Annual Review (Multilateral Organisation Core funding) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Core Assessed Contribution 2012-13 - ARIES Project 20322-101

hamburgerfensuckedSecurity

Nov 20, 2013 (3 years and 10 months ago)

374 views


1


Annual Review (Multilateral Organisation Core funding)


Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO):
Core
Assessed
C
ontribution
2012
-
13

-

ARIES Project 20322
-
101


Date started:

March 2012



Da
te review undertaken:

March 2013


Introduction and Context


What support is the UK providing?


This annual review covers the first year of the UK’s core

a獳s獳sd
b楥in楡氠
捯n瑲tbu瑩tn


䙁c

of
app牯r業a瑥汹 £OOm⸠ 周e 瑯瑡氠捯n瑲tbu瑩tn 景爠瑨e
OM1O
J
1P b楥in極m 楳

approx業a瑥汹l

4

m楬汩on
K
1

The core
funding

supports

FAO’s work in
瑥捨n楣慬i po汩捹 a牥r猠a琠楮ie牮r瑩tna氬l
牥r楯ia氠and na瑩ona氠leve汳Ⱐ
獥瑴楮i g汯la氠no牭猠and 獴snda牤猠and de汩ve特r of g汯la氠pub汩挠
good猠牥汥lan琠to⁴he a捨楥ieme
n琠o映瑨e⁍ 䝳d


乯k

捯ve牥r⁢y⁴he⁡nnua氠牥l楥i⁡牥⁴he
add楴楯ia氠lo汵lta特⁣ n瑲tbu瑩tn猠
by⁃䡁 bⰠmo䐠
慮搠
䑆䥄f
coun瑲t晦楣e猠
fo爠獰e捩f楣⁰牯橥c瑳

including FAO’s emergency response work.
qhe獥 a牥⁣rve牥r by⁳
epa牡re⁢u獩湥獳⁣ se猠
and⁲ v楥is
K

䥮′M1O⁄䙉䐠 楳iu牳敤 a⁴o瑡氠
amount
of app牯r業a瑥汹₣OS楬汩on


vo汵lta特⁣ n瑲tbu瑩tn猠瑯⁆ 伮






What are the expected results?

FAO
contributes to achievement of the MDGs, especially the hunger and poverty elements of
MDG1, progressively
ensuring a world in which all people at all times have sufficient safe and
nutritious food, and supporting sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources.

At
impact level, it therefore contributes to a r
eduction of the absolute number of peop
le suffering
from hunger
, measured as the percentage of
under
-
nourish
ed people in the
world
.

At outcome level, the biennial funding aims to support the effective and efficient delivery of high
-
quality services to developing countries in support of their pl
ans to achieve food security and
sustainable agricultural development. This has two outcome indicators. The first focuses on
performance against FAO’s own organizational outcomes, with the indicator being the
pe牣敮tage o映ou瑣tme猠瑨a琠a牥r牥po牴rd a猠e
楴ie爠on
J
瑲t捫 o爠ach楥ied ⡰
a牴r捵污牬y 楮i p物o物t礠
a牥r猠 of: food se捵物ty po汩捹㬠 be瑴e爠 management o映 na瑵牡r 牥rou牣敳r 楮ieg牡瑩rg 捬cmate
捨ange 獴牡瑥g楥猻 業p汥len瑡瑩on of gende爠equ楴i po汩cy㬠and p牥ra牥rne獳sand 牥獰on獥 瑯
景od⁡nd⁡g物捵汴lr
a氠lh牥r瑳tand eme牧en捩敳K
F


qhe m牯r牡浭e fmp汥men瑡瑩tn 剥po牴r景爠the OM1O
J
1P b楥in極洠wi汬 be pub汩獨ed 楮iOM14
Ⱐbut
a m楤
J
瑥rm 獹n瑨e獩s 牥ro牴r
was

pub汩獨ed 景爠 d楳捵獳楯n a琠 jo楮i mee瑩tg猠 of the 䙁c
m牯r牡rme⁡nd⁆楮an捥⁃ mm楴iee猠楮⁍ 牣栠OM1P
K

qhe 獥cond ou瑣tme 楮i楣慴o爠楳 汩n步d 瑯 the OM1P jA删upda瑥I w楴i 瑨e 瑡牧e琠be楮i 䙁c
ranked as a ‘satisfactory’ or ‘good’ performer.

qhe jA删upda瑥 楳i 捵牲en瑬t unde爠wayⰠ睩瑨 a
††††††††††††††††††††


1

S
ubject to exchange rate fluctuations
-

the assessment is split into
E
uro

(

)

and US$
.


2


Ministerial decision on FAO’s performance
due⁩ ⁍ y′M1PK

q


jA删 楤in
瑩f楥d
the r
eform p物o物瑩ts

be汯lⰠ and 瑨e jA删 upda瑥 獵gge獴猠 瑨at 瑨e
pe捲整a物a琠楳

ma歩湧 p牯r牥獳r楮

業p汥men瑩ng 瑨em⸠ A猠a re獵汴Ⱐ瑯 瑨e ex瑥n琠tha琠瑨ey en瑡楬
f楮an捩慬c
expend楴i牥
I 獯me of 瑨e 捯牥r
啋r
捯n瑲tbu瑩tn 楳i
獵ppo牴rng
瑨em
⸠ qhey fea
瑵re
prominently in DFID’s engagement with Secretariat officials and other member states.



䍯C瑲tbu瑩tn⁴o
R
e獵汴l



S瑲t瑥g楣…⁐erfo牭an捥 nagement



䙩nan捩慬⁒csou牣攠Managemen琠



䍯獴⁡nd⁖a汵l⁃on獣sou獮e獳s



T牡rspa牥n捹⁡nd⁁捣ountab楬楴i



What is the

context in which UK support is provided?


FAO estimates that 870 million people have insufficient food

and nutrition
, which
can
hamper
their mental, social and economic development and perpetuates global poverty.
The UK
has
made
tackling food insecurity

and malnutrition

a top priority in its development work, as
hi
ghlighted by the Olympic Hunger Summit hosted by the Prime Minister in August 2012 and a
similar event
schedule
d

during the UK’s G8 Presidency in June

2013
.


FAO contributes to the income
-
pove
rty target of MDG1 and, especially, the off
-
track MDG1
target
of halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.


It has a critical role within

the international global architecture for agriculture and a central coordinating role at
international,

regional and national levels. It provides the international platform for negotiating
treaties and agreements
.

As a UN Specialised Agency there is no other international body
which combines its legitimacy, convening power and technical expertise.

FAO help
s developing countries and countries in transition modernise and improve agriculture,
forestry and fisheries practices
,

and ensure good nutrition for all.

FAO
also
has an important
role in tackling climate change, which will particularly affect vulnerable

people and food
systems

as
agriculture, forestry, and fisheries are among the most climate
-
sensitive sectors.
It
is
responsible for co
-
leading the humanitarian food security cluste
r and coordinating rural
livelihoods post
-
disaster recovery across the UN s
ystem.

The UK particularly supports FAO’s technical and normative work in the fields of forestry,
fisheries, water, climate change, global responses to trans
-
boundary animal and plant
diseases, food safety and standards, global monitoring, global food and
agriculture statistics,
and emergency livelihoods support in crises.

Section
A
: Detailed Output Scoring


Output 1:
Improved and more consistent performance at country level

Output 1 score and performance description:

B:
Output
s

moderately did not meet
expectation.


3


T
his output reflects a weak rating in the MAR.

The output has two indicators

with milestones
for 2012
,
as
set out below.

The first one was met as country offices reported increased
strategic direction and focus on results. However, although

good progress was made against
the second, FAO did not meet the target itself for 2012, which accounts for the score of B.

Pro
gress against expected results:

I
ndicator 1.1
,

2012 milestone:
Feedback from DFID country offices and visits indicates that
FAO

country offices are becoming more strategic in all areas of their work and improving
delivery of results with greater efficiency and transparency.

This indicator
is more qualitative than quantitative.
In terms of a strategic approach, f
eedback
from DFID
country offices as part of the MAR Update process confirmed progress made by
FAO since 2011 in articulating a theory of change that translates normative work into impact
on the ground.
Country visits

illustrated the role that FAO plays in assisting
Governments to
implement global standards and guidelines,

providing technical expertise
and
neutral advice.
For example, a

DFID MAR team exploring the theory of change for normative work visited
FAO in India in 2012 and was given the following three examp
les of the practical impact of a
global standard or guidance product
:


FAO: Input Impact

International Standards for
Phytosanitary Measures

Ability to trade agricultural products
internationally; reduced risk of introduction
of livelihood and
consumer threatening
plant pests and diseases

Code of conduct on
responsible fisheries


Greater, more consistent fish catch,
improved fisheries based livelihoods &
improved supply of aquatic food


Agricultural Market Information
System (G20 initiative)

I
mproved food security based on better
information, analysis & forecasting

DFID country office feedback also reported that FAO is contributing to reducing poverty and
food insecurity through its partnership and coordination ro
le as well as its projects. In
Zimbabwe
,

FAO’s June 2011 Post
J
䡡牶e獴spu牶ey⁲ po牴rd h楧he爠y楥汤猠sy⁩瑳 p牯橥捴c
benef楣ia物e猠snd⁡⁨楧he爠re牣en瑡ge of 景od
J
獥捵牥⁨ou獥ho汤献†cA传has⁡汳漠been a捴cvely
楮iolved⁩ ⁴he⁤eve汯lmen琠o映a numbe爠rf na瑩
ona氠䝯ve牮浥r琠s瑲t瑥g楥献

qhe⁩ 瑲tdu捴楯n映䍯un瑲t⁐牯r牡rm楮i⁆牡 ewo牫猠楳⁨e汰lng⁴o⁥n獵牥⁴ha琠a汬⁆ 传
捯un瑲t晦楣敳i
deve汯l⁡ mo牥⁳r牡瑥g楣⁡pp牯r捨⁷楴i⁡⁲ su汴猠f牡mewo牫⁴r measu牥⁩mpa捴c
that links to FAO’s corporate Results Framework. DFID country office feedback and visits
捯nf楲med⁴hat⁴h楳⁩猠ieg楮i楮i⁴o⁨ave⁡n⁩mpa捴c ⁏ne⁣ un瑲t⁲ po牴rd⁴hat
䙁c ha猠

oduced a⁐污n映A捴楯i

OM1RI⁤eta楬楮i⁩瑳 獴牡瑥g楣ifo捵s⁡牥rsⰠob橥j瑩te猬sa捴楶楴楥猠and
ou瑰u瑳t
to⁣ ve爠瑨e⁴牡n獩瑩潮

f牯m eme牧ency⁴o⁲ hab楬楴i瑩on⁴o⁤eve汯lmen琮†周e
deve汯lmentb橥j瑩te猠so爠瑨e⁐污n映A捴楯n㨠1⤠Fmp牯red 景od⁡ndu瑲t
瑩tn⁳ 捵物瑹f
vu汮l牡r汥lg牯rp猻sO⤠Fmp牯red ag物捵汴l牡氠⡣rop猠s楶e獴s捫⤠c牯ru捴楶楴y⁡nd
捯mme牣ra汩獡瑩tn映sma汬holde牳㬠rnd P⤠䥮c牥r獥d
gove牮浥rt

捯o牤楮a瑩tn映ag物捵汴
u牡氠
a捴楶楴楥猠a牥⁣ra汬enging

and are also in line with DFID’s Operat
楯ia氠l污l and⁲ 獵汴猠
f牡mewo牫rfo爠rhe⁐ove牴rⰠ䡵ege爠rnd su汮e牡r楬楴i⁰楬污爮


DFID’s office in
jyanma爠
牥ro牴rd⁴ha琠the
cA传
䍐䘠景爠rM1O


1R wa猠s汩gn楮i⁰物o物瑩t猠w楴i
瑨o獥f 瑨e⁧ove牮ren琠and

楮捬ide猠a⁢ienn楡氠io牫
J
p污l⁷h楣栠de瑡楬猠業p汥
men瑩ng

4


agencies by activity. Delivery is measured against outcomes of individual projects and
programmes, each of which contributes to the overall objectives of the CPF.

In terms of efficiency, DFID c
ountry office feedback suggests that at the project le
vel, FAO
uses a competitive approach to select implementing partners, based on consideration of cost
effectiveness and technical competency.

Country office feedback reported that FAO
make
s

all
information
on contracts over
US$
100,000 publicly available.

Country programme documents, activity briefs and the FAO 5
-
year strategy and Plan of Action are also available on the public web domain.

This information
is relatively detailed
, up to date and easy to find.
FAO uses a range of tools to disseminate its
w
ork.

