The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2005-2009 in the Philippines:

Lessons Learned

Final Report

Manasi Bhattacharyya

Consultant

5 October 2010

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................................................... IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1

UNDAF 2005-2009: Formulation Process and Design ................................................................ 1

Implementation Mechanism, UNDAF Theme Groups and Coordination ............................ 2

Delivering as One and Joint Programming ...................................................................................... 3

UNDAF Roll- Out: Key Emerging Issues ............................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 7

1.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 The Approach and the Scope of the Study ............................................................................... 7

1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Desk Review ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Collection of Data ................................................................................................................................. 8

1.4 Analysis and Report writing ........................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................................... 9

1.6 Timeline .................................................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER-2: THE PHILIPPINES UNDAF (2005-2009): THE PROCESS, THEMATIC CONTENT AND KEY EMERGING ISSUES .......................................................... 10

2.1 Formulation Process of the UNDAF (2005-2009) for the Philippines ...................... 10

2.2 The Design, Content and the Implementation Process ................................................... 11 2.2.1 The UNDAF Thematic Areas ............................................................................................................ 11 2.2.2 The UNDAF Results Matrix .............................................................................................................. 12 2.2.3 Monitoring & Evaluation plans ....................................................................................................... 13 2.2.4 The UNDAF M&E Framework .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.5 Cross-cutting issues ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.6 Implementation Mechanism: Thematic Groups and their Evolution ............................... 17 2.2.7 Collaboration and Partnership........................................................................................................ 21

CHAPTER-3 DELIVERING AS ONE AND JOINT PROGRAMMING .............................. 23

3.0 The approach ........................................................................................................................................ 23

3.1 ‘Delivering as One’: The Philippines Context ....................................................................... 23 3.1.1Common services ................................................................................................................................. 25 3.1.2 Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers .................................................................................. 26 3.1.3 Joint Programming ............................................................................................................................. 26 3.1.4 Advocacy and Communications ..................................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER-4 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 30

4.1 Formulation of the UNDAF ............................................................................................................. 30 4.1.1 Preparatory Phase .............................................................................................................................. 30 4.1.2 Formulation Process and the Content ......................................................................................... 30 4.1.3 Addressing Cross-Cutting Issues .................................................................................................. 32

4.2 Implementation Mechanism: UNDAF Theme Groups and Inter-agency Coherence ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

4.3 Delivering As One ............................................................................................................................... 33 4.3.2 Joint Programming: Lessons learned From the Philippines Experiences ....................... 35 4.3.3 Advocacy and Communication: Lessons learned From the Philippines Experiences 35

SELECT REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 36

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................ 38

ANNEX 1 UNDAF (2005-2009) – KEY OUTCOMES, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES ........... 38 1) UNDAF Outcome 1: Macro Economic Stability and Broad-Based and Equitable Development .................................................................................................................................................... 38 2) UNDAF Outcome 2: Basic Social Services ................................................................................... 39 3) UNDAF Outcome 3: Good Governance ......................................................................................... 40 4) UNDAF Outcome 4: Environmental sustainability and Climate Change Adaptation .... 42 5) UNDAF Outcome 5: Conflict Prevention and Peace-building ................................................ 43 6) Cross-cutting Issue: Human Rights ............................................................................................... 44 7) Cross-cutting Issue: Gender Mainstreaming .............................................................................. 44 8) Cross-cutting Issue: Humanitarian Reforms/Early Recovery ............................................... 45 9) Cross-cutting Issue: HIV/AIDS ........................................................................................................ 46 10) MDG Advocacy ....................................................................................................................................... 47 11) Avian Influenza ...................................................................................................................................... 47 12) Security Management.......................................................................................................................... 48

ANNEX 2: The United Nations System in Middle-Income Countries (MIC) in South-East Asia: Development Cooperation and the UNDAF .............................................................. 49

Annex 3: QUESTIONNAIRE - UNDAF (2005-2009): Lessons Learned .............................. 52

Acronyms ADB Asian Development Bank AusAID Australian Agency for International Development AWP Annual Work Plan CBMS Community-based Monitoring System CCA Common Country Assessment CCPP Common Country Programming Process CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women CPAP Country Programme Action Plan CPD Country Programme Document CPR Crisis Prevention and Recovery CSA Civil Society Assembly CSAC Civil Society Advisory Committee CSO Civil Society Organization DRM Disaster Risk Management GMC Gender Mainstreaming Committee GOP Government of the Philippines HDR Human Development Report HRBA Human Rights-based Approach JP Joint Programming LGU Local Government Unit M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal MDG-F Millennium Development Goal Fund MIC Middle Income Country MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan NEDA National Economic and Development Authority NGO Non-governmental Organization NRAs Non-Resident Agencies ODA Official Development Assistance RBM Results-based Management RC Resident Coordinator RM Results Matrix TG Theme Groups UN United Nations UNCO United Nations Coordination Office UNCT United Nations Country Team UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDG United Nations Development Group

Executive Summary Introduction

Under the leadership of National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) representing the Government of the Philippines (GOP) and in close consultation with the United Nations Civil Society Advisory Committee (UNCSAC) and the development partners, the United Nations Country Team (UNCT)1 in the Philippines is embarking on the preparatory activities for a new United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for the period of 2012-2016. Evaluation of the current UNDAF2 is a prerequisite for this process.

To optimize the utilization of the study, the UNCT decided to undertake a participatory lessons learned exercise, instead of a formal evaluation, with an overall objective to inform the design and preparation of the new UNDAF.

This report is an inward-looking document, which presents the lessons learned from successes and challenges, and identifies the issues and opportunities emerging from the current UNDAF cycle. The study has drawn inputs primarily from the UN staff members and the UNCT.

UNDAF 2005-2009: Formulation Process and Design

It has been observed that, while UNDAF is important to the UN and its partners, a better appreciation of its strategic value should be ensured within the UN system. The UN staff members need to be oriented on UNDAF, and its role in the national development scenario. The relevance of UNDAF is not clear to some UN staff in the context of an individual agency’s mandate. It will be useful to develop a conceptual framework for providing a broader perspective and to demonstrate how agency contributions are related to UNDAF outcomes.

The current UNDAF (2005-2009) was drafted before the formulation of MTPDP (2004-2010), and, in fact, it is based on the previous MTPDP (2001-2004). It is crucial to ensure that the new UNDAF is aligned with the MTPDP in terms of the cycle and priorities.

The UNDAF Steering Committee was set up to guide the UNDAF formulation and it was expected that it would continue its functions during the implementation stage and secure the involvement of the NEDA. However, this committee ceased to function, and as stated in the Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007) documents, this committee did not meet in 20063. There is a need for establishing a governance structure with clear specification of shared responsibilities and accountability between the UN and the Government. The UNDAF should be owned by the Government to ensure an effective implementation and monitoring. Government counterparts should be involved in the process as early as possible to ensure ownership. Participation of Local Government Units (LGUs) and other sub-national stakeholders and civil society partners is also equally important. Greater involvement of the UNCSAC and Civil Society Assembly (CSA) should be ensured in providing substantive inputs in developing the new UNDAF and in forging partnerships for its implementation. Efforts should also be made to engage the private sector, industry associations, trade unions and farmers’ cooperatives in obtaining views and perspectives external to the Government, as they are also key actors in any development process as providers of technology, financial resources, skills training, and serve as both producers and consumers. There is a need to define a platform for formal engagement of these stakeholders.

1 The United Nations Country Team consists of UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, FAO, ILO, IFAD, UN Habitat, IMO, IOM, UNHCR, UNIDO, HABITAT, UNAIDS, ICAO, OCHA, UNDSS, and the Bretton Woods Institutions World Bank, IMF, IFC and the ADB. Non-resident agencies such as UNEP, UNESCO, UNIFEM, UNODC, and UNOHCHR are also part of the UNCT.

2 At the request of the Government, the current UNDAF (2005-2009) has been extended until 2011. The new UNDAF will start on 2012 to align with the national planning process and the priorities of the new Administration.

3 The committee did not meet beyond 2006 (based on interviews with the UN Staff).

Strengths of smaller/non-resident agencies (NRAs) should be recognized and they should be involved in the process to make the UNDAF more inclusive. NRAs should be contacted in advance to ensure their participation. During the formulation process, especially in the course of identifying priority areas, the staff members need to have the ability and willingness to look beyond their respective agency mandates and view issues from a broader perspective, through the lens of ‘Delivering as One’. The challenge is to ensure inclusiveness, without losing the strategic focus.

As regards the design, it has been noted that, commitment for each outcome and output in the UNDAF is shared by a number of agencies and their implementing partners. This has posed challenges in attribution and accountability. To ensure clear accountability, outputs should be attributed to the agencies, as individual agencies have clear comparative advantages at this level. For the forthcoming UNDAF process, priority should be given to strengthening the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework. Current UNDAF Results Matrix (RM) has a number of indicators for each result and for many of them, baseline values are missing. To maintain the focus of the RM and to make the UNDAF operational, it is recommended that only few indicators are selected based on the highest relevance, measurability and availability of baseline data. Moreover, in the UNDAF document, the RM does not contain risk analysis and assumptions; it should be included in the RM.

The cross-cutting programming principles such as HRBA and gender equality were not adequately addressed in the current UNDAF. Incorporation of these principles was left to the agencies. There were no mechanisms to ensure compliance and no incentives were provided. In the context of the Philippines it is critical to mainstream these programmatic principles as the UN has comparative advantage in this area.

For mainstreaming HRBA, it is critical to arrive at a common understanding and have the clarity of purpose. Development of concrete guidelines and tool kits will enhance skills and foster a common understanding and vision among UN agencies, Government line agencies, LGUs and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). In the case of gender mainstreaming, it is important that gender equality is mainstreamed into UNDAF outcomes. The RM must contain specific gender indicators and means of verification for monitoring and evaluating the gender dimension of the UNDAF.

Implementation Mechanism, UNDAF Theme Groups and Coordination

UNDAF Theme Groups (TGs) were formed to facilitate the implementation of UNDAF outcomes. However, the TGs did not function optimally, and were disbanded in 2007. One of the key factors behind the low appreciation of UNDAF in the Philippines was discontinuity of the TGs. At the group level, the functioning was affected by the lack of sustained commitment of the majority of the member agencies of each thematic group. Agency mandates confined their relationships with respective constituencies and partners, which curbed the scope for cooperation between agencies. TG members also felt that the functioning and motivation of the groups significantly depends upon the leadership quality and strategic vision of the Convener/convening agency. A strong and committed leadership and a concrete work plan specifying clear responsibilities, M&E mechanism and communications plan are essential to sustain the functionality of TGs. At the personal level, some group members felt de-motivated due to the lack of genuine appreciation of their important roles. For many agencies, it was not part of the staff performance appraisal4. To sustain the commitment of group members it is crucial to recognize their contributions.

The UN Coordination Office (UNCO) should continue providing direction and coordination for effective functioning of the TGs. UNCO needs dedicated financial and human resources to ensure strategic guidance to agencies to maintain focus on the achievement of UNDAF outcomes and M&E.

4 UNFPA has already included participation in the UNDAF process in its staff appraisal.

Delivering as One and Joint Programming

In 2007, the GOP, through the NEDA, affirmed its commitment for a One UN System in the Philippines by 2010. As noted by some agencies, ‘Delivering as One’ has not yet been fully implemented in the Philippines, though some significant initiatives have been made in this direction. Over the last few years, the UN system in the Philippines has been strengthening operational coordination with the improvement of common services, including, domestic courier service, travel services including negotiated corporate airfares, common procurement, information technology (IT), and hospitalization and evacuation services for the staff. Small agencies perceive that common services mean savings in administrative costs, which will allow them to allocate more resources for programme activities.

A ‘One UN House’ Task Force was convened in 2006 to oversee the process of finding common premises for the UN system in the Philippines. Significant progress was made in this respect with the signing of Presidential Proclamation no. 1864 in Aug 2009 designating a government building in Makati City, Manila as the common premises of the UN System in the Philippines.

In 2008, the Philippines was declared by the UN Development Operations Coordination Office (DOCO) as a fully Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT) compliant country.

Valuable insights about ‘Delivering as One’ process can be gained from lessons learned of first two years of implementation of this initiative in eight (8) pilot countries and self-starters, many of them are relevant in the Philippines context.

The ‘Delivering as One’ process should begin simultaneously with the UNDAF roll-out to simplify the programming process to ensure strategic focus, programme coherence and alignment to national priorities. Pilot countries’ experiences suggest that, the UNDAF, One UN Programme, Country Programme Action Plan (CPAPs) and Country Programme Documents (CPDs) need to be integrated into a single document. The UNDAF Action Plan may prove to be a viable option. The UNDAF Action Plan reflects the results already specified in the UNDAF RM. According to the UNDAF guidelines, UNCTs have the flexibility to either keep the UNDAF RM at the outcome level, or develop a fuller RM, that includes outputs. To maintain the focus of the UNDAF, it is suggested to keep the RM restricted to the outcome level and specify the outputs in the UNDAF Action Plan. The UNCT in the Philippines has agreed to the formulation of a UNDAF Action Plan.

A Joint Communication Strategy facilitates support to ‘One UN Programme’. External communication can improve the visibility of the UN, whereas internal communication is crucial to support the change management process and to ensure enhanced coordination. A set of “core” messages agreed by the UNCT is a good start.

It is critical to ensure the promotion of effective results based joint programming (JP), which will ensure optimal use of resources and capacities available according to a clear division of labor and comparative advantages. As part of the ‘Delivering as One’ initiative in the Philippines, a number of JPs have been launched in recent years. Several important lessons have been learnt from the experiences of implementing JPs in the Philippines.

Benefits of JP need to be clearly understood. It is important to spend time in identifying good subjects and clear roles for agencies to work together on subjects based on their comparative advantages. JPs should be conceptualized and implemented in true spirit of ‘Delivering as One’, and must not be regarded as a mere resource mobilization strategy without thorough assessment of internal and partners’ capacities to deliver the required outputs. One of the critical factors for improving the effectiveness of JP is to ensure that participating agencies, especially the convening agencies, take off their individual UN agency hats and work for the JP. Otherwise, there would be a lot of mistrust among the member agencies. There was a suggestion that it might be better to have a management team consisting of all HOAs doing the oversight of such JPs. Multi-stakeholder consultation at all levels is critical to promote the convergence of inputs, directions and knowledge. The lack of inclusiveness in the project design phase and lack of ownership of the national partners may meet

resistance from Implementing Partners. Government commitment to JP is essential for the effective implementation and sustainability of the program. UN agencies must use common implementation modes and adopt harmonized administrative and financial systems. Until this harmonization happens, common work plans and outcomes are the only binding factors, which can be used to improve programme delivery. The JPs through Millennium Development Goal Achievement Fund (MDG-F)5 are good initiatives but these require dedicated resources for guidance and oversight to be provided. UNCO should play this important role. It was suggested that the JP Coordinators should report to the UNCO, which would promote the principle of ‘Delivering as One’.

UNDAF Roll- Out: Key Emerging Issues

The roll out of the new UNDAF (2012-2016) and the preparatory phase are very important in the present socio-economic and political context. With the new government in place, the UNCT in the Philippines has a great opportunity to cut a niche and demonstrate the relevance and efficiency of the UN system. As expected by the GOP, the UN can set an example to other bilateral and multi-lateral partners in the Philippines6. This will call for acceleration and strengthening of the ‘Delivering as One’ efforts and progression towards the ‘One Programme’ in a coherent and coordinated manner, ensuring alignment with national priorities. The proposed One Programme, as the central driver of the ‘Delivering as One’, provides an opportunity to put in place an integrated strategic framework of the UN’s programmatic interventions, reducing overlap and fragmentation. Comparative Advantages (CAs) of the UN system in the Philippines include the following:

• Normative role in advocating and promoting global norms and standards, inclusive development, the MDGs and human rights;

• Wide menu of expertise combined with access to global technical knowledge and experience, including South-South cooperation;

• Impartiality/neutrality and ability to convene diverse stakeholders and build consensus; and • Ability to broker and/or mobilize resources.

The UN’s strength lies in “upstream” engagement in policy and sharing of best practices and technical knowledge especially in the context of the Philippines as a lower middle-income status country. Under the Paris Declaration, donors committed to providing technical co-operation in a manner that is coordinated with strategies and programmes in the partner country. The results of the 2008 survey on the monitoring of the Paris Declaration shows that 43 percent of the technical cooperation provided by the UN was coordinated with the Philippines country programmes. Thus, there is a considerable scope for improvement in the provision of technical knowledge in a coordinated manner.

For simplification of the country programming process, ‘One Programme’ can be integrated with the UNDAF exercise. Emphasis should be given on simplifying the reporting on the programming cycle. One Year-End Report for all UN activities in a country is sufficient and increases transparency, especially with reference to the Government and development partners. To ensure a smooth transition, the organizational structure should support the vision. Skill sets of staff members should shift more towards policy advocacy.

Based on the lessons learned, the emerging issues for the next UNDAF cycle can be summarized, as follows:

• Thematic/sectoral and geographical focus of UN interventions need to be determined and areas of convergence should be identified and agreed upon;

5 MDG-F is an international cooperation mechanism to accelerate progress on the MDGs world-wide. This was established in December 2006 with a generous contribution of Euros 528 million from the Spanish Government to the UN system at the global level

6 Report of the 2007 UNCT Annual Retreat.

• There is a need for establishing a management structure for the UNDAF with clear specification of responsibilities and accountability. The UNCT and the Government should be equal partners in the management mechanism. The UNDAF should be owned by the Government to ensure an effective implementation and monitoring, which is also crucial for realizing the ‘Delivering as One’;

• For an operational UNDAF, participation of all stakeholders, including LGUs, civil society, donors and private sector should be fostered at all stages;

• Enhanced engagement of NRAs should be ensured in the next UNDAF cycle and their inputs should be recognized;

• The focus of the UNDAF should be maintained, limiting it to the outcome level. Implementation of the UNDAF Action plan, to which the UNCT has already agreed7, is a right step in this direction. However, it has to be a living document and the RM should be modified whenever necessary. The UNDAF Action Plan must be revisited periodically by the UN agencies and its partners to review the progress;

• Strong Results-based Management (RBM) should be put in place for all phases of the UNDAF;

• The programming principles such as gender equality and HRBA should be mainstreamed more effectively in planning, implementation and M&E; these should also be promoted in the Government line departments;

• The JP should be implemented in the true spirit of ’Delivering as One’, and clear plan should be laid out for the transition to the ‘One Programme’;

• There is a need for an effective Joint Communication Strategy to support One UN Programme: external communication for improving the visibility of the UN, and internal communication to support the change management process and to ensure enhanced coordination. Communication can play an important role in popularizing the UNDAF;

• The UNCT should utilize its comparative advantage in policy advocacy and knowledge transfer to maintain its relevance in a middle income country: it should be a two-way exchange;

• The UN should play an enhanced role in South-South Cooperation – especially in the areas of disaster preparedness and response, good governance, democratic reform and decentralization.

