Capacity-Building and Development

Section VI of the draft document outlines various mechanisms for facilitating the implementation of the long-term strategic framework. Please provide your views on the proposed mechanisms and indicate whether there are additional ones that may be missing.
(a) What are your proposals that could help improve capacity development coordination and collaboration in support of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework? 
(b) Is a global governance mechanism necessary to help guide efforts put into practice the approaches and strategies being proposed? Is so, what would be an ideal structure and modus operandi of such a governance mechanism?
(c) What suggestions would you make to effectively publicize and roll out the long-term strategic framework and to review its effectiveness?

Dear Colleagues
It is Malta Qwathekana from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment in South Africa. In the development of the Post 2020 GBF, Biodiversity MEAs and other international organisations are invited to contribute their priorities in the process. This is done to develop a common agenda for biodiversity for all. I think on the same principle the long- term strategic framework for capacity building should also strive to be a common strategy for all. Therefore synergies with other MEAs should be considered in the following section:   Mutual supportiveness through other key implementation strategies and mechanisms. Best Regards. Malta

Dear Colleagues,
I am Habtamu Adam from Environment, Forest and climate change commission of Ethiopia. Regarding on the Preparation of the Long-Term Strategic Framework for Capacity Development;  there should be strong and clear Monitoring and Evaluation system that able to ensure whether  the intended objective is achieved or not.
For effective and sustainable implementation of the strategy, it is great to establish a capacity building  initiative under the secretary that will carry and run the over all process of the strategy.
Together with other Conventions secretary like UNFCCC,UNCCD and others, establishing  umbrella that able to embrace  and integrate  common issues of each convention makes the strategy more holistic and cooperate.
Regards

Dear Colleagues, I am Wanlop Preechamart from The Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Thailand. Regarding the mechanism for implementation; to raise awareness and importance of the mechanisms for rolling out the framework, it is necessary to invite all key stakeholders and partners to share how they can contribute to the implementation of the framework. I also agree with Malta, the framework for capacity building should be a common strategy for all stakeholders. However, the priority focal area or common issues of capacity development for the implementation need to identify.
Regional and global networks should be strengthened. It's play a role to provide capacity development support to stakeholders within their region or network. There should expand its works or share the experience with other partners, such as BIOFIN. This may require a financial mechanism to support the implementation.
The draft framework has identified the potential roles of key stakeholder groups. It is necessary to setup clearly indicators and timeframe to monitor, review, and evaluate the effectiveness of their implementation. The report may include as a voluntary part in the national report.
Best regards, Wanlop.

Chers collègues, je suis Ahmat Abaya Abdramane, le Point Focal National de la Convention sur la Diversité Biologique du Tchad. Concernant la mise en œuvre; il est primordiale d’impliquer toutes les parties afin qu’ils peuvent contribuer à la mise en œuvre du cadre. En ce qui concerne le renforcement des capacités, il faut adopter une stratégie commune pour toutes les parties prenantes tout en identifiant par priorité les domaines d'intervention de mise en œuvre.

Cordialement

je me nomme Ali Abdoulaye POUDIOUGO de la Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forêts du Mali, Point Focal National Diversité Biologique.
Pour une mise en œuvre efficace et durable de la stratégie, je me rejoins à mes prédécesseurs pour leur contribution.  je voudrais surtout demander aux pays un appui conséquent en terme de contribution financière à long terme. Il faudrait une collaboration étroite entre les membres des trois conventions de Rio pour capitaliser les acquis surtout qu’elles sont transversales (.CCNUCC, CCNU LCD et CDB). Cela permettra d'intégrer les problèmes communs de chaque convention, les défis et les mesures correctives à prendre.
Cordialement

Dear colleagues, I am Trevor Sandwith of IUCN, and have some comments to submit on behalf of the PANORAMA: Solutions for a Healthy Planet partnership in relation to VI Mechanisms for Implementation¨, and especially Section E on Mechanisms for Rolling out the Framework, where it is indicated that Key partners and stakeholders will be invited to indicate how they can support the implementation of the strategic framework.

PANORAMA: Solutions for a Healthy Planet is  partnership of six organisations including IUCN, GIZ, UNDP, UNEP, Rare Conservation and IFOAM Organics that supports a growing, integrated set of communities of engaged and connected practitioners, across sectors and geographies.
These develop and share reviewed case studies of inspiring and innovative solutions to environmental and development challenges.
This supports the implementation of projects through reflection, solution dissemination, and uptake, and informs policy making with new knowledge, guidance and capacity on how to achieve environment and development targets and goals.

See http://www.panorama.solutions

This paragraph could draw attention to examples of successful implementation partnerships that could be leveraged successfully to help deliver this draft framework on capacity development, e.g. BIOFIN and PANORAMA.

The PANORAMA partnership could be further developed to make a significant contribution to this process. PANORAMA already contributes significantly to capturing and developing learning across themes including protected and conserved areas, ecosystem-based adaptation, business and biodiversity, agriculture and others, and a systematic development of PANORAMA with key partners could support a much wider scope of relevance as suggested here.

A draft decision on the adoption of the Strategic Framework for Capacity Development could specifically invite PANORAMA, BIOFIN and other named initiatives to contribute and this would strengthen their ability to build and resource the partnership.

Suggested wording could be:

“Invites the PANORAMA - Solutions for a Healthy Planet Partnership (including IUCN, GIZ, UNDP, UNEP, Rare Conservation and Ifoam Organics) to collate examples of good practice solutions for implementation of targets and goals, and to make these available in communities of practice through online platforms, thematic webinars to discuss case studies, and through workshops and peer-learning events to discuss, understand, disseminate, assimilate and apply solutions.”

There are many other aspects of relevance to the implementation of the Strategic Framework and other comments will be made against other threads

Dear all, my name is Han (Abraham) de Koeijer from the Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences. I participate in this discussion forum as expert and not as representative of Belgium. I have several thoughts  on the means of implementation and how to improve capacity development coordination and collaboration in support of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, but will restrict my comments to the following points.
A. Governance and coordination mechanism.
During COP14 there was the proposition to install an IAC on Technical and scientific cooperation and capacity building at COP15. This IAC can as describe in its ToR put in place sub commissions/groups, if the need arise, which is similar as the proposed forums. I would therefor prefer to use existing or proposed mechanisms like this IAC instead of developing a new Committee and forums.
E. Mechanisms for rolling out the framework
Paragraph 48 is proposing a dedicated website. I would like to remind you that Article 18.3 has already established the Clearing House Mechanism for technical and scientific cooperation and capacity building. The web strategy of the CBD referred to in decisions from COP 13 and 14, mentions that the proliferation of new websites should be avoided and use existing mechanisms. I would therefor prefer to use and reinforce existing mechanisms like the CHM instead of developing a new dedicated website.

In discussing mechanisms for implementation it is important to consider how to mobilize adequate resources for capacity development to support the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF). Currently the CBD’s main financial mechanism is the GEF but we also need to look at diversifying the sources of funding. On the one hand, GEF as the main financial mechanism needs to consider how the elements proposed in the draft long-term strategic framework could be incorporated into its programming and modus operandi to make sure resources will be allocated for capacity development. On the other hand, how can Parties ensure that GEF funded programs and projects lead to long-term capacity development in support of biodiversity?

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 VI of the draft.

I find the suggestion in paragraph 42 to establish a High-level Committee on Capacity Building interesting, but would like to understand better the expected value added in addition to existing tools. I also wonder what would be useful at high-level and what would be useful rather at more technical level. There is a reference to the PCCB under the Paris Agreement and i wonder whether there is any evaluation of its contribution and any lessons learned.

The same applies to the suggestion in paragraph 43 to establish a capacity building forum. Here, it is also important to avoid duplication with the future mechanisms/tools for monitoring and review (and ratchening up) of the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Paragraph 44 refers to the link between resource mobilisation and capacity building. I fully agree that these links are very important and need to be ensured at all levels.

I also agree on the need for monitoring as indicated in paragraph 47. It will be crucial to use/develop adequate indicators. Paragraph 52 suggest a role for the high-level committee, but the existing informal advisory group might be better placed given the technical nature of the work. Obviously, experts on indicators, e.g. in the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership, should be involved.

The suggestion in paragraph 48 to set up a campaign raises various questions, e.g. when and who. There will be many elements in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework that may merit a campaign, and it is important that any campaign is solidly embedded in the overall communication strategy.

I'd be interested to learn the views of others on these issues.
Anne Theo

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 42 says "Possible mechanisms for strengthening capacity development governance could include establishment of a high-level Committee on Capacity Development at the global level and similar bodies at the regional and national levels.“ That seems to be a reasonable demand. The framework should suggest some fields in which this committee could be active. One task of the committee could be supporting governments in developing approaches for better national coordination of capacity development programs. The committee could identify existing approaches for such coordination and initiative adaptations or developing new approaches together with the governments. The reference to UNDP BIOFIN in Para 45 is very useful in this regard.

Para 48 says "A campaign will be undertaken to raise awareness of, and support for, the long-term strategic framework. The campaign will target national governments, subnational governments and local authorities, international organizations, development agencies and other key relevant stakeholders, including academic institutions, civil society organizations and the private sector." While the targets of campaign are already described it remains open who will finance and run the campaign. Again, I see a clear link to Para 42. This campaign could be an element of work for an international Committee on Capacity Development.

