Donor Reporting Harmonisation Initiative

for the Advisory Commission Sub-Committee 2 May 2012 David de Bold Senior Monitoring & Evaluation Officer 1

Outline

(i) Update on Monitoring & Evaluation (“M&E”) (ii) Update on the implementation of the Donor Reporting Harmonisation Initiative (“Initiative”) (iii) Questions and/or Comments 2

1 - The evaluation coordination function was transferred to the independent Department of Internal Oversight Services (per Advisory Committee on Internal Oversight recommendation in 2010) 3

Background Information

Strengthening of M&E was part of OD to improve Programme Cycle Management and started in 2009 which following: • Establishment of an Agency-level Senior Monitoring & Evaluation post; • Support to the planning process through indicator development and improve methodology; • Identify and lead the development of an Agency-wide results-based monitoring system; • Consolidate and improve the quality and consistency of monitoring and external reporting; • Introduce management processes to support regular implementation monitoring of plans 4

Status Update

• Established and improved the Agency-wide Common Monitoring Matrix for biennium plans (i.e., FIPs); • Established Agency-wide M&E Community of Practice and support knowledge externalization; • Implemented an Agency-wide Results-based Monitoring system for programmatic, financial and human resource data and analytical information on results; • Implementing Quarterly Management Reviews and and annual Results Reviews; and • Implemented the Donor Reporting Harmonisation Initiative to consolidate, improve quality and align internal an external reporting 5

Update: Financial Chart of Accounts

Improving quality and streamlining of reporting for funding agreements 6

Background on the Initiative

An opportunity to improve the quality and streamline the information provided and reduce transaction costs.

• Inconsistent periods for reporting; • Wide variety of indicators; • Measures for indicators at various levels (i.e., activities or outputs and/or outcomes); • Differences between internal UNRWA reporting and external donor reporting and duplication of reporting; • Follow the principles embodied in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action 2 7 2 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and Accra Agenda for Action (2008), OECD

Donor Reporting Harmonisation Initiative

A summary of the methodology is as follows:  Engage with donors through an informal donor reference group for content;  Reporting would take place once per calendar year within 90 days of calendar year-end;  Template standardisation containing quantitative data and narrative results analysis;  Indicators aligned with UNRWA biennium plans including baselines and targets;  Include indicators for monitoring processes or Agency wide initiatives; and  Indicator disaggregation by Field Office, Agency and Gender identified when applicable.

8

Donor Reporting Harmonization Initiative Reporting Categories Goal 1 A long and Healthy Life Goal 2 Knowledge and Skills Goal 3 A Decent Standard of Living Goal 4 Human Rights Enjoyed to the Fullest Emergency Appeals Process Monitoring Total Number of Indicators Examples: consultations per 7 testing; Before, as an example, the largest three contributors (in absolute terms) to the General Fund, required over 30 different indicators. Less than 10% of these indicators were exactly the same across all these agreements Information analysis, templates and frequency all different.

9

The Report

Reporting Template 11

Going Forward

i.

ii.

Establish a regular dialogue through the reference group (technical) forum; Managing expectations of further strengthening of M&E in UNRWA; and iii. Incorporate lessons learned with each Report publication iv. Leverage successes like: Donors using the Report to fully satisfies reporting requirements in the spirit of the Aid Effectiveness Agenda The

2010 External Review of UNRWA Programmes funded by the EU

recommendation of the Initiative The Initiative is cited as an example of best practice in United Nations in the

Joint Study of Common Principles of Results Reporting

(UNDG-HLCM, 2011) 12

comments and questions 13