Joint Evaluation of the UNDG Contribution to the Paris ...web.undp.org/execbrd/pdf/Joint report of the UNDG... · Division at HSLP, London). The final report benefited greatly from

Joint Evaluation of the UNDG Contribution

to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

First Phase

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT GROUP

JOINT EVALUATION

IFAD • UNAIDS • UNECA • UNIFEM • UNFPA • UNDP

JOINT EVALUATION OF THE UNDG CONTRIBUTION TO THE

PARIS DECLARATION ON AID EFFECTIVENESS (FIRST PHASE)

Copyright © UNDP 2008, all rights reserved.Manufactured in the United States of America

The analysis and recommendations of this report are those of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board, or the United Nations Member States.

DESIGN: Suazion (NY, suazion.com) PRODUCTION: A.K. Office Supplies (NY)

EVALUATION TEAM

TEAM LEADER Hans Wyss

TEAM MEMBERS Janie Mary EriksenNeddy Matshalaga

JOINT EVALUATION Andrew Brubaker (IFAD)MANAGEMENT TEAM Steven L. Jensen and Ini Huijts (UNAIDS)

Kwabia Boateng (UNECA)Elena Marcelino and Belen Sanz (UNIFEM)Oscar A. Garcia (UNDP) – Task Manager

This report presents the assessment of a jointindependent evaluation conducted by theevaluation offices of the International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD), the JointUnited Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS(UNAIDS), the United Nations EconomicCommission for Africa (UNECA), the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) andthe United Nations Fund for Women (UNIFEM)of the contribution made by the United NationsDevelopment Group to the implementation ofthe Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Theevaluation was conducted under the umbrellaof the first phase of a joint evaluation on theimplementation of the Paris Declaration bypartner countries and bilateral and multilateralpartner agencies.

The Paris Declaration, signed by UNDG inMarch 2005, stresses that effective partnershipsamong development partners and recipientcountries are based on the recognition of nationalleadership and ownership of developmentstrategies and results. While these principleswere adhered to and recognized by the UnitedNations prior to the Paris Declaration mostexplicitly in the Millennium Declaration andthe Monterey Declaration signed in 2000 and2002 respectively, UNDG was interested in takingstock of its contribution to developmenteffectiveness in the new aid environment.

While the Paris Declaration has a strong focuson monitoring it also highlights the importanceof cross-country evaluations. The Declarationstates that the evaluation should provide amore comprehensive understanding of howincreased aid effectiveness contributes to

meeting development results and that it shouldbe applied without imposing additional burdenon partners. Progress towards aid effectivenesswill require political and conceptual agreementon approaches to measuring and understandingboth the quantity and the quality of develop-ment assistance. The UNDP Executive Board,recognizing the need to take stock and learnfrom UNDP and UNDG experience in newaid modalities, approved the inclusion of thisevaluation in the Evaluation Office’s work planin its annual session in 2007.

The joint evaluation addresses UNDG initiativesin support of the implementation of the ParisDeclaration. The report notes where UNDGcomparative advantage has been demonstrated,identifies gaps, and provides recommendations toimprove the effectiveness of current approachesto aid modalities and aid effectiveness and theircontribution to long-term development. Theemphasis was on providing recommendationsto strengthen the adoption of principles ofnational ownership, alignment to nationaldevelopment priorities, harmonization, managingfor results, and mutual accountability.

This is the first phase of the evaluation and, sincethe Paris Declaration was only signed in 2005, isa formative evaluation concentrated in identi-fying what constitutes better practice in regardto the implementation of the Paris Declaration.

Evidence for the assessment was drawn from casestudies in six countries, namely Cameroon,Ethiopia, Gabon, Lao PDR, Mauritania andUkraine. Interviews and focus-group discussionsin UNDP, UNIFEM, IFAD, ECA, UNAIDS

FOREWORD ii

FOREWORD

headquarters in New York, Geneva, Rome,Addis Ababa, an electronic survey of UNResident Coordinators in signatory and non-signatory countries of the Paris Declaration,and a comprehensive desk review of relatedprogramme and evaluative literature.

The evaluation identifies specific challengesfaced by UNDG. It concludes that the experi-ence in implementing the five PD principleshas varied substantially across principles.Progress was most evident regarding support ofcountry ownership and alignment with nationaldevelopment strategies. There were also someinteresting cases of progress regarding mutualaccountability. However, progress relating toalignment in using country systems andharmonization across UNDG members showsthe greatest room for improvement. Thedegree to which cross-cutting issues like gendermainstreaming, rural development and capacitydevelopment were addressed within the PDcontext varied from country to country andthere is significant room for improvement.

There are important recommendations tomake increased use of national systems, to the benefit of the partner countries, in order tostrengthen national capacities and reducetransaction costs. UNDG should increase theuse of relevant results frameworks and strategiesthat enable partner countries to monitor andevaluate results in the development of theircapacities to achieve national developmentgoals and progress towards the internationallyagreed development goals, including theMillennium Development Goals. UNDG couldharmonize its approach among its membersand other development partners to strengthennational capacities. The evaluation recommendsthat UNDG adopt a complementary approachto incorporating cross-cutting issues likegender mainstreaming, capacity developmentand rural development, as was done in theresponse to HIV/AIDS.

The report is the result of the dedication andteam work of a number of people. I would like toexpress our particular gratitude to the evalua-tion management team comprising a dedicatedgroup of evaluation officers particularlyAshwani Muthoo and Andrew Brubaker inIFAD, Paul De Lay, Steven L. Jensen and IniHuijts in UNAIDS, Urbain Zadi and KwabiaBoateng in UN ECA, Elena Marcelino andBelen Sanz in UNIFEM and Oscar A. Garciain UNDP who ably served as task manager of the evaluation.

Special thanks are expressed to the followingUN Resident Coordinators Sophie de Caen,Bintou Djibo, Gboroton Sarassoro, NarjessSaidane, Sonam Yangchen Rana and FrankO'Donnell and members of the UN countryteams in the countries visited by the evaluationteam, as well as the colleagues in New York,Geneva, Rome and Addis Ababa, who providedvital feedback to the team to enable them toreach their conclusions.

We are very grateful to numerous governmentrepresentatives and civil society representativesin the case-study countries who were verygenerous with their time and ideas.

We are deeply grateful to the team thatconducted the evaluation. The team leader,Hans Wyss, who rigorously led the drafting ofthe evaluation report, Kim Forss developed themethodology and members of the team, JanieMary Eriksen, and Neddy Matshalaga, who fullyparticipated in case-study and headquartersmissions and contributed to the evolution ofthe main report.

The report went through extensive qualitycontrol and peer review process and commentswere also received from members of theUNDG working group on aid effectiveness,whose evaluation offices did not directlyparticipate in the evaluation, including

FOREWORDiii

UNFPA, FAO, UNESCO and UNDGO. Wewould like to express our particular thanks tothe co-chairs of the working group DiaTimmerman and Dasa Silovic.

The report also benefited from the qualityassurance system established by the interna-tional management group of the umbrella PDevaluation conducted under a common termsof reference. In particular, we would like tothank John Eriksson and Rikke Ingrid Jensenfor their valuable comments as peer reviewers.

The evaluation management group invitedindependent experts to join an advisory panelfor the evaluation. The members of the panelwere Steven Browne (Deputy Executive Directorand Director of Operations at the InternationalTrade Centre (ITC), Geneva and author ofseveral books on aid and development),Carolina S. Guina (former head of ASEANcooperation unit and capacity building expert,Asian Development Bank), and Clare AnneDickinson (Deputy Director of the HIV/AIDSDivision at HSLP, London). The final report

benefited greatly from the comments andsuggestions of the external advisory panel.

Other colleagues in UNDP Evaluation Officemade important contributions to the report,including Tega Shivute who helped with the deskreview, Michelle Sy who handled administra-tive support, and Anish Pradhan who providedinformation technology support to the electronicsurvey and to the publication process.

As the report points out, the main challengewith the framework analyzed in the evaluationis the dynamic nature of the environment for development assistance. I hope that thisevaluation will be useful in helping UNDGchart a course that enhances developmenteffectiveness in the countries where the UNdevelopment system works.

Saraswathi MenonDirector, Evaluation Office

FOREWORD iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations ix

Executive Summary xi

1. Introduction 1

1.1 General evaluation context 11.2 Agency-specific evaluation context 2

2. Methodology 5

2.1 Sampling 72.2 Data collection instruments 82.3 Evaluation management 82.3 Limitations 9

3. Assessing Commitment to the Paris Declaration 11

3.1 Introduction 113.2 United Nations Development Group 113.3 United Nations Resident Coordinator System: UN country presence 143.4 United Nations Development Group members 17

4. Assessing Capacities 31

5. Assessing Incentives 33

6. Implementing the Paris Declaration at the Country Level 35

6.1 Introduction 356.2 Ownership 366.3 Alignment 376.4 Harmonization 386.5 Managing for results 396.6 Mutual accountability 39

CONTENTS vi

CONTENTS

7. Crosscutting Issues 41

7.1 Introduction 417.2 Gender equality 417.3 HIV/AIDS 427.4 Rural development 427.5 Capacity development 43

8. Conclusions and Recommendations 45

Annexes

Annex 1. Terms of Reference 51Annex 2. UNDG Members 57Annex 3. People Interviewed 59Annex 4. Documents Consulted 65Annex 5. Interview Guides—Questionnaires 75Annex 6. Survey of UN Resident Coordinators 79Annex 7. Findings from Country Case Studies 83

Boxes, Figures and Tables

Box 1. UN initiatives that support the Paris Declaration 12Box 2. Adapting an agency’s capacity to PD principles 31Box 3. Harmonization versus coordination 38Figure 1. Parameters for evaluation framework 5Figure 2. Evaluation matrix 6Table 1. Principal case-study country indicators 35

CONTENTSvii

CHAT Country Harmonization and Alignment ToolCPM Country Programme ManagerDAC Development Assistance CommitteeDAG Development Assistance GroupDBS Direct Budget SupportEC European CommissionExCom Executive CommitteeFAO Food and Agricultural OrganizationHACT Harmonized Approach to Cash TransfersIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentILO International Labour OrganizationM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMDG Millennium Development Goal NSC Non-signatory CountryODA Official Development AssistanceOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPD Paris DeclarationPRS(P) Poverty Reduction Strategy (Paper) RC Resident CoordinatorRR Resident RepresentativeSC Signatory CountrySWAP Sector Wide ApproachUN United NationsUNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSUNCT United Nations Country TeamUNDAF United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUNECA United Nations Economic Commission for AfricaUNDG United Nations Development GroupUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNFPA United Nations Population FundUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUNIFEM United Nations Fund for WomenWB World BankWFP World Food ProgrammeWHO World Health Organization

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS viii

ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS

In March 2005, the United Nations Develop-ment Group (UNDG) signed as participatingorganization the Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness (PD) jointly with 91 countries,25 other participating organizations and 14 civilsociety organizations.

In 2006, the UNDG1 agreed with partnercountries and donors to conduct an evaluationof its contribution to the implementation ofthe Paris Declaration between 2007 and 2010using a two-phased approach. The first phase,a formative evaluation, is to focus on inputs,implementation process and outputs (to theextent possible). The second phase, a summativeevaluation, is to focus on implementation resultsand outcomes. The first phase will contributeto the High Level Forum on Aid Effectivenessscheduled for September 2008 in Accra, Ghana.

Nine countries and 11 development partneragencies have volunteered to conduct anevaluation of their own performance under thePD as an input into the first-phase evaluation.They agreed to use a common frameworkterms of reference, adapting it to their specificrequirements. The countries are Bangladesh,Bolivia, Philippines, Senegal, South Africa, SriLanka, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zambia. Thedevelopment partners are Asian DevelopmentBank, Australia, Denmark, Finland, France,Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, NewZealand, United Kingdom and UNDG.

Within UNDG, it was agreed that the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP)would carry out the assessment jointly with theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD), the Joint United Nations Programmeon HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United NationsEconomic Commission for Africa (UNECA) andthe United Nations Fund for Women (UNIFEM).2The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)has also contributed to the evaluation.

The objectives of the evaluation were to:

n Assess UNDG initiatives in support of theimplementation of the PD

n Assess United Nations Country Teams(UNCTs)3 initiatives related to increasingaid effectiveness

n Learn about lessons from PD-relatedinitiatives and strategies implemented byUNDG organizations at the corporate andcountry levels

The design of the evaluation centred aroundthree dimensions identified as principalcontributors to development partner behaviour:commitment, capacities and incentive systems. Inaddition, the evaluation was to examine fourcross-cutting subjects: gender equality, HIV/AIDS, rural development and capacity develop-ment. Finally, the evaluation was to recognizethe specificity of UNDG in the implementationof the PD while acknowledging the broaderUN contribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 For a list of members of the UNDG, see Annex 2.

2 Two UNDG member organizations that agreed to carry out the joint assessment are direct signatories of the PD: UNECA and IFAD.This was additional to the commitment made by UNDG.

3 Teams consist of representatives of UN agencies, programmes and funds, both resident and non-resident.

The main elements of the methodology were to:

n Assess PD-related actions by the participatingUNDG entities, recognizing that some PDdimensions were already principles ofengagement of UNDG members prior tothe PD.

n Conduct six country case studies todetermine the UNDG role in fostering thePD principles at the country level.

n Assess the four cross-cutting issues in bothheadquarters and country case studies. Casestudies were conducted in Cameroon,Ethiopia, Gabon, Lao PDR, Mauritaniaand Ukraine;

n Conduct an electronic survey of the UnitedNations Resident Coordinators (RCs) whochair the UNCTs in both signatory and non-signatory countries for systematic feedbackon the implementation of the PD.

The evaluation recognized some major limitations,including: the PD’s short implementationperiod, absence of a common baseline on thePD commitments, and the samples’ biases ofself-selection and volunteering.

CONCLUSIONS

1. UNDG experience in applying PD princi-ples varied substantially across the five PDprinciples. Progress was most evident insupporting country ownership and alignmentwith national development strategies. Therewere also some interesting cases of progress inthe area of mutual accountability. However,progress relating to alignment in usingcountry systems and harmonization acrossUNDG members (and beyond) shows thegreatest room for improvement. Strongcoordination mechanisms involving otherdevelopment partners and partner govern-ments are critical for RCs/UNCTs to fosterPD implementation.

The RC/UNCT role extends far beyond thePD’s aid effectiveness objectives. RCs andUNCTs may face issues of humanitarianassistance, crisis management, conflictprevention and peace building that takepriority over PD principles. This potentialarea of competition does not appear tohave hindered PD implementation. Someof the UN-related responsibilities thatextend beyond the PD may, however, becritical to achieving PD objectives.

1.1. The UNDG/UNCT contribution tostrengthening ownership mainly tookthe form of assisting governments instrengthening capacity to prepare andexecute their country developmentstrategies and deal with new aidmodalities such as SWAPS. Becausecountry ownership varied largely, therole of the UNCT also varied. TheResident Coordinator offices, as wellas individual UN organizations,through collaboration with govern-ments and multilateral and bilateralagencies, have played an importantrole in creating an enabling environ-ment for achieving the PD objectives.UNDG/UNCT was seen a trustedpartner, supporting countries in fulfill-ing both their national and interna-tional development obligations and indesigning and implementing develop-ment strategies.

1.2. The main progress in alignment tookplace with respect to developmentstrategies at national and sectoral levels,including aligning planning cycles of UNDAF to national developmentplans. There is room for improvementby UNCT in other elements ofalignment that relate to use of nationalsystems of partner countries (such asreporting, public financial management,country audits and procurement).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYxi

Coordination regarding developmentpriority setting and planning amongUNCT members and other develop-ment partners seems to have improvedgreatly as a result of thematic groupsand larger coordination fora. In all six case-study countries, UNCTunderstood that it has becomeincreasing difficult to act in isolation,although fuller joint programminghas not yet been achieved.

1.3. Some progress did occur in improvedcoordination among UNCT membersand other development partners (mostimportant under the HarmonizedApproach to Cash Transfers [HACT]initiative). However, partner countrieshave higher expectations for measurablesavings in transaction costs throughalignment and harmonization. UNCTmembers felt most constrained inacceding to partner countries requeststo harmonize their headquarter-determined procedures. Thus effortsto reduce transaction costs throughharmonization require an approach thataddresses the concerns of both partnercountries and the many UNCTagencies (and other developmentpartners). Given the wide varianceamong UNDG member objectives,policies and procedures, the road toharmonization remains an extraordi-nary challenge for the UNDG system.

1.4. Government capacities to plan andcoordinate development partners’contributions are of particular relevanceto the PD. For instance, the countrycase studies confirm that systematicstrengthening of national statisticaloffices is particularly important tomanaging for results by providingcredible and timely information.However, effective assistance to statisticaloffices requires long-term and compre-

hensive commitments in order to assurethe required capacities are built.

1.5. The feedback from the country casestudies suggests that there is a long wayto go in achieving the PD objective of mutual accountability and jointassessments of mutual progress in aideffectiveness. Moreover, feedbackfrom case-study countries includedbroad concern about donor commit-ments in regards to both level andpredictability of support. UNCTplays a significant role in promotingmutual accountability, for examplethrough its Round Tables that indicateperformance under donor pledging, itsparticipation in Consultative Groupmeetings, its support to governancereforms including strengthening theparliamentarian system, and its supportto civil society participation. UNECAplays a special role in fostering mutualaccountability at the level of theAfrican countries.

2. UNDG and the participating members inthis assessment started out well in theircommitment to respond to the PD princi-ples, both through actions at headquartersand through conveying the importance of the PD to the RCs and the UNCTs.This relatively fast response was greatlyfacilitated by development assistancecommitments in which UNDG membershad already been engaged prior to the PD.

2.1. Changes were made to synchronizeUNCT planning cycles with nationalplanning cycles.

2.2 UNCTs supported national partners insector institutional arrangements, suchas the United Nations PopulationFund (UNFPA) involvement in sectorwide approaches (SWAPs).

2.3 Agencies increased efforts to usenational systems, for example for pro-curement and operational procedures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xii

thus eliminating PIUs on procurement.However, significant variances betweenagencies and countries remain.

3. When responding to capacities, UNDGmembers used existing institutionalstructures and reinforced them wherenecessary rather than building additionalstructures. In the case of a relatively newinstitution (UNAIDS), it found the PDprinciples relevant for building nationalHIV/AIDS responses. Most of the capacitydevelopment to enable UNDG membersto implement the PD has taken the form ofspecific instructions, guidelines and trainingto educate staff about the PD. Prior com-mitments to major PD principles embodiedin the Common Country Assessments,CCAs, and United Nations DevelopmentAgreement Frameworks, UNDAFs, werehelpful in this process.

3.1 UNCTs provided substantial technicalsupport to countries in formulating,revising and implementing nationaldevelopment strategies or PRSPs.

3.2 UNDG established a policy networkon MDGs to provide policy andoperational advice to UNCTs in theirtechnical support work.

4. When assessing incentive systems in place,the findings are discouraging. Those whoare expected to take primary responsibilityin implementing the PD, the ResidentCoordinators, find incentives specific tothis endeavour weak. The performanceevaluation of Resident Coordinators (whichincludes an assessment from agenciesforming part of UNDG) directly addressesPD-related responsibilities. However, forthe many other UNDG member staffinvolved in the implementation of the PD,this dimension is assessed in their perform-ance evaluation only indirectly, mainlythrough agreed work programmes. Incentives

to implement the PD cannot rely only on traditional incentive systems focusing on the immediate actors concerned. Theapproach to incentives must be broadenedto address directly the factors that stand inthe way of greater progress, especially withrespect to harmonization.

5. Implementing the PD principles acrosscrosscutting issues has been uneven. In thecase of HIV/AIDS, the presence of aUNDG entity (UNAIDS) was helpful toimplementing PD principles in this criticalarea. However, implementation was lesssuccessful in the remaining three of the fourcrosscutting issues reviewed in this assess-ment: gender equality, rural development andcapacity development. Despite establishedUNDG member policies on gender equalityand the practice in countries without aUNIFEM resident specialist to have a leadperson on gender equality from anotherresident UNDG organization in the UNCT,attention to gender equality is stilllacking. The degree to which genderequality issues within the PD context wasaddressed varied from country to countryand there is room for improvement: clearstrategies and indicators to measure progressmade on gender equality efforts need toexist. With regard to rural developmentand capacity development, attention to andcoordination by the UNCT can be improvedthrough the respective working groups.

6. Many RCs/UNCTs work in non-PDsignatory countries. While non-signatorycountries were not specifically assessed inthis evaluation (no non-signatory countrieswere visited), feedback from the survey ofRCs suggests that signatory countries aresignificantly better attuned to the PDprinciples. Thus RCs and UNCTs in non-signatory countries face greater challengesin helping UNDG members respond tothe principles embedded in the PD.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYxiii

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. UNDG should make increased use ofnational systems for support services, whenappropriate and to the benefit of the partnercountries, in order to strengthen nationalcapacities and reduce transaction costs.Such support services include: procurement,security, information technology, telecom-munications and banking, as well as planning,reporting and evaluation.

2. UNDG should further harmonize andsimplify its business practices in order toenhance accountability and transparencyof operational activities while ensuring that development assistance to partnercountries is provided in a coherent fashionthat supports capacity development. Practicesthat could be improved include: budgeting,audit functions, procurement systems, and professional expertise, including theadoption of the International Public SectorAccounting Standards.

3. UNDG should measure the cost of non-harmonized approaches to developmentassistance and further standardize andharmonize the concepts and practices toreduce transaction costs.

4. UNDG should create specific, measurable,achievable and relevant results frameworksand strategies that enable partner countriesto design, monitor and evaluate results in thedevelopment of their capacities at differentlevels to achieve national development goalsand progress towards the internationallyagreed development goals, including theMillennium Development Goals.

5. It is recommended that UNDG encouragesgovernments of partner countries toinitiate and conduct joint and country-ledevaluations that assess the contribution ofthe United Nations development system tonational development plans and strategies,

and to systematize and disseminate lessonslearned from these exercises as mechanismsfor mutual accountability.

6. UNDG should reinforce its commitmentto strengthen the capacity of partnercountries, at their request and with theirownership and leadership, to coordinateexternal assistance, including system-wideand sector-wide approaches and budgetsupport, and to make the best possible use ofsuch assistance, especially by beinginvolved in national planning andmonitoring processes and linking the aideffectiveness agenda to the broaderdevelopment effectiveness agenda.

7. UNDG should harmonize its approachamongst its members and other developmentpartners to strengthen national capacities.Capacity development is commonly associ-ated with various forms of support aimedat individuals (training), institutions(organizational development) and theenabling environment (support to policiesand strategies). UNDG should contributeto the capacity of partner countries tooptimize the use of new aid modalities.

8. UNDG should further develop andstrengthen its knowledge managementsystems and expertise, including resourcesreadily available at the regional level and fromnon-resident agencies to better assist partnercountries needs for capacity development.

9. Incentives to implement the PD shouldaddress directly the factors that stand inthe way of progress, especially with respectto harmonization. UNDG should addressthe structural obstacles to the adherence ofthe PD principles as part of a broader UNreform process. This goes beyond thesubject of the present evaluation, whichaddresses PD implementation, though itclearly impacts UNDG’s efficient deliveryof development assistance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiv

10. UNDG should adopt a complementaryapproach to incorporating cross-cuttingissues like gender mainstreaming, capacitydevelopment and rural development as has been done in the response to HIV/AIDS. In addition, UNCTs should reviewthe adequacy of their arrangements and

efforts aimed at gender equality and rural development in countries withsubstantial rural poverty by going beyondsocial concerns and addressing ruralpoverty on a sustainable basis, recognizingsystematically the need for production andincome improvements.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYxv

In March 2005, the United Nations Develop-ment Group4 (UNDG) signed as participatingorganization the Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness (PD) jointly with 91 countries,25 other participating organizations and 14 civil society organizations.

The main feature of the PD is that effectivepartnerships among development partners andrecipient countries are based on the recogni-tion of national leadership and ownership ofdevelopment strategies and plans. Within thisframework, sound policies, good governanceand effective mechanisms are recognized to beneeded at all levels to ensure that developmentassistance produces development results.

While the PD has a strong focus on monitoring,it also highlights the importance of exploringcross-country evaluation processes. The Decla-ration states that evaluation should provide a more comprehensive understanding of how increased aid effectiveness contributes tomeeting development results and that it shouldbe applied without imposing additional burdenon partner countries.

Against this background, donors and partnercountries agreed to evaluate the implementa-tion of the PD between 2007 and 2010 usinga two-phased approach. The first phase consistsof a formative evaluation concentrating oninputs, the implementation process, and to the

extent possible, outputs. The second phase willbe a summative evaluation focusing on the resultsof implementation, to the extent possible, atthe outcome level. The results of the first-phaseevaluation will be a contribution towards theHigh Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness to beheld in Accra, Ghana in 2008.

Ten countries and 10 development partneragencies5 have volunteered to conduct anevaluation of their own performance under thePD as an input into the first-phase evaluation.They agreed to use a common frameworkterms of reference,6 adapting it to their specificrequirements. The countries are Bangladesh,Bolivia, Mali, Philippines, Senegal, South Africa,Sri Lanka, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zambia. Thedevelopment partners are Australia, Denmark,Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg,Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdomand UNDG.

1.1 GENERAL EVALUATION CONTEXT

According to the framework terms of referencedeveloped for the first-phase evaluation of theimplementation of the PD, its purpose is to“strengthen aid effectiveness by assessing whatconstitutes better practices for partner anddonor behaviour in regard to implementingthe PD.” The scope of the first phase of theevaluation will begin by establishing “how far

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER 1

4 For a list of members of the UNDG, see Annex 2.

5 The PD’s terms ‘partner countries’ and ‘donors’, which will be used throughout this paper except when reference is made to documentsthat use different terms like the ones applied here (from 'Evaluation of UN contribution to the Implementation of the ParisDeclaration’ Terms of Reference 12 July 2007).

6 ‘Framework Terms of Reference for the First Phase Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration’, 25 April 2007.

political support, peer pressure and coordinatedaction (from partners and donors as appropriate)are working to get the behaviour changes towhich signatories have committed.”7

Given the limited time period under review byevaluation—approximately two and a half years—a formative type of evaluation was conducted.A formative evaluation is a method for reviewingprogrammes while the programme activitiesare still forming or occurring reviews, thus thefocus of the evaluation is on ways of improvingand enhancing programmes rather than renderingdefinitive judgement about effectiveness.

The design of the first phase of the evaluation(2007-2008) comprises: country-level evaluations,donor headquarter evaluations, thematic studies,and a synthesis of the three. In addition, the firstphase is intended to help design the second phaseof the evaluation, which seeks to assess outcomesand aid and development effectiveness.

1.2 AGENCY-SPECIFIC EVALUATION CONTEXT

UNDG’s membership consists of 27 UNagencies, programmes and funds; 5 regionaleconomic commissions; and 5 observers. AfterUNDG volunteered to evaluate its perform-ance for the formative first-phase evaluation, it developed its own inter-agency evaluationcontext: after internal consultations it wasagreed that the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) would carry out theassessment jointly with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), United Nations EconomicCommission for Africa (UNECA) and UnitedNations Fund for Women (UNIFEM).8

The purpose of this evaluation is to provideguidance to improve UNDG’s contribution tothe implementation of the PD based on anassessment of lessons learned. The emphasis ison learning and providing recommendations tostrengthen national ownership, harmonizationof aid efforts, alignment to national develop-ment strategies, managing for results andmutual accountability.

The objectives of this evaluation are to:

n Assess UNDG initiatives in support of theimplementation of the PD, identify wherethe UNDG comparative advantage hasbeen proven, identify gaps, and providerecommendations on how to improve theeffectiveness of current approaches to aidmodalities and aid effectiveness and theirimplications for long-term development.

n Assess how United Nations Country Teams(UNCTs) have used partnerships at local,national and international levels andpositioned themselves vis-à-vis other actorsto bring greater coherence and relevance totheir initiatives related to aid effectiveness.

n Provide substantive insights on how toensure that lessons learned from initiativesand strategies implemented by UN organi-zations at corporate and country levels canbe institutionalized within the organizationsthrough systematic monitoring and evalua-tion, adapted and made more relevant tocountry needs.

A related objective is to shed light on thechallenges and opportunities facing UNorganizations in fostering the developmenteffectiveness agenda as the UN reform processcontinues towards “Delivering as One” (though

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION2

7 ‘Framework Terms of Reference for the First Phase of the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration’, 25 April 2007,page 5.

8 It should be noted that two UNDG member organizations which agreed to carry out the joint assessment are direct signatories ofthe PD: UNECA and IFAD. This was additional to the commitment made by UNDG.

there is no overlap between the ONE UN pilotsand the countries included in the assessment).

