evaluation of the third global cooperation framework of undp

United Nations Development Programme

THE THIRD GLOBAL COOPERATION FRAMEWORK OF UNDP

EVALUATION OF

Evaluation Office, September 2008United Nations Development Programme

THE THIRD GLOBAL COOPERATION FRAMEWORK OF UNDP

EVALUATION OF

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

Design: Suazion, Inc. (NY, suazion.com) Production: A.K. Office Supplies (NY)

Team Members Steen Folke (Team Leader)

Richard Flaman

Thierry Lemaresquier

Urs Nagel (Evaluation Office Task Manager)

Advisory Panel Gus Edgren, former Secretary of State,Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden

Caroline Heider, Director, Office of Evaluation,World Food Programme

Manfred Kulessa, Team Leader of GCF-II Evaluation

Bruce Murray, Adjunct Professor at the Asian Institute of Management and former Director General of Evaluation of the Asian Development Bank

Henri Raubenheimer, Director of Economic Development,Department of Foreign Affairs, South Africa

EVALUATION TEAM

EVALUATION OF THE THIRD GLOBAL COOPERATION FRAMEWORK OF UNDP

F O R E W O R D i

This report presents the results of an independentevaluation of the third Global CooperationFramework (GCF-III) or global programme ofUNDP. Together with the regional and countryprogrammes, the global programme is an integralpart of the overall programming architecture ofUNDP. An independent assessment of theperformance of these programmes is therefore acritical input into improved future programming.As part of the review and approval process of newprogrammes in June 2007, the Executive Board,therefore, requested the Evaluation Office toinclude this evaluation in its programme of work.

The main purpose of the evaluation was to assessthe performance of the GCF-III, to capturelessons learnt from this experience and to makeconcrete recommendations for the future. Theevaluation looked at the priorities, implementa-tion strategy, partnerships and results of theprogramme. The effectiveness of the GCF-IIIwas examined against the objectives set out in theprogramme document which highlightedsupport to programme countries under thepriority goals in UNDP’s second multi-yearfunding framework in achieving the MDGs andin benefitting from inter-regional knowledge andSouthern-based experiences and learning.

The scope of the evaluation covered the program-ming, policy analysis and knowledge networkingdone under the GCF-III and the engagementbetween the Bureau of Development Policywhich manages the GCF with the regionalbureaux, country offices and UN and otherpartners in implementing the programme. Giventhe primacy placed on helping country offices inachieving the objectives of the GCF-III, theevaluation collected evidence from case studies infourteen programme countries, five regionalservice centres, two subregional resource facili-ties, three thematic centres, and throughextensive interviews in New York.

The evaluation concludes that the GCF-III didnot fully achieve its objectives. In assessingperformance, the evaluation is positive regardingthe contribution that the GCF-III has made tomaking UNDP a more globally-networkedknowledge organization by promoting knowledgenetworks and other facilities. However, althoughthe GCF-III was intended to play a central rolein codifying knowledge in the practice areas ofUNDP, the results fell short of expectations.The resulting global contribution of the GCF-IIIwas consequently diminished. Implementationwas insufficiently strategic and criteria such ascomparative advantage, demand and innovationwere inadequately used. The allocation ofresources and the choice of implementationmodalities were not well thought through.Programme management did not consistentlyapply results-based management principles andpractices. Limited oversight was exercised bysenior decision-making bodies over the globalprogramme. Without an external advisory body,the relevance of global programme activitiescould not be validated.

The evaluation argues that there is a need for aglobal programme in UNDP to address issuesthat cannot be addressed at the regional andcountry level. UNDP clearly has a role inanalyzing its experience in working withdeveloping countries to enable the exchange ofdevelopment solutions and to develop newinsights and support global debates to promotehuman development.

The evaluation makes a number of recommenda-tions in light of these findings and in the contextof the management response to the 2004 inde-pendent evaluation of the GCF-II which was notfully implemented. UNDP should design a newglobal programme that marks a clear departurefrom the previous global cooperation frameworksby setting out its global role, strategic focus and a

FOREWORD

F O R E W O R Di i

results and accountability framework. UNDPshould improve corporate strategies and deliverymechanisms to better support work at thecountry level. The new global programme shouldbe managed in line with standard corporatepractices, guided by corporate oversight, andbenefit from wider ownership in the organiza-tion. The global programme should developstrategic and sustained partnerships with otherUN organizations and development institutionsto contribute to issues of relevance to programmecountries in achieving their development goals.

The Evaluation Office is very grateful to membersof the Executive Board and governments andcivil society representatives in the case studycountries who very generously gave their timeand suggestions to the evaluators. We would liketo particularly express our gratitude to all theresident representatives, UNDP staff and membersof the UN country teams in the countries visited,as well as the colleagues in New York, especiallythose in the Bureau for Development Policy andthe Regional Bureaux, and in the RegionalService Centres, SURFS, and Thematic Centres,who provided extensive information.

The Evaluation Office is responsible for thecontent of this report and I would like to expressour sincere gratitude to a number of peoplewithout whose dedication and cooperation thisevaluation could not have been completed. Theevaluation was conducted by the EvaluationOffice with an external team of consultants thatwas led by Steen Folke and included RichardFlaman and Thierry Lemaresquier. Urs Nagel,also a member of the evaluation team, task

managed the exercise for the Evaluation Office.Additional contributions to case studies wereprovided by Zenda Munro Ofir. From theEvaluation Office, S. Nanthikesan and SergioLenci contributed to quality assurance and casestudies respectively. Robert Boase and SabrinaLenoir provided research support, with theassistance of Michelle Sy who, together withKutisha Ebron, also handled administrativesupport. Anish Pradhan provided informationtechnology and technical support to the electronicsurveys and the publication process and MargoAlderton edited the report.

All independent evaluations conducted by theEvaluation Office go through rigourous externalquality assurance. The report benefited greatlyfrom the review and advice of the members of ourindependent advisory panel who providedguidance and input throughout the evaluation.I would like to express our deep gratitude to themembers of the panel: Gus Edgren, CarolineHeider, Manfred Kulessa, Bruce Murray andHenri Raubenheimer.

I hope that this evaluation will be useful forUNDP to craft, manage and deliver a new globalprogramme that will effectively complementcountry and regional efforts to supportprogramme countries in their efforts to advancehuman development.

Saraswathi MenonDirector, UNDP Evaluation Office

C O N T E N T S i i i

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

Executive Summary vii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Rationale and context 11.2 Scope, approach and methodology 21.3 Limitations and constraints 51.4 Quality assurance 61.5 Structure of the report 6

2. The GCF-III in UNDP 7

2.1 The evolution of the GCFs 72.2 Practice areas and cross-cutting themes 92.3 Implementation strategy 162.4 Management arrangements 182.5 Financial overview of the GCF-III 20

3. Assessment of the performance of the GCF-III 25

3.1 Practice and cross-cutting areas 253.2 Implementation strategies 433.3 Management arrangements 56

4. Discussion: facing challenges 69

4.1 Setting the parameters for the ‘global’ in the global programme 694.2 Operationalizing the GCF-III strategy 704.3 Leveraging the practice architecture 724.4 Matching demand and supply 734.5 Creating and sharing knowledge 754.6 Enabling South-South solutions 764.7 Managing institutional complexities of the GCF-III 78

4. Conclusions and recommendations 81

5.1 Conclusions 815.2 Recommendations 83

Annexes 87

Annex A. Terms of Reference 87Annex B. Documents Consulted 93Annex C. People Consulted 95Annex D. Evolution of Global Programme Objectives 111Annex E. GCF-III Programme Metrics 113Annex F. Analysis of Targeted Surveys 133Annex G. Analysis of Global Projects 155

CONTENTS

C O N T E N T Si v

Tables

1. Case-study countries, RSCs and SURFs 52. Overview of service lines covered by the GCF-III 93. Poverty group expenditures 104. Democratic governance group expenditures 115. Environment and energy group expenditures 136. HIV/AIDS group expenditures 147. Gender group expenditures 148. Capacity development group expenditures 159. GCF-III-funded global networks in UNDP 1810. GCF-III core resource allocation 2005-2007 ($ million) 2111. Core and non-core funding and expenditures 2005-2007 ($ million) 2212. GCF-III expenditures by main input 2005-2007 ($ million) 2313. Global Staff Survey response: Satisfaction with knowledge sharing

across UNDP 2003-2007 51

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N S v

BDP Bureau for Development Policy

CDG Capacity Development Group

DGG Democratic Governance Group

EEG Environment and Energy Group

GCF Global Cooperation Framework

GCF-III Third Global Cooperation Framework

GEF Global Environment Facility

IF Integrated Framework for Trade-related Technical Assistance to the Least Developed Countries

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MYFF Multi-Year Funding Framework

OECD-DAC Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development- Development Assistance Committee

PG Poverty Group

RBA Regional Bureau for Africa

RBAP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific

RBAS Regional Bureau for Arab States

RBEC Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

RBLAC Regional Bureau Latin America and the Caribbean

RSC Regional Service Centre

SSC South-South Cooperation

SURF Subregional Resource Facility

TTF Thematic Trust Fund

UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women

UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v i i

I. INTRODUCTION

The Executive Board approved the evaluation ofthe UNDP third global cooperation frameworkin June 20071 as part of the Evaluation Officeprogramme of work for 2007-2008.The evaluationsupports the substantive accountability of theUNDP Administrator to the Executive Board,and the findings are intended to provide inputs tothe formulation of a new global programme(2008-2011), to be presented to the Board for itsreview and adoption.

The evaluation assessed the performance of thethird global cooperation framework and offeredkey recommendations on how to strengthen theeffectiveness of the global programme. Thepresent report provides a summary of thefindings, conclusions and recommendations ofthe independent evaluation.

The third global cooperation framework wasmanaged by the Bureau for Development Policy(BDP) between 2005 and 2007. The approvedperiod was extended by the Executive Boardthrough 2008 to allow for the drafting of a newglobal programme in line with the UNDPstrategic plan (2008-2011).2 This evaluation –covering 2005-2007 – was conducted betweenOctober 2007 and April 2008.

II. CONTEXT

Until 1996, the global and interregionalprogramme was used primarily to financecorporate-level initiatives and partnerships with

major intergovernmental and academic institutions.Beginning in 1997, UNDP has implementedglobal cooperation frameworks, which have beenmanaged by BDP and which have covered threeto four-year periods. Between 1997-2007, threeglobal cooperation frameworks have mirrored thecorporate changes within UNDP; the first globalcooperation framework (1997-2000), wasconceived as a mechanism to: “…contribute tothe overall development efforts of UNDP [byfurthering] sustainable human development bytranslating global development aspirations andmandates into innovative and practical developmentinterventions for application by UNDP throughregional and country programmes and projects”.3

The second global cooperation framework(originally 2001-2003 and extended to 2004) wasdesigned to provide services in three prioritysupport areas: “…(a) global advocacy and analysisto generate knowledge, build alliances, andpromote enabling frameworks on key develop-ment issues; (b) policy advice, support andalignment across programmes, drawing on theglobal network of policy specialists; and (c)knowledge-networking and the sharing of bestpractices, drawing on the subregional resourcefacilities (SURFs) system and communities ofpractice to support country and regionalprogramming efforts”.4

The third global cooperation framework wasintended to complement and strengthen ongoingefforts by UNDP to support programme countriesto achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Decision 2007/24, ‘Annual report on evaluation’, 22 June 2007, as contained in DP/2008/2, ‘Decisions adopted by theExecutive Board in 2007’, 18 October 2007, p. 20

2. The original duration of the third global cooperation framework was 2005-2007 and the Board granted a one-year extensionin June 2007. UNDP, ‘Decisions adopted by the Executive Board during 2007’, DP/2008/2, decision 2007/44,18 October2007, p. 42

3. UNDP, ‘First global country cooperation framework, 1997-2000’ DP/GCF/1/Rev.1, 13 August 1997, p.5, paragraph 134. UNDP, ‘Second global cooperation framework, 2000-2003’, DP/GCF/2, 27 November 2000, p.9, paragraph 27

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i i i

Its primary objectives were: “…(a) To helpUNDP country offices improve their effective-ness on the ground, in responding to requestsfrom programme countries to plan, manage anddeliver resources for development in pursuit ofthe MDGs; (b) To support developing countries,when requested, in developing policy frameworksthat take advantage of global opportunities andresources under the priority goals of the secondmulti-year funding framework (MYFF) 2004-2007; and (c) To enable developing countries tobenefit from interregional knowledge exchangeand South-based experiences and learning, andensure that development assistance, advice,programme design and capacity-building effortsdraw on global best practices and expertise”.5

The third global cooperation framework programmedocument identified a four-fold rationale for theglobal programme: (a) To ensure coherenceamong country, regional and global programmeswithin the organizing framework of MYFF2004-2007 and build synergies in projectformulation and implementation, sharing inter-regional good practices and consolidatingknowledge into knowledge products; (b) Tocodify the pooled experiences and lessons learnedfrom the UNDP network on the ground in 166countries, and the work of all United Nationsorganizations, into knowledge products to thebenefit of programme countries as well asUNDP, and facilitate the exchange of knowledgethrough knowledge networks; (c) To respond tothe demands of programme countries for South-based development solutions through facilitatingSouth-South cooperation; and (d) To enablestrategic partnerships to influence the global agenda.

The third global cooperation framework wasaligned with four strategic goals of the MYFF(2004-2007), namely: achieving the MDGs and

reducing human poverty; fostering democraticgovernance; managing energy and the environ-ment for sustainable development; and respond-ing to HIV/AIDS. It also supported work in twocross-cutting areas relating to the mainstreamingof gender equality and capacity development.

In order to achieve the goals outlined in theprogramme document, BDP was allocated$79.56 million6 in core resources and is account-able for the utilization of resources and theachievement of results and objectives. The sameorganizational structure through which BDPimplements core resources is responsible for theimplementation of non-core resources.

As mentioned earlier, BDP – specifically thePoverty Group, the Democratic GovernanceGroup, Environment and Energy Group, theHIV/AIDS Group, the Capacity DevelopmentGroup, and the Gender Team – was responsiblefor all aspects of the management of the thirdglobal cooperation framework. The first four‘practice groups’ covered issues directly related tothe four MYFF priority goals, while cross-cuttingissues linked to two main principles of the thirdglobal cooperation framework (and directlyrelevant in the implementation of the four otherissue-areas) were covered by the CapacityDevelopment Group and the Gender Team.7 Anadditional, central ambition was to strengthenknowledge management across all areas; eachpractice group addressed knowledge managementand some resources were used to provide centralcoordination for knowledge management.

The three primary implementation modalitiesused by each practice group were: policy advisoryservices; targeted projects; and knowledgemanagement. In order to provide policy advice,75 policy specialist posts were created. They

5. UNDP, ‘First global cooperation framework, 1997-2000’ (DP/GCF/1/Rev.1, para. 14)6. An additional $5.14 million was allocated to the ‘strategic reserve’, which receives a financial allocation through the glob-

al programme. However, it does not constitute an integral component of the programmatic and operational structure ofthe third global cooperation framework.

7. Hereinafter, the term ‘practice groups’ will be used to refer to all six entities, including the Capacity Development Groupand the Gender Team.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y i x

performed a range of tasks including providingadvice and backstopping support to countryoffices and programme countries, supportingpractice-related knowledge management, supportingpractice alignment and coordination, supportingfund-raising of non-core resources, managingtargeted projects, supporting projects financedthrough non-core resources, and coordinating thework programmes of regional service centres andsubregional resource facilities (SURFs). Twothirds of the policy specialists were based inregional service centres, while the other thirdwere stationed at headquarters. Targeted projectswere used, among other things, to pilot innova-tive approaches, develop practice-relatedknowledge products, and to leverage additionalnon-core resources. Knowledge managementfocused on interregional knowledge creation,transfer and codification. In all, 120 targetedprojects – with a combined budget of $22.5million – were implemented through the thirdglobal cooperation framework.

The International Poverty Centre in Brasilia, theOslo Governance Centre, and the DrylandsDevelopment Centre in Nairobi constitutedimportant implementation mechanisms alignedto the thematic areas of poverty, governance, andenergy and environment. To differing degrees,each of these thematic centres emphasized appliedresearch, policy or practice-related advice, andoperational support to programme countries intheir respective practice areas.

The work of the third global cooperationframework took place within the context of arapidly changing development and technicalcooperation environment, as well as evolvinginternal strategies and structures of UNDP aimedat providing more effective support to programmecountries. Some key issues influencing the broaderenvironment within which UNDP operatedincluded ongoing United Nations reform, concertedefforts to strengthening United Nations-widecoordination and delivery, and a growing focus onimproved harmonization and alignment amongdevelopment partners. In addition to managementreform initiatives, a stronger emphasis was placed

on results-based management and regionalizationin UNDP.

III. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The evaluation covered all programmatic andoperational aspects of the third global coopera-tion framework, with the exception of the‘strategic reserve’, which receives a financialallocation through the global programme (anddoes not constitute an integral component of theprogrammatic and operational framework). Theevaluation addressedefforts in all UNDPgeographic regions between 2005 and 2007 andassessed the performance of the third globalcooperation framework during this periodagainst: (a) goals set by the MYFF (2004-2007);(b) the objectives and results framework containedin the third global cooperation frameworkprogramme document; and (c) the managementresponse to the evaluation. The evaluation didnot assess the ongoing regionalization process inany detail, though recent developments weretaken into account.

The principal mandate of UNDP is to supportprogramme countries in achieving developmentresults. In evaluating the third global cooperationframework, the overarching concern was toascertain its contribution to the achievement ofresults at the country level. However, in view of the‘global’ nature of the framework, direct contributionswere neither possible to determine nor expected,in many cases. Rather, the evaluation sought todetermine the contribution of the third globalcooperation framework in strengthening regionaland country programme support to programmecountries. The evaluation focused primarily onissues of relevance and effectiveness and alsoaddressed issues of efficiency and sustainability.

The evaluation is based on quantitative andqualitative analyses. Evidence obtained wastriangulated in order to ensure that findings werereviewed from different perspectives.The evidencefor this evaluation was collected through casestudies involving programme countries, regionalservice centres and headquarters, through electronicsurveys, through the analysis of sample global

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx

projects, and through a desk study of relevantdocuments and secondary evaluative material.

In choosing the case study countries, a purposivesampling approach was adopted. Selectioncriteria included the level of global programmesupport received, the development context interms of income level (with special attention toleast developed countries), and representationacross regions (with special emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa). Almost all regional servicecentres or SURFs and the three thematic centreswere visited. Selected case study locations arepresented in the table below.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted withindividual stakeholders identified among govern-ment officials, civil society organizations, UNDPunits, other United Nations entities and bilateraldonors. Over 400 individuals were interviewedaround the world. In addition, two surveys werecarried out among 36 of the policy advisorslinked to the third global cooperation framework(51 per cent response rate), and among resident

coordinators / resident representatives or countrydirectors (23 per cent response rate). Due to thelow response rate, the latter survey was only usedfor selective analyses and to indicate certaintrends among the respondents. A review of thestratified random sample of 33 projects (out ofthe total of 121 projects) was undertaken togather additional evidence. A desk study ofsecondary evaluative evidence and relevantdocumentation was conducted to supplement theprimary evidence.

The limitations of the evaluation included: (a)challenges in developing a methodology toaddress the broad and complex nature of thethird global cooperation framework; (b) inabilityto cover the full diversity of country experiences;(c) lack of data and evaluative evidence due toinadequate monitoring and self-assessments; and(d) extremely tight timelines.

The evaluation did not carry out a detailedassessment of the work conducted under each ofthe six practice and cross-practice areas supported

Case-study countries, RSCs and SURFs

UNDP Region / Thematic Centres Case-study Countries Regional service centresand SURFs

Africa Liberia RSC DakarMali RSC JohannesburgRwandaTanzaniaZambia

Arab States Tunisia SURF BeirutYemen

Asia and the Pacific Cambodia RSC BangkokIndonesia RSC ColomboNepal

Eastern Europe and the Armenia RSC BratislavaCommonwealth of Independent States Uzbekistan

Latin America and the Caribbean Bolivia SURF Panama CityEl Salvador

Thematic centres Drylands Development Centre, NairobiInternational Poverty Centre, BrasiliaOslo Governance Centre

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i

by the third global cooperation framework.However, practice-based analyses were conductedto identify common issues of relevance to abroader understanding of the framework.

IV. KEY FINDINGS

The evaluation recognizes that, within the broadprogrammatic framework of the MYFF (2004-2007), the third global cooperation frameworkwas unique in providing the basis for globaldevelopment policy work that was grounded inthe country and regional experience of UNDP.The outputs from this work were intended toenrich the contributions of the organization todevelopment results at the country level. Theeffectiveness of the framework was thereforepredicated on strong internal and externaldemand and partnerships. The key findings thatare presented below reflect the evaluation’scoverage of issues related to the formulation andoperationalization of the third global cooperationframework, the results achieved as well asmanagement and oversight.

FORMULATION OF THE THIRD GLOBALCOOPERATION FRAMEWORK

Findings relating to the formulation of the thirdglobal cooperation framework include:

(a) The issues addressed by the third globalcooperation framework were relevant to theconcerns of programme countries in linewith the commitments of UNDP in theMYFF (2004-2007);

(b) The third global cooperation frameworkconstituted a relatively loose frameworkcovering all relevant areas of the MYFF. Its‘results and resources framework’ did notpresent an integrated, results-orientedprogramme of work, based on a plausible‘theory of change’;

(c) Compared with previous global programmes,the third global cooperation frameworksignificantly reduced its emphasis on theglobal development policy agenda;

(d) The ability of the third global cooperationframework to fulfill its planned role was

constrained by unclear articulation of its scopeand programmatic strategy in addressing globalissues. It was further constrained by insufficientsubstantive collaboration of the programmewith other UNDP units, particularly thoseunits that address global issues, such as theHuman Development Report Office, theOffice of Development Studies, the Bureaufor Crisis Prevention and Recovery, and theSpecial Unit for South-South Cooperation;

(e) The third global cooperation framework didnot explicitly identify and focus on areas thatwere most likely to contribute to the advance-ment of human development. Moreover, theattempt to cover all 24 service lines of theMYFF perpetuated a ‘silo approach’ andinhibited a systematic quest for a holisticdevelopment response and the ability tofocus resources on key issues and needs; and

(f ) In addition, the third global cooperation frame-work programme document lacked contextualanalysis of the diverse development contextsin different regions and country types,including least developed countries, landlockeddeveloping countries, and small islanddeveloping States. This undifferentiatedapproach reduced the programme’s relevance.

OPERATIONALIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

Findings relating to operationalization andimplementation include:

(a) The third global cooperation framework had multiple roles ranging from developmentof policy approaches through the provision of operational guidance and tools, to thedelivery of direct programme services at the country level, and support to knowledgenetworking. In practice, the possiblesynergistic linkages among these roles werenot fully exploited resulting in resourcesbeing scattered;

(b) The third global cooperation framework didnot adopt an explicit partnership strategythat sought to harmonize or integratedevelopment efforts of key partners within

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx i i

the United Nations system and beyond. Itentered into a multitude of partnerships atmany different levels, many of whichsupported relevant activities, but did notalways lead to sustained results;

(c) There was limited UNDP-wide ownershipof the third global cooperation framework.Clarity and full awareness of the range offunctions and services provided under theframework was lacking among UNDP units,including the regional bureaux, the regionalservice centres, SURFs and country offices.Consequently, reach and contribution of theframework were significantly limited;

(d) The third global cooperation framework waslargely driven by supply rather than by clientdemand. Little prioritization took place toidentify the issues and areas in which theframework could add most value. The threemain modalities of delivering support – policyadvice, targeted projects and knowledgemanagement – were not consistently used ina coordinated manner;

(e) In general, the third global cooperationframework encouraged the development ofgeneric knowledge products, tools andapproaches that did not sufficiently take into account the developmental complexitiesand local practical realities arising fromsubregional specificities and differencesbetween country groupings;

(f ) In operationalizing the third global cooperationframework, cross-practice work and initiativesthat involved more than one service line wereexplicitly encouraged. However, cross-practiceapproaches to complex and multidimensionaldevelopmental challenges continued to beexceptions rather than the rule; and

(g) Resources were spread thinly across andwithin practice areas, policy advisors andtargeted projects. The hiring of 75 policyadvisers was intended to support allprogramme countries in all 24 service lines ofthe MYFF as well as provide policy advice toprogramme countries, contribute to knowledge

management, practice alignment and coordi-nation. They were also expected to mobilizeresources and provide programme support tocountry offices. In each practice group,funding for targeted projects was also distrib-uted across all service lines.

PROGRAMME RESULTS

Findings relating to programme results include:

(a) The third global cooperation frameworkregistered some notable successes. It invested ina number of areas in which it added ‘global’value to the work of UNDP, and appliedintegrated modalities across UNDP –including two-way knowledge flows from thecountry over the regional to the global levelsand back, some knowledge codification, andpolicy advisory and programme supportservices – thus contributing to the efforts ofUNDP to support the achievement ofdevelopment results. In all practice areasthere were examples of valued contributionsto country office performance;

(b) In the area of ‘achieving the MDGs andreducing human poverty’, the third globalcooperation framework contributed tostrengthening the MDG-based developmentagenda and achieved successes, inter alia, inthe areas of trade and ‘generating fiscalspace’. Efforts to address a very wide range ofMDG and poverty-related issues weakenedits contribution to issues of global import, towhich it may have been able to add morevalue as a ‘global’ programme;

(c) In the area of ‘fostering democraticgovernance, the third global cooperationframework made important contributions inthe areas, inter alia, of electoral support,public administration reform, representativeinstitutions, and local governance. Theprevailing tendency was to address eachservice line in isolation, but some efforts weremade to introduce a more cross-practice andcross-cutting approach;

(d) In the area of ‘managing energy and environ-ment for sustainable development’, the support

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i i i

of the third global cooperation frameworkwas valued by country offices in areas such asgovernance, in the context of the ‘poverty andenvironment initiative’ and land governance.But the framework’s broad agenda in thisarea led to resources being spread thinly,weakening its ability to achieve moreprominent results;

(e) The relevance of the work of the InternationalPoverty Centre, the Oslo Governance Centreand the Drylands Development Centre tothe objectives of the third global cooperationframework was uneven, but improved between2005 and 2007. The relative autonomy of thecentres provided a context for some innovativeapplied research and policy work, but thiswas not always fully integrated into the thirdglobal cooperation framework;

(f ) In the area of ‘responding to HIV andAIDS’, the third global cooperation frame-work registered considerable achievements inproviding direct support, in cooperation withother UNDP units and partners, toprogramme countries. However, the addedvalue of the framework – as a ‘global’programme – was assessed to be greater inmainstreaming HIV/AIDS within otherpractice areas and in developing broaderpolicy guidance and tools;

(g) The success of gender-related work lay instrengthening the internal capacity ofUNDP and improved understanding ofgender equality as a cross-cutting concernand key determinant of human developmentresults at the country level. However, gendermainstreaming remained incomplete in all ofthe substantive practice areas and lackedknowledge management support;

(h) The effectiveness of the third global cooperation framework support to capacitydevelopment was seen in the up-take of themany guidance and knowledge products andin the productive collaboration with UnitedNations Development Group and externalinstitutions such as the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development-

Development Assistance Committee. Someweaknesses expressed by country officesincluded a tendency to develop knowledgeproducts and tools that were too generic; amore context-specific approach would havebeen beneficial;

(i) Work in mainstreaming both gender andcapacity development under the third globalcooperation framework registered successes, butdid not focus sufficiently on mainstreamingwithin the four practice areas. The globalprogramme was assessed to be an appropriatevehicle to mainstream important issues such as gender, capacity development, HIV/AIDS and potentially other cross-cuttingdevelopment issues;

(j) The exchange and management ofknowledge, including through knowledgenetworks and communities of practice, wasprioritized and was appreciated withinUNDP. In the absence of a corporate strategyfor knowledge management, however, therewas a lack of clarity regarding the role of the third global cooperation frameworkin establishing UNDP as an effectiveknowledge organization;

(k) The third global cooperation framework didnot engage in South-South cooperation in a systematic way. There was insufficientattention to identifying gaps in capacitiesand emerging trends in South-South cooper-ation, codifying knowledge and experienceswithin a South-South cooperation frame-work. A strong strategic partnership with theSpecial Unit for South-South Cooperationwas not established; and

(l) Considerable non-core resources were mobilizedfor use in implementing the third globalcooperation framework. UNDP estimatedthat nearly $236 million were raised andresource mobilization activities were generallyconsidered to be cost-effective.

MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

Findings relating to management and oversightinclude:

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx i v

(a) In operationalizing the third global coopera-tion framework, principles of results-basedplanning, monitoring and reporting were notconsistently applied. UNDP undertook tostrengthen management of the programme,as outlined in its management response to theevaluation of second global cooperation frame-work, and although initiatives to strengthenfinancial monitoring and human resourcesmanagement were undertaken, results-basedmanagement remained inadequate;

(b) With minor exceptions, no audits and evalua-tions were conducted, thereby limiting anysystematic understanding of successes andweaknesses of the third global cooperationframework and what areas might have requiredadjustment. A few sub-practice evaluationswere conducted in the democratic governancepractice area and an audit of the globalprogramme is planned for 2008;

(c) The flexibility of the third global cooperationframework managers to deploy resources in a strategic or programmatic manner wasconstrained by the practice of tying almost80 per cent of framework resources tosalaried posts and other staff;

(d) Each practice group was allowed to pursue itsown management approach and centralprogramme coordination was weak. Thisresulted in poor programme coherence andinadequate quality assurance;

(e) Efforts were more effective when priority-setting and management of programmeswere undertaken by units closest to thecountry level. The recent implementation ofthe regionalization strategy has highlightedsome of the challenges in sharing financialresources and matrix management of humanresources between regional service centresand BDP; and

(f ) UNDP undertook to address oversight andaccountability in the management responseto the evaluation of the second globalcooperation framework. In practice, few ofthe related commitments were implemented

under the successive framework. Seniormanagement committees did not systemati-cally review progress and the proposed externaladvisory committee was not activated.

V. CONCLUSIONS

The global programme has an important role toplay in the context of the broader programminglandscape of UNDP. The third global cooperationframework registered some successes, but wasunable to translate them into a systematicprogramme of a global nature for a range ofsystemic, design and management-relatedreasons. There was a lack of clarity regarding its ‘global’ role, its ‘cooperation’ agenda andmodalities, and the scope and purpose of itsprogrammatic ‘framework’.

CONCLUSION 1

The third global cooperation framework fellshort in its strategic mission to underpin andintegrate the practice architecture of UNDP.

In particular:

(a) The third global cooperation framework wasplaced at the centre of the practice architec-ture to provide coordination, guidance andknowledge services to country programmeson practice-related issues. Considerableintellectual capital was made availablethrough the network of policy specialists andother experts, and some useful work wasconducted. However, the full scope of thesemandated functions could not be addressedeffectively in all programme countries due tolimited core resources and inadequateinstitutional support mechanisms; and

(b) The central role of the global programme inthe practice architecture of UNDP and instrengthening support to countries in each ofthese practice areas was not fully recognized bymost UNDP units. In most cases, the frame-work was not seen as a programme throughwhich new ideas and innovative approachesemanating from country experiences wereinfused into the entire UNDP system.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x v

CONCLUSION 2

The effectiveness of the third global cooperation framework in meeting demand was constrained by weak strategic choicesregarding focus areas, implementation modalities,allocation of resources and partnerships.

In particular:

(a) The contribution of the third global cooperation framework to the achievementof development results could have beensignificantly strengthened by focusing onareas of high demand, in which it also had aclear comparative advantage. The servicelines of the MYFF (2005-2007) were takenas the programmatic determinant. Thisresulted in insufficient attention being paidto areas where the programme could havemade a major contribution, while continuingto fund areas where the programme couldnot add as much value;

(b) Emphasis on developing generic approachesrather than contextualizing products andservices in order to address specificities ofsub-regions or country types limited theappropriateness of the work. Partnerships,with a few notable exceptions, were moreopportunistic than strategic, and did not fullyexploit the comparative advantages ofpartners or build new development opportu-nities for programme countries; and

(c) By virtue of its global mandate, and in linewith the guiding principles of the MYFF, thethird global cooperation framework was in astrong position to develop cross-practiceapproaches to address complex developmentchallenges for application by country andregional programmes. It was also well placedto provide guidance on mainstreamingapproaches in the areas of gender, capacitydevelopment and other issues, such asHIV/AIDS. The third global cooperationframework could have enhanced its relevanceby focusing more systematically on cross-practice and mainstreaming approaches.

CONCLUSION 3The third global cooperation frameworkcontributed to UNDP becoming a more globally-networked knowledge organization.

In particular:

(a) The support of the third global cooperationframework to knowledge networking was an effective means to support practice andcross-practice work. In general, the practicenetworks, websites and other instruments toshare knowledge were appreciated by internalstakeholders. However, the effectiveness ofthe sharing and exchange of knowledgewas constrained by an ad-hoc approach tocodification, most practice networks beingclosed to external partners, and the unevenquality of the knowledge products. Such ad hocapproaches also prevented the third globalcooperation framework from engaging inSouth-South cooperation in a systematic way.Early successes achieved through the networkswere not optimized through systematic codifi-cation and technical improvements; and

(b) While the third global cooperation frameworkmade considerable efforts to enhanceknowledge management and some successeswere achieved in strengthening UNDP as aglobally-networked knowledge organization,the absence of a corporate strategy meant itcould not achieve its full potential inknowledge management.

CONCLUSION 4Weak management and lack of corporateoversight limited the effectiveness of the third global cooperation framework.

In particular:

(a) The third global cooperation framework wouldhave benefited significantly from a consistentapplication of results-based managementprinciples and techniques. By neglectingstandard UNDP planning, monitoring,reporting and evaluation practices, decision-makers were deprived of clear programmatictargets and the opportunity to regularly assessthe contribution of the programme to the

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx v i

achievement of development results. Manage-ment could not use evaluative evidence tostrengthen the quality of the programme’sproducts, services and approaches or makestrategic decisions regarding the futuredirection of the programme;

(b) There was little evidence of a clear under-standing between BDP and the regionalbureaux on their respective roles and respon-sibilities in their collaborative efforts,especially in the regional service centres andSURFs. The matrix management systemthrough which BDP-funded policy specialistswere managed was not generally effective insupporting the alignment of the practicearchitecture. The tensions that arose frommixed funding mechanisms and multiplelines of accountability weakened thepotential effectiveness of the framework.These tensions will have to be addressed inthe regionalization strategy; and

(c) In the absence of an internal UNDPoversight mechanism, UNDP was unable toharness the full potential of the frameworkfor the benefit of the organization. Moreover,without an external consultative process withdevelopment partners, the responsiveness andrelevance of the third global cooperationframework to emerging priorities of programmecountries was uneven.

CONCLUSION 5Although the third global cooperationframework has not fulfilled its global role, thereis a need for a global programme in UNDP.

In particular:

(a) The third global cooperation framework hassupported some successful initiatives tostrengthen support to programme countriesdrawing from the global experience ofUNDP, and at the country level there issignificant demand for the type of servicesprovided by the programme. However, thesesuccesses were not translated into a systematiceffort of a global nature and the frameworkwas unable to go beyond compiling country

experiences, to use this accumulated knowledgeto contribute to global development debatesand approaches on any significant scale;

(b) There are development issues that cannot beaddressed solely at the country or regionallevels, for which UNDP needs a globalprogramme. Given its universal presence,UNDP has the potential to contribute toglobal development debates and approachesdrawing from its development experience atthe country, regional and global levels. Inturn, UNDP can benefit all programmecountries by drawing from this global experi-ence and developing innovative developmentpolicy approaches as well as facilitatingSouth-South cooperation. In this regard, thethird global cooperation framework has notrealized its full potential.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

This evaluation recommends that UNDP shoulddesign a new global programme that embodies aclear departure from the previous global cooper-ation frameworks. The new global programmeshould be based on demand from programmecountries, be fully integrated within UNDP, andadd value as a ‘global’ programme. It shouldaddress ‘global’ issues and leverage all UNDPentities with a view to generating, codifying andapplying ‘global’ knowledge. The followingdetailed recommendations aim to supportUNDP in developing such a new globalprogramme. They are intended to be mutuallyreinforcing and should be treated as a whole.

RECOMMENDATION 1

The new global programme should clearly set out its global role, development goals,a strategic focus and a corresponding resultsand accountability framework based on thefollowing considerations:

(a) A clear rationale and the specification of clearcriteria to distinguish global programmeinitiatives from those that can be addressedat the regional and country level;

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x v i i

(b) A programme approach, which should replacethe current framework approach. It shouldhave unambiguous goals, a clear substantivefocus and a detailed results framework thatcovers all dimensions of the programme;

(c) A clear definition of its global contributionand its contribution to programme countries,through the regional and country programmearchitecture of UNDP;

(d) Alignment with the UNDP strategic plan. Itshould continue to work within and acrossthe three main focus areas identified therein,namely poverty reduction, democraticgovernance and environment. Within each ofthese focus areas, work should be concen-trated on a limited number of key result areasselected on the basis of past performance andcomparative advantage. The approach in thethird global cooperation framework ofcarrying out activities in all service linesshould be discontinued;

(e) A concentration on mainstreaming approachesin the cross-cutting areas of gender equality,capacity development and HIV/AIDS acrossthe focus areas for application by regionaland country programmes; and

(f ) The identification of means to reduce thedependency on the global programme tofund posts required by BDP to carry out itscore functions such as global developmentpolicy work and practice coordination anddevelopment. One option may be to amendexisting programming arrangements toexplicitly allow for the funding of BDP posts.

RECOMMENDATION 2UNDP should develop improved corporatestrategies and delivery mechanisms so that thenew global programme can better support theachievement of results at the country levelbased on the following considerations:

(a) The need for a corporate knowledge manage-ment policy and strategy that clearly identifiesthe type of knowledge to be codified, howthe processes are managed, and how best to

respond to the needs of the organization andprogramme countries. The role of the newglobal programme in implementing the newstrategy should be clearly defined;

(b) The new global programme should providecountry offices and their national partnerswith codification of cutting-edge analyses of global issues that are grounded in UNDP experience;

(c) Demand by country offices for policyadvisory, knowledge and programme supportshould be met by units best placed to respondbased on their location and capacity. Primaryresponsibility and accountability should rest with the regional service centres formanaging and delivering programme andpolicy support to country offices and forconveying country level experience back tothe central bureaux responsible for analysisand codification; and

(d) Responsibility for implementing the newglobal programme should be shared by BDPand the regional bureaux through theregional service centers. Those componentsinvolving the provision of services andsupport to the country level should bemanaged by the regional bureaux and theregional service centers. Resources for thenew global programme should be allocatedand managed based on the requirements ofthe programme’s functions at the global andregional levels and the comparativeadvantage of respective UNDP units.

RECOMMENDATION 3The new global programme should have anexplicit strategy to partner systematically with other United Nations agencies anddevelopment institutions in order to contributeto development policy debates and approachesthat are critical to programme countries for theachievement of their development goals by:

(a) Identifying partners who will add most valuein priority areas, specifying joint outcomes to be achieved, and identifying sustainedcooperation modalities;

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx v i i i

(b) Collaborating with other United Nationsdevelopment agencies and developmentpartners to effectively address globaldevelopment challenges and contribute toglobal development debates and approaches;

(c) Strengthening South-South cooperationmodalities, in close partnership withprogramme countries, centres of excellenceworldwide and the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation, as a means of ensuringthe relevance and appropriateness of theknowledge generated, codified and furtherpromoted; and

(d) Enabling the thematic centres to enter intolong-term collaboration with Southern thinktanks and centres of excellence.

RECOMMENDATION 4UNDP should establish a management system forthe new global programme that ensures resultsorientation and accountability through strengthenedcorporate management and compliance withstandard UNDP programming requirements by:

(a) Institutionalizing standard results-basedplanning, performance monitoring andreporting practices that are underpinned byeffective support mechanisms, such as acomprehensive substantive database;

(b) Establishing standards of management per-formance across all work areas and ensuring,through central coordination, the most strategicdeployment of human and financial resourcesand consistency in implementation;

(c) Instituting regular audits and outcomeevaluations; and

(d) Conducting a mid-term review of the newglobal programme to ensure that benchmarks

outlined in the management response to thethird global cooperation framework evalua-tion, and set in the new global programmeapproved by the Executive Board, are met.

RECOMMENDATION 5

UNDP should institutionalize mechanisms toensure corporate oversight and ownership ofthe global programme by:

(a) Strengthening mechanisms to enable theactive participation and full support fromcorporate UNDP in order to promote buy-inby all units that it serves and from which itdraws vital development information;

(b) Ensuring synergy among the different UNDPunits dealing with policy development at theglobal level, including the Human DevelopmentReport Office, the Office of DevelopmentStudies, and the Bureau for Crisis Preventionand Recovery, in order to contribute moreeffectively to global policy debates andadvances in development approaches;

(c) Establishing an advisory board for the globalprogramme involving external partners andinternal stakeholders, in order to identifycomparative advantage and ensure therelevance of a new global programme;

(d) Ensuring corporate oversight over the globalprogramme, through a senior managementgroup such as the operations group ormanagement group; and

(e) Explicitly reporting, on an annual basis,on the performance of the new globalprogramme, as part of the regular system ofreporting by UNDP to the Executive Board.

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

1.1 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT

This report sets out the findings of an evaluationof the third global cooperation framework 2005-2007 (GCF-III) that was approved by theExecutive Board in June 2005.8 The ExecutiveBoard approved the evaluation of the GCF-III in June 20079 as part of the Evaluation Officeprogramme of work for 2007-2008.This evaluationsupported the UNDP Administrator’s substantiveaccountability to the Executive Board.The findingsare intended to provide substantive inputs to theformulation of the new global programme (2008-2011), to be presented to the Board for its reviewand adoption.

The objective of the evaluation was to assess theperformance of the GCF-III, provide lessons learned,and offer key recommendations for strengtheningthe effectiveness of the global programme. Theaudience for the report includes the UNDP ExecutiveBoard and senior management, the Bureau forDevelopment Policy (BDP), the regional servicecentres (RSCs), the country offices, nationalgovernments and counterparts, and the interna-tional development community at large.

The GCF-III10 was intended to complement andstrengthen ongoing UNDP support to programme

countries in achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs). It was intended to bring to bearthe development experience and knowledge thatUNDP accumulated globally to support thedevelopment efforts of programme countries. Indoing so, it relied on a two-way exchange betweenthe global programme and country offices.

The work of the GCF-III took place within thecontext of a rapidly changing development andaid environment, as well as UNDP’s evolvingstrategies and structures aimed at providing more effective support to programme countries.Specifically, this included:

n An international consensus on theMDGs11—this focus was reaffirmed by theWorld Summit in 2005.12

n An increased emphasis by the GeneralAssembly in successive Triennial Comprehen-sive Policy Reviews on greater effectiveness ofcountry-level work by the United Nations,13

emphasizing poverty reduction, sustainabledevelopment, capacity development, genderequality and economic growth.

n The increasing importance of South-Southcooperation (SSC) in development cooperation,which often falls outside of the Organisation

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

8. The GCF-III was adopted by UNDP in ‘Decisions Adopted by the Executive Board During 2005’, DP/2006/2, 8November 2005, decision 2005/16, 21 June 2005. GCF-III is described in the programme document: UNDP, ‘UNDPGlobal Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005.

9. Decision 2007/24, ‘Annual Report on Evaluation’, 22 June 2007, as contained in DP/2008/2, ‘Decisions Adopted by theExecutive Board During 2007’, 18 October 2007, p. 20.

10. The global cooperation frameworks, I, II and III, are, when referred to in general terms, often called the “global pro-gramme”, especially when compared with regional and country programmes.

11. United Nations, ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: United Nations Millennium Declaration’, A/RES/55/2,18 September 2000.

12. United Nations, ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: 2005 World Summit Outcome, A/RES/60/1, 24October 2005.

13. United Nations, ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of OperationalActivities for Development of the United Nations System’, A/RES/59/250, 59th Session Agenda item 90 (b) 17December 2004.

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N2

for Economic Cooperation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) modalities. This cooperation includeddevelopment assistance, trade, foreign directinvestment, and exchange of developmentexpertise, experience and solutions.

n A growing awareness of the special develop-ment requirements of countries in crisis orpost-crisis situations.

n An increasing global appreciation of the develop-mental challenges related to climate change.

n Increased emphasis on effectiveness of aidand on agreements to work towards betterharmonization, alignment and results.

Factors within UNDP included:

n A continuing emphasis on human develop-ment as the overarching concept that guidesUNDP in all aspects of its work and definesthe value of UNDP contributions in itspriority programme areas.14

n A growing importance assigned by UNDP tothe issue of development effectiveness and its‘drivers’, including national ownership, capacitydevelopment, SSC and gender equality.

n A sustained focus on strengthening UNDPas a knowledge-based organization, whichhas played an important role in the work ofmost UNDP bureaux.

n A sustained UNDP orientation towardsbuilding partnerships for development beyondthe UN system, including with non-govern-mental organizations, multilateral and bilateraldonors, civil society, the private sector, academiaand other research institutions.

n A continued emphasis on cooperation andcoordination within the UN system, and thepivotal role assigned to UNDP in thiscontext, particularly at the country level.

n A continuing roll-out of the UNDP region-alization process, impacting all UNDPbureaux, which has raised challenges regardingthe coherence and alignment of policies andpractices within UNDP.

n An evolving division of labour between BDPand regional bureaux as well as a proliferationof policy-oriented entities within UNDP inaddition to BDP, such as the Bureau for CrisisPrevention and Recovery, the PartnershipsBureau, the Human Development Report Office,and the Office of Development Studies.

n A growing emphasis, since UNDP’s adoptionof the results-based management approach in1997,15 on the achievement of outcomes ratherthan processes and outputs.

n A stronger focus by the Executive Board ongreater accountability through monitoring,evaluation and audit.

Against this background, this evaluation assessedthe developmental contributions of the GCF-III,which was managed by BDP, to the work of UNDP.

1.2 SCOPE, APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The evaluation assessed the performance of theGCF-III against the following: goals set by thesecond multi-year funding framework (MYFF)2003-2007;16 the objectives and results frame-work presented in the GCF-III programmedocument;17 and the management response tothe evaluation of the GCF-II.

14. For example, the second MYFF 2004-2007 (UNDP, ‘Second Multi-year Funding Framework 2004-2007’, DP/2003/32,13 August 2003, Executive Board Decision 2003/24, 12 September 2003) refers to human development throughout thedocument. The Strategic Plan 2008-2011, states that “The UNDP mission is to support countries to accelerate progresson human development,” UNDP, ‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008-2011 Accelerating Global Progress on HumanDevelopment’, DP/2007/43, Reissued 17 January 2008.

15. UNDP, ‘Annual Report of the Administrator’, DP/1997/16/Add.7, 1997.16. During the period covered by this evaluation (2004-2007), the GCF-III operated within the second MYFF. The new

Strategic Plan (2008-2011) came into effect in 2008 January.17. Approved by the UNDP Executive Board in 2005 (DP/GP/1/Rev. 1 22 April 2005).


1.2.1 SCOPE

The evaluation covered all programmatic andoperational aspects of the GCF-III. It addressedthe GCF-III efforts in all UNDP geographicregions for the duration of the programme(2005-2007),18 and focused on the strategicdimensions of the evaluation’s terms of reference.Given the time constraints, this evaluation didnot focus on reviewing work carried out undernon-core funding modalities. This studyrecognized the close links between the GCF-IIIefforts and the regionalization policy and tookinto account how implementation of this policyaffected the performance of the GCF-III.However, it did not assess the regionalizationpolicy per se.

The strategic reserve, which received a financialallocation through the global programme, wasnot subject to this evaluation since it did notconstitute an integral component of the GCF-III’s programmatic and operational framework.

1.2.2 APPROACH

The primary focus of the evaluation was toascertain the contribution of the GCF-III to theachievement of development results at thecountry level. This also involved assessing thedistinct contribution of the GCF-III as a globalprogramme to strengthening RSC, subregionalresource facility (SURF) and country officesupport to programme countries.

The GCF-III was intended to provide catalyticsupport to development efforts of programmecountries. The expected outputs—such asknowledge products, strategic partnerships, andtechnical cooperation initiatives aimed atstrengthening capacity in formulating policies,implementing development programmes andraising resources for development—could not beexpected to make a direct contribution to theachievement of development results. Therefore,direct contribution was neither possible todetermine nor expected in many cases.

This study did not analyze each individualproject, strategic partnership or policy initiative.Rather, through a carefully chosen sample of theGCF-III initiatives, the evaluation aimed to presentforward-looking findings and recommendationsof a strategic nature.

The evaluation focused primarily on issues ofrelevance and effectiveness of the GCF-III. Italso addressed issues of efficiency (particularlyrelating to management) and sustainability. Thefollowing questions reflect the overall thrust ofthe inquiry:

n To what extent has the GCF-III supportedUNDP’s vision, overall strategies and role indevelopment, especially at the global level?

n How has the role and strategic focus of theGCF-III been relevant to country andregional priorities?

n To what extent have the components andactions of the four practice areas and twocross-cutting areas been relevant to andsupportive of the GCF-III objectives andexpected contributions?

n How well has the GCF-III contributed toUNDP systems and efforts aimed atsupporting partner countries’ development ineach of the practice areas?

n To what extent have the management andinstitutional systems been appropriate andadequate to ensure effective, high-qualityprogramme delivery?

n What key factors have influenced the approachesand strategies applied by the GCF-III?

n To what extent were the GCF-III initiativesled by a concern to ensure sustainability ofeffective action and positive effects?

n To what extent have management andoperational arrangements led to increasedefficiency?

18. The original duration was 2005-2007 and a one-year extension was granted by the Board in June 2007. UNDP,‘Decisions Adopted by the Executive Board During 2007’, DP/2008/2, Decision 2007/44,18 October 2007, p. 42.


The approach and methodology developed forthis evaluation was described in detail in anInception Report. Evaluation questions weredeveloped based on consultations with keystakeholders during three rounds of discussionsin New York and pilot field visits to South Africaand Zambia.

The evaluation was based on quantitative andqualitative analyses. Evidence obtained wastriangulated in order to determine findings fromdiffering perspectives. The evidence for thisevaluation was collected through:

n Case studies from 14 countries, 7 RSCs/SURFs, 3 thematic centres, and UNDPHeadquarters

n Two electronic surveys (one targeting 70 policy specialists and analysts, the othertargeting 146 Resident Representatives/Country Directors)

n Analysis of 34 of the 121 global projects

n Desk study of relevant secondary material

1.2.3 CASE STUDIES

Case studies were conducted in Headquarters,country offices, RSCs and thematic centres.The primary data collection methodology usedwas semi-structured interviews with individualstakeholders. In all countries, stakeholders wereidentified among UNDP, government, civilsociety organizations, other UN organizationsand bilateral donors. A mapping exercise wascarried out where stakeholder groups wereidentified and the nature of their relationship tothe GCF-III was determined. Different interviewand data gathering methods were constructed toensure that the views and inputs of allstakeholder groups could be captured. Annex Cprovides a list of all people interviewed.

Interviews at the UNDP Headquarters in NewYork were also conducted as part of the casestudies. Interlocutors included members of theUNDP Executive Board, the Special Unit forSSC, and other relevant UN institutions.

Extensive consideration was given to theselection of case-study countries. Given the timeand resource limitations, a purposive samplingapproach was adopted in choosing case-studycountries. Selection criteria included: level ofglobal programme support received; developmentcontext in terms of income level (with specialattention to Least Developed Countries); andrepresentation across regions (with specialemphasis on Sub-Saharan Africa). Based onthese criteria, and in consultation with BDP andthe regional bureaux, the 14 countries listed inTable 1 were selected. The Johannesburg RSCand Zambia served as a pilot case.

Interviews were conducted in all RSCs(Bratislava, Bangkok, Colombo, Dakar andJohannesburg), as well as the SURFs in Beirutand Panama City. All three thematic centres(Oslo Governance Centre, International PovertyCentre in Brasilia, and Nairobi DrylandsDevelopment Centre)—all of which are partiallyfunded by the GCF-III—were also selected as case studies.

1.2.4 TARGETED SURVEYS

Two questionnaire-based surveys were carriedout. The first was of all policy advisors linked tothe GCF-III.19 The survey was sent to 70 policyspecialists, 36 of whom (51 percent) responded.The second targeted all 146 ResidentCoordinators, Resident Representatives andCountry Directors, 33 of whom responded (23percent). Due to the low response rate of thesecond survey, the survey was only used forselective analyses and to indicate certain trendsamong the respondents. See Annex F for thequestionnaires and results of these surveys.

19. Hereinafter the term ‘policy specialists’ is used and includes the three UNDP levels of policy analysts, policy specialistsand policy advisors. The term ‘policy advisory services’ is meant to include all services delivered by the policy specialists,including programme support services.


1.2.5 ANALYSIS OF A SAMPLE OF GLOBAL PROJECTS

A stratified random sample of 34 projects out ofthe total of 121 projects under the GCF-III wasanalyzed. A general portfolio analysis wasconducted in all 34 projects and a more detailedsubstantive analysis was conducted in 20 of theseprojects, which were chosen by another stratifiedrandom sampling process. The stratification tookplace according to the practice and cross-practiceareas and weighted in proportion to the totalnumber of projects in each area. Given thebreadth of the project portfolio and the modestsize of most projects, in-depth study of arepresentative sample of global projects wasconsidered to be beyond the scope of the evaluation.

1.2.6 DESK STUDY

Secondary evidence was gathered through astudy of evaluations and reviews, programme andproject documents, annual reports, back to officereports, and knowledge products pertaining tothe GCF-III. Material related to similar workconducted by other organizations was alsoreviewed to situate the work in UNDP in a

comparative manner. A list of the documentsreviewed is found in Annex B.

n n n

The emphasis of this evaluation was on assessingthe GCF-III role in reinforcing support to countryoffices in their efforts to achieve the MDGs, andstrengthening UNDP as a globally networkedand knowledge-based organization. Particularattention was given to whether the rationale andprinciples that underpin the GCF-III have beenadhered to and the degree to which they havecontributed to fulfilling the GCF-III objectives.

1.3 LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

The limitations of the evaluation included:challenges in developing a methodology toaddress the broad and complex nature of theGCF-III, inability to cover the full diversity ofcountry experiences, lack of data and evaluativeevidence due to inadequate monitoring and self-assessments, and extremely tight timelines.

UNDP Region/Thematic Centres Case-study Countries RSCs and SURFs

Africa Liberia RSC DakarMali RSC JohannesburgRwandaTanzaniaZambia

Arab States Tunisia SURF BeirutYemen

Asia and the Pacific Cambodia RSC BangkokIndonesia RSC ColomboNepal

Eastern Europe and the Armenia RSC BratislavaCommonwealth of Independent States Uzbekistan

Latin America and the Caribbean Bolivia SURF Panama CityEl Salvador

Thematic centres Drylands Development Centre, NairobiInternational Poverty Centre, BrasiliaOslo Governance Centre

Table 1. Case-study Countries, RSCs and SURFs


n Challenges in developing methodology—The complex character of the GCF-IIIposed obstacles to developing a rigorousevaluation methodology. At some times, theGCF-III served as a ‘framework’—settingboundaries and defining broad parametersfor its operation including what was ‘global’in the global programme and the practiceareas within which the programmefunctions. At other times it served as a‘programme’, with the expectation of a clearpurpose and results-orientation. In addition,the nature of the intended outputs andoutcomes (such as the influence ofknowledge products, partnerships built andcapacities developed) made rigorous assess-ment of performance challenging. It was alsodifficult to clearly identify a community thatincludes both direct and indirect stakehold-ers (for example, people or organizations thatmake use of the GCF-III-funded knowledgeproducts.)

n Inability to cover the full diversity of country experiences—As with all case-studyapproaches, there were challenges tocapturing the diverse experience at thecountry level through select case studies.Although this evaluation considered 14countries, most RSCs and SURFs, and allthematic centres, generalizing case-studyfindings was difficult.

n Lack of data and evaluative evidence—TheGCF-III programme document contained a‘results and resources framework’ thatpresented the intended outputs, outcomesand indicators. However, there was very littleevaluative evidence generated due to a lack ofconsistent performance monitoring on theseintended outputs and outcomes. The paucityof such evidence inhibited more detailedsubstantive assessments.

n Tight timelines—The evaluation wasconducted under extremely tight timelines,

which influenced the amount of data thatcould be collected as well as the depth ofanalysis. In addition, the evaluation wasdeprived of some substantive and analyticalinputs because of the last-minute withdrawalof one team member due to personal reasons.

1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE

An independent Advisory Panel of five interna-tional experts was constituted to review therigour of the evaluation methodology and thevalidity and quality of evidence, to verify iffindings were based on evidence, and to ensurethe conclusions and recommendations werebased on findings. This was complemented by an Evaluation Office internal review of the Inception Report, Evaluation Terms ofReference, and the draft reports.

The Inception Report and the Terms ofReference were developed based on consultationswith a number of stakeholders at UNDPHeadquarters and pilot case studies. Stakeholderfeedback was sought for factual inaccuracies,errors of interpretation and omission of evidencethat could materially change the findings of the report.

1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

This report is organized in five chapters. Againstthe background of this introductory chapter,Chapter 2 presents the historical context of theglobal programme and how the GCF-III wasoperationalized within UNDP. Chapter 3 reviewsthe performance of the GCF-III in terms of theresults achieved under the four practice areas andtwo cross-cutting themes, implementationstrategies and management arrangements.Chapter 4 discusses some of the main issues andthemes that emerge from the evaluation. Chapter5 presents the conclusions and recommendationsof this evaluation.

