E SCB ANNUAL Report Lite

26

7. E

VALUATION O F SCBP 2009-2010 An Internal evaluation of the Southern Capacity Building Programme was carried out at two different dates during the first year of its existence. The first feedback and evaluation was sought in August 2009. This feedback was administered to Southern Colleagues who were fellows of the SCBP. Rationale for picking that timeline was twofold a SCBP Fellows had been supported to participate to three negotiating sessions by then and had all had the opportunity to be a part of their Regional Capacity Building Workshops with the exception of Latin America. Hence they all would have had a very fair idea of whether the Programme was delivering on their expectations and where the probable gaps in effective implementation. b SCBP activities and their impact had to be communicated to a donor as a part of the interim reporting requirements from the CANInternational Secretariat. The second evaluation was sought in January 2010. In this cycle feedback was sought from a broader audience, consisting of SCBP Fellows as well as other Southern Colleagues who had been involved with the SCBP either as experts or mentors. It sought to get a sense of whether they SCBP participants and others felt the programme had been able to meet its objective and goals for the year. Further and just as importantly, this evaluation form asked these participants to give their input into what the second year of the SCBP should ideally deliver based on their experiences in 2009. Over all the evaluation form was sent out to 40 individuals from the Global South and 25 responses were received. The respondents were from all of the Southern regions in which the program was active. Their response was supplemented with findings and responses received from the larger CAN Survey also administered in January 2010 where the Southern Capacity Building Programme activities were a subsection. 27 Individual participants were asked to provide feedback on their learning and experience as SCBP Fellows and to evaluate the quality of input provided under the Programme. The detailed analysis is attached as an Annex to this report for those interested in a detailed analysis of the feedback received. The evaluation form contained 22 questions – that seek to establish an individual’s existing technical capacity, followed by a feedback on whether their expectations were met and in which areas, further the evaluation form looks for the depth of engagement within CAN activities and other forums, followed by questions encouraging them to think about the linkages between their training here and their national and regional priorities. In the section below, there is a subjective summary of the responses received from 16 of the 18 individuals approached for feedback = C On an average people have attended UNFCCC session at least three times. The range varies from old timers first COP in 2002 to newcomers with no experience at all . 7 = C There was a predominant focus on Adaptation and Finance, followed by Mitigation and Clean Development Mechanism, followed closely by Technology Transfer and Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Degradation. What is clearly missing is interest in Legal or Architecture issues, besides the discussion on Shared Vision. 28 One possible interpretation here is that most of these individuals have a programmaticproject oriented approach to Climate rather than a purely policybased approach, hence they prefer issues where local and national implementation would be paramount. + 7 1 = = ; C The motivation for participating in the UNFCCC process is varied, however the common thread seems to be a need to improve the individual’s technical capacity and to look at this participation as an opportunity for changing the status quo domestically andor internationally in the climate debate. ? = ; = ; The answers to this question were largely tending towards ticking the “Satisfied” box. However the responses were not interpreted in response to SCBP participation alone. The evaluators interpreted it in several ways with respect to regional coordination, UNFCCC process and personal achievements. 2 5 = D- 1 C There was a largely affirmative response to this query. . = ; = C Most of the responses indicate the networks established whilst in Bonn 1st and 2nd Intersessional as critical to their future work and most of them committed themselves towards continuing these alliances in the future. 4 7 = E F C Most respondents joined multiple groups; however the choices also reflected nationally and regionally prioritized issues of their governments in the negotiations. 29 5 F = C The respondents didn’t only engage with media present in the UNFCCC sessions when presented with an opportunity but also engaged actively with National Media upon their return.

