Mid-term Evaluation of the Making Access Possible (MAP) programme

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2021, UNCDF
Evaluation Type:
Others
Planned End Date:
12/2019
Completion Date:
03/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
142,260

The Making Access Possible (MAP) programme is a multi-country initiative intended to support the development of national financial inclusion roadmaps and strategies in partner countries through the generation and use of evidence–based country financial inclusion diagnostics. The roadmaps identify the key drivers of financial inclusion within each country and provide a set of recommended practical actions tailored to each country that can be implemented by governments and key actors from the private sector and the donor community. These actions are expected to support the expansion of access to, or consolidating the provision of, financial services for individuals and micro and small businesses in partner countries.

The MAP approach places an understanding of the consumer at the core of its approach. It uses the quantitative FinScope Consumer Survey - in combination with different qualitative research approaches - to gather a wealth of in-country consumer data which can be used to identify and propose solutions to country-specific problems, based on insights into the country context, the supply environment and regulatory frameworks, and consumers’ and households’ needs, behaviour and preferences. Among other things, the detailed evidence bases that MAP is able to generate by disaggregating the target population equips governments to focus interventions, while also demonstrating to investors market potential and weaknesses.

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document MAP_MTE_TOR.pdf tor English 10247.52 KB Posted 11
Download document MAP_MTE_report.pdf report English 1578.45 KB Posted 37
Download document MAP_MTE_country_reports.pdf related-document English 1776.31 KB Posted 13
Title Mid-term Evaluation of the Making Access Possible (MAP) programme
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2021, UNCDF
Evaluation Type: Others
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2020
Planned End Date: 12/2019
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 142,260
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 142,260
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Sanjay Sinha Financial Inclusion and Asia Expert (Myanmar and Nepal)
Chris Statham Country associate - Malawi
Peter Nzebile Country associate – Burkina Faso
Nara Hari Dhakal Country associate - Nepal
Frances Sinha Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: GLOBAL
Comments:

The Making Access Possible (MAP) programme is a multi-country initiative intended to support the development of national financial inclusion roadmaps and strategies in partner countries through the generation and use of evidence–based country financial inclusion diagnostics. The roadmaps identify the key drivers of financial inclusion within each country and provide a set of recommended practical actions tailored to each country that can be implemented by governments and key actors from the private sector and the donor community. These actions are expected to support the expansion of access to, or consolidating the provision of, financial services for individuals and micro and small businesses in partner countries.

The MAP approach places an understanding of the consumer at the core of its approach. It uses the quantitative FinScope Consumer Survey - in combination with different qualitative research approaches - to gather a wealth of in-country consumer data which can be used to identify and propose solutions to country-specific problems, based on insights into the country context, the supply environment and regulatory frameworks, and consumers’ and households’ needs, behaviour and preferences. Among other things, the detailed evidence bases that MAP is able to generate by disaggregating the target population equips governments to focus interventions, while also demonstrating to investors market potential and weaknesses.

Lessons
1.

Clearly define success beyond the delivery of an action plan or strategy, or putting in place a system for data collection. Strategies and systems with often under-capacitated government partners need follow up and support, particularly in an LDC context, if they are to deliver value. Whether a strategy is implemented, how data is actually used, is no less important than the initial work of putting these in place.


2.

Whilst working effectively with (LDC) governments, respecting local sovereignty and authority, it is necessary to have a strategy in place to avoid or circumvent long delays.  One requirement is to understand basic policy requirements in advance – ie. government approval will depend on a fit with its existing policy mechanisms, and in Asia having documents well translated into the local language. 


3.

A stakeholder engagement framework and process needs strong planning with technical support so that it is effective and seen to be useful enough for stakeholders to participate actively, and indeed cover their costs of participation. Engaging with stakeholders through workshops and meetings is a technical skill (ensuring strong agendas, active participation and contribution, good minuting and follow up) and requires resources.    


4.

A strong Monitoring component of M&E with consistent and careful reporting on activities and implementation with a feedback loop into programme management, is as important as tracking (Evaluating) the ‘high level’ results (supply and demand indicators for financial inclusion). For a programme like MAP that aims to provide an evidence base for effective policy making, the need for strong monitoring applies both to the phases of intervention, and to tracking policy developments following the intervention.


5.

