evaluative review regional financial and monetary ...evaluative review of regional financial and...

Evaluative Review of Regional Financial and Monetary Architecture in Asia-Pacific – Final Draft

1

Evaluative Review Regional Financial and Monetary Architecture in Asia-

Pacific

UN Development Account 10/11AR

Mary‐Jane Rivers 7 April 2015


2

Acknowledgments The evaluator wishes to thank the Evaluation Reference Group Daniel Jeongdae Lee, Economic Affairs Officer, and Alberto E. Isgut, Officer‐in‐Charge, Development Policy Section both from the Macroeconomic Policy and Development Division and Rebecca Quereshi, Associate Programme Officer, Evaluation Unit and Devin Bin, Associate Programme Officer, Programme Planning and Monitoring both from the Strategy and Programme Management Division (SPMD) for their time, support and helpful discussions evaluation. Ms Rebecca Quereshi and Mr Edgar Dante, Programme Officer of the Evaluation Unit both provided considerable guidance. Ms Quereshi generously took on a number of additional tasks because of time constraints. Ms Liu Yuning, intern with the Evaluation Unit provided helpful practical assistance.


3

Table of Contents List of acronyms Executive Summary p 4

1. Introduction p 10 1.1 Background of the Evaluation 1.2 Purpose, Objectives and Outputs 1.3 Scope and Evaluation Questions

2. Methodology p 12 2.1 Description of Methodology 2.2 Limitations

3. Findings p 14 3.1 Context and Timeline p 14 3.2 Initial Plan and Results Framework p 14 3.3 Reshaped Project p 15

4. Performance Assessment p 20 4.1. Relevance p 20 4.2 Effectiveness p 24 4.3 Efficiency p 33 4.4 Sustainability of results p 36 4.5 Gender issues p 39

5. Conclusions p 42

6. Recommendations p 44

Annex I: Management response Annex II: Terms of Reference Annex III: List of Documents Reviewed Annex IV: List of Interviewees Annex V: Lists of Workshop participants Annex VI: Summary Results from Survey post November/December Working Groups Annex VII: March 2015 Survey


4

List of Acronyms

ABF – Asian Bond Funds

ADB – Asian Development Bank

ADBI – Asian Development Bank Institute

ADF – ASEAN Development Fund

AIIB – Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

ACPR – Advisory Committee of Permanent Representatives, ESCAP

APEC – Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASEAN – Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASEAN+3 – ASEAN plus People’s Republic of China, Japan, Republic of Korea

The Bangkok Declaration – Bangkok Declaration on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific

CMI – Chiang Mai Initiative

CMIM – Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization

CRA ‐ Contingent Reserve Arrangements

CSIRO – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia)

ESCAP – the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

ES – Executive Secretary of ESCAP

EU – European Union

FDI – foreign direct investment

FTA – free trade agreement

ICT – information and communication technology

IDD – Information and Communications Technology and Disaster Risk Reduction Division, ESCAP IMF – International Monetary Fund

LDC – least developed country

MPDD ‐ Macroeconomic Policy and Development Division, ESCAP

PIF ‐ Pacific Islands Forum

RECI –Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific

SAARC – South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals

SMT – Senior Management Team, ESCAP

SPMD ‐ Strategy Programme Management Division, ESCAP

SRO – Sub‐regional Offices, ESCAP

TD –Transport Division, ESCAP

TID – Trade and Investment Division, ESCAP

UN – United Nations

WB – World Bank


5

Executive Summary

1. Background of the Evaluation In March 2013, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) began implementing project 10/11 AR “Developing a regional financial and monetary architecture in the Asia‐Pacific in support of global financial reforms”. Originally planned to begin in 2010, the actual start date was March 2013. The original completion date was December 2012 and the actual date was technically December 2014, with an extension until 31 March 2015 for some planned activities to be completed. Between the initial project application in 2010 and the actual start date of 2013 the environment around the project changed and the project, in turn has both adapted and contributed to the changes. In keeping with the Bangkok Declaration on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific the project is commonly referred to as Regional Economic Cooperation and integration in Asia and the Pacific (RECI).

2. Purpose and Scope This evaluation is a required component of UN Development Account grants. While essentially, the evaluation is a formative evaluation because its focus is on internal organizational learning, it also includes an assessment of process and product. The scope of the evaluation is the project period.

3. Methodology The evaluation has combined a variety of methods in order to gather information and data to contribute to analysis. These have included:

a desk review

semi‐structured and unstructured individual and group interviews with key stakeholders ‐ Working Group members, sector experts, ESCAP secretariat members

participant observation at the second meeting of Working Groups, including the plenary sessions

a light review of financial information

quantitative and summary analysis of surveys from the first Working Group meetings

a stakeholder survey using qualitative and quantitative questions

4. Main Conclusions Developing an inclusive and sustainable regional financial and monetary architecture in the Asia‐Pacific region is a complex undertaking. As well as this key objective, expected project accomplishments included:

improved understanding among policymakers and development partners of key issues and operational components in developing mechanisms

enhanced regional consensus on the structure and components When there are many actors and influences at play it is not possible to draw a straight line of attribution between the inputs and activities of one relatively small project to change that is being created. In this particular instance the project is one part of a multi‐phased process, with some outcomes not becoming clear until the end of 2015 and others beyond 2015 ‐ after the completion of the project itself.


6

From this evaluation however it is clear that the project has contributed to some of the shifts occurring in knowledge and understanding and the development of practical next steps for RECI. These shifts are indications of increased capacity. The project:

is highly relevant

in terms of effectiveness, it has contributed to noticeable achievements within the lifetime of the project, although full effectiveness has been hindered in some ways

has a mix of experiences in terms of efficiency and is overall positive

has contributed to some of the key elements for sustainability, while other steps are still in progress

has not incorporated gender considerations

Relevance The project appears to be highly relevant to ESCAP, member States and the region. Multiple sources of information, including Commission mandates, the ESCAP Secretariat’s strategy and stakeholder survey results, reinforce the relevance. Key relevant aspects of ESCAP’s 2015‐2020 Strategy are:

Promoting regional economic cooperation and integration, particularly through trade and regional connectivity in transport, energy and ICT infrastructure

Reducing inequalities, promoting the realization of rights and empowerment of women

Promoting sustainable management of natural resources, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and resilience to disasters and shocks.

These are strongly aligned to the project. Relevance was clearly confirmed by country statements at the 2013 Conference and by survey results of stakeholders and working group participants in 2014 and 2015.

Effectiveness The ESCAP secretariat implemented a number of activities to engage and involve national and sector experts in advancing the objectives of the project – captured by Commission resolution 70/1 ‐ to increase understanding of regional economic and financial integration and develop practical actions to create regional solutions. These included, among others, working groups on the four topics that met twice, an internal Task Force chaired by the ES that met once, and a conference call of all the sector experts prior to the second working group meeting. The value in holding two working group meetings was evident with 72% of participants reporting that their understanding of the issues had increased. 61% shared their leanings from the working groups with colleagues and 44% with stakeholders. These are positive findings for the project. More concerning, in terms of influencing country leaders, only 19% reported including information, gained from the project working groups, in advice to their relevant Ministers. Effectiveness, in increasing understanding and influence, through engagement in processes is affected by the design used and the capability of those involved. A hallmark of the project was the design of a participatory approach for national and sector specialist and relevant ESCAP secretariat staff. Practice was patchy in the implementation of the design. There were however, clear examples of high quality preparation for the working group meetings, chairing, presentation and facilitation during 26 ‐27 March. These can be learned from and the findings


7

incorporated into (i) future selection processes and (ii) the design of working group, plenary sessions and other participatory processes. In terms of project product ‐ practical actions to achieve more integrated regional financial and economic strategies, structures, mechanisms and policies – this project is contributing to a longer term process. Each of the working groups produced specific and focused recommendations. Discussion at the plenary session identified initial areas of overlap and integration, and the steps in place for 2015 culminate in a specific Ministerial meeting in December to address the recommended actions.

Efficiency The efficiency of the project implementation was aided by the skill and dedication of Secretariat staff. There was little documented project planning although the annual progress reports for the UN Development Account provide a mechanism for noting revisions and changes. A revised project plan and the role established of a dedicated project manager would have helped efficiency, especially in terms of consistent practices, identifying challenges early and in terms of monitoring and evaluation. Overall, the project was delivered in a timely manner and the project expenditure was 91% of budget just prior to close off.

Sustainability It is reasonable to assume that the positive benefits from this project will continue. Considerable momentum has been built and there are a number of positive contributing factors to sustainability around:

(i) Governance commitment (ii) Organisation‐wide leadership (iii) Senior Management commitment (iv) A wide network of collegial connections between Sector experts (v) Increased awareness of the issues from member State representatives involved in the

process (vi) Future activities planned (vii) Collaboration opportunities

There is awareness of the crucial importance of resourcing for future implementation specific actions have not yet been confirmed. Gender 92% of the participants in the second working group meeting identified that gender issues had not been addressed in the project. They also made suggestions of how gender issues could be considered. Given this response, and the strategic importance to ESCAP in addressing gender issues, there is an opportunity for ensuring relevant gender analysis is undertaken in implementing the work of the project during the remainder of 2015.


8

6. Recommendations Recommendation 1:The UN Development Account is a global capacity building facility for UN secretariat entities. Steps to ensure a clear linkage between capacity building and the implementation of intergovernmental resolutions agreed by ESCAP members could include:

That the implementation plans and mechanisms identify the capacity for country involvement in effective project implementation. This may entail conducting capability assessments at key, practical points in the process

Incorporating capacity building approaches into the mechanisms used (such as working parties; webinars; and sector experts’ Terms of Reference) through participatory practices, peer sharing of skills and knowledge and action‐oriented working group meetings1

That the initial assessment of capacity requirements and the approaches taken to build capacity are monitored, with activities adapted in response to the information

Recommendation 2: To help ensure project coherence, integration and collective ownership it is important for the project manager and team to be supported by the SMT. A framework to assist this vertical integration could include:2

Project goals and plans are mutually developed across relevant divisions. The agreements then act as the basis for advice from, and reporting to, SMT

Collective and regular reporting to, and discussion with, SMT that addresses project progress, opportunities, lessons and challenges both internally within ESCAP (eg around competing divisional priorities) and for the project as a whole

Recommendation 3: For future strategic project developments ESCAP ensures cross‐divisional working together (in line with ESCAP guidelines on internal collaboration)3 4 through, for example:

Joint conceptualization and the earliest involvement of Divisions so that they can collectively address opportunities and challenges

The project manager joining staff meetings of other involved Divisions as one example of planned and informal communication and collaboration

The involvement of the Strategy and Programme Management Division (SPMD) in ensuring effective coordination between substantive divisions and sub‐regional offices and the connections with ESCAP strategy

Recommendation 4: The use of multi‐country Working Groups for project implementation is consistent with ESCAP’s convening role. ESCAP should pay greater attention to specifically designing meeting approaches, as well as between meeting activities, that maximise the impact of ESCAP’s comparative advantages, particularly its convening power. It is important that working groups be designed to use processes that produce effective results. Designing ‘fit for purpose’ working groups should include, for example:

Approaches that actively engage participants

Ways of tangibly building substantive topic knowledge

Actively promoting systems for Working Group members to connect with and influence country policy and relevant sub‐regional initiatives

1 There is considerable evidence that capability and capacity usually increase through people’s active participation in practical learning situations 2 Capacity building approaches generally incorporate structural/system, organisational culture, relationship and individual leadership/support components. The suggestions in this recommendations are a sample. 3 Executive Secretary’s Guidance Note on Relations between ESCAP Substantive Divisions, Subregional Offices and Regional Institutions, 12 September 2014 4 This is also consistent with the OIOS report: Evaluation of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, March 2015


9

Preparing terms of reference for the Chairs of working groups

Providing consistent structure, reporting approaches and templates for all working groups

Recommendation 5: To ensure gender issues are appropriately addressed in future project design and implementation at ESCAP. Future projects should be:

In line with ESCAP’s gender commitments and UN system‐wide activities on gender equity

Build on lessons from RECI

Incorporate reference to gender issues into the Terms of Reference of the experts likely to be engaged and of any working groups

Specific recommendation for RECI: For RECI specifically, reference to gender impact is included in the final consolidated paper and action plan Recommendation 6: When the key elements of a project change ESCAP should ensure the preparation of an updated project rationale and plan.

Prior to sign‐off of the new project ESCAP senior managers, together with relevant sector experts, should vet the feasibility of delivering outputs, activities and achieving outcomes as well as identifying baseline data against which to monitor and assess change

The design of project implementation should specifically include good practice project management, especially for collaborative, multi‐dimensional projects.


10

1. Introduction This evaluative review is for the Development Account Project “Developing a regional financial and monetary architecture in the Asia‐Pacific in support of global financial reforms”. An evaluative review is required for all Development Account projects. The evaluation was undertaken by Mary‐Jane Rivers, an independent evaluator hired by ESCAP for this evaluation.

