Page - (000313) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

perspectives as ‘audience’membersof children’s advocacy, both formally through project activities (e.g. radio programs) and throughother informal communication channels, such as at home. Local governmentmemberswere asked specific ques- tions to informthe“policy”sub-setof indicators, includingabouthowchildrenand their communities were involved in Barangay-level planning for disaster risk reductionandCCA,Thepolicy impactof theproject reliednot solelyonadvocacy by children and their communities, but also critically by directly supporting local governments to: provide opportunities for children and community’s to share perspectives in forums (suchasPCVAs); and thenuse theseperspectives to inform their planning and budgeting forCCAactivities and development ofCCA-related policies and regulations. These issues were explored during supplementary interviews. Project implementers, reflecting on these supplementary interviews in compar- ison with the focus groups, noted in some cases how children and youth had developed a much more sophisticated understanding of climate change science, impacts andadaptationsolutions than someof thecorrespondingadult participants in theproject.These supplementary interviews thusprovidedproject implementers withuseful informationaboutpriorities forcontinuingtheirworkwithduty-bearers, includingparticularly on advocacy activities. 16.4.3 StepC:ReflectionandAnalysis viaTeamDebrief TheanalysisofFGDandinterviewresultswasmostlyconductedthroughstructured ‘debrief’ sessions involving facilitators, documenters, observers and interviews closely after each community was visited. This approach to analysis was driven bythepractical realitiesofproject implementation–thebusyschedulesandlimited time for team members to conduct further desk-based analysis – as well as recognising thevalueof involving the team in joint reflection exercise. Themainpurposeof thedebriefsessionwastofoster learningthroughstructured reflectionon theFGDsand interviews.Through thedebrief sessions, the teamalso capturedadditionalobservationsfromtheFGDsthatwerenotpossible tocapture in detail at the timeof theFGD; to reflectedonwhatwentwell and less so about the FGD and facilitation itself to inform future FGDs and briefings required; and to identify learnings from theFGDand interviews, andhow thesemight help inform futureprogramactivities.Debriefs also involvedcapturing representative example quotes fromchildren inastructuredawayagainst indicatorsareas that showedhow well children’s knowledge improved, their communication and advocacy, and the impact on practice and policy – with a reminder to link to participation in the program. Although the emphasis was on qualitative investigation, the project team also considered it could be useful to formulate scalar measures of the indicators, potentially to enable comparison and, beyond the original thinking for applying the indicators, to assist reporting for accountability purposes. This required the 16 EvaluatingClimateChangeAdaptation inPractice:AChild-Centred. . . 301