Evaluation report of thé International Fund for théPromotion of Culture (IFPC) UNESCO

1 .1

TAMBIE.<1LOS TABU-SS Y

LIBRE

Photo and text by Guiilermo Maceiras, Window to Diversity^

Report prepared by Itziar Gomez and Eva OteroDecember2016

This report has been produced by independent evaluators, commissioned by thé IFPC Secrétariat. As such, thé views putforward in this report should not beconsidered those of UNESCO. Thé views expressed in this report reflect thé views of numerous informants and sources as well as research and analysisconducted by thé évaluation team. Any comments regarding this report can be forwarded to thé evaluators by émail at: eva. otero leitmotivsocial.com oritziar. ornez leitmotivsociaicom

1 'Art transcends boundaries and divisions between societies and cultures uniting what seemed destined to never be understood. Artrepresents a tool that contains thé cultural imaginary ofthose who create it while at thé same time freeing them from thé sociological taboosand préjudices that surround them. Art is a universal and free language'.

TABLE 0F CONTENTS

Table ofContents............................................................................................................................................................................

Acronyms..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................."

Thanksto..................................................................................................................................................................................

Executive Summaiy...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

l. Methodologicalframework..............................................................................................................................................................................................................l

Data collection tools and analysis......................................................................................................................................................................................................l

2. UnderstandingtheIFPC.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

3. Findings.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................^

3. 1. Relevance...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

Alignment.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................^

Adequacy......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................"

3.2. Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Allas planned..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Reaching intended audiences...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Factors that hâve caused delays.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Factors that helped thé implementation.................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Products are an end in themselves............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

3.3. Contribution to change..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Personal sphère................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Socio-cultural sphere....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... l7

Institutional level............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

3A Efficiency.....................................................................................................................................................................

Governance and coordination...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Operational procédures.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Value for rnoney................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27

3.5. Sustainability..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................^

Thé Fund's future.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30

Sustainability prospects of IFPC- funded projects................................................................................................................................................................ 31

4. Conclusions......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

5. Recomnnendations............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38

II

ACRONYMS

DAC- Development Assistance Committee

ICHF- Intangible Culture Héritage Fund

IFCD-International Fund for Cultural Diversity

IFPC- International Fund for thé Promotion of Culture

SME- Small and Médium Enterprise

VEDI- Ventana a la Diversidad- Window to Diversity

WHF- World Héritage Fund

III

THANKS TOWe would like to thank thé following people who contributed to this report:

Abdelghani Baakrim, UNESCO ParisAfif Riahi, E-Fest: Festival des Cultures Numériques, TunisiaAlex Rogerson, Arts Council, UKAndréa Barriga Cuao, Ciné a la Galle, ColombiaAnna Coombs, Grounded, UK

Arnold Quiroz, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruBarbara Torggler, UNESCO ParisCarlos De Paz, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruCarmen Mercado, Colegio Victor Andrés Belaunde, PeruCarolina Garcia Ferez, Colegio Victor Andrés Belaunde, PeruCésar Chirinos, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruChris Bartholomew, Grounded, UK

Daniel Martinez, Window to Diversity, Guatemala, Peru,Indonesia and SpainDavid Ruiz, Spanish Culture Centre, PeruDenise Bax, UNESCO Paris

Dereje Banje Mulate, FEKAT, First African Circus, EthiopiaDiego Ibanez, Resistencia Modulada MexicoDirck Pajares, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruDjibril Guisse, Talents of thé Outskirts, MaliDorcas Morgan, Grounded, UKDoyun Lee, UNESCO ParisEkaterina Rivière, UNESCO Paris

Elena Panayotova, Performance Art for Youth, Kenya, Tanzaniaand BulgariaElisa Hernândez, UNESCO Peru

Estefania Aliaga, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruFernande Rendôn, 24th International Poetry Festival Medellin,ColombiaFrancesco Bandarin, UNESCO Paris

Frankie Bridges, Grounded, UKGabriel Brunnich Dunand, UNESCO Paris

Gabriela Moscoso, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruGuillermo Maceiras, Window to Diversity, Guatemala, Peru,Indonesia and SpainHawa Sogoba, Couching Court, Bénin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Sénégal and TogoHervé Djossou, Couching Court, Bénin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Sénégaland Togolan Street, Grounded

Ibrahim Padonou, Coaching Court, Bénin, Burkina Faso,Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Sénégal and TogoItziar Rubio, Window to Diversity, Guatemala, Peru, Indonesiaand SpainJavier Lizarzaburu, Lima Milenaria, Peru

Jay Douwes, Cape Town Carnival Trust, South AfricaJean Paul Abraham, ORTB, Bénin

Jenny Kilele, Rencontres de création et d'initiation des jeunesécrivains et artistes congolais, Démocratie Republic of CongoJessica Correa, Colegio Victor Andrés Belaunde, PeruJessica Dominguez, UNESCO Etxea, Spain

Joël Sânchez, Window to Diversity, Guatemala, Peru,Indonesia and SpainJosé Félix Huaringa; Municipal Government San Juan delhlurugancho Lima, PeruLeire Maure, UNESCO Etxea, SpainLula Capriel, Window to Diversity, Guatemala, Peru, Indonesiaand SpainLynne Patchett, UNESCO ParisManuel Mendoza, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruMargaux Gillet, ANDIMATION, Denmark, Bolivia, Colombia,Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela

Maria Elisa Velâzquez Gutiérrez, Administrative CouncilMaria Gropa, UNESCO ParisMaria Villadoma. UNESCO Paris

Maribel Aguilar, Ministry of Education, PeruMary M. Khimulu, Administrative CouncilMicaela Tàvara, School Iniciativa Lima, Peru

Milagros Torrico, Window to Diversity, Guatemala, Peru,Indonesia and SpainMinja Yang, External evaluatorMohamed Chérif Khaznadar, Administrative Council

Mubarak Alkhaldi, Administrative CouncilNadia Arouri, l can move, Palestine

Natalia Guzmân, Ministry of Culture, PeruNathalie Valanchon, UNESCO Paris

Nuno Ticou Salgado, Flâneur - a fresh photographie lookabout urban culture nowadays, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Portugaland SpainNureldin Satti, Administrative Council

Parakrama Niriella, Janakaraliya - Théâtre of thé People, SriLankaPaula Franks, Grounded, UKPaula Garfield, Grounded, UK

Polycarpe Tchiakpe, Couching Court, Bénin, Burkina Faso,Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Sénégal and TogoRafo Raez, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruRamezanali Vasheghani Farahani, Administrative CouncilRoger Beeson, Grounded, UKRoman Bëlor, Administrative Council

Sandra Salcedo, hluacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruSandro Honores, Ministry of Education, PeruSantiago Forns, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, PeruSasha Rubel, UNESCO Dakar

Sinica Sesum, UNESCO Bosnia & HerzegovinaTehnyat Majeed, Inheriting Harappa, PakistanTrinité Singbo, Couching Court, Bénin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Sénégal and TogoVladimir Icokaev, Introduction ofyoung talented writers into adigital publishing industry, MacedoniaWilliam Grint, Grounded, UK

Zoran Galic, Filming thé Other, Bosnia & Herzegovina

IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis évaluation exercise sought to review thé overall implementation of UNESCO's International Fund for thé Promotion of Culture(IFPC) and to générale knowledge by identifying best practices and lessons learned that could be transferred to other UNESCO projects,programmes and funds.

Thé évaluation framework was based on a desk review and needs assessment, using thé parameters described in thé terms of référencefor this évaluation and other éléments emerging from preliminary discussions with thé IFPC Secrétariat. Evaluation questions wereclustered into five levels of analysis; relevance; efficiency, effectiveness, contributions to change, and sustainability. Thé methodologyinduded a desk review, interviews, field visits to 4 projects and a survey for thé projects implemented under thé 2013, 2014 and 2015calls for projects.

In terms of relevance, thé findings of this évaluation suggest that thé IFPC is clearly aligned with UNESCO's mandate and is successfullycontributing to thé promotion of culture, often through alternative, ground-breaking and cutting-edge projects. Thé Fund's uniquenessmainly stems from thé fact that it provides a space that is relatively independent of inter-government relations and government fundingmechanisms.

Although, as mentioned in thé body of thé report, there are some overlaps between thé IFPC and thé IFCD, thé évaluation found that ingénéral terms, thé IFPC is complementary to thé other Funds managed by UNESCO's Culture Sector. Thé objectives of thé Fund arebroad and ail encompassing, and yet they are adéquate and conducive for achieving thé desired results. Thé implemented projects werealso relevant to thé contexts they operated in and effectively addressed thé needs and priorities of vulnérable groups across thé world.Furthermore, thé IFPC's relevance to young audiences constituted one of its main achievements, since they were successfully integratedinto projects. Thé évaluation has also noted that although gender mainstreaming was institutionally important for thé Fund, thé IFPCapplication process and reporting formats were not conducive to eliciting information on gender issues.

On thé issue of thé IFPC's effectiveness, this report concludes that thé gréât majority of thé 17 reviewed projects implemented since théFund was relaunched in 2012 (2013 and 2014 Calls for proposais) achieved their planned results and followed proper administrativeprocédures, although thé outreach of thé projects was limited in some cases as a result of their innovative nature and uneveninstitutional backing. One of thé main factors contributing to effective implementation was thé fact that IFPC projects were passion-driven by implementers who were strongly committed to their work and volunteers were often a key asset. Thé collected évidencesuggests that to a large extent, IFPC-funded projects were product-focused, which helped implementation, but reducedproducts/experiences to 'ends in themselves'. As a result, valuable information about learning processes and contributions to changethat were inextricably linked to thèse products were not captured.

Considering that thé revitalised Fund has not been in existence for a long time and based on thé évidence from thé implementedprojects, this évaluation argues that thé IFPC has made a positive contribution to thé promotion of culture and artistic expressions. IFPCprojects hâve touched many people's lives, contributing to relevant transformations at thé personal level, to positive changes in thésocio-cultural sphère across communities. In addition to this, thé évaluation concludes that numerous innovations/transformations hâvealso taken place in thé implementing partner organisations as a result of IFPC-funded projects.

In terms of thé efficiency of thé IFPC, thé évaluation concludes that thé Value for Money invested in projects has been very high,although not so much for thé IFPC as a whole, with an ongoing administration bill (i.e. money not going to projects) of around 50% ofits total budget. Projects hâve contributed to changes, thé technical and artistic quality of thé products and expériences has been high;projects hâve succeeded in leveraging other resources and both UNESCO and projects hâve mutually benefited in terms ofvisibility andimage.

On thé issue of existing IFPC governance and coordination mechanisms and processes, this évaluation concludes that there is limitedclarity on thé division of rôles between UNESCO/IFPC Secrétariat and thé Administrative Council and suggests that thé process andcriteria for appointing Administrative Council members could be reviewed. Thé IFPC Secrétariat functions professionally but it is notpromoting synergies among projects. UNESCO has acknowledged thé importance of promoting synergies. However, given thé limitedresources available to thé IFPC, thé development of this component has been particularly challenging for thé organisation. Thé IFPCSecrétariat has only developed limited communication products for visibility and resource mobilisation, and has not systematicallyfollowed-up after project completion, partly as a result of its limited resources. As to thé rôle of UNESCO Field Offices, it was noted thatmutual engagement and support brought about important benefits for both projects and Field Offices.

This évaluation notes that monitoring frameworks are not receiving thé attention they deserve at différent key stages of thé screening,sélection, implementation and reporting processes. Thé reports hâve been described as too narrow and too focused on outputs andfinancial issues, with little space for reflection and exchange on thé challenges and difficulties faced during implementation and mostnotably with little space to reflect on subtle contributions to change.

On thé implementation front, thé évaluation notes that thé 12-month implementation cycle is posing a number of challenges for bothproject implementers and thé IFPC Secrétariat, while thé screening process remains a heavy burden for thé IFPC Secrétariat. Théfinancial reporting required by UNESCO requires considérable expertise and certain aspects of thé current System for justifyingexpenditure are widely perceived as cumbersome and rather outdated. At thé same time, thé administrative cost of thé Fund is perceived tobe very high, since operational costs represent approximately 50% of thé approved provisional budget.

In terms of sustainability, thé évaluation concludes that thé IFPC's financial situation is critical and thé fact that there are no fundraisingand communication stratégies in place constitutes a clear cause for concern. Furthermore, no exit plan has been developed to analysedifférent possible scénarios. At thé project level, it has been noted that IFPC-funded projects hâve succeeded in using thé expériencesand resources acquired with thé support of thé IFPC to continue building on thé results of their projects. They hâve also replicatedproject activities to multiply their positive effects. This supports thé view that projects also continue to live through their products.

In thé process of implementing thèse projects, thé social capital of thé IFPC Secrétariat has increased. This constituency has grown two-fold: firstly, thé Secrétariat has reached many organisations directly through thé project calls and at a second level, projects hâve alsocontributed to building this IFPC constituency through their contacts and partnerships. Thé IFPC projects are in fact succeeding inreaching exactly thé type of constituency that UNESCO would like to reach. In light of thé IFPC's current situation, one of thé key openquestions for UNESCO concerns what it plans to do with this constituency in thé future, considering scénarios with and without an IFPC.

Thé final section of this report provides a séries of recommendations. Firstly, it highlights thé need to take an urgent décision on théfuture of thé IFPC and advises UNESCO to suspend thé upcoming call for projects to focus on thé Fund's prospects and todevise an exit strategy analysing différent possible scénarios. Secondly, this évaluation report proposes a séries ofrecommendations that aim to strengthen and facilitate thé IFPC's governance and coordination structure and mechanisms to makethem more effective and accountable. Thé implementation of thèse recommendations will however be largely conditioned by thélooming décision on thé future of thé IFPC and by thé funding available to support thé implementation of thé recommendations in théfuture.

Thirdly, thé recommendations also suggest a number of ways of strengthening thé IFPC Secrétariat and of expanding its tasks forenhanced performance. A fourth set of recommendations points to ways of fine-tuning existing processes and tools with a view tomaking thé Fund more inclusive and making management more efficient and cost-effective. Thé evaluation's final recommendationadvises UNESCO to continue supporting and strengthening thé IFPC, since thé Fund is successfully promoting culture in créative,innovative ways and is effectively supporting a wide range of forms of artistic expression across thé world.

VI

l. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKThis évaluation exercise is formative in nature and seeks to improve thé overall implementation of UNESCO's InternationalFund for thé Promotion of Culture (IFPC). It has also sought to générale knowledge by identifying best practices and lessonslearned that could be transferred to other UNESCO projects, programmes and funds.

BOX 0: Basic principles of thé évaluation

Usefulness: Thé most important ruling principle ofthis évaluation was to ensure that thé process and outcomes were usefulfor keystakeholders involved in thé evaluated projects by generating learning at différent levels, with a view ta strengtheningdecision-making, programming as well as UNESCO's accountability to stakeholders (induding donors).

Simplicity and accessibility: Our évaluation tools combined simplicity and accessibility, while at thé same time acknowledgingthat analysing and assessing contributions to cultural and social processes is compiex. We hâve tried to overcome this paradoxby creating combined approaches involving a wide range of instruments. Thèse instruments were fine-tuned in consultationwith thé IFPC Secrétariat and key stakeholders.

Rigour: In thé words of researcher Carlos Barahona 'rigour is derived from a séries of linked stages in thé évaluation process. Ifthèse can be fulfilled then rigour can be inferred'2. In this évaluation exercise, thé four stages were l) Inception:conceptualizingwhat we want to know in a well-defined and transparent analytical framework, including formulating clearquestions that thé évaluation will answer and best sources that can inform our évaluation questions (see attached matrix); 2)Data collection tools: designing appropriate methods to gather information from identified sources; 3) Data collection:gathering évidence; 4) Analysis & report writing: analysing thé information gathered in a transparent and methodical way usingqualitative research techniques (such as enabling sense-making spaces) and analytical tools such as triangulation.

Inclusion and participation: We strongly believe that ail relevant stakeholder voices should be heard during thé entireévaluation process and reflected in thé deliverables in a balancedand fair way. This involved opening a variety ofcommunication channels to ensure that anyone who wanted to contribute to thé évaluation process had thé opportunity to doso.

Thé évaluation framework was based on a desk review and needs assessment, using thé parameters described in thé terms ofréférence for this évaluation (see Annex l) and other éléments emerging from our preliminary conversations with thé IFPCSecrétariat. Evaluation questions were clustered into five levels of analysis; relevance; efficiency, effectiveness, contributions tochange, and sustainability. In this report we also described how a number of other issues not included in thé originalévaluation matrix émergea and were integrated into our analysis (see Annex 2).

1. 1. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS AND ANALYSISFieldwork and case studies

We conducted four field visits to Paris Lima London and Cotonou. Thé objective of thé first mission was to interview keyrelevant IFPC actors with thé objective of deepening our understanding of thé Fund and working collaboratively with thé IFPCSecrétariat to fine-tune data collection tools before visiting thé four selected IFPC-funded projects. Thèse four projects werethé following:

. Coaching Court (Bénin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Sénégal, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger and Togo);

. Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll (Peru);

. Grounded (UK);

. Window to Diversity (Guatemala, Indonesia, Peru, Spain)3

2 Dee Jupp vnth Sohel Ibn Ali and contribution from Carlos Barahona; "Measuring empowerment: Ask them!", SIDA, 2009

3 To make thé sélection of case studies we hâve used fhe criteria defined in fhe contract as follows:

a) At least one project from thé first call for proposais (2013)- Coaching Court and Window to Diversity

b) At feast one project from thé second call for proposais (2014)- Grounded and Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll.

In addition to thèse criteria, thé following characteristics were considered in order to propose as varied a sample as possible: a)diversity of artistic expressions (film, théâtre and performing arts); b) variety of languages (English, French and Spanish); e)inclusion of at least one régional project and one global project.

Finally, spécial attention was paid to a sélection of projects deemed of particular interest by thé IFPC Secrétariat. We workedwith thé IFPC Secrétariat to identify thèse projects. For a complète table of sources of information consulted per project pleaserefertoAnnex3.

Desk review

UNESCO provided a large body of documents, including strategy documents, application forms, mid-term and final reportsand publications that were examinée together with documentation gathered during each of thé field missions. We alsoreviewed a number ofthird party documents and reports (such as académie reports or press clippings) and officiai documents.In total we reviewed aver 150 documents (see Annex 4).

Stakeholder inventory

Thé évaluation team built a général stakeholder map to identify and classify IFPC partners and beneficiaries, as well as staffmembers involved in thé management and implementation of thé Fund. Thé map served two purposes: it provided a snapshotof thé range of thé Fund's partners and it was used to sélect potential informants under thé différent data collection tools. Théstakeholder inventory was completed and validated by thé IFPC Secrétariat during thé inception phase.

In-depth interviews and focus groups

Thé évaluation team conducted semi-structured interviews and small focus group discussions in Paris, Cotonou, Lima and inLondon during thé field missions. Efforts were made to ensure that voices covering ail thé catégories induded in théstakeholder inventory were included. Additional interviews via Skype were also conducted.

For each of thé potential interview groups, questions were drawn up addressing thé core évaluation questions and intersectingwith thé informants' background (see Annex 6 for interview guideline tool). Although thé interview sheets were highlystructured, thé evaluators freely followed-up on any emerging issues that appeared relevant to thé core questions.

On-line survey

A web survey was conducted in Spanish, French and English to ensure that a maximum number of views could be analysed andta include quantitative responses. It was sent to 24 of thé 25 projects co-finanod by thé Fund in 2013, 2014 and 2015 and 17projects responded (five from 2013, four from 2014 and eight from 20154).

Debriefing meetings

Sharing preliminary conclusions with informants as often as possible before they became final was a critical part of théanalytical process. To this end we organised debriefing meetings with thé différent Project Teams at thé end of each of théfour field missions to share preliminary conclusions. We also organised a session with key staff of UNESCO Paris to discuss thépreliminary findings ofthis évaluation (20/10/2016).

e) At least one project in which thé project holder is an individual- Coaching Court and Huacas, Burbujas and Rock & Roll.

d} At least one project in which thé project holder is a non-profit private body. Grounded and Window to Diversity.

e) une field visit to an IFPC co-funded project in Africa- Coaching Court (Bénin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Sénégal, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger and Togo).

f) One field visit to an IFPC co-funded project in Latin America- Huacas, Burbujas and Rock & Roll (Peru) and Window to Diversity (Peru).

g) One field visit to an IFPC co-funded project in Europe- British Sign Language Théâtre (UK).

h) One visit to UNESCO Headquarters in Paris to conduct interviews- 2-3 day mission (see détails above).

