Monitoring and Learning System. FFF Retreat Monitoring and Learning Session, December 2014, Rome, Italy

Transcription

1 Monitoring and Learning System FFF Retreat Monitoring and Learning Session, December 2014, Rome, Italy

2 What is a monitoring and learning system? A clear framework on what we want to achieve and how we will measure progress A cycle: plan implement monitor reflect - respond Why? To improve future work by paying attention to what works and what does not work and what we need to do next

3 Producer organizations have improved their livelihoods and the decision-making over forest and farm landscapes Vision Pillar 1: Strengthening producer organizations for business and policy engagement Pillar 2: Catalyzing multisectorial policy platforms Pillar 3: Linking local voices to global processes. Pillars Outcome 1 Producers are organized for policy dialogue Outcome 2 Producers are organized for business Outcome 3 Cross-sectorial policy coordination for sustainable forest and farm management Outcome 4 National and global agendas are informed about the priorities of local producers Outcome Output 1.1 Dispersed local producers are organised into effective and gender inclusive groups Output 1.2 Producer groups work together with government and private sector to improve policy Output 2.1 Producer organizations know about business and can access finance. Output 2.2 Establishment of services in support of small forest businesses Output 2.3 Experience sharing between producer organizations incountry Output 3.1 Establishment and coordination of multi-sectorial policy platforms Output 3.2 Increased information sharing results in improved understanding and better policies for producer organisations Output 4.1 Organizations representing local producers influence global processes Output 4.2 Learning and practices are shared within and between countries and regions, and globally Outputs

4 Producer groups have improved their livelihoods and the decisionmaking over forest and farm landscapes Vision Pillar 1: Strengthening producer groups for business and policy engagement Pillar Outcome 1: Producers are organized for policy dialogue Indicator 1.1: Number of new or changed policies, Indicator 1.2: Number of relevant principles for sustainable forest and farm management within national policies and planning Outcome Indicators Output 1.1 Dispersed local producers are organised into effective and gender inclusive groups Organisations prepared to engage Indicator : Number of groups formed and active Indicator 1.1.2: Representativeness (e.g. females, youth) Indicator 1.1.3: Overall % of female leaders in organizations Indicator 1.1.4: Number of meetings to develop policy priorities Learning questions: What are the most effective ways to help groups to associate at higher levels? How can women s membership and representativeness in producer organisations be increased? Output 1.2 Producer groups work together with government and private sector to improve policy Quality of policy engagement Indicator Number of policy meetings attended Indicator Number of policies reviewed and/or proposed Indicator Number men and women from producer groups hold a decision making position in relevant policy making processes Learning questions: What do local producer organizations need to link together to plan effectively at regional and national levels? How is consultation with producer groups carried out and is it reaching the harder to reach? How can truly collaborative policy dialogues be designed and structured in ways that respect the role of producers? Outputs Indicators Learning questions

5 Producer groups have improved their livelihoods and the decisionmaking over forest and farm landscapes Vision Pillar 1: Strengthening producer groups for business and policy engagement Pillar Outcome 2: Producers are organized for business Indicator 2.1 # of POs diversifying or adding value to products (verified through perception of FFPOs) Indicator 2.2 # of POs accessing finance (male and female members) Presence and functionality of local environmental monitoring at the PO level Outcome Indicators Output 2.1 Producer organizations know about business and can access finance. Output 2.2 Establishment of services in support of small forest businesses Output 2.3 Experience sharing between producer organizations in-country Outputs Indicators Development of business capacity Indicator 2.1.1: Perception of improved ability to access markets Indicator 2.1.2: # of sustainable business plans developed by POs Learning questions: How best to increase knowledge of FFPOs about business development? Do FFPOs control funding available to them and what more can be done? Is funding allocated to PO priorities? Improvement of support services Indicator 2.2.1: Resources and actors engaged for service provision to POS Indicator 2.2.2: # and type of service providers actively providing services to POs (disaggregated females and males) Learning questions: Is the variety and nature of service provision useful and improving for POs? What is needed to improve access? Is access to finance improving? How has increased investment at a local level impacted landscape ecosystems? Exchanges of experience Indicator 2.3.1: # of exchange visits taking place involving each country Indicator 2.3.2: # practices, designs, plans and systems adopted following exchange visits Learning questions: What makes exchange visits useful? What are, the most important issues needing exchange and how frequent are the opportunities for lessons learning/sharing? Learning questions

6 Producer groups have improved their livelihoods and the decisionmaking over forest and farm landscapes Vision Pillar 2: Catalyzing multi-sectorial policy platforms Pillar Outcome 3 - Cross-sectorial policy coordination for sustainable forest and farm management Indicator 3.1: # of new or changed policies, regulations, rules enacted improving the national enabling environment and enhancing POs ability for SFM and livelihoods Outcome Indicators Output 3.1 Establishment and coordination of multi-sectorial policy platforms Facilitation of engagement in policy platforms Indicator 3.1.1: # of fora established and or strengthened at country and regional levels. Indicator 3.1.2: nature and level of representation of FFPOs groups (female and male members) in key platforms Indicator 3.1.3: # decisions reflecting FFPO presence and inputs Learning questions: How can different ministries be most effectively brought together and how can the momentum be maintained? What factors ensure effective participation? What role do POs play and how is this changing over time? How is the participation of POs changing decision making? Output 3.2 Increased information sharing results in improved understanding and better policies for producer organisations Quality of policy engagement Indicator 3.2.1: Level of increase in understanding of POs participants in platforms of how government operates Indicator 3.2.2: # of new networks/contacts that results in new opportunities for POs Learning questions: What changes at the landscape level and the community level best illustrate improved information sharing processes? Are benefits from participation in these platforms real and tangible? Are some being left out of the process and benefits? If so how can we correct this? Have any inter-ministerial inconsistencies and jurisdiction (legislation etc) affecting POs been identified and resolved? Outputs Indicators Learning questions

7 Producer groups have improved their livelihoods and the decisionmaking over forest and farm landscapes Vision Pillar 3: Linking local voices to global processes. Pillar Outcome 4 - National and global agendas are informed about the priorities of local producers Indicator 4.1: # of regional and global decision making processes aware of PO priorities Indicator 4.2: representation of POs at country, regional and global initiatives Outcome Indicators Output 4.1 Organizations representing local producers influence global processes. Facilitation of engagement in policy platforms Indicator 4.1.1: # of strategies and mechanisms for representative planning and advocacy regionally / globally Indicator 4.1.2: Extent of reporting back from regional and global levels to constituencies at national and local levels Indicator 4.1.3: # of examples where global policies and mechanisms vital to POs are shaped by engagement Learning questions: Are communication channels linking POs to global processes easy to access and effective how can these be facilitated? How are international or national initiatives on forests reflecting the knowledge and needs of POs? How do we increase two way communication so experiences are shared back to constituencies and PO members? Output 4.2 Learning and practices are shared within and between countries and regions, and globally Learning between countries and regions Indicator 4.2.1: # of FFF targeted communication material and outreach activities Indicator 4.2.2: # and frequency of communication and information sharing and events between POs and countries. Learning questions: Is there a regular and effective communication between producer groups and international institutions? What kind of information sharing, and participation is most useful to FFPOs? How can priorities be established and shared to help guide decision making on where to invest time and resources? Outputs Indicators Learning questions

8 Different levels of the Monitoring and Learning System Steering Committee Donors FFF Global annual M&L synthesis FFF global level Reporting National annual synthesis report Joint learning Country level Country Year 1 Country Year 2 Respond Plan Respond Plan Local level Reflect Implement Reflect Implement Monitor Monitor

9 Global Learning Global M&L Synthesis Synthesis FFF Annual Plan FFF Annual Plan Monitoring and Learning System - how it works Annual FFF Management Stakeholder Review meeting FFF M&L vision Framework; and pillars: what What is to do be we want achieved to and and how how? Scoping study and FFF in-country launch Annual workshop validation and planning Baseline study Facilitators annual synthesis report Planning Meeting (s) Grantee reporting Implementation Grants with partners

10 Implementation: Roles and Responsibilities Grantees level: implementing organisations (grantees) under all outcomes will: (i) collect information of the initial conditions (baseline) of the organization / policy process / global initiative and monitor progress throughout the year, and (ii) report annually (to both country facilitator and FFF management) describing achievements against outputs and indicators, lessons learned, and challenges National level: country facilitator will: (i) organise an annual stakeholder meeting of in-country implementing organisations (grantees) to present a draft report on progress, validate findings at country level, and plan and adapt for the following year (ii) prepare an annual synthesis report for FFF management based on the reporting from the implementing organizations (grantees); Global level: FFF management team (FAO and IUCN) will: (i) collect reports from country facilitator and grantees and (ii) pass to IIED to synthesize into one annual global report that documents progress against indicators, analyses learning outcomes and identifies common issues for learning for forthcoming year. Report submitted to donors. External mid term and final evaluation carried out after 2.5 and 5 years.