It produces and publishes guidelines and studies to document and inform stakeholders.
It also publishes newsletters, pamphlets/flyers, posters and calendars on activities it is
implementing in the country. The majority of these documents are avai
lab
le on FAO’s public
web獩瑥⸠
䙁c a汳漠use猠楮瑥牮a瑩tna氠lnd 捡氠led楡iou瑲ta捨⁴o 獨a牥⁩r景牭a瑩tn⁲ ga牤楮g

J
捯un
瑲t⁰牯r牡rme猠snd⁡捴楶楴楥献†
p瑲t瑥g楣⁤o捵men瑳t⁳ 捨⁡猠she⁆A传m污n映A捴con
OM1M
J
1RⰠa牥⁤楳iem楮a瑥d⁴oey⁰a牴re牳r†pome⁤oc
umen瑳t⡥⹧K⁃ n獥牶a瑩tn⁁g物捵汴u牥r
janua氬⁆a牭⁍ nagemen琠䡡edboo欬k䡉s…⁁䥄f⁓瑲t瑥gy⁩ ⁴he Ag物捵汴l牡氠re捴c爬rand
ja楮獴牥rm楮i⁈䥖… A䥄f⁩ ⁴he Ag物捵汴l牡氠re捴c爩⁡牥⁤楳瑲ibuted⁴o 瑨e楢牡物e猠sf
ag物捵汴l牡氠捯汬ege猠snd⁵n楶e牳r瑩t猠楮⁴
he⁣oun瑲tK

f
nd楣慴o爠
1KO
ⰠOM1O楬e獴sne
㨠A汬⁣oun瑲t晦i捥猠save⁡⁣ 牰r牡瑥 䍯Cn瑲t⁐牯r牡rm楮i
䙲amewo牫Ⱐ獥瑴楮iut⁰物o物瑩t猬s牥獵汴猠and⁩nd楣慴o牳⁴r mea獵牥r

A⁇u楤e⁴o⁴he⁆ rmula瑩tn of⁴he⁃oun瑲t⁐牯r牡rm楮i⁆牡mewo牫猠ra猠sub汩獨ed⁩ ′M1OⰠ
p牯r楤楮g

an牧an楳慴ion
J
w楤i⁤ef楮楴楯n⁡nd 瑨e p物n捩灬c猠s映a⁃ c㬠牯汥猠snd
牥獰on獩扩汩瑩t猻⁡nd⁣ 牰r牡瑥⁧u楤an捥n⁴he⁰牯捥獳⁴o ana汹獥eed猬⁥獴ab汩獨⁰物
o物瑩t猬s
and p牯r牡浭e 景爠resu汴献l⁁汬⁣ un瑲t晦楣敳⁷e牥⁩r獴牵捴cd 瑯⁤eve汯l a f牡mewo牫⁢y⁴he
end of OM1OⰠ獥瑴楮iu琠p物o物瑩t猠so⁢e⁴牡r獬s瑥d⁩ 瑯 a nageab汥l獥琠o映牥獵汴猠


業pa捴I
ou瑣tmes⁡ndu瑰u瑳t


that describe FAO’s strategic focu
猠sn⁡⁣oun瑲t⁡nd⁨ow⁴ho獥
牥獵汴猠l楬氠捯n瑲tbu瑥⁴o⁴he⁆ 传Co牰r牡re 剥獵汴猠䙲慭lwo牫⸠r
䙁c⁨as‱PT

捯un瑲t晦楣敳i†
A猠sf ea牬y′M1PⰠ
䍐C猠save⁢een⁣omp汥led⁩ ‸P⁣ un瑲te猠and⁰牥ra牡瑩rn⁩猠 nde爠ray⁩
anothe爠r4⁣ un瑲te献†
fn‴1⁣ un瑲te猬st
he 景rme爠ra瑩ona氠led極m qerm⁐污nn楮i
䙲amewo牫猠r牥⁳r楬氠la汩d⁢u琠wo牫⁩猠獴a牴rngn upda瑩tg⁴he獥 景汬ow楮i⁴heew⁡pp牯r捨⸠
A猠s⁲ su汴Ⱐa汴hough⁆A传has de⁣ n獩derab汥lp牯r牥獳raga楮獴⁴h楳⁩湤楣慴o爬⁩琠ra猠晡汬en
獨o牴映楴猠ia牧et

景爠rM1
O
K

䙁c⁩猠expe捴cd 瑯⁣ mp汥瑥⁴h楳⁷o牫⁩n′M1P
K


Recommendations:



䙥edba捫cf牯m⁄䙉䐠 oun瑲t晦楣敳ion 瑨e⁳ 牡瑥g楣⁰erfo牭ance映䙁F 捡汬y⁩猠 n
業po牴an琠mean猠of⁴物angu污l楮i⁷ha琠appear猠楮⁆ 传eva汵l瑩tn猠and瑨e爠repo牴猠
p牯r楤id⁡琠Headq
ua牴e牳eve氮†啋剥U
副me
獨ou汤len獵牥⁴ha琠楴i捯n瑩tue猠獵晦楣ient
捯n獵汴a瑩tn⁷楴i⁣ unt特晦楣敳ia晴e爠rhe⁣u牲en琠r
o
undf⁍䅒 upda瑩tg⁩猠捯mp汥le.



FAO’s progress against this indicator requires continued tracking. It is advisable that
瑨e⁐䍒 a獳s獳ss⁴he qua汩瑹f⁴he⁃ 䙳⁳楮捥⁴he牥⁩猠獯me⁶a物ab楬楴i⁩ ⁴he
app牯a捨 and⁴ho牯rghne獳sof⁴he framewo牫猠rev楥wed⁦o爠瑨楳iA刮†


Impact Weighting (
%):
25

Revised since last Annual Review?

No


Risk: Low/Medium/High
:
Medium

Revised since last Annual Review?

No


5



Output 2:
Greater focus on results

Output 2 score and performance description:

A
:
Output
s

met
expectation

This is another area in which the

2011 MAR gave FAO a weak score.

There are two output
indicators, set out below.

Reporting against results was provided as planned. Although good
progress was made, CPFs were not introduced in all countries by the end of 2012. This is
highlighted under

indicator 1.2

and accounts for the score of B. It would be duplication to
reflect that in the score for output 2 and, as FAO delivered results reporting and succeeded in
streamlining the number of strategic objectives, with Action Plans for greater focus

on results
and impact, a score of A has been awarded.

Progress against expected results:

I
ndicator 2.1
, 2012 milestone:
First Report on Results Framework published in May 2012
(Programme Implementation Report).

Country Programme Frameworks (CPFs)
developed by
all country offices by end of 2012.

