activities was questionable, partly due to the fact that capacity development activities did not adequately leverage ongoing programmes. A meta-analysis of 30 UNDP Evaluation Office country Assessments of Development Results and 7 thematic evaluations carried out during the Strategic Plan period revealed little evidence that the envisioned approach to capacity development was implemented. UNDP assistance that incorporated development and capacity-building considerations increased national ownership and contributed to more sustainable results.119 Overall, UNDP faced challenges in responding to government demand and fulfilling the corporate agenda of strengthening national capacity development.120 The inter-regional workshop on capacity development, which brought to the fore a number of significant capacity development experiences across countries, was an exception. Lessons learned from new capacity development tools and other country-level capacity development projects were not systematically shared. Learning from successful examples was not uniform. PROMOTING GENDER EQUALITY In accordance with the Strategic Plan, the Global Programme emphasized gender equality and women’s empowerment as not only a goal but an important and effective means of achieving sustainable development results. The Global Programme evaluation period coincided with the strategy’s implementation. Global Programme funds provided were pooled into the UNDP gender practice resources, and the evaluation could not disaggregate activities specifically supported by Global Programme. The evaluation therefore assessed the activities of the gender practice that were related to the initially outlined Global Programme outcomes. The analysis included integration of gender equality into thematic practices in headquarter units and regional service centres. 119 120
Implementation of the Gender Equality Strategy did not adequately address UNDP development and institutional gender priorities. Global Programme resources were essential in supporting gender-related activities. UNDP corporate policy emphasized the importance of addressing gender disparities for equitable and sustainable development. During the period under review, efforts were made to institutionalize accountability mechanisms to ensure that UNDP programmes were gender-responsive. While there was progress in mainstreaming gender into UNDP work, the pace was not commensurate with the needs of the organization. Progress in operationalizing accountability mechanisms and integrating gender targets into performance management have been insufficient for promoting gender dimension in programmes, particularly at the country level. The Gender Action Plan and the Gender Equality Strategy followed many years of benign neglect of gender mainstreaming, and the progress made so far should be viewed from that perspective. The Gender Steering and Implementation mechanism—the highest UN decision-making and oversight body on gender equality, introduced by UNDP and chaired by the Associate Administrator—encompassed gender equality considerations embedded in the ResultsOriented Annual Report process, gender parity as one of five mandatory Key Result Areas in the Results and Competency Assessments of senior managers, and the Gender Marker to track spending on gender equality and women’s empowerment. The Gender Marker was considered a best practice and approved for UN system-wide application. Both at headquarters and the regional service centres, UNDP programme proposals were vetted by the gender team. UNDP recently introduced the Gender Equality Seal to recognize country office performance in delivering transformational results. Despite such positive measures,
UNDP Evaluation Office, 2012, ‘Evaluation of UNDP Contribution to Strengthening Electoral Systems and Processes’. UNDP Evaluation Office, 2010, ‘Evaluation of UNDP Contribution to Strengthening National Capacities’.
C H A P T E R 4 . G L O B A L P R O G R A M M E C O N T R I B U T I O N T O S T R AT E G I C P L A N G O A L S
61