HUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINATefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevance MANAGING FOsustainability MANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneAN DEVELOPMENT responsiveness NATIONAL OWNNATIONAL OWNERSHIP effectiveness COORDINATefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevance MANAGING FOsustainability MANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneHUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINAT

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTSE V A L U A T I O N O F U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N ARGENTINA

Evaluation Office,May 2009United Nations Development Programme

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTSE V A L U A T I O N O F U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N ARGENTINA

Copyright © UNDP 2009, all rights reserved.Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on recycled paper.

The analysis and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of theUnited Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or the United Nations MemberStates. This is an independent publication by UNDP and reflects the views of its authors.

Design: Suazion, Inc. (NY, suazion.com) Production: A.K.Office Supplies (NY)

Team Leader EduardoWiesner

Team Specialist Inka Mattila

EO Task Manager Oscar A. Garcia

EO Research Assistant Verouschka Capellan

EVALUATION TEAM

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS: EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION – ARGENTINA

REPORTS PUBLISHED UNDER THE ADR SERIES

AfghanistanArgentinaBangladeshBarbadosBeninBhutanBosnia & HerzegovinaBotswanaBulgariaChinaColombiaRepublic of the CongoEgyptEthiopiaGuatemalaHondurasIndia

JamaicaJordanLao PDRMontenegroMozambiqueNicaraguaNigeriaRwandaSerbiaSudanSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanUkraineUzbekistanTurkeyViet NamYemen

F O R E W O R D i

The Evaluation Office of the UNDP conductsindependent country-level evaluations calledAssessment of Development Results (ADR)which assess the relevance and strategic position-ing of UNDP’s support and its contributions to acountry’s development. The purpose of an ADRis to contribute to organizational accountabilityand learning and strengthen the programmingand effectiveness of UNDP. This report presentsthe findings and recommendations of the ADRconducted in Argentina, covering two program-ming cycles, 2002-2004 and 2005-2008, extendedto 2009.

Since the early part of the 20th century,Argentina has had the highest per capita incomein Latin America and one of the lowest levelsof poverty in the region. Notwithstanding itsrelatively low rates of growth during thesecond half of the 20th century and the transitoryreversals in social conditions and poverty levels,the country has been able to maintain its highranking in the Human Development Index.However, Argentina faces significant develop-ment challenges as the result of income andregional disparities.

UNDP’s strategy for sustainable human develop-ment and reduction of inequalities and povertydepends on the quality of democracy and theeffectiveness of institutions and public policies ineach country. Yet, it also depends on the terms ofthe international social, political, and economicrelations. To respond to national needs from itsmandate, UNDP Argentina has establisheddevelopment outcomes for the two programmingcycles, focusing on achieving the MDGs andpoverty reduction, fostering democratic governance,and promoting energy and environment forsustainable development. In all these areas,support was given for the improvement ofprogramme and project formulation, as well asfor the strengthening of new alliances and

national capacities, fostering articulations betweenthe different government levels.

The evaluation found that UNDP’s cooperationprogramme in Argentina was aligned to nationalpriorities and demonstrated a responsive capacityto emerging development challenges such as thecrisis of 2001. When requested by the nationalgovernment, UNDP had the capacity to playthe role of a convener and honest broker bybringing together development actors fromGovernment, civil society and the politicalsystem at the federal, provincial and municipallevels to face common challenges. The mostimportant development actors of Argentina,including political parties, faith-based groupsamong Catholics, Protestants, Jews andMuslims,civil society organizations, academics and themedia, gathered to deliberate at the ArgentineanDialogue and found solutions to the political,institutional and economic crises facing thecountry at that time.

The evaluation recognized UNDP’s positioningas a prestigious organization with the potentialto bring legitimacy, neutrality, credibility andknowledge into the development process.However,some partners expressed concern about UNDP’sconcentration on the administration of Governmentresources. This concentration poses risks since itmay limit the organization’s advocacy role forpromoting public policies with a human develop-ment perspective. UNDP has been heavily involvedin the management of public programmes. Theadministrative nature of these projects, also calledDevelopment Support Services (DSS), may bejustified in specific cases when combined with aclear exit strategy and technical assistance for thecapacity development of public management.However, the use of DSS involves the risk ofsubstituting the implementation capacity of thepublic institution in question as a consequence ofefficiency gains in the short run.

FOREWORD

F O R E W O R Di i

Since mid-2004, UNDP Argentina has movedtowards a more balanced medium-term strategycalled strategic turn. The thematic direction ofthe strategic turn encompassed an institutionaland capacity-building strategy, focusing on acomprehensive approach to competitiveness andequity, the articulation of demands for a greaterand better quality social bond with humandevelopment, strengthening citizens’ capacitiesfor action and participation, and deepening aterritorial presence particularly in those provincesand municipalities with greater disparities. Theevaluation found that the strategic turn is a shiftin the right direction and needs to be sustained.However, more attention needs to be paid to thesustainability of the benefits and results ofUNDP-supported interventions.

UNDP Argentina invested in enhancing itssubstantive capacity and the evaluation identifiedthe importance of a highly qualified human factorendowment for providing technical assistance inmiddle-income countries.

This evaluation benefited from the collaborationof the personnel of UNDP Country Office inArgentina led by Carlos Felipe Martinez, of the

Regional Bureau for Latin America and theCaribbean, of representatives of the Governmentof Argentina, civil society organizations and ofthe UN System in Argentina.

I would like to thank the evaluation team,comprising Eduardo Wiener, team leader; InkaMattila, team specialist; and Oscar A. Garcia,team member and EO task manager. I alsothank the external reviewers Christian Buignonand Alfredo Stein, consultants and internationaldevelopment specialists, for their useful comments.

I would also like to thank Cecilia Corpus,Thuy Hang and Anish Pradhan for theiradministrative support.

I hope that the results and recommendations ofthe report can support the response of UNDP tothe development challenges of the country andprovide lessons that are relevant for UNDP andits international partners.

Saraswathi MenonDirector, Evaluation Office

C O N T E N T S i i i

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

Executive Summary vii

1. Introduction 1

1.1. ADR Purpose and Scope 11.2. Methodology 21.3. Organization of the Report 3

2. National Development Context 5

2.1 Geographic and Demographic Background 52.2. Political and Institutional Context 52.3. Social, Economic and Environmental Context 6

3. UNDP’s Contributions to Development Results 11

3.1 Overview of UNDP Country Programmes, 2002-2008 113.2 Fostering Democratic Governance 183.3.Poverty Reduction 213.4 Environment and Sustainable Development 273.5 Cross-Cutting Issues 293.6 Strategic Positioning 33

4. Conclusions, Lessons and Recommendations 35

4.1. Conclusions 354.2 Lessons Learned 364.3 Recommendations 36

Annexes

Annex 1: Terms of Reference 39Annex 2: List of people consulted 43Annex 3: References 47

Boxes

Box 1: The Argentinean Dialogue 19Box 2: Capacity Development in Medicine Supply Programmes 31

Figures

Figure 1. Argentina: Gross Domestic Product, 1998-2006 7Figure 2. Argentina: Gini Coefficient 1990-2006 8Figure 3. UNDP: Programme Expenditure 2000-2008 14Figure 4. UNDP: Allocation of Resources by Practice Areas 14

CONTENTS

C O N T E N T Si v

Figure 5. UNDP: Evolution of Resource Allocation by Practice Areas 15Figure 6. UNDP: Allocation by the Type of Project 15Figure 7. UNDP: The Structure of Government Funding 16Figure 8. UNDP: Government Resources by Level of Government 17Figure 9. UNDP: Evolution of the TRAC Funds 17Figure 10. UNDP: Sources Other Than Government and TRAC Funding 18Figure 11. Argentina: Poverty Reduction Evolution, 2003-2008 21Figure 12. Argentina: Human Development Index, 1975-2005 22

Tables

Table 1. Argentina: Human Development Index, 1975-2006 5Table 2. Argentina : Selected Social Indicators, 1990-2006 6Table 3. Argentina: GDP Annual Growth Rates, 1980-2008 7Table 4. UNDP Country Programme: Goals and Service Lines for Argentina 11Table 5. UNDP Country Programme: Outcomes and Indicators, 2005-2008 12Table 6. Argentina: Progress towards the MDGs, 2000-2007 24

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N S v

ADR Assessment of development results

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

CCA Common Country Assessment

CCF Country Cooperation Framework

CEPAL Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe

CSO Civil society organization

DEX Direct execution modality

DRR Deputy Resident Representative

DSS Development Support Services

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America

ERBM Enhanced Results Based Management

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GEF Global Environment Facility

GNI Gross National Income

HDI Human Development Index

HDR Human Development Report

HIV Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus

IADB Inter-American Development Bank

ICT Information communication technology

IFI International financial institution

ILO International Labour Organization

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MYFF Multi-Year Funding Fframework

NCC Net Contributor Country

NEX National execution modality

NGO Non-governmental organization

NHDR National Human Development Report

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PIU Project Implementation Unit

POP Persistent Organic Pollutants

RBLAC Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N Sv i

RBM Results Based Management

RCS Resident Coordinator’s System

ROAR Result-Oriented Annual Report

SGP Small Grants Programme

UNCT United Nations Country Team

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDG United Nations Development Group

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

UNHCR Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

UNS United Nations System

USD United States Dollar

WB World Bank

WBI World Bank Institute

WHO World Health Organization

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v i i

Argentina is located in the southern cone ofSouth America, with an area of 2,766,890 sq kmand a population of 40.482 million. Since theearly part of the 20th century, the country hashad the highest per capita income in LatinAmerica and one of the lowest levels of povertyin the region. Notwithstanding the relatively lowrates of growth during the second half of the 20th

century and the transitory reversals in socialconditions and poverty levels, Argentina has beenable to maintain its high ranking in the HumanDevelopment Index. However, the country facessignificant development challenges as the resultof important income and regional disparities.

In line with Executive Board decision 2007/24,the UNDPEvaluation Office (EO) has conductedan evaluation to assess UNDP contributions todevelopment results in Argentina.The evaluationcovers two programming cycles, 2002-2004 and2005-2008, extended to 2009.This evaluation wasundertaken by an independent team of consult-ants between August and December 2008.

The specific goals of the ADR were to:

i) Generate lessons from past experience andmake recommendations for future program-ming at the country and corporate levels.

ii) Provide to stakeholders in the country anobjective assessment of UNDP contributionsto development results for a given multi-year period.

iii) Support the UNDP Administrator’ssubstantive accountability function to theExecutive Board and serve as a vehicle forquality assurance of interventions at thecountry level.

The principal focus of the evaluation was anassessment of UNDP’s contribution to overall

national development. “Results” are defined as“outcomes”, or the effects of one or multipleoutputs on processes or development conditionsin a sector or thematic area. It is recognized thatattribution, or precise causal linkage betweenUNDP outputs and perceived outcomes mayat times be difficult to determine, particularlyin a complex environment with many variablesand actors.

The methodology was based on the generalADR guidelines developed by UNDP as well asthe organization’s evaluation policy, and adoptedthe following evaluation criteria: effectiveness,efficiency, and sustainability for assessing contri-butions to development results; and relevance,responsiveness, and quality of partnerships forassessing strategic positioning.

Argentina’s ADR focused on the following threethematic areas: a) fostering democratic governance,b) achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) and reducing poverty under ahuman development perspective, and c) ensuringenvironmental sustainability. Reflecting on thecharacteristics of Argentina’s economic history, itscurrent juncture and prospects, the ADR examinedthe past with a forward-looking perspective.

Argentina’s ADR is particularly relevant fortwo interdependent reasons. First, the countrycooperation programme is one of the largestin UNDP and offers a unique opportunity tofurther examine a particular situation with moregeneral relevance; third-party resources, particu-larly funds from the Argentinean government,the so-called “non-core resources”, are almostexclusively Argentina’s source of finance.The secondreason is Argentina’s economic history anddevelopment. Few countries have engendered asmuch interest and research in terms of long-termeconomic and social development.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i i i

The central idea was to cull and glean fromthe country programme evaluative evidence ofUNDP’s intended and achieved contributions todevelopment results.

CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusions of the evaluation arethe following:

1. UNDP’s cooperation programme inArgentinawas aligned to national prioritiesand demonstrated a responsive capacity toemerging development challenges such asthe crisis of 2001. UNDP’s cooperationframeworks and the objectives pursued wereconsistent with national development needsand were considered relevant. The organiza-tion has also demonstrated good capacity toadapt to changing development circum-stances and flexibly adjusted the portfolio ofprojects to respond to the agreements thatemerged from the Argentinean Dialogueafter the crisis of 2001.

2. When requested by the national govern-ment, UNDP had the capacity to play therole of a convener and honest broker bybringing together development actors fromgovernment, civil society and the politicalsystemat the federal,provincialandmunicipallevels to face common challenges.The mostimportant development actors of Argentina,including political parties, faith-based groupsamong Catholics, Protestants, Jews andMuslims, civil society organizations, academicsand the media gathered to deliberate at theArgentinean Dialogue and found solutionsto the political, institutional and economiccrises facing the country. UNDP played akey role in that process. After the crisis,the political system reassumed its capacity.However, the culture of dialogue continuedand permeated discussions at the national,provincial and municipal levels with the supportof various UNDP projects reaffirming thedemocratic values of Argentinean society.

3. The technical and analytical capacity ofUNDP staff is widely valued and recognized.

Engaging in a policy dialogue in Argentina,a country with a sophisticated professionaland intellectual capacity is challenging.UNDP had established not only a reputationfor efficient project administration capacitybut also a reputation for conducting signifi-cant contributions to the analysis of develop-ment challenges from a human developmentperspective. The design and implementationof new projects were praised by nationalcounterparts along with the technicalcapacity of UNDP staff.

4. Some development actors perceive UNDPmainly as a resource administrator, hence,not recognizing its full potential role as adevelopment partner in Argentina. Keypartners acknowledge UNDP as a prestigiousorganization with the potential to bring legiti-macy, neutrality, credibility and knowledgeinto the development process. However,some partners expressed concern aboutUNDP’s concentration on the administra-tion of government resources. This concen-tration poses risks since it may limit itsadvocacy role for promoting public policieswith a human development perspective.

5. The sustainability of some UNDP inter-ventions was questioned and these didnot always develop sufficiently their exitstrategies.More attention needs to be paid tothe sustainability of the benefits and resultsof UNDP-supported interventions. In somecases, it was identified that the benefits ceasedafter the conclusion of UNDP projects. Thestrengthening of administrative implementa-tion capacities of institutions has beenlimited, in those cases, to developing thecapacity to execute UNDP projects withoutclear exit strategies. That was particularly thecase for projects of an administrative nature.

6. The project portfolio dedicated toDevelopment Support Services (DSS) diddecrease significantly in the time underevaluation screening a positive trendtowards a more value-added portfolio, interms of technical assistance and attention

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y i x

paid to designing exit strategies. Since 2003UNDP has contributed to the formulationand, most importantly, to the execution ofvarious government emergency programmesin response to the crisis. Many of theseprogrammes had ended by 2005. In addition,the “strategic turn” implemented since 2005has resulted in a more balanced programmeportfolio, as the share of big DSS projects hasdiminished considerably.

7. The “giro estrategico” has been a positiveshift into the right direction. The directionof the “strategic turn” encompassed aninstitutional and capacity-building strategy,focusing on the articulation of demands for agreater and better quality social bond tohuman development; strengthening citizens’capacities for action and participation in amore complex and uncertain context; anddeepening a territorial presence particularlyin those provinces and municipalities withthe lowest HDIs and greater disparities.These orientations together with moreemphasis on designing exit strategies for newprojects are seen as a positive shift.

LESSONS LEARNED

UNDP operations in Argentina bring two potentiallessons learned for the organization corporately:

a. The importance of a highly qualifiedhuman factor endowment for providingtechnical assistance in middle-incomecountries.Having a well-qualified technicalstaff is of immense relevance for UNDP’swork. Understanding the needs and develop-ment challenges of the country in the areas ofpoverty reduction, fostering democraticgovernance and promoting environmentalsustainability and being able to providesound policy advice requires a sophisticatedprofessional team. Such human factorendowment is most likely the source of newinformation and information is the emergingparadigm to complete economic and politicalmarkets. Although a well-qualified technicalstaff is not a full guarantee of relevance and

developmental effectiveness, its absence is closeto a guarantee of lacklustre performance.

b. The need of a strategic cooperationframework for the UN system, even if it isnot a corporate requirement, enhances theopportunity for more coherent andeffective UN cooperation. An effectivecoordination of the United Nations system ina country that almost reached the status ofnet contributor country can be enhanced by astrategic framework such as the onedeveloped by Argentina Country Team in theUnited Nations Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF). The existence of theUNDAF enhances the probabilities ofindentifying synergies among agencies andmore direct coordination around the achieve-ment of development outcomes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The main recommendations of the evaluation areas follows:

1. Support institutional capacity developmentwith a long-term perspective of recoveringthe strategic role of the state in promotinginclusive and sustainable human develop-ment. Effective capacity building demands alink to a broader set of institutional reforms.This requires building political commitment,sponsoring capacity development amongkey stakeholders, and embedding capacitydevelopment into broader national develop-ment priorities.

2. Continue supporting dialogue and deliber-ative mechanisms among different levels ofgovernment and society (national, provin-cial and municipal) to reach agreements onhow to reduce regional and local disparitiesunder the MDGs’ conceptual framework.UNDP should continue playing a convenerrole fostering democratic values embedded inthe practice of deliberation and dialoguearound the main development challengesfaced by Argentina, particularly in the

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx

interfaces of the three levels of government.UNDP should fully capitalize the identifiedopportunities such as strengthening the useof knowledge network and products, andinclude more actors beyond the immediatestakeholders, to leverage and improve thequality of its partnerships.

