More Enabling and Less Controlling!

1. UNFCCC Meeting on Experiences with Performance Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation of Capacity-Building in Developing Countries More Enabling and Less Controlling! Rio De Janeiro, 6-7 November 2008 Lichia Saner-Yiu CSEND, Geneva, www.csend.org

2. Objectives of Presentation • To urgently draw attention to the need to review CB performance indicators in the context of an institutionalised M&E processes in the partner countries • To clarify that monitoring should not be “mini-evaluation” but rather a management tool! • To propose a monitoring tool which will support greater effectiveness of the CB projects/programme!

3. Field Experience • Capacity Building for the Public Administrative Reforms – China (1988-1997), Slovenia (1994-1996) etc. • Building Business Training Centres in Russia (1995-1997) • Building Negotiation Capacities in the International Arenas: UNFCCC, WTO, FTAA.. (2000-2003) • Strengthening management capacities of UN Agencies & INGOs (ILO, UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, Action Aid …) • Thematic Training and short term consulting inputs for 20+ years • Continue to teach in different universities on topics related to institutional performance management and transformation

4. Contexts • Decision 2/CP.7 • The Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness (2005) • The ACCRA Agenda for Action (2008) calling for accelerated progress in areas of country ownership, inclusive partnerships and achieving development results. Specifically, “Developing countries will strengthen their capacity to lead and manage development”

5. Institutional CB (National Focal Point) Enabling environment National Communications National climate change programmes GHG inventories Vulnerability and adaptation assessment CB for implementation of adaptation measures Assessment for implementation of mitigation options Framework | Scope of priority areas (UNFCCC, 2007) • Research and systematic observation • Development and transfer of technology • Decision-making and participation in international negotiations • CDM • Article 4.8 and 4.9 (LDC Work Programme, NAPA) • Education, training and public awareness • Information and networking

6. The Challenge of Capacity Development (CD) • “Capacity Development is a fundamental component of development and aid effectiveness and a key element in achieving the Millennium Development Goals” (OECD/DAC 2006). • In particular CD is critical to achieving objectives of ownership, aid alignment and mutual accountability, as set in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (March, 2005).

7. The Challenge of Capacity Development (CD) • However, the traditional approach to CD (as a technical process or transfer of knowledge or institutions from North to South) rarely leads to the expected results i.e. sustainable capacity within partner countries. • Increase in funding is not sufficient to address the challenge of capacity development. We need a fundamental change in development practice and the way that we look at the role and function of M&E.

8. Parameters The need for Adequate CD • Focusing on capacity as an endogenous process (led but not exclusively by country actors) including M&E components. • Agreeing at country level on clear (institutional) capacity objectives. • Making effective use of existing capacities and harmonising external support within the MEA framework. • Monitoring outcomes from the perspective of beneficiaries (OECD/DAC Recommendations). • Enhancing institutional learning and knowledge creation through M&E processes for all development partners.

9. Shortcomings of Current Monitoring Practices • It is more of controling than for enabling. • It relies more on self-reporting, than evidence and documented records. • It remains short in providing opportunities to the partners and external (non-national) stakeholders in taking charge of the CD process and in being held accountable for what has been achieved and what has not.

10. Shortcomings of Current Monitoring Practices -2 • The process for the QA of TBCD remains exogenous rather than endogenous. • The learning remains at best temporal, at worst short-lived on the account of the partners since there is no mechanism to ensure institutionalisation of learning. • Monitoring remains as activities to be checked off, rather than an integral part of the day-to-day process and mangement system

11. Confusing Use of Terminology • Mixing terms of “evaluation”, “inspection”, “supervision” and “monitoring” • Monitoring in the parlance of the QM is about “ensuring the CB process is being managed and implemented as required so as to provide objective evidence that the CB process is effective in meeting requirements.” • Monitoring, therefore, should involve reviewing the entire CB process at each stage of the project cycle (from design to implementation) and not just mid-term review or end-of the pipe evaluation.

