Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica

Secretaría del

Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica

Ref.: SBD/BS/CG/ET/jh/64487 24 de julio de 0000

X X X X X I C A C I Ó N1

Revisión independiente de medio termino del Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxxx de Recursos (RAF) del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (FMAM)

Estimado/a Sr. / Sra.:

Como es de su conocimiento, en su 32ª sesión en noviembre de 2007, el Consejo del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (FMAM) pidió a la Oficina de Evaluación del FMAM de llevar a cabo una revisión independiente de medio término del Marco de asignación de recursos del FMAM. Los resultados de la revisión se presentarán al Consejo del FMAM en su reunión de noviembre de 2008.

En su cuarta reunión celebrada en mayo de 2008 en Bonn, la Conferencia de las Partes que actúa como Reunión de las Partes en el Protocolo xx Xxxxxxxxx sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología (COP-MOP), en la decisión BS-IV / 5, se acogió la comisión del revisión de medio termino del Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxxx de Recursos. En el párrafo 4(a) de esa decisión, COP-MOP instó a la Oficina de Evaluación del FMAM de evaluar el impacto del Marco de Asignación de Recursos en la implementación del Protocolo, y propone medidas que pueden minimizar las posibles limitaciones de recursos que puedan afectar a la implementación del Protocolo incluyendo medidas que faciliten la consideración de proyectos regionales o subregionales desarrollados por los países de la región.

La Oficina de Evaluación del FMAM está realizando actualmente una encuesta como parte de la revisión intermedia del RAF. Me complace enviarle adjunto a la presente un mensaje del FMAM, que contiene un enlace para la encuesta (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx//x.xxxx?xxxxXXxxXX0X00xxxxX_0xxX0xx_0x_0x) la cual puede llevarse a cabo en línea. Si lo prefiere, puede utilizar la versión de la encuesta en PDF o en MS-Word que se adjunta y regresarla como datos adjuntos de un correo electrónico, directamente a: XXXxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx .

Me gustaría invitarlo a participar activamente en el estudio y proporcionar sus comentarios sobre su experiencia con el RAF y sus puntos de vista sobre cómo podría mejorarse a fin de permitir al FMAM apoyar más eficazmente la implementación del Protocolo. La fecha límite para terminar y presentar el estudio es el viernes, 29 xx xxxxxx de 2008. Al enviar su respuesta, indique claramente por favor, si usted es un Punto Focal del Protocolo xx Xxxxxxxxx o del Centro de Intercambio de Información BCH.

Para mayor información sobre el revisión de medio termino sírvase dirigirse a: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx?xxx00000

Le ruego acepte Señor/Señora la expresión de mi más sincera consideración.

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

Adjuntos Secretario Ejecutivo

1 Traducido al español como cortesía de la Secretaría

Para: Puntos Focales Nacionales del Protocolo xx Xxxxxxxxx

Puntos Focales Nacionales del Centro de Intercambio de Información BCH

Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente *

000 Xxxxx-Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx 000 Xxxxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0, Xxxxxx

Tel : x0 000 000 0000

Fax : x0 000 000 0000

xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx xxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx

Para:

Cc:

Sujeto: Encuesta de las partes interesadas del FMAM sobre el Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxxx de Recursos en nombre de la Oficina de Evaluación del FMAM

Estimados Colegas:

La Oficina de Evaluación del FMAM quisiera solicitar su asistencia para identificar la manera de mejorar las operaciones y los procedimientos del FMAM. Le invitamos a participar en una breve encuesta para proporcionar información sobre sus experiencias con el Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxxx de Recursos del FMAM.

Como respuesta a una solicitud del Consejo del FMAM, la Oficina de Evaluación de FMAM está llevando a cabo una revisión de medio término del Marco de Asignación de Recursos. El objetivo de este ejercicio es evaluar a que grado los recursos del FMAM bajo el Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxxx de Recursos ha sido asignado a los países de una manera transparente y económica, sobre la base de los beneficios ambientales mundiales y el desempeño del país.

Los resultados de esta encuesta formarán parte de la revisión general, que utiliza una amplia variedad xx xxxxxxx de información. Los resultados de la revisión se presentarán al Consejo del FMAM en noviembre de 2008 y serán publicados por la Oficina de Evaluación del FMAM.

