Monitoring of Capacity Development in GEF

Operations

UNFCCC Expert Workshop onMonitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building in

Developing CountriesSt. John’s, Antigua - November 5-6, 2007

UNFCCC Expert Workshop onMonitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building in

Developing CountriesSt. John’s, Antigua - November 5-6, 2007

Presented by:Jean-Joseph Bellamy, ConsultantTom Twining-Ward, UNDPAbdul-Majeid Haddad, UNEP

AGENDA

Background Definition of Capacity Capacity Results in a Managerial System Attributes of Capacity Development A Framework to Measure CD A Set of Indicators Examples Discussion Points

BACKGROUND• CD - a major priority of the international

community (Paris Declaration)• CD is an integral part of MEAs• The UNDP/GEF NCSA process• GEF-4 emphasizes “capacity building is

essential to results and improving performance at country level”

• CD appears integrated into GEF operations but remains an elusive concept with no link to concrete measurement of its contribution

DEFINITION OF CAPACITY• “Capacity is the ability of people, organizations

and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully” (OECD)

• CD is “the process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time” (OECD)

• Within GEF’s goal, 2 types of intervention:Specific interventions focusing on CDRegular projects with specific CD activities

integrated into project components

CAPACITY RESULTS IN A MANAGERIAL SYSTEM

1. Capacities for engagement2. Capacities to access and use information

and knowledge3. Capacities for policy and legislation

development4. Capacities for management and

implementation5. Capacities to monitor and evaluate

ATTRIBUTES OF CD It requires ownership It requires collaborative agreements It is a continuous process It requires relevant information for effective

decision-making It requires incentives and resources It needs to be part of early project design

ATTRIBUTES OF CD…. related to monitoring and measuring capacity

development

It needs a baseline

It needs benchmarks

It needs to be specific

It needs to be attributable

A FRAMEWORK TO MEASURE CD

Monitoring CD must be reconciled with output/outcome measurement

It also needs to respond to GEF’s need to monitor progress at the project and programme level and its newly set focus “on delivering project outcomes and impacts during implementation” (RBM) to achieve global environmental benefits.

A scorecard-approach is suggested

A SET OF INDICATORSCapacity for Engagement

Legitimacy/mandate of lead organization Operational co-management mechanisms Cooperation with stakeholder groups

Capacity to Access and Use Information and Knowledge

Awareness of stakeholders Information access and sharing by stakeholders Environmental education Research and science Traditional knowledge

A SET OF INDICATORSCapacity for Policy and Legislation Development

Planning and strategy development Adequate policy and regulatory frameworks Informed decision-making

Capacity for Management and Implementation Mobilization and organization of resources Technical skills and technology transfer

Capacity to Monitor and Evaluate Monitoring of projects and programmes Evaluation of projects and programmes

An Example of a Scorecard at project level

Project: Natural Resource Management in GhanaOverall Objective: To promote and strengthen public and private sector efforts to achieve socio-economically and ecologically sustainable use of national forest and wildlife resourcesObjective 1: Improve the policy and regulatory environment for high forest management and timber industry developmentObjective 2: Promote local community involvement in sustainable management of the high forest and savanna woodland zonesObjective 3: Improve management of wildlife resources while increasing their contribution to local livelihoods and economic developmentObjective 4: Implement the National Forest Protection Strategy to enhance conservation of globally significant biodiversity in priority reserves

Capacity functions Contributing to whichStaged indicators: Capacity to… Initial scoreAssessment ChangeAssessment ChangeOverallProject/ Programme Objective?

(Stages 0 - 3) (0 - 3) Score I (- 3 + 3)Score II (- 3 + 3)Change

1 Stakeholder

Engagement1.0 2.0 1.0 2.3 0.3 1.3

0 Responsiblities not clearly defined1 All lead agencies identified2 Mandates of all lead agencies specified3 Authority of all lead agencies recognized0 Lack of co-management1 Nature of co-management agreed2 Co-management mechanisms established3 Co-management functional0 Poor stakeholder involvement1 Key stakeholders identified2 Regular stakeholder consultations established3 Active stakeholder contribution to decision making

d ……..add your own functional components

a Legitimacy/ mandate of lead organization

1,4

Cooperation with stakeholder groups

2, 3, 4

b Operational co-management mechanisms

1, 2, 3, 4

c

2

1 2 1 -1 0

1 2 1 3

1

1

1

1 21 2 3

An Example of a Scorecard at programme level

DISCUSSION POINTSComprehensiveness of the framework:

Does it encompass all “facets” of capacity and CD? What about the categorization into 5 capacity results?

Usability/Friendliness: Is the framework simple enough? Are there too many indicators?

Integration within the overall M&E framework: How to integrate this framework with other monitoring

frameworks such as METT for protected areas? How to limit duplication of capacity indicators in various

monitoring tools (Log-frame, METT, Strategic targets, CD framework, ….)?

Thank You!

UNFCCC Expert Workshop onMonitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building in

Developing CountriesAntigua - November 5-6, 2007

UNFCCC Expert Workshop onMonitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building in

Developing CountriesAntigua - November 5-6, 2007