The establishment of appropriate and effective linkages between and among the levels of the project (global/regional/national/ local) appears to be one of the major challenges in intercountry programming. On the evidence of the projects reviewed here, many of them have been launched prematurely, without sufficient attention having been given to the nature of the linkages required for project implementation and effective partnership. Once more, much seems to depend on the proper identification of stakeholders. More careful consideration of what the project intends to achieve and whom it is for will ensure that there is a clear definition of project objectives along with a project design that takes into account the requirements of the implementation strategy. Only through proper identification of stakeholders can an intercountry project determine how best to link an initiative launched at this level with needs and interests that are articulated at the national and local levels.
A particular issue with global programmes is the character of interlinkages with UNDP as a whole. In both of the projects examined here (Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and Alternatives to Slash-and-burn Agriculture (ASB)), the former Global/Interregional Division made no apparent effort to inform the regional bureaux of the project or its operations. As a result, country offices had no information concerning the operation of the two projects in their territories nor were they aware that UNDP was providing financial support to the projects and institutions in question. Consequently, potential linkages and elements of mutual support between UNDP-funded projects and institutions were not established.
The Urban Management Programme (UMP), too, managed by MDGD, lacks linkages to either country offices or regional bureaux. Even the very successful UMP/Arab States Regional (UMP/ASR) project, which is well linked to national and local authorities, has only minimal contact with the UNDP country office in Cairo and the Resident Representative.
The Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) project is an important exception to this trend, with strong links to country offices and resident representatives in all countries where it was reviewed. The Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) also has generally done well in establishing such linkages.
Among regional projects, the situation varies across and within regions. A particular deficiency of the Project to Support the Development and Enhancement of Democracy, Governance and Participation (DGP)(RBEC) is its poorly developed linkages with resident representatives and country offices. Given the objectives of the project and the need to strengthen links with national governments, it is absolutely essential that a central role be established for resident representatives. By contrast, the External Resources Management (ERM) project, also managed by RBEC, is well linked to country offices, operating in each country as though it were a national project.
In Asia, linkages have generally been well established in the subregional project Institutional Development at the Grass Roots for Poverty Alleviation. By contrast, the project Strengthening Multisectoral Responses to the HIV Epidemic in Asia and the Pacific has been especially weak in this regard, with poor linkages to country offices and, in many cases, to national government and national HIV/AIDS programmes. Apparently, this issue has now been addressed in the reformulation of the project.
In Latin America, the interregional UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme has built particularly effective linkages with the UNDP country office in Bolivia as well as with a range of national and local organizations. Regional projects seem to have been less successful on the whole, with the role of UNDP country offices poorly defined.
The Regional Bureau for Arab States has made strong efforts to address the linkage issue in recent years and its projects, including the Centre for Environment and Development in the Arab States and Europe (CEDARE) and the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme, Phase III (METAP 3), are well linked both to headquarters and to country offices.
In Africa, country offices are not always as well informed on regional projects as should be the case. Furthermore, in many cases, they have not been as proactive as they might have been in ensuring that national components of regional projects achieved their objectives. Presumably, responsibility for this state of affairs rests both with the Regional Bureau and with the country offices.
An additional finding of the evaluation was the weakness of links between the projects and the specialized divisions of UNDP. This is not an issue in those cases where projects are actually managed in BPPS (i.e., Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) and the Urban Management Programme (UMP), both managed in MDGD, and the interregional project, Minimizing Impact of HIV on Development, managed by the HIV/AIDS and Development Unit). In other cases - notably the two regional poverty-alleviation projects (Institutional Development at the Grass Roots for Poverty Alleviation and Poverty Alleviation and Social Development) and the regional HIV/AIDS project (Strengthening Multisectoral and Community Responses to the HIV Epidemic in Asia and Pacific), linkages with BPPS were strikingly weak. Exceptions to this trend were the projects in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States involving MDGD, where linkages were well established and apparently effective. Similarly, in the case of the METAP 3, the Capacity 21 Division performed a strong role in the reformulation of the project in the third phase and in strengthening the capacity development element of the project along with its participatory/consultative approach to stakeholders.
