Standard Operating Procedures for Countries
Wishing to Adopt the Delivering as One
Approach
Integrated Package of Support
Page 0 of 185
Table of content
Preface
2
Chapter 1: Core Elements of the SOPs for Countries Adopting the Delivering
as One Approach
3
Chapter 2: One Programme
6
Section 2.1.: Principles and Policy [to be added from the SOPs]
6
Section 2.2.: One Programme – Tools and Materials
7
Section 2.3.: Technical Note on Joint Programmes
30
79
Chapter 3: Common Budgetary framework
Section 3.1.: Principles and Policy [to be added from the SOPs]
79
Section 3.2.: Common Budgetary Framework – Tools and Materials
80
Section 3.3.: Technical Note on Joint Resource Mobilization
93
Chapter 4: One Fund
124
Section 3.1.: Principles and Policy [to be added from the SOPs]
124
Section 3.2.: Established/ Managing/ Closing MDTFs incl. One
Funds – Tools and Materials
125
Section 3.3.: Technical Note on Performance-based Allocation
Criteria for One Funds
126
Section 4.4.: Technical Note on Thresholds for MDTFs and One
Funds
147
Chapter 5: Communicating as one
160
Section 5.1.: Principles and Policy [to be added from the SOPs]
160
Section 5.2.: Communicating as One – Tools and Materials
161
Annex: Role of the Regional UNDG Teams in the implementation of the
SOPs
182
Page 1 of 185
PREFACE
[TO BE ADDED]
Page 2 of 185
CHAPTER 1:
Core elements of the Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) for Countries Adopting the
Delivering as One Approach
The QCPR recognizes that the Delivering as One approach is adopted on a voluntary basis by
programme country governments. Upon adoption, UN Country Teams (UNCTs) and national
counterparts need to tailor the implementation of “Delivering as One” to their particular context.
The core elements are based on the QCPR commitments and guided by the Secretary-General's call
to all agencies on moving ahead with the next generation of Delivering as One. In their full
achievement at country level, they are the key requirements for the Delivering as One approach to
enable the tracking of shared results and measuring of impact of greater coherence of the UN
development system. They focus the collaborative and joined-up efforts of the UN development
system on what can be measured and monitored, thereby providing a concrete and practical basis
for the evidence and value of shared results.
The SOPs contain critical coherence principles relevant for all countries. In Delivering as One
countries, the SOPs package should be adopted and adapted by the UNCT and Government in
response to the needs of each country context. The principle of progressive realization is
recognized, with achievements and goals to be met, actively tracked and reported on by the UNCT.
The implementation of the core elements can be done over a one to two year period.
The implementation of the core elements of the SOPs enable the UN development system incountry to demonstrate high impact and better address the more complex and integrated
sustainable development agenda for post 2015 through increased policy and programme
coherence. The Delivering as One approach also reduces transaction costs and increase efficiencies
by working together as demanded by Member States.
Process
 The UNCT engages in a policy dialogue and shares information about the Delivering as One
approach and implications of its adoption with the host government;
Page 3 of 185



Where there is interest (and clearly voluntary in nature) a formal in-writing agreement is
reached with the host government to adopt the Delivering as One approach. The Resident
Coordinator informs the Chair of the UNDG, the full UNDG and the Regional UNDG Team
that the UNCT will apply the approach;
The Resident Coordinator conducts a strategic discussion within the UNCT on how to apply
the SOPs in the country context, on steps and timelines of a change management process
required to respond to the request to adopt the Delivering as One approach, as well as on
the support needed from regional and HQ levels;
There is no one size fits all but there is a set of standards and ways of working to improve
UN coherence to enable shared results.
Page 4 of 185
Delivering as One
pillar
Overarching
One Programme
Common Budgetary
Framework
One Leader
Operating as One
Communicating as
One
Core Elements
Checkbox
Joint oversight and ownership agreed between Government and the UN and outlined
in agreed terms of reference for a Joint National/ UN Steering Committee;
Annual reporting on joint UN results in the UN Country Results Report;
Signed UNDAF at the outcome level with legal text 1 as appropriate;
Joint Annual Work Plans (of Results Groups), aligned with the UNDAF and signed by
involved UN entities (this does not preclude agency specific work plans where
required);
Results Groups (chaired by Heads of Agencies) focused on strategic policy and
programme content established and aligned with national coordination mechanisms;
A medium-term Common Budgetary Framework aligned to the UNDAF/One
Programme as a results-oriented resourcing framework for UN resources;
Annual Common Budgetary Frameworks (as a part of the Joint Work Plans) updated
annually with transparent data on financial resources required, available, expected,
and to be mobilized;
A Joint Resource Mobilization strategy as appropriate to the country context (with the
option of a One Fund duly considered) approved by the UNCT and monitored and
reported against in the UN Country Results Report ;
Strong commitment and incentives of the UNCT to work towards common results and
accountability through full implementation of the M&A system and the UNCT Conduct
and Working Arrangements;
Empowered UNCT to make joint decisions relating to programming activities and
financial matters;
Business Operations Strategy2 endorsed by UNCT is highly recommended, adapted to
local needs and capacities, to enhance operational oneness processes through
eliminating duplication of common processes to leverage efficiencies and maximize
economies of scale;
Empowered Operations Management Team (chaired by a Head of Agency);
Operations costs and budgets integrated in the overall medium-term Common
Budgetary Framework;
A joint communication strategy appropriate to the country context approved by the
UNCT and monitored and reported against in the UN Country Results Report;
Country Communications Group (chaired by a Head of Agency) and supported by
regional and HQ levels, as necessary.
1
Joint Programmes continue to be a valid mechanism in this context.
2
The Business Operations Strategy is currently being field tested with finalization in 2015.
Page 5 of 185
CHAPTER 2:
One Programme
SECTION 2.1.
Principles and Policy
[TO BE ADDED FROM THE SOPS]
Page 6 of 185
SECTION 2.2.:
One Programme – Tools and materials
Introduction
This One Programme document provides programming tools and materials to countries wishing to
adopt the Delivering as One approach. This document is premised on the underlying principles that
guide the development of the Standard Operating Procedures for Countries Wishing to Adopt the
“Delivering as One” Approach (SOPs) adopted on 20 August 20133 and provides practical guidance
and instruments on formulation, implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the One
Programme. The implementation of this document will enable the UN to offer relevant, coherent,
efficient and effective response to national needs and priorities.
The One Programme Tools and materials document responds to the mandate of the QCPR which
“recognizes that the individual UN funds, programmes and agencies have specific experience and
expertise, derived from, and in line with, their mandates and strategic plans, and stresses, in this
regard, that improvement of coordination and coherence at the country level should be
undertaken in a manner that recognizes the respective mandates and roles and enhances the
effective utilization of resources and the unique expertise of all UN funds, programmes and
specialized agencies” (paragraph 18 of QCPR Resolution A/Res/67/226). This document should be
read in conjunction with the SOPs for ensuring necessary linkages with other Delivering as One
pillars.
According to the SOPs, the core elements of a One Programme are listed below.


A One Programme is comprised of the UNDAF Programme Document together with a
corresponding Common Budgetary Framework, and Results Group Joint Work Plans, which
will normally be the work planning instruments.4
A Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee is established to provide strategic
guidance and oversight of One Programme implementation.
3
The SOPs were circulated by the UNDG Chair to RCs/ UNCTs, Regional UNDG Teams and global UNDG on 12 September
2013.
4
This process does not preclude agency-specific work planning and programming as required by individual agency
governance structures.
Page 7 of 185



Results Groups are established on an operational level to implement the Joint Work Plans in
close alignment with national coordination mechanisms.
Each Results Group (including Country Communication Groups and Operations
Management Teams, if applicable) makes contributions to the United Nations Country
Results Report.
A final evaluation of the One Programme is undertaken.
To the extent possible, and in line with the United Nations commitment to implement the Busan
Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, the planning, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation of a One Programme should be aligned with national mechanisms and systems.5
This is to achieve maximum harmonization, alignment, national ownership, mutual accountability
and reduced transaction costs. To support sustainable development results, the One Programme
should also strengthen normative and operational linkages and use inclusive, equitable,
participatory, transparent and accountable development processes.
For comparisons between a One Programme and the 2010 UNDAF Guidelines, see Annex 1. The key
normative elements are maintained, as well as references to national stakeholders, including
governments and social partners. The main changes for countries adopting the Delivering as One
approach are simplification of procedures and planning processes, as well as the introduction of
Results Groups.
Table 1 below outlines the mandatory elements of the One Programme along with options for their
implementation. Table 2 provides the steps, deliverables and timeline for developing the One
Programme.
5
If national mechanisms do not exist, or cannot provide necessary guarantees of timeliness, transparency,
inclusivity etc., the UNCT and national partners may identify gaps for undertaking necessary capacity
development to develop and strengthen nationally-owned and country-led planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
Page 8 of 185
Mandatory elements of a One Programme
Road Map
One Programme mandatory elements
Developed and agreed with the
government entity
coordinating
Country analysis
a)
b)
a)
b)
c)
UNDAF Results
Matrix with
Common
Budgetary
Framework
Joint National/
United Nations
Steering
Committee
Strategic level UNDAF with outcome level results
matrix including indicators, baselines, targets, means
of verification, list of partners, risks and assumptions
and Common Budgetary Framework. The UNDAF is
signed by the coordinating government entity and all
participating United Nations organizations
Strategic level coordination structure established for
One Programme oversight and guidance
Results Groups
Establishment
of
Results
Groups
at
technical/operational levels chaired by a UNCT
member to guide UNDAF implementation through
Joint Work Plans signed by the participating United
Nations entities
Monitoring and
evaluation plan
M&E plan for the One Programme is required and
should be developed in consultation with national
partners
Contributions from the Results Groups to the United
Nations Country Results Report
United Nations
Country Results
Report
Evaluation
One Programme Evaluation undertaken in the
penultimate year of the One Programme cycle in
agreement with national partners
a)
b)
Options for implementation
Developed jointly with the government
Developed internally by the United Nations and
endorsed by government
United Nations participation in government-led
analytical work and use of government analysis including
sectoral reviews and analyses
Complementary United Nations-supported analytical
work with a focus on gaps in the existing analysis
A full country analysis
Formulation of output-level results, including Joint
Programme Outputs in the Joint Work Plans6
Include output-level results, including Joint Programme
Outputs in the UNDAF results matrix (if this is
considered useful)
a)
Established as part of an existing higher level national
coordination mechanism
b) Established as a new coordination structure for the One
Programme in line with national coordination
mechanisms
a) Established within the existing national coordination
mechanism at the operational level for greater national
ownership, inclusiveness and reduced transaction costs.
Co-chaired by government and the United Nations with
participation from relevant stakeholders
b) The United Nations may opt to have United Nationsinternal Results Groups to ensure a coordinated United
Nations approach in the national coordination
mechanism
c) In the absence of a national coordination mechanism at
operational level, United Nations establishes Results
Group with relevant stakeholders including social
partners, co-chaired by government and United Nations.
In agreement with the government, Results Groups can
be chaired by the United Nations only and can have
United Nations only membership
M&E Plan can be prepared in narrative or tabular format
a)
b)
Evaluation can be undertaken as part of a broader
national level evaluation
A stand-alone evaluation of the One Programme with
relevant stakeholder participation
6 This process does not preclude agency-specific work planning and programming as required by individual
agency governance structures.
Page 9 of 185
Step
Table 2: Steps, deliverables and timeline for a One Programme
ROAD MAP
COUNTRY ANALYSIS
STRATEGIC PLANNING
Timing
Deliverables


Road map document
composed of:
 Key steps and
milestones
 Key deliverables
Developed in Q4 of
penultimate year of
current cycle, and
reviewed throughout the
cycle of the One
Programme




Situation analysis
Stakeholder analysis
United Nations
comparative
advantage
Assessment of
national coordination
mechanisms
Developed in Q4 of
penultimate year/Q1 of
final year of current cycle

UNDAF document
with Results Matrix,
Common Budgetary
Framework and
Monitoring and
Evaluation Plan
When applicable,
align the UNDAF
outputs with those of
the UNDG Business
Operations Strategy
Signed with government
in Q1/Q2 of final year of
current cycle and updated
in every Q4 of the One
Programme Cycle
MONITORING AND
EVALUATION
OPERATIONALIZATION



Establish Joint
National/United
Nations Steering
Committee
Establish Results
Groups
Develop Joint Work
Plans7 with Common
Budgetary
Frameworks
Joint National/United
Nations Steering
Committee & Results
Groups established in Q4
of final year of current
cycle
Joint Work Plans with
Common Budgetary
Framework finalized in Q4
of final year of current
cycle


United Nations
Country Results
Report
One Programme
Evaluation
Monitoring:
Throughout the cycle in
accordance with UNDAF
results matrix, Joint Work
Plans and the Monitoring
and Evaluation plan
Evaluation:
Penultimate year
7 This process does not preclude agency-specific work planning and programming as required by individual agency governance structures.
Page 10 of 185
UNDAF formulation
The UNDAF formulation is guided by: a) a road map; b) country analysis; and c) a strategic planning
process that includes development of a results matrix at the outcome level and a monitoring and
evaluation plan. Detailed operational and normative guidance on UNDAF formulation is provided in
the UNDG technical guidance for Country Teams (2010), How to Prepare an UNDAF Part (1) and
How to Prepare an UNDAF Part (2).
The UNDAF can be titled differently, to reflect adjustment to core content and partnership
activities based on country context8. Such would be done in discussion with the UNCT and with full
agreement with the government, to reflect the change to the substantive outputs and overall
results of the UN’s contribution to the country in that cycle. The Standard Operating Procedures
takes this into account; and the core legal requirements and methodology for the UNDAFs, as
updated in these guidelines, remains the same.
Formulation of the UNDAF and the Joint Work Plans is guided by the five United Nations
programming principles, i.e. Human-Rights Based Approach (HRBA), Gender Equality,
Environmental Sustainability, Capacity Development and Results-based Management (RBM)9. The
UNDAF Guidelines provide detailed guidance on integrating these complementary principles in all
stages of a One Programme/UNDAF formulation, including analysis, planning, implementation,
monitoring, reporting and evaluation. The programming principles are based on core human rights
standards, including labour standards, gender equality tools for UNCTs, such as score cards and the
gender audit, and the inter-linkages between the pillars of the sustainable development agenda
(social, environmental and economic). UNDAFs are thus well positioned to continue to be the basis
for the Post Rio+ 20 and Post 2015 frameworks.
8
Examples are: UN Partnership Framework; UN Policy and Partnership Framework; UN Resilience Assistance
Framework; UN Transition Assistance Framework.
9
The 2010 UNDG UNDAF Guidance (Part 1) provides links to United Nations inter-agency toolkits and frameworks.
These should be consulted to support assessment and country analysis. In addition to generic guidance on the five
programming principles (human rights-based approach, gender equality, environmental sustainability, capacity
development and results-based management), these include, inter alia, the CEB Toolkit on Mainstreaming
Employment and Decent Work, which has been further identified by United Nations agencies as an example of
promoting inter-linkages between the five programming principles; the UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’
Issues; the Education for All Global Action Plan; the Cultural Lens Programming Tool; the Inter-agency Framework for
Conflict Analysis in Transition Situations; the UNDG Guidance Note on Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into
CCA/UNDAF; UNCT Performance Indicators for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment; the HLCP/CEB Resource
Guide on Trade and Capacity Building; the Aid for Trade and Human Development Guide; and the UNDG Position
Statement on Capacity Development.
Page 11 of 185
The UNDAF Results Matrix includes a Common Budgetary Framework (Hyperlink to be added),
which provides an estimation of required resources, resources available and committed and the
funding gap over the full One Programme cycle. It provides the basis for setting targets for joint
resource mobilization to cover the funding gap ("How to develop a strategic approach to joint
resource mobilization"). The Common Budgetary Framework is further detailed as part of the Joint
Work Plans (Hyperlink to be added).
Outputs, in support of the UNDAF outcomes, are reflected in the Joint Work Plans and/or agency
specific work plans. Such operational outputs may have been identified in the UNDG Business
Operations Strategy, which is a results-based framework aimed at facilitating strategic planning,
management and reporting of the UNCT’s joint support to programme delivery and business
operations (Business Operations Strategy).
In countries with a United Nations integrated presence, UNDAF formulation should take into
consideration the Integrated Assessment and Planning Guidelines (found in the Integrated
Assessment and Planning Handbook 2013), and possibilities for a single process and document
should be actively considered. Existing United Nations planning processes (e.g. UNDAF for
development, Common Humanitarian Action Plan, Consolidated Appeals Process for humanitarian
action, results-based budgeting for the mission, etc.) must be aligned with peace consolidation
priorities as reflected in the Integrated Strategic Framework and must ensure coherence and
collaboration with the United Nations family in country. In order to foster synergies and avoid
duplications, a coherent process should be used for the different United Nations planning tools and
instruments, given that the purpose of an Integrated Strategic Framework process is to achieve an
overarching strategy for the United Nations’ role in peace consolidation in a given country.
Terms of reference for Joint National/United Nations Steering
Committee
The Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee is established to provide strategic guidance
and oversight to One Programme implementation. Based on the specific local context, the
government coordinating entity and the Resident Coordinator, in consultation with the UNCT, will
determine the most effective modality and configuration for this committee.
The Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee, when feasible, will be aligned with existing,
broader national coordination mechanisms in order to not duplicate these existing mechanisms
and to keep transaction costs to a minimum while ensuring national leadership and ownership.
Page 12 of 185
For countries with a United Nations integrated presence, a senior leadership forum should be in
place for decision-making on joint strategic and operational issues. This forum should include the
key in-country decision-makers such as the Special/Executive Representative of the SecretaryGeneral,
Deputy
Special
Representative
of
the
Secretary-General,
Resident
Coordinator/Humanitarian Coordinator (who also are co-chairs of the Joint National/United
Nations Steering Committee for the One Programme), civilian Chief of Staff, heads of mission
components and heads of relevant United Nations agencies, funds and programmes. At minimum,
it should include representation from the various elements of the United Nations integrated
presence, depending on the political, security, development and humanitarian context. External
partners can be invited to participate when appropriate.
The generic terms of reference below for a Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee are
proposed in the spirit of national ownership. However, the final decision on the details of these
terms of reference will rest with the Resident Coordinator and the UNCT who can adapt the
content below as they deem necessary and to reflect the country context and in consultation with
the Government.
TOOL: TEMPLATE FOR TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE JOINT NATIONAL/ UN STEERING COMMITTEE
1. Background and purpose
In order to undertake coordinated implementation and oversight of the One Programme, a Joint
National/United Nations Steering Committee is established at strategic level under the leadership
of the Government and the United Nations Resident Coordinator.10
2. Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee
2.1 Expected role of Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee
The Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee will:
 provide strategic guidance and oversight during the One Programme implementation. The
Steering Committee shall be responsible for overseeing the work of the Results Groups
ensuring they perform within their mandate while remaining aligned to the UNDAF in line with
national priorities and undertaking evidence-based programming;
 review and confirm the annual/biennial/multi-year Joint Work Plans of the Results Groups
including the associated annual common budgetary framework11;
10
The RC leadership should be exercised in line with the RC job description approved by UNDG principals.
11
The RC/UNCT may decide that the SC also endorses the JWP.
Page 13 of 185




provide strategic oversight and direction with regards to the management of the One Fund and,
when applicable, make decisions on budget allocations of the One Fund;12
provide a strategic overview of the Joint Work Plans and the United Nations Country Results
Report;
provide guidance and direction on the development of the terms of reference of the One
Programme evaluation and oversee its subsequent commissioning process; and
ensure that funding gaps and evolving programming priorities are addressed.
2.2 Leadership and accountability



The Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee is guided by a terms of reference to be
developed in consultation with the government and mutually agreed upon.
The Resident Coordinator, when feasible, hosts and co-chairs the Joint National/United Nations
Steering Committee.
The Committee will be co-chaired by a representative of the coordinating entity of the
government.
2.3 Membership and frequency of meetings
“Participation is inclusive (line ministries, UNCT, United Nations mission as relevant, and as deemed
appropriate in consultation with members of the UNCT, other stakeholders as defined in the UNDG
UNDAF Guidelines (2010) and the Committee is co-chaired by the United Nations Resident
Coordinator and the government coordinating national ministry.”
Standard Operating Procedures, pp. 13-14.
The Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee will:
 remain operational throughout the life of the One Programme and its implementation phase;
 include representation from key government entities relevant to the UNDAF as well as
rotational membership from United Nations entities (the terms of rotation and size of the
membership should be decided by the Resident Coordinator, the UNCT and the coordinating
entity of the government); and
 meet as per agreed schedule to ensure it is able to perform the aforementioned key functions.
2.4 Secretariat
12
This applies when the UNCT wishes to engage the government in One Fund allocation decisions and reflects that in
the TOR of the Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee.
Page 14 of 185
The Resident Coordinator’s Office, or the Integrated Coordination Office in the case of countries
with a United Nations integrated presence, will provide secretariat support to the Joint
National/United Nations Steering Committee.
Generic terms of reference for Results Groups
Results Groups are the coordination mechanism for the One Programme at the operational level.
They provide a critical level of governance and substantive oversight where significant policy issues
(including operational-normative linkages) are discussed and their delivery ensured. Under the
leadership of the UNCT, Results Groups engage in policy dialogue with government counterparts,
civil society and development partners.
The Results Groups lead the preparation and subsequent implementation and monitoring of Joint
Work Plans for one or more UNDAF outcome. Based on the substantive analysis and dialogue, key
policy and programme areas in which the UN can demonstrate shared results, are derived, tracked
and reported through the Joint Work Plan. This contributes to the United Nations Country Results
Report and the One Programme Evaluation.
When feasible, the Results Groups should be established within existing national coordination
mechanisms to promote coherent and accountable United Nations engagement at the operational
level. The existing national coordination mechanism should include the participation of
government, national stakeholders and social partners, including workers and employers’
organizations. However, even if national coordination mechanisms exist, the United Nations may
still decide to establish a United Nations-only Results Group for internal United Nations
coordination to ensure a coordinated United Nations approach within the national coordination
mechanisms.
If national coordination mechanisms are non-existent, the United Nations, in consultation with the
government, may establish relevant Results Groups. Depending on the national context, Results
Groups may or may not include participation of the government and/or national partners, but the
United Nations must ensure that adequate coordination is maintained with relevant national
Page 15 of 185
partners at the operational level throughout the implementation of the One Programme.
Depending on the national context and agreement with national partners, each Results Group is cochaired by a relevant national partner. Representation of, or other form of genuine consultation
with, the targeted groups of rights-holders is encouraged at regular intervals.
To support the Results Groups to promote and apply United Nations normative programming
principles, the UNCT may also wish to establish thematic groups on cross-cutting issues or access
expertise from within the UNCT to advise the Results Groups and Resident Coordinator on how to
ensure these principles are applied in efforts to achieve the UNDAF outcomes 13.
In countries with a United Nations integrated presence, the mission and the UNCT may also decide
to develop and monitor implementation of joint strategies through Results Groups. Results Groups
will be led by a UNCT member or by the Head of a Section (as relevant).
TOOL: TEMPLATE FOR TERMS OF REFERENCE OF RESULTS GROUPS
1. Background and purpose
The One Programme calls for the establishment of Results Groups to lead and guide the One
Programme implementation using Joint Work Plans. Each Results Group covers one or more
UNDAF outcomes. To the extent possible, Results Groups will be established within the existing
national coordination architecture to ensure national leadership and national ownership
throughout the UNDAF implementation.
2. One Programme Results Groups
2.1 Expected roles of Results Groups

13
Prepare annual/biennial/multi-year Joint Work Plans with outputs that are measurable through
indicators, baselines, targets, means of verification and assumptions and risks in consultation
with all members of the Results Group. Each Joint Work Plan comes with an annualized
Common Budgetary Framework.
In accordance with the UNDG guidance note for UNCTs on establishing theme groups or other appropriate
mechanisms on human rights and the 2005 Resource Guide for Gender Theme Groups (UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and
UNIFEM), and depending on the country context and UNCT capacity, the UNCT is encouraged to establish working
groups with advisory responsibilities with regards to the United Nations’ normative programming principles. In
addition to advice, these groups may act as a resource for the Resident Coordinator and the UNCT in promoting
norms and standards of the United Nations system as well as for coordinating the organization’s responses to
requests from the government and other stakeholders relevant to the engagement in United Nations human rights
mechanisms.
Page 16 of 185









Undertake joint analysis of the policy environment, key development issues and emerging
trends related to priority areas to ensure that the Results Groups’ work plans address pressing
development constraints
Contribute to the development of common UNCT advocacy messages and communication
products and support policy dialogue with government counterparts, civil society and other
development partners with substantive inputs.
Mainstream normative programming principles and any crosscutting themes and issues
relevant to the country into the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the One
Programme ensuring normative-operational linkages while addressing national needs and
priorities.
Share information on proposed and ongoing initiatives of national and international partners in
relation to the One Programme priorities for improved synergy and to address gaps in
programming.
Produce sector needs assessments and identify capacity requirements of partners, including
those needed for the implementation of a One Programme M&E Plan.
Track progress and reporting on results within the Joint Work Plan and contribute to the
preparation of United Nations Country Results Report.
Contribute to the preparation of terms of reference for the mandatory One Programme
evaluation.
Support planning and reporting requirements of the One Fund, if it exists.
In cases in which United Nations entities wish to establish a Joint Programme, assist with its
formulation ensuring that each Joint Programme is strategically aligned with One Programme
priorities and is developed in accordance with UNDG guidelines.
2.1.1 Role of the Results Groups Chairs
Each Results Group is chaired by a Head of Agency on behalf of the UNCT or a Head of Section (in
the case of a United Nations mission and as applicable), and when appropriate, co-chaired by a
relevant government entity. The chairs are empowered by the UNCT to take appropriate decisions
and lead the Results Groups in the implementation of the Joint Work Plans. The decision to rotate
the chair/co-chair during the One Programme cycle has to be taken at the UNCT level.
The Results Group chairs will be collectively responsible for the overall performance of the Results
Group and will be accountable for the coordinated achievement of results stipulated in the Joint
Work Plans.
The specific responsibilities of Results Groups chairs include, but are not limited to, the following:
 lead the development and consolidation of the Joint Work Plan with Common Budgetary
Framework in accordance with the SOPs and its submission to the UNCT and/or the Joint
National/United Nations Steering Committee for endorsement;
 moderate, facilitate and guide the activities of the Results Group in accordance with the
normative programming principles and the Joint Work Plans;
Page 17 of 185








Ensure adequate consultations and discussions take place with all members, including NonResident Agencies, and other national partners prior to reaching decisions;
in consultation with Results Group members, request the Resident Coordinator and UNCT to
access any needed technical capacity of the United Nations system available in-country or at
the regional or global levels;
lead preparation, consolidation and submission of Results Group’s contributions to the United
Nations Country Results Report and any other document requested by the Resident
Coordinator and the government;
support the Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee, Resident Coordinator and UNCT
in resource mobilization efforts;
contribute to the development of TORs for the One Programme evaluation;
with support from participating United Nations entities, ensure that the Results Group has the
necessary M&E support to technically guide the integration and application of results-based
management principles in the planning, budgeting, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the
Joint Work Plans;
guide the annual review process for the Joint Work Plans contributing to the United Nations
Country Results Report; and
report annually to the Resident Coordinator and UNCT on progress and results, as their
contribution to the United Nations Country Results Report.
2.1.2 Coordination with other Results Groups



Each Results Group will contribute to systematic documentation of lessons learned and sharing
of good practices and their dissemination across Results Groups.
Chairs of Results Groups will ensure necessary coordination with all participating United
Nations entities and other stakeholders as well as with other Results Groups for necessary
programmatic alignment and synergy.
The UNCT may decide to set up further mechanisms to ensure coordination and information
sharing across Results Groups.
2.2 Membership and frequency of meetings


The governance structure and membership of Results Groups will be agreed upon by the UNCTs
in consultation with national partners. However, each Results Group includes representation
from United Nations entities contributing to the One Programme outcome including NonResident Agencies, and may include partner government entities and relevant national
partners. Donors and development partners may also be invited to meetings of Results Groups
as observers for transparency, programmatic coordination and alignment.
The chair of the Results Group, in consultation with the Resident Coordinator and UNCT, may
request the engagement of any other expertise within the United Nations as needs arise (e.g.,
Page 18 of 185


from the Operations Management Team, procurement expertise, expertise on the five
programming principles, communications, etc.).
There should be at least one M&E expert in every Results Group to provide necessary resultsbased management support in planning, budgeting, monitoring, reporting and evaluation.
Each Results Group will meet as deemed necessary by the chair in order to ensure timely
implementation, monitoring and reporting of the Joint Work Plan. For ad hoc issues requiring
urgent action, the Results Groups may conduct its business electronically.
2.3 Duration of membership


The chairs must ensure that the membership of the Results Group remains relevant to the
underlying national needs and priorities to which the Results Group is contributing.
If national needs require the engagement of additional United Nations capacity not available
within the UNCT, the Results Group chair, in consultation with the Resident Coordinator and
UNCT, will approach the relevant United Nations agency, regionally or globally.
2.4 Accountability




Chairs of Results Groups are accountable to the Joint National/United Nations Steering
Committee. In addition, the Resident Coordinator will assess the performance of the United
Nations chairs of the Results Groups as part of the regular performance appraisal of the
members of the UNCT on their contributions to effective and efficient functioning of the UNCT,
in accordance with the mutual accountability principle in the performance assessment process.
The overall performance of Results Groups with national partners will be reviewed by the Joint
National/United Nations Steering Committee on a periodic basis. The Government and United
Nations members of the Results Group will respectively be accountable to the Government and
United Nations co-chairs of the Results Group for their respective contributions.
For United Nations members, all participating United Nations entities should ensure that the
contributions of the staff members participating in Results Groups are adequately reflected in
their performance appraisal.
The chairs of the Results Groups will provide inputs, as needed, to the performance appraisal of
the members of the Results Groups.
2.4 Secretariat
The United Nations entity chairing a Results Group will be responsible for providing necessary
secretariat support and services, with necessary support from the Resident Coordinator’s Office,
when available.
Page 19 of 185
Joint Work Plans
Joint Work Plans are normally14 the instruments to operationalize the UNDAF by translating its
outcomes into concrete, measurable and time-bound outputs that provide clear normativeoperational linkages and enable the United Nations and partners to establish attribution of the
United Nations contribution to national priorities for purposes of accountability.15
A Joint Work Plan covers one or more UNDAF outcome assigned to a Results Group and defines
output-level results with a Common Budgetary Framework and specific activities. To facilitate
monitoring and reporting, each output in the Joint Work Plan has performance indicators with
baselines, targets, means of verification and frequency of reporting. Joint Work Plans can be
annual, biennial or multi-year, depending on the country context.
In formulating the Joint Work Plans, the below points apply.
 Joint Work Plans are developed, negotiated and signed by the relevant United Nations
participating organizations.
 The actual duration of the Joint Work Plans can be flexible according to country context and
should be aligned with the UNDAF with corresponding alignment with the national planning
cycle.
 The Joint Work Plans detail the constituent outputs that are budgeted with key activities,
indicators, baselines, targets and key partners.
 Outputs in the Joint Work Plans are multi-year, if needed, and will be reviewed and revised
on a rolling basis, as required.
 The annual Common Budgetary Framework is developed as an integral part of the Joint
Work Plans, i.e. outputs are costed with clearly defined available resources and the funding
gap, against which resources need to be mobilized.
 The Joint Work Plans specify the implementation modality, i.e. agency-specific
implementation or Joint Programme management (Hyperlink to the on Guidance Note on
Joint Programmes to be added).16
14
This process does not preclude agency-specific work planning and programming as required by their governance
structures.
15
The UNDAF results matrix establishes collective accountability and responsibility of the United Nations and partners
in relation to outcome-level results aligned to national needs and priorities. The Joint Work Plans, on the other
hand, provide an accountability framework for the United Nations through a set of measurable outputs for which
the United Nations is fully accountable and fully responsible to achieve within the time-frame of the Joint Work
Plan.
16
For countries adopting a Delivering as One approach, each Joint Work Plan corresponds to a given UNDAF outcome
result. Developed at the output level, a Joint Work Plan facilitates the operationalization of the UNDAF. United
Nations entities undertake agency specific projects and/or joint programmes to achieve results at the output level
Page 20 of 185

All Joint Work Plans are developed and implemented using agreed UNDG guidance on the
five UNDAF Programming Principles and the UNDG Result’s-Based Management Handbook
as tools and references for designing their work plan template.
In countries with a United Nations integrated presence, for alignment of the mission with UNCT
priorities and to ensure coherent implementation, the mission priorities in relation to peace
consolidation can be translated into concrete deliverables attached to resources in Joint Work
Plans as the single operational documents.
contributing to corresponding UNDAF outcome level results. Joint programming is an implementation modality that
allows two or more United Nations agencies to undertake a set of activities jointly in pursuit of common results
agreed in the Joint Work Plans with a common budget.
Page 21 of 185
TOOL: JOINT WORK PLAN TEMPLATE
1. Cover page
Country:
Corresponding One Programme Outcome(s)17:
Chairing United Nations/government entity:
Results Group Members (United Nations and non-United Nations entities):
Executive Summary
The executive summary contains a summary of all sections focusing on the significance and relevance of
the Joint Work Plan, its contribution to national priorities and international commitments, the results
expected to be achieved, intended beneficiaries, development partner and implementing partners.
Work-plan duration:
Anticipated start/end dates:
Total estimated budget (in USD)*:
Out of which:
1. Funded budget (USD):
2. Unfunded budget (USD):
* Total estimated budget includes both direct
programme costs and indirect support costs.
Names and signatures:
Breakdown of contributions by funding sources
Source
Contributions (USD)

Government
_________

UN entity*
_________

UN entity
_________

One Fund
_________

Donor
_________

Development Partner _________

Donor
_________

NGO
_________
* Specify the UN entity, donor, NGO, etc.
17
One Programme Outcome(s) are the same as the UNDAF Outcome(s) and should be reproduced verbatim from the
UNDAF matrix throughout this template.
Page 22 of 185
Signatures18
UN participating organization 1
UN participating organization 2
UN participating organization 3
Implementing partner 1
Implementing partner 2
Implementing partner 3
1. Context and situation analysis, including lessons learned (maximum one page):
2. Joint Work Plan including Common Budgetary Framework (table)
Note: These Joint Work Plans can be adapted to best suit the requirements of the UNCT for a particular
country programme context.
18
When civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations are designated as implementing partners, they
do not sign this Joint Work Plan. Each participating United Nations entity will follow its own procedures in signing
Work Plans with these partners.
Page 23 of 185
Outcome 1: (State the corresponding One Programme outcome)
Outputs,
including
Joint
Programm
e Outputs
UN
entit
y
a)
indicator
b)baselin
e
c)target
Means of
verificatio
n
Monitorin
g
frequency
Risks and
assumption
s
Implementatio
n modality
(agencyspecific,
parallel,
pooled, passthrough,
combination)
Annual Common Budgetary Framework
Total
(USD
)
Core/
regular
/
assesse
d
(USD)
Noncore/
other/
extra
budgetar
y
(USD)
To be
mobilized
/ funding
gap
(USD)
Result
achieved
: fully/
partially
/ no
progress
1.1
Activities
Timeline
(if multiyear JWP)
Implementing UN entity/
national partner
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
Repeat highlighted section (grey) for each additional output
Total planned budget for Results Group (including both direct
programme cost and indirect support cost)
Total UN entity 1
Total UN entity 2
Total UN entity 3
Page 24 of 185
Monitoring
When monitoring and evaluating a One Programme, the United Nations should ensure that the
work:
 capitalizes on existing national M&E mechanisms, whenever possible and feasible;
 supports areas in which further strengthening of national systems is required;
 avoids additional burden on partner countries through One Programme-specific M&E
requirements; and
 puts in place necessary technical and financial resources to carry out the monitoring and
evaluation.
The United Nations and its partners should develop an M&E plan for the One Programme that
has mechanisms and modalities for joint monitoring of results stipulated in the UNDAF results
matrix and the Joint Work Plans.
The UNDAF results matrix is a strategic-level tool through with the United Nations and its
partners mutually agree on a set of performance indicators, baselines and targets with
corresponding means of verification. At the operational level, the Joint Work Plans underpin
results-based implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the One Programme.
Each Joint Work Plan outlines output level results to be achieved by participating United
Nations agencies. The output level results are measured through a set of performance
indicators with means of verification, frequency of data collection and timeframes.
Monitoring of results stipulated in the UNDAF and the Joint Work Plans will be based on
guidance and tools found in the UNDG Results-Based Management Handbook and the United
Nations guidance on Integrated Assessment and Planning. The United Nations and its partners
are encouraged to explore and develop innovative and context-specific common tools to
undertake credible and results-oriented monitoring of the One Programme. The monitoring
should also guide the United Nations to prepare adaptive strategies that respond to evolving
national priorities.
To the extent possible, all data on indicators, baselines and targets in the UNDAF results matrix
and the Joint Work Plans should be disaggregated by sex, minority or indigenous status,
disability, and geographic, demographic or other relevant social disparities. When preparing the
M&E plan, the United Nations should determine major gaps or inconsistences in terms of
required data. The M&E plan should spell out how these gaps are to be filled, including by
reference to the Concluding Observations of international human rights treaty bodies.
Monitoring of the One Programme should be aligned with national information, statistical and
M&E systems. This will enhance national ownership, support effective and efficient utilization
Page 25 of 185
of national resources and uphold mutual accountability for One Programme results by the
United Nations and national partners. To the extent possible, monitoring and reporting should
be based on disaggregated data from credible national M&E and statistical data systems and
mechanisms. When data from national systems is not available, the United Nations may initiate
or support baseline studies and/or surveys.
The M&E plan should specify all key evaluations, including the mandatory One Programme
evaluation, any joint programme evaluations and any other strategic or thematic evaluations
that United Nations agencies will undertake collectively or individually that could contribute to
the One Programme evaluation. The M&E plan should also outline the process, with a timeline,
for preparation of the United Nations Country Results Report, as well as engagement with
coordination groups to report on the pillars of the Delivering as One approach, including
Operating as One and Communicating as One. The United Nations should support partners and
national mechanisms to report on their commitments to relevant international treaty bodies
and the effective development cooperation principles.
In countries with an integrated United Nations presence, a joint analytical and planning capacity
may be considered to share United Nations expertise to undertake assessments and analyses
and to prepare, update and monitor integrated planning frameworks. The mission and the
UNCT may also decide to develop and monitor implementation of joint strategies through the
Results Groups that may be led by the United Nations mission, as relevant.
For further guidance on M&E planning, see the UNDG technical guidance for country teams
(2010), How to Prepare an UNDAF Part (2).
One Programme contribution to the UN Country Results Report
The UNDAF results matrix and the Joint Work Plans provide the basis for reporting on the One
Programme. The reporting should be based on adequately disaggregated data collected by
Results Groups and from credible national and government sources as agreed in the UNDAF
results matrix and the Joint Work Plans.
Each Results Group is required to prepare a respective report using the template of the United
Nations Country Results Report (Hyperlink to be added). The Resident Coordinator’s Office will
then consolidate and submit a single United Nations Country Results Report to the UNCT for
review. The report will be endorsed by the Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee.
The United Nations Country Results Report is shared with the government and donors
contributing to the One Fund, and others as required.
The United Nations Country Results Report of the One Programme addresses the following:
Page 26 of 185




major development trends;
progress on United Nations contributions towards One Programme outcomes, including
normative-operational linkages in addressing national priorities;
challenges, lessons learned and the way forward; and
reporting on the One Programme financial status, including the Common Budgetary
Framework, resource mobilization and One Fund19 (when applicable).
The United Nations Country Results Reports will provide the basis for the preparation of
subsequent Joint Work Plans and will contribute to the mandatory One Progra mme Evaluation.
Evaluation
A mandatory final evaluation is commissioned by the United Nations and partners in the second
half of the implementation cycle (normally towards the end of the penultimate year of the One
Programme cycle) allowing United Nations and national partners to incorporate learning and
recommendations in the design and planning of the next One Programme.
The One Programme Evaluation process must be credible, independent, impartial and
transparent. It should embrace an inclusive approach, involving a broad range of stakeholders
and partners. The process should begin with stakeholder mapping20 to identify various
stakeholders and partners, including those who do not work directly with the UNCT yet play a
key role in the national context.
The One Programme evaluation will identify key achievements, lessons learned and best
practices, as well as constraints and challenges encountered during the implementation of the
One Programme. The evaluation of the One Programme will also assess the:
 relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the One Programme results and
their contribution to achieving national priorities, including any impact on the
realization of human rights for the poor and people in vulnerable situations;
19
Given that the financial cycles are not harmonized across all United Nations entities, some United
Nations entities and the One Fund may report tentative figures based on uncertified interim financial
statements.
20
Stakeholders may include representatives from the government and relevant development partners,
civil society organizations, including workers’ and employers’ organizations, other multilateral
organizations, bilateral donors, etc.
Page 27 of 185


integration and mainstreaming of United Nations programming principles and other
relevant crosscutting issues in the One Programme, including its contributions to
equitable, inclusive, transparent, participatory and accountable development processes;
and
coherence of the United Nations system in addressing national priorities and
contributions to informed decision-making and knowledge generation.
The UNCT, with support from the Resident Coordinator’s Office and inputs from the Results
Groups, will develop the One Programme evaluation terms of reference following normative
and technical guidance from the United Nations Evaluation Group, such as the UNEG Guidance
on Preparing Terms of Reference for UNDAF Evaluations.
The Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee will endorse the One Programme
evaluation terms of reference while the Office of the Resident Coordinator will commission the
evaluation on behalf of the United Nations (refer to the United Nations Evaluation Group
website www.uneval.org for normative and technical guidance on evaluations).
To the extent possible, the One Programme Evaluation will use national expertise and
contribute to development of national evaluation capacities.
Page 28 of 185
ANNEX 1 - Comparison between One Programme and 2010 UNDAF Guidelines
Issue/Section
General Assembly
mandate
One Programme Guidance
2013 United Nations General Assembly
resolution A/RES/67/226: QCPR (OP 132-143).
Available to all programme countries on a
voluntary adoption basis.
Road Map
2010 UNDAF Guidance remains valid.
Country analysis
2010 UNDAF Guidance and CEB toolkits and
guidance notes remain valid.
UNDAF Results
Matrix
United Nations should opt for a strategic UNDAF
(outcome level) with output level details
included in the Joint Work Plans.
Common Budgetary
Framework
Common Budgetary Framework covering the
entire UNDAF cycle, including communications
and operations.
Legal instruments
One Programme
operationalization
M&E Plan
Monitoring/Review
Progress Report
Evaluation
Common Budgetary Framework further detailed
on an annual basis in the Joint Work Plans.
The UNDAF includes a results matrix at the
outcome level and a legal annex containing the
requirements previously included in the Country
Programme Action Plans of each United Nations
agency, fund and programme, and in the UNDAF
Action Plan.
Joint Work Plans replace the UNDAF Action Plan
and, whenever possible, Annual Work Plans of
agencies funds and programmes.
Establishment of Joint National/United Nations
Steering Committee at strategic level and Results
Groups at operational level to lead UNDAF
implementation though Joint Work Plans.
M&E Plan developed for the One Programme.
Aligned with Joint Work Plans and the United
Nations Country Results Report.
Mandatory annual United Nations Country
Results Report covering One Programme,
Operations and Communications including
contributions by Result Groups and consolidated
as a single report with agency-specific annexes,
replacing agency specific reports. Agencies may
continue to prepare separate reports as agreed
with their corresponding national partners and
governing bodies. New format for Results
Report.
Mandatory final evaluation of the One
Programme.
2010 UNDAF Guidelines
2007 United Nations General Assembly resolution
A/RES/62/208: TCPR (IV - A). The collective
programming and monitoring framework for the
operations of the United Nations development system
at the country level
UNCTs are required to develop a road map outlining
the preparation process of the UNDAF.
Must inform strategic planning step. Includes analytical
contribution, mapping of UNCT work and determining
United Nations comparative advantages.
Optional (option 1a) Outcome level only, or
outcome/output level (option 1b) UNDAF results matrix
signed between the UNCT and government.
Common Budgetary Framework covering the entire
UNDAF cycle.
Common Budgetary Framework integral to UNDAF
Action Plan and updated on annual basis.
UNDAF Action Plan signed between UNCT and
government includes legal instruments of Country
Programme Action Plans of each United Nations
agency, fund and programme.
UNDAF Action Plan and Annual Work Plans of agencies,
funds and programmes used to operationalize the
UNDAF.
Establishment of UNDAF Thematic Groups to lead the
implementation of the UNDAF.
M&E Plan developed for the UNDAF.
Annual joint UNCT/government review of UNDAF.
Mandatory progress report prepared by UNCT once in
UNDAF cycle. Optionally, the UNCT, in consultation
with government and other key partners, may produce
more than a single UNDAF progress report per UNDAF
cycle, if this adds value.
Progress Report format as per the UNDG standard
operating format.
Mandatory final evaluation of the UNDAF.
Page 29 of 185
CHAPTER 2.3.:
Technical note on Joint Programmes
Acronyms
AA
CA
DaO
DD
DIM
EU
FMOG
JP
MA
MDG-F
MDTF
MOU
M&E
NIM
NGO
PMU
PRSP
PUNO
QCPR
RIAS
SAA
SOP
TOD
UN
UNCT
UNDAF
UNEG
UNDG
UN-REDD
UN-RIAS
USD
Administrative Agent
Convening Agency
Delivering as One
Disbursement Date
Direct Implementation Modality
European Union
Fiduciary Management Oversight Group
Joint Programme
Managing Agent
Millennium Development Goals Achievement Fund
Multi-Donor Trust Fund
Memorandum of Understanding
Monitoring & Evaluation
National Implementation Modality
Non-Governmental Organization
Programme Management Unit
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
Participating United Nations Organization
Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review
Representatives of the Internal Audit Services
Standard Administrative Arrangement
Standard Operating Procedures
Terminal Obligation Date
United Nations
United Nations Country Teams
United Nations Development Assistance Framework
United Nations Evaluation Group
United Nations Development Group
United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation
United Nations Representatives of Internal Audit Services
United States Dollars
Page 30 of 185
1.
Introduction
1.1. Background
This Guidance Note, which is applicable to all UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies,
replaces the Guidance Note on Joint Programming of December 2003, and aims to give
practical, hands-on guidance on Joint Programmes, when to use them and how to implement
them.
The revised guidance reflects the experiences with Joint Programmes over the past decade and
responds to the recommendations from an extensive review of the Joint Programme
mechanism in 2012/2013. It also puts Joint Programmes in context of new developments such
as updated United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) guidance and One
Programme guidelines (forthcoming), as well as linkages with Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs),
including One Funds.
Drawing on lessons learnt from past experiences and a consultative process undertaken with
stakeholders across the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), major changes in the
Guidance Note on Joint Programmes include an expanded section on when to choose Joint
Programmes, the introduction of thresholds, expanded guidance on choosing and
implementing the fund management options, more information on governance structures,
including the introduction of a convening agency, more guidance on reporting, including the
introduction of a narrative reporting template, more information on audits, and a revised
structure with step-by-step processes for establishing and managing Joint Programmes.
A Joint Programme is only one modality of working together in the context of UNDAF,
Delivering as One (DaO)/One Programme or other frameworks for common country
programming. It may also be used in countries that are currently not using any of these
frameworks, as well as to support regional or global-level UN collaboration. Guidance for other
joint programming modalities will be provided in the updated UNDAF Guidance Note
(forthcoming).
1.2. Rationale
Joint Programmes help to achieve greater system-wide coherence that supports national
priorities and needs. The strategic intent of joint efforts is to help countries coordinate
development programmes themselves. Benefitting from the UN development system and
United Nations Country Teams (UNCTs), such development should be inclusive and sustainable.
Following a number of initiatives and resolutions aimed at increasing UN coherence, in
December 2012, in the context of the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR) of the
United Nations, the General Assembly adopted a resolution paragraph 118 of which
"encourages the United Nations development system to further strengthen joint programming
processes at the country level, where appropriate, as a useful way to promote greater
Page 31 of 185
coherence, taking into account the principles of national ownership, alignment with national
priorities and the comparative advantage of individual entities of the United Nations system at
the country level.”21
Since the adoption of the 2003 Guidelines on Joint Programming a decade ago, four important
developments accelerated the growth of Joint Programmes: a review of the effectiveness,
efficiency and lessons learned from the first generation of Joint Programmes (completed in
2006); country-specific piloting of “Delivering as One” (2007-2012); creation of the Millennium
Development Goals Achievement Fund (MDG-F) which funded 130 Joint Programmes (20072013); and the growth of Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) as recognized high-quality passthrough financial management channels for donor funding to multi-agency programmes,
including Joint Programmes. In addition, studies of stand-alone Joint Programmes, managed by
different organizations, have shown that promoting Joint Programmes has been a way to
promote not only system-wide coherence, but also other priorities established by their
constituencies. Further, a UNDG review of Joint Programmes was undertaken in 2012-2013 to
examine the application of Joint Programme modalities in various contexts and inform the
revision of the 2003 Guidelines.22
2. Definitions and considerations for choosing and initiating Joint Programmes
2.1. Definitions
A Joint Programme is a set of activities contained in a joint work plan and related common
budgetary framework, involving two or more UN organizations and (sub-) national
governmental partners, intended to achieve results aligned with national priorities as reflected
in UNDAF/One Programme or an equivalent programming instrument or development
framework. The work plan and budgetary framework form part of a Joint Programme
Document, which details roles and responsibilities of partners in coordinating and managing the
joint activities. While the Joint Programme arrangement is only between UN organizations,
government entities, civil society organizations and the private sector can be engaged as
implementing partners, depending on the rules of participating UN organizations.
A Joint Programme is one of the available implementation tools used within the common
country programming process. It is distinct from other joint funding tools such as the Multi
Donor Trust Funds (MDTF), including One Funds.
Funding for a Joint Programme can be:
21
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/226
22
http://www.undg.org/docs/12807/JP%20Mechanism%20Review%20-%20Consolidated%20Final%20Report%20%204%20Feb%202013.pdf
Page 32 of 185



stand-alone (i.e. financed directly by UN organizations or by donors to the UN
organization and not through an MDTF/One Fund or other pass-through funding
mechanisms)
financed through a multi-donor trust fund, including One Fund, or a global fund
co-funded by governments
A Joint Programme can be established at national level (involving one country), regional or
global levels (involving two or more regions or countries). Global and regional programmes,
which may utilize global vertical funds and/or Multi Donor Trust Funds, may consist of global
/regional Joint Programmes that address guidelines and methodologies at global or regional
level, and/or national Joint Programmes through which UN organizations deliver at national
level in different geographic regions, or a combination of the two. They have global and
country-level Steering Committees and governance structures for Joint Programmes based on
what fits best for each individual case. Examples of global Joint Programmes are included in the
training package that is developed together with this Guidance Note.
2.2. When is a Joint Programme appropriate?
A Joint Programme is appropriate if it identifies and builds on complementarities and brings
together the added value of its partners in addressing complex development challenges. It
requires a commitment from participating organizations to work together. Its design should
ensure components that build on each other, clarity on the roles and responsibilities of each
partner, and mutual accountability on the delivery of development results.
The decision of national governmental partner(s) and UN organizations on whether to develop
a Joint Programme is grounded in factual and objective information. Primary factors to
consider are whether the joint approach maximizes leverage, clarity on programmatic scope,
donor interest, thresholds, preferred funding flow, and accountability23.
A Joint Programme should meet the following criteria:
 Two or more organizations working towards common strategic results and/or national
priorities
 Adequate support (resources, time and willingness to work together) for the Joint
Programme from all key stakeholders who consider the programme area a priority
 Roles and responsibilities of each partner clearly defined, based on an analysis of the
comparative advantages of each partner (including agreement about caseload and/or
targeted recipients)
 Adequate capacity to implement among participating organizations (including shared or
overlapping geographical presence, logistics, human resources, technical expertise,
capacity to scale up)
23
See the “Joint evaluation of Joint Gender Programmes in the UN system” report for more reference details.
Page 33 of 185






Addressing sector-wide and multi-sectorial development challenges that require an
integrated response from different partners
Complementary implementation capacities at central and local level
Complementary interventions of UN organizations in order to achieve results and/or
geographical coverage, to reach target population, to provide required sensitivity,
capacity, and/or coverage of multiple programme areas etc.; these complementary
interventions may be based on global commitments such as the agreed divisions of
labor in global partnerships / action plans or global Multi Donor Trust Fund
Strong results groups, coordination mechanisms, national steering committees, or
sector/cluster groups exist and support Joint Programmes
A functioning results based system exists
Clear exit strategy to ensure sustainability of changes brought about by the Joint
Programme
2.3. When is a Joint Programme not appropriate?
Joint Programmes are not mandatory to meet objectives of the UNDAF, One Programme or
QCPR mandate. A Joint Programme is not appropriate if it is not programmatically preferred
(e.g., not a good fit related to programming context, operating environment including aid
architecture and business practices, capacities, etc.) or cost efficient (considering a mid- or
long-term perspective). A Joint Programme may also face more difficulties in fragile and conflict
affected settings. When two or more UN organizations are not working for the same results,
they may continue working in the context of common country programming processes, without
establishing a Joint Programme.
Beyond the programmatic considerations, there are also significant cost considerations related
to preparation, development, management and coordination of a Joint Programme. For small
programmes, these costs can be excessive. Thus, the minimum thresholds for establishing a
Joint Programme should be taken into account. For programmes with a broad strategic scope
and substantial donor interest, but for which the detailed interventions are still to be defined
and funding allocations are not specified at the time of establishment, a Multi-Donor-Trust
Fund (MDTF) could be considered (see separate guidance). For small programmes, such as
those below USD 200,000, with each organization implementing separately, but with greater
coordination, cooperation through bilateral agreements should be considered. Annex A
includes a flowchart for choosing fund management modality.
2.4. Key steps for establishing a Joint Programme
The following steps are recommended for establishing a Joint Programme. The sequence of
steps is not mandatory as long as the listed elements are included in the process. The first few
steps serve to agree on priorities and programmes with national stakeholders, and the next few
steps serve to determine what kind of Joint Programme it should be and which agency will
serve in which role, based on capacities and thresholds.
Page 34 of 185
Step 1. Building upon country analysis and UNDAF/One Programme and other frameworks
The establishment of a Joint Programme is driven by the country situation and context. 24 The
usual starting point for identifying a potential Joint Programme is a completed UNDAF results
matrix, One Programme, or other programming framework for common country programming
or a development framework such as Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). Another entry
point can be the Common Budgetary Framework, identifying UN funding gaps, and/or the UN
resource mobilization strategy to meet these funding gaps. Joint Programmes can be designed
not only at the beginning of a country programming cycle but also following major reviews,
such as UNDAF annual reviews, and potential subsequent revisions to programmes.
In countries where an UNDAF does not exist, UN organizations can coordinate their activities in
the context of other programming or development frameworks. This will ensure that national
entities and UN organizations work closely together with clearly identified common goals and
clearly assigned roles. Joint Programmes can also occur within regional and global frameworks
such as global level vertical funds that are driven by global normative issues such as climate
change. Such global vertical funds support the implementation of a standard set of
programmes in their areas of operation across multiple countries and may have global and
country-level Joint Programmes.
While the overarching outcomes of a Joint Programme should be based on higher level
objectives to which the Joint Programme aims to contribute, it is important to take into account
that the formulation of a Joint Programme at operational level requires a detailed level of
analysis of development challenges, baselines, etc. It may take additional time for joint baseline
analysis, consultation and participation processes to identify the most adequate strategy of
joint UN action and to ensure a realistic design and work plan.
Step 2. Initial considerations and consultations
UN Country Team members work with the Resident Coordinator to make joint decisions
relating to programming activities and financial matters and both lead and participate in results
groups (under One Programme) and thematic groups or equivalent (under UNDAF) that drive
Joint Programme development and implementation. The Resident Coordinator and UN Country
Team members make programming and development decisions in accordance with the vision,
roles, responsibilities and mutual accountabilities spelled out in relevant policies and
instruments. Involvement of national governmental partners in design and implementation of
Joint Programmes is crucial to foster national ownership, sustainability, and impact of Joint
Programmes.
Step 3. Considering capacity and comparative advantage
24
Refer to the “Joint evaluation on Joint Gender Programmes in the UN system” report for some useful
recommendations and suggestions.
Page 35 of 185
In planning for a Joint Programme, the capacity and comparative advantages of the
government, implementing partners and participating UN organizations to coordinate, manage
and provide inputs (e.g., cash, supplies, in-kind or technical expertise) to support
implementation and monitoring of the Joint Programme should be carefully considered. Where
applicable, differences in methodology and approach – e.g. prioritization of areas and target
population groups, methodology for community mobilization, modality of delivery of technical
assistance – should be identified and resolved at the planning stage. For non-resident agencies,
the Resident Coordinator should ensure their engagement in the process as needed in accord
with their interests.
The value-added contributions or comparative advantage of each agency should be considered
by the UN Country Team, Resident Coordinator, national partner/s and donor/s. Participating
UN organizations (PUNOs) should be chosen only if they are essential for the successful
implementation of the project and for producing the joint results and have the capacity for
timely delivery of outputs of the Joint Programme. This may include adequate capacity of
PUNOs to undertake results-based planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation.
Step 4. Considering Thresholds
Thresholds are an internal control mechanism that helps to manage risks. Thresholds for Joint
Programmes are introduced to enable the UNDG to collectively manage risks, whether
political/strategic, programmatic or financial, in their common programming.
Thresholds are introduced for the establishment of Joint Programmes using pass-through and
pooled funding modalities, with details provided in the respective chapters of the present
Guidance Note. No threshold is established for the parallel fund management modality since it
is usually funded through either core resources or agency-mobilized resources using agencyspecific rules and procedures for which UNDG-wide thresholds would not apply.
Exceptions to the thresholds for establishment should be brought to the attention of the UNDG
Fiduciary Management Oversight Group by the Administrative Agent or Managing Agent on an
annual basis. For details, please see the respective chapters of the present Guidance Note.
Step 5. Decision to select one or a combination of fund management modalities
When deciding to establish a Joint Programme, there are three fund management modalities to
choose from: a) pass-through, b) pooled, and c) parallel. For more information on these
modalities, please refer to the operational sections (chapters 3-5) of this Guidance Note. These
modalities can also be combined.
Page 36 of 185
Combination of options: Joint Programmes
may require a combination of fund
management modalities that support the
country in a flexible way. For example,
participating UN organizations might decide to
pool funds under an Administrative Agent or
Managing Agent for those parts of a Joint
Programme to be managed jointly, while other
parts of the Joint Programme would be
managed separately through parallel funding-because of donor, government, or UN agency
requirements--within the overall framework of
the Joint Programme. Where this occurs, it is
especially important that participating UN
organizations inform each other of source of
funds allocated to the Joint Programme,
independent of the fund management option,
and conduct any resource mobilization efforts
for the Joint Programme in a coordinated
manner.
Under a combination of modalities, an
aggregated/consolidated budget for a Joint
Programme will include resources allocated
under each fund management modality used
for
the
Joint
Programme.
Aggregated/consolidated reporting (both
narrative and financial) will likewise include
each of the fund management modalities used
in the Joint Programme.
The decision to select one or a combination of fund management modalities for a Joint
Programme should be based on how to achieve the most effective, efficient and timely
implementation, and to reduce transaction costs for national partners, donors and the UN.
Annex A shows a decision-making matrix and Box 1 (below) provides key considerations for
choosing between these fund management modalities.
Step 6. Determining roles and responsibilities
Once the decision has been reached to establish a Joint Programme, the division of labour,
roles and responsibilities of organizations and partners for planned results needs to be clearly
identified. This includes the selection of the UN organization(s) that will be assigned special
roles as Administrative Agent (AA), Convening Agency (CA), or Managing Agent (MA). The
Page 37 of 185
decision-making responsibilities and coordination mechanisms need to be clarified early on.
Also the role of the government in Joint Programme governance at national and sub-national
level needs to be clarified as well as the role of civil society stakeholders. The governance and
management structures outlined in the respective operational sections (Chapters 3-5) should
be taken into consideration when deciding about roles and responsibilities. Existing structures
should be utilized rather than creating new ones.
Step 7. Developing Joint Programme Document
After the participating organizations have decided which result they jointly support and their
roles have been determined, a Joint Programme Document needs to be developed. The
approved format for a Joint Programme Document developed under the purview of the UNDAF
Programming Network (UPN) hasn’t changed since 2008. It is provided in Annex B. The Joint
Programme Document includes mandatory sections of work plan and budgetary framework,
coordinating and management mechanism with details about roles and responsibilities of the
partners in the joint activities, a results matrix (e.g. log frame), an M&E Framework with
indicators and targets, and reporting requirements. Sections of the UNDAF results matrix may
be adapted for the Joint Programme Document. Customization of the non-mandatory parts of
the Joint Programme Document is possible.
The joint multi-year work plan sets out the activities that will be carried out during each year of
the Joint Programme, the expected outputs and outcomes to which these activities will
contribute to, annual indicators with targets, the inputs needed to carry out the activities, and
the timeframe, budget, and responsibilities for completing the activities.
The common budgetary framework should include direct costs for the coordination mechanism,
for monitoring and evaluation, audit, communication, and reporting. For instance, resources
required for the organization of meetings of the Steering Committee and similar activities, as
well as the functions of Managing Agent, Convening Agency and similar coordination
mechanisms need to be budgeted for. Since reporting needs to be by UNDG approved
harmonized budget categories, developing the budget in these categories might be considered.
For monitoring, evaluation and reporting, an indicative allocation of 3% to 5% of funds is
recommended. Internal and external auditing as well as administrative investigations, if
appropriate, also have to be thought through and budgeted.
Closure of the Joint Programme also needs to be considered from the design phase and an end
date should be agreed upon. A clear exit strategy, sustainability plan, and scaling up strategy
(where applicable) should be in place with clear roles and responsibilities of implementing
partners.
The Joint Programme Document is signed by all participating UN organizations and national or
sub-national governmental partners. For regional and global Joint Programmes, endorsement
Page 38 of 185
or signatures of participating countries (at least three, if there are more than three countries)
are required.
Step 8. Management and start-up
Even before a Joint Programme Document has been signed, participating UN organizations
need to coordinate their start-up processes to maximize efficiency since organizations have
different timeframes and legal frameworks for starting to work with countries. The
development of a Joint Programme, its approval and ultimately the starting date should be
planned in such a way that it does not delay the implementation of ongoing agency activities.
The different processes and procedures of UN organizations and the different implementing
modalities of organizations in a given country, such as National Implementation Modality (NIM)
and Direct Implementation Modality (DIM), need to be taken into account when setting up
realistic work plans and timeframes.
Start-up, including signature of programme documents, can take 3-4 months or more, and the
inception phase, including determining and establishing methods and procedures for
implementation and evaluation, can take from 6 months to 1 year. This needs to be taken into
account when planning for a Joint Programme. The development of joint programmes, their
approval and ultimately the starting date should be planned in such a way that it does not delay
the implementation of ongoing agency activities.
In order to maximize efficiency for start-up, the following tips may be considered:
 Circulate draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (and Standard Administrative
Arrangement [SAA]) even while discussing the Joint Programme Document (see details on
MOU and SAA in pass-through and pooled funding modality sections)
 Start planning activities while waiting for first funds to come in, e.g.,
o Schedule first (preliminary) Steering Committee meeting and make a decision how
first funds will be allocated
o Review roles and responsibilities of partners
o Review national approval processes to reduce signature timeframes
 Begin planning for the inception phase and operational tasks immediately after the Joint
Programme is approved, e.g., as required,
o Write job descriptions or Terms of Reference and post job openings
o Gather quotations for needed supplies and materials
o Plan specific steps for monitoring, evaluation, and audit and develop or modify any
necessary forms; involve UN Evaluation Group (UNEG), Representatives of Internal
Audit Services (UN-RIAS) and Panel of Auditors
o Schedule and facilitate inception workshops, where appropriate (i.e. to get
agreement from all partners on the results, indicators and target timeframes while
also clarifying roles and responsibilities)
Page 39 of 185
Once a Joint Programme has been initiated, UN organizations should ensure that all necessary
arrangements are made in a timely manner to ensure prompt implementation, monitoring and
evaluation, and reporting. Chapters 3-5 provide operational guidance for the management part
per fund management modality.
Step 9. Communication
National governmental partners, implementing partners, donor(s), and each participating UN
organization in a Joint Programme should be duly recognized in key external joint
communication products used to publicize the initiative for the duration of the programme.
Joint and harmonized communication is encouraged. The Steering Committee of the Joint
Programme should agree whether to use the UN-system logo for the Joint Programme (which is
the preferred option) or logos of each participating UN organization, together with logos of
national partners and donor(s), for visibility. The creation of new logos is discouraged. There is
also the option of having both the UN logo on the corner of the joint communication with the
contributing organizations and partners in a logo line-up on the back of the print cover (or on a
website in a column that is secondary in visual hierarchy of information). For internal
communication, there should be a commitment from participating organizations to share in a
timely manner information related to the Joint Programme with all partners.
Summary: Key considerations
Key considerations to take into account when deciding among and implementing a fund
management modality for a Joint Programme are summarized in Box 1.
Even though organizational regulations may assign responsibility of some procedures in the key
considerations to individual organizations, the overall goal should be mutual accountability—
which may include joint monitoring and evaluation--which can be fostered through the
coordination mechanism for each fund management modality.
Box 1. Key considerations for parallel, pooled, and pass-through fund management
modalities
Key
Considerations
Goal /
Expected Results
Parallel
Pooled
Pass-Through
Working toward
common result that is
clearly defined
Working toward
common result that is
clearly defined
Working toward common
result that is clearly defined
(Sub-)National or
international
governmental
partners
Donors
Different or common
partners
Common partner/s
Different or common partners
Each organization
mobilizes its own
Core resources from UN
organizations; donors
Joint resource mobilization;
donors agree to channel funds
Page 40 of 185
resources; no joint
resource mobilization
encouraged to provide
funds to MA
through one UN organization
(AA)
Governance
Joint Programme
Steering Committee
Joint Programme
Steering Committee
Joint Programme Steering
Committee
Accountability
Each organization
accountable for its
results; organizations
jointly responsible for
achieving Joint
Programme goal
Managing Agent
accountable for financial
and programmatic
results
Administrative Agent (AA)
accountable for effective and
impartial fiduciary
management; Convening
Agency (CA) accountable for
coordination among
participating organizations
and for consolidating
narrative reporting;
each participating UN
organization accountable for
own programmatic and
financial results; organizations
jointly responsible for
achieving Joint Programme
goal
No additional UNDG
approved documents
Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)
between the
Participating UN
Organizations and the
Managing Agent
One (1) Memorandum of
Understanding which includes
agreements between the
Participating UN
Organizations, the
Administrative Agent and the
Convening Agency & one (1)
Standard Administrative
Arrangement (SAA) between
the Donor and the
Administrative Agent
JP Coordination
Mechanism (as agreed
among participating
partners); costs of
coordination should
be shared by all
PUNOs
Each organization
manages own funds
MA coordinates
management of
programmatic activities
CA responsible for
coordinating all the Joint
Programme partners, and
reporting back to the Steering
Committee
Managing Agent (MA)
pools funds and
manages funds
AA passes through funds to
Participating UN
Organizations who manage
their own funds
(For all: Steering
Committee has
overall
accountability for
fund allocation
and achieving
results)
Required legal
documents
Role of Steering
Committee may need
to be strengthened for
this modality
(Each Joint
Programme needs
a Joint Programme
Document)
Coordination
Finance
Page 41 of 185
Cost recovery
Each organization
applies its own
indirect cost recovery
rate
The Managing Agent
applies its own cost
recovery rate
UNDG approved
administrative fee for AA (1%)
and indirect costs for each
participating UN organization
(7%);
Cost for Convening Agency
needs to be directly budgeted
Monitoring
By each PUNO
throughout the year;
culminates at the joint
annual review of joint
work plan
Monitoring should be in
accordance with the
MA’s procedures and
policy guidance
By each PUNO throughout the
year; may include joint
monitoring facilitated by
Convening Agency; annual
consultations with Donors,
AA, and PUNOs to review
status of Joint Programme
Evaluation
Choice of evaluation modality will drive the responsibility for undertaking a joint
evaluation: consider timing, budget, scope and type of evaluation; e.g.,
independent evaluation by Evaluation Offices or at decentralized/programme level
by establishing an independent evaluation management group and external
evaluation team vs. decentralized/programme-level evaluation by management
(For all: in
accordance with
Joint Programme
Document)
Internal Audit
Coverage of Joint Programme decided by the Internal Audit Services (IAS) of the
PUNOs involved, following a risk-based procedure
IAS of each PUNO
MA’s IAS responsible for Joint audit conducted either
responsible for
carrying out the audit of by one IAS on behalf of all, a
auditing its own
the Managing Agent;
group of IAS of PUNOs
contribution to the
Review of the
involved, or an outside audit
Joint Programme; each implementation of
provider on behalf of all IAS
report according to
programme
involved; coordinated by
each PUNO internal
components by other
Convening Agency
audit report disclosure PUNOs carried out by
Covering Joint Programme
policy.
those PUNOs’ IAS and
governance and
reports issued according
Summary
administration as well as
to each PUNO internal
consolidation of
implementation of
audit report disclosure
results into one joint
programme components by
policy
public audit report
the PUNOs. Public joint audit
coordinated by one
Summary consolidation report.
PUNO IAS agreed by
of results into one joint
May be complemented by
the participating IAS.
public audit report.
specific PUNO internal audit
Recommendation
Recommendation
reports; the disclosure of
follow-up be
follow-up be
which is according to each
undertaken according undertaken according to
Page 42 of 185
to the procedures in
force in that PUNO
External Audit
Investigation
Reporting
Closing
3.
the procedures in force
in each PUNO.
PUNO’s relevant policy.
Recommendations of the joint
audit followed by the IAS of
one PUNO on behalf of all, as
agreed among the IAS of all
PUNOs; recommendations
from additional reports issued
by the IAS of a PUNO
separately followed by that
IAS
By Panel of Auditors
Depending on whom the alleged subject(s) of the investigation is/are, an
investigation may be conducted by one or more PUNOs’ investigation services,
upon determination of which investigation framework to use. The final report(s)
will be provided to the decision-making body of the PUNO(s) involved, as
appropriate. Disciplinary and /or administrative actions, if any, will be undertaken
according to the disciplinary framework of each PUNO involved.
One organization
Managing Agent
AA responsible for
should be responsible responsible for financial consolidating financial
for consolidated
and narrative
reports; Convening Agency
narrative reporting (as (programmatic)
responsible for consolidating
identified in Joint
reporting,
narrative reports;
Programme
including certified
PUNOs prepare narrative and
Document);
financial reports
certified financial reports
each PUNO prepares
annually and at the end annually and at the end for
certified financial
their components of the
report annually
programme
Each organization
responsible for
operationally and
financially closing its
part of the Joint
Programme
Managing agent
responsible for
operationally and
financially closing the
Joint Programme
Each organization responsible
for operationally and
financially closing its part of
the Joint Programme; AA
responsible for financially
closing the Joint Programme
in consultation with the
respective organization
headquarters’ finance
departments
Pass-through fund management modality: Operational guidance
3.1. Overview
Page 43 of 185
Pass-through
fund
management is currently by
far the most commonly used
modality
for
Joint
Programmes. Under this
option, two to five UN
organizations develop a Joint
Programme, identify funding
gaps and submit a Joint
Programme Document to
donor(s). If the donor(s) and
participating
UN
organizations
agree
to
channel the funds through
one UN organization, working
with different national, subnational and/or international
governmental partners, then
the pass-through modality
applies. (The diagram refers
to the financial flow and
includes one example for a
Convening
Agency.
The
Administrative Agent (AA)
can also be the Convening
Agency, provided that there
is a “firewall” in place in
accordance with the agreed
Protocol
on
the
Administrative Agent for
Multi-Donor Trust Funds and
Joint Programmes, and One
UN Funds.)
The joint work plan indicates the activities to be supported by each of the participating UN
organizations. The programmatic and financial accountability rests with the participating UN
organizations and (sub-) national governmental partners that manage their respective
components of the Joint Programme.
When a decision on a pass-through funding modality is made, the mandatory thresholds should
be taken into account. The thresholds are introduced to ensure effective management and
decision-making on Joint Programmes as well as their cost-efficiency:
Page 44 of 185



Budget contributions: Expected contributions equal to at least USD 1 million times the
number of participating UN organizations (PUNOs), with each PUNO expected to
receive at least USD 100,000. (For instance, if three organizations participate, the
budget of the Joint Programme needs to be at least USD 3 million, while one PUNO can
receive as little at USD 100,000, if the other two receive a total of at least USD 2.9
million together.)25
Number of participating UN organizations: Not more than five PUNOs, with the
preferred number of PUNOs being two to four.
Duration: An expected duration between signature of the MOU and operational end
date of the Joint Programme of three to five years, with exceptions for shorter duration
made for Joint Programmes operated in a transition context, provided the other two
thresholds are met.
Special consideration should be given to the cases when the European Union (EU) is one of the
contributing donors. Separate UNDG Operationalization Guidelines for the European Union
Special Conditions Agreement should be consulted in conjunction with the Guidance Note on
Joint Programmes. (Hyperlink to EU guidance note to be added)
Exceptions made to the thresholds for establishment should be brought to the attention of the
UNDG Fiduciary Management Oversight Group (FMOG) by the Administrative Agent, where
possible before implementation of the joint programme, and if not on an annual basis.
The Administrative Agent is entitled to a direct cost charge for Funds that do not meet the $1
million per PUNO threshold, equal to the difference between the Administrative Agent fees
that would have been earned if the Joint Programme had met the threshold minus the actual
Administrative Agent fee that has been earned. If an Administrative Agent would like to use this
possibility, a reference to this direct cost charge needs to be included in the Joint Programme
document and the Steering Committee will need to approve the direct cost charge based on a
request from the Administrative Agent.
3.2. Process of establishing a pass-through Joint Programme
3.2.1. Governance
For a Joint Programme using pass-through modality, the Steering Committee provides strategic
direction and oversight and has decision-making authority, the Convening Agency is responsible
for coordinating the programmatic aspects, and the Administrative Agent is responsible for
financial management, while each participating UN organization has programmatic and
25
The FMOG will review the experience with thresholds after an initial test period. 26 In line with the Delivering as
One SOPs guidance, the UNCT should reach an agreement on the Government’s role in the Steering Committee
with regard to strategic direction as well as in the resource allocation processes.
Page 45 of 185
financial responsibility for the funds disbursed to it. The Administrative Agent and Convening
Agency may or may not be the same agency. The national government is part of the
governance mechanism at central and local levels, e.g., through co-leading the Steering
Committee26. Existing structures should be utilized to the extent possible rather than creating
new ones.
Steering Committee
 Decision-making authority; highest body for strategic guidance, fiduciary and management
oversight and coordination
 Facilitates collaboration between participating UN organizations and host government for
the implementation of the Joint Programme
 Includes senior programme managers of all signatories of the Joint Programme Document;
may also include other members in observer capacity, such as civil society organizations;
may be co-chaired by the Government and UN Resident Coordinator at country level
 Reviews and approves Joint Programme Document and annual work plans, provides
strategic direction and oversight, sets allocation criteria, allocates resources, reviews
implementation progress and addresses problems, reviews and approves progress reports
budget revisions/reallocations, and evaluation reports, notes audit reports (published in
accordance with each PUNOs’ disclosure policy), and initiates investigations (if needed). It
may be supported by a Secretariat/Support Office
 Meets at least semi-annually

Administrative Agent (AA)
Convening Agency (CA)
 Accountable for effective and impartial  Accountable
for
coordination
of
fiduciary management and financial
programmatic activities and narrative
reporting
reporting
 Selected jointly based on merit in a  Selected jointly based on merit in a
comparative review by all participating
comparative review by all participating UN
UN organizations
organizations
 May be a Participating UN Organization  Needs to be a Participating UN Organization
or any other qualified UN organization;
with in-country presence
only one AA needed for global  Responsible
for
operational
and
programme
programmatic coordination: Coordinates all
 Responsible for financial/administrative
the Joint Programme partners, coordinates
management:
Receives
donor
and compiles annual work plans and
contributions, disburses funds to
narrative reports, coordinates monitoring of
Participating UN Organizations based on
annual targets, calls and reports on Steering
26
In line with the Delivering as One SOPs guidance, the UNCT should reach an agreement on the Government’s role
in the Steering Committee with regard to strategic direction as well as in the resource allocation processes.
Page 46 of 185

Steering Committee instructions, and
consolidates periodic financial reports
and final financial report.
Involved in day-to-day administration
Participating UN Organizations (PUNOs)
 UN organizations that participate in the
Joint Programme, which may include UN
funds, programmes, specialized agencies,
including non-resident agencies, at
national, regional or global level
 Operate in accordance with their own
regulations, rules, directives and
procedures
 Assume full programmatic and financial
accountability for funds disbursed by the
AA

Committee meetings, facilitates audits and
evaluation, and reports back to the Steering
Committee; may be involved in resource
mobilization.
Involved in day-to-day coordination, but
does not hold any financial or programmatic
accountability

(Sub-)National Governmental Partners
 Governmental agencies at national or subnational level that coordinate with UN
organizations and implementing partners
 Own the national programme to which the
UN provides support


Implementing Partners
 National, regional or international governmental or non-governmental organizations, civil
society organizations and/or private sector partners (as permitted by the rules and
regulations of participating UN organizations) that may be working with Participating UN
Organizations and/or (Sub-)National governmental Partners to implement the Joint
Programme
Coordination: The Convening Agency coordinates and convenes various stakeholders, which
may include: convening and reporting on Steering Committee meetings, setting up a
Programme Management Unit (PMU) if existing structures cannot be utilized for such,
coordinating the preparation of work plans, commissioning mid-term and final evaluation, and
other planning of joint processes.
3.2.2. Establishment process
The steps outlined below may be taken in order to establish a Joint Programme using the passthrough modality.
Page 47 of 185
Selection of the Administrative Agent: The UN organizations participating in the Joint
Programme will select the AA, taking into consideration the following elements: i) UN
organization; ii) Financial and administrative capacity to interface between donor(s) and
participating UN organizations and perform the financial and administrative functions outlined
in the Protocol on the Administrative Agent for Multi Donor Trust Funds and Joint Programmes
and One UN Funds.
Selection of the Convening Agent: The UN organizations participating in the Joint Programme
will select the CA, taking into consideration the following element: i) UN organization with
country presence; ii) Thematic, functional and geographical area of expertise in the area
covered by the programme; iii) Convening capacity to interface between Steering Committee
and participating UN organizations.
3.2.3. Required documentation
A Joint Programme using pass-through funding modality requires the following documentation:
 Joint Programme Document
 Memorandum of Understanding between the Participating UN Organizations and the
Administrative Agent and Convening Agency (MOU)
 Standard Administrative Arrangement between the Donor and the Administrative Agent
(SAA)
Page 48 of 185
3.3. Process of managing a pass-through Joint Programme
3.3.1. Finance
Accounting/Budget: The Administrative Agent will set up separate ledger accounts for the Joint
Programme and will prepare a consolidated budget from the separate budgets received from
each participating UN organization for approval by the Steering Committee.
Each participating UN organization will set up a separate ledger account for the Joint
Programme and will prepare a separate budget for the Joint Programme, consistent with is
procedures. Since reporting needs to be by UNDG approved harmonized budget categories, it is
preferable that the budget be set up in these categories. Each PUNO will account for the funds
distributed by the AA in respect of its components in the Joint Programme in accordance with
its financial rules and regulations.
Fees: The Administrative Agent shall be entitled to allocate one percent (1%) of the amount
contributed by donor(s), for its costs of performing the AA’s functions. In cases where the Joint
Programme does not meet the thresholds for establishment or the Joint Programme is subject
to a non-cost extension, the Steering Committee will review and consider the inclusion of the
remainder of the fee as direct costs.
The Convening Agency shall be entitled to recover its direct costs related to its convening role,
which should be included in the Joint Programme budgetary framework. Each Participating UN
Organization will recover indirect costs at the established rate of 7%.
Transfer of funds: The allocation of funds should follow established criteria, as outlined in the
Joint Programme Document or in Steering Committee minutes and needs to be approved by
the Steering Committee. Following Steering Committee instructions, supported by the
appropriate documentation, and provided that the balance of donor contributions is sufficient,
transfers will be made by the AA to the participating UN organizations within 3-5 days. Direct
transfer between participating UN organizations of funds received from the AA in a passthrough modality is not allowed to avoid multiple cost recovery charges by UN organizations.
For new Joint Programmes, the size of individual transfers from the AA to the PUNOs during the
implementation phase should be at least USD 100,000 per individual transfer. For ongoing Joint
Programmes these transfers should have a minimum size of USD 50,000 per individual transfer
from the AA to a specific PUNO for the period 2014-2015, and at least USD 100,000 per
individual transfer from 1 January 2016 onwards. Transfers can be smaller during the last year
of implementation, when the final round of allocations is made. It is recommended to limit the
number of transfer rounds to preferably one and maximum two per year.
Revisions: Agreed upon revisions of the grant, such as no-cost extension, increase or decrease
of total budget and reallocations between budget categories will be initiated by the Steering
Page 49 of 185
Committee or affected participating UN organization and approved by the Steering Committee.
Changes of activities that affect outputs and outcomes must also be approved by the Steering
Committee, and the Joint Programme Document may need to be amended, the annual work
plan revised and the budgetary framework adjusted to accommodate new or changed
allocations. Significant programmatic or financial deviations of the Joint Programme Document
(e.g., budget revisions above 15%, changes to implementation timeline, scope, objective, target
groups and/or location of activities) may require discussions with donors and respective
amendments of the MoU and SAA.
3.3.2. Monitoring
A Joint Programme is monitored throughout its duration in accordance with the Joint
Programme Document. Monitoring is the continuous function of using the systematic collection
of data on specified indicators to provide the key stakeholders of the Joint Programme with
indications of the degree of progress and achievements of objectives of the Joint Programme
(including progress in the use of allocated funds). Monitoring should be done against targets
and indicators and progress should be reported in the narrative report.
Each PUNO is responsible for monitoring its contributions, and the Convening Agency oversees
and coordinates to ensure all targets are monitored. A Monitoring Plan should include roles and
responsibilities for monitoring, timing and methodology. Monitoring is linked to evaluation
since it facilitates data collection toward targets, though additional data collection and different
frameworks for analysis are needed for evaluation.
3.3.3 Evaluation
Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of the Joint Programme which aims to
determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives as well as the efficiency, effectiveness and
sustainability of the Joint Programme (and when feasible, its impact). Evaluation of Joint
Programmes should inform learning, decision-making and guidance on how to implement the
modality.
Evaluation of a Joint Programme should be undertaken in accordance with the guidance from
the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) (e.g., relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability) with an emphasis on results and on the Joint Programme process. Since
there is a growing trend toward joint programming initiatives and a movement for
harmonization alignment, there is a momentum and strengthened rationale for conducting
joint evaluations. A joint evaluation, wherein the evaluation units of all concerned organizations
participate in the Evaluation Management Group, is the preferred option. Participating UN
organizations should share information and progress updates, and undertake joint monitoring
and evaluation where appropriate. Refer to Resource Pack on Joint Evaluations for different
options to organize a joint process [Hyperlink to be added].
Page 50 of 185
An indicative allocation of 3% to 5% of funds should be allotted for monitoring, reporting and
evaluation/s. This provision for the evaluation of the Joint Programme may be budgeted under
the components of any of the participating UN organizations. For Joint Programmes that last 3
years or longer, a mid-term evaluation is recommended.
3.3.4. Reporting
The Joint Programme will have one consolidated annual report (including programmatic and
financial reports), which should be harmonized with other reporting formats such as UNDAF or
One UN Country Results Report to the extent possible. Reporting deadlines stated in the legal
instruments (e.g., MoU, SAA) should be adhered to. All reports have to be endorsed by the
Steering Committee and will be shared with all relevant stakeholders through the Steering
Committee.
Administrative Agent: shall prepare certified annual and final financial reports consisting of the
reports submitted by each participating UN organization and a report on “Source and Use of
Funds.” The AA shall provide those consolidated reports to each donor that has contributed to
the Joint Programme account, in accordance with the timetable in the Standard Administrative
Arrangement. The reports shall use UN approved harmonized budget categories: (1) Staff and
other personnel costs, (2) Supplies, commodities, materials, (3) Equipment, vehicles and
furniture, including depreciation, (4) Contractual services, (5) Travel, (6) Transfers and grants
counterparts, (7) General operating and other direct costs, (8) Indirect support costs.
Convening Agency: shall prepare annual and final consolidated narrative progress reports
based on the reports submitted by each participating UN organization, and shall provide those
consolidated reports to the Administrative Agent for further submission to each donor that has
contributed to the Joint Programme , in accordance with the timetable. The narrative reports
should describe in a coherent manner what is being done jointly at outcome and output level.
The generic annual and final programme narrative progress report template shall be used.
Each Participating UN organizations: will prepare narrative reports in accordance with the
narrative reporting template and financial reports in accordance with its financial regulations,
rules and operational policy guidance, using the UN harmonized budget categories. The
narrative report will be shared with the Convening Agency, and the financial report will be
shared with the Administrative Agent.
In addition to annual reports, quarterly or semi-annual field updates, e.g., to the Steering
Committee, are encouraged for effective management of Joint Programmes, though these
updates are unofficial (i.e., not certified by agency headquarters) and may involve a level of
detail not meant to be captured in official annual reports.
3.3.5. Audit and Investigations
Page 51 of 185
Internal audit: Applying the risk-based criteria required under international internal auditing
standards, the Internal Audit Services (IAS) of the participating UN organizations will collectively
review and prioritize those which would be considered for joint internal audit coverage through
the UN Representatives of Internal Audit Services (UN-RIAS) network. Joint audits will be
carried out under the established relevant frameworks for joint audits.
Under a joint audit approach, the IAS of the participating UN organizations selected for
coverage execute one single internal audit, which is carried out on behalf of all PUNOs. The
audit may be carried out by one IAS on behalf of all, by a joint team of internal auditors from
PUNO IAS or by a third party auditor jointly engaged by the PUNO IAS. A joint internal audit will
cover joint programme governance and administration as well as implementation of
programme components by the PUNOs. The joint audit report will be public.
A joint audit report may be supplemented by further reports on issues specific to particular
PUNOs; these reports are issued by the IAS of that PUNO in accordance with its disclosure
policy. Further, there may be circumstances where a specific audit of the implementation of
one PUNO’s component of a Joint Programme is determined as needed by that PUNO’s
management or IAS, even where a joint audit is not planned. In such cases, the audit will be
carried out by that PUNO’s IAS in accordance with the PUNO’s regulations and rules, and the
publication of the resulting audit report will follow the PUNO’s disclosure policy.
Recommendations of the joint audit will be followed by the IAS of one PUNO on behalf of all, as
agreed among the IAS of all PUNOs; recommendations from additional reports issued by the IAS
of a PUNO to its management will be separately followed by that IAS.
The cost of a joint audit of the Joint Programme or only parts thereof will be covered by the
Joint Programme.
External Audit: The matter of external audit of the particular joint undertaking has to be
referred to the External Auditors of all participating agencies.
Administrative Investigations: Investigations of allegations of misconduct by UN organization
personnel, implementing partners and vendors in relation to Joint Programmes will be carried
out by the Investigation Service of the UN organization with whom the potential subject of
investigation is contracted, in accordance with that PUNO’s regulations and rules. That PUNO’s
Investigation Service will share information as appropriate with counterparts in the other
PUNOs to determine whether the alleged misconduct is limited to one PUNO or extends to
others. Where a subject of an investigation is contracted to more than one PUNO, the
Investigation Service of the PUNOs concerned will conduct joint or coordinated investigations
and determine the investigation framework to use. The resulting investigation report(s) will be
provided to the relevant bodies or individuals of the PUNOs involved, following each PUNO’s
internal procedures. Disciplinary and/or administrative measures will be taken by each PUNO
according to its framework for disciplinary measures and vendor sanction mechanism, as
appropriate.
Page 52 of 185
3.4. Process of closing a pass-through Joint Programme
3.4.1. Closure
Operational: As outlined in the MOU, each Participating UN Organization informs the AA in
writing when all activities under the approved programmatic document have been completed.
For a Joint Programme the operational end date is the date in which the last participating UN
organization completes its activities and informs both the CA and the AA. If not all participating
UN organizations have finished their activities and informed the AA by the end date envisaged
in the Joint Programme document, then the programme cannot be closed yet and a (no-cost)
extension has to be requested. As outlined in the MOU, a final narrative report, after the
completion of the final year of the activities, is prepared by each Participating UN Organization
and submitted to the CA. The report shall be issued no later than four months (30 April) of the
year following the operational closing of the programme.
Financial: As part of the financial closure, each participating UN organization needs to return
any unspent balance to the AA; transfer any interest for prior and current year to the AA, unless
their rules and regulations do not require participating UN organizations to do so; and report no
expenditure in excess of funds transferred. After this occurred, the AA confirms the completion
to the participating UN organizations and closes the programme allocation within its internal
system. The AA will return any unspent funds remaining in the Joint Programme account after
the financial closure of the Joint Programme to the donor(s) or utilize them in a manner agreed
upon between the AA and the donor(s), and approved by the Steering Committee. The financial
closure process begins only after all participating UN organizations have satisfactorily closed all
of their respective programmatic allocations. It generally takes 12 months following the AA’s
confirmation that all programmatic allocations have been financially closed. (For more
information, see Fact Sheet “How to Close a Project/Joint Programme”.)
Since Joint Programmes have a tendency to grant non-cost extension, the AA is entitled to a
direct cost charge of USD 5,000 per year out of the different sources of funds of a given Joint
Programme to cover the cost of continuing to render AA services for the period (rounded to
whole years) that the operational life span of the Joint Programme (from the date of signing the
MOU up to actual operational end date of the Joint Programme) is extended beyond five years.
This applies unless additional donor contributions are received during that period proportional
to the amounts required for establishing a Joint Programme, and for the period (rounded to
whole years) that the financial closure of the Joint Programme surpasses the maximum period
of two years after operational closure of the Joint Programme due to delays of PUNOs in
financially closing their part of the Joint Programme. This direct cost charge is meant as a
concrete disincentive to Steering Committees and PUNOs for keeping extending the operational
life time of PUNO projects and/or delaying its financial closure27.
27
The UNDG will undertake a separate analysis of the actual experience with closing PUNO projects, the
Page 53 of 185
4.
Pooled fund management modality: Operational guidance
4.1. Overview
This fund management modality is likely to be
the most effective and efficient when
participating UN organizations, using mostly
their own core resources, work for common
results with one or more common national or
sub-national partner/s (e.g. Department,
provincial office, NGO) and/or in a common
geographical area. Under this modality,
participating UN organizations transfer pooled
funds together to one UN organization, called
the Managing Agent (MA), chosen jointly by
the participating UN organizations.
For the pooled fund management modality, the threshold for establishment is that the overall
expected contributions from UN organizations should be at least USD 200,000. Exceptions to this
threshold for establishment should be brought to the attention of the UNDG Fiduciary
Management Oversight Group (FMOG) by the Managing Agent on an annual basis.
4.2. Process of establishing a pooled Joint Programme
4.2.1. Governance
For a Joint Programme using pooled funding modality, the Steering Committee provides
strategic direction and oversight, and has decision making authority. The Managing Agent,
which has the status of an independent contractor, is responsible for technical as well as
financial coordination and reporting; and the participating UN organizations and potential
donors pool their resources under the management of the Managing Agent. Existing structures
should be utilized to the extent possible rather than creating new ones.
Steering Committee
 Decision-making authority; highest body for strategic guidance, fiduciary and management
oversight and coordination
 Facilitates collaboration between participating UN organizations and host government for
accountability for timely closing of projects and the possible incentives that can be put in place to promote
timely closure, which may result in a recommendation to adjust the figure of USD 5,000.
Page 54 of 185
the implementation of the Joint Programme
 Includes senior programme managers of all signatories of the Joint Programme Document;
may also include other members in observer capacity, such as civil society organizations;
may be co-chaired by the Government and UN Resident Coordinator
 Reviews and approves Joint Programme Document and annual work plans, provides
strategic direction and oversight, sets allocation criteria, allocates resources, reviews
implementation progress and addresses problems, reviews and approves progress reports
and budget revisions/reallocations, and evaluation reports, notes audit reports (published
in accordance with each PUNOs’ disclosure policy), initiates investigations (if needed).
 Meets at least semi-annually

Managing Agent (MA)
 Accountable programmatically and financially for the Joint Programme and for narrative
and financial reporting
 Selected jointly based on merit in a comparative review by the participating UN
organizations Responsible for supporting the implementing partner/s in managing the Joint
Programme, monitoring annual targets, disbursing funds and supplies in a timely manner,
coordinating technical inputs by all participating UN organizations, following up with (sub)national governmental partner/s on implementation, facilitating evaluation, and audits;
may engage in resource mobilization
 Involved in day-to-day management

Participating UN Organizations (PUNOs)
(Sub-)National Governmental Partner(s)
 UN organizations that participate in the  Governmental agency/ies at national or
Joint Programme, which may include UN
sub-national level that coordinate(s) with
funds, programmes, specialized agencies,
UN organizations and implementing
including non-resident agencies, at
partners
national, regional or global level
 Own(s) the national programme to which
 Operate in accordance with their own
the UN provides support
regulations,
rules,
directives
and
procedures and pool their existing or
otherwise mobilized resources for the
Joint Programme under the management
of the Managing Agent

Implementing Partners
National, regional or international governmental or non-governmental organizations, civil
society organizations and/or private sector partners (as permitted by the rules and regulations
of participating UN organizations) that may be working with the Managing Agent and/or (Sub)National governmental Partner/s to implement the Joint Programme
Page 55 of 185
Coordination: The Managing Agent shall coordinate technical inputs by all participating UN
organizations.
4.2.2. Establishment process
The steps outlined below may be taken to establish a Joint Programme using the pooled
funding modality.
Selection of the Managing Agent: When selecting the MA, the organizations that have pooled
their funds will take the following elements into consideration: i) UN organization, ii) Expertise
in the area covered by the Programme (comparative advantage), iii) Existing relationship with
national counterparts, and; iv) In-country financial/administrative management capacity.
4.2.3. Required documentation
A Joint Programme using pass-through funding modality requires the following documentation:
 Joint Programme Document
 Memorandum of Understanding between participating UN organizations and the
Managing Agent
4.3. Process of managing a pooled Joint Programme
4.3.1. Finance
Page 56 of 185
Accounting/Budget: The Managing Agent shall establish and manage a separate ledger account
for the receipt and administration of funds received, and will account for the income received
to fund the Joint Programme in accordance with its financial regulations and rules.
The MA will prepare a budget for the Joint Programme, consistent with its procedures, and
covering the mutually agreed components of the programme, for endorsement by the
participating UN organizations. Since reporting needs to be by UNDG approved harmonized
budget categories, it is preferable that the budget be set up in these categories.
Indirect Costs: The MA will recover indirect costs in accordance with its financial regulations
and rules. This will be documented in the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the
participating UN organization(s) and in any funding agreement signed with the donor(s).
Revisions: Agreed upon revisions of the grant, such as no-cost extension, increase or decrease
of total budget and reallocation between budget categories will be approved by the Steering
Committee. Changes of activities that affect outputs and outcomes must also be approved by
the Steering Committee, and the Joint Programme Document needs to be amended, the annual
work plan revised and the budgetary framework adjusted to accommodate new or changed
allocations. Significant programmatic or financial deviations of the Joint Programme Document
(e.g., budget revisions above 15%, changes to implementation timeline, scope, objective, target
groups and/or location of activities) may require discussions with donors (including
participating UN organizations) and respective amendments of the MoU.
4.3.2. Monitoring
A Joint Programme is monitored throughout its duration in accordance with Joint Programme
Document. Monitoring is the continuous function of using the systematic collection of data on
specified indicators to provide the key stakeholders of the Joint Programme with indications of
the degree of progress and achievements of objectives of the Joint Programme (including
progress in the use of allocated funds). Monitoring should be done against targets and
indicators and progress should be reported in the narrative report.
The Managing Agent is responsible for monitoring in accordance its regulations, rules and
procedures applicable, and the Joint Programme Document. A Monitoring Plan should include
roles and responsibilities for monitoring, timing and methodology. Monitoring is linked to
evaluation since it facilitates data collection toward targets, though additional data collection
and different frameworks for analysis are needed for evaluation.
4.3.3. Evaluation
Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of the Joint Programme which aims to
determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives as well as the efficiency, effectiveness and
sustainability of the Joint Programme (and when feasible, its impact). Evaluation of Joint
Page 57 of 185
Programmes should inform learning, decision-making and guidance on how to implement the
modality.
Evaluation of a Joint Programme should be undertaken in accordance with the guidance from
the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) (e.g., relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability) with an emphasis on results and on the Joint Programme process. A joint
evaluation, wherein the evaluation units of all concerned organizations participate in the
Evaluation Management Group, is the preferred option for evaluation of a Joint Programme.
Participating UN organizations should share information and progress updates, and undertake
joint monitoring and evaluation where appropriate. Refer to Resource Pack on Joint Evaluations
for different options to organize a joint process [Hyperlink to be added].
An indicative allocation of 3% to 5% of funds should be allotted for monitoring, reporting and
evaluation/s. This provision for the evaluation of the Joint Programme may be budgeted under
the components of any of the participating UN organizations. For Joint Programmes that last 3
years or longer, a mid-term evaluation is recommended.
4.3.4. Reporting
The Joint Programme will have one consolidated annual report (including programmatic and
financial reports), which should be harmonized with other reporting formats such as UNDAF or
One UN Country Results Report to the extent possible. Reporting deadlines stated in the legal
instrument (e.g., MoU) should be adhered to. All reports have to be endorsed by the Steering
Committee and will be shared with all relevant stakeholders through the Steering Committee.
The Managing Agent shall provide the Joint Programme Steering Committee with the following
statements and reports prepared in accordance its regulations, rules and procedures applicable
and the Joint Programme Document: annual and final narrative progress report for each
twelve-month period for which the Managing Agent may use its own format or use the default
standard generic annual and final narrative reporting progress report template, and annual and
final financial reports, using the UN-wide harmonized budget categories. Financial reports
include: annual financial reports as of 31 December each year with respect to the Joint
Programme Account, uncertified financial report, and a final certified financial statement.
In addition to annual reports, quarterly or semi-annual field updates, e.g., to the Steering
Committee, are encouraged for effective management of Joint Programmes, though these
updates are unofficial (i.e., not certified by agency headquarters) and may involve a level of
detail not meant to be captured in official annual reports.
4.3.5. Audit and Investigation
Internal Audit: A similar risk-based prioritization approach to determining if the Joint
Programme will be subject to a joint audit will be applied as for the Pass-through fund
management modality.
Page 58 of 185
The Managing Agent’s IAS will carry out the audit of the Managing Agent, and review of the
implementation of programme components by other PUNOs will be carried out by those
PUNOs’ IAS, with a summary consolidation of results into one joint audit report. The joint audit
report will be public.
The joint audit report may be supplemented by further internal audit reports on issues specific
to particular PUNOs and be published by the IAS of that/these PUNO(s). There may be
circumstances where a specific audit of the implementation of one PUNO’s component of a
Joint Programme is determined as needed by that PUNO’s management or IAS, even where a
joint audit is not planned. In such cases, the audit will be carried out by that PUNO’s IAS in
accordance with the PUNO’s regulations and rules, and the publication of the resulting audit
report will follow the PUNO’s disclosure policy;.
Recommendations of the joint audit will be followed by the IAS of one PUNO on behalf of all
PUNOs, as agreed among the IAS of PUNOs; recommendations from additional reports issued
by the IAS of a PUNO to its management will be followed by that IAS only, according its internal
procedures.
The cost of all internal audit activities related to the Joint Programme will be covered by the
Joint Programme.
External Audits: The matter of external audit of the particular joint undertaking has to be
referred to the External Auditors of all participating agencies.
Administrative Investigations: The same approach will be adopted as for the Pass-through fund
management modality.
4.4. Process of closing a pooled Joint Programme
4.4.1. Closure
Operational: The Managing Agent informs the Steering Committee in writing when all activities
under the approved programmatic document have been completed. For a Joint Programme,
the operational end date is the date in which the Managing Agent completes its activities. If the
Managing Agent or its implementing partners have not finished the activities by the end date
envisaged in the Joint Programme document, then the programme cannot be closed yet and a
(no-cost) extension has to be requested. The MA prepares a final narrative report after the
completion of the activities.
Financial: No expenses should be charged after operational closure. Between operational and
financial closure, the implementing partner is required to identify and settle all financial
obligations and to return any unutilized funds to the MA. The disposition of any balance of
funds remaining at the end of programme implementation will be in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding signed with the participating UN organization(s) and in any
funding agreement signed with the donor(s). The financial closure of accounts of each
Page 59 of 185
participating UN agency will be done in accordance with each UN agency rules and procedures,
which in most instances takes place 12 months after the operational closure of the programme.
The MA shall issue the final certified financial report after all legal obligations are settled or
terminated.
5.
Parallel fund management modality: Operational guidance
5.1. Overview
This fund management modality is likely to be
the most effective and efficient when donors
want to earmark funds to a specific agency
and when the interventions of participating
UN organizations are aimed at common
results, but with different national, subnational and/or international partners. Under
this modality, each organization manages its
own activities within the common work plan
and the related budget, whether from Regular
Resources or Other Resources.
5.2. Process of establishing a parallel Joint Programme
5.2.1. Governance
For a Joint Programme using the parallel funding modality, the Steering Committee provides
strategic direction and oversight, and has decision-making authority. Each participating UN
organization has programmatic, financial, and reporting responsibility for its part of the Joint
Programme. Existing structures should be utilized to the extent possible rather than creating
new ones.
Steering Committee28
 Decision-making authority; highest body for strategic guidance, fiduciary and management
oversight and coordination
 Facilitates collaboration between participating UN organizations and host government for
the implementation of the Joint Programme
 Includes senior programme managers of all signatories of the Joint Programme Document;
may also include other members in observer capacity, such as civil society organizations;
may be co-chaired by the Government and UN Resident Coordinator
28
In line with the Delivering as One SOPs guidance, the UNCT should reach an agreement on the Government’s role
in the Steering Committee with regard to strategic direction as well as in the resource allocation processes.
Page 60 of 185

Reviews and approves JP Document and annual work plans, provides strategic direction and
oversight, reviews implementation progress and addresses problems, reviews and approves
progress reports and evaluation reports, notes budget revisions/reallocations, audit reports
(published in accordance with each PUNOs’ disclosure policy), initiates investigations (if
needed). Meets at least semi-annually

Participating UN Organizations (PUNOs)
(Sub-)National Governmental Partners
 UN organizations that participate in the  Governmental agencies at national or subJoint Programme, which may include UN
national level that coordinate with UN
funds, programmes, specialized agencies,
organizations and implementing partners
including non-resident organizations, at  Own the national programme to which the
national, regional or global level
UN provides support
 Operate in accordance with their own
regulations,
rules,
directives
and
procedures.
 Assume full programmatic and financial
accountability for its part of the Joint
Programme, including evaluation and
audits

Implementing Partners
 National, regional or international governmental or non-governmental organizations, civil
society organizations and/or private sector partners (as permitted by the rules and
regulations of participating UN organizations) that may be working with Participating UN
Organizations and/or (Sub-)National governmental Partners to implement the Joint
Programme
Coordination: Once all components of the Joint Programme work plan have been agreed to by
(sub-) national governmental partners and each of the participating UN organizations, roles and
responsibilities for coordination of the various interventions and for producing a single
consolidated report should be documented. Due consideration should be given to the need of
dedicating sufficient human resources for such functions. All participating UN organizations
should share the costs of coordination. Additional human resource requirements for the
purpose of coordination, if any, could be included in funding proposals.
5.2.2. Establishment process
The steps outlined below may be taken in order to establish a Joint Programme using the
parallel funding modality.
Page 61 of 185
5.2.3. Required documentation
As with all Joint Programmes, a Joint Programme Document is required.
5.3. Process of managing a parallel Joint Programme
5.3.1. Finance
Budget Preparation: Each participating UN organization will prepare a separate budget,
consistent with its procedures, and covering the mutually agreed components of the
programme it will manage. Since reporting needs to be by UNDG approved harmonized budget
categories, it is preferable that the budget be set up in these categories. Responsibility should
be assigned for preparing an aggregated/consolidated budget, showing the budget components
of each participating UN organization/implementing partner(s).
Accounting: Each UN organization will set up a separate ledger account for the Joint
Programme and will account for the income received to fund its programme components in
accordance with its financial regulations and rules.
Indirect Costs: Each participating UN organization will recover indirect costs in accordance with
its financial regulations and rules and as documented in the funding agreement signed with the
donor.
Revisions: Revisions of the grants and contracts, such as no-cost extension, increase or
decrease of total budget and reallocations between budget categories, will be handled through
each participating UN organization’s separate governing bodies and/or particular donor and are
subject to the Terminal Obligation Date (TOD) and the Disbursement Date (DD).
Page 62 of 185
Changes of activities that affect outputs and outcomes must be approved by the Steering
Committee, and the Joint Programme Document needs to be amended, the annual work plan
revised and the budget framework adjusted to accommodate new or changed allocations.
5.3.2. Monitoring
A Joint Programme is monitored throughout its duration in accordance with each participating
UN organization’s procedures and as reflected in the Joint Programme Document. Monitoring is
the continuous function of using the systematic collection of data on specified indicators to
provide the key stakeholders of the Joint Programme with indications of the degree of progress
and achievements of objectives of the Joint Programme (including progress in the use of
allocated funds). Monitoring should be done against targets and indicators and progress should
be reported in the narrative report.
Each PUNO is responsible for monitoring its contributions. A Monitoring Plan should include
roles and responsibilities for monitoring, timing and methodology. Monitoring is linked to
evaluation since it facilitates data collection toward targets, though additional data collection
and different frameworks for analysis are needed for evaluation.
5.3.3. Evaluation
Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of the Joint Programme which aims to
determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives as well as the efficiency, effectiveness and
sustainability of the Joint Programme (and when feasible, its impact). Evaluation of Joint
Programmes should inform learning, decision-making and guidance on how to implement the
modality.
Evaluation of a Joint Programme should be undertaken in accordance with the guidance from
the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) (e.g., relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability) with an emphasis on results and on the Joint Programme process. A joint
evaluation, wherein the evaluation units of all concerned organizations participate in the
Evaluation Management Group, is the preferred option. Participating UN organizations should
share information and progress updates, and undertake joint monitoring and evaluation where
appropriate. Refer to Resource Pack on Joint Evaluations for different options to organize a joint
process [Hyperlink to be added].
An indicative allocation of 3% to 5% of funds should be allotted for monitoring, reporting and
evaluation/s. This provision for the evaluation of the Joint Programme may be budgeted under
the components of any of the participating UN organizations. For Joint Programmes that last 3
years or longer, a mid-term evaluation is recommended.
5.3.4. Reporting
Page 63 of 185
The Joint Programme will have one consolidated annual report (including programmatic and
financial reports), which should focus on results and be harmonized with other reporting
formats, such as UNDAF or One UN Country Results Report, to the extent possible. All reports
have to be endorsed by the Steering Committee and will be shared with all relevant
stakeholders through the Steering Committee.
Each participating UN organization will prepare narrative and financial reports in accordance
with its policies and procedures, and operational policy guidance. For the narrative report, each
agency may use its own narrative reporting format or the default generic annual and final
narrative progress reporting template and for the financial report, the UN approved
harmonized budget categories are required.
Responsibility should be assigned for the preparation of a consolidated narrative and financial
report for submission to the Steering Committee. The consolidated narrative and financial
report should be clearly identified as a compilation of the participating UN organizations’
narrative and financial reporting. The Steering Committee may agree that each participating UN
organization prepare one report with proper introduction to the different parts of the report
and attributions of funding and results.
In addition to annual reports, quarterly or semi-annual field updates, e.g., to the Steering
Committee, are encouraged for effective management of Joint Programmes, though these
updates are unofficial (i.e., not certified by agency headquarters) and may involve a level of
detail not meant to be captured in official annual reports.
5.3.5. Audit and Investigations
Internal Audit: A similar risk-based prioritization approach to determining if the Joint
Programme will be subject to a joint audit will be applied as for the Pass-through fund
management modality.
The IAS of each PUNO will be responsible for auditing its own contribution to the Joint
Programme, following each PUNO’s regulations and rules, with a summary consolidation of
results into one joint audit report coordinated by one PUNO IAS agreed by the participating IAS.
The joint report will be public.
The issuance of each PUNO’s internal audit report will be done according to that PUNO’s
disclosure policy for internal audit reports, and the recommendation follow-up be undertaken
according to the procedures in force in that PUNO.
The cost of said internal audit will be charged to the PUNO administrative fee received from the
Joint Programme.
External Audit: The matter of external audit of the particular joint undertaking has to be
referred to the External Auditors of all participating agencies.
Page 64 of 185
Administrative Investigations: The same approach will be adopted as for the Pass-through fund
management modality.
5.4. Process of closing a parallel Joint Programme
5.1. Closure
Operational: Each participating UN organization informs the Steering Committee in writing
when all activities under the approved programmatic document have been completed. For a
Joint Programme, the operational end date is the date in which the last participating
organization completes its activities. If one participating UN organization has not finished the
activities by the end date envisaged in the Joint Programme document, then the programme
cannot be closed yet. Each participating UN organization prepares a final narrative report after
the completion of the activities. As part of the sustainability plan, the coordination mechanism
should remain operational for a period of at least three months after operational closure of the
Joint Programme.
Financial: No expenses should be charged after operational closure. Between operational and
financial closure, the implementing partner is required to identify and settle all financial
obligations and to return any unutilized funds to the donor. The disposition of any balance of
funds remaining at the end of programme implementation will be in accordance with the
agreements between the participating UN organizations and the implementing partners as well
as donors where applicable. The financial closure of accounts of each participating UN
organization will be done in accordance with each UN organization’s rules and procedures,
which in most instances takes place 12 months after the operational closure of the programme.
Each participating organization shall issue a final certified financial report after all legal
obligations are settled or terminated.
6. Joint Programming – Audit and Investigation Guidelines as provided by UN-RIAS
Internal Audit
The Representatives of Internal Audit Services of the UN (UN-RIAS) all adopt the Professional Practices
Framework of the Institute of Internal Auditors. Under that Framework, internal auditing is defined as
an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an
organization's operations. It helps an organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic,
disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of its governance, risk management and
control processes.
In accordance with the risk-based approach required under international internal auditing
standards)that form part of the Professional Practices Framework, the Internal Audit Services (IAS) of
Page 65 of 185
the UN organizations participating in Joint Programmes (PUNO) will collectively review and prioritize on
risk-based principles, those joint programmes which would be considered for internal audit coverage
through joint audits. Joint audits will be carried out by the IAS of the PUNOs following the relevant
established framework for joint audits.
Internal audits of Joint Programmes will entail:

