1 / 44

Deliverables

Financial Accountabilities and Audit Mission Viet Nam 18-21 February 2008 Mission Debrief & Final Report 29 February 2008.

lonato
Télécharger la présentation

Deliverables

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. Financial Accountabilities and AuditMission Viet Nam18-21 February 2008Mission Debrief & Final Report 29 February 2008

  2. Financial Accountabilities and Audit MissionHanoi17-21 February, 2008Mission MembersKlaus Billand (UNIDO)Subhash Gupta (UNFPA)Bent Jorgensen (WHO)Ashok Nigam (UNDGO)Joel Rehnstrom (UNAIDS)Mariama Saidou-Djermakoye (UNESCO)Darshak Shah (UNDP)

  3. Deliverables • Recommendations for the financial and programmatic accountability framework/s, including audit and risk assessment framework/s that should be established as contained in the following documents: • One Plan (Common Action Plan 2006-2010), including implications of One Plan 1 becoming One Plan 2 (Draft 1 Feb 2008); • One Plan Management Plan (2007-2010); • One Plan Steering Committee (Draft 14 Feb. 2008); • Allocation Criteria for the One Plan Fund; • MOU for One Leader and Code of Conduct • Process indicators for the One UN Initiative in Viet Nam (Draft 3-4 December 2007) (Not covered by the mission) • Recommendations on audit, including • Definition of linkages with agency specific audit mechanisms and alignment with national systems; • Implications of One Plan 1 becoming One Plan 2;

  4. Deliverables • Advise on feasibility of adoption and application of the following for a wider group of UN organizations, funds and programmes • HACT • Harmonized Programme and Project Management Guidelines (HPPMG) and advise on ways in which UNCT can further align its systems and procedures with that of Government and other development partners • Advise on key capacity constraints, challenges and change management issues • Assist in drafting a work plan with key milestones for implementation of financial and accountability frameworks (Not covered by the mission) • Advise on key indicators to measure progress towards enhanced financial accountability and audit and risk management as part of the process benchmarks for the One UN (Not covered by the mission) • Advise on One UN House and Common Services

  5. Financial accountability and audit missionSummation and Key recommendations • Note with appreciation: • the pioneering initiative in Viet Nam for the One UN particularly on business operational practises; but critical for Viet Nam UNCT to finalize: • One Plan 2 and One Budget 2 • One Plan Management Plan • One Plan 2 allocation criteria • Capacity assessment and staffing levels • Harmonized Programme and Project Management Guidelines • Finalize one leader/ MOU note • the in-depth engagement of the Government in One UN in Viet Nam and hence opportunity to share experience with other countries and UN system as a whole • Clear unified message from donors contributing to One Plan Fund on support for One UN in Viet Nam, as a package subject to delivery of success criteria • With only 3 years left for the current programme cycle, critical for the UN system to deliver results, working in a more coherent manner in Viet Nam

  6. Financial accountability and audit missionSummation and Key Recommendations • In moving forward, important for the UNCT to stick to agreed upon principles, such those in Tam Dao, whatever the imperfections, and address any agreed issues that may need to be to re-visited in the next programme cycle. • Stick with the agreed principle in Tam Dao that NRAs would not have direct access to One Plan Fund 2 but mission recommends that certain funds (agreed amount – 5% suggested in other pilots) be available for allocation by the RC who in consultation with the UNCT can use the funds to respond to Government requests for priority policy advice on an accelerated basis, primarily from NRAs. • Recognition of the need to move as “One UN” in spirit and actions – lessons from other pilots show that a major difference from pre-One UN experience has been the building of trust at the country level and HQs. • Need for recognizing that One UN in Viet Nam will be an incremental process but should be within an agreed time frame. • In Viet Nam progress on business practices is important since Government and donors looking very much at transaction costs and efficiency in UN operations. • Need to recognize that One UN does not mean merger of organizations.

