Document Sample
LESSONS LEARNED Powered By Docstoc
					                            LESSONS LEARNED
                         FROM CCA/UNDAF PROCESS
                             IN GUATEMALA
                             DURING 2003-2004

    I.     Assessment of the overall process

1. Background of the first phase of the UN Reform Process in Guatemala.

In order to have a better understanding of the recent CCA/UNDAF process, there is a
brief description of some main achievements and lessons learned from the previous
phase of the Reform Process in Guatemala.

   In 1997 Guatemala was one of two pilot-countries selected to move ahead on
    country-level UN reform process and one of 18 countries selected to implement
    the UNDAF on a pilot basis.
   An important achievement of the first phase of the UN Reform in Guatemala was
    the formulation of the CCA/UNDAF documents (finalized in May and August
    2000), that represented the UNCT common effort and common vision of the
    response of the UN System, related to Peace Accords, sustainable development,
    security and human rights and structural analysis of the main problems.
   Presently, the first CCA and UNDAF are at the end of their respective cycles. The
    mentioned documents were formulated with ample participation of all agencies;
    funds and programmes represented in the country, with the exception of the World
    Bank and the IMF, the participation of Government and the Civil Society
    Organizations being limited to the very specific sectoral issues.
   In October 2002, as a follow-up to the reform guidelines and recommendations,
    the UN System carried out a qualitative evaluation of the CCA/UNDAF – 2000 to
    determine its operational efficiency, requirements and modifications needed
    (Annex 1). The general opinion of the Government, NGOs, and Donors regarding
    the CCA/UNDAF process was that despite the positive changes, which have been
    achieved, there is need, “to review the existing interagency mechanisms
    (between agencies and partners) and reinforce those, which have proven
    successful to foster efficiency and effectiveness. “It was also mentioned the
    need of wider socialization and distribution of the CCA/UNDAF documents
    to increase awareness/knowledge amongst government structures, civil
    society and donors.
   Another important lesson learned from the first phase of the CCA/UNDAF
    process is that the UNCT, based on the established priorities, should defined and
    implemented an interagency programming plan. The implementation of the
    UNDAF 2000 has not generated an interagency joint programming. The
    Monitoring and Evaluation plan to assess the achievement of results was not
   During the first CCA/UNDAF it was not reached the complete programming
    cycles harmonization of the four integrants of the Executive Committee of
    UNDG agencies (three of four agencies harmonized their programming
    cycles) was not reached.

   The process of the CCA/UNDAF formulation took longer than expected
    mainly due to: a) Different level of technical capacity and processes follow-up of
    the UN agencies, funds and programmes; b) No management system in place to
    ensure that participants assume responsibility for agreed upon work plans; c) Gap
    between the political times of the development partners and the ones of the UN
    System: the UNDAF document had to be discussed and agreed upon with the new
    Government, who took a long time to make public their main policies, followed
    by the continuous changes in the key positions of the Government’s Cabinets and
    d) small offices unavailability to participate in all the meetings due to lack of
    2. Second generation of the CCA/UNDAF process in Guatemala.
    Taking into consideration the lessons learned from the previous CCA/UNDAF
    process, the deep changes produced at the country and international level (MDG
    Declaration) and the new guidance for the formulation of the CCA/UNDAF with
    the application of the HRBA, RBM and Gender equality, the UNCT took the
    decision (June 12th of 2003) to elaborate a new CCA document instead of the
    partial revision of the CCA, 2000. At the same time, was reached the agreement of
    the programmes cycle harmonization between the four integrants of the Executive
    Committee of UNDG agencies: UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and WHO starting
    from January 2005.

    II.    Description of the steps taken to complete the process. Detail the
           timeline and schedule for the process.

    1. Once agreed on the formulation of second CCA/UNDAF documents, the
    UNCT approved the new schedule for the two years process (Annex 1 Timeline
    and Schedule for the process). At the same time, the Steering Committee was set
    up under the political supervision of the UNCT with three main objectives,
    namely, to stimulate processes, to prepare technical proposals and to organize and
    facilitate events. The representatives of MINUGUA, the Office of the Resident
    Coordinator, PAHO/WHO, Project of HCHR, WFP, UNDP and UNICEF
    integrated the Steering Committee, which agreed to carry out weekly meetings.

