AfCoP Sourcebook LIVE: Managing for Global Environmental Results at UNEP's-Division of Global Environment Facility (DGEF)
Click here to access discussion resources and media
I would like to first introduce you to UNEP's Division of Global Environment Facility. The GEF primarily works to deliver global environmental results and its projects address six complex global environmental issues (Focal Areas): the conservation and sustenance of Biological Diversity, mitigation and adaptation of Climate Change, management of International Waters, the prevention and reduction of releases of Persistent Organic Pollutants, the reduction of Land Degradation primarily desertification and deforestation, and the protection of the Ozone Layer The focal areas are designed to align with international environmental conventions, such as, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Layer. GEF financing is strictly for projects that either improve the global environment or advance the prospect of reducing risks to it. Global environmental issues are inherently complex, straddling a wide range of disciplines, countries, communities, and institutions. To deliver and leverage results globally, GEF works in developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the following regions: Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and the Commonwealth Independent States (CIS).
That said, a substantial number of supported projects have a global focus and others are multi-regional. Projects may be proposed, designed and executed by a broad range of proponents and GEF works with a wide range of strategic partners. These include government agencies and other national institutions, international organizations, academic and research institutions, private sector entities and national and international non- governmental organizations. However, the GEF is not an ordinary UN development agency with clear and clean pathways to results. Some of GEF’s focal areas are relatively young and others are too complex, factors that pose unique problems in the design stage, especially in getting appropriate indicators to help in the tracking of results. The GEF’s global trans-boundary context is dynamic and ever changing which makes managing for results an inherently complex and challenging undertaking. For instance, our countries’ economic and demographic challenges such as poverty, hunger, declining sources, low economic growth and rapid population growth, surprisingly have direct implications and bearing on GEF’s global environmental results agenda. In addition, there are the challenges of managing the diverse interests, goals and capacity of partners, as well as their constantly changing priorities and interests.
My case study will be a journey through GEF’s complex pathways to global environmental results. It will look at the many factors that the Division’s staffs have to give attention to in managing for results and especially the delicate balancing acts and trade-offs taken at critical turns. Further, the case will point out things that could go wrong in the design stages of such complex projects, risks and assumptions, and operational and implementation challenges. Discussions will include how challenges have been overcome and implications of “sins of commission and omission” when managing for development results.
In the course of the case study I will introduce you to the GEF headquarter staff (pictures), who so willingly and completely gave me their time, warmth, and invaluable insights during the period of my assignment. As a fore mentioned, wherever possible and convenient, their voices will be sought and added to the discussions.
I invite you to come along, join me in this exciting and extraordinary journey towards global environmental results. Ask questions and bring in your perspectives and hope to engage in a dynamic dialogue with the entire AfCoP community.
Views: 34
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Zaam Ssali on -
Hi Rosa,
Thank you for introducing a case on this critical issue i.e environment. As we all may be aware, at present issues of climate change and the environment at large are taking center stage in both national and international fora as the effects of climate change, environment disregard are all around us. I hope members will contribute in big numbers to this important dialogue.
Before I make my contribution, please enlighten me; correct me if am wrong, I understand several agencies work together on the GEF. Which are these agencies and how exactly do they work together, specifically what is the role of each? When I understand the partnerships, I will pose the questions which come to mind and hopefully contribute better to this interesting discussion.
best wishes,
Zaam
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on -
Hi Zaam,
Many thanks for opening the discussion. To answer your question-The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Bank are the three main implementing agencies of the GEF.
However, the seven other executing agencies that have joined the GEF family over the years which include: The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Inter-American Development Bank (IaDB), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
The GEF secretariat being at the World Bank HQs, in Washington DC.
My case study is on the UNEP-GEF. I hope that answers the question.
Zaam Ssali said:Hi Rosa,
Thank you for introducing a case on this critical issue i.e environment. As we all may be aware, at present issues of climate change and the environment at large are taking center stage in both national and international fora as the effects of climate change, environment disregard are all around us. I hope members will contribute in big numbers to this important dialogue.
Before I make my contribution, please enlighten me; correct me if am wrong, I understand several agencies work together on the GEF. Which are these agencies and how exactly do they work together, specifically what is the role of each? When I understand the partnerships, I will pose the questions which come to mind and hopefully contribute better to this interesting discussion.
best wishes,
Zaam
-
Permalink Reply by Tamirat Yacob on -
Dear Rosa,
Greetings!
