Introduction

Contraceptive Requirements and Logistics Management Needs

Training

Coordination and Collaboration

Monitoring and Evaluation

JOICFP-Executed Projects

Centres of Excellence for South to South Cooperation

Safe Motherhood Projects

HIV/AIDS Prevention Interventions

Implementing the Reproductive Health Approach

UNDAF Assessment

The pilot phase of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) was assessed in 1998. This exercise was conducted by an inter-agency team composed of 10 assessors, with two each drawn from five agencies: UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). The assessment was accomplished through an exhaustive review of the documentation, interviews at agency headquarters and with United Nations country teams, and visits to eight pilot countries. UNFPA contributed substantively to the preparations for the assessment, including the drafting of terms of reference, assessment tools and reports. Its staff participated as assessors in three of the eight country visits, conducted interviews, reviewed documents and contributed to the final assessment report. UNFPA field staff were among the country team members invited to a workshop in Princeton, New Jersey, in late September 1998. Participants reviewed the assessment's various products and reported to the Executive Committee of UNDG, which is deliberating the future of UNDAF.

In all cases, country offices reported full participation in the UNDAF process. Apart from attending the many meetings convened for the purpose, UNFPA staff were members of technical committees, theme groups and working groups that contributed to the preparation of CCA and UNDAF. This often entailed the mobilization of the entire programme staff of the country office. Except for two cases, Colombia and Zimbabwe, the workload was reported to be a heavy burden on the country office. In five cases, UNFPA contributed to the cost of consultants. Other offices did not incur any financial costs as such. All offices emphasized the heavy cost in terms of staff time.

The progress towards coordination was more evident than actual collaboration itself. There was a consensus that the UNDAF process had significantly improved information sharing on programme initiatives and enriched United Nations system meetings, which previously tended to focus almost exclusively on administrative, logistic and security issues. The UNDAF process has provided a setting for identifying areas of convergence among organizations and has highlighted the need for harmonization and joint programming. Overall, country offices believed that the stage had been set for collaboration; however, guidance is now needed on how to proceed so that the momentum is not lost.

The majority of country offices reported that the CCA and UNDAF processes had devoted adequate attention to follow-up of the recent United Nations global conferences. For example, the ICPD indicators were used in the preparation of CCAs.

Most country offices reported that the resource framework had not yet been completed and the methodology for preparing the resource framework did not appear to be well understood. There had also been problems reconciling the different terminology, standards and concepts used by the various organizations. However, UNFPA country offices had responded to requests to provide data on programme allocations.

In August 1998, the Fund conducted an informal survey of the implications of the UNDAF pilot phase for UNFPA programming. The survey was conducted through a documentation review and through interviews with the UNFPA Representative, Deputy Representative and/or Assistant Representative in 16 of the 18 UNDAF pilot countries. The documents reviewed included the country programme documents, the Common Country Assessment, where available, and UNDAF in draft/final form. The findings of the survey are summarized below.

The UNDAF process provides opportunities for improved information sharing that should help to promote collaboration and to avoid duplication. It has great potential for synergy, particularly in the preparation of a common United Nations system approach. The many meetings and discussions that took place as part of the process enabled UNFPA to raise its profile in the country; to publicize its programme; to validate its programme strategy in regard to broad national development needs; and to engage in substantive dialogue with parties other than its traditional development partners. The meetings also provided a conducive environment for raising population and development issues.

Population issues were in general well reflected in the back-ground sections of the UNDAF document and often in the situation analyses as well. In some instances, this was implicit rather than explicit. Population issues were less prominent in the common framework for future action. UNFPA inputs were mentioned, often under the health, gender and HIV/AIDS sections. The relevance of the Fund's support to poverty reduction and sector investment programmes was also recognized. Reproductive health was not consistently mentioned and, when it was mentioned, it was sometimes not defined. In a couple of cases, family planning was referred to instead. Reproductive rights were not mentioned under human rights or women's rights, except in one instance.

The UNDAF pilot phase has highlighted the value of synergy and complementarity. The UNDAF process presents a golden opportunity for United Nations system organizations to advance collaboration on monitoring and evaluation. It not only provides the context for monitoring the performance of the United Nations system in specific countries, but also enables more coherent monitoring of the follow-up to United Nations global conferences.