    2. During the initial phase of the elaboration of CCA, UN Interagency Group,
    was set up to carry out the work on the elaboration of the Quantitative and
    Qualitative Indicators.

    3. In a first stage, the Group identified the quantitative indicators, starting from the
    contents of the first Guatemala Progress Report on the Millennium Development
    Goals, the CCA 2000, the five National Human Development Reports, the
    population and housing census, the agricultural and livestock census and other
    recent surveys. Subsequently, the Association for Social Research and Studies
    (ASIES) was entrusted with the preparation of a qualitative study with five focal
    groups: 1. Small and medium entrepreneurs, 2. Peasants, 3. Community
    organizations, 4. Academics and university professors, and 5. Public officials and
    employees. This study allowed comparing different visions on the country’s main
    development obstacles and challenges for the coming 5 years.

4. To guarantee a greater efficiency in the preparation of the CCA document with
the broad participation of the various actors of development present in the country
and represented abroad (UNCT and the UN personnel, government and civil
society partners), the Steering Committee organized several training activities on
the CCA/UNDAF process, the Human Rights Based Approach and the Logical
Framework and the problem-tree analysis.

5. In a second stage, the UN System organized work sessions with the different
partners: civil society organizations, high government officials and technicians,
International Financial Institutions: World Bank, IDB and IMF (Breton Woods
Institutions) and International Cooperation to gather their inputs on the main
challenges concerning human development in Guatemala.

6. Due to the fact that the elaboration of the CCA took place in a framework of a
political transition, including the general elections (in November and December
2003) and in order to achieve the highest participation of different partners in the
process, UN System carried out a considerable number of events and activities
with multiple development actors from Civil Society, International Community,
Private Sector, and Political Parties, including the meeting with the Political
Parties Forum, represented by 14 political parties. The RC informed the Forum
about the important of the CCA/UNDAF process and invited the Political Parties
to collaborate with the UN System in different issues of common interest.

7. In order mainstream the observations made by UN Special Rapporteurs and
treaty bodies on Guatemala into the CCA initial diagnosis and the problem-
analysis process, the steering committee put together a synthesis of their main
conclusions and recommendations, as an input for the UNCT and the technical
groups involved in the formulation.

8. On the basis of the inputs mentioned above, the country Team met on
September 11 and 12, 2003 to achieve a common definition of the core problems
of Guatemala. In this high level meeting, the Heads of Agencies, Funds and
Programmes of the UN System approved the main problems of the country and
the five related causal problems. For that purpose the UNCT used the information
gathered from the above-mentioned workshops and seminaries and the points of
view of different actors about the Guatemala main problems. The United Nation’s
internal factors as well as evolution at the country and at the world scale made
necessary this second train of the CCA in Guatemala

9. Taking into account the five causal problems, five Thematic Groups were
established, integrated by representatives of all the partners of the process
(Government, Civil Society, International Cooperation, Breton Woods
Institutions, Private Sector, UNS, among others). During the period October-
November these Thematic Groups participated in 5 Retreats to develop their
respective themes in high level closed working meetings according to the schedule
prepared (the table with the schedule is attached).

9. It is important to mention that in a number of the mentioned workshops of the
Thematic Groups, participated UN agencies with headquarters outside the
country: ECLAC (headquarters in Mexico) and UNIFEM (headquarters in

Mexico). In addition, the ILO (Costa Rica) and UNESCO were invited, but they
were not able to participate.

10. The second round of the elections that took place on December 2003, resulted
in the victory of the opposition and the change of the Government starting on
January 15th 2004. The UNCT elaborated the interagency work strategy in order to
inform and involve the new Government in the CCA/UNDAF process initiated in
2003. Due to the very constrained schedule to finalize the elaboration of the
UNDAF and its direct connection with the elaboration of the CPDs documents
and follow-up processes, the UNCT proposed to the Government to carry out
several rapprochements starting from February 2004. The first meeting with this
propose took place on March 9th 2004, were the UNCT introduced the new
Government in the process. At the same time, the new Government shared the
priority strategic outlines of the country development.

