With a maturing portfolio, the Mitigation Action Facility has increasingly focused on monitoring and evaluation to embed learning across all its activities to enable projects to be scaled up and replicated. Thus, knowledge gained from evidence is not only key to decision-making and improving outcomes at the project level but also for learning from successes and challenges at the portfolio level. The knowledge management and communication related activities therefore builds upon this knowledge generated through monitoring and evaluation. The workstreams of monitoring, evaluation, knowledge management and communication are thus all linked through the role of the Mitigation Action Facility as a Knowledge and Learning Hub.
The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework was first published in 2015 and most recently updated in 2023. It provides the theoretical background to monitoring and reporting processes at the Mitigation Action Facility. The M&E Framework includes an overview of the monitoring and evaluation processes, as well as guidance on the Logframe, indicators and risk monitoring. It serves to harmonise monitoring and evaluation purposes of individual projects and across the Mitigation Action Facility portfolio.
Implementation organisations (former NAMA Support Organisations, NSOs) are required to send semi-annual and annual reports to the Technical Support Unit (TSU). A final report must be submitted within six months of the end of the project.
Monitoring provides a way of measuring how well projects and programmes are being implemented. It generally analyses the efficiency and effectiveness of a project or a programme (i.e. measuring actual outputs or outcomes against planned outputs or outcomes). Monitoring is a systematic management activity aimed at analysing data on a continuous basis so that action can be taken if implementation is deviating from expected results. This is a swift and continuous activity that produces an immediate corrective effect, which makes it of key importance for improving performance. The OECD defines monitoring as ‘a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds’.
The TSU monitors how the overall Mitigation Action Facility programme, including all supported projects, performs. Individual project results feed into the overall monitoring of the Mitigation Action Facility portfolio and are aggregated within the overall Mitigation Action Facility outcome. The information and insights generated by the TSU’s monitoring form one component of the continuous learning and improvement of the Mitigation Action Facility. Monitoring and reporting are one of the TSU’s core responsibilities.
Mitigation Action Facility monitoring seeks to answer key questions as outlined below. The monitoring is based on project reports on the five mandatory core indicators of the Mitigation Action Facility.
- Are the outputs described in the Mitigation Action Facility Logframe being delivered as planned?
- Will the planned and delivered outputs of individual projects contribute to attain the Mitigation Actoin Facility outcome?
- Which risks and challenges faced by projects need to be taken into account in the future?
- What lessons for ongoing and future projects can be learnt from the implementation of the Mitigation Action Facility?
The mandatory core indicators of the Mitigation Action Facility
The Mitigation Action Facility makes use of five mandatory core indicators.
| Category | Indicator |
|---|---|
|
Mitigation
|
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions in projects |
|
Beneficiaries
|
Number of people directly benefitting from projects |
|
Transformational Change
|
Degree to which the supported activities catalyse impact |
|
Public Finance
|
Volume of public finance mobilised for carbon-neutral investment and development |
|
Private Finance
|
Volume of private finance mobilised for carbon-neutral investment and development |
Monitoring requirements for projects
All projects need to present a monitoring plan within their first year of implementation. Indicators measuring co-benefits, engagement on gender issues, assistance to public institutions and policy support are mandatory. Additionally, sector and project specific indicators regarding output, outcome and impact (from the project Logframe) undergo follow up for the purpose of measuring progress. The monitoring plan contains detailed information on monitoring tasks relevant to a particular project, including frequency of and responsibility for data collection. All monitoring costs must be included in the project budget.
The OECD defines evaluation as a ‘systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed project, program or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability’. It is, above all, a learning exercise.
Evaluations are conducted at the Mitigation Action Facility and project levels. They complement monitoring and enable a more in-depth analysis of strategic issues, the assessment of the effects and possible impacts of supported actions. Both programme and project level evaluations are based on the five OECD DAC evaluation criteria.
Programme-level evaluations of the Mitigation Action Facility are conducted every four years, as defined in the M&E Framework. They are formative evaluations to draw out lessons learnt and provide orientation and realignment of strategies for the Mitigation Action Facility. To date, two such evaluations have been conducted: the First Interim Evaluation and the Second Interim Evaluation (under the former NAMA Facility).
Project-level evaluations concern all projects with an overall duration of more than three years. The projects are subject to a mid-term and a final evaluation and learning exercise (ELE). These ELEs are part of the Mitigation Action Facility’s working approach to catalyse transformational change through incremental monitoring processes that allow continuous learning from successes and failures.
The TSU has commissioned AMBERO and Oxford Policy Management to conduct the ELEs. The exercise is based on a theoretical framework that involves a document review, participatory workshops and stakeholder interviews to collect evidence about projects’ results and lessons. These elements are then analysed using a theory-based approach centred on the use of contribution analysis and reinforced by elements of process tracing. The ELEs seek to address the following questions:
The ELEs conclude with a compilation of lessons learnt and recommendations aimed at the evaluated project, project partners, future applicants, and the Mitigation Action Facility itself. The recommendations are addressed by a management response.
