Date post: | 24-May-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | enpi-fleg |
View: | 381 times |
Download: | 3 times |
1st Steering Committee Meeting
Minsk, October 1-3, 2013
Results Monitoring at Program and Country Levels
Overview
1. Results Monitoring & Challenges in Phase I
2. Lessons Learned & Results Framework for FLEG II Program
3. Reporting on Program & Country Level
Results Monitoring - FLEG I
• FLEG I Program monitored progress for seven results areas – Tracked results in each country and regionally– Based on qualitative assessments by the
country teams and anecdotal evidence
• No results framework with measurable indicators was developed
Challenges
• How to monitor the impacts of FLEG Program interventions?– With hundreds of activities implemented, there is
anecdotal evidence that the impact of FLEG I has been large
– No baseline survey conducted– Progress towards higher level outcomes is difficult to
judge quantitatively
E.g., development of forest-related educational
materials in Azerbaijan (“Young Foresters’ School”)
Results and achievements
FLEG Final Report (June 2013)
Lessons Learned
Robust and comprehensive results monitoring is key to measuring impacts
and judging higher level impacts quantitatively
Measuring Results for FLEG II
• New Feature for Phase II: Detailed Results Framework developed
• Indicators track progress at regional, national, and sub-national level
• Responsibility for monitoring and data collection: PCTs and/or PMT
Types of Indicators
• Project Development Objective (PDO) Indicators – 3 Core Sector Indicators (World Bank-wide)– 4 Custom Indicators (FLEG II Program
specific)
• Intermediate Results Indicators – 7 Custom Indicators
(FLEG II Program specific)
Project Development Objective Indicators
Core Sector Indicators (CSI) 1. Reforms in forest policy, legislation or other
regulations supported
2. Government institutions provided with capacity building to improve management of forest resources
3. Forest users trained (by gender and ethnicity)
Reforms in forest policy, legislation or other regulations supported
• Linked with PDO 1 (regional level): make progress implementing the 2005 St. Petersburg FLEG Ministerial Declaration in the participating countries and support the participating countries commit to a time-bound action plan to ensure its implementation and follow-up activities.
– Measures whether a project has supported forest sector reforms (Yes/No)• General ongoing policy dialogue with
stakeholders should not be included
– Baseline: ‘No’– Frequency: annual
Core Sector Indicator 1
Government institutions provided with capacity building to improve management of forest
resources
• Linked with PDO 1 (regional level)– Covers capacity-building aimed at
strengthening forest administration institutions to deliver services to the forest sector• Refers to the number of national or sub-national
institutions that have received capacity building • Targeted institutions may be outside of the
forestry sector
– Baseline: ‘zero’– Frequency: annual
Core Sector Indicator 2
Forest users trained
• Linked with PDO 1 (regional level)• Refers to the number of forest users
and community members that have received capacity building through training – 2 Sub-indicators by:
• gender (female)• ethnic minority/indigenous people
– Baseline: ‘zero’– Frequency: annual Core Sector Indicator
3
Results FrameworkProject Development Objective Indicators
Indicator NameCore
Unit of Measure
Baseline
Cumulative Target values
Frequency
Data Source/ Methodology
Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4
End Targe
tCredible process
toward the implementation of the St. Petersburg
declaration launched
Percentage 0.00 100 annualProgram reports
PCT/PMT
Understanding and implementation of FLEG principles by forest practitioners
and other stakeholders
improved
Percentage of
practitioners
x% Based
on survey results
TBD
Twice, baseline and final surveys
Repeated perception surveys of
key decision makers
PMT
Custom Indicators (PDO level)
Results FrameworkProject Development Objective Indicators
Indicator Name CoreUnit of
MeasureBaseline
Cumulative Target values
Frequency
Data Source/ Methodology
Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4
End Targe
t