La encuesta debe tomarle entre 5 y 15 minutos. Todas las respuestas serán confidenciales.

Para tener acceso a la encuesta, por favor abra el enlace que aparece a continuación. Si no es capaz de abrir el enlace, por favor, copie y pegue el enlace en tu navegador Internet. xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx//x.xxxx?xxxxXXxxXX0X00xxxxX_0xxX0xx_0x_0x

Si tiene alguna pregunta con respecto a esta encuesta o sobre la revisión de medio termino, por favor póngase en contacto con el equipo a cargo de la revisión en: xxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx .

Se les ha solicitado a muchos de los socios interesados del FMAM que aporten sus puntos de vista para la Revisión de Medio Término, el equipo de revisión le pide disculpas anticipadas por cualquier duplicado de solicitud.

Gracias por tomarse el tiempo para participar en este importante ejercicio. Muy atentamente,

Oficina de Evaluación del FMAM

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

1. INTRODUCTION

This survey is part of a larger effort by GEF/EO to conduct a Mid-Term Review of the GEF Resource Allocation Framework. We would be grateful for about 15 minutes of your time to obtain information on your perceptions and experience regarding the RAF. As you respond to the questions, if needed you may go back to previous pages in the survey to update your responses. After you have finished, you will not be able to re-enter the survey.

For further information about the RAF Mid-Term Review, please see the MTR web page at xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx#xxx00000 .

All responses will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL: Any personal identification information will be used for analysis purposes only; your responses will be grouped along with those from others and not associated with you in our reporting.

If you have any questions regarding this survey or the MTR, please contact the Review team at xxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx .

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

2. KNOWLEDGE OF THE RAF

1. Have you had experience or involvement with the GEF Resource Allocation Framework (RAF)? (Select one)

jmlk lmjk

Yes (Please proceed to the next question)

No (Please note that this survey is intended only for those with experience with the Resource Allocation Framework.)

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

3. RAF IMPLEMENTATION

2. How has the RAF affected your country’s capacity to meet requirements of the Convention?

lmjk lmjk lmjk xxxx xxxx xxxx

Very negatively Somewhat negatively

Neither negatively nor positively Somewhat positively

Very positively

Don’t Know/Not Sure

Please use the space below to explain or give details about any especially positive or negative effects you have identified.

3. How have requirements of the Convention influenced your country’s capacity to implement the RAF?

lmjk lmjk lmjk xxxx xxxx xxxx

Very negatively Somewhat negatively

Neither negatively nor positively Somewhat positively

Very positively

Don’t Know/Not Sure

Please use the space below to explain or give details about any especially positive or negative effects you have identified.

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

4. How has the RAF affected parties’ fulfillment of their obligations under the Convention?

lmjk lmjk xxxx xxxx xxxx lmjk

Very negatively Somewhat negatively

Neither negatively nor positively Somewhat positively

Very positively

Don’t Know/Not Sure

Please use the space below to explain or give details about any especially positive or negative effects you have identified.

5. How successful has the RAF been in… (Select one option per row)

Very Unsuccessful

Moderately Unsuccessful

Moderately Successful

Very Successful

Don’t Know/Not Sure

Rewarding countries based on performance in their biodiversity portfolios?

xxxx

xxxx jm

jmlk

jmkl

Potentially increasing achievement of global environment benefits through GEF funding?

Encouraging global and regional projects? Encouraging programmatic approaches?

jmlk

lm⬤jk

lmjk

lm⬤jk

lmjk

lm⬤

jmlk

lm⬤jk

jmlk

jmkl

lm⬤kj

lmkj

Making its “rules of xxx xxxx” available to GEF stakeholders in a

transparent way?

jm⬤lk

jm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Rewarding countries based on performance in their climate change

portfolios?

jm⬤lk

jm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Promoting

projects and

lm⬤jk

jm⬤

jm⬤lk

jm⬤

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

outcomes of relevance to country interests

Supporting public involvement/ participation?

