Docstoc

Resources and References

Document Sample
Resources and References Powered By Docstoc
					           1. Resources and references for NCSA Co-ordination Mechanisms




1.1 Mechanisms proposed to date for the UNEP countries
Insert table describing the mechanisms being used by the first 12 UNEP proposals


1.2 Environmental Governance

Global Environmental Governance - Options and Opportunities (2002) Esty and Ivanova
http://www.yale.edu/environment/publications/geg/geg.html


http://www.undp.org/goverance
see page on Capacity Development



1.3 Capacity Development

See www.capacity.org
A website dedicated to advancing the policy and practice of capacity building in international
development cooperation


UNDP - Capacity for Development - New solutions to old problems
(www.earthscan.co.uk/asp/bookdetails)

Insert summary


Capacity Development Resource Book (http://magnet.undp.org/cdrb)

Insert summary


The Africa Capacity Building Foundation
http://www.acbf-pact.org/AboutACBF/TheFoundation.asp
             2. Resources and References for Preparing Thematic Profiles




2.1 National Reporting for the Rio Conventions


Biodiversity
National Biodiversity Assessments, Strategies and Action Plans

Forestry Assessments, Strategies and Action Plans

Biosafety Frameworks

Stockholm Convention (Persistent Organic Pollutants) Implementation Plans

DD to insert details on the Biodiversity Support Programme

Climate change
UNFCCC National Communications

Climate Change Assessments, Strategies and Action Plans

RS to insert details on the UNDP National Communications Support Programme

UNITAR/TRAIN


Desertification/Land degradation

National Action Programmes to Combat Desertification (NAPs)

National Reports on the Implementation of the CCD

AT to insert details
Details on the UNITAR/OSS assistance in developing NAPs




Cross-cutting environmental reports
National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs)
State of the Environment Reports
National Conservation Strategies
National Agenda 21 Reports
UNCED National Reports
OECD Environmental Performance Reviews

Sustainable Development Reports
National Sustainable Development Strategies
Capacity 21 Programme Reports
National Development Plans
2.2 Techniques for Group Work

1 During discussion participants must make every effort to be as frank and candid as
possible, while maintaining a respectful interest in the views of others. An atmosphere that
cultivates directness, openness, objectivity and humility is important.

2 Participants need to be honest and trustworthy.

3 Participants should refrain from personal attacks.

4 All participants and their contributions should be treated equally.

5 To help understanding and clarify perceptions, participants and facilitators should be
encouraged to restate one another’s views in their own words (‘active listening’).

6 Participants should refrain from presuming motives of others and rather be encouraged to
ask direct questions.

7 Participants are asked to address the group as a whole, while showing concern for each
point of view, rather than confronting and criticizing individuals.

8 Participants must argue on a logical basis, giving their own opinion while seeking out
common ground as well as differences.

9 Brain-storming can be helpful: conducting a session of putting forward ideas and collecting
them without judgements for later discussion can create a larger pool of ideas. When an idea
is put forward, it becomes the property of the group.

10 Participants should consider conducting a learning exercise, to draw out the success of
other processes and agreements and use the outcomes to deepen the pool of ideas.

11 All participants need to be open to change when embarking on a communication process
as outlined above. A true dialogue cannot be entered into with the goal of ‘getting one’s way’.

12 Allow space and time for various modes of communication, socio-emotional as well as
strictly task-oriented.

13 If participants feel that others are not playing by agreed rules, they need to put that to the
group and the group needs to address the problem.

Source: UNED Forum (2001)
2.3 Possible Contents of a Thematic Profile
      The relevant legal instruments, policies and/or non-regulatory mechanisms.
       Effectiveness, overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies.
    The responsibilities and relevant activities of ministries, agencies and other
       governmental institutions in the thematic area. Co-ordination and complementary of
       activities
    The respective roles and contribution of industry, public interest groups and bodies in
       the sector. Organisations with major interest and programmes in the subject area
    Existence of relevant information and databases. Location and access. Major gaps.
    Projects that have been implemented and the impacts of these projects, as well as
       lessons learned
    The level of awareness and understanding within government and the public
       concerning the thematic area
    The human resources available, and their organisations, which work on the thematic
       area
    Financial resources available at the national level concerning the thematic area
(adapted fom the NCSA Guide Box 8)

Insert some more ideas, including questions that will bring out the specific situation within
each theme.
2.4 Possible Terms of Reference for a Thematic Profiles (Stock Taking)


(taken from The Gambia - to be adapted)
The first stage of the NCSA is referred to as Stock Taking. It will involve reviewing the
priority issues for action in the areas of Biodiversity conservation, Climate Change and
Desertification control/land degradation and shall have the following specific terms of
reference


                                 Biodiversity (The Gambia)


The assessment will be led by the Focal Point for the convention – The Director, Department
of Parks and Wildlife Management. The overall task will be to identify, confirm or review
priority issues for action within the area of biodiversity. Specific tasks will include:


1)     Review the NBSAP and other key thematic documents to confirm the key national
       issues
2)     Identify new emerging issues in biodiversity that have come up since the preparation
       of the NBSAP, Biosafety, Ramsar study, wildlife policy, GEAP II etc.
3)     Explore related issues between Biodiversity and those of Climate Change and
       Desertification/Land degradation.
4)     Review biodiversity issues alongside the broader               national   environmental
       management and sustainable development framework.
5)     Facilitate discussions and a prioritisation exercise at working group sessions.
6)     Present the findings at a validation workshop with a broad selection of stakeholders.
7)     Provide a final comprehensive thematic profile for use in the next stage of the NCSA
       towards identifying the capacity needs associated with these priorities.
2.5 Prioritising issues in the thematic profiles


Examples of questions
a) Defining whether the issue is a national or global priority
- Is the issue deemed important by key national institutions?
- Is there existing public support for addressing this issue?
- How many national organisations are currently concerned with this?
- How often has it been mentioned in national plans and strategies?
- Are there national sources of funding for addressing this?
- Do the Conventions deem this important?
- Are there international sources of funding for addressing this?


b) Defining the level of concern that there is about the issue
- Is it an opportunity/threat to people’s livelihoods?
- Is it an opportunity/threat to key economic sectors?
- Is it an opportunity/threat to key ecosystem assets and processes?
- Is it visible to the public?
- Has it an extension/multiplier effect?
- Is it timely in relation to a pending decision?
- Is it linked to current political concerns, other initiatives and skills?


c) Defining whether it is possible to adequately address the issue in the immediate future
A key factor is the availability of national support. It is important to chose issues that are the
most likely to be achieved by estimating the chances of success and likely adoption rate of
results. The enabling environment for the issue includes the level of political and public
support for a particular issue which may drive it higher up the national agenda. There is also
a need to estimate the probable timescale needed for addressing the issue.
- Do we have enough information on this issue to be able to start effective capacity building?’
- What is the level of awareness on the issue?
- What is the experience to date in addressing this?
- From the existing projects and programmes what lessons have been learned?
- Are the data sources available and up to date?
- Is there any existing capacity building underway to address this?
- Can it be acted upon without requiring extra finance?
Example matrix
Issue            (a)             (b)                   (c)              Total   Overall
                                                                        Score
                 Global/National Level of concern      Addressable              Priority
                 Priority                                                       Ranking
                                 (score between 1-     (score between
                                 5, where 1= limited   1-5 where 1=
                                 concern)              difficult to
                                                       address)
Issue 1          G               5                     1                6       2
Issue 2          N               3                     4                7       1
Issue 3          N               1                     3                4       3
Issue 4          …
           3. Resources and References for Undertaking Thematic Capacity
                                   Assessments




3.1 Biodiversity


UNCBD COPs and Capacity Building
Capacity building is specifically addressed in the United National Convention on Biodiversity
as article 18 (1), (2), (4) & (5), and has frequently been referred to in COP decisions.

