Page 1 of 35


Index

  1. Introduction
  1. Conclusions
  2. Formulation
  3. Joint Management
  4. Problems
  5. Suggestions
  6. Monitoring and Evaluation
  7. Communication and Advocacy
  8. Cross-cutting Focus Areas
  9. Knowledge and Environmental Management
  1. Parallel sessions
  2. Resident Coordinators
  3. Coordination Officers
  4. Government Officials
  1. Annexes[1]
  1. Formulation
  2. Presentation - United Nations System - Colombia
  3. Presentation - Government of Colombia
  4. Presentation - United Nations System - Nicaragua
  5. Conclusions - Group Work - Central America
  6. Conclusions - Group Work – South America
  1. Joint Management
  1. Presentation - United Nations System - Honduras
  2. Presentation - United Nations System - Ecuador
  3. Presentation - Coordination Officers
  4. Compilation - Group Work - Analysis of problems - Central America
  5. Conclusions - Group Work - Analysis of extracts - Central America
  6. Compilation - Group Work - Analysis of problems - South America
  7. Conclusions - Group Work - Analysis of extracts – South America
  8. Extracts Analysed
  1. Monitoring and Evaluation
  1. Presentation - MDG-F
  2. Proposals - Group Work - Central America
  3. Proposals - Group Work – South America
  1. Communication and Advocacy
  2. Presentation - MDG-F
  3. Case Study (Brazil)
  4. Presentation - Conclusions and Key Points
  5. Compilation - Group Work - Central America
  6. Compilation - Group Work – South America
  1. Cross-cutting Focus Areas
  2. Recommendations - Gender
  3. Recommendations - Indigenous Peoples
  1. Knowledge and Environmental Management
  1. Presentation - MDG-F
  2. Conclusions - Group Work - Economic Governance
  3. Conclusions - Group Work - Environment
  1. List of participants
  1. Agendas
  1. Photos

1st REGIONAL MEETING IN LATIN AMERICA of the

MDG Achievement Fund

  1. INTRODUCTION

In June 2009, the Millennium Development Goal Achievement Fund (MDG-F) finds itself at a crucial stage of its existence now that the eight thematic windows are closed, the strategies and Work Plans of the Secretariat have been approved by the Fund Steering Committee, and as several programmes enter their first year of implementation with some difficulties.

For this reason it was felt that the moment was right for holding a discussion on the lessons learned since the process was initiated, as well as ensuring the coordination and quality of the implementation through the discussion and exchange of methodologies regarding Monitoring and Evaluation and Communications and Knowledge Management, from a Joint Programme and national ownership perspective.

Whereas the Secretariat has been favouring a sharing of experiences via the web site or the Notes from the Secretariat to Resident Coordinators, in this workshop a further step was taken through discussion forums tocontribute towards solving the difficulties encountered in the inception and development of the Joint Programmes.

This forum also complements the two workshops that were held during the months of March and April for those countries participating in the Fund in Africa, Europe and Asia. In Latin America, the special circumstances surrounding the advancement of the formulation process, the preliminary reflections discussed by Resident Coordinators in Havana, or the development of analysis work on joint programme methodologies such as that coordinated by Honduras, all pointed to the need to delay timelines a little further and incorporate the results of previous endeavours.

The aim of this document is to summarise the discussion and exchange of experiences thattook placeduring the First MDG-F Regional Meeting in Latin America.

SPONSORS

The successful outcome of the workshop was made possible thanks to the support of:

  1. The AECID Training Centre
  2. The Office of the Resident Coordinator in Colombia

PARTICIPANTS

The workshop was attended by 125 participants from 18 countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay). The workshop participants included:

  • Resident Coordinatorsand Resident Coordinators ad interim of 9 countries;
  • Country Delegations generally composed of:

-Coordination Officers or Assistants attached to the Resident Coordinator’s Office, as key focal points for MDG-Fprocesses in the country;

-National government counterparts participating in the joint programmes;

-Management Operations Unit Coordinators of joint programmes currently being implemented, orfocal points of coordinating agencies;

  • Representatives of AECID in Colombia;

The following members of the MDG Fund Secretariat participated in the workshop in a facilitating capacity: a Senior Consultant, representatives in charge of the Latin America portfolio, a SpecialistinM&E, a Specialist in Communication andAdvocacy, a representative in charge of the Asia and Europe portfoliofor strengthening the inter-regional perspective, a representative of the Multi Donor Trust Fund office (MDTF), an AdministrativeAgent of this Fund.

