UNDAF final Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2017, Cape Verde
Evaluation Type:
UNDAF
Planned End Date:
03/2017
Completion Date:
12/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToRs Cabo Verde UNDAF Evaluation.pdf tor English 368.76 KB Posted 273
Download document Cabo Verde UNDAF Evaluation Report _Final Version_12 Dec 2016.pdf report English 3127.94 KB Posted 812
Title UNDAF final Evaluation
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2017, Cape Verde
Evaluation Type: UNDAF
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2016
Planned End Date: 03/2017
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: UNRC
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 26,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Craig Naumann Independent Evaluation/Research Expert ccnaumann@yahoo.com
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: CAPE VERDE
Lessons
1.

The UNDAP, initially conceived as overall programme coordination tool, gradually withered away into the background after the design of the UNDAF. Actual yearly planning was carried out through the joint annual work plans which turned out to be a, if not the major tool for programme coordination.


2.

The UNDAF as such, and in particular its set of output and outcome indicators, was virtually shelved and forgotten during the actual implementation of the One Programme. This holds important lessons for the design of M&E mechanisms, tools and indicators. A lesson to be learned here is that there is not much added value and, to the contrary, a real risk of wasting lots of resources by designing detailed sets of high-level performance indicators at the programme impact/outcome level without a full understanding of what type of data sources exist, and what kind of data will shortly become available.


3.

There were a number of joint programmes but mostly, they were confined to results chains within the same pillar.


4.

While there was evidence for partial thematic programme design transcending traditional sector logic, most programmes and projects under the One Programme were conceived according to a silo approach. The one case where programmes were truly cross-sectorial, namely the first and second outcomes under Pillar 2 (“mini-UNDAF”), was somewhat ill-conceived, in that it was ultimately too broad and all-encompassing, preventing genuine synergies to kick in.


5.

Initial agency planning reflected in the architecture of the One Programme’s results framework shows traces of single agency planning logic being “front-loaded” in the UNDAF planning process, rather than the SOPs logic of joint planning in response to jointly identified comprehensive country needs from which joint programmes are derived. In particular, this concerns pillars 2 and 3.


6.

A more inclusive annual work plan (AWP) process is needed to ensure that all non-resident agencies feel that their respective mandate and related activities are fully reflected in a specific year's UNDAF Workplan.


Findings
1.

The three JO agencies dominate the UNDAF in terms of financial and operational presence: together, they account for 45% of allocated budget resources from 2012-2016. The Joint Office (JO) contributes to 59% (20/34) of outputs with involvement of one or several JO member agencies across all UNDAF outcomes; namely, 1/3 outcomes under Pillar 1, 2/3 outcomes under Pillar 2, 3/3 outcomes under Pillar 3, and 3/3 outcomes under Pillar 4, which makes for an overall presence in 9/12 outcomes across the entire UNDAF.


2.

While the output level indicators had baseline and final target values, the outcome and impact indicator level had neither of those. Another major problem here was that there was no existing data (source) for most of the indicators. Reasons included that the indicators were not SMART, no investment into requisite data collection processes had occurred, household survey data that could inform some of the indicators is only becoming available in the near future towards the end of the calendar year etc.


3.

In terms of the UNDAF One Programme’s overall relevance, the UNDAF provided support to all of the five strategic DECRP pillars.


4.

The cross-cutting programming principles of human rights and gender equality are reflected in the design of UNDAF outputs and activities, namely under UNDAF pillars 1, 2 and 3.


5.

Whereas the principle of environmental sustainability was captured under an UNDAF pillar in its own right (Pillar 4), systemic sustainability aspects were in particular addressed by related capacity building reflected in particular under the second and third outcomes of each pillar, which concentrate on institutional capacities and operational aspects while the first outcome has a focus on normative, upstream-level policy related work.


6.

In terms of general effectiveness, the analysis of performance indicators at the level of outputs shows good progress as far as advancement against initially fixed output targets is concerned. At the level of output measures, overall, final targets have already been at least met, if not surpassed, for 25% of related indicators (or 21/86 indicators that could be informed from among the total of 92). Regarding early indications for, or evidence of potential early impact, there are already some solid indications for arguably game changing interventions directly attributable to UNDAF interventions.


7.

In terms of general efficiency, the One Programme so far managed to mobilize 92% or USD76,056,910 of the initially planned USD82,445,090 for the 2012-2016 period.


8.

Furthermore, the recent expansion of the pillar working group structure to also include GoCV representatives from line ministries as chairs/co-chairs to mirror the UN internal co-leads increases the likelihood of generating future gains in terms of impact, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and alignment vis-à-vis GoCV activities, in general.


9.

The UNCT successfully managed to leverage partnerships (EU, bilateral donors incl. Luxemburg etc.) including mobilizing financial and technical resources through South-South partnerships (Uruguay, Guinea-Bissau, Brazil, TimorLeste and African Portuguese-speaking countries such as São Tome e Principe).—While internal levels of coherence v are quite robust across the various domains of programming, managerial and operational coherence, there is still some room for improvement in terms of internal cross-agency information sharing and transparent communication.


10.

There are positive examples of DaO-induced operational practices such as the reality of the One House, joint LTAs, steps towards harmonizing per diem rates for national consultants etc. The CCPD for the three JO agencies was derived from and is thus intrinsically aligned with the UNDAF/UNDAP, which qualifies as best 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