Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
Working group on Programme Policies (Task Team 2)
ONE PROGRAMME – INVENTORY OF WG SUPPORT AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM PILOT COUNTRIES
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
Cape Verde
Working
Group on
Programme
Policies
(WGPP)
Chairs:
UNIFEM
(Moaz Doraid)
and UNDP
(Terence
Jones)
Sandra
Pellegrom
HLP report
CCA/UNDAF
guidelines (2007)
Country
Programmes of
agencies
Operational
documents of
agencies
The High Level Panel report provides some
criteria for assessing the quality of One
programme:
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
Defining the One UN
Programme
1.
What exactly is the
One Programme?
Regional
Directors
Teams (RDTs)
and regional
Programme
Support
Groups (PSG)
/ Quality
Support and
Assurance
(QSA)
mechanism1

Country owned and signed off by
government, responsive to the national
development framework, strategy and
vision, including the internationally
agreed development goals

Building on UNCTs CCA/national
analysis and reflecting UN added
value from the entire UN system

strategic, focused2, results-based, with
clear outcomes and priorities, while
leaving flexibility to reallocate
resources to changes in priorities

Drawing on all UN services and
expertise from all funds, programmes
and specialised agencies including
non-resident agencies in order to
deliver effectively a multi-sectoral
approach to development (with due
attention to cross-cutting issues).
If the UNCT decides to review the UNDAF
then it would be useful to take into account
the revised CCA/UNDAF Guidance issued
1
Full details of the specific members of the QSA teams in each region are available from UNDGO
We realize the difficulties of being both strategic and focused at the same time – further work is being undertaken on this issue (draft Informal
ASG group’s paper on focus and inclusiveness)
2
1
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
in February 2007.
For further ideas from the Task Team, see
Note on Programming Issues Related to the
One UN Pilots: a response to questions
from Cape Verde, Rwanda and Albania
(specifically para 4)
UNCTS could share and benefit from draft
One Programmes, One Plans, One
Operational Documents of the pilot
countries
2.
What are key elements
of the One
Programme? What
format should it take?
3
Cape Verde
The essential basis of One Programme is a
validated and relevant results framework.
The CCA/UNDAF process provides an
approach to analyze and prioritise strategic
results. Countries that have already
completed CCA/UNDAF process should
therefore have a good starting point in the
UNDAF to conceptualize or extract the One
UN Programme but, depending on the point
in the programme cycle a number of
opportunities already exist for review
including strategic assessments as part of
the mid-term review, annual UNDAF
reviews. Terms of reference/ standards
already exist for such reviews and could be
used as the basis for such a review. If a
UNCT does decide to undertake such a
review the ultimate objective presumably
remains the identification of a validated and
relevant results framework, ensuring that
the results are SMART3 - particularly that
they are strategic and measurable. (Draft
note on programming issues, TT2, 12 May
SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timebound.
2
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
2007)
In terms of format, a suggestion from the
Task Team is to focus on two broad
sections:
(i) A strategic planning and conceptual part
which should/could include: (a) a suitable
cover page if necessary for signatures of
national government and participating UN
organizations; (b) Executive Summary; (c)
Background/ Context and situation analysis;
(d) Strategic approach; (e) Results
framework: Narrative & Logical
Framework;
(ii) An operational section that could
include: (a) management and coordination
arrangements; (b) risk, risk management
and sustainability of results (c)
accountabilities, monitoring and evaluation
and reporting; (d) legal framework
These two parts could also be considered as
two separate documents.
3.
If One Programme is
built from the
UNDAF, what is the
legal status of the
UNDAF – does the
One Programme
supercede it as a legal
document, if so how is
its legal status
established?
Albania
WGPP
Sandra
Pellegrom
If the One programme stems from a revised
UNDAF the usual revision process would
take place, so it would probably not be
necessary to supercede the UNDAF from a
legal perspective – merely to sign the
revised UNDAF with Government.
If the One programme is not a revised
UNDAF, or is a sub-set of the UNDAF,
perhaps an alternative approach may be
required. It would be possible to set out the
legal context in which the agencies operate
and which governs the programme (see for
example the approach in the proposed new
3
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
format for joint programmes.
