BDP organised a TTF manager discussion to address the issues that have emerged regarding the management and allocation processes for TTFs.
The first item for discussion was the presentation of the TTF report to the EB in the summer. BRSP informed us that a special session of the EB will be held in September to discuss the TTF report. No formal report is expected to be presented for the June sessions. The report should not be more than 10,700 words (seriously!) and should have a summary box front page, the action that the EB is expected to take and the necessary elements and substantive inputs for the specific action required. The report must be ready by 30 May. Although donors are putting a lot of emphasis on the ROAR most TTF managers indicated that it was to early for their TTFs to have actual data from this source.
BRSP also reported that the Dutch, one of the main non-core contributors to UNDP, is slashing its contribtuion from 19 million to 1 million due to the economic situation in the country. This is not good for UNDP as it will probably have a “peer” effect on others donors vis-a-vis TTFs. It is however clear that this decline in non-core contributions is not related to UNDP’s performance with this new instrument.
TTF managers were requested to make short presentation on the plus and minuses of the process of running their funds. Many different issues emerged and it was clear that the situation varies from TTF to TTF. One common issue was that of alignment (policy and programme) where the TTFs can be seen as a key instrument. But is was also clear that TTFs are not the ONLY instrument to do this. We should however not confuse the instrument or the modality with the corporte startegy for the various practice areas.
A second meeting of the group will take place in early May. BDP will be circulating a typology of the issues raised by the TTF managers for discussion.
Ra�l