The joint programme’s governance and administration which will be undertaken jointly by IAS of
the PUNOs involved and the report thereon being issued to the Joint Programme Steering
Committee and to the United Nations Development Group, and disclosed publicly;

Those activities of the joint programme undertaken jointly by several PUNOs – the audit will be
conducted jointly by the IAS of the PUNOs involved in those activities; reporting thereon may be
integrated with that on joint programme’s governance and administration, or be separate, and
will be issued according to the policies of disclosure of internal audit reports of the PUNOs
involved; and

The portion of the joint programme activities separately undertaken by each PUNO, which will
be audited in accordance with each PUNO’s Financial Regulations and Rules. In view of the
diverse policies of disclosure of internal audit reports across the United Nations system, each IAS
will follow the one in force in that PUNO; and in addition, provide a high level summary of its key
findings and recommendations to the IAS chosen to consolidate and provide a high level report
to the Joint Programme Steering Committee and to the United Nations Development Group.
The total cost of internal audits of the Joint Programme will be covered directly by the Joint Programme
and a budgetary provision will be included from the onset to cover for these costs, should the IAS of the
PUNOs involved decide to undertake an audit of the Joint Programme.
Investigations
UN staff and individual contractors, implementing partners, vendors and any third parties which are
involved either in joint activities or only in those of a PUNO must adhere to the highest standard of
ethical conduct as defined by each PUNO.
To this end, each Participating UN Organization will maintain standards of conduct that govern the
performance of its staff, Individual contractors, implementing partners, vendors and any third party with
which it is in a contractual relation, in the prohibition of fraud and corruption, and other unethical
behavior, in any activity related to the Joint Programme.
The parties as defined above must not engage in proscribed practices which include:

“Corrupt practice” which means the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly,
of anything of value to influence improperly the actions of another party;

“Fraudulent practice” which means any act or omission, including misrepresentation, that
knowingly or recklessly misleads, or attempts to mislead, a party to obtain a financial or other
benefit, or to avoid an obligation;

“Collusive practice” which means an arrangement between two or more parties designed to
achieve an improper purpose, including influencing improperly the actions of another party;
Page 66 of 185

“Coercive practice” which means impairing or harming, or threatening to impair or harm,
directly or indirectly, any party or the property of the party to influence improperly the actions
of a party;

“Unethical practice” which mean the conduct of behavior that is contrary to staff or supplier
codes of conduct such as those relating to conflict of interest, gifts and hospitality, postemployment provisions and

“Obstructive practice” which means acts or omissions intended to materially impede the
exercise of contractual rights of audit, investigation and access to information, including
destruction, falsification, alteration or concealment of evidence material to an investigation into
allegations of fraud and corruption.
Investigations of allegations of wrongdoing by PUNO staff and individual contractors, implementing
partners, vendors and any third parties related to the Joint Programme will be conducted by the
Investigation Service (IS) of the PUNO with whom the potential subject of investigation is contracted, in
accordance with that PUNO’s administrative pronouncements.
That PUNO’s Investigation Service will share information as appropriate with the IS counterparts in the
other PUNOs to determine whether the alleged wrongdoing is limited to one PUNO or extends to
others.
In the event that one or more IS of PUNOs determine that an allegation in relation to the
implementation of activities affecting the Joint Programme is credible enough to warrant an
investigation, that IS it (or one on behalf of the several Services involved) may promptly notify the
Steering Committee and the Administrative Agent of the Joint Programme, to the extent that such
notification does not jeopardize the conduct of the investigation.
Where a potential subject of an investigation is contracted to more than one PUNO, the Investigation
Services of the PUNOs concerned may consider conducting joint or coordinated investigations and
determine the investigation framework to use.
The resulting investigation report(s) will be provided to the relevant bodies or individuals of the PUNOs
involved, following each PUNO’s internal procedures. Upon completion of the investigation, the
PUNO(s) will also inform the Steering Committee and the Administrative Agent about the results of the
investigation(s).
If the IS report(s) concludes that fraud or corruption has occurred, disciplinary and/or administrative
measures will be taken by each PUNO according to its administrative pronouncements on disciplinary
and/or administrative measures, including vendor sanction mechanism, as appropriate. Information on
measures taken will be shared with the Administrative Agent and the Steering Committee of the Joint
Programme by the competent body of the PUNO(s) concerned.
Page 67 of 185
Annex A. Decision-making flow chart for choosing fund management modality
Page 68 of 185
Annex B. Standard Joint Programme Document (approved by UNDG in April 2008)
STANDARD JOINT PROGRAMME DOCUMENT
Cover Page
Country: ____________________________________
Programme Title:
_______________________________________________________________________
Joint Programme Outcome(s):_____________________________________________________
(where different from the UNDAF)
Programme Duration: ______________________
Total estimated budget*:
_____
Anticipated start/end dates: _______________
Out of which:
Fund Management Option(s): _______________
1. Funded Budget:
_____
Sources
of funded
budget:
2. Unfunded
budget:
_____
(Parallel, pooled, pass-through, combination)
Managing or Administrative Agent: ___________
(if/as applicable)
 estimated
Government
_________
* Total
budget includes both
programme
Org….
_________
costs andUN
indirect
support costs




UN Org…
Donor …
Donor …
NGO…
_________
_________
_________
_________
Names and signatures of (sub) national counterparts and participating UN organizations
Adequate signature space should be provided in order to accommodate name (person), title (head),
organization name/seal of all participating UN organizations and national coordinating authorities, as

well as date of signature.
This joint programme document should be signed by the relevant national coordinating authorities. By
signing this joint programme document, all signatories – national coordinating authorities and UN
organizations - assume full responsibility to achieve results identified with each of them as shown in
Table 1 and detailed in annual work plans. . For regional and global joint programmes, endorsement or
signatures of participating countries (at least three, if there are more than three countries) are required.
UN organizations
Replace with:
National Coordinating Authorities
Replace with:
Page 69 of 185
Name of Representative
Signature
Name of Organization
Date & Seal
Replace with:
Name of Representative
Signature
Name of Organization
Date & Seal
Name of Head of Partner
Signature
Name of Institution
Date & Seal
Replace with:
Name of Head of Partner
Signature
Name of Institution
Date & Seal
Joint Programme Document Outline
A joint programme document enables UN organizations (including specialized and non-resident
agencies)29 and implementing partners to implement harmonized, results focused joint programmes
with a minimum of documentation. A standard joint programme document should include the following
sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Cover Page - one page
Executive summary – one page
Situation analysis – one to two pages
Strategies including lessons learned and the proposed joint programme– two pages
Results framework – two to three pages
Management and coordination arrangements – two pages
Fund management arrangements – one page
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting – two pages
Legal context or basis of relationship – one page
Work plans and budgets - two to three pages
A brief description of the expected content for each of these sections is provided below.
3.
Cover Page (One page)
The cover page contains the joint programme outcome(s), total estimated budget, funded and unfunded
components, sources of funding and signatures of national coordinating authorities(s) and participating
UN organizations.
4.
Executive Summary (One page)
The executive summary contains a comprehensive summary of all sections focusing on the significance
and relevance of the joint programme, its contribution to national priorities and international
commitments, the results expected to be achieved, intended beneficiaries, donors and implementing
partners.
29
Each UN organization participating and signing this joint programme document will be party to the existing
framework (UNDAF, Common Humanitarian Action Plan, or Transitional Framework etc.) which the programme
is addressing. The Organization will operate on the basis of its legal agreement with government.
Page 70 of 185
5.
Situation Analysis (One to two pages)
This section provides a brief evidence-based causality analysis which may be obtained from the
Common Country Assessment, the national development framework, UN Development Assistance
Framework (UNDAF) or the relevant humanitarian action plan30. It outlines the economic, social,
political, environmental and institutional context of the joint programme. It identifies the development
or human rights challenges to be addressed; provides specific, current and disaggregated data on these
challenges, key causal factors, and the interventions that are necessary and sufficient for the
achievement of the planned results. This is to be supplemented with references to the identified
baselines presented in the Joint Programme Monitoring Framework in Section 8, relevant recent
research reports and/or reports and recommendations of international and regional treaty bodies and
supervisory committees.
6.
Strategies, including lessons learned and the proposed joint programme (Two pages)
The subsections to be covered include:
Background/context: The intention of this sub-section is to describe how the joint programme will
contribute through the UNDAF or other applicable frameworks to the achievement of national priorities
and international commitments, including MD/MDGs and humanitarian obligations, among others. It
should also identify other outputs and stakeholders contributing to the achievement of the respective
UNDAF or other applicable frameworks’ outcomes. It specifies the relevant stakeholders not involved in
this joint programme: UN organizations, government, non-government institutions, and donor
organizations active in the area relevant to the joint programme.
Lessons Learned: This sub-section provides a summary of relevant lessons learned from experiences,
opportunities and challenges which may support or constrain achievement of results. Statements of
agreed lessons are particularly important where there is a significant departure from previous
programmes or strategies. This sub-section should also indicate how recommendations and
observations of Human Rights treaty bodies to the respective State Party have been considered and
used in the design of the joint programme.
The proposed joint programme: This sub-section provides a justification on why a joint programme
approach was chosen. It outlines the specific programme strategies adopted to achieve agreed
outcomes, taking into consideration the lessons learned. It focuses on how the strategies address the
key causes of the problems which have been identified, and the partners involved in each phase. It
includes details on the intended manner in which the programme should unfold in its various phases. It
provides a brief description of the division of labor between the UN partners, the added value of each to
the intended joint programme outcomes, and the participating UN organizations capacity to deliver
agreed outputs. The proposed joint programme strategy should confirm that the capacities necessary
for the implementation were carefully considered and that the selected implementing partners have the
capacity to achieve the intended results.
30
This Joint Programme also has reference to the Country Programme Action Plans (CPAPs) that may have been
signed by Funds and Programmes and governments.
Page 71 of 185
This section should also include a prior assessment of key cross-cutting concerns such as: human rights
(in particular the key duty bearers and rights holders involved in the issue the joint programme is
addressing and their capacity gaps which the joint programme will address); gender equality (the critical
gender concerns that are relevant to the issue being addressed in the joint programme and how the
joint programme would address these concerns); the key environmental issues that are relevant in this
case and how the joint programme will address them; assessment of capacity gaps of key institutions
and partners that the joint programme will work with and the capacity development strategies that will
be adopted for the purpose. Depending on the subject covered, this section may also include other
types of ex-ante analyses, for example themes such as education, health, agriculture.
Sustainability of results: State how the results will be sustained including relevant capacities being
developed among duty bearers and rights holders and government institutions and communities.
7.
Results Framework (Two to three pages)
This section will contain a brief narrative and the results framework.
The narrative should briefly outline the logic of the results chain. The joint programme
outcomes/outputs should directly contribute to the UNDAF outcome(s) or the relevant framework it is
responding to. Proper justification should be provided, where any joint programme outcome falls
outside the UNDAF (or other applicable framework under which the joint programme falls).
The Results Framework sub-section will contain a hierarchy of UNDAF outcomes (or other overarching
outcome in other frameworks on which the joint programme is based), joint programme outcomes (if
different from UNDAF outcome) and joint programme outputs, indicators, baselines and targets. As a
minimum, this hierarchy should be presented in the format shown in Table 1 “Results Framework”. The
column entitled “Participating UN organization corporate priority” will provide the linkage of this joint
programme to UN organizations’ corporate priorities and mandates.
The results will be articulated in more detail in (annual) work plans and budgets. Please refer to the
Section 10 for details of how these work plans should be prepared.
Page 72 of 185
Table 1: Results Framework
UNDAF(or other relevant framework) Outcome
Joint Programme Outcome (if different from UNDAF Outcome) , including corresponding indicators and baselines,
Participatin
Participating Participatin Implementin Indicativ Resource
JP Outputs
g UN
UN
g UN
g Partner
e
allocation and
organization organization organizatio
activities indicative time
31
(Give
-specific
n corporate
for each
frame*
correspondin Outputs
priority
Output
g indicators
Y
Y
Y
Y Tota
and
1
2
3
4
l
baselines)
UN
organization
1
UN
organization
2
UN
organization
3
Total
Programme Cost **
Indirect Support Cost**
Programme Cost
Indirect Support Cost
Programme Cost
Indirect Support Cost
Programme Cost
Indirect Support Cost
*Resource allocation may be agreed at either output or indicative activity level.
** Please read the Explanatory Note on Harmonized Financial Reporting to Donors and its Annexes for
guidance on how these terms should be interpreted
6. Management and Coordination Arrangements (Two pages)
This section elaborates the programme planning and management responsibilities and commitments of
partners and participating UN organizations. This joint programme document does not substitute for
organization-specific arrangements required by respective internal policies. The management aspects of
the different funding modalities (pooled, parallel or pass through) are detailed under section 7.
This section should also describe the arrangements for coordination and oversight, identifying individual
participating UN organizations and national partners responsible as applicable. As specified in the UNDG
Guidance Note on Joint Programming, “Once the joint programme has been developed and agreed
31
In cases of joint programmes using pooled fund management modalities, the Managing Agent is
responsible/accountable for achieving all shared joint programme outputs. However, those participating UN
organizations that have specific direct interest in a given joint programme output, and may be associated with
the Managing Agent during the implementation, for example in reviews and agreed technical inputs, will also be
indicated in this column.
Page 73 of 185
jointly by the participating UN organizations, the arrangements for monitoring, review, and coordination
should be documented. The composition of the joint programme coordination mechanism (referred to
in the standard agreements as Joint Programme Steering Committee) shall include all the signatories to
the joint programme document. The coordination mechanism may also have other members”. Linkages
to the existing coordination mechanisms, such as thematic groups, etc., should also be specified.
A list of implementation Focal Points should be developed and made available to the Joint Programme
Steering Committee and other stakeholders. This is to be presented as an Annex to the joint programme
document.
7. Fund Management Arrangements (One page)
There are three fund management options for joint programmes: a) parallel, b) pooled, and c) passthrough. This section should clearly specify the fund management option(s) being used. Under the
parallel funding modality, whereby each organization funds and implements its activities in parallel with
other participating organization(s), one organization should be responsible for consolidated reporting as
agreed upon by the JP Steering Committee. The organization so identified should be stated in this
section; any costs incurred by the assigned organization should be reflected in the joint programme
budget as the organization’s direct costs. If a pooled funding modality is decided upon, this section will
state the Managing Agent. If pass-through fund management option is used, this section should state
the appointed Administrative Agent.
These options can also be combined. For example, participating UN organizations might decide to pool
funds under a Managing Agent for those parts of a joint programme to be managed jointly, while other
parts of the joint programme would be managed through parallel funding, within the overall framework
of the joint programme. In the case of joint programmes using combined fund management option, the
Steering Committee will decide which participating UN organization will prepare the consolidated
report.
The decision to select one or a combination of fund management options for a joint programme should
be based on how to achieve the most effective, efficient and timely implementation, and to reduce
transaction costs for national partners, donors and the UN.
The fund management options mentioned above and the templates of instruments have been approved
by all UNDG members. Their use in operationalizing joint programmes without alterations does not
require further approvals from headquarters. UNCTs therefore must endeavour to use the standard
instruments. If for any reason the standard instruments cannot be used, HQ has to be consulted on
alternative options. The instruments and operational details on each of the fund management options
can be found in the Guidance Note on Joint Programming.
Transfer of cash to national Implementing Partners: This sub-section should specify the details of the
agreed arrangement for transfer of cash to implementing partners.
Cash transfer modalities, the size and frequency of disbursements, and the scope and frequency of
monitoring, reporting, assurance and audit will be agreed prior to programme implementation, taking
into consideration the capacity of implementing partners, and can be adjusted in its course in
Page 74 of 185
accordance with applicable policies, processes and procedures of the participating UN organizations. For
the Funds and Programmes, the provisions required under the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers
(HACT) as detailed in their CPAPs or in other agreements covering cash transfers will apply.
8. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (Two pages)
Monitoring: The content of Table 2 “Joint Programme Monitoring Framework (JPMF)” should
summarize monitoring arrangements for the joint programme, including monitoring activities that the
participating UN organizations and/or national partners will undertake (such as baseline collection,
reviews or studies if necessary to measure effect/impact, field visits, evaluation etc.), the timing of such
activities and the respective responsibilities.
The Table 2 should be consistent with the UNDAF or any other relevant monitoring and evaluation plan
and be an integral part of the broader UNDAF M&E Framework.
Table 2: Joint Programme Monitoring Framework (JPMF)
Expected
Results
(Outcomes
& outputs)
Indicators (with
baselines &
indicative
timeframe)
Means of
verification
From
Results
Framework
(Table 1)
From Results
Framework (Table
1)
Baselines are a
measure of the
indicator at the
start of the joint
programme
From
identified
data and
information
sources
Collection
methods (with
indicative time
frame &
frequency)
How is it to be
obtained?
Responsibilities
Risks &
assumptions
Specific
responsibilities of
participating UN
organizations
(including in case
of shared results)
Summary of
assumptions and
risks for each
result
Annual/Regular reviews: This sub-section states arrangements and clear responsibilities for conducting
regular reviews, including annual reviews where applicable. Review of joint programme may also form
part of UNDAF annual review.
Evaluation: This sub-section states the arrangements for, responsibility and timing of evaluation(s) of
the joint programme. It should also state how the results of the evaluation(s) will be used by relevant
stakeholders.
It should further state how the risks and assumptions identified in Table 2 will be managed to achieve
the agreed joint programme results. These should at a minimum be reviewed at the annual/regular
reviews and revised as appropriate.
Reporting: This sub-section should set out arrangements for common reporting on the joint programme
results. A common reporting format should be adopted by all participating UN organizations32.
32
The Standard Progress Report used by the Funds and Programmes or any other reporting format used by any other UN organization may be
Page 75 of 185
9. Legal Context or Basis of Relationship (One page)
This section specifies what cooperation or assistance agreements33 form the legal basis for the
relationships between the Government and each of the UN organizations participating34 in this joint
programme.
For the Funds and Programmes, these are standing cooperation arrangements. For the specialized
Agencies, these should be the text that is normally used in their programme/project documents or any
other applicable legal instruments.
The text specific to each participating UN organization should be cleared by the respective UN
organization.
Table 3 below provides illustrative examples on various UN organizations’ cooperation arrangements.
Table 3: Basis of Relationship (illustrative examples)
Participating UN
organization
UNDP
Agreement
UNIDO
UNIDO Office was established in accordance with the Agreement between the
Government of [NAME] and [MOFCOM]. The Office as established in [YEAR].
FAO
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Government of
[NAME] signed agreement for the establishment of the FAO Representation in
[COUNTRY] on [DATE].
UNESCAP-UNAPCAEM
The United Nations Asian and Pacific Centre for Agricultural Engineering and Machinery
(UNAPCAEM) is a subsidiary body/regional institution of the United Nations Economic
and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), based [COUNTRY]. Following
the host country headquarters agreement signed between the Government of
[COUNTRY] and the United Nations on [DATE]. UNAPCAEM began its operations in
2004.
This Joint Programme Document shall be the instrument referred to as the Project
Document in Article I of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the
Government of [NAME] and the United Nations Development Programme, signed by
the parties on [DATE].
adapted for the purpose. Donor requirements should also be kept in mind. The reporting format should be approved by the joint
programme steering committee.
33
Such as: the Basic Cooperation Agreement for UNICEF; Standard Basic Assistance Agreement for UNDP, which also applies to UNFPA; the Basic
Agreement for WFP; as well as the Country Programme Action Plan(s) where they exist; and other applicable agreements for other
participating UN organizations.
34
Including Specialized Agencies and Non Resident Agencies participating in the Joint Programme
Page 76 of 185
The Implementing Partners/Executing Agency35 agree to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that
none of the funds received pursuant to this Joint Programme are used to provide support to individuals
or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by Participating UN
organizations do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established
pursuant
to
resolution
1267
(1999).
The
list
can
be
accessed
via
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all
sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this programme document.
10. Work plans and budgets (Two to three pages)
The work plans will detail the activities to be carried out within the joint programme and the responsible
implementing partners, timeframes and planned inputs from the participating UN organizations. The
basis for all resource transfers to an implementing partner should be detailed in the work plans, agreed
between the implementing partners and participating UN organizations. According to the Harmonized
Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT), the work plan should be signed by the implementing partners
receiving cash (except NGOs and CSOs). In case the implementation authority is delegated to a
national/sub-national institution, the respective institution should be specified in the AWP. When
partnering with NGOs CSOs, the participating UN organizations sign legal instruments in accordance with
their procedures. Any additional management arrangements that may be set up by participating UN
organizations to achieve results under their respective responsibility may be detailed in annexes as
needed.
A revised work plan and budget will be produced subsequent to the decisions of the annual/regular
reviews. The new work plan is approved in writing by the joint programme Steering Committee. The
joint programme document need not be signed after each periodic review as long as there is written
approval of it by all partners at, or following the annual/regular review. However, any substantive
change in the joint programme scope or change in financial allocations will require revision of the joint
programme document and signature of all parties involved.
The work plan should be attached as an Annex to the joint programme document and should follow the
format represented in the table below.
Work Plan for: (Insert name of the Joint Programme/Project)
Period (Covered by the WP) 36___
JP Outcome
UN
organizationspecific
Annual
targets
JP Output 1:
(of UN
UN
organization
Activities
TIME FRAME
Q1
Q2
Q3
Implementing
Partner
Q4
PLANNED BUDGET
Source
of
Funds
Budget
Description
Amount
35
Executing Agency in case of UNDP in countries with no signed Country Programme Action Plans
36
Annual Work plans cover not more than a 12-month period. However, usually at the start-up of the programme, these may cover less than
one year. In both cases, the corresponding period should be specified.
Page 77 of 185
organization
1)
(of UN
organization
2)
(of UN
organization
3)
JP Output 2:
(of UN
organization
1)
*
Including
(of UN
organization
2)
Total Planned Budget
Total UN organization 1
Total UN organization 2
Total UN organization 3
* The Total Planned Budget by UN Organization should include both programme cost and indirect support cost
Signatures37:
UN organization(s)
Replace with:
Name of Representative
Signature
Name of Organization
Date
37
Implementing Partner(s)
Replace with:
Name of Head of Partner
Signature
Name of Institution
Date
When CSOs/NGOs are designated Implementing Partners, they do not sign this Work Plan. Each participating UN Organization will follow its
own procedures in signing Work Plans with CSOs/NGOs.
Page 78 of 185
CHAPTER 3:
Common Budgetary Framework
SECTION 3.1.
Principles and Policy
[TO BE ADDED FROM THE SOPS]
Page 79 of 185
SECTION 3.2.:
Common Budgetary Framework – Tools and Materials
Introduction
The United Nations Development Group (UNDG) has put together Standard Operating
Procedures38 for countries wishing to adopt the Delivering as One approach (SOPs). These SOPs
are based on the experiences and good practices of Delivering as One (DaO) countries. They
highlight a number of key elements to be taken into account when adopting the DaO approach.
One of these elements is creating a Common Budgetary Framework for the One Programme.
To supplement the SOPs, detailed advisory notes and tools have been produced on a number of
issues, including One Programme Tools [Hyperlink to be added] and Materials and Advisory
Note on Joint Resource Mobilization [Hyperlink to be added]. This Advisory Note on Common
Budgetary Frameworks for One Programmes provides the link between the former two
documents.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy
Review of Operational Activities (67/226, 22 January 2013) requests that “as a practice, all
available and projected financial contributions for operational activities for development of the
United Nations system at the country level be consolidated within a common budgetary
framework (…) and that the framework be used to strengthen the quality of system-wide
resource planning in support of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework”39.
This document outlines the main processes for preparing and managing a Common Budgetary
Framework (CBF) in the context of a One Programme in a DaO country context and is based on
the 2010 UNDAF Action Plan Guidance Note on the Common Budgetary Framework. The
document sets out: the definition, objectives and expected benefits of a Common Budgetary
Framework; the different funding streams in a Common Budgetary Framework; and the
processes and formats for developing and managing a Common Budgetary Framework for a
One Programme.
38
Standard Operating Procedures for Countries Wishing to Adopt the ‘Delivering as One’ Approach:
www.undg.org/docs/12968/Standard%20Operating%20Procedures.pdf.
39 See paragraph 42, section II. C. “Improving the predictability and quality of resources” in Resolution A/Res/67/226.
Page 80 of 185
This Advisory Note is being issued on an interim basis and is expected to be updated in the
coming 12 months. This interim document focuses mainly on the steps required to set up a CBF
in support of a One Programme in a DaO context. The updating of the Note will be based on a
review of experiences and lessons learned with CBFs in both non-DaO countries and DaO
countries, with or without an operational One Fund. The review should include analysing the
use of CBFs by stakeholders outside of the United Nations system. Furthermore, an analysis of
short-term options and longer-term solutions that can guarantee consistent quality of data and
reduce transaction costs for generating the minimum required dataset for a Common
Budgetary Framework will be undertaken.
Page 81 of 185
1. Background to the Common Budgetary Framework
1.1 Definition
A medium-term (three-to–five-year) Common Budgetary Framework, supporting the One Programme,
operations and communications and designed as a planning and management tool at the disposal of the UN
Country Team, provides a holistic overview of required, available and expected funding sources, and any gaps
in funding to support delivery of the One Programme. It also provides a basis for setting funding priorities,
mobilizing resources to cover funding gaps and allocating resources (in the case of the One Fund).
Important elements include…[an] annual Common Budgetary Framework as an agreed, joint source of financial
information on available resources and expected funding and as a basis for joint resource mobilization and
allocation of resources from the One Fund (if applicable)…
Standard Operating Procedures, p. 18
A medium-term Common Budgetary Framework (or UNDAF Common Budgetary Framework),
in the DaO approach, is a consolidated financial framework that reflects the agreed, costed
results of the One Programme, including operations and communications. It provides an overall
picture of financial resources required, available, projected to be available and to be mobilized
for the delivery of development results by the UN system at country level. The medium-term
CBF is an integral part of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) and
therefore is not a separate document.
The consolidated framework is based on: (a) the best estimates of the funding required by each
United Nations organization for delivering the outcomes,40 as described in the One
Programme/UNDAF;41 (b) a breakdown of the funding available and expected to be available
from each United Nations organization, disaggregated by source; and (c) any funding gaps
which require resource mobilization.
An annual Common Budgetary Framework is an annualized version of the medium-term CBF,
with more details, based on the consolidated Joint Work Plans42 (JWP) developed by Results
Groups. It is a picture of annual financial resources required, available and projected to be
available and mobilized for delivery of outputs (and activities, when applicable) defined in the
JWPs, including operations and communications. The annual CBF is part and parcel of the
consolidated JWPs.
40
When a United Nations Country Team chooses to include outputs in the UNDAF, the Common Budgetary Framework may
reflect financial estimates for delivery of both outcomes and outputs of the UNDAF.
41 The One Programme is comprised of the UNDAF (as the basis of the One Programme) and the Joint Work Plans, together with
their respective Common Budgetary Frameworks.
42 Only in exceptional cases should the Annual Common Budgetary Framework be based on agency-specific annual work plans.
Page 82 of 185
The annual and medium-term CBF complement each other. The medium-term CBF costs the
UNDAF in as realistic a way as possible at the time of the One Programme formulation, while
the annual CBF contains a more accurate projection of annual financial resource requirements,
funding availability and funding gaps, based on the most up-to-date financial information from
UN organizations and progress in resource mobilization of the UN system. Ideally, the mediumterm CBF should be updated annually based on the data in the finalized annual CBF to ensure
there is a consistent and up-to-date picture of resources throughout the programme cycle.
1.2 Objective
The CBF is designed as a financial planning and management tool at the disposal of the UN
Country Team (UNCT) and other stakeholders, including the government. The main objective of
a CBF is to provide a comprehensive, consolidated overview of indicative, results-based
projection of funding requirements and funding gaps for the programme period.
Its focus is on the funding needs for implementation of the One Programme (UNDAF and JWPs)
rather than just tracking funds available and expected to be available. It facilitates financial
resource planning by the UNCT and helps priority setting of UNDAF outcomes as well as the
matching of the UNDAF priorities (together with associated programmatic initiatives) with
funding allocations from resources obtained through agency-specific, coordinated and joint
resource mobilization.
It also provides an entry point for prioritization of the UNCT’s resource mobilization efforts. The
medium-term CBF renders a prospective outlook of financial resources for three to five years,
therefore serving as the basis for creating a medium-term joint resource mobilization
strategy.43
Lastly, the CBF provides a tool for doing a reality check to ensure that the UNCT has a
reasonable chance of mobilizing the resources required to produce the outcomes defined in the
UNDAF results matrix. If, after an analysis of the external funding environment and the
matching of potential financing sources to unfunded or underfunded UNDAF outcomes, the
UNCT comes to the conclusion that the CBF funding gap is not realistic, it may decide to review
the targets in the UNDAF results matrix.
43
Refer to the Guidelines on Joint Resource Mobilization.
Page 83 of 185
1.3 Expected benefits
Generally, CBFs are expected to bring significant benefits at strategic and operational levels to
UNCTs, governments and donors because they support:
 increased transparency by providing the government, donors and other stakeholders
with a simplified single reference document and an overview of the funding
situation of the UNDAF and JWPs at any point of time during the programming cycle;
 a rational and reasonable budget structure for the programme based on realistic
costing of programmatic initiatives, aligned against a prospective source of
financing;
 potential for the UNCT to adopt a coordinated and/or joint approach to resource
mobilization by identifying and monitoring the funding gap and identifying
appropriate joint resource mobilization instruments, such as Joint Programmes
and/or a One Fund;44
 increased coherence of the UN system and reduced overlap, especially in the field,
in mobilizing and managing resources for implementation of agreed costed results
areas of the One Programme; and
 more effective implementation of the One Programme through better planning,
prioritization and monitoring of resources.
Process-wise, an additional benefit is that the medium-term CBF is built within the UNDAF
results matrix, while the annual CBF is embedded in the consolidated JWPs. Hence, they do not
require any separate process for endorsement or signature by UN agencies and the
government.
44
Country experiences with setting up One Funds and Country Funds can be accessed through the UNDG Toolkit at
www.undg.org.
Page 84 of 185
At the same time, experience shows that benefits of using these frameworks do not materialize
automatically. Analysis of the 2011 data found that contributions to the One Funds in more
than half of the DaO countries were less than 25 percent of the yearly funding gap, and only
five countries were able to cover more than half of their identified funding needs using the One
Fund mechanism.45 Also, it has notably been a challenge to ensure a realistic costing of the One
Programme, taking into account the potential financing sources to cover unfunded outcomes.
2. Level of disaggregation: outcomes, outputs and activities
The UNDAF defines outcomes to be achieved by the UN and partners over the course of three
to five years and includes a results matrix for the outcome level. The medium-term CBF,
therefore, should depict estimated financial resources at the outcome level.
If the UNCT and the government opt to also add outputs to the UNDAF results matrix,46 the
medium-term CBF may also be disaggregated to output level. However, keeping the mediumterm CBF at outcome level allows for a light and efficient budgeting process for a strategic
programme framework like the UNDAF.
The JWPs translate the UNDAF outcomes into concrete, measurable and time-bound outputs,
and specific key activities. The annual CBF, therefore, should contain anticipated resource
requirements and funding gaps at output level. Disaggregation of the annual CBF to activity
level is not mandatory. Nonetheless, delineation to the activity level may help UN organizations
to realistically cost the material and human resource inputs required for producing the
expected results.
3. Funding streams (resource categories)
For purposes of the CBF within the One Programme, the resource categories are defined as
below. These relate to funds, programmes, specialized agencies, and resident and non-resident
agencies.
Core/ regular/assessed funding are those resources that are allocated without restrictions.
Their use and application are directly linked to the UN entities’ multilateral mandates and
strategic plans that are approved by the respective governing bodies as part of an established
intergovernmental process.
45
46
For more details, see the Guidelines on Thresholds for Multi-Donor Trust Funds, including One Funds.
For more details, see the One Programme Tools and Materials.
Page 85 of 185
Non-core/ other/extra-budgetary resources are mostly earmarked and thus restricted in their
use and application. They are normally earmarked to a specific theme or geographical area, or
to a specific project. These resources can originate from the country level or be allocated from
headquarters or regional levels and include resources received from global funds and vertical
funds.
To be mobilized (funding gap): This is the difference between resources already secured and
firmly committed and the required resources to implement the One Programme. A realistic
funding gap forms the basis for joint or coordinated resource mobilization efforts.
4. Developing the medium-term Common Budgetary Framework
Define a Common Budgetary Framework






As part of the UNDAF, define the CBF, which includes an estimate of the available and expected funding
sources for each outcome area (including the Results Groups, Country Communications Group (CCG), and
Operations Management Team (OMT)). This CBF is an estimate for the entire programming cycle and will
be further updated, revised and detailed through the joint annual work plans of the Results Groups, OMT,
and CCG.
The process should be as light as possible taking into account that (a) precise costing at the outcome level
is challenging; (b) agency budgets are defined differently; and (c) precise costing and identification of
funding needs often can be made only on an annual/biannual basis.
The CBF will include (a) estimated agency contributions, with disaggregation by core and non-core
resources; (b) the Governments’ contributions; and (c) the funding gap. When other United Nations actors
are present, the CBF should, as relevant, reflect these other resources.
Agency core and non-core resources remain under the authority of the respective agency but are
reflected, tracked, monitored and reported at the UNCT level through the CBF and are reported on a
system-wide basis annually, taking into account agency reporting cycles.
Results-based budgeting and management ensure a realistic presentation of resource requirements. The
CBF should clearly indicate what resources are available and determine funding gaps for future resource
mobilization purposes. Budgeting by Results Groups/agencies should be realistic in two ways: (a)
resources needed to accomplish outputs should be costed as accurately as possible; and (b) the level of
ambition for resources should be appropriate to the country context, potential sources of funds (including
non-traditional sources) and capacity to spend.
In countries where the principle of integration applies, the CBF captures the contributions made by the
United Nations mission to the areas covered. In transition countries where humanitarian activities are
ongoing, the CBF should be coordinated with the applicable humanitarian processes and instruments in
order to ensure continuity and coherence between humanitarian and development assistance.
Standard Operating Procedures, pp. 19, 20
Starting point: At the beginning of the process, UNCT should ensure that certain
preconditions are in place to enable the CBF to serve as a useful financial planning and
management tool. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
 well-articulated programme results included in the UNDAF;
 all UN agencies represented in the UNCT are able and willing to share in a timely
Page 86 of 185


manner the minimum set of specific financial information required for the CBF;47
the governance structure for the UNDAF is delineated to the level of technical groups
(e.g., Results Groups) that carry out resource requirement/projection exercises; and
the UNDAF outcomes are disaggregated into outputs (and possibly into key
activities) through Joint Work Plans to provide a practical basis for a budgetary
exercise.
The process: The process of formulating the medium-term CBF is part of the development
process of the UNDAF results and resources framework. Budget data put in the medium-term
CBF are indicative. If, after the completion of the initial CBF, the UNCT comes to the
conclusion that the CBF funding gap is not realistic, it may decide to review the targets in the
UNDAF results matrix to match the planned UNDAF results with the resources that the UNCT
expects, with a reasonable chance, to be able to mobilize.
When to do it: The medium-term CBF is developed after the results chain of the UNDAF is
defined (normally after a UNDAF Strategic Planning Retreat).48 The proposed CBF within the
UNDAF will be updated just before the UNDAF document is signed, based on the most up-todate financial figures provided by the agencies.
How to do it: The medium-term CBF is developed as an integral part of the UNDAF. The
costing and required budget projection should be developed by the same technical groups.
The UN agencies should designate staff from their respective programme, operations and
communications teams to work together with staff from budget/finance sections, under the
mechanisms of the Results Groups, Operations Management Team (OMT) and the Country
Communications Group CCG), respectively, to prepare the CBF. The Resident Coordinator’s
Office will put together estimates from all Results Groups, OMT, and CCG into the mediumterm CBF.
The estimation of funding requirements for outcomes can be based on different budgeting
approaches. The simplest approach is traditional budgeting (or incremental budgeting). This
budgeting approach uses historical data (e.g., past expenditures, delivery rates) and adjusts
for incremental changes. These incremental changes can be based on analyses of the scope of
the outcomes and the operational environment and some critical assumptions (e.g., inflation
rates, exchange rates, etc.). The key disadvantage of this approach is that by using historical
data as the base, it assumes that the past data represents effective and realistic costing
47
Refer to the UNDG Guidance on Conduct and Working Relations in the United Nations Country Team, in which United Nations
Country Team members are asked to “provide regular information on contributions to the Resident Coordinator.”
48 Refer to the FAQ of the One Programme Tools and Materials for a more detailed formulation timeline.
Page 87 of 185
already (which is not always the case). Alternatively, a priority-based budgeting approach can
be used, in which the UNDAF outcomes are put in priority order and a budget for each
outcome is set according to that order. The total budget envelop for the UNDAF can be
derived from the estimated available and committed resources from agencies (core and noncore) and the realistic resource mobilization target (which can be projected through
consultations with donors and partners early on in the UNDAF results formulation process).
The descriptive part of the overall resource requirement, indicative resource commitment by
different UUN agencies and the funding gap are presented in the UNDAF results matrix. The
more realistic the resource projection is, the more effective the CBF is as a tool for supporting
the planning, implementation and management of UNDAF results. It is important to note that
the resource commitments reflected in the UNDAF results matrix by all agencies is indicative,
but some offer more predictability than others for planning purposes. This is because the
budgeting cycle of UN agencies differ both in length and start-up timing, as well as nature of
budgetary commitment.
Monitoring and reporting:49 The monitoring requirements of the medium-term CBF are
carefully built into the monitoring mechanism of the UNDAF. The following is the suggested
process:
 Results Groups are responsible for monitoring UNDAF implementation progress in
terms of both results and financial delivery. They, together with the OMT and CCG,
will compile the periodic and annual financial updates as part of their overall update
of the UNDAF results matrix (including medium-term CBF) based on available
information. The medium-term CBF format (with some modifications, as required by
the UNCT) may be used for monitoring and tracking purposes; and
 all individual UN agencies will keep track of the resource situation including available
resources, actual expenditure, potential new resource commitments and the funding
gap related to the projects/programmes they are managing/executing; and provide
updated financial data to the Results Groups for the compilation exercise.
5. Developing the annual Common Budgetary Framework
Define the Annual Common Budgetary Framework
 As part of the joint work plans developed by the Results Groups (see the section on the One Programme),
each Results Group defines annual resource requirements, agency contributions per output (core and non49
Options for reducing the transaction costs related to the monitoring of and reporting on the Common Budgetary Fund will be
considered as part of the review process of these interim guidelines.
Page 88 of 185
core) and the annual funding gap as a contribution to the annual CBF.
 The resource requirements for each Results Group are to be compiled on a yearly basis by the member of
the UN Country Team leading the Results Group as part of the joint work plan. The annual CBF is tracked
and consolidated by the Resident Coordinator’s Office for all Results Groups (as part of the joint
programming results framework (see the section on the One Programme). The UN Country Team regularly
and jointly monitors progress on the CBF, including new pledges received by individual members of the UN
Country Team
Standard Operating Procedures, pp. 21, 22
The process: The annual CBF is developed as part of the process of preparing Joint Work Plans
by Results Groups.50 It is integral to the consolidated Joint Work Plans.
When to do it: The annual CBF for the first year of the UNDAF will be developed once JWPs
are finalized.51 Preparation of the subsequent annual CBF would start during the UNDAF and
JWPs annual review exercise and will help project resource availability, allocation and gaps
with better approximation for the following year.
How to do it: The annual CBF is prepared based on JWPs formulated by Results Groups and
the annual work plans of the OMT and CCG. The Results Groups, OMT, and CCG - along with
finance and budget staff of UN agencies - are responsible for elaborating the more specific
detailed projection for each of the outputs and then outcomes in the UNDAF using the annual
CBF format. The Resident Coordinator's Office will consolidate information drawn from JWPs
and work plans of the OMT and CCG to come up with the annual CBF. It is important that the
data consolidated in the annual CBF is verified by agencies and made available for review and
consideration by the UNCT.
Detailed estimates at the activity level are not required to be reflected in the annual CBF.
However, preparing a realistic budget estimate per output level may require information
drawn from work plans at the activity level and the costing of inputs and services based on
agency standard costs (activity-based, bottom-up budgeting approach). These data,
subsequently summarized at the output and outcome levels, are important for ensuring that
the annual CBF is based on well-informed and transparent estimations. At the same time, the
Results Group should be cognisant of and weigh the cost of gathering the information for the
annual CBF.
50
When Joint Work Plans are not developed, the annual Common Budgetary Framework is prepared based on agency-specific
annual work plans and annual work plans of the Operations Management Team and the Country Communications Group.
Agencies should share their annual work plans with the Resident Coordinator’s Office for consolidating the annual Common
Budgetary Framework.
51 Refer to the FAQ of the e One Programme Tools and Materials for more details on timeline.
Page 89 of 185
Monitoring and reporting: The annual CBF is a living tool that helps monitor the funding gap
required for the implementation of UNDAF outcomes and outputs through Joint Work Plans.
It feeds into the updating of the medium-term CBF. The Resident Coordinator's Office is in
charge of tracking the progress of the annual CBF and compiling biannual and annual financial
reports and/or periodic financial updates as part of UNDAF implementation updates or
progress report. The Results Groups are responsible for monitoring the implementation of
their respective JWPs and their parts of the annual CBF. UN agencies are responsible for
tracking their agencies’ annual resource situation.
6. Common Budgetary Framework formats
6.1 Medium-term Common Budgetary Framework format
The medium-term CBF is an integral part of the UNDAF results matrix as shown below. The
shaded part in the results matrix is the CBF.
UNDAF Results Matrix
National Development Priorities or Goals:
UN
agenc
y
Indicators Means of
,
verificatio
baselines,
n
targets
Risks and
Role of
assumption partner
s
s
Common Budgetary Framework indicative resources
Tota Core/
l
regular/
assesse
d
UNDAF
Outcome 1
Non-core/
other/extr
a
budgetary
Monitorin
g process
Monitoring
mechanis
m
To be
mobilize
d
(funding
gap)
UNDAF
Outcome 2
UNDAF
Outcome 3
Operation
s budget
Communi-cation
budget
TOTAL
OMT
CCG
The UNDAF Outcome rows should include an outcome statement, rather than just listing
them as “Outcome 1”, “Outcome 2” (as in this sample format). If there is more than one
agency contributing to an outcome, the UNCT can choose to: (a) list all agencies involved in
Page 90 of 185
that outcome under the 'UN agency' column and put in a total budget for that outcome; or
(b) put in separate budget lines for each agency contributing to that outcome.
It is advisable for the UNCT to consider integrating the operations and communications
budgets underneath the different UNDAF outcomes as part of the resources required for
delivering such outcomes (rather than making them separate budget lines, as is seen in the
above matrix). Operations and Communications can be listed as output(s) on development
effectiveness or operational efficiency in the UNDAF results matrix. This will help facilitate
resource mobilization for operations and communications as part of the total resources
needed for development results.
6.2 Annual Common Budgetary Framework format
The annual CBF is prepared on the basis of JWPs and as part of the annual review and
planning exercises. The below format of the annual CBF should be used by the UNCT to
summarize the financial requirements for each UNDAF priority area for each year of the
programme cycle. Each agency’s contribution should be shown in both the
'core/regular/assessed' resources column and the 'non-core/other/extra-budgetary'
resources column and indicate any funding gap.
Format for the annual CBF to be updated on the basis of Joint Work Plans
UN agency
Annual Resource Requirements
Total
Core/ regular/
assessed
Non-core/ other/extra
budgetary
To be mobilized
(funding gap)
UNDAF outcome 1
Output 1.1
Output 1.2 …
UNDAF outcome 2
Output 2.1
…
Operations*
Communications*
TOTAL
(*): Same advice as above: consider integrating operations and communications as output(s) under outcome(s) and reflect
this is in the annual resource requirements.
Page 91 of 185
The annual CBF format (above), provided that the core elements remain unchanged, may be
modified to suit the needs of the specific UNCT context. The UNCT may decide to streamline
the matrix if agreement is reached on some basic categories that help consolidate activities
so that the information is provided at the same level of detail across agencies. This table will
be prepared annually. There is no requirement for the annual CBF to be signed.
Page 92 of 185
CHAPTER 3.3.:
Technical note on Joint Resource Mobilization
Introduction
The United Nations Development Group (UNDG) has development Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) for countries wishing to adopt the Delivering as One approach. The SOPs are
based on the experiences and good practices of Delivering as One countries. They highlight a
number of key elements to be taken into account when adopting the Delivering as One (DaO)
approach. One of these elements is joint resource mobilization at the country level.
In many cases, contributions available to the United Nations system at country level are
insufficient to fund all the activities in a One Programme, leaving United Nations Country Teams
(UNCTs) with two options: either reduce the number of activities or engage in resource
mobilization to cover the funding gap.
The Advisory Note on Joint Resource Mobilization was developed on the basis of country
examples and good practices shared through the Coordination Practice Network, as well as a
desk review of guidance on joint resource mobilization in various fields. The note supports the
creation of a country-level joint resource mobilization strategy, based on United Nations
agencies working together to mobilize resources in support of a One Programme. Although this
note was prepared primarily to advise countries wishing to adopt the DaO approach, non-DaO
countries who wish to jointly mobilize resources may also find it beneficial.
Structure
This Advisory Note is structured in
five sections. The first section
examines basic concepts of joint
resource mobilization and outlines
objectives
and
principles
of
developing such a strategy.
The second section explains the steps
required to develop a joint resource
mobilization strategy and discusses
3. Governance
Structure
2. Development
& Management
of JRM Strategy
1. Objectives &
Principles
4. Monitoring
and Review
Joint
Resource
Mobilization
5.
Communication
and outreach
Page 93 of 185
the main considerations for managing the strategy.
The third section describes the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders. The fourth section
deals with monitoring the progress made on agreed targets and objectives. The final section
discusses the communication and outreach activities that are imperative to support joint
resource mobilization efforts. Links to examples of actual joint resource mobilization strategies
in various countries are provided.
This Advisory Note will be reviewed and revised as needed to keep up-to-date with changes in
the global context and to integrate good practices and experiences from field countries.
1.
Objectives and principles
A Joint resource mobilization strategy aims at ensuring a coherent approach to fund-raising activities in
the country, with inter-agency coordination under the leadership of the Resident Coordinator
representing all agencies’ interests. Joint resource mobilization will be supplemented by agency-specific
resource mobilization efforts.
As part of the United Nations Country Team Code of Conduct (see the section on One Leader), agree on
key principles driving a joint resource mobilization strategy at the country level, with the individual
agency fund-raising efforts complementing joint resource mobilization.
All joint resource mobilization activities need to be consistent with relevant policies of individual
agencies, including avoiding possible conflict of interest in relation to agencies’ normative and standardsetting work.
Rather than programme-/project-based resource mobilization throughout the year, strategic resourcemobilization efforts focusing on UNDAF outcomes, led by Resident Coordinator/Results Groups, and
providing a holistic overview of required resources will significantly reduce transaction costs for
governments, donors and the United Nations system.
Standard Operating Procedures, pp. 19, 20, 24
The funding situation of the United Nations collectively, as well as its individual funds,
programmes and specialized agencies, has changed over the last 15 years. Although growing
steadily, in the most recent four-year period (2008 to 2012), funding for development
channeled through the United Nations has stagnated. It is estimated that since 2008, in real
terms, overall funding has dropped by two percent52.
The overall development landscape likewise is changing rapidly. More and more actors have
joined the international development arena. In addition to the traditional OECD/DAC donors,
there is growing engagement of emerging economies, the private sector, philanthropic
foundations, global funds and other development partners.
52
Provisional analysis of funding of operational activities for development of the United Nations system
for the year 2012, report of the Secretary-General.
Page 94 of 185
Against this background, a strategic approach to United Nations resource mobilization becomes
critically important to fulfill the UN‘s mandates and commitments. Resource mobilization of the
United Nations is based first and foremost on a Common Budgetary Framework (CBF) which
provides a holistic overview of required, available and expected funding sources and funding
gaps to support delivery of a One Programme.
Taking a strategic approach to jointly mobilize resources to fill funding gaps identified in the
CBF serves the following purposes:
 reach UNCT agreement on how to finance the development results agreed upon for the
new strategic programming cycle;
 a higher probability of attaining One Programme outcomes and outputs by ensuring that
adequate resources are mobilized against a realistically-defined funding gap and timely
engagement with stakeholders;
 reduced competition among United Nations bodies for resources (as currently perceived
by both programme country governments and donors) while improving cooperation on
the basis of comparative advantages in resource mobilization;
 enhanced predictability of funding for the One Programme and its specific outcomes,
with a special focus on multi-year funding;
 lower transaction costs for partners and government counterparts due to more focused
engagement and fewer agreements with donors and reports; and
 better alignment with partner priorities and agendas.
In order to design and implement a joint resource mobilization strategy, the UNCT needs to
discuss and agree on a number of underlying principles. Securing agreement on principles from
the very beginning will ensure their application during the implementation stage. Principles that
require the agreement of participating United Nations agencies may include:
 pursuing a strategic focus;
 maintaining trust;
 managing expectations;
 communication and information sharing; and
 reviewing the results.
Refer to Annex 1 for concrete examples of such principles.
Page 95 of 185
Hints/Tips: Objectives
- Ensure UNCT buy-in and ownership of the Joint Resource Mobilization
strategy.
- Set and agree on objectives and principles of a Joint Resource
Mobilization strategy upfront as part of the One Programme
prioritization exercise.
- Focus Joint Resource Mobilization efforts on the highest programmatic
priorities involving several participating United Nations organizations.
- Pay attention to avoiding the use of core/regular resources to subsidize
non-core-financed activities in terms of operational cost (as called for in
the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review) when jointly mobilizing
non-core resources.
- Remember! Programme drives the funding, not the other way around.
- Do not set vague, unclear or too lengthy objectives.
- Do not limit agency-specific resource mobilization efforts; however
strongly encourage information sharing on results for planning and
budget management purposes.
Page 96 of 185
2.
Development and management of the Joint Resource Mobilization
strategy
A joint resource mobilization strategy should ideally be developed at the same time as the
finalization of a medium-term Common Budgetary Framework. The CBF reflects a
comprehensive funding picture of programme, operations and communications under the One
Programme and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). It is
important to integrate and coordinate resource mobilization efforts on programme, business
operations and communications; if there are funding gaps identified for harmonized business
operations or joint communications in the CBF, they should be addressed in the JRM strategy
together with the funding gap for programmatic areas. The JRM strategy is a living document
that, to remain constructive, must be updated regularly as new data and information becomes
available and in line with the annual CBF.53
As context varies from one country to another, there is no ‘one size fits all’ for a JRM strategy.
Strategic approaches, modalities and tactics will inevitably be different in low-income countries
as opposed to middle-income countries or net-contributing countries. The UNCT should hold
discussions based on sound analyses within the United Nations and with partners (as
appropriate), on how to finance proposed development results of the United Nations. Such
discussions will feed the preparation of a JRM strategy.
Generally, the preparation of a JRM strategy can be sub-divided into six key steps:
1. Define
realistic
funding gap
2. Agree on
strategic
approach to
financing
3. Analyze
external
environment
4. Match
potential
financing
sources to
unfunded
outcomes
5. Prioritize
potential
partners
6. Develop
the Joint
Resource
Mobilization
Strategy
53
The annual CBF is a yearly version of the medium-term CBF, based on joint work plans of the Results
Groups.
Page 97 of 185
2.1 Define the funding gap
If so decided by the UN Country Team and based on the principles agreed during medium-term
planning, a joint resource-mobilization strategy is developed. The UN is currently operating in an
environment with increasing challenges to mobilizing the required resources at the country level. Joint
resource mobilization strategies must be country specific, flexible and pragmatic and take into account
innovative sources of funding and partnerships.
The strategy will ensure that the Resident Coordinator-led joint mobilization of resources to cover the
identified funding gap is supplemented by individual agency resource-mobilization efforts, thus ensuring
transparent, effective inter-agency coordination of resource-mobilization efforts.
The annual Common Budgetary Framework will serve as the basis for regular monitoring of the funding
situation both in terms of priority setting for fund allocation and progress against the agreed resourcemobilization targets.
The mapping of donor priorities and approaches to financing is undertaken in order to facilitate a clear
delineation of resource-mobilization opportunities at the country level, including opportunities for One
Fund utilization.
Standard Operating Procedures, pp. 23, 24
The first thing to do is establish the extent of the funding gap – that is, the amount of resources
the UNCT needs to mobilize. The basis for this activity is the Common Budgetary Framework
(CBF) prepared as part of the One Programme (Hyperlink to One Programme Guidelines to be
added) development, as well as on an annual basis as part of the joint work plans.
There are three main funding sources that United Nations agencies can use to fund outcomes
and outputs in a One Programme:
1. regular/core or assessed resources of the participating United Nations organizations;
2. non‐core or extra‐budgetary/ earmarked and un‐earmarked of the participating United
Nations organizations – bilateral, multilateral, and private, received and pledged; and
3. resources to be mobilized and captured in the funding gap between existing resources
(1 and 2 above) and the total cost of the One Programme.
It should be noted that the resources per outcome/output refer to all programmatic,
operations and communications needs. The result is a mapping of resource availability per
outcome/output in the UNDAF or Joint Work Plans as well as an identified funding gap.
The more realistic the resource requirements and the defined funding gap, the more realistic it
will be to set and attain resource mobilization targets. Furthermore, if - based on the JRM
strategy - it becomes clear that the funding gap is too high compared to the expected level of
resource mobilization, the UNCT should consider adjusting the CBF to revise the funding gap
Page 98 of 185
downward. In many cases, the UNCT may also need to review the One Programme to prioritize
results and adjust the CBF accordingly.
2.2 Agree on a strategic approach to financing
The development of a CBF and identification of the funding gap is the basis for reaching
agreement on the UNCT‘s strategic approach to financing the agreed outcomes and outputs.
The UNCT should have a structured dialogue on financing, including discussions on: 1) how it
intends to fund the agreed priorities; 2) what are the comparative advantages of different
United Nations agencies in mobilizing resources; and 3) what approach and which instruments
should be employed. Such an agreement will help reduce the competition for funding and
uncoordinated outreach to development partners.
There are three approaches, or a combination thereof, that are applied at country level.
1. Resource mobilization by individual agencies for their programmes and projects.
Historically, fund-raising activities have been undertaken individually with limited
sharing of information among UNCT members. This approach, when applied in isolation
from the following two approaches, can lead to increased competition for funding for
the same objectives and over-funding in some areas and under-funding in others.
2. Coordinated resource mobilization. Individual agencies continue their fund-raising
activities without engaging in joint efforts, but there is an extensive sharing of
information among agencies. Such information flows should be managed within Results
Groups and lead to the identification of uncovered areas or over-funded priorities and
to a reduction in the competition for resources.
3. Joint resource mobilization. The United Nations collectively identifies the funding
requirements for common objectives and engages in joint resource mobilization,
bringing in their strengths and comparative advantages. UNCT fund-raising efforts are
based on prioritization, collective thinking and transparency. Joint resource mobilization
instruments that may be used in this context are the One Funds54 and Joint Programmes
(Hyperlink to Joint Programmes Guidelines to be added).
It should be noted that agency-specific resource mobilization, coordinated resource
mobilization and joint resource mobilization complement each other.
When applying a Delivering as One approach, for non-core resource mobilization, coordinated
efforts are required and joint efforts should be strongly promoted. Under Delivering as One,
United Nations agencies are expected to at minimum extensively share with each other
information on their resource mobilization activities to ensure coordinated outreach to
development partners. To this end, the UNCT should discuss and agree on establishing a clear
54
The One Fund is a multi-donor trust fund at the country level that normally encompasses all unfunded and
under-funded outcomes of the UNDAF/One Programme as identified in the Common Budgetary Framework.
Page 99 of 185
mechanism for information sharing among agencies, within the Results Groups and between
Results Groups. When the UNCT see opportunities for and the advantages of joint resource
mobilization over other approaches, joint efforts among agencies should be undertaken. It is
expected that over time the combination of coordinated and joint resource mobilization will
account for a major portion - or even 100 percent if possible - of non-core resources mobilized.
Figure: A long-term vision for non-core resources mobilization55
Current
Future
Agency-specific RM
Agency-specific RM
Coordinated and joint RM
Coordinated and Joint RM
Once the UNCT has agreed to engage in joint resource mobilization, it must decide which
programmatic priorities to focus on for joint mobilization efforts. Programmes are what drive
resource mobilization. The resources mobilized for programmatic priorities can be managed
through the One Fund or Joint Programmes or even, in some cases, agency-specific projects and
activities. The One Fund can be used to fund UNDAF/One Programme outcomes (including Joint
Programmes defined under those outcomes) included in its scope.56
To make a decision on using the One Fund, the UNCT will need to consider, among other things,
the financial viability of and costs involved in establishing and managing this mechanism. (Refer
to the Guidance Note on Establishing, Managing, and Closing Multi-Donor Trust Funds for
detailed guidance).
If the One Fund is not seen as a feasible or preferred option, an alternative funding instrument
is the stand alone Joint Programme.57 A Joint Programme is a set of activities contained in a
joint work plan and related common budgetary framework, involving two or more United
55
The pie chart illustrates the expected increase over time in the percentage of coordinated and joint resource
mobilization of total non-core resources mobilized, but does not necessarily reflect the absolute value of total
non-core resources.
56
The One Fund can also cover initiatives responding to emerging national priorities and needs not foreseen at the
time of UNDAF formulation.
57
In exceptional cases, the UNCT may consider a combination of a country-level multi-donor trust fund (which
covers some but not all unfunded/under-funded outcomes and outputs of UNDAF/One Programme) and standalone Joint Programmes.
Page 100 of 185
Nations organizations and (sub-) national governmental partners, intended to achieve results
aligned with national priorities as reflected in the outcomes of the UNDAF/One Programme.
The UNCT and interested United Nations agencies will need to consider meaningful
opportunities for developing Joint Programmes using a pass-through or pooled fund
management modality.
2.3 Analyze the external environment
For the UNCT to prepare and focus its joint resource mobilization efforts, it is useful to undergo
a mapping exercise of the potential and existing partners at the global, regional and country
levels, as well as their priority development areas.
In its discussions on a strategic approach to financing, the UNCT should consider possible
sources for accessing resources at different levels, including:
 traditional OECD/DAC donors;
 emerging donors, e.g. BRICS or MINT58;
 government cost sharing (especially in higher middle-income countries, Net
Contributing Countries (NCCs);
 global United Nations pooled funding mechanisms, e.g. Peacebuilding Fund, Human
Security Trust Fund, Violence Against Women Fund, etc.;
 global and regional non-United Nations funds, including regional development banks;
 philanthropic foundations and major individual donors;
 public-private partnerships; and
 other innovative sources of funding.
Links to some of these funding sources are provided in Annex 2, which will be regularly
updated.
Some guiding questions when analyzing the external environment may include:
 Who are the relevant stakeholders, including government, development partners (both
represented and non-represented partners, as well as traditional and non-traditional
donors) and other partners such as civil society at the country level? At regional and
global levels?
 What are possible innovative sources of funding?
 What are the development priorities and agendas of the identified partners for the
specific country?
 Which of these partners is positioned to be a value adding partner for cooperation with
the United Nations system, given their financial and technical resources that can be
made available at the country level?
 What is their preferred way of making financial and technical resources available?
58
BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa; MINT – Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey.
Page 101 of 185
In order to answer the above questions, United Nations agencies, under the UNCT’s guidance,
should collect and share information on relevant stakeholders and funding sources at country,
regional, and global levels, then conduct desk reviews and analyses. Some sources to help
analyze the external funding environment are provided in Annex 3. When information is not
easily accessible, the UNCT should devise creative ways to obtain such information. The UNCT
may need to liaise with regional and headquarters levels for additional donor intelligence.
After completing steps 2.2 and 2.3, please review the funding gap if the analysis undertaken in
these two steps indicates that there will be insufficient sources of funding. Consider making the
funding gap more realistic and/or further prioritize development results and priorities of the
One Programme.
2.4 Match potential financing sources to unfunded/under-funded outcomes and
outputs
This step calls for matching the unfunded and under-funded outcomes and outputs in the One
Programme and joint work plan to the potential funding sources, based on the source‘s
priorities and development agenda in the programme country.
Linking the partners’ priorities to United Nations activities will provide the foundation and focus
for cooperation between the donor and the United Nations system. The result of this matching
exercise is a partner-specific overview of outcomes and outputs that reflects the development
strategy of both the United Nations and the partner. Joint resource mobilization efforts with a
particular donor will focus on these outcomes and outputs.
It is critical at this stage to craft a positive image of United Nations performance and
comparative advantages in the eyes of potential partners.
2.5 Prioritize potential partners
For various reasons, some partners may be seen as adding more value than others.
Prioritization of partners is a key task of a joint resource mobilization strategy to ensure the
highest impact based on the time spent approaching various partners.
Identifying and prioritizing potential partners is somewhat subjective and may be based on a
wide range of criteria. Below are some factors that might sway a decision:
 financial or technical resources at the partner‘s disposal at the country level;
 a good existing working relationship with the partner;
 preferred partner of the government;
Page 102 of 185


high number of outcomes that the United Nations and the partner have in common; and
other comparative advantages of the partner, such as technical expertise, access to
political networks, proven track record, etc.
2.6 Develop a Joint Resource Mobilization strategy document
The next step is to develop a JRM strategy. As mentioned above, there is no standard JRM
strategy that fits all countries. It is up to the UNCT to make decisions on whether and how to
prepare a JRM strategy.
Once having decided to develop a JRM strategy, the UNCT should be ready to invest significant
effort in collecting and analyzing funding information and data, rigorously reviewing the
funding gap and engaging in structured dialogues within the United Nations system and
partners (when appropriate) to ensure that the strategy is a tactical, effective and pragmatic
guide for United Nations agencies to jointly raise funds.
Depending on the contents of the JRM strategy document, the UNCT can decide whether it
should be used internally only or can be shared externally.
A JRM strategy document may consist of the sections listed below.




Background. This section may cover, but not be limited to, key national priorities and
key results in the One Programme, an analysis of resource trends at the country level,
and the rationale for joint resource mobilization for the One Programme.
Key principles for joint resource mobilization of the United Nations system.
Resource requirements and funding gap for each strategic outcome and output area.
This section should refer to the CBF (see 2.1 above) and may include remarks (if any) on
the funding gap.
Possible financing partners and mechanisms at the global, regional and country levels
for each outcome and output area, with indications of possible extent of financing for
each partner against each outcome and output and overall resource mobilization
targets. This section should include the analyses from steps 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 above.
When setting annual resource mobilization targets, take into account the current UNDG
policy on thresholds for establishing and managing One Funds: the threshold for smaller
One Funds is $2 million annually and for larger One Funds is $5 million annually. (Hyper-
link to Advisory Note on Thresholds to be added).

An
alysis of United Nations agencies’ comparative advantages in resource mobilization and
how to take advantage of these for joint resource mobilization.
Page 103 of 185






Resource mobilization approaches to be used for each partner / outcome / output;
indicate whether a One Fund covering the entire unfunded portion of the UNDAF/One
Programme or specific Joint Programmes under selected UNDAF outcomes or outputs
will be used as the funding mechanism. This section should reflect the UNCT’s
agreement on who approaches which partners for fund-raising (based on agreed
approaches in step 2.2 and analyses of United Nations agencies’ comparative
advantages).
Governance structure for the management of the JRM strategy, possibly linked to the
governance of joint resource mobilization instruments (see Section 3).
United Nations system value proposition for each outcome and output for each key
partner and communication of the JRM strategy. This section should cover how and
what the United Nations communicates to
Country examples
relevant stakeholders to raise funds.
Implementation of the JRM strategy. This section
A number of examples of joint
describes how the strategy will be implemented
resource mobilization strategies
have been shared through the
and would include who is responsible for doing
Coordination Practice Network.
what, when and where.
Monitoring of the JRM strategy progress. This
These include:
section includes a monitoring framework with
clear targets, baselines, indicators, means of
Albania 2012-2016
verification, as well as a schedule for reviewing
Cape Verde 2008-2011
and updating the strategy;
Risks and rewards of the JRM strategy.
Guinea Bissau 2009-2012
(French)
After developing the joint resource mobilization strategy,
if it becomes clear that the funding gap continues to be
Malawi 2009-2011
far too high and the possibility of covering the gap is
Montenegro
2010-2015
relatively low, it is necessary to revisit the CBF and One Programme
and make
adjustments to
reduce the funding gap.
Papua New Guinea 2012-2015
Page 104 of 185
Hints/Tips: Process
- Estimate resource requirements and define the funding gap for
all key elements, i.e. One Programme, business operations,
communications, etc.
- Set a realistic funding gap; ideally, assess funding gaps based on
a well prioritized Common Budgetary Framework.
- Indicate resources as available only if they are in hard pipeline,
i.e. resources with a high probability of being made available by
the donor.
- Undertake detailed analysis only for those potential partners
that are more likely to be open for a partnership around a
common strategic outcome.
- Regularly update the Joint Resource Mobilization Strategy and
related plan with local donor intelligence. Relay intelligence
information to agencies' focal points at the headquarters level to
complement follow-up with donors at capital level.
- Prioritize those outcomes and outputs that have a clearly
identified funding gap.
- Ensure mutual accountability among United Nations agencies in
mobilizing resources. Define clear roles and responsibilities of
United Nations agencies per partner, outcome/output.
- Efforts that go into competition among agencies can be
'directed' for more productive use - coordinate!
- Don't focus JRM efforts in areas where there is no common
ground between the United Nations system and the partner's
development priorities.
- Don't commit to areas where the United Nations does not have
clear comparative advantage.
- Don't inflate the funding gap and budgets with the hope that this
will help resource mobilization efforts.
Page 105 of 185
3. Governance structure
It is critically important to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in
the development, implementation and management of the JRM strategy.
The main constituencies involved in joint resource mobilization are:
 Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee;
 Resident Coordinator and United Nations Country Team;
 Results Groups;
 Operations Management Team;
 Communications Group; and
 Resident Coordinator’s Office.
Joint National/UN
Steering Committee
RC Office
RC/UNCT
Results Group 1
Results Group 2...
Operations
Management Team
Communications
Group
The Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee will review and confirm the strategic
direction for the One Programme and will provide high-level oversight and support. Being an
integral part of the One Programme, the CBF with a defined funding gap will also be approved
by the Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee. This will build the basis for the
development of a JRM strategy with clear objectives and targets. Should the UNCT wish to
involve the government in setting the funding priorities in alignment with national
development priorities, the Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee will be
responsible for providing overall funding priorities for the One Programme.
According to the Standard Operating Procedures (page 21), the Resident Coordinator is
responsible for leading joint resource mobilization and for managing the One Fund
Page 106 of 185
transparently. Thus, the United Nations Resident Coordinator will lead the development,
management and monitoring of the JRM strategy.
The UNCT members, through Results Groups (in programmes), Operations Management Team
(in harmonized operations) and Communications Group (in joint communications), define the
joint resource mobilization targets, the preferred financing instruments to use to reach these
targets, and actively participate in joint and coordinated resource mobilization efforts. They
also monitor progress and share information.
Information on new resources mobilized or any changes in expected resources must be shared
on a timely basis with the Resident Coordinator/Resident Coordinator’s Office for realistic
monitoring and updating of the Common Budgetary Framework. The Resident Coordinator will
also inform the UNCT, including non-resident agencies on funding opportunities.
Standard Operating Procedures, p. 24
The Resident Coordinator’s Office will support joint resource mobilization efforts through
consolidation of the CBF developed by the Results Groups/Operations Management Team/
Communications Group, thus keeping the funding gap up-to-date. The RCO will serve as a
central repository of all information with reference to mobilized resources, both by individual
agencies and through joint efforts. The RCO will also facilitate development, monitoring and
review of the JRM strategy.
Regional Directors could play an important role in bringing coherence in donor approaches
within the region in order to minimize individual fundraising by different One Funds in the
region.
Page 107 of 185
Hints/Tips: Roles and Responsibilities
- Ensure there is agreement upfront on roles and responsibilities.
Make clear the distinct roles (firewall) of the Resident Coordinator in
mobilizing resources for the United Nations system vs. for individual
United Nations agencies.
- Engage government counterparts in joint resource mobilization
when applicable and possible.
- Encourage government cost sharing as part of joint resource
mobilization.
- Engage United Nations communications specialists in the
implementation of the joint resource mobilization strategy.
- In countries with a complicated or challenging resource
mobilization environment, consider setting up a Resource
Mobilization committee or group, chaired by a UNCT member,
reporting to RC/UNCT, to ensure focused JRM efforts and consistent
tracking of JRM progress.
- Don't leave the roles and responsibilities, as well as accountability
lines, too vague.
- Don't exclude some constituencies in favor of others.
- Don't be restrictive in providing access to information.
Page 108 of 185
4.
Monitoring and review
The United Nations Country Team will undertake active monitoring and continuously adapt
fund-raising and management strategies to address identified bottlenecks and focus on the
most critical programme priorities and gaps.
Standard Operating Procedures, p. 24
After spending much time and effort in conceptualizing and implementing a JRM strategy, it is
important to know if it is working, or if there is a need to make adjustments midstream.
Monitoring implementation of the JRM strategy and its progress towards agreed targets is
critically important.
There are many benefits to monitoring resource mobilization, some of which are highlighted
below.
 Current performance data obtained from monitoring efforts can alert users to problem
areas, such as duplication, and decisions can be made on how to adjust or modify the
strategy.
 Monitoring demonstrates the United Nations’ commitment to accountability.
 Continuous learning and flexibility through monitoring contributes to improvement in
results and allows for reprioritization of the strategy based on available financing
contributions.
Determining the timing for the monitoring and review of the JRM strategy will largely depend
on the indicators/targets set and the results or processes being appraised. However, at
minimum, progress towards the achievement of agreed targets and any need to review the JRM
strategy should be addressed during the annual programme review exercise. Lessons learned,
any major changes to the strategy and its targets, as well as recommendations will feed into the
development of the following year‘s CBF as part of the joint work plans.
Determining how joint resource mobilization efforts will be monitored is one of the critical
factors for successful resource mobilization. These questions should be discussed:
 What will be the sources of information? Who will provide it?
 What tools or methods will be used to obtain the information (e.g., interviews, visits,
finance reports)?
 Who will compile the information? What framework will be used?
Monitoring of the JRM progress should be performed by the Results Groups in close
cooperation with the Resident Coordinator’s Office, making use as much as possible of existing
tools and instruments (e.g., the CBF, One Programme M&E framework, One UN Results Report,
etc.).
Page 109 of 185
The review of the JRM strategy should be undertaken under the leadership of the Resident
Coordinator with the facilitation support of the Resident Coordinator’s Office and substantive
discussions held within the Results Groups. Government counterparts and key development
partners may be engaged in the review of the JRM strategy if the UNCT sees an added value of
involving these stakeholders in the process.
Mobilizing resources is not limited to raising funds. Other questions that need to be asked to
measure financial performance are below.
 How much did it take to mobilize a particular donor contribution?
 What is the average contribution per donor?
 What is the value of contributions compared to the cost of managing the agreements
and obligations?
This information can help understand the real costs of mobilizing resources (e.g. cost per dollar
raised for a specific activity; or cost per donor acquired), the contribution levels that can be
expected toward United Nations work in the next year, etc.
Other non-financial questions can help measure performance in building the overall donor
partner base. These include:
 How many new partnerships were established?
 What is the share of multi-year contributions as compared to the total value of
resources received?
 What is the level of earmarking, i.e. un-earmarked (contributed at the fund level), softly
earmarked (contributed at the outcome level) and/or hard earmarked (contributed at
the project or programme level)?
 Is the United Nations acquiring donors who give only once, or have there been repeat
donors?
 How long does it take from the time a proposal is submitted to a donor to the time a
response is received?
Page 110 of 185
Hints/Tips: Monitoring
- Make sure monitoring and review of the JRM strategy are done and
properly communicated to the key stakeholders.
- Highlight the progress and benefits of the JRM strategy to the participating
United Nations organizations.
- Measure success against the goals and targets that were set at the
beginning and reflect the changes in your planning exercises.
- Keep it fresh: a JRM strategy can quickly become out-dated and
redundant. It is important to revisit and revise it on a regular basis to
ensure that it stays relevant and on target.
- Remember: the success of any resource mobilization effort depends on
the results achieved and demonstrated and, in the longer term, on the
reputation and trust bult with the partner.
- Don't reinvent the wheel: utilize the analytical work that was already
undertaken, use existing mechanisms and reporting processes to share
results.
- Don't fail to keep the JRM strategy in line with the strategic direction of the
One Programme.
Page 111 of 185
5.
Communication and outreach
Once the JRM strategy is in place, it is paramount that United Nations agencies and staff
members use it to communicate and reach out to development partners for fund-raising.
Resource mobilization for the United Nations system is the responsibility of not only the UNCT
but also every United Nations staff member in the country. Therefore, it is necessary for staff
members to understand the strategic directions of joint resource mobilization, to be aware of
the general messaging for development partners and to be briefed and trained on resource
mobilization.
5.1 Craft joint messaging
A UNCT strategy on joint messaging related to the JRM strategy is an important first step.
Messaging may include a general message for all development partners and customized
messages for key potential partners.
The UNCT is responsible for the development of these messages and may wish to request (and
guide) the Country Communications Group to work closely with the Results Groups to create
the general and customized messages.
The general message must make the needs and causes known. It can highlight the strengths
and advantages of the United Nations. It might also stress the importance of the proposed
impact of the United Nations One Programme on the country’s national development. It is
useful to put this general message in the format of one-page flyer or leaflet.
Tailored messages for key potential development funding partners should be prepared based
on an analysis of the partner’s main interests and the United Nations system’s value
proposition for each outcome/output for that partner (as presented in the JRM strategy). Some
common donor interests such as demonstrable results, value for money and efficiency,
accountability and transparency, and quality and timely reporting should also be considered
when developing messages.
It is important to emphasize that successful resource mobilization depends on programmatic
performance, the perceived relevance and the reputation and credibility of the United Nations
system more than on resource mobilization activities themselves. Attaining development
results is the foundation for resource mobilization success.
5.2 Reach out to partners
The UNCT can use both traditional and innovative ways to reach out to development partners.
It is critical to solidify partnerships with donors through:
Page 112 of 185