C H A P T E R 2 . T H E G C F - I I I I N U N D P 7

2.1 THE EVOLUTION OF THE GCFs

During the past decade, UNDP has had threeGCFs, managed by the BDP. The evolution ofthe global programmes mirrored the changes inUNDP (Annex D presents the objectives of thethree GCFs over the 10-year period 1997 to2007, demonstrating this evolution in role). Until1996, the global and interregional programmewas used primarily to finance topical corporate-level initiatives and partnerships with majorintergovernmental and academic institutions insuch areas as international health and agricultureresearch. The first GCF (1997-2000), wasconceived as a mechanism to “contribute to theoverall development efforts of UNDP [byfurthering] sustainable human development bytranslating global development aspirations andmandates into innovative and practical develop-ment interventions for application by UNDPthrough regional and country programmes andprojects.”20

Building on the experiences of the GCF-I, thesecond GCF (2001-2003, extended to 2004) wasdesigned to provide services in three prioritysupport areas: “(a) global advocacy and analysis to generate knowledge, build alliances, andpromote enabling frameworks on key developmentissues; (b) policy advice, support and alignmentacross programmes, drawing on the globalnetwork of policy specialists; and (c) knowledge-networking and the sharing of best practices,drawing on the SURF system and communitiesof practice to support country and regionalprogramming efforts.”21

2.1.1 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THEEVALUATION OF THE GCF-II

The GCF-III programme document highlighteda number of key conclusions and recommenda-tions contained in the evaluation of the GCF-IIand indicated how the GCF-III intended torespond to them.22

n The GCF-II made a positive contribution toglobal policy, advocacy, knowledge generationand sharing, and partnerships. The GCF-IIIwould build on the successes by furtherstrengthening knowledge management.

n The GCF-II effectively supported thedevelopment of a global network of policyspecialists to support country programmes.The GCF-III would continue funding policyspecialists and strengthen their cost-effectiveand strategic deployment.

n The GCF-II lacked a cohesive frameworkand needed more focus. The GCF-III wouldbe closely aligned with the MYFF 2004-2007, which provided greater focus. At thecountry level, the GCF-III would not seek toactivate each service line but would respondflexibly to country demands.

n The GCF-II had weak execution, oversightand reporting. The GCF-III would overcomeprogramme management deficiencies, improvefinancial accountability, and provide oversightthrough the UNDP Executive Team, consistingof deputy bureau directors and an externaladvisory committee.

20. UNDP, ‘First Global Country Cooperation Framework, 1997-2000’, DP/GCF/1/Rev.1, 13 August 1997, p. 5, paragraph 13.21. UNDP, ‘Second Global Cooperation Framework, 2000-2003’, DP/GCF/2, 27 November 2000, p. 9, paragraph 27.22. UNDP, ‘Management Response to the Evaluation of the Second Global Cooperation Framework’, DP/2004/42,

26 August 2004.

Chapter 2

THE GCF-III IN UNDP

C H A P T E R 2 . T H E G C F - I I I I N U N D P8

2.1.2 DESIGN OF THE GCF-III

As with the two preceding GCFs, the objectiveof the GCF-III was to support programmecountries in achieving the MDGs.23 To do so,the GCF-III aimed:

n “To help UNDP country offices improvetheir effectiveness on the ground, in respond-ing to requests from programme countries toplan, manage and deliver resources fordevelopment in pursuit of the MDGs,

n To support developing countries, whenrequested in developing policy frameworksthat take advantage of global opportunitiesand resources under the priority goals of thesecond MYFF 2004-2007, and

n To enable developing countries to benefitfrom interregional knowledge exchange andSouth-based experiences and learning, andensuring that development assistance, advice,programme design and capacity-building effortsdraw on global best practices and expertise.”24

The GCF-III programme document identified afour-fold rationale for the global programme:ensure coherence among country, regional andglobal programmes within the organizingframework of the MYFF and build synergies inproject formulation and implementation, sharinginterregional good practices and consolidatingknowledge into knowledge products; codify thepooled experiences and lessons learned from theUNDP network on the ground in 166 countriesand the work of all UN organizations intoknowledge products to the benefit of programmecountries as well as UNDP, and facilitate theexchange of knowledge through knowledgenetworks; respond to the demand of programmecountries for South-based development solutionsthrough facilitating SSC; and enable strategicpartnerships to influence the global agenda.

Three primary modalities were used toimplement the GCF-III activities: country-levelpolicy and programme support through a globalnetwork of policy specialists; targeted globalprojects and strategic partnerships addressing keydevelopment issues affecting countries inmultiple regions; and a system of interregionalknowledge creation, transfer and codification.

The work of the GCF-III was based on principlescontained in the Triennial Comprehensive PolicyReview resolution25 and the MYFF to ensure nationalownership and leadership of the developmentprocess, and mainstreaming gender equality andcapacity development in each service line.

Under the umbrella of the MYFF 2004-2007,the GCF-III supported activities in four areas:achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty;fostering democratic governance; managingenergy and the environment for sustainabledevelopment; and responding to HIV/AIDS.

The MYFF Priority Goal 4 relates to the area ofCrisis Prevention and Recovery, which has beenmanaged by the Bureau for Crisis Prevention andRecovery since January 2004. By and large, theactivities outlined under each priority goalcorresponded with service lines defined under theMYFF and specified the GCF-III contributionsto the achievement of the respective prioritygoals. The linkage between the project-relatedactivities and the delivery of outputs, achievementof outcomes and, ultimately, the MYFF goals,was captured in a results and resources frame-work.26 The GCF-III activities relating to othermodalities, such as advisory services and the workto be conducted on knowledge management,were not reflected in the results framework.Another point of departure from the GCF-IIwas the funding for the Human DevelopmentReport Office and the Office of DevelopmentStudies, which was not covered by the GCF-III.

23. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, p. 7.24. Ibid.25. United Nations, ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational

Activities for Development of the United Nations System’, 59th Session Agenda item 90 (b) 17 December 2004,A/RES/59/250.

26. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, Annex 2, p. 18.

C H A P T E R 2 . T H E G C F - I I I I N U N D P 9

Most of the cross-cutting areas covered under theGCF-II were expected to be taken forward underthe GCF-III, in particular, gender equality andcapacity development. While knowledge manage-ment constituted an important cross-cutting issuein both the GCF-II and GCF-III, it was nevertreated as a distinct area. The area of ‘informa-tion and communications technology’ was nolonger specifically addressed in the GCF-III butwas subsumed under the governance and povertyareas. The programme document specified thatthe issue of gender equality would come under thedirect management of the BDP Directorate “inorder to strengthen gender mainstreaming and ensurea gender perspective in the MYFF goals.”27

Similarly, the programme document stated that“BDP manages the UNDP corporate knowledge

management strategy and provides support for itsimplementation, including networks and knowledgecontent.” While capacity development washighlighted as a principle, the programmedocument did not clarify management arrange-ments regarding this as a cross-cutting area.

2.2 PRACTICE AREAS AND CROSS-CUTTING THEMES

BDP implemented the global programmethrough six groups that correspond to the fourpractice areas (poverty and MDGs, democraticgovernance, environment and energy, andHIV/AIDS) and the two cross-cutting themes(gender and capacity development). Table 2

Table 2. Overview of Service Lines Covered by the GCF-III

Practice Service Lines

Poverty Group (i) MDG country reporting and poverty monitoring (ii) Pro-poor policy reform to achieve MDG targets (iii) Local poverty initiatives, including microfinance (iv) Globalization benefiting the poor(v) Private-sector development(vi) Gender mainstreaming(vii) Civil society empowerment (viii) Making ICTD [Information and Communications Technology for

Development] work for the poor

Democratic (i) Policy support for democratic governance,Governance Group (ii) Parliamentary development

(iii) Electoral systems and processes(iv) Justice and human rights(v) E-governance and access to information(vi) Decentralization, local governance and urban-rural development(vii) Public administration reform and anti-corruption

Environment & (i) Frameworks and strategies for sustainable developmentEnergy Group (ii) Effective water governance

(iii) Access to sustainable energy services(iv) Sustainable land management to combat desertification and land degradation(v) Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity(vi) National/sectoral policy and planning to control emissions of

ozone-depleting substances and persistent organic pollutants

HIV/AIDS Group (i) Leadership and capacity development to address HIV/AIDS(ii) Development planning, implementation and HIV/AIDS responses(iii) Advocacy and communication to address HIV/AIDS

27. Ibid, p. 15, paragraph 49.

C H A P T E R 2 . T H E G C F - I I I I N U N D P1 0

outlines how the MYFF priority areas andrespective service lines were implemented.

2.2.1 ACHIEVING THE MDGS ANDREDUCING HUMAN POVERTY

The BDP Poverty Group was chiefly responsiblefor work on the MDGs and reducing humanpoverty. The group’s work was structured aroundthree sub-areas: support to MDG-alignednational development strategies; inclusive global-ization with a human development focus on thepoorest and most vulnerable; and strategies andpolicies for poverty reduction.

During the GCF-III, the Poverty Groupexpanded considerably, particularly after theMillennium Project led by Jeffrey Sachs wasintegrated with the Poverty Group. As a result,there was a significant increase in staff—22members of the Poverty Group staff were linkedto the MDG Support Project. As seen in Table 3,the vast majority of staff members were funded

by the GCF-III. Of the Poverty Group staff, 25were the GCF-III-funded policy specialists (6 inNew York and 19 in RSCs) and the other 28were funded by global projects. The PovertyGroup had the highest ratio of GCF-fundedstaff to total staff of all other practice areas. Thesalaries for the 53 GCF-III-funded staffmembers made up approximately 75 percent ofthe GCF-III expenditure in the poverty area.

International Poverty Centre

The International Poverty Centre was formallyestablished in 2002 as a partnership betweenUNDP and the Brazilian Institute of AppliedEconomic Research. UNDP chose the BrazilianInstitute of Applied Economic Research becauseit felt it needed to enter into a collaborativearrangement with a prestigious, establishedSouthern-based research institution. The choicewas also made with a view to adding a South-South applied research component to thefunctions performed by Headquarters and

Table 3. Poverty Group Expenditures and Practice-related Statistics

Practice

BudgetGCF project budget allocations $8.8 millionGCF project expenditure $9.5 million

StaffTotal staff in practice 64GCF funded staff 53Percentage GCF staff of total staff 83%Percentage expenditure on staff (inclusive of policy specialist costs and salary expenditure of GCF projects)* 75%

ProjectsTotal projects in practice 57GCF funded projects 33Percentage GCF projects of total projects** 58%

Resource MobilizationTotal non-core (cost sharing, trust funds and Thematic Trust Funds [TTFs]) $56.7 millionPercentage TTF of non-core 20%Percentage of GCF target ($190 million) 6%

* This calculation assumes that funds allocated to policy specialist posts were also expended, which would not necessarily always bethe case. ** This figure may be misleading since the GCF-III projects were typically small, whereas other trust fund or TTF projects mayhave been significantly larger. A comparison of the funding provided to different types of projects would indicate a relatively lower significance of the GCF-III contribution to the practice group’s work.

C H A P T E R 2 . T H E G C F - I I I I N U N D P 1 1

regional policy specialists. The centre had threeinitial objectives: training high-level analysts anddecision makers in poverty reduction, conductingSouth-South research on alternative anti-povertystrategies and pro-poor policies, and creating aglobal database for quantitative policy analysis.

The International Poverty Centre was funded bythe global programme and the Brazilian Instituteof Applied Economic Research (the latterthrough in-kind contributions). Funding fromthe global programme for the period 2005-200728 was fundamental for staffing, researchdirections and resource mobilization andrepresented 69 percent of the Centre’s cashincome during the period (50 to 55 percent of

total income taking into account the BrazilianInstitute of Applied Economic Research in-kindcontribution). The GCF-III funded four inter-national staff members at the International PovertyCentre out of a total of approximately 23 staff.29

2.2.2 FOSTERING DEMOCRATICGOVERNANCE

The GCF-III second priority goal was fosteringdemocratic governance with a two-prongedfocus: democratic governance as a means to“accelerate human development” and “buildgovernance capacity to achieve the MDGs.”30

The BDP Democratic Governance Group assumedprimary responsibility for this area, including allMYFF service lines in its activities, with varying

28. GCF contributions amounted to $2.745 million during the period under review ($1 million for each of 2005 and 2006and $745,000 for 2007).

29. As of 1 March 2008, following the retirement of International Poverty Centre’s acting director, all the international positions remained vacant.

30. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 24.

Table 4. Democratic Governance Group Expenditures and Practice-related Statistics

Practice




Resource MobilizationTotal non-core (cost sharing, trust funds and TTFs) $90.8 millionPercentage TTF of non-core 85%Percentage of GCF target ($190 million) 41%



levels of support and resource allocation. In its2007 Annual Report, the Democratic GovernanceGroup estimated that during the 2004-2007period, three of the seven service lines accounted fornearly 80 percent of all practice-area expenditure:public administration reform and anti-corruption(41 percent), decentralization and local governance(19 percent) and electoral assistance (18 percent).

As of September 2007, the GCF-III-fundedstaff in the Democratic Governance Groupincluded: 27 policy specialists (8 based atHeadquarters and 19 in RSCs and SURFs31),7 project staff members (6 based at the OsloGovernance Centre and 1 based in New York),and 1 post funded from GCF’s extra-budgetaryincome.32 The GCF-III-funded staff accountedfor 73 percent of total BDP staff working in theDemocratic Governance Group (a percentageexceeded only by the Poverty Group) and 84 percent of the GCF-III core expenditure inthe democratic governance area.

Oslo Governance Centre

The Oslo Governance Centre, which wasestablished in 2002, functioned as a separateentity under the Democratic Governancepractice in BDP. The purpose of the Centre wasto position UNDP as a champion of democraticgovernance as an end in itself and as a means toachieve the MDGs; focus on cross-cuttinggovernance issues through innovative researchand multi-disciplinary team-work; and networkand develop partnerships with leading policy andresearch institutions, both ‘North’ and ‘South’.

The Oslo Governance Centre was funded by theGCF-III and the Government of Norway, whichpaid more than half of the costs via its contributionto the Democratic Governance TTF. Initially, theannual budget was approximately $5 million, but

since 2005 it has been approximately $3 million($1 million from the GCF-III and $2 millionfrom the Democratic Governance TTF). Thecentre has a staff of 18 including its director andfour policy specialists.

2.2.3 MANAGING ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The Environment and Energy Group in BDP,which was formed in 2001, was responsible forthe environment and energy activities of theGCF-III, which cover all six MYFF service linesoutlined under the environment priority area.Four cross-cutting areas were also identified:poverty-environment, climate change, environ-mental governance, and community-based initia-tives. The Group was also in charge of formulat-ing the UNDP position on global issues pertain-ing to the environment and energy area. TheGCF-III programme document specifies itsfocus as “…linking local and global actions in theareas of energy and environment to supportsustainable development efforts as a follow-up tothe World Summit on Sustainable Development,as well as the realization of all the MDGs, withparticular emphasis on MDG-7.”33 In practice,however, UNDP (and thus the GCF-III)concentrated on two of the main goals underMDG-7—integrating the principles of sustainabledevelopment into country policies and programmes,and reversing the loss of environmental resourcesand biodiversity by 2010.

In terms of manpower, the Environment and EnergyGroup was the largest thematic group under BDP.Seventeen percent of staff were funded by theGCF-III: 13 policy specialists (5 in New Yorkand 8 in RSCs and SURFs) and 6 other positions(mainly funded through global projects),representing 76 percent of the GCF-III expendi-ture in the Environment and Energy Group area.

31. Regional Bureau for Africa (RBA): 6; Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific (RBAP): 3; Regional Bureau for ArabStates (RBAS): 2; Regional Bureau for Eirope and the Commonwealth of Independent States (RBEC): 3, and RegionalBureau for Latin America and the Caribbean (RBLAC): 5. Annex E, Table 14.

32. Annex E, Table 11.33. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, p. 11.


Drylands Development Centre

The Drylands Development Centre was establishedin 2002 in Nairobi to lead UNDP work in fightingpoverty and supporting long-term development inthe drylands. It evolved from the UNDP-managedUN Sudano-Sahelian Office. Since then, theDrylands Development Centre has moved to anintegrated, programmatic approach. It establishedthe Integrated Drylands Development Programme,currently active in 19 countries in sub-SaharanAfrica and the Arab States. Work in theIntegrated Drylands Development Programmewas based on three approaches: mainstreamingdryland development issues into national policyand planning frameworks; reducing vulnerabilityof poor populations to climatic shocks, especiallydrought; and improving local governance ofnatural resources management.

2.2.4 RESPONDING TO HIV AND AIDS

The GCF-III fourth priority goal was respond-ing to HIV/AIDS with a two-pronged focus:“halting the spread of HIV/AIDS (MDG 6)”and “achieving the goals set during the UnitedNations General Assembly Special Session onHIV/AIDS.”34 Additionally, activities in thispractice area were intended to “promote genderequality (MDG 3) and support trade andintellectual-property rights regimes that facilitateaccess to low-cost AIDS drugs (MDG 8).”35 Toa varying degree, the GCF-III supported allthree MYFF service lines. The BDP HIV/AIDSGroup was responsible for the implementation ofthis practice area.

As of September 2007, the HIV/AIDS Groupwas the smallest in terms of staffing of the fourpractice areas with only four staff members

34. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 35.35. Ibid.

Table 5. Environment and Energy Group Expenditures and Practice-related Statistics

Practice







Table 6. HIV/AIDS Group Expenditures and Practice-related Statistics

Practice




Resource MobilizationTotal non-core (cost sharing, trust funds and TTFs) $21.8 millionPercentage TTF of non-core 10%Percentage of GCF target ($190 million) 1.17%

Table 7. Gender Group Expenditures and Practice-related Statistics

Practice




Resource MobilizationTotal non-core (cost sharing, trust funds and TTFs) $6.6 millionPercentage TTF of non-core 43%Percentage of GCF target ($190 million) 1.5%



funded by the GCF-III: two policy specialists (oneat Headquarters and one at the JohannesburgRSC); one senior policy advisor (who alsomanaged the Regional Bureau for Asia and thePacific [RBAP] Regional Programme on HIV/AIDS) at the Colombo RSC; and one project staffmember.36 The GCF-III-funded staff represented15 percent of total HIV/AIDS staff and 34 percentof the GCF-III expenditure in the HIV/AIDS area.

2.2.5 MAINSTREAMING GENDER

Until mid 2007, the Gender Team, which isbased at Headquarters and reports directly to theDirector of BDP, consisted of one director, onepolicy specialist (both of whom were GCF-funded), one trust fund manager and oneprogramme manager. The GCF-III also fundedfour regional policy specialist positions (one each

in the RSC-Johannesburg, the RSC-Dakar, theArab States SURF and the RSC-Colombo).

An additional core allocation after mid 2007made it possible to recruit new staff. However,the new organigram of the Gender Team was notfinalized at the time of writing this report. TheGCF-III-funded staff represented 75 percent ofthe BDP staff in this area and 65 percent of theGCF-III expenditure in the Gender area.37

2.2.6 MAINSTREAMING CAPACITYDEVELOPMENT

The GCF-III document stated that the “…globalprogramme will support the capacities needed torespond to growing demands for generating andimplementing MDG-focused national develop-ment strategies and pro-poor policies.”38 Capacity

36. Annex E, Table 13.37. Including policy advisor budgeted costs and global project expenditures. However, this may not include the cost of the director.38. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 7(c), p. 5.

Table 8. Capacity Development Group Expenditures and Practice-related Statistics

Practice







development, along with gender, was also statedas a MYFF development driver.39

The GCF-III funded eight posts in the CapacityDevelopment Group: two policy specialists andsix posts funded from the targeted global projectsrepresenting 32 percent of staff and 65 percent ofthe GCF-III expenditure in the capacitydevelopment area.

2.3 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The organizational structure through whichBDP implemented activities funded through theGCF-III core resources was also responsible forthe implementation of activities funded throughnon-core resources. The GCF-III was primarilyimplemented through BDP’s Poverty Group,Democratic Governance Group, Environmentand Energy Group, HIV/AIDS Group, CapacityDevelopment Group, and Gender Team.

The implementation modalities used by eachpractice group included policy advisory services,targeted projects (also referred to as globalprojects), and knowledge management. Whileresource allocation in the GCF-III programmedocument was based primarily on the fourMYFF goals, in implementation, resources werereallocated across the six practice groups inaccordance with supply and demand. Theimplementation modalities were intended to becomplementary and to reinforce each other in thedelivery of the GCF-III activities.

2.3.1 POLICY ADVISORY SUPPORT SERVICES

The allocation of policy specialist posts tookplace in line with the programme document and

covered the 24 service lines of the MYFF withinthe scope of the global programme. Accordingly,25 of the 75 policy specialists (spread across thedifferent practice areas) were based at Headquarters,and 50 were based in the RSCs and SURFs. Thepolicy specialists were expected to provide country-level policy and programme support and tofunction “akin to a consultancy in that UNDP’s‘client’—a programme country government—canaccess [their] services through requests tocountry offices.” The policy specialists deliveredtheir services through advisory missions,technical backstopping and facilitating access tothe best comparative global experience.40

2.3.2 GLOBAL PROJECTS

The GCF-III-funded targeted projects (commonlyreferred to as global projects) were the mainmechanism through which BDP/UNDPdeveloped and financed projects that addressedglobal or multi-regional development issues.41

With a budget of $22.56 million,42 approxi-mately one fourth of the total global programmebudget was allocated to global projects.

The GCF-III global projects were only a small partof BDP’s broader project landscape, with whichthey were often intricately linked. The GCF-IIIwas also expected to contribute to leveragingadditional non-core resources of $190 million inTTF resources, as stipulated in the programmedocument.43 In 2005-2007, according to BDP, anadditional $1.2 billion was generated through cost-sharing arrangements, trust funds (including theMontreal Protocol and Global EnvironmentalFacility [GEF] resources) and TTFs.44

Both the GCF-III global projects and BDP non-core projects covered the same set of service lines

39. Ibid, paragraph 19, p. 8.40. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005.41. Formally, all the GCF-III funds, including those for policy advisory services, knowledge management and the thematic

centres, were disbursed through projects. However, these projects were not classified as targeted projects and were notdiscussed in this section.

42. See Table 10.43. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, p.1.44. Annex E, Table 6.


and priority goals defined under the MYFF2004-2007.45 However, while most of BDP non-core funding was disbursed directly at thecountry level, the GCF-III global projectssupported the development of programmecountries more indirectly by focusing on broadercross-cutting issues of global or inter-regionalconcern, corporate themes in support of UNDP-wide practice alignment and coherence, andknowledge creation and sharing that could beapplied by country offices throughout the world.

The GCF-III was mandated to work on a rangeof subjects as specified in the service lines relatingto the different MYFF goals. In practice, thismeant that the GCF-III global project resourceswere distributed relatively evenly across practice andcross-practice areas as well as across service lineswithin the four practice areas. Targeted projectswere used by the practice groups for a range ofdifferent purposes within their areas, such aspiloting new approaches, developing knowledgetools, supporting knowledge networking,building capacity at the country level andleveraging additional non-core resources. Someprojects also supported cross-practice initiatives.During the GCF-III period, targeted projectsfinanced 69 posts, which supported theimplementation of the projects.

Global projects also provided the fundingmechanism through which the GCF-IIIfinanced the three thematic centres under thepractice areas of poverty (International PovertyCentre, Brasilia), governance (Oslo GovernanceCentre) and environment and energy (DrylandsDevelopment Centre, Nairobi). They emphasizedapplied research, policy or practice-relatedadvice, and operational support to programmecountries in line with the respective practice area.

2.3.3 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge management had considerableprominence in the GCF-III programmedocument. The exchange and management ofknowledge was one of the three main objectivesof the GCF-III, linked to one of the fourrationales and one of the three implementationmodalities;46 one of the main activities of thepolicy specialists; and one of the main considera-tions in most of the global projects (in terms ofthe production of knowledge products).

In terms of GCF-III support to knowledgemanagement in UNDP, the GCF-III implemen-tation modality focused on the development of a“knowledge management system of interregionalknowledge creation, transfer and codification.”The designers of the GCF-III continued thethrust of GCF-II, which sought to transformUNDP into a professional, knowledge-basedorganization. This was to be done throughknowledge creation, primarily through policyspecialists; knowledge transfer/sharing, throughthe knowledge networks that support the UNDPcommunities of practice; and knowledge codifi-cation of guidance tools for the country offices,practice notes, websites and workspaces.47

Knowledge management was financed, in particular,through the GCF-III-funded BDP KnowledgeServices Project (#11408) with 2005-2007 corefunding in the amount of $4 million. Its mainobjective was to support “…the achievement ofthe MDGs through the promotion, developmentand implementation of innovative approaches toknowledge management at global and regionallevels. It makes use of the global team ofknowledge network facilitators and researchanalysts and the SURFs and RSCs as its outreachmechanism.” 48 The main outputs were the

45. UNDP, ‘Second Multi-year Funding Framework 2004-2007’, DP/2003/32, 13 August 2003, Executive Board Decision2003/24, 12 September 2003.

46. UNDP work on knowledge management began in the mid to late 1990s when the SURFs, community of practices andGlobal Networks were established by BDP. Their role was to provide policy advisory support to the country offices andwas part of an overall restructuring of the BDP aimed at bringing policy and practice closer together.

47. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 18.48. UNDP, ‘Project 11408 Annual Project Review’, UNDP BDP, December 2006.


establishment of six permanent KnowledgeManagement Facilitation Teams for each of themain practices and cross-cutting areas (these arecomprised of Knowledge Network Facilitatorsand Research Analysts); a knowledge sharing andnetwork approach for the UN system;49 andcatalytic funding support to a number ofknowledge management initiatives at the globaland regional levels, including cross-practicequeries and e-discussions, and training andsupport to the development of a regional‘community of practice’ in the RBAP.

The primary means for implementing theknowledge management modality was throughthe knowledge networks50 that were supporteddirectly by the GCF-III as noted in Table 9.

With respect to the networks, the GCF-III wasdesigned to stimulate interaction among the

communities of practices in order to develop andmake available the best knowledge and expertiseto support UNDP work with national partners.

2.4 MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

Unlike most UNDP programmes, the manage-ment of the GCF-III was based on a complexmosaic of institutional structures, deliverymodalities and management arrangements. TheGCF-III was delivered vertically across UNDPas a three-tiered organization (corporate orglobal, regional and country level) and eachinstitutional structure had varying mechanismsfor management, oversight and reporting. TheGCF-III was implemented by BDP, which wasresponsible for all aspects of its management andwas accountable for the use of resources and theachievement of results. In addition to BDP, theinstitutional machinery comprised:

49. The development of knowledge sharing partnerships is an ongoing process, and was initiated during the second global programme.50. The networks listed in Table 2 were supported by the GCF-III. In addition, there are several other major networks in

UNDP, and (with memberships) these include, Crisis Prevention and Recovery (1,912), MDG-net (3,736), HuriTALK(1,095), HDR-net (964), Management Practices (3,621) and EVAL-net (1083). There are also several other networksof a more specialized nature in UNDP (e.g. finance, procurement, human resources, project management). The totalmembership of the major global networks as of end 2007 in UNDP is 21,262. Membership in the global networks hastripled over the period 2003-2007.

Table 9. GCF-III-funded Global Networks in UNDP

Global Network Title Membership

Democratic Governance Practice Network 2,289

Poverty Reduction Practice Network 1,581

HIV/AIDS Practice Network 1,429

Energy and Environment Practice Network 1,250

Capacity Development Network 865

Millennium Development Goals (partially funded) 3,653

Total 11,067

Note: There are other networks (both global and regional), not listed here, that received indirect support from GCF-III through the facilitation by policy specialists or other GCF-III-funded staff.

Source: BDP


n Practice groups within BDP—The responsi-bility for four of the MYFF priority areas wasorganized into distinct practice groups in BDP.51

n The network of GCF-III funded policyspecialists—Provided a range of policyadvisory and programme support services atthe Headquarter, regional and country levels.

n Thematic centres—Varied operational andfunding arrangements were made with theOslo Governance Centre, the InternationalPoverty Centre in Brasilia and the DrylandsDevelopment Centre in Nairobi.

n RSCs and SURFs—Sesigned as joint venturesbetween the regional bureaux and BDP throughmatrix management of BDP policy specialists.

n Implementing partners and agencies—Implementation of some components of theGCF-III was carried out by a range ofpartners including UN specialized agencies,funds and programmes (such as the UNOffice for Project Services and UnitedNations Development Fund for Women[UNIFEM].)

In addition, BDP managed the communities ofpractice, global knowledge networks, six TTFs,other trust funds, and hundreds of global projectsand programmes of which 121 were funded inwhole or in part by the GCF-III and directlyexecuted by BDP (see Annex G).

2.4.1 RSCS, SURFS AND REGIONALIZATION

The country-level policy advisory and programmesupport services described in this report weredelivered primarily through the RSC and SURFstructures. The decision to integrate the pre-existing network of BDP-managed SURFs withthe emerging RSCs was made in mid 2003.52

Recommendations for formalizing the regional-ization process were made in the ManagementReview II of early 2007. BDP examined how theManagement Review’s recommendations couldbe applied to BDP and how the RSCs andSURFs could be further reformed in light ofBDP experiences at the regional and countrylevel. More specific proposals for regionalizationwere developed and approved in late 2007, and inearly 2008, UNDP senior management formallyapproved the Functional Alignment of andImplementation Arrangements for RSCs.

Responsibility for the management of theregionalization process was vested with theOperations Group within UNDP, but the mainparties to the agreements were BDP, the regionalbureaux, the Bureau for Crisis Prevention andRecovery and the Bureau of Management.Primary responsibility for the management of theRSCs belonged to the regional bureaux. Thedeployment and management of the GCF-III-funded policy specialists was secured throughinitial service agreements between BDP and eachregional bureau and are currently being renegoti-ated through new long-term agreements.53

51. “Each of the MYFF priority areas and respective service lines will be the responsibility of a practice group within BDP.The work of practice groups is supported by units working with them on cross-practice areas such as gender mainstreaming,South-South cooperation, knowledge management and capacity development.” (Ibid, paragraph 43).

52. The institution of the SURFs was a result of the UNDP ‘2001 Change Process’, introduced in 1997, which was intendedto decentralize much of the Headquarters services and operations. By December 2003, at the end of the original GCF-II period, nine SURFs had been established: three in Africa (Addis Ababa, Dakar and Pretoria), two in Asia (Bangkokand Kathmandu), two in the RBLAC region (Panama and Port of Spain), and one each in the Arab States (Beirut) andEurope (Bratislava). Each of the SURFs had its own history, its specific type of clients with a wide range of differentneeds and demands, and different work capacities. By the commencement of GCF-III, the SURFs and RSCs had beenintegrated in RBEC and the two SURFs in Asia had been restructured into a new RSC based in Bangkok with some ofthe operation located in Colombo. By end-2007, the SURFs in Addis Ababa and Pretoria had been merged with the newRSC in Johannesburg.

53. These were arranged in 2002 along standard terms and conditions covering the commitments of the signing parties, thenature of services provided, how performance was to be measured, and the setup of joint SURF Boards to provide oversight.


2.5 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW OF THE GCF-III

The programme document proposed a “coreresource envelope of US$ 84.7 million over thethree-year period, which [was] expected toleverage non-core resources of US$ 190 millionthrough the UNDP thematic trust funds(TTFs).”54 This section provides a financialoverview of the core resources allocated to theGCF-III, the non-core resources secured byBDP during the period 2005-2007, and asnapshot of the GCF-III expenditure patterns.

2.5.1 CORE RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Annex 1 of the programme document illustrateshow the core resources were to be distributedacross different priority goals and implementationmodalities.55 The proposed distribution isreflected in Table 10.56 The distribution of thepolicy advisory services “was made on the basis ofdemand from programme countries.”55 The areasof poverty and democratic governance receivedthe greatest allocation of funding for policyadvisory services, with 29 and 26 policy specialistsrespectively, while HIV/AIDS and capacitydevelopment received the lowest number ofpolicy specialists, with three and two respectively.

The allocation of funding for targeted projects“was made on the basis of expressed needs,capacity to deliver and potential for non-coreresource mobilization.”58 During the GCF-IIIperiod, approximately $4.5 million was allocated toeach of the areas of poverty, democratic governanceand energy and environment, and $3 million wasallocated to each of the thematic centres. HIV/AIDS received $3.5 million while cross-practiceinitiatives received $6 million. At the time theGCF-III was approved, there was no explicit

funding for targeted projects in the cross-cuttingareas of gender (which was subsumed underpoverty) and capacity development. However, in2005, some funding was allocated for targetedprojects in the area of capacity development, andin 2006 and 2007, both capacity developmentand gender received dedicated GCF-III fundingfor targeted projects.

These allocations to cross-cutting areas implied areduced allocation to the four primary practiceareas. Another $6 million was allocated to‘interregional knowledge transfer, learning andcodification’. While the knowledge services projectwas managed centrally by the BDP Directorate,the resources were distributed across the practiceand cross-cutting areas to fund practiceknowledge network facilitators and to producepractice-specific knowledge products.

The GCF-III also contained a one-time allocationof $5.14 million in un-programmed resources forthe ‘strategic reserve’. This amount accounted for6 percent of the $84.7 in core resources allocatedto the GCF-III. It did not support the workcarried out under the GCF-III and did notcontribute to the achievement of its results.These funds were not managed by BDP but wereallotted to the Office of the Administrator to bedeployed for strategic purposes at the discretionof the Administrator.

2.5.2 CORE AND NON-CORE RESOURCEMOBILIZATION AND EXPENDITURE

As indicated earlier, the GCF-III was projectedto leverage non-core resources of $190 millionthrough the UNDP TTFs and targeted projects.Table 11 provides an overview of the GCF-IIIexpenditures over the period 2005-2007 ($87.1

54. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, p.1.55. See the budgetary allocation contained in the Work Plan of the programme document (Ibid, Annex 1, p. 17). Annex E,

Table 1 of this report represents a summary table of the budgetary allocation contained in Annex 1.56. Table 10, based on data provided by BDP, contains more detailed information regarding the proposed allocation of

resources to different areas/items (representing organizational units)—in particular the provision to the thematic centresand cross-practice initiatives—than is contained in Annex 1 of the programme document. Overall figures tally with thebreakdown by priority goal, as contained in the programme document. See Annex E of this report.

57. Ibid, Annex 1, p. 17.58. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005.


million) through which non-core resources couldhave been leveraged. The table also shows the non-core resources actually mobilized($236.13 million) and expended ($201.25 million)by BDP during the same period. The resourcesreferred to in this table relate to cost-sharingarrangements, trust funds and TTFs, but excludethose generated through the Montreal Protocol

and Global Environment Facility (GEF) trustfunds. While these resources were higher thanthe projected amount of $190 million, the actualexpenditure was slightly lower, reflecting delaysin resource mobilization and/or delivery.59

If the Montreal Protocol and GEF trust fundsare also taken into account, BDP mobilized a

59. Delays were due to TTF management arrangements, including: multi-year funding frameworks that allowed for incomeraised in one year to be expended in the next; and bottlenecks in the timing of the delivery of resources to the country offices.

Table 10. GCF-III Core Resource Allocations 2005-2007 ($ million)

Notes: (i) The funding earmarked for policy advisory work was not, in fact, allotted to the administrative units managing the work conducted under the different areas (e.g. poverty, governance, gender, etc.), but was managed centrally under one policy advisory project.(ii) Annex 1 of the programme document does not specify an allocation to thematic centres. (iii) In Annex 1 of the programme document,funding allocated to “knowledge products, services and systems” with a total value of $6 million is distributed across the four prioritygoals as follows: Poverty Reduction—$1.25 million; Gender—$0.25 million; Democratic Governance—$1.5 million; Energy andEnvironment—$1.5 million; and HIV/AIDS—$1.5 million. See also Annex E of this report. (iv) Annex 1 of the programme document doesnot identify an allocation to cross-practice initiatives. In this presentation provided by BDP, $1.5 million have been deducted from eachof the four priority goals, amounting to a total of $6 million allotted to cross-practice initiatives. See also Annex E of this report.

ImplementationModality

Policy AdvisoryServices

Targeted Projects InterregionalKnowledge

Transfer,Learning andCodification

Total (Excluding

Number of Posts)Area/Item Number

of PostsCost

of PostsiPractice

AreaThematicCentresii

Poverty reduction & International Poverty Centre

29 16.24 4.01 3.00 23.25

Democratic governance &Oslo Governance Centre

26 14.56 4.75 3.00 22.31

Energy and environ-ment & DrylandsDevelopment Centre

11 6.16 4.32 3.00 13.48

HIV/AIDS 3 1.68 3.48 5.16

Knowledge management 6.00iv 6.00

Gender 4 2.24 2.24

Capacity development 2 1.12 1.12

Cross practice 6.00iii 6.00

Subtotal A 75 42.00 22.56 9.00 6.00

Subtotal B (excludingnumber of posts)

42.00 31.56 6.00 79.56

Strategic reserve 5.14

Total 84.70


total of $1.2 billion during the period 2005-2007. However, if only resources generatedthrough TTFs are taken into consideration ($123.12million60)—which strictly speaking, was the onlynon-core modality indicated in the GCF-IIIprogramme document—non-core funds ($84.30million61) would fall considerably short of theprojected $190 million.62

2.5.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW OF THE GCF-III BY INPUT CATEGORY

The expenditure of the GCF-III funds by maininput category for all projects (including thepolicy advisor and knowledge management projects)during the period 2005 to 2007 is noted in Table 12.The bulk of the GCF-III funds expended onsalaries for BDP posts—$58.5 million or 72.8 percent

60. Annex E, Table 5.61. Annex E, Table 5.62. According to BDP, the TTF modality was not always the most appropriate for securing non-core resources. As such,

other modalities, such as cost-sharing arrangements and other trust funds, were also used in order to maximize fundingopportunities.

Table 11. Core and Non-core Funding and Expenditures ($ million)

Notes: (i) Non-core, in this case, includes income received through cost-sharing, trust funds and TTFs. It does not include incomereceived through the Montreal Protocol and the Global Environment Facility. (ii) DP/GP/1/Rev.1, p. 1. (iii) The Policy Support Departmentwas created in ATLAS (the UNDP financial management system) to allow for central management of the policy advisory andknowledge management funds.

Department/Practice Area Core Non-Corei

Budget Expenditure Projectedii Income Expenditure

Policy Supportiii

Policy advisory services 42 43.49

Knowledge management 6 4.75

Practice area 190

Environment and energy 8.82 6.91 53.12 58.83

Democratic governance 9.25 6.41 90.80 69.29

HIV/AIDS 4.98 2.93 21.83 25.89

Poverty reduction and MDGs 8.51 9.55 56.72 28.01

Cross Cutting

Gender 1.23 6.58 5.84

Capacity development 2.12 7.08 13.35

Cross practice 4.58 0.04

Subtotal 79.56 81.97 190 236.13 201.25

Strategic Reserve 5.14 5.14

Total 84.70 87.11 190 236.13 201.25


of total expenditures. The posts include the 75 policy specialists plus an additional 69 poststhat were funded from the global projects. If

service contracts are included, then the totalamount spent on BDP staff increases to $61.6million or 76.7 percent of total expenditures.

Table 12. GCF-III Expenditures by Main Input, 2005-2007 ($ million)

Input Category Amount Percentage

Salary 58.50 72.8

Travel 5.72 7.1

Consultant 5.61 6.9

Service Contract 3.11 3.9

Miscellaneous 2.95 3.7

Printing & Publications 2.29 2.9

Rent 1.89 2.4

Equipment 0.27 0.3

Grand Total 80.34 100.0

Source: BDP. Note: figures rounded.

C H A P T E R 3 . A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E P E R F O R M A N C E O F T H E G C F - I I I 2 5

This chapter identifies the key findings of theevaluation. The first section discusses theperformance of the GCF-III along the fourpractice areas and two cross-cutting thematicareas. The next section analyzes the influence ofprogramme modalities (policy advisory services,targeted programmes and knowledge manage-ment) on this performance. The third sectionreviews management-related issues.

3.1 PRACTICE AND CROSS-CUTTING AREAS

This section reviews how the GCF-III addressedits three primary objectives. The evaluationsought to identify specific areas in which theGCF-III was engaged in each practice and cross-cutting area, and results from those engagements.The evaluation also sought to address the issue ofknowledge management and networking, cross-practice work, and partnerships and other keyGCF-III themes. A significant challenge inevaluating the performance of the GCF-III wasthe lack of comprehensive monitoring data orother evaluative evidence.

3.1.1 ACHIEVING THE MDGS ANDREDUCING HUMAN POVERTY

Generally, the GCF-III activities implementedby the Poverty Group were relevant to supportingdeveloping countries in achieving the MDGs.Much of the work focused on global advocacy forthe MDGs and on building RSC and countryoffice capacity to support the MDGs. Forexample, the GCF-III played a substantive rolein the MDG Africa Initiative, which aimed toscale up support to Sub-Saharan Africa and find

practical ways to address bottlenecks for theimplementation of MDG programmes. MDG-related activities were also supported in otherregions, such as the MDG Asia Initiative. TheGCF-III support to MDG-aligned nationaldevelopment strategies placed a special emphasison Africa and Asia. This was appropriate in viewof the particular needs and challenges of thesetwo regions.

The Poverty Group developed a range of toolsfor needs assessments and costing of MDG-based plans, and supported capacity developmentat the country level in both country offices andgovernment institutions. The policy specialists inNew York, the International Poverty Centre andRSCs were central to this work. For example,UNDP—with GCF-III advisory support—supported building capacities to formulateMDG-based national plans in Mali, Rwanda,Tanzania, Uzbekistan and Zambia. This workwas generally considered to be both relevant andeffective by country offices and government.

The evaluation identified a number of instanceswhere GCF-III efforts to support the MDGswere closely integrated with those of regional andcountry programmes. Such close cooperation wasviewed positively by many of the UNDPstakeholders and yielded significant synergies.However in such cases, lines of attribution wereblurred and contributions were not easy toascertain, which posed a challenge in evaluatingthe valued added of the GCF-III.

The MDG Asia Initiative, a relatively largeregional project, was partly funded by RBAP andpartly by BDP.63 This project benefited substan-

63. BDP contribution was $1.2 million (50 percent of the total) in 2006, $1.5 million (41 percent) in 2007 and $0.6 million(26 percent) in 2008. BDP also funded about half of the RSC Colombo budget in the HIV/AIDS area in 2006-2008,but the resources used to this effect actually came from UNAIDS’ United Budget and Workplan.

Chapter 3

ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GCF-III

C H A P T E R 3 . A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E P E R F O R M A N C E O F T H E G C F - I I I2 6

tially from the inputs of a regionally-based policyspecialist funded by the GCF-III. A regionalproject on Support to MDG-based DevelopmentStrategies aimed at building capacity toformulate and implement MDG-based nationaldevelopment plans was integrated with theGCF-III activities in the area. Such closecooperation between globally and regionallyfunded projects and staff was commendable andsupported coherence among vertical practices.

Another MDG-related area of activity supportedby the GCF-III was the Poverty Group’s work ongenerating ‘fiscal space’. This generated someinterest, especially among partner organizations.However, while country offices and Headquarterswere aware of this initiative, which was consideredinnovative in terms of global development policydebate, the evaluation was able to establish only afew instances of the GCF-III stimulating broaddiscussions within and beyond UNDP.

The GCF-III efforts to build capacity on tradeissues, especially in the context of international tradeissues and the World Trade Organization DohaRound, were appropriate for a global programme.Moreover, UNDP, through the GCF-III,contributed an important perspective on the tradeagenda by linking trade to human development.

The primary focus in the trade area was on theIntegrated Framework for Trade-relatedTechnical Assistance to the Least DevelopedCountries (IF). Work on this issue wasconducted in cooperation with the UnitedNations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD) and the World Bank. Since 2004,UNDP operated a Trade and HumanDevelopment Office in Geneva, which waslargely funded by the global programme andmanaged the IF Trust Fund (among otherthings).64 Activities in this area were partlyfunded through a Global IF Programme forLeast Developed Countries ($4 million for theperiod 2005-2007.) The Trade and Human

Development Office carried out diagnostic tradestudies but experienced some challenges inpositioning itself vis-à-vis the World Bank andUNCTAD in this area.

Trade policy specialists in the RSCs were alsoinvolved in implementing the IF programme.They did this mainly through capacity develop-ment, particularly in Africa, where two policyspecialists in RSC Johannesburg and one tradepolicy specialist in RSC Dakar worked on tradeissues. However, these staff revealed that therewas little demand from the country offices fortheir services, which was attributed to the offices’lack of knowledge in the area. In fact, the policyspecialists were required to find ways to ‘createdemand’ from the country offices. It was unfortu-nate that in the region where the need is greatest,the demand appeared to be insufficient, and thecontribution of the policy specialists, while highlyrelevant, was thus constrained. Nevertheless,there was some success with IF work in Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania. Moreover,the cooperation between UNDP and UNCTADhighlighted the importance of this area. TheAfrican Union’s demonstrated interest in IF-related issues following a joint UNCTAD-UNDP event in West Africa in 2007 was a casein point.

Overall, results from the Survey of ResidentRepresentatives/Country Directors and ResidentCoordinators (hereinafter, referred to as theResident Representative Survey) indicated thatthe work of policy specialists in the area of MDGand poverty reduction was generally appreciatedat the country office level: 15 percent of therespondents viewed the work of policy specialistsin these areas as ‘very important’, 48 percent as‘somewhat important’, 18 percent as ‘not veryimportant’ and 18 percent as ‘not important’.What was less certain was whether the GCF-IIIwas the most appropriate mechanism throughwhich to address the wide range of issues covered

64. The Trade and Human Development Office staff consisted of one senior policy specialist, one professional, one trust fundmanager, one Junior Professional Officer and one administrator.


under its poverty-related portfolio. The activitiesof poverty policy specialists in the RSC Bratislavafunded by the GCF-III illustrated this issue.Work was being conducted in such diverse areasas integrating MDGs into Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers in Central Asia in line withsimilar approaches in Asia and Africa, but therewere questions about the relevance of suchapproaches in the subregion; making marketswork for the poor,65 which was a relevant issue,although the added value of the global programmein this area was questionable; and civic engage-ment in poverty reduction, which again was anissue relevant to poverty reduction, but its link tothe global programme was less obvious.66

Resources were spread thinly across a number ofservice lines, with little apparent coherence andcross-fertilization under the GCF-III. However,the policy specialists in Bratislava worked closelywith the Regional Bureau Eastern Europe andthe Commonwealth of Independent States(RBEC) staff on several regional projects andthere was good integration at the regional level.

The International Poverty Centre in Brasilia wasestablished as a collaborative arrangement with aSouthern-based research institution. Feedbackfrom a number of RSCs, SURFs and countryoffices indicated that the Centre’s relevance tocountry offices increased during the past twoyears. Interaction was good with those countryoffices that placed high emphasis on poverty-reduction policy. In general, the InternationalPoverty Centre’s collaboration with countryoffices appeared to depend more on the directrelations that existed between the Centre’s staffand country office staff than on demand for policy

research services. There was a good interface withthe RSCs and SURFs whose policy advisors werefound to collaborate frequently with theInternational Poverty Centre and to value thequality of its analyses and products.

There was a lack of clarity on how theInternational Poverty Centre should operatewithin the overall poverty practice architecture.Interaction between the International PovertyCentre and the Poverty Group in Headquartersappeared to be minimal—during the four years ofits existence, the International Poverty Centrewas visited only three times by Poverty Groupdirectors. Moreover, as of March 2008, followingthe retirement from UNDP of the InternationalPoverty Centre’s acting director, all internationalpositions were vacant. During the period of theevaluation, there were ongoing consultationswith the Government of Brazil about a newimplementation phase with an enhancedemphasis on SSC.

Overall, the poverty reduction practice networkwas important to disseminating analytical workand tools as well as providing space for theexchange of ideas and experiences. The PovertyGroup produced a total of 427 documentsbetween 2005 and 2007. Of these, 100 consti-tuted ‘consolidated replies’ on the network andanother 144 were International Poverty Centrepublications. According to the Policy AdvisorSurvey,67 the policy specialists were more active inthe poverty reduction practice network than in anyof the other networks.68 The consolidated replieswere particularly valued. However, interviews withUNDP stakeholders at Headquarters yieldeddifferent feedback, such as that the quality was

65. In line with approaches developed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and SwedishInternational Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) among others. This was certainly highly relevant for povertyreduction. There was considerable demand from country offices for related services.

66. Several policy specialists suggested that their relations to BDP were sub-optimal and that BDP regarded the RBECregion as marginal for its poverty work.

67. The policy advisors surveyed in the Policy Advisor Survey, are referred to as ‘policy specialists’ elsewhere in the text, whichis the term now more commonly used in UNDP.

68. 57 percent stated that they were ‘active’ (9 percent) or ‘somewhat active’ (48 percent) in this network. However, the PovertyGroup policy specialists consist of 63 percent (n=12/19) of this group, and seven policy specialists from other practiceareas fall under this category. The corresponding figure for the democratic governance practice network was 36 percent (18 percent active and 18 percent somewhat active), and it was much less for the other networks.


uneven, there was a need for a more systematicdissemination strategy, and there was a failure tolearn systematically from country experiences andto translate these into global policy and advocacy.

n n n

In summary, work conducted by the GCF-IIIunder the umbrella of ‘achieving the MDGs andreducing human poverty’ underpinned UNDPwork in promoting a country-level focus on MDGsand yielded a range of contributions of globalsignificance, such as trade and analytical South-South work on poverty in the International PovertyCentre. Given the wide spread of issues coveredby the GCF-III in the area of poverty reduction,a narrower coverage of issues might haveprovided programmatic focus and strengthenedopportunities to demonstrate quality results.69

The knowledge-related services rendered throughthe practice network were valued by UNDPstakeholders, although there was considerablescope to further strengthen services and products.

3.1.2 FOSTERING DEMOCRATICGOVERNANCE

Building on the two-pronged focus of the GCF-III programme document (human developmentand governance capacity to achieve the MDGs),the GCF-III placed a stronger focus ongovernance for development results, as comparedwith earlier GCFs that were more designedaround UNDP’s role in institutional-changeprocesses such as public administration reformand decentralization. This enabled theDemocratic Governance Group, and UNDP as awhole, to take fuller advantage of the organiza-tion’s broad development mandate, design

governance components for a range of thematicpriorities (particularly support to countries’efforts to achieve the MDGs) and thus open upavenues for cross-practice initiatives.70

Establishing stronger linkages betweengovernance and the broader development agendawas on the Democratic Governance Group’sagenda since its inception. The emphasis on moresystematic evaluation of development results, inparticular through the adoption of theMillennium Declaration and the MDGs,provided a good incentive to focus governanceefforts on issues of poverty reduction and equalaccess to basic rights. The Group’s work onjustice and human rights took advantage of thiscontext to address issues of access for the poorthrough the publication of global and regionalcapacity development tools as well as the organi-zation of regional communities of practice.71

Although most MDG-related global programmesupport was provided by the Poverty Grouppolicy specialists, the Democratic GovernanceGroup and Oslo Governance Centre staffassisted in a number of country initiatives, inparticular with regard to the use of democraticgovernance indicators as additional tools to assesscountries’ capacity to achieve the MDGs.According to the Democractic GovernanceGroup, countries where such exercises wereconducted included Mongolia and the Philippinesin Asia; Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia inAfrica; and Tunisia in the Arab States region.

The recent shift by the Democratic GovernanceGroup from decentralization and local governanceto local development provided a more cross-cutting approach to issues of participation,

69. The 2006 Survey of Headquarters Products and Services indicated a perception at the country office level of lack of quality and/or relevance of some of the Poverty Group’s work. UNDP, ‘2006 Country Office Assessment of HeadquarterProducts and Services’, GlobeScan, 17 April 2007.

70. Starting in 2005 with the Democratic Governance Group’s adoption of gender as a priority (Section 3.1.5).71. Examples of publications include the Regional Centre Bangkok Bangkok 2005 publication ‘Programming for Justice:

Access for All—A Practitioner’s Guide to a Human-Rights Based Approach to Access to Justice’, the RBLAC knowledge management toolkits on human security and the 2007 the Democratic Governance Group’s book, Justice forthe Poor: Perspectives on Accelerating Change, which builds on UNDP work in various regions. One proxy indicator of theresonance of this orientation at country level has been the strong and steady country office demand for support from theDemocratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund.


institutional development and the quality andsustainability of development results; respondedbetter to countries’ requests for support; andopened new avenues for inter-agency cooperationin an area where the United Nations CapitalDevelopment Fund (which played a lead role inthis area in the countries that were eligible forfunding by this entity), the United NationsCentre for Human Settlements, United NationsVolunteers and other agencies offered know-howand experience complementary to UNDP’s.72

An example of such collaboration at the countrylevel was found in Nepal where the design andimplementation of a large programme for therecovery of community structures (co-sponsored byvarious UN organizations, the United KingdomDepartment for International Development andNorth American Aerospace Defense Command)received joint support from the GCF-fundedgovernance specialist and the United NationsCapital Development Fund representative at RSCBangkok. Nepal illustrated the emerging demand forlocal governance support in post-conflict countries,a topic that was analyzed at a November 2007workshop organized by the Democratic GovernanceGroup and hosted by the Oslo GovernanceCentre and in which several RSCs and SURFswere increasingly involved.73

With the new worldwide awareness generated bythe signing and ratification of the UN Conventionagainst Corruption in 2005, policy advice andsupport in this area focused on the relevance ofthe Convention to countries’ progress towards theMDGs, expanded geographically (some 35 countryoffices have ongoing programmes), and opened

up to a broader range of institutions, includingparliaments, civil society organizations, anti-corruption commissions and ombudspersons.74

Another good example of a cross-sectoral policyadvocacy initiative was the InternationalKnowledge Network of Women in Politics,75

which was co-founded by the DemocraticGovernance Group and four other institutionsand brought together elected officials, candidates,political parties, practitioners, activists and othersto support women’s participation in political life.76

The Oslo Governance Centre’s activities covereda broad range of issues. Innovative work ongovernance indicators and more comprehensivegovernance assessments were among the mostimportant contributions during the GCF-IIIperiod. Such work was in demand from a numberof country offices, including Tunisia and Zambia.The Oslo Governance Centre collaboratedclosely with some of the RSCs, particularly inBangkok, Bratislava and Colombo, on trainingand learning events.77 The United KingdomDepartment for International Development andthe European Union contributed to funding thework on governance indicators. The OsloGovernance Centre also hosted the UN HumanRights Policy Network, HuriTALK (with morethan 1,200 members), which supported UNpractitioners in integrating human rights intotheir work.

With regard to alignment and innovation, theDemocratic Governance TTF, although notGCF-funded, constituted the GCF-III’s arm forsupport to country offices and was the largest of

72. The Democratic Governance Group’s work in this area suffered as a result of a two-year vacancy in the Headquarter-based policy specialist post. However, the new dynamism of the community of practice and the establishment of theUnited Nations Development Group’s inter-agency group on Localizing the MDGs (which is co-chaired by UNDP andthe United Nations Centre for Human Settlements), generated new momentum for an area in which some 90 countryoffices had ongoing programmes.

73. The Beirut SURF responded to requests from several Arab States, in particular Lebanon and Sudan.74. RSC involvement was significant in the cases of Bratislava (with a focus on countries acceding to the European Union)

and Bangkok (with a focus on transitional countries and post-conflict situations), less so in Africa where demand focusedon parliaments’ role and civil society’s roles.

75. See Section 3.1.5.76. UNDP, ‘DGG Annual Report 2006’, UNDP BDP-Democratic Governance Group; and UNDP, ‘DGG Annual Report

2007’, UNDP BDP-Democratic Governance Group, Draft, March 2008.77. Visits to these RSCs confirmed the value of this collaboration.


all existing TTFs.78 This evaluation concurredwith the draft of the internal evaluation of theDemocratic Governance TTF in terms ofcountry office projects’ principal characteristics(alignment of country offices around the themeof democratic governance, high proportion ofinnovative projects, positive impact with respectto UNDP positioning, including in sensitivepolicy areas) and overall importance of the fundas venture capital for innovation.

More lessons need to be learned from UNDP’srole as ‘spacemaker’, particularly its participationin complex processes of national dialoguebetween state and non-state actors. While someefforts were made at the regional level,79 theglobal programme did not provide a platform forexperience sharing in an area where UNDPimpartiality could be important in supportingmulti-stakeholder processes.80

During the period under review, the GCF-IIIpromotion of the UNDP governance agendaoperated through the vertical structure of theservice lines rather than being based on cross-thematic collaboration among the service lines.Each service line was left to define its relation-ship to human development objectives. Whilethe objectives were generally important to thisgoal, the absence of an integrated framework,in the opinion of the Democratic GovernanceGroup’s leadership and several policy specialistsfrom Headquarters and regions, limited theoverall coherence of the governance agenda andopportunities for cross-practice work.

The vertical structure also limited avenues forcross-practice initiatives. Important exceptions

were collaboration between the DemocraticGovernance Group and the Gender Team, whichresulted in the launch of several interestinginitiatives, the most visible of which was theiKNOW Politics network;81 the Poverty Group,with respect to MDG costing models; theEnvironment and Energy Group on landgovernance and natural-resource revenuemanagement; the HIV/AIDS Group;82 and the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recoveryon governance and conflict prevention. Cross-practice work was critical to consolidatingUNDP’s leadership role in the governance areaand to the quality of the policy support offered toprogramme countries to address the challenges ofpolitical, economic and environmental governanceagainst the backdrop of countries’ increasingglobal responsibilities.

Collaboration between BDP and the Bureau forCrisis Prevention and Recovery was lacking,despite the complementarity of their mandateand activities, which seemed to have createdinstances of ‘encroachment’ and duplication.There were, however, a few examples of collabo-ration at both Headquarters and regional levels,for example in the area of electoral support wherethe two bureaux jointly examined the risks ofconflict exacerbation during electoral processes.

UNDP was well-placed to promote South-basedsolutions through a more systematic use of itsglobal knowledge of success (and failure) storiesworldwide. Given the political sensitivities thatcharacterized most work in the governance area,countries were often more receptive to policyadvice and support based on the experience ofother developing countries. Team interviews withnational counterparts often stressed this point,

78. From 2005-2007, the Democratic Governance TTF funded almost 200 projects (provisional count is 185 based on theDemocratic Governance Group’s reports and the evaluation of TTF) dealing with the six thematic service lines.Approximately one-third of all projects were in the access to justice and human rights area, followed bydecentralization/local governance and public administration reform/anti-corruption. The Democratic Governance TTFalso funded some Oslo Governance Centre activities, Democratic Governance Group practice meetings and some regionalinitiatives, in particular in Latin America and the Caribbean.

79. Especially in Latin America and the Caribbean where RBLAC supported (with some support from the DemocraticGovernance TTF) a regional programme that assists country offices involved in civic dialogues.

80. The Democratic Governance Group’s Civil Society policy specialist post remained vacant during most of the periodunder review.

81. See section 3.1.5.82. See section 3.1.4.


with the underlying expectation that UNDPcould be a more active partner in this respect.

