The United Nations Evaluation Group had prepared a proposal for the joint High Level Committee on Programmes-High-level Committee on Management spring session 2007 concerning the establishment of a United Nations system-wide evaluation mechanism linked to CEB to fill the current gap concerning evaluation of system-wide processes. It was stressed that such a mechanism must be independent in order to be credible and must at the same time meet the priority needs of its stakeholders.
Please note: only publishing dates after March 2013 may be considered reliable.
Pages tagged with United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG)
CEB considered that a principal determinant of the United Nations system’s image in donor as well as recipient countries was its work at the country level. The system could not, therefore, afford to be perceived as a disparate group of competing organizations. CEB members should instead strive to work as a coherent system devoted to bringing its diverse capacities to bear, in a concerted way, on the priorities defined by developing countries. How best to harness the limited resources available to United Nations organizations to maximize their impact remained a major challenge.
During the reporting period, the High Level Committee on Programmes and the High-level Committee on Management continued the innovative practice of joint meetings that they had begun in 2006 in order to address cross-cutting issues from both a programme and a management perspective. Those meetings were intended to address major emerging issues relevant to the work of both committees that were of importance across the work of the United Nations system.
At its 2007 spring session, the Chief Executives Board endorsed the recommendation for an evaluation of the eight pilot projects carried out at the country level under the One United Nations initiative and gave the United Nations Evaluation Group the task of establishing the substantive parameters and process for the evaluation. In response to that request, the United Nations Evaluation Group envisaged a three-stage process, as follows: