Regional Workshop on the UNDP Evaluation Policy Arab States

<strong>Regional</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong> on the
UNDP Evaluation Policy
Arab States
4 – 6 February 2007
Amman, Jordan
WORKSHOP REPORT
1

Executive Summary
This workshop on the UNDP evaluation policy was the last in a series of regional workshops to
launch the policy and discuss its implications for implementation at country and corporate levels.
Held over two and a half days in Amman, Jordan, between 4 – 6 February 2007, the workshop
addressed the role of evaluation and the function of the policy in the context of the Arab region
and national development priorities. Over 60 delegates from 16 UNDP Country Offices (COs), 9
governments, other UN agencies and UNDP headquarter bureaux and units participated in the
workshop.
The Arab region as defined by UNDP includes twenty-two countries that are members of the
League of the Arab States. These countries have very diverse characteristics in such key areas as
the structures of economies, level of development, geographic location, and type of governance
and institutions. The diversity is particularly glaring between the six Gulf Cooperation Countries
(e.g. UAE and Kuwait), on the one hand, and the least-developed countries (e.g. Yemen and
Somalia), on the other. There are sharp regional and intra-country discrepancies with respect to
progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The majority of the middleincome
“Mashreq” (e.g. Egypt, Jordan and Syria) and “Maghreb” (e.g. Morocco and Tunisia)
countries vary in their potential for reaching the MDGs because of national specificities. Also, the
region is now becoming increasingly afflicted by conflict and violence, which in many ways is
intrinsically tied to distributional problems of resources, particularly within countries. Those
countries coping with conflict (e.g. Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine and Lebanon) face significant
long-term human development and human security challenges. The region is a clear example of
countries where development resources, unless combined with reform of governance, including
improved targeting, equal wealth and service distribution and accountability, are insufficient.
Overall, additional measures are needed across the region to address (i) macroeconomic
challenges (i.e. growth mainly tied to oil revenue); (ii) human resource challenges (i.e. labour
supply/demand problems); and (iii) increasing conflict --- all of which have negative implications
for improving human development.
There is increasing recognition of the benefits of evaluation in the region because the pledge to
systematically evaluate public programmes can enhance the trust of citizens towards government
(i.e. create greater accountability) and contribute to the increase and maintenance of social
capital. While there are some positive trends in innovative partnerships between UNDP and
government around strengthening national M&E systems (e.g. Jordan, Yemen and Egypt), the
overall institutional arrangements for conducting and using evaluations remain very weak in most
of the countries. The lack of information sharing “culture” is considered a major challenge that
needs to be overcome if monitoring and evaluation are to be more effectively integrated into the
work of government and national organizations. In this context, the participants emphasized that
UNDP and the private sector could build on their comparative advantages and lessons learned to
advocate and help develop evaluation capacities of government counterparts and other key
national players through the creation of an ‘evaluation culture’. Key components of an evaluation
culture over and above the generation of quality evaluations were highlighted as: greater
alignment of evaluations with national priorities, taking into account specific development
contexts (e.g. crisis situations, Net Contributing Countries or NCCs); a commitment to design and
implement interventions in a manner that facilitates subsequent evaluation, such as setting
relevant benchmarks; an appreciation of the range of purposes of evaluation; the scope for
interpretation and recognizing the need for cultural sensitivity; the involvement of all relevant
stakeholders in the different stages of evaluation; the need to plan ahead for evaluation and
2

allocate sufficient human and financial resources; and, the importance of how evaluations are
used and the needs of different users.
The following key recommendations were made during the workshop:
To the <strong>Regional</strong> Bureau for Arab States and <strong>Regional</strong> Service Centre in Beirut:
• Strengthen national evaluation systems in the region by developing core evaluation skills
and competencies in support of national development plans and strategies.
• Appoint Evaluation Adviser in the <strong>Regional</strong> Service Centre to establish regional M&E
capacity.
• Ensure a clear line between advice on programmes and conducting evaluations to avoid
conflict of interest when assigning M&E experts and policy advisors within UNDP.
• Develop a comprehensive M&E strategy with higher priority given to evaluation for the
crisis countries in the region.
• Create vetted expert roster for evaluators for the region as a whole.
• Undertake translation of all evaluation guidelines as well as evaluation reports into
Arabic.
• Encourage and facilitate linkages and partnerships on M&E between private firms and
relevant national (including government) institutions at national and regional levels as
one of the main instruments to build M&E competences and foster greater learning
through M&E.
To the Evaluation Office:
• Specific guidance and timely feedback from EO on evaluation design, process, content,
human and financial resources as well as range of timeframe options for improving the
quality of outcome and other evaluations commissioned by CO.
• Strengthen ERC by linking it to ATLAS to better support effective monitoring and
evaluation.
• Identify the type of evaluations needed in NCCs and develop a common approach on how
evaluations should be commissioned within the established national systems of these
countries.
• Facilitate linkages with other international institutions, NGO’s and professional bodies
for strengthening competence in evaluation in the Arab region.
To other Headquarters Bureaux and units:
• Introduce a joint UN transition plan rather than an UNDAF in the crisis countries so that
programme strategy, implementation and evaluation is not so heavily influenced by the
bilateral donors (UNDGO & RBAS).
• As part of the harmonization of M&E and reporting requirements for UNDAF, streamline
the UNDAF outcome boards and provide methodology guidance on how to measure
progress in capturing UNDAF contribution to national goals (UNDGO, RBAS & EO).
• Conduct review or assessment of UNDAF M&E, especially as it relates to the extensive
outcome boards (UNDGO, RBAS & EO).
3

To Country Offices working together with Government:
• Strengthen the role of government to support an institutional framework for evaluation
that is embedded in institutional arrangements at country level and able to implement
strategies consistent with national needs and resources.
• Support “roundtable meeting” among senior government officials in the Arab region in
order to discuss M&E (with a special focus on evaluation) in relation to the development
priorities in their countries.
• Support the development of national evaluation systems and infrastructure with relevant
support from UNDP and other UN organizations.
• Develop a common partnership strategy with government counterparts and other national
level stakeholders on the use of evaluation findings and recommendation, and allocate
sufficient financial resources for such activities.
• Improve the role and mode of broader civil society participation from the design stage
and throughout the evaluation process (e.g. by including civil society groups in steering
committees, consultations on evaluation objectives, findings and conclusions etc.).
• Government needs to demonstrate greater commitment and interest to ensure compliance
with evaluation plans.
• All evaluation plans at CO level should specify source of funding to ensure
accountability.
• Enhance M&E skills among mid-level second layer operational staff at government
agencies/ministries.
• Institutionalise M&E function within COs and national systems to generate demand for
evaluations through systematic dialogue between COs and national counterparts to
review experience, distil lessons and propose future actions (e.g. common guidelines on
roles and responsibilities)
Please see the workshop website for further details:
http://stone.undp.org/undpweb/eo/evalnet/workshop/policy_launch/as.cfm
4

1 .0. Introduction
In June 2006, the Executive Board endorsed the Evaluation Policy for UNDP. The policy
reaffirms the central tenets of evaluation in UNDP, the guiding principles and norms, the
requirements, and the roles and responsibilities at all levels of the organization.
To launch the implementation of the policy, and discuss its implications with national
counterparts, a series of regional workshops has been planned by the Evaluation Office (EO) in
collaboration with the <strong>Regional</strong> Bureaux. The workshops were intended for UNDP Country
Offices (COs) and national government staff responsible for planning or making decisions on
evaluation. The first such workshop focused on the Asia-Pacific region, and was held in Bangkok
in mid-October, 2006, and was followed by others in Africa, Europe CIS and Latin America. The
last workshop, focusing on the Arab States, took place in Amman, Jordan, from 4 – 6 February,
2007.
1.1 Objectives of the <strong>Workshop</strong>
The objective of the workshop was to establish a rational basis for implementing the policy in the
context of regional and national priorities and challenges by:
1. Developing a comprehensive understanding of the UNDP evaluation policy and its
implications for implementation.
2. Enhancing understanding of how the UNDP evaluation function provides a basis for
accountability, performance improvement, learning, and knowledge development.
3. Developing an effective and rational approach in carrying out roles and responsibilities in
evaluation in partnership with government and other key stakeholders.
The workshop also addressed a number of cross-cutting issues including: the alignment of the
policy with national evaluation systems and institutions, ways of enhancing collaboration in
evaluation with national partners, and meeting the requirements of UN reform for coherence and
harmonization. It also addressed evaluation in areas of increasing importance in the Arab region
such as UNDP’s development support in conflict-affected countries and gender mainstreaming.
1.2 Participation
Over sixty delegates including representatives from sixteen UNDP COs and nine government
agencies attended the workshop. There were also representatives from UNIFEM, UNFPA, the
<strong>Regional</strong> Service Centre in Beirut, the <strong>Regional</strong> Bureau for Arab States, the Office of Audit and
Performance Review, and the Evaluation Office (see Annex 2 for the participants list).
1.3 Overview of sessions
The workshop was divided into four sessions running over two and a-half days (see Annex 1 for
the full agenda.). These sessions were delivered via plenary presentations and discussions,
country case presentations, group analyses, and practical exercises. During the opening session,
Luc Stevens, the UN Resident Coordinator in Jordan, welcomed the participants and emphasized
the improvement of evaluation to ensure management response in the form of more focused
intervention strategies. He also highlighted the relevance of such a workshop given that UNDP
now has its first Evaluation Policy approved by its Executive Board at the UN. Professor Samir
Radwan delivered a keynote presentation in which he argued the importance of evaluation for the
region from a macro perspective. He highlighted that there is no shortage of diagnosis of
5

problems in the region. However, what is singularly missing is the benchmarking process and
culture of evaluation. The key elements of the UNDP Evaluation Policy were introduced by
Saraswathi Menon, Director, Evaluation Office.
The second session, Evaluation in the National & <strong>Regional</strong> Context, provided an opportunity for
governments, civil society, associations and academia to present self-directed solutions,
approaches and systems in addressing regional and national challenges and in contributing to
accountability, learning and improvement across the board at the national level. Talal Abu
Ghazaleh, Chairperson and CEO of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization, underscored that “we
cannot manage what we cannot measure.” The key thrust of his presentation was that while so
much work has been done in the Arab region in terms of financial auditing, there still remains a
need for demonstrating similar efforts for setting an accreditation system and a quality assurance
mechanism for monitoring and evaluation in the region.
The third session, UNDP Evaluation Policy and its Implications for the way UNDP Works,
sought to establish a clear understanding of UNDP Evaluation Policy. It highlighted key
parameters of the policy, roles and responsibilities for evaluation across the organization, and the
existing support systems and mechanisms at the corporate level to support the implementation of
the policy at the country level. The session also focused on UN reform and evaluation, especially
the key issues and challenges in evaluation in the context of the UN reform agenda, the role of the
UNCT in Jordan, and methodological challenges and lessons learned in addressing gender
mainstreaming issues in evaluation.
The final session, The Way Forward, provided an opportunity for UNDP staff and government
counterparts to identify measures and actions to be carried out in their particular situation in
implementing the policy.
1.4 Evaluation of the <strong>Workshop</strong> by the Participants
UNDP staff and government counterparts assessed the success of the workshop on two criteria:
1) the degree to which the various sessions helped them achieve the workshop objectives; and
2) the level of usefulness of the structure and delivery of the workshop in achieving the objectives
of the workshop. Around 60% of the total participants responded to the questionnaires:
• Eighty-two percent (82%) of the respondents rated the workshop as having been largely
or completely successful in achieving its objectives.
• The modalities of the workshop were also well received, with 89% of participants
indicating that the way in which the workshop was delivered was largely or completely
useful in helping achieve the workshop objectives.
• Reporting in plenary on group work and discussions of this work was regarded
particularly useful (95%) as it facilitated cross-group learning and knowledge sharing.
• Small group work sessions were also considered critical for the success of the workshop
(90%).
Qualitative responses on the questionnaire highlighted the strong and active participation of
national government representatives as well as UNDP staff that enabled lively and open exchange
of politically sensitive issues. Most of the plenary topics covered were considered useful for
implementing the policy at the national and corporate levels. However, some participants
indicated that some of the plenary presentations for session 3 could have been better planned to
make them more succinct and easy to follow. It was suggested that future workshops should
factor in the importance of plenary discussions and include additional time (days) to allow for
6

sufficient coverage and internalization of key issues. Most participants appreciated the translation
facilities (Arabic, French & English). Annex 3 provides further breakdown on the findings of the
workshop evaluation.
2.0 Implementing the Policy – Issues and Recommendations of the <strong>Workshop</strong>
The following section summarizes the key issues, their implications, and the recommended
actions made during the workshop, drawing on case examples. Where appropriate, this is
prefaced by relevant sections from the evaluation policy. Recommended actions are supported by
an indication of who may act upon the recommendation. A full set of presentations made in each
session of the workshop can be downloaded from the workshop website:
[http://stone.undp.org/undpweb/eo/evalnet/workshop/policy_launch/as.cfm]
2.1 Evaluation alignment with national priorities
Relevant sections of the Evaluation Policy
Evaluation should be guided by national priorities and concerns. It should be inclusive and
take into account diverse national interests and values. Evaluation should strengthen
partnerships with governments and key stakeholders. It should build the capacity of national
institutions to implement, monitor and evaluate.
Senior management of Country Offices, regional bureaux, practice and policy bureaux and the
associated funds and programmes will identify, with partner governments and key
stakeholders, priority areas for evaluation when preparing the programme, and designing and
implementing a strategic evaluation plan.
Key issues and implications
In general, evaluations undertaken by UNDP have not always been aligned with national
priorities or able to effectively engage government and other stakeholders (e.g. the private sector
and other elements of civil society). The region is not homogenous in terms of civil society
development, which makes broader stakeholder involvement in evaluation process particularly
challenging.
Furthermore, target beneficiaries generally tend to be excluded from the evaluation systems, and
in most of the countries affected by conflict, the governments’ have weak relations with donors,
where national institutions do not have the capacity to undertake relevant evaluations. For
instance, there are M&E systems within aid coordination mechanisms in certain post-crisis
countries (e.g. SUDAN). However, there may be an absence of M&E function within national
systems and formal mechanism of coordination between counterparts and UNDP.
National representatives from the Net Contributing Countries (NCCs) such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Libya and the UAE indicated that they have not been very successful in commissioning
evaluations due to “political” circumstances. They highlighted certain difficulties they would
face in initiating evaluations in their respective countries given the level of resources they provide
to UNDP operations.
These trends have significant implications for enhancing national ownership of evaluations,
accountability (i.e. among government, UNDP, public and donors) and development results. For
7