5 C

All the respondents established contact with their Government delegation. = = C The response on this was wide ranging, on the whole it was satisfactory and useful for the evaluators. Some suggestions were added on for improvement of future sessions. 5 C = = = C From the responses it is evident that side events also provide an excellent opportunity for furthering one’s technical knowledge on various issues. Most of the evaluators covered at least one side event every day. + 5 C The responses were overwhelmingly encouraging and constructive. ? 7 = C 5 C 30 Here the participants have put forward varied input that is difficult to pull together under one thread. However some of them talk about personal realization and others talk about their appreciation of political reality in the context of their national delegations and the UNFCCC. Recommend reading them from the Annex. 2 7 C The reason for posing this question was to assess if the complexity of the climate debate and related issues had manifested itself in these individuals as loss of belief in this process to deliver results. The responses are largely positive and hence reinforce the fact that it is the urgency of the issue and not its complexity that the southern colleagues focused on – as it is a matter of survival for many of them. . Finance Adaptation and Technology Transfer Oare the three issues that featured predominantly across all responses. 4 = = Deeper emissions cuts by Annex 1 based on their historical responsibility, is the most commonly occurring response with enabling finance and technology transfer for developing countries. Floods ; Increasing climate variability and 31 Sea level rise Food Agriculture Security; Water Security and Protection of Coastal Areas feature predominantly. Supply side solutions to current energy related problems; clean transport and regulation of Industrial emissions are mentioned repeatedly. However forestry and renewable energy solutions find many followers. There are varied responses to this question – however weak governance finds mention in several places. [Recommend reading the Annex] = G F = Most of the responses highlight the need for resource redistribution to bridge the gap between the haves and the have nots and to promote inclusive development practices. Further there is an impetus towards a bottomup approach towards resolving concerns related to ensuring Equity and Climate Justice. 32 5 E 7 6 The SCBP was mainly implemented along two tracks: a Individual supported to UNFCCC sessions and CB training provided during that time b Regional Workshops across key regions In the section below, the questions assess the level of overall learning; shortfalls in effective implementation and evaluation of the year gone by were posed in this section. This is in a sense a continuation of the evaluation conducted after the first six months of the programme launch in March’09. Hence, below is only a précis of the feedback received. The detailed responses can be read in the Annex 1 attached along with the report. 3 7 = = = = = C SCBP participants spoke about wanting to make sure that there is a certainty of continued action under this initiative in 2010. Also they articulated the need for better choice of participants, esp. of staying the whole course not missing within delegations. There was a sense of the need for establishing a long term communication channel between the SCBP Fellows beyond Copenhagen and the life of the program. There was a consistent demand for the development of a capacity building guide and manual for various kinds of capacity development exercise. There was also repeated 33 articulation of the need for a mentorbuddy system, to create a good relationship between newcomers and experienced fellows making the learning process easier. 3 = = 0C Generally two themes were repeated often a Better involvement and presence of CAN South members in CAN activities b Enhanced knowledge of the UNFCCC Processes. Besides this there were other benefits quoted such as an improvement in CAN’s image of being a North led Network. +3 1 = = 0C The suggestions for improvement are very productive and hopefully the continuation of SCBP will be able to do justice to these options. For example it was suggested to deepen the programme in Year 2, to provide more nationalregional level support for activities within specific countries. SCBP Fellows for 2010 could have their own WG with which they bring on board other Southern counterparts to ensure they pass on what they acquire from the CB programme and also feed into the CAN issuebased working groups. Further, there are suggestions about picking the SCBP Fellows for 2010 such that the programme supports individuals who are committed to the cause, and have demonstrated that within CAN. The process for producing VOICE could be institutionalized similar fashion as ECO. ?3 = 1 1 3C Most of the individuals were deeply involved in CAN’s processes in the second half of the year and even took on the role of Cochairing Working Groups; Political Coordination Group roles; Party Badges etc. Many of the SCBP Fellows and others were actively involved in media work domestically and within other national forums dealing with the issue of Climate Change. 34 23 7 = = = C A significant majority suggested carrying forth all the aspects of the programme in its current form. Some interesting suggestions included the desire expressed by these individuals to be involved in Southern capacity building work this year as Experts; Capacity building activities with new dynamism like, how to participate in a press conference, what are the things to consider when attending a lobby meeting, how to write ECO articles, etc; Capacity Building Workshops need to be continued; Steering Committee with equitable representation to guide the development of the work programme and activity schedule for the programme could be formed. Transparency and accountability on reporting and implementation could be improved. If funds permitted would be good to also deepen implementation from regional to country level CB workshops in the second year. .3 7 = G C Participants were completely satisfied with the logistical and institutional support offered. 43 7 1 = G 1 C A significant majority of the People polled were fully satisfied with the work of the SCBP Coordinator. 35 This section will be asking you to think about where and how you see the SCBP helping your efforts this year. As you answer the questions below, some broader questions to keep in mind might include3If you were to design the work plan for the SCBP this year, how would you prioritize the objective, activities and outcomes for this year? What would be your concerns, suggestions and guidance for the SCBP and the Secretariat to deliver a successful outcome for Southern members this year and beyond? A of the responses received are listed below each question in bold along with a of original responses, for reading these and other responses in more details please refer to the Annex 1 3 5 = = 3 C = = = = = C = = = = = 1 = - [SCBP Fellow Comment] “Yes, I agree in the twotrack approach, and I think they will be both very useful for this year. I would first make a general diagnosis of the situation of each region, to know exactly their concerns, problems and situation concerning the international negotiations. Afterwards, I will develop regional workshops with the purpose of developing process of team work and good coordination among members. Secondly, I will make very clear that the objective for individual support will be to strengthen and to provide better networking and relation 36 between the members of that regional node with the delegations to be able to interact at the international negotiation process” - [SCBP Fellow Comment] “ I think the success of the SCBP this year has to do a lot with the holistic approach it had. The twotrack approach worked well in linking the NGOs from different regions around the globe directly to the UNFCCC negotiations. I saw myself the changes, after the regional workshop, the communications in the region improved a lot, the participation from the different members of 3” 3 = C 7 = C 7 = 1 1 3C F = : 1 = = B H = I J - [SCBP Fellow] “2010 will be a critical year after the failure of Copenhagen. SCBP have been supported to capacity build their knowledge to certain degree, this needs to be scaled up. It is also important to see how they can now support back to CAN. So I think, it would be appropriate to have further support to the SCBP through different means. They should play critical role in their national and regional node, for this CAN secretariat can support 37 though different means financially and technically for things like – policy formation and lobby in their setting, networking and sharing, technical analysis, or if any other work needed by CAN” - [SCBP Fellow] “It would be great if CAN could help nodes to do nationalregional policy work3 This could be through financial support, but also capacity support, such as help them build their plans, and communicate with stakeholders. CAN could send policy and lobby experts to help Nodes establish these campaigns.” 3 5 B C 1 C 6 = = ; = = 0 = = 6 0 7 = H I 3 7 = = -0 . ; 0C = = H I = 6 = = 38 B H I1 H I H I = - [SCBP Fellow] “1 Greater influence of southern perspectives in CAN position. 2 Greater visibility of southern colleagues within CAN” 3 7 = C = = = - [SCBP Fellow] “1 Building technical capacity. 2 Increased interaction among various stakeholders. 3 More and frequent working sessions in 2010.4 Combined and consultative process for framing common positions and broader acceptance” - [SCBP Fellow] : “Training sessions at national, regional and international levels.2Share relevant publications.3Bring Climate Change to local realities.4Knowledge Sharing.5Promote CAN membership.6Develop partnership with relevant networks.7Lobbying and advocacy” - [SCBP Fellow] : “Mentoring of southern participants pair them up with interested ‘old timers’.2 Continue the 2 activities from Year 1.3 More work on nationalregional governance, developing work plans.4Fundraising support 39 7 = C This section was included to check with the beneficiaries of this initiative the rationale for continued cooperation and support for Southern Capacity Building post COP15. ‘Copenhagen was a disappointment for most of the developing countries. We can all be depressed and in despair or we can come together and fight for what is worth fighting for a living planet for all life on Earth and a future for our children that does not take away their choices.’ +3 = = B ; C G = -0. : = -0 = = = 9 K 1 3 40 - [SCBP Fellow] “Continued and rigorous engagement in the negotiation process 2. Reflection of CAN as a network in functioning more towards consolidated voice coordination of policy work and actions and lobbying. Support more for the MVC countries and their groups in raising their voice, standing with them.” - [SCBP Fellow] “Consensus, agreement, good communication and coordination among members3” - [SCBP Fellow] “Recognition that the ACCORD will have a detrimental impact for the most vulnerable countries, and efforts to actually ensure that the concerns of the most vulnerable are taken into account in any Mexico outcome.” ?3 = C G = ; = = 1 3 1 - [ SCBP Fellow] “Research in the most vulnerable areas and research based advice.2 Arrangement of more capacity building activities and consultations in developing countries.3 Participation of civil society members and government officials in UNFCCC meetings” - [SCBP Fellow] “Perhaps one way is by facilitating international civil society alliancebuilding which to a certain extent the SCBP is already doing now by putting together representatives of different NGOs from different countries to foster cooperation, collaboration, and mutual support towards successfully mobilizing larger segments of society to clamor for a FAB deal3” 41

8. C