Session 4: UNDP EVALUATION POLICY and the IMPLICATIONS for the WAY UNDP WORKS

1
Session 4 UNDP EVALUATION POLICY and the
IMPLICATIONS for the WAY UNDP WORKS

• Group 3 Small Group Work UNDAF Monitoring and
  Evaluation
  
• Group Members Kyrgyzstan, Kazakstan, Moldova,
  Turkey, NY HQ

2
discussion points

• identifying issues
• practical challenges
• existing experiences

3
Evaluability of UNDAF

• possible recommended
• well formulated results
• quality indicators
• baselines
• reliable MoV

• Kyrgyzstan- non existent ME framework and plan
  different priorities
  
• Kazakhstan-non-existence of clear results
• Turkey-broad results, weak ME framework
• Moldova-second generation UNDAF under construction

4
UNDAF ME System

• recommended
• dedicated capacity
• aligned to national ME system
• Common software (DevInfo)

• CO situation
• not in place
• Initiatives taken by Moldova and Turkey

5
UNDAF ME

• issues
• political will
• technical capacity
• driver of the process

• comments
• difficult without dedicated capacity
• A functional system that doesnt bring additional
  burden
  
• shared responsibility
• RC unit-implementer of the agenda

6
UNDAF Annual Review

• requirements
• meaningful and efficient process
• roles and responsibilities defined

• No experience except Turkey-incomplete
• full participation of agencies
• RC unit-driver of process
• shared responsibility

7
UNDAF Evaluation

• process managed/driven by

• UNCT in consultation with UNEG