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

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

Evaluation Office,May 2009United Nations Development Programme

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

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

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

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

Team Leader Markus Reichmuth

TeamMembers Rosa Flores MedinaHenry Morales López

EO Task Manager Fabrizio Felloni

EO Research Assistant Verouschka Capellan

EVALUATION TEAM

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS:EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION – GUATEMALA

REPORTS PUBLISHED UNDER THE ADR SERIES

AfghanistanArgentinaBangladeshBarbadosBeninBhutanBosnia & HerzegovinaBotswanaBulgariaChinaColombiaRepublic of the CongoEgyptEthiopiaGuatemalaHondurasIndia

JamaicaJordanLao PDRMontenegroMozambiqueNicaraguaNigeriaRwandaSerbiaSudanSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanUkraineUzbekistanTurkeyViet NamYemen

F O R E W O R D i

The Evaluation Office of the UNDP conductsindependent country-level evaluations calledAssessment of Development Results (ADR)which assess the relevance and strategic positioningof UNDP’s support and its contributions to acountry’s development. The purpose of an ADRis to contribute to organizational accountabilityand learning and strengthen the programmingand effectiveness of UNDP. This report presentsthe findings and recommendations of the ADRthat was conducted in Guatemala, covering theperiod of two country cooperation frameworksfrom 2001 to 2008.

For centuries, the indigenous population inGuatemala has been excluded from the country’sformal economic and political processes and theirbenefits. From the 1960s to the mid-1990s,Guatemala was devastated by an armed conflictbetween leftist guerrilla forces and militarizedgovernments, whose main victims were indige-nous people. A peace process took place withincreasing intensity in the 1990s, and resulted inan Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace, atthe end of 1996.

The United Nations played a decisive role in thefacilitation of the dialogue between theGovernmentand the guerrilla forces. A VerificationMission ofthe UN in Guatemala (MINUGUA, 1994-2004)was in charge of facilitating and supervising thede-mobilization of the guerrillas, contributing tothe strengthening of public institutions andpromoting trust between the parties involved.Gradually, other UN agencies, including notablyUNDP, took over these functions. Guatemala hasbeen one of the not-so-frequent cases in whichthe United Nations closely combined the peace-building mandate of its General Assembly withpost-conflict development. As a result, UNDP inGuatemala continues to enjoy high recognitionas a neutral agency, a broker, a facilitator andpromoter of dialogue on sensitive issues andbetween opposite groups.

UNDP has contributed in the areas of governanceand crisis prevention and recovery. The record isless strong in the areas of poverty and theenvironment. Here, UNDP has been relativelysuccessful in supporting the implementation ofsocial public programmes (health and education)but less so in helping to shape the related policiesand in providing high-level advisory support todecision makers in the relevant sectors. Moreover,UNDP’s involvement in promoting economic-productive programmes for poverty reductionwas marginal. Yet with the global economic crisis,poverty and environment are likely to acquire moreprominence in the near future and challenge thepast orientations of UNDP in these areas.

UNDP has been heavily involved in the manage-ment of public programmes. On the positive side,this has brought about more impartial, transparentand faster execution. On the other hand, this hasnot always been the best platform for UNDPto provide substantive inputs to policy making.Moreover, replacing the state’s function may createa risk of perpetuating dependency without promotinglong-term capacity of national institutions.

During the second programme cycle that wasevaluated, particularly during the years 2005-2007, UNDP has been able to rapidly re-adaptand respond to the shifting demands ofGovernment and donors but has not alwaysstruck a balance between long-term countrydevelopment needs and short-term demands.This is partly due to the complexities of thepolitical and socio-economic context ofGuatemala and partly attributable to a number ofsystem-related and organizational factors withinUNDP, including strong dependence on externalresources, limited instruments – until recently –for substantive support from headquarters to thecountry office, frequent changes in the seniormanagement of the country office, as well aslimited mechanisms at the country level to

FOREWORD

F O R E W O R Di i

introduce greater continuity in the achievement ofits strategic objectives beyond government cycles.

Twelve years after the signing of the PeaceAgreements, the recognition of limited advancesin attaining the expected objectives prevails. Theeffectiveness of the support from UNDP for thedevelopment and security agenda of the PeaceAgreements has been moderate. For both agendas,there is an urgent need to better align andharmonize international development coopera-tion with Government policies and local efforts,calling for national professional coordinationcapacities to be strengthened, a role UNDP couldsupport, at the request of the Government, to agreater extent than has been the case.

This evaluation benefited from the collaborationof the personnel of UNDP Country Office inGuatemala, of the Regional Bureau for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, of representatives ofthe Government of Guatemala, civil societyorganizations, bilateral and multilateral donorsand of the UN System in Guatemala.

I would like to thank the evaluation team,comprising Markus Reichmuth, team leader;Rosa FloresMedina, team specialist;HenryMoralesLópez, national consultant; Fabrizio Felloni,task manager. I also thank the external reviewersChristian Buignon, consultant and internationaldevelopment specialist, and Alfredo Stein, develop-ment economist, for their useful comments.

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

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

Saraswathi MenonDirector, Evaluation Office

C O N T E N T S i i i

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

Executive Summary vii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Data collection methods 21.2 Thematic and strategic roundtable discussions 3

2. National development context 5

2.1 Geographical and demographical background 52.2 Political context 52.3 Economic context 82.4 Human development context 92.5 The Millennium Development Goals 112.6 International cooperation in Guatemala 12

3. The United Nations and UNDP in Guatemala 13

3.1 Evolution of the strategic framework 133.2 Structure and organization of UNDP 163.3 Main aspects of portfolios 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 183.4 Financial management of the office 213.5 Efficiency of office management 23

4. Contribution of UNDP to development results 27

4.1 Areas of priority for UNDP 274.2 Effectiveness 294.3 Programme efficiency 404.4 Sustainability 42

5. Strategic positioning of UNDP 45

5.1 Relevance 455.2 Responsiveness 475.3 Equity 485.4 Partnerships 495.5 Interagency cooperation within UNS 50

6. Conclusions and recommendations 53

6.1 Conclusions 536.2 Recommendations 55

Annexes

Annex 1. Guatemala: Socio-economic indicators 57Annex 2. Information on UNDP And UNDP-G Office 2001-2008 61

CONTENTS

C O N T E N T Si v

Annex 3. Sample of projects selected by the ADR Guatemala 65Annex 4. Evaluation criteria and sub-criteria 67Annex 5. Pending commitments of the Peace Agreements 69Annex 6. People interviewed and schedule 73Annex 7. Evaluation terms of reference 83Annex 8. References 89

Boxes

Box 1. Summary of the principal findings in Chapter 3 25Box 2. Summary of the main findings in Chapter 4 43Box 3. Summary of the principal findings in Chapter 5 51

Figures

Figure 1. ADR levels of analysis 2Figure 2. Assessment of effectiveness 3Figure 3. Populations earning less than $1a day 9Figure 4. Education and poverty levels 10Figure 5. Volume of international cooperation in Guatemala 12Figure 6. ODA in Guatemala 1996-2006 12Figure 7. Project portfolios in each programme period according to mode of execution 20Figure 8. Project resources of the two programme periods by financial source 22

Tables

Table 1. Key socioeconomic indicators 8Table 2. Planning documents - UNDP Guatemala 14Table 3. UNDP Human Resources Office 16Table 4. Strategic outcomes of 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 periods 19Table 5. Execution and management costs of UNDP (2004-2008) 21Table 6. Levels of execution according to year of project end 23Table 7. Management efficiency evaluation criteria and sub-criteria 24Table 8. UNDP strategies in programme cycles 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 28Table 9. Number of projects and their budgets by area and cycle 29Table 10. Examples of findings by project (democratic governance) 32Table 11. Examples of findings by project (crisis prevention and recovery) 35Table 12. Examples of findings by project (poverty reduction) 38Table 13. Examples of findings by project (environment and energy) 40

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

ICA/ACI International Cooperative AllianceODA/AOD Official Development AssistanceBID /IDB Inter-American Development BankWB/BM World BankCAD/DAC Development Assistance Committee of the OECDCCA/ECP Common Country Assessment/Evaluación Conjunta del PaísCCF Country Cooperation Framework/Marco de Cooperación al PaísEC/CE European CommissionCICIG International Commission Against Impunity in GuatemalaCNAP National Peace Agreements CouncilCONAP National Council of Protected AreasCPAP Country Programme Action PlanCPD Country Programme DocumentDEMI Indigenous Women’s Defence CouncilDEX Projects executed directly by UNDPDIGAP Programme for theDignity andPsychosocialAssistance ofVictimsofArmedConflictUS United StatesEIU Economist Intelligence UnitENCOVI National Survey on Living ConditionsEO/OE Evaluation OfficeERD/ADR Assessment of Development ResultsFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the UNFIDA/IFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentFORPOL National Civil Police Reinforcement ProgramFTA International Fixed Term Assignment InternationalGEF Global Environment FacilityGNI Gross National IncomeIFC International Finance CorporationIMF/FMI International Monetary FundINAB National Forest InstituteINDH National Human Development ReportINE National Statistical Office of GuatemalaITS/STD Sexually Transmitted DiseasesMAGA Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and FoodMANUD/UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkMARN Ministry of Environment and Natural ResourcesMECOVI Improvement of Living ConditionsMINUGUA United Nations Verification Mission in GuatemalaMYFF Multi-Year Financing FrameworkNEX National ExecutionUN United NationsNOB Basic Operational NormsOACDH Office of the High Commissioner for Human RightsOECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

ODM/MDG Millennium Development GoalsOIM/IOM International Organization for MigrationOIT/ILO International Labour OrganizationONG/NGO Non-governmental organizationONUSIDA/UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSOMS/WHO World Health OrganizationOPS/(PAHO) Pan American Health OrganizationPASOC Program Alliance with Civil SocietyPCR/CPR Crisis Prevention and RecoveryPIB/GDP Gross Domestic ProductPMA/WFP World Food ProgrammePNC National Civil PolicePNR National Reparations ProgramPNUD/UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNDP-G United Nations Development Programme in GuatemalaPPA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capitaPRODDAL Project on Democratic Development in Latin AmericaPRODDEL Decentralization and Local Development ProgramPRODEME Metropolitan Development Program for the Municipality of GuatemalaPRODOC Project DocumentPROHABITAT Project HabitatPRONACOM National Competitiveness ProgramPRONADE National Education ProgramPYMEs Small and Medium-Sized EnterprisesRBLAC Regional Bureau for Latin America and the CaribbeanRECOSMO Conservation and Development Project of the Sarstún-Motagua RegionREX Regional Execution ProjectRIC Registry of Cadastral InformationRC Resident CoordinatorSAA Secretariat of Agricultural AffairsSEGEPLAN General Secretariat of Planning and Programming of the PresidencySEPAZ Secretariat of PeaceSEPREM Presidential Secretariat for WomenSIAF Integrated System of Financial AdministrationSURFs UNDP Regional Service CentresTFR Total Fertility RateUNEG United Nations Evaluation GroupUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNFPA United Nations Population FundUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for WomenUNOPS United Nations Office for Project ServicesUNS UN SystemUNV/VNU United Nations VolunteersURNG Guatemalan National Revolutionary UnionUS$/USD U.S. DollarsVIH-HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

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

INTRODUCTION

Assessments of Development Results (ADRs)provide an independent evaluation of UNDP’scontributions to development in the countrieswhere it operates.

The purposes of the ADRs are:

(i) to support the accountability process to theExecutive Board and the interested countries;

(ii) to contribute to learning geared towards theplanning of future UNDP activities bygenerating evidence based on the results ofthe programmes and the quality of the strategy.

This ADR spans the 2001-2008 period coveringthe UNDP strategic plans for Guatemala for2001-2004 and 2005-2008. The assessmentprovides inputs for UNDP’s next strategicdocument for the country, which will bepresented to the Executive Board in June 2009.

Twomain aspects were considered in the assessment:

(i) the contribution to the achievement ofdevelopment results (programme area);

(ii) strategic positioning.

The following criteria were considered in theassessment of development results: effectiveness,efficiency and sustainability. The evaluation ofstrategic positioning was based on relevance,responsiveness, equity and partnership. In orderto conduct the evaluation, two missions, prelimi-nary and principal, were carried out in July andSeptember 2008. Comments by the UNDPOfficein Guatemala (UNDP-G), the Regional Bureaufor Latin America and the Caribbean (RBLAC)and the Government of Guatemala on missionpresentation and the preliminary report were

taken into account. In accordance with UNDPEvaluation Office procedure, the principal reportwas also submitted for internal EO examinationand a review by two external specialists1.

THE COUNTRY CONTEXT

With 13 million inhabitants, 38 percent indige-nous, Guatemala has the largest population inCentral America. The country is classified asmiddle income, with a per capita $5,442. It ranks118th among 177 countries in the HumanDevelopment Index. According to 2006 figures,over half the population lives in poverty, with15.5 percent living in extreme poverty. Some 74.8percent of the poor are indigenous people. Thehigh Gini coefficient (55.1) reflects an unequalincome distribution.

A multi-ethnic country, Guatemala occupies anarea that was once the heart of the Mayancivilization.There are 23 ethnicities, each with itsown culture and language. Historically, theindigenous population has been marginalizedfrom the country’s political process. From the1960s until the mid-1990s, guerrilla forces andmilitary governments were locked in an armedconflict whose main victims were the indigenouspeople. An “Agreement for a Firm and LastingPeace” was signed in 1996 between the Govern-ment of Guatemala and the Guatemalan NationalRevolutionary Union. The United Nations,especially UNDP, played an important role in theachievement of peace and in the efforts toimplement the Peace Agreements, particularlywith the United Nations Verification Mission inGuatemala (MINUGUA, 1994-2004).

The Peace Agreements envisaged a solution tothe structural problems at the root of the armedconflict. They addressed a wide range of issues,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Alfredo Stein, economist and university professor, and Christian Bugnion, consultant and international development specialist.

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

such as poverty, inequality, food and employmentinstability, education, healthcare, basic socialservices, human rights violations and impunity.Early successes were achieved in the form ofrapid demobilization of the guerrilla forces,political openness and an end to politicalpersecution. However, much remains to be doneto achieve the peace agenda’s goals and variouscommitments are behind schedule. Oneimportant example is violence and insecurity: thetotal number of homicides rose from 2,665 in1999 to 5,885 in 2006.

During the 1996-2006 decade, a net amount of$3.3 billion was allotted to Guatemala in OfficialDevelopment Assistance (ODA). Of the total, 76percent was contributed by the member countriesof the Development Assistance Committee ofthe Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD). Multilateral institutionsprovided 11 percent of the total ODA and theUnited Nations System (UNS) contributed 3.8percent (0.5 percent being from UNDP).

CENTRAL PROGRAMME THEMES ANDRESULTS BY AREA OF PRACTICE

During the period evaluated, UNDP efforts weregeared towards the construction of a democraticState with particular attention to social issues(crisis recovery, social reintegration, health,education, housing, etc.) and more inclusivedevelopment in line with the Peace Agreements.Key results are presented below by practice areaand expected results.

EFFECTIVENESS

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

In this area, the generation of institutionalcapacities and conditions for greater politicaldialogue was especially significant. UNDPplayed an important role in creating and support-ing the technical capacities of public institutionsat the central, municipal and community levels.

UNDP contributed to the creation of strategicplans and relevant institutions to address theagrarian conflict in the country. In particular,UNDP participated in the establishment of the

Registry of Cadastral Information and theSecretariat of Agricultural Affairs, whoseinterventions yielded positive results in numerouscases. However, the process of legal recognitionand certification of property rights is incomplete,as the law establishing the registry has limited itsmandate. Ensuring legal recognition of propertyrights, especially for rural and indigenouspeoples, is still a challenge.

In the area of State modernization, UNDPwas active in the administration of publicprogrammes. UNDP’s support to the Municipalityof Guatemala facilitated the creation of a long-term and large-scale programme going beyond theoriginal focus on infrastructure. The programmenow encompasses the environment and territorialplanning as well. In the financial sector and inthe promotion of competitiveness, UNDP facili-tated the operation of programmes but withoutsubstantive contributions to policy formulation;at times, a clear direction towards povertyreduction was lacking.

Civil society associations active in human rightsissues, the fight against discrimination, and adultliteracy were strengthened. This representedinvaluable support in a country where civil societyhad been repressed for decades. Pioneering inter-ventions through resources and technical capacitiescontributed to the strengthening of individualcivil society associations. Yet these interventionsinitially lacked a strategy for creating a network ofcore organizations and a conceptual framework topromote dialogue with the State. More recently,UNDP initiatives have been reoriented towardsprioritizing such dialogue.

CRISIS PREVENTION AND RECOVERY

UNDP’s contribution in sensitive issues suchas the dignifying of victims of armed conflictis among its notable achievements. UNDPinterventions promoted psychosocial assistancefor the families of victims and anthropologicalforensic investigations. Another importantcontribution was the creation of political andtechnical conditions for establishing historicalclarity and ensuring justice.

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

In the area of natural disasters, municipal crisisresponse units have been created. Equallyimportant, methods and instruments have beendeveloped to improve public responses to naturaldisasters such as tropical storm Stan of 2005.These methods and plans are being discussedand disseminated by the public authorities. Thepost-disaster reconstruction approach promotedby UNDP has combined risk management witheconomic initiatives for income generation torevitalizse the local economy.

On the issue of public security, quality studieshave been produced. They have helped stimulatedebate on public policies. The debates can beexpected to guide the formulation of publicstrategies, provided that Government continues itssupport. On the other hand, when interventionshave solely focused on formative and operationalaspects, such as courses and equipment for policestaff, without proper strategic processes andpolicies – as in the case of technical supportprovided to the national police – institutionalstrengthening has been limited.

POVERTY REDUCTION AND MDGs

The National Human Development Reports havecontributed significantly to generating andinforming public opinion on such crucial issuesas poverty, women and healthcare, and ethnicityand diversity. The information briefs and kitsproduced have contributed to parallel initiativesfrom NGOs and civil society organizations.

Larger-volume projects in both programmecycles have been carried out in cooperation withthe Ministry of Public Health and the Ministryof Education, focusing on extending the coverageof primary schools and basic sanitation services,including in areas with high concentrations ofindigenous people.UNDPhas contributed to amorerapid and neutral management of these projects.However, substantive contribution to definingpublic-sector policies was not always evident.

UNDP concentrated its efforts on areas of socialdevelopment where it possesses experience andspecialists. It made a marginal contribution in the

economic-productive sub-sectors considered inthe strategic documents such as regulatoryframeworks, access to production and financialmeans for the poor, strengthening grassrootsproduction cooperatives. The country office lacksspecialists in economic-productive development.

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

This area is not explicitly mentioned in the 2005-2008 Country Programme Document, and theactivities implemented correspond primarily tothose executed with resources from the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) at the regionallevel. UNDP assisted in the creation of theMinistry of Environment and Natural Resourcesthrough initiatives aimed at improving itscapacity to build and set up programmes, andstrengthening its regional participation andplanning capacity. Municipal-level institutionalcapacity was also reinforced in terms of managingnatural resources such as natural parks. Otherinitiatives, such as ecotourism, the carbonmarket, productive use of renewable energy, andpromoting focus on climate change, exist but areisolated from the rest of the UNDP programme.They have limited visibility in public debates.UNDP’s recent interventions are attempting toestablish more direct synergies with otherpractice areas such as democratic governance andpoverty reduction.

SUSTAINABILITY

The sustainability of development resultsachieved with UNDP support depends, above all,on the structures, policies and processes involved.The risk factors are recognized first in theweaknesses and instability of public institutions.This includes, among other things, low collectionof taxes, which dramatically reduces the State’sability to provide services – notably in publicsecurity matters – and the lack of a legalframework for a public administration independ-ent of political parties. Within the UNDPcountry programme, there is limited connectivitybetween projects and excessive programmefragmentation in small interventions, perhapsmuch too aligned to short-term requests of donors

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

or the Government and not always convincinglylinked to the strategic axes. One may also notethe absence of exit strategies: institutional andprocess conditions often have not been createdto maintain the achievements and benefits afterthe finalization of the intervention. The disper-sion in short-term interventions and the lack ofconnections do not lead to a capitalization of theachievements when the interventions end.

MANAGEMENT OFPUBLIC PROGRAMMES

There are incentives for UNDP and for theGovernment to entrust the administration ofpublic programmes to UNDP. Governmentalentities are subject to State legislation, makingthe hiring of personnel, contracting of goodsand services, and annual budgeting difficult.Delegating the administration of a publicprogramme to UNDP tends to mean greaterexpeditiousness in procurement and humanresources matters, as well as a series of adminis-trative facilitations through the application ofUNDP norms. On one hand, it means a manage-ment that is relatively more efficient, transparentand neutral. On the other, it substitutes forthe need to strengthen the efficiency of theState and inflates UNDP’s resources in lesssubstantive administrative activities. The Statefinds it difficult to manage large publicprogrammes. For this reason, resorting to UNDPis a tempting option but it is also a short-termmeasure with doubtful effects on long-terminstitutional strengthening.

SELECTED STRATEGIC ISSUES

In Guatemala, UNDP and the United Nationsare recognized historically as facilitators of thepeace process, and impartial promoters ofpolitical dialogue concerning the most sensitiveissues. For UNDP, this is a special and perhapsunique characteristic. Within the periodevaluated (2001-2008), UNDP continued itsmediating and articulating efforts, which isuniformly recognized by all members.

UNDP maintained coherence with the keyprinciples of the Peace Agreements and encour-aged adherence. However, during the secondprogramme cycle evaluated, particularly from2005 to 2007, UNDP’s activities in Guatemalawere characterized by thematic dispersion. Thenumber of projects and range of themes rose andthe average budget and duration dropped signif-icantly. The surge in small short-term initiativesaffected the quality, connectivity, synergy andsustainability of interventions.

The key factors for this dispersion are: (i) lack ofa clear orientation with appropriate frameworksand methodologies to connect strategies withconcrete initiatives, (ii) the need for externalfunds from the Government and donors, subjectto their respective electoral cycles and relatedchanges of direction, (iii) the shifting preferencesand orientations of the senior management teamof UNDP country office, which have changedfrequently over the last seven years, and (iv) thelimitations in strategic guidance and supervisionfrom headquarters.

The high level of decentralization in the UNDPsystem offers advantages to the country offices interms of programme flexibility and adaptation tolocal emergencies and changes. At the same time,without systematic and strategic guidance, suchflexibility carries a risk of dispersion when facingrequests from the Government and donors. Newtools for strategic orientation from headquartershave been discussed within UNDP since 2008.

UNDP has the capacity to respond to thedevelopment challenges in Guatemala, which aremainly structural and need a long-term focus.UNDP needs a strategic foundation that lastsbeyond a government cycle and is based onlonger-term approaches and methodologies.

UNDP has worked extensively with publicentities and enjoys high visibility in and consid-eration from several ministries. It has also madeefforts to work with civil society organizations.UNDP has worked little with the private sector,probably because of these organizations’ limitedinterest and involvement in development and

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

poverty-reduction activities in the past. Nowadays,some private organizations are starting to changetheir attitude and business culture, subscribing tonew value codes that include social responsibilityto the community, law and ethics.

UN agencies believe that their DevelopmentAssistance Framework (UNDAF) has madesignificant progress in supporting coordinationand that UNDP has made efforts in exchanginginformation with other agencies within the UNS.However, in the programme areas there are stillduplications among agencies, e.g. in healthcareand environmental emergencies. Moreover, eachagency continues to plan its activities independ-ently. A framework such as UNDAF is necessarybut not sufficient to bring together the concretework of the different agencies. Joint planning at amore operational level is required.

The UN and UNDP, in particular, have a strongpresence in Guatemala. Their contribution to thepeace process as mediators has been crucial.UNDP’s special position grants it a function of ahinge between the Government and interna-tional organizations. UNDP has assumed thisfunction to a certain point and has the potentialto strengthen it in connection with the principlesof the Paris Conference on the effectiveness ofdevelopment cooperation.The constituent natureof the UN and UNDP can give a comparativeadvantage to UNDP positioning within multilat-eral and bilateral development cooperation entities,if it could gain the corresponding credibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this ADR concludes that UNDP hasmade substantial contributions to humandevelopment in Guatemala in the presentdecade, but that its strategy has not beensufficiently cogent to avoid a dispersion of activi-ties in the second programming cycle underconsideration. Its positioning resulting from itspeace-building role in the 1990s is increasinglychallenged by emerging development issues.

1. In Guatemala, the UN combined the peace-building mandate of the General Assemblywith post-conflict development interventions,leading to the high visibility and reputationUNDP still enjoys with national authorities.

Guatemala has been one of the not-so-frequentcases in which the United Nations closelycombined the peace-building mandate of itsGeneral Assembly with post-conflict develop-ment, as a recent UNDP Thematic Evaluationconfirmed2. During the initial period covered bythis evaluation, MINUGUA supported peace-building efforts with an important presence inthe country in terms of staff and attributions.The main purpose was to help establish andimplement the Peace Agreements and heal thewounds of three decades of internal armedconflict and human rights violations, particularlyagainst indigenous peoples. Along withMINUGUA, UNDP provided ample technicalassistance and project management services,appreciated by both the Guatemalan authoritiesand donors.

This history strongly marked UNDP’s strategyand portfolio, involving it in many parts of thePeace Accord agenda signed at the end of 1996.Today UNDP in Guatemala is recognized as aneutral agency, a broker, facilitator and promoterof dialogue on sensitive issues and betweenopposite groups. It has gained substantial reputa-tion, visibility and credibility in the country.

2.UNDP has generated considerable valueaddition in the areas of governance and crisisprevention and recovery; they will continueto be important for UNDP and the country.UNDP’s record is less strong in poverty reduction,energy and environment.Yet with the outbreakof the global economic crisis, the latter twoareas will rise in importance and may requirea revision of UNDP’s strategy, challenging itspast priorities in the country.

UNDP managed to build a relatively solidprogramme in governance and crisis preventionand recovery, with some cases of good practices atthe regional level. The record is less strong in the

2. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Evaluation of UNDPAssistance to Conflict-Affected Countries, Case Study Guatemala’, 2006

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

areas of poverty and environment, with thenotable exception of the National HumanDevelopment Report (INDH) and connectedactivities, which were not sufficiently taken intoaccount in strategy formulation. Yet poverty andenvironment are likely to acquire more prominencein the near future: the first symptoms of theglobal crisis have become visible in early 2009 inGuatemala, with an inverted flow of migrationand decreasing remittances for the first time inmany years.

UNDP has strong analytical capacity and experi-ence in the social sectors through its INDHgroup. It has been relatively successful insupporting the implementation of social publicprogrammes but less so in helping to shape therelated policies and in providing high-leveladvisory support to decision makers. Its environ-mental agenda has been driven by externalfunding (GEF) and has limited visibility in thecountry. UNDP has little experience inpromoting economic-productive programmes forpoverty reduction in Guatemala.

3.While UNDP has made efforts to introducestrategic planning in this decade, the effectshave been relatively weak in terms of orientingand improving its programmes. This is partlydue to the complexities of the political andsocio-economic context of Guatemala andpartly attributable to a number of systemicand organizational factors within UNDP.

The context in Guatemala has been character-ized by deep divisions in the population, reflectedin a shifting political party spectrum.The evalua-tion has perceived a high variability of policiesand directions within and between governmentsin Guatemala, also as a consequence of weakcoalitions since the Peace Accords. Furthermore,overall tax collection has traditionally been verylow, and the legal framework for public adminis-tration is complicated, impairing effectivegovernment action.

In this context, UNDP Guatemala’s strongdependence on external resources providedincentives to respond to shifting externaldemands for its services, not always in accordancewith its substantive mandate. And internally,

UNDP has been perceived as an institution inpermanent change. Resources and tools havebeen limited for substantive support from theheadquarters to the country office. Seniormanagement of the UNDP country officechanged frequently in the evaluated period, withconsequent changes in priorities. Against thisscenario, the strategy defined by UNDP and itspartners has retained little power to orient itsactivities. At the country level, no strongmechanisms (e.g., an advisory council with high-level members from major sectors in the country)are in place to introduce greater continuity in theachievement of its strategic objectives beyondgovernment cycles.

In the second programming cycle evaluated, aportfolio of activities emerged which was charac-terized by smaller projects of shorter duration ina broader spectrum of areas, mostly without adefined exit strategy, all under the broad roof ofthe approved CPD and UNDAF. Moreover,when acting “upon demand” of the Government,such as in the case of the management of publicprogrammes, UNDP has not always kept a balancebetween short-term requests and long-term develop-ment goals nor always contributed to longer-term capacity building of national institutions.

4.The effectiveness of the support of interna-tional cooperation and UNDP for the develop-ment and security agenda of the PeaceAgreements has been moderate; twelve yearsafter they were signed, a sobering recognitionof limited advances in attaining their objectivesprevails, pointing also to the need for a moreeffective use of international resources.

Both representatives of the indigenous peoples aswell as the Government, when analyzing theprogress in the implementation of the PeaceAgreements in the latter stages of the previousgovernment (November 2007), presented asobering account on the achievements so far, inparticular for the indigenous peoples. Crucialsocio-economic structures such as access to andownership of production factors, inclusion intopolitical decision centres, and enforcement ofhuman and civil rights changed little. Inter-national cooperation and UNDP, while providingsupport in many public areas, have produced

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

limited results for a more equal development infavour of disadvantaged groups, and of indige-nous peoples in particular.

In the field of security, due to the configurationof the political forces in the country and limitedpublic and external commitment including fromUNDP, the spread-out support could not reversea continuously worsening situation of violenceand insecurity in Guatemala during the periodunder consideration, and this during a time ofeconomic stability and growth. The most citedindicator is the homicide rate which hasincreased every year and doubled during thisperiod3. For both the development and thesecurity agenda, there is an urgent need to betteralign and harmonize international developmentcooperation with government policies and localefforts, calling for national professional coordina-tion capacities to be strengthened, a role UNDPcould support, at the request of the government,to a greater extent than has been the case.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This ADR recommends that UNDP takeadvantage of the opportunity of programming anew cycle in the country to redefine its strategicpositioning. Twelve years after the end of thearmed conflict and the signing of the PeaceAgreements, Guatemala and its context haveevolved, challenging UNDP to adapt its roleand strategy. For the new planning cycle 2010-2014, the present evaluation recommends arevisiting of UNDP strategy, orientation and rolein the country.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEUNDP OFFICE IN GUATEMALAStrategies and programmatic areas

1. UNDP should establish priorities betweenand within its thematic areas and prepare aspecific strategy in each thematic area,highlighting synergies within the UNDP

programmes and linkages with plans of otherUN agencies. In particular: (i) the area ofpublic security will require special attentiondue to the high social and opportunity costof the current weak security conditions;(ii) UNDP needs to clarify the role that itintends to play and the value addition itintends to bring in the areas of povertyreduction, energy and the environment.While UNDP’s strategic positioning in theseareas is low-key, they are likely to stronglyimpact the political agenda in the country inthe coming years.

2. The two cross-cutting issues of gender andindigenous people require increased attentionat the strategic level: it is recommended thata gender equity dimension be explicitlyincluded in the programming of futureactivities, based on the existing guidelines.Furthermore, the social, political and economicinclusion of indigenous people should be anintegral part of UNDP’s political dialogue.

3. UNDP should rebalance its support to theGovernment in favour of increased high-leveladvisory services to the Executive, Legislativeand Judicial powers, reducing the emphasis onthe provision of programme administrationservices. At the same time, the focus on theregional level should be increased, in terms ofthemes and resources, in view of regionalintegration and common challenges.

4. UNDP should accompany its project manage-ment services with an insistence on animprovement in the conditions for publicadministration capacities; this requires, inthe first place, stronger support for themodernization of the State, especially toachieve (i) a professional public administra-tion career which is independent of politicalparties; (ii) increased democratic andmultiparty dialogue; (iii) the renewal of theFiscal Pact for a wider-ranging and progres-

3. A 2006 UNDP Guatemala study, The Economic Cost of Violence in Guatemala, estimated that violence had cost 7.3 percentof GDP, or close to $2.4 billion in health lost, institutional costs, private security expenses, investment climate andmaterial losses.

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

sive tax collection; and (iv) the review of lawsthat encroach upon the administration ofGovernment policies and programmes.

5. Although UNDP acts upon requests fromthe Government, it should not coincide itsstrategic planning with the electoral cyclesbut should express its commitment withdevelopment objectives in the countrythrough long-term strategic plans (from sixto eight years), in a planning cycle withreviews every two or three years (one,evidently, after a change of Government).

