United Nations Nepal Independent Evaluation Of The UN Peace Fund For .

Independent Evaluation of the UN Peace Fund for Nepal1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYFollowing the signature in November 2006 of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Nepal, anumber of principles were adopted by the parties to the conflict: to address the root causes of conflict,and to conduct a number of governance reforms leading to more democracy in a highly fragmented andpolarised social and political landscape. The CPA committed the signatories to pursuing inclusiverecovery and rehabilitation, and ensuring justice and reparations for victims of conflict. It also committedto the formation of transitional justice mechanisms.The CPA provided a good framework for international peacebuilding interventions to support the peaceprocess. In March 2007 Security Council Resolution 1740 mandated the creation of the United NationsPeace Fund for Nepal (UNPFN). Its goal was to finance projects solicited from UN organisations. TheFund was originally designed to last one year, but the prolongation of the peace process led toextensions until June 2016 (two projects are still to be completed).UNPFN’s objectives evolved over time as the context changed. They were based on the strategicanalysis done by senior UN staff complementing the work of the Nepal Peace Trust Fund, which wasmanaged jointly by the government of Nepal (GoN) and donors. The Fund was to be very responsiveby providing resources for initiatives that would fill significant gaps in the implementation of the CPA.The identification and funding of these initiatives was decided by the UNPFN Executive Committeewhich oversaw the operations. It was composed of UN, donor and GoN representatives. When theUnited Nations Mission in Nepal closed in 2009, the UN Office managing the Fund was taken over bythe UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator (UN RC).UNPFN received contributions from the governments of the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark,Canada and Switzerland, as well as from the global UN Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), which itself has over50 donors. USD 46.4 million was allocated through 34 projects selected by a competitive process. Allthe UN agencies operating in Nepal participated in these projects across the country.Description of the EvaluationThis evaluation is the final assessment of the performance of the Fund. It was conducted betweenJanuary and August 2016, and supported by a large Reference Group comprising some donors and thelead agencies that received funding. Its main purpose at the strategic level is to provide analysis of themanagement and administration of UNPFN, and to provide recommendations to support future thinkingon the role of the UN in Nepal. At the operational level, it is to provide evidence on the performance ofthe portfolio of projects funded through the UNPFN.The evaluation follows the Terms of Reference (ToR). A desk analysis of all UNPFN projects allowedfor an overall evaluative overview, and this was supported by field visits to a representative sample ofsix projects in six Districts.1 The evaluation team conducted in-depth interviews of past and presentstakeholders, and a review of other independent evaluations, project documentation, and related agencyand academic literature.The evaluation team of seven consultants (four of whom are Nepali) adopted a consultative and inclusiveapproach in carrying out the evaluation and in successive debriefing sessions at the local and capitallevel over the course of the process. The evaluation team used gender and conflict sensitive approachesin its data collection and analytical framework, to ensure an appreciation and integration within theevaluation findings of these two important dimensions of peacebuilding work in Nepal.1The Districts visited during the field visit in April 2016 were : Dang, Parsa, Kailali, Kanchanpur, Kaski, and Kathmandu.Evaluation Report6

Independent Evaluation of the UN Peace Fund for NepalThe ToR stipulated the distinction of two levels of analysis: the strategic level, primarily focused on thefunctioning of the Fund, and the operational and cumulative level, which is concerned with the overallperformance of the projects managed by UN agencies.Findings on Fund Performance at the Strategic LevelRelevance. UNPFN provided assistance that was relevant to the implementation of the CPA at keymoments in time (particularly in 2007 when demobilisation took place and in 2010 when reintegration ofex-combatants was launched on a large scale). This effort was very responsive to the evolving needsof the situation. The quality of relations between the implementing organisations and the parties to theconflict as well as the Government were good thanks to the recognised status of the UN in the country,but relations loosened over the years as a reflection of the changes in the policy environment of aid inNepal, particularly after the 2015 earthquake.Effectiveness. UNPFN management was based on a clear concept, which allowed it to select projectsbased on their fit with identified priorities and technical quality. The evaluation found that UNPFNsupported the coherence of the effort, and was able to select projects with a strong potential foreffectiveness. However, this strategic intent was weakened after the financing decision was taken, asthe programming logic of the implementing agencies tended to take over and these agencies were moreattuned to classical development aid modalities. Yet at the same time their performance at thebeneficiary level implementation was good, thanks to the context-sensitive and effective efforts of fieldpersonnel.Efficiency. UNPFN structures can be considered as models to be emulated in other similar multi-donorfunding arrangements because they created a convergence within the UN system. It is quite strikingthat there are no examples of key CPA priorities that were left uncovered, or of an excessively slowfunding response. The work transcended the various UN missions and agencies in the country,providing much needed continuity. To the ability to enlist national and local actors, UNPFN added astrategic ability to identify key issues as they emerged, and allocate resources accordingly. UN agencyreporting on programme performance, however, was weak, and there was limited capacity in the UNSupport Office to consolidate the information.Sustainability. Capacity development and exit strategies were highly dependent on the individualprojects and the implementing agencies. There was limited handover to Government-led programmesdue to a continued shortage of public funds. At the local level, however, the UNPFN was generally quitesuccessful in promoting mechanisms for the continuation and consolidation of activities it had supported.Findings on Project Performance at the Operational LevelRelevance. There was a degree of Government involvement in the formulation of UNPFN’s overallgoals and in the funding decisions of individual projects, which waned during the launch of the projectand its coordination at the agency level, but then strengthened again at the field level implementationafter the projects started. The alignment with Government activities was more the result of a consistenttacit effort of the operational level personnel. There was a strong degree of conflict and gender sensitivityin the field level performance of all the projects reviewed.Efficiency. Project delays affected nearly all the projects, due to a mismatch between the projectplanning as expressed in the proposals submitted to UNPFN, and the potential to achieve results withinthe expected timeframe. There was also an insufficient account of the practical difficulties on the groundon the part of the UN agencies that presented the proposals; however, these significant operationalchallenges were well addressed by field personnel. Finally, UN procedures meant that operations weremobilised only after the funding was allocated - including, quite crucially, staff deployment, which tookEvaluation Report7

Independent Evaluation of the UN Peace Fund for Nepalmany months. The prolonged process of implementation of the CPA meant, however, that this was notdetrimental to the achievement of UNPFN results.Effectiveness and Impact. The effectiveness and impact of UNPFN can be deduced from the strongcorrelation of its assistance timed to key moments in the successful evolution of the peace process.This was the case in particular for the provision of assistance to the populations in cantonments in theearly years after 2007, and then in the accompaniment of the mass demobilisation from 2011. Anotherimportant finding is the consistent manner in which all the projects supported the interests ofmarginalised groups, in particular women, children, and Dalit and Janagati/indigenous people. The UNrepresented approximately 10% of the total funding allocated to peacebuilding by donors andinternational agencies, in what can be considered a successful resolution of the conflict, allowing theUNPFN to make a significant contribution. For example, the 2013 elections, to which UNPFN providedsupport, were repeatedly cited by interviewees in Nepal as one of the most successful elements of thepeace process, and the UNICEF CAAC project built on earlier projects that focused on reintegrationand rehabilitation of children associated with the armed forces and armed groups.Sustainability. Sustainability was not an important consideration for UNPFN activities because theinterventions aimed to support a transitory process. The Fund played a crucial role in catalysing theUN’s overall financing effort in peacebuilding by pooling most of the UN’s response as regardspeacebuilding and creating a critical mass of activities, which supported potential impact and futuresustainability. However, the projects struggled to overcome the administrative bottlenecks of theimplementing agencies, thus limiting their capacities for future development. While vertical levelcoordination within respective project areas was effective, horizontal coordination between projects andagencies was irregular, thus preventing any possibility of collaboration fundamental for the future of theactivities after the completion of the single project. Moreover, individual projects were virtually subsumedwithin each agency's existing programmatic priorities, resulting in a diminished independent identity ofUNPFN projects, which could have implications for follow-up and the sustainability of project activities.ConclusionsThere was a unity of purpose across the portfolio of UNPFN projects due to the strategic form of itsmanagement, and the fact that it was framed by the CPA, which remained the unchallenged referenceof the peace process for all stakeholders.The UN in Nepal in effect contradicted the findings of recent comprehensive evaluations, which notedthe fragmentation of UN functions relating to peace initiatives, an insufficient focus on the causes ofconflict, and the lack of inclusion of key groups such as women. UNPFN maintained a continuous focuson the underlying issues which, if left unresolved, would have triggered the unravelling of the peaceprocess. It managed to achieve a high degree of gender equality in the approach to stakeholders, anda focus on the more disadvantaged groups. The UN PBF was an important factor of additionality,providing resources and an operational model which allowed UNPFN to achieve fully its goals.The evaluation did not distinguish different types of funding (such as between a New York-sourced PBFcomponent and other sources of funding) but noted the impactful way in which resources were madeavailable at critical points of the peace process. Performance varied between projects, but the provisionof the right resources at the right time was a positive reflection on the operational performance.UNPFN was able to achieve strategic level complementarity with donors, but much more limitedcoordination at the project level. The evaluation points to the need to increase project-level integrity andperformance through better feedback systems, a more integrated development and conflict focus(ideally a focus on conflict through development), as well as more context-sensitive implementationprocedures. Therefore, although the performance of the Fund overall was positive in achieving theEvaluation Report8

Independent Evaluation of the UN Peace Fund for Nepaloverarching objectives and contributing to the peace process, at project level, the performance wasgenerally lower and with inefficiencies due to operational and managerial limits of the implementingagencies.RecommendationsThe following recommendations reflect the fact that UNPFN has now ended and that the UN is seekingto continue to support lasting peace in Nepal and in other countries where conditions similar to those ofthe CPA may prevail.1. The UN must replicate the model of a small management unit positioned under a high-level UNofficial, with national stakeholders and bilateral donors, providing strategic guidelines andcontrolling pooled funding, supporting targeted projects. (Based on findings: strategic budgetingand management, strong focus on public bodies, weaker operational coordination)2. The UN PBF should develop and disseminate an agile overall M&E system to identify andaddress delays. This would then be spread to all the individual projects, creating a degree ofcoherence over the diverse systems used by the UN agencies. This should be based on briefand cogent sets of priorities such as the 2010-2015 Nepal Peace and Development Strategyprepared by the UN to include all actors, even those outside the UN system. This would informprocesses of strategy development jointly with government and agency partners, and be basedon a loose global template which would be adapted in each country. (Based on findings:Insufficient M&E and adaptation to the context, excessive delays in implementation)3. The UN, including all agencies and actors, must define the project peacebuilding planning andM&E in terms of geographic areas or target populations. These should be described in terms oftypes of desired change, where change is defined by a relatively uniform type of evidence, whichis recognisable by local stakeholders. This will keep the centre of gravity local and situated withlocal authorities, and it will make the reporting lighter and more meaningful. (Based on findings:No clear M&E, yet high degree of uptake of the results achieved)4. UN PBF should continue to apply, in future countries of operation, the UNPFN demand-drivenapproach by capturing the competitive and targeted nature of the Fund in specific guidance.Reporting should be less formal and more dynamic, meaningful, real-time, and should be seenas a form of communication and engagement between agency headquarters (in particularPBSO), the government of the recipient

Independent Evaluation of the UN Peace Fund for Nepal Evaluation Report 5 PREFACE The Terms of Reference issued by the United Nations Peace Fund for Nepal (UNPFN) stipulated that the evaluation be divided into two main phases, each concluded by a report: the Inception and the Evaluation Phase. This is the draft Evaluation Report.