Delivering as One UN Albania

19-21 October 2009 – Kigali

Goal of One UN Programme

• Enhance development results and impact by bringing together the comparative advantages of the UN system in support of national priorities including European integration.

• UN operate with unity in purpose, coherence in management and efficiency in operations

DaO Focus

• Five Programme areas: governance, participation, basic services, regional development, environment

• Cross-cutting areas: Gender equality, national capacity development and social inclusion

• Core elements: policy advocacy and dialogue, network and partnership building, technical assistance and support towards international commitments and standards

DaO Governance structure

Government Modernisation Committee: provides policy oversight for DaO strategic direction and alignment with nation priorities.

•JEC: co-chaired by GoA and UNRC, responsible for management of One UN programme including decisions on the Coherence Fund;

•Government Inter-ministerial Working Group: composed of Secretary Generals from Line Ministries, consultative body on technical issues

•UNCT: assume leadership within their mandates for substantive programme areas, identify priorities with Government counterparts and support implementation

•

Government expectations on DaO

• Predictable support in key strategic programme areas to enhance progress and standards required for EU accession

• Harmonized UN assistance that contributes to aid coordination and effectiveness in line with Paris agenda

• Increased government leadership

Purpose of process evaluation

Assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of DaO in Albania

• Assess progress on strategic intent for the reform, identify areas for improvement and remaining challenges from a mutual accountability perspective

• Recommendations on areas for improvement for the new Government/UN programme (2012-2016) also identify best practices for wider donor collaboration

Guiding Principles

• An open evaluation process with results made widely available (stakeholder workshop, CoM and UN website also global audience)

• For evaluations to be useful they must reflect the country context (adaptation of questions, set up, ToR).

• Involvement of stakeholders is essential

• Credible evaluation findings and adherence to international standards

• The country evaluation should be different from the second Independent evaluation in scope and methodology

• The country evaluation should focus on measuring the outcome as compared with the objectives set by the GoA, the country ownership and leadership.

• It should be country led, put into country context and using country resources to the best possible extent

• The Independent evaluation should focus on both country objective meeting and the UN system impact as result of DaO

Key Evaluation Questions

1. To what extent does the DaO (and its Ones) reflect increased prioritisation of support where UN has policy expertise and comparative advantage?

2. Does the DaO and its operational processes and mechanism have a potential for replication?

3. To what extent has the DaO led to strategic inclusiveness among UN agencies and national institutions?

4. To what extent has the DaO processes led to enhanced attention to gender equality and social inclusion into programmes and budgets?

Key Evaluation Questions (2)

1. To what extent does the DaO support the priorities on aid-effectiveness and better alignment and use of national systems?

2. To what extent has the DaO (and its Ones) improved synergies, reduced fragmentation in programming, and simplified administration and management practices?

3. How sustainable are the DaO process and systems and what key actions can be taken among partners to improve coordination, communication and efficiencies for higher

development impact?

GoA Monitoring and Evaluation Integrated Planning System (IPS): Coherent planning architecture in place

NSDI

MTBPNational Plan for

SAA

MONITORING AND REPORTING

Policy

FinancesEuropean Integration

11

GoA Monitoring and Evaluation…(2) Accountability structures - IPS

IPS Coordination

Group

Sector Working Group

SPC [chaired by PM]

GSBI

Program Teams

12

Gen. Sec.

Management Structure

Quality Assurance Panel (in New York for all pilot

country evaluations)

Secretariat-Government representative (appointed by Minister of State for Reform and Parliament relations)-UN M&E working group,

Reference GroupsUsing existing structures

Friends of One UN, Donor technical secretariat, sector groups, and civil society, media, UNCT/RCO, etc.

Evaluators

LogisticsUNCT/RCO

LogisticsUNCT/RCO

Evaluation Management GroupChaired by Government

-2 Government representatives (appointed by Minister of State for Reform and Parliament relations)

-2 UN representatives -1 Donor representatives

Management Structure

1. Evaluation Management Group- chaired by Government

Role: Oversight and management of evaluation

• 2 Government representatives (appointed by Minister of State)• 1 Donor representative• 2 UN Representatives

Management Structure

Secretariat Role: preparation of evaluation, draft TOR, short listing of evaluators, review of deliverables)

• 1 Government representative (appointed by Minister of State)• UN M&E Group

Reference Group Role: consultation and validation• Using existing structures, donor consultation mechanisms, civil society group, sector working groups

Evaluation Team

advertised internationally• Credible company or team of individuals with proven track record to produce

quality results. • Ethics: Evaluators with no stake in outcomes to safe guard credible

evaluation. • Team of 2-3 professionals for rapid work, ideally with national consultant as

part of team

Time Frame

• Nov-Dec Recruitment of evaluators• Jan.-, Evaluation starts (desk review, interviews, data collection)• February/March, Data validation exercise of draft findings. • Early April, second draft report ready for lessons learned note, Hanoi• May/June, Management response and publication of findings

Thank you,