1.1 Background An application to the UN Development Account was made in 2010 for a project to promote Regional Financial and Monetary Architecture in the Asia‐Pacific. The project was approved for funding as part of Tranche 7. Approval of the project was not immediate. It was delayed until 2012. The original completion date was December 2012 and the actual date was technically December 2014, with an extension until 31 March 2015 for some planned activities to be completed. The project had a total budget of USD 526,000. The initiative was essentially in response to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and built on existing work being undertaken by ESCAP Secretariat..

1.2 Purpose, Objectives and Outputs

The purpose of the review is to:

assess the project result for accountability purposes, and

inform future project design and implementation

There are three objectives:

(i) to asses the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the project results (ii) to formulate recommendations relating to the evaluation’s findings for improving the

design and implementation of future projects (iii) to formulate recommendations relating to the evaluation’s findings on desired follow‐

up activities to be undertaken by ESCAP and its partners

The results and recommendations are intended to be used:

to support accountability on the agreed follow‐up actions for organizational learning, and

to develop an ESCAP Management Response 1.3 Scope and Evaluation Questions (including evaluation questions) The scope of the evaluation is the project period from 2012 to March 2015. The evaluation covers the Asia‐Pacific region as defined by ESCAP. The evaluation seeks to answer four main evaluation questions with nine associated questions. See Table 1 on the next page.


11

Table 1

Questions Sub‐Questions

EFFECTIVENESS

How effectively is the project contributing to enhanced regional financial cooperation?

To what extent have the project’s planned outputs been achieved?

How effective was the project in improving the understanding of, and enhancing regional consensus on, the structure and components of regional financial cooperation and other areas of regional economic cooperation and integration?

How could the project be better designed to best fulfill its stated purpose?

RELEVANCE How relevant is the project?

To what extent are project objectives and outputs aligned with ESCAP member States’ development strategies and policies?

To what extent are project outputs recognised and used by the member States?

EFFICIENCY How efficiently were project activities and outputs delivered?

To what extent were human and financial resources used in the best possible way to efficiently deliver activities and outputs?

In what way and to what extent was the project managed in terms of timeliness?

SUSTAINABILITY How sustainable are the project results

To what extent can the positive outcomes resulting from the project be continued?

What are, and have been, the key enablers and challenges for sustainability?


12

2. Methodology

2.1 Description of methodology The evaluation used a range of information sources:

Desk review A desk review of planning documents, Working Group documentation ‐ including programs, list of participants, Terms of Reference, substantive background papers, Secretariat meeting papers, ESCAP Secretariat Strategy and organizational guidance papers, Commission reports, minutes and resolutions, substantive topic papers

Interviews with Stakeholders Semi‐structured and unstructured group and individual interviews were undertaken during a mission to Bangkok between 23‐30 March 2015 and by skype and email before and after the mission. Interviews included Working Group members, sector experts, members of Asia‐Pacific sub‐regional bodies and ESCAP secretariat staff. The selection of interviews was based on interviewees role in the project and their long term specific sector expertise. (For a detailed list see Annex: IV)

Participant Observation during the meeting of four Working Groups and two plenary sessions between 26‐27 March 2015

Analysis of an evaluation survey undertaken after the first round of Working Group meetings in November ‐ December 2014

A light‐touch review of project financial expenditure

A stakeholder survey of Working Group Participants on March 27, 2015 (see Annex VI) The method and sources of information for addressing evaluation questions are outlined in Table 2 on the next page. No changes were made to the evaluation Terms of Reference.

2.2 Limitations: limitations of the methodology and scope and problems encountered There are some limitations associated with the methodology of this evaluation. All of the interviews, surveys and the participant observation were with people directly involved, in some way, with the project. While combined, each of the different evaluation approaches used, triangulates to produce useful information for analysis, there is an information bias because of the lack of input from relevant external sources such as member State senior policymakers. The absence of baseline data for the indicators in the original project proposal and the absence of a project plan with straightforward monitoring indicators reduces the monitoring data and information for this evaluation.


13

Table 2: Method and Source for Addressing Evaluation Questions

Key Question Sub‐Questions Sources of Information Data Collection Methods

EFFECTIVENESS

How effectively is the project contributing to enhanced regional financial cooperation

To what extent have the project’s planned outputs been achieved?

How effective was the project in improving the understanding of, and enhancing regional consensus on, the structure and components of regional financial cooperation and other areas of regional economic cooperation and integration?


Project planning documents and reports

ESCAP strategies Evaluation reports from Conferences

Stakeholders – ESCAP staff, member States, meeting participants, ESCAP consultants, External partners

Project Team

Interviews with selected stakeholders and ESCAP staff

Survey of stakeholders Qualitative analysis of information

Analysis of reports, files and documents

RELEVANCE How relevant is the project?



Selection of Member State representatives

Project planning documents and reports

ESCAP strategies and staff

E‐Questionnaire survey of stakeholders and member States

Interviews with selected stakeholders Qualitative analysis of primary

information

Interviews with Project Team staff

EFFICIENCY How efficiently were project activities and outputs delivered?



Budgets, budget reviews and project team reports

Evaluation reports from Conferences and Working Groups

Analysis of reports, files, surveys and documents

Overview of expenditure Semi‐structured Interviews with ESCAP

staff

Survey of participating member States

SUSTAINABILITY How sustainable are the project results



Perceptions and observations of country and sector experts

Perceptions and observations of ESCAP staff

Participatory observation Semi‐structured Interviews with selected

stakeholders

Interviews with Project Team staff

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF FUTURE PROJECTS

What is a clear rationale for design and implementation improvement

What are the key steps needed to be taken to improve design and implementation?

Which enablers and challenges need to be addressed for improvement to be effective?

Project and survey reports Stakeholders – ESCAP staff, member

States, meeting participants, ESCAP consultants, External partners

Project staff

Survey of selected working party members

Semi‐structured Interviews with selected stakeholders

Semi‐structured Interviews with Project Team staff

DESIRED FOLLOW‐UP ACTIVITIES

What is a rationale for design and implementation improvement

What are practical, implementable next step activities for the project?

Stakeholders – ESCAP staff, member States, meeting participants, ESCAP consultants, External partners

Project staff

E‐Questionnaire survey of stakeholders and member States

Interviews with selected stakeholders Interviews with Project Team staff


14

3. Findings

3.1 Context and Timeline This project has altered from the original proposal to the UN Development Account. The Timeline in Table 3 (pages 19‐20) attempts to capture the steps and timing of relevant developments which influenced project redesign and implementation. It also includes the planned steps following the completion of the Project.

3.2 Initial Plan and Results Framework The initial proposal to UN Development Account in 2010 had an expected duration of 3 years from 2010‐2012. The main objective of the project was to strengthen regional financial and monetary cooperation towards developing an inclusive and sustainable regional financial architecture in support of global economic reforms. Expected project accomplishments or results were:

1. Improved understanding among policymakers and development partners of key analytical issues and operational components in developing mechanisms for regional monetary cooperation that could help build resistance against external economic shocks

2. Enhanced regional consensus on the structure and components of a regional financial architecture and agreement on the basic framework and long term plan for deepening regional financial and monetary cooperation towards developing a comprehensive regional financial architecture

Indicators of achievements by the end of the project were expected to be that:

1. The majority of participating policymakers indicate improved understanding of the workable regional mechanisms for financial and monetary cooperation, and enhanced understanding of the benefits

2. An increased number of initiatives in regional fora and national legislation show evidence of a growing consensus towards deepening regional financial and monetary cooperation

The main activities to achieve these results were planned to be:

regional research, analysis and assessment on key analytical issues and operational components involved in developing a mechanism for regional financial and monetary cooperation

four sub‐regional workshops organized in collaboration with ESCAP sub regional offices and others

one regional policy dialogue to form a regional consensus on reforming and building a regional financial architecture complementary to ongoing international reforms

presentation of this consensus at the 68th Session of the Commission By the time the proposal to the UN Development Account was accepted in 2012, the ESCAP secretariat had completed the Theme Study “Growing Together: Economic Integration for an Inclusive and Sustainable Asia‐Pacific Century” and presented it to the 68th Commission meeting.


15

The study was a comprehensive review of regional economic integration. In presenting “Growing Together” to the 68th session of the Commission, the then Executive Secretary Noeleen Heyzer, noted that it “… articulates a number of proposals that can help the region exploit its huge untapped potential for regional economic integration”. She also commented that “Growing Together” captures emerging patterns of regional economic integration, noting that “… many leaders and statesmen of the region have articulated the visions of a broader Asia‐Pacific community “5 “Growing Together” identified four areas to be addressed: (i) Asia‐Pacific working towards a Broader and Integrated Market in the following areas:

Assessing export opportunities

Trade in services

Movement of people

Foreign Direct Investment

Fragmented region

Towards broader regionalism (ii) Building Seamless Regional Connectivity through the following areas:

Transport

Energy connectivity for energy security

Information and Communications Technology regulation (iii) Enhancing Regional Financial Cooperation noting:

that the focus to date has been on short term liquidity; reserves invested outside the Asia‐Pacific region

there has been a gap between the 1960s initiative of the ADB and Asia Clearing Union in the 1970s and current new sub‐regional/regional initiatives emerging such as the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI)

the suggestion of a large scale lending facility for infrastructure complementing existing initiatives

(iv) Economic Cooperation for Addressing Shared Vulnerabilities and Risks, identifying:

Food security

Dealing with Disasters

Natural resources and sustainability

Addressing sustainability risks

Addressing social risks As a result of discussions about the theme study Commission resolution 68/10 requested ESCAP to organize a Ministerial Conference in 2013 on regional economic integration.

3.3 Reshaped Project In 2012 the Development Account proposal was accepted, with disbursement in March 2013. By this stage the resolution from the 68th Commission provided an overarching framework for the project implementation with a broader scope than in the original project proposal. While the overall plan of regional economic integration and development of regional architecture remained consistent, the project expanded to use the framework of the four pillars identified in “Growing Together” and endorsed by the Commission:

5 ESCAP, “Growing Together: Economic Integration for an Inclusive and Sustainable Asia‐Pacific Century”, (p xx) , 2012


16

an integrated market

seamless connectivity

financial cooperation

addressing shared vulnerabilities and risks. Organizing the first preparatory meeting for the requested December 2013 Ministerial Conference was an initial step under the Project. This broader approach to the project was reinforced by the preparatory meeting which contributed to the Bangkok Declaration on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific. The project strategy then became one of involving country‐based, government experts from the member States in theme‐based working groups, supported by ESCAP secretariat and sector specialists. This approach is based more on building consensus and broader member State ownership than the original proposed approach of regional research, analysis and assessment. To a certain extent, this had been superseded by the theme study “Growing Together”. While the outcomes aimed for in the original proposal were not fully replaced, there were additional activities aimed to:

take stock of current regional efforts related to economic cooperation and integration

identify gaps in those efforts

recommend concrete actions to make progress in each of the four areas

submit recommendations to intergovernmental open‐ended preparatory meetings to be convened for the second Ministerial Conference on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration (RECI) in Asia and the Pacific to take place in 2015

As well, the 70th Commission session in May 2014 passed resolution 70/1, which requested the

Executive Secretary:

(a) To accord priority to the implementation of the recommendations of

the Bangkok Declaration on Regional Economic Cooperation and

Integration in Asia and the Pacific;

(b) To assist members and associate members in setting up and supporting the work of the four area‐specific expert working groups in accordance with section II, paragraphs 3 and 6(b), of the Bangkok Declaration;

(c) To convene in 2015 the intergovernmental open‐ended preparatory meetings for the second Ministerial Conference on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific mentioned in section II, paragraph 3, of the Bangkok Declaration;

(d) To convene the second Ministerial Conference on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific in 2015 to review the progress on the agenda of regional economic integration outlined in section III of the present Declaration, consider the recommendations of the intergovernmental open‐ended preparatory meetings and decide on follow‐up actions, as expressed in section II, paragraph 6(d), of the Bangkok Declaration;

(e) To report to the Commission at its seventy‐first and seventy‐second sessions on the implementation of the present resolution.


17

In the midst of all the changes the redesigned project was not rewritten with a new plan and results framework. The positive aspect to this is that ESCAP secretariat can be seen as adaptive and nimble, both contributing and responding to the growing mandate from the Commission. The downside is reduced clarity of project planning and management, and a baseline for assessment of effectiveness.

SUMMARY The main objective of the original project proposal was to strengthen regional financial and monetary cooperation towards developing an inclusive and sustainable regional financial architecture in support of global economic reforms. By the time the proposal was accepted as a UN Development Account project, ESCAP’s 68th Commission had received and accepted a theme study report from the secretariat: “Growing Together: Economic Integration for an Inclusive and Sustainable Asia‐Pacific Century”. This study broadened the topic of regional financial and monetary cooperation to include four main areas:




addressing shared vulnerabilities and risks At the request of the 68th Commission, the Secretariat organized a Ministerial conference in 2013 on regional economic integration. The proposed project ‐when accepted in 2012 with funding available in 2013 ‐ adapted in order to:

incorporate the results of the theme study

assist in preparation for the Bangkok Declaration on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific (RECI)

implement resolution 70/10 to implement the Bangkok Declaration This implementation included:

assisting establish and support the operation of four specific working groups in the theme study areas

preparing for and convening preparatory meetings for the second Ministerial conference on regional economic integration in 2015

assisting the ES to convene the second Ministerial conference The theme study and the Bangkok Declaration provided a regional framework on regional economic integration, and the reshaped project focused on:

taking stock of current regional efforts related to economic cooperation and integration

identifying gaps in those efforts

recommending concrete actions to make progress in each of the four areas for recommendations to intergovernmental open‐ended preparatory meetings prior to the second Ministerial RECI in 2015


18

Table: 3 Timeline of Project‐Related activities Date Activity Comment2008 Global Financial Crisis

2010 Proposal to UN Development Account ‐ Project Title: Developing a regional financial and monetary architecture in the Asia‐Pacific in support of global financial reforms

Focus on sub‐regional working groups

Not short listed for approval originally

Primary beneficiaries: policymakers of various countries

May 2012 “Growing Together: Economic Integration for and Inclusive and Sustainable Asia‐Pacific Century” Theme Study prepared for 68

th

Commission meeting

Comprehensive review of regional economic integration identified four pillars:




addressing shared vulnerabilities and risks

May 2012 Commission resolution 68/10

Requested ESCAP to organize a Ministerial Conference in 2013 on regional economic integration

2012 Development Account proposal accepted

March 2013 Disbursement of Development Account grant from New York End date for grant considered to be 2014 because original application was made in

2010 – reduces time availability for project completion

October 2013 First Preparatory Meeting

Attended by 30+ members; drafted the Bangkok Declaration on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific

Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh chaired the meeting and led the drafting process, with the support of the ESCAP secretariat

December 2013

Ministerial Conference on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific

Attended by 36 ESCAP members

Adopted the Bangkok Declaration on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific

May 2014 70th Commission session. The outcome of the 2013 Ministerial

Conference reported and endorsed through resolution 70/1. The Commission session in 2014 was held in two phases. Resolution 70/1 was adopted in the first phase in May

Resolution 70/1 requested the Executive Secretary (ES) of ESCAP to:

accord priority to the implementation of the Bangkok Declaration

assist members set up and support the work of four, area specific working groups (identified in ESCAP 2012 Theme Study)

convene preparatory meetings for the second Ministerial Conference on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific in 2015

report to the Commission’s 71st and 72nd sessions on the implementation of the resolution


19

Implementation Actions from Resolution 70/1

June 2014 Secretariat‐wide Taskforce established Chaired by Executive Secretary (ES)

ES made regional economic cooperation and integration key strategic priority

Change from initial proposed process of sub‐regional consultations on overall topic to four working groups involving member state government representatives and sector experts

September 2014 ESCAP Secretariat prepare terms of reference for 4 Working Groups in consultation with Advisory Committee of Permanent Representatives and Other Representatives Designated by Members of the Commission (ACPR)

Secretariat prepared an approach paper for each Working Group

ESCAP writes to all member States seeking country experts on Working Groups

Nominations from 25 ESCAP member States

Secretariat engaged 2/3 lead sector experts for each Working Group

September/October 2014 Meetings of substantive divisions contributing to Working Groups There were few meetings around this time. The TF minutes list all relevant divisions and offices. MPDD asked the other divisions to (i) provide names of “lead experts” and (ii) prepare a secretariat approach paper per WG to inform initial discussions

Nov/December 2014 Four Working Groups meet in Bangkok Identify initial issues and directions

28 February 2015 Sector Experts Video conference call

Outline of expectations for report clarified

Decision to establish internet forum for sharing information

9 March ESCAP Senior Management Team Meeting Focus on tangible, specific results to emerge from the 26‐27 Working Group meetings

26‐27 March 2015 ‐ Four Working Groups meet separately, as well as combined Plenary sessions

Draft key actions identified by each Working Group

Roles of key Asia‐Pacific regional agencies presented

31 March 2015 Project completed

Post‐Project

30 April 2015 Individual reports from each Working Group finalized One lead expert from each Working Group prepares draft Action Plan

25 ‐ 29 May 2015

71st session of the Commission Progress report on Project

30 June 2015 Draft consolidated Action Plan Includes overarching implementation framework covering all areas discussed by Working Groups

Prepared by selected members of the Working Groups, with the support of the ESCAP secretariat

August + October 2015 Two preparatory meetings Discussing reports and draft action plan

2‐4 December 2015 2nd Ministerial Meeting presented with Action Plan Endorsement sought from Ministerial Meeting

2016 72nd session of the Commission

Commission is expected to endorse the outcome of the December Ministerial. Not sure if a full progress report will already be ready by May 2016, but perhaps initial actions taken could be reported.


20

4. Performance Assessment

4.1. Relevance

The assessment against the relevance criterion refers to the consistency of intended outcomes of the project with ESCAP’s priorities and member State priorities. Questions:



Introduction This section notes the changes in the reshaped project and identifies relevance in terms of alignment with member States, ESCAP strategy, the region and from the perspective of those involved. The intended outcomes of the project were initially:

(i) Improved understanding among policymakers and development partners of key analytical issues and operational components involved in developing mechanisms for regional financial and monetary cooperation that could help build resistance against external economic shocks and promote the use of regional resources in a more productive and efficient manner

(ii) Enhanced regional consensus on the structure and components of a regional financial architecture and agreement on the basic framework as well as long‐term plan for deepening regional financial and monetary cooperation towards developing a comprehensive regional financial architecture.

As signaled in Section 2 of this report changes were made to broaden the project in response to Commission resolutions. This effectively became a third area of the project that was practically focused around putting flesh on the framework of four theme areas by:

taking stock of current regional efforts related to economic cooperation and integration, and

identifying gaps and advocating potential actions in those effort (iii) The additional outcome that can be inferred from the adoption of the four theme

areas was for a set of agreed, concrete actions to progress economic and financial regional cooperation and integration in each of the four areas, which in turn could become a consolidated report and action plan presented to the Commission by the end of 2015. This was a step beyond the original proposal seeking improved understanding and enhanced regional consensus, and a long term plan.

Alignment This project appears to be highly relevant to ESCAP, member States and the region. Multiple sources of information, including Commission mandates, the ESCAP Secretariat’s strategy and stakeholder survey results, reinforce the relevance.


21

The Commission There are two Commission resolutions: 68/1 and 70/1, and there is a related specific Declaration, the Bangkok Declaration on Regional Economic Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific . The Commission hosted a ministerial round table on the theme of the sixty‐eighth session in May 2012. As noted in Section3 of this report, in resolution 70/1 the Commission requested the Executive Secretary to undertake a number of steps to implement the Bangkok Declaration. Country Statements Country statements at the First Ministerial Conference in 2013 clearly support the direction and focus of this project. 20 country representatives made country statements which were strongly in support of the Bangkok Declaration and the focus on the RECI of the four pillars More than half of delegations were headed by officials from the respective Capital (53%) with eight (42%) at ministerial level. The remaining 47% were represented through their embassies in Bangkok and other countries.6 In practical terms close to 50 officials from 27 member States are participating in the working groups. ESCAP Strategy 2015‐20207 The project is also highly consistent with ESCAP secretariat’s 2015‐2020 strategy ‐ vision, mission and mandate. Between 2015 and 2020 ESCAP secretariat’s mission is to facilitate concerted action for the balanced integration of the economic, social and environmental dimension of sustainable development. To achieve this vision and mission, the secretariat aims to support ESCAP member States in achieving the following development results that are relevant to RECI:

Effective policies and strategies for integrating the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, mindful of the diversity and different levels of development between countries in Asia and the Pacific.

Measuring progress in achieving the sustainable development goals and other internationally agreed development goals.

A stronger, more representative, and coherent regional voice to influence internationally agreed development commitments at the global level.

Enhanced capacities to engage in regional cooperation and economic integration mechanisms.

The secretariat has identified areas to help member States achieve these development results and the Sustainable Development Goals, including focusing its activities in the following areas:

Promoting regional economic cooperation and integration, particularly through trade and regional connectivity in transport, energy and ICT infrastructure.

Reducing inequalities, promoting the realization of rights and empowerment of women, and enhancing the social inclusion and rights of other vulnerable and marginalized groups.


6 See: http://www.unescap.org/events/mcrei

7 Guidance from Executive Secretary on ESCAP strategy, 26 November 2014


22

Stakeholder Survey Results Following the Bangkok declaration there have been two rounds of working groups involving over 60 country and sector experts, discussing issues and possible directions in the four areas. An evaluation of the RECI Ministerial Conference in December 2013 identified that participants overwhelmingly felt the conference was relevant.8 The evaluation undertaken after the first round of working group meetings confirmed the high level of relevance identified at the 2013 Ministerial conference. Seventy percent of participants identified average ratings of 4.25 ‐ 4.4 for regional relevance, and 3.6 ‐ 4.1 for relevance to the participant’s own country.9 This relevance was confirmed by participants in the second round of working meetings in late March 2015. With a response rate of around 60% of participants, 89% considered that the key issues were relevantly and adequately addressed by the Working Groups.

Respondents to the survey actively considered actions for follow up from the work of the Working Group with multiple suggestions. Survey participants also considered the opportunities and challenges for their own country in implementing actions that may emerge from the work of the working groups and the project. Survey participants were also asked what, in their view, are the particular contributions that ESCAP can make to enhancing regional economic cooperation and integration? Their answers not only indicate their level of understanding of the distinctive roles of ESCAP. With 75% of respondents understanding the regional intergovernmental platform role of ESCAP and 83% the knowledge platform role, they also indicate support for the value of ESCAP’s convening power in relation to enhancing regional economic cooperation and integration.

8 albeit with a relatively small response rate

9 This was assessed using a scale of 1‐5 with 1 being least relevant and 5 being highly relevant

Yes89%

Inpart11%


23

This practical indication of relevance was reflected in all of the unstructured interviews with sector and county experts, and with ESCAP secretariat staff undertaken for the evaluation. Working Groups and plenary.

SUMMARY The project appears to be highly relevant to ESCAP, member States and the region. Multiple sources of information, including Commission mandates, the ESCAP Secretariat’s strategy and stakeholder survey results, reinforce the relevance. Key relevant aspects of ESCAP’s 2015‐2020 Strategy are:





researchandnormativework

regionalintergovernmental

platform

knowledgeplatformfor

capacitybuildingandtechnicalcooperation

Others,pleaseidentify


24

4.2 Effectiveness

The assessment against the effectiveness criterion refers to the extent to which the expected outcomes of the project have been achieved, and have resulted in changes and effects. Questions:

To what extent have the project’s planned outputs been achieved? How effective was the project in improving the understanding of, and enhancing regional consensus on, the structure and components of regional financial cooperation and other areas of regional economic cooperation and integration?


Introduction This section revisits the reshaped project in relation to implications for effectiveness and then looks at effectiveness under:

(i) the outputs and activities undertaken in project implementation (ii) changes in levels of understanding among policymakers (iii) the contribution of processes used to achieve results (iv) project products

In terms of assessing effectiveness, it is important to note that there is no clear baseline against which to measure or assess changed levels of understanding. The approach used in the evaluation has been to compare self reported perception in the range of surveys undertaken during the life of the project. Information gained has been supplemented by interviews and desk reviews. Reshaped Project Earlier sections of the report noted the proposed achievements of the original project as being an increased number of policymakers with:

(i) improved understanding of workable regional mechanisms for financial and monetary cooperation and

(ii) enhanced regional consensus on the key macroeconomic and development policy reforms. 10

When the Commission Resolution 70/1 requested the Executive Secretary to give priority to the implementation of the Bangkok Declaration the Commission emphasised the development of a consensus on key reforms for regional economic cooperation and integration using the four areas identified in “Working Together”. In terms of next steps the emphasis was more on tangible structures, projects, policies and mechanisms rather than the more general plan indicated in the original project proposal. Four, well functioning working groups were required that would produce:

recommendations for concrete actions to make progress in each of the four areas

10 United Nations Development Account (Additional resource from 7th Tranche), Project Document: developing a regional financial and monetary architecture in the Asia-Pacific in support of global financial reforms, p 12


25

take stock of current regional efforts related to economic cooperation and integration

identify gaps in those efforts For assessing effectiveness then, the key achievements identified in the original project proposal remain and have been added to in the reshaped project. The planned outputs have been altered in order to fit the reshaped project.

Project Implementation Outputs/Activities The process for implementing Resolution 70/1 identified outputs and structures represented in Diagram 1. Diagram 1: RECI process in 2015 (implementing Res 70/1)11

Outputs are the results of a number of activities and the following section describes and analyses the key activities carried out by the reshaped project within the Secretariat and in the formation of working groups and engagement of sector experts. The original project document identified the following two activities as contributing to

regional research, analysis and assessment

four sub‐regional workshops It envisaged a regional policy dialogue and agreed follow‐up actions The project broadened as a result of the Bangkok Declaration. The Declaration itself went some way to meeting the overall objective of the original project proposal and influenced the activities taken by the secretariat, including the establishment of four expert working groups on the four themes in “Working Together”. Within ESCAP Secretariat Reflecting the high level importance of the task the current Executive Secretary (ES) announced the establishment of the Task Force for the Implementation of Resolution 70/1 in June 2014. Key components included that:

the ES would chair the group herself

it would include Aynul Hasan, Director of MPDD, as Secretary and the Directors of the substantive Divisions, Heads of the SROs, and the Secretary of the Commission as members

there was specific Secretariat assignment of responsibilities for the four areas of work in the resolution with leadership to be taken by:

o Trade and Investment Division (TID) for ‘ Moving towards the formation of an integrated market’

o Transport Division (TD) for ‘the development of seamless connectivity’;

11 Provided by Daniel Jeongdae Lee, undated

Expertworkinggroups (Output:

technicalreportswithanalysesand

recommendations)

Preparatorymeetings(Output:Draftdeclarationcontaining

actionsandcommitments

Ministerialconference

(Output:Ministerialdeclarationandaction

plan)


26

o Macroeconomic Policy and Development Division (MPDD) for ‘enhancing financial cooperation’, and

o Information and Communications Technology and Disaster Reduction Division (IDD) for ‘increasing economic and technical cooperation to address shared vulnerabilities and risks’

The Task Force met once and recognised that, given the deadlines in the resolution, the schedule for the work of the working groups would be tight. As a result the work of the Secretariat needed to be driven and focused, with concrete outcomes. Task Force members noted that many of the areas in the resolution were already included in the work programs of their divisions. The ES asked the Task Force members to find the best experts in their respective areas, emphasizing the need for new ideas, new energy, new analyses, and to think out of the box. She also emphasized that RECI was an ESCAP‐wide activity and that credit for it will go to all its Divisions / SROs.12 The record of the one meeting of the Task Force reflected enthusiasm, resolve and energy. Inter‐divisional Focal point Meetings While the Task Force met only once there were approximately four to five interdivisional focal point meetings that took place after the formation of the Task Force and up until the second round of meetings of the Working Groups in March 2015. Their focus was:

Initially to discuss the establishment of the Working Groups and the preparation of four "approach papers" to inform the initial discussions of the Working Groups

Later to discuss the direction of the final reports of the Working Groups and the agenda of the second Working Group meetings

Budget and logistics issues were also discussed In addition to these physical meetings, there were frequent exchanges of phone calls and emails. There was a core group of MPDD staff who worked on RECI but no particular person was identified as the overall Project Manager for the detail of project implementation. One person carried join responsibility for project facilitation and substantive input into the ‘Enhancing Financial Cooperation’ Working Group. Senior Management Team meeting 9 March 201513 Close to the second and final round of meetings of the Working Groups on 26‐27 March, the Secretariat’s Senior Management Team (SMT) recognized the value of taking stock, at the secretariat level, of the degree of maturity about economic cooperation and integration in the Asia Pacific region in each of the working group areas. Key considerations were for ESCAP to source thought leadership to help identify a road map to elevate the quality and focus of an eventual outcome document. The idea is to work with known architects on RECI and the heads of SROs.

12 Minutes of the first meeting of the Task Force for the Implementation of Resolution 70/1

13 Notes from the SMT 9 March 2015


27

Implementing Resolution 70/1 – Working Groups Working groups were formed with a mixture of 10‐14 country / national experts and 2‐3 Sector leader experts. The Secretariat turned to the APCR for advice and requested member State capitals (Seats of Government) for nomination of appropriate national experts, making the final decisions themselves. Sector experts were identified through networks, approached, finalized and then contracted. Cross‐referenced Terms of Reference were created for the sector experts and working groups. Sector specialists and ESCAP Secretariat staff from several Divisions were involved in preparing background papers and information for the four working groups. Working Group Meetings There were two rounds of working group meetings, one in November/December 2014 and one in March 2015. Sector expert reports were prepared for working groups, often in conjunction with ESCAP secretariat staff. The second series of meetings was designed for greater collaborative opportunities. All four working groups came together at the same time and the sessions started with a combined plenary. Speakers from each of the groups presented and set the scene. There was an additional session for selected regional institutions to present about their role and work. The session closed with a plenary which provided an opportunity for the recommended next steps to be heard collectively and initial links to be made between them. Sector specialists conference call On 28 February the ESCAP secretariat organized a conference call meeting for all sector experts to help plan their input into the March working groups, and to become familiar with (i) the results expected from the Working Groups and (ii) the next steps following the completion of the working group meetings. Post Working Group Meetings Following the completion of the Working group meetings, lead sector experts will work with the ESCAP secretariat to create a consolidated report and Action Plan for updating the Commission in May, presenting and discussing in preparatory meetings before the December 2015 Ministerial Conference. Discussion The ESCAP secretariat took a mixed approach in working with the Working Groups. For example one worked from a report outline from the beginning and others were more open and exploring. This mixture of approaches may have some value, depending on the maturity of understanding and development of the topic, but there was some frustration that such inconsistency contributed to lack of rigour and missed opportunities for building on work already being undertaken by ESCAP divisions. There were lively discussions in some of the interviews undertaken for the evaluation about the pros and cons of working groups that comprise primarily national experts with limited sector knowledge, compared with sector specialist working groups supported by more in‐depth research and position papers. There was insufficient information available for this evaluation to assess. Some considerations were that a balance to the light sector knowledge of national representatives was the national and sub‐regional knowledge they may hold; the ability to influence relevant chief executives and Ministers and an increasing sector knowledge which, in turn, may influence policies.


28

While no ideal solution was identified during the evaluation, the feedback clarified the importance of careful working group member criteria and selection, and working group processes that enable group discussions to produce high quality results. There was overall agreement about the value of having two rounds of working group meetings. This was seen to build greater understanding and greater momentum for action.

Increased understanding A key aim of the project was to increase the understanding of policymakers in member States. Working Group participants were asked if their understanding of regional economic cooperation and integration had increased since the first meeting of the Working Group in November/December 2014. 72% said yes and were asked to identify specific examples.

These examples included specific issues, such as:

“How surplus resources can be channeled to finance deficit country infrastructure development

On the scope to be covered i.e. trade in goods, services, labour and investment

Definitely increased my understanding of the concept of the seamless connectivity in the AP region, especially from the point of view of the ESCAP approaches to it.”

Responses also included learning about regional/sub‐regional priorities and structures, for example:

“I have managed to get a better grasp on the various regional initiatives

I learned more about other regional cooperation, eg SAARC and Pacific Islands Forum

The regional Asia and Pacific: Asia has a well established connectivity for sub‐sector and well advanced integration already in process, still need improvement at other areas within Pacific to learn a lot.”

Of the 28% of people who did not answer positively many noted that it was their first time attending, and while they found it useful there was no point of comparison. This response may also indicate that briefing from their country‐based colleague had either not occurred or had occurred partially.

Yes72%

Inpart28%


29

Use of Information and ability to Influence Equally important as levels of increased understanding is what participants do with the new information. People were asked: “How have you been able to use information gained from the first Working Group meeting in your own country or organization? “

61% noted that they share information with colleagues and 44.4% with key stakeholders. A lower proportion, only 19%, use the information in advice to Ministers. Interestingly only 29.4% of Ministers were interested or very interested compared with 61.7% of colleagues and 47.1% of key stakeholders. In individual interviews and comments on the survey, some national experts who work in government ministries mentioned that they would likely report after the second round of working group meetings. Others mentioned that they were competing with other issues for the attention of Ministers. Finding ways of increasing the effective reporting of working group findings to Ministers or into key policy directions is an interesting area to explore, particularly in terms of maximizing the impact of ESCAP’s convening role.

Contribution of Processes to Results In terms of effectiveness it became very clear that the process designed and used to encourage engagement is vitally important, along with the capability of the individuals involved. The UN Development Account is a capacity building fund. There were three types of capacity noticed as being important for this project and captured in the project proposal. These are levels of understanding of the topic, the ability and level of engagement to assist in finding solutions, and the ability to influence. Each of these aspects is covered in various sections of the report. It became clear during the March Working Group meetings that the role of chair, facilitator and presenters were crucial for encouraging engagement and informed discussion. There were variable abilities with chairing ranging from detached and passive to pro‐active. There were individual examples of high quality practice which noticeably contributed to increased engagement and participation, more focused results and greater ownership. High quality chairing facilitated effective and resolution‐oriented discussion, helped sector experts contribute without dominating and allowed ESCAP secretariat staff to contribute

Sharedfindingswithcolleagues

Incorporatedintopolicyadvicefor

Ministers

Sharedfindingswithkey

stakeholders

Other,pleaseidentify

Ihavenotyetbeenabletousetheinformationin

thisway


30

without being simultaneously responsible for content and group process management. One example on the second day was when a Chair organised a working lunch, with Working Group sector experts, others interested and ESCAP secretariat, in order to prepare draft actions and recommendations for the Working Group to actively debate as a whole and then report to the plenary session. There were also examples of high quality styles of presentation that both conveyed information and facilitated active engagement. One presenter moved out from behind the table, immediately building a connection with the group, had clear questions spread throughout his presentation and then ensured, through roundtable discussions, that each member of the Working Group actively participated and contributed. There was a similar range of skills evident in the reporting to the final plenary session. While there is always variation in individual behavior much can be improved by design. This can be done through consciously designing processes with results in mind through very simple steps, for example:

Preparing terms of reference and clear expectations of Chairs

Designing selection processes for the Chair that are both participatory and competence focused

Designing briefing sessions for the Chairs and presenters before working group meetings

Including facilitation skills as part of the terms of reference for expert presenters In terms of influencing it was very interesting to hear, through Interviews, about the contingent from the Pacific using the opportunity to meet each other after the plenary session in order strategize on relevant issues. They noted the importance of being encouraged and welcomed to participate actively in the working groups as a key contributor.

Project Products The processes used by ESCAP were designed to produce agreed, tangible products that can be investigated further and refined into an action plan for improving regional economic and financial integration. This is a key aim of the broadened project. The recommendations of all four WGs were shared by the respective Chairs. While they are noted here, it is important to remember they are draft, a work in progress and to be developed and refined. 14 The Working Group on Market Integration recommended: 1. On merchandise trade, (a) reduce trade costs by addressing non‐tariff barriers (b)

harmonize rules of origin for least developed countries in duty‐free quota‐free schemes and (c) use the Asia‐Pacific Trade Agreement framework for overall tariff liberalization.

2. On services trade, (a) pursue binding of autonomous liberalization (b) harmonize

regulations (c) strengthen the linkage between goods and services trade (d) increase cooperation on tourism and visa and (e) prioritize aviation liberalization in support of connectivity.

3. On investment, (a) promote intra‐regional business‐to‐business contact (b) strengthen the

14 Taken from notes of Daniel Jeongdae Lee


31

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI )network for least developed countries (c) foster cooperation among national investment promotion agencies and (d) adopt best practices on lifting restraints on outward FDI flows.

4. On labour migration, (a) develop an employment permit system to promote regular

migration and (b) establish an Asia‐Pacific migration forum to redress among others skill mismatch.

5. Maintain special and differential treatment, but not in a way that delays reforms. 6. Establish a regional integration fund for countries with special needs and capacity building. The Working Group on Connectivity recommended: 1. On transport connectivity: strengthen institutions and financing, including through public‐

private partnerships. 2. On ICT connectivity: (a) address the digital divide in the region (b) expand submarine

cables for small island developing States and (c) build cables along the Asian Highway and Trans‐Asian Railway to reduce costs and reach landlocked developing countries.

3. On energy connectivity: (a) expand cross‐border gas pipelines and electricity grids etc to

enhance energy security and efficiently link regional demand and supply and (2) work towards an inter‐government agreement on a regional energy framework.

4. Strengthen planning and coordination. 5. Establish a multi‐sectoral trust fund. The Working Group on Financial Cooperation recommended: 1. Establishing an Asia‐Pacific Infrastructure Investment Forum, to bring together Asian

Development Bank (ADB), Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), donor community and other stakeholders. It would identify, prioritize and pursue cross‐border and national infrastructure projects with significant positive externalities.

2. Establishing an Asia‐Pacific Tax Forum, for information and experience sharing and capacity

building to increase revenue collection for sustainable development. 3. Fostering Asia‐Pacific bond market development, building on existing initiatives such as the

Asian Bond Market Initiative (AMBI) and Asian Bond Funds (ABF), to support connectivity, trade and other regional initiatives.

