Summary of key recommendations on Day 2

1. Summary of key recommendationson Day 2 25 January 2013

2. Topic 1: substantive focus • Bull’s eye: • General agreement that bull’s eye reflects the organization’s priorities well but that it can be improved • Heart: • Clarifications: remove redundancies/inconsistencies in both substance (e.g., maternal mortality as a subset of SRH) and in levels (e.g., access vs. changes in health status) • Elevate language: should clearly articulate vision for the organization and use “action words” and positive tone (e.g., “secure” rather than “promote” reproductive rights, “implement” rather than “advance” ICPD) • Shared accountability should be conveyed • Reference to MDG5 (and its successor) should be included • Target populations: • Might be useful to mention specifically (young) girls • Enablers: • “Population dynamics” is a topic/tool, rather than a principle like human rights and gender equality so does not belong in enablers: replace with “sustainable development”? • Outcomes: • Some sense that there are too many outcomes • Concern that outcomes do not reflect vision of integrated service delivery – instead promote siloes • Distinction between outcomes 1 and 7 not clear – potentially combine? Additionally, they are not outcomes but rather means to an end: highlight role of population issues in broader development

3. Topic 2: business model • Agreement that clarifying the business model is important • Preference for option 2 (matrix approach): brings an important clarity to how UNFPA achieves impact in different settings without making too radical a shift • Primary importance is as a management tool but should also guide resource allocation • Business case approach would need to be implemented in a way that does not generate unhelpful additional work

4. Topic 3: different settings • Humanitarian: • Recognition that both mainstreaming and singling out this area have merits • Conceptually, mainstreaming probably preferable but in practice may create operational challenges • Fragile contexts: • Recognition that term “fragile” is loaded and can obscure important differences between countries • It may nonetheless be useful for UNFPA, given the need to adapt programming approaches to “fragile contexts”, but requires careful articulation (easier if term becomes more widely used) • Middle-income countries • Need to respond to MICs’ heterogeneity • Help channel MICs’ ambitions toward ICPD

5. Topic 4: funding arrangements • Strategic priorities: • General agreement that UNFPA’s resource allocation must follow its strategic priorities: • Basic good management practice: resources should be directed to priorities • Credibility: UNFPA claims that it prioritizes a particular issue are not credible unless they are accompanied by shift in resource allocation • However, recognition that the importance of the bottom-up process of basing Country Programme Documents on support to national priorities must be preserved • Focus on UNFPA’s institution-wide priorities must be flexible enough to respond to country contexts and priorities • Performance: • General agreement that resources must be allocated to greatest effect • However, operationalization is key (“devil is in the details”): need to define “performance” clearly and understand what drives it