donor meetings (both one-on-one and group meetings);
periodic face-to-face donor briefings (e.g., luncheon briefings to provide updates on
results achieved, initiatives, and/or resource mobilization); and
periodic information updates (newsletters/bulletins) covering different results areas,
etc.
Regularly reviewing donors’ long-term priorities and interests will help ensure suitable
messaging is delivered at such meetings and briefings. Communication should draw upon and
clearly present available information on the problems to be addressed by the programme and
the expected benefits and resources required. It is worth keeping in mind that presentation of
hard data is often more persuasive when illustrated by personal examples of how the
programme will improve the lives of individuals, for example using images, video and personal
narratives.
5.3 Engage new partners
Look for opportunities to engage with new partners. Entering discussions with emerging donors
at various fora may help to identify whether their interests are in line with results areas under
the One Programme.
Invite emerging donors and new potential funding partners identified in the JRM strategy to
briefings to discuss how the United Nations supports the country’s development, how the
United Nations works, and what benefits there are in working with the United Nations or
funding their activities. Ensure that potential donors understand the United Nations better and
create an interest for them to partner with the organization.
In the context of constrained financial resources for development, United Nations agencies
should also consider approaching non-traditional donors and funding sources including the
private sector and foundations.
5.4 Communicate regularly
In addition to fulfilling official reporting requirements, the United Nations must keep lines of
communication open with donors throughout programme implementation and regularly share
programmatic updates and results achieved. This is important to build confidence and show
that resources are being used effectively and that they are helping to achieve concrete results.
Not doing so may jeopardize future funding opportunities. It is advisable to set up a mechanism
to systematically collect feedback from donors on their satisfaction related to information and
reports received.
Page 113 of 185
In some circumstances donors may also have communication and visibility requirements linked
to programme or project activities, such as the use of the donor logo on reports and
publications or acknowledgement of their funding through a press release about the
contribution. Clarify the donor’s communications and visibility expectations at the outset and
make a clear agreement with the donor about what will and can be provided. In general, donor
recognition should focus more on how the donor’s contribution is improving lives rather than
focusing on the partnership itself.
Overall, effective public communication about the United Nations, its role, the work it does
and, in particular, the results it achieves will help create a positive environment that is
conducive to effective resource mobilization.
Page 114 of 185
ANNEX 1 – Examples of main principles to be discussed and agreed upon by the
United Nations Country Team
Pursue a strategic focus:
 Being a partner of the government, the United Nations will mobilize resources for the
country, and not for the United Nations.
 Decisions on key resource mobilization and allocation targets will be guided by strategic
priorities defined in the One Programme. The United Nations needs to balance multiple
priorities without exacerbating the strong perception that the United Nations has an
internal competition for funds.
 To ensure a focus on national priorities and allow for maximum flexibility in planning
and fund allocation, multi-year and un-earmarked donor contributions are encouraged
as much as possible. If this is not possible, earmarking is possible at the highest
thematic/area/outcome level. Nevertheless, the proportion of this earmarking should
be minimized and should be reduced to zero in countries with a small One Fund.
 Resource mobilization efforts will primarily focus on securing funds for coherent and
relatively large programmes that offer the prospect of longer-term impact than for
smaller individual projects, which are often time limited.
Maintain trust:
 All participating United Nations organizations will be equally responsible for building
trust in the quality of the United Nations deliverables, including analysis, policy advice,
product lines, as well as the capacity to build networks and deliver results.
 All participating United Nations organizations will equally contribute to the
establishment of close and professional working relations with donors based on
credibility and transparency.
 Partnerships will be established beyond financial agreements, which means reciprocity
in the relationship – be a source of knowledge and information for partners at any time,
even if information is not related to the United Nations core operations.
 Interests and concerns of all participating United Nations organizations will be respected
and treated in a fair and transparent manner.
Manage expectations:
 To ensure delivery of results, it is essential for all participating United Nations
organizations to have clear understanding of their individual and collective
responsibilities from the very beginning.
 Accountabilities of various participating United Nations organizations should be fostered
through results-based management.
Communicate and share information:
Page 115 of 185



Individual participating United Nations organizations can and should continue to engage
with development partners ensuring coordination between various development
partners’ initiatives and raising awareness of the One Programme.
Participating United Nations organizations will be regularly informed of any resource
mobilization initiative and subsequent results. To make this possible, the participating
United Nations organizations will provide regular information to their partner agencies
through the Resident Coordinator’s Office.
Staying abreast of donor interests and needs at all levels (global, regional and country) is
key to successful resource mobilization. Through the Resident Coordinator’s Office, the
repository of donor mapping and updated donor profiles, the organizations should
continuously update their intelligence on donor interests and information needs, as well
as on their preferred fund management approaches.
Review results:
 A successful and sustained resource mobilization effort greatly depends on having a
strong monitoring and evaluation system in place. It will contribute to quality reporting
on the achieved results, both programmatic and financial.
 Honest and transparent evaluation of the use of funds and their impact in related areas
is crucial in maintaining the credibility of the entire effort and trust of current and future
donors.
 A strong financial monitoring and evaluation system for resource mobilization also
means equitable access to information by all participating United Nations organizations.
Page 116 of 185
ANNEX 2 –Sources for the United Nations Country Team to consider when
developing a Joint Resource Mobilibation strategy
This list will be updated regularly to support UNCTs in their resource mobilization work. 59 It
does not include the Thematic Trust Funds administered by individual United Nations agencies
that are normally represented at the level of the UNCT.
United Nations global multi-donor trust funds administered by the Multi-Partner Trust Fund
office
The Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF) office assists the United Nations system and national
governments to establish and administer pooled financing mechanisms – multi-donor trust
funds (MDTFs) - and to collect and allocate funding from a diversity of financial contributors to
a wide range of implementing entities in a coordinated manner. The MDTFs and Joint
Programmes administered by the MPTF office range from humanitarian to transition,
development and climate change sectors. As of March 2014, the MPTF office administers over
60 MDTFs and 40 Joint Programmes with a total fund amount of around $7 billion. This
portfolio included a number of United Nations global funds with ongoing programmatic
activities at country level.
For more information visit the MPTF Office GATEWAY at http://mptf.undp.org/.
The MPTF office portfolio includes:
 Peacebuilding Fund (PBF)60: established in 2005 through General Assembly and Security
Council resolutions to fund critical support during moments of political transition
following a crisis. It has two funding facilities to respond to different country contexts.
The Peacebuilding and Recovery Facility (PRF) supports a structured and longer-term
peacebuilding processes driven by national actors, while the Immediate Response
Facility (IRF) is a flexible and fast project-based funding tool designed to jump-start
immediate and urgent peacebuilding efforts. ($570 million.)
 United Nations Fund for Action Against Sexual Violence in Conflict (UN Action) 61:
established with the goal of ending sexual violence during and in the aftermath of
armed conflict. ($19 million.)
59
The information in this annex was largely derived from “Financing Resilience: The role of pooled financing
mechanisms in improving the coverage, coordination and coherence of early recovery efforts and strengthening
synergies between humanitarian, development and climate finance,” by Fiona Bayat-Renoux and Yannick
Glemarec, UNDP MPTF Office.
60
http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/PB000.
61
http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/UNA00.
Page 117 of 185
United Nations global pooled funds administered by the United Nations Secretariat and
others




Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF): established by the General Assembly in 2006
to enable more timely and reliable humanitarian assistance to those affected by natural
disasters and armed conflicts. The CERF has a loan and grant facility. The grant facility
supports: i) rapid response, life-saving humanitarian activities in the initial stages of a
sudden-onset crisis or a significant deterioration in an existing emergency; and ii)
underfunded emergencies. The CERF is administered by the United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Since its inception, the CERF has
received more than $3.3 billion.
United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security (UNTFHS) 62: established in 1999 and
addresses a wide range of transition issues.
United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Trafficking in Persons: established
in 2010 and administered by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). It
provides assistance and protection to victims of trafficking for their recovery and
reintegration into their communities.
United Nations Voluntary Trust Funds for 1) Victims of Torture and 2) Contemporary
Forms of Slavery: While the main focus of these two funds is related to human rights,
they do cover certain specific peacebuilding elements, such as sexual exploitation and
children in armed conflict. These funds are administered by the United Nations Office of
the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR).
Trust Funds managed by the World Bank
As of 31 March 2012, the World Bank managed about 220 different trust funds with a total
amount of around $30 billion. Many of the trust funds are accessible to international
organizations (including United Nations agencies). Refer to the World Bank’s Directory of
Programs Supported by Trust Funds 2012 and 2011 Trust Fund Annual Report for more
information (www.worldbank.org/cfp).

62
World Bank Statebuilding and Peacebuilding Fund (SPF) 63: created in 2008 to build
resilience to conflict and strengthen governance in countries affected by fragility and
conflict. The Fund is primarily a recipient-executed facility, with funds flowing to
governments, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations and the United
https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/HSU/Backgroundpercent20onpercent20thepercent20UNTFHS.pdf.
63
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/STRATEGIES/EXTLICUS/0,,contentMDK:220317
72~menuPK:519150~pagePK:64171531~piPK:64171507~theSitePK:511778,00.html.
Page 118 of 185
Nations. The fund can support Bank-executed activities carried out on behalf of the
recipient in some circumstances. ($168 million for 2010-2012.)64

Water and Sanitation Program65: a multi-donor partnership administered by the World
Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe and sustainable access to
water and sanitation services. Has supported initiatives in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Liberia, Myanmar (jointly with UNICEF), Somalia and Zimbabwe. Total
disbursement for fiscal years 2011 -2013: $38.5 million.

Global Agriculture and Food Security Program66: a multilateral mechanism to support
national and regional strategic plans for agriculture and food security in poor countries.
Finances medium to long-term investments needed to raise agricultural productivity,
link farmers to markets, reduce risk and vulnerability, improve non-farm rural
livelihoods and scale up the provision of technical assistance and capacity building.
($989 million.)

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund):67 finances diseasespecific programmes and programme components focused more broadly on health
system strengthening. (Fourth replenishment concluded in 2013 to cover the period
2014 – 2016: $1,200 million in new pledges.)

For climate change adaptation and energy access funds administered by the World
Bank, see below.
African Development Bank (AfDB) Fragile States Facility68: a large funding mechanism
primarily focused on medium- to long-term conflict prevention and peacebuilding outcomes.
(From 2011 – 2013: $1,176 million.)
European Union Instrument for Stability: aims to help build capacity both to address specific
global and trans-regional threats having a destabilizing effect and to ensure preparedness to
address pre- and post-crisis situations.
Climate Change Financing for Adaptation
64
PBSO (2012): Analysis and comparison of global conflict and fragility focused financing instruments, draft 17
April.
65
https://wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/WSP-End-Year-Report-FY13.pdf.
66
www.gafspfund.org/content/about-gafsp.
67
www.theglobalfund.org/en/ and World Bank. Financial Intermediary Funds.
68
PBSO (2012). Analysis and comparison of global conflict and fragility focused financing instruments. Draft 17
April.
Page 119 of 185

The Global Environment Facility: this serves as an operating entity of the financial
mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
and works under the guidance of the Council and the Conference of the Parties (COP). It
supports mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries and countries with
economies in transition and is the largest funder of projects focused on global
environmental challenges. The GEF administers three trust funds:
1) Global Environment Trust Fund (GEF) which has received a total of $15 billion during
five replenishments.
2) Least Developed Countries Fund for Climate Change (LDCF): addresses the unique
needs of the 48 Least Developed Countries (LDCs), which are especially vulnerable to
the adverse impacts of climate change. Includes adaptation, climate-resilience and
disaster risk reduction $ As of October 31, 2013, cumulative pledges to the LDCF
amounted to $782.53 million, of which $700.58 million had been received.69
3) Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF): implements adaptation interventions to expand
and fortify the resilience of specific national sectors to the expected effects of
climate change. $110
69

United Nations Frameworks Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Adaptation
Fund: assists developing country Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting the costs of adaptation.
It finances concrete adaptation projects and programmes that are country driven and
are based on the needs, views and priorities of eligible Parties. Adaptation projects can
be implemented at the community, national, and transboundary level. ($300-500 million
by end 2012.)

Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP): launched by the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in 2012 to make climate and
environmental finance work for smallholder farmers. Provides a new source of cofinancing to scale up and integrate climate change adaptation across IFAD’s
approximately $1 billion per year of new investments. ($240 million of commitments as
per November 2012. Additional commitment of $80 million on performance-basis.)

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR): a targeted programme of the Strategic
Climate Fund (see below). It funds technical assistance and investments to support
countries’ efforts to integrate climate risk and resilience into core development planning
and implementation. It provides incentives for scaled-up action and initiates
transformational change by catalyzing a shift from “business as usual” to broad-based
www.thegef.org/gef/LDCF.
Page 120 of 185
strategies for achieving climate resilience at the country level. PPCR programmes build
on National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) and other national development
programmes and plans. ($1.3 billion has been pledged to date.)70

Asian Development Bank (ADB) Climate Change Fund (CCF): established in 2008 to
effectively address the causes and consequences of climate change. ($14 million for
adaptation activities to build resilience.)

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR): established in 2008, helps
developing countries reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards and adapt to climate
change. In particular, Track III supports sustainable recovery by providing ex-post
support to developing countries to fast-track disaster recovery and to ensure that future
risk reduction measures are incorporated into post-disaster recovery plans and
programmes. (Pledged contributions: $342 million as of May 2014).
Energy Access Focused Funds
70

ClimDev-Africa Special Fund (CDSF): a joint initiative of the African Development Bank
(AfDB), the African Union Commission (AUC) and the United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa (UNECA). Strengthens institutional capacities of national and subregional bodies to formulate and implement effective climate-sensitive policies and the
implementation of pilot adaptation practices. ($136 million.)

End User Finance for Access to Clean Energy Technologies in South and South-East
Asia (FACET): Supports end-users to afford to purchase clean energy technologies on a
cash basis and pay up front for the long-term, low-carbon and low-maintenance energy
supply these systems can provide. (Euro 30-69 million.)

Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (GEEREF): structured as a ‘fund of
funds.’ It invests in private equity funds that specialize in providing equity finance to
small- and medium-sized project developers and enterprises (SMEs) who finance smalland medium-sized renewable energy and energy efficiency projects and enterprises in
developing countries and economies in transition. Prioritizes renewable energy which
benefits rural populations (including hydro, solar, wind and biomass), solar heaters,
cookers, and pasteurizers, wind pumps and improved cook stoves. (Euro 108 million.)

Strategic Climate Fund (SCF): an overarching fund to support targeted programmes with
dedicated funding to pilot new approaches with potential for scaled-up,
transformational action aimed at a specific climate change challenge or sectoral
response. The SCF includes three targeted programmes: i) The Scaling-Up Renewable
/www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/4, accessed on 30 January 2014.
Page 121 of 185


Energy in Low Income Countries Program (SREP), approved in May 2009, which aimed at
demonstrating the economic, social and environmental viability of low carbon
development pathways in the energy sector by creating new economic opportunities
and increasing energy access through the use of renewable energy. It focuses on
renewable energy projects such as wind and solar energy, small hydropower and
biomass, and geothermal energy. The programme also considers cooking and heating
projects as well as sustainable forests, biogas and other renewable based fuels. The
total size of the SREP fund is $318 million; ii) the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience
(PPCR); and iii) the Forest Investment Program (FIP).
Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa (SEFA)71: administered by the African Development
Bank to support small and medium clean energy and energy efficiency projects in Africa.
SEFA provides advisory, grant resources for technical assistance and capacity-building,
as well as investment capital, to both off-set preparation costs and crowd-in additional
investment. ($57 million.)
The Seed Capital Assistance Facility (SCAF)72: helps energy investment funds in Asia and
Africa to provide seed financing to early stage clean energy enterprises and projects.
The Facility is implemented through the United Nations Environment Programme, the
Asian Development Bank and the African Development Bank. ($10.5 million.)
Other general financial sources
Ford Foundation: www.fordfoundation.org/.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: www.gatesfoundation.org.
The Clinton Foundation: www.clintonfoundation.org/.
71
72
http://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/sustainable-energy-fund-for-africa/
www.scaf-energy.org/about/introduction.html.
Page 122 of 185
ANNEX 3 –Sources for external environment analysis
Centre for Global Development Commitment to Development Index
(www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/).
European Union Accountability Report 2012 on Financing for Development
(http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/developmentpolicies/financing_for_development/accountability_report_2012_en.htm).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Development Assistance
Mapping tool (ADAM)
(www.fao.org/tc/adam/data/index.html?view=DONORMATRIX&recipientISO3=MDA).
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Economic Outlook reports
(www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/economicoutlook.htm).
OECD Aid Statistics (www.oecd.org/dac/stats/).
OECD statistics (www.oecd.org/statistics/).
OECD’s Country Programmable Aid (www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/cpa.htm).
Official United Nations documents on Financing for Development
(www.un.org/esa/ffd/documents/ga_ffd.htm) .
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) World Economic Situation
and Prospects Report (www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/index.shtml/).
United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Development Cooperation Forum
(www.un.org/en/ecosoc/dcf/index.shtml).
The World Bank data (http://data.worldbank.org/).
The World Bank Global Economic Prospects
(http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0) .
Page 123 of 185
CHAPTER 4:
One Fund
SECTION 4.1.
Principles and Policy
[TO BE ADDED FROM THE SOPS]
Page 124 of 185
SECTION 4.2.:
Establishing/Managing/Closing MDTFs incl. One Funds – Tools
and Materials
[TO BE ADDED]
Page 125 of 185
SECTION 4.3.:
Technical note on Performance-based Allocation Criteria for
One Funds
Introduction
The United Nations Development Group (UNDG) has developed Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) for countries wishing to adopt the Delivering as One approach. The SOPs highlight a
number of key elements to be taken into account when adopting the Delivering as One (DaO)
approach. One of them is performance-based allocation criteria for the One Fund.
A Common Budgetary Framework and One Fund are one of the key pillars of the DaO approach.
Section 3 of the SOPs provides general guidance on this pillar, including operationalization and
management of joint funding approaches. However, recognizing the need for more detailed
advice and guidance on management of Multi-donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) and One Funds, this
Technical Note is prepared to supplement the existing Guidance on Establishing, management
of MDTFs including One Funds, and as part of SOPs package.
This document offers advice on establishment and application of One Fund allocation criteria to
prioritize resources and, ultimately, to help improve the results of a One Programme. The
information herein is based on experience and lessons learned from a number of DaO
countries. This guidance complements the UNDG Guidance Note on Establishing, Managing,
and Closing Multi Donor Trust Funds (December 2011).
The Technical Note consists of five sections: (i) objectives and principles of setting performancebased allocation criteria in managing a One Fund; (ii) governance structures necessary for the
development and application of the criteria; (iii) the process of setting up prioritization and
allocation criteria; (iv) application of the criteria in allocation processes; (v) review and revision
of criteria, and (vi) full country examples.
This Note aims to assist UN teams in formulating allocation criteria when preparing concept
notes and terms of references for One Funds, and applying such criteria when managing those
One Funds after their establishment.
The Note will be reviewed periodically and revised accordingly to keep current with changes in
the global context and implementation experience in the field.
Page 126 of 185
1. Objectives and principles of One Fund allocation criteria
1.1 Basic concepts
The allocation of resources generally follows three main principles below.
1.1_ Performance (or effectiveness): This means the quality of results achieved from
utilizing the resources, or in other word, the effectiveness of resource utilization.
Resources should be allocated in a way that effectively contributes to achieving the
intended results or goals.
1.2_ Needs: This means the requirement of resources to be made available to attain
the intended results. Resources should be allocated in a way that takes into account
the recipient’s need for the resource. This is when prioritization and equity come
into play. Often, resources are not sufficient to cover all needs and hence have to be
allocated in priority order. Therefore, needs must be reviewed and prioritized. In
prioritizing needs, equity (or fairness and impartiality) among resource recipients
must be taken into account.
1.3_ Transparency: This means the resource allocation regulations and processes
should be clear and made available to all relevant parties.
Many development institutions and international organizations have been using performancebased allocation (PBA) system (vs. need-based allocation) for more effective resource
allocation, especially when resources are limited. PBA systems place an emphasis on the link
between performance and allocation. Central to any PBA system are allocation criteria which
specify how performance is weighed in the allocation decision.
In the context of One Funds, all DaO pilot countries and some self-starter countries have
developed a PBA system to allocate jointly mobilized funds for the One Programme. The
systems and criteria in different countries evolve over time. Although not identical across
programme countries, the systems and allocation criteria in these countries share many
similarities.
1.2 Objectives of setting One Fund performance-based allocation criteria
Page 127 of 185
One Fund allocation processes should be agreed, which are harmonized and performance-based, with the latter
supporting accountability of agencies for producing results with the resources allocated. Harmonized
performance criteria will improve the results focus and transparent allocation of resources.
Standard Operating Procedures, p. 23.
Objectives of setting One Fund performance-based allocation criteria normally include:





maximizing the effectiveness of the One Programme implementation to deliver expected
results;
incentivizing good performance;
facilitating the prioritization of limited financial resources among competing funding needs
and requests;
ensuring that funding is channeled to support strategic priorities defined by the programme
governments and the UN; and
ensuring transparency and fairness in allocation of resources.
Apart from the above objectives, in a number of programme countries, the performance-based
allocation criteria also aim to promote joint programming and collective resource mobilization
through including specific criteria on joint programming and collective resource mobilization
efforts with by giving them notable weights in the overall criteria system.
Hints & tips:
- Objectives should be set and agreed up-front at the establishment of a One Fund among all
relevant stakeholders.
- Objectives should take country specific situation into consideration.
- Objectives should be used as the fundamental guide for development and selection of
allocation criteria.
- Do not set either too vague or too lengthy objectives.
- Do not set too many objectives.
1.3 Principles underpinning the development and application of performance-based
allocation criteria
Page 128 of 185
The definition, development and application of One Fund PBA criteria in programme countries
are guided by a number of principles which are determined by the Joint National/UN Steering
Committee at the time of setting up the One Fund.
Depending on the situation in each country, the Joint National/UN Steering Committee can
define different principles. The Steering Committee may adopt (but are not limited to) the
following common key principles:

The One Fund is open to all UN agencies signatory to the One Programme, but it is not an
entitlement fund. All agencies participating in the One Programme can request for fund
allocated from the One Fund. The One Fund, however, will be strategically allocated to
support the effective implementation of the One Programme. The Fund can be used to
incentivize joint programming and effective programme implementation.

One Fund allocations respect national strategic priorities. Allocations from the One Fund are
driven by national strategic priorities under the leadership of the UNCT (and, where
applicable, the host country government, depending on country context). In addition to
supporting the already known national priorities and strategies, the One Fund should also
be allocated to respond to emerging national issues and priorities.

One Fund allocations reflect a focus on results. The One Fund allocation criteria emphasize
performance and results (e.g., achievement of annual deliverables and targets,
contributions to the attainment of One Programme outcomes and national development
strategies).
 One Fund allocations encourage UN ‘jointness’. The One Fund allocation criteria prioritize
joint programming, joint resource mobilization and joint implementation efforts.
 One Fund allocations encourages strengthened linkages between normative and operational
work of the UN system within the One Programme and supports integration of UN
programming principles and cross cutting issues, such as human rights-based approaches,
gender equality and environmental sustainability.

One Fund allocations ensure objectivity and fairness. The One Fund allocation criteria should
be developed in a way that is not biased to any recipient. The criteria should be applied in a
consistent manner throughout the allocation process.
Page 129 of 185
Hints & tips:
- Principles should ideally be set together with objectives, with agreement of all relevant
stakeholders.
- Principles should be clear and succinct.
Do not confuse the principles of setting One Fund allocation criteria with those of managing the One
Fund.
2. Governance arrangements for One Fund allocation
Within the UNCT, agreement must be reached on the government’s role in the strategic direction of
the One Fund as well as in the allocation processes through the Joint National/UN Steering Committee,
and duly communicated to the government.
Standard Operating Procedures, p. 23.
Joint National/UN
Steering Committee
UNCT/RC
Secretariat
(RCO)
Results Group
Review Team
Results Group
Results Group
Page 130 of 185

The Joint National/UN Steering Committee is established at the strategic level under the
leadership of the host country government and the UN Resident Coordinator. One of the
principal roles of the Committee is to provide strategic oversight and direction with regard
to management of the One Fund.
When preparing the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Joint National/UN Steering
Committee, the UN Country Team should discuss and agree on the government’s role in the
strategic direction of the One Fund, , then consult with and duly communicate to the
government, and reflect it in the TOR.. (See Annex 2 of the One Programme Tools and
Materials for a generic template for the TOR of the Joint National/UN Steering Committee).
The UNCT may wish to engage the government beyond establishing a strategic direction for
the One Fund to include them also in setting funding priorities and/or making allocation
decisions. In this case, the UNCT needs to bring this into the discussion with the
government to reach mutual agreement then include it in the TOR for the Steering
Committee.
The Joint National/UN Steering Committee, for the purpose of managing the One Fund, may
include representatives from donors as deemed appropriate in the country context.



The UNCT must reach consensus on strategic directions and issues in meetings of the Joint
National/UN Steering Committee. The UNCT also takes charge of guiding the fund
application and allocation processes. In cases when the UNCT wishes to engage the
government in allocation decision making, the UNCT should obtain consensus among its
members on One Fund allocation recommendations prior to the meetings of the Joint
National/UN Steering Committee. In cases when the government is involved in setting the
strategic direction of the One Fund but is not involved in deciding on specific allocations,
the UNCT is responsible for making decisions on detailed funding allocations. If there are
non-resident agencies which are signatories to the One Programme/UNDAF, the UNCT must
involve them in the discussion and obtain their consensus.
The UN Resident Coordinator is responsible for managing the One Fund. In rare cases
(following a process of dialogue and consultation with the UNCT on the decision) when
consensus is not reached on allocations from the One Fund, the UN Resident Coordinator
holds the ultimate authority for decisions on fund allocation, keeping in mind the capacities
and the comparative advantages of the agencies in the country as well as the performance
of each individual agency in implementing Results Groups’ work plans.
The Results Groups are responsible for consolidating information on resources required,
funding gaps, possible sources of resource mobilization and coordinating funding requests
from participating UN organizations (PUNOs) under respective One Programme outcomes.
In some cases, depending on country context, the Results Groups may take charge of prescreening funding proposals submitted from PUNOs against allocation criteria and
Page 131 of 185
submitting funding allocation recommendations to the UNCT and Joint National/UN
Steering Committee.

A Review Team may be set up by the Joint National/UN Steering Committee or by the UNCT
to support the Committee or the UNCT in reviewing and assessing funding proposals against
the allocation criteria and recommending fund allocation. This is especially helpful when the
size of the One Fund is significant, the allocation criteria are relatively complicated and the
number of proposals is large.
There is no “one size fits all” for the configuration of the Review Team. The Joint
National/UN Steering Committee or UNCT should exercise good judgment in setting up a
Review Team. Ideally, the Review Team should include an independent member to ensure
objectivity in the review process. The independent member may be a consultant, a UNDG
Regional Team member or a government official having no conflict of interest, depending
on the country context. The Review Team may consist of only UN members, as the Steering
Committee or UNCT sees fit. (Box 1 below provides some examples of Review Teams in
several countries).
The Review Team should embrace objectivity, fairness and transparency in assessing
funding proposals and recommending fund allocation.
Box 1: Examples of Review Teams in various countries
Viet Nam
An Independent Review Panel consisting of three members (two international and one national)
was set up to assess proposals against criteria. The members were external to the UN system in
Viet Nam.
Tanzania
Inter-Agency Performance Assessment Team(s) (IPAT) were set up to undertake performance assessment on
proposals.
Under the Joint Programmes, IPAT was drawn from the Inter-Agency Programme Committee (comprised of
Agency deputies or Heads of Programmes and the RCO) to carry out performance assessment which was
subsequently reviewed by the Country Management Team then the Joint Steering Committee.
Under the UNDAP, the Chairs of the Inter-Agency Programme Committee (subsequently reconfigured as the
Programme and Operations Management Team) and the Operations Management Team, plus the leads of
the Planning M&E Working Group, Inter-Agency Gender Group and Human Rights Working Group formed
the IPAT to review and assess proposals.
Albania
Page 132 of 185
RBM Advisory Committee (consisting of UN members) was assigned to review the compilation of
requests or proposals (and related self-assessment scorings) made by the RCO and prepare advice
on fund allocation to UN Country Team.
Papua New Guinea (PNG)
UN Budgetary Committee (comprising of UN members) was tasked with advising the Joint
National/UN Steering Committee on resource allocation and governance arrangement of the One
Fund (e.g. annual revision of allocation criteria). The Budgetary Committee was responsible for
reviewing and analyzing funding requests against criteria.

The Secretariat role to the Joint National/UN Steering Committee is usually assumed by
the Resident Coordinator’s Office (RCO). RCO provides support by, inter alia, organizing
meetings on One Fund allocation, compiling funding requests, updating the One Fund
situation, preparing reports, documenting the allocation process and decisions, and
communicating with the Administrative Agent.
When the One Fund is relatively small and the complexity level of the allocation criteria
and proposal submissions is relatively low, the Joint National/UN Steering Committee or
the UNCT may request RCO to take responsibility for reviewing and assessing funding
proposals against the allocation criteria to ensure cost effectiveness and business
efficiency. However, attention should be paid to the delineation of the roles performed
by RCO to avoid conflict of interest as RCO can also receive funds for joint UN activities
from the One Fund.
3. Setting performance-based allocation criteria
There are four types of criteria which can be set for One Fund allocations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Eligibility criteria;
Performance criteria;
Prioritization criteria; and
Operational efficiency criteria.
The specific allocation criteria for One Fund should be formulated upon establishment of the
One Fund and included in the Concept Note and the Terms of Reference. At the beginning of
each allocation cycle, all the criteria set in the One Fund TOR should be reviewed by the UNCT
or, when the government is involved in setting funding priorities and making allocation
decisions, the Joint National/UN Steering Committee.
Allocation criteria should be designed to give equal opportunities to all UN entities. In setting,
reviewing and revising allocation criteria, the Joint National/UN Steering Committee may base
Page 133 of 185
decisions on consultations with UN agencies and recommendations made by RCO or Review
Team (if there is a Review Team). Once endorsed by the Steering Committee, the allocation
criteria are officially announced to all relevant stakeholders.
3.1 Eligibility criteria
Eligibility criteria are the minimum requirements for a funding proposal to be eligible for
consideration for One Fund allocation. Normally, these requirements relate to the validity,
format and essential content of the submitted proposals, including adherence to UN normative
programming principles. They also refer to alignment requirements with existing national and
UN strategies, capacity of UN agencies in ‘absorbing’ the fund and delivering results, quality of
the result framework, etc.
Box 1: Examples of eligibility criteria
Albania
Eligibility criteria (Y/N)
1 Essential conditions adhered to (signed Programme of Cooperation; signed MoU with
Administrative Agent)
2 Signed substantiating Annual Work Plan
3 Deliverables directly support output(s) in the Programme of Cooperation 2012-2016
4 The total amount requested by agencies supporting this output will not be higher than double the
amount that these same agencies jointly contribute to the entire outcome
5 Narrative has described how gender concerns are being addressed
Tanzania
Eligibility criteria under Joint Programmes (JP)
Each JP has to reflect national priorities, and
adhere to the principles of national ownership
and alignment to the Tanzania Joint Assistance
Strategy. Demonstrated capacity to deliver (UN
and Implementing Partners) plus detailed work
plans and budgets were also incorporated.
Eligibility criteria under UNDAP
Eligibility requires each Working Group to submit
a detailed Annual Work Plan and budget which is
aligned to UNDAP results, targets and cross
cutting considerations. Each must demonstrate
capacity to deliver, include a quarterly cash
Page 134 of 185
disbursement plan (for government
planning), and risk mitigation activities.
fiscal
Papua New Guinea
Eligibility criteria
1.
National developments & international
commitments: “The Request for Funds
supports deliverables that are explicitly
tied to national development priorities
as outlined in the national development
strategies the MDGs or other
international treaty obligations and
clearly identifies the manner in which
the UN plans to support these priorities”
Each JP has to reflect national priorities, and
adhere to the principles of national ownership
and alignment to the Tanzania Joint Assistance
Strategy. Demonstrated capacity to deliver (UN
and Implementing Partners) plus detailed work
plans and budgets were also incorporated.
Eligibility criteria under UNDAP
Eligibility requires each Working Group to submit
a detailed Annual Work Plan and budget which is
aligned to UNDAP results, targets and cross
cutting considerations. Each must demonstrate
capacity to deliver, include a quarterly cash
disbursement plan (for government fiscal
planning), and risk mitigation activities.
Papua New Guinea
Eligibility criteria
1.
National developments & international
commitments: “The Request for Funds
supports deliverables that are explicitly
tied to national development priorities
as outlined in the national development
strategies the MDGs or other
international treaty obligations and
clearly identifies the manner in which
the UN plans to support these priorities”
Page 135 of 185
3.2 Performance criteria
Performance criteria link performance (or effectiveness in fund utilization and delivery of
results) to allocation. These criteria are designed to prioritize allocation of fund to a set of interrelated activities (or “project” or “intervention” or “output” or “activity”, depending on
different terms used by different UN agencies) under programmatic areas in the One
Programme within the scope of the One Fund, that have shown good progress toward
achieving expected deliverables defined in the TOR of the One Fund. The formulation and
assessment of these criteria must link closely to the results monitoring framework of the
programmatic areas covered under the scope of the One Fund.
Performance criteria should normally carry the highest weights or points (vis-à-vis other
criteria) as overall allocation of the One Fund emphasizes performance.
Performance criteria are normally not used for allocation of the One Fund at the beginning of a
programme cycle, but will be used for subsequent allocations.
For the initial allocation of the One Fund, a specific set of criteria may be defined and reflected
in the One Fund TOR. In many cases, these criteria are the same as prioritization criteria (see
below).
For subsequent allocations of the One Fund, performance criteria mainly relate to quality and
quantity of delivery of results and resource utilization. Emphasis should be placed on the
quality of the results delivered. Therefore, it is recommended to attach a high weight or score
to the quality of results delivery.
Box 2: Examples of performance criteria for One Fund allocations
Albania
Performance criteria (Y/N plus actual value)
•
•
•
70% of deliverables in previous year have been implemented
50% of the indicators met their annual target in previous year
Balance of Coherence Fund resources per agency, for this output, on 1 January of the current year
Viet Nam
Performance criteria
1.
Development results delivery rate for previous year
What is the estimated 2012 results delivery rate (i.e. the percentage of the annual planned results of
all projects/ programmes of the Agency that was actually achieved according to the Agency results
performance system) for all projects/ programmes of the Agency for the period 1 January - 31
Page 136 of 185
December 2012?
2.
Financial delivery rate of One Fund for previous year
What is the estimated 2012 One Fund financial delivery rate for all projects/ programmes?
Bhutan and Malawi
Performance criteria
Implementing partners and Participating UN Organizations’ absorption capacity
Previous track record:
(i) Results
(ii) Actual expenditure rate and financial management
(iii) Reporting – timeliness and quality of reporting
Papua New Guinea
Performance criteria
1.
Financial resource: Delivery rates of previous programme cycle
 Previous year 4th quarter report and annual report indicate a delivery rate in the past year with >75% of

the available annual work plan budget delivered by end of December
In the past year, the Task Teams financial disbursements in the context of the Joint AWP have been timely,
jointly and qualitatively reported upon, each quarter and at the end of the year
2. Annual Deliverables
Previous year 4th quarter report and annual report indicate at least 70% of the annual deliverables have been
completed by the end of the annual programme cycle.
3.3 Prioritization criteria
Prioritization criteria establish a link between programmatic priorities and One Fund
allocations. Prioritization criteria aim to ensure that the One Fund helps prioritize development
results which explicitly support:
- national strategic priorities;
- core UN development priorities, including priorities derived from the UNDAF normative
programming principles - human right-based approach, gender equality and
environmental sustainability;
- priorities set by the Joint National/UN Steering Committee,
- priorities which would otherwise not be funded; and,
Page 137 of 185
-
in many cases the UN ‘jointness’ concept (for example, UN joint programming, joint
resource mobilization, mutual accountability in mobilizing fund and delivering results,
etc.).
The UN agencies and the governments should make a strategic agreement on the national
priorities that will be addressed when establishing the One Fund. These agreed priorities guide
the development of One Fund prioritization criteria.
Prioritization criteria may either carry weight against other criteria to be factored into the
overall assessment of funding proposals, or they may provide a prioritized sequence for
reviewing funding proposals.
To promote UN agencies to “Deliver as One”, it is advisable to develop criteria which incentivize
collaboration and cooperation among UN agencies in terms of programming, budgeting,
financing and delivering results.
Box 3: Examples of priority criteria
Montenegro
Allocation priority sequence
(a) projects and Joint Programmes within the Integrated UN Programme that have funding gaps which
are prioritized in the UN Annual Work Plan should be considered first;
(b) other projects and Joint Programmes within the Integrated UN Programme that have funding gaps
which are prioritized in the Pillar Annual Work Plans should be considered second; and,
(c) other agency-specific projects within the Integrated UN Programme that have funding gaps should
be considered third, but the requesting PUNO, and its proposed implementing partners, should have
the demonstrated expertise and capacity to deliver the anticipated results in a timely manner.
Viet Nam
Programme priorities criteria (with weights/points assigned to each criterion)
1. Alignment and support to national development priorities
To what extent does the Intervention Unit (IU) support key priorities identified in national
development strategies (including sub-national and sectoral plans), the MDGs, or other
international treaty obligations, which are currently not being fully addressed by government and
donors?
2. Key contribution to national policy dialogue and policy development
To what extent does the IU contribute to policy dialogue and policy development to address key
development issues?
3. Key contribution to national capacity development
Page 138 of 185
To what extent does the IU contribute to capacity development and sustainability?
4. Readiness for implementation
To what extent is the IU ready to be implemented with an adequate implementation structure in
place (IU -projects/programme/activities that are ongoing or about to start will be most prioritized.)
5. UN joint programming and implementation
To what extent does the IU clearly articulate joint programming and other forms of collaboration with other
UN Agencies, including, where applicable, a technical division of labour.
Uruguay
Priority criteria (without weights/points)
1. The joint project or programme should contribute to the achievement of at least one of the Millennium
Development Goals in Uruguay, according to the established objectives for the country.
2. The joint project or programme should be related with one of the Outcomes of the Priority Areas in the
UNDAF 2011-2015.
3. The joint project or programme should identify and be integrated in the national policies and initiatives that it
supports demonstrating its added value.
4. The joint project or programme should ensure the adequate participation of key stakeholders of the national
counterparts and the United Nations system agencies (at least two).
5. The joint project and programme will complement its activities and resources with other initiatives being or to
be implemented financed by the government and/or other UN System Agencies.
Human Right Based Approach
6. Applied in a fund allocation context, the human rights based approach prioritizes allocations to programmes
supporting States to realize international human rights obligations and benefitting those people exposed to
the most abject forms of poverty, marginalization or vulnerability.
3.4 Operational efficiency criteria
In managing a One Fund, it is very important to ensure operational efficiency. This means that
the benefits gained by PUNOs and the UNCT through access to the One Fund should outweigh
the transaction costs associated with establishing, managing and closing the One Fund, and the
money in the One Fund is used as much as possible for delivering programmatic development
results.
The One Fund should be allocated in a way which is cost-effective for all stakeholders involved,
especially in the context of financial resource constraints. Too many small amounts of funding
allocated, and hence transferred, to PUNOs may create disproportionally high transaction costs
Page 139 of 185
compared to the development results generated from that amount. Too many rounds of
allocation in a year will significantly increase the transaction costs to various stakeholders (e.g.,
more time spent by the Joint National/UN Steering Committee members on allocation
meetings, more time and efforts by Results Groups’ members (including PUNOs) and RCO staff
in preparation for each allocation rounds, more time required for PUNO finance staff on
financial transactions, higher total bank fees, etc.). Too many PUNOs’ interventions73 to which
One Fund is allocated and transferred also make transactional costs soar (e.g., more time
required for allocating, transferring, monitoring and reporting on the funds, more time spent
on closing funded interventions in Enterprise Resource Planning systems, etc.)
Therefore, it is necessary that the Joint National/UN Steering Committee sets some specific
operational efficiency criteria in allocating One Fund resources. These criteria aim to keep the
transactional costs for fund allocation, and hence disbursement, monitoring and reporting, to
the minimum level. Operational efficiency criteria can normally focus on the amount of funding
requested and allocated to each PUNO in each allocation round, the number of PUNO
interventions under a Results Group for which funding is requested and allocated, and the ratio
between the PUNO’s own available resources and the gap amount requested from the One
Fund for a particular PUNO intervention.
The Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee should refer to the Technical Note on
Financial Thresholds for MDTFs including One Funds and may consult with the designated
Administrative Agent when setting operational efficiency criteria. Observations on operational
efficiency from previous allocation rounds should also inform the development of operational
efficiency criteria in future rounds.
Box 4: Suggestions on operational efficiency criteria
No DaO pilot and self-starter countries have officially set One Fund allocation criteria specifically
relating to operational efficiency. The following suggested criteria are based on observations and
analyses of data collected from MPTF Office and DOCO.
1. Minimum amount of fund requested by and allocated to a specific PUNO intervention under a
Results Group in a given allocation round
These criteria are set to ensure that the amount of fund finally transferred to PUNOs is not too
small. In many cases, the amount of fund requested by PUNOs cannot be fully met due to limited
financial resources mobilized. Therefore, the requested amount and allocated amount can be
different.
Example of criteria:
73
A PUNO ‘intervention’ can be understood as a project or a set of inter-linked activities which aim at achieving
one or more stated objectives and are implemented in a specified geographical location, within a given
timeframe and with identified resources.
Page 140 of 185
-
Total minimum amount of fund requested by a PUNO for a given PUNO intervention under a Results
Group: US$100,000
Minimum amount of fund allocated to a PUNO for a given PUNO intervention under a Results Group:
$100,00074
2. Maximum number of allocations to a given PUNO intervention under a Results Group within a
given year from One Fund
This criterion aims to help keep the number of transactions and the amount of fund per transaction
at an optimal level.
It is absolutely up to the programmatic needs and expected results to define what and how many
PUNO interventions to be included under an Outcome/Results Group. However, the consideration
and choice of PUNO interventions to put forward for funding allocation from One Fund should take
into consideration transaction cost and efficiency. This criterion can guide PUNOs and Results
Groups when developing the Common Budgetary Framework (i.e. where funding gaps are
expected to be covered from the One Fund), and the funding proposals for One Fund allocation.
Example of criteria:
- Number of allocation rounds per year: ideally one or two
- Number of PUNO interventions requested for One Fund allocation under a Results Group:
ideally three to four
3. Ratio between PUNO’s own available resource and amount requested from One Fund for a
particular PUNO intervention
This criterion aims to provide a sensible balance between resource available and resource to be
mobilized and allocated (from One Fund) for a PUNO intervention to be implemented effectively
and to ensure the amount of fund transferred is not too small.
Example of criteria:
- Ratio between available resource and fund requested from One Fund for an intervention: 50:50
The operational efficiency criteria can be used by Results Groups to screen proposals from
PUNOs before compiling and preparing the funding proposal of the Results Group.
NOTE: All the above criteria are applicable to an un-earmarked One Fund. In situations in which
contributions to the One Fund are not totally un-earmarked, the donor earmarks to a specific
sector or thematic area become an additional criterion to be taken into account. Please refer to
74
In exceptional situations, when an allocation of less than $ 100,000 to a PUNO can still make a good business
case for the PUNO’s intervention, the Joint National/United Nations Steering Committee or UNCT may make a
decision on such an allocation and refer to the Technical Note on Thresholds for MDTFs, including One Funds for
further guidance.
Page 141 of 185
the guidance on earmarking in the Guidance Note on Establishing, Managing, and Closing
Multi-Donor Trust Funds.
Hints & tips:
- Criteria should be clear, specific, and mesurable
- The eligible, priority, and performance criteria should be clearly distinct from each other.
- Any uncommon or potentially ambiguous terms in criteria should be defined or explained
clearly to ensure uniform understanding among relevant stakeholders.
- When setting criteria, it's useful to anticipate and consider different scenarios of fund
mobilized (e.g. amount of fund mobilized, soft earmark from donors, etc.)
- The performance criteria should be set in a way to strike a balance between financial
delivery rate and result delivery to avoid the situtation where UN agencies focus on
exhausting their allocated fund with compromise on result quality.
- The performance criterion on financial delivery rate should set the ratio between actual
expenditure and mobilized (instead of planned) fund/.
- The allocation criteria system should allow for flexibility to ensure unexpected issues
arising can be addressed quickly.
- When developing the allocation criteria system, the implementation accountability of UN
agencies within the framework of One Programme and One Fund should be taken into
account, espeically if One Fund is allocated primarily to One Programme intermediate
outcome level instead of to UN agencies.
- Do not make criteria over-complicated
- Do not set criteria which cannot be easily or quickly assessed (e.g. criteria which take time to
review or collect data, or criteria whose means of verification are not readily available)
- Do not set too many criteria to avoid spending too much time on reviewing funding proposals
- Caution should be taken when setting criteria which link the allocated resource as a
proportion of the funding gap submitted to avoid UN agencies' inflating amount of funding
shortage in the funding proposals in order to get more fund
4. Application of allocation criteria
The process of applying allocation criteria normally consists of five main steps.
(1) Announcement of funding amount available for allocation (including earmarking, if any) and
call for funding proposals.
(2) Submission of funding proposals from Results Groups.
(3) Compilation and review of submitted funding proposals against agreed performance-based
allocation criteria.
Page 142 of 185
(4) Review of recommended funding allocation within the UNCT.
(5) Decision on One Fund allocation by the UNCT (when the government is not involved in
specific allocations) or by the Joint National/UN Steering Committee (when the government
is engaged in making allocation decisions).
Announcemen
t of available
fund, and call
for proposals
Submission of
proposals
from Results
Groups
Compilation
and review of
submitted
proposals
Review of
recommended
fund
allocation
Decision on
fund
allocation
Step 1 – Announcement of available funding and call for proposals
The Resident Coordinator or RCO, as delegated by the Joint National/UN Steering Committee,
announces the amount of funding available for allocation under the One Fund to all Results
Groups and PUNOs, including information on earmarked funds, and calls for funding proposals
from Results Groups. The allocation criteria and funding proposal template should be included
in the communication to the Results Groups and PUNOs. The proposal template normally
contains a self-assessment of the proposal against the established allocation criteria. The
proposal template should be as simple and user-friendly as possible to ensure efficient
completion and review.
Step 2 - Submission of funding proposals
Funding proposals are prepared by Results Groups (based on submissions from PUNOs),
following the proposal template required by the UNCT. Results Groups coordinate the process
of proposal preparation among PUNOs. The completed funding proposals will be submitted by
the Results Groups to the Resident Coordinator’s Office.
Page 143 of 185
It is recommended that the funding proposal template require Results Groups to prioritize their
interventions so that in case the amount of funding which can be allocated to a Results Group is
lower than the amount requested75 the UNCT or Joint National/UN Steering Committee can
make decisions on allocating fund to interventions in the order of priority set the by the Results
Group.
Step 3 - Compilation and review of submitted proposals
RCO compiles funding proposals submitted and sets up a (simple) database to track and
monitor proposal submission.
Depending on country context, RCO may review and assess proposals submitted against
established criteria or facilitate the establishment and operation of a Review Team to assess
funding proposals.
Allocation criteria may be applied in the following order: first eligibility criteria, then
performance criteria and prioritization criteria. However, UNCTs can decide on a different
order, as appropriate.
RCO or the Review Team prepares an analysis report of the funding proposals submitted
against established criteria and recommendations on One Fund allocation to submit to the
UNCT.
Step 4 - Review of recommended One Fund allocation
The UNCT meets to review the recommendations on One Fund allocation prepared by the RCO
or the Review Team and reaches consensus on One Fund allocation, ensuring that the
thresholds for the minimum size of transfers are fully adhered to.
RCO documents the discussions and agreements in UNCT meetings on One Fund allocations.
Step 5 - Review and decision on One Fund allocation
When the government is not involved in specific funding allocations, after the UNCT’s review,
RCO or the Review Team finalizes the minutes of UNCT meetings which reflect the UNCT’s final
agreement on fund allocation, and then submits the minutes to the Resident Coordinator to
issue an allocation decision.
75
In 2011, the amount of resources received as contributions to the One Funds covered on average only 20 percent
of the 2011 funding gap in the Common Budgetary Frameworks.
Page 144 of 185
When the government is engaged in making funding allocation decisions, after the UNCT’s
review, RCO or the Review Team finalizes the recommendations on fund allocation and submits
to the Joint National/UN Steering Committee. The Joint National/UN Steering Committee meets
to review the final recommendations on the One Fund allocation and makes a decision on the
One Fund allocation.
RCO records the One Fund allocation decision in the Joint National/UN Steering Committee
meeting minutes and sends the minutes to relevant stakeholders for further steps.
Hints & tips:
- Criteria application process should be set up together with the development of
performance-based allocation criteria
- Performance-based allocation criteria need to be applied consistently in the
review and assessment of funding proposals, within a firmly structured and
transparent process
- Allocation criteria should ideally be applied annually (once a year) for One Fund
disbursement thereafter to avoid
fragmentation of fund allocated to
programme/project impelementation
- It's highly recommended to set up a Review Team to assess funding proposals ,
especially in countries where the size of the One Fund is significant and the
number of participating UN agencies in the One Fund and One Programme is
more than seven. The Review Team should include at least one member external
to the UN system in the country to ensure objectivity.
- All discussions and decisions made in the allocation process should be fully
documented and shared with relevant stakeholders.
- Do not change allocation criteria during the application process, unless absolutely
necessary.
- Agencies should not "inflate" figures of the budget gap in order to get more
resources allocated.
5. Review and revision of allocation criteria and application processes
Performance-based allocation criteria evolve over time. They should be reviewed regularly to
adapt to changes in the context and/or new requirements of the host country government and
the UN system and to facilitate an effective process of One Fund allocation.
Page 145 of 185
It is suggested that allocation criteria are reviewed and revised annually, after each round of
allocation. However, if there are several rounds in a year, the Joint National/UN Steering
Committee may decide to review the allocation criteria either after every round or at the end of
the year.
The efficiency aspects of the allocation process should be closely monitored to draw lessons
learned for future rounds.
The review, revision and monitoring process should be led by the UNCT or the Joint
National/UN Steering Committee, depending on country context, with support from RCO
and/or the Review Team (if it exists). The review and revision process can be done through
collecting feedback and comments from PUNOs, Results Groups and Review Teams, as well as
consolidating observations of the UNCT and RCO throughout the process. RCO, as Secretariat to
the Joint Steering Committee, should document experience, good practices and lessons learned
throughout the allocation process to serve the review and revision exercise.
Box 5: Examples of the review process in Delivering as One countries
Quite a few Delivering as One countries have gone through several rounds of revision of
performance-based allocation criteria. For example, Albania simplified the fund allocation process
and revised the allocation criteria in 2012 to include allocation scenarios based on available resources
and to strengthen allocation criteria to take into account how allocations are managed over time.
Tanzania also rigorously reviewed their allocation criteria and process. As a result, three changes
were instituted in 2013, namely: (i) assessment of financial delivery over mobilized rather than
planned funds; (ii) reversion to single application of allocation criteria in a year (hence, single tranche
disbursement); and (iii) addition of an external member to the Review Team.
6. Examples from DAO pilot and self-starter countries
The One Fund was established in many DaO pilot countries from 2008 - 2009. Performancebased allocation criteria have also been developed and remarkably evolved since then. Some
DaO self-starter countries have also followed the pilots closely.
A number of DaO countries now have a sophisticated PBA system which provides good
reference sources for other countries. Particular among those include Viet Nam, Tanzania,
Papua New Guinea, and Albania. Malawi, Uruguay, Bhutan, and Montenegro, also offer some
good lessons to learn from. Examples from these countries are available at this link:
Box 6: Examples from Delivering as One and self-starter countries
The One Fund was established in many DaO pilot countries from 2008 - 2009. Performance-based
Page 146 of 185
allocation criteria have also been developed and remarkably evolved since then. Some DaO self-starter
countries have also followed the pilots closely.
A number of DaO countries now have a sophisticated PBA system which provides good reference
sources for other countries. Particular among those include Viet Nam, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea,
and Albania. Malawi, Uruguay, Bhutan, and Montenegro, also offer some good lessons to learn from.
Examples
from
these
countries
can
be
found
at:
undg.org/content/joint_funding_approaches/common_budgetary_framework.
SECTION 4.4.:
Technical note on Thresholds for MDTFs and One Funds
Introduction
The United Nations Development Group (UNDG) has developed Standard Operating Procedures
for countries wishing to adopt the Delivering as One approach. These Standard Operating
Procedures are based on the experiences and good practices of Delivering as One countries.
They highlight a number of key elements to be taken into account when adopting the Delivering
as One approach. One of these elements is multi-donor trust funds that are established to
support Delivering as One by providing principally un-earmarked resources to cover funding
gaps in One Programmes.
In reviewing United Nations experiences with multi-donor trust funds since 2004 and One
Funds since 2007, an important lesson learned is that there are certain risks associated with the
use of multi-donor trust funds and One Funds which were not foreseen when the UNDG started
applying these pooled funding mechanisms. These guidelines put forward ways to reduce or
prevent these risks.
The risks were identified based on reviewing more than six years of experience with multidonor trust funds, including One Funds, as documented by (among others): a) an independent
evaluation of the eight Delivering as One pilot countries;76 and b) a study carried out in 20102011 on the operational effectiveness of multi-donor trust funds.77 These risks were also
discussed during annual UNDG and donor meetings on joint funding, including the last meeting
which took place in February 2013.
76
The evaluation was carried out by UNDESA as input into the 2012 Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review. The
Independent Evaluation of Delivering as One can be found at: www.un.org/en/ga/deliveringasone/pdf/mainreport.pdf.
77 Charles Downs, Operational Effectiveness of the UN MDTF Mechanism, Final Report, 31 May 2011:
www.undg.org/docs/11980/Final-Report---MDTF-Operational-Effectiveness-Study---31-May-2011.pdf.
Page 147 of 185
These guidelines build on the work done by the UNDG in 2013 on thresholds for pass-through
joint programmes.78 They further use the financial analysis undertaken by the United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) as part of the United Nations annual
funding report, and by the Joint Funding Sub-Committee of the UNDG Fiduciary Management
Oversight Group, based on data provided by the Development Operations Coordination Office
and the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office.
This document outlines clear policies and guidelines on thresholds to be put in place to address
the risks associated with the three distinct phases of a multi-donor trust fund lifecycle:
establishment, management and closing. Though the financial analysis presented in this note
delves more specifically into One Funds, the proposed thresholds are applicable to all multidonor trust funds.
78
UNDG Joint Programmes Guidance Note, Revised May 2014
Page 148 of 185
Summary of thresholds and the risks addressed
Stage
MDTF
of
Thresholds
Establishment Small MDTFs with one project
per PUNO79: $2 million per year
Risks
Addresses programmatic risks for PUNOs
and the MDTF; addresses financial risks for
PUNOs and the administrative agent
More complex MDTFs with >
one project per PUNO: $5
million per year
Management
Minimum size of individual
transfers to PUNOs:
$100,000/transfer
Addresses programmatic and financial risks
for PUNOs
Transition period (2014-2015)
for ongoing MDTFs:
$50,000/transfer
Closing
79
Direct cost charge of $5,000 per
year for delayed closure
Addresses political risks in donor relations,
and financial risks for PUNOs and the
administrative agent
PUNO = Participating United Nations Organization.
Page 149 of 185
1. Financial analysis of experiences with One Funds
The financial analysis of experiences with the first cycle of One Funds presents a number of
findings that are important to consider reviewing the risks of establishing, managing and closing
a multi-donor trust fund, including a One Fund.
Finding 1: One Funds have remained relatively small compared to total United Nations
funding flows in Delivering as One countries.
In its annual analysis of the funding situation of the United Nations, UNDESA has paid special
attention over the last few years to multi-donor trust funds, including One Funds. The 2014
UNDESA report on the QCPR, based on 2012 financial data as provided by the United Nations
system, found that “the share of One UN Funds of development-related expenditures in the
eight pilot countries combined was about 9.7 percent (from as high as 25 percent in Tanzania to
as low as two percent in Uruguay). This represents a notable drop from the 14 percent share in
2011.” The report also noted that, “the success of the One UN Funds as part of an integrated
funding framework for the United Nations development system has therefore been modest.”80
Table 1 below (from the UNDESA report) shows funding that was channeled through One Funds
in the eight Delivering as One pilot countries and 13 other countries that subsequently adopted
the Delivery as One approach on a voluntary basis.
Table 1: One Fund share of overall development-related expenditures (2012)
80
UNDESA, Report of the Secretary-General, Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 67/226 on the quadrennial
comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (QCPR), February 2014,
unedited version.
Page 150 of 185
Finding 2: Contributions to One Funds in more than one-third of the Delivering as One
countries averaged less than $1 million per participating United Nations organization, with
average funding for One Funds often not reaching $2 million per year.
As Table 2 below shows, the size of One Funds during the first UNDAF cycle, i.e. excluding
subsequent extensions of some One Funds to cover the next UNDAF cycle, has varied greatly,
from a low of US$243,000 in Botswana to US$92 million in Tanzania. The average size of the
One Fund was a little over US$29 million, with an average of 11 participating United Nations
organizations.
For eight out of the 20 One Funds, as of October 2013, total funding for the One Fund stood
below US$1 million per participating United Nations organization. Also, for almost one-third of
the One Funds, the average funding received through this joint funding channel had not
reached US$2 million per year as of October 2013.
Table 2: One Funds: fund structure and transfers81
81
2012 transfer data derived from MPTF Office GATEWAY on 16 January 2013; fund structure data derived from MPTF Office
GATEWAY on 21 October 2013. PUNO project refers to the number of different projects in the MPTF Office ERP system
against which PUNOs were participating in a given fund receive transfers and report on expenditures.
Page 151 of 185
Fund structure (first UNDAF cycle)
Size Fund (US$
contributions)
One Fund
Botswana UN Country Fund
Fund period (first
UNDAF cycle)
# PUNOs that
received funding
2012 Transfer data
average #
% transfers under
# transfer
Average size
projects/PUNO
US$ 100,000
rounds in 2012 transfer (US$)
243,000
2010-2014
5
1.0
0%
0
Kiribati One UN Fund
1,285,000
2008-2012
7
2.0
0%
1
142,500
Montenegro UN Country Fund
1,748,000
2010-2015
7
2.6
100%
2
35,348
Bhutan UN Country Fund
2,419,000
2009-2013
9
1.7
75%
2
71,264
Comoros One UN Fund
4,424,000
2010-2014
6
2.0
46%
2
157,737
Lesotho One UN Fund
4,496,000
2010-2011
7
1.7
68%
2
72,240
Kyrgyzstan One Fund
7,352,000
2010-2011
11
1.7
55%
2
135,351
Ethiopia One UN Fund
8,332,226
2012-2015
7
1.3
22%
2
387,424
Maldives One UN Fund
10,187,288
2011-2015
1
2.0
0%
1
423,255
Uruguay One UN Coherence Fund
12,537,846
2007-2010
11
3.2
75%
4
59,049
Cape Verde Transition Fund
14,454,583
2008-2011
17
2.8
50%
1
461,563
PNG UN Country Fund
18,228,049
2009-2011
9
4.2
33%
1
409,261
Sierra Leone MDTF
23,627,126
2009-2011
11
3.5
21%
2
251,232
Albania One UN Coherence Fund
25,645,490
2007-2011
9
7.4
73%
4
88,816
Malawi One UN Fund
42,878,756
2008-2011
12
6.3
78%
4
68,244
Viet Nam One Plan Fund II
64,474,911
2008-2011
13
6.7
79%
4
81,508
Mozambique One UN Fund
68,078,693
2008-2011
18
3.8
40%
1
388,664
Rwanda One UN Fund
77,650,362
2008-2013
17
3.5
29%
3
207,772
Pakistan One Fund
77,983,944
2008-1012
16
6.4
53%
2
258,492
Tanzania One UN Fund
92,097,139
2007-2010
14
4.6
53%
5
225,677
11
4
60%
2.37
168,665
Averages
27,907,170.65
-
Finding 3: High numbers of participating United Nations organization projects and multiple
rounds of transfers compared to the overall size of the One Fund resulted in a high percentage
of transfers being under $100,000.
Table 2 (above) provides an overview of data available on transfers made by administrative
agents to participating United Nations organizations in the calendar year 2012. In that year, the
percentage of small transfers made for the One Funds was high. As table 2 shows, 60 percent of
the transfers were on average less than $100,000. This 60 percent is further broken down as
follows:82



transfers between 0 and $24,999:
transfers between $25,000 and $49,999:
transfers between $50,000 and $99,999:
22 percent
17 percent
21 percent
The number of small transfers for One Funds was correlated with: (a) the small overall size of
some One Funds in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total United Nations
development-related expenditures in a given country; (b) a large number of participating
82
2012 transfer data derived from MPTF Office Gateway on 16 January 2013
Page 152 of 185
United Nations organization projects, given the size of the One Fund; and (c) the number of
allocation rounds in 2012.
The small transfer size was not necessarily limited to poorly capitalized One Funds. Even many
One Funds which were well capitalized had a very high percentage of small transfers. For
example, 79 percent of the Vietnam One Plan Fund II transfers were below $100,000, with 45
percent below $25,000. A strong contributing factor seems to have been the relatively large
number of transfer rounds in 2012, with the same participating United Nations organization
project receiving funding during each one of the transfer rounds.
Finding 4: Contributions to One Funds in more than half of the Delivering as One countries
have been less than 25 percent of the yearly funding gap.
Table 3 presents the importance of One Funds in filling the funding gaps in Common Budgetary
Frameworks. Comparing the funding gap figures provided by the Delivering as One countries (as
submitted to the EFW83Secretariat in late 2010) with the actual amount of contributions
received, it can be concluded that in 11 out of the 18 countries for which funding gap
information was available, the actual contributions received were less than 20 percent of the
funding gap. Only five countries were able to cover more than half of their identified funding
needs using the One Fund mechanism.
83
EFW = Expanded Delivering as One Funding Window for Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
Page 153 of 185
Table 3: One Funds: comparing funding gaps and contributions
Comparing 2011 Funding Gap and 2011 contributions
One Fund
Total 2011
contributions
2011 Funding Gap in
CBF as per EFW
submissions
Botswana Un Country Fund
243,000
14,290,000
Montenegro UN Country Fund
394,000
13,355,000
Lesotho One UN Fund
1,499,000
27,547,000
Comoros One UN Fund
1,932,000
23,100,000
508,000
5,983,000
1,346,000
12,182,000
Bhutan UN Country Fund
Uruguay One UN Coherence Fund
Malawi One UN Fund
11,438,861
97,938,000
Pakistan One Fund
21,009,597
179,380,000
3,726,000
28,122,000
285,000
1,980,000
13,409,046
75,471,000
Kyrgyzstan One Fund
Kiribati One UN Fund
Sierra Leone MDTF
Mozambique One UN Fund
8,983,000
39,641,000
PNG UN Country Fund
12,564,199
27,927,000
Rwanda One UN Fund
10,321,750
21,064,000
2,411,678
4,073,000
31,505,215
40,500,000
Cape Verde Transition Fund
Tanzania One UN Fund
Albania One UN Coherence Fund
2,383,702
2,892,000
Viet Nam One Plan Fund II
15,253,903
18,384,000
Maldives One UN Fund
10,187,288
7,758,000
Ethiopia One UN Fund
6,009,123
no EFW
Averages
7,770,518
33,767,736.84
Contributions / Funding
Gap (in %)
2%
3%
5%
8%
8%
11%
12%
12%
13%
14%
18%
23%
45%
49%
59%
78%
82%
83%
131%
n.a.
23%
Total 2011
expenditures
15,563
534,826
309,241
861,052
187,051
1,152,557
6,830,163
15,057,285
406,760
195,133
5,128,480
16,397,612
6,465,903
13,706,811
3,876,191
24,597,783
7,323,805
25,073,439
130,047
429,792
6,433,974.70
Page 154 of 185
2. Thresholds as a tool for risk management of multi-donor trust funds,
including One Funds
Thresholds are internal control mechanisms that help to manage risks. Thresholds for multidonor trust funds, including One Funds have as their objective enabling the UNDG to
collectively manage risks, whether political, strategic, programmatic or financial, in their
common programming. To effectively manage risks, some thresholds should have the status of
policy, while others are proposed as guidance.
2.1 Thresholds for establishing funds
In order to establish a new multi-donor trust fund, including a One Fund, or extend an existing
fund for a new full programming cycle, the multi-donor trust fund should have the following:

For small multi-donor trust funds with a simple structure of only one project per
participating United Nations organization and no hard earmarking of contributions:
expected84 contributions of $2 million per year for the full operational duration of the
fund, with a minimum expected duration of five years of operational activities. 85

For more complex multi-donor trust funds with several outcomes at thematic and sector
level at which contributions can be earmarked and participating United Nations
organizations can set-up projects: expected contributions of $5 million per year for the
operational duration of the fund, with a minimum duration of five years of operational
activities.
The administrative agent is entitled to a direct cost charge for funds that do not meet the $2
million per year or $5 million per year thresholds, equal to the difference between the
administrative agent fee that would have been earned if the fund had met the threshold, minus
the actual administrative agent fee that has been earned. If an administrative agent would like
to use this possibility, a reference to this direct cost charge needs to be included in the
programmatic document underlying the multi-donor trust fund. The Steering Committee of the
multi-donor trust fund will need to approve the direct cost charge based on a request from the
administrative agent.
84 A good joint resource mobilization strategy for a One Programme combined with a realistic funding gap in the Common
Budgetary Framework and a solid financial viability analysis for new multi-donor trust funds are important to estimate as
accurately as possible the expected contributions.
85 The operational duration of the fund would normally be derived from comparing the date at which the Memorandum of
Understanding for the fund was signed with the date upon which its last project or programme is considered operationally
closed, i.e. all activities for which the participating United Nations agency is responsible under the approved programmatic
document have been completed.
Page 155 of 185
In addition to these thresholds, the following guidance is provided for establishment of One
Funds:

It is recommended to consider the creation of a One Fund only when the fund is
expected to achieve contributions equal to at least 15-20 percent of the total amount of
expected funding for the One Programme, as outlined in the Common Budgetary
Framework. The only exception might be for One Funds in countries with a small One
Programme which would not be able to meet the threshold of $2 million per year
because their total Common Budgetary Framework is less than $25 million. In those
countries, a One Fund could still be considered if the expected contributions could equal
at least 35 percent of the total amount of funding for the One Programme, as outlined
in the Common Budgetary Framework.

It is recommended to make the One Fund’s expected operational end date the same end
date as the One Programme, plus a maximum of one year after the end of the UNDAF
cycle to permit operational closure of projects funded through the One Fund. The
maximum expected total duration of a multi-donor trust fund from signature of the
Memorandum of Understanding to operational end date should not exceed six years (if
a One Fund is linked to only one UNDAF programming cycle). Extension of a One Fund
for another UNDAF cycle can be considered during the formulation phase of the next
UNDAF, provided thresholds for establishment are again met.

If a multi-donor trust fund is established and the proposed administrative agent has
been informed that it will not meet the above-mentioned thresholds based on a
financial viability analysis undertaken by the multi-donor trust fund stakeholders, the
administrative agent will report this to UNDG’s Fiduciary Management Oversight Group
through its annual report to the UNDG Advisory Group.86
These thresholds, in combination, address the risks described below.
86

The programmatic risk of a multi-donor trust fund being undercapitalized compared to
the total size of the programmatic framework, the number of participating United
Nations organizations and the complexity of the fund setup in terms of projects. This
could lead to a situation of not being able to produce significant results attributable to
the fund due to the absence of resources to cover both the required programmatic
interventions and the coordination and management costs. In addition, the institutional
setup may be hard to manage, fragmented and too complicated to be effective.

The financial risk for participating United Nations organizations, for who the total costs
of involvement in a multi-donor trust fund (establishment, managing and closing) can
The option of providing half-yearly updates to the FMOG is being considered as well.
Page 156 of 185
exceed the benefits. These costs include both the costs of the country level involvement
and the costs borne by finance and resource mobilization units at headquarters.

The financial risk for the administrative agent of not being able to cover the costs of
rendering their services, from establishment through closing out of the received
administrative agent fees.87
The above thresholds for establishment of a fund aim to address most of the programmatic
risks that come into play during the implementation stage of multi-donor trust funds.
2.2 Thresholds for managing funds
The following thresholds are proposed to take effect as of 1 June 2014 for all new and ongoing
multi-donor trust funds:

For new multi-donor trust funds: the minimum size of individual transfers from the
administrative agent to the participating United Nations organizations during the
implementation phase should be at least $100,000 per individual transfer. Transfers can
be smaller during the last year of the programmatic framework, when the final round of
allocations is made.

For ongoing multi-donor trust funds: the minimum size of individual transfers from the
administrative agent to the participating United Nations organizations during the
implementation phase should be at least $50,000 per individual transfer for the period
2014-2015, and at least $100,000 per individual transfer from 1 January 2016 onwards.
Transfers can be smaller during the last year of the programmatic framework, when the
final round of allocations is made.

It is recommended to limit the number of transfer rounds per year so that each project
funded from a given multi-donor trust fund receives funding at maximum only once per
year.
These thresholds address notably the below risks.

87
The programmatic risk for a participating United Nations organization of not being able
to produce timely results due to cash flow issues.
The proposed shift of the narrative reporting responsibility for One Funds from the administrative agent to the United Nations
Country Team will reduce the financial risk for the administrative agent of handling a One Fund portfolio.
Page 157 of 185

The financial risk for the participating United Nations organization, for who the total
costs of involvement in a One Fund (establishment, managing and closing) can exceed
the benefits. The transaction costs of small contributions weigh particularly heavily on
the finance units of participating United Nations organizations at their headquarters.
2.3 Thresholds for extending and closing funds
Considering that the duration of a multi-donor trust fund is closely linked with the duration of
the underlying programmatic framework, the key risk for multi-donor trust funds lies in (a) the
extension of operational end dates of participating United Nations organizations projects
funded from the fund for more than one year beyond the end date of the underlying
programmatic framework, and (b) delays related to financial closure.
In this context the following policy is proposed:

The administrative agent is entitled to a direct cost charge of $5,00088 per year to cover
the cost of continuing to render administrative agent services during the period
(rounded to whole years) that the financial closure of the multi-donor trust fund
surpasses the maximum period of two years after operational closure of the multi-donor
trust fund due to delays of participating United Nations organizations in closing projects
funded from the fund.
This direct cost charge is meant as a concrete disincentive to Steering Committees and
participating United Nations organizations for extending the operational life of their projects
under the fund and/or delaying their financial closure. The direct cost charge may not
necessarily cover the full cost of rendering administrative agent services. Equally, the possible
sources of funding for this direct cost charge may not be enough to cover the charge. Still, the
ability to use the remainder of sources of funds, such as interest and refunds, for this direct cost
charge will have the added benefit of reducing the transaction costs of the administrative agent
for having to refund to donors small amounts of interest and refunds.
This threshold addresses the below risks.

88
The political risk that a multi-donor trust fund is extended financially beyond the
expected life span to which contributors have committed themselves. This may have an
adverse effect on donor relations.
UNDG will undertake a separate analysis of actual experiences with closing participating United Nations organization projects,
the accountability for timely closing of projects and possible incentives that can be put in place to promote timely closure,
which may result in a recommendation to adjust the figure of $5,000.
Page 158 of 185

The financial risk for participating United Nations organizations, if the multi donor trust
fund has received contributions from a donor that does not accept expenditures
incurred beyond a given date or might have strict policies on financially closing and
reporting on projects.

The financial risk for the administrative agent of not being able to cover the costs of
rendering their services from establishment through closing out of the fund.
Page 159 of 185
CHAPTER 5: Communicating as One
SECTION 5.1.:
Principles and Policy
[TO BE ADDED FROM THE SOPS]
Page 160 of 185
SECTION 5.2.:
Communicating as One – Tools and Materials
Introduction
According to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for countries wishing to adopt the
Delivering as One approach (page 37): “Communicating as One is critical for ensuring clear and
consistent strategic positioning of the United Nations and its vision at the country level;
developing common messages and policy positions; strengthening the outreach of the United
Nations system by pooling resources; supporting communication about the United Nations
comparative advantages in the country to both internal and external stakeholders; and avoiding
message duplication.”
Even though Communicating as One was not part of the original mandate of the Delivering as
One approach, it has been adopted in all Delivering as One countries. An independent
evaluation of Delivering as One in 2012 highlighted the importance of Communicating as One,
rating the level of progress on the One Voice pillar as strong. The evaluation concluded that
“concerted communication on issues of concern based on mandates and expertise of United
Nations entities is widely seen as a major step forward.”
In a resolution of the 2012 Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR), United Nations
Member States asked the United Nations system to support countries that have adopted the
Delivering as One approach by creating a set of SOPs and guidance on specific elements of the
approach, including Communicating as One. ’The One Voice pillar,’ as it was called during the
Delivering as One pilot phase, is now identified as ’Communicating as One’ to emphasize the
importance of coordinated and coherent communication by United Nations Country Teams
(UNCTs).
Communicating as One is critical to the overall effectiveness of development cooperation, as it
improves the quality of dialogue with the host country government and other national
stakeholders, amplifies advocacy on cross-cutting themes, and helps highlight results achieved
by United Nations agencies at country level, including within the framework of the United
Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) and One Programme. Conversely, a lack
Page 161 of 185
of coherent communication within the United Nations system poses the risk of jeopardizing the
credibility of the United Nations system and its operational effectiveness.
Key elements of Communicating as One as outlined in the SOP for countries wishing to adopt
the Delivering as One approach include:
1. set of key common advocacy messages on critical topics in which the United Nations is
engaged;
2. country-level United Nations Communications Group (UNCG) and identification of ground rules
to guide participation in Communicating as One;
3. system of mutual accountability and resolution of differences for joint communication and
common messaging, as well as mechanisms to refer regional/transnational and sensitive issues
to the regional UNDG team for advice or further action, as needed;
4. joint communications strategy, that includes shared messaging in support of the One
Programme and the development of standard joint communication products, as well as shared
crisis communications; and
5. common, established visual identity for joint United Nations products and communications.
The purpose of this guidance note is to assist UNCTs to implement the SOPs on Communicating
as One. As this is the first time the UNDG is providing systematic guidance on this topic, it is not
intended to be comprehensive. Rather, it addresses three high priority areas: 1) a coherent
image of the United Nations; 2) the United Nations Communications Group in Delivering as One
settings; and 3) United Nations joint communications strategies.
This guidance is inter-linked with the SOP guidance for the other Delivering as One pillars,
particularly those on One Leader and One Programme. It builds on existing guidance issued by
the United Nations Department of Public Information on United Nations Communication
Groups (2006) and Communication in Crisis Settings (2009) and provides references when
relevant. Lastly, this guidance focuses on external communication only; it does not address
internal UNCT communication.
These guidelines will be reviewed periodically and enriched based on country experiences.
While the focus is on the three priority areas mentioned above, further guidance may be
developed in due course for other aspects of joint communication, as outlined in the SOPs.
Page 162 of 185
1. Guiding Principles
Through Communicating as One, UNCT members can enhance inter-agency understanding and
knowledge, work together more effectively, harmonize messages, magnify their overall voice
and impact and produce lasting and meaningful results. Joint communication presents the
UNCT as a coherent entity, but does not replace communication efforts of individual agencies;
rather it can further harness and amplify the communication efforts of individual agencies in a
strategic and streamlined way. These guiding principles are also applicable at regional level.
Key principles for Communicating as One are:
-
emphasize the shared values, norms and standards of the United Nations system.89 Joint
United Nations communication strengthens development processes and results through
promoting linkages with the realization of human rights, gender equality and other principles
and purposes of the United Nations Charter;
-
adapt the guidance to the country context. This guidance is to be interpreted according to the
particular country context and applied flexibly to meet local needs and capacities. It is
important to tailor approaches to the development context of a country (low-, middle-, uppermiddle- and high-income countries) and/or special situations (conflict, post conflict and
transition);
-
agency-specific messages must be consistent with agreed common positions and should
complement joint UNCT/United Nations mission efforts. The primary objective is coherent
communication within the United Nations family. UNCT members must keep this in mind
continuously, even as UNCT members continue to engage in agency-specific communication
activities, such as producing and executing agency-specific strategies, policies, messages and
products using their own brand identities;
- consistent and coherent messaging is a shared responsibility among all UNCT members. As
stipulated in the SOPs, Communicating as One does not mean that only one person speaks
(such as the Resident Coordinator) or acts as the spokesperson for the UNCT. Ensuring a
consistent and coherent message is a shared responsibility of all UNCT members. The UNCT
may jointly agree to designate the Resident Coordinator and/or another UNCT member as
89
UNDG Human Rights Mainstreaming Mechanism Operational Plan 2011-2013.
Page 163 of 185
spokesperson on a particular system-wide issue or to lead communication and advocacy
initiatives in sectoral/thematic areas according to mandates and technical competence. On
certain system-wide issues, for example on matters of security, the Resident Coordinator is
expected to speak on behalf of the United Nations family;
- coordination and sharing timely information among UNCT members is important, particularly
on agency-specific communication activities covering critical or sensitive issues or issues that
may have system-wide implications. Coordination on these issues with regional and
headquarters levels is equally important.
2. Coherent Image of the United Nations
2.1 Objectives of Communicating as One
The objective of Communicating as One is to improve coordination of communication among
United Nations agencies within the country context, in support of shared objectives, including
as outlined in the One Programme.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Communicating as One strengthens the image and the reputation of the United Nations system
by:
presenting a coherent and unified United Nations at the country level;
positioning the United Nations agencies as effective development partners by transparently
communicating actions taken by the United Nations and its partners and results achieved;
inspiring trust in the development aid system, motivating people to believe in and support
United Nations agencies’ mandates;
improving the visibility of the United Nations and its agencies in their contributions toward
improving the lives of the people;
promoting the values, norms and standards of the United Nations; and
responding rapidly to time-sensitive matters.
With regard to the last objective, it is important to emphasize that joint communication should
not result in over consultation and negotiation at the expense of a rapid response to a query or
an urgent coherent positioning of the United Nations system on a particular issue. Therefore, a
Page 164 of 185
fast track mechanism can be put in place for rapid joint communication, to assure that timing is
respected when dealing with time-sensitive matters.
2.2 Planning for joint communication
The national priorities within the UNDAF provide the foundation for planning of joint and
mandate-specific communication. Cross-cutting issues and strategic prioritization in the UNDAF
provide the overall direction for communication planning.
2.3 Considerations for leveraging brands of United
Nations agencies
While it is important to establish agreed common UNCT
positions, United Nations entities must continue to support
mandate-specific strategies, policies, messages and products,
using agencies’ own brand identities, provided that mandatespecific messages are consistent with agreed common
positions and complement joint UNCT and United Nations
mission efforts.
Mandate specialization and accountability, country presence,
and comparative advantages of each United Nations agency
are taken into account when deciding whether to join forces or
whether to leverage the individual strengths of the agencies.
Heads of agencies are encouraged to discuss strategies on
when to join forces on shared country development issues.
These decisions are further guided by the social, political,
economic and cultural contexts of the country.
Examples from Delivering as One countries show that there
are a number of approaches that United Nations organizations
may adopt to work together in a cohesive manner, namely:
[There is a] “...need to make the
United Nations development system
more relevant, coherent, efficient and
effective in its support to developing
countries to achieve the
internationally agreed development
goals, on the basis of their national
development priorities and
strategies.”
“...individual United Nations funds,
programmes and agencies have
specific experience and expertise,
derived from, and in line with, their
mandates and strategic plans, and
[the QCPR] stresses, in this regard,
that improvement of coordination and
coherence at the country level should
be undertaken in a manner that
recognizes the respective mandates
and roles and enhances the effective
utilization of resources and the unique
expertise of all United Nations funds,
programmes and specialized
agencies.”
2012 Quadrennial Comprehensive
Policy Review
Page 165 of 185
a) United Nations agencies may be presented jointly under the United Nations identity; with
consideration to the common norms and standards of the United Nations Charter. This
approach is particularly useful when communicating with government partners on critical policy
issues and sensitive issues;
b) United Nations agencies may take a collective approach, presenting the United Nations
agencies as a group of separate, but coordinated entities. This approach may be leveraged as a
multiplier effect for strategic advantage. The multiplier effect may convey that there are many
agencies contributing to a development goal or that there are many agencies committed to
make change happen. It may be used to show shared accountability as authors or partners; or
c) United Nations agencies may join forces on UNDAF priorities, coordinating their mandatespecific communication in a complementary manner on particular themes, for a synergistic
effect. This approach is broader in scope, requires envisioning the entire communication plan
and the complementary role that the agencies can play in reaching out to stakeholders.
These approaches guide the modes of presentation outlined below.
2.4 Representation of United Nations and United Nations agency identitIES
The identity of the United Nations and the respective identities of individual United Nations
agencies are globally-recognized representations which are highly valued assets, protected by
law as intellectual property. Decisions to represent the identity of the United Nations or its
individual agencies can be made only with agreement of the UNCT or the United Nations
agency’s representative in the UNCT or its headquarters, as relevant.
The official United Nations logo is the only logo that can be used to represent the organization.
According to the official Guidelines on the Use of the United Nations emblem, the United
Nations logo cannot be altered by changing colors or adding elements and taglines or slogans.
Agencies’ logos and branding must follow the agency’s regulations of use and clearance
processes.
All logos are in effect an endorsement of the contents on which they appear; the use of logos
on published materials indicates that an item has been cleared by the agency Country
Representative and/or designated official. Prominent placement of logos is given only to
contributors accountable for the published material. Specifically, logos are used for the
agencies that are accountable as an author of or contributor to the content or have been a
Page 166 of 185
financial contributor to its production. This decision conveys the accountability of the
participating partners and reinforces transparency.
2.5 Modes of presentation90
There are three presentation formats: 1) presenting the United Nations as one identity with
supporting agencies; 2) presenting United Nations agencies together in partnership; and 3)
presenting the individual agencies separately. These modes apply to all published materials,
such as websites, statements, press releases, signage, publications, events, etc. UNCTs have
flexibility in deciding which approach responds most appropriately to a given communication
initiative or product. For joint communication products, the UNCT may feature the name of the
country in the publication or website title, for example, “United Nations in country X”.
1. Presenting the United Nations as one identity with supporting agencies:
This method is for jointly produced or supported communication materials, or on
communication materials which aim to strategically communicate that the United Nations is a
single entity. This presentation features the identity of the United Nations, represented by the
United Nations logo, with supporting agencies in subordinate prominence through use of logos
or an attribution list.
This format might be used when four or more agencies are accountable partners for the
communication production. The United Nations logo may be placed on the cover and the logos
of the participating agencies on the inside front cover or back cover in alphabetical
arrangement in visually equal size and prominence, or a list of agency names may be included
in lieu of logos. Alternatively, agencies can be listed in alphabetical order either on the inside
front or inside back cover of the publication.
90
The examples given in this section are fictional, and are examples of templates that may be used in practice.
Page 167 of 185
Examples: Publications
Page 168 of 185
Example: Website
2. Presenting the United Nations agencies together in partnership:
This coordinated presentation features multiple agency identities and conveys that the
agencies are working together in partnership or are co-authors of the published materials.
Examples: Publications
Page 169 of 185
Examples: Websites
3. Presenting individual agencies separately:
For mandate-specific communications, it is recommended to use a separate, singular identity
presentation that shows one agency logo and its brand, in accordance with agency-specific
guidance91. Coordination may still be achieved using mandate-specific communication products
by engaging in joint planning of the communication materials, with each agency communicating
a country priority through the lens of its own mandate and with its own brand presentation. For
example, when communicating on water and sanitation, the WHO publication may focus on this
issue from a health perspective, while the UNICEF publication may focus on how water and
sanitation impact and matter to children.
91
Not all agencies have brand requirements.
Page 170 of 185
Examples: Publications
Page 171 of 185
3. United Nations Communication Group at Country Level
The SOPs identify a United Nations Communication Group (UNCG) as an important element of
Communicating as One. The underlying premise is that the United Nations agencies must
coordinate and develop country level advocacy messages in order to be coherent. It is critical
that United Nations agencies speak without contradicting each other.
In this regard, the SOP on Communicating as One draws on the SOP on
Click on the links
One Leader, which also clarifies this point.
below to see
examples of terms of
reference for
UNCGs.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ghana
Tanzania
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
In 2006, the United Nations Department of Public Information issued
guidance on establishment of UNCGs at country level which applies to
all countries (not only Delivering as One countries). This UNDG
guidance on Communicating as One in Delivering as One settings is
fully in line with the Department of Public Information guidance and
further complements that guidance by explaining how it should be
operationalized in the context of Delivering as One.
In a Delivering as One country, if a UNCG is already in place, the UNCT
under the leadership of the Resident Coordinator will discuss how to
integrate the following features into this existing communication coordination mechanism
without creating a parallel mechanism. In settings where a United Nations Information Centre
(UNIC) exists, the UNIC will execute its role and responsibilities in accordance with its mandate
and in close collaboration with the Resident Coordinator’s Office.
3.1 Setting up a United Nations Communication Group
The UNCT oversees the establishment and work of the UNCG. In setting up a UNCG, it is
essential to demonstrate to United Nations agencies the clear benefits of participating in joint
communication work. The UNCG does not supersede or replace the communication efforts of
individual agencies. On the contrary, it enhances these individual efforts by pooling
communication resources and expertise, coordinating public information, advocacy and media
campaigns and promoting coherent messaging. The UNCG serves as a forum that helps all UNCT
members to think and act together.
A number of Delivering as One countries have piloted the concept of a UNCG or a One
Communications Team. However, the model varies from country to country. A UNCG typically
Page 172 of 185
serves as a coordination mechanism in order to ensure that agency communications are
complementary rather than competitive. There are different options for establishing a UNCG,
such as pooling inter-agency human resources on communication, creating dedicated United
Nations country positions on communication, or maintaining an active e-network of
communication focal points across agencies. Recognizing the uneven communication capacities
within agencies, it is important that the communication coordination mechanism is light and
flexible to ensure sustainability.
3.2 Accountability
As indicated in the SOPs on Communicating as One, the UNCG is accountable to the UNCT and
Resident Coordinator. The UNCG will report to the UNCT on their activities at the country level.
The Resident Coordinator and the UNCT decide UNCT communication priorities and capture
them in an annual work plan with corresponding funding needs. Coordination of
communication is funded through the UNCT coordination budget since communication is one
of the ten functions covered by the global Resident Coordinator cost-sharing arrangement. In
case UNCTs are also planning substantive joint communication activities that cannot be covered
by the UNCT coordination budget, these may be funded through the Results Groups joint work
plans or through cost-sharing among agencies or the One Fund, or a combination thereof, with
the agreement of the agencies concerned.
As mentioned in the SOPs, to ensure that the work of the UNCG is carried out, agencies must
assume, whenever possible and in light of available resources, the responsibility of ensuring
that sufficient human and financial resources are in place. This contribution can be in the form
of dedicated time and resources from existing agency structures, including at the regional and
headquarter levels, in order to support joint communication work without adding additional
costs to the UNCT.
The UNCT shall decide on the format for planning joint communication activities and measuring
results thereof. System-wide or joint communication activities can be reflected in the annual
UNCT work plan and/or UNCTs may opt to integrate relevant joint communication activities in
the work plans of the Results Groups. The United Nations joint communication strategy can
further guide the annual planning of the joint communication activities.
An annual review of the UNCG’s activities can be conducted. Review and reporting of the UNCG
is addressed through the annual report of the Resident Coordinator, and joint communication
Page 173 of 185
results will be captured in the annual United Nations Country Results Report, either as a
separate section or integrated within the relevant priorities identified in the One Programme.
The UNCG will endeavour to take all decisions by consensus. All decisions will be taken in full
respect of the mandates of individual UNCG members at the country level. In case there are
differences/disputes around joint communication and sensitive topics, it is the Resident
Coordinator’s responsibility to identify a solution in consultation with the UNCT. In the event
that this is not possible, the Resident Coordinator and UNCT members can seek guidance and
advice from the Regional UNDG and respective regional and headquarters levels, as
appropriate.
In undertaking these responsibilities, the Resident Coordinator will rely on the UNCG in the
country to provide him/her with strategic communication advice and support.
3.3 Membership
Participation in the UNCG is open to communication focal
points of all United Nations entities operating in the
country, including those related to peacekeeping and
peacebuilding missions and humanitarian emergencies. It is
recognized that not all agencies have dedicated
communication specialists. Focal points may be appointed
by United Nations agencies as they find appropriate and
may serve as their respective spokespersons. Non-resident
agencies can be represented through a designated focal
point that is responsible for keeping these agencies
informed of communication activities and relaying
information and requests from them to the UNCG.
Click on the links below for
examples of types of chairmanships
for the UNCG.
1. Rwanda UNCG led by the
RC.
2. Tanzania UNCG led by head
of UNIC.
3. Zambia UNCG co-chaired
by the RCO
Communications Officer
and United Nations
agencies on a rotational
basis.
The Resident Coordinator’s Office, when feasible, provides secretariat support to the work of
the UNCG and helps to ensure coherence between joint communications, the One Programme
and the One Leader. In countries where there is a United Nations Information Centre (UNIC),
UNIC may serve as the secretariat.
There is no single set model for a UNCG. Each UNCT can choose a configuration that best meets
its needs. It is strongly recommended that the UNCG is chaired by a UNCT member, on a
Page 174 of 185
rotational basis, to ensure that communication issues are adequately reflected in UNCT
discussions. In some Delivering as One countries, a communications specialist or
communications manager provides coordination support to the UNCG. Some UNCTs have found
it helpful to allocate a percentage of each participating United Nations agency communication
officer’s time to joint communications. This can help ensure that incentives and accountability
are appropriately in line. Some Delivering as One pilots, such as Viet Nam, offer models on colocation of the UNCG.
The UNCG works closely with the inter-agency Results Groups, established under the One
Programme. Good practices from some Delivering as One countries show that it is helpful for
communication focal points to actively participate in the Results Groups in order to ensure
timely and effective communications support for programme delivery and joint programming.
3.4 Roles and responsibilities
The UNCG plays an advisory role to the UNCT by identifying advocacy and communication
opportunities and strategies for coordination with different stakeholders. This may cover joint
communications around programmatic as well as operational issues. The UNCG provides
strategic insights to the UNCT on the role of the United Nations and its brands in country to
assist the UNCT in deciding when and how to leverage the brand comparative advantages.
UNCG responsibilities include:




provide strategic guidance to the UNCT on communication in the country and enhance interagency collaboration in communication on a timely basis;
promote a coherent image of the United Nations and ensure quality and consistency of
messaging on critical issues for which the United Nations needs to communicate with one voice
and develop common statements on key policy positions of the United Nations in the country;
promote international instruments, norms and standards of the United Nations system;
facilitate identification of key advocacy messages for the United Nations and develop a United
Nations information kit and/or a joint calendar of advocacy events and special occasions,
and/or other appropriate communication tools;
Page 175 of 185









promote issue-based communication ensuring the synergy of information, messages and
branding, and identify areas for shared results and development themes, such as human rights
and gender equality;
manage a joint website and periodic newsletters or other dissemination tools;
develop and support implementation of a joint communication strategy for the UNCT for the
period of the UNDAF or the One Programme and in support of the UNDAF and national
development priorities;
identify new and innovative ways to demonstrate how United Nations programmes are
delivering results and leverage the annual United Nations Country Results Report for advocacy
purposes;
produce joint press releases on priority United Nations issues to increase the media profile of
the organization’s role in the country of promoting joint development goals, and to enable the
media to report objectively on development issues including the role and contributions of the
United Nations;
organize capacity building on producing high-quality communication materials for United
Nations communication officers, as relevant;
capture and share lessons learned from both joint and agency-specific communication work to
support improved knowledge management at the country level;
alert the UNCT on sensitive issues that require close monitoring, including issues related to the
media or safety of journalists; and
position the United Nations in the country as an effective and strategic development partner
that speaks up when necessary to promote and protect human rights or other common norms
and standards of the United Nations system.
In a crisis or emergency context, the UNCG plays a critical role in managing information and
messages, both internally and externally. The group must be guided by the document
Communicating together in times of crisis: Standard Operating Procedures for the United
Nations System, endorsed in June 2009.
4. Joint Communication Strategy
A joint communication strategy helps promote a coherent image of the United Nations system
as a family of agencies working together at the country level to support national and
international development objectives. The purpose of such a strategy is to strengthen interagency cooperation in the field of communications, ensure consistency of messaging and
Page 176 of 185
increase the profile and transparency of United Nations activities at the national level. The
strategy should be flexible enough to respond to emergencies and crisis and to anticipate risks
from a communications perspective.
In doing so, a joint communication strategy strives to position the United Nations as efficient,
effective and results-oriented. Creating a communication strategy together also helps build
greater internal coordination and collective action. As much as possible, the joint
communication strategy aims to focus on norm- and issue-based communications in order to
strengthen UNCT messages and products.
A joint communication strategy is based on priorities of the UNDAF aligned with national
development priorities and the United Nations system priorities.
Each UNCT develops a single joint communication strategy in consultation with relevant
stakeholders. UNCTs are discouraged from developing parallel joint communication strategies
exclusively focused on any of the other Delivering as One pillars.
A joint communication strategy is developed based on the UNDAF or the One Programme cycle.
It is important that the strategy is reviewed annually to ensure that it is updated with relevant
national priorities and developments.
The joint communication strategy is developed through a consultative process. Ideally it is a
product of communications focal points working with Results Groups. To ensure robust
coordination, in some countries communication focal points are active members of the Results
Groups. A process that is embraced United Nations-wide will also
help ensure that each initiative is on target, gets off to a good
Click on the links below to
start and is reviewed at key points in its development.
see examples of country
communication strategies.
1. Cambodia (20082010)
2. Ethiopia (20122015)
3. Moldova (20082011)
4. Viet Nam (2010)
5. Zambia (20122015)
4.1 Elements of a Joint Communication Strategy
Introduction
An introduction provides the overall context of the United Nations
in the country, mentioning the United Nations common strategy
and underscoring major areas of importance as found in the
UNDAF and national development priorities. It also conveys the
Page 177 of 185
benefits that an integrated communications capability will bring to the United Nations system.
Contextual analysis
The contextual analysis is a description of what the United Nations does and stands for in the
country, building on the Common Country Analysis (emanating from the UNDAF preparations).
The contextual analysis could be based on a brand awareness study, partnership surveys, or any
other surveys assessing public awareness and attitudes towards and perceptions of United
Nations activities, priorities and image. Some countries use a SWOT92 analysis that summarizes
the strengths and weaknesses of the United Nations system from a communications point of
view.
Objectives
The objectives set out what the UNCG wants to achieve. The objectives should be clear and
specific, realistic and measurable. A strategy ideally includes only a few objectives.
Common messages
The UNCT is accountable for developing common messages and policy positions. While these
messages and policy positions differ depending on the country context and strategic priorities
of the UNCT, they must be premised on the shared norms and standards of the United Nations
system. They should reflect an accurate representation of the situation on the ground and
contain constructive advice on how to address country challenges.
The UNCG is responsible to identify key messages that resonate among all agencies and appeal
to an external audience. It is important that the UNCG and UNCT allow sufficient time to
identify, discuss and agree on common messages, and periodically revisit them.
Key messages should be forward looking and revolve around specific issues of common concern
to the agencies involved, keeping in mind the values, norms and standards of the United
Nations system. They are often cross-cutting issues, such as human rights, gender equality,
environmental sustainability, capacity development and other issues that the national
government or UNCT have identified as a priority.
92
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; for an example, see:
www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_05.htm.
Page 178 of 185
The UNCT decides in which circumstances the common messages are carried out by the
Resident Coordinator Office and which by the individual agencies. Once established and agreed,
common messages and policy positions can be used by any agency in their individual public
awareness efforts. However, as agencies continue to carry out their own communication
strategies and speak according to their specific mandates, it is important that in doing so the
overall messaging remains consistent and complementary, as the United Nations system must
work together and speak together.
Key audiences
Identifying the key audiences that the UNCT wants to reach is important. This audience can and
should be segmented and specific messages identified for each segment to maximize impact.
Audience segmentation is often based on an analysis or survey that has been conducted.
Mapping out different audiences that the UNCT wants to reach with common messaging is
often undervalued, but can save a tremendous amount of valuable time and resources. Key
audiences can include a range of stakeholders in the national context, from the most vulnerable
segments of the population, local grassroots partners, government, national employers’ and
workers’ organizations, to other global and regional partners including foundations,
international financial institutions and donors.
Key communication approaches
Some countries have found it useful to identify communication approaches that can help
achieve the objectives of the joint communication strategy. For example, a county might use
capacity building and evidence-based communication approaches to achieve common
communication objectives.
In some contexts, the communication strategy may focus on initiating or engaging in public
discourse. This may include developing strategic networks and partnerships to leverage and
amplify United Nations messaging, engaging in policy dialogue and/or building strategic
partnerships with local communication specialists and organizations that share the values of
the United Nations, such as, media councils, national human rights institutions and civil society.
Using social and digital media or initiating social movements could be part of a communication
approach.
Page 179 of 185
Using a joint, issue-based communication approach (rather than organization-based) has the
potential to increase the reach and power of United Nations communications and enable the
development of stronger, more broad-based platforms, networks or movements for change.
Communication channels
It is useful to specify the channels of communication, such as public relations arrangements,
social media outreach, etc.
This provides the UNCG with a list of options that can be effectively used to disseminate joint
products, spread key messages and engage with public and policy audiences. The list of options
can also include agency-specific communication channels, such as their social media outlets and
websites.
Joint activities and products
The observance of United Nations Commemoration Days and other special occasions provide
good opportunities to showcase the work of the United Nations and rally greater support for
the organization at the national level. While each agency will continue observing days relevant
to their respective mandate, a selected number of days, as appropriate, could be celebrated
jointly.






Joint websites and joint newsletters accessible to national audiences have also been
encouraged in Delivering as One pilot countries as a vehicle to showcase the work of the United
Nations in support of the country. Other joint products are:
press releases;
calendars of media and public events;
the annual United Nations Country Results Report;
field missions for media;
electronic newsletters; and
United Nations system information kits.93
93
For more guidance, please see the Basic Operating Model for the UNCGs adopted by United Nations
Communication Group in March 2006.
Page 180 of 185
The joint strategy is complemented by activities and products organized by individual agencies
which follow the common messaging and objectives.
Page 181 of 185
ANNEX 1:
Role of the Regional UNDG Teams in the implementation of the
SOPs
The UNDG is committed to the implementation of the QCPR resolution, which is an important
reform agenda, and among which the Delivery as One approach (DAO) is among the most
critical. The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) serves as the driver for the next generation
of implementing Delivering as One. They are based on good practices from DaO countries and
they are practical in ensuring we work together focusing on shared results. The SOPs have
universal applicability.
The Post 2015 agenda calls for policy and programme responses that are more integrated, and
multi-sector in nature, to address sustainable development. The post-2015 and the new
common programming cycle are strategic opportunities for the UN system to embrace the SOPs
to ensure strategic programming, greater sense of mutual accountability, and reduced
transaction costs for governments, donors and the UN.
To successfully implement the SOPs, a concerted set of action/advocacy initiatives are required
to engage, raise awareness and further develop capacities of staff. The initiatives will be led by
different actors and take place at the country, regional and HQ levels.
At the regional level, the Regional UNDG Teams are uniquely positioned to support the roll-out
and implementation of the SOPs given their primary role to provide leadership, strategic
guidance and support to Resident Coordinators and UN Country Teams.
In particular, following the roles outlined in the Management and Accountability Framework,
the Regional UNDG Teams are expected to support the SOPs roll-outs by:
a. Providing technical and quality assurance support to RCs/UNCTs on SOPs
The R/UNDG shall provide guidance and facilitate support on how to implement the
SOPs. This would include organizing trainings and supporting RCs and UNCT
representatives to respond jointly to the needs, priorities and challenges of countries.
The R/UNDG should use the Peer Support Group (PSG) Mechanism as the main quality
assurance role for common country programming. This assumes that the Regional
Directors ensure that PSG members have the capacity, time and resources to fulfill this
role. In addition, the R/UNDG’s support to common country programming roll-outs, in
the form of regional trainings and in-country support, needs to fully integrate all pillars
of the SOPs.
Page 182 of 185
The technical support advice/guidance beyond the One Programme will be provided
globally with close collaboration with the R/UNDG support teams.
b. Advocating to RCs/UNCTs to adopt the SOPs
The R/UNDG will actively promote the adoption of the SOPs and “Delivering as One”
approach in all countries, according to country context, including driving cultural change
to uniformly support the ideals of “Delivering as One, providing coherent policy
guidance, political and mission support as required. Best practices on DaO should be
shared between UNCTs.
In addition, the Regional Directors will raise awareness and promote “Delivering as One”
within their respective organizations. This includes actively promoting the mindset of
mutual accountability, and the importance of joint work in terms of the UN system’s
vision, voice, programme, operations and reporting. They should also convey consistent
messages and speak on SOPs when the visit UNCTs.
At the individual agency level, Regional Directors should encourage their respective
Representatives/Heads of Agencies at the country level to encourage agency staff
contribution to DaO efforts/activities at the country level, including participating in
various coordination structures, and recognize contributions by such staff in their
performance appraisals.
c. Ensuring that progress on UN coherence is considered an important element in the
performance management of the RCs and UNCTs
During the performance appraisal meetings (of RCs), Regional Directors will review and
discuss progress made by countries in implementing the SOPs (different elements – One
Programme, Budgetary Framework, Communicating as One, Operating as One and One
Leader & Team) and coordinating for development results, identifying challenges that
the UNCTs may be experiencing and recommending any strategies to and/or providing
support to the UNCTs to overcome identified challenges.
The R-UNDG should also provide continued oversight to UNCTs in
adopting/implementing SOPs through ongoing performance management and not limit
the support to the one time off annual performance appraisal.
Page 183 of 185
d. Troubleshooting when disagreements arise on the implementation of the SOPs within
the UNCT
On a case by case basis, strategic advice/‘troubleshooting’ role of the Regional UNDG
team to address any specific challenges that countries face in the implementation of
SOPs/DaO (e.g. in relation to disagreement between agencies, collaboration with the
governments, etc.) and provide constructive solutions to these Country Teams/Resident
Coordinators or seek possible solutions/raise awareness of these challenges with
Headquarters of involved agencies.
Page 184 of 185