Annex 2 Relevant capacity building needs identified in NCSAs

advertisementhumphΔιαχείριση

9 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 10 μήνες)

98 εμφανίσεις

Annex 2
-

1


Annex 2


Relevant capacity building needs identified in NCSAs

The National Capacity Self
-
Assessment (NCSA
)

programme

is a broad capacity

assessment process
which represents one of the main pillars (
or p
athways) of the GEF Strategic Approach on Enhancing

Capacity Building
1
.

Started in 2002 as a result of the prior Capacity Development Initiative (CDI) of
GEF and UNDP, the NCSA programme has been supported by
the
GEF through its enabling activity
modality
,

with UNDP and UNEP as designated
I
mplementing Agen
cies.



The primary objective of the
NCSA

was to enable each participating country to identify its own
priority environmental concerns, particularly issues covered by the Rio
C
onventions. For each
identified environmental priority the NCSA process undertoo
k a root cause analysis aimed at
determining specific capacity constraints and capacity needs, includ
ing

not only thematic
assessments for each focal area (biodiversity, climate change, land degradation), but also cross
-
cutting (or synergy) reports. The
s
y
nergy
r
eports
were focused on

identifying fundamental
challenges for environmental governance. Finally, the NCSA led to the development of country
-
driven Capacity Building Action Plans which identify th
os
e specific capacity development activities
needed to

strengthen environmental management at national level.
2


The NCSA programme has contributed significantly to an improved understanding of environmental
capacity development gaps in developing countries
,

and
i
s

considered
a
fundamental

reference for
capacity building efforts at national and local level

for both national decision makers and donors
. In
addition
,
GEF
-
5 (2010
-
2014) interventions in the field of capacity building will build specifically on
the NCSA results, including through

targeted cross
-
cutting capacity development projects (known as
CB
-
2 projects) that will focus on strengthening overall environmental governance systems at
national level
,

as well as mainstreaming global environmental issues into national development
progr
ammes. Th
is is discussed further below
.


It is clear that
the lessons learnt from the NCSA process
,

and
any recommendations
included in the

NCSA

Final Reports and Action Plan
s with respect to building the capacity for effectively using
science in decision
making with respect to biodiversity
,

are directly relevant to IPBES, and therefore
it is valuable to have a clearer understanding both of the NCSAs themselves, and what they have to
say about
:

improving the science
-
policy interface
;

access to and use of da
ta, information and
knowledge
;

and decision making processes.


Thematic capacity building needs for
b
i
odiversity and
e
cosystem
s
ervic
es


Since 2002 a

total of 153 out of the 165 eligible countries (93%), received GEF funding to support an
NCSA process. Out of the 153 approved projects,
seven

were cancelled due to lack of delivery of the
expected products. As reported in a recently published global anal
ysis of the NCSA programme
3
, as
of April 2010, a total of 119 countries have completed their NCSA with 23 countries at different
stages in implementing priority actions identified in the NCSA Final Report and Action plans with
further GEF support (CB
-
2 pro
ject
s
).




1


GEF/C.22/8, Strategic Approach to Enhancing Capacity Building

2


GEF (2001), A Guide for Self
-
Assessment of Country Capacity Needs for Global Environmental Management; GEF Global
Support
Programme (2005), Resource Kit for National Capacity Self
-
Assessment. United Nations Development
Programme.

3


Bellamy, Jean
-
Joseph and Kevin Hill (2010), “National Capacity Self
-
Assessments: Results and Lessons Learned for
Global Environmental Sustainabil
ity”, Global Support Programme, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP.

Annex 2
-

2


As shown in
Figure 1
(
extracted
from

the NCSA analysis report), the results of the global analysis of
the 119 completed NCSAs show that biodiversity and ecosystem management are widely recognized
by countries as priority environmental concerns.

O
v
erall, Biodiversity Conservation is by far the most
commonly identified environmental priority issue (75% of the countries), while other biodiversity
-
related categories such as deforestation and sustainable use are also
recognized as being significant
iss
ues

of concern
.


The results of the thematic assessment
s

for other

GEF

focal areas, notably Land Degradation,
Climate change and Freshwater, shown
as well
in
Figure 1, confirm that issues related to ecosystem
management and ecosystem services are consistently identified as priority environmental issues and
areas for required capacity development action

alongside biodiversity
.
The fact that
Land U
se,
Sustainable

Land Management,
Soil Loss
, Freshwater Resources and Vulnerability to Climate Change

are consistently identified by over 60% of the countries
amongst the key environmental concerns
and areas for priority capacity building action

demonstrates an overall co
ncern over loss of
ecosystem services
and/
or disruption of ecosystem functioning.


