Inputs provided to DGG on the above, upon request.
1. To answer OGs questions on what is reported under SL 2.1, the answer is rather simple: most of that is reported here related to civic engagement, civil society, human rights, participation, etc. This we know from looking at the country defined outcomes for this SL. At any rate, this bears little relation to the outcome itself as define in the RF (links to the private sector and the MDG; as a matter of fact only 4 projects in this SL work on MDGs!)
Here is a sample that you might want to annex to the report:
SL 2.1: Summary of Country Outcomes Descriptions -----------------------------------------+----------- An informed public actively claiming goo | 7 Capacity Development and Participatory G | 3 Citizens participate more effectively in | 1 Civic engagement, through civil society | 4 Civil society has increased its capacity | 3 Civil society involvement in public affa | 1 Civil society participation and influenc | 4 Democratic institutions and practices ar | 5 Descentralización y desarrollo local pa | 6 Dialogue and participation, especially o | 14 Empowered communities and CSOs participa | 3 Enabling environment for civil society p | 4 Fortalecimiento del diálogo y la concie | 5 Fortalecimiento del ejercicio de la ciud | 4 Greater people's participation in and co | 2 Increase in social cohesion and citizen | 3 Increased access to and participation in | 5 Increased engagement and participation o | 3 Increased participation of civil society | 7 La participation effective des populatio | 5 La population et des Organisations à la | 3 Les capacités de la société civile so | 2 Les populations et en particulier les fe | 3 Local governance practices in place, pro | 3 National dialogue promoted to create an | 2 Participation of CSO's in formulation, | 4 Participatory approaches to development | 10 People (men and women) empowered to part | 1 Platforms for action for civil society a | 13 Promoting national debate and social dia | 10 Public institutions are reinforced to en | 3 Social Cohesion and peace-building appro | 2 Social players exercising enhanced parti | 7
2. We should also mention in passing that at least for DG, 48% (out of 4,420 or so) of project included in ROAR 2009 report either no expenditure (or report income). However some ROAR reports tally this project when producing figures for outcomes and countries. For DG as a whole we thus get the following picture:
—————————————-
| Focus area
Corporate outcome | Democratic governanc
——————+———————
A2I/e-gov | 12
Access to Justice | 38
Anti-corruption | 13
Civil Society | 35
Elections | 23
Gender | 30
Human Rights | 35
Other | 47
PAR/LG | 121
Parliaments | 25
|
Total | 379
including projects with no expenditure
and
—————————————-
| Focus area
Corporate outcome | Democratic governanc
——————+———————
A2I/e-gov | 7
Access to Justice | 16
Anti-corruption | 7
Civil Society | 21
Elections | 15
Gender | 15
Human Rights | 18
Other | 27
PAR/LG | 69
Parliaments | 14
|
Total | 209
—————————————-
Excluding them. Look at the sharp decline in outcomes once we take into account ACTIVE projects.
3. Initial and rapid analysis of LG data suggest that 20% of all DG projects are in this area and over 30% of the NRLGs SL projects are working on this. Here is some data:
Total projects by SL, DG 2009
Corporate outcome | Freq. Percent Cum.
—————————————-+———————————–
A2I/e-gov | 38 1.71 1.71
Access to Justice | 202 9.10 10.81
Anti-corruption | 78 3.51 14.32
Civil Society | 152 6.84 21.16
Elections | 101 4.55 25.71
Gender | 141 6.35 32.06
Human Rights | 157 7.07 39.13
Other | 294 13.24 52.36
PAR/LG | 944 42.50 94.87
Parliaments | 114 5.13 100.00
—————————————-+———————————–
Total | 2,221 100.00
Total LG Projects by SL, DG 2009
Corporate outcome | Freq. Percent Cum.
—————————————-+———————————–
A2I/e-gov | 2 0.50 0.5
Access to Justice | 10 2.50 3.00
Anti-corruption | 3 0.75 3.75
Civil Society | 41 10.25 14.00
Gender | 31 7.75 21.75
Human Rights | 22 5.50 27.25
Other | 54 13.50 40.75
PAR/LG | 230 57.50 98.25
Parliaments | 7 1.75 100.00
—————————————-+———————————–
Total | 400 100.00
4. The current structure does not allow for an easy transition to move from SL outcomes to cross-practice ones. While this is surely going to be considered as part of the upcoming overhauling of UNDP’s business processes, it is now possible to report on wider themes such as LG/local development and gender. The suggestion is to create a supra o super out come that aggregates at the highest level (over and above the practices) the work being done in these areas. The case of LG et. al. is a good example as it has at least for related outcomes in separate practices. As this data is already captured in the ROAR, what we need to do is aggregated the data under one umbrella and report on the super-outcome level to the board. This will required digging deep in the ROAR and putting together the four outcomes. This will also provide a perfect opportunity for UNDP to demonstrate that it can work at the cross-practice level as a cross-practice team will have to be created to make this happen.
5. Finally, I think the current draft (which I had not seen when we discussed earlier today) is going a bit beyond from what we have been requested to do. For example, suggesting changes in the wording of existing SLs can be a two-edge sword that could backfire. I also think we should make a bit more noise about the QUALITY of the data that the ROAR provides and the many inconsistencies that we can find when attempting to dig into data analysis (for example: ROAR 2009 contains at least ONE duplicate record, a few countries use the same project to report on different outcome but do not disaggregated expenditures which lead to double-counting,etc.)
Cheers, Raúl
