- Evaluation Plan:
- 2018-2021, Independent Evaluation Office
- Evaluation Type:
- ICPE/ADR
- Planned End Date:
- 12/2020
- Completion Date:
- 12/2020
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 41,600
Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Chad
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | English | 360.19 KB | Posted | 1135 |
![]() |
related-document | English | 1032.71 KB | Posted | 1157 |
![]() |
related-document | English | 416.74 KB | Posted | 1190 |
![]() |
report | English | 1612.63 KB | Posted | 1034 |
![]() |
summary | English | 141.31 KB | Posted | 951 |
Title | Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Chad | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | 108259,92674,102740,108400,92733,42574,75006,65658,34276,97175,81417,96110,94760,102739,102936,78852,82488,110187,60561,72718,102737,82591,105936,11777 | ||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2018-2021, Independent Evaluation Office | ||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Type: | ICPE/ADR | ||||||||||||||||
Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||||
Completion Date: | 12/2020 | ||||||||||||||||
Planned End Date: | 12/2020 | ||||||||||||||||
Management Response: | No | ||||||||||||||||
Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||||||||
SDG Target |
|
||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 41,600 | ||||||||||||||||
Source of Funding: | |||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 41,600 | ||||||||||||||||
Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||||
Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||||
GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||||
Key Stakeholders: | |||||||||||||||||
Countries: | CHAD |
Lessons | |
---|---|
Findings |
Recommendations | |
---|---|
1 | UNDP should seek to bring conceptual clarity to key areas of its programming offer and strengthen differentiation between them, to formalize concrete intervention models that reflect regional differences in context, conflict dynamics and economic opportunities. There is little evidence of a differentiated intervention model in community engagement and livelihood activities promoted by UNDP over time across interventions and geographical areas. Clarifying the conceptual underpinning of interventions by anchoring them in long-term objectives and specific theories of change and monitoring could help clarify further the UNDP approach and support its resource mobilization efforts. |
2 | UNDP should continue to strengthen synergies across the different interventions of its portfolio and seek to consolidate its various programme interventions through an area-based and integrated programming approach. The next country programme results framework should reflect area-based programming emerging in the Lake Chad areas, building on the current field presence and stabilization programmes, which are expected to shift from immediate response to resilience building. Given the resource constraints, UNDP should avoid spreading its limited resources across geographical areas, in particular where it does not have field presence, to ensure the consolidation and oversight of programme results and continuity of support for local development and governance. In this regard, the country office should seek to identify efficient and effective modalities for its field presence. |
3 | UNDP should seek to expand its strategic partnerships and programme collaboration with other development actors across all areas of its portfolio to optimize the potential of its technical assistance, advocacy and community-level interventions for sustainable development results. UNDP in Chad is engaged in several partnerships with other United Nations and bilateral agencies, but these have been uneven across its portfolio, in particular in the area of environment and climate change, and inclusive growth. The country office should seek opportunities to establish and further anchor its interventions and implementation strategy with those of other development partners. |
4 | The country office should strengthen its conflict-sensitive programming in the design, implementation and follow-up of its interventions, to ensure that they effectively contribute to sustainable peace objectives and support learning and adaptation for future interventions. Conflict in Chad is multidimensional and localized, and investment is required to understand the effect of interventions, including unintended positive and negative outcomes. There has been limited evidence or attention to measure the medium- and long-term effects of programme interventions over time, reflecting gaps in conflict-sensitive programming. There is a need to increase and sustain the production of rigorous and insightful situational analysis and action research programming, to complement robust programme M&E activities, which are not likely to be enough given the fluid and complex context. |
5 | The country office should consider integrating data as a cross-cutting dimension of its next country programme, and leveraging its project implementation and field presence to invest in knowledge production with a view to strengthening the technical underpinning of its interventions, advocacy and resource mobilization efforts. UNDP project strategies have included knowledge generation considerations, but this did not materialize due to lack of funding and prioritization. UNDP should seek to prioritize the use of its core resources for a credible and robust learning and research agenda to leverage and accompany its programme interventions. There is scope for UNDP to leverage its positioning to spearhead partnerships for rigorous data-driven initiatives, in line with its global mandate as a United Nations custodian for reporting on selected target indicators of SDG 16. This could help strengthen UNDP country-level thought leadership and positioning. |
6 | UNDP should update and prioritize the implementation of its office-wide gender strategy, with a view to expanding its support from gender-targeting towards more gender-responsive and transformative interventions. During this country programme period, UNDP has made progress in including women as target beneficiaries of its interventions when compared with the previous country programme period. At the exception of its emerging engagement in GBV and citizen participation, gender mainstreaming has remained limited to the targeting of women beneficiaries. UNDP should prioritize the effective implementation of its office-wide gender strategy and commitment to the UNDP corporate seal exercise as a way to continue enhancing its contribution to GEWE across its programmes. |
7 | UNDP Headquarters and the Regional Bureau for Africa should continue their support to the country office and consider deploying expertise to reduce reliance on project funding and enable the country office to internalize specialist expertise to support strategy development and its positioning. The interventions and funding opportunities of the Regional Bureau have been useful to enable the country office programmatic response in areas such as PVE, electoral assistance and others. Project expertise depends in large part on project funding, which has been limited during this country programme period. Considerations should be given to supporting the deployment of interim expertise to fill recurrent gaps in the availability of project leadership and support overall UNDP positioning and resource mobilization. This could prioritize gender, climate change adaptation and DRR. The deployment of expertise could also help to address uncertainty over the predictability of project funding, to support the gradual scaling of project support. |