1) The document discusses results monitoring for Phase I and Phase II of the FLEG program. It outlines challenges in Phase I monitoring due to a lack of measurable indicators and baseline data. 2) For Phase II, a detailed results framework was developed with indicators to track progress at regional, national and sub-national levels. The framework includes project development objectives (PDO) and intermediate results indicators. 3) Reporting for Phase II will include country-level, organizational-level and program-level reporting according to set frequencies and guidelines. This will allow monitoring of progress toward intended objectives.

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!