BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT - the Biodiversity Programme... · BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT…

  • Published on
    30-Jun-2018

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

    NAMIBIAS NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMME1994-2005

    SOME LESSONS LEARNT

    REPORT FOR THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENTALAFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM

    IN COOPERATION WITH

  • Published by:Sustainable Management of Natural Resources Projectof theMinistry of Environment and Tourism (MET), andDeutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHWindhoek, Namibia

    Responsible MET staff:Sem T. Shikongo

    Responsible GTZ staff:Albert Engel, Kirsten Probst

    Prepared by:Viviane HovekaIntegrated Environmental Consultants Namibia (IECN) ccP.O. Box 86634, Eros, Windhoek, NamibiaPhone: +264 (0)61 249204Fax: +264 (0)61 249205http://www.iecn-namibia.com

    Dr. Rolf MackGerman Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)P.O.Box 518065726 Eschborn, GermanyPhone: +49 (0) 6196 79 1317Fax: +49 (0) 6196 79 6554http://www.gtz.de

    Fotos: provided by Louisa Nakanuka and IECN

    Windhoek, 2006

  • i

    Foreword

    To analyse and synthesize the knowledge accumulated in almost 10 years of operations of theNamibian National Biodiversity Programme (NBP) is a challenging task, and doing so within alimited time frame renders that such an undertaking will necessarily be incomplete. We, the teamof consultants tasked to carry out this assessment, heavily depended on consulting people, whohad been part of the programme in one or another way. Various members of the BiodiversityTask Force (BDTF) were interviewed as part of the assessment, and others participated inreview processes and a verification workshop. Alternatively, we could have facilitated a self-assessment process, which would have helped to highlight the strengths and the weaknesses ofthe programme by its participants. However, our freely held interview schedule provided forflexible and wider ranging contributions by the interviewees.

    The objective of the knowledge management exercise was to document in an easily accessibleformat: (i) the main thematic fields in which knowledge was built by the National BiodiversityProgramme (what), (ii) through which processes (how), and (iii) how the knowledge was used anddisseminated (impact). The programmes overall objective was to promote the protection and/orsustainable use of Namibian biodiversity whilst deriving tangible added value and benefits frombiodiversity resources. It is recognised that knowledge will only be used, if it is presented in adigestible form and directly linked to the needs of identified clients or users.

    A total number of 13 interviews were conducted all with key resource persons who played a majorrole in the process of the NBP. The structure of the NBP was unique, integrating specialists fromwide ranging fields of expertise, representing government officials and technical experts fromdifferent line ministries, the scientific community and the NGO sector. Most of these expertsserved on various thematic working groups, operating independently but with facilitation andcoordination support from the programme staff, and guidance of the BDTF. The top-levelcoordination ensured the smooth operation of the groups, whilst the groups themselves focussedon in-depth work on thematic subjects (related to specific tasks and interests of each group). Onedrawback of this set up is that a lot of isolated knowledge is locked up in the heads of individualspecialists and grey literature, which should be made available more broadly.

    Linking the work of the individual groups to the overarching BDTF and the NBP guaranteedtechnical cross-fertilisation and inspired more holistic views across the classical sectors, leadingto a more integrative overall approach to biodiversity management. The management ofbiodiversity has a long history in a country such as Namibia. In the past, however, biodiversitywas often equalled with large mammals and wildlife. Integrating agricultural, other terrestrial oraquatic and marine use systems into conservation and biodiversity management is a newlyemerging concept, greatly facilitated through the NBP and its various operational arrangements.The first step required for achieving such changes is normally referred to as agenda setting,meaning simply making a concept and its implications known to society. Agenda setting is basedon clear messages and the need of disseminating such key messages to all parts of society. Thenewer and the more complex a subject is, the longer it takes to reach out to society.

    Agenda setting and awareness creation, the next step in a suite of related activities, can onlybe done in a convincing way, if key information is made available that directly links the subject toexisting targets and problems. Awareness creation forms usually the basis for any politicaldecision making process, which in the long run defines responsibilities, rules and regulations forinterventions. Thus there is a logical progression that will lead to successfully addressing anissue, i.e. biodiversity as a management concern in a broader political spectrum.

    Working with knowledge has an objective; it is not of value as an activity by itself. If we simplifycomplex definitions, we could simply say that we want to influence changes and assess whodoes what differently, if we are successful? Thus we are looking for the impacts our interventions

  • ii

    have had a change in behaviour. That means that we cannot give ourselves a pat on the back ifwe managed to gather and compile information in the form of a nice book or a database. Ratherwe have to inquire further: What changes have we induced in support of biodiversityconservation?

    The process must include: To hear to be informed to understand to reflect to act! This is avery cumbersome process and a difficult result to achieve.

    Viviane HovekaRolf Mack

  • iii

    Acknowledgements

    Teasing out the major knowledge modules and lessons learnt form a decade of biodiversitymanagement support and interventions relating the National Biodiversity programme in Namibianeeds the support of the many people actively involved in the programme. Thus we would like toacknowledge the inputs from the Biodiversity Task Force members who agreed to be interviewedand those who participated in the one-day verification workshop held at Heja Lodge on 23November 2005. Special thanks go to Sem Shikongo (DEA/MET), Dr. Juliane Zeidler (IECN), Dr.Kirsten Probst and Albert Engel (both GTZ, Windhoek) who supported the process andcontributed to the shaping of the knowledge modules and the report. Letitia Britz (DEA/MET) isthanked for her administrative support especially in the organisation of the Heja Lodge workshop.

