evaluation and learning partnership on financing forest ... · evaluation and learning partnership...

CIF – ELPFFRE – 7-9 June 2017 1

Isilda NhantumboPhilippa LincolnXiaoting Hou-Jones8/06/2017

Evaluation and Learning Partnership on Financing Forest Related Enterprises



The consortiumIIED is a policy and action research organization with 46 years of experience promoting sustainable development and linking local priorities to global challengesForest Team – governance (learning groups/platforms); climate change including channelling finance to SMEs; viable, sustainable and inclusive enterprises

LTS International Limited (LTS) is a consultancy and project management firm that supports sustainable development worldwide. LTS has operated for over 43 years in the arenas of forests, ecosystems, climate change, and governance. Leading on the evaluation.



Author nameDateIsilda Nhantumbo2/5/2017

Evaluation LeaderTom Blomley (LTS)

Learning Partnership Coordinator

Xiaoting Hou Jones (IIED)

Lead AdvisorIsilda Nhantumbo (IIED)

Evaluation ManagerPhilippa Lincoln (LTS)

CIFs AU

Other CIF E&L

contractors

Contract management

Routine Reporting Core TeamFinancing

Forest Enterprises

Learning Partnership and learning

groups

Evaluation Quality

Assurance Panel

Paddy Abbot (LTS)James Mayers (IIED)

Reference Group

Peter Dewees (IIED) – MDB Forestry StrategiesDarius Sarshar (LTS) – Private Sector Finance ModelsPROFOR, Donor UK,

observer -CMIA UK, IFC, IDB, Brazil,

Communications Team

Rosalind Goodrich (IIED)Elaine Harty (IIED)David Sankar (IIED)Kirsti Thornber (LTS)

Evaluation Pool

Tillem Burlace (LTS) Matt McConnachie (LTS) National Evaluator teams

Support Team

Forest Enterprise Specialist

Duncan Macqueen (IIED)

The Team and governance



Outline1. Background – the team, objective of the assignment,

general approach, refining the scope

2. Evaluation and learning framework

3. Evaluation methodology for effective learning

4. Plan of Activities

5. Discussion points

6. Feedback areas



1. Background



Objective of the assignment

to help increase the viability and scale of investments in sustainable forest-related enterprises by harvesting lessons from different types and models of financing tested in the FIP as well as non-CIF investments, and applying learning to ongoing and planned forest investments



FIP objectives(a) transformational change in developing

countries policies and practices; (b) piloting of replicable models to generate

learning on the link between investment and emission reduction, sustainable forest management (SFM) and enhanced carbon stocks;

(c) leveraging additional resources to attain effective and sustained REDD+;

(d) providing experience and feedback in the context of UNFCCC deliberations on REDD



FIP supported investmentsTYPE 1. Institutional capacity, forest governance and information

TYPE 2. Forest mitigation measures, including forest ecosystem services

Type 3. Measures outside the forest sector necessary to reduce the pressure on forests



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public grant Public non-grant Private grant Private non-grant


Isilda NhantumboPhilippa LincolnXiaoting Hou-Jones8/06/2017Overarching questions

• Understanding tested investment models across public and private sectors

• lessons on effectiveness of FIP and non-FIP across scales and contexts

• Innovative financing models• Transformative models• Transferrable lessons

• Risks and barriers to private sector investment in forest enterprise

• Enabling environment/conditions for SMEs and large scale private sector

• Early results/outcomes of investment


Isilda NhantumboPhilippa LincolnXiaoting Hou-Jones8/06/2017Approach

• Developmental evaluation

• Learner focused co-evaluation

• Inclusive learning platforms operational in the long term

• MDBs, Governments• Private sector – tap into the growing network on committed companies

and SMEs to sustainable and climate resilient investments

• Joint analysis of findings to strengthen commitment to learning and subsequent action



Approach • Meta-analysis

• Document driven Interviews with key informants (Investment officers, FIP focal points)

• Country case studies• 2-4 country evaluation• Advanced project implementation• New joiners• Non-FIP countries

• FIP and Non-FIP projects

• Online learning exchange


Isilda NhantumboPhilippa LincolnXiaoting Hou-Jones8/06/2017Refining Scope

• Programme v project level;

• ID focal - financial / business models, investment types (enabling to asset);

• By sector / activity type

13



2. Evaluation and learning framework


Isilda NhantumboPhilippa LincolnXiaoting Hou-Jones8/06/2017Objective of the LF

“to provide a structure through which to assess ongoing investment mechanisms and models, develop learning on factors that enable or impede successful outcomes, and identify gaps in the evidence or analytical scope that need to be filled”



Aggregation quantity, quality, time

Marketingadvertising / retailing

The Market

Secure legal rights

Business capacity

Technical know-how

Strong enterprise-

oriented organisatio

n

1. Rights-based advocacy

3. Technical extension

2. E

nter

prise

supp

ort

4. O

rgan

isatio

n

Right-holdersmanage

Natural resource

s

and need Capital

Capacity

Producers

Cooperatives

Associations

Federations

Learning and exchange

Riskassessment and mitigation measures

Finance and investment for

sustainable transformation of

forest landscapes, people’s

livelihoods, economies and climate impacts

Investing in locally controlled forestry


Isilda NhantumboPhilippa LincolnXiaoting Hou-Jones8/06/2017Analytical framework for gender and

inclusivity

Gender and

inclusivity

Rights

EquityPower

Setting

the scene at national level

Provisions and practices:

Access – valuable and productive

assets (land, forests and carbon),

Control, inheritance

Representation in decision making process - InfluenceParticipation in sustainable enterprises

Commodities (timber and non-timberforest products, from natural and plantedforests), value chain actors and netbenefits

Production

• Who• Profit margins

Processing (primary, secondary, tertiary) , Transport of raw materials and final products


CommercializationConsumption




Access to finance by SMEs – challenges for

investments in sustainable and

inclusive forest and agriculture businesses

Interest rates – the cost of lending or borrowing can be

enable or prohibitive; low

interest rates offer incentive for SMEs,

but not always available Rate of return – the

profit on investment determines capacity

to repay credit; financial viability of business is critical; operational costs

(e.g. Due to lack of infrastructure)

Repayment period –short versus long term investment;

financing decisions on annual crops and

commerce versus long term crops such as tree or

forest management

Scale – multiple small scale investments

associated with high transaction costs

(management), but what about their cumulative net

economic, social and potentially

environmental and climate gains?

Risk – perceived or real risk of default and money loss for public and private

investors

The grace period –real start ups or

SMEs expanding to new areas of

investment require a period of delayed payments (e.g. a

year)

Collateral or guarantees –preference for assets such as land, physical assets and equipment associated with liquidity

Business management capacity – understanding of production potential, technology and markets; financial management systems by beneficiaries

Legal registration

Natural disasters – floods, droughts, wind storms, fire

Barriers affecting SMEs’ access to financial resources



Evaluation and Learning framework

Enabling investment

Commercial Rights

Technical support

Business know-how and

market networks

Organizational capacity

Asset investment

Unlocking barriers to financing

Criteria for investment

models

Financing mechanisms

Context, scope of

investmentssectors,

value chains

Transformational potential (pathway to

viable, sustainable

and inclusive (e.g. gender) investments –innovation,

impacts



3. Evaluation methodology



Identification of Methodologies

21

Dual purpose: ID what works, for whom in what context; learning focused

Review of methodologies:

• 7 evaluation / meta analysis methodologies

• focus on realist approach, theory based methods

• Selection / dismissal of methodologies based on benefits and limitations- Focus of ToR (participation, learning, focal question themes)- Practicality and feasibility

• Identification of preferred approach

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Realist approach as pragmatic and goes beyond the what works Relative application to scope of ToR A number of possible evaluation methodologies that could be employed in this assignment have been identified and reviewed by the team, including those outlined in our proposal and others. The methodologies reviewed are mainly theory-based ones, as these provide good potential for responding to the forward looking, participatory and learning focused of the evaluation: what works/ does not work and why, what are the gaps in what is being done, are there opportunities that could be better / more fully, newly exploited. Some have more relevant application to the scope of this assignment than others.



Preferred Methodological Approach

• Realist Inspired Approach

• Meta-analysis – will use Portfolio Review and with targeted Literature reviews.

• The country evaluations – Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROTI) with added elements of Appreciative Inquiry (successes, best practices, alignment with learning approach), Contribution Analysis (causality, excluding rival explanations)

• Data collection will be through document review, stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions / workshops.

• Analysis - ROTI (analysis step); and Realist Inspired Synthesis

22

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Realist Inspired Approach throughout, as it is focused on what works where, why and in what context - in strong alignment with the learning framework paper. This establishes a series of different contexts and related types of investment, and enables construction of models of how and under what conditions different investment strategies work, what constrains them, what interventions may overcome the constraints, and what creates the potential for replication or scale-up. Meta-analysis – will use Portfolio Review to identify the financial instruments, business models, activity types / approaches, and contexts covered by the FIP portfolio, the What and Whom along with targeted Literature reviews. The country evaluations – Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROTI) (participatory, uses visualisation techniques through focus group discussions- learning opp) ; status of the project’s outcomes-impacts pathways and the key underlying factors. Specfically focuses on barriers, enabling factors so responds direcly to that element of ToR; really good for understanding the impact of context on the outcomes to impacts pathways - good fit with our what, where, whom focus. responsible for success or failure.with added elements of Appreciative Inquiry (questions on best practices and successes for the stakeholder discussions) and Contribution Analysis (excluding rival explanations). Data collection will be through document review, stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions. Analysis - ROTI (analysis step - participatory analysis and validation through a ToC workshop in country); and Realist Inspired Synthesis – focused on drawing from across the range of data collected: the evaluations, stakeholder (FIP, other programmes, experts) interviews, literature review, portfolio review, plus the learning events, to draw most relevant lessons



4. Plan of activities –April-March 2018



•Inception •Learning priorities•Case study selection

April-June 2017

•Meta analysis•Online learning•Country case studies•Country learning events•FIP event

July -October•EL report•Briefing papers•International event (?)

October-December 2017

Reference Group

meeting

Reference group

meeting

• Review of report • Finalization of

outputs

January-March 2018

Final RG meeting



5. Discussion points

Meetings with stakeholders

Reference Group meeting



• Demand and supply for financing• Scope for innovation, flexibility?• Unique role of MDBs (Gap filling)

• Success stories• transferrable/replicable models - context• Capitalize on successful initiatives

• Private sector – across different scales• Private financing initiatives • Public-private• Interrogate the FIP projects – subtitle presence of Private Sector

• Gender – access to investment, enterprise

• Technical assistance – financial and business management



6. Feedback areas



• Country Case study (ies) – stories of successand more challenging experiences

• Selection of FIP and non-FIP projects

• Key stakeholders for the learning platforms


Isilda NhantumboPhilippa LincolnXiaoting Hou-Jones8/06/2017Thank you

Isilda Nhantumbo – [email protected]

Philippa Lincoln - [email protected]

Xiaoting Hou Jones [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



evaluation and learning partnership on financing forest ... · evaluation and learning partnership...

Documents