Upload
sunila
View
54
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Challenges and constraints in Monitoring and Evaluation of CB. UNITAR’s Recent Experience. Blane Harvey United Nations Institute for Training and Research Climate Change Programme November, 5-6, St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda. Overview. Our CB approach - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Challenges and constraints in Monitoring and Evaluation of
CB
UNITAR’s Recent Experience
Blane HarveyUnited Nations Institute for Training and Research
Climate Change ProgrammeNovember, 5-6, St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda
Overview
• Our CB approach
• Current activities which fit within our approach
• M&E Constraints encountered
• An integrated approach to CB M&E.
Our approach to Capacity Building
• Keys:– Strengthening existing institutional and human
capacity at Southern centers of excellence and with Southern researchers.
– Strengthening the autonomy of Southern institutes and researchers and facilitating South-South cooperation.
– Encouraging partners to develop their own aims and strategies for building capacity internally and with their networks of partners (Endogenously driven approach).
Examples of our Approach
• Partners: ENDA-TM (Senegal), ERC (South Africa), MIND (Sri Lanka).
• Launched in 2003, with funding from the EC, Irish Aid, DANIDA, and the Swiss (FOEN).
• Aims to strengthen the network's ability to deliver targeted training and capacity development at national and regional levels in West and southern Africa, and Asia.
Climate Change Capacity Development
• 19 Pilot Projects in 17 countries. Implemented with ENDA-TM, SEI and START International.
• Launched in Jan. 2007 with funding from the EC, UK-DEFRA and IDRC.
• Focuses upon both the identification and prioritization of climate risks among vulnerable stakeholders and strengthening the capacity of researchers to effectively communicate these risks to stakeholders and policy-makers.
M&E Constraints and Challenges
• Lack of ownership of the M&E process or results:– Different funders = different and ever-changing
monitoring and reporting requirements. • Little is retained in terms of M&E capacity.
– Partners feel alienated from the M&E process. • Non-negotiable, “one-size-fits-all” requirements.• Just another hoop to jump through?• Relevance to their aims?• One-way, upward accountability.
• Provides little account of qualitative “change” or learning and how they occurred.
• Complexity is masked.
Integrative design
• Seeks to accommodate both funder concerns (accountability, verifiable results, timely implementation) and the partner concerns noted above.
• Draws upon both results- and process-oriented approaches to M&E.
• Participatory development of targets at inception and regular review of their viability and appropriateness.
• Encourages partners to document and learn from their experience and change.
Integrative design
• Collaborative relationship with backstopper, who guides and challenges partners to reflect. Facilitated through a collaborative online platform.
THANK YOU!
www.unitar.org/ccp