identifying capacity development priorities for oceans unesco/ioc capacity development geo...
TRANSCRIPT
Identifying capacity development priorities for oceans
UNESCO/IOC Capacity Development
GEO Capacity-building Committee – 6th Meeting
Hannover, Germany, 13-14 February 2008
Joannès BerqueIOC Capacity development section [email protected]
IOC Capacity Development key guiding principle: self-driven
Letting the beneficiary institute drive the cooperation
• Institute main driver from conception to implementation – ownership of activities
• Work with ministries or institute directors that answer regularly to ministries – relevance to national priorities
• Performance to be measured on: ownership, relevance, sustainability – and then impact, effectiveness, etc.
• Based on success/failures of decades of international cooperation (at IOC and in other fields than marine sciences)
IOC Self-driven capacity development: implementation
• Work at level of organisations – IOC has long experience training individual scientists – Complemented with cooperation at the level of organisations
• environment is essential for trained scientist to apply skills • no sustainability of acquired skills without institute support to the scientists
coming back
• Implementation started 2 years ago (Sida funds) – 100 institutes - directors or senior scientists – 75 countries (Africa, LAC, SE Asia)
The sunset clause: obsolete ourselves
from capacity development to catalysing collaboration between peers wherever they reside
One challenge: Global systems needs
vs. local priorities in ocean sciences
Global system science priorities:
• Are driven by ~ 10 countries
• Address large scale (1000km) deep ocean, mid-basin
• Need large computers, large bandwidths, large budgets
• Target outputs are publications in blue-water oceanography periodicals
• Societal benefits often indirect or long-term
Developing countries marine science priorities typically:
•Concern many more countries
•Address local scale (100m-100km)
•Use small computers, small bandwidths, and small budgets
•Target outputs for immediate, visible applications to urgent issues: fisheries, erosion, pollution, economic development in coastal zone
Global system needs vs. local priorities in capacity development
Global system requires capacity-building for:
•Launching & maintaining Argo floats
•In-situ validations
•New sensors validation & applications
•Continuous collection of data in standard format and provision of these data to global systems
Developing countries expressed priorities in building technical skills for:
•Local, issue-based measurements
•“old sensors” applications – SSTs
•coastal modelling
•Affordable internet bandwidth
Address the global needs through the local needs First develop capacity to solve local urgent problems
Then the contribution to global science comes
Determining priorities for capacity-development
Ministries
Directors View for the longer term Growth of the institute
Scientists
Required services and products for national priorities
Training and infrastructure needed to develop products or services
Regional workshop for directors
Urgent technical training and infrastructure
Priorities for a new
regional project
Longer term Higher education
Networking
Proposal-writing workshop
Or use previous similar process output – e.g. NEPAD priorities
Earth observations for what? Issue-based vs. tool-based approach
Caveat of international but isolated club of old friends promoting a tool that has lost its relevance
1 Identify an issue in the coastal zone
•Government drive for addressing•with national experts •of high national priority
2 Determine the science
needed for national Expert to propose solutions
3 Corresponding CD in earth observations,
modelling, data management …
Output, Results Evaluation
Self-driven CD: schematic
Leadership development workshops for directors
Innovative, good feedback, catalysed change process
Bid-writing and team-building workshops
Project leaders attend Know-how to compete for international funds
National priorities Institute growth plans
Technical workshops Often request is on modelling, GIS, remote sens
Project scientists attend
Competitive Proposal to
funding agencies
Institutes earn funds for their
projects Conceived by them,
within institute growth plan
Directors workshops
Coastal modelling workshop field trip, Maputo Institute priorities
Summarising
• Self-driven - foreign-driven
• Local needs – global needs
• Issue-based - tool-based
Proposal-writing workshops: increasing flow of funds to nationally-conceived projects
• Motivation – Much of the HR of many institutes in developing countries work on
foreign-conceived projects – implications for ownership, relevance and sustainability
– Large proportion of funds for marine/environmental science in the South are channelled back to the donor-country institutes
– Many reasons for this, one is few competitive proposals from developing countries – it takes practice to write and submit proposals
• Enhance the know-how to compete for international funds – Hire a “proposal-writing” consultant with excellent fund-raising record – Conduct workshops to transfer this know-how to project leaders
• Another output: a bankable project proposal based on priorities determined by institute directors
Accra bid development
Mombassa bid-writing
Proposal-writing workshops implementation
• Process was begun in Eastern Africa, replicated in Western Africa and Latin America & the Caribbean (First bid submission in the next few months!!
• Critical factors: – Directors must be involved from conception – Team-building between project leaders is essential – Timeframe: 1-2 years after directors express their priorities
• An approach applicable to COAST-MAP-IO ???– Obtain much needed additional funds – COAST-MAP-IO may be a great platform to conceive and
develop projects with strong regional ownership – Could ensure sustainability of benefits of the project in
for the safety from marine hazards in the region