1. Evaluation Office 1 Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in East & Southern Africa, Windhoek, 25-27 June

2. 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?

3. 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 (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 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Evaluation Office 8 Sub-Regional Consultation, Pretoria, 24-25 April 2006 RAF is not in line with NEPAD and Africa needs Transparency in rankings and allocations Information sources to determine rankings Why use of NGO data? Biodiversity Index undercuts habitats and ecosystem services Clarify performance Expanded role of Focal Points Project re-endorsement deadline and process Who decides what to drop or approve? Eligibility considered under GEF4 versus GEF3 Minimum allocation of $1 million Disincentives to improve performance and country allocation in future Disincentives for PDF-Bs Level of funding and operations for the SGP

9. Evaluation Office 9 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?

10. Evaluation Office 10 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?

11. Evaluation Office 11 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?

12. Evaluation Office 12 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

13. Evaluation Office 13 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 workshops, 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?

14. Evaluation Office 14 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?

15. Evaluation Office 15 Group Work – East and Southern Africa Group 1: Countries with Group Allocations for both focal areas (8): Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Djibouti, Eritrea, Lesotho, Comoros, Rwanda Group 2: Countries with Group Allocations for CC, individual allocation for BD (8): Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia, Seychelles Group 3: Countries with Individual Allocations BD+CC (6): Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda

16. Evaluation Office 16 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?

17. Evaluation Office 17 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?

18. Evaluation Office 18 Follow-Up/ Check-list Please provide GEFEO during this meeting with: 1. Time during the meeting 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 (stokle@thegef.org) or email rafevaluation@thegef.orgstokle@thegef.orgrafevaluation@thegef.org

19. Evaluation Office 19 rafevaluation@thegef.org http://www.thegef.org/gefevaluation.aspx#id=18472 Thank you!