Annex 1: Capacity Development Scorecard Project/Programme Name: Capacity Development for improved management of Multilateral Environmental Agreements for Global Environmental Benefits Project/Programme Cycle Phase: Project preparation (PPG) Date: May 2015 Capacity Result / Indicator Staged Indicators Rating Score Comments Next Steps Outcome Contribution CR 1: Capacities for engagement Indicator 1 – Degree of legitimacy/mandate of lead environmental organizations Institutional responsibilities for environmental management are not clearly defined 0 2 Legal and regulatory framework in place but public awareness and education remains critical for full recognition and engagement Develop education and awareness programmes targeting stakeholders, the project will contribute to increasing the legitimacy of lead environmental organizations. Staff in these organizations will have a greater capacity to coordinate environmental activities including the implementation of the MEA obligations. Improved capacity of relevant government entities to integrate environmental education and awareness raising into programmes and projects as tools for natural resource management Institutional responsibilities for environmental management are identified 1 Authority and legitimacy of all lead organizations responsible for environmental management are partially recognized by stakeholders 2 Authority and legitimacy of all lead organizations responsible for environmental management recognized by stakeholders 3 Indicator 2 – Existence of operational mechanisms No co-management mechanisms are in place 0 2 MOU remains a means for establishing working relationships and shared jurisdictional responsibilities. This is an ongoing process and instituted on an as-needed basis. Continue Enhanced coordination framework Some co-management mechanisms are in place and operational 1 Some co-management mechanisms are formally established through agreements, MOUs, etc. 2 Comprehensive co-management mechanisms are formally established and are operational/functional 3 Indicator 3 – Existence of cooperation with stakeholder groups Identification of stakeholders and their participation/involvement in is poor 0 2 While stakeholders are identified, their own understanding of the context of their role remains limited or not well understood. As a result, a clearer approach to this understanding is required in the context of the existing and evolving environmental policy and legislative framework for more meaningful and relevant participation. The project will clarify the roles of stakeholders in the context of MEA obligations at the national and international level, and improve their knowledge and understanding of MEAs through the use of a participatory and collaborative approach. Strengthened capacity of NGOs and CBOs to increase collaboration and participation in the implementation of MEAs, including increased participatory role in MEA Stakeholders are identified but their participation in decision-making is limited 1 Stakeholders are identified and regular consultations mechanisms are established 2 Stakeholders are identified and they actively contribute to established 3
education programmes and curricula. of stakeholder as natural resource management tools. Improved capacity of stakeholders to integrate environmental education and awareness raising into programmes and projects as tools for natural resource management, as well as fostering understanding from a formal education perspective. Comprehensive environmental education programmes exist and are being delivered 3 Indicator 7 – Extent of the linkage between environmental research/science and policy development No linkage exist between environmental policy development and science/research strategies and programmes 0 3 The relevant research capacity for policy development exists in the local context but the limiting factor is the uptake by policy and decision makers. This may be due to a number of factors including lack of awareness, inadequate means of communication and /or lack of an open conduit for sharing information and determining research needs. The project will support activities to strengthen national environmental education and awareness capacity to receive, comprehend and interpret environmental data and information for through the alignment of research and development programmes at the academic level. Enhanced legal, policy, institutional and strategic frameworks to strengthen MEA implementation. Improved capacity of stakeholders to integrate environmental education and awareness raising into programmes and projects as tools for natural resource management Alignment of research with MEA data and information requirements to fulfil implementation. 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
Indicator 8 – Extent of inclusion/use of traditional knowledge in environmental decision-making Traditional knowledge is ignored and not taken into account into relevant participative decision-making processes 0 1 There is no evidence that such knowledge is collected and disseminated in a systematic manner. Same comments in 7 above in the context of traditional knowledge as it exists at the various levels. The project will support activities to strengthen national environmental education and awareness capacity to receive, comprehend and interpret environmental data and information including traditional knowledge for decision-making, including more active engagement of indigenous peoples. Enhanced legal, policy, institutional and strategic frameworks to strengthen environmental education and raising awareness of stakeholder as natural resource management tools. Improved capacity of stakeholders to integrate environmental education and awareness raising including traditional knowledge into programmes and projects as tools for natural resource management, and building resilience at the community level. 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 CR 3: Capacities for strategy, policy and legislation development Indicator 9 – Extend of the environmental planning and strategy development process The environmental planning and strategy development process is not coordinated and does not produce adequate environmental plans and strategies 0 2 Public sector environmental projects are premised on the Public Sector Investment Programme (PSIP) of the Government and therefore are project-based to implement various policy objectives. Accordingly, and with finite timelines, delays for whatever reason, can impact on the efficacy of implementation. Implementation is also hampered by lack of effective coordination, as projects are often cross-sectorial and crosscutting. The project will engender a better understanding of roles and responsibilities and hence facilitate closer coordination for projects that require implementation. Enhanced coordination framework and mechanism for project implementation. The environmental planning and strategy development process does produce adequate environmental plans and strategies but there are not implemented/used 1 Adequate environmental plans and strategies are produced but there are only partially implemented because of funding constraints and/or other problems 2
The environmental 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 10 – Existence of an adequate environmental policy and regulatory frameworks The environmental policy and regulatory frameworks are insufficient; they do not provide an enabling environment 0 2 This rating is actually between a ‘2’ and a ‘3’. The environmental policy and regulatory framework is continuously evolving and responding to needs as they arise. Whereas the Environmental Act and it subsidiary legislation provide for addressing distinct environmental issues, the policy framework is iterative and therefore being expanded. The legislative framework for its implementation is also evolving. Implementation and enforcement remains a challenge, but the existing mechanisms for the implementation of environmental policy and legislative framework, including compliance, is functioning. The project will increase an understanding of the wider policy and legislative framework required for MEA implementation and accordingly strengthen the existing enabling environment (policy legislation and institutional frameworks) by addressing gaps and weaknesses affecting MEA implementation. Enhanced legal, policy, institutional and strategic frameworks to strengthen MEA implementation, that will respond to evolving requirements. 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 Adequate policy and legislation frameworks are implemented and provide an adequate enabling environment; a compliance and enforcement mechanism is established and functions 3 Indicator 11 – Adequacy of the environmental information available for decision-making The availability of environmental information for decision-making is lacking 0 2 Environmental information is available but exists in discrete pockets in various institutions including academia. What is lacking is a structured, formal and centralized repository for such information that can be tapped as necessary to inform relevant decision-making. The quality of data and information therefore remains a significant uncertainty for policy Project resources will be used to engender an alignment of data requirements and research at the academic level to reduce uncertainty and increase quality assurance and control, including through the development of environmental education programmes, products and tools as well as sustainable delivery mechanisms targeting stakeholders. Improved data and information collection framework to provide for quality assurance and control. Increased capacity of relevant stakeholders to integrate environmental education and awareness raising into programmes and projects for MEA implementation, including data collection and data Some environmental information exists but it is not sufficient to support environmental decision-making processes 1 Relevant environmental information is made available to environmental decision-makers but the process to update this information is not functioning properly 2 Political and administrative obtain and use updated environmental information to make environmental decisions 3
implement MEAs “secondary” laws and norms not revised to be consistent with MEAs obligations consistent with MEAs obligations “Secondary” legislation and norms in place to enable integration of MEAs into sectoral and planning processes Government Documents Government and Minister’s Orders, Decrees and regulations of support from legislators, lack of national capacity to review and draft legal framework/instructions. Assumption: Clear processes and mechanisms to support deliverables MEAs obligations integrated in related policies, national plans, and strategies MEAs action plans not mainstreamed into national and regional policies and planning Related ministries’ programmes and activities are with little collaboration Related national policy-making and planning processes incorporate MEAs obligations Agendas and minutes of coordination mechanism(s) Environmental and sectoral programme and project documents Environmental screening documents (e.g., checklists) Risk: Lack of participation from decision-makers due to limited understanding of MEAs Assumption: Good participation to an effective awareness programme Staff of key organizations with the necessary skills and knowledge to address MEAs obligations Uneven capacity of focal points and staff to manage and implement MEAs Staff trained and apply skills and knowledge to the implementation of MEAs obligations Training evaluations Risk: Unwillingness to participate due to lack of understanding Staff turnover, limited resources to commit to training Assumption: An effective training programme, institutions include awareness and training under respective annual corporate plans Operational coordination mechanism(s) overseeing implementation of MEAs An existing mechanism for Rio Conventions policy development coordination exist, however there is not enough inter-sectorial coordination of implementation of MEAs A mechanism is in place to coordinate implementation of MEAs across sectors, including a broader stakeholder involvement process Policy paper approved by MEWR or Cabinet Regular updates to MEWR and Cabinet Coordination meetings minutes Risk: Delays due to ministerial shuffle anticipated after national elections. Irregular frequency of meetings for relevant bodies, unclear approval mechanism for an inter-sectorial coordination body, unwillingness to participate in the inter-sectorial coordination body. Assumption: Supporting mechanism is in-place Effective participation of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in the implementation Minimal stakeholder involvement in implementation of MEAs, particularly All relevant stakeholders involved in MEAs implementation Membership of participative processes Media coverage CSOs reports Risk: Limited participation of CSOs, unwillingness to share project activities related to MEAs