Rome, 9-13 May 2005
Policy and Operational Framework of the Technical Cooperation Programme
Independent Review of the Technical Cooperation Programme
The Independent Review team wishes to thank the many persons who assisted them in their task. Staff at FAO headquarters and the field offices visited have provided valuable background information, access to documentary sources, and organizational and logistical support in arranging the large number of meetings and visits undertaken by the regional teams. Many government and donor officials, national project staff and other individuals with whom the team has interacted willingly set aside time and showed a genuine interest in the task being carried out.
The work was supported throughout by the FAO Evaluation Service and the team wishes particularly to acknowledge the professional inputs of Tullia Aiazzi, Bernd Bultemeier, John Markie and Robert Moore. Administrative and logistic arrangements were handled very competently and with warm friendliness by Maria Gattone, Nadine Monnichon and Heather Young.
The Independent Review team has been impressed by the dedication and professionalism displayed by the FAO staff and by FAO’s many partners, notwithstanding the often difficult circumstances in which they operate. The team gratefully acknowledges the depth of information and knowledge-sharing that has benefited its work and that the team has attempted to reflect in its report.
Independent Review Team Members:
Team Chairperson: Thelma Awori Co-authors: Mr Basudev Dahal
Mr Andre Klap
Independent Team Consultants: Mr Noël Galet-Lalande
Mr Michael Halderman
Mr Eduardo Trigo
Mr Damodar Tripathy
1. At its 92nd Session in September 2004, subsequent to its discussion on the Policy and Operational Framework of the Technical Cooperation Department, the FAO Programme Committee “welcomed the proposal that the Evaluation Service should undertake an independent review of certain aspects of the TCP, including recommendations for strengthening its effectiveness” and that this “independent review would be provided to the Committee for its consideration at its next session and would also be made available to the Organization’s management in sufficient time for it to take account of the findings and recommendations in preparing its preliminary proposals for consideration at the same session”. This was subsequently welcomed by the FAO Council at its 127th Session in November 2004. Terms of reference for the Independent Review are provided as Annex 1.
2. Concurrently with the Independent Review, an FAO internal consultation has been conducted, organized by the Technical Cooperation Department (TC). The outcomes of both the internal consultation and the Independent Review are brought to the attention of the Programme Committee, as supporting documentation for proposals developed by TC for reform of the TCP.
3. The Independent Review was undertaken by a team of senior independent consultants, drawn from all parts of the world and with experience from several international organizations. Summary curriculum vitae are provided as Annex 2. Throughout its work, the team was supported by the FAO Evaluation Service.
4. The Evaluation Service (PBEE) has set up a process for evaluating thematic clusters of TCP projects, financed with funds for evaluation included in each approved TCP project. These evaluations have assessed TCP projects for their relevance, design, implementation, outputs produced and, where possible, effects and impacts. Nine thematic evaluations have so far been carried out, covering the following fields: Food Quality Control (1997); Apiculture and Sericulture (1998); Legislation (1999); Policy Assistance (2000); Animal Health (2001); Emergency Relief Operations (2002); Crop Production (2003); Fisheries Exploitation and Utilisation (2003); and Animal Production, Policy and Information (2004). Further, FAO carried out other evaluations relevant to TCP, notably FAO’s Post-conflict Programme in Afghanistan, FAO Responses to the Continuing Crisis in southern Africa, and the very recent Evaluation of FAO Decentralization.
5. From 1997-99, thematic evaluations of TCP focused on individual projects, with the aim of improving the selection, design, implementation, effects and impact of projects within the selected theme and for the TCP more generally. Since 2000, TCPs have been evaluated in the context of FAO Technical and Economic Programmes. This has meant that the analysis expanded to focus on how effective these projects were to test, implement and diffuse the outputs of FAO normative work in the different subjects, as well as feeding back experience and information stemming from the projects themselves. Therefore, TCPs in each country were looked at in the context of the programme being reviewed, but not necessarily in the context of wider country needs.
6. As these evaluations were built around specific themes, they also did not question the basic TCP framework, although they made many recommendations for improving the TCP as a whole. The present Independent Review is intended to address those issues.
7. The Evaluation Service carried out a synthesis of previous evaluations involving TCP, as per the request of the Programme Committee. This synthesis was presented to the Independent Review team and has been drawn upon extensively in preparation of this report. Background material used in these evaluations and the decentralization evaluation were also available to the team.
8. Consultations at country level have been carried out by teams comprised of external independent consultants and Evaluation Service staff in a representative sample of 26 developing countries. Missions contacted staff at the policy level in: ministries (dealing with agriculture, forestry, fisheries, economic development, planning and finance), donors, International Financing Institutions and some NGOs. Criteria for country selection included: composition of TCP programme; national income level (low-income and middle-income); regional balance and characteristics representative of sub-regions; and degree of country coverage in previous TCP thematic studies (with preference for less covered countries). In addition, in ten of the 26 countries, the missions carried out case studies (three per selected country, for a total of 30) of TCP effectiveness and relevance, to supplement previous evaluations of TCP1. In carrying out the reviews of individual projects, missions also contacted project staff and beneficiaries. The missions were carried out during November-December 2004.
9. In conducting the Review, use was made of a list of reference questions, adapted as necessary to the interlocutors being addressed. The interaction by the missions with these interlocutors took place mostly in the form of individual interviews or focus group discussions, with varying degree of structure and open-endedness being applied - thus allowing for different degrees of emphasis between listening and dialogue. The findings derived from these interactions, together with reviews of available documentary sources were analyzed and validated, based on which the various missions prepared regional reports.
10. Finally, upon completion of the regional reports, a team of three independent consultants2 who had participated in the country consultations prepared the present report.
11. Following this introduction, in Part II, the TCP is analysed in relation to FAO’s mandate and Strategic Framework, and in the context of the wider - and evolving - scenario of development cooperation.
12. A statistical analysis of the TCP modality is presented in Part III. This analysis covers a number of key data with respect to TCP, such as the absolute and relative size of the TCP resource envelope, its distribution and actual utilization among regions, as well as its spread among TCP categories and user countries (differentiated by income level).
13. Part IV begins with ratings of TCP projects from previous evaluations and the present Independent Review and then provides a synthesis of the findings of the Independent Review, highlighting the major issues with respect to relevance, effects and impact of the TCP. This draws on information about TCP projects that have been particularly noteworthy in generating lessons about achievement of long-term outcomes or more comprehensive impacts.
14. Part V presents recommendations aimed at improving the TCP technical assistance modality and for improving the significance and utility of this modality.
15. FAO has a comprehensive mandate for food, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and the related natural resource bases. Included among the functions of the Organization is to “furnish such technical assistance as governments may request”3. The Strategic Framework for FAO for 2000-2015 establishes three interrelated goals that the Organization is to assist members to achieve globally: (i) access of all people at all times to sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe food, ensuring that the number of chronically malnourished people is reduced by half by no later than 2015; (ii) continued contribution of sustainable agriculture and rural development, including fisheries and forestry, to economic and social progress and well-being of all; and (iii) conservation, improvement and sustainable utilization of natural resources including land, water, forest, fisheries and genetic resources for food and agriculture.
16. Within this framework, TCP is the main tool funded from the Regular Programme for providing demand-driven technical assistance aimed at assisting countries to achieve the global goals to which they have subscribed as members of the Organization.
17. Since the establishment of the TCP in 1976, the world has changed in many ways. The growing inter-dependence of national, regional and global economies has led to the formation of new international economic organizations and new needs have emerged among FAO member countries in trade-related areas. Governments are disengaging progressively from promotion of economic activities in favour of strengthening regulatory functions through the provision of core public goods and services. However, and in spite of many countries having increased their capacity to produce and export food, poverty and hunger remain critical global issues. It is estimated by FAO that 852 million people, mainly in the developing countries, are still chronically or acutely malnourished4. Sub-Saharan Africa has 204 million of these and is the only region of the world where hunger is increasing.
18. There have been several important initiatives to deal with the global poverty and hunger, leading to high-level political commitments to agriculture and rural development as vehicles for achieving substantial and sustainable reductions in hunger and extreme poverty. The World Food Summit (WFS) and “WFS:five years later” led to commitments from governments to halve the number of malnourished people in the world by no later than 2015. The adoption of the MDGs further affirmed this commitment and stressed, inter alia, the absolute imperative of government, civil society, the private sector, the international development community and other stakeholders working together in partnership, to achieve these goals.
19. At the same time, over this period many countries have built their national skills and capacities, have developed their own national strategies for poverty and hunger reduction, such as the Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs), have moved towards a programme approach and have set up new working arrangements with international development partners, including through the UN Common Country Assessments (CCA) and Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). Emphasis is now placed on harmonized approaches, coordination and greater coherence between the various stakeholders and actors involved in national processes. Also, several major donors are increasingly choosing to contribute their ODA through general budget and sector support to partner countries, and are investing in large-size projects to cut down on transaction costs (e.g. the EU).
20. The underlying purpose is to enhance internal participation and ownership, in order to have long-term sustainable development impact. This calls for specialised development agencies to provide well focused assistance to bring knowledge, enhance national capacity and play a catalytic role to facilitate donor assistance. In this connection, countries will have specific needs for technical assistance from FAO in the food and agriculture sector. The Organization’s role as an honest broker in providing this assistance is widely recognized and appreciated.
21. While this new context can enhance FAO’s role as an advisor to governments on policy, planning and implementation in its areas of mandate, it also requires that FAO make a greater commitment at the national level to participate on a more equal footing with other UN agencies in common initiatives and to interact with donors. Many interlocutors to the Independent Review stressed the need for FAO TCPs to better integrate into national strategies and programmes, to play a catalytic role by filling gaps left by other interventions and to make available FAO’s capabilities in its areas of excellence.
22. The TCP was launched in 1976 as a new and innovative programme “...well justified by prevailing world agriculture conditions particularly in developing countries...and the generally agreed desire to improve and increase the involvement of the Organization in action or field programmes of a concrete character” that “should permit FAO to respond to urgent, small-scale requests from developing countries”5.
23. Since then, 8,674 TCP projects have been approved, for a total amount of US$983 million as of 31 December 2004. TCP is considered a high-priority programme of the Organization and has been protected to a certain extent from the budget cuts affecting the Regular Programme (RP). Over the years, FAO’s developing country members in particular have reiterated the importance of the Programme and asked for increased resources to be allocated to it. The 25th FAO Conference in 1989 adopted a resolution asking the Director-General to make every effort to raise resources available to TCP to 17 percent and although TCP has increased slightly as a percentage of the RP, this target has not been reached (it currently stands at 13.75%).