6. Projects and programmes should beestablished with longer duration, largervolume and defined exit strategies inaccordance with strategic plans, in order toachieve greater sustainability of the effects ofUNDP support.

Organizational aspects

7. Unexpected external shocks and multipleinfluences on programme decisions require astrengthening of reflection and periodicreview of the strategic orientation ofthe UNS and UNDP in the course ofthe programme cycles; one recommendedmeasure is to institutionalize a high-leveladvisory mechanism in the country whichrepresents its major sectors and supportssenior management in shaping andmaintaining its long-term strategy.

8. Reinforce communication and strategicleadership within and between the countryoffice programmatic teams by strengtheningintegration at an intermediate managementlevel. It is also recommended that advisors,directors and officers of proven experience –including the INDH team – be involved inthe formulation of strategies.

9. Reinforce the function of monitoring andevaluation at the UNDP project andprogramme level in order to establish a moresystematic evaluation of the developmenteffects and outcomes. In parallel, the capacities

of the Government to monitor and evaluatethe implementation and results of its sectoralpolicies should be supported.

Coordination, harmonization andcooperation with partners

10. Given the universal nature of the UnitedNations, it is recommended that UNDPdifferentiate itself from the image of being “adevelopment agency among others”,reinforcing its role as a neutral, transparentand professional coordinator in the field ofexternal development cooperation inGuatemala;it is also well positioned to support theGovernment when and where it requestshelp to better comply with the Paris Agendaregarding development effectiveness.

11. Within the UN system, it is recommendedthat UNDP support a process of greaterharmonization among the agendas of eachagency, with a comparison of annual projectportfolios already at the planning stage,eliminating duplication and acting with onevoice where pertinent from the perspective ofthe national authorities.

12. Regarding policy dialogue with partners,opportunities should be increased for collab-oration with the private sector on the issueof corporate social responsibility, includingprivate, national and overseas foundations.

RECOMMENDATIONSTO THE HEADQUARTERS

13. In view of the past high turnover of UNDPsenior country office management, the ADRrecommends creating incentives for a longerpermanence of senior management staff.

14. The Regional Bureau should assume a moresystematic role in the strategic and program-matic support towards the country office,from its central office in New York and/orfrom its sub-regional office in Panama. Thedivision of functions and work betweenRBLAC and the office in Guatemala shouldbe defined with greater precision.

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

In line with Executive Board decision 2007/24,the UNDP conducts Assessment of DevelopmentResults (ADRs), which are independent evalua-tions of the organization’s contributions todevelopment at the country level. These assess-ments seek to ensure UNDP’s accountability as adevelopment organization, provide an evidencebase for learning on substantive matters, andsupport programming at the country-office level.

This ADR evaluates two past programme cyclesin Guatemala, contained within the strategicdocuments for the 2001-2004 and 2005-2008periods.4 There have been three governmentsduring the evaluation period: Alfonso Portillo(2000-2003), Oscar Berger (2004-2007) andÁlvaro Colom Caballero (since January 2008);three UNDP Resident Representatives ( JuanPablo Corlazzoli, 2001-2005, Beat Rohr, 2006-2008, and RenéMauricio Valdés from September2008); and two interim representatives (BárbaraPesce Monteiro, 2005-2006, and Xavier Michon,2008). Currently, UNDP and UNS in Guatemalaare preparing a new programme cycle for the2010-2014 period.

The goal of this ADR is to:

� Identify the progress of the expecteddevelopment results, outlined in thedocuments of UNDP’s last two programmecycles, whose contents reflect to a large extentthe objectives of the Peace Agreements;

� Analyze how UNDP has positioned itself inGuatemala in order to add value to the effortsto promote development in the country;

� To present findings and lessons learned witha view to preparing the new strategy andfuture management of UNDP.

Evaluation process. In accordance with UNDPEvaluation Office (EO) guidelines, a team ofthree members (two international and onenational5) and the EO task manager was set up.After a thorough reading of key documents,interviews at UNDP headquarters in New Yorkand a preliminary mission in Guatemala atthe end of July 2008, the focus and methodologyof the evaluation were defined and keystakeholders mapped. These were articulatedin an inception report.

The three-week main mission took place from 24August to 12 September 2008. Numerousinterviews were organized at the capital andduring several field visits. At the mission’sclosing, three feedback meetings were organizedwith: (i) UNDP country office management, (ii)staff of the office (iii) and representatives fromthe Government of Guatemala. The commentsexpressed were taken into account in the draftingof the report. The evaluation team thanks theUNDP staff, Government authorities and allthose interviewed during the principal missionfor their collaboration.

In accordance with EO procedures, the inceptionand main reports were submitted for review byEO and by two external advisors.6 Feedbackfrom the UNDP country office, from the UNDPRegional Bureau for Latin America and the

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

4. For the 2005-2008 CPD, UNDP asked for a one-year extension in order to coordinate programme planning with a newGovernment, which the Executive Board granted.Therefore, the current country programme document extends to 2009.

5. Markus Reichmuth (Switzerland), team chief; Rosa Flores (Peru), team specialist; and Henry Morales (Guatemala), localconsultant. Fabrizio Felloni (UNDP evaluation officer) participated in the preliminary and principal missions.

6. Alfredo Stein, economist and university professor, and Christian Buignon, consultant and international development specialist.

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

Caribbean (RBLAC) and from the Governmentof Guatemala was taken into consideration.

Key criteria. Under the terms of reference, theassessment considered two main aspects: (i)development results (programme area) and (ii)strategic positioning (Figure 1). The develop-ment results were assessed based on effectiveness,efficiency and sustainability. As for strategy,assessments were based on the EO standards ofrelevance, responsiveness, equity and partner-ships. A series of sub-criteria were developed(Annex 4).

Programme-level analysis is not limited to assess-ment of individual projects. It is focused mainlyon the contributions of the programme to theexpected outcomes at the strategic level. Theevaluation considers the projects as “case studies”from which to draw more general and strategicconclusions for UNDP.

As to the assessment of effectiveness, someexpected outcomes were in reference to complex,long-term changes (e.g. “More transparency andeffectiveness in the administration of public services”

or “Higher level of awareness and exercise of non-discrimination rights”), while UNDP interven-tions are frequently executed over the short tomedium term, sometimes lasting only one to twoyears. For this reason, in some cases, this evalua-tion could not find evidence of long-termachievements but could instead “observe”intermediate results and (partial) processes suchas changes in perceptions, approaches andmethods in the behaviours of stakeholders andinstitutions, which can contribute to the range ofexpected outcomes, along with other externalfactors (Figure 2).

1.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Desk review. The ADR bases its analysis onUNDP’s role, positioning and contributions todevelopment in Guatemala through evidencecollected by the evaluation team. The first stepwas a review of available documents on thestrategies and operations of the UN and ofUNDP at the corporate level and within thecountry. Studies and reports from other interna-tional organizations and scientific researchinstitutions were also examined during this stage.

Figure 1. ADR levels of analysis

Note: During the period chosen for this assessment, the classification of the programme areas was changed several times.

STRATEGIC AREA

PROGRAMME AREA

DemocraticGovernance

Crisis Preventionand Recovery

PovertyReduction

Environmentand Energy

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

the active projects (from the sub-list of the 20) wereselected. During the visits, attention was focusedon organizations, communities or householdsthat were beneficiaries of the interventions.

1.2 THEMATIC AND STRATEGICROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS

To prevent the analysis from focusing only onproject details, several thematic and strategicdiscussion groups were organized with UNDPstaff and with outside sectoral specialists fromGovernment, civil society, politicians, academia,and UNDP consultants. The informationobtained from document review, discussions withthe UNDP team, interviews with members andbeneficiaries at a strategic and programme levelas well as findings from direct field observationswere validated in accordance with the principleof triangulation.

UNDP activities are a set of interventions ofdifferent actors, influenced by national factors suchas history, public policies and economic cycles.

Project reviews and field visits. Next, a sample7

was taken of 32 projects and programmesformulated and executed during the 2001-2008period. The sampling was necessary because ofthe large number of existing projects (186,according to the Atlas classification, whichcorrespond to 137 actual projects carried out).8

Out of the sample, 20 projects were randomlyselected for interviews with key actors fromGovernment, international agencies, NGOs, civilsociety associations, scientific research institu-tions, and beneficiary institutions or individualsoutside UNDP within the Guatemalan capital.The key actors were defined by means ofstakeholder mapping before the main mission.

Finally, for six of the 20 projects, interviews andfield visits were organized with beneficiariesduring the second week of the mission. Given thelimited time available for field interviews (fivedays), the five departments with the greatestconcentration of UNDP activity (Quiché, Sololá,San Marcos, Izabal, and Petén) were identified and

7. Random sampling was performed to ensure unbiased representation. Projects were selected using data from the “ProjectInformation Table” provided by UNDP’s Monitoring and Evaluation unit. The sample was first depurated of projectsapproved before 2001. Then projects were listed by expected results of each strategy, i.e. the 18 outcomes of the 2001-2004 cycle and the seven of the 2005-2008 cycle. Next came random selection (random leaps). The details on thesample are available in Annex 3.

8. The Atlas system can provide project information liable to misinterpretation because financial contributions fromdifferent sources for the same activity recorded separately may be counted as different projects when, in reality, they areunder the same award.

Figure 2. Assessment of effectiveness

Context, other exogenousfactors or concomitant

Project Product (output)

FINAL EXPECTEDOUTCOMES

Intermediate resultsand change processes

Medium/long termShort term

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N4

UNDP’s contribution to development was assessedby seeking information on the exact nature of theinterventions, as well as by identifying concreteexamples of the effects of instruments, institu-tional mechanisms, resources, capacities andskills introduced by UNDP. This is a qualitative

analysis based on evidence and the triangulationof available data. In one case, during field visits ofcommunities affected by tropical storm Stan, theevaluation could consider “control observation”by including some communities covered byProject HABITAT and others not assisted.

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

2.1 GEOGRAPHICAL ANDDEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND

Guatemala is in Central America bordered byMexico on the north and west, El Salvador onthe south, and Honduras and Belize on the east.It has a surface area of 108,889 square kilometres,two thirds of which is mountainous, with densejungles in the north and fertile plains on thecoast. Of the 13.22 percent arable land, 5.6percent is used for permanent harvesting. Theclimate is subtropical, hot and humid in thelowlands, and temperate in the highlands. Themost important natural resources includepetroleum, nickel, precious minerals (includinggold), fish and gum sapota. Guatemala is at riskfrom natural disasters with occasional violentearthquakes. The Caribbean coast is extremelysusceptible to hurricanes and other tropical storms.

With a population of nearly 13 million,Guatemala is the largest country in CentralAmerica. Population growth decelerated from2.89 percent per year in 1950 to 2.6 percent inthe 1970s. It is currently 2.5 percent, abovethe Latin American average of 1.6 percent9. Thisis explained by Guatemala’s total fertility rate(4.2 children per woman), which is higher thanthe average in Central and Latin America andthe Caribbean (both are at 2.5 children perwoman). The population is characterized byhigh poverty, a strong urban-rural dichotomy,and high percentages of youths and indigenouspeoples10. The young people (under 14 years ofage) represent 41.4 percent of the population.Women represent 52 percent and indigenous

people 38.4 percent. About 52 percent ofGuatemalans live in rural areas.

2.2 POLITICAL CONTEXT

Multi-ethnic country. Guatemala occupies anarea that was once the heart of the Mayancivilization. It is a country characterized bymulti-ethnicity. There are 23 indigenous groups,each with its own culture and language.Historically, the indigenous majority has beenmarginalized from the country’s political process.

After the Mexican conquest, the area of today’sGuatemala came under the control of Spain,from which the country gained independence in1821. Until 1944, it was ruled by a series ofdictatorships, with transformation processes that,since 1871, favoured the establishment of largeestates. In the 19th and 20th centuries, there wasan increase in immigration from Europe. Theseimmigrants seized large extensions of land andset up plantations, first for coffee and then forbananas. Attempts by a progressive governmentto institute democratic and agricultural reformbetween 1944 and 1954 failed amid a US-ledmilitary intervention, which restored power tothe traditional elite.

Until the 1980s, the government assigned largeextensions of land to high military commands. Inthe 1990s a small percentage of the populationowned more than 80 percent of the country’s bestlands.11 The problem of land possession remainsunresolved. Guatemala lacks a general landregistry covering a significant part of the country

Chapter 2

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

9. EIU (2007) Country Profile.10. UNDP (2004) Draft Country Programme Document for Guatemala (2005-2008).11. Morales, H. (2007) ¿Por qué tanta frustración? La cooperación internacional en la decada de la Agenda de la Paz en

Guatemala. Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, Guatemala.

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

because of the opposition of large estate ownersand, lately, the increased power and control ofillegal entities such as drug traffickers.

Thirty-six years of armed conflict. From the1960s to the mid-1990s, Guatemala was riven bydomestic warfare between leftist guerrilla forcesand militarized governments, whose mainvictims were indigenous people. The HistoricalClarification Commission established in 1998with the Peace Agreements estimated that,during the armed conflict, 42,000 human rightsabuses were committed, including 626 massacres(“clearing the land”) with 200,000 confirmedvictims. With a few exceptions, these cases havestill not been investigated. The conflict forced anestimated 400,000 people to flee the country.Thearmed conflict was brought to an end in 1996with the signing of the Peace Agreements drawnup with UN support.12 The process was startedwith the Esquipulas Peace Agreements in 1987,in which Central American presidents committedthemselves to finding negotiated exits to the region’sinternal conflicts. It culminated in an “Agreementon a Firm and Lasting Peace” signed at the endof December 1996 between the Government ofGuatemala and the Guatemalan NationalRevolutionary Union (URNG).

The peace agenda13 proposed by these agreementsattempts to resolve the structural problems thatcaused the armed conflict. Among the mainissues are: (i) unequal distribution of land andincome (ii) high poverty and extreme povertyindexes (iii) food insecurity (iv) unemployment(iv) lack of access to education (v) lack of accessto healthcare, housing and other basic services(vi) numerous violations of human rights andimpunity, and (vii) lack of justice, poorgovernance and absence of a true democracy.

Among the early successes of the peace processwere the rapid demobilization of the guerrilla

forces (estimated to be 4,000 combatants),greater political openness and an end to politicalpersecution. The size of the armed forces wasreduced by one third and, in 2003, the presiden-tial guard was abolished. However, the reductionof violence is proceeding slowly, causing popularfrustration. Guatemala has a long traditionof violence, whether political (coups d’état,military governments, guerrilla uprisings, armedconflict, rightist paramilitary groups, politicalassassinations, etc.), social (intra-family violence,violence against women, etc.), economic (theft,kidnapping, extortion, and gangs) or institutional(community lynching, police participation incriminal acts, expansion of the influence andembedding of organized crime and drug-trafficking in State institutions etc.). Securityforces capable of ensuring public order arelacking. Private security companies currentlyoutnumber public forces by 75 percent.

On 29 December 2006, Guatemala commemo-rated the tenth anniversary of the PeaceAgreements. They have brought such benefits asthe end of political persecution, tolerance ofleftist political ideas, and increased social partici-pation and organization. However, an evaluationfrom the Secretariat of Peace (SEPAZ)14

concludes that the three governments in officeduring this period used the peace agenda mostlyto consolidate an external image, withoutcarrying out substantial internal changes.

During the period considered for this assess-ment, Guatemala was under the governments ofAlfonso Portillo ( January 2000 to January 2004)and Oscar Berger ( January 2004 to January2008). The current government is headed byÁlvaro Colom Caballero, the first president of asocial democratic administration since the signingof the Peace Agreements15. After assuming powerin January 2008, the Colom administration

12. UN General Assembly: United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala, Final report of the Secretary-General No.A/59/746, March 2005. The other information in this paragraph comes mostly from the EIU Country Profile 2007.

13. Annex 5 presents a summary of the main points of the Peace Agreements.14. SEPAZ: Peace Agreements in Guatemala: Ten years after its signing: ¿Oportunidad Desperdiciada? Agenda Pendiente

y Ningún Motivo para Celebrar; Guatemala, October 2006.15. Economist Intelligence Unit. 2008. Country Report: Guatemala

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

designed an ambitious 100-day plan centredon governance, solidarity, productivity andsocial cohesion. The implementation of theseprogrammes poses a challenge for the govern-ment, given the country’s violent crime rates –one of highest in the world – as well as weakfiscal earnings, which, at around 12 percent ofGDP16, is one of the region’s lowest.

Weak governance, violence and low citizenparticipation. The peace accords outlined a wayto develop a democratic system and to strengthenregulation and law enforcement. Institutionalweaknesses and lack of confidence in the judicialsystem, compounded by frail public security,make democratic governance in Guatemala oneof the weakest in Latin America.

Law enforcement, particularly the issue of publicsecurity, remains the greatest concern. Thecurrent violence seems mainly influenced bygangs (or maras) and drug traffickers. As notedin the Resident Coordinator’s 2006 AnnualReport: “[I]n 2005, more than 11,500 criminalacts against humanity were reported, and 5,338Guatemalan men and women were murdered,representing a rate of 44 homicides for every100,000 inhabitants”. This rate is comparable tothose of other countries of Central America.Nevertheless, the total number of homicides rosefrom 2,665 in 1999 to 5,885 in 2006 (an increaseof more than 100 percent).17

At the end of 2006, the Government and theUN finalized an agreement to establish theInternational Commission Against Impunity inGuatemala (CICIG), mandated with investigat-ing the activities of illegal groups and organiza-tions. CICIG began operations in March 2008with funds from the governments of Denmark,Spain, Finland, Holland, Norway, Switzerlandand, recently, Italy.

President Colom’s government recognizes themanychallenges to achieving sustained developmentand the need to stimulate social participation to

reduce poverty.The programme document drawnup for the Government’s first 100 days identifiedspecific immediate actions directed towardsstrengthening public security, fortifying thejustice system and the National Police, fightingcorruption, facilitating development, and institutingdemocratic legislation.

Despite public frustration with their slowimplementation, the Peace Agreements havebeen maintained as a point of reference forGovernment plans of action:

� The Government of Alfonso Portillo (2000-2004): The plan called “Social policy matrix2000-2004”, whose goal was the reduction ofpoverty by 80 percent and vigorous actions inthe fields of education, healthcare, housing,employment, agriculture, promotion of women’sissues, transportation, the environment,among others. Policies directed towards theindigenous peoples were also considered topromote wage increases for all employees andto boost the conclusion of the fiscal pact.

� The Government of Oscar Berger (2004-2008): The plan “VamosGuatemala” containedan ambitious programme to create socialsolidarity, competitiveness and confidence.In 2006, the Government adopted a povertyreduction programme “Guate RuralSolidaria”, in line with the MDGs, whichfocused on four areas: (i) social protection forrisk management and support to vulnerablegroups (ii) education and training (iii) basicsocial services, and (iv) projects to increasefamily income.

� The Government of Álvaro Colom (2008-2012): The “Plan of Hope 2008-2012” hasa long-term focus (until 2032), introducedby way of a short-term plan “Actions ofthe first 100 days of Government”; itemphasizes governance, solidarity, productivityand social cohesion.

16. According to the IMF (2008), the fiscal earnings between 2003 and 2007 were between 11.2 and 12.3 percent of GDP.17. UNDP Statistical Report on Violence in Guatemala (2007)

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

2.3 ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Agriculture occupies a very important role in theGuatemalan economy. In 2006, GDP was $35.33billion, 59 percent corresponding to the servicesector, 22 percent to agriculture and 19 percent toindustry. GDP per capita reached $5,442. In thesame year, the export of goods and servicesrepresented 16 percent of GDP and the imports31 percent. The negative balance has beencompensated partially by the remittances of morethan a million Guatemalans who live abroad. In2007, the remittances represented 10.3 percent ofGDP (Table 1).

Economic recovery since 2004. The nationaleconomy recorded discouraging rates of growthfrom 2001 (coffee crisis) to 2004 (Table 1), whenthe trend was reversed. In spite of general

macroeconomic stability, company and consumerconfidence was weak. From 2001 to 2003 theeconomic growth slowed down to below thepopulation growth rate of 2.7 percent. Investorconfidence has been reaffirmed in recent years bythe implementation of the Free Trade Agreementamong the United States, Central America andthe Dominican Republic (DR-CAFTA),prudent macroeconomic management, increasingcompetitiveness and export diversification.

The fight to contain inflation, stimulated mainlyby the constant rise in gasoline, wheat andcorn prices, has complicated monetary policy.In 2006, the central bank was successful inmaintaining inflation within the predicted range.In an effort to mitigate the economic shock ofthe country’s dependence on agricultural exportslike coffee, sugar and bananas, efforts of the last

Table 1. Key socioeconomic indicators

Socioeconomic indicators 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

GDP growth (annual %) 3.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.7 3.2 4.5

GNI per capita, PPP (current international $) 4.310 4.440 4.460 4.540 4.680 4.860 5.120

Inflation, GDP deflator (annual %) 6.8 7.6 8.0 6.3 7.0 7.8 6.3

External debt, total (current $ millions) 3.853 4.288 4.432 5.082 5.530 5.348 5.496

Military spending (% of GDP) 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4

Life expectancy from birth, total (years) 67.9 .. 68.9 .. .. 69.7 69.9

Population in millions 11.2 11.5 11.8 12.1 12.4 12.7 13.0

Population growth (annual %) 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Total fertility rate (births per woman) 4.8 .. 4.6 .. .. 4.3 4.2

HIV prevalence (% of the population between 15-49) .. .. .. 0.9 .. 0.9 ..

Primary school completion rate (% of the group inrelevant state)

57.7 60.3 64.1 65.2 69.8 73.7 76.5

Rate of girls in relation to boys in primary andsecondary education (%)

88.9 89.6 90.1 90.6 91.1 91.6 92.3

Total debt service (% of export of goods, servicesand income)

8.4 8.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 4.8 4.8

Worker remittances and employee compensationsreceived (% GDP)

3.1% 3.0% 6.9% 8.6% 9.5% 9.6% 10.3%

Source: World Development Report,World Bank Group

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

decade to raise export of non-traditional agricul-tural products and manufactured goods haveincreased earnings.18

During the 2004-2008 period, informalunemployment increased while formal unemploy-ment fell. Unemployment, as a percentage of thelabour force, remained at 3.4 percent. Agriculturecontinues to be the largest employer, providing39 percent of the total of jobs, followed by theservice sector (38 percent) and industry (20 percent).

Although direct foreign investment has grownunder the new trade agreements (Annex 1,Figure 1.2) the Government still confronts thechallenge of reaching a consensus on fiscal reformsthat would stimulate investment and address socialneeds. Concerns about security, labour force quality,shortages, poor human development conditionsand weak infrastructure will continue to impactinvestments and challenge the administration’s

economic goals. According to aWorld Bank studyon business friendliness, Guatemala ranks 112among 181 countries, with particular problems inthe opening of businesses and handling ofconstruction permits.

2.4 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

Poverty, inequality, and disadvantages for theindigenous. Poverty reduction, inequality andexclusion remain Guatemala’s main challenges.According to UNDP CPD 2005-2008, in orderto halve poverty by 2015, an annual economicgrowth rate of 2.5 percent must be coupled withan inequality reduction rate of 6 percent.

Guatemala is categorized as a country of mediumhuman development, with a rank of 118 among177 countries19 and a Human DevelopmentIndex of 0.689. It has the second highest inequal-ity rate in Latin America (after Panama) with a

18. Guatemalan Central Bank, Study of the National Economy 2005, Available at www.banguat.org/publications19. UNDP. 2007/2008.Human Development Report.Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Figure 3. Populations earning less than $1a day (GDP per capita)

Source: UNDP Guatemala Human Development Report 2005

Urbannon-indigenous

Urbanindigenous

Totalpopulation

Ruralnon-indigenous

Ruralindigenous

6.1%

17.6%

21.9%

26.3%

38.0%

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0

C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T C O N T E X T1 0

very high Gini coefficient (55.1). Some 64percent of the national income is in the hands of20 percent of the population.

Extreme poverty declined during the 1990s butincreased after 2000, owing to the coffee crisisand drought, reaching 21.5 percent in 2004 andfalling again in 200520. According to 2006figures, more than half of the population lives inpoverty and 15.2 percent in extreme poverty.Rural areas record the highest poverty rates at 72percent, and extreme poverty is 24.4 percent21.Lack of opportunities propels strong migrationfrom rural to urban areas, putting greater strainson basic services and exacerbating poverty inurban areas. The ethnic disparity is evident in thefact that 74.8 percent of the poor are indigenouspeople (NSI, ENCOVI 2006). The peace processhas recorded the least progress when it comesto the safeguarding the identity and rights ofthe indigenous population. This is especiallytrue in terms of land rights, legal jurisdiction, use,

and administration of natural resources (UNSCCC 2004).UNDPHumanDevelopment Reportdata on the population earning less than $1 a dayshow the obvious disadvantages of the indigenouspeople in urban and rural areas in comparisonwith the rest of the population (Figure 3).

Child malnutrition is still a concern.Maternalmortality rates remain among the highest inCentral America, with an index of 148.8 per100,000 childbirths compared with the regionalaverage of 82. The national child malnutritionrate is 49 percent for children between 2 and 60months (WHO, 2008), compared with 22.2percent for Central America, which is similar tothat of poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa.During the 1998-2002 period, some regions ofGuatemala recorded improvements in nutrition.In the central region, indicators fell by half. TheSouth-western and the North-western regionshave reduced malnutrition by a third since 1987.In contrast, during the same period, the Northern

20. Poverty reduction strategy. 2006. Guate Solidaria Rural21. National Statistical Office of Guatemala, INE. National Survey on Living Conditions, ENCOVI VI-2006

Figure 4. Education and poverty levels (%)

Source: NMDG Report 2006

No education Primaryincomplete

Basic complete Primary complete Superior

30.9%

21.7%

13.2%

6.0%2.9%

40

30

20

10

0

C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T C O N T E X T 1 1

region remained almost at the same level22.Furthermore, the disparities between indigenousand non-indigenous children in the prevalence ofmalnutrition are enormous: 69.5 percent against35.7 percent (WHO, 2008). The percentage isstill high for the non-indigenous.

Primary school attendance increased from 72percent in 1991 to 84 percent in 2000 and 96percent in 2007. Nevertheless, the rate of illiter-acy of adults increased from 64.2 percent in 1995to 69.1 percent in 2005. The average amount ofschooling for adults over 14 years of age (4.3years) remains the second lowest in LatinAmerica. Gaps in education remain, with thelowest coverage for indigenous children and poorpeople and with greater incidence in rural areas.To reach the MDG for universal primaryeducation, increasing school coverage andkeeping children in the education system longercontinues to be the main challenge23. This goal isof particular importance due to the reciprocalrelationship between poverty and education(Figure 4)24.

Greater attention is being paid to naturalresources and the environment amid growingdeforestation, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity andpollution. During the 1990s, protected areasincreased from 2.6 million hectares to 3.2 millionhectares, representing 29 percent of the nationalterritory. Nevertheless, environmental controlsdirected to protect natural resources and potablewater sources remain weak. According to the2002 census, 89.5 percent of homes in urbanareas had indoor plumbing and 94.6 percent hadsolid waste management systems. In the ruralareas, these percentages were 59.6 percent and76.3 percent respectively.25

Guatemala is exposed to natural disasters such astropical storm Stan in 2005, which affected75 percent of the territory, killing at least 1,500

people. Up to 3,000 disappeared after the disasterand thousands are still without homes.

2.5 THE MILLENNIUMDEVELOPMENT GOALS

Guatemala remains characterized by inequalityand exclusion. The large gaps go beyond thevarying incomes, and differences can be foundbetween geographic locations, ethnicities, andgenders. These inequalities are evident in themajority of MDG-related indicators.

The latest edition of the MDG National Report,published in 2006 by the Secretariat of Planningand Programming of the Presidency(SEGEPLAN), includes three importantthemes: (i) relevance of cultural diversity to theachievement of the goals, (ii) gender differencesand their strong relationship to the progress ofMDGs, and (iii) financial projections to achieveMDGs. Guatemala was selected as a pilotcountry for assessing national progress towardsthe MDGs. Therefore, it includes an analysismuch more in-depth than other national reports.

According to UNDP’s 2002 MDG ProgressReport, the objectives for Goals 1, 2, 4 and7 (eradicating extreme poverty and hunger,achieving universal primary education, reducingchild mortality, and ensuring environmentalsustainability) could possibly be achieved by2015 through due diligence from theGovernment and international partners,although there is still much to be done.The objectives for Goals 3, 5 and 6, (promotinggender equality and empowering women;improving maternal health; and combatingHIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases), are notgoing to be achieved unless increased efforts areundertaken. (Annex 1, Table 1.2)

22. SEGEPLAN (2006). Towards Fulfillment of Guatemala’s Development Goals: Advancement Report II23. IDB (2004) Country Strategy: Guatemala; UNDP, CCA 2005-200824. National Millennium Development Goals Report (2006)25. UNS Guatemala (2004), Country Situation Analysis

C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T C O N T E X T1 2

2.6 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIONIN GUATEMALA

During the 1996-2006 period, Guatemalareceived $3.3 billion in ODA from externaldonors. In terms of groups of donors, membercountries of the CAD/OECD channelled76 percent of the total. The European Union,including 15 Member States and the EuropeanCommission, contributed 47 percent. The multi-lateral agencies (not including the EuropeanCommission) contributed 11.1 percent and theUNS 4.0 percent (UNDP aid was 0.5 percent).The UNS is included in Figure 5 in spite of notbeing a donor.

As for bilateral donors, the United States grantedthe greatest amount of aid with 16 percent of thenet total, followed by Japan (14.5 percent), Spain(13 percent) and Cuba (10 percent). After Spain,the European Commission is the biggest sourceof aid within the EU with 9.5 percent, followedby Germany (7.3 percent) and the Netherlands(six percent).The EU, as a region, continues to bethe largest contributor with $1.537 million,according to the OECD (see Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5. Volume of internationalcooperation in Guatemala

Source: Morales Henry: ¿Por qué tanta frustración? La coop-eración internacional en la década de la Agenda de la Paz enGuatemala, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, Guatemala, 2007.

1996–2006, in millions USD

TOTAL.D ����������� 3,307.44

Supporters �������� 2,481.30

TOTAL ����� 1,537.50

States � 532.20

Japan � 474.90

TOTAL.M � 436.20

Spain � 434.50

Cuba � 332.24

Commission � 310.10

Germany � 239.20

Netherlands � 199.90

Sweden � 163.90

Norway � 145.60

Canada � 71.80

Austria � 61.60

Denmark � 48.80

UNFPA � 36.70

WFP � 34.90

Belgium 30.20

Switzerland 27.30

France 27.20

United Kingdom 23.50

IDB 23.00

Italy 22.00

UNDP 16.60

GFATM 15.60

UNICEF 14.40

UNTA 12.90

Other Supporters 12.40

Agencies 10.80

Finland 7.50

FIDA 6.50

Ireland 5.80

Luxemburg 2.00

New Zealand 1.60

GEF 1.50

UNHCR 0.90

Portugal 0.50

Figure 6. ODA in Guatemala

Source: Idem

1996–2006, in millions USD

2006 ������������ 553.60

2005 ������� 304.41

2004 ������� 268.46

2003 ������� 296.23

2002 ������� 297.83

2001 ������ 267.98

2000 ������� 298.12

1999 ������� 320.04

1998 ������ 236.86

1997 ������ 268.94

1996 ���� 195.26

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A 1 3

3.1 EVOLUTION OF THESTRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Historical role of the UN. The United Nationshas played a high-profile role in Guatemala’speace process. In 1991, the UN acted as anobserver in the negotiations brought about by theNational Commission of Reconciliation. In1994, the UN became moderator of the peaceprocess after the Government of Guatemala andthe URNG decided to sign a Global Agreementon Human Rights. In September 1994, the UNGeneral Assembly decided to send a Mission forthe Verification of Human Rights and ofCompliance with the Commitments of theComprehensive Agreement on Human Rights,which later came to be called the United NationsHuman Rights VerificationMission in Guatemala(MINUGUA). Its mandate included not onlythe demobilization of the guerrilla forces but alsothe building of institutional capacity andconfidence between the involved parties, withspecial regard to law enforcement.

