Monitoring evaluation-and-reporting-1299571066-phpapp02 (1)

Monev

  1. Vcool Ndayak
    Monev
    Transcript Header:
    Monitoring evaluation-and-reporting-1299571066-phpapp02 (1)
    Transcript Body:
    • 1. Monitoring Evaluation and Reporting Strategy Background The SGP-India views monitoring and evaluation as a participatory process, which enables capacity building and understanding and applying lessons learned from the projects’ experiences. Project monitoring and evaluation serves several purposes, facilitates the identification and resolution of problems enhances project performances and ensures congruence with the GEF criteria, provides the basis for technical and financial accountability builds local capacity to implement and manage projects successfully and promote the identification and dissemination of lessons learned by participants themselves. SGP-India has, from the beginning, insisted on clearly defined indicators of performance in all projects. No SGP-India project can be approved without explicit statement of how it will be monitored and evaluated, including where possible quantifiable indicators and targets. All project proposals will also be required to present a “Risk Analysis” stating the critical assumptions and external factors upon which the achievement of project objective depends. This practice will be reinforced and further refined on the basis of feedback from ongoing projects. In due course, group meetings bringing together managers from different projects will be used in formulating, monitoring and evaluating new projects. These peer-based workshops will evolve monitoring strategies that are best suited for the types of field projects being funded by SGP-India. Each field project partner is required to submit Quarterly Progress Report and the NHI to ensure this will follow a systematic follow up procedure. These QPRs will also identify any assistance needed by project partners in the form of technical, social, financial or other inputs that were not foreseen at the time of preparing the project report. The NC and RCs will, to the extent possible, arrange for provision of these inputs and provide advice on any mid-course corrections needed. The multidisciplinary expertise available with NHI, NSC members and the RCm members will be available to SGP-India for identifying, monitoring and evaluating projects. The NHI will undertake a mid-term review and project end evaluation of each project with help from NSC/RCm members or independent consultants to track progress and verify results. The NC and the RCs will maintain systematic information on every project proposal received and from inception to sanction to completion of all project approved. SGP-India will document case studies arising out of this project, reflecting both successes and failures, and disseminate these widely. Formats The formats given in the SGP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Document will be used with necessary adaptations (if required). The formats will incorporate indicators for measuring the progress towards the objectives set out; the effectiveness of processes; gender and participatory aspects of the project and the impact of the project.
    • 2. Ongoing monitoring Monitoring involves the collection and analysis of data about project activities. The data should be easy to understand. It allows project participants to keep track of project activities to determine whether project objectives are being achieved and to make whatever changes are necessary to improve the project performance. The CEE Regional Cells shall be in communication with the NGOs in their areas, during the course of the projects. Organizations will submit quarterly reports, giving details of activities and progress, measured against targets, as also statement of income and expenditure.  The Regional Cells will analyze these reports and keep track of the projects and give feedback to the organizations to make online corrections where necessary. They shall also inform the NC, Regional Committee and the NSC about the progress of the projects, problems faced, etc.  Each project will be visited preferably once in six months, or definitely before the release of the second and third installments. Where possible, the visit will be undertaken by a team of two persons, one from CEE, and another person who may be an expert, a staff member of an NGO or institution working in a similar field, or a member of the Regional Committee. The visiting team will interact extensively with the implementing organization and stakeholders, and will also see the physical progress. A report, in a pre-decided format, shall be made of the visit. Feedback, comments and suggestions will be given in writing to the organization and reported to NC, RCm and NSC.  The release of the second and third installments shall be dependent on satisfactory reports from the organization and the visiting team, and utilization certificates from the organization. Project Evaluation systems (i) Mid Term Evaluation (MTR): Evaluation considers the results and effects of a project in terms of the local and global environment and the quality of life of the participants. It should include an explicit appraisal of whether the project has its stated objectives in terms of the GEF focal area and operational programme, if not analyze the reasons. While the project proposal is being developed, care shall be taken to ensure that measurable outputs and outcomes are detailed therein. All reporting will be done against these.  It will be ensured that each approved GEF/SGP project should include an M&E plan with appropriate indicators. The NGOs will guided to include M&E costs in their project budgets to ensure that the grantees are able to carry out their M&E plans.  The reporting formats will have sections for feedback from various stakeholders involved.  The reporting formats will encourage introspection and reflections on learnings by the implementing NGOs.
    • 3. Evaluation of projects is generally done towards the end of the project implementation and should be included along with monitoring in project design. (ii) Online and Mid-course Corrections - Each time a release of grant installment is to take place, a team would be visiting the project and making a report. This report would clearly specify whether the next installment is to be released, released conditionally, or the project terminated. In case the installment is to be released, this will be done routinely and reported to RCm and NSC. In case there are conditionality, the case shall be discussed at the RCm and the release made with their concurrence to the conditions; in case termination of the project is recommended, the case shall be discussed at the RCm, and be put up to the NSC, with the recommendations of the visiting team and the comments of the RCm. The NSC will take the final decision about the termination of the project. - If the visiting team recommends major changes in the project as proposed, these recommendations will be discussed at the RC and put up to the NSC for final decisions. Ordinarily, such changes should not involve changes in overall budget. - Where there is need for extension of time of the project, RC will give its recommendations, RCm will discuss this and give its comments, and the final decision will be taken by the NSC. (iii) Final Evaluation  The NGO shall prepare a report on completion of the project.  The projects will be evaluated in terms of impact.  NHI, the organization and the stakeholders will together reflect on and evaluate the project, its outcomes and learning and prepare a report on this. The reflection may be done in a workshop mode.  NHI’s report will evaluate the impact of the project and will also reflect on issues like reliability, scaling up; sustainability, etc. SGP project evaluations should include a participatory component. Participatory monitoring and assessment involves early consultation with the community members and stakeholders about project design, the problems to be addressed, potential courses of action community resources which can be brought to bear and the role of external support, participatory research to complete baseline information, participatory definition and agreement on project concept, consensus about the project objectives and activities. Both Monitoring and Evaluation require information about the current state of relevant features of the community or locality usually focussing on the environmental problem in the GEF focal areas and corresponding operational programme before the project activity begins. This is called baseline data. This information is normally used to identify and construct the indicators of the project progress and accomplishments can then be compared to the baseline and hence evaluated. While a monitoring and evaluation framework should be systematic, it should also allow for unexpected occurrences and results.
    View More