15th virtual exchange session for the Community of Practice on Climate Policy Monitoring and Evaluation

On Thursday May 14th, the 15th virtual exchange session of the community of practice on monitoring and evaluation of climate policies (CofP M&E) of  EUROCLIMA+ / FIIAPP was held with support from the LEDS LAC Platform. The session focused on institutional arrangements for climate policy monitoring and evaluation in the region.

As an input for the dialogue, an introductory presentation was made by Beatriz García-Pozuelo of FIIAPP/EUROCLIMA+ who reflected on the main findings regarding the governance issues of M&E systems that arise from the support provided to four countries in the region on the design or strengthening of climate policy monitoring systems.

In addition, two perspectives from countries in the region were provided on issues of institutional arrangements for climate policy monitoring systems, with contributions from Nico Kohlhas of Chile's Ministry of the Environment and Sioux Melo of Colombia's National Planning Directorate. As in all the sessions of the CofP on M&E, there were spaces for participation and contributions from the attendees.

KEY ELEMENTS FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Under the framework of the EUROCLIMA+ programme, FIIAPP has been supporting four countries in the establishment of M&E or MRV systems: Costa Rica (National Adaptation Policy), El Salvador (Monitoring System for its first NDC), Uruguay (Monitoring System for its Health and Tourism Sectors) and Chile (System of Indicators for its PANCC). An empirical analysis of these processes, recognising the difference of each national context, allows the identification of common key elements in the work on institutional arrangements (see table 1).

We understand the concept of governance as an interrelationship of a set of actors and institutions which establish relationships that are embodied in laws, rules or protocols to implement mechanisms to achieve the objectives of a policy, where monitoring and evaluation is a key element for improving policies based on the information they provide, based on evidence and learning, about their effectiveness and efficiency.

In the case of Chile, with support from FIIAPP, a process has been carried out to improve the targets and indicators of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (PANCC). The process, which has taken about a year, has included an analysis of the existing indicators in the PANCC and identification of the missing ones, workshops with the Inter-ministerial Technical Team on Climate Change (ETICC) and a proposal for a governance and monitoring system.  Shared key elements include:

  • Clarifying roles and responsibilities of different actors and at different levels,
  • Having common methodologies and procedures for reporting progress and a centralised management platform that does not depend on a single person;
  • Strengthening the institutional and legal weight of climate issues at the sectoral level;
  • Strengthening the collection of information on actions that are taking place at the sub-national level.
  • Listening to the opinions and needs of the users (from those who take the data to those who use the report for decision-making), to avoid having reports that are not used. Aim to empower everyone to prevent having reports that are not used. Seek to empower all those who are part of the system.

In the case of Colombia, it was explained how the monitoring system for the different policy and planning instruments (Sustainable Development Goals, Paris Agreement, National Development Plan and Green Growth Strategy) is structured through systems such as SINERGIA or SISCONPES.  From the point of view of climate change, there is the MRV of climate finance and a vulnerability and adaptation system in preparation. They are working on an information system that will allow dragging climate change indicators from other systems. It is reflected that the information can be segmented in different systems, but the important thing is to consolidate and centralise everything in one place for evaluation and decision making.

Based on what has been revealed and discussed, it is concluded that although there are many efforts to develop and implement M&E systems, there is still much asymmetry between institutions in terms of participation and capacities.

Material of interest