DRAFT Version 1, 4 th July 2007.
Note for discussion:
Ideas for possible benchmarks/parameters to assess UN One Programmes .
1.
The eight One UN pilot countries are mandated to be flexible in developing One
Programme in each country to Deliver as One. They are given freedom to experiment, innovate and even stretch existing processes and instruments in order to increase coherence and effectiveness as well to reduce transaction costs.
2.
The experience from the pilot countries to-date indicates that they would benefit from having a minimum level of common benchmarks and indicators as guiding principles. There are already existing initiatives to develop benchmarks and indicators for to assess/evaluate One UN initiatives notably by the informal ASG group and UN Evaluation Group.
3.
WGPP has been requested to feed into this work a minimum set of indicators and benchmarks for One Programme. Based on the demand and the need for benchmarks and indicators evolved so far from the pilot countries, and review of two earlier drafts by WGPP at two meetings two broad categories of indicators/benchmarks have emerged: (A) Milestones in the development and implementation of One Programme; and (B) benchmarks to determine the coverage in the One Programmes of key elements such as coherence, strategic inclusiveness, alignment and simplification. PLEASE NOTE that we have not addressed the subject of monitoring development outcomes in this note; we expect that to be undertaken as part of the wider evaluation process. Improved outcomes are of course the primary driver of our work and this and are the key to the measurement of success of the One Programme.
4.
This short paper gives in two lists (A and B below) potential benchmarks which could serve to measure process and performance in developing One Programme in the pilot countries.
5.
Key considerations:

These are presented as ideas for selective use or consideration by pilot countries.

Focus on the added value specific to One Programme

To review, assess, appraise, evaluate any one programme there is a need to look at a balanced set of indicators together, and not only at any one given indicator in isolation

The indicators are being shared with the pilot countries to inform programme preparation and appraisal.
6.
List A - Overall One Programme development and implementation milestones:
This list provides process milestones of the development and implementation of One
Programme. An initial list titled ‘One UN Initiative Success Criteria’ has already been developed by Viet Nam. This is given in Annex 1. In addition the following are proposed:
Prepared by Working Group on Programming Policies 1

DRAFT Version 1, 4 th July 2007.
Overarching goal
: “The
UN significantly impacts the development of partner countries and effectively contributes to solving strategic country level development challenges”
Need to identify indicators
One Programme
Outcome 1: UN programme activities are consolidated and contribute coherently to develop national capacities to achieve country development objectives
Indicator 1.1. There is one UN programme framework which addresses strategic national development issues (including sensitive issues) as identified by in-depth situation assessments and as expressed in key national policy documents.
Indicator 1.2.
The extent to which the One UN programme framework is used as a programme implementation tool by all partners (UN agencies and national partners).
Outcome 2: The UN is able to demonstrate development outcomes and impact.
Indicator 2.1.
There is one results-oriented M&E framework that all partners in its implementation (UN agencies and national partners) use to consistently track results
(outputs/outcomes) of the One UN programme framework from one cycle to the next.
Prepared by Working Group on Programming Policies 2

