Post on 18-Dec-2015
Background
Less ODA around the world in general but:
International and regional donors are reorganizing their funding priorities
Donors targeting Near East region to support its political and social stabilization.
New opportunities to strengthen partnerships with potential donors
FAO should take advantage of this new context to expand its resource base
Gaps in funding? Need for Resource Mobilization Strategy
In SNO, USD 13 million mobilized in 2008/09, down to under USD 5 million in last biennium. Why? SNO: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria
In SNG, USD 5.5 million mobilized in 2008/09, up to just under USD 10 million in last biennium. USD 26 million already mobilized this year thanks mainly to Saudi UTFs. SNG: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
Yemen
RM Trends in SNG
SNG: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
ODA to the sub-region from OECD members averages around USD 100 million with spikes in 2000, 2004, 2008 and the most significant spike in 2009, caused
by several large contributions to Yemen, most of which came from UAE
Delivery by SNG Office(Emergency and Non-Emergency, 2008-2011)
Oman
Saud
i Ara
bia
UAE
Yem
enSN
G
Oman
Saud
i Ara
bia
UAE
Yem
enSN
G
Oman
Saud
i Ara
bia
UAE
Yem
enSN
G
Oman
Saud
i Ara
bia
UAE
Yem
enSN
G
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
10,805,410 11,549,065 12,736,516 11,653,983
Emer-gency Assis-tance
2008 2009 2010 2011
Delivery
(U
SD
000)
Out-of-scale Out-of-scaleOut-of-scale Out-of-scale
SNG’s TOP 10 Resource PartnersSpending in FAO-related Sectors
(Source: ADAM (OECD) 2006-2010)
1. United Arab Emirates
2. World Bank
3. EU
4. Germany
5. Netherlands
6. USA
7. Arab Fund for Economical and Social Development
8. IFAD
9. UK
10. Japan
FAO (Source: FPMIS, 2006-2012)
1. Saudi Arabia (UTF)
2. United Arab Emirates*
3. TCP
4. UNOCHA
5. Multi-donor (i.e. IFAD, OPEC Fund, Islamic Development Bank, etc.)
6. Sweden
7. Japan
8. Australia
9. Oman (UTF)
10. European Union
RM TRENDS IN SNO
SNO: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria
ODA from OECD members in SNO averages around USD 1 billion with a spike of USD 2 billion in 2002, this is substantially higher than in SNG.
Delivery by SNO Office(Emergency and Non-Emergency, 2008-2011)
Egyp
tIra
nIra
q
Jord
an
Leba
nonSy
ria SNO
Egyp
tIra
nIra
q
Jord
an
Leba
nonSy
ria SNO
Egyp
tIra
nIra
q
Jord
an
Leba
nonSy
ria SNO
Egyp
tIra
nIra
q
Jord
an
Leba
nonSy
ria SNO
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
Emer-gency Assis-tanceTechnical Coopera-tion
2008 2009 2010 2011
Delivery
(U
SD
000)
SNO’s TOP 10 Resource PartnersSpending in FAO-Related Sectors (from
ADAM (OECD) 2006 - 2010)
1. USA
2. EU institutions
3. Germany
4. IBRD
5. Italy
6. Japan
7. Islamic Development Bank
8. France
9. GEF
10. Australia
FAO (from FPMIS: 2006 - 2012)
1. CHF - The Common Fund for Humanitarian Action in Sudan
2. Multi-donor (EU (97%))
3. UN Development Group Office (DGO) Service & Support UNDG/EXECCOM Secretariat
4. USA
5. European Union
6. Canada
7. Italy
8. UNOCHA
9. Spain
10. African Development Bank
How can an RM strategy help FAO improve?
Main impact of RM strategy for RNE:
Adequate, more predictable and sustainable voluntary contributions which fully support
achievement of FAO’s objectives at the global, regional, sub-regional and country
levels
Main Outcomes of RM strategy for RNE Proposed outcomes for RM strategy for RNE include:
Consolidation, diversification and expansion of FAO’s resource partnerships in the Region
Strengthened awareness among partners and member countries about FAO’s comparative advantage through effective communication
Ensure that resources are effectively managed for results to report them internally (to governing bodies) and externally (to partners and donors).
Communication Challenges for RNE Internally: Develop better quality advocacy tools (concept notes, project
proposals, brochures, presentations, websites) Improve communications between FAO HQ, Regional, Subregional
and Country offices
Externally, to strengthen communication with potential partners:
Planned attendance in international meetings and technical visits Organize more donor meetings and donor round tables Expand dissemination of information on FAO’s strategic thinking Improve visibility of FAO and gain trust of resource partners by
better promoting FAO success stories and comparative advantage (videos, regional website, stories, press releases, presentations)
Internal RM Challenges and Opportunities
Establish RM taskforce at RNE
Establish RM strategies for short term and long term action based on the CPF and RPF
Gathering information (donor activities) to identify opportunities
Effective use of resources and proper monitoring and reporting on progress
Improve internal capacities through comprehensive training
External RM Challenges and Opportunities
Improve contacts through regularized visits and which are key in the RNE region (Gulf region) -High level visibility
Focus on local, regional, decentralized partners
Broaden partnership through new innovative funding sources (RNE Trust Fund)
RM prospects: A Regional Trust Fund for the Near East A Multi Donor Trust Fund
Effective mechanism to pool resources
Broad range of stakeholders
Focuses on Regional Priorities CPFs, RPFs
Allows the implementation of the needed interventions at a national, sub regional and regional level
Promotes regional coordination creating common responsibilities and shared achievements.
Regional Trust Fund for the Near East: RM Strategy
Voluntary contributions by member countries Other donor agencies Other countries supporting the Region’s needs
Involves: Multi-modal funding options Multilateral or bilateral funding
Advantages of a Regional Trust Fund Demand-driven
Timely response to calls for support by member countries
Coordination and harmonization of interventions
Can address Trans-boundary regional challenges:
Food security (Yemen and Syria) cross border population movement
Animal and food diseases (FMD in Egypt, Libya, Palestine, Kuwait)