11.This event was followed by the joint meeting held on May 14th 2004 with the
participation of the four UNDG agencies and the representatives of SEGEPLAN.
The main objective of the meeting was to share the information of each mentioned
agency, related to the lessons learned and the best practices of their cooperation
developed in Guatemala in the past years. The Secretary of the SEGEPLAN
stressed the importance of this meeting in the priorization of the UNDAF´s areas
of the cooperation for the period 2005-2008. During the meeting, both sides
agreed that the present UNDAF document would be based on the Millennium
Development Goals Objectives and Peace Accords, to be complemented by the
specific priorities of the main mandates of the UN Agencies.

12. During the period 3-5 of March 2004 the UN System participated in the
UNDAF Priorization Retreat carried out by UN Staff College. This learning event
was of great value for the Guatemala CCA/UNDAF exercise and contributed to
make progress in the finalization of the UNDAF Results Matrix, more specifically
in the area of focalization and consolidation. The external facilitation by the
neutral actors helped to find out and accept the internal weaknesses in the process
and to visualize the next steps to follow. With regards to the process of H&S,
many participants expressed the interest to receive more information and training.
Lessons learned: During the final evaluation many persons expressed the opinion
that this kind of events should be carried out earlier in the UNDAF elaboration

13. The exercise allowed the Executive Committee Agencies to concretize the
development priorities for the elaboration of the UNDAF matrix and
consecutively the elaboration of their CPD documents.

    2. Steps taken with time line and schedule (most important events):

   Trainings during 2003: June 20th; August 12th , 13th and 14; August 29th ;
    September 30th , October 3rd
   August 7, 2003; September 10th 2003 Several meetings with Governmental
    high-level representatives.
   August 20-27 2003: Five Focal Groups seminaries carried out by ASIES.

    September 4th and 5th 2003: Two Workshops with the representatives of
    the Civil Society Organizations for the priorization of the country central
   During 11 and 12 of September 2003, the Guatemala’s UN Country Team
    carried out a two days workshop in order to achieve a common understanding
    of the country main problems to be analyzed in the second CCA document.
   September 18th 2003 : Meeting with the Representatives of the Breton
    Woods Institutions: WB, IDB, IMF in order to inform and invite to participate
    in the CCA/UNDAF process.
   September 24th : UNCT representatives meetings with the Forum of the
    Political Parties.
   On October 2nd , 2003 the UN Country Team organized a meeting with the
    Representatives of the International Community with the main objective to
    extend the invitation on the participation in the CCA process and to obtain the
    International Community vision about the Guatemala structural problems.
   October-November 2003:The next step of the CCA elaboration was the
    organization of five retreats of 3 days time each one, where the participants
    analyzed the identified areas of problems.
   On 11th of November 2003 the UNCT started the formulation of the
    document with active participation of the Steering Committee and the UN
    Theme Groups.
   On February 3rd of 2004 the consolidated CCA draft was sent to Panama
    Regional Readers Groups, which evaluated the document and send the
    feedback report to the UNCT.
   During the period 3-5 of March, 2004 the UN System participated in the
    UNDAF Priorization Retreat carried out by UN Staff College.
   9 of March 2004:The first meeting with the representatives of the new
    Government on the CCA/UNDAF process.
   14 of May 2004: The second meeting of the 4 Ex.Com. UNDG Agencies with
    the representatives of the Government on the Priorization of the UNDAF and
    Lessons Learned of the Previous Cooperation.
   The elaboration of the UNDAF document was carried out during the period
    February-June 2004, due to the request of the Government to extend the
    period of the formulation of the document.
   On June 11th 2004 the final version of the UNDAF document was presented
    to the Government Institutions. At the same time was finalized the elaboration
    of the CPDs documents by the Ex.Com. UNDG agencies that have been
    presented to the approval to the Executive Boards of the UNICEF and
    UNDP/UNFPA on September 2004.
   Due to the time constrains the draft of the UNDAF was sent to the Readers
    Group on August 15th 2004.
   September 6th 2004: The representatives of the Secretariat of the Planning
    and Programming of the Presidency (SEGEPLAN) and Ministry of Foreign
    Affairs of Guatemala hold a meeting with the UN System Resident
    Coordinator to deliver the government organizations recommendations and
    the feedback of the UNDAF draft.
   The elaboration of the final version of the UNDAF document finalized on
    November, 4th due to the extended time taken by the Government for the
    revision of the document.

