Detailed Case Study Outline

REVIEW OF JOINT PROGRAMMES IMPLEMENTATION IN ERITREA Report Ermias Ogbai E-mail: erisem2004@yahoo.com December 2005 Asmara ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……….…………………………………………………....V 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... V 1.1 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................. 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 2 1.3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT .................................................................................. 2 2. PREVENTION OF HIV/AIDS AMONG THE ERITREAN YOUTH, THE ERITREAN DEFENSE FORCE AND THE NATIONAL SERVICE CORPS… ............. 3 2.1 PROGRAMME DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Background and History .................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Objectives and Modality of the Joint Programme ............................................. 4 2.2 RELEVANCE AND COHERENCE OF JOINT PROGRAMME DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT..... 6 2.2.1 Selectivity .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Partnership and Participation ............................................................................. 6 2.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................ 7 2.3 EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................ 7 2.3.1 Joint Programme Design and Development ...................................................... 7 2.3.2 Joint Programme Implementation ...................................................................... 8 2.4 EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE ADDED ........................................................................... 9 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES AND IMPACT ................................................................... 10 2.5.1 Impact on Institutions and Systems Capacities ................................................ 10 2.5.2 Impact on HIV/AIDS Prevention and Sustainability ....................................... 10 3. FOOD, NUTRITION, WATER AND SANITATION, AND HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE....................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 PROGRAMME DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Background and History .................................................................................. 13 3.1.2 Objectives and Modality of the Joint Programme ........................................... 13 3.2 RELEVANCE AND COHERENCE OF JOINT PROGRAMME DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT... 14 3.2.1 Selectivity ........................................................................................................ 14 3.2.2 Partnership and Participation ........................................................................... 15 3.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................. 16 3.3 EFFICIENCY .............................................................................................................. 16 3.3.1 Joint Programme Design and Development .................................................... 16 3.3.2 Joint Programme Implementation .................................................................... 17 3.4 EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE ADDED ......................................................................... 18 3.5 DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES AND IMPACT ................................................................... 18 3.5.1 Impact on Institutions and Systems Capacities ................................................ 18 3.5.2 Impact on Poverty and Sustainable Development ........................................... 19 i ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 4. SUPPORTING RETURN OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLES AND EXPELLEES TO COMMUNITIES OF ORIGIN OR RESETTLEMENT ..................... 21 4.1 PROGRAMME DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 21 4.1.1 Background and History .................................................................................. 21 4.1.2 Objectives and Modality of the Joint Programme ........................................... 21 4.2 RELEVANCE AND COHERENCE OF JOINT PROGRAMME DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT... 23 4.2.1 Selectivity ........................................................................................................ 23 4.2.2 Partnership and Participation ........................................................................... 23 4.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................. 24 4.3 EFFICIENCY .............................................................................................................. 24 4.3.1 Joint Programme Design and Development .................................................... 24 4.3.2 Joint Programme Implementation .................................................................... 25 4.4 EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE ADDED ......................................................................... 26 4.5 DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES AND IMPACT ................................................................... 27 4.5.1 Impact on Institutions and Systems Capacities ................................................ 27 4.5.2 Impact on Poverty and Sustainable Development ........................................... 28 5. BUILDING CAPACITY TO EFFECTIVELY DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT JOINT PROGRAMMES............................................................................................................... 29 6. COMPARISON OF THE THREE JOINT PROGRAMMES ..................................... 30 7. LESSONS LEARNT .................................................................................................... 31 Annexes Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4 Annex 5 List of Persons Consulted during the Review Summary of Focus Group Discussions Research Questions and Sources of Information Matrix Terms of Reference for Local Consultant Bibliography Attachments Attachment 1……………………………..………………………..…………….11 Attachment 2………………………….………………….…………….………..19 Attachment 3…………………………………….……….………………….…..28 ii ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes List of Abbreviations AOS CCA EDA EDF EDO ERREC ESMG GoSE IDPs IEC I-PRSP IRP ISP JPSC MDGs MoA MoE MoH MoLG MoND NATCoD NCA NFIS NGO NORAD NSC NUEYS PMU PoWER RBM RCSU SEMISH STI PTA TWG UN UNAIDS Administrative and Operational Support Common Country Assessment Eritrean Demining Authority Eritrean Defence Force Eritrean Demining Operations Eritrean Relief and Rehabilitation Commission Eritrean Social Marketing Group Government of the State of Eritrea Internally Displaced Persons Information Education and Communication Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Integrated Recovery Programme Implementation Support Plan Joint Programme Steering Committee Millennium Development Goals Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Education Ministry of Health Ministry of Local Government Ministry of National Development National HIV/AIDS/STIs and TB Control Division Norwegian Church Aid National Food Information System Non Governmental Organization Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation National Service Corps National Union of Eritrean Youth and Students Project Management Unit Post-war Emergency and Recovery Programme Results Based Management Resident Coordinator Support Unit State of Eritrea Management Information System of Health Sexually Transmitted Infections Parents and Teachers Association Technical Working Group United Nations Joint United Nations Programme for HIV/AIDS iii ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes UNCT UNDAF UNDGO UNDP UNFPA UNHCR UNICEF USAID UXOs VCT WFP WHO WRD United Nations Country Team United Nations Development Assistance Framework United Nations Development Group Office United Nations Development Programme United Nations Population Fund United Nations Higher Commission for Refugees United Nations Children‟s Fund United States Agency for International Development Unidentified Explosive Objects Voluntary Counseling and Testing World Food Programme World Health Organization Water Resource Department iv ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Executive Summary1 I. The joint programme on prevention of HIV/AIDS was initiated as part of the effort to contribute to the implementation of the UNDAF strategic objectives and millennium development goals. Besides, it was an integral part of the National HIV/AIDS prevention and control programme and I-PRSP. It was a continuation of the previous project funded by UNFPA. Following the UN reforms and the GoSE‟s push, in June 2004, the above project was linked with projects proposed by UNAIDS and UNICEF to form a joint programme. Thus, the joint programme was formed among UNFPA, UNICEF and UNAIDS with EDF, ESMG and NUEYS as implementing partners. The programme aimed at increasing awareness of HIV/AIDS and promoting safer sexual behavior among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defence Force and the National Service Corps. UNFPA was appointed as the managing agent. The UN agencies and implementing partners fully participated in the preparation, planning, and evaluation of the joint programme. The distribution of roles and responsibilities within the joint programme were clear. The funding modality utilized was pooled fund management option system. Each of the participating UN agencies contributed their share as well as the Government also contributed in-kind. However, there was a delay in transfer of fund from UNICEF to managing agent, because of centralization of UNFPA. The Joint Programme has greatly promoted partnership and alliances around its result areas. The implementing partners and UN agencies had a notable relationship. The joint programme was developed in close consultation with the NATCoD/MoH and other concerned national counterparts. There were regular meetings of the JPSC and all members participated. Besides, there were joint field visits and monitoring. The process of designing and developing the joint programme did not take long, because it was an extension of the previous programme. The already established relationship between EDF, UNFPA and UNAIDS had promoted the idea of a joint programme. Institutional arrangements have been respected in the course of implementation of the joint programme. The joint programme has significantly reduced transaction cost both for UN agencies and implementing partners. The fact that the resources are pooled to one agency increased leveraging of the resources and increased the amount of resources available to the programme. Regular staff of UNFPA administered the joint programme and did not entail additional staff. However, there were delays in the implementation of the programme, which resulted to an extension of the programme to 2006. The programme was successful in achieving its stated objectives. Most of the programme activities were implemented successfully and few are in the process of execution. Such achievements and results could not have been realized without a joint programme arrangement. Furthermore, the joint programme promoted national ownership. Definitely, the benefits and achievements of the joint programme are attributed to the efforts of the various partners. The programme has addressed the underlying challenges of rapid HIV/AIDS prevalence in the country. However, the joint programme has a limited duration and did not aim for long term sustainable output. 1 The three joint programmes are separately presented as I, II and III in the executive summary. v ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes II. Prior to this joint programme, WFP and UNICEF had already been cooperating guided by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Cooperation experience indicated that joint programming could be effective as implementation strategy. This joint programme by WFP and UNICEF created an implementation framework for some of the integrated work plan activities under the „Basic Social Services‟ theme group. Besides, the joint programme was aligned with national policies, such as the I-PRSP and the MDGs targets. The activities within the joint programme were the priority areas on the National Sectoral plans for Health and Education. The funding management modality was planned to be a combination of parallel, pooled and pass through. Actually, however, only parallel and pooled funding arrangements were applied. Both ministries were involved in the implementation of the programme activities. The beneficiaries did not directly participate in the design of the joint programme. But, both ministries reflected the expressed needs of the beneficiaries. Since all the parties (UN agencies and implementing partners) worked towards achieving a common goal, these concerted effort promoted partnership and alliances. The joint programme had a Steering Committee, which served as an advisory body to the joint programme. MoH and MoE did not participate in the JPSC. Besides, only one joint monitoring was undertaken, although each agency was monitoring its activities. The design and development of the joint programme did not take long, because both agencies (WFP and UNICEF) were working together. In addition, the activities included in the programme were not new to both agencies. There was no major challenge in the development and design of the project. There was time efficiency in implementing the joint programme and no delays occurred during the process. The joint programme was completed within the given period of time. With regard to transaction cost, the same previous cost between individual agency and Government (MoH/MoE) were incurred, as each agency executed its portion of the work for the activities under parallel funding modality. Besides, a joint programme coordinator (JPC) was hired as a consultant and coordinator of activities for which the fund was pooled. Nonetheless, there had not been any duplication and overlapping of activities and the role of each party was clear. In comparison with the previous MoU arrangement, the joint programme has been more effective and enhanced synergies in achieving results. When complementary activities were implemented in a coordinated way within a time frame, the impact was greater and enhanced development impact. Both MoH and MoE were actively involved in the implementation of the programme through their respective institutional arrangement. This has enhanced national ownership. The joint programme has also strengthened national structures, particularly the MoH. The joint programme contributed to addressing underlying consequences of poverty. The joint programme modality enhanced development impact for beneficiaries, since the activities carried by both agencies were complementary to each other. However, most of the activities comprised under the joint programme were not by nature aimed at producing sustainable results. Only few of them could be traced to have sustainable outputs. vi ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes III. Before this joint programme, the UN agencies and GoSE prepared the Integrated Recovery Plan (IRP), however it did not materialize. Because of the length of time and the critical situation of the IDPs, some thing ought to be done. The IDPs have been continuously requesting assistance to return to their village of origin. Experiences of on going joint programmes and the need to involve many stakeholders necessitated the preparation of a joint programme. The objectives of the joint programme addressed the recovery goals of the UNDAF. It is also in line with one of the objectives of I-PRSP. Originally, the programme was designed to resettle 30,000 IDPs. However, with growing complexity of the needs of the IDPs, not all of the originally planned IDPs were resettled. Only 19,000 of the targeted population have been resettled in the initial phase. UNDP, WFP and UNICEF have been involved in the joint programme. Besides, USAID, Norway, Netherlands and Italy funded the programme. The fund management for the joint programme was through a combination of pooled and parallel funding mechanism. UNDP is the managing agent for the pooled fund. The revised budget for the joint programme was US$ 14,131,451. Local partners actively participated in the design and implementation of the programme. This has greatly promoted partnership and alliances among all the players. However, so far no joint monitoring was conducted. The design and development of the joint programme took around 2-3 months. However, due to urgency, proper needs assessment of IDPs was not carried out. Thus, revising the target objective has been the challenging part at later stage. During the course of the implementation, the roles and responsibilities were respected. Because of the managing agent and the PMU in Gash Barka, transaction costs decreased both for UN agencies and the Government. The smooth coordination of the activities avoided duplication and overlapping. For the activities under parallel funding modality, the usual transaction cost was incurred. The joint programme has greatly improved the availability of resources. The joint programme modality encouraged wider participation and geared the resources for a common goal. As part of the joint programme, a PMU office was to be set up in Gash Barka; however, there was a delay in staffing. The main challenges during implementation were delays in the supplies of materials for shelter, and difference of opinion between UNDP and Regional Administration about shelter provision. The programme has achieved its revised objectives. All the basic social services have been put in place and started providing services. It is very unlikely that the results produced could be achieved without a joint programme arrangement. The joint programme has greatly promoted national ownership by consolidating the efforts of the Government. The benefits and achievements of the joint programme were the cumulative result of the efforts of the various partners. However, the programme did not have a capacity building component and weakened the existing local structures. The joint programme contributed to addressing underlying causes of poverty by providing socio-economic support to IDPs. The package of activities in the joint programme was all-inclusive and has improved the livelihood of target beneficiaries. Many of the activities in the joint programme will ensure long-term sustainable benefits to beneficiaries provided the services and assets are maintained properly. vii ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Justification A number of reforms have been introduced to simplify and harmonise programming at the country level, with the aim to improve UN coordination, effectiveness and efficiency in supporting the realisation of national goals and outcomes. These measures are intended to reduce transaction costs for governments, donors, and the UN, and strengthen how UN organizations2 programme jointly with governments. The Secretary-General‟s 2002 agenda for further UN reform3 called for increased joint programming and pooling of resources to further enhance the effectiveness of the United Nation‟s system in supporting national priorities, and to ensure the system‟s combined resources are put to best use. Increasingly, national governments are requesting more efficient and effective work processes from the UN and partners, in order to rationalise the use of resources and enhance development impact for the benefit of stakeholders. It is within this framework that UNDG developed the Guidance Note on Joint Programming, to facilitate the development of joint programmes4. Numerous UN Resident Coordinator Offices and UN Country Teams have requested documentation of joint programme experience and lessons learned to improve joint programme design and implementation. Many Country Teams are also struggling with the implementation of the joint programme Guidance Note and seek further technical support and guidance from UNDGO, and their respective agencies. This case study review of joint programme experience seeks to provide much-needed lessons learned and recommendations for the future design and implementation of joint programmes. In Eritrea, since 2004, six joint programmes have been under implementation. These joint programmes addressed various priority areas, such as nutrition, labour survey, MDGs reporting support, resettlement of internally displaced persons (IDPs), prevention of HIV/AIDS and a gender capacity development. The joint programmes are implemented under different funding modalities, four of which use the pooling funding modality and two use combinations. Besides, seven joint programmes are identified by the UNCT, which are on the pipeline for future implementation. Both the UNCT and the government have been pushing for joint programming and implementation of joint programmes. The RC office in cooperation of UNDGO determined that the review exercise covers three joint programmes under implementation. The selected joint programmes are: 1. 