2.7 Country programme performance ratings

The CPD indicator matrix complies with UNDP requirements, and links the CPD indicators to those of the UNDAF. However, the matrix has limited internal coherence, as the causal linkages between outputs and outcomes are not sufficiently clear. Furthermore, there is a general disconnect between outcome and output indicators, with no clear causal pathway of how the achievement of the outputs will contribute to the outcomes. Most of the CPD output indicators are general and high-level, making it difficult to attribute any changes to UNDP work (e.g. “Number of natural resources managed through sustainable use”). This issue was also raised by the UNDAF midterm evaluation, which called for a review of the UNDAF M&E framework to strengthen the use of SMART indicators.81

At project level, while the logical frameworks of projects are overall aligned to CPD outcomes, these linkages are not reflected in a single results framework which can track the contribution of project outputs to CPD outputs and outcomes. As a result, the data generated by project M&E systems is not fed upwards in a consolidated way to the CPD framework and cannot be effectively used for strategic decision-making and accountability. There are some good practices in project-level M&E systems, such as for the SGP, which could serve as a basis to reform the country office M&E efforts towards a system which goes beyond fulfilling corporate requirements. The new CPD would benefit from a more cohesive design of indicators, so that project-level data can directly feed into CPD output indicators, providing valuable insights for programme direction and better demonstration of positive results.

Reporting on project implementation has mostly focused on activity or output levels, with little or no information on outcomes achieved by projects. This was highlighted by resource partners, who indicated frequent requests to UNDP to improve in this regard. In addition, the evaluation team noted that project monitoring documentation is mostly incomplete, with several projects not providing progress reports or midterm evaluations.

Several government counterparts have highlighted challenges in the annual planning process of projects. Government institutions follow a July-June cycle, while UNDP follows a January-December cycle, which creates challenges in coordination and resource allocation. While this has not led to major implementation disruptions, there is a tendency to prioritize activities which can be implemented quickly, rather than investing in longer-term initiatives. In addition, the lack of multi-year planning of budgets and activities creates a degree of unpredictability and ‘short-termism’, which is not conducive to deeper results.

The following table provides an overview of the performance of the country programme, using the five internationally agreed evaluation criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability, and a set of parameters for each. A four-point rating scale is used, with 4 being the highest and 1 the lowest.82 This rating table should be read keeping in mind the findings presented in the previous sections, which provide more detailed justification for the ratings.

81 https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Final%20Report%20of%20the%20UNDAF%20MTR%20Report.pdf 82 4 = Satisfactory/Achieved; 3 = Moderately satisfactory/Mostly achieved; 2 = Moderately unsatisfactory/Partially achieved: 1= Unsatisfactory/Not achieved.