Thank you for this interesting case of MfDR at Multilateral institution level.
I have some questions which need some clarifications and your guidance on the matter.
I would like to see some results the GEF achieved in their work using or appplying MfDR principles. And i wanted to know how MfDR helped them to achieve those results.
The other point, may be related to the above one, what are the MfDR challenges and opportunities you have faced when you have been working in GEF as a consultant? May be this will give us the plat form to make this discusion more lively.
Show us some results, challenges and opportunities in GEF.
Best regards,
Tamirat Yacob,
AfCoP CMT,
Ethiopia
-
Permalink Reply by Samer Hachem on -
Dear Rosa,
Greetings and thanks for opening up this interesting discussion.
I had a question related to the fact that there are multiple implementing agencies for GEF projects. I had the chance at some point to work on results reporting question with the department managing GEF projects within UNDP and one difficulty has been reconciling results reporting requirements coming from UNDP side and GEF Secretariat side. Did you encounter the same kind of issues at UNEP-DGEF? More generally, were GEF projects at any point used as "laboratory" for harmonizing around results terminology and reporting between the implementing agencies? Also at the other end of the process, were knowledge products shared among the implementing agencies and was there a common taxonomy used for being able to reuse knowledge in new projects located within the various agencies?
Thanks!
Samer
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on
-
Hi Timarat-
Thanks for joining the discussion and more for the thought provoking questions. My consultancy with GEF had many facets so I will answer your questions as part of the larger story.
To better explain my experience, I would like to first make you understand that when the Executive Director (Ex.D), Ms. Maryam Niamir-Fuller invited me to carry out some urgent assignment at the UNEP-DGEF, ink was hardly dry on her appointment papers as the new Ex.D (I think she was two weeks old as the new Ex.D), but her serious and uncompromising tone towards management for global environmental results was clear and unmistakable- Ms. Carmen Tavera, the then Acting Deputy Director for DGEF, was equally uncompromising about results. As the quality control leader at GEF she had been encountering declining quality at project design level, quality at implementation level, and quality in reporting results and wanted my consultancy to address these gaps.
Three main tasks were therefore given to me-
o One, to write the Annual Results Report 2006/07
o Two, to review the M&E systems, especially the DGEF Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) for a results- focus and further align them to the GEF's M&E and Fiduciary Policies,
o Three to conduct a mini-staff training on RBM during the annual DGEF retreat, based on policy application gaps identified in the reviews of PIRs
My first lessons in the course of doing these assignment:
One, the experience reaffirmed one of the basic principles of RBM- that for the approach to institutionalize the tone and seriousness in application has to be set by the top leadership. If the top is not firm and fully supportive RBM could face a lot of resistance - and at best application will remain adhoc, inconsistent and prone to regression. For example, in this case, if Maryam as a new Director of DGEF was not results-oriented, staff would have quickly picked that from her actions and speech- perhaps slackened on results- and would have tried to identify where her focus and interest lay as the leader -then they would self-align. Luckily, in this case, the culture at DGEF was quickly redefined, sharpened and sealed by Maryam’s strong focus on results.
Two, I leant that it is important that everyone involved shares the same understanding of “results” and knows what results are considered of value by their institution. For instance, when Maryam said that most of the operational changes instituted internally at DGEF did not constitute results- many program staffs were offended. But Maryam was right. In MfDR- global environmental impacts or benefits sought by DGEF cannot obviously be found inside the organization. All the management or operational tasks that takes so much of DGEF staff time- is done to increase efficiency and effectiveness of projects- but it doesn’t count for ‘results’- it’s the MEANS to the END. Results that are of value to global citizens are positive changes that are a consequence of project investments out there where environmental problems were been identified. In the end, the investors will ask the “so what question-”as they do the end-of-project evaluations. That is- is there a change in the problem that was addressed by the GEF project?
Now- in regard to my first task of compiling the Annual Results Report 2006/07, Maryam made it very clear that she wasn’t asking for the typical annual report that lists projects funded during the year, amounts spent, where, for what and so forth. She explicitly indicated that while such information should form part of the annual report, the Report she was asking for was one that could clearly tell the readers (through data- evidence), the difference or changes the DGEF projects were making in addressing identified global environmental problems. An Annual ‘Results’ Report had not been done in DGEF before.
My Challenge 1: Where was I to get compelling data-based evidence for each of GEF’s six Areas of Focus to build the case for all to see what difference the DGEF was making and where it was making the difference? I had files for all the approved and on-going projects- but was that the place to look for evidence of impacts? The answer was no- those were young projects. In managing for Development Results, we know whether development investments have made a difference or not through end-of project independent evaluations.
My Challenge 2: Were the independent end-of-projects evaluation reports for 2006 &2007 available? All in all-there were 25 available evaluation reports for review- mostly from the Biodiversity Focal Area, and International Waters, and a few spread among the other focal areas. (Projects that were evaluated in 2006/07 ideally must have been approved 3-6 years earlier, with concept document outlining the problem and context having been done much earlier).
Challenge 3: If these evaluations were done immediately after the end of the projects- is there not a likelihood that all the planned outcomes might not have fully matured? We know now from experience that change in the problem addressed by a project often is seen several years after the end of the investment or project? Given this limitation, it was advisable to look for evidence of project results that could have accrued after the end- of project evaluation.
Challenge 4: The fourth challenge was that some GEF’s results were not ‘typical’- for instance, some project are approved solely to develop policy frameworks, others to generate global knowledge product s, others to develop new tools and methods, examples of such projects include Biodiversity Indicators of National Use – BINU project, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) project, Assessment of Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Change at a National Scale project, or Global International Waters Assessment – GIWA project. Many projects also focus at strengthening institutions to be able to domesticate international legal frameworks and Protocols. In some cases project results are documents (outputs) and not necessary change in identified global environmental problems.
Related to the above, most of the evaluated projects had been approved in the early days of DGEF (1999-2003) and hence did not have a strong focus on the principles of RBM. A review of project logframes showed varying degrees of understanding and application of results logic thinking. The absence of clear evaluation guidelines for GEF projects during these early years, also affected the quality and consistency of the evaluations.
What I am trying to say is that -when trying to look for data-evidence of results in projects that were not designed, implemented and monitored using a strictly results based approach it can be a huge challenge. That not withstanding, there were many good examples of global and regional results achieved through the maturing RBM system at GEF.
On mitigation and adaptation of climate change GEF results were evident in projects helping reduced Green House Gas emission by promoting energy efficient approaches to industrial areas, promoting market approaches to renewable energy, promoting sustainable innovative systems or urban transport, and management of landuse, landuse change and forestry (LULUCF) as a means to protect carbon stocks and reduce GHG emissions.
On Persistent Organic Pollutants, one huge result was in the control in the use of DDT (for Malaria Vector Control) a persistent organic pollutant that retains it toxicity and degrade after decades. By helping to build the capacities of countries in Mexico and Central America to use chemicals safely, the project showed a decreasing trend of malaria cases in the targeted countries and a reduction in use of DDT.
Another example of global results was UNEP-GEF’s contribution in facilitating drop in consumption and production of Ozone Depleting Substances in countries with economies in transition (most eastern Europe, and parts of Asia). In one project, for example, it had phased out an estimated 21,000 ODP t of hazardous release of Ozone Depleting Substances across the targeted project countries and total consumption of ODS has dropped significantly
In Combating Desertification for instance, there one exemplary project in Africa that targeted the people living at the margins of deserts (Kenya, Bikina Faso, Botswana, Mali, Niger, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa and Zimbabwe) and aimed to provide alternative livelihoods through better agroforestry .Among other interventions drought resistant indigenous grass was introduced and was sustaining pastoralist during dry spells.
Poor people in Africa and others living in areas of low agricultural productivity, depend especially heavily on the genetic diversity of the environment. GEF projects help countries develop frameworks and capacities to help protect and conserve existing biodiversity.
At GEF ‘results’ must reflect change in the problem addressed by the project.
As the discussion continues to my second assignment of reviewing the PIRs-I will share more specifically the challenges GEF was experiencing at the time in the application of the MfDR approach and the steps they took to strengthen application.
I hope this broad reply opens up more space for discussions---
Tamirat Yacob said:Dear Rosa,
Greetings!
Thank you for this interesting case of MfDR at Multilateral institution level.
I have some questions which need some clarifications and your guidance on the matter.
I would like to see some results the GEF achieved in their work using or appplying MfDR principles. And i wanted to know how MfDR helped them to achieve those results.
