Capacity-Building and Development

The draft document prepared by the Executive Secretary proposes different draft elements of the strategic framework for capacity development to support the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. These include: the purpose of the strategic framework, the meaning and scope of capacity development in the context of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the overall vision and theory of change, key principles and approaches for effective capacity development, strategies for improving capacity development and mechanisms for supporting implementation. Please provide your general views and comments on the proposed structure and content of the draft strategic framework. For example: 
(a) Is the the proposed structure of the strategic framework clear and comprehensive enough? Should it be modified and, if so, how?
(b) Are there any other key critical elements that are missing and should be added? Is so, which ones?
(c) Is the purpose of the strategic framework clear and sufficient? If not, what would you suggest to make it clearer and/or expanded?
(d) What are your views about the proposed theory of change? How could it be improved?

See Draft Elements of the Strategic Framework

Dear colleagues, thanks for joining the first discussion thread. To start off, please share your general views about the proposed draft elements of the strategic framework. In your view, do the draft elements sufficiently cover the main areas that would help relevant actors to adopt more strategic, coherent, integrated and coordinated approaches to capacity development and have in place adequate and sustainable capacities to effectively support the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework?

Yes

Dear Colleagues,
First of all, I would like to thanks SCBD to prepare this discussion forum to continue our work on the preparation of the Post-2020 GBF. I would like to highlight a few comments on the draft document prepared by the secretariat as follows;  Firstly, the proposed structure of the framework is clear in terms of concept and objectives. However, the time frame of implementation needs to be identified. The long-term strategic framework should take into account the timeframe in line with Post-2020 GBF, mission 2030, and 2050. These should also consider the monitoring process and effective assessment of the framework through reporting methodologies and indicators. The measurement of capacity development should be based on clear evidence of actual change.
Secondly, Capacity development in the draft document should approach transformative change that empowers individuals, leaders, organizations, and society as a whole to strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time to achieve the goal of post- 2020 GBF.
Lastly, in section V, key strategies to improve capacity development implementation. The document should provide lessons learned and good practices in each success factor as case studies of the effectiveness and sustainable action. It will make it clear, understandable, and guidance on how to improve capacity development in each context of the key strategies.

Thank you to the Secretariat for the for this discussion forum. My comments are on the time frame of the framework I think this should come out clearly in the document.

Thank you for coming up with this discussion forum. The structure for the draft strategic element is fine. My comment is on section II on purpose paragraph 6, I feel it will be necessary to indicate the period/year when UNEP-WCMC did the study. On the definition of Capacity development (paragraph 9) the last part ……. 'to achieve biodiversity result' I propose to qualify the biodiversity result to make it more clear and simple to understand. It could read  'to achieve positive biodiversity results'.

Hello everyone, my name is Renata Gomez and I'm the Biodiversity Programme Manager at Regions4. We coordinate the Advisory Committee on Subnational Governments (AC SNG) and Biodiversity to the CBD and are also the host of the Regions4 Biodiversity Learning Platform (R4BLP). Both initiatives are aimed at strengthening the voice of subnational governments (states, districts, regions) within the CBD and in particular within the post-2020 processes.

Our AC SNG and R4BLP members are currently studying the draft elements of the strategic framework and I will, in due time, send comments on behalf of both organizations.

We are very happy for the opportunity to comment and congratulations on the initial draft. We will get back with specific comments.

Dear Colleagues
This is Malta Qwathekana form the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment in South Africa. I join the others in congratulating the CBD Secretariat for the hard work in putting together the Draft elements for the long-term strategic framework for capacity development to support implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and organising this discussion forum.
In principle I support the contents of the draft elements and like Mwangala and Wanlop would like to echo the need for setting a timeframe for the implementation of the capacity building to be supportive of the implementation of the Post 2020 GBF in order to allow Parties to achieve the targets set by the Post 2020 GBF. Just to take a few steps back, the adoption of the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and Aichi Biodiversity Targets had a Target of 2015 for Parties to develop/review and revise their NBSAP as policy documents by 2015. That delayed implementation of NBSAP for 5 years and left Parties with only 5 years to implement a 10 year Plan. This was a weakness we should guard against repeating. If we say capacity building should be implemented by 2030 as proposed in the draft document we might be losing 10 years of actual implementation of the Post 2020 GBF (falling back again into Business as usual of not achieving the targets we set ourselves to achieve). I therefore propose that a stepwise approach of prioritising key required capacity to start with immediate effect to kickstart the implementation as soon as will be possible and other capacities to be built as we go along. There should therefore be different timeframes for different levels of capacity building.
Another area that requires to be strengthened is the development of capacity of the youth in order for them to meaningfully participate in implementing the Post 2020 GBF. (I’ll provide my written comments in the document on this regard). Thank you and Kind Regards. Malta

Hi everyone,
This is Evelyn Vera from the Mexican Government. Warm thanks to the Secretariat for opening this space to continue with the discussions we had in Rome, a few months ago.
I agree with all my colleagues that a clear timing for developing the framework is important.
Overall, we agree with the Strategic Framework proposal, and I would like to highlight some important issues:
- We would like to see that local governments are thoroughly considered as main actors to implement this framework.
- Also, indicators should have a stronger role. They are mentioned a couple of times, but almost incidentally, not as a central part of the strategy.
- We agree that is very important to include IPLC as central actors and make sure there are funding available for them to implement activities. It is important to note that applying for these resources should be adapted to their specific circumstances (e.g. asking them to draft complicated proposals and fill forms is basically a barrier for their participation).
- Strengthening monitoring and evaluation is indeed very important, and it should be accompanied by mechanisms to enhance transparency on these processes.

We will later send a form with more detailed comments, but in the meantime, I look forward for a very interesting dialogue during this week.

Thanks, Secretariat for initiating this forum.  I commend the effort made in implementing the directive from the COP.  I find the elements to be quite satisfactory. However, under section III (Strategic Direction and Outcomes) the document lacks a link with the Sustainable Development Goals. I appreciate its clarity on  achieving the mission, goals and targets of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework,  am of the view that, on its own, it must point to the appropriate SDGs. Am still studying the document. I will come out later with further comments, please. Thanks

Good afternoon my name is Florentino Chillopa, I work for the Federal Government of Mexico, in the General Directorate of Wildlife of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources.
First of all I appreciate the opportunity to participate.
The structure for the draft seems complete and clear. In Mexico, I believe, it will be particularly important to promote the decrease in staff turnover. As well as, the adaptation to the living conditions of the different ethnic groups, possessors of ample territorial surface and of important traditional knowledge. I'm still studying the document so I will come out later with further comments. Thanks

In response to Ms. Vera, from the Mexican Government.

I completely agree with your suggestions, in particular the one that makes a reference to involving local governments. States, as they are called in Mexico (districts, regions, lander, in other parts of the world) cities and municipalities play a fundamental role in implementation. Some figures indicate that over half of the budgets designated to nature and environmental affairs are destined to be implemented at the local/subnational level, making their contribution and participation more relevant than ever.

I thank you on behalf of the subnational governments that are members of the Advisory Committee on Subnational Governments to the CBD (https://www.regions4.org/project/advisory-committee-on-subnational-governments-and-biodiversity/), including Campeche!

Renata Gomez, Programme Manager at Regions4

Thank you SCBD for these timely draft Elements of strategic Framework. I am quite pleased with the non-ambiguous call for capacity development definition that is underpinned by a recognition that the key effort is in enhancing existing capacities. in this, however, I am missing the recognition that indigenous people and local communities have build their indigenous knowledge and capacities over centuries of biodiversity conservation through innovations,  learning, and knowledge sharing. This should be recognized and integrated into capacity development strategies across the framework.

