Page - (000125) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

documents, evaluation reports (by the UNEP Evaluation Office and UNEP part- ners), project design documents andprogress reports etc. The evaluation teamalso conducted a large number of interviewswithUNEP staff andmanagers at headquarters, concerned divisions and branches, in regional offices and country offices. Country visits were organized to conduct interviews with government officials, NGOs, development partners, and recipients ofUNEP technical and/orfinancial support,whichenabled theevaluation teamtodeepen its analysis and understanding of key internal and external factors affecting perfor- mance.Thesixcountryvisits allowed theevaluation teamtogaugehowbeneficia- ries and other key stakeholder perceived programme effectiveness, sustainability and likelihood of impact. The country visits also helped the evaluation team to assess synergies and complementarities betweenUNEP climate change interven- tions, and also to address cross-cutting issues such as gender. The evaluation further conducted a staff andpartnerperception survey. The purposeof the surveywas to collect perceptions on sub-programme relevance and effectiveness and key factors affecting performance such as communication and coordination between divisions, inclusiveness within UNEP in determiningwork plans and budgets, human and financial resources devoted to the CCSP and its components, engagementwithpartners,monitoringand reporting systemsetc.The surveywas conducted online using the SurveyMonkey platform. Responseswere received from56UNEP staff andmanagers – the response ratewas acceptable at about 40%.Only three partners responded to the survey – a response rate of less than15%. 6.6 EvaluationProcess Asafirstdeliverable, theevaluation teamproducedan inceptionreportbasedonan initial desk review and introductory interviewswithin UNEP. It included amore detailed presentation of the evaluation background (global context, programme framework, institutional arrangements and project portfolio); a draft Theory of Change of the sub-programme components; and the evaluation framework (a detailed description of themethodology and analytical tools that the evaluation would use to answer the evaluation questions). The inception report was first reviewed by the Evaluation Office and then shared for comments with the Sub-programme Coordinator and the heads of functional units involved in the sub-programme. The data collection phase for the evaluationwas expected to take place over a relatively short timeframe from January to April 2013. However, some country visits had to be rescheduled due to unavailability of key persons or conflicting schedules within the evaluation team, prolonging the data collection until June 2013. The evaluation teamprepared country case studies and componentworking papers,whichwent throughseveral roundsofcommentsfromtheEvaluationOffice (forqualityassurance)andUNEPstakeholders (for factchecking).Themainreport 6 AnAnalytical Framework forEvaluating aDiverseClimateChangePortfolio 107