7 UNCT meeting, 14 April 2010

Chapter-1 Introduction

1.0 Background

As part of the 1997 reform agenda to make the United Nations (UN) an effective and efficient institution for world peace and development in the 21st century, the Secretary-General stressed the strong inter-linkages between peace and security, poverty reduction and sustainable human development and promotion and respect for human rights. The Common Country Assessment (CCA) and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) are outcomes of this coherent vision and strategy that allows for a unified approach towards common development goals. The UNDAF is a vital strategic framework that articulates a collective, coherent and integrated response of the UN system at the country level in support of the national priorities and needs.

In 2004, the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) and its partners in the Government and civil society prepared the second UNDAF (2005-2009) for the Philippines. To align with national planning processes and to benefit from the new Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan (MTPDP), at the request of the Government the 2005-2009 UNDAF has been extended to a 2012 start. Concerned UN agencies developed their two-year ‘transitional’ programme to cover the period of 2010 and 2011.

Under the leadership of National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) representing the Government of the Philippines (GOP) and in close consultation with the United Nations Civil Society Advisory Committee (UNCSAC) and the development partners, the United Nations Country Team (UNCT)8 in the Philippines is embarking on the preparatory activities for a new UNDAF for the period of 2012-2016. Evaluation of the current UNDAF9 is a prerequisite for this process.

To optimize the utilization of the study, the UNCT decided to undertake a participatory lessons learned exercise, instead of a formal evaluation, with an overall objective to inform the design and preparation of the new UNDAF.

This report is an inward-looking document, which presents the lessons learned from successes and challenges, and identifies the issues and opportunities emerging from the current UNDAF cycle.

1.1 Objectives

The specific objectives of the task are the following:

• To document and analyze the processes of UNDAF formulation, its thematic content and implementation as well as the processes of implementing ‘Delivering as One’ and joint programming;

• To review major achievements in five UNDAF outcome areas10 ;and • To summarize the lessons learned and provide recommendations for the next UNDAF cycle.

1.2 The Approach and the Scope of the Study

As mentioned earlier, the present lessons learned exercise is not a formal evaluation following the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) guidelines. This is a forward-looking endeavour to learn from successes and challenges of the current UNDAF cycle. It is a participatory exercise, which has drawn inputs primarily from the UN staff members and the UNCT. The study focuses more on the processes rather than the results.

8 The United Nations Country Team consists of UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, FAO, ILO, IFAD, UN Habitat, IMO, IOM, UNHCR, UNIDO, HABITAT, UNAIDS, ICAO, OCHA, UNDSS, and the Bretton Woods Institutions World Bank, IMF, IFC and the ADB. Non-resident agencies such as UNEP, UNESCO, UNIFEM, UNODC, and UNOHCHR are also part of the UNCT 9 The current UNDAF (2005-2009) has been extended by two years and the start of the new UNDAF has been postponed to 2012 to align with the MTPDP cycle. 10 Refer to Annex 1.

1.3 Methodology

The phases of the lessons learned exercise are discussed below.

1.3.1 Desk Review

In the preparatory phase, a desk review was conducted to study a wide range of relevant documents and develop a questionnaire11 for collection of data. The key documents included but not limited to –

- CCA and UNDAF documents;

- UNDG guidelines;

- UNDAF Annual Reviews;

- Annual Progress Reports of the UN Resident Coordinator (RC);

- MTPDP;

- Human Development Report (HDR),

- Philippines Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Progress reports;

- The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR) of Operational Activities for Development

- Country Programme Action Plans (CPAP) or similar tool for the UNCT and

- Reports of various agency-specific evaluations and assessments.

1.3.2 Collection of Data

Collection of primary data through questionnaire survey

A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted among the UN staff and partners to elicit information and capture perceptions about the UNDAF cycle. There were 33 responses from the UNCT and UN staff members and one from the CSAC. In addition to that, group discussion and informal interviews were conducted with UN staff members, who were involved in the UNDAF formulation process and were part of UN theme groups. A multi-stakeholder consultation will be organized to share the findings and the key recommendations.

Collection of secondary data

Primary data collected through questionnaire survey was complemented by the insights drawn from relevant documents mentioned earlier.

1.4 Analysis and Report writing

Data and other information collated through various sources were primarily analyzed qualitatively. The report has been organized as follows:

1. Background; 2. UNDAF 2005-2009: The Process, Thematic Content and Key Emerging Issues; 3. Delivering as One and Joint Programming; and 4. Lessons Learned and Key Recommendations.

Annex 1 - UNDAF (2005-2009): Key Outcomes, Outputs and Activities

Annex 2 - The United Nations System in Middle-Income Countries (MIC) in South-East Asia: Development Cooperation and the UNDAF

Annex 3: Questionnaire – UNDAF Lessons Learned

11 Questionnaire is enclosed in Annex 3.

1.5 Limitations of the study

As mentioned earlier, this study is mainly based on the inputs of the UNCT, UN staff and a member of the CSAC. Highlights of this study, however, were shared in a series of multi-stakeholder consultations on August 24-26, 2010 with representatives of national government, civil society and development partners.

1.6 Timeline

This ‘lessons learned’ exercise was commissioned in April 2010 and will be concluded in August 2010.

ACTIVITIES APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Debrief on UNDAF Regional Workshop, including revisiting of timelines (15 April)

Desk review of existing and relevant documents

Development of the inception report

Share inception report for comments (13 May UNDAF WG Meeting)

Debrief with the UNCT, on inception report (19 May UNCT Meeting)

Finalizing revised report outline, questionnaire survey

Drafting of evaluation report

Sharing initial results with UNDAF WG (10 June)

Debrief initial results (1 July special UNCT Meeting)

Receiving comments and revision of the draft report

Multi-stakeholder consultation

Finalization of the report

Chapter-2: The Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009): The Process, Thematic Content and Key Emerging Issues 2.1 Formulation Process of the UNDAF (2005-2009) for the Philippines

In 2004, as part of the Common Country Programming Process (CCPP), the UNCT and its partners in the Government and civil society prepared the second UNDAF (2005-2009) for the Philippines, which embodies the UN commitments in support of the national development priorities. The UNDAF was based on the CCA drafted in 2003, which analyzed the national development situation and identified key development issues with a focus on the Millennium Declaration/MDGs and other international conventions.

The CCPP in the Philippines for formulating the CCA and the UNDAF was initiated in 2002 with training sessions on the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) to development and the conduct of a gender assessment of development trends, challenges and outcomes in the country12. First, an initial CCA framework was developed, which was later enriched by inputs from the UN ExCOM agencies (UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA)13 in the form of several sectoral assessments and situational analysis involving causality and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis, clustering of issues and scenario building. Focal points from each agency played crucial role in this process. The findings of these assessments were validated through a multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral workshop. Participants in that workshop identified key developmental themes for the CCA, which were later analyzed by the UN Thematic Groups. Thematic Working Groups conducted individual in-depth workshops for each theme. Findings and recommendations of the thematic groups were finally presented during a plenary session for validation and finalization of CCA conceptual framework. The CCA was finally approved in March 2003, after several rounds of consultations. Along with the CCA finalization process, the preparatory phase for the UNDAF was initiated. UNDAF Prioritization workshop was organized in October 2003. UN agencies participated in this workshop to identify the outcomes for UNDAF. Based on the CCA findings, the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs, consensus was reached on five priority areas of UNDAF cooperation.

The CCA 2004 identified the key underlying causes of poverty and exclusion in the Philippines: 1) inequitable economic growth and ownership of assets; 2) severely unequal access to opportunities and basic social services; and 3) inability of key change agents, particularly women, to play an active role in improving their lives and those of others.

To address these causes, the UNDAF committed to contribute to five strategic outcomes which it sought to achieve by 2009:

§ Macroeconomic Stability, Broad-Based and Equitable Development – focused on UN-GOP cooperation in the formulation of pro-poor policies and the development of management and planning capacities of vulnerable groups;

§ Basic Social Services – focused on collaboration on the demand and delivery of services for health, education, and social protection/social security;

§ Good Governance – focused on justice and human rights, public sector and decentralized governance, and political, electoral and legislative reforms that facilitate citizen participation;

§ Environmental Sustainability – focused on improved natural disaster response through creating a stronger policy environment, capacity development of local stakeholders, and increasing access to services; and

§ Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building – focused on strengthening policy environment, capacity development for Government, civil society, former combatants and communities, and ensuring the rights of those affected by the armed conflict.

12 UNDAF (2005-2009) 13 WFP was not present in the country during the CCA-UNDAF formulation.

As the CCA and UNDAF guideline14 suggests, the UNCT cannot respond coherently to every goal and objective of the national development framework. It will have to select priorities, in line with the principles of HRBA, gender equality, environmental sustainability, results-based management (RBM), and capacity development as well as its comparative advantages at the country level. In the context of Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009), in all five areas, the United Nations System identified its comparative advantages drawing on its values, successful global knowledge base, best practices and lessons learned; its strong normative mandate; its neutrality; and its ability to encourage efficient coordination and facilitate accountability among donors.

The UNDAF aims to contribute to the national priorities, and for doing that, it is imperative to align with the national planning processes and ensure the ownership of national partners/stakeholders. However, the current UNDAF was formulated, at a time when the preparations for the MTPDP (2004-2010) were soon to be undertaken, and hence the cycles as well as the contents of the two instruments are not aligned. The current UNDAF is based on the previous MTPDP (2001-2004)15.

The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development16 conducted in 2007 notes another drawback in the UNDAF formulation process. The report mentions that the low operational value of the current UNDAF document could be partly attributed to the fact that, national stakeholders were invited to participate in the preparation process of the CCA and UNDAF at a stage when the UNCT had already shaped the main orientations of the documents. However, it is worth mentioning that the formulation of the current CCA and UNDAF was closely monitored and guided by the UNDG. National stakeholders were engaged following the timeframe prescribed in the UNDG guidelines.

Role of Non-Resident Agencies (NRA) in the formulation of the current UNDAF was limited. As one NRA mentioned, its participation was curbed due to delayed communication received about the consultation process. It was felt that NRAs should be contacted in advance to ensure their involvement.

2.2 The Design, Content and the Implementation Process

The Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) document has three parts. The first part discusses the global and national socio-economic context, the UNDAF priority areas and the outcomes, estimated resource requirements, implementation strategies and approaches and monitoring and evaluation plan. The second part is the results matrix (RM) that outlines the UNDAF outcomes/outputs, role of partners, resource mobilization targets, coordination mechanisms and programme modalities. The third component of the document is the UNDAF Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework, which specifies the UNDAF outcomes/outputs along with the indicators and source of verification.

2.2.1 The UNDAF Thematic Areas

As discussed earlier, the priority areas for the UNDAF were chosen on the basis of the CCA, which conducted a causality analysis to identify the causes of poverty. As defined by the General Assembly, the CCA is the common instrument of the UN system to analyze the national development situation and identify key development issues with a focus on the MDGs and the other commitments of the Millennium Declaration and international conventions.

The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development conducted in 2007 notes that, as a programmatic tool for greater UN system coherence, ‘the design of UNDAF is not perceived as fulfilling expectations’. The five priorities of

14 CCA/UNDAF Guideline, UNDG, February 2009 15 The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007) 16 The main purpose of the in-Country Consultations was to draw first-hand information and insights from key players at country level on the efficiency of the functioning of the UN system and its effectiveness to support national development strategies and achieve internationally agreed development goals.

the current UNDAF are not very different from the UN areas of cooperation identified in the 1990s, which were: economic growth with equity human development, environment and sustainable development, governance, disaster management and peace building. During 2006 UNCT retreat, though three different priority areas for coordinated UN action, namely, good governance, human security and disparity reduction, were identified, finally existing five themes were retained.

However, some UN staff members have strongly endorsed the existing priority areas, and they feel that the thematic areas of UNDAF very well capture the fundamental challenges faced by the Filipino people today, and still remain highly relevant. However, these broad areas need to be re-examined in light of changes in the operating environment. For example, the priority area on environmental sustainability will need to be re-crafted to include climate change and disaster mitigation as one of the focus areas, while the thematic area on conflict prevention and peace-building may need to be seen as a dimension of a larger crisis prevention/management and recovery framework that also includes disaster risk reduction and management.

2.2.2 The UNDAF Results Matrix

UNDAF RM articulates the implementation mechanism for realizing the planned outcomes in each priority area. The RM is the crucial tool that operationalizes the UNDAF.

However, a close look at the RM reveals that:

(1) Outcome statements use change language but most of them are very broad. This is probably because agencies want to see their specific mandate reflected in result statements to demonstrate their relevance to the national priorities. This makes these statements mere compilations of agency agenda. UNDAF Outcome-2 in the area of basic social services can be taken up for example.

UNDAF outcome-2: By 2009, increased and more equitable access to and utilization of quality, integrated and sustainable basic social services by the poor and vulnerable.

CP Outcome 1: (UNICEF, UNFPA, WHO, UNAIDS, UNIC)

By 2009, more Filipinos, especially children, adolescents and women, are aware of their rights, including reproductive rights, and are empowered to claim their rights to health and education.

CP Output 1.1 (UNICEF, UNFPA, UNAIDS, WHO)

Women, men, adolescents and children are able to make informed choices about responsible health and other behavior and practices by accessing educational services, community-based development, protection, participation and reproductive health interventions and HIV/AIDS prevention education, thereby ensuring the realization of their rights

The broad UNDAF outcome has resulted in a very broad CP outcome. The CP output is also pitched at a very high level, almost at the level of the CP outcome. Broad outputs become undeliverable and difficult to measure17. In this particular case, the logical flow between the output and the outcome cannot be established. The “if - then” logic does not follow in this results chain, i.e. if the output is achieved, it is not evident that there is an increased possibility of achieving the outcome as well.

(2) The UNDAF Annual review conducted in 2005 noted that, the outcome and output statements in the RM are not clearly formulated. From these statements it is difficult to derive the exact scope and nature of interventions and identify duty bearers and claim holders. During the 2005 UNDAF review,

17 CP Outcome and output indicators have not been clearly differentiated in the M&E framework, which will be discussed later.

theme group members attempted simplifying the RM. However, formal adoption of the simplification by both the UN and the NEDA, GOP partners did not happen.

(3) As per the UNDG guideline (2009), risk analysis and assumptions are probably the most important aspect of the results matrix. A SWOT analysis is used to identify key risks and assumptions, which enables the UNDAF to serve as an instrument of implementation, and not only a planning tool. In the UNDAF document the RM does not contain risk analysis and assumption and the identification and adoption of risk mitigation measures, which makes it incomplete.

2.2.3 Monitoring & Evaluation plans

Since development is a process, the UNDAF was meant to be a living document to adapt to changes in the country’s economic, social and political situations. An M&E plan was put in place by the UNCT to track the changes and measure the progress in achieving the desired results, which was expected to be carried through the results based management (RBM) approach. M&E activities suggested by the UNDG guideline (2009) include:

• Annual progress reviews carried out and brief reports produced for each UNDAF Outcome. • Annual UNDAF Reviews carried out to enable UNCT and partners to make decisions based

on evidence of results that will enhance subsequent performance. • An UNDAF Evaluation commissioned in consultation with national partners to feed its

findings into the development of the next UNDAF.

During the 2005-2009 cycle, UNDAF Annual Reviews were conducted for the years 2005 and 2006 and a Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development took place in 2007. Internal UNDAF theme group reviews were carried out as part of the annual UNDAF reviews.

However, both the 2005 and 2006 annual reviews were delayed and did not follow the UNDG guided time schedule. Instead of the last quarter of the year, they were conducted respectively in the first quarters of 2006 and 2007. Consequently, most agencies had to develop their Annual Work Plans (AWP) without the inputs from the annual reviews. The RC’s annual progress reports also could not fully benefit from the annual reviews for the same reason.

The mid-term review, which was due in 2007, became redundant, as the second UNDAF annual review was conducted the same year. However, the Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development in 2007 provided some useful insights about the performance of the UNDAF. The end-line lessons learned exercise has been undertaken to inform the next UNDAF.

2.2.4 The UNDAF M&E Framework

A properly developed M&E framework ensures accountability of an UNDAF. It also helps in identifying key challenges in order to make mid-stream changes in the approach and delivery of activities, outputs and outcomes or their targets.

However, the M&E framework of the UNDAF has several weaknesses as discussed below –

(1) A number of indicators have been listed at each level of result. For many of them, base-line values are missing. As suggested by the UNDG CCA/UNDAF guideline (2009), the UNDAF M&E framework should specify the outcome/output, the indicators with baseline and targets. However, the Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) has not specified targets in the indicators column of its M&E framework, as shown below. The absence of a target, and baseline in many cases, renders the RM an ineffective tool for measuring the progress. In the absence of overall and annual targets it has been difficult to assess the yearly progress, as has been pointed out in the annual reviews. Given the constraint, the annual reviews were only able to document the yearly achievement in each priority area.

Table 1: UNDAF RM Format prescribed by UNDG Guideline

UNDAF Outcome Indicator(s) and Baselines

Means of verification Assumptions and Risks

UNDAF Outcome1

1.1 Agency outcome

- Output 1.1.1

- Output 1.1.2

- Output 1.1.3

…

Indicators; Baselines, targets18

Indicators; Baselines, targets

Sources:

Responsible agencies/ partners

Sources:

Responsible agencies/ partners

At the interface:

(1) Between national priorities and UNDAF outcomes; and

(2) UNDAF outcomes and Agency outcomes

1.2 Agency outcome

- Output 1.2.1

….