The scope and focus of this evaluation has beendesigned around the following three dimensionsthat were identified as principal contributors todevelopment partner behaviour:

n Commitment: The PD calls for a new wayof delivering aid whereby country strate-gies are no longer to be formulated byindividual development partners. Instead,the emphasis is on partner countryownership while donors’ cooperationstrategies are to be guided by partnergovernment needs-based demands in analigned and harmonized manner.

n Capacities: Development partners andnational coordinators have called for moreeffective interactions on PD issues betweenheadquarter policy advisers and operationsstaff. This is to overcome uneven capacities(and uneven commitment) betweendifferent staff employed by the samedevelopment partner. Indeed, a singleUNCT might represent very differentapproaches to aid effectiveness.

n Incentive Systems: Development partners’incentive systems have been reported ascritical for efficient development partnerbehaviour. Pressures for disbursements,lack of flexibility on staff time, and highstaff turnover may create incentivesrewarding short-term benefits over longerterm and collective gains.

The assessment gives special attention to fourcross-cutting subjects: gender equality, HIV/AIDS,rural development and capacity development.Gender equality is essential to the achievementof the mandates of all UNDG agencies.

The Terms of Reference for the evaluation ofUNDG contribution to the implementation ofthe PD are included in Annex 1. They arebased on the ‘Guidance for Management ofDevelopment Partner Evaluations’ developedby partner countries and development partnersparticipating in the joint evaluation.9

In addition, this assessment seeks to recognizethe distinctive UNDG contribution to theimplementation of the PD while also acknowl-edging the broader UN contribution,10

emphasizing the following:

n UNDG is not a donor. Its primary contri-bution to development is not financial.

n UNDG constituencies are member states.This enforces United Nations neutrality aswell as its normative role in following upinternational conventions and intergovern-mental agreements

n UNDG has a broad presence in countries.

n The UNCT at country level includes UnitedNations specialized agencies, funds andprogrammes, whether resident or non resident.

n The evaluation includes assessments bothat headquarters and at the country level.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3

9 ‘Framework Terms of Reference for the First Phase Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration’, 25 April 2007.

10 “The bedrock principles of operational activities of the United Nations system derive from their universal, voluntary and grantnature and their neutrality and multilateralism. Operational activities are therefore strongly anchored in the normative mandatesand roles established by the United Nations system. The knowledge, skills and resources made available to developing countriesby some 40 funds, programmes, agencies and other entities of the United Nations development system are of unparalleled breathand depth. But challenges remain to making the United Nations development system more coherent and efficient.” From theGeneral Assembly ‘Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review’, August 2007, pp 4-5.

This evaluation of UNDG contribution toimplementation of the PD differs from evalua-tions by developing countries and developmentpartners in the diversity of both organizationsand country contexts, and that the evaluation wascarried out under common terms of referencewith other agencies. This is both a challengeand an opportunity to further understand howthe PD is implemented and the factors thataffect UNDG member contributions.

The evaluation framework is based on twointersecting parameters (see Figure 1):

n The contextual factors in development partnercountries that may determine the specificstructures and processes that influence theimplementation of the PD. These are set inplace by government, civil society organi-zations and other national stakeholders.

n The UN activities that follow up the UNDGcommitment to the PD that may beimportant causal factors for the emergenceof such structures and processes. The keygoal of the evaluation is to establish the linkbetween the implementation of the PD and

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY 5

METHODOLOGYCHAPTER 2

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN DEVELOPMENT

PARTNER COUNTRIES

STRUCTURES AND PROCESSESFOR IMPLEMENTATION

OF PARIS DECLARATIONUNDG CONTRIBUTION

Macroeconomic variablesn Economic performancen Aid dependencen Public expenditure

Structuresn Formal working groups, task

forces, etc.n Informal and ad hoc groups

Commitmentn Changes in policyn Changes in organizationn Changes in task allocation

Governancen Public sector performancen Transparency and

accountabilityn Public participation

Processesn Analytical tasksn Information sharingn Joint decision making

Capacitiesn Knowledgen Creativityn Learningn Individual – systemic

Civil societyn Traditions of organizationn Voice and influencen Networks and links

Characteristicsn Interconnectednessn Frequency and densityn Division of labour

Incentive systemsn Results orientationn Career developmentn Vertical and horizontal links

FIGURE 1. PARAMETERS FOR EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

2 ß

ß

2 2

the activities of the UN system. These activitiesshould be explained in terms of commit-ment, capacities and incentive systems.

The main challenge with this framework is thedynamic nature of the operating environmentfor development assistance. In the 1990s, thiswas characterized by declining aid and unevendevelopment across regions, especially inagriculture and the rural sector, and increasedhavoc due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. At thesame time, there were paradigmatic shifttowards poverty reduction strategies and anenhanced emphasis on sustainability, hence theintroduction of Poverty Reduction Strategy(Papers), or PRS(Ps), and the Heavily IndebtedPoor Countries Initiative. Recently, there havebeen major global policy responses to thesechallenges, including: the 2000 MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), the MonterreyConsensus of 2002 and the 2003 RomeDeclaration on Harmonization. These allpreceded the PD, which in turn, was followedand reinforced by the United Nations Reform.11

These efforts have been associated with enhancedownership of development initiatives by recipientcountries and closer donor partnerships andcoordination. Thus, many of the seeds forimplementation of the PD had already beenplanted prior to March 2005.

One element of the evaluation framework hasbeen recognizing that the foregoing policyresponses have occurred hand-in-hand with ashift in decision making from donor headquar-ters to partner countries. Thus it was crucial thatthe evaluation give attention not only to whathas occurred at UN organization headquarters,but also between headquarters and in-countrypresences where the intersection affecting theimplementation of the PD takes place.

The evaluation matrix in Figure 2 was used to analyze UNDG members’ commitment,capacities and incentives for implementing thePD. This analysis addressed the five dimensionsof the PD: ownership, alignment, harmonization,results-based management and mutual account-ability. Interactive effects between the two setsof parameters noted above were considered onlywhere clear evidence was available. This matrixunderlies the assessment presented in this report.

The evaluation methodology was built largelyaround the case-study method (see section 2.1Sampling) and included the following elements:

n Assessment of PD-related actions by theparticipating UNDG entities and theirrelevance before and after the signing ofthe PD.12 In the absence of baseline data

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY6

COMMITMENT CAPACITIES INCENTIVES

1. Ownership

2. Alignment

3. Harmonization

4. Results-based management

5. Mutual accountability

FIGURE 2. EVALUATION MATRIX

11 This refers to the UN Reform process, a major element of which is ‘UN Delivering as One: Report of the Secretary General’s High-Level Panel’, 9 November 2006.

and the wide variance in progress madetowards the PD principles prior to thesignature of the Declaration, the analysisassessed change in behaviour since March2005 as recalled by the stakeholdersinterviewed during the evaluation. Theanalysis recognized that some of the PDdimensions were already principles ofengagement of UNDG members prior tothe PD.13

n Conduct of six country case studies todetermine the UNDG role in fostering thePD principles. Both the headquarters andcountry case studies assessed four cross-cuttingissues: gender equality, HIV/AIDS, ruraldevelopment and capacity development.

n Gathering of systematic feedback from theparticipating UNDG members through staffat headquarters and in country, and countryvisits from in-country partners and stake-holders. Country visits ranged from threeto four days and included interviews with:the UNCT and its members (including moreUNDG agencies than those participating inthe assessment); representatives of govern-ment, civil society and non-governmentalorganizations; and bilateral and multilateraldonors. Interviews were semi-structuredand tailored to different audiences. Theyincluded systematic recognition of the fourcross-cutting issues listed in the previousbullet. Consistency of interviews wasfurther ensured by the evaluation team’smake-up, under which two persons of thethree-member team participated in allvisits to UNDG members and countries(except for the visit to Gabon). This close

overlap also ensured consistency in theanalysis of content obtained throughinterviews and from other information.

n Gathering of systematic feedback through anelectronic survey of the resident coordinators(RCs) who chair the UNCTs. This feedbackcentred on the three dimensions that wereidentified as contributors to developmentpartner behaviour: commitment, capacitiesand incentives.

n Review of documents from the participatingUN organizations in order to both confirm,and expand on, the stakeholder interviews.

Validation of interview findings by supportingdocumentation was sought throughout. Thecountry case studies were used to validate findingsfrom headquarters reviews for the participatingUNDG members whenever possible.

2.1 SAMPLING

Given the limitations in time and scope of theevaluation, the assessment has used the case-study method14 extensively in order to add realismand in-depth examples to other information,and to bring together findings from a numberof cases. Against this background, samplingwas critical in the following areas:

n Selection of participating UN organizationswithin the UNDG. This process relied onself-selection. The UNDG Chair approachedall members of the group. Five organizations(UNDP, IFAD, UNAIDS, UNECA andUNIFEM) not only expressed interest in


12 Ideally, the assessment would also have reviewed the changes introduced in non-PD signatory countries for an appreciation of the PD induced changes in ’with and without’ cases. This was not feasible under the limited scope of the assessment except forthe survey of RCs that allowed a breakdown into PD signatory and non-signatory countries.

13 An alternative approach would have consisted of an assessment of the alignment of UNDG members’ work with the PD when thePD was signed. The present assessment, however, focused on the changes since Paris while identifying the progress that UNDGmembers had made prior to Paris.

14 United States General Accountings Office, ‘Case Study Evaluations’, Programme Evaluation and Methodology Division, GAO/PEMD-91-10.9.1, November 1990.

participation but also offered financial andin-kind support for the assessment. Theresulting group of participants limits thegeneralizability of the findings, though thecountry case studies provide robust insightinto the UNCTs, which included many moreUNDG members. The focus on participat-ing UNDG members was especially helpfulwhen addressing the cross-cutting issuesidentified in the terms of reference. A specialsituation arose with respect to UNDGmembers that do not have permanent residentrepresentatives (RRs) in partner countries.The assessment needed to cover suchsituations to the extent possible in the contextboth of headquarters and in-country studies.

n Selection of countries for field visits andcase studies. UNDP, on behalf of the partic-ipating UNDG agencies, sought proposalsfrom all UN resident coordinators forvolunteers to participate in the assessment.Five countries volunteered: Cameroon,Gabon, Lao PDR, Mauritania and Ukraine.Ethiopia was added for a broader represen-tation of resident and non-resident organi-zations’ contribution to PD. The finalselection includes markedly different typesof countries: three of the countries are aid dependent (Ethiopia, Lao PDR andMauritania), and three of the countries aremiddle income countries (Cameroon, Gabonand Ukraine), with Gabon and Ukrainebeing new PD signatory states.

n Selection of interviewees during the countryvisits was done by the Country Office.The interviewees included governmentrepresentatives, bilateral and multilateraldevelopment partners and civil societyorganizations. The short timeframe of thevisits determined the nature and scope of theinterviewees. The selection of interviewees

for the participating UNDG entities wasorganized by the respective evaluation offices.

n Selection of cross-cutting subjects. Thefour cross-cutting areas address the concernsof the participating UN organizations.

n Selection of RCs for the survey. Theevaluation surveyed 119 RCs from bothsignatory and non-signatory countries; 41 responded for a response rate of morethan 34 percent.15

2.2 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Consistent with the evaluation methodologyfor data collection (semi-structured interviews,document reviews and a survey) the followinginstruments were used:

n List of principal interlocutors met duringthe interviews (Annex 3)

n Documents reviewed (Annex 4)

n Guidance questionnaires used for the semi-structured interviews with different stake-holders (Annex 5)

n The survey of RCs, including questions andresulting answers (Annex 6)

The complementarities between these instru-ments, the documents reviewed and theinformation obtained through interviews bothat the participants’ headquarters and in the sixcountries should be emphasized.

2.3 EVALUATION MANAGEMENT

A Management Group was set up for theassessment, composed of representatives of theevaluation offices of the participating five UNentities. The group was responsible for

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY8

15 The response rate from signatory countries RCs was 36 percent; from non-signatory countries it was 33 percent.

planning and managing the evaluation toensure its independence and quality. It waschaired by UNDP, which provided one of itsstaff members as the Evaluation Task Managerto act as the interlocutor between the evaluationteam and the Management Group to ensure asmooth process.

At the level of the participating UN organizations,their evaluation office served as the convenorof the meetings and provider of documents.

At the level of the country case studies, the RCwas in charge of coordinating the visits.

The evaluation team consisted of three memberslisted in front of the report.16 The team’scooperative effort was strengthened by a week-long workshop and interviews, together with theEvaluation Task Manager, at UNDP headquarters.

2.4 LIMITATIONS

The evaluation faced a number of challenges in analyzing the progress made toward the implementation of the PD including the following:

n A short implementation period. The limitedtime duration of the PD (approximatelytwo and a half years) did not allow forresults-based evaluation, as recognizedunder the terms of reference for the FirstPhase Evaluation. As noted in footnote 7,one way to overcome this shortcomingwould have been the introduction of thecomparator group concept into the presentassessment methodology to facilitate acomparison of results in countries that didand did not sign on to the PD.17

n The absence of a common baseline onthe different commitments spelled out inthe PD. While indicators of progress wereattached to the PD, these are more focusedon financial parameters than the broaderdevelopment effectiveness dimension thatthe PD seeks to address. Moreover, the 12 indicators were specified for a later date(2010). However, the main constraintregarding a clear baseline arises from thedynamic nature of the development environ-ment: Varying steps had already been takenunder the different dimensions of the PDby both participating agencies and partnercountries at the time the Declaration wassigned. Thus there are significant issuesregarding attributing implementation actionsto the PD versus actions taken on the basisof earlier commitments.

n The samples contain biases of self-selectionand volunteering. Due to the fact that the participating UNDG agencies andcountries covered by the assessmentvolunteered, findings on the progress made under the PD tended to be morefavourable than if this had been a randomsampling. This limitation was alreadyrecognized in the framework Terms ofReference for the First Phase Evaluation ofthe PD.18 This point indicates the need forthe qualitative approach used under thecase method.

n The short timeframe and the resourcesavailable for the evaluation. The focustherefore is on how the limited informationcan be used to make observations acrossthe sample groups selected in order to helpinformed and circumscribed decision making.


16 The initial leader was Kim Foss who was responsible for the inception report and visiting one country for preparing of a pilot country report.

17 A limited but insightful result on differences between signatory and non-signatory countries with regard to progress in PD implementation emerged from survey giving the respective RC perceptions.

18 ‘Framework Terms of Reference for the First Phase Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration’, 25 April 2007, p 8.

This chapter reviews the commitment expressedby UNDG members in support of implementingthe PD. It builds on the evidence obtained fromthe five entities participating in the evaluationplus UNDG, which signed the PD on behalfof its members. The country case studiesvalidate actions taken by these and other UNorganizations and their effects in the countries.The pertinent findings from the countrystudies are presented in Chapter 6, except incases where they illustrate headquarters versusUNCT actions. Throughout the review carefulattention was paid to the PD’s five dimensions:ownership, alignment, harmonization, results-based management and mutual accountability.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This assessment addresses the performance ofthe UNDG as the principal signatory of thePD within the United Nations. Attention isalso paid to the broader role played by theUnited Nations in pursuing economic andsocial development. The 2000 United NationsMillennium Declaration, the development ofthe MDGs, the 2002 Monterrey Consensus, andthe 2005 World Summit Outcome Document,as well as recent UN initiatives to overcome the fragmentation of the UN system so that it can better serve its members, give new impetus to economic and social development.19 These UN actions reflect a more universal consensusthan the PD, which supports the MDG butgives greater specificity on the means to achievedevelopment effectiveness.

Recently, the UN system has focused on thechange in the spectrum of developmentassistance agents—the expanded role of non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment-Development Assistance Committee(OECD-DAC) donors, non-governmentalorganizations, charities and the private sector.It has drawn attention to an evolving aidarchitecture that requires renewals in policies,tools and partnerships with different bilateraland multilateral actors. It also looks to compre-hensive and more long-term developmentinterventions that bring together environmentand development concerns, humanitarianassistance, crisis management and post-crisisand conflict recovery. Therefore, the UN reformprocess is geared not only to rationalizationand better management, but also to bringingtogether specialized parts of the system toprovide holistic support to development andsimplification, harmonization and alignmentof its policies and practices. This UN system-wide development clearly goes beyond thescope of this evaluation. However, attention isdrawn to some UN system-wide initiatives thatare evidently in support of the PD consensus(see Box 1).

3.2 UNITED NATIONSDEVELOPMENT GROUP

One month after signing the PD, the Chair of the UNDG wrote to all RCs20 conveyingthe core message of the PD. He urged the RCsand their staff to take ‘effective leadership’ in

CHAPTER 3. ASSESSING COMMITMENT TO THE PARIS DECLARATION 11

ASSESSING COMMITMENT TO THE PARIS DECLARATION

CHAPTER 3

19 Economic and Social Council, ‘Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities of the United Nations DevelopmentSystem‘, July 2007.

20 Letter dated April 6, 2005, signed by Marc Malloch Brown, Chair, UNDG.

supporting partner countries in their efforts toimplement the PD.

On July 1, 2005, the executive heads of allUNDG members approved an Action Plan forimplementing the PD.25 As summarized in theChair’s follow-up letter to the RCs26 there werethree main principles of the commitment:putting national development plans at thecentre of UN country programming, strength-ening national capacities, and increasingly

using and strengthening national systems.Under these three principles, the Action Plan:

n Recognized the critical role of the UNCTs intheir contribution to national analytic work,as in the preparation of PRSs, includingthe incorporation of other commitmentsof the Millennium Declaration.

n Emphasized the need for synchronizationof the UN country programme cycles withnational planning cycles.

CHAPTER 3. ASSESSING COMMITMENT TO THE PARIS DECLARATION12

21 The network has two major roles: to provide strategic advice to the chief executives of the system on human resource managementdevelopment, ensuring best practices across the system; and to prepare on behalf of the Chief Executive Board for coordination,input and exchange with the International Civil Service Commission, which since 1975 has been responsible for the regulation andcoordination of the conditions of service of the United Nations common system of organizations.

22 The network is responsible for providing advice and strategic guidance in respect to issues of common concern to UN systemorganizations as a whole. These include results-based budgeting, international accounting standards, auditing and oversightmechanisms, financial reporting, programme support costs, fraud prevention, and others. Of particular relevance to harmonizationunder the PD is the plan of all UN system organizations to adopt International Public Sector Accounting Standards no later than2010. The Task Force on Accounting Standards recommended the adoption of these standards in 2005. After network endorsement,the High Level Committee on Management approved adoption in November 2005.

23 The network provides advice to senior management of the organizations in respect to the long-term strategic development ofinformation systems technology and services. It also reviews information and telecommunications standards with a view toadvancing best practices across the UN system.

24 In March 2007, the High Level Committee on Management designated the Inter-Agency Procurement Working Group as the newprocurement network of High Level Committee on Management, and renamed it ’High Level Committee on ManagementProcurement Network’. UNDP/ Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office continues to serve the network as its secretariat.

25 For an update of the Action Plan, see: UNDG,‘Implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Action Plan of the UNDGDevelopment Group, Mid-Year Status Report 2007’.

26 Letter dated July 22, 2005, signed by Marc Malloch Brown, Chair, UNDG.

BOX 1. UN SYSTEM-WIDE INITIATIVES THAT SUPPORT THE PARIS DECLARATION

Behind UNDG stand UN system-wide high-level committees (established in the late 1990s as part of theprocess of UN reform) that were designed to ensure alignment and harmonization of activities across the UNsystem. The Chief Executives Board (CEB) is supported by two high-level committees—the High-level Committeeon Programmes (HLCP), and the High-Level Committee on Management (HLCM).Although these committeesare not directly associated with the PD, their eventual effects will support the PD goals.

The main committee corresponding to the PD context is the High Level Committee on Management, whichreports to the UN Chief Executive Board for Coordination and is responsible for: coherent, efficient and cost-effective management matters that cut across the UN system of organizations; identifying, promoting andcoordinating management reforms that will improve services and productivity and increase efficiency across the UN system. Specialized networks operate within the framework of the Committee: the Human ResourceNetwork,21 the Finance and Budget Network,22 the Information, Communication and Technology Network,23and the recently established Procurement Network.24

In November 2006, the Independent High-Level Panel on the UN System Wide Coherence appointed byformer Secretary General Kofi Annan, delivered its report ’Delivering as One’. The report includes a number of recommendations to overcome the fragmentation of the UN system so that it can deliver as one, in truepartnership with and serving the needs of all countries in their efforts to achieve the MDGs and other interna-tionally agreed development goals. UN ONE at present is being piloted in six countries (none of which wascovered under the present assessment).

n Urged that UN Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF) outcomes be derivedfrom national priorities and plans.

n Asked for review and redefinition of theconcept of ‘capacity development’ toimplement Triennial Comprehensive PolicyReview of operational activities for develop-ment of the UN system and PD.

n Urged UNDG members to amend regula-tions that inhibit the use of national systemsfor sector reporting, monitoring andevaluation (M&E), annual performancereviews, progress reports and procurement,subject to board approvals.

The three principles and the Action Plan fallwithin the PD areas of ownership and alignment.Moreover, they contain important elements ofharmonization and managing for results, andto a lesser extent, mutual accountability.

UNDG took the following actions:

n Surveyed all RCs, regardless whether theircountries have signed the PD, with theLeadership in PD Monitoring Survey inorder to encourage discussion on theprinciples of aid effectiveness underlyingthe PD.

n Intensified staff training on the changingaid environment and the PD.

n Included a request in the annual RC reportto cover aid coordination and follow-up tothe PD.

n Developed a UNDP website dedicated toaid effectiveness and internal collaborationon PD implementation, with UNDG-wide access for sharing of tools, lessons,practices and discussions.

n Facilitated RC communication with partnercountry governments on the roll-out of the baseline survey on the initial state ofcommitment to indicators in the PD onbehalf of the OECD-DAC.

n Established a Working Group on AidEffectiveness to support implementation ofthe PD at the country level (through theRC and UNCT system). The group unitesheadquarters-level staff working on aideffectiveness within all UNDG membersand meets monthly.

In sum, UNDG worked toward implementingthe PD at the level of the UNDG itself (withthe heads of UNDG members agreeing on anaction plan) and through the RC and UNCTat the country level. In doing so, UNDGrecognized that already existing instrumentsand processes that applied to the PD needed tobe revised and improved: Common CountryAssessments and UNDAFs would requirechanges in scope, selectivity and timing; UNDGmembers would have to help strengthen nationalcapacities in order to make the PD goals of anincreased role of national execution andreliance on national systems a reality. Similarly,UNDG recognized in the Chair’s letter that theaim of reducing transaction costs had alreadybeen “one of the key objectives of UNDG’ssimplification and harmonization efforts startedin 2002,” but that this required a new commit-ment, noting that “sadly, we have not madeenough headway”, the July 2005 letter advocates“this situation needs to change.” While UNDGidentified areas amenable for such improvements—sector reporting, M&E, annual performancereviews, progress reports, and procurement (thoughnot disbursements or audits)—it did not expressa commitment to theses changes in terms ofspecific indicators. In addition, the letter didnot focus on harmonization across UNDGmembers to help reduce transaction costs forpartner countries; rather, the emphasis was onstrengthening national systems.

Finally, in his July 2005 letter, the UNDGChair encouraged UNCTs in partner countriesthat did not participate in the Paris High-Level-Forum to educate their counterparts about


the PD, “especially through the adoption ofnational harmonization action plans.” Here,the UNDG Chair evidenced leadership in notonly implementing the PD through theUNDG members but also seeking to expandthe PD to non-signatories. The number ofcountries that have signed the PD has grownfrom 91 to 121 since March 2005.27

As the Mid-Year Status Report 2007 pointsout, progress has been made under the UNDGAction Plan in various areas:

n UNCTs provided substantial technicalsupport to countries in formulating,revising and implementing nationaldevelopment strategies or PRSs.

n UNDG established a policy network onMDGs to provide policy and operationaladvice to UNCTs in their technicalsupport work.

n Changes were made to synchronize UNCTplanning cycles with national planning cycles.

n UNCTs supported national partners in sectorsupport arrangements, such as the UnitedNations Population Fund (UNFPA) involve-ment in sector wide approaches (SWAPs).

n Agencies increased efforts to use nationalsystems on procurement, although signifi-cant variances remain.

Although the UNDG Chair’s letter of July2005 also highlighted the need for improvedharmonization among the excessive number ofProject Implementation Units and the lowshare of UN assistance in 2006 reflected ‘on

budget’ (33 percent), there is still considerableroom for improvement.

The UNDG Working Group on Aid Effectivenessrecently prepared a policy paper titled ‘TheUN in the Changing Aid Environment’.28 Thepaper reiterates UNDG commitment to thePD and its active contribution at the countrylevel through the RC system and the UNCTs.It also outlines further steps for UNDG tomove forward with the PD agenda, such as theneed to orient the UNDG members’ work awayfrom “fragmented implementation toward acoherent programme framework based onnational strategies.”

3.3 UNITED NATIONS RESIDENTCOORDINATOR SYSTEM: UN COUNTRY PRESENCE

The system of UN RCs who chair the UNCTs29

was in place before the PD. This system, togetherwith already existing analytical and program-ming instruments like the Common CountryAssessment, the UNDAF and the Joint AssistanceStrategy, is an important vehicle for UNDG toassist in the implementation of the PD.

This assessment of the leadership role andcommitment of the RC/UNCT system to thePD is informed both by the UNDG develop-ments noted earlier in this report, the findingsof the evaluation team in six countries, and asurvey of the RCs carried out under the presentassessment.30 Overall, the survey applied to the RCs depicts a very high level of UNCT


27 Available online at www.OECD.org.

28 UNDG, ’The UN In the Changing Aid Environment’, draft, September 2007.

29 UNCT consists of representatives of UN agencies, mainly those resident in country. However, the UNCT is also open to other UNorganization representatives.

30 See Annex 5 for details on the survey. The respectable response referred to earlier underscores the robustness of the survey findings. It should be noted that the survey relates to the present status of the PD implementation and of the RC/UNCT role ratherthan to the changes that have been introduced since the PD was signed. Note also that all the percentage figures shown in the following discussion aggregate the ’adequate’ and ’high’ ratings by the RCs.

commitment to the PD: 90 percent reportcommitment as ‘adequate’ to ‘very high’ insignatory countries (SCs) and 100 percent innon-signatory countries (NSCs).31 The mostfrequent supporting comment was, “UNDAFis fully based on national development plans.”As this assessment of the RC/UNCT system interms of the five PD dimensions shows, thisoptimistic self-evaluation contrasts with themore critical RC views on the state of progressunder the PD by partner countries and donors.

Ownership: Prior to the PD, country ownershipwas already at the heart of the UNDAF, at leastin the numerous countries where the UNDAFrelied fully on national development strategiesand programmes. The RC answers in the surveyindicate that such country ownership commit-ment in practice is not that clear cut: Only 47percent of RCs from SCs (and 44 percent fromNSCs) report that in their country “overallnational development strategies and programmes[were] monitored and linked to the budget;”53 percent of RCs from SCs indicated that“strategies are prepared in a participatory way,including broad segments of civil society”while only 38 percent from NSCs report thesame. The difference in ownership betweenSCs and NSCs is even more pronounced whenit comes to “participation of civil society in thepreparation of national strategies:” 62 percentof RCs from SCs estimate civil society partici-pation as ‘adequate’ or higher, while only 31 percent from NSCs report the same. This isone of the strongest indicators that RCs andUNCTs face greater challenges in theirdevelopment assistance tasks in NSCs.

The experience of the six countries covered bythis assessment confirms that UNDAFs werereliant on the national development strategies

and programmes—the first step toward agencyprogrammes and strategies that support nationaldevelopment strategies. Nevertheless, concernsremain regarding the strength and coherence ofnational programmes, as these were found tovary considerably across countries.

Alignment: The main progress on alignmentby the UNCT took place with respect todevelopment strategies, including aligning thetime periods of national development plansand UNDAF. The results of the survey notedthat: “donors align [adequately/highly] withcountry strategies,” 65 percent in SCs and 53 percent in NSCs; but are reluctant “to usestrengthened country systems,” 38 percent inSCs and 21 percent in NCSs; while “countriesstrengthen development capacity with donorsupports,” 45 percent in SCs and 43 percent in NCSs.

The country case studies report that UNCTshave played a positive role in strengtheningalignment across the agencies and with thepartner country, but variations in agencies’procedures, even on simple matters such asplanning cycles, were still the rule. Thisillustrates the limitations of a UNCT inaligning individual agencies within the specificcountry context.

Harmonization: Progress in harmonization hasproven to be rather difficult. This is reflected inthe RC responses, with only 25 percent in SCsand 13 percent in NSCs reporting that “donors[among which UNDG members are included]implement common arrangements andsimplify procedures” at an adequate or higherlevel. Regarding “a more complementarydivision of labour,” 40 percent of the RCs inboth SCs and NSCs found an adequate orhigher level of donor actions.