Whatever methods are employed for global advocacy as well as training and  communication, ensure that there is a feedback mechanism on take-up, and perception of quality and usefulness. A communication strategy needs to be dynamic – with quick follow up, short pieces and engagement with the target audience/users.


6.

These are all aspects that require resources, and many programmes have to manage within a limited budget, at any rate to start with.  Given a resource constraint, it seems better to adjust strategically and prioritise within the resources available, which is likely to mean starting small, and expanding coverage incrementally. MAP was initiated in a number of countries at the same time before it had consolidated on processes and guidelines for what happens after the roadmap. With hindsight, we think there should have been a careful testing of Output 2 before expanding on output 1 in more countries. At the same time, based on the financial analysis we have undertaken for this evaluation, putting financial monitoring systems in place to include partner and parallel funding, is important to keep track of actual and relative costs.

 

7.

Data is now seen to be the ‘new gold’ – both demand and supply side, with new data sources becoming available (geospatial, fintech transactions, other ‘big data’ based on financial service transactions).  Conducting a good demand survey should not depend on a single branded tool. It will be important to maintain quality and consistency but there are new opportunities emerging to combine different tools for data capture (e.g. geospatial mapping, mobile surveys, transactions data); keeping up to date, with effective segmentation, analysis, reporting, dissemination and use will be a continuing challenge that needs attention and skills. The aim should be to integrate gender disaggregated data – alongside other important disaggregations (at least rural/urban/geospatial) - across all data sets, demand side and supply side.  Supply side disaggregation will require attention and effort to see what can be feasibly introduced and what changes are necessary in technologies and systems. 


Findings
1.

Relevance and Quality of the Design

MAP was an innovative design responding to policy interest. The deliverables are designed to be comprehensive and robust, and as such are well appreciated by key country users, but diagnostic reports are also noted to be over-long and costly. A process of stakeholder engagement was planned and piloted to build adaptability to different country contexts and requirements, along with local ownership. Cost and time issues were raised during the pilot but not addressed in the design which was also not clear about what happens after the roadmap, nor was this piloted. The time frame overall was not realistic and there were assumptions around UNCDF/FIPA implementation support, synergies and funding, as well as links to UNDP  - that have only partially worked out. The design includes reference to gender and consumer protection, and different market segments for inclusion, but there is no reference to human rights and vulnerable populations, nor a clear gender strategy for women and youth economic empowerment. MAP’s approach to data collection and use with  stakeholder coordination appears partially relevant for UNCDF’s evolving strategy for FI.


2.

Efficiency

Achievement of outputs is relatively efficient considering 2/3 of numerical targets have been achieved with under ¼ of the expected management resources and under half the total expected funding. Financial resources for the PMU have been managed pragmatically. Publications are of a high quality, but cost and time of in-country deliverables have been issues continuing from the pilot phase. Operations and programme monitoring have been weak. Parallel in-country funding has not been monitored.The governance structure has not supported clear accountability – by the programme to FIPA and vv. M&E of roadmap implementation (Output 2) has been initiated since 2017 and is a work in progress. MAP’s technical partners (FMT, Cenfri) have made strong technical contributions, but there have been issues of inflexibility of approach within MAP and inability to realise synergies with other UNCDF programmes. 


3.

Effectiveness

MAP has raised policy maker and stakeholder awareness around the relevance and use of an evidence base for policy making, achieving the outcome of an ‘enabling environment’ for donor alignment in country and accelerated market development for FI.  But  It has been challenging for national governments to manage stakeholder coordination effectively for roadmap implementation and monitoring.  MAP’s contribution to country capacity to design and set up diagnostic studies of their inclusive finance markets can be seen in a couple of country initiatives to repeat or refresh MAP with Government approval and full funding by local bilaterals/donors. A second round represents a significant opportunity to build on lessons from the first round. Nevertheless, transfer of skills (for the MAP deliverables) has been somewhat limited in the countries visited.

Reporting against NFIS targets (even supply side data and policy implementation) has been limited. For this evaluation, a format was developed so that progress on implementation of the roadmap/NFIS’ 80+ recommendations, could be (qualitatively) defined and assessed.  Including ‘work started’, progress  is around 60% in SADC, 43% in Asia, across different priorities for FI;  less if we apply a stricter definition of substantial progress. There appears to be good consensus on outreach to underserved regions and population segments but more attention will be necessary to build consensus on gender equity issues and strategies.  

Whilst there has been experience sharing between MAP partner countries, issues identified have not been fully followed up. MAP publications and learnings post roadmap have not been disseminated effectively at the global level.


4.

Likely Impact

There is substantial evolution in market development systems for financial inclusion.  MAP has been a part of this, providing a clear framework of reference and evidence basis. Contribution analysis in focus countries suggests that this has supported and reinforced existing initatives for market development but can also trigger specific initiatives in the private sector. Trends data for FI in Myanmar based on the FinScope refresh shows higher than expected growth (despite low progress on action plan targets) suggesting a considerable momentum within the sector, which MAP has been a part of.  However, World Bank Findex data on comparable indicators shows a much lower degree of progress. The capacity to support market development is affected by: the ability/initiative of country level MAP teams, the fit between roadmap priorities and development partner agendas, the relationship between development partners and private sector players, private sector capacity and funds available for new initiatives.


5.

Sustainability of Programme Results

In the countries visited, stakeholder assessment is low for Government having the capacity to take forward the MAP process, and for effective structures for coordination being in place. The authority, interest and continuity of the focal point for FI in the government is variable, whether in the Ministry of Finance or the CB. Key challenges remain. The main resources will continue to be from development partners, who are contributing and a second round of MAP in some countries reflects stakeholder commitment to continue and improve. The programme has demonstrated the importance of continued follow-up with on-going technical assistance (with appropriate funding), if recommendations/actions are to be implemented and tracked.


Recommendations
1

Management welcomes the findings and recommendations from the Mid Term Evaluation Report and is committed to evolve the MAP program based on those recommendations. Management welcomes the evaluation’s assessment that MAP was a timely and significant initiative - at a time when there was strong international and regional endorsement of developing national financial inclusion strategies (NFIS) - highlighting UNCDF’s forward-looking approach to market development. The combination of the constituents of the MAP approach - a comprehensive diagnostic incorporating a robust evidence base (in-depth demand and supply side data) combined with broad based stakeholder engagement and consultation to build local relevance and buy-in, as well as government ownership - was new and distinct, continuing to be relevant today. Management also acknowledges that the environment in which the MAP program was developed has also considerably changed, with the acceleration of digital finance solutions. The evaluation is quite useful and important for UNCDF to examine our diagnostics within the context of our “Leaving No One Behind in the Digital Era” strategy as well as the forthcoming report of the Digital Financing of the SDGs Task Force. We’re at a very exciting and daunting moment as digital is transforming the financial sector as well as the data and diagnostic tools available. The evaluation provides the opportunity to be forward looking as we consider our wider vision of digital economies and the range of tools in the rapidly evolving data and diagnostics space. When MAP started, it filled an important gap that existed at the time. Now, as the space has moved, we need to be more agile, and also have more tools and options to respond quickly to the shift countries are managing at any given point in time.

2

The new opportunities in West Africa and with the Myanmar refresh will be a good area to seek to apply the lessons from this evaluation. In Myanmar there is funding available, in West Africa look at linkages with BCEAO.  Specifically the programme needs to work on in-country communication/dissemination, stakeholder processes, supporting government capacities and monitoring.  And ensure there are the skills within UNCDF to do this. In Nepal too, a strong and interactive engagement with the World Bank to maximise the programmatic implications of the new household survey would be beneficial.  [FIPA management, MAP hub]

 
3

Build transparency around costs within the programme – and monitor costs more closely, including parallel funding.  Technical partners should be required to share full cost details, even if work is not commissioned directly by UNCDF.  

 
4

Commission a separate study to examine and try to benchmark the costs of national market surveys for financial (or other) services, taking into account appropriate sampling and quality of analysis

5

If there is a refresh or repeat, make the process leaner, less monopolistic in terms of technical support, have a more deliberate approach to identifying local consultants ensuring contextual knowledge of financial inclusion, be more adaptive and quicker in the delivery of reports.  As part of this, it should not be necessary to depend on a branded survey.  Ensure quality – but the demand survey does not have to be Finscope, at least outside SADC.  Retain the key elements of Finscope (essentially a robust sample focusing on people’s access, use and perceptions of financial services, allowing for key segmentation analysis), but:  make sure the segments are contextually the key ones, think of leaner periodic options – applying technology wherever feasible, align the indicators of a core questionnaire with updated international definitions of financial inclusion, drawing on relevant indiators from other survey processes, so as to enable cross-country comparison and eliminate current mis-matches in the key data sets.  Look at ways of building alternative capacities for this.  [FIPA management, more widely drawing  on skills of FIPA teams, including MAP hub]

6

In the market analysis, build in a strong, clear analysis of gender disparities and the barriers to women’s access and use, so as to develop more empowering strategies to enable  women’s access and use of financial services particularly with new developments in digital finance where the gender gap is wide and increasing. Relatedly, ensure gender disaggregated data across all parameters (market segments) on the demand side and look at opportunities for disaggregated data on the supply side.  [FIPA, PMU, future technical partners]

 
7

The programme requires a more systematic accountability and monitoring linked to more attentive management/leadership within FIPA. [FIPA management]

8

Pay more attention to the structures and technical support necessary for effective stakeholder engagement. [FIPA management, PMU]

9

Strategically, there is clear scope to link in key elements of the MAP approach within the new FIPA strategy whilst addressing the gaps and building on the lessons: i.e. having a holistic country level frame of reference, highlighting the utility of ‘good enough’ standardized, demand side data, engaging systematically with all stakeholders – government (different departments)/regulators, development partners and commercial sector from the start, and ensuring regular follow up (with technical assistance) to monitor policy actions, programme interventions and supply side trends. For demand side data on financial inclusion, the widely accepted Findex survey is not currently funded beyond its third round that was completed in 2017. This will leave a huge market gap on financial inclusion data at country level which will need to be addressed. Look at what is useful about Findex and see how the market demand survey can be adjusted to fill the gap that there will be without Findex. [FIPA management, PMU, future technical partners]

Management Response Documents
1. Recommendation:

Management welcomes the findings and recommendations from the Mid Term Evaluation Report and is committed to evolve the MAP program based on those recommendations. Management welcomes the evaluation’s assessment that MAP was a timely and significant initiative - at a time when there was strong international and regional endorsement of developing national financial inclusion strategies (NFIS) - highlighting UNCDF’s forward-looking approach to market development. The combination of the constituents of the MAP approach - a comprehensive diagnostic incorporating a robust evidence base (in-depth demand and supply side data) combined with broad based stakeholder engagement and consultation to build local relevance and buy-in, as well as government ownership - was new and distinct, continuing to be relevant today. Management also acknowledges that the environment in which the MAP program was developed has also considerably changed, with the acceleration of digital finance solutions. The evaluation is quite useful and important for UNCDF to examine our diagnostics within the context of our “Leaving No One Behind in the Digital Era” strategy as well as the forthcoming report of the Digital Financing of the SDGs Task Force. We’re at a very exciting and daunting moment as digital is transforming the financial sector as well as the data and diagnostic tools available. The evaluation provides the opportunity to be forward looking as we consider our wider vision of digital economies and the range of tools in the rapidly evolving data and diagnostics space. When MAP started, it filled an important gap that existed at the time. Now, as the space has moved, we need to be more agile, and also have more tools and options to respond quickly to the shift countries are managing at any given point in time.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/27]

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation:

The new opportunities in West Africa and with the Myanmar refresh will be a good area to seek to apply the lessons from this evaluation. In Myanmar there is funding available, in West Africa look at linkages with BCEAO.  Specifically the programme needs to work on in-country communication/dissemination, stakeholder processes, supporting government capacities and monitoring.  And ensure there are the skills within UNCDF to do this. In Nepal too, a strong and interactive engagement with the World Bank to maximise the programmatic implications of the new household survey would be beneficial.  [FIPA management, MAP hub]

 
Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/27]

UNCDF Team to develop a 2020 Annual Work Plan (AWP) to capture the opportunities noted above as well as next phase (MAP) Data and Diagnostic programming that incorporates the findings and recommendations from the MTE that is primarily forward looking. This pivot will create the ability for UNCDF’s work in data and diagnostics to be more agile, responsive with more options to respond to where countries are at any given point in time and how quickly shifts are happening. Next stage design will focus on helping LDC countries be able to understand the shifts taking place and respond quickly. The data and diagnostic work will be fully integrated within UNCDF’s “Leaving No One Behind in the Digital Era” strategy and structure.” These specific opportunities noted in the recommendation will be examined in that context.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. MAP Programme Manager and FIPA Team to develop a 2020 AWP to address the opportunities noted above. As part of 2020 AWP, MAP team to review how use MAP funding to increase support (both on data / diagnostic and stakeholder engagement processes) in key LDC countries with less capacity e.g. DRC, Malawi, Madagascar, Benin, Togo, and provide a plan to the UNCDF to enable implementation.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Programme Manager, FIPA 2020/09 Not Initiated March 2020 AWP developed and approved Q2 2020 First Draft Q3 2020 Second Draft for IC and revised draft based on comments
1.2. MAP Programme Manager and FIPA Team to develop the successor arrangement / programmatic document for next phase of Data and Diagnostic work
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Programme Manager, FIPA 2020/12 Not Initiated March 2020 AWP developed and approved Q2 2020 First Draft Q3 2020 Second Draft for IC and revised draft based on comments Q4 2020 Third Draft for PAC and final draft based on comments
1.3. FIPA Investment Committee reviews and endorses the new programmatic document
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Programme Manager, FIPA 2020/12 Not Initiated March 2020 AWP developed and approved Q2 2020 First Draft Q3 2020 Second Draft for IC and revised draft based on comments Q4 2020 Third Draft for PAC and final draft based on comments
1.4. UNCDF PAC reviews and endorses the new programmatic document
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Programme Manager, FIPA 2020/12 Not Initiated March 2020 AWP developed and approved Q2 2020 First Draft Q3 2020 Second Draft for IC and revised draft based on comments Q4 2020 Third Draft for PAC and final draft based on comments
1.5. Define role of programme after roadmap adoption more clearly: 1.5.1. FIPA Team and MAP Programme Manager to review the range of tools deployed in other UNCDF programmes (DFS working groups (MM4P); National Financial Sector Strategy working groups (PFIP) as well as learnings from MAP evaluation and develop a range of options for LDCs for stakeholder engagement. 1.5.2. To capture opportunities mentioned above, strike (better) balance between diagnostic and implementation; the number of countries and in-country implementation activities; the sample size (representativeness) and the frequency of data collection and refreshes; the costs and time of data collection and the institutionalization and data usage capacity-building needs among LDC stakeholders, FIPA’s in-house coordination capacity and reliance on external stakeholder engagement.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA, MAP Programme Manager 2020/09 Not Initiated
1.6. Decide which tools to be deployed for MAP refresh diagnostics and follow up activities (including on the basis of the analysis mentioned under 1.5.1). Refresh diagnostics to also examine the challenges around implementation of national strategy and the inhibiting factors within Government which will inform the operational 1.6. Decide which tools to be deployed for MAP refresh diagnostics and follow up activities (including on the basis of the analysis mentioned under 1.5.1). Refresh diagnostics to also examine the challenges around implementation of national strategy and the inhibiting factors within Government which will inform the operational
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Programme Manager 2020/09 Not Initiated
1.7. FIPA to identify current skill set within FIPA and fully leverage FIPA’s digital policy accelerator and data and research teams to support policy implementation work at country level.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA 2020/09 Not Initiated
3. Recommendation:

Build transparency around costs within the programme – and monitor costs more closely, including parallel funding.  Technical partners should be required to share full cost details, even if work is not commissioned directly by UNCDF.  

 
Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/27]

The Programme has noted the recommendation and has started gathering detailed costs and will incorporate this going forward.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1. Demand-side data collection methodology updated to include new technology, lowering costs further experiment with over-laying and linking demand and supply side data.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Manager 2020/06 Not Initiated
2.2 Require technical partners to share full cost details, including parallel funding received from other development partners, even if work is not commissioned directly by UNCDF. Amend current agreements as needed.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Manager 2020/06 Not Initiated
4. Recommendation:

Commission a separate study to examine and try to benchmark the costs of national market surveys for financial (or other) services, taking into account appropriate sampling and quality of analysis

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/27]

FIPA will build transparency around costs not only within MAP, but also the range of other tools that FIPA is using for its diagnostic and data work.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Using in-house FIPA experience, engage with the World Bank, IFC and other development actors to compare costs of key surveys and make transparent to stakeholders multiple options (Findex, Intermedia, Finscope, national surveys), to help them think around core sampling design issues and costs, e.g. “sampling and representativeness vs the frequency of refreshes; costs and time of data collection; depth vs breadth of indicators; new vs readily available data , required data outputs within LDC stakeholders to ensure in-house usage of the data.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Programme Manager, FIPA 2020/06 Not Initiated
3.2 Assess the needs and demand of institutionalization of national financial service market surveys within LDC stakeholders.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA 2020/06 Not Initiated
5. Recommendation:

If there is a refresh or repeat, make the process leaner, less monopolistic in terms of technical support, have a more deliberate approach to identifying local consultants ensuring contextual knowledge of financial inclusion, be more adaptive and quicker in the delivery of reports.  As part of this, it should not be necessary to depend on a branded survey.  Ensure quality – but the demand survey does not have to be Finscope, at least outside SADC.  Retain the key elements of Finscope (essentially a robust sample focusing on people’s access, use and perceptions of financial services, allowing for key segmentation analysis), but:  make sure the segments are contextually the key ones, think of leaner periodic options – applying technology wherever feasible, align the indicators of a core questionnaire with updated international definitions of financial inclusion, drawing on relevant indiators from other survey processes, so as to enable cross-country comparison and eliminate current mis-matches in the key data sets.  Look at ways of building alternative capacities for this.  [FIPA management, more widely drawing  on skills of FIPA teams, including MAP hub]

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/27]

Given how fast the diagnostics and data space has moved and continues to move UNCDF will need to be more agile, and also have more options to respond to where countries are at any given point in time. Key is how quickly shifts are happening, countries need to be able to understand the shifts, and respond quickly. UNCDF’s focus depend on our ability to be agile and not have one instrument we’re locked into and not always responsive to what our countries need.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4..1 FIPA to complete the ‘diagnostics toolbox’ of the range of diagnostic tools leveraging digital that FIPA has deployed in parallel to MAP, while also doing a market scan of the range of emerging digital tools coming available. Develop a user friendly guide for LDC stakeholders to best match diagnostic instruments to the ‘problem they are trying to solve’ and available budgets.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA, MAP Programme Manager 2020/06 Not Initiated
4.2 FIPA to develop a ‘stakeholder engagement toolbox’ based on the range of tools deployed in other UNCDF programmes (DFS working groups (MM4P); National Financial Sector Strategy working groups (PFIP) as well as learnings from MAP evaluation. Develop a user-friendly guide for LDC stakeholders to best match stakeholder processes to the ‘problem they are trying to solve’ and time/resources available.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA, MAP Programme Manager 2020/09 Not Initiated
4.3 Refresh evidence-base for existing countries: • MAP Refresh has updated the analytical lens to encompass the role of financial inclusion within the inclusive growth agenda; • Refreshes cost USD50,000 (not including FinScope) with the explicit mandate of understanding other data sources in country within national institutions; • Updated evidence-base with a shorter document
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Manager 2020/03 Completed
6. Recommendation:

In the market analysis, build in a strong, clear analysis of gender disparities and the barriers to women’s access and use, so as to develop more empowering strategies to enable  women’s access and use of financial services particularly with new developments in digital finance where the gender gap is wide and increasing. Relatedly, ensure gender disaggregated data across all parameters (market segments) on the demand side and look at opportunities for disaggregated data on the supply side.  [FIPA, PMU, future technical partners]

 
Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/27]

We accept that there were often a lack of recommended actions in the road map (or consequent) NFIS related to gender which figures in the evaluation findings. Going forward, UNCDF’s Digital Strategy “Leaving No One Behind in the Digital Era” integrates a strong focus on women’s economic empowerment as a key customer segment; within the ‘empowered customers’ workstream; as well as the need for sex disaggregated data within the policy workstream. A gender perspective is also included in most of the segmented analysis of the FinScope surveys and usually in overall roadmap targets. Some of the more recent roadmaps in Asia have incorporated a gender perspective to include policies for a gender sensitive strategy across financial services with an emphasis on gender disaggregated data.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 In the ‘diagnostics toolbox’, ensure sex disaggregated data and gender analysis are clearly featured in the range of tools and their respective strengths.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Manager 2020/12 Not Initiated As refreshes become available
5.2 Include gender lens in refreshes, as well as in updated refresh roadmaps. Within FIPA’s Policy Accelerator, consider capacity building for LDC regulators and private sector in gender smart policy making, product development and sex-disaggregated data analytics.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
MAP Manager/FIPA 2020/12 Not Initiated As refreshes become available 2020
7. Recommendation:

The programme requires a more systematic accountability and monitoring linked to more attentive management/leadership within FIPA. [FIPA management]

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/27] [Last Updated: 2020/04/27]

UNCDF will fully integrate MAP within the “Leaving No One Behind in the Digital Era” strategy and structure. To support this effort to integrate the work we do on data and diagnostics into our programmes, FIPA will create a management committee composed of the Regional Digital Hub Managers and FIPA Directorate to provide leadership and oversight and ensure integration of data and diagnostics work within regional strategies.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 FIPA Management to establish management committee for MAP for 2020
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA Management 2020/06 Not Initiated
6.2 Management arrangements to be included in the concept note for MAP
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA Management 2020/06 Not Initiated Q2 2020 First Draft
8. Recommendation:

Pay more attention to the structures and technical support necessary for effective stakeholder engagement. [FIPA management, PMU]

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/27]

Related to Recommendation 4, given how fast the diagnostics and data space has moved and continues to move, UNCDF will need to be more agile and also have more options to respond to where countries are at any given point in time. Based on how quickly shifts are happening, countries need to be able to understand those shifts and respond quickly. UNCDF’s added value depends on our ability to be agile and not have one stakeholder engagement instrument we’re locked into, and always be responsive to what countries need. FIPA will review the PMU MAP management and delivery structure to ensure it allows implementation to be aligned with these rapidly evolving needs Current typical elements of MAP coordination have included: • Country coordinator and the ‘in-country champion’. • Host ministry, a National Steering Committee, with in-country secretariat evolving into a special group on implementation. • Defined research, implementation and M&E processes, including the roadmap and the action plan. • The identification and implementation of one or more priority projects through which implementation is achieved. Based on the best fit of ‘stakeholder engagement tools’ (see 7.1 below) discuss with host countries the best option to enhance and support UNCDF’s “Leaving No One Behind in the Digital Era” strategy for country Governments.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 FIPA to develop a ‘stakeholder engagement toolbox’ based on the range of tools deployed in other UNCDF programmes (DFS working groups (MM4P); National Financial Sector Strategy working groups (PFIP) as well as learnings from MAP evaluation.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA, MAP Programme Manager 2020/09 Not Initiated
7.2. Develop in-house staffing (team) to support this wider stakeholder engagement including policy and data and research specialists to support evidence-based policy making.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA Management 2020/12 Not Initiated
9. Recommendation:

Strategically, there is clear scope to link in key elements of the MAP approach within the new FIPA strategy whilst addressing the gaps and building on the lessons: i.e. having a holistic country level frame of reference, highlighting the utility of ‘good enough’ standardized, demand side data, engaging systematically with all stakeholders – government (different departments)/regulators, development partners and commercial sector from the start, and ensuring regular follow up (with technical assistance) to monitor policy actions, programme interventions and supply side trends. For demand side data on financial inclusion, the widely accepted Findex survey is not currently funded beyond its third round that was completed in 2017. This will leave a huge market gap on financial inclusion data at country level which will need to be addressed. Look at what is useful about Findex and see how the market demand survey can be adjusted to fill the gap that there will be without Findex. [FIPA management, PMU, future technical partners]

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/27]

UNCDF will pro-actively link the MAP approach with related learnings / recommendations from the evaluation to its new strategy and in doing so seek to addressing existing gaps and build on lessons learnt. UNCDF will especially look at linking MAP approach to in-country dialogue platforms, demand and supply side data-driven diagnostics, and stakeholder engagement processes. In doing so, UNCDF will help governments harness the power of data and data analytics for evidence-based decision-making process, and to work collaboratively and strategically with other sectors to meet their citizens’ needs. Within this context, it will be important to further investigate the potential to share data initiatives and engage in data collaboratives with different donor partners on a more systematic level from a UNCDF wide perspective. In addition to the activities outlined in recommendation 1, the following actions are outlined below.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1 FIPA to engage with the World Bank and donor partners to determine potential areas to collaborate on surveys and data sharing.
[Added: 2020/04/27]
FIPA, MAP Programme 2021/06 Not Initiated

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