DRAFT Version 1, 4 th July 2007.
List B: Benchmarks to assist in measuring performance in developing One Programme
Category Indicator/measurement One Programme
National ownership and Alignment with national priorities and processes
Process:
1.
% UN outputs and resources of the One
Programme directly linked to goals or development outcomes in national plans
2.
% of UN projects/initiatives supporting sector-wide or other programme approaches
3.
# of Normative initiatives to be carried out and % of resources allocated to them;
4.
Involvement of a wider group of stakeholders with clear roles and responsibilities
Performance:
5.
One Programme oversight mechanism/s led by responsible national focal point/s
6.
% of UN resources under the One
Programme channeled through national budgetary channels or national execution
7.
M&E aligned with national M&E processes
8.
Alignment of UN programming cycle with national cycle
Alignment with UNDAF
1.
% of UN outputs and resources under the
One Programme directly linked/refer to relevant UNDAF outcomes and outputs
Source of data
1.
UNDAF, One
Programme document,
UNCT and Agency portfolios
2.
One budgetary framework
3.
Records of stakeholders involved including: the
Government at the centre and sub-national and sectoral level and those representing the interests of women, disadvantaged and excluded groups
Coherence, inclusiveness and strategic positioning
(OR Strategic
Inclusiveness)
Process:
1.
One Programme has fewer focus areas vs the
UNDAF
2.
% of UNDAF outcomes and/or outputs and
% of resources under joint programmes within the One Programme
3.
Ratio/increase of # and resources of
JP:Agency Specific Projects/initiatives
4.
Substantive and complementary roles of each agency contributions in joint programmes clearly articulated.
Performance:
1.
Increase in # of UN agencies participating in the original UNDAF outcomes following
One Programme ; increased in the # of UN agencies participating in the overall UN country response, including NRAs and
UNDAF and One
Programme Documents:
1.
# of focus areas in
UNDAF and # of focus area in One Programme
2.
# and resources of joint programmes
3.
# and resources of agency specific projects
Joint Programme documents
Prepared by Working Group on Programming Policies 3

DRAFT Version 1, 4 th July 2007.
Resources
Specialized Agencies following One
Programme
1.
Increase in overall magnitude ($s and %) of resources estimated/envisaged by each agency to be channelled through UN system directly attributable to One Programme
2.
One resource mobilization strategy for One
Programme
3.
Clear budgetary allocation within the One
Programme, including, for agencies which use this distinction, indication of application of core and non-core resources supporting the
One Programme
4.
Breakdown of allocations per: a.
outcome b.
output c.
Allocations per agency d.
Net transfers to country e.
Resources for each cross cutting issue such as gender, environment and human rights
1.
One budget framework
2.
Agency programmes
3.
One Programme document
Further
Simplification
Harmonization
Process:
1.
Adoption of common formats for transactions or documentation under the One Programme
2.
Net decrease in duplication of agency and system requirements
3.
Net change/decrease of analysis meetings
(joint country analytic work).
Performance:
4.
Joint/unified review and approval processes
(country-level, regional level, headquarters)
5.
Net change of planning meetings [Note that as these are pilots, in the beginning there will be plenty of meetings.]
6.
Net change in planning and/or operational documentation
7.
Increase in joint monitoring and reviews
8.
Change in agency specific field missions, increased joint missions
1.
# of joint meetings coordinated among
Govt agencies and UN
System
2.
# of documents in use
Effectiveness 1.
SMART results statements Results matrices
Prepared by Working Group on Programming Policies 4

DRAFT Version 1, 4 th July 2007.
Quality of programme
2.
Clarity in deliverables (outputs) by UN agencies
3.
Availability of sex disaggregated indicators, baselines and data sources
Accountability 1.
Improved monitoring systems including on cross cutting issues
2.
Measures to develop and use national M&E capacities
1.
Availability of and backstopping by functional Thematic Groups of each outcome and covering also HRBA, gender, environment and other cross cutting issues
2.
Coverage of the five cross cutting principles in CCA/UNDAF guidelines
3.
Adequacy of predictable resources.
One Programme document
1.
One Programme document
2.
UNCT
3.
One Budgetary framework
Prepared by Working Group on Programming Policies 5

