Fact-sheet 29 - Regional - 8284-00/2011 8284-01/2014
9.1.9 … ʺrisks and potentialsʺ
Interviews
9.2
Sustainable chemicals and waste management
Assessme‐
nt 1‐7[1]
Sources
9.3
Climate protection
Assessme‐
nt 1‐7[1]
Sources
9.4
Water and sanitation
Assessme‐
nt 1‐7[1]
Sources
10.
Assessment of the impact on the beneficiaries and
the institutions
Sources
10.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention
(positively and negatively) plausibly contribute to
change the beneficiariesʹ lives?
Different project
documents
10.2
How, and to what extent, did the intervention
contribute to the beneficiaries’ change in attitude
and behaviour?
(v) p. 42
10.3
What were the contributions of the beneficiaries to
the main observed changes?
10.4
How, and to what extent, did the intervention
(positively and negatively) plausibly contribute to
changes in the institutions involved?
11.
Sustainability
Sources
11.1
To what extent did the benefits of the intervention
continue after the funding had ceased?
11.2
What were the major factors which influenced the
achievement or non‐achievement of sustainability of
the intervention?
(v) p. 44
A further unexpected but very significant impact is that people who had lived in conflict for many years have now regained
a kind of normalisation in their relationship. While in the first meetings ‐ according to an interview partner ‐ the Serbians left
the meeting room when the Kosovo‐Albanians talked and viceversa ‐ they now sit together and make jokes about how the
borders were drawn on a map.
Explanation
They contributed through their committed participation in different events and showed ownership of the issues.
Explanation
Explanation
Explanation
Capacity building is a long process and it is difficult to measure changes in the institutions involved.
Explanation
The intervention provided increased knowledge, e.g. through exposure visits, about environmental (crime) issues, and thus
broadened the beneficiaries’ horizons and capacities.
One of the most important outcomes highlighted by several of the interviewees was the effect of helping to foster the
sharing of best practices for increasing enforcement capacity, which was a result of the workshops focused on the regions
and countries.
Not applicable, as the intervention is still running.
The staff that were trained and the staff that benefited from the spill‐over effects can continue to bring value to the
beneficiary organizations. However, the relatively high staff turn‐over is a serious risk to the continuation of the results
deriving from the capacity building activities. Political changes and new priorities, budget restrictions and unclear division
of responsibility may also jeopardize the long‐term sustainability of the project results.
Page 15
Fact-sheet 29 - Regional - 8284-00/2011 8284-01/2014
12.
Counterfactual question
Sources
12.1
What would the situation be like if there had been
no intervention?
(v) p. 43
13.
General assessment of the intervention
Sources
13.1
What is the evaluatorsʹ general assessment of the
intervention?
14.
Lessons learnt
Sources
14.1
What are the three most important “lessons learnt”
from this intervention for the environmental sector
in general
Evaluators
List of Documents
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Explanation
Capacity building is a long process. With the relatively high level of changing risks and potentials, it has been difficult to
obtain long‐term sustainable capacity building after only a couple of years of the network. Without Themis, however, the
professionals involved in the project would not have been trained, and the partnership with international organizations and
networks such as INECE, IMPEL, INTERPOL would not have been strengthened to the same extent. Also without Themis,
the beneficiary organizations would have not benefited so directly from the knowledge and expertise acquired from the
Austrian, Hungarian, Czech, and Croatian partners.
(i) The evaluators appreciate the Themis approach, because attention is oriented towards an unknown but very relevant
environmental topic, (ii) the connection to state structures should be improved, (iii) to the evaluators perception neither
ADA nor REC has enough knowledge about the Themis activities in the three visited countries, both institutions refer
instead back to their colleagues in Vienna (ADA) and Hungary (REC). This does not contribute to anchoring the project
better locally in each country.
Explanation
Environmental crime is a specific niche, but one of high relevance for the countries involved in the intervention due to the
difficulty the national authorities have in detection and prosecution. It would be worthwhile to continue with this same
approach. We met highly committed people, though unfortunately their numbers are very limited. The impact could
possibly be bigger if the beneficiaries share their practical knowledge, for example with municipalities, and if they include
among their participants people who have more lobbying power to fight for the needed changes in environmental policies.
The homepage http://themis.rec.org/ requires an update.
Explanation
[1] assessment 1=no impact, 2=very weak impact, 3=weak impact, 4=moderate impact, 5=strong impact, 6=very strong impact, 7=extremely strong impact. 0=not relevant.
Promoting regional cooperation in South‐Eastern Europe via networking within the authorities responsible for the environment and justice sectors (THEMIS Network)
Activity Report, June 2012.
Project Progress Report, December 2012.
Activity Report, June 2013.
Final Report, March 2014.
Themis Network – Stage 2: (Promoting regional cooperation in SEE via networking with the authorities responsible for the environment and justice sectors)
Geysels, Frans and Nathan Johnson (2013): Environmental Networking Handbook. Themis Network.
Page 16
Dostları ilə paylaş: |