110 likes | 322 Views
Country Programming Framework (CPF). Status of CPF formulation in RAP region Overview of experiences ESP Group, RAP. Status of 21 CPFs/NMTPF in RAP RegioN. 4 with NMTPF (no CPF) - Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, PNG
E N D
Country Programming Framework (CPF) Status of CPF formulation in RAP region Overview of experiences ESP Group, RAP
Status of 21 CPFs/NMTPF in RAP RegioN • 4 with NMTPF (no CPF) - Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, PNG • 5 CPFs signed by Govt. (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mongolia, DPRK, Thailand) • 2 CPFs approved by ADG/awaiting Govt. signature (Myanmar, Philippines) • 5 at last stage after HQs/RAP comments (Sri Lanka, Lao PDR, Timor-Leste, China and Nepal); and • 5 being formulated (Bhutan, India, Maldives, 1 for Pacific Islands, Vietnam).
CPF sections/components • Foreword and Introduction • Situation Analysis • FAO comparative advantages/FAO priority areas • Programming for results • Implementation and M&E • Annexes
Situation Analysis • Typical comment - generally weak – much more “descriptive” than “analysis” weak link between constraints and solutions proposed • Ideally, this should have identified fresh insights/ideas, but this is not the case mostly • Some also say …… if CPF is a sub-set of Govt. sector priority/programmes, i.e. drawn from that, why do we even need situation analysis? (because this is already done there)
FAO comparative advantages/prorities • Typical comment - This section is mostly C&P [ ] from FAO’s SO and RSO documents, with very little country-specific adaptation • Some also say … not really helpful to attract donor interest, because SO/RSOs cover everything with no sense of priority – so – hardly point to FAO comparative advantages (or in that specific country)
Implementation and M&E • Typical comment – Not much commented .... – partly because it is mostly a C&P job, e.g. forming two CPF committees, two reporting schedules, one short-term implementation plan. • So, looks fine
Programming for Results (priorities) Typical Comments • Overall, weak link between situation analysis and priorities setting • Technical comments – mostly pointing to missing outputs/activities (e.g. gender, nutrition, stats., post-harvest, disaster, environm. etc) • Quality-related – Annex Results Matrix A and B poorly done 1) confused on outcomes, outputs and activities – and attribution; 2) baseline/targets poorly done or wrong indicators, or overly ambitious.
Concluding remarks – using a CPF for proj form/res. Mob? • Resource mobilz. = f(idea, quality of proposal, Govt support, donor’s respect for FAO) • So, what role for a CPF on this? • One ? Asked by outsiders – Why is a CPF essential for this purpose? Is it for FAO’s own sake or there is more in it? • Next steps – how to use CPF for proj. formul & res. mob.? • What role can RAP play on this?