mid-term review of the resource allocation framework
DESCRIPTION
Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework. Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in Eastern Europe and CIS Belgrade, April 2008. Context. Why this “ review ” ? (or evaluation) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Evaluation Office
Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework
Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in Eastern Europe and CIS
Belgrade, April 2008
2
Evaluation Office
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
Evaluation Office
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
Evaluation Office
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
Evaluation Office
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
Evaluation Office
Three Areas to Assess
1. Design of the RAF – does it facilitate maximization of impact of GEF resources (quality and indices?)?
2. Early Implementation of the RAF - is it providing countries with predictability and transparency and enhancing country driven approaches (changes from past?)?
3. Compare GEF RAF with other systems (any new experiences?)
Early timing MTR: focus on design + process so far
8
Evaluation Office
Europe and the CISBratislava, Slovak Republic, 22-23 May 2006
Key Points
1. Project development too long for RAF
2. Country allocations
3. GEF4 and “re-endorsements”
4. Biodiversity GBI
5. Global and regional projects
6. Country eligibility with focus on Hungary
7. NGO involvement under the RAF
8. SGP and regional project allocations for GEF4
9
Evaluation Office
Approved Projects in GEF3 (year1 and 2)Number of projects
Approved Projects in YEAR 1 AND 2 OF GEF3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Alb
ania
Arm
enia
Aze
rbai
jan
Bel
arus
Bos
nia-
Bul
garia
Cro
atia
Cze
ch
Est
onia
Geo
rgia
Hun
gary
Kaz
akhs
tan
Kyr
gyzs
tan
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Mac
edon
ia
Mal
ta
Mol
dova
Pol
and
Rom
ania
Rus
sian
Ser
bia
Ser
bia
and
Slo
vak
Slo
veni
a
Taj
ikis
tan
Tur
key
Tur
kmen
ista
n
Ukr
aine
Uzb
ekis
tan
Reg
iona
l
no. o
f pro
ject
s
Biodiversity Climate ChangeInternational Waters Multi-focal AreasOzone Depletion Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
10
Evaluation Office
Approved Projects in GEF3 (year1 and 2)(US$ million)
Resources Utilized in Years 1 and 2 of GEF3
$-$5
$10$15$20$25$30
Albani
a
Azerb
aijan
Bosni
a-
Croatia
Eston
ia
Hunga
ry
Kyrgy
zstan
Lithuan
ia Malta
Polan
d
Russi
an
Serbia
and
Sloven
ia
Turke
y
Ukrain
e
Regio
nal
US$M
Biodiversity Climate Change Non-RAF focal areas
12
Evaluation Office
MTR 10 key questions (1)
Design:1. To what extent do the global environmental benefits indices
reflect best available scientific data and knowledge?2. To what extent can the performance indices be considered as
‘best practice’?3. To what extent is the RAF designed to maximize global
environmental benefits?Implementation:4. Has the RAF been implemented in accordance with Council
decisions?5. To what extent has the initiation and implementation of the
Resource Allocation Framework been transparent and timely?
13
Evaluation Office
Ten key questions (2)
Implementation - continued:6. How has the RAF affected the roles and operation of
countries, agencies and entities under the Instrument? 7. What are the observable changes in GEF programming
from GEF- 3 to GEF-4?8. What has been the impact of the various design elements of
the RAF that have raised concerns?9. To what extent has the RAF been cost-effective?
Context10. 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?
14
Evaluation Office
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
15
Evaluation Office
Interactions with Focal Points for Mid-term Review
CURRENT (Belgrade, April 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 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?
16
Evaluation Office
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?
17
Evaluation Office
Group Work - Belgrade
Group 1: Countries with Group Allocations for both focal areas (12) Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,
FYR Macedonia, Georgia , Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan
Group 2: Countries with Group Allocations for BD, individual allocation for CC (7) Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovak
Republic, Ukraine, UzbekistanGroup 3: Countries with Individual Allocations BD+CC (3)
Turkey, Kazakhstan, Russia
18
Evaluation Office
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:1. What are the main problems (barriers) to you in managing the
implementation of the RAF? 2. What has facilitated implementation of the RAF (promoting factors)?3. What are the positive effects of RAF so far? Negative effects of RAF?
19
Evaluation Office
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?
20
Evaluation Office
Follow-Up/ Check-list
Please provide GEFEO during this meeting with:1. Time during next two days in Belgrade for detailed individual
Country meeting 2. Completed individual Focal Point Surveys
In the near future, please provide GEFEO with:3. List of current RAF pipeline (and expected number of future
proposals)4. List of institutions and persons consulted to develop RAF pipeline
Contact: – Siv Tokle ([email protected]) or Divya Nair ([email protected]) or email
