Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

17-18 March 2009, Bratislava. Welcome! Introduction - who we are Objectives - why we are here Agenda – what are we going to do? 2.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "17-18 March 2009, Bratislava. Welcome! Introduction - who we are Objectives - why we are here Agenda – what are we going to do? 2."— Presentation transcript:

1 17-18 March 2009, Bratislava

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

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! 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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

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

9 CCA/UNDAF Support Structure 9 Regional Directors Team (RDT) UN DOCO UNSSC ToT and facilitation support for SPR; design of workshop manuals 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 CTs, DOCO and RDT QSA/PSG Coordination of the process, peer review of CCA and UNDAF drafts, in-country support, liaison between CTs, 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 10

11 Reflections on

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

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 13

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

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

16 MTRCCAPoEDesignSPR ArmeniaYes - lateNo, otherYesNoYes BiHNo (2006) Yes, lightYes MacedoniaNo Yes - lateYes SerbiaNoYes UNDAF postponed KazakhstanYesYes - surpriseYes TajikistanNo Yes TurkmenistanNoYes Combined UzbekistanYesYes, lightYes Yes (other) 16

17 General Observations 17

18 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

19 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

20 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

21 UN comparative advantages Articulation of the UNs comparative advantages is weak Comparative advantages should be identified and well articulated before the SPR 21


23 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

24 Quality of CCAs and UNDAF CountryUNDAF draftFinal Armenia38 outputs 13 page RM 274 indicators in M&E 59 page M&E 4 Outcomes 40 Outputs 107 indicators and 16 page M&E framework BiH67 outputs 231 indicators M&E Kazakhstan3 Outcomes 39 outputs 116 indicators M&E 3 Outcomes 10 agency outputs 39 outputs 108 indicators Uzbekistan66 outputs 300+ indicators in M&E 67 page M&E 24

25 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


27 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

28 Clarity on regional support 28

29 Adequate support received from UNSSC 29

30 Workshops materials well designed and appropriate 30

31 RBM and HRBA in workshop materials 31

32 Facilitation team was competent 32

33 The length of PSG review is adequate 33

34 PSG feedback is helpful 34

35 Need for external consultant 35

36 DISCUSSION Your reflections on the survey results and suggestions 36


38 A man is piloting a hot-air balloon, when he suddenly realizes that hes 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 oclock, Im a half hour late and I dont know where I am…. Sure, I can help. Youre 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

39 Are you, by any chance, a member of the Peer Support Group?, asks the balloonist. Yes, sir, I am. But how did you know?". Because what you have just told me is technically correct, but practically useless. I dont know what to do with the information youve just given me, and Im still lost!. Ah. And you must be a member of the UNCT working on that UNDAF, right? asked the member of the PSG. Indeed, I am. But how did you know? 39

40 Easy. You dont know where you are, and you dont know where youre 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, its my fault! 40

41 Review Process 41

42 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

43 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

44 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

45 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

46 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

47 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

48 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

49 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

50 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 50

51 DONTs in reviews Dont throw stones at UNCTs PSG forum is not the right place for that Refrain from track changes Dont insert comments into drafts Focus too narrowly on your agency mandate rather than to take a broad view of the UNDAF and what it aims to achieve 51


53 Recommendations for

54 Recommendations for 2009 Strengthen QSA/PSG support Set minimum criteria for the process Identify lessons learned and good practices Improve the contents of workshops manuals Revisit the formats for Plan of Engagements and checklists Discuss support to UNDAF implementation for 2008 roll-outs 54

55 Opportunities Resource mobilization opportunities (COD) CCA/UNDAF Guidelines for MICs Increasing engagement from non ExCom agencies 55

56 What should we do better? More active PSG involvement in the process Desk reviews Technical advice In-country visits Resources How can the regional offices support the process? 56

57 Can we set a minimum criteria? Review of current UNDAF Country analysis (or brief review of existing analyses) Building dialogue with partners Designing the UNDAF process Introduction of common programming principles to UN staff and partners SPR Ideas? 57

58 Workshops and manuals QSA observations and UNCT survey suggest the revision of facilitation manuals taking into account: Country context UNCT and partners: characteristics Progress up to date with UNDAF implementation Capacity of UN and Government on common programming principles Need for best practices and good examples from the region 58

59 PoE and checklists Group work to review and provide recommendations to improve the formats of: Plan of Engagement (refer to revised Guidelines) CCA checklist UNDAF checklist 59

60 2009 major milestones Design w/p UNDAF Evaluation Plans of Engagement Analysis SPR UNDAF drafts Draft analysis UNDAFs completed

61 Recommendations to CTs Send a letter to UNCTs explaining the role of PSG and the kind of support that PSG provides Reiterate the importance of the analysis Clarify that there is no light approach The role of PSG not to engage into country programming issues UNCTs to engage/inform NRAs from early stages UNCT ownership of the process

Download ppt "17-18 March 2009, Bratislava. Welcome! Introduction - who we are Objectives - why we are here Agenda – what are we going to do? 2."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google