  • iv

    Abbreviations

    ABS Access and Benefit SharingBCHM Biosafety Clearing House MechanismBDTF Biodiversity Task ForceBIOTA Biodiversity Transect Africa projectBCLME Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystems projectsBMZ Bundesministerium fr wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und EntwicklungCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBNRM Community-based Natural Resources ManagementCHM Clearing House MechanismDEA Directorate of Environmental AffairsDRFN Desert Research Foundation of NamibiaDSS Directorate of Scientific ServicesDWAF Directorate of Water Affairs and ForestryEEI Etosha Ecological InstituteELTOSA Ecological Long-term Observatories Southern AfricaFG Focal GroupGBIF Global Biodiversity Information FacilityGEF Global Environment FacilityGEOSS Global Earth Observation System of SystemsGRN Government of NamibiaGTRC Gobabeb Training and Research CentreGTZ German Technical CooperationIECN Integrated Environmental Consultants NamibiaILTER International Long-term Ecological Research NetworkLUP Land Use PlanningMA Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentMAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and ForestryMET Ministry of Environment and TourismMFMR Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesMLR Ministry of Lands and ResettlementMSc Masters of ScienceNABA Namibian Biotechnology AssociationNABID Namibia Biodiversity DatabaseNaEON Namibian Environmental Observatories NetworkNAMDEB Namibia De Beers (Partnership)NAPCOD Namibias Programme to Combat DesertificationNBP National Biodiversity ProgrammeNBRI National Botanical Research InstituteNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanNCSA National Capacity Self-AssessmentNDP National Development PlanNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationNNF Namibia Nature FoundationPA Protected AreasPESILUP Promoting environmental sustainability through improved land use

    planning projectPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalsPS Permanent SecretaryRoE Roster of ExpertsSABONET Southern African Botanical NetworkSADC Southern African Development Community

  • v

    SAfMA Southern African Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentSANBI South African National Biodiversity InstituteSardep Sustainable Range and Animal Development ProgrammeSNARE Southern Namibian Restoration ProjectSOER State of the Environment ReportingSPAN Strengthening Namibias Protected Areas Network projectUNAM University of NamibiaUNCCD United National Convention to Combat DesertificationUNCED United National Conference for Environment and DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeWB World BankWG Working Group

  • vi

    Table of Contents

    Foreword............................................................................................................................................i

    Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... iii

    Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... iv

    1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3

    2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 4

    3. Results of the knowledge management process......................................................................... 6

    3.1 Identification of knowledge modules ..................................................................................... 63.2. Knowledge Cards ................................................................................................................. 6

    Module 1: Policy and strategy development to support biodiversity use and management... 7Module 2: Monitoring and evaluation to track biodiversity status ........................................... 9Module 3: Agenda setting, awareness creation and access to biodiversity information ...... 13Module 4: Institutional building and cooperation/ capacity development/ mainstreaming intoother sectors ......................................................................................................................... 16Module 5: Leverage for getting international support ........................................................... 18Module 6: Protection and rehabilitation of priority biodiversity areas ................................... 20Module 7: Promotion of sustainable use and management of natural resources ................ 22

    3.3. Assessment of identified learning modules........................................................................ 25

    4. Synthesis remarks ..................................................................................................................... 27

    Annex 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) .............................................................................................. a

    Annex 2: List of interviewees........................................................................................................... d

    Annex 3: List of workshop participants, 23rd

    November 2005, Heja Lodge .................................... e

    Annex 4: List of ongoing/planned GEF biodiversity related projects in Namibia.............................. f

  • 1

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    1. Over a decade the German Government through the German Agency for TechnicalCooperation (GTZ) supported the Namibian Government i.e. the Ministry of Environment andTourism (MET) in its capacity to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity anddevelop capacities for improved biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

    2. A team of GTZ and Namibian local consultants was commissioned in November 2005 toassess lessons learnt from the National Biodiversity Programme and to integrate suchinformation into GTZs internal knowledge management system. So-called learning moduleswere identified describing the major areas of learning through the programme. Learningmodules are brief descriptions of those topics or themes which the project managed toimplement successfully and which could provide valuable information and guidance to otherpeople and institutions working in a similar context or seeking documentation, whether withinNamibia or abroad.

    3. Members of the Biodiversity Task Force, a platform for coordination and exchange amongbiodiversity specialists created under the national programme, were consulted andinterviewed to generate in-depth information underlining the identified learning modules, andverifying these. Fourteen people were consulted through face-to-face interactions, onethrough telephonic interview, whilst thirteen participated in a so-called verification workshop.

    4. Overall, seven learning modules were elaborated: (1) Policy and strategy development tosupport biodiversity use and management, (2) Monitoring and evaluation to track biodiversitystatus, (3) Agenda setting, awareness creation and access to biodiversity information, (4)Institution building and cooperation, capacity development and mainstreaming into othersectors, (5) Leverage for getting international support, (6) Protection and rehabilitation ofpriority biodiversity areas, (7) Promotion of sustainable use and management of naturalresources.

    5. The knowledge cards filled in for each module contain the following information: (i) Shortdescription of module, (ii) Specific steps/activities implemented, (iii) Methods,Tools/Instruments applied, (iv) Specific experiences made during implementation: Whatfunctioned well? What problems were encountered?, (v) Important frame conditions relevantfor the module/learning area: Promoting factors/Hindering factors, (vi) Assessment of impact,(vii) Assessment of sustainability, (viii) Assessment of replicability, (xi) Who is knowledgeableabout the module or elements of it? (x) In what documents can one find relevant information?

    6. The systematic assessment of the knowledge generated and coordinated through theprogramme, revealed that a great body of information was brokered through theprogramme. The NBP established an inter-sectoral platform for experts, working together onbiodiversity related topics. Considering that the NBP was established shortly after theratification of the CBD by Namibia, many modern and relatively new biodiversity topicswere introduced to Namibia via this platform. The NBP secretariat at MET provided...

Recommended

View more >