delivering as one pilots cairo november 2007 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
“Delivering as One” Pilots Cairo November 2007 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
“Delivering as One” Pilots Cairo November 2007

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

“Delivering as One” Pilots Cairo November 2007 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

“Delivering as One” Pilots Cairo November 2007. Progress Highlights. Good progress on One UN Programme : most of the pilots ready with implementation in January 2008

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '“Delivering as One” Pilots Cairo November 2007' - susan

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
progress highlights
Progress Highlights

Good progress on One UN Programme: most of the pilots ready with implementation in January 2008

Resource mobilization efforts for One UN Programmes underway – in most pilots local coherence funds are; pledges from donors received in many pilots

Leadership/UN team structures are being clarified and we have inter-agency agreement on RC-UNCT mutual accountability framework.

Less progress on One Office, but as the programmes are completed, efforts to ensure coherent operations support intensify

one programme emerging models
One Programme – emerging models
  • Two main models emerging:
  • 1) UNDAF - Common operational document

(Albania, Rwanda, Viet Nam)

2) Joint Programmes as main element of One Programme (Mozambique, Tanzania), reflecting a subset of the UNDAF (also Uruguay choose subset)

  • Pakistan and Cape Verde still being developed:
  • Pakistan: 5 broad Joint Programmes as revised UNDAF;
  • Cape Verde broadening JO common Programme to include more (non ExCom) agencies
one programme added value
One Programme – added value
  • Most pilots first reviewed their UNDAFs, leading to refocusing priorities for two main reasons:
  • 1. Better alignment to (new/emerging) government priorities
  • 2. Bringing all relevant expertise from UN agencies to bear for the benefit of those national priorities:
  • Programmes contain new or refocused thematic priorities - e.g. Albania: environment/governance, CV: environment/youth unemployment/security; Uruguay: govt planning and citizen participation; Mozambique: economic development/environment
  • Better mainstreaming cross-cutting issues
  • More agencies, in particular NRA, involved to deliver on these new government priorities, e.g. Albania (UNEP/UNESCO), Mozambique (UNEP/ITC), Tanzania (UNEP/IOM), CV (12 NRAs new), Uruguay (11 new, mostly NRAs)
  • Finding new ways for NRA to work at country level (e.g. Rwanda: UNESCO expert t.b. hosted by UNICEF for curriculum development)
one programmes results
“One Programmes”: results

Greater national ownership and enhanced alignment with national priorities

Increased participation of Agencies, including NRAs. New ways of participation explored

Improved basis for reporting on results through better structured M&E system

Clear efforts to increase strategic focus, but difficult to assess yet

one programmes issues
“One Programmes”: issues

How do we reconcile enhanced national ownership with full inclusion of all sectors?

Approaches range from including all Agencies’ interventions to limiting One Programme to joint programmes/projects only –a “right” approach?

Analysis of comparative advantages of Agencies is often mentioned but not explicit in most documents

Extent of consultation with other stakeholders, in particular civil society and donors to be reviewed


“One Programmes”: issues

  • Quality assurance and approval of One Programmes is limited to participating Agencies; others – often not involved
  • Agencies participating in UN programme have not “dropped” their own programming tools – are we adding or simplifying?
  • True innovations or more effective application of existing tools and guidance?
funding for one un programmes
Funding for One UN Programmes

“Coherence Fund” - a tool to streamline and improve the efficiency of mobilizing donor funding for the One UN Programme

Current approach:

donor funds are pooled in “One Fund”.. be disbursed to UN Agencies based on ‘pass-through’ JP funds management modality.. order to fund “unfunded” results of the One UN Programme..

which are spelled out in One Budgetary Framework.

Standard tools (MoUs, LoAs, etc.) are adapted to local specifics.

Key: funding architecture is a reflection of the programme management arrangements!

functioning of coherence funds
Functioning of “Coherence Funds”

Issues to be addressed:

Arbitration mechanism

allocation of resources:

criteria, incl. for prioritization;

level at which disbursements are to be made (country programme outputs or projects)

clarity on individual and collective accountabilities for funds and results, incl. vis-à-vis donors


governance: authority and accountability of Steering Committees

common operations support
Common Operations Support

Less progress thus far, but efforts accelerating once the One UN Programmes are completed

Most pilots looking to establish common premises and increase the number and scope of common services

Some innovations that are being explored:

“carbon-neutral” UN Houses

Harmonized Project/Programme Management Guidelines

A set of “standard costs” for programmatic planning and budgeting

Integrated operations support units

Common results tracking system

common operations support1
Common Operations Support

Issues to be addressed:

Extent of harmonization of business processes that is feasible at the country level in absence of HQs level agreements

Approval process for country level operations plans

Funds for common premises

Current interagency support not very effective, as the structure of “business functions” WGs is fragmented

effective teams and leadership
Effective teams and leadership

Emerging agreements:

UN RC - team leader and the primary contact person for high-level discussions with the highest level of government

Agency Heads - work with the sector ministries, but also part of relevant discussions with heads of state

Different UNCT members lead different parts of the One UN Programme - “one voice”, but “different voice” depending on the issue

UNDP Country Director allows the RC to focus on team matters

“Guiding principles” on team behaviour being developed in most pilots

Mutual accountability framework built around UN programme results, and exercised through performance appraisal system

global level issues
Global Level Issues

Country level reform “hostage” to bigger picture

Donors – “likeminded” are very keen on implementation of 2004 TCPR - main components reflected in HLP.

G77 – fear donor enthusiasm hides plan to reduce funding and increase conditions

Ironic given key result so far – increased government leadership!

2007 TCPR?

monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation

Immediately: Finalization of CO level M&E frameworks with support of HQ/Regional experts

End 2007: subjective “stocktaking”, setting out intentions of pilot, and process to date

By February 2008: UNEG evaluability studies of Co level M&E frameworks

Late 2008/2009: Formal self-assessments of results by Gov/UNCTs, guided by UNEG

2009/2010: UNEG led independent evaluation focused on “process” results and dev impact

2012/2013: Evaluation of the dev impact