1. The United Nations Development
Assistance Framework (UNDAF)
2005-2009 in the Philippines:
Lessons Learned
Final Report
Manasi Bhattacharyya
Consultant
5 October 2010

2. Table of Contents
ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1
UNDAF 2005-2009: Formulation Process and Design ................................................................1
Implementation Mechanism, UNDAF Theme Groups and Coordination ............................2
Delivering as One and Joint Programming ......................................................................................3
UNDAF Roll- Out: Key Emerging Issues ............................................................................................4
CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................7
1.0 Background .............................................................................................................................................7
1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................7
1.2 The Approach and the Scope of the Study ...............................................................................7
1.3 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................................8
1.3.1 Desk Review ........................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3.2 Collection of Data ................................................................................................................................. 8
1.4 Analysis and Report writing ...........................................................................................................8
1.5 Limitations of the study ....................................................................................................................9
1.6 Timeline ....................................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER-2: THE PHILIPPINES UNDAF (2005-2009): THE PROCESS,
THEMATIC CONTENT AND KEY EMERGING ISSUES .......................................................... 10
2.1 Formulation Process of the UNDAF (2005-2009) for the Philippines ...................... 10
2.2 The Design, Content and the Implementation Process ................................................... 11
2.2.1 The UNDAF Thematic Areas ............................................................................................................ 11
2.2.2 The UNDAF Results Matrix .............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.3 Monitoring & Evaluation plans ....................................................................................................... 13
2.2.4 The UNDAF M&E Framework .......................................................................................................... 13
2.2.5 Cross-cutting issues........................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.6 Implementation Mechanism: Thematic Groups and their Evolution ............................... 17
2.2.7 Collaboration and Partnership........................................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER-3 DELIVERING AS ONE AND JOINT PROGRAMMING .............................. 23
3.0 The approach ........................................................................................................................................ 23

3. 3.1 ‘Delivering as One’: The Philippines Context ....................................................................... 23
3.1.1Common services ................................................................................................................................. 25
3.1.2 Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers .................................................................................. 26
3.1.3 Joint Programming ............................................................................................................................. 26
3.1.4 Advocacy and Communications..................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER-4 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 30
4.1 Formulation of the UNDAF ............................................................................................................. 30
4.1.1 Preparatory Phase .............................................................................................................................. 30
4.1.2 Formulation Process and the Content ......................................................................................... 30
4.1.3 Addressing Cross-Cutting Issues .................................................................................................. 32
4.2 Implementation Mechanism: UNDAF Theme Groups and Inter-agency
Coherence ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Delivering As One ............................................................................................................................... 33
4.3.2 Joint Programming: Lessons learned From the Philippines Experiences ....................... 35
4.3.3 Advocacy and Communication: Lessons learned From the Philippines Experiences 35
SELECT REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 36
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................ 38
ANNEX 1 UNDAF (2005-2009) – KEY OUTCOMES, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES........... 38
1) UNDAF Outcome 1: Macro Economic Stability and Broad-Based and Equitable
Development .................................................................................................................................................... 38
2) UNDAF Outcome 2: Basic Social Services ................................................................................... 39
3) UNDAF Outcome 3: Good Governance ......................................................................................... 40
4) UNDAF Outcome 4: Environmental sustainability and Climate Change Adaptation.... 42
5) UNDAF Outcome 5: Conflict Prevention and Peace-building ................................................ 43
6) Cross-cutting Issue: Human Rights ............................................................................................... 44
7) Cross-cutting Issue: Gender Mainstreaming .............................................................................. 44
8) Cross-cutting Issue: Humanitarian Reforms/Early Recovery ............................................... 45
9) Cross-cutting Issue: HIV/AIDS ........................................................................................................ 46
10) MDG Advocacy ....................................................................................................................................... 47
11) Avian Influenza ...................................................................................................................................... 47
12) Security Management.......................................................................................................................... 48
ANNEX 2: The United Nations System in Middle-Income Countries (MIC) in South-
East Asia: Development Cooperation and the UNDAF .............................................................. 49
Annex 3: QUESTIONNAIRE - UNDAF (2005-2009): Lessons Learned .............................. 52

