Cartagena de Indias, Colombia10 -12 de Junio 2009

2009 Cartagena de Indias, Colombia 10 -12 June, 2009

MDG-F

7/15/2009

First Regional Meeting in Latin America of the UN/Spain Millennium Development Goal

Achievement Fund

Page 2 of 35

Index

I. Introduction

II. Conclusionsa. Formulationb. Joint Management

i. Problemsii. Suggestions

c. Monitoring and Evaluationd. Communication and Advocacye. Cross-cutting Focus Areasf. Knowledge and Environmental Management

III. Parallel sessionsa. Resident Coordinatorsb. Coordination Officersc. Government Officials

IV. Annexes1

a. Formulation i. Presentation - United Nations System - Colombia ii. Presentation - Government of Colombia iii. Presentation - United Nations System - Nicaraguaiv. Conclusions - Group Work - Central Americav. Conclusions - Group Work – South America

b. Joint Managementi. Presentation - United Nations System - Hondurasii. Presentation - United Nations System - Ecuadoriii. Presentation - Coordination Officers iv. Compilation - Group Work - Analysis of problems - Central Americav. Conclusions - Group Work - Analysis of extracts - Central Americavi. Compilation - Group Work - Analysis of problems - South Americavii. Conclusions - Group Work - Analysis of extracts – South Americaviii. Extracts Analysed

c. Monitoring and Evaluationi. Presentation - MDG-Fii. Proposals - Group Work - Central Americaiii. Proposals - Group Work – South America

d. Communication and Advocacyi. Presentation - MDG-Fii. Case Study (Brazil)

1 Annexes are only available in the Spanish version – as these are the compilation of notes taken by each working group at the workshop.

Page 3 of 35

iii. Presentation - Conclusions and Key Pointsiv. Compilation - Group Work - Central Americav. Compilation - Group Work – South America

e. Cross-cutting Focus Areasi. Recommendations - Genderii. Recommendations - Indigenous Peoples

a. Knowledge and Environmental Managementiii. Presentation - MDG-Fiv. Conclusions - Group Work - Economic Governancev. Conclusions - Group Work - Environment

f. List of participants

g. Agendas

h. Photos

Page 4 of 35

1st REGIONAL MEETING IN LATIN AMERICA of the

MDG Achievement Fund

I. INTRODUCTION

In June 2009, the Millennium Development Goal Achievement Fund (MDG-F) finds itself at a crucial stage of its existence now that the eight thematic windows are closed, the strategies and Work Plans of the Secretariat have been approved by the Fund Steering Committee, and as several programmes enter their first year of implementation with some difficulties.

For this reason it was felt that the moment was right for holding a discussion on the lessons learned since the process was initiated, as well as ensuring the coordination and quality of the implementation through the discussion and exchange of methodologies regarding Monitoring and Evaluation and Communications and Knowledge Management, from a Joint Programme and national ownership perspective.

Whereas the Secretariat has been favouring a sharing of experiences via the web site or the Notes from the Secretariat to Resident Coordinators, in this workshop a further step was taken through discussion forums to contribute towards solving the difficulties encountered in the inception and development of the Joint Programmes.

This forum also complements the two workshops that were held during the months of March and April for those countries participating in the Fund in Africa, Europe and Asia. In Latin America, the special circumstances surrounding the advancement of the formulation process, the preliminary reflections discussed by Resident Coordinators in Havana, or the development of analysis work on joint programme methodologies such as that coordinated by Honduras, all pointed to the need to delay timelines a little further and incorporate the results of previous endeavours.

The aim of this document is to summarise the discussion and exchange of experiences that took place during the First MDG-F Regional Meeting in Latin America.

Page 5 of 35

SPONSORS

The successful outcome of the workshop was made possible thanks to the support of:1. The AECID Training Centre2. The Office of the Resident Coordinator in Colombia

PARTICIPANTS

The workshop was attended by 125 participants from 18 countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay). The workshop participants included:

Resident Coordinators and Resident Coordinators ad interim of 9 countries; Country Delegations generally composed of:

- Coordination Officers or Assistants attached to the Resident Coordinator’s Office, as key focal points for MDG-F processes in the country;

- National government counterparts participating in the joint programmes; - Management Operations Unit Coordinators of joint programmes currently being

implemented, or focal points of coordinating agencies; Representatives of AECID in Colombia;

The following members of the MDG Fund Secretariat participated in the workshop in a facilitating capacity: a Senior Consultant, representatives in charge of the Latin America portfolio, a Specialist in M&E, a Specialist in Communication and Advocacy, a representative in charge of the Asia and Europe portfolio for strengthening the inter-regional perspective, a representative of the Multi Donor Trust Fund office (MDTF), an Administrative Agent of this Fund.

Page 6 of 35

Central America, Mexico, Caribbean

South America

For more information see Annex (g): List of Participants and contacts

Page 7 of 35

METHODOLOGY

The work dynamic was eminently participative based on the presentation of documents and strategies. Due to the high number of participants and in order to guarantee a minimum level of discussion and exchange, the plenary sessions were confined to the opening ceremony and initial session of the conference prepared by the MDG-F Secretariat and MDTF, and the closing workshop with endorsement of the conclusions. The remaining modules, listed below, were held in two parallel forums, one for participants from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean and the other for South America. The modules were as follows:

Module 1: Lessons learned and the prospects for the future regarding formulation processes; Module 2: Exchange and discussion of implementation methodologies as part of a joint vision: identifying problems and analysing extracts from the guidance on implementation; Module 3: Monitoring and Evaluation; Module 4: Communication and Advocacy; Module 5: Cross-cutting focus areas: gender and indigenous issues from the standpoint of human rights and knowledge management in the thematic area of Environment, Climate Change, and water and sanitation within the framework of economic governance.

See Annex (h): Annotated Agendas for Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean and for South America.

Each of the modules was structured as follows: (a) a presentation by a participating country with the aim of putting forward certain key issues for discussion; (b) group sessions for discussion and identification of problems and lessons learned (7-10 members) and; (c) a plenary.

The conclusions from these discussions are presented in the next section of this report. The presentations by the various countries and specialists from the MDG-F Secretariat, together with the full texts produced during the group working sessions, are presented in the annexes to this report (Annexes a - d).

The final module on cross-cutting focus areas was attended by both sub-regions and consisted in the group preparation of minimum recommendations regarding ways to mainstream gender perspectives and special attention was paid to indigenous issues in the four modules previously discussed (formulation, implementation or joint management, Monitoring and Evaluation and Communication and Advocacy).

The conclusions of these discussions and the full texts produced during the work groups are presented in this report in annex (e).

Page 8 of 35

In parallel to this, a thematic session was held on Environment, Climate Change and water and sanitation within the framework of economic governance, during which the issue of knowledge management within this thematic area was addressed.

The conclusions of these discussions and the full texts produced during the group working sessions are presented in this report in annex (f).

Page 9 of 35

II. CONCLUSIONS

Opening Session

The opening session of the Workshop took place on the morning of the 10th of June. The Opening Session was presided over by:

Jose Antonio Gonzalez, Representative of the MDG-F Secretariat Miguel Gonzales, General Coordinator of AECID Bruno Moro, UN Resident Coordinator in Colombia Sandra Alzate, Director for International Cooperation of ACCIÓN SOCIAL Colombia

During the opening session, reference was made to the importance of the Fund as an innovative and thought-provoking mechanism that has invested major resources in support of the United Nations System, and that has served at the same time to move the United Nations Reform process forward. It was emphasised that this is a Fund, conceived in accordance with the Paris Declaration, that gives substantive priority to monitoring and evaluation and seeks to generate a process whose motivation is based primarily on a wish to derive benefit from the competencies of the various agencies and not merely from the need of their resources.

In addition, it was pointed out that the Fund represents a major milestone in the form of cooperation, since it is a mechanism that generates best practices in ownership and cooperation. Reference was also made to the innovative elements of the fund that seek to encourage efficient as well as effective processes, while at the same time addressing the challenges faced when working within a framework of joint development with a varied range of actors.

Finally, reference was made to the importance of making these resources available in the region, and also to the opportunity of benefiting from this encounter as a relevant platform for effecting an interchange of experiences and reflecting upon the lessons learned as well as the challenges the future will bring to this region, especially within the context of the global financial crisis.

Module 1: Formulation of Joint Programmes

In this module two experiences regarding the formulation of joint programmes were presented:

- In Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean: Nicaragua (see annex a.iii)- In South America: Colombia (see annex a.i and a.ii)

The following tables are a summary of the group discussions arranged under the following headings:

1. Information for the construction of the situational analysis;2. Aspects of coordination, participation and ownership;3. Alignment with national development priorities and UNDAF;4. Access to information, methodologies and tools used in the formulation process;5. Quality of the formulation process.

Page 10 of 35

In addition, Annexes a.iv and a.v include documents produced by all of the groups from each of the sub-regions.

Page 11 of 35

MODULE 1 FORMULATION OF PROGRAMMES: Summary of Challenges and Lessons Learned June 2009

ISSUE CHALLENGES LESSONS LEARNED

1. INFORMATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

Inadequate or out-of-date statistical information systems Non-existence of mapping at national level of all prior experiences

regarding the central issues of the Joint Programme.

Have a baseline at the start of the programme centred on the implementation of previous studies and the mapping of existing experiences.

Start from already initiated processes.

2. ASPECTS OF COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND OWNERSHIP

Inter-agency

a. Diversity/ overlapping of mandatesb. Tension regarding access to fund resources and objectives c. Lack of experience in inter-agency coordinationd. Difficulty in identifying process leaders, or lack of capacity

or commitment on the part of the leaders chosene. Structural problems in UNS coordinationf. Staff rotation

UNS/ Government

a. Gaps in capacities amongst actorsb. Lack of coordination between government bodies c. Lack of integration of local governmentsd. Lack of information for government bodiese. Changes in government/ change of political prioritiesf. Rotation of staff/ lack of leadershipg. Government delegates without authority to take

decisions in the formulation process

Social

a. Absence or unpredictability (due to time or information constraints) of participative consultation with target communities (i.e. indigenous people)

Reinforce the role of the NSC and RC in the selection of actors who offer added value for participating in a JP.

The formulation should begin by jointly identifying a problem, defining an intervention strategy and finally identifying relevant actors and outlining the budget required to implement the proposed activities.

Strengthen the ties between JPs and UNDAF. Have an operations manual from the very outset.

Hold joint UNS/Government preparatory workshops on the formulation of the Joint Programme.

Joint identification by UN and Governments of the problems and counterparts involved.

Identification of focal points in the government counterpart.

More time and resources are needed for consulting with communities

Page 12 of 35

MODULE 1 FORMULATION OF PROGRAMMES: Summary of Challenges and Lessons Learned June 2009

3. ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AND WITH UNDAF

Complexity of making the UNDAF theoretical framework operational/putting it into practice

Tension between access to resources and development priorities

Changes in government, synergies between political and technical aspects

Difficulty in coordinating national, regional and local visions

Clear definition of roles

Give the MDGs priority over the need for financing the harmonisation process or the functioning of agencies and/or government institutions.

Need to consider the local level in the design of interventions.The NSC is vital in the coordination and leadership it establishes with the sectors it represents

4. ACCESS TO INFORMATION, METHODOLOGIES AND FORMULATION TOOLS

Absence of formulation methodologies and procedures, especially in the initial thematic windows.

Lack of clarity in the role of each of the partners, RCs, AECIs, (partner and lead) Agencies, governments.

Lack of foresight and time management Disparate Head Office guidance (MDG-F, MDTF, DOCO) –

lack of a unified vision Defective JP format, which does not allow alternative

solutions to be considered. A simultaneous lack of knowledge in all thematic windows

for linking and strengthening cross-cutting themes Absence of a systematic approach to lessons learned, only

partial good examples Evaluation criteria for proposals Unequal flow of information. Weak induction process

Development of methodologies for inter-agency dialogue Development of guidance for a more interactive and simpler formulation Obtain uniformity in the requirements from Head Office More visible relations with UNDOCO to support reform at country level. Include good examples of component factors Communication between thematic windows and countries has helped people to capitalise on the knowledge gained during the opening stages of the thematic windows. Definition of the responsibilities, duties and commitments of each actor involved Need to plan for and respect pre-established deadlines in the different phases of the formulation and consultation and information process. Workshop for the Secretariat to launch the MDGs by presenting the principles and objectives of the MDGs and the criteria used in the evaluation process. Obtain uniformity of requirements

5. QUALITY OF FORMULATION

Formulation fragmented or undertaken by consultants A sector-based v. territorial, national, regional, local

focus Difficulty in determining the impact of the MDGs Time Shortage of planning capacity Tendency to plan for activities and not for results

Strike a balance between the unification work of the consultant, the coherence of the proposal and the breadth of the technical contribution made by agencies and their counterparts Systematise experiences in the formulation of past thematic windows to provide improvements for new proposals and spaces for coordination and dialogue. Refine the proposals to realistic goals over a three year period.

Page 13 of 35

Three years is insufficient for integrated intervention Competitive process – assistance in obtaining better quality programmes.

Page 14 of 35

Module 2: Management of Joint Programmes

In this module two experiences regarding the formulation of joint programmes were presented:

- In Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean: Honduras (see annex b.i)- In South America: Ecuador (see annex b.ii)

The tables below are a summary of the group discussions concerning:

A) The principal problems identified in implementation start-up and joint programme management, which have been grouped under the following issues:

1. Inter-agency and intra-governmental coordination2. Harmonization of available procedures and tools3. Capacity/ internal communications4. Ownership/ consensus5. Management by Results/ M&E6. Governance, management and operational structure

B) Comments and suggestions for improving extracts from several document guidelines used in the implementation of joint programmes. The extracts discussed (see annex b.viii) addressed the following aspects:

1. Structure of governance2. Models for joint management3. Coordination Unit ToRs4. Next steps (to be taken after programme approval)

Coordination Officers from the various countries assisted the group discussion of extracts, collated the conclusions and summarised the recommendations made in both sub-regions, presenting the results at the plenary. This presentation can be found in annex b.iii attached. Also included in Annexes b.iv to b.vii are the documents produced by all of the groups from each of the sub-regions.

