As noted earlier, global programmes were developed with the primary objective of supporting and facilitating access by the developing countries to current research on science and technology. At the same time, the programmes have sought to enhance the capacities of developing countries to apply research outputs to their most critical development problems. The projects examined were found to have fulfilled this general mandate. The evaluation findings were generally positive regarding these projects. However, some gaps in project design and direction were detected.
One of the key components of the rationale for intercountry programmes of all kinds is that they provide both a focus and a means for learning and information-sharing. The global projects are relatively good at producing and sharing information among project partners and direct stakeholders. They are also well-rooted locally. At the same time, connections to regional bureaux, country offices, and specialized divisions of UNDP are non-existent. The responsible division within UNDP has not successfully used its position within the organizational structure either as a channel for sharing information or to encourage applications of best practices in country or regional programmes.
As a result of these limitations, much of the broader learning potential of global projects is lost because of the lack of connectedness to other operational components of UNDP as well as to its substantive divisions at headquarters. Consequently, partner countries also are unable to attain many of the benefits of global projects. The lack of linkages also eliminates the possibility of establishing ties between global initiatives and parallel efforts at the regional and country levels.
This evaluation has allowed for the opportunity to review the types of projects funded under the guidelines for global programmes and compare them with other forms of intercountry programming. On the basis of the study's findings, it must be concluded that there is a place for projects of this kind, which seek to strengthen and properly use the capacities of research institutions in the developing countries. In order for such projects to receive funding in the future, emphasis should be given to applications and use of research, wide dissemination of results, and building within-project linkages to beneficiaries and end-users.
As discussed in more detail earlier, the interregional programmes have been viewed within UNDP as more pragmatic than the global programmes and, as such, have channelled advisory and other services to developing countries in key sectors in all regions. Generally, these programmes have often been more operational than the global programmes and have frequently been linked to specific countries. The active involvement of UNDP regional bureaux and other bilateral and multilateral donors as well as links to regional projects are thought to be more common in the case of interregional programmes than in that of those that are global.
Like global programmes, the intention, for interregional programmes has been to ensure the greatest possible compatibility with UNDP regional and country activities. Similarly, programmes have been expected to adopt a strategic approach in programme formulation and implementation, based on identification of the most pressing problems for developing countries. The programme guidelines also indicate that they are expected to concentrate on the human development aspects of these problems as well as on opportunities for positive change. It has also been expected that projects will strive to enhance the capacity to promote international partnerships and mobilize human and financial resources.
Both global and interregional projects are also intended to demonstrate responsiveness to opportunities as well as to the needs of developing countries and the directors of the Executive Board. It has also been anticipated that they will exhibit a willingness to explore the opportunities for intensified collaboration with United Nations agencies and other external support agencies and also ensure the participation of developing countries through consultative mechanisms.
In the broadest sense, all the interregional programmes examined appear to have been planned and implemented with these guidelines in mind. Some have done better than others in building what might be regarded as a strategic approach, but all have attempted to do so.
The larger programmes (excluding the Sustainable Development Networking Programme and the Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) have been less successful than the global programmes in building partnerships, using consultations and operating as partnerships in decision-making. The projects have - with the two exceptions noted above - been lax in their efforts to link with regional bureaux and country programmes.
Like the global programmes, the interregional projects lack adequate learning strategies. There is little communication among the responsible divisions and other elements of UNDP and little, if any, exchange of information with other projects.
As a general comment, despite the deficiencies of several projects, the global and interregional projects have proved better able to reflect directly the core elements of the SHD agenda than their regional counterparts. The absence of some of the pressures facing regional bureaux as they develop their programmes may account for their better record in this regard. In other words, global and interregional programmes have had less of a balancing act to manage in responding to concerns of specific countries and external organizations while also seeking to take a leadership role in furthering the practical understanding of development issues and problems.
The role of regional programmes has been to strengthen the capacity of national institutions dealing with regional issues as well as that of subregional and regional intergovernmental organizations. In the last few years, the regional bureaux have been moving from a purely responsive approach to building their programme portfolios to one in which a greater effort is made to establish overall focus and to limit the number of themes and sectors addressed.
