1. Experience in Turkey and SEC

2.  Regular communication with stakeholders  Attending seminars and conferences for FAO visibility  Following possible funds of financial institutions  Working closely with other UN agencies like UNDP, UNIDO, ILO, UNFPA to find possible cooperation areas in line with FAO’s mandate to raise fund for joint activities  establish common understanding with UN agencies to develop joint programme

3.  UNDP competition  Too much bureaucratic processes at FAO and donor side  Visibility??  Lack of responsible staff on the field  Unclear terms of reference for resource mobilization  Limited number of technical staff and limited financial resources to develop project proposal even the concept note

4.  Good networking and communication with donors  Visibility ??  Existing baseline documents, UNDCS, CPF, national plans, Strategic plans of the Ministries  Technical expertise of FAO and field works  International commitments of Government

5.  UTF/TUR/059/TUR - Social Policies and International Good Practices Project 2012- 2014  Budget USD624 403  Donor Turkey, Ministry of Family and Social Policy

6. UTF/TUR/056/TUR GEF Biosafety project  Budget: USD 546 000  Donor: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock  Origin of the fund : GEF4

7. FAO -Turkey Partnership Programme (FTPP)  FTPP Duration (2007-2011)  Overall Budget: USD 10,100,000  Amount Allocated to Projects: USD 10,100,000 8 regional projects 11 multi-country projects 11 national projects Extension process is underway. It is expected to finalise by the end of 2012.

8. GAP Extension Project  Budget : USD 240,000  Project concept note was developed by HQ shared with GAP administration  Waiting for GAP president approval

9. Ecosystem Adaptation to Climate Change  The project proposal was developed under the UNJP climate change project  As the subject is related to FAO’s mandate, FAO took the lead to find resource  Communicated with EU environment section

10.  Active participation into GEF 5 portfolio development workshops/meetings (in Turkey and Kyrgyzstan)  Direct contact with GEF national operational focal points and relevant national partners  Participation in study visits, familiarization workshops, and conducting bilateral meetings  Capacity development through joint works with national GEF staff

11. Sustainable Land Management and Climate Friendly Agriculture (Turkey)  Budget: USD 6.5 Million GEF grant Co financing: USD 21,3 Million  Multi focal area, CC, LD and BD  Covers forestry, crop and land and water management  PIF approved, PPG is under development

12. Sustainable management of mountainous forest and land resources of Kyrgyzstan in Climate Change Conditions  Budget 6.1 USD million GEF Grant (CC, LD and SFM/REDD+ focal areas)  17,1 USD million co-financing from national partners, IFAD, TIKA, GIZ, FAO and local farmers  Covers forestry, land and water management and crop  PIF approved, PPG drafted

13. Management of POPs and other obsolete pesticides; and implementing sound pesticides management programme in Turkey and Central Asia countries  Regional (TUR, KAZ, KYR,AZE,TAJ)  Budget: GEF 8,9 Million USD Co-financing:29,4 Million USD  Project programmed by GEF, PIF revised and resubmitted

14. Conservation of steppe biodiversity in Turkey through establishment of steppe protected areas and streamlining biodiversity conservation into production landscapes  Single focal area, BD  Budget: 2,3 Million USD GEF  Government request received, pipelined and PIF will be finalised in December 2012.

15. Comparative advantages of FAO are the key and entry points for RM but not enough…..  Prepare Resource Mobilization strategy including stakeholder analysis ( donors, corporate private sector,NGOs..)  Presentation of Priority matrix to donors  Regular use of the FAO tools for advocacy including success stories  Try to be in right place, in right time (lobbying)  Capacity development of FAO staff on communication and negotiation  Use Visual and campaign material/ policy briefs/concept notes  Organise Study visit for partners including representatives of agencies  Organise Social gatherings( breakfast/lunch meetings)

16.  More support from HQ is required / focal point for each country for better coordination  MOA, MOUs should be put it in reality with specific focus on country engagements with resource partners  Increase the staff capacity at subregioanal/ country level