  7. Financial accountability and audit missionSummation and Key Recommendations • Need for clear messages from HQs of all organizations in support of the Viet Nam pilot, in particular for business practices; UNCT agencies/entities still feel that inadequate support is being provided. • One leader/MOU note should be finalized rapidly – Government and donors united on the need for an empowered RC who carries the requisite ultimate authority and accountability. • Need for formation and finalization of the Programme Coordination Groups, and strengthening the programmatic governance and accountability framework under One Plan 2.

  8. Financial accountability and audit missionSummation and Key Recommendations • UNCT needs to bring closure to the issue of who has access to funds pledged under One Plan 1. Mission has heard very clearly from donors to One Plan Fund, which leads the mission to conclude: • that funds pledged with signed agreements ($33 million) thus far are from a donor perspective provided for One Plan 1 only since they have been provided against a Plan reviewed by donors [donors have not given funds for activities that they have not reviewed – issue of donor accountability to their citizens]; • Donors would commit funds under One Plan 2 only after their joint review/assessment. New donor agreements required for One Plan 2; • One Plan 2 funding is conditional on meeting agreed success criteria as a package – one leader, one plan, one plan management plan, capacity assessment & staffing; • Donors are looking for UN to be strategic and not expanding, particularly for agencies that have not been historically present. Donors indicated that they are not looking to fund agencies activities per se at country level, they say that if they wanted to do that, they could have done at HQs level – they are looking to fund ‘reform’ at country level. Realistic estimate of budgets expected by donors; • Record of historical delivery in the country important for donors as an indicator of capacity to implement.

  9. Financial accountability and audit missionSummation and Key Recommendations • One Plan 2 Fund resources should be un-earmarked and available for allocation in accordance with the criteria agreed upon by the Steering Committee and UNCT. • For increased coherence UNCT should: • Commit not to fund raise in-country from donors willing to contribute to the One Plan Fund – a lesson from other pilots which have entire UNDAF being part of One Plan; • Agree that funding gap would be reduced for those outcome/outputs/ activities for which earmarked funds are received by organizations from outside the One Plan Fund; • Under the one budgetary framework, commit and ensure transparency in all resources included and reported on in One Budget 2 – income and expenditure.

  10. Financial accountability and audit missionSummation and Key Recommendations • Programme Co-ordination Groups should be strengthened with clear accountability - they should also advise the expanded OPFMAC (14 participating agencies) on allocation of One Plan Fund to the results areas on the basis of agreed criteria. • Performance, such as record of delivery (quantity and quality) and capacity, should be a key criterion in the allocations from One Plan Fund; initial allocation to be based on prioritization as determined by the One Plan Steering Committee.

  11. Financial accountability and audit mission Analysis and Recommendations

  12. Viet Nam – Integrating One Plan 1 into One Plan 2 One Plan – Common Action Plan (One Plan 2 – to be finalized 2008) (2006-2010) One Plan 1 (2006-2010) (Finalized 2007) One Plan 1 UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNIFEM, UNAIDS, UNV + FAO, IFAD, ILO, UN-HABITAT, UNIDO, UNESCO, UNODC, WHO UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNIFEM, UNAIDS, UNV Programme Co-ordination Groups • Social and Economic Development Policies • HIV/AIDS • Gender • Health • Sexual and reproductive health and • rights • Child protection • Education • Sustainable Development • Governance • Natural disasters and emergencies • Communicable diseases and animal diseases

  13. Viet Nam – One Plan2 Governance One Plan Steering Committee (Co-chairs: Vice Minister, Ministry of Planning & Investment and UNRC) Tripartite National Task Force (TNTF) Co-chairs: MPI Vice Minister & UNRC GACA (Govt.Office, Min. of Planning & Investment, Min. of Foreign Affairs, Min. of Finance), UNRC, Heads of UN Organizations (agencies & entities) GACA, Donor Reps., UN-RC, Heads of UN agencies UN-RC/ UNCT Programme Co-ordination Groups Organization 1 Organization 2 Organization 3

