Methodologies of monitoring and evaluating capacity development

1. UNFCCC Expert Workshop on Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity-Building in Developing CountriesRio de Janeiro, Brazil, 6-7 November, 2008 Methodologies of monitoring and evaluating capacity development Makoto Kato Japan kato@oecc.or.jp

2. Outline • Defining Capacity, and Capacity Development • Methodologies and Tools for Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Development • Comparison? M&E at national level? • Uniqueness of Capacity Development in Climate Change area

3. Defining Capacity, and Capacity Development Capacity: Developing countries’ ability to cope with challenges by their ownorganization and actions. Capacity development: Process in which such capacity is being strengthened and sustained at individual, institutional, and society levels as a whole. 3 Source: JICA 2006

4. Capacity at different levels(Capacity Development must be comprehensive) Consensus in Burden sharing by different stakeholders New Waste Segregation Rules Society Level Policy Goals toward Waste Reduction Institutional Level Awareness raised about Waste Reduction Strengthened Management of Waste Control Authority Individual Level Administrators’ Capacity Enhancement Source: JICA 2006

5. Different Approaches to Capacity Development(Capacity Development should be country-driven and sustainable) Not Sustainable Level of Capacity necessary to cope with challenges More Sustainable External Capital Transfer External Input (Incl. Knowledge Sharing) Existing Capacity Existing Capacity Approach B: Developing capacity with external facilitation(building capacity under the ownership of host countries/communities) Approach A: Transfer of capacity from external player (Filling a Gap with external capital transfer) Source: JICA 2006

6. Key Drivers of Capacity Development • Ownership • Enabling Environment • Incentives • Leadership • Knowledge

7. Methodologies and Tools for Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity-Building (1) Flow of M&EConceptual Figure of Project Cycle Management(PCM) Plan Evaluation Identification Evaluation Formulation Implementation / Monitoring Preparation Implementation

8. Narrative Summary Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumption Overall Goal Project Objective Outputs Activities Inputs Pre-conditions Methodologies and Tools for Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity-Building (2) Where indicators are used: Format of Project Design Matrix （PDM） - - - Vertical Logical Relationship

9. Methodologies and Tools for Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity-Building (3) How Overalls Goals/project objectives and Indicators are made? Problem Tree Effect Core Problem Cause

10. Methodologies and Tools for Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity-Building (3) How Overalls Goals/project objectives and Indicators are made? Objective Tree Ends Core Objective Feasibility Means Expected Situations

11. Methodologies and Tools for Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity-Building • Evaluation is heavily dependent on “Target Setting”(based on capacity assessment) Target in different levels: Overall Goal, Objectives of Efforts (eg. Policy/Programme/Project objectives) • Indicators are useful only if/when they are elaborated with means of verification, important assumption and pre-condition (used in PDM) • M&E are properly done by Project Owners (and contracted external evaluators)

12. Can we compare? Same type Projects in 2 different countries Country B Country A Governance Structure Governance Structure Development Priority Development Priority Existing Capacity Existing Capacity Project X Project Y Other attributes (eg, Size) Other attributes (eg, Size) Comparison is only useful for drawing lessons from “Good Practices” (Simple replication does not happen)

13. Can we compare? Same type Projects in the same country Country C Governance Structure Development Priority Existing Capacity Other attributes (eg, Size) Project P Project Q • (Internal Factors) • Willingness of Stakeholders • Entry point of Efforts etc. • (Internal Factors) • Willingness of Stakeholders • Entry point of Efforts etc. Easier to compare the two, since the external factors are the same or similar. But still internal factors of projects should be taken into account.

14. Can we compare? M&E at National Level Accuracy of Comparison (Evaluation) • Project level>Programme level>Policy level> Regional/International Network(At higher level, quantified indicators may omit useful qualified information) Methods of M&E • We use the same M&E methods(some variety), but indicators are more tailor-made Pre-condition of Defining Indicators • Capacity Assessment (jointly done by D-ing+D-ed countries) is crucial • Assessment(BAU) Monitoring(Indicators) Evaluation (Indicators) must be coherent, and reflect a specific context.

15. Narrative Summary Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumption Overall Goal Project Objective Outputs Activities Inputs Pre-conditions Uniqueness of Capacity Development in Climate Change area • This Area is already decided by 2/CP7. • Fill in one of the 15 scopese.g. (promotion of) CDM - - - Entry points of such efforts are different by host countries. Host countries chose such entry point, jointly with our Agencies.

16. Conclusion from our practice • A single methodology (with variation) for M&E is used. • Indicators are used and functions in specific context (within PDM), and simple aggregation of evaluation results is strictly avoided. • Indicators are useful to interpret lessons from Good Practices. • Evaluation at larger level employs more qualitative/narrative way. • Entry points of efforts are different by countries, and it affects selection of indicators. • For climate change, we approach both from “Overall Goal” and from the bottom side of PDM( and it still works).