Green Climate Fund: Results-Based Management

• This document provides a reference guide and tool for Accredited Entities, executing partners, and evaluators to effectively manage results-based projects and programmes for the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
• The introduction of the IRMF handbook summarizes the content of each chapter and links to relevant points.

Overview of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Results-Based Management

• A short introduction for those new to RBM within the Green Climate Fund context.
• The GCF uses a results-based management approach to continuously monitor and evaluate project/programme and portfolio performance.
• Data from monitoring and evaluations is used to improve performance and help Accredited Entities (AEs) and the GCF understand why results are occurring (or not), strengthening current and future projects/programmes.
• Results-based management, monitoring, and evaluation are distinct but interdependent approaches.
• Monitoring provides continuous, systematic data collection against specified indicators to give stakeholders insights on progress and performance.
• Evaluation is a systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed intervention, including its design, implementation, and results.
• Results-based management is a strategy using monitoring data and evaluations to assess and improve performance and the achievement of desired results.
• Individual approaches may vary, the design of a GCF project/programme monitoring commonly starts with developing a Theory of Change (TOC) that is required for all GCF proposals.
• The Theory of Change outlines the projects rationale and strategies.
• The TOC should identify a long-term project/programme goal, preconditions for meeting the goal, outcomes and outputs, activities required, and assumptions.
• The TOC helps to identify critical milestones, including results, where results are changes the intervention has influence over.
• The GCF projects/programmes should categorize their intended results across three levels:
  • Impacts are the long-term effects produced directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
  • Outcomes are changes in conditions that occur between project/programme outputs and the achievement of impact.
  • Outputs are changes delivered by project/programme activities that contribute to the achievement of outcomes.
• Potential indicators or measures can be developed for each result once the intervention’s intended results are identified.
• The projects/programmes logical framework also known as a logframe should be developed. It defines how the project/programme will be monitored and assessed over its implementation.
• It should include intended results, performance indicators, means of verification, baseline and target values

Applying the IRMF

• IRMF-related evaluation requirements, roles and responsibilities for AEs, the GCF Secretariat, and evaluators are outlined
• The IRMF brings together monitoring, evaluation, and results-based management processes.
• It provides a structure to assess the performance and progress of individual GCF projects/programmes and the entire GCF portfolio.

Overview of the IRMF

• The IRMF enables consistent measurement and reporting of results at the project/programme level.
• It also Supports monitoring, analysis, and reporting at the investments level.
• It replaces the initial Results Management Framework (RMF) and Mitigation and Adaptation Performance Measurement Frameworks (PMFs).
• The IRMF serves accountability reporting results against targets. It demonstrates how learning strengthens current and future projects/programmes.
• The IRMF monitors project/programme and Fund-level progress towards impact and paradigm shift.
• Projects aligning with the framework, monitor mitigation and adaptation outcomes. This includes enabling conditions promoting paradigm shift.
• The Fund develops understanding of processes and pathways for delivering impacts and promoting paradigm shift.
• Each results level is tracked using indicators and processes.
• Paradigm shift is assessed through scale, replicability, and sustainability while mitigation/adaptation are tracked using four quantitative indicators, and enabling environments use four core indicators.
• The IRMF establishes definitions and methodologies for indicators.
• This includes monitoring and assessment.
• The IRMF applies to projects/programmes, submitted to the GCF Board for approval starting on and from the thirty-second meeting of the Board (B.32).

Measuring Paradigm Shift

• The Fund aims to promote paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate resilience within the context of sustainable development.
• The GCF's Investment Framework uses the investment criteria that assesses the paradigm shift potential of GCF projects/programmes.
• The IRMF articulates indicators projects, to track if projects are contributing to paradigm shift.
• Qualitative assessments of progress are undertaken twice, once during interim evaluation and again during the final evaluation, using a scorecard-based approach across three dimensions.

Measuring Mitigation and Adaptation

• The GCF promotes a paradigm shift towards low-emission climate resilient development by investing across eight results areas.
• Critical climate change mitigation and adaptation outcome indicators are augmented by a series of supplementary indicators.

