Evaluation Office 1 Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in Asia Manila, May 2008

Evaluation Office 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 of the GEF-4 period A second evaluation should be carried out at the end of GEF-4 period (2010?) – more info on impact?

Evaluation Office 3 The MTR Process Approach paper in August 07: many comments (including from 2 Focal Points, 1 NGO) Draft TOR on web for comments: Extensive consultations via Internet and s; 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: End August 2008 Consultation: September 2008 Submission to November 2008Council: October 2008

Evaluation Office 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

Evaluation Office 5 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

Evaluation Office 6 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

Evaluation Office 7 Emerging Issues so Far Benefits Indices: balance between terrestrial and marine; vulnerability to climate change Performance Indices: recognition of countries with lower capacity to perform or countries emerging from conflict Exclusions: funding out of RAF too high? Co-funding requirements: RAF timeframe not sufficient RAF in relation to guidance of the Conventions Implementation/Organization: – quality of information for implementation; – effect on country-level decisions and operations; – changes in the roles of GEF Agencies and civil society; – effect on transparency and predictability

Evaluation Office 8 East and Southeast Asia Kuala Lumpur, June 2006 Key Points 1. RAF consultations and results 2. Clarity on GBI and GPI 3. Allocation transfers between FAs 4. Re-endorsing projects for first GEF-4 Work Program 5. Public disclosure of GEF-4 country allocations 6. Allocation decisions, Thailand and East Timor 7. Eligibility for Myanmar 8. Over-programming and PDFs 9. 50% rule and small allocations 10. Switch from Group to Individual Status 11. Country funds for SGP 12. Best practice dissemination 13. ‘ Project concepts ’ and agency support

Evaluation Office 9 North Africa, Middle East, South and West Asia Alexandria, Egypt May 2006 Key Points 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 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

Evaluation Office 10 Key issues for NGOs How has the RAF affected the funding of: The Small Grants Programme? LDC and SIDS? NGOs and civil society? Relevant databases by NGOs? Other data? Involvement in RAF design + Implementation Effects on project execution and pipeline: – NGO involvement and nature of projects? Involvement in GEF priority-setting at country level Effects of other changes or factors? Other issues?

Evaluation Office 11 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?

Evaluation Office 12 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? Context 10. 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?

Evaluation Office 13 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

Evaluation Office 14 Interactions with Focal Points for Mid-term Review CURRENT (May 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 Electronic surveys: need your input ! Website update on MTR process and drafts Etc??? Your suggestions?

Evaluation Office 15 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?

Evaluation Office 16 Group Work - Manila Group 1: Countries with Individual Allocations for both focal areas (9) : China, Indonesia, India, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam Group 2: Countries with Individual allocation for CC, Group Allocations for BD (3): Cambodia, Bangladesh, DPR Korea Countries with Individual allocation for BD, Group Allocations for CC (4): Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Laos, Mongolia Group 3: Countries with Group Allocations for both focal areas (4): Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar, Maldives

Evaluation Office 17 Group Work - Manila Countries already consulted in Bali (9): Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Bangladesh Countries NOT YET consulted (13) : China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, DPR Korea, Philippines, Myanmar, Maldives, Bhutan, Laos, Mongolia

Evaluation Office 18 Group Work – Manila (without Bali participants) Group 1: Countries with Individual Allocations for both focal areas (6) : China, Indonesia, India, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam Group 2: Countries with Individual allocation for CC, Group Allocations for BD (2): Cambodia, DPR Korea, Bangladesh, Countries with Individual allocation for BD, Group Allocations for CC (2): Laos, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka Group 3: Countries with Group Allocations for both focal areas (1): Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives

Evaluation Office 19 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? 4. What incentives does/can the RAF create for performance at the individual, project and institutional/policy levels?

Evaluation Office 20 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?

Evaluation Office 21 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 or Divya Nair or

Evaluation Office 22 Thank you!