Equipo de innovación, personas y roles clave

Table 6.2 Project Effectiveness Criteria Indicator Scores Criteria Indicators to assess if the Criteria are

consistent with programme/project effectiveness in addressing EDP(s).

Score

Situational Analysis

1. Analysis of problems & underlying causes is carried out and consistent with actual EDP and sets out the rationale for the programme/project. 2. Analysis of higher-level policies,

institutional, political-economy etc. issues that may impact on

achievement of the desired results 3. Analysis of key institutional, policy,

planning and implementation processes relevant to addressing the

ƒ 3

ƒ 1

Criteria Indicators to assess if the Criteria are consistent with programme/project effectiveness in addressing EDP(s).

Score EDP. Strategy (includes implementation arrangements) 4. A participatory approach to

development of Strategy (& overall design).

5. Strategy consistent with problem statement & key national processes linked to the drivers of the problem 6. Ministries of Planning/Finance lead

or co-lead the process & key EDP relevant sector ministries (e.g. Agriculture) are an integral part of programme management & oversight structures.

7. Programme/Project is integrated into relevant Government or regional processes & institutional mechanisms. 8. Strategy is consistent with EDP good

practice. E.g. as contained in relevant UN EDP guidelines.

9. Reflects higher-level issues that contribute to the causes of the problem and/or make addressing the problem more difficult.

x 3 x 3 x 1 x 1 x 3 x 1

Outcome 10. Outcome statement states actual or intended change the programme interventions are seeking to support.

x 2

Outputs & Activities

11. Outputs included are short-term environment & development results to be produced within the project timeframe & budget and are consistent with the outcome. 12. Activities describe actions needed to

obtain the stated outputs & are consistent with the Outputs that need to be produced.

x 3

x 3

Work plan 13. Work plan provides enough time for delivery of all outputs & activities.

ƒ 2

Budget 14. Budget sufficient to pay for activities & outputs.

15. Budget is broken down by activities and/or outputs ƒ 3 ƒ 3 Management & Co-ordination Arrangements

16. Arrangements specify clear

responsibility for programme/project management, including co-ordination

Criteria Indicators to assess if the Criteria are consistent with programme/project effectiveness in addressing EDP(s).

Score

between different components & implementing agencies.

17. Ministries of Planning/Finance lead or co-lead the process.

18. Government steering and/technical committee chaired by lead ministry responsible for programme/project. 19. Reflect capacity of Government &

other partners. x 1 x 2 x 3 Risk Assessment

20. Risks to achievement of desired outcome & sustainability, including higher level risks, are identified with actions to minimise risks contained in risk plan

ƒ 2

Monitoring & Evaluation

21. Results based (rather than activity or output focused) quarterly & annual monitoring included

22. Progress reports are responded to with remedial actions implemented, documented and reported against.

ƒ 3

x 2

The scores shown are based on the overall effectiveness of PEI Africa across the seven participating countries following restructuring; they include the effectiveness of PEI Africa ‘work-arounds’ where systems were not functioning consistent with PEI Africa protocols, e.g. the text here rates M&E 2 and 3, because the PEI Africa and the donor developed M&E systems to work around the basic inadequacy of the UNEP M&E systems. Without restructuring, the scores would have remained low as with the UNEP P&EP analysed in Case Study 1.

Table 6.3 Evaluation Criteria Summary Scores

Criteria Score

Situational Analysis ƒ 1.67

Strategy x 2

Outcome x 2

Outputs & Activities x 3

Work plan ƒ 2

Budget ƒ 3

Management & Co-ordination Arrangements x 2 Feasibility, Risks & Sustainability ƒ 2

Overall effectiveness: Moderate Plus

By the end of 2009, the UNEP P&EP had been restructured into the joint UNDP-UNEP Poverty and Environment Initiative (PEI Africa) and had achieved credible but uneven results in terms of integrating environmental sustainability into national development planning processes in the seven PEI Africa countries. In addition, its impact in terms of UNDP-UNEP co-operation was highly successful. Evidence for this is contained in different donor reports, country fact sheets and evaluation reports, which document substantial but uneven improvements, although these results were uneven across countries and across the five outcomes (Bass and Renard, 2009, UNDP-UNEP PEI Africa, Government of Norway 2006, 2006a, 2007, 2008; UNEP, 2006).

Beyond what PEI Africa sought to achieve at the country level, the lessons learned enabled the development of a more broadly applicable model for integrating environmental sustainability into national and sector development planning processes. This model was formalised in the poverty-environment mainstreaming guidelines that were later published and thus fulfilled Needs/Goal 5 of the revised PEI Africa logframe referred to above (UNDP-UNEP PEI 2009). That key donors invited UNDP and UNEP to prepare a proposal to scale up the programme based on the PEI Africa is a verifiable indicator of the growing success of that programme (UNDP-UNEP PEI, 2007). Moreover, interagency co-operation in general and between UNEP and UNDP on environment in particular proved to be a catalyst for increased donor support for PEI Africa and other UN initiatives.

On the other hand, the level of effort required to restructure the PEI Africa appropriately was very much higher than anticipated, as indicated in the Belgian evaluation and other documentation. The success of PEI depended significantly on working around UNEP systems and procedures that were unsuited for the country-level impact that PEI Africa was trying to achieve. In addition, problems in implementation persisted. So, while the PEI Africa was a moderate success, it highlights a range of problems within UNEP that hindered its ability to more broadly address EDPs in developing countries. On the UNDP side, it demonstrates that its systems are in place, although they are cumbersome and sometimes the capacity to apply them is insufficient, which reduces UN effectiveness.

Key evidence to substantiate comments and analysis regarding PEI Africa is contained in the Norwegian evaluation of the PEI Africa, shown below:

1. PEI is playing a unique catalytic role in integrating poverty reduction and environmental objectives in-country

3. The PEI pilot project has been a learning and adaptive programme, shaped ultimately— if not immediately— to suit country needs

4. PEI has been a ‘One UN’ pioneer, demonstrating the benefits of and the requirements for a joint programming approach between UNDP and UNEP for environmental mainstreaming

5. The full integration of poverty reduction and environmental objectives in-country is a long-term (10–20 year) institutional change process

6. Key ‘upstream’ issues constrain implementation of the newly integrated plans resulting from PEI’s work, such as macro-economic and tenure policy

7. PEI faces many dilemmas ‘downstream’ of the national development plan

8. We conclude that PEI’s relevance is very high, its effectiveness is good, equity is satisfactory, and sustainability is satisfactory—but efficiency is highly variable (depending upon country)

9. High-level UNDP and UNEP attention is essential to address some of the constraints to PEI progress, and there are clear roles for the PEI team and donors, too (p 2-4, Bass and Renard, 2009).

In conclusion, these findings indicate that the PEI Africa was a moderately good model for addressing EDPs in developing countries. Case Study 3 will describe and analyse PEI Rwanda, a third example of the integrated PEI country programme.

7.

CASE STUDY 3: UNDP-UNEP PEI RWANDA PHASE I