2. 3. 2 3 Prevention of HIV/AIDS among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defence Force and the National Service Corps. Food, Nutrition, Water and Sanitation, Humanitarian Response. Supporting return of IDPs and resettlement of expellees to Communities of Origin or Resettlement. UN organizations include UN Funds and Programmes and Specialized Agencies. "Strengthening of the United Nations: An Agenda for further Change" Report of the Secretary-General, A/57/387, 9 September 2002, United Nations, New York 4 A joint programme is a set of activities contained in a common work plan and related budget, involving two or more UN organizations and national partners. The Guidance Note was issued in December 2003. 1 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 1.2 Objectives of the Review The objective of the review exercise is to learn from the experience of joint programme implementation and whether the modality actually produces the perceived benefits. The specific objectives of the review are: 1. To determine how Joint Programmes are being used to contribute more efficiently and effectively to achieving national development results and national capacity building. 2. To learn from the experience and process of the implementation of the Joint Programmes to inform the development of future joint programmes. 3. To record the notable results or “development impact” of Joint Programmes (if this can be attributed/determined). 1.3 Methodology5 The methodology for data collection of the review consisted of desk review, key informants questionnaire and focus group discussion (FGD). Desk review of relevant documents was done. These included, project documents, Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs), progress reports and other literature related to joint programming and programme. The list of documents reviewed is annexed in the report. Key informants were interviewed based on „Question matrix‟. In accordance with the guidelines, only questions relevant to stakeholders‟ involvement in the joint programme were asked during the separate interviews with various UN agencies, government counterparts and implementing partners. Besides, focus group discussions were held with 2-4 key informants from UNDP, WFP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, RCSU, EDF, NUEYS and Gash Barka Administration. The summary of it is also annexed in the report. Qualitative analysis of the joint programmes was carried out based on the desk review, the key informants‟ interview and focus group discussions. The results are compiled in the report. The report also incorporated the comments of the PC, UNDGO and RCSU. 1.4 Organization of the Report The report comprises the findings of the three joint programmes. The report is organized in such a way that individual features of each joint programme are not shrouded. Accordingly, each joint programme is separately presented as a case study in Section 2, 3 and 4. As revealed from the review, the trainings and orientation given to scale up capacity on joint programmes were the same for all agencies as it was organized at country level. Thus, section 5 addresses the general capacity assessment about joint programme. Besides, general comparison of the three joint programmes is presented in Section 6. The lessons learnt are drawn based on the findings of the review of the three joint programmes and the principles and modalities of joint programme. Section 7 presents the major lessons learnt from the review. 5 The consultant appreciates the unreserved support of the RCSU staff in availing relevant documents and facilitating the data collection process including arranging meetings with key informants. 2 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Attachment 1 At A Glance: Prevention of HIV/AIDS Among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defense Force and the National Service Corps Country/Area: Eritrea/ All regions Thematic Area: Basic Social Services (HIV/AIDS) Programme Objectives:  Strengthened prevention among the youth/adolescents through youth-friendly reproductive health services.  Prevention of HIV transmission among uniformed services, through promotion of safer sexual behaviours, and VCT services. Target Beneficiaries: the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defense Force and the National Service Corps Funding Modality: Pooled Funding MA/AA: UNFPA Participating UN Organizations, Programmes, Funds, and Specialized Agencies: UNFPA, UNICEF, UNAIDS Participating National Organizations: Ministry of Defense/Eritrean Defense Force, NUEYS, ESMG Total Budget: US$ 710,097 Funding Received: (10/12/2005) US$ 710,089 Funded by (Donors): NORAD JP Start Date: June 2004 JP Original Ending Date: December 2005 JP Revised End Date: End of 2006 3 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 2. Prevention of HIV/AIDS among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defense Force (EDF) and the National Service Corps (NSC) 2.1 Programme Description 2.1.1 Background and history The joint programme involving UNFPA/UNICEF/UNAIDS was initiated as part of an effort to contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) strategic objectives and millennium development goals. The Technical Working Group (TWG) on HIV/AIDS prepared an annual action plan on the basis of the review of the Implementation Support Plan (ISP) 2003 and in close consultation with the National HIV/AIDS/STIs and TB Control Division (NATCoD) of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and other concerned national counterparts. The main feature of the action plan for 2004 was the identification and development of seven joint programme areas by UN agencies following a series of meetings on technical activities. The above joint programme covers two areas, namely 1) Support to youth-friendly services 2) Support to the EDF HIV/AIDS prevention programme, which were both identified as priority areas for intervention in the UNDAF/CCA. The selected joint programme was a continuation of the previous project “Supporting the Eritrean Defence Force HIV/AIDS outreach activities in the community” funded by UNFPA6. Following the UN reforms to improve UN coordination and the GoSE‟s desire to have joint programmes implemented, the UN agencies have initiated implementing joint programmes. As an outcome of the agreement between the UN agencies and the Government, HIV/AIDS prevention among the military was identified as one of the potential areas for joint programme. Thus, in June 2004, the above project was linked with projects proposed by UNAIDS and UNICEF to form a joint programme under UNDAF. UNICEF joined the joint programme because it had plans to work with NUEYS on HIV/AIDS. Thus, the joint programme was formed among UNFPA, UNICEF and UNAIDS with EDF, ESMG and NUEYS as implementing partners. The role of the RC was limited to facilitating the formulation of the joint programme and providing back stopping service through the weekly meeting of the UNCT. 2.1.2 Objectives and Modality of the Joint Programme The programme aimed at increasing awareness of HIV/AIDS and promoting safer sexual behavior among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defence Force and the National Service Corps. Specifically, the project objectives were: 1. Strengthened prevention among the youth/adolescents through youth friendly reproductive health services. 2. Prevention of HIV transmission among uniformed services, through the promotion of safer sexual behaviour and Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT) services. 6 The original time period for the project was from March 2003 to March 2005. But in June 2004, it was converted in to a joint programme. 4 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes The objectives did not change throughout the programme life. However, some of the activities in the Youth component were revised and changed to address priority needs of the three youth centers (Keren, Senafe and Haikota). UNFPA was appointed by the participating UN agencies and the national partner to serve as the managing agent. The time duration (as in the project document) for the joint programme was set from June 2004 - December 2005. However, there was a delay in signing the document due to the involvement of NUEYS, which was not initially envisaged and later sorted out. The transfer of fund from UNICEF to the managing agent took longer time, because the money had to go through UNFPA Headquarter first to come back to UNFPA Eritrea. Besides, the Youth component was delayed till the activities are revised and finally submitted for approval to the joint programme steering committee (JPSC).7 The EDF component is also delayed due to slow implementation. The programme will continue till December 2006. The UN agencies fully participated in the preparation, planning, and evaluation of the joint programme. The distribution of roles and responsibilities within the joint programme were clear. UNFPA, being the managing agent, was responsible for managing resources; follow up of implementation of the programme with local implementing partners and reporting. Both UNICEF and UNAIDS transferred their fund to the managing agent. Besides, they participated in the joint programme monitoring with UNFPA and the implementing partners (EDF, ESMG and NUEYS). The managing agent has continuously benefited from the technical expertise of the participating agencies. The UNFPA staff has regularly consulted the focal persons of both agencies. The funding modality utilized was pooled fund management option system. Each of the participating UN agencies contributed their share as well as the Government also contributed in-kind8. The total fund was US$710,097. The contribution of UNICEF and UNAIDS included 5% administrative and operational support (AOS). Agency/Government UNFPA UNICEF UNAIDS GoSE (In-kind) Total US$ 375,147 262,446 28,304 44,200 710,097 Source: Joint programme document. 7 NUEYS revised activities, but the outputs in the work plan remained the same. The new set of activities were: study tours between the three youth centers in Haikota, Keren and Senafe; awareness raising for reproductive health issues including HIV/AIDS; undertaking impact assessment for the youth centers; procurement of computers for Keren training center, furniture and books for the library in Haikota and Sports and recreational games materials; and operation and maintenance activities in Senafe center. 8 The government often contributes either Cash or In-kind in programmes as part of its commitment. Joint programme also encourages participation even with little funding contribution. 5 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes The source of fund for UNFPA and UNICEF was from NORAD.9 Although the contribution of each agency was varied, it did not have any effect on the involvement of agencies and there was no conflict of interest or domination by the agency that contributed the bigger share of the budget. 2.2 Relevance and Coherence of Joint Programme Design and Development 2.2.1 Selectivity: Identifying and defining the issue(s) requiring a joint programme The joint programme was developed based on the UNDAF strategic objective of promoting access to quality basic social services, and the millennium development goal combating HIV/AIDS. The two programme areas (The EDF component and Youth component) are part of the priority intervention areas in the Common Country Assessment (CCA) and UNDAF. In the UNDAF (2002-2006) HIV/AIDS was identified as the priority cross cutting issues for potential UN support system. Besides, it is also an integral part of the National HIV/AIDS prevention and control programme. Moreover, HIV/AIDS is one of the primary health care policy targets along with Malaria, STIs and Tuberculosis in the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP, 2004). 2.2.2 Partnership and Participation The joint programme was developed in close consultation with the NATCoD/MoH and other concerned national counterparts. Besides, local capacities (Ministry of Defense/EDF, NUEYS, and ESMG) have been taken into account in the design and implementation of the joint programme. The national authorities, particularly EDF, played a key role in the development of the joint programme. Consultations and discussions were held with implementing partners on the component activities. The implementing partners were actively involved in the design of their component activities within the joint programme based on their priority needs, mandate and comparative advantage. Each implementing partner prepared an action plan, which was incorporated in the common work plan. The role of the beneficiaries in the development of the joint programme was indirect. The respective implementing institutions represented the beneficiaries. Needs assessment was conducted by NUEYS at the center level10. Similarly, EDF has had the largest pool of youthful population. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS rate was growing among the Soldiers/NSC. Thus, EDF initiated the HIV/AIDS outreach programme to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and raise awareness among its members by deploying change agents. Besides, it is using its human resources to reach the communities around were EDF units are located. Basically the implementation of the joint programme was carried out by local capacities with the technical assistance of UNFPA and the other agencies. The three local partners 9 NORAD‟s donation to both agencies was not conditional on their involvement in joint programme. However, NORAD fully supported that UN agencies undertake a joint programme. 10 The needs assessment was not properly conducted initially and did not reflect the priority needs. Later, NUEYS revised the activities according to priorities of beneficiaries at the youth centers. 6 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes have long-standing experience on HIV/AIDS prevention programme. The command structure and wider presence of EDF units throughout the country was considered as an opportunity and advantage to implement an outreach programme. Besides, EDF has adequate qualified medical personnel from barefoot health workers to surgeon general. NUEYS and ESMG have also a national coverage, with NUEYS being the leading institution on Youth related issues. ESMG prime activities include the distribution of Condom and national awareness programme on HIV/AIDS. The joint programme has greatly promoted partnership and alliances around its result areas. The implementing partners and UN agencies had a notable relationship. Throughout the implementation period, there has not been any conflict and misunderstanding among all parties. For instance, EDF created an enabling environment for ESMG to conduct its activities. Besides, the focal person of UNICEF was closely involved and had frequent contacts with UNFPA staff. All the parties were involved in planning, joint programme steering committee (JPSC) meetings, joint monitoring and other reporting and follow-up activities. These alliances and partnership strengthened the already existing relationship among each other and was commended by all parties. All the parties are interested to continue working together, but so far there is no concrete plan for the future. 2.2.3 Monitoring and evaluation As part of the joint programme‟s implementing structure a Steering Committee has been formed with the involvement of all partners. There were regular meetings of the JPSC and all members participated. The meetings were like a forum where stakeholders share information on planned/on-going activities and discuss solutions for issues and problems. The JPSC involvement helped to cement cooperation and increase efficiency during implementation. In the work plan, travel and monitoring visits to communities were specified in the time calendar. Three joint field visits have been accomplished, where all partners participated, to monitor work accomplished by change agents. However, there was no detailed M&E framework/plan. Nonetheless the benefits and impacts were measurable. 