Indicators; Baselines, targets

…

Sources:

Responsible agencies/ partners

Source: UNDG guideline for CCA and UNDAF (Feb 2009)

Table 2: Actual Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) RM for Outcome 1

Source: The Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) (2) In the Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) commitment for each outcome and output is shared

by a number of agencies and their implementing partners. Common outcomes and outputs have posed challenges for accountability; there are no measures to identify agency contributions. Outputs are the level of results where clear comparative advantages of

18 Note that targets for outcomes are to be reached by efforts beyond those specified of the UN.

Country programme outcome/output

Indicators and baselines Sources of verification

CP Outcome 1:

By 2009, more Filipinos, especially women, children and adolescents, are aware of their rights including reproductive rights and are empowered to claim their

rights to health and education.

• Proportion of caretakers aware of children’s rights

Baseline: 1999 : 84.3 %

•% increase in the number of women, adolescents and men seeking RH information and services in government health facilities, teen centers, schools and clinics in the workplace

Baseline : Not available·

•% increase in the number of community networks of women organized to advocate for RH issues

Baseline : Not available

MICS

DOH Records /Reports

DOH Records/Reports

individual agencies emerge. To ensure accountability, outputs should have been attributed to the agencies. As noted during the annual reviews, the lack of systematic way to identify agency contributions for specific results caused significant level of inaccurate reporting at the UNDAF AWP review stage.

(3) The ExCOM agencies have aligned their current CPAPs with the UNDAF (2005-2009). Other agencies also have adjusted their work plans to contribute to the UNDAF outcomes. However, as the annual reviews reveal, agencies were primarily driven by their agency-specific mandates and there has been a lot of scope to align the agency CPAPs with the UNDAF CP outcomes and outputs. For example, as noted by UNDP, HIV/AIDS is covered under Basic Social Services and Governance outcome areas in the UNDAF results matrix, whereas in UNDP CPAP it is covered under the outcome area of macroeconomic stability. This caused difficulty in reporting agency-specific contribution to UNDAF outcomes.

(4) It has been noted by annual reviews and reported by agencies that their M&E frameworks are disjointed with the UNDAF M&E framework19. In 2006, following the recommendations of the 2005 UNDAF annual review, an M&E Task Force was established under the UN Programme Support Group to support the M&E requirements for the UNDAF and MDGs and to harmonize agency M & E systems. The task of revising the UNDAF M&E framework and aligning the agency M&E systems were undertaken. However, it was a work-in-progress and never completed. As noted by a staff member, this was because M&E focal persons had to focus on their agency specific deliverables. There was no clarity on their role in the UNDAF process. M&E should be an ongoing process and an integral part of the implementation of UNDAF. However, the UNDAF M&E mechanism was not operational because of the factors discussed above. For the RC’s annual progress report, UN agencies accomplished the matrices and UNCO prepared the consolidated matrix. Thus, it has been a retrofitting exercise to comply with HQ requirements.

(5) For an effective M&E system, availability of accurate data is essential. Data, desegregated by relevant analytical categories (such as demographic and geographic) should be made available for proper tracking of progress. However, during the 2005-2009 UNDAF cycle, UN agencies had difficulty monitoring output-level performance because of the lack of relevant and reliable sources of verification, as available data sources were not adequately disaggregated by municipality, sex, age, etc.

2.2.5 Cross-cutting issues

Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA)

UNDAF’s compliance with HRBA requires a systematic application of human rights standards and principles in all phases of the programming processes including the formulation of result chains. The institutional and behavioral changes are imperative for right-holders to claim their rights and/or for duty-bearers to fulfill their obligations and should be reflected in all UNDAF and Agency outcomes. Agency Outputs should be intended to narrow the capacity gaps which prevent claim holders and duty bearers to fulfill their roles. The UNCT should show greater rigor and clarity on how their programs will lead to outcomes that will fill the various capacity gaps and highlight how they will identify those accountable for meeting obligations. Accountability establishes a clear difference with traditional development approaches. HRBA depends on good statistical database and strong country analytical work on social and regional disparities.

The Philippines UNDAF has documented its commitment for the HRBA to development. As the document mentions, “The UNCT has emphasized the creation of an enabling environment that enhances the Government’s ability to formulate rights-based and pro-poor policies as well as to build the capacities to pursue and institutionalize political, economic and social reforms.” In the

19 The 2006 annual UNDAF review noted that among the UN agencies, the programme framework of UNDP adheres most closely to the design of the UNDAF.

Philippines, the UNCT found that physical and social barriers to participation for the most vulnerable greatly undermine any right-based development in the country. Thus the UNCT agenda in the country focuses on targeting poor regions and specific impoverished groups.

Though the UNDAF document explicitly underlines the need for adopting HRBA for achieving the MDGs, the M&E framework is not fully compliant with the HRBA.

As regards the implementation, UN agencies mentioned that though efforts were made to incorporate the HRBA, it was not adequately addressed. Instead of being the basic underpinning principle, the HRBA was seen as “afterthought” and real mainstreaming did not happen. As has been mentioned, sometimes it was not clear how it will be effectively mainstreamed and translated into specific outputs and activities. However, there were some efforts worth mentioning (discussed in details in Annex-1). UNDP has been supporting NEDA in the implementation of the project “Mainstreaming of the Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) on Development Policies, Programs and Activities of NEDA”, which has also been supported by UNFPA, UNICEF, and UNAIDS. The project’s main activity has been the conduct of HRBA capacity building trainings for the NEDA Central and Regional Offices to effectively mainstream HRBA in the MTPDP exercise. This initiative has created significant interest among National Government Agencies (NGA). There is a commitment of NEDA to cost share 40 percent of the total budget. The strong political will provides a great opportunity for effective mainstreaming of HRBA in government planning in the Philippines. However, there is a lack of common understanding on mainstreaming HRBA among the line agencies of GOP. There is a need to develop guidelines on application of HRBA in policies, programmes and M&E. Capacity building tools and mechanisms are generally inadequate and hence a plan should be developed for transfer of HRBA skills from the national level to LGUs.

Gender Equality

Gender Equality is one of the five key programming principles of the UNDAF, which is also at the core of the HRBA. The Philippines UNDAF (200520-09) documents its commitment to gender equality. However, it is imperative to get this priority translated into strategic UNDAF results chains and consequently into holistic programming for gender equality.

In 2007, a workshop on Mainstreaming Gender and Women’s Rights in Development Programming and its application to the UNDAF and CPAPs was organised for the UN staff. In this workshop, the UNDAF outcome/output statements and the indicators were analyzed through a gender lens. It was found that, in many cases outcome/output statements were not gender-sensitive. The participants in the workshop revised the UNDAF country programme outcome and output statements from the agency Country Programme Action Plans to demonstrate mainstreaming of the gender and human rights perspectives. Corresponding indicators and sources of verification were also enhanced. However, these revisions were never formalized.

Sample Output from the Workshop: Enhanced UNDAF Outcomes and Indicators from Gender and Human Rights Perspective

UNDAF Outcome: Basic Social Services

Original Outcome Statement: By 2009, more Filipinos, especially children, adolescents and women are aware of their rights, including reproductive rights, and are empowered to claim their rights to health and education.

Enhanced Outcome Statement: The goal by 2009 is to increase by 2 to 5% the number of Filipinos, specifically those belonging to the poor and most vulnerable groups, such as children, adolescents and women, with greater access to quality education and health care, specifically in reproductive health. This is to be done through a participatory educational process which provides them with necessary tools and resources to actively advocate and claim their rights.

Indicators & Sources of Verification:

• Lower maternal mortality rate (MMR) - National Demographic and Health Survey

• Lower infant mortality rate - National Demographic and Health Survey

• Increased number of women accessing prenatal care - National Demographic and Health Survey

• Increased English, Math and Science scores of children – both girls and boys - TIMMS

• Survey of increased number of women going into non-traditional disciplines - Commission of Higher Education (CHED)

Source: Workshop document (2007)

As a programmatic principle, gender equality has not been fully mainstreamed. Like HRBA, gender equality has also been attempted to be incorporated later, which has never been done in a systematic way.

However, there have been some success stories also. In 2004, a UN Gender Strategy Framework in the Philippines (GSF PHI) 2005-2009 was developed with support from UNICEF, UNFPA and UNDP. A Gender Mainstreaming Committee (GMC) was formed in 2006, which was chaired by UNICEF. The GMC is composed of the gender focal persons of the UN Agencies in the Philippines and provides technical support to the UNCT and the UNDAF Working Groups to ensure that gender equality and women’s empowerment are prioritized in the UN supported programmes and projects. GMC’s main functions include (1) technical assistance in gender-responsive programming, (2) partnerships and networking, (3) communications and advocacy, (4) knowledge management and (5) institutional and capacity building. The GMC has initiated the institutionalization of UN Guidelines by conducting UN staff and partners’ orientation on the use of the Harmonized Gender and Development (GAD) Guidelines. It also provided technical assistance for the review and update of the Philippine Plan for Gender responsive Development and the MTPDP.

GMC engaged in the preparation of the UNCT Confidential Report to the CEDAW Committee in 2006. This report was appreciated by the CEDAW as a good practice of UN coordination by the CEDAW Committee members. As follow-up to the CEDAW reporting, GMC developed a JP on Responding to the CEDAW Recommendations (JP-CEDAW) to address issues related to the implementation of the Convention in the Philippines. The JP assisted in enhancing capacity of selected national stakeholders, UN programme staff and academic partners. Among other activities, JP-CEDAW conducted participatory gender audits of UNDP and UN-HABITAT, which raised the benchmark of gender compliance and catalyzed gender responsive programming. Another achievement of JP-CEDAW was enactment of the Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act 9710 signed into law) realized on 14 August 2009. Major results achieved in gender equality have been discussed in annex-1.

2.2.6 Implementation Mechanism: Thematic Groups and their Evolution

In order to ensure that the programmes of the UN during the UNDAF programming cycle contribute to the identified development outcomes, an inter-agency technical working group, comprising of representatives from UN agencies, was established to serve as the mechanism to develop strategies to support the realisation of the UNDAF outcomes. The group was formed also to ensure that the UN agencies collaborate efficiently and effectively and promote partnership with the Government, civil society, private sector and donors.

Following the UNDG Guideline20, in the March 2004 Annual Retreat of the UNCT, the Heads of Agencies (HoA) agreed to form the inter-agency UNDAF Thematic Groups (TGs). These TGS were small, composed of 5 – 7 participating agencies. Five TGs, delineated along the five UNDAF outcome areas, were, as follows:

20 It is recommended that thematic groups for each UNDAF outcome are convened to refine the details of the RM matrix. These groups should be capable in the application of HRBA, gender mainstreaming, RBM, capacity development, South-South cooperation, and environmental sustainability. Following the finalization of the UNDAF, these UNDAF outcome groups are responsible for using the results matrix, together with partners, for joint monitoring of progress towards each UNDAF outcome. The outcome group will use this monitoring to report to the individuals leading the UNCT. (UNDG, February 2009)

Table 3 Thematic Groups

UNDAF Outcomes Convenor

Macroeconomic Stability, Broad-Based and Equitable Development UNFPA (Lead), ILO (Co-Lead)

Basic Social Services UNICEF (Lead), WHO (Co-Lead)

Good governance UNDP (Lead), UN-HABITAT (Co-Lead)

Environmental sustainability FAO (Lead), UN-HABITAT, UNDP (Co-Leads)

Conflict prevention and peace building UNDP (Lead), IOM (Co-Lead)

In all their endeavours the theme groups were expected to project a ‘Delivering as One’ image and strive towards achieving the MDGs. According to the generic terms of reference of UNDAF thematic groups, specific responsibilities of these theme groups included:

(a) As a Strategic “think-tank: Provide strategic recommendations for accelerating achievement

of UNDAF Outcomes/Output and recommend appropriate action to the UNCT on relevant concerns/issues;

(b) Joint-Programming: Identify and operationalise priority areas for JP or collective action and recommend a mechanisms for implementation;

(c) Monitoring and Evaluation: Support UN-initiated and government efforts to develop monitoring and evaluation system by identifying priority outcomes and indicators per relevant area of cooperation/theme; and Report to the UNCT on the progress and accomplishments of the TG (taking into account the inputs from various sub-groups), including presenting outputs and raising issues and concerns and recommendations to the UNCT for appropriate action.

(d) Linkage with the Philippines Development Forum (PDF)21: Identify areas for collaboration to strategically situate the UNCT in the PDF by ensuring high level visibility and effective coverage of UNCT common issues and agenda in the PDF Working Groups (i.e., MDGs and Social Progress, Growth and Investment Climate, Economic and Fiscal Reforms, Governance and Anti-Corruption, Decentralization and Local Government, Mindanao, Sustainable Rural Development, and Infrastructure).

In addition to these five (5) TGs, UN support groups were also formed, namely, a. Information and advocacy working group; b. Programming support group; c. Gender Mainstreaming Committee, d. Mindanao Support Group; and e. Joint Team on Aids (JTA).

UN statutory groups were as follows: a. Operations Management Team; b. Disaster Management Team; and c. Security Management Team.

21 A venue for interaction among government, civil society and international development community to foster greater partnership in achieving aid effectiveness and aligning with national goals and priorities

These TGs became functional towards the last quarter of 2005. For the specific TGs, the Convener and Co-Convener coordinate the work of the theme groups, with a representative from the UN Coordination Office present in all meetings of the five TGs.

In addition to the groups enlisted above, three new inter-agency groups were formed in 2006 with specific mandates. First was the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT) Task Force, composed of UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA, to plan and operationalize the implementation of the HACT.

The second inter-agency group formed was the ‘One UN House’ Task Force under the OMT to take the lead in searching for new premises. An M&E Task Force for the CCA/UNDAF was also created following the recommendations of the 2005 annual UNDAF review.

As noted during the annual review of 2006, the functioning of TGs in terms of regular meeting, follow up actions and reporting has not been uniform across the groups. In most cases, there were no written progress reports to track the progress of the TGs.22

It was also noted that these groups were not aligned with the larger PDF Working Groups in order to achieve intended results23. In 2007 UNCT Annual Retreat it was decided that as the TGs were not functioning optimally, these groups would be replaced by the TGs at the strategic, programmatic and thematic levels, aligned with the proposed work-plan and the proposed ‘transition’ to ‘One UN’. The strategic level groups were comprised of HoAs, with designated agency heads providing leadership and determining the scope of work.

However, disbandment of the TGs was a setback in the UNDAF process. It resulted in very weak linkages between agency initiatives and absence of joint efforts. There was a two-year hiatus until the UNCT recognized the need to identify a mechanism to deliver/link its results towards the UNDAF Outcomes. In the 20 May 2009 UNCT Meeting, there was a decision to reinstate the UNTGs, subsuming under them relevant sub-working groups, which can directly contribute to the progress towards achieving the UNDAF outcomes. Mandatory and operational groups were separately categorized given the specific objectives and functions it has to perform. It was noted, however, that the initiatives of the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) and the UNTG on Conflict Prevention and Peace Building should be mutually reinforcing and interlinked. The function of the ‘Delivering as One’ group was decided to be carried out by the UNCT itself through the UNDAF. While it was recognized that gender mainstreaming cuts across all UNTGs, for reporting purposes the GMC was categorized under the UNDAF Outcome on Macroeconomic Stability and Broad-Based Growth.

Re-establishment of these theme groups contributed to the revival of the UNDAF process. As noted, it also allowed the UN to regain trust and visibility among the development partners such as CSAC/UNCSAC and Government.

Among the five TGs, the Macro-economic stability group was the first one to be revived in 2009 after about two and half years of inactivity. The need for discussions on the global economic crisis and its possible impact on national economic development triggered the meeting.

After reinstatement, TGs on Governance, Mindanao/Conflict Prevention and Peace Building, and Environmental Sustainability are also active. Recognizing the immediate need for enhancing their roles to include communication and bridging efforts, these groups revised their ToR to add the responsibility of Advocacy and Communications for accelerating progress on the MDGs by raising awareness, strengthening broad-based support and action, and increasing citizen engagement on UNDAF and MDG-related policy and practice.These groups are now chaired by the UNDP Country Director unlike before where the convener was a senior technical /management staff. Membership of these groups has been extended to include civil society and relevant development partners. The usual

22 UNCT Minutes of Meetings, 8 February 2007, p. 3. 23 UNCT Minutes of Meetings, 8 February 2007, p. 3.

meeting format has been de-emphasized to allow for more informal interaction especially among donors.

Interagency coherence: The strength of the UN system lies in its capacity to provide multi-sectoral support to development with the diverse resources applied to common issues. Inter-agency thematic groups were formed to foster coordination and coherence in achieving UNDAF outcomes. However, as mentioned, interagency coordination did not prove to be very effective during the current UNDAF cycle. Although the agencies worked ‘beside each other’, they were ‘not doing things together’.24 Agency mandates confined their relationships with respective constituencies and partners, which curbed the scope for cooperation between agencies.

As theme group members pointed out25, it is imperative to have the ability and willingness to look beyond the respective agency mandates and look at issues from a broader perspective through the lens of ‘Delivering as One UN’. At the personal level, group members also felt de-motivated due to the lack of genuine appreciation of their important roles as theme group members. For many agencies, it was also not part of the staff performance appraisal.

The coordination and effectiveness of the group have been influenced by the working relations and team work among its members. Some TG members also felt that the functioning and motivation of the groups significantly depends upon the leadership quality and strategic vision of the convener and also the direction provided by the UNCO. A strong leadership and a concrete work plan are critical to sustain the functionality of theme groups. As a TG member noted, the group normally met when a funding window/facility was available and a possible JP proposal was submitted. In some cases, even if the group met, discussions were not substantive. It was felt that, there was a need to elevate the discussion in the TGs to make it more effective in policy advocacy and programme design. TGs were often viewed as added work/ responsibility, as no clear objectives or concrete outputs were generated through them. As the Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007) noted, lack of coherence within the UN system was partly attributable to the lack of coordination within the national system and the ability of the Government to provide strategic directions.

However, there were good practices of inter-agency coordination and partnership also, which are worth mentioning. The UN Disaster Management Team was expanded into Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC). The government adopted the IASC structure at national and regional levels. The IASC partnered with National Disaster Coordination Council (NDCC) in humanitarian response where each of the 13 clusters has a Government lead agency and IASC member co-lead agency. The IASC, now called the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), in collaboration with the National Disaster Coordination Council (NDCC) conduct joint rapid assessments, share situation reports, provide relief and early recovery services through the clusters.

HCT improved the coordination and strengthened partnerships among risk management agencies in their mapping and Information Education Communication (IEC) activities resulting in clear and harmonized prioritization of vulnerable areas, paving the way for coordinated technical assistance e.g., in the implementation of mitigating measures like early warning systems and contingency planning. Enhanced linkage and coordination also occurred between the disaster management, climate change and development planning agencies and communities, especially in the area of long term development planning, including land use, with the NDCC, Climate Change Commission, NEDA and Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

There were many positive aspects of this joint initiative. There was a government ownership in the approach. Decision making was informed by the joint assessment and analysis. The whole process was characterized by joint planning, implementation and monitoring, improved accountability, and an

24 Annual Review 2006 and TCPR 2007

25 Inputs provided through self-administered questionnaires for the UNDAF (2005-2009): lessons learned exercise

overall effectiveness of service delivery. The effort for the emergency response was commended by the funding agency (e.g. Central Emergency Response Fund).

2.2.7 Collaboration and Partnership

As the Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) states, for achieving goals ‘the United Nations will pursue complementary and collaborative strategies in the interest of furthering concerted efforts toward national priorities, particularly including a partnership strategy, that involves joint dialogue and maintaining a high-quality environment for the state, civil society organizations and the private sector’. The role of partners, in achieving the UNDAF outcomes is outlined in the UNDAF results matrix.

In the Philippines, the UN system has a long history of engaging various civil society organizations in its development work. As mentioned earlier, in 2004 as part of the UNDAF formulation process civil society organizations participated in a series of national consultations. Changes in the national development scenario confronting civil society organizations and the challenges faced by the UN in the context of ‘Delivering as One’ roll out, there was an urgent need for a new framework to guide the UN-CSO engagement in the country. Against this backdrop UNCSA with an initial membership of about 47 organizations was established in November 2006 together with the election of the 15-member UN Civil Society Advisory Committee (UNCSAC). UNCSAC serves as a regular forum between the UNCT and CSOs in the Philippines, and provides UNCT with strategic and substantive guidance on policies and programmes, to enhance development effectiveness and improve its relations with civil society in the Philippines.

The UNCSA/UNCSAC in the Philippines has identified priority advocacy issues including, reproductive health, human rights, extra judicial killings and CSO participation in governance. It was agreed that the UN and the advisory committee would work on these issues together. Civil society organizations were also engaged in the 2006 UNDAF annual review and The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007).

However, in 2007, the dissolution of the UNTGs curbed the scope for civil society participation in the UN system’s development efforts. Civil society representatives also felt that the UN showed reluctance to be involved in issues such as accountability and transparency, which clearly disappointed the CSOs represented in the UNCSAC.

UNDAF TGs were reinstated in 2009 and the re-energized UNCSA established five TGs, aligned with the five outcomes of the UNDAF. Membership in the TGs is voluntary and a UNCSA member may be a member of one or more TGs. The extension of the current UNDAF until 2011 and the re-establishment of the UNTGs by the UNCT have provided a scope for improving the interaction between CSA/CSAC and the UN in the Philippines, both for advocacy and programmatic work.

Apart from engaging with the CSAC on policy debate and advocacy, the UNCT in the Philippines also situated itself more strategically in the broader development arena through its participation in the PDF. Since the adoption of the current UNDAF, the UN has been actively engaged in the PDF, bringing issues on the accelerated achievement and funding of MDGs.

In 2006, UN agencies and PDF groups advocated for a multi-year budgeting framework for social sectors - education and health. The importance of population management and reproductive health concerns were explicitly recognized in the closing statements of the PDF meeting. UN/PDF work also contributed to a growing appreciation of, and commitment to, the Basic Education Reform Agenda (BESRA), with significant progress on School-Based Management (SBM) and Competency-Based Teachers Standards (CBTS), as well as an expanded implementation of Province-wide Investment Plan (PIPH) for health. In the same year (2006), as members of the PDF Mindanao Working Group, the UN contributed to the development of a framework to operationalize Human Security as a basis of donor convergence in Mindanao. In 2007, UN agencies’ active participation in the PDF ensured a strong link between the economic and social policy agenda of the government, which recognized MDGs, human development and enhanced financing for social sectors.

In 2008, given widening disparities and increasing poverty incidences, the Joint UNCT Statement to PDF underscored inclusive growth as a means to achieve the MDGs and advocated for a human rights-based approach to development.

Chapter-3 Delivering as One and Joint Programming 3.0 The approach

As part of the UN reform agenda, in 2006 by a high-level panel appointed by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan recommended the establishment of an initiative, ‘Delivering as One’ (DaO), aimed at avoiding fragmentation and duplication of development efforts at the country-level in an overall effort to enhance the efficiency and the responsiveness of the UN development system through increased system-wide coherence26. The One UN Programme is thus an instrument for ensuring UN compliance with the Paris and Accra agendas. Following the high-level panel's recommendations, eight countries - Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uruguay and Viet Nam - subsequently volunteered to become “Delivering as One” pilots, agreeing to implement and test different models of reform at the country level. The pilot countries implemented the "Delivering as One" intiative with four main pillars: One UN program, One budgetary framework, One leader27 and One Set of Management Practices/ One office. Some pilot countries also adopted an additional component of One voice. In each case, the basic reform model has been adapted to the unique country context to deliver in a more harmonized and cost-effective manner at the country level.

In pilot countries the One Programme substantially enhanced28:

i. Alignment with national priorities;

ii. Transparency for the government, development partners, civil society and UN agencies, as one document outlines what the UN will be doing during the programming cycle;

iii. Predictability: there is a clear overview of activities, expected results and budget;

iv. Simplification: Government only needs to sign one document instead of several documents, and joint monitoring and reporting decreases the burden on implementing partners;

v. Accountability: there is a better division of labour within the UN. Agencies are clearly accountable for the results achieved;

vi. Efficiency (reduction of transaction costs): Joint Programming has meant an increase in internal UN transaction costs. However, transaction costs with external partners, Government and donors have substantially decreased, ensuring more transparent and streamlined communication, decision-making, and M&E. Improved development impact is also a significant benefit.

vii. Aid coordination: the system represents an opportunity to systematize the UN’s contribution to the national aid coordination and management architecture;

viii. Synergies and strategic focus; and

ix. Better use of resources.

3.1 ‘Delivering as One’: The Philippines Context

In 2006, the UNCT in the Philippines started preparing for the transition to one UN. An assessment29 was undertaken as part of the preparation. The assessment recommended three critical steps for initial preparations for a One UN programme, namely (1) to strengthen the UNDAF mechanism in two (2) areas: (a) UNDAF Results Matrix and (b) UNDAF M&E System (2) to harmonize agency M&E systems with that of UNDAF and (3) to support the functions of UNTGs. These recommendations

26 Delivering as One: Report of the High-level Panel on United Nations System-wide Coherence in the areas of Development, humanitarian assistance and the environment (United Nations General Assembly, Nov 2006) 27 However, the option paper on ‘Delivering as One in the Philippines (May 2010) mentions One Communication as one of the four main pillars and One Leader as additional. 28 Delivering as One: Lessons Learned from Pilot Countries (UNDG,2009) 29 Quick Assessment: Preparing for a One UN Programme in the Philippines (UNCO, June, 2006)

were in line with findings of the 2005 UNDAF annual review. Since then the UN system in the Philippines made some efforts to strengthen the UNDAF mechanism (refer to 2.2.4).

In 2007, the GOP through NEDA affirmed its commitment for a One UN System in the Philippines by 2010 and full implementation of the Paris Declaration Principles on Aid Effectiveness30. During the same year the UNCT and NEDA jointly organized a series of consultations with external partners (the Government; NGOs and the academia; development partners) and with the UN staff for a common understanding on the High Level Panel Report on ‘Delivering as One’. The feedback from these exchanges was used in providing a framework for formal process of transitioning to ‘Delivering as One’. The Government’s expectation about the reform included31 (a) full operationalization of key elements of ‘Delivering as One’ (b) utilizing Government’s organizational structures for service delivery of UN programmes, rather than establishing parallel structures (c) managing for development results, and (d) demonstrated leadership by the UN system in operationalizing the reform agenda. The GOP expected the UN to lead by setting an example to other bilateral and multi-lateral partners in the Philippines. The 2007 UNCT retreat defined the scope of operationalizing the ‘Delivering as One’ in the Philippines context. In implementation of ‘One Programme’, importance of ‘process’ of building a ‘team’ and development of a collective ‘vision’ and ‘mission’ and simultaneous up-scaling of UN collaborative/joint programming were emphasized. The Government was expected to provide strategic leadership in determining ‘the scope’ of the ‘One UN’ in the Philippines. It was emphasized that, the process toward a ‘One UN’ would also take into account lessons learnt from pilot countries as well as the outcomes of the important inter-governmental debate on the report. Mutual accountability of the members of the UNCT towards delivering on a common vision/mission was emphasized as critical to success of the leadership of the UNCT.

Guided by the outcome of the multi-sectoral consultation and the Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007) and UNDAF review conducted in 2007, a major part of the harmonization and coherence efforts of the UN system in the Philippines in 2007 were focused around issues of joint advocacy on key MDGs least likely to be achieved, human rights, population management and peace building and up-scaling of joint programmings, primarily through submission of five (5) proposals to the Spanish MDG Fund (MDG-F). The UNCT situated itself more strategically in the broader development arena through its participation in the PDF. In 2008, the UNCT discussed the lessons learned from the stocktaking reports of the ‘One UN’ pilot countries during the preparatory meeting for the next CCA/UNDAF (as the start of the new UNDAF was originally scheduled in 2010). During this deliberation, the UNCT identified facilitating and hindering factors in ‘Delivering as One’. Facilitating factors, among others, included:

• For the One UN programme, geographic commonality is a favorable factor in the Philippines, for example Mindanao.

• There is common thematic focus and approach dealing on issues such as poverty, widening disparities and human rights-based approach and the GOP is supportive of UN efforts.

• UN Agencies in the Philippines have the ability to complement each other through partnerships, and their expertise cuts across agency programmes and themes including their experience in implementing joint programming.

• The ongoing CCA/UNDAF process provides a good opportunity for common programming and one budgetary framework.

• Mandates by UN Headquarters and/or UN Regional Offices to mainstream approaches that will allow the UN agencies to work together.

• The decision to implement the Paris Declaration principles provides opportunity and compelling reason for UN agencies to synchronize aid effectiveness measures.

30 RCAR 2007 31 Report of UNCT Annual Retreat April 2007

• Funds from UN agencies can be pooled to leverage more funds/resources through joint programming.

• Presence of harmonized donor funding strategic plans with government is a facilitating factor.

On the other hand, challenges included:

• Agencies have different programming and budget cycles and mandates. • There is a lack of predictability of government support for harmonized funding. • There is a lack of clarity and common understanding regarding the role of one leader. • Changing mindsets of the UNCT - There needs to be a genuine willingness and readiness to

change the way the UN does business. Given the expected changes in the control structure, the UN agencies may be reluctant to give up control.

• A need to adopt participatory programming approach. However, the process needs to balance inclusiveness and strategic focus. This is challenging as there are different parameters for prioritization according to agency mandates.

• One office poses security risk.

In continuation with its effort to harmonize the UN system, the UNCT in 2008 made significant effort for implementation/up-scaling of joint programming (discussed in 3.1.3).

In 2009, the UNCT invested in team building exercises and signed off a code of conduct in ‘Delivering as One’ at the country level. With unequivocal support for the reform process by the government, the UNCT moved towards greater interagency collaboration and harmonization efforts at the country level.

In least-developed countries, the focus of the UN system is on enhancing donor coordination and increasing governments’ capacities to lead their development processes, whereas in middle-income countries (MIC), the UN System advocates the full realization of MDG- 8 and adherence to the global commitments for the effective delivery of aid, which is based on a mutually beneficial partnership between the UN and the government in areas of strategic importance. For this, moving beyond the traditional donor-recipient relationship, the UNCT in the Philippines needs to be engaged in a two-way exchange of knowledge and expertise. As a MIC, the Philippines should focus more on upstream role/ providing policy and programme advisory services to governments and CSOs, rather than implementing programmes and projects themselves. The role of the UN in some of the MICs in the region, such as Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, is discussed in Annex 2.

Though, ‘Delivering as One’ has not yet been fully realized in the Philippines, some significant efforts have been made in this direction. Following are some positive outcomes of ‘Delivering as One’ initiative in the Philippines.

3.1.1Common services

Common Services form an integral part of the ‘One UN’ concept advocated in the 2006 “Delivering as One” High-Level Panel Report to the Secretary-General. The call for Common Services has been reiterated in subsequent General Assembly resolutions, in which the member states advocate for the UN system to promote the sharing of administrative systems and services. The objective is to assure that support services are cost-effective, high quality, timely, and provided on a competitive basis, resulting in full client satisfaction. Common services arrangements focus on the guiding principles of inter-agency partnership and cooperation. The UN system’s Funds, Programmes and Specialized Agencies are to take concrete steps in the following areas:

• Rationalization of country presence through common premises and co-location of UN Country Team members;

• Implementation of the joint office model; • Common shared support services including: Security, IT, Telecommunication, Travel,

Banking, Administrative and Financial Procedures, Procurement; and • Harmonization of the principles of cost recovery policies, including that of full cost recovery.

Over the last few years, the UN system in the Philippines has been strengthening operational coordination with the improvement of common services, including, domestic courier service, travel services including negotiated corporate airfares, common procurement, information technology (IT), and hospitalization and evacuation services for the staff etc. Small agencies perceive that common services mean savings in administrative costs which will allow them to allocate more resources for programme activities.

A ‘One UN House’ Task Force was convened in 2006 to oversee the process of finding common premises for the UN system in the Philippines. Significant progress was made in this respect with the signing of Presidential Proclamation no. 1864 in Aug 2009 designating a government building in Makati City Manila as the common premises of the UN System in the Philippines.

3.1.2 Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers

A Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers to Implementing Partners (HACT) was launched in April 2005, as part of the UN reform process. The HACT shifts the management of cash transfers from a system of rigid controls to a risk management approach. It aims to:

• Reduce transaction costs pertaining to the country programmes of the EXCOM agencies by simplifying and harmonizing rules and procedures;

• Strengthen the capacity of implementing partners to effectively manage resources; and

• Help manage risks related to the management of funds and increase overall effectiveness.

The new approach uses macro and micro assessments, conducted with implementing partners during programme preparation, to determine levels of risk and capacity gaps to be addressed. It uses assurance activities such as audits and spot checks during implementation. And it introduces a new harmonized format for implementing partners to request funds and report on how they have been used. This is called the FACE or Funding Authorization and Certificate of Expenditures Form.

In the Philippines, an assessment of the country’s financial management system was completed in November 2006 to lay the foundation for the HACT roll out. To prepare for its roll out, an agreement on HACT implementation with the government was communicated to the Philippines Government through a formal letter. UN agencies had also amended their CPAPs to include HACT provisions. ExCOM agencies reviewed their list of implementing partners (IPs) and established the risk levels of the IPs as a mechanism for quality assurance. Subsequently a series of HACT orientations on the use of the FACE Form to request funds and report on how they have been used were conducted among IPs. In 2007, the HACT and FACE forms were rolled out across all IPs of UNFPA, UNICEF and UNDP. In 2008, the Philippines was declared by UN DOCO as a fully HACT compliant country.

The UNCT in the Philippines has been able to select a single service provider to conduct macro assessment, micro assessment and assurance activities identified through a joint bid evaluation review. In 2009, UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA conducted micro assessments and spot checks among its implementing partners. As of May 2010, these agencies conducted a total of 28 micro-assessments (UNDP-17, UNICEF-7, and UNFPA-4).

The UNCT approved Harmonized Reference rates for partners (effective Jan 2010) for UNCO, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, ILO, WFP, FAO, WHO, and UNIDO. A HACT orientation was organized to ensure that the processes for transferring funds to the IPs, follow the same standards and procedures.

3.1.3 Joint Programming

As the UNDG guideline (2003) specifies, ‘Joint programming’ is the collective effort through which the UN organizations and national partners work together to prepare, implement, monitor and evaluate the activities aimed at effectively and efficiently achieving the MDGs and other international commitments arising from UN conferences, summits, conventions and human rights instruments.

As part of the ‘Delivering as One’ initiative in the Philippines, the UN System has made significant efforts towards JP. Resources have been mobilized and several JPs have been launched in recent years. The comprehensive list of JPs and joint initiatives in the Philippines include:

• Strengthening the Philippines’ Institutional Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change (MDG-F) 2008-10

• Enhancing Access to and Provision of Water Services with the Active Participation of the Poor (MDG-F) 2009-12

• Alternatives to Migration: Decent Jobs for Filipino Youth (YEM) (MDG-F) 2009-12 • Ensuring Food Security and Nutrition for Children 0-24 Months in the Philippines (MDG-F)

2009-12 • Joint programming on Rapid Reduction of Maternal and Neonatal Mortality in the Philippines

(JPMNH) 2009-11 (Multi-Bi Lateral funding) • Joint programming to Eliminate Violence Against Women (VAW) in the Philippines 2008-

1132 • Joint UN Programme of Support on AIDS in the Philippines (JUPSAP) 2009-10 (Regular

funding) • UN Joint programming on HIV and Migration 2007-09 (Regular funding) • UN Joint programming to Facilitate the Implementation of the CEDAW Concluding

Comments 2007-09- (Regular funding) • EC-UN Joint Initiative on Migration and Development (JMDI) 2009-11 • Indigenous Peoples (IP) Initiatives (Regular funding)

As the above list shows, currently four (4) MDG-F JPs are being executed in the Philippines with a total budget of US$22.8 million. The rest are funded by regular and multi-bilateral sources.