Figure
s

2
-
5

(also copied from the NCSA analysis report) shows how th
e
s
e

concern
s

are
subsequently
expressed in terms of needs and actions, the first column indicating the same information as in
figure 1, the second series of columns the priority needs for capacity development, and the third
series of columns priority actions.


As shown in

F
igure 2, i
t is interesting
to note
that when
it comes to identifying and prioritizing
specific capacity development needs and actions in the area of biodiversity, the
number

of countries
actually identifying

biodiversity
-
related capacity needs
is proport
ionally lower
. On the one hand, this
Figure 1: Number of countries indentifying their priority
environmental concerns (n=119)

Annex 2
-

3


finding certainly confirms
the highlighted difficulties of
many NCSA
R
eports

and Action Plans
to

reflect

consistent connection
s

amongst
identified
capacity building constraints, needs and actions.

O
n the other

hand,
this
also
p
resumably indicat
es
that while
biodiversity
-
related
issues are of
concern
to a large number of countries
there is not a capacity building need with respect to those
issues in a number of countries

or that th
e
s
e

are given a lesser priority as com
pared to
other
capacity needs in
different thematic

areas
.









Figure 3:
Number of countries identifying priority land degradation
needs

and actions (n=119)


Figure 2: Number of countries identifying priority biodiversity needs

and
actions (n=119)

Annex 2
-

4





Cross
-
cutting capacity building needs for environmental management


One of the main strengths of the innovative approach adopted under the NCSA programme was the
accent put on identifications of synergies across the

Rio conventions (as well as other MEAs) which
favoured the identification of over
-
arching environmental governance constraints, cross
-
cutting
capacity building needs and related high
-
priority capacity development actions.




Figure 5:
Number of countries identifying priority
water
-
related

needs

and actions (n=119)


Figure 4:
Number of countries identifying priority
climate
change

needs

and actions (n=119)


Annex 2
-

5


As shown in

Figure
6

below

(copied f
r
om the NCSA analysis report)
, out of the completed 119 NCSA
Final reports and Action Plans, more than
100 countries specifically identified improving capacity in
“information collection, management and exchange” as
a priority
, and more than 70
countries
identified “scientific information in policy, planning and management”. Other priorities, such as
technology transfer and stakeholder involvement and communication are also relevant to improving
science
-
policy interfaces.




Based on UNDP’s Capacity Development Approach
4
, t
he NCSA framework
also
identifies five major
functional clusters or categories of cross
-
cutting c
apacity

which are addressed further below
, all of
them

relevan
t

to the specific focus on capacity development in the context of IPBES
.

These are
:


o

Stakeholder Engagement;


o

Information Management and Knowledge;

Organizational Capacities;


o

Environmental
Governance; and


o

Monitoring and Evaluation
5
.

These are addressed
in

a little more detail below





4


UNDP (2009), Supporting Capacity Development: The UNDP Approach, Capacity Development Group, Bureau for Development Policy,
UNDP.

5


Bellamy, Jean
-
Joseph and Kevin Hill (2010), “Nation
al Capacity Self
-
Assessments: Results and Lessons Learned for Global
Environmental Sustainability”, Global Support Programme, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP.

Figure 6
: Types of c
apacities countries identified as a constraint, a
need, or as a priority cross
-
cutting development action

Annex 2
-

6

a)

Stakeholder Engagement


Capacity for stakeholder engagement refers to the capacity

(
authority, right, opportunity,
motivation, recognition, connections and
support
)

of a wide range of stakeholders to participate
effectively, engaging with one another in various ways in order to address specific environmental
issues in a given country.
6

In the specific context of IPBES, capacity building for improved science
-
p
olicy interface
s

involves not only knowledge holders and scientists
,

but more broadly decision
makers, resource users, owners, consumers, community and political leaders, private and public
sector managers, experts and academia, and the public at large.

Wi
th this in mind, it is worth noting
that the
main priorit
ies

emerging from the analysis of the NCSA
f
inal
r
eport and
a
ction plans
with
respect to stakeholder engagement were

the need to develop the individual capacities of key
environmental stakeholders

(r
eported by 67 countries)
, a
nd the need t
o improve methodologies and
process
es

for effective stakeholder engagement

(reported by 62 countries)
.


Some identified areas of engagement and strengthening
in the context of

strengthening the science
-
policy interfa
ce

include the following
7
:



a)

Cooperation arrangements among stakeholder groups
:

the identification of stakeholders,
their involvement, the establishment of stakeholder
consultation

processes and the active
contribution of these stakeholders to planning and decision
-
making;


b)

Co
-
management mechanisms
:

bringing together relevant agencies and already available
knowledge and expertise to address a particular issue at the appropriate scale;


c)

Building and maintaining of partnerships
:

the establishment and furthering of stakeholder
cooperation through instit
utionalised processes, platforms or councils with close policy links.


b) Information Management and Knowledge


Sufficient information is a prerequisite to any management action, therefore to be effectively
engaged, stakeholders, whether individuals or org
anisations, need capacities to acquire, understand,
research, make use of, and communicate related information and knowledge.
As shown in Figure 6
and 7, t
he review of the NCSAs demonstrates that the over
-
arching capacity for
“i
nformation
m
anagement and
k
n
owledge


is identified as
a
major constraint by two
-
thirds of the countries, with
even more countries (over 90%) ra
n
king it as a high priority capacity development need. Out of the
119 completed NCSAs, 79 clearly identify “
c
apacity to collect, manage, and exchange information” as
a

major

constraints
,
while 95 countries identif
ied

data management as a capacity development
needs.


The capacity development needs are mostly concentrated in the
areas of public awareness and
enviro
nmental education and
management of environmental information, which includes the
development and appropriate application of standards, integrated technologies, communications, as
well as the coordination of the organizations and networks involved. Assessm
ents conducted under
the NCSA initiative indicate that, though not complete, environmental information exists. However,
the capacities to access
,

manage
and make effective use of the available
information are generally
weak, as is the coordination of orga
nizations involved its management.
8




6


UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/3, Analysis of capacity development for biodiversity and ecosystem servic
es.

7

UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/3, Analysis of capacity development for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

8


Bellamy, Jean
-
Joseph and Kevin Hill (2010), “National Capacity Self
-
Assessments: Results and Lessons Learned for Global Environmental
Sustainability”, Gl
obal Support Programme, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP.

Annex 2
-

7




Significantly, the analysis of the NCSA reports reveals that while many stakeholders recognize the
value of
traditional and indigenous knowledge

for environmental management, this is seldom part of
the knowledge base for development and implementation of environmental policies. There is a
strong need then to strengthen capacity to document, disseminate and incorporate traditional and
indigenous kn
owledge into national information management systems.


These findings further support the conclusions that areas
of engagement and strengthening

particularly relevant to improving the science
-
policy interface include the following
9
:


a)

Access to pertinent in
formation
:

National data hubs, information management systems;
accessibility of international scientific information and geo
-
referenced data in journals,
libraries and data repositories;


b)

Sharing of relevant information and knowledge
:

I
nstitutionalised pr
ocedures to make data
readily available to all interested stakeholders , such as national and supra
-
national clearing
house mechanisms; collaboration in scientific research;


c)

Information brokerage
:

bridging the gap between science and policy, so as to pres
ent
scientific data and trends in terms relevant to policy analysis and decision making; improving
skills to interpret scientific information for policy analysis and planning; identification and
coordination of research needs and policy demands;


d)

Applicati
on of tools and knowledge
:

T
raining in the use and practical application of tools and
methodologies, such as ecosystem service assessments, valuation, modelling etc.;


e)

Incorporation of traditional knowledge
:

I
ntegration of traditional knowledge and values
in
scientific research as well as policy and strategy development;





9

UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/3, Analysis of capacity development for biodiversity and ecosystem services.



Figure 7: Countries’ assessment of information and knowledge

management capacities

Annex 2
-

8

f)

Communication and awareness
:

O
utreach to particular stakeholder groups and the broader
public; awareness raising on the need to bridge the science
-
policy gap; formal and informal
education

programmes on environmental science issues and policy development needs.


c) Organizational capacities


Organizational capacities refer

to the structures and mechanisms within organizations to direct and
undertake management actions
, including
capacities
for effective management and implementation.
However, because of the number of different organizations involved in environmental management
and sustainable development
,

and
their frequently

overlapping mandates, the importance of
adequate cross
-
sectoral an
d inter
-
institutional cooperation can hardly be overstated
.


