1 / 8

Country Programming Framework (CPF)

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

jonco
Download Presentation

Country Programming Framework (CPF)

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. Country Programming Framework (CPF) Status of CPF formulation in RAP region Overview of experiences ESP Group, RAP

  2. 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).

  3. CPF sections/components • Foreword and Introduction • Situation Analysis • FAO comparative advantages/FAO priority areas • Programming for results • Implementation and M&E • Annexes

  4. 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)

  5. 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)

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

More Related