1 / 14

“Delivering as One” Pilots Cairo November 2007

“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

susan
Télécharger la présentation

“Delivering as One” Pilots Cairo November 2007

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. “Delivering as One” PilotsCairoNovember 2007

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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)

  5. “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

  6. “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

  7. “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?

  8. 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”.. ..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!

  9. 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 oversight governance: authority and accountability of Steering Committees

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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?

  14. 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

More Related