UNFCCC Expert Workshop on
Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building in
Developing Countries
St. John’s, Antigua - November 5-6, 2007
Monitoring of Capacity
Development in GEF
Operations
Presented by:
Jean-Joseph Bellamy, Consultant
Tom Twining-Ward, UNDP
Abdul-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 CD
 Regular projects with specific CD activities
integrated into project components
CAPACITY RESULTS IN A
MANAGERIAL SYSTEM
1. Capacities for engagement
2. Capacities to access and use information
and knowledge
3. Capacities for policy and legislation
development
4. Capacities for management and
implementation
5. 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 INDICATORS
Capacity 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 INDICATORS
Capacity 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 Ghana
Overall Obj ective : To promote and strengthen public and private sector efforts to achieve socio-economically and ecologically sustainable use of national forest and wildlife resources
Objective 1: Improve the policy and regulatory environment for high forest management and timber industry development
Objective 2: Promote local community involvement in sustainable management of the high forest and savanna woodland zones
Objective 3: Improve management of wildlife resources while increasing their contribution to local livelihoods and economic development
Objective 4: Implement the National Forest Protection Strategy to enhance conservation of globally significant biodiversity in priority reserves
Capacity functions
Contributing to which Staged indicators: Capacity to…
Proj ect/ Programme
(Stages 0 - 3)
Objective?
Initial score Assessment Change Assessment Change Overall
(0 - 3)
Score I
(- 3 + 3) Score II
(- 3 + 3) Change
1 Stakeholder
Engagement
a Legitimacy/ mandate of
lead organization
b Operational comanagement mechanisms
c Cooperation with
stakeholder groups
d ……..add your own
functional components
1.0
1,4
1, 2, 3, 4
2, 3, 4
0 Responsiblities not clearly defined
1 All lead agencies identified
2 Mandates of all lead agencies specified
3 Authority of all lead agencies recognized
0 Lack of co-management
1 Nature of co-management agreed
2 Co-management mechanisms established
3 Co-management functional
0 Poor stakeholder involvement
1 Key stakeholders identified
2 Regular stakeholder consultations established
3 Active stakeholder contribution to decision making
2.0
1.0
2.3
0.3
1.3
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
-1
0
1
2
1
3
1
2
An Example of a Scorecard at
programme level
POPs FA Strategic Objective : To reduce and eliminate productions, use and releases of POPs
Strategic Programme 1: Strengthening Capacities for NIP development and implementation
Strategic Programme 2 : Partnering in investments for NIP implementation
Strategic Programme 3: Generating and disseminating knowledge to address future challenges in implementing the Stockholm Convention
Capacity functions
1
2
3
4
5
Stakeholder Engagement
Information and Knowledge
Planning and Policy
Management and Implementation
Monitoring and Evaluation
Contributing to
which Strategic
Programme?
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
Proj ect 1
Proj ect 2
Proj ect 3
start mid-term end eval. start mid-term end eval. start mid-term end eval. start
0
2
0.5
2
0.1
0.2
2
1
2.7
-0.3
1
2
3
2.9
-1
0.4
0.7
1
1
0
1.4
1
1
1.6
1
2.4
2
1
3
2.4
0.5
1
1
1
0
1.1
3
1
2.9
1
2
2.7
1.6
3
2
1
0
1.5
1
3
Average
Proj ect XXX
mid-term end eval. Change
at midterm
2
2.5
0.70
1
2
0.83
2
2.5
0.25
1.5
3
0.93
0.15
2
1
Average
Average
Change
Change
at end
overall
eval.
0.80
1.50
0.43
1.25
0.78
1.03
0.80
1.73
0.18
0.33
DISCUSSION POINTS
Comprehensiveness 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 on
Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building in
Developing Countries
Antigua - November 5-6, 2007