In 1997, the mandate was extended to the fulfil-ment of the total Firm and Lasting PeaceAgreement, with the added functions of facilita-tion, technical assistance and public information.In 1999, after the emergency phase and transitiontowards a peaceful state, the United Nations Officefor Project Services (UNOPS) was designated asa project-organizing entity with fiduciary funds.Gradually, as of this year, UNDP Guatemalaassumed greater functions to support developmentprogrammes, within the framework of the PeaceAgreements.26 In 2002, a member of the Missionof Verification Administration was named Resident

Coordinator of the UN in Guatemala and ResidentRepresentative of UNDP.

In 2004 MINUGUA completed its task andclosed its mission, as decided by the UN GeneralAssembly, and an Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights in Guatemalawas established. In the ten years MINUGUAwas in operation, five countries of northernEurope as well as the United States and Canadacontributed nearly $20 million for the fulfilmentof its mandate. Of this $4.5 million was destinedto reinforce the rights of the indigenous peoplesand their access to justice. Most of theMINUGUA aid was assigned to aspects ofsecurity and justice, and some to processes oflegislation and to preparing the ground toimprove the country’s agricultural conditions.

During this evaluation period, UNDP approvedtwo strategic documents: the Country CooperationFramework (CCF) 2001-2004 and the CountryProgramme Document (CPD) 2004-2009. Inthe same period, UN organizations in Guatemalaapproved twoDevelopment Assistance Frameworks(UNDAF) for 2001-2004 and 2005-2009. Thesedocuments represent the main framework for theevaluation (Table 2).

The reference documents for both programmecycles analyzed present logical frameworksorganized in different ways, but they deal withthe same main development of:

� Anti-discrimination: the elimination of all typesof cultural and economic discrimination,particularly those against the indigenous,women and other disadvantaged groups;

26. UNDP-EO (2007) Evaluation of UNDP Assistance to Conflict-affected Countries and particularly the case studies on Guatemala

Chapter 3

THE UNITED NATIONS AND UNDPIN GUATEMALA

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A1 4

� More equitable socio-economic develop-ment: the reduction of poverty throughinclusive and equitable economic growth;

� Effective democratic rule of law: the consol-idation of democratic rule of law with ampleopportunities for people’s participation,capable of enforcing respect of human rights.

The content of the strategic documents isgeneric. The first UNDAF developed in 2000-2001 resembled an inventory of action areasrequiring private and public efforts to achieve thegoals of the Peace Agreements, spelling out theexpected outcomes31 (more than 140 in bothcases). The document demonstrates the vastchallenges facing the country after the end of thearmed conflict. The second UNDAF, developedin 2004, was formed from the perspective ofhuman rights, with a focus on gender andmulticulturalism. The defined areas and effectsdemonstrate strategic continuity from the firstUNDAF, but they are still generalized and

provide little direction to prioritize and concen-trate the UN’s intervention options.

UNDP’s own strategic documents, the CCF(2001-2004) and the CPD (2005-2008), areshort, in accordance with the Executive Board’sstandard format. Because of the brevity, it isdifficult to go beyond a concise presentation ofthe large areas in which UNDP is involved. Bothdocuments deal with the corresponding goals ofUNDAF.Within these goals, UNDP’s own sub-goals can be identified. In the 2001-2004programme cycle, in consonance with UNDPheadquarters directives on results-based manage-ment, no less than 18 expected outcomes weredefined, which did not facilitate monitoring andevaluation. Almost all the great ambitions ofState reform in support of democratic develop-ment were included.

CPD (2005-2008) does not present radicalchanges. What is noteworthy is the absenceof goals related to the environment. However,

27. In Spanish: Marco Financiero Multianual (MYFF)28. In Spanish: Evaluación Conjunta del País (CCA)29. In Spanish: Marco de Cooperación al País (CCF)30. In Spanish: Documento de Programa del País (CPD)31. The UN agencies active in Guatemala are UNDP, FAO, UNICEF, WFP, UNIFEM, ILO, UNESCO, OHCHR,

UNFPA, UNAIDS, UNIFEM, PAHO/WHO, IOM and UNV.

Table 2. Planning Documents - UNDP Guatemala

Scope Programme cycles

2001-2004 2005-2008

United Nations DevelopmentProgramme

1st Multi-year Financial Framework27

2000-20032nd Multi-year Financial Framework2004-2007

United Nations System inGuatemala

UNDAF 2001-2004 1st CommonCountry Assessment28 2001-2004

UNDAF 2005-2009 2nd CommonCountry Assessment 2005-2008

UNDP Office Guatemala 2nd Country CooperationFramework29 2001-2004

Country Programme Document30

2005-2009

UNDP Guatemala with theGovernment of Guatemala

Country Programme Action Plan(CPAP)

Source: Developed by the ADR

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A 1 5

they were reintroduced de facto in theeffective programme. In CPD (2005-2008), theexpected outcomes were formulated with morefrugality and simplicity, identifying only sevenformulated “outcomes”.32

After the Executive Board approved the CCFand CPD, the country office reached agreementswith the Government on a Plan of Action of theCountry Programme (CPAP). The CPAP, whichprovides some additional information, is stillquite generalized.

Absence of more technical and concreteoperational guidelines. The CCFs, CPDs andCPAPs are documents presenting general goalsnecessary to establish high-level relations withState authorities. Until the most recent experi-ments, no operational internal guidelines havebeen produced by the country office for translat-ing high-level political objectives intoapproaches, methods and modalities for moreconcrete interventions. Only recently in the areasof democratic governance and crisis preventionand recovery has an operational framework beendeveloped to identify the comparative strengthsof the country office and to define interventionapproaches and modalities. The country office isconsidering developing operational frameworksfor all the result areas.

At the same time, previous administrations lackedthe institutional policies, plans and capacities toguide, assist and supervise international cooperation.The Government, for its part, did not speak witha single voice. Sometimes, contradictory opinionsfrom State dignitaries negatively affected theformulation of a UNDP strategic framework.

UNDP programming and environmental,economic and political conjunctures. In termsof planning, UNDP must also consider theeffects of political and electoral cycles, economicconjunctures, the international environmentalagenda33, and natural disasters. In addition,changes in UNDP country office managementimpact its directions (Chapter 5). Here we notehow tropical storm Stan in October 2005introduced rapid-response capacities for environ-mental catastrophes within the scope of UNDPcooperation. The perception of disadvantagedpopulations’ greater vulnerability to the effectsof climatic change led UNDP to introduce theconcept of crisis prevention and post-crisis recovery.

Some directives from headquarters compli-cated informative systematization. As of 2006,UNDP has introduced throughout its systemclassification according to standard results areas,which have been adopted and adapted to theportfolio of already existing projects: (i) strength-ening of democratic governance, (ii) crisisprevention and recovery, (iii) poverty reduction,and (iv) environment and energy.34

Incorporating the large number of ongoingprogrammes and projects into this classificationsystem has not been easy. Nor has the processbeen completed. Important activities can becategorized in one or two ways, which has causeduncertainty. In 2004, UNDP headquarters, as partof its global directives, instructed UNDP-G toimplement a new Atlas computerized classifica-tion system and project registry. This, accordingto this mission, has complicated procedures whilestill not facilitating effective classification ofactivities, projects and programmes. All this hasimpeded the systematization of data.

32. It should also be noted that outcomes in the Atlas system and the Result-based Management platform are not the sameas those in the CPD. This reality creates incongruity between objectives of programme documents and the verificationmeasures. For example, there is an outcome on environment in the Atlas system that is missing in the CPD.

33. The Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was a historic landmark in the international environmental agenda.Guatemala was a signatory country to the Agreement on Biological Diversity, the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and the Convention to Fight Desertification and Drought. The Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF) emerged from the Summit as a mechanism to finance programmes and projects that helped countriesto fulfil the commitments set out in the agreement and conventions. UNDP is one of the implementing agencies ofthe GEF, and in Guatemala it has managed many of its projects in coordination with the respective Secretariats of theagreements and their respective focal points in Guatemala (CONAP and MARN).

34. Energy and environment previously fell under the area of equitable and sustainable economic development and mostprojects were classified under governance.

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A1 6

3.2 STRUCTURE ANDORGANIZATION OF UNDP

The structure, organization and management ofthe UNDP office substantially affect its actionsand strategic positioning. UNDP-G has 189 staffmembers, of whom 61 are UNDP personnel.Theremaining 128 are professionals of projectsexecuted directly by UNDP (DEX) and of theagencies of the UNS administered by UNDP(Table 3). The personnel of the operations area(finance, administration, human resources,acquisitions, information and technology)represent almost half (48 percent) of the countryoffice staff. (Table 3).

The current organizational chart is the result of along process of reorganization that took placebetween 2002 and 2005 and of other changesintroduced in 2006 and 2007-2008 (see organi-zational chart, Annex 2, Graph 2.1). There arefour main hierarchic levels:

1. UNDP Resident Representative - FTAInternational, who also acts as ResidentCoordinator of the UN agencies in Guatemala

2. Country Director - FTA International, aposition introduced to differentiate thefunctions of the Resident Coordinator insome countries with large or complexprogrammes like Guatemala.

3. DeputyCountryDirector -FTAInternational

4. Managers of Operations - FTA (NOC)with five area managers (financial, adminis-tration, human resources, acquisition,information and technology)

At the operational level, there are programmeofficials as well as assistants, technicians andsupport personnel.35

High level of decentralization in UNDPsystem. The top authority is the ResidentRepresentative (RR). According to the 1998Basic Agreement between UNDP and theGovernment, the RR is the head approvalauthority of UNDP strategy in the country. Atthe same time, it is the interagency coordinatingauthority of UNS in its role as ResidentCoordinator. The UNDP system is characterizedby a high degree of decentralization in strategicand programme decision making in a multilateraland international cooperation context with highstaff mobility.

During this evaluation period, the office haspassed through different senior-managementchanges. Between 2002 and 2008, there havebeen three Resident Representatives and two“interregna” (2005-2006 and 2008), duringwhich an adjunct Resident Representative or

Table 3. UNDP Human Resources Office

UNDP Office Units No. of Persons % UNDP Office

CR Office and Management 10 16%

Programme (projects and programmes) 22 36%

Operations (administration and other functions) 29 48%

Whole UNDP Office 61 100%

DEX projects staff and other UN agency personnel 128 -

General total 189 -

Source: UNDP Guatemala Human Resources Unit

35. Four fixed-term NOB and one SC NOA

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A 1 7

a Country Director assumed the role ofRepresentative ad interim.

The level of Country Director was established sothat the Resident Representative could concen-trate on the coordination of the UNS agencies.The Country Director acts upon delegation bythe Resident Representative.

UNDP-G enjoys flexibility in scheduling and inadapting to change (of Government, forexample) and emergencies. Supervision andstrategic guidance from headquarters are subjectto the following:

a) There is a Regional Bureau in New York andcorporative tools to monitor the “perfor-mance” of country offices (e.g. executivesnapshot, balanced scorecard, global staffsurvey). A dialogue exists between thecountry offices and the Regional Bureau andsometimes consultation missions areorganized on strategic subjects. Severalmissions took place between 2005 and 2008,in addition to consultations at headquartersor in the region. In 2008, a new “compact”tool was developed to provide a strategicorientation to the Regional Bureau’s supportto and supervision of the country offices.Still, key limitations were noted: (i) the sizeof the portfolio under the focal points inNew York (up to 10 countries), whichconstrains substantive contribution to eachcountry (ii) limited technical input providedby some of the support missions, and (iii) theabsence of a clear framework to providesupervision and support, at least until therecent elaboration of a compact. Discussionsare going on in UNDP to offer morestrategic guidance from headquarters to thecountry offices.36

b) There are regional UNDP bodies. EarlierUNDP had established centres of regionalservices (SURFs) that supplied ad hocthematic support. UNDP has recently

opened a regional office in Panama with theobjective of: (i) managing support services(policy advisory, programme development,technical support, including functions ofregional programme management); (ii)supporting the Regional Director team; and(iii) enhancing management services tocountry offices. It remains to be seenwhether this effort would also help enhancestrategic guidance.

Lack of integration in middle management ofcountry office. All UNDP programme officialsare currently under the direct supervision of theDeputy Country Director. There is a need toconsider the complementarities among thethematic areas and to demarcate them. Officialswith long experience in their respective areashave constructed programmes under theirresponsibility in a consistent manner. What islacking is internal cooperation. Operationalstrategies in each area require institutionalarrangements that provide a platform for interac-tion and exchanges among areas and hierarchicallevels in the office.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

As part of the UNDP mandate, the countryoffice monitors and evaluates projects throughdifferent mechanisms:

� Monitoring andEvaluationUnit.This is anoffice reporting to the Deputy CountryDirector. It prepares, among other things,independent evaluations of programmes andprojects concluded, monitoring documents,annual reports on UNDP-G evaluationactivities, and performance reports of specificprojects.

� Programme officials. Each programmeofficial is designated a portfolio of projects/programmes, whose characteristics aredocumented in the project document(PRODOC). Each official performs follow-up on quality, amount and terms of the

36. There was a recent intervention on this subject from UNDP Associate Administrator Ad Melkert.

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A1 8

programme activities. Periodic inspectionsare aimed to consolidate project outputand progress.

� Finance officials. The finance office is incharge of the financial execution of projects.It grants financial resources, through directpayments, down payments or advances. Itoffers periodic reports to the executors anddonors. Finance officers monitor thebudgetary execution of each project.

� Direct executors.They offer periodic reports toprogramme officials on the progress of projects.

The Monitoring and Evaluation Unit hasbeen making a sustained contribution to theAtlas system UNDP implemented in 2006.The unit concentrates on the use, developmentand monitoring of Atlas system (especiallyinformation on implementation) and is not somuch involved in methodological and substan-tive support to the evaluation of outcomes (forexample, at the project or outcome level).The unit develops a variety of reports respondingto specific demands of the office management,rather than to a systematic project, outcome orstrategic evaluation. Project and outcome evaluationneeds substantive activities, including interviews,surveys and field visits. It is necessary to generateinformation in addition to that of Atlas.

A system that allows the monitoring of proposedoutcome indicators in the logical framework ofthe strategies is lacking. Monitors and evaluatorsconduct their activities in relative isolation,without offering information automatically to otheractors involved in the process. Only in specific

situations are such ties established. There is noevidence of a regular flow of information or of aclose association among the main stakeholders.

3.3 MAIN ASPECTS OF PORTFOLIOS2001-2004 AND 2005-2008

The definition of outcomes.As observed above,action areas responding to expected outcomes inthe CCFs and CPDs analyzed have similarcontents from a qualitative perspective but adifferent number of expected outcomes. Thatis how the 2001-2004 programme strategymaintained 18 expected outcomes, whereas thecorresponding 2005-2008 period considersseven. (Table 4). The existence of an amplenumber of outcomes in 2001-2004 did not facili-tate a monitoring and evaluation system or asynthesis of the results. As previously noted,CPD 2005-2008 outcomes do not coincidewith those of the Atlas system. Outcomes aresometimes defined in a general or abstract way,which impedes empirical verification. Evaluationsof outcomes, a UNDP requirement, were notconducted for the 2005-2008 period. Sometimes,the connections between outcomes and projectsand other activities are unclear or nonexistent.The information of the 2001-2004 programmecycle shows no corresponding project or specificactivity for two expected outcomes.37

A surge of smaller and shorter duration projectsin the 2005-2008 programming cycle. Duringthe 2001-2004 cycle, the portfolio was made upof 78 “projects” to Atlas code, corresponding to62 “effective” activities,38 with a total budget of$356,289,26539. In the 2005-2008 cycle, 108

37. The outcomes that do not have projects are: (i) Outcome 3: “A UN system that is better coordinated and focused on totalimplementation of peace and human development”; and (ii) Outcome 15: “Sustainable reintegration of the populationaffected by internal conflict”.

38. The Atlas system can provide project information liable to misinterpretation because financial contributions from differ-ent donors for the same activity, recorded separately, may be counted as different projects when, in reality, they are underthe same award.

39. In the 2001-2004 budget cycle, the most significant portfolio of projects corresponds to outcomes 17 (“the local author-ities and the communities of the rural and urban areas involved in the planning and administration, and including theyield of services public”) and 9 (“Efficiency and fairness improved in the yield of those public services”). The first has atotal concentration of 10 Atlas projects; those that connected become two big programmes and one independent project,with a global budget of $134,923,281, 94.5 percent of which corresponds to the metropolitan development programme.The second, grouped into 13 Atlas projects, of which 11 are independent and two are connected to a programme, has atotal budget of $114,083,958.

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A 1 9

Table 4. Strategic outcomes of 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 periods

CCF 2001-2004 CPD 2005-2008

1. Greater use by those making decisions on matters of sustainable humanresources in the formulation and implementation of policies

2. Peace process that is consolidated and totally incorporated into thenational agenda

3. A UN system that is better coordinated and focused towards totalimplementation of the peace and human development agreements

4. National anti-poverty strategy developed and implemented through aconsultative process

5. Improved national capacity for monitoring human poverty and incomesand inequality

6. Reformed national political framework aimed towards universal accessto basic services

7. National machinery in place in order to form policy and strategy relatedwith the advancement of women and gender equality

8. Improved quality of decision making based on the evaluation of gendersand the integration of statistics and information on gender-related issues

9. Improved efficiency and equality in the rendering of public services

10. Revised regulatory frameworks to ensure the poor persons’ rights toproductive goods and finances

11. A global focus on sustainable environmental development integratedinto national development planning and linked with poverty reduction

12. Improved capacity of authorities to plan and implement approachesintegrated to environmental administration and energy development,which respond to the needs of the poor

13. Regional capacity improved to coordinate national policies andprogrammes for the management of shared natural resources and thesustainable development of energy, according to the Agreements onClimate Change and Biodiversity

14. Disaster reduction and national response system in operation

15. Sustainable reintegration of the population affected by internal conflict

16. Fair and effective administration of justice

17. Involvement of local authorities and rural communities in the planning,administration and rendering of public services

18. Consensus at the community and national level on strategic alliances forthe consolidation of peace and for sustainable human development

1.1 Greater incorporation ofthe human developmentprinciples in the debate onand in the practice ofnational policies

2.1 Greater level of knowledgeand exercise of non-discrimi-nation rights

3.1 The system of justice anddemocratic security cancount on improved strategicguidance capacities andhuman resources strength-ened in technical, operationaland coordination capacities

3.2 Process of State reform andmodernization advanced inaccordance with nationalpriorities

4.1 Greater transparency andefficiency in the administra-tion of basic services

5.1 Exercise of human rightsand citizenship in organiza-tions of representation andgreater room for dialogue

5.2 Greater continuity andcoherence in the applicationof policies and the executionof commitments derivedfrom the Peace Agreements

Source: Elaboration from CCF and CPD

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A2 0

Atlas “projects” were generated corresponding to75 effective activities. In the second programme,a greater diversification of projects can beobserved.These projects are of a shorter durationand have a lower budget. This situation stemsfrom the fact that, although a larger number ofprojects exist in the cycle, the global budget issignificantly smaller ($144,420,476).40,41 Duringthe 2001-2004 cycle, 45 percent of the generatedprojects lasted five years or more, whereas, in the2005-2008 period, 96 percent lasted less than fiveyears, with most running for one or two years. Inshort, there has been a transition towards asubstantially greater number of projects, but of a

smaller scale (a third of the budgets on average)and of a smaller duration, with a greater diversityof small actions.

In the 2001-2004 cycle, 35 percent of theprojects were directly executed by UNDP (DEX)and 65 percent were executed by a nationalagency (NEX). In budgetary terms, however,DEX projects represented 8.6 percent and NEX91.4 percent (Figure 7).42 In the 2005-2008cycle, new modalities emerge. While projectshave been executed through NGOs and at theregional level (REX), the most relevant continueto be DEX and NEX (Figure 7).

40. Nevertheless, while in 2005-2008 the budgets fell in comparison to 2001-2004, execution was greater becauseprogrammes approved in 2001-2004 were executed in 2005-2008.

41. During the 2005-2008 cycle, the outcomes with greater numbers of projects are the “4.1. Greater transparency andefficiency in the administration of the basic services” (32 Atlas projects: seven independent programmes and sevenprojects) and 1.1. “Greater incorporation of the principles of human development in the debate and the nationalpolitical practices” (17 Atlas projects: one independent programme and 24 projects).The most outstanding result in termsof budget is 3.2. “The process of reform and modernization of the State has advanced in compliance with the nationalpriorities”, with $51,073,070 for the financing of 16 Atlas projects (one independent programme and 13 projects).

42. Within the NEX modality, the most relevant in budgetary terms is the Metropolitan Development Programme(39.2 percent).

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Figure 7. Project portfolios in each programme period according to mode of execution

Note: Elaboration from UNDP Executive Snapshot, September 2008

� DEX � NEX � NGO � REX

2001–2004 2005–2008 Total portfolio

53 107 24 226 56 34 227 51

78 ATLAS projects9 programmes + 53 projects

$356,289,265

108 ATLAS projects14 programmes + 61 projects

$144,430,476

186 ATLAS projects$500,709,742

$30,649,092

$325,640,173

$13,811,544

$10,480,484

$24,969,293

$95,159,555

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A 2 1

3.4 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTOF THE OFFICE

In terms of finances, UNDP-G reached thehighest level of project execution in 2007 wheninitiatives involving more than $130 million werein operation. Guatemala was in seventh place inthe general portfolio of UNDP and fifth in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean for the year. It isnoteworthy that the growth from 2004 to 2007corresponded to the tenure of a single government.

An important decline is noted in 2008 (Table 5)due mainly to the 2007 Budget Law.43 As hasbeen explained to the evaluation mission, thecontribution of public resources to UNDPprogrammes has tended to fall during the firstyear of a government before rising.

Dependence on external resources. Theadministrative expenses of UNDP-G in 2007amounted to $3 million, which represents2.3 percent of total programme execution. Overthe past few years, the core budgets of UNDPcovered a small portion of the total expenses andless than half of the administrative expenses. Thecore funding of UNDP comprised nearly$1 million per year between 2005 and 2007,

which corresponded to 1 percent-2 percent ofthe total expenses and between 46.2 percent and36.7 percent of the administrative expenses.(Table 5). This is typical of UNDP offices inLatin America and, more generally, in middle-income countries. Since limited activities canbe handled with the core resources, UNDPdepends on external funds for its currentprogramme level. 44

Expenditure figures by project for 2004-2008show that most resources come from theGuatemalan Government itself, whose participa-tion in project financing is nearly 50 percent.The resources from multilateral organizationscome next, at 25.8 percent, especially those fromthe World Bank and the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank. Multilateral resources aremainly loan grants to the Government.

In third place are bilateral donors, with a contri-bution of 20.2 percent. Among them, Sweden,Norway and the US stand out, whose contribu-tions altogether represent 65 percent of bilateralcontributions.The Netherlands, Finland, EuropeanUnion, Spain,Denmark and Italy provide amountsequivalent to 30 percent. (Figure 8) Theexecution of bilateral programmes allows UNDP

Table 5. Execution and management costs of UNDP (2004-2008)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

A.Total programme execution ($ millions) 51.9 62.6 102.7 130.7 81.1

B. Administrative spending ($ millions)Management expenditures

2.4 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.2

C. Regular UNDP resources ($ millions) 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3

D. Ratio C/A (%) 1.7% 1.9% 1.2% 0.8% 1.6%

E. Ratio C/B (%) 37.5% 46.2% 44.4% 36.7% 40.6%

Source: Elaboration from UNDP Executive Snapshot, December 2008

43. At the end of November 2007, Congress approved the 2008 budget. The Ministry of Finance of the previousGovernment on 20 December 2007 issued Ministerial Agreement 66-2007 “Manual for the budgetary execution throughagreements with international Organizations”. In practical terms, the manual prevents the majority of Governmentinstitutions from working with the UN system. The Ministry of Finance was driving changes in the budget to regulatethe transfer of state resources to international organizations.

44. According to UNDP practices, the core funding finance an office structure that manages the “core” programme andcoordination with UNS. The “non core” framework is derived from income generated by the office that implementsprogrammes financed with resources from third parties.

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A2 2

to negotiate a “recovery of costs” greater than inprogrammes executed by UNDP at Governmentrequest.45 The value added by UNDP cannot beidentified in its financial contributions alone; it isevident in its substantive contributions andquality of interventions.

Most of the existing projects will close by theend of 2008. Most of the ongoing projects willend in 2008, with 83 percent of the budgetedresources having been executed within the firsthalf of the year. As for the remaining period(2009-2013), the balances executed correspondmostly to those of 2009.46 At the end of 2008, ofall the 186 “Atlas projects” approved between

2001 and 2008, only 27 will be ongoing, seven ofwhich were developed during the 2001-2004cycle. The UNDP portfolio in Guatemala is in aprocess of rapid reduction.47

The project execution timeline respected theoriginal plans. Considering the closing year ofthe projects, the majority of those executed endedon schedule (Table 6), even though the rate ofexecution did not reach 100 percent for all theyears. 2005 saw the largest amount of unusedfunds; with a rate of execution of 90.2 percent,the unused portion reached $3,162,877. In 2004,it was just $541,397.

45. According to UNDP-Guatemala, a reduction of office costs has been combined with the mobilization of resources frombilateral donors. With bilateral donors having a more elevated recovery cost level than government donors, the financialsustainability of the office has not been impacted despite the low level of execution.

46. This does not include funds from Spain within the framework of the MDG window. As of October 2008, Guatemalareceived $16.6 million from the Spain Fund for the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (Interventionfrom the President of the Republic of Guatemala in the event “Achievement Fund: Lessons Learned and Way Forward”,24/09/2008).

47. According to a UNDP RBLAC email communication of 17 February 2009: “At the global level, UNDP promotesthe principles of the Paris Declaration of appropriation, alignment and harmonization, simplification and result-basedmanagement. For this reason, it orients its cooperation and technical support to the development of those capacitiesthat will allow the Government to fully apply these principles. In those cases in which the Governments face problemsof limited capacity, they may request UNDP support in programme and project implementation, financed throughgovernment budget. As far as RBLAC is concerned, the new strategic orientation of the Management is to ensure thatour collaboration will always be focused to developing sustainable capacities and to offer substantive and programmatictechnical assistance in all the expertise areas of the organisation, taking the opportunity of the value added accumulatedthrough its history in 166 countries.”

Figure 8. Project resources of the two programme periods by financial source

Source: Developed from UNDP Expenditures 2004-2008 by project–fund–donor, September 2008

Government ofGuatemala

Multilateral Bilateral UNDP andUN Systemorganizations

Others

49.4%

25.8%20.2%

4.3%0.3%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

% of total financing of the projectsof the evaluated period

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A 2 3

3.5 EFFICIENCY OF OFFICEMANAGEMENT

In order to evaluate the efficiency of theUNDP office, a qualifications table has beenapplied by the evaluation team. The establishedcriteria are based on the basic requirements of anorganization to run efficiently. The aspectsanalyzed are: organization, programmes, timeof execution, and management of resources.Each criterion has been broken down into sub-criteria with the purpose of rating each evaluatedaspect (Table 7).

The results obtained from this model show that:

� The office has high levels of efficiency in thecriteria corresponding to project executiontime, because the majority of the projects/programmes end within the scheduled year,and no delays are noted on the calendar ofactivities; and, management of resources, duefundamentally to high levels of financialexecution of the majority of the projects.

� In the criteria related to organization andprogrammes there were limitations and

restrictions worth noting for the implicationsthey have on the efficiency of the office.Concerning organization, the limitationsidentified highlight the complexity of theorganizational structure and the need toensure platforms to promote interactionsamong areas clearly demarcated. As forprogrammes, one can see restrictions in theprojects’ structure as a result of programmestrategies, such as proliferation of severalprojects not connected to each other, outcomeswithout projects, unclear definitions ofoutcomes, incongruence between outcomesaccording the CPD 2005-2008 and thoseaccording to Atlas, limited use of monitoringand evaluation functions and capacity.

� The overall assessment shows that the levelof office efficiency is intermediate: goodefficiency in terms of execution time andresource management, but with organiza-tional complexity and proliferation ofprojects not well put together and outcomedefinitions that are sometimes unclear.

Scorecard. UNDP uses an evaluation tool calleda “Balanced Scorecard”, which is based on several

Table 6. Levels of execution according to year of project end

Year ofproject'send

No. ofprojects

Totalbudget ofprojects

Amountused by lastyear ofproject

Used by2008

Balance tobe used in2008

Executionlevel at thelast year ofproject

Executionlevel in2008

2004 30 25,991,529 25,449,959 25,450,132 541,397 97.92% 97.92%

2005 33 32,301,992 29,150,745 29,139,115 3,162,877 90.24% 90.21%

2006 21 15,400,994 15,418,751 15,391,864 9,132 100.12% 99.94%

2007 27 59,232,321 59,184,167 59,203,217 29,104 99.92% 99.95%

2008 84 333,029,017 276,143,925 56,885,091 82.92%

2009 17 170,272,928 18,050,136 152,222,793 10.60%

2010 7 132,694,908 65,784,855 66,910,053 49.58%

2011 1 766,214 120,756 645,458 15.76%

2012 1 7,347,795 1,127,203 6,220,592 15.34%

2013 1 9,980,084 3,496,393 6,483,691 35.03%

Source: Developed from UNDP Executive Snapshot, September 2008

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A2 4

criteria (Annex 2, Table 2.4). The scorecardshows a “green flag” when the values of referenceare satisfied and a “red flag” when they are not.

Of the 12 available criteria in the December 2008scorecard – some cannot be evaluated until 2009– five have “green flags” (completed)48, threehave yellow and four have red.49 Those withred flags include: (i) management efficiency(administrative costs/total execution), (ii) soundproject management and monitoring supportedby Atlas, (iii) cost recovered from trust fundsand third-party cost sharing and (iv) programmeexpenditures. The 2007 Budget Law hasprobably affected the last two indicators.

Some of the scorecard assessments, such asmanagement efficiency, are similar to those ofthe present evaluation.

Comparison with the 2007 scorecard shows thatthe area of “sound project management andmonitoring supported by Atlas” was also classi-fied as problematic (red flag). On the other hand,there have been noticeable improvements in theratings in the sub-criteria of learning and growth.In particular, “Participation in the KnowledgeNetwork” changed from a red flag (2006 and2007) to a green flag in 2008 and “Participationin Learning Programmes” changed from a redflag (2006) to a yellow (2007 and 2008).

Table 7. Management efficiency evaluation criteria and sub-criteria

Criteria Assignedweight

Justification Sub-criteria

Organization ofthe UNDP

30% This criterion has been consideredthe most important because, if aninstitution's organizational structureis adequate, the communication andcoordination between the differentexisting hierarchical levels will be fluidand orderly; and the decision-makingprocess will be developed quickly andwith no major problems.

Levels of hierarchy

Coordination levels

Functional structure

Programmes 25% The evaluation of this criterion hasbeen based on the developmentresults that should be achievedthrough the projects implemented/directed by UNDP; that is, theexistence of projects and budgetsdirected towards achieving eachone of them.

Results/programmes

Scattering of projects

Project portfolio vs. budget

Execution time ofthe projects

20% This criterion has a lower weight,since the execution of projects alsodepends on the institution perform-ing the project and not just on theUNDP Office directly

Delays

Management ofresources

25% The weight assigned to this criterionreflects the importance of fulfilmentof the levels of execution of theresources assigned for each projectand the amounts to be used, if any.

Levels of execution of resources

Balances to be executed

Source: Developed for ADR

48. Programme Expenditure Ratio within Development Focus Areas, Website Updated and Reflects Key UNDP Priorities,Financial data quality, Gender balance in professional position, Non-core Resources Mobilized

49. http://scorecard.undp.org/reports/2008/management_report.cfm (20 October 2008).

C H A P T E R 3 . T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S A N D U N D P I N G U A T E M A L A 2 5

Box 1. Summary of the principal findings in Chapter 3

� UNDP programme spending reached a record high of $130.7 million in 2007 but declined in 2008, duein part to the Budget Law.This calls attention to the coincidence of UNDP’s programme managementvolume with government cycles. UNDP heavily depends on the mobilization of outside resources for itsadministrative and programme costs.

� The planning documents (UNDAF, CCD/CDP, and CPAP) are of a general nature. Only very recently has thecountry office begun elaborating operational internal guidelines to translate general (and sometimesabstract) objectives into executable programmes.

� As in all country offices, UNDP enjoys a high level of independence in its decision-making and strategicorientation.This allows for flexibility, but the tools and resources available at headquarters have notalways facilitated systematic strategic guidance. Recent initiatives, such as the 2008 “compact”, are anattempt to create more effective orientation tools from headquarters.

� The UNDP structure requires a platform to ensure integration between areas that are clearly demarcatedin order to facilitate the application of the organization’s interconnected operational strategies and themanagement of knowledge and information within the country office.

� A large number of outcomes (18) are identified in the 2001-2004 programmes, some without projects orspecific activities. Although the 2005-2008 programmes contain fewer outcomes, they are fragmented inmany projects of shorter duration and of smaller budgets.

� By applying a rating system established by the evaluation team, the UNDP country office is assessed asgenerally efficient in the level of disbursement and timeliness of project implementation. As for internalorganization of the office and programme management based on results, performance was weaker.Therating of the UNDP“balanced scorecard” (2006-2008) provides some support to selected findings of thisevaluation and, on the other hand, shows elements of improvement in the area of learning and growth(although further progress is possible).

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 2 7

4.1 AREAS OF PRIORITY FOR UNDP

UNDP development efforts in Guatemala werefirst directed towards the construction of ademocratic state that focused on such social aspectsas crisis recovery, social integration, healthcare,education, housing and more inclusive develop-ment. UNDP programme documents (CCF2001-2004, CPD 2005-2008) noted the inheri-tance of large setbacks in these areas (see alsoChapter 2), particularly in the form of confronta-tional dynamics between the State and civilsociety, non-inclusive economic policies andsocial exclusion. The result areas and theexpected outcomes are summarized in Table 8.

Strengthening of democratic governance.UNDP recognized the centrality of greaterpolitical dialogue and institutional developmentand focused its efforts on creating the necessaryconditions to achieving these. Efficient andtransparent institutions carry greater legitimacyamong citizens and are better able to representthe interests of the entire population.Institutional efforts in this area were especiallyevident in the 2001-2004 programme strategy,where the portfolio comprised 47 Atlas projects,with a budget of $240.53 million (Table 9). Thisrepresented 67.5 percent of the total resources forthe period in the entire UNDP portfolio. In the2005-2008 period, this decreased to 34 percentbecause, among other things, some projects werereclassified ex post in the areas of “povertyreduction” or “crisis prevention and recovery”.

Crisis prevention and recovery. This thematiccategory, created in 2006, has gained budgetaryimportance. The Peace Agreements’ pacificationprocess includes a long-term dignity recoveryprocess. The vulnerability of the population hasincreased due to the effects of natural disasters,especially hurricane Mitch in 1998 and tropicalstorm Stan in 2005.

Poverty reduction. UNDP support was directedtowards the improvement of social services ratherthan income generation. Projects of greatervolume in both programme cycles were executedby the Ministry of Public Health and theMinistry of Education (both NEX), comprising90 percent of the budget. National HumanDevelopment Reports (INDH), prepared by aseparate unit in the UNDP country office, alsofocused on this area.UNDPsupported SEGEPLANin the monitoring of MDGs. Three largerprojects in the pipeline are geared towards localeconomic development.The first will be financedby Italy (approximately $4 million), the secondby AECI (approximately $6 million), and thethird by IFAD (approximately $34 million). Therise in the percentage of resources dedicated topoverty reduction (from 20 percent in 2001-2004to 32 percent in 2005-2008), as in other cases, isthe result of the reclassification of areas.

Environment and energy.Although this practicearea is not explicitly mentioned in the 2005-2008CPD, the projects are being executed with GEFfunds at a regional level.50 There is a notable

Chapter 4

CONTRIBUTION TODEVELOPMENT RESULTS

50. Until the beginning of 2007, UNDP’s Energy and Environment Area was under the Area of Sustainable and EquitableEconomic Development, along with natural disaster risk management and poverty reduction. As it is known today, thearea answers to the 2008-2011 Strategic Plan at a corporative level. In UNDP programme documents at the corporativelevel between 2001 and 2008, the environmental theme is prioritized as a transverse axis but it is not specified whatthe UNDP is expected to achieve, beyond the development of an enabling framework at the policy level for the issues ofbiodiversity and climate change at the regional and national level. (According to the UNDP-G Office.)

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S2 8

Table 8. UNDP strategies in programme cycles 2001-2004 and 2005-2008

Priority ofdevelopment

Strategicaspects

Expected outcomes

Strengthening ofdemocraticgovernance

Politicaldialogue

� Room for dialogue between the State and civil society, particularly with the disadvan-taged groups, to allow convergence in national, regional, departmental,municipal andcommunity development with cultural relevance and gender perspective.

� Greater use of the human development concept in the forming and implementationof policy.

� Establishment of a national framework for forming policies and strategies related to theadvancement of women and with gender equality (CPR and poverty reduction).

� The policies, plans and programmes of the State as well as the media promote thefulfilment of the commitments of the Peace Agreements, a culture of respect forhuman rights, and ethnic, cultural and gender diversity.

Public institu-tionality andcivil serviceresponsibility

� Greater efficiency and equity in the provision of public services, with active participationfrom the local authorities and rural and urban communities in planning and management.

� The national human rights institutions and the organizations of civil society havecapacities for defence, litigation, surveillance, lobbying and mediation for the protectionof human rights.

Administrationof justice (alsoconsidered inCPR)

� Coordinated justice system, with protective capacities and a public administration thatguarantees the protection of human rights.

� Existence of an integral legal framework, policies and greater institutional capacity forthe protection and promotion of equality and non discrimination.

Crisis preventionand recovery(CPR)

Implementationof PeaceAgreements

� Peace Agreements consolidated and incorporated into the national agenda.

� Public programmes and integral policies of democratic security guaranteeing the preven-tion/reduction of violence and the generation of opportunities for rehabilitation andsocial inclusion.

� Consensus attained at the national and community level and strategic alliancesestablished for the consolidation of peace and sustainable human development.

Disasterresponsecapacity

� System of disaster response and reduction of its effects with capacities for the preven-tion,mitigation, preparation and response to the basic needs of the populations at risk inoperation.

Povertyreduction

Strategies andpolicies

� National poverty reduction strategy developed through the use of consultants andbeing implemented; greater national poverty monitoring capacity.

� Social and economic public policies incorporating the national and internationalstandards of human development, environmental sustainability and human rights inits formulation, execution,monitoring and evaluation.

� Government programmes prioritizing and protecting the right to food of the vulnerablepopulation and fostering means to obtain food security for the population in poverty.

Public services � Public policies and programmes promoting more availability, access, quality andadaptability of the basic services in education, healthcare, water and sanitation, nutritionand AIDS/HIV prevention awareness, with cultural relevance and gender perspective.

� Regulatory frameworks revised in order to facilitate access to production and financialresources to the poor.

� Increase in productivity and access to markets through strengthening of small andmedium-sized enterprises, cooperatives and community based organizations andaddressing labour rights.

Environmentand energy

Policies � Global focus on sustainable environmental development integrated into nationaldevelopment planning and linked with poverty reduction

Institutionalcapacity

� Greater capacity of national authorities to plan and implement integrated approaches toenvironmental administration and to the development of energy that respond to theneeds of the poor.

� Greater regional capacity for coordination and harmonization of national policies formanaging shared natural resources and the sustainable development of energy under theConventions of Climate Change and Biodiversity.

Source: Developed from the strategic documents of UNDP

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 2 9

increase in resources in absolute and relativeterms (from 1 percent to 8 percent) because ofthe reclassification of some activities. Effortshave been made towards the creation of theMinistry of the Environment and NaturalResources, and the institutionalization of itsClean Development Mechanism and ClimateChange units. Actions have been geared towardsimproving its capacity for structuring andimplementing programmes, for participatingin regional and international activities, andfor evaluation and planning. There has alsobeen work on an enabling framework forimplementing international agreements ratifiedby the Government, mainly on biodiversity,climate change, land degradation, and chemicalsubstances. The capacities of the NationalCouncil of Protected Areas (CONAP) as well asmunicipalities and NGOs for environmentalmanagement have been strengthened.

Chapter 1 introduced the main methodologicalaspects of this evaluation. The outcomes of theCCF and CPD refer to results that are not alwayseasily measured. Some projects and programmesare long-term, although many have a duration oftwo or three years. Even where the final outcomeshave not yet been achieved, effectiveness canstill be assessed in terms of “intermediate

achievements” and from the dynamizationprocesses generated. The evaluation of sustain-ability will help to identify and discern thefavourable or risk factors. Most of the projectshave a set of actors who participate in theformulation and execution of actions. To theextent possible, the evaluation will attempt toidentify the contribution of UNDP and of theother actors to the observed results.

4.2 EFFECTIVENESS

4.2.1 STRENGTHENING OFDEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

Political dialogue: In this strategic area, thisevaluation focuses on the dialogue of UNDPwith the main actors and on a few projects.Involving the direct participation of UNDP,these include initiatives on strengtheningdevelopment councils, establishing alliancesbetween civil society and the Government(PASOC I and II), the Promotion of Democracyin Latin America (PRODDAL) as well asprojects geared towards the development ofcapacities for multi-party dialogue. The projects’contributions to development results can beseen in (i) the strengthening of communitydevelopment councils, municipalities, grassroots

Table 9. Number of projects and their budgets by area and cycle

Areas 2001-2004 Strategy 2005-2008 Strategy

No. ofprojects

Budget* (% ofresources)

No. ofprojects

Budget* (% ofresources)

Democraticgovernance

47 240,527,340 68% 34 49,519,503 34%

Crisis preventionand recovery

10 42,034,177 12% 44 36,325,001 25%

Poverty reduction 14 70,067,666 20% 19 46,525,216 32%

Energy andenvironment

7 3,660,083 1% 11 12,050,756 8%

Total 78a 356,289,265 100% 108a 144,420,476 100%

* Multi-year budgets recorded on date of approval. a. As previously noted in Chapter 3, the 78 ATLAS projects of 2001-2004 and the108 of 2005 correspond respectively to 62 and 75 executed projects and programmes.

Source: ATLAS 2008

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S3 0

social organizations and other local actors,(ii) development agendas of the departments,(iii) spreading of democracy and development oftraining instruments and methodologies, (iv) civilsociety initiatives in the thematic areas oftransparency, discrimination and access to justice,and (v) the strengthening of the capacities ofpolitical parties for dialogue.

These projects have facilitated dialogue amongsuch diverse actors as central State authorities,local public entities and civil society. However,there are some problems relating to the lack ofclarity in the intervention strategy. In the projectsdirected towards development of local capacities,there is a lack of connections with SEGEPLANdepartmental offices and authorities such asthe governors.

Associations of civil society strengthened. Inaccordance with UNDP’s commitment tosupporting civil society, the last two programmes’strategies were translated into action through thePASOC I and II programmes. The first aimed toenlist and enhance civil society’s role inpromoting participative democracy. The secondenvisaged constructive alliances between Stateinstitutions and civil society organizations inorder to create legal frameworks, implementationtools and sustainable links for participativedemocracy. In PASOC I, civil society associa-tions were strengthened through augmentationof resources and technical capacities. Training/awareness efforts were promoted on variousissues of interest to civil society, such as justice,respect for human rights, adult literacy and micro-business. In a country emerging from decades ofconflict that, among other things, eroded civilsociety, this support was timely and valuable.

A conceptual framework for supporting civilsociety was initially missing. According to thePASOC I evaluation, and this mission’s findings,the initiative was limited by an absence of a clear

intervention strategy. Financial resources werechannelled to individual civil society organiza-tions without creating coordination mechanismsand networks of associations around themes ofcommon interest. Also, despite the intention ofgenerating dialogue between the Governmentand civil society, this was not possible due to lackof a conceptual framework and application of asuitable method. Based on the lessons learned,PASOC II is trying to build a more congenialenvironment.51 Although it is too early toevaluate PASOC II’s effectiveness, the changedformulation itself is significant.

Some interesting and substantive initiativesremain without follow-up. PRODDAL hasgenerated a dialogue process between diverseactors through, among other things, thedistribution of the Report on Democracy inLatin America and informative kits for schools.Interesting activities were initiated but thenimpeded. For instance, theatrical representationsfor children sought to show democratic dialecticsin a simple way. However, the initiative had to beabandoned for lack of funding. The actionstrategy developed within the project frameworkwas considered “academic” by UNDP manage-ment in 2007 and was put aside. However, thecurrent government is using the proposal to designand apply a new programme, “Government withthe People”, at the regional and local levels.

Fulfilment of Peace Agreements: UNDP hasplayed a vital role in facilitating the implementa-tion of the Peace Agreements. It has done sothrough active participation in the consultativegroups formed for this purpose as well as throughthe inclusion of this perspective in the vastmajority of its projects. The “peace as a founda-tion for development” project reactivated partici-pation and the search for consensus as part ofthe re-launching of the Peace Agreements.However, its mode of execution was not entirely

51. In the framework of PASOC II, the proposal design and selection process went through the creation of alliances betweencivil society organizations and their state counterparts, in order to give them an incentive to present coordinated projects.All of the initiatives approved by the PASOC II are required to clearly establish the coordination agreements betweenpresenting civil society organization and its institutional counterpart within the State.

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 3 1

appropriate to the project type. While theintervention envisaged discussion forumsin the field, the project ended up repairinginfrastructure, something not part of the originalplan.This underlines the lack of strategy and of aclear intervention method.

The issue of land remains central to the fulfilmentof the Peace Agreements. Over the past decade,UNDP has been providing continual supporttowards resolving the agrarian conflict. Oneproject UNDP has been promoting in coordina-tion with donors is that of a Land Registry52

which has included up to 10 initiatives.

Land registry informationwas attained, but notthe legalization of property. Through the LandRegistry projects, cadastral surveys have beencarried out in 20 out of 333 municipalitiesregistered in Guatemala. The municipalitieshave responded satisfactorily. UNDP aided thetransition of the Legal Technical Unit, whichhad been overseeing the land registry since 1997,into a permanent institution, the Registry ofCadastral Information (RIC), in 2005. However,the property legalization process remains at astandstill because the RIC statute limits itsoperations to surveys and identification of irregu-larities in the registry. The population still has nomethod of acquiring property titles, with smallfarmers and indigenous peoples suffering themost. UNDP has supported advisory servicestowards the development of a strategic plan.Timely coordination with donors has facilitatedthe approval of the law and commencement ofthe process, which would not have been possiblewithout UNDP intervention.

On 30 April 2002 the Secretariat of AgriculturalIssues of the Presidency (SAA) was created.UNDP has supported the strengthening of theinstitution. Key work areas have beenimplemented, including that related to conflictresolution. Between 2005 and 2007, 1,230

agrarian conflict cases were resolved, a smallfraction of the total number of cases. Given thescale of the agrarian problem, much moreremains to be done.

Use of the human development concept inpublic policies: One notable project in this areais related to the strengthening of the NationalStatistical System (Improvement of LivingConditions – MECOVI)53, whose goal is toestablish and develop an integrated surveysystem.The project helped to improve the qualityof the surveys, increase the geographic andthematic coverage of statistical information,provide better input for the reports and fostergreater debate on human development in thecountry. UNDP’s role in this project isunderlined not only in terms of its financialmanagement, but also in its mobilization offinancial resources through donors. Effectivecollaboration was established between UNDPand the National Statistical Office of Guatemala(INE) in order to provide support to UNDPprojects such as the Human Resources InventoryManagement (developed with the Ministryof Education) and the Petén cartography(developed with RIC).

More efficient institutionalization in theprovision of public services: UNDP’s effort inthis broad area, although fundamentally centredon financial management, has been significant.Multiple government and local organizations aresupported through different initiatives of institu-tional strengthening, planning and strategicanalysis, but especially in system modernizationand management support. Among the institutionsreceiving particular assistance are theVice-presidency,the Superintendence of Tax Administration andthe Ministries of Economy and Finance as wellas various municipalities.

In the municipal sphere, the large MetropolitanDevelopment Programme for the Municipalityof Guatemala – PRODEME – (NEX project) is

52. The land registry project has been financed by various donors, including theWorld Bank, Norway, the Netherlands, GTZGermany, the Navarra Government (Spain) and Sweden.

53. MECOVI is funded by multiple donors, the main ones being the World Bank and USAID.

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S3 2

worthy of note. UNDP’s involvement in theselarge-scale infrastructural projects was andcontinues to be a source of controversy. Thematter of UNDP’s management of public fundswill be dealt with separately in this report.What is noteworthy in this case is thatUNDP assistance was not simply confined to

public resource management. Initially, the projectwas to involve only the construction of theTRANSMETRO, with funding from the IFCand through loans from private banks. Theconsultancy and facilitation from UNDP helpedan infrastructure project convert into a long-termdevelopment programme, to which other

Table 10. Examples of findings by project (democratic governance)

Project Main outcomes and generated processes Sources

PASOC I (+) Civil society organizations have improvedcapacity (technical equipment, experience, skills) forthe management of mini-projects for training andawareness (respect for women, tolerance ofdiversity), and micro-business projects.

(-) No creation of organizational networks. Limitedcreation of connections/tables of dialogue withpublic authorities

UNDP interviews; 2007field visits of civil societyorganizations. Sololá. SanMarcos. Documentation

Transport in Municipalityof Guatemala

(+) Development of a municipal development planlinked to the Long-Term 20/20 Plan, which wassustained in six strategic axes. An initiative centredon the construction of the TRANSMETRO became anintegrated development proposal

(-) Axis of institutional strengthening is still pending.

UNDP interviews,mayor, vice-mayor andproject coordinator.Documentation

National competitivenessprogramme

(+) Development of the National CompetitivenessAgenda, Investment Promotion Agenda Strategicalliances with Facilitator Groups

(-) The participation expected from the micro andsmall businesses did not take place.

UNDP interviews,former manager ofthe programme,Vice-minister of Economy.Documentation

Land Registry (+) Institutionalization of the Registry of CadastralInformation (RIC), which had only been a technicalunit (Legal Technical Unit - UTJ)

(-) The RIC can only identify irregularities but cannotlegalize property. Incomplete legalization process(the population still cannot certify property). Lack ofRegulating Law

UNDP interviews, formercoordinator of UTJPROTIERRA, RICofficials and field visits.Documentation.

Strengthening ofthe Secretariat ofAgricultural Affairs

+) Definition and implementation of the organiza-tional structure of the Secretariat. UNDP facilitated,through administrative and financial support, theimplementation of the Secretariat.

(-) The Secretariat still has not attained the scope forwhich it was created, its most urgent tasks being:(i) that the arbitration centre achieve a capability ofattending to all case demands; (ii) that studies becarried out for the cases of greatest impact;

Interview with the ex-secretary of agriculturalaffairs, Agrarian ConflictReport executed for2005-2007, developedby SAA.Documentation

Observance of Waterand Sanitation

(+) Study conducted for the development of sectorpolicies; Forming of theWater Commission;Development of Management Models

(-) None of the management models was formal-ized. However, in the framework of the developmentof theWater and Sanitation Plan, the approachesdeveloped by UNDP have been considered.

UNDP interviews.Interview with thecoordinator of PotableWater and Sanitation,SEGEPLAN, Interviewswith environmentalNGOs, Documentation.

Source: Developed by the ADR 2008

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

financial resources were added, essentially fromthe Municipality of Guatemala. These newresources were directed towards other strategicareas including urban mobility, environment andsolid waste management, territorial arrangement,recuperation of the Historic Centre, and institu-tional strengthening of the municipality.

Less substantive administrative support to thefinancial sector. Notable in this area is theIntegrated Financial Management System(SIAF III) project financed by the World Bank,whose goal is to increase and deepen theGovernment’s financial-sector reforms initiatedby SIAF I and SIAF II. A system has beeninstitutionalized that allows government officialsaccess to information on government financialoperations in real time, ensuring transparency inthe use of public resources. UNDP’s role has beento verify the appropriate use of funds and providetraining in transparency norms and procedures.

The Ministry of Economy lent significantsupport to competitiveness through the WorldBank-financed PRONACOM project. Theprocess initiated within the project frameworkhas been contributing to increasing investmentand promoting a national competitivenessagenda. Also, strategic alliances have beengenerated with facilitator groups and theUniversidad del Valle in Guatemala. However,the effects of the project on poverty reduction arenot evident since the most favoured enterprisesare essentially large and medium-sized ones, asopposed to small ones foreseen at the outset.UNDP centred its intervention on financialmanagement of the project and development ofcapacities in norms and procedures. These wereimportant in the initial phase, especially consid-ering the sector’s limited experience in resourcemanagement. However, UNDP did not partici-pate in defining the strategy, which was set out inthe loan agreement between the Governmentand the World Bank.

In the area of basic services, one of the projectsassessed was “Observation of Water andSanitation”, whose technical and administrativedirection was managed by UNDP. The project

involved diagnostics of water and sanitationservices at the municipal level with the participa-tion of municipal authorities, the forming of theWater Commissions and the development ofthree management models. Although none ofthese proposals were institutionalized, they arecurrently being reviewed within the frameworkof the Government’s Water and Sanitation Plan.

Justice Administration:Despite national effortsto strengthen institutions and to apply anintegrated legal framework, an effective system towatch over the rights of citizens is lacking.UNDP, with a view to contributing to thisdevelopment outcome, promotes the inclusion ofaccess to justice in various projects. Althoughsome shortfalls were identified in PASOC I, theywere the result of unstructured project design.Other assistance came in the form of technicaland financial support to the Office of theGeneral Attorney for its Re-engineering Plan.

4.2.2 CRISIS PREVENTION AND RECOVERY

Peace Agreements consolidated and incorpo-rated in the national agenda: Various projectsare being promoted towards achieving nationalpriority issues. Among these are (i) supportingimplementation of the National CompensationProgramme; unit of analysis and strategicproposal for the accompaniment of PeaceAgreements; and Dignity and PsychosocialAssistance of Victims of Armed Conflict(DIGAP); (ii) supporting the fulfilment of PeaceAgreements; national peace culture programme;and strengthening of the institutionalization ofpeace with an emphasis on the role of supportinghuman rights, the access to justice and overcom-ing racial discrimination against the indigenouspeoples (FORPAZ).

Dignifying conflict victims as a foundation forfuture pacification. The interventions were ableto lay the foundation for the efforts of the State,civil society and international organizations todrive attention to sensitive issues such as dignify-ing the victims of internal armed conflict.Through DIGAP, forces were mobilized fromthe social arena to drive the very complicated

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

process of bringing the victims and the Statetogether. Psychosocial awareness actions weregalvanized, a process of exhumation of thevictims of armed conflict was started and thecapacity of civil society organizations to negotiatewith the State was strengthened. Anotherimportant contribution was the creation ofpolitical and technical conditions for historicalclarity and justice processes.

The Berger Government’s acceptance of respon-sibility for the crimes committed during thearmed conflict represented an important stepforward. UNDP interventions contributed to theconsolidation of what was formerly named the“National Compensation Programme” (PNR).This programme had three important aims:institutional strengthening of the programmethat allowed for the existence of an institutiondependent on Secretariat of Peace – SEPAZ –providing direct follow-up to the PNR; thebuilding of a database for the National Registryof Victims that is being used to follow up onestablished cases; and acts of dignification andpsychosocial reparation to victims and survivorsthat, unfortunately, are currently not taking place.Ameasure of economic compensation for the victimsis the most advanced part of the programme.

Clear gaps limiting effectiveness have beenidentified. PNR and the organizations accompa-nying DIGAP are facing varying proposals onthe process PNR should follow, where themediation and actions taken by UNDP have notallowed for the creation of the adequate synergiesrequired to strengthen and complement diverseexisting initiatives.There is no internal coordina-tion allowing the different projects to complementtheir efforts and prevent the dispersion of itsterritorial or thematic application (e.g. DIGAP-PASOC I-PNR). Grassroots organizations believethe lack of coordination between PASOC I andDIGAP created conflicts in the allocation ofresources in some communities. The exit strate-gies of “sensitive” projects have not generatedadequate organizational and technical conditionsto guarantee follow-up.

Orientation of public policies on the issue ofsecurity. The contributions by the “CitizenSecurity and Violence Prevention” project arevaluable in creating a new concept of people-oriented security. UNDP has been a maininterlocutor in generating public debates. In thespirit of public-policy dialogue and influence,conditions have been created for the eventualemergence of public safety and citizenship from aperspective of democratic security. Similarly,advances have been made in the design of publicpolicies geared towards citizen safety in concertwith several institutions involved in the area.In relation to impunity, initiatives have beendeveloped to galvanize processes and createtechnical and legal conditions for follow-up.One such case relates to the recovery of thehistorical archive of the National Civil Police.In terms of strengthening civil society,UNDP has contributed to the enhancement ofcapacity for negotiation and impact andstrengthening of political actions on publicsecurity and citizenship.

Results were less significant when support wasconfined to operational and training aspects.The limited strategic achievements in the field ofdemocratic security are directly linked to externalfactors such as the State’s limited capacity forfar-reaching reform, organized crime and lack ofpolitical will as well as factors within UNDP.Projects such as “Citizen Security and ViolencePrevention” having a stronger policy and strategicfocus are not well integrated with the rest ofthe UNDP programme. Institutional backingfrom UNDP is also limited. There are technicaland strategic weaknesses in the institutionsresponsible for guaranteeing public safety, whichare reflected in the limited outcomes of thefight against organized crime and commondelinquency.There is a lack of determination andpolitical will on the part of the donors involved inState reform. Advances in public security willcontinue to be restricted if the efforts of UNDPand other international organizations remainlimited to formative and operational aspects(such as training modules and equipmentfor police officers) instead of more strategic and

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

political processes. This is the case withFORPOL, which remains largely unsuccessful ininstitutionalizing the National Civil Policebecause of its limited focus on logistical andformative support at the expense of reformingthe public-security system.

As a result, relevant contributions from UNDP-promoted projects have not been included ingovernment plans. Nor have they beentransformed into public policies geared towardsthe improvement and reform of the security andjustice system. In the area of democratic security,there are difficulties in maintaining viable andpermanent mechanisms of compromise anddialogue among the State, civil society and theinternational community.

Disaster response system: This outcome islinked to the execution of several projects suchas risks and development; improvement of

Government capacities in the reconstructionprocess; post-Stan response and rehabilitation;risk and disaster training and management;decentralized environmental reconstructionand management in the departments of SanMarcos and Quetzaltenango; community habitatreconstruction risk reduction programme;Prohabitat (Canton Pacua, Canton Chitinamit,October 4th, the Palmita, Xecotoj, PotreroGrande and Chokmuc); and local risk manage-ment in the department of San Marcos.

Amethodological contribution to post-disasterreconstruction. UNDP projects contributedto the overall design focus on prevention andrisk within relevant national institutions, as wellas in municipalities and communities wherereconstruction initiatives were taking place. Aparticularly noteworthy contribution is that ofPROHABITAT in the development of methodsand instruments for the improvement of response

Table 11. Examples of findings by project (crisis prevention and recovery)

Project Progress towards expected outcomes Sources

DIGAP (+) Introduction of a holistic framework for dignifying victims(psychological support), information and evidence on eventshas been generated, technical capacities have beendeveloped (forensic anthropology, now DNA)

(-) Cases of limited integration with PASOC I have generateddivergences in some communities.

Reports, technical follow-up,interviews with NGOexecutors, focus groups withbeneficiaries and indigenousgroups in the field.

PROHABITAT (+) Creation of crisis response units in the municipalities.Methods and protocols for reactivating economic income(certification of bricklayers/carpenters), introduction ofdiagnostics of reconstruction sites, adoption of participativeplanning systems (housing configuration, basic infrastruc-ture). Quality housing

(-) Still lacking framework for follow-up of medium-termpost-reconstruction activities

Follow-up reports and finalrevisions, SCEP interviews,NGO executor interviews,mayors, beneficiary familyinterviews, direct observa-tions in beneficiary and non-beneficiary sites

National CivilArchive Policy

(+) Recovery of official material as a basis for future historicalresearch. Participation of the highest level of technicians.

Report, archive visits, personalarchive interviews

CitizenSecurity

(+) Quality studies; inputs to encourage discussions on publicpolicies

(-) Limited synergies with other UNDP projects

Reports and studies,interviews with former civilpolice officials, Ministry ofGovernance, sectoral andacademic specialists

FORPOL (-) Courses and teaching materials not always "practical",insufficient involvement of technicians (e.g. policy officials)from other countries

Source: Developed by the 2008 ADR

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

to natural disasters such as tropical storm Stan.Themethods and plans created by PROHABITAT arebeing discussed and publicized. The approachcombines a reconstructive perspective with riskmanagement and economic initiatives for incomegeneration. Thanks to the participative planningmethods of PROHABITAT, a superior qualitywas achieved in housing reconstruction incomparison to houses reconstructed by the Statewithout the help of PROHABITAT.

The limitations identified in UNDP-promotedprojects and programmes in this area are relatedfundamentally to difficulties within publicinstitutions in building a national sustainable riskmanagement plan that directs, coordinates andregulates its interventions. Interruptions anddelays were noted in operational management.For instance, many families affected by tropicalstorm Stan continue to live in temporary lodgingafter three years. This is rooted in administrativeproblems in and lack of implementation capacityof the executing agencies. Moreover, fewinterventions have an exit strategy focused onsustainability. After the reconstruction, economicproblems will arise. The majority of thehouseholds affected by the disasters will have losttheir sources of income. UNDP would need tochange the nature of its intervention fromreconstruction to economic development.

4.2.3 POVERTY REDUCTION

Strategies and policies

Strengthening of SEGEPLAN: Each of thethree governments in office during the evaluationperiod has presented its own set of nationalstrategies. Although introduced as long-termagendas, they have been limited to the four-yeartenure of the concerned government. Officialsfrom the current and previous governments,as well as those from civil society groups andinternational organizations, agree that thepoverty reduction strategy remains highlygeneralized. In fact, several agendas have existed,including those envisaged by the Peace

Agreements, those linked to the MDGs, andthose belonging to different governments. Thereare 49 public policies in existence, of which 25 –global and sectoral – have been developed andhave drawn consensus (e.g. gender, environment,rural development, food security, but not health-care and education), some with technicalassistance from UNDP. In the majority of cases,implementation has been limited. Multilateraland bilateral agencies have made – and continueto make – important contributions to theGovernment’s efforts to develop longer termdevelopment strategies. UNDP reinforcedthe analytical and statistical capacities ofSEGEPLAN for follow-up and monitoring ofMDGs. Two MDG progress reports have beenpublished. UNDP support for the Governmentsystem to measure the progress of presidentialgoals – SIGOB – incorporates a module forMDG follow-up. However, none of these effortshas resulted in a clear strategy with solidconsensus for the four years of any government.

IDH contributed to political debates andformation of public opinion: Since 1998, theinstrument par excellence for achieving this resulthave been the National Human DevelopmentReports (see paragraph 5.2). The director of the2002 report (women and health) participated inthe health law debate in the Congress. Anevaluation of the INDH in 200654 found seniorpoliticians and Government officials to be two ofthe largest audiences. The reports have made asubstantial contribution to the orientation andplanning of key development themes and haveinfluenced the plans, policies and proposals ofdifferent sectors.

Public Services

Resource management and support to theimprovement of primary education. Since1993, the Ministry of Education has pledged toextend school coverage throughout the country.In 1996, it implemented the National EducationProgramme (PRONADE) as a principal instru-ment. The programme is active through private

54. UNDP-EO (2006) Evaluation of the National Human Development Report System, New York

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

Educational Services Institutions (ISE) andEducation Committees (COEDUCAS) ofparents. UNDP has concentrated on resourcemanagement (two NEX projects), not so muchon the definition of policies, and contributed tothe extension of primary school coverage from 69percent in 1996 to 96 percent in 2006. UNDPadministration of the programme has beeninstrumental in ensuring greater agility, neutralmanagement, and oversight of transparency.However, previous governments expandededucation coverage through decentralized self-management and with the participation of sub-contracted private entities. This has createdtensions in the teaching community (e.g. onteachers’ working conditions). The currentgovernment has decided to close PRONADEbefore its scheduled 2009 end and is decidingwhat to do with the over 11,000 primary schoolteachers who were working in the programmeand are now on the Ministry of Education payroll.

UNDP responded to the Ministry of Education’srequest to support the management of a projectenabling bilingual bicultural Mayan education,focusing on girls, in two indigenous towns (Mamand Kaqchikel). In two years, the initiativeestablished foundations for curricula and teachertraining and materials. The girls trained wouldhelp to establish general bilingual education, afundamental contribution towards reducingdiscrimination against indigenous peoples. In theIntercultural and Multilingual EducationProgramme of Central America (PROEIMCA) –which includes Honduras and Nicaragua – UNDPhas helped to monitor and expand progress.

