ANNEX II. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL, INTERREGIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMES



I. BACKGROUND

1. Regional, Interregional and Global programmes are consensually defined as intercountry programmes of UNDP designed to assist groups of countries on a subregional, regional, interregional or global basis. This categorization enables UNDP to provide assistance at the request of at least three governments. The approval of requests and subsequent implementation of programmes taken into account equitable distribution of resources among regions.

2. For the purpose of UNDP programming, the terms subregional, regional, interregional and global have been precisely defined as:

3. Regional, interregional and global programmes and projects have been implemented or executed through Regional Bureaux and specialized or thematic units. The sources of funding have been indicative planning figures allocated during the fourth and fifth UNDP programming cycles and the Special Programme Resources (SPR). SPR allocations to support regional and interregional programmes during the fourth and fifth cycles were given to BPPS and some Headquarters units. It should be noted however that SPR were not allocated exclusively to regional and interregional programmes; some have been used solely for country activities and in other cases, "umbrella" interregional programmes have been approved which have provided a framework for country sub-allocations. A number of the intercountry programmes are funded exclusively or primarily by non-core funding, e.g., GEF, Capacity 21, Montreal Protocol, Africa 2000, Urban Management Programme, etc.

(i) The Global Programmes

4. The primary objective of the global programmes was to support and facilitate access by the developing countries to current research on science and technology. At the same time these programmes seek to enhance the capacities of developing countries to apply research outputs to their most critical development problems. In the fifth cycle, the global programmes encompassed UNDP support to strategic research activities and the strengthening of the capacity of institutions and individuals in programme countries to undertake strategic research. An amount of $94 million was allocated to the Global Programme for UNDP's fifth programming cycle (1992-1996) with approximately two thirds going to research in the agricultural field and one third for basic health.

(ii) The Interregional Programmes

5. The interregional programmes, through a pragmatic approach, have channelled advisory and other services to developing countries in key sectors in all regions. In general, these programmes are often more operational than the global, and frequently linked to specific countries, UNDP Regional Bureaux, other bilateral and multilateral donors, and regional projects. The size of the IPF funded interregional programmes for the fifth cycle was $31 million.

6. Efforts of both the global and interregional programmes were intended to ensure the greatest possible compatibility with UNDP regional and country activities.

7. The guiding principles for the formulation and design of the global and interregional programmes for UNDP's fifth programming cycle have been:

8. On the basis of these guiding principles, it was proposed that the programmes concentrate their efforts on social development and poverty eradication (to include education, health, HIV/AIDS, water and sanitation, food security, productive employment generation); environment and natural resources; and public sector management (to include improved economic management, promotion of international trade and investment, improved public administration). In all these cases, gender analysis, capacity building concerns, participatory approaches, and the promotion of the private sector provided cross-cutting themes receiving special attention. These areas of concentration reflect key aspects of human development such as food security, basic services in health, education and environmental sanitation and income generation.

9. Throughout the formulation of the fifth intercountry programme, it is stated that a consistent effort will be made to articulate the human development dimension in programme formulation and implementation by drawing on the best ideas and expertise available whether at the level of scientific research institutions or at the level of grass-roots organizations.

(iii) The Regional Programmes

10. The pervasive theme of UNDP's fifth programming cycle for regional programmes, as specified in the Governing Council resolution 90/34, is the promotion of human development through national capacity building and strengthening in the following areas:

- poverty eradication and grassroots participation in development;
- environmental problems and natural resource management;
- management development;
- technical cooperation among developing countries (TCDC);
- technology for development;
- women in development.

11. The main focus of the regional programmes in UNDP has been to strengthen the capacity of national institutions dealing with regional issues and subregional and regional intergovernmental organizations. In order to be considered regional, the projects had to:

12. Lessons from previous evaluations of these regional programmes have shown that greater effectiveness could be achieved by reducing the number of projects and integrating them in clusters of complementary and mutually reinforcing activities. It was also found that in order for these projects to have a greater and more sustainable impact, it was necessary to encourage stronger commitment and ownership on the part of participating countries (including commitment of resources) by involving governments in the design, implementation and execution of intercountry projects through the programme approach. These lessons have been incorporated in the formulation of the fifth cycle intercountry programmes for regional programmes.

II. OBJECTIVE OF THE EVALUATION

13. At a time when preliminary work is under way in UNDP to determine the strategic directions of the various programmes in light of the new programming arrangements and in view of the proposed increased allocations for global, interregional and special programmes, it is pertinent to examine whether these programmes have enhanced UNDP capacity to respond to the objectives that the organization has set for itself. In this respect, the evaluation will be forward looking in determining the main lessons to be learned and in formulating recommendations for the future.

14. The present evaluation will build on the existing evaluations of the past and current intercountry programmes. It will examine the relationship between the functional objectives/activities of the programmes under study and UNDP's priority themes which have been partly shaped by the recommendations and needs assessments coming out of the major UN Conferences over the last few years. This relationship should be looked at from the perspective of four dimensions: relevance, impact, effort and performance. More specifically, the evaluation will have to determine:

III. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

15. The evaluation will aim at covering all the regions as defined by UNDP. For each category of programme (sub-regional, regional, interregional and global), a representative sample of programmes/projects will be determined for study. In addition, a few programmes will be selected for visits. [The criteria for selection of programmes and projects to be studied and visited is attached in Annex I]. Additional information will be collected through questionnaires. The views of selected executing agencies, programme countries, donors and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations will also be solicited through questionnaires and/or interviews.

IV. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE EVALUATORS

16. Keeping in mind the objectives of the evaluation, the following issues will be addressed:

(i) Many of the interregional projects are based in and executed by global research institutions (CGIAR, etc.) which conduct research, the results of which are then disseminated to developing countries. The evaluators will have to examine the extent to which the global research institutions which execute many of the interregional projects (i.e. CGIAR) have built up capacity in developing countries and utilized developing country nationals to conduct the research; and to what extent developing countries are involved in determining the strategies and plans of these institutions;

(ii) A number of the interregional and global programmes are based in, and executed by, multilateral financial institutions, with the stated objective of building up the capacity of these institutions to apply sustainable human development based approaches in their lending programmes (water supply, urban management, social sector, etc.). The justification for building up their capacity instead of that of UNDP was that UNDP could thus influence large financial flows with much greater potential impact than UNDP could do on its own. Has this been the case? to what extent has UNDP actually influenced the substance and work plans of these programmes? To what extent have they in fact led to the intended change in the nature of the MFI investment loans?

(iii) Several of the interregional programmes are based in northern institutions (e.g. World Maritime University, Programme for the Disabled). What was the basis for selection of these institutions over others dealing with the same issues? To what extent does this fit UNDP's mandate?

(iv) A number of the regional programmes have created regional institutions. To what extent are these sustainable? To what extent are they supported (including financially supported by the countries of the region? To what extent do countries draw on their expertise and what has been their impact on country activities (not just UNDP)? What are their prospects when UNDP withdraws support? On average, for how long is UNDP support required before an institution can become self-sustaining, and what are the conditions?

(v) Other regional programmes have been based in and executed by pre-existing regional institutions. Is there any apparent difference in their sustainability (positive or negative)? If so, what are the important factors?

V. METHODOLOGY

17. The evaluation will be carried out in three phases:

Desk study: preliminary work has been conducted at Headquarters by a research assistant to gather a list of all subregional, regional, interregional and global programmes/projects that were approved, completed and on-going for at least two years since 1988. Indicative criteria have been developed for the identification and selection of programmes/projects to be studied in detail by the evaluators. These criteria are attached in annex I to the Terms of Reference. The existing information on programmes and projects will be further processed in order to derive clusters related to current major concerns within each category (global, interregional, regional, sub-regional). Terminal evaluation reports for all completed programmes and projects as well as mid-term evaluation reports for on-going programmes, including the mid-term evaluation of the fifth cycle interregional and global programme submitted to the Executive Board in 1995, will be gathered and summarized by a research assistant. A detailed review of all available documents on intercountry programmes will be undertaken by the consultants upon their arrival in New York.

Interviews and Field Visits: Interviews will be conducted at Headquarters with the Regional Bureaux and the Bureaux/Units managing global, interregional and regional programmes. During that time, the programmes to be visited will be identified and the consultants will prepare questionnaires to be sent to selected programmes including some that will not be visited. Bureaux and Units will be expected to collaborate in the distribution of the questionnaires and to ensure that country offices return the completed questionnaires within one month of their receipt. Information in completed questionnaires will be processed upon receipt. Field visits will be undertaken by consultants to study in greater detail selected programmes and projects and prepare reports. These visits will include visits to and interviews with the MFIs, particularly the Washington-based IBRD and the IDB as well as consultations with the regional economic commissions. On completion of field visits each consultant will prepare a comprehensive report covering all programmes and projects visited, indicating findings and conclusions under each category of programme by sector, thematic issue, cluster of projects. These reports will be presented to the team leader for analysis.

