| General Information |
Project/Program |
project |
| Project Name |
Joint Climate Change Initiative (JCCI) in Cambodia |
| Duration |
2010-2013 |
| Donor |
Swedish Forum Syd, Danish DanChurchAid/Christian Aid (DCA/CA) and Cord |
| Implementiong Organization |
Swedish Forum Syd, Danish DanChurchAid/Christian Aid (DCA/CA) and Cord |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Cilmate Change |
| Region |
Cambodia |
| Financing |
around 16 MSEK |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
Swedish Forum Syd, Danish DanChurchAid/Christian Aid (DCA/CA), Cord, RGC(Royal Government of Cambodia), UNDP |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
|
| Gender |
|
| Impact Analysis |
The implementation of the project have strongly contributed to increasing the partners’ knowledge and interest in pursuing climate change adaptation measures. An overall conclusion of the results from the different components of the JCCI objective shows that the most substantial outcomes are within the learning com- ponent and there are also important results in some CSO partners in terms of im- plementation capacity of climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts.
|
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
Since JCCI’s “format” is new in Cambodia it is not possible to compare the effec- tiveness and efficiency with other, similar set-ups, which would have been one way to assess the management of the project. Although Forum Syd has had an overall admin- istrative responsibility in the coalition and is the contract partner with the Embassy of Sweden, the two other coalition partners DCA/CA and Cord have taken their share of the implementation, which makes efficiency assessments complicated. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
Accountability in JCCI is generally subsumed under activities referred to as “advocacy” and “multi-stakeholder processes”, the former being focused more on national policy processes and the latter generally referring to influence at commune and district levels and on service provision and decentralised investments, but this may take many differ- ent forms. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The evaluation has used on three kinds of sources: documentation, mainly the annual reports and proposals published by Forum Syd, interviews with stakeholders and staff among the JCCI partners, and observations and interviews during a series of field visits to four provinces in mid/north-western Cambodia. |
| Rating |
5/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
Sweden was the logical donor for JCCI since Forum Syd had previously received funding from Sida. Another contributing factor for the creation of JCCI was the Swedish government’s Special Climate Change Initiative, which started in 2009 and provided fresh, earmarked funds through Sida for just this kind of project. The launch of this initiative was accompanied by strong pressures for rapid disbursement given the limited initial timeframe for using the funds (2009-2012). |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Other Remarks |
The JCCI approach has proven that capacities can be effectively and efficiently developed among both human rights- and livelihood-oriented CSOs through synergies among what, at first, might appear to be a rather unwieldy set of partners. These ca- pacities have primarily emphasised a general understanding of the changing land- scape of climate risk facing rural Cambodia, and a modest but relevant toolkit of in- terventions to address these risks. |
