Programme Planning
under FTFP & FTPP II
Bishkek, 16 December 2015
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
Objective of the presentation
To clarify the evolution of Operational Framework,
discuss what is new, and lessons from FTPP I
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
Operational Framework
Outline
•Key concepts
•Scope
•Modalities and criteria
•Procedures for submission of request and review
•Management of FTPP and roles and responsibilities
•How effective was the Operational Framework ?
•What is new in revised Operational Framework ?
•Recommendations
•Can OF reflect these changes?
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
3
Key concepts
•
•
•



•
•
Creating Partnership
MFAL, MFWA, MoD, MOFA, TIKA and FAO
Ownership as underlying concept
demand-driven & national ownership
responds to priorities identified
above supported by coordination and liaison
Roles & Responsibility
FAO and Government share roles, accountability
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
4
Scope
The OF is a comprehensive guidance document, which allows:
•FTPP/FTFP to follow a programme approach, facilitate integrity,
coherence and synergy under following thematic areas:
FTPP II (Proposed)
FTFP (Proposed)
•
Food security, nutrition and food safety
•
Sustainable management of forests and trees
•
Protection and Management of Natural Resources,
including Fisheries, Aquaculture, Animal and Plant
Genetic Resources
•
Sustainable land and natural resource management
•
Institutional reform, education and national
capacity enhancement
•
Agricultural and Rural development Policies
•
Capacity Enhancement
The Thematic areas = aligned with FAO expertise
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
5
Geographical coverage:
• FAO SEC countries (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey & Uzbekistan)
• scope of the Partnership may be enlarged on mutual consent of
the Parties
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
6
Modalities and criteria
- well appreciated by all stakeholders
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Country eligibility
Aims and purposes
Country or sub-regional priorities
Critical gap or problem
Catalytic role and sustainable impacts
Scale and duration
Government commitments
Capacity building
Gender sensitivity
Partnership and participation
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
7
Procedures for request submission and review
what is new ?
• National and Multicountry Projects
• Interventions pre-determined by Results Matrix
• SEC coordinates proposals
• Govts and FAO prepare proposal, concept note with budget.
Letter of Intent will be sent.
• FAO internal financial, technical and operational clearance.
Under revised PCM, technical clearance is responsibility of
LTO, mostly at SEC, operational clearance for project under
USD 500.000 will be under FAOR
• Approval by SC
• Co-signing, information to countries
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
8
Management of FTPP and roles and responsibilities
TOR of Steering Committee
• overall policy guidance and orientation
• review and approval of funding
• overall supervision and monitoring of FTPP
• Co-Chaired by MFAL and FAO
• FAO Secretariat support
• Management = SEC SRC overall responsibility
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
9
How effective was the Operational Framework ?
•
•
•
•
Good structure at high level, did not cover sufficiently an
outreach at project level
Need to move from Ex-ante to Ex-post control
How to turn into a win-win in management and monitoring?
A presentation on M & E will follow today
Appears rigid in approval schedule, without sufficient
feedback to the donor on performance of projects
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
10
What is new in revised Operational Framework ?
• Facilitate Programme Approach to ensure integrity, coherence and
synergy of FTPP 1-assisted interventions;
• Technical Review Committee composed of relevant technical units
of the Ministries to evaluate project outlines and monitor progress;
• Establishment of Programme Management Unit proposed;
• A letter of agreement/interest from the beneficiary country before
approval of projects
• Amount of unallocated funds reduced from 25% to 5%
• Rather than 50%, up to 10% FTPP fund to support/complement
multicounty or sub regional activities to maintain synergies with
ongoing or pipeline activities
• A set of newly defined criteria for visibility
• Q: Can we manage the above?
December 2015
FTPP/FTFP Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
11
Comparison of elements of OF
Previous OF
Proposed OF
Three broad thematic areas
Four thematic areas
Allocation of funds for each thematic area is 25% with a provision of
25% unallocated funds
Distribution of funds for each thematic area have been proposed to 20%
for last thematic area with a provision of 5% as unallocated funds
An allocation of 50% support and/or complement activities at multi- Up to up to 10% support and/or complement activities at multi-country
country and sub-regional level.
and sub-regional level, upon approval by the Steering Committee.
National-level FTPP initiative should not exceed US$ 200,000 with a
duration of 24 months
Not finalized
No Technical Committee was there
Inclusion of Technical Review Committee
No PMU was there
Proposed for PMU
Not such arrangement mentioned
A letter of agreement from the beneficiary country should be requested
before the approval of the project
Such arrangement were not there
Inclusion of one high level member from the participating countries to
the Steering Committee
Only publicity
Publicity and visibility (with certain criteria proposed)
•
•
•
•
•
Recommendations from FAO practitioners &
countries
Increase the ceiling for National projects from USD 200,000 to
USD 500,000
Change the approval cycle to biennium, to harmonize with FAO
cycle and allow approval for 2016-17 while programme awaits
ratification. Introduce rolling approval cycle
Improved communication and stronger participation of donor,
participating Govts, FAOR
Clarify Roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee
members
Accountability mechanism at National level
Recommendations from FAO practitioners &
countries
•
•
•
•
Synergies with other national and regional programmes
Partnership strengthened between GoT, FAO, TIKA, Govts,
both in Ankara & in countries
Synergy and complementarity between two Partnership
Programmes (FTPP/FTFP)
FAO project approval process has been simplified, quality
assurance is now in Regional Office through Programme and
Project Review Committee, technical clearance at SEC and
delegation of budget approval at FAO Representative level is
USD 500,000
Can OF reflect these changes?
Next steps – what can be done before Afyon?
What type of analysis and data are needed for all
stakeholders to take decisions?
How can a mature pipeline inform the OF?
Discussion
Questions
Thank you
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO)
Sub-regional Office for Central Asia (FAOSEC)
http://www.fao.org/europe/en/