Chapter-1 Introduction

1.0 Background

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 Objectives

The specific objectives of the task are the following:

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

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

1.2 The Approach and the Scope of the Study

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

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

1.3 Methodology

The phases of the lessons learned exercise are discussed below.

1.3.1 Desk Review

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

- CCA and UNDAF documents;

- UNDG guidelines;

- UNDAF Annual Reviews;

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

- MTPDP;

- Human Development Report (HDR),

- Philippines Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Progress reports;

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

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

- Reports of various agency-specific evaluations and assessments.

1.3.2 Collection of Data

Collection of primary data through questionnaire survey

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

Collection of secondary data

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

1.4 Analysis and Report writing

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

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

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

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

Annex 3: Questionnaire – UNDAF Lessons Learned

11 Questionnaire is enclosed in Annex 3.

1.5 Limitations of the study

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

1.6 Timeline

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

ACTIVITIES APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

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

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

Desk review of existing and relevant documents

Development of the inception report

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

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

Finalizing revised report outline, questionnaire survey

Drafting of evaluation report

Sharing initial results with UNDAF WG (10 June)

Debrief initial results (1 July special UNCT Meeting)

Receiving comments and revision of the draft report

Multi-stakeholder consultation

Finalization of the report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 The Design, Content and the Implementation Process

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

2.2.1 The UNDAF Thematic Areas

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 The UNDAF Results Matrix

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

However, a close look at the RM reveals that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.3 Monitoring & Evaluation plans

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

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

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

findings into the development of the next UNDAF.

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

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

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

2.2.4 The UNDAF M&E Framework

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

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

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

Table 1: UNDAF RM Format prescribed by UNDG Guideline

UNDAF Outcome Indicator(s) and Baselines

Means of verification Assumptions and Risks

UNDAF Outcome1

1.1 Agency outcome

- Output 1.1.1

- Output 1.1.2

- Output 1.1.3

…

Indicators; Baselines, targets18

Indicators; Baselines, targets

Sources:

Responsible agencies/ partners

Sources:

Responsible agencies/ partners

At the interface:

(1) Between national priorities and UNDAF outcomes; and

(2) UNDAF outcomes and Agency outcomes

1.2 Agency outcome

- Output 1.2.1

….

Indicators; Baselines, targets

…

Sources:

Responsible agencies/ partners

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

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

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

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

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

Country programme outcome/output

Indicators and baselines Sources of verification

CP Outcome 1:

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

rights to health and education.

• Proportion of caretakers aware of children’s rights

Baseline: 1999 : 84.3 %

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

Baseline : Not available·

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

Baseline : Not available

MICS

DOH Records /Reports

DOH Records/Reports

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

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

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

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

2.2.5 Cross-cutting issues

Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender Equality

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

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

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

UNDAF Outcome: Basic Social Services

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

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

Indicators & Sources of Verification:

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

• Lower infant mortality rate - National Demographic and Health Survey

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

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

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

Source: Workshop document (2007)

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

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

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

2.2.6 Implementation Mechanism: Thematic Groups and their Evolution

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

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

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

Table 3 Thematic Groups

UNDAF Outcomes Convenor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 Annual Review 2006 and TCPR 2007

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

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

2.2.7 Collaboration and Partnership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In pilot countries the One Programme substantially enhanced28:

i. Alignment with national priorities;

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

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

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

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

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

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

viii. Synergies and strategic focus; and

ix. Better use of resources.

3.1 ‘Delivering as One’: The Philippines Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 RCAR 2007 31 Report of UNCT Annual Retreat April 2007

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

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

On the other hand, challenges included:

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

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

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

• One office poses security risk.

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

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

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

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

3.1.1Common services

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.2 Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.3 Joint Programming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint Programming through Funding by MDG-F

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint Programming through Multi-Bilateral Funding

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

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

Joint Programming through Regular Funding

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.4 Advocacy and Communications

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

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

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

4.1.1 Preparatory Phase

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

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

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

4.1.2 Formulation Process and the Content

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

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

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

UN Common Programme Management Structure

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

Prepares Matters forDiscussion by theUNDAF Steering Committee

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

UNDAFTechnical Secretariat

composed of NEDA officialsand UN Senior Programme Officers

UNDPProgrammeExecutiveCommittee

UNFPAProgrammeManagementCommittee

UNICEFNationalSteeringCommittee

ILODecent Work

National TripatiteAdvisory Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.3 Addressing Cross-Cutting Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35 UNCT has agreed to this.

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

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

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

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

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

For mainstreaming Gender Equality the following steps are crucial:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.3 Delivering As One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.2 Joint Programming: Lessons learned From the Philippines Experiences

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.3 Advocacy and Communication: Lessons learned From the Philippines Experiences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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