24. The TCP is governed by Criteria approved by the Governing Bodies in 1976. These have remained largely unchanged except for the financial upper ceiling and maximum project duration, raised in 1991 respectively from US$ 250 000 to the present US$400 000 for budgets and from 12 to 24 months for maximum project duration.
25. In 2000, as part of FAO decentralization efforts, budget holder responsibility for national projects, including TCPs, was transferred to the FAO Representatives. In 2002-2003, following an internal review, TCP management procedures were streamlined and simplified, but this did not greatly affect the roles and responsibilities for TCP management.
26. TCP has become progressively a more important part of the total FAO Field Programme since the early 1990s (see Part III). Until that time, the donor-funded FAO Field Programme represented the vast majority of the resources available to FAO. TCP was a smaller part of the overall resources. Now, in many countries TCP has become far more significant as a source of funding for field projects. This has increased pressure to use the TCP to carry out field activities complementary to normative work, which sometimes has affected the intent that the Programme should be demand-driven. The ability of FAO to support TCPs in the field has also changed. Previously, there was a much larger network of field-based experts available for this task. Now the burden of technical support falls more heavily on other parts of the Organization. Another major change has been that requests and approvals for emergency assistance have increased dramatically.
27. The evidence gathered by the Independent Review is that, although there have been important changes in the context of development, the added value of the TCP for FAO member countries is unchanged, and the principles underlying it remain valid. These include that TCP:
28. TCP has been protected to a certain extent from the budget cuts that have been made, particularly in the current biennium (2004-05). In the Revised Programme of Work and Budget 2004-05, the TCP allocation is US$103 027 000 out of a total Regular Programme (RP) budget of US$749 100 000 or 13.75%. For 2002-03, TCP was 12.93% (US$95 195 000) of the RP budget and 12.45% (US$91 455 000) of the RP budget for 2000-01. Thus, the share of TCP in FAO’s budget has increased somewhat in recent years. In real terms though, it has decreased, albeit to a slightly lesser degree, along with the rest of the FAO RP budget.
29. Over time, FAO’s Field Programme funded from extra-budgetary funds has declined considerably from its levels in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is illustrated in Chart 1a. The chart shows delivery in nominal terms; in real terms the decline has been more severe. As TCP delivery has increased over time (see Chart 1b), it has thus become a more significant share of the total Field Programme.
Chart 1a: FAO Field Programme and Other Extra-budgetary work6
Chart 1b. FAO’s Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP)
30. TCP delivery has accelerated rapidly in the past two years and its percentage of the total non-emergency Field Programme (including the country-based Government Cooperative Programme (GCP), Unilateral Trust Fund (UTF) and Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS) projects) increased from 20% in 2000 to 38% in 2003 but then decreased slightly to 35% in 2004. Although TCP represents now a substantial 35% of the Development (non-emergency) Field Programme, in many countries it is far higher than that and in some cases, represents almost the totality of the FAO Field Programme, while in other countries (some of which have very large Unilateral Trust Fund projects), TCP plays a minor role.
Chart 2: Total Field Delivery and TCP Delivery (2000-2004, excluding emergencies)7
31. In the period 2001-04, the overall distribution between national projects, regional and inter-regional projects and emergency projects (considered as a particular category) is shown in Table 1.
|Type of project||Total Budget (US$)||Percentage||Average Budget US$ per project||Number of TCPs|
176 183 216
|65.4%||163 132||1 080|
|Regional/Inter-regional||37 689 359||14.0%||243 157||155|
|Emergency: National||55 572 956||20.6%||248 093||224|
|Total||269 445 531||100.0%||184 678||1 459|
32. It can be seen that about two-thirds of the resources available for TCP projects have been allocated to development projects in individual countries, and nearly one-eighth to regional and inter-regional development projects, while the remainder (about one fifth) has been utilized to address emergencies.
33. By region, the distribution of TCP funds over the same period is shown in Table 2. Africa has been allocated the single largest share compared to other regions; this share amounts to over 40% of TCP funding.
|Region||Budget (US$)||Percentage||Number of projects||Percentage||Average budget per project|
|Africa||109 155 828||40.5%||624||42.8%||174 929|
|Asia||53 489 605||19.9%||238||16.3%||224 746|
|Europe||18 519 061||6.9%||99||6.8%||187 061|
|Latin America and Caribbean||48 944 905||18.2%||277||19.0%||176 696|
|Near East||26 070 289||9.7%||162||11.1%||160 928|
|Southwest Pacific||8 056 625||3.0%||44||3.0%||183 105|
|Interregional||5 209 218||1.8%||15||1.0%||347 281|
|Total||269 445 531||100.0%||1 459||100%||184 678|
34. A comprehensive list of all FAO member countries that have benefited from the TCP (in order by amount of assistance received, in the period 2001-04) is attached as Annex 3. Table 3 provides a listing of the ten countries that have benefited most from TCP in terms of the actual amount of resources that have been allocated. These ten countries, combined, have received 16% of total TCP resources that were available during the period of review.
35. The Independent Review found that the spread of allocations between regions is, broadly speaking, reflective of relative needs, in terms of generally accepted criteria to measure and compare food security, poverty and dependence on agriculture. However, when comparing TCP allocations between individual countries, questions can be raised as to why certain countries receive such high allocation of TCP resources, taking into account factors such as the absolute number of people suffering from hunger and poverty, as well as the importance of the agricultural sector.
36. In this connection, the Independent Review took note of the outcome of a number of regression analyses between TCP delivery in 2001-04 and indicators of the number of malnourished people and the total population dependent on agriculture. Analyses were carried out using all recipients of TCP (inclusive and exclusive of China and India - given the statistical significance of these countries in terms of numbers of people). The conclusion was that no significant correlation exists between the number of malnourished and total population dependent on agriculture on the one hand, and TCP funding on the other.
|Country||Income Level||Total TCP Budget (US$)||Of which Emergency Budget (US$)||Total Number of Projects||Of which Emergency Projects|
|China||LM||5 488 106||1 129 608||21||3|
|Viet Nam||L||4 205 032||2 065 523||19||7|
|L||3 881 208||1 463 536||20||7|
|L||3 709 650||1 604 011||20||6|
|Dem. Peoples' Rep. of Korea||L||3 677 791||778 199||14||2|
|Dem. Rep. of Congo||L||3 343 202||335 246||15||1|
|Uganda||L||3 264 863||1 055 692||15||3|
|Indonesia||LM||3 120 489||1 508 305||12||5|
|Cameroon||L||3 100 347||307 865||14||1|
|Kenya||L||3 067 349||1 153 717||13||3|
* Excluding regional and interregional projects
37. The Independent Review looked at the composition of the resource distribution by national income level, using World Bank classification for countries. In this examination, regional and interregional projects were excluded because it is not possible to ascribe a proportion to individual participating countries. This is shown in Table 4 below.
38. The 54.5% share of low-income countries was higher than for any other income level. Nevertheless, the 11.4% share of TCP allocated to upper middle-income countries and nearly 1% to high-income countries is greater in comparison to other UN funds and programmes, which strongly favour low-income and least developed countries and programme their resources accordingly, using indicators applicable to their mandates.
|Income Level||Budget (US$)||Percentage of Total||Number of TCPs|
|High||2 140 145||0.9%||23|
|Upper Middle||26 418 158||11.4%||179|
|Lower Middle||77 043 364||33.2%||436|
|Low||126 154 505||54.5%||666|
|Grand Total||231 756 172||100.0%||1 304|
* Excluding regional and interregional projects
39. In summary, as a priority programme the share of TCP within the Regular Budget has been given protected status and its relative share has slightly increased during a period of decrease in real terms of the Regular Budget. Although the spread of TCP allocations among regions would seem to be reflective of relative needs (with Africa benefiting most), the allocation of TCP resources to individual member countries is less consistent in favouring the neediest. The rationale for the distribution among countries with comparable levels of income is also not evident.
40. Since thematic and programme evaluations of TCP began in 1997, they have been scored on a three-point scale against a series of criteria. Overall scores (out of 3, where 3 is good and 1 is poor) are reflected in Table 5.
|Project Relevance to Development Problems||2.5|
|Quality of Project Design||2.1|
|Efficiency of Project Implementation||2.3|
|Quality of Overall Results||2.2|
|Project Impact and Sustainability||2.0|
41. The Independent Review missions, in addition to reviewing individual projects in ten countries, scored each individual country TCP portfolio on a slightly different set of criteria. In order to give a more nuanced view of mission opinion on these questions, it was decided to adopt 1-5 scale for scoring against the criteria listed above, where 5 was the best and 1 was the poorest.
|Criteria||Average for all regions|
|Relevance of current TCP portfolio to national development needs and priorities||3.6|
|Relevance of current TCP portfolio to FAO’s Strategic Objectives||3.7|
|Relevance of current TCP portfolio in relation to FAO’s perceived comparative strengths||3.3|
|Quality of TCP requests (degree to which requests generally presented in “approvable” form)||3.1|
|Assistance received from FAO (all sources) in preparation of requests||3.1|
|Time taken to approve TCP requests||2.2|
|Design of TCP projects approved||3.1|
|Efficiency of implementation of TCP projects||3.2|
|Quality of outputs||2.4|
|Effects and impact||2.0|
42. The Independent Review gave considerable attention to the question of relevance of assistance from TCP, i.e. whether a Programme operating with small, project-type assistance under criteria and guidelines established in 1976 still makes sense in the much-changed world of 2004. In addition to the general relevance of the TCP, the Review also assessed whether individual project interventions, examined collectively, were relevant to the development problems they were intended to address.
43. To assess the general relevance of the Programme, the Review relied particularly on its interactions with governments, donors and other partners operating in countries where TCP projects are implemented. Among all parties, the Review found that timely, small-scale and focused assistance like that offered through TCP is considered to be highly relevant. Recipient countries welcomed TCP for obtaining unbiased advice and guidance, and they look to FAO and the TCP in particular for technical and often cutting-edge excellence. The relevance of TCP and the ability to access this type of assistance was appreciated among all developing countries visited, including middle-income countries that often do not have the possibility to obtain small, grant-type technical assistance through other channels.
44. The relevance of TCP assistance was also confirmed by many of the donor agencies consulted. Even in countries where most donors are now moving toward general budgetary or sector support, TCP assistance was deemed by them to have a role, in developing policies, strategies and implementation plans and in piloting approaches in which major investment or development assistance could be contemplated. TCP was particularly appreciated by donors that no longer had the possibility to fund small-scale technical assistance because their own policies do not allow that type of funding any more.
45. In determining the relevance of individual project interventions, the Review team based its findings on its own overall assessment of country TCP portfolios in countries visited, and the results of the evaluation of 287 projects considered in the Independent Review and previous evaluations of TCP. Overall, relevance to development problems in countries was found to be high, with a score of 2.5 out of 3.0 for individual projects and 3.6 out of 5.0 for the country portfolio assessments by the Independent Review. The Independent Review scored country portfolios highly for their relevance to FAO’s Strategic Objectives and slightly lower, although still considerably better than satisfactory, for relevance to FAO’s perceived comparative advantages. The scores on relevance of TCP interventions were higher than for other aspects rated, both in the previous evaluations and in the Independent Review. Governments evidently varied in the types of TCP they found most relevant but overall there was a trend towards demand for more upstream advice and assistance in developing policies, strategies and institutional improvements at sector and sub-sector level. The policy assistance evaluation had found that an emphasis was required on sub-sector policy work and work at the technology-policy interface, integrating costs and benefits of choices. This concurred with the findings of the present review in which governments and the international community also stressed the importance of FAO TCP for input into developing PRSPs and other policy work. Missions found valuable examples of relevant pilot activities but there were also activities of this type which were of less relevance because they were conceived in isolation.
46. The Independent Review is thus satisfied, both from previous data and its own interviews, that TCP remains a highly relevant programme for developing countries. It enjoys the support of both developed and developing countries for its aims. In addition, relevance of individual projects, as assessed by the Independent Review and previous evaluation missions, has been found to be generally high. However, it was also concluded that systematic examination of needs against FAO capabilities could have increased relevance, as there was a tendency for projects to come forward on the basis of a particular unit in government pushing them. Countries also noted and missions found that some of the projects which had been “sold” to countries by technical units of FAO were not of the highest relevance.
47. Thus, while TCP on the whole is relevant to country needs, there are ways that it could be improved. Governments and donors stressed that for TCPs to be more relevant, they have to be better linked to national frameworks for rural and agricultural development, including poverty reduction and national food security strategies. The large majority of interlocutors of the Independent Review suggested that identification of priority areas for cooperation with FAO would greatly help in prioritizing project requests, in securing follow up and in enhancing the overall relevance and impact (see Recommendation II).
48. In countries where national mechanisms of inter-ministerial coordination and collaboration are absent or not effective, an agreed country priority framework would help in identifying where and how FAO and TCPs could play a more catalytic role, in widening the range of FAO partners among national institutions, including NGOs and possibly the private sector, increase relevance and pertinence of TCPs and better secure their follow-up.
49. The relevance of TCP is also linked to FAO’s ability to act quickly and decisively. This includes being able to act as a partner on matters of common interest with other sources of external support and to take commitments in inter-donor coordination bodies. For this to be done more effectively, the FAO Representative must have the authority to commit the Organization to courses of action, within defined limits but which are much broader than those at present (see Recommendations XI and XII).
50. While project relevance was found to be high, the process of selecting, designing, approving and implementing TCPs was an area clearly in need of improvement. This has been pointed out in previous evaluations and was confirmed by the Independent Review. Overall, past evaluations found project design to be only satisfactory on the whole (2.1 out of 3, with 2 being satisfactory), a score confirmed by the Independent Review, which assessed overall design at 3.1 on a 5-point scale (3 being satisfactory).
51. In discussions with FAO Senior Management, the point was raised that TCP approval and delivery has increased dramatically in the past two years. Furthermore, it was stated that the high level of approvals in 2004 means that fewer projects can be approved within the existing appropriation for 2005. However, at country level, the recent improvement is not yet well perceived. The recent acceleration of approval and delivery also does not address some of the major criticisms posed by government interlocutors.
52. Chief among these is a lack of information concerning which proposals are likely to be accepted by FAO. In countries that actively submit proposals, there is a sometimes considerable pipeline built up. In many cases, respondents indicated a preference for a negative response rather than long periods without any response. The unpredictability of TCP planning and approval leads some FAO representations to maintain a pipeline of TCP proposals that dates back several years – simply because they have not been advised whether these particular proposals are or could still be considered or not. This complicates the overall planning and pipeline management of TCP at the country level as well as by FAO, although it is understood that not more than three requests per country are considered active at one time by FAO headquarters.
53. Countries also lamented the absence of a basis on which to make proposals, or any agreed framework for prioritizing requests among the various Ministries or Departments that may be making TCP requests. In this connection, persons interviewed from outside the Ministry of Agriculture in some countries felt that they had little voice in deciding on priorities for TCP requests, because the Ministry of Agriculture was the interlocutor of FAO establishing the priorities, even though it might cover only part of the agricultural sector. The Independent Review found that the process has been justified in the interest of maintaining the flexible, unprogrammed and responsive character of TCP. However, the present system reduces flexibility, with long pipelines, and provides countries with little basis for prioritizing requests. The Independent Review team concludes that the assessment and selection process for TCP projects is too opaque. For the TCP to be demand-driven, a transparent process with clarity on the pipeline is required.
54. Part of the confusion at country level and difficulty in priority setting is due to the absence of indication of resources likely to be made available for TCP within a given time frame. During country missions, recipient countries felt that the absence of such information was undesirable as it contributed to uncertainty. The Independent Review examined the individual country resource allocations over the last few years. As mentioned in Part III, numbers of malnourished or dependent population on agriculture did not explain the choices made for resource allocation at country level. Nor was the Independent Review able to ascertain from FAO Senior Management how TCP resources are in fact allocated. The lack of transparency in this regard is no longer desirable. In making a more transparent allocation of resources, the Independent Review feels that a priority should be evidenced for those countries where needs can be shown to be greatest, many of which are in Africa.
55. At the present time, there are no restrictions on country eligibility for TCP support. Although only a limited amount of TCP assistance has been granted to high-income countries (0.9% in the period 2001-2004), part of the reform of TCP should be an exclusion of those countries from receiving TCP grants, although of course FAO should make its expertise available when required on a cost basis.
56. Previous TCP evaluations and the Independent Review have noted that project design is, on the whole, only marginally satisfactory. It is difficult to generalize as projects with design problems exhibit different weaknesses, ranging from inadequate problem identification, lack of clarity in proposed objectives, poor definition of target beneficiaries to the most common design fault, an over-optimistic work plan.
57. Many requests do not come in the form of a project document but in the form of a letter expressing a need for technical assistance. Appraisal is often carried out on the basis of very limited information, if the technical officers involved are unfamiliar with the country situation and have to rely on second-hand sources of information. This is becoming increasingly the case, due to lower numbers of field staff and greatly decreased non-staff resources within the Regular Budget. FAO Representations may not have the knowledge to assist to the required degree in problem identification and possible solutions. Because individual TCP projects are small in size, funds are not appropriated for project formulation missions, save in exceptional circumstances. A great deal of unproductive time can be spent on headquarters consultation among people unfamiliar with the situation. The Independent Review believes a more flexible approach needs to be taken to project design and approval, accepting that all information cannot be made available before a decision is taken to approve a project in principle (see Recommendation X).
58. Overall project implementation was rated both in previous evaluations and in portfolios examined by the Independent Review, as slightly better than satisfactory overall. The principal negative factor is the long time it takes for FAO to make implementation decisions, and this can be largely attributed to a lack of actual authority at country level. While some of the issues that follow are also related to project selection and design, they are mostly related to this central problem of lack of authority at country level.
59. The Independent Review, out of its direct assessment and through the analysis of previous TCP thematic evaluations, gathered strong evidence that overall TCP production of outputs is good and highly appreciated by the partner institutions. Average scoring of outputs by the Review of about 30 TCPs throughout all regions was 2.2. Apart from emergency TCPs that are discussed in detail later, this positive assessment applies to all present categories of TCPs, with some regional variations. In Africa, outputs were positively assessed in production-oriented piloting TCPs. Training components within individual projects were often valuable, though TCPs aimed more generally at institution building were in many cases too short in duration. In South-East Asia, mention was made of successful TCPs providing training on project cycle management and project and programme identification. Sector policy and strategy oriented TCPs usually produce sound outputs.
60. In a number of thematic evaluations that covered TCP (Animal Health, Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization, Crop Production), it was found that complex TCPs with ambitious objectives have lesser chances of producing the desired outputs, involving all relevant stakeholders in the process and therefore achieving desired effects and impact, than simpler and more focused projects. In these cases, TCPs often had in effect become under-funded development projects, rather than the small-size pilot initiatives they should have been.
61. Project processes were found by previous evaluations and the Independent Review to be particularly important for the outputs to produce sustainable impacts in projects concerned with policy, piloting, investment formulation and capacity building. In all these types of projects, those which involved others in a process of dialogue and participation were more likely to achieve impact. For investment it was often important to involve potential funding sources even if this changes in some ways the nature of the programme being designed. For policy it was essential for the process of dialogue to be facilitated in such a way that the policy developed was nationally owned and not a technocratic recommendation. Similarly, for pilot endeavours both dialogue with participants and government to ensure viable results and with potential donors during the pilot process were found essential to the eventual sustainability. Investment work was found to have been particularly prone to a parachute approach producing high-quality technical outputs but without sufficient attention to process and partnering.
62. For any technical assistance project, TCP included, its effects, impact and eventual sustainability depend on the capability and willingness of beneficiaries to make use of its outputs over time. The project’s prospective effects and impact on beneficiaries thus need to be considered at the design stage and throughout implementation. Actual effects and impact are usually not definitive until some time after project implementation ends and it is always a complex task to assess the line of causality between the project and subsequent developments. This is especially the case for knowledge-transfer projects like TCP. The task has, if anything, increased in complexity as TCP has moved into more upstream areas, where effects and causality are more difficult to trace. Despite the complexity of the task, previous evaluation missions and this Independent Review have given considerable attention to assessing the degree to which TCP projects contributed to progress on objectives.
63. The Independent Review endorses the views of the thematic evaluation on Strategic Objective A3 “Preparedness for, and effective and sustainable response to, food and agricultural emergencies”, which judged that assistance provided through TCPs was a valuable contribution to the overall effort to address emergencies and represented an important added value from TCP.
64. However, the Independent Review feels that TCP support in the form of inputs for recurrent emergencies is less effective. TCP support was also less effective in “stand-alone” emergencies, where TCP is virtually the only source of assistance after a natural disaster affecting relatively limited numbers of people. Overall, the impact of these projects on improving people’s resilience to future disasters and coping mechanisms was limited. Also, in cases where the FAO emergency response was not part of a bigger effort, inputs tended to arrive later than needed. Examples were quite common of inputs for immediate rehabilitation arriving one or two seasons late. Responses were too often of a template type, providing seeds and tools. The lack of delegated authority had particularly negative implications for emergency projects.
65. Provision of coordination and overall strategy and planning following an emergency were especially important. In complex and other large-scale emergencies, TCP was found to play a useful role in filling gaps. Also, rapid response was important in pest and disease outbreaks, including Avian flu in Asia and the recent desert locust plague in West Africa.
66. The Animal Health evaluation found that TCP projects relating to emergency disease response were an appropriate means of promoting EMPRES, as they place it in a specific context. In several situations, TCP funding was used to excellent effect in controlling rinderpest outbreaks rapidly and efficiently. TCP projects resulted in the containment and elimination of rinderpest from foci identified in Kenya and northern areas of the United Republic of Tanzania (the latter involved additional funding from UNDP), and from Afghanistan in 1996-1997. Another TCP project produced a much-improved situation in Pakistan with additional EU funding for rinderpest epidemiological studies, to the extent that Pakistan was declared provisionally rinderpest-free in January 2003. Although TCP could also be relatively rapidly deployed, it could also be quite inadequate to the scale of the disaster. Delays in receiving funds mobilised from other sources could reduce overall effectiveness or, as in the case of the recent west African locust outbreak, probably increase the eventual cost of the response.
67. It was also noted that repeat or duplicate TCP projects were often resorted to in emergencies to overcome the US$400 000 ceiling.
68. The TCP is governed by Guidelines and Criteria that were approved by the Governing Bodies in 1976 and have been little changed since then. The Criteria include that the TCP should be limited in duration, preferably from one to three months and in no case exceeding 24 months (12 months before 1991) and be limited in cost, not exceeding the upper limit of US$400 000 per project (US$250 000 before 1991) and preferably much lower. These are the only quantified criteria. The other seven criteria, which have remained unchanged since the start of the Programme, are discussed below.
a) Give emphasis to increasing production in food and agriculture, fisheries or forestry, with a view to increasing incomes of small-scale producers and rural workers.
The focus of many TCPs is now on institutional and policy aspects related to food security in the broad sense of the term, rather than on increasing production alone. Indeed, with the changing context of development and the corresponding evolution in needs of countries, other issues such as institution building and tasks such as project formulation have taken up larger shares of the TCP. Thus, this criterion is no longer relevant for assessing project requests.
b) Be accorded high priority by the government, which must also ensure that the required local support facilities and services will be available and that follow up action will be taken.
The Independent Review feels that this criterion remains very relevant. Countries confirmed that their TCP requests were considered important by them. The main problem faced was the difficulty in ranking priorities given the lack of precision on available TCP funds and lack of an agreed priority framework with FAO on the basis of which requests could be prioritised. The required local support facilities and services generally were made available during implementation. However, follow-up was identified by the Independent Review as an area in need of strengthening as in many cases, TCPs have been approved without much guarantee that follow-up will be available.
c) Be directed to an urgent and specific problem or need, limited to a particular sector or area, and involve practical action with well-defined objectives and expected results.
This criterion is also no longer relevant. Apart from emergency interventions, TCPs rarely have met “urgent” criteria, as indeed the many projects aimed at institution building, policy assistance and project formulation cannot be justified as unforeseen or urgent. Recommendations of the Independent Review are in part directed towards enabling TCP to respond to unforeseen requirements in such areas as policy inputs more quickly and easily. It is axiomatic that projects should have well-defined objectives and expected results and this should be retained in the criteria.
d) Complement, without duplication, other development activities, fill a critical gap and where possible serve as a catalyst for a larger-scale activity.
Again, it is axiomatic that TCP projects should not duplicate other development activities. As development assistance has changed and few donors have small, TCP-type projects any more, the possibility for TCP to be complementary and fill critical gaps is certainly present. However, the Independent Review found many “stand alone” projects, along with positive examples where TCP had been used successfully in piloting initiatives that had been scaled up. The possibility for TCP to play a catalytic role must be better assessed as part of project design and appraisal.
e) Be limited in duration, preferably from one to three months (in no case should the overall duration of project activities exceed 24 months).
As noted previously, 12% of TCP projects approved in the 2000-01 biennium had to have a Phase II as they were not completed within 24 months. Very few TCPs lasted less than six months. The need for extending the permitted time duration of individual TCP projects is a consequence of the fact that TCP is being increasingly utilized for more comprehensive and longer-term oriented support in such areas as policy and institutions than may have been intended originally. The criterion regarding project duration is thus outmoded, although a maximum duration should be retained (see Recommendation VI).
f) Be limited in cost, not exceeding the upward limit of US$400 000 per project and preferably much lower, and involve the most and least costly method of execution.
The average cost of a non-emergency TCP project per country is US$180 000, though for emergency TCPs, the average is above US$260 000. Regional and interregional TCPs have an average budget of US$256 000. The overall limit still seems reasonable, except for emergency activities where a very different approach than the traditional project route will be suggested.
g) Provide assurance of the fullest possible participation of the governments in project execution, through such means as the use of national institutions, personnel and resources.
This is another criterion that is outmoded, as national institutions and personnel are inevitably highly involved in TCPs today. However, involvement of national personnel was found to be constrained in some countries by the refusal of FAO to pay salary “top-ups” to national personnel where this is a normal practice.
69. In addition to the TCP criteria established by the Governing Bodies, two other sets of internal criteria are important for the TCP. These are the criteria that are applied in consideration of all FAO assistance as determined for the Programme and Project Review Committee (PPRC) and issued in a Director-General’s Bulletin in February 20009 (currently under review); and for In-country Appraisal of Requests for New Technical Assistance Project Proposals issued in a Field Programme Circular in 199810.
70. The PPRC is intended to “ensure that the various projects implemented by the Organization in a particular country do not translate into ad hoc interventions but, on the contrary, are mutually supportive and possess real synergies in pursuing common objectives”. The recommendation of this Independent Review with respect to the development of flexible rolling national priority frameworks is particularly intended to further this aim and the place of TCP within it. In addition, the PPRC is intended to ensure that the following guiding principles are applied to projects:
71. While all these criteria are very valid, not all will apply to all TCP projects. In the light of its analysis, the Independent Review draws particular attention to the criterion of wherever possible contributing to the food security of the least privileged in line with the World Food Summit Goal and MDG 1. However, it needs to be recognised that the effective contribution of TCP will often not be direct, but through its contribution to strategy and capacity development. Other pertinent principles are: the need to draw maximum benefit from the Organization’s comparative advantage; and to use TCP in broader partnerships and alliances, especially within the UN system and wider international community.
72. The assessment criteria in the In-country Appraisal of Requests for New Technical Assistance Project Proposals also bring out strongly the need to examine the sustainable follow-up that is probable for the intervention and the extent to which donors and others who may contribute to follow-up have been consulted.
73. The Independent Review finds that existing criteria are relatively comprehensive but concludes that these now need to be strengthened with reference to the goals of member countries as agreed in FAO’s Strategic Framework; the Millennium Development Goals (including in particular the World Food Summit Goal); and the contribution to Poverty Reduction Strategies and the goals of national UNDAFs. At the same time, it is concluded that rather too much emphasis is placed upon the Special Programme for Food Security, which is one important mechanism among several in this context.
74. The Independent Review found that TCP was best and most appropriately used for FAO to provide unbiased international advice and expertise and global best practice. TCP was much less successful as a source of funding for inputs that governments had difficulty to source elsewhere. The criteria could therefore also make reference to these comparative advantages of TCP.
75. It is also concluded that in a rapidly evolving world, it is desirable that the basic principles should be established by the Governing Bodies, leaving greater detail to be formalised internally through such mechanisms as Director-General’s Bulletins.
76. In 1976, four purposes for TCP projects were identified by the Governing Bodies: emergencies; investment; training; and small-scale unforeseen requirements. These were subsequently increased to seven, i.e.:
77. The Independent Review found little value in the distinction of categories, even though it understands that the Organization considers them useful for monitoring and reporting purposes. However, with increasing complexity of TCPs, it can sometimes be difficult to determine into which single category a particular project fits.
78. Emergency projects are clearly different in scope and nature than other TCPs and aside from a distinction between emergency and development projects, the categories do not have a meaningful purpose.
79. Regional and inter-regional projects represent around 14% of the total volume of TCP approvals. The Independent Review found that these projects in general do not have strong support from member countries. In most cases, senior officials interviewed felt that they had little influence over their design and implementation and therefore tended to take little interest. They also found that regional projects were less relevant to their needs than national projects. The Independent Review found that the idea for many regional projects originated from FAO rather than countries themselves, even if the request was supported by a number of participating countries. Such regional projects were not in keeping with the demand-driven nature and philosophy governing TCP. A significant exception was for regional TCPs dealing with transboundary animal diseases and pest outbreaks, for which there was clear and significant support among countries visited. These projects represent 19% of regional and interregional TCPs by value and 16% by number. Other areas of significant regional TCPs include assistance to the work of regional economic integration and development organizations (12% by value and 11% by number) and assistance in management of a shared natural resource (5% by value and number). Regional projects not falling into these three categories are 64% by value and 68% by number.
80. There is evidence that a regional TCP can be justified if it addresses a genuinely shared problem to which a common solution is required. However, countries are not convinced of the value of most regional projects and there is a need to limit the use of regional TCPs to those sectors most relevant and useful to member countries.
81. FAO Strategic Framework 2000-2015 specifically mentions the need to address gender disparities under its Strategic Objective A1, Sustainable rural livelihood and sustainable use of resources. The Framework informs the objectives of the third FAO Gender and Development Plan of Action (2002-2007), which aims to realign concepts, approaches and institutional arrangements with the Gender and Development approach adopted widely by the UN system. Gender is also one of FAO’s 16 Priority Areas for Inter-Disciplinary Action (PAIA) identified in the current Medium-term Plan of the Organization.
82. All FAO Divisions, and a number of Services, have a gender focal point. All projects in FAO, TCPs included, should be scrutinized by the Gender and Development Service (SDWW) during appraisal and revision, to comment and advise on specific gender-related issues explicit or implicit in the proposals. TCPs are also subject to checking against the criteria of the Programme and Project Review Committee which has, among its criteria for project approval, “to promote gender equality and equity through the systematic compliance with FAO’s stated commitment to the policy on mainstreaming a gender perspective into its normative work and field activities”. Nevertheless, accountability for delivery on this policy within the TCP is weak and dispersed and the important question for FAO is to determine how best this principle can be applied.
83. FAO identifies three types of support to and involvement in gender issues through TCPs: gender and development projects; projects with a gender component; and consideration of gender issues in TCP projects. Since 1995, 19 TCPs were approved under the first group, and 54 TCPs were approved under the second group. No information is available about how many projects have considered gender issues, nor how many TCP projects were reviewed by the Gender and Population Division.
84. The Independent Review concludes that, in spite of appropriate measures having been taken at the strategic level, mainstreaming of gender issues in FAO TCPs requires further efforts. In this respect, FAO may consider following the example of the International Labour Organization, which has used participatory gender audits.
85. In making its recommendations to improve the overall utility and effectiveness of TCP, the Independent Review team has drawn on evidence and opinions that have been gathered and assessed as part of the Independent Review process, including the outcome of earlier evaluations and studies that have been conducted in respect of TCP. The recommendations seek to strengthen TCP as a flexible means of response to the needs of member countries, better enabling them to draw on the global knowledge of FAO and to communicate experiences, approaches and information between countries. The recommendations also seek to address the frustrations that both FAO and member countries experience in using the TCP mechanism. The recommendations attempt to give FAO the benefit of the best experience of other agencies that provide funding and technical assistance. The Independent Review team hopes that the recommendations will sharpen the efficiency and effectiveness of TCP and strengthen FAO as an organization.
Relevance of TCP
86. Overall, the Independent Review found that member countries very much value the TCP, which is deemed to be an appropriate, unique and original tool to meet their demands for FAO’s expertise and knowledge. TCPs are flexible and can integrate plans and programmes, as well as tackle single issues. Member countries appreciate that through TCPs, FAO can mobilize national, regional and international experts on different issues, facilitate policy development and dialogue, propose, discuss and test innovative approaches, encourage transfer of experience between countries and feed results from field experience into its normative work. Although some multi- or bilateral donors also manage some facilities which could be compared in terms of size and access, TCP is the only tool through which most member countries have access to FAO’s global experience and its capacity to draw in best practices.
|Recommendation I: In view of the strong support for TCP as a demand-driven source of technical expertise, support which is shown by all member developing countries and other stakeholders among the international community and donors, it is recommended that TCP be maintained at the present share of FAO’s budget and if at all possible additional resources be mobilised for the programme, which meets a strong felt need.|
Priority-setting, allocation and eligibility in respect of TCP resources
87. The Independent Review has concluded that some of the dissatisfactions that surround the TCPs relate to the manner in which projects are identified, prioritized and presented to FAO. These practices quite often leave FAO headquarters with the difficult task of interpreting and attempting to prioritize the requests while at the same time balancing this against anticipated needs. On the other hand, many member countries have weak systems in place for coordinating and prioritizing requests because they are both unaware and unclear about how priorities are made at FAO. Added to this is the number of TCP ideas that originate from headquarters. Based on this information, the Independent Review is of the opinion that the planning of TCPs (i.e. priority-setting, identification, ranking and selection of TCPs) must be approached in a more systematic manner, through the introduction of flexible country-specific priority frameworks. Such priority frameworks could be developed through a process of dialogue between national stakeholders and FAO.
88. Such frameworks will be helpful in reinforcing the nationally owned demand-driven nature of TCP towards achieving several simultaneously and mutually re-enforcing purposes. The frameworks would:
89. The framework should not represent a blueprint or rigid framework which does not favour changes or adjustments as things develop. It should be reviewed at least every two years. The Country Priority Framework represents a broad direction for FAO activities to serve the needs of the country, which would also enhance planning at headquarters and provide clarity of expectations and response. The framework would be formally reviewed and agreed by FAO, for example in the Programme and Project Review Committee.
90. While advocating the introduction of country priority frameworks, the Independent Review emphasizes that these are not programmes, plans or lists of projects, rather they are identification of areas of priority on which each country wishes to work with FAO.
91. In tandem with the Country Priority Framework, the Independent Review finds that there exists a strong rationale for introducing country indicative allocations. Most of the team’s interlocutors in countries favoured this, as it will enable better planning of the use of TCP resources at the country level as well as in FAO. Country allocations cannot be other than indicative, given the uncertain income situation faced by FAO. Furthermore, such country allocations should not be regarded as an entitlement irrespective of FAO’s overall funding situation. A small percentage of the TCP should be kept as an unprogrammed reserve, for unanticipated needs. Towards the end of a biennium, any unutilized portion of an allocation should revert to the un-programmed reserve and be available to other countries.
92. This approach to planning and assigning TCP resources, inevitably, requires the introduction of criteria to help rationalize and justify the allocation on a country-by-country basis. The choice of allocation criteria touches directly on the issue of TCP eligibility. This concerns the question whether all member countries, irrespective of their level of development, should have equal access to TCP support - as is the case at present. There appears to be a consensus among the various constituents in favour of assigning TCP resources to countries that are most in need of support. This refers, in particular, to those countries that are faced with a large number of poor and hungry people who are dependent on agriculture. In this context, it may be noted that all the UN funds and programmes allocate country project resources on the basis of a set of transparent criteria which link needs to funding. In general, these heavily favour meeting the needs of the poorest, while ensuring that resources are not overly concentrated on the very large poor countries.
93. Given the relative scarcity of funds available to finance overall TCP support, the team favours access to these funds by all FAO member countries, except those in the high-income category11. High-income countries would still have access to FAO technical services, but should be expected to provide the funds for procuring these services. The introduction of preferential or eligibility criteria will likely reduce somewhat the level of TCP resources that middle-level income countries have enjoyed in the past. However, given the targets agreed upon by the WFS for reducing hunger by the year 2015, it would appear that it would be reasonable to target countries, including the Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries, where large numbers of hungry exist, particularly in rural areas.
94. In view of the above, the Review Team concluded that there is both need and support for adjusting the basic procedures for assigning TCP resources. The Independent Review therefore recommends the following.
|Recommendation II: The Independent Review recommends that FAO introduce Country-specific Priority Frameworks. Such frameworks are meant to be a statement of intent for FAO cooperation with each member country for all resources, including TCP. These frameworks should be formally approved every two years, for example in the Programme and Project Review Committee.|
|Recommendation III: The Independent Review further recommends that TCP funds - except those allocated for meeting emergency requirements and an un-programmed reserve for contingencies - be made available in the form of Indicative Country Allocations to all but high-income member countries. It is to be stressed that such Indicative Country Allocations are not an entitlement. The allocation of TCP funds should be proportional to needs and favour countries with large numbers of poor and hungry people who are dependent on agriculture.|
95. In this way, the current ‘asset’ as regards the TCP modality – i.e. its flexibility to respond quickly to unforeseen and emerging needs – may not only be preserved, but actually ‘capitalized’ on by utilizing flexibility in a strategic manner. It will:
Principles and criteria governing TCP
96. The Independent Review acknowledges the importance of ensuring that TCP guidelines and criteria are clear in order to preserve the Programme’s unique character. It also noted that the Programme has, in some ways, outgrown its present criteria which were formulated in 1976. At the same time, it notes that FAO has developed other mechanisms as policy guidance for the use of FAO’s resources, among which the Programme and Project Review Committee has established a comprehensive set of guiding principles for FAO programmes and projects, TCP included.
97. In the light of these observations, the Review considers that updated TCP criteria need to reaffirm TCP as a flexible facility for responding to the demands of member countries with emphasis on international knowledge transfer and capacity building of a relatively short duration and within set budget limits. In this respect, considering the practicalities of procurement, contracting and recruitment as well as the seasonality and duration of field activities that constrain speedy implementation, it would appear necessary to extend the maximum duration of TCP projects.
98. Also, the Independent Review noted with great concern, the minimal benefit that women as farmers and key actors in ensuring adequate nutritional standards amongst the poor and hungry appear to derive from the TCP. While in FAO the institutional framework and policies are in place to address gender issues, capacity to deliver on these issues and accountability for ensuring that women benefit from TCP seem to lie at no particular door. Member countries who submit project requests also need to be reminded that gender is a critical issue for meeting the targets of halving hunger and malnutrition by the year 2015.
99. With respect to TCP criteria, the following recommendations are made:
|Recommendation IV: In view of the application of Programme and Project Review Committee criteria to TCP, the Independent Review recommends that the existing TCP criteria be limited to TCP emphasizing the flexible, rapid response to the clearly articulated demands of member countries for international knowledge transfer. The criteria should emphasise no particular subject matter of FAO’s mandate but specify: (i)
conformity to FAO’s strategic priorities as specified in its Strategic Framework; (ii)
priority to those areas in which FAO has comparative strengths, in particular inter-national knowledge transfer, building on normative work; and (iii) realistic assessment of the potential of sustainable impacts through national follow-up.
|Recommendation V: The Independent Review recommends that capacity to do audits be developed in all FAO units that work on TCP projects and that a composite report of these audits be presented to the Programme Committee every two years. The experience of the International Labour Organization might prove helpful in this context.|
100. The Review has found that the present size limit on TCP projects (except for emergencies) is appropriate and that TCP projects are generally for substantially less than the US$400 000 maximum. However, projects are often extended in duration beyond 24 months and are designed in a sub-optimal way to fit the 24-month limit.
|Recommendation VI: The Independent Review finds the US$400 000 ceiling for individual TCP projects to be appropriate and, therefore, recommends that it be maintained except for emergencies. The Independent Review further recommends that the duration of projects be established at a maximum of 36 months.|
Categories of TCP support
101. Having examined carefully the purposes that the TCP categories serve, the Independent Review concludes that if the Priority Frameworks are in place and the role of the TCP is well articulated in the governing criteria, it is questionable whether a formal list of categories is also required.
|Recommendation VII: With the introduction of the Country Priority Frameworks, the current functional categories for TCP support are no longer relevant. Thus, it is recommended that they be abolished in favour of two categories: emergency projects and development projects.|
102. TCP has been a highly-valued instrument for ensuring a quick and effective response to emergencies. Emergency projects have therefore formed a major part of TCP activities and will continue to do so, but given the size of TCP funds, FAO will clearly be unable to respond to all requests.
103. Considering that donor pledges during emergency appeals take time to materialize, FAO must always be ready to take urgent action in the face of major emergencies whether these are natural or man-made. In view of the unpredictability of the frequencies of these disasters as compared to the size of TCP resources, care will therefore need to be taken with regard to the issue of replenishment of the TCP funds used for emergencies. The Independent Review notes the initiative underway to establish an Emergency Trust Fund in FAO. The use of TCP funds for emergencies should apply pending the Emergency Trust Fund being funded at an adequate level.
|Recommendation VIII: As regards emergency support, the following are recommended: (i) to set aside a certain percentage (20-25%) of overall available TCP resources to be used in the same manner as envisaged for the Emergency Trust Fund, in guaranteeing donor pledged support while at the same time being available for initial assistance, especially for planning and coordinating emergency rehabilitation; and (ii) to focus TCP emergency support on major emergencies, including pests and disease, while at the same time decreasing support for recurring and small stand-alone emergencies at the national level.|
TCP for regional and inter-regional support interventions
104. Regional issues relating to food and agriculture need higher level involvement and commitment, with governments taking the lead to optimize the benefits in a broad regional context as compared to very specific national interest. It is therefore desirable in some cases for regional bodies representing governments to initiate such proposals after a process of dialogue among the participating countries. The resources for regional interventions should come from respective participating country allocations. This process will ensure better ownership of regional TCPs by the member countries. Such interventions are likely to be more effective as the concerned countries are aware that their resources are committed for a regional cause and they are going to substantially benefit from such interventions.
|Recommendation IX: It is recommended that the use of TCP resources for regional projects, with the exception of emergencies, be contingent on the decision of participating member countries in any such regional activities by utilizing part of their, respective, Indicative Country Allocations. No TCP allocations should be channelled to any regional activity without the expressed request of a number of interested member countries that are willing to contribute part of their respective allocations in order to finance the requested TCP support.|
TCP approvals, extensions and revisions
105. As noted, the approval of TCPs, except for emergency projects, involves a lengthy period of time. Reasons are many and diverse, and were discussed above. At the same time, the number of TCPs requiring an extension seems to confirm that TCP is being increasingly utilized for longer-term support than that originally envisaged.
106. In view of the above, the Independent Review concludes that there is a need to accelerate the approval of TCPs. There is also a need to relax the current procedures governing the extension and revision of TCPs, while granting the FAOR the authority to decide on these matters.
107. The Independent Review endorses the recommendation made by the decentralization evaluation, that the FAOR be authorized to approve projects that meet the criteria of the Country Priority Framework (up to a limit of US$100 000) and which are not of a size or complexity to justify formalised technical clearance.
108. The team also endorses that technical clearance procedures should be proportionate to the size of the project and in order to prevent excessive delays. For those projects of a size or complexity to justify formal technical clearance in the Regional Office or headquarters, a maximum turnaround time needs to be introduced (in line with the instructions on this given by the Director-General). If such time limits are exceeded, the FAOR should be allowed to proceed.
109. There is merit in consolidating all TCP budget related instructions as part of the formal guidelines. This is so because it appears that the FAO internal instructions developed over the years that are not part of the formal TCP operating procedures, have complicated the budgeting of individual TCP projects. These observations and conclusions lead the team to make the following two recommendations:
|Recommendation X: The Independent Review recommends that TCP projects within the Country Priority Framework be approved in principle with an indicative overall budget. The more detailed design should then be part of the terms of reference of the first mission for the project. Alternatively, an advance allocation should be made for the first mission, which would make the detailed design. It is further recommended to rationalize and simplify the guidelines on budgeting TCP projects and to delegate the authority to the FAOR to approve minor project extensions and revisions.|
|Recommendation XI: The Independent Review recommends that the FAOR should be granted delegation to approve individual TCP projects that are in line with the approved Country Priority Framework and that are not of the size (e.g. under US$100 000) or complexity to justify formalised technical clearance. For those projects of a nature, size or complexity that justify formal technical clearance by the Regional Office or headquarters, a maximum turnaround time needs to be introduced. If such time limits are exceeded, the FAOR should be allowed to proceed.|
TCP Facility for FAO Representatives
110. The TCP Facility was established to enable FAO Representatives to access national consultants for ad hoc tasks within countries. Flexible TCP resources at country level are essential to support government policy and planning and FAO inputs to such work as PRSP design and UN system planning (CCA/UNDAF), as well as flexible initiatives with other members of the international community. The conditions governing this Facility are overly restrictive and the amount of funds available too limited to allow FAORs to respond as often or effectively as would be desirable. Some improvements have very recently been introduced. However, in order for the Facility to be established, it is necessary to obtain a request by the member country to which the FAOR is accredited. Furthermore, the drawing of funds against this Facility still needs to be formally endorsed by the member country concerned. In addition to the utilization of national consultants under the Facility, the new procedures also allow the possibility to pay for FAO technical support services, but not international consultants. The recent improvements are a step in the right direction. The Independent Review recommends that the budgetary provision for this Facility be further increased and its utilization be made more flexible to meet actual support needs.
|Recommendation XII: The Independent Review recommends that the TCP Facility for FAO Representatives be increased to US$50 000 per biennium, to better enable FAORs to respond to requests in line with the Country Priority Framework. The Independent Review also recommends that the Facility be granted automatically under complete responsibility for use by the FAOR. It also recommends that use of international technical assistance be accepted under this Facility, with due regard given to the use of national expertise.|
Decentralization and implementation efficiency
111. The Independent Review found that direct FAO execution is preferred over other alternative modalities such as national execution. Despite the shortcomings in FAO execution, it still seemed a more expeditious way of delivering TCP support given the complexities of government systems for such small funds.
112. Country-level missions during the Independent Review and for previous TCP-related studies found that project implementation often suffered due to delays directly attributable to a lack of decentralized authority to the field level. This is manifested in the considerable time taken to obtain authorization for changes in budget and activities and the mobilization of inputs.
113. The Independent Review endorses the finding by previous evaluations, including the one on decentralization, that implementation efficiency could be greatly enhanced if the FAOR, as budget holder for TCP projects, is assigned a higher level of authority for various operational and administrative actions, such as recruitment, contracting, procurement, and changes between budget lines. The role of all other FAO entities, at regional or headquarters level, should be supportive or advisory to the FAOR, who ultimately bears primary responsibility for the management and oversight of country level operations.
114. In the same vein, there is need for much greater clarity concerning authority for implementation and monitoring between the FAOR on the one hand and the Lead Technical Unit or Project Task Force on the other, with responsibility to be clearly assigned to the FAOR as budget holder.
115. Obviously, there are a number of prerequisites that need to be fulfilled in order for such delegation of authority to be possible. This refers to competencies and capacities of FAO Representations that will need to be assessed. Adjustments to operating procedures and administrative systems will also have to be made. In this respect, the Independent Review endorses the recommendations made as part of the Decentralization Evaluation. The pivotal issue is to create the conditions such that timely decisions can be made at the appropriate level and that accountability be exercised.
|Recommendation XIII: The Independent Review recommends that where possible, full authority for operational management functions and monitoring be vested in the FAOR as TCP budget holder, with all other organizational units acting in a support capacity.|
116. TCP, despite its size, presents FAO with the opportunity for mobilizing resources and creating partnerships. Even with small amounts, FAO can gain itself a place at the table in large-scale development initiatives. The TCP FAOR Facility is particularly important in this regard to enable FAO to play its full part as a member of the UN system in supporting system wide joint work and in working with government and the international community in such areas as the development of the PRSP. At present, FAO is unable to undertake co-financing through TCP. The Independent Review is of the opinion that this is an opportunity missed in several instances: FAO is unable to participate financially in major sector wide programmes; FAO loses the opportunity for follow-up to important initiatives and to gain recognition for its contributions for taking leadership and supporting pilot projects; and FAO loses the opportunity to guide and strengthen the constituency needed to address the ever increasing issue of hunger and malnutrition by not partnering with the additional knowledge and resources civil society and the private sector can bring to the success of halving hunger by the year 2015. The Strategic Framework for FAO 2000-2015 presents a comprehensive approach for partnerships to be developed with important collaborators within the UN system, with other intergovernmental organizations, with CSOs, NGOs and the private sector.
117. So far, direct partnership with the private sector in TCPs has been limited, confined largely to contracts relating to implementation. Evidence therefore is limited as to how FAO can expand its work with the private sector using TCP. The Strategic Framework has identified the following areas for broadening partnership and alliances: explore with private sector how investments in new technology can be steered to bring greater benefits to the developing countries; obtain private sector support for FAO programmes, including fund-raising and revenues for services rendered to them; and enhancing the capacities of and the participation of the private sector in input supply, marketing, processing and financial services. The TCP should pursue these in the context of its objectives.
|Recommendation XIV: Partnership within the UN system and with government and the international community is vital in securing due attention to issues of malnutrition, rural poverty and the role of agriculture in Poverty Reduction Strategies and the overall development agenda. The Independent Review recommends translating the principles of partnership, as explained in the Strategic Framework 2000-2015, into action by incorporating it in planning and management of the TCP. The role of the TCP FAOR Facility will be particularly important in this regard and every effort should be made, including a re-examination of the rules and guidance on co-financing, to ensure TCP benefits and contributes to partnerships and alliances for FAO.|
Follow-up and evaluation of TCP
118. The Independent Review noted that TCPs seem to have stronger impact when they are integrated within the coordination mechanisms wherein governments and donors discuss and agree upon priorities and responsibilities for implementation. These discussions would identify linkages with other programmes or activities and potential national and international development partners for follow-up. The Independent Review calls for giving necessary attention to follow-up from the very beginning of the TCP project cycle starting with the Country Priority Framework.
119. One aspect of the TCP found to be in need of strengthening is the use of Terminal Statements, which should be prepared by the end of the project as a designated responsibility within the workplan. They should then be used for a mandatory discussion between the government, FAO and other relevant partners, aimed at ensuring follow-up to the project. Such a discussion would serve to share lessons and identify follow-up actions required as well as those taking responsibility for such actions.
120. In previous thematic evaluation exercises, a detailed evaluation of individual TCPs was carried out and each project was scored for design, efficiency, effectiveness and impact. This analysis was contained in the regional reports but not widely circulated outside FAO HQ, including not reaching FAORs and national staff. This information should receive more circulation, while material of a highly confidential nature can be treated separately. From 1997-2000, upon completion of each thematic evaluation, a separate note was prepared on the TCP projects reviewed, concerning their selection, relevance, design, implementation, outputs, effects and impact and drawing lessons. This practice should be followed, in order to derive particular lessons for the TCP.
|Recommendation XV: The Independent Review recommends that in order for the TCP to more fully play its catalytic role with well conceived follow-up activities, the FAOR at the country level should have main responsibility for planning and managing this and the preparation of terminal reports and a follow-up discussion with government and potential partners be a mandatory part of the process.|
|Recommendation XVI: Regional reports prepared as part of thematic or strategic evaluations should be circulated for information to FAORs and national staff as appropriate. After each thematic or strategic evaluation that examines TCP projects, a note should be prepared and discussed, for the purpose of drawing lessons.|
121. Further, since its inception this was the first independent review of TCP. Given the importance of this Programme as a critical asset of FAO, it would benefit from an evaluation every six years, to improve and maintain its place as one of FAO’s most effective services to its member countries.
|Recommendation XVII: It is recommended that given the nature and role of TCP, FAO should undertake a comprehensive in-depth evaluation of the TCP as a development facility every six years.|
1. The Technical Cooperation Programme was established in 1976. As stated on the TC Department website, “Through TCP, FAO allocates limited, but identifiable and assured, resources to fulfil one of its key constitutional functions, i.e. to furnish such technical assistance as governments may request. It is an integral part of the Organization’s Regular Programme financed from the assessed budget. In particular, the TCP is the instrument which enables FAO to respond rapidly to urgent needs for technical and emergency assistance in member countries and to contribute to their capacity building”...”The main features of TCP are its unprogrammed and urgent character; its flexibility in responding to new technical issues and problems; speed in approval; clear focus; limited project intervention with short duration; low costs; practical orientation; and catalytic role. By design and in practice, the TCP meets unforeseen needs, fills crucial gaps, complements other forms of assistance, and promotes resource availability for technical cooperation in the above fields, whether channelled through FAO or otherwise”. Since the TCP began, over 8,000 national and regional TCP projects have been approved, with a total approved budget of US$952 million, addressing all technical cooperation areas within FAO’s mandate. The TCP accounts for US$103 million over the two years of 2004-05 biennium or 13.7% of FAO’s Regular Programme budget.
2. The TCP is subject to regular evaluations and audits conducted respectively by FAO (i.e. the Evaluation Service (PBEE) or the Office of the Inspector-General (AUD) and by the External Auditor (E-AUD)).
3. The Evaluation Service (PBEE) has set up a process for evaluating thematic clusters of TCP projects, financed with funds for evaluation included in each approved TCP project. These evaluations have assessed TCP projects for their relevance, design, implementation, outputs produced and, where possible, effects and impacts. Nine thematic evaluations have so far been carried out, covering the following fields: Food Quality Control (1997); Apiculture and Sericulture (1998); Legislation (1999); Policy Assistance (2000); Animal Health (2001); Emergency Relief Operations (2002); Crop Production (2003); Fisheries Exploitation and Utilisation (2003); and Animal Production, Policy and Information (2004). Since 2000, these evaluations have been linked with reviews of related Regular Programme activities and other field projects. Reviews of individual TCP projects are thus closely linked to their overall Programme context.
4. Further, FAO carried out other evaluations relevant to TCP, notably FAO Post-conflict Programme in Afghanistan, FAO Responses to the Continuing Crisis in Southern Africa, and the very recent Evaluation of FAO Decentralization. These major exercises, together with those mentioned above, analyse individual TCPs in detail, and provide evidence of their strengths and weaknesses, effectiveness, relevance and impact.
5. Aside from these thematic evaluations, there have been two reviews of TCP procedures, the most recent of which was in late 2001. The Technical Cooperation Programme Service (TCOT) commissioned an in-depth review of the procedures and policies governing the management of the TCP project cycle (appraisal, formulation, approval, implementation and monitoring of TCP projects) with the aim of proposing improvements. This was carried out by an independent consultant and highlighted two major problems: i) delays in the approval of TCP project requests; and ii) TCP implementation and delivery rate. Causes were also identified, and in response to these findings, in 2002 FAO Senior Management introduced a number of measures, and a general improvement both in the processing of requests for TCP assistance and in the delivery of approved projects has been reported.
6. At its 90th Session (September 2003), the FAO Programme Committee discussed an information paper on TCP. It agreed that a process be initiated to explore possibilities for adapting the Programme so that it responds better to changes that have occurred in the international environment, including follow-up to the WFS and the WFS:fyl, and reflects the evolving needs of member countries, while retaining the core characteristics of the Programme such as its flexibility and responsiveness to urgent demands. This position was endorsed by the following FAO Council at its 125th Session (November 2003). The Secretariat prepared a paper for review at the 92nd Session of the Programme Committee, proposing that a consultative process be initiated to identify recommendations for strengthening the TCP in order to better align it with, inter alia, the emergence of new programmatic frameworks at the national level for coordinating international development assistance, (e.g. UNDAF), and the changing realities in FAO (e.g. new planning approaches, continuing decentralization and ongoing strengthening of the Field Programme). In endorsing the Secretariat’s proposals, members agreed that the Secretariat would undertake the consultative process with FAO stakeholders and that PBEE would carry out an independent review of the Programme to be presented at the 93rd PC in May 2005.
Purpose of the Independent Review
7. As noted above, the Independent Review will contribute to the internal process of review of the Programme. It will be made available to FAO Senior Management in sufficient time to be taken account of in preparing its proposals to the Programme Committee and will also be provided separately to the PC. The PC decided that the Independent Review would be based on:
Outputs of the Review
8. In implementing the decision of the Programme Committee, the Independent Review will include the following elements:
9. The outputs above will be presented to the Technical Cooperation Department as they become available, to be used in the overall report to the Programme Committee that will provide findings and recommendations to the extent possible, taking into account that in the time and with the resources available, a full evaluation of TCP is not possible. In parallel with the Independent Review, the Technical Cooperation Department will be undertaking a review of procedures and an internal consultation through the Field Programme Committee.
10. The country case studies carried out during the Independent Review will focus on the relevance of TCP in the overall country context and effectiveness and impact of selected TCP projects. This will provide insights on their contribution to development of the particular area/sector and the role that is and should be played by the TCP in the wider development framework of each country.
11. The analysis of member countries’ views on TCP will also address members’ perceptions on the relevance of TCP and its strengths and weaknesses. It will include assessment of the following aspects of TCP, recommended by members of the PC:
12. Specific guidelines and checklists will be drafted for both country case-studies and for the consultative process (Annex 1 provides the tentative list of developing countries included in the sample. In general, countries included in the assessment process for the Decentralization Evaluation have been excluded as the information base for that evaluation will be available to the team). These will be used by the teams responsible for country level work, and should facilitate consolidating findings from the different regions for the final report.
13. An in-depth analysis will be carried out of the TCP portfolio in about ten member countries (1-2 per region). The analysis will focus on relevance and, if possible, impact. It will also examine the context of the projects in relation to other FAO interventions, and to the other development activities in the country, by government and donors.
14. Criteria for selecting countries will be: composition of TCP programme, national income level (low-income and middle-income), characteristics representative of sub-regions, degree of country coverage in previous TCP thematic studies (with preference for less covered countries).
15. In addition, a consultative process (see below) will be implemented in each country where case studies are carried out.
16. An internal country note will be prepared, including the team’s analysis of TCPs and the findings of the consultative process (see below).
17. Two to three countries will be selected per region, on similar matching criteria as per the case studies, to visit overall a representative list as possible for each region/sub-region and with account taken of the coverage by the Decentralization Evaluation, as discussed above.
18. In each country, the process will consist of meetings utilising a checklist of discussion points with the policy level in Ministries dealing with Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Economic Development, Planning and Finance, donors, International Financing Institutions and the UN Resident Coordinator.
19. An internal aide-mémoire to the evaluation team will be prepared for each country, reporting on findings and a summary note on each mission to groups of countries will be prepared for discussion with TC, in the limits imposed by the overall time-frame, which reduces the possibilities for refining intermediate outputs.
20. In addition, a number of telephone interviews will be arranged with developed country members of FAO.
21. A group of senior consultants will guide the elaboration of the final report on the basis of the synthesis of findings, the country case-study reports, the findings of the consultative process and previous evaluation reports. To the extent possible, given that the Review is addressing results and member country perceptions, recommendations will be made for strengthening the TCP modality.
22. The draft of the final report will be discussed with the Technical Cooperation Department, and if acceptable to the team, comments and suggestions will be incorporated into the final version.
23. The Review is managed independently by the Evaluation Service, under the direct responsibility of a Senior Evaluation Officer.
24. The first step will be the analysis of previous evaluations, and the elaboration of a preliminary synthesis of findings. This exercise will be carried out by PBEE staff members. Timing: October 2004.
25. Six teams will be set-up, each composed by at least one external consultant and one PBEE staff-member. Each team will visit one region/sub-region, i.e.: South Asia; Southeast Asia; East and Southern Africa; West Africa; Europe and the Near East; and Latin America and the Caribbean. Each team will be responsible for one-two country case studies and two to three country consultative processes. Timing: November-December 2004.
26. Final report writing: the senior consultants will meet in FAO HQ and will prepare the final report, with the support of PBEE staff. Timing: January-mid February 2005.
Selection of Countries for Field Visits
Case study and consultations: Cameroun, Ethiopia and AU, Niger, Uganda.
Consultations: Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Swaziland, Tanzania.
Case study and consultations: Cambodia, India.
Consultations: Bhutan, Philippines, Sri Lanka,Vietnam.
Latin America and the Caribbean:
Case study and consultations: Jamaica, Peru.
Consultations: Chile, Brazil, El Salvador.
Near East and Europe:
Case study and consultations: Armenia, Syria.
Consultations: Iran, Lebanon, FYR Macedonia.
Thelma Awori (Uganda, Chair of the Independent Review Team) is former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations where she served as Director of the Africa Bureau of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), from 1998 - 2000. Before then, she was Deputy Director of UNDP's Policy Bureau, 1996-1998, Resident Representative and Resident Coordinator in Zimbabwe, 1992-1996. In the United Nations Fund for Women (UNIFEM) she was Deputy Director and Chief for Africa (1988-1992). Thelma Awori is a graduate of Harvard University, 1965 (Social Relations) and University of California, Berkeley, 1972 (Adult Education). She now works as an Independent Consultant while doing her doctorate in Adult Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.
Basudev Dahal (Nepal) is a former Director General, Pacific Department of the Asian Development Bank (AsDB). He worked in AsDB for over 23 years in various positions, including: Head of Operations Evaluation; Head of Development Policy; Head of the country office in Bangladesh. He was the Assistant President of the Programme Management Department of IFAD from 1994 to 1996. He started his professional career as an irrigation engineer in Nepal. He has an MBA from Harvard University and worked in the area of minority small business development in the US.
André Klap (the Netherlands) was a staff member of the United Nations Development Programme for twenty years, having served as Deputy Representative in Nigeria, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Prior to this he was engaged in academic research on land reform in Latin America. He currently directs a consultancy firm that aims to foster partnerships with non-profit international development agencies.
Noël Galet-Lalande (France) is a graduate of the Institut National Agronomique in Paris. Since 1976, he has been working on behalf of major French consulting firms for the Caisse Française de Coopération Economique and the French Cooperation, the World Bank, the EC, IFAD and others, in the fields of agricultural and rural development, environmental management and impact assessment, in West Africa and the Indian Ocean sub-region. Through long and short-term missions, he has participated in the identification, formulation and evaluation of projects, programmes and country-wide exercises, project management and technical assistance.
Damodar Tripathy (India), currently Managing Director, D.J. Research and Company (DJRC) India, was formerly a Division Chief and Manager in the African Development Bank (up to March 2001) and Joint Adviser in the Indian Planning Commission. As a former Member of the Indian Economic Service, he worked in India for two decades and in Africa and Southeast Asia for 14 years, both in regular service and as consultant for FAO, UNDP, IFAD, WFP, DFID and AfDB and several other multilateral and bilateral organisations.