31 Survey question:“To what extent has the PD’s emphasis on demand-driven development cooperation been reflected in UN development policies, programmes, processes, systems and procedures?”The difference between the results of the responses from SCs and NSCs is hard to explain, but it is clear that the reported commitment is very high across the two types of countries.

The country studies show that partner countriesconsider harmonization and improved alignmentas critical to obtaining cost savings in develop-ment assistance and improving developmentaid effectiveness. In particular, savings wereexpected through harmonized programmeimplementation, including: budget and annualwork programme; selection, recruitment andremuneration of project personnel; procurementand financial management, including accountingand auditing; and M&E. Feedback from thecountry visits reflect considerable frustration inthis regard, including UNDG members whoseRRs are caught between their institution’sprocedures and the desire at the local level tohave greater flexibility for harmonization vis-à-vis other agencies and the government.

The initiative taken by the four ExecutiveCommittee (ExCom) members of UNDG32

toward a Harmonized Approach to CashTransfer (HACT)33 illustrates the complexityof harmonizing a particular area of operationalactivity, even across a small number of UNorganizations. However it also shows that it ispossible, especially when there is leadershipand acknowledgement across organizations ofthe need for such harmonization. Progress onHACT has been limited in the case studiescountries, but heads of UNDP regional bureauxhave reported progress among other countries.34

At the same time, some aid recipients in partnercountries have expressed concerns that the goalof increased cost effectiveness could be used as a rationale to reduce Official DevelopmentAssistance (ODA).35 Another politically sensitive

concern is that harmonization is seen by someas a broad move toward direct budget support(DBS), especially from bilateral sources,resulting in a need for public disclosure at thenational level and reminiscent of colonial-typerelationships. However, others found DBS awelcome instrument for getting away from theconstraints imposed under project andprogramme assistance.

Managing for results: The RCs report in thesurvey that the link “between country program-ming and an accepted results framework” isnow adequate or better in 52 percent of theSCs and 40 percent of the NSCs. At the sametime, RCs consider donors’ reliance on countries’results-oriented and monitoring frameworks asvery weak. It was ranked adequate or better in only20 percent of cases (with only a two percentagepoint difference between SCs and NSCs).

The country case studies confirm that system-atic strengthening of national statistical offices isa decisive factor in providing timely informationfor results-based management, critical to the PD’sobjective of Managing for Results. Progress inthis appeared strongest in Ethiopia. Sweden’s15 years of support in building the nationalstatistical system in Laos is another illustrationof effective long-term assistance.

Mutual accountability: The RCs in thesurvey responded that in 62 percent of the SCsand 43 percent of the NSCs “donors providetransparent and comprehensive information onaid flows.” RC annual reports for the countriesvisited were found helpful in presenting such


32 UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and WFP.

33 “The Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers to Implementing Partners (HACT) was launched in 2005 by the Executive Directorsof the UNDG ExCom agencies as a clear and specific response to the Paris Declaration on Aid effectiveness. In particular, it promotesour partners’ self-reliance and the use of national system and procedures, and provides for more systematic efforts to strengthennational capacities.” From a letter from UNDG to RCs, dated 15October 2007.

34 A good example: the meeting of the UNDP Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean with the evaluation team wasdominated by a presentation of the extensive Region’s experience with HACT.

35 There are many dimensions to this fear as illustrated by the comment that greater efficiency may mean dismissal of aid workers.

information on UNCT related aid flows. RCswere less sanguine about the adequacy of partnercountries’ budgets and reporting procedures:49 percent in SCs and 33 percent in NSCs.

The feedback from the country case studiessuggests that there is a long way to go toachieve the PD objective of joint assessmentsof mutual progress in implementing agreedcommitment on aid effectiveness. Moreover,feedback from case-study countries included broadconcern about donor commitments in regardsto both level and predictability of support.

3.4 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENTGROUP MEMBERS

This evaluation reviewed the performance ofthe five very different UNDG members:UNDP; UNIFEM, which is attached toUNDP and belongs to the UN Programmesand Funds; UNAIDS, which is a Joint UNProgramme; IFAD, a Specialized Agency thatalso belongs to the International FinancialInstitutions; and UNECA, one of the fiveRegional Commissions that report to theEconomic and Social Council. Their experi-ence in implementing the PD captures that ofa broad range of UNDG organizations. Theteam also found sufficient evidence of theefforts made by UNFPA to further illustratethe experience of the participating entities.

3.4.1 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENTPROGRAMME (UNDP)

UNDP, the head of which chairs the UNDG,was closely associated with the PD from thestart and undertaken the PD commitments ona broad basis. In parallel, UNDP relations with

the DAC during the past two years have beenup-scaled substantively. Through its Bureau forDevelopment Policy and Bureau for Resourcesand Strategic Partnerships, collaboration hasbeen diversified and the new strategic engage-ment has affected a number of areas relating tothe PD.36 UNDP is now a member of theWorking Party on Aid Effectiveness and Boardobserver, and on behalf of the UN system,UNDP is member of the Working Party’sSteering Committee for the preparation of theGhana 2008 High Level Forum.37 It is also amember of the Joint Venture on MonitoringPD that consists of 14 DAC members and acts asSecretariat for the Joint Venture on Procurement.

UNDP has supported the DAC outreach andcapacity development activities, co-organized apanel on the PD during the 2005 World Summitwith the DAC and the World Bank (WB). Ithas facilitated OECD-DAC partner-countryparticipation in Bolivia, Ghana, Mali, Nicaragua,Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda. UNDP/UNDG also supported the OECD-DAC PDBaseline Survey field testing and roll-out.

UNDP organized a series of regional workshops38

on PD implementation (challenges, opportunitiesand lessons learned) in collaboration withdevelopment partners39 that advocated for PDprinciples and commitments, capacity develop-ment opportunities for partner countries andpartnerships. Moreover, the UNDP Communityof Practitioners on Aid Effectiveness and theDAC facilitation process have strengthenedpartnership and collaboration with developingcountries on the aid effectiveness agenda. This effort is now being extended to the civilsociety organizations.


36 Fragile states/Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery; Managing for Development Results and Evaluation/ OSG and EvaluationOffice; capacity development, aid effectiveness, procurement/Bureau for Development Policy /Capacity Development Group;public finance management/Bureau for Development Policy /PRG.

37 Letter to RCs, dated 17 July 2007, signed by Olav Kjorven, Assistant Administrator and Director Bureau for Development Policy

38 Western Balkans, West Africa, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Arab States.

39 WB, African Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, OECD-DAC and national governments.

At headquarters, UNDP’s Bureau forDevelopment Policy now provides overallsupport for an effective UNDP engagementwith DAC. Its Capacity Development Groupprepares an annual report on Capacity Develop-ment and Aid Effectiveness, with focus on theachievements on PD implementation. Withinthe context of UNDG’s Action Plan, UNDPhas established a framework for follow-up tothe PD that has become a cross-cutting projectfor the Bureau for Development Policy.40 Thework programme of the Capacity DevelopmentGroup covers all areas of the PD, with most ofthe workshops focused on Africa.

Through the RC/UNCT system, UNDP hasintensified efforts to support alignment andharmonization in Cambodia, Malawi,Nicaragua, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and VietNam. Areas of intervention relate to: employingPRSPs as frameworks for planning; program-ming and financing the MDG targets at thecountry level in a more integrated and long-term manner; supporting existing MDGcosting initiatives; aid coordination mechanismsand facilitation of donor-recipient countrypartnerships for resource alignment and results;development of specific aid management andmonitoring tools; support to capacity developmentin DBS environments, sector-wide approachesand procurement.

Finally, UNDP’s Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy/Capacity Development Group hasaddressed effectiveness measurement under itsproject, ‘Aid Effectiveness for Reducing Povertyand Achieving the MDGs—UNDP Supportto Developing Countries’.

Ownership: Within the UNCT, UNDP hastended to lead the work on UNDAF andrespected the UNDAF framework in preparingits own Country Programme Document.Consistent with the PD on ownership, UNDP“respected partner country leadership and helpedstrengthen their capacity to exercise it”41

through a wide range of capacity developmentprogrammes, often in partnership with otherdonors. The strength of country ownership,however, varied significantly across the countrycases. UNDP’s role was more demanding incountries with weaker capacities.

Alignment: UNDP experience has been thatcommon ownership around country developmentpolicies and strategies, and support from UNorganizations as well as bilateral and othermultilateral donors, has been strongest in crisissituations. Examples of joint programmingwere found in Avian Flu (in Lao PDR) andsupport to election processes (in Mauretaniaand Ukraine). Alignment across organizationsin crisis situations has been more compellingthan for long term development. For example,in humanitarian work, there already exists a highdegree of joint planning and programming,consolidated appeals for funding, etc., amongUNHCR, World Health Organization (WHO),World Food Programme (WFP), UNICEFand others.

When it comes to alignment on procurement,UNDP’s policy is to prefer National ExecutionModality.42 UNDP works with countries toassess if their procurement systems are in linewith international procurement practices, thenencourages the use of UNDP NationalExecution Modality Guidelines. This modality


40 ‘Aid Effectiveness for Reducing Poverty and Achieving MDGs--UNDP Support to Developing Countries’. UNDP Bureau ofDevelopment Policy, Project No. 50520.

41 Paris Declaration, para 15.

42 Adopting this new management approach UNDP had to deal with the realities of changes affecting the aid environment: Changingrole of UNDP from mainly funding and implementing downstream activities to emphasis on upstream activities involving advocacy,policy support and capacity strengthening and adopting National Execution (NEX) as a predominant mode of delivering assistance.

was in use long before the PD, but PD appears tohave strengthened this approach.43 In some cases,UNDP has worked with countries to improvetheir procurement procedures and system.

Harmonization: UNDP has used a number ofopportunities to promote harmonization withinthe UN system. Some of the examples include:Common Financial Regulations and Rules (fiveorganizations have harmonized their regulationsrelated to procurement); UN common codingsystem; common procurement reporting format;and a common database of suppliers (UnitedNations Global Market, adopted by 12 UNorganizations); and, as previously noted, theeffort made with the three other ExCommembers of UNDG to harmonize disburse-ments under HACT.

Managing for results: Results-based manage-ment has been systematically built into mostUNDP programmes in recent years. One of themost visible element of the approach was theadoption of Multi-year Funding Frameworks,with strategic goals designed to help focus theprogramme and improve communication withexternal stakeholders, particularly national govern-ments. Alignment of country office programmeswith strategic goals was further promoted by ashift of focus from project outputs to outcomes.44

Mutual accountability: Reporting on UNDPprogrammes is a standard procedure. The countrycase studies expressed positive attitudes regardingUNDP reporting and reliability.

3.4.2 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENTFUND FOR WOMEN (UNIFEM)

UNIFEM is the women’s fund of the UnitedNations. It has the dual mandate of supportinggender equality at the country level in line with

national priorities as well as promoting strongersupport by the UN development cooperationsystem for gender equality and women’sempowerment. For UNIFEM, aid effectivenessimplies addressing gender inequalities in develop-ment. UNIFEM sees a major opportunity forincreased emphasis on implementation ofnational commitments to gender equality inthe context of the PD principles’ (nationalownership, alignment and harmonization).

UNIFEM works towards more coordinatedsupport for gender equality and women’sempowerment by the UNCTs and otherdevelopment partners. With 15 sub-regionaloffices and programme offices in approximately40 countries, UNIFEM often works throughnetworks and UNCTs to provide support andtechnical expertise. Since late 2005, UNIFEMhas been focusing on national, regional and globalinitiatives to strengthen the gender equalitydimension of implementing the PD. To a largeextent, these initiatives have been aimed ateducation of advocates for gender equality.

The following are the key achievements by UNIFEM at the global, regional andcountry levels:

n Global: UNIFEM has developed a strategicpartnership with the European Commission(EC). In November 2005, UNIFEM and ECcosponsored the first global gathering on gender equality and the PD, bringingtogether government and civil society partnersto discuss opportunities for acceleratingprogress on gender equality. UNIFEM is anobserver to numerous OECD-DAC workingparties and networks (including GenderNetand GovNet), which have commissionedbackground analysis and organized meetings


43 UNDP procurement under National Execution during 2006 was $1.13 billion, or nearly 48 percent of total procurement under its programmes.

44 UNDP, Evaluation of Results-based Management in UNDP. Evaluation Office 2007.

to examine the challenge of ensuring thatgender equality and human rights are advancedthrough implementation of the PD. Withthe International Labour Organization(ILO) as part of the EC/UN programme,UNIFEM is supporting creation of a websiteon gender equality and aid effectiveness(www.gendermatters.eu).

n Regional: UNIFEM has convened regionalconsultations45 in nearly every region inwhich it works to bring together genderequality advocates from national mechanisms,women’s networks, ministries of financeand planning, relevant government depart-ments, UN organizations and bilateraldonors. These regional consultations weredesigned to support greater knowledge,demand and partnerships related to genderequality and aid effectiveness. A set ofworking papers has been produced from theseworkshops to support stronger attention togender equality at country level.

n Country: UNIFEM engages with the PDat the country level in two ways:

ì A new programme ‘EC/UN Partnershipon Gender Equality for Developmentand Peace’ is being implemented in 12pilot countries: Cameroon, DemocraticRepublic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana,Honduras, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan,Nepal, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea,Suriname and Ukraine. The purpose ofthe programme is to provide concreteevidence that addressing genderinequality contributes to sustainable,effective development and to create ademand at the country level forattention to gender equality in thecontext of PD implementation.

ì UNIFEM also supports coordinationand capacity development on genderequality in a number of areas relatedto the PD that are described under the sections on national ownership,alignment, managing for results, andmutual accountability.

With regard to the five PD principles UNIFEMhas made the following contributions.

Ownership: At least 120 counties have developednational plans for women’s empowerment ornational laws and policies on specific sectoralissues. Over the past three years, UNIFEMsupported efforts in 27 countries in this area.UNIFEM also supported legal and policy workin 52 countries and on democratic governancein 14 countries. This work was done as part ofcoordinated effort of the UNCTs and otherpartners. The plans are nationally owned butare often under-funded. UNIFEM has made it a high priority to support initiatives tomainstream gender equality commitments intonational plans and other processes such asPRSPs, National Development Strategies, JointAssistance Strategies and MDG processes.Since 2001 (prior to the PD), UNIFEM has supported 30 countries with GenderResponsive Budgeting.

Alignment: At country level, UNIFEMcontributes to the formulation of UNDAF,which in recent years has increasingly beenaligned to national development strategicframeworks, MDGs and sectoral focus ofwhich national gender policies and action plansare key. UNIFEM engagement in the UNDAFprocesses has increased from 14 in 2004 37 to42 in 2006.46 UNIFEM has supported strongergender equality dimensions in UNDAFs through


45 Held in Burundi, Djibouti and Ghana in 2006 and in Kazakhstan, Indonesia and Zambia in 2007.

46 UNIFEM,‘Report to the 46th Session of the UNIFEM Consultative Committee’, 2006.

chairing. UNIFEM undertook two reviews ofthe gender dimensions of UNDAFs in 2002 and2005 and has provided feedback to the UNDGon the findings as well as guidance on how tostrengthen gender equality in UNDAFs overall.

Harmonization: UNIFEM has worked closelywith UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA todevelop guidance for staff on complementari-ties in the work of the four organizations inpromoting gender equality and women’sempowerment at the country level.

Managing for results: UNIFEM has promotedthe use of disaggregated data and genderindicators in planning and programmingframeworks in close working partnerships withregional commissions (Economic Commissionfor Latin America and the Caribbean andUNECA). It supports efforts to bring statisticalproducers and statistics users together. Thiscontributes towards monitoring the performanceof public policies on gender equality. In itsinternal work, UNIFEM has developed aguide to results-based management from agender-equality and human-rights basedperspective and provides training to staff andpartners using this methodology, which it hasalso shared with other UN organizations.

Mutual accountability: UNIFEM supportsthe work of gender equality advocates both ingovernment and in civil society organizationsto ensure accountability of both developmentpartners and national governments for globalcommitments to gender equality. UNIFEM isplacing stronger emphasis on building internaland partner capacity on gender-responsiveevaluation including support for networks suchas the African Evaluation Network. UNIFEMhas had important experience convening multi-stakeholder gender equality evaluations involving

a number of donors and national partners (forexample, in Rwanda and Afghanistan) and hasprioritized this and peer evaluations with sisterUN organizations in line with the PD in itsStrategic Plan 2008-2011.

3.4.3 JOINT UNITED NATIONSPROGRAMME ON HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)

UNAIDS is a special UN entity that is thecollaborative AIDS-related programme of 10 UNAIDS cosponsors (ILO, UNDP,UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF,UNODC, WFP, WHO and the WB) and the UNAIDS Secretariat. It is guided by aProgramme Coordinating Board, a Committeeof Cosponsoring Organizations and a UnifiedBudget and Work Plan. UNAIDS was assignedthe role of a facilitator and mediator for allpartners in country-led efforts to enhancenational AIDS responses. This work is carriedout through the Secretariat and UNAIDS officesat country level. UNAIDS, with its partners, hasdeveloped an overall vision for the AIDS responseas well as a number of policy instruments andguidance papers in support of these processes.

As UNAIDS noted in a meeting earlier this year,it considers itself well ahead of the PD agendain that it was already working on universalprinciples that later gained global recognitionwith the PD principles and the UN Reforminitiatives and deliberations: ”UNAIDS wasborn 10 years before its time. Had it been bornnow, it would not have faced so many of thedifficulties it did in the beginning.”47 This self-assessment in terms of adherence to the PDprinciples is based on the following:

n In April 2004, a set of guiding principles fornational AIDS responses, known as the ‘ThreeOnes’ principles were endorsed by nationaland international partners and institutions.


47 UNAIDS and UN Reform, ’20th Meeting of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board’, Provisional agenda item 3.1, Geneva,Switzerland, 25-27 June 2007.

They included: One agreed HIV/AIDSAction Framework that provides the basisfor coordinating the work of all partners;One National AIDS Coordinating Authority,with a broad-based multi-sectoral mandate;One agreed country-level Monitoring andEvaluation System. The Three Ones becamewidely accepted as the optimal architectureto ensure the most efficient use of resources,and to ensure rapid action and results-basedmanagement in national AIDS responses.However, although the principles providedoverall guidance, they were soon consideredinsufficient to efficiently support scalingup efforts. In June 2005, the Global TaskTeam on Improving AIDS CoordinationAmong Multilateral Institutions and Inter-national Donors was launched. It provideda number of specific recommendations forimplementing the Three Ones. Through itsrecommendations for empowering nationalownership, alignment and harmonizationand stressing the need for a more effectivemultilateral response and accountability andoversight, it piloted key PD themes froman AIDS-response point of view.48 It alsoreiterated the UNAIDS Secretariat mandateto lead a process with UNAIDS cosponsorsto clarify and cost a UN system division of labour for technical support to assistcountries to implement their annualpriority AIDS action plans.

n UNAIDS contribution to the alignment andharmonization arrangements recommendedby the Global Task Team appeared in the

Consolidated UN Technical Support Planfor AIDS. The plan addresses implementationblockages based on the comparative advantagesof the cosponsors and a rational division of labour and foresees the identification of lead organizations for each technicalsupport area.49

n The UN Secretary-General further supportedthese processes in December 2005 when he directed the RCs “to establish jointUnited Nations Teams on AIDS with onejoint programme of support.” Directionswere given for the teams to work under theauthority of the RCs and the overallguidance of the UNCT to be facilitated bythe UNAIDS Country Coordinator.50

n In 2007, UNAIDS and the WB launchedthe Country Harmonization and AlignmentTool (CHAT).51.52 The CHAT is harmonizedwith key principles of the PD monitoringframework. At the country level, CHAT is meant to provide detailed qualitativeinformation on participation, harmonizationand alignment as well as on organizationalprocesses and relationships, and the roles andfunctions of both national and internationalpartners in the national AIDS response. Atthe global level, CHAT reports will be usedto identify international trends and gapsrelated to partner support for the interna-tional AIDS response.

n Another key tool is the Unified Budget andWorkplan that unifies in a single two-yearstrategic framework the coordinated AIDS


48 The Global Task Team,‘A pathway to implement the “Three Ones”, Opportunities for Scaling Up the Response to HIV at CountryLevel’, Guidance Note.

49 The Lead Organization—either a Co-sponsor or the Secretariat—was envisaged to be the single entry point for government and other relevant country-level stakeholders requiring support within a particular UNAIDS technical support area. The LeadOrganization would be primarily responsible for coordinating the provision and/or facilitation of this technical support, as identified in the Technical Support Division of Labour.

50 Letter from the Secretary General, Koffi Anan to UN Resident Coordinator of 12 December 2005.

51 ’Country Harmonization and Alignment Tool (CHAT)’, Geneva, Switzerland, June 2007.

52 Field testing of the pilot CHAT was carried out in seven countries (Botswana, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia,Nigeria, Somalia, and Zambia) and extensive involvement of national civil society was ensured in addition to full engagement andfeedback elicited from national and international partners in the piloting countries.

actions of the 10 UNAIDS sponsors andthe Secretariat. It is meant to serve as aframework for monitoring and assessingoutcomes of UNAIDS efforts and topromote cohesiveness in tracking andreporting and access to information of theco-sponsors. It was developed through acollaborative process involving all co-sponsors and the Secretariat.53

Since its creation, UNAIDS has been mandatedand has worked for principles that are in linewith the PD. The PD reinforced these effortsand UNAIDS’ role at the country level whenother development partners were mandatedtogether with partner countries to engage inthe implementation of joint, concerted andefficient interventions.

Ownership: Ownership was promoted bysupporting the formulation of National AIDSStrategies and multi-stakeholder nationalcoordination platforms chaired and facilitatedby national stakeholders. The channelling offunds through the Global Fund constituted aparticular challenge to joint coordinationefforts in many countries. This is because theGlobal Fund structures have worked in parallelwith other national coordination fora supportedby UNAIDS, such as the National AidsCouncils. Global Fund grant recipients havetended to be empowered, typically Ministriesof Health, and sometimes lose sight of overallnational response needs and efforts.

Alignment: Efforts toward alignment havebeen supported by the Joint Teams, in cooper-ation with other development partners, throughestablished country team/working groups inmost countries. These have facilitated an

enhanced dialogue with development partnerson substantial issues relevant to national strate-gies. UNAIDS has also, in line with the ‘ThreeOnes’ vision, been a key advocate for jointmonitoring and evaluation systems includingthe institution of a regular joint review ofprogress towards the main AIDS related goals.A total of 75 Joint Teams have been created sofar as well as 110 country teams. Policy andguidance papers have been put at the disposalof these groups.

Harmonization:These structures have also formedan important platform for harmonizationefforts and joint programming.54 The CHATtool was developed to help national authoritiesand their partners assess the engagement of country-based partners in the nationalresponse and the degree of harmonization andalignment among international partners.

Managing for results and mutual accountability:CHAT is also relevant for ensuring focus onresults and helping to form a basis for nationalprocesses of mutual accountability for perform-ance in national AIDS responses. Initiatives toput more specific accountability mechanisms inplace, such as individual accountability relatedto job performance and joint accountabilityrelated to the division of labour among agenciesand how they are supporting national processes,are still to be elaborated.

3.4.4 INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IFAD)

IFAD was active in the drafting of the PD andsigned the Declaration. In addition, IFAD hasparticipated in other fora that support theprinciples of the PD including: the Initiativeon UN System-wide Coherence (on which the


53 ‘2006-2007 Unified Budget and Workplan. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework’.

54 “No other UN entity serves such a cross-cutting function as UNIADS, rallying disparate UN bodies, including the World Bank,around a common cause and exemplifying the potential for a reformed UN system,” 20th Meeting of the UNAIDS ProgrammeCoordinating Board, 25-27 June 2007.

President of IFAD was a member of the High-level Panel); the OECD-DAC InternationalFinance Institutions Joint Venture on Managingfor Development Results, which promotesharmonization of frameworks for measuringand monitoring development results;55 and co-sponsored the Third Round Table onManaging for Development Results held inHanoi in February 2007. IFAD is also partici-pating in all eight One UN country pilots andplans to outpost two CPMs who will belocated in two of these countries.

The President of IFAD has impressed on the importance of following up on the PDprinciples. He emphasized that as a signatoryto the PD, IFAD was committed to working withgovernments and other development partnersto fulfill the PD partnership commitments,and that the interface with the UN family takeplace foremost at the country level.56 Heensured that IFAD adopted a systematicapproach to integrate PD principles in the fullrange of its activities.57 The recent report onIFAD’s development effectiveness devotes afull Chapter to ’Progress in Implementing thePartnership Commitments of the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness‘ and drawson the 2006 survey organized by OECD-DACto monitor progress on the PD, concludingthat IFAD already conforms with many of thePD commitments.58

Unlike most of the larger UN organizations andInternational Finance Institutions, IFAD doesnot have a tradition of country representatives.Its CPMs are mostly based at headquarters.

However, through its three-year Field PresencePilot Programme, IFAD did establish apresence in 15 countries based on locallyrecruited, highly qualified professionals. Whilethe initial pilot programme was to close at theend 2007, it will now continue with a slightincrement of CPM out-postings. IFAD’s in-country persons are mostly located in UNDPoffices, though in some cases they are locatedin Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)or WFP bureaus. As a result, a closer interactionat the level of the UNCTs may be observedover the past two years. In the many countriesthat do not have an IFAD country presence,CPMs from Rome continue to join UNCTs asnecessary. The lack of permanent representa-tion at the country level has limited the IFAD’sability to play the full partner role that wouldbe necessary to ensure that rural developmentgets appropriate attention in the UNCTs. The feedback from IFAD country managershas been that in many countries, UNCTs focusmainly on the social and humanitarian dimensionsof development while agriculture and ruraldevelopment are relegated to secondary place.IFAD considers that a more balanced approachbetween social and production orienteddevelopment is needed in countries with largerural poverty.

Against this background, IFAD has sought towork closely with its sister agencies in Rome,FAO and WFP. IFAD has pursued harmonizationinitiatives with respect to four areas: agriculturalinvestment; policy formulation, capacity develop-ment, knowledge management and advocacy;emergency and rehabilitation; and administration.


55 The International Finance Institutions Working Group on Managing for Development Results is producing a joint annual report ontheir own performance and effectiveness though the Common Performance Assessment System. IFAD is using some of the assessmentsystem’s indicators for benchmarking its own performance.

56 This was confirmed in a report to the IFAD Board. ‘IFAD’S Participation in the Harmonization Initiative and the 2005 Paris High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness’, 18-20 April 2005.

57 ‘IFAD’s Strategic Framework 2007-2010’. Report to Executive Board 12-24 December 2006.‘Results Measurement Framework forreporting on progress achieved against the IFAD Strategic Framework 2007-2010’. Report to Executive Board, 11-12 September 2007

58 ‘Report on IFAD’s Development Effectiveness’, Report for Executive Board, 11-13 December 2007.

Assessment of the administration focus wasreported on at the September 2007 ExecutiveBoard.59 The three other areas will be reportedon at the Executive Board in December 2007.

Commitments to donor harmonization at thecountry level have been more difficult toachieve: division of labour amongst interna-tional organizations is proving to be a complexissue. To date, there have only been a limitednumber of Joint Assistance Strategies. IFAD,with its limited country presence, has participatedin Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia and theUnited Republic of Tanzania, where it signed a memorandum of understanding with thegovernment and its development partners that defines ways to develop and implementthe Joint Assistance Strategy.

Ownership: A unique feature of IFAD is thatit is also an International Finance Institutionand provides loans to countries for projectsthat are implemented by the governments.IFAD’s country strategy and programminginstrument, the Country Strategic OpportunitiesPaper, is now prepared in close cooperation withcountry representatives. This process, whichstarted before the PD, has advanced to a pointwhere IFAD’s Board members have noted thatmanagement may be relying too much on suchinputs. IFAD’s observation on ownership isthat the PD has stimulated dialogue at thecountry level on how to improve the quality ofaid. It has also encouraged donor agencies to increasingly use country systems, thusempowering national institutions.

Alignment: Progress has been less pronouncedin this area. Alignment with UNDAFs hasbeen handicapped by IFAD’s limited country

presence and the fact that the UNDAFs oftenmake little reference to agriculture and ruraldevelopment. As a result, IFAD signatures inUNDAF have not been frequent. Conversely,there is now frequent use of local procurementsystems for IFAD projects, where such systemsmeet IFAD requirements.

Alignment with other donors has becomemore important with IFAD’s renewed efforts atco-financing. However, the new initiatives toobtain co-financing from other donors, haveresulted in more parallel, rather than joint,financing. This reflects continuing reluctance bymany donors to use a fully harmonized approach.