4 For a complète list of peuple consulted via survey and interviews see list on page IV.

2. UNDERSTANDING THE IFPCUNESCO's International Fund for thé Promotion of Culture (IFPC) was established in 1974 to lend support to projectspromoting arts and creativity by providing technical assistance and financial support to artists worldwide. Following significantgovernance issues, thé activities of thé Fund were disrupted and later suspended in 2006, as a result of a résolution of thé 34thsession of thé Général Conférence. This résolution called for a review of thé operational mechanisms of thé Fund, whichpursued similar objectives to thé 2005 Convention on thé Promotion and thé Protection of thé Diversity of CulturalExpressions.

In 2010, an external audit was conducted to improve thé existing framework and mechanisms and maximise thé Fund's impactand effectiveness. Thé recommendations of thé audit were shared in a round of consultations that finally led to théincorporation of a séries of amendments to thé IFPC's Statutes. UNESCO's Executive Board adopted thèse amendments at its187'h Session in 2011 and two years later, thé Fund re-launched its activities. Since then, a total of four annual calls forproposais hâve been issued in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Aims

Thé overall goal of thé IFPC is to support thé artistic expression and professionalization of young artists worldwide by lendingfinancial and technical support to thé production of cultural and artistic works and events. Thé aims of thé Fund are to use théresources to promote; 'a) cultures as sources of knowledge, meanings, values and identity; b) thé rôle of culture for sustainabledevelopment; e) artistic creativity in ail its forms, while respecting freedom of expression; d) international, and régional cuttural co-opération5.'

Thé IFPC Statutes also state that in order to achieve thèse aims, thé Fund's resources will be used to support: 'a) thé cuiîuraland artistic projects of creators in developing countries; b) culture and development stratégies and programmes; e) théreinforcement of national mechanisms, structures and facilities whose purpose is to support cultural activities and artistic créationin developing countries; d) thé organisation ofexchanges to foster internatlonat co-operation6.'

Scope

Thé IFPC supports artistic expression and thé professionalization of artists around thé world, although priority is given torequests from or benefitting countries included in thé latest DAC List of Officiai Development Assistance Récipients7. Thé Fundis open to proposais from individuals, public bodies, NGOs and non-profit private bodies whose objectives are in conformitywith those of thé Fund and whose activities contribute to thé promotion of culture and artistic création.

Between 2013 and 2015, a total of 27 projects were selected through three calls for proposais. A wide range of implementingpartners (individuals, public bodies, non-profit private bodies and NGOs) conducted activities in a total of 40 countries acrossthé world (14 in Africa, five in thé Arab States, two in Asia-Pacific, ten in Europe and nine in Latin America) (see Annex 5). Thé27 approved projects hâve a total budget of $1,436,200.

Financial structure and set-up in figures

Thé Fund's resources can be provided through four différent channels: a) voluntary contributions made by governments,international or national agencies and organisations, and other public or private entities or individuals; b) donations,endowments, gifts and bequests; e) any interest accrued from thé Fund's resources; d) any other resources authorised byUNESCO's Financial Régulations and Général Conférence résolutions. Donations can be made free from conditions orrestrictions.

When thé IFPC was re-launched, it had a budget of $3,954, 705 (31M December 2010). As a result of thé fact that thé Fund has

not received any new contributions since its relaunch, thé remaining budget amounted to $1,356, 514.86 in November 2016.This évaluation report provides further détails about thé IFPC's financial structure, including resources dedicated to each ofthèse éléments since 2013 under thé chapter on Efficiency.

5 See IFPC Statutes, art. 2.6 Idem.7 This list inciudes ail low and middle-income countries based on GNI per capita (with thé exception of"G8 members, EU members and countries with a firm date for entryinto thé EU[3]". It als<includes ail LDCs (least developed countries).

Governance structure

Thé IFPC is not formally linked to any UNESCO Culture Convention and is administered by an Administrative Council composedof 8 members8. Thé main functions of thé Administrative Council include: budget approval, decision-nnaking on resourceallocation, analysis and approval of funding requests (following prior screening by thé IFPC Secretariat),and thé adoption of afundraising strategy. It meets in ordinary session once a year but can be convened by thé Director Général or at thé writtenrequest of a simple majority of its members for extraordinary sessions to be held electronically.

At thé management and operational level, thé Fund is run by thé IFPC Secrétariat based in UNESCO hleadquarters (Paris). It iscomposed of an Executive Officer and an Assistant Programme Officer, both paid by thé IFPC. An Administrative Officeroversees thé financial implementation of thé Fund and validâtes ail contracts and payments executed under thé IFPC (seechapter on Efficiency for a full assessment of thé governance structure).

8 Members are designated by thé Director-General on thé basis of an équitable geographical distribution for a period of 4 years for a maximum of two terms. Thé members are selected for fheir

eminence, independence, compétence, achievement and international récognition in thé fields of arts and culture. Although Administrative Council members sit in a personal capacity, two members

are représentatives from donor countries and fhe Président of thé Administrative Council is elected from among fhe six independent members.

3. FlNDINGS

3. 1. RELEVANCE

3. 1. 1. ALIGNMENT

Relevance of thé IFPC for UNESCOSince thé re-launch of thé IFPC, thé relevance of this Fund for UNESCO has been questioned by différent actors andstakeholders for a number of reasons. Beyond issues related to its complementarity with other UNESCO Funds operating underthé Culture Sector (discussed below), two issues persist:

Firstly, there is thé question of thé institutional standing of thé IFPC (i.e. thé place it occupies in UNESCO and thé relativeimportance it is accorded). Thé IFPC is explicitly mentioned in two of thé key Culture Sector stratégie documents for thé currentprogramming cycle. It is mentioned in thé 37/C5 4-vear strateqy (2014-7)9 and in thé 38/C5 Budaet10 but not in thé Medium-Term Strategy 37/C4.

Thé fact that thé IFPC does not formally fall under a UNESCO Convention, its autonomous nature and reliance onvoluntary financial contributions are ail factors that make it institutionally weaker than other Funds and less relevant toMember States, which are already under pressure to deliver on their financial commitments under thé 1972 and 2003Conventions. Furthermore, Member States provide voluntary contributions to a Fund that shares objectives with thé IFPC underthé 2005 Convention: thé International Fund for Cultural Diversity, while thé IFPC has not received any new financial supportsince it was revitalised. In spite of this, and despite various efforts, thé Administrative Council has not yet adopted afundraising strategy ta address thé Fund's difficult financial situation.

A second issue that has also contributed to this situation has been thé somewhat limited or mixed understanding of théFund's comparative advantage and unique contribution within UNESCO. Stakeholders consulted during this évaluationargue that even if thé Fund compléments other Culture Sector instruments, its limited funding, high administrative costs andperceived little impact at thé field level shed doubt on its relevance for UNESCO.

In a difficult économie context marked by budget cuts and a growing focus on thé organisation's rôle as depository of thé1972, 2003 and 2005 Conventions (and related commitments), certain stakeholders raised thé question of whetherUNESCO was thé best-placed organisation to manage a Fund like thé IFPC, particularly when thé priority of its institutionalgoverning bodies was thé implementation of thèse Conventions. For other stakeholders, thé Fund is thé epitome ofUNESCO's essence and core mandate, almost a last bastion of thé type of cultural and artistic promotion that théorganisation used to focus on before thé Conventions gained ground.

Despite thé Fund's alignment with UNESCO's core mandate and thé statutory amendments introduced in 2010, thé IFPC is stillseen as a product of a différent époque that sits rather uncomfortably in thé présent institutional context. Thé Fund'scontribution to alternative, ground-breaking, cutting-edge projects is considered by some as almost a luxury that waspart of UNESCO's past but should now be left in thé hands of other organisations (namely INGOs) that might be better placedto manage thèse projects with more suitable financial and administrative resources.

9 See37/C5 (para. 04032) Spécifie Objective (SO] 8"Fosteringcreatjvityand thé diversityofcultural expressions". Main Line of Action CMLA) 2 "Supporting and promotingthe diversity ofcul&iral

expressions, fhe safeguarding of intangible cultural héritage and thé development ofcultural and créative industries" and para. 004031 "International coopération will be furthermore enhanced

under thé revitalised International Fund for thé Promotion of Culture which will be developed as a catalyst of culture for sustainable development by supporting arts and creativity projects in

developing countries, in synergywith other UNESCO Funds in thé field of Culture "(p. 175).

10 See 38/C5 (para. 04029] Expected Result 7#. "Nationa] capacities strengthened and utilised for thé development of policies and measures to promote thé diversity ofcultural expressions,

tiirough fhe effective implementation of thé 2005 Convention", under thé following performance indicator: "Creativity, arts and design are used as tools for sustainable development, especially in

developing countries", with thé fotlowing associated benchmark "At least 32 projects fînanced under thé IFPC, at least 70% ofwhich in developing countries [extra-budgetary)" p. 170.

Ail thèse factors and perspectives considered, our overall findings (discussed at length under thé Adequacy section ofthis report) support thé view that thé IFPC is uniquely relevant and constitutes a real asset for UNESCO that deservesto be supported for a number of stratégie reasons.

In terms of concrète relevance to thé work plans and programming processes of UNESCO Field Offices, évidence suggests thatit is only when IFPC-funded projects are being administered by a UNESCO Field Office that there is a clear alignmentwith thé Field Office's priorities and programme. For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, thé IFPC-funded project Filmingthé Other built on previous Culture for Development programmes implemented through thé MDG-Fund, and was also aprecursor of other initiatives such as thé project presented to thé United Nations Peace-building Fund (supported by UNESCO).Thé fact that thé UNESCO Field Office was deeply engagea in thé project strengthened its relevance for UNESCOlocally.

Complementarity with UNESCO FundsThé complementarity of thé IFPC to other UNESCO Culture Sector Funds constitutes an important aspect of thé Fund'srelevance for UNESCO. Four différent Funds exist under UNESCO's Culture Sector: a) thé Intangible Cultural Héritage Fund(ICHF)11, b) thé World Héritage Fund (WHF)12, e) thé International Fund for Cultural Diversity (IFCD)13; and d) théInternational Fund for thé Promotion of Culture (IFPC).

Thèse four Funds are not comparable, since they contribute to différent aspects of UNESCO's mandate and vision throughinstruments tailored to each Fund's objectives. Their objectives are distinct from one another, since they promote différentdimensions of UNESCO's work (from cultural and artistic expressions to thé safeguarding of héritage). Thé Funds also targetdifférent audiences and hâve distinct operational and procédural characteristics.

Thé WHF and thé Fund for thé ICHF support proposais related to tangible and/or intangible cultural héritage. Thèse types ofactivities are not eligible under thé IFPC and IFCD. Thé IFCD funds projects promoting sustainable development and povertyréduction through capacity development whilst thé IFPC focuses more on artistic créations and cultural products14 that cannâtbe funded by thé IFCD, since thé latter does not fund product-focused projects.

Thé IFCD has a différent operational System to thé IFPC. Applications are accepted from parties to thé 2005 Convention fromdeveloping countries through thé IFCD platform (including NGOs from developing countries that are Pari:ies to this Convention

11 Thé Intangible Cultural Héritage Fund (ICHF) supports activities aimed at safeguarding intangible cultural héritage as defined in thé 2003 Convention (Article 20). Hence, thé ICHF fùnds efforts

to: a) safeguard éléments on thé Urgent Safeguarding List; b] prépare inventories; e] support programmes, projects and activities aimed at safeguarding Intangible Cultural Héritage at thé national,

subregional and régional levels; and d) any other purposes thé Committee may deem neossary, induding capacity building and preparatory assistance. Thé ICHF is governed by an

Intergovernmental Committee for thé Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Héritage. Its support may take différent forms (Article 21] (including thé provision of expertise and trainings, thé

élaboration of standard-setting frameworks, or other forms offinancial and technical assistance). Any State Party may apply for international assistance to thé Intergovernmental Committee which

will prioritize requests for support from developing countries (paragraph 10 of thé Operational Guidelines).

12 Thé World Héritage Fund was established under Article 15 of thé Convention concerningthe Protection of die World CulturalandNatural Héritage with thé objective ofprotecting sites and

propertiesthatarepartoftheWorldCulturalandNaturalHeritageofOutstandingUniversal Value. Thé International Assistance provided by thé Fund can support projectsfallingunderoneof thé

following three catégories: a) emergency assistance, conservation and management and e) preparatoiy assistance. Priority is given to thé most endangered sites. In principle, thé Fund is open to al]

States that are Parties to thé World Héritage Convention. Individuals, foundations, INGOs and NGOs are not eligible. International assistance requests must be submitted by a State Party National

Commission for UNESCO, a Permanent Délégation to UNESCO, or an appropriate governmental Department or Ministry ( See Worid Héritage Website).

13 Thé International Fund for Cultural Diversity tIFCD) was established under thé 2005 Convention on thé Protection and Promotion ofthe Diversity ofCultural Expressions (Art 18) with thé aim

ofpromotingsustainabledevelopmentandpoverty reducdon in developing countries that are Parties to this Convention. It supports projects that "l ead to stru ctural change", with a strongfocus on

capacity-building and covering thé following areas of intervention: "a) thé introduction and/or élaboration of policies and stratégies that hâve a direct effect on thé création, production, distribution

ofandaccesstoadiversity of cultural expressions, induding cultural goods, servi ces andactivities;b) thé reinforcementofcorrespondinginstitutionalinfrastructures. indudingprofessional

capacities and organizational structures, deemed necessary to support viable local and régional cultural industries and markets in developing countries" C1FCD website).

14 In thé contextofthis évaluation, products are not abjects but artistic productions, workshopsandothercultural expériences.

and INGOs for projects with impact at thé sub-regional, régional or inter-regional level). National Commissions screen projectproposais received for each IFCD call and preselect four projects in total (two from public institutions, two from NGOs). A newSystem has been introduced in order to increase thé transparency of thé sélection process. It involves an online platform forUNESCO National Commissions to provide information about each of thé screened projects so that UNESCO HQ can monitorthé entire process.

In light of thé above, thé IFPC compléments thé other three UNESCO Funds operating under thé Culture Sector byaddressing a différent dimension of UNESCO's mandate and serving a wider audience. Even if thé IFPC and IFCD sharegoals under thé 2005 Convention, thé fact that thé IFCD does not fund projects that only produce cultural and artistic works(which constitute thé majority ofIFPC-funded projects), also makes thèse Funds complementary.

Existing différences between thé four Funds in terms of objectives, eligibility and sélection procédures explain why nooverlaps between them are apparent. In addition to this, thé IFPC's autonomy and relative freedom from inter-governmental relations also set it aside from thé other Funds. Thé exclusiveness of thé IFPC (which cannot fundprojects that also receive funding through other UNESCO instruments) further helps to avoid possible overlapsbetween activities and/or project implementers.

Each of thé Funds serves a particular purpose (tangible héritage, intangible héritage, artistic création) as well as a particularneed and focus area. Thèse différences help to explain thé absence of synergies between them. Although thé IFPC Statutesclearly state that 'thé Fund's opérations shall be undertaken in synergy with other UNESCO Funds, particularty those establishedwithin thé framework of UNESCO's standard setting instruments in thé field of culture' (Art. 3), synergies between thé IFPC andthé IFCD hâve been limited (e.g. short-listed projects are shared to avoid duplication of project implementers, some informaiexchanges on projects take place... ). During this research, one example of an IFCD tool that could be useful for thé IFPC wasobserved (namely a two-pager for UNESCO Field Offices detailing thé projects). Experience-sharing between thèse two fundsseems feasible, since they share more common ground and thé capacity-development aspect of thé IFCD could be a valuableresource for IFPC project implementers.

Admittedly, synergies between thé IFPC and thé two heritage-focused Funds may be difficult to articulate but at leastone opportunity for increased synergies has been identified through one of thé projects reviewed. Huacas, Bubble and Rock& Roll proved relevant to thé héritage context because it helped ta put Huacas on thé map to make them visible. Thèsemonuments are in desperate need of protection and thé national authorities are sensitised and willing to enhance conservationefforts.

Nonetheless, despite thé absence of more formai or structured synergies between thé Funds, experience-sharing isimportant. An example worth noting is thé fart that thé WHF has developed a new funding cycle and implementation modelbased on thé IFCD's, which suggests that despite thé différences between Funds, some efforts to share lessons and best-practices are being made15.

Beyond this complementarity and absence of duplication, thé fact is that thé IFPC is also in a weaker position (in terms offunding, resources, perceived impact, etc. ). Member States are already committed to thé WHF and ICHF through annualcontributions under thé 1974 and 2003 Conventions. In a context marked by increasingly limited économie resources,convindng Member States to support an independent Fund that displays thé spécial characteristics highlighted aboverepresents a real challenge.

Unique relevante of thé IFPCThé relevance of thé Fund as a unique instrument for thé promotion of young individual artists is broadly recognisedwithin UNESCO as its main added value and its raison d'être. However, thé évidence collected during this évaluationexercise does not support this daim.

15 Thé interna] évaluation conducted in 2012 provided a séries of 35 recommendations to thé IFCDand positive progresshasbeenmade in theirimplementation [developmentofa results-based

management framework, a communications and fùndraising strategy, a baseline, targets, indicators, as well as revised formats and applications]. Une of thé key recommen dations encouraged thé

promotion of synergies with thé IFPC, although results to date hâve been limited.

Thé analysed évidence suggests that thé key characteristic that really makes thé IFPC uniquely relevant is thé fact that itprovides a freer and more independent funding channel for individuals and small organisations working in thé field of culture,often in difficult socio-cultural and political contexts.

Among thé différent UNESCO instruments managed by thé Culture Sector, thé IFPC is thé only fund that does not formally fallunder any of thé Conventions. IFPC procédures allow for direct access by individual artists and organisations without requiringa government body to présent thé request or a National Commission to preselect proposais submitted through thé platform.Hence, beyond UNESCO's organisational mantra of individual access, it is this comparative freedom and transparency aspectthat lies at thé heart of thé IFPC's relevance and provides one of thé strongest arguments in support of its existence.

Our analysis of thé IFPC projects funded to date suggests that thé non-involvement of UNESCO National Commissions in théscreening process grants thé IFPC a certain freedom from political and institutional connections that has made a particulartype of artistic création possible: a type of création that is original, cutting-edge, alternative, avant-gardist and often farfrom mainstream préférences and tendendes. This type of création, expérience and/or initiative is part and parcel of thé vastmajority of projects we hâve analysed and in many cases it seems unlikely that they would hâve been possible without thésupport of thé IFPC.

Complementarity to other fundersDuring thé évaluation exercise, we analysed thé complementarity ofIFPC funding to other project co-funders. However, we didnot explore thé IFPC's complementarity to other existing cultural funds outside UNESCO, since this would hâve been beyondthé scope of thé évaluation.

IFPC funding has contributed to projects in a variety of ways that are complementary to other funders. IFPC funding hasplayed three main rôles vis-à-vis projects: fundamental (when thé initiative would not hâve been possible without IFPCfunding); supplementary (when it has allowed a positive expansion of an already planned activity); and instrumental (whenIFPC funding has helped to raise additional funding).

IFPC funding has been fundamental for projects such as Jewels of thé Cultural Treasure (2013), Talent de la Cité (2013) orSolidarity Through thé Performing Arts (2015), which received 50-80% of their budget from thé IFPC.

IFPC Funding has also been an important supplément for projects that already had aver 50% of their budgets covered(whether with their own funds or through other funders). This was thé case of projects like E-Fest (2015) or ANDIMATION(2015).

We hâve noted that even in cases where IFPC funding represented a smaller percentage of thé budget, its contributionwas also very important for going thé extra mile. In fact this minor contribution has allowed project implementers to expandthé scope of their activities. There are various examples of this, for example: Coaching Court (2013) transformed a nationalcinéma training programme into a régional initiative and Cape Town Camival (2013) used IFPC funding to develop a jobcréation component.

We hâve documented a number of other illustrative examples of complementarity, including thé following:

In thé UK, DeafinitelyJheatre (Grounded} received a three-year contribution of thé Arts Council (which seeks to mobilise fundsfrom other organisations whose aims are broader than Arts) as well as a contribution from Park Théâtre.

In Peru, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll was linked to two programmes funded by thé Ministry of Culture on thé Huacas: a)Las Huacas nos cuentan and b) Huaca Umpia, Huaca v'wa

In Guatemala, Window to Diversity complemented thé work of thé Spanish Cultural Centre and UNESCO Etxea16 (particularlythé Department of Culture for Development) by aligning project activities with their priorities and influencing their stratégies(see section on Institutional Transformations).

Thé issue of complementarity of funding is central to discussions on thé type of initiative that thé IFPC should besupporting (see discussion under SustainabiUty). While there is a case to be made for supporting smaller (and probably morealternative and avant-gardist) projects that would not be possible without IFPC funding, it is also true that thé

16 UNESCO Basque Country Centre is a non-governmental organization [NGO) set up in 1991 with ti-ie aim of promoting fhe principles and programmes of UNESCO (thé United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization) witiim Basque sodety.

complementary of other funders also strengthens initiatives, adding value even in cases of consolidated or récurrentevents such as thé Medellin Poetry Festival or thé Cape Town Carnival. In such cases, project participants benefit from greaterexposure and interesting platforms for showcasing their work, while UNESCO benefits from increased visibility (see Value forMoney for further discussion on leverage of funds).

3. 1. 2. ADEQUACY

Adequacy ofIFPC objectivesIFPC objectives are broad and ail encompassing. As a result of their wide scope, it is difficult to argue that any of thé projectsfail to comply. Thé fact that there is a gréât richness in IFPC project contributions suggests that this wideness provides aninclusive framework for an extensive variety of alternative, créative and often cutting-edge projects.

Hence, from this perspective, it can be argued that thé objectives are adéquate and conducive for achieving thédesired results. K seems likely that narrowing down thé number of objectives or making them more concrète wouldaffect this aspect by reducing thé diversity of thé project portfolio, when it is precisely thé variety of projects thatmakes thé IFPC unique.

In thé project application forms for 2013 and 2014, thé majority of projects reported being aligned (in compliance) with mostof thé eight objectives included in thé Application Form. Indeed, out of thé 18 projects approved for co-financing in thé 2013and 2014 calls, 15 projects reported compliance with five or more of thé eight mentioned IFPC objectives and ten projectsreported complying with ail of thé eight objectives.

In 2015, a narrative section on compliance replaced thé checklist. This new section requested an explanation of thé concrèteways in which thé project activities would comply with each IFPC objective. However, thé fact that this section combinedobjectives with 'criteria' such as young creators, gender, socio-economic results and multiplier effect made applicant answersrather confusing. Thé 2016 online application constitutes a substantial improvement, since it goes back to focusing onaims without including other criteria. It also provides a more open text format that facilitâtes thé articulation of eachproject's compliance with thé objectives.

Context where projects operateThé évidence collected during this évaluation exercise suggests that thé implemented projects were relevant to thécontexts they operated in. There are many examples of how thé projects addressed thé needs of target groups andaudiences in créative and subtle ways.

We hâve also observed that projects sometimes offered a type of artistic product (or quality) that was perhaps tooavant-gardist and cutting-edge fortheir context. This factor sometimes made attracting thé général public a challenge, butthis should not be seen as négative: it should be seen as a clear proof of thé IFPC's commitment to thé promotion ofunderrepresented artistic forms and its defence of cultural diversity beyond mainstream artistic and cultural tendencies.

Some examples are worth highlighting for illustrating this diversity of contextuat relevance:

Groundedwas clearly relevant to a context where many of thé social spaces for deaf people in London were closing down as aresult of reduced funding and there was a pressing need for alternative support. Thé project implementer remains one of thévery few théâtre companies in thé UK engaging in this kind of work and it is also thé only one led by deaf people. Thé playcontents were thought-provoking and sought to inform and engage deaf and hearing peuple on issues of interest, such astechnology and war, with a strong gender perspective (see Gender Analysis below).

Huacos, Buréu/osyffocfc&ffo((wasvery relevant to thé contextof Lima from both a social and national héritage perspective.Firstly, it invited thé audience to revisit clichés that were embedded in thé limena society and that did not value thé pre-hlispanic tradition. This was relevant because although thé sodo-ethnic fabric of thé city has undergone important changes interms of cultural and ethnie relations, tensions and discrimination persist and constitute key social challenges (see box underContribution to change). Secondly, thé project was also relevant to thé héritage context because it helped to put Huacas on

thé map, raising their visibility and helping efforts to recover them for public use in a city where only 12. 5% of thé space ispublic.

Window to Diversity addressed thé right to communication for ail, especially for thé most vulnérable and peripheral groups,through an extensive range of activities and inventive méthodologies tailored to promote their active participation andengagement.

Coaching Court was developed in response to two identified needs in thé West African context: firstly thé absence ofaffordable cinéma training options foryouth and secondly, thé lack of practical expérience offered in cinéma schools as a resultof limited resources.

Vulnérable audiences

We hâve collected extensive évidence on thé ways in which IFPC-funded projects hâve addressed thé needs andpriorities of underrepresented and vulnérable groups across thé world. Reaching thèse groups seems to be an intégralpart of thé philosophy of thé IFPC, even if in thé sélection process they were not explicitly prioritised.

Many projects hâve succeeded in making art more accessible to vulnérable groups by engaging them as project participantsor by targeting them as audiences for particular events. Thé projects hâve also developed a wide range of stratégies forengaging diverse groups and for connecting to this otherness implicit in many of thé initiatives.

This has often been donc in imaginative and subtle ways that hâve proved effective.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Filming thé Other transcended thé usual national political divides to portray thé lives of peoplefacing différent situations in their lives (tackling issues such as stuttering; disabilities; contemplative nuns and stérile couples).Thé approach and thèmes were highly innovative in a country that still focuses on ethnie différences and does not frequentlyaddress issues related to other vulnérable groups.

In Palestine, thé project / can move promoted dance for disabled people whose needs were usually overlooked, especially inrelation to artistic and cultural expressions.

In thé UK, Grounded aimed to inform and provide food for thought to deaf people about contemporary issues such astechnology, war or feminism, which were issues they had little access to.

In Peru, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll was relevant to vulnérable groups because there were very few cultural offers formany of thé marginal neighbourhoods in Lima visited by thé project.

In Argentina, thé 6th Salta Mime and Clown Festival developed spécial shows for 300 children with disabilities, 350 peopleliving in confinement, 300 hospital patients and 500 members of thé local Wichi community.

Gender analysisAlthough gender mainstreaming is institutionally important, thé IFPC application process and reporting formats for mid-term and final reports are not conducive to eliciting this type of information. Some voices note that there is little space foran adéquate gender perspective and there does not appear to be a systematic gender analysis promoted by UNESCO.Despite this, thé IFPC Secrétariat is known to hâve discussed gender issues with projects during implementation to ensure amore adéquate gender balance (for example in thé case of Coaching Court).

However, évidence suggests some projects effectively incorporated thé gender dimension into their work, even if thécontent of thé reports did not reflect this analysis. Projects focused their reporting on quantitative indicators (i. e. sex-disaggregated data on staff, participants, audience, artists, etc.) instead of capturing learning processes and achievementsrelated to gender issues. Only one project had a gender-specific focus (This is not Chick Lit: stories by ordinary women in andbeyond turmoil).

For example, Window to Diversity made spécial efforts to integrate women in project activities and introduced strong gendermessages in several products (e. g. a vidéo including non-sexualised images ofwomen).

10

We also noted that two projects that did not appear to hâve a strong gender approach on paper, in fact developed a similarstrategy for addressing gender issues that hinged upon thé development of scripts conveying powerful messages aboutgender equality and rights. Grounded adapted a plot about a female pilot fighter in thé US army who returned from maternityleave to find that she had been relegated to flying drones. Thé aim of thé team adapting this play was to make feminist issuesmore accessible to deafwomen and men and to show strong women in strong non-sexualised leading rôles.

Some of thé short films produced under Coaching Court also included strong female characters and tackled a number ofgender issues that were particularty sensitive in thecultural context of West Africa (attempted forced marriage of a widow toher brother-in-law, mâle infidelity, abandonment ofthe family home, women escaping to find shelter in their village, etc.).

Finally, another élément worth highlighting is thé fact that beyond concrète éléments incorporated in project activities, certaininitiatives such Badilisha Poetry Exchange also engagea in positive networking with feminist and women-led groups as partof their implementation strategy.

YouthThé IFPC's relevance to youth constitutes one of thé main achievements of thé Fund. One of thé IFPC's key sélectioncriteria is to give priority to "projects submitted byyoung creators aged 18 to 30years and to projects benefitting youth" (CriteriaS.a). Thé vast majority of projects are aligned with this principle. Youth were at thé heart of thé majority of projects andwere successfully integrated into projects both as beneficiaries and audience. However, project reporting on this aspectprimarily focused on providing figures on thé number of participants rather than on sharing qualitative information aboutprocesses and contributions to change.

There are several excellent examples of projects that hâve successfully integrated youth: thé Medellin Poetry Festival involved22 young poets that were directly supported by thé IFPC (15 in thé workshop course, 4 prize-winners, and 3 poets invited fromother cities), 300 young contest participants and an 80% under-30 audience; Jewels of Cultural Treasure a\so Succeeded inencouraging youth participation and focused activities on this group; Talent de la Cité attracted 180 young candidates; 6thSalta Mime and Clown Festival mainly recruited young staff (78%) and performed in front of 4000 youth; Badilisha PoetryExchange included 49 podcasts produced by young poets; 97 young photographers participated in Flâneur, GroundedProduction encouragea youth participation through spécial discounts forschools; and Window to Diversity developed aformat based on visual technology that was particularly suitable for thé young audience it wanted to reach.

Coaching Court effectively reached its target group (young independent film-makers with limited funding options). Thanks tothé training received 8/10 are currently working in cinema-related projects two years after thé endof thé project. Otherprojects such as Huacas, Burbujasy Rock & Roll appealed to both old and young people. This was an important part of théproject strategy since itallowed for thé development of an intergenerational dialogue about pre-Hispanic Peru.

3. 2. EFFECTIVENESS

3. 2. 1. ÂLL AS PLAN NEDMost project achievements were in line with their planned results. Thé tables of activities included in thé final projectreports suggest that in thé gréât majority of cases, projects achieved their goals.

Ail 2013 projects succeeded in completing their activities as planned, with thé exception of This is not Chick Lit: stories byordinary women in and beyond turmoil, which encountered difficulties as a result of thé complex context and délicate issuesaddressed. Thé 2014 projects also implemented their activities as planned with thé exception of thé Al Sununu PalestinianChildren's Choir, which was cancelled by thé project holder and Youth, film and film-making in Uganda which experiencedreporting delays. A third project, Inheriting Harappa, was able to implement ail activities despite experiencing some delayswhich were due to issues beyond thé control of both thé project holder and thé IFPC.

Thé projects implemented under thé 2015 Call are stili to présent their final reports. No implementation issues hâve beenreported to date. However, one of thé approved projects, Roma identity seen from outside, represented from inside, wascancelled by thé project holder.

11

Thé final project implementation reports reviewed in thé framework of this évaluation show that administrative procédureswere followed by ail projects (with thé exception of thé Youth, film and fdm-making in Uganda, as previously stated).According to IFPC procédures, payments are linked to thé delivery of planned resutts. This requires projects to complète anddocument their activities according to a work plan established between thé project holder and thé IFPC.

Most of thé selected projects involved activities that were concrète and short in duration, which facilitated implementation.However, weak monitoring and indicators made certain projects difficult to evaluate (even at thé basic level ofquantitative data). Reports tended to focus on quantitative éléments by providing figures (such as thé number of participantsor implemented activities), without including more qualitative information about thé efferts and impacts of thèse outcomes(see Efficiency).

3. 2. 2. REACHINGINTENDED AUDIENCESGenerally thé projects reached thé audiences for which they were intended. For example, Coaching Court successfullypromoted créative expressions among young participants and produced ten films as planned. Thé in-house training alsopromoted cultural diversity (participants from seven countries, différent languages, cultures, etc. ).

However, thé project implementers often faced difficulties as a result of thé innovative nature of their products/experiencesand thé limited institutional backing oftheir actions by UNESCO.

As we hâve discussed under Adequacy, in thé majority of cases, thé projects produced innovative products and a type ofalternative expérience that may not fit into mainstream cultural préférences. Hence, apart from thé issues involved inimplementing thèse spécial projects, implementers hâve also faced thé challenge of attracting audiences and ensuringthat their messages reached thé people they were destined for.

In Window to Diversity, a workshop was developed using a collaborative methodology involving digital innovation. This typeof concept was not easy for stakeholders to grasp before they expenenced it first hand, making it difficult for thé project teamto convey thé interest of thé workshops to potential participants.

In projects such as Grounded it was challenging to convey thé message to mainstream audience that even if thé play hadBritish Sigh Language thé play was suitable for ail, deaf and hearing.

In thé case of Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, much of thé difficulty came from thé fact that thé Huacas were not preparedfor performances, since it was thé first time (in many of them) anyone held events there. On other occasions, neighbourhoodswere not used to hosting shows. For example, in El Callao (a neighbourhood with high poverty and unemployment rates),logistics were complicated despite unusual municipal support.

In various cases, project managers and other stakeholders thought that even if thé overall turnout was good, more couldhâve been done in terms of outreach to attract people. Stronger institutional backing by UNESCO at thé field level couldhâve facilitated this.

3. 2. 3. FACTORS THATHAVE CAUSED DELAYSUNESCO administrative issues

We hâve found that some of thé administrative procédures involved in managing thé IFPC hâve on occasion createdcertain challenges for project implementation (notably contract approval and financial reporting). These issues will bediscussed at length under thé Efficiency chapter.

Other administrative/political issues

Beyond UNESCO administrative issues, there were also contextual factors (social, political, économie, etc.) that couldcondition project progress and hinder implementation, especially if unexpected changes happened.

Thé projects mentioned a number of situations that caused delays in their activities. For example, Inheriting Harappaencountered difficulties as a result of factors beyond their control on thé ground. Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll wasaffected by a change in government at thé city level. Coaching Court reported long bureaucratie processes to obtain certainpermits for shooting thé films, causing changes in thé original timeframe. First African Circus faced challenges linked withregistration rules.

12

Although admittedly, thèse issues are beyond UNESCO's control, project managers and other stakeholders argued thatstronger institutional backing at thé field level could hâve facilitated certain aspects of implementation, particularly inrelations with government and when involved in lengthy bureaucratie processes.

3. 2. 4. FACTORS THATHELPED THE IMPLEMENTATIONThé professional and human calibre of thé IFPC Secrétariat and thé Culture Sector

Thé members of thé IFPC Secrétariat hâve been praised across thé board for their receptiveness, capacity to solve issues,understanding and accessibility throughout thé implementation process (see further discussion under Efficiency). It is alsoimportant to highlight that thé IFPC Secrétariat received effective support from thé Culture Sector, particularly in terms offacilitating administrative tasks, lending technical support as well as providing stratégie guidance.

Thé IFPC Secrétariat started each implementation cycle with an introductory kick-off phone call with each implementingpartner to convey administrative instructions and fine-tune work plans. This was positively rated by thé Secrétariat and projectsalike since it helped to give thé process a welcomed human touch that undoubtedly played a rôle in facilitating communicationand making thé implementation process smoother.

'It mode thé process more human. We loved it!' Project implementer

Thé passion of thé implementers

We inject love into everything, that's thé main thing', Project implementer

One of thé most common characteristics of thé projects we hâve analysed was that they were passion-driven byimplementers who are strongly committed to their work. This positively reflected on thé quality of products, as well as onthé level of engagement and participation of stakeholders at thé différent stages of project implementation.

Volunteers were intégral to many of thé projects analysed with thé strong involvement of youth.

Grounded included many young volunteers from their théâtre school, who played a particularly important rôle welcoming deafaudiences to thé théâtre.

Volunteers also played a key rôle in Window to Diversity's pédagogie ecosystem, representing transmission-chain-like linksbetween participants' créative prpcesses and pédagogie facilitators. Thé organisation developed an organisational frameworkwhere volunteers were fully integrated in their decision-making mechanisms.

3. 2. 5. PRODUCTS ARE ENDS IN THEMSELVESTa a large extent, IFPC-funded projects were product-focused17. This factor helped implementation, since activitytimeframes were clear and straightforward and reporting focused on thé completion of each planned component. Thisresulted in what seemed to be cohérent implementation processes that were simple and in line with every requirement

While in terms of ensuring adéquate achievements this approach might be seen as positive and conducive to goodoverall project results, thé fart is that products became ends in themselves, despite extensive évidence to suggest thatin reality they were not. This approach failed to take into account more complex and subtle achievements that wouldhâve painted a more comprehensive (and real) picture of how thé IFPC was contributing to thé promotion of culture.

We hâve found that a number of valuable dimensions were lost as a result of this product-focused approach. Thélearning processes and contributions to change that went hand in hand with thé described products were not adequately

17 In thé context ofthis évaluation, products are not abjects but artistic productions and other cultural expériences.

13

captured during implementation, largely as a result of their absence from thé established reporting and communicationprocess between project implementers and UNESCO.

Furthermore, in thé months and years following project closure, unexpected results and new achievements could still bewitnessed. We collected several examples of this. In fact some projects shared a kind of 'if only UNESCO could see me nov/feeling, highlighting thé fact that their projects accomplished results that went beyond initial expectations in thé months (andyears) that followed implementation but thèse unexpected results were not shared with thé IFPC.

Project implementers recognised thé difficulties involved in measuring and monitoring thèse contributions to change Projectssuch as Grounded made efforts to return to audiences to measure longer-term impact but admitted that they would hâvewelcomed 'a more stratégie view from thé funder to help us evaluate change'. Filming thé Other also echoed thèse difficulties,suggesting that différent types of indicators should be integrated to capture thèse other éléments.

At présent, many of thé products developed with IFPC support can be said to still be active since they are still being used todifférent extents both by thé original project stakeholders and by new partners. To cite one exampie, Coaching Court is due toscreen several of thé films produced at three différent festivals aver thé coming months. At least two of thé films were aired onvarious TV channels after project completion (see section on SustainabiUty for more examples).

It appears that in thé absence of a post-implementation communication channel and systematic feedback System, little isbeing shared with thé IFPC Secrétariat. As a result, thé overall picture of thé IFPC's contribution to culture remainsincomplète and cannot be said to really do justice to thé real achievements of thé projects funded to date.

3.3. CONTRIBUTION TO CHANGEThis évaluation went beyond thé assessment of effectiveness expressed in thé internai logic of project reports to analyse théprojects in thé round, with a view to understanding their expected and unexpected contributions to concrète transformations.

Considering that thé Fund was revitalised in 2012 and only two full project cycles hâve been completed to date, we canconclude that it has made a positive contribution to thé promotion of culture and artistic expressions.

We examined thé 17 projects co-financed in 2013 and 2014 that completed their planned activities. This analysis led to théconclusion that thé projects significantly contributed to a number of important transformations at thé personal level, bothin implementers and in participants of thé products and expériences developed by thé projects. Thé projects also contributedto socio-cultural transformations in thé communities and/or target groups as well as in thé culture of stakeholders involved inthé projects. Finally, we documented important transformations at thé institutional level not only in thé implementing partnersbut also in third party organisations as a result of their involvement with thé IFPC.

3. 3. 1. PERSONAL SPHERE'It felt gréât to perform in (... ) my neighbourhood, in front of thé same authorities who had arrested me so many rimesfor performing in thé streets', Project participant

Transformations in thé personal sphère are important because they are necessary preconditions for any other type ofchange to take place. However, changes in thé personal sphère cannot be directly extrapolated to a group, community ornation. Two people taking part in thé same workshop, training or créative process will change in différent ways, undergodifférent expériences of empowerment, and go on to contribute to or influence their institutional or socio-cultural contexts todifférent extents.

It is also important to recognise that changes in thé personal sphère relate to individuals, one at a time. For that reason, muchof thé reporting of impact in this sphère must corne in thé form of individual testimonies and perceptions. During thé course ofthé évaluation we were able to collect numerous testimonies suggesting that thé projects hâve touched thé lives of manypeople and hâve contributed to personal changes in différent ways.

On some occasions thèse testimonies spoke of vague transformations suggesting an inflection point or an 'aha! moment'. Forexemple, participants in thé workshops conducted within thé framework of thé Medellîn Poetry Festival described how thé

14

expérience had changea their lives profoundly. In thé majority of cases we could pinpoint what was thé type of personaltransformation that thé project had contributed to. Hère we propose a brief typography of thèse types of changes.

Increasing empowerment and sensé ofagencyMany project implementers and participants expressed how they felt more empowered in différent ways as a result of theirinvolvement. Some spoke of inner transformations were linked to their own artistic potential.

'Today, thanks in large part to (thé project), l speak with gréât confidence about my poetic perceptions', Projectparticipant

'AU thé artists and managers involved told us that they had really been empowered by thé expérience, and had gainedmore trust/confidence in their mission', Project implementer

On other occasions empowerment came from thé acquirement of new skills or new knowledge. For example, a number ofparticipants from Window to Diversity workshops explained that they felt more powerful because they had learned how toeffectively communicate messages that were important for them through thé development of quality communication productsand thé use of a technology that they previously felt was beyond their reach. This new knowledge was often related to newartistic skills:

'Thé exhibitions held with thé participation of thèse tradesmen gave them thé confidence and spirit to resurrect théebbing cultural crafts', Project implementer

However, on certain occasions this empowering new knowledge was related to a variety of issues beyond artistic disciplinessuch as management skills.

