Tracking of GEF Portfolio: Monitoring and Evaluation of Results

Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal PointsAaron Zazueta

20-22 October 2009Cairo, Egypt

2

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring provides management with a basis for decision making on progress and GEF with information on results. Involves:– Ongoing, systematic gathering of qualitative and

quantitative information to track progress on project outcomes & outputs

– Identify implementation issues and propose solutions

Evaluation provides lessons learned and recommendations for future projects, polices and portfolios. Involves:– Periodic assessment of results according to the

criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability

Role of GEF Focal Points in M&E

Keep track of GEF support at the national level.

Keep stakeholders informed and consulted in plans, implementation and results of GEF activities.

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.

3

Main Messages

FPs participation in M&E enhances country ownership.

Role for the FPs in M&E – depends on the institutional setting, capacity and portfolio scope, size.

FP role has become more prominent during GEF-4 (implementation of the RAF). It is expected that there will be further changes for GEF-5.

4

Use of tracking system

Document environmental achievements and their relationship to national goals, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and GEF strategic targets;

Prevent duplication of efforts by other donors or government agencies;

Identify implementation problems and delays;

Support Adaptive Management of projects.

Contribute to reporting on national targets, MDGs, conventions, and GEF strategic targets.

Establishing a system for tracking Country Portfolios helps evaluations by gathering all major GEF project information in one place.

5

Tracking the Portfolio: An Example

Basic Data – such as: • Project Data (name, agency, focal area etc.) • Financial information: GEF grant and cofinancing • Project cycle dates (entry into pipeline, approval, start up)• Found in the PMIS

Substantive Data – such as:• Objective(s), Expected Outcome(s), • Ratings: implementation progress and likelihood of achieving objectives, • Once completed: actual achievements and lessons learned, • Found in project documents

Keep it simple and only collect and record information that will be used!

6

Good practices

GEF National Committee:

– chaired by the GEF FP

– members: FPs from Conventions, other ministries (agriculture, industry, energy, planning and finance), GEF Agencies, civil society organizations, etc.

– should be linked to an already existing inter-sectoral coordination mechanisms (to ensure its institutionalization).

Develop criteria and national protocols for the selection of GEF projects.

National Business Plan for use of GEF funds.

Active participation of the GEF FP in the project M&E: GEF Agencies should share the reports on project implementation and final evaluations with GEF FPs.

7

Available Sources of Information

Project documents: supervision (PIRs) and independent evaluations (mid-term and final) from GEF Agencies.

National development goals tracking systems.

Knowledge exchange with different stakeholders (workshops, conferences, etc)

Information from established focal area task forces, networks, environmental assessments and other relevant activities.

Evaluations conducted by GEF-EO and independent evaluation offices of GEF Agencies.

GEF Project Management Information System (PMIS)

8

Country Support Programme Website (www.gefcountrysupport.org)

9

Tracking Country Portfolios

1. Why track the Country Portfolio? Routine tracking of major elements of each project in the Country Portfolio (progress, inputs, developments, outcomes, challenges, and lessons learned) facilitates information-sharing at and beyond the project level. When a system for regularly documenting project implementation is in place, data about projects and the overall Country Portfolio are easily available for numerous purposes — for example:

National coordination of the GEF portfolio between ministries, implementing and executing agencies (IAs and EAs), and the public;

Input into national decisionmaking on GEF support — for setting priorities, securing support for activities, and planning future activities or support;

A central hub for GEF country information that can be made available to all agencies.

A tracking system provides a standardized means for:

Documenting environmental achievements and their relationship to national goals, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and GEF strategic targets;

Preventing duplication of efforts by other donors or government agencies; Identifying implementation problems and delays; and overall Ensuring that projected achievements, environmental benefits, and

benchmarks remain on schedule, and correcting deviations where possible.

Establishing a systematic system for tracking Country Portfolios facilitates evaluation by gathering all major GEF project information in one place. Over time, the information in such tracking systems yields valuable lessons about implementing environmental projects in a given setting and context, serves as a repository of project and institutional experience, and provides data for the planning and development of future projects.

Umbrella thorned acacia trees from the African savanna Photo: iStockphoto

RELATED TOPICS:

Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Country Portfolio Evaluations

COUNTRY PORTFOLIO EVALUATIONS

Egypt and Syria

10

Country Portfolio Evaluations

Two major objectives:– Understand the results of GEF-supported activities and their implementation in each focal

area– Evaluate how GEF projects align with country strategies and priorities and with GEF's

priorities for global and environmental benefits.

