CBD Alliance evaluation reports

External evaluation

This CBDA_evaluation_report commissioned by SwedBio, reviews the implementation of the CBD Alliance program entitled Democracy, civil society and the Convention and Biological Diversity during the two program cycles 2007-08 and 2009-2010. The effectiveness of the CBD Alliance’s work has been assessed with direct reference to 1) CBD Alliance’s overall goals and objectives; and 2) the specific goals and objectives of the programmes supported by SwedBio.

Internal Evaluation

In 2011, the CBD Alliance also conducted an internal evaluation from within the community.  The survey received 26 replies, 12 from the Global South and 14 from the Global North. Approximately seven percent of the listserve membership responded to the survey. Many of the survey respondents come from countries that have hosted COPs or have organizations that actively focus on multilateral processes. It is important to note that some of the respondents represent larger networks (i.e. IPACC compromises Indigenous Peoples’ groups from all over Africa).  As far as possible the CBD Alliance is using the evaluation as a reference point for the work that it plans for the future, and for feedback on spaces where improvisation could be made.

The evaluation section of the questionnaire highlights the following as the Alliance’s strengths:

  • ECO, the listserve, COP briefing papers, CBD capacity building workshops, and the strategy sessions 
  • The flexible, decentralized organizational structure of the Alliance, which allows for reflexivity
  • The wide variety of activities, which allows for varied levels of participation

Members also highlighted some crucial areas for improvement such as:

  • Time management: there was an overarching concern of not having enough time to participate both during and between CBDs or to collaborate on other projects. Some respondents linked these constraints to a lack of organization and the need for more lead time in the CBD Alliance
  • Improved/increased cooperation/coordination with indigenous and local communities: many of the respondents’ main objectives and work priorities feature collaboration and work with local/indigenous groups, and there was some concern that these voices are not heard in the CBD Alliance; related to this was a concern that the organizational model of the Alliance circumscribes its ability to have a solid base at the local level
  • Southern participants: there was a general sense that the Alliance’s support to Southern participants could be increased or improved (although not mentioned as a priority project in the section below on the Future of the Alliance.) Some respondents worry that skills gained during participation in the program are not being shared with the CBD Alliance or the sending organization.
  •  Communication: there was interest in seeing other forms of communication developed and updated (i.e. website, social media).