RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Transcription

1 RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

2 Managing Results in UNDP Page 2 I. Introduction In early 1998, a decision was taken by the UNDP Administrator to develop a framework for the measurement and assessment of programme results. The Evaluation Office (EO) was assigned the lead responsibility to work on the design of such a framework. This step initiated the introduction of results-based management (RBM) in UNDP. As the discussion on future funding with the Executive Board matured into the Multi-Year Funding Framework (MYFF), EO became part of an exceptionally unified management effort coordinated by the Bureau of Management to oversee the application of RBM in UNDP. Since 2000 the responsibility of coordinating the RBM process in the organization has been assigned to the Operations Support Group. This paper outlines the context, the methodology and the key features of the RBM system introduced in UNDP. It describes the strategic choices made by UNDP in designing its RBM system, and presents some of the emerging implications that these choices may have for UNDP and its partners. The notion of results and managing for results is not new to UNDP. For many years, the organization has been working to get things done and produce results, but its emphasis was mostly on managing inputs and activities. And, importantly, it has not always been able to demonstrate these results effectively to the full satisfaction of donors and stakeholders. The RBM system being put in place responds to this concern by setting out clear programme and management goals for the organisation and establishing indicators to monitor and assess progress in meeting them. More generally, by introducing results-based management, UNDP tries to answer more fully the basic questions surrounding aid institutions and their effectiveness. Whether these institutions are domestic or international, the concerns of taxpayers are straightforward: they want to know what use their resources are being put to and what difference these resources are making to the lives of people -- difficult but necessary questions that require appropriate responses from the aid community. UNDP saw the RBM exercise as a further opportunity to deepen an internal process of management reform begun in 1997 with the UNDP 2001 change initiative and crystallized with the Administrator s Business Plans The Way Forward. At a time of rapid global changes, the organization recognized that it had to adapt because of the new and increased demands being placed on the UN, particularly UNDP. In the new environment, UNDP becomes less an institution transferring resources and more a focused development agency. This focus prompts the organization to act proactively and not reactively. And, it stresses not only the volume of assistance but more importantly the results attained. FROM TO Entitlements Results Control Delegation Inputs Outputs/Outcomes Ex ante Ex post Bureaucratic Speed Risk averse Opportunity driven Introvert Partnerships

3 Managing Results in UNDP Page 3 The challenge for UNDP was to fashion an approach to RBM that stressed results and greater focus, without sacrificing the organization s commitment to decentralization and responsiveness to country needs and priorities. II. Setting Goals Traditionally, UNDP s mandate and range of activities have been broad. Partly as a consequence of the system in place since the 1970s and the nature of the organisation at that time, UNDP was seen essentially as a broad funding agency focusing on institution building with no real substantive position on development issues. The endorsement by the Executive Board in 1994/1995 of sustainable human development (SHD) as the central priority of the organisation has now laid the stage for sharpening the specific areas where UNDP can take a lead globally. From the beginning of the RBM exercise, it was decided that an important benefit would be in trying to address the question of what the organisation does best or where its strength potentially lies in the areas of its interventions: in poverty, governance, the environment and gender. It was felt that RBM should help in identifying the organization s flagship activities and priority outcomes. This focus carries as an implication an equally important emphasis on clarifying the role of partners both within and outside the UN system. To bring added definition to the intended results of UNDP s diverse activities and to concentrate UNDP s efforts around the organization s mandate and comparative advantage, Strategic Results Frameworks (SRFs) prepared at the corporate level define an overarching goal for the organization and for each category: (a) a clear goal, normally building on global conferences supported by the UN and interagency agreements (such as the UN Administrative Committee on Coordination); (b) sub-goals (typically 2-3) emphasizing UNDP s distinctive contributions; and, for each sub-goal, (c) several strategic areas of support reflecting UNDP s areas of comparative advantage and programmatic emphasis. Country offices and other operating units, working within this framework, identify the particular outputs and outcomes they expect to achieve, set specific targets, and subsequently report on accomplishments compared to these intended results. It was decided to develop SRFs corresponding to UNDP s goals in the following six areas: Programme Categories Non Programme Categories The Enabling Environment for UNDP Support to the Sustainable Human United Nations Development (Governance) Poverty Reduction Environment Gender Special Development Situations At the highest level is an overarching goal that represents the unifying purpose of UNDP s work: To contribute to the eradication of extreme poverty and the substantial reduction of overall poverty (WSSD Commitment 2), UNDP will focus on: sustainable human development with particular emphasis on the reduction of human poverty. The first four programme categories are the SHD focus areas mandated by the UNDP Executive Board. The fifth programme category encompasses special

