in a fully integrated manner (e.g. different lines of accountability for results and finances). Complementarity between regional programmes and the Global Programme improved over the last few years in Latin America and the Caribbean, although practice architecture coherence could not be fully achieved, because the headquarters-based location of regional programme management and staff affected both provision of country office services and broader regional engagement. At the Cairo regional centre, there was a complete separation of the Regional Programme for Arab States and the Global Programme—both operated independently of each other. The practices were incomplete, with only Global Programme staff member. This undermined practice architecture coherence and the two programmes’ outcomes. Alongside delays in recruiting experts and practice leaders, the separation of the two programmes undermined efficiency of work, slowed contractual arrangements with regional partners and weakened support to Arab States country offices. These alignment challenges were further exacerbated by poor coordination between the Global Programme and RBAS. Relations between BDP and the regional bureaux for both Africa and Arab States were tenuous, resulting in weak coordination between global and regional programming. Considering that RBAS did not have advisory staff, Global Programme resources were a significant value addition, but the regional programme did not optimize this value. Consultations between headquarters and regional bureaux or service centres were not adequate for enabling greater efficiency. All bureaux clearly communicated the need for more systematic consultation in Global Programme design and implementation, global publication production and recruitment of advisory staff. Bureaux felt the same consultation was needed during the preparation of UNDP regional programmes. Existing advisory mechanisms were not fully effective in ensuring synergies between the Global Programme and regional programmes. Given the divergent regional characteristics and
priorities, balancing them with global UNDP priorities needed greater collaboration. In Africa, working with regional institutions needed further consideration, as did the middle-income countries of Latin America and the Caribbean; such dimensions required greater regional sensiti vity on the part of the Global Programme to be addressed as cross-cutting UNDP concerns. Some major regional priorities (e.g. human development) remained outside the scope of the Global Programme and were pursued exclusively through regional efforts. Although the general approach to providing country office support was demand-driven, country selection criteria lacked clarity, as not all countries that asked for support received it. The Bangkok centre worked with a list of priority countries produced by the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific. In 2012, the work plan clearly spelled out, for the first time, priority countries for regional service centre work. In other regions, there were questions about preferential prioritizing of some countries over others; for example, the Panama centre was mentioned as choosing countries on an informal basis, rather than through a systematic and transparent process. Inter-practice efficiency emerged as an issue that needed attention, particularly in the environ ment and poverty practices. The poverty reduction team did not optimize synergies due to the compartmentalization of poverty reduction, MDGs-related and private-sector work. Coordination between the environment practice and Global Environment Facility advisers was not always at desirable levels, with the exception the of the Bangkok and Bratislava regional service centres. There were instances where, due to lack of coordination between the two advisory teams, parallel support was provided to the same country office. Communication gaps were even greater in regions where the two advisory teams were not located in the same office—for example, in Africa and in Arab States, where Global Environment Facility advisory teams serviced country offices from their respective locations in
C H A P T E R 5. G LO B A L P R O G R A M M E S T R AT E G Y
79