introduction - monitoring and evaluation framework
TRANSCRIPT
Monitoring & Evaluation framework in Baltic SCOPE
Riku Varjopuro and Janne Rinne
Finnish Environment Institute
● To develop an evaluation and monitoring framework for transboundary MSP in the Baltic Sea region○ Indicators, governance, cost-effectiveness
● Result indicator: “Suggestion for a monitoring and evaluation process, including estimation of resources needed”
● Facilitating the development of clear planning goals and objectives for project’s case areas and the identification of applicable criteria and indicators○ Goal → Objective → Indicator → Management measure
(Douvere and Ehler 2011)○ SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely)○ Realistic in relation to BalticSCOPE cases?
Introduction
3
● Spatial planning to “deliver the goods”○ Effectives of spatial planning comes from an ability to make
various “other” actors to fall into line• Planners seldom have the means to ensure the implementation
○ Horizontal and vertical coordination
● Planning-as-learning → evaluation is more than measuring the outcomes (Faludi 2000)○ How the plans improve the understanding of decision makers
of present and future problems they face?○ “Decision makers” are not (only) the planers
Outcome and process evaluation
4
Process phases
Preparation Planning process The plan Implementation Outcomes
MonitoringReview
Process evaluation Outcome evaluation
5
Preparation Planning process The plan Implementation Outcomes
MonitoringReview
Process evaluation to support learning and adaptive capacity
Outcome evaluation
Process phases
6
Preparation Planning process The plan Implementation Outcomes
Objectives- Legal basis- Purpose- Scope- Strategic/
detailed- Boundaries- etc.
Indicators
-
-
-
Objectives- Participator
y- Science-
based diagnosis
- Cost-benefit considerations
- etc.
Indicators
Objectives- Objectives
defined- Alternative
s analysed- Outputs
defined- Responsibil
ities- etc.
Indicators
Objectives- Numbers of
outputs - Monitoring
Indicators
Objectives- Healthy
ecosystem- Jobs and
growth
Indicators
7
1. A review of existing MSP evaluation frameworks and literature – draft framework (months 1-6)○ TPEA, MESMA, MASPNOSE, Ehler’s latest, etc…
2. The suggested framework is collaboratively scrutinised and developed with project cases (months 4-18)○ The most important part○ Improve relevance and feasibility (incl. cost-effectiveness)○ First meeting with cases during the second planners’ meeting
3. Finalise the evaluation and monitoring framework for cross-border MSP in the Baltic Sea Region (months 19-24)
M&E framework tasks
Partner Months
SwAM 2
BSH 1
UMS 2,5
Min LV 4
Min EE 2
8
● with NordRegio that is working on the lessons learned○ especially the process evaluation
● with SEA related activities of the cases● with Data work
Coordinate internally
9
● Only to look at the cross-border elements?● The framework as a take-home message to national
processes? ○ Suggestion: to work on the case level to identify commonalities
and differences from monitoring and evaluation perspective
● National differences○ Expectations for MSP○ Progress in MSP○ Strategic goals for MSP○ ”Style” of MSP (Strategic/detailed) ○ Evaluation requirements
● How specific can the objectives be in MSP? (cf. MSFD)○ Need to be addressed in the cases
● Where to draw the line between MSP and other policies?
Critical questions