Joint Programming through Funding by MDG-F

The Philippines is one of the nine MDG-F focus countries involving in-depth M&E, Advocacy and Communication initiatives for MDG achievement. The country’s experiences will be showcased as MDG-F initiatives around the world. The Philippines is also one of six countries working with the Human Development 2010 initiative, financed by the MDG-Fund and led by the Millennium Campaign at the national level.

While the MDG-F has been set-up explicitly to encourage joint programming, thematic windows identified in the Philippines are limited in scope, and the process was not inclusive enough. Only a few UN agencies are participating in these JPs. As noted by some staff members, UN agencies were consulted much later in the process. Late consultations with interested UN agencies have resulted in JPs that are mere “consolidation” of separate proposals from different agencies33. It was further observed that, instead of discussing the issues such as priority interventions and comparative advantages of agencies, the inception stage focused more on the disbursement of funds. Reportedly, MDG-F JPs are not always characterized by joint planning and implementation. In some cases, after downloading their respective shares of resources, implementing agencies execute their parts of JP with little or no coordination between themselves, which results in combination of different approaches and confusion. However, there have been several good practices also.

Government commitment to JP is essential. For the JPYEM, the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE) as the lead government agency established the organizational structure thereby strengthening commitment and ownership to the JP. DOLE has been involved in the planning and implementation of national and provincial consultations, conduct of the National Inception Workshop and first Programme Management Committee (PMC) meeting and also in the recruitment of project staff. DOLE has also been supportive of the programme by providing rent-free office space at DOLE Bureau of Workers with Special Concerns (BWSC) Office and utilities for the use of JP YEM staff. The 2010 progress report of the MDG-F JP on Children, Food security and Nutrition also highlights ownership by government and complementation of efforts and programme resources. For instance,

32 This JP has not yet been able to secure funding from development partners. 33 Based on inputs received through the survey questionnaire.

since government is investing in capacity building for health workers, capacity building in the JP focuses on community-based workers and the peer counselors (or mothers themselves).

The MDG-F Secretariat conducted a mission to the Philippines from April 26 to May 3, 2010 for promoting effective civil society participation in MDG related policy and practices. The mission report underlines the general delay in the implementation of these JPs. Given the short implementation timeframe, these projects need to make up delays that occurred during the inception phase. The report further notes that, delays in implementation can partially be attributed to the recently concluded elections (also mentioned in the progress report (2010) of the JP on Children, Food Security and Nutrition). As reported by the MDG-F JP on Access to and Provision of Water Services with the Active Participation of the Poor, activities were also delayed due to untimely release of funds from UNDP HQ to UNDP Country level and to the implementing partners. The JPYEM noted that multiple lead agencies created difficulty in functioning in a cohesive manner. Lack of harmonization of UN Agencies’ technical, financial and administrative processes proved to be a major stumbling block in smooth implementation of the JPs. The JP on the Climate Change and Adaptation reported that, delay was partially attributable to the time invested in perfecting the partnership with IPs. Substantial amount of time was needed for coordination and consultations for a meaningful collaboration. The security situation in Mindanao is another obstacle in implementation of JPs in the region.

Joint Programming through Multi-Bilateral Funding

Rapid Reduction of Maternal and Neonatal Mortality in the Philippines (2009-11) is the only JP funded through multi-bilateral funding. The JP is a flagship program of the government, therefore support from both government as well as civil society organizations is strong. As the 2009 progress report suggests, the JP has accomplished better service delivery. Some of the hindering factors for this JP included, delays in upgrading infrastructure, issues related to financing, regulations and governance and some of the cultural and religious factors.

Finalization of the JP document and getting used to working together were challenging. The JP also faced difficulty in clear and effective consensus building on strategic implementation issue at the HoA and TWG levels. It was experienced that there needed to be better clarity on the extent of ‘joint-ness’ in approaches. For this JP M&E has also been reported as one of the challenges.

Joint Programming through Regular Funding

A number of JPs in the current UNDAF cycle have been launched with regular agency funding, as shown in the above list. It has been recognised by the agencies that, implementation of JPs is a nuanced process, and benefit is not automatic. As observed, clear focus on goals, commitment to the subject, specified tasks and good operational plan are essential stepping stones for accomplishment of the objectives of JPs. Formal institutional arrangements, presence of required policies and technical resources including competent actors and strong support of partners at the local level are equally important prerequisites for successful implementation of JPs. In terms of resource mobilization, there has to be flexibility of availing funds both from pooled and parallel activities.

Several challenges were encountered during implementation of these JPs. As identified by the JP on HIV and Migration, the lack of inclusiveness in the project design phase and lack of ownership of the national partners proved to be serious obstacles. Start-up implementation has met resistance from IPs (i.e. DOLE) due to lack of essential consultations to effect buy-in. It created an impression of donor-driven formulation and programming processes. Furthermore, delay in the approval of Annual Work Plans caused delays in the implementation. Delays were also caused by: (a) bureaucracy and challenges in organizational coordination; (b) rigid processes that caused delays in engaging consulting firms and in fund release; (c) perception that the JP activities are additional work; (d) lower absorptive capacities of IPs; and (e) inadequate guidance and strategic information to manage the programme.

While systems and structures were set-up at both levels of UN and IPs to facilitate programme operation, these seemed to be not operational except for the Joint Programming Steering Committee

(SC). Some working groups failed to convene regularly to review status of implementation and issues affecting them.

The UNTG on HIV/AIDS consisting of HoAs, coordinates the joint UN response on HIV and AIDS, with technical and secretarial support from the UNAIDS Country Office. However, as reported by the UNAIDS, participation from the HoAs has been limited in UNTG meetings, and they have been mostly represented by the members of the UN Joint Team on AIDS (UNJTA). This has affected the decision making process especially in specific issues that required urgent UNTG interventions. Several observations have been made about this JP initiative - (a) mandates of UN agencies seem to be overlapping at some level of interventions; (b) country-level division of labour needs to be updated and aligned with regional and global initiatives and therefore should form the basis for joint work plans; and (c) there is a need to strengthen the UNTG mandate to ensure active participation of the members. Resource mobilization is an area of challenge for some JPs using regular funding. As reported by the JP on CEDAW (2009 Annual Report), a major limitation and challenge is the ad-hoc budgeting that trickled in from participating organizations to the JP. Of the targeted U$ 1.5 million budget for three years, only 47 percent was raised, which may be indicative of gaps in harmonized programming across agencies and lower priority attached to gender issues in development programming. Similarly, for the JP on VAW also, main challenges are resource mobilization and maintaining sustained interest and commitment of UN agencies.

3.1.4 Advocacy and Communications

A well-designed Communication Strategy facilitates support to ‘One UN’ Programme. In last few years, MDG advocacy has been the centerpiece of the ‘One UN’ message in the Philippines. It was decided by the UNCT that the communications element will be integrated with the 2009 advocacy work plan. The expected outcome was to have an enhanced policy environment that supports increased action towards addressing MDG issues especially that are least likely to be achieved. UNCT was successful in drawing down resources from the UN Millennium Campaign (UNMC) to support year-long activities for enhanced policy environment that support increased action towards addressing MDG issues. Given widening disparities and increasing poverty incidence, the Joint UNCT Statement to PDF underscored inclusive growth as a means to achieve the MDGs and advocated for a human rights-based approach to development. The strong collaboration among UN agencies and its partnership with national and sub-national stakeholders made possible the successful staging of the Stand Up Take Action (SUTA) campaigns in the Philippines. In 2006, the country was placed third among UN states that moved citizens to stand up against poverty; in 2007, the Philippines was placed second, and in 2008 and 2009 the country got the global distinction of being the top country with the highest participation (more than one-third of the national population). During last few years, engagement of CSOs and the youth became stronger which points to a growing coalition of MDG advocates and policy lobbyists.

Several good practices of the advocacy working group can be highlighted, e.g., including a shared definition of advocacy work in the Philippines which means a systematic, strategic effort to promote the UN’s principles, and thoughts to create an enabling environment for behavior change, regular activities for strategy development, and maximum use of existing partnerships. Some of the contributing factors to the success of MDG campaign are agreeing on a common target, creating a common theme, developing a communications strategy, providing the leadership, organizing for accountability, and working with institutional MDG partners.

Chapter-4 Lessons Learned and Recommendations This chapter presents lessons learned from experiences of the Philippines from the current UNDAF cycle, as well as lessons from other countries about the UNDAF process and ‘Delivering as One’. In each section, recommendations are provided based on lessons learned. 4.1 Formulation of the UNDAF

4.1.1 Preparatory Phase

It has been observed that, while UNDAF is important to the UN and its partners, a better appreciation of its strategic value should be ensured within the UN system. . The UN staff members need to be provided with detailed information about the UNDAF, and its role in the national development scenario. Especially, the staff participating in the formulation process should have the comprehensive awareness of the UNDAF. As a UN staff recollects, it was difficult to actively participate in the UNDAF formulation without being fully briefed about it. As a result, the staff member failed to understand the larger perspective and participate meaningfully. To make UNDAF popular to the UN staff, discussion forum on UNDAF and “Delivering as One” may be organized by the UNCO.

The relevance of UNDAF is not clear to some UN staff in the context of an individual agency’s mandate, especially if they are not part of the EXECOM agencies. As a UN staff member mentioned, “I couldn’t understand how does this relate to our organization’s work and saw my participation as just an obligation on the agency part. This may be related to the staff turnover across the cycle, but also because of disconnect between the UNDAF and the agency’s work”. So, it will be useful to develop a conceptual framework for providing a broader perspective and to demonstrate how agency contributions are related to UNDAF outcomes.

It is further important that the UNCT and all participating staff in the UNDAF process undergo a rigorous training on HRBA and RBM, which is crucial for strategic planning and analysis of issues and development of results matrix.

4.1.2 Formulation Process and the Content

As noted earlier, the current UNDAF (2005-2009) was drafted before the formulation of MTPDP (2004-2010), and in fact, it is based on the previous MTPDP (2001-2004). It is crucial to ensure that the new UNDAF is aligned with the MTPDP in terms of the cycle and priorities.

There is a need for establishing a management structure with clear specification of responsibilities and accountability. The UN and the Government should have mutual accountability. The UNDAF should be owned by the Government to ensure effective implementation and monitoring. The UNDAF Steering Committee was set up to guide the UNDAF formulation and it was expected that it will continue its functions during the implementation stage and secure the involvement of the NEDA. The Committee would serve as a forum to ensure the contribution of UN programmes to UNDAF outcomes, emphasizing the areas of convergence and joint programming. However, this committee ceased to function, and as the Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007) documents this Committee did not meet in 2006.

The following diagram outlines the proposed UN common programme management structure, which was never formalized and applied.

UN Common Programme Management Structure

Discusses the following:Consistency of CPD, CPAPs with UNDAFFeasibility of Joint ProgrammesAreas of Convergence

Prepares Matters forDiscussion by theUNDAF Steering Committee

Core Functions of the UN Management Committees:1. Approves CPAPs2. Provides Policy Direction3. Discusses/comments on AWPs4. Reviews and monitors implementation of AWPs, CPAPs

UNDAFTechnical Secretariat

composed of NEDA officialsand UN Senior Programme Officers

UNDPProgrammeExecutiveCommittee

UNFPAProgrammeManagementCommittee

UNICEFNationalSteeringCommittee

ILODecent Work

National TripatiteAdvisory Committee

UNDAF Steering CommitteeNEDA Director-General and UN Resident CoordinatorSecretaries of Concerned Government Departments

UN Heads of Agencies; National NGOs (3) and International NGOs (3)

It is critical to make the formulation process inclusive. Government counterparts should be involved as early as possible to ensure ownership. However, quality of participation needs to be ensured. As pointed out by a UN staff member, during the formulation of the current UNDAF, national partners did not participate optimally. Participation of LGUs and other sub-national stakeholders and civil society partners are also equally important.

A CSO representative recommended that, the CSAC and CSA should be more involved in providing substantial inputs in developing the new UNDAF and in forging partnerships for the implementation of the UNDAF. It was also suggested that in order to foster meaningful CSA/CSAC participation, they should be given reasonable time (at least two weeks) for comments/inputs on drafts since CSOs would have to consult their own leaders/stakeholders. There was also a recommendation that the UNCT should organize regular meetings (thematic, over-all) with CSA members and others CSOs to provide information and updates, get feedback/comments, and discuss plans for cooperation/joint activities. Efforts should also be made to engage the private sector, industry associations, trade unions and farmers’ cooperatives in obtaining views and perspectives external to government, as they are also key actors in any development process as providers of technology, financial resources, skills training, and serve as both producers and consumers. There is a need to define a platform for formal engagement of these stakeholders.

There has to be a way by which programme staff other than the working group and the UNCT can also participate in the process. Engaging staff members and giving them an opportunity to provide inputs in the process, may help develop a feeling of stake in the outcomes of the process and a sense of ownership of the UNDAF. Participation of the UN staff can be fostered through workshops and discussion forums etc.

Strengths of smaller/non-resident agencies should be recognized and they should be involved in the process to make the UNDAF more inclusive. NRAs should be contacted in advance to ensure their participation.

During the formulation process, especially in the course of identifying priority areas, the staff members need to have the ability and willingness to look beyond their respective agency mandates and view issues from a broader perspective, through the lens of ‘Delivering as One’. This will allow for a better and more holistic appreciation of development issues. As noted by a staff member, during the formulation of the current UNDAF, agencies competed with each other to have their mandates/programmes included. This is reflected in broad outcome statements that lack focus and are difficult to measure. It is important to be focused and aim for few substantive results. However, at the same time it should be noted that, the UN system is broad and the process of keeping the number of outcomes limited and maintaining its focus leaves the specialized, normative and non-resident-agencies struggling to find their relevance within the UNDAF, which dampens the spirit of ‘Delivering as One’. If these agencies cannot relate to UNDAF priorities, there should be special section as the ‘broader UN system support to the country’ specifying the strategic support and contributions of these agencies. Thus, the challenge is to ensure inclusiveness without losing the strategic focus.

As has been emphasized by all reviews, the M&E framework of the current UNDAF has several shortcomings. It has been noted that, commitment for each outcome and output in the UNDAF is shared by a number of agencies and their implementing partners. Common outcomes and outputs have posed challenges for accountability, which has also made it difficult to identify agency contributions. Outputs are generally more linked to agency specific mandates, and hence to ensure clear accountability, outputs should be attributed to the agencies.

The Current UNDAF RM has a number of indicators for each result and for many of them baseline values are missing. To maintain the focus of the RM and to make the UNDAF operational, it is recommended that only few indicators are selected based on the highest relevance, measurability and availability of baseline data. The RM may contain only outcome indicators, as output indicators can be available in agency documents such as CPDs/CPAPs and AWPs. By doing so, the UNDAF can

maintain its strategic focus. The UNDAF Action Plan34, to which the UNCT has already agreed, is a right step in this direction35.

As discussed in Chapter-2, the UNDAF M&E framework does not have any target, which renders the UNDAF an ineffective tool for measuring the progress. Thus, it is important to have a limited number of strategic indicators with well defined overall and annual targets.

In the UNDAF document the RM does not contain risk analysis and assumption; it should be included in the RM.

Annual UNDAF Reviews reveal that, agencies were primarily driven by their agency-specific mandates and there has been a lot of scope to align the agency activities with CP outcomes and outputs. Their M&E systems also remain disjointed with the UNDAF M&E framework. It is of utmost importance to align the agency reporting system with the UNDAF.

4.1.3 Addressing Cross-Cutting Issues

As discussed in chapter-2, the cross-cutting programming principles such as HRBA and gender equality have not been adequately addressed in the current UNDAF. Incorporation of these principles was left to the good intentions of the agencies. There were no mechanisms to ensure compliance and no incentives were provided.

Lessons learned from the UNDAFs prepared in 200336 and experiences from the UNDAF cycle in the Philippines suggest the following measures for effective mainstreaming of these principles:

• Early training on these issues in the UNDAF process is very important. • Strong leadership of the UNCT/RC unambiguously promoting the importance of the HRBA

will have an enormous positive effect • Thematic groups are often instrumental in enhancing cross-agency cooperation. It is better to

“mainstream” human rights throughout the thematic teams, and not have a special team for human rights, as this undermines and “ghettoizes” human rights.

§ The UNCT should bring relevant issues to the attention of the OHCHR, the Treaty Bodies and the Special Rapporteurs, and actively participate in their processes wherever appropriate. The UNCT can disseminate the General Comments and Report by translating them into simple language to make them more useful to the development field.

• It is important to build partnership with other major players working on these issues in the country, outside the UN system.

• For mainstreaming HRBA, it is critical to arrive at a common understanding and have the clarity of the purpose. Development of concrete guidelines and tool kits will enhance skills and foster a common understanding and vision among UN agencies, line agencies, LGUs and CSOs.

• To optimize on limited time, HRBA training must apply a multilateral outreach approach. Key stakeholders such as line agencies, LGUs, CSOs and other international organizations must be trained alongside policy representatives of NEDA.

34 As mentioned in paragraph 2.6 of this guidance note, the UNDAF Action Plan reflects the results already specified in the UNDAF results matrix. According to the UNDAF guidelines, UNCTs have the flexibility to either keep the UNDAF results matrix at the outcome level (Option 1a), or develop a fuller results matrix, that includes outputs (Option 1 b). If the UNCT keeps the UNDAF results matrix at the outcome level (Option 1a) and decides to prepare an UNDAF Action Plan, then the outputs are specified in the UNDAF Action Plan.

35 UNCT has agreed to this.

36 Human Rights-based Approach to Development: Good practices and lessons learned from the 2003 CCAs and UNDAFs (OHCHR, Dec2004)

• Budgetary challenges could be resolved by allowing each line agency to draw from their respective Human Development Resources (HDR) budget. This will capacitate each NGA to immediately mainstream the HRBA into their regional and provincial jurisdiction, bypassing the bureaucratic and budgetary challenges at the national level.

