Tracking of GEF Portfolio: Monitoring and Evaluation of Results - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Tracking of GEF Portfolio: Monitoring and Evaluation of Results PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 159abf-MzYwY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Tracking of GEF Portfolio: Monitoring and Evaluation of Results

Description:

GEF Evaluation Office Director sends a letter to the GEF Focal Point in the ... Example: development of energy efficiency laws in both Egypt and Syria, will ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:47
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: marias163
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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
About PowerShow.com