THE UNDP RESULTS MANAGEMENT GUIDE 1

THE UNDP RESULTS MANAGEMENT GUIDE 1 A process based description of required minimum programming methods articulated as policies, tasks, and deliverables, for use in the effective planning and execution of development programmes and projects. SUGGESTED CHANGES BASED ON REVIEW BY REFERENCE GROUP As of 30 June 2006 EO Inputs August 15, 2006 1 Text relating to evaluation has been highlighted. 1

THE UNDP USER GUIDE 2 11 October 2006

Document Control Document Name Language(s) Responsible Unit Creator (individual) Subject (taxonomy) Change Record The UNDP Results Management Guide English Bureau of Development Policy / Capacity Development Group Terence Jones Date created August 2005 Mandatory Review February 2006 Expiry Date Audience Applicability Replaces Is part of Related documents UN Record Ref. Management, Operations, Oversight / Organisational Procedures and Decisions, Directives, Rules / Procedures & Guidelines (12 months past publish date) This Guide has been designed for UNDP development programme and project managers and practitioners, as well as UNDP partners involved in the UNDP project cycle. This document provides an overview of the approach to managing UNDP development programmes. It focuses on the programme and project management processes to be followed and relevant management checkpoints. It does not contain detailed techniques, nor does it provide financial and procurement regulations and rules. Replaces chapters 2 and 4 8 of the UNDP Programming Manual UNDP User Guide Multi Year Funding Framework UNDP Finance Manual, Version Date Author(s) Revision Notes 2 30 June 2006 Dien Le The updated version is based on the comments made at the mandatory review meeting of 28 February 2006 and subsequent inputs from HQ units and Regional Centers. Provide feedback: dien.le@undp.org Ask questions: dien.le@undp.org 3 11 October 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 RESULTS MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW... 8 1 RESULTS MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW... 8 1.1 Introduction... 8 1.2 Relevant Policies... 8 1.2.1 Core Values and the Human Rights Based Approach... 8 1.2.2 Results Orientation... 10 1.2.3 Accountability and Delegated Authority to Country Offices... 12 1.2.4 Programme & Lifecycles... 14 1.2.5 Timeframe... 16 1.2.6 Programme Management Process... 18 1.2.7 Management Process... 19 1.2.8 Legal Framework... 22 1.2.9 Programme and Organisation... 25 2 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT... 29 2.1 Defining a Country Programme... 29 2.1.1 Description... 29 2.1.2 Flowchart... 30 2.1.3 Procedures... 30 2.1.4 Relevant Policies... 35 2.1.5 Inputs... 37 2.1.6 Deliverables... 38 2.1.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 38 2.1.8 Templates & Forms... 38 2.1.9 Additional Information & Tools... 39 2.1.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 39 2.1.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 40 2.2 Initiating a Programme... 41 2.2.1 Description... 41 2.2.2 Flowchart... 41 2.2.3 Procedures... 41 2.2.4 Relevant Policies... 44 2.2.5 Inputs... 45 2.2.6 Deliverables... 45 2.2.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 46 2.2.8 Templates & Forms... 46 4 11 October 2006

2.2.9 Additional Information & Tools... 46 2.2.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 47 2.2.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 47 2.3 Running a Programme... 48 2.3.1 Description... 47 2.3.2 Flowchart... 47 2.3.3 Procedures... 47 2.3.4 Relevant Policies... 49 2.3.5 Inputs... 50 2.3.6 Deliverables... 560 2.3.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 560 2.3.8 Templates & Forms... 560 2.3.9 Additional Information & Tools... 571 2.3.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 571 2.3.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 571 2.4 Evaluating a Programme... 53 2.4.1 Description... 53 2.4.2 Flowchart... 53 2.4.3 Procedures... 53 2.4.4 Relevant Policies... 54 2.4.5 Inputs... 56 2.4.6 Deliverables... 56 2.4.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 56 2.4.8 Templates & Forms... 56 2.4.9 Additional Information & Tools... 57 2.4.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 57 2.4.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 57 3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT... 58 3.1 Justifying a... 58 3.1.1 Description... 57 3.1.2 Flowchart... 58 3.1.3 Procedures... 58 3.1.4 Relevant Policies... 61 3.1.5 Inputs... 61 3.1.6 Deliverables... 62 3.1.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 62 3.1.8 Templates & Forms... 62 3.1.9 Additional Information & Tools... 62 3.1.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 63 3.1.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 63 5 11 October 2006

