SEA Change:

A Southeast Asia Community of Practice for Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Interventions

Deliverable 4: Submitted by:

CoP Annual Members Meeting Report Kurt MacLeod, Sarya Sok, Dennis Bours Pact Institute 1828 L Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Meeting summary and ways forward 31 December 2011 1 July 2010 30 June 2012

Report Covering: Report Submission: Grant Period:

Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3

Sessions Summary......................................................................................................................................... 4 Community of Practice Reflection ............................................................................................................ 4 Evaluation & Climate Change Lens ........................................................................................................... 5 Field Advancement: Learning to ADAPT Principles................................................................................... 6 Community of Practice Excellence ............................................................................................................ 8 CoP Snapshot: Surveying Results .............................................................................................................. 9 Member Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 9 Organizational Network Analysis .......................................................................................................... 9 Visioning and Action Planning................................................................................................................. 10 Track A: M&E Leadership in SEA Change ................................................................................................ 12 Evaluation Stakeholders Analysis........................................................................................................ 12 Purposes of the Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 13 Evaluation Questions and Data Collection Methods .......................................................................... 13 Next Steps in Designing SEA Changes Evaluation .............................................................................. 14 Track B: Climate Evaluation Advancements in the U.S. & Action Planning ............................................ 14 Climate Evaluation Advancements in the U.S. .................................................................................... 15 Action Planning Areas ......................................................................................................................... 15 Looking Ahead and Next Steps ............................................................................................................... 16

Annex 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Annex 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Annex 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 25

Executive Summary
SEA Change CoP members, partners and advisors gathered in Bangkok, Thailand from 9-10 November 2011 for an Annual Members Meeting conference. This marked the one-year milestone for the CoP following the Kick-Off meeting last year in New Delhi during the Evaluation Conclave. Participants consisted of monitoring and evaluation practitioners and climate change program managers and staff, research institutions, advisors and donors, as well as independent practitioners and consultants representing their experiences in more than seven countries across Southeast Asia and globally. CoP members leveraged this opportunity to meet face-to-face with fellow colleagues, to take stock of the progress made over the year through a group reflection exercise, reviewing results from surveys that explored level of member engagement and connectivity. Over the past year, the CoP has witnessed a significant growth in the percentage of its members who are M&E practitioners, growing from 17% to 64%. SEA Change has launched its web-based platform, conducted 3 webinars, has added 35 resources on its online library, and has formed an Evaluation Committee consisting of 4 members. Based the assessment of where the CoP arrived in the past year and framed with thinking around current debates and newly released M&E frameworks, participants began prioritizing ways forward in the second year to answer questions around the role and value associated with the CoPs scope and legacy. The action planning exercise found alignment with activities already planned and identified potential to strengthen the network by creating subgroups that focus on developing geographical clusters, webinar/training coordinators, and dissemination/outreach. In addition to ramping up dissemination of work produced by CoP members by way of conference presentations and publications, decisions around targeted membership and linkages to prospective regional evaluation networks remain high priorities for the CoP for the next year.

Sessions Summary
SEA Change held an Annual Members Meeting to wrap up Year 1 milestones in compliance with the terms of the Grant Agreement. The convening was framed by the following objectives: Share experiences resulting from membership in the CoP Provide input into developing vision and planning CoP activities in Year 2 Learn from advancements in M&E of climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts Improve understanding of changes to the organizational network analysis (ONA) Draft CoP monitoring and evaluation plan Gain access to networking within the CoP and with CoP organizational partners

While the full agenda is in Annex 1, the sections of this event report summarize the each of the presentations and capture the discussions that followed.

Community of Practice Reflection

Before engaging participants in sessions focused on field advancements and and planning for the CoP, Sarya Sok, SEA Change Team Leader, conducted the CoP Reflection session. Sarya began by noting the changes in the composition of the CoP from its inception in Delhi one year ago until today, having grown from 12 members to a total of 56 members today, with representatives from 14 different countries, versus five one year ago. The CoP has also witnessed a significant growth in the percentage of its members who are M&E practitioners, growing from 17% to 64%. Over the past year, SEA Change has launched its web-based platform, conducted 3 webinars, has added 35 resources on its online library, and has formed an Evaluation Committee consisting of 4 members. The discussion about the CoP journey was influenced by participants in the meeting, which totaled 24 as listed in the table below. Table 1: SEA Change CoP Meeting Participants Name 1 Emma Abasolo 2 Steve Adams 3 Nancy Anabel 4 Piva Bell 5 Stefan Bepler 6 Kerry Bruce Institution
World Agroforestry Center Institute for Sustainable Communities MS Swaminathan Research Foundation Mercy Corps, Jakarta RECOFTC PACT

Position
Researcher and Facilitator, RUPES Philippines Senior Advisor - Climate Adaptation Evaluation and Capacity Building Officer Admin Assistant M&E Officer Director Measurement and Results

Country Experience
Philippines United States

India Indonesia Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam Ghana, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand and Uganda

7 Kai Kim Chiang 8 Ana Coghlan

ISET PACT

Regional Program Director & Senior Staff Scientist M&E Regional Advisor Thailand

Name 9 Kai Kim Chiang 10 Kristen Davies 11 Paul Droussou 12 Munish Kaushik 13 Lailai Li 14 Kurt MacLeod 15 Nancy MacPherson 16 Stefan Nachuk 17 Leodegardo Pruna 18 Matt Reeves 19 Paula SilvaVillanueva

Institution
ISET Independent Consultant Lutheran World Relief CMDRR India Programme SEI PACT Rockefeller Foundation Rockefeller Foundation ADB/ PBSP Pact Strengthening Climate Resilience consortium at IDS PACT SEI Asia Centre ICLEI Mercy Corps GEF Evaluation Office

