GEF –
UNDP – FAO PROJECT: REDUCING RATE OF LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY AT SELECTED CROSS
BORDERS SITES IN EAST AFRICA.
DISCUSSION
NOTE: CAPACITY BUILDING
Introduction.
This project takes a broad view of Capacity Building, within
the general philosophy of GEF, where Capacity Building is seen as an essential
means to the greater goal of sustainable conservation of biodiversity. The
Project has two Immediate Objectives under the Broad Goal of: “To reduce the rate of loss of forest and wetland
biodiversity in specific cross-border sites of national and global
significance”
Under
this goal there are two Immediate Objectives or purposes:
A:
“To establish an environment around the cross-border sites where local
agencies and communities can promote sustainable use of
biodiversity”.
B:
“To bring into balance the demand and supply of natural resource products
including biodiversity at the cross-border sites”.
The first Objective is largely aimed at building capacity within the whole environment in which the conservation of biodiversity takes place. Three outputs address capacity. Two are aimed at capital “I” Institutions, ie within government resource management agencies (A1); and within local communities (A2). One is aimed at small “i” institutions of policy and law within the overall-enabling environment. This is A3 that reads: “An enabling environment created with compatible and effective policy and legislative frameworks”.
§
A3.1
To clarify resource management mandates and improve coordination among relevant
agencies, NGOs and donors.
§
A3.2
To analyse the policy environment affecting biodiversity, to ensure
compatibility and effectiveness in country and region.
§
A3.3
To seek to modify policy issues where appropriate, so as to enhance biodiversity
conservation.
The project follows the broad philosophy of capacity building as described by UNDP, linking capacity to the development of strong institutions, see box 1 below:
Box
1. Institutional Development
and Capacity Building Institutional
development or capacity building has been defined (UNDP) as the
strengthening of sustainable indigenous capacity to manage economic
change and growth. There are several potential different components: ·
Enhancing
skills by training and education. ·
Strengthening
organizational performance. ·
Reforming
systems of coordination between organizations. ·
Increasing
financial capabilities by more effective mobilization such as better
pricing systems, more user fees, and stronger overall revenue generation
and use. Better planning, budgeting and expenditure control. ·
Nurturing
societal supports, eg by encouraging user groups, political reforms with
greater transparency and accountability. ·
Cultivating
new norms and values-for example: eg condemnation of corruption,
incentives for managers using participatory styles, etc. ·
Changing
the incentive structure for individuals and for organizations to induce
behaviour that is in greater harmony with development needs. Skill
enhancement includes general education, on the-job training, and
professional learning of skills such as policy analysis, and information
technology. Organizational strengthening covers institutional
development, reinforcing the capacity of an organization to use money
and staff more effectively. Procedural improvement refers to functional
changes or system reforms, eg introduction of budgeting arrangements, or
the replacement of controls over public enterprises, etc. |
Superimposed
on this UNDP philosophy, are the project’s own operating principles, many of
which are set out in the project Inception Report. The first sets the whole
scene for project implementation, see Box 2:
Box 2. Project Implementation Principles Affecting Capacity Building. 1) To give leadership to government and national institutions in terms of planning and implementing project activity. This is essential for ensuring the sustainability of inputs through this project. 2)
In terms of project implementation it is necessary that management
: a) Involves district &
sub-district agencies, organisations and other bodies, in both planning
and implementing project activity. b) Considers how inputs that are
external to the District (eg consultants and contracted institutions) can
work with Districts, and leave behind enhanced capabilities in the
Districts. 3)
In terms of project implementation it is necessary that management
: a)
Involves District Authorities and Community Organisations in
Project Processes b) Involves Government at national
level in policy dialogue c) Involves other donor programmes
around this project site in supportive activity. d) Seeks community participation in
an informed and planned manner, based on trust. 4)
In terms of project implementation it is necessary that management
: a) Works together with other
programmes and projects around the project sites. b) Seeks synergies in joint
approaches, not in competition with others. c) Develops specific working
relationships with project partnerships. d)
Seeks to use expertise from other initiatives and share our expertise
where beneficial. |
Implementation
at District “Site” Level.
The
project lives up to these ideals. The project does not implement – it
facilitates local institutions to implement (see
other notes on District Teams, and Partnership Processes). The project has
one professional employee in each District site – The Field Project Officer (FPO).
The FPO works with the District Team at District level and with Village
Communities through strengthened Village Environment Communities
CB
at District level takes many forms. These include:
Training
A
Needs Assessment has been completed, training has started, eg in Alternative
Incomes.
Infrastructure
Support
has gone to providing simple equipment – cycles, boots, uniforms, nursery
inputs.
Mandates
Clarifying
often vague and sometimes conflicting mandates has been a major process.
Empowerment
This
will be greatly increased through the real start of Joint Forest Management
activity.
Transparency The
project has raised concern and is seeking action over the illegal timber
involvement of some district partners.
Linkages
Building
functional bridges between partners – both horizontally between sectors and
vertically to sub-district levels and communities.
Process
Developing
rules for conservation through byelaws, village guidelines, awareness etc.
The
most important area is in strengthening institutions at community level. An
example here comes from a cross-border site :
Minziro Bukoba in Tanznia and Sango Bay Rakai , where the Village level
Environment Committees have been strengthened, given incentives and have started
a programme of work involving forest patrolling, providing oversight for
bee-keeping initiatives etc. The Committees meet in a cross border consultative
forum.
Implementation
at National Level. (there
are many examples in training, mandates, linkages, experience).
Training
Examples
are in the linkages from ICIPE (in Nirobi) to the Government Bee-Keeping
Research facility in Arusha and from there too most of the project sites in
Tanzania (see separate note on Beekeeping).
Mandates
The
project has undertaken a detailed review of mandates affecting the conservation
of biodiversity in Tanzania. This has shown the existence of considerable lack
of clarity, overlap and gaps in institutional mandates. These problems exist
within vertical hierarchical processes (eg Regions to Districts to Wards to
Villages) and in horizontal integration - eg the role of Wildlife staff in
forests, overlaps between district and catchment staff etc. At village level
similar problems exist eg between forest and environment committees. The review
suggested how these could be overcome.
Linkages
Activities
here consist of building partnerships between government levels and NGO
processes.
Implementation
at Regional Level (see
separate note on regional issues)
Policy
and Economic Policy Analysis
This
was seen as a major set of issues within project formulation. Some 25% of
regional money goes into looking at the policy implications on conservation,
including economic policy through incentives and perverse incentives. Policy is
treated broadly - Capital P Policy is that formally at national level. Small p
policy consists of legislation, dictates, pronouncements, guidelines and
bye-laws, funding regimes and prioritisations. These can be at village, district
national or indeed regional level.
Activities
here involve government partners at all stages, looking at training and
developing real case examples at our sites.
ICDP
The
project sees itself as an ICDP (see the Inception Report), and is working to
build linkages between developmental and conservation components in all
countries. Training in the practicalities and awareness of ICDP processes have
been identified as major constraints. At regional level, the project with
partners - CARE and WWF are exploring the development of longer-term training
initiatives for such training.