Capacity Building Training

Editor's Notes

• #3: Main points: Facilities Level Information is a required case study for access to information. Examples include compliance reports and Pollution Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs). To add this case you will select the case type of “facilities level reporting” then choose the case details from the following list: Reports on environmental compliance PRTRs Reports from industry audits select “surface water quality” for case details.
• #4: Main Points: Capacity building is key to the implementation of access principles   The assessment evaluates the national government on its performance in:   1) enhancing the capacity of government agencies to provide access 2) enhancing the capacity of the public to utilize the access system, including access-specific CB and general civic and environmental education 3)providing an enabling environment for the media and for CSOs
• #5: Main Points: Access principles will not be adopted unless there are proactive measures taken by the government to improve the capacity of decision-makers and the public. Values of Access to Justice include:   Efforts are made to educate and train key members of society including government officials, politicians, judges to understand access rights and environmental concerns. There should also be efforts to include environmental education into the public school systems. Access to justice helps ensure that people are held accountable for Access to justice   Actively encourages involvement: Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.   .  
• #6: What does the TAI assessment evaluate? (Quick introduction to the TAI methodology) Main points: The TAI assessment measures both LAW and PRACTICE at a national level. The law evaluation is completed with legal research and assesses the quality of the access rights as enshrined in the law. Capacity building evaluation looks at the legal requirements to provide capacity building on access rights. The case studies assess PRACTICE. Look at “on the ground” experiences with access. Case studies captures gaps in implementation (gaps between law and practice). It also identifies areas in which practice may be better than the legal framework.
• #7: Main Points: Poverty case studies are designed to capture the concerns of the poor. The Poverty Guidelines are to be used for all TAI assessments. The poverty sensitized indicators are to be conducted for 6 of the 18 case studies. Although there are no case studies conducted for capacity building, the poverty case studies are particularly relevant to capacity building. If access is not reaching the poor, that is often due to lack of government capacity.
• #8: Main points: Capacity Building is measured as a component of each case study and does not require any case studies of its own.
• #9: How well does the government provide training or curriculum resources on access rights to public school teachers? How well do laws and rules for registration and operation of civil society organizations promote an enabling environment for CSOs? How well do laws and rules for the registration and operation of media organizations support a free press? Are the laws for media organizations equally enforced? For CSOs? To what extent does the law require access to free legal aid?
• #10: Main Points: This is an example of a capacity building indicator. This is indicator #137. Trainer reads the full question and the values. Researchers are provided with more information than this—there are also research guidelines. It is VERY important that you read the guidelines as it explains, for instance what a “clear description” is. Guidelines for this question are: This indicator focuses on the timeliness with which the review and ultimate decision of the claim were made, rather than the process itself (which is covered by Indicator 119). The value for the indicator will be driven by whether the final outcome was obtained in time to resolve the principal concern of the parties bringing the claim. In assigning the value, consider whether: • The status quo changed adversely pending the outcome. • Whether the special needs and circumstances of the claim required a more timely decision. • Reaching a decision in the claim took longer than in similar claims. Definitions: "Minimize delays" means that the forum took actions to avoid delays, such as returning intermediate decisions or distributing documents in a timely manner. "Processing and reviewing" includes the steps taken by the forum towards issuing a final decision. These steps will vary among forums. Recommended Research Methods and Sources: 1. Interview: At least 2 individuals involved in the claim to determine: a. Any steps taken by the forum to minimize delays. b. Any special needs and circumstances of the claim that may have required a more timely decision. 2. Document review: Review reports of the proceedings to ascertain the duration of the claim.
• #11: Main Points: This is an example of a capacity building indicator. This is indicator #137. Trainer reads the full question and the values. Researchers are provided with more information than this—there are also research guidelines. It is VERY important that you read the guidelines as it explains, for instance what a “clear description” is. Guidelines for this question are: This indicator focuses on the timeliness with which the review and ultimate decision of the claim were made, rather than the process itself (which is covered by Indicator 119). The value for the indicator will be driven by whether the final outcome was obtained in time to resolve the principal concern of the parties bringing the claim. In assigning the value, consider whether: • The status quo changed adversely pending the outcome. • Whether the special needs and circumstances of the claim required a more timely decision. • Reaching a decision in the claim took longer than in similar claims. Definitions: "Minimize delays" means that the forum took actions to avoid delays, such as returning intermediate decisions or distributing documents in a timely manner. "Processing and reviewing" includes the steps taken by the forum towards issuing a final decision. These steps will vary among forums. Recommended Research Methods and Sources: 1. Interview: At least 2 individuals involved in the claim to determine: a. Any steps taken by the forum to minimize delays. b. Any special needs and circumstances of the claim that may have required a more timely decision. 2. Document review: Review reports of the proceedings to ascertain the duration of the claim.
• #12: Main Points: This is an example of a capacity building indicator. This is indicator #137. Trainer reads the full question and the values. Researchers are provided with more information than this—there are also research guidelines. It is VERY important that you read the guidelines as it explains, for instance what a “clear description” is. Guidelines for this question are: This indicator focuses on the timeliness with which the review and ultimate decision of the claim were made, rather than the process itself (which is covered by Indicator 119). The value for the indicator will be driven by whether the final outcome was obtained in time to resolve the principal concern of the parties bringing the claim. In assigning the value, consider whether: • The status quo changed adversely pending the outcome. • Whether the special needs and circumstances of the claim required a more timely decision. • Reaching a decision in the claim took longer than in similar claims. Definitions: "Minimize delays" means that the forum took actions to avoid delays, such as returning intermediate decisions or distributing documents in a timely manner. "Processing and reviewing" includes the steps taken by the forum towards issuing a final decision. These steps will vary among forums. Recommended Research Methods and Sources: 1. Interview: At least 2 individuals involved in the claim to determine: a. Any steps taken by the forum to minimize delays. b. Any special needs and circumstances of the claim that may have required a more timely decision. 2. Document review: Review reports of the proceedings to ascertain the duration of the claim.