Tracking of GEF Portfolio: Monitoring and Evaluation of Results

1
Tracking of GEF Portfolio Monitoring and
Evaluation of Results
Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points Aaron
Zazueta 20-22 October 2009 Cairo, 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

3

• Role of GEF Focal Points in ME
• Keep track of GEF support at the national level.
• Keep stakeholders informed and consulted in
  plans, implementation and results of GEF
  activities.
• Disseminate ME 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.

4

• Main Messages
• FPs participation in ME enhances country
  ownership.
• Role for the FPs in ME 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.

5

• 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.

6

• 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!

7

• 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
  ME GEF Agencies should share the reports on
  project implementation and final evaluations with
  GEF FPs.

8

• 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)

9

• Country Support Programme Website
  (www.gefcountrysupport.org)

10

• COUNTRY PORTFOLIO EVALUATIONS
• Egypt and Syria

11

• 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

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
GEF Evaluation Office finalizes country-specific
terms of reference based on feedback obtained
from stakeholders.
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
7. Consultation workshop
Evaluation team holds workshop with major
stakeholders to discuss evaluation findings and
receive feedback GEF Focal Point organizes,
coordinates, and participates in workshop.
8. Final Report
Evaluation team produces final report,
incorporating the feedback received in the
workshop.
13

• 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.

14

• 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.

15

• 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.

16

• 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.

17

• 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.

18

• Electronic version of CPEs can be found at
• http//www.thegef.org/gefevaluation.aspx?id26076
• Thank you
• Aaron Zazueta
• www.gefeo.org