  14. Viet Nam – ‘One Plan2 Fund’ Governance One Plan Steering Committee Overall strategic priority setting Tripartite National Task Force (TNTF) Government (MoFA), UN-RC, Donor Rep, Heads of UN agencies GACA, Office of Government, MOF, MoFA, MoP&I, RC, Heads of UN agencies Instruction for disbursement UN-RC/ UNCT Allocation decision RC (ultimate authority - proposed) ‘One Plan Fund’ Administrative Agent Advise UNCT – Review implementation progress & capacity to deliver Programme Co-ordination Groups Advisory role in fund allocation (mission recommendation) Funds flows Agency 3 Agency 1 Agency 2

  15. Financial and accountability frameworkOverall - Observations • Strong Government leadership • Guiding principles – Hanoi Core Statement; important concept of mutual accountability of Government and UN – implications for division of labour and improved coordination with UNCT; reduction in transactions costs. • Strong message from Government supporting One UN. • Government highly engaged in One UN; onus on UN Agencies to making it work. • Strong engagement by GACA – line ministry engagement through the 4 Government ministries/ departments and individual agencies. GACA one stop Govt. coordination mechanism. • Government looking for ‘one stop shop’ for UN accountability – Agreement on One Leader seen as important for coherence, effectiveness and reduction of transaction cost. Gh

  16. Financial and accountability frameworkOverall - Observations • Strong Government leadership (contd.) • Government looking for simplification and harmonization in dealings with the UN • One Plan Management Plan (OPMP) – accountability, coordination & reporting • One leader/ MOU note • Management of projects (e.g. HPPMG – currently for ExComs, but should be expanded to all UN agencies). Government acceptable to a two-stage progress whereby ExComs agree first and other agencies can join later – Govt. does not want to wait for all 14 to join as this would delay implementation • HACT – Govt. concern about applicability Key Message: Critical for the UN system to deliver on One UN Gh

  17. Financial and accountability frameworkOverall - Observations • Strong Donor Support but conditional on delivery of a complete package of One UN elements • Donors looking at UN to agree upon and finalize the following: • One Plan 2 (strategically positioned for UN comparative advantage vis-à-vis national priorities, with realistic budgets and not expansionary in scope or by number of agencies) • One Plan M&E Framework • One Plan Management Plan • Harmonized Programme and Project Management Guidelines • Capacity assessment and staffing levels • One leader agreement • One UN House • Reduction in transaction cost • Donor indication that subject to the above, there would be funds for One Plan 2 Key Message: Critical for the UN system to deliver on tripartite success criteria agreed in June 2007 Gh

  18. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan2 & OPMP–Observations (contd.) • Strategic direction on the priorities (results areas, themes and priorities) is provided by the One Plan Steering Committee co-chaired by the Vice- Minister of the Ministry of Planning and Investment and the UNRC with the members GACA incl. Office of Government and Heads of One Plan participating agencies. • 11 Programme Coordination Groups (PCGs) meeting 22 national development priorities and Joint Teams form the essential mechanism to promote real change through intensive cooperation and consultation; The PCGs will replace the thematic groups. • Transaction cost implications of the realtively high number of PCGs, at least in the short term, needs to be monitored. • Scope for further joint programming can be explored as currently the exercise has not allowed for examining more closely additional opportunities and synergies. • NRAs not included in One Plan 1 and One Plan 2 and not admitted to funds from the One Plan Fund; however, they are allowed to participate as partners in joint programmes with either of the 14 participating agencies/ entities.

  19. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan2 & OPMP – Observations (contd.) • OPMP still significantly lagging behind the implementation of OP1 and formulation of OP2 - needs urgent finalization and implementation - is part of the essential package of the UN reform at the country level. • One Plan Fund for Vietnam will be administered in accordance with the Joint Programme Guidelines relating to the AA function with recovery of a 1% fee. Implementing UN agency/ entity recovers costs at 7%. • Mobilisation and allocation of funds for the programme priorities within the One Plan are done by the One Plan Fund Mobilisation and Allocation Committee. • The role of the RC as the One Leader is not yet clearly defined and lacks criteria for accountability for the One Programme vis-a-vis Government and stakeholders; programmatic and financial accountability rests, according to draft OPMP, with the participating agencies. • Existing programme and operational structure/ processes entail high transcation cost . • Fund raising for OP2 priorities from in-country donors [contributing to the One Plan Fund] outside of the One Plan Fund might create problems of inclusiveness and coordination.