'Everybody involved learnt to manage their time wett to meet deadUnes. They also leamt high standards in quality andnot to compromise thèse standards for something of less quality' or 'everyone learnt to polish their artistic andintellectual skills in this project. l personally learnt to deal with finandal accounting and budgeting', Project implementer

A récurrent topic that was particularly empowering for project participants was closely linked to thé récognition andacceptante of diversity. This often occurred in multi-country projects such as Window to Diversity or Coaching Court wherebeyond thé technical expertise acquired through thé 3-month in-house training, thé expérience of living away from home withyouth from other countries of thé région provided a unique opportunity for participants to learn about différent cultures, togrow personally and empower themselves.

'Thé régional dimension brought us doser to other realitles and beyond cinéma, we shared différent recipes, songs,political opinions, customs, etc. ', Project implementer

We also documented stories where this empowerment came from some form of outside récognition. In M/indow to Diversity,three participants from a workshop inspired by thé IFPC project were selected to represent Peru in two UNESCO internationalconférences (thé 4th World Congress of Biosphère Réserves that took place in Lima in 2016, and thé 24th InternationalCongress ofChildren and Youth for thé Environment, celebrated in Mexico also in 2016).

Finally, some of thé participants and implementers of thé activities and expériences developed by thé project emerged asstrong leaders in thé process. This was thé case of a young female participant in Coaching Court.

Imagining possible futuresA powerful transformation that many project participants went through was thé ability to imagine possible futures for theirlives that (they felt) were previously beyond their reach. In this sensé, we collected testimonies describing how participants andimplementers involved in thé projects felt that new and promising artistic futures were opening in front oftheir eyes as a resultto their involvement with thé projects. Thèse types of testimonies came from every corner of thé world.

'(... ) thé expériences and tessons leamed at thé same tirne will go a long way in sculptlng thé post l ought to be', Projectparticipant

'This trip meant a lot to us os we can now see thé beginning of a circus family that can create amazing things in théfuture', Project participant

15

'It opened up thé vision for possible future for young deaf actors. It was an example to thé deaf community that theycould hâve successful careers as actors' Project implementer

'This project allowed me to express my talent and l hâve understood that music can be my coreer', Project participant

Professional growth and employment

Box l: LULA CAPRIEL

Lula cornes from a family at risk of exclusion in ruralGuatemala. Against ail odds her family insisted on her éducationand she went as far as to graduate from a public University inthé capital city.

As a young graduate in Design Studies, Lula participated in one ofthé workshops organised in Guatemala by thé IFPC projectWindow to Diversity (Ventana a la Diversidad, VEDI). Théworkshop marked an important inflection point in herprofessional life. It was thé first time she heard (and experiencedin practice) collaborative méthodologies in créative processes.Two and a half years later she is a reputable designer and anational référence in collaborative design or co-design. Shewas thé keynote speaker for thé officiai opening of thé SchoolofDesign in thé académie year 2016/2017 in thé University of SanCarlos (see photo below).

She has her own consultancy firm that has closed a nationaldeal with thé University to provide co-design services to SMEs inthé entire country. She has also grown inside Window toDiversity and is now thé coordinator of thé newly establishedorganisation created in Guatemala after thé end of thé project.

In fact, one of thé most valued aspects of Wmdow ta Diversity ishow they hâve been able to retain talent coming from théworkshops. Also in Peru, thé most committed participants in théWmdow ta Bio-Diversity (a continuation of thé IFPC projectWindow to Diversity from thé 2013 call) are now involved instratégie thinking and are closing an agreement with thé publicuniversity where they study in order to adapt and replicate VEDI'sworkshops on cultural diversity and youth participation.

"Thé most vaiuable thing about VEDI is that outstandingparticipants are stitt invotved in thé project" UNESCO field officePeru

During thé course of thé évaluation, we documentedmultiple cases where people involved in thé projectswent beyond imagining possible futures to releasingnew professional developments. Thé mostparadigmatic example we found of a dramatictransformation in a participant's professional careerwas that of Lula Capriel in Guatemala (see box l).

Beside this impressive story of impact, we alsocollected stories, maybe more subtle but equallyimportant, of people involved in thé projects who hadwidened their professional horizons as a result oftheir involvement. Thèse testimonies came fromdifférent countries.

For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina through théproject Filming thé Other, four young artists withno previous expérience in filmmaking produceddocumentaries. They now hâve high-quality worksin their portfolios that hâve helped them with theircareers. One author has received an award for his

film in New York and is continuing to shoot films.Another was able tojoin a Master's programme fordocumentary filmmaking in Europe. Thé other twowere also continuing to make films and wereparticipating in other filmmaking processes.

In West Africa, Coaching Court had a strong impacton thé 10 young filmmakers who participated in théthree-month placement and who produced their firstshort films within thé framework of thé project. Twoyears after thé programme ended, eight youth werestill working in cinema-related fields and three ofthem had produced their own films.

'Thé project mode me want to be a traîner andimprove my expertise in fUm-making. So after théproject, l left my family to spend two years studyingcinéma abroad. This was thé direct result of this newmotivation from thé project', Project implementer.

'Thé project gave me thé opportunity to work incinéma, l could not afford to go to cinéma school butthis course has opened a lot of opportunities for meand l can now work in cinéma', Project participant

In thé Cape Town Carnival project, thé job créationcomponent had a strong impact on thé lives of 20

16

artists, providing them with a source of income as well as training opportunities.

Deaf actress Nadia Nadarajah starring in Grounded, hired a mainstream théâtre agent after thé show. Finally, thé entiretechnical crew of Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll (and especially their sound engineer) declared to hâve found a newprofessional path as it was thé first time they were putting on such a show.

3. 3. 2. SOCIO-CULTURAL SPHERE

Box 2: AWAKENING TO THE MULTICULTURAL HERITAGE 0F UMA; THE ROLE0F HUACAS. BURBUJAS Y ROCK&ROLL

Thé social fabric of Lima has changea massively in thé last century. Thé society isnow ethnically more diverse due to différent migrations from thé rural parts ofthé country. Thé indigenous population has grown and has been (timidty) gainingspacein thé cultural political and économie élites. However, thé collective culturalidentity of thé city appears to still be heavily shaped by thé cultural traditionsof Europeans. For example, it is heavily embedded in thé collective history of théLimenos that conquistador Pizarro founded thé city of Lima in a barren place whereno one lived before. Thé hundreds of Huacas spread across thé city tell us a verydifférent story. Attracting thé attention of thé citizens to thèse spaces isattracting their attention to their pre-Hispanic héritage.

While National archaeologists hâve been protecting Huacas (with uneven success)since 1910, itis only in récent years that there is a public campaign to open upthèse spaces to thé général public. Initiatives like Lima Milenaria (a blogpromoted by National Newspaper Et Comercio) and thé new Ministry of Culture areat thé forefrontof this trend that is working to put Huacas on thé collective culturalmap as a tool for reflection and pride of Lima's pre-Hispanic past.

There are multiple indicators that thé message is getting through. For example,on top of multiple testimonies from stakeholders valuing thé Huacas, we alsofound a telling and illustrative indicator of how Lima's society is placing value inthèse distinct pre-Hispanic monuments. Promoters in Lima are now advertisingflats with "views to thé Huaca".

LaEncontréTuciwwimuCK

Prapjfîdsiies >verita > Deparîafnenio > Oep3 namanftï > limsi. )qîarTan>Bnîiî > t ima > tinia Dtelmo

Departamento en Venta en El Rosario, Lima Distrito, LimaLui'i'iO ileoartgrîtïnlo ife. eatrena cur visla a ta t ;u&~a Huaitanriarca

$900,000286m2 h-l 3 W 3

Lu^so (î^ïait»ntento duptoc (îs ésltww con «spactecuter vista a te Huaca HusUanno-ca. DppaftajisMo Acon ampfia sala qMnedor. regte çotfea cw comedor <te clif irk), S3)a de eslar, faarw de vîsiia Dispone 3 do-

VKiKv} doset, tes (SBS tlw tlomsilEirios cuehtan con tefloE uiCtMpûraâpB y bufflws ctosats. En et area ite ;

laVfBKhria. ihduys 03 tscharas y îtepostto Atatiatfos (te lujo con fniKfia SmAiadàn.

Ç a RiKano

Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll has been credited with having contributed toeffectively promoting and valuing thé Huacas. Although it is acknowledged thata small project could only contribute so much, something that several keystakeholders valued was thé fact that thé project put thé spotlight in 14 Huacasaround thé city. This meant that thé initiative could reach a critical mass thatwas big enough to showcase that Lima is fullof Huacas.

We hâve been able to demonstrate that art is not oniy aboutentertainment. It also has a value that is social, educational and symbolic',Project manager

Thé projects financed by thé IFPCcontributed to positive changes inthé socio-cultural sphère across thécommunities where they hâveoperated. However, it is important tostress that social and cultural

transformations are complex andrequire continued actions to produceclear and sustainable changes. Thécontributions mentioned in this

section are small in scale, given thatthé interventions financed by théFund were short and focused.

Putting issues on agendasNonetheless, we found clear évidence

to suggest that thé projects hadcontributed to several social andcuttural transformations in différent

areas. Firstly, we found that a numberof projects had succeeded in puttingissues on différent public agendasin selected groups. For example,several stakeholders, includingbellwethers of thé British culturalsector, credited Grounded with

having sensitised thé théâtre industryproving that mainstream théâtrescould host accessible shows for both

hearing and deaf audiences:

"It has been Uke opening thé door formainstreaming. Thé industry got thépoint that it was possible and désirableto make accessible shows. It was a

phénoménal wake-up call for théthéâtre world", Cultural entrepreneur

In Africa and in Latin America we

found examples of projects thatsucceeded in attracting support andeven managed to place certain issuesin thé agendas of différentMinistries. Such was thé case of thé

Salta Mime Festival with thé Ministryof Social Development in Argentina orthé First African Circus with thé

Ministry of Culture in Ethiopia. In this

17

last case, thé Ethiopian Ministry of Education decided to include circus in its technical and vocational training and asked théproject implementer to advise on thé contents of thé course.

Admittedly, for an IFPC project to clearly contribute to placing an issue in thé agenda of a broader community, like a cityor a nation, it necessarily requires 'piggybacking' on a wider campaign or social trend. This was thé case of Huacas, Burbujasy Rock & Roll that cleverly (and intuitively) worked alongside other social forces to vindicate thé Huacas as part of thé pre-Hispanic identity of thé city of Lima (see Box 2).

Thé project in Lima was not an isolated case. We could also document how other projects hâve worked in thé sphère of thésymbolic, using art to shed light on important social and identity issues. For example, Talent de la Cité helped toenhance and promote thé cultural identities of Mali through thé works produced byyoung painters, musicians, photographers,digital artists and weavers.

'This has revived an interest in this neglected and lost history and héritage amongst those who visited thé exhibition. Wetried to plant thé seed ofcultural ownership as well', Project implementer

We contributed to buUding and strengthening new imaginaries ofpeace and réconciliation', Project implementer

Integrating vulnérable communitiesIFPC-funded projects hâve successfully contributed to integrating vulnérable communities in a variety of ways. We hâvecollected many excellent examples ofthis across thé différent projects.

Grounded promoted interaction between deaf people and a hearing audience. This social aspect was unique for both groupsand was described as 'fantastic, transformative, life-changing'. Thé project also opened up trusted leisure spaces for thé deafcommunity, namely Park Théâtre, which is a mainstream venue in trendy Finsbury Park. This change may seem subtle but itconstitutes a very important step on thé road to intégration and tackling diversity. It is ultimately this sensé of "/ om welcomehère" that has finally resulted.

In thé case of thé Window to Diversity activities organised in Bilbao (Spain), thé format of thé workshops allowed people whowere culturally and socially very différent (différent religions, sexual orientation, nationalities, etc.) to discuss complex andsensitive subjects: 'we were such différent peopte! Ifit hadn't been for this project, we would hâve never done anything together!'

For Filming thé Other, thé focus on vulnérable groups and their portrayal in thé documentaries of thé project, empoweredparticipants and made them feel like 'fuit members of thé community'

3. 3. 3. INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

In partnersAt thé institutional level, we documented numerous innovations/transformations that had taken place in théimplementing partner organisations. Some organisations fine-tuned and focused their stratégie direction as a result of theirinteraction with thé IFPC. For example, thanks to thé IFPC project Grounded, Deafinitely Théâtre (implementing partner) wasable to go one step further in its exploration of théâtre for deaf audiences. As a result of this project, Deafinitely Théâtre shiftedits mandate to produce théâtre for a more mainstream audience that could reach both deaf and hearing audiences.

Kilka, thé company behind Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll, developed a new project "Nuestras Huacas" with a strongerpédagogie edge and signed an agreement to implement this initiative with thé Ministry of Culture and thé Ministry ofEducation.

We hâve documented cases where thé implementing organisations gained prestige and power to influence thanks to theirinteraction with UNESCO. For example, Fekat Circus (First African Circus) was able to build on its IFPC-funded project toparticipate in public debates about thé importance of culture for development and thé development of thé country (TourismTransformation Council). Fekat Circus also became engagea in dialogues about culture for development and was consultedduring thé préparation of thé 2005 Convention Quadrennial Report.

In other cases, partners reported acquiring organisational capacities that were not necessarily linked to artistic ones:

We developed better data collection and reporting mechanisms as a result of UNESCO requirements' Projectimplementer.

18

Thanks to thé organisational skills and expérience acquired during Talent de la Cité, thé project implementer extended thécontest to thé région of Kayes for its next édition.

Thé most striking case of organisational development resulting from an IFPC-funded project we encountered was théexpérience of Window ta Diversity (discussed under Sustainability in box 4).

In other institutions

Interestingly, we also found that thé projects financed by thé IFPC contributed to changes in other stakeholders apart fromtheir implementing partners. Some of thèse changes were very significant:

For example, in thé NGO UNESCO Etxea from Spain, a key staff member told us that their involvement in Window toDiversity gave content to thé area of Culture for Development and that thanks to this expérience thé area now focused morestrategically on thé development of projects învolving technology. Window to Diversity also established a solid partnershipwith thé Spanish Cultural Centres. Thé Spanish Cultural Centres were co-donors in thé project financed by thé IFPC. Thispartnership with thé project had institutional conséquences for thé Spanish Cultural Centre in Guatemala. A senior member ofthé S anish Cultural Centre described to thé évaluation team how thé promoters of Window to Diversity helped them thinkthrough a new initiative that was to become one of thé stratégie areas of work of thé Centre, a support platform for youngcultural entrepreneurs known as "l/wero" (VEC).

According to thé Ministry of Education of Peru, Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll provided impetus to new initiatives in schoolsin Lima addressing thé rôle of thé Huacas as a result of their participation in thé project. This was made possible by thé factthat teachers came to know who was in charge of thé Huaca through thé project and they were able to connect witharchaeologists and other key people to organise new ventures in thèse spaces.

Jewels of thé Cultural Treasure succeededBahawalpur University(Pakistan).

in establishing departments for thé promotion of culture and craftsmen in

3.4. EFFICIENCY

3. 4. 1. GOVERNANCE AND COORDINA TION

Thé Administrative Council

Even though thé ToRs of this évaluation included addressing thé relevance of thé IFPC, it did not explicitly include issuesrelated to IFPC governance and to information and communication flows between différent stakeholders. In fact, no explicitévaluation questions related to thèse thèmes were induded in thé évaluation matrix, since thèse aspects did not émergeduring thé inception period.

However, a number of issues related to thé decision-making structure became so apparent during thé research process that wedecided to include a section describing governance and coordination findings. We will also share a number ofrecommendations in thé closing section of thé report.

As noted in thé section Understanding thé IFPC, thé Fund is not formally linked to any UNESCO Culture Convention,although it fully opérâtes within UNESCO's programme and budget. Thé Fund is administered by an AdministrativeCouncil which according to thé Statutes of thé Fund, is entrusted with ail thé stratégie décisions retated to thé IFPC budget(budget approval, resource allocation, analysis and approval of funding requests and fundraising strategy). However, asmentioned earlier, thé Fund has to operate under UNESCO rules and is overseen by thé IFPC Secrétariat, which is in charge ofthé day-to-day management of thé Fund (as we will describe later in this chapter).

This research clearly evidenced that there is limited clarity on thé division of thé practical rôles between thèse two bodies(UNESCO/IFPC Secrétariat and thé Administrative Council). Various Administrative Council members expressed thé viewthat thé IFPC Secrétariat was playing a rather intrusive rôle in thé décision making process of thé Fund. Some AdministrativeCouncil members also regretted not receiving thé necessary tools in terms of information, freedom, time and budget to

19

perform their duties adequately. As a result, important décisions are not being made. We refer concretely to thé décisionabout thé future of thé Fund and how it is going to be financed.

In this regard various stakeholders voiced thé expectation that thé Administrative Council would play a more active rôleand adopt a fundraising strategy, following various rejected proposais submitted by thé Secrétariat. In fact this expectation isin line with thé IFPC Statutes, which clearly state that thé Administrative Council "shall endeavour to promote thé voluntarycontribution offunds or ofany other form ofresources. To that end, it shalt devise and adopt a fundraising strategy conducted inaccordance with UNESCO's rotes anà policies" (Art.5. B.10).

However, at UNESCO any resource mobilisation process must be led and guided by thé relevant UNESCO unitresponsible for donor coordination (Bureau of Stratégie Planning) to ensure full compliance with UNESCO's checks andbalances. Therefore, in practical terms, thé Administrative Council would not be able to lead on this task (beyond 'devising andadopting' as mentioned in thé Statutes) even if its members were in agreement, willing and able to do so, since it is not its rôleto implement this strategy. Thé Bureau of Stratégie Planning was consulted in June 2016 to consider communication andfundraising options. However, it will only actively engage once thé Administrative Council adopts a communications andfundraising strategy.

IFPC décisions that are not related to thé budget are mainly taken by thé Secrétariat, although Administrative Councilmembers feel they should hâve more of a say (for example, in décisions related to thé recruitment of IFPC staff for théSecrétariat).

This is also certainly thé case when it cornes to reviewing projects (which does not mean that thé AC should be hands onscreening projects themselves). A team of five qualified experts conducts thé external évaluation of proposais but there aredifférent views on their performance. For some, their work is professional and rigorous. For others, it is rather shallow andshould be complemented and strengthened through greater involvement of thé Administrative Council in thé sélectionprocess. On various occasions thé opinion of thé external evaluators has not been well received and/or has been criticised fornot being detailed or substantive enough.

It is important to remember that we hâve argued that thé really unique added value of thé IFPC is that its sélection processconstitutes a space that is relatively independent of intergovernmental relations. Hence, greater involvement ofAdministrative Council members (despite serving in a personal capacity) could jeopardise a neutrality that is greatlybenefiting thé more vulnerable/less connected artists and groups.

If we turn to analysing its concrète responsibilities and related tasks, thé preceding paragraphs suggest that thé rôle of théAdministrative Council is not clear enough. Although thé process for appointing members has been carried out in respect ofthé sélection procédures set out in thé IFPC Statutes, it has been perceived as not transparent and/or inadéquate by a numberof informants. Despite thé distinguished profiles of Administrative Council members, thé fact is that not ail of themnecessarily hâve expertise in certain technical aspects, such as project management, fundraising or communication.Although thèse skills do not constitute a requirement for AC membership, some stakeholders argued that they would bedésirable given their spécial relevance to thé IFPC under thé current délicate circumstances.

Finally, thé fact that their participation is voluntaiy and unpaid (only their per diem and travel expenses are covered)makes thé rôle of Administrative Council members devoid of any real accountability towards thé IFPC and UNESCO. Thismay also help to explain thé Administrative Council's limited involvement in fundraising efforts, coupled with a certainrésistance to change. Nonetheless, stakeholders hâve noted that thé members of thé Administrative Council could use theirinfluence more to raise awareness about thé IFPC in their activities outside thé Fund, especially given their achievements andknowledge in arts and culture.

Thé Secrétariat

Thé IFPC Secrétariat is in charge of ail thé managerial and operational aspects of thé Fund. It is composed of two full-timeextra-budgetary positions: an Executive Officer and an Assistant Programme Officer. Thé IFPC Secrétariat also receives supportfrom other UNESCO units in thé form of financial and procédural oversight (for tasks such as contract validation and paymentauthorisation), as well as général support (participation in meetings, institutional représentation, thematic guidance, etc. ) asrequired.

20

Over thé years, thé IFPC Secrétariat has been heavily involved in thé design, streamlining and fine-tuning of both thé call forproposais and thé sélection process for IFPC projects. Thé Secrétariat has also closely followed project implementation throughtwo full cycles. Since thé sélection and implementation processes require a doser look, a full analysis will be shared under thésection on Operational procédures. Hence, this section will be limited to a brief général assessment of thé rôle of théSecrétariat (i.e. what they do, how they do it and what they are expected to do).

A 'ob well done

Ail relevant stakeholders consulted during this évaluation unanimously praised thé personal and professional calibre of théstaff members who hâve worked in thé Secrétariat to date. Their work culture was described as responsive, helpful,accessible, respectful, encouraging and kind.

Over thé years, thé IFPC Secrétariat has established internai rules and a spécial modus operandi that has nurtured thisperception. As already mentioned, thé kick-off téléphone call that thé Secrétariat systematically makes to ail projects selectedfor funding has been perceived as an important gesture from both a human/personal and practical perspective. In addition tothis, thé unwritten rule introduced by thé first IFPC Executive Officer of "replying to every project query" involved aconsidérable workload for thé staff but it also contributed to this réputation of accessibility and reliability among théprojects.

Other tasks thé Secrétariat is ex ected to do

A wide range of stakeholders mentioned important tasks that thé IFPC Secrétariat was expected to do but did not mainlybecause of its limited resources and heavy administrative duties.

Synergies

Projects felt that thé main form of support that was largely missing concerned thé promotion of synergies, spaces forshared learning and networks not only across IFPC projects but also among other stakeholders, including UNESCO Field Officesand other members of thé UN family.

'Thé only thing l fett it was missing from Paris was thaï they do not seem to be faciUtating synergies', Projectimplementer

'Thé Secrétariat was very helpful on thé administrative tevet whenever we had a question, however we would hâve hopedto hâve more linkages and support of thé office on thé ground (... ) through synergies or else' Project implementer

UNESCO has acknowledged thé importance of promoting synergies, hlowever, given thé limited resources available to théIFPC, thé development ofthis component has been particularly challenging for thé organisation.

Follow up beyond thé end of thé projects

Several project managers expressed that they would hâve welcomed thé opportunity to continue some form of relationshipwith thé IFPC Secrétariat after thé end of thé project. This did not necessarily imply further financial support, although (aswe will discuss under Sustainabiiity), a number of projects were interested in exploring this option.

Projects would hâve also appreciated having thé explicit backing of UNESCO at thé end of thé project to help them reflect onhow to measure thé long-term impact of their projects and also to help them sustain their links with other projects andstakeholders (see Sustainabitity for further discussion).

Communication products for visibility and resource mobilisation

Finally, another important task expected from thé Secrétariat was thé development of communication materialssummarising thé achievements of projects and their overall impact. Thé Administrative Council agreed that théélaboration of a strategy by an external company would be required for approaching donors but no décision has been madeto date. It is important to mention that while thèse calls for communication products were particularly strong amongAdministrative Council members, there was also thé clear acknowledgement that thèse products only made sensé now that théIFPC had completed two full project cycles and had an interesting and varied portfolio of projects to showcase. In thémeantime, thé IFPC Secrétariat has prepared various communication materials, namely a revamped website, brochure and USBstick.

21

UNESCO Field OfficesInvolvement at thé sélection sta e

Until now, thé only systematic involvement of UNESCO Field Offices has occurred when projects were shortlisted forfunding. At this preliminary stage, thé IFPC Secrétariat requested références on implementing partners coupled with a généralassessment of projects. According to thé IFPC Secrétariat, Field Offices hâve always been 'extremely helpfut' whenproviding thé required information. It is also worth noting that most of thé stakeholders consulted (notably thé projectmanagers who commented on this issue) also applauded thé fact that UNESCO Field Offices and National Commissionswere not involved in thé sélection of projects. As already mentioned under Retevance, this is thé aspect that makes thé IFPCuniquely accessible to thé audiences it is intended to reach.

Involvement durin thé im lementation rocess

Ensuring thé involvement of UNESCO Field Offices was more straightforward in thé case of projects that wereadministered by a Field Office, since in such cases offices played an important rôle in thé provision of administrative supportto implementing partners. Evidence suggests that in fact unless thé Field Office had some control over resources, fullengagement was rare.

This involvement was considered positive for improving UNESCO's visibility and sensé of ownership in thé country ofimplementation, as we will tackle under VisibiUty of UNESCO. However, as an institutional and administrative set-up it alsohad certain limitations and downsides. Field Offices did not recover any overhead costs for this service (despite projectsrepresenting an additional burden for their staff), while at thé same time thé IFPC Secrétariat lost its leading référence rôle,sometimes finding it difficult to monitor project progress directly.

Thus, we can conclude that UNESCO Field Office involvement in IFPC projects to date has been organic and largelydépendent on thé passion of individuals rather than on a clear institutional mandate. We encountered two projectswhere in fact it was not Culture Sector Field colleagues but staff from other sectors who took it upon themselves to providesupport and give IFPC initiatives continuity beyond thé life of thé project.

3. 4. 2. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

Thé call for proposaisSince 2013, thé IFPC has been launching yearly calls for proposais. Three catégories of beneficiaries can apply to théFund under this call: a) public bodies with spécifie responsibility for thé promotion of culture and artistic création; b) non-governmental organizations and non-profit private bodies promoting culture and artistic création; and individuals(particularly artists and creators).

Thé Operational Guidelines of thé IFPC define two main catégories of eligible activities: a) thé production of cultural andartistic works; b) thé organisation of cultural and artistic events of national, régional and/or international scope contributingto thé establishment of culture and development stratégies and programmes.

Thé project proposais are selected on thé basis of thé following set of indispensable criteria:

. Requested funding must range between US$20, 000 - US$100, 000.

. 20% of thé funding required to implement thé project must be identified and secured from other sources.

. Activities must fall under one of thé two above-mentioned catégories.

. Solid monitoring plan in place.

. Appropriate amount requested.

. Activities may hâve institutional and socio-economic result

. Activities may hâve a multiplier effect.

. Maximum implementation period of 12 months.Other additional criteria are considered an asset, such as; creators aged 18-30 and projects for youth; projects contributing togender equality; or under-represented forms of expression. We hâve discussed how thé projects meet thèse criteria under théchapter on Adequacy.

22

Issues with thé IFPC criteria

Thé évaluation has found that although this set of criteria has served as a helpful guide and has contributed to thé effectivesélection ofvery relevant projects, in practice a number of issues deserve attention.

Catégories of beneficiaries: Individual vs. organisation

During our fieldwork we visited two of thé five individuals (thé manager of Coaching Court and thé manager of- Huacas,Burbujas y Rock & Roll) who had received IFPC funding to date. In both cases we could confirm that thèse individuals had anorganisation behind them. Thé reason why they did not apply as an organisation was that thé IFPC does not allow for profitprivate enterprises, even if they belong to thé cultural sector, to apply to thé Fund. However, in practical terms thèseorganisations gave full backing to thé applicants, who were in fart thé funders and managers of thé companies in bothcases.

Thé fart that thèse two projects were supported by organisations allowed project implementers to effectively secure thé20% co-financing requested by thé IFPC, which would hâve been very difficult for thé type of individual artist targeted by théIFPC to provide on his/her own. Thé organisational setting also provided both projects with well-oiled teams with longrecords of working together that must hâve played a rôle in ensuring high-quality end-products and expériences in bothcases.

A différent scénario that also calls thé real relevance of thé individual vs. organisation dichotomy into question is Window toDiversity. Thé NGO that was awarded this IFPC grant only played a marginal rôle in thé implementation of thé project,since thé main driving force was actually a team of two individuals.

Thé fact that thé project provided thé seeds for thé création and development of a new organisation points to thévariety of possible scénarios in terms of project implementer organisational set-ups made possible by thé IFPC'sflexibility. We consider this flexibility to be one of thé éléments accounting for thé positive expériences andcontributions to change we describe throughout this report.

Thé fourth project we visited was Grounded théâtre production, implemented by a traditional British Charity. Théimplementing organisation chargea an entry fée to thé public. This caused some discomfort in thé IFPC as it did not fitentirely in thé non-profit entities that thé Fund aimed to support. However, during our field mission we collected enoughévidence to establish that thé venture was entirely non-profit and that ticket charges (often subsidised) only provided amarginal contribution to thé high cost of this type of production.

Thé main conclusion on this matter is that thé légal status of thé applicant is actually quite irrelevant Thé IFPC can requirethis précision for information purposes but it should not be considered an essential requirement in light of thé above.

This is worth highlighting once again, since it is part of UNESCO's institutional mantra that thé uniqueness of thé IFPC isprecisely that it can give funds to individual artists. However, as thé previous paragraphs suggest, not only is this not entirelyrelevant: it is also worth highlighting that only five individuals hâve received funding out of thé 27 projects approved todate (2013, 2014 and 2015 calls).

Monitoring System

A key essential requirement is for projects to hâve a solid monitoring System. This criterion can be traced back to thé IFPCStatutes and Operational Guidelines, approved by thé Administrative Council. Thé Statutes mention that 'operationat guidelinesshall be introduced that clearly présent qualitative and results-based impact indicators to evaluate and systematicaUy monitor ailactivities or forms of assistance supported through thé IFPC (Art. 3.4.). However, thé Operational Guidelines only include onevague référence to monitoring under section 7. (sélection criteria) 'thé proposed activities hâve a solid monitoring plan' (7. e).

In practice, in most of thé projects we found no évidence to suggest that they had any kind of framework that might beconsidered 'a solid monitoring plan'. Even in projects implemented by organisations such as Deafinitely, a well-establishedBritish organisation with thorough monitoring tools in place, it was difficult to actually go beyond mère quantitativeoutput indicators (such as those measuring thé number of tickets sold or people attending events) to try to assess théinstitutional and/or socio-economic effects of thé project (which is another sélection criterion).

23

Application forms, external évaluation forms and reporting formats as well as thé testimonies compiled during thé évaluationsuggest that monitoring indicators and frameworks are not receiving thé attention they deserve at différent key stages ofthé screening, sélection, implementation and reporting processes.

Thé reports hâve been described as too narrow and too focused on outputs and financial issues, with no space forreflection and exchange on thé challenges and difficulties faced during implementation and most notably thé structure andthé questions asked provided little space to reflect on subtle contributions to change.

Another issue related to thé monitoring System is linked to thé use of thé reports. Reports hâve served mainly anadministrative purpose and thé information has not been communicated widely. Final reports hâve not been shared butconsidered a required administrative step for closing thé dossier and issuing thé third and last payment.

Thé Administrative Coundl complained about thé lack of détail shared through thé reports and thé fact that they did notreceive regular information on their progress and impact.

BOX 3: MONrTORING AND EVALUATION

Thé IFPC's stratégie aims, objectives and annual plans will need to indicate spécifie areas for monitoring, which should focuson thé results of thé Fund that go beyond thé output level. Thé IFPC will want to pay spécial attention to thé upcomingcommunication/fundraising strategy, understanding (in consultation with BSP) whatwould be thé most useful type ofinformation to feed thé strategy.

At thé moment, thé IFPC focuses mainly on progress monitoring, measuring thé physical delivery of services/experiences andproducts (outputs) provided by thé projects, which is typically done through thé activities implemented. This type of progressmonitoring also includes thé monitoring of thé management of financial resources. However, it would be also advisable thatprojects measure on a routine basis thé progress they are making towards a particular change or transformation (outcomes).This type of "big picture" monitoring is called outcome monitoring, which is what is missing from thé IFPC application formand thé reporting formats.

Thé Théo ofChan e

A precondition to monitor thé outcome of thé projects is to clearly identify what is thé transformation (s) they want to see andhow they are assuming they can contribute to it, i.e. their Theory of Change fToC).

It is therefore advisable to introduce a spécifie section in thé application form where projects are asked to détail their Théoriesof Change. This involves describing thé transformations they would expect thé project to contribute to; how they are planningto do so; and thé assumptions behind this reasoning.

Settin u indicators

Thé current application form requires projects to develop their own progress indicators under each activity. Thèse indicatorshâve helped to measure thé completion of activities. In a few occasions, we hâve observed that indicators are too général tomeaningfully measure what they intent to capture.

For example, thé project 'Performance art for youth artists' of thé 2015 call, included 'Level of thé Diversity of Culturalexchange' as one of its progress indicators. This would be too général and vague to be measured. Différent people will hâvedifférent ideas about what a cultural exchange is and about how diverse it can be.

There are many examples of good progress indicators included in application forms. For example, in thé Grounded applicationwe read:

Activity: Mainstream industiy professionals, companies and théâtre venues are invited to see thé production.

Progress indicators: Number of invited guests attending

This indicator is straightforward, easyto understand, concrète enough and vatid to measure if thé activity has been completedto plan.

As previously mentioned, thé application form links thé indicators with particular activities and does not ask for more généraloutcome indicators. However, some projects hâve included such indicators in their plans. We found a good example of a clearoutcome indicator in thé project Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll.

Thé ro'ect used an outcome indicator to measure a transformation thé ex ected to see in thé local authorities. This is an

24

expected institutional transformation.

Good impact indicator Increased availability of resources of thé local authorities and thé government for théprotection and restoration of Huacas and similar monuments which hâve been neglected.

In summary, application forms should ask for a detailed ToC; outcomeindicators that measure thé progress towards expectedchanges or transformations; and progress indicators that measure completion of activities. There are seven quality attributesto define useful indicators (both progress and outcome indicators)18

l. Valid-indicators should actually measure what they are supposed to measure2. Reliable-conclusions based on indicators should be thé same if measured by différent people at différent times3. Relevant-indicators should be relevant to thé programme's objectives4. Sensitive-indicators should be sensitive to thé context and thé situation being observed5. Cost effective-thé results should be worth thé time and money it costs to apply indicators6. Timely-it should be possible to collect thé data reasonably quickly7. Targeted - indicators should be specified in terms of target group, location, quality and time

Thé 12-month timeline

Thé projects are requested to implement within a 12-month period. This tight timeline has often presented importantchallenges for both thé projects and for thé IFPC Secrétariat.

Thé IFPC call for proposais is announced in mid-March, granting a 10-week period for submission. Once thé proposais hâvebeen submitted there is a technical évaluation (or first screening) that runs from June to July. Thé projects that pass thétechnical évaluation go for an external évaluation conducted from July to September (see section on thé Screening Process).

Once thé évaluation is completed, a handful of shortlisted projects are shared with thé Members of thé Administrative Council,which considers thé requests received during their ordinary session in February. Thé IFPC Secrétariat then communicates théAdministrative Council's décisions to prospective project holders.

Prier to 2016, only an earliest possible starting date was stated (April l). For thé 2016 call, an earliest and latest starting datewas introduced: ail projects had to begin between l April and 31 May 2017, otherwise they were eliminated during thétechnical évaluation.

In practical terms this tight timeline has posed a number of challenges. Notably, as already mentioned under Effectiveness, projectcontract approvals may in a few cases take longer than planned. This means that project hâve to squeeze ail plannedactivities in order to complète what was originally planned. This also had implications for thé quality and thé outreachof thé products and expériences.

Furthermore, thé practical pace of thé projects does not only dépend on thé capacity of thé implementing partners butalso on external factors (as already mentioned) as well as on thé capacity of other key stakeholders.

'Our abiUty to convene for thé show was somehow compromised, we would hâve needed more time to advertise' Projectgovernment partner.

On other occasions, thé timeline was not convenient for undertaking an interesting project We hâve not applied again becausetheir tlmeline does not fit with what we can do', Project implementer.

A new criterion in question

Since 2016, thé external evaluator guidelines do not encourage funding festivals or long-standing events, andrecommend 'new activities or events that are not part of thé festival's regularly scheduled programme of activities' (GénéralGuidelines for External Evaluators, 2016 Call for Proposais). Many of this year's applicants requested funding within théframework of festivals and récurrent events.

18 Useful links: Thé following links will take you to useful resources on indicators: Keeping on track: A guide to setting and usingindicators - Charities Evaluation Services; Your project and its outcomes - Charities Evaluation Services; Managing thé Project Cycle.Socio-cultural Impact, www. socio-culturalimpact. com

25

Until 2016, thé IFPC had been supporting both types of projects. Cape Town Carnivcit (which received $40,000 tocontribute to a project of $1,372,000) or thé Medellin Poetry Festival ($20,000 out of a total budget of $891,048) constitute twoexcellent examples of large annual events that benefited from IFPC support.

Hence, at présent, two conflicting views of thé projects that thé IFPC should ideally fund exist. For some, thé IFPC shouldfocus on small initiatives that find it almost impossible to obtain financial support due to their spécial nature, originality,etc. and to thé limited opportunities open to thé project implementer. Other stakeholders strongly believe that supportinglarger well-established events with a history and réputation remains thé only way of maximising IFPC resources andensuring more visibility for both thé projects and for UNESCO (see Value for Honey}.

Thé screening processProject screening is conducted in two phases. Thé first phase consists of a technical évaluation that weighs heavily on théIFPC Secrétariat, since it implies reviewing around 800 plus proposais and compiling a shortlist of around 150 administrativelycompilant projects to be sent to thé external evaluators (phase two).

Thé screening process has been improved considerably since 2013 when thé IFPC received around 1500 proposais sent inpdf format. Since then, thé Fund has introduced a web-based application System, FAQs hâve been developed and examples ofeliglble and non-eligibte projects are shared with potential applicants. This has simplified thé process considerably, making itfar more efficient.

However, numerous voices from UNESCO and thé Administrative Council agrée that thé first screening is still a heavyburden for thé IFPC Secrétariat and that thé time spent screening projects (a task that could be conducted by less qualifiedstaff) is time that is not devoted to other essential tasks. In 2016 thé Secrétariat had to review 814 projects in approximately 6weeks.

Géographie balance constitutes a key challenge since sometimes projects that are not up to thé quality desired areaccepted in order to ensure diversity. In terms of accessibility, a recurring issue in our discussions has been thé languagebarrier, since applications and reports can only be submitted in English and French. In addition to this, it seems clear that acertain flexibility should also be adopted with a view to improving thé accessibility of deaf and blind people for example, byusing application forms that are tailored to thèse spécial needs (on a case-to-case basis), or by allowing extra time for thèsegroups to translate applications and reports to suitable and accessible languages such as Braille or Sign languages.

Other administrative requirements that need attentionWe fully acknowledge that changing administrative procédures in a complex organisation like UNESCO is not an easy task.However, it is our duty to use this évaluation to raise an issue that has émergea very strongly among implementing partners.

Many feel that thé financial reporting required by UNESCO requires considérable expertise, or a high level of éducation toensure adéquate completion. In thé words of one project manager, 'this type of report can only be completed by thé élites ofmycountry', which clearly contradicts thé spirit of inclusiveness that thé Fund wishes to protect and nurture.

Furthermore, thé System of justification of expenditure seems too cumbersome and outdated. For example, UNESCOrequires ail thé paperwork (including ail invoices) to be sent by post, which means an extra expense for thé projects (often notinduded in thé original budgets) to comply with a rule that seems to hâve a questionable rationale.

Tinancial reporting is mental. It is a cumbersome template with no guidelines attached. They require every invoicestamped! We hâve never had that! And then we had to send ail thé paperwork by post! Why don't they accept anelectronic version7', Project implementer.

Project holders must complète a consent form for each vidéo or photo they submit to thé IFPC Secrétariat. Without this form,UNESCO is not authorised to disseminate thé images. This standard UNESCO procédure was described by two projects asconstituting an unnecessarily complicated process.

'It was frustrating that a very complicated vidéo consent form had to be done twice for thé mid term and thé finalreport!', Project Manager.

26

3. 4. 3. VALUE FOR MO NEYValue for money is a concept that encompasses thé three Es: Economy (réduction of cost), Efficiency (relation betweeninvestment and results) and Effectiveness (to what extent expected aims hâve been accomplished) (see Figure l).

Figure l: Value for Money

ECONQMY EFRCIENCY

COST INVESTMENT RESULTS

EFFECTVENESS^

OBJECTIVES

Value for Money can be assessed from two perspectives; thé V4M of thé IFPC as a whole, and thé V4M of thé projects that théFund has co-funded.

Thé Value for Money of thé FundIn général terms, thé administrative cost of thé Fund (i. e. thé budget lines that are not going to projects) is perceived to bevery high. Operational costs include thé following items: running costs (staff of thé Secrétariat and annual AdministrativeCouncil meeting costs including travel and DSA for members), project évaluation experts, monitoring and évaluation, recoverycosts, miscellaneous FT work (website/online project application and platform development), communication and programmesupport costs. Thé progression of thèse costs has been as follows1 9 20

Executive Officer

IFPC Assistant

Ordinary meeting of thé Administrative Council

Evaluation experts

Monitoring and évaluation

Project allocation

Recovery costs

Miscellaneous

Communication

Sub-total

PSC 10%

TOTAL

143, 164

55, 125

47,740

24,000

410,000

47, 602

727,631

72,763

800, 394

146, 050

79,000

24,000

40,000

372,000

12,300

33,053

13, 800

18,000

738,203

73,820

812, 023

150, 511

65,000

25,000

40, 000

25,000

461,200

15,144

40,246

14,000

38,800

874,901

87,490

962, 391

183, 996

63,600

27,000

40,000

35,000

613,000

23,220

35,000

15, 000

56, 800

1,092,616

109,261.60

1, 201, 877. 60

19 Documents for referencing: UNESCO IFPC Statements ofAccount 2013-2015; IFPC Adopted Budget for 2016 (IFPC/AC-5/05). At thé date of publication ofthis report, thé finandal statement for 2016

had not yet been issued.