The UNDG has documented following good practices from the Vietnam UNDAF (2006-10), which reflect compliance with the HRBA:

• UN dialogue with government on human rights/HRBA before the CCA/UNDAF process; • Inclusion of observations and comments of treaty bodies in the CCA’ • UNDAF outcomes based on the CCA that is closely linked to the MDGR and PRSP; • Based on lessons learned, the UNCT used an internal drafting team; and • The UNDAF included cross-cutting issues into the outcomes to ensure that vulnerable and

marginalized groups and issues of participation and empowerment receive effective attention. For example, there is an outcome, which highlights the principle of non-discrimination and equality, and economic growth with equity for sustainability. CP outcomes aim to promote transparency, participation and accountability in resource allocation decisions.

For mainstreaming Gender Equality the following steps are crucial:

• It is important to mainstream gender equality into UNDAF outcomes • There must be specific gender indicators and measures for monitoring and evaluating the

gender equality dimensions of the UNDAF. • Updated information/data must be used from most recent CEDAW and Child Rights

Convention (with reference to special protection of girls' rights) reports (including government and shadow reports).

• The Philippine Commission on Women and women's organizations should be engaged in reviewing the priorities for support.

4.2 Implementation Mechanism: UNDAF Theme Groups and Inter-agency Coherence

As discussed elsewhere, UNDAF TGs did not function uniformly and optimally in terms of regular meeting, follow up actions and reporting. Some met regularly while others did not. As designed and initially implemented, overall coordination has been provided by the UNCO. For effective functioning of TGs, the following are crucial:

(1) The UNDAF document states that, overall, the UNCT under the leadership of the Resident Coordinator, will ensure the effective functioning of the Technical Working Groups. It was felt that, UNCO should continue to play an effective role in providing direction and coordination. The progress of TGs should be monitored based on a clear ToR spelling out responsibilities and indicators of effectiveness. The UNCO needs dedicated resources to ensure M&E and guidance to agencies to keep focus on the achievement of UNDAF outcomes.

(2) At the group level, the functioning was affected by the lack of sustained commitment of the majority of the member agencies of each TG. It is important to look at issues from broader perspective beyond agency specific mandates. The functioning and motivation of the groups also depend upon the leadership quality and strategic vision of the convener/convening agency. A strong and committed leadership and a clear work plan are crucial for maintaining effectiveness of TGs. The groups also need to be dynamic in their approach addressing the strategic needs of time.

(3) At personal level, to sustain commitment of TG members it is crucial to recognize their contribution by the agencies as part of performance appraisal.

4.3 Delivering As One

In 2007, the GOP through NEDA affirmed its commitment for a ‘One UN’ System in the Philippines by 2010. As noted by some agencies, ‘Delivering as One’ has not yet been fully implemented in the

Philippines, though some significant initiatives have been made in this direction (discussed in chapter-2).

Valuable insights about this reform process can be gained from lessons learned from first two years of implementation of the ‘Delivering as One’ initiative in eight (8) pilot countries (Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uruguay and Vietnam)37and self-starters. As discussed below, many of them are relevant in the Philippines context.

Lessons learned for developing a sound and strategic One UN Programme include:

• The DaO process could begin simultaneously with the UNDAF roll-out to simplify the programming process to ensure strategic focus, programme coherence and alignment to national priorities.

• Experiences from the pilot and self-starters suggest that, the UNDAF, One UN Programme, Country Programme Action Plan (CPAPs) and country Programme Documents (CPDs) need to be integrated in a single document. The UNDAF Action Plan may prove to be a viable option. The UNDAF Action Plan reflects the results already specified in the UNDAF RM. To maintain the focus of the UNDAF, it is suggested to keep the RM restricted to the outcome level and specify the outputs in the UNDAF Action Plan. The UNCT in the Philippines has agreed to the formulation of a UNDAF Action Plan.

• Programme coherence and strategic focus need strong M&E and RBM culture and tools. As discussed earlier, the weak M&E framework in the current UNDAF has been an obstacle in the operationalization of the UNDAF.

• Engagement of civil society and donors is necessary for the ‘Delivering as One’ process. In the Philippines context, the platform of PDF can be utilized by the UNCT to foster a more strategic engagement with the civil society and the donors.

• As can be learned from experiences of pilot countries and self-starters, which was also emphasized by the staff members, it is important to enhance the capacity of the UNCO in terms of financial and human resources for efficient delivery of expected outputs. The senior technical staff should play an important role not only in providing direct support to the UNCT but also to the UNDAF Steering Committee. M&E staff of UNCO should play crucial role in the operationalization of UNDAF M&E framework.

• A Joint Communication Strategy facilitates support to One UN Programme. Pilots have moved from ‘Communicating about One’ to ‘Communicating as One’. External communication can improve the visibility of the UN, whereas internal communication is crucial to support the change management process and to ensure enhanced coordination. An effective MDG advocacy has been the centerpiece of the ‘One UN’ message in the Philippines, which needs to be further strengthened.

• It is critical is to ensure the promotion of effective results based JP, which will ensure optimal use of resources and capacities available according to a clear division of labour and comparative advantages. In pilot countries, through JP UN agencies were mandated to work together within well-structured governance mechanisms. Access to some resources was conditional upon inter-agency programming. Working together has helped UN agencies to better appreciate each other’s mandate and capacities. By planning together, overlapping of activities has been minimized. Strategic prioritization was further strengthened in the course of the programming cycle.

The following section summarizes the lessons learned from the joint programming initiatives in the Philippines.

37 The lessons learned paper noted that the challenges being faced by the pilot countries are similar in nature; however, the solutions may not always be the same. Certain lessons may better apply to some types of countries, such as crisis, post-crisis, least-developed countries, and middle income countries. Even though there are different solutions to a challenge, the lessons learned were similar.

4.3.2 Joint Programming: Lessons learned From the Philippines Experiences

Benefits of JP need to be clearly understood. It is important to spend time in identifying good subjects and clear roles for agencies to work together on subjects based on their comparative advantages. JPs should be conceptualized and implemented in its true spirit of ‘Delivering as One’, and should not be regarded as a mere resource mobilization strategy without thorough assessment of internal and partners’ capacities to deliver the required outputs. Agencies should conceptualize, plan and implement the programs together. In the process of planning and implementation all agencies should be treated equally and smaller agencies should not be ignored. One of the critical factors for effective implementation of JP is to ensure that participating agencies, especially the convening agencies take off their individual UN agency hats and work for the JP. Otherwise, there would be a lot of mistrust among the member agencies. There was a suggestion that it might be better to have a management team consisting of all HOAs doing the oversight of such JPs.

Multi-stakeholder consultation at all levels is critical to promote the convergence of inputs, directions and knowledge. For JPs to be more effective, UN agencies should undertake comprehensive consultation processes and should involve partners at all phases of the programme, namely, planning, implementation, and monitoring. The lack of inclusiveness in the project design phase and lack of ownership of the national partners may meet resistance from Implementing Partners. Government commitment to JP is essential for the effectiveness implementation of the program.

A project design is never perfect, especially for a JP on a relatively new concept (e.g. climate change). There should be a degree of flexibility and scope for adjustments to make required changes during the implementation phase. However, the current procedures and rules are not always easily adaptable to design adjustments. Consequently, the desired outputs may have to be reconfigured, at some point in time.

For successful implementation of JPs, UN agencies must use common implementation modes and have harmonized administrative and financial systems. Until this harmonization happens, common work plans and outcomes are the only binding factors which can be used to improve programme delivery.

The MDG-F JPs are good initiatives but these require dedicated resources for guidance and oversight to be provided. UNCO should play this role. It was suggested that the JP Coordinators should report to the UNCO, which would promote the principle of ‘Delivering as One’.

4.3.3 Advocacy and Communication: Lessons learned From the Philippines Experiences

In last few years, an effective MDG advocacy has been the centerpiece of the ‘One UN’ message in the Philippines. For enhancing effectiveness of advocacy initiatives in the Philippines it has been felt that there is a need for person to person advocacy. Interaction between the HOA and major stakeholders should also be increased. For improving advocacy campaigns, the UN agencies should better understand each other’s mandates and share information in UNCT meetings. There is a need for quality and timely documentation of “good” practices and stories related to UNCT priority advocacy issues. Agencies should develop evidence-based policy recommendations. Strengthening and utilizing existing databases (e.g., DEVINFO) is a prerequisite for this purpose. Engaging government and civil society in policy dialogues are also ways to improve effectiveness. The UN should optimally utilize UN observances and special days as advocacy platforms through joint activities. Strengthening the capacities of “MDG Champions” from government, NGOs (including academe, youth, media and faith-based organizations) and the private sector (linked to their corporate social responsibility thrust) is also important.

Select References 1. National Economic and Development Authority of Republic of the Philippines (2009), Updated

Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2004-2010 2. National Economic and Development Authority of Republic of the Philippines (2010), Progress

Report on Millennium Development Goals 3. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2004), Human Rights-based Approach to

Development Good practices and lessons learned from the 2003 CCAs and UNDAFs 4. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2004), The United Nations Development

Assistance Framework in the Philippines (2005-2009) 5. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2006), The United Nations Partnership

Framework in Thailand (2007-2011) 6. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2005), United Nations Development Assistance

Framework for the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2006-2010) 7. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2004), A Common View, A common Journey: A

Common Country Assessment of the Philippines 8. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2008), Common Country Assessment of the

Philippines- Problem Analysis 9. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2008), Quick Assessment: Preparing for a One

UN Programme in the Philippines 10. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2005),, Annual Review of the United Nations

Development Assistance Framework in the Philippines (2005-2009) 11. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2006), Annual Review of the United Nations

Development Assistance Framework in the Philippines (2005-2009) 12. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2005), Annual Review of the United Nations

Development Assistance Framework in the Philippines (2005-2009) 13. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2007), The Country Consultation Triennial

Comprehensive Policy Review 14. National Economic and Development Authority of Republic of the Philippines (2010),

‘Delivering as One’ in the Philippines: Option Paper 15. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2005), Annual Progress Report of the United

Nations Resident Coordinator 16. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2006), Annual Progress Report of the United

Nations Resident Coordinator 17. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2007), Annual Progress Report of the United

Nations Resident Coordinator 18. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2008), Annual Progress Report of the United

Nations Resident Coordinator 19. United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office (2009), Annual Progress Report of the United

Nations Resident Coordinator 20. United Nations Development Programme (2008-2009), Philippines Human Development Report 21. United Nations Development Programme (2009), Assessment of Development Results in the

Republic of the Philippines: Evaluation of UNDP Contribution 22. United Nations Development Group (2009), Guidelines For UN Country Teams On Preparing a

CCA and UNDAF 23. United Nations Development Group (2009), UNDAF Action Plan Guidance Note 24. UN Operations in a MIC: Formulation of a Strategy for UN Coherence and Effectiveness in

Thailand – Part II 25. United Nations General Assembly (2009), Development Cooperation With Middle-Income

Countries

26. United Nations Development Group (2008), Delivering As One: Stock Taking Synthesis Report 27. United Nations General Assembly (2006), Delivering as one Report of the High-level Panel on

United Nations System-wide Coherence in the areas of development, humanitarian assistance and the environment

28. United Nations General Assembly (2010), Delivering as one: Lessons Learned From Country –Led Evaluation And Way Forward

29. United Nations (2008), Delivering as one: Lessons Learned From Pilot Countries 30. External Review of Joint programming on HIV and Migration (2009) 31. United Nations Development Group (2008), Results based management in UNDAFs 32. United Nations Coordination Office (2006), Report of United Nations Country Team Annual

Retreat 33. United Nations Coordination Office (2007), Report of United Nations Country Team Annual

Retreat 34. United Nations Coordination Office (2009), Report of United Nations Country Team Annual

Retreat 35. United Nations Coordination Office (2008), Report of United Nations Country Team Meeting on

CCA/UNDAF and Delivering as One 36. United Nations Coordination Office (2009), Minutes of the United Nations Country Team

Meetings (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) 37. United Nations Development Fund for Women (2008), Evaluation Report of UNIFEM

Programme on Facilitating CEDAW Implementation in Southeast Asia (CEDAW SEAP) 38. United Nations Development Programme (2009), Annual Project Reports on MDG-F Joint

Programs 39. United Nations Population Fund (2009), Discussion Paper on Simplifying UNDAF Process in

East Europe and Central Asia Region 40. United Nations Coordination Office (2010), Capacities and Comparative Advantage of Thailand

UN Country Team in the context of Thailand’s MIC Issues and Needs: Process and Approach

38

ANNEXES ANNEX 1 UNDAF (2005-2009) – KEY OUTCOMES, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES

This chapter documents the major outcomes, outputs and activities under five UNDAF outcome areas and a number of cross-cutting themes of the UN system in Philippines during UNDAF 2005-2009 roll out. The achievements are either agency specific or results of joint efforts. These results also reflect collaboration with donors, government departments and civil society organisations.

1) UNDAF Outcome 1: Macro Economic Stability and Broad-Based and Equitable Development

• In the first year of the UNDAF (2005-2009) roll out, the UN system in the Philippines jointly advocated and supported the Government in developing policies and programmes to promote rights of children and women, including at risk and vulnerable sections of the society – child labour, indigenous peoples, agricultural workers/farmers and domestic workers.

• Capacity building activities were conducted to enhance access to livelihood opportunities and health and family planning information and services.

• The UN System assisted in developing a Poverty Reduction Strategy, based on the MTPDP and incorporating the MDGs.

• The framework for a harmonized approach to population and poverty integration in development planning and programming was drafted.

• In 2006, papers on agricultural productivity, employment, population management and poverty reduction were produced as contributions UN System to various policy discussions.

• In 2007, UN system commissioned three high-level studies to look at the ‘financing gap’ for the attainment of MDGs at national and local level. As a result of this effort, political endorsement was garnered at an ASEAN summit, forming the basis for a region-wide effort to address issues of financing the MDGs. This effort yielded increased expenditures for health, education, agriculture and environment, and, reduction of debt interest payments by P17 billion in 2007. Prioritization of MDGs in the preparation of national and local budget proposals became an important part of the policy guidelines and procedures issued by the Department of Budget and Management.

• In 2008, UN partnered with the House of Representatives to strengthen institutional capacities and mechanisms of the local government units and civil society organizations for pursuing pro-poor policy reforms and programs. Commitment for the MDG-Sensitive Budget was mobilized and civil society-legislature oversight in Congress was initiated through the formation of an Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI) Technical Working Group on People’s Participation.

• UNFPA commissioned population studies to measure the impact of population growth on achieving the country’s MDG targets.

• In response to the global food crisis and soaring food prices in 2008, through the Initiative of Soaring Food Prices (ISFP), UN embarked on a project to increase rice supply by improving farmers’ capability in adopting improved rice production technologies. The initiative also developed some small-scale irrigation facilities.

• In 2009, along with ADB and DOLE, ILO organized a high level forum on responding to the economic crisis – Coherent Policies for Growth in Employment and Decent Work in Asia and the Pacific.

• The MDG-F joint programming on Youth, Employment and Migration convened provincial consultations to gather key issues and identify existing policies, programmes and potential partners for possible linkages.

• Through UNDP funding, NEDA in collaboration with DBM has developed a monitoring tool and guideline on MDG budget and expenditures.

• UNFPA advocacy work contributed to enhanced public awareness on the value of having a national comprehensive law on reproductive health and enactment of Reproductive Health ordinances in 22

39

LGUs. A total of 37 LGUs were assisted in the preparation of their socioeconomic plans that integrate population and development dimensions.

• UNFPA supported the Philippine Government in the review of the Progress of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and the preparations of the annual ICPD Country Report.

2) UNDAF Outcome 2: Basic Social Services

• In 2005, the UN supported the development and review of policies, legislations and provided logistical support in the areas of HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, including breastfeeding, nutrition, non-communicable disease prevention, and malaria control.

• WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and UNAIDS, under the guidance of the HIV/AIDS Theme Group, provided technical assistance to the Government and other development partners in preparing Country Proposal to the Global Fund Round Five. This proposal was subsequently approved.

• UNICEF, WHO and UNAIDS assisted in the provision of Anti Retroviral (ARV) drugs for HIV/AIDS, vaccines and Vitamin A.

• UNFPA and UNICEF collaborated with USAID in developing a joint plan for the conduct of maternal mortality rate (MMR) survey.

• UNICEF, UNFPA and Japan International Cooperation Committee (JICA) jointly funded the development of the training manual and conducted the training of health workers on Basic Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care.

• ILO, UNICEF, WHO and UNAIDS partnered with the business sector (Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines) to formulate workplace policies on HIV/AIDS.

• In 2006, UN agencies and PDF group advocated for a multi-year budgeting framework for social sectors - education and health.

• UN assisted programmes in support of Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) and integration of Adolescent Reproductive Health (ARH) in the curricula of the secondary level education, contributing to accelerated implementation of the reform process.

• UN successfully advocated for a supplemental budget for the National Program Against Child Labor that was approved at the House of Representatives.

• Joint efforts by UN agencies provided monthly food rations to nearly 38,000 primary school children as an incentive to attend school, attain improved nutritional status and learning. As a result, attendance levels were sustained in the 220 participating schools in five (5) Mindanao provinces.

• Over 15,500 pregnant and lactating women and nearly 14,300 children under two years received monthly food rations to enhance nutritional status and as an incentive for their participation in monthly mother child health care sessions and follow-ups.

• In 2007, UN agencies’ active participation in the Philippine Development Forum (PDF) established a strong link between the economic and social policy agenda of the Government, which resulted in enhanced financing for social sectors.

• A series of analytical and research work on maternal and newborn health and Reproductive Health Commodity Security in the Philippines were undertaken by the UN System in order to support evidenced based advocacy on maternal mortality..

• UN/PDF work also contributed to a growing awareness in support of the Basic Education Reform Agenda (BESRA), with notable progress on School-Based Management (SBM) and Competency-Based Teachers Standards (CBTS), as well as an expanded implementation of Province-wide Investment Plan (PIPH) for health.