In their NCSA Final Reports, many countries
identified

organizational issues as major constraint
s

to
having a well
-
functioning environmental management system.
Recurring i
ssues include limited
or
ganizational infrastructure, unclear organizational mandates, poor coordination among
institutions, insufficient staff numbers or high staff turnover, limited skill
-
sets and knowledge,
unclear job descriptions, and low budgets allocated to environmental ma
nagement.


T
wo
-
thirds of the completed NCSAs identify
o
rganizational capacities both as a constraint and a
capacity development need, with 92% of the countries identifying specific capacity development
actions in this area in several of the five specific t
ypes of capacities considered under this cluster:
institutional/organizational mandates, structures, and frameworks; economic instruments and
sustainable financing mechanisms; capacity to manage international projects; technology
development and transfer;
and the capacity to undertake integrated ecosystem management.


Areas of engagement and strengthening particularly relevant to improving the science
-
policy
interface include the following:


a)

Mobilisation and organisation of resources
:

R
esource allocation p
rocesses bear in mind
scientific findings, prioritisations and needs;


b)

Technical skills and technology transfer
:

R
equired technical skills are identified and sought
after at the appropriate scale or provided for through cooperation; needed skills and
technologies are made available or incorporated in development plans and curricula;
training opportunities allow for ongoing upgrading of skills and technologies;


c)

Organisation of programmes and projects
:

project arrangements and programme design
incorpora
te scientific perceptions, insights and needs for further research.


d) Environmental Governance


As defined in the context of the NCSA,
e
nvironmental
g
overnance is the capacity to prepare, agree,
and control the implementation of management strategies. This includes the structuring and
enforcement of rules and decision making procedures to operationalize behaviour and policy
responses. The stock
-
taking e
xercise undertaken within the framework of the NCSA generally reveals
that policy and legislative frameworks remains weak, particularly for the lack of comprehensive
environmental policies
to address
difficulties in mainstreaming environmental sustainabili
ty into the
broader national development framework.


Not surprisingly, strengthening of capacity for
e
nvironmental
g
overnance was identified as a top
priority capacity development need by most of the countries complet
ing

an NCSA process.
As
Annex 2
-

9




Figure
8:
Countries’ environmental governance capacities

indicated in Fi
gure 8, t
he capacity to develop and enforce policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks
represents the main capacity development need in this area (94 out of the 119 countries), followed
by the capacity to incorporate Convention objectives into national polic
y, legislation, and
institutions; and cross
-
sectoral coordination.

The abilities to envision possible solutions, and to plan
and decide in advance on a course of action, are important capacities for an effective management
system.






















With reference to the mandate of IPBES in terms of capacity building for improved science
-
policy,
this
implies the need to strengthen access to and effective utilization of scientific knowledge and
expertise into national planning and policy making process, as well as strengthening legislative and
regulatory frameworks to full incorporate environmental conc
erns.


Since good environmental governance relies heavily on
individual professional skills, the availability
of sound information and advice, and
adequate
institutional arrangements
, there is a need to work
concurrently at both individual institutional
l
evel
on prospective

a
reas of engagement and
strengthening
,


such as
:


a)

Planning and strategy development
:

I
nvolvement of scientific experts in the processes that
lead to the development of strategies, plans and policies;


b)

Informed decision making
:

P
olicy
planning and decisions are prepared on the basis of best
available information; scientific experts are consulted and involved in the planning
processes;


c)

Regulatory frameworks
:

A
mendments, development or enactment of laws and regulations
take into account
best available scientific data and knowledge.


e) Monitoring and Evaluation


Finally,
m
onitoring and evaluation systems are
an essential part of

ensuring effective management
of a strategy, policy, programme, or project. They provide data and analysis whic
h is fundamental
Annex 2
-

10

not only for measuring impacts and results of any given intervention but also for ensuring
continuous learning and adaptive management.
Monitoring and evaluation

system contributes to
effective planning, decision making and advocacy
.


