Transcript Capacity Building for Conservation Effectiveness Across

Capacity Building Global Support Program
 Enhance the institutional capacity necessary to
support professionals in implementing tiger
conservation over the long term.
 Professionalize core jobs to ensure on-the-ground
capacity is available to the challenges in tiger
conservation.
 Provide for ongoing opportunities for knowledge
sharing, collaboration, and support among
stakeholders to maintain the highest level of capacity.
Common capacity needs identified in
NTRPs
 Individual Capacity
 Increase skills in management leadership
 Increase skills in monitoring of tiger, prey, and habitat.
 Increase skills in enforcement.
 Increase skills in community relations and addressing
human-wildlife conflict.
 Increase motivation and interest in conservation.
Common capacity needs identified in
NTRPs
 Institutional Capacity
 Prioritize the conservation mission within ministries or
departments
 Create dedicated wildlife protection units
 Increase numbers of skilled staff
 Adopt new managerial strategies and tools
 Provide adequate infrastructure, equipment and tools
 Establish sustainable funding mechanisms for staff
incentives, training and support
 Work collaboratively with communities for conservation
stewardship.
Common capacity needs identified in
NTRPs
 Community or Societal Capacity
 Increase recognition of importance of tigers and
empower communities.
 Increase communication and collaboration among
stakeholders.
 Increase trans-boundary collaboration.
Enhance the Institutional Capacity
Necessary to Support Professionals
in Implementing Tiger
Conservation Over the Long Term
Institutional Capacity Building
Program
 Train the necessary staff to learn what is needed to be done and
how to implement the actions to change the culture and
operation of institutions so wild tigers can be conserved more
effectively (institutionalize ELF-like program).
 Establish a group of core consultants who are experts in the
various areas of institutional capacity and have them conduct
assessments of institutions in TRCs. These consultants will
provide important base-line data from which to monitor
progress.
 Conduct a bi-annual independent and mandatory evaluation of
institutional capacity of the leading institutions with jurisdiction
over tiger conservation in each TRC. The results of these
evaluations would be published for transparency to the TRC
community.
Professionalize core jobs to ensure
on-the-ground capacity is available
to address the challenges in tiger
conservation.
Conservation and Development Hubs
 A cluster of contributing partner institutions and
individuals committed to the overall objective and
principles of the GTI Conservation and Development
Network.
 The CDH may be organized on a regional basis and
united by a commonality of core conservation
priorities, trans-boundary issues and the underlying
biophysical, institutional, and socio-cultural context.
Conservation and Development Hubs
 It will serve as a center of information flow and enable
partners to address local and regional issues.
 University and college affiliates would provide a means
for individuals to obtain appropriate certification
and/or degrees.
Provide for ongoing opportunities
for learning, knowledge sharing,
collaboration and support among
stakeholders to maintain the
highest level of capacity
Community of Practice
 Communities of practice (CoP) are groups of people
who share information, insight, experience, and tools
about an area of common interest.
 The CoP framework will facilitate information
management and knowledge transfer and capitalize
upon the personal and professional knowledge,
experience, and personal networks each member has
developed over a lifetime, which can be leveraged for
the benefit of tigers.
 Elements of connectivity have evolved from the SI and
WB pilot GTI Training of Trainers Conservation
Practitioners course.
Expected Outcomes
 Increased numbers of skilled and professionalized
staff working on the front lines in protected areas.
 Establishment of effective management support
structures in protected areas.
 Increased collaborations among governments, nongovernmental organizations and academic
institutions.
 Increased communication and knowledge sharing
among stakeholders.
Indicative Program Costs in US$
First Phase Five Years
 Institutional Capacity
$15 M
 Professionalize core jobs
$25 M
 Community of Practice
$5 M
Building Tigacity
Thank You!