4. Acronyms
ADB Asian Development Bank
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
AWP Annual Work Plan
CBMS Community-based Monitoring System
CCA Common Country Assessment
CCPP Common Country Programming Process
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women
CPAP Country Programme Action Plan
CPD Country Programme Document
CPR Crisis Prevention and Recovery
CSA Civil Society Assembly
CSAC Civil Society Advisory Committee
CSO Civil Society Organization
DRM Disaster Risk Management
GMC Gender Mainstreaming Committee
GOP Government of the Philippines
HDR Human Development Report
HRBA Human Rights-based Approach
JP Joint Programming
LGU Local Government Unit
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MDG-F Millennium Development Goal Fund
MIC Middle Income Country
MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NRAs Non-Resident Agencies
ODA Official Development Assistance
RBM Results-based Management
RC Resident Coordinator
RM Results Matrix
TG Theme Groups
UN United Nations
UNCO United Nations Coordination Office
UNCT United Nations Country Team
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNDG United Nations Development Group

5. Executive Summary
Introduction
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)1 in the Philippines is embarking on the preparatory activities for a new United Nations
Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for the period of 2012-2016. Evaluation of the current
UNDAF2 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. The
study has drawn inputs primarily from the UN staff members and the UNCT.
UNDAF 2005-2009: Formulation Process and Design
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
oriented on UNDAF, and its role in the national development scenario. The relevance of UNDAF is
not clear to some UN staff in the context of an individual agency’s mandate. 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.
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.
The UNDAF Steering Committee was set up to guide the UNDAF formulation and it was expected
that it would continue its functions during the implementation stage and secure the involvement of the
NEDA. However, this committee ceased to function, and as stated in the Country Consultation on the
Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (2007)
documents, this committee did not meet in 20063. There is a need for establishing a governance
structure with clear specification of shared responsibilities and accountability between the UN and the
Government. The UNDAF should be owned by the Government to ensure an effective
implementation and monitoring. Government counterparts should be involved in the process as early
as possible to ensure ownership. Participation of Local Government Units (LGUs) and other sub-
national stakeholders and civil society partners is also equally important. Greater involvement of the
UNCSAC and Civil Society Assembly (CSA) should be ensured in providing substantive inputs in
developing the new UNDAF and in forging partnerships for its implementation. Efforts should also
be made to engage the private sector, industry associations, trade unions and farmers’ cooperatives in
obtaining views and perspectives external to the 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.
1 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.
2 At the request of the Government, the current UNDAF (2005-2009) has been extended until 2011. The new UNDAF will
start on 2012 to align with the national planning process and the priorities of the new Administration.
3 The committee did not meet beyond 2006 (based on interviews with the UN Staff).

6. Strengths of smaller/non-resident agencies (NRAs) 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’. The challenge is to ensure inclusiveness, without losing the strategic focus.
As regards the design, 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. This has posed
challenges in attribution and accountability. To ensure clear accountability, outputs should be
attributed to the agencies, as individual agencies have clear comparative advantages at this level. For
the forthcoming UNDAF process, priority should be given to strengthening the Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E) framework. Current UNDAF Results Matrix (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. Moreover, in the UNDAF
document, the RM does not contain risk analysis and assumptions; it should be included in the RM.
The cross-cutting programming principles such as HRBA and gender equality were not adequately
addressed in the current UNDAF. Incorporation of these principles was left to the agencies. There
were no mechanisms to ensure compliance and no incentives were provided. In the context of the
Philippines it is critical to mainstream these programmatic principles as the UN has comparative
advantage in this area.
For mainstreaming HRBA, it is critical to arrive at a common understanding and have the clarity of
purpose. Development of concrete guidelines and tool kits will enhance skills and foster a common
understanding and vision among UN agencies, Government line agencies, LGUs and Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs). In the case of gender mainstreaming, it is important that gender equality is
mainstreamed into UNDAF outcomes. The RM must contain specific gender indicators and means of
verification for monitoring and evaluating the gender dimension of the UNDAF.
Implementation Mechanism, UNDAF Theme Groups and Coordination
UNDAF Theme Groups (TGs) were formed to facilitate the implementation of UNDAF outcomes.
However, the TGs did not function optimally, and were disbanded in 2007. One of the key factors
behind the low appreciation of UNDAF in the Philippines was discontinuity of the TGs. At the group
level, the functioning was affected by the lack of sustained commitment of the majority of the
member agencies of each thematic group. Agency mandates confined their relationships with
respective constituencies and partners, which curbed the scope for cooperation between agencies. TG
members also felt that the functioning and motivation of the groups significantly depends upon the
leadership quality and strategic vision of the Convener/convening agency. A strong and committed
leadership and a concrete work plan specifying clear responsibilities, M&E mechanism and
communications plan are essential to sustain the functionality of TGs. At the personal level, some
group members felt de-motivated due to the lack of genuine appreciation of their important roles. For
many agencies, it was not part of the staff performance appraisal4. To sustain the commitment of
group members it is crucial to recognize their contributions.
The UN Coordination Office (UNCO) should continue providing direction and coordination for
effective functioning of the TGs. UNCO needs dedicated financial and human resources to ensure
strategic guidance to agencies to maintain focus on the achievement of UNDAF outcomes and M&E.
4
UNFPA has already included participation in the UNDAF process in its staff appraisal.

7. Delivering as One and Joint Programming
In 2007, the GOP, through the NEDA, affirmed its commitment for a One UN System in the
Philippines by 2010. As noted by some agencies, ‘Delivering as One’ has not yet been fully
implemented in the Philippines, though some significant initiatives have been made in this direction.
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. 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.
In 2008, the Philippines was declared by the UN Development Operations Coordination Office
(DOCO) as a fully Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT) compliant country.
Valuable insights about ‘Delivering as One’ process can be gained from lessons learned of first two
years of implementation of this initiative in eight (8) pilot countries and self-starters, many of them
are relevant in the Philippines context.
The ‘Delivering as One’ process should begin simultaneously with the UNDAF roll-out to simplify
the programming process to ensure strategic focus, programme coherence and alignment to national
priorities. Pilot countries’ experiences suggest that, the UNDAF, One UN Programme, Country
Programme Action Plan (CPAPs) and Country Programme Documents (CPDs) need to be integrated
into a single document. The UNDAF Action Plan may prove to be a viable option. The UNDAF
Action Plan reflects the results already specified in the UNDAF RM. According to the UNDAF
guidelines, UNCTs have the flexibility to either keep the UNDAF RM at the outcome level, or
develop a fuller RM, that includes outputs. To maintain the focus of the UNDAF, it is suggested to
keep the RM restricted to the outcome level and specify the outputs in the UNDAF Action Plan. The
UNCT in the Philippines has agreed to the formulation of a UNDAF Action Plan.
A Joint Communication Strategy facilitates support to ‘One UN Programme’. External
communication can improve the visibility of the UN, whereas internal communication is crucial to
support the change management process and to ensure enhanced coordination. A set of “core”
messages agreed by the UNCT is a good start.
It is critical to ensure the promotion of effective results based joint programming (JP), which will
ensure optimal use of resources and capacities available according to a clear division of labor and
comparative advantages. As part of the ‘Delivering as One’ initiative in the Philippines, a number of
JPs have been launched in recent years. Several important lessons have been learnt from the
experiences of implementing JPs in the Philippines.
Benefits of JP need to be clearly understood. It is important to spend time in identifying good subjects
and clear roles for agencies to work together on subjects based on their comparative advantages. JPs
should be conceptualized and implemented in true spirit of ‘Delivering as One’, and must not be
regarded as a mere resource mobilization strategy without thorough assessment of internal and
partners’ capacities to deliver the required outputs. One of the critical factors for improving the
effectiveness of JP is to ensure that participating agencies, especially the convening agencies, take off
their individual UN agency hats and work for the JP. Otherwise, there would be a lot of mistrust
among the member agencies. There was a suggestion that it might be better to have a management
team consisting of all HOAs doing the oversight of such JPs. Multi-stakeholder consultation at all
levels is critical to promote the convergence of inputs, directions and knowledge. The lack of
inclusiveness in the project design phase and lack of ownership of the national partners may meet

8. resistance from Implementing Partners. Government commitment to JP is essential for the effective
implementation and sustainability of the program. UN agencies must use common implementation
modes and adopt harmonized administrative and financial systems. Until this harmonization happens,
common work plans and outcomes are the only binding factors, which can be used to improve
programme delivery. The JPs through Millennium Development Goal Achievement Fund (MDG-F)5
are good initiatives but these require dedicated resources for guidance and oversight to be provided.
UNCO should play this important role. It was suggested that the JP Coordinators should report to the
UNCO, which would promote the principle of ‘Delivering as One’.
UNDAF Roll- Out: Key Emerging Issues
The roll out of the new UNDAF (2012-2016) and the preparatory phase are very important in the
present socio-economic and political context. With the new government in place, the UNCT in the
Philippines has a great opportunity to cut a niche and demonstrate the relevance and efficiency of the
UN system. As expected by the GOP, the UN can set an example to other bilateral and multi-lateral
partners in the Philippines6. This will call for acceleration and strengthening of the ‘Delivering as
One’ efforts and progression towards the ‘One Programme’ in a coherent and coordinated manner,
ensuring alignment with national priorities. The proposed One Programme, as the central driver of the
‘Delivering as One’, provides an opportunity to put in place an integrated strategic framework of the
UN’s programmatic interventions, reducing overlap and fragmentation. Comparative Advantages
(CAs) of the UN system in the Philippines include the following:
• Normative role in advocating and promoting global norms and standards, inclusive
development, the MDGs and human rights;
• Wide menu of expertise combined with access to global technical knowledge and experience,
including South-South cooperation;
• Impartiality/neutrality and ability to convene diverse stakeholders and build consensus; and
• Ability to broker and/or mobilize resources.
The UN’s strength lies in “upstream” engagement in policy and sharing of best practices and technical
knowledge especially in the context of the Philippines as a lower middle-income status country.
Under the Paris Declaration, donors committed to providing technical co-operation in a manner that is
coordinated with strategies and programmes in the partner country. The results of the 2008 survey on
the monitoring of the Paris Declaration shows that 43 percent of the technical cooperation provided by
the UN was coordinated with the Philippines country programmes. Thus, there is a considerable scope
for improvement in the provision of technical knowledge in a coordinated manner.
For simplification of the country programming process, ‘One Programme’ can be integrated with the
UNDAF exercise. Emphasis should be given on simplifying the reporting on the programming cycle.
One Year-End Report for all UN activities in a country is sufficient and increases transparency,
especially with reference to the Government and development partners. To ensure a smooth transition,
the organizational structure should support the vision. Skill sets of staff members should shift more
towards policy advocacy.
Based on the lessons learned, the emerging issues for the next UNDAF cycle can be summarized, as
follows:
• Thematic/sectoral and geographical focus of UN interventions need to be determined and
areas of convergence should be identified and agreed upon;
5 MDG-F is an international cooperation mechanism to accelerate progress on the MDGs world-wide. This was established
in December 2006 with a generous contribution of Euros 528 million from the Spanish Government to the UN system at the
global level
6 Report of the 2007 UNCT Annual Retreat.

9. • There is a need for establishing a management structure for the UNDAF with clear
specification of responsibilities and accountability. The UNCT and the Government should be
equal partners in the management mechanism. The UNDAF should be owned by the
Government to ensure an effective implementation and monitoring, which is also crucial for
realizing the ‘Delivering as One’;
• For an operational UNDAF, participation of all stakeholders, including LGUs, civil society,
donors and private sector should be fostered at all stages;
• Enhanced engagement of NRAs should be ensured in the next UNDAF cycle and their inputs
should be recognized;
• The focus of the UNDAF should be maintained, limiting it to the outcome level.
Implementation of the UNDAF Action plan, to which the UNCT has already agreed7, is a
right step in this direction. However, it has to be a living document and the RM should be
modified whenever necessary. The UNDAF Action Plan must be revisited periodically by the
UN agencies and its partners to review the progress;
• Strong Results-based Management (RBM) should be put in place for all phases of the
UNDAF;
• The programming principles such as gender equality and HRBA should be mainstreamed
more effectively in planning, implementation and M&E; these should also be promoted in the
Government line departments;
• The JP should be implemented in the true spirit of ’Delivering as One’, and clear plan should
be laid out for the transition to the ‘One Programme’;
• There is a need for an effective Joint Communication Strategy to support One UN
Programme: external communication for improving the visibility of the UN, and internal
communication to support the change management process and to ensure enhanced
coordination. Communication can play an important role in popularizing the UNDAF;
• The UNCT should utilize its comparative advantage in policy advocacy and knowledge
transfer to maintain its relevance in a middle income country: it should be a two-way
exchange;
• The UN should play an enhanced role in South-South Cooperation – especially in the areas of
disaster preparedness and response, good governance, democratic reform and
decentralization.
7
UNCT meeting, 14 April 2010