1. Special Multilateral Fund of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development - FEMCIDI

2. Proposal of the Secretariat for the Reengineering of FEMCIDI Partnership for Development Fund: Building Integral Development in the Americas

3. Evolution of the Focus of Cooperation In the last 12 years, the Fund has fostered very positive results Today however, the focus of cooperation goes beyond the elimination of extreme poverty and aims as well at promoting social equity and inclusion in the Americas FEMCIDI must be reengineered to address this new reality The countries are facing a pivotal moment to transform the Fund

4. Comparative AdvantagesCurrent Challenges Political Mandates – the Funds activities stem directly from the mandates established by the Member States: Summits, General Assemblies, Ministerial Meetings Many priorities and a dispersion of funds among mandates: 8 separate priority areas, 41 sub- priorities Too many projects per priority does not foster cohesion among the projects nor a concise programmatic focus with a long term impact Inadequate articulation of mandates There is no articulation between the mandates of the Strategic Plan and the priorities defined in Ministerial Meetings Strategic Plan updated every 4 years – Ministerial Meetings every 2 years

5. Comparative AdvantagesCurrent Challenges FEMCIDI operates in the framework of the OAS, an institution recognized throughout the Hemisphere Fund lacks a unique and recognized image In countries where FEMCIDI represents a significant source of direct support, the authorities do not know of the Fund. Lack of visibility of results Results have not been published and publicized on a regular basis

6. Comparative AdvantagesCurrent Challenges Direct Access to Governments – Direct access and constant communication with high level cooperation authorities and National Liaison Offices (ONEs), responsible for the selection of projects Local Presence of the OAS – only institution in the Americas who has offices in almost of the Member States, which provide support to, manage the funds for and monitor the projects. Measurement of Results: Evaluations have shown positive results such as implementation of national policies, reforms and job creation. Monitoring - the ONEs must be closely involved in the monitoring of the implementation of the projects and results. Lack of standardized practices to guide the follow-up and monitoring tasks of the Offices High number of projects in execution: hamper the monitoring of results. Due to limited resources, not all projects can be evaluated, which limits the ability of the Fund to determine impact.

7. Additional LimitationsChallenges Technical quality of projects: Institutions do not have experience in project design Lack of resources: Stagnating of diminishing Contributions Increasing demand SEDI cannot provide training to each institution given the high number of projects. Number of projects further limits the possibilities for SEDI to provide tailored support to each project. Need to raise external funds and to promote the transfer of good practices made difficult due to the number and array of projects

8. Comparative AdvantagesCurrent Challenges Measuring Results: The evaluations have revealed positive results such as the implementation of national policies, reforms and job creation. High number of projects in execution: hampers the monitoring of results. Due to lack of resources, not all the projects can be evaluated, which limits the ability of the Fund to determine impact.

9. Reengineering FEMCIDI - Structure Challenges Too many sub-priorities and projects = a dispersion of funds among mandates and projects Inadequate articulation of mandates Reengineered Process Keep the eight priority areas but establish a single program per area based on the priorities established by the Summits, Ministerial Meetings and Inter-American Committees Inter-American Committees as instruments for the definition of the programs Modalities Multinational and national components in each program Transfer of established practices and expertise through South-South and Triangular Cooperation Two to Four year Programs to get a sustainable impact in the Hemisphere

10. Reengineering FEMCIDI – Project technical quality Challenges Poor technical quality of projects Reengineered Process Eight Programs allow SEDI to train participants and provide one on one support in project design. Modalities Workshops carried out at the onset of each Program. Support and feedback throughout the process of design.

11. Reengineering FEMCIDI - Impact Challenges Too many projects: Difficulties monitoring results and monitoring impact Reengineered Process Eight Programs: Constant monitoring and support Ex-post evaluation of all Programs Transfer of best practices through South-South components Modalities SEDI provides one-on-one support for design of program components Program Execution cycles include periodic coordination meetings for multinational components Secretariat monitors implementation and results with support of ONEs and in country OAS Offices. Establishment of clear and standard practices for in-country monitoring

12. Reengineering FEMCIDI – Visibility Challenges Lack of a unique image Lack of visibility of results Reengineered Process New image to establish FEMCIDI as a recognized agent of hemispheric cooperation Standardized and ongoing process of dissemination of results Modalities New logo and standardized communication instruments (in process) Local press, OAS Offices, ONEs provide support to SEDI in establishing recognition of FEMCIDI (in process) Member States kept informed of the state of execution and project results

13. Reengineering FEMCIDI – Resource/Partnership Mobilization Challenges Stagnating or diminishing contributions / increasing demand Limited possibilities of external fundraising and partnerships Reengineered Process Large Programs will facilitate external fundraising Partnership with other agencies for implementation Modalities Fewer programs facilitate the work of SEDI in looking for partners and co-financing (pilot exercise in process with support from PADF) Partnership established at design stage Clear definition of roles and responsibilities among all participants from the onset Program Catalog for potential partners (in process with the support of PADF)