JICA-NEDA JOINT EVALUATION

EVALUATION THEORY, APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES1st M&E Network Forum7-8 November 2011Crown Plaza Manila Galleria, Ortigas Avenue, Ortigas Center

Use of Findings

Target Major Activities

Feedback

JICA

Lessons learned and recommendations compiled into databases

Comprehensive analysis of findings

Listing utilized lessons learned in ex-ante evaluation

Reflecting lessons learned from evaluation in implementation policies

Evaluation training

RecipientGovernments

Joint evaluation

Feedback seminars

Inviting comments on findings from ex-post evaluation

Accountability

People in Japan

and in the recipient country

Distribution of reports

Publicizing evaluation findings on the website www.jica.go.jp/english/operations/evaluation/index

Public seminars on evaluation findings

How findings are utilizedHow findings are utilized

Policy Environment

Managing for Development Results Strengthening internal mechanisms (national

strategic planning, public expenditure management, results-based M&E systems, etc.)

Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

JICA Initiatives for M&E

BASIC PRINCIPLE: NEEDS-DRIVEN Thailand: JICA expert on M&E Indonesia: Joint Evaluation MOU in 2006 India: TA on sector-wide reporting system Peru: Aid memoire of joint evaluation with

implementing agencies Nepal: TA on TOT on monitoring

development projects

Challenges for the Philippines

Weak feedback loop: ex-post to ex-ante evaluation

Limited capacity and resources for M&E

Joint Evaluation

MOU signed in May 2006 between NEDA and JBIC (now JICA)

OBJECTIVES:Effective and efficient project implementation Effective and efficient implementation of

overall development operations Institutional improvement through

harmonization of evaluation mechanism

Joint Evaluation

APPROACH: Institutional capacity development alongside improvement of evaluation and feedback mechanism

ACTIVITIES: Introduction to the JICA Evaluation SystemActual/Hands-on Ex-post Evaluation (OJT)FeedbackEnhancement of the Action Plan for M&E

ActivitiesTarget

TimingNED

A

Executing

Agencies

Team of Evaluat

orsJICA

Agree on Evaluation Framework

Dec – Jan JS - JL P

Draft Questionnaire Dec - Jan JS - JL -

Review/finalize Questionnaire

Jan JS - JL -

Kick-off Meeting Jan JS P JL P

Data collection (on-site survey)

Feb - Jun JS P JL -

Draw up Tabular Form (Summary)

Mar - Jun JS P JL -

Discuss Evaluation Findings Apr - Jun JS P JL P

Finalizing Tabular Form Jun JS P JL -

Draft Evaluation Reports Jul JS P JL -

Consult with NEDA on Preliminary Findings

Jan - Aug JS P JL -

Final Feedback Meeting Aug JS - JL P

Finalizing Evaluation Reports

Sep JS P JL P

Delineation of RolesDelineation of Roles

Projects for Joint Evaluation2006-2007 Nationwide Air Navigation Facilities Modernization Project III/DOTC Philippine-Japan Friendship Highway Rehabilitation Project Phase I

and II/DPWH Maritime Safety Improvement Project

2007-2008 Metro Manila Interchange Construction Project Phase IV/ DPWH Pinatubo Hazard Urgent Mitigation Project I/ DPWH Special Economic Zones Environment Management Project/ PEZA

2008-2009 Fisheries Resource Management Project/DA-BFAR Metro Manila Strategic Mass Rail Transit Development (Line 2)

Projects I, II, III/DOTC-LRTA

Projects for Joint Evaluation2009-2010 Lower Agusan Development Project/DPWH and NIA Rural Road Network Development, Phase II/DPWH

2010-2011 Metro Manila Flood Control Project – West Mangahan

Floodway/DPWH Cordillera Road Implementation Project/DPWH

2011-2012 Pampanga Delta Development Project (Irrigation)/NIA Batangas Port Development Project Phase II/DPWH

In general, the CRIP is one strategy for physical integration of CAR; as the RDP 2008-2010 also mentions, the target of paving national roads within CAR, is from 34 to 40 percent. Therefore, DPWH should consider other CAR roads for improvement to further enhance mobility in the region (road network context).

Case Study: Cordillera Road Improvement Project (CRIP)

Ensure due diligence in Detailed Engineering to avoid circumstances that delay project implementation (i.e., final road alignment should have been established during DE stage, hence, NPC’s opposition to utilize Ambuklao dam crest and spillway could have been recognized in advance).

Consider increasing the national standard of laborer per km ratio for road projects in mountainous areas.

LESSONS

Case Study: Cordillera Road Improvement Project (CRIP)

Rating:

BSatisfactory

Relevance 3Effectiveness (including Impact) 3Efficiency 2Sustainability 2

AHighly

Satisfactory

BSatisfactory

CModerately Satisfactory

DUnsatisfactor

y

EffectiveImpact

321

EffectiveImpact

321

Relevance321

Efficiency

321

Sustainable321

Sustainable321

Sustainable321

Efficiency

321

Sustainable321

Efficiency321

Rating Flowchart

Lessons Learned (Project-Level)

Need for Realistic planning and budgeting Mechanism to address cost and time

overrun Sustainable O&M arrangements Stronger commitment of LGUs and other

stakeholders

Lessons Learned (System-Wide)Need for Proper archiving of project documents Baseline indicators Resource allocation for evaluation Stronger cooperation from implementing

agencies Improvements in the rating system Joint evaluation with other development

partners Continuous capacity building

Future Directions

Continued utilization and improvements Policy implications

(End)