The Democratic Governance Practice Network,which was supported by the GCF-III, wasimportant in keeping members abreast of newinitiatives and innovations and sharing experi-ences.83 The Democratic Governance Groupreported that in 2007 it was the most active of allpractice networks, with responses to approxi-mately 145 queries and requests for assistance andthe organization of three e-discussions, althoughthe Policy Advisor Survey showed that policyspecialists were less active in the DemocraticGovernance Practice Network than in the PovertyReduction Practice Network. In the 2005-2007period, approximately 225 consolidated replieswere compiled by the Democratic GovernancePractice Network. Although primarily composed ofUNDP staff worldwide, 11 percent of the memberswere from outside UNDP, including 3 percent fromother UN organizations.84 An interesting charac-teristic of the network, which was consistentlyranked first among all networks in the annualSurvey of Headquarter Products and Services,was that it had served as a model for severalrecent partnership initiatives such as iKNOWPolitics and Electoral Knowledge Network, aswell as for the UN Department of PeacekeepingOperations Rule of Law Network.85 Howevercountry offices alluded to ‘traffic fatigue’ and anexcessive attention to country-specific issues oflimited relevance for others, and asked for greaterfocus on lessons learned.

The Democratic Governance Group issued morethan 60 knowledge products between 2005 and2007, not including those produced by the OsloGovernance Centre.These products were generallyfound useful by UNDP staff as presentations of

policy priorities and distillations of UNDPpractices, although they were perceived asintended mostly for intermediate users orknowledge brokers, rather than national practi-tioners, varying in quality of business process andpolicy content, and sometimes of limited applicationto country contexts. Dissemination at the countrylevel was limited by the absence of multiplelanguage versions.

n n n

In summary, work in the area of democraticgovernance was relevant to the objectives of theGCF-III. Successes were demonstrated indifferent areas, including electoral support, publicadministration reform, representative institutions,and local governance. UNDP’s extensive experiencein such issues was not, however, fully harnessedto offer country offices a fully integrated set ofservices. The tendency to address each serviceline in a silo context prevailed. Nonetheless,notable efforts were made during the GCF-IIIperiod to seek opportunities for more integratedapproaches. The shift from classically designedinstitutional change processes to governance fordevelopment results was recent but demonstratedgood potential for taking a more cross-practice andcross-cutting approach and for greater inter-agency collaboration.The Democratic GovernancePractice Network, which received supportthrough the GCF-III, was the most highlyregarded of all knowledge networks.

3.1.3 MANAGING ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

In the environment and energy area, BDP usedthe GCF-III funds to support 18 projects out ofa total portfolio of 93 projects. While some of the

83. A separate network, HuriTALK, handled human rights policy questions. It was hosted by the Oslo Governance Centreand had more than 1,200 members.

84. Democratic Governance Practice Network had a total membership of approximately 1,500 individuals in some 130 countries.UNDP, ‘Democratic Governance Group Annual Report 2006’, UNDP BDP-Democratic Governance Group; and UNDP,‘Democratic Governance Group Annual Report 2007’, UNDP BDP-Democratic Governance Group, Draft, March 2008.

85. UNDP, ‘DGG Annual Report 2007’, UNDP BDP-Democratic Governance Group, Draft, March 2008, pp. 5-6. Thisreport also mentioned that the network benchmarking survey conducted by the Warwick Business School in 2007“rank[ed] DGP-Net [Democratic Governance Practice Network] better than average on individual performance, learn-ing, knowledge sharing.”


projects were discreet projects with clearlydefined objectives, others served as umbrellas foractivities in areas in which the Environment andEnergy Group operated. The latter included theTechnical Advisory Group for Environment,Environment and Energy Group knowledgemanagement, and a category for the Environmentand Energy Group’s work on the GCF-III.

The projects supported UNDP’s overall thrustwithin environment and energy, and several weredirectly linked to the GEF focal areas, such asbiodiversity, climate change and sound manage-ment of chemicals. Since the GCF-III projectswere relatively small, these were not seen as veryrelevant by several country offices.86 Someprojects took a more integrative perspective bybringing together the GEF work with coreUNDP work, for example in the area of effectivewater governance where the Environment andEnergy Group managed a unified team andprogramme, both globally and regionally. Thiswas particularly impressive in the BratislavaRegional Centre where integration of theenvironment and energy programme took placeboth administratively and technically since 2004.

Similarly, the Stockholm-based Water GovernanceFacility became a part of UNDP’s programme inthis area.The GCF-III funds were used to leverageadditional resources from the Government ofSweden. The Water Governance Facility wasinnovative in promoting the concept of integratedwater resources management, which was adopted bythe Beirut SURF with plans to apply IntegratedWater Resource Management principles in SaudiArabia and Iraq. The water governance area couldserve as a positive example to other sections ofthe environment and energy programme.

Progress was also made in the area of access toenergy services. Improving access to energy forthe poor was an obvious area where theEnvironment and Energy Group couldcontribute to UNDP’s core mandate of povertyreduction. However, UNDP work in this field todate was overwhelmingly dominated by GEF-funded projects aimed at mitigating climatechange. The non-GEF resources allocated toenergy work from the core funds and TTFsthrough the GCF-III were limited and, untilrecently, declining. However, there were indica-tions that the Environment and Energy Groupwas starting to cooperate more closely with theregional bureaux in operationalizing the work onenergy for poverty reduction. This work hasadvanced most in Africa, where the energy needsfor development are the most acute and wherethe region’s share of resources has been lowest. Itis too early to judge the actual performance orimpact of these new initiatives.

The Environment and Energy Group energyprogramme produced a range of high-qualityknowledge products that were recognized bothfor their analytical quality and policy recommen-dations. These products included the reports‘Energizing the Millennium DevelopmentGoals’88 and ‘Energizing Poverty Reduction: AReview of the Energy-Poverty Nexus in PovertyReduction Strategy Papers’.89

The project on Frameworks and Strategies forSustainable Development focused specifically onglobal advocacy. One of the main activities was topromote strategic environmental assessmentsthrough joint work with OECD-DAC. Whilethis work did not go far in practical terms (mostwork has been done in the RBEC region) and noadditional funding was allocated to the initiative,

86. Indonesia was a case in point. The country office expressed more interest in resource mobilization from bilaterals andother more prominent sources of funding, “the government wants impact, not another new idea.”

87. This area was covered more extensively in: UNDP, ‘Evaluating UNDP’s Role in and Contribution to ManagingEnvironment and Energy for Sustainable Development’, UNDP Evaluation Office, New York, NY, Draft, 30 March, 2008.

88. Environment and Energy Group, ‘Energizing the Millennium Development Goals’, BDP, New York, NY, 2005.89. Environment and Energy Group, ‘Energizing Poverty Reduction: A Review of the Energy-Poverty Nexus in Poverty

Reduction Strategy Papers’, BDP, New York, NY, 2007.


UNDP continued to participate in global forumson the subject since it was considered importantto be an active player in the field.

While the linkages between conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity and povertyreduction were well established in theory, inpractice, UNDP did not make full use of suchopportunities in its programming. Biodiversity,alongside climate change, was one of the twolargest areas receiving funding through the GEF-III. The Environment and Energy Group’sprogramme in the area beyond the GEF-fundedprojects was limited. Most of the work focusedon advocacy and participation in internationalcollaborative efforts in biodiversity assessmentand policy.

The Drylands Development Centre in Nairobi,linked to the GCF-III, made progress in aligningits work with other UNDP priorities. Part of itsrecent activity was on the interface betweenenvironment, poverty and governance. If keyplayers could be mobilized, this could be anotherattractive niche in line with UNDP’s vision forcross-practice work. The Drylands DevelopmentCentre also provided administrative support tothe Poverty-Environment Initiative, a prominentUNDP and United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) partnership, and workedwith the Oslo Governance Centre on landgovernance after a survey highlighted the area as a gap in UN Development AssistanceFramework planning.

The GCF-III framework document stipulatedthat the primary task of the DrylandsDevelopment Centre was to support policyadvisory services through applied research andanalytical work. This implied that the policyspecialists and UNDP were the priority audiencefor the Centre’s work, yet the goal of theIntegrated Drylands Development Programmewas to assist governments, civil society and localcommunities. This disparity indicated that the

Drylands Development Centre still needed tofind its space in UNDP operations despite theincreasing relevance of its work.

If the Drylands Development Centre’s contribu-tion can be better integrated with the rest of theUNDP and UN system, the GCF-III investmentof approximately $1.0 to $1.75 million per year inadministrative and operational costs90 is likely tobe cost-effective. Between 2005 and 2007, theCentre leveraged $12.25 million from 12 donorsfor the $3.25 million invested by GCF.

It is not yet clear whether the Centre’s prioritiesand projects were powerful enough to make a realdifference—reducing marginalization of thedrylands and promoting development. But the Centre performed well and developedmechanisms that could serve as good practicesfor others. It carved out a substantial niche foritself, despite some ambivalence about its rolewithin the larger system. This ambivalence was,to some extent, a natural result of the integrationof the UN Sudano-Sahelian Office into theCentre. Moreover, it pointed out the urgent needfor UNDP, and BDP in particular, to determinehow the Drylands Development Centre’sstrengths could best be used to contribute to theglobal programme and corporate vision, theregional centres and bureaux, Headquarter unitsand the UN system as a whole.

Mainstreaming environment and developmenthas been one of UNDP’s goals. The mostprominent programme working towards this goalwas the Poverty-Environment Initiative, a jointUNDP-UNEP initiative that provided technicaland financial support to countries for integratingpoverty-environment linkages into nationaldevelopment plans. Building upon earlier workdone separately by the two organizations, thePoverty-Environment Initiative evolved towardsa joint agenda and was cited as a model forinteragency cooperation in the spirit of UNreform and ‘Delivering as One’. The plans are to

90. Mainly staffing, with a small but increasing amount for operational costs.


expand the Initiative’s work to 25 new countriesduring the next five years.

UNDP and UNEP experienced problemsworking together due to differences inoperational styles, requirements and cultures.Consequently, there are a number of challengesfor the future of the Initiative. However, wherethe conditions have been favourable and therelations between the two offices close, there isreason for optimism. A good example of thiswould be the Asia-Pacific region, where theBangkok-based regional offices of both organiza-tions developed a mutually strengtheningrelationship within the context of the Poverty-Environment Initiative. At the senior manage-ment level, the Initiative received importantsupport. Concrete steps to develop approachesand methodologies, exchanges of experiences,and indicators were taken. It is still too early toassess the on-the-ground results of the Poverty-Environment Initiative. Nevertheless, theInitiative has the potential to become one ofUNDP’s best efforts to mainstream environmentinto its core mandate, as well as enhance itscooperation with UNEP. However, addressingissues of operationalization and scaling up will becritical for the success of the Initiative.

There was some headway in influencing thepolicy of other actors through global programmework, such as the case of the strategic environ-mental assessment, which was adopted byOECD-DAC. Such successes were, however,limited. The global programme’s work appearedto be justifiable and to add value to the extentthat it could influence UNDP country-level workby spinning off globally developed ideas,methods or practices.

The Environment and Energy KnowledgeNetwork was one of the most active knowledgenetworks in UNDP. There were 475 messages

posted on the Network in 2006, an increase from390 in 2005. In the same time period, the queriessent to the net declined from 40 to 25. Thus thediscussion on each of the topics received a highernumber of contributions. The knowledge facilita-tors provided consolidated replies to each of thesubstantive discussions (35 in 2005 and 20 in2006). The nature of the discussion also appearedto be shifting from simple requests for referencesto more substantive issues. While there was nooverall assessment of the impact of theEnvironment and Energy Knowledge Network,the Network was generally described in positiveterms by the country offices.91,92

n n n

In summary, the GCF-III work in the area ofenergy and environment supported a number ofnotable initiatives. It gained attention fromcountry offices on issues such as watergovernance, the Poverty-Environment Initiative,and land governance, implemented through theDrylands Development Centre. The GCF-IIIenergy and environment-related work covered awide range of issues relating to all service lines.This broad agenda led to resources being thinlyspread, weakening the Group’s ability to achievemore prominent results through the GCF-III in strategic areas. Generally, each service linetended to operate as a mini silo. There wereattempts to introduce a more integrated andcross-cutting approach. As one of the more activenetworks, the Environment and EnergyKnowledge Network’s knowledge services wereconsidered relevant by many country offices.

3.1.4 RESPONDING TO HIV AND AIDS

The work of the HIV/AIDS Group was guidedand facilitated by the 2006 adoption of a UNDPpolicy on HIV/AIDS93 that focused on fourareas: HIV and human development; the

91. For example, “The EE-net [Environment and Energy Knowledge Network] is effective”; “the knowledge networks arethe most positive thing that has come from Headquarters.”

92. However, more critical views by country offices were also encountered: “The current way of extracting lessons is not working.”93. ‘UNDP Corporate Strategy on AIDS’, 2006.


governance of HIV/AIDS responses; HIV/AIDS, human rights and gender; and the UNDPpartnership with the Global Fund to FightHIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.94 Thispolicy clearly articulated UNDP’s role, objectivesand main activities, based on its responsibilitiestowards the priorities of the Joint United NationsProgramme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

An important component of the HIV/AIDSGroup’s support to country offices was theLeadership Development Programme—UNDP’sresponse to the UN General Assembly SpecialSession’s call to strengthen leadership capacitiesin the fight against HIV/AIDS in key political,economic and civic constituencies. In line withthe UNDP response to the GCF-II evaluation,the GCF-III programme focused on ‘leadershipfor results’ as a tool to raise awareness of theimportance of fighting HIV/AIDS with respectto achieving the MDGs.95

Cross-practice work involved collaboration withthe Gender Team, the Poverty Group (on MDGassessments and support and the mainstreaming ofHIV/AIDS in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers),and the Democratic Governance Group (withrespect to human rights and local governance).

Cooperation with UNIFEM focused on women’sinheritance and intellectual-property rights.

The collaboration between the Global HIV/AIDS Group and the regional bureaux wasappreciated by the HIV/AIDS Team. All bureauxsupported regional programmes on HIV/AIDS,each with their own thematic, policy andprogramme emphasis.96 With only two regionally-based advisors funded by the GCF-III, supportto regional initiatives and activities at the countrylevel was limited. However, global programmesupport was valued for its innovative programmes,policy guidance and seed capital that facilitatedthe mobilization of resources from bilateraldonors in Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Arab States.Interviews with regional programme managers atthe Bratislava and Colombo RSCs described thecohesion that existed between the global andregional teams and its positive effect on identify-ing innovations (and problems).97 Overall, there wassatisfaction with the adjustments made to theservice lines and the resulting improved alignmentbetween UNDP, UNAIDS and other co-sponsors.

This practice area was strongly influenced byUNDP co-sponsorship of UNAIDS.98 TheGCF-III was an important factor in strengthen-

94. These four areas were adopted in 2006 to reflect developments in the global response to the epidemic as well as the newdivision of labour agreed among UNAIDS co-sponsors which assigns lead responsibility to UNDP for HIV/AIDS anddevelopment, governance, mainstreaming, human rights and gender.

95. ‘Leadership Development Strategy Note’ and ‘Leadership for Results’, both published in 2005 by BDP’s HIV/AIDSGroup emphasized that while UNDP response to the epidemic focused on MDG 6, it also contributed to Goals 1, 3, 4,5 and 8, and referred to ‘leadership for results’ as ‘governance in action’ at local, national and global levels. The mainthemes around which advocacy and support for leadership development were encouraged were non-discrimination,equality, equity, human dignity, accountability, participation and non-violence.

96. The Africa regional programme focused on mainstreaming AIDS into national development strategies, sectoral plans anddecentralized responses, as well as the governance of AIDS responses, including a focus on trade-related intellectual propertyrights (TRIPS), trade and access to drugs, human rights and gender, while, RBA focused on the importance of “breakingthe silence on HIV/AIDS”; RBAP addressed issues of trafficking and minorities; in the Arab Region, the importance ofpartnering with religious leaders to address stigma and discrimination were key elements; in Asia and the Pacific, emphasiswas placed on women and girls, mobility and support to networks of people living with HIV; in Latin America and theCaribbean, support went to National Strategic Plans on AIDS, human rights and gender, particularly on involving menand boys; and in Europe and the CIS, reducing vulnerability to HIV in concentrated epidemics was the main focus.

97. Reference was made to monthly conference calls between Headquarters and the Colombo-based regional team, regular cross-regional exchanges and the annual retreats that brought together the HIV/AIDS Group and practice staff from all regions.

98. In addition to UNDP, UNAIDS is cosponsored by the International Labor Organization(ILO), UN Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UNFPA, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNICEF,UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Food Programme (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO) andthe World Bank. A key feature and tool of the UNAIDS ‘model’ of joint UN system action was its biennial Unified Budgetand Workplan, which mobilized additional resources through a collective effort, aligned co-sponsors’ actions around a setof priority outcomes, and ensured that the system ‘delivers as one’ at global, regional and country levels and ‘makes themoney work’ in its assistance to countries. UNAIDS, ‘Unified Budget and Workplan 2008-2009’, UNAIDS Secretariat.


ing UNDP’s position in UNAIDS, due to theleverage provided for the mobilization of non-core resources and thus greater UNDP credibilityamong the co-sponsors. A UNDP review of itswork in the area of HIV/AIDS, conducted inMay 2007 in collaboration with the UNAIDSSecretariat, confirmed that UNDP activities atthe global and regional level were well-aligned withthe agreed division of labour and supported theareas in which UNDP bears lead responsibility.

Another major partnership for UNDP was onethat was developed since 2003 with the GlobalFund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis andMalaria. Initially, donors to the Global Fundwere not inclined to let multilateral institutionssubstitute for national entities as principal recipi-ents of grants. Yet, during the first five years ofthe Global Fund’s operations, UNDP became theprincipal manager of a vast portfolio of largeprojects99 in countries where special circum-stances, insufficient national capacity, or lack of results justified the choice of UNDP for this role.

Country office staff expressed some concerns thatthe financial rewards expected to accrue from themanagement of Global Fund resources mightdistract UNDP from its role in the fight againstHIV/AIDS. It may also create conflicts ofinterest in that stewardship of Global Fundgrants might compromise UNDP assets—forexample, its impartiality—in helping countriesaddress complex and sensitive policy dimensionsof the response to HIV/AIDS, such as powerrelationships, the defense of basic rights, or the

participation of key stakeholders in nationalHIV/AIDS strategies.

The HIV/AIDS Group’s policy and programmeguidance and knowledge production weresustained over the last three years, although it wasdifficult to attribute this effort and outputs to theGCF-III support, given the modest human andfinancial contribution to the HIV/AIDS Groupand worldwide practice. Between 2005 and2007, 38 knowledge products were produced,including guidance notes and implementationtools, several of which were jointly produced byUNDP, the UNAIDS Secretariat, and one ormore UNAIDS co-sponsors (for example, theWorld Bank on Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers and sectoral programmes.)100 One ofthese knowledge products was on the measure-ment of results and introduced results-basedmanagement tools as a necessary dimension ofthe response to HIV/AIDS101—one of thecommitments made by UNDP management inits response to the GCF-II evaluation.102

Feedback on the usefulness and quality of the knowledge products varied, but concernsincluded lessons-learned fatigue, the need toimprove codification of good practice, and alloca-tion of resources to adapt products to regionaland country contexts. One comment from amajor institutional partner emphasized that,given its lead responsibility within UNAIDSregarding the broad development impact of theepidemic, UNDP should develop country needs-assessment tools.

n n n

99. According to figures shared by the HIV/AIDS Group, as of November 2007, UNDP was Principal Recipient and thereforemanager of 63 active Global Fund grants in 26 countries, for a total of $641.3 million, i.e. a grant average of $10 million.

100. Since 2005, a series of eight programme guides were published on leadership development, community development,national- and district-level development planning, the mobilization of the arts and media communities and results-measurement. Other knowledge products (issues papers, implementation guides, assessments of country experiences,handbooks, etc.) were also made available during the last three years on the integration of HIV/AIDS into PovertyReduction Strategy Papers and sectoral programming, HIV/AIDS mainstreaming methodologies, the governance ofHIV/AIDS responses, gender equality, human rights, constituency-building (parliamentarians, civil society, etc.) andadvocacy, human trafficking, and stigma and discrimination (the last two elaborated by the Regional HIV/AIDS &Development Programme for Asia and the Pacific and published in 2007 by the Colombo RSC).

101. UNDP, ‘Responses to HIV/AIDS: Measuring Results’, UNDP BDP-HIV/AIDS 2005. Unfortunately, no further workseems to have been done (or published) in this area since that year.

102. UNDP, ‘Management Response to the Evaluation of UNDP’s Second Global Cooperation Framework’. DP/2004/42,26 August 2004.


In summary, some of the GCF-III work in thearea of HIV/AIDS has produced sustainablecapacity at the country level, often in cooperationwith regional programmes. Strong partnershipswere built with UNAIDS and the Global Fund,with tangible effects at the country level.However, rather than providing support toindividual country efforts (where regionalprogrammes appear to be more appropriatevehicles for policy and operational guidance), thegreatest value of the GCF-III work onHIV/AIDS resided in offering policy guidanceon global dimensions and strengthening the toolsand knowledge management platform. Greaterattention needed to be given to the mainstream-ing of HIV/AIDS within each of the practiceareas so as to leverage assets and respondeffectively to programme countries.

3.1.5 MAINSTREAMING GENDER EQUALITY

Similar to the GCF-II, the GCF-III chose tomainstream gender across the various corepractices, rather than establishing gender as a separate practice area.103 However, one of thekey findings of the GCF-II evaluation was that although mainstreaming might be the best approach for UNDP in the long term, inpractice, it often served as an excuse for ignoringwomen’s concerns.104

The evaluation of gender mainstreaming inUNDP, which was carried out during the GCF-III’s first year of implementation, raisedadditional concerns. Its main conclusion was that

“UNDP lacks both the capacity and institutionalframework for a systematic and effectivemainstreaming approach.”105 To reverse what itperceived as “a loss of visibility of gendermainstreaming in UNDP’s organizationalstructure” during the previous five years, theevaluation recommended increasing the staff and financial resources allocated to the GenderTeam, hiring specialists, training UNDP staff tobuild internal capacity, integrating genderanalysis into all monitoring and evaluationprocesses with a view to improving institutionallearning, and strengthening accountability. It alsorecommended that “top management shouldclarify what gender mainstreaming means forUNDP, and introduce mechanisms to institu-tionalize policy.”106

Taking into account the evaluation findings, theGender Action Plan 2006-2007 was approved bythe Executive Board in January 2006.107 Of the$10 million special allocation made by theAdministrator for the two-year period, $1.0million came from the GCF-III.108

Based on the feedback received from RSCs,SURFs, country offices and national partners, theimplementation of the Gender Action Plan—backed by strong commitment from seniormanagement and the BDP Gender Team’s clearand well-targeted strategy for the use of the mix of core and non-core resources—largelyfulfilled its objective of ‘course correction’. Thiscontributed to a firmer foundation for progress

103. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 7(b).104. UNDP, ‘Evaluation of the Second Global Cooperation Framework’, UNDP Evaluation Office, New York, NY, 2004, p.41.105. The key shortcomings mentioned by the evaluation were that “(1) gender mainstreaming has not been visible and explic-

it; (2) there is no corporate strategic plan for putting gender mainstreaming policy into practice; (3) steps have been toosimplistic and mechanistic, and (4) UNDP has not acted on previous assessments identifying similar shortcomings, andhas given mixed signals about its commitment and expectations.” UNDP, ‘Evaluation of Gender Mainstreaming inUNDP’, UNDP Evaluation Office, New York, NY, January 2006, page ix.

106. Ibid.107. The four goals of the Gender Action Plan were directly related to the recommendations of the evaluation and

comprised: commitment—leadership and performance indicators; gender training, knowledge sharing and networking;communication and visibility; and core and non-core resources aligned with policy commitments. UNDP – ExecutiveBoard, ‘Gender Action Plan, 2006-2007’, DP/2006/9, 23 November 2005.

108. This special allocation more than matched the two non-core contributions of $5.5 million and $2.5 million maderespectively by the governments of the Netherlands (in 2005) and Spain (in 2006) to the Gender TTF to support thedevelopment of UNDP’s own capacity, tools and knowledge products for gender mainstreaming.


in empowering women and mainstreaminggender in all UNDP work.109

In addition to its role in providing overalldirection for gender mainstreaming in UNDPand managing the Gender TTF, the GenderTeam engaged in a series of collaborative initia-tives with several of the practice areas to incorpo-rate gender perspectives in the activities that weresupported by the GCF-III and related funding.The following are illustrations of cross-practicecooperation:

n In 2006, the Democratic Governance Groupworked with several institutions to launchthe International Network of Women inPolitics (iKNOW Politics), the goal of whichwas to increase the participation andeffectiveness of women in political life.110

The first in a series of three primers ongender and democratic governance wasjointly issued by the Gender Team andDemocratic Governance Group in 2007 andtwo more are planned for 2008.111

n In December 2007, a global consultation,funded by the Gender Team in collaborationwith the Poverty Group, brought together forthe first time UNDP economists (principallymale) and gender specialists (principallyfemale). Feedback from the participants was positive.

n With the Environment and Energy Group,the Gender Team launched, on the occasionof the 13th Conference of the Parties to theUnited Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change in Bali in late 2007, the

Global Gender and Climate ChangeAlliance. This brought together theInternational Union for Conservation ofNature, UNDP, UNEP and the Women’sEnvironment and Development Organization.

n In line with UNDP’s Corporate Strategy onHIV/AIDS,112 the HIV/AIDS Groupcollaborated with UNAIDS and UNIFEMin November 2007 on a Global StakeholderConsultation on Gender and AIDS todevelop better guidance for integratinggender concerns into national AIDSresponses. While it may be too early to assessresults from this initiative, most commentson collaboration between the Gender andHIV/AIDS Groups at Headquarters and theregional level were positive.

n With the Human Development ReportOffice, the Gender Team undertook arevision of UNDP’s human developmentindicators for gender, with significant inputsfrom a broad range of countries via theknowledge network.

At the regional level, the four GCF-III-fundedpolicy specialists supported a large number ofcountry offices that used Gender TTF andGender Mainstreaming Initiative resources that:

n Facilitated training of UNDP staff andnational counterparts on gender mainstreamingand developed country-specific strategies.Requests for TTF support increased from 50in 2005 to 82 in 2006 and 120 in 2007; 45country offices were supported in 2005 and

109. The Gender Equality Strategy 2008-2011, which was presented to the Executive Board in January 2008, replaced theGender Action Plan. The new strategy defined the institutional structure, mechanisms and resources required to achievethe expected gender equality results within each of the practice areas.

110. In addition to UNDP, UNIFEM, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs participate in iKNOW Politics.The Democratic Governance Group reported that in its first nine months of existence, the website received 1.5 millionhits a month and hosted a community of more than 1,700 registered members and 100 experts. UNDP, ‘DGG AnnualReport 2007’, UNDP BDP-Democratic Governance Group, Draft, March 2008.

111. The first three primers were: ‘Quick Entry Points for Women’s Empowerment and Gender Equality in DemocraticGovernance Clusters’, ‘Gender Equality and Justice Programming: Equitable Access to Justice for Women’, and‘Electoral Financing to Advance Women’s Political Participation: A Guide to UNDP Support’. The two primersplanned for 2008 will address issues related to gender and e-governance and corruption and gender relations.

112. UNDP, ‘UNDP Corporate Strategy on HIV/AIDS’, UNDP BDP-HIV/AIDS & UNAIDS, New York, NY, 2006.


47 in 2006-2007. The Beirut SURF reportedthat 16 out of 18 country offices now have agender mainstreaming strategy.

n Assisted with the elaboration of cross-practice initiatives at the country level andprovided policy support to country offices forincorporating gender equality in nationaldevelopment plans. Examples of RSC/SURFcollaboration on gender mainstreaming innational development plans were reported inLiberia, Tunisia and Zambia.

n Provided substantive inputs, expert referralsand other services to country offices involvedin areas such as gender-sensitive budgetingand gender-based violence. This providedgood opportunities for inter-agency collabo-ration with the United Nations PopulationFund (UNFPA), the United NationsChildren’s Fund (UNICEF), UNIFEM andUnited Nations Volunteers.113

n Strengthened the capacity of inter-agencygender thematic groups (frequently in collab-oration with UNIFEM) to achieve greaterincorporation of gender-related concernsinto Common Country Assessments andUN Development Assistance Frameworks.114

n Stimulated UN country teams to respond tothe call for proposals under the GenderWindow of the MDG Achievement Fund.Proposals were received from 53 of the 57eligible countries. Thirteen projects wereselected for a total of $102 million.115

n Generated new knowledge products forgender mainstreaming, such as the award-winning Gender Resources Mobile Unit

produced by the Beirut SURF;116 and cross-practice activities such as the two CD-ROMs produced by the Dakar SURF ongender needs assessments and gendermainstreaming in the MDGs that comple-mented methodologies on MDG costing andbudgeting, and the ‘Gender EquityApproach for Sustainable Energy Initiatives’produced by the Panama SURF.

The above notwithstanding, with so muchemphasis being placed on strengthening UNDPstaff and country offices’ understanding of gendermainstreaming and on bridging some of the gapsdetected in the 2006 evaluation, it was unrealisticto expect that the GCF-III would reach its goalof “[ensuring] that gender efforts do not standalone, but are at the forefront of everything[UNDP does].” 117

Internally, additional efforts are needed tomainstream gender across the practice areas, overand above the examples mentioned in this report.Gender concerns were absent from or uneven ina number of practice notes, manuals and otherproducts and global projects. Mainstreamingshould be reflected in expert rosters, partnershipdevelopment and the many other tools that areused by the GCF-III (and UNDP in general) topromote gender equality and women’s empower-ment. The success of UNDP’s mainstreamingstrategy depends on the commitment of all thepractice areas—from the global to the countrylevel—to incorporate gender dimensions.

The priority given during the last two to threeyears to internal capacity building, country

113. Examples included countries such as Mali, Morocco, Tanzania, Tunisia and Zambia.114. These activities built on main findings of the 2005 Gender Team publication ‘En Route to Equality: A Gender Review

of National MDG Reports’, which reviewed the extent to which gender had been mainstreamed in 78 such reports andhas been found useful by country office staff in the preparation of second generation MDG Reports.

115. The Fund’s emphasis on cross-thematic approaches to gender equality provided a much-needed incentive for system-wide coordination and joint programming in an area where—despite ongoing constraints that range from the volatilityof political will to address gender equality issues to resource scarcity—agencies have not always been willing to pool theirassets to respond more collaboratively and effectively to country needs.

116. The Gender Resources Mobile Unit received an Award to Support the Rise of Women in the Arab World from theNetherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the documentation and dissemination of good gender mainstreaming prac-tices in the Arab Region.

117. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 7(b).


offices’ submissions to the Gender TTF and UN country team proposals to the MDGAchievement Fund, limited the GCF-III-fundedgender advisors’ ability to dedicate time to theirpolicy advice function. The gender advisorsneeded to respond to too many demands and haddifficulty establishing priorities.

Externally, the effectiveness of UNDP’s main-streaming approach should be measured in partagainst the extent to which countries adopted thisstrategy to address issues of gender inequality.Most government feedback acknowledged thequality of UNDP support as governments increasedtheir efforts to adopt a more holistic vision ofgender. In several cases,118 UNDP assistance inpreparing national development plans wasmentioned, as were UNDP efforts to share itsglobal knowledge of mainstreaming and goodpractices with national authorities. However, it wasnoted that governments that asked for specialistadvice in specific areas of public policy sometimesfound that UNDP (and other UN organizations)were stronger in the rhetoric of gendermainstreaming than in the provision of supportfor policy change and implementation.119

Collaboration between UNDP and UNIFEM atHeadquarters and regional levels was generallyconsidered satisfactory. In both Eastern andSouthern Africa and West and Central Africa,joint initiatives were launched in areas such asgender mainstreaming in MDGs and gender andhuman rights. However, difficulties were reportedat the country level. Some of these seemed to bedue to the lack of explicit strategies to leverageeach organization’s mandate and assets to ensurecomplementarity of approaches. UNIFEM staffreferred to some country offices’ over-reliance onUNIFEM for their gender work and thedifficulty of working on gender with institutionsother than governments. Regional advisors andcountry office staff noted the issue of competition

between UNDP and UNIFEM in matters ofresource mobilization.

The UN country team thematic gender groupswere an essential resource for increased policyand programme coherence at the country level.However, while improvements were noted in incorporating gender issues and gendermainstreaming strategies in Common CountryAssessments and UN Development AssistanceFrameworks in both Africa and the Arab Statesregion, competition among agencies tended tore-appear at the implementation stage, whichcould be confusing for national counterparts.

With respect to knowledge management, theglobal Gender Knowledge Management Platformdid not capture country-level innovation andexperience or reflect cultural differences withinand across regions. However, some usefulknowledge products, in particular to support theimplementation of the Gender MainstreamingInitiative, were developed,120 and there was somepositive feedback on regionally-based gendernetworks, especially in Asia. Mention was madeof the problems that arose from the concepts andterminology of gender mainstreaming in countrieswhere gender was a culturally and politicallysensitive topic.

n n n

In summary, considerable success was achieved inpromoting the UNDP Gender Action Plan bysupporting gender mainstreaming at the countryoffice level. With regard to the mainstreaming ofgender within the context of the GCF-III, effortswere neither consistent (for example, little ifanything was done by the Environment andEnergy Group to mainstream gender) norcomprehensive (mainstreaming is still insuffi-ciently present in a number of service lines).Although gender mainstreaming seemed to bethe correct approach for UNDP, given the

118. E.g., Mali, Tunisia and Zambia.119. The strongest statement in this respect was made by the National Women’s Committee in Yemen.120. E.g. the Gender Team pack on Gender and Indicators.


organization’s broad development mandate, thearea lacked the resources to achieve the level ofpriority that UNDP corporate policies attachedto it. Accountability for gender improved butneeded to be applied more systematically in theGCF-III to ensure that sufficient resources wereallocated to mainstreaming gender equality in allpractice areas.

3.1.6 MAINSTREAMING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

In the MYFF 2005-2007, capacity developmentwas identified as a common theme uniting theMDGs121 and classed as a UNDP cross-practicearea in the GCF-III.122 With funding supportfrom GCF-II, the BDP Capacity DevelopmentGroup was formed in 2002 to give greaterinstitutional focus to this aspect of UNDP workand to bring together resources, ideas andprogrammes from a number of pre-existingcapacity development related initiatives.123

UNDP now refers to capacity development asthe overarching contribution of UNDP,124

where, partly through support provided by theGCF, “UNDP methodologies have influencedthe approaches of OECD-DAC and the UNDG[United Nations Development Group]. Thosemethodologies reflect a shift from a supply-driven approach to a nationally led change

process and give tangible form to the principle ofnational ownership.”125 The internal advocacy of the Capacity Development Group, funded in part by the GCF-III, was seen to havecontributed to the increasing strategicimportance of capacity development in the draftStrategic Plan.

Initial GCF-III funding of capacity developmentfocused on the development of a number of toolsand methodologies in order to standardizeapproaches that UNDP might take at thecountry level, as well as to collect and documentexperiences and lessons learned.126 With thisbasis, the Capacity Development Group beganintegrating capacity development diagnostics andstrategies into national, regional and global policyand programmes. The GCF-III also supportedthe global Madrid Conference on capacitydevelopment, co-financed with the governmentof Spain. This event provided the launch pad forcountry evidence and encouraged partners toagree on the capacity development approach, itsimplications for development processes and thesupporting role of UNDP.127

While there was no initial GCF-III core allocationfor targeted projects, the increasing demand fromthe country offices and other bureaux for

121. UNDP, ‘Second Multi-year Funding Framework 2004-2007’, DP/2003/32, 13 August 2003, paragraph 43, p.12.122. Four cross-practice areas were identified in the GCF-III programme document. These included gender, SSC, knowledge

management and capacity development. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April2005, paragraph 43, p. 14.

123. These included the Reforming Technical Cooperation project initiative, which was reviewed in 2001 and analyzedtrends in technical cooperation, resulting in case evidence and a conceptual framework that supported a more systemat-ic dialogue and approach to developing national capacities beyond technical assistance and externally driven projects,expertise and coordination mechanisms. Three books were produced from this earlier period that informed currentUNDP capacity development strategy. Another initiative was the Capacity 21 Trust Fund that was established in 1993to support the Capacity 21 programme, which strengthened capacities for developing national and local Agenda 21plans and programmes (this then became the Capacity 2015 initiative in 2002).

124. According to the Gender Team, much of the advocacy for this ‘mainstreaming’ and elevated importance of capacitydevelopment was carried out by Capacity Development Group management with the architects of the Strategic Planand UNDP senior management.

125. Ibid, paragraph 59, p.19.126. The main documents referenced included: ‘Supporting Capacity Development: The UNDP Approach’, BDP, UNDP,

June 2007; ‘Capacity Development Practice Note’, September, 2007; and ‘Capacity Assessment Methodology—User’sGuide’, May, 2007. It is also significant to note that UNDP had developed and published in 1998 ‘General Guidelinesfor Capacity Assessment and Development in a Systems and Strategic Management Context’ (UNDP, BDP, January,1998), as well as a draft policy in early 1999 on ‘Capacity Development for Sustainable Human Development’. Recentwork was seen to build on these earlier documents.

127. UNDP, ‘The Global Programme Role in Supporting UNDPs’ Work in Capacity Development—A Short WalkThrough History, 2001-2008’, UNDP BDP-Capacity Development Group, internal document, April 2008, p. 3.


normative and cross-cutting capacity developmentwork resulted in allocations of almost $1 millionper year.128 The GCF-III-funded cross-practiceinitiatives included those focusing on mainstreamingcapacity; facilitating private-sector capacitydevelopment, aid effectiveness and nationalcapacity development; procurement capacitydevelopment; and the long-standing PublicPrivate Partnerships for Urban Environmentsproject.129 The Public Private Partnerships forUrban Environments project was managed fromthe Johannesburg RSC and funded innovativelocal-level service delivery reforms in severalcountries by leveraging cost-shared resources.130

As was the case with other GCF-funded projects,no evaluation was carried out over the GCF-IIIperiod, and hence independent evidence ofproject performance was not available.

The Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recoveryalso expressed some demand for capacitydevelopment support, particularly with respect tocapacity assessment methodologies in crisis, crisisprevention and post-conflict situations. Capacityassessment tools were also been taken up by theRegional Bureau for Africa (RBA) and are currentlybeing promoted on a wide scale within Africa.

Both Headquarters and country offices expressedmixed reactions to the effectiveness of manycapacity development products. The response atHeadquarters was generally favourable towardpractice notes and methodological guidelines,such as those addressing capacity assessments. Atthe regional/country level, the reaction was lessfavourable. In some cases, respondents felt that thevarious guidelines were not relevant to the specificcontexts and country situations and local adapta-tions needed to be made. In some country offices,

staff were either not aware of the various capacitydevelopment products or felt that some ‘filtering’was needed to identify those products that mighthave better application at the local level.

Based on the analyses of 21 of the 34 globalprojects, 14 (two-thirds) addressed capacitydevelopment. However, these were primarilyfocused on developing capacities internallywithin UNDP (with the intent that this newcapacity would assist developing countries). Itcould not be determined whether or not this newinternal UNDP capacity was being applieddirectly to developing countries. One of thesample projects that was analyzed, ‘AidEffectiveness for Reducing Poverty andAchieving the MDGs—UNDP Support toDeveloping Countries’, was reported to havebeen particularly effective in regard to the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness by allowing forthe mainstreaming of the aid effectiveness issueinto other UNDP practice areas and the engage-ment of Headquarter units, regional bureaux andthe RSCs.131

Capacity development initiatives were part of theother GCF-III-funded practice areas but werenot directly linked to the GCF-III capacitydevelopment funded components. Althoughcapacity development was often a main activity inmost country offices, it was often part of ongoinglocal TRAC and cost-shared country programmesand projects, and did not have any direct linkage tothe GCF-III funded capacity development activities.

Increased demands were placed on the CapacityDevelopment Group, which created somechallenges that would need to be addressed in thedesign of a new global programme.These included:

128. According to a recent report produced by the Capacity Development Group, a Capacity Development Advisor “… onaverage, supports two country missions and a training initiative each month (in all but one region). The demand map-ping available from each region and intensity of service provision outstrips all other Practices in three regions,” Ibid, p. 3.

129. 130. This project has been renamed the Public Private Partnership for Service Delivery.130. For example, the Dutch recently signed an agreement between WASTE and UNDP for an additional $2.4 million, and

also expressed their interest in seeing that UNDP contributes to the programme as well. UNDP, ‘CDG Quarterly StatusReport for the BDP Director,’ UNDP BDP-Capacity Development Group, September, 2007, item #5.

131. UNDP, ‘Project No. 50520—Annual Report 2006’, UNDP BDP-Capacity Development Group, undated.


n The possibility that the Capacity DevelopmentGroup would become a ‘practice’ in its ownright, potentially competing with the BDPmain practice groups for resources.

n The perception, as conveyed by other UNorganizations, that UNDP approaches tocapacity development were not always optimal.

n The limitations of a focus on more genericHeadquarter-developed practice notes andmethodologies, which had value as generalguidelines but required considerable adjust-ments in their application in specific countrycontexts.132 This was evident at the PanamaSURF where the policy specialiststhemselves stated that the unique localcircumstances required the development oflocally grown methodologies.

n The infrequent interaction between theCapacity Development Group and theKnowledge Management Group withinBDP. The Knowledge Management area inUNDP would benefit from the capacitydevelopment approaches that weredeveloped, particularly with respect toKnowledge Management CapacityAssessments, and from developing a strategyfor knowledge management within UNDP.

The Capacity Development Group was prolificin producing knowledge products. A CapacityDevelopment Group catalogue listed 64 knowledgeproducts produced over the period 2005 to 2007.These included policy and practice notes, consol-idated replies to queries posted on the capacitydevelopment global knowledge network, casestudies, toolkits, seminar reports and other typesof products. Without further analysis, it was not

possible to identify those products produced withsupport from the GCF-III, but it was reasonableto assume that the GCF-III played a pivotal rolein funding. As a cross-cutting practice, theeffectiveness of the GCF-III support to capacitydevelopment was seen primarily in expandingawareness and under-standing of general UNDPapproaches to capacity development. Overall,the GCF-III, in terms of both professionalresources and targeted projects, appeared to havemade a substantial contribution to the work of the Capacity Development Group133 throughthe funding of several key posts and a number ofglobal projects.

n n n

In summary, the work on capacity developmentwas backed up by a substantive commitment ofhuman and financial resources under the GCF-III. The resulting work by the CapacityDevelopment Group in developing methodolo-gies and tools, and the provision of technicalsupport to the country offices, was useful.However, feedback on specific GCF-III-supported products and services was mixed,highlighting the demand for a more context-specific approach. The institutional commitment,including the allocation of human and financialresources, to capacity development might be astandard by which other cross-cutting areas, suchas gender, might be mainstreamed throughsubstantial financial and institutional support.

3.2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

A key challenge in the implementation of theGCF-III was matching demand for servicesagainst limited resources. This will be discussed

132. This supported a concern that was raised in the 2006 annual report of GCF-III that expectations need to be better managedas to what could or could not be achieved through the new capacity development tools, viz.: “It is of importance to makeclear to potential users of the capacity assessment framework that it is by definition a ‘framework’, and not a ‘silver-bullet’ solution that can be applied without adapting it or contextualizing to local situations.” UNDP, ‘UNDP GlobalProgramme, 2006 Annual Report’, UNDP BDP, undated, p. 33.

133. It is important to note that the Capacity Development Group was not evaluated, but rather the overall contribution ofthe GCF-III to UNDP work in capacity development, primarily through the Capacity Development Group. This wasdone through a basic review of a small sample of the GCF-funded projects as part of the ‘targeted projects’ implementationmodality of the GCF-III (discussed in Section 3.2.2), a review of some of the documentation and interviews with theCapacity Development Group and other staff at the Headquarter/regional/country levels.


following a review of the three primary componentsof the implementation strategy: policy advisoryservices, targeted projects and knowledge manage-ment. The review will focus primarily onrelevance and effectiveness, but will also touchupon issues of sustainability.

3.2.1 POLICY ADVISORY SERVICES

This evaluation did not assess the performance ofindividual policy specialists but sought tounderstand how their work contributes to theobjectives of the global programme. The topic ofpolicy advisory services is one of considerabledebate at all levels of UNDP. The ambiguitiesregarding the nature of policy advisory services isanother area of debate. Such ambiguities werehighlighted by the GCF-II evaluation but havenot been eliminated either in the design or theimplementation of the GCF-III.

Given UNDP’s goal to position itself as a world-class provider of policy analysis and advice, thereis a need for a critical mass of expert resources ineach of the UNDP practice areas. Both nationalcounterparts and representatives of bilateraldonors and the World Bank134 noted that noorganization that aspires to become a globalknowledge broker on key development issuescould afford to operate exclusively or evenprimarily through consultant services. Rather, itis essential to retain some ‘resident capacity’ ofspecialists who are able to support policy dialogueand similar processes with the benefit of regionaland international experience.This view was sharedby the respondents to the Resident RepresentativeSurvey. In response to the question “Howimportant was the availability of GCF-fundedpolicy specialists to the work of [your] countryoffice?” 63 percent indicated that this was ‘very

important’ or ‘somewhat important’ in the area ofpoverty; 69 percent in the area of energy and theenvironment; 60 percent in the area ofgovernance; and smaller percentages (between 40percent and 45 percent) in the area of HIV/AIDS, gender and capacity development.135

In general, there were different interpretations ofwhat was meant by ‘policy advice’ in UNDP. Inline with the GCF-III programme document,which foresaw both policy advice and technicalbackstopping as being part of the policy special-ists’ tasks, almost all policy specialists provided atleast as much programme support as they offeredpolicy advice. Respondents to the Policy AdvisorSurvey reported that policy advice was an area towhich 44 percent dedicated ‘most of their time’,as compared with 23 percent to technical supportservices.136 However, only 18 percent of therespondents to the Resident RepresentativeSurvey regarded the provision of policy advice as‘very important’ compared with 30 percent fortechnical expertise and backstopping.137

Differences might be attributed to factors such asthe extent to which a country office was involvedin policy-making and felt the need for the GCF-III-funded policy specialists and/or externalconsultants, the content of a policy specialist’sintervention, the quality of the specialist’sperformance, and the results obtained by thecountry office.

The dynamic between policy specialists,programme country governments, countryoffices, RSCs and Headquarters was complexand differed from country to issue to policyspecialist. While some interviewees questionedwhether governments even sought policy advicefrom UNDP, there was evidence that somegovernments welcomed advice on a broad range

134. The context in which these observations were shared is the implementation of the Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness, which has led the major donors to strengthen their own substantive and policy advisory capacity at countrylevel. Paris High Level Forum, ‘The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness’, 2005.

135. Annex F.136. Policy Advisor Survey, response to question no. 30. Annex F. Policy advice and technical support services receive the

highest percentages, followed by research and analysis (17 percent), training and capacity-building (17 percent), knowledgemanagement (14 percent), referrals (8 percent) and support to UN coordination (8 percent).

137. Resident Representative Survey, Annex F.


of policy issues, including extremely sensitiveareas of governance.

The success of policy advice was based on thedepth of country-office engagement and countryoffices’ willingness to take calculated risks inareas where national policy and capacity couldbenefit from UNDP policy knowledge. In caseswhere country offices did not engage, thequestion arose as to how proactive the GCF-III-funded policy specialists should have been. In alimited number of cases, country offices reportedthat some policy specialists bypassed them inorder to generate demand for their servicesdirectly from national authorities. In analyzingthe success of specific interventions by policyspecialists, several Resident Coordinators,Resident Representatives and Country Directorsnoted that the best-case scenario was when thesupport provided by the specialist was genuinelydemand-driven, rooted in an ongoing effort bythe country office to position UNDP in thenational policy-making process, respectful of thedifferent levels of responsibility that existbetween the country office and the specialist, andbased on the understanding that country officeengagement is the pre-condition for effectivepolicy support.

Given the diversity of expectations with regard topolicy advisory and programme support services,assessing the effectiveness of this modality wasnot easy. Effectiveness appeared to be determinedlargely by management. This is discussed in moredetail later in this chapter.

Neither the GCF-III programme document norBDP defined effectiveness with respect to therole of the policy specialists. As a result, therewere many interpretations of what effectivenessmeant and strategies to reach that goal. Somepractice areas, such as the DemocraticGovernance Group, had developed businessprocesses that were used rather consistently, butthese tended to focus more on the developmentof knowledge products and management ofglobal projects than on the advisory role of policyspecialists. Effectiveness tended to be approached

in terms of activities and products, rather thanprocesses and outcomes. This may have been dueto the multiplicity of the tasks performed bypolicy specialists and the nature of the relationshipbetween the policy specialist and his/her client,since only the latter was in a position to assess theresults of the support provided.

The above notwithstanding, country office staffand national counterparts mentioned numerousinstances of effective services by policy special-ists, including the following:

n Support with pro-poor macro-economicstrategies in the context of a complex donordialogue on MDG-related social reform, asin the case of Yemen where good interactionand substantive inputs from Headquarters,Beirut SURF policy specialists and countryoffice staff helped the government defendoptions for greater fiscal space and increasesocial spending despite resistance by somedonors and the World Bank.

n Support with electoral processes and reform,where policy advice from Headquarters andthe RSC, and lessons learned from othercountries’ experiences, were appreciated bythe Zambia country office and the ElectoralCommission of Zambia.

n Support through innovative, capability-basedpoverty-measurement methodologies fromBeirut SURF made a difference inunderstanding the extent of poverty inseveral Arab States and was acknowledged bythe League of Arab States and the Economicand Social Commission for Western Asia.

n Support for regional training in gendermainstreaming methodologies (in WestAfrica and the Arab States, in particular), inwhich both country office staff and nationalcounterparts participated, was recognized asa good effort to share lessons learned andbest practices from countries and regionswith similar challenges.

The knowledge brokering role of GCF-III-funded policy specialists was mentioned as an


area where country offices and national counter-parts had high expectations, based on UNDP’sglobal presence and extensive sources. TheGCF-III-funded policy specialists operating inRSCs and SURFs pointed to some disappoint-ments in this area. This was due both to the timeconstraints that their workload put on broaderknowledge exchanges, and more importantly,to the difficulty many experienced in trying tofeed country experience back into the globalknowledge management activities of UNDP.

The large number of countries that each region-ally based GCF-III-funded policy specialist wastasked to service precluded the possibility ofproviding equal attention to all the clients.138 Inthe absence of general guidance, different policyspecialists adopted different strategies. Somefocused on in-depth servicing of a small numberof countries, which built client capacity in a moresustainable manner and enabled the specialists toparticipate in successive phases of the initiativesthat they helped support. Others opted for amore ‘arms-length’ relationship. The PanamaSURF chose another direction, concluding thatdue to the existence of a large pool of experiencedregional experts in each of the practice areas,what country offices most needed was a regionalknowledge management platform that couldmeet country office demands for ‘UNDPcertified’ innovative practices that are portableacross countries.

While technical backstopping was an integralpart of the policy specialists’ role, some of theservices provided to country offices were to fillgaps in country office capacity and might havebeen a distraction from other priorities of thepolicy specialists. For example, there were manycases of support given to country offices for the

preparation of the Expressions of Interest for theThematic Trust Funds (in which 66 percent of thepolicy specialists were involved),Country ProgrammeDocuments, Common Country Assessments andUN Development Assistance Frameworks.

Although resource mobilization was not aprincipal responsibility of the policy specialists, inpractice a significant amount of time wasdedicated to generating resources to fundimportant dimensions of their work (such asstudies, knowledge products and seminars.) Lackof financial resources affected policy specialistsdifferently, since some were endowed with orcould access programme resources (e.g. Capacity2015, GEF and the Montreal Protocol), whileothers could only operate when country officescovered the cost of their services (e.g. gender).Some policy specialists stressed the importanceof having some seed funding, as used to beprovided in the first SURF business model, inorder to stimulate demand for their services,especially in newer areas of policy involvement.

In general, the first casualties of the policyspecialists’ workload saturation were cross-practice work139 and knowledge management,despite the importance the specialists attached tothis area. Policy specialists also felt that they hadinsufficient time to keep themselves up to datewith the evolution of knowledge in their fields.

The creation and deployment of a group of policyspecialists was a logical response to UNDP’s goalof affirming its role as a global provider of policyadvisory and programme support services in itsprincipal areas of practice. Although it wasnecessary for UNDP to provide some policysupport to country offices, there was an ongoingdebate about the exact nature of and extent of

138. Most field-based policy specialists worked with 10 to 15 countries in any given year, though some worked with as fewas 4 or 5. The variation amongst Headquarter-based policy specialists was much greater since some reported workingwith as many as 40 to 50 countries while others mentioned 2 or 3; 52 percent of the policy specialists reported spendingbetween 5 and 15 weeks on mission every year, but 11 field-based policy specialists reported spending more than 16 weeks on mission (Policy Advisor Survey, Annex F).

139. In addition to comments made during interviews, the Policy Advisor Survey provided interesting indications about teamwork patterns; 42 percent of the policy specialists indicated they spend 20 to 40 percent of their total time to team work,but participation in cross-practice teams is where least time can be dedicated.


this role. This created questions about the respec-tive roles of BDP and the regional bureaux inproviding the GCF-III-funded policy advisoryservices and programme support, and doubtsabout whether the current architecture, profile ofpolicy specialists and responsibilities assigned tothem best responded to the organization’s needs.

In the context of on-going discussions withinBDP regarding the realignment of the practicearchitecture, particularly against the backgroundof the UNDP regionalization process, the currentrole of policy specialists is being reconsidered.One model that is emerging could involverelinquishing direct policy advisory services at thecountry level in favour of being a knowledgebroker and facilitator at the regional level (similarto the Panama SURF model described earlier),while providing guidance in coordinating activi-ties within given practice areas.

n n n

In summary, the policy advisory modalityprovided some relevant services at the countrylevel. However, given country demand for a broadrange of services and the small number of policyspecialists available through the GCF-III, it wasnot possible to ascertain whether the globalprogramme was best placed to provide such servicesat the country level as opposed to regionalprogrammes or other mechanisms. It was alsonot clear whether this modality, in its currentform, constituted an effective, appropriate andsustainable use of global programme resources.

3.2.2 GLOBAL PROJECTS

As indicated in Chapter 2, the GCF-IIIbudgetary allocation to targeted projects in thefour practice areas was $22.56 million.140 Inpractice, an equivalent amount of funds was

allocated to the four practice areas, two cross-cutting areas and cross-practice projects.141 Onaverage, approximately $7 million was allocatedto all of the above-mentioned areas together peryear and distributed among them. Bearing inmind the broad mandate of the GCF-III and itsimportance in supporting the UNDP practicearchitecture, the annual allocation of $7 million toglobal projects was modest. In comparison withthe allocation to policy specialist posts, whichamounted to approximately $14 million per year,the allocation to targeted projects indicated anemphasis on direct support to programmecountries as opposed to the codification ofknowledge and the development of global policyguidance through targeted projects.

Within the annual allocation to targeted projects,the GCF-III management further disbursedfunding to the practice and cross-cutting areasand cross-practice initiatives, resulting in anannual allocation of approximately $1 million perarea. Within each area, a further break-down offunding across service lines took place. Thisexplained the relatively small global projectbudgets, which typically ranged from $30,000 to$200,000,142 to be implemented on a yearly basis.In allocating project funding, the GCF-IIImanagement gave little priority to one area overanother. This was confirmed through interviewswith BDP staff and BDP documentation relatingto annual funding.

While small projects can have catalytic impacts,it is unlikely that a portfolio of small initiativescan yield development results of global significance(in line with the intentions of the GCF-III).Moreover, the lack of prioritization of fundingacross and within practice areas implies thatglobal programme resources were not deployed ina strategic manner that took into account areas in

140. See Chapter 2, Table 10: GCF-III Core Resource Allocations 2005-2007.141. See Annex E, Table 2: GCF-III Actual Core Resource Allocations 2005-2007.142. This figure is somewhat misleading since project modalities have varied considerably. E.g. while the Environment and

Energy Group implemented 11 different projects in 2006, it only implemented one in 2007. The total amount of projectfunds was roughly equal in both years. However, the 2007 project did not imply a more programmatic approach. Rather,the project included a series of sub-components, covering similar areas that were covered by separate projects in 2006.


which the global programme was likely to addvalue, areas of particular global concern, areas ofstrong demand or a programmatic manner, forexample by developing clusters of related projectsthat would feed into one common theme over anumber of years. Thus, the resulting projectportfolio was largely a function of fund availabilitycombined with an egalitarian annual distributionand an annual decision-making process within the different practice groups and cross-cutting areas based on a variety of topical orrecurrent issues.

Within the different practice groups and cross-cutting areas, fund usage varied considerably. Forexample, the Poverty Group and Environmentand Energy Group used their project resourcesprimarily to launch or pilot new initiatives forwhich funding through non-core resources wasnot available, with the aim of leveraging non-coreresources or generating a broader interest amongstakeholders. While the Democratic GovernanceGroup and the Capacity Development also usedsome of their funding for such initiatives, theirfocus was more on using the GCF-III funding todevelop practice notes, guidelines, tools, websitesand training material in support of the globalpractice architecture and practice alignment. TheHIV/AIDS Group and the Gender Team alsoused some funding for new initiatives, but usedthe largest component of their resources tosupport specific country-based initiatives in linewith respective practice area based approaches.143

This reinforced the view that the GCF-IIIresources were not deployed in a strategic orprogrammatic manner, but were used to finance arange of activities. This is likely to havecontributed significantly to the feedback that theGCF-III is not well known and that its valueadded is not easily recognized. The results of theResident Representative Survey supports this:only 15 percent of the respondents believed that

global projects made a direct contribution to theachievement of development results in theircountry, while 85 percent felt that global projectsmade only a small contribution or none at all.

The varied approaches to using global projectresources within the different practice groups was areflection of the range of requirements emanatingfrom the GCF-III programme document.Strengthening resource mobilization, whilemeeting country demands for support indifferent areas, while strengthening corporatepolicy and practice alignment, were not require-ments that could easily be combined. In recognitionof this, BDP management has moved in the pastyear towards developing a more programmaticapproach. There is now a trend towards using theGCF-III to support the supply side of thepractice architecture, in line with BDP’s currentroll-out of integrated service delivery platformsin each practice and cross-cutting area. Thisdevelopment appears appropriate as a means ofdeploying resources in a more targeted manner insupport of the global practice architecture.

In view of the limited scope of the evaluation andthe broad parameters of the GCF-III, it was notpossible to conduct a comprehensive assessmentof the results achieved by global projects. Poorresults-based management (described in moredetail in Section 3.5) contributed significantly to this situation. This was further validated by the project portfolio analysis conducted by the evaluation.144

Information from users of the outputs of globalprojects (regionally-based policy specialistsfunded through the GCF-III and the regionalprogrammes and country office staff ) was notvery specific regarding particular projects. It wasmore likely to refer to certain knowledgeproducts or practice notes, some of which mayhave been the outcome of two or more projects.

143. Based on an assessment of the global project portfolio, 72 percent of the global projects focused on global issues (i.e. hadno specific country focus or linkage) while 27 percent were based on country-level case studies or focused specifically oncountry-level work.

144. See Annex G.


Feedback from regionally or country-basedUNDP stakeholders regarding practice notes orknowledge products and tools was mixed: somefound outputs interesting, if not useful, in theirwork, while others suggested that the quality ofsome outputs could be considerably improved.

Discussions with staff involved in the manage-ment of the practice groups, cross-cutting areasand cross-practice initiatives shed some light ona range of issues pertaining to the effectiveness ofthe global projects. This information was nottriangulated through the field visits. As such, thefollowing discussion is more reflective of activi-ties and outputs delivered than of actual results:

n Promoting innovation—All practice andcross-cutting groups suggested that some oftheir projects added value by being innovative.However, the concept of innovation was notclearly defined by any group and tended toreflect a more general understanding of the typeof project that may be implemented throughthe GCF-III. Both the Environment andEnergy Group and Poverty Group indicatedthat the GCF-III funding was used todevelop innovative ideas that would nototherwise be funded through non-corefunding because they were too new or risky.Conversely, the Democratic GovernanceGroup suggested that more innovative worktended to be funded through the TTFs andthat the GCF-III funding was used more tosupport the practice-related products andtools. Both the HIV/AIDS Group and theGender Team suggested that their respectivepractice approaches and tools facilitated theimplementation of innovative initiatives atthe country level.

n Catalyzing commitment—Most practice andcross-cutting groups cited initiatives that hada catalytic effect in raising the interest ofdonors or partners and in securing additionalfunding.The Environment and Energy Grouppointed to a 2006 GCF-III investment of$15,000 in a carbon facility project, which, in2007 received $800,000 from the Energy andEnvironment TTF and is now receiving

funding through the Government of Norwayand the UN Foundation. The CapacityDevelopment Group cited a procurementcapacity development project that wasinitially funded through the GCF-III and isnow being supported by the Government ofDenmark and the development of thecapacity assessment tool, which is now beingpromoted by the RBA in its work withprogramme countries. The HIV/AIDSgroup cited numerous examples (for examplein Ethiopia, Lesotho and Nigeria) where theimplementation of a leadership capacitydevelopment programme through the GCF-III global project funding led to the adoptionof the approaches promoted through theprogramme and to the allocation of bothnational funding and non-core funding at thecountry level.

n Integrating principles—All practice andcross-cutting groups suggested that principlesand drivers such as human development,gender mainstreaming, capacity development,national ownership or SSC were part of theirwork and supported the effectiveness of theirglobal projects. Some admitted that they werenot very systematic about ensuring that theprinciples were addressed in a meaningfulmanner. The Capacity Development Groupand the HIV/AIDS Group indicated thatcountry categories, such as Least DevelopedCountries, Landlocked Developing Countriesor Small Island Countries, played little rolein their work, since the global projects helpeddevelop practice notes and tools that were ofa more generic nature.

n Fostering strategic partnerships—Somepractice and cross-cutting groups suggestedthat they were able to develop strategicpartnerships on issues that were originallydeveloped or piloted through global projects.For instance, the HIV/AIDS Group pointedto the emergence of key partnerships withthe Association of Southeast Asian Nationsand the African Union in the context of itsinitiative on ‘breaking the silence on AIDS’.


n Conducting cross-practice initiatives—According to the GCF-III staff, during theGCF-III period, a more concerted effort wasmade to develop projects that broughttogether different practice or cross-cuttinggroups, including the project on intellectualproperty and HIV/AIDS, the Poverty-Environment Initiative and procurementcapacity development.

Several practice groups stressed that the outputsof most global projects were knowledge products,which may be further supplemented by tools andtraining modules. Such outputs often lost theirBDP and GCF-III identity once they were madeavailable within UNDP. It was therefore difficultto monitor the usage of these outputs and toascertain their overall effectiveness.

Most of the global projects can be justified interms of their linkage to the GCF-III objectives.The GCF-III staff implemented a wide range ofpromising initiatives. Some initiatives weresuccessful in terms of generating additionalresources, making a difference at the countrylevel or providing useful approaches and tools toUNDP. A number of global projects wereinnovative, catalytic or fostered cross-practiceapproaches. However, it was not possible toascertain the extent to which projects wereeffective. Moreover, even if some were effective,it was difficult to assert that the success of aproject made the intervention relevant in termsof the overall intention of the GCF-IIIprogramme document.

The sustainability of global projects was not anexplicit concern. There did not appear to be aBDP approach towards ensuring sustainability ofits work. One senior manager indicated that he/she “had not really thought about it.”Some staff members noted that because globalprojects were typically small and often ‘one-off ’,sustainability was difficult to ensure. This wascompounded by the practice of allocating projectfunds to practice groups on an annual basis, thuslimiting project implementation to 12 months orless. In many cases, projects ended with the

production of a document. Beyond that, fewmechanisms were in place to ensure that outputs,such as reports, notes or tools were widelyaccessed and used systematically.

Often, project managers did not recognizesustainability as something that should be ensuredunder the project. If anything, sustainabilityhappened ‘on the ground’ and was a function ofthe effective use of guidance notes, products andtools by national counterparts. Sustainability wasbuilt into the project outputs (tools and method-ologies) but not the global project itself (as anissue that would shape the project strategy andtypes of deliverables). The HIV/AIDS Grouphad a different approach in that it was activelyinvolved in the country-based implementation ofglobal projects. It indicated that “sustainability[was] ensured by working hand-in-hand withgovernment and civil society partners” and thatdeveloping ownership of initiatives by nationalcounterparts was a key component of the projects.

The Environment and Energy Group pointedout that, in the context of its global projects,some sustainability was guaranteed by ensuringthe interest of donors and securing non-corefunding. By achieving buy-in by donors, theEnvironment and Energy Group could justify its overall approach to working on global issues,the products of which could later be ‘spun-off ’.The Capacity Development Group, DemocraticGovernance Group and the Gender Groupindicated that there was an increasing concern tounderstand better how to ensure sustainability.This was being addressed, in part, by a greateremphasis on monitoring and evaluation, whichcould help highlight successes and failures and identify ways to strengthen sustainability inthe future.

n n n

In summary, UNDP reported many successesachieved through global projects, for instance inpromoting innovation, catalyzing commitment bypartners and supporting cross-practice initiatives.Some global projects registered demonstrable results,


such as generating non-core resources. However,the project management approach under theGCF-III was short-term and activity-oriented,lacking outcome orientation in implementation.This contributed to the global project portfolioneither being developed programmatically norfocusing on a few strategic areas. The lack ofconcern regarding sustainability undermined theGCF-III ability to contribute significantly to theachievement of development results.

3.2.3 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge transfer, learning and codificationwere placed at the centre of the GCF-III. TheGCF-III investment in knowledge managementwas also intended to have a direct developmentbenefit by enabling countries to benefit frominterregional knowledge exchange and ensuringthat development assistance drew on global bestpractices and expertise. It was not possible todetermine if these broad statements of intentwere achieved, but feedback suggested thatprogress was being made on some aspects ofknowledge management.

The GCF-III programme document talkedabout the UNDP goal of “becoming a globallynetworked, knowledge-based organization,

connecting countries to knowledge, experience,technology and resources,”145 and mentioned itsambition to be able to “draw on a network ofglobal experience and knowledge.”146 In termsof the ‘networking’ features, the GCF-III invest-ment in knowledge management was highlyrelevant in supporting cross-practice work andpolicy alignment. The sharing and communicationof information, in itself, was a means to facilitatethis process. The main evidence of this (especiallyat the country level) was the production andsharing of ‘consolidated replies’. These responseswere usually produced as a consequence of aquery from a single country office on a particulardevelopment issue, and summarized similar orrelated experiences relayed from a number ofcountry offices and/or policy specialists. As ameans of supporting ‘communities of practice’,the global networks introduced country officestaff to one another on a professional basis, bothinter- and intra-regionally. In the words of onenew programme officer in a somewhat remotecountry office, “without the networks, I wouldhave felt very much alone,” (see Table 13 on staffresponses to knowledge sharing.)

In accordance with information provided by BDP,RSCs built 15 regional communities of practice in

Table 13. Global Staff Survey Response: Satisfaction with Knowledge Sharing Across UNDP 2003-2007 (percentage)

I am satisfied with the opportunities to share my knowledge and experience across UNDP 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

All UNDP 58 58 62 64 65

Headquarters and regional units 50 53 57 61 64

Country offices 60 60 64 65 66

Female 53 54 58 60 62

Male 64 63 67 68 69

145. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, p 4.146. Ibid.


2006, with members internal and external toUNDP and the UN system. These communitiesof practitioners contributed to improved regionalservice delivery and the knowledge base, toregional policy development, and to country officeprocesses through focused learning and sharing ofknowledge.147 Other examples included supportto the building of the regional MDG Communityof Practice, which was seen as a cornerstone of thetripartite partnership involving UNDP, the UNEconomic and Social Commission for Asia andthe Pacific, and the Asian Development Bank; andsupport to Regional Community of Practices forgender, disaster reduction and energy.148

Driven primarily by the ongoing regionalizationprocess and increasing focus on providingappropriate knowledge to its country partners,knowledge management in UNDP is evolvingfrom a ‘connecting strategy’ (with a strong focuson connecting people through global networks inorder to overcome silos, strengthen the practicearchitecture and connect policy with practice andHeadquarters with the field) to a more systematic‘collecting strategy’ (which ensures UNDP and itsdevelopment partners have relevant, useful andeasily accessible knowledge to support their workat country level). The primary means for this wasthrough the knowledge networks149 that weresupported directly by the GCF-III as noted inTable 2.150

With respect to the networks, the GCF-III wasdesigned as a vehicle for service delivery tostimulate interaction among the communities ofpractice in order to develop and disseminateknowledge and expertise to support UNDP workwith national partners. In this somewhat restricted

application, the GCF-III support to knowledgemanagement was generally effective.

However, some concerns were expressed withregard to the global networks:

n Country office staff generally reported thatthey were too busy to spend time on theglobal networks and that the many e-mailscluttered their in-boxes and were oftendeleted. However, staff that did use thenetworks regularly reported that they foundthe ‘consolidated replies’ to be useful.

n Several commented that some staff memberswho regularly accessed the networks did so toenhance their own personal visibility (andperhaps enhance their chances for promotion).While such perceptions may seem to be ofminor importance and could not be validated,they raised some questions as to the motivationfor using the networks (at least on the part ofsome) and may serve as a disincentive for use.

n Many staff members in RBEC and theRegional Bureau for Latin America and theCaribbean (RBLAC), where the workinglanguage is Russian or Spanish, did not usethe global networks since the primarylanguage was English. The language barrierinhibited communication and the sharing ofinformation across regions. There was noGCF-III funding to support the systematictranslation of key knowledge products.

n The GCF-III did not generally support thedevelopment of regional or subregionalknowledge networks, even though there wereinformal networks at these levels that were

147. ‘Annual Report 2006 Regional Centre in Bangkok and Regional Centre in Colombo’.148. ‘Annual Report 2007 UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok, Colombo and Suva’.149. The networks listed in Table 2 were supported by the GCF-III. In addition, there were several other major networks in

UNDP. These included Crisis Prevention and Recovery (1,912), MDG-net (3,736), HuriTALK (1,095), HDR-net(964), Management Practices (3,621) and EVAL-net (1083). There were also several other networks of a more special-ized nature in UNDP (e.g. finance, procurement, human resources, project management). The total membership as ofend 2007 for all global networks in UNDP was 21,262. Generally, membership in the global networks tripled over theperiod 2003-2007.

150. It should be noted that the GCF-III funded knowledge management-related positions at the regional level. For example, in RBEC the Deputy Chief for Knowledge Services was funded by the GCF-III and the Bratislava RegionalCentre reported that significant knowledge management outputs were achieved, and direct funding was provided toinnovative initiatives.


seen by many country office staff as moreeffective for the ‘local’ sharing and exchangeof information.151 Country office staff alsoraised the concern that a proliferation of localnetworks could detract from the utility ofglobal networks.

The knowledge platform developed by thePanama SURF was an innovative way of deliveringtechnical assistance152 and an interesting applica-tion of knowledge management. The platformwas developed ‘bottom-up’ through support fromthe regional programme (not the GCF-III),while the process of development was led by oneof the GCF-III-funded policy specialists. Thisplatform, with participation by several regionalpolicy specialists, was applied mainly within theregion and featured a database of case studies inlocal development, a network of experts and localinstitutions that had expertise and experience inthe area, and a range of tools to support work inthe main sub-application areas: local governance,decentralization and institutional reform, justicesecurity and human rights, and environment and sustainable development (i.e. energy for the MDGs, environmental services and watergovernance). The platform also containedsupporting knowledge product developmentprocesses in terms of acquisition, qualityassurance, codification and diffusion.

The success of the platform was evidenced by thefact that joint pilot initiatives were beingundertaken or planned with UNICEF, UNFPAand the Panama country office. The regional

offices of both UNICEF and UNFPA looked atthe platform as a possible solution to their owntechnical service delivery and knowledgemanagement challenges. At the regional level,participating agencies hoped that this platformwould evolve as a common UN knowledgeplatform and be a potential solution for UNorganizations in other regions.153

A second dimension of the GCF-III support toknowledge management was in the managementof knowledge products. Despite prolific outputsof knowledge products at all levels of the organization, UNDP had not codified itsknowledge base to understand whether suchproducts meet real demands or the extent towhich they are used. There was a great deal ofinformation available, but it was not prioritizedin terms of what should be produced and system-atized for easy access. Collecting knowledge—based on client needs, ensuring quality, capturingand codifying, and distributing and sharing in themost useful formats—did not receive adequateattention despite the approach espoused in theGCF-III document.154

The collection and codification of knowledgefrom a UNDP-wide perspective was generallyineffective.155 Addressing this is the focus of aproposed new project that has a number ofcomponents that are in line with what can beexpected from a next phase of knowledgemanagement development. Many knowledgeproducts ranged from fair to excellent in quality,but they were not produced according to any

151. Some examples provided by BDP of GCF funding to local initiatives included Asia-Pacific, where the GCF-fundedregional Knowledge Services Teams and regional GCF-funded advisors conducted knowledge work in numerous com-munities of practice/e-networks, in synergy with funding from regional programmes and other sources. Communities ofpractice were built, mapped and monitored and learning events and consultations were convened.

152. As opposed to the more conventional and costly UNDP/BDP practice of recruiting and hiring policy specialists who goon missions to assist country offices and programme countries.

153. Information provided through interviews suggested that, until recently, there was little BDP interest in the PanamaSURF knowledge platform development process. Some funding from the GCF Knowledge Roadmap project was allocated to the Panama initiative, which may assist in determining its potential for broader application.

154. This was found to be an issue in the evaluation of the GCF-II, and the UNDP management response was “To promotegreater clarity, the definition of ‘knowledge management’ should be disaggregated into its constituent functions of:(a) creating, (b) organizing, and (c) using knowledge for development results.” UNDP, ‘Management Response to theEvaluation of the Second Global Cooperation Framework’, DP/2004/42, 26 August 2004, paragraph 18.

155. This was also found to be an issue in the evaluation of the GCF-II. The UNDP management response at the time wasthat “UNDP needs more knowledge, not less. To prevent ‘saturation’ due to a proliferation of different products and serv-ices, greater streamlining and consolidation is important.” Ibid, paragraph 17.


standard method or system of quality assurance.BDP has produced a ‘quality assurance andclearance process’ for BDP products and publica-tions, but it has yet to be implemented.156

Another concern with the management ofknowledge products was the manner in whichthey were disseminated. Staff members at thecountry office level were not aware of whatproducts were produced when and for whom.BDP had a set of communications guidelines inplace, but there was no communications strategywhereby new products could be launched andmarketed. The application of the communicationguidelines for any specific product was theresponsibility of the author of that product.157

Even though the products were placed on thepractice sites and other websites, staff membersreported that they did not have the time to searcheach website for what was new or relevant totheir work. Some of the practice areas produced‘catalogues’ of their products, but the classificationof products varies, and there was no corporate-level catalogue or inventory of products. Thiscodification of knowledge products has been anoutstanding issue for some time.

The GCF-III stated that the “...globalprogramme supports the UNDP knowledgemanagement strategy.” However, such a strategywas not developed and was only broadly describedas proposing to “…strengthen its internalpractice communities, at the same time extendingthe knowledge networks to in-country networks

and United Nations system partners.”158 In theabsence of a formal strategy, the de factoapproach to knowledge management was one of‘stealth’—stimulating a bottom-up growth ininterest and activities in knowledge management,facilitated by some corporate efforts at providingan enabling network environment.159 Thisbottom-up approach led to some maturity inUNDP knowledge management, particularlythrough the establishment and use of theknowledge networks. Knowledge management,as supported by the GCF, has garnered signifi-cant praise for its ‘connection’ efforts and hasserved as a model for a number of organizations,including the UN system. Although slightlydated, an independent review in late 2004 foundthat “…the design and implementation of theknowledge program at UNDP is generally soundand is in line with good practice in organizationsin the public and private sector” and that theywere “particularly impressed with the energy andresponsiveness of the networks.”160 This findingis just as relevant today.

The ‘New Knowledge Management Roadmap’was an isolated initiative—an internal BDPproject with little projection externally. Itsintegration with the rest of the GCF-III is notclear, and it has not galvanized key parts of theorganization (including Headquarters, the Office ofDevelopment Studies, the Human DevelopmentReport Office and regional bureaux) around ashared vision for knowledge management.161

Further, the Roadmap has an allocation of only

156. UNDP, ’Ensuring Quality Control and Policy Coherence: BDP Quality Assurance and Clearance Process’, UNDPBDP, undated.

157. Ibid.158. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, p. 6, paragraph 10.159. The absence of an organized, corporate and strategic approach to knowledge management had some negative

consequences, as reported by BDP. This included the proliferation of stand-alone systems by several bureaux outsideBDP, which often supported similar functions. The areas of Knowledge Management/Information andCommunications Technology, governance and support were equally fragmented, resulting in duplication of efforts andineffective systems. Consequently, this had a negative impact on UNDP’s ability to share knowledge effectively, boththroughout the organization and to share between UN organizations and external partners.

160. Davenport T, Denning S, Parcell G, Prusak L,‘Report of the [External] Review Group: Review of UNDP’s Networksand Communities’, 3 November 2004, p. 2.

161. To address this issue, BDP proposed the formation of a Knowledge Management Steering Committee comprising theBureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, BDP, Partnerships Bureau, Bureau of Management, Office of the HighRepresentative, and Office of the Secretary-General among others and also regions, UN country team and other UNorganizations. However, securing their engagement and ownership of the initiative is bound to be difficult. The Bureaufor Crisis Prevention and Recovery developed its own well-structured Knowledge Product Toolkit.


$5.1 million to date, which does not seemadequate for a well-rounded approach to the nextphase of knowledge management development.The 2007 Networks Benchmarking Reviewpointed out that much work needs to be done in“working with Senior management in UNDPHQ [Headquarters] and country offices to helpensure better alignment with the overall strategicgoals and direction of UNDP.”162

There were signs that, over the medium to longerterm, knowledge management could become asustainable function within UNDP, perhaps withor without direct global programme fundingsupport. Evidence of this was the attention givento knowledge management as one of five keyelements of the UNDP business model, as set outin the UNDP Strategic Plan where it is stated thattwo of UNDP’s main comparative advantages are“Effective knowledge management through theglobal presence of UNDP and use of its knowledgeand resource management systems….”163

Knowledge management was seen as more of acentral BDP corporate matter. This was due tothe fact that knowledge management was definedas one of the main components of the GCF-IIIand BDP was the assigned manager of the GCF-III (and by extension, the ‘manager’ of knowledgemanagement.) Other units within UNDP alsohad an important stake in the production and useof knowledge, including the Bureau for CrisisPrevention and Recovery, Bureau of Management,Human Development Report Office, Office ofDevelopment Studies and the South-South Unit.The GCF-III programme document was unclearon the broader understanding and responsibilityof knowledge management, but the general viewwas that knowledge management should be theresponsibility of all those in UNDP whoproduce, access and share it.

Most UNDP knowledge has been produced atthe country office level. The policies, systems,procedures and incentives necessary to ensurethat knowledge management could work on abroader scale did not appear to be in place. TheGCF-III and BDP alone may not be the only orthe most effective vehicle or funding source to ensure a broader application of knowledgemanagement within UNDP.

The test is whether development improves inUNDP niche areas due to a more informedorganization that knows how to optimize itsknowledge assets (both people and products). Asyet, there is no systematic evidence that this istaking place. This evidence would normally besupplied by monitoring and evaluation systems atthe project, programme and organizational levels.There was some anecdotal information, such asthe use of the consolidated replies, that points in the direction of having some direct effects ondevelopment in programme countries, butwithout further analysis and validation, this isonly conjecture.

There are some risks to the sustainability of acost-effective knowledge management functionin UNDP. Without the benefit of strongcommitment and leadership from seniormanagement, the bottom-up or stealth approachdiscussed earlier can continue only for so long.Knowledge management is a corporate-wideissue. Further, as other non-BDP units continueto produce and manage their knowledge (withtheir supporting networks, standards andsystems), there is a risk that UNDP knowledgecan become balkanized, with associated barriersand constraints to sharing and access.

n n n

162. UNDP and Warwick Business School Knowledge & Innovation Network, ‘UNDP Network Benchmarking SurveySummary Report, Version 0.9’, 2007.

163. UNDP, ‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008-2011 Accelerating Global Progress on Human Development’, DP/2007/43,Reissued 17 January 2008, paragraph 28-e, p. 12. In the same paragraph, UNDP states that “. . . it must: (i) furtherexpand and improve its existing knowledge networks; (ii) open the networks to other United Nations staff and help buildopen United Nations-wide knowledge networks; and (iii) gradually open the networks to allow direct participation byexternal experts, civil society and institutions. Work has already begun in all three areas.”

C H A P T E R 3 . A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E P E R F O R M A N C E O F G C F - I I I5 6

In summary, the knowledge management workconducted under the GCF-III fulfilled an importantstrategic function in support of the practicearchitecture. During the GCF-III period itcontributed to strengthening the knowledgemanagement function within UNDP as a whole,although there was no overarching UNDP strategy.Many knowledge services, networks and productswere highly appreciated by UNDP users. However,the compilation and codification of knowledgewas generally ineffective, thereby constraining itswider use beyond UNDP. Moreover, under theGCF-III, the management of knowledge wastypically practice-based and, therefore, did notencourage a more integrative approach.

3.3 MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

In seeking to understand the effectiveness andthe results of the GCF-III, it was essential toanalyze the way in which activities wereimplemented, including their support structureand organizational issues. This section coversmanagement-related issues that directly affectedthe efficiency of the GCF-III.

In mid-2004, in the formal management responseto the Executive Board on the Evaluation of theGCF-II, UNDP acknowledged managementweaknesses in execution, oversight and reporting.164

In response, UNDP committed to severalmanagement improvement initiatives including acomprehensive programme and financial audit; awell-staffed Programme Support Unit; rigorousannual work planning, comprehensive annualreports, annual implementation plans and regularmonitoring and reporting to the Executive Board;strengthened and formalized mechanisms ofconsultation and external oversight; more system-atic consultations with regional bureaux, regional

centres and country offices on programmecontent; and reconstitution and annual meetings ofthe global programme Advisory Board.165 Thesecommitments were carried forward in Section IXof the GCF-III programme document.166

This evaluation found that many of the managementchallenges that were identified in the GCF-IIevaluation remained unresolved during theGCF-III period.

3.3.1 RSCS, SURFs AND REGIONALIZATION

Assessing the management of the RSCs wasbeyond the scope of this evaluation. However,since the GCF-III resources were subject to RSCmanagement (supplemented through the jointBDP-regional bureaux arrangements) and all but two of the RSCs and SURFs were visitedunder the evaluation, some observations werewarranted. The following touches upon someaspects of RSC/SURF performance relating tothe GCF-III:

n The Bratislava Regional Centre appeared tobe an example of an effective managementmodel for the GCF-III-funded policyspecialists. Here, the GCF-III policy specialistsand regional programme staff were integratedinto a single team or Policy Support andProgramme Development Unit. The servicesdeployed to the country offices were seen asBratislava Regional Centre services and littledistinction was made between the GCF-IIIand regional specialists. Supply and demandfor services was managed by the Centre,prioritieswere set, performance was monitored, and the operation was generally seen as effective.However, continuing uncertainties concerningthe implementation of the new regionalizationmodel was a cause of concern and some

164. “UNDP acknowledges the weaknesses in execution, oversight and reporting. Part of the explanation is the unprecedenteddegree of administrative and human resource upheaval that BDP experienced during the period of GCF-II implementation,as referred to earlier. Other causes include the drastic and continuous changes in operational procedures, including theintroduction of new execution modalities—such as direct execution—new funding modalities—such as the thematictrust funds (TTFs)—and the introduction of an entirely new financial system.” UNDP, ‘Management Response to theEvaluation of the Second Global Cooperation Framework’, DP/2004/42, 26 August 2004, paragraph 28.

165. Ibid, paragraph 30.166. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005.


demoralization, resulting in the loss of someGCF-III funded staff.

n The RSCs in Bangkok and Colombo alsoappeared to be effective models for the samereason as the Bratislava Centre. During theGCF-III period, the Regional Centre Colombo,which was smaller and established morerecently than the Regional Centre Bangkok,faced more challenges in the management ofthe GCF-III-funded policy specialists and infacilitating their integration within the workof the Centre. The same concerns of policyspecialists over the regionalization proposalsthat existed in other RSCs were found inboth the Regional Centre Colombo andRegional Centre Bangkok. One issue thatwas particular to the Asia-based GCF-III-funded policy specialists related to theperceived inconvenience of having split theRSC function along practice lines across twolocations within Asia. This hampered cross-practice work and cross-fertilization withinthe broader Asia-based team and detractedfrom cost-effective delivery of services.

n In addition to the ongoing security situation,the Beirut SURF faced specific difficultiessince its initial setup in 1998. It experiencedextended vacancies in some posts due, inpart, to the ongoing uncertainly regarding itslocation (especially since the Summer War of2006). At the time of this report, relocationto Cairo and merging with the new RSCbeing established there appeared probable.SURF staff members, including the GCF-III-funded staff, reported the situation washighly demotivating.

n The integration of the SURFs within theRSC in Johannesburg faced considerablechallenges. The GCF-III-funded policyspecialists based in Johannesburg were not

effectively integrated into the regionaloperation and had a pronounced sense ofabandonment by RBA, BDP and theJohannesburg RSC. The RSC in Dakar waseven more removed, with little interactionwith the Johannesburg operation, RBA orBDP. The work conducted by the policyspecialists was more a function of individualinitiative than service management, and thisvaried across the practice areas. Many staffmembers felt some sense of demoralizationand disconnect, which was especially strongin Dakar.

n In the case of the SURF in Panama, theregional bureau saw the SURF as animportant avenue to deliver policy advisoryservices. The initial strategy was to have theSURF focus on a few specific areas whileother areas would be addressed by otherfunds and programmes (some via themonetized posts assigned to the SURF).The BDP model for policy advisory servicescould not be fully implemented for a varietyof reasons.167 Further, the SURF wassomewhat disconnected from both BDP andRBLAC. As a consequence, only a few of the posts were filled, with others having been monetized. Some key staff membershave since left, in part due to the ongoingchallenges noted in a series of internal reviewssince 2004. Nonetheless, the appointed policyspecialists have done some innovative work(particularly with respect to the KnowledgePlatform) and have supported a number ofcountries in key programme areas.

The regionalization process had not yet reachedclosure at the time of writing the report.Discussions were still on-going on matrixmanagement models, lines of accountability, themanagement of global programme resources andregional specificity. Moreover, it was not clear

167. The BDP model was understood as allocating the GCF-III-funded policy specialists in each of the practice areas ineach of the regions. This model was not fully implemented for the Latin America and Caribbean SURF for the follow-ing reasons: there was little demand for practice expertise from the GCF/BDP beyond (local) governance and environ-ment/ energy; there was a large pool of regional talent and hence little need for UNDP to provide higher cost policyadvice or expertise; the SURF structure was somewhat disconnected from the associated regional projects (including BDPprojects that were considered associated projects); the matrix management arrangement required attention and skill tomake it work; and neither RBLAC nor BDP took a stand on the issues or made serious efforts to resolve them.


what longer-term impact the integration ofSURFs with RSCs would have on the substan-tive nature of the GCF-III.

3.3.2 PROGRAMME PLANNING ANDRESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Programme planning

There remains some uncertainty as to the realnature of the GCF-III: Is it a programme, aframework or a funding mechanism? The overallstructure of the GCF-III lacked a cohesive resultsframework, functioning more as a conglomerateof projects, modalities, funding mechanisms andother instruments. Programme planning andassociated resources managed were interspersedwith internal BDP organizational and operationalobjectives making it difficult to ‘extract’ theGCF-III-funded components. The onlydocuments that addressed the GCF-III as awhole were the initial programme document and,to a lesser extent, two annual reports.

The GCF-III programme document presented a‘Work Plan, 2005-2007’ in Annex 1. Rather thana work plan, this was a one page break-out of thefinancial allocation of policy advisory services (interms of posts and funding), targeted projects andknowledge management across the practice areas byregion and BDP Headquarters. The document’s‘Results and Resources Framework’ broke out theglobal project-related outcomes, outputs andbudget allocations by MYFF goal.168 The resultsframework did not present an integrated, results-oriented programme of work, based on aplausible ‘theory of change’. Rather, it illustratedfurther the GCF-III intent to distribute limitedresources across a very wide range of interven-tions. The results framework also did not, in mostinstances, clarify the GCF-III ‘global’ contributionto results, vis-à-vis the expected contributions ofregional and country programmes.

It is questionable whether this results frameworkserved any purpose in the planning of practiceline-specific work and implementation, sincethere was no Results-Oriented Annual Reportagainst it over the three-year period, and many ofthe measures were quantitative and did not providequalitative or ‘output’ criteria (for example, ‘x’number of workshops conducted, ‘y’ knowledgeproducts developed.) Expected outcomes, outputsand measures for other GCF-III componentswere not monitored in any routine or program-matic manner, including the policy specialists, orknowledge management work.169

Work planning

As noted earlier, BDP committed to carry outrigorous annual work planning and annualimplementation planning. Annual practice groupwork plans were produced for the years 2005 to 2007 and were constructed in table format.They were prepared in somewhat differingformats from year to year and they associateddetailed lists of expected outcomes, outputs (ordeliverables) and budget sources with mainservice line and programme pillars. The GCF-IIIcomponents could not be extracted for 2005, butthe budget and source of funds (core and other)was identified for each output and outcome inthe 2006 and 2007 work plans respectively.

No implementation plan for BDP or the GCF-III appeared to exist, nor any other higher leveldocument that would provide a ‘programmingframework’ in terms of priorities, success factors,or how the implicit activities would be linked todemands or to each other.

Resource allocation

Annual work plans formed the basis for fundingallocations of the targeted projects to thedifferent practice and cross-cutting areas. The

168. ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, Annex 2, p.18. According to BDP, the statementin Annex 2 that “The tables below outline the results and resources frameworks for targeted projects under programmecomponent 2” was erroneous, and the results framework was intended to cover all project, knowledge management andpolicy advisory activities conducted under the GCF-III.

169. In May 2008, BDP compiled and made available a list of outputs achieved against outputs planned in the results framework.While this list reflected the breadth of activities conducted in each component of the GCF-III, it was not possible toascertain the quality of outputs, let alone their contribution to outcomes.


plans did not indicate the criteria by whichpriorities were established or how the projectfunding allocations were made (the distributionof policy specialists follows a separate method).Reference to some general criteria was made in abrief memorandum from the Director each year,and practice-group project allocations wereannounced. Each practice group then allocatedthe GCF-III funds to their service linesaccording to internal criteria, which wasunderstood to be different within each group.

Project funds were allocated equally between thethree largest practices (Governance, Poverty,Energy and Environment), with equal allocationsmade for the thematic centres, and proportionatelysmaller allocations for HIV/AIDS, CapacityDevelopment and Gender. Such allocations didnot appear to be linked to country demand, wherealmost 50 percent of total UNDP programmedelivery was reported to be in the area ofgovernance. Conversely, these allocations may beseen as ensuring a basic minimum level of coveragefor each of the practices assigned to BDP. Concernswere expressed that the funding allocation processwas obscure and non-transparent, and that thecountry offices, central bureaux and RSCs werenot consulted.170

A recommendation from the evaluation of theGCF-II suggested that criteria for use of globalresources must be clear, consistently applied anddistinct from regional or country-level program-ming. The management response indicated thatcriteria were “… being developed, in consultation

with regional bureaux and country offices, todetermine the nature and delineation of globalprogrammes and their relationship to regionaland country programmes.”171 Evidence of thishaving taken place could not be found.

Mobilizing non-core resources

Resource mobilization (using core resources toleverage non-core resources) was one of theobjectives of the GCF. BDP supported resourcemobilization through a number of avenuesfunded by the GCF-III: the GCF-funded policyspecialists supported resource mobilizationactivities at BDP Headquarters as well as at theregional and country levels, which in turn,indirectly supported programme countries intheir resource mobilization efforts; indirectsupport was provided through partnerships,including collaborative efforts with the Bureaufor Resources and Strategic Partnerships; andthere were targeted projects intended tostrengthen resource mobilization efforts byenabling UNDP to leverage larger non-coreprogrammes (in fact, resource mobilization is oneof the key criteria for core funding of projects).Resource mobilization was given less emphasis inthe first and second GCF.

Over the period 2005-2007, mobilized non-coreresources (reported by BDP as $232 million)exceeded the target of $190 million172 by approx-imately 22 percent (see Tables 4 through 7 inAnnex E for a break-out by practice area and for information on the TTFs.)173 There weremany non-global programme-related contributing

170. The evaluation of the GCF-II recommended that a more formalized consultative method for programming, programmedesign and allocation of resources should reflect the variable demand for services by region, sub-region and country.The BDP response was that “Consultations with regional bureaux, regional centres and country offices on GCF programmes will be enhanced and formalized.” UNDP, ‘Management Response to the Evaluation of the Second GlobalCooperation Framework’, DP/2004/42, 26 August 2004, Annex (section on Strategic Direction). This does not appearto have been done.

171. Ibid, p. 9. The GCF-III programme document also stated in paragraph 40 that “. . . the decision to allocate resourcesfor targeted projects was taken on the basis of clear criteria weighted by: expressed needs; capacity to deliver; and potentialfor non-core resource mobilization.”

172. The break-down was approximately $178 million through the TTFs and trust funds, and approximately $58 millionthrough targeted project cost sharing.

173. BDP suggested that non-core funds raised through the GEF and Montreal Protocol should also be attributed to theGCF-III. This requires further substantial analysis. There remains some confusion as to the precise role of the GCF-III in the area of resource mobilization and the degree to which certain sources and amounts can be attributed eitherdirectly or indirectly to the GCF-III. Resource mobilization was not an objective of the GCF-II.


factors to resource mobilization, such as the roleand time spent by BDP and UNDP managementand non-core funded project and programmespecialists on resource mobilization efforts.

This commendable effort came with risks. Basedon information provided by BDP, Headquarter-based policy specialists spent approximately 10 percent of their time mobilizing resources fortheir service line. This has the following possibleconsequences: there are implied incentives andpressures to ‘mobilize resources’, which may be adistraction from policy specialists’ primary focuson substantive work; emphasis on resourcemobilization and delivery may lead to distortingprogramming and operational priorities of BDP;and while all TTF funds are expended mostly oncountry-level programmes and projects, it is notpossible to determine if they have strengthenednational ownership. The GEF and other globalfunds that are not so directly tied to the practicearchitecture may be examples of this.

The global programme as a funding mechanism

The GCF-III core resources accounted for only10 to 20 percent of all BDP resources, yetaccording to BDP, accounted for approximately50 percent of the workload as measured by staffdistribution.174 This could be explained by thefact that the GCF-III funded almost half of theBDP posts. The approval of the GCF-III wasbased, in part, on the understanding that $42million, or approximately 53 percent of coreresources available for programming, would beallocated to the recruitment and funding of 75policy specialist posts.175 However, an additional69 BDP posts were funded from the GCF-IIIcore funded global projects. Thus, the salaries of

almost half of the 328 BDP posts176 were paid bythe GCF-III, and an additional $3.1 million wasexpended on service contracts over the period2005 to 2007.

Expenditures on salaries (posts) accounted forapproximately 73 percent of total GCF-III coreexpenditures. When service contracts wereincluded, this rose to almost 77 percent. Thisraised questions about the intended versus actualuse of the GCF-III funds. The funding of theadditional 69 posts may be seen as a contraven-tion of the GCF-III programme document,which specified that 75 policy specialist postswould be funded.177 According to BDP, however,the additional 69 posts were necessary toimplement targeted projects.

Several concerns were raised about the practice offunding additional posts: there was the potentialthat the GCF-III-funded posts could be used forpurposes other than those intended by the GCF-III; the line of accountability of the funded postwas blurred between the GCF-III ‘projectmanager’ and the BDP ‘line manager’; the tyingup of the majority of the GCF-III funds in fixedsalary costs could limit the flexibility of theprogramme; and perceptions among someUNDP staff members that the GCF-III was simplyused as a staff funding mechanism and as a salarygap-filling measure when other funding sourcesare not available. There were no clear guidelinesestablished to address the issue of earmarking orthe use of the GCF-III core resources.

Cost-effectiveness

The budgeted cost for policy specialists during2005 to 2007 was approximately $177,000 per

174. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme 2006 Annual Report’, UNDP BDP, 2007, p. 37.175. Core funds available for programming over the period 2005-2007 amounted to $79.56 million, this amount was net of

a Strategic Reserve of $5.14 million. Ibid.176. The 328 BDP staff administered by UNDP included New York-based General Service and International 100, 200 and

300 series contracts. In addition, there were 23 BDP staff administered by UN Office for Project Services and 6 byLoans, for a grand total of 357 (328 + 23 + 6). BDP, ‘Total Staff Count BDP September 30, 2007 (Budget)’.

177. A wide range of additional posts were funded by the GCF-III, most of which were seen to be complementary to theofficial 75 policy advisor posts. These included the director posts of the thematic centres, policy specialists and specialistsin a number of practice areas (including six in the Capacity Development Group), programme assistants, research associates,knowledge network facilitators and SURF deputy chiefs.


year, inclusive of any execution fee. This workedout to approximately $1,000 per day worked.178

By comparison, the maximum daily rate allowedfor contracting senior level international expertsand consultants was $750 per day.179 On the one hand, salaried policy specialists were a relativelyhigh input cost to the GCF-III. On the otherhand, this cost may have been justified in termsof retaining an internal critical mass of expertise,in the effectiveness of the work performed(although this varies by policy specialist), and inthe support they provide to resource mobilizationefforts. However, policy advisory services couldbe redefined and delivered through optionalmodalities, of which internal salaried policyspecialist posts could be one. The experiences ofthe Panama SURF to seek alternatives plus itsemerging Knowledge Management Platformmodality were useful examples. To date, no cost-benefit analysis of alternative service deliverymodels has been developed.

A review of the vacancies of the policy specialistposts revealed that during the 2005 to 2007period, almost one third (21 of the 75 posts)experienced extended vacancies, ranging fromfour months (the Decentralized Governance forDevelopment post in Headquarters) to morethan three years (Poverty Reductions StrategiesSpecialist post in the Dakar SURF). Theduration of vacancies in these posts averagedmore than 13 months. While UNDP staffsuggested that some posts were not filled as aresult of uncertainties relating to restructuringprocesses, also within the regional bureaux, theposts were neither backed-up with similarexpertise nor were alternative means deployed to

meet demands, thus impeding meeting demandsfor services and policy support in the associatedpractices. In only one case was a Special ServicesAgreement contract resource used to back-fill anextended vacancy in the key Finance, CapitalFlows and Debt Relief post at Headquarters.180

3.3.3 MANAGEMENT OF POLICY SPECIALISTS

With a large proportion of funding beingallocated to the policy advisory function, theGCF-III built substantially on the work of its 75policy specialists. It is important to acknowledgethe contributions made by the dedicated, capableand often overworked policy specialists.

Managing demand and supply

The demand for policy specialists had a significantimpact on their supply, the design of terms ofreference for the posts and recruitment. LimitedGCF-III resources, especially the limited supplyof policy specialists, were spread too thinly andcould not meet all of the demands of the countryoffices. This was recognized in the new corepractice backbone, which was part of the region-alization process and the new organizationalstructure at the RSC level.

The newly proposed Regional Practice TeamLeader posts constitute a significant shift fromthe existing BDP model of direct provision ofpolicy advisory and programme support services,towards one more focused on management.Based on a draft job description of the post (L-5 or L-6 level), the incumbent would beresponsible for practice management and coordi-nation, partnership building, policy advocacy andprogramme development services, policy develop-

178. According to BDP, the current annual cost per post of $177,000 may increase to approximately $225,000 per annum in thenext global programme cycle. If only an average of $200,000/post/year is used, the total cost for the 144 GCF-III-fundedposts (i.e. 75 + 69) would increase to $28.8 million/year, which is more than the total current GCF-III annual allocation.

179. It is recognized by many in UNDP and especially in such regions as RBEC, that the amount is too low to attract senior level international experts and specialists and requires an upward adjustment.

180. There was a considerable budget carry-over from the GCF-II to the GCF-III, due primarily to vacancies in policy spe-cialist posts. The fact that the sub-line for the funding of these posts is not ‘fungible’, inhibited the flexibility of BDP todeploy policy advisory services through other modalities. The only exception to this was the reported ‘monetizing’ of fourposts in the Panama SURF, and the associated post vacancies were not included in the vacancy data. BDP reported that$88,000 was allocated to the Panama monetized posts. However, based on an assumed cost of $177,000/annum/post,the total ‘value’ of the monetized posts would be more in the order of $2.1 million over the three-year period. Thiswould require clarification.


ment, quality control and assurance, and knowledgemanagement. This is a large set of responsibilities,and based on field visits, the main focus wouldlikely be on management of coordinationfunctions and not on substantive functions.

The GCF-III is expected to fund seven RegionalPractice Leader posts in each region commencingin 2008. However, depending on the demandfrom the region, there may not be a need todeploy seven per region181 but to instead group a smaller number of Regional Practice Leadersaround major practice areas. These posts wouldbe for each of the four BDP practices, plus onepost each for the two cross-cutting practices andone post for a Knowledge ManagementSpecialist. Other policy specialist posts may befunded at the regional level, subject to demand.Unfortunately, this new model would still beprimarily supply driven in terms of the equalallocation of the GCF-III funds for the PracticeTeam Leader in each region, which will probablynot be able to reflect the variations in demandsacross regions. The model for the deployment ofRegional Practice Team Leaders and policyspecialists should respond more to the demand ofthe region, rather than be driven by the applica-tion of a standard supply model across all regions.

Matrix management

Managerial accountability was a major issueimpacting the cost-effective delivery of theGCF-III-funded resources at the regional level.In particular, the existing matrix management of regionally based GCF-III-funded policyspecialists was seen to blur accountability. Ineffect, the BDP GCF-III-funded policy special-ists reported to two supervisors: regional

management on operational issues and BDP onsubstantive issues. Accountability was obscuredwhen partners other than the RSC had directfinancial control over some of the resources. Thefact that the GCF-III-funded specialist wascontracted by BDP could raise questions ofloyalty to the RSC or to BDP. If the newRegional Bureaux Deputy Regional Director is tobe accountable for results at the regional level(including the assurance that global issues aretaken into account), then he/she should have theauthority and control over resources to deliverthose results. This clearer accountability modelcould reduce corporate overhead, transactioncosts and potential for conflicts between theregional bureaux and BDP.182

Continuing the matrix management of the newRegional Practice Team Leader posts could addfurther complexity to the already complicatedmatrix management arrangement. The RegionalPractice Team Leader post was envisioned tohave a dual reporting relationship—reportingjointly to the Deputy Regional Director, RSCand to the BDP Practice Director. Further,regional and BDP policy specialists within apractice area would possibly report to theRegional Practice Team Leader. Hence, therecould be two layers of matrix management: theRegional Practice Team Leader level, andpossibly the regional advisors (reporting to theRegional Practice Team Leader and possibly aregional line post) and the GCF-III-fundedpolicy specialists (unless they report directly tothe Regional Practice Team Leader). All of thesearrangements will continue to burden RSCs,regional bureaux and BDP with managementcomplexities, obscured accountabilities and highmaintenance and transaction costs.

181. The proposed model would have seven Regional Practice Team Leaders per region: one each for the four main practiceareas of BDP, two for the cross-cutting areas (capacity development and gender), and one for knowledge management.It is not known whether an eighth Regional Practice Team Leader would be allocated to a crisis prevention post fundedby the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery.

182. Different models could be applied to ensure full accountability of the delivery of global programme and other fundedservices at the regional level, ranging from the setting up of a ‘basket fund’ mechanism for the RSC to a direct transferof associated resources from BDP to the RSC (for the regionally deployed global programme funded staff ). The globalprogramme or BDP ‘global’ or ‘practice’ role could be assured through the design of the terms of reference of theengaged specialists or Practice Team Leaders, participation in the RSC ‘Board’, sign-off on recruitments, and participationin annual RCAs, etc.


Managing staff performance expectations

The 2005-2007 period was one of continuingchange in the organization, which had a negativeimpact on the provision of policy advisoryservices, performance of policy specialists andconsequently the GCF-III. The changes anduncertainties in UNDP’s internal and externalenvironment undermined the need for stabilityand continuity. Worries regarding the professionalprospects of staff members in the context of theregionalization process, coupled with extremelyhigh workloads (particularly where there wereextended vacancies) further aggravated thesituation. This resulted in the loss of some keypolicy specialists and diminished productivity,motivation and morale.

The recruitment and career tracking of policyspecialists has been an ongoing debate in UNDPand BDP. Issues under discussion include recruitingmore junior policy specialists (with a view todeveloping them internally) versus recruitingsenior specialists into the posts at the outset. In thesurvey of policy specialists, 83 percent indicatedthat they were interested in a long-term careerwith UNDP and 61 percent were interested inmoving out of the policy specialist role.

Managing the TTFs

Other than serving as one of the targets forresource mobilization, the main link between theTTFs and the GCF-III was through work doneby the GCF-III-funded policy specialists. At theregional level, policy specialists were called uponby country offices to provide support in theformulation of TTF expressions of interest andproject proposals. Demands from all countryoffices for this support could not be met. At theBDP Headquarters levels, the policy specialistscovering specific specific service lines rated theexpressions of interest and recommended approval

or rejection accordingly. While the work of thepolicy specialists at the regional level was, in mostcases reviewed by the evaluation, well regardedand needed, the reviews of the country officeexpressions of interest carried out by theHeadquarter specialists in the same practicecould create a conflict of interest. Those countriesthat do not use the services of a policy specialistmay be at a competitive disadvantage whenaccessing TTF funding.

The process of TTF submission had someadverse effects on the workload and scheduling ofpolicy specialists at the regional level. For example,under the current procedures for the DemocraticGovernance TTF, all expressions of interest hadto be submitted by the end of the fiscal year. Thismeant that even under optimal conditions, only afew countries could receive support from the policyspecialists, who must otherwise divert attentionfrom other priority demands. A semi-annual orquarterly process might result in a more evendistribution of workload.183

3.3.4 MONITORING, REPORTING AND EVALUATION

In response to recommendations from the GCF-II evaluation, BDP set up an internal ProgrammeSupport Unit to support the management,execution and operations of the many GCF-targeted projects. The Programme Support Unitwas staffed and funded from a portion of the $3.7million in extra-budgetary income generatedfrom the 5 percent fee charged to the directlyexecuted by BDP GCF-III projects. The Unitreported to the Deputy Director of BDP and itsmandate included support to project management(e.g. budgeting, reporting and monitoring,financial management, quality assurance);administration; overall planning, analyzing andreporting; and contracting and procurement.184

183. BDP recently carried out an internal evaluation of the Democratic Governance TTF which, at the time of writing, had notbeen finalized and published. The findings of this evaluation may prove useful in future design of the global programme.

184. In addition to the Programme Support Unit, a Programme Support and Coordination Unit was also set up in BDP.According to BDP, it had a main responsibility for supporting the overall management of the global programme. Noreports or documents produced by the Programme Support and Coordination Unit were made available that related to the global programme as a whole, but a work plan for January 2005 to June 2006 shows the Unit responsibility forsupport to certain components of the GCF (e.g. Knowledge Management , support to SURFs).


A second initiative taken by BDP was to securean agreement with the Bureau of Managementfor the setting up of a Human Resources Officeto assist in the workload associated with thepolicy specialist and other funded posts of BDP.This covered such functions as classification andrecruitment, general human resources managementand support to career planning.

A third step after the Executive Board approvalof the GCF-III was BDP’s development ofoperational guidelines that addressed resultsplanning and management (including the Project Appraisal Committees’ process discussedearlier); fiduciary management and control; andthe management of human resources andcommunications.185 BDP issued guidelines in2007 for the monitoring and evaluation of theglobal programme, reinforcing the need to followUNDP prescribed direct execution guidelinesand Project Appraisal Committees procedures,plus associated quarterly and annual reporting.186

In late 2007, a BDP draft functional descriptionoutlined the accountabilities and functions of theBDP and its main internal units.187 Thesedocuments set out the main practices to befollowed in reporting, monitoring and evaluation.Related obligations were also found in specificproject documents and cost-sharing agreements.In all, these documents formed a set of guidelinesfor monitoring, reporting and evaluation.

Annual reports for the GCF-III were producedfor 2005 and 2006, but did not relate to the annualGCF-III level programme or implementationplans as these were not found. Because of this, itwas difficult to gauge performance against what

may have been planned. The annual reports werecomprehensive and focused primarily on theimplementation of select GCF-III-fundedprojects and the thematic centres (includingprojects associated with policy advisory servicesand knowledge management). They also listednumerous issues and lessons associated with theGCF-III implementation on substantiveperformance of the projects, project design andimplementation, financial matters, managementand coordination, and partnerships. The reportsdid not present any financial information onexpenditures, resource mobilization or resourceuse against allocations. The reports were similarto one another, including the list of issues and thesummary rating on the progress of the GCF-IIIthat the ‘outputs’ had generally been achieved.According to BDP, the annual reports were notsubmitted to a UNDP senior managementcommittee but rather to the BDP ResultsManagement Team.188

The practice of regular reporting, monitoring andevaluation was well below the marks set by BDPitself.189 For example, “Each of the practicegroups in BDP has undertaken rigorous annualwork planning; the group plans, which includebudgets, outputs and delivery dates, will generatecomprehensive annual reports. ... A joint mechanismfor appraising and monitoring ... projects will beestablished. These efforts will generate annualimplementation plans to facilitate overallaccountability and regular monitoring andreporting.” 190 With the exception of theDemocratic Governance Group, it was notpossible to locate or to identify any form ofregular GCF-III monitoring and reporting, other

185. UNDP, ‘BDP Internal Memorandum on Operational Procedures and Guidelines’, Director, BDP, 8 September 2005.186. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme—2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism’, UNDP BDP, 13 April 2007.187. At the time of writing, proposals were being developed within BDP to further improve and streamline operations and

to strengthen the Programme Support Unit. A draft ‘Operations Manual’ has been developed.188. Annual reports were also produced by the three thematic centres. The RSCs also produced annual reports, but the GCF

components were not highlighted. Some of the Practice Groups in BDP produced annual reports (the DemocraticGovernance Group annual report deserves attention), but these were highly variable, and some practices produced noannual reports.

189. For example, in the analysis of sample global projects, evaluations were planned by 12 of the 21 projects. However noproject evaluations were carried out.

190. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 47, p. 15.


than the annual work plans, implementationplans or reports for the practice groups.

There were summary lists of information onproject expenditures and staffing, which was apositive step forward from the practices of theGCF-II. However, there was little in the way ofroutine reports provided by the ProgrammeSupport Unit or Programme Support andCoordination Unit, no quarterly reports on theGCF-III were produced,191 and the productionof annual project reports was sub-standard.192

Routine reports on the progress of the GCF-IIIimplementation were not done. Basic summaryinformation and statistics on the GCF-III,requested in the context of the evaluation, took agreat deal of time to deliver.

It should be noted that monitoring of the GCF-III was not just a Programme Support Unit orProgramme Support and Coordination Unitresponsibility but was a standard managementfunction applicable to BDP as a whole. WhileBDP lacked a centralized, comprehensivemonitoring system for the GCF-III (including abasic project database permitting substantivemonitoring and reporting), the Practice Groupswere also negligent in their responsibilities forroutine monitoring, reporting and evaluation193

of the GCF-III components of their activities.Most of the groups had not put in place an

operational monitoring system for their globalprojects to track progress, establish baselines,develop indicators or measure performance. Also,most groups had not systematically monitoredthe work of the policy specialists (e.g. in terms ofcollecting and analyzing back-to-office-reports,or assessing the effectiveness of advisory services).Some groups, particularly the DemocraticGovernance Group, did prepare annual reports.However, those reports covered the work of theentire practice group and did not specificallyreport on the contribution of the GCF-III totheir work.

BDP neither prepared nor followed an annualevaluation plan.194 Although a financial audit ofthe GCF-III was called for in the programmedocument, no such audit took place.195 Inaddition, BDP did not perform regular monitoringand reporting of the GCF-III to the ExecutiveBoard, as called for in the programme document.No mid-term evaluation was carried out, sinceonly a final evaluation was set out as a requirement.Project audits and evaluations were a commonand mandatory practice at the country office level.As such, the practice of exempting the GCF-III-funded projects managed by BDP from auditsand more regular evaluations must be questioned.

Progress made in implementing the ManagementResponse to the GCF-II evaluation was not consis-

191. According to BDP, although quarterly reporting was established in 2005, these reports were replaced by group bi-monthly reports that were already being prepared to support group progress meetings with the BDP Director. Copiesof these reports contained status information on some of the GCF components, such as policy advisor staffing and project status.

192. The Annual Project Reports were to contain information on project progress. Based on the review of a sample of 21 global projects (Annex G), Annual Project Reports were not available for 8 of 21 projects reviewed and, where available, they were poorly done. For example, often the last section of the report was not completed where outcome,output, challenges and lessons learned should be addressed. But even if the Annual Project Report was completed, itshould be seen as a subjective statement. In the case of the Capacity Development Group, Assessments of DevelopmentResults were prepared routinely for eight of the projects for which documentation was provided.

193. According to BDP, the UNDP corporate system, ATLAS, was to have contained reporting features for the GCF andBDP was prevented by the Bureau of Management from setting up a separate GCF project database to prevent the proliferation of potentially incompatible databases. While this concern is not questioned, some initiative might havebeen taken by BDP, and flexibility allowed by the Bureau of Management, to permit the setting up of a basic substantiveproject monitoring and reporting system in BDP that was linked to ATLAS.

194. The UNDP policy states that “Country offices, regional bureaux, and practice and policy bureaux will be required to:(a) prepare an evaluation plan, based on guidelines established by the Evaluation Office, which will include mandatoryand other evaluations; and (b) cost this plan, and allocate the requisite funds from appropriate project and programmebudgets.” UNDP, ‘The Evaluation Policy of UNDP’, DP/2005/28, 5 May, 2006, paragraph 41, p. 13.

195. According to Office of Audit and Performance Review, audits of the management of the global and regional projectsand of the management of the trust funds are planned for 2008.


tently monitored or reported upon. No mentionwas made of the Management Response in eitherthe 2005 or 2006 GCF-III annual reports.

3.3.5 OVERSIGHT AND CONSULTATION

Based on the recommendations of the GCF-IIevaluation, oversight and consultation was to becarried out through several mechanisms.

n The UNDP Executive Team—This teamwas intended to serve as an internal advisorybody to BDP on the strategic direction of theGCF-III at twice-yearly meetings.196 Areview of the agendas for the UNDP seniormanagement groups for 2006 and 2007 didnot reveal any items dealing with the GCF-III. A review of the Executive Team agendasand discussion items for 2005 similarlyrevealed no mention of the GCF-IIIsubsequent to its approval by the ExecutiveBoard. The Executive Team did not appearto play the substantive advisory and oversightrole as envisaged. However, different elementsof the GCF-III were discussed at a numberof Operations Group meetings (such as thepolicy advisory service model and knowledgemanagement), but no record of a discussion orreview of the GCF-III priorities, performanceor progress was found.

n The External Advisory Committee—Thismechanism was to have advised UNDP onthe strategic direction of the targeted projectsand to regularly review its progress. TheCommittee, which met only once during thecourse of the GCF-II, was not active over theperiod 2005 to 2007.

n RSC Management/SURF Boards—Thesemechanisms were established during the

GCF-II and continued to function throughoutthe GCF-III. In the case of the BratislavaRegional Centre, membership of the BratislavaSupervisory Board consisted of four ResidentRepresentatives (one each from the foursubregional clusters), the RBEC RegionalDirector and the BDP Director. The consti-tution varied in other regions. In some cases,all Resident Representatives constituted theBoard and Board meetings occurred atResident Representative meetings. In thecases of RBEC and RBAP, the Boards serveda useful advisory/oversight function andcontributed to the overall effectiveness of thecentres. In the Regional Bureau Arab States(RBAS), the Board was only recentlyactivated and brought some needed directionto the operation. The SURF Board for RBAwas inactive for the past two years, and theBoard for RBLAC met in 2005 and 2006.The regionalization plans called for theestablishment of RSC Advisory Boards, butthe precise role of these mechanisms, otherthan “... to meet periodically to reviewprogress and provide feedback to the RSC onperformance and on adjusting to emergingdemands” was not clear.197 As the regionaloperations of the different UN organizationsfind common ground through both the‘Delivering as One’ Initiative and CommonServices, there may be a need to examine therelationships and roles of RSC Boards and theRegional Directors’ Teams. Overall, muchcan be learned from the RBEC and RBAPexperiences and adapted to the other regions.

n Project Appraisal Committees—All globalprojects were to benefit from extensiveconsultation through all stages of development

196. In 2006, the Executive Team was replaced by the Operations Group chaired by the Associate Administrator.197. In the case of RBEC, discussions were taking place on the substantive role of the Board. One question was whether the

Board was to serve as a venue for the regional centre to report on its activities from the previous year to its principals/stakeholders /clients, or whether it was to chart a common course for the immediate future, or perhaps both. A secondquestion related to its advisory or supervisory nature. Many stakeholders (including many in the regional centre) preferred the supervisory role, in part to set clear, legally mandated priorities and to make it easier to turn downad hoc, non-strategic requests for support. However, it was also explained that the need for flexibility in the future(reflecting the non-core nature of much of the regional centre’s programming) combined with the informational andmanagerial challenges posed by presenting past activities in a comprehensive yet user friendly manner, inevitably pushedthe regional service centre in the ‘advisory’ direction.


and more formal processes during the pre-Project Appraisal Committee and ProjectAppraisal Committee review stages.198 TheProject Appraisal Committee, chaired by theBDP Deputy Director, was to consist of theresponsible BDP Practice Manager andrepresentatives of other BDP practice areas,other central bureaux, country offices and, attimes, external experts. The results of boththe pre-Project Appraisal Committee andProject Appraisal Committee reviews were tobe documented. This evaluation found nodocumentary evidence of Pre-Project AppraisalCommittee consultations. BDP stated thatthese processes were internal and, while notdocumented, review comments were incorpo-rated directly into revisions of the projectdocument.With respect to the Project AppraisalCommittee processes, almost 80 percent ofglobal projects had the proper ProjectAppraisal Committee documentation.

n Project Steering Committees/Boards—According to BDP, in 2007 it introduced thepractice of establishing project advisoryboards for some of its larger projects.However, little evidence of the actualestablishment or performance of thesecommittees was provided.

The GCF-III programme document stated that“Individual projects funded under the globalprogramme will be developed in consultationwith the SURFs, the regional centres, theregional bureaux, BCPR [Bureau for CrisisPrevention and Recovery] and the Bureau forResources and Strategic Partnerships.”199 This

evaluation was not able to determine the degreeto which the SURFs and RSCs were consulted,but the impression based on regional visits wasthat such consultation was minimal.

The GCF-II design contained other mechanismsto enhance overall oversight and accountability.These included the proposal for a corporate-wide‘Policy Board’, but it appeared that this idea wasabandoned. Routine and annual reporting to oneor more of the UNDP senior managementcommittees and/or to the Advisory Board wouldhave gone a long way to ensure the proper degreeof openness, transparency and accountability inthe management of the GCF.200

n n n

In summary, the challenges associated with themanagement of the GCF-III and its oversightand accountability could not be attributed to theprogramming arrangements alone, or to bureau-cratic omissions, or to the mixed array of businessmodels, nor were they a problem strictly ofinadequate funding to support the developmentof management and operations capacities. Therewas little managerial focus since resources werespread across a large and complex BDP organization,mostly in the form of the GCF-funded posts.Without routine monitoring and reporting, or anymeaningful indicators for programme perform-ance, the GCF-III results could not be measuredby the programme’s managers. It appeared thatthe management culture in the GCF-III was notsufficiently oriented towards accountability.

198. UNDP, ‘BDP Internal Memorandum on Operational Procedures and Guidelines’, Director, BDP, 8 September 2005.199. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 47, p. 15.200. According to BDP, an extended BDP Results Management Team was set up to consider UNDP wide policy issues with

the relevant stakeholders and through an ad hoc Quality Assurance Committee. However, no documentary evidence ofthese mechanisms was provided in terms of references or minutes.

C H A P T E R 4 . D I S C U S S I O N : F A C I N G C H A L L E N G E S 6 9

The following issues emerged that were criticalto the performance of the GCF-III: engaging withthe conceptual underpinning of a global programme,operationalizing the programme strategy, leveragingthe practice architecture at all levels of the organi-zation to improve UNDP effectiveness, matchingdemand and supply, creating and sharingknowledge, enabling South-South solutions, andmanaging institutional complexities.

4.1 SETTING THE PARAMETERS FOR THE ‘GLOBAL’ IN THE GLOBAL PROGRAMME

The MDGs provided an overarching globalframework for the GCF-III. The four practiceareas and the two cross-cutting areas weredirectly relevant to supporting the achievementof the MDGs and other internationally agreeddevelopment goals at the country level.

What constituted the ‘global’ in the globalprogramme201 has evolved in the past threeglobal programmes. In defining ‘global’, theGCF-II stated that “the development challengebeing addressed must be a shared concern amonga significant number of countries in differentregions.”202 It had more extensive and restrictiveprogramming criteria: “(i) The developmentchallenge being addressed must be a shared concernamong a significant number of countries indifferent regions; this will ensure the benefit of

cross-regional exchange of experience and goodpractice while exploiting programmatic economiesof scale; (ii) The development challenge may berooted in current global systems and regimes andthus must be addressed through global advocacyand intermediation; and (iii) UNDP must have aclear comparative advantage as a developmentorganization in the specific intervention.”203

The GCF-III adopted a more permissive scopefor the global development challenges “as [those]identified by multiple developing countries inseveral regions.”204 Clarity on this concept wasessential to identifying the specific niche for theglobal programme. The GCF-III moved furtheraway from having a focus on well-defined globalissues that could not be addressed at the countryor regional levels. In practice, the GCF-III dealtwith a vast array of issues in the different practiceareas and on internal UNDP operations.

Further, there was less emphasis on developingnew global insights, providing cutting-edgepolicy research or contributing to global policydebates.205 In comparison with the GCF-II, theglobal advocacy purpose of the GCF-III wasdowngraded considerably. This may have beenthe result of a desire not to over-reach. A numberof the global projects did deal with global issuesin the poverty, governance, energy-environmentand HIV/AIDS areas. However, the focus ofmost of the projects was on supporting country-level (and in some cases regional) interventions.

201. The same was observed by the GCF-II evaluation, which stated: “The term ’global’ needs refinement... not to be simply used as a broad rationalization for any type of programming and funding initiatives.” UNDP, ‘Evaluation of theSecond Global Cooperation Framework’, UNDP Evaluation Office, New York, NY, 2004, p. 72.

202. UNDP, ‘Second Global Cooperation Framework, 2000-2003’, DP/GCF/2, 27 November 2000, paragraph 29.203. Ibid.204. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, p. 4.205. Influencing global agenda is one of the four rationales of the GCF-III. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’,

DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, p. 6.

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION: FACING CHALLENGES

C H A P T E R 4 . D I S C U S S I O N : F A C I N G C H A L L E N G E S7 0

This was done through the provision ofknowledge products and services that built onglobally sourced good practices. However,stakeholders in many case-study countries pointedout that without the accumulated experience andreputation in engaging with issues at the globallevel, the cost effectiveness and value of policyadvisory services at the country level becamequestionable—particularly when compared withrecruiting local or regional experts for the tasks at hand.

Case studies in countries, RSCs and Headquartersrevealed a concern that the capacity of BDP andthe GCF-III to influence the global policyagenda based on development experience gainedat country level had been eroded. The lack ofpriority accorded to cutting-edge global policyresearch and advocacy in the GCF-III prioritizedcontributing to development outcomes at thecountry level over global policy analysis. Though“informing and influencing the global policydebate” remained an important part of BDP’svision,206 the GCF-III was not used as the keymodality to turn this vision into reality.

The Resident Representative Survey highlightedthat their main interest in the GCF-III was interms of its support to the country offices.However, 91 percent of the respondents expressedagreement (67 percent ‘strong agreement’) withthe view that the next global programme shouldsupport “efforts to position UNDP as a globalleader in development policy thinking.” In orderfor this to occur, a new global programme wouldneed a much stronger emphasis on influencingglobal policy agenda in its design, implementationand resource allocation.

n n n

In summary, the move from the GCF-II toGCF-III represented a shift away from prioritizingthe global character of the programme. Thesupport to achieving the MDGs remained at thecore of the programme, but there was lessemphasis on translating country experiences intocontributions to global development debates andinfluencing the global agenda.

4.2 OPERATIONALIZING THE GCF-III STRATEGY

4.2.1 IMPROVING FOCUS AND APPROACH

The GCF-III faced some of the same issuesidentified in the evaluation of the GCF-II—namely, the lack of a cohesive framework and theneed for more focus.207 The ambition that theGCF-III would address all 24 service lines in thefour main practice areas did not encouragecohesion or focus.208 While the GCF-III wasable to meet some country office needs in a widerange of areas, its limited resources—especiallyhuman resources—were spread too thinly, a pointthat was also made in the GCF-II evaluation.

Under the GCF-III, there was a commendableeffort to build some cross-practice work intoboth design and implementation. There were anumber of initiatives, many in the form of globalprojects, that cut across two of the four mainpractice areas. In this respect, the GCF-IIIshowed marked improvement over GCF-II.Management sought several ways to encouragecross-practice work. Despite these efforts, thepractice areas, and even service lines, tended towork as silos. The most important exceptionswere the added emphasis on promoting capacitydevelopment and gender as cross-cutting areas.This was a step in the right direction.

206. BDP’s internal website: http://content.undp.org/go/bdp/intra/?src=bdp.207. Specifically, the GCF-II evaluation recommended the following: “Under GCF-III, UNDP should continue to narrow

the focus on one or two practice areas plus a complementary but small set of secondary practices, thematic and cross-cutting areas.” UNDP, ‘Evaluation of the Second Global Cooperation Framework’, UNDP Evaluation Office, NewYork, NY, 2004, p. 72.

208. BDP’s Annual Report (2006) on the Global Programme recognized the problem: “Regarding the practice architecture, thereis some feedback that it should be reviewed and updated as UNDP has changed greatly since March 2002 when the Practiceconcept was first launched.” UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme 2006 Annual Report’, UNDP BDP, 2007, p. 32.


Not all mainstreaming efforts were successful.Integrating development dimensions of HIV/AIDS into other practice areas needed furtherattention, particularly with regard to ensuringadequate levels of in-house capacity and developingnew methodologies, tools and knowledge platformsand adapting them to regional and cultural contexts.The UNDP gender mainstreaming experienceduring 2006-2007 offered valuable insight for thenew global programme to address these issues infull collaboration with all internal stakeholders.

As a framework, the GCF-III had considerableflexibility built into its design and there was littleevidence of a broader programmatic approach inthe GCF-III. In implementing the GCF-III,little effort was made to monitor outcomes anduse evaluative evidence to manage for results. TheGCF-III was extended to cover a period of fouryears, but no provision was made for a mid-termreview. There were insufficient efforts to takestock formally at the mid-term in order to adjustthe programme based on experience and in thelight of a rapidly changing environment withinUNDP and the developing world.

4.2.2 FORGING PARTNERSHIPS

The GCF-III’s emphasis on partnerships wasconsistent with the MYFF 2004-2007, whichconsidered ‘forging partnerships for results’ oneof the six drivers of development effectiveness onwhich UNDP reported annually to the ExecutiveBoard. The GCF-III developed partnerships thatwere relevant to the main practice areas ofUNDP, consistent with UNDP policy orienta-tions and important for constituency building. Inthis respect, the GCF-III demonstrated progresswhen compared with the GCF-II.

However, effectiveness of partnerships wasquestioned by the results of the ResidentRepresentative Survey. A majority (58 percent) ofrespondents felt that only ‘to a small extent’ wasaccess to the global knowledge base expanded bythe GCF-III-supported strategic partnerships.This view was consistent with the observation thatthe GCF-III strategies were determined globally,without adequate consultation with country offices,

and seemed to respond more to corporate needs(in particular resource-mobilization needs) thanto partnerships that ‘identify policy options’ forcountries. This survey result was also consistentwith the finding that the ever-expanding numberof UNDP partners was not always accompaniedby clarity on the value added by these partnerships.

Case studies also pointed out that the decisionsto partner with specific institutions should havetaken into account criteria such as neutrality andimpartiality, especially when the partnershipapplied to politically sensitive areas in whichUNDP credibility was its main asset. Whilesome partners had an international reputationthat might have been an asset for the UNDPglobal agenda, their political identity and imageat the regional or country level might have beendetrimental to UNDP relations with nationalpartners. Developing partnerships with a largernumber of recognized Southern-based institu-tions would have balanced the impression thatpartnerships were still overwhelmingly withNorthern-based and global organizations.

With the changing international cooperationenvironment, partnerships were influenced byglobal dynamics such as the new frameworks andmechanisms for development cooperation andassistance, as well as by the UN system’s ownreform process. While aid modalities wereessentially the concern of country offices, UNDPengagement in processes such as the JointAssistance Strategies inevitably influenced itsrelations with other UN organizations, the donorcommunity, and national authorities and mayhave affected UNDP’s traditional role of ‘honestbroker’. The GCF-III had a useful role to play inharnessing lessons in this respect and providingguidance and support to country offices.

n n n

In summary, the operationalization of the GCF-III had some of the same weaknesses identifiedin the evaluation of the GCF-II. The mechanicaldistribution of resources across 24 service lines inthe four main practice areas spread resources


thinly and led to a continuation of a siloapproach. This was somewhat mitigated by theincreased emphasis on cross-practice work andthe cross-cutting areas of gender and capacitydevelopment mainstreaming. The partnershipapproach improved but lacked a clear strategy.Learning processes were inhibited by the absenceof a functional monitoring and evaluation system.

4.3 LEVERAGING THE PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE

Since the mid 1990s, UNDP has embarked upona series of corporate processes to sharpen theorganization’s thematic focus. This was aided bythe universal consensus on the MillenniumDeclaration and the adoption of MDGs in 2000.To this end, the second MYFF 2004-2007identified five practice areas as the thematic focusfor UNDP: achieving the MDGs and reducinghuman poverty; fostering democratic governance;managing energy and environment for sustainabledevelopment; responding to HIV/AIDS; andsupporting crisis prevention and recovery. 209

Vertical policy alignment (alignment of all unitswith corporate priorities) was one component ofthe GCF-III rationale. The GCF-III wasexpected to leverage the practice architecture atall levels of programming (global, regional andcountry) to strengthen UNDP support tocountries in these practice areas.

Within each practice area, significant contributionswere found when all available assets and resourceswere used with this purpose in mind and whenwell-defined corporate policy frameworks included‘feedback loops’ such as comprehensive reviews ofcountry experiences and assessments of country-level demand for services were used; global projectswere geared to the generation of knowledgeproducts that distill UNDP global practice and

convincingly argued for new policy orientations;and good complementarity existed between theroles and support services of Headquarters andregion-based policy specialists.210

The TTFs also fulfilled a useful alignment functionby providing incentives for innovation in the mainpractice areas based on guidelines that ensured ahigh degree of coherence among the projects thatwere formulated by country offices (thanks to thestrong supporting role of the regionally basedpolicy specialists).

UNDP staff had wide-ranging opinions on therole of the GCF-III in ensuring policyalignment. The vast majority emphasized thefundamental importance of policy alignment, yetsaw the GCF-III as a necessary but insufficientcondition to reach that goal. They pointed toseveral weaknesses and obstacles:

n The GCF-III was neither mandated norequipped to ensure that corporate requirementswere reflected in country programmes.Accountability to ensure substantive program-matic focus along the MYFF goals (andthereby ensure coherence between country-level activities and corporate priorities) laywith the Resident Representative/ResidentCoordinator. The policy specialists were notempowered to assess or address the coherenceof country office activities in the various practiceareas. In fact, the emphasis given to the respon-sibility of policy specialists to respond tocountry-level demand practically eliminatedthe possibility of substantive oversight. Thatresponsibility rested with the regionalbureaux directors and senior management.

n There was uneven progress in the recentregionalization processes. Progress on verticalalignment hinged on the RSCs, since theyincreasingly provided the interface between

209. The first four became the practice areas under the GCF-III and the fifth one under the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery.

210. E.g. the Electoral Support and Anti-corruption sub-practices in the Democratic Governance Group, the Trade sub-practice in the Poverty Group, the Poverty-Environment Initiative in the Environment and Energy Group, and theHIV/AIDS, Human Rights and Gender focus area in the HIV/AIDS Group.


the global and country levels. However,the roll-out of the RSC model was stillincomplete, which limited the analysis oftheir contribution to vertical alignment.Management models adopted by theBratislava RSC and, to some extent,Bangkok RSC, Colombo RSC and thePacific Centre, held the greatest promise in this respect. They used a more holisticapproach to respond to country-level demandand favoured the formation of ‘integratedteams’ of advisors that operated as UNDPgroups and no longer identified themselveson the basis of their source of financing(global or regional).

n There was continued lack of knowledge andclarity about the GCF-III role and objectivesoutside BDP. The majority of respondents tothe Resident Representative Survey felt thatthe relevance of the GCF-III to countryoffices oscillated between ‘to some extent’and ‘to a small extent’, and that, ‘to a greatextent’ the GCF-III was not achieving itsobjectives.211 There was a perception in thecountry offices that BDP was excessivelyabsorbed by Headquarters-level processes,lacking in capacity to capture regional andcountry-level specificities and trends in theevolution of demand for services.

n Inadequate attention was paid to the evolutionof demands at the country level. The majorityopinion was that, where policy alignmentexisted, it was essentially the result of top-downdecision-making processes with marginalinvolvement of country offices.

n There was a decline in the explicit focus onproducing cutting-edge knowledge productson global issues. This resulted in countryoffices being left with limited resources foranalytical or policy guidance.

n The global projects were seldom designed inconsultation with country offices and onlysporadically engaged country offices for

implementation. Therefore, they were notseen as a conduit to policy development or asa means to ensure policy alignment.

n The varying demand for, and quality of,policy specialist expertise posed constraintson their ability to play a significant role asfacilitators of policy alignment.

n n n

In summary, the GCF-III was expected toleverage the practice architecture to strengthenUNDP support to countries. Within eachpractice area, there were significant contributionsto this end when resources were dedicated to this purpose and efforts were guided by policyframeworks based on assessment of demand forservices and feedback on country experiences.Successes were achieved also when globalprojects were geared towards the generation ofknowledge products that distilled UNDP globalexperience to argue for new policy orientation. Anumber of factors adversely affected verticalalignment. Some of these factors were linked tobroader UNDP institutional arrangements andwere beyond the control of BDP, such as the lackof mandate for the GCF-III to ensure thatcorporate requirements were reflected in countryprogrammes, while others were internal to theGCF-III, such as inadequate attention to theevolving demands at country level and varyingquality of expertise of policy specialists. TheGCF-III would have benefited from systematicmonitoring of performance and lessons learned.

4.4 MATCHING DEMAND AND SUPPLY

In a global programme—where resources aremainly at Headquarters or the regional level anddevelopment outcomes are at the country level—matching supply and demand was critical. Thepolicy advisory services, the global projects andthe knowledge networks and products embodied

211. Annex F, Resident Representative Survey.


the supply. This supply should have beenmatched only to demands that fell within UNDPcorporate priorities and were consistent withBDP’s comparative advantage.

Identifying ‘demand’ was very complex. It wasnot always possible for policy specialists underthe GCF-III to meet all demands emanatingfrom country offices or programme countries.Moreover, in practice, when there was limitedcapacity or knowledge, there was a need to ‘createdemand’ by making potential services underGCF-III visible. However, there was no evidenceof a system to map the use of knowledge productsand assess their effectiveness.

A majority of country offices did not feel that the GCF-III supply matched the demand atcountry level very well. This was due to severalcontributing factors.

n UNDP was generally perceived as a goodpartner at the country level—its programmewas well aligned with national agendas andwas sensitive to national priorities andsystems. However, not all the GCF-IIIactivities were directly linked to the develop-ment demands of programme countries. Forinstance, the targeted projects were notalways based on a systematic assessment ofnational demand, even though they wererelevant to national priorities. Out of asample of 20 global projects, 11 were rankedlow on national ownership, 4 were rankedmedium and 5 were ranked high.212 This wasreflected in the annual report on resultsachieved under MYFF in the year 2006,which reported that national ownershipreceived inadequate attention across allpractice areas in 46 percent of country officesand all Headquarters units.

n The GCF-III was designed as a ‘standardpackage’ in which financial and humanresources were distributed across practice

areas, service lines and RSC/SURFs withoutmuch consideration for variations in demand.

n The GCF-III programme document did nothave a contextual analysis. Such an analysiswould have paved the way for a better matchbetween supply and demand. However, therewere cases where the programme was imple-mented differently in different regions, takinginto account the variations in their developmentcontexts (such as Least Developed Countriesor Landlocked Developing Countries), forinstance, the work on trade issues in land-locked countries and macroeconomic policyin transition economies. Overall, the omissionof contextual analysis in design and operational-ization weakened the implementation of the GCF-III.

It was a matter of concern that 60 percent ofrespondents to the Resident RepresentativeSurvey questioned the usefulness of the GCF-III. Only 6 percent felt that the GCF-IIIsupported their country in achieving the MDGs‘to a great extent’, while 33 percent felt that it did‘to some extent’, 48 percent ‘to a small extent’ and12 percent felt it ‘did not support at all’. In thecase-study countries, staff confirmed that theGCF-III was not always seen as relevant oreffective. Many had difficulties recognizing theprogramme and in most country offices there waslittle knowledge about the global projects.However the policy specialists (both in New Yorkand at RSCs/SURFs) and knowledge networkswere more readily recognized and appreciated.

Recently, BDP undertook a number of initiativesto better meet demands from country offices.Theseincluded identifying posts for RSCs based on an assessment of demand from country offices;systematically tracking requests; systematizing workwith communities of practice; and instituting anew quality assurance process for global andregional products and publications.

n n n

212. This contrasted with ‘capacity development’ which ranked ‘high’ in 14 of the projects. See also Annex G for the project analysis.


In summary, the GCF-III did not make anappropriate match between demand and supply.Viewed from the country level, the globalprojects and many knowledge products did notappear to be demand driven. The work of thepolicy specialists was more demand driven, butthey sometimes had to ‘create’ demand for theirservices. Generally, a stronger contextual analysiscould have paved the way for a better matchbetween demand and supply.

4.5 CREATING AND SHARING KNOWLEDGE

UNDP was one of the first UN organizations toacknowledge the centrality of knowledge infulfilling its mandate. It became one of the mostactive among the many multilateral and bilateralagencies in the field and was part of a secondwave of focus on knowledge management. Thenumber of knowledge sharing partnerships withUN organizations grew from zero to 15 since2003, and UNDP’s model of knowledgenetworks was being considered for piloting inseveral other UN organizations such as the UNDepartment of Peacekeeping Operations, Foodand Agriculture Organization, World FoodProgramme and the World Health Organization.

Since its introduction in 1997, the globalprogramme was UNDP’s primary vehicle for thecoordination and promotion of knowledgemanagement.213 The global frameworks weredesigned to help give coherence and direction tothe substantive work of UNDP, especially duringongoing processes of decentralization andregionalization when strong vertical linkages andknowledge flows were needed to support organi-zational cohesion and effectiveness.

The GCF-III was essential to UNDP efforts to be a knowledge organization. UNDP wasparticularly well known within the UN systemfor its Human Development Reports and itspioneering models of global knowledge networksand communities of practice that aimed toconnect people to expertise. However, at thecountry level, few were aware of the GCF-IIIknowledge products and projects to which theywere end-users.

In the design of the GCF-III, key aspects neededto provide knowledge to developing countries’policy agendas were well thought through.The GCF-III promoted ‘collecting’ (creating and codifying) and ‘connecting’ (sharing andlearning) knowledge management strategies, andits three objectives all addressed the need forUNDP to be effective in both. This, however,required UNDP to field enough staff memberswith the appropriate expertise to advise countryoffices and national counterparts in priorityareas, and/or who were skilled in creating,mobilizing, interpreting and sharing relevantknowledge across the organization and in serviceof programme countries. The GCF-III neithermade available such a large, critical mass of staffin support of these function, nor did UNDPexplicitly seek to integrate or mainstream such afunction across the organization.

Another strength in the design of the GCF-III,which was not clearly reflected in the resultsframework, was that it linked the three keymodalities of delivery—policy advisory services,targeted projects and knowledge management—and ensured that they were mutually reinforcingtowards achievement of the GCF-III objectives.214

213. The strong focus on knowledge was already articulated in GCF-I: “To distil from country-level experience lessonslearned and identify new, innovative ideas ... to disseminate this knowledge globally and promote further research, debateand application as appropriate; to explore ways and means of translating global priorities into country-level follow-up action ...; and to encourage studies on concrete, practical policy measures ... to the emerging challenges of the twenty-first century. These purposes can only be achieved through a process of capturing the knowledge andexperience of a diverse range of countries and regions and formulating them into tools and concepts with global application.” UNDP, ‘First Global Country Cooperation Framework, 1997-2000’, DP/GCF/1/Rev.1, 13 August 1997.

214. Analysis of the envisaged outcomes of the GCF-III showed that three of the four were focused on providing nationalstakeholders with appropriate and needed knowledge, using the established practice architecture and global projects asmeans to the end. Due to the nature of global projects (not country-specific) they were likely to support the production ofuseful knowledge rather than contribute direct assistance to national stakeholders. The focus on knowledge productionwas indeed reflected in the design and implementation of the projects.


The GCF-III design was to provide both thearchitecture (the practice and knowledgemanagement experts) and the opportunities (toidentify, create, codify and share knowledge) tomove towards the common goal of strengtheningnational and country office capacities. Thisintegrated approach was well articulated in theprogramme document215 and provided aconvincing argument for the management of thethree components within one framework.

However, the knowledge management componentof the GCF-III could not provide an integratingframework for the work of the other twocomponents as intended, since it failed to fullycapture experiences emanating from activitiesundertaken by UNDP programmes that wereoutside the GCF-III or BDP.216

Establishing an effective framework requiredclose collaboration with regional bureaux andcountry offices. Organizational systems andimplementation processes therefore needed topromote such collaboration effectively if theprogramme objectives were to be achieved.

Two inter-related shifts during the evolutionfrom the GCF-I to the GCF-III had significantimplications: an increased focus on beingdemand-driven to ensure national ownership ofdevelopment efforts, and a decrease in the focuson cutting-edge work on the production anddistribution of public goods.217 If the GCF-IIIdesign emphasized meeting national requests atthe expense of being at the cutting edge ofdevelopment work that could help countries, itwould affect UNDP’s comparative advantage andniche within and beyond the UN system. Itwould also affect how it structured its in-house

expertise, activities and incentives systems. Thisemerging dichotomy would have to be addressedin the design of a new global programme.

n n n

In summary, the global programmes played anessential role in UNDP becoming a knowledge-networked organization. An enabling environmentwas necessary to expand the early successes ofknowledge networks and other knowledgeproducts. More collaborative efforts were neededacross UNDP to ensure that country experienceswere fully reflected in the knowledge products.Efforts to integrate the three GCF-III modalitiesof delivery (policy advisory services, targetedprojects and knowledge sharing) were not alwayssuccessful in the operationalization and imple-mentation of the GCF-III.

4.6 ENABLING SOUTH-SOUTHSOLUTIONS

The GCF-III programme document planned torespond to programme countries’ request forSouth-based development solutions in two ways:through an increase in opportunities for SSC andSouthern partnerships; and through collaborationwith the Special Unit for SSC.218 The GCF-IIIdocument also identified enabling “developingcountries to benefit from interregional knowledgeexchange and South-based experiences” as one ofits three objectives.219

Since the 1970s, SSC was a priority for UNDPand was pursued through global, regional andcountry programmes. However, the promotion ofSouthern solutions to development challengesintroduced additional dimensions to the classic

215. This approach underpinned the whole document, but was articulated in particular in Section VI, paragraph 18.UNDP,‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005.

216. For example, the statement: “The outcomes of the project (Knowledge Services Project 11408) have taken the form ofa number of inter-related outputs…”UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme 2006 Annual Report’, UNDP BDP, 2007.The GCF-III reporting is project not programme-based and Project 11408 is the strategy for operationalizing theknowledge management component.

217. UNDP, ‘Second Global Cooperation Framework, 2000-2003’, DP/GCF/2, 27 November 2000.218. UNDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1, 22 April 2005, paragraph 8(c).219. Ibid, paragraph 14(c).


definition of SSC, which was based on country-driven and country-owned exchanges of experi-ences, skills and resources.

The economic transformation of many developingcountries, the growing stature of a number ofcountries as regional centres, and the emergenceof non-Development Assistance Committeedonors generated new dynamics for SSC and areshaping of international cooperation. Thetraditional distinction between donor andrecipient has become increasingly blurred, eachbeing both a provider of support and a user ofresources from other developing countries.

The GCF-III was expected to bring its owncontribution to these dynamics and make themost of the growth of SSC to respond to thechanging needs of programme countries. Thiswould complement the activities of the SpecialUnit for SSC, which is housed by UNDP.

While the GCF-III generated and assisted manyactivities that included an SSC component, itprovided neither a framework nor guidance thatcould bring together the global SSC experience.Thus the diverse efforts under the GCF-III tosupport SSC may not lead to a global outcome ofpromoting SSC. A recent evaluation of UNDPcontribution to SSC noted that “the results of[UNDP initiatives are] affected by the absence ofa corporate strategy that commits capacity andresources and enables learning from experience.”220

This evaluation concurs with that finding.

However, numerous examples illustrated how theGCF-III promoted Southern solutions throughinterregional transfer of knowledge, including:

n The International Poverty Centre’s researchprogramme on conditional cash transfersanalyzed the experience of major LatinAmerican countries with a view to sharinglessons learned and policy guidance with

Sub-Saharan African countries through anetwork of experts and government officials.

n The Democratic Governance Group’s supportto electoral assistance was based on lessonslearned from a range of country experiencesthat were converted into case studies andshared with electoral institutions around theworld in order to promote a transition fromthe traditional focus on ‘getting ready’ forelection day to a focus on managing entireelectoral cycles.

n The support provided by the Beirut SURF tothe organizers of the first African conferenceon Human Development was an opportunityto promote innovative poverty measurementmethodologies that were used successfully inseveral Arab countries.

n The knowledge fairs organized by the PanamaSURF on local governance and the environ-ment enabled Latin American authorities toshare lessons from successful innovations andto offer methodological assistance on theirpossible replication or adaptation.

n Interregional knowledge transfer was facili-tated by communities of practice andknowledge networks that reached out tonational actors, as well as by the involvementof Southern experts in policy advice andtechnical assistance activities.

Many UNDP staff conceded that their use ofSSC was more ‘casual’ than ‘structural’ and thatmore could be done to systematize the knowledgeand convert it into a global public good. In manycases, they saw SSC as a succession of ‘one-off ’events or processes with little follow up, asopposed to being an integral part of policy andprogramme. Obstacles mentioned included thefollowing: an insufficient understanding of whatSSC meant or the extent to which SSC addedvalue to UNDP work; the lack of time andresources for knowledge management; the

220. UNDP, ‘Evaluation of UNDP Contribution to South-South Cooperation’, UNDP Evaluation Office, New York,NY, 2007, p. i.


ongoing pressure of responding to individualcountry requests and resulting difficulties of ‘contextualizing’ through comparisons andcooperation with other countries; the frequentabsence of explicit SSC components in country-level programmes and initiatives that policyspecialists were called upon to assist; lack ofaccountability for SSC in UNDP; and theabsence of resources to translate materials intoother languages.

There was also potential for duplication betweenthe GCF-III knowledge management mandateand the related information sharing mandate ofthe Special Unit for SSC. For example, fundingfor the SSC programme was provided in part “...to finance the sharing of successful South-Southexperiences, expertise and knowledge, with theobjective of making them an integral part ofcountry, regional and interregional programmes.”221

Only a few instances of collaboration were foundbetween the GCF-III-funded staff and activitiesand the Special Unit for SSC. There was nocollaborative framework between BDP and theSpecial Unit for SSC. The Special Unit did nothave a policy that defined the nature and extentof the services that country offices were expectedto receive from it, nor did it participate regularlyin practice-related policy advice and advocacyactivities other than its own. Much could be doneto address the emerging strategic features of SSCby combining the Special Unit for SSC globalapproach and the GCF-III practical involvementincluding involving new actors and donors;establishing partnerships between Southerncountries;222 creating new practices such as East-East cooperation; addressing the role of middle-income countries as providers of developmentsolutions; and providing on-the-ground promotionof SSC in the main practice areas.

n n n

In summary, the GCF-III had a vast but under-realized potential for promoting Southern solutionsto development challenges. Collaboration betweenthe GCF-III and the Special Unit for SSC wasnot used or made explicit through policy andprogramme guidance.223 A parallel between SSCand capacity development could be drawn in that,in the UNDP institutional culture, both werehistorically everybody’s business. Like capacitydevelopment, SSC was an important factor in the quest for stronger medium and long-termsustainability of development results. However,much remains to be done to mainstream SSC inthe global programme.

4.7 MANAGING INSTITUTIONALCOMPLEXITIES OF THE GCF-III

To address key challenges related to the manage-ment of the GCF-III, BDP launched a number ofinternal change management and re-alignmentinitiatives. The changes were intended toreconfigure BDP with improved service delivery,enhanced operations and strengthened manage-ment. While this was a positive step—and mayrespond to many of the issues raised in thisevaluation—a better understanding of theunderlying institutional complexities associatedwith the management of the GCF-III may leadto a better design, better management and morecost-effective delivery of measurable results.Some of these complexities are discussed below.

4.7.1 UNDP PROGRAMMING ARRANGEMENTS

The GCF-III core resources were allocated as a single line item in the financial framework ofUNDP’s programming arrangements. A numberof internal reviews of the programming arrange-ments pointed to the need for major changes to increase the flexibility and accountability inthe use of core resources. The assignment of

221. UNDP, ‘Proposals on Programming Arrangements for the Period 2008-2011’, DP/2007/44, 3 August 2007, paragraph 36.222. For example, IBSA, a trilateral, developmental initiative that brings together India, Brazil and South Africa.223. While finalizing its report, BDP informed that, following the evaluation of UNDP contribution to SSC, it was taking

the lead in developing a corporate approach and strategy to SSC in collaboration with the Special Unit.


responsibility for the global programme to BDPcould engender a sense of entitlement: that is, thefeeling that the GCF-III and its core fundsbelonged to BDP.

To address this issue, UNDP developed aninternal proposal in 2007 for the inclusion of a‘development effectiveness’ line in the program-ming arrangements for 2008-2011. The purposeof the proposal was to consolidate all policyadvisory and programme support posts withinUNDP under one resource allocation. Thiswould have included policy specialist posts inBDP as well as similar posts in the regionalprogrammes, central bureaux and some countryoffices. Based on this proposal, the decision tofund such posts from core programme resourceswould be open, transparent and would removethe potential for duplication across bureaux andcountry offices. The proposal was not submittedto the Executive Board in view of UNDP’spreoccupation with other major developments,such as preparation of the Strategic Plan,and time constraints. However, there may be an opportunity to revisit the proposal for adevelopment effectiveness line, which would helpresolve UNDP funding of policy advisory andprogramme support functions from all sources ofcore funding,224 including the global programme.

4.7.2 COMPLEX BDP BUSINESS MODEL

BDP is a complex organization, consisting of 16 separate business models, with a staff of 192 atHeadquarters and 136 who are decentralized.These business models include the differentpractice groups, central bureaux structures, andunits managing different funds, such as the GEF,Montreal Protocol and MDG Units. If the globalprogramme continues with its present design ofdispersing resources (staff posts and projects)across the numerous units at Headquarters and atthe field level, planning for and determining

which results and outcomes are attributable tothe global programme and which are attributableto other BDP inputs will continue to be a major challenge. Any meaningful performancemeasurement and accountability will be dilutedor lost.

4.7.3 THE GCF-III AND THE MULTIPLEROLES OF BDP

The management of the GCF-III was adverselyaffected by the multiple, and possibly conflicting,roles of BDP (roles that were funded by theGCF-III). Many country office staff had theperception that BDP was a distant think tankabsorbed by Headquarter-level processes,removed from realities at the country level andcaught in the tensions between different roles.The multiple roles and processes include:

n Policy and ‘think tank’—The GCF-III, asthe UNDP global programme par excellence,did not support a cohesive UNDP policydevelopment, applied research and develop-ment or coordination function. Further, theGCF-III did not support BDP to be “…theleading voice for UNDP in the developmentpolicy debate.”225

n Service delivery—BDP was heavily involvedin the implementation of policy through theroll-out of the practice architecture, thedelivery of policy advisory services andprogramme support to the country offices,and the management of knowledgenetworks. There were some benefits in aHeadquarters unit such as BDP becominginvolved in delivery at the local level (such ashaving feedback on factoring local experiencesinto global policy). However, the balancebetween policy work and service delivery wasnot always carefully managed to ensure synergyrather than conflict between operational unitsand the policy bureaux.

224. The team was informed that UNDP (Bureau of Management) is commencing a phased review of cost allocation, the endresult of which may be proposals for major changes to the programming arrangements in the next cycle. The purpose of thisreview is to examine how posts in UNDP are classified and funded (programme, programme support and management).

225. UNDP, ‘BDP Alignment Process: Implementing the Strategic Plan and Accelerating Human Development,’ UNDP BDP,30 January 2008, p.4 .


n Operations—BDP managed many funds andimplemented hundreds of global projects, ofwhich 121 were funded with the GCF-IIIfunds. In the past, projects were executedand implemented by the UN Office forProject Services and other agencies. Forglobal projects, BDP had become in somerespects an operations agency, where projectoperation issues cut into the time of profes-sional staff, including the GCF-III-fundedpolicy specialists.

n n n

In summary, the management of the GCF-IIIfaced a number of challenges: the programmingarrangements assigned resources and responsibil-ity to a single authority (BDP) while theperformance of the GCF-III was dependent onnumber of units, particularly, the regionalbureaux and country offices; the managementinvolved a complex array of business modelsassociated with different units within BDP; andthe multiple and, at times conflicting, managerialroles required under the GCF-III (such as thoserelated to policy advisory services, service deliveryand operations).

C H A P T E R 5 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 8 1

This evaluation illustrates the complexity of theGCF-III, which was intended to play a criticalrole within UNDP in supporting programmecountries. The GCF-III sought to providesupport within the guiding framework of thesecond MYFF 2004-2007, using a range ofinterconnected implementation modalities. TheGCF-III was able to deliver a wide range ofproducts and services, particularly within UNDP’ssupporting regional and country programmearchitecture, as well as at the programme countrylevel. However, demonstrating that these productsand services resulted in concrete developmentresults at the programme country level is difficult.The GCF-III faced considerable programmatic,systemic and managerial challenges in achievingits intended outcomes.

This chapter identifies a range of factors thatinfluenced the GCF-III’s performance. UNDPaddressed some of the factors that adverselyaffected the performance of the GCF-IIIthrough a number of initiatives taken over thepast year-and-a-half, but much remains to bedone. The recommendations identify criticalareas where changes are needed and, wherepossible, direction for such changes.

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

The global programme has an important role toplay in the context of the broader programminglandscape of UNDP. The GCF-III registeredsome successes, but was unable to translate theminto a systematic programme of a global naturefor a range of systemic, design and management-related reasons. There was a lack of clarityregarding its ‘global’ role, its ‘cooperation’ agendaand modalities, and the scope and purpose of itsprogrammatic ‘framework’.

1. The GCF-III fell short in its strategic mission to underpin and integrate the practice architecture of UNDP.

In particular:

(a) The GCF-III was placed at the centre of thepractice architecture to provide coordination,guidance and knowledge services to countryprogrammes on practice-related issues.Considerable intellectual capital was madeavailable through the network of policyspecialists and other experts, and some usefulwork was conducted. However, the full scopeof these mandated functions could not beaddressed effectively in all programme countriesdue to limited core resources and inadequateinstitutional support mechanisms.

(b) The central role of the global programme inthe practice architecture of UNDP and instrengthening support to countries in each ofthese practice areas was not fully recognizedby most UNDP units. In most cases, the frame-work was not seen as a programme throughwhich new ideas and innovative approachesemanating from country experiences wereinfused into the entire UNDP system.

2. The effectiveness of the GCF-III in meetingdemand was constrained by weak strategicchoices regarding focus areas, implementationmodalities,allocation of resources and partnerships.

In particular:

(a) The contribution of the GCF-III to theachievement of development results could havebeen significantly strengthened by focusingon areas of high demand, in which it also hada clear comparative advantage. The servicelines of the MYFF 2005-2007 were taken asthe programmatic determinant. This resulted

Chapter 5

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

C H A P T E R 5 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S8 2

in insufficient attention being paid to areaswhere the programme could have made amajor contribution, while continuing to fundareas where the programme could not add asmuch value.

(b) Emphasis on developing generic approachesrather than contextualizing products andservices in order to address specificities ofsub-regions or country types limited theappropriateness of the work. Partnerships,with a few notable exceptions, were moreopportunistic than strategic, and did not fullyexploit the comparative advantages of partnersor build new development opportunities forprogramme countries.

(c) By virtue of its global mandate, and in linewith the guiding principles of the MYFF, theGCF-III was in a strong position to developcross-practice approaches to address complexdevelopment challenges for application bycountry and regional programmes. It was also well placed to provide guidance onmainstreaming approaches in the areas ofgender, capacity development and otherissues, such as HIV/AIDS. The GCF-IIIcould have enhanced its relevance byfocusing more systematically on cross-practice and mainstreaming approaches.

3. The GCF-III contributed to UNDP becoming amore globally-networked knowledge organization.

In particular:

(a) The support of the GCF-III to knowledgenetworking was an effective means tosupport practice and cross-practice work. Ingeneral, the practice networks, websites andother instruments to share knowledge wereappreciated by internal stakeholders.However, the effectiveness of the sharing andexchange of knowledge was constrained byan ad-hoc approach to codification, mostpractice networks being closed to externalpartners, and the uneven quality of theknowledge products. Such ad hoc approachesalso prevented the GCF-III from engagingin SSC in a systematic way. Early successes

achieved through the networks were notoptimized through systematic codificationand technical improvements.

(b) While the GCF-III made considerable effortsto enhance knowledge management and somesuccesses were achieved in strengtheningUNDP as a globally-networked knowledgeorganization, the absence of a corporatestrategy meant it could not achieve its fullpotential in knowledge management.

4. Weak management and lack of corporateoversight limited the effectiveness of the GCF-III.

In particular:

(a) The GCF-III would have benefited signifi-cantly from a consistent application ofresults-based management principles andtechniques. By neglecting standard UNDPplanning, monitoring, reporting and evaluationpractices, decision makers were deprived ofclear programmatic targets and the opportunityto regularly assess the contribution of theprogramme to the achievement of developmentresults. Management could not use evaluativeevidence to strengthen the quality of theprogramme’s products, services and approachesor make strategic decisions regarding thefuture direction of the programme.

(b) There was little evidence of a clear under-standing between BDP and the regionalbureaux on their respective roles and respon-sibilities in their collaborative efforts,especially in the RSCs and SURFs. Thematrix management system through whichBDP-funded policy specialists weremanaged was not generally effective insupporting the alignment of the practicearchitecture. The tensions that arose frommixed funding mechanisms and multiplelines of accountability weakened thepotential effectiveness of the framework.These tensions will have to be addressed inthe regionalization strategy.

(c) In the absence of an internal UNDPoversight mechanism, UNDP was unable toharness the full potential of the framework


for the benefit of the organization. Moreover,without an external consultative process withdevelopment partners, the responsivenessand relevance of the GCF-III to emergingpriorities of programme countries was uneven.

5. Although the GCF-III has not fulfilled itsglobal role, there is a need for a globalprogramme in UNDP.

In particular:

(a) The GCF-III has supported some successfulinitiatives to strengthen support to programmecountries drawing from the global experienceof UNDP, and at the country level there issignificant demand for the type of servicesprovided by the programme. However, thesesuccesses were not translated into a systematiceffort of a global nature and the frameworkwas unable to go beyond compiling countryexperiences to use this accumulated knowledgeto contribute to global development debatesand approaches on any significant scale.

(b) There are development issues that cannot beaddressed solely at the country or regionallevels, for which UNDP needs a globalprogramme. Given its universal presence,UNDP has the potential to contribute toglobal development debates and approachesdrawing from its development experience atthe country, regional and global levels. In turn,UNDP can benefit all programme countriesby drawing from this global experience anddeveloping innovative development policyapproaches as well as facilitating SSC. In this regard, the GCF-III has not realized itsfull potential.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

This evaluation recommends that UNDP shoulddesign a new global programme that embodies a clear departure from the previous globalcooperation frameworks. The new globalprogramme should be based on demand fromprogramme countries, be fully integrated withinUNDP, and add value as a ‘global’ programme. Itshould address ‘global’ issues and leverage all

UNDP entities with a view to generating,codifying and applying ‘global’ knowledge. Thefollowing detailed recommendations aim tosupport UNDP in developing such a new globalprogramme. They are intended to be mutuallyreinforcing and should be treated as a whole.

1. The new global programme should clearly set out its global role, developmentgoals, a strategic focus and a correspondingresults and accountability framework based on the following considerations:

(a) A clear rationale and the specification of clearcriteria to distinguish global programmeinitiatives from those that can be addressedat the regional and country level.

(b) A programme approach, which should replacethe current framework approach. It shouldhave unambiguous goals, a clear substantivefocus and a detailed results framework thatcovers all dimensions of the programme.

(c) A clear definition of its global contributionand its contribution to programme countries,through the regional and country programmearchitecture of UNDP.

(d) Alignment with the UNDP strategic plan.It should continue to work within and across the three main focus areas identifiedtherein, namely poverty reduction, democraticgovernance and environment. Within each ofthese focus areas, work should be concentratedon a limited number of key result areasselected on the basis of past performance andcomparative advantage. The approach in theGCF-III of carrying out activities in allservice lines should be discontinued.

(e) A concentration on mainstreaming approachesin the cross-cutting areas of gender equality,capacity development and HIV/AIDS acrossthe focus areas for application by regionaland country programmes.

(f ) The identification of means to reduce thedependency on the global programme tofund posts required by BDP to carry out itscore functions such as global development

C H A P T E R 5 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S8 4

policy work and practice coordination anddevelopment. One option may be to amendexisting programming arrangements toexplicitly allow for the funding of BDP posts.

2. UNDP should develop improved corporatestrategies and delivery mechanisms so that thenew global programme can better support theachievement of results at the country levelbased on the following considerations:

(a) The need for a corporate knowledgemanagement policy and strategy that clearlyidentifies the type of knowledge to becodified, how the processes are managed, andhow best to respond to the needs of theorganization and programme countries. Therole of the new global programme inimplementing the new strategy should beclearly defined.

(b) The new global programme should providecountry offices and their national partners withcodification of cutting-edge analyses of globalissues that are grounded in UNDP experience.

(c) Demand by country offices for policy advisory,knowledge and programme support shouldbe met by units best placed to respond basedon their location and capacity. Primaryresponsibility and accountability should restwith the RSCs for managing and deliveringprogramme and policy support to countryoffices and for conveying country levelexperience back to the central bureauxresponsible for analysis and codification.

(d) Responsibility for implementing the newglobal programme should be shared by BDPand the regional bureaux through the RSCs.Those components involving the provision ofservices and support to the country levelshould be managed by the regional bureauxand the RSCs. Resources for the new globalprogramme should be allocated and managedbased on the requirements of the programme’sfunctions at the global and regional levelsand the comparative advantage of respectiveUNDP units.

3. The new global programme should have anexplicit strategy to partner systematically withother UN organizations and developmentinstitutions in order to contribute to developmentpolicy debates and approaches that are criticalto programme countries for the achievement of their development goals by:

(a) Identifying partners who will add most valuein priority areas, specifying joint outcomes tobe achieved, and identifying sustainedcooperation modalities.

(b) Collaborating with other United Nationsdevelopment agencies and developmentpartners to effectively address globaldevelopment challenges and contribute toglobal development debates and approaches.

(c) Strengthening SSC modalities, in closepartnership with programme countries, centresof excellence worldwide and the Special Unitfor SSC,as a means of ensuring the relevance andappropriateness of the knowledge generated,codified and further promoted.

(d) Enabling the thematic centres to enter intolong-term collaboration with Southern thinktanks and centres of excellence.

4. UNDP should establish a management systemfor the new global programme that ensuresresults orientation and accountability throughstrengthened corporate management andcompliance with standard UNDP programmingrequirements by:

(a) Institutionalizing standard results-basedplanning, performance monitoring andreporting practices that are underpinned by effective support mechanisms, such as acomprehensive substantive database.

(b) Establishing standards of managementperformance across all work areas andensuring, through central coordination, themost strategic deployment of human andfinancial resources and consistency inimplementation.

(c) Instituting regular audits and outcomeevaluations.


(d) Conducting a mid-term review of the newglobal programme to ensure that benchmarksoutlined in the management response to theGCF-III evaluation, and set in the newglobal programme approved by the ExecutiveBoard, are met.

5. UNDP should institutionalize mechanisms toensure corporate oversight and ownership ofthe global programme by:

(a) Strengthening mechanisms to enable theactive participation and full support fromcorporate UNDP in order to promote buy-inby all units that it serves and from which itdraws vital development information.

(b) Ensuring synergy among the different UNDPunits dealing with policy development at theglobal level, including the Human Development

Report Office, the Office of DevelopmentStudies, and the Bureau for Crisis Preventionand Recovery, in order to contribute moreeffectively to global policy debates andadvances in development approaches.

(c) Establishing an advisory board for the globalprogramme involving external partners andinternal stakeholders, in order to identifycomparative advantage and ensure therelevance of a new global programme.

(d) Ensuring corporate oversight over the globalprogramme, through a senior managementgroup such as the operations group ormanagement group.

(e) Explicitly reporting, on an annual basis, onthe performance of the new globalprogramme, as part of the regular system ofreporting by UNDP to the Executive Board.

A N N E X A . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 8 7

I. BACKGROUND

The principal objective of the the third globalcooperation framework (GCF-III), 2005-2007,approved by the Executive Board in January2005, is to support programme countries inachieving the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) and make the principles enshrined inthe Millennium Declaration a reality. This is tobe achieved by the GCF-III, also frequentlyreferred to as the ‘global programme’, in tandemwith UNDP’s regional and country programmes.Four priority areas outlined in UNDP’s Multi-Year Funding Framework (MYFF), 2004-2007,comprise the substantive core of the GCF-III:(a) achieving the MDGs and reducing humanpoverty; (b) fostering democratic governance;(c) managing energy and environment for sustain-able development; and (d) responding to HIV/AIDS. The GCF-III initiatives in these fourareas aim to accelerate progress towards theMDGs through policy support services, globallearning, knowledge management and capacitydevelopment. The principles and deliveryapproaches of the GCF-III are aligned with thedrivers of development effectiveness defined bythe MYFF.1

During its June 2007 session, the ExecutiveBoard approved a one-year extension of theGCF-III, which will now end in December2008. The Board is scheduled to review theperformance of the GCF-III and to consider anew global programme at its September 2008session. It is in this context that UNDP’sEvaluation Office is conducting a comprehensiveand independent assessment of the GCF-III.

II. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

The purpose of the evaluation will be to facilitatethe Executive Board’s review of the GCF-III andprovide strategic inputs into its deliberations on anew global programme as well as other, broaderprogrammatic implications.

The evaluation will also provide UNDP manage-ment with findings and recommendations thatare expected to assist in identifying strategies andoperational approaches to further strengthenUNDP’s development effectiveness through itsglobal programme, in coordination with itsregional and country programmes.

III. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

Specific objectives of the the GCF-III evaluationare as follows:

1. To determine the extent to which the GCF-IIIcontributed towards the accomplishment ofintended organizational goals and develop-ment results in (i) achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty, (ii) fosteringdemocratic governance, (iii) managingenergy and environment, and (iv) respondingto HIV/AIDS

2. To assess the performance of the GCF-IIIand specify development results achieved—particularly at the outcome level—in termsof (i) country-level policy advice andprogramme support, (ii) targeted globalprojects, (iii) strategic partnerships and (iv) knowledge management

3. To establish the extent to which the GCF-III (i) promoted national ownership and

1. UNDP, ‘BDP Alignment Process: Implementing the Strategic Plan and Accelerating Human Development’, UNDPBDP, 30 January 2008, p. 4.

Annex A

TERMS OF REFERENCE

A N N E X A . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E8 8

leadership of the development process,(ii) mainstreamed a gender perspective in allprojects and practice areas, and (iii) appliedan appropriate and coherent capacitydevelopment approach throughout

4. To ascertain the role the GCF-III has had inestablishing or strengthening UNDPcomparative advantage as a major upstreamglobal policy advisor for poverty reductionand sustainable human development

5. To analyze the GCF-III’s contributiontowards establishing UNDP as a knowledge-based organization and, in particular, toassess the degree of innovation among theGCF-III initiatives and their value additionand contribution to generating and sharingknowledge within UNDP and withprogramme countries

6. To identify the main lessons learnt including,in particular, the extent to which the GCF-III constituted the most appropriatemechanism in providing development servicesand building capacity as envisaged in the projectdocument, and develop recommendations forthe design of a new global programme,covering policy and priority areas, plusinstitutional and implementation aspects

IV. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

In line with UNDP’s overall focus on humandevelopment, a priority that is reflected inUNDP’s evaluation policy, this evaluation willseek to place the GCF-III in a human develop-ment context. An overarching concern will thusbe to ascertain the extent to which the GCF-IIIhas upheld human development principles andhas mainstreamed them in all aspects of its work.In reviewing in detail the different elements of theGCF-III, and in applying a range of evaluationcriteria as described in more detail below, theevaluation will need to bear in mind UNDP’smission to promote human development.

The intention of the GCF-III evaluation is tofocus on strategic issues, in particular on the

contribution of the GCF-III to (i) developmentresults, as envisaged in the project document;(ii) the integrity of UNDP’s work throughprogrammatic and knowledge-based linkagesbetween global, regional and country pro-grammes; and (iii) the external standing ofUNDP as a development player that adds valueand plays a pivotal coordinating role within theUnited Nations (UN) system and beyond.

The evaluation will thus assess the overallrelevance and effectiveness of the GCF-III,covering, in broad terms, its entire programmaticand geographic scope. The evaluation will beguided by key questions relating to these twoprimary evaluation criteria:

RELEVANCE

1. To what extent has the GCF-III supportedUNDP’s vision, overall strategies and role indevelopment, especially at the global level?What distinctly ‘global issues’ has the GCF-III addressed, as distinct from issues at thecountry, region and interregional levels?

2. How has the role and strategic focus of theGCF-III support been relevant to countryand regional priorities, including relevance tothe achievement of the MDGs? To what extentis the GCF-III relevant and/or linked to the Regional Cooperation Frameworks (orRegional Programmes)?

3. What was the relevance of and possiblesynergies between the four practice areas(poverty, governance, energy/environmentand HIV/AIDS) and the cross-cutting areasof gender equality, capacity building andnational ownership, particularly in relation to the the GCF-III programme objectivesand principles?

4. To what degree have the GCF-III-fundedservices based out of the Regional ServiceCentres (RSCs) and Subregional ResourceFacilities (SURFs) been relevant from thecountry/regional perspective? How has theGCF-III enhanced the RSC/SURF’s abilityto respond to the diversity and nature of


demands from country offices for policyadvice, or strengthened the quality ofprogramme support? Has the RSC/SURFmechanism added value to, and improved thecost-effectiveness of, the GCF-III productsand services? Have the structural changesfrom SURFs to RSCs had any impact on theGCF-III?

5. To what extent has the GCF-III supportedthe UN reform initiatives for greater coordi-nation and cohesion of UN organizationsand in the simplification and harmonizationof development at the global, regional andcountry levels? To what degree has the GCF-III supported the Resident Coordinatorfunction, and UNDP as the manager of theResident Coordinator function?

EFFECTIVENESS

6. What key factors underlined the effectiveness,usefulness, strengths and weaknesses ofapproaches and strategies applied by theGCF-III? What risks and barriers to successwere anticipated at the outset? Were thereany unanticipated events, opportunities orconstraints? Were the anticipated policyinfluences achieved? Did alternative onesemerge? What could be done differently inthe future?

7. How did the GCF-III policies and practicesinfluence and add value to UNDP system-widemodalities and mechanisms for supportingcountries’ development efforts in the differentpractice areas covered? How well did theGCF-III leverage non-core resourcestowards achievement of results, as defined inthe programme document?

8. What effect did management and institu-tional arrangements have on BDP in termsof programming, delivery and monitoring ofimplementation of the GCF-III at theHeadquarters level, at the regional level andat the country level? What measures were takento assure the quality of development resultsand management practices, both in relationto process and products, and to partnership

strategies? What monitoring and evaluationprocedures were applied by UNDP andpartners to ensure greater accountability?

9. To what extent did the proceduresestablished by the GCF-III ensure relevanceand learning at the institutional and nationallevels with regard to the choice of specificdevelopment interventions, and the ways andmeans used to communicate results (e.g.operation of programmes, including advocacy,policy dialogue, brokerage, knowledge manage-ment and dissemination etc.)?

10. How effective and efficient were the institu-tional components of the GCF-III/BDP: i.e.the modality and mechanisms for deliveringservice lines and their cost-effectiveness,including the role of relevant UNDP bureauxor organizational units such as HumanDevelopment Report Office (HDRO) andOffice of Development Studies (ODS), andthe way these interface with each other andcomplement each other’s work in supportingthe goals and objectives of the GCF-III?

11. How well have the resource mobilization andfunding criteria and mechanisms of BDPworked, including the allocation methods (asapplicable to the global projects, theThematic Trust Funds (TTFs) and othermodalities and mechanisms)?

12. In terms of ownership by key target groups,what factors influenced (i) the motivation forspecific development interventions supportedby the GCF-III, (ii) the role and level ofengagement of partners, (iii) the appropriate-ness of different implementation modalitieschosen, and (iv) the value-added fromUNDP’s collaboration and results achieved(i.e. development effectiveness)?

SUSTAINABILITY

In looking at issues of effectiveness and relevance,it will be important to review the extent to whichdifferent elements of the GCF-III contributed tothe establishment of sustainable capacities of itstarget groups. To what extent were the GCF-IIIinitiatives led by a concern to ensure sustainability?


How was this concern reflected in the design ofthe programme, in the implementation of activitiesat different levels, in the delivery of outputs andthe achievement of outcomes? In particular, didthe regionally-based advisory services help buildcapacities in a sustainable manner or were theymore ad-hoc (driven by other factors)?

EFFICIENCY

Where appropriate, the evaluation will also coverefficiency-related issues, particularly in order tounderstand management arrangements and the operational realities of the GCF-III and its linkages with other UNDP programmeimplementation mechanisms and modalities atthe regional and country levels.

The evaluation of the GCF-II, completed in 2004,should be taken as a starting point in identifyingpertinent evaluation questions, particularly with aview to ascertaining how recommendations weretaken into account and followed up on indesigning and implementing the GCF-III.

V. EVALUATION APPROACH

In view of the complexity of the GCF-III, theevaluation will seek to obtain data from a rangeof sources, including through desk reviews anddocument analyses, surveys and questionnaires,as well as stakeholder consultations, interviewsand focus groups at UNDP Headquarters and ina range of programme countries, RSC/SURFsand other relevant institutions or locations. Therationale for using a range of data sources (data,perceptions, evidence) is to triangulate findingsin a situation where much of the data, due to thevery nature of the GCF-III, is qualitative, and itsinterpretation thus critically dependent on theevaluators’ judgement. Triangulation provides animportant tool in shoring up evidence by usingdifferent data sources to inform the analysis ofspecific issues.

Where possible and appropriate, the evaluationshould seek to obtain evidence as to what may or may not have occurred in the absence of the GCF-III. Some of UNDP’s programmes or

modalities may not, due to the very design of theGCF-III, have benefited from the GCF-IIIsupport. Such programmes or modalities maythus serve to provide insights into the relativevalue added of the GCF-III.

LOGIC MODEL AND EVALUABILITY ANALYSIS

In launching the evaluation, an important, initialexercise will be to develop a logic model for theGCF-III, taking into account (i) its expectedoutcomes, as defined in the project document,(ii) any strategic or operational changesintroduced during the implementation process,and (iii) important and apparent milestones andachievements, as outlined in progress reports.The logic model will serve to highlight the theoryof change underpinning the GCF-III and will assistin identifying, at an early stage, any challenges orbottlenecks that may affect the evaluability of theGCF-III. The evaluation methodology may thusneed to be adjusted accordingly.

CASE STUDY APPROACH

The broad scope of the evaluation, will not permitthe selection of a sufficiently large number of casestudies that could be considered a ‘representativesample’ of the GCF-III initiatives. Therefore, itwill be necessary to generalize from the findingsof case studies that are considered most ‘typical’of the GCF-III and thus lend themselves best togeneralization. It is expected that individual casestudies will comprise the global, regional andcountry level, in line with the vertical integrationthat is typical of the GCF-III’s programmeapproach. I.e., in looking at different practiceareas, modalities or principles, it will beimportant to recognize their linkages from theglobal, through the regional to the nationallevels. The case study approach will comprise ofthe following elements:

Stakeholder analysis. An important initialexercise will be the conduct of a stakeholderanalysis in order to identify, inter alia, the institutional entities and individuals withinUNDP involved in planning, management andimplementation of the GCF-III; the primary


target groups of different GFC-III initiatives;and different partners at the global, regional andcountry levels.

Documentation reviews. Due to the complexityand very broad scope of the GCF-III, a very largenumber of documents and reports (published andunpublished) may be collected. Some may be thesubject of only a general review while others willbe subjected to detailed review. Some of the keysources of information will comprise (i) globalproject documents and results frameworks,monitoring and financial reports, evaluations, aswell as key project outputs; (ii) Thematic TrustFunds and related documentation (as above); and(iii) strategic partnerships.

Consultations and interviews. The main sourceof information will be through structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews andconsultations at Headquarters, RSCs and COs.The results of these consultations and interviewsare to be documented for internal team analysis.Structured interview methods are also to be usedfor other consultations. In some cases, focusgroup discussions may be held to capture thedynamic of information sharing and debate, andto enrich the findings. In other cases, interviewswill be carried out by telephone or tele/videoconference. The Evaluation Team will selectcountries and stakeholders to be visited based oncriteria to be developed in consultation with theEvaluation Office and key UNDP stakeholders.

Pilot case study. In launching the country visits,the entire Evaluation Team will visit one RSC tobe selected as a pilot case study. This will allowfor the testing of interview and consultationmethodologies, and the initial casting and validationof key evaluation issues, questions and hypotheses.Based on this first experience, the design forsubsequent regional and case country visits willbe amended.

Targeted surveys. As the ‘stakeholder community’of the GCF-III is large and widespread, a seriesof surveys may be executed in order to collectadditional information and perceptions. Surveys

themselves are one method for validation. Themain surveys may include (i) a self-assessmentsurvey of selected GCF project managers (all inthe Bureau for Development Policy [BDP]), aswell as other selected practice/ thematic focalpoints; (ii) survey of Policy Advisors; and (iii)survey of Resident Coordinators and ResidentRepresentatives (or their respective CountryDirectors or Deputy Resident Representatives).Surveys of other stakeholders may be identifiedand carried out.

VI. THE EVALUATION TEAM

The Evaluation Team will comprise four interna-tional evaluators, one of whom will be the TeamLeader. Local consultants at the field level willbe recruited, as necessary, in selected sample fieldstations and/or in countries where UNDP RSCsare located. The Evaluation Office will recruit allTeam members.

The composition of the Evaluation Team shouldreflect the independent and substantive resultsfocus of the exercise. The Team Leader musthave demonstrated capacity to think strategically,provide policy advice and manage the evaluationof complex development programmes. TheTeam composition should reflect cross-culturalexperience in development and evaluationincluding expertise in poverty, governance,environment, HIV/AIDS, capacity developmentand gender mainstreaming.

All the Team members must possess educationalqualifications in the social sciences or relateddisciplines. The Team is also expected to haveextensive knowledge of issues relating to organizational and institutional change, the UN reform process, principles of results-basedmanagement, and should be familiar with the on-going debate on the issue of developmenteffectiveness.

An Evaluation Office Task Manager will be partof the Evaluation Team and will provide overallmanagerial and coordination support. AResearch Assistant will compile and analyzebackground documentation.


VII. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

The Evaluation Office will manage the evaluationprocess, provide backstopping support and ensurethe coordination and liaison with concernedagencies at the headquarter level as well as thecountry level. The Evaluation Office will beresponsible for the production of the evaluationreport and its presentation to the Executive Board.

An external Advisory Panel will be established atthe outset of the evaluation, consisting of four tofive individuals who should be leading authoritieson development effectiveness, global developmentissues of relevance to the GCF-III and evaluation.The Advisory Panel will play an important role inproviding strategic, methodological and substantiveinputs into the evaluation process.

A N N E X B . D O C U M E N T S C O N S U L T E D 9 3

Davenport T, Denning S, Parcell G, Prusak L,‘Report of the [External] Review Group:Review of UNDP’s Networks andCommunities’, 3 November 2004.

Paris High Level Forum, ‘The Paris Declarationon Aid Effectiveness’, 2005.

United Nations, ‘Resolution Adopted by theGeneral Assembly: 2005 World SummitOutcome’, A/RES/60/1, 24 October 2005.

United Nations, ‘Resolution Adopted by theGeneral Assembly: Triennial ComprehensivePolicy Review of Operational Activities forDevelopment of the United NationsSystem’, A/RES/59/250, 59th SessionAgenda Item 90 (b), 17 December 2004.

United Nations, ‘Resolution Adopted by theGeneral Assembly: United NationsMillennium Declaration’, A/RES/55/2,18 September 2000.

UNAIDS, ‘Unified Budget and Workplan 2008-2009’, UNAIDS Secretariat.

UNDP – BDP, ‘BDP Alignment Process:Implementing the Strategic Plan andAccelerating Human Development’,New York, NY, 30 January 2008.

UNDP – BDP, ‘Ensuring Quality Control andPolicy Coherence: BDP Quality Assurance andClearance Process’, New York, NY, undated.

UNDP – BDP, ‘Project 11408 Annual ProjectReview’, New York, NY, December 2006.

UNDP – BDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme2006 Annual Report’, New York, NY, 2007.

UNDP – BDP, ‘UNDP Global Programme –2007 Monitoring and EvaluationMechanism’, New York, NY, April 2007.

UNDP – BDP – CDG, ‘Capacity AssessmentMethodology: User’s Guide’, New York,NY, May 2007.

UNDP – BDP – CDG, ‘Capacity DevelopmentPractice Note’, New York, NY, September 2007.

UNDP – BDP – CDG, ‘CDG Quarterly StatusReport for the BDP Director’, New York,NY, September 2007, unpublished.

UNDP – BDP – CDG, ‘The GlobalProgramme Role in Supporting UNDP’sWork in Dapacity Development—A ShortWalk Through History, 2001-2008’, NewYork, NY, April 2008, unpublished.

UNDP – BDP – CDG, ManagementDevelopment and Governance Division,‘Capacity Development for SustainableHuman Development’, New York, NY, 1999.

UNDP – BDP – CDG, ManagementDevelopment and Governance Division,‘General Guidelines for CapacityAssessment and Development in a Systemsand Strategic Management ContextTechnical Advisory Paper No. 3’, New York,NY, January 1998.

UNDP – BDP – CDG, ‘Project No. 50520 –Annual Report 2006’, New York,NY, undated.

UNDP – BDP – CDG, ‘Supporting CapacityDevelopment: The UNDP Approach,’ NewYork, NY, June 2007.

UNDP – BDP – DGG, ‘Draft: DGG AnnualReport 2007’, New York, NY, March 2008.

UNDP – BDP – Gender Team, ‘En Route toEquality: A Gender Review of NationalMDG Reports’, New York, NY, 2005.

UNDP – BDP – Gender Team, ‘GenderEquality Strategy, 2008-2011’, New York,NY, 2007.

UNDP – BDP – HIV/AIDS & UNAIDS,‘UNDP Corporate Strategy on HIV/AIDS’,New York, NY, 2006.

UNDP – BDP – HIV/AIDS, ‘Leadership forResults: Responding to HIV/AIDS:Measuring Results’, New York, NY, 2005.

UNDP – BDP – HIV/AIDS and Sharma M,Reid S, Fall Sarr C, Gueye M, HendersonA, ‘Leadership for Results: LeadershipDevelopment Programme Strategy Note’,New York, NY, 2005.

Annex B

DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

A N N E X B . D O C U M E N T S C O N S U L T E D9 4

UNDP – BDP – HIV/AIDS and Gueye M,Diouf D, Chaava T, Tiomkin D,‘Leadership for Results: CommunityCapacity Enhancement Handbook’, NewYork, NY 2005.

UNDP – El Salvador & RBLAC SURF,‘Diplomado Sobre Políticas Públicas deSeguridad Ciudadana’, 2005.

UNDP – Evaluation Office, ‘Draft: EvaluatingUNDP’s Role in and Contribution toManaging Environment and Energy forSustainable Development’, New York,NY, 2008.

UNDP – Evaluation Office, ‘Evaluation ofGender Mainstreaming in UNDP’,UNDP Evaluation Office, New York, NY,January 2006.

UNDP – Evaluation Office, ‘Evaluation ofResults-Based Management at UNDP:Achieving Results’, UNDP EvaluationOffice, New York, NY, December 2007.

UNDP – Evaluation Office, ‘Evaluation of theSecond Global Cooperation Framework’,New York, NY, 2004.

UNDP – Evaluation Office, ‘Evaluation ofUNDP Contribution to South-SouthCooperation’, UNDP, New York, NY, 2007

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Annual Report of theAdministrator’, DP/1997/16/Add.7, 1997.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Decisions Adoptedby the Executive Board During 2005’,DP/2006/2, 8 November 2005, Decision2005/16, 21 June 2005.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Decisions Adopted bythe Executive Board During 2007: Decision2007/24’, DP/2008/2, 18 October 2007.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘The EvaluationPolicy of UNDP’, DP/2005/28, 5 May 2006.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘First GlobalCountry Cooperation Framework, 1997-2000’, DP/GCF/1/Rev.1, 13 August 1997.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Gender Action Plan, 2006-2007’, DP/2006/9,23 November 2005.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘ManagementResponse to the Evaluation of the SecondGlobal Cooperation Framework’,DP/2004/42, 26 August 2004.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Multi-Year FundingFramework Cumulative Report on UNDP

Performance and Results for 2004-2006’,DP/2007/17, 23 April 2007.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Proposals onProgramming Arrangements for the Period2008-2011’, DP/2007/44, 3 August 2007.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Report of the FirstRegular Session 2008 (21 to 28 January2008, New York)’, DP/2008/18, 26February 2008.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Second GlobalCooperation Framework, 2000-2003’,DP/GCF/2, 27 November 2000.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘Second Multi-yearFunding Framework 2004-2007’, DP/2003/32,13 August 2003; Executive Board Decision2003/24, 12 September 2003.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘UNDP GlobalProgramme, 2005-2007’, DP/GP/1/Rev.1,22 April 2005.

UNDP – Executive Board, ‘UNDP StrategicPlan, 2008-2011 Accelerating GlobalProgress on Human Development’,DP/2007/43, reissued 17 January 2008.

UNDP – GlobeScan, ‘2006 Country OfficeAssessment of HQ Products and Services’,New York, NY, 17 April 2007.

UNDP – RBLAC Regional Audit ServicesCentre, ‘Special Report – Follow Up(Report No. RCP0098)’, Panama City,Panama, 1 March 2006.

UNDP – RBLAC Regional Audit ServicesCentre, ‘Performance Audit of the LACSURF Panama (Report No 0078)’, PanamaCity, Panama, 29 September 2005.

UNDP – Regional Centre Bangkok,‘Programming for Justice: Access for All—A Practitioner’s Guide to a Human-RightsBased Approach to Access to Justice’,Bangkok, Thailand, 2005.

UNDP – Regional Centre in Bangkok,Colombo and Suva, ‘Annual Report 2006’.

UNDP – Regional Centre in Bangkok,Colombo and Suva, ‘Annual Report 2007’.

UNDP and Warwick Business SchoolKnowledge & Innovation Network, ‘UNDPNetwork Benchmarking Survey SummaryReport, Version 0.9’, 2007.

A N N E X C . P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 9 5

UNDP NEW YORK AND GENEVA

BUREAU FOR CRISIS PREVENTION AND RECOVERY (BCPR)

Srivastava, Sudha, Chief, Programme andOperations Support

BUREAU FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY (BDP) Capacity Development Group (CDG)

Boothe, Patrice, Operations ManagerColville, Jennifer, Policy AdvisorEriksson, Thomas, Policy AdvisorKasturiarachchi, Asoka, Policy SpecialistPatterson, John, Policy Advisor,

Information Technology for CapacityDevelopment Specialist

Silovic, Dasa, Policy Advisor,Aid-Coordination Advisor

Wignaraja, Kanni, Practice Director

Democratic Governance Group (DGG)

Berg, Nina, Policy Advisor, Justice and HumanRights Advisor

Førde, Bjørn, Director, Oslo Governance CentreHubli, Scott, Policy Advisor, Development AdvisorJones, Terence, Acting Practice DirectorMatsheza, Phil, Policy Advisor, Anti-

Corruption, Democratic GovernanceMontiel, Lenni, Policy Advisor, Decentralized

Governance for DevelopmentSarrouh, Elissar, Policy Advisor,

Public AdministrationTamesis, Pauline, Practice ManagerVan Weerelt, Patrick, Policy Advisor, Human

Rights AdvocacyZambrano, Raul, Policy Advisor, E-Governance

Democratic Governance Thematic Trust FundEvaluation Team

Boase, Robert, Team Member, Evaluation Team(Independent Consultant)

Garnett, Harry, Team Leader, Evaluation Team(Independent Consultant)

Directorate

Breslin, Jennifer, Management SpecialistGardner, Douglas, Deputy DirectorJones, Terence, in his capacity as former Deputy

Director a.i. of BDPKjorven, Olav, Assistant Administrator

and DirectorMouneimne, Hala, Acting Management SpecialistRenner, Sarah, Special Assistant to the Director

Environment and Energy Group (EEG)

Alers, Marcel, Global Environment Facility,Chief Technical Advisor, Climate Change

Ghanime, Linda, Policy Advisor, EnvironmentalOperations and Policy Specialist

Johnson, Gordon, Practice ManagerMcNeill, Charles, Policy Advisor, Biodiversity

and PovertyTakada, Minoru, Policy Advisor, Sustainable

Energy Programme SpecialistVandeweerd, Veerle, Practice Director

Gender Group

Byanyima, Winnie, Practice DirectorDavis, Randi, Gender and Governance AdvisorSilawal, Bharati, Policy Advisor, Gender Specialist

HIV/AIDS Group

Fall, Caty, HIV/AIDS AdvisorGeka, Dionyssia, Practice ManagerO’Malley, Jeffrey, Practice DirectorRasheed, Nadia, Policy SpecialistSanti, Karin, HIV/AIDS Specialist

Annex C

PEOPLE CONSULTED

A N N E X C . P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D9 6

Human Resources

De Leeuw, Greet, Chief

Knowledge Management

Breard, Patrick, Acting Knowledge andInformation Manager

Chalmers, Gillian, Knowledge Services Associate

Programme Support Unit (PSU)

Morimoto, Silvia, Chief

Poverty Group (PG)

Ahmad, Nuzhat, Poverty Analysis Advisor Grayson, Judy, Practice ManagerJahan, Selim, Practice DirectorLadd, Paul, Policy Advisor, Finance, Capital

Flows and Debt Relief EconomicsLuke, David, Senior Trade Advisor, Unit

Coordinator, Trade and HumanDevelopment Unit, Geneva

Malhotra, Kamal, Policy AdvisorRoy, Rathin, Policy Advisor, Public

Resources Management

BUREAU OF MANAGEMENT (BOM)

O’Hara, Michael, Deputy Director, FinanceWandel, Jens, Director, Centre for

Business Solutions

EVALUATION OFFICE (EO)

Alam, Nurul, Deputy DirectorMenon, Saraswathi, DirectorNanthikesan, Suppiramaniam, Senior

Evaluation AdvisorStewart, Howard, Senior GEF Evaluation AdvisorUitto, Juha, Senior Evaluation Advisor

EXECUTIVE OFFICE (EXO)

Gettu, Tegegnework, Director and Chief of Staff

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT OFFICE (HDRO)

Kennedy, Alison, Chief of StatisticsScott, Tim, Policy Advisor, National Human

Development Reports

OFFICE OF AUDIT AND PERFORMANCEREVIEW (OAPR)

Khoury, Antoine, Deputy Director and Officer in Charge

OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (ODS)

Conceicao, Pedro, Director

OPERATIONS SUPPORT GROUP (OSG)

Elizondo, Ligia, DirectorRussell, Andrew, Deputy Director

PARTNERSHIPS BUREAU

Jenks, Bruce, Assistant Administrator and Director

Thommessen, Christian, Director, PrivateSector Division

Topping, Jennifer, Director, Division forResources Mobilization (DRM)

REGIONAL BUREAUX

Alsoswa, Amat, Assistant Administrator andRegional Director, Regional Bureau forArab States

Fabiancic, Niky, Deputy AssistantAdministrator and Deputy RegionalDirector, Regional Bureau for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (RBLAC)

Houngbo, Gilbert, Assistant Administrator andRegional Director, Regional Bureau forAfrica (RBA)

Kalapurakal, Rosemary, Programme Advisor,Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific (RBAP)

Khammar, Carla, Programme Advisor, RegionalBureau for Latin America and theCaribbean (RBLAC)

Lockwood, David, Deputy AssistantAdministrator and Deputy RegionalDirector, Regional Bureau for Asia and thePacific (RBAP)

Nair, Shashikant, Deputy Chief of RegionalSupport Unit, Regional Bureau for Asia andthe Pacific (RBAP)

Oliveira, Marielza, Programme Advisor,Regional Bureau for Latin America and theCaribbean (RBLAC)


Sultanoglu, Cihan, Deputy AssistantAdministrator and Deputy RegionalDirector, Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (RBEC)

OTHER UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATIONS

Casey, Daphne, Chief, NY Office, UnitedNations Volunteers (UNV)

Castilla, Rogelio Fernández, Director, TechnicalSupport Division, UNFPA

Doraid, Moez, Deputy Executive Director,Organizational and Business DevelopmentServices, UNIFEM

Gitta, Cosmas, Chief, Division for Policy and Partnerships, Special Unit for South-South Cooperation

Guzman, Patricia, Chief, Global ProgrammePolicy Support, Technical Support Division, UNFPA

Keijzers, Henriette, Executive Secretary, a.i.,United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF)

Kozul-Wright, Richard, Chief, DevelopmentStrategy and Analysis Unit, United NationsDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA)

Montes, Manuel, Chief of Policy Analysis andDevelopment, Financing for Development,United Nations Department of Economicand Social Affairs (UN-DESA)

Tortora, Manuela, Chief, Technical CooperationService, Geneva, UNCTAD

Tucker, John, Deputy Director, InclusiveFinance, United Nations CapitalDevelopment Fund (UNCDF)

Usmani, Farah, UN Affairs and Management,UNFPA

Yanagisawa, Kae, Senior Advisor on South-South Cooperation, Special Unit for South-South Cooperation

Zhou, Yiping, Director, Special Unit for South-South Cooperation

UNDP EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS

Afiavi-Houngbedji, Fernande, SecondCounsellor, Vice-President of the UNDPExecutive Board, Benin

Briz-Gutiérrez, José A., MinisterPlenipotentiary, Deputy PermanentRepresentative, UNDP Vice President ofthe Executive Board, Guatemala

Brückner, Camilla, Counsellor, DenmarkEizema, Pauline, First Secretary, NetherlandsMills, Diedre, Counsellor, Economic

Affairs, JamaicaStaur, H.E. Carsten, Ambassador Extraordinary

and Plenipotentiary, PermanentRepresentative, President of the UNDPExecutive Board, Denmark

Williams, Nicholette, First Secretary, Jamaica

AFRICA REGION

UNDP REGIONAL SERVICE CENTRE (RSC),DAKAR, SENEGAL

RSC

Bor, Emmanuel, Technical Counsellor,Regional PRSP Support Centre

Chevillard, Julien, Aid Effectiveness SpecialistDandjinou, Pierre, Policy Advisor, E-GovernanceDeberre, Jean-Christophe, Deputy Assistant

Administrator & Deputy Regional Director,RBA; Director, RSC Dakar

Diallo, Moussoukoro Coulibaly, Finance andAdministrative Associate

Gadio, Coumba Mar, Policy Advisor, Gender &Development; Former Officer-in-Charge,SURF Dakar

Gros, Jean-Baptiste, Coordinator, RegionalPRSP Support Centre

Hernandez, Christine, Trade and Globalization Advisor

Landeiro, Clara, Programme ManagerLare-Lantone, Kango, Policy Advisor,

Governance Institutions ReformMensah, Aluka, Regional Coordination

Specialist, Regional Directors’ TeamNjie, Ndey Isatou, Capacity Development Advisor

A N N E X C . P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D9 8

Other UN organizations

Mukarubuga, Cécile, Regional Director,UNIFEM

UNDP REGIONAL SERVICE CENTRE (RSC),JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA

RSC

Bhattacharya, Shivaji, Senior Policy Advisor,Co-Team Leader, HIV/AIDS

Dessalegne, Israel, Management Advisor and Head, Regional Directors’ Team (RDT) Secretariat

Diop, Maleye, Global Task Manager,Public-Private Partnerships for ServiceDelivery (PPP-SD)

Ekoko, Francois, Senior Policy Advisor & Regional Coordinator,South-South Cooperation

Etukudo, Udo, Poverty Reduction / Macro-economics Specialist

Gueye, Moustapha, Senior Policy Advisor,HIV/AIDS; Global Focal Point, LDP

Kemalu, Thomas, Programme AssociateKimaryo, Scholastica, Deputy Regional

Director, RBAMalunga, Siphosami, Policy Specialist, Conflict

& GovernanceMbekeani, Kennedy, Policy Advisor, Trade,

Debt and Globalization, South AfricaDevelopment Community (SADC),Common Market for Eastern and SouthernAfrica (COMESA)

Mbeye, Jockely, Policy Specialist, GovernmentRestructuring & Civil Service Reform

McCarthy, Reuben J., Conflict and RecoverySpecialist

Morgan, Michael, Operations ManagerMsiska, Roland, RSC Director, HIV/AIDSMugore, Joseph, Head, Policy & Technical

Team Leader, GovernanceMusa, Abdirizak, Policy Advisor, Trade, Debt

and GlobalizationMusisi, Christine, Policy Advisor, Poverty

Reduction, Civil SocietyShumba, Owen, Regional Programme

Coordinator, Disaster Risk Reduction, BCPR

UNDP country office

Dinake, Sibuko, Programme AssociateSalau, Ademola, GEFShole, Khepi, Programme Management SpecialistTroni, Jessica, Regional Technical Advisor,

Climate Change Adaptation


Kawaguchi, Kiyomi, Senior ProgrammeAdvisor, World Food Programme

Kristensen, Ulrik, Regional Portfolio Specialist,UNCDF

Mamba, Faith, Programme Officer, UNFPAMensah-Abrampah, Kodjo E., Regional Local

Development Advisor, UNCDFMorota, Izumi, Audit Specialist, Regional

Audit Services Centre Ncube, Cecilia, Regional Programme

Specialist, UNIFEMNdiaye, Fode, Regional Technical Manager,

Microfinance, UNCDF Tlebere, Pulane, HIV/SRH Programme, UNFPAYanga, Thomas, Deputy Regional Director,

Bureau for Southern Africa, World Food Programme

Government

Raubenheimer, Henri, Director, EconomicDevelopment, Department of Foreign Affairs

Other

Mwaniki, John, Executive Director,TECHNONET

LIBERIA

UNDP country office

Bayo, Masaneh, Programme Manager, HumanRights, Gender Protection Programme

Clark, Everett, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Operations

Golokai, Nessie, Policy Advisor,Governance Team

Gould, George, Millennium DevelopmentGoals Focal Point, Policy Support Unit

Kamaluddeen, K. K., Senior Economist andHead, Strategic Policy Unit


Reeves, Wilmot, National Economist, Povertyand Capacity Development

Sam, Dominic, Country DirectorSarr, Baboucarr, Deputy Resident

Representative, OperationsTewolde, Assefaw, Direct Execution (DEX)

Service Centre ManagerTorori, Cleophas, Policy Advisor, Governance

TeamWatson, Emmett, Assistant Resident

Representative, Governance


Anderson, Lorraine, United Nations CountryTeam, Strategic Environmental Assessment(SEA) Coordinator

Nyanin, Ohene, Country Manager, ResidentRepresentative, World Bank

Ryan, Jordan, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Recovery andGood Governance, Resident Coordinatorand Humanitarian Coordinator, UnitedNations in Liberia

Government

Bility, Khalipha, Programme Manager, NationalAIDS & STI Control Programme (NACP),Ministry of Health and Social Welfare

Howard-Kendor, Sandra, Commissioner,Governance Commission

Jones, Janjay, Deputy Programme Manager,Monitoring and Evaluation / Surveillance,National AIDS & STI Control Programme(NACP), Ministry of Health and Social Welfare

Kailain, David, Public Sector Manager /Executive Director, Governance Commission

Karmorh, Benjamin, Manager, Monitoring,Assessment and Conservation, LiberiaEnvironmental Protection Agency

Kiawu, Annette, Deputy Minister, Ministry ofGender and Development

Monibah, Simeon, Deputy Minister, Ministryof Planning and Economic Affairs

Sawyer, Amos, Chairperson,Governance Commission

Voker, Johansen, Manager, Planning, Policy and Legal Affairs, Liberia EnvironmentalProtection Agency

Williams, Henry, Acting Manager,Intersectorial, Liberia EnvironmentalProtection Agency

Other

Allen, Hon. C. William, Director-General,Civil Service Agency

Brown, Albert, Liberian Innovation Foundationfor Empowerment (LIFE)

Cooper, Etweda, Liberia Women’s InitiativeGib, Jennifer, International Rescue CommitteeJukon, John, Liberia NGO Network (LINNK)Kumaeh, Maxim, WANEPPaasewe, Brezhnev, Centre for Transparency and

Accountability in Liberia (CENTAL)Page, Lucy, Community Empowerment

ProgrammeRex, Dale George, Universal Empowerment

Missions (UEM)Richmond, E., Draper, NARDAScott, Rick, Deputy Mission Director, USAIDSsenyange, Drake, Africa 2000 Network LiberiaStone, Anna, American Refugee CouncilTarome, Benjamin, National Coalition

of Civil Society Organizations of Liberia (NACCSOL)

Wuo, Sam, Project New Outlook (PNO)

MALI

UNDP country office

Bah, Alassane, Macroeconomist, GovernanceByll-Cataria, Joseph, Resident Representative &

UN Resident CoordinatorPoinsot, Philippe, Deputy Resident RepresentativeSanogo, Kalfa, Assistant Resident Representative,

Energy and Environment, GenderSylla, Djeidi, Senior Programme Advisor, Policy

and Strategy Advisor, Governance


Mariam, Sissoko, Programme Manager, UNFPA

Government

Cissokho, M. Mamadou, Coordinator, Celluled’Appui au Processus Electoral (ElectoralProcess Support Unit)

A N N E X C . P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 0 0

Coulibaly, M. Fatouma, AdministrativeCoordinator, Cellule d’Appui au ProcessusElectoral (Electoral Process Support Unit)

Diallo, Youssouf, Department Chief,High National Council for the FightAgainst HIV/AIDS

Gakou, Mamadou, Permanent Secretary,Permanent Secretariat of the InstitutionalFramework for the Management ofEnvironmental Questions, Ministry ofEnvironment and Sanitation

Magassa, Mamadou, Unit Chief, InstitutionalDevelopment and Governance, StrategicFramework for Poverty Reduction, Ministryof Economics and Finance

Other

Bougault, Hervé, Directeur, Agence Francaisede Développement (AFD), Agence de Bamako

Thiam, Mamadou, National Coordinator,Institutional Development Programme,Commission for Institutional Development

RWANDA

UNDP country office

Esseqqat, Henri, Programme Officer,Environment Unit

Gatera, Maggy, Head, Public Management UnitKayiranga, Jean de Dieu, Communications

Officer, Knowledge ManagerKosak, Susanne, Gender Adviser,

Communication OfficerMito, Toshikazu, Programme Officer,

Environment UnitMusemakweri, John, Head, Environment UnitMusinguzi, Richard, National Institute of

Statistics Project Manager, PublicManagement Unit

Nkubito, Eugene, Programme Specialist, PublicManagement Unit, Capacity DevelopmentFocal Point

Ohemeng-Boamah, Anthony, Country DirectorRwabuyonza, Jean Paul, Policy Advisor, PovertyTaylor, Carrie, Project Manager, Strengthening

the Institutional Framework for GoodGovernance, Democratic Governance

Umulinga, Marie Francoise, ProgrammeAnalyst, HIV/AIDS

Umutoni, Christine, Head, DemocraticGovernance & Environment Unit, formerHead, HIV/AIDS, Justice & Gender Unit


Antoine, Quentin, Programme Officer, UNCDFKwakwa, Victoria, Country Manager,

World BankMatthys, Fredrik, Coordination Officer, Office

of the Resident CoordinatorRusake, Felix, Programme Specialist, UNIFEMZirimwabagabo, Irene, Communication

Officer, UNIFEM

Government

Dieudonne, Rusanga, Project Coordinator,Parliament, Programme for Strengtheningthe Institutional Framework for Good Governance

Gahongayire, Anne, Secretary General to theSupreme Court, Ministry of Justice

Kabarenzi, Violet, Technical Expert, PoliceGender Desk, Programme forStrengthening the Institutional Frameworkfor Good Governance

Masabo, Oscar, Director, Integrated SupportProject, Ministry of Economic Planningand Finance

Mugabo, Alex, Project Coordinator, NationalUnity & Reconciliation Committee(NURC), Programme for Strengthening the Insitutional Framework for Good Governance

Mulisa, Alex, Phase II Project Coordinator,Poverty and Environment Initiative (PEI)

Ngoga, Martin, Prosecutor General of Rwanda,Ministry of Justice

Rwakunda, Amina, Planning and CoordinationOfficer, National AIDS ControlCommission (NACC)

Stephen, Hitimana, Consultant, National AIDSControl Commission (NACC)

Uwimpwhawe, Sidonie, Technical Advisor,National AIDS Control Commission (NACC)

Other

Butera, Jean Netty, Programme Officer, Departmentfor International Development (DfID)

A N N E X C . P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 0 1

TANZANIA

UNDP country office

Aliti, Gemma, Programme Associate, Energyand Environment

Fernández-Taranco, Oscar, ResidentRepresentative & UN Resident Coordinator

Hamoud, Munira, UNDP Sub-Office, ZanzibarIcaiza, Joseph, Programme OfficerKaale, Bariki, Project FacilitatorKaiza, Joseph, Programme Officer, Poverty TeamKisengi, Ndwata, Finance Associate, OperationsLwiza, Elizabeth, Human Resources Associate,

OperationsManyama, Amon, Senior Assistant Resident

Representative, Pro-poor Policy and Wealth Creation

Ndyetabura, Elly, Team Leader, HIV/AIDS andGender Unit

Owe, Charles, Administrative Analyst, OperationsRutta, Audax, Team Leader, Governance Team

Government

Abdulla, Asha A., Executive Director, ZanzibarAIDS Commission

Hikmany, Hamed, Zanzibar Strategy forGrowth and Poverty Reduction (MKUZA)Coordinator, Commissioner, National Planning

Makame, Iddi H., Ag. Chief Academic Office (ZIFA)

Muyungi, R. F., Assistant Director,Environment Directorate, Office of theVice-President

Mwihava, N. C. X., Assistant Commissioner,Renewable Energy, Ministry of Energy and Minerals

Salum, Sauda M., Senior Officer,Finance Department

Sheha, Ameir H., Commissioner of ExternalFinance, Ministry of Finance and Economy

Other

Tepani, Ngunga, Programme Officer, TanzaniaAssociation of Non-governmentalOrganizations (TANGO)

ZAMBIA

UNDP country office

Attigah, Emefa, EconomistBlaser, Jeremias, Assistant Resident RepresentativeBruccheri, Luca, JPOChuma, Aeneas, Resident Representative &

UN Resident CoordinatorHannan, Abdul, Deputy Resident RepresentativeKjelstad, Carina, Programme OfficerKumwenda, Rosemary, Assistant Resident

Representative, HIV/AIDS AdvisorLodato, Annalisa, Global Environment Facility

(GEF) Programme AnalystMuchanga, Amos, Programme AnalystMulenga, Leah, Programme AssociateMusonda, Winnie, Assistant Resident

Representative; Head, Energy andEnvironment Unit

Mwale-Yerokun, Dellia, Programme Analyst,Gender & HIV/AIDS

Ngombe, Assan, Programme AnalystSireh-Jallow, Abdoulie, Economic AdvisorSoko, Michael, Assistant Resident Representative


Kapoor, Kapil, Country Manager, World BankMbaw, Helen, Senior Operations Officer,

World BankSozi, Catherine, Country Coordinator, UNAIDSSukutu, Rosemary, Senior Population, Health

and Nutrition Specialist, World Bank

Government

Daka, Julius, Manager, Planning andInformation Management, EnvironmentalCouncil of Zambia (ECZ)

Jalasi, Joseph I., Commissioner, ElectoralCommission of Zambia (ECZ)

Kapembwa, Goe, Director, Economic andFinance, Gender in Development Division

Lungu, Ernest B., Specialist, Economic Section,Gender in Development Division

Mambilima, Justice Irene Chirwa, Chair,Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ)

Mulembe, E., Director, Human Rights Commission


Nkowani, K., Director, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources,Ministry of Tourism, Environment andNatural Resources

Simwanza, Alex, Director, Prevention andMulti-Sectional Response, NationalHIV/AIDS/STI/TB Council

Zulu, Edward, Director, Environmental Councilof Zambia (ECZ)

Other

Banda, Saul, Programme Manager, Civil Societyfor Poverty Reduction (CSPR)

Laursen, Jytte, Counsellor, Development,Embassy of Denmark in Lusaka

Mosonda, James, Senior Trade Policy Advisor,Common Market for Eastern and SouthernAfrica (COMESA)

Mutwale, Ivy, Acting Executive Director &Programme Officer, Civil Society forPoverty Reduction (CSPR)

Osoro, Geoffrey, Senior Trade Policy Expert,Common Market for Eastern and SouthernAfrica (COMESA)

Yeta, Matonda, Permanent Secretary, Gender inDevelopment Division, Cabinet Office

ASIA AND PACIFIC REGION

UNDP REGIONAL CENTRE COLOMBO (RCC),COLOMBO, SRI LANKA

RCC

Ainkaran, Anusuiya, Human Resources SpecialistAlexander, Patricia, Regional Programme

Coordinator, Gender TeamChaodhary, Biplove, Programme Specialist,

Trade TeamGampat, Ramesh, Programme Specialist,

HDR TeamJayasinghe, Charmalee, Knowledge

Services AnalystKhatiwada, Yuba Raj, Senior Economist,

Millennium Development Goals TeamKumar, Pramod, Senior Programme SpecialistLang, James, Programme Specialist,

Gender TeamMishra, Manisha, Communication Specialist

Miyaoi, Koh, Policy Advisor, Gender TeamNoman, Omar, Chief of Policy and ProgrammesOh, Cecilia, Policy Advisor, Trade TeamPalanivel, T., Senior Programme Advisor,

Millennium Development Goals TeamPerera, Anula, Finance AnalystSeth, Anuradha, Senior Policy Advisor,

Millennium Development Goals TeamSiddique, Omar, Human Development

Report TeamSteele, Paul, Environmental AdvisorWiesen, Caitlin, Regional HIV Practice Leader

& Regional Programme Coordinator,Asia and the Pacific

Yamamoto, Yumiko, Trade Advisor, Trade TeamYasarathne, Tiruni, Knowledge Services

Associate and Roster ManagerZafirov, Tzvetan, International Operations

Manager, Regional Centre Operations

UNDP country office

Buhne, Neil, Resident Representative & UNResident Coordinator


De Alwis, Rizvina, Gender Advisor, UNFPA

UNDP REGIONAL SERVICE CENTRE (RSC),BANGKOK, THAILAND

RSC

Bashir, Sultana, Regional Technical Advisor for Biodiversity

Bestle, Lars, Programme Specialist,Access to Information (A2Inf.), Media and E-Governance

Brodnig, Gernod, Policy Advisor, Energy, ESTCox, Aidan, Regional Advisor,

Aid EffectivenessDambadarjaa, Sergelen, Team Leader, Regional

Programme ManagementFeld, Sergio, Policy Advisor, Environment,

ESD TeamKeuleers, Patrick, Policy Advisor and Leader,

Governance TeamKran, Marcia V. J., Officer-in-Charge


Krause, Martin, Practice Team Leader, RegionalTechnical Advisor, Climate Change

Larsen, Henrik F., Policy Advisor,Decentralisation, Democratic Governance

Stanislaus, Arusha, Deputy Coordinator, AsiaRegional Governance Programme (ARGP)

Sudarshan, Ramaswamy, Policy Advisor, Accessto Justice, Legal Reform and Justice

Teckle, Nescha, Team Leader, Regional ConflictPrevention and Recovery Team


Bastiaans, E. René, Chief, TechnicalCooperation Section, United NationsEconomic and Social Commission for Asiaand the Pacific (UNESCAP)

Bridle, Richard, Deputy Regional Director, UNICEF

Krairiksh, Nanda, Chief, ProgrammeManagement Division, United NationsEconomic and Social Commission for Asiaand the Pacific (UNESCAP)

Patel, Mahesh, Regional Advisor, Social Policy& Economic Analysis, UNICEF

Shotton, Roger, Regional Director,United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF)

Other

Verbiest, Jean-Pierre, Country Director, AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB)

CAMBODIA

UNDP country office

Arain, Aamir, Elections Analyst,Governance Cluster

Chan, Vuthy, Millennium Development Goals / Planning Analyst, PovertyReduction Cluster

Courtnadge, Philip, Aid Coordination Advisor,Aid Coordination Team

Falk, Anna Collins, UNDP/UNFPA AdvisorGardner, Douglas, in his capacity as former

Resident Representative & UN Resident Coordinator

Gelard, Dylan, Aid Coordination Analyst,Aid Coordination Team

Ghebreab, Winta, Programme Officer andGender Focal Point

Hin, Wisal, Trade Programme Analyst, PovertyReduction Cluster

Khim, Lay, Assistant Resident Representative,Team Leader, Environment and Energy Cluster

Muny, Min, Decentralisation andDeconcentration Analyst, Governance Cluster

Narin, Sok, Anti-Corruption Analyst,Governance Cluster

Quinn, Michael, Biodiversity Specialist,Environment and Energy Cluster

Rieger, Ricarda, Deputy Country Director,Operations

Scheuer, Jo, Country DirectorVeijonen, Kati, Energy Programme Analyst,

Environment and Energy Cluster


Lisle, Tony, Country Coordinator, UNAIDS

Government

Bo, Sin Chum, Vice President, NationalElections Committee (NEC)

Darany, Pou, Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof National Assembly-Senate Relations andInspection (MONASRI)

Leng, H. E. Hor Bun, Deputy SecretaryGeneral, National AIDS Authority (NAA)

Yanara, Chhieng, Secretary General, Council forRehabilitation and Development Board ofCambodia, Deputy Secretary General,Council for Development of Cambodia (CDC)

Other

Barisoth, Sek, Director, Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption for Equity Programme,Pact Cambodia

Ouch, Chamroen, Programme Officer,Governance and Public Sector Management,Asian Development Bank (ADB)

INDONESIA

UNDP country office

Adhyakso, Lukas, Programme Officer, Energyand Environment Unit


Berry, Edwin, Programme Manager, HumanRights, Legal & Justice Sector Reform

Björkman, Hakan, Country DirectorDoyle, Nina, Communications OfficerHakim, Adji Vera, Programme Manager,

HIV/AIDSLacsana, Yanti, Programme Manager & Gender

Focal Point, MDG Support UnitLazarus, Dennis, Deputy Resident

Representative, OperationsPerci, Matthias, Programme Officer,

Governance UnitPratama, Ari, Programme Officer, HIV/AIDS,

Millennium Development Goals (MDG)Support Unit

Pronyk, Jason, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Head, Planning, Monitoring& Evaluation Unit (PMEU)

Purba, Sirman, Programme Officer, Planning,Monitoring & Evaluation Unit (PMEU)

Rianom, Ariyanti, Programme Analyst &Learning Manager, Planning, Monitoring& Evaluation Unit (PMEU)

Simanjunia, Leo, Programme Manager,Decentralisation and Local Governance

Slamet, Elaine, Programme Officer, Energy andEnvironment Unit

Widagdo, Nurina, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Head, Governance Unit


Beckmann, Marc, UN Coordination Specialist,Office of the Resident Coordinator

Corsi, Marcoluigi, Senior Specialist, Planning,Monitoring and Evaluation, UNICEF

Makalew, Richard, National ProgrammeOfficer, Population and DevelopmentStrategies, UNFPA

Morris, Bryan, Technical Capacity Specialist,Secretariat, UNAIDS

Niimi, Reiko, Deputy Resident Coordinator,Office of the Resident Coordinator

Government

Prabowo, Agus, Director, RegionalDevelopment Performance Evaluation,Ministry of National DevelopmentPlanning/National Development PlanningAgency (BAPPENAS)

Simatupang, Delthy, Director, Analysis of Law,Former Director, Multilateral Cooperation,Ministry of National DevelopmentPlanning/National Development PlanningAgency (BAPPENAS)

Other

Fazilli, Said, Second Secretary, Political Affairs,Embassy of the Netherlands to Indonesia

NEPAL

UNDP country office

Bhattarai, Anjani, HIV/AIDS & Gender Specialist

Bryant, Heather, Programme Analyst,Monitoring and Evaluation

Degryse-Blateau, Anne-Isabelle,Country Director

Gurung, Tek B., Programme Officer, Energy & Environment

Isaczai, Ghulam, Deputy Country DirectorNeupane, Sharad, Assistant Resident

Representative, GovernanceOnta-Bhatta, Lazima, Gender & Social

Inclusion SpecialistShresta, Deepak, Programme Officer, Pro-Poor

Policy and Sustainable Livelihoods UnitSingh, Vijaya P., Assistant Resident

Representative, Energy & Environment


Joshi, Rajendra Dhoj, Senior EducationSpecialist, World Bank

Government

Khanal, Bishal, Secretary, National HumanRights Commission

Tamrakar, Tek, National Project Manager,National Human Rights Commission

Other

Bukhari, Syed Saghir, Regional AllianceCoordinator, Save the Children

Dahal, Navin, Executive Director, South AsiaWatch on Trade, Economics andEnvironment (SAWTEE)


Heiberg, Turid, Regional Programme Manager,Save the Children

Jabeen, Shoma Fahmida, Regional Advisor,Save the Children

Thilsted, H.E. Finn, Ambassador, Embassy of Denmark

ARAB REGION

UNDP SUBREGIONAL RESOURCE FACILITY (SURF) FOR THE ARAB STATES,BEIRUT, LEBANON

SURF

Abu-Ismail, Khalid, Policy Advisor,Macroeconomic Policy and Poverty

Abumoghli, Iyad, Senior Environment andKnowledge Management Advisor

Akl, George, National OfficerAli-Ahmad, Zena, former Policy Advisor,

Local GovernanceAmawi, Abla, Capacity 2015

Regional CoordinatorDe Clercq, Christian, former Chief, SURF BeirutHabre, Lina, Research OfficerHadj-Hammou, Nadir, ChiefHajj, Elias, Research OfficerKhalaf, Nora, Office ManagerKhalidi, Ramla, former Deputy Chief and

National Officer, SURF BeirutNehmeh, Adib, Policy Advisor, Poverty ReductionSalameh, Elsa, Research OfficerTalbot, Jocelyne, Gender AdvisorToson, Asr, Policy Advisor,

Governance Institutions

UNDP country office

Ruedas, Marta, Resident Representative & UN Resident Coordinator


Abdulrazzak, Mohamed, Chief, ProgrammePlanning & Technical CooperationDivision, United Nations Economic andSocial Commission for Western Asia (UN-ESCWA)

Alami, Tarek, Coordinator, Second RegionalMDG Report, United Nations Economicand Social Commission for Western Asia(UN-ESCWA)

Nasser, Zaki, Senior Programme Officer, UnitedNations Economic and Social Commissionfor Western Asia (UN-ESCWA)

Government

Hayek, Ziad, Secretary General, HigherCouncil for Privatization, Office of thePrime Minister

Other

El-Souri, Ibrahim, Director, Social Division,League of Arab States (LAS)

Samad, Ziad Abdel, Executive Director, ArabNon-governmental Organization Networkfor Development (ANND)

TUNISIA

UNDP country office

Allani, Ramla, Governance TeamBouzekri, Samir, Team Leader & Governance

and Development Officer, Governance TeamDudziak, Rossana, Deputy Resident

Representative and Learning ManagerEl-Kholy, Heba, Resident Representative &

UN Resident CoordinatorNasr, Nourredine, Environment and

Gender OfficerSudgen, Carina, Partnership Analyst,

Governance Team


Elamri, Sadok, UNDAF Monitoring, Office ofthe Resident Coordinator

Government

Alaoui, Hamda, Protection du Milieu Naturel,Ministry of the Environment andSustainable Development

Chaabane, Abdesalem, Secretary General, Courdes Comptes (National Audit Board)

Fadhel, Imed, UNFCCC Focal Point,Ministry of the Environment andSustainable Development


Guribaa, Boutheina, Director-General, Ministryof Women’s Affairs

Hamada, Nabil, Conservation of NaturalResources, Ministry of the Environmentand Sustainable Development

Harrouch, Hamdi, Director, Programming,Monitoring and Development, NationalAgency for Energy Efficiency (ANME)

Kaddour, Khaled, Chargé de Mission auprès duPremier Ministre, Directeur Général desRéformes et Prospectives Administratives,Directorate for Administrative Reform,Office of the Prime Minister

Kefi, Feiza, President, Cour des Comptes(National Audit Board)

Lazreg, Habib, Advisor, Institut Tunisien desEtudes Stratégiques (ITES)

Mahjoub, Maher, Natural Sites ad Heritage,Ministry of the Environment andSustainable Development

Rahmouni, Saida, Director-General, Centre forResearch, Documentation and Informationon Women (CREDIF), Ministry ofWomen’s Affairs

Youzbachi, Moncef, Director-General, HumanResources, Ministry of Development andInternational Cooperation

Other

Abaab, Ali, National Expert, German Agencyfor International Technical Cooperation(GTZ), Tunisia Mission

Linke, Jorg, Head, German Agency forInternational Technical Cooperation(GTZ), Tunisia Mission

Maamouri, Faouzi, Head, WWF-TunisiaRahman, H.E. Rita Dulci, Ambassador,

Embassy of the Netherlands to Tunisia

YEMEN

UNDP country office

Ahmed, Bushra, Programme Associate,Gender Team

Ali, Fuad, Team Leader, Pro-Poor Economic Growth

Al-Krekshi, Maruan, JPO, Governance TeamAlmageed, Khaled Abdo, Programme Officer,

HIV/AIDS

Baharoon, Walid, Programme Officer, GenderTeam, Governance Team

Jarhum, Rana, Gender TeamMagead, Khaled, Programme Analyst,

Governance TeamPournik, Mohammad, Principal Economic and

Governance AdvisorRamachandran, Selva, Country Director &

Resident Representative a.i.Risa, Vibeke, Assistant Resident

Representative, ProgrammeSeif, Abdo, Programme Advisor, Operations


Ghrama, Fawzia Abdullah, Focal Point,UNAIDS

Rouis, Mustapha, Country Manager,World Bank

Government

Al-Hamdani, Rashida, Chairperson, NationalWomen’s Committee

Dahhaq, Ali A., Acting Director General,Monitoring and Evaluation, Ministry ofPlanning and International Cooperation

Mashour, Hooria, Deputy Chairperson,National Women’s Committee

EUROPE AND COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES REGION

UNDP BRATISLAVA REGIONAL CENTRE(BRC), SLOVAKIA

RSC

Alderson, Dallas, Intern, DemocraticGovernance Team

Bahloul, Hachemi, Decentralization and LocalDevelopment Specialist, DemocraticGovernance Team

Brooks, Jonathan, Policy Advisor,Poverty Group

Checchi, Francesco, Project Associate,Anti-Corruption Practitioner’s Network,Democratic Governance Team

Dinu, Adriana, Practice Leader, Energy andEnvironment Team, Regional TechnicalAdvisor, Biodiversity


Dionisie, Dan, Policy Specialist, Anti-Corruption, Democratic Governance Team

Gercheva, Dafina, Capacity DevelopmentAdvisor, Capacity Development Team

Ivanov, Andrey, Human Development andEconomic Governance Advisor,Poverty Group

Javan, Jafar, Chief, Policy Support andProgramme Development Unit (PSPD)

Limanowska, Barbara, Regional GenderAdvisor, Gender Team

Macauley, John, Knowledge ManagementHIV/AIDS Analyst, HIV/AIDS Team

Martonakova, Henrieta, Project Manager,Energy and Environment Team

Mikhalev, Vladimir, Policy Advisor, PovertyGroup

Mikoczy, Ilona, Project Assistant, Policy ImpactAssessment, Democratic Governance Team

Pilving, Zhanna, Research Assistant, PublicAdministration Reform, DemocraticGovernance Team

Prewitt, Geoffrey, Policy Advisor, Poverty GroupPulatov, Rustam, Research Assistant,

Human Rights and Justice, DemocraticGovernance Team

Sharp, Moshbi, Regional HIV/AIDS PracticeLeader, HIV/AIDS Team

Slay, Ben, DirectorSperl, Louise, Policy Analyst, Gender TeamStaudenmann, Juerg, Regional Water

Governance Advisor, Energy andEnvironment Team

Tarlton, Dudley, Regional HIV/AIDS Advisor,HIV/AIDS Team

Vast, Christopher, Research Assistant, CapacityDevelopment Decentralization, DemocraticGovernance Team

Veres, Agi, Deputy Chief, Policy Support andProgramme Development Unit (PSPD)

ARMENIA

UNDP country office

Aghababyan, Anna, Elections ProjectCoordinator

Aghabalyan, Anush, Programme AdvocacyAssociate, UNDP Gender Project

Amalbashyants, Gayane, Programme Assistant,Environmental Governance

Avanessov, Alexander, Deputy ResidentRepresentative

Bagratuni, Suzan, Project Coordinator,Performance Budgeting

Bakunts, Alla, Portfolio Manager,Democratic Governance

Gyurjyan, Anna, HIV/AIDS Focal PointHovhannisyan, Armine, Programme Assistant,

Democratic Governance, Gender Focal PointManukyan, Astghik, Monitoring and

Evaluation ExpertMartirosyan, Armen, Practice Manager,

Environment, Portfolio Coordinator,Environmental Governance

Poghosyan, Hovhannes, Project Coordinator,UNDP Gender Project

Sahakyan, Narine, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Portfolio Manager

Vardanyan, Karen, Operations ManagerVidal, Consuelo, Resident Representative &

UN Resident Coordinator


Hayrapetyan, Garik, Assistant Representative,UNFPA

Korekyan, Arpine, National Programme Officer, UNFPA

Government

Asatryan, Artem, Deputy Minister, Ministry ofLabour and Social Issues

Martirosyan, Anahit, Head, InternationalRelations Division, Ministry of Labour andSocial Issues

Poghosyan, Yuri, Council Member, StateCouncil on Statistics

Safyan, Anahit, Head, International StatisticsCooperation Division, State Council on Statistics

Other

Movsisyan, Vahan, Chairman, CommunitiesFinance Officers Association (CFOA)

Navasardian, Boris, President, Yerevan PressClub (YPC)


UZBEKISTAN

UNDP country office

Abdullaev, Evgeniy, Programme LegalSpecialist, Good Governance Unit

Akramova, Gulnara, Programme Assistant,Environment & Energy Unit

Askarova, Aziza, Communications andOutreach Specialist, Learning Manager

Baykhanova, Rano, Energy Advisor,Environment & Energy Unit

Kamilov, Ildus, Project Manager, EconomicGovernance Unit

Nazarkulov, Ravshan, Programme Coordinator,Good Governance Unit

Postill, Kyoko, Deputy Resident Representative

Rio, Laura, Project Coordinator, EconomicGovernance Unit

Ten, Marina, Programme Specialist, GoodGovernance Unit

Umarov, Anvar, Public Relations and OutreachAssistant, Good Governance Unit

Umarova, Aziza, Head, Good Governance Unit

Volkov, Alexey, Environment Specialist,Environment & Energy Unit

Government

Abdurakhmanov, Uktam, Executive Director,Charity Fund for Aral Gene Pool Protection

Bakhodur, Manager, Center for EconomicResearch (CER)


Safaeva, Kamola, Officer for Coordination ofUN Activities in Uzbekistan, Office of theResident Coordinator

Shilakadze, Andro, Deputy ResidentRepresentative, UNICEF

Trushin, Eskender, Economist, PovertyReduction and Economic ManagementUnit, World Bank

LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN REGION

UNDP SUBREGIONAL RESOURCE FACILITY(SURF), PANAMA CITY, PANAMA

SURF/regional programmes

De Alba, Ana Cecilia, ConsultantDecentralization and Institutional Reform

Jiménez, Karla, Knowledge ManagementAssistant

Justiniano, Freddy, ChiefKoefoed, Kasper, Policy Specialist, Regional

Centre Energy and Environment Unit,Montreal Protocol Unit, BDP

Luna, Clara Ines, Consultant, Decentralizationand Institutional Reform

Manzotti, Gloria, Consultant, Justice and Security

Matallana, Jairo, Consultant,Democratic Governance

Mercado, Leida, Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment

Natale, Lucia, Consultant, Energy and Environment

Romero, José, Regional Coordinator,Capacity Development

Salazar, Juan Manuel, Policy Advisor,Local Governance, former Chief, a.i.

UNDP country office

Arenas, Angeles, Regional Disaster Advisor,Regional Director, BCPR

Grohmann, Peter, Country Director, formerDeputy Resident Representative, UNDP El Salvador

Landau, Maribel, Programme Officer,Decentralization Reform,Governance Cluster

Novey, Alexandra Castro, Programme Associate,Dialogue for Development Programme


Gough, Jean, Regional Deputy Director,UNICEF

Rodríguez, Alvaro, Country Director, UNDPPakistan, former BDP Policy Support &SURF Coordinator, UNDP


Sánchez, Ricardo, Regional Director, UNEPSuazo, Marcela, Regional Director, UNFPAVilla, Carmen, Regional Representative,

UN-OHCHR

Government

Panay, Jorge, Coordinator, MunicipalDevelopment Programme, Ministry ofEconomy and Finance

Other

Castillo, Magali, Executive Secretary,Pro-Justice Alliance

Sapadafora, Alida, Executive Director, Alliancefor the Conservation of Nature (ANCON)

BOLIVIA

UNDP country office

Alarcón, Karina, Programme AdministratorBacarreza, Victor Hugo, MDG ProgrammeCalderón, Gonzalo, Assistant Resident

Representative, ProgrammeCarafa, Yara, Consultant, GenderCuentas, Mirna, Programme Officer,

Indigenous IssuesGonzález, Liliana, Programme Officer,

Environment and EnergyJetté, Christian, Coordinator,

Democratic GovernanceJordan, Tatiana, Programme Officer, HIV/AIDSMayori, Oscar Agramont, Monitoring and

Evaluation OfficerMorales, Cielo, Deputy Resident RepresentativeSalas, Ruben, Small Grants Project (SGP),

Environment and EnergyTapia, Virginia, Project Administrator

Other

Arauco, María Isabel, Office of the Resident Coordinator

De Campero, Ana María Romero, ExecutiveDirector, Fundación UNIR Bolivia

Heine, Virginia Beramendi, Head, InternationalInstitute for Democracy and ElectoralAssistance (IDEA)

Molina, George Gray, Policy Advisor, HumanDevelopment Report Office, Office of theResident Coordinator

EL SALVADOR

UNDP country office

Barathe, R. F., Deputy Resident RepresentativeDe Morales, Claudia Dubon, Programme

Officer, National Capacity DevelopmentUnit

Dreikorn, Carolina, Programme Officer,Sustainable Development Unit

Faieta, Jessica, Resident Representative & UNResident Coordinator

Schmutt, Marcela, Governance Coordinator

Government

Bonilla, Oscar, President, National Council on Security

Escalante, Roberto, Vice Minister, Ministry of Environment

Jovel, Victor Hugo, Chief, Planning Unit,Ministry of Environment

Other

Aparicio, Jorge, Agregado en Asuntos deCooperación, Delegación de la ComisiónEuropea (EU)

Fernández, Margarita, Unidad de Democracia yGobernabilidad, CARE

McLean, María Carmenza, Representative, IADBPita, Juan Ignacio, General Coordinator de la

Cooperación Española in El Salvador,Embassy of Spain, Agencia Española deCooperación Internacional

UNDP THEMATIC CENTRES

NAIROBI, KENYA

Drylands Development Centre (DDC)

Anyoti, Sarah, Communication OfficerChege, Anne, Programme AnalystGakahu, Chris, Assistant Resident

Representative, Sustainability, Energy and Environment

Goumandakoye, Mounkaila, Director, a.i.Horberry, John, Communications Officer,

Manager, Poverty Environment Facility,Poverty Environment Initiative, UNDP/UNEP

Mwangi, Albert, Project Manager, MarketAccess Project


Mwathi, Ruth, Programme AssociateNyagah, Verity, Team Leader and Policy Advisor


De Oliviera, T. L., Programme Officer,Global Environment Outlook (GEO)Section, UNEP

Gilruth, Peter, Director, Division of EarlyWarning and Assessment, UNEP

Grunblatt, Jess, Project Manager, DataExchange Platform for the Horn of Africa(DEPHA), UNEP

Kinoti, Jane, Programme Analyst, MarketAccess, United Nations Volunteers

Other

Aemun, Philip, Project Officer, Practical Action(formerly ITDG)

Chucha, Talaso, Project Officer, Practical Action(formerly ITDG)

Ngeli, Peter, Dryland Marketing Coordinator,Farm Concern International

BRASILIA, BRAZIL

International Poverty Centre (IPC)

Astorino, Roberto, Communications & OutreachCosta, Joana, IPEA Researcher, Gender

Equality Research ProgrammeEhrenpreis, Dag, former Editor of Poverty In

Focus, on secondment from the SwedishInternational Development Agency (SIDA)

Filho, Francisco, Communications & OutreachLyra, André, Communications & OutreachMcKinley, Terry, Acting DirectorMedeiros, Marcelo, IPEA ResearcherOsorio, Rafael, Database ManagerSilva, Elydia, IPEA Researcher, Gender

Equality Research ProgrammeSoares, Fabio Veras, IPEA Researcher, Research

Programme on Conditional Cash TransfersViergever, Sandra, Operations Manager

UNDP country office

Bolduc, Kim, Resident Representative & UNResident Coordinator

Government

Arbix, Glauco, former President, Institute ofApplied Economic Research (IPEA)

Davison, Pérsio, Chef de Cabinet, Institute ofApplied Economic Research (IPEA)

Theodoro, Mario, Director, CooperationDepartment, Institute of Applied EconomicResearch (IPEA)

Other

Munro, Miranda, Head of Office forMERCOSUR, United KingdomDepartment for International Development(DfID)

OSLO, NORWAY

Oslo Governance Centre (OGC)

Driscoll, Barry, Research Associate, Governanceand Civil Society

El-Mikawy, Noha, Policy Advisor, Governanceand Poverty

Fabra, Javier, Research Associate, Governanceand Conflict

Filmer-Wilson, Emilie, Human RightsSpecialist, Human Rights Policy Network(HuriTALK)

Førde, Bjørn, Director

Hermansen, Hege, Research Associate,Learning and Capacity Development

Leberge, Marie, seconded from RSC Colombo,Governance and Poverty

Melim-McLeod, Claudia, Policy Advisor,Learning and Capacity Development

Nahem, Joachim, Governance Specialist,Governance and Poverty

Øya, Ingvild, Research Associate, Governanceand Poverty

Government

Leiro, Jostein, Chief, UN Division, Ministry ofForeign Affairs

Schwabe-Hansen, Elisabeth, Advisor, UNDivision, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Annex D

EVOLUTION OF GLOBAL PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES

Table 1. Global Cooperation Framework Objectives, 1997–2008

A N N E X D . E V O L U T I O N O F G L O B A L P R O G R A M M E O B J E C T I V E S 1 1 1

GCF–I(1997–2000)

DP/GCF/2

GCF II(2001–2004)

DP/GCF/2/Extension1

GCF–II EvaluationRecommendation

GCF–II EvaluationManagement

Response

GCF–III(2005–2008)

DP/GP/1/Rev.1

(a) “To develop furtherthe portfolio of UNDPinterventions respondingto global mandates, inparticular those emanatingfrom United Nationsconferences, for adaptationby regional and countryprogrammes and projectsin their support of thecommitments made byprogramme countries;

(b) To provide thetechnical guidanceneeded—partly throughpartnerships—to respondto the demands emanatingfrom regional and countryprogrammes and projectsin their support of thecommitments made byprogramme countries; and

(c) To identify gaps andemerging issues forattaining SHD and towork to incorporate theminto the global agenda.”(paragraph 15)

(a) “It will support theability of UNDP to generatealternative and cutting-edge developmentthinking and to addressemerging challengespresented by globalization,including marginalizationof the poorest, throughgroundbreaking researchand analysis by the HumanDevelopment Report(HDR), the Office ofDevelopment Studies(ODS), and the Bureau forDevelopment Policy (BDP).Innovative research, suchas that which contributedsuch key concepts tocurrent developmentthinking as sustainablehuman development (SHD)and global public goodswill be strengthened;

(b) It will allow, for the firsttime ever, the integration ofUNDP global developmentthinking and advocacy withcountry-level practices bybuilding on country-drivendemand for policy andprogramme support ascaptured in the results-oriented annual report(ROAR);

(c) It will promote astate-of-the-art knowledgenetwork by moving UNDPpolicy support capacity outof headquarters to the subregional level to ensurethat the best availableadvice can be given whenand where it is mostneeded—at the countrylevel.” (paragraph 1)

(a) “GCF III should continueto provide a two-waywindow for programmecountries to influence andbe influenced by globaltrends, and benefit fromglobal knowledge in thepursuit of their nationaldevelopment prioritiesand the MDGs [MillenniumDevelopment Goals].UNDP should narrowthe focus on one or twopractice areas with a smallset of secondary practice,thematic and cross-cuttingareas. Criteria for use ofglobal resources must beclear, consistently appliedand sufficiently distinctfrom regional or countrylevel programming.

(b) GCF-III should continueto be applied to thetransformation of UNDPinto a knowledge-sharing,globally networked agency.The definition of policyadvice should be adjustedto include the provision ofa range of both upstreamand downstream technicalassistance and profes-sional services in thepolicy domain.

(c) There should becontinued emphasis on identifying anddocumenting good,innovative practices andpromoting their adapta-tion in other countries or settings. Knowledgenetworks should be madeavailable to staff in all UNorganizations as well asnational counterparts inpartner countries. Thereshould be a deliberatepolicy within UNDP toencourage externalknowledge sharing.”

(a) “[Promoting a two-waywindow for programmecountry involvement in theglobal arena] will be a centralpriority of BDP [Bureau forDevelopment Policy] in itsimplementation of thecorporate knowledge strategy.UNDP focus is provided bythe MYFF [Multi-year FundingFramework].Within the MYFF,UNDP intends to placegreater emphasis on thoseservice lines that make thegreatest contribution toachieving the MDGs and forwhich there is the highestdemand from programmecountries. Consultations withregional bureaux, regionalcentres and country officeson GCF programmes will beenhanced and formalized.Criteria are being developedin consultation with RBx[regional bureaux] and CO[country offices] to determinethe nature and delineationof global programmes andtheir relationship to regionaland country programmes.

(b) The proposal for GCF-III will maintain [aknowledge based] focus. Inpractice, policy advice andpolicy support will cover awide range of services, fromupstream policy dialogue tomore downstream technicalsupport and backstopping.GCF-III will incorporateclearer, practical objectivesaligned to MYFF priorities.

(c) A central purpose of theknowledge managementsystem will be to identify,store and disseminate goodpractices to facilitate aneffective global learningexchange. Successfulknowledge sharing calls forbuilding and supportingstrong, well-defined com-munities of practice, whichgenerate trust among theirmembers. A UNDP knowledgemanagement strategy hasbeen put in place thatproposes both to strengthenUNDP’s internal practicecommunities as well as toextend knowledge networksto in-country communitiesand UN system partners.”

(a) “To help UNDP countryoffices improve theireffectiveness on theground, in responding torequests from programmecountries to plan, manageand deliver resources fordevelopment in pursuit of the MDGs;

(b) To support developingcountries,when requested,in developing policyframeworks that takeadvantage of globalopportunities andresources under thepriority goals of theMYFF; and

(c) To enable developingcountries to benefit frominterregional knowledgeexchange and South-based experiences andlearning under thepriority goals of the MYFF and ensure thatdevelopment assistance,advice, programmedesign and capacity-building efforts draw onglobal best practices andexpertise.” (paragraph 14)

A N N E X E . G C F - I I I P R O G R A M M E M E T R I C S 1 1 3

CONTENTS

Tables

Table 1. Global Programme III Core Resource Allocations 2005-2007as Contained in the Programme Document

Table 2. Global Programme III Actual Core Resource Allocations 2005-2007

Table 3. Global Programme I – III Core and Non-Core Allocations

Table 4. Core and Non-Core Funding and Expenditure During 2005-2007

Table 5. BDP Resource Mobilization (Income) and Expenditure 2005-2007

Table 6. BDP Resource Mobilization (Income) 2005-2007 Including Global Environment Facility & Montreal Protocol

Table 7. Thematic Trust Fund Income versus Expenditure 2005-2007

Table 8. Thematic Trust Fund Details and Expenditure by Department

Table 9. Global Programme Targeted Projects:Number of Projects and Expenditure by Department

Table 10. Global Programme Targeted Project Expenditure 2005-2007 by Input Item

Table 11. Extra Budgetary Income from Global Projects 2005–2007

Table 12. Total Core and Non-Core Expenditure for the Global Programme Projects 2005–2007

Table 13. Global Programme Funded Staff by Funding Source

Table 14. Number of Planned Policy Specialists by Region and Practice Area

Table 15. Policy Specialist Post Vacancy Months

Figures

Figure 1. BDP Resource Mobilization (Income) 2005-2007: Not including GEF & MP

Figure 2. BDP Resource Mobilization (Income) 2005-2007: Including GEF & MP

Figure 3. Thematic Trust Fund Growth in Income 2005-2007

Figure 4. Thematic Trust Fund Growth in Expenditure 2005-2007

Figure 5. Total Vacancy Months for Policy Specialist Posts by Region During the GCF-III Period

Annex E

GCF-III PROGRAMME METRICS

A N N E X E . G C F - I I I P R O G R A M M E M E T R I C S1 1 4

Practice / Cross-Cutting Area

PolicyAdvisoryServicesBudget

TargetedProjectBudget

InterregionalKnowledge

Transfer,Learning andCodification

StrategicReserve

TOTAL

Poverty Reduction 16.24 8.51 1.25 26.00

Gender 2.24 0.25 2.49

Democratic Governance 14.56 9.25 1.50 25.31

Energy & Environment 6.16 8.82 1.50 16.48

HIV/AIDS 1.68 4.98 1.50 8.16

Capacity Development 1.12 1.12


TOTAL 42.00 31.56 6.00 5.14 84.7

Table 1. Global Programme III Core Resource Allocations 2005-2007 as Contained in the Programme Document (in $ Millions)

Source: DP/GP/1/Rev.1, Annex 1, p. 17


Table 2. Global Programme III Actual Core Resource Allocations 2005-2007 (in $ Millions)

Department/Practice

2005 2006 2007

GlobalProjects

ThematicCentres

GlobalProjects

ThematicCentres

GlobalProjects

ThematicCentres

Policy Support1

Policy AdvisoryService

14.0 14.0 14.0

KnowledgeManagement

2.0 1.6 2.4

Practice Area

Poverty 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 3.4 1.0

DemocraticGovernance

1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.0

Energy &Environment

1.1 1.02 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0

HIV/AIDS 0.9 0.9 0.9

Gender 0.5 0.6

CapacityDevelopment

0.7 0.8 0.7

Cross Practice 2.0 2.0

SUBTOTAL 223.3 3.0 21.0 3.0 26.5 3.0

TOTAL 26.3 24.0 29.5

TOTAL FOR 2005 – 2007 = 79.8

1. The Policy Support Department was created in ATLAS to allow for central management of the policy advisory and knowledge management funds.

2. BDP noted that the Drylands Development Centre over-expenditure of $2 million was charged in 2004.

Source: Based on memos provided by Bureau for Development Policy (BDP)


Practice Area GCF-I 1997-2000 GCF-II 2001-2004 GCF-III 2005-2007

Core Non-Core Core Non-Core Core Non-Core

Policy Support1

Policy AdvisoryService

15.0 42.0

KnowledgeManagement

6.0

Practice Area 8.0 57.9 100.0 190.0

Poverty 17.6 8.5


17.6 9.3

Energy &Environment

17.6 8.8

HIV/AIDS 5.0

Cross Cutting 17.6

Gender 7.8

CapacityDevelopment

Cross Practice

Other2 19.4 26.4


Contingency Fund3 7.5 3.0

SUBTOTAL 113.8 8.0 87.3 115.0 84.7 190.0

TOTAL 121.84 202.35 274.76

1. ‘Policy Support’ is a department that was created in ATLAS to enable central management of the policy advisory and knowledge management funds. However, the policy specialists and knowledge management funds are distributed across all practice areas. SeeTable 14 for the distribution of policy specialists by practice area and region.

2. Includes Human Development Report Office [HDRO], Office of Development Studies [ODS], Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research [CGIAR] and United Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office [UNSO] (now the Drylands Development Centre-DDC).

3. Allocations made at the discretion of the Administrator.

4. As noted in the First Global Programme Document (DP/GCF/1/Rev.1): "Figures have been rounded off; therefore, they do not add up to exactly $114 million. As described in paragraph 53, $114 million is the total global programme earmarking ($126 million) lessborrowing from the fifth cycle ($12 million)."

5. As noted in the Second Global Programme Document (DP/GCF/2, November, 2000, Annex): The numbers in the document do notmatch the actual sums. Includes field-based policy specialists, and a carry-over of $30 million from the first GCF (1997-2000).Does not include GCF-II extension $20.3 million in core resources and $38.3 million in non-core resources (DP/GCF/2/Extension1).

6. As noted in the Third Global Programme document (DP/GP/1/Rev.1) includes $ 20.76 million in carryover from GCF–II.

Table 3. Global Programme I - III Core and Non-Core Allocations (in $ Millions)


Department/ PracticeArea

Core Non-Core1

Budget Expenditure Projected2 Income Expenditure

Policy Support3

Policy Advisory Services 42.0 43.5

Knowledge Management 6.0 4.8

Practice Area 190.0

Energy & Environment 8.8 6.9 53.1 58.8


HIV/AIDS 5.0 2.9 21.8 25.9

Poverty Reduction & MDGs 8.5 9.6 56.7 28.0

Cross Cutting

Gender 1.2 6.6 5.8

Capacity Development 2.1 7.1 13.4


SUBTOTAL 79.6 82.0 190.0 236.1 201.3


Total 84.7 87.1 190.0 236.1 201.3

1. Non-core, in this case, includes income received through ’cost-sharing’, Trust Funds and Thematic Trust Funds. It does not includeincome received through the Montreal Protocol (MP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

2. DP/GP/1/Rev.1, p. 1.


Table 4. Core and Non-Core Funding and Expenditure During 2005-2007 (in $ Millions)


Table 5. BDP Resource Mobilization (Income) and Expenditure 2005-2007 (Not including the Global Environment Facility and Montreal Protocol Trust Funds, in $ Millions)

Practice Area Income TOTALfor

Practice

Expenditure TOTAL for

PracticeCostSharing

TrustFund

ThematicTrust Fund

CostSharing

TrustFund

ThematicTrust Fund

CapacityDevelopment

1.9 5.2 7.1 3 10.3 13.4

Cross Practice 0.9 0.9 0.04 0.04


13 0.3 77.6 90.8 9.4 4.4 55.5 69.3

Energy &Environment

10.8 12.4 29.9 53.1 3.9 41.6 13.3 58.8

Gender 3.8 2.8 6.6 0.4 - 5.5 5.8

HIV/AIDS 19.6 2.2 21.8 24.3 - 1.6 25.9

PovertyReduction

8.2 37.0 11.5 56.7 1.1 18.5 8.4 28.0

SUBTOTAL 58.1 54.9 124 42.1 74.8 84.3

TOTAL Income 237.0 TOTAL Expenditure 201.3

% Unexpended 15%

Table 6. BDP Resource Mobilization (Income) 2005-2007 (Including the Global Environment Facility and Montreal Protocol Trust Funds, in $ Millions)

Practice Area Cost Sharing Trust Fund ThematicTrust Fund

TOTAL for Practice

Capacity Development 1.9 5.2 7.1



Energy & Environment 10.8 976.3 30.0 1,017.1

Gender 3.8 2.8 6.6

HIV/AIDS 19.6 2.2 21.8

Poverty Reduction 8.2 37.0 11.5 56.7

SUBTOTAL 58.1 1,018.8 124.1

TOTAL 1,201.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

200720062005

US$

Mill

ion

s

PovertyGroup

DemocraticGovernanceGroup

Environmentand EnergyGroup

HIV/AIDS

Gender

CapacityDevelopmentGroup

Cross practice

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

200720062005

US$

Mill

ion

s

PovertyGroup



HIV/AIDS

Gender

CapacityDevelopmentGroup

Cross practice


Figure 1. BDP Resource Mobilization (Income) 2005–2007 (Not Including the Global Environment Facility and Montreal Protocol Trust Funds)

Figure 2. BDP Resource Mobilization (Income) 2005–2007 (Including the Global Environment Facility and Montreal Protocol Trust Funds)


Practice Thematic Trust Fund (TTF) TOTALIncome

TOTAL Expenditure

PercentageUnexpended


TTF Democratic Governance 71.8 53.8 25%

TTF InformationCommunications Technology

5.7 1.8 69%

Subtotal 77.6 55.5 28%

Energy &Environment

TTF Energy for SustainableDevelopment

4.3 9.2 -115%

TTF Environment 25.7 4.1 84%

Subtotal 30 13.3 56%

HIV/AIDS TTF HIV/AIDS 2.2 1.6 28%

Subtotal 2.2 1.6 28%

Poverty Group TTF Poverty Reduction 11.5 8.4 27%

Subtotal 11.5 8.4 27%

Gender TTF Gender 2.8 5.5 -94%

Subtotal 2.8 5.5 -94%

TOTAL 124 84.4 32%

Table 7. Thematic Trust Fund Income vs. Expenditure 2005-2007 (in $ Millions)

0

5

10

15

20

25

200720062005

US$

Mill

ion

s



PovertyGroup

Gender

HIV/AIDS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

200720062005

US$

Mill

ion

sDemocraticGovernanceGroup


PovertyGroup

Gender

HIV/AIDS


Figure 3. Thematic Trust Fund Growth in Income, 2005–2007

Figure 4. Thematic Trust Fund Growth in Expenditure, 2005–2007


Table 8. Thematic Trust Fund Details and Expenditure by Department (in $ Millions)

PRACTICE AREA TITLE/SERVICE LINE TOTAL

Democratic Governance (DG) TTF DG 0.9

TTF DG City Office/Reg Co Finance 9.7

TTF DG Legislatures 3.6

TTF DG Electoral Systems & Process 4.4

TTF DG Access Justice Human Rights 18.1

TTF DG Access to Information 4.9

TTF DG Decent & Local Governance 7.0

TTF DG Public Administration & Civil Service 5.2

TTF Democratic Governance Subtotal 53.8

Information & CommunicationsTechnology (ICT)

ICT 0.04

TTF ICT City Office/Reg Finance 1.5

TTF ICT National & Reg Development Strategies 0.1

TTF ICT Strategy Implementation & Capacity 0.04

TTF ICT Democratic Governance 0.1

TTF ICT Digital Grants Intervention 0

TTF Information & Communications Technology Subtotal 1.7

TTF DGG + ICT Subtotal 55.5

Energy & Environment (E&E) TTF E&E 0.03

TTF E&E City Office/Reg Co Finance 0.2

TTF E&E National Devevelopment Frameworks 0.3

TTF E&E Water Governance 0.5

TTF E&E Envr Glo & Reg Env Chal 1.4

TTF E&E Energy Services 0.7

TTF E&E Land Management 0

TTF E&E Biodiversity 0.8

TTF E&E Chemicals 0.1

TTF Environment Subtotal 4.1

Energy for Sustainable Development(ESD)

TTF ESD 0.2

TTF ESD City Office/Reg Co Finance 2.8

TTF ESD National Policy Frameworks 1.9

TTF ESD Rural Energy Service 3.0

TTF ESD Clean Energy Technology 1.1

TTF ESD Access Investment Finance 0.3

TTF Energy for Sustainable Development Subtotal 9.2

EEG + ESD Subtotal 13.3

Gender (GDR) TTF GDR 0.2

TTF GDR Engendering Policy 1.8

TTF GDR Engendering Legal Frameworks 0.1

TTF GDR Engendering Institutions 3.4

TTF GDR Subtotal 5.5

HIV/AIDS TTF HIV/AIDS 0.1

TTF HIV/AIDS City Office/ Reg Co-Fn 0.6

TTF HIV/AID Adv Strengthening Leadership 0

TTF HIV/AIDS Capacity Development Plan Meeting 1.0

TTF HIV/AIDS Human Rights 0.02

TTF HIV/AIDS Multi-media Technology 0

TTF HIV/AIDS Subtotal 1.6

Poverty Reduction (PRSD) TTF PRSD 0.1

TTF PRSD City Office/Reg Co Finance 0.5

TTF PRSD Benchmarking & Poverty 1.7

TTF PRSD Participatory Process 0.3

TTF PRSD Pro Poor Policy Reforms 5.1

TTF PRSD Piloting & Innovation 0.7

TTF PRSD Subtotal 8.4

TOTAL 84.3


Table 9. Global Programme Targeted Projects:Number of Projects and Expenditure by Department

Practice Number ofProjects

Total Expenditure1

Percentage of Total Expenditure

Policy Support2 2 48.3 59

Practice Area

Democratic Governance 32 6.43 8

Poverty Group 33 9.54 12

HIV/AIDS 5 2.9 4

Energy & Environment 18 6.95 8

Cross Cutting

Gender 7 1.2 1

Cross Practice 14 4.6 6

Capacity Development 10 2.1 3

TOTAL 121 82.0 100

1. In $ millions.


3. Includes $2.9 million for the Oslo Governance Centre.

4. Includes $2.67 million for the International Poverty Centre.

5. Includes $3.16 million for the Drylands Development Centre.

*Please note that numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Source: BDP provided dataset: I. Global Programme Projects 2005-2007 V1.3


ExpenditureCategory

TOTAL Percentageof Total

Expenditure

Consultant 5.6 7.0

Equipment 0.3 0.3

Miscellaneous 3.0 3.7

Printing andPublications

2.3 2.9

Rent 1.9 2.4

Salary 58.5 72.8

Service Contract 3.1 3.9

Travel 5.7 7.1

TOTAL1 80.3 100.0

Department TOTAL

Policy Support2 1.7

Democratic Governance 0.2

Capacity Development 0.04

Cross Practice 0.1

HIV/AIDS 0.04

Environment & Energy 0.2

Gender 0.04

Poverty 0.3

TOTAL 2.6

Table 10. Global Programme Targeted Project Expenditure 2005-2007by Input Item (in $ Millions)

Table 11. Extra Budgetary Income1

from Global Projects 2005–2007 (in $ Millions)

1. Some projects were missing from the expenditure by inputdata provided by BDP. Thus, the total expenditure does notmatch the actual total expenditure for the Global ProgrammeProjects ($81.2 million).

1. Extra Budgetary Income is generated from the DirectExecution (DEX) Project Modality; a 5% DEX managementfee is charged against all global projects.

2. The Policy Support Department was created in ATLAS to allow for central management of the policy advisoryand knowledge management funds.


Table 12. Total Core and Non Core Expenditure for the Global Programme Projects 2005-2007 (in $ Millions)

*Italics indicate that the project was co-financed with non-core funds

Practice/Department

ProjectNumber

Project Title Core Non Core TOTAL % Core of TOTAL

Expenditure

B0079 PolicySupport(Directorate)

11365 Policy Support Services 43.500 43.50 100%

11408 Improving Delivery of Knowledge Services 4.030 4.030 100%

B0079 Total 47.530 – 47.530 100%

DGG 11400 Democratic Governance Practice 100%

11437 Support to Partnerships in ICT 100%

35768 Public Administration Reform and Anti-Corruption 100%

35889 E-governance and Access to Information 100%

36006 Parliamentary Development & Electoral Assistance 100%

36214* Policy Support for Democratic Governance 0.321 64%

38223 Justice and Human Rights Project 0.121 30%

40489 Decentralization, Local Governance and Urban Management Programme

100%

41625 Oslo Governance Centre Budget 1.000 0.671 1.670 60%

43381 DGG SL2.7 Parliamentary Reform & Anti-Corruption 100%

43748 UNDP Elections and ACE Project 100%

44248 Towards a Community of Democracy 0.037 75%

49251 OGC Operational Budget 0.295 1.190 75%

51089 Service Line 2.1 Policy Support for Democratic Governance 0.647 0.890 27%

51127 Service Line 2.5 E-governance 100%

51152 SL 2.3 Electoral Systems and Processes 100%

51155 SL 2.7 Public Administration Reform 0.195 0.195 100%

51169 SL 2.4 Justice and Human Rights 100%

55078 OGC Operational Budget 1.000 0.127 1.130 88%

55651 Comp #1: Strengthening Civic Engagement 100%

55652 Comp #2: Effective Electoral Assistance 0.095 0.095 100%

55653 Comp #3: Independent Media & Elections 0.095 0.095 100%

55654 Comp #4: Pro-Poor E-Governance 0.095 0.095 100%

55655 Comp#5: Mapping Public Administration Reform 0.175 0.175 100%

55656 Comp #6: Federalism & Conflict Prevention 0.065 0.065 100%

55657 Comp #7: Election Support & Conflict Prevention 0.070 0.070 100%

55658 Comp #8: Benchmarks for Democratic Representative Institutions

0.095 0.095 100%

55659 Comp #9: Community of Practice on Justice and Human Rights 0.095 0.095 100%

55660 Com#10: Minorities and MDGs 0.100 0.100 100%

55661 Comp #11: Anti-Corruption Practitioners Manual 0.075 0.075 100%

55662 Comp #12: UN Forum on Democratic Governance 0.145 0.145 100%

55663 Comp #13: Enhancing Democratic Governance Advocacy andCommunication

0.073 44%

DGG Total 6.350 2.290 8.640 73%



Table 12 (cont-d)

Practice/Department

ProjectNumber


Expenditure

CDG 11376* Public Private Partnership & Urban Environment 1.819 2.070 12%

31648 RTC Finalization & Dissemination 100%

33340 CDG Knowledge Management 100%

34392 MDG Focused PPP Initiative 100%

34871 Mainstreaming Capacity 0.085 0.447 16%

38814 C2015 Operationalizing the MDGs 100%

43398 Capacity Development Innovation 100%

50520 AID Effectiveness/ National Capacity 0.050 0.056 89%

50899 Support to Capacity 2015 Regional Initiatives 0.617 1.340 54%

55691 Capacity Development Strategies 0.300 0.071 81%

CDG Total 2.100 3.010 5.050 42%

Cross Practice 42880 MDG Manual 100%

44006 Intellectual Property & Access to Drugs 0.820 0.023 97%

44173 Procurement Capacity Building 0.038 91%

45258 Capacity Diagnostics for Human Development 100%

45677 Localisation of the Millennium Development Goals 100%

46009 Facilitating Private Sector Capacity 100%

46446 HIV/AIDS and Women’s Inheritance 0.075 71%

47062 Land Rights Empowerment for Democratic Governance 100%

50520 Aid Effectiveness/ National Capacity 0.456 0.930 51%

52687 Global Initiative on Gearing Macroeconomic Policies toReverse the HIV/AIDS Epidemic

100%

55691 Capacity Development Strategies 0.400 0.400 100%

58283 Women’s Political Participation 0.100 0.100 100%

58284 Government Accountability 0.100 0.100 100%

58285 Democratic Governance Assessment 0.100 0.100 100%

Cross Practice Total 4.520 0.590 5.110 88%

HIV/AIDS 11442 HIV/AIDS Leadership Capacity And Expertise Building 100%

46453 HIV/AIDS Building Capacity for An Intensified Response 100%

50687 HIV/AIDS 2006/7 Arab States 1.830 1.830 0%

50691 HIV/AIDS 2006/7 Headquarters 1.060 2.800 3.860 27%

50895 HIV/AIDS 2006/7 GCF Funding 0.855 0.850 100%

HIV/AIDS Total 2.930 4.630 7.560 38%



Table 12 (cont-d)

Practice/Department

ProjectNumber


Expenditure

EEG 11383 Sustainable Energy Global Programme 100%

11398 Technical Advisory Group for Environment 0.095 0.095 100%

11416* Poverty and Environment Initiative 1.940 1.940 7%

11431 Environment Global Programme 0.880 0.637 1.520 58%

42416 Dryland Development Centre Management 3.160 3.160 100%

44773 Dryland Adjustments for Record 100%

46582 MDG Carbon Facility 0.015 1.010 1.025 1%

46738 Water Governance Facility 0.476 0.855 44%

47423 GLO/SGP/OP3 10.760 10.810 0%

50584 EEG Knowledge Management 0.043 76%

50586 Framework and Strategy for Sustainable Development 100%

50588 Effective Water Governance 100%

50589 Access to Energy Services 100%

50590 Biodiversity 0.040 0.040 100%

50591 Sound Management of Chemicals 100%

50593 CLIMATE CHANGE 100%

50773 UNDP Equator Initiative 2006 1.110 1.310 15%

56240 GCF Environment and Energy Group 0.079 1.070 93%

EEG Total 6.910 16.060 22.830 30%

Gender 11395 Gender Mainstreaming 0.240 0.240 100%

36955 Gender Knowledge Product Development 100%

50729 Gender Mainstreaming 0.030 0.030 100%

53167 Support to the Implementation of the Gender Action Plan 100%

55167 Developing the UNDP Gender Equality 0.647 10%

57463 Gender Team CPR/EE Implementation 0.065 0.065 100%

57465 Gender Team CD Implementation 0.036 92%

Gender Total 1.220 0.680 1.900 64%



Note: DGG indicated Democratic Governance Group; CDG, Capital Development Group; EEG, Energy and Environment Group;MDG, Millennium Development Goal.

Source: BDP provided datasets: 1. Global Programme Projects 2005-2007 VI.3 & IV. BDP project list all source of funding.2005-2006 expenditure data; 2007 budget data.

Table 12 (cont-d)

Practice/Department

ProjectNumber


Expenditure

Poverty & MDGs 11363* Trade and Sustainable Human Development 0.090 0.017 0.107 84%

11381 Globalization Trade Liberalization & Sustainable Human Development

0.081 0.081 100%

11396 Promoting Social Policy Dialogue 0.120 0.120 100%

11414 Djibouti Integrated Framework 0.006 0.006 100%

11417 UNDP Support to WSIS 0.081 0.093 0.174 47%

11433 Support to Poverty Reduction 0.103 0.103 100%

11440 Policy Advice for Economic Alternatives 0.025 0.025 100%

36346 Integrated Framework Support Project 0.243 0.243 100%

36642 Operationalizing Human Rights 0.0004 0.0004 100%

36954 Towards Debt Sustainability 0.025 0.025 100%

38031 Strengthening Developing Country Competitiveness 1.030 1.030 100%

38347 Policy Tools to support ICT for Development 0.0008 0.391 0.392 0%

39163 Making Infrastructure Work 0.100 0.177 0.271 37%

39189 GLO/04/P01 Pro-Poor Growth and Policies 0.001 0.001 100%

39394 Promoting Employment for the Poor 0.102 0.102 100%

39594 Integrated Approaches to MDGs 0.055 0.055 100%

46066 International Poverty Centre Brasilia 2.670 0.584 3.250 82%

46587 Monetization of KST Chief 0.084 0.084 100%

47557 MDG Support 0.071 0.071 100%

50047 MDG-based Poverty Reduction 0.425 0.425 100%

50898 Engaging Government & Civil Society 0.251 0.251 100%

51147 National Development Strategies 0.025 0.025 100%

51606 Fiscal Space 0.086 0.086 100%

52597 Workshop on Systemic Commodity 0.050 0.050 100%

54273 MDG Support 2.500 0.465 2.960 84%

55666 Market, the State and the Dynamic Economy 0.200 0.200 100%

55921 Civil Society's Role in Poverty 0.100 0.100 100%

56217 Operationalizing Fiscal Space 0.160 0.160 100%

56566 Legal Empowerment of the Poor 0.279 0.279 100%

56582 Use of ICT to Support the Achievements of the MDGs 0.069 0.069 100%

57535 PG Intellectual Property, Trade and Biodiversity 0.075 0.075 100%

57638 External Drivers of Development 0.200 0.200 100%

58407 SPPR Cluster Support 0.255 0.255 100%

Poverty & MDGs Total 9.560 1.730 11.280 85%

GRAND TOTAL 81.120 28.990 109.900 74%


Department Global Programme

Staff1

GlobalProgramme

Policy Advisors2

ExtraBudgetary3

Total

Field NewYork

Field NewYork

NewYork

Directorate 1 1

Programme Support Unit 1 4 5

Human Resources 1 1

Knowledge Services Team 11 11

SURF 8 8

Practice Areas

Democratic Governance 64 1 19 8 1 35

Energy & Environment 55 1 8 5 1 20

Poverty Reduction 66 227 19 6 53

HIV/AIDS 1 2 1 4

Cross Cutting 4 2 6

Capacity Development 4 2 1 7

Gender 4 1 5

SUBTOTAL 33 42 52 21 8 156

Subtotal Field = 84

Subtotal New York = 52

TOTAL STAFF FUNDED BY GLOBAL PROGRAMME = 156

Table 13. Global Programme Funded Staff by Funding Source

1. Referred to as "Glo Non 75" by BDP; funding from the global projects.

2. Referred to as "Glo 75" by BDP; funding from the policy advisory project 11365.

3. Extra Budgetary Income generated from the 5% Direct Execution fee charged to the global projects.

4. Includes 6 staff at Oslo Governance Centre.

5. Includes 4 staff at the Drylands Development Centre.

6. Includes 4 staff at the International Poverty Centre.

7. Includes 21 staff in the MDG section.


Table 14. Number of Planned Policy Specialists by Region and Practice Area

Practice Areas HQ RBA RBAP RBAS RBEC RBLAC TOTAL

Capacity Development 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Democratic Governance 8 6 3 2 3 5 27

Environment & Energy 5 3 2 1 0 2 13

Gender 1 2 1 1 0 0 5

HIV/AIDS 1 1 1 0 0 0 3

Poverty Group 8 7 4 2 3 1 25

TOTAL 25 19 11 6 6 8 75

Region Number of Months

Number of Posts

Headquarters/New York 69 6

Regional Bureau for Asia & the Pacific 63 5

Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

56 3

Regional Bureau for Africa 72 5

Regional Bureau for Arab States 9 1

Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean 9 1

TOTAL 278 21

HQ indicates Headquarters; RBA, Regional Bureau for Africa; RBAP, Regional Bureau for Asia & the Pacific; RBAS, Regional Bureau for Arab States; RBEC, Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States; RBLAC, Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Table 15. Policy Specialist Post Vacancy Months


Figure 5. Total Vacancy Months for Policy Specialist Posts by Region During the GCF-III Period (2005–2007)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Headquarters/New York

Nu

mb

ero

fMo

nth

s

Regional Bureaufor Latin America

and the Caribbean

Regional Bureaufor Arab States

Regional Bureau for Asia

Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Regional Bureaufor Asia andthe Pacific

A N N E X F . A N A L Y S I S O F T A R G E T E D S U R V E Y S 1 3 3

This annex contains the summary results of thesurveys of the policy advisors/specialists and ofResident Representatives. It is organized as follows:

n Summary of the Survey of Policy Advisors/Specialists

n Summary of the Survey of Resident Representatives

n Survey Questions and Responses:Policy Advisors/Specialists

n Survey Questions and Responses:Resident Representatives

SUMMARY OF THE SURVEY OF POLICY ADVISORS/SPECIALISTS

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The GCF-III funds “a global network of 75 policy specialists—50 of whom are based inthe field in Subregional Resource Facilities(SURFs) and regional service centres (RSCs) and 25 at headquarters—covering the 24 servicelines under MYFF [Multi-Year Funding Frame-work].”1 A survey was undertaken to obtain theviewpoints of the Policy Advisors on thefollowing issues: 1) General characteristics,2) Reporting and accountability, 3) Nature of the services provided, and 4) Views on the GCF-IV. The questionnaire contained 63 questionsand was deployed through the internet-basedZoomerang service. This summary reportexplores the question: “Are the experiences ofheadquarter (HQ) and field-based PolicyAdvisors different?”

Response Rate

The survey was sent to 70 current and formerPolicy Advisors out of whom 36 (51 percent)responded. Two reminders were sent. There wasfairly even regional and practice area distribution(especially between Headquarters-based andfield-based Policy Advisors). However, there wereno respondents from the Capacity Developmentor HIV/AIDS groups, leaving gaps of data forthese two practice areas. Potential biases mayhave arisen because respondents may be morefamiliar with the global programme than thosewho did not respond. Although the response ratewas not optimal, the results can be generalized tothe population of Policy Advisors as there wasgood regional distribution.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

General Characteristics of Respondents

Approximately 70 percent of respondents hadbeen a Policy Advisor during the GCF-IIIperiod—and almost half of all respondents hadbeen a Policy Advisor for even longer. Themajority of respondents are at the L5 positionlevel (56 percent, n=20/36), however, regionaldifferences exist. Headquarters-based PolicyAdvisors were more likely to be a L5 or higherposition than field-based Policy Advisors.69 percent of all respondents are male, while 31 percent are female. However, 45 percent ofHeadquarters-based respondents are female,while only 26 percent of field-based respondentsare female. In general, respondents at Headquartersand in the field are satisfied with their job:94 percent would renew their contract.Professional experience rated higher thanpersonal experience: respondents enjoy the

Annex F

ANALYSIS OF TARGETED SURVEYS

1. The MYFF development drivers provide the principles by which to frame the qualitative contribution of UNDP programming efforts at all levels.

A N N E X F . A N A L Y S I S O F T A R G E T E D S U R V E Y S1 3 4

intellectual stimulation but the managementarrangements and burdensome reporting require-ments challenge work-life balance.

Reporting and Accountability

Field-based Policy Advisors are three times morelikely than Headquarters-based Policy Advisorsto report “fair” or “poor” clarity of their reportingrelationships. All Headquarters-based respon-dents report to the BDP Practice leader, whilethe field-based Policy Advisors gave a variety ofresponses from BDP Practice leader to RSC leaderor SURF chief. However, when asked “Whoshould be your supervisor?”, 47 percent ofrespondents from the field noted that they thinkthe practice leader should be their direct supervi-sor. The majority (75 percent) of all respondents(both Headquarters and field) claim the countryoffice (CO) (thus the National Government) istheir main client.

Nature of Services Provided

Almost half of all field-based respondents spend16 weeks or more on mission, while only oneHeadquarters-based respondent fit into thiscategory. Field-based respondents spend moretime supporting CO national counterparts thanHeadquarters-based Policy Advisors: 42 percentof field-based respondents spend “most of thetime” supporting CO counterparts and noHeadquarters-based Policy Advisors respondedsimilarly.

About half of all respondents are involved withthe GCF-III-funded global projects. However,there is wide variation between Headquarters andthe field: 91 percent of Headquarters-basedPolicy Advisors are involved with global projectscompared with only 38 percent of field-basedPolicy Advisors. Approximately 30 percent ofrespondents rated the quality and effectiveness ofglobal projects as “excellent” and 25 percentresponded that the global projects are “fair”.

However, knowledge products are highlyregarded by the respondents, with the qualityranking higher than the utility: 91 percent of all

respondents rated the quality of knowledgeproducts as either “excellent” or “good” while 72 percent rated the utility as either “excellent” or“good”, while the “fair” and “poor” categorieswere dominated by field-based Policy Advisorrespondents. Practice-level analysis demonstratesthat Policy Advisors tend to be more active intheir respective practice area knowledge networkthan any of the other networks. However, themajority of Policy Advisors rated involvement intheir own knowledge network as only “somewhatactive”. The vast majority (71 percent) of respon-dents rate the usefulness of the knowledgenetworks as “excellent” or “good”.

Wider Views and Views on the GCF-IV

On the whole, 60 percent of respondents ratedthe quality and effectiveness of the GCF-III as“excellent” or “good” and 85 percent respondedthat the GCF-III “certainly” or “somewhat”positioned UNDP as a knowledge-based organi-zation and major upstream policy advisor onglobal issues. The main theme throughout thecommentary was the unsatisfactory managementarrangements. Ranging from lack of leadershipto frequent institutional change, Policy Advisorsat both Headquarters and in the field seemanagement issues as the main challenge andconstraint affecting the success of the PolicyAdvisors’ work. The field-based Policy Advisorswere very vocal about the time constraints theyare faced with while trying to meet the demandsof the country offices and satisfy regional andglobal requirements and the lack of supportbetween the Headquarters and the field.

When asked, “What are the major impacts ofyour work?”, Headquarters-based Policy Advisorsfocused on the impact of their work on the globallevel: positioning UNDP as a key player withintheir respective field (trade, rule of law, environment,gender, etc.). On the other hand, field-basedPolicy Advisors focused on the impact of theirwork at the local level: positioning UNDP as atrusted player at the local and regional level bybuilding capacity and/or increasing knowledge ofthe national government via the CO.


CONCLUSIONS

The survey analysis demonstrated that there aredifferences (although not tested to be statisticallysignificant) between the Headquarters-based andfield-based Policy Advisors. The differencescenter on the management arrangements and thenature of services provided. Although bothHeadquarters and field-based Policy Advisorsclaim the CO (and, by implication, theprogramme country government) to be theirmain client—the field-based Policy Advisorsreport more time spent providing direct COsupport than the Headquarters-based PolicyAdvisors. Additionally, field-based Policy Advisorsreport the impact of their work to be at the COlevel, while the Headquarters-based PolicyAdvisors report the impact of their work to be ata more global or institutional level. Although nodifferences between the global and field-basedPolicy Advisors are stipulated in the programmedocument,2 one may conclude that the role of thePolicy Advisor varies between Headquarters andthe field. However, although not the case inevery practice area or in every region, by andlarge, the field-based Policy Advisors do notobtain the level of support they would wish toreceive from Headquarters.

SUMMARY OF THE SURVEY OFRESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The survey was designed to gauge the performanceof the GCF-III from the perspective of ResidentRepresentatives and Country Directors. Animportant objective of the survey was tounderstand the responsiveness of the GCF-III tocountry office demand, as generated through theGCF-III modalities of delivery.

Response Rate

The survey was sent to 146 Resident Representatives(RRs)/Resident Coordinators (RCs) and Country

Directors (CDs) from 119 countries and 2 regionalcentres. A total of 33 responses were receivedrepresenting a fairly low (23 percent) responserate. However, there is fairly good regionalrepresentation—with the Regional Bureau forArab States (RBAS) and Regional Bureau Africa(RBA) somewhat under-represented. The lownumber of respondents per region does not allowfor a meaningful regional analysis, and general-izations to the wider RR/RC/CD populationmust be drawn with caution. An additionallimitation is self-selection bias: i. e. respondentsmay be more aware of the GCF-III than non-respondents. Additionally, as it is not possible todetermine which countries responded, some mayhave been involved with the evaluation throughthe country missions and are thus moreknowledgeable about the GCF-III.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Objectives, Principles and Rationale of the Current Global Programme

When viewed as a whole, the majority (77 percent)of respondents stated that the GCF-III, “to some”or “to a small extent”, reached its objectives,principles and rationale. The majority of respon-dents (62 percent) stated that the GCF-III only“to a small extent” has developed and promotedinnovative approaches in addressing developmentchallenges that were applied in their country.Similarly, 50 percent (n=16) of respondentsstated that the GCF-III, only “to a small extent”,increased opportunities for South-South cooper-ation and facilitated the exchange of South-South expertise.

These results indicate that either the respondentsare not aware of the achievements of the GCF-III (“don’t know” was not an option) or that theyfeel that the GCF-III has not reached itsobjectives, principles and rationale as stipulatedin the GCF-III programme document. Acommon theme was the difficulty attributingresults directly to the GCF-III. However, as onerespondent noted, the fact that one cannot

2. Global Programme Document Section VI, p. 16.


identify results specific to the GCF-III maydemonstrate that it has been fully streamlined,which is a positive trend. However, this also poseschallenges in identifying accountability andassessing achievements.

The GCF-III Modalities of Delivery

Performance of Policy Advisors. Overall, theGCF-III Policy Advisory services were reportedas not in high demand: 58 percent responded thatthe services are either “not very important” or“not important”. However, when asked howimportant providing policy advice was to thework of the CO over the GCF-III period, 58percent responded either “very important” or“somewhat important”. Conversely, comparativeresearch referrals, mutual support initiatives,research and analysis, and resource mobilizationranked low in demand, which may potentiallydemonstrate the demand for very specific servicesinstead of the broad range made available to theCO. Between 61-67 percent of respondentsdemand policy advisory services from theEnvironment and Energy Group (EEG),Democratic Governance Group (DGG), andPoverty/Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Group and between 41-47 percent ofrespondents demand policy advisory servicesfrom Gender, HIV/AIDS and the CapacityDevelopment Group (CDG).

Global Projects. About half of the respondentsreported that they are familiar, “to some extent”,with the global projects. However, the majorityresponded that the global projects only “to asmall extent” made a direct contribution tocountry development results. The global projectsdid not draw upon the country experiences of themajority of respondents: approximately 72 percentof respondents’ countries were not involved in theglobal projects as a case study and 77 percentresponded that there has never been a globalproject pilot initiative in their country. However,at least one respondent from each region wasrepresented for those projects where the CO wasinvolved as a case study or pilot initiative.Although a few RR/RC/CD’s reported that theprojects draw upon their country experience, it

may be concluded that the global projects are not,“to a great extent”, reaching or drawing from thecountry level.

Knowledge Management and KnowledgeProducts. The majority (74 percent) either“strongly agrees” or “agrees” that the globalprogramme knowledge networks and communitiesof practice have been important mechanisms forknowledge sharing. In particular, the knowledgenetworks are regarded highly: 79 percent ofrespondents either strongly agree or agree thatthe networks have been important mechanismsfor the exchange and sharing of knowledge. Onthe other hand, many stated that the knowledgeproducts are not responding to the needs at thecountry level as indicated by the split responsebetween the categories. The thematic centres (OsloGovernance Centre [OGC], International PovertyCentre [IPC] and Drylands Development Centre[DDC]) knowledge products received the lowestscores in terms of usefulness.

The GCF-III Governance and Management.The respondents were split almost 50/50regarding whether their respective RSC/SURFmeets the demands of the country offices in acost-effective manner through the provision ofservices and support of the GCF-III-fundedpolicy advisors. The majority (90 percent) ofrespondents would like to have a range ofinternal and external options in acquiring PolicyAdvisor services and support (n=30/33 fell in the “agree” or “strongly agree” categories).Additionally, 68 percent of respondents “disagree”or “strongly disagree” that the allocation andmanagement of policy advisor resources is a goodreflection of demand. Around 62 percent ofrespondents rated the overall performance of theRSC/SURF Policy Advisors as “acceptable” or“poor”. Approximately 62 percent of respondentseither “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that thecurrent matrix management system betweenBDP and the regional bureaux is effective andthe commentary received in this section stressedthe perceived ineffectiveness of the matrixmanagement system. Regarding BDP manage-ment of the GCF-III, respondents did not


believe that the GCF-III has been open,transparent and accountable (65 percent,n=19/29 disagreed that it was transparent).However, respondents agree that the GCF-IIIshould be centrally managed by BDP (65 percent). Additionally, the vast majority (84percent) of respondents agree that BDP shouldcontinue to lead and manage the UNDPknowledge management function.

The GCF-III IV Formulation. The majoritybelieve that the GCF-III should continue tosupport: positioning UNDP as a global leader indevelopment policy, UNDP-wide practicecoherence, UNDP regional centres, developmentinnovation,development policy research and develop-ment and backstopping support to the COs.However, respondents were split almost 50/50regarding whether to support UNDP-wideorganizational change and staffing support toBDP. The majority of respondents “agree” or“strongly agree” that the GCF-IV shouldcontinue regional and global knowledgenetworks and develop corporate and country-specific knowledge products. The generalcomments received on the suggested direction ofthe GCF-IV were varied. Some respondentssuggested working in areas of UNDP compara-tive advantage, highlighting priority thematicareas such as climate change and povertyreduction, while others focused on operationalmechanisms, such as the need for direct countryoffice funding and support.

CONCLUSION

Based on the survey results, respondents of thissurvey felt the GCF-III had not achieved theobjective of responding to country-level demand.The survey illustrates the lack of ability of theGCF-III to leverage country office experience andthe generally poor knowledge or clarity regardingthe GCF-III activities. Knowledge managementemerged as one of the more successful areas ofthe GCF-III, particularly the knowledgenetworks, and as a priority area for the GCF-IV.In general, the respondents stated that thecurrent objectives and principles should remain.However improvements in the operationalizationof the global programme are necessary.

SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES:POLICY ADVISORS/SPECIALISTS

Note that numbers may not add up due to rounding.

GENERAL

1. Location

Bangkok RSC 5 14%

Beirut SURF 6 17%

Bratislava RSC 3 9%

Colombo RSC 3 9%

Dakar RSC 2 6%

Johannesburg RSC 2 6%

New York 11 31%

Panama SURF 3 9%

Port of Spain SURF 0 0%

Total 35 100%

2. Practice Area

Poverty/MDG 13 36%

Governance 13 36%

Environment & Energy 7 19%

HIV/AIDS 0 0%

Gender 3 8%

Capacity development 0 0%

Other, please specify 0 0%

Total 36 100%

3. Position Level

L3 0 0%

L4 11 31%

L5 20 56%

L6 3 8%


Total 36 100%

4. How long have you been,or were you, a Policy Advisor?

< 1yrs 3 8%

1 to 2 yrs 2 6%

2 to 3 yrs 6 17%

3 to 4 yrs 8 22%

> 5 yrs 17 47%

Total 36 100%


5. Sex

Male 24 69%

Female 11 31%

Total 35 100%

6. Age

Below 30 0 0%

30-39 8 22%

40-49 13 36%

50 and above 15 42%

Total 36 100%

7. Family

With Family 28 78%

Without Family 8 22%

Total 36 100%

8. Would you accept an offer to extend or renew your contract?

Yes 33 94%

No 2 6%

Total 35 100%

9. Overall, how would you rate your ownprofessional experience as a Policy Advisor(i.e. in terms of developing and applying your professional expertise)?

Excellent 17 47%

Good 15 42%

Fair 4 11%

Poor 0 0%

Total 36 100%

10. If you have any additional comments on thequestion above, please provide them here.

18 Responses

11. Overall, how would you rate your'personal' experience working as a PolicyAdvisor (i.e. in terms of developing newrelationships, enjoying the work, generallearning experience, work-life balance)?

Excellent 7 19%

Good 19 53%

Fair 8 22%

Poor 2 6%

Total 36 100%


20 Responses

13. In your role as a Policy Advisor, how would you rate, in general terms,your contribution to or impact on:

Top number is the count of respondents selecting theoption. Bottom number is the percentage of the totalrespondents selecting the option.

Excellent Good Fair Poor

BDP 10 17 8 1

28% 47% 22% 3%

Regional Service Centre or SURF 13 14 8 0

37% 40% 23% 0%

Country Offices 13 14 8 1

36% 39% 22% 3%

Corporate UNDP 7 14 14 1

19% 39% 39% 3%

National Governments 8 17 7 4

22% 47% 19% 11%

14. If you have any additional comments on the question above, please provide them here.

16 Responses


15. How important do you consider the following skills to be for the work that you do?


VeryImportant

Important SomewhatImportant

NotImportant

Specialist or Technical Skills in Your Practice Area

27 8 1 0

75% 22% 3% 0%

Communication (verbal) 19 17 0 0

53% 47% 0% 0%

Communication (written) 24 11 1 0

67% 31% 3% 0%

Ability to Work in Teams 17 15 4 0

47% 42% 11% 0%

Adaptability 20 15 1 0

56% 42% 3% 0%

Flexibility 17 17 2 0

47% 47% 6% 0%

Pro-active, responsive 22 14 0 0

61% 39% 0% 0%

Networking 20 11 4 0

57% 31% 11% 0%

Team Management 6 22 7 0

17% 63% 20% 0%

Programme Management 7 18 9 1

20% 51% 26% 3%


6 Responses

17. Are you interested in a long-term career in UNDP?

Yes 30 83%

No 6 17%

Total 36 100%

18. If 'Yes', are you interested in moving out ofthe Policy Advisor position?

Yes 17 61%

No 11 39%

Total 28 100%

19. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with your job?

Very satisfied 16 46%

Somewhat satisfied 16 46%

Not very satisfied 3 9%

Not satisfied 0 6%

Total 35 0%


7 Responses


21. Who is your immediate supervisor?

RSC Director 8 22%

SURF Chief 4 11%

BDP Practice Director 15 42%

Regional Bureau Director 0 0%


Total 36 100%

25. Who do you consider to be your major client?

Country Office 23 64%

National Government of countries served 5 14%

Corporate UNDP 1 3%

BDP 0 0%

RSC 0 0%

Regional Bureau 0 0%


Total 36 100%

22. Who do you think should be your immediate supervisor?

29 Responses

23. How would you rate the clarity of your reporting relationships?

Excellent 9 26%

Good 18 51%

Fair 3 9%

Poor 5 14%

Total 35 100%


15 Responses

26. What percentage of your time do you work in teams as opposed to on your own

Top number is the count ofrespondents selecting theoption. Bottom number is the percentage of the totalrespondents selecting the option.

<10 11–20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 >90

Team 3 3 10 5 2 3 6 4 0 0

8% 8% 28% 14% 6% 8% 17% 11% 0% 0%

27. For the time that you spend in teams, how much of your time do you spend on:

Top number is the count of respondents selectingthe option. Bottom number is the percentage of thetotal respondents selecting the option.

All of thetime

Most ofthe time

Half of thetime

Some ofthe time

None ofthe time

Your Practice Teams 3 10 10 13 0

8% 28% 28% 36% 0%

Cross-practice Teams 0 3 2 29 2

0% 8% 6% 81% 6%

Other Types of Teams (e.g. country office) 1 7 12 15 0

3% 20% 34% 43% 0%

REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY

NATURE OF THE SERVICES THAT YOU PROVIDE


28. How much of your time do you spend supporting:


All of thetime

Most ofthe time

Half ofthe time

Some ofthe time

None ofthe time

Country Office National Counterparts 1 11 6 14 4

3% 31% 17% 39% 11%

Internal Country Office Staff and Processes 2 5 4 16 7

6% 15% 12% 47% 21%

Regional Service Centres/SURFs 1 3 4 25 0

3% 9% 12% 76% 0%

BDP 1 3 6 24 0

3% 9% 18% 71% 0%

Regional Bureau 1 3 4 24 2

3% 9% 12% 71% 6%

Corporate UNDP 2 5 3 19 6

6% 14% 9% 54% 17%


9 Responses

30. How much of your time do you spend on the following services?

Top number is the count of respondents selectingthe option. Bottom number is the percentage ofthe total respondents selecting the option.

All of thetime

Most ofthe time

Half of thetime

Some ofthe time

None ofthe time

Policy Advice 3 16 8 9 0

8% 44% 22% 25% 0%

Referral Services 0 3 4 26 3

0% 8% 11% 72% 8%

Technical Support Services 1 8 3 22 1

3% 23% 9% 63% 3%

Programme and Project Development 0 6 6 24 0

0% 17% 17% 67% 0%

Support to UN Coordination 0 3 4 24 5

0% 8% 11% 67% 14%

Knowledge Management 0 5 10 21 0

0% 14% 28% 58% 0%

Monitoring and Reporting 0 5 1 29 1

0% 14% 3% 81% 3%

Training and Capacity Building 0 6 6 22 1

0% 17% 17% 63% 3%

Research and Analysis 0 6 7 22 0

0% 17% 20% 63% 0%


8 Responses


36. Ideally, what percentage of your time should you spend on mission as opposed to in your duty station?

Top number is the count of respondents selectingthe option. Bottomnumber is the percentageof the total respondentsselecting the option.

<10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 > 90%

Missions 1 4 11 10 5 3 1 1 0 0

3% 11% 31% 28% 14% 8% 3% 3% 0% 0%

32. On average, how many hours over and above the regular work week (37.5 hrs)do you work?

0 0 0%

<5 1 3%

5-10 11 31%

11-15 11 31%

16-20 8 23%

>20 4 11%

Total 35 100%


11 Responses

34. Over the past year, approximately how many weeks did you spend on mission?

0 0 0%

<5 5 14%

5-10 8 23%

11-15 10 29%

16-20 5 14%

>20 7 20%

Total 35 100%


6 Responses


7 Responses

38. Which are the main countries that you support (missions and desk services) in priority order?

31 Responses

39. How many countries do you support (missions and desk services) per year?

35 Responses

40. In your opinion, what is the optimum number of countries that you should support (missions and desk services) per year?

