- Evaluation Plan:
- 2008-2011, Suriname
- Evaluation Type:
- UNDAF
- Planned End Date:
- 04/2011
- Completion Date:
- 05/2011
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 40,000
Joint-Final UNDAF Evaluation
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Suriname UNDAF Evaluation Report_May 2011.pdf |
report | English | 763.60 KB | Posted | 1431 |
| SURINAME UNDAF Evaluation 2011_Management Response_FINAL UNCT.pdf |
report | English | 1473.48 KB | Posted | 542 |
| Title | Joint-Final UNDAF Evaluation | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | ||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2008-2011, Suriname | |||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | UNDAF | |||||||||
| Status: | Completed | |||||||||
| Completion Date: | 05/2011 | |||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 04/2011 | |||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | |||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
|||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
|||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 40,000 | |||||||||
| Source of Funding: | SRC/UNCCF | |||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | |||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | Yes
|
|||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
|||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | No | |||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ministry of Finance , other key line ministries and civil society representatives | |||||||||
| Countries: | SURINAME | |||||||||
| Comments: | Process started last quarter 2010 and will be finalized in the first quarter of 2011 |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | 3.1UNDAF Strategic and Programme Content 3.1.1Recommendations at the upstream level: (a) It is strongly recommended that the next UNDAF should continue to focus on the MDGs and human rights. Outcomes should be formulated around a maximum of 3 core development issues that are also currently important development priorities for Suriname. It is recommended that one core development outcome could be formulated around ?Safe Motherhood? in which several UN agencies have an interest. Consideration should be given to including the new areas of climate change and disasters. For the time being, there should be no inclusion of an outcome on Public Administration Reform |
| 2 | (b) It is recommended that it should not be mandatory for UN agencies, including the non -resident UN agencies, to try and fit all their activities into the UNDAF. However, it is essential that the UNDAF should remain the coordination and information sharing me chanism for activities outside of the UNDAF to ensure policy coherence, avoid duplication and overlap and create synergies. |
| 3 | (c) It is recommended that the UNDAF remain a flexible framework within which outcomes and activities can be removed and added according to changing priorities and needs. The mid-term review allows for this |
| 4 | (d) It is recommended that the GoS and UNCT consider piloting another kind of model (within the UNDAF) for a joint UN programme which starts from the ?bottom-up? and where each of the UN agencies comes to the drawing board with a certain amount of un-earmarked funds (e.g. the joint UN programme addressing the Avian flu epidemic developed by the UN in Vietnam). The theme groups will be a good source of ideas for such a joint UN programme. |
| 5 | (e) The 4 (+5) theme groups that have been set up over the past 18 months should be revisited to see if they are relevant priorities within the UNDAF and continued only if they have committed and active leadership. If UN agency heads do not have time to lead a theme group they can delegate this task to one of their subject matter programme staff. These theme groups are an ideal mechanism for coordination and information sharing within the UN agencies and could become even more important if the second recommendation above is pursued |
| 6 | 3.1UNDAF Strategic and Programme Content 3.1.2 Recommendations at the downstream level: (a)It is recommended that the outcomes be formulated in a specific, measurable,achievable, relevant and time -bound (SMART) way. For example, an outcome could be formulated around out-of-school youth or gender-based violence i.e. focussing on one vulnerable group rather than on several as is the present case. |
| 7 | b)It is recommended that each UNDAF outcome should be funded or technically supported by at least 2 UN agencies, otherwise it cannot be considered a ?joint UN support programme?. |
| 8 | (c) There are too many small projects under the UNDAF and it is recommended that the participating UN agencies make concerted attempts to merge their future activities into bigger projects. This will enhance the focus of the UNDAF and reduce transaction costs for both sides |
| 9 | Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.2 Government Engagement and Leadership (a)It is recommended that the UNCT continue their efforts to raise awareness about the UNDAF and the DaO among the newly elected policy-and decision-makers and strengthen the capacities of the staff of the UN Desk that are operationally responsible for the UNDAF |
| 10 | (b) Consideration should be given to exposing senior officials and operational staff to other UNDAF/DaO countries to learn about the different models in order to gain an understanding of what is expected of them. |
| 11 | (c) Joint Government/UNCT visits to interesting UN-supported projects should be organised once a year |
| 12 | d)The UN needs to find a new way of working with the Government at national and sectoral levels, to strengthen the engagement in the UNDAF and CCPAP (this will be further elaborated in the recommendations on underlying processes) |
| 13 | 3.3. Capacity Building (a)It is recommended that all the UN agencies need to take a more holistic approach to training by discussing with government partners the enabling environment factors that will impact on its usefulness and finding solutions to deal with these challenges |
| 14 | (b) Efforts should also be made to group similar trainings into one package and to have reiterative training activities as an element of long-term capacity building. More consideration should also be given to on -the-job training and regional/international exposure to best practices |
| 15 | 3.4Sustainability (a) The UNCT should continue to lobby for the funding commitment made by the Government for the implementation of the CCPAP |
| 16 | b) The UNCT should collectively continue looking for innovative new sources of funding for example, from the private sector, other friendly countries e.g. China, India Venezuela, Malaysia and Brazil and other development partners e.g. the World Bank and the Islamic Development Bank |
| 17 | 3.5 UNDAF Underlying Processes 3.5.1 Upstream Recommendation (a)The UN needs to find a new way of working with the Government which reflects a more contemporary, updated approach in line with Suriname?s current level of development and future aspirations. This particularly applies to the three ExCom agencies that are located in Suriname: UNICEF, UNDP and UNFPA. |
| 18 | (b) Finding a balance between taking on board government/national priorities and needs and the UN?s responsibility to advocate internationally mandated norms and standards of human development |
| 19 | (c)A closer connectivity with the partner ministries. PAHO/WHO seems to have an approaching model by being physically next to the Ministry of Health and being able to respond quickly to requests for specific technical assistance |
| 20 | (d) All UN programme staff should spend more time in substantive discussions with their government partners and not only on processes. This should involve obtaining detailed information about current policies, programmes, funding, target groups/areas, capacities (staffing etc.) and even visiting programme/project sites together. |
| 21 | (e) Rather than the UN?s traditional ?project approach?, the UN should move increasingly to a facilitating role by creating mechanisms for the sharing of best practices within and outside of the region. One such example is the South-South Global Assets and Techno logy Exchange System launched by UNDP in May 2006 (SS-Gate) and the Global South-South Development Network also administered by UNDP. Suriname is very interested to learn about the development experiences of many Asian countries e.g. China, Indonesia, Viet nam, Malaysia and some African countries e.g. Botswana, south Africa, Malawi, through various means |
| 22 | 3.5.2 Downstream Recommendations: (a)The principle of inclusive participation is a positive element of the AWP mechanism as it enables the sharing of common problems and common solutions. Given that they have not been very active in 2010 it is important that they be reactivated in 2011 which is the final year of the UNDAF. It is therefore recommended that UNCT staff be more proactive in 2011 to ensure that the AWPs meet regularly (at least quarterly). |
| 23 | b) In this last year the AWP teams must give attention to obtaining programmatic results and discussing how to sustain key activities. |
| 24 | c)Organise a joint government/non-government/UN staff project monitoring visit once a year. |
| 25 | Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.5.2 : Operational Issues (a)Since there are so many stakeholders involved in the UNDAF and there is a constant turn-over of both UN and government staff, UNCT staff need to continue their coaching and mentoring of government and non-government partners in the many operational aspects of UNDAF implementation |
| 26 | Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.5.2: Monitoring and Evaluation (a)It is recommended that the M and E tool developed in March for monitoring the AWPs be used from January 2011 and that an M and E plan be established for Health and HIV. In connection with this, the AWP teams will need further training in the tool and it is recommended that an M and E specialist be brought in to assist with this. This should be organised in January 2011. |
| 27 | (b) Strong efforts will need to be made by both the UNCT and their staff and the AWP teams to focus on programme results as opposed to monitoring the implementation of activities. This will require a major shift in attitude on the part of all stakeholders, UN and government/non-government implementers alike |
| 28 | Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.5.2: : Non-Resident UN agencies (a) Even though some non-resident UN agencies may not participate in the next UNDAF it is very important, however, for the UNCT to be kept abreast of any policy or sectoral analysis work that they may do. In order to promote improved information sharing on their missions and activities in Suriname it is recommended that the Coordination Analyst in the RCO be assigned the task of designing a simple matrix to collect and circulate this information once a month. This mechanism may identify opportunities for joint survey or analytical work, including from a regional perspective |
| 29 | Evaluation recommendation or 3.5.2: : Collaboration with NGOs/CSOs, Development Partner and Private Sector (a)It is recommended that the UNCT consider setting up one joint fund for NGO support with a focus on addressing the problems of vulnerable groups in the urban and rural interior and on capacity building |
| 30 | Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.5.2: : Resident Coordinators Office (a)It is recommended that a national ?logistics assistant? be recruited to support the work of the Coordination Analyst and the Communications Analyst. This position could be co-funded among the 4 resident UN Agencies and RC funds |
1. Recommendation: 3.1UNDAF Strategic and Programme Content
3.1.1Recommendations at the upstream level:
(a) It is strongly recommended that the
next UNDAF should continue to focus on the MDGs and human rights. Outcomes should be formulated around a maximum of 3 core development issues that are also currently important development priorities for Suriname. It is recommended that one core development
outcome could be formulated around ?Safe
Motherhood? in which several UN agencies have an interest. Consideration should be given
to including the new areas of climate change and disasters. For the time being, there should be no inclusion of an outcome on
Public Administration Reform
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed. Outcomes of next UNDAF and will b uild on the work done on the Common Country Assessment,on priorities outlined by the government and key stake holders and by members of the UNCT.
Key Actions:
2. Recommendation: (b) It is recommended that it should not be mandatory for UN agencies, including the non
-resident UN agencies, to try and fit all
their activities into the UNDAF. However, it
is essential that the UNDAF should remain the
coordination and information sharing me
chanism for activities outside of the UNDAF to ensure policy coherence, avoid duplication and overlap and create synergies.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed. All resident and non-resident members of the UNCT to participate in the process and ensure all or most activities will be included in the new instrument.
Key Actions:
3. Recommendation: (c) It is recommended that the UNDAF remain a flexible framework within which outcomes and
activities can be removed and added according to changing priorities and needs. The mid-term review allows for this
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agree. The UNDAF will focus on broad outcomes and be flexible enough to take on ne w priorities and/or to revise plans to reflect new priorities and context.
Key Actions:
4. Recommendation: (d) It is recommended that the GoS and UNCT consider piloting another kind of model (within the UNDAF) for a joint UN programme which starts from the ?bottom-up? and where each of the UN agencies comes to the drawing board with a certain amount of un-earmarked funds (e.g. the joint UN programme addressing the Avian flu epidemic developed by the UN in
Vietnam). The theme groups will be a good source of ideas for such a joint UN programme.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Partially agree. Most UN agencies do not have un-earmarked funds for programming and/or the flexibility to agree to open ended new programming activities. The UNCT agrees to the concept of joint programming and clear leadership of the government to it.
Key Actions:
5. Recommendation: (e) The 4 (+5) theme groups that have been set up over the past 18 months should be revisited to see if they are relevant priorities within the UNDAF and continued only if they have committed and active leadership. If UN agency heads do not have time to lead a theme group they can delegate this task to one of their subject matter programme staff. These
theme groups are an ideal mechanism for coordination and information sharing within the UN agencies and could become even more important if the second recommendation above
is pursued
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Partially agree. Theme groups should be convened to reflect UNDAF priorities and/or cross cutting themes. Group participation requires strong leadership and commitment of all heads of agency to empower and support their representatives in the groups.
Key Actions:
6. Recommendation: 3.1UNDAF Strategic and Programme Content
3.1.2 Recommendations at the downstream level:
(a)It is recommended that the outcomes be formulated in a specific, measurable,achievable, relevant and time
-bound (SMART) way. For example, an outcome could be formulated around out-of-school youth or gender-based violence i.e. focussing on one vulnerable group rather than on several as is the present case.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed.
Key Actions:
7. Recommendation: b)It is recommended that each
UNDAF outcome should be funded or technically supported by at least 2 UN agencies, otherwise it cannot be considered a ?joint UN support programme?.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed.
Key Actions:
8. Recommendation: (c) There are too many small projects under the UNDAF and it is recommended that the
participating UN agencies make concerted attempts to merge their future activities into
bigger projects. This will enhance the focus of the UNDAF and reduce transaction costs for
both sides
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Partly agree. The size of the UN projects reflects the realities and programming of the country. UNCT agrees to look for more synergies and better M&E to ensure projects contribute to broader UNDAF outcomes.
Key Actions:
9. Recommendation: Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.2 Government Engagement and Leadership
(a)It is recommended that the UNCT continue their efforts to raise awareness about the UNDAF and the DaO among the newly elected policy-and decision-makers and strengthen the
capacities of the staff of the UN Desk that are operationally responsible for the UNDAF
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed. UN to work closely together with the GoS coordination mechanisms.
Key Actions:
10. Recommendation: (b) Consideration should be given to exposing senior officials and operational staff to other UNDAF/DaO countries to learn about the different models in order to gain an understanding of what is expected of them.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agree. The office of the RC is committed to sharing experiences on the DaO with government officials and to disseminate to key stake holders the advantages of coordinated approaches to joint programming.
Key Actions:
11. Recommendation: (c) Joint Government/UNCT visits to interesting UN-supported projects should be organised once a year
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed
Key Actions:
12. Recommendation: d)The UN needs to find a new way of working with the Government at national and sectoral
levels, to strengthen the engagement in the UNDAF and CCPAP (this will be further
elaborated in the recommendations on underlying processes)
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed. Recommendation to be discussed with UN counterparts in the Government.
Key Actions:
13. Recommendation: 3.3. Capacity Building
(a)It is recommended that all the UN agencies need to take a more holistic approach to training by discussing with government partners the enabling environment factors that will impact on its usefulness and finding solutions to deal with these challenges
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
UNCT agrees on need for more structured approach to capacity building based on human resource needs in line with policy priorities.
Key Actions:
14. Recommendation: (b) Efforts should also be made to group similar trainings into one package and to have
reiterative training activities as an element of long-term capacity building. More
consideration should also be given to on
-the-job training and regional/international
exposure to best practices
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
UNCT agrees on need for more structured approach to capacity building based on human resource needs in line with policy priorities.
Key Actions:
15. Recommendation: 3.4Sustainability
(a) The UNCT should continue to lobby
for the funding commitment made by the Government for the implementation of the CCPAP
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed. UN assistance and partnership includes knowledge practice,experiences and some funding. Joint funding of programmes is essential for their success and demonstrates a commitment by the government towards UNDAF goals.
Key Actions:
16. Recommendation: b) The UNCT should collectively continue looking for innovative new sources of funding for example, from the private sector, other friendly countries e.g. China, India Venezuela,
Malaysia and Brazil and other development partners e.g. the World Bank and the Islamic
Development Bank
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
UNCT recognizes the role of the GoS to initiate and lead bilateral and multi-lateral Aid Coordination efforts and to foster greater dialogue and collaboration between all partners.
Key Actions:
17. Recommendation: 3.5 UNDAF Underlying Processes
3.5.1 Upstream Recommendation
(a)The UN needs to find a new way of working with the Government which reflects a more
contemporary, updated approach in line with Suriname?s current level of development and
future aspirations. This particularly applies to the three ExCom agencies that are located in Suriname: UNICEF, UNDP and UNFPA.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed
Key Actions:
18. Recommendation: (b) Finding a balance between taking on board
government/national priorities and needs and
the UN?s responsibility to advocate internationally mandated norms and standards of human development
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed.
Key Actions:
19. Recommendation: (c)A closer connectivity with the partner ministries. PAHO/WHO seems to have an approaching model by being physically next to the Ministry of Health and being able to respond quickly to requests for specific technical assistance
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
This may not be applicable for all agencies.
Key Actions:
20. Recommendation: (d) All UN programme staff should spend more time in substantive discussions with their
government partners and not only on processes. This should involve obtaining detailed
information about current policies, programmes, funding, target groups/areas, capacities (staffing etc.) and even visiting programme/project sites together.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed.
Key Actions:
21. Recommendation: (e) Rather than the UN?s traditional ?project approach?, the UN should move increasingly to a
facilitating role by creating mechanisms for the sharing of best practices within and outside of the region. One such example is the South-South Global Assets and Techno
logy Exchange System launched by UNDP in May 2006 (SS-Gate) and the Global South-South Development Network also administered by UNDP. Suriname is very interested to learn about the
development experiences of many Asian countries e.g. China, Indonesia, Viet
nam, Malaysia and some African countries e.g. Botswana, south Africa, Malawi, through various means
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agreed
Key Actions:
22. Recommendation: 3.5.2 Downstream Recommendations:
(a)The principle of inclusive participation is a positive element of the AWP mechanism as it
enables the sharing of common problems and common solutions. Given that they have not been very active in 2010 it is important that they be reactivated in 2011 which is the
final year of the UNDAF. It is therefore recommended that UNCT staff be more proactive in 2011 to ensure that the AWPs meet regularly (at least quarterly).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Partly agreed. Coordination mechanism for the new UNDAF to be discussed and agreed to by all parties (UN, GoS, key stake holders). AWP mechanism to be reviewed and adjusted as needed.
Key Actions:
23. Recommendation: b) In this last year the AWP teams
must give attention to obtaining programmatic results and discussing how to sustain key activities.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
UNCT agrees that we focus on result and sustainability during this current UNDAF.
Key Actions:
24. Recommendation: c)Organise a joint government/non-government/UN staff project monitoring visit once a year.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agree.
Key Actions:
25. Recommendation: Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.5.2 : Operational Issues
(a)Since there are so many stakeholders involved in the UNDAF and there is a constant turn-over of both UN and government staff,
UNCT staff need to continue their coaching and mentoring of government and non-government partners in the many operational aspects of UNDAF implementation
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
UNCT recognizes importance of continuous learning,both internally and externally.
Key Actions:
26. Recommendation: Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.5.2:
Monitoring and Evaluation
(a)It is recommended that the M and E tool developed in March for monitoring the AWPs be
used from January 2011 and that an M and E plan be established for Health and HIV. In
connection with this, the AWP teams will need further training in the tool and it is
recommended that an M and E specialist be brought in to assist with this. This should be
organised in January 2011.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
UNCT considers that we should not create parallel systems where they already exists.
Key Actions:
27. Recommendation: (b) Strong efforts will need to be made by both the UNCT and their staff and the AWP teams to focus on programme results
as opposed to monitoring the implementation of activities. This will require a major shift in attitude on the part of all stakeholders, UN and government/non-government implementers alike
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
UNCT agreed to the monitoring of progress towards results.
Key Actions:
28. Recommendation: Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.5.2: : Non-Resident UN agencies
(a) Even though some non-resident UN agencies may not participate in the next UNDAF it is very important, however, for the UNCT to be kept abreast of any policy or sectoral analysis work that they may do. In order to promote improved information sharing on their missions and activities in Suriname it is recommended that the Coordination Analyst in the RCO be assigned the task of designing a simple matrix to collect and circulate this information once a month. This mechanism may identify opportunities for joint survey or analytical work, including from a regional perspective
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Agree. UNCT and RC encourage non resident agencies to get more involved and take to inform other UN partners of its activities in the country.
Key Actions:
29. Recommendation: Evaluation recommendation or 3.5.2:
: Collaboration with NGOs/CSOs, Development Partner and Private Sector
(a)It is recommended that the UNCT consider setting up one joint fund for NGO support with a focus on addressing the problems of vulnerable groups in the urban and rural interior and on capacity building
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Disagree. Most agencies do not have un-earmarked funds, and funds in general are very limited and to be used strategically as seed money to mobilize more resources.
Key Actions:
30. Recommendation: Evaluation recommendation or Issue 3.5.2:
: Resident Coordinators Office
(a)It is recommended that a national ?logistics assistant?
be recruited to support the work of the
Coordination Analyst and the Communications Analyst. This position could be co-funded
among the 4 resident UN Agencies and RC funds
Management Response: [Added: 2011/11/22]
Disagree. UN coordination funds are very limited and no longer cover costs of core team (coordination analysis and communications officer). Expansion of the UN Coordination team will be determined by the size and scope of the programme and commitment of agencies to contribute to funding.
Key Actions: