JICA-NEDA JOINT EVALUATION
description
Transcript of JICA-NEDA JOINT EVALUATION
JICA-NEDA JOINT EVALUATION
EVALUATION THEORY, APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES1st M&E Network Forum7-8 November 2011Crown Plaza Manila Galleria, Ortigas Avenue, Ortigas Center
Use of Findings
Target Major Activities
Feedback
JICA
Lessons learned and recommendations compiled into databases
Comprehensive analysis of findings
Listing utilized lessons learned in ex-ante evaluation
Reflecting lessons learned from evaluation in implementation policies
Evaluation training
RecipientGovernments
Joint evaluation
Feedback seminars
Inviting comments on findings from ex-post evaluation
Accountability
People in Japan
and in the recipient country
Distribution of reports
Publicizing evaluation findings on the website www.jica.go.jp/english/operations/evaluation/index
Public seminars on evaluation findings
How findings are utilizedHow findings are utilized
Policy Environment
Managing for Development Results Strengthening internal mechanisms (national
strategic planning, public expenditure management, results-based M&E systems, etc.)
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
JICA Initiatives for M&E
BASIC PRINCIPLE: NEEDS-DRIVEN Thailand: JICA expert on M&E Indonesia: Joint Evaluation MOU in 2006 India: TA on sector-wide reporting system Peru: Aid memoire of joint evaluation with
implementing agencies Nepal: TA on TOT on monitoring
development projects
Challenges for the Philippines
Weak feedback loop: ex-post to ex-ante evaluation
Limited capacity and resources for M&E
Joint Evaluation
MOU signed in May 2006 between NEDA and JBIC (now JICA)
OBJECTIVES:Effective and efficient project implementation Effective and efficient implementation of
overall development operations Institutional improvement through
harmonization of evaluation mechanism
Joint Evaluation
APPROACH: Institutional capacity development alongside improvement of evaluation and feedback mechanism
ACTIVITIES: Introduction to the JICA Evaluation SystemActual/Hands-on Ex-post Evaluation (OJT)FeedbackEnhancement of the Action Plan for M&E
ActivitiesTarget
TimingNED
A
Executing
Agencies
Team of Evaluat
orsJICA
Agree on Evaluation Framework
Dec – Jan JS - JL P
Draft Questionnaire Dec - Jan JS - JL -
Review/finalize Questionnaire
Jan JS - JL -
Kick-off Meeting Jan JS P JL P
Data collection (on-site survey)
Feb - Jun JS P JL -
Draw up Tabular Form (Summary)
Mar - Jun JS P JL -
Discuss Evaluation Findings Apr - Jun JS P JL P
Finalizing Tabular Form Jun JS P JL -
Draft Evaluation Reports Jul JS P JL -
Consult with NEDA on Preliminary Findings
Jan - Aug JS P JL -
Final Feedback Meeting Aug JS - JL P
Finalizing Evaluation Reports
Sep JS P JL P
Delineation of RolesDelineation of Roles
Projects for Joint Evaluation2006-2007 Nationwide Air Navigation Facilities Modernization Project III/DOTC Philippine-Japan Friendship Highway Rehabilitation Project Phase I
and II/DPWH Maritime Safety Improvement Project
2007-2008 Metro Manila Interchange Construction Project Phase IV/ DPWH Pinatubo Hazard Urgent Mitigation Project I/ DPWH Special Economic Zones Environment Management Project/ PEZA
2008-2009 Fisheries Resource Management Project/DA-BFAR Metro Manila Strategic Mass Rail Transit Development (Line 2)
Projects I, II, III/DOTC-LRTA
Projects for Joint Evaluation2009-2010 Lower Agusan Development Project/DPWH and NIA Rural Road Network Development, Phase II/DPWH
2010-2011 Metro Manila Flood Control Project – West Mangahan
Floodway/DPWH Cordillera Road Implementation Project/DPWH
2011-2012 Pampanga Delta Development Project (Irrigation)/NIA Batangas Port Development Project Phase II/DPWH
In general, the CRIP is one strategy for physical integration of CAR; as the RDP 2008-2010 also mentions, the target of paving national roads within CAR, is from 34 to 40 percent. Therefore, DPWH should consider other CAR roads for improvement to further enhance mobility in the region (road network context).
Case Study: Cordillera Road Improvement Project (CRIP)
Ensure due diligence in Detailed Engineering to avoid circumstances that delay project implementation (i.e., final road alignment should have been established during DE stage, hence, NPC’s opposition to utilize Ambuklao dam crest and spillway could have been recognized in advance).
Consider increasing the national standard of laborer per km ratio for road projects in mountainous areas.
LESSONS
Case Study: Cordillera Road Improvement Project (CRIP)
Rating:
BSatisfactory
Relevance 3Effectiveness (including Impact) 3Efficiency 2Sustainability 2
AHighly
Satisfactory
BSatisfactory
CModerately Satisfactory
DUnsatisfactor
y
EffectiveImpact
321
EffectiveImpact
321
Relevance321
Efficiency
321
Sustainable321
Sustainable321
Sustainable321
Efficiency
321
Sustainable321
Efficiency321
Rating Flowchart
Lessons Learned (Project-Level)
Need for Realistic planning and budgeting Mechanism to address cost and time
overrun Sustainable O&M arrangements Stronger commitment of LGUs and other
stakeholders
Lessons Learned (System-Wide)Need for Proper archiving of project documents Baseline indicators Resource allocation for evaluation Stronger cooperation from implementing
agencies Improvements in the rating system Joint evaluation with other development
partners Continuous capacity building
Future Directions
Continued utilization and improvements Policy implications
(End)