4 Managing Results in UNDP Page 4 situations arising from complex emergencies and natural disasters. The non-programme category addresses UNDP s role as the custodian of the UN Resident Coordinator function and the support provided by UNDP to other parts of the United Nations system. III. Measuring Progress Goals have to be set before we can judge or measure progress. Most evaluations typically highlight that projects and programmes do not have clear, measureable objectives and that without benchmarks and indicators it is difficult to measure progress. This is even more difficult to do at the organizational level. The SRFs set out a concrete basis for judging performance in relation to specific country and organizational objectives. Different types of indicators were built in the SRF to track progress in meeting goals at both the country and the organisational levels. Given the strong current emphasis on the use of indicators, it may be useful to reiterate that indicators fundamentally indicate, they do not explain. And as such, the value of good judgement and analysis remains. There is also often a temptation to transform the measurement of change itself into a major and burdensome task. Indicators and their role have to be rooted in the real world. Being relevant and strategic becomes critical. UNDP makes uses of three types of indicators: (1) corporate outcome indicators provided centrally, (2) outcome indicators measuring progress against specified outcomes and (3) situational indicators. Within the SRF exercise, it was decided early on that outcomes and outcome indicators would not be prescribed centrally; rather they are to be derived from country realities. However, there are two areas in which the new system does include standardized indicators. The first concerns the corporate outcomes, that relate to UNDP flagships or explicit mandates. The corporate indicators provide a uniform method of monitoring changes with which UNDP wants to be associated globally. By asking operating units to report on these in a consistent manner, it will be possible to monitor and report on our performance in meeting these changes in a clear and unambiguous way. Operating units are also required to report on a limited number of situational indicators (23) to indicate progress towards the major goals targeted by the organization. These indicators provide a broad picture of whether the developmental changes that matter to UNDP are actually occurring. They are selected to link with the CCA and NHDR processes. IV. The System The key components of the results system include both planning and reporting instruments: Planning instruments: the Strategic Results Framework (SRF), the Integrated Results Framework (IRF), the Multi-Year Funding Framework (MYFF) and the Country Office Management Plan (COMP). The SRF is designed to be the primary planning instrument to capture UNDP s major areas of intervention and the broad development outcomes to which the organization is contributing at the country, regional and global level. It is an integral component

5 Managing Results in UNDP Page 5 of the MYFF, UNDP s funding compact with the Executive Board. The MYFF represents a milestone for UNDP, as for the first time in the organization s history, the funding strategy is based on the identification of clear results and the establishment of an integrated resource framework (IRF) that incorporates and presents in a transparent manner all financial allocations covering programmes, programme support and administrative operations. Previously, parallel resource allocations procedures existed for administrative and programme resources. The MYFF is based on the premise that public institutions can no longer lay a claim on public resources on the basis of mandates alone, rather they have to outline specific programmes and services and fundamentally demonstrate impact. The COMP is designed to serve as a strategic management tool. It provides for clear strategic guidance for country office management in line with corporate goals as well as flexibility in setting targets that best respond to the conditions and needs of a country office. Reporting instruments: A Results-Oriented Annual Report (ROAR), a Multi-Year Funding Framework Report (MYFFR) and a Country Office Management Plan Report (COMPR). The ROAR is the principal instrument for reporting on a yearly basis at both the country and the corporate level on the entire range of UNDP activities. At the corporate level, it provides the Executive Board on an annual basis with a comprehensive assessment of performance in relation to key results (outcomes) achieved and a review of the use of resources at the organizational level. The MYFFR is a more in-depth assessment of performance relating to the outcomes and outputs identified in the MYFF. It is produced every four years. V. Strategic Choices 1. Learning from Others and Learning by Doing There are some benefits to starting late. UNDP found other agencies to be generous in sharing their experience good as well as bad. To build on existing experience, the UNDP Evaluation Office and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) produced in 1997 a joint review of performance measurement systems of selected public sector and aid agencies that served as an initial building block for the introduction of RBM within UNDP. And in October of 1998, UNDP, Sida and the OECD Development Assistance Committee (Aid Evaluation Working Group) organized a workshop in New York to review experience of bilateral and multilateral agencies in introducing RBM principles and practices. These consultations and exchanges of experience resulted in several key lessons, which guided the implementation of the UNDP s RBM system (see box 1). Each of these lessons was consciously reflected in the system, often with profound implications. Early on it was also decided that the process in order to be effective had to be internally driven. In house staff knew UNDP best, its strengths and its