The other point, may be related to the above one, what are the MfDR challenges and opportunities you have faced when you have been working in GEF as a consultant? May be this will give us the plat form to make this discusion more lively.
Show us some results, challenges and opportunities in GEF.
Best regards,
Tamirat Yacob,
AfCoP CMT,
Ethiopia
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on
-
Hi Samer,
Greeting and its great to have you join the discussion and to bring your perspectives and experience with the UNDP-GEF. In regard to your question about harmonizing reporting with requirement of the GEF secretariat, my sense, and I might be wrong, was that all the agencies implementing the GEF had different results reporting formats. The UNEP-GEF was continually modifying its format – and that gave me the impression that it was not a ‘boiler plate’ from the GEF secretariat. The PIRs responded to some guidelines from the secretariat but think the issue of harmonizing reporting was an option they were exploring.
Specifically, the UNEP-GEF Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) were mainly used as key result-focused monitoring and communication tools. They were designed to show how on-going GEF projects were progressively delivering on the promises made in their theories of change as stipulated in the Project Approval Documents (PRODOCs). The GEF PIR is very comprehensive (17pages), and is deliberately designed to elicit detailed project information that comprehensively and coherently communicates progress on planned results. This system also serves as early warning system of things going wrong. However, like any other iterative communication tool, the PIR depends on good, systematic and organized feedback loops. Ideally these monitoring data (qualitative/quantitative) should tell at any point of the project a cohesive story on the progress towards anticipated change in the status or conditions of identified environmental problems.
For instance, in the first year or second year of a 5 year project cycle, it is expected that PIRs show progress on planned activities and the extent they are generating planned OUTPUTS, in relation to risks identified and assumptions made at the design of the projects (planned high-value activities should aggregate to produce planned outputs ). Project progress is monitored along output indicators and targets and checked against baselines. Ideally at this level, the reporting in PIRs should be able to confirm that planned activities are sufficiently realizing planned outputs or to suggest modifications if data suggests otherwise. Most importantly, the reporting is among other things supposed to indicate what percentage of each output has been realized at every scheduled reporting period.
Likewise, from the mid-term to the end of project, GEF staff is expected to start to report less on outputs and report more on progress towards OUTCOMES. The concern is more about whether being realized are aggregating to realize planned OUTCOMES, and whether more outputs are required to realize the panned outcomes. During this last phase of each project, GEF’s concern is the extent to which each outcome is getting realized and estimations are backed by data/evidence collected around indicators and targets and which again are checked against baselines, assumptions and risks (risks are often higher at this level because the project has no direct control). Staffs using the PIRs try to get indications of what percentage of planned outcomes is likely to be realized by end of project. Variances, if any, are explained. By using baselines and indicator targets, staff can demonstrate the significance of the changes or benefits a project is making in solving environmental problem. The change realized by a project is continually compared to base-line status to give an indication of the significance of the reported change.
In regard to sharing of knowledge products by the various GEF implementing agencies-I am not sure am qualified enough to comment confidently on this- but I certainly know that many of GEF’s global knowledge products were shared through websites and in hard copies. There seemed to be some competition for available resources among these implementing agencies and that could limit the extent of sharing but I have insufficient evidence to support this assumption. That information produced by projects (best practices) was being proactively and strategically shared to designs new projects, again I am not certain. The GEF seemed to lack control over whether the information is read, interpreted, and incorporated into similar projects across implementing agencies.
By the way- what did you mean by GEF projects at any point used as "laboratory" for harmonizing around results terminology and reporting between the implementing agencies?
Samer Hachem said:Dear Rosa,
Greetings and thanks for opening up this interesting discussion.
I had a question related to the fact that there are multiple implementing agencies for GEF projects. I had the chance at some point to work on results reporting question with the department managing GEF projects within UNDP and one difficulty has been reconciling results reporting requirements coming from UNDP side and GEF Secretariat side. Did you encounter the same kind of issues at UNEP-DGEF? More generally, were GEF projects at any point used as "laboratory" for harmonizing around results terminology and reporting between the implementing agencies? Also at the other end of the process, were knowledge products shared among the implementing agencies and was there a common taxonomy used for being able to reuse knowledge in new projects located within the various agencies?
Thanks!
