2005 - 2007 CPAP Review

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2005-2007, Lesotho
Evaluation Type:
Others
Planned End Date:
02/2007
Completion Date:
02/2007
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
--

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document CPAP 2005 Implementation Progress Review Report - 08 Feb 2007.doc report Posted 820
Title 2005 - 2007 CPAP Review
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2005-2007, Lesotho
Evaluation Type: Others
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2007
Planned End Date: 02/2007
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
Evaluation Budget(US $): --
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Dr S Jallow Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: LESOTHO
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Donor Harmonisation & Coordination: the RC chairs the the Development Partners Consultative Forum (DPCF), UNDP is serving as the Secretariat. As a result of the absence of a national/government aid coordination mechanism in the country, the UNDP had taken the step to establish the DPCF to coordinate information sharing regarding donor assistance, and to avoid duplication of efforts and wastage of resources. The DPCF however, will work towards the establishment of a National Aid Coordination Mechanism, which will be managed by government
2 Prudent financial management and efficiency in resource use, it is important to abide by the recommendations of the auditors. Financial prudence must be exercised at all times. It should not be sacrificed in favour of project completion or expediency
3 A lot of project documents do not have a logical framework or a proper/full logical framework for the projects. This makes it difficult to determine progress in implementation or achievement project outputs. Objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs) must be qualitative, quantitative and time-bound (QQT). Without these parameters, it would be difficult to determine whether outputs have been achieved or project activities were completed at the stipulated time. This way, reasons for delays could be determined and solutions proffered. Similarly, with the absence of the Risks/Assumptions column makes it difficult for the project managers to anticipate and manage risks, some of which could prevent the project from achieving the outputs or the related programme outcome
4 Implementation capacity building efforts continue at the level of implementing partners, to be reinforced by a vigorous and proactive follow up regime
5 Project managers/coordinators have highlighted the delay in the disbursement of funds from the UNDP as an area that needs to be improved, as it affects project execution.
6 Guidelines on post-project resource ownership and use need to be made available by UNDP to project beneficiaries
7 Despite the earlier agreement with government that the NEX execution modality will cover 90 percent of UNDP executed projects, it is recommended that the UNDP explore the possibility of adopting a hybrid of NEX, Agency Execution (AEX) and Direct Execution (DEX) modalities in the next
8 All outstanding project activities need to be identified by respective Sub-programmes and built into the 2007 work programme.
1. Recommendation: Donor Harmonisation & Coordination: the RC chairs the the Development Partners Consultative Forum (DPCF), UNDP is serving as the Secretariat. As a result of the absence of a national/government aid coordination mechanism in the country, the UNDP had taken the step to establish the DPCF to coordinate information sharing regarding donor assistance, and to avoid duplication of efforts and wastage of resources. The DPCF however, will work towards the establishment of a National Aid Coordination Mechanism, which will be managed by government
Management Response: [Added: 2011/01/10]

UNDP through the DPCF continues to advocate for the formalisation of an Aid policy (aid coordination unit has been set up in the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning). However, the Minister has expressed his hesitation towards large aid coordination structures given the limited capacity in the country as well as the small size of the diplomatic community. RC continues to chair the DPCF, UNDP is the coordinating partner for the National Development Plan and Donor coordinator for the EIF

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continue to advocate for PD implementation and development of localised AAA
[Added: 2011/01/10]
UNDP management No due date No deadline established Ongoing efforts, but pending full government buy in
2. Recommendation: Prudent financial management and efficiency in resource use, it is important to abide by the recommendations of the auditors. Financial prudence must be exercised at all times. It should not be sacrificed in favour of project completion or expediency
Management Response: [Added: 2011/01/10]

Noted and accepted. Audit results are improving (2009 NIM audit was satisfactory) but due attention needs to be given to the audit issues especially recurring ones.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Audit team formalised and empowered to follow up including regular reporting on status
[Added: 2011/01/10]
PMSU and operations manager No due date No deadline established Team established and follow up activities ongoing
3. Recommendation: A lot of project documents do not have a logical framework or a proper/full logical framework for the projects. This makes it difficult to determine progress in implementation or achievement project outputs. Objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs) must be qualitative, quantitative and time-bound (QQT). Without these parameters, it would be difficult to determine whether outputs have been achieved or project activities were completed at the stipulated time. This way, reasons for delays could be determined and solutions proffered. Similarly, with the absence of the Risks/Assumptions column makes it difficult for the project managers to anticipate and manage risks, some of which could prevent the project from achieving the outputs or the related programme outcome
Management Response: [Added: 2011/01/10]

Noted and accepted - project managers and programme officers (as well as assistants) have been trained in RBM and M&E respectively. UNDAF 2009 review including specific sessions on M&E and ensuring that the results are well defined. Ongoing efforts to ensure that new staff acquire the same knowledge.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
RBM and M&E training and a review of the logical framework
[Added: 2011/01/10]
Management No due date No deadline established during 2009 especially the UNDAF review
4. Recommendation: Implementation capacity building efforts continue at the level of implementing partners, to be reinforced by a vigorous and proactive follow up regime
Management Response: [Added: 2011/01/10]

Noted and accepted - operations has become more involved in these matters, several training have been held, mini audit has been done in some projects and external access has been piloted to enhance ownership. At the same time, the CO provides a high level of support to NIM and this situation has to be normalised through more capacity development.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ongoing capacity development (also identified as part of the project activities)
[Added: 2011/01/10]
Management and operations team No due date No deadline established Ongoing work, but more attention to CD is required to slowly hand over responsibility
5. Recommendation: Project managers/coordinators have highlighted the delay in the disbursement of funds from the UNDP as an area that needs to be improved, as it affects project execution.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/01/10]

Noted and accepted - UNDP has held several trainings for implementing partners and has developed a Service Level Agreement (which is at present only signed with UNFPA but to be rolled out with projects as well). Oftentimes, delays occur because of ambiguities in the processs and the training and SLA have the objective to remove these.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Finalise SLA with projects
[Added: 2011/01/10]
Operations and Management No due date No deadline established UNFPA has signed in 2009 and the concept has been tested, needs to be rolled out in Q1 2011 to all projects.
6. Recommendation: Guidelines on post-project resource ownership and use need to be made available by UNDP to project beneficiaries
Management Response: [Added: 2011/01/10]

noted and accepted - corporate guidelines shared and implemented in all projects

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
share and implement corporate guidelines on projet assests
[Added: 2011/01/10]
Management and operations No due date No deadline established
7. Recommendation: Despite the earlier agreement with government that the NEX execution modality will cover 90 percent of UNDP executed projects, it is recommended that the UNDP explore the possibility of adopting a hybrid of NEX, Agency Execution (AEX) and Direct Execution (DEX) modalities in the next
Management Response: [Added: 2011/01/10]

Noted - however UNDP is committed to national ownership and as such has not opted for DEX or DIM. However, we continue to provide a high level of CO support to NIM (see recommendation 4). No particular action is required for this recommendation.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: All outstanding project activities need to be identified by respective Sub-programmes and built into the 2007 work programme.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/01/10]

Noted and accepted - also this continues to be the case through the programme cycle as we invariably will encountered delays be it operational or political and at the end of the day what matters is the result

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
incorporate remaining activities in new annual cycle
[Added: 2011/01/10]
Programme 2008/01 Completed As part of the annual planning cycle this is good practice

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org