Asia-Pacific SDplanNet workshop – Identified capacity building needs

While there are actual demands for increased capacity in all of the four focus areas of the workshop, just bringing countries together has a benefit in and of itself. It enables sharing of good practices for other countries to replicate. For instance, Malaysia’s performance monitoring system or Bhutan’s anti-corruption commission along with its policy screening system are examples of tools that other countries could learn from and potentially adapt to their specific situations.

Multi-stakeholder processes and institutions

1.  Planning based on eco-regions (dry zones, wet zone planning)

2.  Improving transparency and accountability

3.  Having a complete and reliable information database of current status

4.  Training on multi-stakeholder participation (on all aspects of process)

5.  Tools for developing long-term planning

6.  Having an overarching planning institution that is sensitive and flexible and takes care of varying needs of the country and specific regions

·  Institutional capacity in terms of human resources

·  Adoption of top down-bottom up application

·  Capacity building on tools for running multi-stakeholder processes

·  Results based monitoring and evaluation

·  Strengthening coordination process among various institutions / agendas at national and sub-national level.

·  Ensuring continuity of plans in terms of political stability

·  Capacity on involving multi-stakeholders in long-term planning

·  Communication plans for creating awareness and IEC

·  Building capacities for developing sub-national plans

·  Building capacities for development of sectoral plans

Integrated development planning

1.  Better clarity of goals and understanding

2.  Tools and examples of trade-off assessments

3.  Setting of specific and achievable objectives that are clearly segmented between departments

4.  Allow for planning at different levels and provide opportunities/mechanism for sharing and learning at each levels

·  Guidance in maximizing synergies

·  Having clear planning guidelines (e.g. technology)

·  Higher-level plans should reflect or be an aggregation of lower level plans

·  Need to have a national framework for development and guidelines for the better understanding of goals

·  Sectorial analysis strategy and linking the different sectors (e.g. agriculture, trade, energy, etc.)

·  Stakeholder consultation (tools, skills, opportunities, guidelines, principles, technology)

·  Developing the capacity and tools for interactive linking, assessment, processes from top to bottom/ bottom to top.

·  Elected officials as well as authorities mist have developed capacity at all levels (build capacity at a the multiple levels)

·  Framework for alignment of partnership development between the international and country level (coordination + collaboration) Confidence increases in by country led processes.

Policies and Programmes for co-benefits across sectors

1.  Sensitivity analysis - CBA (cost-benefit analysis) and other tools

2.  Political pressure for unviable policies

3.  Connecting strategies and budget – how?

4.  Local govt. capacity to implement policies

5.  Screening of SD dimensions of policies /tools

·  Cross-sectoral implications of policies

·  Capacity to collect and use relevant data – transform into useful information

·  On-the-job and specialised training

·  Prioritisation tools – sequence of priorities to natural resources

·  Modelling of economic and other policy impacts (CGE models or 1/0)

·  B & E – monitoring of policy impact (not just budget and expenditures)

·  Look for capacities to implement policies

·  Law is smaller than power

Monitoring, reporting and accountability

1.  Data quality and statistical validity (Thailand’s effective data collection system)

2.  Monitoring of policy impact (not just budget and expenditure. Eg. needed in Africa)

3.  Regional harmonization of data definition (eg. Environmental performance system in Mekong Delta – every country has a different definition, so there is a difficulty in “measuring” performance)

·  Availability of functional and useful data and capacity to use it

·  Heavy focus on the monitoring of “numerical” values, but not so much on “impacts”

·  Disaggregated data (especially at local govt. level)

·  Single window for data needed

·  Contextualising local conditions and knowledge

·  Different sectoral agencies had different targets – how can we bring them to a common purpose?

·  Independent agencies to conduct evaluations

·  Curriculum department (to better educate the public, esp. the younger generation)