Central America, Mexico, Caribbean

South America

For more information see Annex (g): List of Participants and contacts

METHODOLOGY

The work dynamic was eminently participative based on the presentation of documents and strategies. Due to the high number of participants and in order to guarantee a minimum level of discussion and exchange, the plenary sessions were confinedto the opening ceremony and initial session of the conference prepared by the MDG-F Secretariat and MDTF,and the closing workshop with endorsement of the conclusions. The remaining modules, listed below, were held in two parallel forums, one for participants from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean and the other for South America. The modules were as follows:

Module 1: Lessons learned and the prospects for the future regarding formulation processes;

Module 2: Exchange and discussion of implementation methodologiesas part of a joint vision: identifying problems and analysing extracts from the guidance on implementation;

Module 3: Monitoring and Evaluation;

Module 4: Communication and Advocacy;

Module 5: Cross-cutting focus areas: gender and indigenous issues from the standpoint of human rights and knowledge management in the thematic area of Environment, Climate Change, and water and sanitationwithin the framework of economic governance.

See Annex (h): Annotated Agendasfor Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean and for South America.

Each of the modules was structured as follows:

(a) a presentation by a participating country with the aim of putting forward certain key issues for discussion;

(b) group sessions for discussion and identification of problems and lessons learned (7-10 members) and;

(c) a plenary.

The conclusions from these discussions are presented in the next section of this report. The presentations by the various countries and specialists from the MDG-F Secretariat,together with the full texts produced during the group working sessions,are presented in the annexes to this report (Annexes a - d).

The final module on cross-cutting focus areaswas attended by both sub-regions and consisted in the group preparation of minimum recommendations regarding ways to mainstreamgender perspectivesand special attention was paid to indigenous issues in the four modules previously discussed (formulation, implementation or joint management, Monitoring and Evaluation and Communication and Advocacy).

The conclusions of these discussions and the full texts produced during the work groups are presented in this reportin annex (e).

In parallel to this, a thematic session was held on Environment, Climate Change and water and sanitation within the framework of economic governance,during which the issue of knowledge management within this thematic area was addressed.

The conclusions of these discussions and the full texts produced during the group working sessions are presented in this reportin annex (f).

  1. CONCLUSIONS

Opening Session

The opening session of the Workshop took place on the morning of the 10th of June. The OpeningSession was presided over by:

  • Jose Antonio Gonzalez, Representative of the MDG-F Secretariat
  • Miguel Gonzales, General Coordinator of AECID
  • Bruno Moro, UN Resident Coordinator in Colombia
  • Sandra Alzate, Director for International Cooperationof ACCIÓN SOCIAL Colombia

During the opening session, reference was made to the importance of the Fund as an innovative and thought-provoking mechanism that has invested major resources in support of the United Nations System,and that has served at the same timeto move the United Nations Reform process forward. It was emphasised that this is a Fund, conceived in accordance with the Paris Declaration, that gives substantive priority to monitoring and evaluationand seeks to generate a process whose motivation is based primarily on a wish to derive benefit from the competencies of the various agencies and not merely from the need of their resources.

In addition, it was pointed out that the Fund represents a major milestone in the form of cooperation, since it is a mechanism that generates best practices in ownership and cooperation. Reference was also made to the innovative elements of the fund that seek to encourage efficient as well as effective processes, while at the same time addressing the challenges faced when working within a framework of joint development with a varied range of actors.

Finally, reference was made to the importance of making these resources available in the region, and also to the opportunityof benefiting from this encounter as a relevant platform for effecting an interchange of experiences and reflecting upon the lessons learned as well as the challenges the future will bring to this region, especially within the context of the global financial crisis.