instance, ownership of UN programmes by government is not applicable across the board, and is
usually limited to direct counterparts. As emphasized many times during presentations and
plenary discussions, UNDP’s evaluation planning, monitoring and implementation should be
more effectively aligned with government and UN (i.e. UNDAF evaluations) efforts to address
national priorities that should feed into national requirements and help establish national level
benchmarking to measure development effectiveness.
Recommended actions
• Strengthen the role of government to support an institutional framework for evaluation
that has to be embedded in institutional arrangements at country level.
• Solicit feedback from the government on the need/demand for evaluations. Since
government has an important responsibility to use evaluations to feed into their work,
evaluations conducted by UNDP CO should be planned and implemented in partnership
with government and UNCT, where the focus should be to improve national
programme, learn lessons from efforts of UNDP and government and to feed those
lessons into wider UNDP work. UNRC to include allocation for research and studies
(benchmarking to support M&E related activities)
• As part of the harmonization of M&E and reporting requirements for UNDAF, streamline
the UNDAF outcome boards and provide methodology guidance on how to measure
progress in capturing UNDAF contribution to national goals.
• Introduce a joint UN transition plan rather than an UNDAF in the crisis countries so that
programme strategy, implementation and evaluation is not so heavily influenced by the
bilateral donors.
• Establish M&E coordinating units reporting to appropriate level of government
authority.
• Improve the role and mode of broader civil society participation from the design stage
and throughout the evaluation process (e.g. by including civil society groups in steering
committees, consultations on evaluation objectives, findings and conclusions etc.)
• MDGs indicators should serve as an entry point for evaluations (use data as information),
and all other key indicators for evaluation should be developed in partnership with
government.
• Create regional networks for evaluation and use the platform of the “Global Compact”,
supported by various private sector organizations in the region (e.g. TAGorg) for new
partnerships on evaluation with the private sector.
• Identify the type of evaluations needed in NCCs and develop a common approach on how
evaluations should be commissioned within the established national systems of these
countries.
• The <strong>Regional</strong> Bureau and the Evaluation Office to facilitate increased exchange of
monitoring and evaluation experiences, expertise and best practices in the region.
2.2 Capacity development for evaluation systems
Relevant sections of the Evaluation Policy
Directors of <strong>Regional</strong> Bureaux, in their exercise of line oversight should support and guide
Country Office capacity in evaluation, including establishing regional expertise and
evaluation support systems. Country Offices, regional bureaux and practice and policy
bureaux require technical and managerial expertise for commissioning and using evaluation
for their programmes.
8

Evaluation should strengthen partnerships with governments and key stakeholders. It should
build the capacity of national institutions to implement, monitor and evaluate.
Key issues and implications
The concept of development evaluation is relatively new in the region and is not widely applied.
As a result, there is a lack of understanding of what evaluation means at the national level and
how to improve the capacity of national evaluations systems to design, implement and use
evaluations. The issues raised on capacity development related to both UNDP and national
systems.
A range of issues were highlighted by UNDP staff through the discussions: (i) ensuring
independence of evaluation – in particular roles and responsibilities between those who manage
and commission evaluations (e.g. UNDP COs, government agencies), those who have an interest
in evaluation results at a policy and programme level, as well as those who actually undertake
evaluations, are not always clearly defined; (ii) problem of statistical data in terms of the quality
and availability of data, partly compounded by the fact that data bases are produced by different
agencies without sufficient coordination, which also reflect weakness in relation to sensitive
topics such as violence against women and human rights; (iii) need for a more effective
monitoring and evaluation system in UNDP COs. Without clear indicators, a coherent monitoring
approach and a precise evaluation plan, the identification of what to evaluate and the criteria for
evaluation becomes arbitary and subjective; (iv) high turnover of UNDP staff; (v) lack of
financial and human resources and (vi) need for more sharing of evaluative information and best
practices at national and regional levels.
Key challenges for government included M&E functions not being clearly defined, lack of human
and financial resources, and lack of strategic framework for M&E in most line ministries. Even
high aid recipient countries like Egypt and Jordan (among others) stressed that past efforts to
improve national evaluation system were technically inadequate, of low priority and underresourced,
although things are now changing for the better. They regard the current weak capacity
of national evaluation systems as stemming from (i) the complexity of what must be assessed (i.e.
results at outcome and impact levels); (ii) a major inconsistency between the assumptions of the
aid system and how development actually occurs on the ground; (iii) the limitations of the
different instruments government, UNDP and other UN and donor agencies use to monitor and
evaluate; (iv) government line ministries still focus on projects rather than higher order results at
national level; (v) a culture pervasive throughout the international aid system that values
“reporting” more than reflection; (vi) a lack of benchmarks to compare results. Finally, evaluation
costs can not always be allocated to project budgets and are therefore treated as overheads that
must be kept low. These factors make it particularly difficult for government to significantly
improve national evaluation systems.
The “crisis” countries in the region, including those in transition, also reported special challenges.
Most of these countries rely heavily on DEX and usually manage large amount of resources.
Some of these countries (e.g. Somalia) have no cohesive, universally adopted development
strategy for the entire country. While most initiatives tend to be humanitarian assistance, the
sustainability of such efforts and development results are difficult to assess because of: (i) lack of
national institution for data collection; (ii) lack of reliable population data (census) amidst
recurring population movements; (iii) weak information sharing and documentation among aid
agencies in particular; (iv) weak capacity for policy making on the part of national authorities;
and (vi) weak internal government coordination, cooperation, and coordination. Government
representatives from these countries emphasized the need for better practices for M&E (i.e.tools
9