3.2 Defining a...65 3.2.1 Description... 65 3.2.2 Flowchart... 65 3.2.3 Procedures... 66 3.2.4 Relevant Policies... 70 3.2.5 Inputs... 71 3.2.6 Deliverables... 71 3.2.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 72 3.2.8 Templates & Forms... 72 3.2.9 Additional Information & Tools... 72 3.2.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 73 3.2.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 74 3.3 Initiating a... 75 3.3.1 Description... 75 3.3.2 Flowchart... 75 3.3.3 Procedures... 75 3.3.4 Relevant Policies... 81 3.3.5 Inputs... 83 3.3.6 Deliverables... 83 3.3.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 83 3.3.8 Templates & Forms... 84 3.3.9 Additional Information & Tools... 84 3.3.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 86 3.3.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 86 3.4 Running a...87 3.4.1 Description... 87 3.4.2 Flowchart... 88 3.4.3 Procedures... 88 3.4.4 Relevant Policies... 91 3.4.5 Inputs... 95 3.4.6 Deliverables... 95 3.4.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 95 3.4.8 Templates & Forms... 95 3.4.9 Additional Information & Tools... 96 3.4.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 96 3.4.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 96 3.5 Closing a... 97 3.5.1 Description... 97 3.5.2 Flowchart... 97 3.5.3 Procedures... 97 3.5.4 Relevant Policies... 99 3.5.5 Inputs... 99 6 11 October 2006

3.5.6 Deliverables... 100 3.5.7 Roles & Responsibilities... 100 3.5.8 Templates & Forms... 100 3.5.9 Additional Information & Tools... 100 3.5.10 Lessons & Knowledge from Experience... 100 3.5.11 On the Drawing Board / Unresolved Issues... 100 7 11 October 2006

RESULTS MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW 1. INTRODUCTION This guide provides a process based description of required minimum programming procedures articulated as policies, tasks, and deliverables, for use in the effective planning and execution of development programmes and projects. It describes management requirements for a Country, Regional and Global 2 Programme and their operationalisation through projects to achieve results. These processes are fully aligned with UNDG common country programme arrangements, inter alia the application of the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) and Annual Work Plan (AWP). Countries and Bureaux following existing programming arrangements will also follow this guide, with relevant changes noted. The scope of this guide describes specific requirements and processes of development programmes and projects, not specific requirements and processes of management projects. Although the guide provides significant guidance in support of management projects, a future release of this guide will include specific processes and procedures associated with management activities. Harmonized and integrated programming at the country level is undertaken by the UN System in partnership with the Government and other key development partners. Based on the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), this guide describes the minimum requirements and processes used within UNDP as a member of the UN Country Team (UNCT) to produce development results, by applying accepted international standards for the management of projects and programmes. UNDP uses projects to produce outputs in order to contribute to results approved in Country Programmes, Regional Programmes (RPs) and the Global Programme (GP) to operationalise UNDP s vision, directions and strategies as established in the Multi Year Funding Framework (MYFF). Within this framework, UNDP is supported by its Associated Funds and Programmes, namely the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the United Nations Volunteers Programme (UNV), and the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) who contribute directly to UNDP s Programme results. 2 RELEVANT POLICIES 2.1 Core Values Capacity development is the core objective and focus for all UNDP country based interventions. The MYFF states that the quality of UNDP results in capacity development should be expressed through six drivers of development effectiveness: 1. Developing national capacities, 2. Enhancing national ownership, 3. Nurturing an enabling policy environment, 4. Seeking South South solutions, 5. Promoting gender equity and 6. Forging partnerships for results. These drivers of development effectiveness, when taken together, connect UNDP s substantive results to larger intended national development outcomes. The MYFF further provides that UNDP s operations should focus on one or more of its five core practice areas, namely achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty, fostering democratic governance, energy and environment for sustainable development, crisis prevention and recovery, and responding to HIV/AIDS. 2.2 Capacity development 2 See Global & Regional Programming for additional information 8 11 October 2006

Capacity development cuts across each of these core practice areas and over the past few years it has become evident that a more rigorous approach to CD is required. This includes taking concrete steps to mainstream capacity diagnostics throughout UNDP and UN system operations and into national processes. Similarly, the articulation and implementation of capacity development strategies have to become more evidence based and systematic in application, and measurable in terms of progress and impact achieved. UNDP has identified a number of capacity development strategies that may be applied to address capacity development needs in a variety of sectors that speak to integrated approaches to development. Please see the UNDP Capacity Development Practice Note for further detail on following capacity development strategies and application areas. 1. Capacity Diagnostics 2. Knowledge Services and Learning 3. Leadership Development 4. Institutional Reform and Change Management 5. Multi stakeholder Engagement 6. Mutual Accountability Mechanisms 7. Incentive Systems Any one or a combination of these capacity development strategies should be implemented in the context of UNDP programmes in all practice areas. They should be implemented as part of an overall capacity development process that includes the following steps: 1) Engage partners and build consensus; 2) Assess capacity assets and needs; 3) Define CD strategies; 4) Implement CD strategies; 5) Monitor and evaluate CD strategies. 2.3 Gender equality Making gender equality a reality is a core commitment of UNDP. As a crosscutting issue, gender must be addressed in everything the organisation does. UNDP can make an impact on gender equality in four ways: through the integration of gender into the six practice areas (i.e. democratic governance, poverty reduction, crisis prevention and recovery; energy and environment, information and communication technologies, and HIV/AIDS); through its work as scorekeeper and champion for the Millennium Development Goals; through its stewardship of the resident co ordinator system; and through the organisation s effective advocacy tool, namely the Human Development Report and the National Human Development Reports. UNDP s agenda for gender equality follows a three pronged approach: develop capacity both in country and in house to integrate gender concerns in the six practice areas; provide policy advice that is both pro poor and pro women; and support stand alone operational interventions for gender equality in collaboration with UNIFEM. For more information, please refer to the UNDP Practice Note on Gender Equality 2.4 Human Rights Based Approach The UN Secretary General has called for all UN funded programmes to mainstream human rights into their various activities and programmes within the framework of their respective mandates. UNDP has adopted a human rights based approach (HRBA) to its development cooperation. The aim of all 9 11 October 2006

