UNDAF Mid Term Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2008-2012, Samoa
Evaluation Type:
UNDAF
Planned End Date:
12/2010
Completion Date:
07/2010
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Pacific UNDAF MTR Final Report (Nov).pdf report English 1569.89 KB Posted 1867
Title UNDAF Mid Term Evaluation
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2008-2012, Samoa
Evaluation Type: UNDAF
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2010
Planned End Date: 12/2010
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: UN Agencies, RCO
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with UN Agencies
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Govts of Cook Is, Niue, Samoa & Tokelau, UN organizations
Countries: SAMOA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 1. UNDAF should identify key stand-alone regional results that would better position the UN as a major and relevant regional actor (alongside bilateral and multilateral development partners and regional bodies)?
2 2. The UN should develop a number of key advocacy messages linked directly to the UNDAF and use these as the basis for a regional communications strategy
3 3. The UN needs to develop a more consistent and transparent working relationship with CROP agencies to ensure that there is better and complementary coordination at both national and regional levels
4 4. The UN should also broaden its perspective to look at areas where it can work more closely in support of the MSI+5 agenda in the Pacific and reflect these targets in the UNDAF
5 5. While the attempt to better align the UNDAF monitoring framework to National Indicators is important, the UN should also consider looking at the relationship between agency M&E frameworks and indicators?i.e. what are agencies are actually doing and monitoring?and the UNDAF M&E framework.
6 6. Given that the LDC Results Matrices are essentially the national level operationalisation of the strategic / political positioning of the UN system (reflecting its global mandates in relationship to the region) there is a strong case to be made for the UN to streamline in-country processes by opting for a common plan that is aligned much more explicitly with the National Development Plans.
7 7. Strong consideration needs to be given to the turning the LDC Results Matrix into the primary legal and monitoring framework for the work of the UN system in a country subsuming the current agency country programmes and plans. The new UNDAF/CCA Guidelines has strongly advocated for the use of the common UNDAF Action Plan as the primary operational tool for UN reform moving forward.
8 8. Given that Kiribati, already has a One Fund structure in place, there would be an opportunity to field test the idea of a common UN Plan by updating the current LDC matrix for Kiribati to reflect more fully the existing agency CP of all UN agencies?..
9 9. If one accepts the idea that capacity constraints in most PICTs represent a serious obstacle to the achievement of UNDAF results, it necessarily follows that UN agencies need to move away from ?stand-alone? projects and programmes that require government to dedicate staff and resources to oversee implementation. This would suggest a much stronger emphasis on joint programming (if not joint programmes) within the UN family but also with regional bodies and development partners
10 10. The UN needs to rationalize how it works across the region both functionally (i.e. operationally) and conceptually and to focus on concrete high quality deliverables, be these regional or national knowledge products, targeted technical assistance with a high multiplier effect or the filling of critical gaps [rather than the current approach where results reflect an individual agencies potential contribution rather than addressing a precise and strategic capacity gap that is understood to be critical for success].
11 11. This would include revisiting how the regional results matrix is structured to look at ways to cluster countries to allow for a more focused approach than draws on the commonality between countries rather than the commonality of the UN approach.
12 12. During the ongoing revision of the M&E framework further consideration should be given to streamlining the UNDAF review to focus much more explicitly on where the UN system as a whole is adding value.
13 13. This would involve removing all impact indicators?which should really be national indicators (and is where the current alignment exercise is most useful)?from the UNDAF monitoring framework. Rather than trying to quantify the UN?s contribution to the achievement of national results, the primary focus should be on how the UN has supported and strengthened national capacities to monitor results (including the MDGs).
14 14. Equally, results at the agency and sector level should only play a small part in the UNDAF review and might be better addressed during the review of work plans.
15 15. The focus of the UNDAF review should be [exclusively] on intermediate results that capture the collected value added of the UN system. The aim would be to demonstrate that closer cooperation and cohesion among the UN family has lead to a greater impact than if UN agencies had been working individually. This would necessarily mean a greater emphasis on joint programming (if not actual joint programmes) and the inclusion of process indicators to demonstrate greater efficiencies within the system.
16 16. Given the human development consequences of the global economic crisis and the rise in food prices and the leadership role played by the UN, in particular the FAO, serious consideration should be given to revising the Results Matrix to capture this work. This could be achieved by adding another CP Outcome (1.4) under UNDAF Pillar One.
17 17. In order to accommodate the proposed change under recommendation 13, it would be possible to merge CP Outcomes 1.1 and 1.2 which both look at planning and data integrity and to allow greater precision in the definition of results that deal with employment and food security respectively.
18 18. UN agencies should regularly identify themes that would link the operational capacities of funds and programmes with the technical expertise of specialized agencies under all Pillars.
19 19. HQ and ROs of Specialized Agencies should review their systems to so that they can provide support to Country Office teams and facilitate their coherence with the other UN agencies.
20 The UNRC(s) should also lobby DOCO and the UNDG A-P for additional resources to facilitate the participation of specialized agencies and other who lack discretionary resources to support UNDAF / UN Reform activities.
21 21. While maintaining care not to exclusively ?mandate driven?, the UNDAF should more explicitly reference non-MDG conventions to enable greater advocacy and programming opportunities.
22 22. There is support from governments in the region for the UNCTs to strengthen UN joint programming efforts on Gender Equality and especially to end VAW.
23 23. At the regional level, the UNCT should build on the support from governments and Regional Organisations to kick start a Pacific UNiTE campaign based on the regional rollout of the Global UN Secretary General?s Campaign of Ending Sexual Violence. The potential development of joint programmes around VAW represents opportunities for the UN Gender Group, on behalf of the UNCTs to assume a leadership role on a key development and human rights issue within the region.
24 24. The Gender Group should strengthen the links and working relationships with representatives of SPC, PIFS and other agencies through regular joint meetings and with Development Partners to increase the financing for Gender Equality in the region.
25 25. Where possible, UN agencies and CDMs should actively convene on issues of gender at national level and should communicate, link and exchange with the Regional UN Gender Group to increase South-South exchanges and learning opportunities.
26 26. In order to address the continued lack of data on Gender Equality in the region, the UN should work with key development partners and Forum agencies to develop common country assessments and strategies on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women that would act as a roadmap for the progressive implementation of both the Pacific and Beijing Platforms of Action.
27 27. The metrics developed above should be integrated into the UNDAF monitoring framework and should be used to raise awareness on the importance of mainstreaming at the national level while also capturing the important (unique) role of the UN in the Pacific to promote Human Rights.
28 28. Where countries have submitted reports to the Committees responsible for monitoring International Human Rights Conventions, the UN should raise awareness and advocate for action on the key observations and recommendations during Annual Reviews and Development Partner Round Tables.
29 29. The UNCT needs to continue to strengthen national capacities for monitoring and reporting against the MDGs and to support planning and budgeting to ensure that critical gaps are filled in the final run up to 2015.
30 30. The Annual Review(s) should focus on identifying areas where the UN system as a whole has added most value and to identify points of convergence among different agency programmes and focus on these (rather than individual achievements).
31 31. The UN needs to marry the operational flexibility and in-country presence of funds and programmes with the technical expertise of specialized agencies in order to make a difference.
32 32. The UN needs to focus on critical interventions that fill gaps and complements the work of others (such as the support provided by UNDP to the Dept. of Energy in Tuvalu) which opens the door to significant resources being mobilized through other donors.
33 33. The MTR endorses the idea of expanding the scope of UNDAF Pillar Four to include a new CP Outcome area that focuses explicitly on climate change. However, this comes with strong word of caution that any work in this area must be informed by a clear analysis and understanding of how the UN system as a whole can add value (as opposed to simply appearing ?responsive? but not necessarily).
34 34. This would also suggest that serious consideration be given to moving Outcome 2.4 (disaster risk reduction and mitigation) under Pillar 4 given the considerable synergies in approaches especially at the community level.
35 35. The GEC and Food Summit represent important contributions of the UN system to the region over the last two years. However, the real impact will be felt if and when the UN can take the lead on translating promises and pledges into concrete actions on the ground (?making it happen?).
36 36. The development of the next UNDAF cycle needs to take an explicit bottom up approach starting with analysis and interpretation of National Development Plans (for both LDCs and Non-LDCs) which would sharpen the focus of the results at the country level, before aggregating upwards into common multi-country results where applicable.
37 37. The UN needs to strengthen ownership of the UNDAF Results by pushing for national signatures as is normally the case.
38 38. The UNDAF reviews should be folded into an overall review of national development plans.
39 39. Where Aid Management offices have produced Annual Reports (as is the case in Vanuatu), the UN should consider using these as the primary reporting mechanism for the UNDAF.
40 40. UN Agencies must routinely keep Aid Management Divisions fully informed about all disbursements to line ministries (even if the primary responsibility is with the relevant ministry).
41 41. The UN needs to continue to roll out the implementation of HACT and link it to strengthened national financial systems.
42 42. The UNDAF (and UNDAF reporting) should become the UN systems response to the Cairns Compact.
43 43. This would include capturing CC indicators during the revision of the M&E framework and reporting on these during the Annual Review process.
44 44. All UN agencies to support CC and ensure submission of CCDP reporting information to METWG in future.
45 45. OGs need to focus / coalesce around 1-2 issues and make this the focus of their work and advocacy during the year.
46 46. Every OG should take on the responsibility of producing one piece of research that would help to position the UN as a centre of excellence within the region around that theme.
47 47. Concrete steps need to be taken to review work plans (either thematically or at the country level) to identify means to work more collaboratively.
48 48. OGs need to provide more timely and focused contribution to the monitoring of the outcome areas in collaboration with the M&E Manager and M&E TWG
49 49. In the absence of a SWAp(which should obviously supersede the need for a standalone plan) the UN should commit to developing Joint WorkPlans when working with the same ministry. This would involve combining agency AWP under the responsibility and/or implementation by certain ministries
50 50. More concrete efforts need to be made to foster shared ownership for the achievement of results and to enable agencies to work / represent on behalf of one another (with the exception of specific technical missions).
51 51. More concrete efforts need to be made to foster shared ownership for the achievement of results and to enable agencies to work / represent on behalf of one another (with the exception of specific technical missions).
52 52. While this has been embraced by HOA more needs to be done to advocate for this especially as a means to reducing transactions cost particularly in travel missions.
53 53. The JPOs and CDMs need to be empowered to play a more substantive role and to identify increased joint programming and advocacy opportunities.
54 54. Further thought needs to be given to streamlining certain UNDAF related activities, in particular, the in-depth annual reviews, to bring them in line with, for example, Government-led reviews of National Development Plans. For countries with limited national capacities and a relatively small UN presence (e.g. in the Cook Islands) it might be more useful for UNDAF reviews to be held on an 18 month schedule.
55 55. The development of joint work plans with common partners would build on the positive steps taken in the direction of joint planning noted above.
56 56. Outcome Groups need to take the lead on bringing the UN system together around common themes with a particular emphasis on identifying common / shared priorities (rather than the current information sharing exercise).
57 57. At the national level, agencies associated with the JPO should schedule regular programmatic discussions?de facto UNCT meetings?that would identify potential synergies and UN priorities (which should also be communicated to and discussed with national counterparts to raise awareness about the steps being taken by the UN to work more effectively as ?One UN?.
58 58. It is recommended that the remainder of the UNDAF cycle is spent reviewing the financial management structures to identify means of simplifying processes and to look at options such as direct budget support or basket funding together with other donor partners.
59 59. The UN should also integrate/align reporting formats and review/evaluation processes.
60 60. The Team also recommends strengthening the role of the RC Office to play a stronger coordination role with a particular emphasis on M&E and Communication
1. Recommendation: 1. UNDAF should identify key stand-alone regional results that would better position the UN as a major and relevant regional actor (alongside bilateral and multilateral development partners and regional bodies)?
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? UN could better capitalize on opportunity for UNDAF to better position itself relation to other regional partners

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: 2. The UN should develop a number of key advocacy messages linked directly to the UNDAF and use these as the basis for a regional communications strategy
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree - UNDAF Communications Grp to use UNDAF Annual Review 2009 to highlight UN results

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: 3. The UN needs to develop a more consistent and transparent working relationship with CROP agencies to ensure that there is better and complementary coordination at both national and regional levels
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Partially agree as UN has already been working in this area with Regional Partners and collectively with PIFS for DP mtg, CCDP and SPC for HOPS, Regional Stats planning etc

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: 4. The UN should also broaden its perspective to look at areas where it can work more closely in support of the MSI+5 agenda in the Pacific and reflect these targets in the UNDAF
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree- MSI targets to be added to next cycle given evaluation next year

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: 5. While the attempt to better align the UNDAF monitoring framework to National Indicators is important, the UN should also consider looking at the relationship between agency M&E frameworks and indicators?i.e. what are agencies are actually doing and monitoring?and the UNDAF M&E framework.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Partially agree as was initially done in 2008 but updating mid cycle needed

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: 6. Given that the LDC Results Matrices are essentially the national level operationalisation of the strategic / political positioning of the UN system (reflecting its global mandates in relationship to the region) there is a strong case to be made for the UN to streamline in-country processes by opting for a common plan that is aligned much more explicitly with the National Development Plans.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Done for some 2 PICs and work in progress for others for another 2 PICs. Work yet to begin in 1 PIC

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: 7. Strong consideration needs to be given to the turning the LDC Results Matrix into the primary legal and monitoring framework for the work of the UN system in a country subsuming the current agency country programmes and plans. The new UNDAF/CCA Guidelines has strongly advocated for the use of the common UNDAF Action Plan as the primary operational tool for UN reform moving forward.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Done in some PICs but for others recommend for next cycle

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: 8. Given that Kiribati, already has a One Fund structure in place, there would be an opportunity to field test the idea of a common UN Plan by updating the current LDC matrix for Kiribati to reflect more fully the existing agency CP of all UN agencies?..
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Kiribati implementation plan was developed from Kiribati UNDAF. The corresponding ME framework was also developed. Thus action was initiated prior to MTR.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: 9. If one accepts the idea that capacity constraints in most PICTs represent a serious obstacle to the achievement of UNDAF results, it necessarily follows that UN agencies need to move away from ?stand-alone? projects and programmes that require government to dedicate staff and resources to oversee implementation. This would suggest a much stronger emphasis on joint programming (if not joint programmes) within the UN family but also with regional bodies and development partners
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? but UN was already aware of this and working towards this prior to MTR.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: 10. The UN needs to rationalize how it works across the region both functionally (i.e. operationally) and conceptually and to focus on concrete high quality deliverables, be these regional or national knowledge products, targeted technical assistance with a high multiplier effect or the filling of critical gaps [rather than the current approach where results reflect an individual agencies potential contribution rather than addressing a precise and strategic capacity gap that is understood to be critical for success].
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Partially agree This issue was taken on board in formulation of current UNDAF and is already being implemented by agencies.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: 11. This would include revisiting how the regional results matrix is structured to look at ways to cluster countries to allow for a more focused approach than draws on the commonality between countries rather than the commonality of the UN approach.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree - For consideration for formulation of next cycle

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation: 12. During the ongoing revision of the M&E framework further consideration should be given to streamlining the UNDAF review to focus much more explicitly on where the UN system as a whole is adding value.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Already being done in Annual Reviews

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation: 13. This would involve removing all impact indicators?which should really be national indicators (and is where the current alignment exercise is most useful)?from the UNDAF monitoring framework. Rather than trying to quantify the UN?s contribution to the achievement of national results, the primary focus should be on how the UN has supported and strengthened national capacities to monitor results (including the MDGs).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Disagree ? Instead of removing impact indicators, align them to national development plan ME framework indicators. We would still need impact indicators to monitor UN contribution to national results through monitoring output indicators as well. By only focusing on monitoring results related to capacity development UN may miss important work at policy level

Key Actions:

14. Recommendation: 14. Equally, results at the agency and sector level should only play a small part in the UNDAF review and might be better addressed during the review of work plans.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Already agencies results are only a small part of the annual review and focus is on UN as a whole

Key Actions:

15. Recommendation: 15. The focus of the UNDAF review should be [exclusively] on intermediate results that capture the collected value added of the UN system. The aim would be to demonstrate that closer cooperation and cohesion among the UN family has lead to a greater impact than if UN agencies had been working individually. This would necessarily mean a greater emphasis on joint programming (if not actual joint programmes) and the inclusion of process indicators to demonstrate greater efficiencies within the system.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

In process already AR guidelines reflect this and Annual Review 2010 focused on this

Key Actions:

16. Recommendation: 16. Given the human development consequences of the global economic crisis and the rise in food prices and the leadership role played by the UN, in particular the FAO, serious consideration should be given to revising the Results Matrix to capture this work. This could be achieved by adding another CP Outcome (1.4) under UNDAF Pillar One.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree- RCO and UNDAF ME Manager to facilitate specialized agencies input in this area for a additional CP outcome under UNDAF Pillar one

Key Actions:

17. Recommendation: 17. In order to accommodate the proposed change under recommendation 13, it would be possible to merge CP Outcomes 1.1 and 1.2 which both look at planning and data integrity and to allow greater precision in the definition of results that deal with employment and food security respectively.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Partially agree. Possible to include indicators of results related to food security in revised matrix

Key Actions:

18. Recommendation: 18. UN agencies should regularly identify themes that would link the operational capacities of funds and programmes with the technical expertise of specialized agencies under all Pillars.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Work in progress prior to MTR

Key Actions:

19. Recommendation: 19. HQ and ROs of Specialized Agencies should review their systems to so that they can provide support to Country Office teams and facilitate their coherence with the other UN agencies.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree -UNCTs to discuss specific action

Key Actions:

20. Recommendation: The UNRC(s) should also lobby DOCO and the UNDG A-P for additional resources to facilitate the participation of specialized agencies and other who lack discretionary resources to support UNDAF / UN Reform activities.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree. But we need to remember that this is being done every year by RCO and experience reveals that funds available to DOCO is limited.

Key Actions:

21. Recommendation: 21. While maintaining care not to exclusively ?mandate driven?, the UNDAF should more explicitly reference non-MDG conventions to enable greater advocacy and programming opportunities.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Already included but agree further work could be undertaken to fully accommodate this recommendation

Key Actions:

22. Recommendation: 22. There is support from governments in the region for the UNCTs to strengthen UN joint programming efforts on Gender Equality and especially to end VAW.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree but already in action prior to MTR

Key Actions:

23. Recommendation: 23. At the regional level, the UNCT should build on the support from governments and Regional Organisations to kick start a Pacific UNiTE campaign based on the regional rollout of the Global UN Secretary General?s Campaign of Ending Sexual Violence. The potential development of joint programmes around VAW represents opportunities for the UN Gender Group, on behalf of the UNCTs to assume a leadership role on a key development and human rights issue within the region.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree but already in action prior to MTR

Key Actions:

24. Recommendation: 24. The Gender Group should strengthen the links and working relationships with representatives of SPC, PIFS and other agencies through regular joint meetings and with Development Partners to increase the financing for Gender Equality in the region.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree UN Gender Group to formulate strategy for increased financing in area of gender

Key Actions:

25. Recommendation: 25. Where possible, UN agencies and CDMs should actively convene on issues of gender at national level and should communicate, link and exchange with the Regional UN Gender Group to increase South-South exchanges and learning opportunities.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree - UN Gender Group to formulate strategy for improved SSC in area of gender

Key Actions:

26. Recommendation: 26. In order to address the continued lack of data on Gender Equality in the region, the UN should work with key development partners and Forum agencies to develop common country assessments and strategies on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women that would act as a roadmap for the progressive implementation of both the Pacific and Beijing Platforms of Action.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

UN Gender Group to formulate strategy for improved CCA and Strategies aimed at implementing and monitoring Beijing

Key Actions:

27. Recommendation: 27. The metrics developed above should be integrated into the UNDAF monitoring framework and should be used to raise awareness on the importance of mainstreaming at the national level while also capturing the important (unique) role of the UN in the Pacific to promote Human Rights.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

OHCHR develop matrix for inclusion in ME framework and provide information for indicators from 2008, 2009, 2010

Key Actions:

28. Recommendation: 28. Where countries have submitted reports to the Committees responsible for monitoring International Human Rights Conventions, the UN should raise awareness and advocate for action on the key observations and recommendations during Annual Reviews and Development Partner Round Tables.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

OHCHR to work with individual agencies to ensure IHRC included in annual reviews and DP roundtable meetings

Key Actions:

29. Recommendation: 29. The UNCT needs to continue to strengthen national capacities for monitoring and reporting against the MDGs and to support planning and budgeting to ensure that critical gaps are filled in the final run up to 2015.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

30. Recommendation: 30. The Annual Review(s) should focus on identifying areas where the UN system as a whole has added most value and to identify points of convergence among different agency programmes and focus on these (rather than individual achievements).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Individual Agencies to identify potential areas for joint programming beyond individual agency programming during JTC and JSM

Key Actions:

31. Recommendation: 31. The UN needs to marry the operational flexibility and in-country presence of funds and programmes with the technical expertise of specialized agencies in order to make a difference.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? UN working towards this from beginning of UNDAF cycle

Key Actions:

32. Recommendation: 32. The UN needs to focus on critical interventions that fill gaps and complements the work of others (such as the support provided by UNDP to the Dept. of Energy in Tuvalu) which opens the door to significant resources being mobilized through other donors.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Partially agree. This is work in progress and already in original UNDAF design for 2008

Key Actions:

33. Recommendation: 33. The MTR endorses the idea of expanding the scope of UNDAF Pillar Four to include a new CP Outcome area that focuses explicitly on climate change. However, this comes with strong word of caution that any work in this area must be informed by a clear analysis and understanding of how the UN system as a whole can add value (as opposed to simply appearing ?responsive? but not necessarily).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

OG 4 to explore and formulate for UNDAF

Key Actions:

34. Recommendation: 34. This would also suggest that serious consideration be given to moving Outcome 2.4 (disaster risk reduction and mitigation) under Pillar 4 given the considerable synergies in approaches especially at the community level.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

OG 4 to explore and formulate for UNDAF

Key Actions:

35. Recommendation: 35. The GEC and Food Summit represent important contributions of the UN system to the region over the last two years. However, the real impact will be felt if and when the UN can take the lead on translating promises and pledges into concrete actions on the ground (?making it happen?).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

UNCTs to discuss further actions.

Key Actions:

36. Recommendation: 36. The development of the next UNDAF cycle needs to take an explicit bottom up approach starting with analysis and interpretation of National Development Plans (for both LDCs and Non-LDCs) which would sharpen the focus of the results at the country level, before aggregating upwards into common multi-country results where applicable.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

For consideration in formulation of next cycle

Key Actions:

37. Recommendation: 37. The UN needs to strengthen ownership of the UNDAF Results by pushing for national signatures as is normally the case.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

For consideration in formulation of next cycle

Key Actions:

38. Recommendation: 38. The UNDAF reviews should be folded into an overall review of national development plans.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? already being undertaken in some PICs even prior to MTR

Key Actions:

39. Recommendation: 39. Where Aid Management offices have produced Annual Reports (as is the case in Vanuatu), the UN should consider using these as the primary reporting mechanism for the UNDAF.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree for national level to feed results into AMO Annual reviews but also need UNDAF Annual Report for countries to feed into Regional UNDAF

Key Actions:

40. Recommendation: 40. UN Agencies must routinely keep Aid Management Divisions fully informed about all disbursements to line ministries (even if the primary responsibility is with the relevant ministry).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree- already being undertaken by some UN agencies

Key Actions:

41. Recommendation: 41. The UN needs to continue to roll out the implementation of HACT and link it to strengthened national financial systems.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

42. Recommendation: 42. The UNDAF (and UNDAF reporting) should become the UN systems response to the Cairns Compact.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree -work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

43. Recommendation: 43. This would include capturing CC indicators during the revision of the M&E framework and reporting on these during the Annual Review process.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree- work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

44. Recommendation: 44. All UN agencies to support CC and ensure submission of CCDP reporting information to METWG in future.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

45. Recommendation: 45. OGs need to focus / coalesce around 1-2 issues and make this the focus of their work and advocacy during the year.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

46. Recommendation: 46. Every OG should take on the responsibility of producing one piece of research that would help to position the UN as a centre of excellence within the region around that theme.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Individual OGs to decide

Key Actions:

47. Recommendation: 47. Concrete steps need to be taken to review work plans (either thematically or at the country level) to identify means to work more collaboratively.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

48. Recommendation: 48. OGs need to provide more timely and focused contribution to the monitoring of the outcome areas in collaboration with the M&E Manager and M&E TWG
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

OG ME focal pts need to submit information to UNDAF ME manager

Key Actions:

49. Recommendation: 49. In the absence of a SWAp(which should obviously supersede the need for a standalone plan) the UN should commit to developing Joint WorkPlans when working with the same ministry. This would involve combining agency AWP under the responsibility and/or implementation by certain ministries
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree subject to host government decision and agreement reached

Key Actions:

50. Recommendation: 50. More concrete efforts need to be made to foster shared ownership for the achievement of results and to enable agencies to work / represent on behalf of one another (with the exception of specific technical missions).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

51. Recommendation: 51. More concrete efforts need to be made to foster shared ownership for the achievement of results and to enable agencies to work / represent on behalf of one another (with the exception of specific technical missions).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

52. Recommendation: 52. While this has been embraced by HOA more needs to be done to advocate for this especially as a means to reducing transactions cost particularly in travel missions.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

53. Recommendation: 53. The JPOs and CDMs need to be empowered to play a more substantive role and to identify increased joint programming and advocacy opportunities.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

54. Recommendation: 54. Further thought needs to be given to streamlining certain UNDAF related activities, in particular, the in-depth annual reviews, to bring them in line with, for example, Government-led reviews of National Development Plans. For countries with limited national capacities and a relatively small UN presence (e.g. in the Cook Islands) it might be more useful for UNDAF reviews to be held on an 18 month schedule.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? already being undertaken in some PICs even prior to MTR. There have been 18 monthly reviews for some countries like Samoa whose government financial year is from July to June to ensure alignment to government review processes.

Key Actions:

55. Recommendation: 55. The development of joint work plans with common partners would build on the positive steps taken in the direction of joint planning noted above.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? already being undertaken in some PICs even prior to MTR

Key Actions:

56. Recommendation: 56. Outcome Groups need to take the lead on bringing the UN system together around common themes with a particular emphasis on identifying common / shared priorities (rather than the current information sharing exercise).
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? already being undertaken even prior to MTR

Key Actions:

57. Recommendation: 57. At the national level, agencies associated with the JPO should schedule regular programmatic discussions?de facto UNCT meetings?that would identify potential synergies and UN priorities (which should also be communicated to and discussed with national counterparts to raise awareness about the steps being taken by the UN to work more effectively as ?One UN?.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

RCOs and JPOs to work together to facilitate regular meeting at national level for joint UN programming either virtually or physically.

Key Actions:

58. Recommendation: 58. It is recommended that the remainder of the UNDAF cycle is spent reviewing the financial management structures to identify means of simplifying processes and to look at options such as direct budget support or basket funding together with other donor partners.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Partially agree. Direct budget support is not an option and is only available to UN system on exceptional basis.

Key Actions:

59. Recommendation: 59. The UN should also integrate/align reporting formats and review/evaluation processes.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

60. Recommendation: 60. The Team also recommends strengthening the role of the RC Office to play a stronger coordination role with a particular emphasis on M&E and Communication
Management Response: [Added: 2011/07/28]

Agree ? work in progress even before MTR

Key Actions:

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