• The National Sector Support for the Social Welfare and Development Reform Project (NSS-SWDRP) Reform Agenda was initiated in 2007.

40

• UN supported the Health Sector Reform Agenda by providing medical equipment for comprehensive and basic emergency obstetric facilities and training on life skills, still birth attendance and basic emergency obstetric and new born care.

• UN prepared several background papers to support GOP in its assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) extension, and restructuring of the Agrarian Justice and Law Systems.

• The Provincial Hunger Mitigation Action Plans were finalized and the second follow up Measles Campaign, focusing on urban slums and rural poor were implemented.

• The Food for Education Programmes reached over 185,000 primary school children in over 800 schools in Mindanao, which contributed to 40 percent improvement in school attendance and a reduction in drop outs to 5 percent.

• Advocacy and policy work with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) resulted in direct lending to Homeowner’s Association for shelter and increased accessibility of housing loans.

• The Food Security Steering Committee (FSSC) was established in 2008 to provide a strategic response to the needs of the Government regarding the soaring food prices, drawing on in-country, regional and global resources. The FSSC/UNCT participated in the National Food Summit, the ASEAN-UN Meeting and IFAD/ADB and WB joint missions.

• UN initiated discussion with Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) on ways to improve effectiveness of the Conditional Cash Transfer programme in support of the poorest families and children.

• UN through the League of Municipalities (LMP) and League of Cities (LCP) disbursed US$521,000 and US$15,000 worth of modern family planning (FP) supplies to the poor as safety nets.

• The UN advocacy and capacity building activities,contributed in improving the coverage Early Childhood Care and Development from 43 percent in 2007 to 47.5% in 2008 and percentage of barangays providing ECCD services exceeded target of 88 percent rising from 85 percent in 2007 to 90 percent in 2008.

• With UN assistance enabled the Philippines to reach the global epidemiological targets of 70 percent case detection and 85 percent treatment success rate since 2004, whilst the 2007 3rd National TB Prevalence Survey showed a 38 percent reduction in the TB cases.

• Concept note for the MDG-F thematic window on Children, Food Security and Nutrition was approved amounting to $3.5M for a 3-year program.

• UNFPA in collaboration with DepEd successfully integrated adolescent reproductive health into elementary and secondary school curricula of pilot public schools in 10 provinces, covering nearly 25,000 elementary and 40,000 secondary students.

• UNFPA advocacy efforts succeeded in procurement of additional RH commodities for their new family planning clients for LGUs.

• WFP school feeding programme targeted over 72,000 students in 428 assisted schools in conflict affected Mindanao that resulted in an average school attendance of 94 percent during the school year of 2008-09.

3) UNDAF Outcome 3: Good Governance

• In 2005, UN agencies provided technical support to Government for carrying out reform programmes in the justice department, elections commission, revenue-generating offices and the Office of the Ombudsman.

• ILO and UNDP conducted joint studies on rights-based indigenous practices, indigenous governance and integrated indigenous conflict-resolution practices in the national system. Advocacy efforts by the UN resulted in ratification of the ILO Convention 29 by the Philippines.

41

• UN strengthened transparency and accountability in public administration schools and civil society organizations.

• Tools for integrating human rights, gender, and Decent Work principles in local development plans have been designed.

• The UN system provided support to local government units in MDG localization, with the following outputs: MDGs adopted as framework for governance in leagues of LGUs; 14 MDG pilot cities have become resource cities for other LGUs; MDG localization toolkit developed; DevInfo Training conducted; and, additional cities for MDG localization identified.

• Further, in 2006, localization of MDGs was the focus of the work of the UN system. UN agencies worked closely with 20 MDGs Resource Cities and demonstrated their capacity to meet local MDGs targets. 10 local government units were awarded for their innovative efforts to meet the MDGs, which were documented as best practices.

• Working closely with the private sector, the UN system sponsored and partnered with the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) to organise the 2006 Asian Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility (AFCSR), the largest gathering of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practitioners in Asia.

• In 2007, preparation of additional Sub-National Progress Reports on the MDGs and development of MDG Rights-Based Indicator System as a basis for tracking progress; establishment of a Model Human Rights City; and support for monitoring of LGU Action Plans on the MDGs etc. were initiated.

• In 2007 UN provided support for building consensus on key policy issues addressing legal barriers to empower the poor and the vulnerable. It also improved capacities of local public administration institutions to provide services and undertake continuing education on Human Rights and Gender at the local level.

• In 2007 Civil Society Advisory Committee (CSAC) was operationalised, as a strategic partner of the UNCT.

• In 2008, UN supported the monitoring and compilation of concluding observations of Philippine Compliance to UN Human Rights Treaties and measures taken to respond to recommendations of UN treaty bodies in the observance of the 60th year of the UDHR.

• UN supported the implementation of the Family MDGs and the child-focused MDG Report Card through the Family-based Actions for Children and their Environs in the Slums (FACES) Project in 30 cities; this innovative approach streamlined the link between national and local government top-down MDG programming and monitoring and bottom-up community/family-led MDG-focused initiatives.

• UN enhanced the capacities of the Regional Sub-Committee on Gender and Development (RSCGAD) as the primary body in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to lead in the revision of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (CMPL).

• 15 KHUTBAS on gender and Islam were agreed upon by an eminent group of ulamas (Muslim Religious Leaders) to guide in recognizing the important roles of both women and men in Muslim society.

• UN efforts to improve the aviation security contributed to an enhanced capability of Air Traffic Organization in safety oversight and creation of an enabling legal framework. The UNCT successfully mobilized US$5 million for the Joint programming on Enhancing Access to and Provision of Water Services with the Active Participation of the Poor.

• The UN Expanded Theme Group on Governance was established in 2009 to serve as a platform for donor and the UN to discuss governance issues and explore possible areas of collaboration and coordination.

42

• UNCT partnership with the UN Civil Society Advisory Committee (UN CSAC) was revitalized for their role in the formulation of the new UNDAF.

• The State of World’s Indigenous People was launched with sharing of UN agencies initiatives on IPs and ceremonial signing of the UNDP IP Programme as a potential framework for Joint programming on IPs.

• UNDP launched IP Development Programme on poverty reduction, the promotion of human rights and protection of the environment in the context of ancestral domain development and protection, with funding support from the government of Spain.

• With UNDP’s initial support to the development of HRBA toolkit in the development planning, other UN agencies have committed to the roll out of trainings for national planning agencies staff.

4) UNDAF Outcome 4: Environmental sustainability and Climate Change Adaptation

• In 2005, the UN system contributed to the country’s over-all capacity development for environment and natural resources management by supporting formulation and implementation of a series of bills and strategies on environmental policy, renewable energy, and alternative fuels etc. including, the Environmental Policy Act, the bill on Renewable Energy, the Forestry Master Plan and local ordinances for protected areas or conservation sites in the country.

• To ensure wider stakeholder participation and availability of data for environment authorities, ICT tools were also developed.

• Technical assistance was provided to mainstream the sustainable development and population framework in local development planning, including the conduct of capacity-building activities for communities. Policy studies were conducted on energy, demonstrating the linkages between energy and poverty. At the community and school levels, safe water, sanitation, and hygiene were advocated, including provision of water and sanitation supplies in some areas. A partnership with the private sector was developed to promote environment-friendly technologies.

• In 2007, the UN system contributed to the formulation of a consolidated Renewable Energy Bill and adoption of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Bio-fuels Act, providing for an important policy platform for renewable energy technologies in the Philippines.

• The First National Conference on Climate Change Adaptation was conducted in October 2007 and the Albay Declaration was adopted to address the urgent priority of global warming. The UNCT succeeded in mobilizing USD 8 million of the Spanish MDG Fund for the Joint programming on Climate Change and Adaptation.

• In 2008, the country operationalized the Bio-fuels Act and prepared for a shift to energy efficient lighting through Executive Orders with Global Environment Facility (GEF) support.

• The UN initiatives facilitated consensus building on climate change and disaster risk reduction through the National Disaster Risk Management Framework and the Strategic National Action Plan on Disaster Risk Reduction.

• The UN system provided support for the development of a localized Integrated Decision Support System as the basis for LGU actions for addressing the climate change issue. The UN efforts contributed in enhancing the planning & programming capacities of 3,724 local authorities and stakeholders on disaster risk management in 10 out of 15 regions, the negotiating and programming competencies of 6 key national government agencies on climate change, biodiversity conservation and management of persistent organic pollutants, and also the implementation capacities of over 40 community organizations on water, forest, coastal resources management and renewable energy.

• The UN system contributed in institutional strengthening on forest rehabilitation through capacity building of 180 government foresters, extension staff from LGUs and NGOs, as well as mainstreaming of natural regeneration in the government and donor supported rehabilitation programmes.

• In its second year of implementation, in 2009, the MDG-F Joint programming on Climate Change and Adaptation (UNDP as the lead agency with participation of UNEP, FAO, WHO, ILO, UN-HABITAT) supported provision of key climate information for enhancing the level of knowledge of the national government agencies and its partners and improvements of the climate forecasts.

43

• The UN continues to support the government in mainstreaming the biodiversity and climate change adaptation strategies in policy formulation.

5) UNDAF Outcome 5: Conflict Prevention and Peace-building

• In 2005, UN system supported the Government of the Philippines in the drafting, mobilization of resources and management of the Joint programming for lasting peace in Mindanao (Act for Peace), which was launched in July 2005.

• The UN system actively participated in the completion of the Joint Needs Assessment, which proved to be a critical input for the development of a comprehensive package of assistance for the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

• UNICEF and ILO created child protection networks in areas of conflict, provided support to Child Friendly School Systems models to address education in conflict-affected areas, and also contributed in prevention and reintegration of child soldiers.

• UNFPA worked on the issues of reproductive health, population and development, and gender awareness integrating them with peace-building in former conflict-affected areas. Dialogue and conflict management processes were put in place in several areas through the local Peace and Development Councils.

• In September 2006, on the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Peace Agreement between the Government and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), a policy paper reviewing the ten years of implementation of the Peace Agreement was commissioned by the UN.

• As members of the PDF Mindanao Working Group, the UN provided support in the development of a framework to operationalize Human Security as a basis of donor convergence in Mindanao.

• The UN System continued its active participation in the peace-building initiative in Southern Philippines (Mindanao) through ACT for Peace Programme and its activities among 225 Peace and Development Communities (PDCs).

• The UN also supported development, publication, and dissemination of peace education exemplars for elementary and secondary schools. Finally, in September 2006, these exemplars were integrated into basic education curricula.

• The UN supported the development of a national peace policy, resulting in the filing of House Bill 5767 (or the National Peace Act) in Congress. As part of the formulation of a Security Sector Reform Index (SSRI), initial indices were developed in collaboration with government agencies and CSOs.

• In 2007, the UN supported formulation of an updated National Peace Plan, reflecting human security concepts, as well as institutionalizing Peace Education in the basic education.

• Considerable progress was achieved in mainstreaming peace promoting planning in local governance, specifically in Mindanao.

• The UN provided temporary food rations to 200,000 internally displaced people in central Mindanao, Sulu and Basilan; and distributed nutritious food supplements at health clinics to cover over 8,000 pregnant and lactating women and young children. The latter intervention contributed in increasing the number of women who attended antenatal and post natal health clinics in the conflict areas.

• Agri-based projects in six regions in Mindanao complemented government efforts for enhancing self-reliance and sustainability, while the adoption of UN-supported Training for Rural Economic Empowerment methodology for community based enterprises, documented an 80 percent increase in incomes of former combatants and their families.

• In 2008, the UN provided technical and financial support for formulation of the updated National Peace Plan by incorporating human security perspectives, for integration in the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP).

44

• The UN contributed in mainstreaming the Culture of Peace in the curriculum of 46 “Schools of Peace” in Mindanao; facilitating dialogue and reconciliation and providing platforms for peacebuilding through provision of basic services and livelihood projects to more than 84,000 beneficiaries in 256 conflict-affected communities.

• The UN supported the development of a curriculum for Islamic pre-schools, which is expected to benefit an estimated 18,000 Bangsamoro children in 600 conflict-affected communities in Mindanao.

• Training was imparted on conflict-sensitive planning/programming to local institutions resulting in Local Peace and Development Plans for 76 LGUs.

• The UN facilitated formation of peace advocacy networks in 22 out of 27 provinces in Mindanao.

• In Mindanao, implementation of the Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for Sexual and Reproductive Health, directly benefited 5,000 pregnant women and adolescent affected by armed conflict.

• In 2009, WFP and UNICEF conducted a joint emergency nutrition and food security assessment of the conflict affected IDP population in central Mindanao.

• ILO and FAO assisted IDP communities in post-conflict livelihood needs assessment, which provided inputs for designing and implementing sustainable livelihood initiatives.

6) Cross-cutting Issue: Human Rights

• In response to the increase in the number of reported unexplained killings, a small task force was formed within the UNCT to engage with the government and key partners such as the EU and the Commission on Human Rights for finding immediate, long and short term solutions to address the issues of human rights violations.

• In 2007, as a follow up on the Alston Report on Extra Judicial Killings, the UNCT collaborated with the Office of the President and the Commission on Human Rights, to identify areas of cooperation, and also provided resources to implement components of Government’s five-point plan of action to address human rights issues.

• Philippine Country Task Force on Monitoring and Reporting (CTFMR) was formed to monitor serious violations of children’s rights in armed conflict. A first report covering the period 2005-2007 was submitted. The UN also conducted a Universal Periodic Review of the State’s fulfillments of the HR obligations and commitments.

• An MILF-UN Action Plan related to the release of children in situations of armed conflicts was signed in July 2009.

• The UNCT supported human rights mechanisms and activities, such as providing inputs to the SG’s Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict, OHCHR confidential inquiries on systematic and grave violations, and monitoring of country-level initiatives related to treaty bodies.

• UNIFEM provided support to women’s NGOs in conducting case studies and filing two cases under the Optional Protocol or CEDAW – an individual complaint on VAW and an inquiry request on reproductive health.

• In September 2009, there was a high level mission that reviewed the trade union situation in the Philippines and application of the ILO Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (No. 87).

7) Cross-cutting Issue: Gender Mainstreaming

• In 2005 the UN system in the Philippines achieved considerable progress in mainstreaming gender into UN and donor programmes.

• GMC was instrumental in finalizing the UN Gender Strategy Framework and conducting several capacity-building activities for the UN staff.

45

• The UN led the ODA-GAD (Official Development Assistance - Gender and Development) Network, in developing the National Harmonized Guidelines on Gender-responsive Development Programming. An effective advocacy campaign was undertaken for the CEDAW, Beijing Platform for Action, and the MDGs at the local level.

• Partnership was developed to focus on gender concerns in HIV/AIDS through the Girls, Women and HIV/AIDs network (GWHAN).

• In 2006, to enhance gender responsiveness of the UN system, the UN collaborated closely with national and bilateral/multilateral partners to mainstream gender issues into planning, programming and M&E processes.

• The UN also developed a JP on Responding to the CEDAW Recommendations for strengthened implementation of the Convention in the country.

• In 2007, the UN JP on CEDAW provided support in enhancing capacity of selected national stakeholders, UN programme staff and academic partners.

• Gender audit was undertaken to make the Country Programme Action Plans and annual work plans of UN funds human rights and gender compliant.

• In 2008 a Joint Country Gender Assessment was carried out in collaboration with ADB and other ODA-GAD Network, which informed the CCA document.

• The Harmonized Gender and Development Guidelines was followed in designing GAD tools to be used by UN agencies with its implementing partners in project design, planning, implementation, and monitoring.

• UNAIDS volunteered to undergo participatory gender audit with the support of the UN Gender Mainstreaming Committee (GMC) members and partners.

• The Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act 9710 signed into law) was enacted on 14 August 2009.

• The UN provided technical inputs for the review and update of the Philippine Plan for Gender responsive Development and the Medium Term Development Plan.

• The GMC conducted participatory gender audits of UNDP and UN-HABITAT, which promoted gender responsive programming.

8) Cross-cutting Issue: Humanitarian Reforms/Early Recovery

• The UN system, working closely with the National Disaster Co-coordinating Council, was providing humanitarian and relief support, in response to a series of natural calamities that struck the Philippines in 2006, which affected around 11 million people with an estimated loss of almost $1.6 billion.

• The government sent out an advisory to its partners informing them that it had asked the UNRC to facilitate and coordinate the international assistance. In response, A UN Typhoon Appeal 2006 was launched in December 2006 to address the impacts of the 4 super-typhoons that affected the country in the last quarter of the year. The Cluster approach was immediately operationalized both at Manila and in the field. The country was able to draw down on the CERF funding; and humanitarian and relief services to the value of $6.2 million.

• Given the chronic nature of the natural disasters in the country, the UN work in 2006 focused on reducing vulnerability to natural disasters. This was undertaken through identification of multi-hazards, conducting risk assessments and development of early warning systems in the most vulnerable communities of 27 provinces.

• The UN system was also instrumental in harnessing international support for Disaster Risk Management work in the Philippines, by passing a resolution 60/169 in the General Assembly on this issue.

46

• In 2007, an important development was the decision to implement the UN Humanitarian Reform, reflecting an important shift in UN system’s response in the Philippines, focusing on contingency planning, preparedness, response and early recovery, for coordinated disaster risk management.

• The UN Disaster Management Team was expanded into an Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) with improved coordination and strengthened partnerships between UN and non-UN actors in relief and early recovery.

• The IASC and the Government fully adopted the ‘Cluster’ arrangements. Through cluster system, an Integrated Early Recovery Coordination and Emergency Operations Center in Bicol were set up along with the finalization of a National Cluster Preparedness Action Plan and an IASC Contingency Plan.

• Mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction in the National Economic and Development Authority was complemented by simultaneous preparation of multi-geo hazard mapping in the most vulnerable eastern seaboard provinces, to enable implement community-level first-response actions on the ground.

• An additional $11 million was mobilization for residual humanitarian and early recovery needs in 2007 through the Consolidated Appeal Process, providing the opportunity to make a visible impact in the typhoon- affected regions.

• In 2008, several missions were undertaken to ascertain the gaps and needs in view of the resurgence of the armed conflict in Mindanao.

