institutions conducting implementation also work in silos, as the mandates and revenue flows of different government institutions drive agendas, and projects rarely work across ministries or build government coherence on key themes.122 This lack of connectivity, between UNDP initiatives and between the mandates of ministries and government agencies, has limited the potential for cross-sectoral learning and exchange of experiences, which might otherwise have created development synergies. It has been somewhat easier to link environment and climate change NIM initiatives to UNDP, where it is heavily involved in the design phase, serves on project steering committees, and leads technical groups that include the Government, donors and IFIs.123 This reflects difficulties in monitoring UNDP achievements and contributions to reform processes and inno‑ vations within its portfolio. The evaluation found that not all projects are subject to UNDP M&E procedures or vertical fund M&E requirements, which creates difficulties to organize consistent monitoring standards and processes across interventions.124 Stakeholder interviews reveal that RBM and M&E training events are not systematically organized with partner government institutions, and there is little technical support to ensure that standards are applied. Nonetheless, UNDP has been advocating for RBM practices within the Government, reinforced by the 2019 UNDP IEO global National Evaluation Capacity conference on the theme “Leaving no one behind: Evaluation for 2030”, which was held in Hurghada, Egypt. Organized in close partnership with MPED, the conference aimed to raise awareness and strengthen the national evaluation architecture and competencies, in line with the Decree by which MPED is mandated to track economic development. Government representatives revealed that they conduct their own monitoring, which they feel is sufficient for them to make decisions on projects and prioritize adjustments. One hindrance to this is that UNDP provides horizontal sector support, which by definition is not always clear and systematic, as much of the support to procure expertise or services for arising issues is provided on request. This approach has limitations, which some UNDP respondents considered could be overcome with country office thematic expertise and capacity to engage beyond an administrative role, and facilitate learning, knowledge sharing and course correction through more integrated M&E processes. However, UNDP in-house sector or thematic expertise is underdeveloped, particularly in the governance area, and it relies on outsourcing such expertise at the request of the Government. UNDP M&E processes could have benefited from greater empowerment of teams to engage more closely with project implementers to request consistent data to better understand their progress and contributions. Instead, there is no systematic overview of project progress towards the achievement of results or contributions to the outcomes set out in the CPD, as evident during the evaluation. In other cases, especially in the energy and environment area, most M&E activities adhere to GEF require‑ ments, but there are still challenges in capturing measurable results which have a knock-on effect in the reporting of project progress.125 This is compounded by the lack of timeframes for the achievement of perfor‑
122
123 124
125
Several evaluation respondents noted the silo issue. For example, the ministries of environment and transport don’t necessarily see urban transport issues the same way, or the ministries of environment and agriculture have widely separate mandates. Almost all evaluation respondents were clear that Outcome 2 projects were supported by UNDP GEF and GCF projects, in Outcome 2, undergo both midterm reviews and terminal evaluations. It is often these processes that highlight the M&E challenges faced by implementing partners. For example, with protected area financing, there was no mechanism to monitor revenue increases attributable to the project. There was a similar problem with measuring the impact of uptake of LED lamps – assumptions had to be made to estimate GHG emissions reductions. Several projects are not well documented within the UNDP country office system. COVID-19 may be a factor in some cases, but in any case, many projects lack progress reports including: the various HCFC projects, the ‘e-waste/medical waste’ project (has not been documented since 2019), the ‘Minya solid waste’ project (albeit, only operational for 1.5 years), the ‘Nile Delta/North Coast climate adaptation’ project (for over three years), the ‘Rio’ project, ‘Biodiversity and Tourism’ project (with many aspirational “will” statements), and SGP project. On the other hand, individual project beneficiaries, such as hotels using LED or roof-top solar panels, could be very specific about the net benefits, as evident in their electricity bills.
Chapter 2. findings
44