32 Responses


47. Which are the most important 1-3 knowledge products you have contributed to?

33 Responses

42. How do you rate the quality and effectiveness of the global projects in your practice area?

Excellent 10 31%

Good 12 38%

Fair 8 25%

Poor 2 6%

Total 32 100%

41. Are you involved in the implementation of activities funded by one of the (GCF-III)global projects?

Yes 20 56%

No 16 44%

Total 36 100%


11 Responses

45. How do you rate the quality and effectiveness of the TTF funded activities inyour practice area?

Excellent 12 38%

Good 13 41%

Fair 5 16%

Poor 2 6%

Total 32 100%

44. Are you involved in the implementation of activities funded by a Thematic Trust Fund?

Yes 23 66%

No 12 34%

Total 35 100%


13 Responses

48. How do you rate the quality and utility of the knowledge products in your practice area?


Excellent Good Fair Poor

Quality 12 21 3 0

33% 58% 8% 0%

Utility 8 18 8 2

22% 50% 22% 6%


10 Responses


50. How would you rate your level of activity in the following knowledge networks and practice communities (i.e. in terms of reading and responding to the e-mails)? (Main Practice and Cross-cutting Area NetworksTop number is the count of respondents selecting theoption. Bottom number is the percentage of the totalrespondents selecting the option.

Active Somewhatactive

Not veryactive

Not active

Democratic Governance Practice Network(DGP Net)

6 6 14 7

18% 18% 42% 21%

Poverty Reduction Practice Network (PR Net) 3 16 8 6

9% 48% 24% 18%

Energy and Environment Practice Network (EE Net)

3 3 7 19

9% 9% 22% 59%

HIV/AIDS Practice Network 0 2 5 24

0% 6% 16% 77%

Capacity Development Network (Capacity Net)

1 5 11 14

3% 16% 35% 45%

Gender Equality Network (Gender Net) 2 8 10 11

6% 26% 32% 35%

Prevention and Recovery Practice Network(CPRPNet)

3 3 11 16

9% 9% 33% 48%


5 Responses

52. Other Networks


Active Somewhatactive

Not veryactive

Not active

Evaluation Network (EvalNet) 1 3 5 21

3% 10% 17% 70%

Management Practice Network (MPN) 2 2 10 17

6% 6% 32% 55%

Millenium Development Goals Network(MDG-net)

3 9 7 11

10% 30% 23% 37%

Human Rights Network (HuriTALK) 3 4 2 20

10% 14% 7% 69%

Decentralization, local governance andurban/rural development (DLGUD)

3 9 11 10

9% 27% 33% 30%

HDR Statistics Network 2 3 4 20

7% 10% 14% 69%

Information and Communications Technologyfor Development Network (ICTD Net)

1 1 5 20

4% 4% 19% 74%

Small Enterprise and Micro-Finance Network(SEMFINet)

2 2 2 24

7% 7% 7% 80%


6 Responses


55. What percentage of your time do youspend accesssing/inputing to these networks?

<10 24 67%

11-20 11 31%

21-30 1 3%

31-40 0 0%

>40 0 0%

Total 36 100%

54. How would you rate the usefulness of these networks?

Excellent 7 20%

Good 18 51%

Fair 9 26%

Poor 1 3%

Total 35 100%

WIDER ISSUES

56. Describe one activity or support service that you consider to have been highly successful, andwhy (please indicate where we might obtain further information)?

34 Responses

63. Are there any other comments, suggestions or advice that you would like to provide on the design of a Fourth Global Cooperation Framework (GCF-IV) and/or the role of the Policy Advisor in the GCF-IV?

16 Responses

57. What do you consider to be the major ‘impacts’ of your work?

34 Responses

58. What are the main constraints affecting the success of your work?

34 Responses

59. How do you rate the qualityand effectiveness of the Third GlobalCooperation Framework (2005-07) as a whole?

Excellent 6 18%

Good 14 42%

Fair 13 39%

Poor 0 0%

Total 33 100%


11 Responses

61. Has the GCF-III sufficiently contributed topositioning UNDP as a knowledge-basedorganization and major upstream policyadvisor on global issues?

Yes, certainly 14 41%

Yes, somewhat 15 44%

No, not much 4 12%

No, not at all 1 3%

Total 34 100%


8 Responses


SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES:RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES/COUNTRY DIRECTORS

VIEWS ON OVERALL RELEVANCE OF THE GLOBAL PROGRAMME

1. Location of country office (CO)

Africa 9 26%

Arab States 4 12%

Asia and the Pacific 7 21%

Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States 6 18%

Latin America and the Carribean 8 24%

Total 34 100%

2. This question relates to the objectives, principles and rationale of the current global programme

Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option.Bottom number is the percentage of the total respondents selectingthe option.

To a greatextent

To someextent

To a smallextent

Not at all

The global programme supported my country in achievingthe Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

2 12 16 4

6% 35% 47% 12%

The Global Programme ensured that in my country, develop-ment assistance, advice, programme design and capacity-building efforts drew on global best practices and expertise.

2 16 10 5

6% 48% 30% 15%

The global programme ensured that gender perspectiveswere reflected and integrated through projects and practice areas.

4 8 12 8

12% 25% 38% 25%

The global programme codified experience into knowledgeproducts (such as practice notes and ‘how-to’ guides) thatwere used by UNDP and its partners in identifying policyoptions in my country.

6 14 8 5

18% 42% 24% 15%

The global programme has developed and promotedinnovative approaches in addressing developmentchallenges that were applied in my country.

1 9 20 2

3% 28% 62% 6%

The global programme increased opportunities for South-South cooperation and facilitated the exchange of South-South expertise.

1 8 16 7

3% 25% 50% 22%

The global programme supported strategic partnerships toexpand access to the global knowledge base that helpedidentify policy options relevant to my country.

1 9 18 4

3% 28% 56% 12%

The global programme contributed to transforming UNDPinto a globally networked, knowledge-based organization,connecting countries to knowledge, experience, technologyand resources.

6 11 12 4

18% 33% 36% 12%

The global programme responded to the national develop-ment priorities in my country.

0 14 12 7

0% 42% 36% 21%

The global programme has been important to UNDP’s workat the global level.

7 17 8 0

22% 53% 25% 0%

The global programme has helped position UNDP as a globalleader in development policy thinking.

2 15 10 4

6% 48% 32% 13%


9 Responses


VIEWS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GCF-III FUNDED POLICY ADVISORS

4. How important were the following types of services provided by the BDP GCF-funded Policy Advisors to the work of the CO over the period 2005-2007?


VeryImportant

SomewhatImportant

Not VeryImportant

NotImportant

Providing Policy Advice 6 14 8 6

18% 41% 24% 18%

Providing Technical Expertise & COBackstopping

11 7 11 5

32% 21% 32% 15%

Referrals (experts) 4 18 7 5

12% 53% 21% 15%

Referrals (comparative research) 0 11 14 9

0% 32% 41% 26%

Mutual Support Initiatives 0 15 11 8

0% 44% 32% 24%

Research and Analysis 1 12 11 9

3% 36% 33% 27%

Building CO Capacity (training etc.) 5 4 17 7

15% 12% 52% 21%

Resource Mobilization 1 4 13 16

3% 12% 38% 47%


6 Responses

6. How important was the availability of BDP GCF-funded Policy Advisors to the work of the CO in the following BDP Practice and Cross-Practice Areas over the period 2005-2007?


VeryImportant

SomewhatImportant

Not VeryImportant

NotImportant

Poverty and the MDGs 5 17 6 6

15% 50% 18% 18%

Energy and Environment 8 15 7 4

24% 44% 21% 12%

Democratic Governance 7 14 8 5

21% 41% 24% 15%

HIV/AIDS 3 11 12 7

9% 33% 36% 21%

Capacity Development 7 7 11 9

21% 21% 32% 26%

Gender 4 12 8 10

12% 35% 24% 29%


4 Responses

VIEWS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GCF-III FUNDED POLICY ADVISORS


10. To what extent did global projects draw upon country experiences?


Yes No

Global projects have used case studies from mycountry.

10 23

30% 70%

Global projects have piloted approaches or initiativesin my country.

8 24

25% 75%

8. Approximately $32 million of core funds was budgeted for ‘targeted global projects’ over theperiod 2005–2006.


To a greatextent

To someextent

To a smallextent

Not at all

I am familiar with global projects. 2 17 12 3

6% 50% 35% 9%

Global projects have made a direct contribution to theachievement of development results in my country.

2 4 18 10

6% 12% 53% 29%


1 Responses

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND GCF-FUNDED KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS


11. The global programme funds and supports interregional knowledge transfer through virtualknowledge networks and production of knowledge products, primarily by BDP


StronglyAgree

Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree

Don’tKnow

The global programme enhanced knowledgesharing through the communities of practiceat the country, regional and global levels.

4 24 3 1 2

12% 71% 9% 3% 6%

The communities of practice enabled practi-tioners from UNDP, the United Nations andprogramme countries to come together anddefine how specific UNDP priorities can bemade directly relevant to specific national andregional realities.

4 17 8 2 3

12% 50% 24% 6% 9%

The knowledge networks have beenimportant mechanisms for the exchange andsharing of knowledge and information.

6 21 4 0 3

18% 62% 12% 0% 9%

Knowledge products supported by the globalprogramme responded to requests and needsfrom national counterparts.

3 10 13 3 5

9% 29% 38% 9% 15%

The development of knowledge products hasbeen based on real country experiences.

4 15 8 1 6

12% 44% 24% 3% 18%

My CO was consulted in the development ofsome of the BDP produced knowledge products.

3 10 14 4 3

9% 29% 41% 12% 9%

BDP knowledge products are practical and readilyadaptable to meeting needs within my country.

1 14 10 4 4

3% 42% 30% 12% 12%


4 Responses


13. Generally, how useful does your office find the various products produced by BDP and the Thematic Centers?


VeryUseful

SomewhatUseful

MarginallyUseful

NotUseful

Have NotSeen

Policy Series – including practice notesand policy briefs/notes

3 17 9 3 2

9% 50% 26% 9% 6%

Practitioner Series – including practicetools for COs and “how-to” guides ormanuals

5 16 7 2 4

15% 47% 21% 6% 12%

Research Series – includes case studies,analytical reports, discussion papers andintelligence briefs on emerging issues

2 14 11 4 3

6% 41% 32% 12% 9%

Knowledge Management Series – includesconsolidated replies from networks and e-discussion summaries

6 17 9 2 0

18% 50% 26% 6% 0%

Knowledge Management Series – includescompilations of comparative experiences,good practices and lessons learned

6 17 6 3 2

18% 50% 18% 9% 6%

Websites and Workspaces 3 15 8 5 3

9% 44% 24% 15% 9%

Oslo Governance Centre (applied researchand analytical work)

1 13 10 6 4

3% 38% 29% 18% 12%

Brasilia Poverty Center (applied researchand analytical work)

1 8 10 4 10

3% 24% 30% 12% 30%

Nairobi Drylands Development Centre(applied research and analytical work)

1 3 7 5 18

3% 9% 21% 15% 53%


1 Responses

15. Which BDP knowledge products do you consider to have been most useful in the work of your office?

16 Responses


GCF GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

16. This question touches upon selected aspects of the management of the RSC/SURF.


StronglyAgree


Don’tKnow

Generally, the RSC/SURF is a cost-effectivemechanism for meeting the programmedemands of my country office.

4 12 11 6 1

12% 35% 32% 18% 3%

The provision of services and support of theGCF-funded Policy Advisors responds well tothe priority demands from the COs.

3 13 11 7 0

9% 38% 32% 21% 0%

GCF-funded Policy Advisor services are a cost-effective means to meeting CO demands.

4 12 12 5 1

12% 35% 35% 15% 3%

My CO would prefer to have a range of internaland external options in acquiring PolicyAdvisor services and support.

16 15 3 0 0

47% 44% 9% 0% 0%

The current system of matrix managementbetween the regional Bureaux and BDP is effective.

0 10 10 10 3

0% 30% 30% 30% 9%

The allocation and management of GCF-funded Policy Advisor resources responds to the priorities and demands of the country offices.

2 8 15 7 2

6% 24% 44% 21% 6%

The RSC/SURF Board is an effective means ofmanagement oversight and direction.

1 16 9 5 3

3% 47% 26% 15% 9%


5 Responses


18. As the main client of the SURF/RSC GCF-funded Policy Advisors, how would you rate generalperformance on. . .


VeryGood

Good Acceptable Poor Does NotApply

Delivery 3 11 10 7 3

9% 32% 29% 21% 9%

Timeliness 1 8 7 13 4

3% 24% 21% 39% 12%

Quality of Work 5 13 8 5 3

15% 38% 24% 15% 9%

Quantity of Work 1 9 12 8 4

3% 26% 35% 24% 12%

Responsiveness 3 12 13 4 2

9% 35% 38% 12% 6%

Client Relationships 1 11 14 4 4

3% 32% 41% 12% 12%

Continuity of Support 4 5 15 7 3

12% 15% 44% 21% 9%

Degree to which GCF-funded services comple-mented regional programme support modalities

0 5 15 7 5

0% 16% 47% 22% 16%


3 Responses

20. This question touches upon selected aspects of BDP management of the Global Programme.


StronglyAgree


Does NotApply

My country office and government counter-parts were consulted in the design of thecurrent global programme.

0 5 14 10 4

0% 15% 42% 30% 12%

My country office and government counter-parts should be consulted in the design of the next global programme (GCF-IV).

12 16 4 1 1

35% 47% 12% 3% 3%

The management of the global programmeby BDP has been open, transparent and accountable.

1 9 14 5 4

3% 27% 42% 15% 12%

The global programme should continue to becentrally managed by BDP.

3 16 7 3 5

9% 47% 21% 9% 15%

The majority of core GCF resources shouldfund BDP posts in HQ [Headquarters] and theregions (i.e.Policy Advisors and other specialists).

4 13 12 5 0

12% 38% 35% 15% 0%

BDP should continue to lead and manage theUNDP-wide Knowledge Management function.

7 22 4 1 0

21% 65% 12% 3% 0%


8 Responses


22.What are your general suggestions for the priorities and focus of GCF-IV over the period 2009 - 2011?

14 Responses

SUGGESTIONS ON THE DESIGN AND PRIORITIES FOR GCF-IV

23. In the area of knowledge management, the GCF-IV should be used to ...


StronglyAgree


Does NotApply

Strengthen Communities of Practice 10 19 4 0 1

29% 56% 12% 0% 3%

Strengthen Global Knowledge Networks 6 24 4 0 0

18% 71% 12% 0% 0%

Support Regional Knowledge Networks 9 21 4 0 0

26% 62% 12% 0% 0%

Develop Corporate-level Knowledge Products 17 13 2 2 0

50% 38% 6% 6% 0%

Develop Country-specific Knowledge Products

10 15 5 2 0

31% 47% 16% 6% 0%


4 Responses

25. GCF-IV should continue to support ...


StronglyAgree


Does NotApply

Efforts to position UNDP as global leader indevelopment policy thinking

22 9 3 0 0

65% 26% 9% 0% 0%

UNDP-wide Organizational Change 3 13 12 5 1

9% 38% 35% 15% 3%

UNDP-wide Practice Coherence 8 23 2 0 1

24% 68% 6% 0% 3%

UNDP Regional Centres 10 12 6 5 1

29% 35% 18% 15% 3%

Development Innovation 15 13 3 1 1

45% 39% 9% 3% 3%

Development Policy Research and Development

13 14 3 2 1

39% 42% 9% 6% 3%

Back-stopping Support to the COs 25 6 2 1 0

74% 18% 6% 3% 0%

Staffing Support to BDP 6 9 10 7 2

18% 26% 29% 21% 6%


3 Responses

A N N E X G . A N A L Y S I S O F G L O B A L P R O J E C T S 1 5 5

Italics indicate that the project was randomly selected for the ‘substantive analysis’ in addition to theproject document ‘quality scan’.

Annex G

ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL PROJECTS

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE GROUP

ProjectNumber

Project Title Expenditure in $ Million

2005 2006 2007 TOTAL

36214 Policy Support for Democratic Governance 0.582 0.582

43381 DGG SL2.7 PAR & AC 0.187 0.187

55651 Comp #1: Strengthening Civil Engagement 0.127 0.127

55652 Comp #2: Effective Electoral Assistance 0.095 0.095

55659 Comp #9: Community of Practice 0.095 0.095

55657 Comp #7: Election Support 0.07 0.07

51127 Service Line 2.5 E-governance 0.029 0.029

40489 Decentralization, Local Governance 0.0003 0.0003

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY GROUP

ProjectNumber


2005 2006 2007 TOTAL

56240 GCF Environment and Energy Group 0.993 0.993

50773 UNDP Equator Initiative 2006 0.199 0.199

11416 Poverty and Environment Initiative 0.132 0.132

50593 Climate Change 0.097 0.097

50590 Biodiversity 0.038 0.038

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT GROUP

ProjectNumber


2005 2006 2007 TOTAL

50899 Support to Capacity 2015 Region 0.223 0.500 0.723

11376 PPPUE 0.258 0.007 0.265

34871 Mainstreaming Capacity 0.009 0.076 0.085

HIV/AIDS GROUP

ProjectNumber


2005 2006 2007 TOTAL

46453 HIV/AIDS Building Capacity 0.911 0.911

11442 HIV/AIDS Leadership Capacity 0.103 0.103

A N N E X G . A N A L Y S I S O F G L O B A L P R O J E C T S1 5 6

1. INTRODUCTION

This report is an analysis of a sample of globalprojects from the third global cooperationframework (GCF-III) 2005-2007 as part of theevaluation of the overall GCF-III. The analysis isin two parts. The first part titled, ‘DocumentScan of 33 Global Projects’ is an analysis of theproject documentation of 33 randomly selectedprojects from the perspective of their conformitywith UNDP administrative requirements such aswhether the products were signed and whether

they had proper monitoring and evaluation.The second part titled, ‘Substantive Assessmentof 21 Global Projects’ is an analysis of 21randomly selected projects as a sub-set of the 33projects for their conformity with selected broadthemes such as their linkage with other servicelines, focus on outcomes, integration of genderand level of innovation.

The GCF-III has three components: countrylevel policy and programme support through aglobal network of policy specialists; targeted global

GENDER GROUP

ProjectNumber


2005 2006 2007 TOTAL

57465 Gender Team CD Implementation 0.412 0.412

11395 Gender Mainstreaming 0.240 0.240

57463 Gender Team CPR/EE Implementation 0.065 0.065

POVERTY REDUCTION & MDGS

ProjectNumber


2005 2006 2007 TOTAL

54273 MDG Support 2.5 2.5

58407 SPPR Cluster Support 0.255 0.255

57638 External Drivers of Development 0.200 0.200

11433 Support to Poverty Reduction 0.056 0.047 0.103

57535 PG-Intellectual Property, Trade 0.075 0.075

52597 Workshop on Systemic Commodity 0.049 0.049

11440 Policy Advice for Economic Alternatives;Campaign for Achieving MDGs

0.025 -0.038 -0.013

CROSS PRACTICE

ProjectNumber


2005 2006 2007 TOTAL

44006 IP & Access to Drugs Capacity 0.273 0.247 0.300 0.820

50520 Aid Effectiveness/ National Capacity 0.274 0.200 0.474

45677 Localization of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals

0.054 0.200 0.254

52687 Global Initiative on Gearing MacroeconomicPolicies to Reverse the HIV/AIDS Epidemic

0.132 0.058 0.190

58284 Government Accountability 0.100 0.100


projects and strategic partnerships addressing keydevelopment issues affecting countries inmultiple regions; and a system of interregionalknowledge creation, transfer and codification.The projects reviewed in this report comprise thesecond component but they also contribute to thethird component, which is dedicated towardmaking UNDP a knowledge institution.

The methodology used was to examine projectdocumentation supplied by BDP in order todetermine whether it met criteria developed bythe evaluation in a standard template. Somecriteria were ranked with a ‘yes’, ‘no’ or‘somewhat’ while others were ranked ‘low’,‘medium’ or ‘high’.

2. THE GCF-III GLOBAL PROJECTPORTFOLIO OVERVIEW

There are 121 projects in the GCF-III portfolio(excluding the policy advisory and knowledgeservices projects). Global project expenditure of$33.8 million constitutes 41 percent of the totalthe GCF-III expenditure of approximately $81.9

million. At 12 percent of total expenditure, thePoverty Group (PG) is the largest in the GCF-III project portfolio. The Energy andEnvironment Group (EEG) and DemocraticGovernance Group (DGG) each make upapproximately 8 percent of the total GCFexpenditure, followed by Cross-PracticeInitiatives (6 percent), HIV/AIDS (4 percent),Capacity Development Group (CDG) (3percent) and Gender (1 percent).

The distribution of expenditure was based on theglobal programme document based on countrydemand as outlined in the multi-year fundingframework (MYFF). However, in 2006 the annualactual practice allocations were distributed basedon the following 2005 global project performancecriteria: absolute resource mobilization in 2005;absolute non-core delivery in 2005; implementa-tion of non-core resources; and the ratio of coreto non-core.

Individual project approval was based on thefollowing 2004 criteria: have a clear development

Table 1. Global Programme Targeted Projects: Number of Projects and Expenditure by Theme

Practice Number of Projects Total Expenditure1 % of Total Expenditure

Policy Support2 2 48.25 59%

Practice Area

Democratic Governance 32 6.413 8%

Poverty Group 33 9.544 12%

HIV/AIDS 5 2.93 4%

Energy and Environment 18 6.915 8%

Cross Cutting

Gender 7 1.22 1%

Cross Practice 14 4.58 6%

Capacity Development 10 2.12 3%

TOTAL 121 81.96 100%

1. In $ millions.2. The Policy Support Department was created in ATLAS to allow for central management of the policy advisory and knowledge

management funds.3. Includes $2.9 Million for the Oslo Governance Centre.4. Includes $2.67 Million for the International Poverty Centre.5. Includes $3.16 Million for the Drylands Development Centre.* Please note that numbers may not add up due to rounding.Source: BDP provided dataset: I. Global Programme Projects 2005-2007 V1.3


impact in terms of Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs); enhance UNDP visibility;promote new or strengthen existing partnerships;create opportunity for resource mobilization; andcontribute to knowledge work.

There is a general correlation between theamount of expenditure and the number ofprojects in the practice portfolio with someexceptions. For example, HIV/AIDS has higherexpenditures than CDG, but HIV/AIDSimplemented fewer projects. The same holds forEEG and DGG. EEG has higher expendituresthan DGG, but EEG had about half the numberof projects of DGG. Although expenditures inthe DGG and EEG practices remained fairlyconstant between 2006 and 2007, the number ofprojects in DGG more than doubled, while inEEG the number of projects more than halved.This is mainly attributable to EEG moving allprevious individual service line projects underone ‘umbrella’ project titled ‘GCF Environmentand Energy Group’, while DGG maintained theindividual service line project approach.

3. DOCUMENT QUALITY SCAN OF 33GLOBAL PROJECTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Thirty-three projects were selected for thedocument quality scan (see Table 2 for a breakdownby practice), which represent 27 percent of the total

number of projects and 31 percent of the totalexpenditures in the portfolio. Distribution overthe years of the GCF-III period was fairly equalwith 12 projects implemented in 2005, 13 in2006 and 18 in 2007 (some projects spanmultiple years). The sample is statistically validand representative and was randomly chosen.

3.2 PROJECT COVERAGE AND TYPOLOGY

Most projects have a global focus and someprojects also focus regionally. Nine projects havea country-level focus. Most often, there is nospecification of the region or country of focus.The project document is probably left open so as toleave room to manoeuvre during implementation.

Most GCF-III projects are oriented towards thepreparation of knowledge products and othermeans for sharing knowledge such as workshops,knowledge networks and participation in confer-ences. Several projects seek to study and developemerging or novel ideas that will help to positionUNDP globally. A few projects actually pilotinitiatives at the country level, such as the 50520Aid Effectiveness Project and the 11416 Povertyand Environment Initiative.

Table 4 shows by practice area and by project therange of project coverage (global, regional, country)and the project typology (staffing, research,knowledge creation/codification, knowledge sharingand pilot projects) for the 33 projects analyzed.

Table 2. Global Projects by Practice

Practice TOTAL PracticePortfolio

TOTAL Project Analysis Percentage of TOTALPractice Portfolio

DGG 32 8 25%

CDG 10 3 30%

HIV/AIDS 5 2 40%

EEG 19 5 26%

Gender 7 3 43%

PG 34 7 20%

Cross Practice 14 5 36%

TOTAL 121 33 27%


3.3 BASIC STRUCTURE, PROCESS AND KEY CONTENTS

The projects under review were assessed againstthe UNDP and BDP operational procedures forthe project pipeline.1 Some of the requirementswere looked at in more depth than others. Thissection includes a discussion on:

n Structure of project document—were therequired sections included?

n Was the project document signed?

n Were Project Appraisal Committee meetingnotes submitted?

n Was the Direct Execution modality clearedthrough resources clearance documentation?

Overall, the majority of projects (54 percent;n=18/33) reviewed followed the UNDP require-ments for the structure of the project document(prodoc). However, three types of problems wereidentified with the structure of projectdocuments resulting in 10 projects categorized as‘somewhat’ following the UNDP structure.

The project document is from a previous GCFperiod and a budget or project revision was not submitted:

n DGG 40489: the prodoc is from 2004

n HIV/AIDS 11442: the prodoc is from 2004

n Gender 11395: the prodoc is from 2001-2003

n Cross practice 44006: the prodoc is from2003-4004; a budget revision for 2005 wassubmitted, but no revisions were submittedfor 2006 and 2007

The project document is from a previous globalprogramme period and a budget revision wassubmitted. However, the budget revision doesnot explicitly describe the intended outputs/activities for the project year:

n DGG 36214: the prodoc is from 2004

n CDG 11376: the prodoc is from 1995

The project document was submitted for thecorrect global programme period, however thereare missing sections/documents:

n Cross practice 52687: there is no cover pagewith budget and signature; no monitoringand evaluation section; workplan is missing

n Cross practice 45677: there is no budget orproject revision for 2007 (the expendituresshow that no expenditures were made in2005, but were made in 2006 and 2007)

n Gender 57463 & 57465: the results andresources framework is missing

Table 3. Global Project Expenditures by Practice

Practice TOTAL PORTFOLIO(in $)

Value of Projects Selectedfor Analysis (in $)

Percentage of TOTAL Portfolio

DGG 6,408,910 1,196,028 19%

CDG 2,116,609 1,075,354 51%

HIV/AIDS 2,932,292 1,015,561 35%

EEG 6,914,095 1,383,576 20%

Gender 1,226,616 718,073 59%

PG 9,631,128 3,170,043 33%

Cross Practice 4,583,144 1,840,603 40%

TOTAL 33,812,794 10,399,238 31%

1. ‘BDP Operational Procedures: Project Life Cycle’, available online at http://content.undp.org/go/bdp/operations.


Table 4. Project Coverage and Typology

Practice Project Number & Title Project Coverage Project Typology

Global Region Country UNDPInternal

Staffing Research KnowledgeCreation/

Codification

KnowledgeSharing

PilotProjects

Totals 33 24 9 9 3 4 9 23 20 6

CrossPractice

50520 Aid Effectiveness X X X

52687 MacroeconomicPolicies

X X X

58284 StrengtheningGovernment Accountability

X X

45677 Localization of MDGs

X X X X

44006 IP and Access to Drugs

X X X

Energy andEnvironment

11416 PovertyEnvironment

X X X X X X

50773 Equator Initiative X X X

56240 EEG GlobalProgramme

X X X X

50590 Biodiversity X X X

50593 Climate Change X X X

PovertyReduction & MDGs

11440 Policy Advice X X X

58407 SPPR X X

57638 External Drivers X X X

57535 IntellectualProperty

X X X

54273 MDG Support X X

52597 Workshop onSystemic Commodities

X X X

11433 Support to Poverty Reduction

X X X


36214 Policy support for DGG

X X X

43381 PAR and Anti-corruption

X X X

55651 Civic Engagement X X X

55657 Election SupportConflict

X X

55659 COP [Communitiesof Practice] on Justiceand Human Rights

X X X

55652 Effective ElectoralAssistance

X X X

51127 E-Governance X X X X

40489 DecentralizationLocal Governance

X X X X X X

HIV/AIDS 46453 Building Capacity X X X X

11442 LeadershipCapacity

X X

CapacityDevelop-ment

34871 MainstreamingCapacity

X

11376 PPUE X X X X X

50899 Support toCapacity 2015

X X X X

Gender 11395 GenderMainstreaming

X X X X X

57463 Gender TeamConflict Prevention

X X X

57465 Gender Team CD Implementation

X X X


Importantly four projects (12 percent) did notfollow the UNDP requirements, meaning thatthere was no project document:

n DGG 43381: only a project proposal is on file

n CDG 34871: three documents weresubmitted but none of them are the officialprodoc outlining the use of GCF funds

n Poverty 58407: no prodoc was provided asthis project was used for staffing

n Poverty 11433: the prodoc provided containsonly the signature page and the agreementbetween UNOPS and UNDP from 2003

The vast majority of project documents weresigned (72 percent; n=24/33); 78 percent(n=26/33) had the proper Project AppraisalCommittee documentation, and 60 percent(n=20/33) had the proper Direct Executiondocumentation. The HIV/AIDS group is theonly practice area that complied with all threerequirements. The EEG project documents wereall signed and Project Appraisal Committeecompliant. However, all other practice areas hadat least one project that was not in compliancewith all three of these operational procedures.

The results and resources framework is anintegral component of the project document, asthis is where the logical framework of the projectis described. The outcome, outcome indicatorsand outputs should be mentioned so that thereader can understand the flow and logic of theproject. Approximately 75 percent (n=25/33) ofproject documents reviewed contained a resultsand resources framework. Seven projects, four ofwhich did not have project documents, failed toinclude this essential component.

When looking at the results and resourcesframework in more detail, 12 (33 percent) projectdocuments (including those without prodocs) didnot include outcomes and 15 project documents(48 percent) did not include outcome indicators.In some cases, the results and resourcesframework refers the reader to the GCF-IIIofficial programme document. Upon looking up

the global programme outcomes and outcomeindicators, they may not be particularly relevantto the project proposal at hand. Regardless, thereader should not have to go searching for thiscritical information. Finally, only those projectswithout prodocs did not include outputs.

Although a requirement, hardly any projectdocuments (88 percent; n=29/33) contained asection on the risks associated with the project.The four projects that did contain a risk assess-ment are as follows:

n CDG project 11376 Public PrivatePartnerships for the Urban Environment

n Poverty Group 57638 External Drivers ofDevelopment

n Poverty Group 54273 MDG Support

n Cross Practice 50520 Aid Effectiveness forReducing Poverty and Achieving the MDGs

In terms of the partnership arrangements, theirrationale was generally explained well (63 percent,n=21, received a high score). However, in manycases the rationale was quite weak because itrelied on the reader having knowledge about thepartner and the partner’s expertise in the area ofthe proposed project.

Several project documents did well in mostprocedural aspects. The PG Project 54273 MDGSupport is an example of a project document thatcomplied with all operational procedures exceptfor the outcome indicators. The EEG Project56240 EEG Global Programme is a project thatsubmitted a quality project revision document.Thus, the project document for 2006 is used asthe overall structure and rationale behind the2007 project, while the project revision documentdetails the new outcomes, outputs, and budgetplan for the extension of the project into 2007.

3.4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

The vast majority of project documents (81 percent;n=27/33) detail the line of accountability for theproject management. The Project Appraisal


Committee members are generally identified inthe Project Appraisal Committee minutes, not inthe actual project document. Approximately 70percent (n=23) of project documents identifiedthe Project Appraisal Committee members.Although a requirement, only 10 projects (30percent) identified members of a project steeringboard. A couple examples of where the projectsteering board is identified include the GenderProject 57463: Gender Team Conflict Preventionand Recovery and Environmental EnergyImplementation, and the Capacity DevelopmentGroup Project 50899: Support to Capacity 2015Regional Teams.

Typically, the manager is identified (72 percent;n=24/33) but is not mentioned by name butrather by title in the accountability section. Only33 percent (n=11/33) included a description ofthe staff working on the project, usually in thework plan/budget section. Although the projectdocument does not need to name an individual, itis important to be clear who will be accountablefor the various outputs within the project.

3.5 MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REPORTING

This section of the quality scan brought attentionto the lack of connection between what is planned and what happens in reality.Approximately 79 percent (n=26/33) of projectscontain a section detailing the monitoring,evaluation and reporting of the project.However, only nine projects complied with whatwas planned.

The following projects were ranked high in termsof the reporting on file:

n Democratic Governance Umbrella Projectfor 2007 (containing 55651, 55652, 55657,and 55659)

n Poverty Group Project 52597 Workshop onSystemic Commodities

n Gender 57463 Gender Team CPR/EEimplementation and 57465 Gender TeamCapacity Development Implementation

n Cross Practice 50520 Aid Effectiveness

n Environment and Energy 50773 EquatorInitiative

Although quarterly reporting was part of theglobal programme reporting requirements, veryfew projects (only in the DGG and CDGpractice areas) provided at least one quarterlyreport. Although requested, no documentationwas provided from BDP regarding the change inreporting requirements. However, beginning in2006 the monthly practice progress meetingswith senior BDP management replaced thequarterly reporting requirement.

In summary, a total of 19 Annual Project Reports(APR) were received for the 33 projects. DGG,CDG, HIV, EEG and Gender practice areas allhad one project without an APR, while twoprojects in the cross-practice area were missingAPRs. The PG had only one project thatsubmitted the required APR in the formatfollowed by other groups (Project 52597Workshop on Systemic Commodities). Several‘pilot project reports’, ‘donor reports’ and a‘lessons learned report’ were submitted forProject 11433 Support to Poverty Reduction.However, the required APR format was notfollowed. No other annual reports were receivedfor the poverty group projects under review.

Evaluations were planned by 12 projects, but nonewere received. However, 48 percent (n=16/33)make no mention of a project evaluation. TheDGG project documents refer to the DGGretreat and the GCF-III evaluation as the evalua-tion for DGG projects.

4. SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT OF 21 GLOBAL PROJECTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Twenty-one global projects were randomlyselected as a subset of the 33 projects selected forsubstantive assessment. A tabulation of theresults of the 21 projects analyzed is contained inAnnex G.2.

Table 5 shows the number of projects selected bypractice area. These projects represent approxi-mately 17 percent of the entire portfolio.


Given the small number of projects analyzed ineach practice (only two each in CDG, HIV/AIDS and Gender) it is not reliable to drawconclusions by practice area. Rather, the analysisand conclusions in this section relate to all 21 projects. The analysis is based on a reading ofall documentation furnished for each project.

Documentation was uneven, ranging from thePoverty Project 58407 SPPR Cluster SupportProject, where no information was available; to eightprojects where no APRs were available; to half theprojects with acceptable levels of documentation.Where documentation was incomplete, it limitedthe nature, scope and quality of the assessment.Nonetheless, a consistent and clear pictureemerges from the 21 projects reviewed.

The projects were analyzed and assessedaccording to the template shown in Table 6.

4.2 OVERVIEW

The picture that emerges is the serious effort tobreak new ground either by acquiring newknowledge, assembling existing knowledge andknow-how for dissemination or by pilotingsomething new, as was done in the PovertyGroup’s Commodities Workshop project.

All projects are in line with both the GCF-IIIand the MYFF priorities.

Fourteen of the projects are focused on buildingcapacity. Most of these projects are buildinginternal UNDP capacity with the intent that thisnew capacity will assist developing countries.Whether and how much this new internalUNDP capacity is applied directly to developingcountries is not clear from the documentation.Much of the global project effort appears to besupply-driven as opposed to demand-driven andproject budgets are mainly focused on staffsalaries or international consultants and theirdaily subsistence allowances.

The project documents are almost all focused on outputs and activity with little indication ofoutcome. Hardly any prodocs have outcomeindicators that could be used to measure thesuccess of the project. This raises the question ofwhere these efforts are leading. Eight of theprojects reviewed do not have an APR so it is notclear what the project accomplished.

With the exception of Capacity Development,many of the development themes are not coveredin the project documents and are therefore ratedlow, i.e. in Human Development, 9 projects ratedlow; Gender, 12; South-South Cooperation, 15;and National Ownership, 11.

The following sections treat each of the criteriaunder the analysis of this assessment separately.

Practice TOTAL Portfolio TOTAL SubstantiveAnalysis

Percentage of TOTALPortfolio

DGG 32 5 16%

CDG 10 2 200%

HIV/AIDS 5 2 40%

EEG 19 3 10%

Gender 7 2 29%

PG 34 4 12%

Cross Practice 14 3 21%

TOTAL 121 21 17%

Table 5. Projects Selected for Substantive Assessment


Table 6. Template and Criteria for Substantive Assessment of 21 Selected Projects

Features Assessed Ranking Criteria

(i) Quality of the project logic (High/Medium/Low,plus brief assessment) and

(ii) Evidence of flexibility during execution, forexample in the adaptation of the project logic(Yes/No, plus brief assessment)

n ‘High’: The project logic should be convincinglydescribed, using some form of log-frame, logicmodel or theory of change diagram.

n Assessment: Bullet points (or checklist) very concisely indicating main reasons for the assessment.

Project clearly aligned with GCF objectives andprinciples (Yes/No, plus brief assessment)


Prodoc Language n ‘High’: Clear, concise, complete.n ‘Medium’:Missing one of: clear,concise or complete.n ‘Low’: Unclear, rambling and missing

information or explanation.

Project clearly aligned with MYFF / practice areaframework (Yes/No, plus brief assessment)


Evidence of a focus on outcomes / RBM in projectreports (Yes/No)


Progress self-assessment noted in Annual ProjectReport (Yes/No)

(i) Indicate whether the Annual Project Reportshows the use of any form of self-assessment.

(ii) If yes, note whether it is ‘Positive’ or ’Negative’.

Evidence that the following principles have been (i) thoughtfully integrated into the design;(ii) addressed in the progress and/or project closurereports (High/Medium/Low/Not applicable, plusbrief assessment in each case)n Human developmentn Gendern Capacity developmentn South-South sharing and cooperationn National ownership (assess its relevance given

the project context)

Need to determine first whether UNDP/BDP hasan official conceptualization of integration /guidance for each of these areas. If so, theseshould be used to guide the assessment.n Assessment: Bullet points (or checklist) very

concisely indicating main criteria / reasons forthe assessment.

Level of innovation (High/Medium/Low,plus brief assessment)

Innovative projects are characterized as:n Addressing an issue the resolution of which may

lead to substantial advance toward an MDG(s).n Recognized as a critical issue by the govern-

ment and other donors or partners.n An initiative never before attempted in UNDP,

either in the problems addressed or theapproach taken.

n Potentially risky and unlikely to be undertakenelsewhere in UNDP.

n Carrying out the innovation help to positionUNDP as the key MDG player.Assessment: Bullet points (or checklist) indicating main reasons for the assessment.


4.2.1 Project logic

Eight projects had a strong or high logic. The project logic is not always apparent either because itcannot be related to the larger global programme effort or because it is an umbrella project thatattempts to bring together disparate efforts under the practice umbrella, as in the EEG umbrellaproject. Thus this ranking may over-estimate the number of ‘medium’ and ‘low’ projects. The mostcommon flaw in project logic is the disconnect between the Situation Analysis and the actual projectoutputs. This is because of the difference in scale between the global picture in the situation analysis andthe micro-level effort of project outputs. Of note are the two HIV/AIDS projects, which rank high.

There is a tendency for project documents to attempt to be ‘all things’, i.e. to mainstream gender,support the MDGs, build capacity and link with other practices. When such small and experimentalprojects attempt such a reach, they sometimes lose their internal logic.

The project not rated is 58407 SPPR Cluster Support for which no documentation was furnished. Thisproject will be shown as ‘not rated’ throughout the report.

Project Appraisal Committee discussions were sometimes substantive but the final prodocs do notappear to have taken such Project Appraisal Committee comments into account.

4.2.2 Flexibility demonstrated in project implementation

For the eight projects without APRs it was not possible to determine flexibility in implementation.One would expect to see flexibility in implementation of these projects because of their innovative andpilot nature. The seven projects demonstrating flexibility in implementation took the form of projectextensions and injections of additional funding or redeploying undisbursed funds, as in DGG Project43381 Strengthening Political Parties & Citizen Audit and EEG Project 50590 Energy &Environment Global Programme. There was no evidence of redesign of the project during implemen-tation probably because most are one-year efforts, which offers little time to make changes. The focusis on completing the project and disbursing funds.

Rating Total DGG CDG HIV/AIDS EEG Gender Poverty Cross-practice

High 8 1 1 2 1 2 1

Medium 7 3 2 1 1

Low 5 1 1 2 1

Not Rated 1 1


No APR 8 2 1 2 1 1 1

Yes 7 1 1 2 1 2

No 5 2 2 1

Not Rated 1 1


4.2.3 Project document language

Nine project documents demonstrated clear and concise language. This is probably a good result giventhat the projects are innovative and the little time available to over-stretched Headquarters staff forwriting up the document. Where language is not clear, it is a function of an overdose of acronyms,overly wordy sentences that obscure rather than shed light, and lack of logic in sentence flow. Projects11420 Policy Advice for Economic Alternatives and 40489 Decentralized Governance forDevelopment are examples of poor language. Almost all prodocs would benefit from an editor.

4.2.4 GCF and MYFF alignment

All projects reviewed were aligned both with the GCF-III and the MYFF.

4.2.5 Linkage with other service lines

Thirteen projects showed linkages with other service lines. The most common linkages were with theCDG and the PG at five each. Two projects (34871 Mainstreaming Capacity & 57463 & 65Implementation of Corporate Gender Plan) linked up with all service lines. Other linkages with other parts of UNDP were with Democratic Governance Community of Practice, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, Bureau for Resources and Strategic Partnerships and the EvaluationOffice. The overall picture is a genuine effort to make linkages among service lines whereverlogical/possible.

4.2.6 Focus on outcomes


High 9 3 1 2 1 2

Medium 4 2 2

Low 7 2 1 2 1 1

Not Rated 1 1


Yes 13 2 1 2 3 2 3

No 7 3 1 3

Not Rated 1 1


Yes 2 1 1

No 18 5 2 2 3 2 2 2

Not Rated 1 1


Lack of a focus on outcomes is the weakest dimension in almost all projects reviewed. It may be unreal-istic to expect outcomes from such small one-year initiatives. However, UNDP expects these projectsto contribute to its transformation to a knowledge institution, so one would expect some kind of resultfrom the effort. The lack of focus on outcomes is evident from a number of perspectives, starting withthe project document. Outcome statements in the results and resources framework are sometimesmissing and when there, are either at the output level or are dauntingly vast, e.g. 55651 PublicAdministration Reform and Anti-Corruption outcome statement “Government develops greatercapacity to deliver public goods and services, to regulate markets and to achieve the MDGs, effectiveeconomic governance and crisis prevention and recovery.” There are rarely outcome indicators in theprodocs that can be used to assess project impact.

The second window where one would look for outcome is in the APRs or the annual reports for thepractice area. APRs and Annual Reports tend to describe activities or outputs rather than outcomes.

4.2.7 Progress self assessment

The APR and/or the Annual Practice Report contains information on project progress. The generalAPR picture is not encouraging. APRs were not available for 8 of 21 projects reviewed and, whereavailable, they are poorly done for the most part. Often the last section of the report where outcome,output, challenges and lessons learned are addressed is not completed. Even if the APR is completed,it is a subjective statement and therefore tends to be generous in its accomplishments.

The APRs appear to be more of a publicity instrument at a general level. In conclusion, global projectprogress is patchy, subjective and not particularly informative.

4.2.8 Ranking of development themes

The chart on the following page ranks the themes of capacity development, human development,gender, South-South cooperation and national ownership in the 21 projects reviewed.

Human Development, Gender, Capacity Development, South-South Imprint and NationalOwnership were reviewed in each project for their imprint. Most themes ranked low with theexception of Capacity Development, which ranked high in 14 of the projects. This is logical since mostprojects, no matter which service line they belong to, are focused on developing capacity either insideUNDP or with developing countries.

The other development themes are almost all the same in terms of ranking, with only a few projectsranking high (between 4 to 6 projects), fewer projects ranking medium (2 to 5 projects) and mostranking low (between 9 to 15 projects).

Two interpretations can be made for the low rankings of Human Development, Gender, South-Southand National Ownership. One interpretation is that the project in question is not dealing with these


No APR 8 1 1 2 1 2 1

Yes 7 2 1 1 1 2

No 6 2 1 2 1


development themes and there is no need to pretend that it is, particularly given the relatively smallbudgets and the one-year limit on implementation. The other interpretation is that projects tend to bedesigned in a silo and do not incorporate these important development themes. The answer may be ablend of the two.


CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

High 14 2 2 2 3 2 1 2

Medium 2 1 1

Low 4 2 1 1

Not Rated 1 1

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

High 6 1 1 2 2

Medium 5 2 2 1

Low 9 5 1 1 1 1

Not Rated 1 1

GENDER

High 4 1 2 1

Medium 4 2 1 1

Low 12 5 1 2 2 2

Not Rated 1 1

SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION

High 5 2 1 2

Medium

Low 15 5 2 3 2 2

Not Rated 1 1 1

NATIONAL OWNERSHIP

High 5 1 1 2 1

Medium 4 2 1 1

Low 11 5 1 1 2 1 1

Not Rated 1 1

5.2 WEAKNESSES

n The most serious weakness of these projectsis that they appear to be supply driven. Thereis little indication in project documents ofsubstantiated demand for these projects fromdeveloping countries or at least from UNDPcountry offices.

n There is a lack of attention to outcomes andoutcome indicators in most projects.Without outcome indicators, it becomesdifficult if not impossible to judge whether aproject achieved anything of note.

n There is no evidence of follow-up to determinewhat impact or effect the projects have had.It is timely to conduct such an assessment.

n Only 54 percent of projects examined met allUNDP prodoc requirements and fourprojects (12 percent) had no prodoc at all.Whether this is different from TRAC projectstatistics could not be determined.

n 88 percent of projects examined did not have therequired risk assessment section in the prodoc.

n While 79 percent of prodocs had a monitoringand evaluation plan only 27 percent compliedwith this plan in actual implementation. Only57 percent (n=19) projects had an APR, andmany APRs are only partially completed.

5. CONCLUSION

This assessment of a selection of global projectsshows both strengths and weaknesses that aredescribed below.

5.1 STRENGTHS

n Almost all projects are global or regional inreach, as is the intention of the programme.

n The projects are relatively small andgenerally completed in a single year, which isconsistent with the intention of an innovativeand pilot programme.

n All projects are aligned both with the GCFand the MYFF and therefore in line withcorporate strategy.

n There is a serious effort to break new groundeither by acquiring new knowledge,assembling existing knowledge and know-how for dissemination or by pilotingsomething entirely new such as was done inthe Commodities Workshop.

n Partnerships are integral to 63 percent ofprojects examined had a clear partnershipstrategy consistent with corporate policy.

n 81 percent of the project documentsdescribed the position or person responsiblefor the project.


4.2.9 Level of innovation

Innovation is an important quality for global projects that are attempting to transform UNDP into aknowledge institution. The ratings are positive in that 75 percent of projects reviewed were either ‘high’or ‘medium’ in terms of their level of innovation. The ‘high’ ranking for innovation is not evenly spreadamong the service lines, i.e. DGG 0; CDG 1; HIV/AIDS 2; EEG 1; PG 2; and Cross Practice 2. Thiswould seem to indicate different capacities/level of commitment to innovation across the service lines.


High 8 1 2 1 2 2

Medium 7 4 2 1

Low 5 1 1 2 1

Not Rated 1 1


5.3 OBSERVATIONS

n The assessment shows more similarity inassessments than difference across the servicelines with the exception of the two HIV/AIDS projects, which rank high in mostcategories, i.e. project documentation,capacity development, South-South cooper-ation, innovative, national ownership andprodoc logic and language.

n Most projects are oriented towards theproduction of knowledge products.

n The most common service line linkage iswith Capacity Development, where 14 of 21projects ranked high in this regard.

n Many projects deal with internal UNDPcapacity development more than directcapacity development of developing partnercountries. Whether this is justified orpositive could not be determined.

A N N E X G . 1 . S U M M A R Y R E S U L T S F O R Q U A L I T Y S C A N O F 3 3 P R O J E C T S 1 7 1

Structure High Medium Low Total

DGG 5 2 1 8

HIV 0 2 0 2

CDG 1 1 1 3

PG 5 0 2 7

Gender 0 3 0 3

Cross 3 2 0 5

EEG 5 0 0 5

Total 19 10 4 33

ResultsFramework

High Medium Low Total

DGG 8 0 0 8

HIV 1 1 0 2

CDG 1 0 2 3

PG 5 0 2 7

Gender 1 0 2 3

Cross 5 0 0 5

EEG 4 0 1 5

Total 25 1 7 33

ExpectedOutcome


DGG 5 0 3 8

HIV 2 0 0 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 5 0 2 7

Gender 0 0 3 3

Cross 4 0 1 5

EEG 3 0 2 5

Total 21 0 12 33

DirectExecution

Yes No Unclear Total

DGG 6 2 8

HIV 2 0 2

CDG 0 3 3

PG 5 2 7

Gender 2 1 3

Cross 2 3 5

EEG 3 1 1 5

Total 20 12 1 33

Annex G.1

SUMMARY RESULTS FOR QUALITY SCAN OF 33 PROJECTS

Signed Prodoc Yes No Total

DGG 6 2 8

HIV 2 0 2

CDG 2 1 3

PG 5 2 7

Gender 2 1 3

Cross 2 3 5

EEG 5 0 5

Total 24 9 33

ProjectAppraisalCommittee

Yes No Total

DGG 6 2 8

HIV 2 0 2

CDG 2 1 3

PG 5 2 7

Gender 2 1 3

Cross 4 1 5

EEG 5 0 5

Total 26 7 33

Note: CDG indicates Capacity Development Group; Cross, cross practice; DGG, Democratic Governance Group; EEG, Energy andEnvironment Group; and PG, Poverty Group.

A N N E X G . 1 . S U M M A R Y R E S U L T S F O R Q U A L I T Y S C A N O F 3 3 P R O J E C T S1 7 2

OutcomeIndicator


DGG 0 1 7 8

HIV 2 0 0 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 5 0 2 7

Gender 0 0 3 3

Cross 3 0 2 5

EEG 3 1 1 5

Total 15 2 16 33

Partner-shipRationaleClear


DGG 6 1 1 8

HIV 2 0 0 2

CDG 1 1 1 3

PG 3 1 3 7

Gender 1 0 2 3

Cross 4 0 1 5

EEG 4 1 0 5

Total 21 4 8 33

Partner-ships Clear


DGG 6 1 1 8

HIV 2 0 0 2

CDG 1 1 1 3

PG 3 0 4 7

Gender 3 0 0 3

Cross 3 1 1 5

EEG 3 1 1 5

Total 21 4 8 33

Output High Medium Low Total

DGG 8 0 0 8

HIV 1 0 1 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 5 0 2 7

Gender 3 0 0 3

Cross 5 0 0 5

EEG 5 0 0 5

Total 29 0 4 33

Account-ability


DGG 7 0 1 8

HIV 2 0 0 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 4 0 3 7

Gender 3 0 0 3

Cross 4 0 1 5

EEG 5 0 0 5

Total 27 0 6 33RiskAssessment

Yes No Total

DGG 0 8 8

HIV 0 2 2

CDG 1 2 3

PG 2 5 7

Gender 0 3 3

Cross 1 4 5

EEG 0 5 5

Total 4 29 33

ProjectAppraisalCommitteeMembersIdentified

Yes/High

Somewhat/Medium

No/Low

Total

DGG 7 0 1 8

HIV 1 0 1 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 3 1 3 7

Gender 2 0 1 3

Cross 4 0 1 5

EEG 4 1 0 5

Total 23 2 8 33

Note: CDG indicates Capacity Development Group; Cross,cross practice; DGG, Democratic Governance Group; EEG,Energy and Environment Group; and PG, Poverty Group.

A N N E X G . 1 . S U M M A R Y R E S U L T S F O R Q U A L I T Y S C A N O F 3 3 P R O J E C T S 1 7 3

SteeringCommitteeMembersIdentified

Yes/High

Somewhat/Medium

No/Low

Total

DGG 4 0 4 8

HIV 0 0 2 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 1 0 6 7

Gender 1 0 2 3

Cross 1 1 3 5

EEG 1 0 4 5

Total 10 1 22 33

Monitoring& EvaluationClear

Yes/High

Somewhat/Medium

No/Low

Total

DGG 7 0 1 8

HIV 1 0 1 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 5 0 2 7

Gender 2 0 1 3

Cross 4 1 0 5

EEG 5 0 0 5

Total 26 1 6 33

ManagerIdentified

Yes/High

Somewhat/Medium

No/Low

Total

DGG 7 0 1 8

HIV 2 0 0 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 4 1 2 7

Gender 1 0 2 3

Cross 4 1 0 5

EEG 4 0 1 5

Total 24 2 7 33

StaffIdentified

Yes/High

Somewhat/Medium

No/Low

Total

DGG 4 1 3 8

HIV 0 1 1 2

CDG 0 1 2 3

PG 3 1 3 7

Gender 0 0 3 3

Cross 2 0 3 5

EEG 2 3 0 5

Total 11 7 15 33

EvaluationPlanned

Yes/High

Somewhat/Medium

No/Low

Total

DGG 7 0 1 8

HIV 1 0 1 2

CDG 2 0 1 3

PG 0 2 5 7

Gender 0 0 3 3

Cross 1 1 3 5

EEG 1 1 3 5

Total 12 4 17 33

ReportsAvailable asRequired

Yes/High

Somewhat/Medium

No/Low

Total

DGG 4 4 0 8

HIV 0 1 1 2

CDG 0 2 1 3

PG 1 1 5 7

Gender 2 0 1 3

Cross 1 2 2 5

EEG 1 2 2 5

Total 9 12 12 33

EvaluationCompleted

Yes/High

Somewhat/Medium

No/Low

Total

DGG 0 3 5 8

HIV 0 0 2 2

CDG 0 0 3 3

PG 0 0 7 7

Gender 0 0 3 3

Cross 0 0 5 5

EEG 0 0 5 5

Total 0 3 30 33

Note: CDG indicates Capacity Development Group; Cross,cross practice; DGG, Democratic Governance Group; EEG,Energy and Environment Group; and PG, Poverty Group.

A N N E X G . 2 . S U M M A R Y R E S U LT S F O R S U B S TA N T I V E A S S E S S M E N T O F 2 1 P R O J E C T S1 7 4

Project # Group Title ProjectLogic

FlexibilityImple-mentation

ProdocLanguage

GCF Align-ment

36214 DGG Policy Support for Democratic Governance Medium No Low Yes

43381 DGG DGG Strengthening for PA & AC Medium No APR butDGG report

High Yes

55651 DGG Strengthen Political Parties & Citizen Audit High Yes High Yes

55657 DGG Election Support & Conflict Prevention Medium APRIncomplete

High Yes

40489 DGG Decentralized Governance for Development Low No APR Low Yes

50899 CDG Capacity 2015 High Yes High Yes

34871 CDG Mainstreaming Capacity Low No APR Low Yes

46453 HIV/AIDS Building Capacity for HIV/AIDS High No APR High Yes

11442 HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS Leadership Capacity Building High No APR High Yes

56240 EEG Environment & Energy Global Programme Low Yes Low Yes

11416 EEG Poverty & Environment Initiative High No APR High Yes

50590 EEG Energy & Environment Global Programme Low Yes Low Yes

57463&65 Gender Implementation of corporate Gender Plan Medium No Medium Yes

54273 Poverty MDG Support High No APR High Yes

58407 Poverty SPPR Cluster Support No documentation was available for this project

52597 Poverty Commodities Workshop Project High Yes High Yes

11440 Poverty Policy Advice for Economic Alternatives Medium No Low Yes

44006 Cross Practice Trade, Trips & Access to HIV/AIDS Medicine Medium Yes Medium Yes

50520 Cross Practice Aid Effectiveness for Reducing Poverty High Yes Medium Yes

52687 Cross Practice Macro Economic Policy against HIV/AIDS Low No APR Low Yes

TALLY FOR 21 PROJECTS 8 High 9 No APR 9 High 20 Yes

5 DGG 3 EEG 2 Gender 7 Medium 4 No 4 Medium

2 CDG 4 Poverty 3 Cross Practice 5 Low 7 Yes 7 Low

2 HIV/AIDS

Annex G.2

SUMMARY RESULTS FOR SUBSTANTIVEASSESSMENT OF 21 PROJECTS

A N N E X G . 2 . S U M M A R Y R E S U LT S F O R S U B S TA N T I V E A S S E S S M E N T O F 2 1 P R O J E C T S 1 7 5

MYFFAlign-ment

Other Service Lines Linkage

Focus onOutcomes

Progress Self Assess-ment

HumanDevelop-ment

Gender CapacityDevelop-ment

South-SouthImprint

NationalOwner-ship

Level of Inno-vation

Yes No No No APR Low Low High Low Low Medium

Yes Yes DGCOP

No Yes Low Low High Low Low Medium

Yes No No Yes Low Low Low Low Low Medium

Yes Yes BCPR No No Low Low Low Low Low Medium

Yes No No No APR Low Low Medium Low Low Low

Yes No No Yes High High High Low High High

Yes Yes indirectlywith all

No No APR Low Low High Low Low Low

Yes Yes CD No No APR Low Medium High High Medium High

Yes Yes CD No No APR High Medium High High Medium High

Yes Yes CD &MDGs

No Yes Low Low High Low Low Medium

Yes Yes CD &MDGs

No No APR Medium Medium High Low Medium Medium

Yes Yes CD &MDGs

No No Medium Low High Low High High

Yes Yes all servicelines

No No Medium High High Low Low Low

Yes No No No APR High High High Low High High

Yes No Yes Yes High Low Low High High High

Yes No No No Medium Low Medium Low Low Medium

Yes Yes Poverty Yes Yes High Medium High High High High

Yes Yes BCPR, BRSP,EO, RBs

No Yes High Low High Low Medium High

Yes Yes Poverty No No APR Low Low Low High Low Low

20 Yes 13 Yes 2 Yes 9 No APR 6 High 4 High 14 High 5 High 5 High 8 High

7 No 18 No 7 Yes 5 Medium 4 Medium 2 Medium 15 Low 4 Medium 7 Medium

5 No 9 Low 12 Low 4 Low 11 Low 5 Low

evaluation of the third global cooperation framework of undp

Documents

office of evaluation

evaluation office toinclude

althoughthe gcf

director general of

global programme ofundp

evaluation bruce murray

team leader of gcf

programme of work