Still looking at the meaning and scope section, I am worried that we are presenting capacity development as a linear process especially through capacity development, utilization and retention. Ongoing innovations and evolving contexts demand that there a constant feedback loop and flexibility for adoption and revision of new strategies.

Hello everyone. I am Sonia Peña from IUCN. Many thanks for the opportunity to comment this important document. IUCN will submit more detailed comments by the end of next week so here I would just make a few general comments.
1) Definition of capacity development: It would be useful to have as a departing point a concept of capacity development that is wider in its scope.  The one used by UNDP (Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer. 2009) and which explains capacity development as "the process through which individuals, organisations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time…” seems more appropriate.
2) Theory of Change: What is the situation that we are departing FROM and where is it that we want to get TO? Why and how? It is unclear how planned activities and interventions would lead to the desired goal and vision.  And
3) Mechanisms for implementation: Other mechanisms for rolling out the framework should be considered alongside a campaign and a website. Emphasis should also be placed on existing mechanisms and partnerships that have already proven effective like the PANORAMA platform or BIOFIN.

Hello again, this is Sonia from IUCN.  I want to align myself with some comments made by colleagues. First, I agree with the comments  referring to the need to clarify the time frame of implementation; I also agree with Malta (South Africa) on the step-wise approach and prioritisation of key capacity to start immediately after adoption of the Post-2020 GBF and others to be built and enhanced at a later stage; I also strongly support, as colleagues from South Africa, Mali and others, the need for this framework to be owned and respond to all biodiversity-related conventions and other Rio Conventions, thus also serving to enhance synergies and collaboration; finally, as Ethiopia, I support a strong monitoring and evaluation system to assess progress as we move along in the application of the framework.

Message posted on behalf of Mr. Marcal Gusmao, Timor Leste (received via email 27-05-2020)

Thank you for forwarding the draft document to have a quick view.  In general, first I think that the capacity development framework in the draft document emphasize more on actors of the government and non-government in implementing the biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and the access and benefit sharing. I have a feeling that for the long term capacity development it is crucial to emphasize capacity of the local people who their daily activity are directly connected with the biodiversity, such as farmers, fisherman etc. and this seems to be lucking in the draft. So I am thinking that in this draft it should also provide a guideline for parties to develop national framework on transferring of the capacities to the local communities.

Lastly, I also think that it is probably important to consider a long term capacity development for masters and PhD capacity development (expert capacity development). In developing countries like my country Timor Leste, there is very limited biodiversity experts that helping country in biodiversity assessment and monitoring and for this reason it is important to have a long term capacity development for Timor Leste. I believe that this can be deliverable through UNEP/GEF projects where the projects usually goes for 4-5 years and this project duration is fit well with Master and PhD courses. This approaches actually far more sustainable compared to short term capacity development.

Dear SCBD,




Thank you for this initiative and for inviting me to comment.

I have looked at the framework and I believe that it captures the elements very well except that what I do not see is a means through which the framework harmonises approaches at the international level, the national, sub-national, local levels and cities in a manner that ensures that there is coherence in the messaging and action. This will avoid fragmentation and incoherence in actions towards achievement of the goals of the framework.  As mentioned by some of the participants, the sub-national and local levels are missing but in addition, the harmony and coherence at the international level is also missing. The problem with implementation of most of the international regimes we have is that they have separate implementation mechanisms hence fragmentation occurs even when implementing agreements and instruments related to the Convention on Biological Diversity. I believe we can stop the problem by making sure that all international and intergovernmental mechanisms have a common understanding at that level to enable strategic mainstreaming of capacity development of a long term strategic framework for capacity development that would help implement the Post 2020-Global Biodiversity Framework.

In this regard, I believe that the framework should be clear about implementation at the international level, national level, sub-national level and at the local level (including IPLCs) and cities. Because all these levels of governance have different dynamics, priorities and needs and each has its won contribution to the framework. Cities for example have a real likelihood of being left out if not specifically addressed yet their huge population and the extent of pollution in cities continue to impact negatively on biodiversity elsewhere.

While I agree with Claudia about the need to build technical capacity through PhDs and Masters Degrees (for expert capacity development), I also believe that the framework should be explicit about mainstreaming LONG term capacity through school curriculums to ensure that the goals and vision of Post 2020-GBF are inculcated in learners from a very early age. This would however be capacity building as opposed to capacity development. At this point I don't think we can avoid capacity building completely because learners for example might not have the capacity yet. It might already exist in more general environmental protection discussions but that is not adequate considering the crises that we are faced with. If it is captured in this framework then it would be necessary to monitor and report on implementation hence long term impact and implementation.

In addition, key among the issued that should be captured by the framework include planning and research. Planning will ensure there is mainstreaming across sectors and levels of governance and research will ensue that credible, verifiable information that can be relied on by policy and decision makers and other stakeholders is disseminated. These two aspects can aid in mainstreaming of the salient element necessary in every sector and level of governance.

This message is posted in my own capacity as part of academia and as a practitioner in the sector.

Best regards.

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 agree with most posts before that the current draft is an improvement from the earlier version. I would like to adhere to the post from Sonia from IUCN #1621 and the references she made to earlier posts.

Dear Secretariat of the CBD, dear participants, many thanks for preparing the draft elements of the long term strategy for capacity development and organising this online forum. 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.
Let me underline the importance of this framework. Without the requisite capacity, we will not achieve the post-2020 goals and targets!
The draft includes many relevant and important elements and i much appreciate the broad and thorough approach. I find, however, the structure rather complex and i think it could be made more operational.
On the scope: i am surprised by footnote 8 holding that tangible resources such as buildings, vehicles and equipment, are not capacity themselves. They are! And i think it is important to address both physical and immaterial capacity in a coherent manner throughout the present Strategy. This is, e.g., very relevant when assessing capacity development needs in relation to the future goals and targets, as well as in relation to the financial and other resources needed (hence a link to resource mobilisation strategies).
In the same vain, as regards the 'levels', it seems important to me to broaden the 'organisational' level with 'instutional level' and 'infrastructure'. This is crucial, e.g., for knowledge, research, education, and professional training, but also for judicial system/enforcement/inspections. In table 1, many of the elements mentioned under 'hard' are actually not tangible. The elements mentioned in the 'soft' column are important, but i'm not sure they should be the primary focus of the framework.
I also share questions on the theory of change, e.g. those posed by Sonia Pena (IUCN). I assume the simple theory of change is about going from a situation where there are gaps in the capacity to achieve the goals and targets in a timely manner, to a situation where there are no such gaps anymore. The theory of change should encompass the processes to develop and maintain the requisite capacity, as well as tools and instruments that can support this.
All in all, i think the strategy could be formulated in a more operational manner, thereby increasing its usefulness.
I would be most happy to learn the views of others on these remarks.
Best regards, Anne Theo

Dear Colleagues,
Thanks for sharing the document and the opportunity to participate in this discussion.
Firstly, Generally agree that the framework is well setout and captures the elements well, however I/we would like to make the following points which agree with many previous comments.

