1 / 13

2013 – 2016 Intersessional Programme Design Process

2013 – 2016 Intersessional Programme Design Process. CEESP Steering Committee January 2011. The intersessional programme.

etana
Download Presentation

2013 – 2016 Intersessional Programme Design Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2013 – 2016 Intersessional Programme Design Process CEESP Steering Committee January 2011

  2. The intersessional programme • Regulation 2: … “IUCN shallpursueits objectives through an integrated programme of activities, formulated, coordinated and implemented by the Members and components of IUCN ” • Programme ismandatedin out statutesand regulations • It is a union-widedesigned and implemented programme • Statute 20e:… [The functions of the World Congressshallbeinter alia..]....“to consider and approve the programme and financial plan for the perioduntil the nextordinary session of the World Congress” • The mandate to implement the content of anyspecificintersessional programme of workcanonly come from the Members

  3. Trends in intersessional programming (ISP) • Before WCC 2 (Amman) ISP: • wasloose and unstructured – de facto severalprogrammingframeworks. • lacked synergies between IUCN components • 1998 / 1999 crisisled to first focused effort for a more structuredapproach • By WCC 3 (Bangkok) • agreed to operateunder a “one programme” framework • althoughprogress 2005 – 2008 sawincreasingdonor critique that IUCN wasunable to demonstrateresults and no cleardemonstration of conservation interventions thatimprovedhuman-wellbeing • By WCC 4 (Barcelona) • shift to results-basedprogramming • greateremphasis on adhering to value proposition • significantlysharper programme focus • re-organised programme structure

  4. Credible, trusted knowledge Partnerships for action Global to local / Local to global reach Standards and practices IUCN’s Value Proposition Derived from our unique structure and characteristics    

  5. Responsible for Responsible for Responsible for Responsible for • Biodiversity •Climate Change •Energy•Global prog & policy • •Humanwell-being•Green Economy Focal point for: SSC WCPA Focal point for: CEESP CEM Focal point for: CEL Focal point for: CEC

  6. Development of the IUCN Programme 2013-16

  7. Preparation of 2013-16 component plans • Each component of IUCN prepares a component programme plan, following the same basic rules: • The document must contain a clear situation analysis (diagnosis) and justification for the results which are proposed; • The proposed results should align with the Global Programme Areas and Results; • The results must actually be results-based, indicating a clear change in policy, governance or behaviour in an intended audience (policy platform, government, person or organization); • The results must specify targets and indicators of success.

  8. Identifying means to achieve ends • The means (or sub-results) shows how the result will be achieved. • In IUCN’s case, this is a combination of different aspects of the value proposition and other strategies commonly used: • Trusted knowledge, but also what kind of knowledge, packaged in what way? • Convening and partnerships: who can IUCN bring together, particularly those who would not normally convene? • Global to local to global reach: how can IUCN leverage its reach, its experience outside of this region, to bring to bear on the issue? • Standards and practices: deployment of tied and tested tools and approaches • Also • Empowerment and capacity building

  9. Indicators of success • A well formed result will immediately suggest an indicator • Indicators should be: • S - specific • M - measurable • A – achievable and appropriate • R – realistic and reliable • T – time-bound • IUCN often focuses results on policy changes, so it is important to identify indicators that capture: • The qualitative change in the policy that IUCN wants – e.g. Does it refer to IUCN positions or advice regarding biodiversity conservation?

  10. Leverage the existing network model for IUCN’s thematic work Capacity Building (CEC) Gender REDD Co-ordinator • ImplementationNetworks • Vehicle for delivery of thematic (sub)-results, e.g. REDD, EbA, Policy, Gender, Social Safeguards • Designed to implement the one programme across Commissions, National Committees, Secretariat Core Group • Climate Change Core Group • 8 people: Commissions, Council, Regional and HQ Secretariat, • Function:- Overalladvice & quality assurance on programme alignment and delivery Implementing Networks

  11. Timelines and deliverables • A CEESP representative attends programme writing week (24th Jan) • Make sure that CEESP successes are recognised and reported in the 2009 – 2010 IUCN programme report • Map ongoing activities in CEESP and identify institutional partners with similar needs / priorities in other commissions / secretariat regions and global thematics • Identify list of 6 to 10 candidate results justified by alignment with global results (2013 – 2016) – optimise synergies where possible. • Draft of the CEESP 2013-16 component Programme is available for discussion by April • Use opportunity of the Regional Conservation Forum to reinforce mapping process and result identification process • Finalise the CEESP “2013 – 2016” component programme by October

  12. Preparation of the CEESP Programme Plan2013-16

More Related