accessing the Niger Delta Biodiversity Trust as a collaborative engagement mechanism for local communities, O&G companies and Government at its core. tranche of US$ 3 million supporting biodiversity conservation in critical ecosystems within the whole of the Niger Delta Region biodiversity in general. least US$3 million in funding supporting biodiversity conservation in critical ecosystems within the whole of the Niger Delta Region the Ecological Fund of the Gov’t of Nigeria. oil may force O&G companies to act short-sightedly with respect to investments and it make them less likely to collaborate in the project and capitalise the Niger Delta Biodiversity Trust. Assumption: Increased awareness and capacity will lead to a change in behaviour by O&G operators with respect to the mainstreaming of biodiversity into their operations and a change in behavior by local communities and State government staff with respect to conceptualizing and implementing local biodiversity conservation initiatives. # of community proposed biodiversity conservation projects funded and operational in the four pilot States of the Niger Delta. Zero At least 15 by end of project. Note: A detailed activity list and a chronogram of activities per output will be finalised upon project inception.
Capacity Result 1: Capacities for Engagement. [Total possible Score = 9] 1 Relevant individuals and organizations (resource users, owners, consumers, community and political leaders, private and public sector managers and experts) engage proactively and constructively with one another in managing a global environmental issue. Indicator 1.1 – Degree of legitimacy/mandate of lead environmental organizations: this indicator measures if the lead organizations are identified for mainstreaming in the O&G sector, if their respective responsibilities are clearly defined and if the authority of these organizations is recognized. Organizational responsibilities for mainstreaming biodiversity are not clearly defined. 0 0 Organizational responsibilities for mainstreaming biodiversity are identified. 1 Authority and legitimacy of all lead organizations responsible for mainstreaming biodiversity are partially recognized by stakeholders. 2 Authority and legitimacy of all lead organizations responsible for mainstreaming biodiversity recognized by stakeholders. 3 Indicator 1.2 – Existence of operational mechanisms: this indicator measures the existence of public and private co-management mechanisms and if these mechanisms are functional. No co-management mechanisms are in place 0 Some co-management mechanisms are in place and operational 1 1 Some co-management mechanisms are formally established through MOUs and other agreements 2 Comprehensive co-management mechanisms are formally established and are operational/functional 3 Indicator 1.3 – Existence of cooperation among stakeholder groups: this indicator measures the involvement of stakeholders, their identification, the establishment of stakeholder consultation processes and the active contribution of these stakeholders to decision-making. Identification of stakeholders and their participation /involvement in management decision-making is poor 0 0 Stakeholders are identified but their participation in management making is limited 1 Stakeholders are identified and regular consultations mechanisms are established 2 Stakeholders are identified and they actively contribute to established participative management processes 3 Capacity Result 2: Capacities to generate, access and use information and knowledge [Total possible Score = 15] 1 Individuals and organizations have the skills and knowledge to research, acquire, communicate, educate and make use of pertinent information to be able to diagnose and understand global environmental problems and potential solutions. Indicator 2.1 – Degree of environmental awareness of stakeholders: this indicator measures the level of awareness of stakeholders about global environmental issues and the solutions being implemented and their possibility to participate in the implementation of these solutions. Stakeholders are not aware about global environmental issues and their related possible solutions (MEAs) 0 0 Stakeholders are aware about global environmental issues but not about the possible solutions (MEAs) 1
Stakeholders are aware about global environmental issues and the possible solutions but do not know how to participate. 2 Stakeholders are aware about global environmental issues and are actively participating in the implementation of related solutions. 3 Indicator 2.2 – Access and sharing of environmental information by stakeholders: this indicator measures the information needs, if they are identified, the adequacy of the information management infrastructure in place and the sharing of this information. The environmental information needs are not identified and the information management infrastructure is inadequate 0 The environmental information needs are identified but the information management infrastructure is inadequate 1 1 The environmental information is partially available and shared among stakeholders but is not covering all focal areas and/or the information management infrastructure to manage and give information access to the public is limited 2 Comprehensive environmental information is available and shared through an adequate information management infrastructure 3 Indicator 2.3 – Extent of inclusion/use of traditional knowledge in environmental this indicator measures if the traditional knowledge is being explored, if the sources of traditional knowledge are identified, captured and shared among stakeholders for effective participative decision- making processes. Traditional knowledge is ignored and not taken into account into relevant participative decision-making processes 0 0 Traditional knowledge is identified and recognized as important but is not collected and used in relevant participative decision-making processes 1 Traditional knowledge is collected but is not used systematically into relevant participative decision-making processes 2 Traditional knowledge is collected, used and shared for effective participative decision-making processes 3 Indicator 2.4 – Existence of environmental education programmes: this indicator measures both the formal and informal environmental education programmes in place to address global environmental issues. No environmental education programmes are in place 0 0 Environmental education programmes are partially developed and partially delivered 1 Environmental education programmes are fully developed but partially delivered 2 Comprehensive environmental education programmes exist and are being delivered 3 Indicator 2.5 – Extent of the linkage between environmental research/science and policy development: this indicator measures the linkage No linkage exist between environmental policy development and science/research strategies and programmes 0 0
between environmental policy and research; including the identification of research needs and research strategies and programmes; and the relevance of the research available to policy development. Research needs for environmental policy development are identified but are not translated into relevant research strategies and programmes 1 Relevant research strategies and programmes for environmental policy development exist but the research information is not responding fully to the policy research needs 2 Relevant research results are available for environmental policy development 3 Capacity Result 3: Capacities for strategy, policy and legislation development [Total possible Score = 9] 2 Individuals and organizations have the ability to plan and develop effective environmental policy and legislation, related strategies and plans – based on informed decision-making processes for global mainstreaming biodiversity. Indicator 3.1 – Extent of the biodiversity planning and strategy development process: this indicator measures the quality of the planning and strategy development process; if the planning and strategy development process produces adequate plans and strategies related to mainstreaming biodiversity; and if the resources and coordination mechanisms are in place for the implementation of these plans, programmes and projects. The biodiversity planning and strategy development process is not coordinated and does not produce adequate environmental plans and strategies 0 0 The biodiversity planning and strategy development process does produce adequate environmental plans and strategies but there are not implemented /used. 1 Adequate biodiversity plans and strategies are produced but there are only partially implemented because of funding constraints and/or other problems. 2 The biodiversity planning and strategy development process is well coordinated by the lead environmental organizations and produces the required environmental plans and strategies; which are being implemented. 3 Indicator 3.2 – Existence of adequate environmental policy and regulatory frameworks for mainstreaming biodiversity. this indicator measures the completeness of the policy and regulatory frameworks, the existence and the adoption of relevant policies and laws and if the mechanisms for enacting, complying and enforcing these policies and laws are established. The environmental policy and regulatory frameworks are insufficient; they do not provide an enabling environment. 0 Some relevant environmental policies and laws exist but few are implemented and enforced. 1 Adequate environmental policy and legislation frameworks exist but there are problems in implementing and enforcing them. 2 2 Adequate policy and legislation frameworks are implemented and provide an adequate enabling environment; a compliance and enforcement mechanism is established and functions. 3