1. Chapter-1 Introduction
1.0 Background
As part of the 1997 reform agenda to make the United Nations (UN) an effective and efficient
institution for world peace and development in the 21st century, the Secretary-General stressed the
strong inter-linkages between peace and security, poverty reduction and sustainable human
development and promotion and respect for human rights. The Common Country Assessment (CCA)
and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) are outcomes of this coherent
vision and strategy that allows for a unified approach towards common development goals. The
UNDAF is a vital strategic framework that articulates a collective, coherent and integrated response of
the UN system at the country level in support of the national priorities and needs.
In 2004, the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) and its partners in the Government and civil
society prepared the second UNDAF (2005-2009) for the Philippines. To align with national planning
processes and to benefit from the new Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan (MTPDP), at the
request of the Government the 2005-2009 UNDAF has been extended to a 2012 start. Concerned UN
agencies developed their two-year ‘transitional’ programme to cover the period of 2010 and 2011.
Under the leadership of National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) representing the
Government of the Philippines (GOP) and in close consultation with the United Nations Civil Society
Advisory Committee (UNCSAC) and the development partners, the United Nations Country Team
(UNCT)8 in the Philippines is embarking on the preparatory activities for a new UNDAF for the
period of 2012-2016. Evaluation of the current UNDAF9 is a prerequisite for this process.
To optimize the utilization of the study, the UNCT decided to undertake a participatory lessons
learned exercise, instead of a formal evaluation, with an overall objective to inform the design and
preparation of the new UNDAF.
This report is an inward-looking document, which presents the lessons learned from successes and
challenges, and identifies the issues and opportunities emerging from the current UNDAF cycle.
1.1 Objectives
The specific objectives of the task are the following:
• To document and analyze the processes of UNDAF formulation, its thematic content and
implementation as well as the processes of implementing ‘Delivering as One’ and joint
programming;
• To review major achievements in five UNDAF outcome areas10 ;and
• To summarize the lessons learned and provide recommendations for the next UNDAF cycle.
1.2 The Approach and the Scope of the Study
As mentioned earlier, the present lessons learned exercise is not a formal evaluation following the
United Nations Development Group (UNDG) guidelines. This is a forward-looking endeavour to
learn from successes and challenges of the current UNDAF cycle. It is a participatory exercise, which
has drawn inputs primarily from the UN staff members and the UNCT. The study focuses more on the
processes rather than the results.
8 The United Nations Country Team consists of UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, FAO, ILO, IFAD, UN Habitat,
IMO, IOM, UNHCR, UNIDO, HABITAT, UNAIDS, ICAO, OCHA, UNDSS, and the Bretton Woods Institutions World
Bank, IMF, IFC and the ADB. Non-resident agencies such as UNEP, UNESCO, UNIFEM, UNODC, and UNOHCHR are
also part of the UNCT
9
The current UNDAF (2005-2009) has been extended by two years and the start of the new UNDAF has been postponed to
2012 to align with the MTPDP cycle.
10
Refer to Annex 1.

2. 1.3 Methodology
The phases of the lessons learned exercise are discussed below.
1.3.1 Desk Review
In the preparatory phase, a desk review was conducted to study a wide range of relevant documents
and develop a questionnaire11 for collection of data. The key documents included but not limited to –
- CCA and UNDAF documents;
- UNDG guidelines;
- UNDAF Annual Reviews;
- Annual Progress Reports of the UN Resident Coordinator (RC);
- MTPDP;
- Human Development Report (HDR),
- Philippines Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Progress reports;
- The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR) of
Operational Activities for Development
- Country Programme Action Plans (CPAP) or similar tool for the UNCT and
- Reports of various agency-specific evaluations and assessments.
1.3.2 Collection of Data
Collection of primary data through questionnaire survey
A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted among the UN staff and partners to elicit
information and capture perceptions about the UNDAF cycle. There were 33 responses from the
UNCT and UN staff members and one from the CSAC. In addition to that, group discussion and
informal interviews were conducted with UN staff members, who were involved in the UNDAF
formulation process and were part of UN theme groups. A multi-stakeholder consultation will be
organized to share the findings and the key recommendations.
Collection of secondary data
Primary data collected through questionnaire survey was complemented by the insights drawn from
relevant documents mentioned earlier.
1.4 Analysis and Report writing
Data and other information collated through various sources were primarily analyzed qualitatively.
The report has been organized as follows:
1. Background;
2. UNDAF 2005-2009: The Process, Thematic Content and Key Emerging Issues;
3. Delivering as One and Joint Programming; and
4. Lessons Learned and Key Recommendations.
Annex 1 - UNDAF (2005-2009): Key Outcomes, Outputs and Activities
Annex 2 - The United Nations System in Middle-Income Countries (MIC) in South-East Asia:
Development Cooperation and the UNDAF
Annex 3: Questionnaire – UNDAF Lessons Learned
11
Questionnaire is enclosed in Annex 3.

3. 1.5 Limitations of the study
As mentioned earlier, this study is mainly based on the inputs of the UNCT, UN staff and a member
of the CSAC. Highlights of this study, however, were shared in a series of multi-stakeholder
consultations on August 24-26, 2010 with representatives of national government, civil society and
development partners.
1.6 Timeline
This ‘lessons learned’ exercise was commissioned in April 2010 and will be concluded in August
2010.
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
ACTIVITIES
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Debrief on UNDAF Regional
Workshop, including revisiting of
timelines (15 April)
Desk review of existing and
relevant documents
Development of the inception
report
Share inception report for
comments (13 May UNDAF WG
Meeting)
Debrief with the UNCT, on
inception report (19 May UNCT
Meeting)
Finalizing revised report outline,
questionnaire survey
Drafting of evaluation report
Sharing initial results with
UNDAF WG (10 June)
Debrief initial results (1 July
special UNCT Meeting)
Receiving comments and revision
of the draft report
Multi-stakeholder consultation
Finalization of the report

4. Chapter-2: The Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009): The Process,
Thematic Content and Key Emerging Issues
2.1 Formulation Process of the UNDAF (2005-2009) for the Philippines
In 2004, as part of the Common Country Programming Process (CCPP), the UNCT and its partners in
the Government and civil society prepared the second UNDAF (2005-2009) for the Philippines,
which embodies the UN commitments in support of the national development priorities. The UNDAF
was based on the CCA drafted in 2003, which analyzed the national development situation and
identified key development issues with a focus on the Millennium Declaration/MDGs and other
international conventions.
The CCPP in the Philippines for formulating the CCA and the UNDAF was initiated in 2002 with
training sessions on the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) to development and the conduct of a
gender assessment of development trends, challenges and outcomes in the country12. First, an initial
CCA framework was developed, which was later enriched by inputs from the UN ExCOM agencies
(UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA)13 in the form of several sectoral assessments and situational analysis
involving causality and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis,
clustering of issues and scenario building. Focal points from each agency played crucial role in this
process. The findings of these assessments were validated through a multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral
workshop. Participants in that workshop identified key developmental themes for the CCA, which
were later analyzed by the UN Thematic Groups. Thematic Working Groups conducted individual in-
depth workshops for each theme. Findings and recommendations of the thematic groups were finally
presented during a plenary session for validation and finalization of CCA conceptual framework. The
CCA was finally approved in March 2003, after several rounds of consultations. Along with the CCA
finalization process, the preparatory phase for the UNDAF was initiated. UNDAF Prioritization
workshop was organized in October 2003. UN agencies participated in this workshop to identify the
outcomes for UNDAF. Based on the CCA findings, the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs,
consensus was reached on five priority areas of UNDAF cooperation.
The CCA 2004 identified the key underlying causes of poverty and exclusion in the Philippines: 1)
inequitable economic growth and ownership of assets; 2) severely unequal access to opportunities and
basic social services; and 3) inability of key change agents, particularly women, to play an active role
in improving their lives and those of others.
To address these causes, the UNDAF committed to contribute to five strategic outcomes which it
sought to achieve by 2009:
Macroeconomic Stability, Broad-Based and Equitable Development – focused on UN-GOP
cooperation in the formulation of pro-poor policies and the development of management and
planning capacities of vulnerable groups;
Basic Social Services – focused on collaboration on the demand and delivery of services for
health, education, and social protection/social security;
Good Governance – focused on justice and human rights, public sector and decentralized
governance, and political, electoral and legislative reforms that facilitate citizen participation;
Environmental Sustainability – focused on improved natural disaster response through
creating a stronger policy environment, capacity development of local stakeholders, and
increasing access to services; and
Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building – focused on strengthening policy environment,
capacity development for Government, civil society, former combatants and communities,
and ensuring the rights of those affected by the armed conflict.
12
UNDAF (2005-2009)
13
WFP was not present in the country during the CCA-UNDAF formulation.

5. As the CCA and UNDAF guideline14 suggests, the UNCT cannot respond coherently to every goal
and objective of the national development framework. It will have to select priorities, in line with the
principles of HRBA, gender equality, environmental sustainability, results-based management
(RBM), and capacity development as well as its comparative advantages at the country level. In the
context of Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009), in all five areas, the United Nations System identified its
comparative advantages drawing on its values, successful global knowledge base, best practices and
lessons learned; its strong normative mandate; its neutrality; and its ability to encourage efficient
coordination and facilitate accountability among donors.
The UNDAF aims to contribute to the national priorities, and for doing that, it is imperative to align
with the national planning processes and ensure the ownership of national partners/stakeholders.
However, the current UNDAF was formulated, at a time when the preparations for the MTPDP (2004-
2010) were soon to be undertaken, and hence the cycles as well as the contents of the two instruments
are not aligned. The current UNDAF is based on the previous MTPDP (2001-2004)15.
The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities
for Development16 conducted in 2007 notes another drawback in the UNDAF formulation process.
The report mentions that the low operational value of the current UNDAF document could be partly
attributed to the fact that, national stakeholders were invited to participate in the preparation process
of the CCA and UNDAF at a stage when the UNCT had already shaped the main orientations of the
documents. However, it is worth mentioning that the formulation of the current CCA and UNDAF
was closely monitored and guided by the UNDG. National stakeholders were engaged following the
timeframe prescribed in the UNDG guidelines.
Role of Non-Resident Agencies (NRA) in the formulation of the current UNDAF was limited. As one
NRA mentioned, its participation was curbed due to delayed communication received about the
consultation process. It was felt that NRAs should be contacted in advance to ensure their
involvement.
2.2 The Design, Content and the Implementation Process
The Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) document has three parts. The first part discusses the global
and national socio-economic context, the UNDAF priority areas and the outcomes, estimated resource
requirements, implementation strategies and approaches and monitoring and evaluation plan. The
second part is the results matrix (RM) that outlines the UNDAF outcomes/outputs, role of partners,
resource mobilization targets, coordination mechanisms and programme modalities. The third
component of the document is the UNDAF Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework, which
specifies the UNDAF outcomes/outputs along with the indicators and source of verification.
2.2.1 The UNDAF Thematic Areas
As discussed earlier, the priority areas for the UNDAF were chosen on the basis of the CCA, which
conducted a causality analysis to identify the causes of poverty. As defined by the General Assembly,
the CCA is the common instrument of the UN system to analyze the national development situation
and identify key development issues with a focus on the MDGs and the other commitments of the
Millennium Declaration and international conventions.
The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities
for Development conducted in 2007 notes that, as a programmatic tool for greater UN system
coherence, ‘the design of UNDAF is not perceived as fulfilling expectations’. The five priorities of
14
CCA/UNDAF Guideline, UNDG, February 2009
15
The Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development
(2007)
16
The main purpose of the in-Country Consultations was to draw first-hand information and insights from key players at
country level on the efficiency of the functioning of the UN system and its effectiveness to support national development
strategies and achieve internationally agreed development goals.

6. the current UNDAF are not very different from the UN areas of cooperation identified in the 1990s,
which were: economic growth with equity human development, environment and sustainable
development, governance, disaster management and peace building. During 2006 UNCT retreat,
though three different priority areas for coordinated UN action, namely, good governance, human
security and disparity reduction, were identified, finally existing five themes were retained.
However, some UN staff members have strongly endorsed the existing priority areas, and they feel
that the thematic areas of UNDAF very well capture the fundamental challenges faced by the Filipino
people today, and still remain highly relevant. However, these broad areas need to be re-examined in
light of changes in the operating environment. For example, the priority area on environmental
sustainability will need to be re-crafted to include climate change and disaster mitigation as one of the
focus areas, while the thematic area on conflict prevention and peace-building may need to be seen as
a dimension of a larger crisis prevention/management and recovery framework that also includes
disaster risk reduction and management.
2.2.2 The UNDAF Results Matrix
UNDAF RM articulates the implementation mechanism for realizing the planned outcomes in each
priority area. The RM is the crucial tool that operationalizes the UNDAF.
However, a close look at the RM reveals that:
(1) Outcome statements use change language but most of them are very broad. This is probably
because agencies want to see their specific mandate reflected in result statements to demonstrate
their relevance to the national priorities. This makes these statements mere compilations of agency
agenda. UNDAF Outcome-2 in the area of basic social services can be taken up for example.
UNDAF outcome-2: By 2009, increased and more equitable access to and utilization of
quality, integrated and sustainable basic social services by the poor and vulnerable.
CP Outcome 1: (UNICEF, UNFPA, WHO, UNAIDS, UNIC)
By 2009, more Filipinos, especially children, adolescents and women, are aware of their
rights, including reproductive rights, and are empowered to claim their rights to health
and education.
CP Output 1.1 (UNICEF, UNFPA, UNAIDS, WHO)
Women, men, adolescents and children are able to make informed choices about
responsible health and other behavior and practices by accessing educational services,
community-based development, protection, participation and reproductive health
interventions and HIV/AIDS prevention education, thereby ensuring the realization of
their rights
The broad UNDAF outcome has resulted in a very broad CP outcome. The CP output is also pitched
at a very high level, almost at the level of the CP outcome. Broad outputs become undeliverable and
difficult to measure17. In this particular case, the logical flow between the output and the outcome
cannot be established. The “if - then” logic does not follow in this results chain, i.e. if the output is
achieved, it is not evident that there is an increased possibility of achieving the outcome as well.
(2) The UNDAF Annual review conducted in 2005 noted that, the outcome and output statements in
the RM are not clearly formulated. From these statements it is difficult to derive the exact scope and
nature of interventions and identify duty bearers and claim holders. During the 2005 UNDAF review,
17
CP Outcome and output indicators have not been clearly differentiated in the M&E framework, which will be discussed
later.

7. theme group members attempted simplifying the RM. However, formal adoption of the simplification
by both the UN and the NEDA, GOP partners did not happen.
(3) As per the UNDG guideline (2009), risk analysis and assumptions are probably the most important
aspect of the results matrix. A SWOT analysis is used to identify key risks and assumptions, which
enables the UNDAF to serve as an instrument of implementation, and not only a planning tool. In the
UNDAF document the RM does not contain risk analysis and assumption and the identification and
adoption of risk mitigation measures, which makes it incomplete.
2.2.3 Monitoring & Evaluation plans
Since development is a process, the UNDAF was meant to be a living document to adapt to changes
in the country’s economic, social and political situations. An M&E plan was put in place by the
UNCT to track the changes and measure the progress in achieving the desired results, which was
expected to be carried through the results based management (RBM) approach. M&E activities
suggested by the UNDG guideline (2009) include:
• Annual progress reviews carried out and brief reports produced for each UNDAF Outcome.
• Annual UNDAF Reviews carried out to enable UNCT and partners to make decisions based
on evidence of results that will enhance subsequent performance.
• An UNDAF Evaluation commissioned in consultation with national partners to feed its
findings into the development of the next UNDAF.
During the 2005-2009 cycle, UNDAF Annual Reviews were conducted for the years 2005 and 2006
and a Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities
for Development took place in 2007. Internal UNDAF theme group reviews were carried out as part
of the annual UNDAF reviews.
However, both the 2005 and 2006 annual reviews were delayed and did not follow the UNDG guided
time schedule. Instead of the last quarter of the year, they were conducted respectively in the first
quarters of 2006 and 2007. Consequently, most agencies had to develop their Annual Work Plans
(AWP) without the inputs from the annual reviews. The RC’s annual progress reports also could not
fully benefit from the annual reviews for the same reason.
The mid-term review, which was due in 2007, became redundant, as the second UNDAF annual
review was conducted the same year. However, the Country Consultation on the Triennial
Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development in 2007 provided some
useful insights about the performance of the UNDAF. The end-line lessons learned exercise has been
undertaken to inform the next UNDAF.
2.2.4 The UNDAF M&E Framework
A properly developed M&E framework ensures accountability of an UNDAF. It also helps in
identifying key challenges in order to make mid-stream changes in the approach and delivery of
activities, outputs and outcomes or their targets.
However, the M&E framework of the UNDAF has several weaknesses as discussed below –
(1) A number of indicators have been listed at each level of result. For many of them, base-line
values are missing. As suggested by the UNDG CCA/UNDAF guideline (2009), the UNDAF
M&E framework should specify the outcome/output, the indicators with baseline and targets.
However, the Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) has not specified targets in the indicators
column of its M&E framework, as shown below. The absence of a target, and baseline in
many cases, renders the RM an ineffective tool for measuring the progress. In the absence of
overall and annual targets it has been difficult to assess the yearly progress, as has been
pointed out in the annual reviews. Given the constraint, the annual reviews were only able to
document the yearly achievement in each priority area.

8. Table 1: UNDAF RM Format prescribed by UNDG Guideline
UNDAF Outcome Indicator(s) and Means of verification Assumptions and Risks
Baselines
UNDAF Outcome1 Indicators; Baselines, Sources: At the interface:
targets18
Responsible agencies/ (1) Between national
partners priorities and UNDAF
outcomes; and
(2) UNDAF outcomes and
Indicators; Baselines, Sources:
1.1 Agency outcome Agency outcomes
targets
Responsible agencies/
- Output 1.1.1
partners
- Output 1.1.2
- Output 1.1.3
…
1.2 Agency outcome Indicators; Baselines, Sources:
targets
- Output 1.2.1 Responsible agencies/
partners
….
…
Source: UNDG guideline for CCA and UNDAF (Feb 2009)
Table 2: Actual Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) RM for Outcome 1
Country programme Indicators and baselines Sources of verification
outcome/output
CP Outcome 1: • Proportion of caretakers aware of children’s rights MICS
Baseline: 1999 : 84.3 %
By 2009, more Filipinos,
especially women, children
•% increase in the number of women, adolescents and
and adolescents, are aware
men seeking RH information and services in
of their rights including DOH Records /Reports
government health facilities, teen centers, schools and
reproductive rights and are
clinics in the workplace
empowered to claim their
Baseline : Not available·
rights to health and
education. •% increase in the number of community networks of
women organized to advocate for RH issues DOH Records/Reports
Baseline : Not available
Source: The Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009)
(2) In the Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) commitment for each outcome and output is shared
by a number of agencies and their implementing partners. Common outcomes and outputs
have posed challenges for accountability; there are no measures to identify agency
contributions. Outputs are the level of results where clear comparative advantages of
18 Note that targets for outcomes are to be reached by efforts beyond those specified of the UN.