3. Continue developing and fostering inter-sector initiativessuchastheonesrecommendedin National Human Development ReportsandMDGs reports based on new diagnosesandempiricalevidenceabout thedevelopmentconstraints faced by Argentina. NationalHuman Development Reports proved to besignificant contributions to advancing thedebate around public policies with a humandevelopment perspective and a multi-dimensional approach. The evidence-basedquality of the analysis together with theadvocacy capacity of UNDP can be furtherutilized to address sensitive development issues.

4. Deepen the “Giro Estrategico” and thepolicy advice and technical cooperationrole played by UNDP in the formulation ofpublic policies with a human developmentperspective. The Giro Estrategico is a shiftin the right direction and needs to besustained. The UNDP project portfolio stillhas room for improvement and the interven-tions can still work on the link to capacitydevelopment, its value added in terms ofpolicy advice and a reduction of DSS projectsof an administrative nature.

5. Ensure the sustainability of the benefits ofUNDP interventions once they are finishedby properly considering exit strategies.There are several ways to address the needfor sustaining the benefits of UNDP-supported projects. These include ensuringthe necessary institutional level of ownershipover the interventions and ensuring thefinancial support from national fundingsources once UNDP support has ceased.

6. Support the systematization and lessonslearned from good practices undertakenby the Argentinean Government in theframework of South-South Cooperation.The enhanced monitoring and evaluation ofUNDP interventions can assist in thesystematization of good practices and lessonslearned that can be of relevance to otherdevelopment initiatives within and beyondthe purview of the UNDP cooperationprogramme for Argentina.

7. Ensure the capacity response of UNDP toemerging consequences of global recessionand its impact on Argentina by adopting aflexible approach to programming. UNDPin Argentina should keep its capacity responseto ever-emerging development challengesfaced by the country. It will be necessary thatthe next country programme preserve aflexible approach to address, in close collabo-ration and partnership with the nationalgovernment, the unexpected consequences ofthe current global financial crisis.

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

1.1 ADR PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The Evaluation Office (EO) of the UnitedNations Development Programme undertakes aseries of independent evaluations under aconceptual framework called “Assessment ofDevelopment Results” (ADRs). The central ideais to cull and glean from country programmesevaluative evidence of UNDP’s intended andachieved contributions to development results.The main focus of ADRs is on developmentresults at the country level. They signal a transi-tion in the accountability framework fromprocess compliance1 to results and to strategicUNDP contributions to development. Theirscope includes UNDP’s responsiveness andalignment to specific country challenges andpriorities, strategic positioning, and engagementwith partners2.

The number, selection of countries and timingof ADRs are determined to ensure coverage andto allow findings and recommendations toinform the preparation of subsequent countryprogrammes. Currently all ADRs are finalizedprior to the development of new countryprogramme documents. In line with ExecutiveBoard decision 2007/24, the UNDP EO hasassessed UNDP contributions to developmentresults in Argentina. The evaluation covers twoprogramming cycles, 2002-2004 and 2005-2008,extended to 2009.This evaluation was undertakenby an independent team of consultants betweenAugust and December 2008.

The specific goals of ADRs are to:

i) Generate lessons from past experience andmake recommendations for future program-ming at the country and corporate levels.

ii) Provide to stakeholders in the country anobjective assessment of UNDP contributionto development results for a given multi-year period.

iii) Support the UNDP Administrator’s substan-tive accountability function to the ExecutiveBoard and serve as a vehicle for quality assuranceof interventions at the country level.

Argentina’s ADR focuses on the followingthree thematic areas: a) fostering democraticgovernance, b) achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) and reducingpoverty under a human development perspective,and c) ensuring environmental sustainability.Reflecting on the characteristics of Argentina’seconomic history, its current juncture andprospects, the ADR examined the past with aforward-looking perspective3.

Argentina’s ADR is particularly relevant fortwo interdependent reasons. First, the countrycooperation programme is one of the largest inUNDP and offers a unique opportunity tofurther examine a particular situation with moregeneral relevance; third-party resources, particu-larly funds from the Argentinean government,the so-called “non-core resources”, are almostexclusively Argentina’s source of finance.The secondreason is Argentina’s unique economic history anddevelopment. Few countries have engendered as

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1. See Menon, Saraswathi, ‘Foreword’, in Evaluation of Results-based Management, UNDP Evaluation Office, UnitedNations Development Programme, December, 2007, p. i

2. See United Nations, ‘The Evaluation Policy of the UNDP’, Executive Board of the UNDP and the United NationsPopulation Fund, DP/2005/28 May 2006, p. 9

3. The ongoing process of UNDAF aims to identify the key areas and outcomes for UN cooperation.

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N2

much interest and research in terms of long-termeconomic and social development.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

The principal focus of the evaluation was anassessment of UNDP’s contribution to overallnational development. “Results” are defined as“outcomes”, or the effects of one or multipleoutputs on processes or development conditionsin a sector or thematic area. It is recognized thatattribution, or precise causal linkage betweenUNDP outputs and perceived outcomes mayat times be difficult to determine, particularlyin a complex environment with many variablesand actors.

The methodology was based on the generalADR guidelines4 developed by UNDP as well asthe organization’s evaluation policy, and adoptedthe following evaluation criteria: effectiveness,efficiency, and sustainability for assessing contri-butions to development results; and relevance,responsiveness, and quality of partnerships forassessing strategic positioning. Based on theinception report findings, the evaluation concen-trated its attention on the role played by UNDPto help the country get out of the economic andpolitical crisis of 2001 and the strategic shift ofthe portfolio which was characterized mainly byprojects of an administrative nature on develop-ment support services (DSS).

The preparatory phase involved initial review ofdocumentation as well as consultations in NewYork with the EO, the Regional Bureau for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (RBLAC) and keydepartments of UNDP. The preparatory phasealso included a one-week scoping mission toBuenos Aires, undertaken by the team leader andthe team specialist. The mission was used torefine the scope of the evaluation, to discuss thestructure and rationale of the country programmewith national counterparts from the Ministry ofForeign Affairs and UNDP officers and to

identify additional documentation to guide theteam.The mission enabled the team to select keyprojects and activities to be reviewed in greaterdepth because of their particular relevance toeach of the programme themes. The mission wasalso used to map UNDP partners in preparationfor more detailed interviews. This preparatorymission was followed by a second round of deskreview of documentation and analysis of financialinformation. A list of major documents consultedappears as Annex 3. On the basis of the scopingmission, desk review, notes and questions wereshared with the relevant units of the countryoffice in preparation for the main mission. Aninception report was produced outlining themain evaluation areas, elaborating an evaluationframework and spelling out the methodologicalapproach to undertake the evaluation. Theinception report was shared with the countryoffice and received further comments.

A main evaluation mission was undertaken from27 October to 12 November 2008.The evaluationteam had extensive discussions with the seniormanagement of UNDP, with the programmeunits responsible for thematic areas and withproject staff. It also met a significant number ofpartners of UNDP in the government, in the UNsystem, among multilateral and bilateral agencies,NGOs and the civil society. To facilitate thepreparation of the interviews, in addition tostandard stakeholder mapping, a more detailedanalysis of the relevant stakeholders was made.This analysis included an assessment of therelationship between the stakeholder anddifferent practice areas or cross-cutting issues, aswell as the relationship with UNDP in general.The list of people consulted appears as Annex 2.The mandate, strengths and weaknesses of thestakeholders were also analysed. Individualinterviews were semi-structured following twotemplate interview protocols, one for implementingcounterparts and the other for developmentpartners not directly engaged in the implementa-tions of projects.

4. ‘Guidelines for an Assessment of Development Results’ (ADR), UNDP Evaluation Office, December 2007

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N 3

clear. The sample identified successful and lesssuccessful interventions, with the intention ofconducting a gap analysis to distil causalities.Thesample was representative of the practice areasand sources of funding. (See Figure 8)

The analysis made use of a “triangulation” method,based on (a) programme documentation, evalua-tion reports and other relevant written material,(b) stakeholders’ perceptions, and, (c) existingprimary data and surveys such as the PartnershipSurvey and the Global Staff Survey. The countryoffice was extremely forthcoming in facilitatingaccess to all the documentation.

Finally, the evaluation faced a number of limita-tions in analysing the progress made towards thecontribution to development results including:changes in the original dates and the short timefor conducting the evaluation; the purposivesample containing biases to capture the strategicorientation of the programme portfolio; limitedaccess to baselines in some of the interventions,and the absence of outcome evaluations commis-sioned by the country office.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The report is organized in four chapters.Following the Executive Summary and thisintroduction, a second chapter examines thenational development context. This is followedby a third chapter assessing the contribution ofUNDP to development results in Argentinathrough its programme activities and other non-project interventions. A final chapter draws theconclusions of the evaluation exercise and makesrecommendations.

While the analysis of the various programmeinterventions is based on an overview of thefull portfolio of projects under each majorprogramme theme, a few representative projectsare presented in more detail in boxes thataccompany the text.

The desk review, the interviews and the individualand group meetings were supplemented by fieldvisits to project sites in the municipalities of LaMatanza, Moreno, Famailla and San Miguel deTucuman (Provinces of Buenos Aires andTucuman). The selection of site visits took intoaccount the existence of more than one UNDPproject in different thematic areas that arepotentially complementary; the existence ofinitiatives that combine interventions at national,provincial and municipal level; and the coverageof less developed areas like the northwest regionof the country and the urban peripheral area ofGreat Buenos Aires. During the main mission, itwas decided not to conduct a field visit to ChacoProvince. This decision was made due to logisticconstraints and to optimize the short time available.Nevertheless, the case of the Chaco Province wascarefully analysed through desk reviews, phoneinterviews and interviews with representatives ofthe local government who went to Buenos Aires.

Given the limitations in time and the scope ofthe evaluation (over 200 projects in the twoprogramming cycles) the evaluation team used apurposive sample approach5. The programmeportfolio was concentrated mainly in projectsfunded by the Government of Argentina, andoutcome achievements were not necessarilyrelated to the financial scale of projects. UNDP-funded initiatives were also crucial for thepromotion of cooperation issues such as advocacyand policy advice.

A purposive sample of 21 projects was selected fromthe three practice areas (democratic governance,poverty reduction and environment and sustain-able development), representing 28 percent of theprogramme portfolio in financial terms. Threetypes of interventions were identified for eachpractice area: a) development support services(DSS), b) development support services withcapacity development and c) strategic interven-tions in which the mandate of UNDP and itsvalue added in terms of technical assistance was

5. Bamberger, Michael, Jim Rugh and Linda Mabry, Real World Evaluation: Working under Budget, Time, Data and PoliticalConstraints. © Sage Publications 2006.

C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T C O N T E X T 5

2.1 GEOGRAPHIC ANDDEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND

Argentina is located in the southern cone ofSouth America, with an area of 2,766.890 sq kma population of 40.482 million. Since the earlypart of the 20th century, Argentina has had thehighest per capita income in Latin America andone of the lowest levels of poverty in this region.Notwithstanding its relatively low rates of growthduring the second half of the 20th century andthe transitory reversals in social conditions andpoverty levels, the country has been able tomaintain its high ranking in the Human

Development Index, as seen from Table 2.However, Argentina faces significant develop-ment challenges as the result of income andregional disparities.

2.2 POLITICAL ANDINSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

Argentina is a federal republic, with a presiden-tial form of government and a bicameral legisla-ture. The three-tiered federation is composed ofthe national government, 23 provinces and theautonomous government of the city of BuenosAires, and 2,164 municipalities. The president is

Chapter 2

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

Table 1. Argentina: Human Development Index, 1975-2006

Year Value Year Value

1975 0,790 1998 0,837

1980 0,804 1999 0,842

1985 0,811 2000 0,844

1990 0,832 2001 0,849

1992 0,882 2002 0,853

1993 0,885 2003 0,863

1994 0,884 2004 0,863

1995 0,888 2005 0,869

1997 0,827 2006 0,860

Sources: For 1975, 1980, 1985, UNDP,Human Development Report 2007/2008, Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a DividedWorld, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p.234. For 1990, UNDP,Human Development Report 1993, Oxford University Press, New York,1993, p.135. For 1992, UNDP,Human Development Report 1995, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, p.155. For 1993, UNDP,HumanDevelopment Report 1996, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996, p.135. For 1994, UNDP,Human Development Report 1997, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, 1997, p.146. For 1995, UNDP,Human Development Report 1998, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998,p.128. For 1997, UNDP,Human Development Report 1999, Oxford University Press. New York, 1999, p.134. For 1998, UNDP,HumanDevelopment Report 2000, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000, p.157. For 1999, UNDP,Human Development Report 2001,Making NewTechnologiesWork for Human Development, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p.141. For 2000, UNDP,Human Development Report2002,Deepening Democracy in a FragmentedWorld, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, p.149. For 2001, UNDP,Human DevelopmentReport 2003,Millennium Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003,p.237. For 2002, UNDP,Human Development Report 2004, Cultural Liberty in Today’s DiverseWorld, Hoechstetter Printing Co., New York,2004, p.139. For 2003, UNDP,Human Development Report 2005, International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid Trade and Security in anUnequalWorld, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, p.219. For 2004, UNDP,Human Development Report 2006, Beyond Scarcity: Power,Poverty and the GlobalWater Crisis, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2006, p.283. For 2005, UNDP,Human Development Report 2007/2008,Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a DividedWorld, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p.229. For 2006, UNDP,HumanDevelopment Report 2008 Statistical Update.http://hdrstats.undp.org/2008/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_ARG.html

C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T C O N T E X T6

head of state elected for a four-year term, andcan be re-elected for one consecutive term. He orshe appoints a cabinet and a chief of cabinet,who can be removed by a majority vote in eachchamber. According to the 1994 Constitutionalamendment, all National Congress members –representatives and senators – are elected bycitizens’ direct vote.

The provinces have diverse economic, geographicand demographic characteristics. The BuenosAires province has 38 percent of the nation’spopulation – 48 percent when combined withBuenos Aires City – generating together abouthalf of the country’s GDP.6

Argentina has gone through a series of politicalcrises and economic instability during the pastdecades. Since the early 1990s, the institutionalstructure of Argentina has been subject to strongpressures as a consequence of structural reformsaiming to reduce the size and role of the state.The 2001 crisis revealed the weakness in themanagement of public policies and the fragility

of certain state institutions, including justice andsecurity-sector institutions, the legislative powerand political parties7. Recovering from the 2001crisis was a successful process in terms of themain economic and social indicators.Nonetheless, institutional reconstruction needsto be stepped up in order to revitalize the statefunctions in way that provides democraticsupport and includes citizens in decisionsconcerning the future of politics in Argentina8.The prominent issue of individual and collectivehuman rights is interlaced with the need torecover the legitimacy of institutions and trust inbroad social sectors in a democratic system.

2.3 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC ANDENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

There is widespread agreement among differentgovernmental and civil society actors anddevelopment cooperation agencies that the mainchallenges in the area of governance include themodernization of public administration at thecentral, provincial and municipal levels and the

Sources: * See IMF (2008)World Economic Outlook Database, Available online at www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/index/aspx, accessed 9 December 2008. ** See Concejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Públicas Sociales,Objetivos de Desarrollodel Milenio, Informe País 2007, Presidencia de la Nación, Argentina, Octubre, 2007, p.19. ***For 2000, Intenationa Monetary Fund,‘IMFExecutive Board Concludes 2005 Article IV Consultation with Argentina’, Available online at www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2005/pn0583.htm, accessed 23 Octubre 2006. *** For 1990, 2005 and 2006, see INDEC, Encuesta Permanente de Hogares, Empleo yDesempleo, Available online at www.indec.mecon.ar, accessed 9 December 2008. For 2000-2004, International Monetary Fund,‘IMFExecutive Board Concludes 2006 Article IV Consultation with Argentina’, Available online at www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2005/pn0583.htm, accessed 20 October 2006.

Table 2. Argentina : Selected Social Indicators, 1990-2006

Social Indicators 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Population (millions)* 32.5 36.8 37.2 36.6 37.9 38.2 38.6 39.0

Population Below PovertyLine (in percent)**

42.6 33.4 35.9 53.0 47.8 40.2 33.8 26.9

Population Below ExtremePoverty Line (in percent)**

12.7 9.0 11.6 24.8 20.5 15.0 12.2 8.7

Unemployment Rate*** 6.3 14.7 20.7 20.7 14.5 12.1 10.1 8.7

6. See Webb, Steven B., ‘Argentina: Hardening the Provincial Budget Constraint’, in Fiscal Decentralization and theChallenge of Hard Budget Constraints, Jonathan Rodden, Gunnar S. Eskeland, and Jennie Litvack,MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts, 2003, p.191.

7. UNDP Argentina, “PNUD - Documento sobre el programa para la Argentina 2005-2008”, 2004, p. 3.8. UNDP Argentina, “Informe presidencial 2007”, Project FO/ARG/05/012 Análisis Prospectivo para Fortalecer laGobernabilidad Democrática en Argentina, December 2007.

C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T C O N T E X T 7

Table 3. Argentina: GDP Annual Growth Rates, 1980-2008

Year GDP Year GDP Year GDP

1980 1,5 1990 -1,8 2000 -0,8

1981 -5,4 1991 10,6 2001 -4,4

1982 -3,2 1992 9,6 2002 -10,9

1983 4,1 1993 5,7 2003 8,7

1984 2,0 1994 5,8 2004 9,0

1985 -6,9 1995 -2,8 2005 9,2

1986 7,1 1996 5,5 2006 8,5

1987 2,6 1997 8,1 2007 8,7

1988 -1,9 1998 3,9 2008* 7,0

1989 -6,9 1999 -3,4

Sources: For 1980-2003, Roberto Frenkel ,‘Real Exchange Rate and Employment in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico’, Centro de Estudiosde Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) Paper Presented to G24, Buenos Aires, 2004 p.34. For 2000-2003, Roberto Frenkel ,‘Real Exchange Rate andEmployment,Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico ‘, Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES), Paper Presented to G24, BuenosAires, 2004 p.34. For 2004-2005, Banco Central de la República Argentina,‘Economic Indicators’, Macroeconomic Radar, Available onlineat www.bcra.gov.ar, accessed 9 December 2008. For 2006-2007, Banco Central de la República Argentina,‘Économic Indicators’,Macroeconomic Radar, Available online at www.bcra.gov.ar, accessed 9 December 2008. * Forecast. For 2008, IMF,World EconomicOutlook: Housing and the Business Cycle, International Monetary Fund,Washington, DC, April, 2008 p.83.

Source: INDEC. See: National Council of the Coordination of Social Policies,Millennium Development Goals: Country Report 2007,The Office of the President, Argentina, November, 2007, p.15

Millionsofpesos

365,000

345,000

325,000

305,000

285,000

265,000

245,000

225,0001998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

-19.9%

47.5%

Figure 1. Argentina: Gross Domestic Product, 1998-2006

C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T C O N T E X T8

need for greater public trust in the transparencyand efficiency of state institutions. The strength-ening of the justice system continues to be,as in many other Latin American countries, acentral challenge.

Since the mid-1990s, Argentina has gone througha very difficult cycle consisting of an economicboom, a major economic, social and politicalcrisis in 2001 and 2002, and then a rapid recoveryfrom 2003 until 2008. After experiencing rapidgrowth between 1996 and 1998, the economyexperienced a period of recession between 1999and 2001, and then collapsed in 2002 with a dropin GDP of -10.9 percent. Poverty levels jumpedfrom 33.4 percent in 2000 to 53 percent in 2002.The unemployment rate went from 14.7 percent

to 20.7 percent in the same period. Extremepoverty doubled from 2001 to 2002. Incomedistribution worsened and the Gini coefficientincreased from 0.48 in 1997 to 0.53 in 2002.

Under a long-term social development perspec-tive, an important challenge for the present andfor the future seems to be more structuraland comprehensive.9 It is also one that includesmore preventive frameworks focusing onsuch key components of social welfare asemployment, pension reform, education, socialmobility, fairness perceptions of social interac-tions and, finally and very importantly, the largerissue of inequality.

“Ignoring inequality in the pursuit of develop-ment is perilous10” and “inequality is conducive

Source: For 1990-1998, seeWorld Bank (2000 p.5 Table 3), Poor People in a Rich Country: Poverty Report for Argentina; Report No. 19992-AR,Volume I,March 23. For 1999-2002, seeWorld Bank (2003 p.6,Table 1.2),Argentina - Crisis and Poverty 2003: A Poverty Assessment,Report No. 26127 -AR, July 24 For 2003-2006, see Concejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Públicas Sociales (2007 p.19),Objetivosde Desarrollo del Milenio, Informe País 2007, Octubre, Argentina: Presidencia de la Nación

0.4

0.5

0.6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 2. Argentina: Gini Coefficient 1990-2006

9. On the structural character of the social problems in Argentina, see Anlló, Guillermo, Bernardo Kosacoff and AdriánRamos, ‘Crisis, Recuperación y Nuevos Dilemas: La Economía Argentina 2002-2007’, Crisis, Recuperación y NuevosDilemas: La economía argentina 2002-2007, Bernardo Kosacoff (ed.), CEPAL Buenos Aires, United Nations, Argentina,2007, p.22.

10. See Ocampo, Jose Antonio, ‘Executive summary’,The Inequality Predicament, Report on theWorld Social Situation 2005,United Nations, New York, 2005, p.1.

C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T C O N T E X T 9

to growth retarding policies”11. These policies mayend up adversely affecting poverty, employmentand equity. Understanding the dynamics andcircularities between neglecting inequality orinequity, on the one hand, and the quality ofpublic policies, on the other, may well be the realchallenge. The answer to this would includeengendering new information on the characteris-tics of each country situation and the disseminationof the information to the public at large. It wouldalso include a political economy agreement thathas been called a “distributive agreement12”.

Argentina’s biodiversity and ecosystems areextremely rich. However, the country facessignificant environmental challenges as a resultof land degradation, deforestation, endangeredbiodiversity and ecosystems and pollution of waterresources on the top of over-exploitation of coastalresources.These environmental threats have persisted

over decades and increased the vulnerability ofthe country’s population to natural disasters.

In recent years, Argentina’s government developedan “eco-systemic vision” to understand theenvironmental challenges faced by the differentregions. The government aims to integrate theprinciples of sustainable development intocountry policies and programmes and reverse theloss of environmental resources. Moreover, it hasreaffirmed the role of the state in orientingenvironmental policy and guaranteeing a respectfor human rights. It recognizes that the environ-ment determines the quality of every person’s lifein the areas of dignity and social justice13.

The succinct description of the national contextaims to be an input for understanding better thedepth and breadth of the UNDP cooperationframeworks in Argentina since 2002.

11. See Alesina, Alberto and Dani Rodrik, ‘Distributive Politics and Economic Growth’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,Volume CIX, Number 2, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994, p.465.

12. See Heymann, Daniel, ‘Buscando la Tendencia: Crisis Macroeconómica y Recuperación en la Argentina’, Serie Estudiosy Perspectivas 31, Naciones Unidas, CEPAL Buenos Aires, Argentina, Abril, 2006, p.70.

13. See Concejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Públicas Sociales, Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, Informe País2007, Presidencia de la Nación, Argentina, Octubre, 2007, p.59.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 1 1

3.1 OVERVIEW OF UNDP COUNTRYPROGRAMMES, 2002-2008

The first country programme (2002-2004) wasadopted under the severe circumstances of the2001-2002 social, economic and political crisis.The country programme for 2005-2008 focuseson three practice areas, namely i) achieving theMDGs and poverty reduction, ii) fosteringdemocratic governance, and iii) energy andenvironment for sustainable development(Table 4). In all these areas, support was given forthe improvement of programme and projectformulation and management, as well as for thestrengthening of new alliances and of nationalcapacities, and fostering articulations betweenthe different government levels.

The current country programme focuses on 11expected outcomes for 2005-2008.Many of theseare a continuation of those established in the2002-2004 programme. The outcomes and theircorresponding indicators are illustrated inTable 5.

The evaluation takes these outcomes as the basisfor the assessment of the contribution made byUNDP to achieve national development results.

The programmes of other UN agencies were takeninto account for the formulation of the currentcountry programme to increase complementari-ties among the different agencies. Even thoughUNDAF is not obligatory for Argentina – due toits previous Net Contributor Country (NCC)status – the Resident Representative has promotedit since 2004. The first UNDAF14 for Argentinais expected to be available by mid-200915.

Chapter 3

UNDP’S CONTRIBUTIONSTO DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

Table 4. UNDP Country Programme: Goals and Service Lines for Argentina

Goals UNDP Corporate Service Lines

1. Achieving the MDGs andpoverty reduction

1.1 MDG country and regional monitoring1.3 Local and provincial initiatives, including microfinance1.5 Private sector development1.6 Gender mainstreaming

2. Fostering democraticgovernance

2.1 Policy support for democratic governance2.4 Justice and human rights2.6 Decentralization and cooperative federalism2.7 Public administration reform and anti-corruption

3. Energy and environment forsustainable development

3.1 Frameworks and strategies for sustainable development3.2 Effective water governance3.5 Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity3.6 National/sectoral policy and planning

14. The participating UN agencies are ILO, UNDP, UNICEF, WHO, PAHO, CEPAL, ECLAC, UNFPA, UNIFEM,UNHCR, UNOPS, and the regional offices of UNIDO and UNESCO.

15. For more details on UN coordination, see 3.6.4

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S1 2

The cooperation model implemented by UNDPArgentina from the end of the 1980s until the2001/2002 crisis was based on the paradigm ofproviding development support services (DSS)while abiding by the corporate guidelines setforth by the Regional Bureau for Latin Americaand the Caribbean (RBLAC). During the 1990s,UNDP in Latin America engaged in a resourcemobilization strategy due to the diminished

financial resources for development cooperationto middle-income countries. The country officesfound a way to self-finance their operations bymobilizing resources with third parties, includinginternational financial institutions.This operationalmodality has been particularly influential inArgentina. The DSS have corresponded to ademand from the government to UNDP foradministrate resources, especially those coming

Table 5. UNDP Country Programme: Outcomes and Indicators, 2005-2008

Practice Area Expected Outcomes Main Indicators

Fosteringdemocraticgovernance

Increased knowledge of human rights, withspecial emphasis on economic, social andcultural rights

The relative number of people aware ofhuman rights implications

Incorporation of a culture of dialogue intothe country’s different sectors

Number of forums proposing consensusrecommendations

Strengthening of government managementcapacity at the national, regional andmunicipal level

New management systems in operation

Reform of the electoral system and politicalparties as well as improvement of the justiceadministration

Laws and decrees on the reform of theelectoral system and political parties; Moreefficient procedures for the administrationof justice

Achieving theMDGs andreducinghumanpoverty

MDGs advocacy and human developmentconcept application

Participation of various social agents in thefollow-up of the MDGs and in the selectionof NHDR subjects and provincial HDI

Increased access to basic social servicesand income rise for the population in asituation of poverty

Percentage of the population under thepoverty line with access to complementaryfeeding, basic medicines and incometransfer programmes

Increased opportunities for unemployed Unemployment rate

Ensuringenvironmentalsustainability

Integrating into public policies anenvironmental approach, along with riskassessment and prevention managementof natural disasters

Public policies to incorporate these aspects

Stopping current levels of desertification Percentage of arid and semi-arid landssuffering from desertification

Increase conservation and utilization ofbiodiversity.

1) Percentage of protected areas to keepbiological diversity; 2) percentage ofprotected areas at the national levelefficiently keeping biological diversity

Control emissions of ozone-depletingsubstances and persistent organic pollutants

Emissions of polluting agents

Source: UNDP Executive Board Documents, September 2004

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 1 3

from international financial institutions16. Thegovernment demands and appreciates the DSSsince they allow for transparency, efficiency andreliability in project implementation17.

3.1.1 TRANSITIONING TO A MORESTRATEGIC ROLE

Since mid-2004, UNDP Argentina18 has movedtowards a more balanced medium-term strategycalled “strategic turn” (“giro estratégico”). The“strategic turn” is in line with the strategic corpora-tive guidelines of UNDP which focus on institu-tional capacity building19 and changes in thedevelopment cooperation environment reflectedin the Paris Declaration20 on aid effectiveness.

The thematic direction of the “strategic turn”encompassed an institutional and capacity-building strategy, focusing on:

� A comprehensive approach to competitive-ness and equity

� Articulation of demands for a greater and betterquality social bond with human development

� Strengthening citizens’ capacities for actionand participation in a more complex,unstable and uncertain context

� Deepening a territorial presence particularlyin those provinces and municipalities withthe lowest HDIs and greater disparities

� Advocacy of regional integration schemesthrough the promotion of cooperativedevelopment approaches towards improvedintegration into the global economy

To create the bases for the “strategic turn”,UNDP made initial steps to establish a technical

team with strong capabilities; to produce a seriesof high-quality human development studies;and to consolidate a virtuous circle between arenewed management of DSS and a substantiveand action-orientated approach to development.As part of the new “strategic turn”, DSS was nolonger considered eligible in terms of hiringpersonnel for ordinary state function positions,for infrastructure projects, or for “pure” procure-ment projects.

3.1.2 FINANCIAL SNAPSHOT OF THEUNDP PROGRAMME21

The financial portfolio of UNDP Argentina isone of the biggest in UNDP. As seen in Figure 3,the programme expenditure was strongly affectedby the 2001-2002 crisis, with a significant dropin 2002. Afterwards, the crisis cried out forthe urgent services of UNDP Argentina. Since2003 UNDP has contributed to the formulation,and, most importantly, to the execution of variousgovernment emergency programmes.Many of theseprogrammes had ended by 2005. In addition,the “strategic turn” implemented since 2005 hasresulted in a more balanced programme portfolio,as the share of big DSS projects has diminished.

A comparison of the allocation of resourcesamong the corporative practice areas for the twoprogramming periods 2002-2004 and 2005-2008, illustrated in Figure 4, shows that therelative importance of practice areas related toachieving MDGs and poverty reduction hasincreased. On the other hand, the relative weightof democratic governance, along with energy andthe environment has decreased.

16. In the 1990s, Argentina became the most important Latin American country for the IADB and for the WB globally.17. Many interviewees pointed out that their projects would not have been implemented without UNDP’s project manage-ment capacity, which provided continuity during project implementation.

18. UNDP’s second Common Country Framework (CCF) in Argentina covered the years 2002-2004. The administrationof Nestor Kirchner requested UNDP Country Programme (CP) 2005-2008 to be extended one year, until 2009, so as toallow the newly elected authorities to develop the new programme.

19. Ref. United Nations, “Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development of the UnitedNations System”, General Assembly 59/250, December 2004; and United Nations, “In Larger Freedom: towards devel-opment, security and human rights for all”, Report of the Secretary General, New York, March 2005.

20. Synthesis Report of the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration, Copenhagen, July 2008.21. Cutoff date for 2008 expenditure figures: 30 September 2008. Source for all financial information: UNDP Argentina(based on ATLAS figures).

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S1 4

Source: For 1990-1998, seeWorld Bank (2000 p.5 Table 3), Poor People in a Rich Country: Poverty Report for Argentina; Report No. 19992-AR,Volume I,March 23. For 1999-2002, seeWorld Bank (2003 p.6,Table 1.2),Argentina - Crisis and Poverty 2003: A Poverty Assessment,Report No. 26127 -AR, July 24 For 2003-2006, see Concejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Públicas Sociales (2007 p.19),Objetivosde Desarrollo del Milenio, Informe País 2007, Octubre, Argentina: Presidencia de la Nación

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 3. UNDP: Programme Expenditure 2000-2008

Millions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

OtherResponding to HIV/AIDSCrisis prevention and recovery

Energy and environmentFostering democratic governanceAchieving MDGs and reducing poverty

2005-20082002-2004

Figure 4. UNDP: Allocation of Resources by Practice Areas

Percent(%)

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 1 5

Figure 5 demonstrates the continuity in thepattern of allocation of resources among thedifferent practice areas over time. In addition, thefocus on the importance of the poverty practicearea has increased over the years.

It is worth mentioning that the importance ofprojects that include capacity development (or

have a more substantive nature) has increasedsignificantly during the current programmingperiod, representing 50 percent of the totalallocation, as seen in Figure 6.

Government resources are, by far, the mostsignificant source of financing for UNDPArgentina: 97 percent of total financing for the

0

50

100

150

200

250 EnvironmentPovertyGovernance

Figure 5. UNDP: Evolution of Resource Allocation by Practice Areas

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Millions

0 200 400 600 800 1000

NADevelopment Support ServicesCapacity development

2005-2008

2002-2004

Figure 6. UNDP: Allocation by the Type of Project

Millions

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S1 6

last two programming periods. The governmentfunding to UNDP consists of treasury fundsand funding coming from IFIs, in Argentina’scase the World Bank (WB), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). Most ofthe IFIs’ cooperation is in the form of loans. Thegovernment’s own treasury funding surpassed in2005 the previously dominant IFI funding asseen from Figure 7.

As can be observed from Figure 8, it is noteworthythat an important percentage of governmentresources come from provincial and municipalgovernments. Diversification to sub-nationalprojects is considered important since it allowsfor a closer link to align interventions withpoverty reduction at the local level. The reasonfor the diminishing share of funding fromprovincial government since 2006 includes theclosure of various “pure” DSS projects.

Although the annual expenditure levels ofUNDP Argentina are considerable, in financialterms, UNDP is a small player. UNDP’s core

programming resources (Target for ResourceAssignments from the Core – TRAC)correspond to less than 1 percent of the totalexpenditure during the evaluation period 2002-2008. UNDP agrees with the government onhow to use the scarce TRAC resources. Havingreached the status of a Net Contributor Country(NCC), Argentina did not receive TRACresources beginning in 2000. It was not until2002, after the crisis, that Argentina becameeligible for core resources again. UNDPArgentina is expected to receive TRAC funds atleast until 2011. According to the countryprogramme 2005-2008, the scarce ordinaryresources are designated as “soft” and areintended for strategic activities related to thepromotion of dialogue and consensus on publicpolicies and the application of a human develop-ment concept and the MDGs. UNDP considersTRAC highly relevant for financing strategicactivities to position UNDP in Argentina,together with the so-called “Extra-Budgetary(XB)22 funds” The evolution of the TRAC fundsis illustrated in Figure 9.

