Mechanisms for Implementation

Capacity Building

Return to the list of discussions...
Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Opening of Discussion [#1196]
Dear Forum Participants:

Welcome to the online discussion on the Action Plan to Enhance and Support Capacity-Building for the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. The discussion forum will remain open until 17th February 2016. The purpose of the discussion is to examine the proposed short-term action plan  prepared by the Secretariat prior to its submission to the first meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocols.

The draft action plan )available at is based on the analysis of gaps in capacity-building activities supporting the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity presented in section II of document SBI/1/6 ( The draft also takes into account the results of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Secretariat's capacity-building activities as well as the review of existing partnership arrangements and opportunities for delivery of capacity-building support which have also been undertaken by the Secretariat and presented in the same document. The action plan is intended to provide a focused, coherent and integrated framework to guide the implementation of capacity-building activities to be be carried out by the Secretariat in collaboration with partner organizations until the year 2020.

The draft action plan includes two sets of priority capacity-building activities, namely: (a) activities that the Conference of the Parties has already mandated the Secretariat to carry out in collaboration with relevant partner organizations and for which funding support has been secured or identified; and (b) additional  activities required to accelerate progress towards the achievement of Aichi Biodiversity Targets for which there has been limited or no progress made.

You are invited to share your views at the action plan, including whether it is really necessary and if so what its scope and content should be and how it should be implemented to to achieve the desired outcomes. You may also wish to identify “what capacities should be built, for whom, on what topics, and to what end”. Furthermore you are invited to express your opinion on the broader related issues,  including whether the current approaches to capacity building by the Secretariat and international organizations actually effective; whether the right delivery means are being used; what needs to be done to actually build a critical mass of people with the right capacity to  implement the Strategic Plan; and what should be the priority focus of the capacity-building activities over the next four years?

Finally, you are invited to propose possible recommendations for consideration by the SBI on ways and means to enhance capacity-building support for the implementation of the Convention and its Protocols and in particular the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including:
·         Ways to effectively address the gaps in capacity-building activities supporting the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020;
·         Potential ways to further enhance the approaches and methods for the design and delivery of capacity-building activities at the national, regional anf international levels;
·         Ways to strengthen the outcomes and effectiveness of capacity-building activities in developing countries and countries with economies in transition;
·         Ways to improve the coordination, synergy and coherence of capacity-building of capacity-building support activities of the Secretariat and relevant organizations, including the coordination of donor funding support;
·         Identification of key partner organizations providing capacity-building support for the implementation of the Convention and its Protocols and possible ways to strengthen their engagement and support; and
·         Possible ways to enhance the availability of financial and other resources for the implementation of capacity-building activities.

We wish you fruitful discussions.

Kind regards,
The Secretariat
posted on 2016-02-08 01:10 UTC by Dina Abdelhakim, SCBD
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1197]
Hello, could you clarify items (g) and (i) from section III. Guiding principles and approaches. What do you mean by "Apply an integrated approach" (g) and (i) Promote callaboration at all level (which levels?, where? at what point?, during capacity building activities, after?
I think this two points are very vague and need clarification. Thank you very much.
posted on 2016-02-08 20:39 UTC by Dr. Andrea Cruz Angón, Mexico
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1198]
Dear Dr. Cruz, by integrated approach (sub-item (g) we mean: ensuring that different capacity-building activities are implemented in an integrated and synergetic manner as much as possible as so that they complement each other and minimizing dispersed standalone activities. Regarding item (j) - promoting collaboration at all levels, the idea is to encourage different actors to collaborate in delivering capacity-building support at the local, regional and internationals levels and at different stages of the capacity-building cycle - planning/design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. In other words, collaboration should be part of the modus operandi for capacity-building. I hope this provides the clarification you wanted. Please feel free to propose alternative language.
posted on 2016-02-10 18:30 UTC by Mr. Erie Tamale, UNEP/SCBD
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1199]
How far along are parties in achieving the Aichi targets? Is there a report card available? Which ones have been achieved?
posted on 2016-02-11 03:00 UTC by Dr. Myrle Ballard, IIFB
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1200]

(j) Ensure sustainability of the actions initiated
how this sustainability could be ensured? what are the means and tools that might be applied?
Dr. Maha Ali Abdel Latif
National Centre for Research,Sudan
posted on 2016-02-11 08:49 UTC by maha abdelatif, National Centre for Research
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1201]
Ensuring sustainability of the Capacity Building Action Plan means that the beneficiaries of the capacity building programs or interventions will be able to and capable of sustaining,upholding, supporting and owning the program outcomes or results overtime;

This can be achieved through;

(i) Comprehensive capacity needs assessment.

