Mid term review of the resource allocation framework
Download
1 / 18

Mid-Term Review of the - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 331 Views
  • Updated On :

Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework. Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in Asia Manila, 15-16 May 2008. Context. Why this “ review ” ? (or evaluation) Part of the GEF-4 negotiations and requested by the Council: evaluate after two years of implementation

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Mid-Term Review of the ' - Antony


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Mid term review of the resource allocation framework l.jpg

Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework

Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in Asia

Manila, 15-16 May 2008


Context l.jpg
Context

Why this “review”? (or evaluation)

  • Part of the GEF-4 negotiations and requested by the Council: evaluate after two years of implementation

  • Propose changes for the implementation of the second half of the GEF-4 period

  • A second evaluation should be carried out at the end of GEF-4 period (2010?) – more info on impact?


The mtr process l.jpg
The MTR Process

  • Approach paper in August 07: many comments (including from 2 Focal Points, 1 NGO)

  • Draft TOR on web for comments: Extensive consultations via Internet and emails; comments on TOR by donors, 4 Focal Points

  • TOR completed for October 07 Council

  • TOR approved by the Council in November 07

  • Implementation: December 07 to July 08

  • Draft report: End August 2008

  • Consultation: September 2008

  • Submission to November 2008Council: October 2008


Objectives of the mtr l.jpg
Objectives of the MTR

Evaluate the degree to which resources have been allocated to countries in a transparent and cost-effective manner, based on global environmental benefits and country performance

  • Independently managed and executed by GEF Evaluation Office, with independent consultants


How will the mtr be used l.jpg
How will the MTR be used?

  • Too soon to say

  • Depends on the MTR recommendations and on their implementation

  • The GEF management will provide a “management response” to the GEF Council (by the CEO and GEF Secretariat in coordination with the Agencies)

  • The November 2008 Council will make decisions based on this

  • Mid-term reviews normally make recommendations to improve implementation


Three areas to assess l.jpg
Three Areas to Assess

  • Design of the RAF – does it facilitate maximization of impact of GEF resources (quality and indices?)?

  • Early Implementation of the RAF - is it providing countries with predictability and transparency and enhancing country driven approaches (changes from past?)?

  • Compare GEF RAF with other systems (any new experiences?)

     Early timing MTR: focus on design + process so far


East and southeast asia kuala lumpur 13 14 june 2006 l.jpg
East and Southeast AsiaKuala Lumpur, 13-14 June 2006

  • Key Points

  • 1. RAF consultations and results

  • 2. Clarity on GBI and GPI

  • 3. Allocation transfers between FAs

  • 4. Re-endorsing projects for first GEF-4 Work Program

  • 5. Public disclosure of GEF-4 country allocations

  • 6. Allocation decisions, Thailand and East Timor

  • 7. Eligibility for Myanmar

  • 8. Over-programming and PDFs

  • 9. 50% rule and small allocations

  • 10. Switch from Group to Individual Status

  • 11. Country funds for SGP

  • 12. Best practice dissemination

  • 13. ‘Project concepts’ and agency support


North africa middle east south and west asia alexandria egypt 18 19 may 2006 l.jpg
North Africa, Middle East, South and West AsiaAlexandria, Egypt. 18-19 May 2006

  • Key Points

  • 1. RAF decided before consultation

  • 2. Consultations follow-up

  • 3. GEF-3 projects still in pipeline

  • 4. Transparent disclosure of GEF-4 replenishment figures

  • 5. RAF only for two FAs

  • 6. Transparency of GBI and GPI indices

  • 7. 50-50 rule and “utilizing” funds

  • 8. Project eligibility

  • 9. NGO involvement

  • 10. Country vs group allocations

  • 11. Biodiversity and climate change allocation ceilings

  • 12. Global and regional projects


Mtr 10 key questions 1 l.jpg
MTR 10 key questions (1)

Design:

  • To what extent do the global environmental benefits indices reflect best available scientific data and knowledge?

  • To what extent can the performance indices be considered as ‘best practice’?

  • To what extent is the RAF designed to maximize global environmental benefits?

    Implementation:

  • Has the RAF been implemented in accordance with Council decisions?