11 Facilitator roles in M&L Become familiar with (and make available) your countries scoping or baseline studies Help facilitate FFF launch missions and launch events Facilitate initial planning meetings to design in-country plans for submission to FFF management for funding Ensure that all subsequent grants issued by FFF Management for incountry work are copied to you Ensure that you receive progress reports from grantees that report against the outputs and indicators under which their projects fall Draft an annual synthesis report of in-country progress Facilitate subsequent annual stakeholder meeting to present your findings, revise / validate the synthesis report, plan for next year Submit final annual synthesis report to FFF Management (IIED)

12 Producing the annual synthesis report Template provided based on FFF s overall Monitoring and Learning (M&L) System (please read and digest this) Reporting sections are based on the outputs within the FFF M&L framework Not all countries will have work under all outputs (yet) so just report in the sections relevant to your country One critical issue is to make sure that in-country grantees report against outputs and indicators (otherwise you will have to chase information) There is scope as well as possible additional indicators (see next slide)

13 You may (or may not) chose to develop additional indicators of progress What? Identify the variables that may help assess the results Who? Specify the group of people whose access, attitudes and behaviour the intervention is expected to influence Where? Include information about the intervention area When? Include realistic information about the timespan Indicator Data source and collection strategy Who will collect data Who will analyse data Cost of collection analysis Who is responsible for reporting on indicator Frequency of collection, analysis and reporting Proposed new indicator

14 Data collection and reporting tools Monthly reporting: try to establish this with all incountry grantees to keep track of activities and outcomes and recommendations for next steps Work with grantees to develop reporting templates linked to your annual synthesis report Use the annual stakeholder meeting to present findings, reflect on what has worked/not worked, and suggested next years plans to FFF management team Assign responsibility for record keeping for all FFF meetings and events (using reporting templates in M&L framework)

15 How is M&L emerging? Examples from Myanmar and the Gambia

16 The Gambia National workshop introducing the M&L system April 2014 initial baseline created Annual reports from POs integrated into M&L FW. Annual stakeholder meeting due Dec 2014 ANR platform meeting baseline and country M&L FW shared and validated May small grants shortlisted final selection before end of 2014 M&L framework integrated into NEA & NFPG LoAs implementation started June 2014 Training of AGFP on What is M&E August 2014

17 Feedback Opportunities The M&L framework very useful for linking to other related agendas in The Gambia country representatives of the COPs (UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD etc.) consult the ANR platform on issues and figured gathered as part of the FFF M&L FW. M&L helps keep track of results and enables for better communication with donors Challenges How to engage local producer organisations in implementing the M&L FW Need to build the capacity of small grants holders to develop indicators, collect data and report M&L FW format needs improving by adding columns to the progress/year and means of verification

18 So what has happened in your projects? Producer group / business/ exchanges

19 So what has happened in your projects? FORMING PRODUCER GROUPS How many forest producer groups did you form and where? (with how many male and female members?) (I1.1.1) Did the group(s) adequately represented everyone? (Women? Youth? Marginalised groups?) (I1.1.2) How many of the leaders were women? (I1.1.4) How many meetings did the group hold to decide on their priorities and what were they? (I1.1.5) What encouraged people to join or discouraged them and why? (RQ1.1) How can representativeness in producer groups be increased (e.g. for women, youth etc)? (RQ1.1)

20 So what has happened in your projects? BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT To what products did your producer groups add value and how (or did they simply sell raw material)? (I2.1) Did groups help access finance (and for what)?(i2.2) Did groups improve finding buyers? If so how? (I2.1.1) Did they develop a proper business plan? (I2.1.2) What were the most effective ways of increasing knowledge about how to develop businesses? (RQ2.1) How did producers gain access to finance and what can be done to improve their control over finance? (RQ2.1) Is funding being allocated to producer groups priorities? (RQ2.1)

21 So what has happened in your projects? EXCHANGE VISITS Describe one highlight from any Myanmar exchange visits your producer organisation took part in? (I2.3.1) Describe one highlight from any exchange with another country? (4.1.2) What new practices, plans and systems did you use afterwards? (I2.3.2) What made the exchange visits useful for you? (RQ2.3) What topic should exchange visits focus on and why? (RQ2.3) How frequent and long, should these exchanges be? (RQ2.3) What kind of participation (places, numbers and types of people) works best? (RQ4.1)

22 Thank you