At COP21 in Paris we arranged a number of interviews by SV-Adapt partners and the two CISU colleagues Iben and Lotte
. They visited Paris to interview people from the organisations supported to investigate if the FCEs focus on networking, advocacy and international agendas is relevant.
A brief summary report from the interviews with SVA and other partners is now avalilable
- and it is largely very positive, confirming the importance of the work we and others do - and the importance of the FCE. Below some highlights / quotes from the report - following the key questions asked by CISU
. I recommend you to read the full one - and to share your own perspectives.What is the relevance and benefit for partners of attending the COP?
What are the advantages from working in networks?
- An opportunity to reach out and have dialogue with relevant representatives from their own, as well as other, country-representatives, negotiators, media, some private sector and other policy influencers – which they would not have been able to do at home.
- An excellent opportunity to networking and getting relationships cemented as well as creating visibility around the interventions supported by the FCE.
- By taking part in the COP, the organisations expressed that they strengthened their credibility and legitimacy amongst the policy makers/negotiators/officials as well as amongst other audiences
- They felt able to bring local issues to a global audience by having a global voice. They gained motivation for their work and also input and inspiration – and brought back a number of contacts for their network.
What difference has the funding from the FCE done for your work?
- Facing the same challenges, members of the network can share experiences, knowledge and methods of working; . ‘The experiences of others make you see challenges and barriers as well as opportunities.’
- Working network-based makes duplicating of efforts in each country less likely ‘which would be a waste of resources as we would be trying to each invent things by ourselves’
- By having worked together on a global tool (such as CARE’s Joint Principles for Adaptation), the government could see that it was not just a local/national initiative trying to “audit” the government but a global initiative being used elsewhere.
- The challenge mentioned of working network-based was the expenses of meeting physically across continents or countries which makes it difficult to meet frequently
- That the projects all have elements of connecting practice at local level to policy at national level and higher levels
- By providing cases and examples to national level, authorities are able to see evidence; “We work to ensure that local needs are reflected and addressed appropriately in national/regional and global agendas.”
- Clear demand as well as need for funding for advocacy work in the Global South. Many pointed to the fact that hardly any donors offer funding for networks of this type and funding for advocacy work from local level to international level can also be difficult to find
- Gathering evidence for use in advocacy related work requires time and resources, which this fund has provided. This link between policy making and practice is often not made, leaving policy and practice far from each other, with poor results
CISU/Civil Society in Development - is the Danish funding agency supporting Southern Voices on Adaptation from their Fund for Climate and Energy (FCE)We invite you to share your comments and reflections on the issues mentioned above and in the report.