Basic health and nutrition services.UNDP hascollaborated with the Ministry of Health andSocial Assistance in half a dozen projects,including AIDS control, reduction of acutemalnutrition, basic healthcare, regulation andcontrol, as well as administration of healthservice providers, and malaria reduction. The

project selected for this evaluation was gearedtowards the prevention and control of sexuallytransmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS, which hasbeen active since 2002. The project helped theMinistry of Health to coordinate and connectwith international mechanisms such as UNAIDSand to nationalize the agreement 27-2000 tofight AIDS. AIDS outbreaks have been recordedin parts of the indigenous population, wherethere is a risk of spread. This requires large andpermanent prevention campaigns. UNDP advisedthe entire process, from establishing the legalfoundation to obtaining medications, with a limitedrole in strategic and substantive aspects. Byentrusting UNDP with part of the management,the ministry was able to re-stock, at a very lowprices, for more than a year. Some ministries citethis as the convenience of working with UNDP.

Marginal interventions in“economic-productive”programmes. UNDP focused mainly on socialdevelopment, where it has the most experienceand specialists, and very little on productionprojects. UNDP provided marginal contributionsto expected outcomes like the “regulatoryframeworks leading to the access to productionand financial means directed towards the poorsectors”, or the “strengthening of small andmedium-sized businesses, grassroots productioncooperatives and organizations” (Table 8). Theseactivities are mainly supported by multilateralfinancial institutions such as the World Bank,Inter-American Development Bank and theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development.These institutions have their own funds, operateon the basis of loan agreements with theGovernment, and have sectoral specialists.UNDP does not have specialists in economic-production and rural development.55

4.2.4 ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

A small programme with achievements ininstitutional strengthening.This is the smallestresult area, not mentioned in the 2005-2008CPD56, with a predominance of regional

55. Efforts were made, with their own funds, to attract other agencies to promote the economic empowerment of women, continuingwith support to SEPREM (NEX), but the new Government changed the institutional configuration in this area.

56. However, it is mentioned in the Atlas outcomes that do not coincide with the CPD outcomes.

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S3 8

interventions with GEF funds. UNDP hasdeveloped several initiatives directed towardspromoting sustainable environmental develop-ment. The application of a multisectoral andinter-institutional focus has made it possible toimprove mechanisms of collaboration with theState. Projects like RECOSMO (sustainablemanagement of natural resources) andPROBOSQUES (geared towards consolidating

regional municipal parks) have promoted greaterparticipation from local actors (municipalities,social organizations, community organizations)with a view to creating sustainability of resourcesin the medium term.57 In collaboration with theState, UNDP interventions have helped toconsolidate institutions related to the environ-ment and energy, specifically MARN, INABCONAP, MAGA and the Ministry of Energy

57. The municipal authorities have managed to cover 66 percent of the expenses and, at the time of the evaluation mission,there were discussions on measures to generate resources for the remaining 34 percent.

Table 12. Examples of findings by project (poverty reduction)

Project Progress towards expected outcomes Sources

PRONADE (+) Project of more than 20 years; succeeded in extending coveragethrough private providers (NGOs) and committees of parents of families(contracting, payment and control of teaching assistance) achievingself-sufficiency and change in teacher activities; acceleration throughneutral, transparent,more agile administration by UNDP (NEX);

(-) Management by MinEdu until 2004 slow, impenetrable, "politicized"lacking operational criterion; change of government in 2008: projectclosed prematurely with 11,000 teachers in regular system and onMinEdu payroll (now no subcontracting; lack of continuity; danger ofsetback); teacher training still at mid-level, not university; impact notmeasured; little support from UNDP at the level of sectoral policy.

2005 PRODOC, finalreport, previoussupport, auditreport, technical file,interviews withUNDP managers,with exVice-ministerof Education,withproject director,with two formermanagers in theMinEdu

INDH (+) Pioneer conceptual contribution,mobility, national capacities, onhuman development in the country; stimulation of public debate basedon statistics, raising awareness of the conditions of the whole popula-tion; from 2003 policy proposals, collected by political parties andprogrammes and academia, especially in the capital; today distributionvia multipliers all over the country; INDH team supports monitoring ofGovernment and fulfilment of the MDGs in the country.

(-) Little follow-up once a INDH is launched, although each reportcontinues building on a previous one; within UNDP, they are used littlefor debate and strategic orientation; next step stagnant (observance ofhuman development), also for lack of funding

1999 PRODOC; 2005Evaluation report;INDHs; technical file;financial and donorreports; interviewswith current andprevious managersof UNDP,with theCollege of Medicineof the UniversidadLandivar (INDH2003), with NGO/private think tank,with deputies

Preventionand Controlof ITC,HIV/AIDS

(+) A pioneer in putting the issue on the public agenda and creatingtechnical, legal and institutional conditions (Ministry of Health) to tendto the high risk poor (urban) population through a national decentral-ized programme; alliance with PAHO, UNAIDS and NGOs; political willmobilized and public resources opened; in administrative aspects, UNDPintervened in 2006 to solve a blockage in the provision of anti-retrovi-rals (efficient and effective administration).

(-) Lack of continuity in alliances (stop-go) today, UNAIDS wants moreUNDP involvement in substantive aspects (not just administrative); lackof indicators and measurement and M&E to confirm qualitative andquantitative advances.

2001 PRODOC;UNDP follow-upreport; 2007 finalreport; interviewswith UNDPmanager, exmanager of NGOprogramme

Source: Developed by the 2008 ADR

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 3 9

UNICEF, UNDP), attempts are being made toset guidelines for better integration of environ-ment and energy with other thematic areas suchas governance and poverty reduction.

According to some environmental and sectoralexperts, UNDP’s role has been marginal when itcomes to organizing debates and discussions onkey issues. This could reflect the country office’slimited financial and human resources and highturnover of senior management.58 Also, financialuncertainty in UNDP on environmental issuesfavours short-term interventions, renderingfollow-up of long-term projects difficult.

4.2.5 GENDER

Gender as a mainstream theme: Genderequality has been handled as an overarchingtheme in UNDP interventions. UNDP’s 2001-2004 strategy included an outcome relatedspecifically to the issue. Gender-orientedprojects are located first within the Atlas categoryin the crisis prevention and recovery area, whichincluded support for the creation of thePresidential Secretariat of Women (SEPREM)in October 2002 (a DEX project that became aNEX initiative), as well as the strengthening ofthe Indigenous Women’s Defence Council(DEMI) from 2001 to 2008. Studies in this field,including the National Human DevelopmentReports, established a statistical differentiation innational surveys, as well as reports on thesituation of women, a valuable contributiontowards substantive debate. The institutionalweakness in the Government, however, stood inthe way of an effective long-term agenda.

There is not enough information to form conclusiveopinions on the results of the programme’s genderfocus. An UNDP DIGAP project evaluation in2005 characterized the process towards greatergender equality in the following way: “[T]herehas been no evidence found of inadequatepractices” by the implementers in the focus

and Mining. The existence of a system ofmonitoring windows represents a first step on thepath to improving control, follow-up anddecentralization of environmental management.On the legislative side, UNDP has encouragedthe development of laws and policies directedtowards the generation of a more functional andviable energy sector.

Among the inhibiting factors in this area are thediversity and complexities of existing environ-mental legislation, which have resulted inincreasing incompatibilities and disorganization.According to interviewees, the legislation isinadequate considering the scope of the problemsand the country’s socio-cultural and economicrealities. It is difficult for public institutions toagree on a single work agenda. Undoubtedly, aninfluencing factor is the environmental impunitythat makes it impossible to control the diversepolitical and economic interests – legal andillegal – already surrounding the issue. Politicalconflicts over energy and mineral resources aregrowing and may become real factors of politicaland social instability if not dealt with appropri-ately, as exemplified by the case of open-ceilingmining exploitation.

UNDP has come out with valuable initiativesgeared towards sustainable management ofenvironmental goods and services such asecotourism, the carbon market and coffeeproduction. New projects have been developed topromote the productive use of renewable energy,encourage actions against desertification anddrought, and sharpen the focus and action onclimate change and environmental managementfrom a global perspective. Although it is tooearly to evaluate their results, the environmentis noticeably isolated from the rest ofUNDP’s programme. With new initiativeslike “Strengthening Environmental GovernanceRegarding Climate Risks in Guatemala”(SEGEPLAN,MARN,MAGA,MSPAS, FAO,

58. According to UNDP-G, the high staff turnover is a result of the difficult and complicated process involved in theformulation and execution of GEF projects. Other GEF-UNDP regional projects (e.g. CamBio, ARECA, PEER) andthe Small Donations Programme (GEF-UNOPS-UNDP) need more time and work than currently scheduled.

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S4 0

towards women “nor traces of incidents due tolack of sensitivity on the issue”. On the otherhand, the PASOC I evaluation of 2005 statedthat, with few exceptions, the activities andorganizations supported under that initiative didnot incorporate a gender perspective into theirdiagnostics, planning and execution of activities,an aspect that may improve in PASOC II.Nevertheless, the majority of representatives ofwomen’s organizations interviewed during thisevaluation believe that women’s participation,indigenous and non-indigenous, in associativeand public activities has increased significantly.

A former Resident Representative tried topromote the issue of gender along with otherUNS agencies, especially UNIFEM. In 2006,with modest funds, the EconomicEmpowerment of Women project began as aDEX, which was converted into a NEX ofSEPREM. Attempts were made to establish astrategy for the mainstreaming of genderperspective in the economic sphere. After the lastchange of government, SEPREM has beenconfined to a less visible mandate.

4.3 PROGRAMME EFFICIENCY

Chapter 3 touched on aspects of efficiency inoffice management. How efficient has thesupport been for the processes indicated inrelation to the programme aspect of UNDP?This mission has gathered, through interviews,observations and document review, the followingrelated elements:

a) The introduction of norms from headquar-ters (Atlas system) has not yet contributed togreater management efficiency at the countryprogramme level. Moreover, there have beengrowing complaints that projects co-financedby multilateral and bilateral donors havebecome slower, more bureaucratic and lessefficient over the past two years.

b) Dependency on the Government and outsidedonors for resources, due to the low corefunds of UNDP, puts a strain on the countryoffice in terms of obtaining projects toexecute as well as recovery costs UNDPreceives for its services. This need – andopportunity – has at times motivated the

Table 13. Examples of findings by project (environment and energy)

Project Progress towards expected outcomes Sources

PROBOSQUES (+) Capacities have improved for municipalities to promotesustainable processes on environmental issues; policies andlaws have been created with a territorial and decentralizationperspective;mechanisms have been generated for greatersocial participation.

(-) There is little determination on the part of the State topromote processes of environmental governance; lack ofintegrated vision (social, economic, cultural and political)in dealing with the environment; no conditions exist forgeneration of sustainable processes in the management ofsustainable resources;

Technical reports; evaluationsof results; Prodoc; San MarcosMunicipality interview, inter-views with park guards; inter-views with specialists; inter-views with UNDP personnel.

Recosmos (+) The technical capacities of institutions and organizationshave been strengthened to improve the actions related toconservation of protected areas; there is community involvementin the environmental conservation processes.

(-) Limited public funding; illegal interests that make long-termsustainable processes impossible.

PRODOC; technical follow-upinformation; interviews atState institutions; interviewswith beneficiary organizationsand individuals; field visits.

Source: Developed by the 2008 ADR

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 4 1

acceptance of projects with little strategicweight, which is not an efficient way offulfilling the organization’s goals.

c) Incentives exist for both UNDP and theGovernment to entrust the management ofpublic programmes to UNDP.Governmentalentities are subject to the laws on contractingpersonnel, tender of goods, State salarystructures, annual budget norms and audits.When project administration is turned overto UNDP, the latter withholds 3.5 percent ofthe funds for its services and applies its ownnorms in these crucial matters.

There are two positions on this matter. Somemaintain that UNDP management makespublic administration more efficient bytransferring capacities and by ensuringtransparency and neutrality in publicresource management. This evaluation hasbeen able to confirm such an assessment indifferent cases.

Others consider UNDP management ofstate resources to undermine the imperativeof transforming State institutions into moreefficient implementing bodies. They alsobelieve that UNDP’s intervention inadministrative activities is of little or nosubstantive value. The mission observed thisto be the case in other areas. To achieveefficiency while avoiding government normsis, in fact, not a sound proposal consideringthe overall imperative of boosting nationalexecution capacities. However, with inadequatelegislation and regulation for State efficiency,an actor like UNDP – still bureaucratic, butmore agile and flexible than the State –would be an attractive way of implementingprogrammes more quickly and transparently.

d) The present evaluation found a few selectedcases in which financial and executionreports were submitted late by UNDP or inwhich quality did not conform to standards.This, in turn, caused delays in the delivery offinancial resources to projects funded bymultilateral organizations such as the WorldBank and the IDB59. In part for thesereasons, the World Bank and the IDB preferthat the Government not solicit UNDPmanagement for their new loans. Whensuch a modality is adopted, programmemanagement is complex, as it must abideby administrative requirements of themultilateral agency, as well as those of theGovernment institution in charge ofexecution. Moreover, if the Governmentrequests UNDP to be involved in manage-ment, the latter applies its own rules.Institutions such as DEMI have alsoindicated late delivery of financial reports.

e) Several changes have been observed in themode of project implementation between thetwo UNDP programme cycles (Annex 2,Table 2.2). In governance, there is anexpected decrease from 19 to six DEXprojects, and an inverse trend in crisisprevention and recovery, due to the need toreact against tropical storm Stan, although inthis case UNDP has been much moreinvolved in civil society organizationscompared to the previous phase. UNDPexplains that national execution (NEX) ismost appropriate from the nationalownership perspective, although someprogramme officials argue that directexecution procedures (DEX) allow a largerscope of actors to coordinate, making themediating and connecting role that UNDPplays more valuable, with effects that are notattainable through NEX.60

59. Executed by the Government of Guatemala, which had requested UNDP management support.60. According to UNDP’s new Operation and Programme Manual, the programme is to be in its totality executed by the

national authorities and may be implemented by UNDP when this offers a specific and necessary value addition. Thismodality will be applied from 2010 with a harmonised implementation cycle. See: http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/programme/initiating/?lang=en#2.0%20Relevant%20Policies (paragraph 2.6).

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S4 2

4.4 SUSTAINABILITY

Ultimately, UNDP’s main contribution todevelopment in Guatemala consists of strength-ening the country’s institutional capacities. Thesustainability of results achieved depends aboveall on the structures, policies and processesinvolved. These vary widely and are difficult tounderstand due to the nature of the projects,which try to facilitate dialogue, overcomedivisions between historically opposing groups,remedy injustices and create technical andpolitical capacities. The projects evaluateddemonstrate an impressive range of processespromoted by UNDP, from the dignifying ofvictims of conflict, citizen participation anddevelopment of basic services to the increase ofresearch capacities.

In accordance with its mandate, UNDP worksfirst with the Government and in this functionhas supported the creation and strengtheningof a series of State institutions, mostly linked tothe implementation of the Peace Agreements.Several secretariats and ministries have beencreated for specific purposes. These entities havefacilitated the creation and implementation ofpolicies and programmes at the municipal level.

The biggest obstacles in achieving sustainabilityin structures, policies, programmes and processesare institutional instability and the lack ofcontinuity within and between differentGovernments, as well as within UNDP itself.For this reason, too many times, learningprocesses in support and management of projectsand programmes have been interrupted. Thetwo incoming governments in the time underconsideration (2004, 2008) carried out substan-tial staff and policy changes.While the party andpolitical configuration in the country continuesto be unstable (reflecting the non-integratedstatus of the voting majorities), the incentives forgroups in power are medium-term (four-yeartime-frame). The aggravating factor is that thereis no law framing a professional career path in thecivil service. The low tax collections seriously

limit the possibility of creating capacities in thepublic sector. UNDP has tried to strengthenNGO and community involvement, which isfundamental to the building of sustainableframeworks. It has also lent support for thedevelopment and follow-up to the Fiscal Pactproposal, a measure laid out in the PeaceAgreements but practically not implemented.

Another factor affecting sustainability is Statelegislation that, as in many developing countries,contains heavy regulations aimed at preventingcorruption. A system of competencies andregulations characterized by general mistrustconstrains the possibilities of making publicadministration more efficient, particularly in anenvironment affected by scarcity of public funds.For a public administration subject to the annualbudget that often makes it impossible to fulfilits activities and expenses plan, the temptation togo to an outside administration like UNDP,before losing a large part of the yearly budget, ishuge.The failure in achieving greater sustainabilityis also rooted in the lack of a legal frameworkencouraging a professional career path in the civilservice independent of political parties. Aftereach presidential election, almost all of the ranksof the public sector (also those at the mid andlower levels) are affected. There is a drasticchange of personnel, which blocks the action ofpublic administration during the first year ofgovernment and, at times, for prolonged periods.

Some characteristics within the UNDP programmecan have a negative effect on sustainability. Thelack of connections among projects constrainsthe capitalization of achievements when theinterventions end and can generate conflictsamong the different intervention modalities.There are also cases of small pilot initiatives (e.g.PRODDAL) that remain without follow-up,perhaps due to personnel changes or lack of aclear vision of objectives. Finally, excessivefragmentation of the programme into dozens ofshort-term projects does not help in attainingUNDP’s goals.

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

Box 2. Summary of the main findings in Chapter 4

� Democratic governance: Key achievements include the dynamization and empowerment of civilsociety, the creation of long-term planning capacities in the municipality of Guatemala City. At thebeginning, there was no conceptual framework for the promotion of dialogue between civil society andthe State and for the creation of networks of civil society associations.

� Crisis prevention and recovery: Initiatives to dignify the victims of armed conflict have been afundamental element for future national reconciliation.The conditions for the follow-up of these activitieswithout UNDP have still not been met and synergies are not always maintained with other projects in thearea of governance (PASOC I). Some interventions of UNDP in the matter of security have helped to guidediscussions on policy and strategy. Others have concentrated solely on the formative and operationalsupport to the National Police (courses, equipment) without substantial value added in regard tointerventions from other donors, PROHABITAT introduced conceptual framework and participativeapproaches in order to respond to natural disasters that can form the basis for future public strategies.

� Poverty reduction: The INDHs have a high profile and promoted debates and awareness of publicopinion on sensitive issues.With the managing of resources, UNDP contributed to more agile, neutralmanagement in education and healthcare, not always with a strong contribution to the definition ofpublic policies.The interventions in the “productive sector”were marginal.

� Environment and energy: The creation of basic capacities in the Ministry of the Environment has beensupported. Also capacities to manage natural resources (parks) were created in selected municipalities.This thematic area remains isolated in relation to the rest of the programme and still has limited visibilityin public debates.With new initiatives, attempts are being made to create stronger connections with theareas of governance and poverty reduction.

� Efficiency: The introduction of norms and procedures from the central office (e.g. Atlas) has generatedcomplaints that UNDP has become slower and more bureaucratic.

� Resource dependency:Government and donors at times encouraged the acceptance of less substantiveprojects or interventions not clearly related to the defined strategy.

� Short-termmeasures: There are initiatives to entrust the administration of State projects and funds toUNDP.On one hand, it makes management relatively more efficient, transparent and neutral. On the otherhand, it is a substitute for the need for more efficient State management and it overloads the UNDP officewith less substantive administrative activities. It is a short-term measure that, without other interventions,makes no sustainable contributions to increasing national institutional capacity in the long run.

� Risk factors: Weakness and institutional instability of the State – e.g. very low tax collection and lackof a legal framework for a civil service career that is independent of political parties – are risk factors tosustainability. Add to that problems within the UNDP programme such as limited connectivity betweenprojects, excessive fragmentation of the programmes into short-term projects and lack of exit strategies,perhaps too much compliant to short-term demands of donors or of governments.

C H A P T E R 5 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P 4 5

This section will evaluate how UNDP has addedvalue to development in Guatemala, how relevantits interventions have been, and whether it hasbeen able to respond to challenges in an equitableway and to form alliances to increase the value ofits contribution. The relevance of the contribu-tions to development not only refers to the areasand themes supported, but also to theimplementability of the support proposals inorder to achieve results.

The Peace Agreements as guiding long-termagenda. The peace process and its agreementsdefine the history of Guatemala of the lastdecade. In that sense, the historic role the UNhas played in this process must be noted.

The peace process reached its climax when theagreements were signed and the disarmamentand demobilization process was assured. TheURNG, unlike other guerrilla forces in theregion, did not have the power to ensure theconsistent start of the deep and complexprocesses proposed in the Peace Agreements, inexchange for demobilization. Given the setbacksin the agreements’ implementation from 1997 to2000 – particularly in tax, constitutional, andmilitary reforms – the pending agreements wererescheduled for the 2000-2004 period. From this,it became clear that implementation of theagreements could not simply consist of establish-ing a “list” of individual commitments awaitingfulfilment. It depended on the agreements’nature, scope, and interrelation with otherprocesses – political, social, cultural, interna-tional, etc. It was also necessary to facilitate alarger discussion process, encouraging participa-tion of all stakeholders, to achieve lasting change.

In view of the transition to the new Governmententering in January 2008, UNDP supported the

National Council of Peace Agreements (CNAP)in planning and rescheduling the 2008-2012Peace Agreements. The document recorded 45items that remained to be implemented. (Annex5) Commentators observe that there are far moreunfulfilled items than those that have beenfulfilled. This batch of non-completed items,more than 11 years after the onset of the peaceprocess, is an indicator of the sluggishness ofthe process. Furthermore, institutions createdtowards this end have neither the appropriateframework nor regulations, leading UNDP tohelp build their administrative capacities, which isarduous work due to the high turnover of personnelin public institutions. In several instances,UNDP has been the factor of greatest continuityin the follow-up of the Peace Agreements.

5.1 RELEVANCE

Positioning of UNDP. According to the 20 July1998 agreement with the GuatemalanGovernment, UNDP “will only lend cooperationin response to requests presented by theGovernment and approved by UNDP.” In otherwords, UNDP acts at the request of theGovernment. How, in reality, is the organizationpositioned?

a) The UN and UNDP played a crucialmediating role in the peace process, openingspaces and facilitating processes of dialoguebetween opposing groups, mobilizinginternational capacities and connectingprocesses. This role includes peace-buildingfunctions of mediation beyond the supportand reinforcement of Government capacities,e.g. with in-depth analysis of issues in orderto clarify national realities, or with thepromotion of capacities in civil society.Guatemala was one of the few cases in which

Chapter 5

STRATEGIC POSITIONING OF UNDP

C H A P T E R 5 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P4 6

the UN managed to combine the securityand development agendas, giving weight toboth at the same time, with the disadvantagethat MINUGUA had the power to takemeasures without much consideration fortheir sustainability after its closure, a prerog-ative UNDP does not have nor seeks.

b) The vision of the UN and UNDP in assistinga country’s development endeavours isinscribed in the legal mandate to promotehuman rights, in accordance with thecorresponding legal setting approved by theGovernment and the international community.

Role of UNDP and positioning vis-à-vis theGovernment. UNDP is an actor with visibleimportance and recognition in the country. Itcooperates not only with the State (executive,legislative, and judicial authorities) but also withcivil society, academic centres, and the privatesector. Moreover, it has an engagement withvalues expressed in terms of human development,based on human rights and with processes thatimprove the respect of human rights. To theextent that Government plans include all theseaspects, they can provide a strategic setting forUNDP involvement. However, at the level ofgeneral UNDP orientation, several informants ofthis evaluation reckoned the absence of a strongstrategy of past Governments. Moreover, theGovernment can easily be tempted to use UNDPto fill its own gaps and inefficiency, without anyperspective to strengthen State capacity. Asubstantive contribution of UNDP to thedevelopment of the country starts from a visionthat goes beyond a single Government time-frame and is oriented to the creation ofconditions for a better human development.Accomplishing the UNDP mandate does notsimply consist of responding to Governmentdemands. This position can create tensions.Representatives of the current and formergovernments mentioned the ambivalence withinthe Government and other actors (such as themedia) in requesting UNDP to provide an

increasing number of services, particularlysubstantive ones in terms of policy andimplementation advice, but making it clear thatUNDP would not impose its own positions.

Thematic dispersion. UNDP has been involvedin most areas of the Peace Agreements. Allsuch areas are, in principle, relevant to thedevelopment mandates based on human rights.However, it is difficult to specialize on everything,especially when core financial resources arelimited. This evaluation noted (Chapters 3 and 4)the dispersion of projects, particularly from 2005.The strategic guidelines of the last two schedulingcycles have been too abstract and they have notbeen translated in operational guidelines, withdefined methods and approaches.61

Such a wide range gives the UNDP officedecision-making freedom, the ability to respondto various demands of the Government and ofdonors. However, this comes with the classictrade-off between the UNDP mission (e.g. PeaceAgreements and strengthening national capaci-ties) and responding to Government and donordemands. A large number of interviewees, insideand outside of UNDP, believe the organizationhas sacrificed the former (mission, quality) infavour of the second (responding to short-termrequests, volume of the programme, financialresources) between 2005 and 2007. This trend,they state, has damaged UNDP’s position andthe perception of the value it adds. Comparingthe documentation of UNDP with inputs frominterviews, this evaluation has often noted adesire of UNDP to be present in different areas,not always with a clear approach or method. Themost recent example is the involvement ineconomic-productive projects, responding torequests from the Government, where UNDPhas little specialized knowledge.

The determinants of actual programmingorientations. In practice, UNDP programmingdecisions have been determined by four factors:

61. UNDP-G has made a first step in the area of democratic governance (Democratic governance: Identification of possible areasof cooperation, ICA, EC, UNDP, April 2008).

C H A P T E R 5 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P 4 7

� the evolution of the national context (inparticular, changing demands from theGovernment) as well as changes in interna-tional contexts and UNDP headquartersdirectives (milestones mentioned in Annex 2,Table 2.3; changes in government, newthematic and administrative guidelines fromUNDP central office);

� funding from the Government and fromdonors subject to the evolution of their prefer-ences and of their respective electoral cycles;

� the shifting preferences of the differentsenior managers of the UNDP countryoffice, who changed five times over the pasteight years;

� the limited resources available fromUNDP headquarters to offer a systematicstrategic guidance.

The lack of a precise strategy and limitedresources have been at the root of programmedispersion, a fact that has influenced the percep-tion of the role and function of UNDP inside andoutside of the organization, and not alwaysfavourably. At the same time, the most importantroles of UNDP as an objective, trustworthyand transparent player have been appreciated.The organization is recognized, in particular, as apromoter of knowledge and proposals, a facilitatorof capacities and resources at all levels, and aconnector with the power to bring togetheropposing players and a catalyst of new processes.More than just an executor of projects, it isdesired that UNDP be a high-level advisor andsupport projects that influence structuraltransformation to resolve deep-rooted problems.

5.2 RESPONSIVENESS

Analysis and proposal capacity. Ten years ago,UNDP initiated a DEX project to analyse thenational situation on human developmentthrough research of development themes,subsequently published in National Human

Development Reports (INDH). Between 1998and 2008, eight such reports have beenpublished. The INDH has become a referenceinstrument for the debate on development. Amidthe general restrictiveness in access to statisticaldata, the first reports facilitated vigorous publicdebate on human development, somethingnot always received positively by the Governmentor the traditional elites. The fundamentalreference work on the multi-ethnic characterof the country is the INDH published in 2005.The Government of the time did not accept it,arguing that it had been developed without itsparticipation and used obsolete statistics.Generally speaking, the INDH has had greatrelevance to public awareness on keys elements ofhuman development in Guatemala. The INDHinitiatives were not restricted to presentingestablished analyses, but included politicalproposals; some influenced by public policies, e.g.in the health sector or the elimination of theracial discrimination. In order to distribute nearly40,000 printed copies of the 2005 INDH, atraining of “multipliers” was conducted all overthe country.

High external profile of INDH but limited usefor formulating UNDP strategy. In 2006 acorporate-level evaluation of the INDH62 statedthat the documents have been generally success-ful. It characterized them as part of a progressiveprocess that contributes to the generation ofknowledge on the country and to creating aninstalled capacity to interpret this knowledge, aswell as, the promotion of national debate on thepolicies geared towards the poorest and mostexcluded sectors of the population. Thesefindings are endorsed by this evaluation. At thesame time, in line with the corporate evaluation,this evaluation found that UNDP has notfollowed up on the information published in theINDH in defining UNDP’s own strategies.Moreover, the impact of the reports has beenlimited to within the UNS and UNDP.

62. UNDP-EO (2006) Evaluation of the National Human Development Report System, New York.

C H A P T E R 5 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P4 8

Long-term versus short-term processes. Acorrelation is observed between the programmevolume of UNDP63 and the cycle of the variousGovernments, with a typical pattern of reductionof the volume of public programmes underUNDP management during the first year ofa new Government. After the first year,Governments have started appreciating theadvantages of working with the organization andhave tended to raise the volume of publicprogrammes under UNDP execution. UNDPhas the capacities to respond to the challenges ofdevelopment by supporting projects and publicprogrammes. Nevertheless, this capacity needs astrategy that outlasts a Government cycle.Furthermore, it needs to be based on approachesand methodologies that include exit strategies toensure better sustainability.

For NEX projects, UNDP usually carries out aninitial evaluation of the State’s execution capaci-ties. Based on this, the organization defines itsinvolvement. In the last four-year cycle, only in 5percent of the proposed projects did the Statefully meet the execution capacity requirements ofUNDP. Where public-sector capacity is limited,UNDP supports programme administration,which explains the volume of UNDPadministrative-financial-accounting personnel(48 percent of the total, Chapter 3).Therefore, theresponse capacity exists, but inside and outsideUNDP, it is questioned whether it is really theorganization’s role to manage national projectsinstead of strengthening Government institu-tions over the long term.

5.3 EQUITY

Focus on gender equality. The issue of genderslowly acquired importance in both programmecycles evaluated. The Resident Representative in2006 proposed a mainstreaming policy focusingon gender and the empowerment of women inUNS offices in the country. In 2007, an internal

initiative was developed with the aim of system-atically applying the gender focus in allprogramme areas. The activities includedresearch, analysis, a series of workshops as well aspublications that were put out at the end of 2007and beginning of 2008 (Quick Guide, GenderTraining Manual, Guide for the mainstreamingof the gender focus in the cycle of UNDPprogrammes and projects). Given the conjunc-ture of the change of the Government and thebudget of 2007 with the closing of a series ofprojects, it was not possible to observe concreteeffects of these efforts on UNDP strategy andprogrammes, aside from the ones indicated in theprevious chapter.

Inclusion of Indigenous People.After the PeaceAgreements were signed, the donors first insistedon creating conditions to solve the agrarianproblem – access to land and generation of meansof subsistence – with particular attention toindigenous peoples. Interviews with a wide rangeof people – indigenous, political, authorities ofprevious and present governments, academicleaders, etc. – as well as published analyses64

show considerable disappointment. The indige-nous leaders maintain that indigenous peoplehave remained marginalized for almost a decade.They point out that only 18 out of 158 membersof parliament are natives, despite the fact thatindigenous people consist of around 40 percentof the population. The indigenous leaders believethat a true structural transformation – a precon-dition to eliminating the discrimination againstthe indigenous peoples victimized for centuries –has not occurred.

The institutional weakness of the State – inrepresentativeness, resources, legal framework,policies, services, continuity – prevented thepromotion of opportunities for indigenouspeoples. The Agreement on the Identity of theIndigenous Peoples is the least fulfilled in termsof its expected results.

63. In 2008 this depended also on the 2007 proposal law.64. See SEPAZ: Peace agreements in Guatemala: Ten years after signing: Wasted opportunity? Pending Agenda and No

Reason to Celebrate; Guatemala, October of 2006 (see Chapter 2).

C H A P T E R 5 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P 4 9

The overview of the relevant projects executedand supported by UNDP in the field is moreencouraging (mainly in the departments ofSololá, Huehuetenango, Chiquimula and SanMarcos), since concrete advances have been madeby and in favour of indigenous people (withDIGAP, PASOC I, PROHABITAT,PRONADE and others). With the INDH,UNDP has contributed substantially to sheddinglight on the reality of the indigenous people. Inaddition to individual projects, a broader, moreclearly focused strategy on the theme of indige-nous peoples would be required and pitched atthe level of the desired development outcomes.

