FAOR	FAO REPRESENTATIVE/FAO REPRESENTATION
FPMIS	FIELD PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
LDC	LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRY
LIFDC	LOW-INCOME FOOD-DEFICIT COUNTRY
MDG	MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOAL
NGO	NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
PBEE	FAO’S EVALUATION SERVICE
PRS	POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY
SFERA	SPECIAL FUND FOR EMERGENCY AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES
SWAp	SECTOR-WIDE APPROACH
TCOM	FIELD PROGRAMME MONITORING AND COORDINATION SERVICE
TCP	TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME
TSS	FAO TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its 125^th Session, the FAO Council agreed that a process be initiated to explore possibilities for strengthening the Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) to ensure that the TCP is able to respond with maximum effectiveness to changes at national, regional and global levels. At its 92^nd Session, the Programme Committee indicated that the review process would consist of two distinct elements: an internal consultation involving FAO’s technical departments, decentralized offices and FAO representations (FAORs); and an independent review involving governments and international development partners, to be undertaken by FAO’s Evaluation Service (PBEE).

The internal consultation provided nine recommendations and the independent review seventeen. Recommendations were broad in focus and covered strategic, policy, procedural and technical issues.¹ There was a high level of agreement between the independent review and the internal consultation, and Management therefore accepts all of the major recommendations made. In some instances, Management has made modifications to the recommendations, in which case explanations are provided in the document.

At the broadest level, both the internal consultation and the independent review underscored that although there have been significant changes at the international and national levels, and within FAO, since the Programme was established, the TCP continues to provide a valuable tool for making FAO’s technical expertise available to governments in response to problems and critical gaps in ways that are not possible through FAO’s other Major Programmes or from sources outside FAO.

Both the independent review and the internal consultation recognized the need to link the TCP more strongly to national development priorities and to ensure that all TCP projects represent the most strategic use of FAO’s technical resources. In this regard, it was stressed that the TCP process, and in particular the setting of priorities, should be linked more directly to national programmes and strategies for rural and agricultural development. Management therefore proposes that TCP country priority-setting processes be established in order to provide a basis for purposeful dialogue between governments and FAO to ensure that TCP resources are used in the most strategic manner possible. Management recognizes that the proposed TCP priority-setting process would be integrated into, and consistent with, the National Priority Frameworks that will be established in light of the recommendations made by the Independent Evaluation of FAO’s Decentralization.

Management’s preliminary proposals to strengthen the TCP are built around eight recommendations, for review by the Programme Committee. In addition, a number of measures and action to be undertaken by the Secretariat are proposed. They include: increased delegation of authority to FAORs with regard to selected aspects of the TCP; streamlined TCP procedures and guidelines; strengthened impact assessment and follow-up of TCP projects; periodic self-evaluation of the TCP; and improvements in the quality and quantity of TCP-related information made available to governments, FAO and FAO’s Governing Bodies. These measures and action are indicated in bold italics as they appear in this report. The eight recommendations are listed below and presented in boxes in the text.

Following the guidance and decisions of the Programme Committee on the above-mentioned recommendations, Management will be in a position to prepare final recommendations to be presented to the Programme Committee for consideration at its 94^th Session and, if agreed, for consideration and eventual approval at the 129^th Session of FAO’s Council in November 2005. Management will also submit a proposed work plan for review and endorsement by the Programme Committee at its 94^th Session, and identify the necessary internal arrangements to ensure the successful implementation of the agreed changes.

Management recommendations to strengthen the TCP

Recommendation 1: Management proposes that the Programme’s overall strategic direction be modified to focus more directly on the World Food Summit targets and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), consistent with FAO’s Strategic Framework and its commitment to the MDG process.

Recommendation 2: Members are invited to decide whether TCP resources should remain open to all member countries, and if not, which criteria should be applied to determine country eligibility. Members are also requested to indicate whether any conditions should be attached to country access to TCP resources.

Recommendation 3: Given the broad agreement on the value of strengthening TCP processes at the country level (in particular, the process through which requests are identified and prioritized by governments), Management recommends that a TCP priority-setting process, based on periodic purposive dialogue, and consistent with the Organization’s National Medium-Term Priority Framework for a country, be established as soon as possible.

Recommendation 4: Management recommends that emergency assistance be excluded from the TCP priority-setting process. Instead, an indicative figure to be established by Management, but initially equivalent to 17.5 percent of total TCP appropriation, should be earmarked every biennium to ensure the availability of sufficient resources to meet the probable level of emergency-related demands for technical assistance. This figure would be reviewed by Management each biennium, based on approval rates in recent biennia and taking account of resources committed to the Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities (SFERA).

Management recommends that the maximum financial ceiling for emergency projects be raised to US$500 000.

Management recommends that discretionary reimbursement to Major Programme 4.1 should be allowed in cases in which significant levels of extrabudgetary funding become available to the Organization following the initial use of TCP resources, and once appropriate mechanisms have been established.

Management recommends that given their specificity and particularity, emergency TCP projects be appraised according to a modified set of criteria, focusing on ensuring that the proposed technical assistance be catalytic and livelihood-orientated, and would result in strengthened capacities to withstand or respond to similar emergencies in the future without resorting to external assistance.

Recommendation 5: Where possible and practical, regional and interregional TCP projects should be requested by, and implemented through, established regional bodies, especially Regional Economic Organizations.

Recommendation 6: With respect to the focus and content of the criteria to be applied to non-emergency projects, Management recommends that:

– the maximum duration for all TCP projects be maintained at 24 months;

– projects be gender-sensitive, where appropriate;

– the upper financial ceiling for regional and interregional projects be raised to US$500 000 but the ceilings for the other types and categories of TCP project remain unchanged at US$400 000;

– the overall focus of TCP-supported technical assistance be broadened from the original focus on “production” to refer also to the reduction of food insecurity, hunger and poverty and brought in line with the World Food Summit targets and MDGs;

– “unprogrammed” be added to the criteria in order to ensure that no TCP resources be used to substitute funding that could be provided by other sources;

– the criterion that projects should address a “specific” problem be removed but that every request for TCP-supported technical assistance be built around the clear identification of a specific critical gap or need to be filled or resolved by the proposed technical assistance;

– “complement other development activities” be removed as a criterion, as the shift towards National Priority Frameworks and subsidiary TCP priority-setting process would render this criterion redundant;

– a new criterion be added to ensure that the request conforms to one of the priorities identified in the Organization’s National Priority Framework and TCP priority-setting process;

– attention be attached to the criterion of “no duplication” during the appraisal of requests, but, under exceptional and justified circumstances, TCP projects may be approved for follow-up activities;

– greater attention during appraisal be paid to ensuring that TCP projects have a “catalytic effect”; and

– all project requests require a clear indication of likely follow-up and/or the sustainability of project outcomes.

Recommendation 7: Management requests the guidance of the Programme Committee with regard to the continuing use of the TCP categories. If the Programme Committee agrees that they should be kept, Members are requested to provide further guidance on whether the current categories should be maintained in order to ensure the continuity of historical time series data, or whether they should be revised in order to reflect more accurately current uses and purposes.

Recommendation 8: A full independent evaluation should be undertaken every ten years to review the continued relevance and effectiveness of the Programme. The first independent evaluation should be completed by 2015 and should include particular focus on the TCP’s contribution to reaching the World Food Summit targets and MDGs.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

1. The mandate and context for this document were provided by the FAO Council and the Programme Committee. At its 125^th Session, Council recommended that a more programmatic approach to the Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) be explored and that the criteria and categories be adapted to the realities of the present time and agreed to “the initiation of a process to adapt [the Programme]... to evolving circumstances”.

2. At its 92^nd Session, the Programme Committee agreed with the poposed review process for the development of preliminary proposals for strengthening the TCP, and that it would consist of: (i) an internal consultation involving FAO’s technical departments, decentralized offices and FAO representations (FAORs); and (ii) an independent review involving governments and international development partners, to be undertaken by FAO’s Evaluation Service (PBEE).

3. At its 127th Session, Council endorsed the recommendations of the 92nd Session of the Programme Committee and:

“underscored its expectation that this TCP review process should be carried out in such a way as to contribute to further strengthening of the Programme, its adaptation to changing contexts, and the enhancement of its impact in Member Nations”.

B. THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS

4. In preparing this report, Management has considered the large number of proposals that emerged from the consultative process. These included inputs from 27 different units in FAO (including technical and operational divisions at FAO headquarters, regional offices and FAORs), a synthesis of recent thematic evaluations undertaken by PBEE and the report of the independent review, based on the findings of missions to 26 developing countries and consultations with selected multilateral and bilateral donors.²

5. The internal consultation and the independent review provided excellent platforms for the identification of preliminary proposals to strengthen the TCP. The former provided nine recommendations and the latter seventeen. Recommendations were broad in focus and covered strategic, policy, procedural and technical issues. Both sets of findings have been made available to Members of the Programme Committee.³

6. Both the internal consultation and the independent review underscored the continuing value and importance of the TCP as a tool for making FAO’s technical expertise available to governments in ways that are not possible through the Organization’s other Major Programmes, or readily available from other sources. The independent review therefore recommended that additional extrabudgetary resources be mobilized for the Programme if possible, a view that is fully endorsed by Management. In addition, there was a high level of agreement between both elements of the consultative process, and Management therefore accepts almost all of the major recommendations. The only significant difference concerned country eligibility: the independent review recommended that high-income countries should no longer be eligible for financial assistance through the Programme, while the internal consultation recommended that the Programme should remain open to all member countries, with priority given to low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs). Management, however, considers that it is not appropriate that it should take a position on this issue which lies entirely within the mandate of the Governing Bodies. In some instances, Management has made modifications to the recommendations, in which case explanations are provided in the document. The recommendations made in the consultative process have been consolidated into eight recommendations presented in boxes in Section III of this report and require guidance and decision by the Programme Committee. This process has also led to proposals for a number of actions which Management intends to implement to further strengthen TCP performance and impact: these are set out in bold italics in Section III of the report.

II. TCP TRENDS AND PERFORMANCE

7. Members of the Programme Committee have been provided with extensive information on TCP performance and delivery, including, inter alia, on the distribution of TCP resources according to geographical region, by category and in terms of linkages with the Organization’s other Major Programmes.⁴ Some of this information has been detailed in the most recent Programme Implementation Report (PIR).⁵ Nonetheless, Management would like to draw attention to the significant improvements in TCP approval levels and delivery that have taken place in the last two years, and to the recent increases in the level of resources approved for emergency TCP assistance (see Figure 1).

8. Figure 1 shows that the level of TCP approvals reached US$ 84.3 million in 2003 and US$ 77.6 million in 2004, the highest annual levels in the history of the Programme. Likewise, TCP delivery levels increased to US$ 65.4 million and US$ 70.3 million in 2003 and 2004, respectively, also the highest levels recorded since the establishment of the Programme.

9. These significant improvements have resulted from measures introduced by Management in direct responses to concerns raised by FAO’s Governing Bodies⁶ and the External Auditor⁷ regarding TCP performance, and in particular, the need to raise both TCP approval rates and TCP delivery. In 2004, Management adopted a further strategy in direct response to the recommendations of the External Auditor to maximize TCP approvals at the beginning of the biennium in order to ensure that as much of the TCP appropriation as possible was utilized during the same biennium in which the funds were made available, thereby reducing the amount of unspent funds carried forward to the following biennium. As a result, over 80 percent of the total biennium appropriation was approved between 1 January and 31 December 2004, meaning that only very limited amounts of TCP resources are available for approval during 2005.

10. While the levels of approval and delivery attained during 2003 and 2004 are not sustainable without an increase in the TCP appropriation, they did however, serve the purpose of absorbing the high level of TCP liquidity which had prompted the concern of the Finance Committee, in particular, at its 97^th and 99^th Sessions, and also the External Auditor.

Figure 1: TCP approvals and delivery, including emergency assistance, 2002-2004 (US$ million)⁸

Undisplayed Graphic

11. The figure also shows that there has been an increase in demand for emergency TCP assistance in recent years, in both absolute and relative terms. This has placed additional pressures on the Programme and has resulted in a corresponding reduction in the level of TCP resources available for non-emergency TCP assistance.

III. FINDINGS AND SECRETARIAT RECOMMENDATIONS

12. This section presents eight recommendations for the consideration of the Programme Committee and also notes actions that the Secretariat is committed to take in order to strengthen the management and performance of the TCP. Once the Programme Committee has provided guidance, Management will prepare final recommendations, including time frames and, if appropriate, budget implications, for consideration and approval at the 94^th Session, and final approval at the 129^th Session of the Council.

A. STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF TCP ASSISTANCE

13. Both the independent review and the internal consultation proposed that the strategic focus of the Programme should be sharpened in order to ensure that it was better able to respond to changes in the external environment and to FAO’s Strategic Framework. Likewise, Management recognizes that growing budgetary pressures make it increasingly important to demonstrate in a clear and transparent manner that all resources committed through the Programme represent the most effective and efficient way of making the Organization’s technical and financial resources available to governments, in response to their requests for technical assistance. The aim of the Programme should be to ensure the best possible synergy between country needs and priorities on the one hand, and the technical expertise and capacity of the Organization, on the other.

14. The World Food Summit targets and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) help define the overall development context in which the Organization’s Strategic Framework and Medium-Term Plan are set. Management therefore proposes that the Programme’s overall goal should be focussed more explicitly, though not exclusively, on the World Food Summit targets and the MDGs, whilst making direct reference to the Strategic Framework, and that this revised strategic focus be reflected in the criteria used to determine eligibility of TCP requests.

Recommendation 1

Management proposes that the Programme’s overall strategic direction be modified to focus more directly on the World Food Summit targets and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), consistent with FAO’s Strategic Framework and its commitment to the MDG process.

B. COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY

15. The Programme Committee requested Management to furnish further information on which to base its consideration of the question of country eligibility for TCP resources. In considering this issue it is important to recall that when the TCP was established in 1976, it was intended to serve “developing countries”. In 1991, the FAO Conference agreed that the Programme should be open to all member countries, and this has remained the guiding principle. Table 1 indicates the share of total approved TCP budgets that has been received by different country groupings and categories between the start of 2000 and the end of 2004. The data exclude regional and interregional TCP projects. The table shows that the 84 LIFDCs have received almost 67 percent of TCP approved budgets, whilst 25 economies in transition and 42 small island developing states have received 8 percent and 14 percent, respectively. High-income countries have received less than one percent of approved TCP budgets and upper-middle income countries have received over 11 percent.

Table 1 – Total approved TCP budgets received by different country groupings and classifications 2000-2004⁹

	Source of classification used	Number of countries	Number of TCP projects	Approved budget US$ m	Percentage of total budget
Low-income food-deficit countries	FAO	84	899	167.9	66.8
Least developed countries	UN	50	563	99.3	39.5
Small island developing states	UN	42	224	34.1	13.6
Economies in transition	FAO	25	106	20.8	8.3
High-income countries	IDA	36	24	2.4	0.9
Upper-middle income countries	IDA	34	203	29.4	11.7
Lower-middle income countries	IDA	52	479	84.9	33.8
Low-income countries	IDA	61	716	132.7	52.8

Recommendation 2

Members are invited to decide whether TCP resources should remain open to all member countries, and if not, which criteria should be applied to determine country eligibility. Members are also requested to indicate whether any conditions should be attached to country access to TCP resources.

C. STRENGTHENING TCP PROCESSES AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL

TCP priority-setting process

16. Both the independent review and the internal consultation agreed that the TCP should be linked, to the greatest extent practical, to national planning processes and related agricultural development programmes while maintaining the degree of flexibility necessary to ensure that the Programme would continue to respond to demands from government for assistance in overcoming critical gaps and problems.

17. The independent review also noted that individual TCP projects tended to have a stronger impact when their identification, formulation and implementation were integrated into the coordination mechanisms used by governments and donors to set priorities. It was concluded that integration into these mechanisms heightened the likelihood that the TCP project outputs would be achieved, sustained and acted upon by government or other development partners.

18. This conclusion reinforced findings that some of the dissatisfaction with the TCP expressed by stakeholders at the country level relates to the manner in which projects are identified, prioritized and formulated. In many countries, there are no formal systems in place for coordinating and prioritizing TCP requests which are submitted to the Organization on an ad hoc “first come, first served” basis. Furthermore, it was noted that some TCP requests are directly generated by FAO technical officers, with insufficient government involvement or ownership. In a number of countries, there was a feeling amongst both governments and donors that there was scope to further harmonize the TCP with the approaches of other donors and to ensure that TCP-supported projects correspond to priorities outlined in either government Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) or the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). Both the independent review and the internal consultation concluded that there would be benefits from planning the use of TCP resources in a more systematic manner at the country level (i.e. priority setting, identification, ranking and selection of TCPs) and ensuring that they are embedded far more firmly in country processes and frameworks.

19. There was overall agreement in the consultative process that enhanced dialogue with all relevant government ministries and other stakeholders would contribute to the stronger and more strategic identification of priority areas for FAO assistance in general, and TCP-supported technical assistance in particular. It was also acknowledged that, given the relatively limited amount of TCP resources available for a country, any planning process should not be unduly elaborate and must have low transaction costs for both government and FAO. Two main options were set forth on how this should be undertaken.

20. The independent review proposed the establishment of a relatively formalized “country-specific priority framework” for the TCP, very much in line with the recommendations made by the Independent Evaluation of FAO’s Decentralization, regarding the creation of national priority frameworks that would indicate a broad direction for FAO activities to serve the needs of the country. The independent review emphasized that the introduction of country priority frameworks for the TCP should not lead to the establishment of comprehensive country programmes, plans or lists of projects. Rather, it should identify those areas of priority in which FAO’s technical expertise would most usefully serve the needs and priorities of governments especially in relation to the eradication of hunger and poverty. It was further suggested that the framework should be formally approved every two years by the Organization (for example, by the Programme and Project Review Committee [PPRC]). It was suggested that this type of framework would assist countries to more clearly articulate their needs and their changing circumstances, and outline and prioritize TCP-supported technical assistance in a more strategic manner, based on the convergence between national priorities (including for example, the PRSand MDGs) and FAO’s Strategic Framework. It was also suggested that it would contribute to clear expectations regarding the scope and scale of likely TCP-supported technical assistance in the future, thereby strengthening planning by both government and FAO.

21. The internal consultation also called for better priority setting but proposed to establish a less formalized and more flexible country priority-setting process, specifically for the use of TCP resources. As with the previous option, this would provide the basis for purposeful dialogue between governments and FAO and between government ministries and departments, to identify the broad areas in which FAO’s technical expertise could be most usefully and effectively mobilized. This too, would provide the basis for the identification of specific requests for TCP assistance, maximize the strategic value of each request and help ensure that every TCP request is embedded in local needs and priorities. The proposed priority-setting process would enable agreement in principle to be forged between FAO and government on an annual or biennial basis in those areas in which TCP assistance would most usefully be provided. The emphasis here is on government ownership. For this reason, there should be no formal “approval” of any outputs of the process within the Organization. The priority areas identified, for example, could be summarized in an exchange of letters, or a letter of intent, that would provide a foundation for the identification of the specific requests for TCP-supported technical assistance. Should new and unforeseen problems and needs emerge during the biennium, and be strongly supported by the government, they would be inserted as an addendum to the letter of intent, provided that they represented a strategic use of TCP resources in support of the government’s efforts to eradicate hunger and poverty.

22. Management has addressed the issue of broader priority-setting at country level in its response to the Independent Evaluation of FAO’s Decentralization. It has agreed to develop National Medium-Term Priority Frameworks, initially on a pilot basis, that will flexibly define FAO priorities in a country in support to national strategies, including PRS’s and national food security strategies developed with FAO assistance. Management proposes that the frameworks would be rolling in nature, and would not be considered plans or programmes, but should identify intended outcomes. Whilst Management believes that this approach is appropriate for defining the direction of FAO’s overall activities in a country, it considers that the responsive and demand-driven character of the TCP requires that whilst the TCP priority-setting process should be fully embedded within the National Medium-Term Priority Frameworks, it should be undertaken through a subsidiary, but distinct, process of consultation between FAO and government. For this reason, Management sees the need for frequent purposive dialogue between governments and the Organization, usually represented by the FAOR, to identify specific priorities for TCP assistance in a country that would be both responsive to the specific needs of government for technical assistance and consistent with the overall National Priority Framework. This would ensure that whilst the TCP priority-setting process would be consistent with the National Medium-Term Priority Framework, the specific demand-driven, responsive and flexible character of the Programme would be maintained.

23. The independent review drew attention to the importance for the Organization of building partnerships and alliances with the private sector and NGOs, and civil society in general. Management believes that the creation of TCP country priority-setting processes will also provide a basis for exploring opportunities for setting-up and strengthening partnerships, and in this regard, recommends that further information be made available to governments (and FAORs) regarding existing guidelines and policies for working with civil society, in particular, NGOs and the private sector in the context of the TCP.

24. Following the guidance of the Programme Committee, Management will define procedures and processes to support these proposals. In particular, Management will identify the principal stakeholders to be involved at the country level, the type and scope of FAO involvement, and the nature of the agreement regarding TCP priorities. In this regard, it may be necessary to refer to the outcomes of other related processes in the Organization and consult further with decentralized offices and FAORs.

Recommendation 3

Given the broad agreement on the value of strengthening TCP processes at the country level (in particular, the process through which requests are identified and prioritized by governments), Management recommends that a TCP priority-setting process, based on periodic purposive dialogue, and consistent with the Organization’s National Medium-Term Priority Framework for a country, be established as soon as possible.

Indicative country allocations

25. The independent review underscored the importance and value of providing governments with a clear indication of the approximate level of resources that could be assigned to their country for TCP-supported assistance on an annual or biennial basis, as this would strengthen TCP-related planning by both governments and the Organization. The independent review also recognized the need to establish transparent criteria for the allocation of TCP resources between countries and to communicate these criteria to all members.

26. The independent review proposed that individual country allocations be determined on the basis of need and would therefore vary between eligible countries. It suggested that individual country allocations be proportional to, or at least reflect to a significant degree, the level of hunger and poverty, thereby favouring countries with large numbers of poor and hungry people who are dependent on agriculture. This would constitute a radical departure from current allocation mechanisms, which are driven firstly by demand from governments, and secondly, in part, by equity considerations with regard to the Organization’s Members (e.g. by giving priority to TCP requests from countries which have not received TCP support previously in the biennium).

27. Management believes that it would be difficult to reach agreement on the criteria to be taken into account for determining country allocations, in particular, whether allocations should be based solely on indicators of country need, and if so, which ones, and whether institutional and policy performance should also be included in the calculation of country allocations. Management also considers that it would be difficult to identify a methodology for applying allocation criteria objectively and in a timely manner. The Programme has relatively limited resources in terms of the average amount of funding available to individual countries: consequently, any system of differential allocation would inevitably involve only relatively small variations between countries on an annual or biennial basis. Management does not consider that it would be practical, technically feasible or prudent to introduce indicative country allocations at the present time and in this respect, recalls the decision of the 26th Session of the Conference in regard to a proposal to introduce a system of indicative country allocations under the TCP, whereby Members of Conference:

“underlined the importance attached to the qualities of flexibility and responsiveness which have distinguished the TCP since its inception. They felt that the proposal would result in negative effects, including potential divisiveness among the recipients of TCP assistance...”

Delegated authority to FAORs

28. Both the independent review and the internal consultation agreed that FAORs should be given more authority in relation to TCP-related processes and assume a more proactive role, especially in contributing to the planning, identification and implementation of TCP projects. The independent review recommended that FAORs should be delegated complete authority to approve TCP projects within certain approved budget levels (e.g. less than US$ 100 000) as well as to approve budget revisions within pre-defined limits. In contrast, however, whilst highlighting the need for increased FAOR responsibility, the internal consultation proposed that no further approval authority be delegated to FAORs. This view was affirmed by some FAORs (but not all) during the internal consultation, bearing in mind the level of technical resources available to FAORs, the nature of their current engagement in relevant processes at the national level and the need to protect their capacity to withstand undue pressures from counterpart institutions.

29. Management recognizes that the question of delegated authority cannot be addressed without reference to broader organizational issues linked to decentralization, and that it therefore falls largely beyond the scope of the TCP review process. Moreover, it was widely recognized during the consultative process that in order to have enhanced roles, greater responsibility and authority, FAORs would have to be given the necessary financial, technical and informational resources. As a result, and in line with its response to the Independent Evaluation of FAO’s Decentralization, Management proposes to make greater use of the TCP Facility as the main instrument through which to raise the level of authority delegated to FAORs in relation to the TCP.¹⁰ It concludes that the ceiling on a specific set of activities funded by the TCP Facility should therefore be increased from US$ 15 000 to US$ 25 000. In line with the recommendation of the independent review, Management also proposes that FAORs be delegated full authority to approved activities under the Facility up to a total approved budget of US$ 100 000 per biennium, within established guidelines and in line with the priorities identified in the proposed National Priority Frameworks, as and when they are established.

30. Management endorses the recommendations of both the independent review and the internal consultation that the TCP Facility should be made more flexible, in order to permit, for example, the funding of international expertise. This would provide FAORs with a valuable capacity to respond rapidly to valid needs and requests and would raise their overall involvement in TCP-related processes. It would also help ensure that the TCP benefits from and contributes to partnerships and alliances for FAO, in line with the Strategic Framework. This would leave existing approval processes in place for all other types of TCP projects.

31. Management will put into place measures to enable FAORs to engage more actively and responsibly with governments and other development partners in the identification and planning of priority areas for TCP-supported assistance and the implementation of TCP activities. In particular, Management will seek to give FAORs full authority to approve use of the TCP Facility, which would be increased to a maximum biennial allocation of US$ 100 000 per country, with a maximum of US$ 25 000 for any distinct set of activities or subprojects. Within Major Programme 4.1, funds earmarked for the TCP Facility would be increased accordingly.

Emergency assistance

32. Both the independent review and the internal consultation confirmed that the TCP is an important element of the Organization’s capacity to respond to natural and human-induced emergencies in a timely and effective manner.

33. Emergency assistance creates special funding requirements, in particular: the need to undertake rapid needs assessment; the capacity to provide an early indication of future commitment; the ability to disburse funds and other inputs very quickly to emergency-affected areas; and the demand for flexible implementation arrangements that permit changes in focus and scope as needs become better identified and as coordination increases between development partners. Recent experiences have also shown that for certain types of unfolding emergencies (e.g. desert locusts, avian flu) early action through the TCP can save large amounts of resources at a later stage.

34. There was broad agreement on the importance of the TCP for emergencies, but both the independent review and the internal consultation recognized that that there was scope for change to ensure that TCP resources are harnessed in the best possible way. A number of proposals were made, including:

Modified category – the internal consultation proposed that the “emergency category” should be broadened to “emergencies and rehabilitation” in order to better reflect the range of FAO’s emergency-related activities.
Raised budget ceiling – the independent review recommended that the financial ceiling for emergency projects be raised to US$ 500 000. Management supports this suggestion.
Stronger focus on catalytic technical assistance – both the independent review and the internal consultation proposed that TCP support move away from an emphasis on providing inputs such as seeds, fertilizer and equipment and concentrate more explicitly on the provision of technical expertise, for example: needs assessment missions and setting-up emergency coordination units, since these can open the way for the mobilization of extrabudgetary resources. It was recognized that in some instances, owing to either strategic considerations or the specific nature of an emergency, inputs provided by some emergency TCPs may continue to be focused on seeds, fertilizer, equipment and the like, but that, at least in major complex emergencies, FAO’s comparative advantage lies in its ability to field competent and experienced technical expertise in a timely manner.
TCP emergency assistance in the context of the Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities (SFERA)¹¹ – the internal consultation made a range of proposals regarding the need to establish a clear relationship and demarcation of roles and responsibilities between the TCP and SFERA. Management also recognizes that if, as intended, SFERA grows significantly, this would take the pressure off TCP for emergency projects and would permit a larger proportion of TCP resources to be allocated to non-emergency projects.¹² Management therefore believes that TCP emergency assistance should focus on: (i) supporting emergencies where SFERA was unlikely to become involved (e.g. very limited likelihood of future donor support); and (ii) providing initial contributions to emergencies in instances in which SFERA resources were not immediately available, but with a likelihood of future SFERA resources.
Discretionary reimbursement – in cases in which significant amounts of extrabudgetary funding are subsequently provided by donors, and when it is deemed appropriate, Management proposes to explore mechanisms for the discretionary reimbursement of the resources made available through the TCP, in essence, a reimbursement to the TCP Major Programme 4.1, to be used for further TCP projects.
Separate criteria – given the very specific character of TCP-supported emergency assistance, it was proposed that the eligibility of requests should be governed by a separate set of criteria. This would, inevitably, mean a significant degree of overlap with the main criteria. Given the extreme time pressures often associated with this type of request, Management proposes that the criteria concentrate on the following three characteristics:

catalytic – emergency and rehabilitation technical assistance provided through the TCP should increase the likelihood of additional donor and/or government resources being directed to immediate relief and longer-term rehabilitation;
livelihood-orientated – emergency and rehabilitation technical assistance provided through the TCP should be directed explicitly at restoring the livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable households affected by the emergency, particularly female-headed households. The requested technical assistance should aim, where appropriate and possible, to reduce the vulnerability of emergency-affected households in the future, for example, through contributing to effective early warning systems, more diverse livelihood strategies and increased resilience to future shocks and emergencies;
capacity building – emergency and rehabilitation technical assistance provided through the TCP should increase the capacity of the government and affected communities and households to either withstand, or respond to, similar shocks in the future, without resorting to external assistance.

Separate procedures – given the critical importance of ensuring a timely response, both the internal consultation and the independent review proposed that further effort be made to ensure the timely approval of requests for emergency assistance. This would include the increased use of broadly defined project templates for major categories of emergency that would enable the rapid approval of projects and allow for the more precise definition of work plans and input requirements during the early stages of project implementation.

35. Management will streamline procedures in support of emergency and rehabilitation, in particular to facilitate timely approval and flexible implementation, by increased use of project templates.

Recommendation 4

Management recommends that emergency assistance be excluded from the TCP priority-setting process. Instead, an indicative figure to be established by Management, but initially equivalent to 17.5 percent of total TCP appropriation, should be earmarked every biennium to ensure the availability of sufficient resources to meet the probable level of emergency-related demands for technical assistance. This figure would be reviewed by Management each biennium, based on approval rates in recent biennia and taking account of resources committed to SFERA.

Management recommends that the maximum financial ceiling for emergency projects be raised to US$ 500 000.

D. REGIONAL AND INTERREGIONAL TCP PROJECTS

36. During the last five years, regional and interregional TCP projects have accounted for approximately 15 percent of total approved TCP budgets, excluding advance allocations and TCP Facilities (see Table 2 below).

Table 2 – Allocation of TCP resources to national, regional and interregional TCP projects, 2000-2004

	2002		2003		2004		Total 2002-2004
	Approved budget US$ m	Percent of total	Approved budget US$ m	Percent of total	Approved budget US$ m	Percent of total	Approved budget US$ m	Percent of total
National TCPs	49.4	87	74.2	89	60.8	79	184.4	85.4
Regional TCPs	6.5	12	8.0	10	12.5	16	27.0	12.5
Interregional TCPs	0.3	1	1.4	1	3.9	5	5.6	2.1

37. Two broad perceptions emerged from the consultation regarding regional projects. The independent review expressed the opinion that regional and interregional TCP projects were frequently characterized by a low degree of national ownership, often being driven by FAO technical officers. In contrast, the internal consultation highlighted many advantages of regional TCP projects as vehicles for addressing issues which are common to several countries (e.g. agricultural land consolidation in Eastern and Central Europe ), or are of a transboundary nature (e.g. livestock disease control).

38. Based on comments made by both the independent review and the internal consultation, Management proposes that regional TCP projects should be requested by, and implemented through, strong regional bodies to the greatest extent feasible, whilst recognizing that in some cases it may not be possible to identify an appropriate regional body.

Recommendation 5

Where possible and practical, regional and interregional TCP projects should be requested by, and implemented through, established regional bodies, especially Regional Economic Organizations.

E. TCP CRITERIA

39. The eligibility of requests for TCP-supported technical assistance is determined according to the criteria that have been agreed upon by FAO’s Governing Bodies (see Annex 1). They are the principal tool with which the Secretariat appraises project proposals. Once finalized, but prior to final approval and signature, all TCP project proposals are also reviewed by the PPRC to ensure their compliance with the general orientation and policies of the Organization.

40. There was broad agreement on the continuing need for criteria as a basis for determining the eligibility of requests for support through the TCP. Two broad sets of issues were highlighted: (i) content and focus of criteria; and (ii) application of the criteria.

Content and focus of criteria

41. Many proposals were made in both the independent review and the internal consultation regarding possible changes to the current criteria, including the elimination or strengthening of existing criteria or the addition of new criteria. There was agreement on many of the proposed changes. With the exception of the independent review’s proposal to extend the maximum duration of TCP projects, Management accepts all the recommendations and proposals for change.

Criteria to be modified and/or strengthened

Project duration – both the independent review and the internal consultation agreed that it was no longer useful to indicate a preference for TCP projects with a duration of one to three months. In addition, the independent review proposed that the maximum duration of TCP projects be increased to 36 months, based on the view that 24 months was insufficient for the increasingly complex and multidisciplinary nature of many projects, as evidenced by what was perceived to be an increase in the number of TCP projects being extended to a second phase. Further analysis by the Secretariat however, indicates that the majority of the delays that lead to Phase II projects are the result of externally induced implementation delays (e.g. conflict and insecurity, and natural disasters) which are not inherent to the design of the project per se. Management also notes that an extension in the maximum duration of TCP projects beyond 24 months would require amendments to the Financial Regulations to enable unspent funds in the Programme to be carried forward to three years after the close of the biennium in which the funds were made available. Furthermore, Management considers that further opening up the Programme to longer-term forms of technical assistance could also weaken its primary focus on activities that generate rapid and timely results.
Critical gap – both the independent review and the internal consultation highlighted that effective TCP project design and implementation are strongly linked to the prior identification of a distinct critical gap to be filled by a project. Management strongly endorses this view.
Financial ceiling – the internal consultation proposed that the upper financial ceiling for regional and interregional projects be raised to US$ 500 000 and as noted above (see Recommendation 4), the independent review proposed that the upper financial ceiling for emergency projects also be raised to US$ 500 000. Management accepts both sets of proposals. Management shares the views of both the independent review and the internal consultation that there is no need to raise the ceiling of non-emergency national TCP projects as the majority can be accommodated within the existing financial ceiling.
No duplication – current criteria emphasize that TCP projects cannot duplicate other ongoing or previous development activities financed by the TCP. The criterion concerning the question of duplication has been used to filter out project requests that follow on previous TCP projects in order to ensure that government resources rather than those of FAO are used to cover the costs of assuring the sustainability of the outcomes of previous TCP-supported projects. Both the independent review and the internal consultation underscored that this criterion should not constitute a blanket restriction on the approval of new TCP projects on topics and sectors that have been the focus of previous TCP projects. Instead, it should be the basis for critical reflection on whether the requested technical assistance should be provided by other sources, either from inside or outside government, or whether it is the direct consequence of the incomplete follow-up of previous TCP projects. Management endorses this revised focus.
Catalytic effect – it has long been stressed, and was reiterated by both the independent review and the internal consultation, that in many instances TCP projects should be used to stimulate or catalyse additional processes and outcomes, especially the mobilization of additional resources. Management strongly endorses this view.
Follow-up and sustainability – both the independent review and the internal consultation stressed the importance of ensuring that TCP-supported technical assistance lead to sustainable outcomes. The rigorous application of this criterion contributes to greater efficiency in the use of the Organization’s scarce financial resources by requiring a clear indication of government commitment to project outcomes. Management therefore recommends that the appraisal of projects should require an explicit indication of the intended follow-up and the sustainability of project outcomes, and that a means for ensuring follow-up be defined in the project document.

Criteria to be removed and/or replaced

Production focus – it was widely recognized throughout the consultative process that an exclusive focus on ensuring that TCP projects led to production-related benefits was inconsistent with FAO’s evolving mandate, in particular, the increased emphasis on food security and the eradication of hunger and rural poverty. Management therefore proposes that this criterion be replaced with a new criterion reflecting the revised strategic focus of the Programme that has been proposed above.
Unforeseen – both the independent review and the internal consultation proposed that the criterion requiring that all requests should respond to “unforeseen” needs and problems should be eliminated as it did not reflect the real nature of the vast majority of requests. On the other hand, Management recognizes that in reality, this criterion has been used to ensure that governments and FAO technical divisions do not “programme” TCP resources for specific problems well in advance on the assumption that they will be provided. As a result, Management proposes that this criterion be replaced by a new one that would focus specifically on the requirement that requests for TCP assistance should remain essentially “unprogrammed” in terms of government, FAO and donor activities and programmes (see below).
Urgent – it was also recognized in the consultative process that the criterion that a request should be “urgent” does not provide an objective basis for determining eligibility. Management notes that urgency has usually been interpreted in terms of the temporal relationship between the problem that is to be resolved and the assistance that is to provided, namely, that a request refer to technical assistance that can only be provided by the TCP in the time frame required. Management therefore proposes that this criterion be replaced by a new one that focuses directly on the time-bound nature of the requested technical assistance.
Specific – the notion of “specificity” has been used to encourage project proposals directed at distinct and clearly defined action that leads to equally clear outputs. This has been interpreted as a way of ensuring that the problems identified can be readily resolved through targeted TCP assistance. Nonetheless, the internal consultation noted that this term was open to varied interpretation and proposed that this criterion be removed. Management endorses this proposal.
Complement other development activities – the independent review noted that the shift towards national priority frameworks would render this criterion redundant, as it would be supposed that all new requests would be linked to, or consistent with, other development activities in the agricultural and rural development sectors. Management agrees with the independent review and proposes that this criterion be removed.

New criteria to be added

Direct contribution to the eradication of hunger and rural poverty – in line with the recommendations of both the independent review and the internal consultation, Management proposes that the overall focus of TCP-supported technical assistance be broadened from the original focus on “production” to refer also to the reduction of food insecurity, hunger and poverty and in line with the World Food Summit targets and MDGs. Whilst this would not reduce the range and scope of TCP projects that are currently undertaken, it would require that the impact of the requested technical assistance on the livelihoods of food-insecure and poor households be identified.
Gender focus – in line with the Organization’s policy on ensuring that gender-sensitive perspectives and approaches are mainstreamed in all programmes, projects and activities, the independent review proposed that, except where this is not relevant, appraisal would ensure that all TCP projects be built around gender-sensitive design and methodologies. Management endorses this recommendation.
In line with country priorities – It would be necessary for all new requests for TCP-supported technical assistance to be consistent with the broad areas identified in the National Priority Frameworks and in line with the various priorities identified in the TCP priority-setting process.
Unprogrammed – The importance of the unprogrammed character of the TCP has been underscored by the Programme Committee and other FAO Governing Bodies, and was reiterated during the consultative process, in particular, in the internal consultation. The proposed criterion refers to the requirement that TCP resources should not substitute for core funding of an existing programme of FAO, governments or other international development partners. Management therefore proposes the addition of a new criterion ensuring that TCP resources are channelled exclusively towards resolving problems and critical gaps for which no alternative sources of funding are readily available.
Time-bound – in line with the recommendation of the internal consultation - Management recognizes the need for a more precise definition of urgency, and proposes that a criterion be introduced that requires clear confirmation that the requested technical assistance is required within a specified time frame and that there is no possibility of mobilizing other financial resources during the same period.

Recommendation 6

With respect to the focus and content of the criteria to be applied to non-emergency projects, Management recommends that:

the maximum duration for all TCP projects be maintained at 24 months;
projects be gender-sensitive, where appropriate;
the upper financial ceiling for regional and interregional projects and for emergency projects be raised to US$500 000 but the ceilings for the other types and categories of TCP project remain unchanged at US$400 000;
the overall focus of TCP-supported technical assistance be broadened from the original focus on “production” to refer also to the reduction of food insecurity, hunger and poverty and brought in line with the World Food Summit targets and MDGs;
“unprogrammed” be added in order to ensure that no TCP resources be used to substitute funding that could be provided by other sources;
the criterion that projects should address a “specific” problem be removed but that every request for TCP-supported technical assistance be built around the clear identification of a specific critical gap or need to be filled or resolved by the proposed technical assistance;
“complement other development activities” be removed as a criterion, as the shift towards National Priority Frameworks and subsidiary TCP priority-setting process would render this criterion redundant;
a new criterion be added to ensure that the request conforms to one of the priorities identified in the Organization’s National Priority Framework and TCP priority-setting process;
attention be attached to the criterion of “no duplication” during the appraisal of requests, but, under exceptional and justified circumstances, TCP projects may be approved for follow-up activities;
greater attention during appraisal be paid to ensuring that TCP projects have a “catalytic effect”; and
all project requests require a clear indication of likely follow-up and/or the sustainability of project outcomes.

Application of the criteria

42. Strong calls were made in the independent review and internal consultation to increase transparency with regard to the application of the criteria, to apply them in a fair, objective and consistent manner, and to ensure that information regarding the appraisal of requests is made available to all FAO and government stakeholders.

43. Following guidance provided by the Programme Committee on any revisions to the TCP criteria, Management will ensure that the criteria are presented and applied in a fair, objective and consistent manner, with appraisal results made available to all FAO and government stakeholders in a clear and timely fashion.

F. TCP CATEGORIES

44. There are seven TCP categories approved by Governing Bodies: advisory services (A); intercountry cooperation (C); assistance to development (D); emergency (E); formulation and programming missions (F); investment (I); and training (T).¹³ Every approved TCP project is classified against one or more categories. Categories are primarily used as a basis for providing time-series information to Management and FAO’s Governing Bodies on the evolving purposes to which TCP resources are directed, and for subsequent reporting.

