Pilot countries Delivering as One M&E workshop meets in Viet Nam
First Meeting of the Delivering as One M&E Network
Tam Dao, Viet Nam
9-11 September 2008
The first meeting of the Delivering as One Monitoring and Evaluation Network took place in Tam Dao (Viet Nam) from 9th to 11th September 2008. Participants from seven pilot countries (except for Cape Verde) and two “self-starters” (Malawi and Papua New Guinea), as well as representatives from UN DOCO and UNEG met during two days to share experiences, discuss issues of common concern and bring these up to the attention of HQ. A list of participants is at Annex 1.
The objectives of the workshop were that participants would:
§ Become fully aware of the approaches to monitoring progress of the One Programmes in the DaO countries and have identified lessons from the other countries that might be useful in their setting.
§ Know the current plans of the DaO countries for end of year reporting on the progress of the UNDAF / One Plan as appropriate to the governments and UN HQs by the RC and UNCT/individual UN agencies.
§ Be conversant with the current status of plans to commission an independent evaluation of the DAO pilots and the implications for their country.
§ Know about the various initiatives to measure progress of the UN reform process in preparation for the independent evaluation.
§ Be trained on the technical considerations with respect to all of the above and have charted ways in which the technical considerations can be addressed in their work in their respective countries. For example participants would have developed a common understanding and agreement on how to approach the issue of transaction costs.
§ Aware and knowledgeable of the organizational and resource issues around monitoring and evaluation and formulate practical and feasible recommendations for countries and UNDG agencies to address
§ Agreed on how the M and E network will function and communicate among the members in future.
This note lays out key actions identified at the meeting, grouped under five headings – reporting on results, building capacity, evaluation, transaction costs and operationalisation of the One Monitoring and Evaluation Network. No edited minutes of the workshop will be issued, but participants will be provided with electronic versions of:
- The compilation of responses on the current status of M&E in the eight pilot countries;
- Slides presented; and
- Unedited notes taken during the meeting.
Common Reporting on UNDAF/One Programme
Discussion mainly focused on the role of the annual report to government that has to be produced by the end of the year. Participants indicate that all nine countries intend to produce an Annual Report for their governments at the end of 2008, but there is considerable variation in the approach and scope of what will be reported. Several countries will produce a single report that will cover the whole UN development programme in the country - Albania, Rwanda, Malawi, PNG, and Vietnam. Others will produce a report that covers only a subset of the UN’s support - generally joint programmes developed post-UNDAF agreement – Tanzania, Mozambique, Pakistan. Uruguay intends to produce two reports, one covering the UNDAF and one covering those activities funded specifically under the One Plan Fund. However, in all cases the intention is to move within 2/3 years to one Annual Report to government that covers all UN development support. The present status is that while countries are clear on the scope of what be reported on, what will be reported is not clear. In Pakistan’s case, the challenge is that implementation will only just have started, so restricting what can be reported. However, the main challenge in developing and agreeing upon the Annual Report’s format and contents is the extent to which this report should also be used by the individual UN agencies as their Annual Report to their headquarters. This is seen as key, as it will significantly cut transaction costs for the individual agencies in-country and encourage staff that cutting transaction costs under DaO is feasible. Therefore, participants expressed a strong desire to have one Annual Report that meets Agency HQ, Government and donor requirements. The self-starters would like headquarters to provide them with the same flexibility as with the DaO pilots.
Key actions
- DOCO to seek exemption of individual agency annual reporting for any pilot country that is able to produce a One UN results report for end 2008. (Responsibility: Ces Adorna (DOCO) to raise with Advisory Group in NY by end September).
-
- Organize a meeting of those countries that successfully produce such a report and the WGPI to discuss lessons learned and best practices that can be replicated in the other countries from 2009 onwards. Based on the outcome of the meeting, review the need to undertake mapping of individual agency reporting requirements. (Responsibility: Eiko Narita (DOCO) to organize for 1st quarter 2009 on behalf of WGPI).
Capacity
In all countries, M&E systems have been designed but have yet to be operationalised. Key lessons learned identified included the need to have strong support from a senior management willing to innovate, ensuring that membership of the M&E Working Group was senior enough and had access to the SMT; and that having strong and explicit programme logic means addressing this issue at the planning phase. Participants also agreed that a separate ‘reform results framework’ is needed, if evidence on how the reform process will enhance the UN’s contribution is to be assessed.
Capacity to develop, operationalise and use information from the systems designed was a significant concern raised by participants. Major issues discussed included the implications of taking an RBM, rather than M&E approach; the implications of the lack of M&E capacity both within the UNCTs and of the major partners, the concerned governments; and the challenges in getting appropriate and timely technical support from the RDTs and identifying good training resources; and enhancing staff college training on RBM and M&E. Participants high-lighted the need to:
- Build capacity within national governments,
- Ensure strong links between government and UN planning and reporting systems, to strengthen government ownership;
- Keep things simple.
Key actions
- Participants to be sent guidelines and other material on how to assess the monitoring and evaluation capacity of national partners. (Responsibility: Paul Balogun and Lucien Back to send material to participants via Joaquin Gonzalez-Aleman by end September 2008)
- DOCO to mobilize resources to strengthen RBM and M&E capacity in UNCTs of the pilots and self-starter countries with a view to supporting national partners. (Responsibility: Eiko Narita (DOCO) with Paul Balogun to agree next steps).
