Analytical Overview of Joint UN Gender Programme Portfolio · 3.6 Funding 31 3.7 Summary 32 4...

AnalyticalOverviewofJointUNGenderProgrammePortfolio

FinalReport

EvaluationOffice

AnalyticalOverviewTeam:ThisstudywasmanagedbytheUNWomenEvaluationOffice.TheteamwasledbyCeciliaMLjungman,anindependentevaluationspecialist,withresearchsupportfromFlorenciaTateossianandcoordinatedbyIsabelSuárezfromtheUNWomenEvaluationOffice.

Disclaimer:Theviewsexpressedinthispublicationarethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsofUNWomen,theUnitedNationsoranyofitsaffiliatedorganization.

Acronyms 5ExecutiveSummary 71Introduction 13

1.1Approach 131.1.1QuantitativeData 131.1.2QualitativeInformation 14

1.2Limitations 151.3DefiningtheJPGPortfolio 161.4StructureoftheReport 17

2BackgroundtoandRationalefortheJGPEvaluation 182.1BriefBackgroundtoJointProgrammesasPartofUNReform 182.2EffectivenessofUNDevelopmentEffortofGEWE 192.3RationalefortheJGPEvaluation 20

2.3.1AjointandRights‐BasedEvaluation 213QuantitativeDeskAnalysisoftheJGPPortfolio 22

3.1EvolutionofJGPPortfoliooverTime 233.1.12001‐2005 243.1.22006‐2010 24

3.2Partners 253.2.1NumberofParticipatingUNPartners 253.2.2LeadAgency 27

3.3Geography 283.4ThematicArea 293.5PlannedTimeframe 303.6Funding 313.7Summary 32

4FindingsfromQualitativeDeskAnalysis 344.1SourcesofQualitativeInformation 34

4.1.1JGPEvaluations/ReviewstoDate 344.1.2OtherRelevantJPDocuments 354.1.3Stakeholders 36

4.2IssuesandInformationNeeds 364.2.1Qualityof“Jointness” 364.2.2JGPDesign 404.2.3EffectivenessinTermsofResults 414.2.4Sustainability,NationalLevelPartnerships,NationalOwnership&People‐CentredApproaches 434.2.5EfficiencyandOperationalEffectiveness 45

5EmergingPriorities&ReflectionsfortheFutureTermsofReference 475.1StrategicPriorities 47

5.1.1ResultsandAddedValueofJGPs 475.1.2Sustainability,NationalLevelPartnerships,OwnershipandPeople‐CentredApproaches 485.1.3Synergies 49

5.2Evaluability 495.2.1AssessingResults 505.2.2Assessing“Jointness” 50

Contents

5.2.3IntegratingHumanRights 505.2.4DataandTimeLapse 51

5.3AMixedMethodEvaluation 525.3.1DocumentationExamination 525.3.2CaseStudyApproach 525.3.3SurveyPossibilities 545.3.4TeamExpertise 55

Annexes Annex1:TermsofReference Annex2:JGPPortfolioTable Annex3:ListofJGPswithMissingProgrammeDocuments Annex4:ListofStakeholdersConsulted Annex5:ListofDocumentsConsulted Annex6:UNDGDefinitionsforFundManagementModalities

Contents

CEDAW ConventionontheEliminationofDiscriminationAgainstWomen

CEE‐CIS Central&EastEuropeandCommonwealthofIndependentStatesregion

CCA CommonCountryAssessments

CSO Civilsocietyorganisation

CRC ConventionontheRightsoftheChild

DAC DevelopmentAssistanceCommittee

DAO DeliveringasOne

DFID UKDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment

EC EuropeanCommission

ECLAC EconomicCommissionforLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean

ECSOC UnitedNationsEconomicandSocialCouncil

EVAW Eliminatingviolenceagainstwomen

FAO FoodandAgriculturalOrganization

GEWE Genderequality/Women’sEmpowerment

GRB Genderresponsivebudgeting

IFAD InternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopment

IOM InternationalOrganizationforMigration

ILO InternationalLabourOrganization

JGPs JointGenderProgrammes

JPCs JointProgrammeCoordinators

LAC LatinAmericanandCaribbeanregion

MDGFund

MillenniumDevelopmentGoals

MillenniumDevelopmentGoalAchievementFund

M&E Monitoringandevaluation

MDTF Multi‐donortrustfund

NGO Non‐governmentalorganisation

NORAD NorwegianAgencyforDevelopmentCooperation

NSGE‐DV NationalStrategyforGenderEqualityandDomesticViolence

OCHA OfficefortheCoordinationofHumanitarianAffairs

OSCE OrganizationforCooperationandSecurityinEurope

RBA RightsBasedApproach

RCOffice ResidentCoordinatorOffice

SIDA SwedishInternationalDevelopmentCooperationAgency

SMART Specific,measurable,attainable,realisticandtimely

Acronyms

TCPR TriennialComprehensivePolicyReview

UNAIDS JointUnitedNationsProgrammeonHIV/AIDS

UNCDF UnitedNationsCapitalDevelopmentFund

UNCT UnitedNationsCountryTeams

UNDAF UnitedNationsDevelopmentAssistanceFramework

UNDG UnitedNationsDevelopmentGroup

UNDG/DOCO UnitedNationsDevelopmentOperationsCoordinationOffice

UNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme

UNEG UnitedNationsEvaluationGroup

UNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization

UNFPA UnitedNationsPopulationFund

UN‐Habitat UnitedNationsHumanSettlementsProgramme

UNHCR OfficeoftheUNHighCommissionerforRefugees

UNICEF UnitedNationsChildren’sFund

UNIFEM UnitedNationsDevelopmentFundforWomen

UNFTEVAW UnitedNationsTrustFundinSupportofActionstoEliminateViolenceAgainstWomen

UNWomen UnitedNationsEntityforGenderEqualityandtheEmpowermentofWomen

WHO WorldHealthOrganization

WHR Women’shumanrights

Acronyms

ExecutiveSummary

STUDYBACKGROUNDANDAPPROACH

Thisreportisapre‐studytosupportthescopingprocessforthefutureEvaluationofJointGenderProgrammes(JPGs)intheUNsystem,whichwillevaluatetheUN’sjointprogrammesintheareaofgenderequality,women’srightsandwomen’sempowerment.ItprovidesthedraftersofthetermsofreferenceforthefutureJGPsevaluationwithqualitativeandquantitativeanalyticaloverviewoftheJGPsportfolioandreflectionsontheemergingstrategicpriorities,evaluabilityandmethodologicaloptions.AccordingtoUNDG’sGuidanceNoteonJointProgrammes(2003),ajointprogrammeinvolvestwoormoreUNorganisationsand(sub‐)nationalpartnersthathavejointlysignedaprogrammedocument.JGPshavebeendefinedasthosethathaveanexplicitobjectiveof:empoweringwomen;and/orpromotinggenderequalityatthestrategiclevel;and/orwomenand/orgirlsmayconstitutethemainbeneficiaries/programmepartners.Thus,jointprogrammesthatmaymainstreamequalitybetweenmenandwomen(whichintheoryarealljointprogrammes)buthaveotheroverallgoals,havenotbeenincludedintheportfolio.Theauthorshaveestablishedadatabasethatmapsoutthecharacteristicsof113JGPsfrom2001to2010accordingtoninemaincharacteristics.ThedataforJGPsthatwereinitiatedbefore2006areincomplete,butthedatafortheJGPsinitiatedbetween2006and2010generallyhavehighreliability.Themostsignificantchallengeforthestudywasobtainingreliabledatasincenoneoftheagencydatabaseshavesystemstoallowforstraightforwardsearchesofjointprogrammes.Theyfrequentlylackconsolidatedandsystematicinformation,containerrorsandarenotregularlyupdated.WhiletheteamhasusedinnovativesearchtacticsandanextensivenumberofhourstryingtoidentifyJGPs,itispossiblethatthedatabasedoesnotcontainall

existingJGPs.TheJGPdatabaseisfurthermorelimitedtoinformationprovidedbythesignedprogrammedocuments–thusanychangessincethesigningofprogrammedocumentsmaynothavebeencapturedbythedatabase.Thegatheringofqualitativedatafocusedonobtaininganoverviewofkeyissuesandinformationneeds.Thedatawereacquiredthroughconsultationsandinterviewswithover30keystakeholdersandtheanalysisof20evaluations/reviewsthatwerelocated.Whilesomeusefulinformationhasbeengleanedfromthese,ithasbeenrelativelylimitedsincethelevelofqualityisofteninconsistentandmostareweakonthejointaspectofjointprogramming.Toprovideananalyticaloverviewofthepolicyenvironmentthatunderpinstherationaleforthefutureevaluation,areviewofdozensofrelevantpolicydocuments,reportsandstrategieswasalsoconducted.KEYFINDINGS

Findingsfromthequantitativedeskanalysis:CharacteristicsoftheJGPsportfolioInthebeginningofthedecade,atmost,acoupleofJGPswereinitiatedeachyear.Thebudgetswerealsomodest,withamediansizeofUS$320,000.ThesecondpartofthedecadesawariseinthemedianbudgetedprogrammesizetoUS$2million,withadramaticriseinthetotalnumberofJGPsin2008and2009.ThiscanpartlybeexplainedbytheadditionofMDGFundresources.However,thelargestaveragesizeofJGPswasin2010(US$7million),whichwasaftertheMDGFundcontributionsweredistributed.From2006to2010,thetotalplannedvalueoftheJGPportfoliowasUS$463millionandthetotalfundedvalueatthetimeofsigningoftheprogrammesdocumentswasUS$274million.Twenty‐fourdifferentUNentitieshaveparticipatedinatleastoneJGP,withUNFPA,UNDP,formerUNIFEMandUNICEFparticipatinginover60JGPs

ExecutiveSummary

each.UNDP,UNFPAandformerUNIFEMwerealsobyfarthemostprevalentintheroleofleadagency.ThespecializedagenciesWHO,ILO,UNESCOandFAOarethesecondmostfrequentparticipants.ThemajorityofJGPsaremadeupofthreetofourparticipatingUNagencies,whileone‐thirdofJGPshavefiveormoreparticipatingUNagencies–somehaveover11.AfricahasthegreatestnumberofJGPsandaccountsforthelargestportion(55%)ofthetotalplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfoliofrom2006to2010.TheAsia/PacificandtheLACregionsaccountfor14%eachofthetotalplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio,butinLACtheindividualJGPsaremuchsmallerinsize.Multi‐sectoralJGPsarefew,buttheyhavelargebudgetsthataccountfor33%oftheaggregatedplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio.IntermsofnumberofJGPs,theeliminatingviolenceagainstwomen(EVAW)thematicareaisthelargest–roughlyaccountingforjustlessthanone‐thirdofallJGPsandone‐thirdoftheaggregatedplannedfinancialvalueoftheentireJGPportfolio.JGPsinthegovernanceareaarealmostasnumerousasEVAWJGPs.However,theyhavemuchsmallerbudgetsthatamounttoonly13%oftheaggregatedplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio–whichissimilartothevalueofthehealth(13%)andeconomicempowerment(9%)JGPs.Thenumberandvalueoftheeducation,traffickingandHIV/AIDSJGPsrepresentonlyafewpercenteachofthetotalbudget.OnlyfiveJGPsrepresentingfourthematicareashaveobjectiveswithaconflict‐relatedangle.CorefundsfromtheparticipatingUNagenciesarethemostimportantsourceoffunds–benefitting62%to72%oftheJGPsfrom2006to2010.TheaggregatedcorefundingfromUNagenciesisthelargestsourceoffundingoverall(overUS$98million).TheMDGFundisthelargestnon‐coresourceoffunding(aroundUS$90million).Othertrustfundsprovidefundingtoatleast16%oftheJGPsfrom2006to2010.Bilateral,OCED‐DACcountrycontributionstoJGPsattheinceptionoftheprogrammehavebeenmadebyAustralia,Austria,Belgium,Canada,Denmark,Ireland,Italy,Germany,theNetherlands,Norway,Spain,Sweden,

SwitzerlandandtheUK.Othernationalgovernmentshavealsoprovidedresources–financialorin‐kind–foratleast13JGPs.

Findingsfromthequalitativedeskanalysis:ConvergenceonstrategicprioritiesThisstudyhasdemonstratedthatthereisconsiderableconcurrenceamongstakeholders,evaluations/reviewsandpolicydocumentsregardingtheoverallprioritiesfortheevaluation.First,thereisacommonperspectiveontheuseoftheevaluation.WhileitwillbeusedtorenderjudgmentabouttheoverallmeritorworthofJGPs,theprincipleuseswillbetofacilitateimprovementsandgenerateknowledge.Theseusesshouldguidethescopeandapproachoftheevaluation.Second,theanalysisrevealsthattheprioritiesfortheevaluation’sstrategicscopeconvergeonthreeareas.Inrelationtotheseareas,thedatasuggestthateffectiveness,sustainabilityandpossibleimpactarethedominantevaluationcriteriatoassesstheJGPs.Relevanceissuesarelessprominentbutstillpertinent.EfficiencyandoperationaleffectivenessissuesweregenerallyconsideredlessimportantforlearningfromandimprovingJGPs.Whilethedatarevealsmanychallengesinthisarea,stakeholdersallagreedthatthesewerenotuniquetoJGPs,butcommontomanyormostjointprogrammes.Itwasaconcernthatthisevaluationmaintainsitsfocusontheeffectivenessofjointprogrammesandnotbetakenoverbysystemicoperationalefficiencyissuesthatrelatetoalljointprogrammesinallsectors.ThefirstareaofconvergencerelatestowhetherJGPsareeffectiveinproducingresultsandhow/whethercollaboratingtogetheraddsvaluetotheseresults.ThecallforinquiryintothisareacomesfromacombinationofUNpolicydirectives,UNWomen’smandate,thelackofevaluativeevidenceandseveraltypesofinformationneedsthatstakeholdersconsultedbythisstudyhaveexpressedthefollowing:• ThereareseveralGeneralAssemblyresolutions

thaturgetheUNdevelopmentsystemtoenhanceaccountabilityintheareaofgender

ExecutiveSummary

equalityandwomen’sempowerment.

• PolicydirectiveshaverecommendedthattheUNdevelopimprovedguidanceonthenature,qualityandeffectivenessofjointprogrammesinsupportofgenderequalityandtheempowermentofwomen.

• ThereisarelativepaucityofstrategiclevelassessmentsofspecificUNeffortstoaddresswomen’sempowerment,women’srightsandgenderequality.

• ThereisalackofevaluativeevidencerelatingtoJGPs.

• WithitsmandatebeingtoleadandcoordinatetheoveralleffortsoftheUNsystemtosupportthefullrealizationofwomen’srightsandopportunities(bypromotingcoherenceandactingasaglobalbrokerofknowledgeandexperience),UNWomenneedsevidencetoinformitspolicydevelopment.

• StakeholdersconsultedbythisstudyexpressastrongneedforinformationonthedegreeandnatureofcollaborationamongstparticipatingUNpartnersinJGPsandhowjointprogrammesaddvaluetogenderequality/women’sempowermentresults.

• StakeholdersprioritisetheanalysisofJGPdesignanddesignprocessesbecause(i)stakeholdersconsiderJGPdesignanddesignprocessesasdeterminantsofsuccessfulresultsand(ii)theJGPevaluations/reviewshaveidentifiedseveralJGPdesignproblems.

• Stakeholdersdesireinformationoneffectivenessinrelationtoseveraltypesofeffectsinclude:(i)genderequality,women’sempowermentandhumanrightsresults;(ii)capacitydevelopmentamongduty‐bearersandrights‐holders;(iii)advocacyeffects;(iv)processresultsfromanright‐basedapproachperspective;(v)intangibleeffects;(vi)synergeticeffectsand(vii)goodpractices.

ThisareaofconvergencecouldbecapturedbyanoverallaimofassessingtowhatextentandinwhatwayscollaboratinginaJGPhasenhancedthegenderequality/women’sempowermenteffectsachievedbytheparticipatingUNagenciesandtheirpartners.Thiswouldplaceeffectivenessintermsof

genderequality/women’sempowermentresultsinthecentreoftheevaluationandwouldlinkitwiththeconceptofcollaborationor“jointness”.Itwouldrequirethestudyofthenatureanddegreeofjointness(indesignprocesses,implementationprocesses,governance,resourcemobilisation,communication,knowledgemanagement)andwhatkindofcollaborationcontributedtobetterresults.TheevaluationwouldneedtoexaminethestrengthsandweaknessesofJGPsinrelationtoproducingeffects;howtheUNcouldimproveJGPssothattheyaremoreeffectiveinproducingresultsandwhethertherearegoodpracticestolearnfrom.ThesecondareawhereprioritiesconvergerelatestosustainabilityandhowtheJGPsinteractwithandsupportstakeholdersatthecountrylevel.Itinvolvesnationalownership,people‐centredapproachesandUNpartnershipswithgovernment.ThereareanumberofpolicyleveldocumentsthatareconcernedwiththeseaspectsandthequestionistowhatextentJGPsaresuccessfulataddressingthem.Discussionswithstakeholdersandanalysisoftheevaluations/reviewsalsorevealsimilarconcerns:• UNDG’sGuidanceNoteonJointProgramming

statesthatjointprogrammesaimtoenhancetheUNcontributioninthecurrentcontextofinternationaldevelopmentassistance,withafocusonself‐relianceandcapacitybuilding.

• TheAidEffectivenessprinciplesoftheParisDeclarationandtheAccraAgendaforActionplaceownershipatthecentreofdevelopmentco‐operation.

• TheHighLevelPanelonUNSystem‐wideCoherence’sreportDeliveringasOnestatedthatreformtoimprovethecoherenceoftheUNdevelopmentsystemmustbeunderpinnedbytheprinciplesofnationalownershipandpeople‐centredapproaches.

• UN’scommitmenttomainstreaminghumanrightsinallofitsdevelopmentworkrequiresanapproachofstrengtheningtheaccountabilityofduty‐bearersandsupportingrights‐holdersindemandingtheirrights.

• TheUNDGGuidanceNoteonJointProgrammesstatesthatjointprogrammesarespecificallyintendedtostrengthenhowtheUN

ExecutiveSummary

organizationsprogrammejointlywithgovernments.

• StakeholdersrequiremoreanalysisofwhatJGPsmeanforownershipandjointprocessesinthepartnershipsthattheagenciesenjoywithgovernmentsandcivilsociety.

• Theevaluations/reviewsofJGPsconcludedthatsustainabilityofJGPswaslowwhilestakeholdersrequireinformationandanalysisofhowsustainabilitycanbeimproved.

ThisareaofconvergencecouldbecapturedbyanoverallaimofassessingtowhatextentandinwhatwaysJGPshavecontributedtogovernmentsmeetingtheircommitmentstotheBeijingPlatformforActionandfulfilledtheirobligationstowardswomen’sandgirl’shumanrights;whilealsosupportingrights‐holdersdemandtheirrights.ThiswouldsettheUN’snationallevelpartnershipswithduty‐bearersandrights‐holdersattheheartoftheevaluation.Itwouldcovertheissuesofnationalownership,howeffectivelyandsustainablytheUNagenciesprogrammejointlywithgovernmentsandtheextenttowhichJGPapproachesarepeople‐centred.ThethirdandmuchsmallerareaofconvergencerelatestosynergiesbetweenJGPsandotherUNefforts:• ReformoftheUNdevelopmentsystemto

promoteeffectivenessandsustainabilityfocusesoncoherence,coordinationandcollaboration–notonlywithinprogrammesbutalsoamongprogrammes.

• ManystakeholdersshowaveryhighdegreeofinterestinunderstandingwhetherandhowaJGPinacountrycanresultinsynergeticeffectswithotherUNprogrammesatcountrylevel.TheywanttoknowwhetherJGPshaveaninfluenceontheUN’soverallgenderequalitymainstreamingefforts.

• MainstreaminggenderequalityintoallUNprogrammespresentssignificantchallengesformostagencies.JGPsareseenbymanystakeholdersasresourcesformainstreaming.

• MostoftheJGPevaluations/reviewsdonotreportonsynergiesandthefewthatdidfound

thereweremissedopportunitiestocreatethem.

ThisareaofconvergencecouldbecapturedbyanoverallaimofassessingtowhatextentandinwhatwaysJGPshavecontributedtoimprovedgenderequalitymainstreamingandwomen’sempowermentinotherUNprogrammesandeffortsatcountrylevel.ThefocusherewouldbeonsynergeticeffectswithotherUNefforts.ItwouldrequirestudyingtowhatextentJGPsaffectedincreasedcollaboration,coordinationandinformationexchangewithintheUNCTinrelationtogenderequalityandwomen’sempowerment.