45. The consultative process indicated that the original function of the categories, to identify the possible purposes to which TCP resources can be directed, is no longer of particular importance. The independent review suggested that the introduction of new approaches to TCP priority setting at the country level would render the current categories redundant and that they should be replaced by two categories: (i) emergency projects; and (ii) development projects. On the other hand, the internal consultation recognized the continuing value of categories as a basis for reporting on the purposes for which TCP resources are applied, and therefore recommended that they should be retained, and proposed a number of possible revisions to the existing categories in order to ensure that they provide governments and Management with the best guide to the different purposes to which TCP assistance is directed. The proposed new categories included:

Policy support and development – projects in this category would provide governments with technical assistance to facilitate the formulation and implementation of sectoral and subsectoral policies, programmes and legal reforms.
Institution strengthening – projects in this category would build the necessary technical capacity within institutions that lack the capacity required to fulfil certain key functions or to overcome new problems or constraints.
Investment project formulation – projects in this category would focus on providing governments with the technical expertise to seize opportunities for mobilizing additional investment for the agricultural or rural development sectors from the private sector or international donors.
Innovation – this type of assistance would provide governments with technical expertise for piloting or testing new and innovative technical approaches or institutional arrangements to reduce poverty and eliminate hunger. TCP assistance of this type would only be considered in instances in which there was a clear indication of the interest in, and need for, the proposed innovation and where there was a clear expectation of the necessary follow-up and support to be provided by governments and/or donors to ensure the sustainability of project outcomes.
Programme up-scaling – this type of project would be used to provide technical guidance on how to up-scale a local or pilot activity or would provide the initial institutional capacity building necessary to ensure that the up-scaling process can begin.
Partnership and network building – this category of project would be used to provide technical assistance to help establish the partnerships and networks that are critical to overcome hunger and poverty, or to ensure their sustainability.
Emergencies and rehabilitation – this category of project would be used to provide basic inputs for restarting production, processing and rural artisan activities, control crop and livestock pests and diseases, and contribute to the immediate re-establishment of agricultural infrastructure in instances in which SFERA resources would not be made available or where they are expected to become available in the future. It would also provide necessary technical assistance, logistic support and capacity building where required. Projects in this category could also be used to undertake preliminary needs assessments and cover the costs of establishing in-country emergency coordination units, including the costs of an emergency coordinator, when no other resources are available (e.g. from SFERA). These projects could also provide technical assistance in support of longer-term rehabilitation projects.

46. Management supports the recommendation that the categories be maintained as a tool for reporting on TCP use. In making this proposal, Management recognizes that it is very difficult to propose a satisfactory list of new categories, given the range and variety of the different types of technical assistance provided. For reporting purposes, Management recognizes that changing the categories would interrupt the flow of time-series data. It notes that the number of categories should be limited to a maximum of eight, if their reporting value is to be maintained. Management also recalls that TCP projects increasingly cover a range of different purposes and objectives, and hence it would be appropriate to classify projects by both major and subsidiary categories. Management therefore requests guidance from the Programme Committee.

Recommendation 7

Management requests the guidance of the Programme Committee with regard to the continuing use of the TCP categories. If the Programme Committee agrees that they should be kept, Members are requested to provide further guidance on whether the current categories should be maintained in order to ensure the continuity of historical time series data, or whether they should be revised in order to reflect more accurately current uses and purposes.

G. TCP PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

47. Considerable efforts have been made over the past two years to improve TCP-related procedures, and their impact is reflected in the higher rates of project approvals and deliveries that were attained in 2003/04, as noted earlier.

48. These improvements have resulted from a wide range of deliberate measures implemented by Management, which have included streamlining TCP procedures, responding to the recommendations of the External Auditor,¹⁴ continuing training initiatives, extending the use of FPMIS, and overall improvements in both the performance of budget holders and operations units as a result of ongoing decentralization.

49. Both the independent review and the internal consultation proposed a number of measures and action to further improve TCP approval and delivery and to enhance overall programme efficiency and impact. Management will continue to identify opportunities for further streamlining TCP procedures and processes.

50. Management will therefore ensure that the necessary steps are taken to:

revise the TCP guidelines to respond to the recommendations endorsed by the Programme Committee;
expand training for FAO technical staff in project design and formulation;
take further steps to accelerate project approval, such as:

expanding the use of template project designs not only for emergency projects but also for projects which are repeated in several countries in more or less similar ways;
increasing use of post-approval inception missions to finalize project designs and work plans, including, if necessary, proposing budget revisions;

further improve delivery by:

increasing delegation to budget holders for budget revisions, including greater flexibility between budget lines;
increasing use of international consultants in the delivery of technical support services (TSS) on behalf of technical divisions, where these have limited response capacity by their own staff;

raise transparency in the processing of TCP requests by increasing the availability of information on project pipeline and approval status and project appraisals to FAORs and recipient governments through expanding the range of data accessible through FPMIS.

Co-financing

51. The FAO Council has highlighted the possibility of using TCP resources in the context of co-financing. Both the independent review and the internal consultation recommended opening up the TCP to the possibility of co-financing to a far greater extent than at present. It was recognized that lack of clarity on how TCP can be used for co-financing creates situations in which the Organization is unable to seize opportunities for collaboration with development partners, an issue emphasized by the independent review.

52. Management has reviewed the proposals made by the independent review and the internal consultation in detail. It notes that at present there is no fundamental block on the provision of TCP-supported technical assistance in the context of a multidonor initiative, as long as TCP criteria are met. Joint financing (in which different donors contribute collectively to the overall costs of a single activity) is not eligible for TCP-supported activities. However, parallel co-funding (in which donors each contribute to separate and identifiable elements of an overall activity) is possible, as long as it can be demonstrated that the request is eligible in its own right for TCP assistance according to the agreed criteria and is supported by the concerned government.

53. However, while noting that the use of TCP resources for co-financing is feasible, Management considers that it is an Organization-wide issue rather than a TCP-specific one and that it is inappropriate to visit the issue solely in the context of the TCP. Moreover, at its 93^rd Session, the Programme Committee will consider the proposal to undertake an evaluation of the cross-organizational strategy on leveraging resources for FAO and its Members. It is expected that this evaluation, should it take place, would examine the issue of co-financing from a broader corporate perspective.

54. As a result, Management does not propose any change at present with regard to the use of TCP resources in the context of co-financing.

55. In order to provide greater clarity and increase understanding, Management will provide all stakeholders with information on the conditions in which TCP resources can be used for co-financing. In the case of a future shift in broader Organization policy on co-financing, Management will ensure that TCP procedures are modified accordingly.

H. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF FOLLOW-UP, SECRETARIAT CONSULTATION AND PERIODIC INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

56. Based on the inputs provided from the internal consultation and independent review, Management has made proposals regarding: (i) the need to monitor the impact of TCP projects more systematically; (ii) the value of periodic auto-evaluation; and (iii) the importance of independent evaluation as a basis for ensuring that the Programme is responsive to changes in global, regional and national trends and changes within FAO.

Impact assessment and monitoring of follow-up

57. The consultative process noted that although final reports are issued by the Organization for each TCP project, there are no formal mechanisms in place for the systematic assessment of the impact of individual TCP projects or for monitoring the level and type of follow-up activities that result from TCP-supported technical assistance. Information on impact and follow-up could provide an important source of feedback to strengthen future TCP project design, and serve as a basis for determining the sustainability of TCP project outcomes.

58. On the other hand, Management notes that impact assessments can be costly and time-consuming, and are not always accurate due to the difficulties in attributing changes to specific TCP interventions rather than to broader national processes. As they necessarily must take place after the end of project activities, complications could arise regarding the availability of project budgets for impact assessments.

59. The independent review offered proposals to improve the level of reporting at the end of TCP projects, noting that a large number of TCP terminal reports are submitted late. The independent review linked this to the broader issue of ensuring that TCP projects play a catalytic role with well conceived follow-up activities. In this regard, it proposed that FAORs should have the main responsibility for ensuring the preparation of terminal reports (as opposed to the Organization’s technical divisions at present) and that follow-up discussions with government and potential partners should be a mandatory part of the process. In considering these proposals, Management agrees that there is a need to ensure that terminal reports are useful and made available in a timely manner. On the other hand, it is important to maintain a distinction between the technical responsibilities of technical divisions and the budget holder and related operational responsibilities of the FAORs. In particular, it would be inappropriate to burden the FAORs with technical responsibilities that fall beyond their capacity or terms of reference.

60. Management will identify measures for ensuring improved coordination between FAORs and technical divisions for terminal reporting and follow-up. In this regard, it will develop new guidelines describing the scope and purpose of terminal statements and final technical reporting in order to increase the quality of these reports and their timely submission. It will also examine means of mobilizing funds to meet the costs of selective impact assessment of TCP projects.

Periodic auto-evaluation

61. Management is satisfied with the utility and outcomes of the internal consultation. It will therefore ensure that the Programme be subject to regular auto-evaluation, in line with the Director-General’s guidelines on strengthening the Organization’s evaluation system. Auto-evaluation would be undertaken, therefore, every five to six years as a basis for reviewing TCP achievements, identifying programme improvements, internalizing learning and raising the overall accountability of the Programme.

Independent evaluation

62. The independent review was not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of the Programme; rather it examined selected aspects of the TCP as part of the broader review process at the request of the Programme Committee. Nonetheless, it provided many valuable insights, observations and recommendations, almost all of which have been incorporated into the recommendations presented in this report. On a more general level, the TCP review process has confirmed the need to ensure that the Programme is able to respond with maximum effectiveness to changes at national, regional and global levels and to evolving strategic priorities and institutional arrangements within FAO. Given the scale and visibility of the Programme and the need to adjust it to the changing environment, the independent review proposed that a full independent evaluation be undertaken every five years. Management recommends that a full independent evaluation take place every ten years, in addition to periodic auto-evaluation every five to six years as proposed above.

