2005-2009 UNDAF Armenia Final Evaluation (In-Depth Review)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2005-2009, Armenia
Evaluation Type:
UNDAF
Planned End Date:
11/2008
Completion Date:
09/2008
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
--

Share

Title 2005-2009 UNDAF Armenia Final Evaluation (In-Depth Review)
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2005-2009, Armenia
Evaluation Type: UNDAF
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 09/2008
Planned End Date: 11/2008
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Poverty and MDG
  • 2. Democratic Governance
  • 3. Crisis Prevention & Recovery
  • 4. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Support to Strategic Policy Development is provided
  • 2. Innovative income generation schemes and mechanisms are introduced
  • 3. "Respect for, and the awareness of human rights, including womens rights, is increased"
  • 4. Participatory policymaking among tARMeted groups is promoted
  • 5. "Governing institutions with policy, oversight and electoral functions are strengthened"
  • 6. The conservation and sustainable use of natural resources is strengthened
  • 7. Access to sustainable energy services is increased
  • 8. Disaster management and recovery in at-risk communities is strengthened
  • 9. Responding to HIV/AIDS
Evaluation Budget(US $): --
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Mr. Fuat Andic Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: ARMENIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 The Report strongly urges that, whenever it is appropriate, capacity-building components of projects/programmes should be very clearly spelt out, and worked into UNDAF. Appropriate and measurable indicators must also be spelt out.
2 Too many indicators both for impact and outcome assessments are very likely to end up yielding conflicting results. A few but measurable indicators should be selected with the assurance that such indicators are available readily and timely. In that vein it is recommended that Human Development Report (HDR) may very well be considered as a major source for setting up indicators. HDRs are usually most comprehensive and reliable source and provide time series. If need be some additional sources may also be used. One of the major additional sources would be Armenia Human Development Report. However, care should be taken that collecting and verifying indicators must be especially consistent and cost efficient. It would be good to keep in mind the SMART indicators designed by UNDP.
3 UNDAF should be viewed as a flexible instrument taking into consideration of the particular mandate of different agencies. Long and detailed outcomes tend to put different agencies in a position that first they design projects and then seek the appropriate outcome category in the UNDAF document for a particular project. This of course goes exactly against the raison d'ĂȘtre of UNDAF. Such practices should be avoided at all cost.
1. Recommendation: The Report strongly urges that, whenever it is appropriate, capacity-building components of projects/programmes should be very clearly spelt out, and worked into UNDAF. Appropriate and measurable indicators must also be spelt out.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/02]

The recommendation will be considered in the new UNDAF by defining clear results and indicators on capacity building.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Clearly spell out capacity building components in the UNDAF.
[Added: 2010/02/02]
RC Unit 2009/12 Completed
2. Recommendation: Too many indicators both for impact and outcome assessments are very likely to end up yielding conflicting results. A few but measurable indicators should be selected with the assurance that such indicators are available readily and timely. In that vein it is recommended that Human Development Report (HDR) may very well be considered as a major source for setting up indicators. HDRs are usually most comprehensive and reliable source and provide time series. If need be some additional sources may also be used. One of the major additional sources would be Armenia Human Development Report. However, care should be taken that collecting and verifying indicators must be especially consistent and cost efficient. It would be good to keep in mind the SMART indicators designed by UNDP.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/02]

The recommendation will be considered while developing new UNDAF by defining fewer SMART indicators with clear baselines, targets and means of verifications.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Define SMART indicators for the new UNDAF with clear baselines, targets and means of veryfication.
[Added: 2010/02/02]
RC Unit M&E Specialist 2009/12 Completed
3. Recommendation: UNDAF should be viewed as a flexible instrument taking into consideration of the particular mandate of different agencies. Long and detailed outcomes tend to put different agencies in a position that first they design projects and then seek the appropriate outcome category in the UNDAF document for a particular project. This of course goes exactly against the raison d'ĂȘtre of UNDAF. Such practices should be avoided at all cost.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/02] [Last Updated: 2010/02/02]

Results based approach will be applied while developing the new UNDAF, which will allow to avoid the mentioned issue.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Apply RBA principles for the new UNDAF.
[Added: 2010/02/02]
RC Unit 2009/12 Completed

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