Involvement and support of governmental institutions MS Overall stakeholder participation S Assessment of Outcomes Outcome 1: Karst and peatland needs integrated in the BiH cantonal spatial planning policies and procedures MU Outcome 2: Water use and mining policies in BiH reflect karst and peatland biodiversity conservation requirements MS Overall Project Outcome Rating (Effectiveness) MU Overall Project Results MU Sustainability Financial Resources ML Socio-political ML Institutional Framework and Governance ML Environmental ML Overall Likelihood of Sustainability ML Progress Toward Impact Environmental Status Improvement N Environmental Stress Reduction M Progress Towards Stress/Status Change M Overall Project Performance Rating S Ratings for Outcomes, Effectiveness, Efficiency, M&E, Implementation and Execution 6: Highly Satisfactory (HS): no shortcomings 5: Satisfactory (S): minor shortcomings 4: Moderately Satisfactory (MS): moderate shortcomings 3. Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): significant shortcomings 2. Unsatisfactory (U): major problems 1. Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): severe problems Sustainability Ratings 4. Likely (L): negligible risks to sustainability 3. Moderately Likely (ML): moderate risks 2. Moderately Unlikely (MU): significant risks 1. Unlikely (U): severe risks Relevance Ratings 2. Relevant (R) 1. Not relevant (NR) Impact Ratings 3. Significant (S): Large-scale impacts 2. Minimal (M): Site-based impacts 1. Negligible (N): Little or no impacts Additional ratings where appropriate Not Applicable (N/A) Unable to Assess (U/A)
Table 5 Key Stakeholders' Involvement in Project Preparation and Implementation Stakeholder Involvement in project preparation Role and responsibility in project implementation Key government project partners FBiH Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations (MOFTER) The state-level MOFTER has primarily a coordinating role with regard to environmental and energy issues, including serving as GEF Operational Focal Point. The ministry has limited implementing capacities, but coordinates its activities through Entities. Also, the Ministry represents the country on international level with regard to environment. However, no new competencies with regard to environmental protection are to be transferred from entities to the state level in the next few years. In the however, this administrative reorganisation should have more efficient and capable state level ministry capable of taking competencies from entities, and not only having a coordination role as it is the case now. Consultations in capacity as GEF Operational Focal Point Exchange of information and political support. Participant of the Project Board. FBiH Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning The previous State level focal point for implementation of the CBD was the FBiH Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, but this responsibility has been transferred to the Federal Ministry for Environment and Tourism (FMOIT). Extensive consultations and wide support to project elaboration. Focal Point for CBD Political support in approval of bylaws on mining, and resolution of water management issues. Support for cross-border agreements with Croatia. Participant of Project Board. FBiH Ministry for Environment and Tourism (FMOIT) As CBD focal point, the Ministry for Environment and Tourism is responsible for communication with international bodies, the initiation of activities required by the Convention and coordination with other relevant authorities and concerned stakeholders. The FMOIT is the competent authority for environment issues. None, as this ministry did not exist at the time. FMOIT representatives were invited to Project Board, but they have never nominated a representative or participated in meetings. FBiH Ministry of Energy, Mining and Industry Competency in coordination and implementation of projects related to energy and mining that are of interest for the Federation, Consultations during the preparation process, exchange of information with Political support for approval of mining rulebooks.
i.e. cross-cantonal projects. The Ministry is competent for creating policy related to energy and geological explorations, including development and approval of by-laws, inspection of electro-energy objects and machinery as well as inspection of exploration and exploitation of mineral resources. The Geology Institute under the authority of the Federal Ministry conducts explorations of basic and regional geological sites that are in the interest of Federation; they also collect, analyse and provide information related to energy, mining, water supply, etc. Ministry’s mining inspectors. Canton 10 Ministry of Construction, Spatial Planning, and Environment Responsible for coordination and creation of the Canton 10 spatial plan. Extensive consultations during the project preparation process Co-financing, collaboration in environmental studies under the Spatial Plan preparation, a beneficiary for capacity building. Participant of Project Board. Cantonal Inspection Office (Canton 10) Responsible for enforcement of laws related to environmental management. Consultations on the role and placement of the communal environmental police/biodiversity officer Initial employer of the biodiversity officer supported under the project. Canton 10 Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry In both FBiH and RS, the agency with primary responsibility for the water sector is within their respective entity Ministries of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry (MoAWF). Within MoAWF, each entity has a Department of Water Management responsible for the water strategy and policy, the issuing of agreements and permits, setting of standards and regulations; ensuring compliance with laws and regulations through licensing and inspections; and overall control of Public Companies for Watershed Areas. Regular consultations Political support for cross-border agreement on the Cetina river catchment use with Croatia. Participant of the Project Board. Municipalities of Tomislavgrad Grahovo and Livno Municipal jurisdictions cover portions of Canton 10 and Livno Polje. Consultations during the project preparation process through bilateral meetings and Collaboration and approval for environmental rules of conduct.
1. For purposes of the financial mechanisms for the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the GEF will function under the guidance of, and be accountable to, the Conference of the Parties (COPs). For purposes of financing activities in the focal area of ozone layer depletion, GEF operational policies will be consistent with those of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its amendments. 2. The GEF will provide new, and additional, grant and concessional funding to meet the agreed incremental costs of measures to achieve agreed global environmental benefits. 3. The GEF will ensure the cost-effectiveness of its activities to maximize global environmental benefits. 4. The GEF will fund projects that are country-driven and based on national priorities designed to support sustainable development, as identified within the context of national programs. 5. The GEF will maintain sufficient flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, including evolving guidance of the Conference of the Parties and experience gained from monitoring and evaluation activities. 6. GEF projects will provide for full disclosure of all non-confidential information. 7. GEF projects will provide for consultation with, and participation as appropriate of, the beneficiaries and affected groups of people. 8. GEF projects will conform to the eligibility requirements set forth in paragraph 9 of the GEF Instrument. 9. In seeking to maximize global environmental benefits, the GEF will emphasize its catalytic role and leverage additional from other sources. 10. The GEF will ensure that its programs and projects are monitored and evaluated on a regular basis.
Annex 3: Evaluation Matrix Evaluation Questions Indicators Sources Data Collection Method Evaluation Criteria: Relevance Does the Karst Mainstreaming project’s objective fit within the priorities of the local government and local communities? Level of coherence between project objective and stated priorities of local stakeholders Local government stakeholders Local community stakeholders Local private sector stakeholders Relevant regional and local planning documents Local level field visit interviews Desk review Does the Karst Mainstreaming project’s objective fit within national priorities? Level of coherence between project objective and national policy priorities and strategies, as stated in official documents National policy documents, such as National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, National Capacity etc. National legislation such as National Forest Code, etc. Desk review National level interviews Did the Karst Mainstreaming project concept originate from local or national stakeholders, and/or were relevant stakeholders sufficiently involved in project development? Level of involvement of local and national stakeholders in project origination and development as indicated by number of planning meetings held, representation of stakeholders in planning meetings, and level of incorporation of stakeholder feedback in project planning Project staff Local and national stakeholders Project documents Field visit interviews Desk review Does the Karst Mainstreaming project’s objective fit GEF strategic priorities and operational principles? Level of coherence between project objective and GEF strategic priorities Level of conformity with GEF operational principles GEF strategic priority documents for period when project was approved Current GEF strategic priority documents GEF operational principles Desk review Field visit interviews Does the Karst Mainstreaming project’s objective support implementation of the Convention on Biological Linkages between project objective and elements of the CBD, such as key articles and programs of work CBD website National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Desk review
Diversity? Other MEAs? Evaluation Criteria: Efficiency Is the Karst Mainstreaming project cost-effective? Quality and comprehensiveness of financial management procedures Project management costs share of total budget Project documents Project staff Desk review Interviews with project staff Are expenditures in line with international standards and norms for development projects? Cost of project inputs and outputs relative to norms and standards for donor projects in the country or region Project documents (budget files, audit, etc.) Project staff National stakeholders Desk review Interviews with project staff Are management and implementation arrangements efficient in delivering the outputs necessary to achieve outcomes? Appropriateness of structure of management arrangements Extent of necessary partnership arrangements Level of participation of relevant stakeholders Project documents Project staff Local, regional and national stakeholders Desk review Interviews with project staff Field visit interviews Was the Karst Mainstreaming project implementation delayed? If so, did that affect cost-effectiveness? Project milestones in time Required project adaptive management measures related to delays Project documents Project staff Desk review Interviews with project staff What is the contribution of cash and in-kind co-financing to project implementation? Level of cash and in-kind relative to expected level Project documents Project staff Desk review Interviews with project staff To what extent is the Karst Mainstreaming project leveraging additional resources? Amount of resources leveraged relative to project budget Project documents Project staff Desk review Interviews with project staff Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness Is the project objective likely to be met? To what extent and in what timeframe? Level of progress toward project indicator targets relative to expected level at current point of implementation Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review What are the key factors contributing to project success or underachievement? Level of documentation of and preparation for project risks, assumptions and impact drivers Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review
What are the key risks and priorities for the remainder of the implementation period? Presence, assessment of, and preparation for expected risks, assumptions and impact drivers Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Is adaptive management being applied to ensure effectiveness? Identified modifications to project plans, as necessary in response to changing assumptions or conditions Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Is monitoring and evaluation used to ensure effective decision-making? Quality of M&E plan in terms of meeting minimum standards, conforming to best practices, and adequate budgeting Consistency of implementation of M&E compared to plan, quality of M&E products Use of M&E products in project management and implementation decision-making Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Evaluation Criteria: Results Are the planned outputs being produced? Are they likely to contribute to the expected project outcomes and objective? Level of project implementation progress relative to expected level at current stage of implementation Existence of logical linkages between project outputs and outcomes/impacts Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Are the anticipated outcomes likely to be achieved? Are the outcomes likely to contribute to the achievement of the project objective? Existence of logical linkages between project outcomes and impacts Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Are the key assumptions and impact drivers relevant to the achievement of Global Environmental Benefits likely to be met? Actions undertaken to address key assumptions and target impact drivers Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Are impact level results likely to be achieved? Are the likely to be at the scale sufficient to be considered Global Environmental indicators Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review
Environmental Benefits? Evaluation Criteria: Sustainability To what extent are project results likely to be dependent on continued financial support? What is the likelihood that any required financial resources will be available to sustain the project results once the GEF assistance ends? Financial requirements for maintenance of project benefits Level of expected financial resources available to support maintenance of project benefits Potential for additional financial resources to support maintenance of project benefits Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Do relevant stakeholders have or are likely to achieve an adequate level of “ownership” of results, to have the interest in ensuring that project benefits are maintained? Level of initiative and engagement of relevant stakeholders in project activities and results Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Do relevant stakeholders have the necessary technical capacity to ensure that project benefits are maintained? Level of technical capacity of relevant stakeholders relative to level required to sustain project benefits Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review To what extent are the project results dependent on factors? Existence of socio-political risks to project benefits Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review To what extent are the project results dependent on issues relating to institutional frameworks and governance? Existence of institutional and governance risks to project benefits Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the future flow of project impacts and Global Environmental Benefits? Existence of environmental risks to project benefits Project documents Project staff Project stakeholders Field visit interviews Desk review