III. Implementation programme

New planning framework

The Strategic Framework forms an essential part of the enhanced programme-budget process, now approved for the Organization. When fully implemented, this process will include the Strategic Framework, with its 10- to 15-year time dimension, a Medium-Term Plan for a six-year period and a biennial Programme of Work and Budget. The Medium-Term Plan will ensure the link between the agreed strategic objectives and FAO's programme of work.

The essential functions of implementation monitoring and programme evaluation will continue in the new process, which includes a new evaluation regime. Among other things, this regime envisages streamlined reporting arrangements, allowing the submission of a more concise Programme Evaluation Report to Council and Conference.

The following table shows the elements of the new regime:

Document	Period	Frequency	Purpose
Strategic Framework	10-15 years	About every 6 years	To set the strategic direction
Medium-Term Plan	6 years	Rolling plan every 2 years	To establish programme priorities and project resource requirements
Programme of Work and Budget	2 years	2 years	To appropriate resources and seek approval for the two-year programme
Programme Implementation Report	2 years	2 years	To provide quantitative post facto reporting on programme implementation
Programme Evaluation Report	6 years or more	2 years	To provide a selective and qualitative analytical evaluation of programme implementation

Priority setting

The following criteria will be taken into account when setting priorities for resource allocation:

conformity to the Organization's mandate and relevance to the strategic objectives of the Organization as specified in the Strategic Framework, keeping in view the need to maintain a balance between normative and operational activities;
expressed priority and usefulness to a broad section of the membership or to special groups identified by the governing bodies (least-developed countries, the small island developing states, etc.);
justification, in terms of FAO's comparative advantage, potential for synergies through collaboration with partners, and avoidance of duplication with the work of other institutions;
quality of programme design, including clarity of the causal link between the inputs provided and the planned outputs and objectives;
probable cost-efficiency of the programme entity in mode of operation, including the use made of internal and external partnerships;
likelihood of achieving desired objectives and a substantive and sustainable impact;
extent to which the achievement of objectives can be evaluated through the criteria and indicators proposed.

Major comparative advantages

Clearly, comparative advantage is an important criterion in priority setting and it therefore follows that this criterion needs to be more fully defined. FAO's major comparative advantages are derived from an analysis of the Organization's general strengths, recognizing that, while they are considerable, they constitute comparative advantages only when appropriately brought to bear on problems for which the intervention of an organization such as FAO is needed.

FAO's comparative advantage in the areas of its mandate can be summarized in the following points:

it has authority and status as a global intergovernmental organization;
its has a well-recognized reputation as an "honest broker";
it is an unparalleled source of information and institutional memory;
it has a broad networking capacity with Members and other partners;
it has extensive decentralized capabilities at the regional and country levels;
its has a professional and multidisciplinary staff;
it has the capacity to respond to unforeseen needs of members countries; and
it has demonstrated responsible financial and administrative management.