Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Nina rinnerberger results monitoring and reporting

391

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
391
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Results monitoring under the first FLEG Program focused on seven results areas, including: 1 – increased awareness and commitment of key stakeholders on FLEG2 – effective national and regional FLEG action processes in place3 – increased national ownership and capacity4 – improved regional and sub-regional collaboration and knowledge sharing5 – effective engagement of key trading partners6 – continuation of the formal official Europe-North Asia FLEG process7 – sustainable forest management practices implementedResults areas were monitored in country and regional programs based on qualitative assessments by the country teams and percentage completion of activities, as well as their success and outcome. Narrative reports were prepared to report on progress to the PMT. However, there was no actual results framework with measurable indicators.
  • While there were hundreds of activities with real impact, and while the impact of the Program has been large, this is based on anecdotal evidence. Overall, progress towards higher level outcomes is difficult to judge quantitatively. Example from Azerbaijan: The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, as the main partner, was intensively involved during the development of forest-related educational materials (e.g. teacher support pack “Young Foresters’ School”) and other Program activities including trainings/seminars and studies. FLEG issues are a complex we of different causes and effects: e.g. addressing the issue of illegal logging simply by increasing enforcement or penalties (without addressing the root causes and underlying culture), it is likely that the impact on governance will in fact be worse than doing nothing. Because the drivers for illegal logging (such as poverty, lack of legal or alternative supply) will still be there creating the demand and so, increasing enforcement may simply create opportunities for corruption and collusion. Because of this complexity, it is difficult to select appropriate indicators.
  • Lessons LearnedNevertheless many achievements, which are summarized in the Final Report of the Program.
  • What is different in FLEG II? We now have a detailed Results Framework with indicators to track progress at the different levels – regional, national, and sub-national. Some of the indicators are directly linked to the PDO.
  • What is different in FLEG II? We now have a detailed Results Framework with indicators to track progress at the different levels – regional, national, and sub-national. Some of the indicators are directly linked to the PDO.
  • There are two sets of indictors: one on the PDO level and then Intermediate results indicatorsFirst set of indicators, i.e. PDO-level indicators include: core indicators developed Bank-wide and custom indicators
  • There are two sets of indictors: one on the PDO level and then Intermediate results indicatorsFirst set of indicators, i.e. PDO-level indicators include: core indicators developed Bank-wide and custom indicators.Results framework at the bottom will be used for reporting. Baseline for CSI 1 is No, Target values are tracked each year, annually. End target is yes.
  • CSI #1 – linked with PDO one Some Bank projects aim at supporting reforms of forest policies, forest products trade policies as well as legal and institutional frameworks in client countries. In some federal states, the Bank support to reforms may be delivered at lower, sub-sovereign level12. This indicator measures whether a project has supported forest sector reforms. This includes support to revised policies or legal and institutional reforms that have been adopted by the client. It also includes well-defined, time-bound phased action plans that have been launched with the objective of achieving such forest sector reforms. The processes have to be formalized through documented official endorsement. Adoption of reforms can be indicated by approving new legislation or by issuing implementing regulations or decrees. They also have to inclusive and consultative.13
  • CSI #2:This indicator covers capacity-building projects aiming at strengthening forest administration institutions and other institutions to deliver services to the forest sector. The targeted institutions may also be outside the forest sector (sensu stricto) and they may cover other public institutions or service delivery and law enforcement organizations in the rural landscape. This could include support to the implementation of trade policies during Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) implementation. The baseline value for this indicator is expected to be zero. Guidance on “Government institutions provided with capacity building support to improve management of forest resources”: This refers to the number of national or sub-national institutions (e.g. forest or environmental departments at national, state or province-level) that have received capacity building as a result of the project. This includes support to training of officials, support to operations, information management or investments in physical infrastructure or other facilities. If sub-sovereign units14 are counted separately, it is essential that they have “independence” of each other. As a comparison, if forest policy implementation is piloted in two districts, but they are effectively field organizations for one agency or department, this counts as one institution supported.
  • CSI #3: Important indicator because one of the ways to improve forest governance and forest management is through capacity building and this indicator also will be reported at the corporate WB-level. Results from FLEG II will feed into/contribute to Bank-wide monitoring of impacts of projects. Often World Bank projects do not directly invest in the management of specific land or forest areas. Instead, these capacity-building projects aim at strengthening communities to improve forest management and their livelihood. The expected baseline value for this indicator is zero. Data must be disaggregated by ethnicity10 and gender. Guidance on “Forest users trained (number)”: This refers to the number of forest users and community members that have received capacity building through training as a result of the project. The concept may need to be adjusted according to local practice or national legislation. Training needs to be targeted to specific audience. General media or public awareness campaigns are not included. When estimating the number of people trained, it is essential to avoid double counting if same individuals have participated in a series of training events.
  • Custom indicators (4 in total) were developed to correspond to the three specific PDOs.
  • Custom indicators (4 in total) were developed to correspond to the three specific PDOs.
  • There are two sets of indictors: one on the PDO level and then Intermediate results indicatorsFirst set of indicators, i.e. PDO-level indicators include: core indicators developed Bank-wide and custom indicators.Results framework at the bottom will be used for reporting. Baseline for CSI 1 is No, Target values are tracked each year, annually. End target is yes.
  • Second set of indicators are intermediate results indicators: these include only customized indicators specific to the FLEG II Program (7 in total).
  • Second set of indicators are intermediate results indicators: these include only customized indicators specific to the FLEG II Program (7 in total).
  • Second set of indicators are intermediate results indicators: these include only customized indicators specific to the FLEG II Program (7 in total).Each country as part of their public awareness strategy will need to monitor media coverage of forestry and FLEG issues. A simple count of the number of media articles etc. can demonstrate how FLEG and Forestry coverage is rising.
  • Missing indicators: 2 PDO level and 5 intermediate results indicators
  • Content of Narrative Progress Reports same as that required for reporting to EC:Summary and Context of ProjectActivities carried out during the reporting periodBoth quantitative and narrative End date for activity implementation: IUCN and WWF: December 31, 2016 – final report due June 30, 2017 (PCTs)WB: February 28, 2017 – final report due August 31, 2017 (WB PCT) End disbursement date: June 30, 2017.
  • Content of Narrative Progress Reports same as that required for reporting to EC:Summary and Context of ProjectActivities carried out during the reporting periodBoth quantitative and narrative End date for activity implementation: IUCN and WWF: December 31, 2016 – final report due June 30, 2017 (PCTs)WB: February 28, 2017 – final report due August 31, 2017 (WB PCT) End disbursement date: June 30, 2017.
  • Narrative reports to accompany each funding request.Reports are to provide for comparison of the objectives of the Trust Fund, the results expected and obtained and the budget details for the ProjectFinal Narrative Report (due December 31, 2017)
  • Transcript