So far, GEF EO has conducted CPEs in:– Latin America: Costa Rica– Asia: Philippines, Samoa– Africa: Benin, Cameroon, Madagascar, South Africa– MENA: Egypt, Syria

11

12

GEF Evaluation Office Director sends a letter to the GEF Focal Point in the country to inform the government that the country has been selected, and to propose to conduct the Country Portfolio Evaluation.

1. Communication

GEF Evaluation Office undertakes a first mission to identify key issues for the evaluation, promote stakeholder participation, and officially launch the evaluation. GEF Focal Point is asked to facilitate the process by identifying interviewees and source documents, organizing interviews, field visits and meetings.

2. Scoping

3. Terms of

reference

An Evaluation team composed by Evaluation Office staff and local consultants conducts research for existing reliable evaluative evidence, and produces the GEF portfolio database, the country environmental framework, a global environmental benefits assessment, and project protocols.

4. Research

Evaluation team performs the evaluation; GEF Focal Point provides logistical support, coordinates meetings, visits to project sites with the evaluation team, and liaises with Agencies.

5. Evaluation

Evaluation team produces a draft report; GEF Focal Point consults with government and assists in preparing a response.

6. Draft Report

Evaluation team holds workshop with major stakeholders to discuss evaluation findings and receive feedback; GEF Focal Point organizes, coordinates, and participates in workshop.

7. Consultation workshop

8. Final ReportEvaluation team produces final report, incorporating the feedback received in the workshop.

GEF Evaluation Office finalizes country-specific terms of reference based on feedback obtained from stakeholders.

Main conclusions (Results)

Conclusion 1. Biodiversity: GEF support has been of strategic importance and has generated some impacts.– Syria: GEF support has increased the number of migratory birds flying into the protected

areas.

Conclusion 2. Climate Change: GEF has introduced the topic and has influenced markets, particularly in energy efficiency.

– Egypt: CO2 equivalent emissions reduction or avoidance coming from GEF support = 16.8 million tons of CO2.

– Syria: no quantitative data.– Both governments are now considering laws dealing with energy efficiency standards and

codes.

13

Main conclusions (Results)

Conclusion 3. Other Focal Areas: limited results.– Combating land degradation is a key national priority in these countries, but no

support from GEF so far.– Exception: IW projects in Egypt (about 15 national and regional projects)

• foundation for collaboration between countries• innovative technologies and approaches for water conservation.

Conclusion 4: Long-term sustainability of achievements is still a challenge.– CPEs also found good examples of sustainability.– Example: development of energy efficiency laws in both Egypt and Syria, will provide

necessary legal framework for the sustainability of the achievements on that topic.

14

Main conclusions (Relevance)

Conclusion 5: GEF support is relevant to national environmental priorities and to the Conventions, although there is no GEF country framework or vision.– Not all national priorities have been prioritized by the GEF:

• Land Degradation (with very limited support)• Freshwater resources management (Syria)

Conclusion 6: Country ownership of the GEF portfolio varies, with many projects ideas driven by GEF Agencies and other external factors. – Particularly true for regional and global projects.– SGPs projects: higher ownership at the local and national level.

15

Main conclusions (Efficiency)

Conclusion 7: The potential benefits of the new project cycle have not reached the country level yet.– GEF is still perceived as overly complicated and inefficient.– Streamlined processes established by the GEF have been overshadowed by the

multiple project proposal revisions (both in substance and of form).

Conclusion 8: Syria has limited access to GEF investment agencies, since the World Bank and the regional Banks do not have programs in Syria.– Led to Council Decision: “The GEF should conduct a survey of countries in exceptional

situations concerning limited access to GEF partner International Financial Institutions.”

16

Main conclusions (Efficiency)

Conclusion 9: Efficiency of the focal point mechanism has a direct correlation to the size of the GEF portfolio.– Egypt: US $92.19 Million– Syria: US $12.72 Million– Establishment of the GEF Unit and a National Steering Committee in Egypt:

• improved the approval process of GEF projects,

• more systematic,

• follows clear priorities,

• more country-driven.

Observation: Databases of GEF activities at the GEF Secretariat, GEF Agencies and/or national focal points are still not accurate.

17

Electronic version of CPEs can be found at:

http://www.thegef.org/gefevaluation.aspx?id=26076

Thank you

Aaron Zazuetawww.gefeo.org

18