2.3 Efficiency 2.3.1 Joint Programme Design and Development The process of designing and developing the joint programme did not take long, because it was an extension of the previous programme. The already established relationship between EDF, UNFPA and UNAIDS had promoted the idea of a joint programme. UNICEF did not hesitate to join the programme, when requested. It took about 3-4 months to conceptualize the joint programme and conclude a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). WHO did not participate in the joint programme. As a lead UN agent in Health, it could have contributed to the joint programme; however, most of its funds were tied up with the Ministry of Health programmes. Since the participating UN organizations were working for common results with common national partners, pooled funding mechanism was chosen to implement the joint 7 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes programme.11 This was in line with the principle of pooled funding modality. The GoSE favours pooled funding modality and want to deal with one agency. This is because it has limited staff and does not have the capacity to engage with many agencies. The activities within the joint programme are common to all the participating agencies. The role of a managing agent was given to UNFPA for it had comparative advantage because of its previous involvement with EDF and NUEYS in supporting HIV/AIDS prevention and other Reproductive Health programmes and financial/administrative capacity. The roles and responsibilities of each participating organization within the joint programme were well defined in the project document and the accompanying MoU. UNFPA as managing agent; UNICEF and UNAIDS as participating agencies; while EDF, ESMG and NUEYS as implementing partners. There was not significant challenge in the design of the joint programme with the exception of some misunderstandings about the involvement of NUEYS. Initially NEUYS involvement was limited to representing ESMG (ESMG was not a registered NGO and was partly owned by NUEYS). But later on, it was made clear that NUEYS is also the primary partner, to be responsible for implementing the Youth component. 2.3.2 Joint Programme Implementation Institutional arrangements have been respected in the course of implementation of the joint programme. Every party carried out its activities as planned in the programme and fulfilled its roles and responsibilities. Consequently, there has not been any overlapping and duplication of work among UN agencies and implementing partners. The EDF component and Youth component were clearly delimited. Even the activities of ESMG within EDF were well coordinated and there was no duplication. EDF created an enabling environment for ESMG to conduct its activities. The joint programme has significantly reduced transaction cost both for UN agencies and implementing partners. For the implementing partners, it reduced transaction cost as they have to deal with only one agency (UNFPA) in terms of reports to be produced and other management and follow up related activities. For UN agencies (UNICEF and UNAIDS), since they delegated the fund management, follow up and overseeing the programme to the managing agent, there was no direct management involvement. This saved staff time and resources, which could have been devoted to undertake the task. In general, one consolidated report and one JPSC was required and these contributed to the reduction of the transaction cost. The fact that the resources are pooled to one agency increased leveraging of the resources and increased the amount of resources available to the programme. Under this funding modality, every participating agency contributed to a common basket of fund. More resources were availed to the implementing partners in comparison with other arrangement.12 11 However, there was difficulty in transfer of fund from UNICEF to UNFPA due to centralization of UNFPA‟s financial system. 12 This is because of the reduction in operating and transaction costs associated with running a programme. 8 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Regular staff of UNFPA administered the joint programme and did not entail additional staff. However, UNFPA did not face significant resource burden to manage it, in comparison with managing single agency project. The achievements and results could not have been produced at a lower cost (financial, staff time, personnel). UNFPA charged 5% cost recovery rate for participating UN agencies for management expenses. However, due to centralization of UNFPA, the transferred fund from UNICEF had to be charged transfer cost twice (at head quarter and country office). The overall operational expenses for UNFPA reached 5% of the total budget; the remaining was available for implementing partners. UN agencies remained visible under the joint programme by participating in the joint programme steering committee (JPSC), in reports and publications. Besides, the programme also ensured donor visibility through acknowledgement in reports and meetings and other occasions. In general, the implementation of the programme can be considered smooth. There was no major challenge that kept the programme on hold. However, there were minor challenges that hindered timely implementation of activities. The following were the main ones:  Delays in transfer of money from UNICEF to UNFPA  Delays in transfer of money from UNFPA to implementing partners because of introduction of new financial software (ATLAS)  Delays in the implementation of the Youth component due to late start and revision of the component activities  Delays on EDF to train change agents  The nature of the military‟s mobility has been a challenge  Delays in supplies and procurement  High cost of living and transport problem to change agents.  Demobilization of some change agents Most of these challenges were avoidable through a more efficient planning and/or implementation process. The joint programme could have been completed at a minimum delay had the challenges been addressed the sooner possible. For instance, in all the progress reports, almost similar challenges and constraints were mentioned. 2.4 Effectiveness and Value Added The programme was successful in achieving its stated objectives. Most of the programme activities were implemented successfully and few are in the process of execution. Overall, the joint programme is a success. The pooling of resources has enabled the programme to be more effective and enhanced synergies in achieving results than the stand-alone programme of UNFPA. The programme has wider coverage and satisfactory results have been achieved. Comparatively, the joint programme has addressed greater number of communities through the change agents, regular campaign programme within the military units and increasing VCT visitors. For example, during the first six months of 2005, the 225 change agents have reached 266,843 people; monthly briefing sessions of 9 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes HIV/AIDS were being given to 90,000 recruits and regular military personnel in five operational areas; more than 50,000 comdoms and 20,000 condom carrying pouchs have been distributed to military personnel. Besides, the youth centers are equipped to provide youth friendly services. Although there were slight delays related to supply and procurement, the intended goods and services were delivered in the quality expected to beneficiaries. For some of the goods, such as Information, Education and Communication (IEC) materials, the amount was lower due to high cost of publication and printing materials. The programme implementation did not face major constraints except the above-mentioned challenges. Such achievements and results could not have been realized without a joint programme arrangement. Additional resources and technical expertise of UN agencies were secured and efficiently utilized because of joint programme. The coverage was wide because of pooling of resources from UNFPA/UNICEF/UNAIDS. Furthermore, the joint programme promoted national ownership. The implementing partners were involved from the design stage of the programme and were given full responsibility of implementing the activities of the joint programme. The JPSC was chaired by EDF. All the implementing partners appreciated the joint programme modality and believe that it is an instrument to make effective contribution at less transaction cost. From the Government side, joint programme is highly accepted and encouraged. The Government urges UN agencies to work together towards a common goal by mobilizing their resources. 2.5 Development Outcomes and Impact 2.5.1 Impact on institutions and systems capacities Definitely, the benefits and achievements of the joint programme are attributed to the efforts of the various partners. Without the contribution of each implementing partners and UN agencies, the results would not have been realized. UNFPA, UNICEF and UNAIDS contributed to the funding of the programme as well as technical expertise, while UNFPA managed the fund and supervised the programme implementation. EDF, ESMG and NUEYS were responsible for the implementation of the programme. Basically, the project aimed at strengthening local capacity in terms of training and deployment of change agents, equipping VCT centers and youth centers to provide quality services and other technical support. The technical and management capacity of EDF and NUEYS were strengthened. A great deal of the resources was spent on capacity building activities. 2.5.2 Impact on HIV/AIDS prevention and sustainability The programme has addressed the underlying challenges of rapid HIV/AIDS prevalence in the country. The synergy of resources and activities has enabled to undertake activities effectively. The coverage of the EDF outreach programme was very wide. The awareness level of the Eritrean Defence Force and the National Service Corps is very high. For instance, condom pouch has become part of the regular military attire, growing number 10 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes of VCT visitors and a monthly briefing session on HIV/AIDS is given to the military including the „seeing is believing programme‟ by people living with HIV/AIDS. Besides, the awareness of the communities also increased. As a result of the campaign programme, the communities started to demand the establishment of VCT centers in their vicinity.13 The youth centers are also equipped to provide youth friendly information and counseling services on Reproductive Health and STIs/HIV/AIDS. Before the implementation of the joint programme, they were not properly equipped. The overall benefits of the joint programme could be attributed to the efforts of the various partners. The joint programme has a limited duration and did not aim for long term sustainable output. It was an intervention through the demobilization period. The long-term sustainability of the programme‟s benefits lies on the fact that the focus of the project was on strengthening capacity of the implementing partners for the prevention of HIV/AIDS. However, since the coverage was wide, additional funding support is required to continue the outreach programme for some time. EDF is of the opinion that the programme should run for the next two years for a maximum impact. If additional fund is not secured to pay DSA and associated expenses for the change agents, then the change agents will be limited to work within their military units. The activities in the youth component have had some sustainability elements. The computer training center in Keren will generate revenue. For the other two centers (Haikota and Senafe), Tea shop and Video show are included, which can also be used for income generating purposes. But still, funding support is required till the centers reach a level where they can sustain themselves by covering their expenses. 13 Despite the fact that the villages are remote, due to the increased awareness, the number of people visiting the VCT has increased. 11 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Attachment 2 At A Glance: Food, Nutrition, Water and Sanitation, and Humanitarian Response Country/Area: Eritrea/ Selected Areas Thematic Area: Basic Social Services (Health and Nutrition) Programme Objectives:  Increase in access to quality education (grade 1-5) for all children, particularly girls and vulnerable children, including refugees, returnees and nomads  Reduction of maternal and child morbidity due to malnutrition  Well-established integrated disease surveillance and response sites in all zones which be used to monitor the trends of morbidity, mortality due to the communicable and non-communicable disease in the country. Target Beneficiaries: Under 5 children, Grade 1-5, Pregnant women, Lactating women, Community, MoH Funding Modality: Combination of Parallel, Pooled funding and Pass through for funding jointly raised MA/AA: WFP Participating UN Organizations, Programmes, Funds, and Specialized Agencies: WFP, UNICEF Participating National Organizations: Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Education (MoE) Total Budget: US$ 8,792,669 Funding Received: (as of date) US$ 8,792,669 (The project is completed) Funded by (Donors): Only core resources were used JP Start Date: 9 July 2004 JP End Date: 8 July 2005 12 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 3. Food, Nutrition, Water and Sanitation, and Humanitarian Response 3.1 Programme Description 3.1.1 Background and history The joint programme was formed between WFP and UNICEF. Prior to the joint programme, WFP and UNICEF had already been cooperating on school feeding, school water and sanitation, supplementary and therapeutic feeding guided by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Cooperation experience to implement the above mentioned activities indicated that joint programming could be effective implementation strategy. Besides, the UN reform and the Government have been calling for joint programming. Consequently, UNICEF suggested to WFP that both agencies undertake a joint programme. This was a response to the call by scaling-up the existing level of cooperation. UNICEF and WFP along with Ministry of Health (MoH) were the main proponents of the joint programme. The RC office played a role in facilitating the formulation of the joint programme and providing back stopping service through the weekly meeting of the UNCT. 3.1.2 Objectives and Modality of the Joint Programme The stated objectives of the joint programme were: 1. Increase in access to quality basic education (grade 1-5) for all children, particularly girls and vulnerable children, including refugees, returnees and nomads. 2. Reduction of maternal and child mortality due to malnutrition. 3.Well-established and integrated disease surveillance and response sites in all zones which be used to monitor the trends of morbidity, mortality due to communicable and non-communicable disease in the country. The time frame for the joint programme was for twelve (12) months. WFP and UNICEF were the two UN agencies involved in the joint programme. The joint programme objectives did not evolve overtime and remained the same. Each participating UN agency had defined roles and responsibilities within the joint programme. UNICEF was responsible for     Provision of water and sanitation facilities at selected schools To train health workers on diagnosis and management of severe malnutrition To provide coordination for supplementary feeding activities To provide therapeutic feeding supplies and equipment to treat severely malnourished children. WFP was responsible for  School feeding WFP and UNICEF had a share within each of the following activities; however, each agency had a clear portion of the activity and was financed by parallel funding. 13 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes  To provide a general food basket for the severely malnourished children and caretakers/mothers.  To provide therapeutic feeding supplies and equipment to treat severely malnourished children.  To provide supplementary feeding at community level.  To provide coordination for supplementary feeding activities.  To coordinate general food distribution with supplementary feeding. The following were the activities funded by pooling resources. Besides, WFP was entrusted with the management of the pooled fund. Accordingly, WFP was required to provide financial and progress reports as well as hire a joint programme coordinator.  Development of National Plan of Action for Nutrition.  To strengthen the National Surveillance System.  To coordinate and integrate Nutrition Surveillance with SEMISH, NFIS and Livelihood System Studies.  To use Surveillance System for targeting general food distribution and supplementary feeding. The funding management modality was planned to be a combination of parallel, pooled and pass through. In the original programme document, it was indicated that a joint proposal be developed by the Joint Programme Coordinator (JPC) to mobilize more resources for funding to support Nutrition Surveillance and to strengthen the technical capacity of the Ministry of Health. However, it was not accomplished. Thus, only parallel and pooled funding arrangements were applied. The total estimated budget was US$ 8,792,669 out of which the WFP and UNICEF allocated US$ 5,999,991 and US$ 2,649,678 for parallel funding respectively. Besides, both agencies contributed their shares (as stated in the table below) for the pooled funding, which was US$ 143,000. Agency/Government WFP (parallel) UNICEF (parallel) WFP (pooled) UNICEF (pooled) Total US$ 5,999,991 2,649,678 28,000* 115,000 8,792,669 Source: Joint programme document. * WFP‟s pooled fund does not include WFP‟s share for funding the Nutrition Surveillance Surveys. 3.2 Relevance and Coherence of Joint Programme Design and Development 3.2.1 Selectivity: Identifying and defining the issue(s) requiring a joint programme A Common Country Assessment (CCA) for Eritrea (2001) indicated that 57.8% of schools had no access to safe water and about 60% were without access to sanitation. The CCA (2001) also indicated that malnutrition was a major concern in Eritrea. Malnutrition among children under the age of three years measured by both chronic and acute food shortage was recorded at 44%. The CCA identified eight thematic areas and three cross14 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes cutting issues that required support through the UNDAF (2002-2006). As a follow up to the UNDAF an integrated work plan was developed in February 2004. This joint programme by WFP and UNICEF created an implementation framework for some of the integrated work plan activities under the „Basic Social Services‟ theme group. Besides, the joint programme was aligned with national policies, such as the I-PRSP14 and the MDGs targets.15 The activities within the joint programme were the priority areas on the National Sectoral plans for Health and Education. 3.2.2 Partnership and Participation Before the joint programme was initiated, both agencies worked with MoH/Ministry of Education (MoE) on bilateral relations. Thus, the capacity of the implementing partners was taken into account. Both ministries were involved in the implementation of the programme activities and there was no NGO involvement. Initially, MoH initiated the idea that donor agencies work jointly in the Nutritional Surveillance Survey. However, in the actual design of the joint programme, the MoH was invited at later stage. The senior staff of both ministries did not participate, although invited, in the JPSC. The reason for their absence had to do with the fact that they did not participate in the design from the early stage and did not understand its importance. Nonetheless, it did not make any difference in terms of the outcomes of the programme. The senior staff of the respective ministries has closely followed the implementation of the joint programme. The beneficiaries did not directly participate in the design of the joint programme. But, both ministries reflected the expressed needs of the beneficiaries. The MoE places water and sanitation and school feeding programmes at the center of its strategy for providing quality education. In all the schools served, the parents and teachers association (PTA) demanded the provision of such services as it greatly contributes to the retention of students. Likewise, the MoH had been making efforts to alleviate drought-induced malnutrition in children and mothers by coordinating supplementary and therapeutic feeding programmes. The fact that the joint programme was implemented with active participation of the local partners has promoted partnership and alliances around its result areas. Since all the parties (UN agencies and implementing partners) worked towards achieving a common goal, these concerted effort promoted partnership and alliances. A case in point was that WFP field officers were informing UNICEF when therapeutic feeding centers ran out of supply (F75 and F100)16 and sharing of information with each other. In addition, there was active involvement of PTA, school administrations, hospitals and health centers, the regional offices of both ministries and the regional and local administrations in programme implementation. 