OCHA s Management Response Plan (MRP) to the Global Evaluation of Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) Date: 9 August 2013

Transcription

1 OCHA s Management Response Plan (MRP) to the Global Evaluation of Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) Date: 9 August 2013 Prepared by: Juan Chaves and Sanjana Quazi Position: Humanitarian Affairs Officers Unit/Bureau: Funding Coordination Section Cleared by: Shoko Arakaki Position: Chief of Section Unit/Bureau: Funding Coordination Section Tracked by: Sanjana Quazi Position: Humanitarian Affairs Officers Unit/Bureau: Funding Coordination Section Overall comments: Overall, the evaluation s recommendations are accepted by OCHA. Furthermore, OCHA welcomes the classification of recommendations (by type and importance) as a useful framework to organize, implement and monitor progress of the MRP over time. Evaluation Recommendation 1: OCHA needs to clarify whether the ERF mechanism is a global priority; if so, OCHA should more clearly articulate how it relates to CERF and clusters and should allocate additional resources at the country level. Recommendation 1 is classified as both strategic and urgent to implement on the basis of an observed lack of awareness and even misunderstanding about where the ERF mechanism fits in the humanitarian architecture at both the global and country levels ; which was believed by evaluators to be sufficiently widespread to pose a considerable strategic risk to OCHA. Moreover, the evaluators noted that the management of ERFs requires tasks that vastly exceed simple grant administration ; and therefore suggested that OCHA should determine whether the ERF mechanism is part of OCHA s core business and look into options to increase the resources allocated for the management of the ERFs at the country level. Humanitarian financing is part of OCHA s core functions and country-based pooled funds, alongside with the CERF, are at the centre of OCHA s capacity to deliver on its mandate to support a coordinated humanitarian response. Furthermore, over the past two years, there have been SMT discussions where the ERF mechanism has been ratified as a corporate priority. The SMT endorsement of the Global ERF Guidelines in September 2012 (signed into effect by USG Valerie Amos in October 2012), is a clear demonstration of the importance attached to the ERF mechanism at the global and strategic level. The cover note accompanying the Global ERF Guidelines highlighted OCHA s experience of 15 years managing ERFs in 23 countries, as well as the consultative manner in which the Guidelines had been produced. Therefore, the Guidelines themselves represent a global effort to invest in the future of the mechanism based on lessons learned, best practices and expectations gathered throughout the years from different stakeholders. This recommendation is understood as the need for OCHA to continually revisit and ensure that the ERF mechanism is fit for purpose, and that ERFs are equipped with the right policy and resources to ensure they are well managed Formulation and inclusion of the ERF mission statement in the Global ERF Guidelines, and endorsement by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT). As part of the 2013 revision of the Global ERF Guidelines, FCS will support the preparation of OCHA s SLT discussion to clarify and specify in what way is the ERF mechanism a global priority, including how the ERF mechanism contributes to strengthening the humanitarian system, and decide if additional By 3Q 2013 SLT with FCS support (including internal and external consultations) 1.1. The revised Global ERF Guidelines will be submitted for SMT endorsement in Revisions progressing. An independent consultant hired to conduct the humanitarian financing mapping study which will inform the fit-for-purpose of the ERF mechanism

2 guidance needs to be put in place to allocate additional resources at the country level to support their management and operation. in the broad humanitarian financing architecture. The outcomes of the study will be presented to the SMT in Evaluation Recommendation 2: OCHA should clarify the focus of the ERF mechanism (where the ERF fits ): an emergency response mechanism versus a tool to promote longer-term resilience building. Recommendation 2 is classified as both strategic and urgent to implement on the basis of the need for clarity of programmatic focus observed by evaluators. Whereas recommendation 1 is about ratifying ERFs as a priority and allocating sufficient resources to manage them properly; recommendation 2 is about addressing the concern that OCHA has not identified priorities or a focus for the ERF mechanism. The evaluators note that the use of the ERF in some countries to support resilience building, which may point to the flexibility of the ERF as a mechanism, is indicative of this lack of programmatic focus (...) hindering the ability of some ERFs to meet actual emergency needs. Furthermore, evaluators found the need to clarify where the ERF fits in terms of the timeliness of the response. This recommendation is understood as the need to more clearly define the programmatic boundaries and priorities of ERFs, re-examining if ERFs operate in timely and effective enough manner vis-à-vis those priorities. The evaluators also took note of the flexibility of the ERF mechanism and are mindful of the country-based nature of these Funds. Therefore these elements should also be considered when reviewing the focus of the ERF mechanism OCHA will commission a study to map humanitarian financing mechanisms. The findings of this exercise will inform a clear recommendation regarding the programmatic focus of the ERF mechanism, which will be subsequently presented to the SLT for review and endorsement. By 4Q 2013 FCS 2.1. An independent consultant hired to conduct the humanitarian financing mapping study which will inform the programmatic scope of the ERF mechanism as well as the fit-for-purpose of the mechanism in the broad humanitarian financing architecture. The outcomes of the study will be presented to the SMT in Evaluation Recommendation 3: OCHA should issue policy guidance on the strategic rationale that may underpin the opening of an ERF and its subsequent closure, and review viability and relevance of all current ERFs. Recommendation 3 is classified as both strategic and urgent to implement. Evaluators acknowledge the existing guidance on the opening and closure of ERFs that is part of the ERF Guidelines. However, the evaluators considered this guidance to be mostly driven by operational and practical parameters. Therefore, this recommendation is understood as the need for OCHA to consider more strategic criteria, particularly for the establishment of ERFs. It is also understood that OCHA will henceforth review the viability and relevance of ERFs, relying on the guidance for opening and closure of ERFs as one of the instruments facilitating OCHA s decision to open, maintain, grow or close a Fund.

3 3.1. OCHA will review and update the guidance notes on the opening and closure of ERFs, maintaining the existing principles while elaborating on the more strategic criteria and the role of the SLT in endorsing decisions to open or close a Fund. The revised guidance note will also take into account recommendation 2 so as to determine when an ERF needs to be opened or closed considering whether the programmatic focus is fit for purpose On the basis of existing policy and guidance, as well as direct observation through field missions, compliance tools, routine follow-up and consultation with CRD, FCS will conduct a fund-by-fund review twice a year. The recommendation to close, maintain, scale down or grow individual ERFs will be passed on to the SLT for review. The fund-by-fund reviews will be documented and tracked by FCS. By 3Q 2013, aligned to Global ERF Guidelines revision. FCS, and SLT (information will be shared with SMT) Continuous (every six months), first by 2Q 2013 FCS and SLT (information will be shared with SMT) 3.1. As part of the guiding documents to the revised Global ERF Guidelines, OCHA has improved the opening and closure guidance notes which have informed senior managers at country and headquarters (HQ) level on the establishment and phasing out of Funds. So far in 2013, this has guided the closures of ERFs in DRC, Indonesia, Kenya, and Zimbabwe, the Fund transformation in Afghanistan, and scoping missions on the potential of creating Funds in Niger and Mali FCS conducts regular fund-by-fund reviews to further inform and advise SLT on the status of each CBPF. Evaluation Recommendation 4: OCHA HQ should seek additional donors for ERFs and strongly encourage Heads of Office and HCs to do so at the country level. Recommendation 4 is classified as both strategic and desirable to implement. The evaluators noted OCHA s limited capacity to secure predictable contributions from donors poses a realistic risk at the country level where continuity from year to year can be called into question if donors only chose to, or can only make annual commitments. The recommendation is thus understood as the need for OCHA to have clearer guidance on resource mobilization, whereby country-level and HQ roles are coordinated and mutually supported Develop and implement a resource mobilization framework and strategy for ERFs. The RM framework has been jointly developed by DRS and FCS. Once endorsed, the RM framework needs to be translated into a strategy and implementation plan by the OCHA Head of Office/CO in support of the respective HC. By 3Q 2013 PRMB-DRS, FCS, COs, PSB and CRD 4.1. OCHA defined its resource mobilization efforts for country-based pooled funds with a restructured internal division of labor of headquarters (HQ) and field offices and the appointment of a resource mobilization and public information lead in FCS. OCHA will finalize the CBPF Resource Mobilization Framework by end 2013 to interlink with the existing CBPF PI Strategy. OCHA will continue to develop targeted and country specific fundraising strategies and plans for relevant pooled funds.

