4 minute read
2.7 Subregional programme performance ratings
PIC governments are appreciative of these funding channels being tapped by UNDP. Nonetheless, many stakeholders feel that UNDP has not been strategic in developing its portfolio, and that some projects are designed to fit donor funding windows. This links to the ‘overcrowding’ of small projects (refer to finding 15). Since January 2021, a Pre-Investment Screening Committee has been convened, internal to UNDP and mostly for vertical funds, to discuss whether projects are a strategic fit before they go too deep into development. The results of this mechanism are yet to be seen. The Accelerator Labs182 have also assisted in sensemaking for the Pacific portfolio, to identify relevant themes in preparation for the new SRPD.
There are positive signs of UNDP coherence-building for resource mobilization. Joint programming has increased from 8 to 28 initiatives between 2019 and 2020, as reported by the United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office. UNDP has been at the forefront of this funding modality (refer to finding 14 on strategic positioning). Another way to foster collaboration between United Nations agencies is pooled funding. The UNPS Fund was established in 2020 and received its first ever pooled financing of $24.7 million from New Zealand. This goes to finance five United Nations agencies in three areas of the UNPS: gender empowerment; basic services (wASH); and anticorruption.183 However, due to the short timeframe for preparation of proposals for the Fund, agencies had to retrofit existing and complementary work rather than co-designing activities.
The following table provides an overview of the performance of the subregional programme, using five internationally agreed evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability, and a set of parameters for each. A four-point rating scale is used, with 4 being the highest and 1 the lowest rating.184 This table should be read bearing in mind the findings presented in the previous sections, which provide more detailed justification for the ratings.
Finding 23. UNDP performed well, designing a relevant programme (Relevance = 4). It was successful in achieving output-level targets but did not present a clear pathway toward outcome goals (Effectiveness =3). Its portfolio is expansive and it has delivered considerably complex projects, but based on delivery rates, its performance was suboptimal (Efficiency = 2). Although there are good examples of coherence within its programming, there is a broader gap in creating synergy between the two MCOs and between outcomes (Coherence = 1). There are some signs of sustainability within UNDP programming, but this will largely depend on how capacity is created and sustained in the Pacific (Sustainability =3).
182 “The Accelerator Labs are designed to close the gap between the current practices of international development in an accelerated pace of change.” https://acceleratorlabs.undp.org/content/acceleratorlabs/en/home/about-us.html 183 UNODC, UN women, UNFPA, UNICEF and UNDP. 184 4 = Satisfactory/Achieved; 3 = Moderately satisfactory/Mostly achieved; 2 = Moderately unsatisfactory/Partially achieved; 1= Unsatisfactory/Not achieved.
Criteria and parameters Overall rating (scale 1-4) Remarks/ justification
1. Relevance
1.A. Adherence to national development priorities 1.B. Alignment with United
Nations/ UNDP goals 1.C. Relevance of programme logic 4 The SRPD was aligned with national development priorities outlined in the Development Plans of different PICs. It was responsive to the 4 corporate-level strategic direction of UNDP, such as the UNDP SIDS Offer on climate action, blue economy and digitization. The two 4 MCOs coordinated closely with their government counterparts in the planning of activities. UNDP was responsive, agile and adaptive to the 3 changes brought about by COVID-19, which shifted some programme goals. The programme logic could have been better nuanced at the onset (or midway) to respond to the unique context of the Pacific in terms of scarcity of human and technical resources and capacity, and project absorption.
2. Coherence
2.A. Internal programme coherence 2.B. External programme coherence 1 within individual MCOs, outcome coherence was weak and variable. There were fragmented themes that did not link up to a systemic 1 outcome result. Coherence between the MCOs along the SRPD framework was lacking and, at times, ad hoc. Outcome leaders were 2 not systematically creating synergy.
There were exceptional examples of good external programme coherence through joint programming, mostly attributed to partner agencies. The overall saturation of projects in the Pacific is seen as a result of a lack of external coherence. As one of the largest development actors in the Pacific, UNDP bears much of the responsibility.
3. Efficiency
3.A. Timeliness and management efficiency
2 UNDP has been efficient in getting projects funded. However, the delivery rate of outcomes across the Pacific was below 65 percent. In 2 addition, weaknesses in project implementation readiness (i.e., the lack of forecasting of project needs) contributed to implementation delays. 3.B. Management efficiency 2 Though the staff were of excellent calibre, they were overwhelmed by the large programme and multiple responsibilities.
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 3 UNDP has mostly achieved project or output-level goals. Outcomes could not be measured, but precursors to some outcome-level results 3 were achieved.
2
3 Projects that tackle social inclusion (i.e., youth, people with disabilities and people on outer islands) were sparse. Gender was tackled in all outcome areas, with varying degrees of focus. There are good examples of gender results, but these fall short of broader adoption. Projects with a GEN 2 marker composed the majority of the portfolio.
4.D. Programming processes adhered to sustainable development principles 5. Sustainability
5.A. Sustainable capacity
5.B. Financing for development 3 Sustainable development principles were observed in design and implementation.
3 There is a significant weakness in the sustainability of capacity, which should have been a major contextual consideration in the Pacific.
2
4 UNDP has been successful in attracting development financing in the Pacific from traditional and non-traditional donors.
