| Goal 1: |
To
contribute to overall poverty reduction by creating an enabling environment
for decentralized rural development and better local governance. |
|
| Situational
Indicator (SI): |
Poverty
head count ratio
(% of population with an income below US$1 per day) |
|
| |
|
|
| Sub-Goal
1: |
To
increase sustainable access of the poor to public goods and services through
good local governance. |
|
| Situational
Indicators: |
- Percentage of
the population with increased access to public goods and services
- Primary school
net enrollment ratio
- Infant mortality
rate
- Percentage of
population with access to safe water and sanitation
|
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended
Outcomes |
Outcomes
Indicators |
Expected
Outputs |
Partnerships |
| SAS 1.1 Promote
a participatory development planning process at the local level. |
1.1.1. Improved
capacity of local communities or civil society organisations to participate
in policy formulation and implementation |
1.1.1.a.
% of projects where communities use participatory approaches for assessing
needs. |
1.1.1.1.
Local Development Committees (LDC) are established/elected and functional. |
1.1.1. National
and international NGOs, Local authorities, Civil society, Community-based
organizations, UNDP, UN Agencies, Donors |
| |
|
1.1.1. b%
of projects with an increase in women’s participation in community needs
assessments. |
1.1.1.2.
Community members are sensitized on the need for increased participation
of women and other marginalized groups’ in the local development planning
process. |
|
| |
|
|
1.1.1.3 Women
Groups are established and functional. |
|
| |
|
|
1.1.1.4 LDC
members are trained in participatory planning. |
|
| |
|
|
1.1.1.5 Women
Groups’ members are trained in participatory planning. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
1.1.1.6 Community
LDCs hold participatory needs assessment and prioritization workshops. |
|
| |
|
|
1.1.1.7 Community
Development Plans (CDPs) are developed at community level based on participatory
needs assessments. |
|
| |
|
|
1.1.1.8
CDPs are submitted to the local authorities for approval and funding. |
|
| . |
1.1.2 Participatory planning
processes are institutionalized at the local level. |
1.1.2.a. % of projects where
local authorities have approved Local Development Plans meeting minimum
quality standards. |
1.1.2.1. Local authorities
foster increased community participation in the local development planning
process. |
1.1.2. Technical
deconcentrated government services, Sub-national government entities,
National Rural Development Offices, Village Development Committees, Community-based
Organizations, UNDP, Bilateral Organizations, International NGOs, Multilateral
organizations |
| |
|
1.1.2.b % of projects with
Local Development Plans reflecting community needs assessments. |
1.1.2.2. Local authorities
are trained in participatory planning methodologies and tools. |
| |
|
1.1.2c % of projects with women
representatives participating in the preparation of Local Development
Plans. |
1.1.2.3. Local officials are
trained in gender issues. |
| |
|
|
1.1.2.4. Innovative procedures
and systems for participatory decentralized planning are tested and developed
by local authorities. |
|
| |
|
|
1.1.2.5. Local authorities
define and apply transparent investment selection criteria. |
|
| |
|
|
1.1.2.6. District/regional
Development Plans that integrate Local Development Plans are developed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended
Outcomes |
Outcomes
Indicators |
Expected
Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 1.2 Promote sound and sustainable
financing and financial management practices at the local level. |
1.2.1 Financing mechanisms
based on principles of good governance are institutionalized at the local
level. |
1.2.1a % of projects where
audit reports show an improved compliance of the local authorities financial
management and accounting procedures with national standards. |
1.2.1.1 Local authorities are
trained in accounting, budgeting and financial management. |
1.2.1 National and sub-national
authorities, Village development Committees, Community-based Organizations,
NGOs, Bilateral organizations, Multilateral organizations, UNDP, Other
donors supporting decentralization |
| |
|
1.2.1b % of projects with local
communities having access to public spending records. |
1.2.1.2. Decentralized financing
and accountability systems and manuals are developed and/or upgraded. |
|
| |
|
1.2.1c % of projects with local
communities maintaining financial records on micro-project final costs. |
1.2.1.3 Improved resource allocation
procedures are applied by local authorities. |
|
| |
|
|
1.2.1.4. Local communities
are sensitized on the need to, and trained on how to, maintain financial
records on micro-projects final costs. |
|
| . |
1.2.2 Local authorities have
improved access to sustainable funding sources. |
1.2.2a % of projects with local
authorities having access to sustainable sources of funds for Local Development
Plans after UNCDF support ends. |
1.2.2.1 Local authorities are
trained in resources mobilization and local revenue collection. |
1.2.2 Government, Provincial
Governments, Communal Councils, UNDP, Bilateral organizations, NGOs, Other
donors involved in decentralization |
| |
|
1.2.2b % of projects with an
increased replacement rate of UNCDF funds by alternative external sources
(from central government or other donors). |
1.2.2.2 Local revenue sources
are diversified. |
|
| |
|
1.2.2c % of projects with improved
local revenue collection rates. |
1.2.2.3 Local authorities develop
new/alternative arrangements for a more efficient and cost-effective process
for local revenue collection. |
|
| |
|
|
1.2.2.4 Local communities mobilize
their own resources for investment in community level infrastructure. |
|
| |
|
|
1.2.2.5 Best practices and
lessons learnt on improved systems/arrangements for local revenue collection
are disseminated. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended
Outcomes |
Outcomes
Indicators |
Expected
Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 1.3 Develop local capacity
to deliver and maintain basic infrastructure and public services on a
sustainable basis |
1.3.1 Increased local capacity
to deliver basic infrastructure and public services. |
1.3.1a % of projects with an
increase, at community level, in the number of basic infrastructure and
public services. |
1.3.1.1 Local authorities are
trained in procurement and contract management. |
1.3.1 Deconcentrated
Technical Services, Sub-national authorities; Development Committees,
Community-based Organizations, Bilateral organizations, UNDP, Multilateral
Organizations, National and International NGOs, Local consulting firms,
Private contractors |
| |
|
1.3.1b % of projects with contracts
for micro-projects completed within 125% of planned budget and completion
time. |
1.3.1.2 Local authorities are
trained in monitoring, supervision and quality controlling of micro-projects
construction. |
| |
|
1.3.1c % of projects with micro-projects
positively assessed for quality. |
1.3.1.3 Local private contractors
are trained in tendering, preparation of bills of quantity, technical
design and bidding. |
|
| |
|
1.3.1d % of projects with service
and infrastructure users who are satisfied with the relevance, quality
and access cost of the service/infrastructure |
1.3.1.4 Local private contractors
are trained to produce quality construction works. |
|
| |
|
|
1.3.1.5 Community members are
trained to monitor and evaluate construction works progress and quality. |
|
| |
|
|
1.3.1.6 Transparent processes
are applied by local authorities for the selection and contracting of
private contractors. |
|
| |
|
|
1.3.1.7 Participatory monitoring
and evaluation workshops are held |
|
| . |
1.3.2 Increased local capacity
to maintain basic infrastructure and public services. |
1.3.2.a % of projects with
physical infrastructure meeting technical standards of maintenance after
three years of completion . |
1.3.2.1 Local authorities are
trained in public infrastructure operation and maintenance. |
1.3.2 Deconcentrated
Technical Services, Sub-national authorities, Development Committees,
Community-based Organizations, National and International NGOs, Local
consulting firms, Private contractors |
| |
|
1.3.2b % of micro-projects
with operation and maintenance plans/budgets. |
1.3.2.2 Local private contractors
are trained in public infrastructure operation and maintenance. |
| |
|
|
1.3.2.3 Users Groups Management
Committees are created and trained in the operation and maintenance of
public infrastructure. |
|
| |
|
|
1.3.2.4 Operation, maintenance
and replacement costs for public infrastructure are budgeted by local
authorities. |
|
| |
|
|
1.3.2.5 Local communities mobilize
resources (in cash or in kind) for the operation, maintenance and replacement
of public infrastructure. |
|
| . |
1.3.3 Local communities are
empowered to hold local authorities accountable for the delivery of basic
infrastructure and public services. |
1.3.3a % of projects with local
communities satisfied with public access to information related to funds
allocation, procurement and contract awarding procedures, and implementation. |
1.3.3.1 Local communities maintain
and publish financial records on micro-projects final costs. |
1.3.3 NGOs, CSOs, Local authorities,
Community groups |
| |
|
|
1.3.3.2 Local authorities consult
local communities for the preparation of detailed micro-project proposals. |
|
| |
|
|
1.3.3.3 Local communities are
aware of their right to information and how to act on it. |
|
| |
|
|
1.3.3.4 Local authorities make
public details of plans, budgets and expenditures. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended
Outcomes |
Outcomes
Indicators |
Expected
Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 1.4 Advocate for national
policies supporting decentralization, and for replication of pilot programmes |
1.4.1 Improved national policy
and regulatory frameworks for decentralization and strengthened local
government. |
1.4.1a Regulatory frameworks
for increased participation of the LDCs and other community-based organizations
in the local planning process are in place and functional. |
1.4.1.1 Best practices and
lessons learned on innovative procedures and systems for decentralized
planning are disseminated nationally (through workshops, seminars, publications,
etc.). |
1.4.1 Government, Provincial
and District Authorities, Village Development Committees, UNDP, NGOs,
Bilateral Organizations |
| |
|
1.4.1b The national legal and
statutory framework on decentralization is amended/updated based on the
UNCDF experience at the local level. |
1.4.1.2 Specific studies on
improved regulatory frameworks for decentralization are undertaken. |
|
| |
|
|
1.4.1.3 Local authorities are
trained/updated on local governance issues. |
|
| . |
1.4.2 Best practices of UNCDF
pilot projects are replicated by other donors and central governments. |
1.4.2.1a % of projects being
replicated by other donors. |
1.4.2.1 Replication partners
are identified at the project identification phase. |
1.4.2 Government,
Provincial and District authorities, Village Development Committees, UNDP,
Bilateral Organizations, Multilateral organizations, Other donors supporting
decentralization |
| |
|
1.4.2b % of countries where
UNCDF pilot projects are being replicated by the central government. |
1.4.2.2 Agreements are established
with other donors for joint programming. |
| |
|
|
1.4.2.3 Co-funding agreements
are established with other donors for joint implementation. |
|
| |
|
|
1.4.2.3 Government takes on
UNCDF approach in other geographical areas. |
|
| |
|
|
1.4.2.4 Other donors scale-up
UNCDF pilot projects. |
|
| |
|
|
1.4.2.6 Other donors adopt
UNCDF tested mechanisms within their own projects/programmes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sub-Goal 2: |
To promote access
of the poor, especially women, to financial services on a sustainable
basis through strenthened microfinance institutions and an enabling environment. |
|
| Situational
Indicators: |
- Percentage of
population with access to microfinance services
- Percentage of
economically active women
- Percentage of
population with an increase in income/assets [In some countries, this
indicator may not be readily available.]
|
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended
Outcomes |
Outcomes
Indicators |
Expected
Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 2.1 Support an increase
in assets of the poor. |
2.1.1 The poor, especially
women, have greater access to microfinance services. |
2.1.1a % of microfinance institutions
(MFIs) reaching targets regarding no. of active borrowers. |
2.1.1.1 Market analyses are
performed to tailor services to client base. |
2.1.1 Microfinance Institutions,
Commercial Banks, NGOs, Donors active in microfinance, CGAP |
| |
|
2.1.1b of MFIs reaching targets
regarding no. of active savers. |
2.1.1.2 Outreach mechanisms
and services are set up to reach the poor and women. |
|
| |
|
2.1.1c Average % of women borrowers
per MFI. |
2.1.1.3 Poor, especially women,
are offered appropriate financial services. |
|
| |
|
2.1.1d Average loan size per
MFI. |
2.1.1.4 Savings schemes are
established, when appropriate. |
|
| |
|
2.1.1e % of MFI clientele considered
as poor . |
2.1.1.5 Pilot impact monitoring
undertaken . |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended
Outcomes |
Outcomes
Indicators |
Expected
Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 2.2 Promote the development
of sustainable microfinance institutions. |
2.2.1 Microfinance institutions
(MFI) are financially viable and provide quality services. |
2.2.1a % of MFIs reaching operational
self-sufficiency. |
2.2.1.1 Business plans are
prepared. |
2.2.1 Microfinance Institutions,
NGOs, Commercial Banks, Donors active in microfinance, CGAP |
| |
|
2.1.2 % of MFIs reaching financial
self-sufficiency. |
2.2.1.2 Strategy to lower operational
costs within reasonable limits is developed. |
|
| |
|
2 % of MFIs operating with
increased operating efficiency. |
? Interest rate is set up at
appropriate level to recover full operational costs. |
|
| |
|
|
2.2.1.3 Capacity development
strategies implemented with MFIs. |
|
| |
|
|
2.2.1.4 Instruments for efficient
portfolio and financial management are developed. |
|
| |
|
|
2.2.1.5 Instruments for branch
and staff performance measurement and control are developed. |
|
| |
|
|
2.2.1.6 Internal management
information systems are developed or improved. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended
Outcomes |
Outcomes
Indicators |
Expected
Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 2.3 Advocate for an enabling
environment for sustainable microfinance activities. |
2.3.1 Countries have improved
their enabling environment for supporting the development of microfinance. |
2.3.1a Number of projects having
led to institutional change in the microfinance environment. |
2.3.1.1 Key constraints to
enabling microfinance environment are identified. |
2.3.1 Central banks, Ministry
of Finance, MFIs, NGOs, Donors active in microfinance, CGAP |
| |
|
|
2.3.1.2 Advice is provided
at central level regarding regulatory issues for an enabling microfinance
environment (including interest rate ceiling, inflation and distortion
of financial markets). |
|
| |
|
|
2.3.1.3 NGOs/MFIs are assisted
for the establishment of a microfinance network. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Sub-Goal
3: |
To
improve sustainable livelihoods of the poor through enhanced productivity,
as well as increased access to, and local management of, natural resources. |
|
| Situational
Indicators: |
- Percentage of
agricultural land affected by degradation
- Percentage of
population with access to water for irrigation
- Percentage of
pastoral populations with subsistance herds
|
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended
Outcomes |
Outcomes
Indicators |
Expected
Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 3.1 Support increased land-use
productivity. |
3.1.1 Increased capacity of
local authorities to plan and invest in land-use related activities. |
3.1.1a % of projects with local
authorities having plans in land-use related activities. |
3.1.1.1 Local authorities have
the skills and tools to prepare plans with land-use related investments. |
3.1.1 Local authorities, NGOs,
Community groups, UNDP |
| |
|
3.1.1b % of projects with local
community participating in the preparation of land-use investment plans. |
3.1.1.2 Local communities are
mobilized around land-use planning issues. |
|
| |
|
|
3.1.1.3 Proposed investments
responding to selection criteria are funded. |
|
| . |
3.1.2 Communities living in
fragile environments adopt sustainable and/or more productive land-use
practices. |
3.1.2a % of projects where
food security for the community has improved. |
3.1.2.1 Local communities are
trained in sustainable land-use practices. |
3.1.2 Extension services, Community
groups, NGOs, Local authorities, UNDP, Research institutes |
| |
|
3.1.2b % of projects where
crop yields are stabilized and/or improved. |
3.1.2.2 New crops (or indigenous
species) are introduced (or re-introduced) on a trial basis. |
|
| |
|
|
3.1.2.3 Innovative crop techniques
are tested by the communities. |
|
| |
|
|
3.1.2.4 Irrigation schemes
are rehabilitated and managed by the communities |
|
| . |
3.1.3 Livelihood opportunities
of rural communities are diversified. |
3.1.3a % of projects with an
increase in the individual incomes deriving from new activities. |
3.1.3.1 Capacity development
activities in transformation of agricultural products and marketing for
local communities. |
|
| |
|
|
3.1.3.2 New employment opportunities
are created within the community. |
|
| |
|
|
3.1.3.3 Market research studies
are completed. |
|
| . |
3.1.4 Local populations have
greater access to markets. |
3.1.4a % of projects where
markets show a decrease in cost of produce. |
3.1.4.1 Rural feeder roads
are rehabilitated and maintained. |
3.1.4 Technical ministries,
Private contractors, Local authorities, UNDP |
| |
|
3.1.4b % of projects where
markets show an increase in collected fees. |
3.1.4.2 Productive infrastructures
are constructed and capacities developed for managing them. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Strategic Areas of Support |
Intended Outcomes |
Outcomes Indicators |
Expected Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 3.2 Promote local management
of natural resources. |
3.2.1 Local authorities as
well as community and user groups are capable of managing natural resources
in a sustainable manner. |
3.2.1a % of projects where
user groups are still functional after UNCDF support ends. |
3.2.1.1 User groups are created
and/or consolidated. |
3.2.1 NGOs, Community-based
organizations,private sector, Local authorities, Local private contractors,
Technical departments, UNDP |
| |
|
3.2.1b % of projects with documented
evidence of positive changes in the practices of the communities concerning
natural resource management. |
3.2.1.2 Sensitization campaigns
are undertaken. |
|
| |
|
3.2.1c % of projects where
local authorities increase their retention of receipts from natural resources. |
3.2.1.3 User groups are trained
in sustainable resources management practices. |
|
| |
|
|
3.2.1.4 Local authorities prepare
plans for natural resource management. |
|
| . |
3.2.2 Communities look to institutional
mechanisms to solve conflicts related to natural resource management. |
3.2.2.1a % of projects with
a decrease in the number of natural resource or land-use related conflicts. |
3.2.2.1 Inter-village committees
are created. |
3.2.2 NGOs, Community-based
organizations, Private sector, Local authorities, Technical departments,
UNDP |
| |
|
|
3.2.2.2 Communal regulations
for sustainable natural resource management are developed and implemented. |
|
| |
|
|
3.2.2.3 Mechanisms for the
resolution of conflicts related to access to natural resource or land-use
are developed and implemented. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Sub-Goal 4: |
To promote a financially
sound organization which develops and implements quality programming in
local governance and microfinance. |
|
| Strategic
Areas of Support |
Intended Outcomes |
Outcomes Indicators |
Expected Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 4.1. Promote excellence
in the planning and implementation of local development programmes and
microfinance operations. |
4.1.1. UNCDF will have moved
from policy refinement to an emphasis on operational impact. |
4.1.1a Annual programme targets
(expenditure and approvals) are met. |
4.1.1.1 Policy statement prepared
and disseminated |
4.1.1 UNDP HQ and Country Offices,
Research partners |
| |
|
4.1.1b Evaluations show greater
levels of impact. |
4.1.1.2 Action Plan 2000 implemented. |
|
| |
|
4.1.1c Action Plan 2000 targets
respected. |
4.1.1.3 Impact studies are
undertaken. |
|
| |
|
|
4.1.1.4 Evaluations include
impact issues. |
|
| . |
4.1.2. UNCDF will have maintained
quality assurance through skilled staffing, improved elements of the project
cycle, and continuous learning through monitoring and evaluation. |
4.1.2.1a Increase in no. of
requests for UNCDF advisory services. |
4.1.2.1 UNCDF staffed with
appropriate mix of skills. |
4.1.2 UNDP Regional Bureaus,
MDGD/UNDP, UNDP Evaluation Office, UNDP Country Offices |
| |
|
4.1.2b Average time for project
formulation. |
4.1.2.2 Competency development
plan prepared and implemented. |
|
| |
|
4.1.2c Programmes formulated
according to new guidelines. |
4.1.2.3 Programme/project formulation
guidelines modified. |
|
| |
|
4.1.2d % of new projects with
an exit strategy for UNCDF. |
4.1.2.4 Programme Operations
Manual updated. |
|
| |
|
4.1.2.e Dissemination of lessons
learned and best practice. |
4.1.2.5 Strategy for lessons
learned and best practices prepared and implemented at project and corporate
levels. |
|
| . |
4.1.3. UNCDF will have maximized
its comparatives advantages |
4.1.3.1a No. of programmes/
projects with replication partners on board prior to start-up. |
4.1.3.1.1 Strategy for policy
impact and replication prepared and implemented. |
4.1.3 UNDP Regional Bureaus,
MDGD/UNDP, UNDP Evaluation Office, UNDP Country Offices |
| |
|
4.1.3.1.a Best practices regarding
policy impact are documented. |
4.1.3.1.2 Network established
for partnerships. |
|
| |
|
4.1.3.1.c No. of programmes
with strategies for policy impact and replication. |
4.1.3.1.3 New partnerships
developed |
|
| |
|
4.1.3.1.d Increased networking
and growth in number of partnerships |
|
|
| . |
|
|
|
|
| Strategic Areas of Support |
Intended Outcomes |
Outcomes Indicators |
Expected Outputs |
Partnerhips |
| SAS 4.2 Promote sound financial
management of the organization and diversify the funding base. |
4.2.1. UNCDF will have become
more efficient and cost-effective through improved tracking and analysis
of its finances. |
4.2.1.a UNCDF reports on costs
such as technical, supervisory, evaluation, missions etc. on a yearly
basis. |
4.2.1.1 FIM is installed and
functional. |
4.2.1 UNDP Finance, Country
Offices |
| |
|
4.2.1b % administrative costs. |
4.2.1.2 Additional financial
reporting needs are identified. |
|
| |
|
4.2.1c Amount of savings. |
4.2.1.3 Systematic mechanism
for tracking and reporting on costs established. |
|
| |
|
4.2.1d Changes made due to
improved tracking. |
|
|
| . |
4.2.2. UNCDF will have developed
a culture of resource mobilization based on measurable performance, efficiency
and value for money. |
4.2.2a All staff have a role
in resource mobilization. |
4.2.2.1 Resource mobilization
strategy outlined for all potential non-core resources. |
4.2.2 UNDP, Donors in-country,
Private sector, Governments |
| |
|
4.2.2b Percentage increase
in non-core funding. |
4.2.2.2 Resource mobilization
training for all staff. |
|
| . |
4.2.3. UNCDF will have diversified
its resource base and increased the number of donors. |
4.2.3a % increase in core funding. |
4.2.3.1 Resource mobilization
strategy defined. |
4.2.3 UNDP, Donors |
| |
|
|
4.2.3.2 Missions, meeting,
presentations etc. undertaken. |
|
| |
|
|
4.2.3.3 Joint resource mobilization
missions with UNDP. |
|