Recommendation 8

A full independent evaluation should be undertaken every ten years to review the continued relevance and effectiveness of the Programme. The first independent evaluation should be completed by 2015 and should include particular focus on the TCP’s contribution to reaching the World Food Summit targets and MDGs.

I. COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPARENCY

63. The consultative process highlighted opportunities to improve the quality, quantity and flow of information at all stages of the TCP project cycle, ranging from priority setting to project approval, implementation and follow-up. Furthermore, Management recognizes the value and importance of increasing the level of information on all aspects of the Programme provided to Governing Bodies through existing documents and reports (e.g. Programme of Work and Budget [PWB] and the Programme Implementation Report [PIR]). For this reason, Management will transform both the quantity and quality of information provided to key stakeholders and, if deemed appropriate by the Programme Committee, to a wider public audience. The proposed strategy would have three broad thrusts: (i) the preparation of new communication tools to provide clear and comprehensive information about all aspects of the Programme to all key stakeholders; (ii) the introduction of measures to ensure that TCP-related information, in particular relating to priorities, project requests and projects being implemented, is communicated to all key stakeholders in a transparent and timely manner; and (iii) increased reporting to FAO’s Governing Bodies (and possibly a wider audience, principally via FAO Web sites).

64. A wide-ranging overhaul of existing information tools would be undertaken leading to the preparation and distribution of new information and communication products to all key FAO stakeholders, outlining the Programme’s goals, criteria, categories, procedures and processes in clear, understandable, user-friendly language and format. This process would only be completed once FAO’s Governing Bodies have taken a position on Management’s recommendations to strengthen the Programme. New information products outlining, for example, lessons learnt, examples of successful project outcomes and the findings of impact assessments would be prepared and distributed amongst key stakeholders. Management believes that the timely availability of these information products would be of particular importance to the successful development of the proposed country priority frameworks and would likewise contribute significantly to strengthened project design and improved project formulation.

IV. GUIDANCE AND DECISIONS

65. The guidance and decisions of the Committee are sought with regard to the eight recommendations in this report:

Management Recommendations to Strengthen the TCP

Recommendation 3: Given the broad agreement on the value of strengthening TCP processes at the country level (in particular, the process through which requests are identified and prioritized by governments), Management recommends that a TCP priority-setting process, based on periodic purposive dialogue, and consistent with the Organization’s National Priority Framework for a country, be established as soon as possible.

Management recommends that the maximum financial ceiling for emergency projects be raised to US$500 000.

Recommendation 6: With respect to the focus and content of the criteria to be applied to non-emergency projects, Management recommends that:

– the maximum duration for all TCP projects be maintained at 24 months;

– projects be gender-sensitive, where appropriate;

– the upper financial ceiling for regional and interregional projects and for emergency projects be raised to US$500 000 but the ceilings for the other types and categories of TCP project remain unchanged at US$400 000;

– “unprogrammed” be added in order to ensure that no TCP resources be used to substitute funding that could be provided by other sources;

– “complement other development activities” be removed as a criterion, as the shift towards National Priority Frameworks and subsidiary TCP priority-setting processes would render this criterion redundant;

– a new criterion be added to ensure that the request conforms to one of the priorities identified in the Organization’s National Priority Framework and TCP priority-setting process;

– greater attention during appraisal be paid to ensuring that TCP projects have a “catalytic effect”; and

– all project requests require a clear indication of likely follow-up and/or the sustainability of project outcomes.

Next steps

66. Following the guidance and decisions of the Programme Committee on the above-mentioned recommendations, Management will be in a position to take the following steps:

Prepare final recommendations – Management will prepare the final recommendations to the Programme Committee for consideration at its 94^th Session and, if agreed, for consideration and eventual approval at the 129^th Session of the FAO Council in November 2005.
Develop a work plan and implementation schedule – Management will submit a proposed work plan and schedule for review and endorsement by the Programme Committee at its 94^thSession, including the identification of appropriate internal arrangements within the Organization to ensure the successful implementation of the agreed changes to the Programme.

67. Members of the Programme Committee are invited to provide feedback and guidance on any other issues raised in this document, on the proposed next steps and if appropriate, to make additional proposals.

ANNEX 1 – TCP CRITERIA

In seeking to ensure that the core characteristics and principles of the TCP are both respected and reflected in the identification, formulation, approval and implementation of TCP projects, Governing Bodies have established a series of TCP Criteria and TCP Categories to be used in determining the eligibility of a Government request for TCP assistance. These therefore represent the principle tool with which the Secretariat is able to ensure that the wishes of Member Nations are respected in regard to the type and scope of technical assistance that is provided to governments with TCP resources.

Although TCP Criteria represent only one aspect of the whole approval process, they constitute a very important element. They are used to screen all requests upon receipt by the Secretariat and provide the basis for the “appraisal” of a project proposal, and are used to determine a project proposal’s eligibility for TCP assistance, based on the aims and objectives of the Programme that have been established by the Governing Bodies.

At present, these Criteria require that TCP project proposals:

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;

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;

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;

complement, without duplicating, other development activities, fill a critical gap and, where possible, serve as a catalyst for a larger-scale activity;

be limited in duration, preferably from one to three months (in no case should the overall duration of project activities exceed 24 months);¹⁵

be limited in cost, not exceeding the upper limit of US$400 000 per project and preferably much lower, and involve the most effective and least costly method of execution;¹⁶

provide assurance of the fullest possible participation of the government in project execution, through such means as the use of national institutions, personnel and resources.”

In addition, the Secretariat also assesses whether requests reflect the other basic principles that have been identified by Governing Bodies. This secondary assessment is based on a specific statement contained in the TCP Guidelines:

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, TCP meets unforeseen needs, fills critical gaps, complements other forms of assistance and promotes resource availability for technical cooperation in the above-mentioned fields, whether channelled through FAO or otherwise.¹⁷

ANNEX 2 – COUNTRY CLASSIFICATIONS (Please note that the different country classifications provided in this Annex refer only to FAO Members; non-FAO countries are not included.)
Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDC) (FAO)								Least Developed Countries (LDC) (UN)
1	Afghanistan	26	Egypt	51	Mongolia	76	Turkmenistan	1	Afghanistan	26	Madagascar
2	Albania	27	Equatorial Guinea	52	Morocco	77	Tuvalu	2	Angola	27	Malawi
3	Angola	28	Eritrea	53	Mozambique	78	Uganda	3	Bangladesh	28	Maldives
4	Armenia	29	Ethiopia	54	Nepal	79	United Republic of Tanzania	4	Benin	29	Mali
5	Azerbaijan	30	Gambia	55	Nicaragua	80	Uzbekistan	5	Bhutan	30	Mauritania
6	Bangladesh	31	Georgia	56	Niger	81	Vanuatu	6	Burkina Faso	31	Mozambique
7	Belarus	32	Ghana	57	Nigeria	82	Yemen	7	Burundi	32	Myanmar
8	Benin	33	Guinea	58	Pakistan	83	Zambia	8	Cambodia	33	Nepal
9	Bhutan	34	Guinea-Bissau	59	Papua New Guinea	84	Zimbabwe	9	Cape Verde	34	Niger
10	Bosnia and Herzegovina	35	Haiti	60	Philippines			10	Central African Republic	35	Rwanda
11	Burkina Faso	36	Honduras	61	Rwanda			11	Chad	36	Samoa
12	Burundi	37	India	62	Samoa			12	Comoros	37	Sao Tome and Principe
13	Cambodia	38	Indonesia	63	Sao Tome and Principe			13	Democratic Republic of the Congo	38	Senegal
14	Cameroon	39	Iraq	64	Senegal			14	Djibouti	39	Sierra Leone
15	Cape Verde	40	Kenya	65	Sierra Leone			15	Equatorial Guinea	40	Solomon Islands
16	Central African Republic	41	Kiribati	66	Solomon Islands			16	Eritrea	41	Somalia
17	Chad	42	Kyrgyzstan	67	Somalia			17	Ethiopia	42	Sudan
18	China	43	Lao People’s Dem. Rep.	68	Sri Lanka			18	Gambia	43	Timor-Leste
19	Comoros	44	Lesotho	69	Sudan			19	Guinea	44	Togo
20	Congo	45	Liberia	70	Swaziland			20	Guinea-Bissau	45	Tuvalu
21	Côte d'Ivoire	46	Mali	71	Togo			21	Haiti	46	Uganda
22	Dem. People’s Rep. of Korea	47	Mauritania	72	Tonga			22	Kiribati	47	United Republic of Tanzania
23	Dem. Republic of the Congo	48	Madagascar	73	Syrian Arab Republic			23	Lao People’s Democratic Republic	48	Vanuatu
24	Djibouti	49	Malawi	74	Tajikistan			24	Lesotho	49	Yemen
25	Ecuador	50	Maldives	75	Timor-Leste			25	Liberia	50	Zambia