EMERGINGPRIORITIES&REFLECTIONSFORTHEFUTUREEVALUATIONTERMSOFREFERENCE

Thestudyhasidentifiedevaluability,methodologicalandscopingissuestobetakenintoconsiderationduringthedraftingofthetermsofreferenceforthefutureEvaluationofJGPsintheUNsystem.Tobeginwith,programmesaddressinggenderequalityandwomen’sempowermentareinherentlydifficulttoevaluatesincetheyconcernchallengingandchangingcomplexsocietalnormsanddynamics.BecauseofthecomplexityandfluidityofdevelopmentprocessesandthefactthatJGPsusuallyhavesuboptimallogframes,indicatorsandmonitoringsystems,assessingeffectivenessanddeterminingcausalityinthecaseofintermediateoutcomeswillbechallengingfortheevaluators.Thereisadesiretoobtainknowledgeofarangeofeffects–synergeticeffects,intangibleeffectsandeffectsrelatedtocapacitydevelopment,humanrightsandempowerment.Identifying,analysingandassessingthesedifferenteffectswillrequireanumberofdifferenttechniquesandapproaches.

Basedonthefindingsofthequalitativeportfolioanalysis,thereportmakesanumberofrecommendationswiththeaimofhelpingtosupportimplementthefutureevaluationofJGPs:

ExecutiveSummary

Recommendation1:ThetermsofreferenceshouldstipulatethattheevaluationteamisrequiredtodemonstratehowitwillassessthedifferenttypesofJGPseffectsinitsmethodology.

Recommendation2:Thetermsofreferenceshouldrequestthattheevaluationteamconsiderwaystoassesstheaddedvalueof“jointness”initsmethodology.Evaluatingtowhatextent“jointness”enhancesresults,wouldideallyrequirethatcontrolprogrammesbeidentifiedsothatpairsofgenderequality/women’sempowermentprogrammes–onejointandtheother“single”–becompared.Unfortunately,itisunlikelythattwocomparableprogrammescanbefoundinthesamecountry,beingimplementedatthesametimeinthesamethematicarea.However,bydrawingontheknowledgeandexperienceofUNstaffandpartnerorganisations,itwouldbepossibletoreconstructhowasingleprogrammemighthavebeendifferentfromajointprogramme.Participatorytechniques–suchascollectiveanalysiscouldbeusefulinthisregard.

Recommendation3:Thetermsofreferenceshouldrequestthattheevaluationteampresenthowitwillintegratehumanrightsinitsmethodology.Itappearsthatasignificantproportionoftheportfoliomayhavemediumorhighevaluabilityforintegratinghumanrightsandgenderequality.Toaddresstheevaluabilitychallengesintermsofintegratinghumanrights,ahumanrights‐basedstakeholderanalysiswillbecritical.Aglobalevaluationspanning60countrieswillentaillimitationstotheamountofstakeholderparticipationthatispracticallypossible.Itwill,however,bepossibletoensureanacceptablelevelofparticipationinthecountrycasestudies.

Recommendation4:TheevaluationtimescopeshouldincludeJGPsfrom2006to2010toensuredatareliabilityandusefulness.Thedatareliabilityfortheprogrammesfrom2001to2006islowsincemorethanhalflackprogrammedocuments.MostoftheearlierJGPsaresmall‐scaleandthuslesslikelytoproduceeffectsthatareidentifiableyearslater.Institutionalmemoryforthisperiodmayalsobelow.Ontheotherhand,theauthorshaveobtainedprogrammedocumentsfornearly90%fortheJGPsthatwereinitiatedbetween2006and2010.TheJGPsthatwereinitiatedinthelatterhalfofthedecadearealsomorerelevanttolearnfromsincetheywereconceptualisedandimplementedinthecontextofanumberofinstitutionalchangesaffectingjointprogrammes(greaterharmonisationofoperationalpractices;furtheralignmentofUNDAFstonationalprocesses,thepilotingoftheDeliveringasOneinitiativeandthecreationoftheMDGFund).

Recommendation5:Theagenciesshouldensurethatthecountryofficessupplythenecessaryprogrammereportsanddatatocompletethedatabaseanddocumentrepository.Exceptfor20evaluations/reviews,theJGPdatabasecurrentlydoesnotcontainreportsrelatedtotheJGPs.Aconsiderableeffortwouldbeneededtoensurethatcountryofficessupplythenecessaryreportsanddatatocompletethedatabase.

Recommendation6:TheevaluationshouldincludeadeskreviewofthewholeJGPportfolioandanin‐depthportfolioanalysisofasizeableproportionoftheJGPportfolio.TheJGPdatabasethathasbeenestablishedbythestudyandtheanalysisthathasalreadybeenundertakenconstitutesignificantresourcesfor

ExecutiveSummary

theevaluationteam.Theseexistingproductswillallowtheteamto“hitthegroundrunning.”Nevertheless,whilethedatabasecontainsarangeofdatathatcanallowfurtheranalysisandcomparisons,tobefullyutilised,thedatabasewouldneedtobeupdatedtoincludeup‐to‐datefundinginformation.Itwouldbeimportantfortheevaluationteamtobeginbyreviewingall94programmedocumentsandthe20availableevaluations.Forbothpracticalandresourcereasons,itwouldmakesensetoundertakeamorein‐depthdeskstudyofaroundone‐quartertoone‐thirdoftheJGPs.TheevaluationteamwouldneedtoprovidecriteriaintheinceptionphaseonhowtoselecttheseJGPs.SomeofJGPsforwhichtherehavebeenreviews–suchastheAlbanianJGPsandsomeoftheMDGFundprogrammes–wouldconstitutegoodcandidatesforfurtherdeskstudy.

Recommendation7:Theevaluationshouldinclude4to6casestudiesthatinvolvecountryvisits.Theevaluationshouldalsoincludedesk‐levelcasestudies.Allcasestudiesshouldbecarefullychosenbypurposefulsamplingtakingintotoconsiderationthesamplingcriteriaprovidedbythisreport.ToobtainadeepenedunderstandingofwhatresultsJGPsareachievingandwhethercollaborationamongagenciesiscontributingtothis,itwillbecriticalthattheevaluationundertakescasestudies.Visitingfourcountriesislikelytoprovidethedatarequired,especiallyif(i)countrieswithmorethanoneJGPareprioritisedand,(ii)fieldstudiesofJGPsarecomplementedwithin‐depthdeskstudiesofotherJGPs.UNconcernstoensureregionalrepresentationforpoliticalreasonsmayrequirethatsixcasestudiesbeundertaken.Thecasestudieswouldmostappropriatelybeselectedbypurposefulsamplingtoensurethatanumberofvariablesarecoveredandthatthe

casesare"informationrich"andilluminative.WhilethesamplingshouldbebiasedtowardsJGPsthatareconsideredbystakeholderstobeinnovative,havedevelopedgoodpracticesand/oraresuccessful,thesamplingshouldalsoconsiderJGPsthathavestruggledtoproduceresults.Theprioritycriteriatoconsiderforsamplingincludeamixofdifferentthemes,agencies,arangeofnumbersofparticipatingagencies,countrieswithdifferenthumandevelopmentandgenderequalityindexes,regions,budgetsizesandlevelsofprogrammematurity.Conflict‐relatedJGPsshouldalsobeincludedinthesample.

Recommendation8:Thetermsofreferenceshouldcallforateamwithstrongskillsandin‐depthknowledgeandexperienceintherangeofrelevantareaslistedabove.Planningshouldtakeintoconsiderationthelead‐timethatbusyhighqualityconsultantsmayrequire.Importantqualitiesofthefutureevaluationteamincludeknowledgeandexperiencein:

Genderequality,women’sempowermentandwomen’srightsmovement

Developmentco‐operationprocessesandpolicies

TheUNdevelopmentsystem,theUN

reformprocessandUNdevelopmentprogrammes

Rights‐basedapproaches

Evaluationmethods,participatoryapproachesanddatacollection

Developingcountries,conflict‐affected

countries,regionalandcross‐regionalexperience

Assessingcapacitydevelopment

Theteamwillneedstronganalytical,writingandfacilitationskillsandarangeoflanguageskills.Theteamshouldrepresentdiversityandconsistofbothwomenandmen.Nationalconsultantsshouldbeincludedonthecasestudymissions.

Introduction

Thisreportisapre‐studyforthefutureevaluationofJointGenderProgrammes(JGPs)intheUNsystem,whichwillevaluatetheUN’sjointprogrammes(JPs)intheareaofGenderEquality,Women’sRightsandWomen’sEmpowerment(GEWE).Tosupportthescopingprocess,thisreportprovidesthedraftersofthetermsofreferenceforthefutureJPEevaluationwiththefollowing:

1. Ananalyticaloverviewofthepolicyenvironmentthatunderpinstherationaleforthefutureevaluation;

2. AnanalyticaloverviewoftheJGPportfolio–includingaquantitativeanalysisandananalyticaloverviewofkeyissues,concernsandinformationneedsthatareassociatedwithJGPs;

3. Reflectionsontheemergingstrategicpriorities,evaluabilityandmethodologicaloptions.

Toundertakethisstudy,twootherproductshavebeenproducedbytheteam.Theyare:

1. Arepositoryofrelevantdocumentation–programmedocuments,evaluations,reviews,policydocumentsandtools–thatrelatetotheJGPportfolio;

2. AdatabaseoutliningthecharacteristicsoftheJGPsaccordingtoninemaincategories.

Theremainderofthischapterprovidesinformationonthemethodologyused,itslimitationsandthedefinitionsappliedbythestudy.Thefinalsectionincludesanoverviewofthereport’sstructure.

APPROACH

QuantitativeDataIn2010,theEvaluationUnit(EU)oftheformerUNIFEMbegancollectinginformationonJGPsfrom

2001to2009inwhichUNIFEMwasaparticipatingagency.TheEUreliedoninformationgatheredfromtheUNIFEMonlineAnnualReporttrackingsystem,theUNDGdatabase,theMDG‐Fund(MDG‐F)database,theUNDG/DOCOdatabaseofResidentCoordinators(RCs)AnnualReportsanddirectfollowupandfeedbackfromfieldstaff.TheformerUNIFEMEUdevelopedafirstscanandadatabasewithalltheinformationgatheredandestablishedapreliminaryrepositoryofprogrammedocumentsandevaluationreports.InFebruary2011thecurrentstudyteamexpandedthesearchtotakeaccountofJGPswhichUNIFEMdidnotparticipateinandincludedallJGPsfrom2010.Thisconsistedofsearchinganumberofdatabases–theUNDG/DOCOdatabaseofRCsAnnualReports,theMDG‐Fdatabase,UNDGdatabase,UNFPA’sdatabaseofJGPsfrom2009‐2010,UNDP’sAtlasExecutiveSnapshot,theMulti‐DonorTrustFunddatabaseandcountryofficewebsites.WidersearchesontheInternetwerealsoundertaken.ThesearchesontheInternetandofthevariousdatabaseshelpedtheteamtouncoverpotentialJGPs.However,sincemuchoftheinformationwasproventobeunreliableorpartiallyincorrect(pleaseseesection0),itwasimportanttotriangulatedataandgivehighprioritytolocatingsignedprogrammedocuments.Contactwasmadewiththegenderexpertsand/orevaluationofficesofUNDP,UNICEF,UNESCO,UNFPA,WHO,FAOandUNESCOtoverifyandconfirmdataandobtainprogrammedocuments(whichseveralagencieswerehelpfulindoing).Contactwasalsomadeinsomecaseswithcountryofficestoverifyandconfirmdataandobtainprogrammedocuments.Allprogrammedocumentswerefiledelectronicallyaccordingtoregion.Atotalof113JGPswereeventuallyidentified.ThesewereenteredintoamoreelaboratedversionoftheinitialdatabasethatwasestablishedbytheEUin2010.Theupdateddatabasemapsoutthecharacteristicsof113JGPsfrom2001to2010

Introduction

accordingtoninemaincharacteristics:

1. Budget:ThedatabasecontainsboththeplannedbudgetofeachJGPandthefunded

budgetatthetimetheprogrammedocumentwassigned.Sincejustover50percentoftheJGPswerefullyfundedfrom

thestart,thesefiguresarethesameformanyJGPs.Thedifferencebetweenthesetwofigures(thefundinggap)differsfrom

JGPtoJGPbutisonaverage28percent.Itisimportanttonotethatunlesstheprogrammeisfullyfunded,bothfiguresare

indicative.TheteamhasnotcollecteddataonthecurrentfundingsituationoftheJGPs.

2. Country/region:TheregionsusedareLatin

AmericaandtheCaribbean,Sub‐SaharanAfrica,CentralandEasternEuropeandCommonwealthIndependentStates,Asia

andthePacificandtheArabStates.3. Theme:Thethematicareaswerederived

fromtheSecretaryGeneral’s2010reporton

theimplementationofBeijingPlatformforAction.TheyareEliminationofViolence

againstWomen(EVAW),Education,Health,Trafficking,EconomicEmpowerment,Governance,HIV/AIDSand“Integrated.”

ThelatterreferstoJGPsthathavemorethanonemainthematicareaofwork.

4. Timeframe:Thestartdate,enddateand

timeframeasstatedintheprogrammedocumenthavebeenentered.However,preparationtimeandtimeextensionshave

not.5. UNPartners:ApartfromUNfunds,

programmesandspecializedagencies,UN

missions(forinstancetoHaiti),regionaleconomiccommissions,RCOffices(whentheyhavecontributedfunding)andcertain

Secretariatoffices(OCHA)havebeenincluded.

6. OtherPartners:Thedatabasehascategories

formultilateralpartners(e.g.WorldBank,

InternationalOrganizationforMigration,regionaldevelopmentbanks,etc.);bilateralpartnersandnationalpartners.

7. LeadAgency:Thishasbeenenteredwhenagenciesmentionaleadagencyintheprogrammedocument.

8. FundManagementModality:Theseareparallel,pass‐through,pooledorcombinationofanyofthethreeformer–as

pertheUNDGGuidanceNoteonJointProgrammesfrom2003.

9. FundingSources:Fundingsourcesinclude

recipientgovernments;bilateraldonors;differenttypesoftrustfundsandcorefundingfromtheUNagenciesthemselves.

Theamountsprovidedbythedifferentsourceshavenotbeenentered.

ThedataforJGPsthatwereinitiatedbefore2006isincomplete–theteamhasnotbeenabletolocateprogrammedocumentsforoverhalfofthe19JGPsidentifiedfromthisperiod.RegardingtheJGPsinitiatedbetween2006and2010,thedataismuchmorereliable–only10%oftheJGPsinthedatabasefromthisperiodaremissingprogrammedocuments.ForJGPswithoutprogrammedocuments,somedatafromotherlessreliablesourcesofinformation(e.g.draftprogrammedocumentsandinformationfromdatabases)havebeententativelyenteredintothedatabase.ThelistofprogrammesforwhichtheEvaluationUnitisseekingtheprogrammedocumentsisincludedinAnnex3.

QualitativeInformationThegatheringofqualitativedatafocusedonobtaininganoverviewofkeyissuesandinformationneeds.Thedatawasacquiredthroughconsultationsandinterviewswithkeystakeholdersandareviewofdocumentation.Interviewswereheldwithover20peopleworkingatheadquarterslevelthatwereeithergenderexperts,evaluationspecialistsorengagedinonewayoranotherinJPs.Interviewsand/ordiscussionswere

Introduction

heldwithstaffrepresentingUNDP,UNICEF,UNFPA,UNWomen,WHO,MDTF,MDG‐F,UNDG/DOCOandtheUNTrustFundtoSupporttheEliminationofViolenceAgainstWomen.Furthermore,theteamconsultedwith11field‐basedstaffincludingResidentCo‐ordinators,UNWomenCountryRepresentativesandJointProgrammeCoordinators(JPCs).JointlytheyrepresentedAsia,Africa,ArabStates,EasternEuropeandLatinAmerica.Thedocumentationreviewwasrelativelycomprehensive.Ataminimumallprogrammedocumentsinthedatabasewereskimmedthrough–somewerestudiedinmoredetail.DozensofrelevantGeneralAssemblyresolutions,ECOSOCResolutions,reportsoftheSecretaryGeneral,reportstoexecutiveboards,MinisterialDeclarationsandtheTriennialComprehensivePolicyReview(TCPR)havebeenreviewed.EvaluationsandreviewshavebeensearchedforintheevaluationdatabasesofUNDP,UNEG,UNWomenandUNFPA.Inaddition,Internetsearchesforevaluationshavebeenundertaken.Whileonly20evaluations/reviewsthatspecificallycoveredJGPswerelocated,theteamalsostudiedsignificantevaluations/assessmentsregardinggendermainstreamingandGEWE,JPsandUNreform.Thedraftfindingsofthisstudywerepresentedanddiscussedinthreedifferentfora–i)theUNDGTaskTeamonGenderEquality;ii)representativesfromthematicandgeographicalsectionsofUNWomen;andiii)genderequalityand/orevaluationspecialistsUNDP,UNICEFandMDG‐FundaswellasrepresentativesfromSpanishAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentCo‐operationandtheGovernmentofNorway.

LIMITATIONS

Themostsignificantchallengeforthestudywasobtainingreliabledata.NoneoftheagencydatabaseshavesystemstoallowforastraightforwardsearchofJPs–letaloneJGPs.Theavailabledatabasesfrequentlylackconsolidatedandsystematicinformation,containerrorsandarenotupdatedonregularbasis.Thepoorandinconsistent

datarequireddiligentverificationandtriangulation.WhiletheteamhasusedinnovativesearchtacticsandspendhundredsofhourstryingtoidentifyJGPs,itispossiblethatthedatabasedoesnotcontainallJGPs.

Second,theJGPdatabaseislimitedtoinformationprovidedbythesignedprogrammedocuments.Sincetheprogrammesoftendevelopaftersigning–theymayhaveamassedmorefunds,enteredintopartnershipwithnewdonors,thetimeframeorfundmanagementmodalitymayhavechanged.Suchchangeswillnothavebeencapturedbythedatabase.Third,theJGPdatabasehasnotbeenfullyvalidatedbythecountryoffices.Whilesomeofficeshavebeencontactedindividuallyforinformation,giventheveryearlystageofthisevaluationprocess,itwasfeltthatitwouldbeprematuretoofficiallyenlisttheResidentCo‐ordinatorsystem.ThismeansitispossiblethattheremaybeafewJPsthattheteamhasnotyetfound.Fourth,consultationsheldwithstakeholderswererelativelylimitedandrepresentedjustUNstakeholders.Itwasbeyondthescopeofthestudytointerviewnationallevelpartners.Nevertheless,theinformationgatheredfromthestakeholdersconverges,providingarelativelyclearpictureofinformationneeds.

Introduction

Fifth,only20evaluations/reviewshavebeenundertakenofJGPs.Whilesomeusefulinformationhasbeengleanedfromthese,ithasbeenrelativelylimited.Thevastmajorityareactuallyreviewsormid‐termevaluations.Thequalityisofteninconsistentandmostareweakonthejointaspectofjointprogramming.

DefiningtheJGPPortfolio“JointGenderProgrammes”(JGPs)aretheintersectionofJPsandprogrammesthatpromotegenderequalityand/orwomen’sempowerment.WhatqualifiesasaJPandGEWEprogrammeisdiscussedinthefollowingsections.

JointProgramme

AccordingtoUNDG’sGuidanceNoteonJointProgrammes(2003),aJPinvolvestwoormoreUNorganisationsand(sub‐)nationalpartners.Theobjectives,strategy,workplanandrelatedbudgetformpartofaJPdocument,whichwillalsodetailrolesandresponsibilitiesofpartnersincoordinatingandmanagingthejointactivities.TheJPdocumentissignedbyallparticipatingorganisationsand(sub‐)nationalpartners.Acoordinationmechanismor“JointProgrammeSteeringCommittee”ultimatelygovernsaJP.ItincludesseniorpersonnelofallsignatoriestotheJPdocument,eachwithasimilarlevelofdecision‐makingauthority.ThefundmanagementmodalityoptionsforJPsarepooled,pass‐through,paralleloracombinationoftwooralloftheseoptions.Thus,aprogrammeinwhichoneagencydoesnotsigntheprogrammedocumentbutactsasasub‐contractor(“implementingagent”)foranother,doesnotrepresentaJP.Norarejointevents–suchasconferencesorcampaigns–recognisedasJPsinthisstudy.WhiletheUNDGdefinitionforJPsmakesitrelativelysimpletodistinguishwhetheraprogrammeisjoint

byanalysingtheprogrammedocument,howjointaprogrammeisinpracticecanonlybedeterminedbyanalysingeachJPmoreclosely.Thisisdiscussedfurtherinsection4.2.1.GenderEquality/Women’sEmpowerment(GEWE)Programmes

Topromotegenderequality,alljointUNprogrammesintheorymainstreamequalitybetweenmenandwomen.Becauseoftheabilitytoproducewide‐scaleresultsformenandwomeninawholerangeofdifferentsectors,effectivemainstreamingofgenderequalityinallUNeffortsundoubtedlyhasimmensepotentialinfulfillingtherightsofbothwomenandmen,enhancingtheirwellbeingandincreasingprosperity.However,thepersistinginequalitiesbetweenmenandwomenandboysandgirlscreateanunlevelplayingfieldthatunderminestherightsofwomenandgirls.Therefore,inadditiontothemainstreamingofgenderequality,thereisacompellingneed–asrecognisednotleastbyMDG3–toundertakeprogrammeswiththespecificobjectiveofempoweringwomenandgirls,promotingwomen’srightsandestablishinglegislative,policyandinstitutionalframeworksforgenderequality.Thus,JGPshavebeendefinedasthosethathaveanexplicitobjectiveofempoweringwomenand/orpromotinggenderequalityatthestrategicleveland/orwomenand/orgirlsmayconstitutethemainbeneficiaries/programmepartners.Thus,JPsthatmaymainstreamequalitybetweenmenandwomen(whichistheoryareallJPs)buthaveotheroverallgoals,havenotbeenincludedintheportfolio.ThethematicareasthattheJGPportfoliofallsintoincludeeducation,economicempowerment,governance,health,violenceagainstwomen,traffickingandHIV/AIDS.1Inaddition,someJGPsaddressmorethanonethematicareaandaredefinedas“multi‐sectoral”.Thethematicareasarebroadandsomecouldbefurtherbrokendowninto

1Thenamesofthesethematicareasarebasedonthe2010ReportoftheSecretaryGeneralentitled“TheReviewoftheImplementationoftheBeijing

PlatformforAction,theoutcomesofthetwenty‐thirdspecialsessionoftheGeneralAssemblyanditscontributiontoshapingagenderperspective

towardsthefullrealisationoftheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals”.

Introduction

sub‐themes.Therearealsofiveprogrammesthathaveaconflictangleintheirobjectives.However,thematicallytheyareagoodfitwiththecategoriesusedandhavethereforenotbeengroupedintoaseparatecategory.Todeterminewhichthemestheprogrammefallinto,theteamhasexaminedtheoverallobjectivesoftheprogrammes.Thus,ifthereareJPsthathavenotspeltoutitsgenderfocusintheobjectivesbutduringimplementationhasdevelopedastrongGEWEcharacter,itwouldnotbeincluded.Forcertainsectors,ithasbeenslightlychallengingtodistinguishwhetheraprogrammemainstreamsgenderequalityorfocusesdirectlyonempoweringwomenandgirls.Thishasbeenparticulartrueforsectorssuchaseducation,governanceandHIV/AIDS.Inthesecases,theobjectives,expectedoutcomesandlogicalframeworkshavebeenstudiedtodeterminetheextenttowhichtheprogrammespromotestrategic2genderequalityeffortsand/oraimtoempowerwomenandgirlsdirectly.InagreementwithUNFPAandWHO,allJPsinmaternal,sexualand/orreproductivehealththattheteamhasuncoveredhavebeenincludedintheJGPportfolio.Theseprogrammesmeetthecriterionofwomenand/orgirlsconstitutingtheprimarybeneficiaries.Intheory,theseprogrammesofferanopportunitytopromotetheempowermentandrightsofwomen.STRUCTUREOFTHEREPORTThereporthasfourchaptersinadditiontothisintroductorychapter.Chapter2providesabackgroundtoandrationaleforthefutureJGPevaluation.ItincludesabriefonJPsaspartofUNreformandasummaryoftheeffectivenessofpromotinggenderequalityandwomen’sempowermentwithintheUN.Chapter3rendersaquantitativeanalysisoftheJGPportfolio.Chapter4

analysestheissues,concernsandtheinformationneedsthathavebeenraisedbythedifferentsourcesofqualitativeinformation.Chapter5presentsemergingprioritiesforthefutureevaluationanddiscussesevaluabilityandmethodologicalconsiderations.

2 Promotinggenderequalityatthestrategiclevel,would,forinstance,betopromotegenderresponsivebudgetingorgenderequalityinlegislative

reformprocesses.Meanwhile,aJPthataimstoenhanceeconomicsecurityamongruralpoormenandwomenwouldbeconsideredaprogramme

thatmainstreamsgenderequalitywitheconomicsecurityasanoverallaim.

BackgroundtoandRationalefortheJGPEvaluation

ThischapterprovidesashortbackgroundtoUNreformandhowJPswereconceivedaspartofthisprocess.Asummaryoftheeffectivenessofpromotinggenderequalityandwomen’sempowermentwithintheUNdevelopmenteffortisalsobrieflyoutlinedinsection2.2.Byhighlightingrelevantpolicydirectivesandcommitments,thefinalsectionprovidestherationalefortheevaluation.

BRIEFBACKGROUNDTOJOINTPROGRAMMESASPARTOFUNREFORM

AftertheUNSecretaryGenerallaunchedtheUNreformprocessinJuly19973,theUNDevelopmentGroupwasformed(UNDG),CommonCountryAssessments(CCAs)andUNDevelopmentAssistanceFrameworks(UNDAFs)wereintroducedandpreparedforanumberofcountries.Fromthestart,itwashopedthatUNDAFswouldpromotejointprogrammingamongsttheUNagencies.TheJointNordicIndependentAssessmentoftheCCA/UNDAFprocessstudiedtheprogressofJPsthreeyearslater,in2001.ItfoundthatwhereattemptsofestablishingJPshadbeenmade,effortswereimpededbythedifferentadministrativesystemsofeachindividualorganisation.OtherbarriersfacedbyJPsincludedlackofclarityandguidanceonhowtoproceed.Thereportconcludedthat:

...untilharmonisationeffortsareunderwayandthevariousheadquartersgivethefieldthesolidbackingitneeds,collaborativeandjointprogrammingeffortsarelikelytofaceuphillstruggles,riskingthatatleastshort‐termbenefitsandoutcomesofjointprogramminginitiativeswillbeoffsetbyhighpreparatoryandmanagementcosts.4

TheSecretaryGeneral’sreport“Strengtheningthe

UnitedNations:anAgendaforFurtherChange”(A/57/387)in2002broughtgreaterimpetustothereformagenda.JointprogrammeswerespecificallymentionedasmeansoffurtherenhancingtheeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheUNsystem.UNDGwasrequestedtoprepareanimplementationplanby2003tostrengthentheeffectivenessoftheOrganisation’spresenceindevelopingcountries.Aspartofthiseffort,theUNDGGuidanceNoteonJointProgrammeswasdrafted,andinitsoriginalformisthemainguidancedocumentforJPstoday.TheGuidanceNotestatedthatthereformagenda:

“...callsforincreasedjointprogrammingandpoolingofresourcestofurtherenhancetheeffectivenessoftheUnitedNation’ssystemindevelopingcountries,andtoensurethesystem’scombinedresourcesareputtobestuse.ThesemeasuresareintendedtomaximizeUN’seffectiveness,reducetransactioncostsforgovernments,donors,andtheUN,andstrengthenhowtheUNorganizationsprogrammejointlywithgovernments.Theyalsoseektorespondtodonors’andprogrammecountries’concernstoenhancetheUNcontributioninthecurrentcontextofinternationaldevelopmentassistance,withafocusonself‐relianceandcapacitybuilding.”5

In2005,intheSecretaryGeneral’sreport“InLargerFreedom,”6greatersystemcoherence,result‐basedmanagementandstrongleadershipbytheResidentCo‐ordinatorsystemwasemphasised.Aspartofthereformeffort,theSGsubsequentlyestablishedtheHighLevelPanelonUNSystem‐wideCoherencetoexaminehowtheUNsystemcouldworkmorecoherentlyandeffectivelyacrosstheworldintheareasofdevelopment,humanitarianassistanceandenvironment.Inthemeantime,UNDGcommissionedan

3SecretaryGeneralReportRenewingtheUnitedNations:AProgramforReform:MeasuresandProposals1997.14Ljungman,Cetal.LayingtheKeystoneofUNDevelopmentReform:theJointNordicAssessmentoftheCCA/UNDAFProcess.COWIA/S2001.5UNDGGuidanceNoteonJointProgramming,2003.6UNSecretaryGeneral,Inlargerfreedom:towardsdevelopment,securityandhumanrightsforallReportoftheSecretaryGeneral,2005

assessmenttoenhanceefficiencyandeffectivenessofJPs.Thereportwasfinalisedinthespringof2006.Itreviewed160JPsandundertookcasestudiesin14countriescovering21JPs.ItconcludedthatJPswerenotfullyexploitingtheirpotentialtomainstreamthematicpriorities–suchashumanrightsandgenderequality–thatarenotexclusivetoanyoneUNagency.Itfurthermorehighlighted“gender”anasanareathatcanbemoredeeplyintegratedintoimplementationwhenUNagenciesworktogether.ThereportalsoprovidedanumberofrecommendationsonhowtoimproveJPs(thereviewisfurtherdiscussedinsection4.1.2).Someoftherecommendationsfromthereportwereneverfullyactedupon–suchastherecommendationtoupdate,andcontinuallyupdate,theUNDGguidelinesforJPs.Norwasthesubsequentplantoconductafull‐scalejointevaluationofJPseverfulfilled–althoughadrafttermsofreferencewasprepared.Areasonmaybethatattentionshiftedasaresultofthetwonewrelateddevelopmentsdiscussedbelow.Laterthatyear,theHighLevelPanelissueditsreport“DeliveringasOne”whichraisedthebarandsetoutaprogrammeofreformthatfocusedonfourmainprinciples:OneLeader,OneBudget,OneProgrammeandOneOffice.In2007,eightdevelopingcountriesagreedtopilotDeliveringasOnetoincreasetheUNsystem’simpactthroughmorecoherentprogrammes,reducedtransactioncostsforgovernments,andloweroverheadcostsfortheUNsystem.WhileJPsremainafeatureofthisapproach,DeliveringasOneisamorefar‐reachingandcomprehensiveinitiative.Atthesametime,inDecember2006,theSpanishgovernmentestablishedtheMDG‐Fwith$US700milliontoimproveUNeffectivenessindevelopingcountries.OnerationalefortheFundwasthatfactthefundingstructuresandinstitutionalincentivesforjointUNinterventionswerenotwellenoughresourced–norespeciallyconduciveintheirdesign–toallowforcoherentsupportbytheUNforthe

MDGsatthecountrylevel.ThustheFundwasfromthestartspecificallygearedtosupportingJPs.OneoftheeightprogrammaticareasthatissupportedbytheFundisGEWE(the“GenderWindow”).TheFundcontributedtoincreasingthetotalnumberandaggregatefinancialsizeofnewJGPsin2008and2009.EFFECTIVENESSOFUNDEVELOPMENTEFFORTINGEWE

TheFourthWorldConferenceonWomenin1995signalledaclearcommitmenttointernationalnormsandstandardsofequalitybetweenmenandwomen.Itstipulatedthatmeasurestoprotectandpromotethehumanrightsofwomenandgirl‐childrenweretoconstituteanintegralpartofuniversalhumanrightsandmustunderlieallactions.Institutionsatalllevelsweretobereorientedtoexpediteimplementation.ThisrequiredthatGovernmentsandtheUNcommittedtopromotethe“mainstreaming”ofagenderperspectiveinpoliciesandprogrammes.Inthelastdecade,severalsignificantinitiativeshavebeenundertakentoassesstheprogressinthisarea.In2006Noradcommissionedanindependentreviewthatsynthesisedtheconclusionsofthegendermainstreamingevaluations.7ItincludedtheUNgendermainstreamingevaluationsofUNDP(2006),ILO(2005)andHabitat(2003)andconcluded:

Thefindingsintheevaluationsallpointinthesamedirection.Workoninstitutionalisingtheempowermentofwomenandgenderequalityhavehadlowpriority,therehavebeeninsufficientresourcestoimplementpoliciesandstrategies,thefocushasshiftedtootherareas,andthereisnosystematicreportingofresultsinthisarea.Themainstreamingstrategyhasbeenunsuccessful.

InthesameveintheHighLevelPanelonUNSystem‐wideCoherencewasappointedbytheSecretary

7Norad.LessonsfromEvaluationsofWomenandGenderEqualityinDevelopmentCooperation,SynthesisReport,2006.Italsoreviewedevaluationsof

theWorldBank,Sida,DfID,Norad,DACandEC.

Generalin2006(asmentionedabove.)Afterfurtherdeliberationswithdifferentstakeholdersitcametotheconclusionthat:

WhiletheUNremainsakeyactorinsupportingcountriestoachievegenderequalityandwomen’sempowerment,thereisastrongsensethattheUNsystem’scontributionhasbeenincoherent,under‐resourcedandfragmented.

ThePanelstatedthatforhumanrightsanddevelopmenteffectivenessreasons,theUNneedstopursueGEWE“farmorevigorously.”Furthermore,itheldthatamuchstrongervoiceonwomen’sissuesisneeded“toensurethatGEWEaretakenseriouslythroughouttheUNsystem”.ItconcludedthatwhilethecommitmenttogenderequalityisandshouldremainthemandateoftheentireUNsystem,agenderentity—basedontheprinciplesofcoherenceandconsolidation—wouldneedtobecreatedtoadvancethiskeyUNagenda.Thisledtothecreation,in2011,ofUNWomen.CorporatelevelgendermainstreamingevaluationscontinuedtobeconductedbyUNagenciesafter2006,butasynthesisoftheirresultshavenotyetbeenundertaken.TheseincludeUNICEF(2007),WFP(2008),IFAD(2010)andtheUNSecretariat(2010)–withoneevaluationofFAOandUNHabitatthatarecurrentlyongoing.Theconclusionsofthefirstthreeoftheseevaluationsareslightlylessnegativethantheevaluationsfrom2000‐2006.Infact,theevaluatorsofeachevaluationclaimthattheorganisationisbetteratmainstreaminggenderequalitythanotherorganisationshavebeeninthepast.Nevertheless,gapsinmonitoringandevaluation,policycoherence,knowledgemanagementandleadershipwerehighlighted.Meanwhile,thefirsteverevaluationoftheUNSecretariat,conductedin2010bytheOfficeforInternalOversightServices,wasunabletodrawdefinitiveconclusionsabouttheoveralloutcomesofgendermainstreamingoritseffectivenessinadvancinggenderequalitybecausethelinkbetweenthestructures,processesandtheirresultswasweakormissing.Itdidconclude,however,thatlackofalignmentbetweenpolicyandpracticeposes“arisktothereputationoftheUN,whichhascommittedto

andhaspromotedgendermainstreamingasastrategyforachievinggenderequality.”Whatisnotablefromtheabovecorporate‐levelevaluationsinthelastdecade,isthatwhiletheyhaveassessedgendermainstreaminginUNagencies,lessemphasishasbeengiventoevaluatingtheresultsofspecificeffortstoaddresswomen’sempowerment,women’srightsandgenderequalityatthestrategiclevel.RATIONALEFORTHEJGPEVALUATON

Atthepolicylevel,therehavebeenseveraldirectivestoenhanceaccountabilityintheareaofgenderequalityandwomen’sempowerment.Forinstance,theGeneralAssemblytookresolutionsin2009and2010thatstate:

EncouragesincreasedeffortsbyGovernmentsandtheUnitedNationssystemtoenhanceaccountabilityfortheimplementationofcommitmentstogenderequalityandtheempowermentofwomenattheinternational,regionalandnationallevels,includingbyimprovedmonitoringandreportingonprogressinrelationtopolicies,strategies,resourceallocationsandprogrammes...

TheTriennialComprehensivePolicyReview(TCPR62/208)from2007recommendedthatintheefforttoimprovetheeffectivenessofadvancingnationalprioritiesandinternationalcommitments,theUNdevelopmentsystemshoulddevelopimprovedguidanceon“thenature,qualityandeffectivenessofJPsinsupportofgenderequalityandtheempowermentofwomen.”Inresponse,theGeneralAssemblyresolutionGA62/208thatrespondedtourgedtheUNorganisations“totakeacoherentandcoordinatedapproachintheirworkongender‐relatedissuesandtosharegoodpractices,toolsandmethodologies.”Reflectingthis,UNIFEM’sStrategicPlan2008‐2013underlinedtheorganisation’scommitmentto“generatingconcreteevidenceandknowledgeonthe“howto”ofgenderequality.”ThespecificcommitmentofUNWomentoevaluate

JPsintheareaofGEWEemanateoriginallyfromformerUNIFEM’smandatetoengageinJPswhich“offerkeyentrypointstostimulatinggreateroverallUNeffectiveness,whilesimultaneouslygeneratingsignificantbenefitsforgenderequality.”ItalsostemsfromtheformerUNIFEM’scommitmenttoassessingtheconcretebenefitsthatemanatefromJGPs“bothintermsoftheirresultsinadvancinggenderequalityandinbuildinggenderequalitycapacityandcommitmentamongstUNpartners.”ThiscommitmentwasreinforcedbythecreationofUNWomenanditsmandatetoleadandcoordinatetheoveralleffortsoftheUNsystemtosupportthefullrealisationofwomen’srightsandopportunities.TogetherwiththeUNDG,UNWomenispreparingasystem‐widecoordinationstrategyongenderequalityinthefirsthalfof2011,withcleardeliverablesforUNWomenandtheUNSystem,topromotegreatercoherenceinlinewithexistingagencies’mandatesandpriorities.8GiventhatUNWomenisguidedbytheprinciplesofleadingandpromotingcoherenceinUNsystemworkongenderequality;9andactingasaglobalbrokerofknowledgeandexperience,aligningpracticewithnormativeguidance;anevaluationoftheJGPportfoliointheUNhasbecomeallthemorepertinent.

AJointandRights‐BasedEvaluationTakingintoconsiderationthecollaborativenatureofJPs;thecommonstakethatUNagencieshaveinthem;andthemutualeffortthatisrequiredtoimprovethem,itwouldberationalandadvantageousforanevaluationofJGPstobeundertakenjointlywiththeothermainUNagenciesinvolvedinJGPs.ThiswouldalsocoherewithGAresolution62/208andtheSGReportfrom2002,whichbothspecificallypromotethattheUNagenciesengageincollaborativeapproachessuchasjointevaluations.

TocoherewiththeUN’scommitmentsinceovera

decadetomainstreamhumanrightsinallofitsdevelopmentwork,anarticulatedhumanrightsperspectivethroughouttheevaluationwouldbeappropriate.Forseveralyears,theUNEGhasbeendevelopingandpilotingaguideforintegratingarights(andgenderequality)perspectiveinallUNevaluations.Itwillbepublishedinthecomingmonthsandcanbeappliedtothisevaluation.

8UNWomen:Visionand100‐DayActionPlan:ASummaryBriefing.9MichelleBachelet,“StatementtotheFirstRegularSessionoftheExecutiveBoard,UnitedNationsEntityforGenderEqualityandtheEmpowerment

ofWomen”,January24,2011.

QuantitativeDeskAnalysisoftheJGPPortfolio

The quantitative analysis is based on a database of the 113 JGPs from the period of 2001 to 2010 that the team has located. For each JGP, information relating to eight main parameters has been entered. These are:

1. Budget: Planned budged and funded budget as per signing of the programme document

2. Actors and Partners: UN, multilateral, donor and national level partners

3. Geography: Country, sub-region and region

4. Lead agency 5. Thematic area 6. Timeframe: Start date, end date and

duration 7. Fund management modality 8. Funding source

The database constitutes the most complete of its kind for JGPs, and perhaps for any kind of JP. The data pertaining to 94 programmes starting from 2006 onward is reliable in relation to the signed programme document for each JGP. However, since many

programmes develop as they are implemented, it is not necessarily accurate or up to date. Most importantly, the funded budget of a programme may increase as it mobilises resources during the implementation period. Likewise, the fund management modality and timeframe could change along the way. For the 19 programmes that started in 2001 to 2005, the data is much less reliable because the signed programme documents have not been located for more than half JGPs. It is even conceivable that some of these JGPs in this database were never initiated as JPs. Due to the unreliability of the data from before 2006, the tables in this report that rely on budget figures mainly use data from 2006 to 2010. It is important to note that the budget figures that are used are indicative – unless a programme is fully funded from the start (which is the case for 54% of all JGPs that started between 2006 and 2010), a JGP will in reality be better resourced after the programme has initiated, but may still have a funding gap. The team has not been able to gather data on actual level of funding in cases where there was a funding gap from the start.

Using the data collected on the 113 JGPs that were initiated between 2001 to 2010, the following sections provide a quantitative analysis. The areas covered include evolution of the JGP portfolio size over time; the number and type of participating UN agencies; regional differences; the thematic spread; the duration of the JGPs and the funding of the JGPs.

JGP Repository

The study team has developed a virtual repository containing al the documents reviewed during the analytical overview fo the JGP portfolio. This includes all the signed joint programme documents, relevant evaluations, guidelines, background documents and policy documents. The repository was built using the D-Groups platform at http://dgroups.org/library. The repository will be made available to the evaluation team and ultimately be incorporated in UN Women’s Knowledge Management systems.

Figure 3.1: Total number of JGPs Initiated in Each Year from 2001 to 2010

EVOLUATIONOFTHEJGPPORTFOLIOOVERTIME

Figure 3.1 above shows that while a few JGPs existed in the start of the decade, the number of JGPs have increased, but not linearly. In terms of numbers of JGPs, however, since JGPs can be as small as $US 26,000 or as large as $US 43 million, the number of JGPs is only half the story. This range of sizes makes it helpful to study the median size of JGPs. Figure 3.2 shows that JGPs between 2001 and 2005 were relatively small, but more or less in line with the size of other JPs of that period. In the second half of the decade, the median size grew to $US 2.1 million. The sections that follow analyse the evolution of the JGP portfolio from 2001 to 2005 and 2006 to 2010.

Median Size of Programme Budget

JGPs from 2001-2005 $US 320,000 (planned)

All JPs from 1999-2005 $US 300,000

JGPs from 2006-2010

$US 2,100,000 (planned)

All JPs from 2006-2010 No data

Figure 3.2: Median of JP and JGP Budget Sizes

2001‐2005

Before2005,therewereonlyfiveJGPs–threeofwhichpre‐datetheUNDGguidelinesforJPs–andallbutonehadplannedbudgetsthatwerearoundonetotwomilliondollarsinsize–whichisrelativelylargecomparedtotheJGPsthatfollowedin2005.However,theteamdidnothavethesignedprogrammedocumentstoverifythisinformation.In2005,therewasalargehikeinthenumberofJGPswith14beinginitiated.Nineofthesehadplannedbudgetsthatweresmallerthan$600,000–ofwhichfourweresmallerthan$130,000.ThedevelopmentoftheUNDGGuidanceNoteonJointProgrammescouldbeonereasonthatcountryofficeslaunchedmoreJPs.Furthermore,atthetimethattheGuidanceNotewasprepared,theUNagencieshadanewmeansoftransferringfundslegallyamongstoneanother.Consideringthelargenumberoffairlysmallprogrammes,thisincreasecouldrepresentafewprogrammesthatmoreresembleafundtransferfore.g.anactivityofcommoninterest.OneJGPfromthisperiodisthesupporttotheGenderFacilityforResearchandAdvocacyinChina,inwhichfiveUNagencieshavepartneredwithDFIDinaJGPfullyfundedat$US2.7million.Itisuniquesinceitrunsfora10year

period–withanenddatein2015.

2006‐2010

Thedatabasehastwobudgetfiguresformost10JGPsfromthisperiod–oneistheplannedbudgetfortheprogramme,theotheristhefundedbudgetatthetimeofsigningtheprogrammedocument.11Thedifferencebetweenthebudgetsisillustratedinthefigurebelow.Onaverage,thereisa28%differencebetweentheplannedandfundedbudgets(fundinggap)atinceptionforJGPsatcountryandregionallevel.However,regardlessofwhethertheplannedorinitiallyfundedbudgetfiguresareused,thetrendremainsthesameovertime:since2007,thetotalvalueofnewJGPseachyearhasbeenabove$US70million.Figure3.3showsapeakin2008inbothplannedandfundedbudgets.Around$62million(sevenJGPs)in2008and$24million(fourJGPs)ofthetotalvalueofnewJGPsin2009originatedfromtheMDG‐F.However,thepeakin2008cannotwhollybeexplainedbytheadditionofresourcesfromtheMDG‐Fsincetheincreasefrom2006is$US122million.Meanwhile,thevalueoftheJGPsthatwerestartedin2009areroughlyequivalenttothe2007levels,withtheextraadditionof$US24fromtheMDG‐F.

10Thedatabasecontainsaplannedbudgetfigureforallbut5.3%oftheJGPsfrom2006to2010anddoesnothavethestatusofthefundedbudgetfor14.9%oftheJGPs.Theaggregatedataforplannedbudgetsisthereforemorecomplete.Theplannedbudgetisfurthermorearguablyabetterreflectionofthesizeoftheprogrammeasitwasconceived.However,itisimportanttotreatthebudgetfiguresasindicative.Thereare5JGPsthathavenotbeenincludedinthegraphswithbudgetfiguresduetolackingdata.Thesearei)SaoTomeandPrincipe:Strengthenedcapacityofnationalandlocalinstitutionstoadvancegenderequality;ii)JPonRapidReductionofMaternalandNeonatalMortalityinthePhilippines;iii)GuineaBissau:Egalitédegenreetrenforcementdesmoyensd'actiondesfemmes;iv)Zambia:JointProgrammeonTrafficking;v)Comoros:Accélerationdelareductiondelamortalitématernelle,néonataleetinfantile.11In54%ofthecases,theJGPisfullyfundedfromthestartandthesetwobudgetfiguresarethesame.Thisisthecasefore.g.the12JGPsfundedbyMDG‐FandvirtuallyallJGPsintheLACregion.

Figure 3.3: Total Value of Planned Budgets and Funded Budgets* of JGPs Initiated Each Year from 2006 to 2010

*At the time of the signing of the Programme

Figure 3.4: Average Planned Financial Size of JGPs Initiated Each Year from 2006 to 2010

Figure3.4aboveshowsadifferentangleoftheevolutionbyprovidingtheaverageplannedfinancialsizeofJGPseachyear.Likethepreviousgraph,itdepictsasteepclimbinbetween2006and2007.However,fromthenonthefigurefollowsaverydifferentpattern.Whiletheaverageplannedfinancialsizein2007and2008weresimilar,therewasasteepfallin2009,onlytoberecoveredin2010,whichrepresentsthepeakinaveragesizeat$US7.04million.Theteamhasnotidentifiedanexplanationforthistrend.

PARTNERSSince2001,therehavebeenover24UNentitiesthathaveparticipatedinJGPs.AUNentityisdefinedasparticipatingwhenithassignedtheprogrammedocument.Itmostcasesaparticipatingentityalsocontributessomecorefunds.UNFPAfollowedbyUNDP,formerUNIFEMandUNICEFarebyfarthemostfrequentactors,participatinginover60JGPseach.WHOhasparticipatedin38,makingitamedium‐largeactor.Threespecialisedagencies–ILO,UNESCOandFAO–constitutethemedium‐smallbracket(participatingin10to21JGPs).InthisbrackettheyarejoinedbytwocomparativelylargeUNagencies–UNHCR,andWFP;andUNAIDS.AmongtheUNorganizationsthathaveparticipatedinfive

orlessJGPsareamixofsmalleragencies,UNmissions,andacoupleofUNregionaleconomiccommissions.

NumberofParticipatingUNPartnersThedatarevealsthat38percentoftheJGPsfrom2001to2010havethreeorfourpartners.Thesecondmostcommonsizeistwopartners,whichmakeup28percentoftheJGPs.TherearenineJGPsthathavenineormorepartners–threeofwhichhave11ormore.TheseincludeJGPsinKenya(13partners,plannedbudgetof$US56.5millionwithabudgetgapof$28million);Vietnam(12partners,plannedbudgetof$US4.7millionfullyfundedbytheMDG‐F);andUganda(11partners,plannedbudgetof$US24.6millionwithabudgetgapof$6.4million).ItwouldbelogicaliftheaverageandmediansizeoftheplannedbudgetsoftheJGPsgenerallygrowswiththenumberofUNpartners.ThisisgenerallytrueforJGPs.ProgrammeswithtwoUNpartnershaveamedianplannedbudgetsizeof$US678,500(theaveragebudgetsizeismorethandoubleduetosixprogrammesthatare$US3.3to10millioninsize).TheJGPsthathave11UNpartnersormorehaveanaverage/medianplannedbudgetthatisaround$US30million.However,whetheraJGPismadeupoffivetosixUN partners or seven to

Figure 3.5: Frequency of Participation of UN Organizations in JGPs 2001 to 2010

Figure 3.6: Number of Participating Agencies in JGPs 2001 to 2010

eightUNpartnersdoesnotmakeasubstantialdifferenceinthebudgetsize.Infact,themediansizeisvirtuallythesameforthesetwogroups.

ItwouldbeexpectedthatthenumberofJGPswitharelativelysmallplannedbudgetwoulddecreaseasthenumberofUNpartnersgrow.Indeed,suchapatternexistsbetweentwotosixUNpartners:38%oftheJGPswithtwoUNpartnersareworthlessthan$US350,000.Whenthenumberofpartnersisincreasedto three to four UN partners, there is a 12-point drop to 26%. There is another 12-

Average Median

2 Agencies $ 1,782,728* $ 678,500

3-4 Agencies $ 2,776,805 $ 1,099,000

5-6 Agencies $ 4,988,120 $ 3,638,888

7-8 Agencies $ 4,093,399 $ 3,640,222

9-10 Agencies

$ 8,811,441 $ 8,000,000

11+ Agencies $ 30,778,849 $ 31,106,657

Figure 3.7: Average and Median Size of Planned Financial Value of JGPs Per Number of Participating Agencies 2001 to 2010

Figure 3.9: Percentage of JGPs by Different UN Lead Agencies 2006 to 2010

point drop when a JGP consists of five to six agencies. JGPs that have nine or more partners are never under $US 350,000. However, an astounding 43% of JGPs with seven to eight UN partners are under $US 350,000.

LeadAgency

The2003GuidanceNoteforJointProgrammesdoesnotrecognisetheconceptof“leadagency”–anagencythatplaysthecentralcoordinatingroleintheprogramme.Inone‐thirdoftheJGPsfrom2006‐2010,thereiseithernoleadagencyspecifiedintheprogrammedocumentorthedataismissingonthisaspect.However,two‐thirdsoftheJGPsthatwereinitiatedbetween2006and2010havedesignatedaleadagencyintheprogrammedocument.AtleasteightdifferentagencieshaveservedasleadagenciesforJGPs.At24%UNFPAisthemostcommonleadagencyforJGPs.ItisfollowedbyformerUNIFEM(20%)andUNDP(16%).WHOactedasleadagency

Percentage of JGPs under $350,000

2 Agencies 38%

3-4 Agencies 26%

5-6 Agencies 14%

7-8 Agencies 43%

9-10 Agencies 0%

11+ Agencies 0%

intwoJGPs.UNCDF,UNICEF,ECLACandILOhaveeachleadoneJGP.

ThemostcommonmultilateralpartneroutsideoftheUNsystemistheInternationalOrganisationforMigration(IOM).TheIOMisinvolvedinnineJGPs,whichmeansitisamorecommonJGPpartnerthan12oftheUNpartnersincludedinFigure3.9.TheWorldBank,theAfricanDevelopmentBankandOSCEhaveeachparticipatedinoneJGP.

Figure 3.8: Percentage of JGPs with Planned Budgets Under US$ 350,000 per Number of Participating Agencies 2001 to

GEOGRAPHY

Sixty‐onecountrieshavehadatleastoneJGPintheyears2006to2010.SeventeencountrieshadtwoormoreJGPsduringthisperiod.ArgentinastandsoutbyhavinghadfourJGPsinthisperiod,butallwere12‐monthprogrammeswithrelativelysmallbudgets.Egypt,Morocco,NepalandthePhilippineseachhadthreeJGPs,whichalloverlappedintime.InallcasesbutNepal,thethematicareaofeachJGPwasdifferent–NepalhadtwodifferentEVAWprogrammes–onewithaconflict‐relatedfocus.TwelvecountrieshadtwoJGPs–witheachJGPscoveringadifferentthematicareafromtheother.Inhalfthecasesthetimeframesoverlapped.

WhenanalysingtheJGPportfoliofrom2006to2010bygeographicregion,AfricaleadswiththegreatestnumberofJGPs(29).TheaggregationofallofthevalueofplannedbudgetsinAfricaduringthisperiodgivesatotalof$US254million–whichismorethanfourtimesthatoftheAsia/PacificandLACregions.TheLACregionisrightbehindAfricawiththetotalnumberofJGPswith26–14ofwhichhavebeenimplementedinsixcountries.TheCEECISregionhasthesmallestnumberofJGPs,witheightintotal.TheArabStatesregionhasfivelessJGPsthanCEECIS,buttheplannedfinancialvalueamountstomorethanfourtimesthatoftheCEECISregion.Figure3.12belowillustratestheresultsofanalysisoftheregionsusingthenumberofJGPsasapercentageofall94JGPs,andtheplannedfinancialvalueofJGPasapercentageofthetotalplannedvalueof$US463million.AfricaaccountsforoverhalftheplannedfinancialvalueofJGPs(althoughthereisa55%gapbetweenthefundedbudgetatinceptionandtheplannedbudget).ThebudgetsfortheLACJGPswerealmostfullyfundedfromthestart(theonlyregionwherethisisthecase).Meanwhile,theaveragefundinggapintheCEE/CISandArabStatesregionsisaround20%.TheAsia‐Pacificregionhasanaveragefundinggapof39%atinception.

Region Numberof

TotalValueof

PlannedBudget

Africa 29 254

ArabStates 13 54

Asia&Pacific 17 66

CEECIS 8 13

LatinAmerica&Caribbean 26 66

Global 1 10

Figure 3.10: Countries with JGPs with More Than One JGP 2006 to 2010

Figure 3.11: Number of JGP and their Total Planned Value Per Region 2006 to 2010

No. Of JGPs Region Country Time Overlap of JGPs

No. Of Thematic areas

4 JGPs LAC Argentina 2 overlappe

d – all under 12 months

Arab States

Egypt Yes 3

Morocco Yes 3

Asia/ Pacific

Nepal Yes 2

3 JGPs

Philippines Uruguay

Yes Yes

Africa Comoros No 2 Eritrea Yes 2 Lesotho No 2

Liberia Yes 2 Arab States

Iraq Tunisia

Yes Yes

LAC Bolivia Yes 2

Ecuador No 2 Haiti Yes 2 Venezuela No 2 Asia/ Pacific

Bangladesh Yes 2

2 JGPs

Mongolia No 2

Figure 3.12: Number of JGPs and Planned Financial Value of JGPs per Region Respectively as a Percentage of the Numeric Size and a Percentage of the Financial Size of the JGP Portfolio

Funded Planned Difference %Difference

Africa 114,632,435 253,598,293 138,965,858 55

ArabStates 43,349,903 54,268,704 10,918,801 20

AsiaPacific 40,664,938 66,186,117 25,521,179 39

CEE/CIS 9,738,941 12,695,524.0

2,956,583 23

LAC 65,119,151 66,259,871 1,140,720 2

Global 1,030,000 9,830,000 8,800,000 90

THEMATICAREA

WithinJGPseightthematicareashavebeenidentified.Asdiscussedinsections00,theseincludeGovernance,HumanTrafficking,EconomicEmpowerment,EliminationofViolenceAgainstWomen(EVAW),Education,Health,HIV/AIDSandmulti‐sectoralprogrammes.WhileseveralJGPshaveelementsofmorethanonetheme,theJGPsthatareincludedinthelatterincludecleargoalsintwoormoreofthepreviousthematicareas.

EVAWisthemostcommonthematicarea(29JGPsor31%)andaccountsforasimilarchunkoftheoverallaggregatedplannedbudget(28%).Meanwhile,themulti‐sectoralJGPsaccountforonly

11%oftheJGPsbutbecausetheseareallverylargefinancially,theyrepresent33%ofthetotalaggregatedplannedbudgets.Thereisalsoalargediscrepancybetweenthepercentageofgovernanceprogrammes(29%)andthepercentageofthetotalfundsplannedforthesetypesofprogramme(13%).Thereare5JGPs(1inSierraLeoneand2JGPsinLiberiaandNepaleach)thatspecificallymention“conflict”inthetitleand/orobjectives.TheirthematicfocusesaretheareasEVAW(2),Health,GovernanceandEconomicEmpowerment.Inaddition,thereare8otherJGPsincountriescurrentlyorrecentlyaffectedbyviolentconflictthatdonothaveaconflictangleintheobjectives.

Figure 3.13: Difference Between Planned and Funded Financial Budgets of JGPs per Region

Figure 3.14: Number of JGPs and Planned Financial Value of JGPs per Thematic Area Respectively as a Percentage of the Numerical Size and a Percentage of the Financial Size of the JGP Portfolio

Figure 3.16: Number of JGPs from 2001 to 2010 by Duration in Months

Average Duration

All JPs from 1999-2005 26 months

JGPs from 2001-2005 25 months (36 months)*

JGPs from 2006-2010 30 months

All JPs from 2006-2010 No data

PLANNEDTIMEFRAME

TheaverageplannedtimeframeforJGPshasincreasedovertimefromaround25monthsto30months.SincemostJGPsseemtofaceimplementationdelays,itisprobablethattheactualdurationislonger–insomecases,considerablylonger.

Atleast17percentoftheprogrammesareplannedtolastlongerthanthreeyears,whileatleast14%are12monthsorlessinduration.

Figure 3.15: Average Duration of JPs and JGPs

Figure 3.17: Percentage of JGPs from

FUNDINGFrom2006to2010,thetotalplannedvalueoftheJGPportfoliowas$US463millionandthetotalvaluethatwasfundedatthetimeofsigningoftheprogrammesdocumentswas$US274million.Thesourcesoffundingincludecorefundsfromtheagencies,16differenttrustfunds,oneregionaldevelopmentbank,onemultilateralagency(IOM),13recipientgovernmentsand15donorgovernments.Moredatagatheringandresearchisneededtobeabletodetermineexactlywhatsourcecontributedwhatamounttothisportfolio.Nevertheless,someinterestingfactscanbegleanedfromthecurrentdata.

TheillustrationaboveshowsthatatleastmorethanhalfofallJGPswerefullyfundedfromthestart.Whilewedonothavefiguresfor16%oftheJGPs,weknowthatatleast28%facedafundinggapatinception.Between62%to72%oftheJGPsfrom2006to2010havebenefittedfromcorefundingfromtheparticipatingUNagencies.Atleast17%oftheJGPswerefullyfundedbycorefundsfromUNagencies.TheseJGPsrangedinfinancialsizefrom$US27,000tonearly$US5millioninsize,withanaveragesizeofabout$US1million.Atleastanother17%werenotfullyfundedtostartoffwith,butatthetimeofsigning,theirbudgetwasonlymadeofUNagency

corefunds.TheUNcorecontributionsfortheseJGPsrangedfrom$US140,000toover$US28million,withanaverageofabout$US3millionmakingupbetween22%to90%oftheplannedbudget.Intotal,UNagencieshavecontributedover$US98fromtheircoreresourcestotheJGPportfolio,makingthecombinedUNcorefundsthelargestsourceoffundingforJGPs.Inthe25caseswhereparticipatingUNagencieshavenotcontributedtotheJGPs,theyhaveinmostcasesbeenfullyfundedfromthestartbyatrustfund.TheMDG‐Fisthemostfrequentsinglenon‐coresourceoffundingwith14JGPsor15%being

fullyfundedbyit,amountingtoabout$US90million.TheUNTrustFundfortheEliminationofViolenceagainstWomenhassupportedsixJGPs.JGPshavealsoreceivedfinancialsupportfromOneUNfunds(4),theUNTrustFundforHumanSecurity(2),theUNPeace‐BuildingFund(2),theUNGlobalInitiativetoFightHumanTraffickingandtheUNDemocracyFund(1).Intotal,atleastnearly40%JGPshavereceivedsupportfromtrustfunds.Sincesomeofthestrongestbilateralsupportersofgenderequality(andthemultilateralsystem)prefertoprovidevoluntarycorefundstoagencies,andsincecorefundsmakeupasignificantpartoftheJGPportfolio,listingthedonorcountriesthathave

Figure 3.18NumberofJGPsandPlannedFinancialValueofJGPsperFundManagementModalityasaPercentageoftheNumericandFinancialSizeoftheJGPPortfolio

providednon‐coreresourcestoJGPsgivesanincompletepictureofhowsupportivedonorcountrieshavebeentoJGPs.Nevertheless,thecountriesthathaveprovidedfundstobetweenonetothreeJGPsattheprogramme’sinceptionincludeAustralia,Austria,Belgium,Denmark,Canada,Ireland,Italy,Germany,theNetherlands,Norway,Sweden,SwitzerlandandtheUK.Inaddition,theEuropeanCommissionhassupportedoneJGP.IncludingthesupportfromtheMDG‐Fund,Spainisthemostcommonnon‐coresupporterofJGP.Inadditiontothe14largeMDG‐fundedJGPs,ithassupportedsmallJGPsinLatinAmericanregion(3)andinEquatorialGuinea(1).Moredatawillneedtobegatheredtoestablishtheexactfinancialvalueofthenon‐coresupport,particularlysinceinmanycasesbilateralsupportwillhavebeengrantedaftertheprogrammedocumentsweresigned.

Nationalgovernmentshaveprovidedresources–financialorin‐kind–foratleast13JGPs.For10JGPs,thefundingsourcesareunknown.Therearethreemainfundmanagementmodalities12forJPs.Theseareparallel,pooledandpass‐through.Thesemodalitiescanalsobecombined.Thereareonly10JGPsthatusethepooledfundmanagementmodalityandtheyaretypicallysmall–40%areworthunder$US350,000.Aboutone‐thirdoftheJGPsaremanagedthroughparallelarrangementsandanotherthirdbythepass‐thoughfundingmodality.However,thetotalfinancialvalueofthe17%ofJGPsthataremanagedthroughacombinationofmodalitiesisgreaterthanthetotalfinancialvalueoftheJGPsmanagedbyeitherthepass‐throughorparallelfundmanagementmodalities.