Module 1: Formulation of Joint Programmes

In this module two experiences regarding the formulation of joint programmes were presented:

-In Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean: Nicaragua (see annex a.iii)

-In South America: Colombia (see annex a.i and a.ii)

The following tables are a summary of the group discussions arranged under the following headings:

  1. Information for the construction of the situational analysis;
  2. Aspects of coordination, participation and ownership;
  3. Alignment with national development priorities and UNDAF;
  4. Access to information, methodologies and tools used in the formulation process;
  5. Quality ofthe formulation process.

In addition, Annexes a.iv and a.v include documents produced by all of the groups from each of the sub-regions.

Page 1 of 35

MODULE 1 FORMULATION OF PROGRAMMES: Summary of Challenges and Lessons Learned / June 2009
ISSUE / CHALLENGES / LESSONS LEARNED
  1. INFORMATION
FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SITUATIONAL
ANALYSIS /
  • Inadequate or out-of-date statistical information systems
  • Non-existence of mapping at national level of all prior experiences regarding the central issues of the Joint Programme.
/
  • Have a baseline at the start of the programme centred on the implementation of previous studies and the mapping of existing experiences.
  • Start from already initiated processes.

  1. ASPECTS OF COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND OWNERSHIP
/ Inter-agency
  1. Diversity/ overlapping of mandates
  2. Tension regarding access to fund resources and objectives
  3. Lack of experience in inter-agency coordination
  4. Difficulty in identifying process leaders, or lack of capacity or commitment on the part of the leaders chosen
  5. Structural problems in UNS coordination
  6. Staff rotation
UNS/ Government
  1. Gaps in capacities amongst actors
  2. Lack of coordination between government bodies
  3. Lack of integration of local governments
  4. Lack of information for government bodies
  5. Changes in government/ change of political priorities
  6. Rotation of staff/ lack of leadership
  7. Government delegates without authority to take decisions in the formulation process
Social
  1. Absence or unpredictability (due to time or information constraints) of participative consultation with target communities (i.e. indigenous people)
/
  • Reinforce the role of the NSC and RC in the selection of actors who offer added value for participating in a JP.
  • The formulation should begin by jointly identifying a problem, defining an intervention strategy and finally identifying relevant actors and outlining the budget required to implement the proposed activities.
  • Strengthen the ties between JPs and UNDAF.
  • Have an operations manual from the very outset.
  • Hold joint UNS/Government preparatory workshops on the formulation of the Joint Programme.
  • Joint identification by UN and Governments of the problems and counterparts involved.
  • Identification of focal points in the government counterpart.
  • More time and resources are needed for consulting with communities

MODULE 1 FORMULATION OF PROGRAMMES: Summary of Challenges and Lessons Learned / June 2009
  1. ALIGNMENT
WITH
NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
PRIORITIES AND
WITH UNDAF /
  • Complexity of making the UNDAF theoretical framework operational/putting it into practice
  • Tension between access to resources and development priorities
  • Changes in government, synergies between political and technical aspects
  • Difficulty in coordinating national, regional and local visions
/ Clear definition of roles
Give the MDGs priority over the need for financing the harmonisation process or the functioning of agencies and/or government institutions.
Need to consider the local level in the design of interventions.
The NSC is vital in the coordination and leadership it establishes with the sectors it represents
  1. ACCESS TO
INFORMATION,
METHODOLOGIES
AND
FORMULATION
TOOLS /
  • Absence of formulation methodologies and procedures, especially in the initial thematic windows.
  • Lack of clarity in the role of each of the partners, RCs, AECIs, (partner and lead) Agencies, governments.
  • Lack of foresight and time management
  • Disparate Head Office guidance (MDG-F, MDTF, DOCO) – lack of a unified vision
  • Defective JP format, which does not allow alternative solutions to be considered.
  • A simultaneous lack of knowledge in all thematic windows for linking and strengthening cross-cutting themes
  • Absence of a systematic approach to lessons learned, only partial good examples
  • Evaluation criteria for proposals
  • Unequal flow of information.
  • Weak induction process
/
  • Development of methodologies for inter-agency dialogue
  • Development of guidance for a more interactive and simpler formulation
  • Obtain uniformity in the requirements from Head Office
  • More visible relations with UNDOCO to support reform at country level.
  • Include good examples of component factors
  • Communication between thematic windows and countries has helped people to capitalise on the knowledge gained during the opening stages of the thematic windows.
  • Definition of the responsibilities, duties and commitments of each actor involved
  • Need to plan for and respect pre-established deadlines in the different phases of the formulation and consultation and information process.
  • Workshop for the Secretariat to launch the MDGs by presenting the principles and objectives of the MDGs and the criteria used in the evaluation process.
  • Obtain uniformity of requirements