Up to the present time, these programmes have been regarded by country partners, in a sense, as an entitlement. Their effectiveness has been inhibited by the fact that all countries in a region or subregion have been eligible to participate. Given limited resources, this often means that country-based operations are insufficiently funded. It also results in a situation where efforts to build activities within the context of a demonstration project are defeated by the need to disburse available funds fairly among all eligible countries. At the same time, regional economic commissions and the United Nations specialized agencies have tended to look to UNDP to support their regional programmes.
The evaluation took place as the regional programmes were attempting to address many of these issues and at a time when overall funding was being drastically reduced. With diminishing resources, UNDP cannot hope to act as a service provider through its regional projects. There are very few situations today where donors of any kind or size can hope to do so.
The regional projects examined have been scattered, often service-oriented, and under-budgeted to a serious degree. In order to address these issues, regional bureaux need the support of the Administrator and Executive Board in defining a far more tightly specified and focused mandate. As with the other types of intercountry programmes, regional programmes can thrive only within a strategic framework that restricts the number of themes and sectors addressed.
It is also suggested that such programmes should use a demonstration and learning approach rather than attempting to provide services. Even in those few service areas where UNDP has a comparative advantage - aid management and political cooperation/governance - the approach taken should focus on piloting, assessment, the description of best practices and dissemination.
Projects have been generally consistent with the Executive Committee guidelines summarized above. However, the growing emphasis on capacity development has not been accompanied by the building of appropriate strategies for realizing objectives of this kind. Taken overall, the design and effectiveness of capacity-development strategies have been weaker in the case of regional programmes than with other intercountry programmes.
Claims Made Regarding the Comparative Advantage of UNDP in Undertaking Intercountry Programmes
The comparative advantage of UNDP and the special contributions that it can make through intercountry programmes are seen to be the following:
Assessment of the Claims
Adding Value
Having looked at the various facets of the UNDP comparative advantage, it is necessary to give more careful consideration to the overall results that have been achieved. An effort has been made to examine the results and the developmental difference made by each project. As pointed out earlier, without baseline data, performance indicators and a systematic approach to monitoring and evaluation, it is almost impossible to measure concrete results.
On the basis of the assessment of the different areas of comparative advantage reviewed above, it is apparent that there is an important role for intercountry programmes. At the same time, substantial work must be done in order for UNDP to realize the potential of its comparative advantage. The following constraints must be addressed:
From the best practices described in chapter two, it is also possible to highlight the key elements that are found in the most effective and best-designed projects. These are as follows:
Apart from the more specific issues mentioned above, a fundamental difficulty lies in the absence of strategic planning of programmes. If UNDP is to take advantage of its comparative advantage, structural changes must be made in the way in which programming is done, in the linkages from broad UNDP policy and objectives to programming and in the preparation, design and delivery of individual projects.
The evolution of the idea of human development into the current concept of sustainable human development (SHD) provides UNDP with an opportunity to secure a central position within the United Nations system in relation to economic and social development, including poverty elimination. To capitalize fully on this opportunity, UNDP must operationalize the concept of SHD and show that its programmes at the field level are capable of being linked credibly to SHD. In other words, great care and attention must be given to the pre-design and design stages of projects, the selection of partner institutions, and the identification of stakeholders and beneficiaries and a commitment to consult them throughout the project process must be maintained. As discussed in a different context earlier, the evidence gathered by this evaluation suggests the need for adjusting UNDP operations internally so that they represent a better organizational tool to support the achievement of SHD.
Improving UNDP responsiveness regarding SHD. UNDP must develop and demonstrate effective operational modes for programming at all levels for the achievement of SHD. This will require the determination to change the organizational culture and structure of UNDP and provide incentives for a more collaborative strategy among different elements within the organization, for learning from project practice, exchange of information, capturing of best practices and lessons learned, and for effective monitoring, backstopping and quality control. The role of resident representatives and country offices in supporting these processes needs to be strengthened through the provision of necessary budgetary resources backed by capacity-development assistance.
