Docstoc

Overview of NCSA findings in the

Document Sample
Overview of NCSA findings in the Powered By Docstoc
					General Overview of NCSA Key
  Findings in Other Regions


 UNDP-GEF National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA)
                Regional Workshop
          17-19 June, 2005, Tunis, Tunisia



                        ***
                  Tom Twining-Ward
                 UNDP-GEF, New York
        Structure of Presentation

•   Countries covered and methodology
•   Compliance with key NCSA principles
•   Key capacity constraints
•   Systemic issues
•   Synergies
•   Mainstreaming
•   Action Plans
•   Lessons learned
•   Recommendations for follow-up projects
                    NCSA Evaluation

•   UNDP-GEF recently conducted a global evaluation of NCSAs in 11
    countries: Namibia, Seychelles, Ghana, Philippines, Armenia,
    Bulgaria, Latvia, Tajikistan, Uruguay, Ecuador and Jamaica.

•   Four countries (ARM, BUL, URU and NAM) have completed their
    NCSA activities, four countries (PHI, LAT, TAJ and SEY) are currently
    finalizing them and finally three countries (GHA, ECU and JAM) will
    finish in the near future.

•   The evaluation used a two-pronged approach:
     – Analysis of questionnaires sent to the countries asking questions
       regarding the processes, outputs and outcomes of the NCSA
       process; and
     – An in-depth analysis of the NCSA reports from target countries.
     Compliance with NCSA Principles
•   The evaluation concluded that overall the 11 assessments complied well with
    the 7 key NCSA principles:

    1.   All assessments are owned by the relevant government organisations
         and mostly endorsed by the NGO communities.
    2.   To a lesser degree the assessments used the existing structures and
         coordinating mechanisms.
    3.   All 11 assessments integrated well the provisions and decisions of the 3
         Rio Conventions
    4.   All countries used a multi-stakeholder participation approach with the
         strong involvement of the NFPs, the NGO community and to some extent
         the private sector.
    5.   The process also covered most of the relevant past and on-going
         activities
    6.   The approach used in all countries was holistic and covered the
         assessment of capacity constraints at the individual, institutional and
         systemic levels.
    7.   Finally, the NCSA process was seen as a useful step in assessing
         capacities within the broader context of sustainable development.
              Key Capacity Constraints
•   Most of the countries have key capacity constraints in the groups proposed
    in the UNDP’s Capacity Development Indicators framework.

    1.   Nine countries have inadequate policy and legislation frameworks to
         respond to the Rio Convention obligations and a weak capacity to
         enforce the legislation and regulations currently in place.
    2.   The capacity to engage and build consensus among stakeholders was a
         constraint; eight countries were found to have a constraint in this area.
    3.   The capacity to mobilize information and knowledge is a constraint for 10
         countries. The constraint is two-fold: a weak public awareness of the
         Conventions and their implementations, and the difficulty to access and
         share information and knowledge.
    4.   The capacity to monitor, evaluate, report and learn is a constraint for
         eight countries. In most cases the monitoring systems in place are
         inadequate and cannot respond to the reporting obligations under the
         Conventions.
    5.   Finally, the respondents identified several other constraints such as
         governance, individual capacity/retain qualified human resources,
         financial resources, and R&D
                      Systemic Issues

•   All 11 assessments look into systemic issues focusing on the policy,
    legislation and regulations frameworks.

•   Respondents stated that the NCSA helped to establish a culture of
    self-evaluation and problem-solving in each country; but due to the
    limitation in time and resources, sustainability of that newly developed
    culture remains a challenge.

•   Moreover, only a few countries emphasised the assessment of their
    overall national environmental management frameworks, their
    accountability frameworks, their economic frameworks and their
    system level resources.
                            Synergies

•   The implementation of the NCSA created synergies between the 3 Rio
    Conventions.
•   All countries used a multi-stakeholder approach which resulted in
    better coordination among NFPs, better inter-ministerial coordination,
    more exchange of information, facilitated the process to identify
    cross-cutting issues among the 3 Rio Conventions and developed a
    better consensus on the way forward among stakeholders.
•   The analysis of the NCSA Action Plans indicates that these plans are
    promoting synergies between the 3 Rio Conventions.
•   In the case of Armenia, the actions included in their action plan were
    selected and prioritized according to their cross-cutting reach.
•   In Uruguay, activities in their action plan support the integration of
    environmental aspects in national policies, plans and projects and
    apply a spatial approach where the 3 Rio Conventions are applicable.
•   Other activities promote inter-institutional coordination, emphasizing
    an integrated approach to environmental issues.
                     Mainstreaming

• The evaluation also found that the NCSA process and its
  related global environmental issues are being mainstreamed
  within the national development priorities. All finalised action
  plans (8) include actions to mainstream environmental issues
  into national development priorities.

• In Ecuador, the NCSA process was conducted in close
  collaboration with the PRSP process.

• In Tajikistan, the NCSA outputs are being integrated within the
  national PRSP and the NCSA project helped the creation of the
  Council on Environmental Conventions.
                           Action Plans

•   The review of the Action Plans indicates that most of them include
    some measures to ensure compliance with the key NCSA principles
    envisaged in the NCSA Operational Guidelines.
•   Most action plans (8) have a responsible person/office listed. However
    only 4 action plans include a timetable for actions and only 5 action
    plans include a monitoring and evaluation plan.
•   8 countries received technical support from a regional organisation.
    Namibia received sensitive and targeted inputs when needed
•   In the Philippines, some of the materials initially were not user-friendly
    but the UNDP/GEF regional office responded to the needs of the
    country and reviewed the NCSA Manual to make it more
    "implementable".
•   In Armenia, the backstopping of the project by UNDP was very useful
    for the project team to build on outside experience and lessons
    learned from other countries.
                             Lessons

•   Lessons were learned from each country experience and grouped
    into 5 main categories:

    1.   The importance of mainstreaming the NCSA results into the
         broader national sustainable development context as well as
         PRSP, MDG, Agenda 21, etc.;
    2.   Wide and active stakeholder participation is key for producing
         high quality Action Plans;
    3.   The need to tailor the NCSA approach to local realities and
         expand the methodology;
    4.   Confirmation of the importance of utilizing existing structures
         and coordinating mechanisms, and develop national ownership;
         and
    5.   The need for a high level support and a strong involvement of the
         Project Steering Committees.
       Recommendations for Follow-up

•   Based on the analysis of the questionnaires and the 11 NCSA
    Reports/Action Plans, recommendations emerged for future capacity
    building activities post NCSAs.

    – Financing Instruments / Environmental Fiscal Reform / Economic
      Valuation;
    – Educational / Informational Instruments and Environmental
      Education;
    – Monitoring, Evaluating, Reporting, and Learning;
    – Institutional Set up/Structure(s) to address Cross Cutting Issues /
      Synergies and Common Requirements Under the Conventions;
    – Development of Capacity Building Initiatives for Individuals, and;
    – Improvement in Policy, Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks
      and their Enforcement/Mainstreaming of global environment
      management into national development plans and programs.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:8/27/2010
language:English
pages:11