SUMMARY

InthebeginningofthedecadetheJGPportfoliowassmall–withatmostacoupleofJGPsbeinginitiatedeachyear.Thebudgetswerealsomodest–themediansizewas$US320,000.In2005,therewasasurgeof14JGPs–probablyasaneffectoftheUNDG

JointProgrammeGuidanceNotehavingbeencirculatedtheyearbeforeandtheUNreformprocessmovingahead.Thesecondpartofthedecadesawariseinthemedianbudgetedprogrammesizeto$US2millionandthetotal

12PleaseseeAnnex7forUNDG’sdefinitionsoffundmanagementmodalities.

numberofJGPsrosedramaticallyin2008and2009.ThiscanpartlybeexplainedbytheadditionalofMDG‐Fresources.However,thelargestaveragesizeofJGPswasin2010($US7million),whichwasaftertheMDG‐Fcontributionsweremade.Twenty‐fourdifferentUNentitieshaveparticipatedinatleastoneJGPandUNFPA,UNDP,UNICEFandformerUNIFEMhavebeenthemostfrequentagencies,participatinginover60agencieseach.UNDP,UNFPAandformerUNIFEMwerealsobyfarthemostprevalentintheroleofleadagency.ThespecializedagenciesWHO,ILO,UNESCOandFAOarethesecondmostfrequentparticipants.ThemajorityofJGPsaremadeupofthreetofourparticipatingUNagencies.One‐thirdoftheJGPhavefiveormoreparticipatingUNagencies–somehaveover11.Generally,thesizeoftheplannedbudgetgrowswiththenumberofUNactors.However,asignificantnumberofJGPswithsevenoreightparticipatingUNagencieshaveaninexplicablysmallbudget(under$US350,000).AfricahasthegreatestnumberofJGPsandaccountsforthelargestportion(55%)ofthetotalplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfoliofrom2006to2010.TheAsia/PacificandtheLACregionsaccountfor14%eachofthetotalplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio,butinLACtheindividualJGPsaremuchsmallerinsize.Multi‐sectoralJGPsarefew,buttheyhavelargebudgetsthataccountfor33%oftheaggregatedplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio.IntermsofnumberofJGPs,theEVAWthematicareaisthelargest–roughlyaccountingforjustlessthanone‐thirdofallJGPsandone‐thirdoftheaggregatedplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio.JGPsinthegovernanceareaarealmostasnumerousasEVAWJGPs.However,theyhavemuchsmallerbudgetsthatamounttoonly13%oftheaggregatedplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio–whichissimilartothevalueofthehealth(13%)andeconomicempowerment(9%)JGPs.Thenumberandvalueoftheeducation,traffickingandHIV/AIDSJGPsareonlyafewpercenteach.OnlyfiveJGPsrepresentingfourthematicareashaveobjectiveswithaconflict‐relatedangle.

CorefundsfromtheparticipatingUNagenciesarethemostimportantsourceoffunds–benefitting62%to72%oftheJGPsfrom2006to2010.Meanwhile,theMDG‐Fisthemostimportantsinglesourceofnon‐corefundsduring2006to2010(13%).Othertrustfunds–UNTrustFundfortheEliminationofViolenceagainstWomen,OneUNfunds,theUNTrustFundforHumanSecurity,theUNPeace‐BuildingFund,theUNGlobalInitiativetoFightHumanTraffickingandtheUNDemocracyFund–accountforthefundingto16%oftheJGPsfrom2006to2010.Bilateral,OCED‐DACcountrycontributionstoJGPsattheinceptionoftheprogrammehavebeenmadebyAustralia,Austria,Belgium,Canada,Denmark,Ireland,Italy,Germany,theNetherlands,Norway,Spain,Sweden,SwitzerlandandtheUK.Othernationalgovernmentshavealsoprovidedresources–financialorin‐kind–foratleast13JGPs.Asmanyas56%JGPshavebeenfullyfundedfromthestart.Thepass‐throughandparallelfundingmodalitiesarethemostcommon–amountingtoaboutathirdeachofthetotalnumberofJGPsfrom2006to2010.However,theparallelfundedJGPsaresmallerinfinancialsize–makinguponly16%oftheplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio.PooledJGPsarelesscommon(11%)andfinanciallyverysmall–2%oftheplannedfinancialvalueoftheJGPportfolio.JGPsfundedthroughacombinationofmodalitiesmakeup17%oftheJGPsbut37%oftheaggregatefinancialvalue.

FindingsfromQualitativeDeskAnalysis

Thischapterdocumentsthequalitativefindingsoftheportfoliooverview.Itisbasedoninformationthathasbeengatheredfromevaluations/reviews,otherassessments,documentsandconsultationswithover20stakeholders.Thefirstsectiondiscussesthequalitativesources–stakeholderinformants,evaluations/reviewsandotherdocuments.Thesecondpartofthischapteroutlinestheissues,concernsandtheinformationneedsthathavebeenraisedbythedifferentsourcesofqualitativeinformation.

SOURCESOFQUALITATIVEINFORMATION

ThreesourcesforqualitativedatawereusedintheanalyticaloverviewoftheJGPportfolio.Eachisdiscussedinthesectionsthatfollow.

JGPEvaluations/ReviewstoDate

ThereappearstobeveryfewevaluationsandreviewsofJGPsfrom2001to2010.Theteamhasonlyuncoveredfourevaluationsand16reviews/mid‐termevaluations–includingthe11mid‐termevaluationsoftheJGPsthatarefundedbythe“genderwindow”oftheMDG‐F.Therearethreeassessmentscoveringprogrammesthatwereinitiatedintheperiod2001to2005.Theevaluationsandreviewsareofvaryingquality–manyofwhicharefoundtobelackinginquality.MostdonotanalysethejointaspectoftheJGPs.Sincemostarereviews,thereisconsiderablefocusontheprogrammingprocess.Althoughanumberoftheprogrammesanalysedbytheevaluations/reviewshaveahumanrightsperceptiveintheoverallgoalandoutcomes,theevaluations/reviewshavetendedtobebeenveryweakinassessingtherightsbasedapproach.

COUNTRY ASSESSMENT

NAMEOFPROGRAMME TIMEFRAME THEME ASSESSED

1. INDIA REVIEW COORDINATEDHIV/AIDSANDSTDRESPONSE

THROUGHCAPACITY‐BUILDINGANDAWARENESS

(CHARCA)

2003‐07 HIV/AIDS 2006

2. DRC REVIEW LAPRÉVENTIONETLARÉPONSEAUXVIOLENCES

SEXUELLESFAITESAUXFEMMES,AUXJEUNESETAUXENFANTS

2005‐08 EVAW 2007

3. ANGOLA REVIEW JOINTGENDERPROGRAMME 2005‐08 MULTI‐

SECTORAL

4. MAURITANIA FINALEVALUATION

SUPPORTTOINVOLVEWOMENINDECISIONMAKING

PROCESS2006‐07 GOVERNANCE 2007

5. LAC

REGIONAL

EVALUATION

ENGENDERINGBUDGETS 2006‐08 ECONOMIC

EMPOWERMENT

6. ALBANIA MID‐TERM

EVALUATION

NSGE‐DV–ADVANCINGDEMOCRATICGOVERNANCE‐ 2008‐10 GOVERNANCE 2009

7. HAITI FINALEVALUATION

SUPPORTINGWOMEN’SPOLITICALPARTICIPATION– 2007‐08 GOVERNANCE 2009

8. BANGLADESH REVIEW JOINTPROGRAMMEONMATERNALANDNEONATAL

MORBIDITYREDUCTION‐REVIEW

2007‐10 HEALTH 2010

9. TIMORLESTE MID‐TERM

EVALUATIONSUPPORTINGGENDEREQUALITYANDWOMEN'SRIGHTSINTIMORLESTE–

2008‐11 GOVERNANCE 2010

Figure 4.1: Table of JGP Reviews and Evaluations

10. MOROCCO MID‐TERM

EVALUATION

FIGHTAGAINSTGENDER‐BASEDVIOLENCETHROUGHTHE

EMPOWERMENTOFWOMENANDGIRLS

2008‐10 EVAW 2010

11. JORDAN FINALEVALUATION

SUPPORTTOEFFECTIVEWOMEN'SPARTICIPATIONINPUBLICLIFEATTHELOCALMUNICIPALLEVEL

12. NAMIBIA MID‐TERM

EVALUATION

SETTINGTHINGSRIGHT‐TOWARDSEQUALITYAND

EQUITY‐

2009‐12 MULTI‐

SECTORAL

13. BOLIVIA MID‐TERM

EVALUATION

PRODUCTIVEPATRIMONIALASSETSBUILDING&

CITIZENSHIPPROGRAMMEFORWOMENINEXTREME

POVERTY

2008‐11 ECONOMIC

EMPOWERMENT

14. BRAZIL MID‐TERM

EVALUATION

INTER‐AGENCYBRAZIL‐PROGRAMMEFORTHE

PROMOTIONOFGENDERANDETHNIC‐RACIALEQUALITY

15. COLOMBIA MID‐TERM

EVALUATIONINTEGRALSTRATEGYFORTHEPREVENTIONANDAWARENESSOFGENDER‐BASEDVIOLENCE

2008‐11 EVAW 2010

16. GUATEMALA MID‐TERM

EVALUATION

FORTALECIENDOLAINSTITUCIONALIDADDELASMUJERES

ENGUATEMALA

17. NICARAGUA MID‐TERM

EVALUATIONPROMOTINGWOMEN’SPARTICIPATIONANDGENDER

RESPONSIVEBUDGETING2008‐11 ECONOMIC

EMPOWERMENT2010

18. OCCUPIED

PALESTINIANTERRITORIES

MID‐TERM

EVALUATION

GENDEREQUALITY‐SOCIAL,POLITICALANDECONOMIC 2008‐11 GOVERNANCE 2011

19. ETHIOPIA MID‐TERM

EVALUATIONLEAVENOWOMENBEHIND 2009‐12 INTEGRATED 2011

20. VIETNAM MID‐TERM

EVALUATION

GENDEREQUALITYINVIETNAM 2009‐11 GOVERNANCE 2011

OtherRelevantJPDocuments

Theteamtriedtolocateotherstudies,reportsandassessmentsthatcouldbeofrelevancetothisstudy.Thishasbeenchallengingandyieldedlimitedresults.13Nevertheless,thefollowingdocumentshavebeenused:• AsignificantassessmenteffortofJPswas

thecross‐sectoralreview14thatwascommissionedbyUNDGin2006toenhanceefficiencyandeffectivenessofJPs(pleaseseesection0).15Covering160JPsfrom1999

to2005andincludingcasestudyreportsfrom14countries,thisreportoffersthemostcomprehensiveandanalyticalassessmentoftheeffectivenessandefficiencyofJPstodate.

• In2004UNICEF’sExecutiveDirectorpreparedareporttotheExecutiveBoardconcerningUNICEFexperienceinjointprogramming.

• In2006,UNDP,UNICEFandUNFPApreparedareporttotheirexecutiveboardsontheimplementationexperienceofjoint

13OthershavefounddocumentationonJPstobedifficulttocomeby.The2009reviewoftheGenderProgrammeinAlbaniamentionedthatattemptsweremadetosearchforotherevaluationsonotherJPstobuildontheexperience,butlittlewasfound.14UNDG.EnhancingtheEffectivenessandEfficiencyofJointProgrammes:LessonsLearnedfromaUnitedNationsDevelopmentGroupReview.2006.15Inthelastchapter,thisstudyprovideddatathatallowedcomparisonsfordataonmediansizeofJPsandtheirduration.

programmingandJPsbyUNDP,UNFPAandUNICEFsince2004.

• AmongtheDeliveringasOneevaluationsundertakenin2010–CapeVerde,Albania,Mozambique,Vietnam,UruguayandRwanda–assessedGEWEeffortstosomedegree.

• Themid‐termevaluationsoftheMDG‐FcovereddozensJPsinarangeofsectors.TheFundhaspreparedaggregateanalysesforthreeothersectorsthatprovideanoverview.Meta‐analysesoftheevaluationsarecurrentlyunderway.Ameta‐evaluationofthe11JGPsresourcedbytheMDG‐Fisexpectedtobereadylaterthisyear.

Stakeholders

Asdiscussedinsection0,thisstudyhasidentifiedinformationneedsissuesbyconsultingwitharangeofstakeholdersfromwithintheUNsystem.TheseincludeHQstaffconcernedwithgenderequality,JPsorevaluations;andfieldlevelstaffincludingRCs,JPcoordinatorsandUNWomencountryrepresentatives.WhilethereisageneralcoherenceamongtheinterviewedstakeholdersonwhatinformationisneededandwhatthechallengesarethattheJPsface,theweightgiventodifferentissuesistypicallyafunctionofeachstakeholder’sspecificareaofworkandposition.Forarights‐basedstakeholderanalysisforthisevaluation,pleaseseeAnnex4.

ISSUESANDINFORMAITONNEEDS

Thissectiondocumentstheissuesandinformationneedsraisedbystakeholderswhowereconsultedforthisstudyandtheevaluations,reviewsandotherdocumentsthathavebeenexamined.Theissuesandneedshavebeendividedintofivethematicareas–thequalityornatureoftheJGP’s“jointness”;thedesignanddesignprocessesoftheJGPs;theeffectivenessofJGPsintermsofresults;

nationallevelpartnerships,nationalownershipandpeoplecentredapproachesofJGPsand,efficiencyanoperationaleffectivenessofJGPs.Theaimofthissectionistoprovideawell‐roundedandanalyticalaccountoftheissuesandinformationneeds.Whilethesourcesoftheinformationforthissectionareprovidedinthetext,thetextisnotnecessarilyorganisedbythedifferentsources(stakeholders,evaluations,reviews).Furthermore,althougheffortshavebeenmadetodrawuponasmanyevaluations/reviewsaspossible,youwillfindthatsomeevaluations/reviewsfeaturemorefrequentlyinthetext.Thisisbecausetheyhaveofferedmorereflectionsand/orraisedissuesandneedsmoreclearly.Meanwhile,someevaluations/reviewhaveofferednoorminimalinsightsforthisstudy.TheUNDG2006reviewofJPsisreferredtoinseveralsectionsasameansofillustratingconcurrencewithmorerecentassessments–whichsuggeststhatcertainissueshaveremainedimportantthroughoutthedecade.

QualityofJointness

ThedefinitionofaJP(renderedinsection 1.3)providesabasicsetofcriteriathatneedtobemetfortheprogrammetoberecognisedasaJP.Aspointedoutinanumberofevaluations,itisfairlyeasyforaprogrammetopassasjoint.However,stakeholdersandevaluationsholdthatJPsvaryconsiderablyintermsoftheir“jointness”andthereforedeterminingthedegreeofjointnessisapertinentquestion.AnumberofstakeholdersmentionedthatsomeJPscouldbejointinnameonly.Forinstance,itwaspointedoutthatsinceJPsofferoneofthefewmeansoftransferringfundslegallybetweenagencies,someJGPsmay,uponcloserinspection,bemoreofaninter‐agencyarrangementthanatrueJP:toboostitsdisbursementrateattheendoftheyear,anagencycouldjoinapooledJP.

JPsthatareactivelyjointinallpossibleways–design,governance,implementation,monitoring,reporting,co‐operationwithgovernmentactors,resourcemobilisationandadvocacy–appeartoberare.Theevaluations/reviewsrevealthatmostprogrammesseemtoliesomewhereinbetween“jointbyname”and“fullyandactivelyjoint”.The2006UNDGReviewheldthatwhilejoint“datagatheringanddisseminationexercisespresentanexcellentplatformtointroduceandbenefitfromawellcoordinatedjointprogramme”,onlytoacertaindegreehadUNcountryteamsintheperiod2001‐2005recognizedtheopportunitiesandperceivedbenefitsofworkingtogetherinthismanner.Thus,itconcluded,“jointprogrammeshaveyettooptimallyexploittheUN’spartnershippotential.”ThisconclusionstronglyresonateswiththemorerecentJGPreviewsandwithmanyofthestakeholders’perspectives,suggestingthattheUNdevelopmentefforthasyettoaddresstheissuesraisedbythe2006UNDGreview.SeveralevaluationspointoutthatJGPsoftenresemblealooselyconnectedsetofoutputs(e.g.programmesinVietnam,Guatemala,NamibiaandMauritania.)TheJGPthatappearstooperatewiththehighestdegreeofjointnessisinAlbania.ThereviewofthisJGPnotedthatworkingcollaborativelyandtheinternalcoordinationofagencyactivitiespermitsthefourUNagenciesinvolvedtohavemoresynergiesandagreatercombinedeffect.NotonlywasthecoordinationbetweenUNagenciesmuchimproved,butalsoitwasmoreoverhavingthesideeffectofimprovingcoordinationandcollaborationbetweenlineministries.Nevertheless,theReviewrecommendedthattheUNpartnersshouldconstantlyconsider“howtomakethesynergiesfunctionmosteffectively,andcreate

themostsnowballeffect.”Themid‐termevaluationoftheJGPinTimor‐Leste(MDG‐F)providedatooltoanalysethedegreeofjointnessbasedonthestructureoftheresultsframework.ThishasbeenadaptedandincludedinBox1.

AfundamentaladvantageofJPsisthat,intheory,theyreduceduplication.Withacoupleofexceptions,thiswasnotdiscussedinmostofthereview/evaluations.However,theUNDGJPReviewfrom2006foundevidenceofduplicationbeingavoided.Itstatedthat“featuresuniquetojointprogrammes,suchasjointneeds‐assessment,jointmonitoringandevaluation,collaborativedecision‐making,streamlinedgovernmentdialogueandorenhancedgovernmentparticipationinkeymulti‐agencydecisionmakingbodieshavefacilitatedareductioninduplicativeactivitiesacrossUNagenciesaswellasbetweenUNagenciesandtheirdevelopmentpartners.”FollowingthislogicandgiventhatsomeoftheotherreviewsandevaluationsmaintainedthatmanyofthesefeatureswerenotconsistentlypartoftheJGPs,someduplicativeeffortsmayindeedbehappening–althoughwecandeducethatduplicativeprogrammeshaveprobablybeenreduced. Somestakeholdersreflectedonthenatureof“jointness”intermsofthebalanceofrolesplayedbytheparticipatingUNagencies.OneindicatorofjointnesssuggestedbystakeholdersistheextentthatUNagencies participateasequalsintheprogramme.16NoneofthereviewsandevaluationsanalysethisaspectofthepartnershipsamongUNagenciesinJPs.

TherewasadivergenceinviewsconcerningthevalueofJPs.SomeheldthatJPsareonlyofvalueiftheyimproveefficiencyandeffectiveness.Others,whoregardedJPsasfundamentalforUNreform,sawJPsashavingamoreintrinsicvalue.Most

Box 1: Determining the Robustness of a Joint Programme Adapted from Mid-Term Evaluation of the MDG-F Joint Programme of “Supporting Gender Equality and Women’s Rights in Timor-Leste”

A Joint Programme involves two or more participating UN Agencies working together to achieve a common result. This common result could, however, be an outcome and/or an output (and even an impact!). One way of determining the robustness of jointness would be from the way a results framework is structured.

At the simplest level, each of at least two participating agencies is responsible for its own outcome (as illustrated by Model 1 below) that is linked to a common UNDAF outcome. Greater jointness is achieved in Model 2, in which at least two participating agencies are each responsible for the delivery of their respective outputs, although these lead to a common outcome.

Jointness is maximised in Model 3 in which at least two participating agencies are responsible for a common output. This means that while the agencies are each implementing their own activities in accordance with their respective expertise and mandates, they are working towards the achievement of a basic result – the output. It follows that the output cannot be achieved if the participating agencies do not complete their activities. While the three models can be considered as joint programmes, it is obvious that the first model is a weaker version compared to the second and the third.

Examples of Jointness: 2 Agencies, 2 Outcomes, 3 Models Result Model 1: Low jointness Model 2: Medium jointness Model 3: High jointness

Outcome 1 Output 1.1 Output 1.2

Agency 1 Agency 1 Agency 1

Agency 1 & 2 Agency 1 Agency 2

Agency 1 & 2 Agency 1 & 2 Agency 1 & 2

Outcome 2 Output 2.1 Output 2.2

Agency 2 Agency 2 Agency 2

Agency 1 & 2 Agency 1 Agency 2

Agency 1 & 2 Agency 1 & 2 Agency 1 & 2

stakeholdersgenerallyheldthatonceaprogrammewasformulatedasjoint,themorejointtheimplementationprocess,thebetter.However,therewerealsosomedifferencesinviewsastowhethermaximumjointnesswasanidealtoaimforinallinstances,orwhetherthecircumstancesgoverningeachsituationwoulddeterminetheappropriatelevelofjointness.Ausefulcontributionoftheevaluationshouldbetodeterminetowhatextentthelevelofjointnessleadstobetterresults.

