1 / 61

Peer Support Group meeting

Peer Support Group meeting. 17-18 March 2009, Bratislava. Welcome!. Introduction - who we are Objectives - why we are here Agenda – what are we going to do? . Objectives . Meet one another and Country Teams Understand our role

rowdy
Download Presentation

Peer Support Group meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Peer Support Group meeting 17-18 March 2009, Bratislava

  2. Welcome! • Introduction - who we are • Objectives - why we are here • Agenda – what are we going to do?

  3. Objectives • Meet one another and Country Teams • Understand our role • Agree on the support we as a group (and each agency at regional level)can provide • Tailor our support to specific country needs BE USEFUL!

  4. How are we going to do this? • Agenda is flexible (based on the group needs and priority issues) • Keep the UN hat on! • Interaction with CT members • Discussion around the key issues related to PSG support NEUTRALITY CONSENSUS RESULT

  5. Our expectations (PSG survey) • Role • Clear definition of scope for PSG role • Being able to position myself and PSG in the process • Clarity • On the CCA/UNDAF process • Practical guidance; 2009 timetable • Feedback on 2008 support

  6. Our expectations • Process • Meet the group • Efficient teamwork after the meeting • Networking with UNCTs and NRAs • Define standards; identify capacities • Develop minimum criteria for UNCTs • Support from each regional office • Agreement on integrated 2009 support strategy; • Consistency in the breadth and depth of comments • Balance between narrow and general comments

  7. Expected Results • Agreement on PSG support in 2009 • Recommendations to Country Teams • Revised CCA/UNDAF checklists

  8. We will talk about: • Support Structure • Reflections on 2008 • Observations • Quality of CCA/UNDAFs • 2008 UNCT survey results • Recommendations for 2009 • PSG support

  9. CCA/UNDAF Support Structure UN DOCO Regional Directors Team (RDT) UNSSC ToT and facilitation support for SPR; design of workshop manuals QSA/PSG Coordination of the process, peer review of CCA and UNDAF drafts, in-country support, liaison between CT’s, DOCO and RDT

  10. QSA/PSG role in 2008 • Convening Agency • Oversight of the process • Set up of the PSG • Workshop observations • Coordination of the regional review • PSG • Desk reviews of draft CCA and UNDAFs • Support with technical advice at UNCT request

  11. Reflections on 2008

  12. Regional Context • Almost all MICs • Less and less donors • Shrinking UN resources with • Heavy planning process

  13. Challenges... • Balancing between strategic and inclusive • Varied planning capacities across agencies • Too many outcomes and outputs • Hard to implement, let alone monitor • High turnover of staff within Gov and UN

  14. 7 roll-out countries • Major steps for roll-outs • PSG 2008 • 11 participated out of 17 • Different experience with each country • Timing, structure, understanding of the process... • Ownership, commitment, consultants... • Quality of CCAs and UNDAFs

  15. Major steps for CTs in 2008 UNDAFs completed MTR Design w/p SPR PSG PSG UNDAF drafts Plans of Engagement JSM Analysis

  16. General Observations

  17. UNCT readiness • Not fully prepared • Partners not well informed • RDT guidance re the need for UNCT to forgo a full fledged CCA process which meant that most countries opted for a “light” approach • Absence of lessons learned from current UNDAFs • Heavy reliance on external consultants • Perception of the UNDAF process as a 3-4 day exercise and high expectations set for facilitators

  18. Workshops • Need to improve training modules • Need for good examples on RBM • HRBA workshops to be conducted separately from UNDAF design and SPR • Specific knowledge of facilitation team on the country context • Need for facilitation team to tailor the needs of the UNCT • Need for a clear guidance to mobilizing resources for UNDAF

  19. RBM specific • Insufficient time devoted to RBM and HRBA • Varied level of understanding of the RBM between agencies • As a result it was hard to remain strategic • Resistance/reluctance of UNCT to commit at the output levels • Agency specific priorities • M&E discussions are limited • Clearer guidance is required on outlining responsible partners

  20. UN comparative advantages • Articulation of the UN’s comparative advantages is weak • Comparative advantages should be identified and well articulated before the SPR

  21. QUALITY

  22. Question • What is a good quality UNDAF? • What is a good quality CCA? Break into groups of 3 and come up with 3 main criteria that makes CCAs and UNDAFs “good quality” documents.

  23. Quality of CCAs and UNDAF

  24. Quality of CCAs and UNDAF Two good quality UNDAFs Macedonia (anchored in MDGs and good treatment of lessons learned and the UN comparative advantage • BiH (clear and logical formulation and SMART. Clear focus on capacity development. The situation analysis presented is brief and succinct and strikes a good balance between optimism and realism. • However, there was a general problem with the results matrices (esp. at the level of outputs) and overly ambitious M&E frameworks which were deemed difficult to operationalise

  25. UNCT SURVEY

  26. Survey results • Overall process: • Process and guidelines were clear to UNCTs • Engagement of UNCT members and partners in the process quite high • Participation of partners and their commitment not so strong • Lack of understanding of common programming principles, especially for partners

  27. Clarity on regional support

  28. Adequate support received from UNSSC

  29. Workshops materials well designed and appropriate

  30. RBM and HRBA in workshop materials

  31. Facilitation team was competent

  32. The length of PSG review is adequate

  33. PSG feedback is helpful

  34. Need for external consultant

  35. DISCUSSION Your reflections on the survey results and suggestions

  36. DIALOGUE

  37. A man is piloting a hot-air balloon, when he suddenly realizes that he’s lost. He maneuvers around, and descends a bit. He sees a man on the ground, walking along, and calls out: • “Excuse me, could you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him at 2 o’clock, I’m a half hour late and I don’t know where I am…”. • “Sure, I can help. You’re flying in a hot-air balloon, at an altitude of about 30 meters, between 40 and 42 degrees north latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees west longitude”.

  38. “Are you, byany chance, a member of the Peer SupportGroup?”, askstheballoonist. • “Yes, sir, I am. Buthowdidyouknow?". • “Becausewhatyouhavejusttold me is “technically” correct, but “practically” useless. I don’tknowwhatto do withtheinformationyou’vejustgiven me, and I’mstilllost!”. • “Ah. And youmustbe a member of the UNCT workingonthat UNDAF, right?” askedthemember of the PSG. • “Indeed, I am. Buthowdidyouknow?”

  39. “Easy. You don’t know where you are, and you don’t know where you’re going. You made a commitment that you have no idea how to fulfill, and you expect someone else to solve the problem. In fact, you are in exactly the same situation you were in before we met. But now, somehow, it’s my fault!”

  40. Review Process

  41. PSG: Review Process • Lack of consistency in providing comments • Use of track changes • Mixture of general and specific comments • Many agency specific details • Comments made inside the documents • New outcomes/outputs

  42. PSG review • 10 working days for review and comments • Comments are consolidated by the Convening Agency and shared with UNCTs However UNCTs have flexibility to accept or reject comments

  43. Sample comments • “Stubborn abstaining from addressing _____is a serious drawback of UNDAF. In view of this it appears that UN in Country A values its position of a comfortable government partner more than asserting its principle in a positive way, using stronger advocacy on the expressed needs for changes. After all, if UN does not stand for economic, social, cultural, human and other rights – it is undermining its role and function in the medium and long-term. Poverty cannot be reduced through welfare alone, especially if there are scare funds for welfare. UN should not be an adjunct of the government mitigating its harsh civil and economic policies.

  44. Sample comments • “There were several waves of massive NGO closures. UN did not address this in a dialogue with the government. UN has three main functions – peacekeeping, human rights and development. Closure of UNHCR, lack of support to promote Decent Work Agenda, only focusing of development and delivery of priorities identified by the government produce the impression that UN in Country B is merely surviving through supporting the mainstream government agenda.”

  45. Sample comments • The document does not consider the critical role free and independent media play for good governance and for democratic participation. • “UN has not addressed the existence of grant commission under the Central Bank, which stops rights-oriented assistance projects.” • Country X could benefit from wider support for education in light of the fact that EFA is considered as a top priority of social development by the authorities. The EFA co-sponsoring agencies should be encouraged to pool technical and financial resources towards assistance in the education-related priority areas identified by the national authorities... • Outputs are too broad and general maybe they can qualify as outcomes. • A short survey of the structure, functions and operation of the labour administration will be discussed in a tripartite setting and measures will be proposed for its reinforcement and better governance with reference to the provisions of the Convention.

  46. Sample comments • “Although for political reasons it may not be possible, consideration might be given to the inclusion under root causes of the absence of effective mechanisms of checks and balance where all power remains concentrated in the hands of the executive and linked to it the absence of political will to actually change many of the things the UN would like to address.”

  47. Sample comments • “There is a slight mismatch between some statements in the matrix and some statements in the UNDAF narrative. This is not a big issue, but it may be better to ensure clear consistency between both documents.” • “The document doesn't adequately address the UN comparative advantages - it covers what they are, but no clear argumentation for them. What is the actual niche for the UN here, compared to World Bank, USAID, EU etc. – would it be possible to further specify?”

  48. “The sections on implementation, monitoring and evaluation are well developed, and the document establishes good alignment between the UNDAF M&E system and the national monitoring system that exists in the country.”

  49. DOs in reviews • Remember the purpose of PSG reviews • Consider political sensitivities • Can UNCT address your comment in CCA/UNDAF? • Put yourself in the shoes of UNCTs • Consider the level of detail • Is the comment appropriate for CCA/light CCA/UNDAF • Does it directly support the key challenge? • Focus on logical chain in UNDAFs • For NRAs – work with UNCTs from early stages • Follow the review format • Respect the deadlines

More Related