Samer
-
Permalink Reply by Zaam Ssali on
-
Hi Rosa,
From your perspective, how do the different agencies reconcile thier contribution to results for the GEF as a whole? From experience organisations wants to plot clearly thier contributions to a given result which is most times difficult. Ownership issues may therefore come into play.
regards,
Zaam
-
Permalink Reply by Sheila Daunt Escandon on -
Dear Rosa,
Can you speak more about the "unique problems" posed by the relatively young and complex focal areas of the GEF -- what sort of problems did they create in the design phase and how were these problems addressed? What lessons were learned in addressing (or perhaps in not addressing) these issues?
Also, I would love to hear more about the GEF’s global trans-boundary context and the implications of managing for results within this context. How did the diverse economic and demographic challenges have direct implications and bearing on the GEF’s global environmental results agenda? Why was this surprising to you -- what elements?
Thank you,
Sheila
-
Permalink Reply by Sylvestor Obong’o on -
Rosa,
Thanks very much for this. GEF seems to be doing a good job. However, I would like to pose a few issue regarding scoping of the programmes, implementation and measurement of results or impact. One environmental matters tend to tranverse political boundaries or even regional administrative boundaries and therefore challenges tranverse these boundaries, how do such programmes ensure such boundaries are not a limiting factor?. Secondly what is the common results measurement level, is it output or impact!!!
I am looking forward to this journey!!
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on
-
Dear Zaam,
Let me try and answer your question-
Given that GEF is largest financial mechanism for environmental protection globally, and given it is funded by donor countries- most of whom are OECD members, one can start with a safe presumption that delivering RESULTS is a non-negotiable conditionality.
According to available literature, all GEF projects- those of UNEP-GEF included, previously were aligned with an Operational Strategy (done in 1995) that lay the foundation for GEF's efforts in 6 focal areas. The Strategy incorporated guidance from conventions for which GEF serves as financial mechanism: the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. It also established operational guidance for international waters and ozone activities, the latter consistent with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its amendments.
However, in 2007, the original 15 Operational Programs under the GEF Operational Strategy was replaced with a set of revised Focal Area Strategies, presenting long-term Strategic Objectives as well as medium-term Strategic Programs that would be revised at each replenishment cycle. This means that all newly approved projects have to align with one or perhaps more than one Focal Area Strategy.
While each agency could develop its own strategic plan- but they all contribute to the same common goals or results areas, and compete for resources from one pot. The competition for limited resources helps, in a way, ensures that only the best quality projects get funding, and also helps creates quality process in the implementation. Many strategic partnerships have been developed and Focal Area investments (or projects) builds on previous projects and the investments continue to get compounded- hence creating momentum of results. It is very similar to the way different government departments in our countries design strategies that align to sector priorities, which in turn align with National priorities.
By the way- I forgot to mention out that UNEP-GEF, and the other earlier mentioned GEF-implementing UN agencies are not project implementer- but fund implementer. GEF funds environmental projects through Governments, NGOs, universities, etc as earlier mentioned, but with a primary role to monitor quality at design, to backstop and monitor for results during implementation. The Independent Evaluation Office gives evaluation guidelines to all GEF implementing agencies, and has the final judgment on project’s planned RESULTS vis-a-viz actual results- at the end of the project. I am also reliably informed that there are negative implications when an agency has performed poorly.
Zaam Ssali said:Hi Rosa,
From your perspective, how do the different agencies reconcile thier contribution to results for the GEF as a whole? From experience organisations wants to plot clearly thier contributions to a given result which is most times difficult. Ownership issues may therefore come into play.
regards,
Zaam
-
Permalink Reply by Samer Hachem on
-
Hi Rosa. Thanks for the answer and elements on reporting. "Laboratory" was probably not the appropriate word but the idea was that GEF projects could be used as "pilotes" for testing harmonized results reporting among implementing agencies -but that was not the case. I will not add more questions for now but look forward to reading your perspective on the challenges posed by the trans-boundary nature of GEF projects.
Best,
Samer
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on
-
Dear Sheila,
Thanks for the very huge and deep questions. I have decided to answer ithem bits and pieces so that i can give detailed answers- so this is just the first part.
On the "unique problems" faced by some Focal Areas is for instance getting standard indicators. While in other development sectors like education, with a touch of a button you can get all the indicators you need from the literature in the internet and other places, some of GEF’s Focal Area projects do not have that advantage. Hence, they are forced to think through and develop indicators on a case by case or project by project basis. Developing SMART and relevant indicators for any project is a trying exercise-, never mind developing for a project that is exploring new horizons like the Ozone Layer.
That said, UNEP- GEF’s environment is very high-paced, with lots of on-going projects and others in the course of approval -with lots and lots of project appraisal and monitoring travel. A review of Project Implementation Reports indicated that sometimes quality at design can get compromised and that has adverse effects on the achievement of GEF results –for instance;
1. When a project is approved without baselines- it means the significance of the project’s success indicators and targets is compromised or eroded. However, we can only know the change a project is creating to be truly significant, if we know what the situation was at the point of intervention. It is difficult to judge whether results are improving if one has no reference point against which to compare.
2. When a project’s Means of Verification (MOV) in a LogFrame says ‘field reports’ as opposed to naming the actual respondents (e.g data from women farmers etc) who would provide the required data or actual names of documents. (A new person taking over the project will not know what field reports are being referred to).
3. When a project changes data sources mid-way during the implementation, it has implications on data quality and consistency. One should collect data from the same sources (from the same sample) through out the project period for each indicator. When data-users start doubting the quality of data, they don’t use them.
4. When a project’s logic or theory of change is ILLOGICAL it is difficult to implement the project. It is when we have difficulties with RBM terminology, and it affects the way one articulate the theory of change in the LogFrame, that a project’s logic gets messed up. For example, having 8 outcomes, generated by 2 outputs and at times no having indicators in a Logframe raises a red flag. The same could be said of a project having no outputs, but activities leading directly to outcomes. Such projects ultimately become messy to implement, never mind the other complications of tracking and measuring results.
5. When a project has no M&E plan or budgets at design level it means one does not intend to monitor progress or collect data-evidence on planned results; It means one cannot make a case because one has no data to back it up; It also could mean that one could be throwing good money after bad money.
6. When a project had no budgets for mid-term review at design stage- one loses the chance to reflect, learn, and to correct / strengthen the projects cause and effect relationships.
7. When a project has too many indicators at design stage, it becomes almost impossible to track them (too costly-too time consuming and staff start to resist RBM). Two or three strong indicators are said to be ideal, some lead, where possible some proxy, especially where there is little money for in the M&E budget)
8. When indicators are inappropriate or not SMART they give wrong or misleading data, and one does not get value for money in such a project.
9. When timelines for expected outcomes at design are unrealistic, staffs feel set for failure- they suffer burn-out, and resist any performance measurement systems.
10. When projects do not any have target indicators it becomes difficult to consistently track progress throughout the project period
11. When targets lack timelines and specificity (e.g 10% increase by the 2nd year) they are not useful but confusing.
12. When a projects has high risks (risks along the results chain, partner capacity risks, sustainability risks etc), and assumptions identified have no monitoring and mitigation plans and budgets. And then these assumptions do not hold and risks happen, the project is adversely affected, destabilized, and could altogether fail.
In managing for results especially in these complex multi-country, multi-partner projects, I realized one has to be attentive to so many factors at the design phase which is really the make or break of any project.
Whatever 'they' mean when they say 'Keep it Sweet and Simple' (KISS) in regards to RBM practice and application!!
I will describe in my next dialogue how these design challeges were being handled and overcome at the GEF.
Sheila Daunt Escandon said:Dear Rosa,
Can you speak more about the "unique problems" posed by the relatively young and complex focal areas of the GEF -- what sort of problems did they create in the design phase and how were these problems addressed? What lessons were learned in addressing (or perhaps in not addressing) these issues?
Also, I would love to hear more about the GEF’s global trans-boundary context and the implications of managing for results within this context. How did the diverse economic and demographic challenges have direct implications and bearing on the GEF’s global environmental results agenda? Why was this surprising to you -- what elements?
Thank you,
Sheila
Get Involved
Latest Activity
Nuha left a comment for Sylvestor Obong’o"Hi Sylvestor..
Thanks for checking on me. I am very busy these days and jumping between North and South of my country. I hope that things will be better for our Sudans"
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Nuha"Nuha,
Hallo how have you been! You are lost, how is Sudan and work!
"
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Benjamin Mlimbila"Benjamin,
Karibu African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results"
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Salima Madhany"Hi Salima,
Can see you have joined the community! Karibu sana and I hope you will enjoy it!
"
© 2012 Created by copafrica.