Harmonization: In general, IFAD does notuse its funds for DBS. Therefore, harmoniza-tion has been pursued most systematicallythrough SWAPs. IFAD introduced a new policyfor SWAPs in 200560 and engages actively inexisting agricultural SWAPs in Honduras,Mozambique, Nicaragua, Tanzania, and Uganda.Experience with agriculture and rural develop-ment SWAPs is mixed.61 Although they havecontributed to a more systematic dialoguebetween donors and government, strengthenedgovernment leadership and improved coordi-nation among donors, there have been only alimited number of agricultural SWAPs to date,and traditional projects continue to bedominant in the sector. Similarly, IFAD hasfound it difficult to move more broadly towardDBS because the goods and services for thebeneficiaries under its loans (e.g., supply ofinputs, building of small infrastructures,marketing services) are not well suited to beprovided by government. Thus alternativechannels to private sector, municipalities andthe like are being sought.


59 IFAD, ’Collaboration on Administrative and Processing Work between FAO, WFP and IFAD’, 2007.

60 IFAD, ’Sector Wide Approaches for Agriculture and Rural Development’, IFAD Policy, 2005.

61 Evans et al., ’Formulating and Implementing Sector-Wide Approaches in Agriculture and Rural Development – Synthesis Report’,Report to the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, Overseas Development Institute, 2007.

Managing for results: As part its 2005 ActionPlan, IFAD has introduced a comprehensiveset of results-oriented management instrumentswith a corresponding reporting hierarchy,including Results-Based Country StrategicOpportunities Programmes (RB-COSOP),Divisional Management Plans and a ResultsMeasurement Framework. A major deliverableof the RB-COSOPs relates to harmonizingresults management tools with partner countries’emerging Performance Assessment Frameworkperformance evaluation.

Mutual accountability: IFAD is engaged in a variety of relationships that impact aideffectiveness. For example, IFAD is a memberof consultative groups such as ConsultativeGroup to Assist the Poor and is undertaking ajoint evaluation with African DevelopmentBank on Agriculture and Rural Developmentin Africa. In addition, IFAD participates in someUNDAFs and has recently signed a memorandumof understanding with the African DevelopmentBank on moving towards mutual accountabilityin western and central Africa. In addition, annualreviews of RB-COSOP implementation areexpected to involve other in-country donors.At the project-level, emphasis is placed onensuring increased beneficiary participation in interventions targeting activity planning,implementation and M&E. Efforts are alsobeing made to provide full disclosure ofAWPBs in projects and assess implementationprogress and impact.

3.4.5 UNITED NATIONS ECONOMICCOMMISSION FOR AFRICA (UNECA)

UNECA has a dual role as the regional arm ofthe UN and as a key continental institutionalong with the African Union and the AfricanDevelopment Bank. The pressing nature of thedevelopment challenges facing Africa and thepotential downside of their exclusion from the benefits of globalization led UNECA to re-examine its strategic orientation in 2006-2007

in order to respond fully to the needs of itsmember states and their regional economiccommunities. This resulted in a focus on tworelated areas:

n Promoting regional integration in supportof the African Union’s regional integrationagenda, including assistance to the regionaleconomic communities that will requirework on a range of cross-border activitiesand initiatives in several sectors that arevital to the regional integration agenda.

n Meeting Africa’s special needs and emergingglobal challenges, emphasizing: supportefforts to eradicate poverty, placing Africancountries on the path of growth andsustainable development, reversing themarginalization of Africa in the globaliza-tion process, enhancing Africa’s integrationinto the global economy, and acceleratingthe empowerment of women. It also takesinto account the important role of goodgovernance and strong institutions in thedevelopment process.

Building partnerships with other organizationsis to be given major attention to ensure coherenceand avoid duplication on continental issues.UNECA will work with UNDP, the agenciesin the UNDG and others. Accordingly,UNECA will align its activities with theUnited Nations family through consultationsat the regional and sub-regional level.

Given the significance of the PD for Africa andthe interest that African countries have shownin the PD, UNECA was actively involved inthe PD. It views the PD, the MonterreyConsensus, the World Summit Outcome andthe G8 Gleneagles Declaration, as promises madeby Africa’s development partners for an overalleffort to scale up resources for development in the region—commitments driven by theneed to accelerate progress toward meeting


the MDGs.62 UNECA considers the PD to be “the first comprehensive attempt made bydeveloping and developed countries to takeconcrete steps to enhance aid effectiveness.”63

Against this background, UNECA has played amajor role in addressing the mutual accounta-bility dimension incorporated in the PD.Following up on a request of the NewPartnership for African Development Heads of State and Government ImplementationCommittee, UNECA and OECD prepared a‘Joint Report on Development Effectiveness in Africa’ in 2005.64 The purpose of this firstreport was to establish a system of trackingperformance by both African countries andtheir OECD development partners against thepublicly stated commitment that had been madewith the founding of the New Partnership for African Development,65 the MonterreyConsensus, the PD and the G8 Action Plan forAfrica. The report covers the following areas:

n MDGs: Inclusive growth and the role ofagriculture and trade

n Governance and capacity development:Africa’s critical frontier

n Aid flows and the quality of aid: Scaling upand implementing the Aid Reform agenda

n Policy coherence: Challenges for Africanand OECD governments

The PD commitments are an integral part ofthe report. The 2007 performance benchmarksof the Joint Report are to be monitored in thenext review process that is planned in time forthe 2008 High Level Forum.

Since the Joint UNECA-OECD Report,UNECA has assessed progress against theMonterrey Consensus and the PD using four country case studies.66 The 2007 reportfound the following progress along the five PD dimensions.67

Ownership: Progress in this area has been mixed,with some countries taking effective leadership(Kenya) while others (Malawi) have not.

Alignment: Some progress was made in aligningdonor support to developing countries’ nationaldevelopment frameworks, however, progress inaligning donor support to country institutionsand processes was considered ‘lackluster’. Lackof predictability of aid flows was reported asundermining development effectiveness.

Harmonization: Again, mixed results were found.Some donors expressed strong willingness forharmonization, including joint missions, jointanalytical work and joint donor-governmentassessment of technical capacity development(for example in Kenya). But in other countries(Malawi, Mozambique) multiple and overlap-ping processes, missions, reviews and meetingscontinue to be the norm.

Managing for results: Progress in this area islimited. Donors continue to rely on their ownM&E systems due to weak and fragmentedcountry M&E systems, despite commitments tosupport countries in strengthening their systems.

Mutual accountability: Studies reveal thatalthough African countries have progressed in


62 UNECA,‘The Monterrey Consensus and Development in Africa: Progress, Challenges and Way Forward‘, August 2007, p v.

63 Ibid, p 18.

64 ‘Promise and Performance: Applying Mutual Accountability’, October 2005.

65 At the 37th Summit of the OAU in July 2001 when the New Partnership for African Development strategic framework documentwas formally adopted.

66 Ghana, Kenya, Malawi and Mozambique. Study was commissioned by the African Forum and Network on Debt and Development.

67 UNECA,‘The Monterrey Consensus and Development in Africa: Progress, Challenges and Way Forward‘, August 2007.

strengthening their accountability to donorcountries, they have made limited progress inimproving accountability to their domesticconstituencies, including parliaments and civilsocieties, undermining the ownership for thedevelopment process.

Recently, UNECA issued the results from asurvey of African policy makers in 32 countries.68

The survey sought to capture their perceptionof progress made in the implementation of theMonterrey Consensus. The returns came mainlyfrom central banks, ministries of finance,planning and economic development. Overall,the respondents responded that progress onreaching the Consensus objectives was verylimited except for debt relief. Performance was especially disappointing in the areas ofinternational trade and external and domesticresource mobilization. According to respondents,the main challenges to implementing theConsensus were poor governance, weak infra-structure, a non-supportive investment climate,inadequate implementation of policies and strate-gies, lack of national ownership of developmentprogrammes, lack of harmonization of aid bydonors, the unpredictability and tying of aid tosuppliers from donor country, and low accessto the markets of developed countries.

UNECA has taken on the commitment underthe PD in the area where it has a specialadvantage: mutual accountability. The questionhas been raised regarding how UNECA’s focuson building up regional economic communitieson the African continent can be linked to thePD objectives. While this subject is not readyfor consideration under the present assessment,given the absence of any reference to regionalintegration in the PD itself, it may well fit intofuture deliberations on the scope of the PD.

3.4.6 UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND (UNFPA)

Consultations with UNFPA at the headquarterslevel indicated strong leadership provided inimplementing various dimensions of the PD.The UNFPA strategic direction focuses on sup-porting national ownership, leadership and capacitydevelopment. UNFPA has also encouraged aresults-based management framework morefully in the last two years.69 UNFPA is graduallymoving from a focus on projects to policyformulation. Thus, over the past two years UNFPAhas increased its involvement in SWAPs.

Recently, UNFPA produced guidance notes onits new role in a changing aid environment,’From Policy to Practice—Operational GuidanceNotes 2007’. These provide guidance to staff at the country level on the shift in UNFPA’sstrategic entry for development support tocountries. The new technical focus areas are inline with the PD principles: risk analysis andmanagement, budgets, audits, procurement,resource mobilization and staffing requirements.

The following brief review of UNFPA contri-butions to PD implementation focuses onharmonization, alignment but also on resultsmanagement and mutual accountability:

n In at least eight, of the 27 countries inwhich UNFPA is active, its financialcontributions are harmonized with countryfunding mechanisms.

n UNFPA organized numerous workshops anddeveloped a resource document on SWAPs,based on experiences in the field.

n Advocated its UNFPA mandate within theframework of national strategic framework andsector policies, strategies including budgets.


68 UNECA,‘Perspectives of African Countries on the Monterrey Consensus: Results of a Survey’, October 2007. Out of 106 questionnairessent out 57were returned, reflecting a response rate of slightly more than 50 percent .

69 UNFPA,‘Strategic Plan, 2008-2011: Accelerating Progress and National Ownership of the ICPD Programme of Action’, 2007.

n Advocated result based approaches tostrengthen the design and implementationof SWAPs.

n Made a concerted effort in the last twoyears to apply Results Based Management.UNFPA now prepares Bi-Annual Budgetsin Results-based Management Framework.

n Commissioned an evaluation of SWAPs in the eight countries where it is involved:Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mali,Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. The evalua-tion results are expected in April 2008 andwill be presented at the High Level Forumon PD to be held in Accra, Ghana.

UNFPA has country offices in all of the sixcountries included in this evaluation, and itplays a significant role in their UNCTs. Somespecific UNFPA activities merit mention thecontext of their support to implementation ofthe PD.

n In Mauritania, UNFPA leads the UNCTin HIV/AIDS related work. Reproductivehealth issues were high on the respectiveworking group’s agenda. However, SWAPswere not at an advanced stage there.

n In Ethiopia, UNFPA plays a key role inadvocating reproductive health issues atthe policy levels. These were included inthe national strategic framework. UNFPAalso exercises a leadership role in advocatinggender equality issues on behalf of theUNCT vis-à-vis all development partners.

Working closely with the government(ministries of Finance and EconomicDevelopment, Gender, and Health),UNFPA took the successful initiative for aBasket Gender Fund to address health andreproductive issues within a framework of addressing gender inequalities. Theprogramme, Leave no Woman Behind,addresses education, maternal mortalityand the empowerment of women throughthe extension of micro-credit.

n In Lao PDR, UNFPA plays a lead role inthe Health Sector Working Group and inthe development of a SWAP that is now at an advanced stage. UNFPA is alsoresponsible for advocating for genderequality. When it comes to harmonizationof agency funding, UNFPA is one of thethree EX-Com Agencies that already haveoperationalized HACT.

Concerns were raised regarding UNFPA jointplanning with other UN organizations withinthe UNCT context. UNFPA in Ethiopia reportedthat more progress was made on maternalhealth and gender issues when UNFPA workeddirectly with relevant ministries as opposed toawaiting the work within the UNCT group:the advocacy for gender programme and aGender Fund was an example. The UNFPAcountry office’s concern in this contextevidently was related to the level of commit-ment to addressing gender equality which itviewed as rather weak among various agenciesrepresented in the UNCT.



KEY FINDINGS REGARDING COMMITMENT

n Commitment to the PD principles was strong among the UNDG members reviewed, particularly in regardsto ownership and to alignment with national development strategies. The behaviour expected under the PDwas much facilitated by the already prevailing principles of engagement by UNDG members vis-à-vis partnercountries and other development partners. However, RCs and UNCTs may face situations, such as humanrights or emergency assistance, that extend beyond the scope of the PD. Thus, at times, commitment to thePD may be challenged in some countries by more overriding concerns.

n Implementation of the PD was greatly helped by institutional arrangements (mainly RC/UNCT system androundtables) and processes (such as UNDAF) that had been put in place by UNDG before signing the PD inMarch 2005. These elements have been reinforced by the PD—a finding that is supported by RC assessmentsof progress made under the PD dimensions in PD signatory versus non-signatory countries.

n Application of the PD principles was uneven when it came to alignment and harmonization. Alignment wasgenerally considered positive between donor and partner strategies, but poorer regarding donors’ use ofstrengthened country systems. On the whole, harmonization was poor among UNDG members and otherdonors. However, efforts have been made in aligning UNDG members’ activities (using strengthened countrysystems) and in harmonizing some UNDG members’ activities. Adapting UNDG members’ processes to thePD principle of greater harmonization remains a major challenge for the group.

In order to increase capacity for implementingthe PD, UNDG members have focused on usingexisting institutional set-ups, reinforcing themwhen useful, and educating staff about the PD.The selective strengthening within UNDG andsome participating entities was noted in Chapter 3.This is most evidenced by the institutional build-up of UNAIDS since 2004. UNAIDS is thenewest programme among the UNDG membersand evolved largely along lines found in the PD.Another example of UNDG members adaptingcapacity to implement the PD is shown in Box 2.

The effort to provide direction on implementingPD started out with the guidance in the UNDG

Chair’s letter of July 2005 that included theUNDG action plan for PD implementation andbackground material on MDGs and UN reform.This was followed with other instructions andguidelines, including the UNDG Paris Decla-ration Guidance Website on National Ownershipand Aid Effectiveness.70 The Chair’s 2005 letteralso recognized pertinent earlier UNDG guide-lines, including the UNDG Guidance Note onUN Country Team Engagement in PRSPs71 andones on the Common Country Assessmentand UNDAF.72

Post PD, UNDP organized a workshop on aideffectiveness for the Western Balkans in 2006.

CHAPTER 4. ASSESSING CAPACITITES 31

ASSESSING CAPACITIESCHAPTER 4

BOX 2. ADAPTING AN AGENCY’S CAPACITY TO PARIS DECLARATION PRINCIPLES

IFAD is an interesting example of adapting capacity to the PD principles. Since its first association with thePD, IFAD has sought to mainstream the related commitments. This is reflected in the wide range of operationalactivities that refer to the PD: policy documents, including Country Strategic Opportunities Papers; the corporate-level results measurement framework; lending related documents; and evaluations of the independent Office ofEvaluation. These activities show that the PD commitments have been incorporated extensively by managementand staff. This success may be a reflection of IFAD’s different organizational set-up compared to most UNDGmembers: IFAD is small and concentrated in one location, which gives it the advantage of management andstaff being able to absorb, under strong leadership from the top, the directions emanating from the PD withgreater ease than large and decentralized UN organizations. IFAD has shown less of a need for the panoply offormal guidelines and for training. This efficiency was probably underpinned further by two IFAD specificfactors: the nature of its close International Financial Institution interactions with its borrower governments inmany areas identified in the PD, and its close involvement in, and familiarity with, the Rome Declaration,which preceded the PD by almost a year.

Adapting IFAD’s capacity to the PD was enhanced by its programme to increase its presence in 15 countriesthat started just prior to the PD, leading to closer interaction at the country level, including through UNCTs.In addition, IFAD strengthened its internal capacity to implement PD commitments by allocating the responsibilityfor fostering and monitoring PD commitments to a seasoned advisor in the Programme ManagementDepartment, which is under an Assistant Vice President.

70 Available online at http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=219.

71 UNDG.‘Guidance Note. UN Country Team Engagement in PRSPs’, 1 December 2003.

72 Common Country Assessment (CCA) and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) were adopted asstrategic planning tools for the UN system as part of the 1998 UN reform agenda Guidelines for their preparation were first issuedin April 1999. They were revised in May 2002, October 2003 and February 2007.

It also organized workshops with OECD-DAC, WB, and the African Development Bankfor Eastern/Southern Africa (held in Ugandain 2005) and for North/West/Central Africa(held in Mali in 2006), and follow-up workshopson aid management for Western Balkans (2007),for West Africa (2007), and for Southern andEastern Africa (2007). The UNDP Madridconference on capacity development ofNovember 2006 also focused also on aideffectiveness and PD implementation. UNDPhas a website dedicated to aid effectiveness73

and an internal collaborative workspace on PDimplementation for sharing of tools, lessonsand practices.74

The survey of RCs examined the issue of staffguidance on implementing the PD.75 Overall,the RCs found the guidance low or insufficient(57 percent in SCs and 80 percent in NSCsThis suggest that guidance should be: increased;adapted to country-specific situations; coherentacross different agencies; and enforced bycommitment from members.

CHAPTER 4. ASSESSING CAPACITITES32

73 Available online at www.devaid.org.

74 Available online at http://content.undp.org/go/practices/poverty/aid-coordination.

75 Survey question was:“To which extent have specific instructions, guidelines, operational directives been developed and disseminatedto staff to facilitate implementation and assessment of the PD?”

KEY FINDINGS REGARDING CAPACITY

n UNDG members used existing institutional structures and reinforced them where necessary, except in the case where a new institution (UNAIDS) found the principles underlying the PD relevant to its development.

n Most of the capacity development to enable UNDG members to implement the PD has taken the form ofspecific instructions, guidelines and training to educate staff about the PD. Prior commitments to major PDprinciples embodied in such guidance as for CCAs and UNDAFs were helpful in this process.

n The main challenge for UNDG members to ensure relevancy of their guidance on the PD principles was theneed to adapt guidance and training to the varying country circumstances that their UNCTs face.

Integrating existing UN development goalswith those of the PD requires a reorientation ofincentives to become effective. The people whomake up the UNDG organizations need to beconvinced and motivated on a sustained basisabout the new direction. This challenge hasbeen approached through guidance and trainingas well personnel performance assessment. TheInternational Civil Service System that is usedacross the UN does not allow for directmonetary recognition to those UNDG officerswho make an outstanding contribution to suchan effort (only medals and other non-monetaryawards are allowed).

UNDG organizations use Results and Compe-tency Assessments for personal goal setting andrecognition for managers. An RC’s Results andCompetency Assessment contains 5 headings toassess results and competencies as coordinator ofthe UNCT, 13 itemized headings that relate toother, non-UNCT related, results and competen-cies, as well as supplementary assessments bysenior officers of organizations represented in aUNCT.76 A new initiative like the PD that hasclear implications for the role of the UNCT willbe recognized as part of the RC’s assessment.However, the requirement for an assessment of the specific contribution of a UNCT staffmember to the implementation of the PDappears to be limited to the RC.

The interview feedback from UNDG agenciesand others interviewed through their RRs wasthat performance assessments address the PD

agenda indirectly through the recognition ofstaff and managers’ contributions to develop-ment effectiveness. Setting staff and managers’objectives and performance assessments againstPD-related objectives has many facets. It tendsto include effectiveness in the achievement ofagency programme objectives, such as thedevelopment of results-based Country StrategicOpportunities Papers (at IFAD), of sectorspecific SWAPs (at UNFPA), or of mobilizationof pool funding (at UNDP).

The interview feedback also noted that organi-zations may have objectives that are not alwaysconsistent with PD principles. In particular,the pressure within organizations to achieveprogramme results in a timely fashion isunabated. This pressure takes many forms,such as using well established and locallyproven agency-specific procurement rules toachieve urgent purchases and distributionrather than waiting on interagency initiative oradhering to untested partner country rules. Inother words, basic incentives to carry out anagency’s own programme continue to affectagency staff behaviour, in particular those whoanticipate that demand for their personalservices could be affected through PD inducedharmonization. It takes new incentives to changesuch patterns.

Therefore, the RC survey responses regardingincentives to implement the PD are of specialinterest. Only 25 percent of RCs in the SCs(and 20 percent in NSCs) believe that full

CHAPTER 5. ASSESSING INCENTIVES 33

ASSESSING INCENTIVESCHAPTER 5

76 Note that RCs are selected from a pool of candidates from all UN organizations. At present, one third of the RCs are non-UNDPpersons; there is an expectation that this proportion would increase to 50 percent in the years ahead.

CHAPTER 5. ASSESSING INCENTIVES34

attention has been given to incentives for PDimplementation.77 In fact, not one noted thatincentives had received ‘very high’ attention.Based on the responses, it appears thatincentives have remained unchanged since the PD was introduced. Prior to the PD,performance assessments of in-country staffused core criteria that are now incorporated inthe PD: effective relationships with govern-ment and other partners, and the ability tointegrate agency programmes into a nationalstrategy. However, as noted by one RC, evenwith the significant weight attached to theRC’s handling of the UNCT, implementationof the agency’s programme was the mostimportant factor in his performance evaluation.As another survey respondent noted, complying

with the PD is just one of several policies thatthe RC and UNCT are expected to pursue,others include the promotion of peace andrespect of human rights. The relative weight ofthese policy objectives should vary accordingto a country situation.

This assessment, at both headquarter and countrylevels, shows that incentives for implementingthe PD ought to extend beyond the traditionalconcept of giving inducements to a person or ateam. Intra- and inter-agency obstacles stand inthe way of successfully implementing the PD.78

Only strong leadership and the conviction amongstaff that the PD principles are in the interestof the agencies will change the behaviour ofresisting necessary changes.

77 Survey question:“To which extent are there specific incentives provided by UN agencies – e.g. for recruitment, performance assessment and training – for their management and staff to comply with the PD principles?”

78 Inter-agency obstacles are more transparent and have been identified and addressed under a variety of harmonization initiatives.

KEY FINDINGS REGARDING INCENTIVES

n Those who are expected to take primary responsibility in implementing the PD, the RCs, find incentives specificto this endeavour weak. However, their performance evaluation directly addresses PD-related responsibilities.For the many other UNDG member staff involved in the implementation of the PD, this dimension isassessed in their performance evaluation only indirectly, mainly through agreed work programmes.

n For incentives to implement the PD to become effective, the concept of ‘incentive’ would need to bebroadened to directly address the factors that stand in the way of greater progress, especially harmonization.

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The six countries that the evaluation teamvisited vary significantly. Table 1 captures themost important indicators79 that were found todetermine the context for UNDG members’role during the country reviews. Three countries(Ethiopia, Lao PDR and Mauritania) are highlyaid dependent; two are middle income countries(Ukraine and Gabon); while Cameroon falls ina middle range.

UNDG’s developmental role through the RC andthe UNCT was more pronounced in countrieswith the highest aid dependency, even more so when compounded by a large population.Furthermore, the role of UN representation in

many countries extended well beyond thedevelopment effectiveness role that the PDaddresses. For instance, in Ukraine and inMauritania, the UN representatives playedimportant roles in political reconciliationprocesses. In Ethiopia, they dealt with majorhumanitarian problems in conflict areas.

Before assessing progress made by UNDGcontributions to PD implementation in the sixcountries, it is important to note that thesecountries varied significantly in their commitmentto PD. At one end of the spectrum, Ethiopiawas deeply involved in the preparation of thePD (after having been a pilot country for theRome Declaration) and took the initiative for

CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTING THE PARIS DECLARATION AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL 35

IMPLEMENTING THE PARIS DECLARATION AT

THE COUNTRY LEVEL

CHAPTER 6

COUNTRY POPULATION(MILLIONS)

HUMAN DEVELOPMENTINDEX RANKING

AID DEPENDENCY*

Ethiopia 72.7 170 17.1

Mauritania 3.2 153 10.0

Lao PDR 5.8 133 11.3

Cameroon 16.7 144 5.5

Gabon 1.4 124 0.8

Ukraine 46.6 77 0.5

TABLE 1. PRINCIPAL CASE-STUDY COUNTRY INDICATORS

*Aid dependency was measured as official development assistance as a percentage of gross national income.Sources: Population and aid dependence, WB; human development index, UNDP.

79 Governance, in the broad interpretation (including, for example, corruption levels) has been a contextual factor impacting on PDimplementation efforts in all countries. No objective indicator was found to capture fully this dimension.

improving on PD targets after signing theDeclaration. At the other end of the spectrum,Gabon and Ukraine became signatories to thePD only subsequent to the March 2005 Parisconference. Gabon’s signing of the PD inMarch 2006 resulted largely from the sensitizingefforts made by the UNCT. Cameroon, LaoPDR and Mauritania were all original signatories.Notably, the government of the Lao PDR,endorsed the Vientiane Declaration on AidEffectiveness at a Round Table Meeting inNovember 2006, together with 24 developmentpartners. Lao PDR stakeholders described thisas an example of ‘domesticating’ the PD.

The main findings from the country case studies,in terms of progress by, and constraints on,UNCTs are summarized in Annex 7.

6.2 OWNERSHIP

The leadership in developing and implementingnational development strategies, including througha broad consultative process, has varied consid-erably across the six countries. Where nationalplanning was not backed up by sound policiesand strategies that addressed poverty reductionas well as sector and thematic strategies,important questions remained as to thestrength of ownership. Thus confidence in thenational ownership of the strategies andprogrammes by donors was uneven. The factthat civil society was fragmented and/or notfully engaged in the national planning processwas a concern in almost all the six countrycases. In Ethiopia, participation of civil societyorganizations was limited. In addition, after astrong initial development strategy, programmeand support from donors, the post 2005 electiondisturbances diminished the predictability ofaid flows.

National development programmes are basedin most cases on PRSPs that closely follow thePD. However, weaknesses in coordination and

capacities were found to undermine the strengthof ownership in most of the six countries. InCameroon, the strong involvement of theMinistry of Economy and Finance in the PRSP and related medium-term programmewas not balanced by a similar involvement ofthe line ministries.

The UNDG/UNCT contribution to strength-ening ownership mainly took the form of assistinggovernments in strengthening capacity toprepare and execute their country developmentstrategies and plans. Because country ownershipvaried largely, the role of the UNCT alsovaried. On the whole, UNCT assistance wasfound beneficial. However, the Laos experiencedraws attention to the limits for such support:UNCT’s deep involvement in Laos’ VientianeDeclaration and the Country Action Plan washelpful but potentially excessive. Countrypartners noted that it did not leave enoughroom for true government leadership.

Widespread UNCT assistance in improvingcoordination in support from external sourcesmerits special mention. The close interactionbetween the UNCT and DAG in Ethiopia, bothunder the chairmanship (or co-chairmanship)of the RC, is an example of a very helpfulUNDG role, especially during a period ofstrain between the government and donors in acountry with a very large ODA programme. InGabon, the RC/UNCT was instrumental insetting up a coordination structure for interactionamong the development partners. However,given the country’s small ODA programme, theimpact on overall country strategy was limited.

Most of the findings related to the UNDG/UNCT support for strengthening ownershippredate the PD, confirming that this PDobjective had already been part of UNDGmembers’ principles of engagement. But thebroadly accepted commitment to the PD hasreinforced and further shaped past experienceswhen it comes to ownership.

CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTING THE PARIS DECLARATION AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL36

6.3 ALIGNMENT

At the policy level, generally good alignmentwas found with UNDG members. UNDAFswere prepared increasingly to coincide with thegovernment’s own planning period, facilitatingperiod-specific alignment with governmentpriorities and the often underlying PRSPs.Working groups (in some countries calledtechnical groups) within UNCTs that coverdifferent sectors and/or crosscutting issues,provided many opportunities for alignment basedon joint government-donor planning andprogramming, from strategy and action plandevelopment to detailed activity level design.The transition to new aid modalities (such asSWAPs, DBS and increased specialization bydonors) was helped, for instance in Ethiopia,by the presence since the late 1990s of theDAG co-chaired by the RC and the residentWB Director.80 The working groups also haveanother function that falls within the PDprinciples by helping UNDG members andbroader aid groupings (like DAG in Ethiopia) toachieve specialization and coordination essentialfor alignment and harmonization (see below).

While the UNDAF advanced alignment byUNDG members represented in the UNCTand under the leadership of the RC, UNDAFis not an instrument for allocating financialresources beyond broad parameters. Theeffectiveness of the UNCTs and their workinggroups in terms of alignment of activities hadgreater significance when it came to action plansand similar programming. However, it appearedthat most projects and programmes were still‘going their own way’. This was partly due to theneed for frequent change within broadly definedprogramme parameters, and more important,because some donors felt a need to refocus their

programmes on particular sectors and strengthenservice delivery and capacity development.

Governments sought improved alignment andharmonization in order to reduce transactioncosts. The Ethiopian government impressed thispoint by emphasizing the heavy burden imposedby the differences in operational systems usedby each donor. Noting that the PD targets hadbeen set at the lowest threshold to satisfy theconcerns of approximately 170 countries withhighly diverse issues, the Ethiopian governmentwent a step further and sought to improve on thePD targets. As noted, this initiative was put onhold after the 2005 post-election disturbances.

On the whole, progress towards the PD targetsfor 2010 was low, despite the progress made atthe policy level. Where improvements havebeen reported, they relate primarily to bettercoordination of aid related activities. Donorsdid not significantly increase use of nationalsystems. The reason for this was most often thesesystems were not up to international standards.Despite some specific improvements, many ofthe donors restrictions imposed by agency specificrequirements (including the developmentpartners in the UNCT) remain, including inareas of planning, financial arrangements,disbursements, M&E and reporting. It shouldbe noted that none of the six countries belongto the pilot countries for ONE UN.

The role played by Project ImplementationUnits was significant in most countries. This isunlikely to change except over time. Greateremphasis was given to the newer modalities ofSWAPs and DBS. However, the project imple-mentation and management roles of ProjectImplementation Units81 need to be taken on by


80 In mid 2007, the chairmanship was changed to a multilateral co-chair (RC and WB rotating every six months) and a bilateral co-chair(donor country representative rotating every 12 months) in order to ensure fuller representation of the large bilateral donor community.

81 “Where parallel systems exist such as in PIUs [Project Implementation Units], the UN will support transition plans towards fullyusing national systems…” Letter from UNDG chair, July 2005.

line ministries or specialized institutions (oftenat local levels)—a development that depends onsystematic capacity development at these levels.This process is further complicated by frequentstaff changes in the public sector, particularlywhere a booming private sector is siphoningoff some of the better public-sector staff.

6.4 HARMONIZATION

Donors and the UNCT development partnersreported some successes in improving coordi-nation of their activities. For example, in Gabon,UNCT facilitated the establishment of anoversight matrix of development cooperationengagements, a tool that was helpful for both thedonors and the government. In Mauritania,there was excellent interaction between ahighly committed RC and local WB directorthat overcame institutional constraints,although their departure illustrates that suchharmonization may not be sustained. Jointsector programming was observed in variousforms in the six countries, especially when itcame to HIV/AIDS, where the coordinationinitiatives of UNAIDS have been paying off at the country level.

However, harmonization in the full PD sense ismore distant. Harmonization is difficult to startat the country level. As long as donors havedifferent operating modalities, there is littlethat even a well coordinated local aid group or aUNCT can do. There is a need for harmoniza-tion with local systems, but such harmonization

is unlikely to occur when there is no start at theheadquarter or institutional level.

ODA in most of the six country cases is stillprovided through dedicated projects andprogrammes, although SWAPs have becomemore common and DBS has been noted insome cases. This means only small changes havebeen made to the traditional costly multiplereporting, procurement, accounting and thelike. The predictability of ODA flows, which isparticularly important when it comes to DBS,also affects harmonization. Ethiopia’s experienceindicates that predictability has regressed ratherthan progressed (though a partial solution wasfound in that case through changes in thedestination channel for DBS for critical poverty-related services).

Harmonization under the HACT and standardDaily Subsistence Allowance for the ExComagencies was observed in Lao PDR. Someinitial steps had also been made in Mauritaniaand Gabon. This important initiative suggeststhat when harmonization is addressed byagency headquarters, the prospects of helpingdeveloping partners harmonize procedures andreduce transaction costs are good. HACT isbased on a highly demanding initial assessmentof country- and project-specific accountingand auditing process. Its introduction thereforerequires substantial upfront cost and may evenbe questioned in countries where ExComagencies’ projects have an overwhelming localcontribution. Interestingly, there was no referenceto possibly extending HACT and standard Daily


BOX 3. HARMONIZATION VERSUS COORDINATION

A good deal of confusion exists between the definition of ‘coordination’ versus ‘harmonization’. Coordinatingdonor missions may mean maintaining a large number of missions running in a well coordinated parallel fashion;harmonizing means combining missions of different agencies. Similarly, co-financing may mean coordinatedparallel financing with the panoply of multiple procurement/disbursement/reporting arrangement, or harmonizedjoint financing. Thus coordination may mean harmonization but the test for real harmonization is reduced costand/or a measurably improved service.

Subsistence Allowance beyond the ExComagencies, although many other UNCT memberagencies have programmes that might benefitfrom HACT.

Harmonization of bilateral assistance facesanother challenge in that most donors areanxious to show their constituents specific resultsfrom an intervention with a donor’s money.Moreover, in cases of DBS or other non-project/programme assistance, an official audit reportspecifying the effects of assistance may berequested by bilateral donors, even thoughattribution of specific results to a particulardonor may be difficult to establish. AlthoughDBS is an exception for UNDG members, thisconcern could apply to them as well.

6.5 MANAGING FOR RESULTS

Progress in this area has been mixed, but showssome interesting results. In Cameroon, aPRSP with clearly marked quantified targetsand MDG benchmarks and timetables wasfound, but national statistical data were foundto be weak. In Ethiopia, there was a verydetailed (some donors felt overly detailed) planwith clear benchmarks tied to the MDG and astrengthened national statistical office and thepromise of annual progress reports.

However, there was often a gap between nationaldevelopment strategies and programmes andresults-oriented reporting in the case-studycountries. The presence of a strong nationalstatistical office with capacity for beneficiarysurveys is critical to credible management ofresults. Assistance to statistical offices is needed

on a long-term and comprehensive basis in orderto build the necessary capacities. Two exampleshave already been noted: the national statisticaloffice in Ethiopia received long-term assistancefrom the WB and Sweden’s 15 years of supportto the national statistical system in Laos.

Donor reliance on national performance indicatorswas an exception, not the rule, due to a lack ofconfidence in the underlying systems. Harmoni-zation of reporting, as already noted, is lagging.Donor support for capacity development toimprove results-oriented reporting, monitoringand assessment frameworks exists, especially by UNDP.

6.6 MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Overall, mutual accountability is the one areaamong the five PD dimensions where progressis still at an initial stage. An independent aidassessment, jointly agreed between governmentand donors and coordinated by UNDP, occurredin Cameroon and Mauritania. A number ofgovernments expressed an interest in more workon mutual accountability, especially in light ofconcerns about predictability of aid flows.

UNECA’s substantial work with OECD-DAC,discussed in Chapter 3, should be viewed as aneffort in this area. In addition, UNDP’s 2006Evaluation Policy states the need to provide an objective assessment of contributions todevelopment results, assessing its programmesand operations in a transparent way to enhanceaccountability towards partner countries.UNAIDS CHAT tool is aimed at enhancingmutual accountability by assessing the role ofthe various partners.



KEY FINDINGS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION

n PD implementation has progressed (at varying levels and speeds) in all countries reviewed, with substantialinvolvement from RCs and UNCTs. The UNCT role was most evident in the countries with the largest ODA dependency.

n UNCTs and their working groups have provided an important coordination structure for implementing thePD agenda. They were particularly effective where the RC was deeply involved in chairing aid coordinationarrangements together with other development partners.

n UNCTs have been helpful in the progress of most PD categories, especially when it comes to the support ofcountry ownership, but also in alignment with partner strategies and in managing results. On harmonization,some specific, substantial progress has been reported (HACT is best illustration). Partner countries have highexpectations regarding harmonization and alignment, thus considerable disappointment exists regarding thelack in reduction of transaction costs. This subject has been even more difficult to tackle jointly with developmentpartners beyond UNDG members.

n Continued country presence and participation in the UNCT is an important factor for a UNDG member to play its full role in the coordinated effort of development assistance, especially where the member has amandate for a major cross-cutting issue like gender equality or rural development. This is illustrated by theexperience of UNIFEM and IFAD, even though another UNDG member may be have ably represented them.

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The terms of reference for this assessment asksthat it “incorporate specific dimensions concern-ing gender equality, HIV/AIDS, rural developmentand capacity development.” The four dimensionsspecified in the terms of reference correspondto the principal goals of the four non-regionalparticipating UNDG members: IFAD, UNAIDS,UNIFEM and UNDP. Additional insights intothe gender dimension came from the feedbackobtained from UNFPA. The PD does notcover these issues in terms of objectives ortargets, though it mentions gender and HIV/AIDS as examples.82 While the term capacitydevelopment does not appear in the PD, theterm capacity development is used, mainly as arequirement for alignment and managing forresults. No reference is made to rural or toagricultural development or to any other sector,except indirectly through mentioning theMDGs. The findings of this review are thuslimited by these connections to/disconnectsfrom the PD.

7.2 GENDER EQUALITY

There was an absence of incentives amongdonors, including some UNCTs, to promotethe gender agenda. Development partnersadvocating for gender equality need to provideevidence that gender equality contributes to thePD’s goal of improved aid effectiveness. The

12 pilot countries of the EC/UN Partnership onGender Equality for Development and Peace83

will focus on gathering evidence that showsthat gender equality contributes substantiallyto aid effectiveness.

In the six case-study countries, gender main-streaming efforts in the context of implementingthe PD remains partial and ad-hoc. The positionof gender equality efforts within thematic ortechnical working groups of UNCTs (formedagainst the harmonization objectives of donorsand other development partners), often remainsunclear. The role of the Gender Focal Personsin the UNCTs and thematic working groups inadvocating for gender mainstreaming is alsoweak. Some UN organizations have not filledthe position of gender focal points and assignjunior staff to represent organizations in gender-related UNCT activities.

While UNIFEM plays a key role at the globallevel in advocating gender equality in the contextof the PD, lack of full offices in most countrieslimits UNIFEM’s advocacy role at the countrylevel. True there are guidance notes84 fromheadquarters for the UNCTs on strategies thatthey can take to advocate gender equality atcountry level, even in countries were UNIFEMis not resident. But their application seems tobe spotty and missing the opportunity to benefitgender mainstreaming in national strategic

CHAPTER 7. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 41

CROSSCUTTING ISSUESCHAPTER 7

82 PD paragraph 4. iv. refers to HIV/AIDS as example of global programmes; paragraph 42 mentions gender equality as a cross-cutting issue.

83 Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea,Suriname and Ukraine.

84 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ianwge/taskforces/tfccundat2005.htm

frameworks such as PRSP processes, NationalHIV/AIDS Strategic Frameworks and NationalBudgets’ gender equality efforts in sectoral orthematic working groups.

7.3 HIV/AIDS

As noted in Chapter 3, the connection betweenthe PD and UNAIDS operations is very close.UNAIDS is an example of a joint programmeby 10 co-sponsoring UNDG members.85 HIV/AIDS is thus one area where the coordinationprocess was initiated pre-PD together with anintervention modus that aimed at applying thePD principles of supporting national ownership,coordinated programming and M&E. Furtherguidance to the national responses wasprovided by Universal Access targets, the ThreeOnes and tools like CHAT—all of which arebased on PD principles. The Unified Budgetand Workplan, which started approximatelytwo years ago, is a good example of coordinationof programmes of the aforementioned UNDGmembers. The Unified Budget and Workplanwill provide a vehicle for monitoring programmeimplementation and efficiency, much along thelines of the PD goal of increasing aid effectiveness.

Reflecting the priority the UN system places onHIV/AIDS, the UN Secretary General directedthe RCs to establish a Joint Country Teamcomprising UNDG members in December2005. The Joint Team is intended to improvecoherence and harmonization within and amongUN organizations. Heads of organizations aresupposed to provide overall policy and imple-mentation oversight on the HIV/AIDS response.The formation of the Joint Team was meant toencourage UNCTs to renew, strengthen and adaptexisting structures to address shortcomings andnot to create new structures and processes.UNAIDS country-level coordination effortshave included: supporting establishment of

National AIDS Councils to facilitate multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder involvement; andengaging the Global Fund established CountryCoordination Mechanisms for Global Fundgrant application, approval and monitoring. Allcountries visited had National AIDS Councils.At the group level, activities have includedjoint programming efforts, especially involvingUNFPA and UNICEF. The PD may haveenhanced the emphasis on HIV/AIDS, but inmost cases, agency staff had been assigned tothe Joint Country Team groups before the PDand the interactions with other UNCTsectoral working groups have not changed interms of greater HIV/AIDS mainstreaming.

Progress in promoting national ownership andenhancing the national AIDS responses is relativeto country capacities. There are coordinationchallenges in terms of engaging all the majorplayers in national coordination, and aligningand harmonizing interventions funded by thesesources with national strategies and action plans.Increases in financial flows towards HIV/AIDShas triggered not only an enhanced the needfor coordination but also highlighted the needfor additional technical advice. UNDP has attimes played a critical role in funding suchtechnical advice. The ability to assign technicaladvisory roles among agencies and establish amore distinct division of labour is challengingbut appears to be initially addressed, althoughthere is a need for further elaboration. The PDhas strengthened awareness and commitmentwith other development partners to the needfor coordination and joint programming.

7.4 RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Rural development was a significant issue in allsix countries cases, though markedly more amongthe lowest income countries, especially in

CHAPTER 7. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES42

85 UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNODC, ILO, UNESCO, WHO and the WB.

Ethiopia. A connect, or a disconnect, with thePD was evident mainly at two levels.

First, rural development cuts across many sectors,from social (such as health and education) toagriculture (production techniques) to naturalresources (water), land registration, infrastruc-ture (roads and electricity) and marketing(agro-industries). Because of this, a number of actors are needed in order to provide afavourable environment for rural development,including many from the private sector such asbanks. This environment creates special challengesfor channelling ODA to the beneficiaries. Thecomplexity of effective development assistanceto the rural poor makes it especially importantthat alignment and aid coordination is exploredfully along the lines of the PD. While SWAPshave been developed in some countries, theopportunities for DBS has been limited.

Second, rural development on the whole hasnot been easy to fit into the configuration ofUNCTs and their working groups. Often,there has been an absence of an IFAD localpresence and thus the unique rural develop-ment perspective. IFAD’s mostly Rome-basedCPMs have sought to be in country duringcritical phases of UNCT sectoral considerations,in particular during the preparation of theUNDAF, but their impact has been limited bythe lack of continuous in-country presence.Thus FAO, WFP, WB, and at times, RegionalDevelopment Banks and others, were often inthe forefront of introducing the rural develop-ment perspective into the UNCT and special-ized working groups. But underlying this issueis a concern held mainly at IFAD that UNCTswere more focused on social than on productionconcerns with it comes to rural development.Even where attention is given to social sectors andservices in the rural context, a closer integra-tion among the different UN organizations isrequired to impact poverty in rural areas on asustainable basis through production and incomegeneration. There remains an important task

for IFAD (in partnership with FAO, WFP andothers) to ensure that rural development getsfull attention among the UNCTs.

7.5 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

The PD has enhanced emphasis on capacitydevelopment and resulted in a change inattitude and approach to dealing with capacitydevelopment. This was to be associated with adownscaling of Project Implementation Units tofocus more directly on developing the capacity ofnational entities that could take on the functionsof the Units. This corresponds with the emphasison development processes being owned bypartner countries in order to be sustainable.

Capacity development is the raison d’être ofdevelopment partners’ presence in developingcountries and is supported in most sectors atnormative, operational and technical levels.Capacity development is in different stages indifferent sectors and particularly needed insector diversification efforts, including enhancedemphasis on social sectors where appropriate.

At the macro level, increased attention has beengiven to public financial management, resultingin a need for training in financial planning tools,anti-corruption measures, and the like. At thesectoral level, capacity development is neededto help partner countries better define andformulate sector strategies and action plans.

An integrated and sector-comprehensive approachto capacity development was observed in thecontext of SWAPs and in relation to DBS.Some development partners, such as the EC, some UNDG members and InternationalFinance Institutions, assigned experts to assesscapacity and areas for capacity development inpreparation for moving towards SWAPs andDBS. At sub-sector, programme and projectlevels, technical advisory functions have beendirected towards national entities.

CHAPTER 7. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 43

Training needs varied considerably across thecountries. In some, a cadre of well trained staffexist, but are spread to thinly within the overalladministrative system and are thus exploitedboth by the partner country’s system and by donors’ demands. In some countries, skillsdevelopment comprises fundamental skillssuch as language skills (for enhanced develop-ment coordination) to more sophisticatedtechnical skills. A need to focus horizontally—for example on generic functions in areas suchas budget making, audit functions, procurementsystems, and sector expertise—as well as overallplanning abilities are at the core of furthercapacity development efforts. Governmentcapacities to plan and coordinate developmentpartners’ contributions are of particularrelevance to the PD.

The renewed emphasis on capacity developmentand bringing it to scale will require a significantchange in the allocation of resources. It also means

that the time frame for planning capacity-building activities will need to change to alonger term perspective in recognition of thefact that capacity development and the relatedhuman resources skills development requirelong-term commitments.

There is a strong sentiment among developmentpartners that a significant government-led effortis necessary to develop capacity. Meanwhile anumber of ad hoc mechanisms to align withpoverty reduction strategies and harmonize amongdevelopment partners are being applied. Theserender capacity development efforts ad hocand pursued in a non-systematic way.

There is a large scope for UN involvement in assisting and supporting governments inidentifying and defining needs, and in providingoverview of the new capacity developmentissues that have emerged in the initial steps toadhere to PD principles.

CHAPTER 7. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES44

KEY FINDINGS REGARDING CROSSCUTTING ISSUES

n Gender equality: There is much room for improvement within UNCTs to fully incorporate agencies’ policieson women equality. A greater permanent presence of UNIFEM at the country level and thereby in UNCTsmay further gender equality in UNCT development work

n HIV/AIDS: Recognition of the issue and the volume of activities addressing HIV/AIDS have rapidlyincreased. Coordination among the many development partners requires continued effort by the Joint Teams.

n Rural development: While there are significant differences in the partner countries’ rural poverty, this cross-cutting area would have benefited from a more extensive continued country presence by IFAD, workingtogether with FAO and WFP representatives. The recent introduction of IFAD representatives in a limitednumber of countries ought to make a difference. There is room for UNCTs giving greater attention to ruraldevelopment beyond the social dimensions in order to achieve sustainable development based on improvedproduction and income.

n Capacity development: As part of the PD, there are new demands for capacity development. As at themacro level, increased attention is being given to public financial management, but there is still a great needfor training in financial planning tools, anti-corruption measures, and the like. At the sectoral level, capacitydevelopment is needed to help partner countries better define and formulate sector strategies and action plans.The achievement of the PD—and UNDG—objective of reducing the role of Project Implementation Unitsunder ODA depends in good part on further long-term donor support through well focused country-widestrategies and programmes for capacity development.

8.1 CONCLUSIONS

1. UNDG experience in implementing orapplying PD principles varied substantiallyacross the five PD principles. Progress wasmost evident regarding support of countryownership and alignment with nationaldevelopment strategies. There were also someinteresting cases of progress regarding mutualaccountability. However, progress relatingto alignment in using country systems andharmonization across UNDG members(and beyond) shows the greatest room for improvement. Strong coordinationmechanisms, involving other developmentpartners and partner governments are acritical ingredient for RCs/UNCTs tofoster PD implementation.

The RC/UNCT role extends far beyondthe PD’s aid effectiveness objectives. RCs andUNCTs may face humanitarian assistance,crisis management, conflict prevention andpeace building issues that take priority over PD principles. This potential area of competition does not appear to havehindered PD implementation. Some ofthe UN-related responsibilities that extendbeyond the PD may, however, be critical toachieving PD objectives.

1.1. The UNDG/UNCT contribution tostrengthening ownership mainly tookthe form of assisting governments instrengthening capacity to prepare andexecute their country developmentstrategies and plans and preparing to

deal with new aid modalities such as SWAPS and DBS. Because countryownership varied largely, the role ofthe UNCT also varied. The ResidentCoordinator’s Office as well as individ-ual UN agencies, through collaborationwith government and both multilateraland bilateral agencies, have played animportant role in creating an enablingenvironment for the achievement ofthe PD objectives through promoting ashared understanding of the principles.UNDG/UNCT was seen a trustedpartner supporting countries to fulfiltheir national as well as internationaldevelopment obligations and indesigning and implementing develop-ment strategies.

1.2. The main progress on alignment tookplace with respect to developmentstrategies at national and sectorallevels, including the alignment in theplanning cycles between those ofnational development plans andUNDAF. There is room for improve-ment by UNCT in the other elementsof alignment that relate to use ofnational systems of partner countries(reporting, public financial manage-ment, country audits, procurement).

Coordination regarding developmentpriority setting and planning amongUNCT members and with the largerdevelopment partner group seems to have greatly enhanced thanks tothematic groups and larger coordina-

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 8

tion fora. It has become increasingdifficult to act in isolation and theUNCT in all six case-study countriesvisited understood this very wellalthough fuller joint programming isnot yet achieved.

1.3. Some progress did occur throughimproved coordination among UNCTmembers and other developmentpartners (most important under theHarmonized Approach to Cash Transfers[HACT] initiative), however, partnercountries have higher expectations formeasurable savings in transaction coststhrough alignment and harmonization.UNCT members feel most constrainedin acceding to partner countriesrequests for harmonization of theirheadquarter-determined procedures.Thus efforts at reducing transactioncosts that are expected to result fromharmonization require an approach thataddresses the concerns of both partnercountries and of the many UNCTagencies (and other developmentpartners). Given the wide varianceamong UNDG member objectives,policies and procedures, the road toharmonization remains an extraordi-nary challenge for the UNDG system.

1.4. Government capacities to plan andcoordinate development partners’contributions are of particular relevanceto the PD. The country case studiesconfirm, for instance, that systematicstrengthening of national statisticaloffices is a particularly important factorin respect to managing for resultsby providing credible and timelyinformation. For assistance to statisticaloffices to be effective, however, requireslong-term and comprehensive commit-ments in order to assure the build-upof the requisite capacities.

1.5. The feedback from the country casestudies suggests that there is a longway to go to achieve the PD objectiveof mutual accountability and jointassessments of mutual progress inimplementing agreed commitment onaid effectiveness. Moreover, feedbackfrom case-study countries included broadconcern about donor commitments inregards to both level and predictabilityof support. UNCT plays a significantrole in promoting mutual accounta-bility e.g. by Round Tables throughindicating performance under donorpledging, and in participating inConsultative Group meetings. Supportto good governance reforms includingstrengthening the parliamentariansystem, and to a different extent byproviding support to civil society alsosupport mutual accountability. UNECAplays a special role in fostering mutualaccountability at the level of theAfrican countries.

2. UNDG and the participating members inthis assessment started out well in theircommitment responding to the PD princi-ples, both through actions at headquartersand through conveying the importance ofthe PD to the RCs and the UNCTs. Thisrelatively fast positive response was greatlyfacilitated by development assistancecommitments in which UNDG membershad already been engaged prior to the PD.

2.1. Changes were made to synchronizeUNCT planning cycles with nationalplanning cycles.

2.2. UNCTs supported national partners insector institutional arrangements, suchas the United Nations Population Fund(UNFPA) involvement in sector wideapproaches (SWAPs).

2.3. Agencies increased efforts to usenational systems e.g. on procurement

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS46

and project operational and executionprocedures, eliminating PIUs onprocurement, although significantvariances remain.

3. When responding to capacities, UNDGmembers used existing institutional structuresand reinforced them where necessary ratherthan building additional structures. In thecase of a relatively new institution (UNAIDS),it found the principles underlying the PDto be relevant for building national HIV/AIDS responses Most of the capacitydevelopment to enable UNDG membersto implement the PD has taken the form of specific instructions, guidelines andtraining to educate staff about the PD.Prior commitments to major PD principlesembodied in such guidance as for CommonCountry Assessments, CCAs, and UnitedNations Development Agreement Frame-works, UNDAFs, were helpful in this process.

3.1 UNCTs provided substantial technicalsupport to countries in formulating,revising and implementing nationaldevelopment strategies or PRSPs.

3.2 UNDG established a policy networkon MDGs to provide policy andoperational advice to UNCTs in theirtechnical support work.

4. When assessing incentive systems in place,the findings are discouraging. Those whoare expected to take primary responsibilityin implementing the PD, the ResidentCoordinators, find incentives specific to thisendeavour weak. The performance evaluationof Resident Coordinators (which includean assessment from agencies forming partof UNDG) directly addresses PD-relatedresponsibilities. However, for the manyother UNDG member staff involved in theimplementation of the PD, this dimensionis assessed in their performance evaluationonly indirectly, mainly through agreed work

programmes. Incentives to implement thePD to become effective therefore cannot onlyrely on traditional incentive systems focusingon the immediate actors concerned; theapproach to incentives requires a broadeningthrough addressing directly the factors thatstand in the way of greater progress,especially with respect to harmonization.

5. The presence of a UNDG entity for HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has been helpful to thiscritical area to achieve the necessaryattention in the implementation of PDprinciples. Not the same finding pertains tothe remaining three of the four crosscuttingissues reviewed in this assessment: genderequality, rural development, and capacitydevelopment. Despite established UNDGmember policies on gender equality and thepractice in countries without a UNIFEMresident specialist to have a lead person ongender equality from another residentUNDG organization in the UNCT,attention to gender equality is still lacking.The degree to which gender equality issueswithin the PD context was addressed variedfrom country to country and there is roomfor improvement: clear strategy and indicatorsto measure progress made on gender equalityefforts. With regard to rural developmentand capacity development, attention toand coordination by the UNCT can beimproved further through the respectiveworking groups.

6. Many RCs/UNCTs work in non-PDsignatory countries. While non-signatorycountries were not specifically assessed inthis evaluation (no non-signatory countrieswere visited), feedback from the survey ofRCs suggests that signatory countries aresignificantly better attuned to the PDprinciples. Thus RCs and UNCTs in non-signatory countries face greater challengesin helping UNDG members respond tothe principles embedded in the PD.


8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. UNDG should make increased use ofnational systems for support services, whenappropriate and to the benefit of the partnercountries, including for procurement,security, information technology, telecom-munications and banking, as well as forplanning, reporting and evaluation, inview of strengthening national capacitiesand reducing transaction costs.

2. UNDG should further harmonize andsimplify its business practices and harmonizegeneric functions in areas such as budgeting,audit functions, procurement systems, andprofessional expertise, including theadoption of the International Public SectorAccounting Standards, in view of enhancingaccountability and transparency of operationalactivities while ensuring that developmentassistance to partner countries is providedin a coherent fashion in support to theircapacity development.

3. UNDG should measure the cost of non-harmonized approaches to developmentassistance and further standardize andharmonize the concepts and practicesrelated to reduction of transaction costs.

4. UNDG should create specific, measurable,achievable and relevant results frameworksand strategies that enable partner countriesto design, monitor and evaluate results in thedevelopment of their capacities at differentlevels to achieve national development goalsand progress towards the internationallyagreed development goals, including theMillennium Development Goals.

5. It is recommended that UNDG encouragesgovernments of partner countries to initiateand conduct joint and country-led evaluationsthat comprehensively assess the contributionof the United Nations development systemto national development plans and strategies,and to systematize and disseminate lessons

learned from these exercises as mechanismsfor mutual accountability.

6. UNDG should reinforce its commitmentto strengthen the capacity of partnercountries, at their request and with theirownership and leadership, to coordinateexternal assistance, including system-wideand sector-wide approaches and budgetsupport, and to make the best possible useof such assistance, especially by beinginvolved in national planning andmonitoring processes and linking the aid effectiveness agenda to the broaderdevelopment effectiveness agenda.

7. UNDG should harmonize its approachamongst its members and other develop-ment partners to strengthen nationalcapacities. Capacity development iscommonly associated with various forms ofsupport aimed at individuals (training),institutions (organizational development)and the enabling environment (support topolicies and strategies). UNDG shouldcontribute to the capacity of partnercountries to optimize the utilization ofvarious new aid modalities.

8. UNDG should further develop andstrengthen its knowledge managementsystems and expertise, including resourcesreadily available at the regional level and fromnon-resident agencies to better assist partnercountries needs for capacity development.

9. Incentives to implement the PD to becomeeffective should address directly the factorsthat stand in the way of greater progress,especially with respect to harmonization.UNDG should address the structuralobstacles to the adherence of the PDprinciples as part of a broader UN reformprocess. This goes beyond the subject ofthe present evaluation which addresses PDimplementation though it clearly impactson UNDG’s effective and efficient deliveryof development assistance.

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS48

10. It is recommended that UNCTs review the adequacy of their arrangements andefforts aimed at gender equality and torural development in countries withsubstantial rural poverty by going beyondsocial concerns and addressing ruralpoverty on a sustainable basis, recognizing

systematically the need for production and income improvements. UNDGshould adopt a complementary approachto incorporating cross-cutting issues likegender mainstreaming, capacity develop-ment and rural development as has beendone in the response to HIV/AIDS.


1. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

The United Nations Development Group(UNDG) signed the Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness in 2005. The Paris Declarationstresses that effective partnerships among develop-ment partners and recipient countries arebased on the recognition of national leadershipand ownership of development strategies andplans. With this framework, sound policies,good governance and effective mechanisms arenecessary at all levels to ensure that develop-ment assistance produces development results.

While the Paris Declaration has a strong focus onmonitoring, it also highlights the importanceof exploring cross-country evaluation processes.The Declaration states that the evaluationshould provide a more comprehensive under-standing of how increased aid effectivenesscontributes to meeting development resultsand that it should be applied without imposingadditional burden on partners. Progress towardsaid effectiveness will require political andconceptual agreement on approaches to measuringand understanding both the quantity and thequality of development assistance.

The evaluation of the implementation of the Paris Declaration will be undertaken bydevelopment partners and partner countries

using a two-phased approach between 2007and 2010. The first phase will be a formativeevaluation concentrated on inputs, the imple-mentation process, and to the extent possible, onoutputs. The second phase will be a summativeevaluation focusing on the results of implemen-tation, to the extent possible, at the outcomelevel.1 The results of the formative evaluationwill be a contribution towards the High LevelForum on Aid Effectiveness to be held in Accra,Ghana in 2008.

Ten countries and 10 development partneragencies have volunteered to conduct anevaluation of their performance. They will use a common framework terms of reference,adapting it to their specific requirements. The countries are Bangladesh, Bolivia, Mali,Philippines, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka,Uganda, Viet Nam and Zambia. The develop-ment partners are Australia, Denmark, Finland,France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands,New Zealand, United Kingdom and UNDP.

UNDP, as one of the 10 development partners,will conduct a joint evaluation together withUNAIDS, UNECA, IFAD and UNIFEM onUN support to new aid modalities, lookingboth at the performance at headquarters inbringing its procedures and incentive systemsin line with the Paris Declaration and at the

ANNEX 1. AGENCY-SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE 51

AGENCY-SPECIFICTERMS OF REFERENCE

EVALUATION OF UN CONTRIBUTION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARIS DECLARATION n 12 JULY, 2007

ANNEX 1

1 Inputs, outputs, and outcomes are defined in the Framework Terms of Reference for the First Phase Evaluation of the Implementationof the Paris Declaration, 25 April 2007. See Annex 1: An Indicative Outline for an evaluation framework for the Paris Declaration.

country level in supporting partner countrycapacity. It will conduct the independentevaluation according to the norms andstandards for evaluation in the UN System.

The engagement of United Nations in support-ing the implementation of the Paris Declarationat the country level was implemented underthe UN Resident Coordinator System. Theevaluation will shed some light on thechallenges and opportunities of the role of UNorganizations in fostering the aid effectivenessagenda as the UN reform process continuestowards ‘Delivering as One’.

These Terms of Reference for the evaluation ofUN contribution to the implementation of theParis Declaration are based on the ‘Guidancefor Management of Development PartnerEvaluations’ developed by partner countriesand development partners participating in thejoint evaluation.

2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The overall purpose of the evaluation is toprovide critical guidance to improve UNcontribution to the implementation of theParis Declaration based on an assessment oflessons learned in terms of what practices haveworked and not worked. The emphasis will beon learning and providing recommendationsto strengthen national ownership, harmoniza-tion of aid efforts, alignment to nationaldevelopment strategies, managing for results,and mutual accountability.

The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

n To assess UN initiatives in support of theimplementation of the Paris Declaration;identify where the UN comparativeadvantage has been proven; identify gaps;and provide recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of current

approaches to aid modalities and aideffectiveness and their implications forlong-term development.

n To assess how United Nations CountryTeams (UNCTs) have used partnerships atlocal, national and international levels andpositioned themselves vis-à-vis other actorsto bring greater coherence and relevance totheir initiatives related to aid effectiveness.

n To provide substantive insights on how toensure that lessons learned from initiativesand strategies implemented by UN organi-zations at corporate and country levels canbe institutionalized within the organizationsthrough systematic monitoring and evalua-tion, adapted and made more relevant tocountry needs.

3. SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION

The evaluation will focus on the followingexplanatory dimensions that have been identifiedas contributors to development partner behaviour:

a. Commitment: The Paris Declaration callsfor a radical new way of delivering aid.Country strategies are no longer to beformulated by individual developmentpartners. Instead, with the emphasis onpartner ownership, development partners’cooperation strategies are to be guided bypartner governments’ needs-based demandsin an aligned and harmonized manner.

b. Capacities: Also within UN offices, whetherat headquarters or at field level, unevencommitment to Paris Declaration roll-outmay be found as well as uneven capacitiesbetween different staff employed by thesame development partner. Indeed, a singleUNCT might represent very differentapproaches to aid effectiveness. As a con-sequence, development partners and national

ANNEX 1. AGENCY-SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE52

coordinators alike have called for moreeffective communication on Paris Declarationissues between headquarter policy advisersand operation staff.

c. Incentive Systems: Development partnersincentive systems have been reported as acritical parameter for efficient developmentpartner behaviour. The baseline surveysuggests that a number of obstacles workagainst development partners’ ability tomeet the commitments made in Paris.These include, amongst other things,inappropriate pressures for disbursements,lack of flexibility on staff time, and highstaff turnover, which taken together createincentives that reward short-term benefitsover longer term and collective gains.

Promoting gender equality is essential to theachievement of the mandates of all UN organi-zations participating in the joint evaluation.Hence, the evaluation will assess the genderdimension of the implementation of the ParisDeclaration, including the following:

n UN initiatives to support partner countriesin improving the countries’ key processes,systems and capacities to incorporate genderequality in the countries’ national develop-ment strategies, programmes, and managingfor results and accountability frameworks.

n The extent to which UN organizations haveimproved their own processes, systems andcapacities to adequately reflect the genderperspective, for example, in their program-ming, operational and reporting requirementsto support partner countries more effectivelyin implementing their commitments to theParis Declaration.

The evaluation will assess the following specific aspects:

n Emerging trends in new aid modalities and,to the extent possible, what has been the

UN contribution to the implementation ofthe Paris Declaration, specifically in relationto promoting country ownership, alignmentof donors’ support to country strategies,harmonization of donors’ actions, managingfor results and mutual accountability.

n Key characteristics of UN collaboration, high-lighting how development approaches havebeen implemented and have showed results.

n Good practices and operational arrangementsin place in UN organization headquartersand field offices for an effective coordinationand implementation of the Declaration.

4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The evaluation will be particularly interestedin examples of (potential) successes in, andobstacles to, the implementation of the ParisDeclaration; how the obstacles have beenovercome; and with what results. Hence, theoutlined evaluation questions below shall betaken as explorative starting points for theassessments and will be further refined toincorporate specific dimensions concerninggender equality, HIV/AIDS, rural develop-ment and capacity building.

ASSESSING COMMITMENT

n How has the Paris Declaration’s emphasison demand-driven development coopera-tion been reflected in UN developmentpolicies, programmes, processes, systemsand procedures? Has the implementationof the Paris Declaration affected prioritysetting for UN development cooperation?Have there been key changes in UN policies,programmes, processes, systems and pro-cedures to facilitate the implementation ofthe Paris Declaration? What are the maindrivers of these changes?

n How is UN commitment to the ParisDeclaration demonstrated at the level of


agency headquarters? Has the role of UNheadquarters/field offices been adapted tothe aid effectiveness agenda? If not, why not?

n Is UNDG fulfilling its Paris Declarationcommitments? If there are concerns, whatare the reasons for these? Are the concernslinked to the relevance and coherence of thePD commitments and indicators? Are thereways in which these might be overcome?

ASSESSING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

n What is the level of staff knowledge andunderstanding about aid effectiveness andits operational implications, particularly inthe field?

n Have specific instructions, guidelines,operational directives been developed anddisseminated to staff to facilitate imple-mentation and assessment of the ParisDeclaration implementation plan?

n How is delegated authority within UNorganizations structured, and why? Are theUN organizations sufficiently decentralized(staff, resources, delegation of authority) toaddress field-based aid management in linewith the Paris Declaration? Does UNDPcoordinate sufficiently with other UNagencies, funds and programmes for theimplementation of commitments to theParis Declaration?

Assessing incentive systems

n Are there specific incentives provided byUN organizations—e.g. for recruitment,performance assessment and training—fortheir management and staff to complywith the Paris Declaration objectives ofownership, harmonization, alignment andresults orientation?

n Are there any perceived disincentives, inrespect of other UN priorities?

ASSESSING UN CONTRIBUTION,POSITIONING AND COMPARATIVEADVANTAGE IN THE IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE PARIS DECLARATION

n How has the United Nations supportedpartner countries in exercising effectiveleadership over their development policiesand strategies?

n How has the United Nations aligned itssupport to partner countries’ national develop-ment strategies, institutions and processes?

n How has the United Nations supportedstrengthening of capacities of partner countriesto implement their commitments to theParis Declaration, particularly with respect topolicy making, public finance management,national procurement systems, managingfor results and accountability frameworks?

n How has the United Nations contributed toreducing transaction costs for partner countries?

5. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Generally, the evaluation will be undertakenthrough extensive desk review, field visits to a sample of countries, interviews, and miningof data from the evaluations to be done by the 10 volunteering partner countries. Theevaluation will draw from existing assessmentsof participating agencies that are relevant tothis evaluation.

Following are the criteria for the selection ofcountries for the field visits and case studies:countries that signed the Paris Declaration;countries where UNCT plays a significant role in aid coordination; and countries inwhich the national government is interested in assessing UN contribution to the aideffectiveness agenda. Five countries havevolunteered to participate: Cameroon, Gabon,Mauritania, Lao PDR, and Ukraine.

The selection of case studies conducted tosubstantiate the evaluation findings at


headquarter level is based on a process of auto-selection that does not enable theestablishment of a proper sampling frame.

The evaluation methodology will be furtherspecified and finalized as part of the inceptionstage of the evaluation.

6. STRUCTURE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES

The evaluation will be conducted in three stages:

n Inception: The contracted evaluation teamwill develop an inception report (30 pagesmaximum) including: a contextualizedevaluation approach based on the outlinedevaluation questions of the present Terms ofReference; a final sampling frame includingthe identification of relevant informationsources; data collection methods and draftinstruments (interview guide, questionnaires,etc.); a processes for institutional learningduring the evaluation; and a detailed workplan and methodology.

n Data collection and presentation ofpreliminary findings: The drafting of thereport will be facilitated by presenting firstthe preliminary findings of the evaluation(Power Point presentation) to key evaluationstakeholders at the field level and at head-quarters, including the Management Groupand Advisory Panel.

n Report preparation: The evaluation teamwill take into account feedback received indrafting the narrative report, adhering tothe development-partner level evaluationreport outline (to be developed). The evalua-tion report should not exceed 50 pages,including the executive summary. Anexternal advisory panel will be organized toreview the quality of the evaluation report.The Management Group and the advisorypanel will review the draft report and theirfeedback will be considered by the evalua-

tion team in finalizing the report. Once thereport is finalized, it will be presented tothe Synthesis Team of the Joint EvaluationManagement Group for its submission tothe High Level Forum on Aid Effectivenessto be held in Accra in 2008.

7. EVALUATION TEAM ANDCOMPETENCIES REQUIRED

An independent evaluation team will undertakethe evaluation. It will be headed by a Teamleader, with three team members, including aresearch assistant. Collectively, the evaluationteam should have the following qualifications:

n Advanced knowledge and experience indesigning and undertaking complex evalua-tions involving multi-stakeholders, usingprocess and participatory approaches

n Advanced knowledge and experience relatingto aid effectiveness policies including thatof the Paris Declaration

n Advanced knowledge and experience inmanaging for results, accountability frame-works and systems, and capacity development

n In-depth understanding of issues relating togender equality and advanced knowledgeand experience in gender analysis, includingits application in evaluation methodology

n Experience relating to the work of thedifferent UN organizations participating inthe joint evaluation

In particular, the evaluation team leader shouldpossess the following:

n At least 10 years of experience in undertak-ing evaluations

n Experience in leading evaluations of initiativessupported by multilateral organizations

n Excellent facilitation, writing and com-munication skills


The Team Leader will be responsible for thetimely submission of the following deliverables:

n Evaluation design/methodology and work plan

n Power Point presentation on preliminary findings

n Draft report (50 pages maximum,including Executive Summary)

n Final report (50 pages maximum,including Executive Summary)

8. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

For this joint evaluation, a Management Groupwill be established composed of representativesof the evaluation offices of the participatingUN organizations, namely, IFAD, UNAIDS,UNDP, UNECA, and UNIFEM, It will beresponsible for planning and managing the

evaluation to ensure the independence and highquality of the evaluation. Its tasks will includethe finalization of the evaluation Terms ofReference, selection of the evaluation team, andreview of the draft report. The ManagementGroup will be chaired by UNDP.

UNDP Evaluation Office will then designateone of its staff as the Evaluation Task Manager.The Evaluation Task Manager will act as theinterlocutor between the evaluation team andthe Management Group to ensure a smoothprocess for the evaluation.

UNDP Evaluation Office will provide the fundsto cover costs directly related to the evaluation.IFAD and UNAIDS will make financialcontribution to share the costs. UNECA andUNIFEM will contribute in kind by makingavailable the expertise of their staff throughtheir participation in the Management Group.


UNDG membership is 28, plus 5 observers DESA Department of Economic and Social AffairsFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentILO International Labour OrganizationITU International Telecommunications UnionOCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsOHRLLS Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries,

Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing CountriesSRSGCAC Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict UN Habitat United Nations Human Settlements ProgrammeUNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSUNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNDPI United Nations Department of Public InformationUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNFIP United Nations Fund for International PartnershipsUNFPA United Nations Population FundUNHCHR United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUNIDO United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationUNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for WomenUNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and CrimeUNOPS United Nations Office for Project ServicesUNWTO United Nations World Tourism OrganizationWB World BankWFP World Food ProgrammeWHO World Health OrganizationWMO World Meteorological Organization

Director, Office of the Deputy Secretary GeneralOffice of USG – Special Advisor on AfricaRegional CommissionsSpokesman for the Secretary-General

ANNEX 2. UNDG MEMBERS 57

UNDG MEMBERS

ANNEX 2

IFAD

Bage, Lennart, PresidentBaldwin, Bryan, Senior Operations Advisor to

AP and IFAD point person on PD (PMD)Brubaker, Andrew, Evaluation OfficeCleaver, Kevin, Assistant President (AP),

Head of the Program Management Dept. (PMD)

Jepsin, Fritz, Consultant on IFAD Action PlanShadka, Shyam, Advisor to AP, (PMD)Torralba, Miguel, Evaluation Office

UNAIDS

Bezruchenko, Marina, PerformanceMonitoring Adviser

Huijts, Ini, Aid Effectiveness DivisionJensen, Steven, Aid Effectiveness DivisionKutch, Kerry, WHO, HIV/AIDS Department Landey, Deborah, Deputy Executive Director,

External RelationsSchoultz, Kristin, Director Global Coalition

on Women and AIDSSeethi, Dieter, Global Fund focal point (have

to check her title, not in the programme)Tembo, George, Chief, Division, Aid

Effectiveness DivisionWhyms, Desmond, Aid Effectiveness Division

UNDESA

Back, Lucien, Interregional Adviser NationalDevelopment Strategies, DevelopmentCooperation Policy Branch, Office forECOSOC Support and Coordination

de Rojas, Oscar, Director, Financing forDevelopment Office, Representative fromthe Office of ECOSOC Support andCoordination

Montes, Manuel, Chief, Policy Analysis &Development Branch

Schneider, Benu, Senior Economic Affairs Officer,Policy Analysis & Development Branch

UNDG

Baqi, Lubna, Associate Director, Cluster HeadMartinez, Salome, Focal point on

Aid Effectiveness

UNDP

Alsoswa, Amat, Assistant Administrator andRegional Director, RBAS

Chandran, Ramesh, Chief, Strategic Planning& Advisory Services, BOM/OHR

Foerde, Bjoern, Practice Director, a.i.,BD/DGG

Gatto, Susana, Coordinator, Oversight &Support Centre RBLAC

Gjuzi, Albana, Programme Manager, RBECHoungbo, Gilbert, Assistant Administrator

and Regional Director, RBAJenks, Bruce, Assistant Administrator and

Director, BRSPJones, Terence, Deputy Assistant Administrator

and Deputy Director, a.i., BDPKarl, Judith, Chief, Central Strategy & Policy

Cluster, BCPRKjorven, Olav, Assistant Secretary-General

and Director, BDPLawry-White, Janey, Monitoring &

Evaluation Specialist, BCPR

ANNEX 3. PEOPLE CONSULTED 59

PEOPLE CONSULTED

ANNEX 3

Pasha, Hafiz, Assistant Administrator andRegional Director, RBAP

Ramirez, Mauricio, Desk Officer RBLACRasheed, Nadia, Policy Specialist, BDP

HIV/AIDS GroupRussell, Andrew, Deputy Assistant

Administrator and Deputy Director, OSGSilovic, Dasa, Senior Policy Adviser, UN focal point

for WG on Aid Effectiveness, BDP/CDGTamesis, Pauline, BD/DGGYuge, Akiko, Assistant Administrator and

Director, BOM

UN ECA

Adejumobi, Said, Governance and PublicAdministration Division (GPAD)

Clinton, Rawda Omar, Office of StrategicPlanning and programme Management(OPM)

Katjomuise, Kavazeua, Trade, Finance andEconomic Development Division (TFED)

Osakwe, Patrick, Trade, Finance andEconomic Development Division (TFED)

UNFPA

Hansen, Charlotte, Working Group on AidEffectiveness Secretariat

Simonen, Mari, Deputy Executive Directorfor External Relations, United NationsAffairs & Management

Timmermans, Dia, Chairman of WorkingGroup on Aid Effectiveness

UNIFEM

Saenz, Belen, Evaluation AdvisorSandler, Joanne, Officer-in-ChargeMarcelino, Elena, Evaluation Advisor

UNV

Casey, Daphne, Chief, UNV Office in New York

CAMEROON

Andela, Coordinateur, Dynamique Citoyenne Bachiri, Mohammed, Représentant,

UNESCOBaulard, Eric, Directeur, Agence Francasie

de DeveloppementBillanou, Martine, Director, SNVBraakhuis, Norbert, Ambassadeur, Les Pays-BasBua, Michel, Consellier Sector Economie

Finance, Ambassade de France Delalande, Head Coordination Unit, UNCTEkoué, Dede, Deputy Resident

Representative, UNDPHoremans, Benoit, Représentant, FAOJeannée, Emile, Conseiller, Chef de la

coopération European Delegation, ECJelil, Youssouf Abdel, Représentant, UNICEFJennet, Kem, Officer in Charge, UNIFEMKabedi-Mbuyi, Malangu, Resident

Representative, IMFKessous, Director, BACC (Canada) Koumaré, Director, UNECALacordaire, Mbimi Claude, Directeur de la

Coopération Technique Internationale,MINPLAPDAT

Maganga, Anicet, Assitant Administratif,UNHCR

Massoud, Representative, UNAIDSMicheau, Pascale, Representative ai. WFPNguiffo, Secrétaire Général, CEDNjankouo, Daniel, SE Ministre Délégué au

MINEFI chargé des programmes,Ministry of Planning and Finance

Oelschlaeger, Jorg, Conseiller technique,auprès du MINEFI

Roth, Michael, Political and EconomicSection, Embassy of the United States

Sanzone, Focal Point Aid Coordination, UNCTSchill, Maurice, Consellier, SNVSeck, Senior Economist, World BankSophie De Caen, Resident Coordinator, UNCT

ANNEX 3. PEOPLE CONSULTED60

Takahisa, Conseiller, Embassy of JapanTouré, Groupe Opérations, UNDPTsangueu, Coordinator, Gender Lenses and

Consultant Haut commissaire de GB Wurthmann, Geerd, Chef de la Coopération

Coopération AllemandeYao, Representative, UNFPA

ETHIOPIA

Abera, Fissela, Director, MoFEDAdem, Getachew, Director, MoFEDAdmassie, Assefa, Dr., Director, Ethiopian

Economic AssociationAli, Ahmend Mohammed, Director, Planning

and Programming Directorate, Ministryof Capacity Building

Benfield, Andy, Consultant (re. PD),European Commission

Diwan, Ishac, former Country Director, WorldBank (now in Ghana; phone interview)

Gebremarion, Sintayehu, AssistantRepresentative, FAO

Kinfu, Hailemichael, Director, MoFEDLaverdiere, Michel, Forestry Officer, FAOLjungqvist, Bjorn, Representative, UNICEFMaxman, Abby, Country Director, CARENebebe, Admasu, UN, MoFEDNgowi, Abnezer, Senior Deputy Country

Director, WFPOhashi, Kenichi, Country Director, World BankPerumalpillai-Essex, Jeeva, Lead Operations

Officer, World BankPlieger, Arie C., First Secretary (Development),

Embassy of the NetherlandsRobertson, Tim, Livelihoods Adviser, DFIDRobinson, Vinetta, Economic Advisor, UNDP Rokotomalala, Monique Representative, UNFPASarassoro, Fidele, UNRR and UNRC,

UNDG/UNDPShera, Fiona, Deputy Head of Office, DFIDZwandor, Alti, Senior Programme Advisor,

UNAIDS

GABON

Bachiri, Mohammed, Représentant, UNESCOBaulard, Eric, Directeur, Agence Francasie

de Developpement Diallo, Taib, Chargé des Opération, UNDPDjibo, Bintou, Country Representative, UNDPFaye, Mame Awa, Country Coordinator,

UNAIDSFrancois, Bernard, Chef des Operations de

Coopération, European DelegationGaspard, Pasteur, President, Réseau Gabonais

de lutte contre le SIDA (REGOSIDA)Horemans, Benoit, Représentant, FAOJelil, Youssouf Abdel, Représentant, UNICEFJouve, Marcel, Conseiller, Service de

Coopertion de d’Action CulturelleMabiala, Martine, Ministry of FinanceMaganga, Anicet, Assitant Administratif,

UNHCRMakosso, Guy Serge, Economiste, UNDPMeyev, Sylvain, Conseiller du Ministre

d’Etat, Ministry of FinanceMouagaya, Alfred, Assistant du Coordinateur,

UNFPA Nkouele, Bernadette Biyoghe, Coordinateur

des activités, Organisation des PremiersDames d’Afrique contre le SIDA

Nkouele, Bernadette Biyoghe, DirecteurGeneral Ajoint, Ministere de la Famille,de la Protection de l’Enfance et de laPromotion de la Femme

Pihi, Joseph, Conseiller Principal auProgramme, UNDP

Rogombé, Leandre Mara, CoordinateurNational du suivi de la Declaration de Paris, Ministry of Finance

Takahisa, Mr., Conseiller, Embassy of Japan Thiam, Samba, Representant, IMFTiello, Oumar, Cordinator for PD Study,

CSO Coordinator, UNDPToure, Bassary M., Représentant Resident,

African Development Bank (AfDB)


LAO PDR

Annus, Jonus, Officer in Charge WHOApaay, Chansy Luang, BMU/PMD/DOR,

Ministry of Pub Works & TransBiorkman, Carl, Programme officer ECHahn, Michael Dr., Country Coordinator

UNAIDSHassett, Michael, First Secretary Ausi AidHnanguie, Christopher T., Economist, ADBKaikai, Abdula, Chief, Water and Sanitation,

UNICEFKalinauckas, Josephine, Counsellor ECKhayavong, Manivone, Dep Director

Planning, Ministry of Pub Works & TransKhennavong, Phanthanouse, PD

Coordinator, UNDPKommasith, Saleumxay, Acting Director

General, Ministry of Foreign AffairsLang, Graham, Evaluation Specialist, UNICEFLinneweber, Verena, Head of Office of the UNMackinnon, Sophie Programme Officer UNDPMarthijsen, Nicollette, Portfolio Coordinator,

SNVMatsuura, Miki, Research and Advisor,

Japanese EmbassyPakdimanivong, S., PMD/DOR, Ministry of

Pub Works & TransPhan Phouthavong, Dep Director General,

Ministry of Pub Works & TransRana, Sonam Yangchen, UN Resident

CoordinatorSengchandavong, Ouam, Director General,

Ministry of EducationSoukprasith, Houmphanh, Director General

(DIC-MPI)Vigie, Stephen, Dep. Resident Representative

UNDPVongsak, Virachit, Senior NEX Adviser UNDP

MAURITANIA

Amy, Kelly, Socio-Economist, WHOAttighe, Dr. El Moustapha Ould, M&E

Programme Officer, Global Fund

Biank, M. Timo, Expert Programme Officer, GTZ

Bihler, Blandine, Coordination Officer, UNDPBongou, Rene, Officer in Charge, WHOBonoum, Fatimata, AFCFBoukhreiss, Mohamed Elhassen, Director,

Ministry of Finance and EconomyCancellieri, Umberto, Head of Operations,

UNICEFCarre, Marc, Resident Representative, IMFCheikh, M. Ahmed Ould, Director, Le CalameCirri, Gian Carlo, Resident Representative, WFPCoula, Colette Bouka, Resident

Representative, Lutheran FederationDiallo, Violet, Group d’Appui aux Programmes

Coordinator, Lutheran FederationFernandez, Juan Pena, Coordinator,

Cooperation EspagnoleFiditer, Joelle, Liaison Officer, OCHAFinizio, Claudio, Strategic Partnership

Advisor, UNDPGianviti, Francoise, Chief of Service,

Cooperation FrancaiseJuriste, Sidubu Mohammed, AFCFKeita, Diene, Country Representative, UNFPAKeita, Pr. Bah, Resident Representative, WHOKhtour, Ahmed Salem, Lutheran FederationLaye, Didier, Country Representative, UNHCRMoctar, Aminetou Mint, President,

Association for Female Heads ofHouseholds AFCF

Moujtaba, Mohamedlemine, Population andDevelopment Officer, UNFPA

Moussa, Zeinabou Mint Taleb, Director,Association Mauritania for Health ofWomen and Children (ASMSME)

Ndiouck, Assane, Coordinator, AFCFPavlovic, Radisav, Resident Representative, FAO Saidane, Narjess, Deputy Country

Representative, UNDPSaleck, Mohammed Chy. Ould,

Lutheran Federation

ANNEX 3. PEOPLE CONSULTED62

Sid’El Moktar, Isslemou Ould, Director-Programmation, Ministry of Finance and Economy

Sidi, El Widi O., AFCFSkoog, Christian, Resident Representative,

UNICEFStrammer, M. Geza, Groups Resident

Representative, EUWague, Hawa Cisse, Economist, World BankWinkler, Ole, Head of Evaluation

Department, Ministry of Foreign AffairsZein, Hassan Ould, Director des et

Strategies et des Politics, Ministry of Finance and Economy

UKRAINE

Abramovska, Maryna, Head of Unit, Ministryof Economy, Directorate for Coordinationof Technical Assistance (DCITA )

Bermingham, Paul, Head - Washington (Tele-con), World Bank

Brodsky, Oleksandr, Director of DCITA,Ministry of Economy

Butsova, V.G., Dep Director, Ministry ofLabour and Social Protection

Daisuke, Minamino, 2nd Secretary, Embassy of Japan

Duflot, Remy, Head of Operations Sec 3, ECEgorova, M., Director Ministry of Labour

and Social ProtectionGulevska, Anna, Ukrainian Grantmaking ForumHartley, Jeremy, Representative, UNICEFJickling, Wesley, Cordinator for PD

Study, UNDPKazana, Joanna, Deputy Resident Rep, UNDPKomung, Louise, EC Donor Coordination

Specialist, ECKupriy, Volodymyr, Officer, Counterpart

Creative CenterLabovitz, Jeffrey, Head of Mission, IOMLatik, V.V., Director- Strategy Ministry of

Labour and Social Protection

Lyapin, Dmytro, Specialist Institute ofCompetitive Society

Mischenko, K.S., Dep Director- Vets &Elderly Ministry of Labour and SocialProtection

O’Donell, Francis, Country Representative,UNDP

Palivoda, Lubov, CSO Coordinator, UNDPPokanevych, Igor, Dr., Head of Country

Office, WHOPoliakova, O., Dep Director- Invalids

Ministry of Labour and Social ProtectionRemiga, Oksana, Senior Programme

Manager, UNDPSaprykina, Maryna, EU/UN P/ship

Coordinator, UNIFEMSchielder, Martin, Head of Operations Sec 1, ECShakarashvili, Ani, Country Coordinator,

UNAIDSShambir, N.V., Dep Director-Pension

Insurance Ministry of Labour and Social Protection

Simak, T.V., Head of Unit Ministry of Labourand Social Protection

Sortnik, S.V., Dep Director- InsuranceMinistry of Labour and Social Protection

Subbotin, Yuri, Operational Manager, UNAIDSSulima, O.V., Head of Division Ministry of

Labour and Social ProtectionSumovsky, V.V, Director – Labour

Regulations Ministry of Labour andSocial Protection

Sydorenko, Oleksander, Specialist, Innovationand Development Center

Trotsky, Taras, Deputy Director of DCITA,Ministry of Economy

Victoria Grib, Aid Development Ass.Specialist, USAID

Wang, Doris, Head CIDAWeiler, Gundo, Dr., HIV/AIDS Prog Team

Leader, WHO


Attawell K, Dickinson C, ‘An IndependentAssessment of Progress on theImplementation of the Global Task TeamRecommendations in Support of NationalAIDS Responses’, HLSP/UNAIDS,London, UK, May 2007.

de Renzio P, Booth D, Rogerson A, Curran Z,‘Incentives for Harmonization’, WorkingPaper 248, Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, London, UK, June 2005.

‘Draft Joint Declaration on Harmonization,Alignment and Aid Effectiveness’,Ethiopia, September 2007.

Drew R, ‘An Independent Assessment ofProgress on the Implementation of theGlobal Task Team Recommendations inSupport of National AIDS Responses.Ukraine Country Study 2007’, HLSP/UNAIDS, London, UK, April 2007.

Druce N, Oduwole Y, ‘Independent Reviewof Progress on the Implementation of theGlobal Task Team Recommendations inSupport of National AIDS Responses.Nigeria Case Studies’, HLSP/UNAIDS,London, UK, May 2007.

Foresti M, Booth D, O’Neil T, ‘ParisDeclaration and Human Rights’, London,UK, October 2006.

Foster M, ‘New Approaches to DevelopmentCooperation’, ODI Working Paper #140,Overseas Development Institute London,UK, October 2000.

Greeley M, ‘ODI: DAC Working Party onAid Effectiveness. Incentives forHarmonisation and Alignment in aidAgencies’, UNDG, London, UK,November 2004.

HLSP Institute/UNFPA, ‘Sector WideApproaches: A Resource Document forUNFPA Staff. Prepared for UNFPA bythe HLSP Institute’, London, UK,September 2005.

Holloway S, Blackshaw U, ‘IFAD:Development of Country ProgrammeManagement Team Models’, OxfordPolicy Management, Oxford, UK, May 2006.

IADB, ‘Inter American Development Bank -Report on Harmonization and Alignmentin LAC’, Washington, DC, 2007.

IDB, ‘Inter-American Development Bank:Report on the Regional Workshop onHarmonization and Alignment for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean: ExercisingLeadership to Accelerate Change’,Washington, DC, December 2006.

IDS/UNDG, ‘IDS Synthesis Report:Findings and Recommendations from aSeven Country Study of UN Engagementin Poverty Reduction and NationalDevelopment Strategies’, New York, NY, August 2007.

IFAD, ‘Action Plan for Improving IFADDevelopment Effectiveness - Elaborationof Issues’, Rome, Italy, March 2006.

IFAD, ‘Country Strategic OpportunitiesProgramme’, Rome, Italy, September 2007.

IFAD, ‘Financial Management Practices inIFAD-Funded Projects and the Impact of Harmonization Process’, Rome, Italy,October 2006.

IFAD, ‘Guidelines for Supervision andImplementation Support of Projects andProgrammes Funded from IFAD Loansand Grants’, Rome, Italy, September 2007.

IFAD, ‘IFAD Action Plan for Improving itsDevelopment Effectiveness’, Rome, Italy,December 2005.

IFAD, ‘IFAD Policy on Preventing Fraud andCorruption in its Activities andOperations’, Rome, Italy, 2007.

ANNEX 4. DOCUMENTS CONSULTED 65

DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

ANNEX 4

IFAD, ‘Islamic Republic of Mauritania.Country Strategic OpportunitiesProgramme’, Rome, Italy, 2007.

IFAD, ‘President’s Report. Proposed Loan toLao PDR for the Northern RegionSustainable Livelihoods through LivestockDevelopment Project’, Rome, Italy,December 2006.

IFAD, ‘Programme of Work andAdministrative Budget of IFAD and itsOffice of Evaluation’, Rome, Italy, 2007.

IFAD, ‘Results Measurement Framework forReporting on Progress achieved againstthe IFAD Strategic Framework’, Rome,Italy, 2007.

IFAD, ‘Sector Wide Approaches: ForAgriculture and Rural Development’,Rome, Italy, 2007.

IFAD, ‘Strategic Framework 2007-2010’,Rome, Italy, 2007.

IFAD, ‘Supervision and Implementation SupportPolicy’, Rome, Italy, September 2007.

IFAD, ‘Targeting: Reaching the Rural Poor.IFAD Policy’, Rome, Italy, November 2006.

Madden RB, Landaverde CM, ‘IndependentReview of Progress on the Implementationof the Global Task Team Recommendationsin Support of National AIDS Responses.Honduras Case Studies’, HLSP/UNAIDS,London, UK, March 2007.

Mrisho F, ‘Key Elements of a ReproductiveHealth Programme at National andDistrict Level: Essential Components,Managerial Considerations, StructuralRequirements, Resource Needs,Monitoring Evaluation and QualityChecking’, UNFPA Country SupportTeam for Africa, Ethiopia, 2007.

OAS, ‘Santa Cruz Declaration’, Santa Cruz dela Sierra, Bolivia, December, 2006.

OECD, ‘Paris Declaration Commitments andImplications on Gender Equality andWomen’s Empowerment (DAC EvaluationNetwork)’, Paris, France, June 2006.

Overseas Development Institute, ‘NewApproaches to Development Co-operation:What Can We Learn from ExperienceWith Implementing Sector-WideApproaches?’, Working Paper 140,London, UK, October 2000.

Overseas Development Institute, ‘PromotingMutual Accountability in AidRelationships’, London, UK, April 2006.

Overseas Development Institute, ‘Scaling upthe HIV/AIDS Response: FromAlignment and Harmonization to MutualAccountability, ODI Briefing Paper’,London, UK, August, 2006.

‘Paris Declaration and Gender’, Paris, France, 2007.

‘Paris Declaration Survey Report 2006’, Paris, France, 2007.

‘The Paris Declaration - Full Text’, Paris,France, March 2005.

Rogerson A, de Renzio P, ‘The Seven Habitsof Effective Aid: Best Practices,Challenges and Open Questions’,Overseas Development Institute, London, UK, February 2005.

Salm AP, ‘Promoting Reproductive and SexualHealth in the Era of Sector WideApproaches’, Reproductive HealthMatters, Vol 8 No.15, UK, May 2000.

Salm AP, ‘Promoting Reproductive and SexualHealth in the Era of Sector WideApproaches SWAps’, Reproductive HealthMatters Journal, Vol. 8 # 15, UK, 2006.

Scanteam Analysts and Advisers, ‘The UNSystem and New Aid Modalities’, Oslo,Norway, August 2005.

Sjöblom L, ‘Transcript of Presentations andDiscussions 29 - 31 August 2006 “Afterthe Paris Declaration” Role of CivilSociety’, SIDA Civil Society Center,Stockholm, Sweden, August 2006.

‘UN/WB Post Conflict Needs AssessmentsReview’, New York, NY and Washington,DC, January 2007.

ANNEX 4. DOCUMENTS CONSULTED66

UN - ECOSOC, ‘Coherence, Ccoordinationand Cooperation in the Context of theImplementation of the MonterreyConsensus - Note by the SecretaryGeneral’, New York, NY, April 2007.

UN - GA, ‘Arrangements for Establishing thePeacebuilding Fund. Report of the SG’,New York, NY, August 2006.

UN GA, ‘Follow-Up to and Implementationof the Outcome of the InternationalConference on Financing forDevelopment - Report of the SecretaryGeneral’, New York, NY, August 2007.

UN GA, ‘Proposed Organization of Work ofthe High-level Dialogue on Financing forDevelopment - Note by the SecretaryGeneral’, New York, NY, September 2007.

UN GA, ‘Resolution Adopted by GA [on thereport of the Second Committee]Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review ofOperational Activities for Development ofthe UN System’, New York, NY,November 2004.

UN, ‘Chief Executive Board - High LevelCommittee on Management - Plan ofAction for the Harmonization andReform of Business Practices in the UN’,New York, NY, July 2007.

UN, ‘Delivering as One: Report of theSecretary General’s High Level Panel’,New York, NY, November 2006.

UN, ‘Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR) Conclusions andRecommendations Report of the SG’,New York, NY, August 2007.

UN, ‘Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review(TCPR) of Operational Activities of theUnited Nations Development System -Report of the Secretary General’, NewYork, NY, May 2007.

UNAIDS, ‘CHAT Frequently AskedQuestions’, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.

UNAIDS, ‘Country Harmonization andAlignment Tool (CHAT): A Tool toAddress Harmonization and AlignmentChallenges by Assessing Strengths andEffectiveness of Partnerships in theNational AIDS Response’, Geneva,Switzerland, June 2007.

UNAIDS, ‘Global Task Team on ImprovingAIDS Coordination Among MultilateralInstitutions and International Donors’,Geneva, Switzerland, June 2005.

UNAIDS, ‘Independent Review of Progresson the Implementation of the Global TaskTeam Recommendations in Support ofNational AIDS Responses. India CaseStudies’, London, UK, March 2007.

UNAIDS, ‘Three Ones Principles for NationalAIDS Responses’, Washington DC, 2004.

UNDG, ‘An Assessment of the Role andExperiences of UN Agencies in PovertyReduction Strategy Papers 2003’, NewYork, NY, 2003.

UNDG, ‘Consolidated List of Issues Relatedto the Coordination Of OperationalActivities for Development 2006.UNDG Executive Committee’, NewYork, NY, 2006.

UNDG, ‘Draft Policy Paper - The UN in theChanging Aid Environment’, New York,NY, September 2007.

UNDG, ‘Guidance Note on MDTF’, NewYork, NY, March 2007.

UNDG, ‘Implementation of the HarmonizedApproach to Cash Transfers toImplementing Partners (HACT)’, NewYork, NY, 2007.

UNDG, ‘Implementing the Paris Declarationon Aid Effectiveness: Action Plan of theUNDG Development Group Mid-YearStatus Report 2007’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDG, ‘Joint Letter by ExCom onOpportunities for Country Ownershipand Capacity Development 2003’, NewYork, NY, October 2007.

UNDG, ‘Letter from Mark Malloch-Brownto all Resident Coordinators on ParisDeclaration’, New York, NY, April 2005.

UNDG, ‘MDTF Review UNDG ECHAWorking Group Response’, New York,NY, 2007.

UNDG, ‘Multi-Donor Trust Funds -Guidance Note to UN Country Teams’,New York, NY, March 2007.


UNDG, ‘Position Paper - The Role of the UNSystem in a Changing Aid Environment:Sector Support and Sector Programmes’,New York, NY, February 2005.

UNDG, ‘Report on Integrated Missions:Practical Perspectives andRecommendations. Independent Studyfor the Expanded UN ECHA CoreGroup 2005’, New York, NY, 2005.

UNDG, ‘Review of Trust Fund Mechanismsfor Transition Financing Phase 2 Report’,New York, NY, May 2006.

UNDG, ‘Review of Trust Fund Mechanismsfor Transition Financing’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDG, ‘Second Letter from Mark Malloch-Brown to all Resident Coordinators onParis Declaration’, New York, NY, July 2005.

UNDG, ‘Statement of the UN DevelopmentGroup (UNDG). High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness’, Paris, France,March 2005.

UNDG, ‘UN Reform - Harmonization andAlignment to Achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals’, New York, NY,February 2005.

UNDG, ‘UNDG Action Plan on theDevelopment Outcome of the 2005World Summit. A Plan on theMillennium Declaration, MDGs andOther International Development Goals2006-2006’, New York, NY, April 2006.

UNDG, ‘UNDG-ECHA Workshop onTransition - Workshop Report’,Marrakech, Morocco, February 2006.

UNDP - BDP – CDG / IT4Dev, ‘WorkingPaper #2 - Aid Management Systems andStandards and Good Practices’, New York,NY, May 2006.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘2nd Meeting of theUNDP BDP/CDG Project: AidEffectiveness for Reducing Poverty andAchieving the MDGs – UNDP Supportto Developing Countries’, New York, NY,January 2006.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Aid Effectiveness forReducing Poverty and Achieving MDGs -BDP/RBA Joint Programme DraftConcept’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Annuelles Entre laFrance et le PNUD, Rélève de Conclusions’,Paris, France, October 2005.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘CapacityDevelopment and Aid Effectiveness - AUNDP Capacity Development Resource’,New York, NY, August 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Checklist - AidManagement Policy’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Checklist - AidManagement System Implementation’,New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Checklist - NationalCapacities for Aid Coordination and AidManagement’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Country Capacity toManage and Coordinate Aid Flows -Scaling- Up UNDP Support’, New York,NY, August 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Draft ProcurementCapacity Assessment - User’s Guide’, NewYork, NY, November 2006.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Draft Results andResources Partnerships - OverhaulingCG’s and RT’s - A Guidance Note’, NewYork, NY, September 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘From Paris toPractice - Tools for Better AidCoordination & Management: Bangkok,6-8 June 2006 - Final Workshop Report’,Bangkok, Thailand, June 2006.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Graphic: CapacityAssessment for Aid Coordination andManagement Cube’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Making Aid Workfor Development Effectiveness -Strengthening National Capacities toManage and Monitor Aid - Internal Sub-Project Document 2007-2008’, NewYork, NY, 2007/2008.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Programme andOperational Guidelines: UNDP Role in aChanging Aid Environment: DirectBudget Support, SWApS, Basket Funds’,New York, NY, December 2005.


UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Project Document -Joint Study on Effective TechnicalCooperation for Capacity Development -Case Study in Ghana’, Ghana, October 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Project Proposal forGlobal Cooperation Framework Funding,Proposed Project Title: Peer & Partner:Aid Effectiveness for reducing Poverty andAchieving the MDGS - UNDP Supportto Developing Countries - Atlas 50520’,New York, NY, 2006.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Questions for theSelf-Assessment on Aid Management andCoordination’, New York, NY, April 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Role of Aid InformationManagement Systems in Implementingthe Paris Declaration on Aid Effectivenessat the Country Level - DAC WorkingParty on Aid Effectiveness EighthMeeting’, Paris, France, 5-7 July 2006.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Supporting CapacityDevelopment - The UNDP Approach’,New York, NY, June 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘UNDP Experiencesand Support to RTs - A Desk Review’,New York, NY, July 2005.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘UNDP VDAProgramme on Aid Effectiveness’, NewYork, NY, 2007.

UNDP - BDP - CDG, ‘Workplan: Aid forDevelopment Effectiveness - The UNDPCapacity Development Approach ’, NewYork, NY, 2007.

UNDP BDP/CDG, ‘Aid Effectiveness forReducing Poverty and Achieving theMDGs - UNDP Support to DevelopingCountries’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - BDP – DG, ‘Annual Report 2005Democratic Governance Thematic TrustFund’, New York, NY, 2005.

UNDP - BDP - DG, ‘Annual Report 2006Democratic Governance Group’, NewYork, NY and Oslo, Norway, 2006.

UNDP - BDP - DG, ‘UNDP Contribution toDevelopment Outcomes in 2004-2006 -Democratic Governance’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - Cameroon, ‘Objectifs du Millenairepour le Developpement - 2ieme Rapportde Progrès 2002’, Yaoundé, Cameroon, 2002.

UNDP - Cameroon, ‘Powerpoint Presentation:Paris Declaration - Coordination inCameroon’, Cameroon, 2007.

UNDP - Cameroon, ‘Rapport sur la PauvreteRurale au Cameroun’, Yaoundé,Cameroon, May 2006.

UNDP - Cameroon, ‘Regional Bureau forAfrica: 2007 Regional Management TeamMeeting - Best/Innovative Practice FactSheet 1’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - Cameroon, ‘Regional Bureau forAfrica: 2007 Regional Management TeamMeeting - Best/Innovative Practice FactSheet 2’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - Cameroon, ‘TOR - Pilot Mission toCameroon’, New York, NY, August 2007.

UNDP - Cameroon, ‘UNDAF 2008-2012’,Yaoundé, Cameroon, February 2007.

UNDP - Cameroon, ‘UNFPA Draft CountryProgramme Document for Cameroon’,New York, USA, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘Assessment ofDevelopment Results 2006’, New York,NY, 2006.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘Convener Feedback.Gender Equality and Women’sEmpowerment Technical Sub-CommitteeEthiopia’, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘Ethiopia DGGE 2007Workplan’, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘Ethiopia Draft JointDeclaration on Harmonization,Alignment and Aid Effectiveness’, AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘MDG Joint ProgrammeConcept Note: Leave No WomanBehind’, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘Presentation: SpanishFund MDG Heads of Agencies Meeting.Leave No Woman Behind’, Addis Ababa,Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘Resident Coordinator’sAnnual Report 2006’, Addis Ababa,Ethiopia, 2006.


UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘UNCT Ethiopia Retreat’,Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘UNDG Action Plan onthe Implementation of the ParisDeclaration - UNDP Ethiopia (UNCTSurvey)’, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘UNDG Action Plan onthe Implementation of the ParisDeclaration - UNICEF Ethiopia (UNCTSurvey)’, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘UNDG Action Plan onthe Implementation of the ParisDeclaration-UNIDO (UNCT Survey)’,Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘UNDG Action Plan onthe Implementation of the ParisDeclaration-UNAIDS (UNCTSurvey)’, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘UNDG Action Plan onthe Implementation of the ParisDeclaration – ILO (UNCT Survey)’,Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNDP - Ethiopia, ‘UNFPA ProposedProjects and Programmes 2002-2006’,New York, NY, 2001.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘CCA 1997’, Libreville,Gabon, 1997.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘CCA 2001’, Libreville,Gabon, December 2001.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Good Practices and LessonsLearned 2003’, Libreville, Gabon, 2003.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘HDR - Rapport Nationalsur le Developpement Human Durable etla Pauvrete 2005’, Libreville, Gabon’, 2005.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Human DevelopmentReport 2005’, Libreville, Gabon, 2005.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Introductory Letter -Resident Coordinator’s Annual Report2004’, Libreville, Gabon, 2004.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Introductory Letter -Resident Coordinator’s Annual Report2003’, Libreville, Gabon, 2003.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘MDG Report 2003’,Libreville, Gabon, December 2003.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Resident Coordinator’sAnnual Report - Narrative 2006’,Libreville, Gabon, 2006.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Resident Coordinator’sAnnual Report - Narrative 2005’,Libreville, Gabon, 2005.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Resident CoordinatorsAnnual Report 2006’, Libreville, Gabon, 2006.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Results of UN Coordination2003’, Libreville, Gabon, 2003.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘UNDAF 2002-2006’,Libreville, Gabon, November 2001.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘UNDAF2007-2011’,Libreville, Gabon, March 2006.

UNDP - Gabon, ‘Use of Funds Table 2004’,Libreville, Gabon, 2004.

UNDP - Lao PDR and World Bank, ‘LaoPDR Economic Monitor’, Lao PDR,November 2007.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘ADR - Assessment ofDevelopment Results 2007’, New York,NY, 2007.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘Background Document:Round Table Meeting 8 November 07 ‘,Lao PDR, 2007.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘HDR - Advancing RuralDevelopment 2001’, Lao PDR, 2001.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘HDR - InternationalTrade and Human Development 2006’,Lao PDR, 2006.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘HDR - National Human Development Report 1998’, LaoPDR, 1998.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘Lao Experiences inApplication of Paris Declaration toAchieve National Gender Equality’, LaoPDR, August 2007.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘OECD / DAC Survey.Monitoring the Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness October 2005’, Lao PDR,September 2006.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘Project Document:Enriching the Round Table Process for Increased Aid Effectiveness andDevelopment Results July 2007-2010’,Lao PDR, 2007.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘Resident Coordinator’sAnnual Report’, Lao PDR, October 2007.


UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘Review of SectorWorking Groups April 2007’, Lao PDR,April 2007.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘UNDAF 2007-2011’,Lao PDR, 2006.

UNDP - Lao PDR, ‘Vientiane Declarationon Aid Effectiveness’, Lao PDR, no date.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘Rapport de l’OCDEsur la Mise en Oeuvre de la Déclarationde Paris’, Nouakchott, Mauritania, 2007.

UNDP – Mauritania, ‘Diagnostic etOrientations pour l’Harmonisation,l’Alignement et la Coordination enMauritanie’, Nouakchott, Mauritania, 2006.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘HDR - "RapportNational sur le Developpement HumainDurable et la Pauvreté 2003’,Nouakchott, Mauritania, 2003.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘HDR : RapportNational sur le Developpement HumainDurable’, Nouakchott, Mauritania, 2002.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘Note au Ministre desAffaires Economiques et duDeveloppement sur la Mise en Oeuvredu Processus de l’Harmonisation’,Nouakchott, Mauritania, May 2006.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘Plan d’Action pour laMise en Oevre de la Declaration de ParisSur l’Efficacite de l’Aide en Mauritanie’,Nouakchott, Mauritania, 2007.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘Rapport Annuel duCoordonnateur Résident’, Nouakchott,Mauritania, 2007.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘Resident Coordinator’sAnnual Report 2006’, Nouakchott,Mauritania, 2006.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘Terms of Reference -JPO Appui a la Coordination desPartenaires Techniques et Financiers auDeveloppement’, Nouakchott,Mauritania, 2006.

UNDP - Mauritania, ‘UNDG Action Plan onthe Implementation of the ParisDeclaration - UNCT Survey’,Nouakchott, Mauritania, 2006.

UNDP - RBEC, ‘Aid Coordination &Harmonization in the Western Balkans’,New York, NY, March 2005.

UNDP - RBEC, ‘Capacity Development forAid Effectiveness in the Western Balkans.Meeting Report 2006’, Sarajevo, Bosniaand Herzegovina, Mach 2006.

UNDP - RBEC, ‘Capacity Development forAid Effectiveness in the Western Balkans(website)’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBEC, ‘Presentation: AlbaniaStrengthening National Capacities forEfficient Management of ExternalAssistance 2007’, Podgorica, Montenegro,May 2007.

UNDP - RBEC, ‘Presentation: CapacityDevelopment, What Does It Mean forAid Effectiveness May 2007’, New York,May 2007.

UNDP - RBEC, ‘Presentation: Inter SectoralDevelopment and Aid CoordinationNetwork’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBEC, ‘Presentation: MacedoniaSystem for Coordination of ForeignAssistance’, Macedonia, 2007.

UNDP - RBEC, ‘Presentation: Pre AccessionProject Implementation in Croatia’, NewYork, NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘1e Reunión de paísesAssociados a la OCDE-CAD de AméricaLatina y el Caribe y Adheridos a laDeclaración de Paris: Tomando laIniciativa’, Managua, Nicaragua, 2006.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘HACT ImplementationTracking Table (Includes CountriesOriented on HACT Including 2005’,New York, NY, 2005.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘HACT-related OversightIndicators for use by Regional Offices’,New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘Harmonization andAlignment Processes in Nicaragua’, NewYork, NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘One Page Mission ReportSummary - Participation in the RegionalHLF3 Consultation for LAC/CaribbeanStates’, Honduras, 2007.


UNDP - RBLAC, ‘Powerpoint: Contributionsto the United Nations System to theHarmonization and Alignment Processesin Nicaragua 2002-2005 High LevelForum, Paris’, New York, NY, March 2005.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘Regional HACT FocalPoints in Latin America and theCaribbean’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘Suggestions for CountryLevel Monitoring of HACT’, New York,NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘Terms of Reference forHACT - Agency Focal Point at CountryLevel’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘Terms of Reference forHACT Country Focal Point’, New York,NY, 2007.

UNDP - RBLAC, ‘Terms of Reference forHACT Regional Focal Point’, New York,NY, 2007.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘ADR - Assessment ofDevelopment Results 2004’, New York,NY, 2004.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘Capacity AssessmentReport on Joint Capacity NeedsAssessment Exercise on aid Effectiveness,Coordination and Management inUkraine’, Ukraine, 2007.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘HDR: The Power ofParticipation 2001’, Kiev, Ukraine, 2001.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘HDR: The Power ofDecentralization 2005’, Kiev, Ukraine, 2005.

UNDP – Ukraine, ‘Independent Assessmentof Progress on the Implementation of theGlobal Task Team Recommendations inSupport of National AIDS Responses:Ukraine Country Case Study’, London,UK, 2007.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘International TechnicalAssistance Coordination in Ukraine - ThemeGroups Structure’, Kiev, Ukraine, 2006.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘Resident Coordinator’sAnnual Report Ukraine 2006’, Kiev,Ukraine, 2006.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘ToR - Government DonorWorking Group’, Kiev, Ukraine, 2007.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘UNDAF 2006-2010’,Kiev, Ukraine, 2005.

UNDP - Ukraine, ‘World Bank CountryPartnership Strategy 2008-2011’,Washington, DC, 2007.

UNDP- BDP-CDG, ‘Aid Effectiveness at theCountry Level’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP- BDP-CDG, ‘BDP Interventions inAfrica on Aid Effectiveness 2005-2008’,New York, NY, December 2006.

UNDP- BDP-CDG, ‘Memo:Implementation of the Paris DeclarationUNDP Collaboration with the OECDDAC’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP- BDP-CDG, ‘Memo: ParisDeclaration Implementation in Africa’,New York, NY, October 2007.

UNDP- BDP-CDG, ‘Minutes from UNDPConsultative Meeting on Aid Effectiveness’,New York, NY, December 2006.

UNDP- BDP-CDG, ‘Report: Jan-Dec 2006for Project, Aid Effectiveness for ReducingPoverty and Achieving MDGs, UNDPSupport to Developing Countries’, NewYork, NY, 2007.

UNDP- BDP-CDG, ‘UNDP Experiencesand Support to Round Tables - A DeskReview’, New York, July 2005.

UNDP, ‘President’s Package’, New York, NY,September 2007.

UNDP, ‘UNDP Strategic Plan 2008-2011(draft)’, New York, NY, June 2007.

UNFPA, ‘‘Accountability Framework - Reportof the Executive Director to the ExecutiveBoard of UNDP and UNFPA’, New York,NY, September 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Being Effective in the New AidEnvironment: Leading the ICPD Agenda’,Presentation, Geneva, Switzerland, June 2005.

UNFPA, ‘Engaging National DevelopmentStrategies’, New York, NY, 2006.

UNFPA, ‘Financial Components and ToolsSupporting PRSP: Health Financing:Linking Policies to Costing andBudgeting’, Presented by Rabbi RoyanTSD, Rapporteur: Max Tello and PulaneTlebere’, New York, NY, 2007.


UNFPA, ‘Linking Policies to Budgets’,Presentation, New York, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘MDG Toolkit’, Presentation, NewYork, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘UN Millennium Project’,Presentation, New York, NY, 2006.

UNFPA, ‘UNFPA Strategic Plan 2008-2011:Report of the Executive Director to theUNDP/UNFPA Executive Board’, NewYork, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Reproductive Health Accounts andCosting’, Presentation, New York, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Being Effective in the New AidEnvironment: Leading the ICPD Agenda.Issues and Recommendations from theUNFPA Workshop on SWAps andBudget Support’, Geneva, Switzerland, 8-10 June 2005.

UNFPA, ‘Country Checklist: How Well DoPolicies Contained in the PRS/NDS inyour Country Address Pop/RH/Gender?’,internal document, New York, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Draft Concept Note on Trainingfor Trainers: UNFPA’s Technical Supportto the Follow up of the 2005 WorldSummit in a New Aid Environment’,New York, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Ethiopia DGGE 2007 Work Plan’,Ethiopia, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Ethiopia Presentation: MDGSpanish Fund Heads of Agencies Meeting.Leave No Woman Behind UNFPA’,Ethiopia, June 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Ethiopia Proposed Projects andProgrammes 2002-2006’, New York, NY,September 2001.

UNFPA, ‘Ethiopia: MDG Joint ProgrammeConcept Note: Leave No WomanBehind’, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Ethiopia: Terms of Reference forthe UN Gender Technical WorkingGroup’, Ethiopia, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Gabon - Proposed Projects andProgrammes 2002-2006’, New York, NY, 2001.

UNFPA, ‘Lao PDR - Proposed Projects andProgrammes 2002-2006’, New York, NY, 2001.

UNFPA, ‘Letter from Thoraya Ahmed Obaidon UNFPA’s Role in a Changing AidEnvironment: From Policy to Practice --Operational Guidance Note’, New York,NY, May 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Mauritania - Proposed Projects andProgrammes 2002-2006’, New York, NY, 2001.

UNFPA, ‘Measuring Access to ReproductiveHealth Services’, Report ofWHO/UNFPA Technical Consultation,Geneva, Switzerland, December 2003.

