1. 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

2. Overview Our CB approach
Current activities which fit within our approach
M&E Constraints encountered
An integrated approach to CB M&E.

3. 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).

4. Examples of our Approach

5. 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.

6. Launched in Jan. 2007 with funding from the EC, UK-DEFRA and IDRC.
19 Pilot Projects in 17 countries. Implemented with ENDA-TM, SEI and START International.
Launched in Jan 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.
The pilot projects selected for funding under ACCCA each aim to achieve the following objectives:
-Identify and prioritize climate risks to stakeholders and the climate influenced decisions that they face; -Assess available knowledge about risks and adaptation opportunities, as well as synthesize the knowledge in terms that are directly relevant to stakeholder concerns and decision-making needs; -Develop, test and disseminate risk communication materials that are designed to assist adaptation decisions; -Use the risk communication materials in stakeholder forums to develop recommendations for climate change adaptation and promote their adoption; and
-Identify critical knowledge gaps that impede effective adaptation decisions and design assessment activities that would generate new knowledge to fill them.

7. 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.
We have gone from LFA/Gantt Charts to RBM to ROM to Outcome Mapping over the course of a few years.
Partners have said: Just tell us how to complete it and we’ll fill in the missing info. Monitoring and evaluation practices do not provide a framework for re-presenting (or meaning-making from) the complex and multiple processes of institutional and individual learning and change that are sought in strengthening institutional capacity.

8. 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.

10. Integrative design
Collaborative relationship with backstopper, who guides and challenges partners to reflect. Facilitated through a collaborative online platform.

12. THANK YOU! www.unitar.org/ccp blane.harvey@unitar.org