Mapping the Road to Peace: the GPPAC journey with Outcome Mapping OM Community Webinar 10.10.2012 Jenny Aulin, Goele Scheers & Paul Kosterink

The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict “the prevention of deadly conflict is, over the long term, too hard – intellectually, technically, and politically- to be the responsibility of any single institution or government, no matter how powerful. Strengths must be pooled, burdens shared, and labor divided among actors.” (Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict 1997)

the Global Action Agenda A shift from reaction to prevention The roles and potential of civil society in the prevention of violent conflict Multilateralism Local participation and ownership Learning from practice

Towards an established network Regional consultation processes 2003-4 Global Action Agenda 2005 Charter and structure of the Global Partnership 2006 Strategic Plan 2007 – 2010 Strategic Plan 2011-15

Who/what is GPPAC? 15 regional civil society networks Thematic Working Groups International Steering Group GPPAC Board Regional Secretariats Global Secretariat

Theory of Change When civil society organisations join forces through networks, this increases their capacity to contribute to preventing violent conflicts. -> Learning and improving their own practice -> Capacity to influence other actors

Proving and Improving: the PM&E balancing act

Problems with PME Unsatisfied with logframe Ad hoc use of logframe Only for donor accountability Did not show GPPAC’s results as a network nor facilitate learning Linear approach

Change… Time Vision Plan OUTCOME OUTPUT OUTCOME OUTPUT OUTCOME OUTCOME ACTIVITY OUTCOME Time OUTCOME OUTPUT OUTCOME ACTIVITY OUTPUT OUTPUT INPUTS OUTCOME ACTIVITY OUTCOME INPUTS ACTIVITY OUTPUT INPUTS INPUTS Plan Thanks to Ricardo Wilson- Grau 9

Why Outcome Mapping? Systemic approach appropriate for networks, because a network is not the sum of its parts, it is the product of the parts' interaction (Russell Ackoff). Measuring progress towards long-term goals in conflict prevention; outcomes make progress more visible by focussing on boundary partners and changes in behaviour. Many actors and factors that facilitate (slow, gradual) change; contribution instead of attribution. Participative and learning-focused PM&E.

GPPAC Strategic Plan 2007-2010 5 programmes: Interaction & Advocacy Network Building Awareness Raising Knowledge Generation & Sharing/ Peace Education Early Warning & Early Response = 5 Intentional Designs

Intentional Design The intentional designs followed the format of the OM Manual with: Boundary partners, Outcome Challenge and ‘Expect, Like, Love’ progress markers. Each programme formulated up to 3 outcome challenges.

Reporting and evaluating Outcome description Source Significance GPPAC’s contribution Results (proving) Strategy (improving) Added value (function)

Example: Outcome: In 2008, UN Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) strengthened the language in its semi-annual review of peacebuilding in Burundi regarding the importance of accountability and human rights training for the security services, reflecting civil society concerns about human rights abuses in 2007-2008. Significance: The review is a valuable tool for civil society to encourage both the Burundian government and its international partners actors to condition their technical and resource support provided to the security services, particular the intelligence service, for on-going human rights abuses. Contribution: GPPAC member WFM-IGP based in New York, along with Biraturaba, the GPPAC national focal point in Burundi, organised a briefing for the PBC by several Burundi-based civil society organisations and international civil society experts on Burundi, followed up by lobbying aimed at the draft 2008 report of the PBC.

Internal and external outcomes Example Internal Outcome: In 2011, GPPAC US members and partners formed the Human Security Collaborative as an alliance to inform and influence US foreign and security policy from a conflict prevention and peacebuilding perspective. As part of this initiative, a Washington DC Liaison function was set up to monitor relevant policy developments, build relationships and create entry points for advocacy and dialogue on behalf of the network.

How? Participatory approach Continuous capacity building of network members Engaging with donors Results used in monitoring meetings and to make changes to strategy

Advantages Recognising and identifying network-specific results (network building, sustainability..) Meaningful reflections and information Identifying trends Identifying the added value of GPPAC Wide range of outcomes – from internal and small steps, to external and significant

Challenges Passing on the knowledge: terminology, concepts, formulating outcomes Subjective nature of outcomes, or resources required to substantiate them Network challenges: language barriers, competing priorities, making time and funding available for reflection Donor requirements: indicators too vague, widespread use of logframe approach Complicated planning and monitoring structure Hard to digest info to send to donors

New Strategic Plan – new approach Results table: merging approach with logframe All GPPAC strategies (=programmes) together contribute to outcomes

Prevent armed conflict by peaceful means through systematic and effective collaboration at all levels between CSOs, state actors, RIGOs, the UN and other relevant stakeholders.  external GPPAC wants civil society organisations to collaborate in designing and implementing conflict prevention strategies and catalysing partnerships with relevant stakeholders.  internal GPPAC GOAL GPPAC PURPOSE

Boundary Partners (ext.) Goal level: actors external to the GPPAC network, whom GPPAC seeks to influence Relevant UN bodies Regional Intergovernmental Organisations (RIGOs) Relevant state actors Context-relevant stakeholders -> external/political outcomes

Outcomes Goal-level: UN, RIGOs and state actors… consult and adopt recommendations from local CSOs in decision-making and conflict prevention policies and actions, taking into account related public manifestations; UN and RIGOs develop standards for effective coordination and government engagement for preventing conflicts; Develop good practices in conflict prevention suggested by or in alliance with CSOs

Boundary Partners (int.) Purpose level, concerns GPPAC members and partners in the global and regional networks GPPAC members (regional networks, ISG members, working groups, etc) Civil Society Organisations in the field of conflict prevention & peacebuilding (potential members, partners) -> internal/network outcomes Agent of change = subject to change!

Outcomes at Purpose-level: GPPAC members and CSO partners… initiate and implement conflict prevention interventions and Preventive Action plans in collaboration with GPPAC members through effective network structures; improve their own practice based on regional and international learning exchanges and tools tailored to context; collectively lobby and raise awareness on multiple levels based on a common agenda

Interactive PM&E Using an online platform for sharing, reflecting on M&E info and (in due time) continuous collecting of outcomes Another important development has been the use of the Peace Portal, an online platform, for its PM&E activities. Members upload their reports, questions and comments in a closed online community and can view each other’s reports. The Portal is currently being used for developing a database where outcomes can be collected on a more ongoing basis and systematised. The Peace Portal (www.peaceportal.org) is an open platform which offers both free and customised services to other organisations as well! 25

Feedback on Outcome Mapping approach (1) Experiences from January 2012 until today (from the new coordinator PME & Learning) 5-year strategic cycle and annual operational cycles are well designed and appropriate for the network International Network: relatively loose relations, little time, capacity building  run into practical problems F.e. Outcomes formulated too broad, or not precise F.e. Annual reporting: at activity and output levels  difficult to relate to the outcomes; several activities relate to 1 outcome OR 1 activity relates to 2-3 outcomes  limitations of written reporting format

Feedback on Outcome Mapping approach (2) Experiences from January 2012 until today (from the external evaluation 2006-2011) Outcome harvesting (Natalia Ortiz & Ricardo Wilson-Grau) Collecting outcomes from all programs & regions Quantity of data: 238 outcomes  ‘Drupal’ database (relate outcomes to goals, programs, regions, etc.) Quality of data: from written reports  flaws Evaluators to engage with Network: for each outcome describe significance and GPPAC’s contribution Quality of data: improved through interaction (Q-and-A’s, skype, in-person, Network meetings)

Feedback on Outcome Mapping approach – next steps (3) The Network agreed on next steps: More frequent, reflective interaction with members Capacity building through 15 Regional Secretariats Improve quality from Reg. Secr. to & with members Involve facilitators/experts to support members meetings and/or reporting and/or skype interviews Make information more meaningful: dynamic versus static; reflect & adjust, frequency (annual vs. ongoing, or monthly / quarterly?) Useful database

Thank You! PM&E Issue Papers available Goele.scheers@gmail.com j.aulin@gppac.net p.kosterink@gppac.net www.gppac.net www.peaceportal.org