联合国文件/第679部分 (共1000部分)

A major concern expressed was in maintaining capacity once it was developed, with staff movement to regional and international posts seen as a major drain on national capacity.

For smaller countries, the smaller numbers of trained experts are often overwhelmed with work arising from international negotiations on the management and implementation of programmes at the national level.

The GEF enabling activities have been of great benefit in supporting capacity development.

It was also noted that use of the Internet is an integral part of many capacity-building activities, with rapid developments in web technology requiring frequent updates to training materials, and that use of regional experts in training and other capacity-building activities is highly desirable.

To address the need for a continuous approach to capacity development, the Pacific region is developing a new modality for continuous capacity development support through the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

This will also ensure that capacity-building is complementary to the efforts under way in the implementation of the Action Plan for the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change (2006-2015).

Each section of this Action Plan requires some degree of capacity-building.

Monitoring and evaluation will also be covered through the process of a regional round table on climate change, involving all stakeholders and interested parties such as bilateral donors and academia.

Participants from the other regions described national efforts at capacity-building, including the role of national climate change committees in overseeing capacity-building for climate change.

The committees are typically composed of government ministries, researchers, academia, industry and NGOs.

National-level coordination aims to reduce duplication of effort in areas identified by governments and the key stakeholders.

Differences in project management vary by donor, with some being flexible and others not.

Activities that build strongly on country needs have been more effective.

Countries have functional capacities in some areas, such as in the case of designated national authorities for the clean development mechanism.

A major challenge in monitoring and evaluating capacity-building activities at the national level has been in assembling accurate records of all the activities being supported by relevant donors and organizations.

No solution was immediately evident as to how to ensure that all activities are properly registered with national government coordinating bodies for climate change, especially since many projects could have climate change components, or links are established during project implementation.

Participants supported the principle of country-drivenness in terms of defining capacity-building priorities and implementation approaches and in reporting.

It was noted that capacity-building support should be provided in ways that best contribute towards national priorities, rather than through ad hoc project activities.

Participants pointed out the benefit of exchanging experiences at the regional level, and the need to have continuity in support for main climate change activities to avoid a loss of capacity through staff attrition and rotation.

One presenter advocated a change in thinking about how capacity-building is designed and implemented, in order to help drive a new momentum of change.

Besides ensuring political and government support, the involvement of local stakeholders such as community leaders was identified as important in capacity-building.

Translation of materials into local languages is of vital importance in awareness-raising and public participation efforts.

The multiplier effect of small projects was especially highlighted, suggesting that bigger projects are not necessarily more effective or productive.

The importance of integrating capacity-building for climate change into broader capacity-building for development was also discussed at length.