4 Evaluation Recommendation 5: OCHA should consolidate in New York all ERF-related functions including the HQ review and approval of grant applications, but excluding the fiscal responsibility for disbursement. This recommendation is classified by the evaluators as operational and urgent to implement. It stems from the recognition that the ERF mechanism has been in a state of evolution for the last four to five years with the present structures in New York and Geneva only in place for the last two years. In light of this, OCHA accepted that the option of consolidating HQ programme and administrative support functions to ERFs in the same location and under a more direct line of managerial accountability has the potential to improve risk management, streamline and ensure consistency of HQ support to ERFs throughout the project cycle. This recommendation is understood as the need for OCHA senior management to assess the benefits and decide whether HQ support functions to ERFs are best consolidated in New York. Given that the recommendation has multiple implications for the organisation including on the fiscal responsibility for disbursements and the need to ensure proper internal controls and appropriate segregation of duties are in place between programme and finance functions, the key planned follow up action has been designed accordingly to ensure a detailed evidence based review is undertaken OCHA will commission a consultant to draw out an implementation plan to consolidate HQ support functions to ERFs in New York. The findings and recommendations of the review will be addressed to the SLT for final decision and endorsement. By 4Q 2013 SMT (CPD Director commissioning and oversight of the review) 5.1. OCHA commissioned an independent consultant to review the consolidation of all ERF-related functions to New York. Findings of the review will be presented to SMT in Evaluation Recommendation 6: More work needs to be done to improve the clarity of criteria for project selection vis-a-vis longer term remedial and recovery initiatives, and to enable ERFs to adapt approval/review processes to local conditions. Specific areas for improvement should include alternative approaches to workflow that would enable larger ERFs to be more transparent. Management Response: Partially accepted: the workflow laid out in the ERF Guidelines ensures transparency in three ways: (i) ERFs are activated by demonstrated needs/critical gaps, not by project proposals; (ii) project proposals are developed in close consultation and collaboration with clusters and field staff before they are submitted to OCHA; and (iii) all projects undergo a technical review (Review Board) that involves an interaction between reviewers, applicants and clusters, giving ample opportunity within a reasonable time frame for adjustments before the RB issues a recommendation on the approval of a proposal. The ERF Guidelines are broad and flexible when it comes to the detailed functioning of the RB. Functions are broadly described, while specific project selection criteria and RB decision-making mechanisms are developed at the country level. OCHA is aware of different modalities/variations in the field related to the review and approval process, ranging from virtual reviews via , to in-person sessions (encouraged by the Guidelines) of the RB where the applicant may even need to be present to describe and defend their proposal. Regardless the modalities, the review process fits within the broad workflow included in the Guidelines. However, OCHA is willing to consider ways in which the workflow can be simplified to have significant gains in speed, timeliness and efficiency, without compromising transparency and accountability. This recommendation is classified as both operational and important to implement. The first part is linked to recommendation 2 on the programmatic focus (i.e. whether and to what extent resilience building should be part of the ERF focus). Two routes are proposed: OCHA either (i) clarifies what is the global approach and sets a detailed focus as part of the ERF Guidelines, or (ii) sets the broad direction in the ERF Guidelines and allows for advisory boards at the country level to articulate the local meaning of this broad guidance on an annual basis, allowing for a country based project selection criteria..

5 The second part of the recommendation points in the direction of allowing alternative approaches to the workflow as laid out in the ERF Guidelines, arguing that bigger funds dealing with a larger volume of proposals warrant a more transparent and interactive process ( ) so as to guard against the fragmentation of the Fund. It is understood from this recommendation that OCHA needs to include additional guidance on the programmatic focus of ERFs as part of the ERF Guidelines and revisit the workflow, drawing on field experiences among the smaller, mid-sized and bigger funds OCHA will review the existing practice with fund managers during the Global Pooled Fund Management Workshop of 2013 and agree upon additional elements that will be included in the revised Global ERF Guidelines regarding the project selection criteria and admissibility of variations to the workflow. These changes will be verified and reassessed by the next external global evaluation. By 3Q of 2013 FCS, SMT revised Guidelines) 6.1. The ERF Workflow has been simplified and OCHA has revised the timeframes in each step of the project proposal review, approval, and fund disbursement. The ERF Workflow has also taken strongly into account increased NGO membership in the Fund governance and review Boards to further increase transparency of the funding process. The revised Global ERF Guidelines will be submitted for SMT endorsement in Evaluation Recommendation 7: More work needs to be done to strengthen the roles of Review and Advisory Boards. Recommendation 7 is classified as both operational and desirable to implement. Evaluators observed that even though the Guidelines articulate the roles of the Advisory Board and Review Board, the reality of most of the present ERFs is that the Advisory Board is only tangentially engaged and many of the Review Boards conduct their business via the internet. Therefore, the absence of actively engaged and working bodies has weakened the effectiveness and has resulted in the perception about its lack of relevance in some environments. The evaluators also noted that these bodies are not sufficiently examining performance related issues as part of their role. Two concrete corrective measures recommended by the evaluators are: (i) including in the Guidelines that the AB shall meet at least twice a year; and that (ii) the RB, in addition to the review of project proposals (regardless if it is done electronically or in person) meets at least twice a year to discuss project selection issues, strategic direction for the ERF, emerging challenges and other such issues which may influence their eventual project selection choices. Although the first corrective measure is included in the Guidelines, it is understood from this recommendation that OCHA needs to apply greater efforts in supporting the functioning of the AB and RB OCHA will review the existing practice with fund managers during the Global Pooled Fund Management Workshop of 2013 and agree upon additional elements that will be included in the revised Global ERF Guidelines regarding the functioning of the Advisory Board and the Review Board, particularly considering the concrete suggestions provided by the evaluators. These changes will be verified and By 3Q 2013 FCS, SMT revised Guidelines), CO 7.1. The revised guidelines will have an addition of a strategic guidance document (the ERF Strategy Paper) for the HC, OCHA, and the Fund Advisory Board to steer the direction of the Fund on a bi-annual or asneeded basis; revised composition of the

6 reassessed by the next external global evaluation. Fund Boards, including mandatory inperson meetings of the Review Board to discuss project proposals; and the development of a project appraisal tool which must be utilized in funding decisions. The revised Global ERF Guidelines will be submitted for SMT endorsement in Evaluation Recommendation 8: OCHA should review the adequacy of resources provided to the ERF mechanism at the country level, by means of a country level needs assessment. Moreover, OCHA should stipulate that the performance of the ERF will be explicitly considered in the annual performance assessment of the Head of Office. Management Response: Partially accepted: part of the recommendation is to apply a bottom-up approach to determine the staffing needs of individual ERFs as opposed to dictating a generic rule or staffing profile for say small, medium and large ERFs. When considering this recommendation, it will nonetheless be necessary that OCHA determines a global standard on how minimum staffing needs for ERFs are determined and fulfilled. If size is a reasonable parameter, then the standard will explain how minimum staffing needs shall vary from smaller to larger Funds. A county-based request for more or less staff to manage a given Fund can be considered supported by a solid justification. Recommendation 8 is considered both operational and desirable to implement. The recommendation underlines that a very clear series of strategic level directions are communicated to the Heads of Office about the importance of the ERF mechanism. The recommendation is understood as complementary to recommendation 1 in what relates to allocating sufficient resources for the management and operation of ERFs. It is accepted with the caveat that staffing needs cannot be solely determined on the basis of a country-based analysis (referred to as needs assessment by the evaluators), but primarily through some kind of global standard or set of criteria. The second part of the recommendation is understood as the need to establish a clearer line of accountability and performance monitoring for HoOs in what relates to their role as supervisors of the management and operation of the ERF mechanism OCHA will work on a staffing profile for ERF units considering critical factors such as size of the Fund, average number of projects funded on a yearly basis, and operational context, as well as the financing modalities to cover the costs of ERF-related staff. The staffing profile will be submitted for SMT review and final decision OCHA will review the roles and responsibilities of the HoO (see recommendation 10) and revise the standard HoO terms of reference accordingly. Thus, the HoO performance as it relates to the management and supervision of the ERF will become part of the epas. The Country Based Pooled funds Overview Reports produced by CRD will also help monitor the management role of the HoO. Initiate by 4Q 2013 By 4Q 2013 FCS and CRD FCS and CRD 8.1. OCHA will further develop the standard staffing profile for ERF and CHF units in country offices in 1 st quarter The Country-Based Pooled Fund Overview Report developed by CRD, which reinforces OCHA Heads of Offices responsibilities in management of the pooled funds, is under implementation.

7 Evaluation Recommendation 9: At the country level, OCHA should allocate more resources to orient /coach applicants, especially NNGOs, to the requirements of the ERF process. Recommendation 9 is classified as both operational and desirable to implement on the basis the recognition that for the ERF to attain its goal of increasing partnership and building capacity, some degree of support needs to be provided at the country level to better orient potential applicants and to work with them to improve their understanding of the application process and therefore indirectly increase their capacity. Therefore, this recommendation is understood as the need for OCHA to consider this task as part of the standard function of ERF units Regarding the more dedicated support to implementing partners (i.e. coaching), OCHA will review the roles and responsibilities of the ERF Unit in the 2013 revision of the Global ERF Guidelines, as well as in the standard Fund Manager terms of reference. This means that fund managers will have to have skills in planning and programme design. Thus, the Fund Manager performance as it relates to support to implementing partners will become part of the epas. By 3Q 2013 FCS, SMT revised Guidelines) 9.1. Revisions on the responsibilities of OCHA field offices to support NGO partners through the project cycle, are incorporated in the revised guidelines and in the revised generic Terms of Reference of Pooled Fund Manager. The revised Global ERF Guidelines will be submitted for SMT endorsement in Evaluation Recommendation 10: OCHA should strengthen the Head of Office s management responsibility for the ERF. Recommendation 10 is classified as both strategic and urgent to implement. Although it is linked to recommendation 8, this recommendation focuses on reconsidering the responsibilities of HoOs vis-à-vis the overall management of the ERF mechanism. In this regard, evaluators noted that It is reasonable to begin to explore whether the HC has a role as an administrator (exercising management responsibility) or whether the HC s role with respect to the ERF is more tangentially linked to high level matters. In that context, and if ERF is to be managed by OCHA and OCHA is to be held accountable for ERF, it would seem logical that the management responsibility for in-country project approval be OCHA s Head of Office. More importantly, transferring the management responsibility from the HC to the HOO would set lines of managerial accountability within OCHA and enable OCHA s senior management to more directly link the ERF process with overall OCHA priorities. It is understood from this recommendation that OCHA needs to revisit the extent to which OCHA s management of the ERF mechanism on behalf of the HC could be improved in terms of operational efficiency and accountability if the management responsibility is transferred to the HoO. If this is the case, then the HoO role (and by default the HC role) will need to be adjusted and reflected in the Guidelines OCHA examined the extent to which the ERF management responsibility of the HoO can be strengthened during the 2013 Global Pooled Fund Management Workshop. The results are being introduced By 3Q 2013 FCS and CRD, SMT revised Guidelines) The Country-Based Pooled Fund Overview Report developed by CRD, which reinforces OCHA Heads of Offices

8 in the 2013 revision of the Global ERF Guidelines. In addition, the Country-Based Pooled Fund Overview Report will be piloted in one ERF country. responsibilities in management of the pooled funds, is under implementation. Evaluation Recommendation 11: OCHA needs to specifically earmark funds for communications-related activities in order to improve awareness and transparency. Specifically, the ERF Guidelines should be translated into French and Arabic. Management Response: Partially accepted: the part of the recommendation suggesting the translation of key ERF documentation into French and Arabic is well accepted. In terms of communication and public information, OCHA has a dedicated website on humanitarian financing linked to specific ERF country websites which, altogether, provide ample opportunity to showcase country-specific terms of reference, reports, human interest stories and material intended for guidance and public information in general. It should be noted that ERFs, as part of the OCHA Country Office (CO), should work collaboratively with the information management units and other staff with PI and communications responsibilities to ensure that ERF related activities are factored into the broader communication activities of the CO. Furthermore, the ERF mechanism is continually discussed in existing coordination mechanisms that have the participation of relevant national and international actors, such as the Humanitarian Country Teams (HCTs), clusters, sub-national coordination mechanisms, and other fora. Therefore, rather than framing this challenge from a financial perspective, OCHA will focus on building on existing capacity and resources to improve communications and PI gaps through an ongoing PI strategy for ERFs. Recommendation 11 is classified as both operational and desirable to implement. In regards to the resources for communications and PI, evaluators documented that staff of several ERFs pointed out that while they had had plans for more broad outreach and communications activities, recent budget cuts along with restricting monitoring missions eliminated outreach activities to a degree. As explained above, this may also be indicative of the challenge to articulate the ERF to other parts and activities of the OCHA CO, as well as the need to maximize the utility of existing capacity and resources such as global and country-level websites. Evaluators also noted the impact of the presently unilingual documentation English. If one of the objectives of the ERF is to strengthen NGO capacity at the national and local level so they can become more effective partners, OCHA s unilingualism was identified by stakeholders world-wide as an irritant and as a barrier. Some indicated that this English-only approach led to delays due to some partners lacking English language skills and thus presenting inadequate proposals. Furthermore, evaluators made the point that the absence of French and Arabic language documentation, given the degree of the usage of French in Africa and the likelihood of ERFs being called upon in the future to address chronic disaster situations in French and Arabic-speaking African countries, is a considerable impediment to the ERF process potentially being responsive. This recommendation is therefore understood as the need for OCHA to capitalize on existing capacity and resources to fill communications and PI gaps, as well as to prioritize the translation of key ERF documentation into French and Arabic OCHA will ensure that country specific websites are in place and updated, linked to the global ERF website nested in and continue to reach out to national and international actors in country through existing coordination mechanisms to ensure awareness and knowledge of the ERF mechanism, as well as continuous feedback from key stakeholders OCHA will make key ERF documents available in French and Arabic, By 4Q 2013 By 4Q 2013 CPD (FCS, ISB) and COs CPD (FCS and ISB) OCHA continues to develop its global CBPF website located on OCHA s official corporate site, through which all county specific websites may be accessed in an interactive global map. OCHA continues to ensure country specific websites are updated. OCHA will work with country offices to further outreach on CBPF at the field level The revised Guidelines will be

9 including the Global ERF Guidelines and some of its main annexes. translated, upon SMT endorsement in Evaluation Recommendation 12: OCHA should set performance standards for project monitoring that would over a three year period rise to 100% compliance. Management Response: Partially Accepted on the basis that OCHA will introduce a monitoring and reporting framework for ERFs as part of the Guidelines where monitoring will be mostly done through field visits to project sites. It is unrealistic that given the available time and resources, as well as access constraints and other operational limitations, the coverage of field monitoring will be 100%. However, a reasonable target based on the existing practice is to at least ensure 70% coverage through field monitoring, while the remainder portion will be remotely monitored through indirect means of observation. Recommendation 12 is classified as both performance management and important to implement. Evaluators acknowledge that achieving a rate as close to 100% as possible of monitoring can only be accomplished over the course of several years. Thus, it is not reasonable to recommend immediate full compliance, possibly adding 30-40% monitoring workload over a year. This is partially accepted on the basis of the explanation provided above. Even with unlimited resources, the nature of the context where ERFs operate is bound to access constraints and different kinds of limitations. Therefore, it is more reasonable to set a conditional target whereby at least 70% of projects are monitored. Evaluators also highlight the need for country specific monitoring plans as a responsibility under the HoO. Therefore, it is understood from this recommendation that OCHA needs to put in place a monitoring and reporting framework for ERFs that considers the level, modality, resources, roles and responsibilities and coverage of the monitoring; and that this framework is implemented through country specific monitoring plans OCHA will put in place and start the implementation of a monitoring and reporting framework for ERFs as part of the 2013 revision of the Global ERF Guidelines. The implementation of the M&R framework will be done through country-specific M&R plans under the supervision of the HoO. Country Offices will report on the levels of compliance with the monitoring standards set forth in the M&R framework as it is adopted. Initiate by 3Q 2013 FCS, CO (HoOs, Fund Managers), SMT revised Guidelines) OCHA on track with the roll-out of the ERF monitoring and reporting (M&R) framework in 3 rd quarter 2013 which includes assessment of the number/type of beneficiaries affected by/impacted by the project to ensure coherence of data across the Funds. Evaluation Recommendation 13: OCHA, as part of the revision of the ERF Guidelines in 2013, should more