Horizontal linkages of this kind are extremely weak to non-existent. The Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) is part of Capacity 21, yet in a number of countries where there were other Capacity 2l projects alongside SDNP, there was no sign of cooperation between the projects. Many UNDP country projects could benefit from the facilities offered by the Sustainable Development Network, yet no cases were identified of UNDP country offices taking the initiative to facilitate such arrangements.
Similarly, in Asia, regional and subregional projects in the field of poverty alleviation existed side by side, operating within the same territory, but there are no linkages and information-sharing arrangements between the projects. The Asia regional HIV/AIDS project (Strengthening Multisectoral and Community Responses to the HIV Epidemic in Asia and the Pacific) had no linkages with the interregional project in the same field (Minimizing Impact of HIV on Development), managed from headquarters. There were also no linkages with HIV/AIDS elements of country programmes. This state of affairs existed despite the statements made in the PRODOC that "the project will complement other UNDP initiatives and UNDP-supported activities on HIV at the interregional and country levels; and that it will be closely coordinated with the work programme and the activities of the HIV and Development programme (based in New York)".
Linkages between the Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) project and the Urban Management Programme (UMP) are extremely weak. There has been some limited cooperation in Egypt; no other cases were discovered. Similarly, the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme, Phase III (METAP 3) and the Centre for Environment and Development in the Arab States and Europe (CEDARE) could also benefit from closer cooperation and information-sharing.
If one of the purposes of intercountry programmes is to inform and support national programmes and priorities, there is no justification for the implementation of projects without the proper establishment of appropriate linkages at the country level as well as at headquarters. It is not necessary for national governments, UNDP national offices or specialist divisions at headquarters in New York to be front and centre in all projects. It is essential to define their roles appropriately and to establish proper liaison and communication channels.
Information-sharing and dissemination constitute an area that needs urgent attention if intercountry projects are to achieve their potential. In this evaluation, particular attention was given to the issues of how projects handled feedback from one level to another, how information was captured and shared regarding best practices, and how projects assessed and shared lessons learned. The finding on this set of issues is extraordinary. No best practice can be identified! Even the Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) does not yet perform effectively in supporting information-sharing among partners.
A number of the projects feature annual meetings of national coordinators. These are useful but very weak as the sole communication and feedback device for a project. Learning strategies and information-sharing are activities and objectives in their own right. They must be treated seriously at the design stage if the project is to have any hope of learning and effectively sharing information among project partners.
There is a possibility that the Human Development and Governance (Latin America) project will move on to develop a learning strategy based on the establishment of the government-level regional study groups. SDNP is now making an effort to identify and capture best practices on the basis of an assessment of the documentation of the country experiences. However, most projects are too busy implementing activities to have any time to do the analysis required to identify and work with best practices.
Projects also do poorly in developing materials for dissemination. SDNP probably does the best in this regard. The Urban Management Programme uses standard academic publications as a vehicle for disseminating information. Such material is of high quality and may be appropriate for professional and academic audiences. However, it tends to be too theoretical for users at the country level who are concerned with applications. Besides this, the published materials are not easily accessible to local authorities, who might be able to make use of them. The most useful publication that the project has developed is a quarterly magazine, The Urban Age, which is available in Arabic, English, French and Spanish.
Similarly, the interregional UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme has not been successful in the documentation and dissemination of best-practice modules (from its own projects) or other cases that could be disseminated to other countries and communities. Between l992 and l995, the programme carried out research and analysis that led to the publication of 47 different studies and publications. Dissemination, however, is left to the Information and Dissemination Office of the World Bank, which undertakes general distribution. Distribution is not targeted to those who could make the most effective use of the publication. It is not possible to determine who the end-users of these reports are.
As noted above, no best practice was identifiable. For regional projects, one consequence of weakness in information-sharing and dissemination is that the projects are not widely known in the region within which they operate. This is an important issue that should be addressed at the design stage and in budget-building.
One of the most important features of intercountry programmes, and one of the principal justifications for their existence, is their potential ability to draw on experience at the national level, compare and assess that experience and draw lessons. These lessons may then be disseminated back to the country level and taken into account in developing the next generation of programmes as well as in adjusting current activities. On the evidence of this evaluation, there is an urgent need to devote far greater attention to analysing experience, to learning lessons, and to using these lessons in improving programming.