RCA Medium Term Strategy 201217

1
RCA Medium Term Strategy 2012-17
2
Report of the outcomes of the working group?

• Thanks to the members of the working group
• Ron Cameron, Australia
• Maoxiong Long, China
• Raghavan Unni Pookot, India
• Anhar Riza Antariksawan, Indonesia
• Satoshi Furuta, Japan
• Ainul Hayati Hj Daud, Malaysia
• Frank Bruhn, New Zealand
• Asif Salahuddin, Pakistan
• General tidying up and updating of the text to
  reflect the current status of the RCA
• A revised Vision, Mission, Strategic context and
  core values

3
Governance

• Continued concern over the effectiveness of the
  governance process
• day-to-day management of the RCA requires
  significant time commitment, knowledge of the RCA
  and expertise. Furthermore, there is no
  designated person to represent the RCA in
  discussions with third parties.
• Recommendation
• that the RCA Chair should be appointed for a
  longer term, separately to the host country
  nomination process. The RCA Chair needs to have
  the ability, knowledge, resources and Government
  support and commitment to undertake this role.
  The NRM would still be chaired by the host
  country, where they are willing to do so.

4
Critical Success Factors

• Now split into two sustainability and
  successful outcomes
• Emphasise on needs driven, design, resources,
  impact, regional relevance, strong role of the
  nuclear technique and supported by national
  programmes.
• Needing high commitment, funding and management
• Strategic Directions revised and one extra
  added
• Ensuring effective management of the RCA
• Achieving greater impact for RCA projects
• Developing nuclear technology capacities in RCA
  Member States that are sustainable and address
  identified socioeconomic needs
• Enhancing the uptake of nuclear technologies and
  increasing the visibility of the RCA
• Ensuring that regional priorities guide the
  ongoing direction of the RCA.

5
Ensuring effective Management of the RCA

• Closer interactions between NRs and NPCs and
  between NRs and the RCA Focal Person
• Each NR to come better briefed for RCA meetings
• Strong RCA country team
• Better liaison with PLCCs and NPCs
• More effective reporting to highlight
  achievements and identify issues
• Regular summary reports from RCA Focal Person

6
Achieving greater impact for RCA projects

• Support for reduced number of sectors and aim for
  2-3 projects per sector
• Project Lead Country Coordinators to provide an
  annual report of project progress against
  milestones and performance indicators with
  recommendations for corrections, if necessary.
• More effective review of project process by NRs
  and taking actions if projects are not being
  successful
• Develop project-specific criteria at the project
  design stage to measure impact

7
Thematic Areas

• The WG recommended that the thematic areas for
  the RCA for the period 2012-2017 should be
• Food and Agriculture
• Human Health
• Environment and Water
• Applications of Radiation to Industry
• In addition to these four thematic areas, the WG
  recommended creation of supplementary projects as
  discussed below.

8
Achieving greater impact for RCA projects 2
recommendations

• In addition to core projects, introduce the
  concept of supplementary projects that address
  specific needs of a smaller group of Member
  States, provide further action to obtain full
  benefits from projects implemented in the past,
  and provide opportunities to explore future
  priorities.
• To introduce a more flexible system of project
  participation to generate optimum benefit for
  Member States. The criteria to be used should
  relate to whether the Member State has the
  necessary infrastructure, expertise and
  government commitment to enable full
  participation in the project. For countries
  without these requirements, but who wish to
  develop them, they should be able to participate
  in workshops and training courses for a limited
  period of time, but not be part of the technology
  transfer arrangements.
• Not discussed by working group were the countries
  who also participate as resource providers. The
  reporting requirements do not apply in the same
  way.

9
Developing nuclear technology capacities in RCA
Member States that are sustainable and address
identified socioeconomic needs

• Identify and transfer nuclear technologies, which
  are value adding and address ongoing needs.
• Develop relevant technical expertise in nuclear
  institutions to increase self reliance.
• Ensure effective regulatory control and safe and
  secure applications of nuclear technologies in
  all projects.
• Introduce mechanisms that provide for continuing
  interactions and support to nuclear institutions
  following completion of project activities and
  prior to project closure.
• Introduce a separately funded mechanism for
  project evaluation.

10
Enhancing the uptake of nuclear technologies and
increasing the visibility of the RCA

• Develop a database of potential collaborative
  partners and other technical programmes for use
  by RCA Member States in project design and
  technology transfer.
• Produce a strategy for communication of the
  effectiveness and success of the RCA for
  distribution and presentation to the identified
  key stakeholders.
• Make better use of electronic networking,
  including investigating the feasibility of
  e-meetings to increase interaction within
  projects.
• Integrate RCA websites to increase exchange of
  information and raise awareness of capabilities.
• RCA Regional Office to work with Member States to
  identify and engage potential funding agencies.

11
Ensuring that regional priorities guide the
ongoing direction of the RCA

• Establish and maintain a regional profile that
  summarises the achievements of the projects as an
  ongoing record of major outcomes.
• Develop a set of regional priorities using a
  systematic process of collecting and analysing
  Member States needs.
• Ensure that the regional priorities guide the
  choice of projects and direction of the RCA over
  the period of the medium term strategy

12
Performance Indicators

• More active involvement of all National
  Representatives in management of the RCA
  programme as evidenced by more timely response
  to requests and more direct involvement in the
  management of the activities in their respective
  countries.
• Continued improvement in the contribution of
  projects to overall sustainable development in
  the region through identified impacts in economic
  development, social development and environmental
  protection. The impacts on the identified
  socio-economic needs of the Member States will be
  evidenced by the numbers of end-users adopting
  the technologies or benefiting from their
  outcomes.
• Continued improvement in the sustainability
  within Member States of the technologies
  transferred through the RCA programme, as
  evidenced by the establishment of national
  capability and capacity.

13
Performance Indicators

• Increase in the number of regional experts used
  for expert missions and training courses over the
  period of the MTS and enhanced use of the
  expertise within national institutions in
  addressing regional needs, as indicated by the
  number of institutions within the region
  providing analytical services for RCA projects.
• Increased use of the RCA website for exchange of
  information all relevant reports to be posted
  on the RCA website.
• Increased use of non-IAEA resources in running
  RCA activities, as evidenced by the number of
  countries making, and the amount of,
  extrabudgetary contributions, and the amount of
  external funds obtained.
• Increase in the number of formal partnerships
  between RCA and other organisations.

14
Performance Indicators

• Increased awareness of the capabilities of RCA in
  the region as recognized by requests to
  participate in international conferences and
  donor meetings.
• Increased evidence of the use of TCDC in RCA
  projects.
• Introduction and use of a process to report
  outcomes and successes of RCA projects at the
  National Representatives Meeting, following the
  end of formal regional activities.
• Implementation of an independent process for the
  evaluation of RCA projects.
• Increased number and quality of RCA promotional
  material.

15
Conclusions

• Much of the MTS has been updated and revised
  taking into account recent developments and
  lessons learned
• Recommendations for new governance, a new type of
  project, a more flexible system of participation
  and revised names for the thematic areas have
  been made
• The RCA websites should be integrated
• Performance indicators should be more carefully
  developed specific to a project and a better
  review process to ensure projects achieve their
  purpose introduced

16
Discussion
17
Regional Priorities

• A set of regional priorities should be developed
  to guide project selection
• A survey (see Annex 2) is recommended to gain the
  necessary data and to prepare a regional profile,
  as has been done in other regions
• A consultant should be engaged to do this and
  some terms of reference were prepared
• Following the work of the consultant, a working
  group should be constituted to analyse the
  information and develop a regional strategic
  priorities document
• This Working Group will consist of three members
  per thematic area, with two being specialists in
  the respective fields and one NR for each theme
  to provide guidance related to policy. The
  consultant and the RCARO will also be part of the
  Working Group.
• The working group should meet in February 2010 to
  prepare a report for the NRM

18
Timeframe for the Regional Priorities document

• September 2009 Approval of the recommendations
  by the GCM
• October to mid-November 2009 Conduct the survey
  to identify the needs of the Member States
• Mid-November 2009 to mid-January 2010
  Compilation of the information by an external
  consultant
• Late January 2010 Circulation of the
  consultants report to the Working Group member
  for study and clarifying issues
• Late February 2010 A Working Group will meet to
  prepare the strategic regional priorities
• April 2010 Adoption of the strategic regional
  priorities by the NRM

19
Outline of the Regional Priorities document

• Introduction (draft by RCA-FP)
• History of the RCA
• Rationale for the strategic document
• Development of the strategy document, work
  methodology
• Past and current RCA projects, based on the
  survey on the regional profile (Consultant)
• Summary of achievements in each project area
• Gaps identified
• Future priorities (Working Group)
• Project area 1 (e.g. Radiotherapy)
• Rationale, discussion of the need and
  beneficiaries
• Technological priorities (e.g. IMRT, 3-D
  conformal radiotherapy etc.)
• Specific requirements (e.g. Human resources,
  protocols, standards)
• Project area 2
• Rationale, discussion of the need and
  beneficiaries
• Technological priorities
• Specific requirements
• etc
• Conclusions

20
Discussion
21
Other Matters Referred to the Working Group

• Develop criteria relating to impact,
  self-assessment on benefit of participation and
  other options for MSs to get benefits without
  full participation in the project,
• Develop Criteria for project design to ensure a
  high level of impact
• Develop of criteria for participation of non-RCA
  Member States in RCA projects and activities and
• Assess the progress made in implementing the
  recommendations on TCDC in the RCA Programme.

22
High impact criteria

• Having a clear description of the socio-economic
  benefit
• Addressing a significant multi-country issue
• Addressing an issue identified as a regional
  priority
• Accepted as a part of national programmes with
  strong government support
• Having strong support and continuous involvement
  from end users
• Having a large number of identified beneficiaries
  and partnerships
• Of sufficient size and duration to enable
  significant outcomes to be achieved
• Carried out by a team that has high expertise and
  commitment and is well managed
• Built on achieving high value from using the
  nuclear technique compared to other techniques.

23
Criteria for participation of non-RCA States

• Non-RCA Member States should preferably be
  supported through their appropriate agreement.
• Where that is not possible, the non-RCA Member
  States should approach TC to see if they can be
  supported through their national projects.
• Where that is also not possible or optimal, their
  participation in a specified event (such as
  workshop, training course) could be considered
  provided that the non-RCA Member State has the
  necessary infrastructure, government commitment,
  expertise and the capacity to absorb the
  technology.
• Any such participation should not be at cost to
  the RCA, and also should not exclude any RCA
  Member State from participating.
• Participants should have the agreement of the
  host country.

24
TCDC in the RCA Programme

• Encouragement of the use of experts, lecturers
  and services from developing countries in RCA
  projects
• Development of a mechanism for reporting on use
  of resources from developing countries
• Ensuring adequate funding for TCDC, either from
  within the project or by extra-budgetary
  resources.

25
Project Closure

• Currently this is when the funded activities stop
• The WG recommended that the project be held open
  and reported to the NRM for a period of time
  (around 2 years) in order to assess its full
  impacts. This would require the NPCs to continue
  to collect information to report to the PLCC and
  for the PLCC to provide the relevant NR with
  sufficient information to give this report. It is
  not envisaged that this would require further
  funding, since it is collating the information
  from the adoption of the technology or process by
  the Member States.

26
Discussion
27
(No Transcript)