The first report against FAO’s
OM1M
J
11
剥獵汴猠䙲
amewo牫⁷a猠sub汩獨ed⁩n′M1OK†qhe

m牯r牡rme⁉mp汥menta瑩tn⁒epo牴rdocu
ment猠she a捨楥iementf 佲lan楳
a瑩tna氠剥lu汴l
瑡牧e瑳tdu物ng′M1M
J
11⸠

䥴⁩猠ba獥dn

a⁴h牥e
J
獴sgeon楴i物ng⁡nd eva汵l瑩tn p牯捥獳s
牥ru污爠lon楴o物ngf⁷o牫⁰污l猠byanage牳㬠r m楤
J
瑥rm⁲ v楥if p牯r牥獳raga楮獴⁰污nned
ou瑰u瑳t and⁡n⁥nd
J

J
b楥in極m⁡獳e獳mentf⁰牯r牥獳raga楮獴⁴arge瑳t

qhe⁰ub汩捡瑩tn⁩猠
u獵a汬y⁳ bm楴瑥d⁴o t
he fo汬ow楮i⁢楥in楡氠䍯nfe牥rce⁢u琠楴i
wa猠s牯ugh琠fo牷a牤r
by⁡⁹ea爠瑯
jay′M1O
to⁰牯r楤i
mo牥⁴業e汹⁩ forma瑩on on⁡ch楥iemen琠of⁲ su汴献l qh楳ihe汰ed⁴o⁩ 景牭
瑨e⁲ v楥if⁴he p瑲tteg楣⁏i橥捴楶e猠snd 瑨e⁤eve汯lmen琠of⁡ew⁒ 獵汴猠䙲慭ewo牫⁩n
OM1O
J
1P 景爠瑨eex琠OM14
J
1R⁢楥nn極m⸠

䥮⁆ brua特′M1PⰠ瑨e 䙁c⁓e捲c瑡物a琠p牯ru捥d⁡


j楤
J
瑥牭

牥r楥眠獹n瑨e獩猠牥so牴f 瑨e
m牯r牡rme映to牫⁡nd⁂udge琠景爠rM1O
J
13’. This indicated that
ROf 瑨e‵S⁏牧an楺a瑩tna氠
剥獵汴猠⠹P per

捥n琩twe牥n
瑲t捫⁴o⁢e⁡ch楥iedⰠwh楬e⁦ou爠rT per

捥n琩⁲敱u楲ed⁲emed楡氠
a捴楯n du物ng′M1PK

lve牡汬Ⱐ瑨e⁲ 獵汴猠lhowed⁡⁳汩 h琠業p牯remen琠楮iperformance
捯mpa牥r⁴o 瑨e⁰牥r楯i猠䵩d
J
瑥牭⁒ v楥i⸠

qhe⁆ l⁓e捲整a物a琠no瑥d⁴ha琠the ma楮
捨a汬enge猠楮 mee瑩tg⁴a
牧e瑳thad⁣ n瑲td on hand汩ng⁴he⁩mpac琠on⁥x楳瑩湧 wo牫⁰污l猠sf
捨ang楮i⁳ a步ho汤e爠rxpe捴c瑩tnsⰠthe⁩mpa捴cof ng⁲ 捲畩瑭敮琠瑩te猠on⁴he ava楬ab楬楴i of
瑥捨n楣a氠獫楬汳⁩渠瑨e fie汤land
I

楮⁳ me⁣a獥s
I

捨ange猠楮⁰物o物瑩t献s

A猠楮d楣慴ed⁩n⁴he
a獳e獳sen琠of⁏u瑰u琠1⁩ d楣慴o爠r
⸲I

a
猠s映ea牬y OM1PⰠ
䍐䙳Chave⁢een
捯mple瑥d⁩ UP⁣oun瑲te猠snd⁰牥pa牡瑩rn⁩猠unde爠ray⁩ ⁡
no瑨e爠O4⁣ un瑲te献s
cA传ha猠
made
獩snif楣慮t

p牯r牥獳raga楮獴 瑨楳⁩湤楣ato爬

a汴lough

楴iha猠晡汬en⁳ o牴rof⁩瑳 瑡牧e琠景r

OM1O
K

䙁传楳⁥xpe捴ed⁴o⁣omp汥le⁴h楳⁷o牫⁩n′M1PK

f
nd楣慴o爠rKO
ⰠOM1O楬e獴sne㨠剥ou汴猠牥po牴rng⁰牥獥nted 瑯⁆ 传gove牮楮g⁢od楥猠晥eds 楮io
p牯捥獳s景爠獴牥rm汩n楮gumbe爠r映獴牡瑥g楣b橥捴楶e猠snd upda瑩tg 楮i楣慴o牳r景爠r牥r瑥爠
景捵猠on⁩mpact
⸠K


FAO’s P
牯r牡浭e of
t
or欠knd
B
udget

景爠rM1O
J
1P⁲ f汥捴s⁡n⁥污bo牡瑥⁲ su汴猠獴牵捴u牥

楮捬id楮i‱1 p瑲tteg楣⁏i橥捴楶e猬sO⁆ n捴楯na氠佢橥捴楶e猠snd‵S⁏牧an楺a瑩tna氠剥獵汴献l 佮
h楳⁡牲楶a氠楮lpo獴sat⁴he⁢eg楮i楮i映OM1OⰠ瑨eew⁄楲e捴cr
J
䝥ne牡
氠楮楴楡瑥d⁡⁓瑲t瑥g楣i

6


Thinking Process, with which member states have engaged at various junctures.
This was
informed by results reporting provided in the Programme Implementation Report against
FAO’s initial results framework. The process

ha猠牥獵汴ed

in
瑨e⁳ 牥am汩n楮i

o映瑨e⁓佳lfrom
11⁴o‵I⁷楴i⁤e瑡楬ed
A捴楯n⁐污ns
I

and
a new⁣ 牰r牡re⁲ 獵汴l f牡mewo牫

捵牲en瑬t⁵nde爠
deve汯lment⸠⁄楳捵獳楯i猠se瑷een⁴he⁓e捲整a物a琠and mbe爠獴a瑥猠on⁴he m牯r牡浭ef
tor欠knd Budge琠have⁨楧h汩gh瑥d⁴he⁣ n
瑩tued⁷o牫eeded⁢y⁴he⁓e捲c瑡物a琠to⁡牲楶e⁡琠
楮i楣慴o牳rand⁴a牧e瑳ttha琠a牥b橥捴楶e汹ea獵牡r汥⁡nd⁴ha琠a汬ow⁣汥a牥爠r瑴物bu瑩tnf
牥獵汴猠lo 瑨e⁆ 传pec牥瑡物a琠and⁆Al
’s

membe爠r瑡te猠
and瑨e爠獴s步ho汤l牳r
牥rpe捴楶e汹
⸠K
qhe⁓e捲整a物at⁨a猠siven⁡獳s牡rce猠sha琠th楳⁰牯捥獳⁷楬氠le 牧e汹⁣ mp汥led⁢y⁴he⁥ndf
OM1PⰠ楮i瑩te fo爠rhe un捨 of⁴he OM14
J
1R
m
rog牡rme映
t
o牫⁡nd
B
udge琮

Recommendations:



啋剥U
副me

should mon楴o爠捬o獥汹⁴he
comp汥lion of⁃ 䙳Fand⁴he
p牯re獳映
f楮a汩獩湧⁴he⁲ su汴猠f牡mewo牫猠景爠r014
-
15Ⱐa琠bo瑨 瑨e⁣ 牰r牡瑥 and⁣ un瑲t ve汳

瑯⁥n獵牥

su晦楣ien琠捬c物瑹n⁷ha琠䙁F⁩猠捯mm楴瑩tg⁴o de汩ve爠rndn how⁴h楳⁣in⁢e
ob橥捴楶e汹ea獵牥d
.


