OCHA s Management Response Plan (MRP) to Evaluation of the Common Humanitarian Fund Country Report: South Sudan

Transcription

1 OCHA s Management Response Plan (MRP) to Evaluation of the Common Humanitarian Fund Country Report: South Sudan Prepared by: David Throp, Head of HFU, OCHA South Sudan 25 September, Cleared by: Name, Position, Unit Date Tracked by: Name, Position, Unit Date OVERALL COMMENTS: OCHA SOUTH SUDAN WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE EVALUATION TEAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE AND SUPPORTIVE CHARACTER OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS, PARTICULARLY THE FRUITFUL DISCUSSIONS THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THE COUNTRY VISIT. WE BELIEVE THAT THE REPORT HIGHLIGHTS MANY POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE OPERATION OF THE SOUTH SUDAN CHF, AND WELCOME THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER ENHANCE OVERALL FUND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 1 1 : Resilience should be included as a priority for the CHF whenever possible and in ways that do not decrease direct humanitarian funding. Resilience, as defined for humanitarian contexts, includes individual and communities ability to predict, withstand, and recover from conflict and climatic-based shocks. This is distinct from resilience programming that attempts to make the links between recovery and development. Resilience is already a strategic priority for the Humanitarian Response Plan, the primary strategic document for the humanitarian response in South Sudan, and so the CHF can do more to support this. The CHF should increase advocacy for resilience approaches and, using intelligence from M&R and risk management, include specific areas for action in project proposals. Proposals that include resilience activities should be prioritized over others when all else is equal. Management Response: Partially accepted This recommendation is partially accepted. It is absolutely critical that the CHF s focus remains on life-saving activities. If it is possible to ensure individuals and communities ability to predict, withstand and recover from conflict and climactic-based shocks is promoted (or at a minimum, not undermined) within life-saving programming, this may be considered. However, there must not be any dilution of the Fund s focus on lifesaving activities, particularly at a time when the Fund is receiving less contributions than usual and needs in South Sudan are at an all-time high. The Fund will therefore remain focused on its core task and will not engage in advocacy for resilience approaches, but will factor in lessons learned from M&R and risk management in consideration of projects. In consultation with stakeholders, develop a short paper on lessons learned regarding the promotion of resilience i.e. communities ability to predict, withstand and recover from conflict and climactic-based shocks - within life-saving programming, in the context of the South Sudan CHF. By November EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 2: The M&R process should focus on the strategic issues related to the Humanitarian Response Plan, partner capacity overall, partner M&R and evaluation systems, and financial spot checks. This means less of a focus on actual partner results although these should still be verified. The newest Monitoring Field Template should be adapted to reflect this focus, e.g. decrease the focus on logframe results and increase aspects related to partner capacities and the efficacy of partner monitoring and evaluation activities toward measuring results. 1 Please consult OCHA s website on Evaluation for sample MRPs. If you need assistance in filling out the MRP, please contact Name of the Evaluation Manager, the evaluation manager for the Name of the Evaluation. 1

2 After further consultation with the authors of the report, we understand that this recommendation pertains specifically to the Monitoring element, as carried out through field monitoring visits, and does not call for a reduction in efforts to understand actual partner results, which is carried out primarily through the Reporting element. For the field monitoring visits, we concur that the primary objective should not be to provide detailed substantiation of specific results, but rather to ensure that the funds provided are being used in line with the strategic intent for which they were allocated, and that the partner has appropriate capacities and systems in place for effective fund utilisation. This will include partner capacities for Monitoring and Reporting. Financial spot checks of NGOs are currently considered under the UNDP Managing Agent role. Both NGOs and UN agencies provide quarterly estimates of their expenditure. In general terms, the monitoring of projects will be framed by the provisions of the accountability framework currently under development, in line with the CBPF Operational Handbook and reflecting risk management approaches. Review the field monitoring template to ensure alignment with strategic issues and focus on partner capacities and efficacy of partner monitoring and reporting activities (especially where best practices and standards exist) EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 3: Once the purpose and focus of M&R activities is refined, M&R should be guided by a single analytical framework that includes metrics, questions, and issues that emerge from project proposals, risk management information, and previous M&R activities. This analytical framework should be refined for each allocation cycle. We agree in principle that data and information obtained through different means within the overall M&R process should be consolidated into a single analytical framework. This will avoid potential repetitious enquiry, data collection and data analysis. However, we envisage that this will realistically take significant time and experimentation to develop given the still emerging nature of some aspects within the M&R process. We also flag the possibility that there may still be a need for some degree of cluster specificity. In general terms, the monitoring of projects will be framed by the provisions of the accountability framework currently under development, in line with the CBPF Operational Handbook and reflecting risk management approaches. A fund level monitoring and framework, based on the accountability framework, HRP, cluster strategies, and CHF allocation strategy paper to be developed for the SA1 Where expertise exists at the cluster level, identify cluster level monitoring questions based on allocation strategies for CHF SA2 By Jan By Jan Consolidation of the use of the partner Performance Index through the GMS, as a dynamic measure of partner risk, based on monitoring / reporting / assessments of partners. By June EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 4: Project proposals and/or organizational capacity assessments should include a specific section on organizations core competencies and experience. This would support broader risk assessments and provide useful information for the allocation process overall. Proposal templates could also include sections on organizational and contextual risks. 2

3 The recommendation is welcomed in principle, since stronger information related to the core competencies and experience of partners would potentially enhance risk management approaches and strengthen overall impact. However, there are numerous challenges to be overcome. Proposal formats are determined globally. Current capacity assessments under the HACT do not include an assessment of core competencies and experience (although we note that HACT Advisory Committee has indicated that work is in progress to incorporate this). We note that the current Strategic Review during the allocation process gives due consideration of the partners competence and past performance, and that the Technical Review allows for improvements in the project design. Explore options for adaptation of proposal formats with OCHA HQ, to allow for partners to provide information related to competencies and experience. Explore options for adaptation of scope of capacity assessment under the HACT with HACT Working Group / Secretariat, and alternative approaches potentially involving clusters and assessments of prior work. EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 5: Building on the use of the Gender Marker, the CHF should ensure that gender issues are included in programme design systematically and that there are links between the inclusion of gender and how this enhances the overall quality of projects. This should be a prominent feature in project proposals as well as related M&R activities. With support from the Interagency GenCap Gender Advisor efforts have been ongoing through recent allocation rounds to promote better practices in relation to gender programming. The current iteration of the project proposal template enhances the focus on gender as compared to previous formats, and accompanying guidelines and tools are provided to partners. Nevertheless there is considerable scope for further consolidation of best practices throughout the programme cycle including M&R activities. Request outgoing GenCap Advisor to share best practices in incorporating gender considerations into CHF proposals and share with partners for reference in future allocations. By September HC/CHF AB Solicit feedback from partners and cluster coordinators regarding experiences and challenges in using current templates and guidance materials during allocation process. Subject to findings, enhance materials and guidance as appropriate. This may encompass the redesign of the field visit monitoring template to better capture issues related to gender programming. March onwards EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 6: The South Sudan CHF should increase support to cluster coordinators. This includes increased information and knowledge sharing with cluster coordinators that goes beyond the GMS or other existing management information. This may include regular meetings with cluster coordinators by the TS to discuss issues and constraints, new processes and procedures, and opportunities to better facilitate the cluster lead role. Ideally, these would be semi-formal in that they would be incorporated into the allocation cycle, e.g. a lessons learned session just after each allocation. 3

4 The working relationship between the CHF TS and the Cluster Coordinators is strong. However, it is recognized that there is scope to increase support through a range of processes and communications channels. Proposed ways forward should, however, take into account practical realities including the high level of staff turnover in South Sudan and the importance of minimizing time demands on already over-burdened cluster coordinators. Ensure that at least one structured reflection / lessons learned exercise is held following each allocation round and ongoing availability to Cluster Coordinators to respond to any questions. Promote the use by Cluster Coordinators of new, global training materials expected to become available during Ongoing EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 7: The South Sudan CHF can strengthen partnerships further by increasing the collection and distribution of information related to realized and potential programmatic links and synergies. This should be included as a specific element in project proposals, e.g. ask partner organizations to identify possible partnership opportunities. Management Response: Partially accepted The recommendation is welcomed in principle. As noted earlier, project proposal templates are standardized globally and any suggested modifications will require wider analysis and negotiation. Explore options for more expansive use of the data available in the GMS to strengthen partnerships (for example, data related to sub grants, and other funding streams) EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 8: The South Sudan CHF should expand value for money initiatives to include data on partner funding overall, e.g. the amount of funding received from different donors. This can be included in the Partner Proposal template. 4

5 Further development of the practical application of value for money concepts is desirable in principle. Nevertheless on first inspection there are some doubts about the applicability and practicality of the specific example offered within the recommendation. The proposal template already invites information regarding other funding, however the veracity and utility of this may be limited in a fast changing environment with numerous operational organsations and donors. Current efforts at mapping funding streams through inter-donor collaboration may, for example, be more fruitful. In consultation with stakeholders, give further consideration to the practical application of the recommendation as well as other alternatives which may enhance value for money vis a vis partner funding overall. March EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 9: OCHA should transition from United Nations Volunteers (UNV) M&R Specialists to regular staff contracts. This will support continuity while further supporting the work done by these specialists at the cluster level. Management Response: Rejected The need to move beyond ad hoc or year-by-year arrangements for support to M&R processes is important. However, the conversion of M&R Specialists from UNVs to regular staff would have substantial financial implications. The CHF TS will instead review the efficacy and sustainability of current arrangements and alternatives, rather than committing to conversion to regular staff contracts. Identify the cost/benefit of the current, and other possible monitoring and reporting models - Collect robust evidence of the costs/benefits of the current model for all stakeholders - Identify a funding strategy for the M&R function - Review the outcomes of the SAVE research project and workshops - Undertake further consultation with Cluster Coordinators 5