0

50

100

150

200

Own treasury fundingIFI funding

Figure 7. UNDP: The Structure of Government Funding

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Millions

22. Extra-budgetary funds are received as a result of cost-recovery activities from resource partners such as governments,bilateral and multilateral agencies, and private entities. The XB funds are highly relevant for financing the operations ofthe COs in middle-income countries where the regular budgetary funds are limited.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 1 7

Besides the government and TRAC, theother main sources of funding are theUNDP Trust Funds, the Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF), the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, and bilateral donors. The importance of

GEF and bilateral funding has increasedduring the current programming period, as seenin Figure 10. UNDP has been successful indiversifying funding sources during the currentprogramming period.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Municipal Provincial National

Figure 8. UNDP: Government Resources by Level of Government

Percent(%)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200 Approved Budget

Total Utilized (expense + advance)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 9. UNDP: Evolution of TRAC Funds

THousands

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S1 8

3.2 FOSTERING DEMOCRATICGOVERNANCE

UNDP’s strategy for sustainable human develop-ment and reduction of inequalities and povertydepends on the quality of democracy and theeffectiveness of institutions and public policies ineach country. Yet, it also depends on the terms ofthe international social, political, and economicrelations. To respond to national needs from itsmandate in the area of governance, UNDPArgentina has established four outcomes for the2005-2008 programming period as shown inTable 5. These outcomes are in line with themain themes covered in the previous program-ming period (2002-2004), namely dialogue onpublic policies, justice, decentralization andpublic sector accountability. Thus, theydemonstrate continuity of UNDP’s democraticgovernance strategy.

Incorporation of a culture of dialogue into thecountry’s different sectors. The governanceprogramme has been effective in promoting aculture of dialogue in particular themes and inspecific moments. The promotion of a culture ofdialogue was notably effective to get out of thecrisis in 2002. UNDP also supported a dialogue

process that aimed to reach consensus on theneed for political reforms at the provincial level(Buenos Aires) in 2005. In addition to playing itsrole of an honest broker, UNDP offered itstechnical assistance and experience on successfulmethodologies regarding dialogue processes.Through a “Citizen’s audit” initiative, UNDP hassupported the establishment of civic forums atthe local level. The evaluation found goodpractice in the civic forums, in their importancefor well-articulated and well-organized citizenparticipation and empowerment.

The success of the “Dialogo” was marked by itsown phasing out, when the political process fullyassumed its formal role and a new governmentwas elected in 2003. At the end of 2004, thecountry office took the initiative to commissionan independent evaluation of the experience ofthe Dialogo. This evaluation underscored theimportance of information in following socialprocesses to ensure adequate and timelyunderstanding of complex social tensions. TheDialogo left a most valuable legacy in the form ofa proven social capital or collective public good towhich the country can recur if the need arises.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Global Fund (HIV/AIDS)

Other donors

GEF

UN Trust Funds and Agencies

2005-2008

2002-2004

Figure 10. UNDP: Sources Other Than Government and TRAC Funding

Millions

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 1 9

Increased knowledge and awareness of humanrightswith special emphasis on economic, socialand cultural rights. UNDP has contributed tothe strengthening of the Human Rights Secretaryof the Ministry of Justice, Security and HumanRights. The initiative related to institutionalstrengthening of national policies for the promotionof education and the advocacy of human rightscontributed to a positive unexpected result,namely, the creation of the Sub-Secretary for thePromotion of Human Rights23. Traditionally,work related to human rights in Argentina hasconcentrated on political and civil rights, partic-ularly those related to the violations that tookplace during the military dictatorship. Throughthe alliance with the Human Rights Secretary,UNDP has supported the placement of economic,social and cultural rights on the public agenda.The creation of the Sub-Secretary for the Promotionof Human Rights demonstrates the importancegiven to human rights education. The modern-ization of the national archive of memory is animportant individual output contributing to theexpected outcome of fostering reconciliation,justice and human rights.

Strengthening the government managementcapacity at the national, regional andmunicipallevels.The governance programme has been partlyeffective in enhancing government managementcapacity. UNDP has been successful in support-ing the application of new management systems;for example in the frame of “Modernization of theState in the Province of Córdoba” programme.The creation and establishment of an integraladministrative system has improved the transparencyof public management. Other important outputsinclude the implementation of “Scorecards” whichenable the provincial government to monitor theadministration of all the ministries, and theunique system to attend to the citizens. In theprovince of Buenos Aires, UNDP has collabo-rated in the area of technical support for accuratecomputerization of the population registry. Thishas led to a strengthened institutional capacity ofthe province’s population registry.

The relevance of some projects such as the“Generalization of Computerized Systems in theMinistry of Economy and Production” project,especially the “develop and keep updated theMinistry’s network infrastructure and equipment”

23. Created by Decree No N21/2007.

Box 1. The Argentinean Dialogue

The Argentinean dialogue is a process that was carried out in 2002 and 2003. Owing to the vast participationof civil society and other actors, this process was able to contribute to the reconstruction of the most importantfoundations of social coexistence, especially during a time when Argentina faced a difficult period, characterizedby a political, institutional, economic and social crisis. President Duhalde called for the Catholic Church andUNDP to facilitate and lead the process of dialogue.

The official objectives of the first phase of the dialogue were to find a solution to the emergency situation andto design a profound institutional reform.The immediate results of the dialogue were: a) regaining the processof dialogue as an instrument to facilitate consensus, b) contributing to social peace, c) taking into account allthe necessary actions to face the social emergency, and d) identifying basic consensus.The dialogue wassurprisingly successful in the “reconstruction of statehood”, and the recovery of basic institutionality in thecountry (this was somehow an unexpected outcome of the process). According to national stakeholders, theprocess also had positive externalities in fostering common knowledge and in the construction of socialcapital. The dialogue was able to create public trust and to promote expansion of citizen participation whoseinfluence is increasing in public life.There were some shortcomings as many of the suggested proposals,especially those related to institutional and political reforms, were not implemented.

The Argentinean dialogue is a clear example of how UNDP can best use its reputation for neutrality to makethe construction of consensus possible. Stakeholders pointed out that the word “dialogue”has been part oftheir day-to-day popular vocabulary since the emergence of this process. In July 2002, after the presidentconcluded the initial call, civil society assumed the leadership of the process.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S2 0

component, is questionable. UNDP has providedDSS for the Ministry since the late 1990s. It isdifficult to justify this kind of prolonged DSSsupport, even though the need for “appropriatetechnology” and UNDP’s value added forprocurement purposes have been confirmed.

Reform of the electoral system and politicalparties and improvement of justicemanagement.Major contributions to the design and applica-tion of political reforms could not be verified.The political reforms were part of Argentineandialogue and of the dialogue held in the provinceof Buenos Aires. Even though the main authori-ties subscribed to the “federal agreement forthe reform of the political system” during theArgentinean dialogue, that process did not havetangible outcomes24. In the case of the dialoguein the province of Buenos Aires, the actual resultsremained modest, due mainly to certain delays inseizing political momentum. The NHDR 2002included interesting proposals for politicalreforms, but they never got fully off the ground.

3.2.1 FINDINGS

Results obtained in the area of governance aremixed. Effectiveness has been demonstratedthrough the promotion of a culture of dialogue,an increase in knowledge and awareness ofhuman rights, and partly through strengtheningthe government-management capacity at thenational, regional and municipal levels.Effectiveness in the design and implementationof political reforms has been limited.

UNDP’s contributions to democratic governancein Argentina have focused on strengtheningmanagement capacities through UNDPadministrative services. There was a demand forUNDP support in fostering public administra-tion through better information and administra-tion systems. In practice, projects aimed at“informatization” of state institutions contain therisk of a certain trade-off between efficiency in

the short run and sustainability in the long run ifthe basis for sustainability is not built in from thebeginning. Well-focused technical assistancetogether with political support has demonstratedthe potential to generate permanent changesin administrative practices. UNDP has beensuccessful in supporting increased knowledge andawareness of human rights, and in promotingwell-articulated and well-organized citizenparticipation and empowerment, which hadpositive effects on re-establishing confidencebetween the governed and those who govern.There is, however, a way to go to fully incorpo-rate the culture of dialogue into the country’sdifferent sectors. UNDP’s contribution to resultsin the design and implementation of politicalreforms has been limited, mainly because ofchanges in government’s priorities and restrictedconditions for putting the generated proposalsinto effect.

The interventions included in the governanceprogramme sample are relevant as they focuson the central challenges of governance inArgentina. The selected strategic outcomes ofthe governance programme respond both to thedevelopment needs and to corporate priorities.Government officials interviewed during theevaluation confirmed that improving manage-ment capacity and increasing the coherenceof public policies are central goals for thegovernment. Other stakeholders placed emphasison the important role of some initiatives to stressthe fact that “democracy influences the qualityof life”.

UNDP’s support in the governance area hasbeen efficient. Stakeholders put emphasis onfast and transparent implementation which hasbeen possible owing to UNDP’s administration,especially in DSS and capacity-building initia-tives. Overall, the stakeholders pointed outthe professionalism and high technical capacitiesof UNDP staff as a success factor for effectiveand efficient project implementation. UNDP

24. UNDP Argentina, “Evaluación del diálogo argentino”, UNDP, Buenos Aires, Octubre 2004.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 2 1

generated some synergies between differentinitiatives. For example, experience sharing onhow to strengthen government managementcapacity was extremely useful at the provinciallevel (Córdoba and Tucuman provinces).

The conditions contributing to the sustainabilityof UNDP’s governance initiatives have improvedduring the evaluation period. However, insome cases, the lack of proper exit strategies hascompromised sustainability.

In contrast, in the project related to the institu-tional capacity of the population’s registryin Buenos Aires, where DSS was used only incircumstances considered strategic, and in whichUNDP’s collaboration was narrowed to offeringtechnical assistance, the pillars for sustainabilityare solid. In the case of the Córdoba project,UNDP’s support was focused on DSS25. In both

cases, the provincial governments promoted thenecessary changes in the normative or legalframeworks to consolidate the basis for thestrengthening of government management.

3.3 POVERTY REDUCTION

Argentina’s recovery from this crisis came ratherquickly and was noteworthy in severaldimensions. First, economic growth jumped to8.7 percent in 2003 and has been around thatlevel until 2008. Secondly, and as a result oftargeted social support measures, povertydropped in 2004 and by 2006 it was below whatit had been in 2000. Figure 11 shows that by thefirst semester of 2008 poverty had dropped to17.8 percent. Extreme poverty had fallen to 5.1percent. This is a remarkable accomplishment.The urban unemployment rate fell to 8.7 percentin 2006 and to 8.0 percent in the first quarter of

25. The total expenditure of the programme was over US$ 200 million.The main components were related to building socialinfrastructure under crisis conditions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pobreza

Indigencia

1˚ semestre2008

4˚ Tnim 2007 y

1˚ Tnim 2008

1˚ semestre2007

2˚ semestre2006

1˚ semestre 2006

2˚ semestre2006

1˚ semestre2005

2˚ semestre2004

1˚ semestre2004

2˚ semestre2003

1˚ semestre2003

Figure 11. Argentina: Poverty Reduction Evolution, 2003-2008*

Percent(%)

* Individuals

Source: INDEC, (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos), Encuesta Permanente de Hogares, Incidencia de la Pobreza y de la Indigencia,Available online at http://www.indec.mecon.ar/

54.0

47.844.3

40.2 38.9

33.831.4

26.923.4

20.617.8

27.7

20.517.0

15.0 13.8 12.2 11.28.7 8.2

5.9 5.1

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S2 2

200826. This vigorous recovery places Argentina’spoverty rates well below the regional average. Asexpressed in the National Human DevelopmentReport 2005, economic growth is not an end initself but a mean to enhance human capabilitiesand enrich the array of peoples’ possibilities.Poverty is not only defined by income but hasalso cultural dimensions. Human development asa social construction reaffirms that values, beliefsand expectations are as important as markets andinstitutions for a better life. The impressiverecovery of Argentina cannot be understoodwithout taking into consideration its social fabric:citizens who were able to organize and defendtheir rights, who were able to act responsibly andtrust on the quality of their institutions27.

Increasedaccess tobasic social servicesand incomerise for the population in a situation of poverty

UNDP’s contribution to development results inthe area of poverty reduction can be organized

around two periods. First, the immediate yearsafter the crisis from 2001 to 2004, when theurgent need was for targeted contributions tocontain the increases in poverty levels, and theperiod from 2004 until 2008 when povertydecreased to levels below what they had been in2000 before the crisis. In both periods, UNDP’scontribution was deemed relevant and effectiveas well as largely sustainable in that the overallmacroeconomic conditions turned favourable.

It would be difficult to find an event that couldunderscore more the relevance, timely responseand effectiveness of UNDP in Argentina thanthe role it played during the 2001-02 crises andin the following years.

The special multilateral and institutionalcharacter of UNDP allowed it to respond with atransparent advocacy role and to provide muchneeded coordination and operational support.

26. See INDEC, (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos), ‘Encuesta Permanente de Hogares, Mercado de Trabajo,Principales Indicadores’, Available online at www.indec.mecon.ar, accessed 9 December 2008.

27. PNUD Informe Nacional de Desarrollo Humano: Argentina después de la crisis, un tiempo de oportunidades. 2005

Source: Indicator Table 2, HDR 2007/2008.

HDI

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.31975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 12. Argentina: Human Development Index, 1975-2005

OECD

East AsiaSouth Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Arab States

Argentina

Latin America andthe Caribbean

Europe and the CIS

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 2 3

More specifically, the country office forged apartnership with the government, religiousgroups and civil society organizations to developand implement key social projects such as the“Plan de Jefas y Jefes de Hogar”, the Remediarprogramme as an immediate response to thecrisis. The aim of Remediar was to provide basicmedications for public health centres nation-wide, using national government funds.

In some cases, these projects also had unexpectedbenefits and contributed to institutional develop-ment and capacity, as was the case with themedicine supply project in the municipality of LaMatanza. This was a mostly “service provider”project that led to positive externalities in the formof new information on optimizing health-relatedservices. One of the unintended but very valuablepositive externality of this project was that it ledto lowering “transaction costs” throughout theprocurement lines and health services chain.

Poverty-reduction projects may have a tendencyto be afflicted by the “fly-paper effect”. Onceresources are assigned to provide some relief, itis difficult to phase out of such programmes,at times because some legitimate new need isdiscovered. There is no easy way out of this bind,as has been the case with food security andschool-breakfast projects.

MDGs advocacy and human developmentconcept application

Two reports were produced in Argentina withthe support of the UN system on progresstowards achieving the MDGs, one in 2005 andthe other in 2007. They indicate that the countryis well on its way to meet those targets, as seenfrom Table 6.What is more, Argentina has madesignificant progress towards an additional goal

that it established for itself in the area of employ-ment and its quality. In such critical areas ofhuman development as poverty, education,employment, gender equity, health and theenvironment, Argentina has made significantprogress, particularly during the last five years.

Recognizing the federal structure of Argentinaand the high “local” content of several of theMDGs, the government, through its Council forthe Coordination of Social Policies of the Officeof the President, has implemented agreementswith the provinces to ensure common approachesand methodologies in the achievement of theMDGs. At the municipal level, there are specificUNDP projects to support the achievement ofthe MDGs. The main experiences for adaptingMDGs to the local level took place in the citiesof Morón (Buenos Aires Province) and Rosario(Santa Fe Province). Both cities were covered bythe project (00042492-UNDP1) implemented in2006-2007. This project aimed at mainstreaminghuman rights in the development approach. Theprocess was completed successfully since the localgovernments formally adopted the proposed frame-work for public policy planning. Additionally,adaptations have been carried out in several otherprovinces (La Rioja, San Juan, Tucumán, andMendoza). Other initiatives underway includethe institutional strengthening of the city ofCorrientes28 and another one engaging youth inthe city of Santa Fe29. By the end of 2007, 12agreements had been formalized between theCouncil and several provinces30. One of theadvantages of this policy is that it contributes tostrengthening the “monitoring capacity” to keeptrack of the different processes. It also helps tobetter understand the complex causalities betweenprojects targeted at one MDG but the success ofwhich may benefit another “unintended” goal31.

28. See PNUD, ‘Proyecto: Fortalecimiento de la gestión municipal de la Ciudad de Corrientes para el logro de los OMD’,Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, Buenos Aires Septiembre, 2007.

29. See PNUD, ‘Casas de Juventud para la inclusión ciudadana: una experiencia innovadora en Argentina’, Programa de lasNaciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, ARG/08/007, Buenos Aires Agosto, 2008.

30. See Concejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Públicas Sociales, Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, Informe País2007, Presidencia de la Nación, Argentina, Buenos Aires Octubre, 2007, p.77.

