17-18 March 2009, Bratislava

Welcome!Introduction - who we are

Objectives - why we are here

Agenda – what are we going to do?

2

Objectives Meet one another and Country TeamsUnderstand our roleAgree on the support we as a group (and

each agency at regional level)can provideTailor our support to specific country needs

BE USEFUL!

3

How are we going to do this?Agenda is flexible (based on the group needs

and priority issues)Keep the UN hat on!Interaction with CT membersDiscussion around the key issues related to

PSG supportNEUTRALITYCONSENSUS

RESULT

4

Our expectations (PSG survey)Role

Clear definition of scope for PSG roleBeing able to position myself and PSG in the

process

ClarityOn the CCA/UNDAF processPractical guidance; 2009 timetableFeedback on 2008 support

5

Our expectationsProcess

Meet the groupEfficient teamwork after the meetingNetworking with UNCTs and NRAsDefine standards; identify capacitiesDevelop minimum criteria for UNCTsSupport from each regional officeAgreement on integrated 2009 support strategy;Consistency in the breadth and depth of commentsBalance between narrow and general comments

6

Expected ResultsAgreement on PSG support in 2009Recommendations to Country Teams Revised CCA/UNDAF checklists

7

We will talk about:Support StructureReflections on 2008ObservationsQuality of CCA/UNDAFs 2008 UNCT survey resultsRecommendations for 2009PSG support

8

CCA/UNDAF Support Structure

9

Regional Directors Team (RDT)

UN DOCO

UNSSCToT and facilitation support for SPR;

design of workshop manuals

QSA/PSGCoordination of the

process, peer review of CCA and UNDAF drafts,

in-country support, liaison between CT’s,

DOCO and RDT

QSA/PSG role in 2008Convening Agency

Oversight of the process Set up of the PSGWorkshop observationsCoordination of the regional review

PSGDesk reviews of draft CCA and UNDAFsSupport with technical advice at UNCT request

10

Reflections on 2008

11

Regional Context

Almost all MICsLess and less donorsShrinking UN resources with Heavy planning process

12

Challenges... Balancing between strategic and inclusiveVaried planning capacities across agencies

Too many outcomes and outputsHard to implement, let alone monitor

High turnover of staff within Gov and UN

13

7 roll-out countriesMajor steps for roll-outsPSG 2008

11 participated out of 17Different experience with each country

Timing, structure, understanding of the process...

Ownership, commitment, consultants...Quality of CCAs and UNDAFs

14

Major steps for CTs in 2008

15

MTR

Analysis

Design w/p

Plans of Engagement

SPR

UNDAF drafts

UNDAFs completed

JSM

PSG PSG

MTR CCA PoE Design SPR

Armenia Yes - late

No, other Yes No Yes

BiH No (2006)

Yes, light Yes Yes Yes

Macedonia No No Yes - late

Yes Yes

Serbia No Yes Yes Yes UNDAF postponed

Kazakhstan Yes Yes - surprise

Yes Yes Yes

Tajikistan No No Yes Yes Yes

Turkmenistan

No Yes Yes Combined

Uzbekistan Yes Yes , light Yes Yes Yes (other)

16

General Observations

17

UNCT readinessNot fully preparedPartners not well informedRDT guidance re the need for UNCT to forgo a

full fledged CCA process which meant that most countries opted for a “light” approach

Absence of lessons learned from current UNDAFsHeavy reliance on external consultantsPerception of the UNDAF process as a 3-4 day

exercise and high expectations set for facilitators

18

WorkshopsNeed to improve training modules Need for good examples on RBMHRBA workshops to be conducted separately

from UNDAF design and SPRSpecific knowledge of facilitation team on the

country contextNeed for facilitation team to tailor the needs

of the UNCTNeed for a clear guidance to mobilizing

resources for UNDAF

19

RBM specificInsufficient time devoted to RBM and HRBA Varied level of understanding of the RBM

between agenciesAs a result it was hard to remain strategicResistance/reluctance of UNCT to commit at

the output levelsAgency specific prioritiesM&E discussions are limitedClearer guidance is required on outlining

responsible partners

20

UN comparative advantages Articulation of the UN’s comparative

advantages is weakComparative advantages should be identified

and well articulated before the SPR

21

QUALITY

22

QuestionWhat is a good quality UNDAF?

