The Internet belongs to everyone. Let’s keep it that way.

Protect Net Neutrality
Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Beyond 2015 evaluation - interactive presentation 16 Feb 2016

No description

Beyond 2015

on 17 February 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Beyond 2015 evaluation - interactive presentation 16 Feb 2016

Effectiveness and impact in achieving our goals

Beyond 2015 final evaluation
Prepared by an independent consultant
What we evaluated?
Why we evaluate?
Successes and failures
Lessons learned and recommendations
Beyond 2015
Members questionnaire
Deep and meaningful input from all over the world
Structure, governance, management and partnerships
Monitoring and reporting
Threats to our legacy
Effectiveness and impact in achieving our goals
''Beyond 2015 fully achieved its goals''
''Beyond 2015 fully achieved its goals''
Advocacy successes
UN officials and MS seem to have genuinely welcomed and thoroughly considered the inputs of the campaign

Global, regional and national
Stronger at global level
Weak in most regions, except Europe and Africa

High degree of satifsaction with our tools and approaches at the global level
Positive impact on CSO engagement with the UN
Empowered CSOs to engage in complex UN processes
Money money money
Structure, governance, management and partnerships
Exceptional levels of self
organised governance, anchored
in the principles of collective
decision, inclusivity,
and accountability
Executive Committee
+ Gratitude!
- Unclear mandate
+/- Communication
+/- N/S balance
- Gender balance
- Lack of continuous and sufficient leadership (strategy, funds)
- Limited decisions to mitigate regional and national coordination difficulties
Professional, multicultural, multilingual, efficient and good at problem solving
Fiscal agents
+ Concord then ADA
+ Separation of powers
+ Fiscal neutrality
N/S not important
- Bureaucracy and delays in fund transfers

Should partners have been observers on Ex Com? Should partner calls have been more regular / structured?
Interviews with
advocacy targets
To help future global campaigns effectively influence international decision-making processes

To help understand how CSOs, particularly from developing and emerging economies, experienced participation in the campaign - and how this influenced their participation in the post-2015 intergovernmental process
New voices introduced
Initial dominance of Northern CSOs
Absence of synergies / clear relationships with other campaigns
New voices vs. expertise?
Advocacy shortcomings...
1. Lack of direct participation in the negotiations of those living in poverty
2. Global->regional->national loop - did we do enough?
4. Monitoring and review chapter of the Agenda
5. SDGs vs. FfD
6. Not counterbalancing the continued focus on sustained economic growth
Fundraising efforts
Donor mix
Donor Coordination Group
Weak fundraising strategy at start
Risk of gov funding an advocacy campaign
Low CSO contributions, both financial and human resources (fundraisg departments)
Decentralized model
Targeted funding to Southern members at national level
Flexible funds for Soutern leadership
Lack of Exec Com engagement in decisions
Lack of funds for regional activities
Delays in approval of budgets and disbursements, and bureacracy in hosts.
Exit strategy and threats
Should have done the wind down phase much better
Two main threats
1. Fragmentation in the implementation of Agenda 2030 at the national level
2. Loss of an effective structure for efficient collaboration and coordination
To facilitate civil society collaboration and engagement
Key regional findings
+ Creation/expansion of CSO networks & strengthening national coalitions
- Limited regional leadership, leading to absence of regional positions & difficult engagement with regional bodies (e.g. UNESCAP)
+ Gratitude
+ North / South
+ Mid term elections
- Lack of visibility and leadership
- Poor selection process
Well managed, empowering its staff
Advocacy Director
N/S not important?
Key recommendations
Member organisations
Engage actively in discussions on possible successor initiatives
Discuss opportunities for synergies and collaboration with the UN Major Groups System
Tools and approaches
Questions to consider
Keep funds for Southern leadership at the national level and flexible funds for Southern leadership on the Exec Com. Be less worried about having secretariat or secretariat based in the global south.
Region / national

UN quote:
“the regional will emerge more clearly in the implementation phase so it should be an important level in future campaigns. It (the regional level) will turn into a venue where countries are among peers and will feel more comfortable with exposing the challenges and learning lessons.”

MS quotation re HLPF: “regional reviews must become a bridging mechanism between different levels of action.


Improve selection processes at both levels. Better monitoring - not just written reports. Visits?
Better enable cross fertilization across regions and countries (thorough thinking, budget, plans, tools)
Empower Steering Committees - consider how. ToRs? Individual / organisational responsibility?
Official allocation of regional portfolios among Executive Committee members
Better consider the structures and arrangements for line management / supervision by the secretariat
Advocacy or mobilisation?
Northern domination
More regular and
updates, to identify and share good practices.
We lacked a comprehensive mechanism for M+E of use of funds at national level
“We should have cut the time we spent in trying to engage with those with whom there was no shared understanding and invested more quality time in planning how to maximise the 3 key partnerships we finally concluded with the 3 organisations with whom we had things in common.”
Policy + advocacy expertise on climate change
Understanding the interface between climate-based and social policies
Regional and national
limited funds dedicated
lack of awareness of overlapping memberships
Regional Coordinators not in same countries
Lack of focus on capacity building? An 'ambassador' to liaise with lead agencies?
Question - clarity of focus / expectations?
Structural inefficiencies?

lack of specific regional strategies
changes in regional coordinators
colleagues were not dedicated full time to the Post-2015 process
dual reporting unclear (to regional coordinators and to the IFP)
Difficulties in 2011 + 2012! Complex, time consuming, too difficult to agree strategic synergies with all.
Ended up with the 'right' partnerships, based on trust, friendship and shared common ground
Partnerships helped Beyond 2015 in the following areas: policy, advocacy, research, legitimacy and fundraising
Partnerships not maximised, nor did they fully meet expectations - but what would have happened without?
Deficiencies in choice of activities/tasks for partners and the approaches to operationalize them
Room for improvement in the overall coordination of regional coordinators
Should the coordination of regional coordinators have resided in the Secretariat?
One of the main drawbacks of campaign was not enabling enough
participation of those living in poverty and exclusion.
Disengagement of Participate once its research and budgetary provision ended, contribution much less clear in later stage of campaign.

High quality research
Increased the legitimacy of Beyond 2015
Strengthened policy and advocacy
Some evidence that it brought perspectives of the poorest into the debate
A comprehensive process

+ Helping CSOs understand the global UN process
- Disfunctional regional steering committee
- Global approaches not adapted to the Pacific
- Lack of funds for face-to-face meetings involving all actors

+ Influencing the EU
+ Language to enrich the post-2015 content
+ Strong policy analysis
- Sometimes excessively long position papers

Moving ahead of other regions to keep pace with the EU...
Latin America

+ Helping CSOs understand how the global process could have a local impact
- English language barrier
- Difficult regional coordination for numerous reasons including different CSO capacity, weak regional institutions

+ Coordination of a Common African Position -> engagement in the African Union
- Poor mobilisation in Francophone countries
International Forum of National NGO Platforms
Full transcript