6.1 Overarching formative conclusions

Chapter 6. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, LESSONS AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

This section presents the key conclusions, recommendations and lessons from the evaluation.

6.1 Overarching formative conclusions

Based on the findings presented in the previous chapters, the evaluation draws the following conclusions:

Conclusion 1327 – Institutionalizing LNOB: Some key pre-conditions for the good integration of LNOB are met by UNDP, with particular attention devoted to the promotion of equality and equity. Focus on non-discrimination is more limited.

There were several periods of heightened momentum that UNDP leveraged for the integration of LNOB: the initial conceptualization stage in 2017/2018, the COVID-19 response effort (with its socio-economic impact assessments detecting ‘new poor’ and left-behind populations) and the move towards anchoring LNOB in the 2022-2025 SP as a ‘change direction’. There is some level of common understanding of LNOB (more limited at CO level), a cadre of motivated staff, and informal support mechanisms are in place. Despite these enablers, the organization has yet to sufficiently institutionalize LNOB, including through the allocation of adequate resources and the creation of lasting accountability structures and capacities. A coordinated operational approach including dedicated staff, knowledge-sharing mechanisms, regular tone-setting messaging from senior managers, adequate resources, incentives and accountability frameworks is still lacking. This is preventing more effective integration of LNOB and achievement of more visible results.

The LNOB field has been driven by well-intended and motivated staff rather than dedicated experts; programmatic ‘how to’ guidance is insufficient and staff lament capacity gaps due to lack of training. Financing for LNOB and RFBF has suffered the well-known challenges associated with projectized funding approaches, government co-funding requirements and shifting donor priorities. The evaluation observed the absence of LNOB considerations in existing planning and budgeting tools. For example, funding agreements and budgets did not include line items for LNOB. In sometimes inhospitable environments where government legislation may be at odds with internationally-agreed human rights conventions, and where government may be the primary donors, mixed messages from UNDP leadership at HQ, regional and country levels had a detrimental effect; UNDP has not always been able or effective in advocating against discrimination.

327 Linked to Findings 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18; Lesson 3.

Conclusion 2328 – Conceptual clarity: UNDP made important contributions to conceptual clarity on LNOB, notably through linking LNOB to inequality and intersectional pathways. Focus on reaching the furthest behind first has been more limited, despite this being a key part of the LNOB pledge.

UNDP conceptual work (“five-factor framework”) adds clarity to the LNOB principles by emphasizing intersectional pathways. Through its conceptual and empirical work on multidimensional poverty, UNDP is linking LNOB to the broader debate around inequality – a useful addition to the human rights-based focus championed by United Nations agencies. While the UNDP take on LNOB is coherent with the expectations of the 2030 Agenda and aligned to its human development approach, the added value of the organization has not yet been clearly communicated. Internally, the five-factor framework has not yet trickled down to staff at the country level and is rarely used.

While the RFBF vision is in line with the organization’s mandate and staff strongly identify with it, it does not figure in the strategic plan and other key documents and initiatives. The LNOB and RFBF principles, including intersectionality, have not yet been sufficiently translated into procedures – with the noteworthy exception of the environmental and social standards. At Signature Solution level, references to LNOB are mostly rhetorical and aspirational, and a group-by-group approach prevails, without proper attention to operationalizing an intersectional lens. The move towards a portfolio approach – aiming to move beyond a projectized approach and break down thematic siloes – is expected to bring greater cohesion over time, provided that an LNOB/RFBF lens can be strongly mainstreamed.

Conclusion 3329 – Programme performance in integrating LNOB: UNDP programme performance in terms of making a difference to the lives of left-behind populations varied greatly, with best results found in longstanding areas of engagement that existed prior to the SDGs and LNOB. Initiatives did not usually put the furthest behind first.

While often making a difference to people’s lives in the short term, most initiatives did not necessarily put the furthest behind first as promised, and effects have been of uncertain durability. Results were most evident in longstanding areas of engagement such as with women, indigenous peoples, youth and LGBTQI+ people. In most settings, ‘leaving no one behind’ was merely used rhetorically as a communication and advocacy tool, without noticeable programmatic implications or results. New programmatic impetus related to furthest-behind populations was visible in the areas of social protection and energy, but it was not possible to determine whether this additional attention was ‘caused’ by the introduction of the LNOB principles or not.

UNDP contributions have been pertinent in tackling issues of great importance to populations most left behind, but many challenges remain. Over the period examined, despite the introduction of LNOB language, no step-change was visible in how UNDP targets or interacts with left-behind populations, beyond what UNDP was already known to focus on. Yet it is notable that UNDP made progress in adapting to new challenges (e.g., COVID-19), despite its size, bureaucratic structure and longstanding relationships, which are inherently prone to path dependency. There was variation between country operations, largely dependent on leadership styles – with some indication of potential culture change towards more adaptive styles of management and greater attention to human rights concerns, driven by #NextGen leaders. In some settings, work at local and hyperlocal levels through decentralized partnership models was associated with effective adaptation and more inclusion and integration of LNOB principles.

328 Linked to Findings 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11; Lessons 1 and 2. 329 Linked to Findings 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Lesson 2.

Conclusion 4330 – Contributing factors to LNOB integration: Clarity of intent, leadership support and strong government and CSO engagement were the key factors contributing to more successful integration of LNOB principles into UNDP programmatic work.

Successful LNOB integration took place where UNDP was intentional about reaching the most left-behind sub-groups within targeted populations (such as rural women, people living below the poverty line who are also disabled, youth working in the informal economy, etc.) and about key intersections; where messaging was clear, accountability ensured and resources provided; where leadership was supportive, both internally and at national government level; and where partnerships with civil society were strong, including influence at the local level, to reach all levels of society.

Where government took ownership and accountability of initiatives to ‘examine’ or ‘enact’ LNOB principles, this has accelerated results achievement. Where government does not recognize the existence of certain populations likely to be left behind (ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+, etc.), UNDP has been conservative in speaking out against discrimination and sometimes self-censored the scope of its interventions.

Conclusion 5331 – Hindering factors to LNOB integration: The key factors hindering LNOB integration were limited guidance and capacity to operationalize the principles, bias in strategic planning and project implementation, and a fragmented group-by-group and projectized approach to programming.

The fragmented nature of support provided by UNDP in-country, compartmentalizing populations into ‘LNOB groups’ tackled through different programmatic interventions and reported on through different channels and indicators, hampered integration and addressing intersectional linkages. Incomplete management for development results and static systems limited the agency’s capacity to demonstrate results for the furthest behind. Other hindering factors included the persistent lack of data on populations at risk of being left behind, particularly in fragile contexts; inconsistent senior management communication, in particular with regard to addressing discrimination; and political and cultural barriers.

The link between identifying furthest-behind populations and effectively targeting them in programming was not automatic. There were gaps in strategic planning, and project implementation itself was often fraught with bias in beneficiary selection, further excluding some individuals and groups. Affected populations and the civil society organizations representing them lament the agency’s often short-term engagements, which fail to make significant gains towards transformative change in the face of deep-rooted stigma, social norms and discrimination. There is a tendency to work with certain pre-approved NGOs, and this can lead to ‘elite capture’ by those who ‘speak UNDP language’ and hinder selecting alternative NGOs that are best for a particular task.

330 Linked to Findings 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Lessons 3 and 4. 331 Linked to Findings 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Lessons 4, 5 and 6.