and the participants should be able to suggest questions so that the needs of local RCEs can be reflected. The discussion also posed a question whether the methodology require all RCEs to go back to the year of implementation? It was suggested that assessment should be viewed as an opportunity to reflect on what you have achieved from your p roposed p lan. It was also observed that during the assessment, sometimes RCEs were equated with projects and members did not necessarily understand what an RCE should be - therefore there is a requirement for self-reflection on the process. Dr. Zinaida Fadeeva added that while doing the assessment one must evaluate, what is our value addition? She further stated that methodology should be accessible through portal: called hybrid evaluation - hybrid because it is a mix of methodologies. There is also a concept paper to go with it that is intended to be flexible and requires engaging with the stakeholders. It was also informed that there is a pilot webinar on how to work with this methodology. It was further told that elements of this training will be brou ght into the meeting at Okayama in December 2017. There is a need to identify commitment from a number of RCEs who are willing to try it. Hence this methodology is meant as a way to collect what RCEs are doing; a way to brief others what RCEs are doing. There is also a plan to link it with SDGs. Furthermore it was stated that currently the p roblem is that SDGs are being put out in a top down way. Hence it is essential to use principles and areas behind the SDGs so people can consolidate what they are doing to ensure that their work is brought out. Dr. Fadeeva mentioned that there are 3 levels of ambitions: 1. Each RCE reflecting on the partnership. 2. Do it with ESD principles. 3. Link to policy and SDGs. This could be seen as an opportunity to think how on e‟s RCE evolved an d w h ere it is now. Prof. Tabucanon in the same session talked about three different stages which are important to look at - 1. Constitutive assessment - i) governance: diverse multiple stakeholders - is it participatory? ii) Network of collaboration - as many as possible to reflect local communities, and iii) conducting work that relates to transformative education; 2. Appreciative stage - what have you been doing? What have you learnt? 3. Futuristic assessment - Where are/ should you be heading? Examples from different RCE assessments were shared. The first one being from RCE Bangalore evaluation: At first partners were a little reluctant to engage. Now more partners have come on board. Hence making it more realistic and approachable. Extended focus beyond initial one on agriculture and aligned with policy. Centre for Environmental Education is the lead agency and has done extensive work across the country. One big learning from this short exercise was that Global Service Centre partnership can help RCEs to p romote their work. Next example was shared from RCE Srinagar: proposed local networks to bring their needs to the broader RCE network. The problems of conflict in the region present a unique challenge. A need was felt to work with youth. Every p artner is equally active and responsible and no one wants to drop out and many more are willing to join the network. Additionally it was shared that resources are a huge challenge and therefore RCE Srinagar, 13
10th Asia-Pacific RCE Regional Meeting Report
To see the actual publication please follow the link above