Even though regarded in several NCSAs as the lowest priority for capacity development when
compared to the four other types of broad capacity outlined previously,
m
onitoring and
e
valuation
was still considered as a capacity
that needed
to be strengthened b
y 71 out of 119 countries,
particularly
in order
to provide accurate and timely information to decision
-
makers. It
is axiomatic

that this capacity development category has clear overlaps and a close relationship with information
management and knowledge
,

a
nd that through adequate
monitoring and evaluation

system
scientific knowledge can be fully utilized to inform policy making processes.


Areas of engagement and strengthening particularly relevant to improving the science
-
policy
interface include the follo
wing:


a)

Monitoring and evaluation systems
:

P
erformance framework development involves
scientists and incorporates scientific findings; consider best available scientific data and
knowledge so as to continuously inform policy processes.


Additional
Lessons
Learnt from the NCSA experience


The NCSA programme has contributed significantly to an improved understanding of environmental
capacity development gaps in developing countries, particularly whenever countries have been able
to take full advantage of link
ages with other relevant processes (national biodiversity strategy and
action plans, national action plans
or

national adaptation programmes of action) and/or to expand
the analysis beyond the sole three Rio Conventions. More importantly, by virtue of its
innovative and
highly participatory approach, the NCSA programme has contributed to the development of credible,
country
-
owned capacity building action plans that have been developed with the full participation of
multiple stakeholders at national level.


Furthermore, by focusing explicitly on synergies and cross
-
cutting issues across various thematic
areas and responsible institutions the vast majority of the NCSA projects have resulted in
recommendations with far
-
reaching implications for national enviro
nmental governance systems as
a whole, and direct relevance to issues related to improved science
-
policy interface.


While the NCSAs represent a significant progress and constitute a fundamental platform for
national
-
level environmental capacity building
efforts, it should also be noted that many NCSA Final
Reports and Action Plans are characterized by certain limitations, particularly with reference to the
difficulties of many countries to make clear connections between identified environmental priorities
,
capacity constraints and related capacity development needs and actions. In addition, as pointed out
in

several

terminal evaluations
10
, NCSAs have tended to face
the same
typical challenges of other
capacity building initiatives with regards to lack of financing for implementation, sustainability of the
results and
lack of integration

of
the
action plans into broader national institutional frameworks,
and
problems in defin
i
ng

clear objectives and measurable results
11
.





10


GEF Evaluation Office (2008), GEF Annual Performance Report 2007.

11


In order to address this s
pecific concerns the GEF in collaboration with UNDP and UNEP has developed capacity
development indicators, as well as Monitoring Scorecard. For more details, see Bellamy, Jean
-
Joseph and K. Hill (2010).
Monitoring Guidelines of Capacity Development in GEF

Operations. Global Environment Facility/United Nations
Development Programme/United Nations Environment Programme.

Annex 2
-

11


As evidenced in the previous paragraphs, w
ith reference to the
specific
capacity building mandate of
IPBES,
a

review of the
experience gained through the
NCSA
s

reveals that improved, evidence
-
based
decision mak
ing based on relevant scientific information is clearly identified as a fundamental
capacity building need

by the vast majority of
developing countries
. It is also clear that an improved
science
-
policy would deliver multiple benefits across the various cro
ss
-
cutting capacity development
categories utilized in the framework of the NCSA. In turn
,

this would allow countries to make
significant progress in terms of overall environmental governance

at national, regional and global
level.


More in details, w
ith r
egard to the focus on the science
-
policy nexus, the analysis
of the 119 NCSA
Final Reports and Action Plans
points
confirms earlier conclusions
12

about the significant role that
can be played by IPBES with regards to the following
cross
-
cutting
operational
capacit
ie
s:

o

Capacity for effective production of scientific knowledge relevant to policy needs
;

o

Capacity for effective communication of knowledge to decision makers and the public at
large
;

o

Capacity for effective use of knowledge in formulating policy choi
ces and their
implementation.


a)

Capacity for effective production of scientific knowledge relevant to policy needs


The first step building capacity for improved science
-
policy interface for ecosystem services is
making sure that scientific knowledge is
generated in sufficient quantity and quality

and it
address
es
relevant
national needs and priorities. In the absence of adequate and credible scientific
information, policy makers’ choice is either to rely on less relevant information, outsource such
advic
e from abroad, or ignore the need for scientific advice in policy
-
making.


