Technical and Scientific Cooperation

In paragraph 7 of decision 16/3, the Conference of the Parties requested the Informal Advisory Group on Technical and Scientific Cooperation (IAG) to prepare terms of reference for the independent evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the long-term strategic framework for capacity-building and development and the technical and scientific cooperation mechanism, to be undertaken in 2029 in conjunction with the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the KMGBF. Attached you will find draft elements of the terms of reference for the independent evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the long-term strategic framework for capacity-building and development and the technical and scientific cooperation mechanism.

TSC-IAG members are invited to comment and provide suggestions on these draft elements before 10 September 2025.

Greetings,
In my view, the draft is well-structured. It separates the evaluation into two parts: the long-term strategic framework and the technical and scientific cooperation mechanism. This is a good approach because it avoids mixing policy guidance with implementation tools.

It is also positive that the evaluation will be independent and aligned with the global review of KMGBF implementation in 2029. This should create synergies and prevent duplication of efforts.

The choice of methods - document review, surveys, and interviews - is appropriate and realistic.

However, there are some weaknesses. The draft is too descriptive. It needs stronger focus on clear criteria, baselines, and benchmarks so that results are consistent across Parties.

Another concern is the risk of limited participation, especially from Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), and possible geographic imbalance in responses.

Finally, the draft does not explain how gender, equity, and the inclusion of vulnerable groups will be ensured. This is essential for meeting the requirements of KMGBF Target 20.

Thank you for this comprehensive draft ToR. I agree that the structure is very clear, and the proposed methodology (documentation review, survey, interviews) seems balanced. A few reflections for consideration:
- It could be useful to provide more clarity on how “effectiveness” and “relevance” will be defined and measured, so that the evaluation can lead to consistent and actionable findings.
- While Parties and organizations are explicitly mentioned, the ToR might also highlight the importance of engaging the scientific community, indigenous peoples, local communities, and other non-government actors to ensure a full picture. Suggestion is to adjust paragraph 12.e "[...] key stakeholders including organizations with specialized expertise in areas related to biodiversity, such as the Consortium of Scientific Partners on Biodiversity, indigenous peoples, local communities, and other relevant non-government actors."
- 16.b includes a typo (extend vs extent). In addition, it may be helpful to provide some suggested scales or standardized response options for these guiding questions. This would make it easier for respondents to interpret the question consistently and would also allow the evaluation team to analyze and compare responses more effectively.
- Timeline: Given the evaluation is scheduled for 2029, an interim or mid-term review could maybe help surface lessons earlier and support course corrections before the global review.
- Finally, given ongoing discussions on AI and digital tools for mapping initiatives, it may be worth considering whether such tools could also be applied to strengthen the evaluation process.

Thanks!

Dear all,
Greetings from Colombia, and many thanks for sharing the proposed TORs. Overall, I find them well-structured. I would, however, like to highlight a few points for your consideration:

LONG TERM STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR CAPACITY BUILDING

At present, there seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the concepts of relevance and effectiveness, as well as how these would be measured. It could be helpful to further define these aspects.

It is important to explicitly mention indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth, as part of the stackholder to answer the survey.

Regarding the proposed questions, the current framing assumes that the long-term strategic framework has already been used, which may not necessarily be the case. For improved clarity and logical flow, I suggest including a preliminary question along the lines of:

Are you familiar with the long-term strategic framework on capacity-building? or
¿Has the long-term strategic framework been used to guide capacity-building and development efforts? If so, by whom, and in what contexts?

TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION MECHANISM

Centres hold essential insights into what works, what does not, and the constraints they face (funding, staffing, overlapping mandates). I suggest that they be explicitly included among the stakeholders to be interviewed.

Building on this, it may be useful to develop guiding questions specifically for the centres. For example:

¿What institutional, financial, or operational constraints affect your ability to deliver support?
¿To what extent have resource limitations impacted the fulfilment of your functions as described in decision 15/8?
¿How timely and flexible is the mechanism in addressing Party needs?
¿How has collaboration with the GCE supported or hindered your operations?
¿Have you been able to coordinate effectively with other relevant initiatives, platforms, centres or networks in your region?
¿To what extent are Parties engaged with the Centre?
¿What recommendations would you give to improve the mechanism?

Greetings,

I also agree that the terms of reference have been drafted well. Some suggestions to consider for further refinement are provided below.