  • To what extent has the initiation and implementation of the Resource Allocation Framework been transparent and timely?


Ten key questions 2 l.jpg
Ten key questions (2)

Implementation - continued:

  • How has the RAF affected the roles and operation of countries, agencies and entities under the Instrument?

  • What are the observable changes in GEF programming from GEF- 3 to GEF-4?

  • What has been the impact of the various design elements of the RAF that have raised concerns?

  • To what extent has the RAF been cost-effective?

    Context

  • What recent developments, both within the GEF and elsewhere, should the Council take into account in considering potential changes in the Resource Allocation Framework or the way it is implemented?


Design and methodology l.jpg
Design and Methodology

  • Literature and desk reviews: GEF documents, other similar evaluations, scientific developments

  • Delphi approach: independent panel of experts assessment of the indices

  • Analysis of the emerging portfolio and comparison with previous GEF phases

  • Surveys, interviews, stakeholder consultations

  • Country consultations

    • Sub-regional workshops (6)

    • National dialogue initiatives

    • Other evaluations’ country visits


Interactions with focal points for mid term review l.jpg
Interactions with Focal Points for Mid-term Review

CURRENT (May 2008)

  • Plenary Session

    • Group Work

  • Country / Constituency Interviews

  • Individual Focal Point Surveys – and feedback on survey

    FUTURE (2008)

  • 4 more subregional consultations, national dialogues

  • Teleconferences

  • Electronic surveys: need your input !

  • Website update on MTR process and drafts

  • Etc??? Your suggestions?


Information needed for mtr l.jpg

Subregional plenary:

General issues related to all or most countries

Clarification on MTR

Groupwork:

Specific issues related to specific group of countries

See how RAF has affected countries in different contexts

More detail and debate

For all: identify issues for RAF Vs issues related to other reforms?

Individual meetings:

Issues specific to one (or constituency) country

Pipeline + projects

Country priorities

Country consultation

Info on indicator data on experts available in-country

What results are you expecting from the MTR?

What inputs can you provide?

Information needed for MTR


Group work manila l.jpg
Group Work - Manila

Group 1: Countries with Individual Allocations for both focal areas (9) : China, Indonesia, India, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam

Group 2:

  • Countries with Individual allocation for CC, Group Allocations for BD (3): Cambodia, Bangladesh, DPR Korea

  • Countries with Individual allocation for BD, Group Allocations for CC (4): Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Laos, Mongolia

    Group 3: Countries with Group Allocations for both focal areas (4): Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar, Maldives


Group work questions l.jpg
Group work Questions

Tasks:

  • Decide on a presenter to plenary and a recorder. Use flipchart to present your discussions.

  • In your Group, discuss the questions provided to you and brainstorm underlying causes. Consider who these apply to if they depend on country circumstance (output: challenges, linked to country context).

  • Suggest possible solutions or actions you would like to see taken – on problem issues (where possible).

    Questions:

  • What are the main problems (barriers) to you in managing the implementation of the RAF?

  • What has facilitated implementation of the RAF (promoting factors)?

  • What are the positive effects of RAF so far? Negative effects of RAF?

  • What incentives does/can the RAF create for performance at the individual, project and institutional/policy levels?


Raf vs non raf issues for mtr l.jpg

RAF issues for MTR:

Identify barriers to RAF use (such as project cycle, lack of information, other reforms)

What helps RAF

Effects of RAF

Changed roles

Etc.

“Non-RAF ” issues:

Details on barriers to RAF use Explain why and how barriers affect RAF

Problems that are common to all focal areas  Explain why does it affect RAF in particular?

RAF Vs non-RAF issues for MTR


Follow up check list l.jpg
Follow-Up/ Check-list

  • Please provide GEFEO during this meeting with:

    • Time during next two days in Belgrade for detailed individual Country meeting

    • Completed individual Focal Point Surveys

  • In the near future, please provide GEFEO with:

    • List of current RAF pipeline (and expected number of future proposals)

    • List of institutions and persons consulted to develop RAF pipeline

  • Contact:


Rafevaluation@thegef org http www thegef org gefevaluation aspx id 18472 l.jpg

[email protected]http://www.thegef.org/gefevaluation.aspx#id=18472

Thank you!


ad