J. Michael Halderman (USA), an independent consultant, holds a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. He has consulted for the World Bank, UN organizations (FAO, IFAD, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNRISD), bilateral development agencies (Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, US) and European NGOs on rural development and environmental issues, international trade, and conflict mitigation.
Eduardo Trigo (Argentina) holds a PhD in Agricultural Economics from the University of Wisconsin. He was Executive Director of the Fundación ArgenINTA, Director of the Technology Generation and Transfer Programme at the Inter-American Institute for Co-operation in Agriculture (IICA), Senior Reseach Officer/Head of Research of the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Since 1998, he has been Director of Grupo CEO, a consulting firm. He often collaborates with international organizations in the agricultural and agro-industrial sectors.
(in order by amount of assistance received in the period 2001-04)
|Country||Income Level||Total TCP Budget (US$)||Of which Emergency Budget (US$)||Total Number of Projects||Of which Emergency Projects|
|China||LM||5 488 106||1 129 608||21||3|
|Viet Nam||L||4 202 503||2 065 523||19||7|
|Ethiopia||L||3 881 208||1 463 536||20||7|
|Sudan||L||3 709 650||1 604 011||20||6|
|Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea||L||3 677 791||778 199||14||2|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||L||3 343 202||335 246||15||1|
|Uganda||L||3 264 863||1 055 692||15||3|
|Indonesia||LM||3 120 489||1 508 305||12||5|
|Cameroon||L||3 100 347||307 865||14||1|
|Kenya||L||3 077 642||180 662||15||1|
|Pakistan||L||3 067 349||1 153 717||13||3|
|Burkina Faso||L||3 003 899||793 644||17||5|
|Mozambique||L||2 883 323||1 131 010||12||3|
|Syrian Arab Republic||LM||2 881 606||266 861||15||1|
|Mauritania||L||2 802 428||1 150 558||16||4|
|Iran, Islamic Republic of||LM||2 794 713||624 000||17||3|
|United Republic of Tanzania||L||2 778 066||890 575||16||4|
|Morocco||LM||2 701 552||1 152 999||14||4|
|Senegal||L||2 678 956||1 157 545||17||4|
|Thailand||LM||2 648 942||641 117||15||3|
|Sri Lanka||LM||2 644 506||1 757 603||15||6|
|Mali||L||2 611 008||585 964||15||3|
|Brazil||LM||2 608 243||0||11||0|
|Philippines||LM||2 607 595||1 644 263||11||7|
|Eritrea||L||2 607 501||866 041||16||3|
|Gambia||L||2 577 346||528 926||16||3|
|Angola||L||2 559 537||357 487||16||1|
|Guinea||L||2 548 651||731 453||15||3|
|Argentina||UM||2 445 217||0||12||0|
|Zimbabwe||L||2 432 237||1 472 148||15||5|
|Lao Peoples' Democratic Republic||L||2 392 450||805 047||10||4|
|Algeria||LM||2 389 491||400 000||15||1|
|Bangladesh||L||2 377 518||384 932||8||1|
|Cambodia||L||2 367 314||788 890||9||2|
|Guinea-Bissau||L||2 296 531||246 207||12||2|
|Nigeria||L||2 290 420||0||10||0|
|Tunisia||LM||2 255 836||392 000||14||1|
|Sierra Leone||L||2 177 800||1 249 419||11||5|
|Swaziland||LM||2 172 454||350 685||16||1|
|Rwanda||L||2 113 133||362 727||13||2|
|Niger||L||2 110 888||842 835||15||4|
|Mexico||UM||2 109 252||0||10||0|
|Zambia||L||2 102 570||399 773||14||2|
|Central African Republic||L||2 074 718||826 839||10||3|
|Haiti||L||2 050 789||967 920||11||3|
|Armenia||LM||2 049 204||793 014||10||2|
|Ghana||L||2 046 524||597 711||11||3|
|Congo||L||2 024 055||378 000||9||1|
|Peru||LM||1 991 289||885 360||17||4|
|India||L||1 970 089||10|
|Nicaragua||L||1 953 532||962 872||9||4|
|Madagascar||L||1 907 632||340 938||13||2|
|Namibia||LM||1 906 798||0||12||0|
|Gabon||UM||1 879 665||0||15||0|
|Myanmar||L||1 811 477||0||8||0|
|Chad||L||1 805 080||1 269 229||9||5|
|Malawi||L||1 803 724||1 083 214||11||4|
|Liberia||L||1 796 898||1 401 523||12||6|
|Egypt||LM||1 737 925||0||9||0|
|Lebanon||UM||1 697 535||130 472||12||1|
|Yemen||L||1 651 439||0||12||0|
|Burundi||L||1 624 779||338 000||9||2|
|Colombia||LM||1 619 573||0||7||0|
|Mongolia||L||1 612 623||395 000||7||1|
|Bolivia||LM||1 564 483||584 929||8||3|
|Kyrgyz Republic||L||1 552 340||0||7||0|
|Benin||L||1 532 356||0||11||0|
|Dominican Republic||LM||1 526 104||400 000||10||1|
|Jordan||LM||1 517 505||279 123||9||1|
|Guatemala||LM||1 478 606||318 086||6||1|
|Grenada||UM||1 451 541||400 000||7||1|
|Fiji||LM||1 448 612||380 450||6||1|
|Georgia||L||1 435 700||387 029||6||1|
|Maldives||LM||1 408 444||0||9||0|
|Cape Verde||LM||1 381 648||747 626||7||3|
|El Salvador||LM||1 349 887||469 737||11||4|
|Togo||L||1 327 063||0||6||0|
|Republic of Moldova||L||1 285 427||727 427||6||3|
|Lesotho||L||1 274 366||0||10||0|
|South Africa||LM||1 241 327||0||6||0|
|Bhutan||L||1 222 060||228 392||7||2|
|The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia||LM||1 174 237||1 174 237||4||4|
|Ecuador||LM||1 153 562||348 946||7||1|
|Cuba||LM||1 149 383||325 078||5||1|
|Uzbekistan||L||1 132 500||0||6||0|
|Nepal||L||1 123 766||0||5||0|
|Tajikistan||L||1 113 588||377 801||5||2|
|Djibouti||LM||1 106 248||103 000||9||1|
|Samoa||LM||1 099 490||284 000||5||1|
|Afghanistan||L||1 095 625||707 428||4||2|
|Romania||LM||1 092 663||357 455||7||2|
|Botswana||UM||1 056 423||315 933||8||3|
|Bulgaria||LM||1 044 237||0||5||0|
|Paraguay||LM||1 036 790||0||7||0|
|Uruguay||UM||1 029 288||0||10||0|
|Turkey||LM||1 014 340||0||8||0|
|Chile||UM||1 001 467||0||8||0|
|Costa Rica||UM||918 000||84 000||6||2|
|Côte d'Ivoire||L||915 685||398 536||5||1|
|Trinidad and Tobago||UM||798 872||0||6||0|
|Papua New Guinea||L||788 000||0||4||0|
|Somalia||L||770 353||770 353||5||5|
|Comoros||L||760 502||15 741||7||2|
|Jamaica||LM||733 852||218 000||6||1|
|Equatorial Guinea||L||706 667||0||6||0|
|Antigua and Barbuda||UM||679 500||0||8||0|
|Belize||UM||675 337||334 482||4||1|
|Niue||LM||630 000||298 000||3||1|
|Marshall Islands||LM||622 732||0||6||0|
|Serbia and Montenegro||UM||582 000||0||2||0|
|Bahamas||H||563 177||98 915||8||1|
|Czech Republic||UM||506 000||0||2||0|
|St Vincent & Grenadines||UM||446 917||0||3||0|
|Solomon Islands||L||443 000||0||2||0|
|Iraq||LM||435 905||63 514||5||1|
|Bosnia & Herzegovina||LM||406 837||362 837||2||1|
|Cook Islands||LM||400 000||0||2||0|
|Libyan Arab Jamahiriya||UM||351 000||0||3||0|
|Timor-Leste||L||307 019||35 000||3||2|
|Barbados||UM||286 098||49 736||5||1|
|Saint Lucia||LM||182 776||0||2||0|
|Micronesia, Federated States of||LM||173 000||0||1||0|
|Saint Kitts & Nevis||UM||173 000||0||1||0|
|Saudi Arabia||UM||124 476||0||1||0|
|Sao Tome & Principe||L||26 000||0||1||0|
|Grand Total||231 756 172||55 572 956||1 304||224|
|CCA||UN Common Country Assessments|
|EMPRES||Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases|
|GCP||Government Cooperative Programme|
|MDGs||Millenium Development Goals|
|ODA||Official Development Aid|
|NPCs||National Project Coordinators|
|PAIA||Priority Area for Inter-Disciplinary Action|
|PBEE||FAO Evaluation Service|
|PPRC||Programme and Project Review Committee|
|PRS||Poverty Reduction Strategy|
|SDWW||FAO Gender and Development Service|
|SPFS||Special Programme for Food Security|
|TC||Technical Cooperation Department|
|TCDC||Technical Cooperation between Developing Countries|
|TCP||Technical Cooperation Programme|
|UNDAF||UN Development Assistance Framework|
|UNDP||United Nations Development Programme|
|UTF||Unilateral Trust Fund|
|WFS||World Food Summit|
|WFS:fyl||WFS:five years later|
1 Countries with consultations and case studies were: Armenia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Jamaica, India, Niger, Peru, Syrian Arab Republic, and Uganda. Countries with consultations were: Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Islamic Republic of; Kenya, Lebanon, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Republic of Tanzania, and Viet Nam.
2 Thelma Awori, Basudev Dahal and André Klap.
3 Constitution of FAO, Article I.3a.
4 State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2004.
5 Report of the FAO Council, CL 69/REP, July 1976.
6 The total figure here includes normative and Field Programme activities funded from extra-budgetary funds.
7 The amounts on the top line in Charts 1a and 2 for 2000-04 are different. Chart 1a includes all extra-budgetary resources, whether in the field or at headquarters and Regional Offices. Chart 2 excludes normative projects for the period 2000-04, in order to more faithfully reflect the situation at field level. For technical reasons, it is not possible to exclude normative projects and other extra-budgetary funds for years prior to 2000.
8 The data reported as from “2001-2004” refer to projects starting (“EOD date”) between period January 2001-20 October 2004.
9 DGB 2000/17, Programme and Project Review Committee.
10 FPC 1998/04, In-country Appraisal of Requests for New Technical Assistance Project Proposals.
11 World Bank definition; FAO member countries presently classified as high-income are: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea Rep., Kuwait, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Qatar, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States.