• UNHCR conducted a mission in October 2008 providing recommendations to the protection and camp management clusters and contingency planning.

• OCHA deployed a Humanitarian Affairs Officer in October 2008 and also engaged a National Disaster Response Adviser in December to support the RC Office in Manila.

• The IASC agreed to support government led cluster mechanisms at the regional levels and for NGOs and INGOs to strengthen their coordination. The appointment of government focal point at regional level with IASC counterparts was agreed. New Terms of Reference for the IASC Cluster lead agencies were endorsed by IASC Country Team.

• An inter-agency Early Recovery (ER) Network was established with increased private sector partnership. UNDP ER Project likewise expanded into an inter-agency project. Following Typhoon Frank, an interagency ER rapid needs assessment was conducted.

• As 3 strong typhoons Ondoy, Pepeng and Santi devastated large stretches of Luzon, RC/HC was requested by the government to coordinate international humanitarian response.

• In Mindanao, an Early Recovery forum was established by UNDP.

9) Cross-cutting Issue: HIV/AIDS

• In 2005, under the leadership of the HIV/AIDS Theme Group and technical support from the HIV/AIDS Technical Working Group, the government with other partners drafted the Country Plan for the Global Fund Round Five, which was eventually approved.

• Under the same coordination mechanism, the national AIDS Medium-term Plan 2005-2010 and the United Nations Integrated Support Plan (UN-ISP) were developed.

• The Theme Group on HIV/ AIDS reviewed the existing Philippine AIDS Law jointly with the Congressional Special Committee on the MDGs.

• M&E system and capacity-building for the Philippine National Aids Council (PNAC) were undertaken.

• Gender and HIV/AIDS networks were strengthened.

47

• Inter-agency support was provided to facilitate the provision of ARV to people living with HIV.

• To support the national response to HIV/AIDS, the UN system, assisted in the development of a functional M&E system for the Philippine National AIDS Council (PNAC), NGOs and local AIDS Councils in 2006.

• UN supported rationalization/enhancement of PNAC and revision of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 8504 (AIDS Law).

• The first UN Joint Programming on HIV and Migration was finalized along with the Roadmap towards the Universal Access to Scale Up Prevention, Care and Support Program on HIV and AIDS.

• The operationalisation of the National Strategic Plan on AIDS was further strengthened through the costing of the AIDS operational plan for 2007-2008.

• Strategic partnership was forged with the GFATM, ADB, and USAID for implementation of intensified prevention strategies.

• During the 2008 United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS), Philippines Country Report was cited as one of the best reports submitted from the region.

• A mid-term assessment of the 4th AIDS Medium-Term Plan (2005-2010) was completed. Through the advocacy of UN Agencies, data analysis, transparency and availability, utilization were improved, and as a result a sense of ownership and capacity of key players (particularly the National Epidemiology Center of the Department of Health) was created.

• Both the Philippine National AIDS Council (PNAC) and NEC have maintained evidence-informed programming.

• The Joint UN Team on AIDS strengthened national M&E and surveillance system on AIDS. As a result an Integrated HIV Behavioural and Serologic Surveillance was conducted and this improved HIV/AIDS registry.

10) MDG Advocacy

• A series of studies were commissioned including studies on MDGs 3 and 5 in 30 municipalities; End Child Hunger, Underweight Children Program; Nutrition survey; multiple-cluster surveys and sub-regional MICS surveys, Roadmap for Universal Access to Prevention, Care and Support for People Living with and Affected by HIV/AIDS and 17 regional MDG reports, to promote evidence based advocacy

• The UN Month celebrations included hosting of the National Summit on Hunger and Population jointly with the league of municipalities; and establishment of a new world record for simultaneous breast-feeding to highlight the nutritional benefits of breastfeeding..

• In 2008, the UNCT was successful in utilizing resources of the UN Millennium Campaign (UNMC) to support year-long activities conducted for accelerated achievement of MDGs.

• The Joint UNCT Statement to PDF highlighted inclusive growth as a means to achieve the MDGs and emphasized a rights-based approach to development.

• The Philippines effectively mobilized 32.5 million Filipinos in 2008 and 36.1 million Filipinos in 2009 in the ‘Stand Up, Take Action’ (SUTA) campaign, and the country featured in the Guinness World Record with the highest number both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population.

11) Avian Influenza

• With a focus on enhanced preparedness, UNCT Pandemic Preparedness Exercise was conducted in 2007 to validate aspects of the Philippines UN Emergency Management Plan for an Avian Human Influenza. Specific aspects of the Plan evaluated communications readiness, including the activation and function of a Help Desk; arrangement for the release and distribution of anti-virals; and, effective decision making and coordination.

48

• The UNCT finalized and approved the emergency plan of action for the avian and human influenza pandemic. The UN system in the Philippines was among the first to undergo a desktop stimulation exercise for AI preparedness in May.

• In 2009, through the inter-agency Pandemic Influenza Task Force and leadership of WHO, the UN updated its Pandemic Preparedness Plan for UN staff and dependents.

12) Security Management

13) An effective communication system (ECS) was established in 2007 to replace the warden system.

14) Emergency communication and table top exercises were conducted by the UNCT to test the efficiency of disseminating security-related information to staff members. All staff successfully completed the Online Advance Security Training.

15) In 2008, UNCT adopted a risk management approach and mainstreamed security into operations through regular Security Management Team (SMT) meetings and updating of security plans and risk assessments.

16) Significant improvements in the communication systems was noticed with a 24/7 radio room in Cotabato. The UNCT upgraded the security of UN vehicle fleet and security contingency planning.

17) Liaison with the government, security forces and MILF was also improved as a result of the implementation of information collection and sharing procedures. A professional security officer was deployed in the field, under a UNCT cost-sharing agreement.

49

ANNEX 2: The United Nations System in Middle-Income Countries (MIC) in South-East Asia: Development Cooperation and the UNDAF

The report of the United Nations Secretary General (Aug, 2009) on Development cooperation with middle-income countries emphasizes the role of MICs in the context of globalization and interdependence, and their importance for promoting the United Nations agenda of development for all, including the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The General Assembly recognized that MICs still faced significant challenges in their efforts to achieve the internationally agreed development goals. The United Nations system and the multilateral financial institutions have played crucial role in facilitating international development cooperation with MICs.

The operations of the United Nations system in MICs are guided by the principles defined in the triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development. In general, in MICs Governments and civil society actors emphasize the UN system’s role in provision of policy and technical advice and the UN is perceived as a politically neutral development partner. The United Nations system does not yet have a well-defined agenda to address both the common and the idiosyncratic challenges faced by MICs. As noted, the emphasis may vary depending on country-specific needs, but perennial development challenges, such as poverty eradication and financial stability, and emerging issues, especially climate change, will remain priorities. The report underlines that the United Nations system should also enhance its support to strengthening South-South cooperation.

The following section outlines the role of the UN in some of the MICs in the region. The question is not whether UN is relevant in MICs, but how and under what forms/modes of operations UN can better function with national partners.

Vietnam

Vietnam is gradually moving towards MIC status. ODA in Vietnam is shifting towards credit and UN’s contribution to ODA has drastically fallen from 50 percent to 2 percent over last 20 years. In the new aid environment, the government and the donors expect more effective, cohesive and strategically focused UN, responding to Government needs and priorities. UN’s comparative advantages in Vietnam were seen in terms of impartiality of advice, convening power and knowledge broker. A reformed, more strategic UN delivering high quality upstream policy advice, capacity building and technical support is of significant relevance to Viet Nam as it moves towards MIC status. Paradigm shift requires change of UN staff skill mix. Fewer project administrators and more highly qualified policy advisors.

Thailand

As Thailand has progressed up the ranks of MICs, UN has seen its relevance decline. Thailand is relying much less on aid as source of financing, as it has the ability to mobilise alternative sources of financing with fewer strings attached. In the changed scenario, the UN has recognized the need to move much more towards partnership approach. The role of the United Nations Systems in Thailand is characterized by the partnership between the UN and the RTG in areas of strategic importance to Thailand as a MIC. This partnership is based on two-way exchange of knowledge and expertise; the UN learns from Thailand and shares development successes and lessons learned from other countries. To reflect this new strategic approach, the document in Thailand is referred to as the United Nations Partnership Framework (UNPAF).

Adopting a human-rights approach to programming, the UNPAF (2006-2010) aims to empower the most vulnerable people in society to claim their rights to live in dignity, also fulfil their societal obligations. Five strategic areas of cooperation included – access to quality social services and protection; decentralization and provincial/local governance; access to comprehensive HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support, environment and natural resources management. A fifth area is support for Thailand’s emergence as a donor country, which primarily includes facilitating Thailand’s exchange of experiences with other countries in the

50

spirit of South-South cooperation and building its capacity to deliver aid effectively. Recently conducted MICII study38 (2009) suggests that the UNCT should respond to the RTG’s request for more support to south- south cooperation and more broadly the RTG’s role as a regional and global development advocate. The study also advocates that the UNCT should strengthen its interface with the RTG and aim to increase ownership of the UNPAF with the RTG. For an effective partnership, the study recommends that limited human and financial resources need to be targeted at RTG’s priority needs where UN system has a comparative advantage (such as convening power, neutrality, social credit, network around the world etc) . UN’s role in substantive policy engagement with the RTG has been emphasized.

Indonesia

As Indonesia moves along the path to high-level MIC status, the relative importance of ODA is likely to decrease in the coming years. While UN financial contribution to ODA is limited, the UN has proved to be a reliable development partner through its support to post tsunami recovery and reconstruction, disaster risk reduction, peace consolidation and conflict prevention, the advancement of human rights and democratic processes and the promotion of MDGs. Consultation processes, for developing UNPDF (United Nations Partnership for Development Framework) for 2011-2015, have indicated that the most appreciated comparative advantages of the UN are its (i) support to global norms and standards, (ii) human development and MDG focus, (iii) broad-based partnerships with civil society and the private sector, (iv) respect for national ownership, (v) presence at local and decentralized levels, (vi) access to regional and global expertise, and (vii) support to capacity building.

Areas that need further strengthening include increased coordination in funding, greater synergies across agencies, stronger focus on policy rather than on service delivery, more predictable funding levels, and less dependence on project level resource mobilisation strategies. The UN will also sharpen its focus on the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged and its decentralized programme will give priority to the “least developed, frontier, outer and post conflict areas” identified in the Mid-Term Development Plan (2010-1024). Making use of its global network of the UN will assist Indonesia in enhancing its engagement in South-South dialogue, especially with other MICs.

The Philippines Context

The roll out of the new UNDAF (2012-2016) and the preparatory phase are very important in the present socio-economic and political context. With the new government in place, the UNCT in the Philippines has a great opportunity to cut a niche and demonstrate the relevance and efficiency of the UN system. As expected by the GOP, the UN can set an example to other bilateral and multi-lateral partners in the Philippines39. This will call for acceleration and strengthening of the ‘Delivering as One’ efforts and progression towards the ‘One Programme’ in a coherent and coordinated manner ensuring alignment with national priorities. The proposed One Programme, as the central driver of the ‘Delivering as One’, provides an opportunity to put in place an integrated strategic framework of the UN’s programmatic interventions reducing overlap and fragmentation. Comparative Advantages (CAs) of the UN system in the Philippines include the following:

• Normative role in advocating and promoting global norms and standards, inclusive development, the MDGs and human rights;

• Wide menu of expertise combined with acccess to global technical knowledge and experience, including South-South cooperation;.

• Impartiality/neutrality and ability to convene diverse stakeholders and build consensus; • Ability to broker and/or mobilize resources;

The UN’s strength lies in “upstream” engagement in policy and sharing of best practices and technical knowledge especially in the context of the Philippines as a lower middle-income status country. Under the Paris Declaration, donors committed to providing technical co-operation in a manner that is coordinated with

38 UN Operations in a MIC: Formulation of a Strategy for UN Coherence and Effectiveness in Thailand – Part II

39 Report of the 2007 UNCT Annual Retreat

51

strategies and programmes in the partner country. The results of 2008 survey on Monitoring of the Paris Declaration shows that 43 percent of the technical cooperation provided by the UN was coordinated with the Philippines country programmes. Thus, there is a considerable scope for improvement in the provision of technical knowledge in a coordinated manner.

For simplification of the country programming process, ‘One Programme’ can be integrated with the UNDAF exercise. Emphasis should be put on simplifying the reporting on the programming cycle. One Year-End Report for all UN activities in a country is sufficient and increases transparency especially with reference to the Government and development partners. To ensure a smooth transition, the organizational structure should support the vision. Skill sets of staff members should shift more towards policy advocacy.

Based on the lessons learned, the emerging issues for the next UNDAF cycle can be summarized, as follows:

• Thematic/sectoral and geographical focus of UN interventions need to be determined and areas of convergence should be identified and agreed upon;

• There is a need for establishing a management structure for the UNDAF with clear specification of responsibilities and accountability. The UNCT and Government should be equal partners in the management mechanism. The UNDAF should be owned by the Government to ensure an effective implementation and monitoring, which is also crucial for realizing the ‘DaO’;

• For an operational UNDAF, participation of all stakeholders including LGUs, civil society, donors and private sector should be fostered at all stages;

• Enhanced engagement of non-resident agencies should be ensured in the next UNDAF cycle and their inputs should be recognized;

• The focus of the UNDAF should be maintained, limiting it to the outcome level. Implementation of the UNDAF Action plan, to which the UNCT has already agreed, is a right step in this direction. However, it has to be living document and the RM should be modified whenever necessary. The UNDAF Action Plan must be revisited periodically by the UN agencies and its partners to review the progress;

• Strong Results-based Management (RBM) should be put in place for all phases of UNDAF.

• The programming principles such as gender equality and HRBA should be mainstreamed more effectively in planning, implementation and M&E; these should also be promoted in Government line departments;

• The joint programming (JP) should be implemented in the true spirit of ’Delivering as One’, and clear plan should be laid out for the transition to the ‘One Programme’

• There is a need for an effective Joint Communication Strategy to support One UN Programme: external communication for improving the visibility of the UN, and internal communication to support the change management process and to ensure enhanced coordination. Communication can play an important role in popularizing the UNDAF;

• The UNCT should utilize its comparative advantage in policy advocacy and knowledge transfer to maintain its relevance in a middle income country: it should be a two-way exchange.

• The UN should play an enhanced role in South-South Cooperation – especially in the areas of disaster preparedness and response, good governance, democratic reform and decentralization.

52

Annex 3: QUESTIONNAIRE - UNDAF (2005-2009): Lessons Learned

Background The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) is a vital strategic framework that articulates a collective, coherent and integrated response of the UN system at the country level in support of the national priorities and needs. In 2004, the UNCT and its partners in the Government and civil society prepared the second UNDAF for the period 2005-2009 for the Philippines. The 2005-2009 UNDAF addresses five interrelated areas of cooperation, namely: (i) macroeconomic stability, broad-based and equitable development; (ii) basic social services; (iii) good governance; (iv) environmental sustainability; and (v) conflict prevention and peace building. To align with national planning processes and to benefit from the new Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan (MTPDP), at the request of the government the 2005-2009 UNDAF has been extended to a 2012 start. This year, under the leadership of the Government of the Philippines and in close consultation with the UN-Civil Society Advisory Committee (CSAC), development partners and other relevant stakeholders, the UNCT is embarking on the preparatory activities for a new UNDAF. Evaluation of the current UNDAF is a prerequisite for this process. Scope of this survey Inputs collected through this questionnaire will be used for UNDAF evaluation exercise. The evaluation will be a forward-looking one, with an aim to feed into the design and preparation of the next UNDAF and Country Programmes. This exercise intends to capture key processes (related to formulation, implementation, M&E, resource mobilization, partnership and coordination), major achievements, challenges faced, opportunities and lessons learned during the UNDAF cycle. Overall perspective is expected from the UNCT/HOAs and theme group/agency perspective should be provided by individual agencies. Lessons learned from the current cycle will add great value to the design of the new UNDAF. There are no wrong and right answers. Since this questionnaire will be the major source of updated information, please elaborate in as much detail as you can. Target Respondents UN Country Team (UNCT), UN Theme Groups (through Lead Convenor), UNDAF Working Group, senior programme managers (through the UNDAF Working Group focal points), and UN-Civil Society Advisory Committee (CSAC)

53

Name of the agency: Respondent (name and designation): Number of years in current post (within the UNDAF 2005-2009 cycle): Association with the UNDAF process: (i.e. formulation, implementation, M&E, resource mobilization, partnership and coordination)

1a. What were the major milestones in the UNDAF (2005-2009) cycle? Mention major achievements and events during the cycle from overall (UNCT), theme group or agency perspectives; it could be related to the process, outcome/output. You can highlight some good practices. 1b. How would you describe your experience as theme group member? Describe the functioning of theme groups – coordination, effectiveness, leadership related issues. Why some groups were more effective? Also outline the historical transect of the groups during the entire UNDAF cycle (how groups were formed, why they dissolved at one point and reinstated again). 2. What worked and what did not work in the process? Discuss contributing and hindering factors in the process of formulation and implementation/ operationalization of UNDAF from overall (UNCT), theme group or agency perspectives. Were there any actions taken during the UNDAF cycle to address some of the challenges? Please describe. Were the programmatic principles (HRBA, gender, environmental sustainability, RBM, capacity development) adequately incorporated? 3. What are the lessons learned: from overall / theme group/ agency perspective? In the areas of formulation, implementation, M&E, coordination, partnership, resource mobilization. 4. Delivering as one and Joint Programming: How would you describe the experience and how it could be

made more effective? Cite a specific Joint Programming effort. Did it improve the efficiency of programme delivery? How? What challenges did you face? 5. Do you have any specific recommendations for the next UNDAF cycle? Recommendations in the areas of UNDAF process including stakeholder participation, relevance of current UNDAF themes, Delivering as One UN etc. What measures would you recommend to popularize UNDAF among UN staff and other stakeholders? What measures would you recommend for more effective operationalization of the UNDAF? 6. FOR NON-RESIDENT UN AGENCIES: Was your agency engaged with the last UNDAF? What role did you play?