  20. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan2 & OPMP – Observations (Contd.) • Development of Harmonized Programme and Project Management Guidelines (HPPMG) far advanced. Government wants 3 ExComs to rapidly approve, subsequent approval sought by all participating UN agencies/ entities; Government is highly intersted that UN agencies operating in country harmonize their procedures with those of Government. • Ensuring the continued relevance and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN should be driving efforts of the UN system to come together; mobilization of additional resources should be a secondary factor. • The ownership of the government and participation of donors in the UN reform process is strong, but the involvement of civil society in the design, implementation and monitoring of the One Plan appears limited (variable experience in other pilots also). • UN rules and regulations are seen as impediments to taking UN reform further and faster when constraints may in fact be related to policies and procedures which – at least to some extent – can be addressed on a ‘fast track’ basis. • Risks: harmonisation of programme and project management processes and procedures has consumed so much time and effort that opportunities to position and equip the UN to provide ‘just-in-time’ policy advice and convene other development partners needs priority attention.

  21. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan2 & OPMP - Recommendations • Draft OPMP should be concluded asap to coincide with finalization of One Plan (2) and provide for relevant accountability framework at all management levels – need for articulation of a stronger governance and accountability structure under OP2 • Once agreement on other aspects reached such as programme management, programme coordination group, one leader, allocation criteria, programme management, this should be consistently reflected in all documents • Accountability is for something to someone. The accountability chain should be clear for programmes and operations and included for both results reporting and performance appraisals for the One UN to make a difference. • PCGs are a strong component of the programmatic accountability framework for OPMP and of the One Plan 2. The ‘Co-convenors’ of the 11 PCGs have been agreed.

  22. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan2 & OPMP– Recommendations • PCGs accountability in terms of identification and formulation of cooperation programmes, particularly vis-a-vis the UNRC, to be clarified. • to enhance and ensure thematic/programmatic coherence, synergies in implementation and accountability – build on experience with Theme Groups and Joint Teams, and replacing these as appropriate • to be established formally with terms of reference and accountability clarified further, including role in program design & re-design, resource allocation, monitoring and reporting, and joint reviews to replace agency specific reviews to the extent possible • to use the One Plan Results and Resources Framework as the main instrument for programmatic coordination and accountability with individual agency workplans serving operational needs and financial accountability • to be empowered to advise on implementation of the Results and Resources Framework, recommend agencies best placed to manage specific areas of work and allocation of resources from the One Fund as well as other incentives and sanctions to encourage optimal engagement by all UN agencies

  23. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan Fund - Observations ONE PLAN 2 - DRAFT FUNDING SITUATION 2008-2010 • Draft OP2 has a relatively high funding gap 2008-2010 (based on cost of activities minus ´core´ and ´non-core´ (pledged)) of $144m. This has been further divided $41 million (non-core resources expected to be raised by agencies) and $103m (OP2 funding gap) – essential motivation for this split is to keep one fund dimension clear and realistic for donor support

  24. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan Fund and allocation criteria Observation: • In arriving at OP2 funding gap benchmark established as average historic disbursement 2004-07 plus 50% - does not meet reality of agencies with particularly high expected disbursement in 2008 and 2009; • Motivation has been to arrive at a realistic gap for credibility with donors; some agencies have already mobilised above this“50% benchmark“ Recommendation: • Primary allocation criteria would be response to national priorities and performance.