    • 1. 1st Steering Committee Meeting Minsk, October 1-3, 2013 Results Monitoring at Program and Country Levels
    • 2. Overview 1. Results Monitoring & Challenges in Phase I 2. Lessons Learned & Results Framework for FLEG II Program 3. Reporting on Program & Country Level
    • 3. 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
    • 4. 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 forestrelated educational materials in Azerbaijan (“Young Foresters‟ School”)
    • 5. Results and achievements FLEG Final Report (June 2013)
    • 6. Lessons Learned Robust and comprehensive results monitoring is key to measuring impacts and judging higher level impacts quantitatively
    • 7. Measuring Results for FLEG II • New Feature for Phase II: Detailed Results Framework developed • Indicators track progress at regional, national, and subnational level • Responsibility for monitoring and data collection: PCTs and/or PMT
    • 8. 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)
    • 9. 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)
    • 10. 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
    • 11. 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
    • 12. 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
    • 13. Custom Indicators (PDO level) Results Framework Project Development Objective Indicators Cumulative Target values Indicator Name Credible process toward the implementation of the St. Petersburg declaration launched Understanding and implementation of FLEG principles by forest practitioners and other stakeholders improved Core Unit of Measure Percentage Responsibility Data Source/ Baseline End Frequency Methodology for Data YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 Collection Target 0.00 Percentage x% Based of on survey practitioners results 100 annual Program reports PCT/PMT TBD Twice, baseline and final surveys Repeated perception surveys of key decision makers PMT
    • 14. Custom Indicators (PDO level) Results Framework Project Development Objective Indicators Cumulative Target values Indicator Name Uptake of best practice models on sustainable forest management Increased awareness of decision makers of modern technology and information to improve forest law enforcement and governance Core Unit of Measure Yes/No Responsibility Data Source/ Baseline End Frequency Methodology for Data YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 Collection Target No Percentage x% Based of Decision on survey Makers results Yes annual Program reports PCT/PMT TBD Twice, baseline and final surveys Repeated perception surveys of key decision makers PMT
    • 15. Intermediate Results Indicators Tracking progress along the way… …towards achieving the Project Development Objectives
    • 16. Intermediate Results Indicators Results Framework Intermediate Results Indicators Cumulative Target values Indicator Name Core Unit of Baseline Measure YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 Responsibility Data Source/ End Frequency Methodology for Data Collection Target Monitoring plan for implementation of St. Petersburg declaration No designed and regularly updated in participating countries Number 0.00 7.00 annual Program reports PCTs Regional studies under the framework of the St. Petersburg declaration undertaken and disseminated Number 0.00 TBD annual Program reports PCTs, PMT No
    • 17. Intermediate Results Indicators Results Framework Intermediate Results Indicators Cumulative Target values Indicator Name Unit of Core Baseline Measure YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 Responsibility Data Source/ End Frequency Methodology for Data Collection Target EU Member States‟ forest sector knowledge is made available to participating countries and knowledge exchange No between participating countries and EU Member States is ongoing Number 0.00 TBD (7) annual Program reports PCTs, PMT Sustainable forest management and improved forest governance best practice No models developed, tested and used for demonstration purposes by the Program Number 0.00 TBD annual Program reports PCTs
    • 18. Intermediate Results Indicators Results Framework Intermediate Results Indicators Indicator Name Cumulative Target values Responsibility Unit of Data Source/ Core Baseline End Frequency Methodology for Data Measure YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 Collection Target Modern technology trialed and systems to improve No forest governance developed by the Program Awareness, ownership and capacity of key stakeholders enhanced Media coverage of FLEG issues has increased TBD annual Program reports PCTs x% Percentag Based e of No on stakeholde survey rs results TBD Twice, baseline and final surveys Repeated perception surveys of key decision makers PMT No 7.00 annual Repeated media monitoring PCTs Number Number 0.00 0.00
    • 19. 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?
    • 20. Reporting under FLEG II Program • Three streams of reporting: Program-level Reporting • Country-level (PCT to PMT) • Organizational-level (WWF & ICUN to WB) • Program-level (WB to EC) • Internal Reporting by the World Bank
    • 21. Reporting under FLEG II Program Country-level Organizational Organizationallevel level Program-level PCTs IUCN & WWF WB PMT WB EC Internal WB Reporting
    • 22. Country-level Reporting • Narrative Progress Reports Country-level PCTs PMT – 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
    • 23. Organizational-level Reporting Organizational level • 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 In accordance with the Grant Agreements
    • 24. Program-level Reporting • Narrative Progress Reports: Program-level • 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 In accordance with the Administration Agreement • 6 months after end disbursement date
    • 25. Questions? Thank you for your attention!

    ×