Mark Zimsky, Senior Biodiversity Specialist - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Mark Zimsky, Senior Biodiversity Specialist PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 667df9-MTlhY


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Mark Zimsky, Senior Biodiversity Specialist


Mark Zimsky, Senior Biodiversity Specialist Biodiversity Focal Area Coordinator Regional Program Manager-Latin America and the Caribbean * GEF-Institutional Context ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:24
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Date added: 15 May 2020
Slides: 23
Provided by: wb28


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

Title: Mark Zimsky, Senior Biodiversity Specialist

Mark Zimsky, Senior Biodiversity
Specialist Biodiversity Focal Area
Coordinator Regional Program Manager-Latin
America and the Caribbean
  • GEF-Institutional Context
  • Weight of the numbers in the biodiversity focal
  • Monitoring and Evaluation in the GEF
  • Portfolio/project monitoring in the biodiversity
    focal area
  • The next step to move this system forward
  • Learning objectives in the GEF-5 strategy to
    advance implementation science
  • Experimental design in projects

Evaluation Office
Donor Replenishment Group
GEF Secretariat
Multilateral Fund of Montreal Protocol
International Waters
Weight of the Numbers Biodiversity Focal Area
  • 2.9 billion in grants, average of 250
    million per year
  • 8.2 billion in cofinancing
  • 990 projects in more than 150 countries,
    average 40-50 projects per year
  • 2302 protected areas covering 634 million
  • Biodiversity mainstreamed in 265 million
    hectares of productive landscapes
  • 123 national biosafety frameworks

(No Transcript)
GEF ME Policy
  • Document that contains minimum requirements for
    monitoring and evaluation (ME) for GEF-funded
    activities covering project design, application
    of ME at the project level, and project
  • This policy aims to explain the concept, role,
    and use of monitoring and evaluation within the
    GEF and define the institutional framework and
    define responsibilities.
  • Currently under review

Partner Key Roles and Responsibilities in ME
GEF Council Policy-making Oversight Enabling environment for ME
GEF Evaluation Office Independent GEF evaluation Oversight of ME Setting minimum requirements for evaluation
GEF Secretariat GEF Results Based Management (monitoring and reporting) Review of GEF ME requirements in project proposals
Agency GEF operational units Monitoring of the Agency GEF portfolio Ensure ME at the project level
Agency evaluation units Project and/or corporate Agency evaluations Mainstreaming GEF into relevant Agency evaluation
STAP Advice on scientific/technical matters in ME Support to scientific and technical indicators
Participating Countries Collaboration on ME at portfolio and project levels
Stakeholders Participation in monitoring activities and mechanisms Providing views and perceptions to evaluations
GEF Evaluation Office
  • Mission
  • Enhance global environmental benefits through
    excellence, independence and partnership in
    monitoring and evaluation
  • Principles
  • Impartiality
  • Professionalism
  • Transparency

Types of Activities in GEFEO
  • Implementation of GEF ME Policy
  • Annual Reporting to Council
  • Country Portfolio Evaluations
  • Performance and process issues
  • Impact
  • Thematic/Cross-sectoral evaluations
  • Active participation evaluation communities
  • Knowledge Sharing
  • dissemination of lessons
  • Overall Performance Studies replenishment

Every Four Years.
Biodiversity Portfolio Monitoring Challenges

  • Challenges
  • Very large heterogeneous portfolio of projects
  • 2) Projects are relatively short-term investments
    therefore outcomes and impact may not be seen or
    measurable until after project closure
    (particularly with biodiversity mainstreaming).
  • 3a) Portfolio monitoring can add costs to project
    level monitoring (data is at project level).
  • 3b) GEF as a networked institutional
    arrangement-many partners and many systems of
    monitoring at work.
  • Working solutions
  • Limit portfolio indicators to a few key
    indicators that all projects can easily deliver.
  • Use proxies that are reliable indicators of
    progress towards the outcomes and impacts sought
    follow up with post-project monitoring on the
  • Identify indicators that add value to project
    level monitoring to minimize all transaction
    costs--rolling up
  • Create simple tools for data collection

Measuring Portfolio Performance with Tracking
Objective To measure progress in achieving
outputs, outcomes and impacts established at the
portfolio level under GEF strategies (GEF-3 and
GEF-4). Rationale Project data from the
GEF-3 and GEF-4 project cohort, respectively, are
aggregated for analysis of directional trends and
patterns at a portfolio-wide level to both inform
the evolution of the biodiversity strategy of the
GEF and to report to GEF Council on
portfolio-level performance in the biodiversity
focal area. Links GEF support directly to
global monitoring processes (2010 indicators,
e.g., coverage of PAs and management
effectiveness of PAs, sustainable use,
etc.) Process The tracking tool is to be
submitted at project start, mid-term evaluation.
GEF-4 Strategy
Objective One Catalyze Sustainability of
Protected Area Systems
Outcomes Indicators Measurement Tools
Sufficient revenue for PA systems to meet total expenditures for management Funding gap for management of PA systems PA financing scorecard (developed by UNDP)
Improved management effectiveness of PAs Protected area management effectiveness METT (developed by WWF and WB)
Increased representation of ecosystems effectively conserved (marine focus) Coverage and PA management effectiveness METT and GEF tracking tool
Objective Two Mainstream Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Use into Production
Landscapes/Seascapes and Sectors
Outcomes Indicators Measurement Tools
Measures to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity incorporated in legal and policy frameworks Policies and regulations governing sectoral activities that integrate biodiversity conservation sustainable use Tracking tool developed by GEFSEC and GEF biodiversity task force
Increase in sustainably managed landscapes and seascapes that integrate BD conservation and sustainable use Landscape/seascape by area that have been certified by internationally recognized standards that incorporate BD considerations Tracking tool developed by GEFSEC and GEF biodiversity task force (certification standards FSC, MSC, etc.)
Markets created for biodiversity goods and services (revised for GEF-5) Number and extent of new PES schemes, new markets for BD goods Tracking tool developed by GEFSEC and GEF biodiversity task force
Global certification schemes for goods produced in agriculture, forestry etc include biodiversity standards (revised for GEF- 5) Internationally accepted certification systems that include technically rigorous biodiversity standards Public record
Objective Three Safeguard Biodiversity
Outcomes Indicators Measurement Tools
Potential risks to biodiversity from LMOs avoided or mitigated National biosafety decision-making systems operability score Tracking tool developed by GEFSEC and GEF biodiversity task force
Potential risks posed to BD from IAS avoided or mitigated IAS management framework operability score Tracking tool developed by GEFSEC and GEF biodiversity task force
Objective Four Build Capacity in Access and
Benefit Sharing
Outcomes Indicators Measurement Tools
Legal and regulatory frameworks and administrative procedures National ABS frameworks operability Tracking tool under development by GEFSEC
Building the Evidence Base
  • Why? Clear and credible evidence about what
    works and under what conditions catalyzes
  • Three Learning Objectives established for the
    Biodiversity Focal Area from 2010-2014

Enhancing Impact and Results through Improved
Understanding of Protected Area Management
Establish an evidence base that is able to better
correlate the METT score of a protected area
(including each of its six elements of protected
area management) to the successful conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity within a
protected area. This learning objective will be
accomplished through a series of country case
studies and field visits to select countries The
case study results will also help inform a
broader quantitative analysis to further
elucidate the causal relationships between the
METT scores, the six elements of protected area
management, and successful conservation within
protected areas.
Enhancing Social Impacts through Improved
Understanding of the Causal Relationships between
Protected Area Management and Local Community
Given that the GEF is a global leader in
supporting protected areas, an improved
understanding of the impacts of protected areas
on human welfare is an important area for
increasing understanding. This learning objective
will contribute to the evidence base about these
impacts by supporting work to answer the
following question, What has been the impact of
protected areas in GEF-recipient countries on
human welfare in neighboring communities, and
under what circumstances has the impact been
positive? This learning objective will be
accomplished through a series of country-level,
quantitative retrospective studies, as well as
complementary case studies when these are
designed to focus on elucidating potential causal
relationships. In a few cases in which new
protected areas are being established, the GEF
may support prospective studies that track health
and livelihood outcomes on a sample of households
close to the protected area and a sample of
households that live outside the influence of the
same parks
Enhancing Impacts through Improved Understanding
of the Causal Relationships between Popular
Mainstreaming Approaches and Conservation
The GEF has supported innovative approaches to
mainstreaming biodiversity in the productive
landscape in GEF-4 and will continue to do so in
GEF-5. Three approaches that are becoming
increasingly popular globally and in the GEF
pipeline are (1) certification (2) payments for
environmental services and (3) information
transfer on the spatial distribution of species
and ecosystem service and the valuation of these
species and services. The learning objective
will ask How do certification, PES and transfers
of information about the distribution and values
of ecosystem services affect conservation and
sustainable use outcomes, and in what
circumstances are they likely to be most
effective? This learning objective will be
accomplished primarily through support of
prospective experimental and quasi-experimental
project designs. When feasible, quantitative
retrospective studies in programs that have
received GEF funding will also be supported.

Thank you for your attention.