Challenges and constraints in Monitoring and Evaluation of
- Slides: 12
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 • 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
Climate Change Capacity Development • 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.
• 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 blane. harvey@unitar. org annie. roncerel@unitar. org
- Monitoring and evaluation challenges
- Pregnancy and infant cohort monitoring and evaluation
- Pme project management
- Comparison between monitoring and evaluation
- Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation
- M&e dashboard
- Monitoring and evaluation of family planning programs
- Knowledge management monitoring and evaluation
- Importance of planning, monitoring and evaluation
- Monitoring plan sample
- Principles of monitoring and evaluation
- Basics of monitoring and evaluation
- Centre for evaluation and monitoring