“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
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
(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)
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
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
“Coherence Fund” - a tool to streamline and improve the efficiency of mobilizing donor funding for the One UN Programme
donor funds are pooled in “One Fund”..
..to be disbursed to UN Agencies based on ‘pass-through’ JP funds management modality..
..in 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!
Issues to be addressed:
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
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
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
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
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!
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