Increasing donor harmonization at the country level? Promoting catalytic effects? Leveraging financing?

lmjk

lm⬤jk

lmjk jm⬤lk

lmjk

lm⬤jk

lmjk jm⬤lk

jm⬤

jm lm⬤

lmjk

lm⬤jk

jmlk lm⬤jk

lmkj

lm⬤kj

jmkl jm⬤kl

Please use the space below to provide additional comments on your responses.

6. For each of the stages of the project cycle given below, please indicate the extent to which participating country governments are more or less engaged under the RAF as compared with before the RAF was implemented in 2007: (Check one for each row)

Much Less Engaged under RAF

Somewhat Somewhat Less Engaged More Engaged

Much More Engaged

Don’t Know/Not Sure

Consultations with country stakeholders

jmlk

lmjk

lmjk lm

lmkj

Review by GEF Secretariat

lmjk

lmjk lm

lmkj

Project start-up

lmjk

lmjk jm

lmkj

7. Please indicate your assessment of GEF project submission, review and approval BEFORE initiation of the RAF on the following factors: (Check one for each row)

		Poor	Good		Sure
Transparency	jm⬤lk	lm⬤jk	lm⬤kj	jm⬤lk	jm⬤kl
Simplicity	jmlk	jmlk	jmkl	jmlk	lmkj
Efficiency	jm⬤lk	lm⬤jk	jm⬤kl	jm⬤lk	jm⬤kl

Very Poor Somewhat

Somewhat

Very Good Don't Know/Not

Project identification

jm⬤lk

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

jm⬤

Review by GEF Implementing or

Executing Agencies

lm⬤jk

jm⬤

lm⬤

CEO

endorsement/approval

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Implementation/

supervision

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

8. Please indicate your assessment of GEF project submission, review and approval AFTER initiation of the RAF on the following factors: (Check one for each row)

		Poor	Good		Sure
Transparency	lm⬤jk	jm⬤lk	lm⬤kj	lm⬤jk	lm⬤kj
Simplicity	lmjk	lmjk	lmkj	lmjk	lmkj
Efficiency	lm⬤jk	lm⬤jk	lm⬤kj	lm⬤jk	lm⬤kj

Very Poor Somewhat

Somewhat

Very Good Don’t Know/Not

9. Please indicate your viewpoint concerning whether the following factors have helped or hindered country access to GEF funding under the RAF. (Select one response for each row)

A Helpful Factor

A Hindering Factor

Both a Helpful Neither a Helpful Factor and a Factor Nor a

Hindering Factor Hindering Factor

Don’t Know/Not Sure

The GEF activity cycle

xxxx

lmjk

Closeout and re- starting of the GEF pipeline

lmjk

Use of programmatic approaches (such as Coral Triangle Initiative and Sustainable Forest Management)

lmjk

Termination of GEF agencies corporate budget

lmjk

xxxx

Method of scoring global environmental benefits for biodiversity

jmlk

lmjk

Country eligibility criteria for GEF

funding

lm⬤jk

Co-financing

requirements

lm⬤jk

Changes in the

project cycle

lm⬤jk

Direct contacts between countries

and GEF Secretariat

lm⬤jk

Method of scoring global environmental benefits for climate

change

jm⬤lk

lm⬤jk

Method of scoring based on country portfolio

performance

jm⬤lk

lm⬤jk

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

Method of scoring based on country environmental policies and institutional capacity

Group allocations

Individual allocations Floors in country allocations Exclusions to the RAF allocation

formula (for global and regional projects, the Small Grants Programme and targeted supplements)

lmjk

lm⬤jk lmjk

lmjk

lm⬤jk lmjk

lm⬤jk xxxx

xxxx

lm⬤jk lmjk

lmjk

lm⬤jk jmlk

lm⬤jk lmjk

lmjk

lm⬤jk lmjk

The 50% rule lm⬤jk	lm⬤jk	lm⬤jk	lm⬤jk	lm⬤jk
Information and xxxx	xxxx	xxxx	lmjk	lmjk

assistance provided to countries regarding utilization of RAF resources

Please use the space below to explain or give details about any of these factors that are of particular significance to you.

Other factor(s): (please specify

below)

jm⬤lk

lm⬤jk

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

10. In what ways has the RAF affected the funding of: (Check one for each row)

Very negatively

Somewhat negatively

Somewhat positively

Very positively Don’t Know/Not

Sure

Global and regional projects

jmlk

lmjk lm

lmjk

lmkj

Least Developed Countries

jmlk

jmlk lm

lmjk

lmkj

NGOs and civil society

lmjk

lmjk lm

lmjk

lmkj

Full-Sized Projects

lmjk

lmjk lm

lmjk

lmkj

Biodiversity Projects

lmjk

lmjk lm

lmjk

lmkj

11. What effect(s) has the RAF had on proposals to the GEF for the country program

(s) you have been most involved with? (Check all situations that apply)

Individual Allocation Countries Group Allocation Countries

No Change

Existing proposals have been cut Existing proposals have been reformulated New proposals have been developed Regional proposals have been developed

The pipeline has been revised entirely

ed■cf edcf

■edcf

edcf

ed■cf

decf

ed■cf edcf

■edcf

edcf

■edcf

edcf

Other (please specify below)

Enabling activities

jm⬤lk

lm⬤jk

jm⬤

jm⬤lk

lm⬤

The Small Grants

Programme

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

jm⬤

Small Island Development

States

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Medium-Sized

Projects

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Climate Change

Projects

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Projects in focal areas other than

CC and BD

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Don’t know

■edcf

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

12. To what extent has information concerning the following topics been sufficient for your needs in working with GEF activities under the RAF? (Check one for each row)

Very Insufficient

Moderately Insufficient

Moderately Sufficient

Very Sufficient Don’t Know/Not

Sure

Country eligibility

Ratings and indices

Actual funding allocations Status of the project pipeline (approvals, etc.) GEF policies and procedures

edcf

■edcf edcf

■decf

edcf

decf

■decf decf

■edcf

edcf

■edcf decf

■decf

edcf

decf

■edcf decf d■ecf

decf

■edcf edcf

■edcf

edcf

13. In general, to what extent have the following organizations or individuals supported your involvement in implementation of the RAF?

(Check one for each row)

Not at all To a slight extent

To a moderate extent

To a great extent

Don’t Know/Not Sure

GEF Agencies

Country governments GEF Operational Focal Point

GEF Political Focal Point

ed■cf edcf

■decf edcf

ed■cf edcf

■decf edcf

d■ecf decf

e■dcf edcf

ed■cf edcf

■decf edcf

ed■cf edcf

■decf edcf

Other NGOs

edcf

Please use the space below to provide additional comments on your responses.

Project eligibility

■edcf

e■dcf

ed■cf

de■cf

■edcf

The GEF

Secretariat

■edcf

ed■cf

■edcf

Other organizations (please specify

below)

e■dcf

■edcf

de■cf

■edcf

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

14. In what way(s) have you participated in priority-setting for your country’s GEF pipeline? (Check all that apply)

decf

Led or participated in consultation(s) with government representatives

Led or participated in consultation(s) that included non-governmental stakeholders (this may include NGOs, private sector

representatives, etc.)

decf edcf

Communicated with one or more Implementing or Executing Agencies Communicated with the GEF Secretariat

Other (please specify below)

15. To what extent has your role in the preparation/implementation of GEF projects improved or worsened since initiation of the RAF? (Check only one)

lmjk lmjk lmjk lmjk lmjk lmjk

Improved A Great Deal Improved Moderately Stayed About The Same Worsened Moderately Worsened A Great Deal Don’t Know/Not Sure

16. To what extent is the status you reported in the previous question due to the RAF’s design or implementation, as compared to other factors? (Check only one)

xxxx xxxx xxxx jmlk jmlk

Not due to the RAF at all Due to the RAF in small part Mostly due to the RAF Completely due to the RAF Don’t Know

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

4. RAF DESIGN

17. To what extent does the RAF provide effective incentives for INDIVIDUAL ALLOCATION countries to improve their performance over time? (Select one. Note that in this case “performance” refers to a country’s capacity, policies and practices relevant to successful implementation of GEF programs and projects.)

lmjk lmjk lmjk lmjk lmjk

To a great extent

To a moderate extent To a slight extent

Not at all

Don’t know/Not sure

18. To what extent does the RAF provide effective incentives for GROUP ALLOCATION countries to improve their performance over time? (Select one)

lmjk lmjk lmjk lmjk lmjk

To a great extent

To a moderate extent To a slight extent

Not at all

Don’t know/Not sure

19. To what extent has the RAF increased opportunities for synergies between climate change and biodiversity work, or with other focal areas? (Select one)

jmlk jmlk jmlk jmlk jmlk

To a great extent

To a moderate extent To a slight extent

Not at all

Don’t know/Not sure

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

5. WEAKNESSES OF THE RAF

20. Please indicate the extent to which the following possible areas of weakness have been shown to be true, so far, in application of the Resource Allocation Framework. (Check one option for each item)

Completely untrue

Mostly untrue Mostly true Completely

true

Don't know/ Not sure

Allocation formulas may not be based on “best available” practice

jmlk

lmjk lm

lmjk

jmkl

May disadvantage some or all individual allocation countries

lmjk

lmjk lm

lmjk

lmkj

May pressure countries to spend allocations when they may not be fully prepared to do so

lmjk

lmjk jm

lmjk

lmkj

May place stress on the design quality of GEF projects

lmjk

lmjk jm

jmlk

jmkl

May encourage delays in project development and approval

xxxx

xxxx lm

lmjk

lmkj

Allocations

among countries may not be fair

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

May disadvantage some or all group allocation

countries

jm⬤lk

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Process of awarding allocations may not be sufficiently

transparent

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Country allocations may be so small that they discourage development of

project proposals

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

May weaken the

role of the GEF Council

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

jm⬤

May shift project decision making power in favor of the GEF

Secretariat

jm⬤lk

jm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

21. What other important factors would you like to identify that may be areas of weakness in the RAF? (If so, please use the space below briefly to describe these)

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

6. STRENGTHS OF THE RAF

22. Please indicate the extent to which the following possible areas of strength are true, so far, in application of the Resource Allocation Framework. (Check one option for each item)

Completely untrue

Mostly untrue Mostly true Completely

true

Don't know/ Not sure

May provide increased transparency in resource allocation

jmlk

lmjk jm

jmlk

jmkl

May strengthen predictability of funding

lmjk

lmjk lm

lmjk

jmkl

May empower countries in negotiating with GEF implementing or executing agencies

jmlk

lmjk lm

lmjk

lmkj

23. What other important factors would you like to identify that may be areas of strength in the RAF? (If so, please use the space below briefly to describe these)

May strengthen

country roles in portfolio planning

jm⬤lk

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

May support equity among countries in access to GEF

funding

lm⬤jk

jm⬤lk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

jm⬤

May strengthen incentives to countries to

perform

jm⬤lk

lm⬤jk

jm⬤

lm⬤jk

jm⬤

May enhance the external image of GEF as a performance- oriented

organization

jm⬤lk

lm⬤

lm⬤jk

lm⬤

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

7. OPEN INPUT

24. What are your suggestions about how the RAF could be improved?

25. Is there anything else you would like to comment on?

26. Do you have any suggestions about how the RAF could be improved?

27. Is there anything else you would like to comment on?

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

28. Please identify the periods during which you have had experience with the GEF.

xxxx xxxx lmjk

GEF before 2003

GEF Phase 3 (2003-2006)

GEF Phase 4 (2007- present)

29. In which region(s) have you been involved with GEF activities? (Check all that apply)

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Xxxxxx (including North Africa)

Asia (including Western Asia and Pacific islands) Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean Global

30. What type of RAF allocation does your country currently have in the Climate Change focal area? (Please select one)

lmjk lmjk lmjk

Group allocation Individual allocation Don't know/ Not sure

31. What type of RAF allocation does your country currently have in the Biodiversity focal area? (Select one)

jmlk jmlk jmlk

Group allocation Individual allocation Don't know/ Not sure

Mid-Term Review of the GEF RAF- Convention National Focal Points--

9. This ends the survey

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

This ends the survey. Thank you very much.

Document Metadata

Table of Contents

Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica

Document Metadata