Lessons learned from
evaluations
Series 3
June 2023

Planning, Performance Monitoring, and Evaluation Unit

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTSACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYINTRODUCTIONMETHODOLOGY
LIMITATIONSFINDINGS: LESSONS LEARNEDBUILDING PARTNERSHIPSFUNDING AND BUDGETINGSTRATEGY DEVELOPMENTACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
THE WAY FORWARD
REFERENCES
ANNEXESANNEX 1. LESSONS COMPILATION

Acronyms and abbreviations
ALNAP
IP
JIU
OECD/DAC
PPME
REA
SDG
SFF
UNITAR
UNSPN

Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in
Humanitarian Action
Implementing partners
Joint Inspection Unit
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development
Assistance Committee
Planning, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Rapid Evidence Assessment
Sustainable Development Goals
Strategic Framework Fund
United Nations Institute for Training and Research
United Nations Strategic Planning Network

Executive Summary
The Planning, Performance Monitoring, and Evaluation Unit (PPME) has developed theselessons learned series to provide valuable insights for learning and improved decision-making
related to future programming. This paper uses the rapid evidence assessment (REA)
methodology to analyse and synthetize lessons learned from past UNITAR independent andself-evaluations undertaken since 2016.
This third edition focuses on lessons related to building partnerships, engagement with theprivate sector, funding and budgeting, strategy development, and accountability andtransparency. Fifty-two lessons were analysed, resulting in eleven meta-lessons.
The following meta-lessons were derived:
Building partnerships

1.

Effective collaboration requires an early and clear partnership design withdefinition of partners’ roles and responsibilities.

2.

Understanding of the context is essential for a well-functioning partnership.

3.

Sustaining partnerships requires time and continuous communication.

4.

Strong partnerships can lead to better delivery of results and greater
beneficiary outreach.

Funding and budgeting1.

A profound skillset of fellows and contact with donors can be an incentive tofund projects developed by fellows of a UNITAR training programme.

2.

Planning and budgeting are closely intertwined. When insecurities appear in
the planning of the project, this will have consequences on the budget
spending and vice versa.

3.

Organising online training instead of face-to-face training significantly
reduces the cost per participant and allows UNITAR to reach a higher numberof participants.

Strategy development

1.

Strategic planning is key for the achievement of objectives.

2.

Exit and sustainability strategies are key to sustain capacities and project
results in the long-term.

3.

Strategic thinking is needed in a variety of areas, including when considering
working with new technologies, when selecting partners, when mitigating
risks, when optimizing resources or for identifying stakeholders.

Accountability and transparency

1.

Knowledge sharing and communication with partners is of key importanceto achieve the desired outputs and outcomes of a project.

Introduction
The purpose of evaluations, as defined by OECD/DAC (2010), is to produce credible
information that enables the incorporation of lessons learned from project implementation andthe evaluation into the decision-making process. This suggests that evaluation should be
utilization-focused and should contribute to broader organizational learning and decisionmaking. Consistent with this perspective, this paper series aims to contribute to the
management and disseminate knowledge generated from previous evaluations informing
future programming. This paper shall provide valuable insights for improved decision-making
and better development results.
In 2022, PPME administered a survey on use of PPME materials and found that the Lessons
Learned database has been used by 43 per cent of respondents but was unknown or had
never been used by 43 per cent of the survey respondents (the remaining have indicated NA).
Similarly, the lessons learned paper series (one and two) were used by 47 per cent, but neverused by 37 per cent of respondents (the remaining have indicated NA). The results highlightthat while there is some interest and use, it is important to continue synthetizing and promoting
the use of lessons learned that can contribute to divisional and organizational learning.
Using the REA methodology, the series looks into the past and captures lessons learned fromUNITAR’s evaluations (independent and self-evaluations) across its programmes from 20172022. Each issue of the series contains lessons from different categories. This third issue
focuses on lessons related to building partnerships, engagement with the private sector,
funding and budgeting, strategy development, and accountability and transparency. Fifty-two1
lessons were analysed, resulting in eleven meta-lessons.

1

Seven lessons were excluded due to duplications or miscategorization resulting in a total of 52 lessons
analysed out of 59 lessons in the database.

Following this section, the methodology used for analysis is presented. Findings, take-away
messages and the next steps are presented afterwards.

Methodology
The guiding questions of this study are the following:••

What can we learn from past programming to guide future design, planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation phases?
What factors can be identified as drivers of success or reinforcing challenges towards
the achievement of project/programme goals?

To answer these questions, this study analyses lessons learned from independent and selfevaluations available in the UNITAR repository of lessons learned as of January 2023,
covering the period 2016-2022. For this exercise, lessons learned are understood as“Generalizations based on evaluation experiences with projects, programs, or policies that
abstract from the specific circumstances to broader situations. Frequently, lessons highlightstrengths or weaknesses in preparation, design, and implementation that affect performance,outcome, and impact.” (OECD/DAC, 2010, p.26).
The analysis follows the REA methodology, which provides a balanced assessment of what is
known (and not known) from evaluations about an intervention/programme/project by using asystematic methodology to search and critically appraise evidence (Barends, Rousseau &Briner, 2017). A two-step procedure was applied: first, lessons under each category werereclassified in sub-categories; and second, meta-lessons are derived from their respective
subcategory.
Excluding duplicated or miscategorised lessons, 52 lessons were analysed for this paper. The
category “engaging with the private sector” was analysed under the building partnerships
category. Table 1 presents the number of lessons per category. The full list of lessons with
their respective categories and sub-categories is provided under Annex 1.
Table 1: Number of lessons per category
Category
Building partnerships
Funding and budgeting
Strategy Development
Accountability and transparency
Total

Number oflessons
28
9
13
2
52

Limitations
Two main limitations were encountered during the exercise. In order to be ‘rapid’, an REA
necessarily needs to compromise on the breadth, depth and comprehensiveness of the searchand, in this case, it does not allow for an in-depth study of the context of each project in which
a lesson learned was formulated (Barends, Rousseau, & Briner, 2017). However, theevaluation reports served as background documents for understanding the interventions.
Another limitation is the unequal distribution of lessons learned by UNITAR division and projectin some of the meta-lessons. For the “funding and budgeting” category only three UNITAR

divisions contributed. For a total of ten lessons, three meta-lessons were drafted each divided
per contributing division (the Prosperity division, the division for Peace, and the division forSatellite Analysis and Applied Research). Therefore, it is difficult to generalise across theInstitute as a whole. Similarly, the “accountability and transparency” category is drawn up by
two lessons from two divisions (Peace and Prosperity). For the “Strategy Development”
category, ten out of 13 lessons were formulated as part of independent evaluations and only
three by self-evaluations. Due to the limited number of lessons, one could argue that the metalesson is not generalisable for UNITAR as an organisation. However, the timing, the format
and the topic of the projects are considered very different, which could lead one to conclude
that a lack of generalisability is no issue for this category.
Tables 2 and 3 present the distribution of lessons by division and by type of evaluation.
Table 2: Lessons per Division
Division
Prosperity
Peace
Multiple
Satellite Analysis and Applied Research
PlanetPeopleMultilateral Diplomacy
Total

Number oflessons
17
10
7
7
6
4
1
52

Table 3: Lessons by type of evaluation
Evaluation type
Independent
Evaluation
Self-Evaluation
Total

Number of lessons
29
23
52

Findings: Lessons Learned
Building Partnerships
Under building partnerships, the 28 lessons of the category and one lesson of the category ofengaging with the private sector are divided in five sub-categories, which led to the formulationof the three main lessons.2

2 Quality Assurance Standards were not included in this paper given that the focus of this paper is notdirectly on training development.

1. Effective collaboration requires an early and clear partnership design withdefinition of partners’ roles and responsibilities
The expected value-added of partnerships towards the achievement of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) can only be materialized if these partnership arrangements are
effective in delivering planned results and in leveraging the partners’ resources and expertise.
Previous engagement of UNITAR in multistakeholder partnerships has taught us that effective
collaboration largely relies on the clarity of both the purpose of the partnership and partners’roles and responsibilities.
An intentional design of the partnership arrangement oriented to serve the project’s objectives
and that brings the “right partners” into the table is key for effective partnership results. This
includes being knowledgeable and strategic about the comparative advantage of partners,
setting a partnership type that fits within the project landscape, i.e., leverage or exchange,
combine or integrate, and transform;3 and intentional design to encourage synergies andcoherence with other partners’ projects. More specifically, for engagement with the businesssector,4 UNITAR’s focus on technical training is key for tangible benefits perceived by thepartner.
“The course content and technical expertise of FAO and the methodological and technical support by
UNITAR were complementary strengths of the organizers that formed the basis of a strong partnership.”Intentionality of the partnership arrangement includes strategic engagement of diverse
partners in the collaboration. Characteristics of the partner organisations, such as the size ofthe collaborating agencies and the commitment and seniority of the partners’ representatives,

3

The typologies of partnerships for the SDGs are provided by Stibbe, Reid, and Gilbert (2019).
A checklist for proposed partnerships with business and guidelines on cooperation between the UN
and businesses are provided on UNITARnet, which can be read along with the Ten Principles of the UN
Global Compact.
4

can produce effective collaboration. Smaller organizations, for example, can have lessbureaucratic processes and be more flexible in adopting innovation. On the other hand, thepartnership can benefit from larger organisations’ networks and resources. Similarly,
participation of high-level officers in the partnership can accelerate smooth implementation ofactivities assigned to their respective partnerships.
“Engaging high-level national leaders, policy makers, and senior officials through specific activities suchas tailored capacity building and learning events seem effective to gain buy-in and accelerate project
implementation.”An “adequate” mix of partners in the initiative and assignment of roles and responsibilities
based on their characteristics can be key for effective collaboration. Clarifying the roles andresponsibilities of each of the partners can help to set expectations from the partnership andmay also enable partner’s ownership of the ultimate mission through a better understanding
and performance of their functions.
“A lack of clarity in the ToT partnership concept or the roles of any of these stakeholders can compromise
the success of the engagement.”

2. Understanding of the context is essential for a well-functioning partnership
Lessons reviewed under the previous series, indicate that reflections on the local needs andpriorities and incorporation of local insights can lead to improved local ownership. Similarly,
knowledge and awareness of the local context in which the partnership operates are key forestablishing a well-functioning partnership that can achieve its objectives. OECD (n.d.)suggests carrying out the necessary research and building an understanding of the context inwhich the partnership will function during the preparation phase, even before the contract isbeing signed.
“Approaches that rely on collaboration across regions subject to disaster, conflict and political change
are likely to face obstacles to progress. These should be anticipated and planned for.”3. Sustaining partnerships requires time and continuous communication
Successful partnerships depend not only on a well-thought design, but also on the partner’scommitment to maintain it. Considering the bureaucratic burden and requirements that a multistakeholder collaboration can carry, some actions that can help ease the workload and avoid
miscommunication include the scheduling of regular meetings and conversations withpartners, ongoing communication, e.g., via distribution list, and engagement with focal points,
and putting in place a common platform to exchange information that facilitate the planningand monitoring of the activities implemented.
Engagement with implementing partners (IP) can also benefit the organization in terms ofoutreach, understanding of the local context, and impact; however, it may require building
capacity of the implementing partners and allocating a significant amount of time for themonitoring of activities, especially if technical capacity of the IP is lacking. The Joint Inspection
Unit of the United Nations (JIU) has identified three considerations for the management of IPs,
as summarized in Box 1.

Box 1. Consideration for the management of IPs issued by JIU (Bartsiotas & Prom-Jackson,
2013)
•
•

•

“Effective monitoring and reporting of IP work is essential in assuring that funds are being
spent as intended and that results are achieved.” (p.v).
“In line with Results Based Management principles, key performance indicators and otherperformance measurements are needed to determine individual performance of IPs andassessing results achieved by programmes/projects implemented by IPs.” (p.v.).
“Effective United Nations action through IPs requires better training of both IP and United
Nations staff in such areas as financial management, accounting, procurement and humanresources management.” (p. vi.).

A value added of continuous exchange with partners is the opportunity to build longer-termmonitoring tools, such as key performance indicators, which can foster results-oriented
partnerships models.
“The long-standing partnership between the two institutions along with regular interactions allowed
WAIFEM and UNITAR to focus on the key performance indicators in the delivery of this course.”

4. Strong partnerships can lead to better delivery of results and greater
beneficiary outreach
The comparative advantage and contributions5 offered by each of the partners allows for better
delivery of results, especially at the output level, by ensuring action coherence and leverageof resources. Projects delivered in partnership can increase beneficiary outreach, especiallyfor those audiences that UNITAR does not normally reach, geographical scope, and improvearticulation of local stakeholders.
Over 2019, 2020 and 2021, the percentage of beneficiaries reached through events organizedin partnership at UNITAR have been 93 per cent, 88 per cent, and 78 per cent, respectively(UNITAR, 2020, 2021b, 2022).
“UNITAR, as a small agency, cannot easily directly reach the most vulnerable populations in its countriesof operation. Yet, UNITAR’s partnerships with relevant institutions that support the most vulnerable
enable UNITAR to influence sustainable solutions without direct intervention”.

5

Including financial, in-kind and other type of contributions.

Funding and budgeting

Under funding and budgeting, the nine lessons are divided in three sub-categories: contact
with donors and donor funding, planning, and benefits from online trainings and projects, which
led to the formulation of the three main lessons for this category.
1. A profound skillset of fellows and contact with donors can be an incentive tofund projects developed by fellows of a UNITAR training programme
Fellows of a UNITAR fellowship training programme repeatedly felt that it was very hard to finddonors that were willing to fund their capstone projects. The most recurrent problems thefellows encountered were a mismatch between supply and demand, not a sufficiently large
network, and not enough trust between the donor and the fellow.
“Fellows sometimes encountered challenges to implementing their projects, specifically when it came tofinding donors to support them. There are a number of possible explanations for this, such as a mismatchof supply and demand or insufficient trust between Fellows and potential donors.”

However, UNITAR proposes multiple solutions to tackle this challenge. The solution is twofolded, on the one hand, UNITAR will adapt its training courses to strengthen the capabilitiesof the fellows in writing clear proposals, in which a thorough budget and risk mitigation andmonitoring and evaluation sections are included. Furthermore, there will be focus onpresentation skills to be able to create trust between the fellow and the possible donor. On theother hand, UNITAR will also ask champions with sufficient credibility and authority to promote
the projects and strengthen ties between potential donors and fellows.
At a later stage, the fellowship training programmes designed included course modules aroundtechniques for obtaining funding. It appeared to be important to have good presentation skills
which helped the fellows to give a more impactful pitch to potential donors. However,participants still felt the need for more training in order to be more confident when pitching toobtain funding.
2. Planning and budgeting are closely intertwined. When insecurities appear in
the planning of the project, this will have consequences on the budget
spending and vice versa.

High transaction costs are linked to a rotation in personnel of the project. A staff turnover cancreate instability in the management of the project. As a consequence, this may create
inefficiencies, delays, and even compromise the achievement of outcomes.
Furthermore, when the funding of a project is not sufficiently planned beforehand, this cancreate challenges when delivering results. The financial business plan creates stability within
the project when funding needs to be completed and when activities need to take place.
“The project’s financial business model can present risks for efficient delivery of results.”

Lastly, when the financial business model is not clearly defined, this can indicate that there isno clear end date of the project which consequently can cause spending imbalances whichthen can result in planning insecurities and uncertainties in implementation.
“Uncertainty about the end date of a project leads to planning insecurity, implementation and spending
imbalances.”

However, planning insecurities of one project that produced the above lesson learned arelargely caused by the disruption caused by COVID-196. The planning made up at the start ofthe project could not be followed, and this also generated shifts and changes in the projectbudget. Although this lesson might come across as not representative due to theunprecedented situation, it is believed that when unforeseeable circumstances influence theproject, it will influence both planning and budget since they are so closely aligned. Therefore,
project management should anticipate these two inherent linkages.

3. Organising online training instead of face-to-face training significantly reduces
the cost per participant and allows UNITAR to reach a higher number ofparticipants.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, most trainings had to be postponed or adapted to an online
format. For many divisions and programmes online trainings were not something they wereaccustomed to. In the first lessons learned series, the lessons learned from COVID-19 were
explored more in-depth. COVID-19 was perceived as an opportunity to strengthen online
learning delivery methods. Moreover, it pushed programmes to discover the advantages of
online training. These are described below.
First, the reach of an online training compared to a face-to-face workshop is much larger.
Participants from all over the world can be reached by using live webinars, which does not
require a trainer or participant to be present in one specific place. The project which generated
this lesson was able to reach participants across the African continent, who would otherwise
not be able to join the course. More so, longer duration online training courses can betranslated in various languages to reach participants that are not comfortable in the original
language of the instructor and can follow the courses at their own pace.
“The availability of the course across different countries delivered in their language and the flexibility
accorded to the participants ensured that the online training can be offered to a greater number ofparticipants which they can follow at their own pace.”

Second, monitoring the results and progress of participants can be followed more closely. This
allowed the project team to assess on a weekly basis the progress of the participants, tosupport participants that are getting behind and to optimise the available slots for the course.

6

The first paper of these series discusses more in depth COVID-19-related lessons.

Lastly, the cost per participant is largely reduced when organising an e-Learning course. On
top of that, a side-effect of the increase in online training, is the reduction of UNITAR’s carbon
footprint.
“Conducting a course via e-Learning resulted in a significant reduction of the cost per participant andthe carbon footprint of a widely dispersed audience compared with traditional face-to-face training.”

Strategy development

The thirteen lessons under this category can be categorized under three sub-categories witha focus on strategic planning, exit and sustainability strategies and other types of strategic
thinking. Three main lessons are identified.
1. Strategic planning is key for the achievement of objectives
UNITAR’s strategic framework provides the overall strategic direction to UNITAR’s
programmes and comprises a vision and mission statement, values, core functions, a set ofobjectives and sub-objectives, strategic enablers and risks and assumptions. Moreover, since
2018 it is closely aligned with the 2030 Agenda pillars of peace, people, planet and prosperity.
This alignment is considered powerful as it is recognized both at the global level and by UN
partners as well as at the country and local levels according to findings from an independent
midterm evaluation of the 2018-2021 strategic framework.
“The Strategic Framework aligned to the 2030 Agenda is powerful on the global stage and is also
recognised at the local level so is an effective framework to adopt and continue.”

A JIU report on “Strategic Planning in the United Nations System” (Inomata, 2012) revealed avariety of emerging practices within the system. According to JIU (Inomata, 2012), specificareas, in particular for operational activities for development, progress towards consistency
and harmonization of planning processes has been made over the last few years.
The JIU report also refers to an informal network, the United Nations Strategic Planning
Network (UNSPN), involving more than 30 organizations of the United Nations system thathave set up regular exchanges of information and joint brainstorming around common issues

of interest and challenges in their respective organizations with the aim of strengthening
strategic planning methods, tools and impact across the system. UNITAR serves as a memberof this network.
The report further found that while corporate strategic plans are being increasingly defined
through the systematized use of results-based management, their linkage with resource
allocation should be much clearer. It recommends that while such linkage needs to be clarified,a strategic plan should not be budget-driven, but rather mandate-driven.
Strategic planning is undertaken on different levels, including the institutional, programme andproject levels. As part of an independent evaluation of the CIFAL Global Network, theimportance of strategies for achieving collective objectives for networks was highlighted. The
strategy does not only help achieve objectives but also helps to structure work and activitiesof the centres that are situated in different continents, and work in different languages and on
different subjects. As the network as such does not have a Results Framework, it requires adetailed strategy to outline the pathway to impact to avoid getting sidetracked by activities that
may be interesting but not contribute to the network’s or UNITAR’s goals.
“Strategies are key elements for networks to be able to structure work and focus on achievement ofcollective objectives. Without strategy, it is difficult for a network to focus on activities that provide
pathway to impacts, and it can be easily side stepped into activities that may not necessarily becoherent.”

2. Exit and sustainability strategies are key to sustain capacities and project
results in the long-term
Exit and sustainability strategies are often included as part of the project document ordeveloped at later stages during the project as part of the project’s planned deliverable.
“Measures to ensure sustainability need to be front-loaded. The more measures to promotesustainability of results are front-loaded, the more the likelihood that such measures will become part ofthe process of delivering outputs and ensure sustainability of outcomes.”

Particularly when it comes to strengthening institutional capacity or training of trainers related
programming, these strategies are key. Indeed, laying the foundations for the moment donor
funding ceases is important for ensuring that project results last beyond the project
implementation time.
“Sustaining national capacities in the long term requires a well-defined exit strategy. Affiliation of trained
trainers with institutions is key.”

The evaluation recommended to strengthen capacities of national training centres through amore targeted approach and identify an exit strategy by compiling best practices for training
participants’ and trainers’ candidates recruitment with the long-term objective to contribute tonational standards for professional trainers and training centres and a clear exit strategy for
UNITAR support.
A programme “exit” refers to the withdrawal of all externally provided programme resourcesfrom an entire programme area (Rogers & Macías, 2004). In the UNITAR context, aprogramme exit may refer to the withdrawal of donor support from an entire programme area,or it may address the withdrawal of support from a specific project or partner institution. It could
also refer to the end of a programme funding cycle.
A programme exit strategy is a plan describing how the programme intends to withdraw its
resources while ensuring that achievement of the programme goals (relief or development) isnot jeopardized and that progress towards these goals will continue (Rogers & Macías, 2004).
The goal of such a strategy is to ensure the sustainability of impacts after a programme ends.
It is also sometimes referred to as a ‘sustainability strategy’.
In the context of the independent evaluation of the Strategic Framework Fund (SFF),7 a lesson
was drawn on the importance of including exit strategies right at the project design given thatthe funding is considered to be rather seed funding and that projects are having a clear end
date. Furthermore, piggybacking on other larger projects has proven useful.
“For SFF projects with modest funding (average of approximately $60,000 in 2019/2020), sustainability
can be challenging. To help ensure sustainability of results and scalability, it is important to include exit
strategies right at the project design. Besides, linkages to complementary programming either in
UNITAR or partners agencies need to be established as early as during the project design.”

Gardner, Greenblott, and Joubert (2005) introduce three basic approaches to exit strategies:i) phasing down; ii) phasing out; and iii) phasing over.
i.

Phasing Down

Phasing down is a gradual reduction of programme activities, utilising local organisations tosustain programme benefits while the original donor (or implementing agency) deploys fewer
resources. Phasing down is often a preliminary stage to phasing over and/or phasing out.
ii.

Phasing Out

Most programmes are designed with sustainability and exiting in mind. On completion of the
project, the partner institution will have some level of self-reliance. This refers to a donor’s
withdrawal of involvement in a programme without turning it over to another institution forcontinued implementation.
iii.

Phasing OverIn this case, a donor transfers programme activities to local institutions or communities. During
programme design and implementation, emphasis is placed on institutional capacity building
so that the services provided can continue through local organizations.
Gardnet et al. (2005) further recommend considering several questions when developing
phase over exit strategies. These are presented in Box 2.
Box 2. Questions to consider when developing phase over Exit Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•

How strong is the community’s sense of ownership/commitment to continue programme
activities?
To what extent does the community value programme activities? What is the level of demand
for the “phased over” services?
Do community members, groups and service providers have the knowledge and skills needed
to implement the programme activities?
Do the local organizations implementing the phased over activities have sufficient institutionaland human resource capacity?
Are the organizations responsible for implementing phased over programmes resilient toshocks and changes in the political and social environment?
Is there a viable plan to generate the consumable supplies (such as the food or agricultural
inputs) that are required to implement activities?

The SFF is a pooled funding instrument created by the Institute’s Board of Trustees to help UNITAR
deliver on its mandate and achieve its strategic objectives. The SFF provides UNITAR with increased
flexibility and leverage to meet learning and other capacity development needs under the objectives ofthe strategic framework and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is now called the Leave
No One Behind Fund.
73. Strategic thinking is needed in a variety of areas, including when considering
working with new technologies, when selecting partners, when mitigating risks,
when optimizing resources or for identifying stakeholders
Strategies are in general plans of action designed to achieve long-term or overall aims.
Strategic options can be identified for a variety of areas of work and levels and indicate how
resources will be allocated to achieve the objectives. The lessons under this sub-categorysuggest that strategy development can lead to high quality when e.g., working with newtechnologies, selecting partners strategically, optimizing resources or identifying stakeholders.
There are obviously additional areas that can benefit from strategy development.
“In addition to a rigorous results framework, a coherent strategy and the selection of events that can
influence decision-makers are key priorities to optimize resources.”

One of these is risk management which is performed at the UNITAR institutional level and risks
are identified in UNITAR’s strategic framework. In addition, risks and assumptions should bepart of all project planning and an inventory of risks and mitigation measures is required for all
projects budgeted at $1 million and above, and for all projects to be delivered in war-torn or
fragile states. For all other projects below the $1 million threshold, this requirement isdiscretionary (although recommended). When identifying risks, it is key to also develop amitigation strategy as the following lesson highlights:“Following the COVID-19 pandemic, strategize other potential shocks and outline mitigatory measures.”

It is useful to build new projects based on previous projects’ lessons learned.

Accountability and transparency

From the two lessons under this category, one meta-lesson was formulated.
1. Knowledge sharing and communication with partners and with participants isof key importance to achieve the desired outputs and outcomes of a project.
When working together in a joint project, it goes without saying that communication between
partners is essential. However, when the partners have diverse fields of expertise it can bechallenging to communicate in an efficient way. When partners construct good lines ofcommunication, the project will run more smoothly.
“Constant coordination by the organisers and Mentors allowed the course to run seamlessly over a 4week period.”

Furthermore, results from a self-evaluation point out that when a good communication between
the partners is established, this can make the complementarity of the partners flourish andmake participants feel comfortable and experience a positive learning experience.
Moreover, clear communication and knowledge sharing with participants are also of key
importance to accomplish the intended outputs and outcomes of the project. The project madea needs assessment of the participants before the start of the programme and shared theresults at the start of the project. It appeared that there was a mismatch or knowledge gap
between project participants and content. Project management initiated some extra
introductory sessions to reduce this gap.
“The results of the assessment indicated the need for more focused training on the project management
cycle. […] To fill the gap, introductory sessions were incorporated to outline the concepts of the project
management cycle and sessions examining Organizational Needs Assessment, in order to provide all
Fellows with baseline knowledge, along with that on proposal writing and action plan development.”

Transparency is facilitated by good communication between partners, and between partners
and participants. To understand and incorporate this, is important to achieve intended outputs
and outcomes of a project.

Key Take-Aways
The rapid evidence assessment has led to the following take-away messages:
•

•

•
•

Lessons learned vary by division. While some divisions are champions in formulating
lessons learned in evaluation reports, others have less incorporated this practice. The
difference of number of lessons by division can also be explained by the fact that the
number of self-evaluation reports differs by division due to different reporting
requirements and budgetary thresholds.
Building partnerships is of extreme importance to UNITAR as almost all its recent
events are organized with partners. Important elements for successful partnerships
include a clear partnership design and assignment of roles and responsibilities at earlystages, awareness of the context in which the partnership is being developed, andcontinuous communication among partners.
While this lessons learned paper focusses on the theme of partnerships, strategy andfunding, it is closely related to other themes such as communication.
Though COVID-19 related lessons were analysed as part of an earlier lessons learned
series, lessons falling under categories part of this series were also related to COVID19. It appears that major emergencies result in much lesson learning.

The Way Forward
As next steps, the following actions are foreseen:• This paper series will be continued and future editions will focus on different categories oflessons learned.
• The Lessons Learned database and this assessment shall inform new programming
development.

References
Barends, E., Rousseau, D.M., & Briner, R.B. (Eds.) (2017). CEBMa Guideline for rapid
evidence assessments in management and organizations, Version 1.0. Center for
Evidence-Based Management. https://cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/CEBMa-REAGuideline.pdf
Bartsiotas, G.A. & Prom-Jackson, S. (2013). Review of the management of implementing
partners in United Nations system organizations (JIU/REP/2013/4). JIU.
https://www.unjiu.org/sites/www.unjiu.org/files/jiu_document_files/products/en/reports-notes/JIU%20Products/JIU_REP_2013_4_English.pdf
Gardner, A., Greenblott, K., & Joubert, E. (2005). What We Know About Exit Strategies.
Parctical Guidance for Developing Exit Strategies in the Field. C-SAFE regional
learning
spacesinitiative.
https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/a02c7b78fb2b408b852
570ab006ec7ba-what-we-know-about-exit-strategies-sept-2005.pdf
Inomata, T. (2012). Strategic Planning in the United Nations System. (JIU/2012/12). JIU.
https://www.unjiu.org/sites/www.unjiu.org/files/jiu_document_files/products/en/reports-notes/JIU%20Products/JIU_REP_2012_12_English.pdf
OECD.

(n.d.).
Successful
partnerships:
https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/36279186.pdf

Aguide.

OECD.

OECD/DAC. (2010). Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management.
OECD/DAC. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf
Rogers, B. & Macías, K. (2004). Program Graduation and Exit Strategies: A focus on Title II
Food Aid Development Programs. (Technical Note No. 9). Food and Nutrition Technical
Assistance.
https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/TN9-ExitStrategies-Nov2004.pdf
Stibbe, D., Reid, S., & Gilbert, J. (2019). Maximising the impact of partnerships for the SDGs.
A practical guide to partnership value creation. The Partnering Initiative and UN DESA.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2564Partnerships_for_the_SDGs_Maximising_Value_Guidebook_Final.pdf
UNITAR.
(2020).
Results
report2019.
UNITAR.
https://unitar.org/sites/default/files/media/publication/doc/unitar_results_report_2019_web_0.pdf
UNITAR.
(2021a).
Evaluation
https://unitar.org/sites/default/files/media/file/AC.UNITAR.2021.07%20%20Evaluation%20Policy.pdf

policy.

UNITAR.
(2021b).
Results
report2020.
UNITAR.
https://unitar.org/sites/default/files/media/publication/doc/unitar_results_report_2020_
web.pdf
UNITAR.
(2022).
Results
report2021.
UNITAR.
https://unitar.org/sites/default/files/media/publication/doc/UNITAR_results_report_202
1-spread.pdf

Annexes
Annex 1. Lessons compilation
Lessons

Category

Sub-category

Identifying, building and maintaining partnerships requires time and perseverance. It is difficult tomaintain partnerships in the absence of regularly-scheduled meetings and conversations.

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnershipParterships are instrumental in delivering results.
The positive findings on relevance, effectiveness and efficiency highlight the extent to which the vastarray of partnerships is important in delivering results. In addition to partnerships with users andproviders of the Rapid Mapping Service, including UN, non-governmental, private sector and otherentities, the partnership with CERN which provides in-kind support for UNOSAT’s office premises andaccess to high-speed Internet is not to be underestimated. In fact, it is unlikely that UNOSAT would be
able to provide the Service in its present form in the absence of the CERN partnership.

Building partnerships

Partnerships fordelivering/achieving results

Broad-based partnerships are instrumental to the achievement of development results. The approaches
that partnerships take, and the terminology used to describe them, can vary, and expectations amongst
donors, implementing agencies, beneficiaries and other partnership stakeholders can understandably
differ. For example, this evaluation has noted that while UN CC:Learn is openly described as a‘partnership’, the programme’s operating model is not representative of a ‘partnership’ as that term iscommonly understood. Consequently, there is a risk that the expectations established through use of
the term ‘partnerships’ are not met. It is therefore important that appropriate effort and focus are placedon working towards meeting those expectations.
The well-regarded example of UN CC:Learn’s work at the COPs illustrates one channel through which
the programme’s partnership approach can be consolidated and deepened across 34 diverse
organizations.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

The combination of UNITAR training experience with World Heritage expertise offered a basis foradaptive approaches, yet also triggered specific requirements in terms of maintaining up-to-dateknowledge and institutional cooperation.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

The long-standing partnership between the two institutions along with regular interactions allowed
WAIFEM and UNITAR to focus on the key performance indicators in the delivery of this course.

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnership

Cooperation with the Austrian Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs proved once again
particularly conducive to the success of the Vienna-based events.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

There is value in UNITAR engaging in training delivery indirectly, working in partnership with training
institutions from the region. This involves partnerships that provide technical support, sharing of ideas
and the transfer of financial resources.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

Ongoing communications and engagement with focal points is critical.
While it might sound obvious, coordination and communication with PCCs’ focal points and key
stakeholders in the MINUSMA for instance are critical to be ensure timely planning, understand theneeds of the beneficiary and adapt to the delays in logistics and administrative requirements, if needed.
It is also critical for EMPABB to keep all contact details of PCCs and relevant authorities up to date.

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnership

Smaller UN agencies and projects can be more agile
UN CC:Learn has benefitted from UNITAR’s relatively smaller size as a UN agency, enabling the project
to avoid bureaucracy and to be innovative and flexible.
Smaller UN agencies and projects can have substantial impacts in ways that larger UN agencies would
struggle to, through having the flexibility to be more agile and fewer organisational restrictions whichenable them to be more innovative and adaptive in their ways of working.
Flat organisational structure, and intentional project design and recruitment, to encourage collaborative
innovation, enables new approaches to be identified, tested and incubated - such as UN CC:Learn’scountry methodology; Youth Climate Dialogues and Climate Classrooms.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangementEffective collaboration requires contextual understanding, written agreements and relationship
UNITAR can learn from UN CC:Learn’s effective collaboration between a large number of diverse
partners, and build on this learning to ensure the success of and synergies between its other projects:
Projects requiring collaboration between 36 global organisations, are complex. Effective collaboration
requires more than annual meetings and MoUs identifying one-off collaboration. Opportunities for
growing sustainable synergetic partnerships jointly working towards global change are possible throughdeveloping overarching agreements with all or a small number of core partners, together withintentionally taking time to get to know each other’s mandates, activities and culture, building trust toensure joint success.
Approaches that rely on collaboration across regions subject to disaster, conflict and political change
are likely to face obstacles to progress. These should be anticipated and planned for. Achieving nationalcross government, cross sectoral collaboration is a substantial task, requiring different approaches indifferent contexts, and requiring a country presence.
MoUs between partner agencies should clarify roles and decision-making responsibilities, including
responsibilities for technical contribution and technical sign off, before project activities start.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

Partner ownership, buy-in and clarity in roles. Successful ToT requires a spirit of multi-stakeholder
partnership, buy-in and clarity in roles by the ToT service provider, the beneficiary institution/client, thedonor (if applicable) and the individual trainers to be trained. A lack of clarity in the ToT partnershipconcept or the roles of any of these stakeholders can compromise the success of the engagement.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

Inter-agency collaboration: There are good reasons why UN and other multilateral agencies should work
together more closely to achieve the SDGs. In practice inter-agency collaboration is made difficult by
bureaucratic requirements established to ensure tight accountability for funds provided.

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnership

Engaging high-level national leaders, policy makers, and senior officials through specific activities suchas tailored capacity building and learning events seem effective to gain buy-in and accelerate project
implementation.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

A governance system based on co-leadership is complex and requires frequent interactions andexchanges.

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnership

UNITAR, as a small agency, cannot easily directly reach the most vulnerable populations in its countriesof operation. Yet, UNITAR’s partnerships with relevant institutions that support the most vulnerable
enable UNITAR to influence sustainable solutions without direct intervention. Working at the institutional
level does lead to positive benefits for vulnerable people

Building partnerships

Partnerships fordelivering/achieving results

Partnerships and alliances with other donors and development actors working with youth andcommunities in conflict-afflicted areas contribute to broaden outreach of beneficiaries, extend
geographical scope and increase strategic value of activities by articulating other stakeholders locally

Building partnerships

Partnerships fordelivering/achieving results

Because of the two-year project lifespan, long-term relationships with partners are essential to ensuresustainability after the project closes.

Building partnerships

Partnership for sustainability

The partnership model, built on respective comparative advantages of FAO and UNITAR, leveraged thebest of both institutions (i.e., FAO providing content and content-related expertise, while UNITAR
providing the e-Learning pedagogy and technology) and continues to be an effective partnership model.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

Regular discussions and coordination allowed for smooth implementation and roll-out of the course.

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnership

The continuing commitment by the top management of both FAO and UNITAR has been greatly
appreciated and a great example of inter-agency cooperation

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnership

The commitment of both parties’ top management to the partnership was also greatly appreciated incontinuing the inter-agency collaboration and benefitting from the synergies of both institutions

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnership

The partnership model – built on AGFUND and UNITAR’s respective comparative advantages –leveraged the best of both institutions. Regular discussions and coordination allowed for smooth
conduct and roll-out of the joint programme. The commitment of both parties’ top management to thepartnership was also greatly appreciated in the smooth implementation while benefitting from synergies
of both institutions.

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement;time investment forsustaining partnership

The SFF serves as a modality for cross-divisional engagement. While Directors are fully aware of thisopportunity in a context of a silo culture rooted in UNITAR’s funding system, at staff level awarenessraising is still required. The SFF evaluation shows that cross-programmatic collaboration can help
overcome silo cultures, but needs to be unambiguously communicated to all staff. It also requires along-term focus and at sufficient scale for meaningful collaboration.

Building partnerships

Partnership for sustainability

Government and Civil Society Organisations continue to have differing interests, priorities, schedules,
and activities, which hinder effective communication and collaboration.
Linked to this is a lack of funding, or finance-related stability; equality among and between
organisations; and trust between actors. While some of this if caused by geographical issues – outerislands in many of these countries being isolated, for example – there were also comments maderegarding the relative disparity of fund availability between government and Civil Society Organisations.
This is exacerbated by both a misconception that DRR planning and response is the sole responsibilityof government, as well as an unwillingness to share information between entities.

Building partnerships

Collaboration between
partners

In the area of peacekeeping where many different actors have diverse mandates, close collaboration
between them is required for an effective and coherent action. In the long run, coherence with actors
and their respective initiatives can also lead to resource efficiencies and contribute to stronger impacts

Building partnerships

Partnerships fordelivering/achieving results

The course content and technical expertise of FAO and the methodological and technical support by
UNITAR were complementary strengths of the organizers that formed the basis of a strong partnership

Building partnerships

Partnership arrangement

Engagement with implementing partners can lead to significant resource efficiencies, but time anddedicated resources are required for monitoring and reporting of implementing partners’ work

Building partnerships

Time investment forsustaining partnership

FAO and UNITAR's partnership provide a neutral space for officials from different countries and level ofdevelopment to discuss and share views and solutions to common challenges. In addition, UNITAR's
extensive experience in the training implementation ensures customized solution to FAO's work in theregionBuilding partnerships

Partnership arrangement

Sharing the needs assessment with the Fellows allowed the Fellows to identify common issues among
themselves and the results functioned as discussion points when examining lessons learned.

Accountability andtransparency

Knowledge sharing withparticipants

Constant communication between FAO and UNITAR allowed the course to run smoothly, without major
inaccuracies or misunderstandings. All issues arising were resolved in a short time and in a way thatmade course participants feel comfortable and deliver a positive learning experience

Accountability andtransparency

Knowledge sharing /communication

Strategies are key elements for networks to be able to structure work and focus on achievement ofcollective objectives. Without strategy, it is difficult for a network to focus on activities that provide
pathway to impacts, and it can be easily side stepped into activities that may not necessarily becoherent

Strategy development

Strategic planning

The Strategic Framework aligned to the 2030 Agenda is powerful on the global stage and is also
recognised at the local level so is an effective framework to adopt and continue

Strategy development

Strategic planning

UNITAR’s work on frontier technologies is highly valued and has a large potential to influence all areasof UNITAR’s work. UNITAR has a natural inclination towards innovation and technology which should
be nurtured but not forced where it is likely to be resource intensive without sufficient return

Strategy development

Strategic thinking

While UNITAR is more expensive compared to some other capacity building actors the quality of theiractivities is high enough to warrant the extra pricing and strategic partners appreciate the quality ofactivities.

Strategy development

Strategic thinking

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, strategize other potential shocks and outline mitigatory measures.

Strategy development

Strategic thinking

In addition to a rigorous results framework, a coherent strategy and the selection of events that can
influence decision-makers are key priorities to optimize resources.

Strategy development

Strategic thinking

Measures to ensure sustainability need to be front-loaded. The more measures to promote sustainabilityof results are front-loaded, the more the likelihood that such measures will become part of the processof delivering outputs and ensure sustainability of outcomes.

Strategy development

Exit and sustainability
strategies

For SFF projects with modest funding (average of approximately $60,000 in 2019/2020), sustainability
can be challenging. To help ensure sustainability of results and scalability, it is important to include exit
strategies right at the project design. Besides, linkages to complementary programming either in
UNITAR or partners agencies need to be established as early as during the project design.

Strategy development

Exit and sustainability
strategies

VARIOUS TYPES OF DISASTERS
The Programme specifically focused on tsunami-based disaster risk management and reduction, as
casualties from tsunamis are usually significantly more compared to those from other disasters.
However, the population of SIDS also frequently encounter other types of disasters, such as cyclones,
sea level surges, flooding, earthquakes, and mud slides. These other types of disasters therefore could
be beneficial and relevant to touch upon during the Programme.

Strategy development

NAFocusing on the link between preparedness and recovery
This link, reinforced by the incorporation of lessons learned both in policy and practice and implemented
by both government and civil society actors, was a theme that participants encountered a number oftimes during theProgramme. The ensuing discussion among and between participants examined ways and means thatsuch a link could be highlighted within their own planning processes

Strategy development

NA

Change Management: The need for more structured, process-driven stakeholder identification
processes, linked with role allocation which aligns with relative strength and focus of each stakeholder
Building on the change management presentations, discussion focused on the need for more structured
processes for stakeholder identification and any related role allocation. The added legitimacy andperceived results from such a focus were outlined as were methodologies participants could use torealise this, particularly with regard to transition modelling

Strategy development

NA

Sustaining national capacities in the long term requires a well-defined exit strategy.
Affiliation of trained trainers with institutions is key.

Strategy development

Exit and sustainability
strategies

It is useful to build new projects based on previous projects’ lessons learned.

Strategy development

NA

Fellows sometimes encounter challenges to implementing their projects, specifically when it comes tofinding donors to support them. These challenges can be overcome through finding champions withcredibility and authority to promote projects and strengthen ties between Fellows and donors.

Funding and budgeting

Contact with donors/ donor
funding

Fellows sometimes faced challenges obtaining funding for their projects. In order for Fellows to be able
to secure funding, future programme cycles should provide more training on finding project champions.

Funding and budgeting

Contact with donors/ donor
fundingHigh transaction costs are associated with turnover in personnel of project delivery and beneficiary
partners . Turnover of staff of delivery and beneficiary partners can produce delays in implementation
and reverberate and create inefficiencies by delaying output delivery and compromising achievement ofoutcomes.

Funding and budgeting

Planning

The project’s financial business model can present risks for efficient delivery of results. The absence ofadvance-funding creates challenges in financial management that may affect and present risks related
to project planning, spending and ultimately delivery of results.

Funding and budgeting

Planning

Uncertainty about the end date of a project leads to planning insecurity, implementation and spending
imbalances.

Funding and budgeting

Planning

Conducting a course via e-Learning resulted in a significant reduction of the cost per participant and thecarbon footprint of a widely dispersed audience compared with traditional face-to-face training. Besides,
face-to-face training delivery is not a practical option in the current circumstances.

Funding and budgeting

Online benefits

Access to knowledge and skills development delivered online resulted is a significant reduction of thecost per participant and the carbon footprint of a widely dispersed learners compared with traditional
face-to-face training. As a result, the programme was able to accommodate greater number ofbeneficiaries. The app-based mobile-ready course delivery enhanced the learning experience throughgreater engagement, easy access of the courses, while ensuring that each participant has opportunity tointeract Experts to support their learning journey.

Funding and budgeting

Online benefits

PARTICIPANTS SOMETIME FIND IT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR THEIR PROJECTS
Following the programme’s completion, participants sometimes faced challenges obtaining funding forthe projects they had developed throughout the programme. Reasons for this may include mismatches
between supply and demand or insufficient networking and trust between participants and potential
investors.
In order for participants to be able to secure funding for their projects, the 2019 programme provided
deeper training on project champions, investors, and building network and other relevant topics that canhelp participants implement their business projects.
Building the relationships and trust necessary to receive honest feedback takes time and patience. In
future iterations of the programme, UNITAR Staff and Resource Persons will make sure participants
understand the time required to thoroughly carry out data collection, as well as provide advice forbuilding relationships with a target community.

Funding and budgeting

Contact with donors/ donor
funding

KNOWLEDGE AROUND OBTAINING FUNDING AND TECHNIQUES WAS INCLUDED IN THE
PROGRAMME
Participants sometimes encountered challenges to implementing their projects, specifically when it
came to finding donors to support them. There are several possible explanations for this, such as a
mismatch of supply and demand or insufficient trust between Participants and potential donors.
However, these challenges can be overcome through finding champions with credibility and authority topromote projects and strengthen ties between Participants and donors. Participants can also aim forsuccess by writing clear, comprehensive proposals, which are based on objective needs assessments.
Proposals should clearly define said needs and be supported by data, sound budget, risk mitigation, andmonitoring and evaluation sections. Additionally, Participants’s presentation skills contribute to finding
funding and they should attempt to give an impactful pitch to potential donors. These are all elements of
UNITAR’s current programme, but UNITAR plans to augment and deepen these lessons based on theexperiences of former Participants.

Funding and budgeting

Contact with donors/ donor
funding