3. PBSO should develop an improved suite of tools, guidelines and procedures to facilitate faster and more strategic decision-making.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "3. PBSO should develop an improved suite of tools, guidelines and procedures to facilitate faster and more strategic decision-making."

Transcription

1 In particular, PBSO should focus on clarifying roles and responsibilities in order to bring greater independent peacebuilding expertise to bear on decision-making, to ensure accountability, and to better discern actors respective duties in fulfilling the Fund s catalytic role. Entities in need of clarification on one or more of these fronts include the PBCG, SPG, AG, RAs, the MDTF Office, EOSG, PBSO, PBC members and donors. Specifically, PBSO should: (a) develop a matrix outlining each entity s current roles and responsibilities in each of the functional areas described; (b) use this matrix as the basis for conducting a gap analysis in each of these functional areas identified above and, where necessary, suggesting structural changes to the Fund s architecture in order to remedy outstanding gaps; and (c) revise the matrix based on clarified gaps and utilize the matrix as a stakeholder communications tool. (Finding B) 2. PBSO should conduct a strategic internal resource assessment in order to fill its key functional gaps. Such an assessment should include a review of PBSO s existing resources to determine whether it has the adequate staff and competencies in place to fill its core functions (e.g., overall fund management, M&E, strategic communications, PBF-specific stakeholder liaison and PBF-PBC coordination), and whether and how its existing resources might be reallocated to better meet these needs. Specifically, PBSO should: (a) estimate the specific human resources required in each of the areas identified above; (b) take an inventory of PBSO staff s complement of hard and soft skills as these relate to each functional gap; (c) analyze non-pbf staff s workload levels and of any duplication among staff functions; and (d) use this assessment as a basis for determining which functional gaps identified can be filled through the redeployment of existing PBSO resources and which can only be filled through additional resources. (Finding C) 3. PBSO should develop an improved suite of tools, guidelines and procedures to facilitate faster and more strategic decision-making. These tools should be designed to maximize the speed, transparency, accountability and strategic basis of decision-making, and should include specific areas not yet adequately addressed in Priority Plans, concept notes and project proposals (e.g., resource mobilization, capacity-building plans, assessing the urgency of Window III requests, inclusion of priority objectives and performance indicators). In particular, PBSO should: (a) revise its Headquarters-level forms for assessing Priority Plans and Window III projects to more clearly evaluate these documents on key assessment criteria (e.g., alignment with PBF priorities and criteria, criticality of identified priorities, clarity of non-duplication, alignment with suggested country envelope, inclusion of evaluation plans, risk mitigation, overarching catalytic plan, urgency of Window III projects, and so on); (b) develop templates to aid country-level Technical Review Panels and national Steering Committees, where desired, in critically assessing project proposals on key assessment

2 criteria (e.g., alignment with overarching country priorities, criticality of the intervention, quality of evaluation plans, soundness of resource mobilization plan, risk mitigation, strategic partnerships, amount requested). Considering its limited ability to enforce accountability, PBSO should also consider revising the PBF Guidelines to strongly encourage national Steering Committees to put similar tools in place to develop and review Priority Plans and review and approve concept notes, project proposals and prospective partners in those countries where they do not exist and in all countries moving forward. (Finding D) 4. Within its delegated authority, PBSO should strengthen the Fund s accountability mechanism and more clearly articulate this mechanism in the Fund s guiding documents. Specifically, PBSO should undertake the following measures, among others: (a) articulation of an overarching Fund strategy for strengthening accountability (including appropriate incentives and disincentives and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities); (b) educating national Steering Committee members and other in-country stakeholders earlier in the process about accountability, the importance of adequate monitoring and reporting, and the need to incorporate a strong results orientation into decision-making; (c) closer vetting of Priority Plans and Window III submissions to help draw Steering Committees attention toward items that might strengthen their results orientation; (d) closer assessment of Priority Plans and Window III submissions to ensure that they are aligned with the Fund s accountability standards as well as it funding criteria, e.g., by including expected accomplishments and performance indicators, respectively, and by ensuring that priorities and Window III projects are coded thematically and by PBF funding priority; (e) liaison with the MDTF Office and RAs to request that more detailed performance and costeffectiveness information be reported on a quarterly and annual basis, if necessary by revising the MOUs with these partners; (f) more systematic monitoring and evaluation of the Fund s and Fund-assisted projects performance against its objectives, including the Fund s catalytic objectives, either through PBSO s overhead, a pre-determined set-aside from of each country s envelope, or some combination of the two. (Findings D and F) 5. Within its delegated authority, and in partnership with recipient agencies at Headquarters and in the field, PBSO should proactively address the main sources of delay in project implementation. Specifically, PBSO should undertake the following measures, among others: (a) earlier liaison with senior in-country UN representatives and national government representatives to fill information gaps, assess local capacity needs, and help build local capacity for proposal development where welcomed; (b) greater utilization of Window III as a stop-gap window while Window I/II requests are developed;

3 (c) any necessary liaison, at the highest levels necessary, to encourage a revision of its TOR and MOU with UN RAs in order to revamp their internal rules, regulations and procedures to align them with the exigencies of post-conflict settings, boost their project management and accountability capacity, and ensure that the bulk of overhead they charge Member States reaches country offices. PBSO might also wish to consider the following measures: (d) revision of PBF Guidelines to encourage JSCs to include RAs earlier in project design; (e) the development of an on-going roster of prospective international and local partners to help supply surge capacity and boost national implementation capacity; (f) encouragement of capacity needs assessment in the PBF Guidelines and any independent country analyses it undertakes, and the active encouragement of countries to include capacity-building priorities and projects in their work; (g) encouragement of more strategic selection of partners e.g., greater inclusion of highercapacity NGOs, the strategic pairing of multiple UN entities that bring divergent comparative to projects (e.g., one entity for implementation capacity, another for substantive capacity or ground presence). (Finding F) 6. PBSO should facilitate more systematic lessons learning within and across countries, as well as within the Office itself. Specifically, PBSO should undertake the following measures, among others: (a) revision of the PBF Guidelines to encourage national Steering Committee TORs to incorporate regular and formal performance review for learning as well as accountability; (b) the on-going culling, clustering and sharing the lessons and best practices accumulated through the experience of key stakeholders in each recipient country, and advice to national Steering Committees in facilitating this process; (c) the establishment of more regular and formal tools with which to share best practices and lessons learned within PBSO in key areas (e.g., the work of PBF-devoted staff and their colleagues devoted to the PBC). (Findings D, F and G)

4 Abbreviations AG CSO EOSG JSC MDTF M&E MS NGO OIOS PB PBC PBCG PBF PBSO PRS RA S-G SPG TOR TRP UNDAF Advisory Group Civil society organization Executive Office of the Secretary-General (National) Joint Steering Committee Multi-Donor Trust Fund Monitoring and evaluation Member State Non-governmental organization Office of Internal Oversight Services Peacebuilding Peacebuilding Commission Peacebuilding Contact Group Peacebuilding Fund Peacebuilding Support Office Poverty Reduction Strategy UN recipient agency Secretary General Senior Policy Group Terms of reference Technical Review Panel / Technical Review Committee United Nations Development Assistance Framework

5

6

7

8

9

10

11