Dear colleagues, Ms. Paguaga, 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) What are your proposals that could help improve capacity development coordination and collaboration in support of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework? In the bullet E number 49, we suggest to add roles for subnational and local authorities: promote cooperation with stakeholders, NGOs, rural communities, social leaders to implement and develop capacities; support the national efforts according to NBSAP and SNBSAP for capacity development; integrate official and thematic groups and committees for involving of relevant local actors;  identify the scientific knowledgefor turning into public policies and programs for cities and communities; secure the implementation of national programs and commitments.
(b) Is a global governance mechanism necessary to help guide efforts put into practice the approaches and strategies being proposed? Is so, what would be an ideal structure and modus operandi of such a governance mechanism? This mechanism need to be linked to economic, social and environmental national targets in the Parties, you need to monitor and assess the process of planning, implementation and reengineering. The scientific, technical and social advisory committees play a key role in the governance including all relevant actors. Also, you need to consider the social or community observatory for monitor, assess and support to decisionmakers. You must think into non-complex governance mechanism to secure the effectiveness and sustainability.
(c) What suggestions would you make to effectively publicize and roll out the long-term strategic framework and to review its effectiveness? Promote inclusive non-complex governance mechanism; design strategies for monitoring the framework implementation that includes indicators, targets and clear roles for all relevant members of CBD; develop efficient and accurate dissemination mechanisms and tools for sharing knowledge and benefits for all society: specially for rural communities, civil society and vulnerable groups.

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

We would like the secretariat to clarify the expected work of High Level Committee, especially the coordination function.

The mechanisms for implementation are a key element that will determine the success the Strategic Framework. While the inclusion of the high-level Committee on Capacity Development is supported, it is important that this committee be given permanent status and eventually be transformed into a working group that will report to support the work of the Subsidiary Body on implementation.

It is very good to move from the concept of capacity building to that of capacity development. However, it is also better necessary to integrate the capacity utilization plan because there have been throughout the word, and in Africa particularly many capacity building initiatives and sessions on the theme, methods and application biodiversity sustainable management.
The problem is to know why all these achievements are not put tu use. One the reasons is financial, but there are many others reasons that must be identified and analyzed to remedy them.
Dr Taibou BA

I align myself with my colleagues to say that many initiatives on capacity building have been done, but overall we do not know what worked and what did not work, so it is necessary to do a situation on capacity building

je m'aligne avec mes collègues pour dire que beaucoups des initiatives sur le renforcement de capacité ont été faites, mais dans l'ensemle on ne sait pas ce qui a marché et ce qui n'a pas marché, donc il est nécessaire de faire une situation sur les renforcements de capacité effectués et prévoir les besoins

Dear Hiroaki, thank you for seeking more information on the proposed high-level committee. The draft elements of the strategic framework recognize that to succeed in developing the capacities needed to meet the ambitious targets of the post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework there is a need for stronger leadership, strategic guidance and coordination of capacity development efforts in support of this agenda at the global, regional and national levels. The proposed high-level committee is an example of a possible mechanism that could play such a role. The details and specific terms of reference of such a mechanism would have to be developed by Parties and relevant stakeholders but the key idea is that such a committee (or other appropriate mechanisms) would provide the high level guidance and political support to foster a more coherent and coordinated approach to capacity development that is currently lacking. This committee or other mechanisms could also provide guidance to help foster synergy and complementary with capacity development under various processes,  for example among the biodiversity-related conventions and with the financial mechanism on matters related to capacity development. As was suggested by Hartmut Meyer in this discussion forum (under thread #1642) this committee could also play a role in providing guidance and inspiration that could support governments in developing their approaches for better coordination of capacity development programs at the national level. These are some preliminary ideas but it would be great to hear your thoughts and suggestions. For example, in your view, is there a need for greater strategic guidance and coordination of capacity development efforts and, if so what mechanisms would you propose?

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.
(42,43) Establishment of a high-level Committee on Capacity Development at the global level undoubtedly will enforce strengthening capacity development as at the global level and so at the regional and national levels. And a biodiversity capacity development forum bringing together government and non-government actors to network and share experiences, lessons and good practices will contribute in biodiversity capacity development. This contribution will be more effective if this forum will be coordinated with similar capacity development forums on ABS and biosafety issues.
(52) It is important to develop a set of core indicators that can be used by government and non-government actors to monitor progress in the development capacities to implement the post-2020 Nagoya Protocol Framework, the post-2020 Cartagena Protocol Framework and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Frame in a compatible format so that cross-analysis can be carried out.

Dear Colleagues,

From the perspective of the BioTrade Initiative of UNCTAD, UN Agencies, international organizations and many others are important co-implementers of the strategic framework. They may work as multipliers for the strategic framework and may mobilize their own constituencies and partners. We consider that the focus of the implementation mechanisms may be on enabling and supporting partners to engage. For example, BioTrade is a multi-stakeholder initiative which succeeds in convening partners from governments, other international organizations and private stakeholders in order to achieve tangible capacity development and results on the ground.

Regarding implementation mechanisms, we consider that enhanced ways to communicate results and good practices while at the same time learning from others at global, regional and country levels will provide additional value. Monitoring the implementation of the long-term strategic framework for capacity development is important and we suggest that partners working on capacity development for biodiversity be invited to regularly communicate their activities, enhancing their visibility and the replicability of the activities, and in a way that is not resource intensive.

Kind regards, Lorena

Message posted on behalf of Mr. Kamal Kumar Rai, IPLC representative from Nepal (received via email 5 June 2020)

IPLCs is submitting some possible elements and views to add on the proposed mechanisms and indicate whether there are additional

a) What are your proposals that could help improve capacity development coordination and collaboration in support of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework?

IPLCs like to bring a proposal for long term strategic modality Framework of capacity building development in local, regional and global networks of indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth and elders to engage on the process of inclusive, participatory, collaboration and precautionary mechanism with indigenous sciences, traditional knowledge, technology, skills, innovations and values of indigenous peoples on post 2020 global biodiversity framework. The Capacity building strategy must emphasis on the relationship of indigenous peoples, local communities with Mother Nature including values such as wild and native species deeply rooted on non-monitory values including, cultural, rituals, knowledge, practices of affinity with, asthetics, intrinsic, spiritual, cosmologyical vision, believes, ceremonial, medicals, fibers and livelihood of biodiversity contribute for the three objective of Convention.  IPLCs also like to purpose for a face to face possible to have AHTEG on Capacity Building Development Strategy.

b) Is a global governance mechanism necessary to help guide efforts put into practice the approaches and strategies being proposed? Is so, what would be an ideal structure and modus operandi of such a governance mechanism?

The strategy should be strong and clear monitoring and evaluation system that able to ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples, local communities, it could be great if it is possible to establish a capacity building initiative development under the secretary of convention on biological diversity that will carry and run the overall process of the strategy and also it will be effective and sustainable implementation of the strategy. 

c) What suggestions would you make to effectively publicize and roll out the long-term strategic framework and to review its effectiveness?

There must be coordinating mechanism whereas IPLCs has regional, national and local in seven globally network. The networks could be effective to mobilize to implement, monitoring in inclusive.

The resources mobilization, access, funds and resources in support of the long-term strategic framework for capacity development should be inclusive, transparent and available to IPLCs.

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 VI is good drafted text for consideration.

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.

I consider that we have to review implications of develop new mechanisms in order to avoid duplication and do not generate too many of them that allows proper monitoring.

I also consider that it is necessary to know with more details about High Level Committe on Capacity Development and the biodiversity capacity development forum in order to determine the best option. It may help to  know some experiences of the climate change committe mentioned in the document. If necessary, the option of creating a more technical committe to advise on the capacities required for each target could be explored.

I would like to emphasized the need that this strategy framework be synergized with the strategies and mechanisms for the other means of implementation such as resource mobilization.  It is possible that a single mechanism could support some means of implementation.

It might be useful to strengthen regional support networks, not only for capacity building, but also for other means of implementation.

Finally, regarding the creation of website, I consider that the Post 2020 GBF should have an specific website on the CHM with its progress, including goals, targets, and means of implementation.

Best regards

Dear Secretariat of the CBD, dear participants,

This is Mery Ciacci from the European Commission, working on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS). I participate in my personal capacity and as a member of the IAC on CB for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol (hence, my comments do not represent a coordinated position from the EU and its Member States).

In general, when it come to the mechanisms for implementation, I would like to stress on the importance to establish good connections with other relevant elements of support to the GBF, and in particular the Resource Mobilization Strategy, and the scientific and technical cooperation (as mentioned under para B).

On mechanisms or coordination, like flagged by other participants, it is very important to build on and use existing instruments, bodies and funds and establish good connections among these. As much as the idea of establishing a high-level Committee on Capacity Development might sound interesting, I think that optimizing and use the work of existing instances and mechanisms should be the preferred option. It is also not entirely clear how such a Committee would function and further clarification on this, as well as his possible composition and tasks would be useful.

Thanks for attention,
Best regards,
Mery

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 VI subsection C "Regional and Global Support Networks" I wanted to submit the Diversity of the Indo-Pacific Network (DIPnet; http://diversityindopacific.net) as an example of an active collaborative support 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.

I would like to add that Belarus is  considering an active collaborative support network among biodiversity researchers in both developed and developing countries as very important contribution to the conservation of biodiversity, including genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated to them. This activities must be included in the BGF and funded.

I join Mery that It is not entirely clear how such a Committee would function and further clarification on this, as well as his possible composition and tasks would be useful.  Best, Elena.