Discussion Points on GFDRR Governance

<strong>Discussion</strong> <strong>Points</strong> on GFDRR Governance
Introduction
GFDRR’s current governance structure is defined in the Partnership Charter 2010. Since its
first Consultative Group (CG) meeting in September 2006, GFDRR has seen its membership
grow from 14 countries and three international organizations, to 41 countries and 8
international organizations. This has resulted in a less efficient decision making process with
limited opportunities for interactive discussion. This paper lays out proposals for
consideration of the CG to streamline GFDRR’s governance system to adapt to its growing
portfolio and membership.
1. Frequency of CG Meetings
The Partnership Charter requires the CG to meet ‘at least once a year’ in person. In the past,
the Secretariat has organized CG meetings twice a year with full plenary sessions. This has
been a resource-intensive practice in terms of time, energy and financing.
Two formal CG meetings per year is now less important, as GFDRR is well-established, and
because as development projects usually take a number of years to implement, bi-annual
reports cannot show significant changes from one CG to the next.
In this context, it is proposed that GFDRR conduct only one CG Meeting each year. This
annual meeting, to take place during the last quarter of each calendar year, would discharge
the duties and responsibilities of the CG as envisaged in Paragraph 25 of the Charter. The
venue for the Annual CG meeting will continue to be decided in consultation with the Co-
Chair.
The Secretariat will continue to organize an informal meeting in the Spring. However, this
meeting would not make any formal decisions regarding GFDRR’s business and would serve
to prepare the agenda for the Annual CG meeting. The Spring meeting could be organised in
the margins of other international events where members are already likely to attend. Such
meetings would include the Chair and Co-chair, and be open to all interested members.
Minutes of the spring meeting would be circulated to all members.
This arrangement will be consistent with decisions at the 12th CG meeting regarding the
GFDRR governance, where it was agreed that: “deliberative processes outside of the CG
meeting should remain informal and within the existing provisions of the Charter, should
allow all interested members to engage in the spirit of inclusiveness and transparency, and
ensure that the GFDRR Head of Secretariat is fully involved”.
1 | P a g e

Point for consideration:
Does the CG approve having one Annual CG meeting to transact its business as per
provisions of the Charter? This proposal does not require an amendment of the Charter,
in terms of Paragraph 26.
2. Number of invited members to the CG
The Charter provides for the CG to invite developing countries as non-contributing members
on a 2-year staggered rotation basis. A decision was taken at the 7 th CG in Stockholm to
invite 6 developing countries as non-contributing members of the CG on 2-year staggered
rotation basis. This decision was driven by the need to broaden the governance base of
GFDRR and to increase the voice of developing countries in its governance.
A number of developing countries have since joined or are about to join GFDRR as
contributing members. To manage the growth of the CG, it is proposed that the number of
non-contributing low income countries to be invited by CG be set at two. This would only
take effect at the end of the two-year term of current invited members (Solomon Islands,
Togo and Haiti).
Point for consideration:
Does the CG approve setting the number of non-contributing invited low income
countries to two on a two-year staggered-rotation basis from 2014 onwards? This
proposal does not require an amendment of the Charter, in terms of Paragraph 24(f).
3. Results Management Council
The Charter provides for a Results Management Council (RMC) to provide technical
guidance and advice to the CG and the Secretariat. RMCs were set up for 2007-2009 and
2010-2012. Over a dozen experts were nominated as members of the RMC in both the
Councils.
Although the RMC met regularly to provide guidance to the Secretariat (including on the
Terms of Reference for the 2010 Independent Evaluation, the Results Based Management
System (RBMS) and the Results Framework), it has not lived up to the responsibilities
originally envisaged in Paragraph 32 of the Charter. As the term of the RMC members was
due to expire in 2011, the 11 th CG in Jakarta (November 2011) decided to refrain from
reconstituting it, pending overall governance enhancement decisions.
It is proposed that the RMC not be reconstituted as an entity, and that its tasks and
responsibilities be met by commissioning experts to carry out studies on topics of interest to
the CG, including assessments of approaches and programs. Such studies would be tabled,
and results presented at the Annual CG meeting.

Point for consideration:
Does the CG approve this arrangement, which would consist of commissioning
independent studies, in lieu of the RMC’s responsibilities? This would require an
amendment of the Charter in Paragraphs 31 to 33. The language of such amendment will
be circulated by email for approval.
4. Secretariat’s authority for Project approval
A recent review by the World Bank’s Internal Audit Department (IAD) noted inconsistency
in seeking no-objections from the CG by the Secretariat for particular emergency operations.
IAD has requested the Secretariat to work with the CG to define specific circumstances
where no-objection from the CG will be obtained in the future.
IAD noted that the GFDRR Secretariat sought the consent of the CG to sanction funds for the
purchase of disaster preparedness and emergency response equipment (rescue boats) after the
India floods of 2009, but did not seek similar authorization from the CG after the Pakistan
floods of 2010. Neither of these operations was outside the principles of the Administration
Agreements.
Point for consideration:
Does the CG agree that the Secretariat, in order to retain its ability to act quickly, will
only seek CG’s clearance where a specific course of action requires an exception from
the existing provisions of the Administration Agreements? This proposal does not require
an amendment of the Charter, in terms of Paragraph 35.

ANNEX
List of Members and Observers
Formal CG Members:
Donors:
ACP Secretariat
Australia
Austria
Brazil
Denmark
European Union
Germany
Italy
Japan
Korea, Republic of
Luxembourg
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
United States
World Bank
Other members:
UNISDR
Invited Developing countries:
Yemen (2011-12)
Malawi (2011-12)
Bangladesh (2011-12)
Togo (2012-13)
Solomon Islands (2012-13)
Haiti (2012-13)
CG Observers:
Arab Academy
Belgium
Canada (donor but 3-year contribution expired)
China
Colombia
Egypt
Finland
France (donor contribution under 3 million)
India
Indonesia
Ireland (donor contribution under 3 million)
Islamic Development Bank
Malaysia
Mexico
Nigeria
New Zealand
Portugal
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
South Africa
Vietnam
Invited Observers:
UNDP
IFRC