The “Delivering as One" (DaO) Initiative: System-wide Coherence reform 2008 to present

By Katie Jagel
18 April 2012

This article is a summary of the Delivering as One initiative, monitoring the events which took place from inception up through implementation and subsequent evaluations. It tracks the events and debates which took place since 2008 up through the latest Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review planning documents, planned for late spring of 2012.

Introduction
       The DaO program design seeks to enhance coordination between normative UN organizations, specialized organizations and civil societies, and the country level UN programs. The Delivering as One initiative transformed from a larger theoretical inter-state framework into the Delivering as One at a Country level initiative¹. The history of the DaO stems from the 2005 World Summit established the 2006 High Panel on System-wide Coherence, which recommended the “Delivering as One” (DaO) initiative. DaO is unique compared to the other SWC clusters because of its bottom-up approach, whereas the others (governance, funding, harmonization of business practices…) are often normative, top-down reforms.
       DaO is a state-by-state initiative. The 2007 triennial comprehensive policy review (TCPR) declares that there is a “need for an independent evaluation of lessons learned from (voluntary efforts to improve coherence, coordination and harmonization in the United Nations development system, including at the request of some 'program country pilot' countries).” The mantra and goal of the DaO initiative is One Leader, One Program, One Budget, One Office, and One Voice (One Voice was added after inception). At the end of 2006, eight countries volunteered to launch pilot programs of the DaO initiative: Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uruguay and Vietnam. The programs launched in early 2007 and transferred to UNDG leadership in 2010. The idea was to have UN system work more directly with pilot country governments to enhance ground presence, create efficient, sustained results, and lower transaction costs.

62nd Session: Stocktaking
       In 2008, the DaO initiative connected to the Common Country Problems initiative, which launched in 2004, under an umbrella mandate to bring coherence to fragmented development structure. Common Country Problems combines several UN agencies (UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP) together with national governments to plan, enact and monitor development activities jointly at the country level. Since the DaO launched in 2007 under a similar mandate, it made sense to bring these two initiatives together.
       In April 2008, an ‘informal progress check’ consisted of two preliminary evaluations of the pilot programs, called a ‘Stocktaking Exercise’. The preliminary 2008 Stocktaking Exercise yielded three main results: increased government leadership and ownership was leading to greater alignment of UN and government development-related priorities; UN agencies were demonstrating increased participation and joint programming; and lastly, that One Program, One Fund and One Leader were proving to be effective tools, while One Office and One Voice were still in need of more development for any measurement. Because the programs had essentially just begun, the more formal discussions of program results would take place after the second pilot year in 2009.

       To analyze this preliminary feedback, the two 2008 co-Chairs of System-wide Coherence (SWC), Ambassadors Augustine Mahiga of Tanzania and John Paul Kavanagh of Ireland, traveled to Paris, Rome and Geneva to meet with specialists from 12 UN bodies². The co-Chairs delivered their remarks to the General Assembly on May 16th 2008, and a formal report followed on July 21st.
       Noted in the report of the co-Chairs, UN agencies and programs on the ground were showing a comprehensive and coordinated effort while coexisting under separate mandates. Joint programming at a country level was showing clear benefits as well. There was an apparent increase in awareness for facilitated national ownership of programs accomplished by aligning DaO efforts with country-specific priorities and by tailoring outside agencies performance indicators to those of specific country offices. Raised collaboration and mutual accommodation were a result of the increased authority given to the Resident Coordinator, or 'One Leader' aspect of the country offices³. Countries adopted structural mechanisms to replicate the Chief Executives Board (CEB) on the ground. These boards adopted steps to harmonize business practices within the country offices. The funding aspect of the programs were less positive, however, with concerns relating to the inability to strike a balance between core and non-core funding (agency vs. country based spending), and the unpredictability and unreliability of UN funding. In closing, the co-Chairs emphasized a rejection of a “one size fits all” approach, and that individual state priorities should be fundamental for the overall success of the program. The co-Chairs recommended that informal consultations continue throughout the 63rd Session and that the final modalities of an approach to evaluations should be decided and finalized by the 64th Session in 2009.

63rd Session: Roadmap
       In June 2009, co-Chairs briefed Members on the three-stage evaluation process of the pilot countries, blueprinted by the 2007 High-level Committee on Programmes (a body also created by the 2006 High Level Panel) and the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). The first stage, was the 2008 UNDG Stocktaking Exercise, an assessment of the 'evaluability' of the DaO initiative; this would be followed by an evaluation of the implementation process completed by 2009; and finally, a comprehensive evaluation of results and impacts of the pilot programs on a country specific basis by 2011. The 'Stocktaking Exercise' of 2008 completed Stage 1 of the evaluation. The 63rd session replaced the latter two stages of the pilot evaluation with: a state-led nation-wide evaluation of country offices, launched in October 2009 and then secondly, an independent evaluation (for which the modalities were still being developed) completed by 2011.
       Member States first commented on the preliminary evaluation during the June debriefing. Member State's responses to the debriefing were positive. Because the pilot activities were being handled through the pilot-states themselves, this took some pressure off the larger, bureaucratic UN body. The most active States and subsequent statements were therefore from Member States that were also pilot countries. Several challenges were addressed, however, included the funding gaps (Uruguay and Mozambique), the importance of lower transaction costs (Switzerland, Rwanda), and a general lack of updated information on how the pilots were progressing. Many States asked for a website with clear and coherent information to act as a channel to civil society groups and the rest of the UN System.
       The 63rd Congress then passed Resolution 311 which re-iterated support for the initiative. The document requested that the Secretary-General make arrangements for an evaluation structure for the 'lessons learned' from pilot efforts, to “inform the General Assembly of the modalities and terms of reference of this independent evaluation” during the 64th Session. A joint meeting then took place early 2010 between the UNDP, UNICEF, and the WFP on the DaO and its benefits on country-wide cohesion, and the lessening of gender violence. It was also decided that the DaO initiative would come under the leadership of the UNDG. The “UNDG is focusing on resolving specific issues related to the implementation of country programmes, including those for the ‘delivering as one’ pilot countries.” This gave the program more direct leadership.

64th Session: Country-led Evaluations
       The 64th Session co-Chairs, Ambassadors Tiina Intelmann of Estonia and Ghazi Jomaa of Tunisia, resumed informal discussions in February. They recommended continued National ownership; this included highlighting their role in the state-led evaluations. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated that the pilots' state-led evaluations would be completed in July 2010, following the June 2010 intergovernmental meeting of pilot countries in Vietnam. Many States agreed with a statement put out by the Netherlands, which pressed for an efficient time-line, wherein the third stage of evaluations would begin promptly after the state-led evaluations closed in July 2010.

       At the 2010 Hanoi Conference, a stark message was sent when the pilot countries asserted “… there is no going back to doing business in the manner prior to the “Delivering as One” initiative.” In her remarks, Helen Clark, the Chair of the UNDP writes, “In many countries where we operate, the UN development system is still too heavy on programme management and project implementation, and too light in its capacity for strategic and policy advice, technical assistance, and advocacy. This has to change in order for us to support the development aspirations of programme countries more effectively.” All the independent country reports were finished by the summer of 2010, except for Pakistan, who chose to pursue a second stocktaking report. Malawi was included in the independent reports as a beta-version, but is not summarized below.
       All 2010 evaluations were carried out separately and used different frameworks, but all analyzed the 5-pillar approach of One Program, One Leader, One Budgetary Framework, One Office and One Communication Strategy (One Voice). Each program had different goals, different budgets, and different amounts of staff to fit country-specific needs and policies. Each country had a different organization leading their evaluation, some exported the evaluation to an outside agency and some conducted it from within national governments. Because there was no pre-existing framework for this sort of report, all reports have different structures. None of the reports contain baseline references, but some use ‘the Paris Declaration indicators' as a loose guideline for success. Creation of progress indicators were widely recommended. Further, because of the lack of existing examples, much of the documentation concerning the progress of DaO pilot programs came from within the UN pilot organizations themselves, leading to some inherent bias.