20 Note fhat thé unused portion of thé 2013 proJect allocation dedicated to projects from thé 2013 call was carried fonvard to 2014.

27

Figure 2: Value for Money of thé projects

17 PROJECTS - POUR CONTINENTS

Innovations in vartous institutionsStrangthening partner capacltiea

Jntegrating vulnérable communitiesPutUng issues on différent public agendasProfesa-ional growth < employment for yout.b

Empowering vulnérable groupaHlah quallty art.tstlc products/eiiperlencaa

As we can see, thé operational costs of runningthé Fund hâve remained stable at

approximately 50% of thé total budget butslightly decreasing since 2014. Despite thistendency we would agrée with most stakeholdersconsulted that this ratio is too high and thatthé tendency should be to creatively thinkabout how thé IFPC could reduce its

administrative bill. We will propose someconcrète measures in thé final section of thisreport.

Thé Value for Money in théprojectsIn our analysis of thé V4M of thé projects we hâve taken into account thé 18 projects21 approved under thé 2013 and 2014callsfor project proposais (project implementation in 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively)22. This means a total approvedfinancial investment of $823, 20023.

This investment has gone a long way (see Figure 2).

We hâve collected sufficient évidence to conclude that thé value for money in thé projects has been very high. To reach thisconclusion we hâve analysed four aspects in relation to thé investment; a) how thé projects contributed to change (analysedin thé previous chapter); b) thé technical and artistic quality of thé products and expériences that thé projects developed; e)thé extent to which thé projects could leverage other resources; d) how thé projects benefited from UNESCO's brand andhow thé UNESCO brand benefited from thé projects.

Oualitv ofvroducts/exveriences

While assessing thé quality of thé products we prioritised évidence coming from sources outside thé projects analysed. In ourfour case studies we found numerous indications to conclude that thé artistic and technical quality was very good.

For example, Coachlng Court films will be screened at one of thé most important cinéma festivals in Africa, FESPACO 2017(Festival Panafricain du Cinéma de Ouagadougou}

Grounded obtained excellent reviews from thé main specialised press in Gréât Britain. Furthermore deaf actress NadiaNadarajah was nominated under thé category of Best Female Actress for thé prestigious Off West-End Awards in 201624.

Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll was recognised as a best practice for Private-Public-Partnership in thé culturat area in 2015by thé prestigious Peruvian Organisation Ciudadanos al Dla. Thé project was also selected by thé National Newspaper ElComercio as an example of their Heroes 201525.

Thé workshops organised by Window to Diversity and thé products emerging from them were repeatedly praised bynumerous stakeholders including thé UNESCO Field Office in Lima and thé former Director of thé Spanish Cultural Centre inGuatemala: 'People were always deUghted with thé quality of thé workshops. Thé quatity of thé products was also very high. VEDIhas a certain sensé ofaesthetics that is not common among NGOs where artistic products are not so sophisticated'.

Outside thé visited projects we also found remarkable indications of thé quality of thé products. For example, in Bosnia andHerzegovina, thé documentary / can speak by young Director Mirza Skenderagic of Filmlng thé Other won thé BestDocumentary 2016 award in thé prestigious BiH Film Festival26 (see Figure 3).

21 One project was cancelled by thé projectholder (See Annex 5].

22 Year 0 - Call for projeds. Year l - Budget approved; projects selected and implemented

23 SeeAnnexS forthefutï listoflFPC-funded projectsand theircorresponding amounts.

24 (http://www. whatsonstage. com/london-theatre/news/off-west-end-theatre-awards-shortlist-announced_39634. html)

25 ( http://elcomercio.pe/sociedad/lima/revista-somos-heroes-2015-noticia-1864976)

28

Figure 3: l can speak won an award In thé BIH Film Festival

BOSNIAN-HERZECOVINIANFILM FESTIVAL" .W^GS TiCKETS LCCATiC'i S^0t,50[î PFÎE^S ^OK'ACT'JS

BHFF201 WINNERS

"Dur Everyday Life"byinesTannvic8HFF Au&ence Aws. 's'k'BeSîP'cti.'reBH^Ju'-v&ûK-aiWsn^n

Tigers-by DonisTânmicSrfFF^-Ay.-ôrcifûus

"Damaged Goods"by Nermin HsmzagicSHFFJaryAwsraeofSSEÎ Shorî Narre^e Fsim

"l Can Speak"by MirzB SkenderagicSh'FFJ^yAws.-^fffr?ff=f Qoiumsnîsr^ Fi!'^

Lèvera eo Fund

There are multiple examples of how IFPC Funds hâve served as a key incentive for attracting other resources, either withinthé framework of thé IFPC project or for follow-up initiatives.

For example, UNESCO Etxea in Bilbao allocated resources to Windows to Diversity coming from thé Basque Government.

Window to Diversity devetoped an entire new follow up initiative (Window to Biodiversity) financed by thé UNESCO FieldOffice in Peru and various governmental partners.

With thé help of thé UNESCO Field Offices both First African Circus and Filming thé Other were able to mobilise fundsfrom other donors présent in their countries.

Fekat Circus {First African Circus) received an EU grant shortly after thé end of thé IFPC project.

We also collected examples of in-kind contributions such as thé logistic support provided to Huacas, Burbujas y Rock 8tRoll by thé différent local authorities in Lima; or thé important contribution of volunteers in many of thé projects. Some ofthèse contributions went a long way. For example, in a Window for Diversity workshop, volunteer Lula Capriel designed thémagie box and manual, which hâve now become signature products of thé organisation.

It is also remarkable that numerous projects hâve been able to establish stratégie partnerships at thé national andinternational levels, with multiplying effects on thé investment received by thé IFPC, highlighting thé diversity ofleveraged resources and thé unexpected/unintended contributions of différent actors in each project setting.

Salta Mime and Clown Festival succeeded in engaging an impressive network of municipalities and established stronginstitutional links, for example with thé Ministry of Social Development. Badilisha Poetry Exchange involved severalorganisations from thé région including thé English Department at thé University of Rhodes, Résonance Poetry, WordnSound(South Africa), WAKA Poetry Consortium and Soma Book Café (Tanzania).

First African Circus attracted international volunteers from Europe, a European PhD Student who gave lectures,représentatives of Le Plus Petit Cirque du Monde from France and several circus teams from thé région.

Visibili o UNESCO throu h thé ro'ects

Thé use of thé UNESCO name/logo has been uneven across thé board. Some projects made extensive use of thé logo andbenefitted from links with other UNESCO associated projects and partners, while others did not. For example, thé Mede/ffnPoetry Festival made an extensive use of thé UNESCO logo in thé média, as did FirstAfrican Circus.

Beyond thé use of thé logo, UNESCO backing has had explicit benefits for thé projects. Several stakeholders describedUNESCO as a poweri'ul name that was automatically associated with issues such as integrity, human rights values and asensé of international collaboration.

It should be noted that thé use of UNESCO's name appears to be linked to thé level of involvement of UNESCO FieldOffices. As we hâve explained, beyond initial inputs prier to sélection and information on approved projects, thé involvement

26 http^/www. bhffnyc. org/past-winners-l

29

of UNESCO Field Offices has been uneven and heavily dépendent on individuals who recognised thé value of gettinginvolved rather than an institutionalised encouragement from thé IFPC Secrétariat or from UNESCO. Thé présence ofUNESCO représentatives at key events helped to maximise visibility, while thé use of materials produced by thé projects atinternational days and various UN-led events also helped to raise thé visibility of thé Fund.

Under this wide spectrum of UNESCO Field Office support, an interesting example to mention is thé First African Circusproject implemented in Ethiopia. Thé project was a gréât success and received a high level of support from thé UNESCOField Office in Addis Ababa throughout thé life of thé project. Fekat Circus also received support in thé form of advice andletters to encourage other funders to also contribute to this initiative. From thé perspective of thé Field Office, supporting théProject was seen as a gréât opportunity to change thé way that UNESCO was perceived at thé ground level, by showing morelocal involvement and promoting 'alternative' culture projects. Thé high level of UNESCO pari:icipation in press conférencesand project events was positively rated by stakeholders.

At thé opposite end of thé spectrum lie IFPC-funded projects that had no contact with UNESCO Field Offices. Thissuggests that better communication is required in order to maximise opportunities for strengthening UNESCO's imagelocally, improving institutional visibility through thèse projects and supporting their implementation.

IFPC projects hâve also revealed a différent side of UNESCO, with several stakeholders acknowledging that they knewnothing about thé organisation and did not réalise that UNESCO supported this kind of project. It is interesting to seehow thé IFPC is uniquely reaching thé essence of UNESCO (those ground-breaking artists) who otherwise knew nothing aboutthé organisation. Stakeholders found it interesting that UNESCO is financing initiatives outside héritage, but thé IFPC is notknown as a brand: it remains UNESCO.

'UNESCO is a brand most people know, but not necessarily linked to this type of work'. Project partner

We would hâve appredated if UNESCO had helped us gain more visibility', Project implementer

3. 5. SUSTAINABILITY

3. 5. 1. THE FUND'S FUTUREThé terms of référence of this évaluation exercise did not explicitly mention sustainability issues. In our inception report, weincluded a spécifie section on this topic but limited it to sustainability considérations at thé project level. Hence, thé questionof analysing thé sustainability of thé IFPC was not included in our original évaluation matrix. Nonetheless, we hâve addressed itin this évaluation because sustainability is clearly at thé heart of current debates on thé Fund.

Thé IFPC's financial situation is critical, since in November 2016, thé funding available amounted to only $1, 356, 514. 86,which was only sufficient to cover thé 2016 Call for Projects (already closed at thé time of publication). Thé fact thatthere are no fundraising and communication stratégies in place constitutes a clear cause for concern. Furthermore, no exitplan has been developed to analyse différent possible scénarios. Thé Administrative Council and other key stakeholders hâveexpressed frustration about limitations standing in thé way of an agreement on thé way forward (notably on thé recommendedcommunication and fundraising stratégies).

Thé limitations of thé Administrative Council are first and foremost of a structural nature, since despite having an explicitfundraising function27, some Council members do not feel that fundraising is part of their expected tasks. Furthermore,members acknowledge that they are artists and académies but not experts in communication and fundraising.

'We are artiste ond académies. We don't know how to do if, Administrative Council member.

More importantly, as discussed under Efficiency, in UNESCO it is thé Bureau for Stratégie Planning that guides andoversees fundraising efforts. Thé Administrative Council sets thé communication and fundraising budget. However,

27 Thé Administrative Council "shalt endeavour to promote thé voluntary contribution offunds or of any other form of resources. To that end, itshall devise and adopt a fundraising strategy conducted in accordance with UNESCO's rules and policies", IFPC Statutes (Art. 5. B. 10).

30

even with thé necessary will, communication materials and budget. Administrative Council members would only beable to serve as an instrument for mobilising funds. This instrumental rôle is important, even if thé AC would not beable to implement thèse stratégies. A further obstacle to this task is thé fact that despite thé allocation of acommunications budget in 2014, 2015 and 2016, only limited communication materials hâve been produced tosupport a prospective fundraising campaign, since thé project portfolio was considered limited and thé AdministrativeCouncil has so far not approved a décision in this regard.

Following thé conclusions from thé 4th ordinary meeting of thé Administrative Council, a meeting was held with ADG/CLT andother UNESCO services to discuss thé next phase of thé fundraising and communications strategy. A compétitive bid waslaunched in October 2015 to identify a communications specialist that could work closely with thé IFPC Secrétariat to proposea communication and fundraising strategy. However, thé Administrative Council rejected thèse proposais as too costly at thé5th ordinary meeting held in February 2016. Thé Secrétariat launched a new call for proposais in Aril 2016 but thé proposaisreceived did not meet thé criteria established by thé Administrative Council.

Nonetheless, thé IFPC has produced a brochure on thé Fund, a USB stick and has also improved and updated thé IFPC websiteas part of its follow-up on décisions taken by thé Administrative Council. However, now that two full project cycles hâve beencompleted, it can be argued that thé current portfolio is interesting and varied enough for thé results of thé IFPC-fundedprojects to be successfully showcased (as discussed under Efficiency). Communication remains crucial, since unless théachievements of thé IFPC are widely shared, it will be difficult to build a strong case in favour of thé Fund and toeffectively mobilise thé resources required to guarantee its future.

At thé upcoming ordinary meeting, thé Administrative Council will hâve to décide on thé future of thé IFPC beyond thécurrent project cycle of thé 2016 Call (approximately April 2017-April 2018) and on whether to recommend closing théIFPC. If thé latter is decided, an exit strategy proposing différent scénarios is required. This is key in order to mitigate anynégative institutional costs of this décision, to understand thé unmet expectations of thé IFPC constituency, as well as anyeffects on UNESCO's image. Thé exit strategy also allows a space to reflect on what will happen if thé organisation loses thisspace of freedom (whether it may be pursued by a différent instrument or lost altogether). We share some ideas in thérecommendations, since formulating a fully-fledged exit strategy clearly lies beyond thé scope ofthis évaluation.

3. 5. 2. SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS 0F IFPC-FUNDED PRO/ECTSThere are many examples of results Uving beyond projects that provide évidence of thé extent to which projects aresucceeding in using thé expériences and resources acquired with thé support of IFPC funding to continue building onthé results of their projects and engaging in more activities.

As we hâve previously discussed (see section on Effectiveness), thé vast majority of IFPC-funded projects are product-focused.Thé tendency to treat projects as ends in themselves limits discussions on what should follow project implementationin order to ensure thé sustainability of results. Application forms, mid-term and final reports dévote little space to this issueand there is little réflexion on thé kind of relationship to be expected beyond thé life of thé projects. Furthermore,although project implementers can apply to thé IFPC a second time, there is no connection between sustainability issuesand potential illegibility for a second round of funding.

Our analysis of IFPC projects also reveals an interesting contrast between thé insufficient attention accorded to thé issueof sustainability by thé IFPC (illustrated by its low importance for sélection, reporting purposes and thé absence of contactbeyond project completion), and thé positive efforts towards thé sustainability of results witnessed in a number ofprojects. It is important to point out though that under thé current setting (i. e. finandal and human capacity of thé Secrétariat)thé task of following up beyond thé life of thé projects is difficult. We make some concrète suggestions in this regard underthé recommendations chapter.

There are many hopeful signs: including strengthened capacities, effective fundraising and enhanced social capital. Someprojects hâve developed products that can easily be distributed once thé project is closed, such as books and catalogues(for example in Inheriting Harappa or Flâneur} or films and documentaries that are still being shown [Window to Diversity,Filming thé Other or Coaching Court) in partnership with différent institutions and as part of educational campaigns. Thissupports thé view that projects also continue to live through their products.

Thé example of Window ta Diversity (see Box 4) constitutes a gréât example of how thé strengthening of institutionalcapacities can bring about sustainable results.

31

Box 4: INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH 0F VEDI

Thé project Window to Diversity {Ventana a la Diversidad - VEDI, in Spanish) was a project awarded in 2013 to théGuatemalan NGO IRIPAZ. As we mentioned previously this organisation was only nominally involved in thé implementation ofthé project. Their two promoters were thé ones who managed to take thé initiative to a new dimension.

Thé IFPC project was fully implemented and it produced results that went beyond initial expectations (as we hâvedocumented throughout this report). Beyond thèse achievements, thé IFPC project became thé seed for a spectacularorganisation to flourish.

Thé promoters hâve now funded a fully-fledged organisation (VEDI) based in Spain with délégations in Peru and inGuatemala and with a sister organisation in Pakistan (VEDI Pakistan) separate from their organigram but with whom theyshare their values and modus operandi.

DIVERSITYDATA 201 .'. ' ;?01 "i

cfê̂'

70-

As thé infographie shows, in 2016 VEDI produced more than 110 collaborative audiovisual créations; involved more than420 participants from over 15 countries, collaborated with dozens of national and international institutions anddeveloped an impressive network composed of more than 20 partner organisations.

Although most of thèse developments occurred after thé IFPC project had finished, implementers and various keystakeholders argue that this organisational growth would not hâve been possible without thé IFPC's contribution. Théorganisation later developed a successful project Window to Bio-Diversity with UNESCO Peru during 2015/2016. ThéUNESCO field office is Peru also declared that this backing would not hâve happened if it was not for thé high quality productsand processes developed under Window to Diversity.

'Thé IFPC project was their business card' UNESCO Field Office

Thé replication of project activities constitutes another way of multiplying their positive effects.

32

For example, thé Inheriting Harappa team is organising another session of thé undergraduate course Exploring thé IndusValley Civilisation in thé Fall semester of 2016.

Flâneur has succeeded in fixing new activities after thé end of thé project to ensure thé use of outputs beyond project life (7exhibitions planned for 2016 and 2017, new workshops, 2 rétrospective exhibitions, a final catalogue with ail thé photographshas been published and distributed.)

Filming thé Other project participants organised a continuation of thé project, which has also been a gréât success.

Huacas, Burbujas y Rock & Roll has signed an agreement with thé Ministries of Culture and Education for théimplementation of a new project on thé same thème but with a strong educational component for wider impact.

Coaching Court has effectively supportedyouth and as a result, 8 of thé 10 participants are currently working in cinema-related fields 2 years after thé end of thé project. Thé project implementer is immersed in thé construction of a cinéma school(thé main building is now completed with some equipment pending) inspired by thé expérience of thé project and thérécognition that thé problerri of limited affordable training opportunities persists in thé région.

In thé process of implementing thèse projects, thé social capital of thé IFPC Secrétariat has also increased. This constituencyhas grown two-fold: firstly, thé Secrétariat has reached many organisations directly through thé project calls and at asecond level, projects hâve also contributed to building this IFPC constituency through their contacts and partnerships.

Evidence suggests that IFPC projects are in fact succeeding in reaching exactly thé type of constituency that UNESCOwould like to reach. In light of thé IFPC's current situation, one of thé key open questions for UNESCO concerns what itplans to do with this constituency in thé future, considering scénarios with and without an IFPC.

33

4. CONCLUSIONSReleva nce

Thé IFPC, with its broad objectives, is clearly aligned with UNESCO's mandate and is successfully contributing to thépromotion of culture, often through alternative, ground-breaking and cutting-edge projects.

Thé relevance of thé IFPC as a unique instrument for thé promotion of young individual artists is broadly recognised withinUNESCO as its main added value and its raison d'etre. However, its uniqueness stems more from thé fact that it provides aspace that is relatively independent of inter-government relations and government funding mechanisms.

Thé IFPC is complementary to thé three other Funds managed by UNESCO's Culture Sector (namely WHF, ICHF and IFCD). Italso shares similar goals to thé IFCD, even if there are noteworthy différences between thé two funds. There are no overlapsbetween their actions and no synergies hâve been developed.

Thé IFPC's objectives are broad and ail encompassing but adéquate and conducive for achieving thé desired results since theyprovide an inclusive framework for thé implementation of thé wide variety of projects that constitute thé wealth of thé IFPC.

Thé implemented projects were relevant to thé contexts they operated in and effectively addressed thé needs and prioritiesof vulnérable groups across thé world, although addressing thèse needs and priorities was not an explicit sélection andévaluation criterion.

Although gender mainstreaming is institutionally important, thé IFPC application process and reporting formats for mid-termand final reports are not conducive to eliciting information on gender issues, even though several projects effectivelyincorporated thé gender dimension into their work.

Thé IFPC's relevance to young audiences constitutes one of thé main achievements of thé Fund, since they hâve beensuccessfully integrated into projects both as beneficiaries and audience.

Effectiveness

15 out of 17 projects implemented under thé 2013 and 2014 calls achieved their planned results. Administrative procédureswere followed by ail projects completed to date with only one exception.

Thé outreach of thé products and expériences developed by thé IFPC co-financed projects was limited in some cases as aresult of two key factors: firstly, thé fact that products/experiences were innovative and did not always fit into mainstreamcultural préférences. This avangardist tendency of thé products developed by thé project is considered one of their strengths.Secondly, thé outreach coula hâve improved with a more explicit institutional backing by UNESCO and other institutions.

IFPC projects were passion-driven by implementers who were strongly committed to their work. This was one of thé mainfactors contributing to an effective implementation. In thé same line, volunteers were also a main asset as they often played akey (and altruistic) rôle in project implementation.

To a large extent, IFPC-funded projects were product-focused, which helped implementation, but reducedproducts/experiences to 'ends in themselves'. As a result, valuable information about learning processes and contributions tochange that were inextricably linked to thèse products were not captured.

Contribution to change

Considering that thé revitalised Fund has not been in existence for a long time and based on thé évidence from théimplemented projects, we can conclude that thé IFPC has made a positive contribution to thé promotion of culture andartistic expressions.

IFPC projects hâve touched many people's lives, contributing to relevant transformations at thé personal level. Thèse innertransformations are important, since they are necessary preconditions for influencing any other type of institutional or socio-

34

cultural change. Often thèse inner transformations were linked to thé acquirement of new skills and learning and were relatedto either artistic potential or to other issues beyond artistic disciplines (such as management of cultural projects). Very oftenthèse internai transformations were also linked to ideological shifts regarding thé récognition and acceptance of diversity.Many of thèse changes were in fact related to participants' ability to imagine possible futures for their lives that (they felt) werepreviously beyond their reach. Furthermore, on certain occasions people involved with thé projects went beyond imaginingthèse potential futures to realising new professional developments.

IFPC projects hâve contributed (in a small scale) to positive changes in thé socio-cultural sphère across thé communities. Animportant social contribution that has corne up repeatedly is how projects hâve been able to intégrale vulnérable communitiesin a variety of ways using arts. We hâve also documented how some projects succeeded in putting issues on différent publicagendas in selected groups, including cultural industries and governmental bodies, such as Ministries. Admittedly, for an IFPCproject to clearly contribute to placing an issue in thé agenda of a broader community, like a city or a nation, it necessarilyrequires piggybacking on a wider campaign or social trend. This has been successfully done by a few projects that worked withother social actors in thé sphère of thé symbolic, using art to shed light on important cultural, social and identity issuestogether.

Numerous innovations/transformations hâve taken place in thé implementing partner organisations as a result of thé IFPCprojects. Thèse institutional changes were related to reshaping stratégie directions, developing new projects, and gainingprestige and power thanks to their interaction with UNESCO. Thé projects hâve also contributed to institutional innovations inother key stakeholders différent to implementing partners, including co-funders.

Efficiency

Thé administrative cost of thé Fund is perceived to be very high with approximately 50% of thé approved provisionalbudget foreseen for staff costs of thé Secrétariat, annual Administrative Council meeting costs, évaluation experts, monitoringand évaluation, recovery costs, miscellaneous, H work (website/online project application and platform development),communication and programme support costs. There is limited room for a réduction although some is possible.

Value for Money in projects has been very high, since small investments hâve gone a long way. Projects hâve contributed tochanges, thé technical and artistic quality of thé products and expériences has been high; projects hâve succeeded inleveraging other resources and both UNESCO and projects hâve mutually benefited in terms ofvisibility and image. However,this was not thé case for thé IFPC overatl which spends approximately 50% of thé annual budget on operating costs.

Existing IFPC governance and coordination mechanisms and processes are not facilitating decision-making on difficultissues of concern for thé Fund. There is limited clarity on thé division of rôles between UNESCO/IFPC Secrétariat and théAdministrative Council and as a result, some important décisions are not being made (notably décisions around thé financialsustainability of thé Fund).

Thé process and criteria for appointing Administrative Council members could be reviewed. Despite thé distinguishedprofiles of Administrative Council members, thé fart is that they do not ail hâve expertise in more technical aspects of cultureprojects (such as project management, fundraising or communication). Although thèse skills do not constitute a requirementfor AC membership, some stakeholders argued that they would be désirable given their spécial relevance to thé IFPC under thécurrent délicate circumstances.

Overall, thé rôle of thé Administrative Council is not clear enough. Thé fact that thé IFPC does not formally fall under anyConventions, coupled with thé fact that thé Administrative Council performs its duties on voluntary basis (only their travelexpenses and per diem are covered), devoids AC members (in thé view of key stakeholders both internai and external to théAC) of any real accountability towards thé IFPC and UNESCO. This may partly explain thé Administrative Council's limitedinvolvement in fundraising efforts.

There are voices arguing for and against greater involvement of thé Administrative Council members in thé screening of théprojects, for example by giving them access to greater détail on those applications that were rejected. Since thé really uniqueadded value of thé IFPC is its independent sélection process, greater involvement of Administrative Council membersappointed by thé Director Général in consultation with Member States through régional groups (but serving on a personalcapacity) coula jeopardise a neutrality that is greatly benefiting thé more vulnerable/less connected artists and groups.

35

Thé IFPC Secrétariat is professional, responsive, helpful, accessible, respectful, encouraging but there are things that areexpected from it that it is not doing (namely promoting synergies among projects, developing more and better suitedcommunication products forvisibility and resource mobilisation, and following-up after project completion).

When IFPC projects were implemented in a country hosting a UNESCO Field Office, mutual engagement and supportbrought about gréât substantive benefits for both, even though implementation could face challenges at times.

With very few exceptions, UNESCO Field Office involvement in IFPC projects to date has been organic and largely dépendenton thé passion of individuals ratherthan on a clear institutional mandate.

Monitoring frameworks are not receiving thé attention they desen/e at différent key stages of thé screening, sélection,implementation and reporting processes. Thé reports hâve been described as too narrow and too focused on outputs andfinancial issues, with limited space for reflection and exchange on thé challenges and difficulties faced during implementationand most notably with little space to reflect on subtle contributions to change.

Thé 12-month implementation cycle posed a number of challenges for both project implementers and thé IFPC Secrétariat.Administrative delays often caused projects to rush activities in order to complète what was originally planned. Thé stricttimeframe had implications for thé quality and thé outreach of thé products and expériences, particularly since thé practicalpace of thé projects not only dépends on thé capacity of thé implementing partners but also on external factors beyond theircontrol.

Thé légal status of thé applicant is actually quite irrelevant because organisations and individuals can apply and implementwithout this factor having any significant impact on results. Thé légal status of thé applicant (whether and individual or anorganisation) does not constitute, as mentioned under relevance, thé uniqueness and thé value of thé Fund. On a related note,thé issue of whether or not festivals and récurrent events should be supported by thé IFPC is similar in thé sensé that bothmodalities hâve succeeded in implementing good projects.

Thé screening process has improved considerably but remains a heavy burden for thé IFPC Secrétariat. Thé time spentscreening projects (a task that could be conducted by less qualified staff) is time that is not devoted to other essential tasks.

Thé financial reporting required by UNESCO requires considérable expertise and certain aspects of thé current System forjustifying expenditure are widely perceived by project implementers as cumbersome and rather outdated.

Thé use of thé UNESCO name/logo was uneven across thé board. Some projects made extensive use of thé logo andbenefitted from links with other UNESCO associated projects and partners, while others did not. Beyond thé use of thé logo,UNESCO backing brought many benefits for thé projects. UNESCO was perceived as a powerful brand that was automaticallyassociated with positive values such as integrity, human rights values and a sensé of international collaboration, makingUNESCO uniquely placed to host thé IFPC.

Sustainability

Thé IFPC's financial situation is critical, since in November 2016, thé funding available amounted to only $1, 356, 514.86 for2017, which is only sufficient to cover thé 2016 Call for Projects (already closed at thé time of publication). Thé fact that thereare no fundraising and communication stratégies in place constitutes a clear cause for concern. Furthermore, no exit plan hasbeen developed to analyse différent possible scénarios.

Despite having a fundraising function, thé Administrative Council faces a number of limitations. Some members do not feelthat this task is part oftheir responsibilities and acknowledge that they are artists and académies but not necessarily experts incommunication and fundraising, since thèse are not AC membership requirements. A further obstacle to this task is thé factthat despite thé allocation of a communications budget in 2014, 2015 and 2016, only limited communication materialshâve been produced to support a prospective fundraising campaign, since thé project portfolio remained limited until now.

At UNESCO any resource mobilisation process must be led and guided by thé relevant UNESCO unit responsible fordonor coordination (Bureau of Stratégie Planning) to ensure full compliance with UNESCO's checks and balances.Therefore, in practical terms, thé Administrative Council would not be able to lead on this task (beyond 'devising and adopting'as mentioned in thé Statutes) even if its members were in agreement, willing and able to do so, since it is not its rôle toimplement this strategy. Given that thé Administrative Council has not yet adopted a communication and fundraising strategy,BSP is not actively engaging in this process.

36

IFPC-funded projects hâve succeeded in using thé expériences and resources acquired with thé support of thé IFPC tocontinue building on thé results of their projects and engaging in more activities. IFPC-funded projects hâve strengthenedcapacities, mobilised funding, enhanced social capital and developed products that can easily be distributed once thé project isclosed (books, catalogues, films and documentaries). They hâve also replicated project activities to multiply their positiveeffects. This supports thé view that projects also continue to live through their products.

There is an interesting contrast between thé insufficient attention accorded to thé issue of sustainability by thé IFPC(illustrated by its low importance for project sélection, reporting purposes and thé absence of contact beyond projectcompletion), and thé positive efforts towards thé sustainability of results witnessed in a number of projects.

In thé process of implementing thèse projects, thé social capital of thé IFPC Secrétariat has increased. This constituency hasgrown two-fold: firstly, thé Secrétariat has reached many organisations directly through thé project calls and at a second level,projects hâve also contributed to building this IFPC constituency through their contacts and partnerships. Thé IFPC projectsare in fact succeeding in reaching exactly thé type of constituency that UNESCO would like to reach. In light of thé IFPC'scurrent situation, one of thé key open questions for UNESCO concerns what it plans to do with this constituency in thé future,considering scénarios with and without an IFPC.

By way ofexample, thèse are three of thé possible future scénarios that could be envisagea for thé IFPC:

Firstly, a scénario where projects receive a letter of acknowledgement or certificate of completion signed by UNESCO at théend oftheir implementation cycle for future use by project holders and no further engagement with thé IFPC Secrétariat andfellow project holders occurs beyond thé life of thé project.

Secondly, a scénario where one of thé project holders with greater resouros, capacity and willingness takes on thé above-mentioned constituency and agrées to manage/moderate an on-line platform thatbrings together former IFPC project holdersin a forum-type structure whereexchanges are promoted andcross-learning and networking expériences take place.

Thirdly, UNESCO could consider placing thé IFPC under (or associating it with) another Culture Sector Fund, such as thé IFCD,in an effort to maximise thé or anisation's resources.

37

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

This évaluation proposes a séries of recommendations that aim to strengthen thé IFPC at différent levels. It is important tohighlight thé fact that this évaluation has been conducted in a context marked by thé absence of new funding to sustain théIFPC beyond thé implementation of projects from thé 2016 call. Our first and most important recommendation concerns théneed to take an urgent décision on thé future of thé IFPC.

l. UNESCO should take an urgent décision on thé future of thé IFPC. In light of thé current context where no additional fundshâve been raised for thé IFPC, it is advisable to suspend thé upcoming 2017 call for projects to focus on thé Fund'sprospects. Thé coming year and part of thé remaining IFPC budget could be devoted to devising an exit strategy analysingdifférent possible scénarios.

It seems clear that thé implementation of thé recommendations suggested below will be largely conditioned by thé loomingdécision on thé future of thé IFPC and by thé funding available to support thé implementation of thé recommendations in théfuture.

Nonetheless, we would like to stress that a number of thèse recommendations can be implemented within thé frameworkof thé projects from thé 2016 call (notably recommendations 3, 17 and 18).

Urgent steps to be taken

2. UNESCO should develop, adopt and implement a fundraising strategy and a two-fold communication strategy (internaiand external) as part of this process. Thé internai communication campaign within UNESCO would aim to raise awareness onthé IFPC's relevance and added value and link it to stratégie assets of thé organisation (not to Conventions in order to préserveits relative independence). As part of thé external campaign, thé IFPC Secrétariat would need to develop communicationmateriais summarising thé achievements of projects and their overall impact now that thé IFPC has completed two full projectcycles and has an interesting and varied portfolio of projects to showcase.

3. UNESCO should publish and use this évaluation report widely, noting that for example, thé section on contributions tochange includes valuable information for fundraising efforts.

Rethinking thé governance structure

4. UNESCO should open a debate with key stakeholders on how to strengthen and facilitate thé IFPC's governance andco rdination structure and mechanisms to make them more effective and accountable. In particular, thé organisation shouldtackle: a) thé relation between UNESCO and thé IFPC, including thé relation and attributions of thé Administrative Council andthé Secrétariat; b) thé composition, rôle, structure and support mechanisms for thé Administrative Council; and e) théstrengthening of thé Secrétariat so that they are able to focus on important tasks that are currently not being done.

5. UNESCO could take three concrète steps to strengthen thé Secrétariat. UNESCO should consider: a) externalising théscreening process in full; b) incorporating an additional team member (ideally funded/seconded by UNESCO) with acommunications/fundraising profile, and e) substituting thé current IFPC Secrétariat posts for UNESCO core budget positions.This would also help to reduce thé high administrative bill.

Expanding thé tasks of thé Secrétariat

6. Thé IFPC Secrétariat could promote synergies, spaces for shared learning and networks not only across IFPC projects butalso among other stakeholders, including UNESCO Field Offices and other members of thé UN family. Developing an alumninetwork and a web platform could be two effective ways of supporting thèse efforts.

7. Thé IFPC Secrétariat could consider offering explicit backing at thé end of thé projects to help project implementers reflecton how to measure thé long-term impact of their projects and to sustain their links with other projects and stakeholdersbeyond IFPC funding.

38

8. Thé IFPC Secrétariat should help projects in their reflection about how to measure long-term contributions andaccompany projects along this process by facilitating communication with project implementers after project completion andpromoting synergies across projects.

9. Thé IFPC Secrétariat could strengthen knowledge management by developing an online platform and encouraging sharedlearning as part of steps to manage thé huge constituency developed under thé IFPC umbrella.

10. Thé IFPC Secrétariat coula promote an adéquate gender analysis in ail funded projects to ensure that they address théneeds and priorities of both men and women and they are given an equal voice from thé application process through toproject implementation and monitoring and évaluation of project activities.

11. Thé Secrétariat would need ta facilitate more exchanges, experience-sharing and cross-learning across Culture SectorFunds, particularly between thé IFPC and IFCD (noting that this may only happen with an explicit UNESCO mandate in place).For example, thé IFCD has developed a spécial information form for UNESCO Field Offices that could be a source of inspirationfor thé IFPC, while thé IFCD's focus on capacity-building could also complément IFPC projects.

12. Thé IFPC Secrétariat should provide projects with a 'welcome pack' induding an officiai présentation letter in order tofacilitate project implementation and maximise funding and collaboration opportunities. This information package shouldinclude information for projects on their relationship with UNESCO Field Offices explaining thé support they can expert toreceive. In this regard, thé IFPC Secrétariat should promote institutional backing by UNESCO at thé field tevel as far as possible,in order to facilitate certain aspects of implementation, particularly in relations with government and when involved in lengthybureaucratie processes.

13. UNESCO should seek to standardise thé type of support that Field Offices can lend projects by developing an informationpackage explaining how they can support IFPC-funded projects and how they can benefit from this collaboration. An officiâtréférence letter at thé end of thé project would also be useful for project implementers.

Fine-tuning existing processes and tools

14. UNESCO should make efforts to make thé Fund more inclusive and improve access by addressing issues of language,géographie balance and accessibility. Application forms and reports should be accepted in languages other than Frenchand English and a certain flexibility should also be allowed with a view to improving thé accessibility of deaf and blind peopleand other vulnérable groups, for exannpte by using application forms and processes that are tailored to various spécial needs.Géographie balance could be improved by strengthening support to potential applicants from areas where capacities areweaker.

15. Thé IFPC should continue supporting festivals and récurrent events and consider thèse project proposais on a case-to-case basis in order to maximise opportunities.

16. Thé Administrative Council and IFPC Secrétariat could consider incorporating a spécifie sélection criterion on théinclusion of vulnérable groups in thé assessment of project proposais in order to ensure that this dimension is systematicallyconsidered.

17. Thé IFPC Secrétariat could also strengthen monitoring frameworks to include qualitative indicators that capture othervaluable dimensions of expected project results (including effects beyond quantitative data). This is particularly important forimproving gender analysis, in order to ensure that beyond figures, qualitative information about processes and contributionsto change is provided (see Box 3 forfurther détails).

18. Thé IFPC Secrétariat should strengthen communication and reporting processes to ensure that more complex and subtleachievements are reflected in project reports and in order to paint a more comprehensive (and real) picture of how thé IFPCcontributes to thé promotion of culture. Reporting formats should be modified to integrate new éléments that focus onlearning processes, contributions to change and challenges. Thé Fund should also review thé use of reports, content andformat to request thé information that is really necessary and exclude information that will not be used.

19. UNESCO should consider extending thé project cycle to two years in order to allow for greater flexibility. In addition tothis longer time frame, greater flexibility should be granted to implement project activities in thé planned timeframe once thécontract is issued.

39

20. UNESCO could consider reviewing financial reporting requirements to ease thé administrative burden of projects andsimplify overall procédures. In a related note efforts should be made to strengthen thé support and information provided toproject implementers by developing clear guidelines on financial reporting.

Above ail

21. We would advise UNESCO to continue supporting and strengthening thé IFPC because thé Fund is successfully promotingculture in créative, innovative ways and is effectively supporting a wide range of forms of artistic expression across thé world.

CONTINUE THE WORK YOU ARE DOING BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE!

40

6. ANNEXES

. Annex l: Terms of Référence IFPC Evaluation Exercise.

. Annex 2: Evaluation matrix.

. Annex 3: Sources of information consulted per project.

. Annex 4: List of documents reviewed.

. Annex 5: Table of IFPC projects.

. Annex 6: Interview guideline tool.

4l

UniStdNaaomE:A<aUonat. SwrKSv sirt

Ct)lid»l0i's'"iiï3»ôn

IffîçFOâtiâftê' FwvStw9»Pl9W9Ïi9n0( EUfC

ANNEXl

Terms of Référence for thé évaluation and monitoring exercise of théInternational Fund for thé Promotion of Culture

1. Background

Thé International Fund for thé Promotion of Culture (IFPC)1 is a UNESCO fund thatsupports thé artistic expression and professionalization ofyoung artists around thé worldthrough providing co-financing in thé production ofcultural and artistic works and events.Thé only UNESCO fund open to individual artists and creators, thé IFPC supportsprojects that benefit youth, contribute to gender equality, foster peace and internationalcoopération and that promote cultural diversity. IFPC-funded projects promote créativeexpression in areas as diverse as music, thé performing arts, arts and crafts,documentary film, visual arts, literature and poetry.

Thé IFPC functions on thé basis of a yearly call for project proposais open to individualartists and creators, public bodies and NGOs. Since thé Fund was relaunched in 2013,a total of 17 projects hâve received IFPC co-financing.

Given that thé Fund has already undergone extensive external auditing, this initialévaluation will focus its scope on thé implementation, outcomes and relevance of théIFPC co-funded projects to achieve thé aims and spirit of thé Statutes of thé IFPC.

2. Objectives

Within thé framework of thé IFPC, and furtherto thé Administrative Council's approval ofthé proposed timeframe and indicative terms of référence of a monitoring and évaluationexercise (IFPC/AC-4/07), thé contractor shall focus work under thé responsibility of théIFPC Secrétariat in orderto undertake thé following task:

Evaluate thé implementation, outcomes and relevance of thé IFPC co-fundedprojects, to achieve thé aims and spirit of thé Statutes of thé IFPC.

Points to be addressed in thé exercise:

To what extent were thé current Guidelines of thé IFPC successful in meeting théobjectives of thé Fund, as indicated in its statutes?

Eligibility criteria and clarity of scope of thé fields of eligible activities;

Criteria for évaluation of programmes/projects and requests for assistance;

Thé duration of thé funding cycle;

Complementarity of thé IFPC with UNESCO's other international funds in thé fieldof culture;

htt ://en.unesco.or /if e/

Were thé projects aligned with thé overall purpose and objectives of thé Fund?

To what extent did thé projects achieve their expected outcomes and results?

Thé reasons expected outcomes and results were not achieved;

What were thé main difficulties faced by beneficiaries?

What monitoring indicators can be recommended for incorporation into théapplication form?

Did thé activities address thé objectives identified?

Hâve thé projects contributed to promoting/supporting young artists?

3. Outputs

Thé contractor will be expected to submit three reports (inception report, mid-term reportand final report) according to thé reporting schedule below.

4. Activities

Activities include but are not limited to thé following tasks:

Measuring thé degree of implementation, effectiveness of outputs and outcomesof thé IFPC's co-funded projects of thé first, second and third calls for proposais;and

Drawing on thé lessons learned and make recommendations as to thé review ofthé Guidelines of thé IFPC, including its objectives, fields ofactivity, beneficiaries,projects approved for co-financing, évaluation and reporting.

