Five donors have consistently constituted the third-party funding stream since 2018 (contributing over 90 percent): PBF, MINUSCA, the United States, Japan and the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). While the latter’s contribution has decreased, bilateral funding from the Netherlands and Germany emerged in 2020. The Netherlands mostly funds SCC projects, while Germany contributed to the elections project. Overall, the high share of funding from UNDP core funds, in addition to the relative dependence on a small number of large donors, represents a sustainability risk. Evidence collected during the evaluation indicates that all future funding opportunities would come from the United States, PBF, EU and Japan. Yet, opportunities still exist to mobilize vertical funds, including the Green Climate Fund, for UNDP to position itself more strongly in the area of environment, climate change and natural resource management. Resource mobilization through South-South cooperation, the private sector and global foundations did not yield significant resources. The existence of a resource mobilization and partnerships strategy for 2018-2021, which clarifies the roles and responsibilities of staff in terms of fundraising, is recognized as a good practice that is also aligned to the 2018 OAI audit recommendations. The lack of an adequate pipeline, in particular between 2015 and 2017 when only $1.9 million were mobilized, represented a major risk to the office in the past. Pipeline management has significantly improved since then. In mid-2021, the country office already had a mature pipeline of approximately $18.85 million through its traditional donor base, thus demonstrating that its resource mobilization efforts had become much more effective.135 In terms of human resources, the evaluation notes that the country office relies on only three P5 staff, which includes the Deputy Resident Representative for Operations and the PAPEC chief Technical Advisor (CTA), whose contract may end in 2021. Given the importance of advocacy and resource mobilization for the successful implementation of the CPD, this raises the question of whether there is sufficient seniority to perform these tasks successfully across all the portfolios that are expected to be created.
2.4 Programme implementation Finding 16. Programme design. The country office has piloted a portfolio approach in an effort to strengthen synergy between its projects and improve internal coherence, but only across the rule of law pillar. While the adoption of the portfolio approach allowed the country office to better communicate its rule-of-law objectives and results with internal and external stakeholders, it is unclear whether this yielded better results. Other pillars (gender, decentralization and modernization of the State, livelihoods) have not fully moved towards a portfolio approach, as a common strategy, ToC and integrated reporting is still lacking, and integration of projects, where visible, tends to be ad hoc. In order to increase the internal coherence of its programme, the country office has been moving towards a portfolio approach that has been piloted under the rule of law pillar. According to the country office, this has consisted of bringing together all projects related to reform of the justice sector (including prisons), transitional justice and the security sector under common management, with a strong emphasis on mainstreaming gender by ensuring that women have access to justice and security.136 Articulated by a common ToC, this portfolio brings together 10 projects and managed a budget of $52.56 million over the current programme cycle.
135 136
$2,155,000 (confirmed) and $16,700,000 (pipeline maturity level B). UNDP (2019) Rule of Law portfolio.
CHAPTER 2. Findings
40