Impact Weighting (%):

25

Revised since last A
nnual Review?

No


Risk:
Medium

Revised since last Annual Review?

No


Output 3:
Reform and modernisation of the Human Resources function to ensure that staff
performance management system is effective and in use, appointments are merit based at all
levels

for more consistently strong performance (especially among country representatives).

Output 3 score and performance description:

A: Outputs me
t expectation

There are
three
output indicators
.

The
Per
formance Evaluation Management S
ystem

has
been rolled

out

and is being used by all staff, exceeding expectation. However
, development
of the competency framework and rotation policy has

not been completed. They will be
finalised in 2013 under the leadership of the new Director of Human Resources.

The avera
ge
score of the three indicators is
therefore
A.

Progress against expected results:

I
ndicator
3.1
, 2012 milestone: 85% of staff participate in the Performance Evaluation
Management system
.
(score
:

A+, exceeded expectation)

A

Performance Evaluation Management System (PEMS) was implemented in January 2012
after a two
-
year trial period. This is now being used
by all staff
across the Organisation and
the Report on the Immediate Plan of Action Reform notes that “For the first tim
e⁩n⁴h楲瑹⁹ea牳Ⱐ
獴s晦 membe牳f 瑨e⁏牧an楺a瑩tn⁩ ⁡汬⁣ 瑥go物e猠s牥reva汵l瑥d⁵獩ng⁡⁳楮g汥la獳s獳men琠
framework.” This
ex捥ed猠she m楬e獴sne 景爠rM1O and
beg楮猠to⁡ddre獳⁣snce牮猠h楧h汩gh瑥d
楮i瑨e′M11⁍䅒 ove爠rerfo牭ance nagemen琮†周e牥ra
牥⁳楧n猠shat⁴he⁐bjp⁩猠 eing
u獥d 瑯⁩ 捲ca獥⁳瑡晦 景捵猠sn⁲ 獵汴l⁡nd⁴o 楮io牭 de捩獩on
J
ma歩kgn⁡ppo楮imen瑳t⁢ut
瑩te⁷楬氠leeeded⁴o a獳s獳⁨ow⁥晦e捴楶e汹 瑨e⁐bjp⁩猠 e楮i⁵獥dK


7


I
ndicator
3.2
, 2012 milestone: A staff competency framework dev
eloped. 20% increase in
competency rating, based on % of staff taking part in PEMS and their increase in competency
ratings.
(score
: B,

moderately did not meet expectation)

Following the consolidation of active job titles in 2012, progress continued to be

made in
developing Generic Job Profiles (GJPs) for each FAO job
category
.

As part of the second
phase of the Competency Framework project, the GJPs are being mapped to the new
competencies during the first quarter of 2013.

Developme
nt of the competency
framework will
then be
complete
d in 2013 under the leadership of the new Human Resources Director
.

T
he assessment of managerial competencies is now included as an element of a renewed
merit
-
based selection process for FAO Country Representatives. The app
ointment process of
FAO Representatives has become more transparent and focussed on technical competence,
rather than a representational role
. 20 were changed in 2012 as a result of concern over
performance
-

unprecedented in FAO
.

Indicator 3.3
, 2012
milestone: Voluntary rotation/mobility policy introduced.

(score: B,
moderately did not meet expectation)

T
he number of staff rotating has met the

target of doubling the pre
-
IPA numbers, and
a
staff
rotation policy has been

drafted
. This will be finalised

under the new Director of Human
Resources
in 2013.

Recommendations:



UKRep should engage with FAO’s new head of human resources and her team to
mon楴o爠row⁥晦e捴楶e汹⁣lmm楴men瑳t瑯⁈删 e景牭 a牥⁢e楮i⁩ p汥men瑥dK


Impact Weighting (%):

20%

Revised sin
ce last Annual Review?

No


Risk:
Medium

Revised since last Annual Review?

No




Output 4:
Commitment to and implementation of a plan to improve efficiency.

Output 4 score and performance description:

A+: Outputs moderately exceeded expectation

FAO
delivered additional savings to those requested by Member States at the time of approving the
budget
.

Progress against expected results:

I
ndicator 4.1, milestone for 2012: Implementation of $34.5 million efficiency savings for 2012
-
13 bud
get

as agreed at June 2011 FAO C
onference.

FAO has delivered Member States’ request to achieve savings during the 2012
J
1P b楥in極m⸠
䥮 fac琬⁆ l found
啓A
STKR m楬汩on⁩
e晦楣ien捹⁳ 癩湧猠
楮iOM1O
I⁳ rpa獳楮s

瑨e

AP4KR

8


million target set at

the June 2011 C
onference.
This included
US$19.3 million in savings
through a review that focused on the abolition of vacant posts, mainly in administrative support
services at Headquarters. The savings are being reprogrammed in line with FAO’s renewed
p物o物瑩t献


bxa
mp汥猠prov楤id⁢y⁆ 传of mea獵牥r⁴o⁲ du捥⁣o獴猠楮捬ide:⁥x瑥nded⁲ p污捥men琠
pe物od猠景爠rq⁥qu楰men琻⁲ du捥d⁲ 晵牢楳rmen琠of晦楣敳ia琠headqua牴r牳㬠瑲rvel
J
牥污瑥d
獡v楮i猠sh牯rgh⁴he⁩mp汥浥lta瑩tnf an⁩nnova瑩te⁐牥re牲ed⁈ 瑥l⁐牯r牡rme
偈 ⤠
s
捨eme⁷楴i瑨e爠rome agen捩敳cead楮i⁴o⁥獴smated⁳av楮i猠sf mo牥r瑨an⁕
A
RMMⰰMM⁡
yea爻⁡nd⁲ du捴楯n猠楮⁂u獩湥獳⁃污獳 瑲tve氠ln瑩瑬tmen瑳t†


Recommendations:




啋剥U

副me⁴o⁷o牫⁷楴i瑨e爠rembe爠r瑡瑥猠楮⁳uppo牴rng⁆ 传in⁣ n瑩tu楮i⁴o
demon獴sa瑥⁣omm楴men琠to⁤e汩ve物ng⁥晦楣ien捹⁴h牯rgh⁴he′014


1R budget⁡nd
beyond⸠


Impact Weighting (%):

15%

Revised since last Annual Review?
No



Risk: Low/Medium/High
:
Medium

Revised since last Annual Review?
No




Output
5
:
FAO promotes a culture of transparency and openness
.

Output 5 score and performance description:

B: Outputs moderately did not meet expectation

Good progress was made in this area
,

but
the first milestone was not achieved as
IPSAS was
not implemented in 2012 and has been deferred to 2013.

Progress against expected results:

Indicator 5.1 milestone for 2012
: Implementation of IPSAS

FAO’s new Global Resource Management System (GRMS) was l
aun捨ed⁩ ′M1OⰠ
獴牥ng瑨ening⁦inan捩慬⁡ndpe牡瑩rna氠捯n瑲t汳Ⱐla牴r捵污牬y⁩ ⁴he fie汤l⁡nd⁳ ppo牴rng⁦u瑵re
䥮瑥牮a瑩tna氠lub汩挠ce捴c爠䅣捯un瑩tg⁓tanda牤猠⡉偓Ap⤠捯mp汩an捥K

q
he⁲ 汬
J
ou琠of⁉mpAp
楳ow⁳捨edu汥d 景r

OM14
K

䥮d楣慴o爠r


m楬e獴sne⁦o爠rM1O
: q牡r獰a牥rcy⁩ p汥len瑡瑩on p污ls⁩ 楮 ⁷楴i⁂usan
䍯浭楴ien瑳tse琠ou琠by⁄ 捥mbe爠rM1OK

p楮捥⁴he⁍䅒ⰠcA传ha猠楮瑲tdu捥d⁡n⁩ te牮a氠lud楴⁤楳捬o獵牥⁰o汩捹⁡nd⁡ finan捩慬c
d楳捬o獵牥⁰o汩捹⁦o爠獴a晦⸠
A⁷
h楳瑬敢汯le爠ro汩捹⁩猠 e
楮i⁩ p汥浥n瑥d⸠⁆ l⁩猠 a歩湧 景牷a牤r
d楳捵獳楯n猠so⁳楧n⁵p 瑯⁉Aqf⸠⁃ 牰o牡瑥⁳ 牡瑥g楥猠w楴i⁴he⁰物va瑥 獥捴c爠rnd⁣楶楬⁳ 捩整y
捲敡瑥 mo牥ppo牴rn楴楥猠fo爠rx捨ange and⁰a牴r捩灡瑩tn⁩ ⁧ove牮rn捥⸠⁃hange⁩
汥lde牳桩p⁩猠楮瑲tdu捩cg⁡⁧牥r瑥爠r
ense映ac捯untab楬楴iⰠ楮捬id楮i mo牥rd楡汯gue⁷楴i
membe牳桩r⁴han⁩ ⁴he⁰as琮†
m
牯r牥獳r獴楬seed猠瑯 be made⁴h牯rgh⁤eve汯lmentf an
業p汥men瑡瑩tn⁰lan 景爠䥁呉Ⱐmo牥re晦e捴楶e⁣ n獵汴a瑩tn and⁣ mmun楣慴楯nK


9



Recommendations:




A汴lough more⁤i晦楣u汴l瑯⁡獳e獳Ⱐembedd楮i⁡⁧enu楮e⁣ 汴u牥映瑲tn獰a牥n捹⁩ ⁆ 传
楳⁩ipo牴an琬⁡nd⁕ Rep
副me
shou汤lmon楴o爠瑨楳⁴irough⁧ove牮楮g⁢od楥猬⁡nd
d楳捵獳楯n猠s楴i⁆ 传獥n楯爠獴a晦⁡nd o瑨e爠r晦楣ia汳l


Impact Weighting (%):
15%

Revised s
ince last Annual Review?

No


Risk:
Medium

Revised since last Annual Review?
No


Section
B
: Results

and
Value
f
or Money
.


1. Progress and results

1.1

Has the logframe been updated since last review?

N
o
. Country Programming Frameworks were included as a milestone under output
indicator 1.2 but also as part of
2.1. In scoring, the delivery of these was only taken into
account against output 1 to avoid duplication.

1.2 Overall Output Score and Descript
ion:

A:
Outputs me
t expectation

1.3

Summary of overall progress

As the MAR U
pdate indicates, FAO is making progress on a number of fronts, including those
identified within the Business Case and logframe

for the assessed contribution. In some
cases, limited progress reflects the scale of change needed in many areas after 36 years of
lacklustre management under the two previous Directors
-
General.

1
.4

Key
challenges

FAO faces a number of challenges as an

unprecedented level of reform and refocusing
continues. It needs to be able to articulate clearly its objectives and comparative advantage,
to embed a culture of results, transparency and accountability, and to push hard for greater
efficiencies and cost
-
effectiveness.

Central to addressing these challenges is the profile and competence of FAO staff. Much
depends on the ability of the new head of Human Resources and her team to review the skills
and capacity needed to deliver FAO’s objectives, to conduct

a⁣omp牥ren獩se⁲ v楥wf⁴he
p牯f楬e猠s映ex楳瑩湧⁳ a晦
Ⱐ瑯

牥汥a獥 o爠re瑲t楮is瑡晦⁷ho獥 p牯f楬e猠do no琠ma瑣h⁴he need猬s
and
瑯⁩ 瑲tdu捥 dern⁳ a晦 management⸠

bven⁷楴i⁴he⁲ gh琠獴s晦⁩n⁰污le
I

䙁传w楬氠leed⁴o ensu牥⁴ha琠they⁲ 捥楶ee捥獳ar
y⁴牡楮楮i
楮i獥瑴楮i⁴a牧e瑳t⁲ por瑩tgn⁲ 獵汴l⁡nd⁡獳e獳楮s⁶a汵l⁦o爠roney⸠⁔h楳⁷楬氠牥lu楲e⁡
瑨o牯rgh deve汯lmen琠p污l and 瑨e⁣ pa捩瑹⁴o⁩ plemen琠楴


ano瑨e爠r物o物瑹⁦o爠rhe new
head映䙁c⁈ man⁒e獯u牣敳r


10


If this
work
does not happen by the time the 2014
-
15
P
rogramme of
W
ork gets under way it
will undermine the likelihood of success.

1.
5

Annual Outcome
Milestone

Assessment

The Outcome

is: A renewed FAO delivering high
-
quality services effectively and efficiently to
developing countries in support of their

plans to achieve food security and sustainable
agricultural development.

Outcome
Indicator
1

is:
Percentage of outcomes that are rep
orted as either on
-
track or
achieved.

The
2012 milestone for Out
come Indicator

1

is: that the
June 2012 Programme
Implementation Report (PIR) shows 70% of indicators against strategic objectives achieved or
on track.


Assessment
:

The June 2012 Programme I
mplementation Report showed that 76% of indicators against
strategic objectives were met. That surpasses the milestone and indicates satisfactory
performance.

