2019-2021
Regional Evaluation Strategy:
Asia and the PacificTable of Contents
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Background ............................................................................................................................ 3
2. UN Women evaluation strategic priorities: Theory of Change .................................... 4
3. Overview of the evaluation function in Asia and the Pacific ........................................ 5
4. Regional Evaluation Strategy for 2019-2021 ................................................................ 10
4.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................ 10
4.2 Governance ............................................................................................................................ 11
4.4 Evaluation function’s key results areas ............................................................................... 12
Area 1 and 2: Implementing effective corporate and decentralized evaluation systems 12
Area 3: Promoting UN coordination on GRE ....................................................................... 15

Area 4: Strengthening national evaluation capacities for gender-responsive M&E
systems ................................................................................................................................... 16
Area 5: Strengthening evaluation use.................................................................................. 16

5. Budgeting, monitoring and reporting ............................................................................. 18
Annex 1: Guiding evaluation principles and standards .......................................................... 19
Annex 2: UN Women Global Evaluation Policy Theory of Change ......................................... 19

Annex 3: Asia-Pacific Regional Evaluation Strategy Key Actions ........................................... 22
Annex 4: Results Framework .................................................................................................... 23
Annex 5: Timeline of key achievements during Strategic Note Cycle 2013-2018 ................ 26

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

1

Acronyms
AP

Asia-Pacific

COCountry Office

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against WomenGATE Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation
GEAC Global Evaluation Advisory Committee

GEEW Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women
GEHR Gender Equality and Human Rights

GERAAS Global Evaluation Reports Assessment and Analysis System
GEOS Global Evaluation Oversight System
GRE

Gender-Responsive Evaluation

IEAS Independent Evaluation and Audit Service
MCO Multi-Country Office

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MERP Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Plan

NECD National Evaluation Capacity Development
PP

Programme Presence

RES

Regional Evaluation Specialist

RD

RMS
RO

Regional Director

Results Management System
Regional Office

ROAP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SN

Strategic Note

ToR

Terms of Reference

ToC

Theory of Change

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNEG United Nations Evaluation GroupAP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

2

1. Background
The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UNWomen) became operational in January 2011 with the goal of contributing to genderequality and the empowerment of women (GEEW). This document presents the proposed
UN Women Regional Evaluation Strategy for Asia and the Pacific for the years 2019 to 2021 1,
as required in paragraph 47 (a) of the UN Women Evaluation Policy. 2 This Regional
Evaluation Strategy builds on both the Global Evaluation Strategy to Transform Women’sand Girls' Lives 3 and the first Regional Evaluation Strategy for Asia and the Pacific 20142017, is aligned with the UN Women Strategic Plan 2018-2021 4, the UN Women Strategic
Note for the ROAP, and takes into consideration the evolving context of the “UN Reform” 5, as
well as the opportunities and challenges within the global development context. The primary
audience for the Regional Strategy are UN Women senior managers and M&E Focal Points ofall UN Women Offices in Asia and the Pacific.

The Global Evaluation Strategy articulates how UN Women will leverage its evaluation
function to provide evaluative evidence for a more relevant, effective, and efficient UN
Women with greater impact on the communities it serves. The UN Women Independent
Evaluation and Audit Service (IEAS) leads the implementation of the Global Evaluation
Strategy in collaboration with UN Women colleagues, development partners, and otherstakeholders, with regional implementation led by Regional Evaluation Specialists (RES).
In alignment with the Global Strategy, the three key outcomes for this Strategy are:1) Improved use of gender-responsive evaluation (GRE) by UN Women and its partners
for learning, strategic decision making, policy and programme development;2) Timely and relevant evaluative evidence on UN Women’s contribution todevelopment and organizational effectiveness and efficiency results; and1 The ROAP extended the previous SN by one year to ensure alignment with the Strategic Plan, thus there is a

one-year gap between strategies.

2 UN Women, “Evaluation policy of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of

Women” (28-30 November 2012) available from http://undocs.org/en/UNW/2012/12.
3
UN Women, “Evaluation Strategy to Transform Women’s and Girls’ Lives” (January 2018) available fromhttp://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/about%20us/evaluation/unwomen-ies-global-evaluation-strategy-2018-2021-en.pdf?la=en&vs=4626
4 UN Women, “United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women)
Strategic Plan 2018-2021” (30 August 2017) available from http://undocs.org/en/UNW/2017/6/Rev.1.
5
United Nations General Assembly, Repositioning of the United Nations development system in the context ofthe quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations
system, A/Res/72/279 (31 May 2018), available from http://undocs.org/a/res/72/279
AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

33) Increased demand and conduct of GRE to support accountability for gender equalitycommitments in SDGs and beyond.

Demand for high-quality evaluations within the UN system continues to increase due in partto the strong gender focus embedded within the SDGs as well as a greater emphasis placedon leveraging GRE to support Agenda 2030. Innovation, acting as a “knowledge hub”, andforming and sustaining partnerships and networks are the key drivers of change forachieving the long-term outcomes and multiplying UN Women’s efforts in promoting GRE in
the United Nations (UN) system and at the national level.

The Regional Evaluation Strategy considers the analysis and advice provided by the Global
Evaluation Advisory Committee (GEAC), and the Review of UN Women's Evaluation
Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific (Regional Meta-evaluation), elevating “evaluationuse” to a separate strategic area, per GEAC recommendations. The process followed todevelop the core tenets of the Regional Strategy included: desktop review of key documents
outlined above; consultations with key internal and external stakeholders; input from UN
Women senior managers at the 2018 UN Women Regional Retreat for Asia and the Pacific;
analysis of data collected during the most recent ROAP Strategic Note Surveys of UN Women
AP staff and partners; and a validation meeting with UN Women regional senior managers
and M&E focal points.

2. UN Women evaluation strategic priorities: Theory of Change

The Theory of Change (TOC) 6 underlining the UN Women Global Evaluation Strategy
envisions that UN Women uses GRE as the change agent in achieving its mandate andadvancing gender equality and a women’s empowerment agenda in the era of the SDGs. As
outlined in the Global Evaluation Strategy, UN Women evaluations aim to be criticalcontributors to assessing the impact of Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, the uniting global
normative framework. Uncovering the causes of gender discrimination by asking criticalquestions about existing power structures and deploying a GRE process that promotes theempowerment of stakeholders will directly deliver against SDG 5: Achieving Gender Equality
and Empower all Women and Girls, particularly those who are left the furthest behind.
This TOC assumes that:• The evaluation function effectively leverages its comparative advantage andexpertise, positioning GRE as a catalyst and change agent within UN Women;

6

Full Theory of Change available in Annex 2.

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

4

•
•
•

The UN Women regional architecture can be effectively supported through thedecentralized evaluation function.
Evaluations assist the UN system and national stakeholders to assess and contributeto achieving the SDGs; andUN Women can build useful evaluation partnerships and learning coalitions withother UN agencies, civil society organizations, and other partners to evaluate
transformative change.

3. Overview of the evaluation function in Asia and the Pacific
UN Women has a presence in 24 countries 7 and funds activities in a total of 32 countries
across the AP region, including through the UN Women Fund for Gender Equality and theTrust Fund to End Violence Against Women and Girls. 8 The total planned resource
requirements for the ROAP in 2018 was USD $91.1 million, of which 16 per cent wasclassified To Be Mobilized (TBM). 9 The UN Women AP region had the largest workforce ofany region in 2018, with the 509 permanent staff and contracted employees recorded in Juneamounting to 21 per cent of the total UN Women global workforce. 10 This workforce reflectsthat the AP region has the largest population in the world and is combatting a great diversityof development challenges, ranging from fragile states requiring humanitarian support to
middle income countries with complex development needs.
Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls is at the heart of the
17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with country-led evaluation of progress andimpact a vital aspect of the UN system’s work leading up to 2030. In response to thisincreasing demand for evaluation to support these ambitious goals and fulfill its
accountability responsibilities, UN Women needs to base its policy, programming andinvestment decisions on high-quality evaluation. It also needs to use the opportunities
afforded by programme implementation to generate new, evidence-based knowledge to awider community of decision-makers. UN Women recognizes that GRE is the means throughWith the Regional Office based in Bangkok, there are two MCOs (India and the Pacific), eight COs(Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste, and Vietnam), nine
PPs in Asia (Bhutan, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Maldives, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand) andfive in the Pacific (Nauru, Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu). Please note that Indonesia,
Myanmar and China are transitioning to COs during the SN 2019-2021 period.
8
UN Women, Amended Strategic Note; Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 2016-2017, UNW/2015.
9
UN Women Regional Operations Retreat, UN Women in Asia and the Pacific: Results, Lessons, Priorities andChallenges at a Glance 2017-18 (25-29 June 2018).
10
UN Women OM and HR Training, Human Resources: Asia and the Pacific June 2018, (June 2018).
7

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-20215

which it can obtain systematic, meaningful feedback about the successes and shortcomingsof its endeavors and uses evaluative evidence to deliver programmes and initiatives that are
more relevant, effective, and efficient with greater impact on the lives of the women and girls
it serves. To effectively play this role, it is imperative for UN Women to continue tostrengthen its evaluation systems and strategies.

In line with the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards for
Evaluation 11 and Ethical Guidelines, 12 the guiding principles of the evaluation function at UN
Women in the Evaluation Policy include: national ownership and leadership, UN
coordination, innovation, fair power relationships, inclusion, independence and impartiality,transparency, quality and credibility, intentionality and use of evaluation, and ethics. 13 The
Policy also states that evaluations are conducted within UN Women for three equallyimportant purposes:
1. Demonstrating accountability to stakeholders in managing for results, including
to women who are rights holders and duty bearers.
2. Providing credible and reliable evidence for decision-making in relation to GEEW
to improve results.
3. Contributing important lessons learned about normative, operational, andcoordination work in the areas of GEEW to the existing knowledge base. 14

UN Women conducts various types of evaluations, including corporate, country portfolio,
project, and thematic. It also participates in United Nations Development Assistance
Framework (UNDAF) evaluations and conducts joint evaluations of relevance in partnershipwith other UN agencies or stakeholders.

The following 9 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 15 were established to frame the
Global Evaluation Strategy and are also used to outline progress made by the evaluation
function in Asia and the Pacific:
KPI 1: Financial Resources Invested in Evaluation

UNEG, “Norms and Standards for evaluation”, (2016) available from:http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/1914.
12
UNEG, “Ethical guidelines”, (2008) available from http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/102.
13
UN Women, “Evaluation policy of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of
Women” (28-30 November 2012) available from http://undocs.org/en/UNW/2012/12.
14 ibid.
15
The KPIs form part of the UN Women, Independent Evaluation Service, Global Evaluation Oversight System(GEOS) Dashboard and are tracked across regions and reported on an annual basis to the Executive Board.
11

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

6

The strong focus on gender equality embedded within the SDGs as well as the elevatedimportance of evaluation in the 2030 Agenda requires increased attention andresources for GRE. While the AP region invested a greater percentage of total
plan/programme budget towards evaluations than any other region in 2016, the 1 per centof the budget dedicated to evaluations that year was still far short of the minimum
recommended investment of 3 percent. 16
Additionally, as of 2018, the Asia and the Pacific office is the only region that has
not yet conducted a Country Portfolio Evaluation (CPE), which is required for providing arobust evidence base for country programming. The region is dedicated to undertaking thesestrategic evaluations, which may increase the financial amount allocated to evaluation in the
coming years.

KPI 2: Human Resources for Monitoring & Evaluation
The AP region has had 100 per cent M&E staff coverage in all 11 offices since 2013, consistingin 2018 of four M&E Officers (whose focus is M&E) and seven M&E Focal Points (who
perform an M&E function in addition to their main responsibilities). 17, 18 While the AP M&E
workforce represents the second highest total number of M&E staff globally, tied with theRegional Office for the Americas and the Caribbean at 11 people 19, the AP region has among
the lowest ratio of full-time M&E officers 20 among UN Women regions. M&E staff arereported to be overstretched and overburdened by their dual roles, often unable to fully
meet increasing M&E-related demands. 21

In addition to the RES, the ROAP has two full-time staff and two non-staff supporting its
Monitoring and Reporting (M&R) team, in addition to two full-time staff supporting themonitoring and evaluation activities of the UN Women Fund for Gender Equality and the UN
Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women.

UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
17
UN Women, Independent Evaluation Service, Global Evaluation Oversight System (GEOS) Dashboard(Retrieved 9 November 2018)18
UN Women offices with M&E Officers include the ROAP, India MCO, Pacific Islands MCO, and Nepal. COs
with M&E Focal Points include: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, TimorLeste, and Viet Nam.
19
The East and Southern Africa region has the highest number of M&E staff (13 people).
20 The West and Central Africa region has the highest ratio of full-time M&E officers (71 per cent) followed by
the Eastern and Southern Africa region (54 per cent).
21
UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
16

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

7

The AP region has bolstered staff capacity on GRE in recent years through the UN Women
eLearning course “How to manage gender responsive evaluation”, reporting in 2017 as
having the highest number of staff enrolled of any region (108 people) as well as the highest
total number of completion certificates awarded (58 people). 22 However, of the ten offices
with at least one M&E focal point or staff during 2017, only 30% report that their M&E focal
point or staff completed the course, making the AP region tied with the Americas and the
Caribbean region for the lowest M&E staff completion rate. 23

Overall AP investment in staff evaluation capacity is relatively low, with only 6 per cent of
total evaluation expenditures dedicated to this purpose in 2016, a sizable decrease from the29 per cent allocated in 2014. 24 The need for greater investment in GRE capacity
development is driven in part by frequent turnover of M&E Focal Points, the evolving natureof evaluation techniques, as well as increasing evaluation-related expectations from donors,
UNCT peers and national counterparts. Additionally, while M&E staff benefit from extensive
evaluation-related guidance and support by the RES, a need for greater monitoring support
has been identified. 25

KPI 3: Evaluation Coverage
All of the 11 AP offices conducted at least one evaluation between 2011-2018, making it oneof only two regions to achieve 100 per cent evaluation coverage. 26,27 The 2017 Regional
Meta-evaluation reported that the presence of full-time M&E Officers during this period
contributed to the high coverage, with part-time M&E focal points in other offices citing ahigh work load as the primary limitation for managing evaluations. It will continue tobecome increasingly important to undertake more strategic evaluations during the period of
the new evaluation strategy, such as CPEs, which may reduce the overall number of
evaluations conducted. The AP region is the only region that has not yet completed a CPE.
KPI 4: Implementation Rate of Evaluations

22

UN Women, eLearning Statistics Dashboard 2017 (Retrieved 1 February 2018)

23 ibid.

UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
25
ibid.
26
UN Women, Independent Evaluation Service, Global Evaluation Oversight System (GEOS) Dashboard(Retrieved 9 November 2018)27
The other office to achieve 100 per cent evaluation coverage was the Regional Office for the Arab States.
24

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

8

The AP evaluation implementation rate of 89 per cent between 2013-2016 was the highestof all UN Women regions, with only 11 per cent of evaluations cancelled or postponed. 28
Contributing factors for this high performance include the presence of more full-time M&E
Officers than other regions, the aforementioned higher percentage of budget dedicated toevaluation than other regions, and the existence of key guiding documents such as a regional
evaluation strategy and M&E Research Plans (MERPs) for all MCOs and COs.

KPI 5: Quality of Evaluation Reports
The Global Evaluation Reports Assessment and Analysis System (GERAAS) 29 reports thatevery evaluation report published by the ROAP in 2017 received a rating of at least “good”,
with one receiving a “very good” (managed by the Viet Nam CO). While the ratings of the 25
evaluations conducted by the ROAP between 2013 and 2016 were also positive, the total
percentage of reports receiving upper ratings decreased between 2015 and 2016,
underlining the need for continued investment in evaluation capacity. 30

KPI 6: Evaluation Report Submission to GATE
The IES maintains a public, online repository of evaluations to ensure full transparency andthat a broad range of stakeholders can benefit from evaluation findings, conclusions, andrecommendations. As outlined in the Evaluation Policy, all UN Women offices are expected
to upload and submit final evaluation reports to GATE within six weeks of completion. While
past AP evaluation reports have been delayed and failed to meet the six-week requirement,
the AP has consistently achieved full compliance in publicly posting 100 per cent ofevaluation reports. 31
KPI 7: Management Response Submission to GATE
The AP region has maintained its previous high performance in uploading and approving
management responses to the GATE system, however, timely preparation of management
response and implementation of key actions remained a perennial challenge. The AP region

UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
29
The GERAAS uses UNEG evaluation report standards as the basis for reviewing and assessing evaluation
reports with the aim of improving the quality and use of decentralized evaluation. This independent
assessment of the quality and usefulness of evaluation reports supports knowledge management objectives
by synthesizing findings, good practices, and lessons learned.
30
UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
31
UN Women, “2017 Illustrated Annual Report on the evaluation function of the United Nations Entity for Gender
Equality and the Empowerment of Women” (2017) available athttps://unwomen.sharepoint.com/Evaluation/Resources/2017%20Illustrated%20Annual%20Report%20on%20Evalu
Evalu.pdf
28

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-20219

struggled to comply with the provision of the evaluation policy, which requires offices to post
management responses on the GATE system within six-weeks of the completion ofevaluation reports. Issues cited for these delays include technical problems with GATE, staff
turnover, and the additional time required for coordinating multiple partners within joint
programmes or projects.
KPI 8: Implementation of Evaluation Management Response
The AP region has had the second highest implementation rate of management responses in
GATE between 2017-2018, with 92 per cent of the 141 total key actions agreed to inmanagement responses either completed or initiated. 32 Staff at the RO and CO level reported
some mild hurdles in achieving this feat, notably staff turnover making it difficult to conduct
required follow-up, project termination where teams are no longer functional, and thatrecommendations within some management responses are too generic to be translated into
concrete actions. 33

KPI 9: Use of Evaluations to Inform Programming
The demand and quality of evaluations conducted by the AP region are high, and increasing,
however, consistent use of evaluation learnings or recommendations remains a challenge.
Although the IEAS GEOS reports that 100 per cent of evaluation reports produced by the APregion were used to inform programming decisions in 2017-2018, 34 regional and country
staff report that they have often been used to ensure documents meet corporate compliancestandards rather than provide a compelling analysis used to influence strategic planning andimprove UN Women’s ability to achieve results.

4. Regional Evaluation Strategy for 2019-2021
4.1 Purpose and Scope

Evaluation is a vital tool for UN Women’s accountability, decision-making, and learning. This
strategy aims to operationalize the Evaluation Policy and develop and foster an evaluative
culture within UN Women to enhance its organizational effectiveness and efficiency andUN Women, Independent Evaluation Service, Global Evaluation Oversight System (GEOS) Dashboard(Retrieved 9 November 2018)
33
UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
34
UN Women, Independent Evaluation Service, Global Evaluation Oversight System (GEOS) Dashboard(Retrieved 9 November 2018)32

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-202110

meet accountability requirements. The Asia-Pacific region aims to achieve an effective
evaluation function that provides timely and credible evaluative evidence to inform andinfluence programming and decision-making at the regional, multi-country, and country
levels.

4.2 Governance

The RES prepares a draft Regional Evaluation Strategy for the consideration of senior
managers in the region. The RES reviews comments and incorporates them as appropriate
into the final Regional Evaluation Strategy before submitting it to the ROAP Regional
Director and the Chief of the IEAS. 35 The approved Regional Evaluation Strategy (andreporting on its implementation) is shared with senior managers and M&E focal points in
the region and uploaded on the Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation Use (GATE)
website. In cooperation with the AP region’s M&E staff, the RES leads the implementation of
the Evaluation function in the AP region.

The IES is the custodian of the UN Women evaluation function, represented regionallythrough the RES, and is therefore responsible for delivering an effective corporate anddecentralized evaluation system to improve the use of GRE by UN Women and its key
partners. The UN Women Evaluation Policy outlines the roles and responsibilities36 of
relevant evaluation constituents in the Organization.
The RES manages the oversight, guidance, technical assistance, and quality assurance ofdecentralized evaluations at the regional and country levels, enhancing the independence ofthe processes and allowing for a more symbiotic exchange between corporate anddecentralized evaluation systems. The RES also supports national capacity development of
UN Women staff, UNDAF evaluations, and other joint evaluation processes to provide a GRE
perspective.
Senior Managers of regional and multi/country offices are responsible forcommissioning decentralized evaluations in the programmatic areas for which they are
responsible and using the information for accountability, learning, and decision-making,including managing for results. To the extent possible, offices should also identify where it ispossible to incorporate national evaluation capacity development within their programmeof work.
The RES maintains a dual reporting relationship to the Regional Director of the ROAP in Thailand and theChief of the IES based at the UN Women headquarters in the United States.
36“Roles and Responsibilities in Evaluation”. In: UN Women, “Evaluation policy of the United Nations Entity for
Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women” (28-30 November 2012) available fromhttp://undocs.org/en/UNW/2012/12.
35

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

11

M&E Staff and Focal Points play a critical role in supporting M&E related work in theirrespective office and acting as liaison on behalf of their Representative/Director, with UN
Women ROAP Monitoring and Reporting Unit and Regional Evaluation Specialist.

External experts and institutions are hired by UN Women programme units to carry out
evaluations to enhance the impartiality and objectivity of decentralized evaluations.

4.4 Evaluation function’s key results areas

Applying the Global TOC to the UN Women Evaluation Policy, five key results areas have been
identified, with further elaboration on the newly elevated fifth and cross-cutting pillar
centered on communications and evaluation use. The synergies of and complementarities
between these five key results areas will ensure that all UN Women offices meetrequirements within the Evaluation Policy and Output Cluster 3 of the Organizational
Effectiveness and Efficiency Framework (OEEF) of the ROAP Strategic Note 2019-2021,
which relates directly to evaluation: “High quality of programmes through knowledge,
innovation, results-based management and evaluation.” 37

Area 1 and 2: Implementing effective corporate and decentralized
evaluation systems

UN Women leverages corporate and decentralized evaluation systems 38 to build theevidence base for its performance across the Organization’s triple mandate: normative,
coordination, and operational.

Decentralized evaluations make up the majority of UN Women evaluations, with the RES
managing and/or co-managing regional evaluations, country portfolio evaluations (CPEs),
and, in a limited number of cases, project evaluations and evaluability assessments ofStrategic Notes, as well as providing technical assistance to field offices.

Corporate Evaluations receive valuable coordination support from the RES at the regional
level. M&E Focal Points based in UN Women offices also play a key role by supporting
corporate case studies and field visits.

UN Women, “UN-Women AP-RO Country Office Strategic Note Report 2019-2021” (Accessed from internal
RMS system 23 November 2018)38
Corporate evaluations are independent assessments undertaken by the UN Women Independent
Evaluation Service with the support of external evaluators, while decentralized evaluations are conducted byexternal evaluators but managed by UN Women programme offices or the Regional Evaluation Specialist.
37

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

12

A. Quality and Credibility of Evaluations
Many factors contribute to the quality and credibility of evaluation processes,
including proper planning of evaluations, the availability of monitoring data andskilled consultants. Staff in monitoring roles at the regional and country level are
significantly overstretched and lack capacity to ensure high-quality monitoring data(including complete baseline and endline data) 39. It is vital that UN Women engage theservices of consultants with technical expertise in both GRE and GEEW, with a firm
grasp on the underlying causes of gender inequalities. Budget constraints have also
been an issue for COs in hiring highly-effective and experienced evaluators that can
provide detailed, substantive analyses on GEEW advancement and who do not
require a large investment of time by M&E or programme staff. 40

B. Adequate and Skilled Human Resources for M&E
UN Women interventions are increasingly dedicated to making advancements thatare notoriously difficult to measure, such as changes in attitudes or social norms,
making the development of adequate indicators and strong M&E capacity vital toevaluability.
While the AP region has 100 per cent M&E Focal Point coverage across its offices in
2018, staff are often unable to effectively meet their increasing M&E-related demands
due to a lack of time, resources, and/or capacity. 41 Additionally, of the 4 established
M&E Officer roles in the AP region 42, in reality these positions must play various roles
including: resource mobilization, partnerships, monitoring and evaluation, making it
difficult to prioritize time for supporting evaluation efforts. The current investment
in staff evaluation capacity was only 6 per cent of total evaluation expenditures in
2016, a sizable reduction from the 29 per cent allocation in 2014. 43

UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
40
Regional UN Women Retreat 2018; and UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in
Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available from http://www2.unwomen.org//media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01-report-evaluation-oversightsystem.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
41
UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
42
In 2018, four AP offices had established M&E Officer positions: Afghanistan, India MCO, Nepal and Timor
Leste.
43
ibid.
39

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

13

C. Culture of Evaluation
As with all UN Women offices, the AP region seeks to strengthen the culture andpractice of M&E across its work to influence programming. The Regional Metaevaluation identified that staff believe the disconnect between evaluation reports andprogramming decisions may be due in part to evaluation reports being too focusedon the organizational efficiency considerations (i.e. analysis about monitoringprocesses and systems) instead of substantive analysis on content. Additionally,
although programmatic staff at the ROAP and within COs have access to evaluation
reports in the GATE system, staff shared they do not have capacity to read dense orlong reports, leading them to only review reports commissioned for their projects orthematic area. 44
Results Areas 1 & 2 Key Actions:A. Quality and Credibility of Evaluations
Evaluation Process• Closely coordinate evaluation efforts between the RES and M&E Focal Points(KPI 4 & KPI 5)• Dedicate funds towards conducting evaluability assessments (KPI 1 & KPI 5)

Responsible Unit
ROAP/MCO/CO &RES

Skilled Consultants• Establish a roster of vetted consultants with experience in the AP andexpertise in GEEW and GRE (KPI 5)• Establish a list of evaluator networks to distribute calls for applicants (KPI 5)

RES

B. Adequate and Skilled Human Resources for M&E

Responsible Unit

M&E Officers: Allocate funding for Monitoring, Reporting & Evaluation Officers
using core funds or cost-recovery policy (KPI 2)

RO/MCO/CO

C. Culture of Evaluation
Financial Investment: Reach the Evaluation Policy target of 3% of programmebudget dedicated to evaluation (KPI 1)

Responsible Unit
ROAP/CO/MCO

Capacity Building: Identify opportunities for capacity building, including
encouraging M&E staff to complete the e-Learning course “How to Manage
Gender-Responsive Evaluation” and engage in the Coaching Programme; measuresocial norm change; and advocate for sufficient investments for capacity-related
activities within Annual Work Plans (KPI 2)

RO/MCO/CO RES &ROAP M&R teamStrategic Evaluations: Undertake Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs) to assessachievements across multiple interventions (KPI 3)

MCO/CO & RES

UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839

44

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-202114

Knowledge-Sharing: Include a session on evaluation at all office retreats andincrease promotion of knowledge-sharing (KPI 9)RES &ROAP/MCO/COArea 3: Promoting UN coordination on GRE

Coordination across UN agencies has become a key priority particularly within the UN
Reform context, to both seize opportunities for knowledge exchange and leverage synergies
where possible in a resource-constrained environment.

A. Inter-agency evaluation capacity development
The ROAP RES is Co-Chair (through February 2020) and an active member of theinter-agency regional evaluation group United Nations Development Evaluation for
Asia and the Pacific (UNEDAP). The primary activities of the Group include: interagency evaluation training; national and regional evaluation network support; andsupport to joint evaluation and UNDAF evaluation.

B. Gender equality integration in UNDAF and joint evaluations
UN Women supports UNCTs in ensuring that staff have capacity to support genderresponsive UNDAF evaluation processes and engages through UNEDAP. The RES also
promotes and supports evaluations of regional joint programming and evaluations
with respect to gender upon request and as appropriate.

During this strategy’s SN period, UNDAF evaluations may take place in the following
countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Pacific, India, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan,Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Joint evaluations planned
for the next SN cycle include: EmPower project led by the Gender and Climate Change
team and UN Environment; the Safe and Fair project led by the Ending Violence
Against Women (EVAW) team, the ILO and the EU; as well as the PROMISE Project led
by the Migration team in partnership with the ILO and IOM.
Results Area 3 Key Actions:

A. Inter-agency evaluation capacity development
UNEDAP: Continue working closely with UNEDAP members to ensure genderequality and human rights are at the forefront of inter-agency evaluation work,
including through providing direct support to the annual UNEDAP training (KPI
2)

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

15

Responsible UnitRES

B. Gender equality integration in UNDAF and joint evaluations

Responsible Unit

GEEW & Human Rights Integration: Continue supporting UNDAF and joint
evaluation efforts, including through the identification of the key successes, gaps,
lessons learned and ways forward for strengthening the GEEW and human rights
approach of UNCTs (KPI 2)

CO & RES incoordination with
ROAP Coordination
Specialist &UNEDAP

Area 4: Strengthening national evaluation capacities for genderresponsive M&E systems

Improving national evaluation capacity and commitment to GRE is a key component forachieving more effective development outcomes and the SDGs. UN Women seeks to help
drive both the supply and demand of high-quality, country-led GREs through promoting
ownership and leadership by national stakeholders.
Results Area 4 Key Actions:

National Evaluation Capacity Development
National Systems: Advocate for greater institutional investments by UN Womenin activities that strengthen national data and evaluation systems withgovernments, parliamentarians, and civil society

Individual Evaluators: support individual evaluators’ capacities on GRE, such as
through Voluntary Organizations of Professional Evaluators (VOPES),
Parliamentarian Forums for Evaluation or other partnerships

Responsible Unit
RES

CO & RES incoordination with
ROAP Coordination
Specialist &UNEDAP

Area 5: Strengthening evaluation use

The increasing demand for evaluations across the UN system is due in part to the strong
gender focus embedded within the SDGs as well as a greater emphasis placed on leveraging
GRE to support Agenda 2030, however, this demand has not yet translated into higher
evaluation usage in decision-making or organizational learning. As reported in the 2017 UN
Women AP Meta-Evaluation, the lack of a systematic usage of evaluation is potentially rooted
in: the perception of lengthy and/or low-quality evaluation reports; a lack of accountability
mechanisms to ensure staff review and apply evaluation findings; low usage of the GATE
system by most management or programme staff; and a limited understanding of the value
evaluations can provide to programme staff during program design and implementation. 45

UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
45

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

16

A. Systematic inclusion of evaluations during design
Improving overall programme results at a regional level should be sought byleveraging evaluation findings and recommendations not only during the design of
new programme interventions, but in the development and review of SNs.
Although some mechanisms exist, they are not systematically applied. For example,
SNs have a section devoted to lessons learned, but most include anecdotal
information instead of data derived from evaluation findings or recommendations.
Additionally, programme staff should be encouraged to refer to evaluations findings
when designing new programmes or projects.

B. Relevance and utility of evaluations
While efforts have been made to summarize and share evaluation findings, a greater
focus needs to be placed on ensuring sufficient opportunities and resources are inplace to communicate findings to staff, implementing partners, and key national
stakeholders. The relatively low investment in communications may correspond withthe low usage of evaluation reports, with a significant number of the AP region
management and staff identifying the need for the RES and M&E staff to better distilland cluster programmatic insights and evaluation findings in an engaging way.
Results Areas 5 Key Actions:

A. Systematic inclusion of evaluations during design
GATE Usage:• Ensure all evaluation reports and management responses are uploaded to
GATE within 6 weeks of completion (KPI 7)• Ensure all M&E staff update the GATE system quarterly with evaluation
implementation progress (KPI 8)

Responsible Unit
RO/MCO/CO

Evaluation Findings:• Ensure all offices incorporate relevant evaluation findings in draft SNs andproject proposals (KPI 9)

MCO/CO & ROAP
Planning and
Coordination Team

B. Relevance and Utility of Evaluations

Responsible Unit

Communication and knowledge-sharing:• Ensure evaluation TORs dedicate adequate funds towards developing userfriendly knowledge products in multiple languages, including an evaluation
brief and final presentation summarizing findings and ways forward (KPI
9)
• Continue convening webinars and fostering peer learning exchanges that
communicate key evaluation findings and recommendations in a timely
way to all relevant AP staff (KPI 9)

RO/MCO/CO & RES

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

17

Meta-Analysis• Continue producing Meta-analysis of evaluations (every SN period or every
other SN period) and leverage the findings from the global meta-synthesis
report to be adapted for use in the AP region, as appropriate (KPI 9)

RES

5. Budgeting, monitoring and reporting
The required resources to achieve the three-year expected results of the Regional Evaluation
Strategy are detailed and updated in costed annual workplans at the beginning of each year,
which specify both financial and human resource needs to effectively execute against the
MERP.
The implementation and progress of this Regional Evaluation Strategy will be monitored
annually against an M&E Framework using information reported from offices across the APregion. Additionally, the IES will assess and report progress against the nine Global KPIs on
an annual basis to the UN Women Executive Director as well as the UN Women Executive
Board.

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-202118

Annex 1: Guiding evaluation principles and standards

The planning, conduct, and follow-up of UN Women evaluations adhere to the Evaluation
Policy guiding principles: national ownership and leadership, UN coordination andcoherence with regard to GEEW, innovation, fair power relationships, inclusion,
independence and impartiality, transparency, quality and credibility, intentionality and useof evaluation, and ethics. 46
The evaluation function seeks to reflect:• The interconnected normative, operational, and coordination mandates of UN
Women;• The commitment of UN Women to operating in a manner that is responsive to genderequality and women’s rights; and• Alignment with the UNEG norms and standards, UNEG ethical guidelines, and thehandbook Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation: Towards
UNEG Guidance.

Annex 2: UN Women Global Evaluation Policy Theory of Change

The Global Evaluation Strategy’s Theory of Change envisions that UN Women uses GRE as
the agent of change in achieving its mandate and advancing gender equality and a women’s
empowerment agenda in the era of the SDGs. The Theory of Change drives the Evaluation
Strategy and outlines how the priorities of the strategy (in the form of long-term andintermediate outcomes and outputs) are necessary for the UN Women evaluation function
to effectively and efficiently support UN Women’s mission. It identifies innovation, acting asa “knowledge hub”, and forming and sustaining partnerships and networks as key drivers ofchange for achieving the long-term outcomes.

The achievement of gender equality and women’s empowerment fundamentally requires atransformation of unequal gender relations. UN Women’s evaluations aim to uncover thecauses of gender discrimination by asking critical questions about the existing power
structures and by deploying a GRE process that promotes empowerment of stakeholders,
particularly those who are left the furthest behind. The UN Women evaluation function seeks
to provide answers to questions on what works for gender equality and why and provide
evidence-based solutions for gender equality challenges in the current development
landscape.
UN Women, “Evaluation policy of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of
Women” (28-30 November 2012) available from http://undocs.org/en/UNW/2012/12.
46

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

19

Through its five areas of focus, UN Women seeks to improve the use of GRE by UN Womenand its partners for learning, strategic decision-making, and policy and programme
development. Through its corporate and decentralized evaluation systems as well as
evaluation use, UN Women aims to provide timely and relevant evaluation evidence on UN
Women’s contribution to development and the organization’s effectiveness and efficiency
results. Through its UN system coordination on GRE, its national evaluation capacity, as well
as evaluation use focus area, UN Women seeks to increase the demand and conduct of GRE
to support accountability for gender equality commitments in the SDGs and beyond.

This Theory of Change is based on the assumption that the UN Women evaluation function
works by leveraging its comparative advantage and expertise, positioning GRE as a catalyst
and the agent of change in UN Women. It also assumes that UN Women’s evaluations are
relevant to the UN system and national stakeholders to assess and contribute to progress inachieving the SDGs. Another assumption is that the UN Women evaluation function can build
evaluation partnerships and learning coalitions with UN agencies, civil society organizations
and other partners to evaluate transformative change and women’s empowerment in the eraof SDGs. Moreover, this Theory of Change implies that support for evaluation in UN Womenis improved and increased resources are allocated for the evaluation function. Finally,
management and leadership at all levels support the UN Women Evaluation Policy and theimplementation of the Evaluation Strategy.
The potential risks that could affect the effective implementation of the Evaluation Strategy
include: availability of adequate financial and human resources, timeliness and quality ofevaluations, partnership capacity, and management attention to the evaluation function. In
addition, several external risks can directly impact the achievement of results as describedin this Theory of Change. Several risks cut across all outcomes: lack of political will andsupport for GRE, lack of accurate data and monitoring systems, lack of evaluators withgender expertise, and conflicting priorities of stakeholders and development partners. UN
Women’s IES monitors these assumptions and risks and puts in place mitigation measures
to ensure the effective implementation of the Evaluation Strategy.

This Theory of Change underscores the deeply interlinked nature of the Evaluation
Strategy’s outcome areas and how results are catalyzed through the five strategic areas offocus. For clarity and communication purposes, the Theory of Change is presented as alogical model where the aggregate results on output level aim to lead to the outcomes andthe aggregate outcomes contribute to the impact of UN Women’s overall mandate.
Nonetheless, the change in the Theory of Change is understood as multilinear, happening
through synergies and feedback loops among different outputs, intermediate and long-term
outcomes as well as possible reversals that could be driven by identified internal andexternal risks.
AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

20

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

21

Graphic 1: UN Women Evaluation Theory of Change

Annex 3: Asia-Pacific Regional Evaluation Strategy Key Actions

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

22

Annex 4: Results Framework
Global Evaluation Strategy
Overall Impact

More relevant, effective and efficient UN Women with greater impact on the lives of women andgirls it serves
Long-term Outcomes•••

Key Indicators•••

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

Improved use of GRE by UN Women and its partners forlearning, strategic decision-making, policy and programme
development
Timely and relevant evaluative evidence on UN Women’scontribution to development and organizational effectivenessand efficiency results
Increased demand and conduct of GRE to support accountability
for GE commitments in SDGs and beyond
Increase in the number of strategic plans, policy documents,
programmes, projects and institutional reforms demonstrating
evidence of application of lessons from GREs
Increase in evaluation coverage to support strategic decisionmaking and improvement
Evidence of enhanced contribution to advancing GRE and toaccountability for gender equality results in the UN system andat the national level through the SDGs

23

Asia and the PacificResults
Indicators
Frequency Source Baseline
TargetResults Area 1 and 2: Implementing effective corporate and decentralized evaluation systems
A. Quality andCredibility of
Evaluations

B. Adequate andSkilled Human
Resources for
M&E% of evaluations with GARAAS
rating of “satisfactory” andabove% of total programme budget
dedicated to evaluation% of management responses
submitted# of evaluations conducted byeach office per SN cycle% of offices with M&E Focal
Points or M&E Officers% of planned evaluations
conducted 52% M&E Specialists/Focal Points
that receive the UN Women
GRE training certificate# of Country Portfolio
Evaluations (CPEs) conducted

47

Annual

IEAS

100% 47

100%

Annual

RES

1% 48

3%

AnnualRES
RES

1 per SN
cycle 50
100% 51

1 per SN cycle

IEAS

67% 55

AnnualQuarterly
AnnualSemiannual

Annual

GATE

IEAS

RES

100% 49

89% 53

1

100%
100%

85% 54
80% 56
1 per year

UN Women, “2017 Illustrated Annual Report on the evaluation function of the United Nations Entity for Gender
Equality and the Empowerment of Women” (2017) available athttps://unwomen.sharepoint.com/Evaluation/Resources/2017%20Illustrated%20Annual%20Report%20on%20Evalu
Evalu.pdf
48
UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
49
UN Women, “2017 Illustrated Annual Report on the evaluation function of the United Nations Entity for Gender
Equality and the Empowerment of Women” (2017) available athttps://unwomen.sharepoint.com/Evaluation/Resources/2017%20Illustrated%20Annual%20Report%20on%20Evalu
Evalu.pdf
50 ibid.
51
ibid.
52 This is a corporate evaluation indicator that covers corporate and decentralized evaluations. UN Women
Strategic Plan 2018-2021, Integrated Results and Resources Framework, Indicator 3.10.
53
UN Women, Independent Evaluation Service, Global Evaluation Oversight System (GEOS) Dashboard(Retrieved 9 November 2018)
54
UN Women, “Evaluation Strategy to Transform Women’s and Girls’ Lives” (January 2018) available fromhttp://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/about%20us/evaluation/unwomen-ies-global-evaluation-strategy-2018-2021-en.pdf?la=en&vs=4626
55
UN Women, “Review of UN Women’s Evaluation Oversight System in Asia and the Pacific” (2017) available
from http://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2017/06/01report-evaluation-oversight-system.pdf?la=en&vs=2839
56 UN Women, “Evaluation Strategy to Transform Women’s and Girls’ Lives” (January 2018) available fromhttp://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/about%20us/evaluation/unwomen-ies-global-evaluation-strategy-2018-2021-en.pdf?la=en&vs=4626
AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

24

C. Culture of
Evaluation# of evaluation-related
webinars for UN Women staff
supported by the RES
Results Area 3: Promoting UN coordination on GRE

AnnualRES

NA

4 per year

# of regional or national
F. Technicalnetworks and thematic groups
assistanceon gender responsive
provided atevaluation supported
regional andnational level on # of regional or global GRE
conduct of GRE
events supported
Results Area 5: Strengthening evaluation use

AnnualRES

2 per SNcycle

2 per SN cycle

AnnualRES

1

1% of offices with evidence ofevaluation use in SNs

Annual

RES

100% 58

90% 59

H. Relevance andutility ofevaluations% of evaluations that produce
an evaluation brief and a final
presentation (powerpoint orother)

Annual

RES

[TBC]

100%

Regional M&E inter-agency
AnnualRES
1 group1 group
D. Inter-agencygroupssupported
by
the
RES
evaluation
capacity
development
E. Gender equality # of UNDAFs and joint
AnnualIEAS
1 per year 2 per year57
integration in
evaluations supported
UNDAF andjoint
evaluations
Results Area 4: Strengthening national evaluation capacities for gender-responsive M&E systems

G. Systematic
inclusion ofevaluations
during design

57
UN Women, “Evaluation Strategy to Transform Women’s and Girls’ Lives” (January 2018) available fromhttp://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/about%20us/evaluation/unwomen-ies-global-evaluation-strategy-2018-2021-en.pdf?la=en&vs=4626
58
UN Women, Independent Evaluation Service, Global Evaluation Oversight System (GEOS) Dashboard(Retrieved 9 November 2018)
59
UN Women, “Evaluation Strategy to Transform Women’s and Girls’ Lives” (January 2018) available fromhttp://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/about%20us/evaluation/unwomen-ies-global-evaluation-strategy-2018-2021-en.pdf?la=en&vs=4626

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

25

AP Regional Evaluation Strategy 2019-2021

26
RES deployed in all
regions

Integrated Monitoring,Research, andEvaluation Plans(MERPs) as an integral
part of planning

UNEG Guidance:
Integrating Human
Rights and Gender
Equality in Evaluations

GEAC established

Oversight, quality
assurance systems
reinforced: GATE,GERAAS, and Global
Evaluation Oversight
SystemGlobal Evaluation
Policy 2013-2017

2014

UN Women Evaluation
Policy2013

e-Learning course “How toManage Gender-responsive
Evaluation” launched for UN
Women staff and partners

UN Women Genderresponsive Evaluation
Handbook translated into
Arabic, French, and Spanish

GATE system enhanced withnew features

Transform-The Magazine
for Gender-responsive
Evaluation launched

Professionalization of the UN
Women evaluation function

IES Communications Strategy

UNEG Norm on Gender
Equality and Human Rights

Global Evaluation Plan
consolidated both corporate
and decentralized
evaluations

IES National Evaluation
Capacity Development
Strategy

Gender Experts Roster
launched

2017

EvalPartners Global
Evaluation Forum III,
Bishkek, Kyrgyz
Republic

UN-SWAP Technical
Note revised and Peer
Learning Exchange
Lessons Learned
disseminatedGuidance on
Evaluating
Institutional Gender
Mainstreaming

GATE and Results
Management System
functionality

UN-SWAP EPI revised
and aligned with UNSWAP 2.0

Country portfolio
evaluations (CPEs)
commitments for SN
periodRegional Metaevaluation of the
ROAP

UN Women Chairs EvalGender+

2016

EvalYear 2015 with astrong focus on genderCountry Portfolio
Evaluation Guidance

EvalGender+ launched

UN Women GenderResponsive Evaluation
Handbook

UN Women Chairs EvalPartners

UN Women Chairs UNEG

2015

Annex 5: Timeline of key achievements during Strategic Note Cycle 2013-2018

Consolidation of oversightfunction started(evaluation/audit)

ROAP RES served as CoChair of UNEDAP

2018