-This is not a linear process as seems to be implied in the document, there needs to be constant revision and flexibility to evolve with the context, especially at a local level and should be treated as more of a positive feedback loop.
-A time frame needs to be clarified and in doing so a stepwise approach adopted. Some actions can and need to be applied immediately others need to be built and enhanced/adapted later (Agree #1608)
- Agree with #1621 and 22. There needs to be more  focus on the local level ‘real life’ – how can the high level policy be transferred to those whose daily activities are closely linked with biodiversity e.g. farmers and fishers? furthermore in this area how can this new knowledge/capacity be retained?
-Agree with #1622 that encouraging Masters and PhD along with internships/apprenticeships is a great means of long-term capacity development but part of this needs to be encouraging those with the training to remain or return to local areas/communities so that they can feed their training back into the community and others can benefit and continue the development. Far too often those who participate in development programs are then led away/lost by the draw of better money, other countries, bigger opportunities,  so what are they incentives to stay?
Thank you

Dear CBD colleagues,

My name is Marie Haraldstad, and I am the national focal point for CBD in Norway. Thank you all for sharing interesting comments and ideas on the preparation of the Long-Term Strategic Framework for Capacity Development, and for the opportunity to participate.

We believe the theory of change is good and well suited for coordinated capacity development within and between countries. Coordination is important, but it is important not to overplay it. The point is to get synergies and avoid unnecessary overlap to save scarce resources. The levels lined out in the strategy entails both coordination with NBSAPs, Thematic plans and SDG. Mainstreaming in the sectors driving biodiversity loss is important – and often the most difficult part as real ownership and communication between sectors often prove difficult in practice.

Exchange of experiences and networks are useful, but we are hesitant in copying the capacity development structures of the UNFCCC as suggested as it entails numerous meetings with a limited number of practitioners sharing quite similar information between each other.

Regarding practice of implementation and reporting, it is important to reach out to the sectors; eg. how count programs in:

o sustainable agriculture with a significant Capacitybuilding component for farmers with NBSAPs and the CB plans;
o training for applying the biodiversity components of ESS, to be included??

Best Regards,
Marie

Message posted on behalf of Ms. Ruth Spencer (received via email 28 May 2020) Representing the Barnes Hill Community Development organization, Antigua and Barbuda.

Capacity building is a multidimensional process and going forward with the “all of society approach”, it means capacity building is for everyone and must be designed, planned and implemented according to the identified needs. It starts at the local level where IPLCs have much knowledge and technical skills gained over a long period of time through their community based adaptive process that government technicians may not have so it requires feeding in their knowledge into all national processes. People are at the heart of the convention processes so their inputs and knowledge must be included at the early stages of any capacity development design and planning process and multiple benefits including ownership, buying and sustainability will flow from any such capacity building intervention.

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. Several of the issues were already taken up by previous commenters.

When it comes to monitoring and evaluation of the effects of the future strategic framework, it has to be kept in mind that we develop a high level policy document. The framework will not be implemented through capacity development programs and acitivities directly. But, as Para 5 says "The purpose of the strategic framework is to guide the capacity development efforts of government and non-government actors...". Any monitoring efforts need look into whether and how the framework was taken up by the various actors.

Para 6 says "In many countries, capacity-building interventions are often implemented through different projects in ad hoc manner and not as part of a coherent capacity development programme or strategy." The framework should address this issue in more detail, a good place would be the section on principles, I make comments in that discussion stream.

Para 13 says "Often capacity development interventions focus on activities, based on the assumption that once the activity has been implemented, capacity is in place and results will automatically follow at multiple levels. But it is now understood that sustainability depends on a more holistic approach that needs consideration not only of capacity development, but also of capacity utilisation and capacity retention." Table 2 combines the three levels of capacity development (individual-institutional-societal) with three phases of capacity development, utilisation and retention. That's very useful. And Para 13 implies that a new and holistic strategic framework should address not only the three levels but also the the phases – which it doesn’t do. Therefore, I see a major contradiction between the message of Para 13. and the rest of the text. This contradiction needs to be addressed somehow. Either through integration of the phases or explanation why the phases are not integrated.

Para 16 says "The TOC notes important contextual factors such as the fact that legislation and policies are largely in place …“ This assumption is wrong, according to my quick research in the ABSCH, only 19 from 54 African countries posted measures. The TOC needs to reflect the fact that many countries do not have ABS legislation yet.

Para 19 says "Government and non-government actors would need to state clearly what capacities are being targeted in the results hierarchy formulated for any given capacity development initiative, taking into account what the capacities relate to and whether they are considered to be hard or soft." This task given by the framewrok to the actors should be taken up later in the document and translated into concrete suggestions which tools can be applied, adapted or developed to support the actors in this task. When the framework talks about international coordination mechanisms in Para 42, the identification, development and coordinated application of such tools could be mentioned as a concrete activity under the framework.

Figure 1 (TOC) says at the bottom "Assumptions underpinning the theory: … Capacity will be utilised effectively and retained". I see a contradiction to what Para 13 implies (see above). For me the message of Para 13 is that capacity utilisation and retention still poses challanges. If that is what Para 13 implies, the TOC cannot be based on the assumption that capacity utilisation and retention is a given. The framework should be very clear and realistic in developing the TOC.

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) Is the the proposed structure of the strategic framework clear and comprehensive enough? Should it be modified and, if so, how? The structure is very clear. About Numbers V and VI are similiar in elements, may be to reorder the bullets, and to combine some of them, particularly the elements involving gobernance or political decision-makers. And to develop the number VI only for monitoring, assessment and reporting.
(b) Are there any other key critical elements that are missing and should be added? Is so, which ones? I sugget to add some element relative to successful capacity building process and mechanisms from the last years, for identify and apply experiences and actions with positive outcomes, actions could be continue applying in the future compatible with new GBF and long term strategic framework.
(c) Is the purpose of the strategic framework clear and sufficient? If not, what would you suggest to make it clearer and/or expanded? Only expand or develop the section about implementation and assessment.

Dear colleagues,

1. I am Syed Mohazri Syed Hazari from Malaysia and I am representing DHI Water & Environment. My organisation represents the private sector and we have been actively participating in the discussions on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), and have been engaging the business and private sector in Malaysia on issues regarding the GBF and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) especially to establish the Malaysian Platform for Business and Biodiversity (MPBB).

2. First of all, we would like to congratulate the Secretariat for its efforts in preparing this important draft document. We will submit our written comments, but would to highlight the followings salient points:

a. In general, the Draft Strategic Framework is somewhat robust to support capacity development for implementation of the Post-2020 GBF. It is commendable that a clear distinction has been made between “capacity development” and “capacity building” because it acknowledges that capacity within a country should already been built over time.

b. We echo other colleagues on the importance of having a clear timeline with tangible milestones to ensure implementation and to ease reporting and review.

c. We are of the view that paragraph 13 (Item iv: Sustaining capacity) is an important issue because it is a problem for most countries and organisations do to the HR system that somehow does not or inadequately address the issue of sustaining capacity (especially technical expertise) within the Ministry/Agency/organisation.

d. The inclusion of non-governmental actors (especially the private sector) in capacity development (as detailed in the draft document) is essential as this acknowledges the role of non-governmental actors in the implementation of the Convention, and subsequently the NBSAPs.

e. We are particularly delighted that the private sector is acknowledged as a stakeholder to contribute to the implementation of the framework beyond financial contributions (as detailed in para. 39 and para. 49).

f. However, our main concern is the lack of a clear pathway for knowledge transfer and capacity development between Governmental actors and non-governmental actors (in this case the private sector) within the current draft framework although we acknowledge paragraph 35 that addresses this issue briefly. It is still uncertain how this will be implemented. The role of the private sector within the theory of change is also unclear.