12. Evaluation • About the past. Who remembers the W’s after 3 or 4 years of project duration? • Lessons learnt for whom? Project partners (beneficiaries, donors, experts) move on to new jobs • Very costly and very heavy for beneficiaries (evaluation tourism) • Against Paris Declaration (e.g.EIF: multiple evaluation methods, LDC overwhelmed with compliance duties)

13. OECD Survey on Monitoring and Paris Declaration (2008). • Les than 10% of countries have sound frameworks to monitor and assess development results. While some progress has been made since 2005, an enormous effort will be required to meet the target of 35% by 2010

14. Urgent Need to Invest • Less evaluation, more monitoring! • Change our mindset and approach to monitoring • Invest in a management information system that monitors and enables In order to accelerate the CB and the attainment of UNFCCC on "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth's climate system“ and MDG 7 – Environmental Sustainability

15. Proposal by Engel, Land, Keijzer (2006)1 • A balanced framework to define the term “Capacity Building” in clear terms (capability to produce development results, to self-organise and act, to adapt and self-renew, relate& create adequate operating space, and to achieve coherence/vision/ strategy) • An excellent framework to develop indicators for baseline studies, progress assessment and benchmark • Yet, there remains a missing link – an institutionalised management system and database to support the emergence of these essential capabilities through practice and to facilitate effective management decision making and self regulation through evidence and data 1. “A balanced approach to monitoring and evaluating capacity and performance”

16. CSEND Proposal Capacity Building model of Monitoring

17. The Three-Tiered Monitoring Framework at the global level Tracking Aid for CB Flows Quantitative Information UNFCCC CBReview Donor Self-Assessment Qualitative Information National Self-Assessment

18. CSEND’s Non Fiduciary AfT Monitoring Framework (within borders) Tracking CB Implementation Process Documentation of Input-Throughput- Output & Outcome data Verification of Participating Donor In-Country Inputs Continuous Improve-ment Validation of AfT Processes Verification of Executing Agency In-Country Inputs Knowledge Creation Verification of National Inputs Based on Paris Decla-ration Principles

19. 1. Defining strategic interests & needs of a DC 5. Evaluating project outcome 2. Initiating & formulating project proposal Monitor 4. Implementing project 3. Appraising & approving project(at country and global levels) Project Cycle CB programming process(framing the scope) Global   National 

20. What Is Needed for An Effective Monitoring System - • M&E protocol • Monitoring methodology (focusing on organisation, management and institutional collaboration) • Third party verification according to the agreed CB objectives and measure

21. A matrix structure and delineating levels of responsibility for monitoring • Institutional actors and roles • Level of responsibilities regarding monitoring • Periodicity of monitoring actions • Inputs needed and from • Outputs produced • Monitoring criteria & indicators • Records

22. Example of M&E System (EIF)

23. It aligns CB with DC/LDC country development and ministerial performance objectives within the context of national strategy • It provides a process management tool for learning transfer, continuous improvement of capacity building processes and outcome (higher pay-off) • It gives ownership and accountability to the beneficiary countries and counterparts • It supports intermittent programme evaluation (monitoring means collecting in-depth data and rich information source) • It facilitates multilevel knowledge creation and knowledge management amongst donors, beneficiaries and experts.

24. Added Value of a CB based monitoring management system • Safeguards against sub-optimal use of resources • Ensures result-based accountability of the capacity building function • Documents quantifiable data for process improvement • Anchors CC agenda within recipient country’s development agenda, planning and implementation processes • Knowledge management in the hands of ALL partners

25. Vision to Achieve Capacity building should assist developing countries to build, develop, strengthen, enhance, and improve their capabilities to achieve the objective of the Convention through the implementation of the provisions of the Convention and the preparation for their effective participation in the Kyoto Protocol process (italic added).

26. Thank You !!