31. Success in reducing the proportion of people living in slums (Goal 7, Target 10) would save the lives of children and helpin their education. See UNDP, Human Development Report 2006, Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global WaterCrisis, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2006, p.4.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S2 4

Table 6. Argentina: Progress towards the MDGs, 2000-2007

INDICATORS 2000 2005 2006 2007 2015

MDG 1 – Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

Percentage of population below the indigence line 9 12.2 8.7 <10.8% Eradicate

Percentage of population below the poverty line 33.4 33.8 26.9 <30%

MDG 2 – Achieve Universal Basic Education

Graduation rate (EGB) 66.3 66.4 ... 90.7

Graduation rate (Polymodal) 50.8 48.5 ... 48.5

MDG 3 – Promote Decent Employment

Unemployment rate ... 13.5 11 12 <10%

Unregistered employment rate ... 42.8 40.6 39 <30%

Percentage of unemployed population with socialsecurity coverage

... 11.8 7.8 28 60%

Proportion of workers earning salaries lower the totalBasic Basket

... 54.9 52.2 48 <30%

Children Employment Rate (5 to 14 years of age) ... ... ... 3 Eradicate

MDG 4 – Promote Gender Equality

Female ratio in EGB and Polymodal, Tertiary and Universityeducational level, combined

101.4 104.2 111.0 100 100%

Urban Total Literacy percentage of women 15-24 of age.Urban Total

99.4 99.5 99.5 100 100%

Literacy percentage of men 15-24 of age. Urban Total 99.1 99.2 99.4 100 100%

Share of women in wage employments in thenon-agricultural sector. Urban Total

40.1 42.5 42.4 40 45%

Income wages gap between women and men. Urban total 0.76 0.66 0.7 0.6 0.8%

Ratio between women and men in private and publicexecutive positions. Urban Total

0.5 0.35 0.41 0.4 0.6%

Percentage of seats held by women in the National Congress ... 35 ... 30 45%

Percentage of seats occupied by women in the ProvincialLegislatures

22.2 26.6 ... 30 45%

MDG 5 – Reduce Child Mortality

Child Mortality Rate (per a thousand live births) 16.6 13.3 ... 12.6 8.5%

Child Mortality Rate of minors under 5 years age(per a thousand live births)

19.3 15.5 ... 14.6 9.9%

Gini Coefficient for the Child Mortality Rate. 0.124 0.104 ... 0.116 0.090

Total Country Gini Coefficient for the Child Mortality Rateunder 5.Total Country

0.126 0.102 ... 0.117 0.102

MDG 6 – Improve Maternal Health

Maternal Mortality Rate (per 10,000 live births) Total Country 3.5 3.9 ... 3.7 1.3%

Gini Coefficient for the Maternal Mortality Rate.Total Country 0.436 0.311 ... 0.344 0.311

Percentage of births attended by physicians or midwives 99.1 99.1 ... 99 99%

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 2 5

In Argentina, for example, the La MatanzaPoverty Reduction Project led to positiveexternalities in improved health and child care.

UNDP contribution was made through thesespecific projects as well as through more multi-sectoral interventions such as the NationalHuman Development Reports.

The country office led the formulation of twoNational Human Development Reports. Thefirst, in 2002, was prepared as the crisis wasevolving and focused on poverty reduction,cooperative federalism and sustainable competi-tiveness. It produced an extended HumanDevelopment Index to include social measure-ments, at the provincial levels, that did notpreviously exist. This innovation revealed large

inter-province disparities in the quality of lifeand competitive conditions across the country.The “enhanced index” has had an impact onthe design and implementation of policies andstrategies for local development. The 2002NHDR received in 2004 the UNDP award forexcellence in policy impact.

The second National Human DevelopmentReport entitled “Argentina Después de la Crisis:un Tiempo de Oportunidades, Informe deDesarrollo Humano 2005”, continued to expandthe decentralization themes.This was a good andrelevant choice; as Liliana De Riz32 has put it,“the federal organization is a strategic theme”.This report also examined themes related tobeliefs, perceptions and expectations on the part

32. De Riz, Liliana, ‘Acto de Clausura’, La Construcción del Federalismo Argentino: Perspectivas Comparadas, PNUD, BuenosAires, Argentina, 2004, p.99.

Table 6 (cont-d). Argentina: Progress towards the MDGs, 2000-2007

INDICATORS 2000 2005 2006 2007 2015

MDG 7 – Combat HIV/AIDS,The Cha ngas Disease,Tuberculosis,Malaria

Percentage of HIV pregnant women between 15 and24 years

0.64 0.37 ... 0.35 0.32%

HIV/AIDS Mortality Rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) 4 3.4 ... 3.8 3.5

AIDS Incidence Rate (every 1,000,000 inhabitants) 58 40 ... 42 37

Mortality Rate for Tuberculosis (per 100,000 inhabitants) 2.64 1.85 ... 2.1 1.21

Number of cases of Tuberculosis reported 31.8 29.1 ... ... ...

Malaria: Evolution of Parasite Annual Index 0.148 0.065 ... <0.1* <0.1*

MDG 8 – Ensure Environmental Sustainability

Proportion of surface covered by native forest ... ... ... 10.4 10%

Proportion of total surface of area protected forbiodiversity per year

6.30 7.67 7.71 7.3 > del 10%

Percentage of population with coverage of safe drinkingwater of public network

66.2 77 79 80 90%

Percentage of population with coverage of sewerage 34.3 42.5 45 48 75%

MDG 9 – Promote a Global Partnership for Development**

Note: *Annual Parasite Index (every 1,000 inhabitants). **No se desarrollan indicadores para medir progreso. *** No data.

Source: National Council of the Coordination of Social Policies,Millennium Development Goals: Country Report 2007,The Office of thePresident, Argentina, November, 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S2 6

of Argentineans for themselves and for theirgovernment and the “social contract33”. Thisconceptual innovation produced by an “in-house”interdisciplinary team was highly relevant andhas great potential to favourably influence theeffectiveness of democratic governance, ofpoverty reduction policies and in the achieve-ment of the MDGs. After all, beliefs andexpectations are now considered to be keycomponents in the formulation of public policies.In brief, fairness perception matters for economicand social development.

Increased opportunities for unemployed

Progress made in this area is less evident;however, in the case of the project “UnemployedHeads of Household”, there has been a cleardownward trend in the number of beneficiaries.At the time of its launch in 2002, it included2.2 million beneficiaries. In 2008, this numberwas down to 589,000. This decrease is due to:i) inclusion of the previously unemployed benefi-ciaries into the labour market, which accounts forone third of this reduction, ii) changes in thefamily situation, when there are no longerchildren of the required age or there is loss ofany other requirement such as the work done inexchange for the payment received, which accountsfor one fourth of the decline, iii) transfer of a partof the beneficiary group to another Plan (Families)that grants family allowances, which decreased thenumber by 17 percent, and, iv) Unemploymentand Training Insurance, which helped towards afour percent decrease.

Another initiative that could be consideredrelevant for this outcome is the Global Compact.In April 2004 under the leadership of UNDP

and with the partnership34 of the ECLAC andthe ILO, a group of private-sector firmsconvened to organize and expand the “Red PactoGlobal” Global Compact as one of the mostimportant UN initiatives35 for corporate socialresponsibility involving the private sector, socialorganizations and academia to address thechallenges posed by unemployment. In 2005, thesteering committee of the Argentine GlobalCompact Network was set up with companies,business associations, NGOs, the mass mediaand universities. Since then, the network of theArgentine Global Compact has grown uninter-ruptedly (it currently has 314 signatories), thesteering committee has been reinforced and itscontributions have been reflected in thecompanies’ submission of communications onprogress reports36.

3.3.2 FINDINGS

Overall, it can be said that the projects andinterventions in the area of poverty reductionwere relevant and pertinent in the sense that theyresponded to Argentina’s needs, to the perceptionof those needs by the government, and wereconsistent with the overall institutional UNDPmandate, priorities and strategy. They respondedalso to emergencies requiring prompt answersand initiatives in uncharted roles, as was the casewith the “Dialogo Argentino”. The answer to thequestion of relevance at the end of 2008 and itsevolving conditions and circumstances is morecomplex. The urgency of reducing poverty andinequalities is still a relevant problem. On theother hand, in the current circumstances andoutlook for 2009 and 2010 another relevantchallenge may lie in protecting macroeconomicstability and avoiding the loss of employment and

33. Martinez, Carlos Felipe calls this “the imaginario colectivo”. See Martinez, Carlos Felipe, ‘Prologo’, Informe de DesarrolloHumano 2005, Argentina Después de la Crisis: un Tiempo de Oportunidades, PNUD, Argentina, 2005, p.III.

34. See Oficina del Pacto Global en Argentina, ‘El Pacto Global en Argentina: Documento de Adhesión del Sector PrivadoArgentino’, Buenos Aires, Argentina, April, 2004, p.7.

35. “Ten years on, the Global Compact stands as the world’s largest corporate sustainability initiative. We boast more than6,000 business participants in more than 130 countries. The Global Compact has become a by-word for corporateresponsibility.” The Secretary-General’s Plenary Speech “The Global Compact: Creating Sustainable Markets”, TheWorld Economic Forum, Davos, 29 January 2009.

36. CEPAL, ”Alcances, logros y desafíos del pacto global en Argentina: una visión desde los integrantes, Naciones Unidas,May 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 2 7

income that comes with volatility. The “new”relevant challenge may be ensuring the capacityof social institutions to respond to changingcircumstances. In this context, the country officeinterventions retain relevance particularlythrough the development of partnerships at theprovincial level and through the forthcoming2009 National Human Development Report andits focus on the role of the state as the key socialand political coordinator.

The expected and achieved results and benefits ofmost projects in the area of poverty reductionseem sustainable. There are several reasons tosupport this judgement. Poverty has fallen and,in many cases, the causes that generated it(unemployment) have receded. The generalconditions that demanded the intervention havechanged for the better. But there was one case inwhich those conditions became less propitious(ARG-01-011, Sistema de Insumos Medicos delChaco). The project has not been extended.

More generally speaking, the issue is not only ofsustainability but of adaptability to new challenges37

and circumstances. As was suggested above, whatmay be more relevant in terms of povertyreduction is preventing significant drops in suchlevels and strengthening the safety nets to protectparticularly the poor when these events come aspart of evolving business cycles or of unantici-pated sudden stops. In brief, there is some risk oflow resiliency to changing circumstances in theimmediate future. But at the same time, muchhas been learned from past experiences.

3.4 ENVIRONMENT ANDSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The objectives of the environment and sustainabledevelopment area in UNDP Argentina coincidewith the ones expressed by the government and

are pursued to mainstream an environmentalapproach to the development process by promotingprojects that contribute to sustainable develop-ment and poverty reduction. However, environ-ment and sustainable development are not majorfeatures in UNDP programme in Argentina,representing 7 percent of resources in the firstcountry cooperation framework 2002-2004, and4 percent in the 2005-2008 programming period.

Integrating an environmental approach intopublic policies, along with risk assessment andprevention of natural disasters

The outcome of mainstreaming environmentalapproach and risk management and naturaldisaster prevention into public policies wassatisfactorily achieved. UNDP support to thePlan Estrategico de OrdenamientoTerritorial 2006-2016 (ARG 05/020) has contributed to theprevention of natural disasters. With a thoroughmapping of vulnerabilities and environmentalthreats in all provinces, the Subsecretaria Nacionalde Planificación Territorial de la InversiónPublica has strengthened the platform for riskmanagement and prevention38. A national lawentails the federal strategy for risk prevention andincludes it as a selection criterion for futurefederal investments.The law aims to promote theprevention of natural disasters as a public policy.The challenge remains to translate the federallaw into practice at the provincial level, but thenormative framework provides initial evidence ofthe potential sustainability of the initiative.National representatives highlighted the roleplayed by UNDP in providing technicalassistance and piloting the conceptual frameworkin the provinces of San Juan and Chubut.

Stopping current levels of desertification

As the MDG report39 states on the progressmade toward environmental goals, in the lastdecades Argentina has been facing one of the

37. See Concejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Públicas Sociales, Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, Informe País2007, Presidencia de la Nación, Argentina, Octubre, 2007, p.21.

38. Project ARG/05/020 “National Programme to Prevent and Reduce Risks and Disasters and Favour TerritorialDevelopment”, contributed to including risk prevention and natural disasters management in the StrategicTerritorial Plan.

39. See Concejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Públicas Sociales, Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, Informe País2007, Presidencia de la Nación, Argentina, Octubre, 2007, p.60.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S2 8

highest rates of deforestation in its history. Thereal decrease in the proportion of native forestsand the changes in the use of land as a result ofthe expansion of the agriculture frontier areposing threats to the country’s population byincreasing the risks of floods and droughts.UNDP’s support for native forests by sharinglocal experiences of sustainable management offorests established the bases for developing a newpolicy for the preservation and management ofnative forests.

Increasing conservation and utilizationof biodiversity

A typical DSS project is the Consolidation andImplementation of the Patagonia Coastal ZoneManagement Programme for BiodiversityConservation, (ARG 02/018). UNDP managedfunds from a GEF portfolio financed by the WBfor the Government of Argentina. The projectwas efficiently executed and UNDP’s support inmanaging the funds and the procurement systemwere commended. According to a midtermevaluation report,40 “the project implementingagency (UNDP) has shown a capacity foradaptive management, and has made importantcorrections based on practical experience. Theproject has been implemented extraordinarilywell, and is under budget, on time, and moreactivities have been undertaken than are includedin the project design”. The assessment wasconfirmed by the evaluation team throughinterviews with national counterparts.

The support to the Small Grants Programme inNorthwestern part of the country, where povertyis concentrated and the Human DevelopmentIndex reaches its lowest level, showed goodresults. The project strengthens grass-rootsmovements and civil society organizations,including indigenous people and small farmers,to manage environmental projects at local level.

These projects include integrated watershedmanagement, conservation and reforestation oflocal species, small productive projects and themanagement of solid waste in small cities ofTucuman. These interventions change therationale of environment programmes. Civilsociety organizations implement the projects andstate institutions like National Institute ofApplied Technology (INTA) support them. Theproject identified ongoing initiatives andleveraged their scope. The approach of adaptiveexperimentation together with benefits and realeconomic gains for participants produce moretailored solutions to local environmental needs.

Controlling emissions of ozone-depletingsubstances and persistent organic pollutants

There were other projects, such as controllingemissions of ozone-depleting substances andpersistent organic pollutants, whose outputs wereachieved but whose progress on outcome isdifficult to measure. Assessing UNDP’s contri-bution to outcome presents methodologicalchallenges related in some cases with the absenceof base lines and the initiatives undertakensimultaneously by other development actors41.

3.4.1. FINDINGS

UNDP support for the preparation of a strategicplan for territorial organization as a normativeframework for sustainable development is a goodexample of a contribution to mainstreamingenvironmental issues into public policies. Thecombination of GEF funds available togetherwith UNDP project management capacityallowed for addressing national environmentalchallenges in an appropriate manner. However,the scale of resources allocated to environmentalprojects is insufficient for tackling Argentineanchallenges, as expressed in the progress report onthe MDG. Providing water and sanitation, forexample, remains a huge challenge that will

40. Global Environment Facility GEF Mid-Term Evaluation Report – Consolidation and Implementation of the PatagoniaCoastal Zone Management Programme for Biodiversity Conservation, 2005

41. One exception is the project ARG/05/G61 Institutional Strengthening under the Montreal Protocol, Phase IV,MontrealProtocol Funding. The baseline set by the Ozone Unit, National Environment Secretariat, refers to the amount oftons/year of ozone-depleting chemical substances imported by Argentina. The information is provided by INDEC,Foreign Trade Statistics.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 2 9

require innovative approaches from the threetiers of government plus the active involvementof local population. The efficiency of environ-mental projects was compromised in some casesby institutional changes in the government. Forinstance, the Secretary of Environment haschanged its location in three different ministriesin the period under evaluation, causing operationaldelays after each change.

UNDP effectively provided support to localenvironmental initiatives with the use of its ownresources (XB funds) and a bottom-up approach.However, closing the gap between current trendsand targets requires much more attention fromnational authorities and UNDP. Environmentalissues at national and provincial levels still did notbenefit from the prioritization other areas have inthe formulation of development policies42.

3.5 CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

3.5.1 GENDER MAINSTREAMING

Gender aspects were not mentioned in theprogramming document for 2002-2004. Thecountry programme for 2005-2008 establishesthat, as far as gender equity is concerned, effortswill be directed to ensuring reproductive healthservices and promoting women’s participation inthe process of decision making. The countryprogramme states that it is necessary to takegender aspects into consideration in order tofacilitate the establishment of higher levels ofequity between men and women.

UNDP has demonstrated its commitmenttowards the establishment of higher levels ofequity between men and women. Indeed, it has

established a gender unit with two officers. Theunit coordinator reports directly to the seniormanagement. Since 2006, UNDP hascontributed with XB funds for gendermainstreaming in the country programme.UNDP has developed a strategy for gendermainstreaming, reflecting the course UNDPArgentina has chosen in support of the countryin its mission to reach gender equality43. Thestrategy is framed in the central international andcorporative principles and agreements44 andcontains action lines for internal work in theoffice, external work with stakeholders, as well asprojects and initiatives, and inter-agency work ofthe UN system. Building gender capacities is acentral issue. The internal work in the office isconsidered relevant as it promotes the sensitiza-tion towards the issue of gender and culturalchanges. This is essential for creating a basis forsuccessful gender mainstreaming work outsidethe office. The gender team has worked with theprogramme clusters and counterparts to include agender focus into the projects and programmessince their design.

Although UNDP has clearly intensified itsefforts to ensure that a focus on gender is wellintegrated into its initiatives, the results are notyet visible in the ongoing interventions. Thisobservation is understandable given that moreconcentrated work on gender mainstreaming hasbegun only recently. There has been the activeparticipation of women in the sample project andinitiatives45. Stakeholders pointed out that insome DSS projects questions regarding genderwere not relevant46. In some cases, stakeholdersadmitted that gender mainstreaming is still “apending issue” and that the main obstacle forsuccessful work is a “certain cultural resistance”.

42. Homero Bibiloni, Algunas condiciones para el salto cualitativo a la cuestión ambiental en la Argentina. En Brown, A;Martinez Ortiz, U; Acerbi,M y Corcuera, J. La situación ambiental argentina 2005. FVSA, Buenos Aires, 2006. p. 507

43. UNDP Argentina, Challenges of Gender Equality in Argentina. A strategy by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme”, UNDP, Buenos Aires, 2008.

44. These include the FourthWorld Conference onWomen, Beijing, 1995; International Human Right Treaties; and UNDPGender Equality Strategy, 2008-2011.

45. Heads of Household, Political reform of Buenos Aires, Water authority in the municipality of Moreno, Citizens’ audit,and Food Management Policy programme.

46. Generalization of computerized systems in the Ministry of Economy, sanitary management programme in the munici-pality of Matanza.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S3 0

A favourable political climate for promotingequality between men and women is observed.The governmental stakeholders share a strategicvision about the importance of gender main-streaming. For example, the Ministry ofEmployment has established that all policiesshould include a focus on gender. There is aNational Commission for Women. Equally,Argentina has ratified key internationalagreements. UNDP has produced severalstudies47 related to the theme that could serve asaccess points for outreach and advocacy.

3.5.2 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

Capacity development is one of the strategicaction lines in the country programme for 2005-2008. Special attention has been given to themanagement of programmes and projects.UNDP has moved primarily to full nationalexecution modality (NEX), according to whichthe government assumes the full executionresponsibility of projects within a legalframework that allows for the benefits from thecooperation with UNDP.

A recent evaluation of the contribution made bythe United Nations Development Group (UNDG)to the implementation of the Paris Declarationon Aid Effectiveness states: “The UNDG shouldincrease the use of national systems for supportservices. This will benefit the partner countries; willstrengthen national capacities and reduce transactioncosts48.” Adhering to these recommendations, thischapter concentrates on the assessment ofUNDP’s contribution to the strengthening ofgovernment’s implementation capacities.

UNDP Argentina has increasingly combinedadministrative services (DSS) with technical

assistance for capacity building. Simultaneously,the government’s demand for administrativeservices continues to be strong. A recent UNDPevaluation of the government purchase andrecruitment system acknowledged that, in recentyears, there has been a tendency from nationaljurisdictions to ask third-party organizations, forexample UNDP, to offer their procurementservices49.This is because jurisdictions have foundUNDP’s mechanism to be highly competent,efficient, economical, and transparent, comparedwith the mechanism used by the government.

Government stakeholders are well aware of theneed for strengthening the public administrationsystem but as several national counterparts havedeclared, “UNDP tools are still needed”.Evaluation of the government purchase andrecruitment system confirms that the administra-tion and especially procurement services forprogrammes, which began at the time of thecrisis, has not ceased. In addition, there is noevidence to suggest a tendency that jurisdictionswould have the incentives to administer procure-ments by their own means, through the publicprocurement systems.

According to stakeholders, one of the require-ments for an effective public administration is toknock down certain cultural barriers that affectcivil servants. UNDP has been successful inimproving work motivation through theprovision of more meaningful work content. Inthe Modernization of the Province of Córdobaprogramme, the learning process related tohuman resources was a success as the use ofinformation by means of modern systems wasincorporated into the culture of public adminis-tration. In other cases, the efficient, effectiveand transparent way of administration required

47. For example, the analysis on the existing gender gaps in Argentina “Negociación colectiva y equidad de género en el periodo2003-2007” (Collective negotiation and gender equality in 2003-2007), carried out with the support of the PovertyReduction Thematic Trust Fund on “Poverty reduction, gender equality and female labor market”. “Las Legisladoras.Cupos de Género y Política en Argentina y Brasil” (Women legislators. Gender Quotas and Politics in Argentina and Brazil),Editorial Siglo XXI, Instituto Di Tella and UNDP, 2007,

48. United Nations Development Group, ‘Evaluation of the UNDG Contribution to the Implementation of the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness’, UNDP, 2008, p. 48.

49. UNDP, ‘Evaluación del sistema de compras y contrataciones gubernamentales (Evaluation of the government purchaseand recruitment system)’, UNDP Argentina project FO/ARG/06/011, July 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 3 1

by UNDP projects has served as an example forthe counterparts50.

During the current country programme, UNDPhas been efficient in incorporating trainedtechnical human resources (originally hiredthrough UNDP-supported projects) into theordinary structure of partner institutions. In thecase of the “Heads of Household” programme,100 percent of the Secretary of Employment wason UNDP’s payroll in 2004. At present, over 75percent of the workforce is part of the Secretary’spayroll, including all ordinary line functions. Asimilar tendency is confirmed in other projects51.In addition, UNDP has increasingly started towork with the existing technical workforce ofinstitutions, instead of hiring new personnel forproject purposes52.

UNDP has been successful in its support forstrengthening implementation capacities. A goodpractice of organizational development is foundespecially in the municipality of La Matanza andto some extent in the province of Chaco asillustrated in Box 2.

The use of the full NEX modality has increasedduring the last programming period, which, inprinciple, implies stronger national ownershipthrough the institutional responsibility forproject administration. In practice, many of thefull NEX projects are still managed throughseparate project implementation units (PIUs).Generally speaking, stakeholders still perceiveUNDP project implementation units as “isolatedislands” within the institutions, with littlerelation to the regular administration structure.This was the case particularly for projects withIFI’s funding. The national systems for procure-ment, recruitment, evaluation and monitoring arenot normally used.

According to the stakeholders, UNDP offersregular training on NEX guidelines to ensure atransparent and efficient project management.New projects are also subject to “ex-ante evalua-tions” which focus on capacity building53 and theestimation of risks involved. The stakeholdershave also noticed UNDP’s efforts to strengthenthe exit strategies. Despite these initiatives, the

50. For example, local counterparts in the “Food management policy” programme51. Projects include: Management of solid residues in the city of Mar de Plata, Sanitary management programme in themunicipality of Matanza and, Conservation of biological diversity project.

52. For example: Institutional capacity of the population’s registry in Buenos Aires.53. Assessment of institutional capacity according to background, experience, strategies, priorities and the normative frame-work of the government’s agency, in conjunction with the proposed specific institutional arrangements for the executionof the project.

Box 2: Capacity Development in Medicine Supply Programmes

In La Matanza and Chaco, UNDP development support services have been combined with technical assistancefor capacity building to facilitate provision of medical supplies to citizens. Essentially, UNDP has promoted theimprovement of mechanisms,methodologies and quality control of medicine procurement under an integratedvision of public health combining informatization of procurement processes with different types of expertise.In the municipality of La Matanza, a special division of public health procurement has been established withinthe institutional structure of the provincial Secretary of Public Health. In Chaco, the establishment of a ProvincialCommission of Medicine Management has encouraged a multidisciplinary and specialized approach to medicineprocurement. In the case of La Matanza, the monitoring and evaluation practices for quality control of publicprocurements have been integrated into other areas of the municipal administration. However, in the provinceof Chaco the utility of the procurement systems developed was compromised because of the unwillingness ofcertain other areas of provincial administration to modify their practices. Since the required modifications forthe normative frameworks were not approved, the project benefits were not generalized into the provincialprocurement system. Both cases demonstrate UNDP’s success in supporting management structures, processesand procedures under an integrated view that brings efficiency gains and reduced transaction costs bycombining technical and administrative capacities.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S3 2

strengthening of administrative implementationcapacities of institutions has been limited, insome cases, to developing the capacity to executethe UNDP project in question.

Strengthening administrative capacity andpublic management systems in an integral way isstill a challenge for UNDP. Effective capacitybuilding demands a link to a broader set ofinstitutional reforms. This requires buildingpolitical commitment, sponsoring capacitydevelopment among key stakeholders andembedding capacity development into broadernational development priorities54.

The use of DSS may be justified in specific caseswhen combined with a clear exit strategy andtechnical assistance for the capacity developmentof public management. UNDP’s technicalassistance should contribute to resolving bottle-necks that make the administration services ofUNDP essential. The use of pure DSS involvesthe risk of substituting the implementationcapacity of the public institution in question as aconsequence of efficiency gains in the short run,an unplanned outcome counter to the corecapacity mandate of UNDP55.

The Argentina country office worked for thereinforcement of an “evaluation culture”. Therewere several examples of self-evaluations and ofin-house initiatives in terms of monitoring,evaluation and compliance with a 2005 internalaudit recommendations. Senior staff is fullyaware that evaluations are a major source oflearning and can enhance the developmentaleffectiveness of projects and interventions. Thereis also a formal process for strengtheningmonitoring and evaluation on several workfronts, including the possibility of providing it asa service line. However, outcome evaluations inmain UNDP practice areas were not conductedin the period under evaluation.

UNDP proposes, as a part of the management,monitoring and evaluation of the 2005-2008country programme, to deepen the topic ofknowledge management and communication fordevelopment while recognizing the importanceof effective communication so as to attain thedesired development outcomes.

3.5.3 UNITED NATIONS COORDINATION

The resident coordination of the UN System inArgentina was strengthened during the periodunder evaluation. Various stakeholders pointedout the important role played by the UN withone voice in at least three different occasions.Thefirst and most visible was in the preparation,implementation and follow-up to the DialogoArgentino with dialogue roundtables organized in2002 to help the country get out of its politicaland economic crisis.

UNDP took a lead role in the facilitation of thepolitical dialogue, and the participation of allagencies, funds and programmes present inArgentina was necessary to provide adequatetechnical support for the negotiation processes.The priority goal was the fight against poverty;additionally several thematic roundtables wereorganized to address issues such as, health,education, reform of the judiciary, reform of thepolitical system and, most importantly, theroundtable on socio-labour and productive issues.The role played by the UN system helped torapidly identify social security programmes likethe Heads of Households programme thattransferred cash to poor families.

Secondly, under the leadership of the NationalCouncil for the Coordination of Social Policies(Consejo Nacional de Coordinación de PolíticasSociales), the government launched in 2007 a thirdcountry report tracking progress on the achieve-ment of the MDGs. The UN agencies, fundsand programmes were actively involved in the

54. UNDP, ‘Supporting capacity development – The UNDP approach’, Capacity Development Group, Bureau ofDevelopment Policy, New York, June 2008.

55. The UNDP Corporate Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, attributes capacity development to the organization’s core contribu-tion to development.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 3 3

preparation of the MDG reports with data andtechnical expertise.

Thirdly, the UN country team, consisting ofECLAC, FAO, ILO, IMF, PAHO/WHO,UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNIC,UNICEF, UNIDO, UNIFEM and World Bank,is actively engaged with the Ministry of ForeignAffairs in the preparation of the first UNDAF.UNDAF is not a corporate requirement forArgentina, however, the Government and seniormanagement in the UNCT have deemed itappropriate to have a strategic frameworkorienting and coordinating the UN systemefforts in support of national development goals.

Various stakeholders recognized the coordinationrole played by UNDP within the UN system.However, there were also expressions of concernregarding the “distracting” role that its concen-tration on DSS could exercise over advocacyinitiatives of other UN agencies, funds andprogrammes and the normative role the UNsystem can play in the country.

The coordination of the UN System has beenstrengthened in the period under evaluationand several members of the UN CountryTeam reaffirmed the need to have a commonstrategic framework to align the initiatives fromUN agencies funds and programmes to thegovernment’s priorities in a more cohesive andeffective manner.

3.6 STRATEGIC POSITIONING

The key partners acknowledge UNDP as aprestigious organization with the potential tobring legitimacy, neutrality, credibility andknowledge into the development process.They also consider UNDP as a highly effectivepartner that has demonstrated accountability and

transparency. The private sector and civil societyorganizations appreciate UNDP’s proximity tothe government, as it enables stronger partner-ships with governmental bodies. Many of thegovernmental partners interviewed recognizedthe importance of maintaining strong allianceswith other development actors56.

However, some partners expressed concern aboutUNDP’s role in the administration of govern-ment resources since it may limit its advocacyrole for public policies. In general, partners findpositive UNDP’s move towards a strategic role asan advisory and knowledge organization. Thedirect counterparts have noticed a transformationin UNDP’s cooperation practices and workingmechanisms.Explicitly, there is more of an emphasison exit strategies, increased technical assistanceand a stricter attitude towards DSS support.

The evaluation identifies an opportunity in usingcommunication for development as a tool toposition UNDP more strategically. Specifically,communication has great potential to deliver theownership and participation required to achievethe MDGs and other development results.Further, communication for development hasthe potential to facilitate public debates, and tobring UN agencies together in the perception ofbroader development actors.

One feature contributing to the strategicpositioning of the country office has to do withthe human factor endowment. There is littledoubt that in this respect the country office hasbeen moving in the right direction and alreadyhas a highly qualified senior staff in charge ofits programmes. There was not a single occasionin which stakeholders outside the country officedid not praise the professional quality of thatstaff. Having a well-qualified technical staff isof immense relevance57. Such human factor

56. Good experiences in partnering with civil society actors, for example, in the Heads of household and Food managementpolicy programmes.

57. In 2004, 70 percent of the staff had at least a university degree and in 2008 that percentage increased to 81 percent. Asregards the number of staff members with Master’s and PhDs, in 2004 it was 42 percent and in 2008, 53 percent.

C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S3 4

endowment in most likely the source of newinformation and information is the emergingparadigm to complete economic and politicalmarkets. Although a well-qualified technical staffis not a full guarantee of relevance success anddevelopmental effectiveness, its absence is closeto a guarantee of lacklustre performance.

The UNDP country programme recognizes theimportance of working with a wide variety ofpartners at the central, provincial and local levels toachieve the expected outcomes58. UNDP´s primarypartners are national governments. In the case ofArgentina, the UNDP country programme putsemphasis on strengthening the coordinationbetween different government agencies anddifferent levels of government including thenational, provincial and municipal authorities.

The evaluation finds that UNDP has strength-ened its partnership with local and provincialgovernments. After the identification of the“critical zone” in 2005, UNDP has increased itspartnership with Northern provinces andmunicipalities of the country. The evaluationfinds that the support provided to local andprovincial authorities is particularly strong in theareas of poverty reduction (promotion of theMDGs) and the environment.

Under the evaluation criteria that includerelevance, responsiveness, equity and quality ofpartnerships to assess strategic positioning, theevaluation team considers that the country officeis well poised to continue to nurture and expanda more strategic role for itself as a developmentpartner in Argentina.

58. In addition to local, provincial and central governments, the country programme makes reference to faith groups, the pri-vate sector, civil society organizations, international financial institutions, bilateral donors and the media.

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N C L U S I O N S , L E S S O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 3 5

4.1 CONCLUSIONS

The following are the main conclusions ofthe evaluation:

1. UNDP’scooperationprogrammeinArgentinawas aligned to national priorities anddemonstrated a responsive capacity toemerging development challenges such asthe crisis of 2001. UNDP’s cooperationframeworks and the objectives pursued wereconsistent with national development needsand were considered relevant. The organiza-tion has also demonstrated good capacity toadapt to changing development circum-stances and flexibly adjusted the portfolio ofprojects to respond to the agreements thatemerged from the Argentinean Dialogueafter the crisis of 2001.

2. When requested by the national govern-ment, UNDP had the capacity to play therole of a convener and honest broker bybringing together development actors fromgovernment, civil society and the politicalsystem at the federal, provincial andmunicipal levels to face common challenges.The most important development actors ofArgentina, including political parties, faith-based groups among Catholics, Protestants,Jews and Muslims, civil society organiza-tions, academics and the media gathered todeliberate at the Argentinean Dialogue andfound solutions to the political, institutionaland economic crises facing the country.UNDP played a key role in that process.After the crisis, the political systemreassumed its capacity. However, the cultureof dialogue continued and permeated discus-sions at the national, provincial and

municipal levels with the support of variousUNDP projects reaffirming the democraticvalues of Argentinean society.

3. The technical and analytical capacity ofUNDP staff is widely valued andrecognized.Engaging in a policy dialogue inArgentina, a country with a sophisticatedprofessional and intellectual capacity ischallenging. UNDP had established not onlya reputation for efficient project administra-tion capacity but also a reputation forconducting significant contributions to theanalysis of development challenges from ahuman development perspective. The designand implementation of new projects werepraised by national counterparts along withthe technical capacity of UNDP staff.

4. Some development actors perceive UNDPmainly as a resource administrator, hence,not recognizing its full potential role as adevelopment partner in Argentina. Keypartners acknowledge UNDP as a prestigiousorganization with the potential to bring legiti-macy, neutrality, credibility and knowledgeinto the development process. However, somepartners expressed concern about UNDP’sconcentration on the administration ofgovernment resources. This concentrationposes risks since it may limit its advocacy rolefor promoting public policies with a humandevelopment perspective.

5. The sustainability of some UNDP inter-ventions was questioned and these didnot always develop sufficiently their exitstrategies. More attention needs to be paidto the sustainability of the benefits andresults of UNDP-supported interventions. In

Chapter 4

CONCLUSIONS, LESSONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N C L U S I O N S , L E S S O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S3 6

some cases, it was identified that the benefitsceased after the conclusion of UNDP projects.The strengthening of administrative imple-mentation capacities of institutions has beenlimited, in those cases, to developing thecapacity to execute UNDP projects withoutclear exit strategies. That was particularly thecase for projects of an administrative nature.

6. The project portfolio dedicated toDevelopment Support Services (DSS)did decrease significantly in the time underevaluation screening a positive trend towardsa more value-added portfolio, in terms oftechnical assistance and attention paidto designing exit strategies. Since 2003UNDP has contributed to the formulationand, most importantly, to the execution ofvarious government emergency programmesin response to the crisis. Many of theseprogrammes had ended by 2005. In addition,the “strategic turn” implemented since 2005has resulted in a more balanced programmeportfolio, as the share of big DSS projects hasdiminished considerably.