Page 15 of 35

Page 16 of 35

MODULE 2 JOINT PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: Summary of Problems Identified June 2009

ISSUE PROBLEMS

1. INTER-AGENCY/ INTRA-GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

Duplication of the activities carried out by the various agencies Lack of culture/concept of inter-agency work Lack of commitment on the part of some agencies to work together Lack of guidance from Central Offices for country offices to participate in JPs Lack of strategic involvement on the part of some agency representatives Lack of experience in joint programming

2. HARMONIZATION OF PROCEDURES AND AVAILABLE TOOLS

Lack of compatibility between the agencies’ operational systems Delays through lack of synchronisation between operational systems and individual agencies Delays in payments from Central Offices to Country Offices are an obstacle to a unified start No operations manual exists for implementation or guidance on administrative management Lack of guidelines/ flexibility on budget reprogramming

3. CAPACITY/ INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS Lack of human resources in agencies and their counterparts Lack of leadership Lack of clarity on the role of the lead agency Lack of communication between different operating levels of the JP Some non-resident agencies do not possess sufficient local capacity to operate Limited local capacities Dissociation between other JPs in the same country Different implementation and efficiency methods used by those participating in the JP

4. OWNERSHIP/ CONSENSUS Lack of ownership and commitment from some government counterparts Difficulties due to changes in government and priorities Lack of time for putting operational plans into effect Lack of time for implementing processes of awareness-raising and ownership Non-specific operational plans Time lost between preparation and payment must be utilised for preparing the conditions Lack of a territorial focus, which limits civil society participation

MODULE 2 JOINT PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: Summary of Problems Identified June 2009

Page 17 of 35

5. MANAGEMENT BY RESULTS / MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Lack of guidelines on MDG-F window achievement indicators Weak formulation planning (non-proprietary M&E) Need to readjust timescales and work plans The time required by the start-up phase is underestimated

6. GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE

Greater clarity in (last resort) conflict resolution mechanisms Role of the programme coordinator sometimes lacks sufficient autonomy and empowerment Established hierarchies are not respected Lack of clarity in the role of the lead agency Lack of local management committees Use of different negotiators with local actors leads to disorganisation Lack of clarity in the role and composition of committees and the participation of government bodies Consultants/ contract staff for the programme report back to the contracting agency and not to the

joint programme

Page 18 of 35

MODULE 2 JOINT PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: Summary of Suggestions on Operational Guidance

ISSUE PROBLEMS

1. GENERAL COMMENTS A reference manual is needed for joint programmes, but it also has to be adaptable to the realities of each country

The manual must cover the minimum requirements of the JPs The terminology used in the text must be standardised Inclusion of a glossary of terms The management model that is considered to be ideal and currently implemented in ongoing regional pilots

is one which associates the strategic and technical leadership of the State with the operational implementation and transfer of added value from the UNS, taking advantage of the synergies between the various mandates of each of the agencies and funds.

2. GOVERNANCE Clarifying the responsibilities of the steering and management committees. Underlining the importance of the RC’s role in the national steering committee, (amongst other things, with

the capacity for deciding on participating agencies). Clarification of the role of the ORC in the implementation/management of the JP. Reinforcing the role of the NSC (budgetary revisions/ substantive changes in the JP). The Agency Representatives must be the ones who participate in the PMC in order to facilitate decision-

making (special difficulties are encountered with Non-resident Agencies). Identifying focal points in each entity in order to ensure continuity.

3. MANAGEMENT MODELS Better definition in the composition/structure of the management committee, especially the roles of the UN and Government.

Two levels of management committee are proposed: one enlarged, the other more technical to be made up of both UN and Government and which meets more frequently.

Steering Committee to have the RC as co-chairman and the Government and Management Committee must endorse the Programme Coordinator.

Improve channels of coordination in management structures. Opinions differ regarding operating teams. There should not be an operational team per outcome, as this is contrary to inter-agency logic. Programming team to be organised by thematic work group, or by cross-cutting axes or by results. Define supervision by the programme coordinator (UNS/ Gov.). Records/minutes of meetings as a legal document of accountability. Include the participation of Agency Representatives on the management committee to achieve greater

commitment from the agencies. It is proposed that the inter-agency committee be removed, wherever one exists. The lead agency should

have amongst its functions the provision of spaces for inter-agency discussion, so as not to add yet another element to the current structure.

Page 19 of 35

MODULE 2 JOINT PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: Summary of Suggestions on Operational Guidance

It is suggested that there should not be one lead agency per outcome. Define criteria for selecting a lead agency (installed capacities for assuming leadership, experience of having

worked on the issue, recognition and leadership in the area at country level). Aggregate roles and responsibilities of the lead agency (oversight of the functioning of the management

committee, supervision of the programme coordinator, encouraging coordination with other JPs, watching over the coordination of technical assistance and financing of partners by the agency, promoting quality M&E).

Different management models exist and the one most commonly used is the joint model (Government, UNS). Programme Coordinator must report to the PMC (UNS/and Gov.). Include regional consultative committee. Lead agency should not be representing the Resident Coordinator.

4. COORDINATION UNIT ToRs Coordination Unit should have a technical role and leave the political role to other bodies. M&E could/should be external to the coordination unit. Need to include a conceptual map of planning. Monitoring the political and social reality of a country during implementation. Ensure communication between the coordination unit and all participating bodies. Develop and implement a sustainable Communications Plan and establish internal communications networks. Mobilization of resources should be the responsibility of another department further up the hierarchy. Clarification of its relationship with the lead agency/lead institution. Siting the programme office within a government counterpart, with an operational presence on the ground. Mention the authority the Programme Coordinator has over his work team (made up of personnel chosen and

contracted by other agencies).5. NEXT STEPS Official communication of approval to the NSC and participating actors (agencies and partners).

Official communication of regulations governing budgetary adjustments to all participants. The lead agency and lead institution to coordinate and facilitate the JP adjustment process in accordance with

the observations and suggestions of the MDG-F. Carry out necessary revisions to the Joint Programme document. Revise and carry out adjustments to the annual work plan. Update critical paths of components. Complete and adapt the M&E Plan linked to the submission of accounts and presentation of reports. Revision and definition of baselines. Develop a strategy and communications plan: expand the plan and establish partnerships with the media. Revise management style and administrative processes. Ensure harmonisation of the criteria regarding Agency expense headings. Organize the official launch to ensure signing of the JP document. Preparation of funding applications for the first payment.

Page 20 of 35

MODULE 2 JOINT PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: Summary of Suggestions on Operational Guidance

Submission to the MDG-F of the signed document and to MDTF of the forms for first payment. Send signed documents to the Representatives of the agencies, institutions and social participants. The Resident Coordinator to invite the management committee or enlarged steering committee to endorse

the start of the programme. The lead agency and lead institution to call a meeting of the operational bodies overseeing the programme

implementation. Establish processes for contracting Coordinators, M&E and administrative personnel, defining common

selection mechanisms, a standardised fee table and the definition of ToRs. Definition of infrastructure and the equipment necessary for its implementation. Initiation of the joint programme implementation process. Develop an implementation strategy from a joint perspective. The start-up period of the JP should be defined by the Fund and the NSC. Establish an early warning system to forestall the failure of any agency to mobilise resources in accordance

with the agreed schedule. Identify, systematise and disseminate lessons learned. Continual development of capacities to guarantee sustainability. Establish schedules for submitting inputs for reports.

Page 21 of 35

Module 3: Monitoring and Evaluation

The following is a summary of the monitoring and evaluation presentation made to the participants at the Meeting.

General Comments

The M&E strategy of the MDG-F is an ambitious exercise that is nevertheless considered to be wholly necessary if the characteristic size and complexity of the MDG-F are to be tackled properly.

The M&E processes and activities of MDG-F joint programmes must be harnessed productively in order to coordinate them with UNDAF. This way, added value can be achieved both for UNDAF and the JPs.

Consequently, M&E instruments and activities should be directed towards their utility value and should be linked to national development processes regarding ownership in accordance with the aims of the Paris Declaration.

Sight should also not be lost of the aims of acquiring knowledge and the management of knowledge taught during the M&E processes undertaken.

Comments regarding tools

Monitoring reports are always a necessary tool, especially when the workload is reduced, either through a reduction in frequency or the number of reports required.

Several alternatives were proposed to achieve this aim. Included amongst these were:

1. Requesting two monitoring reports per year.2. Requesting one single report by scheduling it alongside the annual report,

but supplementing it with elements of physical and financial monitoring as well as the monitoring of beneficiaries.

In this sense we are echoing the need for raising the quality of data and information contained in the reports, which are often not as good as they should be: by not allowing too much time to elapse between the gathering of data and their analysis and utilization; and by applying the baseline in the initial stages of programme approval. Resources could thereby be directed towards this task in advance, just as has been done in the case of joint programme formulation.

Likewise, it would be useful to automate the fulfilment of these requirements as far as possible by using IT platforms that are already underway or by developing them in the same manner as reports currently presented to the resident coordinator. (Good examples include Mexico).

In the same way standards could be provided by way of a check-list to JPs for each thematic window, establishing the minimum requirements that JPs would have to fulfil in terms of M&E.

21

Page 22 of 35

Mid-term evaluation is a key element for the MDG-F and JP and this must concentrate on processes and capacities rather than on results. The time for concentrating on results should be left to a later stage towards the end of the programme.

Evaluation must embrace the qualitative dimensions just as much as the quantitative dimensions of JPs. Evaluators must be experts in the areas being evaluated and not just generalists, especially bearing in mind theories of change regarding joint programmes, as well as their impact on the beneficiaries in terms of their conditions and quality of life.

Institutions

There is a need to be quite explicit as to who is in charge of carrying out the M&E activities as well as their roles and responsibilities; likewise, the role of the different agencies in these processes.

Key Messages

MDG-F monitoring and evaluation is an element that requires close attention throughout the implementation of a JP. The Fund Steering Committee has provided the mandate and devoted resources towards carrying out a strategy of monitoring and evaluation that provides information on the fundamental questions of the MDG-F in its various dimensions and levels of study.

The Secretariat is putting special effort at this stage into carrying out its support role as a supplier of specific products (report, IT platforms, protocols, etc.) by standardising formats and advising alternatives to the problems encountered.

M&E is a necessary element if we wish to fulfil one of the fund’s main objectives, which is to scale down joint programmes and expand solutions that progress efforts towards achieving the MDGs, the implementation of the principles endorsed in the Paris Declaration and the advancement of UN reform. It is also useful as part of the programme management cycle and is the best way of measuring progress and detecting problems, correcting them, implementing change, in other words ‘learning in order to improve’.

The presentation given by the MDG-F Secretariat is attached (annex c.i), as well as the full texts produced during the group work sessions (Annexes c.ii and c.iii).

22

Page 23 of 35

Module 4: Communication, Partnerships and Advocacy

In the session on Advocacy and Partnerships for Development, the participants engaged in an active discussion in which they expressed their varying perspectives on this issue, particularly the way in which communication tools can be used, how different partnerships may be established and how to encourage more active participation by citizens in order to accelerate achievement of the MDGs. A general welcome was given to the conceptual framework which puts forward a strategy of advocacy and partnership for prioritising positive advocacy regarding public policies linked to the MDGs, and which includes as one of its main pillars the effective participation of citizens as a vehicle for social transformation. It is therefore clear that what is being proposed is not just a simple strategy of information and communication, but a call for advocacy and social involvement that will put an end to inequality and poverty.

Amongst the discussions in Cartagena, it is worth highlighting a few key points and messages in order to move the implementation of an advocacy and partnership strategy at country level forward.

Key Messages and Implementation at Country Level

Firstly, it is important to clarify what we are trying to communicate and make more visible, and to what end. It is not a matter of making the MDG Fund itself more visible, but rather the issues relating to poverty and the MDGs, as well as highlighting the work that is already being or can be done to achieve positive advances in development.

The MDGs and issues of poverty are at the centre of the advocacy and partnership strategy and from it stem the three principal lines of action (i. raising awareness and increasing support for the MDGs, ii. strengthening citizen participation in the formulation of public and practical MDG policies, and iii. increased transparency in submission of accounts), which are based on the construction of partnerships with different sectors/local and national institutions.

The strategy offers a conceptual framework that seeks to encourage joint strategic interventions linked to the priorities of national development.

The focus is at national, rather than joint programme level. The countries participating in the MDG Fund should draft and implement an Advocacy Action Plan that addresses the national MDG priorities (or some of the priorities). The strategy drawn up by the MDG Fund has been coordinated at a macro level with the express intention of enabling countries to define interventions that are relevant to their context, whilst also contributing to the advancement of the general goal and its corresponding results . Building upon the concept of partnership, which is a cross-cutting element in the MDG Fund’s strategy, the National Advocacy Plan and the activities organised should be linked wherever relevant to other national strategies for achieving the MDGs (i.e. awareness-raising, advocacy, communication etc.). For this purpose, wherever possible,

23

Page 24 of 35

already existing platforms can be utilised to launch the activities and interventions.

In order to coordinate the Advocacy Plan at national level, a brainstorming session should be held between key actors, including joint programme coordinators, relevant persons from civil society/citizens’ organizations/social movements and local institutions such as universities, “think tanks”, local institutions, and governments. The group should not be too large in order to ensure the effectiveness of the exercise and should result in a concrete advocacy action plan. Support could be obtained from the specialist consultant in social involvement and/or advocacy to help bring the ideas from this session together and coordinate the plan that will eventually be approved by the participants and submitted to the National Steering Committee.

Each joint programme will have its own peculiarities in terms of communication, advocacy and partnerships with regard to their thematic area, location, etc., but, even so, they should be linked to the national plan and their key messages should be linked with the MDGs. We should always be well aware of who will be receiving these messages; ensuring that the means and the messages are adapted to the target audience, especially when dealing with multi-ethnic communities.

In order to finance the Advocacy Plan at national level, the MDG Fund recommends dedicating 2% of the budget of each JP to interventions relating to advocacy, communications and partnerships for development. Many programmes already have elements of awareness-raising, social mobilization, citizen participation, strengthening of social entities, etc., and these must feed into and dovetail with Advocacy Plans at the national level.

Finally, we encourage you to be creative and inclusive in your formulations and implementation and to seek new forms and new partnerships to advance in our struggle against poverty and inequality.

The presentation made by the MDG-F Secretariat is attached (annexes d.i to d.iii), as well as the full texts produced during the group work sessions (Annexes d.iv and d.v).

24

Page 25 of 35

25

Page 26 of 35

Module 5: Cross-cutting Focus Areas

The table below summarises the recommendations of the participants for incorporating the cross-cutting areas of gender perspective and indigenous issues into the joint programmes.

In addition, Annexes e.i and e.ii include documents produced by all the groups in each of the sub-regions.

At the Joint Programme Formulation Stage:

GENDER INDIGENOUS ISSUES Identify gaps regarding access, realization of rights and power

relationships between men and women during problem identification and situation analysis;

Report on the process with participatory assessments that reflect the existing power relationships and the allocation of resources;

Obtain the support of an expert on gender-related issues;

Include specific results, activities and budgets, with a gender perspective and content;

The Terms of Reference should mention the need to include a

gender-based approach (and recommend that the budget contains a proportion that is representative of this).

Carry out preliminary work within the inter-agency team to discuss and seek agreement on the different perspectives regarding an intercultural approach, prior to any visit to the communities;

Carry out visits and consultations with the indigenous populations to discuss the possibility of developing a project, the nature of that project and their interest in participating in it;

Respect the timescales and modalities for generating consensus that these communities are accustomed to.

26

Page 27 of 35

At the Joint Programme Formulation Stage:

GENDER INDIGENOUS ISSUES Make use of the initial workshop/reformulation to revisit the

analysis and include objective indicators and specific activities;

Establish spaces for dialogue that allow work on specific issues (such as productivity, land titles, etc.) sensitive issues that especially in indigenous contexts cannot be imposed;

Work on defining gender relationships also from a masculine perspective addressing the topic of masculinities (emphasising that more equal relationships also benefit men);

Guarantee participative processes of monitoring actions where both men and women have an opportunity to express their opinion;

Use statistics disaggregated by gender and ensure that they are

entered and updated during the implementation process

Get to know the differences in the population in the region (area of intervention);

Develop the capacity to learn – acquire knowledge, observe, take one’s time;

Construct these approaches from the viewpoint of the communities, supervising the processes with great sensitivity, and advancing at a pace that is appropriate to the people involved;

Identify priorities for each community in dialogue with their own reference points for planning (life plans, ethnodevelopment plans…), their world views and the forms of organisation of ethnic peoples (afro, indigenous…)

Promote institutional reform and differential legal protection frameworks, with an approach that advocates affirmative action in favour of the weakest members;

Utilise non-traditional indicators, which oblige us to strengthen creativity in the design, monitoring and evaluation of programmes (For example, an increase in income does not necessarily imply better living conditions);

Respect and promote own/native languages ;

27

Page 28 of 35

Adjust the procurement procedures (contracting processes) so that they are sensitive to local realities.

28

Page 29 of 35

In Monitoring and Evaluation

GENDER INDIGENOUS ISSUES Incorporate into the drafting of progress and annual

reports a special paragraph for gender analysis, and evaluate the level of progress on this issue;

Build into the M&E system for all windows quantitative and qualitative gender indicators, that allow differential measurements to be made for both men and women;

Ensure that UNS inter-agency gender groups and women’s ministries participate in guaranteeing a gender-based approach in the M&E system;

Set aside at least 15% of the budget of all thematic windows for gender-based issues, as well as 50% quotas for both men and women;

Include at least one expert on gender issues in the monitoring and evaluation teams.

Prepare a simple guide to guarantee the mainstreaming of the gender perspective in the implementation of JP activities.

A profound knowledge of the context of ethnic peoples and their territory should be gained beforehand.

Create an M&E system that conducts participatory consultations and is designed, implemented and evaluated alongside the indigenous communities in accordance with their particular world view and view of reality. These systems should be developed in their own language (local dialect) in order to guarantee the greatest participation;

The system at all levels (instruments for data collection, information gathering, capture, analysis, decision-making and fine-tuning) should be kept accessible, clear and simple. Construct indicators with the indigenous communities through the utilisation of appropriate methodologies adapted to their own culture. Respect the timescale required for reaching a consensus. Design data gathering instruments that are suited to the communities. Do not gather information that will not be utilised at a later stage.

Seek to build capacities (training of community members to collect information and analyse them within the community) so that communities may participate and be involved in the design of the M&E system. The communities themselves may in this way prepare reports and discuss the results of monitoring and evaluation. M&E information can thereby become a socialising element to be shared through local media channels.

Overall information gathered by the JP should be fed back to the communities and not just the information deemed relevant to their own population.

National, regional and municipal systems should incorporate information and indicators on indigenous communities;

With regard to external evaluation, there is a need for carrying out consultations and involving the communities in their implementation. The teams carrying out the evaluation work must be flexible, sensitive to cultural issues and able to function within different cultural groups.

29

Page 30 of 35

In Communication and Advocacy

GENDER INDIGENOUS ISSUES Be aware of the power of communications as a Platform for placing issues on public

agendas and as a means of seeding public policies to aid the institutionalisation process or the sustainability of the achievements produced by the Programme.

Raise awareness and train those responsible for the design and implementation of plans and communications concerning the incorporation of a gender-based perspective and for the utilisation of a form of language that is inclusive of the female gender.

A Programme Communications Plan should: Contribute to the transformation of cultural stereotypes and patterns of

behaviour that attempt to justify discrimination and violence against women. Increase the visibility of the different conditions of men and women that the

Programme is expected to have an impact on. Discover whether there is a difference of expectations with regards to the

needs or strategic interests of men and women regarding the possibility of strengthening the Programme.

Provide the motivation for women to participate. Make the links more visible between gender equality, democracy and development.

Ensure that programmes include within the monitoring and evaluation systems information that is disaggregated by gender as well as the measuring of gender indicators.

Increase the visibility of the differential gender impact the Programme has had in any of the thematic areas of the MDGs.

Increase the visibility of the possibilities people have according to their gender in relation to their roles and areas of operation for increasing the achievement of development goals.

Design national communication strategies that integrate the cultural diversity of the country and separate regional communications strategies;

Organise campaigns in a participatory manner in consultation with the peoples

Increased visibility of ethnic peoples within communication strategies

The communication strategy must have a human rights-based perspective ; ethnic peoples have specific rights and the State must guarantee them by empowering those peoples in the demand of their rights;

Incorporate within the strategies the principles of equality and non-discrimination: the promotion of affirmative actions and equality measures ;

Raise the awareness of decision makers and agencies involved in the JPs;

Include promotion of the right to (receive, research and disseminate) information and of access to public information; put in train other fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, association, assembly, and participation.

30

Page 31 of 35

*NONE of the above recommendations seeks to reinforce discriminatory stereotypes, but rather to interpret the reality of the different labours and tasks of both men and women.

31

Page 32 of 35

Module 5: Thematic Session on Environment, Climate Change and water and sanitation within the framework of economic governance

The issue of knowledge management in this thematic area was addressed.

The conclusions of these discussions and the full texts produced during the group work sessions are presented in this report in annexes f.i to f.iii.

III. PARALLEL SESSIONS1. Resident Coordinators (RC)

On the Thursday a meeting was held attended by 6 Resident Coordinators and 3 Resident Coordinators ad interim, to discuss their thoughts on their experience with the MDG-F and their observations on its current and future status. The main conclusions from this meeting were presented at the plenary session on the Friday:

- It is hoped that the MDG-F it will turn out to be a viable mechanism for the future;

- It represents a major commitment on the part of Spain to multilateralism and the United Nations System;

- The key liaison role played by the RC in coordinating with government on a framework that accords with national priorities;

- The Fund assists the operability of UNDAF;- There is a need for defining the role of RCs and their authority with

agencies, governments and programmes in respect of the MDGs; - The MDG-F has revealed the challenges facing Resident Coordinators in

advancing the Reform;- AECID is to be thanked for their cooperation during the formulation

process and the excellent relationship it has with the United Nations in this and other fields. Now at the implementation stage, more precise guidance is awaited on the role of each actor in the joint programme;

- Recognition is shown for the good work and collaboration provided by the Coordination Officers and Assistants to Resident Coordinators;

- Many lessons have been learned regarding the operational mechanisms and it is important that these should be systematised;

- With respect to the communications strategy, an opportunity now exists for displaying the work of the United Nations with a unified voice;

- As regards monitoring and evaluation, the importance of measuring complete results and gathering evidence of progress and contribution to the MDGs was emphasised.

2. Coordination Officers and Assistants to Resident Coordinators (OC/ACR)

32

Page 33 of 35

Coordination Officers who attended the workshop were invited to a working breakfast before the start of the workshop on the Wednesday to reiterate the Secretariat’s gratitude for their support in facilitating the group work sessions and collating the conclusions. In this space, a need was expressed for opening up a forum for discussion with the Secretariat and between the Officers present in order to present the main issues that have arisen since the launch of the Fund, especially bearing in mind that the annual meeting of Coordination Officers scheduled for May had been cancelled. In response to this request, the Secretariat called a meeting (that was held after the workshop sessions on the Wednesday afternoon) and the main issues addressed in this forum were as follows:

- There is a need to define the role of the Resident Coordinators’ Offices (RCOs) in the formulation process and especially the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the MDG-F Joint Programmes;

- There is a need to establish a mechanism for communication between the COs/ARCs and/or establish the already existing informal mechanisms (Messenger, Skype);

- There is a need to strengthen the RCOs (and dedicate resources towards this ) to allow them to develop synergies between the different Joint Programmes within a country, without demands on time and effort due to participation in the MDG-F meaning that they then have to neglect their work in other areas;

- There is a need to clarify the role of the AECID in the process;- There is a need to establish an internal pressure mechanism,

especially in the start-up phase of the programmes, to avoid the rate of implementation being dictated by the “slowest agency” (the possibility of introducing an MoU between participating agencies and the RCO that guarantees the commitment of agencies at the implementation stage was put forward );

- There is a need to foster transparency in the matter of financial reporting since the reporting is carried out by the agencies to the MDTF, but quite often the Programme Coordinators themselves do not have that financial information;

- There is a need to clarify the role of the lead agency and have discussions on the need for a balance to be struck between the autonomy of the agencies and the centralised coordination of the Programme;

- There is a need to propose M&E systems that are sustainable beyond the MDG-F JPs;

- The possibility of having the functions of the Administrative Agent carried out by an agency at the country level was put forward.

3. Government Representatives

33

Page 34 of 35

At the request of the representatives of the Cooperation Agencies of Colombia and Peru, a parallel meeting was held during the Friday morning recess between government representatives of the various participating countries. The participants agreed to establish a communications network for encouraging the exchange of experiences and information during the implementation stage of the Programmes.

34

Page 35 of 35

35