explicitly indicate that project monitoring must include assessment of the number/type of beneficiaries affected by/impacted by the project; and that end of project reports explicitly require the same data. Recommendation 13 is classified as both performance management and important to implement on the basis of findings by evaluators on how project documentation contains numerous gaps with respect to probably the most important consideration that can affect an ERF who did it actually benefit. Evaluators recommend that these gaps are addressed in the 2013 revision of the Guidelines. The recommendation is understood as the need to adopt a common approach to the demographic break down and description of beneficiaries of projects throughout the project cycle (i.e. planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting) OCHA will apply a common approach to the demographic break down and description of beneficiaries of ERF projects throughout the Initiate by 3Q 2013 FCS, SMT OCHA on track with the roll-out of the ERF monitoring and reporting (M&R)

10 project cycle. This approach will follow from the adoption and mainstreaming of the IASC principles on accountability to affected populations (AAP) as part of the Transformative Agenda. Therefore, additional guidance and modifications will be introduced in the 2013 revision of the Global ERF Guidelines. Changes will be agreed upon during the 2013 Global Pooled Fund Management Workshop, particularly in what relates to: The project selection criteria (see recommendation 6); The M&R framework (see recommendation 12); And modifications to the project proposal, monitoring and reporting templates. revised Guidelines) framework in 3 rd quarter 2013 which includes assessment of the number/type of beneficiaries affected by/impacted by the project to ensure coherence of data across the Funds. Evaluation Recommendation 14: The current three year cycle of strategic evaluation of the ERF process needs to be maintained as the basis of a more learning based approach to evaluation. Recommendation 14 is classified as both performance management and important to implement, highlighting that this Global Evaluation is the first of its kind in relation to the ERF mechanism, replacing a prior disaggregated approach of individual country-based evaluations, and that there would be considerable benefit, especially given the higher level of many of the challenges that face the ERF mechanism, in maintaining a triennial cycle which allows for a degree of immediacy, better access to stakeholders and thus a greater possibility for sustained organizational learning. The recommendation is well understood as OCHA s need to maintain the triennial cycle of external global evaluation OCHA will coordinate and prepare the implementation of the next external Global ERF Evaluation in To start by 3Q 2015 SPEGS with support from FCS OCHA will closely follow the implementation of this recommendation through Evaluation Recommendation 15: SPEGS should mount exploratory sectorial evaluations at the global level to begin a process of developing the ability to report on results/impacts and also to promote organizational learning. Recommendation 15 is classified as both performance management and important to implement. Evaluators found that the project basis of the ERF mechanism creates a challenge in terms of evaluating the combined outcomes and beneficiary impact. Sectoral evaluations, sampling projects from different ERFs, was proposed as the way in this direction. The evaluators noted how an overall analysis of the ERF project portfolio on a global basis shows a high degree of commonality of work. For example, ERFs in several locales appear to conduct very similar types of programming in key areas such as restoration of shelter, nutrition, and WASH or the response to IDP situations. Therefore, conducting a kind of portfolio evaluation of, for example, a selected number of nutrition projects in possibly four or five ERFs is possible. In this way, the drill down could begin to reach toward the assessment of beneficiary impact. Moreover, this kind of selective portfolio approach would enable OCHA to better assess the degree of interconnectivity between its work and the work of others, thereby better analysing common success factors and thus reducing risk. The recommendation is understood as the need for OCHA to consider portfolio evaluations as a complementary exercise to assess results and impact, as

11 well as to promote organizational learning. OCHA considers this recommendation can be considered after the first year of implementation of the M&R framework, when there is enough and more systematic evidence about the achievements and trends at the output level OCHA will consider commissioning ERF portfolio evaluations after assessing the first year of implementation of the M&R framework. To start by 3Q 2014 SPEGS with support from FCS OCHA will closely follow the implementation of this recommendation at the end of 1 st quarter Please consult OCHA s website on Evaluation for examples of filled out Management Response Plan s: If you need further assistance in filling out the MRP, please contact OCHA s Chief of the Evaluation and Guidance Section, Mr Scott Green.