6 Managing Results in UNDP Page 6 weaknesses. External consultants were used for quality assurance purposes. It was felt important not to aim for a perfect system and to let the realities of country experience drive and shape the system. Accordingly, the system was piloted in 10 countries reflecting a broad typology of country situations. Based on the experience gained, the SRFs and their content were substantially modified to make SRFs work as a strategic management tool and not become an onerous, The main concern during the introduction of the RBM concept and the development of a Strategic Results Framework was to ensure the relevance and usefulness of the system to practitioners and to secure their support. As a result, there was a conscious decision to make the process as interactive and consultative as possible. The intention was to produce a system that was not only responsive to the interests of external stakeholders, but also directly Box 1: Lessons Learned from RBM Experience of Other Institutions: The organization needs to set clear objectives for RBM itself: should RBM be a reporting and classification system (results measurement) or should RBM be a strategic planning and management tool that can help improve organizational performance (results management)? Any system must fit UNDP s specific needs and culture. As an approach, RBM requires that the culture and specific nature of the organisation be carefully taken into account. In particular, the unique mandate and decentralized structure of UNDP requires flexibility at the country level. Implementing RBM is a learning process. RBM depends on many aspects of organizational culture, policy and operational practice. Any system needs to be seen as a work in progress, evolving over a considerable period of time and incorporating flexibility to make changes as experiences are gained. It is essential to keep the approach simple. RBM should not lead to an increased workload. The number of instruments must be limited and easy to understand. additional reporting task. The pilot experience was documented and the lessons learnt influenced the design of a training package. One region (Arab States) was selected to test the training package with a workshop that brought together international and national staff from 18 country offices. Similar workshops were subsequently conducted in the other regions covered by UNDP, capturing a wide audience of country offices staff. 2. Broad Consultation and Ownership reflective of UNDP s distinctive organisational culture and management needs. Building a broadbased sense of ownership within UNDP for the reform effort was seen as essential for the durability of the system. Preparatory work and concept development was done primarily through the use of the internal work force. It involved a large cross-section of professionals from country offices and headquarters. External expertise

7 Managing Results in UNDP Page 7 was brought in at critical junctures only to provide validation and quality assurance. 3. Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches In designing the organization s Strategic Results Framework, the decision was made to keep corporate requirements to a minimum. At the country level, flexibility was retained in order to incorporate country specific conditions and reflect UNDP s decentralized structure. For example, in the first stages of the SRF (1999) activities undertaken at the country level that did not fit neatly into UNDP focus areas were nevertheless reported along with the rationale for undertaking them. Based on the experience gained during the first round of SRFs produced by country offices, corporate frameworks have been adjusted (in the year 2000) for a better matching of the corporate and the country level, reducing the discrepancies between corporate requirements and country specific interventions. However, in designing the system, it was well understood that its corporate aspects respond to different information needs and imperatives than do its use at the country and programme levels. In order to reflect fully the decentralized country reality, the possibility of a single, fully integrated system in which country and programme goals cascade neatly from broader organizational objectives was discarded. In a similar vein, the notion of preparing a MYFF in advance of receiving specific plans from country offices was rejected. On the other hand, there was considerable attention placed on UNDP s premier products and areas of comparative advantage and mandate. To reconcile potentially competing needs, an empirical approach was adopted. The corporate elements of the SRFs were developed based on extensive field consultation and pilot testing, as described above, while the results (outcomes and outputs) are defined by the operating units and reflect - in the case of country offices the diversity of country needs. Overarching Goal Goals Sub goals Strategic Areas of Support Outcomes Outputs The core principle of the UNDP results system is the integration of a two-way process, combining a topdown and a bottom-up approach. The top-down relates to the establishment at corporate level (after broad consultative process and a testing phase) of an overarching goal, and a broad set of sub-goals, strategic areas of support and corporate outcomes and indicators. The bottom-up is constituted by the articulation from operating units, primarily country offices, of actual results plans intended outcomes and outputs as well as associated outcome indicators and partnership strategies. 4. Measuring Progress against results Corporate Level Operating unit Level The aggregation of results and deciding on what, when and how to aggregate has proved to be a vexing problem for international development agencies, and UNDP is no exception. While articulating their own desired results -outcomes and outputs, each operating

8 Managing Results in UNDP Page 8 unit is expected to identify the output and outcome measures that best capture the intended and actual results of its efforts. These measures are then used as the basis for judging performance. They are also shared with other operating units in the hope that, over time, best practices in performance measurement will emerge and be replicated. Measuring performance and progress towards performance in the first Report on Annual Results (1999 ROAR) has required the establishment of a simple and practical method in order to assess the wide range of results presented in the report. The method adopted had to assess progress in relation to the intended outcomes stated in the SRF. Overall percentage of success was calculated based on the number of outcomes where progress was demonstrated in relation to the total number of outcomes contained in the SRF. These percentage figures were then aggregated at the level of Strategic Areas of Support (SAS), sub-goals and goals. Based on this, the analysis was organized to yield assessments that could be compared across countries, regions, thematic categories and/or strategic approaches. In many cases, comparison and analysis of successful and less successful experience was emphasized as it is often the case that comparative, and not necessarily aggregate, data is of greatest management use. 5. Stressing Management Over Measurement The basic approach was to help managers manage better. In comparing RBM systems, the distinction is sometimes made between managing by results and managing for results. The former is principally oriented towards accountability and external reporting; the latter focuses on a cycle of planning, periodic performance assessment and organizational learning. In implementing RBM, UNDP made a deliberate decision to emphasize management and learning. This was based on an unequivocal message from donors and staff that RBM must explicitly aim at changing the way the organization is managed, fostering a strategic orientation and culture of performance. Improved external reporting was approached as a very important, but secondary, benefit. At headquarters, SRFs will assist managers to judge whether the overall results of UNDP assistance worldwide meet the goals, principles and standards set out in the Mission Statement, Business Plans and Executive Board decisions as well as in operational and thematic policies. As such, they are intended to improve UNDP substantive accountability to national stakeholders and the Executive Board and, for the first time, lay the basis for a funding strategy to support approved programmes based on results that are clearly identified and monitored. 6. Focus on Outcomes and Partnerships The problems associated with measuring and attributing development outcomes are well known and widely lamented. It was nevertheless decided that UNDP s RBM system should ground its concept of results at the outcome rather than the output level. While both levels of accomplishment are important and prominently reflected in the system, this decision to emphasize outcomes was based on two considerations. One consideration was the crisis of confidence facing the development community as

9 Managing Results in UNDP Page 9 many question the effects of investments in development. It was felt necessary for UNDP to portray a significant and honest picture of the consequences of its interventions. Since many of UNDP s most important contributions result from what some have called soft interventions - advocacy, policy dialogue and institutional strengthening, field presence - the decision to project and capture outcomes of these particularly hard-to-measure and hard-to-attribute areas became essential. While this continues to be a work in progress, UNDP has committed itself to the proposition that soft interventions need to have hard outcomes and to incorporating such interventions into its system of results based management. An important consequence of RBM has been to reinforce the value of partnerships. RBM shifts the focus of the organisation from outputs - which could feasibly be produced by one organization - to outcomes - which necessarily require the work of many groups working together. By putting the emphasis on outcomes, there becomes a renewed interest in seeing that UNDP fully invests in partnerships. Also, UNDP s mission and goals highlight the central role played by partnerships, cooperation and synergy. As a result, the SRF structure places particular emphasis on defining these partnerships in relation to specific outcomes and specific countries. Within the UN family, this approach is intended to facilitate the formulation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). UNDP has also expressed its commitment to harmonize the respective cycles of the MYFF and the UNDAF. The issue of attribution has been debated extensively in the professional literature. The focus in UNDP is to accept that development outcomes are fundamentally dependent on the interacting strategies and activities of many development parties. There are few easy arithmetic equations that can easily measure what one party has contributed to the overall outcome. However, what is necessary is to record and understand in a credible manner what an individual agency is contributing and how its support is being organised in collaboration with other partners. Seeking to facilitate positive outcomes must therefore be founded on strategic partnerships, which in turn require a clear understanding of the respective strengths of the different parties. For this and other reasons, including the compelling issue of respecting need and local priorities, the Executive Board decision on the MYFF clearly states that there will therefore be no alteration in the existing allocation principle by broad category and type of country. VI. Next Steps and Emerging Challenges UNDP s MYFF for the years was presented and approved by the Executive Board in As a planning instrument, the MYFF sets the four-year framework for the intended work of the organization. It is against this framework that sets out specific organsitional and programme goals and intended results that the annual ROARs review the progress made in achieving them. The first ROAR covering the year 1999 was presented to the April 2000 session of the Board. The process presents both large challenges and opportunities ahead. Its implications are not only large but they are likely to evolve as core organisational practices are adjusted to RBM

10 Managing Results in UNDP Page 10 principles. Few current practices are likely to remain unaltered, given the comprehensive nature of the exercise and its objective of providing a coherent framework for the strategic planning and management based on learning and accountability in a decentralised environment. By focusing on results and by providing a clear picture of what areas and outcomes UNDP is engaged in, the exercise presents the opportunity of creating a sharper, tighter alignment between capacities and the tasks undertaken by the organization. It also raises the challenge of finding the right skills mix for the organisation and the incentives necessary to establish UNDP as a worldclass organisation, providing quality, substantive services in the areas of its comparative advantage. Even over a relatively short period, some of the pilot countries restructured their offices along more substantive lines so that they could take full advantage of the SRFs as a strategic management tool. An opportunity presented by the RBM system is the integration of evaluation information with management and accountability. The system allows for a strategic, more relevant use of evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation become priority concerns of country office and organisational management. The ROARs in particular are meant to create a builtin demand for lessons learned drawing upon country reviews, evaluations and monitoring visits. with its demand. The SRF/MYFF exercise should enable it to perform this role better by being equipped, as an organisation to respond to the priority needs of the programme countries. The emphasis and recommitment to development partnerships raises the possibility of developing new relationships, which focus on the value, added provided in a partnership rather than on the basis of claimed mandates. It raises an opportunity to link UN agencies in a powerful substantive network in service of country priorities and highlights of the activities and roles that UNDP plays in donor coordination and partnership building. The MYFF is shaped by the empirical evidence on intended results as set out in the SRFs. This is essential given the nature of the organisation. In particular it reflects and protects the close and trusted role played by UNDP at the country level one of the comparative strengths of the organisation. The MYFF therefore provides a full reflection of the work actually planned or underway by UNDP at the country and programme level. At the same time, it enables UNDP to be more relevant by identifying the capacities it needs to provide high quality advocacy and technical assistance. RBM in principle provides strong incentives for learning in a decentralised environment. By requiring knowledge, it provides a powerful opportunity to match the provision of knowledge

11 Managing Results in UNDP Page 11 Annex 1 presents the over arching goal, goals and sub-goals for the six SRFs. I. THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Goal: Creation of an enabling environment for SHD. Sub-goal 1 National, regional and global dialogue and cooperation that widens development choices for sustainable and equitable growth. 1. Management of globalization to support the poor. 2. Public awareness and policy dialogue on sustainable human development. 3. Policy, legal and regulatory reform to support private sector development. 4. Regional and sub-regional cooperation, including ECDC/TCDC. Sub-goal 2 Strengthened capacity of key governance institutions. 1. Institutional capacity of parliamentary structures, systems and processes. 2. Electoral legislation and institutional capacity of electoral commissions, systems, and processes. 3. Administration of, and access to, justice. 4. Promotion of human rights. Sub-goal 3 Increased social cohesion based on participatory local governance and stronger local communities and institutions. 1. Social cohesion through development planning and other decision-making processes at the sub-national level. 2. Decentralization policies and allocation of resources to the sub-national levels. 3. Capacity of and partnerships between local authorities and civil society organizations. 4. Self-organization and development of alliances by the poor. Sub-goal 4 An efficient and accountable public sector. 1. Efficiency and accountability in the civil service. 2. Efficiency of public sector financial management. 3. Aid coordination and management.

12 Managing Results in UNDP Page 12 II. POVERTY REDUCTION Goal: Economic and social policies and strategies focused on the reduction of poverty. Sub-goal 1 Human and income poverty addressed in national policy frameworks. 1. Development and implementation of macro- and povertyreduction policies and strategies. 2. Monitoring of poverty and inequality. 3. Comprehensive strategies to prevent the spread and mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS. Sub-goal 2 The asset base of the poor expanded and protected (human, physical and financial). 1. Access to productive resources and assets. 2. Access to basic social services and systems for risk management. 3. Access to, and utilization of, information and communication technologies (ICTs). III. ENVIRONMENT Goal: Environmentally sustainable development to reduce human poverty. Sub-goal 1 Sustainable environmental management and energy development to improve the livelihoods and security of the poor. 1. National policy, legal and regulatory framework for environmentally sustainable development. 2. Institutional framework for sustainable environmental management and energy development. 3. Monitoring and assessment of environmental sustainability. Sub-goal 2 Regional and global instruments for environmentally sustainable development that benefit the poor. 1. Regional cooperation and coordination in natural resources management and sustainable energy development. 2. National capacity for participation in global conventions, regulatory regimes and funding mechanisms for environmentally sustainable development.

13 Managing Results in UNDP Page 13 IV. GENDER Goal: Advancement in the status of women and gender equality. Sub-goal 1 Gender equality in the decision-making process at all levels. 1. Policy dialogue to improve the condition of women, and remove barriers to their advancement. 2. Advocacy, networking and partnerships for gender equality. 3. Institutionalization of tools and methods to track and measure changes in the condition of women. Sub-goal 2 Advancement of women through the implementation of global commitments. 1. Development and implementation of national action plans for the advancement of women (implementation of the Beijing commitments), and the gender dimensions of all conference commitments (cross referenced to other thematic areas of the SRF). 2. Ratification, implementation and monitoring of CEDAW, including its Optional Protocol. 3. Measures to reduce violence against women. V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT SITUATIONS Goal: Reduced incidence of and sustainable recovery and transition from complex emergencies and natural disasters. Sub-goal 1 Reduced risk of disasters in programme countries. 1. Policy development and advocacy on risk reduction. 2. Capacity development to manage and reduce risk of natural disasters. 3. Support to UN system coordination in natural disaster response, recovery and reduction. Sub-goal 2 Conflict prevention, peace-building and sustainable recovery and transition in countries emerging from crisis. 1. Advocacy and assistance for national and international policy frameworks that link relief to development. 2. Capacity development of national institutions and civil society organizations to advance human security. 3. Peace-building and the prevention of relapses into conflict. 4. Recovery processes at the community level. 5. UN system coordination in post-conflict environments.

14 Managing Results in UNDP Page 14 VI. UNDP SUPPORT TO THE UNITED NATIONS Goal: A coherent and effective UN System. Sub-goal 1 Accelerated progress on the global agenda for development (including follow-up to global conferences). 1. Strategic leadership of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) on the global agenda for development: headquarters level. 2. Strategic leadership of the resident coordinator system (RCS) on the global agenda for development: country level. Sub-goal 2 Increasingly collaborative, efficient and effective operational activities for development. 1. Harmonization and simplification of programming and administrative policies within the UNDG: headquarters level. 2. Coordination and collaboration on programming and administration through the Resident Coordinator System: country level. 3. UNDP support to non-resident UN agencies: country level.

15 Managing Results in UNDP Page 15 SRF Example: The Enabling Environment for Sustainable Human Development (Governance) GOAL: Creation of an enabling environment for sustainable human development (Governance) SUB-GOALS STRATEGIC AREAS OF SUPPORT 1. National, regional and global dialogue and cooperation that widens development choices for sustainable and equitable growth. 2. Strengthened capacity of key governance institutions. Management of globalization to support the poor. Public awareness and policy dialogue on sustainable human development. Policy, legal and regulatory reform to support private sector development. Regional and sub-regional cooperation including ECDC/TCDC. 3. Increased social cohesion based on participatory local governance and stronger local communities and institutions. 4. An efficient and accountable public sector.

16 Managing Results in UNDP Page 16