Final UNDAF Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2021-2025, Eswatini
Evaluation Type:
UNDAF
Planned End Date:
11/2019
Status:
Overdue
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000
Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Eswatini UNDAF 2016-2020 Assessment-Final Report 25.12.20.pdf related-document English 1075.79 KB Posted 241
Title Final UNDAF Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 00046150
Evaluation Plan: 2021-2025, Eswatini
Evaluation Type: UNDAF
Status: Overdue
Planned End Date: 11/2019
Management Response: No
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with UN Agencies
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Target Ministries/Departments/CSOs/UN Agencies
Countries: ESWATINI
Lessons
1.

 1. Responsiveness, flexibility, alignment with the changing development priorities and the needs of the citizens are critical factors in the implementation of UNDAF in Eswatini.


2.

2. Effective leadership and coordination among different UN Agencies and the government through Joint work plans, joint reviews, joint budgetary framework and resource mobilization promotes synergy, efficiency and accountability.


3.

3. Consolidated and harmonised documentation and reporting such as the “One UN Report” enhances accountability and promotes information sharing and coordination among the different stakeholders (UN agencies and GoE).


Findings
1.

Finding 2: The development and implementation of UNDAF was largely between the UN and GoE with limited involvement of other key stakeholders such as the Civil society, media, private sector and academia. There was mainly because UNDAF was designed with focus on upstream interventions. All key stakeholders should have been involved in the design and implementation of UNDAF to ensure that the focus is defined, not merely in upstream terms, but also and more importantly, is adaptive and responsive to the context and humanitarian needs of Eswatini citizens

Finding 3: The UNDAF design shows limited programmatic flexibility because the design of the results framework is more output based with rather overambitious and overstretched components, bringing together many stakeholders and thematic areas under one pillar. However, having broad outcomes (outcome-based design) would have easily allowed for greater programmatic flexibility to make it more responsive to emerging needs and priorities

Finding 5: There was incoherent and inconsistent joint planning and reporting. UNDAF supporting structures were not consistently effective due to lack of standard operating procedures that would have guided and effectively informed joint planning, implementation, joint reviews and reporting. At times some agency and government Protocols and red tapes delayed the process of delivery as expected by pillar members

Finding 7: The performance of UNDAF 2016-2020 in terms of results and achievements is mixed. Significant progress was made especially in terms of support on the development of various policies/legal frameworks, guidelines and strategies, and production of sectors’ review, survey/research reports during the implementation period.

Finding 10: This Pillar, has been largely well coordinated with planned meetings and organized deliberations through effective operationalization and functioning of TWGs and JAWPs. There seems to be more commitment, proactive engagement and collective responsibility by the members of this group, both from the UN side and also the government counterparts. The pillar has been developing most of their pillar reports, JAWP and convening partners.

Finding 11: There is misinterpretation about DaO (among UN agencies) and also limited ownership and commitment towards UNDAF across UN agencies and the government counterparts. This is because some Agencies feel overstretched/ overwhelmed due to obligations and commitments to line government ministries and competing tasks as they implement and report on their respective country programmes or country portfolios within their respective agency mandates. They have minimal appreciation of UNDAF as they feel it is duplication of work and reporting.

Finding 16: UNDAF was designed for upstream and therefore significant achievements were made in formulating sectoral policies, strategies and legislations. However, the sustainability of some of the results would depend on whether they continue being aligned with national needs/priorities and policies, and whether the relevant government sectors have the technical and institutional capacities required to maintain or continue such activities.

Finding 17: UNDAF 2016-2020 design to some extend ensured UNDG programming principles were incorporated in the framework design29 but there were gaps in full mainstreaming of these programming principles into the implementation of UNDAF. The performance Indicators on Human Rights, and Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women that were supposed to establish an accountability framework to assess the effectiveness of the UNCT’s strategy in support of Human Rights, gender equality and women’s empowerment have not been well documented and measured.

Finding 18: The 2018 UNDAF MTR proposed several recommendations. However, most of the MTR recommendations were not addressed and the implementation situation after the midterm review did not change significantly. There was no follow up mechanism put in place (e.g. management report) to address the recommendations. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic has understandably affected programme implementations globally.


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