Dear Colleagues,
Greetings from Iran!
First of all, I would like to thank secretariat for conducting this discussion forum and preparing the excellent draft document.
I am the Iran CPB NFP and my comments are as following:
1- All activities for capacity development need the financial resources which is not fully available in particular for developing countries. I wish to emphasize on the responsibility of industrialized countries and international organizations for supporting the developing countries in capacity development to support implementation of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. Biological diversity is the heritage of all human being who are currently living on planet earth and the future generations. Therefore, it is the mutual responsibility of all countries to conserve this heritage and not let it deteriorate due to the lack of resources available for developing countries, where the greatest biological diversity exists and is degenerated. The support mechanism for capacity development is not reflected in present draft document. This support from well-developed countries and even private sector/industry is not or should not be in contradiction to the “ownership” as is well presented in paragraph 25 – page 9 – of the current draft.
2- According to article 16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “access to and transfer of technology including biotechnology” among Contracting Parties are “essential” elements for the attainment of the objectives of this Convention. In contrast to this article, the target 16 of the “zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework” emphasizes on the adverse effects of biotechnology and does not mention any benefit or development and use of this technology for conservation of biodiversity. Since the draft “elements for the long-term strategic framework for capacity development to support implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework”, is supposed to develop capacity for the zero “draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework”, it is very difficult to comment on the current draft on capacity development before the zero draft is finalized. I therefore wish to reiterate the significance of capacity development through transfer of technology including biotechnology as stated in article 16 of the convention. I take this opportunity to officially object to the inclusion of target 16 of the zero draft of the framework. I wish to suggest the following revision to the article 16 of the zero draft: “16- Establish and implement measures in all countries by 2030 to make necessary arrangements to ensure access to biotechnology and its benefits and to set out appropriate procedure to handle the impacts of biotechnology on biodiversity.”
3- As article 16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, access to and transfer of technology including biotechnology among Contracting Parties are essential elements for the attainment of the objectives of this Convention. Therefore, it is essential to include in the draft elements the responsibility of the owners of technologies including biotechnology to transfer required technologies and contribute in all means to the capacity development among the developing countries and countries with economies in transition to fulfill their tasks on the implementation of post 2020 biodiversity framework.
With my best personal wishes
Behzad Ghareyazie
Iran CPB NFP

Dear colleagues,
This is Hiroaki Tomoi from the Govenment of Japan. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process.

We have some general comments.
First of all, the capacity to revise NBSAPs align with the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework should be included as an element of the draft such as High level outcome of TOC in Fig.1. Furthermore, not only the development of National biodiversity capacity development strategies and Action Plans, but also the revision and implementation of NBSAPs itself should be included in the examples of Outputs, described in Box.1.

The earlier the NBSAPs are developed/revised, the greater the impact of implementation will be. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure timeliness of the capacity development for revising the NBSAPs in line with the post 2020 GBF and to implement them as seamlessly as possible.

Japan, as COP10 president, has contributed to capacity development in developing countries to achieve the Aichi Targets through Japan Biodiversity Fund. JBF has conducted a lot of activities such as regional capacity-building workshops which aim to improve the ability to develop/revise their NBSAPs, and we got a lot of positive feedback from the participant parties, e.g., the workshops contributed to improving their knowledge, technical skills, partnerships and especially sharing experiences was useful.

In addition, we would like to stress that both technical and financial supports are important and they should be well-balanced for the implementation of NBSAPs. 

Best regards, Hiroaki

The Strategic Framework approach is greatly appreciated and provides an opportunity to develop a coherent approach to capacity building that is complementary to the over strategic plan of the convention. the draft document provided is comprehensive and provides a good basis for responding to the concerns of developing countries who are responsible for maintaining and restoring significant biodiversity.

In this regard, it is important that the Draft Elements of the Strategic Framework be  should be linked to the implementation of the action targets of the GBF for the effective implementation of the framework and achieving the desired ambitious mission. The framework should also seek to support the 3 objectives of the convention. Inclusion of the 3 objectives is important for the purpose of ensuring that the element of Nagoya Protocol are also included in this framework.

Regarding the definition for Capacity development: The document suggest that moving forward the should be change in terms of use of terms i.e. capacity development and capacity building. This is acceptable as long as the language also take into cognisance or alignment with the elements of the CPB and Nagoya article 22 which already clarifies the scope and the objectives of capacity building in the context of the Biosafety protocol and the Nagoya Protocol.

It is also important to incorporate the notion of "capability". This is a wider notion that includes the necessary infrastructure to support the capacity building interventions. Often people receive training and participate in capacity building programmes but do not have the necessary equipment and resources to make use of the training they receive. Hence no capability is built. This is an important consideration for the Strategic Framework. In order to address this adequately in the Strategic Framework, there is a need to include adequate infrastructure under the descriptions on types of capacity at every level.

The Theory of Change to be considered should consider that sustainable use of biodiversity complimented with fair and equitable sharing of benefits results in conservation outcomes.  In this regard,  for Capacity building it is necessary to ensure the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure benefit sharing and capability building. Transparency, Mentoring and coaching should therefore be an integral component of the proposed theory of change.
It is good to note that while all capacity development strategies, programmes and initiatives should, therefore, address the technical needs identified as a priority by governments, IPLCs and other stakeholders developing plans to achieve the post-2020 biodiversity targets, the necessary safeguards around FPIC and benefit sharing should be incorporated.

Message posted on behalf of Ms. Jewel  Kudjawu from the Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Department, Ghana (received via email Sunday 5/31/2020 2:54 PM)

I  thank the  Secretariat  and the capacity building team for putting together the  Draft Strategic Framework  to support capacity development for implementation of the Post-2020 GBF. I also reiterate  comments by other colleagues  on the need to have clear timelines for the development of national capacity development plans and implementation.

I agree with the view in paragraph 33  that in formulating the strategy, it will be essential that the starting point takes into account existing and previous and current initiatives.  I however think it will be useful  to also step back and take into account capacities that may not be available but  required to support the implementation of the Post 2020 Framework , and make that conscious effort to build those capacities for the future.   I therefore support the submission made by a participant for training MSc and PHD students in extremely important field. 

It is also not clear in paragraph 34 when and who  is supposed to develop or spearhead the thematic capacity development action plans for the different target groups proposed apart from the two mentioned in the document. These action plans are also to be integrated into national and sub-national plans and so the time frame for developing these are very important.

I support, the concern by one participant of the  the lack of a clear pathway for knowledge transfer and capacity development between Governmental actors and non-governmental actors as well as Indigenous people and local communities.  How this will be implemented should be clear in the Framework.

I am Elenita (Neth) Daño from the ETC Group based in southern Philippines.  I agree that capacity building  is not linear, nor uni-directional.  the Strategic Framework should capture the non-linear, dynamic feedback loop and evolving nature of innovations and capacity building.  also, that capacity building is multi-directional and should begin from a framing that there are existing capacities among actors especially among indigenous and local communities who are often identified as “target beneficiaries” of capacity building initiatives. the knowledge and capacities that exist among IPLCs, local government units and civil society need to be recognised and should be the starting point of capacity building efforts.

I wish to agree with those proposing for the need for a feedback mechanism in the capacity development strategic framework, this will not only act as a motivation factor but also help to improve capacity development interventions for future programmes. my other comments are on Principles and Approaches for effective Capacity Development;
part (a) for any capacity building to be effective there is need to have appropriate interventions thus the word 'appropriate' need to be added to the heading which will then read ' Analysis of context, existing capacities and needs is essential to ensure appropriate and effective interventions''.
(c)Strategic and integrated approaches to capacity development should be promoted. under this principle on bullet 2 the statement is left hanging, it should be clear what we want to align our strategic planning. for example if we want to align to other biodiversity related  treaties or the SDGs or both.
(d) I have problems understanding this principle as it sounds as if interventions must be designed according to recognized good practices and lesson learnt only yet the first bullet is talking of new initiatives. Thus I propose the title need to be improved to make it open for new ideas and innovations i.e. 'Intervention should take into account Recognized Good Practices and Lesson Learnt''.
part (f) on gender. I am happy that the draft element for the strategic framework is gender sensitive. However I just want to point out the need to be more inclusive when talking of gender to capture all gender groups, women, men and the youth. Hence paragraph 29 first sentence, I proposed to replace women with all gender groups and women empowerment can also be emphasized as we go in-depth to bridge the capacity gaps among the gender groups.
Thank you

My name is Renata Gomez, Biodiversity Project Manager at Regions4, the host of the Regions4 Biodiversity Learning Platform (R4BLP) and coordinator, together with the Government of Québec, of the Advisory Committee on Subnational Governments and Biodiversity (AC SNG) to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

I will be responding on behalf of the Members of both platforms, the subnational governments of Aichi, Andra Pradesh, Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes, Basque Country, Campeche, Catalonia, Fatick, Gangwon, Goias, Gossas, Lombardy, North Rhine Westphalia, Ontario, Palawan, Paraná, Québec, São Paulo, Sichuan, Wales and Walga and the partner organizations, the European Committee of the Regions (CoR), the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) and the Consortium of Provincial Governments of Ecuador (CONGOPE).

Attached you may find a document that includes comments and recommendations to the four discussions launched: general comments on the draft document; principles and approaches for effective capacity development; key strategies to improve capacity development implementation; and on the discussion on mechanism of implementation .

I thank you, on behalf of the R4BLP and the AC SNG members, the opportunity to comment on the draft elements for the long-term strategic framework for capacity development to support implementation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

Dear colleagues, I am Elena Makeyeva, ABS NFP and a Head of the ABS National Coordination Centre in Belarus. I also join the others in congratulating the CBD Secretariat for the hard work in putting together the Draft elements for the long-term strategic framework for capacity development to support implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and organizing this discussion forum.
The structure for the draft strategic element is fine. I agree with the Strategic Framework and would like to emphasize that a clear timing for developing the framework is important.
My comments on some of specific paragraphs are as follows.
I strongly support the colleagues mentioned the area that requires to be strengthened, namely, the development of capacity of the youth in order for them to meaningfully participate in implementing the Post 2020 GBF. All the plans that we are currently developing are mainly aimed at the youth and will be implemented by young people. 
I join surprise expressed by Mr Anne Theo Seinen with regard to footnote 8 holding that tangible resources such as buildings, vehicles and equipment, are not capacity themselves. I also agree that they are! And I agree also that “ … it is important to address both physical and immaterial capacity in a coherent manner throughout the present Strategy. This is, e.g., very relevant when assessing capacity development needs in relation to the future goals and targets, as well as in relation to the financial and other resources needed (hence a link to resource mobilisation strategies).”
Everybody understands that both tangible and intangible capacity is important to achieve future goals and targets…
The earlier the NBSAPs are developed/revised, the greater the impact of implementation will be. In addition, it should be taken into account that both technical and financial support are important for developing countries and countries with economies in transition for the implementation of NBSAPs, and sure they should be well balanced.
Best regards,
Elena

Dear colleagues,
My name is Ala Rotaru, ABS Focal Point of the Republic of Moldova.
I agree with Ms. Githaiga Cicilia of Kenya on the capacity development framework that would help implement the Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework - it should be clear in terms of implementation at the international, national level, subnational and local (including IPLCs) and cities.
At the same time, we must forget about regional cooperation. For example, the EU has already approved the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 ”Bringing nature back into our lives”.
I also believe that the problem with the implementation of most of the international regimes we have is that they have separate implementation mechanisms, so that fragmentation takes place even when we implement agreements and instruments related to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
It is also important that the implementation of CBD agreements must be in synergy with other Rio Conventions and IPBES.

My name is Helena Paul, EcoNexus.  I wish to support what Elenita Daño has said here and to emphasise the fact that there is much wisdom and detailed understanding among Indigenous cultures and peasant farmers about biodiversity and the relationships between different elements of it that is often more systems related than much of modern scientific thought, which tends to be more linear. Biodiversity is about systems, not least the integrity of ecosystems. It is also essentially local – no two ecosystems are the same and therefore the subtle webs of relationships within those ecosystems will also be unique. Only careful observation and interaction with such elements over long periods of time can yield the kind of insight held by IPLCs and peasant farmers.

There is a tendency to take a top-down approach to capacity-building, but this risks fatally neglecting the wisdom of IPLCs and peasant farmers. Their knowledge of their own context and the nature of their insight is vital to the work of the Convention in developing capacity – we have much to learn from them, not the reverse. Scientific expertise may play a helpful role where scientists take the lead from such communities and are invited to assist, but not if it is imposed on them.

We need to remember that there is more than one kind of science, scientific culture and cosmovision, something it is easy to forget in a world dominated by a particular model of science, such as is now the case.

Women play a vital and unique role amongst IPLCS and peasant farmers, since they are often the custodians of seed and seed banks, and providers of food and medicine. They also care for ecosystems and water sources, replenishing them through eg: reforestation, stopping deforestation and restoring drylands - yet they still do not receive adequate recognition for all this. This is partly because of the patriarchal nature of some cultures and also of western thought and national legislation in many countries.

IPLCs and peasant farmers, particularly women, must be fully empowered to advise on biodiversity and the care and replenishment of ecosystems to ensure their resilience, which is absolutely vital if human beings are to  flourish and if we are to address the challenges of climate change.

See, for example: https://www.women4biodiversity.org/women-culture-nature/ , also
http://www.women4biodiversity.org 
and particular thanks to Edna Kaptoyo, GEF SGP Indigenous Peoples Fellow Climate Change.

Message posted on behalf of Mr. Kamal Kumar Rai of Nepal (received via email 3 June 2020)

Dear Helena and Elenita,
I am Kamal Kirant Indigenous biodiversity professional, I heartily thank you so much for the important statement. indigenous peoples, local communities support inclusive, participatory approach of  long term strategic capacity building, scientific technology collaboration with indigenous science ensuring self determination, Free Prior and inform Consent and full and effective participation of IPLCs on post 2020 global biodiversity framework.  Thanks with regards

This is Habtamu Adam From Environment, Forest and climate change commission of Ethiopia.
First of All I would like to thank you the secretary and all bodies who engaged in the preparation of the draft document as well as giving the necessary comment to update it. This is just to forward few comments.
1. To know the current  capacity level/ where we are and  where we need to go, parties and other relevant bodies need to conduct an assessment at international, regional and national level based on 3 level of capacity which were  indicated at the draft capacity development document.
2. Regard on indigenous  peoples and  local communities I strongly agree with  Helena and Elenita idea and thank you for that crucial statement.
3. In addition to those relevant stakeholders identified at P.49, I recommend to include religious institution, which have key role both in the protection and conservation of biodiversity resources as well as creating awareness for the local community.  In this regard religious institutions have more acceptance by the local community and currently in Ethiopia high amount of forest coverage and other biodiversity resources found in monastery's, Church's and other religious places. So. including them may have great importance for the effectiveness of the strategy.
4. Since those vulnerable group of the community like the disabled and others are more affected, this capacity development strategy shall consider and give special attention for them  like women and youth.  For the realization of it, I recommend to include this issue in paragraph 27.

This is 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 agree with some comments about that this strategic framework needs to be more specific in terms of timing and actions to be carried out. It is necessary to include an operative plan because this draft does not clear in this regard. It could be more specific when the Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework be adopted.

The draft mention that term “capacity development” is the best option because is used by most organizations, including the majority of UN agencies. In this regard, I would like to emphasize that it is necessary to ensure that this term is aligned to others biodiversity-related conventions and the Rio Conventions, for the UNFCCC for example, the term used is capacity-building.

I agree with Anne Theo from UE regarding tangible resources: human, financial and physical resources (including infraestructura, building, vehicles, equipment and documentation), this kind of resources should be considered in this strategic framework. For example, through international cooperation, a satellite antenna was donated to Mexico which has served to increase capacities in this country.

Finally, In paragraph 17, there is a list of capacities that are most urgently needed. In this regard, I consider that it is necessary to include technology and infrastructure.

Dear colleagues,
My name is Galina Mozgova, and I am BCH NFP and a Head of the National Coordination Biosafety Centre. First of all, I would like to join the others and congratulate the CBD Secretariat for preparing the draft elements for the Long-term Strategic Framework for Capacity Development and also say many thanks for the opportunity to comment on this very important document.
In general, I find the elements to be quite satisfactory, and think they are built very logically and document include indeed relevant elements.
I have some comments.
As many others colleagues, I also support the need to identify the time frame for implementation.
(28) I think that monitoring and evaluation are crucial for improving the quality of the implementation of every strategy, that`s why I`m also believe that working reporting methodologies and clear indicators are very important and they should be paid special attention in the Strategic Framework, as well as support [#1603] that the measurement of capacity development should be based on clear evidence of actual change.
I feel, as well, that synergies and collaboration between the Convention on Biological Diversity with other biodiversity-related conventions, including in the areas of capacity-building activities, are important elements in achieving implementation of the POST-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and support Ms. Sonia Peña Moreno [#1621] and other colleagues about “the need for this framework to be owned and respond to all biodiversity-related conventions and other Rio Conventions, thus also serving to enhance synergies and collaboration”.
Also, I think it is important strengthening of synergies and collaboration between the Convention and its Protocols (Nagoya and Cartagena Protocol), as this Protocols contribute achieving the CBD goals, so synergism and collaboration are as important as synergism and collaboration between CBD and other conventions. And this also need to be reflected in the Long-Term Strategic Framework.
Regarding tangible resources I strongly support Mr. Anne Theo Seinen [#1632] and the other colleagues [#1666], [#1675], that this resources should be considered in this Strategic Framework.

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you very much for the possibility to provide general comments on the draft elements of the long-term strategic framework for capacity development. My name is Lorena Jaramillo, I’m managing the BioTrade Initiative of UNCTAD. Our initiative works with many partner organizations at global and local levels to promote sustainable trade with biodiversity-based or sustainably sourced products and services.

We welcome the draft strategic framework. It provides an excellent theoretical basis for capacity development and includes helpful principles and approaches. We encourage to focus the implementation mechanisms more on enabling partnerships beyond the core biodiversity institutions in order to effectively mainstream biodiversity across a broad range of global, regional, national actors. We think focusing too much on centralization and coordination of capacity development may limit the successful implementation of the framework and may contradict the Theory of Change presented in Figure 1. As was mentioned by others, further capacity development for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as well as access and benefit sharing (ABS) may not be a linear one-way process, but rather a complex exercise from local to global levels and vice-versa with multiple actors and should be a mutual learning exercise. Embracing this assumption may increase its broad acceptance by many stakeholders and therefore its successfully implementation.

UNCTAD´s BioTrade Initiative sees itself as a strong partner to the endeavor of a post-2020 global biodiversity framework and has experience and insights to bring to the table, including a knowledge management platform. The shift to sustainable trade is crucial to achieve global environmental objectives and an opportunity to incentivize sustainable practices and ABS. This will contribute to the transformational change we need. Considering the shift to sustainable trade, good practices and experiences related to it in the long-term strategic framework will enable mainstreaming biodiversity into the business sectors, across ministries and link the global and with local levels. BioTrade will provide further comments in the form.

Kind regards, Lorena

Greetings from the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS). We thank the Secretariat and everyone who has worked hard to make the draft elements document and this discussion forum available. It has certainly been an interesting and lively discussion, as befits this important subject.

Noting that there is a lot of enthusiasm and agreement on the draft elements seen in this discussion forum, we would like to emphasize a few points, based partly on our experience as a long-time UN observer organization, and especially on the outcomes of the “Expert Thematic Workshop on Landscape Approaches for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework” held in September last year, which held a thematic stream session on capacity development (see here for the full report: https://satoyama-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UNU-IAS-Landscape-Expert-Thematic-Workshop-Report-final-1.pdf).

1. The current draft elements contain good elements for developing capacity in the CBD Parties, other governmental groups, interested civil society and other groups that are already well involved in CBD processes. But we think there is potential to strengthen the relationship of capacity development to CEPA (communications, education, and public awareness), and work towards developing capacity in the wider world and among those who are not now actively involved in biodiversity. Our work has shown again and again that projects are effective when all stakeholders are involved, and it is vital that all of the stakeholders in biodiversity (meaning everyone in the world) be aware and involved. So we would recommend strengthening this aspect in the document, possibly even adding a whole section on capacity development for those beyond the CBD community.

2. We would like to add our support to others who have stressed the importance of the NBSAP process, meaning both NBSAP development and implementation, and including monitoring and evaluation. NBSAPs are of course the most important mechanism for CBD implementation, and the process needs to be promoted and strengthened, both in terms of: inclusion of capacity development in Parties’ NBSAPs to develop capacity in a non-linear and iterative process within their countries; and improving relevant policymakers’ capacity to develop good NBSAPs and implement them for good social and ecological outcomes. UNU-IAS is currently involved in a multi-year project to develop a manual specifically on improving the effectiveness of NBSAPs with a landscape perspective, and we look forward to sharing the completed manual with the Parties in the near future.

3. It is already included in the document to some extent, but we find there could be a greater emphasis on the need to respect, promote, and develop local knowledge and practices, making sure that capacity-development projects account for local-level contexts and issues in the landscape on the ground. In addition to “multi-stakeholder”, the idea of “multi-scale” is important for effective implementation, and national- and global-scale capacity development mechanisms should be flexible and inclusive of the regional and local levels, so that each level does not conflict with the others but rather feeds into and strengthens them. As a way of bridging the multiple levels, tools have been developed that can help national- and global-level actors to understand local contexts, many of which have been collected, for example, in the American Museum of Natural History Center for Biodiversity Conservation’s “Nature-Culture Indicators and Knowledge Systems Resource Directory” (http://resources.cbc.amnh.org/indicators/), and we would encourage Parties to make use of these and include them in their policies and NBSAPs as appropriate.

UNU-IAS remains an active and willing partner to the Parties and the whole CBD community on capacity development and other issues, and we look forward to continuing this conversation and our cooperation with all of you throughout the development of the post-2020 GBF and beyond.

Message posted on behalf of Mr. Dini Zhang of China (received via email 5 June 2020)

Dear Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD):

I am Dini Zhang, working at the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Research Center of Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences of China. I participate in my personal capacity.

Firstly, I would like to thank SCBD for the draft long-term strategic framework for capacity-building (hereinafter referred to as the "draft") to support the hard work of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (hereinafter referred to as the "framework") and organize this online forum. I support the overall structure and content of the long-term framework for capacity-building. The comments on certain paragraphs are as follows:

General Comments on the Draft Elements of the Strategic Framework
Regarding the definition of capacity building, it’s the first time to use "capacity development" to replace "capacity building" under the CBD framework. I notice that some United Nations agencies including UNDP and FAO now use "capacity development", and in UNCCD they are equivalent terms, while UNFCCC is still using "capacity building". I recommend that it is necessary to ensure that the term is consistent with other Rio conventions as mentioned by [#1675].