activities is to contribute directly to the realisation of one or several human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. Human rights determine the relationship between the individuals and groups with valid claims, and state and non state actors with correlative obligations, and works towards strengthening the capacities of rightsholders to make their claims, and of duty bearers to meet their obligations. In application, this necessitates programming practices that include: Identification of human rights claims and the corresponding obligations of all the stakeholder groups involved; Analysing the underlying and structural causes of the non realisation of rights; assessing the capacities of both rights holders and duty bearers, and where such is weak supporting capacity development measures; and Monitoring and evaluating both processes and outcomes, guided by international human rights standards and principles. 2.5 Results Orientation Central to the definition of results is that they are material to actual development as seen by developing countries themselves, and by the development community at large. Defining clear, meaningful and monitorable development outcomes to which UNDP can contribute is central to the results based approach of UNDP. (See Results Based Management (RBM) in UNDP: Technical Note.) Thus, results orientation implies that the processes of planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the organisation s work is structured around achieving these outcomes. For UNDP, this is reflected in a chain of results that starts with MDGs and national development priorities, addressed through UNDAF / Country Programme or Regional/Global programmes, which in turn are achieved through outputs which are realised through projects, as mapped in Figure 1. 10 11 October 2006

Figure 1 UNDAF/Country Programme/CPAP, Regional and Global Programme Development Priorities Outcome Outcome Document Output Output Output Output Activity Activity Input Input 1 Figure 1: Hierarchy of project level inputs leading to programme level outcomes National development priorities are medium to long term development outcomes that a programme country has chosen to pursue. They often reflect the MDGs and other international development targets, and are usually found within national planning frameworks or strategies. The UNDAF outcomes are development changes that the UN country team collectively seeks to achieve as their combined contribution to selected national development outcomes. Results expressed in the UNDAF results matrix must map clearly to those of the Country Programme and CPAP. While national development outcomes may require a medium to long term time horizon (perhaps 5 15 years), UNDAF outcomes speak of specific results to be achieved within the UN programming cycle (3 6 years). Documentation specify how outputs are generated, with what partners, carrying out what activities, utilising what resources. 11 11 October 2006

2.6 Accountability and Delegated Authority to Country Offices 2.6.1 Delegated Authority The UNDP Administrator is accountable to the UNDP Executive Board for UNDP programming activities, including those of Associated Funds and Programmes in line with the decisions of applicable governing bodies. In exercising his accountability to the Executive Board, the Administrator delegates authority to enter into an execution agreement with the programme country Government through the CPAP and to the UNDP Resident Representative (RR), through the Director of the Regional Bureau, once the Executive Board has approved the Country Programme. The RR together with the programme country Government also has authority to adjust the CPAP to changing circumstances within the country providing this is within the overall framework of the Country Programme as approved by the Executive Board. The Director of the Regional Bureau may, however, withhold, withdraw, or limit this authority also if an Executive Board decision or other circumstances so require. The RR is accountable for the quality and sustainability of UNDP interventions and ensuring that all UNDP policies and procedures have been fully complied with. Each UNDP project is implemented by a single Implementing Partner/ Executing Entity which is accountable to UNDP for the use of UNDP resources and achievement of identified project outputs. 2.6.2 Accountability UNDP staff, including contractors working for UNDP, are expected to comply with standards of conduct appropriate for their relationship with UNDP. Staff members are expected to uphold the highest standards of conduct for international civil servants. Similar expectations are made for experts, contractors, and other non UN officials. The fundamental base for this legislation begins with the Staff Regulations that embody broad principles of personnel policy for the staffing and administration of the UN staff, including UNDP. Fundamental conditions of service and the basic rights, duties, and obligations of UN staff are also covered in the Staff Rules. In order to implement this legislation known as the regulations, a detailed set of rules has been developed. These are known as Staff Rules and they are approved by the Secretary General, who provides specific guidance on how to implement the broad principles as defined in the Staff Regulations. Further guidance is available to staff from the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC), which has issued a guide that explains in detail how the code of conduct should be enacted in the working environment of staff. This guide is known as the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service Commission. For contractors, there are similar expectations of behaviour that can be found in the Regulations Governing the Status, Basic Rights and Duties of non UN Secretariat Officials, and Experts on Mission (ST/SGB/2002/9/ 18 June 2002). 12 11 October 2006

UNDP also has prescriptive content that deals with accountability, disciplinary measures and procedures. This prescriptive content defines misconduct and explains the process by which staff members will be held accountable for their actions if they breach regulations and rules. To supplement the above policies and to help UNDP offices implement effective internal controls, the Internal Control Framework describes staff member accountabilities with reference to their role in the office, including project roles. 2.7 Situational Programming and Accountability in Special Development Situations In certain special development situations, a crisis mode designation for a country is required to ensure that programme and project operations have a rapid response, can be fast tracked and will have necessary flexibilities. In this crisis mode, certain programme and project management policies as designated in this Guide may be suspended as required. The steps towards designation of a crisis situation are as follows: 1. CO Self Designation: The country office Resident Representative, in consultation with UNCT representatives, may designate a crisis situation, identifying that the CO will be operating in a special development situation for a period of up to 3 months. This designation must be done in writing, and the document must include specific policies that the CO will suspend along with appropriate rationale. This document must be distributed by the Resident Representative to the appropriate Regional Bureau management, OPB, Treasury, Controllers, OLPS, BCPR, OAPR, EO and regional centers. This crisis mode designation may not be extended beyond 3 months at the CO level. 2. Regional Bureau Designation: For extending the crisis mode beyond 3 months, Regional Bureau approval is required. This approval is based on a one page justification, context, and implications requesting 6 months designation of the CO as a special development situation. Regional Bureau Directors will make the decision to approve in consultation with BOM and BCPR. Copies of an approval must be distributed to the Associate Adminstrator, OPB, Controllers, Treasury, OLPS, BCPR, OAPR, EO and regional centers. This crisis mode designation may not be extended beyond 6 months at the Regional Bureau level. 3. Associate Administrator Designation: For extending the crisis mode beyond the 6 months approved at the Regional Bureau level, Associate Administrator approval is required. This approval must be preceded by a Regional Bureau documented recommendation with endorsement from BOM and in consultation with BCPR. This document requesting a longer term designation of the CO as a special development situation must include specific policies that the CO will suspend, special measures required, timeframes for review, and appropriate rationale. Copies of an approval must be distributed to OPB, OF, OLPS, BCPR, OAPR, EO and regional centers. This crisis mode designation requires half yearly reviews by the Associate Administrator, with decisions to extend or revoke the crisis mode designation based on a status update, recommendations, and justification report from the CO Resident Representative. In any special situations, UNDP needs to have the facility and flexibility to incorporate or opt to include and integrate conflict and crisis prevention approaches into programming strategies and implementation planning situations. Therefore, while there are pre crisis and post crisis situations that will require the country offices to fast track their current programming to crisis mode programming, a crisis prevention lens should be applied to all other development programmes. 2.8 Security Risk Management (SRM) 13 11 October 2006

The UNDP Security Policy requires that security be mainstreamed to fully integrate security in programming and that a sound risk management methodology be applied. Risk management should be addressed at all three levels of programming at country level as an integral part of the programme/project cycle. The purpose of Security Risk Management (SRM) is to enable operational capabilities and mission accomplishment, with minimal or no loss of life, assets and mission scope. SRM comprises two main phases: threat and risk assessment and effective implementation of risk mitigation measures. A country security risk assessment should be conducted to complement the CCA. Security Risk Management (SRM) must be factored into the definition, budgeting, initiating, running, through to monitoring and evaluating of all programmes/projects. The only way to ensure dedicated security support to UNDP programmes/projects is to include the requirements and costs in the programme planning and budgeting process. That represents the only sustainable manner to fund security needs as inputs to the project/programme, like any other input required for the effective delivery of a project. By influencing designs, such as addressing causes in projects focusing on conflict prevention and reduction, rule of law, governance and similar themes can, on the other hand, contribute to the mitigation of security risk against UN personnel, assets and activities. Security Advisors/Officers are a resource for managers during the programme and project management cycles and should be involved from the outset throughout the programming cycle. 2.9 Programme & Lifecycles The Programme and Lifecycles are underpinning processes that provide UNDP with the ability to deliver results. Within these processes, a series of actions are carried out including the definition of a clear hierarchy of results and continuous monitoring of achievements towards the specified results. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation of the organization s progress and achievements are integrated into the Programme and Lifecycles. The efficient management of Programme and Lifecycles will enable managers to ensure accountability in the use of resources entrusted to generate expected outcomes and outputs. It will also provide a clear basis for decision making and accumulation of lessons learned from experience to guide future development interventions. Figure 2 illustrates the relationships between the UN country programming cycle, the UNDP country programming cycle, and the UNDP project cycle. Each cycle layer identifies the processes (shown as rounded corner rectangles) required to deliver results. UN Country Programming Cycle National Priorities Analyzing Country Situation Defining a UN Framework Running a UN Framework Evaluating a UN Framework UNDP Country Programming Cycle MYFF Defining a Programme Initiating a Programme Running a Programme Evaluating a Programme UNDP Cycle Justifying a Defining a Initiating a Running a Closing a 14 11 October 2006