and methodologies) to ensure feedback and accountability of UNDP and the UN system in
general for their performance in these situations.
The capacity of public institutions to conduct evaluations, especially in view of the weak
accountability, democratic participation and governance in the region as a whole, is part of the
wider requirements that the state must meet to address economic and social demands. Evaluation
is not a stand-alone function and capacity can not be created overnight nor is it without costs. Yet,
the potential benefits of closer collaboration between UNDP and government to develop national
evaluation systems are large enough to justify the initial investment and the recurrent costs
needed to continuously innovate both in evaluation processes and results. Most participants felt
that using simpler M&E methodologies and learning from others could be a viable solution to
capacity gaps.
Recommended actions
• Institutionalise M&E function within COs and national systems to generate demand for
evaluations; a key starting point is the importance of dialogue between COs and national
counterparts to review experience, distil lessons and propose future actions (e.g. common
guidelines on roles and responsibilities)
• Build national capacity in M&E so that evaluation outcomes feed into national planning
processes; UNDP has outcome and strategic/thematic evaluations and planning for these
should be carried out in consultation with government while simultaneously developing
national capacities.
• Ensure that ERC, EvalNet and other corporate M&E knowledge management tools and
resources, such as <strong>Regional</strong> M&E Adviser and documentation of regional experience on
evaluations, are better utilized to help share experiences and knowledge and good
practices within and across the organization, as well as with national counterparts.
• Support “roundtable meeting” among senior government officials in the Arab region in
order to discuss M&E (with a special focus on evaluation) in relation to the development
priorities in their countries. The government representative from Egypt, for instance,
indicated that his country would be happy to host such a regional event.
• Develop in-house capacity – e.g. training of CO staff in technical skills such as drafting
ToRs and reviewing the work of external consultants, and external capacities nationally
and regionally.
• Encourage and facilitate linkages and cooperation schemes on M&E between private
firms and relevant national (including government) institutions at national and regional
levels as one of the main instruments to build M&E competences and foster greater
learning through M&E.
• Ensure core resource allocation for all UNDP evaluations within a programme cycle for
which Headquarter guidance on resource allocation for M&E to develop CO capacity is
required.
• Develop a comprehensive strategy for M&E in the crisis countries at the regional level,
based on lessons learned.
• Give higher priority to evaluation in crisis countries, including investment in human
resource development and relevant support to research bodies (both government and nongovernmental)
at national level.
• Create vetted expert roster for evaluators for the region as a whole.
• Develop innovative partnership with universities, private organizations and networks and
build on their expertise to enhance national capacity on evaluations.
10

2.3 Evaluation for managing results
Relevant section of the Evaluation Policy
Senior management of Country Offices, regional bureaux, practice and policy bureaux and the
associated funds and programmes will ensure the evaluability of programmes by identifying
clear results, developing measurable indicators, and establishing performance targets and
baseline information. In collaboration with national stakeholders and partners, [they will]
ensure the effective monitoring of implementation and performance of programmes to
generate relevant, timely information for management for results and evaluation.
Key issues and implications
Evaluability of development outcomes, as it relates to programme design and monitoring of
programmes through clearly defined targets and measurable indicators, has been a major
difficulty affecting monitoring and evaluation processes in COs, including the commissioning of
independent evaluations at the level of outcome and discussion of results and sharing of
information among key stakeholders. It requires a common understanding among all key
stakeholders, including government and civl society, on priorities and intended results. Evaluating
development results is also hampered by the fact that ‘delivery’ is tied up with financial rather
than ‘results’ delivery, which is partly donor driven. At the same time, resources required for COs
to comply with evaluation plans are not sufficient.
The ROAR reports are generally regarded by COs as reporting steps and not part of the overall
management or strategic direction of the office, and there is no validation and verification of
ROARs. The application of RBM and other new corporate instruments (e.g. MYFF) have not
been easy for most COs, and these need to be simplified and made more practical. Usually, M&E
function is among many responsibilities of one staff member in COs, who also has to respond to
various kinds of resistance to M&E from within the organization as well as national counterparts.
The current separation of CO M&E function in terms of (i) management support unit (i.e. to
ensure effective allocation of resources and oversight of the programming) and (ii) performance
and knowledge management unit (i.e. to carry out external and internal operational and
programmatic M&E) has not been able to address specific requirements in terms of (a)
institutional capacities and skills development; (b) compliance for evaluations; and (d) use of
evaluation. Outcome evaluation plans are not uploaded at the EO website or implemented and, by
and large, there is no segregation of duties between project implementation and oversight.
While the design of CCA/CPAP does help in setting indicators, UNDAF M&E plans are difficult
to monitor in view of different M&E systems used by various UN agencies that have yet to be
fully addressed by the UNDAF ‘outcome boards’. Support and guidance from HQ on such issues
have been insufficient.
Recommended actions
• Appoint Evaluation Adviser in the <strong>Regional</strong> Service Centre to establish regional M&E
capacity to backstop COs on technical issues (e.g. indicator selection and formulation,
templates for monitoring systems etc.).
• In collaboration with all relevant stakeholders, ensure that outcomes have measurable
benchmarks at the outset of programme design.
11

• All evaluation plans at CO level should specify source of funding to ensure
accountability.
• Governments need to demonstrate greater commitment and interest to ensure compliance
with evaluation plans, which should include mobilisation of resources for improvements.
• Conduct review or assessment of UNDAF M&E, especially as it relates to the extensive
outcome boards.
• The methodology to achieve results from UNDAF and CPAP indicators and reporting
needs to be elaborated by HQ
• M&E definitions and terminology should be harmonized among UN and government
agencies, and capacity deficits for managing evaluations (e.g. production of ToRs,
contract management, review of findings and technical knowledge of evaluation) should
be addressed through joint-training at different levels and more effective use of regional
resources.
• A pool of skills need to be created among mid-level second layer operational staff at
government agencies.
• Improve quality and harmonization of the database (vital stats, common referential data
e.g. demographic and macro projections).
• Better use of inception and mid-term evaluations to identify lessons learned and make
improvements in the national M&E systems.
• Ensure respect of M&E recommendations and enhance awareness, transparency and
credibility through information campaigns at national level (e.g. through mass media).
2.4 Resources
Relevant section of the Evaluation Policy
Senior management of Country Offices, regional bureaux, practice and policy bureaux and the
associated funds and programmes will ensure adequate resources for evaluation. Country
Offices, regional bureaux, and practice and policy bureaux will be required to prepare an
evaluation plan, cost this plan, and allocate the requisite funds from appropriate project and
programme budgets.
Key issues and implications
Resources for outcome evaluation are normally taken from budget lines of each project that fall
under the outcome. Such funds generally tend to be inadequate to ensure high quality of
evaluation. While some COs use XP budgets, others use project funding. COs lack specific
guidance on how to consistently fund evaluations. Currently, there are no clear guidelines as to (i)
the level of funds the CO should allocate for conducting evaluations at the outcome level; and (ii)
timeframe for conducting outcome evaluation (current guidelines simply indicate thirty days,
without specifying options), which have major resource implications.
At the UNDAF and country programme level, COs are being subjected to more requirements that
will need additional resources and at the same time make it increasingly difficult to keep charging
projects for evaluations.
Recommended actions
• RBAS & EO to jointly look into allocation of resources for evaluations at CO level.
Around 3-6% (depending on the scope and scale of intervention) of the country
programme should be set aside for evaluations at the programme planning stage, and
12