5.4 PARTNERSHIPS

Given its limited resources, UNDP needsalliances to fulfil its mandate and uses themwidely. This is one of the factors that explain theorganization’s high profile in Guatemala.

Alliances with State entities. Practically bymandate, UNDP has been allied with a greatnumber of State organizations, from thePresidency and the Vice-presidency to ministries,secretariats, institutes and programmes. UNDP’srelations with the public sector are constructive.Representatives from present and past govern-ments indicated that UNDP has been frequentlymentioned during official meetings. In fact, UNDPand its programme are characterized by a highvisibility in Guatemala. It is an active agency ofcooperation with the capacity to make proposals aswell as administer resources from the Governmentand bilateral and multilateral organizations.

Many times throughout this evaluation, represen-tatives of the Government, in particular of theChancellery and SEGEPLAN, expressed thedesire for UNDP help in implementing theDeclaration of Paris on the Effectiveness of theCooperation to the Development (appropriation,alignment, and harmonization). In previousnegotiations, UNDP faced the limits ofSEGEPLAN in the matter of coordination ofinternational cooperation as well as execution ofprojects by Government entities.The experiences

with the last two Governments (2004 and 2008) –particularly the considerable reductions in projectportfolios during the first year the incomingadministration – leave little room for satisfactionfrom the yardstick of implementation soundness.

Alliances with civil society.An essential elementin the promotion of democratic governance is theestablishment of alliances between State institu-tions and civil society organizations to producelegal frameworks, tools of implementation andsustainable links. Generally, UNDP has begun towork more widely with NGOs during the secondprogramming cycle considered by the presentevaluation. Some representatives of the presentand previous governments expressed reservations,considering NGOs as competitors of institu-tional roles of the State. Nevertheless, thisevaluation has been able to observe in the fieldsound interventions of NGOs, supported withinthe framework of UNDP projects. Withoutquestioning the validity of alliances with NGOs,in particular those linked to the indigenouspeoples and women, this evaluation has observedcases in the past where UNDP has supportedNGOs without creating connections with thepublic sector, a shortcoming the organization isworking to correct.

Alliances with the private sector and privatefoundations.There has been little work with thebusiness sector, given the difficulties in coopera-tion in the past. PRONACOM has been one ofthe few projects managed in this sector. Indeed,business social responsibility is in its infancy inGuatemala. The NGO Centrarse, which encour-ages a change in the private sector’s businessculture, today has 110 member companies. Theseare mostly large organizations that subscribe tocodes of values that include social responsibilitytowards the community, the law and ethics.Potential partners are emerging in the privatesector with interest in forming alliances withUNDP to execute projects with communities.

Coordination of international cooperation.UNDP has supported the national processtowards harmonization and alignment of

C H A P T E R 5 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P5 0

international cooperation in Guatemala. UNDPis currently the multilateral reference point forthe discussion group on justice and security,which is led by State institutions and benefitsfrom full participation by SEGEPLAN. At thelevel of ambassadors, Sweden presides over the“Group of 13” (G13), whose secretariat UNDPsupports. In operational terms, the donors –multilateral and bilateral – are asking for substantivesupport beyond the administration of funds,considering the principles of theDeclaration of Parison the Effectiveness of International Cooperation.Several donors agree that harmonization amongagencies that could lead to alliances to directcommon projects under a national administra-tion, would be desirable and necessary.

New challenges emerge with the presence ofdonor countries that do not participate in theG-13 concerning South-South cooperation. Inthe evaluated period, UNDP facilitated high-level technical assistance by Latin Americanexperts to the Government of Guatemala, mostrecently from Chile. UNDP recognizes that thismodality has remarkable potential, which hasbeen little exploited so far.

5.5 INTERAGENCY COOPERATIONWITHIN UNS

The UNS in Guatemala is made up of 19 agencies,funds and programmes (resident and non-resident). These organizations belong to the threelarge segments of the UN: peace and security(Security Council), development (Economic andSocial Council) and human rights (HumanRights Council.). The work of the UNS in acountry is based on UNDAF, which seeks todefine the development strategy carried out bythe UNS as a whole.

The evaluation team interviewed representativesfrom agencies relevant to the UNS developmentsegment: UNICEF, UNAIDS, UNIFEM,OPS/OMS, UNV65 and an ex-representative ofUNOPS. The interviewees consider thatUNDAF has represented an important effort ofcoordination, but has limits in its orientation.The general contents of UNDAF as well as ofthe Government strategy limit applicability.66

Interviewees note UNDP’s efforts in theexchange of information with other UNSagencies (e.g. in the context of the INDH),but also observe duplication in programmes (e.g.in the health sector or in the case of environmen-tal emergencies).67 In addition, each agencycontinues to plan its activities independently.A framework like UNDAF is a necessary but notsufficient condition to bring together theconcrete work of the different agencies; planningat a more operational level is required.

The interviewees recognize the services of UNDPin terms of resource management, personnel andacquisitions. The resources of small representa-tions such as those of UNAIDS and UNIFEMare completely run by UNDP, which managesa yearly volume of around $20 million forother UNS organizations in Guatemala. A smallorganization like UNAIDS expects greaterinvolvement from UNDP in its area, noting thatin other countries the organization is able to obtainfinancing for more substantive programmes.UNIFEM, on the other hand, applauds theexistence of an interagency gender group,with intermittent but quite substantive UNDPparticipation. Nevertheless, “mainstreaming” ofthe gender focus in the UNS is very far from thedesired level.

65. There were few common initiatives between UNDP and UNV, such as the project “Peace Promoters - promotion of cit-izens’ participation,” whose phase 3 was evaluated in 2006-2007. The results of this evaluation suggest that a more sys-tematic cooperation plan between UNDP and UNV would boost the sustainability of common initiatives and would helpcoordinate the several UNDP activities out of the capital, particularly in those municipalities where several UNDP proj-ects are implemented.

66. Advancement is observed, nonetheless, in the preparation of the positioning of political parties during election time: theproposals presented in 2007 were much better defined than those in the 2003 election, a process to which the UNDPproject of multi-party dialogue has contributed.

67. The attribution of competence between emergency interventions versus support of long-term reconstruction is not strongwithin UNS agencies.

C H A P T E R 5 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P 5 1

Box 3. Summary of the principal findings in Chapter 5

� UNDP is recognized as an element of continuity in providing follow-up to the Peace Agreements.

� In the 2005-2007 period, UNDP’s programme was characterized by thematic dispersion due to the absenceof a clear and conclusive strategy, the need to look for outside financing, the short-term demands of thevarious governments, and the shifts in the orientations of the several senior management teams of theUNDP country office without strong guidance from headquarters. It is not possible for UNDP to be aspecialist in everything; in some cases, there is a lack of clear approaches and methods, which damagesthe perception of the role played by UNDP. The National Human Development Reports have left animportant mark on the public debates, but evidence shows scarce results in the formulation of a strategyfor UNDP.

� UNDP demonstrated good response capacity to the demands of the various governments, sometimes atthe risk that its assistance remain situational, without insisting on long-term strategies. This characteristicincludes the management of public funds carried out by UNDP as a response to the lack of capacities ofthe State but without creating more long-term capacities for the country itself.

� From 2007, UNDP committed itself to adopting gender focuses in its activities.These are recent interven-tions and with the Budget Law of 2007, projects are closing, therefore, it is too early to assess results inthis field. With regard to the indigenous peoples, some UNDP-executed projects in different departmentshave made concrete progress, but there is evidence of absence of political dialogue with representativesof indigenous people.

� UNDP has worked extensively with public entities and has enjoyed high visibility and consideration inthe governmental sphere. It has worked increasingly with civil society organizations, although not alwayswith a clear conceptual framework. It has still not worked with those parts of the private sector andprivate foundations that have started to take an interest in development projects.

C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 5 3

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this ADR concludes that UNDP hasmade substantial contributions to humandevelopment in Guatemala in the presentdecade, but that its strategy has not beensufficiently cogent to avoid a dispersion of activi-ties in the second programming cycle underconsideration. Its positioning resulting from itspeace-building role in the 1990s is increasinglychallenged by emerging development issues.

1. In Guatemala, the UN combined the peace-building mandate of the General Assembly withpost-conflict development interventions,leading to the high visibility and reputationUNDP still enjoys with national authorities.

Guatemala has been one of the not-so-frequentcases in which the United Nations closelycombined the peace-building mandate of itsGeneral Assembly with post-conflict develop-ment, as a recent UNDP Thematic Evaluationconfirmed68. During the initial period covered bythis evaluation, MINUGUA supported peace-building efforts with an important presence inthe country in terms of staff and attributions.The main purpose was to help establish andimplement the Peace Agreements and heal thewounds of three decades of internal armedconflict and human rights violations, particularlyagainst indigenous peoples. Along withMINUGUA, UNDP provided ample technicalassistance and project management services,appreciated by both the Guatemalan authoritiesand donors.

This history strongly marked UNDP’s strategyand portfolio, involving it in many parts of the

Peace Accord agenda signed at the end of 1996.Today UNDP in Guatemala is recognized as aneutral agency, a broker, facilitator and promoterof dialogue on sensitive issues and betweenopposite groups. It has gained substantial reputa-tion, visibility and credibility in the country.

2.UNDP has generated considerable valueaddition in the areas of governance and crisisprevention and recovery; they will continueto be important for UNDP and the country.UNDP’s record is less strong in povertyreduction, energy and environment.Yet withthe outbreak of the global economic crisis, thelatter two areas will rise in importance andmay require a revision of UNDP’s strategy,challenging its past priorities in the country.

UNDP managed to build a relatively solidprogramme in governance and crisis preventionand recovery, with some cases of good practices atthe regional level. The record is less strong in theareas of poverty and environment, with thenotable exception of the National HumanDevelopment Report (INDH) and connectedactivities, which were not sufficiently taken intoaccount in strategy formulation. Yet poverty andenvironment are likely to acquire moreprominence in the near future: the firstsymptoms of the global crisis have become visiblein early 2009 in Guatemala, with an invertedflow of migration and decreasing remittances forthe first time in many years.

UNDP has strong analytical capacity and experi-ence in the social sectors through its INDHgroup. It has been relatively successful insupporting the implementation of social public

Chapter 6

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

68. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Evaluation of UNDPAssistance to Conflict-Affected Countries, Case Study Guatemala’, 2006

C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S5 4

programmes but less so in helping to shape therelated policies and in providing high-leveladvisory support to decision makers. Its environ-mental agenda has been driven by externalfunding (GEF) and has limited visibility in thecountry. UNDP has little experience inpromoting economic-productive programmes forpoverty reduction in Guatemala.

3.While UNDP has made efforts to introducestrategic planning in this decade, the effectshave been relatively weak in terms of orientingand improving its programmes. This is partlydue to the complexities of the political andsocio-economic context of Guatemala andpartly attributable to a number of systemicand organizational factors within UNDP.

The context in Guatemala has been character-ized by deep divisions in the population, reflectedin a shifting political party spectrum.The evalua-tion has perceived a high variability of policiesand directions within and between governmentsin Guatemala, also as a consequence of weakcoalitions since the Peace Accords. Furthermore,overall tax collection has traditionally beenvery low, and the legal framework for publicadministration is complicated, impairing effectivegovernment action.

In this context, UNDP Guatemala’s strongdependence on external resources providedincentives to respond to shifting externaldemands for its services, not always in accordancewith its substantive mandate. And internally,UNDP has been perceived as an institution inpermanent change. Resources and tools havebeen limited for substantive support from theheadquarters to the country office. Seniormanagement of the UNDP country officechanged frequently in the evaluated period, withconsequent changes in priorities. Against thisscenario, the strategy defined by UNDP and itspartners has retained little power to orient itsactivities. At the country level, no strongmechanisms (e.g., an advisory council with high-level members from major sectors in the country)are in place to introduce greater continuity in theachievement of its strategic objectives beyondgovernment cycles.

In the second programming cycle evaluated,a portfolio of activities emerged which wascharacterized by smaller projects of shorterduration in a broader spectrum of areas, mostlywithout a defined exit strategy, all under thebroad roof of the approved CPD and UNDAF.Moreover, when acting “upon demand” of theGovernment, such as in the case of the manage-ment of public programmes, UNDP has notalways kept a balance between short-termrequests and long-term development goals noralways contributed to longer-term capacitybuilding of national institutions.

4.The effectiveness of the support ofinternational cooperation and UNDP for thedevelopment and security agenda of the PeaceAgreements has been moderate; twelve yearsafter they were signed, a sobering recognitionof limited advances in attaining their objectivesprevails, pointing also to the need for a moreeffective use of international resources.

Both representatives of the indigenous peoples aswell as the Government, when analysing theprogress in the implementation of the PeaceAgreements in the latter stages of the previousgovernment (November 2007), presented asobering account on the achievements so far, inparticular for the indigenous peoples. Crucialsocio-economic structures such as access to andownership of production factors, inclusioninto political decision centres, and enforcementof human and civil rights changed little.International cooperation and UNDP, whileproviding support in many public areas, haveproduced limited results for a more equaldevelopment in favour of disadvantaged groups,and of indigenous peoples in particular.

In the field of security, due to the configurationof the political forces in the country and limitedpublic and external commitment including fromUNDP, the spread-out support could not reversea continuously worsening situation of violenceand insecurity in Guatemala during the periodunder consideration, and this during a time ofeconomic stability and growth. The most citedindicator is the homicide rate which hasincreased every year and doubled during this

C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 5 5

period69. For both the development and thesecurity agenda, there is an urgent need to betteralign and harmonize international developmentcooperation with government policies andlocal efforts, calling for national professionalcoordination capacities to be strengthened, a roleUNDP could support, at the request of thegovernment, to a greater extent than has beenthe case.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

This ADR recommends that UNDP takeadvantage of the opportunity of programming anew cycle in the country to redefine its strategicpositioning. Twelve years after the end of thearmed conflict and the signing of the PeaceAgreements, Guatemala and its context haveevolved, challenging UNDP to adapt its roleand strategy. For the new planning cycle 2010-2014, the present evaluation recommends arevisiting of UNDP strategy, orientation and rolein the country.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEUNDP OFFICE IN GUATEMALA

Strategies and programmatic areas

1. UNDP should establish priorities betweenand within its thematic areas and prepare aspecific strategy in each thematic area,highlighting synergies within the UNDPprogrammes and linkages with plans of otherUN agencies. In particular: (i) the area ofpublic security will require special attentiondue to the high social and opportunity cost ofthe current weak security conditions; (ii)UNDP needs to clarify the role that itintends to play and the value addition itintends to bring in the areas of povertyreduction, energy and the environment.While UNDP’s strategic positioning in theseareas is low-key, they are likely to stronglyimpact the political agenda in the country inthe coming years.

2. The two cross-cutting issues of gender andindigenous people require increasedattention at the strategic level: it isrecommended that a gender equitydimension be explicitly included in theprogramming of future activities, based onthe existing guidelines. Furthermore, thesocial, political and economic inclusion ofindigenous people should be an integral partof UNDP’s political dialogue.

3. UNDP should rebalance its support to theGovernment in favour of increased high-level advisory services to the Executive,Legislative and Judicial powers, reducing theemphasis on the provision of programmeadministration services. At the same time, thefocus on the regional level should be increased,in terms of themes and resources, in view ofregional integration and common challenges.

4. UNDP should accompany its projectmanagement services with an insistence onan improvement in the conditions for publicadministration capacities; this requires, in thefirst place, stronger support for the modern-ization of the State, especially to achieve(i) a professional public administration careerwhich is independent of political parties;(ii) increased democratic and multipartydialogue; (iii) the renewal of the FiscalPact for a wider-ranging and progressivetax collection; and (iv) the review of lawsthat encroach upon the administration ofGovernment policies and programmes.

5. Although UNDP acts upon requests fromthe Government, it should not coincide itsstrategic planning with the electoral cyclesbut should express its commitment withdevelopment objectives in the countrythrough long-term strategic plans (from sixto eight years), in a planning cycle withreviews every two or three years (one,evidently, after a change of Government).

69. A 2006 UNDP Guatemala study, The Economic Cost of Violence in Guatemala, estimated that violence had cost7.3 percent of GDP, or close to $2.4 billion in health lost, institutional costs, private security expenses, investmentclimate and material losses.

C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S5 6

6. Projects and programmes should beestablished with longer duration, largervolume and defined exit strategies inaccordance with strategic plans, in order toachieve greater sustainability of the effectsof UNDP support.

Organizational aspects

7. Unexpected external shocks and multipleinfluences on programme decisions require astrengthening of reflection and periodicreview of the strategic orientation of theUNS and UNDP in the course of theprogramme cycles; one recommendedmeasure is to institutionalize a high-leveladvisory mechanism in the country whichrepresents its major sectors and supportssenior management in shaping and main-taining its long-term strategy.

8. Reinforce communication and strategicleadership within and between the countryoffice programmatic teams by strengtheningintegration at an intermediate managementlevel. It is also recommended that advisors,directors and officers of proven experience –including the IDNH team – be involved inthe formulation of strategies.

9. Reinforce the function of monitoring andevaluation at the UNDP project andprogramme level in order to establish a moresystematic evaluation of the developmenteffects and outcomes. In parallel, the capacitiesof the Government to monitor and evaluatethe implementation and results of its sectoralpolicies should be supported.

Coordination, harmonization andcooperation with partners

10. Given the universal nature of the UnitedNations, it is recommended that UNDP

differentiate itself from the image of being “adevelopment agency among others”,reinforcing its role as a neutral, transparentand professional coordinator in the fieldof external development cooperation inGuatemala; it is also well positioned tosupport the Government when and where itrequests help to better comply with the ParisAgenda regarding development effectiveness.

11. Within the UN system, it is recommendedthat UNDP support a process of greaterharmonization among the agendas of eachagency, with a comparison of annual projectportfolios already at the planning stage,eliminating duplication and acting with onevoice where pertinent from the perspective ofthe national authorities.

12. Regarding policy dialogue with partners,opportunities should be increased for collab-oration with the private sector on the issue ofcorporate social responsibility, includingprivate, national and overseas foundations.

RECOMMENDATIONS TOTHE HEADQUARTERS

13. In view of the past high turnover of UNDPsenior country office management, the ADRrecommends creating incentives for a longerpermanence of senior management staff.

14. The Regional Bureau should assume a moresystematic role in the strategic and program-matic support towards the country office,from its central office in New York and/orfrom its sub-regional office in Panama. Thedivision of functions and work betweenRBLAC and the office in Guatemala shouldbe defined with greater precision.

A N N E X 1 . G U A T E M A L A : S O C I O - E C O N O M I C I N D I C A T O R S 5 7

Annex 1

GUATEMALA: SOCIO-ECONOMICINDICATORS

Table 1.1 Guatemala: Key socio-economic indicators

Key socioe-Economic indicators 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Agriculture, value added (% of GDP) 22.8 22.6 22.5 22.7 22.9 22.8 22.2

Cash surplus/deficit (% of GDP) -1.8 -1.7 -0.9 -2.3 -0.9 -1.5 -1.7

Energy use (kg of fuel per capita) 636.4 635.5 626.2 603.2 610.6 628.4 ..

Export of goods and services (% of GDP) 20.2 18.8 17.1 16.7 17.0 15.7 15.7

External debt, total (current $ millions) 3,853 4,288 4,432 5,082 5,530 5,348 5,496

Fertility rate, total (births per woman) 4.8 .. 4.6 .. .. 4.3 4.2

Fixed and mobile telephone subscribers(per 100 people)

13.7 16.5 20.5 24.6 34.7 45.3 65.5

GDP (actual in $ millions) 19,291 20,978 23,268 24,881 27,399 31,717 35,352

GDP growth (annual %) 3.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.7 3.2 4.5

GNI per capita, PPP (currentinternational $)

4,310 4,440 4,460 4,540 4,680 4,860 5,120

Gross capital formation (% of GDP) 17.8 17.8 19.1 18.8 19.8 19.0 18.7

Immunizations,measles (% of childrenbetween 12 and 23 months)

88.0 91.0 92.0 94.0 95.0 94.0 95.0

Import of goods and services (% of GDP) 29.0 29.0 29.5 29.4 31.1 30.2 30.6

Improvement of urban sanitation (% ofurban population with access)

85.0 .. .. .. 90.0 .. ..

Improvement of water provision (% ofurban population with access)

91.0 .. .. .. 95.0 .. ..

Revenue sharing kept under 20% 3.5 .. 2.9 .. 3.9 .. ..

Industry, value added (% del PBI) 19.8 19.6 19.3 19.2 18.9 18.9 19.1

Inflation, GDP deflator (annual %) 6.8 7.6 8.0 6.3 7.0 7.8 6.3

Internet users (per 100 persons) 0.7 1.7 3.4 4.5 6.1 7.9 10.1

Life expectancy at birth, total (years) 67.9 .. 68.9 .. .. 69.7 69.9

Prevalence of malnutrition, weightper age (% of children under 5)

.. .. 17.7 .. .. .. ..

Commercialization of markets (% of GDP) 38.8 38.5 50.8 50.59 53.0 50.1 50.8

Military expenditures (% of GDP) 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4

Mortality rate under 5 years age(per 1,000)

53.0 .. .. .. .. 43.0 41.0

A N N E X 1 . G U A T E M A L A : S O C I O - E C O N O M I C I N D I C A T O R S5 8

Table 1.1 (contd) Guatemala: Key socio-economic indicators

Key socio-economic indicators 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Official development assistance andofficial aid (current in $ millions)

263.5 226.5 248.3 246.8 220.2 254.2 487.2

Population growth (annual %) 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Population in millions 11.2 11.5 11.8 12.1 12.4 12.7 13

Prevalence of HIV, total (% of populationbetween age15-49)

.. .. .. 0.9 .. 0.9 ..

Primary school completion rate, total (%of group in relevant age)

57.7 60.3 64.1 65.2 69.8 73.7 76.5

Ratio of girls to boys in primaryeducation (%)

88.9 89.6 90.1 90.6 91.1 91.6 92.3

Services, etc., value added (% of GDP) 57.4 57.8 58.2 58.1 58.2 58.3 58.7

Total service debt (% of export of goods,services and revenues)

8.4 8.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 4.8 4.8

Remittances of workers and employeecompensation, receipt ($ millions)

596 634 1,600 2,147 2,592 3,033 3,626

Source:World Bank Group (2008)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Figure 1.2 Flow of Direct Foreign Investment 1990–2007 py/

Source:Guatemala Central Bank

Note: does not include income from State asset privatizationp/: 2006- Preliminarypy/: Projected numbers

MillionsUSDollars

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

A N N E X 1 . G U A T E M A L A : S O C I O - E C O N O M I C I N D I C A T O R S 5 9

Goals,Targets and Indicators Years/Value 2015Goal

Likelihood ofachieving*1

Goal 1-Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Potentially

Target 1. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income isless than $1 a day

1989 2006

Extreme poverty (people in millions) 1.6 2.0 9.05

Total poverty (people in millions) 5.4 6.6 31.4

Target 2. Halve,between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of peoplewho suffer fromhunger

1987 2002

Percentage of children under the age of 5 who are underweight 33.5 22.7 16.8

Percentage of children under the age of 5 who are below normalheight

57.9 49.3 29.0

Goal 2-Achieve universal primary education Potentially

Target 3. Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike,will be able tocomplete a full primary course

1991 1996

Net enrollment ratio in primary education 71.6 94.5 100

Pupils who enroll in first grade and reach sixth grade 35.9a/ 60.0b/ 100

Literacy rate among the 15-24 age group 76.0a/ 87.8c/ 100

Goal 3-Promote gender equality and empower women Unlikely

Target 4. Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferablyby 2005 and in all levels of education no later than 2015

1991 2006

Ratio of girls to boys in primary education 0.99 0.96 1.0

Ratio of girls to boys in the basic cycle of secondary education 0.91 0.92 1.0

Ratio of girls to boys in the diversified cycle of higher education 1.08 1.04 1.0

1994 1996

Ratio of women to men in higher education 0.54 0.88 1.0

Ratio of literate women to men in the 15-24 age group 0.85 0.93 1.0

1989 2006

Share of women in wage employment in the non-agriculturalsector

35.0 38.3 ---

1990 2007

Seats held by women in parliament 0.7 12.0 ---

Table 1.2 Millennium Development Goals and probability of achieving them

A N N E X 1 . G U A T E M A L A : S O C I O - E C O N O M I C I N D I C A T O R S6 0

Table 1.2 (contd) Millennium Development Goals and probability of achieving them

Goals,Targets and Indicators Years/Value 2015Goal

Likelihood ofachieving*1

Goal 4-Reduce child mortality Potentially

Target 5.Reduce by three-quarters,between 1990 and 2015, the under-fivemortality rate

1987 2002

Under 5 mortality rate (for every 1,000 live births) 110 53 37

Infant mortality rate (for every 1,000 live births) 73 38 24

Percentage of children under one vaccinated against measles 55 72c/ 100

Goal 5-Improve maternal health Unlikely

Target 6.Reduce by three-quarters,between 1990 and 2015, thematernal mortality ratio

1989 2006

Maternal mortality ratio (for every 1,000 live births) 248 133 62.0

1987 2002

Medically assisted births 29.2 41.4 ---

Goal 6-Combat HIV/AIDS,malaria and other diseases Unlikely

Target 7. Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS

HIV prevalence (in percentage) 1995 2007

Pregnant women who seek prenatal care services 0.2 0.5 ---

Population between the ages of 15 and 49 years 0.4 0.9 ---

Sex workers 2.3 5.3 ---

Uniformed soldiers based in stations 0.4 0.8 ---

Inmates 1.5 2.3 ---

Goal 7-Ensure environmental sustainability Potentially

Target 9. Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies andprogrammes and reverse the loss of environmental resources

1990 2005

Forested land areas (%) 40.0 40.0d/ ---

Ratio of protected area to maintain biological diversity tosurface area

24.0 30.0 ---

Energy supply (apparent consumption kg oil equivalent per$1,000 (PPP) GDP)

148 157e/ ---

Carbon dioxide emissions annual per capita (tonnes) 0.47 1.0 ---

Target 10. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safedrinking water and basic sanitation

1990 2006

Sustainable access to water 63.0 78.7 82.0

Access to better sanitation services 32.0 54.5 66.0

A N N E X 2 . I N F O R M A T I O N O N U N D P A N D U N D P - G O F F I C E 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 8 6 1

Annex 2

INFORMATION ON UNDP ANDUNDP-G OFFICE 2001-2008

Table 2.1 Budget of projects in each programme cycle by expected outcomes

Expected Outcomes No. ofprojects

Budget(in US$)

Average amountper project ($)

Strategy 2001-2004 78 356,289,265 4,567,811

1. Greater use of sustainable human developmentconcepts by decision-makers in the formulation andimplementation of policies.

8 7,012,602 876,575

2. Consolidation and total incorporation of the peaceprocess into the national agenda.

11 41,828,075 3,802,552

3. A UN system that is better coordinated and strength-ened, focusing its efforts on total implementation of thePeace Agreements and human development.

0 0

4. Development and implementation of the national anti-poverty strategy through a consultative process.

3 22,212,300 7,404,100

5. Improved national capacity for monitoring humanpoverty and income and inequality.

2 742,629 371,314

6. A national framework of policy reform with a goal ofuniversal access to basic services.

3 13,023,179 4,341,060

7. National machinery in place for the formulation ofpolicy and strategy related to the advancement of womenand gender equality.

2 651,234 325,617

8. Improved quality of decision-making based on theevaluation of genders and the integration of statistics andinformation on gender-related issues.

0 0

9. Improved efficiency and equality in the rendering ofpublic services.

13 114,083,958 8,775,689

10. Regulatory frameworks revised to provide secure rightsto the poor as users of produced goods and finances.

0 0

11. A global approach towards sustainable environmentaldevelopment integrated into the national developmentplanning and linked with poverty reduction.

4 1,187,504 296,876

12. Improved capacity of authorities for planning andimplementing approaches integrated into environmentaladministration and energy development which respond tothe needs of the poor.

5 3,583,324 716,665

13. Improved regional capacity to coordinate and reconcilethe national policies and programmes for the administra-tion of shared natural resources and the sustainabledevelopment of energy, according to the Conventions onClimate Change and Biodiversity.

1 1,295,744 1,295,744

A N N E X 2 . I N F O R M A T I O N O N U N D P A N D U N D P - G O F F I C E 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 86 2

Table 2.1 (contd) Budget of projects in each programme cycle by expected outcomes

Expected Outcomes No. ofprojects

Budget(in US$)

Average amountper project ($)

14. Disaster reduction and national response system inoperation.

2 282,302 141,151

15. Sustainable reintegration of the population affected bythe internal conflict.

0 0

16. Fair and efficient administration of justice. 3 3,178,828 1,059,609

17. Involvement of local and community authorities inrural and local areas in the planning and administrationand even the provision of public services.

10 134,923,281 13,492,328

18. Consensus reached at the community and nationallevels and strategic alliances established for the consolida-tion of peace and for sustainable human development.

11 12,284,306 1,116,755

Strategy 2005-2008 108 144,420,476 1,337,227

1.1. Greater incorporation of human development princi-ples in the national debate and political policies.

27 19,737,474 731,018

2.1. Greater degree of knowledge and exercise of non-discrimination rights.

5 3,481,756 696,351

3.1. A system of justice and democratic security with agreater strategic leadership capacity and with strength-ened human resources in technical, operational andcoordinational capacities.

13 11,090,552 853,119

3.2. Reform and State modernization process advanced inaccordance with national priorities.

16 51,073,070 3,192,067

4.1. Greater transparency and efficiency in the administra-tion of public services.

32 37,193,644 1,162,301

5.1. Strengthened exercise of citizenship rights inrepresentative bodies and spaces of dialogue andconsensus building.

7 11,494,940 1,642,134

5.2. Greater degree of continuity and coherence in theapplication of policies and the execution of the commit-ments derived from the Peace Agreements.

8 10,349,039 1,293,630

A N N E X 2 . I N F O R M A T I O N O N U N D P A N D U N D P - G O F F I C E 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 8 6 3

Table 2.2 Budget and number of projects executed directly (DEX) and executed by publicnational (NEX) or private (NGO) or regional (REX) counterparts during the programme cycle

BUDGET IN DOLLARS

Area 2001-2004 2005-2008

DEX NEX Total DEX NEX NGO REX Total

Democraticgovernance

17,111,259 223,416,081 240,527,340 5,854,907 43,664,597 49,519,503

Crisis preventionand recovery

8,336,530 33,697,647 42,034,177 17,945,430 10,187,162 8,192,409 36,325,001

Poverty reduction 5,067,164 65,000,503 70,067,666 1,168,957 40,764,157 4,092,102 500,000 46,525,216

Energy andenvironment

134,140 3,525,943 3,660,083 543,639 1,527,033 9,980,084 12,050,756

General total 30,649,092 325,640,173 356,289,265 24,969,293 95,159,555 13,811,544 10,480,084 144,420,476

NUMBER OF PROJECTS

Democraticgovernance

19 28 47 6 28 34

Crisis preventionand recovery

3 7 10 19 9 16 44

Poverty reduction 4 10 14 1 12 5 1 19

Energy andenvironment

1 6 7 7 3 1 11

General total 27 51 78 26 56 24 2 108

External event Effects in the country

The surprisingly negative result of a referendum inMay1999 - with less than 25% voter participation. (The referen-dum proposed almost 50 changes to the Constitution infavour of greater equality for the indigenous.)

� Disappointment and a demobilizing effect on theimplementation of the Peace Agreements

� Need to strengthen the participation of civil society

In 2001, Guatemala pledged its support to thechievement of the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs), without, however, developing a strategy toreduce poverty.

� Competence for the dynamic of a internationaldevelopment agenda

� Poverty reduction as new international strategicframework of development

ll farmers and indigenous day labourers.This alsocaused a crisis in the system of coffee cooperatives,which since the 1960s had contributed to raising thiscrop as one of the country's largest exports.

� Increase in poverty

� Expulsion/migration towards the United Statesof America

� Loss of credibility of the cooperative system

In September 2005, tropical storm Stan increased theexposure of destructive national phenomena, exposingthe State's lack of response capability.

� Consciousness of crisis and the need to take preven-tive measures and increase response capability

Table 2.3 Examples of external events that impacted UNDP-G planning

Source: Developed from UNDP-G data

Source: ADR Development

A N N E X 2 . I N F O R M A T I O N O N U N D P A N D U N D P - G O F F I C E 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 86 4

Quality of theprogrammes

Customersatisfaction

Internal efficiency Training anddevelopment

Financial resources

� Annualobjectivesachieved

� Ratio ofprogrammeexpenditureswithin thedevelopmentfocus areas

� Governmentsatisfaction

� UN satisfaction,IFI, donors andother actors

� Websiteupdated toreflect keyUNDP priorities

� Implementation of audit recommendations

� Management efficiency ratio

� Quality of financial data

� Balance of gender in professional positions

� Joint programmes

� Staff perception

� NEX audit management

� Main projects managed and monitored by Atlas

� MOSS conformity of UNDP operations

� Participationin KnowledgeNetwork

� Knowledgeshared amongcountry offices

� Participationin trainingprogramme

� Cost recoveredfrom the cost-sharing of countryprogramme

� Cost recoveredfrom trust fundsand cost-sharingwith third parties

� Programmeexpenditures

� Non-centralresources mobilized

Table 2.4 Criteria of UNDP Balanced Scorecard (2007)

Figure 2.1 Organizational Chart of the UNDP Office - Guatemala

Oficiald

eProgramaFTANOC

Oficiald

eProgramaSC

NOB

Oficiald

eProgramaSC

NOB

OficialdeProgramaSCNOC

Oficiald

eProgramaFTANOB

Oficiald

eProgramaSC

NOB

Oficiald

eProgramaSC

NOB

Oficiald

eProgramaFTANOC

Energia y MediaAmbiente

Prevenciyn yRecuperaciynde la Crisis

GobernabilidadDemocrótica

Reducciyn dela Pobreza

GerenteFinanciero

GerenteAdministrativo

Gerente deRRHH

Analista deAcquisicionesFRA (NOB)

PSU FTA(NOA)

AdministradorRedes y Com.

SC (G7)

DIGAP

PASOC

DiólogoMultioartudario

Asociado de Informaciyny Comunicaciyn (G6)

Oficial de Monitoreo yEvaluaciya SC (NOB)

Gerente deOperacionesFTA (NOC)

GerenciaFinanciera

GerenciaAdministrative

Gerencia deRRHH

Adquisiciynde Bienesy Servicios

Informaciyn yTecnologua

COORDINADOR RESIDENTEREPRESENTANTE PRESIDENTE

PNUDFTA Internacional

DIRECTORA DE PAKS ADJUNTAFTA Internacional

Asociada EjectutivaRR/R1.076"

Asistente DP SC (GS 5)

Asesores

INDH

DIRECTOR DE PAKSFTA Internacional

Asesor Nacional en Desasters(OCHA) SC NOR

Oficial de Programas AC NOV

Puestos financiados conpresupuesto CORE 2300

Puestos financiados porpresupuesto XB 11300

Puestos financiados por fuentesajenas a PNUD GUA (JPO)

Source: UNDP-G

A N N E X 3 . S A M P L E O F P R O J E C T S S E L E C T E D B Y T H E A D R G U A T E M A L A 6 5

Annex 3

SAMPLE OF PROJECTS SELECTEDBY THE ADR GUATEMALA

Non-italicized projects = Cabinet Study ofdocumentation

Italicized projects = Cabinet Study andinterviews with partners and users in the capital

Italicized projects and * = Cabinet Study andinterviews with partners and users in the capitaland interviews in the field

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

� PRONACOM

� SIAF

� OBSERVANCE OF WATERAND SANITATION

� LAND REGISTRY*

� METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT

� STRENGTHENING OF THEDEVELOPMENT COUNCILS

� INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENINGOF THE SECRETARIAT OF AGRICUL-TURAL AFFAIRS

� PRODDAL

� PROGRAM OF ALLIANCES WITH CIVILSOCIETY-PASOC I*

� MECOVI GUATEMALA

CRISIS PREVENTION AND RECOVERY

� DIGAP*

� SUPPORT TO THE IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE NATIONAL INDEMNITYPROGRAM

� INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENINGOF DEMI

� RISKS AND DEVELOPMENT

� STRENGTHENING OF THE NATIONALCIVIL POLICE PHASE III

� IMPROVEMENT OF GOVERNMENTCAPACITIES IN THE RECONSTRUC-TION PROCESS

� CITIZEN SECURITY AND PREVEN-TION OF VIOLENCE

� POST-STAN RESPONSE ANDREHABILITATION PROGRAM

� PROHABITAT *

� UNIT OF ANALYSIS ANDSTRATEGIC PROP. FOR THEACOMP. OF THE PEACEAGREEMENTS

� PEACE AS A FOUNDATION FORDEVELOPMENT

� RECOVERY OF THE HISTORICARCHIVE OF THE NATIONAL POLICY

POVERTY REDUCTION

� HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT

� AIDS PREVENTION AND CONTROL

� MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENTGOALS

� PRODEL IN HUEHUETENANGOAND QUICHE

� ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT OFWOMEN PROGRAM

� EDUCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION*

� BILINGUAL EDUCATION MULTIPLIERPROJECT

� FOREST FIRE PREVENTIONSYSTEM

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

� SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENT EAST

� MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL PARKS*

PROGRAMME CRITERIA (TOR)AND ADR SUB-CRITERIA

EFFECTIVENESSADR Sub-criteria

� Proposal of methods/approaches

� Institutional strengthening

� Produce/promote change inpartner behaviour

� Create/promote knowledge/information/formation of public agendas

� Potential (or actual) effect inproblem-solving

EFFICIENCYADR Sub-criteria

(Programmes)

� Training in project administration

� Agility/flexibility

� Greater resources

� Institutional credibility, depoliticization

� Bureaucracy

� Transfer of goods

� Cascades of subcontracts

(Of the Office)

� Organization/Organizational chart

� Programme definitions, M&E

� Project execution (respecting timelines)

� Resource management (level of execution)

� UNDP Scorecard

SUSTAINABILITYADR Sub-criteria

� Policy

� Institutional

� Resources

� Exit strategy

STRATEGIC CRITERIA (TOR)AND ADR SUB-CRITERIA

RELEVANCEADR Sub-criteria

� Theme

� Articulation

� Knowledge

� Partners

� Strategic vision

RESPONSE CAPACITYADR Sub-criteria

� Long-term processes

� Circumstantial processes

� Resources (availability and mobilization)

EQUITYADR Sub-criteria

� Gender

� Indigenous peoples

� Geographical focalization

ASSOCIATIVITYADR Sub-criteria

� Mandate and partners

� Harmonization of agency assistance

� Interagency coordination

� Political dialogue

� Private-sector partnership

A N N E X 4 . E V A L U A T I O N C R I T E R I A A N D S U B - C R I T E R I A 6 7

Annex 4

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SUB-CRITERIA

A N N E X 5 . P E N D I N G C O M M I T M E N T S O F T H E P E A C E A G R E E M E N T S 6 9

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

EDUCATION

� 50 percent increase in public spendingcompared to that of 1995

� Total incorporation of school-agedpopulation

� Significant increase in bilingualeducation coverage

HEALTHCARE

� 50 percent increase in public spendingcompared to that of 1999

� Strengthening of preventative healthcareand reduction in percentages of infant andmaternal mortality

� Establishment of decentralization anddeconcentration mechanisms that guaranteecommunity participation in the promotionof healthcare

� Improvement of efficiency and quality ofhealthcare spending

HOUSING

� Earmarking a mínimum of 1.5 percent oftax revenues to be spent on housing

LAND AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

� Approval of Rural Development Lawby Congress

� Creation of agricultural tribunals

� Productive projects programme

� Completion of the recording of landregistry information

FISCAL POLICY

� Organize a pact to consolidate fiscal policyand concrete measures that allow theachievement of goals established in thePeace Agreements and complete pendingprocesses established in the Fiscal Pactof 2000

� Take corresponding action to ensure a50 percent tax receipt increase comparedto that of 1995

SECURITY AND DEFENCE

� Approve a series of laws (Public Order,Security Framework Law, of Arms andMunitions, Law of Private Businesses andSecurity, Reform to the Law establishingthe Army, Intelligence Framework Law,Law of Habeas Data, Law of Free Accessto Information)

� Transfer of Registry of Weapons to theMinistry of the Interior

� Reform of the National Civil Police

� Strengthening of supervisory functions ofthe governors in citizen security at thedepartmental level

� Creation of communication channelsbetween municipalities, PNC andpopulation to monitor police labour

LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

� Approve constitutional reforms containedin the Peace Agreements

� Ratification of the Rome Statute(International Criminal Court)

Annex 5

PENDING COMMITMENTSOF THE PEACE AGREEMENTS

A N N E X 5 . P E N D I N G C O M M I T M E N T S O F T H E P E A C E A G R E E M E N T S7 0

HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUSTICE

� Develop legal norms for the recognition ofindigenous peoples for the handling of theirinternal affairs in accordance with theircustomary norms

� Creation of a career for those in the PublicMinistry

� Put in operation the InternationalCommission against Impunity inGuatemala

� Regularize and consolidate the coordinationof institutions of justice and public security

� Examine and increase the number of judgesand interpreters in the judicial system

� Full functioning of the National Institute ofForensic Sciences

� Reform to Laws: Protection, organizationjudicial, tenancy, additional qualification,penal process code, civil and merchantprocess code, penal code, notorial law

SITUATION OF WOMEN

� Approval of law: to regulate domesticlabour, and to combat sexual assault

� Room for the political and economic partic-ipation of women on a basis of equality,including in the adjudication of lands, accessto credit and other productive resourcesand technologies, from work training tohousing, recognition of women as agricul-tural workers (valuation, remuneration)

� Disclose and fulfil the Convention on theElimination of all Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women, also in education

� Implement national comprehensivehealthcare programmes

INDIGENOUS PEOPLESAND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

� Revision of legislation in order toeliminate/modify the norms that result inthe discrimination of the indigenous peoples(including those related to sexual assault,national languages, definition of sacred

places, national cultural heritage, radiocommunications)

� Deepen the norms on the right to thepromotion, respect and use of indigenousdress in private and public establishments

� Implementation of the Universidad Maya

� Nationalize and implement indigenousrights and Mayan rights

� Examine and increase the number of judgesand interpreters in the judicial system aspart of a guarantee of due process, and toimplement a judicial career path for indige-nous professionals

� Regularization, legalization and acquisitionof lands for the development of indigenouscommunities through the Lands Fund

� Guarantee continuity to the DevelopmentCouncil System (national, departmental,municipal and community)

� Promote training of municipal anddepartmental officers on social audits, andtraining of social audits commissions inthe respective councils

RECONCILIATION

� Institutional strengthening of theNational Recompensation Programme,and approval of its law

� Approve the Enforced Disappearances Law

STATE REFORM

� Approve the Civil Service Law of theExecutive Body in order to professionalizepublic service and public management

INSTITUTIONALITY OF PEACE

� Integrate complementary agencies intothe CAAP

� Ratify and increase functioning ofCommissions (incorporation of the URNGinto Legality, Educational Reform Board,Parity of Lands)

A N N E X 5 . P E N D I N G C O M M I T M E N T S O F T H E P E A C E A G R E E M E N T S 7 1

PENDING ASPECTS OFA TEMPORARY NATURE

� Renew legal validity of the TemporaryCommission of Base AgreementFollow-up for the incorporation of theURNG into legality

� Conclude the land adjudication cases andfinalize the negotiation of conditions ofpayment of the farms acquired

� Conclude the construction of the housingunits already approved and categorizepending applications

� The Ministry of Public Health mustincrease the coverage and improve thequality of services in the areas of settlementof the demobilized and the uprooted,particularly in: healthcare services, water

and basic sanitation, infrastructure andminimum equipment, strengthening ofmanagement of the municipal health district

� Recognition of formal and non-formalstudies of the promoters of healthcareand midwifery

� Establish monitoring mechanismsof persons disabled by the domesticarmed conflict

� Continue the exhumation process, withthe goal of clarifying the whereabouts ofthe ex-combatants who died during thearmed conflict

� Administrative ratification of the“Support Development for SustainableIncorporation” Project

Source: Developed from the evaluation

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E 7 3

PEOPLE INTERVIEWED

UNDP GUATEMALA

Beat Rohr, Deputy Regional Director, RBLAC(Resident Representative UNDP-Guatemala 2006-2008)

René Mauricio Valdés, ResidentRepresentative/Resident Coordinator

Xavier Michon, Country Director

Chisa Mikami, Deputy Country Director

Juan Pablo Corlazzoli, Country Director,UNDP- Guatemala 2002-2005

Barbara Pesce-Monteiro, Country Director,Colombia (Resident Representative AdjuntaUNDP Guatemala 2004-2007)

Ricardo Stein, Advisor to the ResidentCoordinator

Fernando Masaya, Programme Official

Catalina Soberanis, Policy Official,UNDP Guatemala

Miguel Ángel Balcarcel, Project Director

Ana Garita, Policy Consultant, CICIG

Julio Martínez, Programme Official, CPR

Claudia de Saravia, GovernabilityProgramme Official

Tatiana Paz Lenus, Technical Official, INDH

Linda Asturias, Coordinator,INDH Programme

Edelberto Torres, INDH

Christina Elich, Programme Official, CPR

Ana Lucía Orozco, Programme Official, Energyand Environment

Sergio Pivaral, Coordinator, PASOC

Rodolfo Cardona, Programme Official,Poverty Reduction

Maria Fuentenebro, Programme Official, CPR

Abelardo Quegoda, Programme Official

Nely Herrera,Monitoring and Evaluation Official

Cecilia Skinner-Klée, National Consultant

Luis Oliva, Human Resources

Edgar Nájera, Finance Officer

Miriam Salguero de López, Administration

Claudia Franco, ABS

Jorge Farid Abed, Communication andLogistics Officer, UNDSS

Esmeralda Miranda, Programme Assistant

Leslie Santino, Programme Assistant

Maribel Flores, Programme Assistant

Gloria Estrada, Programme Assistant(Energy and Environment)

Claudia E. Franco, Programme Assistant, CPR

Melissa Mulongoy, Energy and Environment

Silvia Mazzarelli, M&E

Silvia Aragón, Programme Assistant,Governability

Klarisse Guessa, Programme Assistant,Poverty Reduction

UNDP NEW YORK

Saraswathi Menon, Director, UNDP Evaluation

H.E. Ambassador Gert Rosenthal, GuatemalaPermanent Mission, United Nations

Uitto Juha, Evaluation Adviser,UNDP Evaluation

Oscar Garcia, Evaluation Adviser,UNDP Evaluation

Sergio Lenci, Evaluation Specialist,UNDP Evaluation

Vijayalashmi Vadivelu, Evaluation Specialist,UNDP Evaluation

Armando Martínez, Political Affairs OfficerDPA/Electoral Assistance Division

Annex 6

PEOPLE INTERVIEWED AND SCHEDULE

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E7 4

Carmen Salguero, Programme Specialist,Regional Bureau for Latin America& Caribbean

Nick Remple, Regional Technical Adviser, GEF,Panama UNDP Regional Office

Ana María Díaz, Encargada de País -Guatemala, UNDP-RBLAC

Carla Khammar, Evaluation, UNDP-RBLAC

UNDP PRO-HABITAT

Marcelo Ochoa, Coordinator

Rolando Dugal

Roberto Garrío

ORGANIZATIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Adriano González-Regueral, RepresentanteResidente, UNICEF, Coordinator a.i. UN

Julián Duarte, M&E, UNICEF

Dimitri De Gruben, UNAIDS

Víctor Moscoso, UNESCO

Nadine Gasman, UNFPA

Joaquín Molina, OPS-OMS

Hilda Leal, OPS-OMS

Isabel Enriquez, OPT/OMS

Teresa Zapeta, UNIFEM

Ana Grace Cabrera, UNIFEM

Franklin Gregory, Programme Coordinator, UNV

PUBLIC AND LOCAL AUTHORITYOFFICIALS OF GUATEMALA

Patricia Orantes Thomas, Ex-Secretaryof SEGEPLAN

Eduardo Stein Barillas, Ex-Vice-president ofthe Republic 2004- 2007

Ana de Méndez, Secretary of Social Works ofthe Wife of the President

Harris Whitbeck, Ex-Commissioner for theReform, Modernization andDecentralization of the State

Sergio Morales, Procurator of Human Rights

Juan Alberto Fuentes Knight, Minister ofPublic Finance

Luis Alejandro Alejos, Director of PublicCredit, Ministry of Public Finance

Karin Slowing, Secretary of Planning andProgramming of the Presidency

Alfredo Trinidad Velásquez, Vice-ministerof Foreign Relations, Ministry ofForeign Relations

Rafael Toledo, Technical Secretary, Council ofInternational Cooperation, Ministry ofForeign Relations

Lars Pira, Vice-minister of Foreign Relations

Julio Armando Martini Herrera, Ambassador,Director General of InternationalMultilateral and Economic Relations

Rafael Díaz Makepeace, Director ofInternational Cooperation, SEGEPLAN,Presidency of the Republic of Guatemala

Jorge Ruano Estrada, Private Secretary, Vice-presidency of the Republic

Alexander Trujillo, Director, CitizenCooperation and Development Councils,Secretariat of Executive Coordinationof the Presidency

Otto Raúl de León Morales, Expert onMonitoring and Evaluation, Programmeof Support to Justice Reform

Richard Aitkenhead, Ex-Minister of PublicFinance and Ex-Commissioner for theFollow-up of Government Plans

Rubén Morales, Vice-minister of Economy –Integration and Foreign Trade

Álvaro Arzú, Metropolitan Mayor of Guatemala

Ricardo Quiñónez, Metropolitan Vice-mayor

Jairo Flores, Subsecretary of the Secretariat ofExecutive Coordination of the Presidency

Darwin Mendoza, SCEP-CONRED

Jaroslav Albúrez, Director of Protocol,Congress of the Republic of Guatemala

Francisco Jiménez Irungaray, Ministerof the Interior

Héctor Nuila, Deputy for URNG-MAIZ

Walter Félix, Deputy for URNG-MAIZ

Felix Ovidio Monzón, Deputy for UNE

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E 7 5

Aníbal García, Deputy for Guatemala

Otilia Lux, Deputy for Guatemala

Alejandro Arévalo, Deputy for the UNE

Zully de Ríos, Deputy for the FRG

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Harman Idema, Adjunct Mission Manager,Royal Embassy of the Netherlands

Björn Holmberg, Cooperation Head, RoyalEmbassy of Sweden

Francisco Sancho-López, Director, SpanishAgency of International Cooperation

Wayne Nilsestuen, Director, US Agency forInternational Development (USAID)

Josefina Martínez, Economist, Office of Business,Trade and the Environment, USAID

Carla Aguilar Stwolinsky, Advisor inDemocracy and Governability, USAID

Liliana Gil Boiton, Development ProgrammesSpecialist, USAID

Lars Vaagen, Ambassador of Norway

Idar Instefjord, Prime Secretary, RoyalEmbassy of Norway

Medarda Castro, Advisor, Royal Embassyof Norway

Kirstin Svendsen, Advisor, Royal Embassyof Norway

Fabrizio Feliciani, Principal Advisor, SupportProgramme for the Process of Peace andNational Conciliation, GTZ

Hugo Us, Head of Rural and GenderDevelopment, World Bank

Diego González Marín, CooperationAssistant, Delegation of the EuropeanCommission in Guatemala

Alessandro Ferranti, Consejero, Embassyof Italy

Celesta Molina, Local Technical Unit,Italian Cooperation

Harman Idema, Jefe de misión adjunto,Cooperation Manager, Embassy ofthe Netherlands

Francisco Sancho López, General Coordinatorof the Spanish Cooperation in Guatemala

Álvaro Cubillas, Inter-American DevelopmentBank Representative, Guatemala

INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Claudio Ramírez, Research Institute of theCollege of Health Sciences Institute,Universidad Rafael Landívar

Marcelo Arévalo, FLACSO

Edwin Castellanos, Director of the Centreof Environmental Studies, Universidaddel Valle de Guatemala

Sandino Asturias, Centre ofGuatemalan Studies

Andrea Calvaruso, researcher-consultant,university professor

THEME: RECONCILIATIONAND HUMAN RIGHTS

Freddy Pecerelli, Forensic AnthropologistsFoundation of Guatemala (FAFG)

José Suasnavar, Forensic Anthropologist

Mario Polanco, Mutual Support Group (GAM)

Elizabeth Pedraza, Mutual SupportGroup (GAM)

Aura Elena Farfán, FAMDEGUA

Judith Erazo, ECAP

Helen Mack, President and Founder of theMyrna Mack Foundation

Ruth del Valle, President of the PresidentialHuman Rights Commission (COPREDEH)

Juan de Dios García, General Director of theAssociation for the Integral Developmentof Victims of Violence in the MayaAchí –ADIVIMA

Francisco Velásquez, Ixil Regional BoardPresident, Santa Cruz del Quiché

Diego Gallego, MOVDES

Diego Rivera, ASOMOVIDINC

Jacinto Matonceto, Ixil, DIGAP

Francisco Velazco, DIGAP

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E7 6

Maria Rosario Raimundo, DIGAP

Virginia Searing, Sisters of Cáritas, Santa Cruzdel Quiché

Flor Manzano,Director of Utz Kaslemal, Quiché

Mujeres CONAVIGUA, Santa Cruz del Quiché

Dilia Palacios ASOMUGAGUA, DIGAP

Elizabeth Arzú, ASOUGAGUA

Valentín Vicente López, President of theDevelopment Association for the UprootedCommunity of Petén (ADECODEP)

Julián Vernon, President of the Executive Boardof the ADI-CPR-P

THEME: LAND AND LAND REGISTRY

Alfonso de León, Secretary ofAgricultural Affairs

César Armando Bol, CONIC

Eddie Díaz, Manager of Cooperation

Mariel Aguilar, Ex-Secretary ofAgricultural Affairs

Caril Alonso, Land Registry

Carlos Cabrera

Marvin Turcios, Land Registry Area Manager,Morales, Izabal

José Rodolfo Axpuac, Catastro Petén

THEME: CIVIL SOCIETY

Manfredo Marroquín, Acción Ciudadana

Renzo Lautaro Rosal, Foundation Soros-Guatemala

Anabella Sibriani, NGO and HumanRights Sector

Andrés Cabanas, Journalist and InternationalNGO Coordinator

Hugo Cayzac, Consultant (ex-UNDP advisor).

THEME: MUNICIPALITY

Lionel Figueredo, Coordinator, PRODEME

José Alejandro Arévalo, Unionist Party

THEME: SECURITY

Arturo Matute, Project Head

Iván García, Project Head

Héctor Rosada, Expert

Leonardo Martínez, FORPOL

Francisco Velasco Marroquín,Director Asaunixil

Mario Polanco, Director General,Mutual Support Group

Judith Erazo, Team of Community Studiesand Psychosocial Action

THEME: DEMOCRACY

Jorge Ruano Estrada, Secretario PrivadoVicepresidencia

Antonio Rosa, Sololá

THEME: HEALTHCARE

Jorge López, OASIS

Verónica Molina, Fernando Iturbide Foundation

Javier Sánchez, Human Development Centre

Eduardo Secaira, NGO Living Better in Sololá

THEME: ADVANCEMENT OFWOMEN

Gabriela Núñez, Ex Presidential Secretaryof Women

Martha Godínez, Women’s Sector

THEME: HUMAN RIGHTS

Frank La Rue, exPresidente ComisiónPresidencial de Derechos Humanos,Presidente, Instituto Centroamericano deEstudios para la Democracia Social

Mario Minera, Centro Atención LegalDDHH CALDH

Helen Mack, Presidenta y Fundadora de laFundación Myrna Mack

Jorge Santos, CIIDH

Mr. Mario Polanco, Mutual SupportGroup GAM

Elizabeth Pedraza, Mutual SupportGroup GAM

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E 7 7

THEME: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Teresa Zapeta, Ex-Defender of the Defenceof Indigenous Women, currentUNIFEM consultant

Francisco Cali, CITI, Director DDHH yPueblos Indígenas Ministerio deRelaciones Exteriores

Margarita López Raquec, Migrantesy Pueblos Indígenas, Ministerio deRelaciones Exteriores

Alvaro Pop, Organismo NALEB

Delfina Mux, Subsecretaria CooperaciónSegeplan, Ex Secretaria SeguridadAlimentaria y Nutricional, Ex Subsecretariade la Mujer

Rolando López, Coordinador de Ajchmol,Pasoc, Eje Racismo y Acceso a la Justiciade Pueblos Indígenas

Gloria Bautista, ADICOMAR

Juliana Fulajuj Hom, CoordinadoraAdministrativa, Asociación Centro deMujeres Comunicadoras Maya

Maximo Ba´Tiul, academic and Mayanresearcher

THEME:WATER

Elisa Colom, Water Resources, SEGEPLAN

Jorge Mario Molina, Coordinator of PotableWater and Sanitation, SEGEPLAN

THEME: ENVIRONMENT

Yuri Mellini, CALAS

Magalí Rey Rosa, Savia Organization

Ismael García, Project Jade

Juan José Méndez, Project Director,Regional Parks

Kurt Schneider, Director, Helvetas Guatemala

THEME: POVERTY

Ana de Méndez, Secretary of Social Worksof the Wife of the President (My FamilyProgresses and Conditioned Transfers)

THEME: EDUCATION

René Linares, General Director DIGEPSA andNational Director PRONADE

Regina Caffaro, Pronade

Floridalma Meza, Ex Technical Vice-ministerof Education

THEME: RISK MANAGEMENT

Eduardo Aguirre, Ex Manager of the Presidencyand Vice Presidency

Flor de María, Bolaños, Director of theCentre of Studies and InternationalCooperation (CECI)

Rodolfo López, Fundación Solar

Angel Berna, Director of the Guillermo TorielloFoundation Housing Project

Manuel Reanda Pablo, Mayor ofSantiago Atitlán

Carlos Alejandro Maldonado, ExecutiveSecretary of CONRED

Luis Francisco Ruiz, Administrative FinancialDirector, CONRED

Francisco Coché Pablo, Coordinatorof ADECCAP

Sor Bernarda Rojas Rodríguez, LegalRepresentative of Cáritas Diocesana ofSan Marcos

THEME: PRIVATE SECTOR RESPONSIBILITY

Guillermo Monroy, Centre for ResponsibleBusiness Action, Guatemala

Emanuel Seidner, Santa Fé LaboratoriesS.A. (ex PRONACOM)

Eduardo Aguirre, Manager of SustainableDevelopment, Cementos Progreso S.A

SCHEDULE

GENERAL PLAN

Team of consultants

� Markus Reichmuth, Responsible forthe Mission

� Rosa Flores

� Fabrizio Felloni, UNDP NYEvaluation Office

� Henry Morales, National Consultant

National support

� Cecilia Skinner-Klée, National Consultant

� Nely Herrera, Evaluation Officer

� Karla Castillo, Chisa Mikami Assistant

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E7 8

August – September 2008

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

ARRIVAL OFMISSION

25

UNDP OFFICE

26

APPENDIX 1

27

APPENDIX 2

28

APPENDIX 3

29

APPENDIX 4

30 31

1

APPENDIX 5

2

APPENDIX 6

3 4 5 6 7

8

APPENDIX 9

9

APPENDIX 10

10

APPENDIX 11

11

APPENDIX 12

12

APPENDIX 13

13 14

Appointment Planning and Arranging

Field work - Appendix7 (Western Region: Sololá, El Quiché and SanMarcos); Field work - Appendix 8 (Northeastern Region: Izabal and Petén)

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E 7 9

FIELD VISIT

NORTHEASTERN REGION - DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

Team accompanied by Silvia Mazzarelli

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2008

Rosa Flores Sylvia Mazzarelli Henry Morales

Leave for Morales, Izabal 6:00 a.m.

Stop in Sarita at El Rancho for breakfast at 8 a.m.

13:00 Arrival in Morales

Meet MARVIN TURCIOS, Head of the Land Registry Area (Mobile phone: 5704-0174)at the Texaco petrol station, Entrance to Morales

13:00 Lunch with Marvin Turcios in Morales

LAND REGISTRY PROJECT

14:30 – 15:30 hours. Meeting with Marvin Turcios, Area Head and his teamLand Registry Office in Morales Izabal

15:30 – 16:30 hours. Meeting with Land Registry beneficiaries and authoritiesPlace: Tour around the communities of Izabal.

Leave for Puerto Barrios approximately at 17:00; 1-hour ride.

Dinner, accommodation in Puerto Barrios

Hotel Marbrissa, 25 calle 20 Av. Colonia Virginia, telephone number: 7948-1450

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2008

Rosa Flores Sylvia Mazzarelli Henry Morales

JADE Project (Protected areasand biological corridors)

07:00 Leave for Cerro San Gill communities

Meeting with Engineer ISMAEL GARCÍA,telephone number: 40057650 (hotel)

The following communities areto be visited: Las Escobas, Las Pavas,

La Cocona and San Pedro

12:00 Return to Puerto Barrios

PASOC PROJECT

09:00 Meeting with ASOMOGAGUA

DILIA PALACIOS, 4149-3399

Former coordinator of the project supportedby PASOC I

ELIZABETH ARZÚ 4140-1038

Representative of ASOMOGAGUA

Place: 11 calle 4ª. At the corner of PuertoBarrios next to the Coca Cola head office

Sign: ASOMOGAGUA and clínica de la mujer

Victoria Cayetana

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E8 0

12:15 Leave for Flores

13:15 Lunch in Río Dulce

19:00 Arrival in Flores, Petén

Dinner, accommodation at the hotel Villa Maya Petén 7926 0806 22235000

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2008

Rosa Flores Sylvia Mazzarelli Henry Morales

Breakfast at the hotel at 7:00 a.m.

8:15 Meet JOSÉ RODOLFO AXPUAC (50011129) at the hotel(Person responsible for the Offices of Petén, Land Registry)

8:30 to 9:30 hours. Meeting with the Land Registry TeamAt the Land Registry offices in Santa Elena, Petén

9:30-11:30 visit to “VALLE DE LA ESMERALDA” Community, Municipio de Dolores

12:00 – 13:00 hours. Lunch

13:00 – 14:00Transportation to the community Salvador Fajardo (close to la Libertad)

14:30 – 16:00 Meeting with the community “SALVADOR FAJARDO”,An old “community of population in resistance (CPR)”Located in La Libertad, about 30 minutes from Flores.

VALENTÍN VICENTE LÓPEZ (57870846)President of Asociación de Desarrollo para la Comunidad Desarraigada de Petén (ADECODEP)

[Association for the Development of the Rootless Community of Peten]

And with SEÑOR JULIÁN VERÓN (41464543)President of the Board of Directors of ADI – CPR – P

Projects, GUA/98/L904 Agroforestry Productive Development andGUA/04/L04 ATC, livestock, reforestation and allspice projects

16:30 – 17:30 Transportation from La Libertad to Flores Petén

Dinner, accommodation at Villa Maya Petén 7926 0806 22235000

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2008

Rosa Flores Sylvia Mazzarelli Henry Morales

Breakfast at the hotel

16:15 Flight back to Flores - Guatemala TA 7977Arrival in Guatemala City at 17:15

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E 8 1

FIELD VISITS TO THEWEST

STRATEGIC VISION, CRISIS PREVENTION AND RECOVERY

Team accompanied by Nely Herrera

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2008

Markus Reichmuth Nelly Herrera Fabrizio Felloni

Team accompanied by Christina Elich - DIGAP in El Quiché

7:00 a.m. Departure from Guatemala City to Chichicastenango, El Quiché

8:30 a.m. Stop at Katok or Pedregal (Santa Apolonia) for breakfast

11:00 a.m. Arrival in Chichicastenango

12:00 – 15:00 hours. Meeting – Lunch at Hotel Santo Tomás in Chichicastenango, El Quiché

FOCUS GROUP WITH DIGAP AND PNR PROJECTS1. Representatives of CONAVIGUA, Quiché, ( Julia) María Q’anil will make the arrangements there.

2. Francisco Velásquez, President of the Regional Board of Ixil,3. Diego Rivera from ASOMOVIDINC

4. Diego Gallego from MOVDES, Ixil Area5. Flor Manzano, Director of Utz Kaslemal,

6. Virginia Searing, Sisters of Cáritas

16:00 Leave Chichicastenango for Panajachel, Sololá

Dinner and accommodation at Panajachel, Sololá

Hotel Regis, Calle Santander 3ª. Avenida 3-47, Zona 2

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2008

Markus Reichmuth Nelly Herrera Fabrizio Felloni

Team accompanied by Antonio Rosa - PRO HABITAT in Sololá

Breakfast in Panajachel. Meet Antonio Rosa, colleague of PROHABITAT Project

8:30 a.m. Transportation in motorboat from Panajachel to Santiago Atitlán

9:30 a.m. Arrival in Santiago. Meet the Mayor of Santiago Atitlán, Manuel Reanda Pablo andFrancisco Coché Pablo, Coordinator of ADECCAP (Association for Community Development in

the Canton of PANABAJ, based on Stan)

9:30 a 11:00 Visit to Panabaj, Tzanchaj and Chukmuk

11:00 Meeting with the Mayor of Santiago Atitlán, Manuel Reanda Pablo and Francisco CochéPablo, representative of the NGO ADECCAP

At the Municipal Office. Santiago Atitlán, for Q&A

12:00 Return to Panajachel

1:00 – 2:30 p.m. Lunch in Panajachel

3:00 p.m. Meeting with Eduardo Secaira, legal representative of the NGO “VIVAMOS MEJOR”,which worked together with the UNDP in the Project to Expand Healthcare Coverage and

in the Pro Habitat Project. In “Vivamos Mejor”, meet Rubén González, 5445-5152,department consultant of PASOC (colleague)

4:00 – 4:30 p.m. Transportation to Sololá

4:30 p.m. Meeting with Juliana Julajuj de Nutzij- Racism and discrimination, PASOC

5:30 p.m. Return to Panajachel

Dinner and accommodation in Panajachel

A N N E X 6 . P E O P L E I N T E R V I E W E D A N D S C H E D U L E8 2

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2008

Markus Reichmuth Nelly Herrera Fabrizio Felloni

In San Marcos, the team will be accompanied by Asdrúbal, colleague from PRO HABITAT

6:00 a.m. Leave Panajachel for San Marcos

11:00 Meeting with Sister Bernarda Rojas Rodríguez,Legal Representative of the diocesan Caritas office in San Marcos

Diocesan Caritas Office, Pro Habitat Project

12:30 – 2:00 p.m. Lunch meetingProject: Regional Parks

Juan José Méndez, Project Manager, Telephone number 7760-8368 and 5613-3228

PASOC PROJECT

2:30 p.m. Meeting with Rolando López, Coordinator of Ajchmol, Project supported by PASOC -Racism and indigenous peoples access to justiceSubject: Interviews with indigenous peoples.

PLACE: Ajchmol Office, San Pedro, San Marcos.

PASOC PROJECT

4:00 p.m. Meeting with Gloria Bautista and ADICOMAR TeamWomen’s organisation - Racism and Discrimination

PLACE: ADICOMAR Office, San MarcosThe Ombudsman Office for Indigenous Women (DEMI) is located in the same building

Project: Regional ParksJuan José Méndez, Project Manager

Address: The Municipality6ª. Avenida 5-40 zona 1

San Pedro Sacatepéquez, San MarcosAt the moment

Telephone number7760-8368 and 5613-3228Address:

Dinner and accommodation in San Marcos

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2008

Markus Reichmuth Nelly Herrera Fabrizio Felloni

8:00 Transportation to La Palmita in Coatepeque

10:00 Visit to urban area in La Palmita with the company of Asdrúbal

Meeting with the Mayor of Ocós

12:00 Return to Guatemala City

Lunch on the way back to Guatemala City

Back in Guatemala City

A N N E X 7 . E V A L U A T I O N T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 8 3

1. INTRODUCTION

The Evaluation Office (EO) of the UnitedNations Development Program (UNDP)conducts country evaluations called Assessmentsof Development Results (ADRs) to capture anddemonstrate evaluative evidence of UNDP’scontributions to development results at thecountry level. ADRs are carried out within theoverall provisions contained in the UNDPEvaluation Policy.70 The overall goals of anADR are to:

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

� Support greater UNDP accountability tonational stakeholders and partners in theprogramme country

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

� Contribute to learning at corporate, regionaland country levels

In particular, EO plans to conduct an ADRin Guatemala during 2008. The ADR willcontribute to a new country programme whichwill be prepared by the concerned CountryOffice and national stakeholders.

2. BACKGROUND

Guatemala, a country of more than 13 millioninhabitants, has been undergoing a process ofdemocratic transition with respect to the fulfill-ment of the Peace Agreements. The finalagreement was signed between the Governmentand the URNG under the auspices of UN inDecember of 1996 after more than 36 years of

armed conflict. The peace accords set out acomprehensive blueprint for political, social andeconomic reform, embracing the rights of themajority indigenous population; socioeconomicand land issues; demilitarization; constitutionalreform; the legalization of the URNG; a partialamnesty for crimes committed during theconflict; a formal ceasefire; and a timetable forimplementing the peace commitments.

The Human Development Index for Guatemalais 0.689, which gives the country a rank of 118thout of 177 countries with data, according tothe 2007 Human Development Report. 56%of the population lives in poverty and 16% inextreme poverty. Both the NHDI and theCountry Programme identify exclusion as afundamental problem, which has threedimensions: economic exclusion, through lack ofparticipation; political and legal exclusion,through lack of representation, rights; and socialexclusion, as much from gender as ethnicity, inthe means in which the indigenous populationlives in poverty and in marginality.

In the Country Programme 2001-2004, UNDP-Guatemala reinforces its objective “to support thefull implementation of the Peace Agreementsand to reduce social exclusion,” an objectiveshared with the other bodies of the UN Systemin the UNDAF. In the area of governance,UNDP launched projects in the judicial area,including citizen security, and the strengtheningof local organizations and consensus at thecommunity and national levels to consolidate thepeace and sustainable human development.

The goal of UNDP in Guatemala for its 2005-2008 programming cycle was to support thecountry in the peace consolidation process and to

Annex 7

TERMS OF REFERENCE

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

A N N E X 7 . E V A L U A T I O N T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E8 4

strengthen democracy as conditions for theachievements of the MDGs and human develop-ment. UNDP was expected to continueproviding quality policy advisory services, sharebest practices and support Government effortsto build its capacity to address developmentchallenges related to poverty reduction and thefulfilment of the Peace Agreements.

UNDP Guatemala goals were to supportprogrammes in the areas of poverty reductionand the achievement of the MDGs promoting abroad base inclusive economic growth;promoting sustainable local developmentprocesses. In the area of democratic governance itwas expected to support Government’s efforts toeradicate all sorts of discrimination againstindigenous population, women and other vulner-able groups of population through the establish-ment of inclusive public policies. UNDP inGuatemala worked for strengthening stateinstitutions for a full respect of human rights inaccordance with a democratic security policy.Finally, it was expected to broaden the access oflarger parts of the population to basic socialservices. While other UN agencies have a directmandate in this field, UNDP was concentrated incapacity development of Ggovernment counter-parts and the development of social control andaccountability mechanisms.

The completion of the 2005-2008 CountryCooperation Framework in Guatemala presents anopportunity to evaluate UNDP contributions andshort comings over the last program cycle andbefore. The findings will be used as inputs tothe 2009-2011 Country Programme Document(CPD) within the context of UNDAF.

3. OBJECTIVES, SCOPEAND METHODOLOGY

The objectives of the Guatemala ADR include:

� To provide an independent assessment of theprogress or lack of, towards the expectedoutcomes envisaged in the UNDP program-ming documents.Where appropriate, the ADRwill also highlight unexpected outcomes (positiveor negative) and missed opportunities.

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

� To present key findings, draw key lessons,and provide a set of clear and forward-looking options for the management to makeadjustments in the current strategy and nextCountry Programme.

The ADR will review the UNDP experience inGuatemala and its contribution to the solution ofsocial, economic and political challenges. Theevaluation will cover the ongoing and previouscountry programmes (2001-2004 and 2005-2008). Although it is likely that greater emphasiswill be placed on more recent interventions (dueto better availability of data, etc.) efforts will bemade to examine the development and imple-mentation of UNDP’s programmes since thestart of the period. The identification of existingevaluative evidence and potential constraintsoccur during the initial scoping mission (seeSection 4 for more details on the process).

The overall methodology will be consistent withthe ADR Guidelines prepared by the EO( January 2007). The evaluation will undertake acomprehensive review of the UNDP programmeportfolio and activities during the period underreview specifically examining UNDP’s contribu-tion to national development results across thecountries. It will assess key results, specificallyoutcomes – anticipated and unanticipated,positive and negative, intentional and uninten-tional – and will cover UNDP assistance fundedfrom both core and non-core resources.

The evaluation has two main components, theanalysis of development outcomes and thestrategic positioning of UNDP.

DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

The assessment of the development outcomeswill entail a comprehensive review of the UNDPprogramme portfolio of the previous and ongoingprogramme cycles. This includes an assessmentof development results achieved and the contri-

A N N E X 7 . E V A L U A T I O N T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 8 5

bution of UNDP in terms of key interventions;progress in achieving outcomes for the ongoingcountry programme; factors influencing results(UNDP’s positioning and capacities, partnerships,policy support); and achievements/progress andcontribution of UNDP in practice areas (both inpolicy and advocacy); analysing the crosscuttinglinkages and their relationship to MDGs andUNDAF. The analysis of development resultswill identify challenges and strategies for futureinterventions.

Besides using the available information, theevaluation will document and analyse achieve-ments against intended outcomes and linkagesbetween activities, outputs and outcomes. Theevaluation will qualify UNDP’s contribution tooutcomes with a reasonable degree of plausibility.A core set of criteria related to the design,management and implementation of its interven-tions in the country:

� Effectiveness. Did UNDP programmeaccomplish its intended objectives andplanned results? What are the strengths andweaknesses of the program? What are theunexpected results it yielded? Should itcontinue in the same direction or should itsmain tenets be reviewed for the new cycle?

� Efficiency: How well did UNDP use itsresources (human and financial) in achievingits contribution? What could be done toensure a more efficient use of resources in thespecific country/sub-regional context?

� Sustainability: Is UNDP’s contributionsustainable? Are the development resultsachieved through UNDP contributionsustainable? Are the benefits of UNDPinterventions sustained and owned bynational stakeholders after the interventionis completed?

It should be noted that special efforts will bemade to examine UNDP’s contribution tocapacity development, knowledge managementand gender equality.

STRATEGIC POSITIONING

The evaluation will assess the strategic position-

ing of UNDP both from the perspective oforganization and the development priorities inthe country. This will entails, i) a systematicanalysis of UNDP’s place and niche withinthe development and policy space in Guatemala;ii) the strategies used by UNDP Guatemalato strengthen the position of UNDP in thedevelopment space and create a position for theorganization in the core practice areas; iii) fromthe perspective of the development results for thecountry the assessment will evaluate the policysupport and advocacy initiatives of UNDPprogramme vis-à-vis other stakeholders. In addition,the evaluation will analyse a core set of criteriarelated to the strategic positioning of UNDP:

� Relevance of UNDP programmes. Howrelevant are UNDP programmes to thepriority needs of the country? Did UNDPapply the right strategy within the specificpolitical, economic and social context of theregion? To what extent are long-termdevelopment needs likely to be met acrossthe practice areas? What were critical gaps inUNDP’s programming?

� Responsiveness:How did UNDP anticipateand respond to significant changes in thenational development context? How didUNDP respond to national long termdevelopment needs? What were the missedopportunities in UNDP programming?

� Equity: Did the programmes and interven-tions of UNDP lead to reduce vulnerabilitiesin the country? Did UNDP intervention inany way influence the existing inequities(exclusion/inclusion) in the society? Was theselection of geographical areas of interven-tion guided by need?

� Partnerships: How has UNDP leveragedpartnerships within the UN system as well aswith national civil society and private sector?

The evaluation will also consider the influence ofadministrative constraints affecting theprogramme and specifically UNDP’s contribu-tion (including issues related to the relevance andeffectiveness of the Monitoring and Evaluationsystem). If during initial analysis these areconsidered important they will be included in thescope of the evaluation. Within the context of

A N N E X 7 . E V A L U A T I O N T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E8 6

partnerships with the UN system and overall UNcoordination, the specific issue of the develop-ment of Joint Programmes will be highlighted.

4. EVALUATION METHODSAND APPROACHES

DATA COLLECTION

In terms of data collection, the evaluation will usea multiple method approach that could includedesk reviews, workshops, group and individualinterviews (at both HQ and the CO),project/field visits and surveys. The appropriateset of methods would vary depending on countrycontext and the precise nature would bedetermined during the scoping mission anddetailed in an inception rReport71.

VALIDATION

The EvaluationTeam will use a variety of methodsto ensure that the data is valid, including triangu-lation. Precise methods of validation will bedetailed in the inception report.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

A strong participatory approach, involving abroad range of stakeholders is encouraged. Theidentification of the stakeholders, includingGovernment representatives of ministries/agencies, civil society organizations, privatesector representatives, UN agencies, multilateralorganizations, bilateral donors, and beneficiarieswill take place. To facilitate this approach allADRs include a process of stakeholder mappingthat would include both UNDP’s direct partnersas well as stakeholders who do not work directlywith UNDP.

5. EVALUATION PROCESS

The ADR process will also follow the ADRGuidelines, according to which the process can bedivided in three phases, each including several steps.

PHASE 1: PREPARATION

� Desk review – Initially carried out by theEO (identification, collection and mapping

of relevant documentation and other data)and continued by the evaluation team.This will include general development-related documentation related to thespecific country as well as a comprehensiveoverview of UNDP’s programme over theperiod being examined.

� Stakeholder mapping – A basic mapping ofstakeholders relevant to the evaluation in thecountry carried out at the country level.These will include state and civil societystakeholders and go beyond UNDP’spartners. The mapping exercise will alsoindicate the relationships between differentsets of stakeholders.

� Inceptionmeetings – Interviews and discus-sions in UNDP HQ with the EO (processand methodology), the RBLAC (context andcounty program) as well as with otherrelevant bureaux, including Bureau forDevelopment Policy and the Bureau forCrisis Prevention and Recovery and others asappropriate including UN missions.

� Scoping mission – A mission to Guatemalain order to:

• Identify and collect further documentation

• Validate the mapping of the countryprogrammes

• Get key stakeholder perspectives on keyissues that should be examined

• Address logistical issues related to themain mission including timing

• Identify the appropriate set of datacollection and analysis methods

• Address management issues related to therest of the evaluation process, includingdivision of labour among the teammembers.

• Ensure the CO and key stakeholdersunderstand the ADR objectives, method-ology and process

The Task Manager will accompany the TeamLeader on the mission.

71. The scoping mission and inception report are described in Section 5 on the evaluation process

A N N E X 7 . E V A L U A T I O N T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 8 7

be necessary to incorporate some significantcomments into the final evaluation report (bythe Evaluation Team Leader.)

PHASE 3: FOLLOW-UP

� Management response: UNDP AssociateAdministrator will request relevant units(usually the relevant CO and RBLAC) toprepare a management response to the ADR.As a unit exercising oversight, the RegionalBureau will be responsible for monitoring andoverseeing the implementation of follow-upactions in the Evaluation Resource Centre.

� Communication: the ADR report and briefwill be widely distributed in both hard andelectronic versions. The evaluation report willbe made available to UNDP Executive Boardby the time of approving a new CountryProgramme Document. It will be widelydistributed in Guatemala and at UNDPheadquarters and copies will be sent toevaluation outfits of other internationalorganizations as well as to evaluation societiesand research institutions in the region.Furthermore, the evaluation report and themanagement response will be published onthe UNDP website72 and made available tothe public. Its availability should be announcedon UNDP and external networks.

6. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

UNDP EO

The UNDP EO Task Manager will manage theevaluation and ensure coordination and liaisonwith RBLAC other concerned units at headquar-ters level and the Guatemala CO management.The EO will also contract a Research Assistant tofacilitate the initial desk review and a ProgrammeAssistant to support logistical and administrativematters. The EO will meet all costs directlyrelated to the conduct of the ADR. These willinclude costs related to participation of the TeamLeader, international and national consultants, aswell as the preliminary research and the issuanceof the final ADR report. EO will also cover costs

� Inception report: The development of ashort inception report including the finalevaluation design and plan, background to theevaluation, key evaluation questions, detailedmethodology, information sources and instru-ments and plan for data collection, design fordata analysis, and format for reporting.

PHASE 2: CONDUCTING ADR ANDDRAFTING EVALUATION REPORT

� Main ADR mission - The mission of twoweeks will be conducted by the independentEvaluation Team and will focus on datacollection and validation. An important partof this process will be an Entry Workshopwhere the ADR objectives, methods andprocess will be explained to stakeholders.The team will visit significant project/fieldsites as identified in the scoping mission.

� Analysis and reporting – The informationcollected will be analyzed in the draft ADRreport by the Evaluation Team within threeweeks after the departure of the team fromthe country.

� Review:The draft will be subject to (a) factualcorrections and views on interpretationby key clients (including the UNDP CO,Regional Bureau for Latin America and theCaribbean and Government) (b) a technicalreview by the EO and (c) a review by externalexperts. The EO will prepare an audit trail toshow how these comments were taken in toaccount. The Team Leader in close coopera-tion with the EOTask Manager shall finalizethe ADR report based on these final reviews.

� Stakeholder meeting – A meeting with thekey national stakeholders will be organizedto present the results of the evaluation andexamine ways forward in Guatemala. Themain purpose of the meeting is to facilitategreater buy-in by national stakeholders intaking the lessons and recommendationsfrom the report forward and to strengthenthe national ownership of developmentprocess and the necessary accountability ofUNDP interventions at country level. It may

72. www.undp.org/eo/

A N N E X 7 . E V A L U A T I O N T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E8 8

of any stakeholder workshops as part of theevaluation.

THE EVALUATION TEAM

The team will be constituted of three members:

� Consultant Team Leader, with overallresponsibility for providing guidance andleadership, and in coordinating the draft andfinal report;

� Consultant Team Specialist, who will providethe expertise in the core subject areas of theevaluation, and be responsible for draftingkey parts of the report;

� National Consultant, who will undertakedata collection and analyses at the country-level, as well as support the work of themissions;

The Team Leader must have a demonstratedcapacity in strategic thinking and policy adviceand in the evaluation of complex programs in thefield. All team members should have in-depthknowledge of development issues in Guatemala.

The evaluation team will be supported by aResearch Assistant based in the EvaluationOffice in New York. The Task Manager of theEvaluation Office will support the team indesigning the evaluation, will participate in thescoping mission and provide ongoing feedbackfor quality assurance during the preparation ofthe inception report and the final report.Depending on the needs the EO Task Managermight participate to the main mission too.

The evaluation team will orient its work byUnited Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG)norms and standards for evaluation and willadhere to the ethical Code of Conduct73.

THE GUATEMALA CO

The CO will take a lead role in organizingdialogue and stakeholder meetings on thefindings and recommendations, support theevaluation team in liaison with the key partners,

and make available to the team all necessaryinformation regarding UNDP’s activities in thecountry. The office will also be requested toprovide additional logistical support to theevaluation team as required. The CO willcontribute support in kind (for example officespace for the Evaluation Team) but the EO willcover local transportation costs.

7. EXPECTED OUTPUTS

The expected outputs from the EvaluationTeam are:

� An inception report (maximum 20 pages)

� A comprehensive final report on theGuatemala Assessment of DevelopmentResults (maximum 50 pages plus annexes)

� A two-page evaluation brief

� A presentation for the StakeholderWorkshop

The final report of the ADR to be produced by theEvaluation Team will follow the following format:

� Chapter 1: Introduction

� Chapter 2: Country Context

� Chapter 3: The UN and UNDP inthe Country

� Chapter 4: UNDP’s Contribution toNational Development Results

� Chapter 5: Strategic Positioning of theUNDP Country Programme

� Chapter 6: Conclusions, Lessons andRecommendations

Detailed outlines for the inception report, mainADR report and evaluation brief will be providedto the evaluation team by the Task Manager.

The drafts and final version of the ADR reportwill be provided in Spanish. The publisheddocument will also be translated in to English.

73. The UN Evaluation Group Guidelines (UNEG) “Norms for Evaluation in the UN System” and “Standards for Evaluationin the UN System” (April 2005)

A N N E X 8 . R E F E R E N C E S 8 9

AECI, EU, UNDP. Democratic Governability:Possible Areas of Cooperation. April 2008.

Armas Eddy, Ramírez Vinicio, MazariegosDina. Project of Peace Promoters: Phase III:Promoting Citizen Participation, FinalEvaluation Report. January 2007.

Baastel, global.finland. Supporting Education,Training and Research in Human Rights inCentral America, Final Report. June 2006.

Bain Jannicke, NORAD, Kristin Svendsen.Revision of the Strengthening Project ofthe Criminal Public Defence Institute.May 2004.

World Bank. Country Strategy. February 2007.

Buvollen Hans Petter, Fundación SARES.Systematization of experiences and lessonslearned, Civil Society ParticipationProgram – PASOC I. February 2007.

Congress of the Republic. Law of Registry ofCadastral Information – RIC. July 2005.

duna Consultora. External Evaluation ofthe INDH Project in Guatemala.October 2005.

EDERA S.A.. DIGAP External Evaluation,Final Report. November 2005.

Ekern Stener, Leifsen Esben. Revision of theStrengthening Project of the CriminalPublic Defence Institute, IndigenousOmbudsman Offices, Phase II. April 2008.

Economist Intelligence Unit. 2007 CountryProfile. 2007.

Fundación SARES. External Evaluation of theCivil Society Participation ProgramPASOC, Report. December 2005.

García-Godos Jemima, Aase Aage and KristinSvendsen. Revision of FORPOL Program,Final Report. May 2006.

Gavarrete S. Otto Raul. Evaluation of theProgram UNDP – Strengthen DevelopmentCouncils at Departmental and Local Levels.January 2005.

Government of Guatemala, URNG, UN. Firmand Long-lasting Peace Agreement.December 1996.

Government of Guatemala and MAGA.Agricultural and related Legislation inGuatemala: volumes I and II. February 2002.

GSD Consultores Asociados. Mid-termEvaluation of the InstitutionalStrengthening Project for the OmbudsmanOffice of the Indigenous Woman, Phase II.June 2006.

INAB. Sustainable Resource Management:Annual Report. January 2004.

INE. Final Report of MECOVI Project.December 2004.

MAGA. Technical Standards for Land Registry.March 2001.

MINUGUA. 9th report. July 2004.

MINUGUA. MINUGUA’s TransitionStrategy. 2003.

Technical Assistance Mission BCPR, LauraAcquaviva. Mid-term Mission Report: Post-Stan Reconstruction Process. March 2007.

Morales López Henry. InternationalCooperation in the Decade of Peace inGuatemala: Why is there so much frustra-tion?. November 2007.

UN General Assembly. UN VerificationMission in Guatemala, Final Report by theSecretary- General. March 2005.

OCDE. Report on International Help 2008.March 2007.

Osorio Silvia. Evaluation of the Project to createINDH multipliers. End 2006.

Rajeev Pillay UNDP. Evaluation Office,.EVALUATION OF UNDPASSISTANCE TO CONFLICT–AFFECTED COUNTRIES – Case StudyGuatemala. 2006.

Annex 8

REFERENCES

A N N E X 8 . R E F E R E N C E S9 0

Rene Pointevin, Leslie Santizo. Nature andFunctions of the Central AmericanGovernment Facing Globalization.PRODDAL Workshop Report.March 2006.

Rene Pointevin. PRODDAL Report.April 2006.

PDH. Annual Narrative Report: File RecoverySupport. January 2007.

UNDP. UNDAF 2001-2004. 15 August 2000.

UNDP. UNDP REPORT IN THEFRAMEWORK OF MULTIANNUALFINANCING, 2000-2003. May 2003.

UNDP Guatemala. Preliminary Report -UNDP Areas’ Self Assessments –Guatemala. December 2006.

UNDP. UNDAF 2005-2009. 28 June 2007.

UNDP Guatemala. Democratic Governability -Identification of Possible Areas ofCooperation AECI, CE, UNDP. .

UNDP. Programme of promotion, developmentand strengthening of democracy inGuatemala. Project to give educational kitsto primary school teachers of the publicsector in order to train citizens. FinalReport. June 2006.

UNDP. PRODDAL Strategy programme ofpromotion, development and strengtheningof democracy in Guatemala. 24 January 2005.

UNDP. Country Office Repositioning. July 2002.

UNDP-Guatemala. Balanced ScorecardReport. 2008.

UNDP-Guatemala. Expenditures 2004-2008by Project-Fund-Donor. 2008.

UNDP-Guatemala. Guatemala ADR. ProjectInformation . 2008.

UNDP-Guatemala. Budget 2008-2013 byProject-Fund-Donor. .

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report. LandRegistry Project. Registry in Petén.June 2000.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report.Improvement Of Federation-Type Schools.November 2004.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report.Remodelling Of SAT Offices. June 2005.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report. NationalCompetitiveness Programme Reference:GUA/04/002. July 2002.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report.MECOVI.GUATEMALA: GUA/99/020.June 2000.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report. SIAFPHASE III. 2002.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report. WaterObservatory Reference: 02-024. 2002.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report.Strengthening of The National LandRegistry of Guatemala Reference:GUA-01-018-JA-99. 2001.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report.Metropolitan Development ProgrammeFor The Municipality Of Guatemala(PRODEME). 2004.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report.Strengthening Of Local Capacities ForSocial Participation And SustainableDevelopment. 2003.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report. InstitutionalStrengthening Of The Secretariat OfAgriculture. 2005.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report. Support ToThe Expansion Of Educational CoverageOf The Ministry Of Education. 2006.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report.Democracy Promotion InGuatemala–PRODDAL. 2005.

UNDP PRODOC, Project Report. ProgramOf Alliances With The CivilSociety–PASOC 2. 2007.

UNDP. Several final and intermediate reports:risk reduction programme in the process ofreconstructing a community habitat“PROHABITAT”. December 2007.

UNDP/SEGEPLAN. Final Report:Strengthening of capacities to reduce risks.December 2006.

UNDP. Final Report: Post-Stan project.October 2006.

UNDP. Annual Report: Programme of CitizenSecurity and Violence Prevention of UNDPGuatemala.. October 2006..

UNDP. PRODOC: UNDP Project: HumanDevelopment National Reports.March 2003.

A N N E X 8 . R E F E R E N C E S 9 1

UNDP/consultora DUNA. Project EvaluationDocument; Human DevelopmentReports: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 y 2007.December 2007.

UNDP. PRODOC: Project: Support to dignifyand deliver psychosocial assistance to thevictims of the armed conflict –DIGAP-..April 2002.

UNDP. Final Report: DIGAP. January 2008.

UNDP. PRODOC: Project: Support toimplement the National ReparationsProgram-PNR. March 2004.

PNR-GTZ and UNDP. PNR ProjectEvaluation. January 2007.

UNDP. PRODOC: National competitivenessprogramme. January 2004.

UNDP. PRODOC: MECOVI Project. January1999.

UNDP. PRODOC: Supporting the actions toprevent and control STIs, HIV/AIDS.January 2001.

UNDP. 2007Annual Report: Prevention andcontrol of STIs, HIV. January 2008.

UNDP. PRODOC: Intercultural BilingualMayan Education Multiplier Project.January 2003.

UNDP. Final Report: Intercultural BilingualMayan Education Multiplier Project.December 2006.

UNDP. PRODOC: SIAF Project Phase III.February 2002.

UNDP. PRODOC: Water Observatory.January 2002.

UNDP. Final Report: Water Observatory.February 2006.

UNDP/INAB. PRODOC: Sustainable manage-ment of natural resources. March 2003.

UNDP/SCEP. Prodoc: Forest Fire PreventionSystem. January 2002.

UNDP/SEGEPLAN. PRODOC:Strengthening of capacities to reduce risksin development processes. January 2004.

UNDP/Ministry of the Interior. Prodoc:Strengthening of civil national police“FORPOL-PHASE III”. January 2004.

UNDP. FORPOL Evaluation 2004-2005.January 2006.

UNDP/ Ministry of the Interior. AnnualReports: 2005 and 2006. January 2007.

UNDP/SEGEPLAN. PRODOC:Strengthening of Local Capacities for SocialParticipation and Sustainable Development.January 2000.

UNDP/SEGEPLAN. Follow-up and FinalReports: Project for the Strengthening ofAnalytical Capacities. January 2007.

UNDP/Vice Presidency of the Republic.Prodoc: Improvement of governmentalcapacities in the reconstruction process..January 2005.

UNDP/SEGEPLAN/MAGA. PRODOC:Democratic Governability for Territorialand Local Economic Development of theDepartments: Quiche and Huehuetenango..January 2007.

UNDP/DEMI. Institutional Strengthening ofthe Ombudsman Office of the IndigenousWoman. January 2004.

UNDP/DEMI. Final Report Draft: DEMIProject. April 2006.

UNDP/SEPREM. PRODOC: EconomicEmpowerment of Women. January 2006.

UNDP. PRODOC: Programme of CitizenSecurity and Violence Prevention of theUNDP in Guatemala. January 2005.

UNDP. 2006 Annual Report: Programme ofCitizen Security. September 2007.

UNDP/ Vice Presidency of the Republic.PRODOC: Reducing risks in the process ofreconstruction of the community habitat.January 2006.

UNDP. Annual Reports: PROHABITAT(Sweden, Norway, USA). December 2007.

UNDP/CNAP. PRODOC: Creation of a unitof analysis and strategic proposal.January 2005.

UNDP. Annual Report: Unit of analysis.June 2006.

UNDP/Vice Presidency of theRepublic/SEPAZ. PRODOC: Laying thefoundations of peace-based development.January 2004.

UNDP/PDH. PRODOC: Supporting therecovery of the National Police historic file.January 2005.

A N N E X 8 . R E F E R E N C E S9 2

UNDP. UNDP’s Support to the MINUGUATransition Process. August 2004.

UNDP. Democratic Governability: TechnicalCooperation Possibilities 2008-2011.November 2007.

UNDP. CPR Mission to Guatemala, Report.August 2007.

UNDP. PRODOC: National Programme toprevent and control STIs/ HIV/AIDS. 2001.

UNDP. PRODOC: Supporting theComprehensive Development of theGeneral Direction of Health Regulation,Surveillance and Control. 2005.

UNDP. PRODOC: Project to support theexpansion of educational coverage of theMinistry of Education. 2006.

UNDP. PRODOC: Project for theStrengthening of Analytical Capacities andStatistics for the Follow-up and Monitoringof the MDG. 2005.

UNDP. PRODOC: INDH. 1999.

Price Waterhouse Coopers. Auditor’s Report:SIAF 2004-2005. January 2006.

PRODUCTIVITY AND DEVELOPMENTConsultant of Community SocialDevelopment. Development OfMicrobusinesses Through RenewableEnergy In El Quiche. Final Report.External Project Evaluation. July 2002.

Registry of Cadastral Information. Memory:Registry of Cadastral Information—RIC.December 2006.

SEPAZ. Annual Narrative Report: Layingfoundations for development. January 2006.

SEPAZ, National Council of PeaceAgreements. Programming andRescheduling of the 2008-2012 PeaceAgreements, Draft. November 2007.

SEPREM. Final Report: EconomicEmpowerment of Women. 30 June 2008.

Kristin Svendsen et al. Revision of theInstitutional Strengthening Project forthe Civil National Police. May 2006.

Unidad Nacional de la Esperanza.Government Plan. 2008.

UNDP. Evaluation of Direct Execution.April 2001.

UNDP, Bureau for Crisis Prevention andRecovery. Guatemala: The Long Strugglefor Peace, Expanding the Role of UNDP inSupport of the Guatemalan Peace Process.January 2002.

UNDP Emergency Resource Division. UNDPin Guatemala: A case study in Peace-building. January 2001.

UN VOLUNTEERS. UNV Country Profile.Guatemala . November 2007.

Vivas Benjamín, Vargas Fernando. Mid-termEvaluation of the Project to Consolidate aSystem of Municipal Regional Parks in theWestern High-Plateau of Guatemala. 2008.

Whist Erik, Manolo Sánchez, Arne Disch,SCANTEAM. Review, NorwegianSupport To Guatemala Through UNDP.September-November 2006.

Yujnovsky Oscar, Alberto Binder, Mission toEvaluate the Effect of the Framework ofStrategic Results of UNDP Guatemala.“Consolidated Rule of Law particularly inthe reforms made to the security sector andaccess to justice” (G1-SGN2-SASN3)(2000-2003). Evaluation of the Effect ofConsolidating the Rule of Law inGuatemala. 18 de September de 2003.