9. individual agencies emerge. To ensure accountability, outputs should have been attributed to
the agencies. As noted during the annual reviews, the lack of systematic way to identify
agency contributions for specific results caused significant level of inaccurate reporting at the
UNDAF AWP review stage.
(3) The ExCOM agencies have aligned their current CPAPs with the UNDAF (2005-2009). Other
agencies also have adjusted their work plans to contribute to the UNDAF outcomes.
However, as the annual reviews reveal, agencies were primarily driven by their agency-
specific mandates and there has been a lot of scope to align the agency CPAPs with the
UNDAF CP outcomes and outputs. For example, as noted by UNDP, HIV/AIDS is covered
under Basic Social Services and Governance outcome areas in the UNDAF results matrix,
whereas in UNDP CPAP it is covered under the outcome area of macroeconomic stability.
This caused difficulty in reporting agency-specific contribution to UNDAF outcomes.
(4) It has been noted by annual reviews and reported by agencies that their M&E frameworks are
disjointed with the UNDAF M&E framework19. In 2006, following the recommendations of
the 2005 UNDAF annual review, an M&E Task Force was established under the UN
Programme Support Group to support the M&E requirements for the UNDAF and MDGs and
to harmonize agency M & E systems. The task of revising the UNDAF M&E framework and
aligning the agency M&E systems were undertaken. However, it was a work-in-progress and
never completed. As noted by a staff member, this was because M&E focal persons had to
focus on their agency specific deliverables. There was no clarity on their role in the UNDAF
process. M&E should be an ongoing process and an integral part of the implementation of
UNDAF. However, the UNDAF M&E mechanism was not operational because of the factors
discussed above. For the RC’s annual progress report, UN agencies accomplished the
matrices and UNCO prepared the consolidated matrix. Thus, it has been a retrofitting
exercise to comply with HQ requirements.
(5) For an effective M&E system, availability of accurate data is essential. Data, desegregated by
relevant analytical categories (such as demographic and geographic) should be made available
for proper tracking of progress. However, during the 2005-2009 UNDAF cycle, UN agencies
had difficulty monitoring output-level performance because of the lack of relevant and
reliable sources of verification, as available data sources were not adequately disaggregated
by municipality, sex, age, etc.
2.2.5 Cross-cutting issues
Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA)
UNDAF’s compliance with HRBA requires a systematic application of human rights standards and
principles in all phases of the programming processes including the formulation of result chains. The
institutional and behavioral changes are imperative for right-holders to claim their rights and/or for
duty-bearers to fulfill their obligations and should be reflected in all UNDAF and Agency outcomes.
Agency Outputs should be intended to narrow the capacity gaps which prevent claim holders and duty
bearers to fulfill their roles. The UNCT should show greater rigor and clarity on how their programs
will lead to outcomes that will fill the various capacity gaps and highlight how they will identify those
accountable for meeting obligations. Accountability establishes a clear difference with traditional
development approaches. HRBA depends on good statistical database and strong country analytical
work on social and regional disparities.
The Philippines UNDAF has documented its commitment for the HRBA to development. As the
document mentions, “The UNCT has emphasized the creation of an enabling environment that
enhances the Government’s ability to formulate rights-based and pro-poor policies as well as to build
the capacities to pursue and institutionalize political, economic and social reforms.” In the
19
The 2006 annual UNDAF review noted that among the UN agencies, the programme framework of UNDP adheres most
closely to the design of the UNDAF.

10. Philippines, the UNCT found that physical and social barriers to participation for the most vulnerable
greatly undermine any right-based development in the country. Thus the UNCT agenda in the country
focuses on targeting poor regions and specific impoverished groups.
Though the UNDAF document explicitly underlines the need for adopting HRBA for achieving the
MDGs, the M&E framework is not fully compliant with the HRBA.
As regards the implementation, UN agencies mentioned that though efforts were made to incorporate
the HRBA, it was not adequately addressed. Instead of being the basic underpinning principle, the
HRBA was seen as “afterthought” and real mainstreaming did not happen. As has been mentioned,
sometimes it was not clear how it will be effectively mainstreamed and translated into specific outputs
and activities. However, there were some efforts worth mentioning (discussed in details in Annex-1).
UNDP has been supporting NEDA in the implementation of the project “Mainstreaming of the
Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) on Development Policies, Programs and Activities of
NEDA”, which has also been supported by UNFPA, UNICEF, and UNAIDS. The project’s main
activity has been the conduct of HRBA capacity building trainings for the NEDA Central and
Regional Offices to effectively mainstream HRBA in the MTPDP exercise. This initiative has created
significant interest among National Government Agencies (NGA). There is a commitment of NEDA
to cost share 40 percent of the total budget. The strong political will provides a great opportunity for
effective mainstreaming of HRBA in government planning in the Philippines. However, there is a
lack of common understanding on mainstreaming HRBA among the line agencies of GOP. There is a
need to develop guidelines on application of HRBA in policies, programmes and M&E. Capacity
building tools and mechanisms are generally inadequate and hence a plan should be developed for
transfer of HRBA skills from the national level to LGUs.
Gender Equality
Gender Equality is one of the five key programming principles of the UNDAF, which is also at the
core of the HRBA. The Philippines UNDAF (200520-09) documents its commitment to gender
equality. However, it is imperative to get this priority translated into strategic UNDAF results chains
and consequently into holistic programming for gender equality.
In 2007, a workshop on Mainstreaming Gender and Women’s Rights in Development Programming
and its application to the UNDAF and CPAPs was organised for the UN staff. In this workshop, the
UNDAF outcome/output statements and the indicators were analyzed through a gender lens. It was
found that, in many cases outcome/output statements were not gender-sensitive. The participants in
the workshop revised the UNDAF country programme outcome and output statements from the
agency Country Programme Action Plans to demonstrate mainstreaming of the gender and human
rights perspectives. Corresponding indicators and sources of verification were also enhanced.
However, these revisions were never formalized.
Sample Output from the Workshop: Enhanced UNDAF Outcomes and Indicators from
Gender and Human Rights Perspective
UNDAF Outcome: Basic Social Services
Original Outcome Statement: By 2009, more Filipinos, especially children, adolescents and women
are aware of their rights, including reproductive rights, and are empowered to claim their rights to
health and education.
Enhanced Outcome Statement: The goal by 2009 is to increase by 2 to 5% the number of Filipinos,
specifically those belonging to the poor and most vulnerable groups, such as children, adolescents and
women, with greater access to quality education and health care, specifically in reproductive health.
This is to be done through a participatory educational process which provides them with necessary
tools and resources to actively advocate and claim their rights.
Indicators & Sources of Verification:
• Lower maternal mortality rate (MMR) - National Demographic and Health Survey
• Lower infant mortality rate - National Demographic and Health Survey

11. • Increased number of women accessing prenatal care - National Demographic and Health Survey
• Increased English, Math and Science scores of children – both girls and boys - TIMMS
• Survey of increased number of women going into non-traditional disciplines - Commission of
Higher Education (CHED)
Source: Workshop document (2007)
As a programmatic principle, gender equality has not been fully mainstreamed. Like HRBA, gender
equality has also been attempted to be incorporated later, which has never been done in a systematic
way.
However, there have been some success stories also. In 2004, a UN Gender Strategy Framework in
the Philippines (GSF PHI) 2005-2009 was developed with support from UNICEF, UNFPA and
UNDP. A Gender Mainstreaming Committee (GMC) was formed in 2006, which was chaired by
UNICEF. The GMC is composed of the gender focal persons of the UN Agencies in the Philippines
and provides technical support to the UNCT and the UNDAF Working Groups to ensure that gender
equality and women’s empowerment are prioritized in the UN supported programmes and projects.
GMC’s main functions include (1) technical assistance in gender-responsive programming, (2)
partnerships and networking, (3) communications and advocacy, (4) knowledge management and (5)
institutional and capacity building. The GMC has initiated the institutionalization of UN Guidelines
by conducting UN staff and partners’ orientation on the use of the Harmonized Gender and
Development (GAD) Guidelines. It also provided technical assistance for the review and update of the
Philippine Plan for Gender responsive Development and the MTPDP.
GMC engaged in the preparation of the UNCT Confidential Report to the CEDAW Committee in
2006. This report was appreciated by the CEDAW as a good practice of UN coordination by the
CEDAW Committee members. As follow-up to the CEDAW reporting, GMC developed a JP on
Responding to the CEDAW Recommendations (JP-CEDAW) to address issues related to the
implementation of the Convention in the Philippines. The JP assisted in enhancing capacity of
selected national stakeholders, UN programme staff and academic partners. Among other activities,
JP-CEDAW conducted participatory gender audits of UNDP and UN-HABITAT, which raised the
benchmark of gender compliance and catalyzed gender responsive programming. Another
achievement of JP-CEDAW was enactment of the Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act 9710 signed
into law) realized on 14 August 2009. Major results achieved in gender equality have been discussed
in annex-1.
2.2.6 Implementation Mechanism: Thematic Groups and their Evolution
In order to ensure that the programmes of the UN during the UNDAF programming cycle contribute
to the identified development outcomes, an inter-agency technical working group, comprising of
representatives from UN agencies, was established to serve as the mechanism to develop strategies to
support the realisation of the UNDAF outcomes. The group was formed also to ensure that the UN
agencies collaborate efficiently and effectively and promote partnership with the Government, civil
society, private sector and donors.
Following the UNDG Guideline20, in the March 2004 Annual Retreat of the UNCT, the Heads of
Agencies (HoA) agreed to form the inter-agency UNDAF Thematic Groups (TGs). These TGS were
small, composed of 5 – 7 participating agencies. Five TGs, delineated along the five UNDAF
outcome areas, were, as follows:
20 It is recommended that thematic groups for each UNDAF outcome are convened to refine the details of the RM matrix.
These groups should be capable in the application of HRBA, gender mainstreaming, RBM, capacity development, South-
South cooperation, and environmental sustainability. Following the finalization of the UNDAF, these UNDAF outcome
groups are responsible for using the results matrix, together with partners, for joint monitoring of progress towards each
UNDAF outcome. The outcome group will use this monitoring to report to the individuals leading the UNCT. (UNDG,
February 2009)

12. Table 3 Thematic Groups
UNDAF Outcomes Convenor
Macroeconomic Stability, Broad-Based and Equitable Development UNFPA (Lead), ILO (Co-
Lead)
Basic Social Services UNICEF (Lead), WHO (Co-
Lead)
Good governance UNDP (Lead), UN-
HABITAT (Co-Lead)
Environmental sustainability FAO (Lead), UN-
HABITAT, UNDP (Co-
Leads)
Conflict prevention and peace building UNDP (Lead), IOM (Co-
Lead)
In all their endeavours the theme groups were expected to project a ‘Delivering as One’ image and
strive towards achieving the MDGs. According to the generic terms of reference of UNDAF thematic
groups, specific responsibilities of these theme groups included:
(a) As a Strategic “think-tank: Provide strategic recommendations for accelerating achievement
of UNDAF Outcomes/Output and recommend appropriate action to the UNCT on relevant
concerns/issues;
(b) Joint-Programming: Identify and operationalise priority areas for JP or collective action and
recommend a mechanisms for implementation;
(c) Monitoring and Evaluation: Support UN-initiated and government efforts to develop
monitoring and evaluation system by identifying priority outcomes and indicators per relevant
area of cooperation/theme; and Report to the UNCT on the progress and accomplishments of
the TG (taking into account the inputs from various sub-groups), including presenting outputs
and raising issues and concerns and recommendations to the UNCT for appropriate action.
(d) Linkage with the Philippines Development Forum (PDF)21: Identify areas for collaboration to
strategically situate the UNCT in the PDF by ensuring high level visibility and effective
coverage of UNCT common issues and agenda in the PDF Working Groups (i.e., MDGs and
Social Progress, Growth and Investment Climate, Economic and Fiscal Reforms, Governance
and Anti-Corruption, Decentralization and Local Government, Mindanao, Sustainable Rural
Development, and Infrastructure).
In addition to these five (5) TGs, UN support groups were also formed, namely,
a. Information and advocacy working group;
b. Programming support group;
c. Gender Mainstreaming Committee,
d. Mindanao Support Group; and
e. Joint Team on Aids (JTA).
UN statutory groups were as follows:
a. Operations Management Team;
b. Disaster Management Team; and
c. Security Management Team.
21
A venue for interaction among government, civil society and international development community to foster
greater partnership in achieving aid effectiveness and aligning with national goals and priorities

13. These TGs became functional towards the last quarter of 2005. For the specific TGs, the Convener
and Co-Convener coordinate the work of the theme groups, with a representative from the UN
Coordination Office present in all meetings of the five TGs.
In addition to the groups enlisted above, three new inter-agency groups were formed in 2006 with
specific mandates. First was the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT) Task Force,
composed of UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA, to plan and operationalize the implementation of the
HACT.
The second inter-agency group formed was the ‘One UN House’ Task Force under the OMT to take
the lead in searching for new premises. An M&E Task Force for the CCA/UNDAF was also created
following the recommendations of the 2005 annual UNDAF review.
As noted during the annual review of 2006, the functioning of TGs in terms of regular meeting, follow
up actions and reporting has not been uniform across the groups. In most cases, there were no written
progress reports to track the progress of the TGs.22
It was also noted that these groups were not aligned with the larger PDF Working Groups in order to
achieve intended results23. In 2007 UNCT Annual Retreat it was decided that as the TGs were not
functioning optimally, these groups would be replaced by the TGs at the strategic, programmatic and
thematic levels, aligned with the proposed work-plan and the proposed ‘transition’ to ‘One UN’. The
strategic level groups were comprised of HoAs, with designated agency heads providing leadership
and determining the scope of work.
However, disbandment of the TGs was a setback in the UNDAF process. It resulted in very weak
linkages between agency initiatives and absence of joint efforts. There was a two-year hiatus until the
UNCT recognized the need to identify a mechanism to deliver/link its results towards the UNDAF
Outcomes. In the 20 May 2009 UNCT Meeting, there was a decision to reinstate the UNTGs,
subsuming under them relevant sub-working groups, which can directly contribute to the progress
towards achieving the UNDAF outcomes. Mandatory and operational groups were separately
categorized given the specific objectives and functions it has to perform. It was noted, however, that
the initiatives of the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) and the UNTG on Conflict Prevention and
Peace Building should be mutually reinforcing and interlinked. The function of the ‘Delivering as
One’ group was decided to be carried out by the UNCT itself through the UNDAF. While it was
recognized that gender mainstreaming cuts across all UNTGs, for reporting purposes the GMC was
categorized under the UNDAF Outcome on Macroeconomic Stability and Broad-Based Growth.
Re-establishment of these theme groups contributed to the revival of the UNDAF process. As noted, it
also allowed the UN to regain trust and visibility among the development partners such as
CSAC/UNCSAC and Government.
Among the five TGs, the Macro-economic stability group was the first one to be revived in 2009 after
about two and half years of inactivity. The need for discussions on the global economic crisis and its
possible impact on national economic development triggered the meeting.
After reinstatement, TGs on Governance, Mindanao/Conflict Prevention and Peace Building, and
Environmental Sustainability are also active. Recognizing the immediate need for enhancing their
roles to include communication and bridging efforts, these groups revised their ToR to add the
responsibility of Advocacy and Communications for accelerating progress on the MDGs by raising
awareness, strengthening broad-based support and action, and increasing citizen engagement on
UNDAF and MDG-related policy and practice.These groups are now chaired by the UNDP Country
Director unlike before where the convener was a senior technical /management staff. Membership of
these groups has been extended to include civil society and relevant development partners. The usual
22
UNCT Minutes of Meetings, 8 February 2007, p. 3.
23
UNCT Minutes of Meetings, 8 February 2007, p. 3.

14. meeting format has been de-emphasized to allow for more informal interaction especially among
donors.
Interagency coherence: The strength of the UN system lies in its capacity to provide multi-sectoral
support to development with the diverse resources applied to common issues. Inter-agency thematic
groups were formed to foster coordination and coherence in achieving UNDAF outcomes. However,
as mentioned, interagency coordination did not prove to be very effective during the current UNDAF
cycle. Although the agencies worked ‘beside each other’, they were ‘not doing things together’.24
Agency mandates confined their relationships with respective constituencies and partners, which
curbed the scope for cooperation between agencies.
As theme group members pointed out25, it is imperative to have the ability and willingness to look
beyond the respective agency mandates and look at issues from a broader perspective through the lens
of ‘Delivering as One UN’. At the personal level, group members also felt de-motivated due to the
lack of genuine appreciation of their important roles as theme group members. For many agencies, it
was also not part of the staff performance appraisal.
The coordination and effectiveness of the group have been influenced by the working relations and
team work among its members. Some TG members also felt that the functioning and motivation of the
groups significantly depends upon the leadership quality and strategic vision of the convener and also
the direction provided by the UNCO. A strong leadership and a concrete work plan are critical to
sustain the functionality of theme groups. As a TG member noted, the group normally met when a
funding window/facility was available and a possible JP proposal was submitted. In some cases, even
if the group met, discussions were not substantive. It was felt that, there was a need to elevate the
discussion in the TGs to make it more effective in policy advocacy and programme design. TGs were
often viewed as added work/ responsibility, as no clear objectives or concrete outputs were generated
through them. As the Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of
Operational Activities for Development (2007) noted, lack of coherence within the UN system was
partly attributable to the lack of coordination within the national system and the ability of the
Government to provide strategic directions.
However, there were good practices of inter-agency coordination and partnership also, which are
worth mentioning. The UN Disaster Management Team was expanded into Inter-Agency Standing
Committee (IASC). The government adopted the IASC structure at national and regional levels. The
IASC partnered with National Disaster Coordination Council (NDCC) in humanitarian response
where each of the 13 clusters has a Government lead agency and IASC member co-lead agency. The
IASC, now called the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), in collaboration with the National Disaster
Coordination Council (NDCC) conduct joint rapid assessments, share situation reports, provide relief
and early recovery services through the clusters.
HCT improved the coordination and strengthened partnerships among risk management agencies in
their mapping and Information Education Communication (IEC) activities resulting in clear and
harmonized prioritization of vulnerable areas, paving the way for coordinated technical assistance
e.g., in the implementation of mitigating measures like early warning systems and contingency
planning. Enhanced linkage and coordination also occurred between the disaster management, climate
change and development planning agencies and communities, especially in the area of long term
development planning, including land use, with the NDCC, Climate Change Commission, NEDA and
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
There were many positive aspects of this joint initiative. There was a government ownership in the
approach. Decision making was informed by the joint assessment and analysis. The whole process
was characterized by joint planning, implementation and monitoring, improved accountability, and an
24
Annual Review 2006 and TCPR 2007
25 Inputs provided through self-administered questionnaires for the UNDAF (2005-2009): lessons learned exercise

15. overall effectiveness of service delivery. The effort for the emergency response was commended by
the funding agency (e.g. Central Emergency Response Fund).
2.2.7 Collaboration and Partnership
As the Philippines UNDAF (2005-2009) states, for achieving goals ‘the United Nations will pursue
complementary and collaborative strategies in the interest of furthering concerted efforts toward
national priorities, particularly including a partnership strategy, that involves joint dialogue and
maintaining a high-quality environment for the state, civil society organizations and the private
sector’. The role of partners, in achieving the UNDAF outcomes is outlined in the UNDAF results
matrix.
In the Philippines, the UN system has a long history of engaging various civil society organizations in
its development work. As mentioned earlier, in 2004 as part of the UNDAF formulation process civil
society organizations participated in a series of national consultations. Changes in the national
development scenario confronting civil society organizations and the challenges faced by the UN in
the context of ‘Delivering as One’ roll out, there was an urgent need for a new framework to guide the
UN-CSO engagement in the country. Against this backdrop UNCSA with an initial membership of
about 47 organizations was established in November 2006 together with the election of the 15-
member UN Civil Society Advisory Committee (UNCSAC). UNCSAC serves as a regular forum
between the UNCT and CSOs in the Philippines, and provides UNCT with strategic and substantive
guidance on policies and programmes, to enhance development effectiveness and improve its relations
with civil society in the Philippines.
The UNCSA/UNCSAC in the Philippines has identified priority advocacy issues including,
reproductive health, human rights, extra judicial killings and CSO participation in governance. It was
agreed that the UN and the advisory committee would work on these issues together. Civil society
organizations were also engaged in the 2006 UNDAF annual review and The Country Consultation on
the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007).
However, in 2007, the dissolution of the UNTGs curbed the scope for civil society participation in the
UN system’s development efforts. Civil society representatives also felt that the UN showed
reluctance to be involved in issues such as accountability and transparency, which clearly
disappointed the CSOs represented in the UNCSAC.
UNDAF TGs were reinstated in 2009 and the re-energized UNCSA established five TGs, aligned with
the five outcomes of the UNDAF. Membership in the TGs is voluntary and a UNCSA member may
be a member of one or more TGs. The extension of the current UNDAF until 2011 and the re-
establishment of the UNTGs by the UNCT have provided a scope for improving the interaction
between CSA/CSAC and the UN in the Philippines, both for advocacy and programmatic work.
Apart from engaging with the CSAC on policy debate and advocacy, the UNCT in the Philippines
also situated itself more strategically in the broader development arena through its participation in the
PDF. Since the adoption of the current UNDAF, the UN has been actively engaged in the PDF,
bringing issues on the accelerated achievement and funding of MDGs.
In 2006, UN agencies and PDF groups advocated for a multi-year budgeting framework for social
sectors - education and health. The importance of population management and reproductive health
concerns were explicitly recognized in the closing statements of the PDF meeting. UN/PDF work
also contributed to a growing appreciation of, and commitment to, the Basic Education Reform
Agenda (BESRA), with significant progress on School-Based Management (SBM) and Competency-
Based Teachers Standards (CBTS), as well as an expanded implementation of Province-wide
Investment Plan (PIPH) for health. In the same year (2006), as members of the PDF Mindanao
Working Group, the UN contributed to the development of a framework to operationalize Human
Security as a basis of donor convergence in Mindanao. In 2007, UN agencies’ active participation in
the PDF ensured a strong link between the economic and social policy agenda of the government,
which recognized MDGs, human development and enhanced financing for social sectors.

16. In 2008, given widening disparities and increasing poverty incidences, the Joint UNCT Statement to
PDF underscored inclusive growth as a means to achieve the MDGs and advocated for a human
rights-based approach to development.

17. Chapter-3 Delivering as One and Joint Programming
3.0 The approach
As part of the UN reform agenda, in 2006 by a high-level panel appointed by former Secretary-
General Kofi Annan recommended the establishment of an initiative, ‘Delivering as One’ (DaO),
aimed at avoiding fragmentation and duplication of development efforts at the country-level in an
overall effort to enhance the efficiency and the responsiveness of the UN development system through
increased system-wide coherence26. The One UN Programme is thus an instrument for ensuring UN
compliance with the Paris and Accra agendas. Following the high-level panel's recommendations,
eight countries - Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uruguay and Viet
Nam - subsequently volunteered to become “Delivering as One” pilots, agreeing to implement and
test different models of reform at the country level. The pilot countries implemented the "Delivering
as One" intiative with four main pillars: One UN program, One budgetary framework, One leader27
and One Set of Management Practices/ One office. Some pilot countries also adopted an additional
component of One voice. In each case, the basic reform model has been adapted to the unique country
context to deliver in a more harmonized and cost-effective manner at the country level.
In pilot countries the One Programme substantially enhanced28:
i. Alignment with national priorities;
ii. Transparency for the government, development partners, civil society and UN agencies, as one
document outlines what the UN will be doing during the programming cycle;
iii. Predictability: there is a clear overview of activities, expected results and budget;
iv. Simplification: Government only needs to sign one document instead of several documents, and
joint monitoring and reporting decreases the burden on implementing partners;
v. Accountability: there is a better division of labour within the UN. Agencies are clearly accountable
for the results achieved;
vi. Efficiency (reduction of transaction costs): Joint Programming has meant an increase in internal
UN transaction costs. However, transaction costs with external partners, Government and donors have
substantially decreased, ensuring more transparent and streamlined communication, decision-making,
and M&E. Improved development impact is also a significant benefit.
vii. Aid coordination: the system represents an opportunity to systematize the UN’s contribution to the
national aid coordination and management architecture;
viii. Synergies and strategic focus; and
ix. Better use of resources.
3.1 ‘Delivering as One’: The Philippines Context
In 2006, the UNCT in the Philippines started preparing for the transition to one UN. An assessment29
was undertaken as part of the preparation. The assessment recommended three critical steps for initial
preparations for a One UN programme, namely (1) to strengthen the UNDAF mechanism in two (2)
areas: (a) UNDAF Results Matrix and (b) UNDAF M&E System (2) to harmonize agency M&E
systems with that of UNDAF and (3) to support the functions of UNTGs. These recommendations
26 Delivering as One: Report of the High-level Panel on United Nations System-wide Coherence in the areas of
Development, humanitarian assistance and the environment (United Nations General Assembly, Nov 2006)
27
However, the option paper on ‘Delivering as One in the Philippines (May 2010) mentions One Communication as one of
the four main pillars and One Leader as additional.
28
Delivering as One: Lessons Learned from Pilot Countries (UNDG,2009)
29
Quick Assessment: Preparing for a One UN Programme in the Philippines (UNCO, June, 2006)

18. were in line with findings of the 2005 UNDAF annual review. Since then the UN system in the
Philippines made some efforts to strengthen the UNDAF mechanism (refer to 2.2.4).
In 2007, the GOP through NEDA affirmed its commitment for a One UN System in the Philippines
by 2010 and full implementation of the Paris Declaration Principles on Aid Effectiveness30. During
the same year the UNCT and NEDA jointly organized a series of consultations with external partners
(the Government; NGOs and the academia; development partners) and with the UN staff for a
common understanding on the High Level Panel Report on ‘Delivering as One’. The feedback from
these exchanges was used in providing a framework for formal process of transitioning to ‘Delivering
as One’. The Government’s expectation about the reform included31 (a) full operationalization of key
elements of ‘Delivering as One’ (b) utilizing Government’s organizational structures for service
delivery of UN programmes, rather than establishing parallel structures (c) managing for development
results, and (d) demonstrated leadership by the UN system in operationalizing the reform agenda. The
GOP expected the UN to lead by setting an example to other bilateral and multi-lateral partners in the
Philippines. The 2007 UNCT retreat defined the scope of operationalizing the ‘Delivering as One’ in
the Philippines context. In implementation of ‘One Programme’, importance of ‘process’ of building a
‘team’ and development of a collective ‘vision’ and ‘mission’ and simultaneous up-scaling of UN
collaborative/joint programming were emphasized. The Government was expected to provide
strategic leadership in determining ‘the scope’ of the ‘One UN’ in the Philippines. It was emphasized
that, the process toward a ‘One UN’ would also take into account lessons learnt from pilot countries
as well as the outcomes of the important inter-governmental debate on the report. Mutual
accountability of the members of the UNCT towards delivering on a common vision/mission was
emphasized as critical to success of the leadership of the UNCT.
Guided by the outcome of the multi-sectoral consultation and the Country Consultation on the
Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007) and
UNDAF review conducted in 2007, a major part of the harmonization and coherence efforts of the
UN system in the Philippines in 2007 were focused around issues of joint advocacy on key MDGs
least likely to be achieved, human rights, population management and peace building and up-scaling
of joint programmings, primarily through submission of five (5) proposals to the Spanish MDG Fund
(MDG-F). The UNCT situated itself more strategically in the broader development arena through its
participation in the PDF. In 2008, the UNCT discussed the lessons learned from the stocktaking
reports of the ‘One UN’ pilot countries during the preparatory meeting for the next CCA/UNDAF (as
the start of the new UNDAF was originally scheduled in 2010). During this deliberation, the UNCT
identified facilitating and hindering factors in ‘Delivering as One’. Facilitating factors, among others,
included:
• For the One UN programme, geographic commonality is a favorable factor in the Philippines,
for example Mindanao.
• There is common thematic focus and approach dealing on issues such as poverty, widening
disparities and human rights-based approach and the GOP is supportive of UN efforts.
• UN Agencies in the Philippines have the ability to complement each other through
partnerships, and their expertise cuts across agency programmes and themes including their
experience in implementing joint programming.
• The ongoing CCA/UNDAF process provides a good opportunity for common programming
and one budgetary framework.
• Mandates by UN Headquarters and/or UN Regional Offices to mainstream approaches that
will allow the UN agencies to work together.
• The decision to implement the Paris Declaration principles provides opportunity and
compelling reason for UN agencies to synchronize aid effectiveness measures.
30
RCAR 2007
31
Report of UNCT Annual Retreat April 2007

19. • Funds from UN agencies can be pooled to leverage more funds/resources through joint
programming.
• Presence of harmonized donor funding strategic plans with government is a facilitating factor.
On the other hand, challenges included:
• Agencies have different programming and budget cycles and mandates.
• There is a lack of predictability of government support for harmonized funding.
• There is a lack of clarity and common understanding regarding the role of one leader.
• Changing mindsets of the UNCT - There needs to be a genuine willingness and readiness to
change the way the UN does business. Given the expected changes in the control structure,
the UN agencies may be reluctant to give up control.
• A need to adopt participatory programming approach. However, the process needs to balance
inclusiveness and strategic focus. This is challenging as there are different parameters for
prioritization according to agency mandates.
• One office poses security risk.
In continuation with its effort to harmonize the UN system, the UNCT in 2008 made significant effort
for implementation/up-scaling of joint programming (discussed in 3.1.3).
In 2009, the UNCT invested in team building exercises and signed off a code of conduct in
‘Delivering as One’ at the country level. With unequivocal support for the reform process by the
government, the UNCT moved towards greater interagency collaboration and harmonization efforts at
the country level.
In least-developed countries, the focus of the UN system is on enhancing donor coordination and
increasing governments’ capacities to lead their development processes, whereas in middle-income
countries (MIC), the UN System advocates the full realization of MDG- 8 and adherence to the global
commitments for the effective delivery of aid, which is based on a mutually beneficial partnership
between the UN and the government in areas of strategic importance. For this, moving beyond the
traditional donor-recipient relationship, the UNCT in the Philippines needs to be engaged in a two-
way exchange of knowledge and expertise. As a MIC, the Philippines should focus more on upstream
role/ providing policy and programme advisory services to governments and CSOs, rather than
implementing programmes and projects themselves. The role of the UN in some of the MICs in the
region, such as Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, is discussed in Annex 2.
Though, ‘Delivering as One’ has not yet been fully realized in the Philippines, some significant efforts
have been made in this direction. Following are some positive outcomes of ‘Delivering as One’
initiative in the Philippines.
3.1.1Common services
Common Services form an integral part of the ‘One UN’ concept advocated in the 2006 “Delivering
as One” High-Level Panel Report to the Secretary-General. The call for Common Services has been
reiterated in subsequent General Assembly resolutions, in which the member states advocate for the
UN system to promote the sharing of administrative systems and services. The objective is to assure
that support services are cost-effective, high quality, timely, and provided on a competitive basis,
resulting in full client satisfaction. Common services arrangements focus on the guiding principles of
inter-agency partnership and cooperation. The UN system’s Funds, Programmes and Specialized
Agencies are to take concrete steps in the following areas:
• Rationalization of country presence through common premises and co-location of UN
Country Team members;
• Implementation of the joint office model;
• Common shared support services including: Security, IT, Telecommunication, Travel,
Banking, Administrative and Financial Procedures, Procurement; and
• Harmonization of the principles of cost recovery policies, including that of full cost recovery.

20. Over the last few years, the UN system in the Philippines has been strengthening operational
coordination with the improvement of common services, including, domestic courier service, travel
services including negotiated corporate airfares, common procurement, information technology (IT),
and hospitalization and evacuation services for the staff etc. Small agencies perceive that common
services mean savings in administrative costs which will allow them to allocate more resources for
programme activities.
A ‘One UN House’ Task Force was convened in 2006 to oversee the process of finding common
premises for the UN system in the Philippines. Significant progress was made in this respect with the
signing of Presidential Proclamation no. 1864 in Aug 2009 designating a government building in
Makati City Manila as the common premises of the UN System in the Philippines.
3.1.2 Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers
A Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers to Implementing Partners (HACT) was launched in April
2005, as part of the UN reform process. The HACT shifts the management of cash transfers from a
system of rigid controls to a risk management approach. It aims to:
• Reduce transaction costs pertaining to the country programmes of the EXCOM agencies by
simplifying and harmonizing rules and procedures;
• Strengthen the capacity of implementing partners to effectively manage resources; and
• Help manage risks related to the management of funds and increase overall effectiveness.
The new approach uses macro and micro assessments, conducted with implementing partners during
programme preparation, to determine levels of risk and capacity gaps to be addressed. It uses
assurance activities such as audits and spot checks during implementation. And it introduces a new
harmonized format for implementing partners to request funds and report on how they have been
used. This is called the FACE or Funding Authorization and Certificate of Expenditures Form.
In the Philippines, an assessment of the country’s financial management system was completed in
November 2006 to lay the foundation for the HACT roll out. To prepare for its roll out, an agreement
on HACT implementation with the government was communicated to the Philippines Government
through a formal letter. UN agencies had also amended their CPAPs to include HACT provisions.
ExCOM agencies reviewed their list of implementing partners (IPs) and established the risk levels of
the IPs as a mechanism for quality assurance. Subsequently a series of HACT orientations on the use
of the FACE Form to request funds and report on how they have been used were conducted among
IPs. In 2007, the HACT and FACE forms were rolled out across all IPs of UNFPA, UNICEF and
UNDP. In 2008, the Philippines was declared by UN DOCO as a fully HACT compliant country.
The UNCT in the Philippines has been able to select a single service provider to conduct macro
assessment, micro assessment and assurance activities identified through a joint bid evaluation
review. In 2009, UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA conducted micro assessments and spot checks among
its implementing partners. As of May 2010, these agencies conducted a total of 28 micro-assessments
(UNDP-17, UNICEF-7, and UNFPA-4).
The UNCT approved Harmonized Reference rates for partners (effective Jan 2010) for UNCO,
UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, ILO, WFP, FAO, WHO, and UNIDO. A HACT orientation was organized
to ensure that the processes for transferring funds to the IPs, follow the same standards and
procedures.
3.1.3 Joint Programming
As the UNDG guideline (2003) specifies, ‘Joint programming’ is the collective effort through which
the UN organizations and national partners work together to prepare, implement, monitor and evaluate
the activities aimed at effectively and efficiently achieving the MDGs and other international
commitments arising from UN conferences, summits, conventions and human rights instruments.
As part of the ‘Delivering as One’ initiative in the Philippines, the UN System has made significant
efforts towards JP. Resources have been mobilized and several JPs have been launched in recent
years. The comprehensive list of JPs and joint initiatives in the Philippines include:

21. • Strengthening the Philippines’ Institutional Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change (MDG-F)
2008-10
• Enhancing Access to and Provision of Water Services with the Active Participation of the
Poor (MDG-F) 2009-12
• Alternatives to Migration: Decent Jobs for Filipino Youth (YEM) (MDG-F) 2009-12
• Ensuring Food Security and Nutrition for Children 0-24 Months in the Philippines (MDG-F)
2009-12
• Joint programming on Rapid Reduction of Maternal and Neonatal Mortality in the Philippines
(JPMNH) 2009-11 (Multi-Bi Lateral funding)
• Joint programming to Eliminate Violence Against Women (VAW) in the Philippines 2008-
1132
• Joint UN Programme of Support on AIDS in the Philippines (JUPSAP) 2009-10 (Regular
funding)
• UN Joint programming on HIV and Migration 2007-09 (Regular funding)
• UN Joint programming to Facilitate the Implementation of the CEDAW Concluding
Comments 2007-09- (Regular funding)
• EC-UN Joint Initiative on Migration and Development (JMDI) 2009-11
• Indigenous Peoples (IP) Initiatives (Regular funding)
As the above list shows, currently four (4) MDG-F JPs are being executed in the Philippines with a
total budget of US$22.8 million. The rest are funded by regular and multi-bilateral sources.
Joint Programming through Funding by MDG-F
The Philippines is one of the nine MDG-F focus countries involving in-depth M&E, Advocacy and
Communication initiatives for MDG achievement. The country’s experiences will be showcased as
MDG-F initiatives around the world. The Philippines is also one of six countries working with the
Human Development 2010 initiative, financed by the MDG-Fund and led by the Millennium
Campaign at the national level.
While the MDG-F has been set-up explicitly to encourage joint programming, thematic windows
identified in the Philippines are limited in scope, and the process was not inclusive enough. Only a
few UN agencies are participating in these JPs. As noted by some staff members, UN agencies were
consulted much later in the process. Late consultations with interested UN agencies have resulted in
JPs that are mere “consolidation” of separate proposals from different agencies33. It was further
observed that, instead of discussing the issues such as priority interventions and comparative
advantages of agencies, the inception stage focused more on the disbursement of funds.
Reportedly, MDG-F JPs are not always characterized by joint planning and implementation. In some
cases, after downloading their respective shares of resources, implementing agencies execute their
parts of JP with little or no coordination between themselves, which results in combination of
different approaches and confusion. However, there have been several good practices also.
Government commitment to JP is essential. For the JPYEM, the Department of Labour and
Employment (DOLE) as the lead government agency established the organizational structure thereby
strengthening commitment and ownership to the JP. DOLE has been involved in the planning and
implementation of national and provincial consultations, conduct of the National Inception Workshop
and first Programme Management Committee (PMC) meeting and also in the recruitment of project
staff. DOLE has also been supportive of the programme by providing rent-free office space at DOLE
Bureau of Workers with Special Concerns (BWSC) Office and utilities for the use of JP YEM staff.
The 2010 progress report of the MDG-F JP on Children, Food security and Nutrition also highlights
ownership by government and complementation of efforts and programme resources. For instance,
32
This JP has not yet been able to secure funding from development partners.
33
Based on inputs received through the survey questionnaire.

22. since government is investing in capacity building for health workers, capacity building in the JP
focuses on community-based workers and the peer counselors (or mothers themselves).
The MDG-F Secretariat conducted a mission to the Philippines from April 26 to May 3, 2010 for
promoting effective civil society participation in MDG related policy and practices. The mission
report underlines the general delay in the implementation of these JPs. Given the short
implementation timeframe, these projects need to make up delays that occurred during the inception
phase. The report further notes that, delays in implementation can partially be attributed to the
recently concluded elections (also mentioned in the progress report (2010) of the JP on Children,
Food Security and Nutrition). As reported by the MDG-F JP on Access to and Provision of Water
Services with the Active Participation of the Poor, activities were also delayed due to untimely release
of funds from UNDP HQ to UNDP Country level and to the implementing partners. The JPYEM
noted that multiple lead agencies created difficulty in functioning in a cohesive manner. Lack of
harmonization of UN Agencies’ technical, financial and administrative processes proved to be a major
stumbling block in smooth implementation of the JPs. The JP on the Climate Change and Adaptation
reported that, delay was partially attributable to the time invested in perfecting the partnership with
IPs. Substantial amount of time was needed for coordination and consultations for a meaningful
collaboration. The security situation in Mindanao is another obstacle in implementation of JPs in the
region.
Joint Programming through Multi-Bilateral Funding
Rapid Reduction of Maternal and Neonatal Mortality in the Philippines (2009-11) is the only JP
funded through multi-bilateral funding. The JP is a flagship program of the government, therefore
support from both government as well as civil society organizations is strong. As the 2009 progress
report suggests, the JP has accomplished better service delivery. Some of the hindering factors for this
JP included, delays in upgrading infrastructure, issues related to financing, regulations and
governance and some of the cultural and religious factors.
Finalization of the JP document and getting used to working together were challenging. The JP also
faced difficulty in clear and effective consensus building on strategic implementation issue at the HoA
and TWG levels. It was experienced that there needed to be better clarity on the extent of ‘joint-ness’
in approaches. For this JP M&E has also been reported as one of the challenges.
Joint Programming through Regular Funding
A number of JPs in the current UNDAF cycle have been launched with regular agency funding, as
shown in the above list. It has been recognised by the agencies that, implementation of JPs is a
nuanced process, and benefit is not automatic. As observed, clear focus on goals, commitment to the
subject, specified tasks and good operational plan are essential stepping stones for accomplishment of
the objectives of JPs. Formal institutional arrangements, presence of required policies and technical
resources including competent actors and strong support of partners at the local level are equally
important prerequisites for successful implementation of JPs. In terms of resource mobilization, there
has to be flexibility of availing funds both from pooled and parallel activities.
Several challenges were encountered during implementation of these JPs. As identified by the JP on
HIV and Migration, the lack of inclusiveness in the project design phase and lack of ownership of the
national partners proved to be serious obstacles. Start-up implementation has met resistance from IPs
(i.e. DOLE) due to lack of essential consultations to effect buy-in. It created an impression of donor-
driven formulation and programming processes. Furthermore, delay in the approval of Annual Work
Plans caused delays in the implementation. Delays were also caused by: (a) bureaucracy and
challenges in organizational coordination; (b) rigid processes that caused delays in engaging
consulting firms and in fund release; (c) perception that the JP activities are additional work; (d) lower
absorptive capacities of IPs; and (e) inadequate guidance and strategic information to manage the
programme.
While systems and structures were set-up at both levels of UN and IPs to facilitate programme
operation, these seemed to be not operational except for the Joint Programming Steering Committee

23. (SC). Some working groups failed to convene regularly to review status of implementation and issues
affecting them.
The UNTG on HIV/AIDS consisting of HoAs, coordinates the joint UN response on HIV and AIDS,
with technical and secretarial support from the UNAIDS Country Office. However, as reported by the
UNAIDS, participation from the HoAs has been limited in UNTG meetings, and they have been
mostly represented by the members of the UN Joint Team on AIDS (UNJTA). This has affected the
decision making process especially in specific issues that required urgent UNTG interventions.
Several observations have been made about this JP initiative - (a) mandates of UN agencies seem to
be overlapping at some level of interventions; (b) country-level division of labour needs to be updated
and aligned with regional and global initiatives and therefore should form the basis for joint work
plans; and (c) there is a need to strengthen the UNTG mandate to ensure active participation of the
members.
Resource mobilization is an area of challenge for some JPs using regular funding. As reported by the
JP on CEDAW (2009 Annual Report), a major limitation and challenge is the ad-hoc budgeting that
trickled in from participating organizations to the JP. Of the targeted U$ 1.5 million budget for three
years, only 47 percent was raised, which may be indicative of gaps in harmonized programming
across agencies and lower priority attached to gender issues in development programming. Similarly,
for the JP on VAW also, main challenges are resource mobilization and maintaining sustained interest
and commitment of UN agencies.
3.1.4 Advocacy and Communications
A well-designed Communication Strategy facilitates support to ‘One UN’ Programme. In last few
years, MDG advocacy has been the centerpiece of the ‘One UN’ message in the Philippines. It was
decided by the UNCT that the communications element will be integrated with the 2009 advocacy
work plan. The expected outcome was to have an enhanced policy environment that supports
increased action towards addressing MDG issues especially that are least likely to be achieved. UNCT
was successful in drawing down resources from the UN Millennium Campaign (UNMC) to support
year-long activities for enhanced policy environment that support increased action towards addressing
MDG issues. Given widening disparities and increasing poverty incidence, the Joint UNCT Statement
to PDF underscored inclusive growth as a means to achieve the MDGs and advocated for a human
rights-based approach to development. The strong collaboration among UN agencies and its
partnership with national and sub-national stakeholders made possible the successful staging of the
Stand Up Take Action (SUTA) campaigns in the Philippines. In 2006, the country was placed third
among UN states that moved citizens to stand up against poverty; in 2007, the Philippines was placed
second, and in 2008 and 2009 the country got the global distinction of being the top country with the
highest participation (more than one-third of the national population). During last few years,
engagement of CSOs and the youth became stronger which points to a growing coalition of MDG
advocates and policy lobbyists.
Several good practices of the advocacy working group can be highlighted, e.g., including a shared
definition of advocacy work in the Philippines which means a systematic, strategic effort to promote
the UN’s principles, and thoughts to create an enabling environment for behavior change, regular
activities for strategy development, and maximum use of existing partnerships. Some of the
contributing factors to the success of MDG campaign are agreeing on a common target, creating a
common theme, developing a communications strategy, providing the leadership, organizing for
accountability, and working with institutional MDG partners.

24. Chapter-4 Lessons Learned and Recommendations
This chapter presents lessons learned from experiences of the Philippines from the current UNDAF
cycle, as well as lessons from other countries about the UNDAF process and ‘Delivering as One’. In
each section, recommendations are provided based on lessons learned.
4.1 Formulation of the UNDAF
4.1.1 Preparatory Phase
It has been observed that, while UNDAF is important to the UN and its partners, a better appreciation
of its strategic value should be ensured within the UN system. . The UN staff members need to be
provided with detailed information about the UNDAF, and its role in the national development
scenario. Especially, the staff participating in the formulation process should have the comprehensive
awareness of the UNDAF. As a UN staff recollects, it was difficult to actively participate in the
UNDAF formulation without being fully briefed about it. As a result, the staff member failed to
understand the larger perspective and participate meaningfully. To make UNDAF popular to the UN
staff, discussion forum on UNDAF and “Delivering as One” may be organized by the UNCO.
The relevance of UNDAF is not clear to some UN staff in the context of an individual agency’s
mandate, especially if they are not part of the EXECOM agencies. As a UN staff member mentioned,
“I couldn’t understand how does this relate to our organization’s work and saw my participation as
just an obligation on the agency part. This may be related to the staff turnover across the cycle, but
also because of disconnect between the UNDAF and the agency’s work”. So, it will be useful to
develop a conceptual framework for providing a broader perspective and to demonstrate how agency
contributions are related to UNDAF outcomes.
It is further important that the UNCT and all participating staff in the UNDAF process undergo a
rigorous training on HRBA and RBM, which is crucial for strategic planning and analysis of issues
and development of results matrix.
4.1.2 Formulation Process and the Content
As noted earlier, the current UNDAF (2005-2009) was drafted before the formulation of MTPDP
(2004-2010), and in fact, it is based on the previous MTPDP (2001-2004). It is crucial to ensure that
the new UNDAF is aligned with the MTPDP in terms of the cycle and priorities.
There is a need for establishing a management structure with clear specification of responsibilities and
accountability. The UN and the Government should have mutual accountability. The UNDAF should
be owned by the Government to ensure effective implementation and monitoring. The UNDAF
Steering Committee was set up to guide the UNDAF formulation and it was expected that it will
continue its functions during the implementation stage and secure the involvement of the NEDA. The
Committee would serve as a forum to ensure the contribution of UN programmes to UNDAF
outcomes, emphasizing the areas of convergence and joint programming. However, this committee
ceased to function, and as the Country Consultation on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of
Operational Activities for Development (2007) documents this Committee did not meet in 2006.
The following diagram outlines the proposed UN common programme management structure, which
was never formalized and applied.
UN Common Programme Management Structure
Discusses the following:
UNDAF Steering Committee Consistency of CPD, CPAPs with UNDAF
NEDA Director-General and UN Resident Coordinator Feasibility of Joint Programmes
Secretaries of Concerned Government Departments Areas of Convergence
UN Heads of Agencies; National NGOs (3) and International NGOs (3)
UNDAF Prepares Matters for
Technical Secretariat Discussion by the
composed of NEDA officials UNDAF Steering Committee
and UN Senior Programme Officers
UNDP UNFPA UNICEF ILO
Programme Programme National Decent Work
Executive Management Steering National Tripatite
Committee Committee Committee Advisory Committee
Core Functions of the UN Management Committees:
1. Approves CPAPs
2. Provides Policy Direction
3. Discusses/comments on AWPs
4. Reviews and monitors implementation of AWPs, CPAPs

25. It is critical to make the formulation process inclusive. Government counterparts should be involved
as early as possible to ensure ownership. However, quality of participation needs to be ensured. As
pointed out by a UN staff member, during the formulation of the current UNDAF, national partners
did not participate optimally. Participation of LGUs and other sub-national stakeholders and civil
society partners are also equally important.
A CSO representative recommended that, the CSAC and CSA should be more involved in providing
substantial inputs in developing the new UNDAF and in forging partnerships for the implementation
of the UNDAF. It was also suggested that in order to foster meaningful CSA/CSAC participation,
they should be given reasonable time (at least two weeks) for comments/inputs on drafts since CSOs
would have to consult their own leaders/stakeholders. There was also a recommendation that the
UNCT should organize regular meetings (thematic, over-all) with CSA members and others CSOs to
provide information and updates, get feedback/comments, and discuss plans for cooperation/joint
activities. Efforts should also be made to engage the private sector, industry associations, trade unions
and farmers’ cooperatives in obtaining views and perspectives external to government, as they are
also key actors in any development process as providers of technology, financial resources, skills
training, and serve as both producers and consumers. There is a need to define a platform for formal
engagement of these stakeholders.
There has to be a way by which programme staff other than the working group and the UNCT can
also participate in the process. Engaging staff members and giving them an opportunity to provide
inputs in the process, may help develop a feeling of stake in the outcomes of the process and a sense
of ownership of the UNDAF. Participation of the UN staff can be fostered through workshops and
discussion forums etc.
Strengths of smaller/non-resident agencies should be recognized and they should be involved in the
process to make the UNDAF more inclusive. NRAs should be contacted in advance to ensure their
participation.
During the formulation process, especially in the course of identifying priority areas, the staff
members need to have the ability and willingness to look beyond their respective agency mandates
and view issues from a broader perspective, through the lens of ‘Delivering as One’. This will allow
for a better and more holistic appreciation of development issues. As noted by a staff member, during
the formulation of the current UNDAF, agencies competed with each other to have their
mandates/programmes included. This is reflected in broad outcome statements that lack focus and are
difficult to measure. It is important to be focused and aim for few substantive results. However, at the
same time it should be noted that, the UN system is broad and the process of keeping the number of
outcomes limited and maintaining its focus leaves the specialized, normative and non-resident-
agencies struggling to find their relevance within the UNDAF, which dampens the spirit of
‘Delivering as One’. If these agencies cannot relate to UNDAF priorities, there should be special
section as the ‘broader UN system support to the country’ specifying the strategic support and
contributions of these agencies. Thus, the challenge is to ensure inclusiveness without losing the
strategic focus.
As has been emphasized by all reviews, the M&E framework of the current UNDAF has several
shortcomings. It has been noted that, commitment for each outcome and output in the UNDAF is
shared by a number of agencies and their implementing partners. Common outcomes and outputs have
posed challenges for accountability, which has also made it difficult to identify agency contributions.
Outputs are generally more linked to agency specific mandates, and hence to ensure clear
accountability, outputs should be attributed to the agencies.
The Current UNDAF RM has a number of indicators for each result and for many of them baseline
values are missing. To maintain the focus of the RM and to make the UNDAF operational, it is
recommended that only few indicators are selected based on the highest relevance, measurability and
availability of baseline data. The RM may contain only outcome indicators, as output indicators can
be available in agency documents such as CPDs/CPAPs and AWPs. By doing so, the UNDAF can

26. maintain its strategic focus. The UNDAF Action Plan34, to which the UNCT has already agreed, is a
right step in this direction35.
As discussed in Chapter-2, the UNDAF M&E framework does not have any target, which renders the
UNDAF an ineffective tool for measuring the progress. Thus, it is important to have a limited number
of strategic indicators with well defined overall and annual targets.
In the UNDAF document the RM does not contain risk analysis and assumption; it should be included
in the RM.
Annual UNDAF Reviews reveal that, agencies were primarily driven by their agency-specific
mandates and there has been a lot of scope to align the agency activities with CP outcomes and
outputs. Their M&E systems also remain disjointed with the UNDAF M&E framework. It is of
utmost importance to align the agency reporting system with the UNDAF.
4.1.3 Addressing Cross-Cutting Issues
As discussed in chapter-2, the cross-cutting programming principles such as HRBA and gender
equality have not been adequately addressed in the current UNDAF. Incorporation of these principles
was left to the good intentions of the agencies. There were no mechanisms to ensure compliance and
no incentives were provided.
Lessons learned from the UNDAFs prepared in 200336 and experiences from the UNDAF cycle in the
Philippines suggest the following measures for effective mainstreaming of these principles:
• Early training on these issues in the UNDAF process is very important.
• Strong leadership of the UNCT/RC unambiguously promoting the importance of the HRBA
will have an enormous positive effect
• Thematic groups are often instrumental in enhancing cross-agency cooperation. It is better to
“mainstream” human rights throughout the thematic teams, and not have a special team for
human rights, as this undermines and “ghettoizes” human rights.
The UNCT should bring relevant issues to the attention of the OHCHR, the Treaty Bodies
and the Special Rapporteurs, and actively participate in their processes wherever appropriate.
The UNCT can disseminate the General Comments and Report by translating them into
simple language to make them more useful to the development field.
• It is important to build partnership with other major players working on these issues in the
country, outside the UN system.
• For mainstreaming HRBA, it is critical to arrive at a common understanding and have the
clarity of the purpose. Development of concrete guidelines and tool kits will enhance skills
and foster a common understanding and vision among UN agencies, line agencies, LGUs and
CSOs.
• To optimize on limited time, HRBA training must apply a multilateral outreach approach.
Key stakeholders such as line agencies, LGUs, CSOs and other international organizations
must be trained alongside policy representatives of NEDA.
34 As mentioned in paragraph 2.6 of this guidance note, the UNDAF Action Plan reflects the results already specified in the
UNDAF results matrix. According to the UNDAF guidelines, UNCTs have the flexibility to either keep the UNDAF results
matrix at the outcome level (Option 1a), or develop a fuller results matrix, that includes outputs (Option 1 b). If the UNCT
keeps the UNDAF results matrix at the outcome level (Option 1a) and decides to prepare an UNDAF Action Plan, then the
outputs are specified in the UNDAF Action Plan.
35 UNCT has agreed to this.
36 Human Rights-based Approach to Development: Good practices and lessons learned from the 2003 CCAs and UNDAFs
(OHCHR, Dec2004)