I Agree with the long-term strategic framework for capacity development mentioned in [#1603] and [#1675] that we need a implementation schedule which is with a clear time framework. We suggest to include the specific technical capabilities mentioned in paragraph 21 of the draft to identify the corresponding post-2020 framework goals. It is best to set clear milestones, so as to better ensure the support of the framework.

I appreciate the idea that mentioned by [#1622] of funding for training of a group of masters and doctors (expert capacity development) in the biodiversity related professional fields. In these programs, I further recommend not only to impart relevant theoretical knowledge to students, but also to cooperate with private companies and NGOs, let whom directly participate in related specific projects of training. After graduation, students have relevant experience to directly engage in related work, and private companies and NGOs can also select outstanding students to provide jobs directly, which is more sustainable.

It is agreed that all activities for capacity development need the financial resources which is not fully available in particular for developing countries mentioned by [#1651]. However, at the domestic level, financial resources should be strengthened to mainstreaming of biodiversity and be included in national planning and fiscal expenditures, drawing attention from subnational governments and regions to relevant capacity development; at the global level, it is necessary to make full use of the existing funding mechanism (GEF), strengthen the utilization rate of funds, and ensure a regular review and reporting system.

Ⅴ. Key Strategies to improve capacity development implementation
I agree with the support mentioned in [#1650] H. Engage the private sector. The private sector can contribute to the implementation of the framework in addition to financial contributions, such as sharing expertise and technology, providing products and services, and cooperative projects can also help promote etc. to give full play to the role of the private sector.

Ⅵ. Mechanisms for implementation
For the establishment of high-level committees on capacity development at the global level and similar bodies at the regional and national levels mentioned in A. Governance and Coordination Mechanisms, as well as the biodiversity capacity development forum, I agree with [#1641]’s opinion that  the contributions and lessons learned from existing capacity building committee in the Paris Agreement need to be evaluated, and it is necessary to ensure that there are matching financial support guarantees, otherwise it is more likely to use existing alliances or networks to avoid duplication with existing mechanisms/tools.

I am looking forward to your reply.
Best wishes, Dini Zhang
zdn@nies.org

Message posted on behalf of Mr. Marcello Maschke, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany (received via email 5 June 2020)

Dear colleagues,

first of all, we would like to thank the SCBD for the preparation of the discussion forum and the draft document.

Attached, we send you our comments on the Draft Elements of the Long-Term Strategic Framework for Capacity Development to Support Implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

In addition, we would like to answer the opening question posed by Erie Tamale (SCBD) at the discussion forum on May 24:

The draft elements of the Long-Term Strategic Framework for Capacity Development provide a common understanding of capacity development for the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, give a detailed and reasoned theory of change, identify success factors for effective capacity development. Many actors, such as member states as well as private actors, IPLC, women and the youth are addressed in the Strategic Framework and provided with promising strategies and mechanisms to improve the implementation of capacity development.

In general, the Strategic Framework is not very specific in many parts due to the document’s framework character which leaves freedom to the member states for context-specific activities. Nevertheless, and especially for the adaptation and implementation of the NBSAPs, member states need specific capacity development offers. One key element of the Framework (or accompanying guidance documents) could be to provide guidance on the identification of capacity building needs, their prioritization as well as the planning of implementation and evaluation of capacity building activities in the NBSAPs. Especially least developed countries need tailored capacity development offers in order to strengthen their NBSAPs and their implementation. Additional resources for capacity development, capacity utilization and capacity retention should be furthermore provided to IPLC.

Best regards
Marcello Maschke

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. Overall it is a good drafted document for consideration for all. focusing on capacity development described according to present needs. Under II Introduction all text (i. Definitions, ii. Levels of capacity, iii. Types of capacity,iv. Sustaining capacity) was drafted nicely.
In page no 6 under 'III. STRATEGIC DIRECTION AND OUTCOMES - B. Capacity results - ii. Technical capacities and thematic capacity development' the word 'Research Organisation' should be include after "the technical needs identified as a priority by
governments, IPLCs" and the sentence will be read as "All capacity development strategies, programmes and initiatives should, therefore, address the technical needs identified as a priority by governments, IPLCs, Research Organisation and other stakeholders developing plans to achieve the post-2020 biodiversity targets."
Thank you all and best wishes

Dear Secretariat of the CBD, dear participants,

all my appreciation for the efforts done in preparing the draft elements of the long term strategy for capacity development and organising this online forum. I'm 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).

Just like others, I also want to stress the crucial role that this framework, and more in general capacity building, will play to contribute to the implementation of the future GBF, and the achievement of its goals and targets. It is thus fundamental to have a comprehensive and well-structured long-term strategy supporting the effective and efficient development of capacities at all levels.

Overall, the purpose of the Framework is clearly explained in the draft document, this being stated as a guidance to governments and non-governmental actors to support the design, shaping and implementation of capacity development activities. The framework’s target seems to be quite comprehensive, given that the framework aims at addressing governments, as well as all relevant stakeholders and non-governmental actors (as specified in footnote 4). While the scope is clear, the elements proposed in the draft (which are good and valuable elements) would benefit from additional elaboration. If this document has to be used as a guidance to develop more detailed CB actions plans, more concrete suggestions or examples under some sections would be useful. For instance, section V. E “Promote partnership and networks for implementation” could be complemented by some more specific instructions, or suggestions on how concretely promote valuable partnership among the public and private sectors, how to get the private sectors involved and how to enable local communities or other relevant stakeholders in partnerships and networks. Also, I wonder whether there are good examples to report, or some lesson learned to provide concrete advice on how to build partnership and networks. In my view, the promotion of strategic partnerships, especially with the private sectors, is a very valuable and important element to be strengthen in this framework. This is tightly connected to another important element, which is embedded in section H “engaging the private sector”.

Similarly, could section V. F “Enhance synergies between capacities development efforts of relevant processes” be further elaborated and provide additional suggestions, examples of mechanisms, or of other experiences to enhance synergies? More concrete guidance on how to identify areas where synergy could be enhanced, as well as the most relevant processes, mechanisms or institutions under the different fora would also be helpful. It is often a challenge for governments who can count only on limited human and financial resources to be fully aware of all the existing mechanisms and initiatives in place, and be acquainted with them to such a level to select the most appropriate/useful on the basis of their needs and country-context.

Finally, from a more general perspective, it would be good to clarify the relationship between this document and the capacity building strategy of the Nagoya Protocol (which is only mentioned as an example of action plan, though the current CB Strategy for the NP is broader than an action plan, given that it contains principles and approaches as well). It is important to bear in mind that the implementation of the Protocol, and more broadly of ABS, will also have to contribute to the achievement of the post 2020 GBF.

I hope I contributed to the discussion in a useful manner. Thank you to all the participants for the interesting points raised and again to CBD Secretariat for the work done. Looking forward to continue this discussion in future occasions.

Best regards,
Mery

Hello everyone. I am Silvana Bustillo, conservation biologist and policy advisor at the Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN), where for the past 30 years we have worked with CSOs and IPs organizations of 7 major rainforest countries to protect the remaining irreplaceable tropical rainforests -and the biodiversity they harbor, and support indigenous and other forest dependent communities to secure their rights to land and livelihood.

Our team joins others in congratulating the CBD Secretariat for the hard work in putting together this draft and welcomes the opportunity to take part in this online discussion forum.

We agree with the general structure of the draft document, and would like to share the following comments:

-We agree with others on the need to have clear timeframes for the implementation of the strategy, and with Malta (#1608) in the importance to design a specific strategy that can prioritize needed capacities to kickstart implementation as soon as possible in order to avoid delays in the implementation of the new goals and targets of the post-2020 GBF.

-In relation to the enabling environment level of capacity, we would like to highlight the importance of having mechanisms that can guarantee coherent policies throughout all sectors of government. This is an essential enabling condition, and should therefore be very clear in this framework that parties should review their policies to make sure they integrate policy coherence with the new frameworks goals and targets.

Also, there should be a greater focus on implementation, monitoring and review as the global current circumstances demand urgent actions. Effective monitoring and review mechanisms will allow for the much-needed possibility to adapt and ratchet up actions when/if needed.
We therefore emphasize the importance of all types of enabling conditions in order for capacity development to translate into effective implementation. As mentioned before (for example in #1653), it is not enough to have trained people and institutions, they also need the capacity to act -and in this regard policies, infrastructure, political will, security (as threats to environmental and social leaders is an increasing problem in many rainforest countries like Colombia and Brazil), financial resources, equipment & technology -among others- are essential and extremely limited and limiting in many cases. We also eco the surprise of Elena (#1666) and Anne Theo Seinen on their comments around footnote 8.

-We find good emphasis in including gender perspectives and women in the general framework and specifically in section IV, and we applaud this. We also see IPLCs have been included in the document to some extent (paragraph 25, 36 and 49 for example). However, considering that many studies have identified a remarkable overlap between the worlds remaining areas of high biodiversity and IPs territories, we find it necessary to highlight the relevance and importance of IPLCs throughout this draft in order to guarantee their full and effective involvement throughout the whole process -including the design, implementation, monitoring and reviewing (beyond their territories). We think that as custodians of most of the world’s biodiversity today, they should have an essential role in this convention. We therefore agree with Elenita Dano, Helena Paul and other colleagues who have expressed the need to make sure that this capacity development strategy is multi-directional and should recognize, respect and promote the existing capacities and knowledge among the different stakeholders, especially IPLCs. As stated by Helena: “Their knowledge of their own context and the nature of their insight is vital to the work of the Convention in developing capacity –we have much to learn from them”. It is essential then to also highlight the relevance and importance of considering IPLCs’ world views, understandings, languages and conditions -not as lack of capacities that need to be built, but as context conditions that need to be bridged and considered if we are to achieve the framework’s goals with their effective participation.

We propose the inclusion of another element in the IV section on Principle and Approaches for Effective Capacity Development, as element (g) Intercultural approach. Such approach implies valuing and incorporating the different cultural, territorial, welfare, and development visions of the various ethnocultural groups. We believe this should be transversal in capacity development efforts for biodiversity to ensure a full, effective and equitable participation of IPLCs in the design, implementation, monitoring, review and adaptation of the capacity development interventions. The diversity of different IPLCs must be respected and they must be empowered and involved in defining and detailing the particularities of the intercultural approach according to each group's distinctiveness and scope.

This approach should support the development of monitoring programs designed and implemented by IP’s in their territories, for example. The resulting information can help legitimize their important contributions to the protection of the world’s biodiversity, and strengthen their role and rights.

-In relation to section VI. A-Governance and Coordination Mechanism (paragraphs 42 and 43), we eco colleagues’ suggestions (#1611) to have multi-level governance that recognize, allow (facilitate) and promote the active role of indigenous peoples in decision-making and implementation processes.

-Finally, we also support interventions #1650 and #1682 in the importance of including the private sector. However, there is still a need to have greater incentives that can guarantee their involvement if we are to achieve the social and economic transformation needed to achieve the post-2020 GBF’s new goals and the proposed vision. This could even be considered as an enabling condition, as in many rainforest countries it is the private sector and their practices that challenge or threaten local efforts to protect biodiversity.

Thanks,
Silvana

Dear Secretariat and colleagues,
This is Valeria Cruz Blancas, I am member of the Mexican Alliance for Biodiversity. I participate in my personal capacity. Hence, my comments do not represent a coordinated position from the Alliance.
I share my comments on the general document.
a) Overall It is clear draft document. It can be improved since we are missing indicators, goals & targets, they (indicators) are rarely mention on the document.
Section IV. & V address monitoring, these separated mentions could be gathered in one for clarity and order.
b) I have observed that a critical element is having a project lasting over time. Cooperation and funding are critical and even more for developing countries. If people are assigned to be part on “the Committee on Capacity Development”, local institutions must secure resources for such duties.
Another critical element is to optimize resources. It is important when capacities are developed having the people to replicate the learning process in order of disseminating knowledge. I support this statement under the following considerations: 1- Countries authorities constantly change. 2.- Budgets are set in a period of time and for specific projects. 3.- Also note that local governments should have a leading or central role (if we want NBSAP to be fulfill) but they need knowledge on how to access to finance.
c) – I agreed with colleagues that mentioned timeline missing. I also address it is important to add to the M&E a reporting part, one of the reasons is related to transparency.
Thanks for attention and I would also like to thank SCBD for this effort on facilitating the discussion forum to continue the Post-2020 GBF.
Best regards,
Valeria

I' m Elena Makeyeva, ABS NFP in Belarus, and I also as Mery Ciacci from the European Commission did in her comments,  would like to stress that the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, and more broadly of ABS, will   contribute to the achievement of the post 2020 GBF and the relationship between this document and the capacity building strategy of the Nagoya Protocol should be shown clearly.
.

Message posted on behalf of Mr. Arnold Okoni-Williams, Senior Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences, Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone (received via email 7 June 2020)

I provide technical support to the development and implementation of the NBSAP for Sierra Leone. I thank the UNEP / CBD Secretariat for facilitating the development of the draft framework and appreciate the effort and expertise of the technical team. The draft strategic framework was well structured with detailed elements that do reflect the collective aspirations of member states in achieving the CBD’s long-term goal of “living in harmony with nature”. The concept of capacity development is acceptable, especially when contextualized into two categories of soft and hard capacities. This definitely makes a lot of sense and would help CBD and member countries to direct resources into the development of relevant capacities that would create the most impact in promoting the biodiversity agenda.

The following couple of issues may not have been well articulated or clearly stated, which should be considered to strengthen the CBD secretariat, national governments and nongovernmental actors to promote the biodiversity agenda at all levels, including the UN and related agencies, and other global and regional multilateral organizations.

(1) Advocacy (and diplomacy) and the capacity of CBD partners to raise the profile of biodiversity to match or even surpass other global issues like climate change. The concept of biodiversity as the answer to climate change should be given greater momentum and the CBD partners need to be seen and heard more loudly and strongly to trigger greater and more concrete actions at the global political and diplomatic levels. The issue of strengthening advocacy to take the biodiversity agenda to the forefront of international discuss in politics, diplomacy and business was discussed lengthily at the African Group and at side events during the Addis meeting in April 2019 and the Nairobi Conference in August 2019. However, advocacy and diplomacy are relevant capacities that seem to have been subsumed into one or more of the hard capacities, but really requires some levels of prominence in the strategic framework if we are to promote the biodiversity agenda to the peak of international development agenda as one of the key solutions to the many environmental challenges of our world.

(2) Regional and sub-regional cooperation and collaboration for knowledge and scientific exchange. Sierra Leone is one among many developing countries that stand to benefit considerably from the capacity development drive for biodiversity within the post 2020 framework, in terms of both hard and soft capacities. As with many other African countries, our capacity needs may differ from other regions, or even across sub-regions. Thus, in terms of promoting partnership and networks, the importance of incorporating regional and sub-regional collaboration and exchange of knowledge and scientific expertise should be emphasized in the framework. 

Many thanks
Arnold