Measuring Contributions to Enabling Environments

• The GCF supports the enabling conditions and environments that can help efforts towards low-emission climate resilient pathways.
• AEs are encouraged to use the TOC and relevant sections of the funding proposal to detail how a project/programme will support and/or strengthen the enabling environment as they seek to affect.
• AEs should develop a qualitative baseline for understanding their role in selected enabling environment indicators, and should clearly identify the units of analysis being used.

Project/Programme-Level Results

• Projects/programmes create project/programme specific indicators as per the IRMF.
• Proposals must include these tailored indicators and co-benefits.
• Projects/programmes reporting is combined with APRs.
• The GCF Secretariat gathers data to build a portfolio level overview of progress that will continue to be updated.

Applying the IRMF

• The section will detail the IRMF requirements for Accredited Entities and GCF projects/programmes to ensure result-based management.
• Details will be clarified to address the project/programme lifecycle.
• Outlines the detailed IRMF requirements for AEs and GCF projects/programmes and provides guidance on the results-based management processes that need to be applied throughout the project/programme lifecycle.

The Theory of Change

• Outlines rationale, pathways, and strategies, also identifying project/programme goal and outcomes.
• Describes the shift and uses results chain links.
• It includes problem analysis and the coordination of input from stakeholders:
  • Alignment between TOC and IRMF.
  • Submission of TOC to GCF Secretariat.
• Review will provide feedback to AEs.
• It includes confirmation of the alignment between TOC and IRMF
• It includes initial clearance and review of any amendments.

Roles and Responsibilities For GCF Stakeholders

• AE Design of IRMF-aligned TOCs, establish baseline data, and oversight of monitoring and evaluation.
• EE Leading and supporting specific monitoring program, provision of IRMF-related advice and support.
• GCF Secretariat, provide assistance, review of logframe, clearance of data, portfolio-level data, and managing evals.
• GCF Board, final approval of funding proposals.
• Independent Evaluators design and deliver assessments.
• AEs are advised to use the TOC.
• GCF indicators also require monitoring for those AEs involved.

Mitigation and Adaption

• AEs must select all relevant core and supplementary indicators, while leading the baseline and target setting.
• The GCF Secretariat ensures those relevant indicator's have been selected, while clearing methodologies / amendments.
• AEs should include:
  • At least, core 1 emissions reductions or 2 benefits.

Paradigm Shift Dimensions

These include scale, replicability and sustainability.

• The funding proposal should establish baselines within dimensions by describing the current (baseline) context within which GCF will operate.
• -The scorecard should develop quantitative assessments for each dimension.
• Assessors will evaluate shift in interim or final evaluations through pre-defined statements.

Paradigm Shift Scorecards

• The GCF uses investment criteria that needs a short description of paradigm shift potential, The The Investment Facility, AEs, need deeper, more granular descriptions of any progress.
• Measurement is based on three key principles of contributing not attributing, learning not accountability, and consideration of paradigm shift.

Monitoring, Reporting, Communication, and Annual Reports

• APRs are the primary method for AEs to report on project progress.
• The IRMF then provides narrative reports (progress, challenges, and lessons), quantitative mitigation and adaptation indicators, and any project-specific indicators included.
• Scorecard-based assessments are required during interim and final evaluations.

Completion Reports

• Completion reports use APR templates. Projects with mitigation also provide data projections.

Results, Adaptive Management, Reporting, and Communicating

• Key steps include APR data with issues and challenges, IRMF related data reported for website info, and UN Framework.

Planning and Budgeting For Implementation

• Key efforts will identify appropriate human and financial resources.
• Size of project/ programme, location, geography and financial aspects.
• The AEs and Executing Entities should determine institutional capacity.
• Determine novelty of indicators.

Resource considerations

• Budget proportional, location factors, institutional capacity of AEs and executing entities and novelty of indicators. GCF offer new DAE readiness funding.

Validating logframe

• Validate the work-plan review, and evaluate needed amendment considerations.
• Participatory processes in engaging stakeholders should be agreed.

Implementation

• AEs are required to budget and complete interim and final evaluations.

Adaptive Management

• Used more transparently.

Communicating Lessons

• GCF shares learnings about their knowledge.