Delays in payments to partners and beneficiaries have also resulted from overly complicated processes to request transfers of funds for project activities, particularly compared to other humanitarian actors who are perceived to be more agile than UNDP. In some cases, the lack of knowledge by partners and beneficiaries of UNDP requirements has further exacerbated delays. The country office has, in some cases, responded by providing training to partners on UNDP financial modalities, which have been perceived as useful and with potential to reduce some delays. Partners from CSOs have also indicated that such trainings can contribute to their capacity development. In the case of the SCC project, UNDP introduced more flexibility into the funding mechanisms for some beneficiary structures, which has decreased payment times and increased efficiency.140 More recently, delays have been attributed to the migration and centralization of certain operational functions to the Global Shared Services Unit in Malaysia, and not all staff are yet familiar with the new processes. Furthermore, within UNDP, offices operating in fragile and conflict-affected countries have to follow the same procedures as offices operating in more conventional settings, a one-size-fits-all approach that is not necessarily adapted to offices such as CAR operating in emergency and rapidly evolving settings. Another factor that can explain delays is the lack of human resources allocated to projects. Several project evaluations highlighted that the assignment of some staff, including operations and support staff, to more than one project may have reduced their capacity for timely responses to project demands. The low allocation of human resources for the programme is also reflected in the low management to programme cost ratio, which is lower in CAR than regional and global averages, although several other factors can also explain this.
2.5 Country programme performance rating A four-point rating scale is used, with 4 being the highest and 1 the lowest, to rate the performance of the country programme.141 This table should be read keeping in mind the findings presented in the previous sections, which provide more detailed justification for the ratings. Disaggregated ratings (per output and indicator) and further details on the rating system, are provided in Annex 8.
TABLE 1. Country programme performance rating Criteria and key parameters Rating 2 OVERALL CPD PERFORMANCE RATING 1. Relevance
3
1.A. Adherence to national development priorities
4
1.B. Alignment with United Nations/ UNDP goals
4
1.C. Relevance of programme logic
3
140
141
Justification
The country programme was aligned to national priorities, UNDAF+ and the UNDP Strategic Plan, and emphasized gender equality and human rights. It remained highly adaptable given the complexity of the context.
In this project, UNDP has allowed for advance payments to be made for some beneficiary structures, which then provide supporting documents to justify expenditure a posteriori. At the time of the project final evaluation, no misuse of funds had been found. 4 = Satisfactory/Achieved; 3 = Moderately satisfactory/Mostly achieved; 2 = Moderately unsatisfactory/Partially achieved; 1= Unsatisfactory/Not achieved.
CHAPTER 2. Findings
44
