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. 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

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. 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

12. 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?

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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?

16. 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

17. 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@thegef.org) or Divya Nair (dnair1@thegef.org) or email rafevaluation@thegef.org

18. rafevaluation@thegef.orghttp://www.thegef.org/gefevaluation.aspx#id=18472rafevaluation@thegef.orghttp://www.thegef.org/gefevaluation.aspx#id=18472 Thank you!