Recommendations/Report: the output of the evaluation will be a report highlighting the findings of the evaluation mission and containing recommendations in conformity with the standard format. The recommendations should provide suggestions for improvements. In addition, the section on recommendations and lessons learned should be used to transcend the immediate context of the issues specified in Section IV above and address the strategic role of intercountry programmes in the area of advocacy, development of cutting edge approaches/innovations and how "globalization" will impact the relevance of the programmes. Upon presentation of the final report by the leader of the consultant's team, discussions will be held with OESP and representatives of all the Bureaux concerned, on the mechanisms for dissemination of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the report.

Publication: The evaluation report will be professionally edited for OESP's publication.

VI. COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM


18. The evaluation team will be composed of five international consultants who will offer a combination of skills and expertise in the following areas: economics/development planning, evaluation, social sciences with experience in institutional building, and selected scientific disciplines. These consultants, who will work under the guidance of a team leader, should be conversant with development issues of the regions covered by the programmes under review.

19. A research assistant will work with OESP during the evaluation and will be responsible for the following: a) processing of programmes/projects information to derive a thematic classification; b) review of all existing relevant evaluation reports to extract main findings; and c) assist with the collection and organization of completed questionnaires.

VII. IMPLEMENTATION/TIME TABLE

20. The time table for the evaluation is as follows:

21. The resources needed for the evaluation are:

C. Roth, 11 March 1996
wp/reglob.tor

ANNEX I

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF PROGRAMMES/PROJECTS TO BE VISITED/STUDIED

ANNEX II

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Fourth and Fifth Cycle programmes for Global, Interregional and Regional Programmes: DP/INT/GLO/1, DP/INT GLO/2, 12 December 1991, DP/RAF/3, 21 April 1987, DP/RAF/4, 24 March 1992; Note of the Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific on intercountry programming in the fourth cycle, RBAP, October 1985; Fifth intercountry programme for Asia and the Pacific, RBAP, Manila, 20-21 January 1992 and RBAP, January 1995; DP/95/47/Add 6, 2 July 1995; Third intercountry programme for the Arab States DP/RAB/3, 18 April 1994; Fourth Regional Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean, 18 March 1992; Third Regional Programme for Europe DP/REV/3, 24 March 1992.

2. Mid-term reviews of the fourth and fifth cycle programmes for global, interregional and regional programmes: mid term review for the fourth cycle regional programme in Africa, DP/1995/47/Add 2, 27 June 1995; RBAP midterm review and report of the mid-term review on the fourth intercountry programme January and March 1989; RBAP report of the regional development cooperation (RDC) in Asia and the Pacific meeting, RBAP fostering Asia Pacific links a joint issues paper for the mid-term review of the inter-country programme, 28-29 March 1995; Mid-term review of the 4th regional programme for Latin America and the Caribbean DP/1995/47/Add 5, 30 June 1995; Third regional programme for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States - Note by the Administrator to the Executive Board DP/1995/47/Add 6, 3 July 1995.

3. Reports on mid-term reviews: an overview (DP/1995/47 24 July 1995);

4. Analysis of the Global and Interregional programmes for the fifth cycle (DP/INT/GLO/2/Add.1), 15 April 1992;

5. Building a new UNDP - OESP Series on Managing Change - 1995;

6. Governing Decision 90/34 - Fifth programming cycle Executive Board Decision 94/14 - Future of UNDP;

7. Successor programming arrangements (DP/95/32);

8. Some background as regards the importance of Special, Interregional and Global Programmes (Anders Wijkman memorandum, 8 June 1995);

9. Building the capacity to prevent poverty: UNDP as a facilitator - report of a mid-term evaluation of UNDP's fifth cycle Poverty Alleviation Programme - BPPS, 1994;

10. Assessment of UNDP : Developing Capacity for Sustainable Human Development, Centre for Development Research, Feb. 1996.