5. Inputs

Thé IFPC Secrétariat will provide thé contractor with ail documentation available, a listof key stakeholders to interview as well as a geographically représentative list of IFPCco-financed projects illustrating thé diversity of co-funded projects (activity type andscope, applicant status... ). Téléphone and/or Skype interviews and 2-3 fleld visits toProject holders should be factored in.

6. Timing

Call for tender launched: 14 March 2016

Deadline for réception of quotes: 4 April 2016

Starting date: May 2016

Delivery on: May 2017

7. Reporting

Thé contracter shall submit thé following reports:

1) tnception report : A detailed working plan, including ail deliverables, deadtines tobe submitted within thé first month of thé contract;

2) Mid-term re ort : A report containing thé findings of thé research and interviewsundertaken, and a séries of initial observations and recommendations to besubmitted after 6 months; and

3) Final re ort: A report containing ail findings, observations, conclusions andrecommendations for thé IFPC's monitoring and évaluation exercise to besubmitted in May 2017.

8. Eligibility/qualification/experience requirements:

Minimum 5 years' expérience in thé field of monitoring and évaluation

Proven expérience of successfut évaluation work and development of monitoring

mechanisms

Knowledge of thé UN System would be an asset

Excellent knowledge of English and French.

9. HowtoApply:

Qualified candidates are requested to submit a cover letter and CV to Ms Bax

(d. bax@unesco.org) by 4 April 2016 at noon Paris time. Thé proposai should clearlyillustrate how thé contractor 1) responds to thé eligibility requirements indicated above, and2) intends to achieve thé objectives of thé exercise.

Contact Information:UNESCO Culture Sector, Division for CreativityAttn: International Fund for thé Promotion of Culture (IFPC)E-mail: infoifpc@ynesco. ora

ANNEX 2

BE ADDRESSED BY EVALUATION SOURCES DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TOOLSRele nce: Understand g how appropriately thé purpose d e igibility criteria u ated by und and thé interventions that were ap roved underthe Fund responded to thé needs ofthe targetedbeneficiaries and other key stakeholders (implementing partners, UNESCO, etc. ) throughout thé life of thé projects.

. Extent to whlch thé projects implemented are aligned with thé aims and stratégies of thé Fund

Alignment with UNESCO's mandate, structure and stratégie frameworks

Complementary to other UNESCO Funds (i.e. what makes this Fund différent and what is its added value vis à vis otherUNESCO initiatives, such as thé IFCD)

Extent to which thé Fund's aims are in line with implementing partners' mandates and congruent with their stratégieframework

How thé approved projects are addressing in nature and scope thé challenges and needs ofwomen and menparticipants in a fair and equal manner. (According to men & women artici ants & according to officiai culturallans s rate ies b national and local overnment ies)

Documents of thé Fund

Administrative Council

Management thé FundImplementing partnersDocuments of thé Fund

Third party documents

Administrative Council

Management thé Fund

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Management thé FundImplementing partnersBellwethers1

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsManagement thé FundImplementing partners

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Management thé FundImplementing partnersBeneficiaries/champions

Bellwethers

Efficiency: Understanding thé extent to which thé resources made available through thé Fund are being used wisely and timely used in relation with thé

Content analysis

OneZone interviews/focus groups

Skype interviewsSense-making/preliminary findingsContent analysis

One2one interviews/focus groupsSkype interviewsSense-making/preliminary findingsContent analysis

One2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshopsSkype interviews

Sense-making/preliminary findings

Content analysis

One2one interviews/focus groupsSkype interviews

Content analysis

One2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshopsSkype interviewsOn-line survey

Sense-making/preliminary findings

results that thé projects are contributing to.

Extent to which thé current Operational procédures of thé IFPC are successful in meeting thé objectives of thé Fund.Call for ro osai and screenin ro ess: Eligibility criteria (clarity and scope); adequacy of screening tool, etc.

Extent to which thé current Operational procédures of thé IFPC are successful in meeting thé objectives of thé Fund.Im lementin model: Adequacy offunding cycle, information flows & décision making with implementing partners;administrative procédures; reporting mechanisms (including suitability of monitoring indicators requested by thé Fund)

Extent to which thé current Operational procédures of thé IFPC are successful in meeting thé objectives of thé Fund.Général finance mechanism: Adequacy of thé finandal flow, from donation mechanisms to disbursement.

Documents of thé Fund

Administrative Council

Management thé Fund

Implementing partnersDocuments of thé Fund

Management thé FundImplementing partners

Documents of thé Fund

Administrative Council

Management thé Fund

Implementing partners

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsSkype interviewsSense-making/preliminary findingsContent analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsSkype interviews

On-line survey

Sense-making/preliminary findingsContent analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsSkype interviewsSense-making/preliminary findings

1 Bellwethers are people who are leaders in their field (renowned académies, prominent artists, etc. ) but they are not directly involved with thé implementation of théprojects or thé Fund

ANNEX 2

Extent to which thé projects made good use of their financial and human resources.Oualitv of thé Droducts/experiences: Were thé experiences/products fadlitated by thé project perceived of high qualltyaccording to participants?

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documents

Press

Management thé FundImplementing partnersBeneficiaries/championsBellwethers

Content analysis

One2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshops

Skype interviews

On-line survey

Sense-making/preliminary findings

Extent to which thé projects made good use of their financial and human resources.V lue for Mone V4M : Inputs (resources) vs. output (contribution to transformations)

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documents

PressManagement thé FundImplementing partnersBeneficiaries/champions

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshopsSkype interviewsOn-line surveySense-making/preliminary findings

Extent to which thé projects made good use of their financial and human resources.Lèvera e of funds invested - were they used strategically? Were they able to attract more resources? Was therecomplementarlty with other funds available in thé field of culture?

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documents

Press

Administrative Council

Management thé FundImplementing partnersBeneficiaries/championsBellwethers

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshops

Skype interviewsOn-line survey

Sense-making/preliminary findings

Extent to which thé projects made good use oftheir financial and human resources.Visibilitv of UNESCO's contribution.

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPressManagement thé FundImplementing partnersBeneficiaries/championsBellwethers

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshopsSkype interviewsOn-line surveySense-making/preliminary findings

3. Effectiveness: Assessing thé extent to which projects' objectives were achieved, including thé analysis of thé most sallent factors influendng thé achlevement or non- achievement of thé objectives. Extent towhich projects ' objectives were achieved and why.

How do achievements compare with planned results?

Were thé products produced by thé projects of high quality? According to whom?

Did thé products address thé intended target groups and what was thé actual coverage?

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Management thé FundImplementing partnersDocuments of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Management thé FundImplementing partnersDocuments of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsSkype interviews

On-line surveySense-making/preliminary findings

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshops

ANNEX 2

What are thé elements_that contributed to progress or delays in thé implementation process?

Management thé FundImplementing partners

Beneficiaries/champions

Bellwethers

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Administrative Council

Implementing partners

Beneficiaries/champions

4. Contribution to changes: Building a mature understanding of how change has happened as a result of thé projects contribution, including an analysis of unexpected changesactually achieved by thé projects and how

What was thé projects" overall contribution and how does this compare with what was expected? Documents of thé FundThird party documentsPress

Administrative Council

Management thé Fund

Implementing partnersBeneficiaries/championsBellwethers

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Management thé FundImplementing partnersBeneficiaries/championsBellwethers

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Management thé FundImplementing partnersBeneficiaries/champions

Bellwethers

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Management thé FundImplementing partners

Beneficiaries/champions

Bellwethers

5. Sustainability: Identifylng aspects of thé projects that are likely to be sustalned after their completion, including an analysis of thé factors for sustainability.

PersonallyiTo what extent hâve behaviours, prestige, empowerment changed within thé beneficiaries (particularlyyoung artists and vulnérable groups) as a result of thé projects' outputs?

Socially: What hâve been thé broader social and cultural conséquences of thé projects so far?

Institutionally: What concrète things (if any) are now done differently within thé implementing partners as result(contribution) of thé projects?

Identifying factors and externalities may reduce or strengthen sustainability? What support is needed to build on andsustaln thèse changes?

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsPress

Administrative Council

Management thé Fund

Skype interviewsOn-line surveySense-making/preliminary findings

Content analysis

One2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshopsSkype interviewsOn-line survey

Sense-making/preliminary findings. Determining what has been

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshopsSkype interviewsOn-line survey

Sense-making/preliminary findings

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groups

Champions workshopsSkype interviews

On-line surveySense-making/preliminary findings

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshopsSkype interviews

On-line surveySense-making/preliminary findings

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshops

Skype interviewsOn-line surveySense-making/preliminary findings

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groupsChampions workshops

Skype interviewsOn-line survey

Did thé project adequately invest In, and focus on, partner capacity development to ensure sustainability?

What are thé prospects for thé benefits of thé projects being sustained after thé funding stops? Did this match théintentions?

Implementing partners

Beneficiaries/championsBellwethersDocuments of thé Fund

Third party documents

Management thé FundImplementing partners

Documents of thé Fund

Third party documentsManagement thé FundImplementing partners

ANNEX 2

Sense-making/preliminary findings

Content analysis

One2one interviews/focus groupsSkype interviews

On-line surveySense-makin / reliminar findin s

Content analysisOne2one interviews/focus groups

Skype interviews

On-line surveySense-makin / reliminar findin s

ANNEX 3: Sources of information consulted per project

Project title

1. Cape Town CarnivalTrust

2. 241h International PoetryFestival Medellin

Application Mid-Term Final Survey Skype Field OtherForm Report Report nterview sit project

resources

0 0

3. Filming thé Other

4. This is not Chick Lit:stories by ordinary womenin and beyond turmoil.

5. Window to Diversity

6. Talents of thé outskirts:2014SmartsSegou

7. JewelsoftheCulturalTreasure

8. l can move

9. Court 2014

10. First Africa Circus

11. Youth, filmandfilm-making in Uganda

12. BadilishaPoetryX-change: production of 80podcasts featuring Africanpoetry

13. Inheriting Harappa

14. British Sign LanguageThéâtre

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

N/A

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

N/A

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

N/A

x

x

x

x

0

0

x

0

x

0

x

N/A

0

x

0

x

0

x

0

0

x

x

0

N/A

0

0

x

0

0

x

0

0

0

x

0

N/A

0

0

x

x

0

x

0

0

0

x

x

N/A

x

0

x

15. Flâneur- afreshphotographie look at urbanculture nowadays

16. Huacas, burbujas androck & roll

17. 6*" Salta InternationalMime and Clown Festival

18. Al Sunnu PalestinianChildren's Choir

19. Rencontres de créationet initiation des Jeunesécrivains et artistes

congolais

20. Performance art foryouth- artists' collaborativeProject and youth artfestival

0 0

x

x

N/A

x

N/A

0

0

0 0

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

0

0

21. Solidarity through thé Xperforming arts andintercultural collaborative

practice

22. Project E-Fest: Festival Xdes Cultures Numériques

23. Roma identity seem N/Afrom outside, representedfrom inside

24. Introduction ofyoung Xtalented writers into adigital publishing industry

25. ANDIMATION X

26. Resistencia modulada X(modulated résistance)actual résistance youthradio

0

0

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

0

0 0X000

0 0X000

27. Ciné a la calle 0 X 0 0

ANNEX 4: Summary of documents reviewed

T e of Document

2013 Applications

2013 Intérim Reports2013 Final Reports2014 Applications

2014 Intérim Reports2014 Final Reports2015 Applications

Administration forms (applications, budget, contracts, etc.)External évaluation (forms and guidelines)ICHFIFCDIFPC Général

WHFGénéral backgroundIFCDFinancial documents

Audits

UNESCO Culture Sector Stratégie documentsIFPC Statute-related documents

Number9

9

9

9

7

7

9

8

5

3

4

5

2

2

4

6

4

2

4

TOTAL 108

ANNEX 5: Table of IFPC-funded projects

Pro

1. Cape Town Carnival Trust

AcU

Music, performing arts, South Africacrafts

opeD)

National NGO 40, 000

20, 0002. 24' International PoetryFestival Medellin

3. Filming thé Other

4. This is not Chick Lit: storiesby ordinary women in andbeyond turmoil.

Poetry

Film

Literature

Colombia

Bosnia and Herzegovlna

Egypt and Libya

National

National

Régional

NGO

NGO

Indivi

5. Window to Diversity

6. Talents of thé outskirts:2014SmartsSegou

7. Jewels of thé CulturalTreasure

8. l can move

9. Coaching Court 2014

Collaborative art Guatemala, Peru, Indonesia and International NGOProject, documentary Spain

Plastic arts, music and Mali and Nigerplaiting

Vidéo art Pakistan

Dance performance by Palestinepeople with disabilities

Film Bénin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger,Sénégal, Togo

National

National

National

Régional

40,000

NGO 51, 000

NGO

NGO

22, 000

50, 000

Individual 60, 000

ro|ecttnia(2014Call) j Actlvity

10. First Africa Circus Circus

11. Youth, film and film-making in Uganda Film

12. Badilisha Poetry X-change: production of Poetry80 podcasts featuring African poetry

13. Inheriting Harappa

14. British Sign Language Théâtre

15. Flâneur- a fresh photographie look aturban culture nowadays

16. Huacas, burbujas and rock & roll

17. 6-Salta International Mime and ClownFestival

18. Al Sunnu Palestinian Children's Choir

* Cancelled by projecf holder; no fonds disbursed.

Co

Ethiopia

Uganda

Botswana, Tanzania,Ethiopia, South Africa

Pottery

Théâtre

Photo

Performing arts

Miming andclowning

Music

Pakistan

United Kingdom

Brazil, Germany, ItalyPortugal, Spain

Peru

Argentina

Palestine

Sco

National

National

Régional

Holder

NGO

NGO

NGO

Amount

(USD)

99, 000

60, 000

65, 000

National Individual 38,000

National NGO 50, 000

International NGO 45,000

National Individus! 22, 200

National Individual 22,000

National NGO 60, 000*

ro]ecttttte(2015call) Activtty C untri

19. Rencontres de création et initiation Painting, singing, DR Congodes jeunes écrivains et artistes literaturecongolais

20. Performance art for youth- artists'collaborative project and youth artfestival

Performance art Kenya, Tanzania, Bulgaria

Sco Holdar Amou(USD)

National NGO 70, 000

International NGO 79, 000

21. Solidarity through thé performing Théâtre Sri Lanka National NGO 70,000

arts and intercultural collaborativepractice

22. Project E-Fest: Festival desCultures Numériques

23. Roma identity seen from outside,represented from inside

24. Introduction ofyoung talentedwriters into a digital publishing industry

25. ANDIMATION

26. Resistencia modulada (modulatedrésistance) actual résistance youthradio

Digital-techfestival

Digital-techgallery

Literature

Animation

Radio

Tunisia

Bulgaria

Macedonia

Denmark, Bolivia, Colombia,Ecuador, Peru andVenezuela

Mexico

National

National

Régional

International

National

NGO

NGO

NGO

Publicbody

Publicbody

27. Ciné a la calle Film Colombia National NGO

80, 000

57, 000**

60, 000

90, 000

70, 000

37, 000

Cancelled byproject holder, no funds disbursed.

Annex 6: Relations with project

Board Bellwethe Co- Partner Partner Project Project Audience Support UFOof funder govt govt manager staff servicesProject local

Relevance: Understandlnghow appropriately thépurpose and eligibilitycriteria formulated by théFund and thé interventions

that were approved underthé Fund responded to théneeds of thé targetedbeneficiaries and other keystakeholders (Implementingpartners, UNESCO, etc.)throughout thé life of théprojects.

Extent to whlch thé projects From your point ofview, which Ximplemented are allgned with thé are thé main aims of thé Fund? How doalms and stratégies of thé Fund. thé projects relate to thèse aims?

Alignment with UNESCO's How Is thé Fund alignedmandate, structure and stratégie with UNESCO's mandate and structure?frameworks (think concrète alignment with spécifie

stratégies and structures)

Complementarlty to otherUNESCO Funds (l. e. whatmakes this Fund différent and

what is its added value vis à visother UNESCO initiatives)

Extent to which thé ellglbilitycriteria are In line withimplementing partners'mandate and congruent withtheir stratégie framework

How thé approved projects areaddressing in nature and scopethé challenges and needs ofwomen and men participants ina fair and equal manner.(According to men & womenparticipants & according toofficiai cultural plans)

What would you say Is uniqueabout thé IFPC? Do you fée]that there

is any duplication or overlap? What is itsadded value?

Which is your organisation's mandateand stratégie framework?

What do you think thé culturalpriorities are and how are theybeing addressed (by thé IFPC and byeach project). How hâve thé différentcultural priorities and needs of men andwomen been taken into account? How

hâve thé cultural priorities of youngpeople been taken into account?

Efficiency: Understandingthé extent to which théresources made available

through thé Fund are beingused wisely and timely usedin relation with thé resultsthat thé projects arecontributing to.

Call for proposai andscreening process: Eligibilitycriterla (clarity and scope);adequacy of screening tool, etc.

Implementing mode):Adequacy of fundlng cycle,information flows & décision

making with implementingpartners; administrativeprocédures; reportingmechanisms (including suitabilityof monitoring indlcatorsrequested by thé Fund)

Please provide a description of théentlre sélection process (access to Infoon call announcement). Give us anassessment of thé eligibility process(call + screening)? What has workedand what hasn't?

Give me a thorough description of what Xhappens from thé moment thé décisionis taken to provide thé grant until théProject is administratlvely closed (askfor financial reports/ guidelines,welcome pack, which reports reachthem, what thé reports are/should befor) Red light for cancellation whatmakes you cancel a project?Communication and expérience sharingamong projects (synergies). Whatsupport do you provide-get? Whatworked/what didn't? Expectations?

Général finance mechanism:

Adequacy of thé financial flow/from donation mechanisms to

dlsbursement.

Quality of théproducts/experiences: Werethé experlences/productsfacllltated by thé projectperceived of high qualityaccording to participants?

Description and assessmentoffundingmechanism (IFPC Fin); donation System(IFPC Senior).

Parameters: tlmeliness, scope andtechnical/artistic level. Please statesome example of high qualityproducts/outputs and why.

Leverage of funds invested -were they used strateglcally?Were they able to attract moreresources? Was there

complementarity with other fundsVisibility of UNESCO'scontribution to thé proj'ect/s.

Were they able ta attract moreresources? Was there complementarltywith other funds avaifabfe in thé fîeld of

culture?

How was thé brand used? Assessment.

Effective n ess: Assessingthé extent to which projects'objectives were achieved,induding thé analysis of thémost salient factors

Influencing thé achlevementor non- achievement of thé

objectives.

How do achievements comparewith planned results?

Did thé products address théintended target groups andwhat was thé actual coverage?

What are thé elements_that

contributed ta progress or delaysin thé Implementation process?

What could you do in comparlson towhat you had initially planned? Tell uswhat helped and what did not? NB: notonly products but also scope ofactivitlesand audiences. Visual aid: effertivenessself-assessment grid.

Contribution to changes:Building a matureunderstanding of howchange has happened as aresult of thé projectscontribution, including ananalysis of unexpected

What was thé project's overallcontribution and how does this

compare with what wasexpected?

How has thé IFPC contributed ta thé Cuit x

Personallyi To what extent hâve Focus on projects. Ask IFPC Sec aboutbehavlours, prestige, any examples from projects.

changes. Determlnlng what empowerment changed wlthlnhas been actually thé beneflciaries (young artistsachieved by thé projects and vulnérable groups) as resultand how °f thé projects outputs?

Socially: What hâve been thébroader social and culturalconséquences of thé projects sofar?

Institutionally: What concrètethings (ifany) are now donedifferently within théimplementing partners as result(contribution) of thé projects?

What hâve been thé broader social and

cultural conséquences of thé projects sofar?

Including UNESCO- any changes to bereported as a result? What does yourorganisation now do differently as aresult of its participation in thé IFPC?

Sustainability: Identifying Identifying factors andaspects of thé projects that externalities may reduce orare likely to be sustainedafter their completion,including an analysis of théfactors for sustainability.

strengthen sustainablllty a) atthé IFPC levé], b) at thé projedlevel (results v. product)? Whatsupport is needed to build on andsustain thèse changes?

What are thé prospects for thébenefits of thé projects beingsustained after thé fundingstops? Did this match théintentions? Results/products.

Did thé project adequately investin, and focus on, partnercapacity development toensure sustainability?

From where you are sitting, help usidentify factors that can reduce orstrengthen thé sustainabllity of a) théIFPC and b) project/instltutlons.

What are thé prospects for thé benefits

of thé projects being sustained afterthé funding stops? Did this match théintentions?

(will/technical/financial) help us assessif thé implementing partners (you) areready ta ontinue operating after théProject?

XX XX x x x x

x x

X X X XX x x

XX XX x x

XXX XX XX XX x x

XX XX x x

XX XX x x x x