1. OAS Priority Setting Process Three steps to decision-making A presentation by Pierre Giroux Alternate Representative of Canada & Chair of the CAAP Working Group on OAS Program Review November 2009

2. OAS Priority Setting Process: 3 Steps Step 1: Sub-pillar ranking by Member States Step 2: Comparison of results Step 3: Intra-sub-pillar decision

3. Sub-pillar ranking by Member States Ranking process uses three levels of aggregation: 8 pillars, 35 sub-pillars and over 100 groups of mandates Current OAS exercise would focus on ranking the 35 sub-pillars by using a pool of 200 points …Step 1

4. Sub-pillar ranking by Member States Each Member State would determine their national priorities according to their own perception of the value of OAS activities Prioritization process is a hybrid ranking methodology: There are technical and political point attributions …Step 1

5. Technical attribution: An explanation Each Member States would evaluate all 35 sub- pillars using a questionnaire based on 12 criteria Results of the technical evaluation of each sub- pillar would vary from 0 to 5 points …Step 1

6. Question: Is this sub-pillar (Legal cooperation) a priority and does it express usefulness to a broad section of the membership?POINTS Useful to only a few countries (e.g.1-4 countries) Useful to a sub-region or equivalent (e.g. 5 to 20 countries) Useful to a very broad section of the membership Useful to all or almost all members TOTAL (Max 5 points) 3 points Sub-pillar: Legal cooperation Technical attribution: An example

7. …Step 1 1. Conformity to the Organization’s mandate and relevance to the strategic objectives of the Organization as specified in the Charter and other Strategic Documents, if relevant 4 2.A Expressed priority and usefulness to a broad section of the membership3 2.B Expressed priority and usefulness to particular (i.e. vulnerable to some situation or facing a particular challenge) groups of countries 4 3.A OAS’s comparative advantage in terms of potential for synergies through collaboration with partners and avoidance of duplication with the work of other institutions 3 3.B OAS’s comparative advantage in terms of track record and existing internal capacity4 3.C OAS’s comparative advantage in terms of the need for neutrality and regional outreach5 4.A Quality of programme design: Rationale including statement of the problem, the benefits to be created and the results significant to the beneficiaries 3 4.B Clarity of definition of beneficiaries and timing for their delivery3 4.C Clarity of major output definition including products of services to be produced, the users and the outcome and timing3 5. Extent to which the achievement of Objective (Outcome) can be evaluated through the criteria and indicators proposed3 6. Probable cost-efficiency of the programme entity in mode of operation, including the use made of internal and external partnerships 4 7. Likelihood of achieving desired Objective (Outcome) and substantive and sustainable impact3 Total Points for Sub-pillar (Max 60 points) Total Points for Sub-pillar to report on main template (Max 5 points) Technical attribution: An example Sub-pillar: Legal cooperation 42 3.5

8. Technical attribution: An example 3.5 points …Step 1 3.5 points

9. 3.5 4.2 3.6 3.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 3.2 4.8 4.9 2.1 4 3.5 3.1 4.5 3.5 2.9 3.6 4.4 3.5 3.1 3.7 3.6 3.2 4.7 4.1 4.6 3.1 3.2 3.9 4.2 3 3.1 3.7 2.9 130.6 44.4 69.4 …Step 1

10. Political attribution Residual points from the technical attribution can be redistributed to preferred sub-pillars Final point attribution process consists of redistributing the 25 bonus points to preferred sub-pillars (up to max of 25 points per sub-pillar) …Step 1

11. Political attribution: An example Question: Based on political considerations, should the sub-pillar receive more points? …Step 1 Technical Attribution Political Attribution SUB-PILLAR Questionnaire Attribution Supplemental Attribution Sub-total Redistribution Option Final Attribution (Max 25) Support for electoral processes Support for policies of promotion and protection Trade Fight against terrorism Budgetary administration ********** Sub-Total Attribution Point Distribution Sub-total to attribute Bonus points Total to attribute 175 44.4 130.6 3.2 3.1 2.1 4.9 3.2 25 69.4 5 5.1 0 0 0 8.2 10 2.1 3.1 3.2 10 15 -2.1 18.2 25 0 2.1 2.2 69.4200

12. OAS Priority Setting Process Step 1: Sub-pillar ranking by Member States Step 2: Comparison of results Step 3: Intra-sub-pillar decision Step 2

13. Comparison of results Member States would compare results on national ranking exercise … Step 2

14. OAS Priority Setting Process Step 1: Sub-pillar ranking by Member States Step 2: Comparison of results Step 3: Intra-sub-pillar decision Step 3

15. Intra-sub-pillar decision YES NO Should all activities within this sub-pillar be maintained? Maintain budget Increase budget (What else to cut?) Other funding sources? YES NOActivity intensity reduction? Maintain level of activity Cost reduction? Activity prioritization and selection? …Step 3