4.
What practical
guidance is there on
balancing
inclusiveness and
strategic focus of the
“One Programme”?
How can the UNCT
balance strategic
prioritisation with
alignment with
national priorities
which may cover a
very wide range of
issues, making
strategic prioritisation
difficult?
All pilots
Informal
ASG/ADG
Support
Committee
WGPP
Non-Resident
Agencies
Working
Group (NRA
WG)
Sally
Fegan
Wyles
Ashok
Nigam
Sandra
Pellegrom
Christoph
Merdes
CCA/UNDAF
guidelines (2007),
especially Part
3.and paragraph 25
Draft CBI/UNSCC
note for pilots on
strategic
prioritization +
diagram [LINK]
ASG paper on
focus and
inclusiveness
(forthcoming)
Consider the concept of ‘strategic
inclusiveness’ as presented by UNCT
Mozambique in the Formula One
Newsletter Vol 1. issue 3 June 2007
From a practical perspective, if the UN and
the government agree on strategic outcomes
for the UN response (i.e prioritise as per
CCA/UNDAF guidelines), and then drills
down to identify the necessary outputs,
from which the partners should flow
naturally and be identified on the basis of
mandates, comparative advantage and
capacity to deliver. National priorities
should drive the process.
Leadership of the RC as representative of
the UN system (One Leader) representing
also the mandates of the different UN
organizations becomes crucial in "strategic
inclusiveness" process
Regarding the capacity of the UN to deliver
on a wide range of issues, the national
priority setting is a discussion between the
UN Country Team and the Government in
which the aim is to find the optimal UN
response (technical support, capacity
development, services etc) that can deliver
what the country needs most. If the UN
does not have the capacity to provide an
adequate response, it may be possible to
negotiate an approximation of what is
needed using all available UN capacities. It
may well be that the UN system has more to
offer than is being utilised.
4
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
5.
Improving an existing
programme
What advice/guidance
is there on how to go
forward with the
development of the
“One Programme”
when the UNDAF has
been approved?
Mozambique
Cape Verde
WGPP
PSG/QSA
mecahnism
Sandra
Pellegrom
CCA/UNDAF
guidelines (2007)
Guidance for
UNDAF annual
review/MTR
If the existing programme needs change
then perhaps it was not the best UN
response, eg not driven by the actual
country priorities or not making full use of
the UN system capacities. If this is the case
then the UNCT can identify entry points for
possible revision of existing programme(s)
(e.g. to enhance focus, to better align with
national priorities, to improve
mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues and
principles, etc.);
How this is undertaken will depend on the
approach taken to developing One
programme. One option would be to
develop a ‘Revised UNDAF’. Another
might be to develop a supplement to the
UNDAF which, together with the UNDAF
itself , forms the total UN response. The
tension between the existing UNDAF and
the One Programme may be an issue of
validating the framework of UN- Country
collaboration.
6.
How can the UNCT
move forward when
separate Agencies’
CPAPs or other
operational documents
have already been
developed and signed?
Can agreements in the
current CPAPs be
scrapped – for example
so that we can
contribute to basket
funds through joint
Mozambique
Cape Verde
Tanzania
WGPP
PSG/QSA
mechanism
Sandra
Pellegrom
Agency guidelines
on review of
operational
documents. For
example, CPAP
and common
CPAP guidelines
on terminating or
modifying a
currently effective
CPAP
Common CPAP
format agreed by
See paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Task Team’s
note on Programming Issues. UNCTs could
share and benefit from draft One
Programmes, One Plans, One Operational
Documents of the pilot countries that had
already approved operational plans and
documents.
From a practical perspective the UNCTs
may first consider the context, including the
point in the programme cycle, and see what
would be the best operational arrangement
or combinations of arrangements from the
three options currently available: (i) Use of
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
5
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
programmes? How
bold can we be in that
area?
7.
How can the Human
Rights Based
Approach and other
cross cutting issues be
enhanced across the
existing programme?
All pilots
WGPP
Action 2
Working
Group
Gender Task
Team
PSG/QSA
mechanism
Sandra
Pellegrom
[DGO
contacts
for Action
2 and
Gender?]
Existing guidance
and support
material
ExCom agencies
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
CCA/UNDAF
guidelines (2007),
esp. Part 2.
Action 2 draft
indicators list
[LINK]
HRBA common
learning package
UNCTs can request support from Action 2
and access the extensive tool kit and
material (see link at left)
UNCTs can also request support for other
cross-cutting issues. Not all have commonly
agreed guidance or toolkits but some do
(gender, capacity development ). For those
cross-cutting issues on which UN system
does not have a common tool or guidance
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
agency specific operational or project
documents (for excom CPAP/AWPs).
Whilst this does not lead to any
simplification this may still be valid in some
circumstances. One improvement that could
be made here is to agree on a common
project document format to transact with
national partners instead of the multiple
formats that we have at present; (ii) For
joint programmes consider using the draft
updated format which all agencies may be
able to agree on. It may be more
manageable to have a number of joint
programmes rather than trying to develop a
single operational plan for the whole
system; (iii) If there is agreement to adopt a
single operational plan for the entire UN
system in the country, then there are
potentially two approaches – trying to
combine the essential requirements of all
agencies into one document or working
from the common-CPAP as the starting
point to develop a common operational
plan. The work undertaken in Rwanda (see
the workshop report) [LINK] provides an
interesting example of the development of a
single document.
6
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
8.
How can analytical
tools can be used in a
lighter and tighter
way to reduce the
transaction costs, when
reviewing an existing
programme.
UNCT
Pakistan
Inter-agency
group
responsible
WGPP
PSG/QSA
mechanism
DGO
focal
point
Sandra
Pellegrom
Existing guidance
and support
material
http://www.undg.or
g/index.cfm?P=233
[common
guidance/ toolkits
on gender and
capacity
development]
(need details and
link)
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
CCA/UNDAF
guidelines (2007)
UNDG Guidance
on UNDAF Annual
Review.
The important thing from
RBM/HRBA/gender analysis/environmental
impact analysis etc. is the.adequacy of
analytical work for understanding the issues
and their causes to identify suitable
responses and the partnerships for strategic
inclusiveness. This has to be decided by the
UNCT based on the prevailing operational
dynamics. The quality of analytical work
should be such that it would not
compromise the quality and robustness of
results logic. If there are flaws then they
will manifest in the effectiveness and
impact of results down the line.
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
document (such as environmental
sustainability) relying on the staff of lead
organization(s) in these issues becomes
crucial. UNCTs can request help from
agencies with the necessary technical
expertise, including NRAs.
Answer provided on behalf of
TT2 to Pakistan RCO (24 July
2007):
The TT agreed that the process
as envisaged seemed rigorous
and appropriate for the review
exercise planned, in particular
in view of the rather wide
ranging nature of the present
UNDAF. Though perhaps
cumbersome, the TT felt that
the process as designed would
help the UNCT agree on a
clear set of priorities, as a
fundamental basis for a
coherent and strategic One
Programme. It was felt that the
process could also help to
identify weaknesses in
national statistical and
analytical capacity that could
be addressed in the UN’s
strategic priorities. The TT
suggested that support from
DGO, the Staff College and
CBI could be offered to
7
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
support the process of
prioritization.
9.
How can NRAs have
enhanced participation
in country-level
implementation?
Rwanda
NRA WG
10.
How to link to regional
programmes?
Pakistan
RDTs,
PSG/QSA
Cape Verde
Country
Christoph
Merdes
Enhancing the
Participation of
NRA in UNCT
level development
activities, NRA
WG 21 March
2006 [LINK]
Take advantage of the NRA Analyst posts
established for all 8 pilot countries.
UNCT/RC can also utilize the regional
offices of the NRAs (when regional offices
exist)
(need to clarify if this is regional
programmes of agencies that do not have a
country programme in the country, or
regional programmes of agencies that are in
addition and in support to the country
programme?)
This is not a problem specific for One
programme. The normal considerations for
developing regional programmes should
factor in the two way linkage between RP
and CPs. One Programmes can identify
common issues that could be handled
effectively by RPs. Similarly relevant
aspects of RPs should be taken into account
in the results (i.e. defining outcomes and
outputs) of One Programme.
In particular engage NRAs to ensure
synergy with regional programmes because
it is often they who are part of or leading
RPs.
Delivering the
programme as One
Joint Programmes:
11.
Is the Joint Progamme
Diana
JP guidance (2003)
The CPSG is looking into ways of
8
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Guidance relevant for a
broader view of joint
programmes?
How can we ensure
more integrated JPs,
not just an umbrella
construction?
What is the link
between a JP document
and a common
operational document?
How do we reduce the
agency specific project
documents and internal
approval mechanisms
to allow agencies to
participate in a joint
programme;
How do we reduce the
transaction cost in
preparation and
approval of JPs (e.,g.
reduce plethora of
MoUs, TORs etc)
Is there harmonized
guidance on the use of
non-UN managed
basket funds is
required.
Rwanda
Pakistan
Tanzania
Inter-agency
group
responsible
Programme
Support Group
(subgroup on
Joint
Programmes),
WGPP
Working
Group on Aid
Effectiveness
DGO
focal
point
Torres
Sandra
Pellegrom
Christoph
Merdes
Existing guidance
and support
material
and learning
material
Draft revised JP
project document
format
(forthcoming
UNDG Position
Paper on Sector
Support: Role of
the UN in a
changing Aid
Environment
[LINK]
Agencies’
guidelines on
SWAps
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
improving the Joint Programme Document.
A draft is under discussion and will be
shared shortly.
JPs offer a particular advantage in One
Programme. However the underlying
principle of JPs i.e. as an approach for two
or more agencies to work together to deliver
outputs/deliverables to achieving a well
defined outcome must be recognized. In
other words design of the JP should be
driven by the results in the same way as any
other programmatic intervention.
It has to be appreciated that JPs are meant to
address complex issues that requires
collaboration of multiple agencies and
therefore their design is more complex.
Agencies must be willing to invest in the
sound preparation of the JPs and allocation
of necessary time and resources to manage
them if they are to work well. The MoUs
and LoAs are an important part of
accountabilities and also provide legal
protections to agencies and staff.
Whilst JPs offer a means to cluster projects,
but it is unlikely that use of JP to cluster
projects will yield any significant additional
benefits.
Capacity of UNCTs:
12.
Need for capacity
assessment tools for
UNCTs to assess their
capacity needs to
Tanzania
Rwanda
Mozambique
RDTs
Kai
Bucholz
Maryline
Py
The experience of the eastern and southern
Africa RDT may provide useful tools.
Additionally, the UNCT in Malawi is
developing a proposal for such capacity
9
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
deliver the One
Programme
13.
Need for additional
substantive capacity to
supplement existing
resources, e.g. in
economic development
analysis, in M&E, etc.
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
assessment tools, which may provide an
interesting example.
The Change Management support (being
provided by BCG through UNDGO) may
also be a resource which UNCTs can draw
on.
Albania
Tanzania
The UNCT may wish to assess their
capacity to deliver and address gaps
accordingly. Any agency-specific gaps are
perhaps best addressed by the agency itself.
M&E framework
14.
Guidance on/support in
the improvement of
M&E framework for
the “One Programme”
(UNDAF);
Albania
Tanzania
RDT
UNEG
WGPP
Kai
Bucholz
Sandra
Pellegrom
CCA/UNDAF
guidelines
Enhanced guidance
(to be drafted by
UNEG with WGPP
TT1)
RDT/ QSA group is available as a resource
to support the UNCT on M&E issues
Current M&E plan in UNDAF guidance
has: (i) An M&E narrative, in the UNDAF
document, describing how the UNCT will
undertake and coordinate monitoring of the
UNDAF; (ii) An M&E framework; (iii) An
M&E programme cycle calendar. In
addition we have an AWP/project
monitoring tool and AWP/project Annual
Reviews; Standard Progress Report; Theme
Group Reviews; UNDAF Annual Reviews;
and UNDAF Evaluation.
UNCTs should (if necessary with some
expert support) first look at the above
existing M&E tools and see what will work
for them; or identify what the limitations are
in these tools. Then the specific challenges
could be addressed. Such an approach could
lead to refining a better set of tools and a
common M&E approach. However, UNCTs
10
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
should not expect that a common M&E
approach will be agreed amongst agencies
in the short term.
15.
Guidance on/support in
the development of
M&E framework
management
16.
Need to develop and
agree on one result
based management
mechanism and a
common M&E system
17.
Need to agree on
common reporting,
both on results and
funds. There should be
Rwanda
Tanzania
Rwanda
RDT
WGPP
Kai
Bucholz
Sandra
Pellegrom
CCA/UNDAF
guidelines
Proposed M&E
support missions
RDTs/ Programme Support Group should
probably be the first source of advice –
bearing in mind the last point in the para
above.
RDT
WGPP
Kai
Bucholz
Sandra
Pellegrom
Agreed RBM
Terminology and
terms and
definitions noted
on UNDG website
Link to One
Budgetary
Framework
Potential for
DevInfo to link
UNDAF data /
indicators to
budget. DevInfo
support team
available to
UNCTs
Ongoing work on
RBM/RBB being
lead by WHO
[meeting in Geneva
early May –
details?]
The WGPP, TT1 is working towards a
common understanding and application of
RBM and on improved guidance on M&E.
[Timeframe?]
WGPP
Sandra
Pellegrom
Standard Progress
Report, and SPR
for donor reporting.
Rwanda has requested that the WGPP share
the Standard Progress report for their
consideration.
11
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
a moratorium on
separate Agency
reporting in the pilots.
Existing guidance
and support
material
Rwanda workshop
report on One
Operational
Document, section
on M&E
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
Possibly consider the Cape Verde approach
– a common narrative but with agency
specific annexes to meet reporting
requirements on agency level results.
Operationalising the
Programme as One
18.
Need to agreement on
common
implementation
modalities and
common agency cost
recovery rates in joint
programmes
Tanzania
WGPP
Financial
Policies WG
Sandra
Pellegrom
[DGO
focal
person on
Fin pols?]
See Viet Nam Harmonised Programme
Management Guide as an example.
Agreement among the UNCT are perhaps
best reached at the country level (though
agencies may need HQ agreement on some
issues). This process may identify more
clearly the specific obstacles in agency
policies which need to be addressed through
inter-agency mechanisms at HQ.
19.
What operational
approach should be
followed - should the
pilots be making joint
programmes the core
of the operational
approach, or should
they be making joint
programming (ie
UNDAF) the core?
All
WGPP
Sandra
Pellegrom
Joint Programming
Guidance Note
[LINK]
CCA/UNDAF
Guidelines
Joint Strategy
Meeting
guidelines, revised
with hints paper on
how to maximize
coherence in
UNDAF
operationalisation
The choice for operationalisation may
depend on the strategic results which the
UNCT has identified for the one
programme and the agencies involved in
delivering them.
Joint Programmes should be driven by the
results and the best management approach
for one or more of UN Agencies to deliver
its/their deliverable/outputs in order to
achieve the outcome.
20.
Can there be
flexibility in the
interpretation and
implementation of
HACT? Will non-
Pakistan
Tanzania
Advisory
Group on
HACT
Irina
Stavenscai
a
Nane
HACT Framework
and Frequently
asked Questions:
http://www.undg.or
g/docs/7472/FAQ
Initial reaction during the One Office
meeting of the RCs at HQ 20 June was that
the RC and UNCT first establish which
non-ExCom agencies would be affected and
communicate with them and DGO to
12
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
ExCom agencies
adhere to the
provisions of the
HACT? HACT does
aim to simplify
procedures, so could it
be agreed on by all?
Existing guidance
and support
material
%20on%20HACT
%20June%202007
%20updated.doc
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
organize a briefing on HACT. HACT is
open to all, although initially adopted by the
Excom Agencies in 2005. Many aspects of
HACT are relevant even to those SA that do
not transfer cash to implementing partners.
There should if possible be no delay in
implementation of HACT which responds
to TCPR requests to harmonise and simplify
procedures, reduces transaction cost for the
national partners and assists in capacity
develop their capacity to manage resources.
Approval
mechanisms and
accountability
21.
What is the approval
process for the One
Programme, including
review of drafts?
Who will provide
quality control /
assessment
Who has the authority
to approve?
Is there a need to
develop a “fast track”
process for the “One
Programme” approval?
Cape Verde
Tanzania
WGPP
Sandra
Pellegrom
Ashok
Nigam
Irina
Stavenscai
a
If the defined One Programme (ie the
results framework) remains within the
already agreed UNDAF and programme
inputs (financial, human, results) of the UN
agencies agreed by their governing bodies
then do Agencies need to approve?
Individual Agencies will need to assess this.
What would be critical is the commitment
of the national partners to it, and therefore
signatures of the government and on behalf
of the UN system might be sufficient.
Assuming that the government has been
fully involved then this should be pro
forma.
If however the proposed One UN
programme substantially differs from the
agreed UNDAF and exceeds resources
approved by the respective governing
bodies of the UN agencies concerned, then
approval by those governing bodies may be
needed. Again, agencies will need to advise.
13
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
In terms of Government, again they should
have been involved and so signature should
be pro-forma.
Depending on the situation, UNCTs could
adopt a phased approach: initially remain
within existing approvals and use One
Programme primarily to increase coherence,
effectiveness and impact. Phase in the wider
dimensions of the One Programme at a
stage that may combine with the new
programming cycle, MTR etc.
(From the Note on Programming Issues
Related to the One UN Pilots: a response to
questions from Cape Verde, Rwanda and
Albania, para 5)
22.
Who is ultimately
accountable for
making those strategic
choices – is it the RC?
What is the
accountability of the
UNCT? Does HQ have
a role in determining
those choices?
All
23.
Timeframe: is it
realistic to be able to
decide everything by
2008?
All
24.
Need for ‘benchmarks’
or guiding principles to
guide quality control /
assessment of the One
Programmes
All
Interim
ASG/ADG
Group
Coordination
Group
RC Issues WG
Sally
Fegan
Wyles
Irina
Stavenscai
a
WGPP
PG
ASG group
UNEG
Sandra
Pellegrom
Irina
Stavenscai
a
Ashok
Draft benchmarks
paper WGPP
[DGO work on
evaluation?]
The WGPP is currently preparing a paper
on possible benchmarks that are expected
to be adapted in each country and selected
by the respective UNCTs. This paper will
be linked to the work on evaluation of
outcomes being supported by UNEG and
14
Version 3 expanded to LL, July 11th 2007
ISSUE
UNCT
Inter-agency
group
responsible
DGO
focal
point
Nigam
Existing guidance
and support
material
Suggestions from Task Team 2 of the
WGPP
UNCTs Putting Support into
Practice – Lessons Learned
DGO.
Evaluation of One
Programme
25.
Collecting lessons
learned
26.
Evaluation
All
WGPP with
DGO
Sandra
Pellegrom
UNEG
With the help of the DGO focal points for
pilot countries and 4 Ones, the WGPP is
initiating the systematic collection of
lessons learned. This present inventory of
support requests and WGPP responses in
one step towards this effort.
See note prepared
by UNEG for
meeting with RCs
outlining the
Evaluation process.
UNEG has been given the responsibility for
taking forward evaluation issues. Progress
to date is noted in the note referred to at left.
UNDG Action Plan
on the Paris
Declaration
UNDG Paper on
the Role of the UN
in a changing aid
environment
The Working Group is also developing
further guidance in this area, and discussing
with financial and management branches of
agencies on working in the new aid
environment.
Other issues
27.
Aligning with
government systems:
the Paris indicators are
being used as
benchmarks
Tanzania
Working
Group on Aid
Effectiveness
Christoph
Merdes
15