Exchange programmes - IUCN

Implementation of an Exchange Programme for Protected Areas in East Asia
Stage 9. Monitor and evaluate the exchange(s)
To provide the data for such feedback, and generally to ensure that the programme is
evolving on the right lines and that its result can be objectively assessed, it is vital that
monitoring and evaluation should form an integral part of the programme’s execution.
The costs of this exercise should therefore be written into the budget. Evaluations may
be of several kinds:
� feedback via questionnaires administered to all those involved in the exchange
programme, including where appropriate the host community;
� formal evaluations at various stages in the implementation of the programme, with
the results fed back to the joint co-operating committee to help them in the further
development of the programme; and
� an end-of-programme evaluation, with recommendations to the partners and
sponsors for further action to build on the foundations laid by the exchange.
Different kinds of monitoring and evaluation will involve asking the views of different
people, e.g. the participants themselves, the local community, colleagues in the
protected area and/or agencies, senior officials. Moreover different kinds of evaluations
will need to be undertaken by different people – the participants themselves, their
employers or perhaps consultants or experts, who may be provided by the funding
agencies. Most funding agencies now attach great importance to this aspect and many
will be ready to advise on how monitoring and evaluation should be undertaken.
Stage 10. Post-exchange activities
Each partner needs to individually and critically assess whether the exchange programme
achieved the goals and objectives first formally expressed in Stage 2 of the
planning process – hence the importance of monitoring and evaluation. If the programme
was successful, the factors that ensured its success should be noted: if some
objectives were not met, the reasons for this failure should also be noted. These
assessments should be communicated to the partner(s), and a further, joint analysis
undertaken. For example, one partner may have felt that one aspect of the exchange was
not as successful as they would have hoped, but this feeling may not be shared by the
other partner. Often one partner can provide the other partner with different perspectives
on why the exchange did or did not achieve success.
Financing the publication of the results of the exchange should be written into both the
funding proposal (Stage 6) and the final agreement and programme information (Stage
7). If possible, innovative ways to communicate the results widely should be attempted.
The traditional “internal memo” or e-mail messages may be functional, but are unlikely
to fire the hearts of employees. Rather, such methods as workshops (both internal and
public workshops), public meetings, brochures, newsletters and media reports might be
used to ensure that staff and community members are convinced that their efforts to help
arrange the programme were not wasted.
Future requests for exchange programmes are unlikely to be supported either at the
administrative or community level if these groups are not clearly and periodically
notified of the progress of the exchange (Stage 8) and the final results of the completed
exchange. The funding bodies often require a final report, based upon a thorough
evaluation (Stage 9); even if they do not, they would certainly appreciate hearing of the
54