RBEC in 2007 and 2008 Regional RR meeting Bratislava 21-23 April 2008

RBEC in 2007 and 2008

Regional RR meeting Bratislava 21-23 April 2008

2

• Balanced Score Card• Analysis of delivery trends• Outlook for 2008• Priorities for 2008


Outline of the presentation

3

Balanced Score Card: key indicators 1/3

• Programme delivery: increased by 8% from 2006 to 2007 (corporately a decline of 5%)

• Resource mobilization: up 5% in 2006-07 (RBAP, RBAS up 44%, RBA up 7%, RBLAC down 6.5%)

• Cost recovery /government cost sharing: RBEC rate, 2.86% in 2007, below 3% corporate rate (3.82% without Poland)

• Cost recovery from TF and 3rd party cost sharing: RBEC rate, 5.77%, is above minimum 5% and highest in UNDP

58% 27% 15%RBEC 2007 Results

61% 24% 15%All COs 2007 Results

81% 8% 11%RBEC 2007 Results


68% 12% 20%RBEC 2007 Results


33% 50% 17%RBEC 2007 Results



4


• Implementation of audit recommendations: 100% compliance with OAPR standards

• NEX Audit Management: 17 Cos (74%) meet OAPR requirements, above corporate average

• MOSS compliance: 100% compliant with MOSS

• Financial data quality: only one CO does not meet corporate requirements

• Management efficiency ratio - admin/total expenditure - RBEC average 11.1% vs. 9.8 % target












5


• Staff perception of work environment (GSS): slightly ahead of corporate average

• Knowledge networks participation and learning: ahead of corporate average

• Gender balance in professional positions: 4 more country offices achieved gender balance in 2007.

17% 66% 17%RBEC 2007 Results


54% 19% 27%RBEC 2007 Results


39% 46% 15%RBEC 2007 Results



6

Bureau 2006 2007 Y/Y Change

RBLAC $1,411,941 $1,310,918 -7.15%

RBAP $727,851 $732,610 0.65%

RBA $900,906 $694,373 -22.93%

RBAS $372,141 $428,992 15.28%

RBEC $308,703 $ 335,734 8.76%

• RBEC Total $ 335,7 mln – smallest in UNDP• Growth of 8.76% - one of two regions growing

Delivery trends: RBEC vs. other Bureaux

2006-07 programme delivery by region, US$ thous.


7

Delivery trends: RBEC analysis

Fastest growing2007/2006, %

Croatia 196%Montenegro 107%

Moldova 69%Belarus 69%Turkey 52%Serbia 47%


Delivery size 2006 % of RBEC delivery 2007 % of RBEC

delivery

$ 1-6 mln 8 8% 5 4%

$6-12 mln 5 14% 9 23%

$12 mln & up 14 78% 13 72%

COs by delivery size, 2006-07

COs by growth rate, 2007

Delivery trend Number of COs

% of RBEC delivery

Average increase /

decline

Declining 8 23% -28%

Stagnating (0-15%) 5 20% 8%

Growing (15% and up) 14 57% 55%

8

Delivery trends: underlying sustainability

1. External factors: RBEC delivery growth would be 14.5% without Bulgaria

2. Source of funds: non core resources = 86%. Major donors: Govt, EU, GFATM, GEF

3. Contribution of the largest (No 1) project - 26% of ‘07 delivery (in 6 COs - over 40% of delivery)


9

Outlook for 2008 and beyondRBEC Purchasing Power: 2006-07 vs. 2008-09

DCU = Development Capacity Unit = Project manager + Consultant, Advisor + 1 Project support Staff

Purchasing Power = No. of DCUs COs can purchase in the biennium (Biennium TRAC allocation / Average cost of the DCU)

* DCU costs barely keep up with dollar depreciation

Country % inc – decrease in TRAC 1-2 allocations

DCU cost increase

% increase - decrease purchasing power

Ukraine -32% 115% -68%Kosovo -54% 23% -63%Serbia -41% 23% -52%

Bulgaria -29% 41% -50%Armenia -21% 49% -47%Albania -40% 17% -49%

BiH -36% 16% -45%Turkmenistan -30% 21% -42%

Azerbaijan -19% 36% -40%Georgia -26% 20% -39%Belarus -18% 23% -34%

Romania -17% 25% -34%Macedonia -12% 23% -29%

Turkey -13% 21% -28%Moldova -14% 17% -26%Croatia -5% 22% -22%

Kazakhstan 7% 36% -21%Russia 13% 23% -8%

Kyrgyzstan 50% 32% 13%Montenegro 52% 23% 23%

Tajikistan 56% 21% 29%Uzbekistan 115% 13% 89%

RBEC Averages 6% 29% -20%BRC 0.12% 19% -18%

10

TREND: 8 out of 25 COs set lower delivery targets vs ’07

FACT: 1st quarter delivery is $7 mln lower than in ‘07(17 COs have a decline)

Outlook for 2008 and beyondDelivery vs. Resource Mobilization


US$ thous.

11

• Running a CO is like riding a bicycle:

Priorities for 2008Delivery vs. Impact


Level of delivery = speedImpact = where does it bring you

12

• Great in local governance / ABD

• Visibility in social inclusion policies


Priorities for 2008Impact: where are we going?

EU New Member States or Accession StatesLow-income countries

• Environment & Energy BoomingFirst MDG Carbon ProjectStaved off worse-case scenario with GEF

13

1. Go-to agency for institutional development2. Scale up of local development, social inclusion3. East-East cooperation network4. Honest broker and advocate

+ Energy and Environment


Priorities for 2008Impact: where do we want to arrive?

14

• Coordinated advocacy w/EU and other donors• Advancing partnerships (Govt, EC, OSI,CEDB, EBRD)

• Effective internal communications


Priorities for 2008Impact: how to get there? 1/2

Analysis of delivery vs. sustainability issues Learning from our work (self-reflection) Working together

15

• Consolidating BRC role and operations


Priorities for 2008Impact: how to get there? 2/2

Accountability, evaluation, working for results

New management More prioritization and feedback

• In New York: More systematic monitoring and feedback Building (sub-) regional synergies Far more responsiveness

• Strategic HR management

16

• Clear message from Oslo: mainstreaming lessons from the pilots as a priority

• Using the wave of new UNDAFs in RBEC as a unique strategic opportunity

• Relying on an inter-agency process for strategic prioritization (RDT role in strategy review)


Priorities for 2008Delivering as One

Documents

RBEC in 2007 and 2008 Regional RR meeting Bratislava 21-23 April 2008