7. The “giro estrategico” has been a positiveshift into the right direction. The directionof the “strategic turn” encompassed an institu-tional and capacity-building strategy, focusingon the articulation of demands for a greaterand better quality social bond to humandevelopment; strengthening citizens’ capacitiesfor action and participation in a morecomplex and uncertain context; and deepeninga territorial presence particularly in thoseprovinces and municipalities with the lowestHDIs and greater disparities. These orienta-tions together with more emphasis ondesigning exit strategies for new projects areseen as a positive shift.

4.2 LESSONS LEARNED

UNDP operations in Argentina bring two potentiallessons learned for the organization corporately:

a. The importance of a highly qualified humanfactor endowment for providing technicalassistance in middle-income countries.

Having a well-qualified technical staff isof immense relevance for UNDP’s work.Understanding the needs and developmentchallenges of the country in the areas of povertyreduction, fostering democratic governanceand promoting environmental sustainabilityand being able to provide sound policy advicerequires a sophisticated professional team.Such human factor endowment is most likelythe source of new information and informa-tion is the emerging paradigm to completeeconomic and political markets. Althougha well-qualified technical staff is not a fullguarantee of relevance and developmentaleffectiveness, its absence is close to a guaranteeof lacklustre performance.

b. The need of a strategic cooperationframework for the UN system, even if it isnot a corporate requirement, enhances theopportunity for more coherent andeffective UN cooperation. An effectivecoordination of the United Nations system ina country that almost reached the status ofnet contributor country can be enhanced bya strategic framework such as the onedeveloped by Argentina Country Team inthe United Nations Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF). The existence of theUNDAF enhances the probabilities ofindentifying synergies among agencies andmore direct coordination around the achieve-ment of development outcomes.

4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The main recommendations of the evaluation areas follows:

1. Support institutional capacity developmentwith a long-term perspective of recoveringthe strategic role of the state in promotinginclusive and sustainable human develop-ment. Effective capacity building demands alink to a broader set of institutional reforms.This requires building political commitment,sponsoring capacity development among keystakeholders, and embedding capacitydevelopment into broader national develop-ment priorities.

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N C L U S I O N S , L E S S O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 3 7

2. Continue supporting dialogue and deliber-ative mechanisms among different levels ofgovernment and society (national, provin-cial and municipal) to reach agreements onhow to reduce regional and local disparitiesunder the MDGs’ conceptual framework.UNDP should continue playing a convenerrole fostering democratic values embedded inthe practice of deliberation and dialoguearound the main development challengesfaced by Argentina, particularly in theinterfaces of the three levels of government.UNDP should fully capitalize the identifiedopportunities such as strengthening the useof knowledge network and products, andinclude more actors beyond the immediatestakeholders, to leverage and improve thequality of its partnerships.

3. Continuedevelopingand fostering inter-sectorinitiatives such as the ones recommendedin national Human Development ReportsandMDGs reports based on new diagnosesand empirical evidence about the develop-ment constraints facedbyArgentina.NationalHuman Development Reports proved to besignificant contributions to advancing thedebate around public policies with a humandevelopment perspective and a multi-dimensional approach. The evidence-basedquality of the analysis together with theadvocacy capacity of UNDP can be furtherutilized to address sensitive development issues.

4. Deepen the “Giro Estrategico” and thepolicy advice and technical cooperationrole played by UNDP in the formulation ofpublic policies with a human developmentperspective. The Giro Estrategico is a shiftin the right direction and needs to besustained. The UNDP project portfolio still

has room for improvement and the interven-tions can still work on the link to capacitydevelopment, its value added in terms ofpolicy advice and a reduction of DSS projectsof an administrative nature.

5. Ensure the sustainability of the benefits ofUNDP interventions once they are finishedby properly considering exit strategies.There are several ways to address the needfor sustaining the benefits of UNDP-supported projects. These include ensuringthe necessary institutional level of ownershipover the interventions and ensuring thefinancial support from national fundingsources once UNDP support has ceased.

6. Support the systematization and lessonslearned from good practices undertaken bythe Argentinean government in theframework of South-South Cooperation.The enhanced monitoring and evaluation ofUNDP interventions can assist in thesystematization of good practices and lessonslearned that can be of relevance to otherdevelopment initiatives within and beyondthe purview of the UNDP cooperationprogramme for Argentina.

7. Ensure the capacity response of UNDP toemerging consequences of global recessionand its impact on Argentina by adopting aflexible approach to programming. UNDPin Argentina should keep its capacity responseto ever-emerging development challengesfaced by the country. It will be necessary thatthe next country programme preserve aflexible approach to address, in close collabo-ration and partnership with the nationalgovernment, the unexpected consequences ofthe current global financial crisis.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 3 9

1. BACKGROUND

The Evaluation Office (EO) of the UnitedNations Development Program (UNDP) regularlyconducts a number of country evaluations calledAssessments of Development Results (ADRs) inorder to capture and demonstrate the evaluativeevidence of UNDP’s contributions to develop-ment results at the country level. Undertakenin selected countries, the ADRs focus onoutcomes and critically examine achievementsand constraints in the UNDP thematic areas offocus, draw lessons learned, and providerecommendations for the future. The ADRs alsoprovide strategic analysis for enhancing perform-ance and strategically positioning UNDPsupport within national development prioritiesand UNDP corporate policy directions59. Theoverall goals of the ADR are to:

� Provide substantive support to theAdministrator’s accountability function inreporting to the Executive Board.

� Serve as a means of quality assurance forUNDP interventions at the country level.

� Generate lessons from experience to informcurrent and future programming at thecountry and corporate levels.

� Provide stakeholders in the programmecountry with an objective assessment of theresults (specific outcomes) that have beenachieved through UNDP support andpartnerships with other key actors during agiven multi-year period.

An ADR is planned for the Republic ofArgentina to be conducted during 2008. It willcover the last programming cycle from 2004-2008 as well as some of the previous years.

2. OBJECTIVES OFTHE ASSESSMENT

The purpose of the evaluation is to assessUNDP’s contributions to development resultsand strategic positioning in Argentina, drawlessons learned and outline options for improve-ments. The ADR in Argentina will:

� Provide an independent assessment ofdevelopment results at the country level,which were achieved through UNDPsupport and in partnership with otherdevelopment actors during the last five toseven years; particular emphasis will beplaced on UNDP’s Country Programme,assessing its relevance, efficiency, effective-ness and sustainability of results.

� Contribute to accountability and to learningfrom experience, taking into account self-evaluations (project and outcome evalua-tions) and the role of development partners.

� Provide an analysis of how UNDP haspositioned itself to add value in response tonational needs and changes in the nationaldevelopment context.

� Present key findings, draw key lessons, andprovide a set of clear and forward-lookingoptions for the management to make adjust-ments in the current strategy and nextCountry Programme.

3. RATIONALE FOR THE EVALUATION

The completion of the 2004-2008 CountryCooperation Framework (CCF) presents anopportunity to evaluate the achievements andresults over the past programme cycle and before.

Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

59. http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/Evaluation-Policy.pdf

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E4 0

The findings will be used as inputs to the 2009-2011 Country Programme Document (CPD)within the context of the new UNDAF.

4. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

The ADR will review the UNDP experience inthe Republic of Argentina and its contribution tothe solution of social, economic and politicalchallenges. UNDP programme in Argentina forthe period 2005-2008 focuses on four keythematic areas: democratic governance, socialdevelopment, development of local enterpriseand environment for sustainable development.Annual programme expenditure during the lastthree years ranges approximately between US$215 million and 321 million60.These volumes aremainly due to development services provided tothe government at the national and local level.UNDP country office in Argentina is a case inpoint for the analysis of the potential tensionsbetween effective resource mobilization strategiesand the relevance and effectiveness of UNDPcontributions to human development at thecountry level.

Gender, environment and national capacitydevelopment will be addressed and analysed ascross-cutting issues.

The evaluation will undertake a comprehensivereview of the UNDP programme portfolio andactivities during the period under review. It willassess key results, specifically outcomes – antici-pated and unanticipated, positive and negative –and will cover UNDP assistance funded fromboth core and non-core resources. Specifically,the ADR will address:

a) Relevance.The evaluation will examine howrelevant UNDP programmes are to thecountry needs and priorities. In other words,did UNDP apply the right developmentstrategy within the specific political,economic and social context of the Republicof Argentina?

b) Effectiveness. Did the UNDP programmeaccomplish its intended objectives andplanned results? What are the strengths andweaknesses of the programme? What are theunexpected results? Should it continue in thesame direction or should its main tenets bereviewed for the new cycle?

c) Sustainability. Are development results,achieved through UNDP contribution,sustainable? Do they ensure sustainabilitywith a focus on national ownership, anenabling policy environment, capacitydevelopment, gender equality, human rightsand other key drivers UNDP considers inassessing development effectiveness?

In addition, the evaluation will analyse thestrategic positioning of UNDP by:

� ascertaining the relationship of UNDPsupport to national needs, development goalsand priorities, including its relevance andlinkages to the goal of reducing poverty andother MDGs

� assessing how UNDP anticipated andresponded to significant changes in thenational development context affectingpoverty reduction and governance reform forsustainable development

� reviewing the synergies and alignment ofUNDP support with other initiatives andpartners, including the United NationsDevelopment Assistance Framework(UNDAF), the Global CooperationFramework (GCF) and the RegionalCooperation Framework (RCF) as well ashow UNDP has coordinated its work withother development partners

� considering the influence of systemic issues,i.e. policy and administrative constraintsaffecting the programme, on both the donorand the programme county sides, as well ashow the development results achieved and

60. ATLAS SNAPSHOT at 12 March 2008

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 4 1

the partnerships established have contributedto ensure the relevance and strategic positionof UNDP.

5. METHODOLOGY

The assessment will use a multiple-methodapproach that includes desk reviews, workshopsand meetings, group and individual interviews atboth headquarters and field levels. The appropri-ate methodology will be refined during thescoping mission and after discussions betweenthe team of evaluators and various stakeholders.

The evaluation team will examine, whenappropriate, overall programming frameworks(UNDAF, CCA, CPD, CPAP SRF/ROAR etc.)which give an overall picture of the countrycontext.The team will also consider select projectdocuments and Programme Support Documentsas well as any reports from monitoring andevaluation at country level. Statistical data will beassessed where useful. The evaluation team willtriangulate among different data sources and typeto validate the findings.

A strong participatory approach, involvingconcerned stakeholders is envisaged. The identi-fication of the stakeholders, including represen-tatives of government ministries/agencies, civilsociety organizations, private sector, UN agencies,multilateral organizations, bilateral donors, andbeneficiaries will take place. The team will visitsignificant project/field sites as required.

The ADR will follow the guidelines developedby the Evaluation Office in 2006. According tothese guidelines, the process can be divided inthree phases, each including several steps.

PHASE 1: PREPARATORY PHASE

� Desk review – The EO will carry out a deskreview in close consultation with the evalua-tion team leader, the country office and theRegional Bureau for Latin America and theCaribbean (RBLAC) based on the keyquestions for the evaluation developed by theEO task manager and evaluation team leaderin consultation with RBLAC.

� Scoping mission – The evaluation team willconduct a brief mission to the country todefine the scope, identify stakeholders, andcollect additional data and complete theevaluability assessment. The team leader andthe EO task manager will participate in thescoping mission.

� Inception report – An inception reportincluding the final evaluation design andplan will provide the background to theevaluation, key evaluation questions, detailedmethodology, information sources andinstruments and plan for data collection, designfor data analysis, and format for reporting.

PHASE 2: CONDUCTING ADR ANDDRAFTING EVALUATION REPORT

� ADR mission of data collection and valida-tion – The main mission of two weeks will beconducted by the independent evaluationteam, led by the evaluation team leader.

� Analysis and reporting – The informationcollected will be analysed in the draft ADRreport by the evaluation team within threeweeks after the departure of the team fromthe country. The draft will be subject tofactual corrections by key clients and to atechnical review by the EO. The team leadershall be responsible for finalizing the ADRreport based on these final reviews. Whilefinalizing the report, the team leader willconsult closely with the EO task manager.

PHASE 3: FOLLOW-UP

� Stakeholder meeting – A meeting with thekey national stakeholders will be organizedto present the results of the evaluation. Thecomments will be incorporated into the finalevaluation report by the team leader.

� Management response – The preparation ofthe management response and tracking itsimplementation will be undertakeninternally by UNDP.

� Learning events – The dissemination of thereport’s findings shall serve the purpose oforganizational learning, as part of the overallEO dissemination and outreach strategy.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E4 2

6. EXPECTED OUTPUTS

The expected outputs are:

� An inception report (maximum 20 pages)

� A comprehensive final report on theRepublic of the Argentina Assessment ofDevelopment Results. (maximum 50 pagesplus annexes)

The final report of the ADR to be produced bythe evaluation team should at the least contain:

� Executive summary of conclusions andrecommendations

� Background, with analysis of country context

� Strategic positioning and programme relevance

� Programme performance

� Lessons learned and good practices

� Findings and recommendations

� Annexes (terms of reference, list of personsmet, documentation reviewed, statistics, etc.)

7. EVALUATION TEAM

An international consultancy firm will undertakethe assessment and will designate an evaluationteam. The team will comprise three consultants,one of whom will be the team leader, a teamspecialist with specific skills in topical areasrelevant to the evaluation, and a national consult-ant with extensive knowledge of the countrysituation. The team leader must have ademonstrated capacity in strategic thinking andpolicy advice and in the evaluation of complexprogrammes in the field. The team membersshould have in-depth knowledge of develop-ments in Latin America and Argentina in partic-ular. Familiarity with internal functioning ofUNDP, its different execution modalities,

financial arrangements and cost recovery strate-gies will be a plus.

The composition of the evaluation team shallreflect the independence and the substantiveresults-focus of the evaluation. The evaluationinternational consultancy firm will be selected byUNDP EO.

8. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTSAND DURATION OF THEASSIGNMENT

EO will manage the evaluation and ensurecoordination and liaison with RBLAC andother concerned units at headquarters level. TheEO task manager will manage the evaluationprocess, in close consultation with RBLAC andArgentina CO management.

The CO will take a lead role in organizingdialogue and stakeholder meetings on thefindings and recommendations, support theevaluation team in liaison with the key partnersand discussions with the team, and makeavailable to the team all the material that isavailable. The office will provide support tologistics and planning.

The expected duration of the assignment mayrange between 45 to 60 working days for theteam leader and 30 to 40 working days for theinternational consultant. The engagement of thenational consultant may not exceed 25 days.

The EO will meet all costs directly related to theconduct of the ADR. These will include costsrelated to participation of the team leader,international and national consultants, as well asthe preliminary research and the issuance of thefinal ADR report. The CO will contributesupport in kind. EO will also cover costs of anystakeholder workshops as part of the evaluation.

A N N E X 2 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 4 3

Rodolfo Ojea Quintana, Secretary, InternationalCooperation and Coordination Secretariat,Ministry of Foreign Affairs, InternationalTrade and Worship

Luis Franganillo, Chief Advisor to the Secretaryof International Cooperation andCoordination, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,International Trade and Worship

Pedro Avalos, Project General Coordinator,International Cooperation andCoordination Secretariat, Ministry ofForeign Affairs, International Trade andWorship

Julia Levy, National Director for InternationalCooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,International Trade and Worship

Florencio Aníbal Randazzo, Minister of theInterior, Ministry of the Interior

Marcio Barbosa, Secretary of the Interior,Ministry of the Interior

Emilio Pereyra Iraola, Advisor to the NationalDirector, National Civil Registry, Ministryof the Interior

Mora Arqueta, National Director, NationalCivil Registry, Ministry of the Interior

Juan Carlos Tedesco, Minister of Education,Ministry of Education

Juan Manuel Abal Medina, Cabinet andPublic Management Secretary, Chief ofCabinet Ministry

Pamela Nilus, Director, Strengthening ofDemocracy, Chief of Cabinet Ministry

Marta A. Oyhanarte, Under-secretariat forInstitutional Reform, Chief ofCabinet Ministry

Marcela Lacueva Barragán, Coordinator of theProject “Building Bridges”, Citizens’ AuditProgramme, Under-secretariat forInstitutional Reform, Chief ofCabinet Ministry

Fernando Jaime, Coordinator, Cabinet andPublic Management Secretariat, Chief ofCabinet Ministry

José Maria Musmeci, Under-secretary forPlanning and Environmental Policies,The Environment and SustainableDevelopment Secretariat

Antonio De Nichilo, General Coordinator,Project on Marine Biodiversity,The Environment and SustainableDevelopment Secretariat

Marcelo Morando, Technical Coordinator,Project on Desertification Control inPatagonia, The Environment andSustainable Development Secretariat

Sergio Mario la Rocca, Coordinator, Unit forthe Management of Native Forests andtheir Biodiversity, The Environment andSustainable Development Secretariat

Laura Lucia Belfer, Coordinator, Project onCoastal Pollution, The Environment andSustainable Development Secretariat

Mario Daniel Arce, Management Coordinator,Ministry of Defense and Chief of Staff ofthe Armed Forces

Ruben Oscar Barros, Head of EnvironmentalSafety Department, EnvironmentalProtection Directorate Safety Bureau,Argentine Coast Guard

Enrique Deibe, Secretary of Employment,Ministry of Labour, Employment andSocial Security

Marta Novick, Under-secretary for TechnicalProgramming and Labour Studies, Ministryof Labour, Employment and Social Security

Norberto Ciaravino, Chief Advisor to Minister,Ministry of Labour, Employment andSocial Security

Annex 2

LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED

A N N E X 2 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D4 4

Héctor Palomino, Director, Studies on LabourRelations, Ministry of Labour, Employmentand Social Security