      October-December, 2004: Presently the 4 UNDG Agencies (UNDP,
       UNICEFF, UNFPA and WFP) are working on the formulation of their CPAPs
       documents, which are expected to be ready and signed with the central
       Government partners on January 2005.

III.     How were these steps completed? What resources were required,
         available and utilized? What partners and partnerships were engaged
         during the process?

To insure the achievement and continuity of the process several factors should be
taken into account: 1. High-level planification to link and involve multiple
partners in multiple processes in a relative short period of times; 2. Competent,
Experienced and Committed Human Recourses; 3. Financial Recourses; 4.
Political Environment and Political Agendas of the High-Level integrants
(Government, heads of agencies, donors cooperation, etc.); 5. Continued support
and clear guidance from DGO, Readers Groups and all the UN Agencies, Funds
and Programmes.

1. In order to achieve the first factor, the Interagency Steering Committee was
set up (See Chapter 2, para1) to have a close and continuous exchange with the
UNCT during meetings, workshops, seminaries and retreats dedicated to the
CCA/UNDAF process. The UNCT adopted the Chronogram of the activities as an
interagency priority. Lessons learned: the success of the process depends on the
political will and the commitment of the Heads of Agencies, Funds and
Programmes of the UN System.

2. Competent, Experienced and Committed Human Recourses: At the
moment the CCA process started, the Office of the Resident Coordinator was
integrated by the UN Coordination Specialist and UN Assistant under the
leadership of the Resident Coordinator. In these circumstances, was decided to
hire two more persons with full time dedication to the process: one Facilitator
with experience en Logical Framework and one Editor with knowledge of the UN
System and the country. Due to fact that the work done by these consultants did
not reach the UNCT expectations (described in the TORs), the new Facilitator
team (2 persons) and an Editor Team (2 persons) had to be hired afterwards.
During the CCA/UNDAF process, four additional short time consultancies have
been used.

This particular experience is leading the UNCT of Guatemala to a very
important lesson learned: the indispensability to rely on competent
specialists/consultants trained in the area of CCA/UNDAF and Reform
Process, HRBA, RBM with wide experience from other countries, preferable
with knowledge of the country generally and the speaking language. In is very
important to assure the availability of these specialists with anticipation. Second
lessons: the need of training of the UN Coordination personnel (and UNCT
interagency focal points) and the strengthening of the ORC at the moment of
the CCA/UNDAF elaboration.

3. Additional financial support: During 2003 the ORC received USD
   20,000.00 additional financing for the CCA/UNDAF process. Nevertheless,

   the expenses for the entire process were much higher. It should be taken in
   consideration, that the ORC has multiple expenses among others: to cover
   other areas such areas as: the monthly maintenance of the office: space,
   electricity, water, phones, use of common services: reception, security; the
   ORC personnel salaries; the documents printing, the multiple interagency
   activities, the elaboration of the MDG, interagency Retreats, seminaries,
   trainings, among others. During 2003 the OCR achieved to mobilize additional
   recourses (amounting to USD 200,000.00) from the Government of Norway
   for the UNDAF process. But, during 2004 the Guatemala ORC experienced an
   important financial drop in the budget for the interagency activities. The
   interagency Plan for 2004 foresees to USD 154,000.00. On June 2004 the
   ORC was informed about the decrease to USD 100,000.00. This critical
   situation din not permitted to follow-up to the important activities related to
   UNDAF elaboration and implementation. Lesson Learned: The roll out
   countries should receive prioritize financial support. The headquarters of
   the agencies, founds and programmes should submit and allow spending
   interagency expenses for CCA/UNDAF process.
4. Political Environment and Political Agendas of the High-Level integrants
   (Government, heads of agencies, donor’s cooperation, etc. ) This factor is
   crucial for the CCA/UNDAF process. Lessons learned: the period of the
   political transition of the Government (one year before, or after the
   elections) is not the best moment to undertake the formulation of the
   CCA/UNDAF. In case there is no choice to choose another moment, the
   UNCT and the Headquarters should be ready for delays in the process
   and another other unforeseen difficulties. In case of Guatemala the period
   of programme cycle will be extended to 5 years (from 2005-to 2009, instead of
   previously decided 2008), in order to avoid the revision of the next cycle by a
   new Government.
   5. Continued support and clear guidance from DGO, Readers Groups
   and all the UN Agencies, Founds and Programmes. This factor is of major
   importance. The constant communication of the DGO helped to avoid some
   bad practices from another countries. On the other hand, more clear
   guidance and concrete lessons learned from another countries are
   necessary. The UNCT needs to hear from the countries best practices and
   lessons learned on CCA/UNDAF, on Joint Programming, on HRBA and
   Harmonization & Simplification Processes.

IV.    What was the role of structures within the UN System at country
       level? Was there Working Group/s?

   The UNCT had the following structures in order to move ahead the
   CCA/UNDAF process: a) The UNCT; b) The Office of the Resident
   Coordinator; 3. The Steering Committee; 4. The Following Interagency
   Theme Group :1. Indigenous people and Multicultural Issues (GRUTIM); 2.
   Uprooted population (Desarraigo), 3. Interagency Group on Human
   Development (GIDH); 4. Justice, HR and Public Security (GIJUS); 5.
   Education (GIE); 6. Gender equality (GIGAM); 7. HIV/AIDS (ONUSIDA); 8.
   Communication and Information (GICI); 9. Interagency Group on Nutritional
   Security (GISAN).

Based on five CCA causal problems, five Thematic Working Groups have been
established, integrated by representatives of all process partners: Government,
Civil Society, International Cooperation, Private Sector, UN System, among
others. During October-November 2003 these Thematic Working Groups
participated in 5 Retreats to develop their respective causal problems.

V.     Who was involved in the process? What was the role of government?
       Civil society? Others? What partners and partnerships were engaged
       during the process?

As previously mentioned the following development partners have been involved
in the process: 1. Government: SEGEPLAN, the Ministry of Foreign Affaires,
other sectoral Ministries: Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of
Agriculture; Ministry of Education; Ministry of Culture and Sports, etc.; 2. Civil
Society Organizations: on Human Rights, on Gender , on indigenous people, on
youth, Universities, the Association for Social Research and Studies (ASIES),
among others ; 3. International Cooperation: the representatives from Sweden
and German Cooperation; 4. Political Parties, including the Political Parties
Forum, represented by 14 political parties; 5. UN agencies with headquarters
outside the country: ECLA (headquarters in Mexico) and UNIFEM
(headquarters in Mexico); 5. UN Interagency Theme Groups; 6. Five Focal
Groups: a. Small and medium entrepreneurs, b. Peasants, c. Community
organizations, d. Academics and university professors, and e. Public officials and
employees; 6. The UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes represented by Heads
of these organizations, including the Steering Committee and the Office of the
Resident Coordinator with the exception of the WB and IMF.
Lessons learned:        The priorization of more limited and strategic
actors/participants should be considered during the formulation of the
documents, in order to speed up the processes and achieve consensus. The
posterior socialization of the process should be used.

Lesson learned: The Development and the Human Rights situation in
Guatemala has been diagnosed in several surveys, studies and reports. The
CCA should have been based on this big volume of available information.
Rather than having a long participatory process to gather information,
national stakeholder would play a more useful role in validating the
information gathered and analyzed.

With regards to the absence of the WB and the IMF in the process, the
following factors should be taken into consideration: a) the limited number of
the personnel and the participation in the CCA/UNDAF process is time-
consuming, b) the need of harmonization in the processes between Breton
Woods Institutions and UN System (the WB, the IMF, and other IFIs are
guided by their internal processes): A clear guidance for WB and IMF
should be established for the involvement in the CCA/UNDAF and H&S

VI.   Describe data collection and any issues relating to that collection.
(For more detailed information see page 2, para 2 and para 3)

 Briefly: 1. The Interagency Ad-hoc Group on Indicators with participation of the
 representative of ASIES ; 2. The Indicators from five NHDR; 3. Guatemala
 MDG Report 2002; 4. Population and housing census; 5.The agricultural and
 livestock census and other recent surveys; 6. The five Focal Groups Seminaries.
 7. For the indicators systematization around the five central causal areas of the
 CCA, one-month consultant was hired.

 VII.   What factors contribute to or hindered the overall process?

The factors that contributed to the overall process were: first of all the UNCT
commitment to give the maximum priority and importance to the CCA/UNDAF
process. The agencies, founds and programmes participating in the Steering
Committee and the Interagency Theme Groups invested a values time and
enthusiasm in the overall process, despite their tight agendas and schedules. The
active participation of the UN System personnel in retreats, seminaries, trainings
and interagency meetings, is a result of good will and support from the Heads of
agencies, funds and programmes. Secondly, the resource mobilization by the
Office of the Resident Coordinator of additional funds for the interagency
activities allowed transforming the process in a participatory one. Thirdly, the
integration in the process of personnel with experience from the previous
CCA/UNDAF exercise and the participation of the Project of OHCHR that
ensured the rights based approach. Fourth, the establishment of partnerships with
the high representatives of the government: SEGEPLAN and Ministry of Foreign

Factors that hindered the overall process: 1) the period of the political
transition of the Government: in case of Guatemala, the overall process of the
CCA during 2003 was not taken into consideration by the new Government, even
the enormous effort done to make the process a participatory one. The UN System
schedule for the CCA/UNDAF exercise and those of the new Administration did
not coincide, which produced delays and gaps in the overall process.

2) The UNCTs should find equilibrium between the technical and the political
dimension in the elaboration of the CCA/UNDAF, it means to define from the
beginning the roles and responsibilities (who is doing what and when) of all the
stakeholders. From our experience the schedule is not enough for that purpose:
this should be clearly established during an interagency workshop.

3) The need of trainings of the UN System personnel in HRBA, RBM and
CCA/UNDAF process and the application of these new methods to the political,
economical, social and cultural country analysis. During the trainings conducted
to the UN System personnel was proved that the UN Agencies did not share the
same approach in the area of the Human Rights. Lesson learned: Is important to
achieve strategic cohesion between the UN System before the process is
shared with the national partners. Is also important that the representatives

of the agencies count with the support of their respective headquarters
regarding the strategic priorities for the joint programming.

During the UNCT workshop (August 12-14) one international consultant was
invited to share knowledge and concepts about the Meaning and justification of
the HRBA in the frame of CCA UNDAF. The purpose of the workshop was that
the heads of agencies, the programme officers and other stakeholders involved in
the process, gain more clarity on the application of the HRBA along the CCA
UNDAF cycle and the programmatic process whose formulation was about

 The consultant made some valuable recommendations in his final report: “ that
the UNCT (should) take a more strategic approach to the work of Special
Reporters and Working Groups; UNCT should be more involved in preparing
their visits, following up their reports and recommendations and using their
presence to bring together government and NGO leaders to discuss human rights
concerns. UNCT should use the stature, visibility and findings of Reporters and
Working Groups treating themes that are especially relevant in Guatemala, like
the right to health, education, adequate shelter, indigenous rights, independence of
the judiciary, violence against women and the sale and exploitation of children.

“ …. The UNCT should be much more involved that it appear to have been so far
in the UN and regional treaty-monitoring process. …. Guatemala UNCT should
take advantage of this invitation to submit sound information and analyses from
the agencies doing the work on the ground to those assessing compliance with
treaty obligations. This would make the treaty body process more viable and
effective while simultaneously exploiting the programming…. This has not
happened nearly often enough and I think the CCA/UNDAF exercise offers an
excellent vehicle to marry the human rights enforcement mechanisms with
development programming”. “ The regional mechanisms too should be
exploited strategically by the UNCT as a way to identify priorities and
programming opportunities…”

These recommendations were made at the beginning of the CCA formulation
process and were subsequently taken into account by the Steering
Committee, which prepared a synthesis of the most relevant observations
made by international human rights mechanisms. Although these
recommendations were mainstreamed into CCA and UNDAF, the
programme and project staff from all Agencies, Funds and Programmes still
needs to become more familiar with them. A mapping recently done by the
Interagency Theme Group on Justice, Security and Human Rights show that
human rights are not yet sufficiently mainstreamed at programme and
project levels. Human right mainstreaming should be taken from UNDAF
down to joint programmes and CPAPs and other operational levels.

Regarding the observation that the “CCA/UNDAF exercise offers an excellent
vehicle to marry the human rights enforcement mechanisms with development
programming”, even the UNCT believes in that, we needed to know exactly how
to achieve the link between the CCA/UNDAF process and the development

   programming. At the beginning we needed to know how exactly to use the
   HRBA in the analyses of the priority problems.

   4). Concerning the logical framework analyses, our experience is that the
   problem tree analyses is not the most appropriate method for the CCA process: it
   takes much of the time available to the UNCT and do not allow easily to reach
   consensus. For example, the groups had long discussions on whether education
   was more important than Food Security or vice-versa. Likewise the groups
   discussed for hours what came in the hierarchy of the problem tree. Additionally,
   we discovered that the UN personnel had a different level knowledge about the
   tree analyses. Finally, the problem-tree analysis neither did marry well with the
   right-based approach nor helped to develop a systemic approach to human
   development. The Guatemala experience with the method was not the best one,
   and we had to switch to the causal net analysis which has the direct link to
   HRBA. Lessons learned : a good experience in the method used from another
   country could be very helpful.

   5). As previously mentioned the indispensability to rely on competent
   specialists/consultants trained in the area of CCA/UNDAF and Reform
   Process, HRBA, RBM.

   6). The experience/ lessons learned from another countries could be very
   useful. The DGO was not able to give as a concrete example of a country with
   good UNDAF Results Matrix analyses. The explanation was: the inexistence of a
   quality analysis of CCA/UNDAF roll out countries. This analysis will be available
   at the beginning of the next year.

   VII.   Description of support received from the Regional Readers Group.
          Was the support timely and of value to the process? What steps could
          be taken to reinforce the quality assurance process?

   The support received from the Regional Readers Group was helpful. Nevertheless,
   in order to reinforce the quality assurance process and to avoid misunderstandings
   and problems in the process, the relation between the UNCT and the RRG should
   be closer, with frequent updates, taking into account that the process in the field
   depends on many factors, and not always happens as it is formulated in the

   VIII. Describe any other lessons learned by the UNCT in the process.

A very important lesson learned is related to the need of the
reconfiguration/reengineering of the Interagency Theme Groups around the
main UNDAF areas of intervention (UNDAFs outcomes) (Annex 3).

The lesson learned from the first phase of the CCA/UNDAF process about the
deffintion and the posterior implementation of joint programmes and projects

remain transcendental. With this regard it is important to mention the first joint
project with the participation of UNDP, UNICEF, UNESCO and the Project of the
HCHR in the area of Security: “Institutional Strengthening of the National Civil
Police – Phase III”, initiated on July 1st 2004. Presently the UNCT is giving a special
treatment to the formulation of joint programmes, taking into account the common
areas of intervention and strategic priorities, with the active participation of the
Interagency Theme Groups. The UNCT considers crucial the issue of the joint
programming and recommend the DGO to give it a priority attention by
providing more concrete examples/trainings/exchange of expediencies with the
countries where that exercise is successfully being implemented.

Important lessons learned: The CCA incorporates the gender issue to contribute
to the UNDAF outcome that seeks to eliminate discrimination against women by
promoting inclusive public policies, knowledge and full exercise of human rights,
and a civic culture of tolerance and respect for diversity, to contribute to
reducing gender discrimination by promoting the full exercise of women’s rights,
emphasizing reproductive rights and a life free from violence.

Since the present report was elaborated by the Office of the Resident Coordinator
with the UN agencies, funds and programmes contributions, and with the purpose to
reflect the external opinions about the CCA/UNDAF process, we think useful to share
several important evaluations during the period December 2003-March 2004.

In December 2003 the UNCT received the UN- DESA Mission “Review of country
experiences for the triennial policy review of the operational activities of the United
Nations”. During the mission a great number of organization and individuals were
visited and asked about the CCA/UNDAF process. This assessment resulted in the
following findings: “The Office of the Resident Coordinator, ORC, and the UNCT
work closely on all major issues addressed by the UN system and the effectiveness
and results of the process are already felt by all stakeholders: UN agencies,
Government, Civil Society, donors and other development partners. One major factor
that influenced the process during 2003 has been the political atmosphere of the 2003
presidential elections, concluded on 28 December 2003”.

“Following a broadly and intense participatory process and the incorporation of the
Human Rights concerns proposed by the Secretary General, the UNCT/OCR
Guatemala is in the process of finalizing the second Common Country Assessment,
CCA. The new CCA will be the basis for preparing the second UNDAF 2005-2008,
with consultation and participation of the political administration that will constitute
new Government in January 2004 “.

“ The second CCA incorporates the vision of a broader constituency, its objectives set
in the Millennium Development Declaration goals and the Peace Agreements.
Participation of Government notably improved although complaints about lack
of participation in leading and directing the process still persist. Participation of
civil society was pushed on further, to limits only determined by a weak
institutional structure in the sector. The incorporation of the Human rights approach
as a cross-cutting issue into the exercise was a first attempt, to which many regard as
basic, in need of further improvement and refinement “.

“The financial crisis and the increasing dependency on no core funding negatively
affects the co-ordination capacity of the UN system and its effectiveness because it
promotes unnecessary competition amongst agencies, comprises the UN objectives I
favor of the funding source, limits the number of technical staff that can support the
ORC and affects the ratio of professional staff/interventions with adverse effects on
quality of the interventions.”

“Staff in OCR should be assigned with a long-term perspective: co-ordination
should not be perceived as a temporal activity. Key staff in the ORC office is yet
recruited under temporal arrangements “.

Another important evaluation of the UN System activities was carried out by the Joint
Field visit of Executive Boards of UNDP/UNFPA, UNICEF and WFP to Guatemala
during 21 of March-2 of April 2004. The central purpose of the Mission was to help
the members of the Executive Boards to understand how and the extent to which the
UN System contributes to the achievement of the MDG in the country. The mission
also observed the progress made on S&H and the functioning of the Resident
Coordinator System, including the functioning of theme groups and the relationships
between the UNCT, the donor community, the IFIs and the civil society, among other

The Mission produced a final report on base of the inputs received from the multiple
partners during the meetings and field visits. We feel important to share some of the
mission findings: “The efforts (towards achieving more coordination, collaboration
and coherence among the UN System) have resulted in concrete outcomes. Among
the most important is a series of documents that includes five thematic Human
Development Reports, a MDG report, an assessment of the Nutrition and Food
Security situation, Nutrition and Food Security Strategic Document, the HIV/AIDS
Implementation Support Plan, the CCA/UNDAF documents and a Socio-economic
Database. Importantly, the publication of these documents was characterized by a
participatory process that involved civil society as well as the international
community and benefited from the growing leadership of the Government and its
increasing ownership in the CCA/UNDAF process.”

“ There were several examples of collaborative programmes of the country team in
which two or more agencies, funds and programmes were working in a geographical
area for specific outcomes that accorded with national priorities and the MDG.”

“Many challenges remain…: a lack of documentation and analysis of the impact of
collaborative efforts on transaction costs; a week dissemination of some of the
documents produced; a weak link between some of the interagency theme group and
decision-making, the operational level and the UNDAF; …. constrains resulting from
limited financial and human resources. It was also noted that CCA/UNDAF process
was quite time-consuming and overstretched the capacities of most agencies, funds
and programmes. Finally, it was observed that the RC lacked sufficient resources to
fulfill the responsibilities of the function.

“Among the challenges to implementing the agenda of simplification and
harmonization (S&H), the most significant are, first, the need for significantly more

staff time to be devoted to planning and implementation, and, second, the limited
human and financial recourses available.” “Another challenge is posed by the
restrictive implementation of specific mandates of each of the agencies, funds and
programmes, which contributes to limiting progress in S&A. To overcome this
constraint, strong attention should be paid to creating new incentives to strengthen
participation in joint programming.”

   IX.    Details key issues that UNDGO and other UN Country Teams should
          consider in the future development of CCAs and UNDAFs

   We opted to express the lessons learned and recommendations throughout the text
   (in bold) and not in this separate section with only recommendations. We hope
   that these recommendations will be more meaningful when they are described in a
   context and come from analyses.


Shared By: