Implementation of the Simplification & Harmonization Agenda in Kenya:
Key Results against Work Plan - August 2004
Key
Elements of the S&H cycle |
Allied
tools, frameworks, events |
Status/Remarks |
| Programme Preparation and Approval | CCA | Finalized in late 2001, and viewed as valid enough basis for preparing UNDAF |
| UNDAF/Results Matrix and M&E Plan | Done – programme framework transformed into results matrix and M&E plan developed in July 2003, following orientation and training by S&H mission in June 2003 | |
| CPDs |
Completed in March 2003, submitted to joint board in June 2003; all approved | |
| CPAPs | All four signed by May 2004; documents prepared through internal and external consultation; harmonized in structure; differ only in emphasis and detail; some sections use generic texts; | |
| AWPs | A number completed, signed and activated in ATLAS. Some being completed. Implementation underway. | |
| JSM | Two held; first with partners (6 Nov 2003); and second internal (Dec 5) to review CPAPs/AWPs and discuss implementation arrangements; lessons learnt discussed (at home and HQs) on added value, timing and participants | |
| S&H Mission | Fielded in mid-September 2003 and again in March 2004 involving the Excom agencies; provided further guidance and support in defining particularly resource transfer modalities, capacity assessment, and work planning. | |
| 5-country S&H workshops | First in April/May 2003 and January 2004: helped to review 5-country roll-out S&H results against work plans; share experiences and lessons learnt; reviewed utility of guidelines; support required, its sources, etc | |
| Implementation including financial procedures | Capacity assessment | Recommendation made in September 2003 (following the S&H mission) for a harmonized approach so as to avoid duplication of effort, especially where UN agencies are operating with the same IPs or RPs; however, the added value for this was not quite apparent particularly for those IPs/RPs with whom agencies have established long-standing links; UNICEF clarified that as a matter of routine it conducts cap assessment of NGOs, and it shared the guidelines; UNDP commissioned D&T for this; results shared; UNFPA commissioned PWHC on a similar assessment; basic principle similar for this exercise, namely to determine the resource transfer modalities as well any capacity building support that might be required where the existing capacity has potential but is nascent. |
| National implementation modalities | All 4 agencies acknowledge in their CPAPs that overall coordination responsibility vested in GOK (Min. of Finance), but the CPAPs will be executed/implemented by a number of government line ministries, selected NGOs and CBOs; contractual issues also covered as well as programme monitoring and oversight mechanisms; for UNICEF, overall coordination under a National Steering Committee co-chaired by PS, Min of Planning and UNICEF Rep and includes PSs from key ministries; an IMTC manages the detail of the programme; joint annual planning and review meetings conducted; AWP will detail the activities to be carried out and by whom; for UNFPA, overall coordination will be vested in the Ministry of Finance, with specific components being implemented by other line ministries, NGOs, CBOs, etc; criteria for selection of non-government entities given; AWPs will be the yearly basis for agreement between UNFPA implementing; agencies; distinction made between overall coordination, coordination and implementation; | |
| Resource Transfer Modalities | A framework has been developed to assist the UNDG ExCom agencies to harmonize operational procedures related to cash transfers to implementing partners. It is expected that in implementing the following guidelines, the UNDG ExCom agencies will significantly reduce transaction costs for national partners, and contribute to the strenghtening of national partners’capacity. In developing the Framework, the UNDG ExCom agencies have considered the applicable recommendations and good practices of the OECD-DAC. It is recommended that agencies using the same modality with the same partner will use the same corresponding resource transfer procedures. | |
| Joint Programming | Joint Programming Guidelines | Arising from the UNDAF results matrix, agencie identified a number of themes that lend themselves to joint work; JP Guidelines useful for defining the implementation modalities; one priority area is a joint support to GOK (focusing on the CBS) to build capacity for statistics which has now been operationalized; partnership expanded to include non-excom agencies using the results matrix as entry point is also a priority; more support required in developing joint programmes and defining implementation modalities |
| Monitoring and Evaluation | Standard Progress Reports | Agreement has not been reached on the application of this tool |
| Collaborative M&E, including UNDAF outcome evaluation | M&E framework developed, linked to the results matrix; CPAPs include an M&E plan linked to the UNDAF; an M&E calendar to be completed following consultations with GOK and partners; | |
| Access to Evaluative and Best Practices Information | More guidance and inter-agency support required in this – in view of agency specific resources, e,g ATLAS, PROMS, etc |
Background