(ii) Use of needs-based (relevant) methods and tools in delivering the capacity building programs.

(iii) Use of local or existing relevant structures, systems and processes to enhance ownership;

(iv) Use of a sandwich of international and local experts;

(v) Partnership with other relevant stakeholders;

(vi) Development and implementation of pre and post program delivery assessment and review tools; and

(vi) Recognition and use of the Indigenous Knowledge System and practices -IKSP) where applicable.
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1202]

(20) (j) could be paraphrased to add relevance, sustainability and programs,  and thus reads as ' Enhance the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of capacity building programs through broadening and strengthening partnerships and networks'.

More strategies or  measures could be included such as;

(i) Where necessary , use relevant existing structures, systems and processes to enhance participation and ownership of the capacity building programs.

(ii) Where applicable, use Indigenous Knowledge System and Practices (IKSP) to ensure ownership and sustainability.

(iii) Support specific action-oriented research programs for innovations and knowledge sharing.



(27) The Secretariat will develop and implement Monitoring and Evaluation, Review and Reporting Frameworks based on agreed indicators that will be used to monitor, evaluate, review and report on the relevance, efficiency, impacts and sustainability of the Action Plan.
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1203]
Dear Dr. Ballard

The Secretariat has prepared a document analyzing the contribution of targets established by Parties and progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This document is available for peer review at:

We hope that you will find this information useful
posted on 2016-02-11 14:58 UTC by Ms. Gisela Talamas, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1204]
With the focus now on how we will reach our targets, I would like to share the innovative partnerships being developed in Antigua and Barbuda. There is  a process of speedy and efficient  dissemination  of information from the Focal Points to the NGO and local community groups who have their representative on national committees able to share be involved and participate in all matters at national level. in this way, the traditional knowledge of our local communities, our local practices and on going initiatives can be integrated into policies and projects. this is working very well and we have seen a high level of capacity building and empowerment in our local groups to include churches.. in this way strong partnerships are developed and we can reach the goals with a strong governance system in place.

Ms Ruth V Spencer
National Coordinator-GEF/SGP
Hodges bay, Box 846, St John's
Global Website:
posted on 2016-02-11 15:12 UTC by Dina Abdelhakim, SCBD
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1205]
As already stated, Uganda's progress towards the Aichi targets is in the 5th National Report submitted to the Secretariat.
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1206]
We would also like to share our experience of local communities in the Cerrado, central Brazil: Our organization integrates healers and midwives,
that, traditionally uses genetic heritage sustainable as a protection strategy of resources and traditional knowledge. Thus, in the context of the National Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, the "Healers of the Cerrado" participated in dialogues with the government, under the Ministry of Environment, constructed and made their own goals for Biodiversity 2011 - 2020. This opportunity inclusion can serve as one of the strategies to be incorporated by public managers to achieve the Aichi Targets. Currently, the "Cerrado healers" are mobilized to enforce the Nacioanais Goals for Biodiversity, especially citing Goals 14 and 18. And we alert to public policy makers who, for the Cerrado biome, one of the hot spots on the planet, can not stand waiting until 2020.

Lourdes Laureano
Pacari Network - medicinal plants
55(31)98417 4460
posted on 2016-02-12 12:08 UTC by Mrs Lourdes Laureano, Pacari Network medicinal plants
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1207]
To Section 111 Guiding Principles and Approaches suggest adding (h)Use a building bricks approach to ensure capacity building activities are comprehensive and do not duplicate   and
(I) activities should be designed to be transferable

I would like to share the experiences of developing a learning module on ABS for Botanic Gardens (with BGCI see Users have been positive about the tool which gives a basic introduction, and have welcomed the quiz at the end of each module to test understanding.  Requests for the modules to be translated so that they can be used at a more local level as led to online translations now being available in French, Spanish and Chinese. Users would like face to face training and case studies and examples to complement the tool. This is an example of a needs driven, transferable and building block approach to build the capacity of those working in botanic gardens to work legally in the developing ABS regime.
posted on 2016-02-12 15:12 UTC by Ms. China Williams, The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1208]
Based on the “situational analysis and basis for action,” I agree that the following subjects should be focused as priority areas to be strengthened:

(Highest Priority)
1. Public awareness and environmental education (CEPA);
2. Information collection, management, and exchange (database and monitoring);
3. Development and enforcement of policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks (policy process);
4. Strengthening of institutional/organizational mandates, structures, and frameworks (institutional development);

5. Capacity to incorporate the convention obligations into national legislation, policy, and institutions (policy process);
6. Sustainable financing mechanisms, cross-sectoral coordination (financial mechanism); and
7. Capacity for planning, monitoring and evaluation (institutional development)

In the “guiding principles and approaches,” I wish to highlight the importance of the following items:

1. Build on existing efforts and maximize synergy and complementarity;
2. Apply an integrated approach;
3. Promote collaboration at all levels; and
4. Ensure sustainability of the actions initiated.

Based on all of the above as a conceptual background, I wish to recommend that we/SCBD elaborate some of the “means of implementation” such as:

1. Bilateral and multilateral development assistance
I wish to see more linkages and closer collaboration in actions between bilateral and multilateral assistance on the ground. Many workshops and symposiums of multilateral agencies listed in Annex 1 have been organised but they could be more closely connected to technical assistance type of projects/pilot activities of bilateral agencies in order to promote synergies as part of capacity building exercise.

2. Technical cooperation with regional and international partners
Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation requires regional approach due consideration of biogeographical and cultural dimensions. It would be more effective if institutional linkages between the SCBD and regional multilateral agencies such as COMIFAC, ACTO, ROPME, SPREP and SICA are strengthened. Bilateral agencies can also support generating some joint projects or pilot activities under such a joint institutional framework.

3. Organization of joint trainings and meetings
Again, trainings, meetings and workshops are necessary but those should not be fragmented or independent events. It would be better to link them to projects on the ground with a few years of budget so that the sustainability of the impacts could be secured and/or maximized.

4. Development of joint targeted pilot projects to facilitate experiential learning
I wish to encourage the SCBD to organize such pilot projects in more progressive manner. People can learn only through actual actions on the ground so that it is highly necessary to implement some pilot actions for some duration (at least a few years). Knowledge can be gained and strengthened only through actual actions (with some guidance) because it is actually an empirical experience.
posted on 2016-02-15 04:44 UTC by Mr. Moto Hasegawa, Japan
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1209]

It is advisable that all the pilot projects and initiatives should focus on the integration of country's and Aichi targets into the National Development Frameworks (National Development Plans and policies) in order to facilitate national ownership, commitment and participation for results and sustainability. 


The following interventions/activities could be included in Annex 2:

(i) Pilot project to support the private sector on value addition (development and promotion of biodiversity business modules)   to enhance and sustain biodiversity conservation within the business community like Eco-tourism companies (Aichi targets 4+8)

(ii) Pilot project to support Indigenous Knowledge and practices to promote community-based biodiversity conservation (Aichi target 18)

(iii) Pilot project to enhance agro-based biodiversity conservation through integrated soil, land and water resources management initiatives to promote biodiversity conservation within the agricultural communities (Aichi targets 7, 9, 12 & 13)

(iv) Pilot project in selected countries (regions) to support cross-border movement and proliferation invasive and alien species (Aichi target 9)

(iv) Pilot project to support Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and benefit sharing in selected countries (Aichi targets 14, 15 &16)

(v) Pilot project to support economic biodiversity valuation and integration into national accounting system in selected countries (Aichi targets 2,4 and 20)

(Vi) Pilot project to support action-oriented research for innovations and knowledge sharing  to manage the new and emerging issues  in biodiversity (Aichi target 19)
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1210]
May I recommend the following?
• Initiate cooperative scientific research programs and exchangeable data, with   institutions at local, regional and international levels
• Increase   awareness of information needs and improve priorities for biodiversity conservation, especially on fragile ecosystems 
• Empower environmental formal and informal education and scientific research with emphasis on biodiversity convention
• Create   regional focal points to coordinate transboundary biodiversity issues
Dr. Maha Ali Abdelatif
National Centre for Research, Sudan
posted on 2016-02-15 07:44 UTC by maha abdelatif, National Centre for Research
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1211]
Greetings! This tries to answer the question about “what capacities should be built for whom. “ The reality is Biodiversity is a relatively new “sub theme” in national environment programs for most developing countries.  As such, it has to compete with the more established sub sectors such as “forestry” or “environmental pollution control ” for both policy recognition and resources.  We all know that manpower in government is extremely limited, although there is a very positive trend for biodiversity offices to have strong women presence. 

Concurrently, many well-meaning, biodiversity “champions” outside government (universities, NGOs, tribal ethic groups, youth movements   etc.) are often constrained to make impactful contributions due to political barriers and/or limited research and communication capacity to engage government. There are also many volunteers but many are now suffering from “volunteer disenchantment” of volunteer fatigue”.

Based on our interaction with concerned stakeholders in the course of program design work and outcome evaluation in Asia, we wish to share an observation. In the near to medium term, achievement of CBD and AICHI objectives may  still likely depend  on the patient “ground work”  of a few champions within and outside government( including volunteer work ) . They in turn can help catalyze institutional and policy reforms or help translate good policies into practice. 

Efforts in human resources capacity building should be conscious of the rather patient ,   “catalytic” work that has to be done in order for policies to be promulgated or enforced.   Capacity building measures should help county level  “catalysts” conduct better action research and knowledge management in order to generate stronger evidence and communicate the same to the right audiences, in a more timely manner .  They also need to become better managers of voluntary work to broaden the constituency for biodiversity and sustain the energy of volunteerism at the country level that is adapted to 21st century social realities. 

A possible first step is to have a roster of “catalysts” or advocates at the country level and to track the progress of “alumni “of training sessions (as suggested by the draft plan). Provide these workers with long term, post training back up and encouragement.   Perhaps the Secretariat can also encourage regional partners including small grants programs at country level to help in this capacity building process for teams of catalyst workers within and outside of government.  Thanks
Ed Queblatin
Non Timber Forest Products Exchange Program (NTFP EP)
posted on 2016-02-16 01:27 UTC by Eduardo Queblatin, NTFP Exchange Program ( NTFP EP)
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1212]
First of all I want to thank the Secretariat for drafting the document and providing us with the relevant information. This is very valuable!

In general we agree to the points raised under “Guiding Principles”, “Priority Actions”, and Means of Implementation”. They build on the available experience and are of course also relevant for future activities.

However, I want to highlight a few points which are of high importance and which have been weak points in almost all capacity building projects and activities I have been involved so far.

Several posts already referred to the sustainability (13 (j) of the Draft Short Term Action Plan). This is in my opinion one of the most important issues, as it is linked not only to the sustainability of the trainings and actions but also to an efficient use of the limited funds.
One reason why sustainability of capacity building activities is often not given, is that the funding usually ends with  the project or the activity, and long term partnership for providing  assistance and back-up – which also needs funding – is not foreseen. Therefore partnerships which have been established b y a given Project or activity cannot be maintained. Such partnerships on an international, regional or national level are in my opinion core to the development from short term impacts to a sustainable output of capacity building activities. The necessary funding might be on a comparable low level but are crucial to enable partners to communicate or meet on a regular basis. Therefore I suggest including something like “encourage donors to fund the establishment of long term partnerships on an international, regional, and national level”.

A second issue - and with that I want to support Mr. Moto Hasegawa form Japan (post #1208) – that cooperation between the different donors and involved institutions is of utmost importance. I agree completely with him to include the suggested points in the “Means of Implementation”.