TheUNDGJPReviewstatedthatJPsknowledgeandexpertisesharing,acommoncommitmentforresultsandamoreopendialogueamongUNcountryteammemberswereanimportantaspectofjointness.Anumberofstakeholdersheldthereweregapsinoverallknowledgemanagementof

JGPs.Untilthisstudy,therehasnotbeenonecomprehensivedatabasecontaininginformationofexistingJGPs.Asthisstudyestablished,dataonJGPshasbeenscatteredindifferentdatabasesornotenteredintoanydatabaseatall.Likewise,repositoriesforreports,evaluationsandreviewsconcerningJGPshavenotbeencreatedfortheJGPcommunity.Howknowledgeismanagedjointlyatcountryandregionallevelswouldbeusefulfortheevaluationtoexamine.

Finally,atopquestionamongstakeholderswastowhatdegreedoJGPsaddvaluetoresults:towhatdegreedoJGPsaddvaluetotheeffortsofstrengtheningtheaccountabilityofduty‐bearersandsupportingrights‐holdersindemandingtheirrights?Whataddedvaluedoesthejointprogramming

16TheJPsfinancedthroughpooledfundingarebydesignlessjointinmanagementterms,sinceoneagencytakesresponsibilityformanagement.Nevertheless,intheory,pooledprogrammesshouldbejointandequalintheirsteeringstructureandinthemanagementoftheknowledgegainedfromtheprogramme.

processbring?WhataddedvaluedoeseachUNparticipatingagencybring?TowhatdegreedoagenciesseetheirroleasaddingvaluetotheJGP?OnestakeholderheldthatwhenthereisnocommonleadershipinaJPandeachparticipatingUNagencyfollowsparallelplanswithitstraditionalcounterpart,thereisnoaddedvalueintermsofresultsandefficiencies–“ThustheJPrepresentsaclearfailure,whereon1+1+1isnot=3but‐2”.Insum,stakeholdersandevaluations/reviewsdirectlyorindirectlyidentifiedinformationneedsandanumberofquestionsaboutJGPsthatrelatetothedegreeandqualityofthecollaborationamongsttheparticipatingUNpartnersandtheaddedvaluejointnessbringstoresults.Theseincludequestionsconcerningconceptualisation,design,methodology,implementation,accountability,M&E,resourcemobilisation,results,knowledgemanagementandpartnershiprelations:1 Towhatextentwasthereasharedvisionfor

eachJGPamongtheparticipatingagencies?Towhatextentweretheconceptualisationprocessescollaborativeundertakings?Towhatextentdidtheparticipatingagenciesjointlyconductunderlyinganalyses?

2 Towhatextentdotheprogrammedesignsestablishcoherencebetweentherolesoftheagencies?TowhatextentaretheJGPswellthoughtthroughandbuiltonthestrengthsandareasofexpertiseofeachparticipatingagency?Forinstance,haveJGPscapitalisedontheaddedvalueofspecialisedagencies?HowwastheparticipationbythedifferentUNagenciesdetermined?Weretheretrade‐offsbetweencoherenceandinclusion?Towhatextentwereanypotentialrisksborneequallyamongtheparticipatingagencies?

3 Towhatextentweredifferencesamongparticipatingagenciesinmethodologyandapproach(prioritizationofareasandpopulations,methodologyforcommunitymobilization,modalityofdeliveryoftechnicalassistance)identifiedandresolved?

4 Towhatextentare/wereUNagencies

participatingasequalpartnersintheimplementationprocesses?Towhatextentwereimplementationplanssharedandsynchronizedamongtheparticipatingagencies?Towhatextentdoparticipatingagenciesimplementactivitiesjointly?(Oraretheyalooselyconnectedsetofactivities,withoutcoherence?)

5 TowhatextentistherejointaccountabilityoftheJGPs?WhatreportingsystemshavebeenusedbyJGPs?Towhatextenthavetheybeenjoint?

6 Towhatextentisthedesignandimplementationofmonitoringandevaluationeffortsundertakenjointly?

7 Towhatextenthaveagenciesjointlyaddressedknowledgemanagementneedsatcountry,regionalandHQlevels?

8 Towhatextenthasresourcemobilisationbeenjointlyundertaken,capitalisingoneachagency’scomparativeadvantagesinthisarea?

9 Towhatextentthelevelofjointnessleadstobetterresults?TowhatextentdoJGPsdelivercoherentandjointoutputsandoutcomesthatadduptosomethinggreater(suchasacombinedsynergeticeffects)thanaseriesofactivities?Towhatextenthaveadvocacyeffortsbeenundertakenjointlyandtowhatextenthas“jointness”contributedtoanysuccesses?

10 TowhatextentdopartnersperceivetheUNasoperatingdifferentlyundertheJGPs?Whatdopartnersconsiderasmainadvantages?

JGPDesign

TooptimallytakeadvantageoftheUN’spartnershippotential,aJPhastobewelldesigned.AsstatedintheUNDGJointProgrammeReview,aJP’sdesign“shouldreflectdeepercountry‐levelcommitmentandcoordinatedassistanceonascalethatcouldnotbeachievedthroughasingleagencyprojectorcollaborativeactivities.”TheJPsthatwerereviewedbythis2006study“almostunanimouslycalledforincreasededucation

ontheidentificationanddesignofJPsthroughenhancedUNDGguidanceandthroughtheRCsystematthecountrylevel.”ItfoundthatinsomeoftheearlierJPs,participatingagenciesevendesignedtheirpartoftheprogrammeinisolationoftheothers.Themorerecentevaluations/reviewsalsouncoveredseveralproblemswithdesign.AccordingtotheMDG‐F,theformulationphasehasbeenthemostcommonchallengeforallJPs,regardlessofsector.WhiletheMGD‐Fevaluationsgenerallyconfirmedthealignmentoftheprogrammegoalswithgovernmentpriorities,mosthadoverlyambitiousgoals;somedidnottakeintoconsiderationavailableexpertisenationallyandinternationally;somedesignprocessweretooshort,under‐resourcedortoolong(thegovernmentprioritiesinthemeantimechanged);somehadinadequatelogframes;somedidnottakethelocalsituation/developmentssufficientlyintoconsideration;andsomedidnotinvolvegovernmentpartnerssufficiently.Thereweregooddesignexamplestoo:theEthiopiaevaluationpraisedtheJGPforitsunderlyingdesignandconceptualisation.ItusedsimpleanddirectapproachestoaddressarangeofMDGGoals,therebymakingadeliberatecontributiontothepurposeoftheMDG‐F.WiththeexceptionoftheAlbanianreview,noneoftheevaluationsorreviewscommentedontheextenttheprogrammeshadbeendesignedfromarights‐basedstudy;orwhethertheprinciplesofarights‐basedapproachhadbeenappliedduringthedesignprocess.AlargemajorityofstakeholdersstronglyunderlinedtheimportanceofanalysingprogrammedesignanddesignprocessesofJGPs.BothstakeholdersandevaluatorsdeemedthatthedesignanddesignprocessweredeterminantsofhowjointlyaJPwillbeimplementedinrealityandhowsuccessfultheprogrammewillbeintermsofresults.Asputbyonestakeholder:“gettingitright,doesallstartwiththerightdesign...thekindsofassistancewearedeliveringthroughourjointprogrammesshouldbeintrinsicallydifferenttowhatwedidbefore.Ifitisn’t,theremaybesomethingwrongwiththe

underlyinglogicanddesignofthejointprogramme.”Therewasastrongdesireforgreaterinformationontheconceptualisationprocess:WhatwastheimpetusfortheJP?Dothecomplexityoftheissues,highambitionsandtheexpectedresultswarrantaJPapproach?Doexpectedresults;theintentionstoimproveintra‐UNcoordinationorotherfactorsdrivetheformulationofJGPs?Whatrolesdidthedifferentactorsplay?Whatanalyseswereused?,etc.Theyalsocalledforanalysesregardingtheextenttowhichvariousdesigncharacteristicscontributedtoresults.Questionsthatwereraisedthatrelatetodesign(someoverlapwiththeformer“jointnesssection”)includethefollowing:

1 TowhatextentaretheJGPs’goalsrights‐basedandcoherentwiththeirrespectiveUNDAF?Towhatextentarethegoalsrealistic,i.e.instepwiththeresources,capacitiesandsituationathand?TowhatextentwereJGPsdesignedtobebasedmoreontheavailabilityoffundsasopposedtoneeds?Towhatextentdidthelevelofcomplexity,theambitionsandtheexpectedresultswarrantajointprogrammingapproach?

2 Towhatextenthasthedesignprocessintegratedhumanrightsprinciples?TowhatextentdoJGPsdesignsandinterventionstrategiesencompassarights‐basedapproach?

3 TowhatextentareJGPinterventionstrategieswelladaptedtothesocio‐culturalcontext?WhatactionsdidJGPsenvisagedtorespondtoobstaclesthatmayarisefromthepoliticalandsocio‐culturalbackground?Wereriskassessmentsconductedinthedesignphaseandweremitigationstrategiesadopted?

4 WhatanalysesweretheJGPsbasedon?DidtheJGPsrelyonagenderandrights‐basedanalyses?TowhatextentwereJGPslinkedtoCRCandCEDAWconcludingobservations?Inconflicted‐affectedcountries,wereconflictassessmentsused?Werecapacityassessmentsundertaken?

5 Towhatextentiscapacitydevelopmentof

rights‐holdersandduty‐bearersacentraltenetofJGPdesign?TowhatextentdoJGPshavecapacitydevelopmentplans?

EffectivenessinTermsofResults

TheJGPevaluationsandreviewsreportsomeachievements,butmostoftheseassessmentshavenotbeenundertakenattheendorfinalstagesofaJGP,whenmosteffectsarebestassessed.Furthermore,thereislittleanalysisonhowthe“jointness”mayhaveaddedvaluetotheresults.Would,forinstance,fiveagenciesthatprogrammedseparatelyhaveledtosimilarresults?GivethegreatpaucityoffinalevaluationsofJGPs,stakeholdersgenerallygavetopprioritytothatthefutureevaluationprovidesinformationonresults.

Thediscussiononresultswithstakeholdersandtheanalysisofeffectsintheevaluation/reviewreportshavefocusedonseventypesofeffects.Thesearei)genderequality,women’sempowermentandhumanrightseffects,ii)capacity‐buildingeffectsamongduty‐bearersandrights‐holders,iii)advocacyeffects,iv)processresultsfromanRBAperspective,v)intangibleeffects,vi)synergeticeffects,andvii)goodpractices.Theseseventypesarediscussedbelow.

Tobeginwith,basedontheuniquelegitimacyofitsuniversalmembershipandonitsdiverserolesasastandard‐setter,capacity‐builderandadvocate;theUNhasauniqueroletoplayinpromotingGEWEindevelopingcountries.StakeholdersrosethequestiontowhatextentJGPshavecapitalisedonthistoproduceenhancedeffectsinrelationtogenderequality,women’sempowermentandwomen’shumanrights.Likewise,informationwassoughtregardingtheextenttowhichtheobjectivessetoutbytheBeijingPlatformforActionandMillenniumDeclarationarebetteraddressedwhenUNagenciescollaborateinaJGP.

CapacitydevelopmentisacorefunctionoftheUNdevelopmentagenciesandacentraltenetofachievingtheMDGs.Capacitydevelopmentisfurthermorevitaltothehumanrights‐basedapproach,whichinvolvesbuildingthecapacityof

duty‐bearerstofulfiltheirobligationstowardsrights‐holders,aswellasthatofrights‐holderstodemandtheirrightsfromduty‐bearers.The2003GuidanceNoteonJointProgrammesstatesthatJPsshouldhaveafocusoncapacitybuilding.Nevertheless,theUNDGJointProgrammeReviewfrom2006foundedthatofthe21JPsreviewed,onlynineoftheJPsexplicitlyaddressednationalcapacityneeds.TheJGPevaluations/reviewsrevealmixedresultsintheareaofcapacityenhancementandmonitoringofcapacitybuildingefforts.Forinstance,follow‐upoftraininginitiativeshasgenerallybeenpoor.Interviewedstakeholdersandtheevaluationssuggestthatabetterunderstandingofwhatresultshavebeenachievedincapacitydevelopmentisneeded.

Arights‐basedapproachentailsthatapersonisasubjectofhisorherrightsandanactiveparticipantinhisorherdevelopment.Thussincearights‐basedapproachaimstocontributetothepracticalityandactiveenjoymentofrights,therealisationofhumanrightsisbothanoutcomegoalandaprocessgoal.Withregardtotheformer,itisimportantforthefutureevaluationtoexaminetowhatextentrootcausestogenderinequalityhavebeenaddressedbyJGPs.ItfurthermorepertinenttoassesstheextenttowhichgloballyacceptednormsandstandardsintheareaofGEWEhavebeenperpetuatedwithsupportfromtheJGPsinlegislativework,statisticalworkandtrainingefforts.

Humanrightsprocessgoalsinvolveapplyingtheprinciplesofparticipation,equality,non‐discrimination,accountabilityandtheruleoflawthroughoutthedesign,implementation,monitoringandevaluationprocessesofJGPs.Whilesomeoftheevaluations/reviewscommenttosomeextentonresultsthatfurthertherealisationofhumanrights,noneoftheevaluations/reviewsassessthequalityoftherights‐basedapproachesorcommentontheattainmentofprocessgoalsassuch,withtheexceptionofthereviewoftheJGPinAlbania.

Aspointedoutbystakeholders,JGPscreatespaceforpoliticaldialogueandofferanexcellentplatformtojointlyadvocatewithonevoiceonthecrosscuttingissuesofGEWE.Thequestionis

whethertheseopportunitieshavebeenfullyexploitedandwhethertheyhaveyieldedresults.Theevaluationsdonotofferenoughclues.Whileafewmentionthatadvocacyeffortshavetakenplace,noneanalysewhetherjointeffortshaveenhancedadvocacyeffects,exceptfortheAlbaniaevaluationwhichstates:“Advocacyeffortshadbeenstrengthenedon(domesticviolence)thankstotheunifyingoftheeffortsofthefourUNagencies,increasedinformationexchangeleadingtostrongandclearadvocacymessages.”Bothstakeholdersandevaluation/reviewsconsideredintangibleeffectsofJGPs.TheUNDGReviewheldthat:

Knowledgeandexpertisesharing,acommoncommitmentforresults,andamoreopendialoguebetweenUNcountryteammemberswereoftennotedinthecasestudiesassignificantoutcomesofjointprogrammes.Thecasestudieshaverevealedavaluableinterplaybetweentheme/workinggroupdiscussionsandthedevelopmentandimplementationofjointprogrammes.Thecasestudieshavealsodemonstratedenhancedlearningbetweengovernmentministriesasaresultoftheirparticipationinjointprogrammemanagement.

ItfurthermorenotedthatattimesparticipatingagenciesinJParrangementfoundvalueinthepartneringprocessitself,believingthattheimprovedworkingrelationshipsandcollaborationamongtheUNCTgenerallyenhancestheUN’ssupportofnationalgovernmentobjectives.Likewise,someoftheMDG‐FevaluationsmentionthattheJPprocesshasboostedtrustamongagencies,improvedinter‐agencyknowledgeandenhancedcommunications.Somestakeholderswereinterestedinwhattypesofintangibleeffectswereachieved(improvedcommunication,bettercollaboration,moreinformation‐sharing,cross‐agencylearning,strongerUNspirit,accesstowidernetworks,etc.)andwhatbenefitstheybring.InthecontextofUNreform,areJGPscontributingtoanewcultureofcollaborationamongUNagencies?SomewonderedifJGPssometimesdisempoweredanagency,thuscreatinganoppositedynamic.

ReformoftheUNdevelopmentsystemtopromoteeffectivenessandsustainabilityfocusesoncoherence,co‐ordinationandcollaboration.Thisincludesnotonlywithin(joint)programmes,butalsoamongprogrammes.ManystakeholderswereextremelyinterestedinwhetheraJGPinacountrycanresultinsynergeticeffectswithotherUNprogrammesatcountrylevel,particularlythoseinothersectors.TheywantedtoknowwhetherJGPshaveaninfluenceongenderequalitymainstreaminginotherUNprogrammes.Furthermore,stakeholdersquestionwhetherJGPshaveaffectedincreasedcollaboration,coordinationandinformationexchangewithintheUNCTinrelationtoGEWE.TheAlbaniareviewnotedthatmoreattentioncouldbepaidtoensuringthattheotherJPsinthecountryintegrategenderequalityconcernsandoperatesinsynergywiththeJGP.Itsuggested,forexample,thatworkintheeducationsectoroninclusiveeducationcouldeasilycoverthespecificissuesrelatedtogirlshighlightedbyCEDAW.WorkonthesocialprotectionsystemneedtobeeffectivelyenmeshedwiththeJGP’sworkonprotectingwomenfromdomesticviolence.Stakeholders–particularlythosebasedincountryoffices–sawagreatneedforinformationongoodpracticestobecollected.Someoftheevaluations(e.g.OPT,NamibiaandEthiopiaJGPmid‐termevaluations)pointouttheexistenceofinnovativeapproaches.Wouldtheseinnovationshavebeenlikelyforasingleagencyprogramme?AlsoofinterestamongstakeholderswastheextenttowhichJGPshavehadpotentialforreplicationand/orscalingup.

1 TowhatextentandinwhatwaysareJPsaddingvalueandcontributingtotheobjectivessetbytheBeijingPlatformforAction?IsthereevidencethatJGPsaddressGEWEmoreeffectivelythansingleagencies?

2 TowhatextenthaveJGPscontributedtocapacitydevelopmentofbothrights‐holdersandduty‐bearers?HavetheJGPsbeenabletooffercontextuallyrelevantandhighquality

genderequalitymainstreamingtrainingtoseniorpolicymakers,focalpersonsandNGOexecutivestaff?

3 TowhatextenthastheUN’sroleinadvocatingforthenationalapplicationofinternationalnorms,standardsandactionsonhumanrightsandglobalissuesimpliedintensifiedeffortsinpolicyadvisoryservicesthroughJGPs?DoJGPsperpetuateinternationalnormsandstandardsinlegislativework,statisticalworkandtrainingefforts?Towhatextenthavehumanrightsprocessgoalsbeenachievedbyapplyingtheprinciplesofparticipation,equality,non‐discrimination,accountabilityandtheruleoflawthroughoutthedesign,implementation,monitoringandevaluationprocessesoftheJGPs?

4 What,ifany,jointadvocacyeffortshaveJGPsundertaken?Whathavebeentheeffects?

5 Towhatextenthaveintangibleeffectsbeenachieved?TowhatextenthaveJGPscontributedtointer‐agencynetworking,informalinformationexchange,aconstructiveteamspirit,aconsciousfeelingofbeingamemberofoneUNfamily,etc.amongtheUNagencies?TowhatextenthaveJGPsledtoimprovedcommunication,synergies,coordinationandcollaborationamongthedifferentnational‐levelimplementingpartnerorganisations(includingCSOs)andamonglineministries?TowhatextenthaveJGPsenhancedcommunicationbetweentheUNandgovernments?

6 TowhatextenthaveJGPsachievedsynergeticeffectswithotherUNprogrammesinothersectorsorareasofwork?

7 Whatgoodpracticeshavebeenidentified?TowhatextentdoJGPshavepotentialforreplicationandupscaling?TowhatextenthaveJGPsmadeeffortstopromotefutureupscaling?

Sustainability,NationalLevelPartnerships,NationalOwnership,&PeopleCentredApproaches

JointprogrammesdonotexclusivelybelongtotheUN–theyalsobelongtothenationalduty‐bearersandrights‐holders.TheHighLevelPanelreport“DeliveringasOne”statedthatreformtoimprovethecoherenceoftheUNsystemmustbeunderpinnedbytheprinciplesofnationalownershipandpeople‐centredapproaches:

Nationalsovereigntyandnationalownershipofdevelopmentplansmustremainthebedrockofeffectivedevelopment.Thesystemmustberealignedtoademand‐drivenapproachandtoprogrammesdeliveredasclosetobeneficiariesaspossible.

TheAidEffectivenessprinciplesoftheParisDeclaration(ownership,alignment,managementfordevelopmentresultsandmutualresponsibility)andtheAccraAgendaforActionfurtherplaceownershipatthecentreofdevelopmentco‐operation.Nationalownershipisconnectedwithsustainability.Withoutanadequatelevelofownership,aprogramme’ssustainabilityislikelytobelower.However,aspointedoutbyonestakeholder,sustainabilityisnotguaranteedbyownership.Thissectionwilldiscussinformationneedsrelatingtoownership,sustainability,theUNpartnershipwithgovernmentsandpeople‐centredapproaches.Thereviews/evaluationsprovideamixedpictureofnationalownership.Therearereviewsthatstatethatnationalownershipisbeing“consciouslyrecognizedandexercised”(TimorLeste,Colombia)andothers(Namibia,NicaraguaandBolivia)thatassessedthelevelofownershiptobegenerallyinsufficient.InNamibiatheJGPhascreatedstructuresthatrunparalleltothegovernmentstructuresandmostgovernmentpartnersfelttheyhadlimitedownershipandpowertoinfluencethekeydecisionsintheprogramme.OneoftheJGPreviewsprovidessomeinsightsonownership–aconceptthatitfoundwasoftenunderstoodtomeansomethingdifferentbydifferentstakeholders.Itcontemplatedownershipasfollows:

• Stakeholdersfeltthattherewasownership

becausegovernmentpartnershadbeeninvolvedandconsultedfromthebeginning.However,consultingandinvolvementdoesnotleadtoowning.Ontheotherhand,thereportconcludedthatjointdecision‐makingisanindicatorofjointownership.

• WhiletheJGPwasfirmlyembeddedingovernmentstrategiesandlegalframeworks,thereviewquestionedwhetherthisactuallyrepresentedgenuineownershipwhenbudgetswerenotallocatedaccordingly.

• Evenwheretherewassolidpoliticalwill,ownershipwastosomedegreelimitedbycapacityandresources.Poorlybackedgenderfocalpointsinministrieshadlittlemotivationandlimitedcapacity–particularlysincetheyhaveotherresponsibilitiesbesidesgenderequality.

Totakeownershiprequiresnotonlycommitmentbutalsosomedegreeofcapacity.InVietnam,theJGPwasdesignedwithoutadequateattentiontothecapacitiesneededtocarryitsobjectivesout.TheJGPinTimorLestefacedaconstraintinbalancingtheelementofnationalownershipwiththemanagementefficiencyoftheprogramme.TheissuesthatlendthemselvestobeingaddressedthroughJPsarehorizontal,complexandinter‐disciplinarylikeGEWE.However,thesearepreciselytheissueswheregovernmentsinthenorthandsouthfacesignificantchallenges.Thishasimplicationsforinterpretingnationalownershipandhowtoapproachcapacitybuilding.Asstatedbyonestakeholder,“Youneedtobuildcapacitynotonlyforimplementationofthecomponentsoftheprogrammeinlineministries,butalsothenationalpolicyandstrategydevelopmentthatneedstobringitalltogether...sothereisthisbiggerdimensionbehindeveryJP–irrespectiveofthesector–whichrelatestohowgovernmentsaddresscomplexpolicychallengesthatcutacrossthecabinettable.”TheevaluationsandreviewsgenerallyassessedtheJGPsasveryweakinrelationtofuturesustainability–althoughsomeevaluatorssawsomepotentialforsustainability(OPTandNamibia).Anumberofreviewssawaneedforaninstitutional

andfinancialsustainabilityplanaswellasexitstrategies.Onestakeholderbelievedthefutureevaluationcouldshinelightontheenablersanddisincentivesforsustainabilityandtoassesstowhatextentgovernmentownershipandleadershipmakeadifferenceforsustainability.Does,forinstance,leadershipfromagovernmentmakeadifferenceforsustainability?Afewstakeholdersfounditveryrelevanttostudyhowpeople‐centredtheJGPswere.Towhatextenthadcivilsocietyandrights‐holdersbeeninvolvedinthedesignandimplementationprocesses?DidtheJPimplementationapproachpromotecivilsociety?Or,asisfearedbyacoupleofstakeholders,doesitdetractcivilsocietyinvolvement?ThereviewoftheJGPsin,forinstance,OPTconcludedthatwhilenon‐governmentalactorswhereinvolvedintheprogramme,theyhadnotbeeninvolvedindecisionprocessesandthereforeameaningfulparticipationofnon‐governmentalinstitutionswasanelementthatcouldbefurtherimproved.Meanwhile,inNamibia,thereviewfoundthatwhilecivilsocietyactorshadbeenconsultedduringthedesignphase,theyhadbeenleftoutduringtheimplementationprocess.AccordingtotheUNDGGuidanceNote,JPsarespecificallyintendedtostrengthenhowtheUNorganizationsprogrammejointlywithgovernments.IftheJGPisstructuredsothatthegovernmenthasalessfragmentedinteractionwithitsUNpartners,isthisconducivetogreaterownership?Orisitpossiblethattheoppositeoccursinsomecases?OnestakeholderreportedthatsomegovernmentshaverealisedthatsinceJPspromotedcoordinationamonggovernmentagenciesandUNagenciesalike,itpavedthewayforeffectivenationalleadership.However,thiswasnotthecaseinmanycountries,andsomenationalstakeholdersmayevenpreferafragmentedapproach.AfewreviewscommentedonthatengagingwiththeUNagenciesinaJGPreducedtransactioncostsforgovernments,butthiswasnotconfirmedbyallreviews/evaluations.Theinformationneedsthattheevaluationcouldaddressinthisareaarelistedbelow:

1 Howstrongisgovernmentownership?TowhatextentaretheJGPsalignedwithgovernmentprioritiesandmeetingeffectivedemand?Towhatextentdogovernmentsexercisejointdecision‐makingwithUNparticipatingagenciesandprovideproactiveleadership?Towhatextenthavegovernmentsbeeninvolvedintheconceptualisationprocessandconsultedalongtheway?Towhatextenthavegovernmentshowncommitmentbyprovidingresources(financialand/orin‐kind)totheJGPs?

2 Towhatextentwerethecapacitiesofgovernmentandparticipatingnationalagenciescarefullyconsideredinrelationtotheirrespectiveabilitytocoordinate,manageandprovideinputs(cash,supplies,in‐kindortechnicalexpertise)?Towhatextenthaveoperatingcapacitiesbeencreatedand/orreinforcedinnationalpartners?TowhatextenthaveJGPsbeenfacedwithbalancingnationalownershipwiththemanagementefficiencyoftheprogramme?

3 TowhatextenthavethetargetpopulationstakenactiverolesinJGPdesignandimplementationprocesses?Whatrolehascivilsociety–inparticularwomen’smovements–playedintheplanning,design,implementationandmonitoringofJGPs?TowhatextentareJGPsconducive/unfavourablewithregardtoinvolvementofcivilsocietyactors?Towhatextenthavepublic/privatenationalresourcesand/orcounterpartsbeenmobilizedtocontributetoJGPs’objectiveandproduceresultsandimpacts?

4 TowhatextentdoJGPshaveexitstrategiesthataregearedtowardsustainablephase‐outofactivities?Arethenecessaryfoundations(leadership,commitment,capacitiesandresources)inplacetoensurethesustainabilityoftheresultsofJPs?

EfficiencyandOperationalEffectiveness

CentraltotheaimofpromotingJPswithinthecontextofUNreformwastoreducetransactioncostsforallpartners(i.e.improveefficiency)andincreaseeffectiveness.Stakeholdersandreviews/evaluationsoftencommentedonwhetherinJGPsinfactlowertransactioncosts.Whilemanyheldthattransactioncostsarelikelytobereducedinthelongrun,transactioncostsforindividualagenciesoftenappeartobehigherinaJP,particularlyinthebeginning.However,severalstakeholderspointedoutthatiffivesingleUNagencyprogrammesarecomparedwithoneJGPwithfiveUNagenciescollaboratingjointly,thetotalleveloftransactioncostsforthelatterwouldmostprobablybelessthanfortheformer.ThereisnodoubtthatmostJGPshavefacedanumberofchallengesthathaveaffectedefficiency,timelinessandoperationaleffectiveness.Belowaresomeofthechallengesthathavebeenraisedatleastthreetimesbythedifferentevaluations/reviewsand/orstakeholdersconsulted:

• InsufficientguidancetoUNCTs(atleaseinitially)onhowtoformulate,setupandimplementJPs(Therearenotmanymore

availabletools.)• Longformulationprocess–notleasebecause

ofinexperienceandinsufficientguidance–

affectedtimeliness.• Turnoverofstaffandtime‐consuming

recruitmentprocess.

• HighturnoverofJPCs.Thiswassometimesduetothedifficultroleheorshehasbeenfaced

withregardingcoordinatingthedifferentagencies.Insufficientguidanceandstatusvis‐à‐visthepartnerswerealsomentionedasa

problem.• Lackofharmonisedreportingrequirements,

systemsandproceduresamongtheUN

agencies.Thiscausedslowreleaseoffunds.• Lackofclarityregardingrolesinthe

programme–JPCs,programmemanagement

unit,thevariouscoordinationmechanisms,RCs.

• InsufficientleadershipfromRCsandtheheads

ofagencies.Sometimesnotallofthegovernanceandcoordinationstructures–particularlyatthestrategiclevel–have

functionedasplanned.• Sub‐standardlogframesandindicators.• Poorqualitymonitoringandevaluation

systems.• Accountabilityandreportingpracticesthatdid

notsufficientlycaptureeffectsoftheprogrammeasrequiredbyRBM.

Stakeholders all agreed that these challenges were not unique to JGPs, but common to many JPs, regardless of sector. Initial reviews of the mid-term evaluations of JPs supported by the MDG-Fund show a substantial level of similarities in relation to the challenges of achieving efficiency and operational effectiveness. The meta-evaluations currently being commissioned by the MDG-F are expected to collate these findings in each sector and present an overview. Perhaps one feature related to operational effectiveness that may be unique to JGPs is that because gender equality and women’s empowerment affords lower status, the UN often relies on its junior staff to work in this area. This was raised by a couple of stakeholders and one review which stated that the JGP “relied from the UN side to a large extent on junior staff, particularly interns and

UN Volunteers, among whom there is relatively high turnover, meaning a lack of consistency in dealings with the government” (Vietnam.) Stakeholders generally gave less priority to efficiency aspects and operational effectiveness for this evaluation, with the exception of a few JPCs who desired more good practice examples on efficient management of JPs. While these aspects were considered important, it was felt that a priority for this evaluation was to focus on results, national level partnerships, design of JGPs and their level of jointness. Furthermore, the issues of efficiency and operational effectiveness would be more relevant to address in a system-wide cross-sectoral study. It was a concern that the evaluation maintains its focus on the effectiveness of JGPs producing GEWE results and not be taken over by systemic efficiency issues that relate to all JPs in all sectors.

“Theprogrammeiscaughtinacycleofdelaysinreportingandfundsdisbursementresultinginrushedimplementation,rushedliquidationandworkoverloadforstaff.Therearedelaysinreportingandinscheduleofimplementation.”–2010MDGMid‐TermEvaluationofJGPinEthiopia

EmergingPriorities&ReflectionsfortheFutureTermsofReference

Basedontheanalysesofthepreviouschapters,thischapterpresentsthestrategicprioritiesthathaveemerged.Italsodiscussesevaluabilityandpresentsconsiderationsandrecommendationsforthedraftersofthetermsofreference.

STRATEGICPRIORITIES

Itisparticularlyimportantforalarge‐scale,strategicandjointevaluationlikethisonethatsignificanteffortsaremadetoensureclear,focusedandpurposefultermsofreferencetoguidetheevaluationteam.Thismeansthatprioritisationsneedtobemade.Fortunately,thisstudyhasdemonstratedthatthereisconsiderableconcurrenceregardingtheoverallprioritiesfortheevaluation.First,thereisacommonperspectiveontheuseoftheevaluation.WhileitwillbeusedtorenderjudgmentabouttheoverallmeritorworthofJGPs,theprincipleuseswillbetofacilitateimprovementsandgenerateknowledge.Theseusesshouldguidethescopeandapproachoftheevaluation.

Second,theanalysisrevealsthattheprioritiesfortheevaluation’sstrategicscopeconvergeonthreeareas.Inrelationtotheseareas,thedatasuggestthateffectiveness,sustainabilityandpossiblyimpactarethedominantevaluationcriteriatoassesstheJGPs.Relevanceissuesarelessprominentbutstillpertinent.Efficiencyissueswereconsideredlessimportant.Theareasofconvergencearediscussedinthesectionsthatfollow.

ResultsandAddedValueofJGPs

ThefirstareaofconvergencerelatestowhetherJGPsareeffectiveinproducingresultsand

how/whethercollaboratingtogetheraddsvaluetotheseresults.ThecallforinquiryintothisareacomesfromacombinationofUNpolicydirectives,UNWomen’smandate,thelackofevaluativeevidenceandseveraltypesofinformationneedsthatstakeholdersconsultedbythisstudyhaveexpressed:

• ThereareseveralGeneralAssemblyresolutionsmentionedinsection2thaturgetheUNdevelopmentsystemtoenhanceaccountabilityintheareaofgenderequalityandwomen’sempowerment.

• Thepolicydirectivesoutlinedinsection2haverecommendedthattheUNdevelopimprovedguidanceonthenature,qualityandeffectivenessofJPsinsupportofgenderequalityandtheempowermentofwomen.

• ThereisarelativepaucityofstrategiclevelassessmentsofspecificUNeffortstoaddresswomen’sempowerment,women’srightsandgenderequality.

• ThereisalackofevaluativeevidencerelatingtoJGPs.

• WithitsmandatebeingtoleadandcoordinatetheoveralleffortsoftheUNsystemtosupportthefullrealizationofwomen’srightsandopportunities(i.e.promotingcoherenceandactingasaglobalbrokerofknowledgeandexperience),UNWomenneedsevidencetoinformitspolicydevelopment.

• StakeholdersconsultedbythisstudyexpressastrongneedforinformationonthedegreeandnatureofcollaborationamongstparticipatingUNpartnersinJGPsandhowJPsaddvaluetoGEWEresults.

• StakeholdersprioritisetheanalysisofJGPdesignanddesignprocessesbecausei)stakeholdersconsiderJGPdesignanddesignprocessesasdeterminantsofsuccessfulresults,andii)theJGPevaluations/reviewshaveidentifiedseveralJGPdesignproblems.

• Stakeholdersdesireinformationoneffectivenessinrelationtoseveraltypesofeffectsincludingi)genderequality,women’sempowermentandhumanrightsresults;ii)capacitydevelopmentamongduty‐bearersandrights‐holders;iii)advocacyeffectsiv)processresultsfromanright‐basedapproachperspective;v)intangibleeffects;vi)synergeticeffects;and,vii)goodpractices.

ThisareaofconvergencecouldbecapturedbyanoverallaimofassessingtowhatextentandinwhatwayscollaboratinginaJGPhasenhancedtheGEWEeffectsachievedbytheparticipatingUNagenciesandtheirpartners.ThiswouldplaceeffectivenessintermsofGEWEresultsinthecentreoftheevaluationandwouldlinkitwiththeconceptofcollaborationor“jointness”.Itwouldrequirethestudyofthenatureanddegreeofjointness(indesignprocesses,implementationprocesses,governance,resourcemobilisation,communication,knowledgemanagement)andwhatkindofcollaborationcontributedtobetterresults.Itwouldalsoentailstudyingthedifferenttypesofeffects;thestrengthsandweaknessesofJGPsinrelationtoproducingeffects;howtheUNcouldimproveJGPssothattheyaremoreeffectiveinproducingresults;andwhethertherearegoodpracticestolearnfrom.

Sustainability,NationalLevelPartnerships,OwnershipandPeople‐centredApproaches

Thesecondareawhereprioritiesconverge

relatestosustainabilityandhowtheJGPsinteractwithandsupportstakeholdersatthecountrylevel.Itinvolvesnationalownership,people‐centredapproachesandUNpartnershipswithgovernment.ThereareanumberofpolicyleveldocumentsthatareconcernedwiththeseaspectsandthequestionistowhatextentJGPsaresuccessfulataddressingthem:

• UNDG’sGuidanceNoteonJointProgrammingstatesthatJPsareaimedtoenhancetheUNcontributioninthecurrentcontextofinternationaldevelopmentassistance,withafocusonself‐relianceandcapacitybuilding.

• TheAidEffectivenessprinciplesoftheParisDeclarationandtheAccraAgendaforActionplaceownershipatthecentreofdevelopmentcooperation.

• TheHighLevelPanelreport“DeliveringasOne”statedthatreformtoimprovethecoherenceoftheUNdevelopmentsystemmustbeunderpinnedbytheprinciplesofnationalownershipandpeople‐centredapproaches.

• UN’scommitmenttomainstreaminghumanrightsinallofitsdevelopmentworkrequiresanapproachofstrengtheningtheaccountabilityofduty‐bearersandsupportingrights‐holdersindemandingtheirrights.

• TheUNDGGuidanceNotestatesthatJPsarespecificallyintendedtostrengthenhowtheUNorganizationsprogrammejointlywithgovernments.

Atthesametime,stakeholders’informationneedsandthefindingsoftheJGPevaluations/reviewscallforinquiryintothisarea:

• StakeholdersrequiremoreanalysisofwhatJGPsmeanforownershipandjoint

processesinthepartnershipsthattheagenciesenjoywithgovernmentsandcivilsociety.

• Theevaluations/reviewsofJGPsconcludedthatsustainabilityofJGPswaslow.

• Stakeholdersrequireinformationandanalysisofhowsustainabilitycanbeimproved.

ThisareaofconvergencecouldbecapturedbyanoverallaimofassessingtowhatextentandinwhatwaysJGPshavecontributedtogovernmentsmeetingtheircommitmentstotheBeijingPlatformforActionandfulfilledtheirobligationstowardswomen’sandgirl’shumanrights,whilealsosupportingrights‐holdersdemandtheirrights.ThiswouldsettheUN’snationallevelpartnershipswithduty‐bearersandrights‐holdersattheheartoftheevaluation.Itwouldcovertheissuesofnationalownership,howeffectivelyandsustainablytheUNagenciesprogrammejointlywithgovernmentsandtheextenttowhichJGPapproachesarepeople‐centred.

Synergies

ThethirdandmuchsmallerareaofconvergencerelatestosynergiesbetweenJGPsandotherUNefforts:

• ReformoftheUNdevelopmentsystemtopromoteeffectivenessandsustainabilityfocusesoncoherence,coordinationandcollaboration–notonlywithinprogrammesbutalsoamongprogrammes.

• ManystakeholdersshowaveryhighdegreeofinterestinunderstandingwhetherandhowaJGPinacountrycanresultinsynergeticeffectswithotherUNprogrammesatcountrylevel.TheywanttoknowwhetherJGPshavean

influenceontheUN’soverallgenderequalitymainstreamingefforts.

• MainstreaminggenderequalityintoallUNprogrammespresentsmostsignificantchallengesformostagencies.ManystakeholdersseeJGPsasaresourceformainstreaming.

• MostoftheJGPevaluations/reviewsdonotreportonsynergiesandthefewthatdidfoundthereweremissedopportunitiestocreatethem.

ThisareaofconvergencecouldbecapturedbyanoverallaimofassessingtowhatextentandinwhatwaysJGPshavecontributedtoimprovedgenderequalitymainstreamingandwomen’sempowermentinotherUNprogrammesandeffortsatcountrylevel.ThefocusherewouldbeonsynergeticeffectswithotherUNefforts.ItwouldrequirestudyingtowhatextentJGPsaffectedincreasedcollaboration,coordinationandinformationexchangewithintheUNCTinrelationtoGEWE.

EVALUABILITY

Programmesaddressinggenderequalityandwomen’sempowermentareinherentlydifficulttoevaluatesincetheyconcernchallengingandchangingcomplexsocietalnormsanddynamics.Giventhattheevaluationscopeisglobal;involvesmultipleagencies;arangeofsectors/thematicareas;andspans10years,thesubjectareapresentschallengeswithregardtoevaluability.Lowevaluabilitynotonlyimpliesdifficultiesduringtheevaluationprocess,itmayincreasecostsbecausemoreeffortandresourcesareneededtogatherdata.Thissectionpresentssomeofthechallengestoevaluabilityandhowtheycanbeaddressedbytheevaluation.

AssessingResults

Aswithallprogrammesthataimatresultsthatconsistofsocialchange,determiningcausalityandattributionofresultsbeyonddirectoutputspresentsdifficulties.Tosaywithconfidencethataninterventioncausedchange,evidencehastobeproducedthatshowsthattheinterventionactuallycausedthechange(i.e.nothingwouldhavechangedintheabsenceoftheintervention–theinterventionwasnecessary),andtheinterventionwastheonlycauseofthechange(nothingelsewasneededtobringaboutthechange–theinterventionwassufficient.)

TheJGPevaluations/reviewsindicatethatJGPsusuallyhavesuboptimallogframes,indicatorsandmonitoringsystems.Thisislikelytopresentobstaclestoassessingeffectivenessanddeterminingcausalityinthecaseofintermediateoutcomes.However,becauseofthecomplexityandfluidityofdevelopmentprocesses,causalitymaybedifficulttodetermineeveninthebestofcircumstancewherethereisqualitybaselineinformationandrobustmonitoringframeworks.WhenitisnotpossibletoconcludewhatoutcomescanbedirectlylinkedtoaJGP,itwillbenecessaryfortheevaluationtodeterminewhetherthereisevidencethatsuggeststhataJGPiscontributingtoorhasthelikelihoodofattaininglonger‐termgoals;andwhethernecessarypreconditionsforsuccessfulresultsexists.

Anotherissuerelatedtoevaluatingresultsisthatthisstudyhasdocumentedthatthereisadesiretoobtainknowledgeofarangeofeffects–synergeticeffects,intangibleeffectsandeffectsrelatedtocapacitydevelopment,humanrightsandempowerment.Identifying,analysingandassessingthesedifferenteffectswillrequireanumberofdifferenttechniquesandapproaches.