Figure 2: UNDG/UNDP programming three programme and project cycles as broken down by processes In the diagram, the UN Country Programming Cycle is concerned with setting and measuring results in achieving a country s national development priorities consistent with Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with the government and all UN agency development partners (this cycle is described in the UNDG website, www.undg.org). The results expected from members of the UN country team, including UNDP and its Associated Funds and Programmes, are identified as the outcomes and outputs expected from the UNCT and formally agreed by the government in the UNDAF results matrix. The UNDP Country Programming Cycle is concerned with realising outcomes achieved through UNDP interventions at the country level. The MYFF, as the Executive Board mandated set of operations for UNDP, defines the scope of work for which UNDP can contribute to any given country programme. The UNDP Cycle is concerned with delivering the outputs required to obtain the programme level outcomes through UNDP interventions. In the context of this Guide, the term programme refers to the UNDP Country, Regional and Global Programme. At the discretion of each CO/RB/BDP, this Programme may be managed into a set of portfolios or sub programmes, typically organised into appropriate practice or sector based groupings. In general, a programme is a plan for effectively delivering development results through a set of subordinate projects. A programme differs from a project in several ways: A programme focuses on delivery of higher level results (the intended effects of a set of interventions) by optimizing synergy among project s outputs and assuring their on going relevance to the achievement of results, while a project focuses on delivery of outputs (required to deliver an outcome) A programme considers interdependencies, priorities and interactions among a set of projects, while a project considers interdependencies, priorities and interactions among a set of activities in relation to a given context. Both programmes and projects should be designed to be rigorous in delivering quality against a plan, but sufficiently flexible for continued renewal of focus and adaptation to change. 15 11 October 2006

Timeframe for country programming The duration and starting date of the UN programming cycle should be agreed between the government and the UNCT and should reflect the national planning cycle and processes concerned. The start and duration of UNDP s Country Programme should coincide with that agreed for the UN as a whole in the country. Figure 3 shows the timeline for the different components of programme management at the country level. The process of developing a Country Programme starts in the penultimate year of the previous programme cycle with the analysis of the development situation in the country (Common Country Assessment CCA, including enabling environment and organisational capacity assessments through the use of the UNDP Default Capacity Assessment Tool), and on this basis, the UNDAF is formulated. While the broad outcomes for the UN are being developed, as reflected in the UNDAF results matrix, preparation of the UNDP Country Programme starts (as early as September typically in a UNCT and partner prioritisation retreat). The draft Country Programme document should be submitted to the Regional Bureaux for their appraisal in or before March. The draft Country Programme document is then submitted to the Executive Board in June of the ultimate year of the current or ongoing Country Programme. After the Country Programme document is revised to reflect any comments from the Executive Board, it is approved in a subsequent Executive Board session. The formulation of the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP), typically done in parallel with the formulation of the CP document, should be finalised as late as the last quarter of the last year of the previous cycle so that it can also be approved and signed by the government and UNDP in January. Prior to finalization, the CPAPs should be discussed amongst the UNDG ExCom agencies and the Government in a Joint Strategy meeting to ensure consistency with the UNDAF. The CPAPs should be submitted to RB for review and signed together with Government and the other UNDG ExCom agencies. To the extent feasible the CPAP should be the result of design level work that satisfies normal project formulation standards and reflects sufficient detail to enable the implementation of projects through the signature of project documents. Where a CPAP is not available, the requirements for project formulation should be followed. 16 11 October 2006

Programme Time Cycle Cycle A Penultimate Year Cycle A Ultimate Year Cycle B Year 1 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D UN Country Programming Cycle A CP, CPAP UNDAF Cycle Evaluation UNDAF Annual Review CPAP Annual Review CCA CCA approved by RC and UNCT UNDAF Annual Review CPAP Annual Review UN Country Progr. Cycle B (~2-7 years) CP, CPAP UNDAF complete UNDAF UNDAF signed by Govt and UN partners UNDAF Annual Review CPAP Annual Review CP CP approved by UNDP EB UNCT Joint Strategy Meeting to review CP CP submitted to RBx CP approved by RBx CPAP CP submitted to EB CPAP signed by UNDP and Govt UNCT Joint Strategy Meeting to review CPAP 1 AWP Yr. 2 2 AWP Yr. 3 1 AWP Yr. 3 1 AWP Yr. 4 (Cycle B) 19 June 2006 1 17 11 October 2006

Figure 3: Programming timeline with associated activities and milestones, showing transition from one cycle (Cycle A) to the next (Cycle B) 2.10 Programme Management Process Figure 4 illustrates major steps in the programme lifecycle. The cycle begins with UNDP s objectives as defined in the UNDAF and UNDP s goals at the country level as defined in the MYFF, and ends by reviewing progress in realising programme outcomes. The rounded corner rectangles in the centre of the diagram represent the processes of a programme, essentially the high level activity areas starting and ending at decision points that must be followed to manage a programme. In addition, the diagram illustrates with dotted lines the key management review points within the cycle. For each process, this guide will provide information to ensure appropriate UNDP policies are followed, key stakeholders are kept informed, appropriate management structure exists, results are monitored, and the programme results are well managed. Involvement of National Representatives, UNDP, and Partners UNDAF MYFF Defining a Programme (Prepare CP) Initiating a Programme (Prepare CPAP) Running a Programme (CPAP reviews & Oversight) Evaluating a Programme (Assessment of Development Results) UNDP Oversight & Programme Management CP Appraisal & Approval CPAP Approval CPAP Reviews END Cycle 18 11 October 2006

Figure 4: The UNDP Country Programming Cycle 2.11 Management Process Figure 5 is a pictorial view of the project lifecycle. The cycle begins by justifying a project s business case and/or development challenges (which should be articulated in the CP and CPAP) and ends with delivery of outputs to be assessed in the programme review. The rounded corner rectangles in the centre of the diagram represent the processes of a project, essentially the high level activity areas starting and ending at decision points that must be followed to manage a project. This approach covers the entire project lifecycle from idea generation, to formulating a project, to implementing the activities in the project, to monitoring and evaluating the project, to realising the project benefits and their intended contribution to programme outcomes. At each process, this guide will provide information to ensure appropriate UNDP policies are followed, key stakeholders are kept informed, appropriate project management structure exists, outputs and activity deliverables are monitored, and the project is well managed. 19 11 October 2006

Involvement of National Representatives, UNDP, and Partners Ideas Lifecycle Justifying a Defining a (Prepare Results Framework-PRF) Initiating a (Finalize Prodoc/ Mgmt & Finance) Running a (Operations & Monitoring) Closing a (Closure and Learning) UNDP Oversight & Management 1 Decision Point 2 Decision Point 3 Decision Point Reviews Final Review Final Revision Figure 5: The UNDP Cycle The diagram also illustrates with dotted lines the key management review points within the cycle. The dotted lines at the far left and far right indicate the start and stop points of the project management cycle, and the other dotted lines indicate management approval or decision points between or within processes. The dotted lines intersecting the Running a process indicate that there will be reviews at each major decision point during the implementation of the project, as many or as few as required to ensure that the project is under control (these reviews are typically aligned with calendar years). The bottom ovals in the diagram indicate different review mechanisms applicable to UNDP projects to make approval decisions. For example, the first three Decision Point ovals are points to consider the questions: 20 11 October 2006

1 (Primary) Decision Point: Is this project a correct response to country needs and suitable for UNDP support? This decision is made by UNDP Country Office management, to confirm the project idea as initially identified during development of the Country Programme. 2 (Secondary) Decision Point: Is the project scope realistic for UNDP to delivery clear and obtainable results, with solid management arrangements to implement this project? This decision is considered during appraisal of the project by the Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) to review the project scope and approach. 3 (Tertiary) Decision Point: Does the design of the project demonstrate a plan to operate and assess progress towards production of deliverables and outputs to ensure success? This decision is considered by the Board (see section 1.1.2) when reviewing a detailed project budget and activity schedule. The Reviews oval indicates multiple scheduled decision points that must be made while a project is being run, to answer the questions: Is the project yielding the desired results? Is the project being run as planned? Is there a need to redesign, cancel or modify the project in any way? 2.12 Evaluation Evaluation is a judgement made of the relevance, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of development efforts based on agreed criteria and benchmarks among key partners and stakeholders. It involves a rigorous, systematic and objective process in the design, analysis and interpretation of information to answer specific questions. It provides assessments of what works and why, highlights both intended and unintended results, and provides strategic lessons to guide decisionmakers and inform stakeholders. Evaluation in UNDP should be guided by the Executive Board approved Evaluation Policy (2006) which establishes the parameters of institutional responsibility in conducting and using evaluation for accountability, learning and more effective management for results. The Evaluation Office (EO) is the custodian of the evaluation function. It conducts strategic and thematic evaluations, global and regional programme evaluations, and assessments of development results (ADRs) which evaluate UNDP s contribution to development results at the country level. EO presents the strategic, thematic, global and regional programme evaluations to the Executive Board. Programme management presents the management response and follow up action plan. The ADRs are made available the Executive Board. The findings, lessons and recommendations from all these evaluations feed into UNDP s strategy and programming and provide a basis for accountability. The Evaluation Office is also responsible for evaluation quality standards, developing and disseminating methodology, providing advice, establishing and maintaining the system for the planning and tracking of evaluation and management response (Evaluation Resource Centre), and disseminating good practices. Offices and units managing country, regional and global programmes are responsible for planning, commissioning and using evaluation in managing for results. At the outset of a programme, the office or programme unit is required to prepare an evaluation plan, and identify outcome evaluations which then constitute their mandatory requirement. evaluations should be conducted when required by partnership protocol or at the discretion of the programme management. Programme management is ultimately responsible for compliance with mandatory requirements. For operational efficiency, specific tasks may be assigned, or authority delegated at the discretion of programme management. 21 11 October 2006

Evaluation units of the associated funds and programmes are the custodians of the evaluation function in their organizations. They manage and conduct evaluations, and contribute to the quality standards, methodologies and systems developed by the UNDP Evaluation Office. 2.13 Legal Framework General Assembly, ECOSOC and Executive Board resolutions and decisions determine UNDP s mandate, operations and organisation. The Executive Board approves the multi year funding framework (MYFF), which is the key instrument for the strategic management, monitoring, and accountability of UNDP internally, as well as for external stakeholders. The Executive Board on 28 January 2005 approved the new Financial Regulations and Rules and along with them the new definitions of ʹexecutionʹ and implementationʹ enabling UNDP to fully implement the Common Country Programming Procedures resulting from the UNDG simplification and harmonization initiative. The revised UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules have significant operational implications for Country Offices role in implementing the Country Programme as it introduces harmonized programming processes. For UNDP programme activities carried out under the harmonized operational modalities (i.e. Common Country Programming Processes, the term ʹexecutionʹ is redefined as the overall ownership and responsibility for UNDP programme activities at the country level. The government, through the Government Coordinating Agency, exercises its ownership and responsibility for UNDP programme activities by approving and signing the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) with UNDP. All activities falling within the CPAP are, therefore, nationally executed. The term ʹimplementationʹ is redefined as the management and delivery of programme activities to achieve specified results including the procurement and delivery of UNDP programme activities, inputs and their use in producing outputs, as set forth in the Annual Work Plans (AWPs). AWPs are incorporated by reference to the CPAP and signed by UNDP and the implementing partner(s). The CPAP and AWP together constitute the minimum requirements for a project document. Under the Common Country Programming procedures, execution means ownership of the country programme documented in the CPAP. Therefore, projects are no longer executed. Rather, they are implemented by implementing partners who are responsible for producing outputs and use of resources. Implementing partners may contract with Responsible Parties to carry out specific activities. In countries where the common country programming procedures have not been introduced, the Responsible Party is called implementing agent. The above terminology shift can be illustrated in the following figure 22 11 October 2006

Un-Harmonized Harmonized ATLAS (COA) Country Programme Level Execution (redefined) Government Coordinating Agency Level Execution Executing Entity Implementation (redefined) Implementing Partner Institution Code Implementation Contractual Implementing Entity Responsible Party Implementing Agent 26 The Executive Board s approval of a Country Programme provides UNDP with a mandate to fulfil the approved programme in a country. The subsequent approval and signature by the Government Coordinating Agency of the CPAP constitutes an agreement between UNDP and the programme country Government on an action plan to execute that programme. The Government Coordinating Agency is the government agency designated to coordinate UNDP activities. Details of specific UNDP interventions are outlined in a Document which articulates an agreement to implement a project in accordance with the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA) between the government and UNDP. Implementing Partners are accountable to UNDP for the use of UNDP resources and production of identified outputs. The following documents are used to operationalise such legal arrangements: Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA): The legal agreement between the programme country Government and UNDP outlining general conditions for UNDP cooperation under which all UNDP programme activities are carried out. Where there is no SBAA, a standard annex (Supplemental Provisions) to the project document should be used.. Country Programme Document: A document approved by the UNDP Executive Board to mandate UNDP to carry out programming activities in a country. Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP): A legal agreement between the programme country Government and UNDP to execute the Country Programme. Document: From a legal perspective as defined in the SBAA, the term Document is articulated as follows: For countries under the harmonized operational modalities (i.e. CPAP countries), the term Document refers to the combination of the AWP and CPAP. The Document is a legal agreement between UNDP and the Implementing Partner to implement a specific AWP within a calendar year, as identified in the CPAP signed between the Government and UNDP. AWPs form an integral part of the CPAP, and when completed, are annexed thereto and incorporated therein by reference. As most UNDP projects have a duration covering multiple 23 11 October 2006

calendar years, additional documents, such as a results and resources framework, and additional narrative if required, and AWPs for subsequent years could be added if these are not sufficiently detailed in the CPAP or are required for resource mobilization purpose. The AWP of the current year needs to be signed for each calendar year. The level of detail in AWPs for subsequent years, provided at the beginning of the project, need not be complete and may contain only the agreed activities and contractual commitments. However as they progressively become current, the respective AWP for a given year should be completed in detail prior to signature. budgets in Atlas are entered and revised accordingly, mutatis mutandis. o For countries under the non harmonized operational modalities (i.e. non CPAP countries), the term Document refers to the Atlas supported project document which is a legal agreement between UNDP, the government, and the Executing Entity to implement a specific project 3. The Document describes the project linkage to the CP, RP and GP outlines the project results and resources framework, and defines management arrangements. The Results and Resources Framework identifies the intended outcomes to which the project contributes, the intended outputs and the activities and inputs needed to achieve the outputs. Besides the above minimal requirements for a project document, a country office, in consultation with the government, may decide to include additional documentary support for the implementation of projects. For example, a government may wish to require their signature on each AWP. For the UNDP Country Programming Cycle, the Country Programme document and Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) are the key tools for programme level management. As the Country Cooperation Framework (CCF) phases out in each country, UNDP country level programming will be managed primarily through the CPAP. 3 In CPAP countries, a simplified project document is also required for a project that is not within the scope of the signed CPAP. 24 11 October 2006

2.14 Programme and Management Arrangement Country Program Board Assurance Program Manager (UNDP) Representative of Gov. Coord. Agency Outcome Board Outcome Board Reps from Government UNDP, UN UN Government Beneficiary Cooperating Orgs Beneficiary orgs and Cooperating Reps Agency Reps other Agency Reps donors Board Board Programme Management Senior Senior Supplier Supplier Executive Executive Manager Senior User Senior User Support Management Team A Team B Figure 7: Minimum roles required for programme and project management functions. To ensure UNDP s accountability for programming activities and use of resources, while fostering national ownership, appropriate management arrangements and oversight of UNDP programming activities need to be established both at programme and project levels. Minimum requirements for such management and oversight arrangements include the following elements or functions, also illustrated in Figure 7. To the extent possible, existing UNCT and other structures should be used to fulfil these functions.: Programme Management At the overall programme management level, a Country, Regional or Global Programme Board shall be set up as a mechanism for consultation and on the consensus basis making management decisions on programme issues. The Country, Regional or Global Programme Board is responsible for oversight of the CPAP, Regional or Global Programme implementation, for the integration of individual outcomes within UNDP, as well as their contribution to the overall UN Country Team efforts where applicable. The Country, Regional or Global Programme Board is as a minimum composed of the Heads (or their designated representatives) of the Government Coordinating Agency/ Participating Country Governments and UNDP Office/ Regional Bureau Directors respectively. If there is strong emphasis on and prominence of one thematic area in the country, regional or global programme, a high level 25 11 October 2006

representative of the responsible line ministry, regional/ global technical institutions can be invited as well. Programme Manager: Programme Manager is responsible for successful management and delivery of programme outcomes. Through management of the lifecycle of the programme, this role evaluates whether progress in the form of project interventions continue to meet programme outcomes through delivery of results as expected, via efficient and effective management of resources. Monitoring of interdependencies between projects and managing changes within and among projects will be a key focus area of this role. The UNDP Resident Representative/ Regional Bureau Directors/ Director of BDP by default holds the role of the Programme Manager, and can designate this role to other UNDP senior managers as appropriate. Government Coordinating Agency: This Agency is responsible for defining, assessing, and monitoring programme achievements towards country level outcomes. This role will work closely with the Programme Manager to ensure that the plan of the programme includes necessary aspects required to deliver the expected outcomes and identifies projects that will clearly contribute to realising benefits and achieving outcomes. The Government Coordinating Agency is typically the government planning/finance/foreign affairs ministry. Outcome Board: The Programme Manager shall ensure that an Outcome Board be identified to monitor the realisation of expected outcome in each programme component by managing interdependency of different projects that contribute to the realisation of the outcomes. The Outcome Board normally fulfils the function of the Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) or PAC in reviewing submitted projects for appraisal and advising the RR, Regional Bureau Directors or Director of BDP on their approval. It is also responsible for programme level assurance. The Board should include as a minimum a UNDP representative and government cooperating agency representatives selected in consultation with the Government Coordinating Agency and the Programme Manager. Other representatives can be included in the Outcome Board as appropriate, e.g., selected UN organizations and donors, Implementing Partners, beneficiary representatives, etc. The UNDP representative to the Outcome Board is responsible for ensuring that the Board fulfils its responsibilities and obligations as outlined in this Guide. The Outcome Board itself must designate one member as Chair of the Board. Where groups or committees such as thematic groups or other UNCT groups have been previously established to perform functions similar to the Outcome Board, they are ideally situated to fulfil the role of the Outcome Board. In other words, a separate Outcome Board need not be established where an existing mechanism can suit the purpose and fulfil the role of the Outcome Board. For Regional/ Global programmes, an Outcome Board would include as a minimum a Regional Bureau/ BDP representative, participating country government representatives and the Programme Manager. The Outcome Board would also include concerned people independent of the programme as appropriate to ensure the objective review of the programmes. Management Establishing an effective project management structure is crucial for its success. Every project has a need for direction, management, control and communication, using a structure that differs from line management. As a project is normally cross functional and involves partnership, its structure needs to be more flexible, and is likely to require a broad base of skills for a specific period of time. The UNDP Management structure 26 11 October 2006