Capacity Development for CDM

 

Vietnam National Workshop on Work Plan

 

The national workshop to discuss the work plan for the next three years was held on November 27th and 28th at Hanoi Horison Hotel in Hanoi. Dr. Pham Khoi Nguyen, the Deputy Minister of Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment inaugurated the workshop and welcomed the participants. Prof. R. M. Shrestha of AIT also welcomed the participants and highlighted the importance of the workshop for the capacity development project.

 

On the first day, the discussion was on the implementation of UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol in Vietnam, COP8 and the regulation of CDM, capacity needs for research institutes, establishment of the national CDM authority, supply-side options for GHG emission reduction and the role of CDM, and two case studies on CDM project proposal development (wind power and land filling project).

 

The second day focused on draft work plan.  In the morning session, the outlines of work plan and the various elements of the work plan were presented. In the afternoon session, two breakout groups discussed various tasks of the work plan and submitted proposals in the plenary session. Group  2 focused on the institutional set-up and the institutional capacity needs while Group 1 considered the rest of the elements.

 

Our observations on the workshop are as follows:

 

a)      Draft work plan – We understand that the national focal point was supposed to prepare a draft national work plan for the next three years. This draft was supposed to be discussed in the workshop to arrive at a final work plan. Instead, Vietnam team prepared only an outline of a plan and a few power-point presentations. These documents did not mention the detailed timelines, the outputs and the indicators for each task and subtasks.

 

On the second day of the workshop, we suggested the participants to follow a systematic structure for the workplan. We suggested that the work plan should be organized along the major tasks identified for the overall project and should cover all the target groups. We provided an example of the structure:

 

1. Tasks: 1 – say Awareness Raising

                                    1.1 xxxx

                                    1.2 xxxxx

                                    1.3 xxxxxx

2. Outputs

    a – yyyyyy

    b     yyyyyyyy

   c     yyyyyyyyy

 

3. Timelines for each task and subtasks

4. Indicators for measuring performance of each task

 

This helped the participants to come up with a work plan.

 

b)      Language – The workshop was held in local language, which helped to generate lively discussions. The presentations were mostly in local languages. We have advised the national focal point to arrange for a translated version for records. Use of local language is natural for such a capacity development project. This however raises a number of issues:

a.      Training of trainers – in case the training has to be conducted in local language, trainers have to be trained to carry out such trainings. This may require phasing of the training programs. We suggested the participants to think about this aspect.

b.      Training materials - the training programs and materials developed in English would have to be translated and this could become a major task.

c.      Quality control – The issue of quality control of training programs and the training materials would have to be considered.

c)      Less specific focus – Most of the presentations were of overview nature without going into the specifics of capacity development needs. It appeared that enough homework was not done for the workshop and perhaps the national focal point did not clearly understand the purpose of the workshop. The workshop was more like an awareness raising workshop.    

d)      Omissions – We were informed that more than 90 invitations were sent and more than 50 participants were present in the workshop. Some participants came from the provinces as well. Most of the participants represented the government bodies. However, Netherlands Embassy was not invited. There was either lack of participation or inadequate representation from the banking sector, industrial associations, educational institutes (universities), etc.

 

 

From our experience gained in Vietnam we would like to make the following suggestions for better implementation of the project in the second phase:

 

i)                    The contract with the national teams should clearly indicate the role of the regional centers and may even link to acceptance of outputs to the regional centre’s opinion. It appears that the national focal points are either not aware of the role of the regional centers; it is also possible to  ignore the role of the regional centres as there is no contractual implications.

ii)                   Project implementation depends largely on a team effort and unless the national focal point establishes a dedicated core team for implementing the project, it would be difficult to suneprisoed. We noticed that the Vietnam focal point is yet to have its core team for the project . An operation without a core team  may be fine at the preparatory phase but would not be manageable in the second phase. We suggest that the contract should stress on establishing a core team for implementing the project.

iii)                 All participating countries are not in same level of capacity requirement and some like Vietnam would like to start even CDM project portfolio immediately to take advantage of global interest on the subject. Training manuals and methodologies have to be developed for all tasks at the earliest.