The second meeting of Conference of the Parties (COP2) placed great emphasis on the
importance of capacity building and the availability of financial resources to meet capacity
needs. In response the GEF Council revised the operational criteria for expedited funding for
biodiversity enabling activities. At COP3 it was specifically requested that funding be found to
develop practical approaches for capacity building for taxonomy and for supporting capacity
building projects for indigenous and local communities.

The Global Taxonomy Initiative was launched at COP4, whilst at COP5, Parties,
Governments and other organisations were invited to provide information on capacity-
building and technology development and transfer, for the maintenance and utilisation of ex
situ collections. COP5 also noted four key capacity building needs with regard to access to
genetic resources and benefit sharing (Decision V/26). At the last COP in The Hague, one of
the COP6 decisions was to request a review of progress made under the CHM towards
promoting technical and scientific co-operation.

The Handbook of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2001) provides details of all the
COP1-5 decisions made on capacity building, which have provided guidance to Parties, to
the financial mechanism, to the secretariat and to the SBSTTA on capacity building needs,
as well as providing suggestions on co-operation with other conventions and organisations. A
detailed list of decisions relating to Article 18 (Capacity Building), up until COP5, is included
in the Handbook at page 171-2

COP 6 Decisions Advance (section on Capacity Building)

An attempt to evaluate the needs and progress made under Article 18 (1, 2, 4 & 5) Capacity
Building, of the UNCBD, has been made through the process of second national reporting.
These reports follow a questionnaire format, of which questions 252-258 specifically question
experiences and needs related to scientific and technical co-operation. It is possible to
analyse the results from Second National Reports using the analyser on the CBD website,
although until more reports are completed the results are currently limited.
Insert reference
Specific CBD activities towards capacity-building

Clearing House Mechanism
Capacity building has also been considered within the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM).
Article 18 (3) of UNCBD determined the need for a clearing house mechanism to promote
and facilitate technical and scientific co-operation
The Clearing House Mechanism seeks to support the Convention's thematic and cross-
cutting programmes of work by promoting co-operation in six key areas: tools for decision-
making, training and capacity-building, research, funding, technology transfer, and the
repatriation of information. The convention website provides users with ready access to case
studies, national and other reports, and initiatives and programmes, whilst technical and
scientific expertise is promoted through a roster of government-nominated experts in relevant
fields relevant.
Insert reference

Capacity Building Within CBD Work Programmes
The CBD Secretariat has adopted a number of work programmes with respect to the various
ecosystems addressed by the convention, within which new concepts have been developed
to meet the needs of developing countries with a focus on capacity building.


Action Plan for Capacity Building (check web address)

Taxonomy
Practical Approaches for Capacity Building for Taxonomy - UNEP/CBD/SBSTAA/2/5 July
1996


Access and Benefit-Sharing
Within the thematic areas considerable progress has been made in the field of capacity
building for 'Access and Benefit Sharing', with the key capacity building needs identified as
(a) assessment and inventory of biological resources as well as information management (b)
contract negotiation skills (c) legal drafting skills, and (d) a means for the protection of
traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. At its meeting in Bonn in October
2001 the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing considered
capacity building issues, and recommended develop draft elements for an Action Plan on
Capacity Building for Access and Benefit-Sharing.

Open-ended Expert Workshop on Capacity-building for Access to Genetic Resources and
Benefit-sharing held from 2 to 4 December 2002 in Montreal, Canada. The Final Report from
the meeting can be found at the Secretariat's web page at:
http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.asp?wg=ABSWSCB-01


Capacity-building for access and benefit-sharing - questionnaire to assist in determining
needs and priorities of parties


Benchmarks of what is expected
– CBD Forestry Work Programme,
Biosafety
The CBD work programme on 'Biosafety' has probably had the most intensive focus on
capacity building. At the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, held in Montpellier in December 2000, capacity needs were reviewed
and a number of recommendations on capacity-building were adopted. Following the
Montpellier meeting a questionnaire was prepared to determine Parties' needs for capacity
building. An Open-Ended Expert Meeting on Capacity-Building for the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety was then held in Havana in July 2001. The conclusions and recommendations of
this meeting, including a draft action plan for building capacities for the effective
implementation of the Protocol, is now being implemented through which countries are
encouraged to identify and prioritize their capacity-building needs, and demonstrate
initiatives for possible funding through the Global Environment Facility and other funding
sources.

A pilot phase of the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) is also in the process of being
implemented. A roster of experts, which will contribute to capacity building, is in place and a
pilot fund to support its operation will be established soon.

Note: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted in Montreal in January 2000. It has
its origins in article 19 (3) of the CBD that calls on Parties to consider the need for and
modalities of a protocol setting out the appropriate procedures in the handling and use of any
living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology that may have an effect on the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Recommended references to download (get web addresses)
www.biodiv.org/biosafety/cap-build.asp - Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety CB
http://bch.biodiv.org/CapacityBuildingStart.asp

Biosafety Capacity-Building: Completed, Ongoing and Planned Projects/Programmes -
Paper for the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety, Montpellier, December 2000)
UNEP/CBD/BS/LG-CB/1/1 30 September 2002
UNEP/CBD/BS/LG-CB/1/1/Add.1 30 September 2002 Liaison Group on CB for biosafety
UNEP/CBD/ICCP/1/INF/1 Biosafety CB - Completed ongoing and planned projects
Havana Report Biosafety Capacity Building - July 2001
Havana Biosafety Capacity Building - May 2001


Institutions and agencies concerned with biodiversity and Capacity Building

FIELD
Review of European Community and International Environmental Law

WCMC
Capacity Building Services for Biodiversity - WCMC
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/capacity_building/services.htm
3.2 Climate Change

UNFCCC COPs and Capacity Building
Article 4 (5) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, on
'Commitments', specifies that developed country Parties shall support the development and
enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing country parties, as
part of the principle of differential responsibility. The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA) is specifically charged with providing advice on ‘ways and
means of supporting endogenous capacity-building in developing countries’ under Article 9
(2d), whilst within the Kyoto Protocol, article 10(e) commits Parties to co-operating in and
promoting ‘the strengthening of capacity building’.