What is a good quality CCA?

Break into groups of 3 and come up with 3 main criteria that makes CCAs and UNDAFs

“good quality” documents.

23

Quality of CCAs and UNDAFCountry UNDAF draft Final

Armenia 38 outputs13 page RM274 indicators in M&E59 page M&E

4 Outcomes40 Outputs107 indicators and 16 page M&E framework

BiH 67 outputs231 indicators M&E

Kazakhstan 3 Outcomes39 outputs116 indicators M&E

3 Outcomes10 agency outputs39 outputs108 indicators

Uzbekistan 66 outputs300+ indicators in M&E67 page M&E

24

Quality of CCAs and UNDAFTwo good quality UNDAFsMacedonia (anchored in MDGs and good treatment of lessons learned and the UN comparative advantageBiH (clear and logical formulation and SMART. Clear focus on capacity development. The situation analysis presented is brief and succinct and strikes a good balance between optimism and realism. However, there was a general problem with the results matrices (esp. at the level of outputs) and overly ambitious M&E frameworks which were deemed difficult to operationalise

25

UNCT SURVEY

26

Survey resultsOverall process:

Process and guidelines were clear to UNCTsEngagement of UNCT members and partners

in the process quite high Participation of partners and their commitment

not so strongLack of understanding of common

programming principles, especially for partners

27

Clarity on regional support

28

Adequate support received from UNSSC

29

Workshops materials well designed and appropriate

30

RBM and HRBA in workshop materials

31

Facilitation team was competent

32

The length of PSG review is adequate

33

PSG feedback is helpful

34

Need for external consultant

35

DISCUSSION

Your reflections on the survey results and suggestions

36

DIALOGUE

37

A man is piloting a hot-air balloon, when he suddenly realizes that he’s lost. He maneuvers around, and descends a bit. He sees a man on

the ground, walking along, and calls out:

“Excuse me, could you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him at 2 o’clock, I’m a half

hour late and I don’t know where I am…”.

“Sure, I can help. You’re flying in a hot-air balloon, at an altitude of about 30 meters,

between 40 and 42 degrees north latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees west longitude”.

38

“Are you, by any chance, a member of the Peer Support Group?”, asks the balloonist.

“Yes, sir, I am. But how did you know?".

“Because what you have just told me is “technically” correct, but “practically” useless. I don’t know what to do with the information

you’ve just given me, and I’m still lost!”.

“Ah. And you must be a member of the UNCT working on that UNDAF, right?” asked the

member of the PSG.

“Indeed, I am. But how did you know?”

39

“Easy. You don’t know where you are, and you don’t know where you’re going. You

made a commitment that you have no idea how to fulfill, and you expect someone else to solve the problem. In fact, you are in exactly

the same situation you were in before we met. But now, somehow, it’s my fault!”

40

Review Process

41

PSG: Review ProcessLack of consistency in providing comments

Use of track changes Mixture of general and specific comments Many agency specific details Comments made inside the documents New outcomes/outputs

42

PSG review

10 working days for review and commentsComments are consolidated by the Convening

Agency and shared with UNCTs

However

UNCTs have flexibility to accept or reject comments

43

Sample comments“Stubborn abstaining from addressing _____is a

serious drawback of UNDAF. In view of this it appears that UN in Country A values its position of a comfortable government partner more than asserting its principle in a positive way, using stronger advocacy on the expressed needs for changes. After all, if UN does not stand for economic, social, cultural, human and other rights – it is undermining its role and function in the medium and long-term. Poverty cannot be reduced through welfare alone, especially if there are scare funds for welfare. UN should not be an adjunct of the government mitigating its harsh civil and economic policies.

44

Sample comments“There were several waves of massive NGO

closures. UN did not address this in a dialogue with the government. UN has three main functions – peacekeeping, human rights and development. Closure of UNHCR, lack of support to promote Decent Work Agenda, only focusing of development and delivery of priorities identified by the government produce the impression that UN in Country B is merely surviving through supporting the mainstream government agenda.”

