Mapping the Road to Peace:
the GPPAC journey with
Outcome Mapping
OM Community Webinar
10.10.2012
Jenny Aulin, Goele Scheers & Paul Kosterink
The Global Partnership for the
Prevention of Armed Conflict
“the prevention of deadly
conflict is, over the long
term, too hard –
intellectually, technically,
and politically- to be the
responsibility of any single
institution or government,
no matter how powerful.
Strengths must be pooled,
burdens shared, and labor
divided among actors.”
(Carnegie Commission on
Preventing Deadly Conflict 1997)
the Global Action Agenda





A shift from reaction to prevention
The roles and potential of civil society in the
prevention of violent conflict
Multilateralism
Local participation and ownership
Learning from practice
Towards an established network
-
-
Regional consultation processes 2003-4
Global Action Agenda 2005
Charter and structure of the Global Partnership 2006
Strategic Plan 2007 – 2010
Strategic Plan 2011-15
Who/what is GPPAC?

15 regional civil
society networks



Thematic Working
Groups


International Steering
Group
GPPAC Board
Regional Secretariats
Global Secretariat
Theory of Change
When civil society organisations join forces
through networks, this increases their
capacity to contribute to preventing violent
conflicts.
-> Learning and improving their own practice
-> Capacity to influence other actors
Proving and Improving:
the PM&E balancing act
Problems with PME





Unsatisfied with logframe
Ad hoc use of logframe
Only for donor accountability
Did not show GPPAC’s results as a
network nor facilitate learning
Linear approach
Change…
Time
Thanks to Ricardo Wilson- Grau
Why Outcome Mapping?




Systemic approach appropriate for networks,
because a network is not the sum of its parts, it
is the product of the parts' interaction (Russell Ackoff).
Measuring progress towards long-term goals in
conflict prevention; outcomes make progress
more visible by focussing on boundary partners
and changes in behaviour.
Many actors and factors that facilitate (slow,
gradual) change; contribution instead of
attribution.
Participative and learning-focused PM&E.
GPPAC Strategic Plan 2007-2010
5 programmes:





Interaction & Advocacy
Network Building
Awareness Raising
Knowledge Generation & Sharing/ Peace Education
Early Warning
& Early Response
= 5 Intentional Designs
Intentional Design
The intentional designs followed the format of the OM
Manual with: Boundary partners, Outcome Challenge and
‘Expect, Like, Love’ progress markers. Each programme
formulated up to 3 outcome challenges.
Reporting and evaluating







Outcome description
Source
Significance
GPPAC’s contribution
Results (proving)
Strategy (improving)
Added value (function)
Example:
Outcome: In 2008, UN Peacebuilding Commission (PBC)
strengthened the language in its semi-annual review of
peacebuilding in Burundi regarding the importance of
accountability and human rights training for the security
services, reflecting civil society concerns about human rights
abuses in 2007-2008.
Significance: The review is a valuable tool for civil society to
encourage both the Burundian government and its
international partners actors to condition their technical and
resource support provided to the security services, particular
the intelligence service, for on-going human rights abuses.
Contribution: GPPAC member WFM-IGP based in New York,
along with Biraturaba, the GPPAC national focal point in
Burundi, organised a briefing for the PBC by several Burundibased civil society organisations and international civil society
experts on Burundi, followed up by lobbying aimed at the
draft 2008 report of the PBC.
Internal and external outcomes
Example Internal Outcome:
In 2011, GPPAC US members and partners formed
the Human Security Collaborative as an alliance
to inform and influence US foreign and security
policy from a conflict prevention and
peacebuilding perspective. As part of this
initiative, a Washington DC Liaison function was
set up to monitor relevant policy developments,
build relationships and create entry points for
advocacy and dialogue on behalf of the network.
How?
-
-
Participatory approach
Continuous capacity building of network
members
Engaging with donors
Results used in monitoring meetings
and to make changes to strategy
Advantages





Recognising and identifying network-specific
results (network building, sustainability..)
Meaningful reflections and information
Identifying trends
Identifying the added value of GPPAC
Wide range of outcomes – from internal and
small steps, to external and significant
Challenges






Passing on the knowledge: terminology,
concepts, formulating outcomes
Subjective nature of outcomes, or resources
required to substantiate them
Network challenges: language barriers,
competing priorities, making time and
funding available for reflection
Donor requirements: indicators too vague,
widespread use of logframe approach
Complicated planning and monitoring
structure
Hard to digest info to send to donors
New Strategic Plan – new approach


Results table: merging approach with logframe
All GPPAC strategies (=programmes) together
contribute to outcomes
GPPAC
GOAL
GPPAC
PURPOSE
Prevent armed conflict by peaceful
means through systematic and
effective collaboration at all levels
between CSOs, state actors, RIGOs,
the UN and other relevant
stakeholders.
 external
GPPAC wants civil society
organisations to collaborate in
designing and implementing conflict
prevention strategies and catalysing
partnerships with relevant
stakeholders.
 internal
Boundary Partners (ext.)
Goal level: actors external to the GPPAC
network, whom GPPAC seeks to influence

Relevant UN bodies
Regional Intergovernmental Organisations (RIGOs)
Relevant state actors

Context-relevant stakeholders


-> external/political outcomes
Outcomes Goal-level:
UN, RIGOs and state actors…
consult
and adopt recommendations from local CSOs in
decision-making and conflict prevention policies and actions,
taking into account related public manifestations;
UN
and RIGOs develop standards for effective coordination
and government engagement for preventing conflicts;
Develop
good practices in conflict prevention suggested by or
in alliance with CSOs
Boundary Partners (int.)
Purpose level, concerns GPPAC members and
partners in the global and regional networks
GPPAC members (regional networks, ISG
members, working groups, etc)
 Civil Society Organisations in the field of
conflict prevention & peacebuilding (potential
members, partners)

-> internal/network outcomes
Agent of change = subject to change!
Outcomes at Purpose-level:
GPPAC members and CSO partners…



initiate and implement conflict prevention interventions and
Preventive Action plans in collaboration with GPPAC
members through effective network structures;
improve their own practice based on regional and
international learning exchanges and tools tailored to
context;
collectively lobby and raise awareness on multiple levels
based on a common agenda
Interactive PM&E
Using an online platform for sharing, reflecting on M&E info
and (in due time) continuous collecting of outcomes
Feedback on Outcome Mapping
approach (1)
Experiences from January 2012 until today
(from the new coordinator PME & Learning)
5-year
strategic cycle and annual operational cycles are
well designed and appropriate for the network
International
Network: relatively loose relations, little
time, capacity building  run into practical problems
F.e.
F.e.
Outcomes formulated too broad, or not precise
Annual reporting: at activity and output levels 
difficult to relate to the outcomes; several activities
relate to 1 outcome OR 1 activity relates to 2-3
outcomes  limitations of written reporting format
Feedback on Outcome Mapping
approach (2)
Experiences from January 2012 until today
(from the external evaluation 2006-2011)
Outcome
harvesting (Natalia Ortiz & Ricardo Wilson-Grau)
Collecting
outcomes from all programs & regions
Quantity
of data: 238 outcomes  ‘Drupal’ database
(relate outcomes to goals, programs, regions, etc.)
Quality
of data: from written reports  flaws
Evaluators
to engage with Network: for each outcome
describe significance and GPPAC’s contribution
Quality
of data: improved through interaction
(Q-and-A’s, skype, in-person, Network meetings)
Feedback on Outcome Mapping
approach – next steps (3)
The Network agreed on next steps:
More
frequent, reflective interaction with members
Capacity
building through 15 Regional Secretariats
Improve
quality from Reg. Secr. to & with members
Involve
facilitators/experts to support members
meetings and/or reporting and/or skype interviews
Make
information more meaningful: dynamic versus
static; reflect & adjust, frequency (annual vs. ongoing, or
monthly / quarterly?)
Useful
database
Thank You!
PM&E Issue Papers available
Goele.scheers@gmail.com
j.aulin@gppac.net
p.kosterink@gppac.net
www.gppac.net
www.peaceportal.org