In 1999 the issue of capacity building was considered as an individual agenda item at the
UNFCCC COP5, and a process launched to address capacity building in an integrated
manner. The text of Decision 10 includes a detailed List of Capacity Building Needs of
Developing Country Parties under 9 separate themes. The process of addressing them
would involve reviewing existing capacity-building activities, needs and priorities, as well as
co-ordination with the Capacity Development Initiative of the GEF. At COP5, UNITAR and
the North-South Dialogue also announced the launch of a project for assessing capacity
building needs related to the Kyoto Protocol in developing countries.

At COP6 part II (Bonn July 2001) Parties adopted the Bonn Agreement on the
Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action containing two decisions and frameworks
for capacity building.

These capacity building frameworks were then formalised at COP7 with the Marrakesh
Accords. The capacity building frameworks for developing countries, and countries with
economies in transition, are intended to serve as a guide for the climate change capacity
building activities of the GEF, and other funding bodies, using a set of guiding principles and
approaches. Progress in implementing the frameworks is being monitored by the Subsidiary
Body for Implementation (SBI) and it is intended that COP9 will conduct a comprehensive
review in 2003.


Capacity Building Needs and Priorities for non Annex 1 Parties
A detailed list of capacity building needs of developing country parties is contained in the
document 'Compilation and synthesis of information on capacity-building needs and priorities
of developing countries (non-Annex 1 Parties). The capacity-building needs identified in this
document are based on information from a total of 26 non-Annex I Parties, and indicate that
the non-Annex I Parties share many of their capacity-building needs, although it is also
pointed out that the experiences and situations of non-Annex I Parties are not homogeneous.
The document recommends that efforts to support capacity building should take into account
the need for country and regional specificity. One commonly expressed requirement for
capacity building is the need for continuity and sustainability of capacity building efforts: Most
of the activities that have taken place in non-Annex I Parties to date have been project-based
in nature and many of these activities and programmes have in fact already concluded.
There is a need for the capacities that have been built during these projects to be sustained
and further developed. Many of the non-Annex I Parties noted the positive role of regional
institutions and centres of excellence.
For non Annex 1 (developing country) Parties, full and effective participation on the FCCC
involves a major effort at capacity building at three levels: Firstly capacity to compile
information regularly and identify appropriate response measures; Secondly to develop and
implement strategies in line with Article 4, And thirdly, in the long term, to invest in the
adaptation of appropriate technologies. The Convention has a staggered compliance
schedule partially in recognition of the capacity implications of providing such information,
and the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee has prioritised enabling activities such as
planning, endogenous capacity building (including institutional strengthening), training,
research and education to assist the process.

Capacity Building Support
Workshops and on-line resources specifically set up by the UNFCCC Secretariat to enable
developing country parties to assess their vulnerability to climate change and to select
adaptation measures.

The National Communications Support Programme (NCSP) has also provided technical and
training assistance, a joint initiative of the GEF, UNDP and UNEP.

In line with Article 9 (2d) of the Convention and the COP decisions, the SBSTA has
undertaken a number of studies to ensure that capacity building activities are in line with the
needs of the non-Annex 1 Parties, and that the provisions correspond with the capacity
building activities of other relevant intergovernmental bodies. These studies include:
Submissions from relevant intergovernmental bodies on their capacity building activities.
SBSTA (Paper for COP6 Bonn, June 2002)
Compilation and synthesis of information on capacity-building needs and priorities of
developing country (non-Annex 1 Parties) SBSTA (Paper for COP6 Bonn, June 2002)



Recommended UNFCCC References to download from FCCC website:

http://unfccc.int/issues/capbuild.html
Issues in the negotiating process – Capacity Building
See in particular the FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1

Decision 2/CP.7 Capacity building in developing countries (non-Annex I Parties)
Decision 3/CP.7 Capacity building in countries with economies in transition

FCCC/SB/2000/INF.1 19/05/2000 - 'Compilation and synthesis of information on capacity-
building needs and priorities of developing countries (non-Annex 1 Parties

Notes on the Capacity Building Meeting, 25 October 2002, New Delhi

FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 - Report of COP7, Marrakesh

FCCC/SB/2000/8 - Capacity Building in Non Annex 1 Parties

FCCC/SB/2000/INF.9 - Submissions from relevant intergovernmental organisations on their
capacity building activities

FCCC/CP/1999/6/Add.1 - Decision 10/CP.5 Capacity Building in developing countries
Other Agencies Concerned with Climate Change and Capacity Building

UNITAR

UNITAR TRAIN - check
‘Who needs what to implement the Kyoto Protocol?’ – An assessment of capacity-building
needs in 33 developing countries. Authors: UNITAR with the Consortium of North-South
Dialogue on Climate Change, Geneva October 2001. 148pp (find out from UNITAR if there is
a web address for downloading this)

UNITAR National Profile Support Programmes (see The Guide footnote 10)


UNEP/DTIE
Capacity Development for the CDM
http://www.cd4cdm.org/
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) proposed under article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol
is an important potential instrument to promote foreign investment in GHG emission
reduction options while simultaneously addressing the issue of sustainable development.

With the international framework for the CDM presently under development, many complex
legal, financial and technical issues still require further discussion. Under these
circumstances, most developing countries with limited institutional capacity will face a
significant challenge in taking a pro-active approach to participate as equal and reliable
partners in CDM when it becomes operational.

Reflecting the needs of developing countries, UNEP is implementing a 4-year project on
Capacity Development for the CDM with funding from the government of the Netherlands.

Overall Objectives
    To generate in participating developing countries a broad understanding of the
       opportunities offered by the CDM, and
    To develop the necessary institutional and human capabilities to formulate and
       implement projects under the CDM.
    To help ensure the early success and efficacy of the CDM through creating national
       capacity to implement the CDM in 12 developing countries.




Climate Change Knowledge Network
http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_capacity_building.asp




www.climatetech.net
3.3 Land Degradation

UNCCD and capacity building

Article 19 on Capacity building, Education and Public Awareness has a considerable focus
on the needs of building local level capacity to combat desertification. Annex 1, the Regional
Implementation Annex for Africa, specifies in article 3(g) that insufficient institutional and
legal frameworks, the weak infrastructural base and the insufficient scientific, technical and
educational capacity, (is) leading to substantial capacity building requirements.

The UNCCD Secretariat has been particularly active at promoting capacity building through
inter-regional collaboration. Three Asia-Africa forums have been held to explore concrete
measures for promoting UNCCD implementation through inter-regional collaboration. At the
third, held in Mongolia, discussions focused on synergistic implementation on inter-linked
environmental conventions, inter-regional collaboration through regional thematic programme
networks and capacity building, and human resource development. South-south co-operation
has been further strengthened through the Africa-Latin America forum held in Caracas in
February 2002, when countries made concrete offers on the exchange of experiences
through training and workshops.