45

Sample comments The document does not consider the critical role free and

independent media play for good governance and for democratic participation.

“UN has not addressed the existence of grant commission under the Central Bank, which stops rights-oriented assistance projects.”

Country X could benefit from wider support for education in light of the fact that EFA is considered as a top priority of social development by the authorities. The EFA co-sponsoring agencies should be encouraged to pool technical and financial resources towards assistance in the education-related priority areas identified by the national authorities...

Outputs are too broad and general maybe they can qualify as outcomes.

A short survey of the structure, functions and operation of the labour administration will be discussed in a tripartite setting and measures will be proposed for its reinforcement and better governance with reference to the provisions of the Convention.

46

Sample comments“Although for political reasons it may not be

possible, consideration might be given to the inclusion under root causes of the absence of effective mechanisms of checks and balance where all power remains concentrated in the hands of the executive and linked to it the absence of political will to actually change many of the things the UN would like to address.”

47

Sample comments“There is a slight mismatch between some

statements in the matrix and some statements in the UNDAF narrative. This is not a big issue, but it may be better to ensure clear consistency between both documents.”

“The document doesn't adequately address the UN comparative advantages - it covers what they are, but no clear argumentation for them. What is the actual niche for the UN here, compared to World Bank, USAID, EU etc. – would it be possible to further specify?”

48

“The sections on implementation, monitoring and evaluation are well developed, and the document establishes good alignment between the UNDAF M&E system and the national monitoring system that exists in the country.”

49

DOs in reviewsRemember the purpose of PSG reviewsConsider political sensitivities

Can UNCT address your comment in CCA/UNDAF? Put yourself in the shoes of UNCTs

Consider the level of detail Is the comment appropriate for CCA/light

CCA/UNDAF Does it directly support the key challenge?

Focus on logical chain in UNDAFsFor NRAs – work with UNCTs from early stagesFollow the review formatRespect the deadlines

50

DON’Ts in reviewsDon’t throw stones at UNCTs

PSG forum is not the right place for that

Refrain from track changes Don’t insert comments into draftsFocus too narrowly on your agency mandate

rather than to take a broad view of the UNDAF and what it aims to achieve

51

DISCUSSION

52

Recommendations for 2009

53

Recommendations for 2009Strengthen QSA/PSG supportSet minimum criteria for the processIdentify lessons learned and good practicesImprove the contents of workshops manualsRevisit the formats for Plan of Engagements

and checklists Discuss support to UNDAF implementation

for 2008 roll-outs

54

OpportunitiesResource mobilization opportunities (COD)CCA/UNDAF Guidelines for MICsIncreasing engagement from non ExCom

agencies

55

What should we do better?More active PSG involvement in the process

Desk reviews Technical advice In-country visits Resources

How can the regional offices support the process?

56

Can we set a minimum criteria? Review of current UNDAF Country analysis (or brief review of existing

analyses)Building dialogue with partnersDesigning the UNDAF processIntroduction of common programming

principles to UN staff and partnersSPR

Ideas?

57

Workshops and manualsQSA observations and UNCT survey suggest

the revision of facilitation manuals taking into account:

Country context UNCT and partners: characteristics Progress up to date with UNDAF implementation Capacity of UN and Government on common

programming principles Need for best practices and good examples from the

region

58

PoE and checklistsGroup work to review and provide

recommendations to improve the formats of:Plan of Engagement (refer to revised

Guidelines)CCA checklistUNDAF checklist

59

2009 major milestones

Design w/pUNDAF

Evaluation

Plans of Engagement

Analysis SPR

UNDAF drafts

Draft analysis

UNDAFs completed

Recommendations to CTsSend a letter to UNCTs explaining the role of

PSG and the kind of support that PSG provides

Reiterate the importance of the analysis Clarify that there is no ‘light’ approach The role of PSG not to engage into country

programming issuesUNCTs to engage/inform NRAs from early

stagesUNCT ownership of the “process”