To this effect, there is a need to work concurrently on building the individual skills required to
support scientific production, but also to put in place the required enabling environment
(institutions, coordination process, sustainable financing mechanis
ms) for identification of country
-
relevant research priorities,
financing of research programmes,
dissemination of information
, etc.
Typical capacity building actions included in the NCSAs in this respect include:


a)

s
trengthening of
education systems

in sci
ence and technology

at all levels

(
from primary to
tertiary
) in order to

nurture talents and produce the
required human capital
needed by
institutions and the
socie
ty at large;


b)

building sufficient level of individual
scientific manpower

(taxonomists, ecol
ogists…) to
document and supply baseline data, knowledge and information on key components of
biodiversity and natural resources;


c)

building
individual capacity

to understand the socio
-
economic aspects of environmental
degradation and build linkages with th
e scientific community with the view of establishing
multidisciplinary teams;


d)

strengthening capacity to link scientific research with
indigenous knowledge

in all areas in
addition to the traditional sectors of traditional medicine and food production;





12

UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/3, Analysis of capacity development for biodiversity and ecosystem services; and UNEP/IPBES/2/
INF/1, Gap analysis for
the purpose of facilitating the discussions on how to improve and strengthen the science
-
policy
interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Annex 2
-

12

e)

cr
eat
ing

or strengthen
ing

frameworks to guide
research programmes

in a coherent manner,
responsible for standardised research (serve as guarantors of research quality) and increase
credibility in science
-
policy interface;


f)

build
ing

institutional capacity in
assessing research gaps

for actual and future knowledge
and information needs for effective policy
-
making;


g)

support
ing

cooperation

between researchers and institutions inside a country, and across
countries including data and facilities sharing
; and


h)

bui
ld
ing
institutional capacity to raise
funds

(from government, business and elsewhere) for
research projects and programmes for individual and institutional capacity building, and
knowledge production.


b)

Capacity for effective communication of knowledge to
decision makers and the public at large


As we have seen in the previous paragraph, i
ssues related to advocacy, awareness raising and
environmental education are consistently identified in the NCSA as one of the top constraints
preventing
effective communication of scientific knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystems services
not

to

the public, but also
to

decision makers.
Lack of awareness and basic knowledge of
environmental issues translates in limited

public participation to the policy
-
m
aking process
, making

compliance with existing
and new
policies

even more problematic, as well as in limited success in
mainstreaming of environmental concerns into sectoral policies and national development planning.


At the same time, political will and

awareness are not sufficient if they are not accompanied by an
adequate policy and l
egal framework that
enable and encourage
people’s participation

and if
knowledge holders and scientist themselves are not equipped to communicate knowledge in such a
manne
r to be understandable and useful for policy
-

making
.
In this respect, some of the most
recurring activities identified in the 119 completed NCSAs reports include
:


a)

build
ing

capacity of policy
-
makers

to grasp the e
ssence of environmental issues and their
relevance

to sustainable development and human well
-
being
so
to
be able to
effectively use
scientific information in their deliberations;


b)

build
ing
capacity of knowledge producers

to communicate effectively their findings to policy
makers and the public

at large
;


c)

us
ing

training, education and awareness
-
raising

as channels to knowledge and information
sharing with the public to gain their interest and participation;


d)

strengthen
ing

awareness of the importance of
traditional knowledge
, as well as
capacity
to
document and disseminate indigenous knowledge and practices in natural resources
management beyond the traditional sectors of traditional medicine and food production;
and


e)

facilitat
ing

access (availability and accessibility) to knowledge and informatio
n

between all
interested stakeholders.


Annex 2
-

13


c)

Capacity for effective use of knowledge in formulating policy choices and their implementation


The capacity for effective use of scientific knowledge into policy
-
making depends primarily on an
enabling
legal and
institutional framework at national level
, which
is the pre
-
requisite for

both
appropriate

decision
-
making outcomes and adequate

implementation

of policies, programmes and
initiatives
.
It
revolves around

systems, process and tools that allow scientific inf
ormation to feed into
the formulation public policies.


Notwithstanding progresses that have been made over the past decades in this regards, a majority
of the NCSAs confirms that environmental management in many developing counties is still
hampered by th
e lack of comprehensive environmental policies and
/or

ineffective
legal
frameworks.
In some cases, adequate frameworks are in place, but weak institutional and individual capacities
limit their effective implementation; in other cases the limiting factors
may be related to

political
instability

or

insufficient political commitment, or the fact that some laws and policies are drafted
but never formally approved by the government in power. The lack of regulations, by
-
laws,
guidelines, standards
,

secondary leg
islation is also mentioned in a few NCSA reports as a constraint
to Rio Convention implementation.
Against the background of on
-
going processes of
decentralizations promoted in many countries over the past years, several countries have also
stressed the im
portance of building capacity at multiple level of governance including local and sub
-
national level.
Finally, a few countries recognized the difficulties in implementing their national
environmental policy and legislative frameworks in the context of
their decentralization
programmes, which includes a further stretching of limited human and financial resources


The need for inter
-
institutional coordination and participation mechanism
, alongside lack of
sustainable financing mechanism and inadequate mon
itoring and evaluation systems,

are also
generally pointed out as main bottlenecks

particularly insofar as environmental mainstreaming is
concerned
.


Some of the recurring capacity development
priorities in
this area which seem of particular
relevance for
the mandate of the proposed IPBES include
:


a)

build
ing

capacity at systemic level
by supporting the establishment of an overarching

framework

for
environmental management
, linking it to other sectoral and cross
-
sectoral
policy
-
making processes

(PRSPs, Povert
y Reduction Strategies, National or sectoral
development plans, etc.)
;


b)

enhanc
ing

effectiveness

of inter
-
institutional coordination and participation mechanism;


c)

build
ing

adequate
data and knowledge management capacity

to support evidence
-
based
planning me
chanisms at various levels. This will include establishment, consolidation and
utilisation of baseline data, as well as setting up of appropriate monitoring frameworks at
national level

based on practical indicators (to be developed nationally with adequat
e
support), including early warning systems for environmental emergencies to inform policy
response;


d)

support
ing

development of
capacity to
combine and use environmental, social and economic
information

on a suitable scale for sustainability, vulnerability or adaptation studies;


e)

put
ting

in place and publicise mechanisms for
community
/public

participation in decision
-
making

on environmental issues;

and


Annex 2
-

14

f)

build individual and institutional capacity in
nego
tiation skills and policy formulation

of
processes especially at levels higher than the national level.


Capacity Development Framework in GEF
-
5


Given the overall success of the NCSA approach,
GEF
-
5 (2010
-
2014) interventions in the field of
capacity buil
ding will build specifically on the NCSA results, including through targeted cross
-
cutting
capacity development projects (known as CB
-
2 projects) that will focus on strengthening overall
environmental governance systems at national level as well as mainstr
eaming global environmental
issues into national development programmes.
The CB
-
2 project will follow within one of the
following four cross
-
cutting capacity development frameworks
13
:

o

t
o generate, access, and use information and knowledge
;

o

t
o strengthen
capacities for developing policy and legislative frameworks
;

o

t
o strengthen capacities for implementing and managing global Convention guidelines
;
and

o

t
o enhance capacities for monitoring and evaluating environmental impacts and trends
.


As shown in Figure
9

extracted from the same report
,

out of the 119 having completed an NCSA,

23
countries are already in the process of
implementing

follow
-
on CB
-
2 projects
, with further GEF
support.
The CB
-
2 projects are organized under four programmatic frameworks: streng
thening the
policy, legislative, and regulative frameworks and their enforcement; mainstreaming global
environmental priorities into national policies and programmes; improving national convention
institutional structures and mechanisms; and strengthening
financial and economic instruments in
support of the global environment.


It is significant that out of the initial 23 CB
-
2 projects,
17 focus on strengthening their national policy
framework through capacity for environmental mainstreaming (
eight

countrie
s) or development of
institutional capacities (
nine

countries) with
three

projects focusing on policy and programme
formulation and
three

more on finance and economic instruments.


Confirming the general conclusions from the review of the NCSAs, m
ost of the projects demonstrate
from the very title the importance attributed
by the various countries
to improv
ing the interface
between knowledge and

decision
-
making

and aim to achieve their objectives

through
activities such
as
training and professional

development, strengthened institutional environment, improved
information and monitoring systems

based on common indicators and data standards, increased
multi
-
stakeholder and multi
-
level participation and closing the gap between science/research and
poli
cy
-
making by using innovative tools economic valuation, integrated assessment
14
.




13

GEF (2010),
Summary of Negotiations: Fifth Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund”, GEF/C.37/3.

14

Refer to full

project documents available on
www.thegef.org

for more information.


Annex 2
-

15






Figure 9: List of Follow
-
on NCSA project by country and typology