knowledge: 7 of 15 information and reports knowledge: 10 of Policy and 15 legislation development: 6of9 Policy and legislation Management and development: 8 implementation: 3 of 9 of 6 Management and Monitor and implementation: evaluate: 2 of 6 5 of 6 (total score: 24/45) Monitor and evaluate: 4 of 6 (total targeted score: 34/45) COMPONENT 1.0 - INTEGRATE INTER-MINISTERIAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT The institutional Strategies Outcome 1: Relevant policies Re-structure of Reports from MoE, Risks: framework is strengthened implemented that (what are the institutions to fully MoAFF, iTaukei Political: changes in government and more coordinated, and address prioritized policies?), national comply to Affairs, MoFAIC, management systems and priorities due to more able to address global institutional gaps and strategies (what are obligations under MoPUWT change in political status, and unavailability environmental concerns. overlaps in the strategies?), MEAs of focal points to make decisions. respective institutional set-ups Operational: unavailability of dedicated government MEA (#? type?), endorsed project personnel to follow through with Output 1.1 convention focal by Govt from 2008 activities Institutions with clear points. to 2013 Assumption: mandates and responsibilities Government commitment to align institutions to implement MEAs to fully comply to obligations under MEAs Number of relevant Insert number of All relevant Training reports, Risks: government Political - institutional reforms due to relevant institutions institutions trained, National Reports Output 1.2 institutions trained in since 2010 improved quality submitted to all three political change, change in priorities due to An operational inter-sectorial represented in of national reports conventions change in leadership. coordination mechanism for training that produced (e.g. Operational - Staff turnover, limited implementing MEAs. effectively execute national resources to commit to training these strategies communications, Assumption: 5th National An effective training programme, institutions Output 1.3 Report, etc.) include awareness and training under Improved contribution from respective annual corporate plans NGO sector, Academia, Percentage of Insert percentage of 100% of relevant Training reports, Risk: CBO/Faith based Environmental relevant EMUs and EMUs and EMU progress Unwillingness to participate due to lack of organizations and private Management Units conservation officers conservation reports to understanding sector to implement MEAs. and conservation trained in since 2010 officers trained Department of Assumption: officers supported in Environment, and Coordinated response to reporting system the reporting and DOE annual national monitoring of MEAs reports to NEC
knowledge: 7 of 15 Policy and legislation development: 6of9 Management and implementation: 3 of 6 Monitor and evaluate: 2 of 6 (total score: 24/45) information and knowledge: 10 of 15 Policy and legislation development: 8 of 9 Management and implementation: 5 of 6 Monitor and evaluate: 4 of 6 (total targeted score: 34/45) reports COMPONENT 1.0 - INTEGRATE INTER-MINISTERIAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT Outcome 1: The institutional framework is strengthened and more coordinated, and more able to address global environmental concerns. Output 1.1 Institutions with clear mandates and responsibilities to implement MEAs Output 1.2 An operational inter-sectorial coordination mechanism for implementing MEAs. Output 1.3 Improved contribution from NGO sector, Academia, CBO/Faith based organizations and private sector to implement MEAs. Strategies implemented that address prioritized institutional gaps and overlaps in respective government MEA convention focal points. Relevant policies (what are the policies?), national strategies (what are the strategies?), institutional set-ups (#? type?), endorsed by Govt from 2008 to 2013 Re-structure of institutions to fully comply to obligations under MEAs Reports from MoE, MoAFF, iTaukei Affairs, MoFAIC, MoPUWT Risks: Political: changes in government management systems and priorities due to change in political status, and unavailability of focal points to make decisions. Operational: unavailability of dedicated project personnel to follow through with activities Assumption: Government commitment to align institutions to fully comply to obligations under MEAs Number of relevant government institutions represented in training that effectively execute these strategies Insert number of relevant institutions trained in since 2010 All relevant institutions trained, improved quality of national reports produced (e.g. national communications, 5th National Report, etc.) Training reports, National Reports submitted to all three conventions Risks: Political - institutional reforms due to political change, change in priorities due to change in leadership. Operational - Staff turnover, limited resources to commit to training Assumption: An effective training programme, institutions include awareness and training under respective annual corporate plans Percentage of Environmental Management Units and conservation officers supported in the reporting and monitoring of MEAs Insert percentage of relevant EMUs and conservation officers trained in since 2010 100% of relevant EMUs and conservation officers trained Training reports, EMU progress reports to Department of Environment, and DOE annual national reports to NEC Risk: Unwillingness to participate due to lack of understanding Assumption: Coordinated response to reporting system