14 The third pillar of I-PRSP (2004) is enhancing access to and utilization of essential services for human development. 15 Goal 2: „Ensure that by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.‟ 16 These are two types of therapeutic milk used to treat severely malnourished children when discharged. 15 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 3.2.3 Monitoring and evaluation The joint programme had a Steering Committee, which served as an advisory body to the joint programme. Follow-up issues from the field monitoring activities, which cannot be resolved, was discussed at the joint programme steering committee (JPSC) meeting. The work plan specified monitoring period of the joint programme. However, there were no clear and detailed M&E performance indicators to measure progress and outcomes. Project officers from both WFP and UNICEF carried regular programme monitoring. The joint programme coordinator also conducted monitoring and follow-up activities. However, throughout the implementation of the joint programme, many plans were made to carry out joint monitoring in the field. However, they did not materialize. Only one joint monitoring in the field was carried for therapeutic feeding. Nonetheless, WFP suboffices and staff did monitor UNICEF‟s activities under the joint programme: such as informing UNICEF when therapeutic feeding centers run of out supply. An external consultant also conducted a terminal evaluation of the joint programme. 3.3 Efficiency 3.3.1 Joint Programme Design and Development The design and development of the joint programme did not take long, because both agencies (WFP and UNICEF) were working together based on Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)17 before. In addition, the activities included in the programme were not new to both agencies. Thus, the process was short and efficient. It took around 1-2 months to design the joint programme. There was no major challenge in the development and design of the project. The distribution of roles and responsibilities for each participating UN agency is clearly defined within the joint programme. The roles were complementary to each other. A combination of parallel and pooled fund management options was used. The pooled fund management option was chosen for those activities where the UNICEF and WFP work for common results with a common national partner (MoH). WFP charged UNICEF 3% of the fund as a cost recovery rate. The parallel funding mechanism was applied for the activities that were implemented separately by the agencies but complement each other and have specific reference to one another. WFP and UNICEF charged 7% and 12% programme support cost respectively. In selecting the managing agent for the pooled funding, however, the standard criteria were not taken in to account. UNICEF has the comparative advantage in the Nutrition area and has stronger relationship with the Nutrition Unit of the MoH. Even the employed joint programme coordinator continued working (supposedly 20% of his time) as Nutritionist for UNICEF, where he belonged before. Thus, from a management perspective UNICEF should have been selected as managing agent. 17 However, it was not like the one demanded in joint programme. Thus, a new MoU was signed to start the joint programme. 16 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 3.3.2 Joint Programme Implementation Through out the implementation of the programme, institutional arrangement has been respected. Each party was responsible for its roles. There was time efficiency in implementing the joint programme and no delays occurred during the process. The joint programme was completed within the given period of time as in the project document. With regard to transaction cost, the same previous cost between individual agency and Government (MoH/MoE) were incurred, as each agency executed its portion of the work for the activities under parallel funding modality. For the implementing partners, there was no significant reduction of transaction cost, as they still had to deal with both agencies for the activities under the parallel funding. Besides, a joint programme coordinator (JPC) was hired for 11 months as a consultant and coordinator of the joint programme activities for which the fund was pooled. Unlike in the previous joint programme, employing additional staff increased the transaction cost for both agencies, as they were responsible for the Salary and DSA of the JPC. The JPC had to undertake all the coordination, communication, and monitoring and reporting activities.18 This saved staff time and resources for both agencies as the workload for coordination consumes a great deal of staff time. However, the terms of reference (ToR) of the JPC was not clear and that created some misunderstandings between the agencies. That is, WFP had complaints about the JPC.19 Nonetheless, there had not been any duplication and overlapping of activities among stakeholders and the role of each party was clear. The integrated work plan of the joint programme enabled to avoid the duplications and overlap of activities seen in the previous programme of cooperation under MoU. But, increasing the share of the pooled fund could have further reduced transaction cost for UN agencies and the Government. The share of the pooled fund from the total budget was very small. Consequently, it has not resulted in significant reduction of transaction cost, as majority of the activities required unilateral involvement of both agencies with implementing partners. Both agencies remained very visible throughout the programme life, as they were also directly involved in the implementation of the joint programme. There were no donors and other NGO‟s involved in the joint programme. Some of the challenges during the implementation period were such as the limited capacity of the MoH and MoE staff and lack of resources versus the large need. The unclear job description of the JPC also posed a challenge. His additional involvement in specific UNICEF tasks limited his time for coordination and failed to do frequent field 18 In principle, a programme coordinator is not integral to the management of a pooled funding mechanism. The need to employ additional staff either as a JPC or other staff should depend on the capacity of the Managing agent (in terms of staff time), and the nature of the workload the joint programme entails. 19 The JPC combined his coordination tasks with some specific UNICEF tasks in his capacity as nutritionist. UNICEF states that the coordinator‟s division of labour was about 20% for UNICEF and 80% for the joint programme. WFP staff on the other hand had the impression that the coordinator was working most of his time exclusively for UNICEF (estimated as some 80%) a minor part (20%) for the joint programme. Besides, WFP had a hard time locating him when needed and spent too little time in the field (Evaluation Report, 2005). 17 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes visits to monitor activities. Besides, there was no joint monitoring of activities by both agencies. Finally, the reluctance of MoH and MoE senior staff to participate in the JPSC was a challenge. 3.4 Effectiveness and Value Added The joint programme has achieved its stated objectives. In comparison with the previous MoU arrangement, the joint programme has been more effective and enhanced synergies in achieving results, particularly the activities where the fund was pooled. Besides, all the activities in this joint programme were executed within the programme period. All the activities were completed during the specified period of time and the outputs were of standard quality. During the implementation of the programme, no significant constraints were encountered. The same achievements and results could have been produced without a joint programme arrangement in the sense of implementing individual activities. Most of the activities were not new and have been delivered by the agencies for a while. However, when complementary activities were implemented in a coordinated way within a time frame, the impact was greater. For instance, when the school-feeding programme by WFP was complemented by water trucking of UNICEF in a certain school, the effect to the provision of quality education became significant and retention of students became higher. The same complementarities effect was also witnessed between therapeutic feeding and supplementary feeding. The local partners participated in the implementation of the joint programme. Both MoH and MoE were actively involved in the implementation of the programme through their respective institutional arrangement. This has enhanced national ownership. However, the effect would have been greater had senior officials of the national partners participated in the JPSC meeting. Nonetheless, the national partners support coordinated efforts and joint programmes. 3.5 Development Outcomes and Impact 3.5.1 Impact on institutions and systems capacities The achievements of the joint programme were attributed to the efforts of the various partners. The UN agencies were involved in the planning and implementation of the programme. They were also involved in the follow up of the delivery of the goods and services. WFP through its regional offices followed the implementation of the activities under the parallel funding and those in the pooled funding. Similarly, UNICEF also monitored the implementation of the activities, particularly in therapeutic feeding and water trucking. The local partners, on the other hand, were the implementers of the joint programme activity. MoH was responsible for the implementation of the health and nutrition related activities both at health service centers and head office. Likewise, MoE in close collaboration of UNICEF and WFP carried out the activities pertaining to students (school feeding and water trucking). The programme consists of several projects/activities, which were implemented within the project period. This has enhanced development impact. However, only four of the activities were funded by pooling 18 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes resources for which a notable development impact can be attributed to the joint programme. The joint programme strengthened national structures, particularly the MoH. Trainings were given on diagnosis and management of severe malnutrition and capacity building support including training to strengthen national nutrition surveillance system. 3.5.2 Impact on poverty and sustainable development The joint programme contributed to addressing underlying consequences of poverty. The intervention has enabled primary school children to attend school through the school feeding programme and other provisions. Besides, reduced malnutrition related deaths in children using therapeutic and supplementary feeding programmes. Moreover, a well functioning nutritional surveillance system has been established within the MoH. The joint programme modality enhanced development impact for beneficiaries, since the activities carried by both agencies were complementary to each other. However, most of the activities comprised under the joint programme were not by nature aimed at producing sustainable results. Only few of them could be traced to have sustainable outputs. These include, the technical knowledge acquired as a result of the training given to the staff of MoH and other capacity building efforts. Besides, the joint programme time period was only for one year. This has limited the impact of the joint programme, although the activities are continued by both agencies in unilateral arrangement. But, the results and impact could not be the same as in joint programme. 19 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Attachment 3 At A Glance: Supporting return of IDPs and Expellees to communities of origin or resettlement Country/Area: Eritrea/ Gash Barka Region Thematic Area: Recovery (Rehabilitation, Reintegration and Development) Programme Objectives: 1. Ensure a smooth and successful reintegration of some 8,300 IDP families within the villages of their return. 2. Support vulnerable families, women and children especially in ensuring adequate social service access (water, education, and food/nutrition, health) and ability to be sheltered in the immediate and long term, as well as to have access to livelihood opportunities. 3. Reduction of land mine accidents through mine risk education. 4. Monitoring the integration capacities of host villages and viability of sustainable settlement and eventual self-sufficiency of returnees. Target Beneficiaries: IDPs in Adi Keshi (Gash Barka Region) Funding Modality: Combination of Parallel and Pooled funding MA/AA: UNDP Participating UN Organizations, Programmes, Funds, and Specialized Agencies: UNDP, WFP and UNICEF Participating National Organizations: 1. Ministry of National Development (MoND) 2. Eritrea Refugee and Relief Commission 3. Gash Barka Regional Administration and PMU in Gash Barka 4. Water Resource Department of the Ministry of Land Water and Environment Total Budget: US$ 14,131,481 Funding Received: (10/12/2005) US$ 14,131,481 Funded by (Donors): USAID, Italy, Netherlands, Norway JP Start Date: November 2004 JP Original Ending Date: January 2006 JP Revised End Date: Not known 20 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 4. Supporting return of Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs) and Expellees to communities of origin or resettlement 4.1 Programme Description 4.1.1 Background and history During the past few years, before this joint programme, substantial reconstruction for war-damaged infrastructure has taken place throughout the country under Government programmes sponsored by key donors and the World Bank. In 2002 and 2003, UNDP was fully involved in the resettlement of internally displaced persons and expellees. It has implemented projects worth more than US$ 20 million to successfully return expellees and internally displaced Persons, under its Post-War Emergency and Recovery Programme (PoWER). The community has never felt comfortable living in IDP camps and continuously asked the Government to support them return to their village of origin. At IDP camps they lived by handouts and could not lead their normal life, plough their land and look after their animals. Around July 2004, the Government decided to resettle them in their place of origin. But every infrastructure and social services was virtually destroyed. Then a discussion was initiated between the Government and UNDP to develop a programme to return the IDPs. Experiences of on going joint programmes and the need to involve many stakeholders in the programme necessitated the preparation of a joint programme that would effectively and efficiently implement a strategy supporting on-going Government efforts while achieving UNDAF goals. Hence, UNDP initiated the design of joint programme among interested UN agencies. The RC and UNCT also played a significant role in facilitating the formulation of the joint programme and providing technical support and other supports when needed. The design of the joint programme did not take long because of the accumulated experience of the past on joint programmes. Before this joint programme, the UN agencies and GoSE prepared the Integrated Recovery Plan (IRP), however it did not materialize due to disagreement on fund mobilization strategy. Because of the length of time and the critical situation of the IDPs, some thing ought to be done. In response, the joint programme was initiated to support the needs of resettling the IDPs to their place of origin. It took 2-3 months to design the programme. However, the programme was not designed and developed based on detailed needs assessment and realistic assumptions of the situation. 4.1.2 Objectives and Modality of the Joint Programme The overall objectives of the joint programme as stated in the common work plan are: 1. Ensure a smooth and successful reintegration of some 8,300 IDP families (equivalent of 30,000 persons) around within the villages of their return. 2. Support vulnerable families, women and children especially in ensuring adequate social service access (water, education, and food/nutrition, health) and ability to be sheltered in the immediate and long term, as well as to have access to livelihood opportunities. 21 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 3. Reduction of land mine accidents through mine risk education. 4. Monitoring the integration capacities of host villages and viability of sustainable settlement and eventual self-sufficiency of returnees. Originally the programme was designed to run for 15 months and resettle 30,000 IDPs. However, with growing complexity of the needs of the IDPs, due to lack of detailed assessment20, not all of the originally planned IDPs were resettled. Only 19,000 of the targeted population have been resettled in the initial phase. The original budget was totally consumed on the first phase only. A second phase of resettling the remaining IDPs, an extension of the joint programme, will be carried out upon availability of funding. This may extend the time period of the programme. So far some donors have pledged for their resettlement. These include Norway and Netherlands. Besides, there is a fund from UNDP core budget. However, there is still a budget gap. UNDP, WFP and UNICEF have been involved in the joint programme. Besides, UNHCR21 through ERREC also provided an in kind support worth US$603,985. The distribution of roles and responsibilities within the joint programme is clearly spelled out, with each of the UN agencies mandated to work on its specialty (comparative advantage). UNDP is the managing agent for the pooled fund, thus UNICEF transferred funds allocated for this joint programme. Besides, the donors: Norway, USAID, Italy, and Netherlands designated UNDP to administer the fund in a kind of pooled mechanism. Quarterly/annual reports from implementing agencies have been sent to the MA for consolidation and submission to JPSC for endorsement and final submission to agencies and contributing donors. The fund management for the joint programme was through a combination of pooled and parallel funding mechanism. The revised budget for the joint programme was US$ 14,131,451 and all of it is secured. The sources of the fund were: Agency/Donor/Government US$ UNDP (Core) UNDP( Non-core) UNICEF (Pooled Fund) WFP (In-kind) Norway (thru UNDP) USAID Norway (thru NGO's) Italy Netherlands GoSE 2,826,000 700,000 258,000 3,030,000 1,130,856 988,076 1,932,112 830,000 600,000 1,836,407 Total Source: UNDP interim report, 2005 20 14,131,451 The needs assessment was conducted by a committee members including, ERREC, MoH, MoE, MoA, MoLG and UNDP. 21 UNHCR was not directly involved as a participating UN agency in the joint programme. UNHCR became skeptic after the failure of IRP, because of its difference in mobilization of the fund and failure to mobilize the fund it pledged. 