Uptake of best practice models on sustainable forest
management
Yes/No No Yes annualProgram reports
PCT/PMT
Increased awareness of
decision makers of modern technology and information to improve forest law enforcement and
governance
Percentage of
Decision Makers
x% Based
on survey results
TBD
Twice, baseline and final surveys
Repeated perception surveys of
key decision makers
PMT
Custom Indicators (PDO level)
Intermediate Results Indicators
Tracking progress along the way…
…towards achieving the Project Development
Objectives
Results FrameworkIntermediate Results Indicators
Indicator Name CoreUnit of
MeasureBaselin
e
Cumulative Target values
Frequency
Data Source/ Methodology
Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4
End Targe
tMonitoring plan for implementation of
St. Petersburg declaration
designed and regularly updated in
participating countries
No Number 0.00 7.00 annualProgram reports
PCTs
Regional studies under the
framework of the St. Petersburg declaration
undertaken and disseminated
No Number 0.00 TBD annualProgram reports
PCTs, PMT
Intermediate Results Indicators
Results FrameworkIntermediate Results Indicators
Indicator NameCore
Unit of Measure
Baseline
Cumulative Target values
Frequency
Data Source/ Methodology
Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4
End Targe
tEU Member States’
forest sector knowledge is made
available to participating countries
and knowledge exchange between
participating countries and EU Member
States is ongoing
No Number 0.00TBD(7)
annualProgram reports
PCTs, PMT
Sustainable forest management and improved forest governance best practice models
developed, tested and used for
demonstration purposes by the
Program
No Number 0.00 TBD annualProgram reports
PCTs
Intermediate Results Indicators
Results FrameworkIntermediate Results Indicators
Indicator NameCore
Unit of Measure
Baseline
Cumulative Target values
Frequency
Data Source/ Methodology
Responsibility for Data CollectionYR1 YR2 YR3 YR4
End Targe
t
Modern technology trialed and systems to
improve forest governance developed
by the Program
No Number 0.00 TBD annualProgram reports
PCTs
Awareness, ownership and capacity of key
stakeholders enhancedNo
Percentage of
stakeholders
x% Based
on survey results
TBD
Twice, baseline and final surveys
Repeated perception surveys of
key decision makers
PMT
Media coverage of FLEG issues has
increasedNo Number 0.00 7.00 annual
Repeated media
monitoringPCTs
Intermediate Results Indicators
Defining End Targets
• Action needed by PCTs, PMT to determine end targets for remaining indicators based on– proposed country and regional activities– planned baseline survey
• Discussion at SC meeting
END TARGETS?
Reporting under FLEG II Program
Program-level
Reporting
• Three streams of reporting:
• Country-level (PCT to PMT)
• Organizational-level (WWF & ICUN to WB)
• Program-level (WB to EC)
• Internal Reporting by the World Bank
Reporting under FLEG II Program
Internal WB Reporting
PCTs
PMT
Country-level Organizational-level
IUCN & WWF
WB
Organizational level
WB
EC
Program-level
Country-level Reporting
• Narrative Progress Reports– Quantitative (on the basis of the
Results Framework and indicators)
– “Results Stories”, quotes
• Frequency: semi-annual– Reports for period July to December
due January 31
– Reports for period January to June due July 31
– Final report needs to be prepared prior to activity completion
PCTs
PMT
Country-level
Organizational-level Reporting
• Organizational Reports• Frequency: semi-annual
– Reports for period July to December due January 31
– Reports for period January to June due July 31
– Final narrative report due 6 month after end date of activity implementation, but can be prepared at the end of activity implementation
IUCN & WWF
WB
Organizational level
In accordance with the Grant Agreements
Program-level Reporting
• Narrative Progress Reports: • Summary and Context of Project• Activities carried out during the
reporting period• Difficulties encountered and
measures taken to overcome challenges
• Changes introduced in implementation, including in the procurement plan
• Final Narrative Report • 6 months after end
disbursement date
In accordance with the Administration
Agreement
WB
EC
Program-level
Questions?
Thank you for your attention!