Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 64af6b-M2ZhZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework

Description:

Title: PowerPoint Presentation Author: wb229668 Created Date: 11/12/2004 5:12:27 PM Document presentation format: Custom Company: World Bank Group Other titles – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:10
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: wb22
Learn more at: http://www.thegef.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework


1
Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation
Framework
  • Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in
    Asia
  • Manila, 15-16 May 2008

2
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?

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
Emerging Issues so Far
  • Benefits Indices balance between terrestrial and
    marine vulnerability to climate change
  • Performance Indices recognition of countries
    with lower capacity to perform or countries
    emerging from conflict
  • Exclusions funding out of RAF too high?
  • Co-funding requirements RAF timeframe not
    sufficient
  • RAF in relation to guidance of the Conventions
  • Implementation/Organization
  • quality of information for implementation
  • effect on country-level decisions and operations
  • changes in the roles of GEF Agencies and civil
    society
  • effect on transparency and predictability

8
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

9
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

10
Key issues for NGOs
  • How has the RAF affected the funding of
  • The Small Grants Programme?
  • LDC and SIDS?
  • NGOs and civil society?
  • Relevant databases by NGOs? Other data?
  • Involvement in RAF design Implementation
  • Effects on project execution and pipeline
  • NGO involvement and nature of projects?
  • Involvement in GEF priority-setting at country
    level
  • Effects of other changes or factors?
  • Other issues?

11
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?

12
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?

13
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

14
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?

15
Information needed for MTR
  • 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?

16
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

17
Group Work - Manila
  • Countries already consulted in Bali (9)
    Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, Sri Lanka,
    Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Bangladesh
  • Countries NOT YET consulted (13) China,
    Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia,
    DPR Korea, Philippines, Myanmar, Maldives,
    Bhutan, Laos, Mongolia

18
Group Work Manila (without Bali participants)
  • Group 1 Countries with Individual Allocations
    for both focal areas (6) China, Indonesia,
    India, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines,
    Thailand, Vietnam
  • Group 2
  • Countries with Individual allocation for CC,
    Group Allocations for BD (2) Cambodia, DPR
    Korea, Bangladesh,
  • Countries with Individual allocation for BD,
    Group Allocations for CC (2) Laos, Mongolia,
    Afghanistan, Sri Lanka
  • Group 3 Countries with Group Allocations for
    both focal areas (1) Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal,
    Maldives

19
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?

20
RAF Vs non-RAF issues for MTR
  • 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?

21
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
  • Siv Tokle (stokle_at_thegef.org) or Divya Nair
    (dnair1_at_thegef.org) or email rafevaluation_at_thegef.
    org

22
rafevaluation_at_thegef.orghttp//www.thegef.org/ge
fevaluation.aspxid18472
  • Thank you!
About PowerShow.com