22 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes The fund channeled by Norway through NGOs was administered by Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) and Norwegian Development Fund. 4.2 Relevance and Coherence of Joint Programme Design and Development 4.2.1 Selectivity: Identifying and defining the issue(s) requiring a joint programme The joint programme falls under the UNDAF (2002-2006) for Eritrea. One focus of the UN system‟s strategy for meeting the development challenges of Eritrea is to support national efforts to respond to the country‟s immediate needs for relief and recovery. The objectives of the programme specifically addressed the Recovery (rehabilitation, reintegration and reconstruction) goals of the UNDAF: provide special attention to women-headed households in the emergency and recovery programme; bridge the gap between emergency, recovery, reintegration, and development programmes; assist in the provision of appropriate environmentally friendly housing (and settlement) schemes for returning refugees, IDPs and expellees. The joint programme is also in line with one of the objectives of I-PRSP „protecting vulnerable groups-through provision of social and economic services‟. Besides, the joint programme created an implementation framework for some of the integrated work plan activities on basic social services theme group. The joint programme supported the on-going efforts of the Government which had already made a substantial commitment to the return of IDPs through diverting resources for the initial works in clearing of mines and Unidentified explosive objects (UXOs) by Eritrean Demining Authority/Eritrean Demining Operation (EDA/EDO), rehabilitating schools, health facilities, water supply systems and maintenance of feeder roads to the villages of return, and followed the request by Government for UN support22. 4.2.2 Partnership and Participation Local partners actively participated in the design and implementation of the programme. The Regional Government, key Ministries and Authorities were involved in the design and implementation of the programme. Each participating institution has a defined role and responsibility in the programme. The Gash Barka regional office, in particular, has mobilized its resources (human and equipments) to effectively implement the project. The active involvement of the national authorities enabled smooth and coordinated implementation. The IDPs continously expressed their readiness to be resettled and requested for support. Since 2000, the IDPs were living in IDP camps far from their place of origin in areas where there were shortage of adequate social services and no permanent economic livelihood. Their demand to return to their place of origin was evident, but hindered due to existence of UXOs, devastated housing/shelter and non-existent social services. 22 The government did have prior knowledge of about joint programme and played a part on the preparation of the IRP. However, the support requested by the government was not specifically on a joint programme form. The initiative to form a joint programme was taken by UNDP along with other UN agencies. 23 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes All participating UN agencies, Government and Non-governmental institutions and donors actively participated in all aspects of the joint programme and contributed their due share in the successful implementation of the programme.23 This has greatly promoted partnership and alliances among all the players. The whole process of the programme (design and implementation) has been done in a participatory approach where each party contributed its share in its area of expertise. It was an exemplary programme in promoting partnership and alliance among all participating parties. This joint programme witnessed the involvement of many stakeholders in comparison with the other two, yet there was smooth coordination and harmony among all parties. For instance, the Water Resource Department (WRD) was involved in undertaking geological surveys to assist the Regional Government; UNHCR was also involved in transporting the IDPs upon request by ERREC. 4.2.3 Monitoring and evaluation The monitoring and evaluation plans of the joint programme were to undertake regular programme monitoring by project officers from UNDP, WFP and UNICEF. The monitoring had to be planned jointly among the three agencies and carried out in a coordinated manner. Follow-up matters from the field monitoring activities, which project officers cannot resolve, had to be discussed at the joint programme steering committee meeting (JPSC) in its quarterly meetings. The M&E, however, did not have clear performance indicators and no M&E framework/plan. Joint monitoring and evaluation schedule of the joint programme is shown in the work plan. However, it did not materialize so far. No joint monitoring of the participating agencies and partners was conducted. Although there is joint programme steering committee meeting, there have not been regular meetings for about 6 months. This is partly due to inconvenience in setting agreed upon time for all members and other workloads and commitments of the JPSC members.24 4.3 Efficiency 4.3.1 Joint Programme Design and Development The design and development of the joint programme took around 2-3 months. However, due to urgency in preparing the programme, proper needs assessment of IDPs was not carried out. Consequently, many crucial services, such as water supply and schooling, were overlooked.25 This has affected the activities to be included in the programme and 23 The role of the donor agencies was exclusively limited to funding. In this joint programme, the World Bank country office was not involved. Nonetheless, World Bank and UN have good partnership in Eritrea. The World Bank is part of the UNCT and participates in the weekly and monthly meetings. World Bank and UNDP worked jointly on demobilization programme in 2002. 24 The JPSC met as the writing up of the report was in progress. 25 The miscalculation was not a result of poor communication or unclear division of labor among partners. Rather, it was a result of the urgency of the programme in which certain assumptions were taken on the extent of resources needed to provide the services. For example, Water supply was assumed to be done within a month by digging boreholes. But later on, the boreholes did not yield enough water. Subsequently, many additional boreholes had to be dug at an extra budget with a success rate of 50% and took around 3-4 months. 24 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes the corresponding budget for it. Thus, revising the programme components along with its budget has been the challenging part at later stage when implementation began. Nonetheless, the joint programme synergies helped to identify the problem early and took immediate measures to solve it. In fact, the way the joint programme evolved to accommodate the extra demands was commended as an example of flexibility in programme management. A combination of parallel and pooled fund management options was used. The pooled fund management option was chosen for those activities where UNDP, the participating UN agencies and donors worked for common activities with a common national partner. UNDP was chosen as managing agent for the pooled fund in which UNICEF and the donors were the participating parties. The selection was based on its previous experience with IDPs under the PoWER programme, comparative advantage related to expertise in the area, resources and financial/administrative management capacity. The parallel funding mechanism was applied by participating UN agencies or other partners implementing unitarily activities that complement each other and are also with specific reference to one another. WFP was in a parallel funding arrangement. WFP was responsible for temporary food rationing to the IDPs till the next harvest while the GoSE had to prepare emergency water supply and build makeshift classrooms. The distribution of roles and responsibilities for each participating institution within the joint programmes were well defined. The work plan clearly shows which institution will be responsible for each activity within the joint programme. 4.3.2 Joint Programme Implementation During the course of the implementation, the roles and responsibilities were respected. Each party played their role in a coordinated way. There was smooth implementation with defined roles and responsibilities. The managing agent played a key role in fund management, coordination and follow-up of the programme on behalf of the participating agencies and donors. Because of the managing agent (UNDP) and the PMU in Gash Barka, transaction costs decreased both for UN agencies and the Government. The Gash Barka administration played the lead role in the implementation of the programme. The coordination resulted in lower transaction cost in terms of time and resources. Besides, there was accountability and transparency. The smooth coordination of the activities avoided duplication and overlapping. For the activities under parallel funding modality, particularly that of WFP, the usual transaction cost was incurred in delivering the commodities, but within in a harmonized common work plan. The joint programme has greatly improved the availability of resources. The fund was mobilized from various agencies and donors for the joint programme. This could be attributed to the fact that the situation of the IDPs was a concern for all the stakeholders. When the joint programme was initiated, the response of the donor agencies was immediate. The joint programme modality encouraged wider participation and geared the resources for a common goal of supporting the resettlement of the IDPs. 25 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes The regular UNDP (PMU) staff administered the joint programme. Besides, as part of the joint programme, a PMU office was to be set up in Gash Barka to facilitate implementation. However, there was a delay in staffing the PMU office. Lately a project coordinator was hired, and the recruitment of an Engineer and Accountant will be done soon. UNDP charged UNICEF and the donors 5% for cost recovery. However, UNICEF did not transfer the fund on time. Besides, UNDP charged only 2% for implementation support service (ISS) from the programme resources. The joint programme is a kind of multi-sectoral support and has over stretched the capacity and resource of the implementing partners, particularly of the Regional Administration. The implementation of the programme was very cost effective for both UN agencies and the implementing partner. The same achievements and results could not have been produced without the extra staff time of the Regional Administration.26 UNDP and WFP were visible because they were directly involved in the implementation of the programme. UNICEF participated in the JPSC meetings while the donors were behind the scene. However, visibility was not an issue for any of the donors. Besides, their contribution was also acknowledged in every report and meeting. Holding stakeholders meeting and inviting the donors to participate either semi-annually or annually can also improve the visibility. The main challenges to the implementation of the joint programme were delays in the supplies of materials for shelter, particularly the imported materials, and difference of opinion between UNDP and Regional Administration about shelter provision. UNDP is of the opinion that the beneficiaries can build the walls by Stabilized Soil Blocks while the Regional Administration insisted that Stabilized Soil Blocks are not sustainable and should be replaced by Cement Blocks.27 This has delayed the implementation of the shelter component of the programme. Besides, accommodating un-accounted needs and additional budget requests was also a great challenge, which ultimately limited the target beneficiaries. 4.4 Effectiveness and Value Added The programme has achieved its revised objectives28; that is succeeded in resettling of 19,000 IDPs. Basic social services (Health, Education, Water Supplies and Food provision) were made available. Besides, economic support was given in terms of 26 For the Regional Administration, it is not the joint programme per se, rather the fact that the IDPs are supported to return to their villages was a great motivating factor to dedicate their extra time for the success of the programme. This is because the Regional Administration was following the situation of the IDPs in the camps and has often been requesting the Central Government to do something to facilitate their return. 27 In the programme document, it was agreed that UNDP would provide shelter materials including minimum money for labor cost while the IDPs would build the house themselves using Stabilized Soil Blocks. But later, the Regional Administration considered it, because the IDPs did not have the technical knowledge and equipment to produce Stabilized Soil Blocks. However, the latest JPSC meeting decided that training, machineries and other technical assistances will be provided to the IDPs in order to produce quality Stabilized Soil Blocks. 28 The target objective was officially revised from 30,000 to 19,000 for the first phase. 26 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes clearing, ploughing and planting of agricultural land. However, there are delays in proving shelter materials due to the aforementioned challenge. The activities packaged in the programme were meant to jump start the community to their normal life. Since all the activities were implemented within the programme period, the joint programme has been effective to enhance synergies for achieving results. All the basic social services have been put in place and started providing services. The support has enabled the community to start afresh with a great sense of hope. This coupled with a good rain and expected good harvest will improve their economic well-being. With the exception of shelter materials, the remaining goods and services had been delivered during the intended time frame, amount and quality expected to beneficiaries. It is very unlikely that the results produced could be achieved without a joint programme arrangement. The joint programme has created a forum to utilize the comparative advantages of every participating agency and partners involved in implementing the programme. Without, the resource pool and the commitment of the implementing partners, the joint programme would not have been able to realize its objectives. The prevailing Border situation constrained the implementation of the programme. Consequently, around 6,000 of the population could not be resettled in their place of origin. Rather, they were resettled in nearby, relatively secure, villages. This posed a challenge in the provision of permanent social services. The joint programme was a continuation of the on-going efforts of the Government. The joint programme has greatly promoted national ownership by consolidating the efforts of the Government29. The regional office along with other national organizations was the key player in the needs assessment and situational analysis of the IDPs, and in designing and implementing of the programme. Senior staff of the regional office chaired the technical committee. The Regional and Sub-regional offices have worked with great commitment and sense of ownership of the programme. The Regional Government has a positive view of the joint programme modality and encouraged UN agencies to work together for a maximum effectiveness. 4.5 Development Outcomes and Impact 4.5.1 Impact on institutions and systems capacities The benefits and achievements of the joint programme were the cumulative result of the efforts of the various partners involved in implementing and funding the joint programme. The joint programme has enhanced the development impact through the contribution of each partner. The package of activities in the joint programme has improved the livelihood of the IDPs. The development impact could only be attributed to the joint programme. 29 Although the government has relatively contributed more resources in this joint programme in comparison to the others, it does not, however, mean that the level of ownership was higher. In this joint programme, more government resource was required due to the fact that the needs of IDPs was great and UN agencies and donors could not fully cover it. 27 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes The joint programme has stretched the capacity of the implementing partners and weakened the existing local structures. The programme did not have a capacity building component. With limited capacity, the Regional Administration resources were deployed to ensure successful implementation of the programme. However, with the establishment and proper staffing of the PMU, the local structures will be strengthened. 4.5.2 Impact on poverty and sustainable development The joint programme contributed to addressing underlying causes of poverty by providing economic support to IDPs. This support comprised of clearing, ploughing and planting agricultural land, from which the IDPs will be getting their first harvest. The programme also provided basic social services, such as Education, Health, Water Supply, Shelter provision as well as Food Aid till the next harvest. The package of activities in the joint programme was all-inclusive and has improved the livelihood of target beneficiaries. This has enhanced development impact. Many of the activities in the joint programme will ensure long-term sustainable benefits to beneficiaries provided the services and assets are maintained properly. 28 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 5. Building Capacity to Effectively Develop and Implement Joint Programmes There was a UNCT/GoSE retreat on „Joint Programming and Simplification and Harmonization of Procedures (2003)‟ where senior staff of UN agencies and Government counterparts participated. Besides, workshops, such as Results Based Management (RBM) training and in UNDAF strategic planning retreat, training on joint programming/programme was presented to participants. This was part of the effort to mainstream the philosophy of joint programming/programme as a modality for implementing UN agencies‟ programmes. Moreover, most UN agencies have been receiving orientation, publications and materials on joint programming/programme from their respective Head quarters and/or UNDGO. With regard to the Guidance Note, the UN agencies did not face any specific issue that requires further clarification. Although the concept is familiar within the UN system, further training and refresher courses would still be needed to include programme officers of UN agencies. This will enable UN staff to have a deeper understanding of the modalities of joint programming/programme. National partners, who are the implementers, lack orientation/training on joint programming/programme and this has been identified as one of the weakness in the above joint programmes. In principle, the Government encourages UN agencies to design their interventions and carry them out in joint programmes to achieve a common goal by combining their resources. But, the understanding about joint programming/programmes among staff of Government institutions is very limited. Particularly, there is confusion on funding modality and management structure of a joint programme. Thus, further training and refresher courses are needed in light of the cumulative experiences on joint programmes. The training should be designed to include actual case studies of joint programmes. The actual joint programme process should be reviewed in light of the principles of joint programme to clarify the lessons learnt. Such approach would demonstrate the advantages and practicality of doing successful joint programmes. National partners should also participate so that the same level of conceptual understanding prevails on the modalities of joint programming/programme among all stakeholders. This will avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and facilitates undertaking joint programmes with the involvement of implementing partners. The JPSC played a key role in the overall follow up of the joint programmes. The joint programme managers got guidance from their respective JPSC to resolve technical problems and issues. For example, the revision of the youth component was discussed and approved by the JPSC. The UNCT has incorporated the lessons learned from the design and implementation of previous and ongoing joint programmes into the design of the current joint programmes. The weekly and monthly meeting of the UNCT was a forum where heads of agencies share information and experiences on issues related to joint programme. Besides, heads of agencies shared with each other on proposed joint programme areas on the UNCT meeting and received feed back for further development of the joint programmes. Moreover, it is in this meeting that agencies are requested to participate in a particular joint programme. 29 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 6. Comparison of the three joint programmes (JP-HIV/AIDS, JPNutrition and JP-Recovery30) The three joint programmes addressed the priority objectives of the UNDAF and were in line with national and sectoral priorities and policies. They were all need driven in the sense that the Government requested the support and intervention of UN agencies in the respective areas. Besides, beneficiaries also expressed their demands through the needs assessment conducted and other mechanisms. In three of them, implementing partners participated in the design and development of the joint programmes. As far as monitoring and evaluation is concerned, although the joint programme documents stipulated joint monitoring, only JP-HIV/AIDS managed to regularly conduct joint monitoring and field visits. Besides, there was no detailed monitoring and evaluation plan with specific performance indicators in all the joint programmes. With regard to the design of the joint programmes, relatively it was efficient in each of them due to the fact that the respective participating agencies had previous experience in the area. The activities were not as such new to the participating agencies, only the modality differed. There was no significant challenge with the exception of the little misunderstanding about the involvement of NUEYS in JP-HIV/AIDS. Besides, there was a rush in the design of JP-Recovery, which resulted in revising the target objective at later stage when implementation was about to begin. The funding arrangement of the three joint programmes was different. The JP-HIV/AIDS used the pooled funding while JP-Nutrition and JP-Recovery used a combination of pooled and parallel. Besides, JP-Nutrition did have the plan of using pass-through to mobilize additional fund jointly, but it did not materialize. The nature of the activities of the joint programme and the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies determined the choice of funding modality. In JP-HIV/AIDS, pooled funding mechanism was chosen because the participating agencies were working for common results with the implementing partners. In JP-Nutrition, in contrast, the participating agencies had a set of activities that they perform jointly with common national partner and also other activities they carry out on their own either with a common national partner or different national partners. Thus, a combination of pooled and parallel funding arrangement was suitable. Similarly, in JP-Recovery, funds from UNICEF and the donors were in the pooled fund with UNDP while WFP was in parallel funding arrangement. The latter arrangement was appropriate because only WFP was involved in food rationing. The implementation of the three joint programmes was coordinated and there was not any duplication and overlapping of activities among stakeholders. The roles and responsibilities in each joint programme were clearly defined. However, there have been delays in JP-HIV/AIDS and JP-Recovery because of various reasons and will be extended for more than six months. The JP-HIV/AIDS was administered by regular staff of UNFPA; whereas JP-Nutrition and JP-Recovery employed additional staff as part of the joint programme, which are the JPC and PMU staff (regional office) respectively. 30 Because of repetitive use, the three joint programmes in the review are abbreviated accordingly for convenience sake. 30 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Correspondingly, the reduction in transaction cost was significant in JP-HIV/AIDS because it was all pooled fund and there was not additional staff expenses. Likewise, there was also reduction is transaction cost in JP-Recovery as the share of the pooled fund was relatively big. In JP-Nutrition, however, almost the same transaction cost was incurred as both agencies continued interacting with the Government The joint programmes have achieved their stated objectives. The synergy of resources (both technical and financial) have resulted in greater effectiveness and maximized impact. The participation of agencies had a value added to the joint programmes. Besides, Government counterparts were actively involved in implementation of the joint programmes. As a result, there was high national ownership. Moreover, the joint programmes have promoted partnership and alliance among stakeholders. The benefits of the joint programmes were attributed to the contribution of each stakeholder in all the joint programmes. All participating agencies and implementing partners worked jointly for common results. As far as capacity building is concerned, however, only JP-HIV/AIDS and JP-Nutrition had contribution to the local partners in terms of trainings, equipment support and strengthening the management. Finally, the joint programmes have had significant initial impact as a result of the effective achievement of the desired output. However, the issue of sustainability has not been addressed in all the joint programmes. Comparatively, many of the outputs of JPRecovery could be sustainable provided they are properly managed. In contrast, both JPHIV/AIDS and JP-Nutrition were short-term interventions and have not produced significant sustainable outputs. 7. Lessons Learnt The review exercise focused on the above three joint programmes. The lessons learnt articulate generalizations based on individual joint programme experiences, and covers the process of designing and developing, implementation and performance, achievements and outcomes, and capacity building. 1. Joint programmes contributed to achieving the UNDAF strategic objectives. Besides, the RC/UNCT has facilitated the identification and development of joint programmes. Likewise, the RC/UNCT should continue playing a key role in identifying priority areas for joint programmes and ensure that joint programmes are an integral part of the UNDAF strategic planning. 2. The planning process needs to be very thorough and significant time should be invested in developing a joint programme. Detailed needs assessment with proper planning ensures the realization of the joint programme outputs. 3. The participating UN agencies and implementing partner(s) should sit together to design and develop a joint programme. Besides, all stakeholders including beneficiaries should participate in the needs assessment and in developing the objectives and work plan of the joint programme. 31 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 4. Joint programme facilitates coordination and smooth implementation if the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies and implementing partner(s) are clearly defined. This avoids duplication and overlapping of activities, which would further contribute to the reduction in transaction cost. 5. Detailed monitoring and evaluation plans with clear performance indicators should be put in place to monitor progress at various stages of the joint programme implementation. Organizing joint monitoring and field visits creates a forum for sharing experience and solving implementation problems. 6. Joint programme reduces transaction cost (staff time, resources) both for UN agencies and Government. However, the reduction in transaction cost is significant when pooled fund management is applied as one agency (MA) communicates with the implementing partner(s). 7. Joint programme benefits from the expertise of UN agencies and draws on the comparative advantage of agencies. The pooling of resources along with the technical expertise and complementarities of activities ensures efficient utilization of resources, guarantees effectiveness, and maximum impact. 8. The enforcing nature of the joint programme modality, particularly concluding the memorandum of understanding, imposes accountability on each participating agencies and implementing partner(s) to fulfill their roles and responsibilities. 9. Joint programme promotes partnership and alliance as all partners mobilize their resources and efforts, and work towards achieving a common objective(s). Notable collaborations in sharing information and resources have been demonstrated during implementation. 10. Training and orientation on joint programming/programme modalities is required for sub-national and national partners. The philosophy and scheme of joint programming/programme needs to be understood equally by implementing partners. Developing a common understanding among all parties is crucial in avoiding unnecessary conflicts and facilitating implementation. 11. Participating UN agencies should make due preparation for faster transfer of funds. Part of the challenge lies in the financial rules and arrangements of agencies. Thus, flexibility should be allowed in order to avoid unnecessary delays & extra costs associated with fund transfer. 12. The work plan and time frame need to be respected by all participating agencies and implementing partners. Unnecessary delays in implementation of activities dilute the advantages of concerted effort and complementarities. Besides, delays result in additional operational costs and lowers efficiency. 13. In designing joint programmes, sustainability of outcomes should be taken into consideration. Ensuring sustainability through capacity building and other mechanisms will maximize the impact. Besides, sustainable outputs and outcomes address the long term needs of beneficiaries once the joint programme phases out. 14. Joint programmes should strive towards joint programming rather than joint projects. The cumulative experience in implementing joint programmes would enable the UN meet the government's demand and also contribute to realizing the country's goals". 32 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Annex 1 No Name 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 List of persons consulted during the Review Position/Title Representative A/ Representative National Programme Associate Representative HIV/AIDS Coordinator Head, Heatth and Nutrition Chief of Water and Sanitation Head, Education Surgeon General Head, Health Services Coordinator Administrator, Military Hospital Coordinator Project Manager Deputy Project Manager Team Leader Representative Advisor, Disease Prevention & Control Country Director Deputy Country Director Head of Programme Programme Officer Director General Director General NATCoD, Director Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator & Resident Rep. Coordination Specialist National Programme Associate Senior Deputy Resident Representative A/Programme Coordinator Senior Programme Officer Reintegration Coordinator Project Coordinator Project Coordinator Director, Infrastructure Administrator, Laelay Gash Sub-Region Director General Director General Programme Assistant Institution UNFPA UNFPA UNFPA UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF Min. of Defence Min. of Defence Min. of Defence Min. of Defence NUEYS NUEYS NUEYS WHO WHO WFP WFP WFP WFP MoE MoH MoH United Nations RCSU RCSU UNDP UNDP UNHCR UNHCR Gash Barka Gash Barka Gash Barka Gash Barka WRD MoND UNAIDS Dr. Charlotte Gardiner Elisabeth Mengisteab Yordanos Mehari Dr. Pirkko Heinonen Yutaka Kikugawa Dr. Magdi Bayoumi Ram Koirala Simon Mphisa Dr. Haile Mehtsun Yemane Tsegai Tekeste Debessai Estifanos Habtemariam Osman Idris Elias Measho Selamawi Sium Dr. Andrew Kosia Dr Yohannes Ghebrat Jean-Pierre Cebron Richard Dalrymple Piet Vochten Patrick Texiera Musa Naib Dr. Zemui Alemu Dr. Andebrhan Tesfatsion Macleod Nyirongo, Yoseph Woldemichael Yodit Gebresellassie Bartholomew Nyarko-Mensah Negheset Hagos Jonathan Andrews Michael Mahrt Tsegai Tewoldemedhin Afeworki Russom Tekie Keleta Kahsai Asrat Mebrahtu Iyasu Kidane Tseggai Simret Amanuel 33 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Annex 2 Summary of Focus Group Discussions A. Prevention of HIV/AIDS among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defense Force and the National Service Corps 1. What were the main challenges to the development and design of the joint programme?  There was no major challenge in the process of designing. But,  NUEYS role was not clear initially and was perceived as representing ESMG.  UNICEF insisted that NUEYS play a key role as implementing partner.  NUEYS was mandate to implement the Youth component of the programme. 2. Is the distribution of roles and responsibilities of the various partners within the joint programmes well-defined? If yes, what has been the contribution to the results of the different partners?  The roles and responsibilities of the various partners was clearly defined.  It was respected as conceived in the project document.  UNICEF and UNAIDS were the participating agents and transferred their contribution to the managing agent.  They also participated in the JPSC, joint monitoring and provided technical expertise.  UNFPA was the managing agent and was responsible for the day to day followup, fund management and overall supervision of the programme.  EDF, ESMG and NUEYS were the implementing partners. 3. What were the major constraints in the process of implementation?  Delays in transfer of money from UNICEF to UNFPA.  Delays in transfer of money from UNFPA to implementing partners because of introduction of new financial software  Delays in the implementation of the Youth component due to late start and revision of the component activities  Delays on EDF to train change agents  The nature of the military‟s mobility has been a challenge  Delays in supplies and procurement  High cost of living and transport problem to change agents.  Demobilization of some change agents 4. How has the joint programme been more effective and enhanced synergies in achieving results in this (theme, geographic) area than previous initiatives that were not implemented under the joint programme framework?  There was more resources available for the joint programme.  Technical expertise of participating agencies was also an advantage. 5. Can development impact be yet attributed to the joint programme, as per result areas? (coverage, target groups etc). If yes, please describe.  The coverage of the EDF outreach was wide. 34 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes  The change agents have managed to reach a large section of the community.  The communities started to demand VCT services  The EDF members and National Service Corps have benefited from the regular awareness campaign programme.  Condom pouch is now part of the military attire.  The distribution of Condom is regular in all military units.  The military VCT centers have 5-6 visitors per day.  The Youth centers are equipped and are providing youth friendly services. 6. Could the same achievements and results have been produced without a joint programme arrangement?  It would be very difficult to achieve the same achievements and results without a joint programme.  The synergy of resources (both technical and financial) could only be realized in joint programme arrangement.  Previous UNFPA experience confirmed that such achievement is not possible. 7. How has the joint programme affected (strengthened, weakened, no change) existing national and local structures?  The joint programme has strengthened the capacity of implementing partners.  EDF management was strengthened through equipment support and the training of change agents.  The NUEYS also benefited in terms of equipment support for its youth centers.  Overall, the programme has significant capacity building component. 8. Did the joint programme have unintended consequences (on environment, beneficiaries, participation, agency or government counterpart relationship etc)?  The programme did not have any unintended consequences. 9. How did the joint programmes promote partnership and alliances around its result areas?  The implementing partners and UN agencies had a notable relationship.  There has not been any conflict and misunderstanding among all parties.  EDF created an enabling environment for ESMG to conduct its activities.  The focal person of UNICEF was closely involved and had frequent contacts with UNFPA staff.  All the parties were involved in planning, joint programme steering committee (JPSC) meeting and joint monitoring 10. What lessons do we learn for future joint programmes?  All stakeholders (UN agencies and national counterparts) should sit together to design the joint programme.  Funding rules and regulations has to be similar among UN agencies.  Working as joint programme has an added value. 35 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes  Government partners should be involved at all stages of the joint programme to ensure ownership.  It is very recommended that UN agencies move towards joint programme.  UN agencies can make bigger impact if they focus on outcome rather than adhering to their mandate.  Relieves local partners from demands of every agency.  It avoids overstretching of the local partner (s), because different agencies choose different areas of target.  The contribution of UN becomes more impactful.  The issue of sustainability should be considered when joint programmes are designed.  As much as possible implementing partners should abide by the time frame in the work plan. Delays result in unnecessary additional expenses. B. Food, Nutrition, Water and Sanitation, Humanitarian Response 1. What were the main challenges to the development and design of the joint programme?  The design of the joint programme was smooth and efficient, because of previous cooperation experience.  The design of the joint programme did not take long.  There was not major challenge. 2. Is the distribution of roles and responsibilities of the various partners within the joint programmes well-defined? If yes, what has been the contribution to the results of the different partners?  The roles and responsibilities were clearly defined in the programme document.  There was no duplication and overlap of activities.  The roles were complementary to each other. 3. What were the major constraints in the process of implementation?  There was not constraint in the process of implementation.  The implementation was smooth and completed on time. 4. How has the joint programme been more effective and enhanced synergies in achieving results in this (theme, geographic) area than previous initiatives that were not implemented under the joint programme framework?  The integrated work plan of the joint programme ensured that all the activities are completed on time.  The complementarities of the activities resulted in better outcomes.  The resource and technical expertise from both agencies enhanced synergies.  There was information sharing and collaboration between agencies. 5. Can development impact be yet attributed to the joint programme, as per result areas? (coverage, target groups etc). If yes, please describe. 36 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes  The UN agencies were involved in the planning and implementation of the programme.  They were also involved in the follow up of the delivery of the goods and services.  WFP through its regional offices followed the implementation of the activities under the parallel funding and those in the pooled funding.  UNICEF also monitored the implementation of the activities, particularly in therapeutic feeding and water trucking.  The local partners were the implementers of the joint programme activity.  MoH was responsible for the implementation of the health and nutrition related activities both at health service centers and head office.  MoE in close collaboration of UNICEF and WFP carried out the activities pertaining to students (school feeding and water trucking). 6. Could the same achievements and results have been produced without a joint programme arrangement?  The same achievements and results could have been produced without a joint programme in the sense of implementing the activities in the parallel funding arrangement .  Most of the activities were not new and have been delivered by the agencies for a while.  But results and impact are greater, when complementary activities are implemented in a coordinated way within a time frame.  For example, all-inclusive services (school feeding, water and sanitation etc) enhance the quality of education and increases retention of students. The same can also be said about therapeutic feeding and supplementary feeding.  The results from the activities done jointly by pooled funding could not be achieved without the joint programme arrangement. 7. How has the joint programme affected (strengthened, weakened, no change) existing national and local structures?  The joint programme has strengthened capacity of the Ministry of Health.  There was training for the staff regarding diagnosis of malnutrition.  The National Surveillance System was set up and surveys were done and analysed  Capacity building support regarding the National Plan of Action for Nutrition.  Equipment support (computers) to the Nutrition Unit. 8. Did the joint programme have unintended consequences (on environment, beneficiaries, participation, agency or government counterpart relationship etc)?  There was no unintended consequences whatsoever. 9. How did the joint programmes promote partnership and alliances around its result areas? 37 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes  Since all the parties (UN agencies and implementing partners) worked towards achieving a common goal, these concerted effort promoted partnership and alliances.  Working with one integrated work plan and participation in JPSC contributed to partnership.  During implementation, WFP field officers were informing UNICEF when therapeutic feeding centers ran out of supply F75 and F100.  There was information sharing with each other regarding Nutrition.  In addition, there was active involvement of PTA, school administrations, hospitals and health centers, the regional offices of both ministries and the regional and local administrations in programme implementation. 10. What lessons do we learn for future joint programmes?  Ensure the need for going to joint programme. It should not be an afterthought  Joint programme could be more suitable with long term programme objectives. Agencies have different planning horizon.  When a combination of fund is used, the pooled fund should cover a large share of the total budget. This could lead to a significant reduction of transaction cost.  Participating agencies should be active during implementation, particularly in pooled funding arrangement and assist the MA technically when needed.  If the joint programme entails the need for a focal person, he/she should be independent and full time.  Detailed monitoring plans with targets is needed to measure progress.  Implementing partners should be properly briefed and actively involved when a joint programme is initiated.  The joint programme should be part of a series of interventions on the priority area in order to enhance impact.  Some times, geographical focus is important for effective output and maximum impact.  Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be clearly defined and respected through the implementation period. C. Supporting return of IDPs and resettlement of expellees to Communities of Origin or Resettlement 1. What were the main challenges to the development and design of the joint programme?  The process was short and efficient.  However, due to urgency in preparing the programme, proper needs assessment of IDPs was not carried out.  Many crucial services, such as water supply and schooling, were overlooked.  Revising the programme components along with its budget has been the challenging part at later stage when implementation began.  The joint programme evolved to accommodate the extra demands and commended as an example of flexibility in programme management. 38 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 2. Is the distribution of roles and responsibilities of the various partners within the joint programmes well-defined? If yes, what has been the contribution to the results of the different partners?  The distribution of roles and responsibilities for each participating institution within the joint programmes were well-defined.  The work plan clearly shows which institution will be responsible for each activity within the joint programme.  During implementation, there was no overlap due to good coordination. 3. What were the major constraints in the process of implementation?  Delays in the supplies of materials for shelter, particularly the imported materials.  Difference of opinion between UNDP and Regional Administration about shelter provision.  Delays in staffing the PMU office in Gash Barka. 4. How has the joint programme been more effective and enhanced synergies in achieving results in this (theme, geographic) area than previous initiatives that were not implemented under the joint programme framework?  Since all the activities were implemented within the programme period, the joint programme has been effective to enhance synergies for achieving results.  The pooling resources and the participation of donors has enabled better resource availability.  Many stakeholders contributed their technical expertise. 5. Can development impact be yet attributed to the joint programme, as per result areas? (coverage, target groups etc). If yes, please describe.  The activities packaged in the programme helped the IDPs to jump start to their normal life.  All the basic social services have been put in place and started providing services.  The support has enabled the community to start afresh with a great sense of hope. 6. Could the same achievements and results have been produced without a joint programme arrangement?  It is very unlikely that the results produced could be achieved without a joint programme arrangement.  The joint programme has created a forum to utilize the comparative advantages of every participating agency and partners involved in implementing the programme.  Without, the resource pool and the commitment of the implementing partners, the joint programme would not have been possible to realize its objectives. 7. How has the joint programme affected (strengthened, weakened, no change) existing national and local structures?  As part of the joint programme, PMU office has to be set up at the Region to facilitate the implementation. 39 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes  But there were delays in staffing the PMU and the staff of the Regional Administration did most of the work.  The joint programme overstretched and weakened the capacity of the Regional Administration.  There was not training and equipment support.  Lately, a project coordinator was hired for the PMU and two additional staff will be hired soon (Engineer and Accountant). 8. Did the joint programme have unintended consequences (on environment, beneficiaries, participation, agency or government counterpart relationship etc)?  No unintended consequences. 9. How did the joint programmes promote partnership and alliances around its result areas?  All participating UN agencies, Government and Non-governmental institutions and donors actively participated in all aspects of the joint programme.  The whole process of the programme (design and implementation) has been done in a participatory approach where each party contributed its share in its area of expertise.  It was an exemplary programme in promoting partnership and alliance among all participating parties.  This joint programme witnessed the involvement of many stakeholders.  There was no conflict of interest and coordination was smooth. 10. What lessons do we learn for future joint programmes?  Joint programmes reduce transaction cost both for the UN and the government, particularly when the fund is pooled.  It is effective in achieving results due to synergies and maximizes impact.  It avoids duplication and overlapping of activities among UN agencies.  There was greater coverage due to resource pool.  There was sharing of information and expertise  Detailed needs assessment should be done before designing joint programmes to avoid unnecessary adjustment.  There is merging of strengths in joint programme.  There is greater accountability due to enforcing nature of joint programme modality.  The complementarities of activities of participating agencies would enhance impact for the beneficiaries.  Joint programmes should ensure adequate management (staff and facilities) commensurate to the task.  Timely transfer of committed fund to the Managing agent.  Timely procurement of supplies is needed to avoid delays.  There should be joint monitoring of activities with detailed performance indicators. 40 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Annex 3 Research questions and sources of information matrix I. Joint Programme Description Background and History 1. How was the Joint Programme initiated? Joint Programme Agreement/Framework Interview: RC/UNCT/Govt/Theme Group/ Other Stakeholders Interview: RC/UNCT/Govt/Theme Group/Other Stakeholders, Govt. Joint Programme Agreement/Framework Interview: RC/UNCT/Govt/Other Stakeholders, Govt. Interview: RC, UNCT, and Theme Group/Other Stakeholders Joint Programme Agreement/Framework/Results Matrix (?) Interview:RC/UNCT/Govt/Theme Group/Other Stakeholders Interview:RC/UNCT/Govt/Theme Group/Other Stakeholders Joint Programme Agreement/Framework/Results Matrix (?) Interview:RC/UNCT/Govt/Theme Group/Other Stakeholders Joint Programme Agreement/Framework Joint Programme Agreement/ Framework/Results Matrix (?) Interview:RC/UNCT/UN Agencies/Government Joint Programme Agreement/Framework Interview: RC/UNCT 2. 3. How did the Joint Programme evolve? Who were its main proponents? 4. What was the role of the RC, UNCT, and Theme Groups in the identification of the Joint Programme? Other stakeholders? What were the JP‟s stated objectives at the time it was set up? Objectives and Modality of the Joint Programme 5. 6. 7. What Have the JP‟s objectives evolved over time? How and why? What is the time frame in which the JP was expected to operate when it was established? Has this changed? Why? 8. 9. Which UN agencies are involved? What is the distribution of roles and responsibilities within the JP? Who is the managing/administrative agent? 10. What funding modality is being utilized (pooled, parallel, pass through or a combination)? What is the funding level? Sources of funding? II. Relevance and Coherence of Joint Programme Design and Development Selectivity: Identifying and defining the issue(s) requiring a joint programme Joint Programme 11. What are the main factors that contributed to the development Review: in of the joint programme? Did they originate as natural needs to Agreement/Framework combination with UN achieve the (UNDAF) outcomes? Development Framework Assistance 41 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 12. Is the Joint Programme aligned with national policies and strategies (PRSPs, SWAP, National Development Plans)? Partnership and Participation 13. Have local capacities been taken implementation of the joint programme? into account for Interview: RC/UNCT/Govt/Theme Group/Other Stakeholders, Govt. Review: Joint Programme Agreement/Framework in combination PRSP/SWAP/etc. the Review 14. What was the role of national authorities in the development of the joint programme? Joint Programme 15. What was the role of beneficiaries in the development of the Review Agreement/Framework/Results joint programme? Matrix Joint Programme Agreement/Framework/Results Matrix Interview: UNCT/ Civil Society stakeholders and/or beneficiaries/ Govt. Interview Government 16. How did the JP promote partnership and alliances around its result areas? Interview: UNCT/ Civil Society stakeholders and/or beneficiaries/ Govt. Interview all stakeholder groups Possible Focus Group Question Monitoring and Evaluation ** This section is optional – however, it is a useful section if the UNCT has determined that the review of the joint programme will inform an upcoming UNDAF evaluation, if the JP under review has a results matrix/indicators that can be discussed, and is a useful point of reference for section IV on Effectiveness (see below). Programme 17. Is the JP designed as a results-oriented, coherent and focused Joint Agreement/Framework/Results Programme? Matrix Programme 18. What are the monitoring and evaluation structures and processes at Joint Agreement/Framework/Results the various levels of the joint programme? Matrix Programme 19. Are there clear M&E performance indicators? Are the Joint Agreement/Framework/Results benefits/impacts of the joint programme tangible and measurable? Matrix Programme  20. Is there baseline data by which the outcomes and impact of the joint Joint Agreement/Framework/Results programme might be measured? Matrix  21. Are the expected outcomes of the Joint Programme realistic given its timeframe and resources? Joint Programme Agreement/Framework/Results Matrix III. Efficiency Joint Programme Design and Development 42 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 22. How long did the Joint programme process take (from Interview UN conceptualization to MoU)? What made the process especially UNCT and Govt. challenging, or more efficient? 23. Why was the (parallel, pooled, pass-through) funding mechanism chosen? What assumptions were made in choosing the funding mechanism? 24. How did partners determine which agency would serve as MA, AA etc? Were criteria and standard annexes in the Guidance Note used to a great extent for management purposes? Interview UN UNCT and Govt. Interview UN UNCT and Govt. Agencies/RC/ Agencies/RC/ Agencies/RC/ Joint Programme 25. Is the distribution of roles and responsibilities within the joint Review Agreement/Framework/Results programmes well-defined? Matrix Interview all Groups/Possible Focus Group Topic Interview all Groups /Possible Focus Group Topic 26. What were the main challenges to the development and design of the joint programme ? Joint Programme Implementation 27.  Have the institutional arrangement (roles and Interview UN responsibilities) been respected in the course of UNCT and Govt. implementation of the Joint Programme? To what extent and in what means has the Joint Interview UN Programme contributed to an increase or reduction of UNCT and Govt. transaction costs for the government and for each of the UN agencies? In what ways could transaction costs be further reduced? How has the Joint Programme contributed to reduced Interview UN duplication and overlapping of work among UN agencies UNCT and Govt. and partners? Agencies/RC/ 28.  Agencies/RC/ 29.  Agencies/RC/ 30. How has the Joint Programme improved leveraging of UN Interview UN Agencies/RC/ agency resources with government and donors, in the country? UNCT and Govt. and other donors/IFIs Govt./UN 31. How has the joint programme funding mechanism affected the Interview Agencies/RC/ UNCT amount of resources available to the country? 32. Have additional staff (local/international) been hired to Interview agencies/UNCT/RC administer the joint programme? 33. Could the same achievements and results have been produced Interview Agencies/RC/ UNCT at a lower cost (financial, staff time, personnel)? 34. How much funding has been available to government versus Interview UN UNCT and Govt. cost recovered by UN agencies? UN Govt./UN Agencies/RC/ 43 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 35. Have special cost-recovery rates been negotiated by UN Interview UN UNCT and Govt. agencies for the joint programme? If so, how? Agencies/RC/ 36. How have UN agencies remained visible under the Joint Interview RC/UN UNCT and Govt. Programme? Agencies/ 37. How has the Joint Programme ensured donor visibility? How can Interview Donor Groups/UN Agencies/RC/ UNCT and Govt. this be improved? 38. What have been the main challenges to the implementation of the joint programme? Interview all stakeholder Groups IV. Effectiveness & Value Added 39. To what extent has the program achieved, or is expected to achieve, its stated objectives, taking into account their relative importance? 40. How has the joint programme been more effective and enhanced synergies in achieving results in this (theme, Interview all stakeholders geographic) area than previous initiatives that were not Possible Focus Group Topic implemented under the joint programme framework? 41. Have the intended goods and services been delivered during the Interview intended time frame and amount and quality expected to Agencies/RC/ UNCT beneficiaries? Govt./UN 42. Could the same achievements and results have been produced Review Goals of Agreement/Framework without a joint programme arrangement? JP in Interview all Stakeholder Groups Possible Focus Group Question Interview Govt./UN Agencies/RC/ UNCT 43. To what extent was joint programme implementation constrained or facilitated by political, climatic, infrastructural or other factors? 44. Did the development of the Joint Programme promote national Interview Govt. and national stakeholders ownership? 45. How has the national government viewed the joint programme Interview Govt. and national stakeholders modality? Was there ready buy-in? V. Development Outcomes and Impact Impact on institutions and systems capacities 46. Can the benefits of the Joint Programme be attributed to the efforts Review roles and responsibilities of the various partners? If yes, what has been the contribution to the as conceived in the programme agreement results of the different partners? Interview all stakeholders 44 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Possible Focus Group Topic 47. Can development impact be yet attributed to the joint Interview all stakeholders programme, as per result areas? (coverage, target groups etc). Possible Focus Group Topic If yes, please describe. 48. How has the joint programme affected (strengthened, Interview all stakeholders weakened, no change) existing national and local structures? Possible Focus Group Topic 49. Did the joint programme have unintended consequences (on Interview all stakeholders environment, beneficiaries, participation, agency or government Possible Focus Group Topic counterpart relationship etc)? Impact on poverty and sustainable development  50. Has the joint programme contributed to addressing underlying Interview stakeholders involved problems or challenges? How is (did) the program adapting (adapt) in implementation of the JP itself to face any emerging challenges? 51. Has the joint programme modality enhanced development Interview beneficiaries impact for beneficiaries? Joint Programme 52. How is the joint programme defining, assessing, and ensuring long- Review Agreement/Framework/Results term sustainability of the programme‟s benefits? What are the Matrix programme‟s sustainability objectives? Interview Agencies  VI. Building Capacity to Effectively Develop and Implement Joint Programmes 53. What types of training/orientation on Joint Programmes/Guidance Interview UNCT/RC/relevant UN Note were provided in country? To whom? By Whom? Were they agency staff adequate? 54. Where do Joint Programme managers get guidance from to resolve Interview JP managers technical problems and issues? 55. How has the UNCT incorporated the lessons learned from Interview UNCT previous joint programmes into current joint programme design and implementation? (if relevant) 56. Have agencies/UNDGO (headquarters) provided adequate Interview relevant UN agencies guidance on joint programming arrangements? 57. Are partners adequately familiar with the Joint Programme Interview all relevant UN partners Guidance Note? 58. Does the Joint Programme Guidance Note address the issues Interview UNCT being dealt with at the national level? What other issues require clarification? 59. How would further guidance on Joint Programme best be Interview all relevant stakeholders communicated? 45 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Annex 3 Terms of reference for Local Consultant (GENERIC) Background and Justification With the aim to improve UN coordination, effectiveness and efficiency in supporting the realisation of national goals and outcomes, a number of reforms have been introduced to simplify and harmonise programming at the country level. These measures are intended to reduce transaction costs for governments, donors, and the UN, and strengthen how UN organizations31 programme jointly with Governments. The Secretary-General‟s 2002 agenda for further UN reform32 calls for increased joint programming and pooling of resources to further enhance the effectiveness of the United Nation‟s system in developing countries, and to ensure the system‟s combined resources are put to best use. Increasingly, national governments are requesting more efficient and effective work processes from the UN and partners, in order to rationalise the use of national resources and enhance development impact for the benefit of stakeholders. It is within this framework that UN agencies developed the Guidance Note on Joint Programming, to facilitate the development of joint programmes33, which was finalised in December 2003 and issued in 2004. Numerous UN Resident Coordinator Offices and UN Country Teams have requested documentation of joint programme experience and lessons learned to improve joint programme design and implementation. Many Country Teams are also struggling with the implementation of the joint programme Guidance Note and seek further technical support and guidance from UNDGO, and their respective agencies. This case study review of joint programme experience seeks to provide much-needed lessons learned and recommendations for the future design and implementation of joint programmes. UN agencies are also keen to document evidence of the efficiency and effectiveness of the joint programme funding modality. A number of donors noted during the First Regular Session of the 2005 UNICEF Board that joint programmes have not yet demonstrated that they are more efficient and effective and therefore, more evidence is needed. UNICEF and UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS have been requested to provide comprehensive reports to their Executive Boards on the implementation of joint programmes, and on the UNDG Joint Programming Guidelines “including information on experiences…and the resulting benefit in development impact or efficiency gains”34 at their Annual Session in June 2006. These Reviews of joint programme experience will be a key mechanism to filling this reporting requirement. 31 32 UN organizations include UN Funds and Programmes and Specialized Agencies. "Strengthening of the United Nations: An Agenda for further Change" Report of the Secretary-General, A/57/387, 9 September 2002, United Nations, New York 33 A joint programme is a set of activities contained in a common work plan and related budget, involving two or more UN organizations and (sub-) national partners 34 UNICEF Executive Board, 2005/3, First Regular Session. 46 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Aims and Objectives of the Review 4. To determine how Joint Programme are being used to contribute more efficiently and effectively to achieving national development results and national capacity building 5. To learn from the experience and process of the implementation of the Joint Programme(s) to inform the development of future joint programmes 6. To record the notable results or “development impact” of Joint Programmes (if this can be attributed/determined). It is expected that the results of the review will serve as:  guidance for the development of improved joint programming  a key input to the review of the Guidance Note on Joint Programming, in 2006  a key input for the development of a lessons learned document(s) and other materials on joint programme implementation for UNCTs and national partners  a key input to 2006 UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA Executive Board reporting requirements  as a potential research input to the country Annual Review and UNDAF evaluation  a basis for the enhancement of training and learning materials on Joint Programme(s) Specific Tasks            Identify Country Specific documents for review. Organise in-country logistics for the Review team, in collaboration with RC Office. Ensure Principal Consultant and UNDGO is kept abreast of evolving activities related to the Review Finalise key informant and focus group list of participants and coordinate activities with these participants Draft/Adapt Key Informant and Focus Group joint programme instruments (Guidance Sheets) specific to the joint programme and based on the Generic Review Questions in this Terms of Reference (in English). Finalise Key Informant and Focus Group joint programme instruments (Guidance Sheets) specific to the joint programme and based on the Generic Review Questions in this Terms of Reference (in English). Translate Focus Group discussion Guide and Key Informant Interview Guidance Sheets (as needed) Identify sub-national areas appropriate for Review, in collaboration RC Office, UNCT (as needed) Draft and finalise a country-level research workplan, in collaboration RC Office and Principal Consultant Presentation of Review Rational to UNCT (as needed tbd by the RC Office) Conduct and document Key Informant Interviews 47 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes    Moderate, tape-record and transcribe focus group discussions Provide assistance in translation of Key Informant Interviews (as needed) Draft and Finalise Country Report according to Report outline (TBD) Key Milestones and Deliverables of Local Consultant The Local Consultants are responsible for the following deliverables (shaded portion)  Presentation of Review Rational to UNCT (as needed tbd by the RC Office)  Country-Specific list of proposed documents to Review  Country-level key informant participants identified  Development of draft key informant and focus group interview instruments in English  Finalisation of key informant and focus group interview instruments in English  Translation of key informant and focus group interview instruments (as needed)  Development of Review Work plan  Focus Group/Key informant transcriptions  Presentation of preliminary Review findings to UNCT  Draft one of the Review Report  Final Report TABLE KEY MILESTONES/DELIVERABLES FOR THE REVIEW DATE Presentation of Review Rational to UNCT (with RC Office) Country-Specific list of proposed documents to Review Country-level key informant participants identified Development of draft key informant and focus group interview instruments in English Finalisation of key informant and focus group interview instruments in English Translation of key informant and focus group interview instruments (as needed) Development of Review Work plan Focus Group/Key informant transcriptions Presentation of preliminary research findings to UNCT Draft one of the Review Report Final Report A Table of the above Key Milestones/Deliverables and due dates will be developed for each joint programme Review. The Principal Consultant will monitor implementation progress. 48 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Accountabilities Local Consultant The Local Consultant will: - Provide key deliverables in a timely manner as noted in table above - Ensure Principal Consultant and UNDGO are kept abreast of evolving activities at the country level - Organise and manage logistic and administrative arrangements for the Review, with the support of the RC Office Expected Output - Comprehensive report including key inputs and recommendation to review the Guidance Note on Joint Programming; and - Lessons learned documents and other materials on joint programme implementation for UNCTs and National Partners. RC Office The RC Office will: - Advocate for joint programme Review with national stakeholders - Adapt Generic Local Consultant ToR according to local requirements - Identify and hire local consultant - Provide institutional Support to the Local Consultant - Facilitate partner contacts for the Local Consultant - Provide access to telephone to make in-country telephone calls - Facilitate logistic and administrative arrangements - Facilitate identification of country key informants - Facilitate relevant literature to consultant for desk review - Review draft Country Report and provide comments on report - Organise stakeholder partner meetings to for presentation of preliminary findings by Local Consultant - Review and comment on Draft Consolidated report of review findings written by Principal Consultant, in collaboration with UNCT and/or relevant agencies - Disseminate research findings at the country level Principal Consultant The Principal Consultant will: - Ensure high quality and consistency (quality assurance) to Review planning, methods, and reporting Provide key deliverables in a timely manner - Develop generic Outline of the Country Review Reports - Develop outline of Consolidated Report of 15 country Reviews - Assist with Country Work plan development - Develop key informant and focus group interview instruments based on generic Review questions 49 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes - Review and comment on all country adapted key informant and focus group instruments (Interview Guidance Sheets) - Develop a Master Work plan for 15 Country Reviews - Country specific key informant identification assistance/oversight - Coordinate and report on country logistics to UNDGO and JPWG - Correspond with and provide support to RC Offices regarding the Review, including drafting of emails, letters etc. - Troubleshoot as necessary, with local consultants, RC Office and UNDGO - Review and provide comments on 15 draft Review reports ensuring that Review Questions are answered and Report formats harmonised. (Consolidate the comments of UNDGO and JPWG in feedback to the Local Consultant) - Develop draft and final consolidated report of joint programme experience, lessons learned, and recommendations, based on 15 country review reports - Provide presentation of consolidated review findings to JPWG, UNDGO as requested - Ensure UNDGO and JPWG is kept abreast of evolving activities related to the Review UNDG Joint Programme Working Group - Identify candidate joint programmes and countries for Review - Contact Agency Representatives in selected countries to inform of Review - Engage in in-agency consultations on the Review Terms of Reference - Develop and provide comment on the Review Terms of Reference - Participate in the identification of Principal Consultant - Participate in selected Reviews (short Mission towards the beginning of implementation? Each agency will be responsible for own travel). - Provide comments on Country Reports (draft 1) - Provide comments on draft Consolidated Report of 15 country reports - Disseminate Review findings within agency (method and strategy TBD) for training and learning and improved joint programme design and implementation UN Development Group Office - Develop first draft of Terms of Reference - Identify candidate joint programmes and countries - Contact RC Offices and UNCT to advocate for review - Identify potential Principal Consultants to be considered by JPWG - Hire Principal Consultant - Provide access to telephone and video conference facilities to Principal Consultant, as necessary - Provide funding for country review exercise (amount to be specified, tbd) - Oversee logistical and coordination arrangements with Principal Consultant - Keep JPWG abreast of developments, in collaboration with Principal Consultant - Participate in selected Reviews (Short mission towards the beginning of implementation)? - Provide comments on country reports (draft 1) - Provide comments on draft consolidated report of 15 country reports - Disseminate Review findings within agency (method and strategy TBD) for training and learning and improved joint programme design and implementation 50 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Candidate Profile  Ability to speak local language(s)  High proficiency in ability to speak, read and write in English  Experience in qualitative research methods (key informant interviews and focus groups)  Experience in managing and conducting social science research  Experience working with government entities, NGOs and CBOs  Very good knowledge of local socio-political situation and policy context  Ability to problem solve, work independently and meet deadlines  Masters degree required  Good communication skills at all levels and particularly in the work area. I.1 Duty Station, Duration and Condition of Employment The consultant will be posted in Asmara, Eritrea. The assignment is for a period of 1month, and the incumbent will be contracted by the UNDP through UNDGO/JP Review Resources. Remuneration will consistent with a candidate‟s level of experience, education and training. 51 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes Annex 4 Bibliography (Reviewed Documents) 1. Common Country Assessment (CCA) 2001, Asmara, Eritrea. 2. Guidance Note on Joint Programming, United Nations Development Group, 19 December 2003. 3. Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP), GSE, April 2004, Asmara. 4. Interim Programme Narrative Report: Focusing on the return of Adi keshi IDPs (Joint Programme: Supporting return of IDPs and Expellees to communities of origin or resettlement), Asmara. 5. Joint Programming and Simplification and Harmonization of Procedures (Proceedings of GSE/UNCT Retreat), 15-16 September 2003, Asmara. 6. Memorandum of Understanding for Pooling as Fund Management Option between UNDP and UNICEF. 7. Memorandum of Understanding for Pooling as Fund Management Option between WFP and UNICEF. 8. Memorandum of Understanding for Pooling as Fund Management Option between UNFPA and UNICEF. 9. Prevention of HIV/AIDS Among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defense Force and the National Service Corps: Annual Progress Report (January-December 2004) 10. Prevention of HIV/AIDS Among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defense Force and the National Service Corps: Annual Progress Report (January-June 2005) 11. Strengthening of the United Nations: An agenda for further change; Report of the Secretary General, A/57/387, September 2002, United Nations, New York. 12. Supporting the Eritrean Defense Force HIV/AIDS Outreach Activities in the Community. 13. UNDP-UNICEF-WFP Joint Programme Document: Supporting return of IDPs and Expellees to communities of origin or resettlement. 14. UNFPA-UNICEF-UNAIDS Joint Programme Document: Prevention of HIV/AIDS among the Eritrean Youth, the Eritrean Defense Force and the National Service Corps. 15. United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2002-2006, Eritrea. 16. WFP-UNICEF Joint Programme Document: Food, Nutrition, Water and Sanitation Humanitarian Response (2004-2005) 17. WFP-UNICEF Joint Programme for „Food, Nutrition, Water and Sanitation Humanitarian Response (2004-2005)‟: Evaluation Report, 2005, Asmara. 52 ERITREA- Review of Three Joint Programmes 53