Martín Pablo Abeles, Economic PolicySecretary, Ministry of Economy

Aldo Rosenberg, Director, Automated Systems,Ministry of Economy

Gabriela Gallarati, Advisor, Legal and TechnicalSecretariat, Ministry of Economy

Aldo Ferrer, Former Finance Minister, Ministryof Economy

Roberto Lavagna, Former Finance Minister,Ministry of Economy

Jorge Carreras, Deputy Manager for Research,Argentine Central Bank

Martín Grass, Under-secretary for HumanRights Promotion, Human RightsSecretariat, Ministry of Justice, Securityand Human Rights

Gustavo F. Bianchi, Advisor, Human RightsSecretariat, Ministry of Justice, Securityand Human Rights

Matilde Morales, Executive Secretary, NationalCouncil for Social Policy Coordination –The President’s Office

Luis Di Pietro, Coordinator, Project onMillennium Development Goals, NationalCouncil for Social Policy Coordination,The President’s Office

Víctor Houdin, Operational Director, NationalProgramme for Food Security, Ministry ofSocial Development

Miriam Rangone, General Coordinator, Projectto Support Food Policy Management,Ministry of Social Development

Liliana Paredes de Periotti, Under-secretary, FoodPolicies, Ministry of Social Development

Carlos Daniel Castagneto, Secretary,Institutional Monitoring and Coordination,Ministry of Social Development

Graciela Oporto, Under-secretary, TerritorialPlanning for Public Investment, Ministryof Federal Planning, Public Investmentsand Services

Jorge Fernández Bussy, General Coordinator,National Programme to Prevent and ReduceRisks and Disasters and to favour TerritorialDevelopment, Under-secretariat ofTerritorial Planning for Public Investment

Ministry of Federal Planning, PublicInvestments and Services

Juan Pablo Cafiero, Former Minister, thePresident’s Representative at the DialogueTable and currently Argentine Ambassadorto the Vatican, Ministry of SocialDevelopment / Secretariat of Minister’sCabinet

Daniel Arroyo, Minister, Ministry of SocialDevelopment, Buenos Aires Province

Mariana Maza, General Coordinator, Project forthe Secretariat’s Technological Streamlining,Under-secretariat for Public Revenue,Buenos Aires Province

Victoria Rubbini, Advisor, Archives GeneralManager’s Office, Under-secretariat forPublic Revenue, Buenos Aires Province

Monseñor Jorge Casaretto, Bishop of San Isidroand former president, CARITAS

Cristina Calvo, Regional Coordinator,CARITAS

Daniel Pomerantz, Executive Director, AMIA

Raul Beate, Former Chairman, YouthChristian Association

Roberto Frenkel, Researcher CEDES,University of Buenos Aires

María Amelia Videla, Manager RSE GlobalCompact, Manpower

Patricia Sclocco, Director InstitutionalRelations, Gas Natural Ban

Silvio Dal Buoni, Executive Director, FundaciónLos Grobos

Gustavo Brizuela, Vice-president,Atacama Publicidad

Fernando Pasarelli, General Manager,Argentinean Chamber of Importers

Julio Saguir, Planning undersecretary, TucumanProvince Government

A N N E X 2 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 4 5

Dora Paz, Former chair Small GrantsProgramme Committee GEF,Tucumán Province

Adela Abalo, Social & AgropecuarianProgramme, Tucumán Province

Desiderio Dode, Rural Extensionist, InstitutoNacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria

Rafael Silvestre, Rural Extensionist, InstitutoNacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria

Guillermo Martínez, Rural Extensionist,Instituto Nacional de TecnologíaAgropecuaria

Miguel García, Rural Extensionist, InstitutoNacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria

Eliseo Monti, Regional Director, INTA NERegional Centre

Javiera Guanco, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Grupo de Artesanas LaVentanita Fuerte Quemado

Juan Cáseres, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, CooperativaAgroganadera Diaguita, Santa María

Alberto Cabeza, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Molino Suyay, San Joséde Tucumán

Elena López, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Asociación Vecinal Barrio1º de Mayo, Concepción

Karina Torres, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Cooperativa FamailláLtda. Famaillá

Jose Torres, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Cooperativa FamailláLtda. Famaillá

Mario Quinteros, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Comunidad Indígena deAmaicha del Valle

Rafael Marcial, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Comunidad Indígena deAmaicha del Valle

Norberto Primo, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Asociación Civil Proeco,Tafí Viejo

David García, Beneficiary Small GrantsProgramme GEF, Junta de RegantesEl Tala, Trancas

Karina Pastrana, Pro huerta Programme, SantaMaría, Tucuman Province

Ana Hordoy, Executive Director, InternationalInstitute Enviroment Development, IIED

Gaston Urquiza, Project Coordinator,International Institute EnviromentDevelopment, IIED

Sergio Cara, Project beneficiary, Municipalityof Moreno

Olga Mambrin, Project beneficiary,Municipality of Moreno

Maria del Carmen Bel, Project beneficiary,Municipality of Moreno

María del Carmen Poplawski, FormerSecretary-General of the Governor’sOffice and former National Director of theState’s Modernization Project, CórdobaProvince Government

Raquel Ferrario, Project Coordinator, StateModernization, Córdoba ProvinceGovernment

Eduardo Andrés Parizzia, President, CórdobaInvestment and Financing Agency,Córdoba Province

Ricardo Mayol, Former Health Minister, ChacoProvince Government

Carlos Meretta, Former Coordinator, MedicalInputs Project, Ministry of Health,Chaco Province

Enio Cuffino, Deputy Resident Representative,UNICEF

Bernardo Kosacoff, Director Argentina, ECLAC

Oscar Cetrángolo, Economist, ECLAC

Alejandra Pángaro, Programme Officer, ILO

Felipe Saez, Country Programme Officer,World Bank

Rafael Rofman, Programme Officer,World Bank

Daniel Oliveira, Programme Officer, InterAmerican Development Bank

Felix Longobardi, Chief InternationalCooperation, Italian Embassy

A N N E X 2 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D4 6

Carlos Felipe Martínez, Resident Representativeand UN Resident Coordinator, UNDP

Mónica Merino, Deputy Res. Rep. Operations,UNDP

Cecilia Ugaz, Deputy Res. Rep. Programme,UNDP

Pablo Vinocur, Assistant Res. Rep. AndProgramme Coordinator, UNDP

Julián Bertranou, Coordinator GovernanceProgramme, UNDP

Daniel Novack, Coordinator ProductiveDevelopment, UNDP

Daniel Kostzer, Coordinator SocialDevelopment, UNDP

Daniel Tomasini, Coordinator EnvironmentalSustainability, UNDP

Fernando Calderón, Regional HumanDevelopment Adviser, UNDP

Maria Cleila Guinazu, Coordinator NationalHuman Development, UNDP

Ruben Mercado, National HumanDevelopment, UNDP

Gabriela Catterberg, National HumanDevelopment, UNDP

Flavio Fuentes, Global Compact, UNDP

Andrea Balzano, Gender coordinator, UNDP

Milena Leivi, Gender Unit, UNDP

Alejandra Garcia, Gender Unit, UNDP

Miguel Ángel del Rió, NEX RegionalAdviser, UNDP

Hugo Iza, Small Grants ProgrammeCoordinator, UNDP

Ignacio López, Communications Adviser,UNDP

Mariza Ramírez, Monitoring and EvaluationUnit, UNDP

Natalia Aquilino, Monitoring and EvaluationUnit, UNDP

Cecilia del Rió, Monitoring and EvaluationUnit, UNDP

Liliana de Riz, Former Coordinator NationalHuman Development Report, UNDP

A N N E X 3 . R E F E R E N C E S 4 7

‘Un Modelo de Equilibrio General Computablepara la Argentina’, Versión Preliminar,Equipo de trabajo: Omar O. Chisari, CarlosA. Romero, Gustavo Ferro, Ricardo Theller,Martin Cicowiez, Jimena Ferraro, MarianoGonzález, Andrés Blanco, and JavierMaquieyra, 15 November, 2007.

Anlló, Guillermo, Gustavo Lugones andFernando Peirano, ‘La innovación en laArgentina post-devaluación. Antecedentesprevios y tendencias a futuro’, in Crisis,Recuperación y Nuevos Dilemas: La economíaargentina 2002-2007, Bernardo Kosacoff,CEPAL Buenos Aires, United Nations,Argentina, 2007.

CEPAL, ‘Alcances, logros y desafíos del pactoglobal en Argentina: una visión desde losintegrantes’, Naciones Unidas, May 2007.

Cheresky, Isidro, ‘Argentina: recuperaciónsostenida con incertidumbre sobre el futuroinstitucional’, UNDP Argentina, 2006.

Concejo Nacional de Coordinación de PolíticasPúblicas Sociales, Objetivos de Desarrollo delMilenio, Informe País 2007,Octubre,Argentina: Presidencia de la Nación, 2007.

Heymann, Daniel (2006), ‘Buscando laTendencia: Crisis Macroeconómica yRecuperación en la Argentina’, in SerieEstudios y Perspectivas 31,Abril, BuenosAires, Argentina: Naciones Unidas, CEPAL.

Kaufmann Daniel, Kraay Aart, and MassimoMastruzzi, ‘Governance Matters VII:Aggregate and Individual GovernanceIndicators for 1996-2007’, Policy ResearchWorking Paper 4654, WPS4654,WorldBank, June, 2008.

Konow, James, ‘Which is the fairest one of all?A positive analysis of justice theories’,Journal of Economic Literature, Volume XLI,Number 4, 2003, p.1194.

Lahey, R. and O. Yujnovsky, ‘Evaluation ofResults-Based Management at UNDP’,Draft Argentina Country Report, UNDPEvaluation Office, May 2007.

Martinez, Carlos Felipe, ‘La Cooperación delPNUD en la Argentina, 1983-2008’,UNDP, Argentina, September, 2008.

Millennium Development Goals: Country Report2005, National Council of the Coordinationof Social Policies, September, Argentina:The Office of the President, 2005.

Millennium Development Goals: Country Report2007, National Council of the Coordinationof Social Policies, November, Argentina:The Office of the President, 2007.

Ministerio de Economía y Producción,‘Lineamientos Estratégicos para elDesarrollo Productivo de la Argentina,Primer documento para discusión’,May, 2007

North, Douglass C., ‘The path of institutionalchange’, Institutions, Institutional Change andEconomic Performance, Douglass C. North,Cambridge University Press, New York,1990, p.100.

Ocampo, Jose Antonio, ‘Executive summary’,The Inequality Predicament, Report on theWorld Social Situation 2005, New York:United Nations, 2005, p.1.

OECD-DAC, Paris declaration on AidEffectiveness, 2005.

OECD-DAC, ‘2008 Survey on Monitoring theParis Declaration’, Available online at,www.oecd.org/dac/hlfsurvey, accessed 25November, 2008.

OECD -DAC, ‘Accra Agenda for Action -The Third High Level Forum on AidEffectiveness’, Accra, Ghana, 2008.

Annex 3

REFERENCES

A N N E X 3 . R E F E R E N C E S4 8

Oficina del Pacto Global en Argentina, ‘ElPacto Global en Argentina: Documento deAdhesión del Sector Privado Argentino’,Buenos Aires, Argentina, April, 2004.

República Argentina, 1816-2016, Argentina delBicentenario, Plan Estratégico Territorial,Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Ministerio dePlanificación Federal, Inversión Pública yServicios Argentina, 2008.

República Argentina Message to Congress byPresident Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner,1 March 2008.

Scriven, Michael and Chris L. S. Coryn, ‘TheLogic of Research Evaluation’, in Reformingthe Evaluation of Research,Michael Scrivenand Chris L. S. Coryn, Editors, NewDirections for Evaluations, AmericanEvaluation Association, Vancouver, Canada,Number 118, Summer 2008, 2008.

UNDP, ‘Evaluación del Dialogo Argentino’,Programa de Naciones Unidas para elDesarrollo, Argentina, Octubre, 2004.

UNDP, ‘Regional Workshop on the UNDPEvaluation Policy: Latin America and theCaribbean, Workshop Report’,UnitedNations Development Programme,February, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Aportes para el Desarrollo Humanode la Argentina’, 2002, Second Edition,Buenos Aires, Argentina.

UNDP, ‘Argentina: Country Programme CurrentSituation and Challenges’, Internal documentprepared for the RBM mission, May 2007.

UNDP, Evaluation of Results-based Managementat UNDP, Evaluation Office, UnitedNations Development Programme,December, 2007.

UNDP, ‘El desarrollo humano en la Argentinadel siglo XXI’, Versión adaptada deAportes para el desarrollo humano en laArgentina/2002, UNDP, Buenos Aires,Argentina, 2003.

UNDP, ‘Equidad de género en Argentina.Datos, problemáticas y orientaciones parala acción’, UNDP Argentina, BuenosAires, 2004.

UNDP, ‘Evaluación del diálogo argentino’,UNDP, Buenos Aires, Octubre 2004.

UNDP, ‘Evaluación del sistema de compras ycontrataciones gubernamentales (Evaluationof the government purchase and recruitmentsystem)”‘ UNDP Argentina projectFO/ARG/06/011, July 2007.

UNDP, ‘Informe de Desarrollo Humano 2005.Argentina después de la crisis.Un tiempo deoportunidades’, UNDP, Buenos Aires,Argentina, 2005.

UNDP, ‘Informe presidencial 2007’, ProyectoFO/ARG/05/012 Anásis Prospectivo paraFortalecer la Gobernabilidad Democráticaen Argentina, December 2007.

UNDP, ‘Justification of the nomination NHDR2002 Excellence in impact on policies’, 2004.

UNDP, ‘La cooperación del PNUD en laArgentina 1983-2008’, Draft documentfor discussion, UNDP Argentina,September 2008.

UNDP, ‘Memorando de entendimiento para lasistematizacion de productos de gestión deconocimiento entre PNUD ARGENTINAy la Unidad de Gestion de Conocimiento’,August 2008.

UNDP, ‘Partnership survey. Argentina byorganization type 2007’, Globescan, 2008.

UNDP, ‘PNUD - Documento sobre el programapara la Argentina 2005-2008’, 2004.

UNDP, ‘Propuesta estratégica: Hacia unacooperación con sostenibilidad, relevancia eimpacto’, Internal discussion documentUNDP Argentina.

UNDP, ‘Supporting capacity development:The UNDP approach’, CapacityDevelopment Group, Bureau ofDevelopment Policy, New York, June 2008.

UNDP, ‘The Evaluation Policy of UNDP’,Executive Board DP/2005/28, May 2006.

UNDP, ‘Towards a Renewed Approach toHuman Development in Argentina’,Internal working document, August 2006.

UNDP, ‘Workshop report – Regional workshopon the UNDP Evaluation Policy LatinAmerica and Caribbean’, UNDP EvaluationOffice, February 2007.

A N N E X 3 . R E F E R E N C E S 4 9

UNDP, ‘Contribuciones al Nuevo GobiernoConstitucional’, Buenos Aires, May 2003.

UNDP, Aportes para el Desarrollo Humano de laArgentina, 2002, Second Edition, BuenosAires Argentina, 2002, p.11

UNDP, Challenges of Gender Equality inArgentina. A strategy by the UnitedNations Development Programme”, UNDP,Buenos Aires, 2008.

UNDP, Human Development Report 2007/2008,Fighting Climate Chance: Human Solidarityin a Divided World, Palgrave Macmillan,New York, 2007.

UNDP, La Construcción del FederalismoArgentino: Perspectivas Comparadas, BuenosAires, Argentina, 2004.

United Nations Development Group, ‘UNDGkey messages - 3rd High Level Forum onAid Effectiveness’, Accra, Ghana, 2-4September 2008”, UNDG, 2008.

United Nations, ‘Second Country CooperationFramework for Argentina, 2002-2004’,Executive Board of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and of the UnitedNations Population Fund, DP/CCF/ARG/2,New York, September, 2002.

United Nations, ‘Triennial comprehensive policyreview of operational activities for develop-ment of the United Nations system’,General Assembly 59/250, December, 2004.

United Nations, ‘Annual Report of theAdministrator on Evaluation in 2005’,Executive Board of the UNDP and theUnited Nations Population Fund,DP/2006/27, May, 2006

United Nations, ‘The Evaluation Policy of theUNDP’, Executive Board of the UNDP andthe United Nations Population Fund,DP/2005/28, May, 2006.

United Nations, ‘Annual Report on Evaluationin UNDP in 2007’, Executive Board of theUNDP and the United Nations PopulationFund, DP/2008/25, 16 April, 2008.

United Nations, ‘Annual Report on Evaluationin UNDP in 2006’, Executive Board of theUNDP and the United Nations PopulationFund, DP/2007/21, 4 May, 2007

United Nations, ‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, Accelerating Global Progress onHuman Development’, Executive Boardof the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme and of the United NationsPopulation Fund, DP/2007/43/Rev.1,2008, p.19.

United Nations, ‘In larger freedom: towardsdevelopment, security and human rightsfor all’, Report of the General-Secretary,March 2005.

United Nations, ‘The role of UNDP in thechanging aid environment at the countrylevel’, Executive Board of the UnitedNations Development Programme andthe United Nations Population Fund,DP/2008/53, 2008.

United Nations, ‘Triennial comprehensive policyreview of operational activities for develop-ment of the United Nations system’,General Assembly 62/208, March 2008

United Nations, ‘Visión compartida sobre lasprioridades para la cooperación de lasUN en la Argentina’, Draft documentfor discussion (6th version), UNDPArgentina, 2008.