1. Evaluation Office 1 Mid-Term Review of the Resource Allocation Framework Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in North Africa, Middle East, West and South Asia Bali, December 2007

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 A second evaluation should be carried out in the context of OPS4 (in 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 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

6. Evaluation Office 6 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

7. Evaluation Office 7 Key issues - East and SE Asia Kuala Lumpur, 13-14 June 2006 1. RAF consultations and results 2. Clarifications on GBI and GPI 3. Possibility of 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. Possibility of Switch from Group to Individual Status 11. Country funds for SGP 12. Best practice dissemination 13. ‘ Project concepts ’ and Agency support  MTR now: what has happened since?

8. Evaluation Office 8 Europe and the CIS Bratislava, Slovak Republic, 22-23 May 2006 Key Points 1. Project development too long for RAF 2. Country allocations 3. GEF4 and “ re-endorsements ” 4. Biodiversity GBI 5. Global and regional projects 6. Country eligibility with focus on Hungary 7. NGO involvement under the RAF 8. SGP and regional project allocations for GEF4

9. Evaluation Office 9 North Africa, Middle East, S+West Asia Alexandria, Egypt, 18-19 May 2006 Key Issues 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 7. 50-50 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  MTR now: what has happened since?

10. Evaluation Office 10 Sub-Regional Consultation, Pretoria, 24-25 April 2006 Key Points 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

11. Evaluation Office 11 Sub-Regional Consultation, Dakar, 20-21 April 2006 Key Points Countries have not been properly consulted how will RAF impact the other focal areas New funds for adaptation Transparency resource pooling for regional projects information sources used to determine the allocation rankings. issue of performance of countries Disincentives to improve performance and country allocation in future how to best determine their four year plans expanded role of Focal Points evaluation of the RAF efforts made by GEF to better engage the private sector Who decides what to drop or approve? Definition “ high quality projects ” Level of funding for the SGP

12. Evaluation Office 12 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?

13. Evaluation Office 13 Ten 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?

14. Evaluation Office 14 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?

15. Evaluation Office 15 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 consultations – National dialogue initiatives – Other evaluations ’ country visits

16. Evaluation Office 16 Interactions with Focal Points for Mid-term Review CURRENT (Bali, Dec 2007) Plenary Session – Group Work Country / Constituency Interviews Individual Focal Point Surveys – and feedback on survey FUTURE (2008) 5 subregional consultations, 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?

17. Evaluation Office 17 Topics for Discussion - Bali What results are you expecting from the MTR? Suggestions on how to improve the methodology: – How best to interact during subregionals? – How do we reach GEF focal points? – How do we reach accredited NGOs or networks? – How do we reach stakeholders at country level? What inputs can you provide?

18. Evaluation Office 18 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 – Allows MTR to see how RAF has affected countries in different contexts – More detail and debate Individual meetings: – Issues specific to one (or constituency) country – Pipeline + projects – Country priorities – Country consultation – Info on indicator data on experts available in-country For all: identify issues for RAF Vs issues related to other reforms?

19. Evaluation Office 19 Group Work - Bali Group 1:countries with Group Allocations for both focal areas  Bhutan, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Nepal, Palestinian Authority, Tunisia, Yemen; Group 2: countries with Group Allocations for either focal area  Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Syria Group 3: countries with Individual Allocations (6)  Algeria, Egypt, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Iran

20. Evaluation Office 20 Follow-Up/ Check-list Please provide GEFEO during this meeting with: 1. Time during next two days in Bali for detailed Country/Constituency 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 Divya Nair (dnair1@thegef.org) or email rafevaluation@thegef.orgstokle@thegef.orgdnair1@thegef.org rafevaluation@thegef.org

21. Evaluation Office 21 rafevaluation@thegef.org http://www.thegef.org/gefevaluation.aspx#id=18472 Thank you!