHAVIORAL
CHANGE
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE
SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
GEF initiative/
result
Progress towards
impact
Impact/ GEB
Learning & adaptive
management / Positive
reinforcement cycle
First report: at start of replenishment
 A meta-evaluation approach, drawing on
existing GEF evaluations
Final report: end of 2013 or early 2014
 Final report will update meta-evaluation and
include findings of additional studies
17
 Relevance to conventions guidance; for IW relevance to
transboundary issues
 Ratings on outcomes and sustainability of finished projects
 Ratings of progress toward impact of finished projects
 Trends in GEF catalytic role (foundation, demonstration,
investment)
 Trends in country ownership and relevance of GEF’s support to
country needs, including obligations to conventions
 Trends in performance issues
 project cycle, co-financing, management costs and project fees,
quality at entry, supervision.
 Trends in the implementation and achievements of the GEF
focal areas
18
 Trends in global environmental problems and the relevance and added
value of the GEF, also in view of other funding channels
 Ability of the GEF to mobilize sufficient funding for a meaningful role in
focal areas
 A more in-depth look at impact of the GEF focal area strategies,
including multi-focal area support
 Extent to which the GEF reform processes have achieved enhanced
country ownership and improved effectiveness and efficiency
 Governance of the GEF and donor performance
 Trends in the involvement of stakeholders, the private sector and civil
society
 Cross-cutting policies: gender, participation, knowledge sharing
 Update of the SGP evaluation (since 2009)
 Role of STAP
 Health of the GEF Network
19
OPS5 audience includes




Replenishment participants
GEF Council
Assembly
Through the Assembly the members of GEF
Findings will be shared with other GEF
partners





GEF Secretariat
STAP
GEF Agencies
NGO Network
Project proponents and others
20
Three quality assurance advisors
 Recognized experts from developed, newly emerging, and
developing nations
Reference group
 Formed by staff from the GEF Agencies independent
evaluation offices
Stakeholder interaction
 Main venue: Extended Constituency Workshops
 Interaction with GEF Partners
 New media will be explored
Interaction with Council/Replenishment
 Presentation of products to both
 Update on progress at each Council/Replenishment meeting
21
There is no formal track record of the adoption of
findings and recommendations of the Overall
Performance Studies in the GEF
 No formal management response, no formal linkage of
Council decisions to OPS4 recommendations
 Replenishment negotiations ran in parallel to OPS4
With the introduction of a first report at the start
of the replenishment, negotiation documents can
now also formally track emerging decisions on
OPS5 findings and recommendations
22
Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation
Report 2012
(ACPER 2012)
 ACPER 12 reports on country level evaluations
conducted in the LAC region (Nicaragua, OECS,
Brazil, Cuba, El Salvador and Jamaica)
Several SIDS were evaluated (6 OECS, Cuba,
Jamaica)
Conclusion on efficiency:
 SIDSs face challenges due to the specificities in which
they operate. This hampers achieving greater global
environmental benefits.
Recommendation:
 Project approval and implementation in SIDSs should be
more flexible and context-specific.
24
Previous SIDS issues from CPEs/CPSs
 Samoa CPE, 2007: The proposed programmatic approach
for the Pacific SIDS should consider Samoa’s experience
(such as limited capacity, high transaction costs of doing
business, high vulnerability, fragile ecosystems)
 Jamaica CPS, 2010: Many Agency procedures are not
appropriate for small countries in regions with limited
resources. This is seriously hampering the efficiency of
GEF implementation
 OECS CPE, 2011: The design and implementation of
future regional projects in SIDS should be based on a
participatory, stakeholder-driven process, and include
tangible, on-the-ground activities in participating
countries as well as adequate resources for coordination
25
Council Decision on ACPER 2012
The Council requests the Secretariat that:
 Project approval and implementation in Small Island
Developing States should be more flexible and contextspecific
26
Questions & Answers
Thank you
www.gefeo.org
27