Capacity-Building and Development

Section V of the document proposes key strategies to improve the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of capacity development efforts in support of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.  Please share your views on the proposed strategies. For example:
(a) Please indicate which of the proposed strategies you think would most effective and should be prioritized.
(b) Are there any additional key strategies you consider missing and should added?
(c) What are your views on the potential actions that could be taken to help institutionalize capacity development?
(d) How could countries more effectively integrate capacity development into their national biodiversity plans, policies and programs?
(e)  What approaches and/or tools have been successful for you in terms of monitoring and evaluating capacity development results and could be could be considered in the context of this strategic framework?

The draft document has proposed a number of strategies to improve the delivery, effectiveness and sustainability of capacity development efforts in support of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One such strategies is "institutionalizing capacity development" whereby capacity development activities and projects are implemented as an integral part of the regular work of individuals and institutions and not as separate undertakings.  This could, for example, be achieved through tailored on-job training and re-tooling of staff instead of external off-the-job training; organizational development activities aligned with internal institutional reforms;  establishment of internal knowledge management systems to facilitate systematic  knowledge and skills transfer among staff and organizational learning;  internal peer-to-peer support mechanisms and mentoring programmes; and ensuring that projects are executed by staff of the concerned institution so that the knowledge, skills and expertise acquired are retained and leveraged within the organisation. Please let us know other ways through which your organization has institutionalized or could institutionalize capacity development efforts.

Institutionalising is a very very good idea. In addition I think there is need for inclusion of capacity development in among others, the Vision of the Country and or Countries development blue print. In Kenya for example, there are four priority sectors that have been identified by Government as necessary for achievement of the country's objectives. Other sectors are also implemented by the four take precedence and are mainstreamed in all government agencies. Everything that is done in every institution or government agency is therefore supposed to prioritize the four sectors in order for it to be included in plans, programmes and projects and to get funding. What follows is a rigorous process of reporting back, monitoring, evaluation for progress at the highest levels (political commitment) which helps in achievement of the goals set.

Dear Erie Dear Colleagues. Erie is raising very crucial issues about capacity building and skills transfer. There is a huge gap displayed by lack of succession planning and strategizing for organisational/institutional skills transfer. In the lack of any better way to explain I'll make the following example:
Generally there is a skills drain within the CBD community itself where when a focal point either leaves his/her role in a country by going for pension/changing jobs or passes away is replaced by somebody with less understanding of CBD processes or any other less strengths. We as Parties maybe require some institutional capacity building to understand the importance of succession planning and skills transfer for continuous strengthening of the CBD processes at a National and international levels including implementation of the Convention. This will enable Parties to be continuously strong in participating in the activities of the Convention from generation to generation. This will of course be a layer of skills retention after capacity has been built. This will also avoid situations where strong and experienced negotiators go away with their skills and leave a gap. This should be targeting institutional level because of the issues of sovereignty of countries to decide what they want.  Regards. Malta

This is Hartmut Meyer, working for the ABS Capaicty Development Initiative at GIZ/Germany. Our team welcomes the opportunity to take part in this online discussion and thanks the SCBD for preparing the draft document. I agree with the general structure and guidance the draft documents is providing. In the following I comment on specific paragraphs.

Para 36 says "Such programmes, unlike the ad-hoc short-term projects, would foster a longer-term vision and approach, and deliver comprehensive and sustainable capacity development outcomes." In my opinion, the main reason for short-term programs is donor policies and practices. A strategic framework for capacity develop must address current policies and practices of donors to be comprehensive.

Dear Secretariat of the CBD, dear participants, I'm Anne Theo Seinen, working at the European Commission's biodiversity unit. I participate in my personal capacity, benefiting from earlier discussions with colleagues within and outside the EU, but my comments do not represent a coordinated position from the EU and its Member States. I would like to make the following remarks as regards section V of the draft.

Paragraph 31 refers to 'institutionalisation'. It would be useful to clarify what is meant here. Would it entail establishing a new national institution, or concentrating capacity building in one or more existing national institutions? This may raise various questions. Perhaps in some organisations/institutions, it may be sufficient to 'formalise' and/or 'explicitly acknowledge and address' capacity building.

The proposals in paragraph 32 and 33 on integrating and aligning capacity building throughout relevant policies and strategies is very important. II would like to have more detail on the idea of a 'roadmap for alignment' presented in paragraph 33 in order to assess the usefulness of such an approach.

Section I, paragraph 40, refers to review and monitoring of 'interventions'. To me, it seems that the scope should be broader, and we need to review and monitor the overall effectiveness of filling capacity gaps and ensuring stability and lasting capacity.

The issues addressed in the other sections are, indeed, very relevant and important.
Anne Theo

Dear colleagues, this is Roger Rivero from subnational government in México. I'm representative of Campeche State Government in the Ministry of Environment, Biodiversity and Climate Change (SEMABICC). We celebrate and thanks for to be part of this preparation process of CBD. Also, we are members of Regions 4 Advisory Committee of Subnational Governments (AC SNG), and we are participating in the Edinburgh Process. I share my ideas and comments about this thread. Thanks.
(a) Please indicate which of the proposed strategies you think would most effective and should be prioritized. In order to prioritise the key strategies, you can consider to arrange them according to relative weight or importance. We suggest the most importante strategies are the C, E, F and H, but you can relate these with other, for example the strategy C is closely related to A, you can promote and monitor both getting better results.
(b) Are there any additional key strategies you consider missing and should added? No additional key strategies, but you can consider to add the wording “subnational” into bullet (D) number 35, in the phrase “develop dedicated global, regional and sub-regional and national programmes”.
(c) What are your views on the potential actions that could be taken to help institutionalize capacity development? As I mention before, you can apply or promote together strategies A and C. You need to institutionalize throughout official plans and programs, to do cross-sectoral strategies not only for biodiversity or climate change, but for all economic and social sectors.
(d) How could countries more effectively integrate capacity development into their national biodiversity plans, policies and programs? Institutionalizing, developing cross-sectoral plans, funding and fundraising resources for implementation of actions, promoting cooperation and coordination with relevant actors including subnational and local authorities, community leaders and experts.
(e)  What approaches and/or tools have been successful for you in terms of monitoring and evaluating capacity development results and could be considered in the context of this strategic framework? You need to take a look into Nature-Based solutions, Cities with Nature and other innovative mechanisms involving environmental and non-environmental elements and prioritising economic and social issues.

Dear colleagues,
This is Hiroaki Tomoi from the Govenment of Japan.

Here we would make just a brief comment. As mentioned above, we should fully make use of existing capacity-development materials and initiatives. In this context, a tool to understand landscape of the existing capacity development projects such as on-line portal would be helpful for the future design of the capacity development programme.

Best regards, Hiroaki

Dear colleagues, I am Elena Makeyeva, ABS NFP and a Head of the ABS National Coordination Centre in Belarus. My comments on some of specific paragraphs are as follows.
(31) Belarus’s experience in implementing international and national projects and programs has shown that institutionalizing capacity development activities, project and programmes is a very good way to achieve wanted outputs and integrate them in broader corporate strategies and plans, and ongoing human resources and organizational development.
(36) Partnerships certainly provide effective mechanisms for mobilizing capacities and sharing knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial resources to support country-driven priorities. Belarusian team strongly support the idea of the establishment and strengthening of partnerships as crucial element for the effective implementation of the long-term strategic framework at global, national, sub-national and local levels by taking into account the specific characteristics of each level and human, institutional and financial resources (financial support).

Dear Colleagues,

From the perspective of the BioTrade Initiative of UNCTAD, as mentioned by others, institutionalization of capacity development and integrating it in NBSAPs and other national strategies is certainly important. Also, at global level, capacity-development for biodiversity should increasingly be part of further development of sustainability, economic, trade and environmental policies. In the case of the CBD, capacity development may be part of the thematic and cross-cutting programmes of work and other action plans guiding the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. We consider that the focus of the framework may be on enabling, guiding and inspiring and that the work implemented may be undertaken in a cooperative and inclusive manner. When it comes to engaging the private sector, a more thorough elaboration will be required to effectively engage and build bridges with the private sector on capacity development.

Kind regards, Lorena

Dear Sirs,
Let me introduce myself, my name is Silvia Scozzafava from Italy. After nearly 15 years as a public officer in protected areas, last year I switched to part time and started a business project about finance for biodiversity, thanks also to an enlightening on line course on the BIOFIN methodology and a MOOC on Landscape Finance.
I named my startup enterprise "Aichi Obiettivo 20", after the twentieth Aichi target, so we have a keen interest in any CBD initiative and development.
I wanted to comment on letter H of "Key strategies to improve capacity development implementation" paragraph.
I am very pleased to see the private sector being considered in the strategic framework. Indeed the private sector may be a source of expertise, that may reinforce the capacity development process in public institutions.
At the same time, it may be the target of specific capacity development activities, especially in the finance sector where there is a great potential for mutually reinforcing actions: a greater capacity to understand the financial implications of biodiversity loss (both in terms of natural capital and of risks) may increase willingness to invest in nature based solutions and risk reduction initiatives, and therefore engaging in PPPs that may in turn empower and strengthen institutional capacity and delivery of results.

Respected Executive Secretary and CBD Secretariat team,
I am Amit Dutta expressing our views on post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on behalf Young Naturalist Network. Section V is a good drafted text for consideration.

My name is Eric Crandall, Research Professor at Pennsylvania State University. I wanted to thank the SCBD for preparing this draft and affirm the critical importance of capacity building for biodiversity monitoring and CBD implementation.

In response to Section 5 subsection E "Promote partnerships and networks for implementation" I wanted to submit the Diversity of the Indo-Pacific Network (DIPnet; http://diversityindopacific.net) as an example of an active collaborative network among biodiversity researchers in both developed and developing countries. Thus far we have held 1-2 weeks workshops in Fiji, Indonesia, the Philippines and South Africa to build capacity in measuring and databasing biodiversity at the genetic and species levels. We are currently looking for funding to do more.

Dear Colleagues, I am Laura Rodríguez from National Commission for the Knowledge and use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) of Mexico. I participate in my personal capacity, my comments do not reflect Mexico´s position.

All key strategies are important to consider to parties and stakeholders.

Paragraph 31 talking about “Institutionalize capacity development”, I think that this aspect should prioritize capacity building for all institutions focused on biodiversity and those that have an impact on it.

Paragraph 36. Among the partners that could work on this point is the Consortium of Scientific Partners.

Paragraph 38. It is necessary to include all modalities of international cooperation, including bilateral cooperation, not only South-South and triangular cooperation.

Paragraph 39.It is also important to engage and include the financial sector.

Best Regards