Assessing“Jointness”

Evaluatingtowhatextent“jointness”enhancesresults,wouldideallyrequirethatcontrolprogrammesbeidentifiedsothatpairsofGEWEprogrammes–onejointandtheother“single”–becompared.Unfortunately,itisunlikelythattwocomparableprogrammescanbefoundinthesamecountry,beingimplementedatthesametimeinthesamethematicarea.However,bydrawingontheknowledgeandexperienceofUNstaffandpartnerorganisations,itwouldbepossibletoreconstructhowasingleprogrammemighthavebeendifferentfromaJP.Participatorytechniques–suchascollectiveanalysiscouldbeusefulinthisregard.

IntegratingHumanRights

FormostoftheJGPs,humanrightsand/orgenderequalityaretheprimaryfocusesoftheintervention.AlthoughitisbeyondthescopeofthisstudytodeterminetheevaluabilityofeachJGPindetail,basedontheinterventionlogicandgoalstructure,itappearsthatasignificantproportionoftheportfoliomayhavemediumorhighevaluabilityforintegratinghumanrightsandgenderequality.Nevertheless,someJGPs–suchasthosefromwithinthehealthsector–

Recommendation1:ThetermsofreferenceshouldstipulatethattheevaluationteampresentshowitwillassessthedifferenttypesofJGPseffectsinitsmethodology.

Recommendation2:Thetermsofreferenceshouldrequestthattheevaluationteamconsiderwaystoassesstheaddedvalueof“jointness”initsmethodology.

havenotconsistentlyconsideredhumanrightsdimensionsinthedesign,implementationandmonitoring.Inthesecasesitwillbemorechallengingtointegratehumanrightsandgenderequalityintheevaluationprocessandanalysis.

Toaddresstheevaluabilitychallengesintermsofintegratinghumanrights,ahumanrights‐basedstakeholderanalysiswillbecriticaltoensurethatstakeholderswhomaynothavebeenconsideredintheinterventionareincludedintheevaluation.Theevaluationteammayalsoneedtoseekinformantsanddocumentsthathaveusefulinformationonhumanrightsthatmaynothavebeencapturedbytheintervention(e.g.statisticsofficers,otherdevelopmentagencies,civilsociety,academia,etc.)Aglobalevaluationspanning60countrieswillentaillimitationstotheamountofstakeholderparticipationthatispracticallypossible.Itwill,however,bepossibletoensureanacceptablelevelofparticipationinthecountrycasestudies.Theevaluationteamislikelytorequiresupportfromthecountryofficestohelporganisemeaningfulparticipationofdutybearersand/orrightsholdersintheevaluationprocess.

DataandTimeLapse

Fundamentaltoanyevaluationistheavailabilityofdata.TheteamhasmadeasubstantialefforttoobtainasmuchdataaspossibleontheJGPportfolio,butsomedatagapsremain.Inparticular,thereisinsufficientdocumentationabouttheJGPsthatwereinitiatedbefore2006.

Justoverhalftheprogrammesfrom2001to2006lackprogrammedocuments.ItisevenpossiblethatsomeoftheseJPswereneverinitiatedorchangedintosomethingelse.

MostoftheearlierJGPsaresmall‐scale–80%areunder$600,000andmorethanonefifthareunder$140,000.Thetimelapssincethefirstpartofthedecadecreatesacoupleofimportantchallenges.First,smallprogrammesarelesslikelytoproduceeffectsthatareidentifiableyearslater.Second,thefactthatmostoftheseprogrammesendedyearsagoentailthattherewillbelessinstitutionalmemorytotapintofordata.

Ontheotherhand,theteamhasobtainedprogrammedocumentsfornearly90%oftheJGPsthatwereinitiatedbetween2006and2010.Afutureappealtothecountryofficesislikelytoyieldmoredocuments.

Since2001,therehavebeensomechangestotheinstitutionalenvironmentofJPs.First,fouroftheearlierJGPsweredesignedbeforethe2003GuidanceNoteonJointProgrammeswereissued.Second,from2007onwardsthefollowingchangestookplace:

• Harmonisationofaccountingstandards,businesspracticesandhumanresourcesmanagementaswellasfurtheralignmentoftheUNDAF;

• FurtheralignmentofUNDAFstonationalprocesses;

• TheMDG‐FundbeganfundingJPs;and• DeliveringasOnewaspilotedineight

countries.Tomaximisetheevaluation’sutility,itwillbeimportanttoassessJGPsthatwereconceptualisedandimplementedwithinthecontextofthesechanges.

Apositiveaspectoftimelapseisthatseveralof

Recommendation3:Thetermsofreferenceshouldrequestthattheevaluationteampresenthowitwillintegratehumanrightsinitsmethodology.

theJGPsarecomingorhavecometoaclose,makingiteasiertoassessendresults.Forevaluationsthatwereinitiatedin2006,theremayevenbeapossibilityofassessingmedium‐termeffects.

Takingintoconsiderationthechallengesandopportunitiesrelatedtothetimelapse,combinedwiththeissueofhigherdatareliabilityofthe2006to2010JGPs,focusingtheevaluationonJGPsinitiatedbetween2006and2010wouldbeofgreaterevaluativeworth.

AMixedMethodEvaluation

Forthisevaluationtobeconsidereduseful,itmustprovidecredibleandvaluablefindingsonhowtoimproveJGPsandhowtogenerateknowledge.ThiswouldinvolvegainingadeepenedunderstandingofJGPsbycapturingandcommunicatingtheir“stories”sothattheseillustratetheresultsandrelevantprocessesofJGPsforkeystakeholderswhomakedecisionsaboutJGPs.Suchinquirywouldrequireaqualitativeapproach.Thisimpliesthatdatacollectionisundertakenby,i)documentexamination,ii)evaluator’sobservationandmeasurement,iii)participatoryandcollectiveanalysis,andiv)interviews.Surveyscanalsobedesignedtogatherqualitativedata.Quantitativemethodswouldaddvaluetotheevaluationprocess.TheJGPdatabasethathasbeenestablishedbythestudyandtheanalysisthathasalreadybeenundertakenconstitutesignificantresourcesfortheevaluationteam.

Theseexistingproductswillallowtheteamto“hitthegroundrunning.”Nevertheless,whilethedatabasecontainsarangeofdatathatcanallowfurtheranalysisandcomparisons,tobefullyutilised,thedatabasewouldneedtobeupdatedtoincludeup‐to‐datefundinginformation.Theremainderofthischapterwillprovidesomereflectionsfortheevaluationapproachthatareworthconsidering for thedraftingof the termsofreference.

DocumentationExamination

Itwouldbeimportantfortheevaluationteamtobeginbyreviewingall94programmedocumentsandthe20evaluations.Forbothpracticalandresourcereasons,itwouldmakesensetoundertakeamorein‐depthdeskstudyofaroundone‐quartertoone‐thirdoftheJGPs.TheevaluationteamwouldneedtoprovidecriteriaintheinceptionphaseonhowtoselecttheseJGPs.SomeofJGPsforwhichtherehavebeenreviews–suchastheAlbanianJGPsandsomeoftheMDG‐Fprogrammes–wouldconstitutegoodcandidatesforfurtherdeskstudy.Exceptfor20evaluations/reviews,theJGPdatabasecurrentlydoesnotcontainreportsrelatedtotheJGPs.Aconsiderableeffortwouldbeneededtoensurethatcountryofficessupplythenecessaryreportsanddatatocompletethedatabase.

Recommendation4:TheevaluationtimescopeshouldincludeJGPsfrom2006to2010toensuredatareliabilityandusefulness.

Recommendation5:Theagenciesshouldensurethatthecountryofficessupplythenecessaryprogrammereportsanddatatocompletethedatabaseanddocumentrepository.

CaseStudyApproach

ToobtainadeepenedunderstandingofwhatresultsJGPsareachievingandwhethercollaborationamongagenciesiscontributingtothis,itwillbecriticalthattheevaluationundertakescasestudies.Visitingfourcountriesislikelytoprovidethedatarequired,especiallyif,i)countrieswithmorethanoneJGPareprioritised,andii)fieldstudiesofJGPsarecomplementedwithin‐depthdeskstudiesofotherJGPs.UNconcernstoensureregionalrepresentationforpoliticalreasonsmayrequirethatsixcasestudiesareundertaken.

Thecasestudieswouldmostappropriatelybeselectedbypurposefulsamplingtoensurethatanumberofvariablesarecoveredandthatthecasesare"informationrich"andilluminative.WhilethesamplingshouldbebiasedtowardsJGPsthatareconsideredbystakeholderstobeinnovative,havedevelopedgoodpracticesand/oraresuccessful;thesamplingshouldalsoconsiderJGPsthathavestruggledtoproduceresults.Thefollowingcriteriawouldbethemostimportanttoconsiderinthesamplingprocessofthedifferentcasestudies(boththein‐depthdeskstudiesandthefieldstudies):

1. Mixofdifferentthemes:Thereareeightthematicareas.Themostimportantonestostudyatcountrylevelwouldbemulti‐sectoralJGPs,EVAWJGPsandgovernanceJGPsbecauseoftheirprevalenceandfinancialvalue.HealthandeconomicempowermentJGPsshouldalsobestudied–preferableatcountrylevel.Education,traffickingandHIV/AIDSaremuchless

commonbutshouldatleastbeincludedforin‐depthdeskstudy.

2. Conflict‐relatedJGPs:Conditions,opportunitiesandissuesinconflict‐affectedcountriesoftendifferquiteconsiderablefromotherdevelopingcountries.WhilethestudyhaschosennottoconsiderJGPswithaconflictangleasthematicallyseparate,theUN’simportantroleincountriesaffectedbyviolentconflictwouldmakeitpertinenttostudyJGPswithandwithoutaconflictangleinconflict‐affectedcountries.

3. Mixofagencies:ThecountrycasestudyselectionneedstoensurethattheJGPschosenhaveUNFPA,UNDP,UNWomenandUNICEFasparticipatingagencies.ThiswillberelativelyeasyduetotheprevalenceofJGPswiththeseagenciesinvolved.ItisimportantthattheselectionalsoincludesJGPsinwhichspecializedagenciesparticipate.Ifthecasestudyselectionhasalreadyensuredthatthethematicareasarecovered,thenitwillautomaticallyensurearelativelygoodmixofthemostprevalentagencies.

4. MixofdifferentnumbersofparticipatingUNagencies:ToanalysethedegreeofjointnessandthecollaborationdynamicsinJGPs,theselectionwouldneedtoincludeJGPsthathavethemostcommonnumberofparticipatingagencies(two,three‐fourandfive‐six).ItwouldalsoneedtolookatthelargerJGPsseven‐eight,nine‐tenand/or11+.Ifpossible,theselectionshouldtrytoincludefinanciallylargeandfinanciallysmallJGPswithmanypartners.IncludingafewJGPswithmanyUNpartnerswillautomaticallyensurethattherewillbeamixofmanydifferentagenciesrepresentedintheselectionasrecommendedinpoint2above.

5. Amixofcountrieswithdifferenthumandevelopmentandgenderequalityindexes:Thelevelofcapacityinacountryandthe

Recommendation6:TheevaluationshouldincludeadeskreviewofthewholeJGPportfolioandanin‐depthportfolioanalysisofasizeableproportionoftheJGPportfolio.

extenttowhichgovernmentsprioritisegenderequalityandwomen’srightscanhaveimplicationsforthesuccessofaJGP.Itisthereforeimportanttoincludeamixofcountriesinrelationtothesequalities.

6. AtleasttwocountrieswithJPsthathaveexpressedgendermainstreamingstrategiesand/orMDG3components:IftheaimofassessingJGPsintermsoftheirsynergieswithotherUNprogrammes(seesection0)istobeincludedintheevaluationobjectives,thissamplingcriterionwouldbeimportant.

7. Mixofdifferentbudgetsizes:ThesamplewouldbenefitfromhavingabiastowardsJGPswithbiggerplannedbudgets.Thiswillpotentiallyofferagreaterrangeofeffectsandprocessestoexamine.ToexaminehowagenciesconductresourcemobilisationforJGPs,itwouldbeimportanttoincludeafewJGPsthatwerenotfullyfundedfromthestart.

8. Mixofdifferentregions:BecauseofthesubstantialvalueandhighnumberofJGPsinAfrica,thesamplewouldbenefitfromincludingatleasttwosub‐SaharanAfricancountries.

9. Mixofdifferentlevelsofprogrammematurity:Tobeabletoassessresults,theselectionofcasestudiesneedstoincludeolderJGPsthatarefinalisedornearcompletion.Atthesametime,itisimportanttoexaminenewerJGPsthathavebeenformulatedinmorerecentpolicyenvironmentsandwhichperhapsbuildonlessonsfromthepast.

Othercriteriathatwouldbeimportantinthesamplingprocessofcasestudiesincludethefollowing:

10. Leadagency:Totheextentpossible,theselectionshouldtrytoensureamixofdifferentagenciesperformingthelead

agencyrole.

11. Mixofdifferentnon‐corefundingsources:Theselectionshouldtrytoincludeamixofdifferentfundingsources–suchasdirectbilateralsupportandcontributionsfromtrustfunds.ItisimportanttonotethattheJGPdatabasedoesnotprovidethemostrecentinformationonthis,ascontributionsprovidedaftertheprogrammedocumentwassignedarenotincludedinit.

12. CountriesthathavemorethanoneJGP:TomaximisethenumberofJGPsthatwillbeexaminedatfieldlevel(andthusmeetingmoresamplingcriteria),itwouldmakesensetoprioritise–asrelevant–amongcountrieswithmorethanoneJGP.

13. Typeofexecution:ThecurrentdatabasedoesnotincludeinformationonwhetherJGPsareundertakenthroughnationalordirectexecution.However,ensuringthatthesamplehasamixofthiscouldprovideinterestingresultstocompare.

14. AtleastoneDeliveringasOnecountry:SincetheDeliveringasOnecountriesarepilotsfortheUNreformprocess,examiningJGPsinthiscontextcouldprovideimportantconclusions.

Intermsoffundmanagementmodalities,thepass‐through,parallelandcombinationmodalitieswillnotbedifficulttoachieveamixofsincetheytendtobemorenumerous.However,thereareonlyafewpooledJGPs–12intotal–andtheyaremostlyrelativelysmallinsize.Thedynamicsofjointnesswillbequitedifferentinapooledprogramme.Infact,dependingonwhatstrategicscopeischosen,leavingpooledJGPsspecificallyoutofthesamplingsetmaybeoptiontoconsideraftertheinceptionphase.Othercriteriaforsamplingmaycomeoutoftheinceptionphaseoftheevaluation.Forinstance,initialresearchoftheevaluationteamcoulduncoverinformationon

differentgovernanceandmanagementset‐upsthatmaybeimportanttocompare.

SurveyPossibilities

Tobecost‐effective,asurveyshouldbeeasytoadministerandresultsneedtobeeasilyanalysed–whichmeanselectronicquestionnaires.Shortquestionnaireswithclosedquestionsaremoreusefulsincetheytendtopromoteresponseratesandofferquantifiabledata.

Surveyingnationalpartnersusingclosedquestionsandquestionsthatarerankedbytheinterviewees’judgmentscouldtheoreticallyprovideinterestingdata.However,theneedtotranslatethequestionnairebeyondtheUNlanguages;theunevenelectronicconnectivityofnationalpartners;theriskofapoorresponserateandtheanswersthattrytoprovide“desired”answerswoulddisfavoursuchasurvey.

Whilestillaconsiderableundertaking,surveyingUNstaffismorestraightforward–staffcanallbereachedelectronically,thesurveycanbelimitedtothreelanguagesandpressurecanmoreeasilybeexertedtopromoteagoodresponserate.However,itiscurrentlydifficulttoseeasuitablesubjectareaforasurveyofUNstaff,whichincludesonlyclosedquestions.Ontheotherhand,dataoneffectscouldbeenrichedbyobtainingqualitativedatathroughopen‐endedquestions(combinedwithclosedquestions).Thiswouldinvolvegatheringstaff

viewsonandknowledgeofdifferentkindsofresultsachieved,includingintangibleresults,advocacyeffortsandsynergeticeffectsachievedwithotherUNprogrammes.

TeamExpertise

Thequalityofqualitativedatadependstoagreatextentonthemethodologicalskill,sensitivity,andintegrityoftheevaluator.Generatingusefulandcrediblequalitativefindingsthroughobservation,interviewing,contentanalysisandparticipatoryapproachesrequiresdiscipline,knowledge,experience,creativityandhardwork.Moreover,itreliesontheabilitytotakeininformationbyseeingthebigpicture,focusingontherelationshipsandconnectionsbetweenfacts,identifyingpatternsandbeingattunedtoseeingnewpossibilities.Otherimportantqualitiesofthefutureevaluationteamincludeknowledgeandexperienceinthefollowingareas:

1. Genderequality,women’sempowermentandwomen’srightsmovement

2. Developmentcooperationprocessesandpolicies

3. TheUNdevelopmentsystem,theUNreformprocess,UNdevelopmentprogrammes

4. Rights‐basedapproaches5. Evaluationmethods,participatory

approaches,datacollection6. Developingcountries,conflict‐affected

countries,regionalandcross‐regionalexperience

7. Assessingcapacitydevelopment

Theteamwillneedstronganalytical,writingandfacilitationskillsandarangeoflanguageskills(English,FrenchandSpanish.)Theteamshouldrepresentdiversityandconsistofbothwomen

Recommendation7:Theevaluationshouldincludefourtosixcasestudiesthatinvolvecountryvisits.Theevaluationshouldalsoincludedesk‐levelcasestudies.Purposefulsampling,takingintotoconsiderationtheabovesamplingcriteria,shouldbeusetocarefullychooseallcasestudies.

andmen.Nationalconsultantsshouldbeincludedonthecasestudymissions.Skilledandhighlyqualifiedconsultantsarebusyandoftenbookedupmonthsinadvance.Toensurethatconsultantswiththesequalitiesareavailable,theevaluationshouldbescheduledtoallowadequatelead‐time.

Recommendation8:Thetermsofreferenceshouldcallforateamwithstrongskillsandin‐depthknowledgeandexperienceintherangeofrelevantareaslistedabove.Planningshouldtakeintoconsiderationthelead‐timethatbusyhighqualityconsultantsmayrequire.

Analytical Overview of Joint UN Gender Programme Portfolio · 3.6 Funding 31 3.7 Summary 32 4...

Documents

Transcript of Analytical Overview of Joint UN Gender Programme Portfolio · 3.6 Funding 31 3.7 Summary 32 4...

Factoids 3.7

according to ATEX 114 (2014/34/EU) EX-EN.pdfaccording to ATEX 114 (2014/34/EU) CENTR-EX/EN (1910) 3.7 EU Declaration of Conformity ATEX 114 (ATEX 95) Manufacturer: SPX Flow Technology

Section 3.7 Proper Rational Functions Section 3.7 Proper Rational Functions.

Li-Ion Batterien.pdf · 30 30 30 30 Nominal Voltage(V) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 ... 1950 2000 2000 2000 2000 2300 2350 2350 2850 2900 3050 3050 3100 3500 3500

ACT Composite Scores of Retested Students › content › dam › act › unsecured › ... · Group U2 4,371 20.6 4.0 10 34 21.4 4.1 11 34 Group #3 1,076 18.8 3.7 7 32 19.5 3.9 7

Reports of the Community Services Committee …...2013 National Trust Heritage Festival - Campbelltown Arts Centre 34 3.7 Australia International Cultural Council Grant Program - Expression

A Research Study into Consumers’ Attitudes to Food Labelling … · 2014-05-06 · Figure 2: Demographic profile of consumers in qualitative study (n=50) ABC1 58% 15-34 34% Female

3.7 Foundation Engineering.pptx

The Honorable Timothy J. Simmons...Timothy J. Simmons Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

3.7 Optimization Problems 215 3.7 Optimization Problems

H I S E X C E L L E N C Y - nimet.gov.ng BROCHURE FINAL.pdf · 3.4 water resources management 33 3.5 hydropower generation 34 3.6 dam management 34 3.7 transportation (aviation) 35

3.7 Optimization

Qualitative Analysis: Evaluation of Bureaucracy Reform Program …scholarsmepub.com › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 03 › SJHSS-33-34… · Qualitative Analysis: Evaluation

3.7 – Variation

LOGIC--Section 3.7

3.7 Optimization Problems

Qualitative Methods In Health Research - Qualitative Qualitative ...

September 2018 DLA 34/2018 – GMO-Screening qualitative 2018/PT - DLA 34-2018 Final Repor… · September 2018 DLA 34/2018 – GMO-Screening qualitative 2.1.1 Homogeneity The mixture

Cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS) Guidelines ......3.6.7 ISO 21177 - Secure sessions with ITS station units .....33 3.7 Access technologies .....34

Geometry unit 3.7