Sub-regional activities within Africa are co-ordinated through sub-regional institutions such as
CILSS, IGAD, SADC, UMA. These institutions have finalised four Sub-Regional Action
Programmes (SRAPs) as well as providing technical support for countries to elaborate their
national reports for the Convention Secretariat


References to download from CCD website

FCCC/SBI/2002/INF.15 14 Dec 2002 - Capacity-Building - Progress Report on the status of
activities to implement decision 2/CP.7 and 3/CP.7

Report on the workshop on CB - Harare Jul 1999

Article 19 of UNCCD - Capacity building, education and public awareness


Other institutions and agencies concerned with Land Degradation and Capacity
Building

IIED (July 1999) Building Linkages Between Environmental Conventions and Initiatives -
Report prepared for the UNCCD Secretariat

CILSS, IGAD, SADC, UMA - Check their websites for anything on capacity building
3.4 Other possible thematic areas and capacity building

International Waters

POPS

RAMSAR

Trade ??

UNEP Economics and Trade Programme
http://www.unep.ch/etu/etp/acts/capbld/

UNEP works closely with governments, particularly those of developing countries and
countries with economies in transition, to assist them in their efforts to enhance their
institutional and human capacities for integrating environmental considerations into
development planning and decision-making.
Capacity Building on Environment, Trade and Development
Trends, Needs and Future Directions
UNEP Briefs on Economics, Trade and Sustainable Development
UNEP's Capacity-Building Activities on Environment, Trade and Development
Integrated Assessment of Trade Liberalization and Trade-Related Policies, Country Studies,
Round II
UNCTAD-UNEP Capacity Building Task Force, Concept Note
3.5 Checklist of Questions for Assessing Capacity


       -   Do individuals have an incentive to acquire new skills and technical capacity
           related to the thematic area? Do they have sufficient opportunity to do so?
       -   Are individuals in contact and exchanging knowledge and experiences with
           appropriate peers? Are their barriers to communication within and across relevant
           institutions focused on the thematic area?
       -   Does any untapped capacity exist or is there capacity that could be redeployed to
           better effect? Is there capacity in danger of being lost?
       -   Are capacity development efforts sufficiently linked to existing or future legal,
           regulatory, or institutional requirements and responsibilities? Has capacity built in
           the past proved to be sustainable over the medium- and long-term?

(taken from Box 8 of NCSA Guide)
Generic questions subdivided according to systemic, institutional or individual taken from
pages 26,27 of the NCSA Guide – nb all of these need to be improved – answer to all will be
‘no’

Assessing Capacity Constraints at the Individual Level
Capacity building at the individual level refers to the process of changing attitudes and
behaviours- imparting knowledge and developing skills, while maximising the benefits of
participation, knowledge exchange and ownership. Guiding questions include:
• Job requirements and skill levels: Are jobs correctly defined and are the required skills
available?
• Training/retraining: Is the appropriate learning taking place?
• Career progression: Are individuals able to advance and develop professionally?
• Accountability/ethics: Is responsibility effectively delegated and are individuals held
accountable?
• Access to information: Is there adequate access to needed information?
• Personal/professional networking: Are individuals in contact and exchanging knowledge
with appropriate peers?
• Performance/conduct: Is performance effectively measured?
• Incentives/security: Are these sufficient to promote excellence?
• Values, integrity and attitudes: Are these in place and maintained?
• Morale and motivation: Are these adequately maintained?
• Work redeployment and job sharing: Are there alternatives to the existing arrangements?
• Inter-relationships and team work: Do individuals interact effectively and form functional
teams?
• Interdependencies: Are there appropriate levels of interdependence?
• Communication skills: Are these effective?

Assessing Capacity Constraints at the Institutional Level
Capacity building at the institutional level focuses on the overall organisational performance
and functioning capabilities, as well as the ability of an organisation to adapt to change. It
aims to develop the institution as a total system, including individuals, groups and the
organisation itself. Guiding questions include:
• Mission/strategic management: Do the institutions have clearly defined and understood
missions and mandates?
• Culture/structure/competencies: Are the institutions effectively structured and managed?
• Processes: Do institutional processes such as planning, quality management, monitoring
and evaluation, work effectively?
• Human resources: Are the human resources adequate, sufficiently skilled, and
appropriately deployed?
• Financial resources: Are financial resources managed effectively and allocated
appropriately to enable effective operation?
• Information resources: Is required information available and effectively distributed and
managed?
• Infrastructure: Are material requirements such as buildings, offices, vehicles, computers,
allocated appropriately and managed effectively?

Assessing Capacity Constraints at the Systemic Level
Capacity building at the systemic level emphasises the overall policy framework in which
individuals and organisations operate and interact with the external environment, as well as
the formal and informal relationships of institutions. Guiding questions include:
• Policy framework: Is the overall policy environment conducive?
• Legal and regulatory framework: Is the appropriate legislation in place and are these laws
effectively enforced? (These may be both formal and informal, such as cultural mores)
• Management accountability framework: Are institutional responsibilities clearly defined and
are responsible institutions held publicly accountable?
• Economic framework: Do markets function effectively and efficiently?
• Systems level resources: Are the required human, financial and information resources
available? (These may be in any or all of national and local government, private sector, and
civil society – including NGO’s)
• Processes and relationships: Do the different institutions and processes interact and work
together effectively? (Including national and local government, private sector, and civil
society)


Capacity Building Projects
What kinds of capacity development projects and activities have been undertaken?
What were the short-term and long-term impacts of those projects and activities?
Has there been any monitoring and evaluation of capacity development projects and activities during
or after their execution? How has the country measured their success or effectiveness?
3.6 Experience from the Capacity Development Initiative


The Capacity Development Initiative (CDI) was an 18 month planning process launched by
the GEF with UNDP in January 2000. The objectives of the CDI were to prepare broad
strategic elements for international support for capacity building to address climate change,
biodiversity, land degradation issues, and to prepare an operation-oriented framework for
focused and specific GEF action to assist capacity building. The UNDP-GEF Strategic
Partnership conducted regional assessments of common capacity building needs in
developing countries and economies in transition, and developed a framework for specific
GEF action to address these needs. The following reports produced during the CDI process
are available at http://gefweb.org/Documents/Enabling_Activity_Projects/CDI/cdi.html

      Country Capacity Development Needs and Priorities - A Synthesis
      Report for Small Island Developing States
      Regional Report for Eastern Europe and Central Asia
      Regional Report for Asia and the Pacific
      Regional Report for Latin American and the Caribbean
      Regional Report for Africa
      Assessment of Capacity Development in the GEF Portfolio
      Assessment of Capacity Development Efforts of Other Development Cooperation
       Agencies
      Scientific and Technical Capacity Development - Needs and Priorities
3.7 Generic capacity assessment tools


The UNDP General Guidelines for Capacity Assessment and Development are designed
for use in the development and implementation of UNDP national programmes and
programme support documents (PSDs). However they are very detailed and contain some
useful generic information on capacity development, assessment, dimensions of capacity,
the management of change etc, that could be adapted for the purposes of the NCSA
http://magnet.undp.org/cdrb/GENGUID.htm


Stakeholder Participation Methods
See table 1 at end of Part B


Explanation of Root Cause Analysis
Sometimes when we try to resolve a problem, we find that it is really a related symptom, not
the actual cause of the problem itself. Consider the following classical example.

A plant manager walks past the assembly line, and notices a puddle of water on the floor.
Knowing that the water is a safety hazard, he asks the supervisor to have someone get a
mop and clean up the puddle. The plant manager is proud of himself for fixing a potential
safety problem. The supervisor looks for a root cause by asking 'why?' He discovers that the
water puddle is caused by a leak in an overhead pipe. He asks 'why' again, and discovers
that the pipe is leaking because the water pressure is set too high. He asks 'why?' again and
discovers that the water pressure valve is faulty. He asks 'why?'
again, and does not get a further answer. So, the valve is replaced, which solves the
symptom of water on the factory floor.

Root cause analysis is a way to identify the ultimate cause of a problem. In the example
above there were many opportunities for solving the wrong problem. First, the plant manager
could have ordered more mops to be available on the factory floor. The supervisor likewise
could have ordered that the overhead pipe be replaced. However, these solutions would
have ultimately been wasteful, and they would not have solved the problem, since they only
addressed symptoms - not the problem itself.

Root cause analysis is usually accomplished by asking a series of 'why' questions. Just as
the example above illustrates, you ask yourself 'why' a problem exists. Then you come up
with one of more causes. For each of these causes, ask 'why' again. If you can answer that
question again, then the first answer is probably a symptom, brought on by the more
fundamental cause. Continue to ask why for each answer, until you can no longer generate a
logical response. This lowest level is likely to be a root cause, and is what generates the
observed symptoms. You may discover more than one root cause through this analysis.

When you have identified the root cause(s), put an action plan in place to solve the problem.
The symptoms should go away as well.
              4. Resources and References for Stakeholder Involvement




4.1 Checklist for undertaking Multi Stakeholder Processes

Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability – Beyond Deadlock and
Conflict. Minu Hemmati (Earthscan, 2001) www.earthsummit2002.org/msp/book.htm


A CHECKLIST FOR MSP DESIGNERS
The following is a brief list of key points which need to be addressed when designing Multi-
Stakeholder Processes. ‘Addressing’ does not mean that all processes have to include all
respective components – in fact, this will hardly ever be the case – but you may find it useful
to consider them.

General points
Are you prepared to learn and change? (Ask yourself why/why not)
Are you in danger of imposing your ideas, e.g. agenda, time lines, issues, participants,
goals?
Could others perceive you as imposing?
With whom should you communicate, and how, to address that?
Are you sure you are keeping records of all that you are doing?
Are you making sure that all procedures are designed to ensure the core principles of MSPs?

The Context

MSP Design
Have you found all the best people to design the process together?
Have you got a core coordinating group of representatives of all relevant stakeholders?
Are those you are working with formally representing their groups; are they well connected
within their groups?
Have you consulted with stakeholders on who else should be involved?
Is the coordinating group developing suggestions regarding issues, objectives, scope, time
lines, procedures of preparation, dialogue, decision-making, rapporteuring, documentation,
relating to the wider public, fund-raising?
Have you dealt with issues around confidentiality?
Is there conflict over the issue to be debated or is it likely to develop in the process?
Do you know how to resolve possible conflict?
Have you considered developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Terms of
Reference (TOR) for the MSP?
Have you decided on the language(s) of your process?
Have you considered translation services?
Are you keeping the process flexible?

Linkage into Official Decision-making (for the NCSA this would be the HLCC)
Is your process linked with any official decision-making procedures?
If yes, have you established continuous communication links with officials?
Has the institution issued a document that clearly states the purpose, the expected
outcomes, deadlines, and status of the outcome in the official process?
Do you have an MOU with the institution? (If not, consider suggesting it)
Have you considered the process of monitoring/ reporting back to the institution? If not, do
you know how officials will perceive your process?

Stakeholder Identification
Have you issued an open call for participation?
Are you dealing creatively with problems of numbers and diversity?
Have you identified all high-impact groups?
Are all those who have a stake in the issues involved? Do you know how to approach them?
Do you think all participants need to be ‘experts’? Have you assembled a diverse group?
Are you keeping the group open in case the need arises for other stakeholders to be
involved?
Do stakeholders need support to be able to participate effectively?
Do suggested goals, time lines, preparations, communication channels, etc, meet their needs
and interests?
Are people feeling coerced into participation?

Identification of Participants
Are the stakeholder groups themselves selecting their representatives?
Do you know how they do that? (Aim to make this known to everybody)
Have you ensured that there is an equal number of participants from each stakeholder
group?
Do you want them to meet balance criteria within their delegations? (gender, region, age?)
Have you ensured that representatives will remain the same persons over the course of the
process?
Do you have a briefing mechanism for newcomers?
For the governments or intergovernmental institutions involved, are the participants of
sufficiently high level?
Have you ensured that participants agree upon logistical and substantive aspects of the
process?

Funding
Have you developed a realistic budget for the process?
Have you included external communications, translations and follow-up activities?
Have you informed all participants about the funding situation, sources, etc?


Agenda Setting
Have you developed a concrete agenda?
Are you deciding upon the agenda in a transparent manner?
Are you making decisions on issues and agenda in a coordinating group of stakeholder
representatives?
Are you sure that those you talk to are consulting within their groups?

Goals Setting
Is the goal of your process clear?
Is it to be: a frank exchange of views; agreeing upon disagreements; exploring common
ground; achieving consensus; making decisions; joint action; joint monitoring and evaluating;
impacting official decision-making?
Are your goals understandable and achievable?
Does everybody agree with them?
Have you made sure that the first issue on the agenda will be for participants to clarify their
respective understanding of the process and the goals?
Setting the timetable
Have you developed a precise timetable for your process?
Does it meet the needs of all participants?


Inputs

Background materials
Have you developed all the background papers and precise definitions of the issues to be
addressed in the MSP?
Have you ensured that preparatory papers are disseminated well in advance?
Have you considered analysing them to point out commonalities and differences, and
disseminate that as well?
Have you ensured that all have equitable access to all information?
Are the background materials and issues understood and agreed by everybody?
Have you established mechanisms for sharing information and a common knowledge base
throughout the process? Do all participants have equitable access to it?

Stakeholder Preparations
How do stakeholders need to prepare for the process/meetings?
Does everybody agree with the preparatory process?
How will participants relate to the stakeholder groups they represent (if they are not there in
their individual capacity)?
Do they have enough time for consultations within their constituencies during preparations?
Are you providing support for such consultations?
Are participants informing each other on how they consult within their constituencies?