Position
Regional Program Director & Senior Staff Scientist Consultant Country Director Cordaid Advisor Senior Research Fellow Vice President Managing Director Evaluations Associate Director Climate Evaluation Network, Volunteer Advisor Management Capacity Building Advisor Independent Consultant, Technical M&E advisor SEA Change CoP Team Leader Research Fellow Programme Coordinator Sustainability Management Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator Junior Associate, Climate-Eval Moderator

Country Experience

Cambodia Indonesia India, Bangladesh and Cambodia China and Thailand Cambodia, Thailand and Others Global Global Philippines Global - Africa, Asia and Latin America Cambodia, Philippines, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh Cambodia Thailand India Myanmar Philippines and United States

20 Sarya Sok 21 Sabita Thapa 22 Sunandan Tiwari 23 Ei Ei Tun 24 Andrew Zubiri

Sarya asked the table groups to reflect on a set of questions as the first session got underway. The first question inquired as to the motivation and expectations of the members for the meeting. Common responses included the desire to strengthen the partnership between members, the desire to learn about new frameworks and M&E indicators, the desire to build a platform, to learn from each other, and to help influence the broader policy and practice debate. Members were asked to look around the room and to note who was missing from the conference. Participants remarked that the conference was short on practitioners on the ground and that head office personnel and INGOs were overrepresented. The other key observation was that there were no attendees from any level of the respective governments present.

Evaluation & Climate Change Lens

For the latest developments in the evaluation and climate change fields and the architecture of evaluation in Asia and South East Asia, Nancy MacPherson gave an overview of how evaluation of climate change work has progressed. Both thought leaders and experts in the field continue to revert to questioning how climate change is framed in the spectrum of development and disaster risk relief as well as the implications for monitoring and evaluation: 5

What is the difference and similarities between climate change activities and DRR activities? In monitoring and evaluation are we just taking normal development projects and just renaming them Climate Change? Can we use existing M&E processes and designs and apply them to CC, or is CC so different from all we have done in Development for the last 50 years that we need to do something entirely different?

Nancy answered that M&E within the climate change framework does indeed present new challenges, and practitioners need to adjust, but that the key elements of the field remain the same. A key difference with climate change work is the need for the application of domains of difference, in which the current thinking is that we need to operate along a continuum of approaches. The first domain is temporal, with disasters requiring the use of a short-term lens, and climate change necessitating a long-term view. The second domain is that of scale: climate change deals with change and impact at the individual, community, national, regional, and international level. The target is now much larger than with traditional development and we are dealing with global public goods in which viewing the work within a project box is no longer sufficient. In addition, the levels of risk and uncertainty have increased, as well as the complexity of the systems being observed. Despite the added complexity, the key evaluation criteria remain: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability. There is no need to throw the basics out. We simply need to adapt these to fit the climate change context. A new flexibility is needed in our approach in which the purpose determines the method of M&E. This new approach has implications on everyone involved that must be worked out. Commissioners and managers of evaluation (demand side), who determine the rules of the game and the allocations of the funds, as well as the practitioners (supply side) need to adjust the approaches, methods, tools, monitoring systems, and reporting that are used in climate change M&E. Finally, all of this needs proper knowledge management in shared pooled resources.

Field Advancement: Learning to ADAPT Principles

Paula Silva Villanueva spoke to the group remotely via Skype and a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the Monitoring and Evaluation at the interface of climate change adaptation, disaster risk management, and development through the use of the ADAPT principles. The presentation was highly theoretical and technical; therefore her full presentation is presented, slide-by-slide, in the detailed notes to provide the full picture.The presentation can be found in the SEA Change CoP library here: http://www.seachangecop.org/seachange/files/documents/1._Learning_to_ADAPT_in_practice_SEA_ Change_AMM-9.11.2011.ppt M&E faces challenges in the context of climate change and disasters. Similarities of Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Relief and Development cannot only provide useful insights for the development of M&E frameworks for adaptation but for fostering the integration of these three domains of work. In order to foster integrated approaches, M&E frameworks need to reflect the multidimensional nature of adaptation and disaster risk reduction and its contribution to developmental outcomes. Climate change work requires a more flexible approach to M&E to deal with the lack of clarity and complexity of the programs being monitored. The broad implications of this are summarized in Paulas chart on the following page.

Context Lack of conceptual clarity Different types of adaptation Tracking moving targets success when nothing happens?, adaptive capacity and vulnerability as dynamic variables Long-time frames Adaptation as a decision-making process at different scales

Implications for M&E LEARNING

DIVERSE
CONTEXT SPECIFIC CONTINUOUS

LONG TERM

PROCESS based CAPTURE DETERMINANTS of decisionmaking & ACTION

PARTICIPATORY across SCALES INTEGRATED FRAMEWORKS that reflect holistic understanding of adaptation and DRR and the need for strong feedback loops Beyond climatic predictions, interdependencies FLEXIBLE AND DYNAMIC

Avoiding maladaptation Short term vs. long term, distribution of vulnerability, trade-offs: Dealing with Uncertainty

Answering the question of What to measure? is also best summarized by a key chart Paula contructed:
M&E methodologies Input-output-outcome evaluation Process-based evaluation Evaluation of Behavioral change Economic evaluations Efficiency Benefits of adaptation is measured in terms of economic loss Focus on Effectiveness Measurement Elements of adaptive capacity/risk are predetermined and evaluated against a set of indicators Assumption Increase adaptive capacity will lead to reduced vulnerability Risk is probabilistically determined and known

Rational decision making The ability to establish a baseline and projected benefits and losses

The ADAPT Principles allow M&E practitioners to take these implications into account in the application of their work: Adaptive learning and management: recognizes experience-based learning and need to deal with uncertainty Dynamic baselines. Recognizes changing conditions of adaptive capacity and vulnerability and provides real-time feedback Active understanding. Recognizes differing values and interests Participatory recognizes adaptation as a context-specific process and the need for triangulation of information and decision-making Thorough avoiding maladaptation, evaluating trade-offs. Recognizes multiple stressors and processes across scales

The broader result of the ADAPT principles is that a re-thinking of the purpose and role of M&E is necessary. This means a strengthening of feedback loops within program management, the integration of 7

a broader set of indicators, and the adoption of methodologies that account for uncertainty, trade-offs, and potentials for maladaptation. Monitoring and Evaluation within the climate change context is necessarily more complex than in traditional development, but it is something that must be embraced and can lead to potential organizational change.

Community of Practice Excellence

This session showcased presentations by two of the conference participants on their respective work in climate change programming. Munish Kaushik, Cordaid advisor in India, presented his work increasing the capacity of vulnerable communities in disaster prone areas to cope with natural hazards, climate change, and conflict. The presentation can be found in the SEA Change CoP library: http://www.seachangecop.org/seachange/files/documents/3._DRR_Context_in_India_Implementation _and_Monitoring.ppt Munishs work begins with the identification of vulnerable communities and areas prone to hazards, and the conducting of a hazard specific risk assessment. The next step is organizing the community to form various community-based institutions: self-help groups, youth groups, and village management committees. These groups are encouraged to save and increase access to credit, as savings are a crucial support in the immediate response to a disaster. The next step is to build linkages between these groups and the government and other formal institutions, such as banks and insurance agencies with lead to loans and micro-financing opportunities that increase livelihoods and small enterprise development. Communities contribute to the formation of disaster readiness and planning, which often includes: the formation of rescue teams at the village level, grain banks, high rise platforms, early warning systems and hazard mitigation/prevention measure. Community mapping of the community determining at-risk areas plays a key part in this process. The same maps are repeatedly updated throughout the program, tracking the conversion of at-risk areas into safe areas. This process involves the creation of Hazard Assessment Tool, which is a listing of the disasters that have affected the community over the last 50 years. This enables communities to view the history and assess where the biggest threats in the future will come from. The Vulnerability Assessment Tool describes the elements at risk (houses, lives), the location of the risks, and the level of risk faced by each element. Finally, the Capacity Assessment Tool reveals the capability the community has for handling the disaster. Examples of all tools are found in the PowerPoint presentation. The factors of vulnerability for each village are different for each hazard and specific to the area. Location and preparedness are factors, as are concepts such as gender and caste: the poor are more vulnerable as compared to the rich in a given area. Each village is unique and must be assessed individually with the input of citizens from each village to determine risk factors. Piva Bell of Mercy Corps Indonesia then presented her work with the Asian City Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), which is funded by The Rockefeller Foundation, exists in four countries: Indonesia, India, Thailand and Vietnam. Her presentation can be found in the SEA Change CoP library here: http://www.seachangecop.org/seachange/files/documents/2._Mercy_Corps_Learning_Process_on_M &E_for_CCA_through_ACCCRN.ppt The program has the goal of catalyzing attention, funding, and action around climate necessary to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable urban communities. It is comprised of three phases: city selection; village capacity assessment and city resilience stratgey development; and then implementation, replication, and dissemination.

Mercy Corps produces tools including: Logframe integrated with Result Framework, Performance Monitoring Plan, Priority and Secondary Plan, Lesson Learned Framework, and an Evaluation Framework. Piva enumerated the challenges of the program, including dealing with a large number of stakeholders including governments who have their own systems of M&E and are not always open to accepting the tools generated by Mercy Corps.

CoP Snapshot: Surveying Results

Prior to the meeting, CoP members were invited to complete two surveys and the answers of which were then presented and explored during the Annual Meeting. The two surveys were as follows: 1. Member Questionnaire While Pact often uses a standard survey when working with new CoPs, this year the questions were tailored to address evaluation questions formulated during the participatory monitoring and evaluation planning. The questions are posted on Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com) for ease of data collection and analysis. A copy of this survey is provided in Annex 2. 2. Organizational Network Analysis Survey Pacts signature approach to assessing changes in networks is Organizational Network Analysis (ONA). ONA data are collected also through Survey Monkey and results map the connections between CoP members, as well as from potential CoP members to other thought leaders and influential institutions stocked with resources on climate change evaluation. A copy of this survey is included in Annex 3. Member Questionnaire The SEA Change Evaluation Committee and Matt Reeves presented the results of survey of CoP members, painting a picture of what SEA Change is today. The member survey revealed that the CoP is comprised of 14 different nationalities working across 11 categories of institutions, with the majority working for NGOs. When questioned about the major program and M&E areas that members wished to develop greater expertise, a wide range of answers were given, producing a relatively equal spread between NRM, DRR, Renewable Energy, Community Forestry, Infrastructure, community responses, climate change related policy. Members reported learning from the network, citing a long list of concepts gleaned from the network. However, just over 50% of members reported that they were able to apply this new knowledge or resource in their work. Members most often cited as barriers to the implementation that their organizations were not allowing the change or that they had not yet had the opportunity or time to apply them. The survey also showed an increase in the amount that members interacted with other climate change staff. This resulted in a further expansion of members knowledge.

Organizational Network Analysis The Organizational Network Analysis (ONA), a visual representation of the reported interactions between SEA Change members. Nodes represented individuals, with lines connecting individuals that had communicated with each other. Direction of interaction and frequency of interactions were signified by arrows and the thickness of the connecting lines. The presentation can be found in the SEA Change CoP library through the following link: http://www.seachangecop.org/seachange/files/documents/5._Analyzing_our_network_ONA_(Particip ant).pptx The slides showed a dramatic increase in complexity of the CoP network as compare to one year ago. Membership increased from 17 to 70 members, and the number of connections jumped from 10 to 99, even with a low response rate to the survey (only 24 members completed the survey). On the negative side, the ONA pictures reveal a heavy dependence on a few nodes to connect everyone, which happen to 9

be Sarya and Kurt. At this stage, the network is about twice as reliant upon these two individuals than it needs to be in order to be sustainable. However, this is normal at this stage of the development of a network. The four recognized stages of network development are: Phase 1: Isolated nodes Phase 2: Then network weavers come in and build trust Phase 3: Development of small world networks within the network Phase 4: Full integration

The next step for SEA Change is the development of small-world networks within the network (Phase 3) around a theme or geographical location. There is a need to develop regional facilitators and groups for each of these subgroups. Matt concluded the session by asking what can be learned about the evolution of SEA Change over the last year by looking at the two data sets, what can be learned about the evolution of climate change evaluation, and how does the analysis inform what SEA Change might do in the future to strengthen internal linkages and external outreach? Tables reported their responses to the questions and a diverse list of answers were given. Common themes included the need to create more network weavers, the need to have local level gatherings and be able to see each other (for example via Skype) so as to build stronger linkages, and the need to form subcommittees.

Visioning and Action Planning

Day two of the conference began with the important session of Vision and Action planning. The presentation can be found in the SEA Change CoP library through the following link: http://www.seachangecop.org/seachange/files/documents/SEA_Change_2011_Visioning.pptx Matt began by stating that the goal of SEA Change was to be a center of excellence for the development of a culture of high quality M&E in climate change interventions in Southeast Asia with an impact of generating improved M&E policy and practice of climate change interventions. There are three levels where SEA Change generates value: Member, Group, and External. The challenge is to plan for the growth at all three levels. Matt asked the group to brainstorm changes at each of the three levels that members would like to see as a result of SEA Change activities. The next step was to take a look at actions that might be used to generate the changes at each level, which included current actions as well as additional new actions that the CoP might consider. From these lists, participants generated vision statements for the network at each level of operation and actions that would support the attainment of these visions. The final presentations for each group are presented below in full:

SEA Change Vision at the Individual Level

Accessing and Sharing resources, tools, information, skills, and experts which will generate increasing capacity, which will lead to doing Better M&E, publishing more, and developing innovations. This feeds back into Accessing and Sharing resources again, in a cycle. This can be represented visually by a circle with Access leading to Capability leading to Application which leads back to Access. At the center of it all is found Enlightened Members.

High Priority Actions Web-based platform sustained Email listserv Webinars

10

Annual (or Biannual) Meetings

Medium Priority Actions Help Publish articles (could be moved up to high priority) Help present at conferences (could be moved up to high priority) Provide training/Public exposure Provide seed money/grants for developing/testing innovations

SEA Change Visions at the Group Level

There will be a sustainable Community of Practice that support collective learning and innovation for evidence-based M&E by 2014. Which contains membership that is knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced.

High Priority Actions Annual meetings Focused learning and training and Webinars which ask the following questions: o What works? o What does not work? o How do we use evaluation criteria? o What are the frameworks? Web-based platform is maintained and linked to other platforms Expand the listserv Expand the Webinars Create a dissemination plan for our collective learning and innovations and to advocate to donors and governments Expand technical membership, especially donors

Medium Priority Actions Conference presentations Articles published Fundraise (diversify sources) (could be high priority) Find some new network weavers (could be high priority)

Low Priority Actions Governance charter (done for now) Define types of membership

SEA Change Vision for External View

Statement 1: SEA Changes aspires to influence M&E standards, practice and policy for climate change related development issues (or climate change aspects and dimensions of development interventions) Statement 2: SEA Change aspires to be recognized as Community of Practice for best practice documentation Statement 3: SEA Change aspires to influence climate change policy, build awareness, and impact practice

High Priority Actions Consolidate and promote progressive ideas in M&E Map those we seek to influence

11

o International development community o National / Local governments o Specific projects (ACCRN) Identify evaluators roster and put into a practice Identify target audience for evaluators roster

No Medium and Low priority actions

Track A: M&E Leadership in SEA Change

Track A consisted of a two-part series to design with SEA Change members an evaluation of the community of practice, to be conducted at the end of Year 2. The sessions were facilitated by Senior Technical Advisor, Ana Coghlan, and participants included SEA Change Evaluation Committee members and Stefan Nachuk of the Rockefeller Foundation. In the first session, participants first reviewed the major benefits of conducting participatory evaluation: obtaining better quality data, having the design be more relevant and, thus, the results more likely to be used, fostering greater ownership of the CoP, and developing the evaluation skills of SEA Change members. The team then reviewed the stages of conducting an evaluation with a particular focus on the steps to designing and planning an evaluation. The presentation for this session can be found in the SEA Change CoP resource library: http://www.seachangecop.org/seachange/files/documents/SC_Evaluation_Planning_Session_Ana.ppt

Evaluation Stakeholders Analysis Following the usual steps to designing an evaluation, the team identified SEA Changes major stakeholder groups and their information needs, as well as the ways in which SEA Change would like the evaluation results to be used. Major Stakeholder Groups CoP Members Information Needs from the Evaluation Demographics of the CoPs membership Activities of the CoP The extent to which members have advanced their knowledge and practice Existing knowledge gaps Good practices, innovations in the field Resources available for M&E of climate change innovations Existing and potential partners Lesson learned in forming and maintaining a CoP The activities of the CoP The accomplishments of the CoP The influence the CoP has had on the practice of M&E of CC interventions within the CoP The influence the CoP has had on the practice of M&E of CC interventions outside of the CoP 12 Ways to Use the Evaluation Results Knowledge sharing Professional development (Re)planning of the CoP

Partners, other CoPs

For conducting better M&E of CC interventions To make future partnerships To know how to develop a CoP To decide what to promote and fund

Funders

External Users

Governments

The value proposition of the CoP Good practices, innovations in the field Resources available for M&E of climate change innovations, including a rooster of evaluators The issues in conducting good M&E of CC interventions Resources available for M&E of climate change innovations

To conduct good M&E of CC interventions

To provide the needed resources to conduct good M&E of CC interventions To conduct good M&E of CC interventions

Purposes of the Evaluation After identifying SEA Changes major stakeholders and their information needs, the evaluation team determined the specific purposes of the CoPs next evaluation. These include: To be accountable to funders and community members To plan the next phase of the CoP To expand our membership To obtain additional resources and funding To demonstrate and promote the use of promising practices in the monitoring and evaluation of climate change interventions

Evaluation Questions and Data Collection Methods From the main purposes of the evaluation, and keeping in mind the revised action plan for the CoP, the team then generated some of the major questions to be answered by the Year 2 evaluation. The team also identified some of the possible methods to collect data, in order to answer the major questions.

Evaluation Questions

Data Collection Methods Members questionnaire Members questionnaire Members questionnaire Members questionnaire Members questionnaire Adapted Personal Value narrative (conducted at the conference) Routine monitoring Routine monitoring Routine monitoring Members questionnaire

Individual Level
What resources are members aware of? Who has used the tools and how, and with what results? What resources have members accessed through SEA Change? What have members learned? What have members done with the resources?

CoP Level
What resources and services are available and how effective they are? What has been produced: evaluations; toolkits; roster of good evaluators What activities took place? How many? How often? How many members? What are their demographics? Were targets met? If not, why not? 13

What activities did members find most useful and why? What activities did members not find useful and why? The quality of the network: What is the level and density of the membership? What has the CoP produced in terms of tools and resources? What value did the members get from the network? Whats the networks reputation? To what extent have the needed resources been provided? What has the CoP produced to measure program impact, what type of tools? What has the group done collectively? (products, helping others, supplying materials to the library) Who is the CoP partnering with?

Members questionnaire Routine monitoring Key informant interviews

Do we have the right members? (in terms of knowledge, skills, experience, commitment) How sustainable is the CoP (funding, institutionally/management)? Does the group have a clear value proposition (do members see value?)

Routine monitoring Members questionnaire Routine monitoring Members questionnaire ONA Key informant interviews Key informant interviews Members questionnaire Key informant interviews External questionnaire Key informant interviews External questionnaire Key informant interviews

External Level
Who else is tapping into the network and with what results (external) What influence on good practice within the CC community

Next Steps in Designing SEA Changes Evaluation The new Team Leader with the Evaluation Committee need to better align and flesh out the ideas presented above, which were more or less brainstormed under tight time constraints, with SEA Changes new vision and action plan, and further refine the specific evaluation questions. This abbreviated evaluation plan then should be vetted with SEA Changes general membership and expanded upon based on their comments and interests. The revised evaluation plan then should be put into action, with the members questionnaire, the external questionnaire and the key informant interviews conducted several months before the end of Year 2 and the personal narrative interviews conducted at the next Annual Meeting.

Track B: Climate Evaluation Advancements in the U.S. & Action Planning

Track B consisted of two different sessions, the first being a presentation by Steve Adams on the state of Climate Adaptation work in the United States, which can be found here in the SEA Change CoP library: http://www.seachangecop.org/seachange/files/documents/4._Climate_Adaptation_M&E_in_the_US.p ptx The second part of Track B consisted of fleshing out the Action Planning Areas that had been consistently coming to the fore in the discussions throughout the week and come to an agreement on the way forward. These included five areas: Geographic Subgroups, Thematic Subgroups, Training and Webinars, Dissemination & Outreach, Network of Evaluators. 14

Climate Evaluation Advancements in the U.S. Steve began by showing the great increase in reporting in the media about climate adaptation issues since 2007. This is significant, as most people previously believed that talking about adaptation would be detrimental to mitigation efforts. In fact, what has been discovered is that discussing adaptation leads to a strengthening of mitigation efforts as the economic costs of adaptation are revealed as being relatively higher. In the US, the climate change efforts are being led by individual federal agencies and states and localities. These efforts vary greatly between agencies and states, and a map of the US indicating which states have adopted climate adaptation strategies shows both a geographical and political component. Those states that are along the coast, and thereby threatened by rising sea-levels, and those that are more liberal leaning are more likely to have adopted climate adaptation strategies. An examination of efforts at the city and local levels also reveals interesting patterns. Most of the climate adaptation work centers around high-value economic sites, such as ports and Wall Street in lower Manhattan. There is little attention paid to the affect that inequality plays in climate change and the affect it will have on people. In some instances, the poor are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and in others they are less at risk. This is in sharp contrast to Asia, where much of the climate change work is viewed through the humanitarian lens, as the poor are more at risk than most.

Action Planning Areas A set of questions for each planning area was devised and participants chose which area they wished to discuss in depth. Three out the five topics were chosen and the complete results of the group discussions are contained within the detailed minutes, with short summaries below.

Geographic Subgroups Participants in this group concluded that the purpose of such groups would be to facilitate and organize discussions and connect members in a given region. The groups would identify capacity building needs related to M&E, climate change, and DRR, and would also help to increase membership in SEA Change with people from that geographical area. SEA Change would be expected to support these subgroups by introducing members to the wider network and resources in the region and by providing information and ideas on M&E tools, methods and innovations. Coordinators for regional groups were nominated: Sabita for Nepal and South Asia, Emma and Leo for the Philippines, and Piva for Indonesia.

Webinars and Trainings The group focused on Trainings and Webinars identified 13 subject areas that they would like to see covered by webinars. This ranged from M&E indicators for different impact areas (health, livelihoods, NRM, etc.) to training on how to measure the economic impact of climate change through cost-benefit analysis of different adaptation activities. Participants suggested improving the format of webinars by having individuals watch them in groups so that they could have discussions among themselves after the presentations. Another suggestion was that webinars should present a video link as well, much as the virtual presentation was done in this conference, to enable viewers to have a visual of the presenter. Participants also suggested scheduling the sessions further in advance, at a consistent time-slot, preferably within the normal working hours of those based in the South or Southeast Asia region. To further the progress in this group, volunteers were solicited who would follow-up on the ideas here, while not making a commitment to present themselves. This included Paul, Anabel, Emma, Piva, and Munish.

15

Dissemination and Outreach The third Action Planning Area of Dissemination and Outreach focused on the areas that SEA Change wanted to reach out to and how best to go about doing so. The first group targeted is M&E Practitioners with the goal of promoting sharing of information, tools, and practices and providing feedback to projects. The best way to influence this group would be through publications, conferences, webinars, trainings, newsletters and social media. The second target group consisted of decision makers and policy makers at the local government level with the same aim of sharing tools, but with the additional goal of raising awareness on climate change issues. SEA Change is best positioned to influence this group through targeted outreach through local government organizations, leagues, and associations, as well as through universities that provide local government services. Resources include case studies and policy briefs, while translated materials will be needed for all materials. An important idea was brought to the table during the review session when it was suggested that if a member wished to publish something, they could have it peer-reviewed by members of SEA Change. Upon publication, it could then be branded as having been reviewed and approved by SEA Change. A rotational leadership position was suggested for following up on this Action Planning Area, with Kerry, Anabel, Ei Ei, Leo and Sunandan being nominated as volunteers.

Looking Ahead and Next Steps

Kurt closed the meeting by revisiting the list of expectations generated in the first session on day one. It was agreed that most of the goals set in the beginning were met to varying degrees. Strong agreement was registered for the items Learn from each other and Understand the value of the CoP. Medium levels of success were attributed to the expectations for priority setting for the CoP and defining the CoP strategy. It was agreed that Learning about the latest developments in M&E related to CC was achieved only minimally. Conference participants expressed gratitude for the organization of the CoP and were impressed by the progress that had been made over the last year. Many people commented on how productive it was to be able to meet face-to-face and establish personal connections with other members of the CoP. Nancy MacPherson of the Rockefeller foundation gave the final words of the conference by saying that while it was clear that the network was addressing the need to improve practice, she was still looking for the link to how SEA Change can influence the broader M&E Field. A strategy for achieving this influence remained to be found. Nancy issued a challenge to everyone to reach out to those that they knew to get them involved so that the CoP can begin to influence wider discussion.

16

Annex 1
SEA Change CoP Annual Members Meeting Agenda 9-10 November 2011 | Bangkok, Thailand Objectives: By the end of the annual CoP meeting, participants will: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Share experiences resulting from membership in the CoP Provide input into developing vision and planning CoP activities in Year 2 Learn from advancements in M&E of climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts Improve understanding of changes to the organizational network analysis (ONA) Draft CoP monitoring and evaluation plan Gain access to networking within the CoP and with CoP organizational partners

Day 1: November 9, 8:30AM 6:30PM

Time
7:30 8:30 8:30 8:50

Session
Breakfast Introduction

How
Conversation

Topics
Overview, expectations, objectives: Gain a clear understanding of what we are trying to achieve together Where are is the CoP now and how did we get here? What has your journey been since you joined SEA Change? Differentiating adaptation from resilience from DRR Architecture of evaluation in Asia & SEA How do we define advancement with an evaluation and climate change lens? What are the latest advancements? Learning to ADAPT Principles Implications for M&E

Prep
Kurt MacLeod

8:50 9:50

CoP Reflection

9:50 10:50

CoP Lens: Evaluation & CC

Facilitated Discussion & Members Stories Panel Plenary Presentation

Sarya Sok

Nancy MacPherson

10:50 11:10 11:10 12:30

Tea/Coffee Break Advancements I

12:30 1:30 1:30 3:00

Lunch / Connecting CoP Excellence

Virtual Presentation and Interactive Session Open Panel presentation and discussion

Paula Silva Villanueva

Open time for staff to connect, have meetings, discuss specific issues Members share demonstrate their innovation in M&E of CCAM around frameworks, methods, and tools.

Piva Bell and Munish Kaushik moderated by Sabita Thapa Evaluation Committee and Matt Reeves

3:00 3:20 3:20 5:00

Tea/Coffee Break CoP Snapshot: Surveying Results

5:00 5:30 5:30 6:30

Connecting Marketplace

Facilitated Discussion and Interactive Session Open Reception

Lessons from member survey ONA Discussion Round 2 based on changes since CoP Kick-Off in October 2010 CoP members and partners showcase their work

Small booths/tables

17

Day 2: November 10, 8:30AM 6:30PM

Time
7:30 8:30 8:30 8:45 8:45 10:45

Session
Breakfast Day 1 Summary Visioning & Action Planning

How
Conversation Facilitated Discussion and Interactive Session

Topics
Review of CoP journey, excellence, field advancements, visioning, action planning Revisiting goal statement and vision How will the CoP achieve this vision? Identify next steps towards activities in the next year ways to leverage resources and commitments needed Goal and charter Rationale for CoP M&E plan Components of M&E plan Synthesis of member input and refining process of TOC Environmental Evaluators Network / Adaptation Developments in the U.S.

Prep
Sarya Sok Matt Reeves

10:45 11:00 11:00 12:30

Tea/Coffee Break TRACK A M&E Leadership in SEA Change

11:00 12:30

TRACK B Advancements II Working Lunch / Connecting TRACK A M&E Planning

12:30 1:30 1:30 3:00

Presentation, Facilitated Discussion and Interactive Session Presentation and Interactive Session Open Facilitated Discussion and Interactive Session

Evaluation Committee: Ei Ei Tun, Kristen Davies and Leo Pruna Steve Adams

1:30 3:00

TRACK B Advancements Open Discussion & Afterglow

Facilitated Discussion and Interactive Session

Open time for staff to connect, have meetings, discuss specific issues M&E discussion Analysis of stakeholders Defining the purpose Major M&E questions Sources of information Data collection procedures Data analysis and interpretation Using the findings Next steps before finalizing What challenges still exist? What is the current state and future of evaluation architecture? Where are there growing edges and in what direction should the evaluation field lead climate change? How can the CoP support and contribute to innovations in the field? How can we address the gaps? Highlights from Track A and B Bridging the learning between tracks Discussion around garnering wider CoP ownership of evaluation plan Next steps for upcoming activities

Evaluation Committee: Ei Ei Tun, Kristen Davies and Leo Pruna

Matt Reeves

3:00 3:20 3:20 4:00 4:00 5:00

Tea/Coffee Break Track Reflections Looking Ahead & Next Steps Connecting Writing 101: How to publish your work! (Optional) Dinner

5:00 5:15 5:15 6:30

Facilitated Discussion Discussion and Interactive Session Open Presentation and Interactive Session

Track Representatives Ana Coghlan and Evaluation Committee Kerry Bruce, Pact Director of Results and Measurement

6:30 8:00

Call for articles Review publication process Upcoming venues to present articles and evaluation applications or advancements Private Dinner at Anantara Bangkok Sathorn

18

Annex 2
SURVEY OF MEMBERS

Introduction Through the support of the Rockefeller Foundation, Pact has helped establish SEA Change Community of Practice: the Southeast Asia CoP for the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of climate change interventions. SEA Change will conduct its first annual members meeting on November 9-10, 2011. As part of this convening, we ask that you take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Your answers will be used for us to explore together at our members meeting: Who we are, where we are from, and where we work Level of member engagement in CoP activities Changes in members M&E capacities Integration of climate and evaluation communities Transformations in M&E policy and practice The survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. Due to the nature of the survey, it is not possible to maintain confidentiality. Your participation is completely voluntary and although we encourage you to complete the survey, there is no penalty should you choose not to. And should you want more information about the survey or about the Community of Practice in general, please contact Sarya Sok at ssok@pactworld.org.

Background Questions 1. What is your nationality? ________________________________

2. Are you? Female Male

3. In the last five years, what countries have you worked in on issues related to climate adaptation and mitigation? ________________________________________________________________________

4. What institution or organization are you employed by or do you work as an independent consultant? I work as an independent consultant I am employed by (please state the name of your institution/ organization) ______________________

19

5. In which sector(s) do you primarily work? (Please check all that apply.) Government Multilateral (ex. World Bank, UN, etc.) Private business National NGO Community-based/Local NGO International NGO Foundation University/Think Tank Other (please specify) ___________________________________________________

6. What are the major program and M&E areas in which you work? (Please check all that apply) Design/Implementation Natural resource management Disaster risk reduction Renewable energy Community forestry Infrastructure Community responses Climate change-related policy Other (please specify): ____________________ Other (please specify): ____________________ Monitoring & Evaluation ______________________ ______________________

7. What are the major program and M&E areas do you wish to develop greater expertise? (Please check all that apply) Design/Implementation Natural resource management Disaster risk reduction Renewable energy Community forestry Infrastructure Community responses Climate change-related policy Agriculture Other (please specify): ____________________ Other (please specify): ____________________ Monitoring & Evaluation ______________________ ______________________

8. Is the majority of your professional duties dedicated to monitoring and evaluation? Yes No

20

Engagement in SEA Change Activities 9. In which of the following SEA Change activities have you participated? (Please check all that apply) Kick-Off meeting in Delhi on October 29, 2010) Webinars (e.g. WRI/GIZ Webinar with presentation by Meg Spearman on May 4, 2011; BetterEval Webinar with presentation by Patricia Rogers, Mai Alagcan on June 24, 2011; IDS and Climate-Eval Webinar with presentation by Paula Silva Villanueva on October 12, 2011) Regional conference presentations International conference presentations Evaluation committee Other (please specify) ___________________________________ Other (please specify) ___________________________________ None of the above

10. How frequently have you participated in the following ongoing SEA Change CoP platform activities? (Please check one type of frequency for each activity) Frequently Occasionally Not at all Read online discussions Participate to online discussions Search for library resources Download library resources Share (upload) library resources Check event calendar Watch recorded CoP videos Browse fellow member profiles Other (please specify): ____________ _____________ ____________ Other (please specify): ____________ _____________ ____________

Capacities of CoP Members 11. How useful have the following SEA Change activities and resources been? (Please check all that apply) Very Useful Somewhat useful Not very useful Webinars Online discussions Evaluation committee discussions Library resources Event calendar Videos Networks linkages Other (please specify): ____________ _____________ ___________ Other (please specify): ____________ _____________ ___________

21

12. Which of the activities and/or resources listed above have you found most useful and why?

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

13. By being a member of SEA Change CoP, what are the top three things you have learned about M&E of climate adaptation or mitigation? Please list in the order of importance to you. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

14. Have you applied this knowledge or resource in your work? Yes No

15. If yes, when and how did you apply this knowledge or resource that the CoP made accessible? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

16. At what level was this knowledge or resource implemented? (Please check all that apply) Individual Team/department/unit Project / Program Organization / Institution Community None of the above Other (please specify) ________________________________

17. Have you learned something you wish to apply but there are barriers to the application (still limited knowledge, institutional, governmental, budget, etc.)? Yes No

18. If yes, how can the CoP help you overcome barriers in applying new knowledge? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

22

19. In what ways has the CoP changed how you do your work? (Please check all that apply) Acquired new skills or knowledge Expanded application of new skills or knowledge Gained confidence in your ability to conduct M&E practice Shifted perspective of M&E of climate change interventions Increased motivation to do your work Other (please specify) ________________________________ Other (please specify) ________________________________

20. Do you belong to other networks that focus on monitoring and evaluation of climate change interventions? If so, please list them below. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

Integration of Climate Change and Monitoring & Evaluation Communities 21. Has becoming a SEA Change CoP member changed how often you interact with other CC program staff? Yes, I interact more Yes, I interact less No change

22. If yes, what has resulted from these interactions with other climate change program staff? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

23. Has becoming a SEA Change CoP member changed how often you interact with other climate adaptation or mitigation evaluators? Yes, I interact more Yes, I interact less No change

24. If yes, what has resulted from these interactions with other climate adaptation or mitigation evaluators? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

25. Have you seen institutions (organizational, national, institutional and beyond) change their approach to utilizing monitoring and evaluation in relation to climate change interventions? Yes No 23

26. If yes, was it a result of the SEA Change CoP? Please describe. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

27. What has been the highlight of your participation in the CoP so far? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

28. Looking forward, what activities/actions should the CoP prioritize in order to effectively improve your work in climate M&E? What would you recommend the SEA Change CoP do more of or add? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

29. Other comments, suggestions or feedback. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for completing this survey. We look forward to sharing the results with you!

24

Annex 3
Network Questionnaire Introduction Thank you for being a participant in the SEA Change Community of Practice. As part of the upcoming annual meeting, we ask that you take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete the following network analysis survey. Your answers will be used for the following purposes: To help understand existing linkages between potential CoP participants, and compare with last years baseline so that we can monitor CoP development over time. To help us identify the primary sources of intellectual resources (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) that individual SEA Change practitioners are accessing. These could be useful resources or partners for the CoP more broadly. To inform and catalyze conversation about how we would like strengthen the SEA Change CoP over time. Your participation is entirely voluntary and although we encourage you to complete the survey, there is no penalty should you choose not to. Because of the nature of this survey, it is not possible to maintain confidentiality. Please note that the data collected will be used only for informative, not evaluative purposes. If you are uncomfortable with your name appearing on a network map, please make a note of this on your survey, and we will make alternative arrangements. If you have any questions about this survey, or about Pacts Network Analysis methodology in general, please email Matt Reeves (mreeves@pactworld.org).

Please circle one: I do / do not wish my name to appear in the presentation of the network survey results.

25

Question 1: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Climate Change Adaptation in general. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

Question 2: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Climate Change Mitigation in general. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

26

Question 3: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Natural Resource Management. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

Question 4: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Disaster Risk Reduction. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

27

Question 5: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Renewable Energy. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

Question 6: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Community Forestry. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

28

Question 7: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Infrastructure. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

Question 8: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Community Responses. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

29

Question 9: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Climate Change-Related Policy. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

Question 10: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Agriculture. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

30

Question 11: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Food Security. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

Question 12: In the last 12 months, which organizations or individuals have you obtained intellectual resources from (research documents, methodologies, training materials, etc) related to Climate Change and Gender. For each organization or individual you list, enter the number that best describes the extent to which these intellectual resources have influenced your work? Influence: 4 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and often influenced my actions 3 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking and sometimes influenced my actions 2 = Resources obtained have influenced my thinking 1 = Resources obtained have influenced neither my thinking nor actions Name of Organization of Individual Level of Influence

31

Question 13: In the last 12 months, have you discussed issues related to your work in monitoring and evaluation of climate change initiatives with the following SEA Change COP participants? On average, approximately how frequently did you discuss these issues? Frequency: 4 = weekly 3 = monthly 2 = quarterly 1 = annually

Name ABASOLO, Emma ALAGCAN, Mai ANABEL, Nancy ANDERSON, Allison AUNG, Myo Myint AVENA, Jose Roi AVTAR, Ram BARON, William BELL, Piva BEPLER, Stefan CHRISTIE, Juan CHUM, Vuthy COWLES, Paul DAVIES, Kristen DING, Li DROUSSOU, Paul EISENSTADT, Keegan ELRICK, Carmen FELIX, Jyoti GAUTAM, Mahesh GONZALES, Leo GREGOROWSKI, Robbie HAGENS, Clara HARJATI, Pramita HING, Phearanich HONG, Vu Xuan Nguyet HTAY, Win HTUN, Ei Ei 32

Ranked Frequency

HUGHES, Karl JARVIE, Jim JONES, Lindsey KABAN, Evi KAMAU, Hannah KAUSHIK, Munish KRISHAN, Nisha KURTZ, Jon LEONARDO, Teresa LUND, Brian MOHAN, Priyanka NAMBI, A. NGUYEN, Khang Hang NGUYEN, Quang PHILIPS, Brad POHAN, Tiurma PRUNA, Leodegardo RAETZ, Stuart RAFISURA, Kareff RAHMAN, Hamidur Md. RAVESLOOT, Bruce SAM, Chanthy SILORI, Chandra Sekhar SINSUPAN, Thitiphon SOPHIA, J.D. SOVACOOL, Benjamin TEDESCO, Carmen THAPA, Sabita TIEDEMANN, Matthew BARR, Julian COGHLAN, Ana LI, Lailai MACLEOD, Kurt MACPHERSON, Nancy 33

NACHUK, Stefan REDDA, Robi REEVES, Matt ROGERS, Patricia SOK, Sarya SPEARMAN, Meg TEMNENKO, Kseniya VILLANEUVA, Paula Silva ZUBIRI, Andrew

34