Finally, one point which was raised by Eduardo Queblatin from the Philippines (post #1211) is the inclusion of actors outside the government sector (NGOs, youth groups, …) into capacity building activities. In my opinion this is linked to several issues in the action plan (sustainability, train-the-trainers, public awareness, just to name a few). We should not focus only on government officials and academics when we talk about the implementation of the CBD and its Protocols for the reasons given by Eduardo but also given the examples presented in other posts. Maybe this could be pointed out in the action plan by stating: “Development of capacity building activities targeted to non-governmental and non-academic groups” (which are already covered).

Best regards
Andreas Heissenberger
Environment Agency Austria
posted on 2016-02-16 13:28 UTC by Mr. Andreas Heissenberger, Austria
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1213]
Many thanks Dr. Andreas Heissenberger, for the helpful notes, regarding the role of those "outside" government and the need to address them. 

I would also like to add that human resources capacity building would probably have higher chance of impact, if targeted to working teams (formal or informal) rather solely to individuals.   An example would be ad hoc working teams of government career officers and civic organizations.  The CBD secretariat can tap the role of regional or national partners for this approach which is better planned at the national level. This approach may help address an issue implied in the plan, regarding the "accountability" of participants to training programs  conducted by the CBD.

I would also hasten to add another worthwhile target of capacity building. This would be local governments or local authorities particularly at the provincial level. This is the ideal level to demonstrate the localization of NBSAP.  It has a large territory (important for bio corridors, watersheds and other landscapes that cut across territories of lower level political units). Provinces have clout over lower level authorities.  The intellectual resources and quality of civil service at this level is of higher quality. They can more readily understand and adopt the planning requirements of biodiversity and they can communicate more relevant development messages to peers at the lower level.

In a related matter, we all know that capacity building should be long term in nature to be effective. In my view this doesn’t necessarily mean bigger resources are always needed. Rather, capacity building resources should be spread through several years rather than pouring all of them (financial resources) say over very short periods (e.g.  1 to 3 years), as most Small Grant Facilities  for NGOS require. Time, rather than more money, is probably more crucial in capacity building.

In summary I would bat for the following features in determining the targets of capacity building –a) target the catalysts inside and outside government; b) train teams, rather than just individuals; c) tap more optimally the role of local governments and authorities; and d) give more attention to TIME, than more money, to allow for better internalization. 

Based on the above and our first message I would like to propose some concrete inputs for the draft plan in the next message. Many Thanks

Eduardo Queblatin, NTFP EP
(edited on 2016-02-17 07:45 UTC by Eduardo Queblatin, NTFP Exchange Program ( NTFP EP))
posted on 2016-02-17 03:08 UTC by Eduardo Queblatin, NTFP Exchange Program ( NTFP EP)
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1214]
Hello, In addition to the overarching earlier proposal for supporting biodiversity champions, I would also like to propose the following modifications to selected sections of the draft action plan. Further proposals are likewise made for Annex 2 of the plan

b) Build on existing LOCAL AND GLOBAL  EFFORTS AND LESSONS LEARNED  and maximize synergy and complementarity

(b) Develop and maintain a repository of a VARIOUS   capacity development materials THAT CAN MATCH THE WIDE  RANGE OF NEEDS OF  VARIOUS TYPES OF STAKEHOLDERS ;

23. The Secretariat will collaborate with various partners to ensure mutual supportiveness in their capacity development efforts. Areas of cooperation may include the following:
(a)Development of joint capacity-building PROGRAMS and materials;
(b)Development of joint educational programmes AND short-term courses with universities and other training institutions, including e-learning modules and/or Massive Open Online Course (MOOC);


Provide capacity building support to conservation of agricultural heritage that hosts agrobiodiversity
• In situ conservation of agrobiodiversity resources made possible by supporting selected traditional agroecosyems practices
• Pilot projects that demonstrate  the conservation of agrobiodiversity with emerging markets for wellness and “slow food “and “farm to table”  “movements”
• Protocols that include agrobiodiversity as part of the criteria for identification and development of national protected area systems
Potential Donor: GEF, IFAD, CC FUND
Responsible entity; Agricultural research institutes, Regional Farmer associations FAO
Region: areas with remarkable agoecosytems practices that host high agrobiodiversity

Build awareness, and develop guidelines and capacity building modalities for urban based biodiversity in urban ecosystems of developing countries 
• Practical guidelines for assessment and design for urban based biodiversity conservation in developing countries
• Implementation of pilot projects that demonstrate city programs for biodiversity conservation that also serve as educational tool to promote sustainable production and consumption
Potential Donor: GEF, AIIB, WB
Responsible Entity: ICLEI, Associations of Local Authorities 
Region: Areas with cities that comparatively have high biodiversity

Enhance capacity of provincial level local authorities/local governments to adopt and implement NBSAP at the local levels
• Pilot projects that demonstrate how provincial level local governments/local authorities ( e.g. provincial governments)  can adapt the NBSAP through local policy, local resources and multi -sectoral partnerships
• Inclusion of  localization of NBSAP and communication of best practices in the regional /national fora among associations of provincial authorities
• Support to ICLEI ( International Centre for Local Environmental Initiatives ) to develop their regional program to cater to provincial government needs  ( ICLEI is currently focused on urban environmental  concerns)

Donor: GEF, CC Fund
Responsible Entity: CBD, ICLEI, UCLG, Regional Association of Local Governments

As the forum closes today, thank you again for the opportunity to share.

Ed Queblatin
posted on 2016-02-17 07:41 UTC by Eduardo Queblatin, NTFP Exchange Program ( NTFP EP)
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1215]

I would like to congratulate the CBD for the evaluation of Capacity Development Programs and for formulating the Draft Short Term Action Plan.

My suggestion will focus on the means of delivery to improve the reach and effectiveness of the programs. First, let me say that I agree with Ed Queblatin that it is important to harness the potential of stakeholders other than government in propelling the biodiversity agenda in their respective countries. It is important that a strong constituency is developed also outside of government to help those in government to also push for the agenda, in times when those in charge are confronted with challenges within the bureaucracy.
Second, and in line with the above, may I suggest that to broaden the reach of capacity development activities, a focused program be developed to support participants to share their learnings upon their return to their countries. This way, the benefits are spread among a wider set of audience. This might involve some support to in country institutions which can be tapped as Centres of Learning or Excellence in Biodiversity. These institutions could become repositories of knowledge products and would have the mandate to provide specialised capability building support to stakeholders in country. This way, capacity development activities organised by the Secretariat will not be one off events, but as catalysts for more in depth capacity development in the participating countries. Such institutions could be linked with the Secretariat.
Third, as programs serve as incubators of new knowledge, innovations and approaches - a suggestion is being made to identify country projects or programs that can serve as focal points where on site learning by other participants can happen. This way, participants will have actual experience interacting with the key actors on the ground, such as indigenous peoples, local governments who are at the forefront of instigating conservation efforts. The Secretariat can identify such projects in coordination with development partners or GEF.
On the topics for capacity building - may I suggest the following:
1.  System wide planning, monitoring and evaluation of protected areas
2.  Establishment or recognition of other effective area based conservation measures (OECMs) such as ICCAs, LCAs, private conservation areas, and others.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on these.
posted on 2016-02-17 08:28 UTC by Floradema Eleazar, Independent Consultant
RE: Opening of Discussion [#1216]
Thanks for the opportunity to provide my reflections:
1) One of the focus needs to be at enhancing capacity and ability of countries, particularly the least developed countries and small island developing States for accessing public and grant-based resources for adaptation.
2) It will be important for CB activities to be demand driven-whether the nature/focus/scope of such activities and definition of target groups are driven by the perceived needs or needs demonstrated by practices on the ground.
3) One of the potential ways to enhance relevance of the CB activities is through institutionalizing them (e.g. through appropriate institutional arrangements).
4) I will be happy to share/provide further relevant information/ongoing activities in relation to climate change adaptation work under the UNFCCC process, and explore synergy in this regard.
(edited on 2016-02-17 15:07 UTC by Rojina Manandhar, UNFCCC)
posted on 2016-02-17 15:06 UTC by Rojina Manandhar, UNFCCC