The wording in para.7 could be refined so that it is clearer that the evaluation considers whether the guidance in the strategic framework has helped across the strategy areas listed in Dec. 15/8, annex I, para. 9(a-l), beyond “institutionalise capacity building”. Currently it reads like the evaluation will only assess whether the strategic framework has helped in terms of institutionalizing (Dec. 15/8, annex I, para. 9(a)), and not consider the other strategies.

In para. 9(c), it may be worth considering expanding the targets for interviews to include not just key organisations contributing to capacity building and development, but also key organisations associated with implementation of the KM-GBF, for example international conservation NGOs. Perhaps that is the intent? Ideally the organisations include both beneficiaries of capacity building as well as deliverers of capacity building.

Para. 10(f) poses a binary (yes/no) question; it is perhaps more useful to pose a more open-ended question, such as “How has the relevance of each element of the long-term strategic framework changed”.

Para. 11(a) - This indicator is likely not specific enough. Probably all national organisations would be implementing some elements of the strategic framework to some degree.

Para. 11(a-d) – While the indicators expressed as “Number of…” are useful, if this information can’t be obtained for every country, it would likely also be useful to report these as a proportion of all cases for which information was available.

In para.14(a) of the ToR, it is likely clearer and more accurate to replace “… means of implementation…” with “… means of supporting implementation …”

For para. 16 of the ToR, it is likely clearer for implementation and reporting of the review if questions 16(e) and 16(h) are both separated out into separate questions: ‘what has worked well’ and then ‘what have been the main challenges’.

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for these ToRs. Should they state specifically that the this review will be conducted in accordance with Section C of the GBF, the Considerations?

It would also seem important that the view of smaller Parties and others whose voices are heard less often, typically because of a lack of capacity to engage fully, are heard. So, should we suggest that the review has to contain a regional balance, and a balance between Parties of various sizes to ensure that it is genuinely representative?

Greetings! Thanks to the Secretariat for the draft TORs and to colleagues for the insightful discussions. Sharing here some thoughts for consideration:

Both Evaluations

Building on Philip McGowan (UK)’s point on ensuring that the evaluations are to be conducted in accordance with Section C, I would suggest that the evaluations themselves also seek to evaluate if the LTSF and TSC Mechanism have advanced the considerations outlined in Section C. This could look like including a guiding question for each evaluation along the lines of asking “To what extent did the LTSF (or TSC Mechanism) result in greater practice of the considerations set out in Section C of the GBF? Describe specific considerations and examples where possible” (The specific phrasing can be further worked on, but I hope this makes sense?)
Philip’s point on ensuring not just regional balance but a balance of “types” of capacity building users / actors (e.g. by Party size) is also pertinent for both evaluations.

Evaluation of LTSF

I would like to express support for the comments made by Ms. Diana Pulido of Colombia, particularly on making explicit in the TOR that indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth, and other relevant vulnerable groups should be part of stakeholders interviewed alongside “Parties and key organisations” (Para 9(c)), recognising that IPLC, women, and youth groups alike are not just beneficiaries or recipients of capacity development efforts, but are often also deliverers of capacity building (echoing Dr Karel Mokany [Australia]’s comment), and hence their use (or lack thereof) of the LTSF would shed light on its relevance and effectiveness.

I’d also like to raise a question for discussion (I myself am on the fence about this): is it realistic to request the evaluation to be able to ascertain the exact contributions / impact that (use of) the LTSF has made, compared to capacity development that might have occurred without its use, and therefore highlight the added value (or lack thereof) of the LTSF? This relates to Diana’s comment as well, that the current set of questions assumes that the LTSF has already been used, when possibly some actors have not used it but could conceivably still able to achieve some capacity development outcomes.

Finally, might it make sense to include an indicator related to amount of funding dedicated to capacity development in relation to implementation of the KM GBF by funding source (e.g. Parties’ national budgets, multilateral aid mechanisms, etc.)? This could be discussed in view of complementary CBD processes gathering data on resource mobilisation for KMGBF implementation overall. (Apologies if this might have been discussed in previous meetings of the IAG in the first term).

Evaluation of TSC Mechanism

Para 16 (a) could benefit from explicit mention that “other stakeholders” refers to those mentioned in the “multi-stakeholder engagement” principle that was set out in the TSC Mechanism Guiding Principles, i.e., CBD/COP/DEC/15/8 Annex II, B. 2(h).