Transition Economies (FAO)		Small Island Developing States (SIDS) (UN)
1	Armenia	1	Antigua and Barbuda	26	Niue
2	Albania	2	Bahamas	27	Palau
3	Azerbaijan	3	Bahrain	28	Papua New Guinea
4	Bulgaria	4	Barbados	29	Saint Kitts and Nevis
5	Bosnia and Herzegovina	5	Belize	30	Saint Lucia
6	Croatia	6	Cape Verde	31	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
7	Czech Republic	7	Comoros	32	Samoa
8	Estonia	8	Cook Islands	33	Sao Tome and Principe
9	Georgia	9	Cuba	34	Seychelles
10	Hungary	10	Cyprus	35	Solomon Islands
11	Kazakhstan	11	Dominica	36	Suriname
12	Kyrgyzstan	12	Dominican Republic	37	Timor-Leste
13	Latvia	13	Fiji	38	Tonga
14	Lithuania	14	Grenada	39	Trinidad and Tobago
15	Poland	15	Guinea-Bissau	40	Tuvalu
16	Republic of Moldova	16	Guyana	41	Vanuatu
17	Romania	17	Haiti
18	Serbia and Montenegro	18	Jamaica
19	Slovakia	19	Kiribati
20	Slovenia	20	Maldives
21	Tajikistan	21	Malta
22	The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	22	Marshall Islands
23	Turkmenistan	23	Mauritius
24	Ukraine	24	Micronesia (Federated States of)
25	Uzbekistan	25	Nauru

High-Income Economies (IDA)				Upper Middle-Income Economies (IDA)
1	Australia	26	Portugal	1	Antigua and Barbuda	26	Saint Kitts and Nevis
2	Austria	27	Qatar	2	Argentina	27	Saint Lucia
3	Bahamas	28	Republic of Korea	3	Barbados	28	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
4	Bahrain	29	San Marino	4	Belize	29	Saudi Arabia
5	Belgium	30	Slovenia	5	Botswana	30	Seychelles
6	Canada	31	Spain	6	Chile	31	Slovak Republic
7	Cyprus	32	Sweden	7	Costa Rica	32	Trinidad and Tobago
8	Denmark	33	Switzerland	8	Croatia	33	Uruguay
9	Finland	34	United Arab Emirates	9	Czech Republic	34	Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
10	France	35	United Kingdom	10	Dominica
11	Germany	36	United States of America	11	Estonia
12	Greece			12	Gabon
13	Greenland			13	Grenada
14	Iceland			14	Hungary
15	Ireland			15	Latvia
16	Israel			16	Lebanon
17	Italy			17	Libya
18	Japan			18	Lithuania
19	Kuwait			19	Malaysia
20	Luxembourg			20	Mauritius
21	Malta			21	Mexico
22	Monaco			22	Oman
23	Netherlands			23	Palau
24	New Zealand			24	Panama
25	Norway			25	Poland

Lower Middle-Income Economies (IDA)						Low-Income Economies (IDA)
1	Albania	26	Jamaica	51	Ukraine	1	Afghanistan	26	Kenya	51	Sudan
2	Algeria	27	Jordan	52	Vanuatu	2	Angola	27	Kyrgyzstan	52	Tajikistan
3	Armenia	28	Kazakhstan			3	Bangladesh	28	Lao People's Democratic Republic	53	Timor-Leste
4	Azerbaijan	29	Kiribati			4	Benin	29	Lesotho	54	Togo
5	Bolivia	30	Marshall Islands			5	Bhutan	30	Liberia	55	Uganda
6	Bosnia and Herzegovina	31	Micronesia (Federated States of)			6	Burkina Faso	31	Madagascar	56	United Republic of Tanzania
7	Brazil	32	Morocco			7	Burundi	32	Malawi	57	Uzbekistan
8	Bulgaria	33	Namibia			8	Cambodia	33	Mali	58	Vietnam
9	Cape Verde	34	Paraguay			9	Cameroon	34	Mauritania	59	Yemen
10	China	35	Peru			10	Central African Republic	35	Mongolia	60	Zambia
11	Colombia	36	Philippines			11	Chad	36	Mozambique	61	Zimbabwe
12	Cuba	37	Romania			12	Comoros	37	Myanmar
13	Djibouti	38	Samoa			13	Congo	38	Nepal
14	Dominican Republic	39	Serbia and Montenegro			14	Côte d'Ivoire	39	Nicaragua
15	Ecuador	40	South Africa			15	Democratic People's Republic of Korea	40	Niger
16	Egypt	41	Sri Lanka			16	Democratic Republic of the Congo	41	Nigeria
17	El Salvador	42	Suriname			17	Equatorial Guinea	42	Pakistan
18	Fiji	43	Swaziland			18	Eritrea	43	Papua New Guinea
19	Georgia	44	Syrian Arab Republic			19	Ethiopia	44	Republic of Moldova
20	Guatemala	45	Thailand			20	Gambia	45	Rwanda
21	Guyana	46	The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia			21	Ghana	46	Sao Tome and Principe
22	Honduras	47	Tonga			22	Guinea	47	Senegal
23	Indonesia	48	Tunisia			23	Guinea-Bissau	48	Sierra Leone
24	Iran (Islamic Republic of)	49	Turkey			24	Haiti	49	Solomon Islands
25	Iraq	50	Turkmenistan			25	India	50	Somalia

____________________

¹ The report of the independent review and a summary of the internal consultation have been made available to the Programme Committee: PC 93/6/INF4 and PC 93/INF/5.

² 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.

³ See: PC 93/6/INF/4 Policy and Operational Framework of the Technical Cooperation Programme: Independent Review of the Technical Cooperation Programme; and PC 93/6/INF/5 Policy and Operational Framework of the Technical Cooperation Programme: Findings of the Internal Consultation.

⁴ PC 90/5 Policy and Operational Framework of the Technical Cooperation Programme.

⁵ C 2005/8 Programme Implementation Report 2002-03.

⁶ See for example, CL 121/4 Report of the Ninety-seventh Session of the Finance Committee, Rome, 17-22 September 2001 and CL 123/14 Report of the Ninety-ninth Session of the Finance Committee, Rome, 6-10 May 2002.

⁷ Comments and recommendations with regard to the TCP are contained in C 2005/5 – B “Report of the External Auditor on the Financial Statements of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for the Financial Period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003 (Part B)”.

⁸ The data provided in Figure 1 has been extracted from FPMIS, and are provisional as of 4 March 2005. Budget revisions to ongoing projects and final budget revisions for closed projects mean that data for TCP approvals may be subject to change prior to final closure of project accounts.

⁹ The data provided refer to all TCP projects except regional and interregional TCP projects, charged against the TCP appropriation in biennia 28, 29 and 30.

¹⁰ The Director-General has decided that approximately US$1.5 million from TCP resources, in each biennium, be set aside for funding allocations under the TCP Facility in order to enable FAO representatives (FAORs) to respond to government requests for urgent local programme support activities and to strengthen field programme development processes. In line with TCP criteria, the facility is intended to assist FAO Member Governments principally through the provision of technical cooperation services. Such technical cooperation will be provided in the form of local consultancies as well as through FAO technical support services (see: Field Programme Circular 2004/05, issued on 30 November 2004).

¹¹ At its 102^nd Session in May 2003, the Finance Committee agreed to the Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities (SFERA), under the provisions of Financial Regulation 6.7 (FC 102/14 Proposal to Establish a Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities).

¹² At its 127^th Session in November 2004, the Council noted the Director-General’s proposal to extend the target funding for SFERA to US$20 million as a revolving fund for activities that can be subsequently replenished, and to provide working capital for advance funding for approved emergency projects for which pledged funds have not been received. (CL /127/22 Advance Funding for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities).

¹³ Four “purposes” – later to become “categories” – were identified when the TCP was established in 1976: emergencies; investment; training; and small-scale unforeseen requirements.

¹⁴ See Footnote 7, above.

¹⁵ In 1976, the Criteria proposed a maximum duration of 12 months. The ceiling was revised to 24 months in 1991.

¹⁶ In 1976, the Criteria proposed a maximum cost of US$250 000. This figure was revised to US$400 000 in 1991.

¹⁷ TCP Guidelines, May 2003: paragraph 3.

Programme Committee

Ninety-third Session

Rome, 9 - 13 May 2005

Policy and Operational Framework of the Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) – Strengthening the TCP - Management’s Proposals

Table of Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS