Technical and Scientific Cooperation

In accordance with paragraph 25 (d) of decision 16/3, members of the IAG are invited to further provide comments and advice on the criteria for evaluating the performance of the TSC support centres and of the global coordination entity, including responses to the following questions:

- What are your views on the proposed overarching criteria? Is there anything important missing?
- What are your views on the assessment framework? Can the rating system be improved? Who should carry out the scoring?

If you have specific textual changes, kindly use tracked changes and upload and/or send the revised draft to us by email.

The Draft criteria prepared are a great start. Attached are some specific comments and suggestions on the performance criteria table provided.

In addition to this, and reflecting the discussions of the TSC-IAG, it would be worthwhile considering ways to adapt the draft approach to accommodate the different circumstances and attributes of each TSCC. There would be a range of ways of achieving this, such as: (1) focusing on which performance metrics / indicators should be collected by the TSCCs, and providing the framework for an evaluator to use those metrics to gauge the performance of the TSCC, accounting for it’s unique attributes, or; (2) establish a framework such as that proposed, but where each TSCC sets it’s own performance levels for each indicator based on their unique attributes and in agreement with the GCE.

Dear all,

Thanks a lot Karel to give the first reply. Attached my comments in your document version. I would like to stress that the TSC mechanism should be a demand-driven process according to the COP 15 decision this should also be taken into account when developing the criteria. It might be also better to use percentages of results based on the received demands.
Best regards

Han de Koeijer

Dear all,

Thank you to the Secretariat for this very helpful draft of proposed criteria. I have made some comments on the attached report, which would, I think, help sharpen the focus on key aspects, whilst also understanding the context of each TSCC. We did consider the important the context of each TSCC at the last meeting and it would be good to capture this somewhere.

It would be possible to streamline the assessment framework, if that would be helpful. I have not looked at this in detail, as it could be quite a change from what is proposed. A streamlined framework could have a sharper focus on key elements to be assessed against clear criteria. This might be more informative than trying to capture progress against lots of activities that each centre could carry out.

Would it help for each TSCC to be asked to summarise the requests made by Parties, so that in the future they are being assessed against Party demand?

As for who does the scoring, from an academic point of view and to develop long-term mutual understanding, it would be interesting of both Parties and TSCCs scored and then those scores were compared. Not to be judgemental or confrontational, but to identify potential areas where views differ so that they can be addressed.

I hope that these thoughts help,
Phil

Dear All,

The proposed framework provides a solid basis for assessing TSCC performance, with good alignment to COP decisions and the Global Biodiversity Framework.
However, further refinement is needed to enhance clarity, objectivity and comparability.
In particular, we recommend strengthening the use of quantitative indicators, better reflecting the demand-driven nature of the mechanism, and clarifying performance levels through more precise thresholds.
We also underline the importance of distinguishing clearly between performance criteria and evidence indicators.
Finally, flexibility should be maintained to account for different regional contexts, while ensuring a minimum common basis for evaluation.

Best Ragrads
Madbuhi

Dear all,

I have submitted comments on the attached document. I have tried to focus on identifying opportunities to strengthen the quality, inclusiveness, and alignment of TSCC performance assessment with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

I also believe there is an important opportunity to revisit the framing of the six proposed assessment criteria
I hope these contributions are useful and look forward to the discussion.

Kind regards,
Pamela Tapia Díaz