The expenditure figures were for the majority of projects under outcome 1 within a normal range (80 to 100 percent) for 2011. For 2012, all but two projects90 (that have had a rather low expenditure rate of 27 percent) showed a normal flow of expenditure. Overall, there is a significant deviation between the total resources required and resources available at the start of projects, which needs to be addressed at the BRC level. One example is the CRM CA project, the largest portfolio under the outcome, where only 50 percent of the total budget required (USD 12 million) was secured at the start of the project. The CRM project team coped with the situation well. When revising the project document the project managers tried to be conservative in their expenditure, not investing the scarce resources in an expensive component of the project, such as piloting. Instead, the available resources were allocated to low-cost options (e.g. alternative agro-practices aiming to make the communities more resilient to climate change and climate-related risks). At the same time the project management tried to mobilize additional funding. In the first two years of implementation, CRM managed to raise more than 50 percent of the budgetary gap (or about USD 3 million).91 During the interviews, the existing requirements associated with the legalities of contracting were raised as a key challenge in staff ’s resource mobilization efforts, as they are very demanding and considered as rigid by partners and donors.92 This constitutes a major limitation, when projects are
often required to acquire funds during the course of their implementation. Feedback from the country offices indicates general satisfaction with the technical implementation of regional projects and advisory services under the portfolio. There are two main practices at BRC contributing to the outcome 1 portfolio: E&E and CPR. Country office survey results show that E&E team enjoys one of the highest satisfaction rates among all service areas on the quality of support provided.93 The country office that responded ‘unsatisfied’ expressed in an interview no particular concerns about the quality of the services, but about the delays in responding to their request by one adviser. The Service Tracker data also reflect generally high satisfaction with the portfolio by the country offices.94 The E&E team at BRC is partly staffed with GEF advisers, staff financed with the percentages granted in case of project approval endorsement by GEF.95 This has strengthened the human resource base available to provide services to the region at BRC. The team of GEF advisers was also reported as being efficient in supporting national partners in applying for GEF and other funding. This was evidenced by the successful bidding for GEF and other funds, leading to a large number of newly acquired projects in the field of E&E.96 Interventions were reported as contributing to the enhancement of the thematic discussion.
Reference is made to Mobility in Slovakia and the Turkmenistan component of CRM.
90
Progress report, CRM project, 2012.
91
One staff put the challenge as, “While trying to go through this procedure, interest in cooperation (with UNDP) disappears.”
92
Question 14, Annex 7 available online: http://erc.undp.org/evaluationadmin/manageevaluation/ viewevaluationdetail.html?evalid=6676.
93
Service Tracker Analysis, Annex 10 available online: http://erc.undp.org/evaluationadmin/manageevaluation/ viewevaluationdetail.html?evalid=6676.
94
The amount awarded is 10 percent of the project budget grant, divided by 3 percent for UNDP country office, 3 percent for the regional centre, and 4 percent for the headquarters, the latter divided in equal parts by the UNDP GEF partnership office and the RBEC office (RBEC is paying 0.3 percent for central services).
95
UNDP gets a General Management Support fee of 10 percent from GEF which is distributed as follows: 3 percent for country office, 3 percent for the regional GEF team and 4 percent for headquarters.
96
CHAPTER 3. CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNDP REGIONAL PROGRAMME TO DEVELOPMENT RESULTS
27