3 minute read
2.5 Country programme performance rating
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.
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 Justification OVERALL CPD PERFORMANCE RATING
2
1. Relevance
3 The country programme was aligned to national priorities, 1.A. Adherence to national UNDAF+ and the UNDP Strategic Plan, and emphasized development priorities 4 gender equality and human rights. It remained highly 1.B. Alignment with United adaptable given the complexity of the context. Nations/ UNDP goals 4 1.C. Relevance of programme logic 3
140 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. 141 4 = Satisfactory/Achieved; 3 = Moderately satisfactory/Mostly achieved; 2 = Moderately unsatisfactory/Partially achieved; 1= Unsatisfactory/Not achieved.
2. Coherence 2.A. Internal programme coherence 2.B. External programme coherence 2 Despite efforts to improve the internal coherence of 2 certain projects under the rule of law portfolio, and in certain cases across outcomes, the country programme 2 remained largely project-driven and lacked a plausible programme-level ToC.
UNDP relied on a small number of bilateral partners / donors and did not sufficiently capitalize on the work of international financial institutions (IFIs). Partnerships with United Nations actors were of uneven quality, most notably with MINUSCA. There is room to better engage with CSOs.
3. Efficiency 3.A. Timeliness 3.B. Management efficiency
4. Effectiveness 4.A. Achieving stated outputs and outcomes 4.B. Programme inclusiveness (especially those at risk of being left behind) 4.C. Prioritizing GEwE 4.D. Programming processes adhered to sustainable development principles 2 Delays have occurred and cost overruns have been 2 noted linked to armed conflict, difficult access to certain 2 locations in the country, COVID-19, global value chain disruptions, and increases in the price of basic items. However, unclear roles and responsibilities in joint project design, the late initiation of projects and lengthy internal processes also contributed to delays and cost overruns. 3 Results have been achieved across most programme 3 outputs with notable success in providing basic infrastructure, materials and human capacities that 3 allowed national elections to be held. They also ensured the temporary functioning of certain institutions related to the rule of law, with an effort to address SGBV. Shortterm emergency employment was also provided to 3 communities outside the capital, including women and PwD.
3
5. Sustainability 2 UNDP support was essential to ensure the functioning of key government institutions, and provide short-term emergency employment. However, all these interventions remain highly dependent on the support of the international community.
5.A. Sustainable capacity 2 5.B. Financing for development 2