Power Gaps
Are there any power gaps within the group?
Do you know how you want to deal with them?
Has the group talked about power gaps?
Have they talked about what constitutes power in this setting? (eg money; decision-making;
moral ground)


Dialogue/meetings

Facilitating/Chairing
Have you decided if you want an outside professional or an insider?
Have you agreed on one facilitator (or several facilitators)?
Does s/he enjoy the trust of all participants?
Will s/he be competent to enhance the creativity of the group, deal with potential conflict,
avoid premature decision-making?
Have you involved the facilitator in the design process?
Are your facilitators committed, flexible, responsive, balancing, inclusive, encouraging,
respectful, neutral, problem-solving oriented, disciplined, culturally sensitive, capable of
meta-communication and comfortable with their role?
Have you decided which kind of facilitation techniques you want to use (e.g. flip-charts, meta-
plan, brain storming, scenario workshops, future labs, and so on)?
Have you talked with the coordinating group and the facilitator which would be best and
when?
Have you agreed a set of ground rules for communication?
Do these rules foster dialogue?
Do they encourage people to listen, learn, be open, honest and considerate?
Do you know what to do when people don’t play by the rules?
Have you agreed that this will be brought to the group through the facilitator and in a
constructive manner?

Rapporteuring
Have you identified rapporteurs to take minutes?
Have you identified who is to draft outcome documents?
Are they acceptable to everybody?
Are minutes and reporting done in a neutral fashion?
Do they reflect the breadth and depth of discussions?

Group Composition
When breaking into groups are your groups diverse enough?
Are all the high-impact categories involved?
Are all groups equally represented?
Do you expect anybody to represent more than one stakeholder group?
Do you have overall gender and regional balance in your group?

Decision-making
Do you have agreement on what constitutes a good decision?
Will a decision be based on consensus?
Does consensus mean unanimity?
Does consensus mean compromise?
Will a decision be taken by majority vote?
Are you recording minority voting?
Are you taking enough time before making decisions?
Could the group be more creative and integrating before making a decision? (How?)


Outputs

Documentation
Are you putting draft minutes and reports to the group for review?
Have you built time for reviewing into your schedule?
Have you clarified the status of your documents: minutes by rapporteurs; facilitators’
summaries; endorsed consensus documents? (They require different consultation
procedures and time)
Are you disseminating the outcome documents to other stakeholder groups and the public?
Have you kept the process open for input from non-participating stakeholders?
Are you sure the arrangements for that will work?
Have you made clear how any input from outside will be used?
4.2 Facilitation skills

The key role of a facilitator is to:
    ensure the effective flow of communication within a group so that the participants can
      share information and arrive at decisions;
    pose problems and encourage group analysis;
    provoke people to think critically and motivate them towards action;
    not change or ignore any decisions reached by the participants through consensus;
    be sensitive, to both the verbal and the non-verbal communications that occur in the
      group;
    be sensitive to the feelings, attitudes, culture, interests and any hidden agenda that
      may be present in a group.

A good facilitator will:
    have a good grip of the subject(s) being discussed (so as to keep things moving and
      to the point);
    closely track the direction and flow of discussion, noting everybody’s contributions to
      draw out aspects of common ground when summarizing what has been said at
      regular intervals;
    when summarizing, state differences clearly, and not allow pressure to conform;
    be prepared with contingency plans (eg in case a speaker does not turn up);
    encourage an open atmosphere, conducive to learning and sharing ideas, making
      everyone feel welcome, important and recognized as part of the group;
    encourage everyone to speak freely, share and participate (including drawing out
      quieter participants);
    know his or her own limits and assess those of participants;
    have an idea of what is achievable and what is not;
    be sensitive regarding issues on which participants will need to consult with their
      constituencies;
    be aware of the condition and contribution of participants: who is responding, who is
      sleepy, who is not listening or frequently leaves the room, etc; this will signal when to
      change or adjust the discussion;
    manage the available time effectively, keeping to agreed timetables and speaking
      times – which need to be the same for everybody (with obvious exceptions for
      participants operating in another language and the like); This means balancing being
      too tight or rigid and being too lax or liberal;
    be flexible and responsive to different situations (hence, they need considerable
      diagnostic skills to enable them to assess a given situation correctly);
    use creative approaches and techniques to encourage participation;
    judge when to call a halt to discussion, wait or carry on;
    be humble, respectful and recognize everyone’s contributions;
    make sure the participants evaluate/assess the meeting, to provide feedback
      (whether formally or informally, quantitatively or qualitatively, orally or in writing – as
      appropriate).



A detailed explanation on participation can also be found at Chapter 6 of Sustainable
Development Strategies: A Resource Book (2002) OECD Paris and UNDP New York.

http://www.nssd.net/res_book.html#contents
        5. Resources and References for Assessing Cross-cutting Issues and
                                    Synergies


Initiatives of the Convention Secretariats to Build Synergies between MEAs

5.1 Joint Activities

The Joint Liaison Group (FCCC, CCD and CBD) held its first meeting in December 2001, with
subsequent meetings taking place in January and April 2002.

Check Joint Calendar Events
Insert more detaile

Footnote 26 of the Guide – In light of the recommendations of the XIX Session of the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGASS) of promoting synergies among the Rio Conventions,
the CHM of the CBD in conjunction with the CCD and the UNFCCC, has initiated a project to
promote joint harmonised approaches in the exchange and dissemination of biodiversity
related information. One of the first steps has been the establishment of a list serve and a joint
Internet webpage for the 3 Rio Conventions with the aim to contribute to the active exchange
and dissemination of collaborative arrangements in the information management field.
UNEP/CBD/QR/3, 20 Nov 1998)

The CCD specifically mandates co-ordination with the CBD and UNFCCC, including the
conduct of joint programmes (Article 8).
Mongolia workshop June 2001 – CCD and the MEAs

UNCCD(ICCD/COP(3)/9) 28 Sept 1999 Collaboration and Synergy Among the Rio
Conventions for the Implementation of the CCD




5.2 Biodiversity and Climate Change
Review of CC and FBD
– see pdf file of first meeting of tech group held in Helsinki in January 2002. 73pp
Find out what progress has been made since


www.biodiv.org
Programmes and Issues/Cross-Cutting Issues/Climate Change and Biological Diversity
      Introduction
      Climate Change-Biodiversity Linkages
       Includes:
       The climate change phenomenon
       Impacts of climate change on biological diversity
       The role of biological diversity in measures to mitigate the causes of climate change
       Adaptation measures
      COP Decisions
      SBSTTA Action
       COP5 requested SBSTA to prepare technical advice in          order to integrate biodiversity
       concerns into the implementation of the UNFCCC. Ad           Hoc Technical Expert Group
       (AHTEG) requested to prepare scientific advice on             the inter linkages between
       biological diversity and climate change at SBSTTA 6.         Parties invited to participate.
       Group will report SBSTTA 8.
      Documents
       Includes:
       Summary report of the first meeting of the AHTEG, Helsinki Jan 2002
       Report of the second meeting of the AHTEG, Canada, Sept 2002
      Cooperation with UNFCCC
      Links and Resources
      Meetings
      Notifications




5.3 Land Degradation and Biodiversity
CBD and CCD – any links over the issue of food security?

CBD is developing a joint programme of work with the CCD to examine options for
conservation and sustainable use of dry and sub-humid lands



5.4 Climate Change and Land Degradation
UNITAR and the CILSS/IGAD


5.5 Links with other conventions

POPs
Declining soil fertility leads to increase in crop pests, which in turn leads to increased use of
herbicides and pesticides (land degradation link)
Modifications in climate can have impact on POPs use – release of POPs into the envt as a
direct result of cc

International Waters
Improved land management practices contribute to the reduction of sediment loads and
siltation of rivers and water bodies
Impact of cc on the hydrological cycle

RAMSAR
Joint Work Plan between Ramsar and the Convention on Biological Diversity
www.ramsar.org/key_cbd_jwp3_e.htm
Ongoing activities to promote MEA co-ordination


5.6 UNEP

UNEP Capacity Building for Sustainable Development
Ch 2, subsection on Interlinkages and Synergies Between MEAs

Insert summary

www.unep.org/home/capacity-building.pdf


see also ‘Linkages among and support to environmental and environment-related
conventions’ UNEP/GC.22/INF/14 12th Nov 2002
www.unep.org/GoverningBodies/GC22/Information-documents.asp



Harmonizing National Reporting

Preparing separate reports on implementation of different, but related, international treaties can
represent a burden on countries - particularly on countries with limited resources. In the case of
reporting to the five global biodiversity-related treaties (CBD, Convention on Wetlands, Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species, Convention on Migratory Species, and World Heritage
Convention), the secretariats are investigating whether there is scope for harmonizing reporting
procedures by making use of common formats and datasets. A feasibility study was conducted and a
number of pilot studies to test approaches to streamlining and harmonizing are underway. The results
will be reported back to the governing bodies of these conventions, including to the Conference of the
Parties to the CBD.

At its sixth meeting, the Conference of the Parties welcomed the work of the United Nations
Environment Programme on the harmonization of environmental reporting and encouraged its
continuation. Meanwhile the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties recognized the need to
ensure that this does not affect the ability of the Conference of the Parties to adjust national reporting
procedures under the Convention in order to better meet the needs of the Parties.
http://www.biodiv.org/world/reports.asp
5.7 IUCN
The IUCN Regional Biodiversity Programmes, Asia, aims to help countries in the region
effectively implement the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity. IUCN RBP is
seeking to promote action on the ground to effectively demonstrate how synergies would
work. A week long training programme was organised in April 2003 to train UNFCCC and
CBD focal points to address synergies. A CD-ROM (Climate Change and Biodiversity
Resource Kit) has been prepared compiling information for planners and practitioners. RBP
will also be developing guidelines on how to integrate biodiversity concerns into NAPAs and
climate change concerns into NBSAPs.

A useful document is available on the website: IUCN ‘Synergies Between Conventions: An
Assessment’ www.rbp-iucn.lk


The outputs of the "Asian Regional Workshop on Mainstreaming Biodiversity and Climate
Change" may be accessed from the website
"http://www.biodiversityasia.org" including:
· Mainstreaming Biodiversity and Climate Change
· Mainstreaming Cliamate Change and MDGs
· Mainstreaming Biodiversity and MDGs
· Country priorities
· Agenda
· List of participants



5.8 UNDP

Expert Meeting on Synergies, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research of Ben
Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.
The document results from deliberations held at the Expert Meeting on Synergies, organised
by UNDP and funded by the Governments of Israel, Japan, Norway, and Denmark. It
contains recommendations on how to produce synergy institutionally, in capacity building, in
national planning, and in fulfilling reporting requirements. These recommendations were
developed by participants based on their own experience, on the ground, in implementing the
conventions within their countries. As such, they provide a highly useful input into the
ongoing quest to translate these international agreements into reform and results at the
country level, and to help fulfil Agenda 21’s programme for sustainable development.
( ? dated 1997)
Insert web address for PDF file
www.bgu.ac.il/BIDR/events/synergy/back1.html

what else are UNDP doing?


5.9 FIELD

Ruth Mackenzie ‘Co-ordinating Implementation of the Rio Agreements: Institutional
Mechanisms and Processes’
www.gdrc.org/uem/trialogue/il4-fur.html
5.10 Example timetable for a cross-sectoral workshop

Session 1 Welcome and introduction to workshop agenda
Outline of workshop objectives
Introduction to organizers and facilitator

Session 2 Sectoral groups
Separate sector discussions on:
strengths and weaknesses of the sector; views of other sectors; benefits to each sector of
cross-sector partnerships.

Break

Session 3 Plenary session
Brief feedback on each question in turn from each sector, followed by reactions and
discussion

Session 4 Core value/principles
Identification of core values/principles underpinning any potential partnership initiative

Break (lunch)

Session 5 Case studies/issues
Guest speaker presentations of relevant examples of successful partnerships (local, national,
regional or international as appropriate)
or
Key issues for the group – brainstorm on general sustainable development issues (eg
developing integrated
planning processes, building capacity for cross-sector partnerships) or a specific theme (eg
youth unemployment,
crime, enterprise development)

Session 6 Task group on action planning
Mixed-sector discussions on development of parallel aspects of the planning process

Session 7 Plenary session
Brief feedback on action planning and implementation of integrated development strategy
Agreement on who will do what

Feedback
On how the workshop process was conducted
On how happy participants feel about the outcomes

End
Note: This timetable can be spread over 1 to 3 days
Source: Adapted from Tennyson (1998)



Priorities across the thematic areas – CDI table
See Table 2 at end of Part B
              6 Resources and References for a Strategy and Action Plan




Miscellaneous resources to either remain here or be put in earlier subsections.
Text for section 6 not yet written.



UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROCESSES: CASES FROM AFRICA
James Keeley and Ian Scoones
This book focuses on policy processes: how policies are made, and how they change. While
there has been lots of work on the technical details of environmental policies and the pros
and cons of different options, there has, surprisingly, been less reflection on the nature of the
process by which policies arise and how they do - or often don't - change.

This book, then, asks why do particular perspectives on environmental change become so
entrenched in policy? Which actors are involved? Whose interests are served? Whose
knowledge is included and whose excluded? Our focus is, therefore, on the intersections and
negotiations of knowledge, power and politics.

