Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

UNDG Joint Programs Lessons Learned Philippe Grandet (UNFPA) based on an independent report by Charles Downs UNDG – Donor Meeting on Multi-donor Trust.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "UNDG Joint Programs Lessons Learned Philippe Grandet (UNFPA) based on an independent report by Charles Downs UNDG – Donor Meeting on Multi-donor Trust."— Presentation transcript:

1 UNDG Joint Programs Lessons Learned Philippe Grandet (UNFPA) based on an independent report by Charles Downs UNDG – Donor Meeting on Multi-donor Trust Funds 11 February 2013 New York

2 Pooled Parallel Pass-through What are the Joint Programmes? 2

3 Joint Programme document Steering Committee Administrative Agent Standard legal documents Key elements of a Pass-through JP 3

4 Nearly 90% of the 526 JPs in the current records of MPTF Office, UNICEF and UNFPA are funded on a pass-through basis. Distribution by modality Total of each Modality of Joint Programme Modality of JPQuantityValue NumberPercentUSD millionPercent Parallel 26326% 1846% Pooled 17817% 35211% Pass-through 53952%2,39177% Combination 404% 1635% Total %3,090100% 4

5 The peak during the period is linked to the establishment of the MDG-F. Pass-through JPs became a constant feature of the funding architecture. Evolution over 10 years 5 YearPass-throughOthers Total value ($ million) 2002 and prior

6 41 UN Organizations have been involved in JPs. The five UN Organizations that most frequently participate are: – UNDP (present in 68% of the JPs) – UNICEF (57%) - WHO (27%) – UNFPA (44%) - FAO (23%) The number of Participating UN Organization in any given joint programme ranges from 2 to % JPs involve 4 or less agencies (82% 5 or less). Who participates? 6

7 Where? In what contexts? 7 Country Income LevelNumber of JPs Low Income Country367 Lower Middle Income Country453 Upper Middle Income Country204 High Income Country7

8 Input from staff dealing with JPs in the headquarters of 10 UN Agencies An on-line survey that received responses from 329 UN staff at country-level A mission to three case countries (Ecuador, Nepal and Uganda) to obtain national Government and donor perspectives The survey 8

9 Good fit for the programme is definitely the best reason. The programme must drive the funding. Other reasons are not necessarily bad but we (donors, HQs, RCs, Government) must be careful about not creating undue pressure if the modality is not the right fit. To increase effectiveness, the programme must drive the funding mechanism. Reasons to establish a JP 9

10 The current JP guidance note is in the spirit of Paris and Accra: national Government is given a key role (signatory of JP document, member of Steering Committee). However, some respondent to the survey perceived guidance as too UN-centric. Revision should emphasize the aid effectiveness benefits and the role of Governments. Aid effectiveness 10

11 Limited number of UN Participating Organizations: -Balance between inclusiveness and effectiveness -More than 80% of survey respondents indicate that the number of PUNOs should never exceed 4 to 5 A significant budget: -Frequency of very small JPs has fallen over the year -Still 39% of JPs post 2008 have a budget below $1 million. -Small JPs may have a political value or fulfill specific purposes -Below a certain threshold, transactions cost are too high (to be discussed) Factors of success (1) 11

12 Sufficient time: -designed for development programming and not for quick impact projects. -60% of respondent indicate that duration should be at least three years (75% two years) Strategic engagement with Non-Resident Agencies: -NRAs can provide valuable technical expertise -JPs can provide an excellent point of entry -Lack of regular presence is an obstacle to participation in management and coordination structures. Factors of success (2) 12

13 Joint Programmes and Aid Effectiveness by Fund Experience (vertical axis: 2=Strongly Agree, 1=Somewhat Agree, -1=Somewhat Disagree) Transaction costs 13

14 Lack of joint accountability is a weakness: targets remain agency targets, neither AA nor the PUNOs are accountable for the JP as a whole This should be addressed through: Strengthening of the governance structure An indicative allocation of 3% to 5% of the budget for M&E Providing an overview of the full budget (beyond JP budget) Joint accountability for results 14

15 Currently: -Guidelines only make reference to the Steering Committee -In practice, many different models with some degree of confusion For large JPs, the report recommends: -A policy-level Steering Committee with donors and Government -An operational coordination committee -A coordination unit The governance/coordination structure 15

16 Selection: -Selection of the AA purely on administrative not programmatic capacity -all agencies are not currently equipped to provide the same level of services. -Being entirely dedicated to perform the AA functions, the MPTF Office offers the highest quality of services. Closure of JPs: -Financial closure is a major challenge for AAs. -Handling of unspent balance is problematic and should be agreed beforehand. The Administrative Agent function 16

17 Recommendation: Official reporting (narrative and financial) on an annual basis Informal reporting more frequent (quarterly or semi-annual) to strengthen joint monitoring/management by the coordination structure. Reporting 17

18 Revision of the UNDG guidelines on Joint Programmes: -Issue of threshold -Closing procedures -Management/coordination structure Continue training efforts: -Understanding of the modalities -Strategic use of Joint Programmes What next? 18

19 Thank you

Download ppt "UNDG Joint Programs Lessons Learned Philippe Grandet (UNFPA) based on an independent report by Charles Downs UNDG – Donor Meeting on Multi-donor Trust."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google