3rd Interim report September 2011- March 2012.pdf - Renanetwork.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Interim Report, No 3, 19 September 2011 – 18 March 2012 implement the project. Commitment of the project beneficiaries and partner institutions to apply the results A high level of involvement, cooperation and participation of all the stakeholders, including CSOs and IFIs Willingness of sectors within the public administrations of partner countries to cooperate with their colleagues in other sectors, like environment High level of institutional stability without major shifts in responsibilities of ministries and other institutes, or shifts of key staff involved in the project implementation previously established with REReP and ECENA. Altogether no relevant problems concerning participation are to be reported. Commitment to work with the project results is equally important as producing them. The reports produced are further used in the beneficiary countries for generation of further outcomes. RENA to a high extent continues the paths of REReP and ECENA. Both have operated as successful networks for many years with a high level of involvement of all stakeholders. So far, the involvement of CSOs in all the activities of the project and the involvement of IFIs, mainly in the activities of the WG1 are being established to the high extent and it is expected that this level will be maintained during the lifetime of the project. The will to cooperate between different sectors of public administration is a crucial success factor for most government action around the globe. The sectors covered by the RENA working groups are in most beneficiary countries shared by several ministries. In most of the cases different sectors in the public administration are willing to cooperate. This has been demonstrated especially with the implementation of Activity 1.5 Progress Monitoring and Activities implemented under WG 2. Project implementation has been conducted so far in more or less stable environment. Continuity has been established and enable building up ownership and the use of the project results. In some of the countries (Turkey and Montenegro), changes of Focal Points and WG Coordinators have occurred, however without strong impact on the project implementation. 4.2 Risks The main risks of this contract are the following: • Lack of co-operation by stakeholders; • Carrying out activities with little added value with regard to what has already been done, in particular by REReP; • Lack of effective coordination and interaction with on-going activities related to the subject matter of the contract resulting in overlaps, confusion and wasting of valuable resources; in order to minimise this risk, an effective coordination with related programmes and other donor activities must be implemented during the contract (see section 1.5); • Lack of political commitment; • Involved stakeholders are not sufficiently stable; • Partner countries have insufficient interest and institutional capacity to provide (proper) data or delegate qualified staff to the network activities; • Partner countries have insufficient capacity to make use of the project results; • Lack of will of sectors in the public administrations to cooperate with their colleagues in other sectors, like environment; • Different levels or speeds of involved countries in their approximation to the environmental acquis; • Language barriers. Human Dynamics Consortium 69
Interim Report, No 3, 19 September 2011 – 18 March 2012 Table 7. Risks and Mitigation strategies Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Strategy Lack of cooperation by stakeholders Carrying out activities with little added value with regard to what has already been done, in particular by REReP Lack of effective coordination and interaction with on-going activities related to the subject matter of the contract resulting in overlaps, confusion and wasting of valuable resources Low Low Medium Medium High High Lack of political commitment Low High Involved stakeholders are not sufficiently Medium High Given the commitment demonstrated so far this risk appears to be low, although the region is an area sensitive to conflicts that may flare overnight. If lack of cooperation occurs at the political level the Consultant will discuss the situation with the Contracting Authority to find an approach that fits to the situation. Noncooperative behaviour at the operational level will be prevented by proper and positively oriented management of working groups and activities, as much as possible giving room for all involved to express themselves and as much as possible taking care there is something in it for everyone. Continued noncooperative behaviour will first be discussed with the involved person outside the meeting and if not successful by addressing his/her superior. As demonstrated so far, the Work Plan has been designed and implemented in such a way that all the activities are not repeating previously implemented activities but are building on achieved results and outcomes and their further development. In order to minimise this risk, an effective coordination with related programmes and other donor activities will be implemented during the contract. During the project’s Inception Phase the Consultant has intensively communicated with the key persons involved in the final phases of REReP in order to smoothly link RENA to REReP. (handover meeting with REC) The Consultant has also conducted a survey of related projects in the region and interviewed responsible Consultants and officials to identify potential overlaps and decide to what extent RENA could and should be active in these areas. In some areas, especially Climate (WG2), Investments (WG 1.3), and Cross border (WG3.1-3.3), the Consultant has identified numerous well-funded projects with which RENA overlaps and which have been carefully analysed to determine how RENA – with its small, focused budget – could contribute to progress on these environmental management issues. Given the commitment demonstrated so far this risk appears to be low.. Where needed the consultant will make every attempt to get in touch with key decision makers to convince them to participate by explaining the benefits of their involvement for their country. The Consultant will only take such action after consultation with the Contracting Authority. The timely nomination of National focal points and working group coordinators during inception are a positive indication in this respect. Government change, regular changes in administrative structures and staff, can all bring instability to RENA. The Consultant is not in a position to influence such Human Dynamics Consortium 70
Page 1 and 2:
The European Union’s Instrument f
Page 3 and 4:
Interim Report, No 3, 19 September
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: Interim Report, No 3, 19 September
Page 69: Interim Report, No 3, 19 September
Page 75 and 76: Estimated number of working days pe
Page 85 and 86: “Regional Environmental Network f
Page 93 and 94: Human Dynamics Consortium 3 rd Inte
Page 103 and 104: 2 nd “Regional Environmental Netw
Page 109 and 110: IPA 2011- 2013 Environment and Clim
Page 111 and 112: 2 st “Regional Environmental Netw
Page 121 and 122:
“Regional Environmental Network f
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129:
show all

3rd Interim report September 2011- March 2012.pdf - Renanetwork.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?