there should be a mechanism to alert CO to use that amount. In addition, time resources
devoted to evaluation should also be factored in when developing country programme.
• Explore co-financing of outcome and other evaluations undertaken by CO with
government and donors.
• Specific guidance/feedback from EO on human and financial resources as well as range
of timeframe (with options) required for improving quality of outcome and other
evaluations commissioned by CO.
• Formulate strategic evaluation plan with UNCT on UNDAF evaluations and explore
additional resources for such evaluations.
2.5 Quality Enhancement and Assurance
Relevant sections of the Evaluation Policy
All evaluations should meet minimum quality standards defined by the Evaluation Office. To
ensure that the information generated is accurate and reliable, evaluation design, data
collection and analysis should reflect professional standards, with due regard for any special
circumstances or limitations reflecting the context of the evaluation. To ensure this, the
professionalism of evaluators and their intellectual integrity in applying standard evaluation
methods is critical.
The Evaluation Office is responsible for setting evaluation standards, developing and
disseminating methodology and establishing the institutional mechanisms for applying the
standards; and for assuring (the quality of) mandatory decentralized evaluations and support
the quality assurance of the evaluations conducted by the associated funds and programmes.
Key issues and implications
Outcome level evaluation expertise are lacking in the region as a whole, and in practice most
outcome evaluations are actually ‘output evaluations’. The lack of basic monitoring data and the
lack of institutional capacity to retain and provide credible data remains a key challenge that
makes such evaluations more time-consuming and undermine their quality. It is critical that the
experience so far is properly documented and shared to feed into future M&E strategies of
UNDP and government. Experience from Egypt, for instance, shows that the majority of
unsuccessful projects had “faults in design”. Therefore, it is important to identify measurable
objectives and a few good indicators. We have to make sure that the data is there to measure
them, and if we can measure them, we have to ask what they contribute to measuring the
outcome. There is weak capacity in the region in setting proper indicators.
There is a need to systematically share information and best practices (e.g. the UN Evaluation
Group Norms and Standards for evaluation in the UN system) and build on lessons learned from
previous programmes and results of evaluation.
Recommended actions
• Support and feedback on quality assurance issues from EO to COs need to be
systematized and not carried out on an ad-hoc basis.
• Undertake situation analysis of existing programmes and projects on quality assurance,
including focus on gender sensitivity and audit reports etc.
• The timing allocated for outcome evaluations in the current guidelines (“Yellowbook”)
should be clarified.
13

• Enhance quality controls to ensure that indicators and CO monitoring systems in general
meet minimum quality standards and are developed in partnership with government.
• Evaluation Office, in partnership with other relevant bureaux/units, help develop CD on
M&E training sessions for UNDP staff, UNCT and national counterparts.
• Strengthen ERC by linking it to ATLAS to better support effective monitoring and
evaluation.
• In assigning M&E experts and policy advisors within UNDP, there should be a clear line
between advice on a programme and conducting evaluations to avoid conflict of interest.
• The new RMG could be used as an entry point for partnerships towards the achievement
of outcome (i.e. outcome boards), but more clarity required from HQ.
• Ensure better use of the evaluation standards through provision of appropriate guidance
and establishment of quality assurance system (i.e. guidelines and quality criteria), which
is being developed by the Evaluation Office.
• Create “outcome evaluation fund” to which resources are directly allocated upon
approval of projects
• Support partnerships between government and international centers of excellence for
monitoring and evaluation.
• Examine, assess and recommend synergies and opportunities as well as best
• practices within the countries in the region through review of M& experiences.
• Ensure that CO has an outcome evaluation plan prepared in accordance with UNDP
policy and procedures, within the first quarter of the CP cycle.
• Ensure consultative annual reviews at different levels (e.g. government and civil society)
groups take place that connect reporting, feedback and learning from evaluations. -
• Cooperate with other international institutions, NGO’s and professional bodies
• (e.g. UNEG) for strengthening competence in evaluation in the Arab region.
2.6 Use of Evaluation
Relevant section of the Evaluation Policy
Senior management of Country Offices, regional bureaux, practice and policy bureaux and the
associated funds and programmes will prepare management responses to all evaluations, and
ensure and track appropriate, timely implementation of the agreed evaluation
recommendation; draw on evaluation findings to improve the quality of programmes, guide
strategic decision-making on future programming and positioning, and share knowledge on
development experience, and ensure the transparency of, and public access to, all evaluation
reports
Key issues and implication
There was overall consensus that undertaking evaluation work and ensuring its quality is only
worthwhile if the activity leads to use of the evaluation findings and contributes to improved
knowledge amongst relevant policy and operational actors within the organization and among
national level stakeholders. Some participants highlighted the fact that in many cases evaluations
have been used only partially. More often, several evaluations or individual evaluations combined
with other evidence and opinion have been used cumulatively to inform debates and influence
decision-making (e.g. the use of the Arab Human Development Reports in the region). The weak
use of evaluation and its impact in the region is influenced by a number of key factors: (i) the
quality of the evaluation work; (ii) the level of involvement of national stakeholders in the
different stages of the evaluation cycle; (iii) the involvement of senior managers and directors;
(iv) the organizational arrangements for dissemination, i.e. the time and resources available for
14

dissemination and the degree to which the process is championed by those responsible for the
work influences the understanding, communication and use of the findings; and (v) the
institutional arrangements and capacity for conducting evaluation.
Recommended actions
• All relevant stakeholders and project/programme beneficiaries have to be identified at
evaluation planning stage, engaged throughout the evaluation process and given full
access to evaluation reports.
• Undertake translation of all evaluation guidelines as well as evaluation reports into
Arabic.
• COs should be evaluated in terms of their compliance to planned evaluations (i.e. more
focus be given to follow-up).
• Effective use of evaluation recommendations & follow up should be reflected in balance
scorecard.
• Timely and effective feedback on evaluation design, process and content required from
EO & RBAS
• Recognition for top COs using evaluation recommendations and sharing success stories
within the region and beyond.
• Develop a common partnership strategy with government counterparts and other national
level stakeholders on the use of evaluation findings and recommendation, and allocate
sufficient financial resources for such activities.
3. Way forward on implementing the policy
The final session of the workshop provided the basis for country groups (UNDP with national
government counterparts) to consider what actions they will take in implementing the evaluation
policy, and what recommendations they may have for other units to support this process. The
main issues raised in the session have been drawn together with the key recommendations actions
made during the entire workshop and summarized below. Detailed actions presented by country
teams at the workshop can be found at the workshop webpage.
To the <strong>Regional</strong> Bureau for Arab States and <strong>Regional</strong> Service Centre in Beirut:
• Create the position of Evaluation Advisor (English & French speaking) in the <strong>Regional</strong>
Service Centre to establish regional capacity in M&E to backstop Country Offices on
technical issues (e.g. indicator selection and formulation, templates for monitoring
systems etc.).
• Sharing best practices between COs on how to address cultural sensitivities in conducting
and sharing findings of evaluations.
• Organize “a roundtable” discussion between “champion” ministries from the region on
Evaluation Capacity Development (Egypt has agreed to host such a meeting).
• Regularly allocate evaluation funds for projects under the regional programme.
• Support COs to develop capacity towards core resources and Trust Funds.
To the Evaluation Office:
• Organize workshop on M&E at the national and/or regional level to strengthen capacities
of line ministries (to be co-financed by RBAS and COs).
• Relevant and timely feedback on quality assurance issues for planning and conducting
outcome and other evaluations
15

• Ensure that the updated M&E (“Yellow”) Handbook provides specific guidelines on clear
timeframe options for conducting outcome evaluations.
To the Evaluation Office and other Headquarters Bureaux and units:
• Design user-friendly information management system (project database) to capture M&E
information at corporate level
• ERC should be linked to ATLAS so as to enable review of proposals within an outcome
against evaluation results (Bureau of Management and Operations Support Group with
Evaluation Office).
• Harmonization of M&E approaches within the UNCT in cooperation with government
counterparts
• Update a roster of qualified and vetted evaluators by SURF, RBAS and EO with support
from COs.
To Country Offices working together with Government:
• Identify M&E ‘champions” within the government and start capacity development
project with selected ministries
• Solicit feedback from the government on the need/demand for evolutions and select
priority area (s) for joint evaluation between Government and UNDP
• Review M&E system at government and donor levels to set standards for government’s
M&E system
• Harmonization of approaches within the UNCT in cooperation with government
counterparts
• Ensure national government are directly involved in evaluations and strengthen national
capacity to follow-up on evaluation findings and recommendations
• Strengthen national statistical institutions
• Formulate plan to identify civil society stakeholders (e.g. using participatory and other
approaches) and solicit inputs on their M&E capacity development requirement as well as
integrating their inputs to UNDP’s M&E work on a regular basis.
• Regularly allocate funds for outcome and country evaluations in all project documents
• CO evaluation plan should be set out prior to approval of CP (must be within CPAP)
• Conduct strategic review with stakeholders to ensure accountability of all partners
• Ensure alignment between country programme M&E system and UNDAF M&E system,
especially the alignment of indicators
• Promote capacity development training of government and UNDP CO staff in planning,
monitoring and conducting evaluation
• Advocate development effectiveness and promote M&E culture among senior
management and programme officers
• Identification of resources for evaluations and allocation of resources – e.g. create
“outcome evaluation fund” to which resources are directly allocated upon approval of
projects
• Develop CD on M&E training with support from Capacity 2015, the Learning Resource
Centre, RBAS and EO for different users (e.g. training sessions on M&E for UNCT and
counterparts)
• Develop innovative partnerships with academia, regional associations and the private
sector that can play a complementary role to enhance M&E.
• Greater collaboration efforts towards quality assurance of evaluations and better
documentation an dissemination of good practices
16

• Organize training courses by RBAS, EO, OAPR and other HQ units to disseminate
guidelines and applications on quality assurance and compliance.
• Share experiences and best practices on M&E between Government entities and COs
through MSI and other mechanisms such as network and communities of practice,
EVALNET etc.
17

ANNEX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA
<strong>Workshop</strong> on the UNDP Evaluation Policy for the Arab States
Petra Hall
Radisson Hotel, Amman, Jordan
4-6 February, 2007
DAY 1
Sunday, 4 February
7:00 - 7:50 REGISTRATION
OPENING SESSION
Chair: Nurul Alam, Deputy Director, UNDP Evaluation Office
8:00 - 10:00 Welcome Luc Stevens, UN Resident Coordinator,
Jordan
Opening Remarks (Video Presentation)
Amat Al Alim Alsoswa, <strong>Regional</strong> Director
& Assistant Administrator, RBAS
Development priorities and the role of
evaluation in the region
Directions for development evaluation in
UNDP
Prof. Samir Radwan, Development
Economist & Former Adviser to the
Prime Minister of Egypt
Saraswathi Menon, Director, UNDP
Evaluation Office
10:00 - 10:30 Break
Discussion in Plenary
10:30 - 10:45 Presentation of the workshop agenda M. Nurul Alam, Deputy Director, UNDP
Evaluation Office
SESSION 2: EVALUATION IN THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT
Chair: Mekki Mirghani Osman, Director General of Multilateral Cooperation, Government of
National Unity, Sudan
Session Objective: To identify regional and national development challenges and share
national experiences in evaluation.
10:45 - 13:00 Institutional Challenges for Monitoring
and Evaluation in the Arab Region
Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, Chairman & CEO,
Talal Abu Ghazaleh Organization
(TAGorg), Jordan
National Monitoring and Evaluation
Strategy in Yemen
Ali Abdullah Dehaq, Acting Director of
Development Plans and Monitoring &
18

Evaluation, Ministry of Planning and
Intermational Cooperation, Government
of Yemen
Photograph
Q&A and Discussion in Plenary
13:00 - 14:30 Lunch
14:30 - 16:00 Small Group Work
Small group work on issues and challenges in relation to regional and national systems
and practices in evaluation
16:00 - 16:30 Break
16:30 - 17:30 Reporting in Plenary
19:00 - 20:30 Dinner Reception, Rum Ballroom, Radisson Hotel
Rapporteurs:
Shaza Al-Joundi, UNDP Syria
Gordon Sworo Yisaya,
Undersecretary, Local Government,
Sudan
Khalid Abu Ismail, Policy Advisor,
SURF, Arab States
DAY 2
Monday, 5 February
8:30 - 8:35 Introduction to Day 2 M. Nurul Alam, UNDP Evaluation Office
SESSION 3: UNDP EVALUATION POLICY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WAY UNDP WORKS
Chair: Nasser Shammout, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP Saudi Arabia
Session Objective: To establish a clear understanding of UNDP Evaluation Policy,
including roles and responsibilities across the organization.
8:35 - 10:00 Key parameters of the UNDP
Evaluation Policy
Saraswathi Menon, UNDP Evaluation
Office
10:00 - 10:30 Break
Q&A and Discussion in Plenary
10:30 - 12:00 Country Office arrangements and practices in evaluation
Developing a UNDP M&E plan
Morocco, UNDP Country Office
19

Alignment and harmonization of M&E
systems in a crisis context
Somalia, UNDP Country Office
Q&A and Discussion in Plenary
12:00 - 13:30 Support systems in implementing the Evaluation Policy
Evaluation Office
<strong>Regional</strong> Audit Service Centre
<strong>Regional</strong> Bureau for Arab States
Sukai Prom-Jackson and Khaled Ehsan
Ubavka Dizdarevic
Mounir Tabet
13:30 - 14:30 Lunch
Q&A and Discussion in Plenary
14:30 - 15:30 UN reform and evaluation Saraswathi Menon, UNDP Evaluation
Office
Q&A and Discussion in Plenary
UN reform: UN Country Team
Abdul Muni'em Abu-Nuwar, Director,
Country Support Team, UNFPA
Gender and human rights in evaluation
Dana Malhas, UNIFEM Jordan
Q&A and Discussion in Plenary
15:30 - 16:00 Break
16:30 - 17:30 Small Group Work
Small group work to give participants an opportunity to further elaborate on the issues
raised and the challenges identified during the morning sessions on the key parametres of
the Evaluation Policy
Group 1. UNDAF results framework : the challenge of joint monitoring and evaluability
Group 2. Evaluation planning and use
Group 3. Country Office M&E systems: institutional arrangements and resources
Group 4. Commissioning evaluations (TORs, Selection of Consultants, Evaluation Reports)
Group 5. Outcome evaluations
19:30- 22:00 Dinner and Show at Kan Zaman (old castle)
Rapporteurs:
Noha Rifaat, UNDP Egypt
Abla Amawi, SURF, Arab States
Firas Gharaibeh, UNDP Jordan
20

DAY 3
Tuesday, 6 February
8:30 - 8:35 Introduction to Day 3 M. Nurul Alam, Deputy Director, UNDP
Evaluation Office
8:35 - 9:30 Small Group Work
Continuation from Day 2 - Reporting in Plenary
SESSION 4: THE WAY FORWARD
Chair: Nurul Alam, Deputy Director, UNDP Evaluation Office
Session Objective: To identify next steps and recommendations in implementing the policy
at the corporate level, and at the country level together with partners
9:30 - 10:00 Reporting in plenary from Days 1 & 2 Rapporteurs from Days 1 & 2
10:00 - 10:30 Break
10:30 - 12:00 Addressing issues and developing an
office plan
Working Groups, Country Teams
12:00 - 13:30 Reporting and discussion in plenary Working Groups, Country Teams
Panel for discussion and closing
remarks:
Luc Stevens, UN Resident
Coordinator, UNDP Jordan
Mounir Tabet, Policy Adviser, RBAS
Talaat Abdel Malaak, Head, PEMA,
Ministry of International Cooperation
Saraswathi Menon, Director, UNDP
Evaluation Office
13:30 - 15:30 Lunch
14:00 Sight-seeing (optional plan with Dahlan Tours and Travel Co.)
21

ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Arab States <strong>Regional</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong> on UNDP Evaluation Policy 2006
Country Name Title Office Email
Algeria
Djibouti
Egypt
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Morocco
Dirk Boberg Deputy Resident Representative UNDP Algeria dirk.boberg@undp.org
Bouthaina Financial Analyst UNDP Algeria bouthaina.bailiche@undp.org
Bailiche
Harbi Omar Programme Officer and Evaluation Focal UNDP Djibouti harbi.omar@undp.org
Chirdon point
Guelleh
c/o harbi.omar@undp.org
Idriss Omar
Deputy Director of Economic
Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and International Cooperation
Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
and
International
Cooperation
Noha Rifaat Results-Based Management Officer UNDP Egypt noha.rifaat@undp.org
Naglaa
Arafa
Talaat Abdel
Malek
Programme Analyst UNDP Egypt naglaa.arafa@undp.org
Head of the Center for Project Evaluation
and Macroeconomic Analysis (PEMA)
Ministry of
International
Cooperation
malek@pema.gov.eg
Hideko Program Specialist UNDP Iraq hideko.hadzialic@undp.org
Hadzialic
Salwan Saif Resource Management Officer UNDP Iraq salwan.saif@undp.org
Dara Tell Program Support Unit UNDP Iraq dara.tell@undp.org
Maha Al- Program Specialist UNDP Iraq maha.al-nuaimy@undp.org
Nuaimy
Rania Tarazi Poverty Analyst UNDP Jordan rania.tarazi@undp.org
Firas
Gharaibeh
Ziad
Obeidat
Rana Abu
Al-Haija
Raja'a
Behaisi
Rasha
Ahmed
Khalid Al
Harran
Programme Manager UNDP Jordan firas.gharaibeh@undp.org
Director of the Monitoring and Evaluation
Department
Evaluator and Researcher
Ministry of
Organization,
Planning and
International
Cooperation
Ministry of
Organization,
Planning and
International
Cooperation
Ziad.o@mop.gov.jo
rana.a@dmop.gov.jo
Programme Analyst UNDP Kuwait rajaa.behaisi@undp.org
Programme Assistant UNDP Kuwait rasha.ahmed@undp.org
Director of Technical Cooperation and
Development Support
Ministry of
Planning
Kuwait
alherran1@hotmail.com
Osama Programme Officer UNDP Libya osama.matri@undp.org
Matri
Fadel Zayan Programme Officer UNDP Libya fadel.zayan@undp.org
Ftema Wafa
El Kebir
Alaoui
Renée
Madrolle
Head of Technical Cooperation
Department
Ministry of
Planning Libya
fywafa@planning.gov.ly
Adviser, Environment and Sustainable UNDP Morocco elkebir.alaoui@undp.org
Devlepment
Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant UNDP Morocco renee.madrolle@undp.org
22

Saudi
Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tunisia
United
Arab
Emirates
Yemen
Mohammed
Souafi
Reem Al-
Bakry
Nasser
Shammout
Louise
Chamberlain
Osman Y.
Mahamoud
Ahmed
Hashi Abdi
Shiil
Martin
Dramani
Akiko Fujii
Mekki
Mirghani
Osman
Gordon
Sworo
Yisaya
Shaza Al
Joundi
Hassana
Mardam Bey
Mohsen
Ismandar
Oumama
Ennaifer
Mohamed
Mestiri
Secrétaire Général de l’Observatoire
National du Développement Humain,
Primature. Rabat
Monitoring and Evaluation Associate
Deputy Resident Representative
Assistant Resident Representative
(Programme)
Adviser, Coordinator for Aid
Vice Minister, Ministry of Planning and
Coordination, Somaliland
l’Observatoire
National du
Développement
Humain,
Primature,
Rabat
UNDP Saudi
Arabia
UNDP Saudi
Arabia
UNDP Somalia
Ministry of
Planning and
International
Cooperation
and Puntland
State
Ministry of
Planning
Somalia
m.souafi@menara.ma
reem.al-bakry@undp.org
Nasser.shammout@undp.org
louise.chamberlain@undp.org
omahamoud@gmail.com
viceministerplanning@hotmail.co
m
Project Cycle Management Analyst UNDP Sudan martin.dramani@undp.org
Programme Management Specialist,
Head, MSU
Director General Multilateral Cooperation
UNDP Sudan
Government of
National Unity
akiko.fujii@undp.org
dindrawi@hotmail.com
Undersecretary Local Government Board Government of
Southern
Sudan, Juba
Poverty Reduction Team Leader UNDP Syria shaza.joundi@undp.org
Team Leader/Analyst - Office of the UN
Resident Coordinator
UNDP Syria
hassana.mardambey@undp.org
Director of Cooperation
National
Cooperation
Department,
State Planning
Commission,
Syria
mohsen71@scs_net.org
Monitoring and Evaluation Focal Point UNDP Tunisia oumama.ennaifer@undp.org
Deputy Director
Ministry for
Foreign Affairs,
Tunisia
UNDP UAE
Ruba Al
Hassan
Human Development Programme
Analyst
Ruba.alhassan@undp.org
Giulia Programme Analyst UNDP UAE giulia.senigaglia@undp.org
Senigaglia
Abdo Seif Programme Management Advisor UNDP Yemen abdo.seif@undp.org
Vibeke Risa
Ali Abdullah
Dehaq
Teamleader, Advisory Team (and
ARR/Programme)
Acting Director of Developing Plans and
Monitoring and Evaluation, Ministry of
Planning and International Cooperation
(MoPIC), Republic of Yemen
UNDP Yemen
Ministry of
Planning and
International
Cooperation
vibeke.risa@undp.org
adhhaq@mpic.gov.ye
23

Sub-
<strong>Regional</strong>
Resource
Facility for
Arab
States
Abla Amawi
Khalid Abu
Ismail
Capacity 2015 Programme-Arab States
<strong>Regional</strong> Coordinator
Policy Advisor
Sub-<strong>Regional</strong>
Resource
Facility for Arab
States
Sub-<strong>Regional</strong>
Resource
Facility for Arab
States
George Akl National Officer Sub-<strong>Regional</strong>
Resource
Facility for Arab
States
Resource People
abla.amawi@undp.org
khalid.abu-ismail@undp.org
george.akl@undp.org
Luc Stevens UN Resident Coordinator, Jordan UNDP Jordan luc.stevens@undp.org
Talal Abu-
Ghazaleh
Prof. Samir
Radwan
Dana
Malhas
Mohammed
Khasawmeh
Chairman & CEO
Development Economist & Former
Adviser to the Prime Minister of Egypt
National Programme Officer
Coordinator of MDG Programme
Talal Abu
Ghazaleh
Organization
(TAGorg)
UNIFEM
Jordan
Government of
Jordan
Mera Eftaiha Programme Assistant UNIFEM ICT
programme
Luai Executive Director
Talal Abu-
Alkassem
Ghazaleh
Organization
(TAGorg)
Khaled Abu
Osbeh
Ahmed Al
Ousseily
Akram
Rayess
Sherine El-
Maghraby
Taghrid
Khuri
Evaluation Office
Saraswathi
Menon
M. Nurul
Alam
Sukai Prom-
Jackson
Executive Director
<strong>Regional</strong> Office Manager
Consulting Manager
Business Development Director
Development, Gender and Management
Consultant
Director
Deputy Director
Evaluation Adviser
Talal Abu-
Ghazaleh
Organization
(TAGorg)
Talal Abu-
Ghazaleh
Organization
(TAGorg)
Talal Abu-
Ghazaleh
Organization
(TAGorg)
Talal Abu-
Ghazaleh
Organization
(TAGorg)
Jordan
UNDP
Evaluation
Office
UNDP
Evaluation
Office
UNDP
Evaluation
Office
tag@tagi.com
radwan@erf.org.eg
dana_khan@unifem.org.jo
mera.eftaiha@unifem.org
lkassem@tagi.com
kabuosbeh@tagi.com
aalousseily@tagi.com
arayess@tagi.com
smaghraby@tagi.com
tkhuri@pdx.edu
saraswathi.menon@undp.org
nurul.alam@undp.org
sukai.prom-jackson@undp.org
Khaled Evaluation Adviser UNDP khaled.ehsan@undp.org
24

Ehsan
Evaluation
Office
Michelle Sy Programme Associate UNDP
Evaluation
Office
<strong>Regional</strong> Bureau for the Arab States
michelle.sy@undp.org
Mr. Mounir Policy Adviser RBAS mounir.tabet@undp.org
Tabet
<strong>Regional</strong> Audit Service Center
Dr. Ubavka
Dizdarevic
Programme Specialist
<strong>Regional</strong> Audit
Service Centre
Slovakia
ubavka.dizdarevic@undp.org
25

ANNEX 3: SURVEY RESULTS
Annex Summary of Ratings from <strong>Workshop</strong> Evaluation by Participants
1. Did the various sessions help you achieve the workshop objectives?
Session 1: Opening
session
Not at all Partially Largely Completely
No
response
Total of
largely
and
completely
#respondents
and response
rate
1 6 25 4 3 29 33
3% 18% 76% 12% 9% 88% 55%
Comments: Excellent and very relevant presentations for setting the stage for the workshop
Session 2: Evaluation
in the National and
<strong>Regional</strong> Context
1 6 27 3 2 30 35
3% 17% 77% 9% 6% 86% 58%
Comments: Follow up activities needed to clarify details for practical applications
Session 3: UNDP
Evaluation Policy and
its Implications for the
way UNDP works
3 5 25 6 0 31 39
8% 13% 64% 15% 0% 79% 65%
Comments: Too many presentations and too much focus on UNDP/more sessions needed for understanding of
the concepts, mechanism and tools/ further clarification in certain areas and linkages between different levels of
M&E and also UNDAF
Session 4: The way
forward
1 9 23 5 1 28 37
3% 24% 62% 14% 3% 76% 62%
Comments: Very useful to start discussions on the next steps for the CO and in collaboration with the National
Counterparts
2. Was the way the workshop was structured and delivered useful in achieving the objectives of the workshop?
Plenary presentations
1 5 25 8 0 33 39
3% 13% 64% 21% 0% 85% 65%
Comments: More specific mechanisms on alignment with and involvement of the National Counterparts would
have been useful
Group work 0 4 19 16 0 35 39
26

Comments: The group work were too short
0% 10% 49% 41% 0% 90% 65%
Reporting back from
the groups
2 3 25 9 0 34 39
5% 8% 64% 23% 0% 87% 65%
Comments: This part of the workshop was very relevant for the participants
Plenary discussions
Comments:
1 1 24 12 0 36 38
3% 3% 63% 32% 0% 95% 63%
3. Other comments, suggestions and recommendations
Strengths
- Very good idea the participation from the National Counterparts
- <strong>Workshop</strong> well organized and the participation of the participants was highly constructive
- Group discussions were focused and came out with clear recommendations for the way
forward hopefully adopted by COs and Government Counterparts
- Next workshop, events related to M&E should be design based on this workshop
Weaknesses
- Some participants felt the point of the workshop was not to build participants capacity on
evaluation but more to along the lines of a focus group to discuss current issues the EO is
facing in setting appropriate guidelines and recommendations
- The presentations were too long
- More group work rather the presentations/presentations too long
- Too specific content for the interest of National Counterparts
- Not enough internal focus and National Counterpart perspective
Suggestions and recommendations
Content related
- It would be useful to have a case study evaluation programme/outcome and have a
presentation by evaluators on the process and challenges in a given country
- More focus training in joint evaluation, indicators selection process, measurements and M&E
structures
- You may want to collect information about expectations from the target audience to guide you
in the workshop design
- Tool to facilitate implementation was missing
- The workshop was more concentrated on assessing the situation of M&E at the country and
regional level
Structure & Process
27

- It was more important to make people understand how they could support development of
M&E plan along all the process not only by sharing experiences (nobody with experience) but
having also experts and support from EO
- More group work rather the presentations/presentations too long
- It would have been very useful if the workshop could have provided us with tips on
mechanism/ process/resources to support our Gov. Counterparts in setting up M&E mechanism
- You may want to collect information about expectations from the target audience to guide you
in the workshop design
Follow up
- Looking forward to seeing implementation steps and actual applications
- Post workshop "homework" is recommended to ensure outcomes on implementation on the
ground
- EO should encourage COs to organize similar meetings in their respective countries
- Very well organized workshop; such workshop should be held annually
28