- DOCO to strengthen QSA mechanisms in RDT in line with Oslo meeting. (Responsibility: Pervez Hassan (DOCO) to develop an action plan to enhance QSA).
Evaluation
Lucien Back gave a briefing on the current status of plans for the independent evaluation of the pilots. Key points were that it is currently unclear who will be responsible for the evaluation, when it will be carried out, and its scope. A key issue will be the degree to which the General Assembly will assume an active oversight role of the design of the evaluation. These issues will be discussed at a meeting of the HLCP in late September/early October and the HLCP would then make a recommendation to be discussed at the CEB meeting scheduled for late October. The CEB would then draft a proposal that would then be presented to the Secretary-General for presentation to the General Assembly. This suggests that clarity on who will carry out the evaluation and on what terms will be available in early 2009.
Key actions
- The Results Frameworks for the reform process produced by Albania, Pakistan, Vietnam and Tanzania will be reviewed in the light of the benchmarks identified in the UNEG evaluability synthesis report and the four frameworks available. Recommendations will be made on how to strengthen commonalities between the benchmarks across these countries. Guidelines on how the remaining countries might develop Results Frameworks for the reform process will also be produced. (Responsibility: Albania, Pakistan, Vietnam and Tanzania to provide their frameworks to Zarak Jan (DOCO) by 24th September. Zarak Jan to lead on review of frameworks and produce draft recommendations by end September for distribution to network membership. DOCO to arrange videoconference of M&E Network in 2nd week of October 2008). Zarak Jan to lead on development and finalization of guidelines on how the remaining countries might develop Results Frameworks for the reform process by end October 2008).
- Pilot countries are encouraged to review and implement the suggestions contained in the evaluability report (both the synthesis report and their individual country report). (Responsibility: Pilot country UNCTs).
Transaction costs and cost savings
Participants read and discussed the paper on transaction costs presented at the June 2008 DaO pilot RC meeting in NY. After discussion, the minimum that the countries should do to address these issues were agreed.
Key actions
§ Countries should track and measure cost savings derived from efficiency savings in common services (Responsibility: Abheet Solomon of the Tanzania Office will contact, Angus Miller (Tanzania) to make available templates for this purpose and the M and E participants from Viet Nam, Malawi and Mozambique committed to share what they have on measurement of on cost savings from common services.
§ Countries request UNDG to find mechanism to reallocate savings into programmes (Responsibility: Liudmila Barcari (DOCO).
§ Countries should map transaction costs using the approach outlined in paper discussed and identify where strategically important shifts are likely to occur. In mapping transaction costs, the focus should be on identifying the major areas in which shifts may occur and not to exhaustively detail all possible shifts (Responsibility: Country UNCTs)
§ Countries should conduct a perception survey (in 2009) of stakeholders’ perceptions of how transaction costs have changed (Action: Viet Nam will share Stakeholder perception survey tools and results by end October 2008)
§ DOCO to call on HLCM to request conceptual guidance on transaction costs, building on previous work on cost recovery (Responsibility: Ashok Nigam ).
Establishing the DaO M&E Network
Participants were split into three groups and asked to make suggestions on how to develop the Network. Presentations suggested that there was a clear consensus on the way forward and what the network would be – an informa; demand driven network of pilot countries and self starters. There were differing opinions on what the initial membership of the DaO M&E Network should be.
Key agreements
Membership
· The nine countries (plus Cape Verde) should nominate one person to act as focal point for the network (Action: 10 UNCTs to nominate selected focal point and inform Eiko Narita (eiko.narita@undg.org) by end September 2008).
· The decision on whether to expand the network membership will be made at the next annual meeting.
Purpose
· To act as a repository to allow Information sharing; including material produced on tools and relevant reports identifying good practice and lessons learned.
· Allowing members to identify other members (and members of UNCTs) who can provide advice on specific issues.
· Allow members to identify where would add value for members to arrange visits to other countries to directly learn lessons.
· Sharing information about available training opportunities.
· Identify resource persons through the system to support countries that need help on specific issues, and keep roster of resource persons.
Functioning of the network
· DOCO will appoint somebody to act as the moderator of the network (Attn. Lubna Baqi and Eiko Narita)
· DOCO to establish and maintain a sub-CPN area for the network to allow email exchange and a webpage to act as access to repository of relevant material (Action: Eiko Narita to ensure that set up by DOCO by mid October 2008)
· Focal points to coordinate with Eiko Narita on how the network will operate (Action: Eiko Narita to lead discussion with focal points/UNCTs and post agreements/conclusions by end October 2008).
· Initial material to be collected identified and posted on website (Action: Eiko Narita to lead discussion with focal points/UNCTs and post agreements/conclusions by end November 2008).
· Focal points to agree with UNCT how material is to be shared with relevant members of their UNCT and how other members of the UNCT can engage with the network (Action: Focal points by end October 2008).
· Identify how network will establish and maintain roster of resource persons (Action: Eiko Narita to lead discussion with focal points/UNCTs and post agreements/conclusions by end November 2008).
Frequency of meetings
· It was agreed that there should be an annual meeting of the network.
Venue for next meeting
· Rwanda volunteered to host the next meeting (September 2009?)