Session 3: Setting priorities – Comparative advantage and options analysis

1. Session 3: Settingpriorities– Comparative advantage and optionsanalysis

2. Where we are at ? Objectives Options analysis

3. How to select objectives ?

4. Prioritization process - Criteria • Preferably emerge from a dialogue with the national stakeholders • Not imposed, yet some suggested for consideration • High priority – key strategic areas • High priority, although low likelihood for RM • Moderate priority – not Gvt priority • Low priority – no CA, no capacity 3 2 1 4 • Enabling conditions and capacities for achieving the results • Likelihood of sustainability • Ability to produce the highest level of impact • Contribution to the MDGs/IADGs

5. Comparative Advantages FAO Global Goals FAO Strategic Objectives/ORs Mandate to act Core Functions • KEY QUESTIONS? • Does it contribute FAO global goals? • Does it fall under the areas that the members want FAO to focus on SO and ORs that FAO committed to achieve? • Does it require application of FAOs core functions which are recognized FAO comparative advantages?

6. Comparative Advantages FAO Global Goals Mandate to act FAO Strategic Objectives/ORs Core Functions Actual CA at country level Capacity to act Position to act Revealed CA Perceived CA Gaps

7. Tip: Use this methodology and results to discuss comparative advantages with UNCT in UNDAF process Comparative Advantages FAO Global Goals Mandate to act FAO Strategic Objectives/ORs Core Functions Actual CA at country level Position to act Capacity to act Revealed CA Resources Perceived CA Influence Partnerships Gaps

8. Assessing FAO positioning in the country – Portfolio review To assess FAO positioning in the country, identify areas of performance and draw forward looking lessons on how to improve FAO delivery in country. • Portfolio analysis : analysis of the information on the status and evolution/ trend of FAO portfolio. ( number of projects, amount of budget, delivery, breakdown by source of funds, by resources partners). (from FPMIS) • Analysis of the performance in terms of status of implementation and achievements of expected key results of the completed and on-going projects, lessons learned. (from progress reports, evaluation reports). • Comparison vs other partners involved in the same areas of intervention of FAO : size and type and performance of FAO intervention vs other partners ) (from ADAM – resource partners matrix, profiles, government reports, partners reports, other) - • Partners feed back on FAO country performance (surveys, external country assessment)

9. Comparative Advantages FAO Global Goals Mandate to act FAO Strategic Objectives/ORs Core Functions Actual CA at country level Capacity to act Position to act Revealed CA Resources Perceived CA Influence Partnerships Gaps

10. Options Analysis Use objective criteria to analyse which objectives ‘root’ to prioritise • Degree of fit with higher plans/Core Functions • What are others doing? • FAO comparative advantage and capacity? • Alignment with FAO ORs • Alignment with country priorities? • Risks and assumptions? Who is at risk? • Feasibility? • Social criteria • Technical • Institutional • Economic & Financial • Environmental Increased Agricultural Productivity Increase Access to Value Chains and Technologies Build capacity of Extension Workers Support Evidence Based Policy Build Knowledge of Farmers on Marketing Reduce Soil Erosion Land Tenure Regularization Provide Access to Finance Improve Statistics System Inject into Govt. Revenue

11. Questionsso far ...

12. Activity: Selecting the objectives Task: Assess if the following documents provide you quality information to help you prioritize: • ADAM report • FPMIS report

13. Formulating Results Chain