1 / 16

Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework

This review evaluates the implementation of the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) in the GEF-4 negotiations and proposes changes for the second half. It assesses the design and early implementation of RAF, compares it with other systems, and aims to maximize global environmental benefits. The review covers key issues in East and Southeast Asia and North Africa, Middle East, West, and South Asia. The methodology includes literature reviews, expert assessments, analysis of the portfolio, surveys, interviews, and consultations with stakeholders and focal points.

fraizer
Download Presentation

Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in North Africa, Middle East, West and South Asia Bali, December 2007

  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 • A second evaluation should be carried out in the context of OPS4 (in 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 (September 07) • Extensive consultations via the 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 + consultation : August 08 • Submission to Council: October 08

  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. 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

  6. Key issues - East and SE AsiaKuala Lumpur, 13-14 June 2006 • RAF consultations and results • Clarifications on GBI and GPI • Possibility of Allocation transfers between FAs • Re-endorsing projects for first GEF-4 Work Program • Public disclosure of GEF-4 country allocations • Allocation decisions, Thailand and East Timor • Eligibility for Myanmar • Over-programming and PDFs • 50% rule and small allocations • Possibility of Switch from Group to Individual Status • Country funds for SGP • Best practice dissemination • ‘Project concepts’ and Agency support  MTR now: what has happened since?

  7. North Africa, Middle East, S+West AsiaAlexandria, Egypt, 18-19 May 2006 Key Issues 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 now: what has happened since?

  8. Ten 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?

  9. 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?

  10. 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 consultations • National dialogue initiatives • Other evaluations’ country visits

  11. Interactions with Focal Points for Mid-term Review CURRENT (Bali, Dec 2007) • Plenary Session • Group Work • Country / Constituency Interviews • Individual Focal Point Surveys – and feedback on survey FUTURE (2008) • 5 subregional consultations, national dialogues • Teleconferences • Provide a List of Pipeline projects/ Panel Experts/ Delphi institutions/ consultations on pipeline? • Electronic surveys: need your input ! • Website update on MTR process and drafts • Etc??? Your suggestions?

  12. Topics for Discussion - Bali • What results are you expecting from the MTR? • Suggestions on how to improve the methodology: • How best to interact during subregionals? • How do we reach GEF focal points? • How do we reach accredited NGOs or networks? • How do we reach stakeholders at country level? • What inputs can you provide?

  13. Subregional plenary: General issues related to all or most countries Clarification on MTR Groupwork: Specific issues related to specific group of countries Allows MTR to see how RAF has affected countries in different contexts More detail and debate Individual meetings: Issues specific to one (or constituency) country Pipeline + projects Country priorities Country consultation Info on indicator data on experts available in-country For all: identify issues for RAF Vs issues related to other reforms? Information needed for MTR

  14. Group Work - Bali • Group 1:countries with Group Allocations for both focal areas Bhutan, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Nepal, Palestinian Authority, Tunisia, Yemen; • Group 2: countries with Group Allocations for either focal area Afghanistan, Sri Lanka,Bangladesh, Syria • Group 3: countries with Individual Allocations(6)  Algeria, Egypt, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Iran

  15. Follow-Up/ Check-list • Please provide GEFEO during this meeting with: • Time during next two days in Bali for detailed Country/Constituency 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

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

More Related