Tim was asking me some questions about the templates, and I thought it might be helpful to post my reply to him here, since he's probably not the only one with those questions.
Why are the questions repetitive?
As mentioned in the Guidance Note, the sections in the templates are intended to be redundant so as to ensure that different aspects of a phenomenon are covered by asking the same question in different ways. However, it CAN get tedious to fill out the tables when certain things come up again and again.
For example, the category of "threat reduction" in the country template (document 3A) under the Environmental Change table (Section IIA), may identify "decline in poaching" as a reduced threat, with "improved enforcement activities" as a contributing factor. "Improved enforcement" might also show up in the table for Change in Capacities, if the improvement in enforcement occurred during the period that GEF support was present. It may also show up again in the Timeline (Section IIB) if this improvement in enforcement started as a result of a specific event or driver, and then again under Management Inputs (Section IIIA) if law enforcement training and equipment were provided as a specific contribution of one of the actors.
To avoid the exercise from getting too tedious, you can either a) copy and paste whatever you've already typed into the boxes where the answer might also be relevant, or b) provide a reference such as "See non-GEF factors in Environment Change, 'threat reduction'" in boxes where the information is also relevant, to avoid repeating the information. The point is, do whatever makes sense for you--the bottomline is that you are able to capture all the information that you have collected.
Let me know if this helps. Have you found a better way to make the process easier? Please share your experience in the comment box below!
Change starting when?
Another question that may be common is: from when do we start assessing the change? There are two sub-sections assessing change, Section IIA - Direct Changes and Causes and Section IIB - Indirect Change and Causal Pathways.
The first, Section IIA, is meant to document changes that occurred during the period of GEF engagement. So it's important to know when GEF support began and when it ended, and then ask what the state of things was before this period, and what the state of things is at present or immediately after support ended. The change may not always be a result of GEF support (or not only of GEF support), and this is exactly what we want to find out. GEF support may have funded certain activities that are expected to lead to that change, but asking this question will help us see if indeed it was those specific activities that directly contributed to it.
The second, Section IIB, is meant to document longer-term changes, so we can see if GEF did indeed contribute to major change, or if the events were already headed in that direction anyway. This is where GEF contribution will be more nuanced, as we know that there are so many other larger actors and drivers shaping the sequence of events in a specific context. Perhaps GEF provided the last extra push needed for conservation to be prioritized rather than economic gain. Perhaps GEF came in to lend some sort of credibility when other donors were having second thoughts about continuing their support for PAs in the country. Perhaps the momentum for change started way back when the country gained its independence. Perhaps some other donor or even government would have provided exactly the same kind of support. These are the sort of things that will not emerge unless we look at the long view and ask the question "what might have happened had GEF support not been present?"
What do we do with the Preliminary Analyses?
The Preliminary Analyses forms (document no. 4A, B and C) are meant to help synthesize the information organized in the templates as a bridge between data collection and the analyses that we are going to be doing in June. So filling out the 5 sets of preliminary analyses (PA system + 4 PAs) is very important, as these are what we will be presenting to each other during the calibration workshop.
The country and PA templates will continue to be important as references that we can use to clarify data as needed during discussions, as well as compare answers to specific categories across the countries and PAs. So it's likewise important to make sure the information in the tables is well-presented and understandable. We also plan to aggregate information organized in the templates (quantified, as much as possible) as evidence in the report to support our findings and recommendations.
Below is a flowchart of how the different documents feed into each other. You can click on it to make it larger.
Hope this helps and do share your thoughts below!