DRAFT Version 1, 4 th July 2007.
Annex 1: The text below has been developed by UNCT, Viet Nam
One UN Initiative in Viet Nam
Success Criteria
1. A Tripartite National Task Force was established by Prime Minister in the first half of
2006 to oversee the UN reform process in Viet Nam. Principles, objectives and instruments were agreed and a “roadmap” was adopted setting out the process towards One UN in Viet Nam.
2. Much progress has been made. In the first instance, six UN agencies – UNFPA, UNDP,
UNICEF, UNV, UNAIDS and UNIFEM - are coming together to accelerate this process of UN reform in Viet Nam through One Plan (2006-2010) to deliver against 5 development objectives.
Other UN agencies have indicated their willingness and ability to join the process during the first quarter of 2008. The One Plan will require additional donor financial support to close the gap between the resources which the UN agencies have and those they need to deliver the Plan. The preferred funding route would be through a One Plan Fund.
3. Government has approved the One Plan. Donors have carried out a Joint Assessment of the One Plan and have agreed in principle to provide full non-earmarked funding of the One Plan through the One Plan Fund for the period 1 st
July 2007 to 31 st
December 2008.
4. UN reform in Viet Nam involves delivering against the five Ones – One Plan, One
Budget, One Leader, One Set of Management Practices and One House. In addition to donor funds for the One Plan Fund, financial support will be required to support the change process through the One UN Support Facility and to support the co-location of UN agencies in One
House.
5. To take forward donor support to the One Plan Fund, the One UN Support Facility and co-location, the Joint Donor Assessment of the One Plan asked Government, the UN participating agencies and donors to develop and agree the success criteria against which the reform process would be measured over the period July 2007 to end December 2008. These success criteria are not to be regarded as conditions for donor support. Rather they are the actions which all three parties consider necessary for success and against which they can monitor progress. Where progress is not as fast as anticipated success criteria will be retained, but the timeframe for their achievement extended. In this way all important outstanding actions will be achieved thus providing donors with a sound basis for approving additional non-earmarked funding for the remainder of the One Plan period.
6. It is proposed that the success criteria will be taken as a standing item on the agenda at meetings of the TNTF. Progress with regard to the success criteria will be reviewed and the success criteria matrix amended accordingly.
7. A list of success criteria is attached.
Prepared by Working Group on Programming Policies 6

DRAFT Version 1, 4 th July 2007.
One UN Initiative
Success Criteria
July 2007 to December 2008
By end
June 2007
Criteria

Government, donors and the participating UN Agencies agree One UN
Initiative Success Criteria for the period July 2007 to end December
2008.
October 2007

Draft One UN Management Plan shared with GoV and donors and including o Current staffing breakdown o fund flow information o One UN support facility proposal

TNTF agree update of the original One UN Road Map of February 2006.

One Plan M&E Framework in place.

RC Note approved and UN participating agencies outline how Country
Directors will relate to the RC
 RC’s authority reflected in One Plan Fund allocation/prioritization
December 2007

Joint Progress Report on UN reform process (HCS-related and others) presented to annual CG meeting.

UNEG/UNDG benchmarks reviewed by TNTF, and adapted if necessary.

TNTF happy with design and budget for One UN House

Donors agree to provide funding for One UN Support Facility and One
House.
March 2008  Revised One Plan agreed by TNTF.

Government and donors support final One UN Management Plan including o capacity mapping of staff o revised staffing plan o analysis identifying potential reduction of costs (opportunity, transactional, financial) o explanation of organizational changes resulting.

Specialized Agencies that have signed Letters of Intent have all joined
Revised One Plan based on their comparative advantage.

Revised One Plan M&E Framework in place

Harmonized Programme Management Guidelines operational and related HCS indicators in place.
Prepared by Working Group on Programming Policies 7

DRAFT Version 1, 4 th July 2007.

UN participating agencies reporting greater support from HQ

One UN process being documented in Viet Nam and shared with other
One UN pilots in the context of UNEG and UNDG benchmarking initiatives
September 2008
 Shared TNTF understanding of UN’s comparative advantage in Viet
Nam.
 Outcome of TNTF review of “Success Criteria” signals sufficient progress to allow donors to seek approval for remaining One Plan/One
Plan Fund period.
December 2008

Joint Progress Report on UN reform process presented at CG meeting

One UN House opened

Donor approval of un-earmarked full-funding for remaining One
Plan/One Plan Fund period
Prepared by Working Group on Programming Policies 8