  25. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan Fund - Recommendations • Clearer definition required of funds to be raised under OPF ($103m) and OR ($41m) required: • One Plan 2 has articulated a set of results based outputs with indication of agency responsibilities and costs; • One Plan Fund 2 resource matrix ‘non-core expected’ should include resources that agencies expect to mobilize globally or regionally such as UNICEF Natcoms & UNDP GEF; • the One Plan Fund gap should then be only resources available for allocation by the expanded OPFMAC. • In the event that the ‘non-core expected’ funds are not received in time, activities are funded from the “One Plan Fund” but if there is a subsequent receipt of these funds: • HQ or country level agreements and commitments may need to be arrived at for these funds to be ploughed back into the One Plan Fund or other arrangements to be discussed

  26. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan Fund– Allocation Criteria- Recommendations • Match inflow with the outflow – Allocations can only be made once there is a reasonable assurance on the core and non-core funds since the One Plan Fund are additional to them. Annual review by PCGs to match inflow with outflow. • Allow for certain funds (agreed amount -5% suggested in other pilots) to be allocated by the RC who in consultation with the UNCT can use the funds to respond to Government requests for priority policy advice, primarily on an accelerated basis where necessary - Need for agreement on overall level of this allocation. • Each agency should transparently confirm availability of their non-core funds before there is an allocation from the ‘One Plan Fund’. • Allocation of funds in the OPF across the outcome/ results areas will be prioritised against strategic criteria agreed by the One Plan Steering Committee. Detailed project level allocation to be done by the UNCT with RC carrying ultimate authority.

  27. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Fund – Allocation Criteria - Recommendations • Pro rating of the One Fund - Initial allocation of the funds in the “One UN Fund” across the outcome/ results areas can be made in proportion to the gap for the results areas (Result area gap X (Income/Total income expected))X100- • As subsequent funds are received from donors, they can be allocated on performance based criteria – delivery (quantity and quality) and capacity • To ensure that there is coherent and effective delivery and uncertainty in funding is minimized donors should be encouraged to provide significant amount (50-75%) of the annual requirements early in the process. A threshold on the receipt of funds can be established before funds are allocated by the expanded OPFMAC.

  28. Financial and accountability frameworkMOU – One Leader & Code of Conduct Observation: • Role and accountability of the RC as One Leader should be clarified in view of his/her relatively reduced authority to influence participating agencies´ programmatic decisions; the definition of paras 117. and 118. of the zero draft One Plan of February 2008 seems to be appropriate, whereby it is understood that agency representatives remain accountable for their own angency´s results, funds received and disbursed • Donors and government are looking for an empowered UN leader

  29. Financial and accountability frameworkMOU – One Leader & Code of Conduct Recommendation: • Finalization of One Leader note/ MOU critically important for OP2, donors and government. Representation issues do not need inclusion in One Leader note though donors willing to consider two-track approach (ExCom +3 agreeing on leader with representation included + rest) if this will expedite – not recommended by mission as other pilots have shown that this is feasible at country level. HQ follow-up is noted to develop a standard MOU/ Code of Conduct for RC and UNCT. • UNCT needs to rapidly agree on the One Leader note/ MOU – authority and accountability; and include it as part of the set of documents to be signed by UNCT members – examples from other pilot countries should be acceptable for Viet Nam

  30. Financial and accountability frameworkOne Plan Steering Committee Observations and Recommendations • Accountability for One Plan Steering Committe on One Plan Implementation and Fund Allocation needs to be clarified; possibly higher frequency of meetings than just twice p.a. • Number of UN Agencies on the One Plan Steering Committee and TNTF should be reviewed learning from other pilots – small group of UN Agencies can represent all UN Agencies (may be on rotational basis – e.g. In Rwanda, 4 UN Agencies represent all others on Steering Committee, and 4 donor agencies representing all donors)

  31. Financial and accountability frameworkHarmonized Programme Project Management Guidelines Observations • Developed by three (3) Excom agencies and Government; very intense process • Based on five guiding principles of Hanoi Core Statement: • Ownership • Alignment with Government Systems • Harmonization and simplification • Managing for Results • Mutual Accountability • Consists of three parts and annexes • Guiding Principles • Programme level Management • Project Level management

  32. Financial and accountability frameworkHarmonized Programme Project Management Guidelines Recommendations • List developed of minimum requirements by ExCom Agencies, includes harmonized proposals based on comparison of existing practices of UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA • List requires review and approval by respective HQs of 3 agenices on an accelerated basis • 19 issues pending for discussion with MPI/GACA – 14 have progressed but require final conclusion on which HQ support and guidance is needed

  33. Financial and accountability frameworkEU-UN Cost Norms Observations • Interesting and commendable initiative • Government not in agreement with the process, approach and outcome of the cost norms proposed to be applied by EU-UN • World Bank not part of the cost norms, making it difficult to justify the lower rates paid by EU-UN Recommendations • To be effective: • World Bank should also be encouraged to adopt • Organizations that sign on should comply with the agreements

  34. Audit framework - Principles • Single Audit Principle – one UN agency will not audit another UN agency. • Contribution agreements should not contain any specific audit requirements; neither in terms of time or scope. Internal Audit Services of the UN agencies select audit entities on the basis of their own risk assessment • There will not be a separate audit of the “One Plan Fund”, but audits will cover country office operations of the agencies. Operations financed by the One Plan Fund may be included in the audit scope of those audits. • Future One Plan Fund MOU amongst participating UN agencies would contain the following clause agreed in the UNDG Audit WG: “The Administrative Agent, Management Agent [to be changed as relevant], and participating UN organizations will be audited in accordance with their own Financial Rules and Regulations. The Internal Audit Services (IAS) of each participating Organization will prepare a summary of the internal audit reports on activites related to the One Fund of [country name] at intervals agreed upon between the IAS of participating agencies and of the Administrative Agent/ Managing Agent [as appropriate]. The IAS of each participating agency will share its summary with its Representative in the [country name] Country Office, who will then share it with the UN Country Team members”.

  35. HACT: main concerns of Govt. • HACT is not being implemented in a consistent manner by all the ex-comm. agencies in Vietnam. •  All UN project implementation under National Implementation Modality (NIM), is being done through a national project implementation unit (PIU), funded by the project. •  The micro assessment should be limited to the PIU, not the rest of the units of the relevant ministry. •  The HACT micro assessments have been high in cost. •  Audits should be used for assessing risks rather then assessments. •  HACT audit procedures are not being implemented yet. Individual project audits continue.

  36. HACT : Recommendations • HACT is in conformity with Paris Principles. In accordance with the policies of Ex-Comm. Agencies, HACT is mandatory. This should be for all agencies participating in One Plan within a certain time-frame. Specialized agencies accept principle of HACT. • The Executive Board of UNDP/UNFPA and United Nation Board of Auditors has stressed the importance of a risk based approach to NIM, given the recent emphasis of matter/audit qualifications. • HACT’s principal function is to identify areas of capacity development and risks in the financial domain under NEX/NIM. • Training opportunities for Specialized Agencies in HACT should be identified with the help of the ExCom Agencies • HACT Advisory Committee, Q&A and network should be used as an available resource

  37. HACT • The agencies should have a clear functional analysis of roles played by different departments in a implementing agent under NIM. The micro assessment tools should be applied in accordance with the functional analysis by the independent consultants performing the micro assessments. • It appears that micro assessments have not been performed on the basis of the above referred functional analysis. • The functional analysis should be compiled and consultants should redo the relevant parts of the assessment. • The results of the micro assessments allow the choice of different resource modalities, however risk identified by the assessments should be managed through rigorous design of assurance procedures. • Co-ordination of resource mobilization for areas of capacity development in implementing partners should be included in One Plan 2. • To reduce the burden of the Government, where possible the joint assessment with other donors should be conducted. If other donors have already conducted assessments and the methodology in principle is similar, the UN should rely on these assessments.

  38. Capacity assessment & change management Observations • Donors have called for capacity assessment and staffing levels to be considered as part of the package for approval of OP2 • Some agencies consider that capacity assessments should not be done until OP2 is finalized and PCGs are in place • Lack of clarity exists on what the capacity assessments will do and what capacities they will consider e.g. some agencies have capacities in Regional and HQs level, others will buy capacities as needed Clarifications • Capacity assessments should be done as soon as there is an almost final OP2 – donor funding for OP2 is dependent on it; capacity for taking on PCGs roles can be part of the capacity assessment once agreement reached on co-convenor of a PCG • Capacity assessment are UNCT demand driven; will consider in-country, regional and HQ capacity (note: donors keen that clear demonstration exists of capacity will be available for in-country needs)

  39. One UN House and Common Services Observations • Actions pending • MOU with Clinton Foundation • Waiver of competitive bidding for equipment • Financial analysis by Deloittes underway • Significant funding gap to be addressed partly through contributions by all participating agencies • Recruitment of Project Manager – funding already in place • UN Communications Group established (UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA) • Varying grades amongst team members performing similar functions requires urgent attention by HQs

  40. Mission observations for follow-up at HQ • Harmonized Programme and Project Management Guidelines to be rapidly reviewed and commented upon by HQs inter-agency group - UNDGO • One leader note to be brought to the attention of the ASG group for rapid agreement in the event it is not agreed upon at the country level - UNDGO • Clear message of support from HQs (through ASG group) of individual agencies with regard to business process piloting (including HR issues) in Viet Nam – fast tracking for low hanging fruits – UNDGO • Government request for HACT workshop in Viet Nam – possibly combine with lessons learning from the region - UNDGO • One UN House financing and support to be accelerated - WGCP • Government has indicated the desire to move towards a Common Basic Agreement covering all agencies in Viet Nam – UNDGO • Classification of posts for One Communication Team – HR • Change management mission • HR mission • ICT Teleconference/ Mission

  41. Mission observations for follow-up at HQ (no immediate impact on country processes) • Instead of separate Annual Work Plans of each Participating UN Agency with the same National Partners, a single consolidated Annual Work Plan could be signed by all the UN Agencies with the one National Implementing Partner, in order to minimize costs for national implementing partners. • One Leader MOU and Code of Conduct – should be looked at across the pilots to develop a recommended ‘best practice’ Code of Conduct • Oversight Framework at HQs level agreed for the MDTFs should be used to resolve conflict/ advise on issues of the One Plan Fund. • Implications for agencies - approval process, reporting, and operational indicators • Executive Boards to be sensitized that in future there may no longer be separate CPAPs (ExCom) • Summarized common financial reporting format • Support cost – implications for agencies, in particular Specialized Agencies; Clarification of what is included in ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ costs to be taken up by FP Network • AA fees • Examine and assess the pre-One UN and post One UN roles of UNCT

  42. Glossary of abbreviations CPAP – Country Programme Action Plan GACA – Government Aid Coordination Agency HACT – Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers HPPMG – Harmonized Programme and Project Management Guidelines MPI – Ministry of Planning & Investment NEX – National Execution NIM – National Implementation Modality OP1 – One Plan 1 OP2- One Plan 2 OPMP – One Plan Management Plan PCGs – Programme Coordination Groups TNTF – Tripartite National Task Force

  43. List of persons met by the mission UNCT: • UN RC • UNDP • FAO • ILO • IOM • UNAIDS • UNESCO • UNFPA • UNICEF • UNIDO • UNODC • UNV • UNHABITAT • UNIFEM • WHO • [and RCO] • Operations Management Team • One Plan Management Plan Team 2 - Government: • Mr. LuuQuangKhanh - Deputy General Director of Foreign Economics Relations Department, Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) • Mr. Nguyen Duy Le - Deputy General Director of External Finance Department, Ministry of Finance (MoF) • Mr. Do Cong Thanh - Manager of External Finance Department, Ministry of Finance (MoF) Donors: • Australia • Belgium • Canada/CIDA • France • Ireland • Norway • The Netherlands • New Zealand • UK/DFID

  44. Thanks to UN Country Team Viet Nam

More Related