UNFPA, ‘Meeting UNFPA and UNDPEvaluation Team Note 2007: UNFPA andSWAp’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘MGD, ICPD and the Follow Up to the 2005 World Summit’, Presentationby Charlotte Juul Hansen, Rapporteurs:Priscilla Mujuru and Gift Malunga’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Operational Guidance Note:UNFPA’s Role in a Changing AidEnvironment - From Policy to Practice’,New York, NY, April 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Powerpoint Presentation: Engagingin National Development Strategies andPoverty Reduction Strategies’, New York,NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Remarks by Thoraya Ahmed Obaid- UNFPA Executive Director: FundingOptions for the UN in the New AidEnvironment’, New York, NY, July 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Repositioning the UN at theCountry Level (internal document)’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Resource Flows for RH from thePooled Funding: Case Study for Zambia’,Presentation, Nyanga, Zimbambwe, 2006.

UNFPA, ‘Travel Report Summary - ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness:Implications: North, Central and WestAfrica’, Bamako, Mali, 2006.


UNFPA, ‘Ukraine Country ProgrammeDocument 2006-2010’, New York, NY, 2005.

UNFPA, ‘UNFPA Guidance on Programmingin the New Aid Environment 2007’, New York, NY, 2008.

UNFPA, ‘UNFPA’s Response to ReproductiveHealth in the Context of SWAps’,Presentation by Dia Timmermans, CharlotteJuul Hansen, New York, NY, 2007.

UNFPA, ‘Workshop Module on Sector Wide Approaches’, Facilitated by DiaTimmermans, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2006.

UNFPA, ‘Workshop on the Training ofTrainers for the New Aid Environment’,Harare, Zimbabwe, September 2006.

UNIFEM, ‘A Way Forward for StrengtheningCoordinated Support for Gender Equalityand Women’s Empowerment - A DraftBackground Note by UNDP, UNFPA,UNICEF and UNIFEM’, draft, NewYork, NY, June 2007.

UNIFEM, ‘Almaty Declaration -Contribution to the Ghana High LevelForum on Aid Effectiveness and the AccraAgenda for Action’, Almaty, Kazakhstan,May 2007.

UNIFEM, ‘Conference Report - OwningDevelopment: Promoting GenderEquality in New Aid Modalities andPartnerships 2005’, Brussels, Belgium,November 2005.

UNIFEM, ‘Information Brief - EC/UNPartnership on Gender Equality forDevelopment and Peace’, New York, NY, 2006.

UNIFEM, ‘Jakarta Declaration on GenderEquality and Aid Effectiveness -Contribution to the Third High - LevelForum on Aid Effectiveness and the AccraAgenda for Action 2008. Adopted on 24August 2007’, Jakarta, Indonesia, August 2007.

UNIFEM, ‘Monitoring and EvaluationFramework in Africa 2003’, New York,NY, 2003.

UNIFEM, ‘Project Document - JointEC/UNIFEM Project - Building Capacityand Improving Accountability for GenderEquality in Development, Peace andSecurity’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNIFEM, ‘Report Gender Equality and Aid Effectiveness - Challenges andOpportunities for International Practice:Experiences from South East Asia’,Bangkok, Thailand, April 2006.

UNIFEM, ‘Report of Experts Group in theIGAD Region - New Aid Modalities - AidEffectiveness, Gender Equality andWomen’s Rights. Recommendations ofthe Expert Meeting Held in Djibouti’,Djibouti, Republic of Djibouti,November 2006.

UNIFEM, ‘Report on Workshop on AidEffectiveness and Gender Equality inAfrica’, Accra, Ghana, November 2006.

UNIFEM, ‘The Burundi Communiqué onPromoting Gender Equality and Women’sHuman Rights in the Context of NewAid Modalities and Partnerships’,Bujumbura, Burundi, 11-14 July 2006.

UNIFEM, ‘UNIFEM Discussion Paper:Promoting Gender Equality in New AidModalities and Partnerships 2006’, New York, NY, March 2006.

United Nations Country Team, ‘Role of UNin a Changing Aid Environment, UNCT- Malawi’, Lilongwe, Malawi, July, 2006.

Waring B, Matsinhe C, ‘Independent Reviewof Progress on the Implementation of theGlobal Task Team Recommendations inSupport of National AIDS Responses.Mozambique Case Studies’, HLSP/UNAIDS, London, UK, 2007.

Waring B, Siamwiza R, ‘Independent Reviewof Progress on the Implementation of theGlobal Task Team Recommendations inSupport of National AIDS Responses.Zambia Case Study’, HLSP/UNAIDS,London, UK, May 2007.

White H, IDS Working Paper No. 242,‘Challenges in Evaluating DevelopmentEffectiveness’, IDS, Brighton, UK, March 2005.


1. INTERVIEW GUIDELINES FORMEETINGS WITH GOVERNMENTREPRESENTATIVES

These interviews will last between 45 minutesand one hour. Most will be conducted asindividual interviews, but sometimes there couldbe two or three persons present. The flow ofquestions and answers is likely to vary signifi-cantly, and the responses should be comparedto, and the questions developed, in light of theterms of reference for this evaluation.

1. Introduction: Presentation of the evaluationassignment, a note on the methodologyand the work of the evaluation team.

2. The importance of context: What are themajor factors in the environment that have influenced the strategic managementof aid, national ownership of processes andthe commitment to the principles of theParis Declaration?

3. What mechanisms have been put in placeto implement the Paris Declaration?Names of these, mandates, participation,frequency of meetings.

4. Capacity-building initiatives: Document anythat took place and the experiences of each.

5. Any specific studies or other initiatives toimplement the Paris Declaration? Whotook the initiative, how was it financed,when was it implemented and how canthat experience be assessed?

6. Which are the most significant features ofthe changes implemented since 2005?

7. Are there any obstacles to further change?What needs to be done to move forwardon the Paris Declaration?

8. Concluding remarks: Summing up theexperience to date and the main lessonslearned from the past two years.

2. INTERVIEW GUIDELINES FOR MEETINGS WITH CIVILSOCIETY REPRESENTATIVES

These interviews will last between 45 minutesand one hour. Most will be conducted asindividual interviews, but sometimes therecould be two to four persons present. Theseinterviews can be more structured than thosein the first category.


2. The importance of context: What are themajor factors in the environment that haveinfluenced the strategic management ofaid, the role of civil society organizationsand the commitment to the principles ofthe Paris Declaration?

3. How has the Paris Declaration influencedthe dialogue between civil society, governmentand development partners as regards tomanagement of development cooperation?Any new platforms for dialogue? If so,which ones? Experience of participation in these?

ANNEX 5. INTERVIEW GUIDES – QUESTIONNAIRES 75

INTERVIEW GUIDES – QUESTIONNAIRES

ANNEX 5

4. Capacity-building initiatives: Document anythat took place and the experiences of each.





3. INTERVIEW GUIDELINES FOR MEETINGS WITH DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS

These interviews will last between 45 minutesand up to two hours. Most will be conductedas individual interviews, but some could alsotake the form of group interviews with thewhole UN Country Team.


2. The importance of context: What are themajor factors in the environment that haveinfluenced the strategic management ofaid, national ownership of processes and thecommitment to the principles of the ParisDeclaration? How did the UN organiza-tions work together in the past? How weredevelopment partners coordinated in the past?What are the main sectors of cooperation?

3. What mechanisms have been put in place toimplement the Paris Declaration? Namesof these, mandates, participation, frequencyof meetings. What is the contribution ofeach actor? Where have strategic initiativesbeen formulated? What are the roles ofdifferent organizations and individuals?

4. Capacity-building initiatives: Document anythat took place and the experiences of each.Any specific training programs, new recruit-ments, policies formulated, or manuals?





4. INTERVIEW GUIDELINES FORMEETINGS WITH HEADQUARTERS

ASSESSING COMMITMENT

n How has the Paris Declaration’s emphasison demand-driven development coopera-tion been reflected in UN developmentpolicies, programmes, processes, systemsand procedures?

n Has the implementation of the ParisDeclaration affected priority setting for UNdevelopment cooperation?

n Have there been key changes in UNpolicies, programmes, processes, systemsand procedures to facilitate the implemen-tation of the Paris Declaration?

n What are the main drivers of these changes?

n How is UN commitment to the ParisDeclaration demonstrated at the level ofagency headquarters? Has the role of UNheadquarters/field offices been adapted tothe aid effectiveness agenda? If not, why not?

ANNEX 5. INTERVIEW GUIDES – QUESTIONNAIRES76

ASSESSING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

n Have specific instructions, guidelines,operational directives been developed and disseminated to staff to facilitateimplementation and assessment of theParis Declaration implementation plan?

n How is delegated authority within UNorganizations structured, and why?

n Does UNDP as resident coordinatorcoordinate sufficiently at country levelwith other UN agencies, funds andprogrammes for the implementation ofcommitments to the Paris Declaration?

ASSESSING INCENTIVE SYSTEMS

n Are there specific incentives provided byUN organizations (e.g. for recruitment,performance assessment and training) fortheir management and staff to complywith the Paris Declaration objectives ofownership, harmonization, alignment andresults orientation?

n Are there any perceived disincentives, inrespect to other UN priorities?

ASSESSING UN CONTRIBUTION,POSITIONING AND COMPARATIVEADVANTAGE IN THE IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE PARIS DECLARATION

n How has the United Nations supported partnercountries in exercising effective leadershipover their development policies and strategies?

n How has the United Nations aligned itssupport to partner countries’ national develop-ment strategies, institutions and processes?

n How has the United Nations supportedstrengthening of capacities of partnercountries to implement their commit-ments to the Paris Declaration, particularlywith respect to policy making, publicfinance management, national procure-ment systems, managing for results andaccountability frameworks?

n How has the United Nations con-tributed to reducing transaction costs forpartner countries?

ANNEX 5. INTERVIEW GUIDES – QUESTIONNAIRES 77

n Surveys sent out—119: 61 to signatorycountries and 58 to non-signatory countries

n Surveys returned—41: 22 from signatorycountries and 19 from non-signatorycountries

n Response rate—34 percent overall: 36 percent from signatory countries and33 percent from non-signatory countries

n Cross Tab Results by signatory (PD) and non-signatory (non PD) countries:Survey asked the Resident Coordinatorsto respond in four categories, from verylow (1) to very high (4).

ANNEX 6. SURVEY TO UN RESIDENT COORDINATORS FOR PARIS DECLARATION EVALUATION 79

SURVEY TO UN RESIDENTCOORDINATORS FOR PARISDECLARATION EVALUATION

ANNEX 6

OWNERSHIP: NATIONAL STRATEGIES

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

Is there a clear national development strategy,monitored and linked to budget?

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

OWNERSHIP: SECTORAL STRATEGIES

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

Are there sector-level strategies monitored andlinked to budget?

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

OWNERSHIP: CSO PARTICIPATION

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

Are strategies prepared in a participatory wayincluding broad segments of civil society?’

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

ANNEX 6. SURVEY TO UN RESIDENT COORDINATORS FOR PARIS DECLARATION EVALUATION80

ALIGNMENT: PARTNER COUNTRY STRATEGIES

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

Donors base their overall support on partner countries’national development strategies, institutions andprocedures: a) Donors align with partnercountry strategies

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

ALIGNMENT: USE COUNTRY SYSTEMS

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

Donors base their overall support on partner countries’national development strategies, institutions andprocedures: c) Donors use strengthened country systems

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

Donors base their overall support on partner countries’national development strategies, institutions andprocedures: b) Partner countries strengthendevelopment capacity with donor support

50454035302520151050

1 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

ALIGNMENT: STRENGTHEN COUNTRY SYSTEMS

HARMONIZATION: SIMPLIFY PROCEDURES

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

Donors actions are more harmonized, transparent and collectively effective: a) Donors implement common arrangements and simplify procedures

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

50454035302520151050

ANNEX 6. SURVEY TO UN RESIDENT COORDINATORS FOR PARIS DECLARATION EVALUATION 81

HARMONIZATION: COMPLEMENTARITY

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

Donors actions are more harmonized, transparent and collectively effective: b) There is a more complementary division of labour

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

MANAGING FOR RESULTS: PROGRAMME

Managing resources and improving decision making for results: a) Country programming and resources linked to a results framework

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

MANAGING FOR RESULTS: COUNTRY

Managing resources and improving decision making for results: b) Donors rely on partner countries’ results-oriented and monitoring frameworks

Perc

ent (

%)

Results1 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: DONORSPe

rcen

t (%

)

Results

Donors and partner countries are accountable for development results: a) Donors provide timely transparent andcomprehensive information on aid flows

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

ANNEX 6. SURVEY TO UN RESIDENT COORDINATORS FOR PARIS DECLARATION EVALUATION82

50454035302520151050

MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: COUNTRIES

Managing resources and improving decisionmaking for results: b) Partner countries present comprehensive budgets and report to their legislatures and citizens

Perc

ent (

%)

Results1 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD1009080706050403020100

COMMITMENT

To which extent has the PD’s emphasis ondemand-driven development cooperation been reflected in UN development policies,programmes, processes, systems and procedures?

Perc

ent (

%)

Results1 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

CAPACITITES

Perc

ent (

%)

Results

To which extent have specific instructions,guidelines, operational directives been developedand disseminated to staff to facilitate imple-mentation and assessment of the PD?

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

INCENTIVESPe

rcen

t (%

)

Results

To which extent are there specific incentives providedby UN agencies—e.g. for recruitment, performanceassessment and training—for their managementand staff to comply with the PD principles?

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

n PD n non-PD

ETHIOPIA

RC/UNCT activities were supported by: astrong government commitment to the PD;solid government ownership of an economicprogramme (the Plan for Accelerated andSustained Development to End Poverty)focused on poverty alleviation, although it wasprepared with consultation rather than civilsociety organization participation; and a largeODA programme coordinated through theDevelopment Assistance Group (DAG), whichwas established prior to the PD. Post 2005,election disturbances weakened donor supportthough much of the direct budget supportprovided to the government was re-channelledunder poverty-alleviation programmes to localgovernments. The RC in the role of co-chairof DAG (together with WB co-chair) playedan important role during the post-2005election period in maintaining donors’ interestin aiding Ethiopia.

PROGRESS

n The RC/UNCT commitment to the PDprinciples, to the extent it existed before,was further accentuated from 2005 onward.

n The positive role played by RC in DAGimproved the PD principle of strengtheningpredictability of aid flows, in advocatingfor maintaining aid flows level and povertyorientation of ODA.

n The capacity of the DAG Secretariat,located within UNDP, has been givencontinued attention though not always

meeting the expectations of bilateraldonors. UNDP also has hosted an IFAD‘field presence’ since 2006.

n The UNCT developed UNDAF 2007-2011 in full alignment with Plan forAccelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty; all UNCT membersincluding WB signed UNDAF.

n The UNDP Country Programme Documentis consistent with UNDAF and the Plan forAccelerated and Sustained Development toEnd Poverty. It was prepared in consultationwith government and other stakeholders.

n Coordination between the UN organizations’programmes under the umbrella of the UNCTis viewed positively and has led to avoidingduplication and overlaps by participatingagencies. Much of the coordination work isbeing carried out under specialized technical/working groups. A lead agency will takecharge of a particular sector or issue even inthe case where a UNDG member does nothave local representation.

CONSTRAINTS

n The government, concerned about thetransaction costs associated with ODA,took the initiative in 2005 for higher PDtargets than in the Declaration itself. Thiswas dragged out by donors because of thepost-2005 election events. In 2007, thegovernment proposed to the UNDG ExCommembers in the UNCT a harmonizedprogramme implementation manual. The

ANNEX 7. MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE COUNTRY CASE STUDIES 83

MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE COUNTRY CASE STUDIES

ANNEX 7

proposal is still under discussion among theagencies, which want to ensure compatibilityof the proposed manual with their owninstitutional process requirements.

n Regarding incentives, the RC sees agenciescontinuing to place top priority on thecarrying out of their respective programmeswhen it comes to personnel evaluationfrom headquarters.

LAO PDR

Laos is classified as a least developed countrythat is heavily dependent on ODA. It is aSingle Party Socialist State. The government,together with development partners, hasshown commitment to the PD through its‘domestication’ in the form of the VientianeDeclaration that was signed by both thegovernment and almost 30 developmentpartners between 2006 and 2007 (with muchassistance from UNDP). The government’sdevelopment efforts are guided by clearnational development strategic frameworks:National Growth and Poverty ReductionStrategy (NGES) 2004-2005 and NationalSocio Economic Development Plan (NSEDP)2006-2010. In the context of implementingthe PD, Laos has eight Sector WorkingGroups, four of which represent the prioritydevelopment sectors: education and gender,agriculture, health and HIV/AIDS, and ruraldevelopment and infrastructural development.

PROGRESS

n UNCT was very strong under the leader-ship of the RC. The following are some ofthe achievements:

n UNCT members played a key role inproviding technical support to theformulation of the Vientiane Declaration

and the Country Action Plan, an operationalplan for implementing the VientianeDeclaration. They served on task forces forcrafting these key documents.

n UNDP provided leadership in organizingthe Round Table Meetings (which also dateto pre-Vientiane Declaration period). Theround table process fosters partnershipbuilding and policy dialogue betweengovernment and development partners.

n The UNCT’s UNDAF of 2007-2011 stayswithin the national priorities and incorpo-rates Vientiane Declaration principles.

n The three ExCom Agencies (UNDP,UNFPA and UNICEF) have operational-ized the first stages of HACT, thusproviding strong leadership to otherdevelopment partners to take harmoniza-tion efforts seriously. A locally adaptedHACT training manual was developed.

n The UNCT has developed a Joint SustainableLivelihood Programme involving all UNCTmembers, including agencies that are notresident in Laos. Within this programme,there is a clear division of labour based onthe agencies comparative advantage.

n UNCT members are involved in pre-testing of WB-developed tools for capacitydevelopment in the four priority areas.

n UNDP, in partnership with the governmentPublic Service Department, jointly conducteda survey on capacity development needs forthe whole public service. The results aredue for publication in early 2008.

n The National Execution Unit has played a key role in enhancing government staffcapacity on programme management (rules,procedures, programme formulation,execution and M&E). This falls within thecontext of PD alignment.

ANNEX 7. MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE COUNTRY CASE STUDIES84

CONSTRAINTS

n The government is concerned abouthaving adequate resources to assumeleadership of all working groups.

n There is concern among some develop-ment partners that the Round Table is notthe right forum for coordination andnegotiating. It is considered too large withtoo much ‘reporting’ characteristics.

n The UNCT reported slow feedback fromUNDG headquarters on matters relatingto HACT. The draft HACT manual hasnot received timely inputs to motivate theplayers at country level.

n The round table mechanism is viewed aslacking in creating a rich environment foranalytical work.

n Knowledge of PD issues remains aprivilege for senior UNCT staff and mayhave a negative impact on contribution ofall UNCT staff to PD.

MAURITANIA

This country is in a fragile state. It emergedfrom 30 years of dictatorship in 2005, recentlyconcluding the first-ever democratic election.The economy is on a promising upswing dueto recent start of oil production, but expectationsmay have to be downscaled due to poorer-than-expected quality of oil. Althougheconomic growth has been high in recent yearsof 6.9 percent and 11.7 percent in 2006, 50percent of the 2.6 million population livebelow the poverty line. Mauritania has shownimpressive results in its commitment to the PDin a short period of time (this is also influencedby a strong commitment towards reform andprogress all levels in Mauritania), bearing inmind that the PD was launched while thecountry was engaged in a system transitionprocess and needs to build its capacities at all

levels. Differing perceptions exist amongdevelopment partners as to UN contribution,especially in regards to leadership. The UnitedNations has an important role to play, but ithas to be spelled out and leadership demonstratedin areas where the United Nations has obviouscomparative advantages.

PROGRESS

n The PD action plan has triggered ownershipand internalization of the PD process. UNDPled advocacy to disseminate PD to nationaland international partners alike. The UnitedNations and WB worked closely togetherand early progress was triggered by theexceptionally good working relationshipbetween the two institutions and individualleadership of the WB Director and RC.However exit of these two key figuresdemonstrated that the system of enhancedcollaboration/coordination was largelyborn by individuals and not institutional-ized enough to be carried on by successorsunless they can demonstrate the samecommitment and leadership.

n The United Nations supported a nationalsurvey, PD action plan, and coordinatedsupport to the election process includingthe establishment of a 12 million USDmulti-donor trust fund. Agreement tomove on in instituting HACT, jointmission (60 percent)

CONSTRAINTS

n Some consider it a risk that UN efforts areinward looking, at the expense of externalcoordination efforts.

n The government is not part of an existingworking group structure.

n There is concern among agencies abouthow reporting can show individual agency attribution.


n Clear identification of issues related tofurther harmonization has not been made(for example, what specific agency rulesand procedures are hindrances).

n There is a lack of a government led coordi-nation mechanism to assign roles ofdevelopment partners based on theircomparative advantages.

n UNCT’s oversight/division of labour is lacking.

n At the sectoral/working group level, activities and sector components that maybenefit from joint programming have notbeen identified.

GABON

Gabon, a county of 1.5 million people, ofwhom 80 percent live in urban settings, has forthree decades been a middle-income countrywith oil as it key asset. The oil reserves arelikely to diminish in the future and the countrynow faces the challenge of diversifying theeconomy. In the area of governance, accounta-bility, transparency, control of corruption,participation and the existence of a fair legaland judicial system are weaknesses. Civilsociety is still weak and fragmented.

PROGRESS

n The UNCT/RC was the main driver insensitizing the government to theimportance of PD principles and theirrelevance for development efforts and aideffectiveness. These efforts were successfuland led Gabon to sign the PD in March2006. The significance of this achievementshould be seen in the contextual backgroundof the relatively modest importance ofexternal aid in Gabon. The commitmenton the part of the UNCT/RC to undertakethis role was induced through headquar-

ters’ instructions and guidance and bycommitment and leadership on the part ofthe RC and others.

n The RC office, as well as the UNCT, wasinstrumental in setting up a coordinationstructure for regular interaction amongdevelopment partners. In addition to atleast one meeting to convey and share thePD principles, a number of thematicworking groups have been established, ledand facilitated by agencies with ‘natural’comparative advantages in respective sectors.

n The RC office acts as Secretariat for all theworking groups and has a key role inconvening meetings. The groups conveneon a monthly, bi-monthly or tri-monthlybasis. All groups have elaborated specificterms and mandates. This has stimulatedcommitment among development partnersto align with government priorities.However, commitment was hampered by alack of government ability to set prioritiesand assume genuine ownership of thereference strategies.

CONSTRAINTS

n The government was not part of thegroups and saw the enhanced joint effortsamong agencies as a ‘fait accompli’ andganging up behind closed doors. Thesestatements should be taken in the contextof a slow start on the part of the govern-ment. The government also complained ofa lack of resources to engage in the PDprocess. It requested further assistance toestablish a PD road map and set prioritiesas well as financial support for the process.

n Coordination groups focus on theexchange of information and share insightinto agency programmes, but they need toidentify the specific measures needed toapply PD principles. This would include


identification and listing of issues both atthe operational and the programme level.Once areas for enhanced harmonizationare identified, joint assessments and jointmonitoring and evaluation should befollowed by identification of specificprocedural and administrative issues orchallenges to be addressed. These shouldbe brought to the attention of headquartersif not feasible to solve at the country level.

n Lack of resources to engage and implementPD and enhanced coordination efforts arekey constraints.

n A government owned and led PD actionplan and road map needs to be established,accommodating the government’s requestfor support to do this.

High commitment to the PD and relevantorganizational structures were established,although the coordination structure shouldcomprise government and civil society organi-zations. The PD is, to a large degree, driven bythe United Nations with other developmentpartners gradually coming on board andgovernment only about to come on board. The process is time-consuming and manyinitiatives were put on hold or never developeddue to lack of resources. This means thatUNCT has been able to identify areas wherePD capacity could be developed but has notbeen able to address those areas.

UKRAINE

Ukraine, a middle income country, is charac-terized by a volatile political environment,having had four different governmentsbetween 2004 and 2007. The country has arelatively small community of developmentpartners. If country ownership is measured bya well developed national strategic develop-ment framework, Ukraine stands in a rather

weak position. There are numerous policydevelopment frameworks, but there is not oneclearly agreed-upon strategic framework to whichdevelopment partners can align. Developmentpartners choose policy frameworks that suittheir agenda from the available ones. However, inthe last few years (2005-2007), the governmenthas worked towards creating an environmentfor government and development partners towork towards a common goal. The Ministry ofEconomy and its department responsible forcoordination of development partners appearto have better appreciation of PD issuescompared to line ministries, which are stillstruggling with leadership issues.

PROGRESS

n Through UNDP, UNCT played a signifi-cant role in enhancing the capacity of thegovernment at the political level to assumeownership and leadership in development.

n Through the catalytic work of the BlueRibbon Commission (which occurred priorto the PD), UNDP worked consistently onpolicy dialogue aimed at helping thegovernment to assume leadership. One ofthe outcomes of this effort was the govern-ment Programme of Action of 2005.

n UNCT assisted the government in developingthe Donor-Government Working Groups,a coordination mechanism through whichdevelopment partners and the governmentcan implement the principles of PD.

n There is clear division of labour amongmembers of the UNCT, as they takeleadership in different thematic areas in theDonor-Government Working Groups.

n UNCT’s 2006 UNDAF indicated effortsmade to align to the government Programmeof Action 2005. The UNDAF is also alignedto the MDGs.


n UNAIDS, as member of the UNCT, hasprovided an environment for harmonizationof key players in the HIV/AIDS field.UNAIDS is striving to operationalize theprinciples of the Three Ones.

CONSTRAINTS

n Not all development partners view UNDPas a neutral broker between the governmentand development partners. Some donorswould prefer to have direct interface withthe government rather than have UNDPrepresent development partners’ position.

n Size of financial support may influenceadvocacy for PD. Most developmentpartners believe ‘who has the money dictatesthe rule of the game’, and UNCT is viewedas a small player compared to big donors.

n Ukraine does not have a clear PD ActionPlan with targets for implementation ofthe PD.

CAMEROON

Cameroon, due to its oil reserves, is a relativelywealthy middle-income country. However,human development indicators for the 18 millionperson population are low. The country ranks144 out of 177 on the human developmentindex. Governance is characterized by a top-heavy civil service with weak institutionalcapacity and is classified as one of the mostcorrupt countries in Africa. There is no realinvolvement of civil society or non-govern-mental organizations—most still have lowcapacity and struggle to develop and to participate. There are a few very articulatednon-governmental organizations. Cameroonreceived considerable amounts of ODA butfunding volumes have decreased. Manydevelopment partners are concerned about alack of transparency, progress of civil and

political rights, and a commitment to donorcooperation, including the PD. Cameroon isnot dependent on ODA, which accounts forless than 2 percent of public expenditurebudget. Recognition of and commitment toPD principles is strong and the institutionalinfrastructure has been strengthened, but stafftime allocation and efficiency are a stumblingblock to further progress. The application ofPD principles are in progress. Importantpreconditions are in place and there is a strongcommitment to proceed, but this is hampered byconcerns about corruption and lack of confidencein government efforts among partners.

PROGRESS

n The overall coordination structure forUNCT and development partners was inplace pre-PD, but coordination processesgained more strength post-PD and moresectoral coordination groups were established.

n The UNDAF was instrumental inenhancing awareness of the need forcoordination. However, it was with the PDthat effort to and commitment to ‘speakwith one voice’ gained momentum.

n The first PRSP did not trigger enhancedcoordination effort, but with the secondPRSP, emphasis was put on coordination.

n The working group structure was instru-mental in providing a platform for coordina-tion, however it lacks sufficient governmentrepresentation especially line ministries.

n Coordination and joint programming ofAvian Flu contingency planning was a goodexample of a successful joint programme.

n Strategic partnerships exist on genderissues, for example promoting femaleelectoral participation and steps to initiatea gender mainstreaming strategy. TheUnited Nations has an important normative


role to play; gender and anti-corruptioncooperation are examples.

n A joint government and development partnersindependent aid assessment coordinated byUNDP enhanced mutual accountability.

CONSTRAINTS

n Some of the normative functions ofUNCT members are not visible. Hencethere is a need for agencies to demonstrateattribution while engaging in enhancedcoordination.

n There is still a need to harmonize how towork with the government and a moreefficient mechanism put in place forsharing information among agencies.

n Although there has been progress onHACT, Daily Subsistence Allowance, and

fees, other functions are not harmonized.For example, every agency does its owngovernance profile.

n Identification and listing of specific agencyconstraints in further harmonizationefforts need to be elaborated.

n Many UNCT members (and otherdevelopment partners) felt that the processcould not be pushed, given the need tohave and develop a common vision aspoint of departure that everyone can ‘buyinto’. The real challenge is the need for ajoint government and developmentpartner vision.

n There are time and resource constraints inengaging in PD process (meaning engagingin enhanced coordination efforts).

n Commitment and engagement is a resultof individual commitment.