Read a sample chapter:
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/samplechapters/1853839752Preface.htm
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/asp/bookdetails.asp?key=3928



UNEP

UNEP (2002) Capacity Building for Sustainable Development - Am overview of UNEP
environmental capacity development initiatives

Insert summary/press release

(check correct web ref:)
http://www.gpa.unep.org/Training/documents/UNEP Capacity Building Book.pdf
http://www.unep.org/home/capacity_building.pdf

check which of these are also available on the web:

DEWA (Oct 2002) Comprehensive Capacity Development Strategy for Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Reporting
DTIE (?) UNEP's Capacity Building Activities on Environment Trade and Development
DTIE (?) 10 year Review of Capacity Building Activities of the OzonAction Programme
WCMC Capacity Building Programme
DGEF (?) UNEP'S Experience with Capacity Building in the GEF Focal Areas
World Bank

Capacity Development in the World Bank Group’s Global Environment Facility Portfolio,
August 2000 (not printed 76pp)



OECD

The best current resource guide is the recently published OECD resource book on
National Sustainable Development Strategies. UNDP has been working in partnership
with the OECD and IIED on this resource book on National Sustainable Development
Strategies, which was successfully launched at the World Summit for Sustainable
Development and since then some 3000 copies have been distributed internationally. It can
be freely downloaded on the National Strategies for Sustainable Development website:
http://www.nssd.net/
Tables in landscape format

   1. Stakeholder Participation Methods
   2. CDI – Priorities across thematic areas
                               Table of Stakeholder Participation methods (insert source)

Tool/approach              Description/purpose                    Advantages                            Disadvantages

                           Uses a series of exercises to help     Fundamental to a truly                May not provide a sufficiently
Community-based analysis   community stakeholders to share        participatory planning effort.        rigorous/comprehensive analysis
                           knowledge, review and participate      Takes the process to the local        and should preferably be
                           in technical assessments, set          level where action will need to       combined with technical
                           priorities and jointly develop         take place. Serves to engage          assessments.
                           options for action                     local inhabitants, focus planning
                                                                  on their needs and gather local
                                                                  information and views.
Participatory appraisal    Communities actively engage in         Serves to engage local                May not work in every situation.
                           analysis of local conditions, share    inhabitants and enables them to       Requires a facilitator who
                           knowledge and plan activities,         ‘own’ the results and hence           understands the approach, and is
                           using visual tools such as             assume responsibility for actions     trusted by the local people.
                           mapping, matrices etc, with            identified; seeks out the voices of
                           outsiders acting as facilitators.      the poorest people. Often
                                                                  provides more accurate
                                                                  information than conventional
                                                                  surveys and is speedy and cost
                                                                  effective.
Key informant interviews   Usually conducted one-to-one           People are not constrained by the     Does not allow for group debate.
                           and structured around a set of         presence of others and can put        Very sensitive to interviewees
                           questions to glean insights on a       forward information in their own      selected
                           particular issue or policy. Semi-      way. Can be a useful approach
                           structured interviews are used in      with politicians, whose formal
                           participatory appraisal alongside      engagement can cause problems
                           visual tools to improve the level of   for others
                           information and understanding.
Market research            Surveys or consultations used to       Can be used to forecast trends,       Costly if done in-depth
                           analyse market trends, demand,         public/consumer opinion and
                           opinions and opportunities. By         preferences, assess markets for
                           telephone, website, interview or at    environmental goods and
                           community level using                  services, and identify options for
               participatory appraisal tools.    income generation and enterprise
                                                 development.
Focus groups   Usually conducted with small      Useful information-gathering tool     Setting up a focus group process,
               groups representing particular    that can be used to understand        including selection of the sample
               neighbourhood/ resource/ policy   particular issues and concerns,       group and facilitation of sessions,
               ‘communities’ and interests to    good for obtaining qualitative        requires trained facilitators.
               gain insights about people’s      rather than statistical information   Problems associated with
               perceptions and values.           and refining preliminary ideas.       nomination/ access to that group.
                                                                                       Subject to bias if group small or
                                                                                       dominated. Generates ‘norms’
                                                                                       rather
                                                                                       than reality.
Priorities across thematic areas

Extracted from: GEF/UNDP (2002) Country Capacity Development Needs and Priorities: Regional Report for Africa

                                     Climate Change                         Biodiversity                          Land Degradation

                             Formal institutions and              Assessment and inventory of             Assessment of status of land
                              mechanisms for updating               biodiversity                             degradation
                              inventories                          Preparation of national strategies      Development of land use plans
                             Vulnerability and adaptation          and action plans                        Land use and land management
                              assessments and actions              Review of protected area systems         policies
                             Development of skills in policy       and necessary expansion of these        Explicit land ownership regimes
     GENERAL PRIORITIES




                              analysis and economics of            Review and reform of national
                              climate change                        protected area policies and laws
                                                                   Strengthening of institutions for
                                                                    managing protected areas
                                                                   Formulation of regulations and
                                                                    laws as well establishment of
                                                                    focal points to regulate access to
                                                                    genetic resources and ensure
                                                                    benefit-sharing
                                                                   Formulation of biosafety
                                                                    frameworks
                                                                   Formulation of policies, laws and
                                                                    schemes to provide incentives for
                                                                    conservation and sustainable use
                                      Career progression/ Security of        Environmental economic                 Scientists for soil chemistry, soil
                                       tenure                                  expertise                               microbiology and soil physics
                                                                                                                
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
  NEEDS/ISSUES                         Networking and training                 Trade policy and law expertise          Expertise in remote sensing and
                                       opportunities                          Taxonomists and expertise in            survey
                                      Competitive Performance                 assessment                             Expertise in land use planning
                                      Information interchange                Data information management             and land law
                                      Consistent support from CC              skills
                                       agencies                               Negotiation skills
                                      Professional CC training for
                                       government officials/policy
                                       makers

                                             Climate Change                            Biodiversity                          Land Degradation

                                      Financial support to send              Intra and inter-agency articulation    Co-ordination between institutions
INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL NEEDS/ISSUES




                                       delegations to COPs                    Insufficient or lack of financial       at the national, provincial and
                                      Negotiation skills                      resources                               district levels
                                      Implementation at the sectoral         Poorly defined mandates and lack       Improved systems for monitoring,
                                       level                                   of adequate institutional autonomy      management, accountability and
                                      Support for research and critical      Inadequate staffing                     transparency
                                       analysis                               Insufficient equipment
                                      African common position prior to
                                       COPs
                                      Development of models for
                                       decision making
                                      Awareness raising amongst
                                       legislators
                                      Testing of new technologies
                                 Information on socio-economic           Severe economic problems              Scientific and technical
                                  advantages of UNFCCC                    Lack of development or                 infrastructure
                                  implementation                           improvement of infrastructure         Information for policy making
SYSTEMIC LEVEL NEEDS/ISSUES

                                 Communication of commitments            Absence of peace and political        Improved national economic
                                  to stakeholders                          stability                              performance
                                 Linkage to legislative framework        Inadequate policies and laws          Training institutions
                                  at the national level                   No harmonisation of policies and      Monitoring equipment
                                 Culture of technology assessment         laws
                                 Financial resources
                                 Political commitment
                                 Independent promoter of climate
                                  change action for Africa
                                 Devolution of obligations to local
                                  levels
                                 Improved rapport between public
                                  and private sectors
                                 Accountability

				
DOCUMENT INFO