4. Establishing an Asia‐Pacific Financial Stability Dialogue, for monitoring and to discuss

macro‐prudential policies etc. 5. Exploring the possibility of an Asia‐Pacific Monetary Fund, taking into account

arrangements such as the Chiang Mai Initiative Mulitlaterlization (CMIM) and Contingent Reserve Arrangements (CRA) and working with the IMF.


32

The Working Group on Shared Vulnerabilities and Risks recommended: 1. Enhancing knowledge sharing on agricultural markets, technology, early warning, etc

through research networks and regional institutions. 2. Strengthening regional cooperation on food security, including through food reserves. 3. Addressing potential risks from closer economic integration, which call for safeguards. 4. Ensuring that new cross‐border infrastructure does not exacerbate energy‐intensive

growth. The final plenary discussion focused on integration among Working Group recommendations and the active inclusion of environmental and sustainability issues in line with UN leadership on sustainable development.

SUMMARY The ESCAP secretariat implemented a number of activities to engage and involve national and sector experts in advancing the objectives of the project – captured by Commission resolution 70/1 ‐ to increase understanding of regional economic and financial integration and develop practical actions to create regional solutions. These included, among others, working groups on the four topics that met twice, an internal Task Force chaired by the ES that met once, and a conference call of all the sector experts prior to the second working group meeting. The value in holding two working group meetings was evident with 72% of participants reporting that their understanding of the issues had increased. 61% share their leanings from the working groups with colleagues and 44% with stakeholders. These are positive findings for the project. More concerning, in terms of influencing country leaders, only 19% reported including information, gained from the project working groups, in advice to their relevant Ministers. Effectiveness, in increasing understanding and influence, through engagement in processes is affected by the design used and the capability of those involved. A hallmark of the project was the design of a participatory approach for national and sector specialist and relevant ESCAP secretariat staff. Practice was patchy. There were clear examples however, of high quality preparation for the working group meetings, chairing, presentation and facilitation during 26‐27 March. These can be learned from and the findings incorporated into (i) future selection processes and (ii) the design of working group, plenary sessions and other participatory processes. In terms of project product ‐ practical actions to achieve more integrated regional financial and economic strategies, structures, mechanisms and policies – this project is contributing to a longer term process. Each of the working groups produced specific and focused recommendations. Discussion at the plenary session identified initial areas of overlap and integration, and the steps in place for 2015 culminate in a specific Ministerial meeting in December to address the recommend actions.


33

4.3 Efficiency

The assessment against the efficiency criterion refers to the extent to which the human and financial resources of the project were used in the best possible way to deliver activities and outputs. Questions:



In addressing these questions around efficiency this section looks at project design, project management, timeliness and budget expenditures.

Project Design The reasons for developing the project proposal were clear. The Global Financial Crisis in 2008 acted as a major motivation. There were a range of related activities around sub‐regional and regional integration and cooperation, for example over green energy and transport. Outside of ESCAP there were initiatives being explored for regional financial structures such as the AIIB.

Project Management Project management has also been discussed in the section on effectiveness because it influences efficiency and effectiveness. In terms of efficiency, the design of project implementation is important for increasing clarity of, and focus on, project goals and ensuring a useful process for implementation. In terms of this project there is no questioning the dedication, skill and hard work of Secretariat staff. The high ratings by working group members in response to questions about efficiency are just one example of this. There are, however, some questions about project planning and implementation. A range of implementation structures were established after the grant was available in 2013. They have all ben contributors to project management. They include:

A project facilitator role which was combined with a substantive expert contribution role to one of the working groups

A Task Force chaired by the Executive Secretary

Informal and task focused inter‐divisional meetings

Lead ESCAP divisions and senior staff identified and allocated to each of the working groups

While these were all useful steps, it became clear during the course of the evaluation that these actions scratched the surface of the potential available for good practice project management, especially for collaborative, multi‐dimensional, complex projects. There was an absence however, of a revised project document following the Bangkok Declaration. It would have been highly desirable to have:

a project plan with targets, indicators, milestones, critical path, roles and responsibilities, and ways of addressing challenges


34

a dedicated Project Manager

a direct reporting relationship between the project manager and the Task Force chair

This would have provided an implementation framework and made the connections between the activities undertaken by the secretariat. The absence contributed to variation in approaches and uncertainty about divisional roles. For example, the ESCAP secretariat team leaders working with working groups varied considerably in their approach to guiding the working groups, from more open, issue identification approaches through to a very focused approach working to a report outline from the beginning. While these variations may have been the best route to take, they happened by chance rather than through project design and agreed collective understanding. There is considerable potential for developing a set of project planning and management tools for projects like RECI that are cross‐agency, complex and require collaboration. There is useful guidance from the Executive Secretary on inter‐divisional cooperation 15 supported by the findings of the OIOS March 2015 evaluation report of ESCAP.16 It could be valuable for the UN Development Account to consider ensuring that project management systems are firmly planned for and to provide guidance for project leaders. If appropriate, it could also be practical to include funding for project management as part of the Account grant.

Timeliness A significant amount of organizing, selecting, setting of working groups, preparing papers, organizing of Terms of Reference for the groups and sector specialist consultants was undertaken between 2013 and March 2015. While there were comments about pressured deadlines and the desirability of papers reaching working group members earlier, the overall feedback is that working group members found the timeliness aspect of organizing to be efficient.

Budget and Expenditures The evaluator undertook a light touch review of budget and expenditure. This is largely because the use of resources was consistent with the original project proposal. Although the project became broader and the detail of what type of working groups changed, the underlying costs and cost structures did not. The budget was US$526,000 and by end March 2015 expenditure was 91% of budget.

15 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY’S GUIDANCE NOTE ON RELATIONS BETWEEN ESCAP SUBSTANTIVE DIVISIONS,

SUBREGIONAL OFFICES AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS, September 2014 16 Evaluation of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS); March 2015

Eva

SUM The Secrprojefficof m Ovebud

aluative Revie

MMARY

efficiency ofretariat staffect plan andciency, especmonitoring an

rall, the projget just prio

ew of Region

f the projectf. There was d the role estcially in termnd evaluatio

ject was delir to close off

nal Financial

implementalittle documtablished of ams of consisten.

vered in a timf.

and Monetar

ation was aidmented projea dedicated ent practices

mely manne

ry Architectur

ded by the skect planning. project mans, identifying

er and the pr

re in Asia-Pa

kill and dedic A revised pager would challenges e

oject expend

acific – Final D

cation of roject documhave helpedearly and in t

diture was 96

Draft

35

ment, terms

6% of


36

4.4 Sustainability of Results

The assessment against the sustainability criterion refers to the likelihood that the positive effects of the project will continue in the future Questions:



Introduction There are multiple contributing factors to sustainability and this project is positive on several. This section of the report discusses sustainability in terms of the following enablers:


process (vi) Future activities planned (vii) Collaboration opportunities (viii) Resourcing for future implementation

Enablers for Sustainability (i) Governance commitment – an ESCAP Commission Priority With two Commission resolutions and the Bangkok Declaration, a tight timetable for reporting actions, there seems to be considerable momentum behind this initiative. The initiative is also benefiting from and contributing to ESCAP’s work on Financing for Development, especially in the context of the emerging post‐2015 sustainable development goals. (ii) Organisation‐wide leadership It appears to be a flagship initiative within the Secretariat’s 5 years strategic plan and is intertwined with several strategic priorities. (iii) Senior Management commitment The Executive Secretary has set up a Task Force under her leadership and although it has only met once, even forming the Task force is a ‘leaderful’ act. On 9 March 2015, just before the 26‐27 March session, the SMT focused on how to make this project as effective and sustainable as possible, including how to build on, and accelerate the results from the Working Groups. (iv) A wide network of collegial connections between Sector experts Many of the sector experts contracted to work with the project are people who have worked with each other before, or with key regional organisations, on related matters. The experts interviewed at the 26‐27 March session confirmed the value of building knowledge networks , learning from each other and contributing to sub‐regional and regional economic and financial integration.


37

(v) Increased awareness from member State representatives Sustainability is influenced by the level and type of ownership by member countries. The project began through member countries developing and adopting the Bangkok Declaration and member countries have decided to continue on this process by consolidating the recommendations of the four working groups into an action plan to be considered by ministers at the end of 2015. Answers to several of the questions in the 27 March survey evaluation show high levels of engagement with the issues, active consideration of what the potential actions involve for their own country – both opportunities and challenges, and high levels of sharing information from the working groups. An area that will require greater attention in the future is strengthening the connection between working group members and their relevant Ministers. This essentially means reinforcing the distinctive strength of ESCAP as a regional convener and may require specific attention. (vi) Future activities planned The project is contributing to a number of already identified future actions. There are specific meetings in 2015, including the Ministerial meeting at the end of 2015, which the project will be reporting to. The synthesized outcomes of the Working Group deliberations in an Action Plan are also expected to be considered and endorsed for further action by the Commission at the Commission’s 72nd session in 2016. (vii) Collaboration Opportunities Policy makers and experts who participated in the four working groups are planning to continue the discussion through an online platform. This platform was created to facilitate knowledge sharing. It was established by the secretariat following 28 February Conference Call with sector experts at the suggestion of the experts. All those interviewed were keen to start using it. Working Group participants have also identified who they consider to be potential partners for ESCAP in implementing the Action Plan and taking the deliberations of the working groups further. While 32 institutions were noted, the eight most frequently mentioned, in descending order, are:

ADB (11)

ASEAN (8) – 4 separate components of ASEAN mentioned

SAARC (7)

United Nations (UN) (6) – 4 separate UN entities

AIIB (3)

APEC (2)

Pacific Islands Forum (PIF)(2)

World Bank (2) Internally, within the ESCAP secretariat there is considerable potential for greater cross‐divisional collaboration in a manner that fits with ESCAP collaboration guidelines17 and also fits seamlessly with existing Divisional priorities and work plans. The guidelines identify that: “Joint work programme planning, regular and transparent communications, effective utilization of resources, respect for the collective interests and creating synergies from teamwork underlie

17 Executive Secretary’s Guidance Note on Relations between ESCAP Substantive Divisions, Subregional Offices and Regional Institutions, 12 September 2014


38

the relationship between the substantive divisions, subregional offices and regional organizations.” (viii) Resourcing for future implementation These plans, when finalized and adopted, will require resources. At the time of this evaluation being undertaken it is unclear about the level of resources required. It is understood that investigation into potential resourcing for ongoing activities is being pursued with some particular country interest identified. A plan, developed in conjunction with the Strategy Programme Management Division (SPMD), will be important.

SUMMARY It is reasonable to assume that the positive benefits from this project will continue. Considerable momentum has been built and there are a number of positive contributing factors to sustainability around:


process (vi) Future activities planned (vii) Collaboration opportunities

There is awareness of the crucial importance of resourcing for future implementation. Specific actions have not yet been confirmed.


39

4.5 Gender Issues

Introduction While gender issues were not explicitly part of the Terms of Reference for this evaluation the lack of attention to gender analysis was noted in the survey following the first round of Working Group meetings. Importantly, the United Nations provides considerable international leadership on the vital nature of gender equality for sustainable development. This is reflected in the following statement in ESCAP’s strategy for 2015‐2020: “ inequalities, promoting the realization of rights and empowerment of women, and enhancing the social inclusion and rights of other vulnerable and marginalized groups.”18 and in ESCAP’s Gender Equality Policy.19 It was also reinforced in a recent address by the Executive Secretary Shamshad Akhtar on Gender Equality & Women's Empowerment: Asia‐Pacific Progress and Challenges. This address was on 12 March 2015 to the 59th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women. The ES said: “Let me take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to ESCAP member States for their active engagement in the Beijing+20 review process. I would also like to thank UN Women for its ongoing support of ESCAP’s work. She mentioned that: “Significant progress has been made on many fronts but, as noted by our member States, challenges remain across the critical areas of concern including, power and decision‐making, women and the economy, climate change and disaster risk reform, normative frameworks and institutional means” The ES reinforced that “The progressive outcome and consensus reached by ESCAP member States at the Conference will:

Ensure continued political commitment at the highest level; See adoption of a whole‐of‐government approach, which recognizes the critical

importance of gender equality in poverty reduction, inclusive growth and sustainable development; and

Nurture an enabling policy and legal environment to promote women’s leadership in all sectors of society and ensure the promotion of women’s and men’s equal rights.”

Working Group Participant Responses First Session of Working Groups The first series of working groups were organized sequentially, and separately from each other. They were all held in Bangkok between 25 November and 23 December. Working Group participants were asked if the Working Group sessions effectively addressed gender‐related issues. The responses raised a concern. In the context of a very positive set of responses to all other questions, it was lowest ranked in all working groups. It was the only question receiving mainly neutral ‐ negative responses.

18 26 November 2014, Executive Secretary’s “Guidance_note_on secretariat's strategic direction for 2015‐2020” 19 UN ESCAP; Gender Equality Policy; 7 March 2014


40

Second Session of Working Groups Working Group participants meeting between 26‐27 March 2015 were asked if there was “… any gender element in your discussions during this Working Group meeting?” 92% of respondents replied ‘no’.

Respondents identified a number of potential approaches about how gender analysis could be addressed. Specific suggestions included:

Focusing on financial inclusion of women in the financial cooperation development

Undertaking a gender differential impact assessment

Having empowerment and employment opportunities mainstreamed in strategy

Bringing together the organizations working on gender issues in trade and investment and labour movement in different countries

Effectively utilizing human resources regardless of gender would be required for strengthening regional cooperation. Human capital development, capacity enhancing are the areas that need to be covered

Through relevant dialogues under the ESCAP umbrella, as well as capacity building programmes arranged by ESCAP and other organizations in the Asia Pacific Region

Support to women entrepreneurs in the sub‐regions

Supporting women in business

Promoting cooperation between women’s business in the region Suggestions in relation to Working Group Planning and Process included:

Allocating a separate session on gender, because the current way of doing things is not conducive to gender discussions

By giving gender a separate platform /mention in the discussions

Through representation in working groups

By allowing more participation of women in the meetings/workshops For a minority of respondents the question was not seen as particularly relevant to the task at hand. Comments included:

Gender is a social issue (1)

Gender issue is not very important for regional economic cooperation (1)

Yes8%

No92%


41

RECI mostly a macro issue, gender is mostly a micro issue (2)

This is not an issue for special attention when there are enormous challenges at the onset. Once Asia Pacific regional integration starts moving under the new regional framework then gender issues can be considered (1)

One respondent said they had ‘No idea’ and another that their country did not address gender issues in this field. The situational analysis in the original project document did not include reference to gender issues, so it is probably not surprising that project implementation also did not include gender analysis. There are some interesting reports from the World Bank on gender and macroeconomics which may be relevant. 20 Given the UN leadership, the ESCAP Strategy 2015‐2020 and the survey responses there are opportunities to build on for addressing gender issues as a way of contributing to better economic and wellbeing outcomes for all. They include:

incorporation into the Terms of Reference of the experts likely to be engaged and of any working groups

for RECI, reference in the final consolidated paper and action plan

for ESCAP to ensure gender is mainstreamed into future project designs inviting the Gender section of ESCAP and SMPD to provide advice on gender analytical approaches and ways of connecting with ESCAP’s strategy

SUMMARY 92% of the participants in the second working group meeting identified that gender issues had not been addressed in the project. They also made suggestions of how gender issues could be considered. Given this response, and the strategic importance to ESCAP in addressing gender issues, there is an opportunity for ensuring relevant gender analysis is undertaken in implementing the work of the project during the remainder of 2015.

20 For example: “Nallari, Raj; Griffith, Breda. 2011. Gender and Macroeconomic Policy. World Bank. © World Bank.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2256 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.” �


42

5. Conclusions Developing an inclusive and sustainable regional financial and monetary architecture in the Asia‐Pacific region is a complex undertaking. As well as this key objective, expected project accomplishments included:

improved understanding among policymakers and development partners of key issues and operational components in developing mechanisms

enhanced regional consensus on the structure and components When there are many actors and influences at play it is not possible to draw a straight line of attribution between the inputs and activities of one relatively small project to change that is being created. In this particular instance the project is one part of a multi‐phased process, with some outcomes not becoming clear until the end of 2015 and others beyond 2015 ‐ after the completion of the project itself. From this evaluation however it is clear that the project has contributed to some of the shifts occurring in knowledge and understanding and the development of practical next steps for RECI. These shifts are indications of increased capacity. The project:

is highly relevant

in terms of effectiveness, it has contributed to noticeable achievements within the lifetime of the project, although full effectiveness has been hindered in some ways

has a mix of experiences in terms of efficiency and is overall positive

has contributed to some of the key elements for sustainability, while other steps are still in progress

has not incorporated gender considerations

Relevance The project appears to be highly relevant to ESCAP, member States and the region. Multiple sources of information, including Commission mandates, the ESCAP Secretariat’s strategy and stakeholder survey results, reinforce the relevance. Key relevant aspects of ESCAP’s 2015‐2020 Strategy are:





Effectiveness The ESCAP secretariat implemented a number of activities to engage and involve national and sector experts in advancing the objectives of the project – captured by Commission resolution 70/1 ‐ to increase understanding of regional economic and financial integration and develop practical actions to create regional solutions. These included, among others, working groups


43

on the four topics that met twice, an internal Task Force chaired by the ES that met once, and a conference call of all the sector experts prior to the second working group meeting. The value in holding two working group meetings was evident with 72% of participants reporting that their understanding of the issues had increased. 61% shared their leanings from the working groups with colleagues and 44% with stakeholders. These are positive findings for the project. More concerning, in terms of influencing country leaders, only 19% reported including information, gained from the project working groups, in advice to their relevant Ministers. Effectiveness, in increasing understanding and influence, through engagement in processes is affected by the design used and the capability of those involved. A hallmark of the project was the design of a participatory approach for national and sector specialist and relevant ESCAP secretariat staff. Practice was patchy in the implementation of the design. There were however, clear examples of high quality preparation for the working group meetings, chairing, presentation and facilitation during 26 ‐27 March. These can be learned from and the findings incorporated into (i) future selection processes and (ii) the design of working group, plenary sessions and other participatory processes. In terms of project product ‐ practical actions to achieve more integrated regional financial and economic strategies, structures, mechanisms and policies – this project is contributing to a longer term process. Each of the working groups produced specific and focused recommendations. Discussion at the plenary session identified initial areas of overlap and integration, and the steps in place for 2015 culminate in a specific Ministerial meeting in December to address the recommended actions.

Efficiency The efficiency of the project implementation was aided by the skill and dedication of Secretariat staff. There was little documented project planning although the annual progress reports for the UN Development Account provide a mechanism for noting revisions and changes. A revised project plan and the role established of a dedicated project manager would have helped efficiency, especially in terms of consistent practices, identifying challenges early and in terms of monitoring and evaluation. Overall, the project was delivered in a timely manner and the project expenditure was 91% of budget just prior to close off.

Sustainability It is reasonable to assume that the positive benefits from this project will continue. Considerable momentum has been built and there are a number of positive contributing factors to sustainability around:

(viii) Governance commitment (ix) Organisation‐wide leadership (x) Senior Management commitment (xi) A wide network of collegial connections between Sector experts (xii) Increased awareness of the issues from member State representatives involved in the

process (xiii) Future activities planned (xiv) Collaboration opportunities

There is awareness of the crucial importance of resourcing for future implementation specific actions have not yet been confirmed.


44

Gender 92% of the participants in the second working group meeting identified that gender issues had not been addressed in the project. They also made suggestions of how gender issues could be considered. Given this response, and the strategic importance to ESCAP in addressing gender issues, there is an opportunity for ensuring relevant gender analysis is undertaken in implementing the work of the project during the remainder of 2015.

6. Recommendations Recommendation 1: The UN Development Account is a global capacity building facility for UN secretariat entities. Steps to ensure a clear linkage between capacity building and the implementation of intergovernmental resolutions agreed by ESCAP members could include:


Incorporating capacity building approaches into the mechanisms used (such as working parties; webinars; and sector experts’ Terms of Reference) through participatory practices, peer sharing of skills and knowledge and action‐oriented working group meetings21


Recommendation 2: To help ensure project coherence, integration and collective ownership it is important for the project manager and team to be supported by the SMT. A framework to assist this vertical integration could include:22



Recommendation 3: For future strategic project developments ESCAP ensures cross‐divisional working together (in line with ESCAP guidelines on internal collaboration)23 24 through, for example:



The involvement of the Strategy and Programme Management Division (SPMD) in ensuring effective coordination between substantive divisions and sub‐regional offices and the connections with ESCAP strategy

21 There is considerable evidence that capability and capacity usually increase through people’s active participation

in practical learning situations 22 Capacity building approaches generally incorporate structural/system, organisational culture, relationship and individual leadership/support components. The suggestions in this recommendations are a sample. 23 Executive Secretary’s Guidance Note on Relations between ESCAP Substantive Divisions, Subregional Offices and

Regional Institutions, 12 September 2014 24 This is also consistent with the OIOS report: Evaluation of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the

Pacific; Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, March 2015


45

Recommendation 4: The use of multi‐country Working Groups for project implementation is consistent with ESCAP’s convening role. ESCAP should pay greater attention to specifically designing meeting approaches, as well as between meeting activities, that maximise the impact of ESCAP’s comparative advantages, particularly its convening power. It is important that working groups be designed to use processes that produce effective results. Designing ‘fit for purpose’ working groups should include, for example:



Actively promoting systems for Working Group members to connect with and influence country policy and relevant sub‐regional initiatives



Recommendation 5: To ensure gender issues are appropriately addressed in future project design and implementation at ESCAP. Future projects should be:

In line with ESCAP’s gender commitments and UN system‐wide activities on gender equity



Specific recommendation for RECI: For RECI specifically, reference to gender impact is included in the final consolidated paper and action plan Recommendation 6: When the key elements of a project change ESCAP should ensure the preparation of an updated project rationale and plan.

Prior to sign‐off of the new project ESCAP senior managers, together with relevant sector experts, should vet the feasibility of delivering outputs, activities and achieving outcomes as well as identifying baseline data against which to monitor and assess change

The design of project implementation should specifically include good practice project management, especially for collaborative, multi‐dimensional projects.

Annex I: Management Response

Report Overall Recommendation

Report Specific Recommendations Management Response and Follow-up Action

The UN Development Account is a global capacity building facility for UN secretariat entities. Steps to ensure a clear linkage between capacity building and the implementation of intergovernmental resolutions agreed by ESCAP members could include:


Incorporating capacity building approaches into the mechanisms used (such as working parties; webinars; and sector experts’ Terms of Reference) through participatory practices, peer sharing of skills and knowledge and action-oriented working group meetings1


This recommendation is in line with ESCAP’s strategy to increase synergy between its research, intergovernmental, and capacity development work.

Currently, the secretariat provides capacity development assistance, including through advisory services, to Member States upon request.

In the future, the secretariat may provide a more practice role in identifying the capacity requirements for effective implementation of an intergovernmental agreement.

Modalities such as holding a one-day workshop back to back with an intergovernmental meeting could also be considered, particularly for meeting participants from least developed countries.

To help ensure project coherence, integration and collective ownership it is important for the project manager and team to be supported by the SMT. A framework to assist this vertical integration could include:2



Currently, most Development Account and other capacity development projects are implemented at the working level under the guidance of relevant directors. They are not regularly discussed in SMT meetings.

In line with ESCAP’s strategy to strengthen interdivisional collaboration as well as the need for more strategic capacity development interventions, the SMT could in the future regularly discuss and provide guidance on capacity development projects.

For future strategic project developments ESCAP ensures cross-divisional working together (in line with ESCAP guidelines on internal collaboration)3 4 through, for example:



The involvement of the Strategy and Programme Management Division (SPMD) in ensuring effective coordination between substantive divisions and sub-regional offices and the connections with ESCAP strategy

Currently, the lead division for a project is required to consult other relevant divisions from the onset, in particular by circulating the concept note for feedbacks.

Core implementing divisions often hold joint staff meetings.

Interdivisional feedback also comes through the ESCAP Quality Assurance Team, which is a peer-review mechanism.

Building on past good practices, ESCAP could further enhance interdivisional collaboration in planning, implementing, and monitoring projects.

The use of multi-country Working Groups for project implementation is consistent with ESCAP’s convening role. ESCAP should pay greater attention to specifically designing meeting approaches, as well as between meeting activities, that maximise the impact of ESCAP’s comparative advantages, particularly its convening power. It is important that working groups be designed to use processes that produce effective results.

Designing ‘fit for purpose’ working groups should include, for example:



Actively promoting systems for Working Group members to connect with and influence country policy and relevant sub-regional initiatives



This project supported four area-specific working groups in which national experts nominated by governments participated, together with ‘lead’ experts who could facilitate and help advance the discussions. Prior to the first working groups meeting, the secretariat circulated ‘approach papers’ to inform the deliberations of the working groups. To promote synergies across the four working groups, the second meeting was held in parallel and consisted of both plenary and breakout sessions. One plenary session was conducted as a panel discussion amongst relevant sub-regional initiatives. The secretariat also closely assisted the chairs of working groups and in the preparation of the working group reports. Secretariat will

continue to work closely with Member States for effective meetings and working group arrangements.

To ensure gender issues are appropriately addressed in future project design and implementation at ESCAP. Future projects should be:

In line with ESCAP’s gender commitments and UN system-wide activities on gender equity



For RECI specifically, reference to gender impact is included in the final consolidated paper and action plan

This recommendation is in line with ESCAP’s strategy to mainstream gender across all of its work.

The working groups supported by the project had several female participants, including the Chair of the Working Group on Regional Financial Cooperation.

To further mainstream gender, the evaluation for the second working groups meeting had specific questions related to gender and welcomed any suggestions for future meetings. Many participants provided invaluable suggestions. ESCAP will work on them.

When the key elements of a project change ESCAP should ensure the preparation of an updated project rationale and plan.

Prior to sign-off of the new project ESCAP senior managers, together with relevant sector experts, should vet the feasibility of delivering outputs, activities and achieving outcomes as well as identifying baseline data against which to monitor and assess change

The design of project implementation should specifically include good practice project management, especially for collaborative, multi-dimensional projects.

This recommendation is in line with ESCAP’s existing practice. For Development Account projects, any major changes are updated through the annual progress reports. At the same time, interdivisional focal points meet regularly to discuss any changes and their implications. ESCAP will continue to exercise good practices in project management.

Annex II: Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference

1. Introduction

ESCAP is implementing a Development Account project “Developing a regional financial and

monetary architecture in the Asia-Pacific in support of global financial reforms” over the

period 2012-2014 (with a possible extension to 2015) with a total budget of US$526,000.

The expected accomplishments, as contained in the project document, are:

A. Improved understanding among policymakers and development partners of key

analytical issues and operational components involved in developing mechanisms

for regional financial and monetary cooperation that could help build resistance

against external economic shocks and promote the use of regional resources in a

more productive and efficient manner.

B. Enhanced regional consensus on the structure and components of a regional

financial architecture and agreement on the basic framework as well as long-term

plan for deepening regional financial and monetary cooperation towards developing

a comprehensive regional financial architecture.

The scope of the project was somewhat expanded during its implementation. While the

focus is still on regional financial cooperation, other areas of regional economic cooperation

and integration such as trade, connectivity, and shared vulnerabilities were added. This was

deemed necessary in light of new mandates, in particular ESCAP resolution 70/1.

Implementation of the project is led by ESCAP’s Macroeconomic Policy and Development

Division. Other divisions involved include: Trade and Investment Division, Transport Division,

Environment and Development Division, and ICT and Disaster Risk Reduction Division.

External partners include subregional bodies such as ASEAN and SAARC.

2. Purpose, Objectives and Deliverables

The purpose of this evaluative review (henceforth referred to as simply “evaluation”) is

twofold: first, to assess the project results for accountability purposes and second, to inform

future project design and implementation. The evaluation is required for all Development

Account projects and it was included in the project document with funds earmarked.

The evaluation objectives are:

A. To assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the project

results;

B. To formulate recommendations relating to the evaluation’s findings, for improving

the design and implementation of future projects; and

C. To formulate recommendations relating to the evaluation’s findings, on desired

follow-up activities to be undertaken by ESCAP and its partners.

The final deliverables of the evaluation will be:

A. Evaluation Report

B. Evaluation Brief (2-page summary of the report)

A presentation on the project evaluation including recommendations will be used to develop

an ESCAP Management Response. This document will be used to support accountability on

the agreed follow-up actions for organizational learning.

3. Scope

The scope of the evaluation is:

A. Geographically, the Asia-Pacific region as defined by ESCAP;

B. The entire project period, starting in 2012 to mid-2015; and

C. Focused on stakeholders involved in the project planning, activities and overall

implementation, e.g. ESCAP staff, officials and representatives from member States,

participants in meetings, ESCAP consultants, external partners, etc.

The evaluation questions include:

Relevance

• To what extent were project objectives and outputs aligned with member States’

development strategies and policies?

• To what extent were project outputs used by the member States?

Efficiency

• To what extent were human and financial resources used in the best possible way to

efficiently deliver activities and outputs?

• How was the project managed in terms of timeliness?

Effectiveness

• To what extent have the project’s planned outputs been achieved?

• How effective was the project in improving the understanding of and enhancing

regional consensus on the structure and components of regional financial

cooperation and other areas of regional economic cooperation and integration?

Sustainability

• To what extent can the positive outcomes resulting from the project be continued?

4. Methodology

The following should form the basic methodology. The Evaluator is encouraged to further

develop the methodology given his or her expertise during the evaluation planning stage.

• Data and information should be collected through:

- Desk review

- Interviews with staff during a mission to Bangkok

- Participant observation, questionnaire and face-to-face interviews with

participants during the working group meetings planned for March 2015 in

Bangkok

- Online surveys

- Semi-structured phone interviews

• The range of stakeholders involved should cover the participants of the area-specific

working group meetings as well as others to be agreed with the Evaluation Manager.

5. Limitations

The limitations of the evaluation include:

• Lack of or inadequate baseline data or information to determine if a change

occurred;

• Limited access to all stakeholders given that they are based at different locations

and multiple activities are undertaken; and

• Difficulty to demonstrate the contribution of ESCAP and in particular this project

when there are multiple actors and developments in the region.

6. Management Arrangements

The evaluation will be managed by an internal Reference Group comprising:

• ESCAP DA project manager as the Evaluation Manager

• ESCAP project staff from MPDD and other divisions

• ESCAP staff from Evaluation Unit

ESCAP will provide all project-related material in a timely, open and thorough manner so

that the Evaluator can conduct the desk review effectively. ESCAP will also assist the

evaluator in drafting the questions for the survey and will provide the necessary contact

details for conducting the survey and interviews.

The draft evaluation report, including findings and recommendations, will be shared with

the ESCAP Secretariat prior to finalization.

The final report will be used to develop the ESCAP Management Response for follow-up on

organization learning.

Annex III: List of Documents Reviewed

E/ESCAP/MCREI/1

9 October 2013

Towards a broader integrated market in Asia and the Pacific – note by

the secretariat

E/ESCAP/MCREI/2

Enhancing regional cooperation in connectivity and finance and in

addressing shared vulnerabilities and risks in Asia and the Pacific

E/ESCAP/MCREI/3

20 December

2013

Report of the Ministerial Conference on Regional Economic

Cooperation and Integration in Asia and the Pacific

2012 “Growing Together: Economic Integration for and Inclusive and

Sustainable Asia-Pacific Century” Theme Study

UNESCAP

17 September

2014

Executive secretary’s Guidance Note on Relations between ESCAP

Substantive Divisions, Subregional Offices and Regional Institutions

UNESCAP

7 March 2014

Gender Equality Policy

UNESCAP, April

2015

Development Account Project – Final Report

United Nations

E/AC.51/2015/7

18 March 2015

Evaluation of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the

Pacific; Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)

UNESCAP

26 November

2014

Executive Secretary ‘s Guidance Note on the Secretariat’s Strategic

Direction: 2015-2020

Annex IV List of Interviewees

Mr. Monoj Kumar Roy, Additional Secretary (FTA),

Ministry of Commerce, Dhaka,

Faiana Susana Laulu, Chief Executive Officer

Development Bank of Samoa

Mr Krishna Dutt Prasad, Deputy Secretary

Ministry of strategic Planning, National Development and Statistics, Fiji

Mr Heinz Schandl, Senior Science Leader

CSIRO, Canberra, Australia

Mr. Masahiro Kawai,

Former Dean of the Asian Development Bank Institute,

and Professor at the Graduate School of the University of Tokyo

Mr Abu Saeed Khan

Senior Policy Fellow

LIRNEAsia, Dhaka

Bangladesh

Ms Irina Smygalina

Division of UN International Organizations

Ministry of Economic Development , Moscow

Mr Muhammad Shahid Chaudhry

Ministry of Planning Development and reform

Islamabad, Pakistan

Mr. Jean Bertrand Azapmo,

National Trade Adviser,

Department of Resources Development

Pohnpei,

Ms Vennia

Mr Daniel Jeongdae Lee MPDD

Economic Affairs Officer

Mr Alberto Isgut, MPDD

Mr Nokeo Ratanavong IDD

Economic Affairs Officer

Disaster Risk reduction

Ms. Mia Mikic, Chief, TID

Trade Policy and Analysis Section

Mr Peter O’Neill TD

Chief, Transport Policy and Development Section

Mr Devin

Ms Rebecca Quereshi

Evaluation Unit MPD

Mr Don Clarke Recently retired Director, MPD

Annex V

Members of Working Groups for the November/December Working Group

Meetings

From First Meeting of the Working Group on Financial Cooperation 25-26 November 2014 Bangkok, Thailand

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

LEAD EXPERTS

Mr. Duvvuri Subbarao, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank and Former Finance Secretary of India Mr. Masahiro Kawai, Former Dean of the Asian Development Bank Institute, and Professor at the Graduate School of the University of Tokyo NATIONAL EXPERTS

AZERBAIJAN

Mr. Nuraddin Eynullayev, Chief Adviser, Ministry of Economy and Industry, Baku BANGLADESH

Mr. Moinul Islam, Additional Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Dhaka BHUTAN

Mr. Sonam Tenzin, Chief Planning Officer, Policy and Planning Division, Ministry of Finance, Thimphu CAMBODIA

Mr. Bora Meas, Deputy Secretary General, The National Committee for ESCAP, Phnom Penh CHINA

Mr. Huijiang Liang, Director General of International Finance Department, China Development Bank Corporation, Beijing

GEORGIA Mr. Ivane Shamugia, Donor Coordination Advisor, Administration of the Government of Georgia, Tbilisi

JAPAN

Mr. Naoki Yamashita, Second Secretary and Financial Attaché, Embassy of Japan, Bangkok NEPAL

Mr. Lal Shanker Ghimire, Joint Secretary, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Kathmandu

SAMOA Ms. Faiane Susana Laulu, Chief Executive Officer, Development Bank of Samoa, Apia

SRI LANKA Ms. Rupasingha Arachchige Swarnalatha Gunaratne, Director of Economic Research, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Colombo

THAILAND Mr. Rit Syamananda, Senior Expert on International Financial and Fiscal Policy, Fiscal Policy Office, Ministry of Finance, Bangkok

VANUATU

Mr. August Letlet, Director, Department of Finance and Treasury, Ministry of Finance and Economic Management, Port Vila

VIET NAM

Mr. Vu Chi Long, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Finance of Viet Nam, International Integration and Cooperation, Ha Noi

-------------------------

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE

PACIFIC Dr. Shamshad Akhtar, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of ESCAP

MACROECONOMIC POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Mr. Aynul Hasan, Officer-in-Charge, a.i., Macroeconomic Policy and Development Division Mr. Alberto Isgut, Economic Affairs Officer, Development Policy Section Mr. Sudip Rajan Basu, Economic Affairs Officer, Development Policy Section

Mr. Daniel Jeongdae Lee, Economic Affairs Officer, Macroeconomic Policy and Analysis Section Mr. Zheng Jian, Associated Economic Affairs Officer, Development Policy Section

_________________

First meeting of the working group on formation of

an integrated market in Asia and the Pacific 10-11 December 2014 UNCC, Bangkok

LIST OF EXPERTS

LEAD EXPERTS Mr. Florian Alburo, Professor, University of the Philippines and President, Center for the Advancement of Trade Integration and Facilitation, Manila, Philippines Email: [email protected] Mr. Saman Kelegama, Executive Director, Institute of Policy Studies, Colombo, Email: [email protected]

NATIONAL EXPERTS

AFGANISTAN Mr. Habibullah Asadullah, Trade Advisor, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Kabul, Email: [email protected]

ARMENIA

Ms. Hasmik Sargsyan, Chief Expert, International Economic Cooperation Department Ministry of Economy, Yerevan, Email: [email protected], [email protected]

BANGLADESH

Mr. Monoj Kumar Roy, Additional Secretary (FTA), Ministry of Commerce, Dhaka, Email: [email protected]

BHUTAN

Mr. Chhime Tshering, Chief , Trade Negotiation Division, Department of Trade, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Thimpu, Bhutan, Email: [email protected],[email protected]

CAMBODIA Mr. Tan Yuvaroath, Director, Department of Notifications and Legal Compliance (WTO Affairs), Ministry of Commerce, Phnom Penh, Email: [email protected]

CHINA

Mr. Zhen Chen, Deputy General Manager, China EXIM Bank, Beijing,China, Email: [email protected]

MALAYSIA

Ms. Che Mazni Che Wook, Director, Free Trade Agreements – policy and negotiations, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Kuala Lumpur, Email: [email protected]

MICRONESIA

Mr. Jean Bertrand Azapmo, National Trade Adviser, Department of Resources and Development Pohnpei, Email: [email protected]

MONGOLIA

Mr. Enkbold Vorshilov, The International Think Tank for Land Locked Developing Countries Ullan Baatar, Email: [email protected], [email protected]

NEPAL Mr. Swarnim Wagle, Member, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu, Email: [email protected]

NEW ZEALAND

Mr. Robert David John Scollay, Director, APEC Study Centre, University of Auckland, Associate Professor, Economics Department, University of Auckland Auckland, Email: [email protected]

PAKISTAN Mr. Ali Bat Khan, Chief (IT&F), Islamabad, Pakistan, Email: [email protected]

PHILIPPINES

Ms. Ramonette B. Serafica, Senior Research Fellow, Philippine Institute for Development Studies Manila, Email: [email protected], [email protected]

THAILAND Mr. Winichai Chaemchaeng, Executive Director, The International Institute for Asia-Pacific Studies Bangkok University, Bangkok, Email: [email protected]

VANUATU

Mr. Sumbue Antas, Director, Department of External Trade, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and External Trade, Port Villa, Vanuatu, Email: [email protected]

VIET NAM

Mr. Thai Son, Director, Office of National Committee for Economic Integration, Hanoi, Email: [email protected]

OBSERVERS

Mr. Sumith Nakandala, Secretary General, The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral

Technical and Economic Cooperation, Email: [email protected]

Ms. Julia Tijaja, Assistant Director/Senior Economist, ASEAN Integration Monitoring Office (AIMO), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Department, Jakarta, Indonesia Email: [email protected]

ESCAP SECRETARIAT Mr. Ravi Ratnayake, Director, Trade and Investment Division, Tel: +662 288-1902, Fax: +662 288 1027, Email: [email protected] Mr. Marc Proksch, Chief, Business and Development Section, Trade and Investment Division, , Tel: 662 288 1680, Fax: 662 288 1026, Email: [email protected] Ms. Mia Mikic, Chief, Trade Policy and Analysis Section, Trade and Investment Division, Tel: +662 288-1410, Fax: +662 288 1027, Email: [email protected] Mr. Yann Duval, Chief, Trade Facilitation Unit, Trade and Investment Division, Tel: +662 288 2252, Fax: +662 288 1027, Email: [email protected] Ms. Marit Nilses, Economic Affairs Officer, Business and Development Section, Trade and Investment Division, Tel: 662-288-1428, Fax: 662-288-1026, Email: [email protected] Ms. Elisa Sabbion, Economic Affairs Officer, Business and Development Section, Trade and Investment Division, UNESCAP, Tel: 662-288-1428, Fax: 662-288-1026, Email: [email protected] Mr. Sangwon Lim, Economic Affairs Officer, Trade Facilitation Unit, Trade and Investment Division, Tel: +662 288 2573, Fax: +662 288 1027, Email: [email protected] Mr. Tengfei Wang, Economic Affairs Officer, Trade Facilitation Unit, Trade and Investment Division, Tel: +662 288 1658, Fax: +662 288 1027, Email: [email protected] Mr. Adam Heal, Associate Economic Affairs Officer, Trade Policy and Analysis Section, Trade and Investment Division, Tel: +662 288 1377, Fax: +662 288 1027, Email: [email protected] Ms. Maame Agyeben, Associate Economic Affairs Officer, Trade Facilitation Unit, Trade and Investment Division , Tel: +662 288 2118, Fax: +662 288 1027, Email: [email protected] Ms. Soo Hyun Kim, Associate Economic Affairs Officer, Business and Development Section, Trade and Investment Division, Tel: 662 288-1427, Fax: 662 288-1026, Email: [email protected]

First Working Group Meeting on the Development of Seamless Connectivity

List of participants

MEMBERS AZERBAIJAN

Mr. Farid Valiyev, Senior Adviser, International Relations Department, Ministry of Transport, Baku, E-mail: [email protected]

BHUTAN

Mr. Bhimlal Suberi, Chief Planning Officer, Policy & Planning Division, Ministry of Information & Communications, Thimphu, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

CHINA

Mr. Zhao Ruyu, Deputy Chief Engineer, Transport Planning and Research Institute, Ministry of Transport, Beijing, E-mail: [email protected]

MALAYSIA

Mr. Somasundram Ramasamy, Senior Undersecretary for Energy, Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water, Putrajaya, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

NEPAL

Mr. Kamal Pande, Infrastructure Specialist and Former Joint Secretary, Economic Division, National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal, Singh Durbar, Kathmandu, E-mail: [email protected]

PAKISTAN

Mr. Muhammad Shoaib, Director (Road Transport), Ministry of Communications, Islamabad, E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Muhammad Shahid Chaudhry, Member (Implementation and Monitoring), Ministry of Planning Development and Reform, Islamabad, E-mail: [email protected]

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Ms. Irina Smygalina, Consultant, Division of UN International Organizations, Department of International Organizations, Ministry of Economic Development, Moscow, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Mr. Konstantin Kozlov, Third Secretary and Assistant Permanent Representative to ESCAP, Embassy of the Russian Federation, Bangkok, E-mail: [email protected]

SAMOA

Mrs. Oketevi Savea, CEO, Computer Services Limited, Apia, E-mail: [email protected]

THAILAND

Mr. Aniruth Hiranraks, Vice President, CAT Telecom Public Company Limited, Bangkok, E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Prasert Sinsukprasert, Deputy Director General, Energy Planning and Policy Office, Ministry of Energy, Bangkok, E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Poonpat Leesombatpiboon, Chief, International Energy Cooperation, Ministry of Energy, Bangkok, E-mail: [email protected]

TIMOR-LESTE

Mr. Joao Freitas, Information Technology Consultant, Office of Director General, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Dili, E-mail: [email protected]

----------------------------------

RESOURCE PERSONS

Mr. Abdelmoula Ghzala, Former Lead Infrastructure Specialist at the World Bank, Washington DC, USA, E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Abu Saeed Khan, Senior Policy Fellow, LIRNEasia, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Email: [email protected] Mr. Derek Atkinson, Infrastructure and Resource Management Specialist, Brisbane, Australia, E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Eric Kemp-Benedict, Asia Centre Director, Stockholm Environment Institute, Bangkok, E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Wathanyu Amatayakul, Research Fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute, Asia Centre, Bangkok, E-mail: [email protected]

----------------------------------

SECRETARIAT

Mr. Yuwei Li Director, Transport Division (TD)

Mr. Peter O’Neill Chief

Transport Policy and Development Section, TD

Ms. Tiziana Bonapace Chief

Information and Communications Technology and Development Section

Information and Communications Technology and Disaster Risk Reduction Division (IDD)

Mr. Hongpeng Liu Chief

Energy Security and Water Resources Section Environment and Development Division (EDD)

Mr. Kohji Iwakami Economic Affairs Officer

Energy Security and Water Resources Section EDD

Mr. Sergey Tulinov Economic Affairs Officer

Energy Security and Water Resources Section EDD

Ms. Joy Sinay Economic Affairs Officer

Transport Policy and Development Section, TD

First Meeting of the Working Group on Increasing Economic and Technical

Cooperation to Address Shared Vulnerabilities and Risks 10-11 December 2014 UNCC Bangkok Provisional List of Participants

Armenia Mr. Artak Aghanik Baghdasaryan, Head of Economic Development Policy Department, Ministry of Economy, 5 M.Mkrtchyan Street, Yerevan, 0010, Armenia, Tel: +374-10597120, Fax: +374-10526577, Mobile: +374-91345327, Email: [email protected]

Bhutan Ms. Tshering Lhamo, Planning Officer, Perspective Planning Division, Gross National Happiness Commission (GNHC), Royal Government of Bhutan, Tashi Chho Dzong, Thimphu, Bhutan, Tel: +975-2333230, Fax: +975-2326779, Mobile: +975-2326779, Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Cambodia Mr. Pagnathun Theng, Director General, Ministry of Planning, Office No.386, Monivong Boulevard, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia, Tel: +855-23213783, Fax: +855-23210698, Mobile: +855-12899313, Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Fiji Mr. Krishna Dutt Prasad, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Strategic Planning, National Development and Statistics, 370 Victoria Parade, Level 8 Ro Lalabalau House, Suva, Tel: +679-3313411, Fax: +679-3304809, Mobile: +679-9904489, Email: [email protected]

Georgia

Mr. Paata Brekashvili, Expert in Economic Policy/Researcher, Georgian Association for International Development, Caucasus University, 10 Politkovskaya Street, Tbilisi 0186, Georgia, Tel: +995-322377777, Fax: +955-322313226, Mobile: +995-599457040, Email: [email protected]

India

Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Director, National Climate Centre, India Meteorological Department, Office of the Additional Director General of Meteorology, Shivajinagar, Pune, 411005, India, Tel: +91-02025533426, Fax: +91-02025535877, Mobile: +91-9422305632, Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Japan

Mr. Michikazu Kojima, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO, Walaba 3-2-2 Mihama-ku, Chiba-shi, Chiba, Japan, Tel: +81-432999565, Fax: +81-432999763, Mobile: +81-9078107503, Email: [email protected]

Nepal

Mr. Rabi Shanker Sainju, Programme Director/Section Chief, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Singadurbar, Kathmandu, Nepal, Tel: +977-14211052, Mobile: +977-9851119235, Email: [email protected]

Vanuatu

Mr. Davidson Gibson, Acting Director, Vanuatu Meteorological and Geo-Hazards Department, PMB 9054, Lini Highway, Number 2, Port Vila, Vanuatu, Tel: +678-24686, Fax: +678-22310, Mobile: +678-5344091, Email: [email protected]

Resource Persons

Mr. Ramesh Chand, Director, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP), Indian Council for Agricultural Research, D.P.S. Marg, Pusa, New Delhi 110012, Delhi (UT), India, Tel: + 91 11 25842684, Mobile: + 91 9818235571, Email: [email protected] Mr. Heinz Schandl, Senior Science Leader, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Langtree Crescent, Crace, Canberra, ACT, 2911, Australia, Tel: + +61 262464345, Mobile: + 61 448760772, Email: [email protected] Mr. Frank Thomalla, Senior Research Fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute - Asia, Soi Aree 3, 18 Pahonyothin Road, Phaya Thai, Bangkok 10400, Thailand, Mobile: + 66 ( 0) 86- 343-8670, Email: [email protected]

ESCAP Secretariat

Ms. Shamika Sirimanne Director Information and Communications Technology and Disaster Risk Reduction Division (IDD)

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Chief Disaster Risk Reduction Section, IDD

Mr. Masakazu Ichimura Chief Environment and Development Policy Section Environment and Development Division (EDD)

Mr. Nokeo Ratanavong Economic Affairs Officer Disaster Risk Reduction Section, IDD

Ms. Nia Cherrett Economic Affairs Officer

Disaster Risk Reduction Section, IDD

Ms. Kareff Limocon Rafisura Environment Affairs Officer Environment and Development Policy Section, EDD

Ms. Narada Kalra Staff Assistant Disaster Risk Reduction Section, IDD

Ms. Chonlathon Piemwongjit Staff Assistant Disaster Risk Reduction Section, IDD

Annex VI: Summary Results from Survey post November/December Working

Groups

Regional Financial and Monetary Architecture in Asia-Pacific

Assessment of Working Group Meetings Survey – A Summary

1. Working Group Meetings In November and December 2014, the first of two planned meetings were held of each of the

four working groups established to explore and recommend on Regional Financial and Monetary

Architecture in Asia-Pacific. The Working Groups and their meetings are:

25-26 November: Financial Cooperation

10-11 December: Increasing Cooperation to Address Shared Vulnerabilities and Risks in Asia and

the Pacific

10-12 December: The formation of an Integrated Market in Asia and the Pacific

22-23 December: The Development of Seamless Connectivity

2. Questionnaire Responses At the end of each meeting participants are asked to complete a questionnaire on meeting:

• relevance

• effectiveness

• efficiency, and

• to make general comments about meeting highlights, areas for improvement and how

they, as participants will use the information in their own workplace?

Question response ranking scales are: 1-5: Strongly Disagree 1 – Neutral 3 – Strongly Agree 5

Response rates varied from Working Groups with a full response of 9 from 9 from Increasing

Cooperation to Address Shared Vulnerabilities and Risks… and the smallest response of 6 from 14

from Financial Cooperation

3. Issues from Responses

(i) Relevance:

• Average ratings of 4.25 – 4.4 for regional relevance

• Average ratings of 3.6 - 4.1 for relevance to participant’s own country

Comments: useful to include (i) more focus on the Pacific for Seamless Connectivity WG, (ii) sea

transport in Integrated Market WG and (iii) middle income countries in Shared Vulnerabilities

and Risks WG

(ii) Effectiveness:

• Overall positive: Averaged ratings for four questions range from: 3 – 4.8

• Addressing gender-related issues effectively clearly a concern. It was lowest ranked in all

working groups (3-3.6) and only question receiving mainly neutral - negative responses

• Financial Cooperation WG received slightly lower rankings than other WGs

• Series of useful suggestions for improvement (see more detailed report)

(iii) Efficiency:

• Overall positive: Average for 3 questions range from: 3.5 – 4.8 (3.5 was an unusually low

rating for question re: ‘Adequate time for discussions’ in Financial Cooperation WG)

• Secretariat efficiency and effectiveness rated very highly: 4.6 - 4.8

• Series of useful suggestions for improvement (see more detailed report)

(iV) Additional Comments – 4 questions (all comments recorded in Meeting Assessments

Report)

• Use of information in own workplace: sharing with, and advice to: management,

colleagues, other relevant agencies/government ministries, country policymakers,

interested stakeholders

• Encouraging greater meeting engagement: mix of suggestions eg: greater structured

participation, wider range of expertise, and presentation of good practice success stories

• Most successful aspects of meeting: sharing experiences / information

• Meeting Improvement: see individual WG summaries