Sharpening UNDP's conceptual and methodological skills. For UNDP to become a brain trust and lead agency for SHD, multidisciplinary approaches will need to be adopted and more upstream efforts with properly defined linkages to downstream activities involving research and dissemination at the country and global levels will be required. This will necessitate devoting the requisite resources to strengthening in-house capacity in conceptual thinking, practical programming and technical and professional backstopping.
This can only make a difference if sufficient time and resources are given to preparation, design and the appraisal process. Without a clear focus, there cannot be well-focused objectives. The more specific and focused the project, the more straightforward it will be to identify stakeholders and to define and construct the framework for the appropriate linkages from the country to the regional and/or global levels.
Concentrating resources. UNDP must adapt to structural shifts in its resource base by avoiding the temptation to do too much. This will require the organization to focus both conceptually and programmatically to come up with imaginative, high-quality programmes that can best support the SHD needs of the countries involved. In turn, this will also entail funding a limited number of downstream projects to validate policy ideas and demonstrate grass-roots success or successfully launch major programmatic initiatives. In other words, UNDP has to take a very pragmatic and entrepreneurial role in defining a niche and a development gap, identifying and securing partners, and then moving ahead to fill the gap currently not filled satisfactorily by any donor. This can only happen with substantial supervision and guidance from headquarters and by giving more attention to quality control, management, monitoring, information-sharing and learning (see chapter two).
Anchoring projects at the country level. For projects to become successful, partner institutions must feel a sense of ownership and that projects are linked closely to the SHD needs of the countries involved. This requires a detailed, thorough preparation process, including broad-based consultations and a careful assessment of the capacity of selected partner organizations. An additional and essential element of a strategy to achieve this goal is the involvement of country offices and resident representatives from an early stage and the provision of realistic resources to support management, monitoring and backstopping.
Strengthening the capacity of civil society. The essence of achieving significant advances in SHD comes down to finding a practical methodology for empowering people to author their own destiny - to participate in decision-making and planning and to work together effectively to become catalysts for change. This will entail capacity-building of partner governments, institutions and civil society; strengthening democratic practices and dialogue between government and civil society; building networks; and linking those networks with the broader international community and critical sources of information.
Mainstreaming gender planning. Personnel in UNDP as well as in executing and implementing agencies need to be trained in how to incorporate gender into project design and implementation strategy. Gender must be addressed in project objectives, in the specification of performance indicators, in benchmarks and in monitoring. To achieve this goal, staff both at headquarters and in country offices require better support and training in gender planning if they are to assist the organization properly in fulfilling its mandate.
Global and Interregional Programmes
In this way, projects will produce usable and valued information focused on the resolution of practical problems.
Regional Programmes
General Lessons for Planning Intercountry Programmes
Strategic Partnership and Supporting Innovation
It should be emphasized that it is not essential for projects to be managed directly by UNDP. Indeed, many of the most effective and imaginative projects reviewed here have been handled at arm's length. However, it is essential to ensure that UNDP and its partners, the member countries, benefit from ithe projects. Whatever the degree of its direct involvement in intercountry projects, UNDP must take an active role in the supervision of preparation and design in order to make certain that projects are planned with a view to learning.
Another point worthy of consideration in thinking through the parameters of future programming is that not all projects included in the sample are actually projects in the conventional sense. The Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) is an innovative approach to addressing a capacity gap. It is also a radical departure in development cooperation, using the project form for administrative convenience.
Similarly, the global Human Development Report (HDR) as well as the regional umbrella programme for national HDRs in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States and country HDR initiatives in other regions are also examples of innovation in "pushing the envelope" of what constitutes a project. As a way of undertaking development cooperation, the new "Money Matters" programme of the Office of Development Studies is another departure.
It is to be hoped that space will be found in the restructuring of intercountry programmes for innovations in ways of conceptualizing and acting on UNDP's special role as a global actor in the development process. A continuing preoccupation with comparative advantage should be accompanied by an openness to new ways for the organization to define and do its business.