1. Resource Mobilization in SNG and SNO Facts, trends & prospects

2. Less ODA around the world in general but:  International and regional donors are reorganizing their funding priorities  Donors targeting Near East region to support its political and social stabilization.  New opportunities to strengthen partnerships with potential donors  FAO should take advantage of this new context to expand its resource base

3.  In SNO, USD 13 million mobilized in 2008/09, down to under USD 5 million in last biennium. Why?  SNO: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria  In SNG, USD 5.5 million mobilized in 2008/09, up to just under USD 10 million in last biennium. USD 26 million already mobilized this year thanks mainly to Saudi UTFs.  SNG: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

4. RM Trends in SNG SNG: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen ODA to the sub-region from OECD members averages around USD 100 million with spikes in 2000, 2004, 2008 and the most significant spike in 2009, caused by several large contributions to Yemen, most of which came from UAE

5. Delivery by SNG Office (Emergency and Non-Emergency, 2008-2011)

6. SNG’s TOP 10 Resource Partners Spending in FAO-related Sectors (Source: ADAM (OECD) 2006-2010) 1.United Arab Emirates 2.World Bank 3.EU 4.Germany 5.Netherlands 6.USA 7.Arab Fund for Economical and Social Development 8.IFAD 9.UK 10.Japan FAO (Source: FPMIS, 2006-2012) 1.Saudi Arabia (UTF) 2.United Arab Emirates* 3.TCP 4.UNOCHA 5.Multi-donor (i.e. IFAD, OPEC Fund, Islamic Development Bank, etc.) 6.Sweden 7.Japan 8.Australia 9.Oman (UTF) 10.European Union

7. Most Funded Agriculture Subsectors IN SNG From 2006-2010

8. RM TRENDS IN SNO SNO: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria ODA from OECD members in SNO averages around USD 1 billion with a spike of USD 2 billion in 2002, this is substantially higher than in SNG.

9. Delivery by SNO Office (Emergency and Non-Emergency, 2008-2011)

10. SNO’s TOP 10 Resource Partners Spending in FAO-Related Sectors (from ADAM (OECD) 2006 - 2010) 1.USA 2.EU institutions 3.Germany 4.IBRD 5.Italy 6.Japan 7.Islamic Development Bank 8.France 9.GEF 10.Australia FAO (from FPMIS: 2006 - 2012) 1.CHF - The Common Fund for Humanitarian Action in Sudan 2.Multi-donor (EU (97%)) 3.UN Development Group Office (DGO) Service & Support UNDG/EXECCOM Secretariat 4.USA 5.European Union 6.Canada 7.Italy 8.UNOCHA 9.Spain 10.African Development Bank

11. Most Funded Agriculture Subsectors IN SNG From 2006-2010

12. How can an RM strategy help FAO improve? Main impact of RM strategy for RNE: Adequate, more predictable and sustainable voluntary contributions which fully support achievement of FAO’s objectives at the global, regional, sub-regional and country levels

13. Main Outcomes of RM strategy for RNE Proposed outcomes for RM strategy for RNE include:  Consolidation, diversification and expansion of FAO’s resource partnerships in the Region  Strengthened awareness among partners and member countries about FAO’s comparative advantage through effective communication  Ensure that resources are effectively managed for results to report them internally (to governing bodies) and externally (to partners and donors).

14. Communication Challenges for RNE Internally:  Develop better quality advocacy tools (concept notes, project proposals, brochures, presentations, websites)  Improve communications between FAO HQ, Regional, Subregional and Country offices Externally, to strengthen communication with potential partners:  Planned attendance in international meetings and technical visits  Organize more donor meetings and donor round tables  Expand dissemination of information on FAO’s strategic thinking  Improve visibility of FAO and gain trust of resource partners by better promoting FAO success stories and comparative advantage (videos, regional website, stories, press releases, presentations)

15. Internal RM Challenges and Opportunities  Establish RM taskforce at RNE  Establish RM strategies for short term and long term action based on the CPF and RPF  Gathering information (donor activities) to identify opportunities  Effective use of resources and proper monitoring and reporting on progress  Improve internal capacities through comprehensive training

16. External RM Challenges and Opportunities  Improve contacts through regularized visits and which are key in the RNE region (Gulf region) -High level visibility  Focus on local, regional, decentralized partners  Broaden partnership through new innovative funding sources (RNE Trust Fund)

17. RM prospects: A Regional Trust Fund for the Near East  A Multi Donor Trust Fund  Effective mechanism to pool resources  Broad range of stakeholders  Focuses on Regional Priorities CPFs, RPFs  Allows the implementation of the needed interventions at a national, sub regional and regional level  Promotes regional coordination creating common responsibilities and shared achievements.

18. Regional Trust Fund for the Near East: RM Strategy  Voluntary contributions by member countries  Other donor agencies  Other countries supporting the Region’s needs Involves:  Multi-modal funding options  Multilateral or bilateral funding

19. Advantages of a Regional Trust Fund  Demand-driven  Timely response to calls for support by member countries  Coordination and harmonization of interventions Can address Trans-boundary regional challenges:  Food security (Yemen and Syria) cross border population movement  Animal and food diseases (FMD in Egypt, Libya, Palestine, Kuwait)

20. Thank you!