  1. QUALITY OF
FORMULATION /
  • Formulation fragmented or undertaken by consultants
  • A sector-based v. territorial, national, regional, local focus
  • Difficulty in determining the impact of the MDGs
  • Time
  • Shortage of planning capacity
  • Tendency to plan for activities and not for results
  • Three years is insufficient for integrated intervention
/
  • Strike a balance between the unification work of the consultant, the coherence of the proposal and the breadth of the technical contribution made by agencies and their counterparts
  • Systematise experiences in the formulation of past thematic windows to provide improvements for new proposals and spaces for coordination and dialogue.
  • Refine the proposals to realistic goals over a three year period.
  • Competitive process – assistance in obtaining better quality programmes.

Page 1 of 35

Module 2: Management of Joint Programmes

In this module two experiences regarding the formulation of joint programmes were presented:

-In Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean: Honduras (see annexb.i)

-In South America: Ecuador (see annexb.ii)

The tables below are a summary of the group discussions concerning:

A)The principal problems identified in implementation start-up and joint programme management, which have been grouped under the following issues:

  1. Inter-agency and intra-governmental coordination
  2. Harmonization of available procedures and tools
  3. Capacity/ internal communications
  4. Ownership/ consensus
  5. Management by Results/ M&E
  6. Governance, management and operational structure

B)Comments and suggestions for improving extracts from several document guidelines used in the implementation of joint programmes. The extracts discussed (see annex b.viii) addressed the following aspects:

  1. Structure of governance
  2. Models for joint management
  3. Coordination Unit ToRs
  4. Next steps (to be taken after programme approval)

Coordination Officers from the various countries assisted the group discussion of extracts, collated the conclusions and summarised the recommendations made in both sub-regions, presenting the results at the plenary. This presentation can be found in annex b.iii attached.

Also included in Annexes b.iv to b.vii are the documents produced by all of the groups from each of the sub-regions.

Page 1 of 35

MODULE 2 JOINT PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: Summary of Problems Identified / June 2009
ISSUE / PROBLEMS
  1. INTER-AGENCY/ INTRA-GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
/
  • Duplication of the activities carried out by the various agencies
  • Lack of culture/concept of inter-agency work
  • Lack of commitment on the part of some agencies to work together
  • Lack of guidance from Central Offices for country offices to participate in JPs
  • Lack of strategic involvement on the part of some agency representatives
  • Lack of experience in joint programming

  1. HARMONIZATION OF PROCEDURES AND AVAILABLE TOOLS
/
  • Lack of compatibility between the agencies’ operational systems
  • Delays through lack of synchronisation between operational systems and individual agencies
  • Delays in payments from Central Offices to Country Offices are an obstacle to a unified start
  • No operations manual exists for implementation or guidance on administrative management
  • Lack of guidelines/ flexibility on budget reprogramming

  1. CAPACITY/ INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS
/
  • Lack of human resources in agencies and their counterparts
  • Lack of leadership
  • Lack of clarity on the role of the lead agency
  • Lack of communication between different operating levels of the JP
  • Some non-resident agencies do not possess sufficient local capacity to operate
  • Limited local capacities
  • Dissociation between other JPs in the same country
  • Different implementation and efficiency methods used by those participating in the JP