T
he ‘Mid
J
瑥牭⁲ v楥i⁳ n瑨e獩猠牥so牴rof⁴he m牯r牡rme映to牫⁡nd⁂udge琠景爠rM

J
13’
pub汩獨
ed⁩ ⁍a牣栠OM1P
楮d楣慴e
s

瑨a琠
RO映瑨e RS⁏牧an楺a瑩tna氠剥獵汴猠⠹P per

捥n琩twe牥r
on⁴牡捫r瑯 be a捨楥iedⰠwh楬e⁦ou爠rT per

捥n琩⁲敱u楲ed⁲ med楡氠ic瑩tn⁤u物ng′M1P⸠

併瑣tme 併tpu琠
O

楳i
jA删啰oa瑥㨠䙁c⁩猠牡n步d⁡猠a‧獡瑩t晡捴cry爠rood⁰erform
e爧K

qhe′M1O楬e獴one for⁏u瑰u琠O⁩猺 jA删opda瑥⁶楳i瑳tand⁣ un瑲t
o晦楣e⁧a瑨e物ngf
楮io牭a瑩tn 瑯 瑲t捫⁰牯g牥獳r

A獳s獳sent

qh楳⁩猠捯mp汥le⸠ A 楮琠啋剥r⁒ me

and IDO team reviewed FAO India’s
no牭a瑩te⁷o牫⁩n′M1O⁡猠pa牴映p牥pa牡瑩on猠fo爠rhe⁍䅒 upda瑥⸠
䍯Cn瑲t⁶楳楴猠 o⁍ 汩⁡nd
Senegal also gathered information on FAO’s work and s
eve牡氠
䑆䥄f
捯un瑲t晦楣敳
I

楮捬id楮i
䑆䥄⁉nd楡i⁍ anma爬rpoma汩a⁡nd⁚
imbabweⰠmon楴o牥r⁍䅒 p物o物瑹⁡牥r猠snd
p牯r楤id
牥ru污爠晥edba捫⸠

佶e牡汬Ⱐ瑨e⁏u瑣tme⁩猠汩步汹⁴o⁢e⁡ch楥ied
K



O⸠⁓pend楮i⁰牯f楬e

and⁴業e獣s汥

2.1 Is the spend profile detailed in the Business Case being followed
:
Y
es



The UK’s assessed contribution to FAO falls due in January, at the beginning of the FAO
f楮an捩慬⁹ea爮†周e⁕ ⁧ene牡汬y⁰ay猠楴猠捯nt物bu瑩tn
楮 fu汬 景爠瑨e⁣a汥lda爠rea爠
楮iAp物氬l
椮eK

瑨e beg楮i楮if 瑨e⁕ f楮in捩慬⁹ea爮


qhe⁊ ne OM1O⁳ 獳sonf 瑨e⁆ 传䍯un捩c⁡g牥rd⁴o⁴he⁲ea汬o捡瑩onf one
J
o晦⁳av楮i猠sf
A19KPm⁴o o瑨e爠r物o物瑩t猠s楴i楮i瑨e OM1O
J
1P budge琬⁩ 捬畤楮i⁴o⁡c捥汥牡瑥 瑨e⁰牯捥獳映
de捥n瑲t汩獡瑩tnⰠa⁆ 传p物o物瑹 wh楣栠瑨e⁕ ⁳ ppo牴献†




11


2.2 Does the

review of the cash balance position raise any concerns around payment in
advance of need:


No.
There are therefore no reasons for concern over payment in advance of need.

2.3 Have
additional payments linked to good performance been triggered
:

Not App
licable
.
The 2011 MAR placed FAO in special measures. There was no option for
additional payments linked to good performance. However, voluntary contributions to FAO by
DFID departments and other UK government departments
reflect their independent
judge
ments that they have identified FAO as the best service provider,
including
in areas of
plant genetic resources
,

statistical work and
emergency livelihoods support
.



3. Evidence and Evaluation

3.1 Assess any changes in evide
nce

The MAR U
pdate, which has been completed at the same time as this Annual Review, and on
which the AR draws,
has entailed detailed assessment of a wide array of evidence of FAO’s
perfo牭ance

be汯l⸠⁔ 楳⁰牯r楤i猠sp
J

J
date⁥v楤in捥⁡nd⁩n捬畤es⁳ u牣敳rno琠ava楬abl

when⁴he Bu獩se獳⁃s獥⁷a猠s牥ra牥dK





m牯r牡rme映to牫⁡nd⁂udge琠OM1O
J
1PI⁃ nfe牥n捥⁊une′M11



䝬dba氠q牥rd猠snd⁆utu牥⁃ra汬enge猠fo爠rhe 佲lan楳慴楯iⰠCoun捩cⰠ䩵ne OM1O



䙁c❳⁁瑴物bu瑥猬⁃ 牥⁆ n捴楯n猠snd⁃ mpa牡瑩re⁁dvan瑡ge猬s䍯un捩cⰠ䩵ne′M1
O



併瑬楮t of⁴he⁒ev楥wed⁓瑲tteg楣⁆iamewo牫Ⱐ䍯rn捩cⰠgune′M1O



䥭fedia瑥 m污l of⁁c瑩tn


䥐A⁁nnua氠lepor琠fo爠rM11⁡nd⁄楲e捴楯n fo爠rM1OⰠ䍯un捩cⰠ
䩵ne OM1O



p瑲t捴c牥rand⁆ nc瑩tn楮i映瑨e⁄ 捥n瑲t汩zed⁏晦楣敳⁎ 瑷o牫Ⱐ䍯rn捩cⰠ䩵ne′M1O



m牯r牡rme
fmp汥menta瑩tn⁒epo牴rOM1M


OM11Ⱐ䌲M1P⼸I⁃ un捩cⰠ䑥捥mbe爠rM1O



q牡rs景牭a瑩tna氠䍨lnge猠楮⁴he′M1O
J
1P⁂楥nn極mⰠ䍯un捩cⰠ䑥捥mbe爠OM1O



剥o楥wed⁓瑲t瑥g楣⁆iamewo牫⁡ndu瑬楮t of 瑨e⁍ d極m qerm⁐污n′M14
J
1TⰠ䍯un捩cⰠ
䑥捥mbe爠rM1O

㄰1

m牯r牥獳r剥oo牴n

the⁉mmed楡ie⁐污n映A捴楯n⁉mp汥men瑡瑩tnI 䑥捥mbe爠rM1O

ㄱ1

jed極洠呥牭 m污l OM14


1T⁡nd⁐牯r牡浭ef to牫rand⁂udge琠OM14


1RI
䙥b牵r特′M1P

ㄲ1

䍯Cn瑲t⁐牯r牡rm楮i 䝵楤i汩nes


m物n捩灬cs⁡nd⁐o汩捹Ⱐ佣lobe爠rM11

ㄳ1

䍯Cn瑲t⁐牯r牡rm楮i 䙲amewo牫⁇r楤i汩nes
ⰠOM1O

ㄴ1

䍯Cn瑲t⁐牯r牡rm楮i 䙲amewo牫猠景爺⁎rge物aⰠma歩獴anI⁐a捩f楣i′M1O




ㄵ1

ja楮獴牥rm楮i⁲ 獵汴l
J
ba獥d⁰物n捩灬cs⁡nd⁰牡捴楣敳i楮i䙁c㨠OM1O
J
OM1P⁢楥nn極mⰠ
䍥C瑲t 景爠䥮te牮r瑩onal⁄ ve汯lmen琠and⁔ra楮楮g
 䥄f⤬⁕湩Fe牳r瑹tof
to汶e牨amp瑯nⰠOM1P

ㄶ1

j
佐A丠剥ko牴n⁆ 伬′M11

ㄷ1

䙁c⁐牥汩m楮a特⁔heo特f⁃ angeⰠOM1O

ㄸ1

䙁c⁓ubm楳獩on映bv楤in捥ⰠOM1O

ㄹ1

䑆䥄⁃fun瑲t⁏晦楣e⁆eedba捫ⰠOM1O
J



㈰O

䑆䥄⁍䅒⁕fda瑥⁃ un瑲t⁖楳i瑳t′M1O

啋剥r⁒ me
also regularly discusses FAO’s performance with the
䙁c
pe捲c瑡物a琠

dthe爠
membe爠獴rte猠shough gove牮楮g⁢od楥猠and o瑨e爠rn景牭a氠lee瑩ng猠snd⁤楳捵獳楯n献


12


3.2 Where

an evaluation is planned what progress has been made?

N/A



4. Risk

4.1
Output Risk Rating: Low/Medium/High

All outputs are rated Medium Risk.


4.2
Assessment of the risk level


The risk section of the Business Case identified the following risks:


1) T
hat FAO reform is not sufficiently re
-
energised, resulting in little change at organisational
or country level.
Assessment
:

this has not materialised
so far.
On the contrary: w
idespread
changes are continuing at all levels
.


2) T
hat the membership fails to remain united behind the reform programme and is unable to
provide FAO with clear strategic guidance or to support management in achieving greater
f
ocus on results and impact
.
Assessment
: the UKRep

Rome

team engages regularly with
both the FAO management and membership to try to retain focus in the reforms. Notably,
during the November 2012 FAO Council session, it managed to tighten the focus of FAO
’s
goa氠lnd ou瑣ome⁷o牤楮gn⁣ n瑲tbu瑩tg⁴o 瑨e⁲ du捴楯n映g汯la氠hunge爮†r


f
琠楳⁩渠the natu牥映aa牧eu汴楬ate牡氠r牧aniza瑩tn⁴ha琠membe爠獴a瑥猠⡩n⁴h楳⁣a獥 19
O

have differing views of the organization’s priorities. That said, there is co
nsensus on FAO’s
f楶e⁓瑲tteg楣⁏i橥捴楶e猠snd⁣ ns瑲t捴楶e⁤eba瑥
wh楬e

瑨ese⁡re⁴牡n獬慴ed⁩ 瑯u瑣tme猠and
ou瑰u瑳t


P⤠F
inancial risks. DFID continues to monitor FAO’s financial oversight, including through
FAO’s reports to, and the discussions in,
瑨e 䙁c⁆楮ance⁃ mm楴iee
K



4⤠F
e汩very⁲ 獫⸠

As a normative agency, FAO relies significantly on its ‘compact’ with member
獴s瑥猠瑨a琠瑨ey⁷i汬⁡dop琠and⁩ plemen琠norm猠snd⁳ anda牤猠楴ideve汯l献s⁅va汵l瑩tn猠s映
FAO’s country programmes suggest that FAO’s host governments and other partners continue

瑯⁣ 汬abo牡re⁷楴i⁆ 传瑯 a捨楥ie⁴he⁩ tended ou瑣ome献s


4.3


Risk of funds not being used as intended


This risk is mitigated through regular financial reporting provided to the governing bodies.

The
increased transparency introduced by the Director
-
Gen
eral is allowing member states greater
insight into evaluations and audits. There has been no evidence of funds not being used as
intended.


4.
4 Climate and Environment Risk


The Climate and Environment assurance note
highlights FAO’s initiatives to ad
d牥獳rthe
捨a汬enge映捬cma瑥⁣hange⸠⁄䙉䐠楳 f楮a汩獩sg⁡⁓瑲t瑥g楣⁐牯r牡浭e⁒ v楥i⁴o⁩ en瑩fy
opportunities to maximise FAO’s positive impact in the areas of climate change and
env楲onmen琮†周楳⁷楬氠be⁣ mple瑥d⁢y⁳ mme爠rM1P⁡nd⁷楬氠獴牥ng瑨en⁕
KRep’s ability to

13


engage with FAO on these issues.




5
. Value for Money

5.1 Performance on VfM measures

The MAR found that FAO offered poor value for money for the UK. The MAR update points
towards improvement in
priority
areas.

5.2 Commercial
Improvement and Value for Money

In addition to the $34
.5
m savings b
y FAO mandated by the 2011 FAO C
onference, the
Secretariat
has
achieved additional savings of $33m during the course of the 2012
-
13
biennium.

Improvements in procurement

have been made since the MAR in 2011.
Value
-
for
-
money is
central to new guidelines and procedures developed for procurement and Letters of
Agreement.
Awareness has increased and a greater culture of value for money has been
introduced across the Organis
ation.
1,145 staff have
so far
received direct training in
procurement
. To support the

process of decentralisation and build capacity in the field, FAO
has
increased its procurement supervision capacity by posting additional international
procurement off
icers in countries where FAO undertakes significant amounts of procurement
for
emergency projects
.
In addition, t
he final report on the implementation of the IPA reform
notes procurement savings of US
$
4.6 million
,

mainly as a result of lower headquarters costs
for goods and contracts jointly procured with the other Rome
-
based agencies.

UKRep Rome will continue pressing for FAO to foster a stronger culture of value for money.
The negotiations surrounding the 2014
-
15 Programme of Work and Budget offer a good
opportunity for this: the UK and other

Member States

will expect the FAO Secretariat to
achieve further efficiencies and to develop a longer
-
term plan to embed a culture of value for
money in the Organization.




6
. Conclusions and actions


The MAR U
pdate process has provided a highly
-
detailed assessment of progress by FAO
against the reform priorities identified in the 2011 MAR.

It will result in a revised set of
priorities which will form the basis for reform dialogue with FAO for the next two years. This
should improve the likelihood of increased impact of the UK’s assessed contribution for 2012
J
1P⁷hen⁴he m䍒⁩猠捯mp汥led⁩
n′M14K




7
. Review Process


The review was conducted in March 2013 by Neil Briscoe, head of UKRep Rome, with support

14


from Liz Nasskau. It drew on the thorough analysis underpinning the 2013 FAO MAR update,
which was based on a wide range of
primary
documentation

(including recently
published
performance reports and ot
her documents to be discussed at

the April 2013 FAO Council
),
supported by

feedback
from DFID country offices

and

field visits
, evidence from FAO

as well
as other sources of evidence suc
h as the MOPAN report
.