Albania
       The DaO Albania framework was strategically set up to be aligned with Albania’s EU integration and development goals. The implementation strategy was a dichotomous one featuring strategic inclusiveness and joint implementation. The DaO program represented 85% of UN work within the country. The evaluation showed that since early 2007 there had been an increase in government ownership, reflected in the partnership between the government and Joint Executive Committee (JEC)in instituting fund allocation mechanisms. The report praised a Coherence Fund, set up in 2007 as having “outperformed expectations in terms of bridging the funding gap, whereas conventional pledge funds have been below expectations”. This reflects a larger problem within the UN system as a whole, of an imbalance of core vs. non-core funding⁴. The Ministry of Economics told analysts that the DaO had made a “big difference in helping Government take ownership of donor support and in facilitating communication among Government and agencies.” The DaO received support from a spectrum of partners, ranging from government ministries to civil society organizations. The evaluation clearly showed “improved programming, joint implementation and monitoring of programmes, reduced duplication and fragmentation in external relationships.” Another unique positive outcome was the UN's ability to respond swiftly to “Government requests for short-term, specific technical assistance”. Because of this newfound effectiveness and flexibility, new partnerships with the World Bank and the European Commission launched.
       For the next level of development challenges, resulting from the country's upgrade from a lower-middle income country to a middle-income country in 2009, the report recommended more corporate leadership. While the DaO pilot had successfully implemented the One Program and One Budget/Fund elements, it had not fully institutionalized the authority of the One Leader, or consolidated management under 'One Office'. The experience with the UN’s neutrality, support of EU accession, advocacy on gender issues, as well as the improved coordination with counterparts, “have been the most memorable indicators of the improved response of the DaO to Albania's priorities”. The analysts believed the most valuable contributions were to come, from policy advice, technical assistance, and advocacy.

Cape Verde
       Cape Verde had no such EU membership aspirations but instead took on a more objective approach, looking to be more responsive to national development goals, more effective in delivering development results, and more effective funding and management. The analysts showed that the country sought inter-agency cooperation and greater access to a range of mandate programs and areas of expertise. The evaluation again showed clear advances in “communication, information sharing, and team spirit within the UN system and between country partners.” DaO specifically, had provided access to a larger budget and achieved access to those increased number of agencies, mandates and expertise. This, in turn, opened up data and technical assistance in regards to trade, international trade standards, industry, etc. Further, the greater inter-UN agency coordination led to a better relationship between local and national governments with the UN. The government itself found the UN cohesiveness and available information to be in line with its own strategies and national development priorities. The evaluation writes that, “coherence of the agencies interventions and programmes can still be improved, but overlap has already been addressed in some subprogrammes.”
       Recommendations included receiving more direction from from both the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) and the DaO Steering Committee. The main critiques concerned the One Program aspect of DaO, for which they recommended “increased focus and improved Monitoring & Evaluation capacity and framework”. This would lead to more effective advantages in advocacy, a more reliable government partnership, and normative and technical advisory support (goals recommended at the Hanoi Conference).

Mozambique
       In Mozambique, the country goals were again to attain a more coherent, better-coordinated, funded and managed UN. There was an emphasis on increased support for its programs. The UN in Mozambique “initiated the process of testing and obtaining improved economies of scale, bargaining power, transaction efficiencies and cost savings through harmonization and common services.” DaO Mozambique was built on a United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). Like the other pilots Mozambique succeeding in creating horizontal national coordination with its 'One Leader' program. The Mozambique government was working alongside the One Leader and One Program helping with corporate and institutional authority. Progress on all national development goals had increased through the joint programming and humanitarian operations. The report stated, however, that because there was no baseline measurement, the overall effectiveness was hard to judge.
       The main critiques had to do with institutional architecture. There is specific mention in the Mozambique report of structural 'silos' forming; separate institutions all with vertical chains of command leading to duplication of services and resources. Although DaO had lessened this to some extent, it was still apparent to a large degree. Duplication of information, and One Fund cohesion needed to be addressed further. The evaluation confirmed the economic advantages of DaO and improvements in development and humanitarian operations as well as Gender, HIV and AIDS and Human Rights.

Rwanda- Vol I, Vol II
       DaO Rwanda was working to strengthen and achieve national goals that reflected the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The evaluation report noted good progress made in education, gender equality, HIV/AIDS, malaria, water, sanitation and the promotion of environmental sustainability. The evaluation praised Rwanda’s Joint Planning program and said it “has opened the door for an efficient engagement by the UN task forces...[leading]to the deepening of the UN's commitment towards human rights, gender, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E).”
       The report cited the need for clearer financial transparency and aid predictability, and the need for lower transaction costs on operational matters. There are still mixed views on whether UN efforts have fully met the expectations of the country government, but it was reiterated there is no real way to measure any type of progress yet. The report recommends performance indicators as a way of self-measurement in all fields. Recommendations included enhanced coordination between agencies and the One Office, which was still in its planning stages. The report put emphasis on communications via “One Voice” because it was thought to be able to lead to heightened achievements in the areas of “messaging, advocacy, media penetration and training and capacity development”. The report made specific mention to future planning, saying that it was necessary to make goals to have a clear, cohesive exchange of information that would aid in this endeavor.

Tanzania
       The goals of UN Tanzania were similar to the other pilot countries- “increasing aid predictability; integrating external resources in the Government budget and Exchequer system; harmonizing and rationalizing Government and Development Partner processes; and strengthening capacity for external resource management and aid coordination.” Analysts cited that Tanzania had a fully developed “One Program capacity, but the management of the JP's is spread across several agencies resulting in a lack of cohesion in terms of a direct and centralized authority and management capacity”. One unique progression of DaO Tanzania was the integrated common IT platform instituted within the 'One Office', this included three communication towers which would greatly help the dispersal and sharing of information between agencies. The Resident Coordinator, or “One Leader” system, was one of the strengths of the Tanzania program. The future of One Voice was aided by a clear road map towards key advocacy issues on the public agenda.
       Critiques followed. Because of the DaO program, Tanzania had received a lot more funding, however again, funds were earmarked for specific agencies rather than the 'One Fund', and this had caused a fragmentation problem. The evaluation recommended a simplified funding mechanism. There were also problems with convincing the independently elected heads of agencies to align themselves or feel any sort of accountability to the RC, and the position became reliant on the “goodwill” of the agency heads.

Uruguay
       DaO Uruguay is unique because it started as the only “middle income country” (MIC) among the eight countries selected for the pilot experience. It writes that because of the DaO experience, Uruguay was able to address a series of “borderline structural vulnerabilities characteristic of MICs” that compromise sustained development. Like the other pilots, it sought to streamline national policy objectives and develop institutional capacities while considering UN obligations.
       The formulation of a joint communication strategy, integrated with the objectives of the One UN and local governments had not yet reached a functional stage, but had formed and already increased overall efficiency and boosted information sharing. The program had allowed Uruguay to facilitate some South-South cooperation as well. The budgetary framework instituted under One Fund had improved resource predictability and monitoring, which increased accountability to the Government, donors, civil society, bi-lateral actors and between UN agencies themselves. Whatever progress secured in One Fund was not reflected in 'One Office' where harmonization of procedures lay pretty much inactive at the time of the evaluation. The Resident Coordinator was able to detect windows of opportunities and subsequently mobilize resources more effectively, but the analysts cited that the strategy assumed by the RC to lead the overall reform process had led to an imbalance in distribution of work.

VietNam
       Viet Nam acted as the poster child for the DaO program for the first year and hosted the 2010 Hanoi Conference to measure the progress of the various pilot nations. One of the unique and effective measures taken by UN VietNam was the successful introduction of Program Coordination Groups (PCGs): groups created specifically to hold agencies accountable for delivering results aligned with national policy. In the One Fund aspect, donors are encouraged from the get-go to give un-earmarked funds. Some donors argued that it is better if the Program is underfunded in order to help focus and concentrate support around high priority objectives, forcing efficiency, but this view was not widely shared. In regards to the One Leader piece, VietNam is also unique because they instituted a Memorandum of Understanding. This document is a voluntary agreement amongst the UN agencies which improved management and accountability, and includes a financial framework. Vietnam added a Green aspect to their 'One Office', trying to reduce emissions and cluster resources to reduce waste. The common location of offices was expected to enhance effectiveness through functional clustering of staff, tackling the vertical structure problem of institutions by physically integrating them. The program expected One Voice to be the end result of integration- the Resident Coordinator speaking for the donors and the organizations based on research achieved through efficient and shared data.
       The government’s main concern was that the framework needed to align with national policy direction, honored existing agreements, and respected donor expectations. However, stakeholders often held different expectations, complicating later decisions having to do with funding outcomes. Big challenges remained over allocation of budgets, and there appeared to be unbalanced support from UN headquarters towards reform of management practices rather than management and accountability

       In July of 2010 the 64th Session passed Resolution 289, the Resolution addressed all SWC issues in an integrated decision. The ‘Governance’ section contained DaO specifics. In it, Member States encouraged the Secretary-General to proceed with a report for the independent evaluation mechanism to measure lessons learned from the “Delivering as One” pilots, as outlined by the Secretariat and covering all aspects of the initiative.

       Before the June Conference at Hanoi, informal consultations had been held from 10-12 March 2010 to discuss evaluative modalities for the third stage of reports. For the independent evaluations, Deputy Secretary-General Asha Rose Migiro supported ad hoc arrangements because the UN lacked a framework or mechanisms for independent evaluations. To lead the ad hoc evaluation, Ban Ki Moon proposed the Evaluation Management Group (EMG) to “design, lead, and manage” the evaluation. The EMG included specialists from each of the five regional groups and two from pilot countries, and the Chairs of the Joint Inspection Unit and UN Evaluation Group (UNEG). The Secretary-General recommended regional groups and pilot countries to nominate evaluative candidates based on criteria specified by the Secretary-General.
       The points of disagreement at the meeting rotated around the methods of the independent evaluation, specifically the proposed EMG. The EU and Canada gave statements extending their full support, but the JCC, the G77, and Russia stated that the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) already had an appropriate mandate to administer this type of evaluation and therefore the EMG would be a superfluous entity.

65th Session: Follow-up and Results
       On 4 and 7 of February 2011 a joint session on on “Delivering as One: Follow-Up to Hanoi” took place that included the Executive Boards of UNDP, UNFPA, and UNOPS, UNICEF, UN-Women, and the WFP. The outcome document stipulated that the EMG was to be the consolidated independent leader for the third stage independent evaluations. The Joint Session delivered a report focusing on five areas: First, UN Country Teams in pilot countries were engaged in more coherent joint planning, prioritization, and programming. This supported enhanced national ownership and leadership of the development agenda and secured access to the full range of mandates and expertise of UN agencies. The second area concentrated on the One Program approach with a newly simplified set of 2009 guidelines from the UNDAF (created with help from Tanzania), and acknowledgment that development agencies are “heavy on process, and that programming can be fragmented”. This included a promise from the UNDG that it was working to address those concerns. Discussed third was the innovative ways pilot countries had tackled cost effectiveness in regards to funding. Helen Clark, UNDG Chair, and Josette Sheeran, Chair of the HLCM, commissioned a joint UNDG-HLCM high-level mission on harmonization of business practices in response, which visited Albania, Mozambique, Malawi, and VietNam. The fourth piece concerned mobilization of funds, and how successful the One Fund aspect of the program had been; taken up by nine more countries outside of the original pilot eight. Lastly, there was discussion about Resident Coordinators and the management and accountability frameworks.

       The next High Level intergovernmental conference on Delivering as One took place at the Montevideo, Uruguay Conference from 8-10 of November 2011. At the conference, along with the eight pilot countries, there were representatives of governments of countries who had voluntarily adopted the DaO approach, dubbed “self-starters” or “participants”. These countries included: Bhutan, Botswana, Comoros, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, and Montenegro. Representatives from governments who were curious to learn about the DaO approach also attended and these included: Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Liberia, Paraguay and Russia.
       The outcome document covered areas touched upon at the Hanoi conference of 2010. It committed to strengthen multilateralism, and affirmed that “the United Nations, [is] the most legitimate, universal and representative forum to discuss the development agenda.” The report highlights key developments in integrated UN obligations and issues such as “human rights, gender equality, poverty eradication and sustainable development”. The report maintains that an essential aspect of the program lies in national ownership and government leadership and that “South-South and triangular cooperation, their principles, modalities of collaboration and partnerships are different and
are a complement not a substitute to the traditional North-South cooperation”. Funding continued to be an area of reform with states remarking, “…the provision of core un-earmarked, predictable, multiyear and sustained funding is needed”, while simultaneously being aligned with national priorities.

66th Session: Independent Evaluations and the QCPR
       In April-June 2012 The Final EMG report on independent DaO evaluation will be published as part of the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR). The EMG was composed, as stipulated, as two evaluation professionals from the eight Delivering as One countries, one expert each from two pilot countries, five evaluation experts nominated by the regional groups, one from each region, working and cooperating with the chairs of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) and the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). EMG members have elected an expert from the Latin American and Caribbean Region as chairperson.