FINAL DRAFT SEP 2010 Page 1

Developing an UNDAF results matrix and UNDAF Action Plan - Issues for UNCTs to
consider when deciding on a suitable option

The 2010 UNDAF Guidelines provide UNCTs with two options for the level of results in the UNDAF
results matrix: UNCTs can keep the UNDAF results matrix at the outcome level (Option 1A), or
develop a conventional results matrix that includes outputs (Option 1B). Both options can be
combined with the newly-introduced format of the UNDAF Action Plan instead of agency-specific
Country Programme Action Plans (CPAPs) or equivalents. UNCTs determine together with
government partners a suitable combination of these options.

This note elaborates on the pros and cons of options 1A and 1B and their combination with an
UNDAF Action Plan or CPAPs (Scenarios 1 and 2). It needs to be read in the context of the guidance
in How to Prepare an UNDAF Part I (p.13-16) and the UNDAF Action Plan Guidance Note (p.15).

Option 1A: UNDAF Results Matrix with Outcome Level Only

Key Benefits:
 Strategic focus: By keeping the UNDAF results matrix at the outcome level, the UNCT can
present its collective strategic priorities and niche in the country more clearly.
 Accountability: With introduction of the UNDAF Progress Report, UNCTs are increasingly being
held accountable for their contribution to results at the UNDAF outcome level in addition to
outputs, regardless of where they are reflected. A stronger focus on outcomes in the UNDAF
supports this shift in accountability.
 Concise format: Focus on outcomes facilitates a lean UNDAF results matrix. The UNCT’s
strategic priorities, including key indicators, risks and assumptions, role of partners and required
resources will be accessible in just a few pages.
 Validity: Since outcomes usually do not change, the UNDAF remains valid as the UNCT’s
strategy for the entire programming cycle and does not need to be updated annually.

Issues to consider:
! No substitute for outputs: The UNCT still has to develop the next level of results, namely
outputs, which then need to be specified in an UNDAF Action Plan, agency CPAPs or equivalent.
! No substitute for prioritization: A shorter results matrix at outcome level is – by itself – no
guarantee for a strategic UNDAF. It is critical that UNCTs rigorously prioritize results at all levels –
outcomes, outputs, and activities – and limit outputs and indicators to a manageable number,
regardless of whether they are contained in the UNDAF, the UNDAF Action Plan or CPAPs.
! Risk of disconnected results chain: It is advisable that UNCTs do not defer the development of
outputs to a later stage. A logical and coherent results chain requires that outputs and outcomes
are developed simultaneously and in an iterative way: outcomes have to be adjusted in light of
outputs and vice versa in order to ensure that outputs contribute logically towards outcomes
through a coherent ‘if…then…’ logic.
If the UNDAF remains at the outcome level, outputs can either be defined in an UNDAF Action Plan
or in agency documents like CPAPs:

Scenario 1
 FINAL DRAFT SEP 2010 Page 2
UNDAF Results Matrix with Outcome Level Only + UNDAF Action Plan

This scenario stands for enhanced coherence of the UN at country level. It allows UNCTs to reap the
benefits of an outcome-level UNDAF while reducing the potential risks. The value of a single
plan for the coordinated implementation of the UNDAF is a key lesson of Delivering as One.
Therefore, all UNCTs are now strongly encouraged to develop an UNDAF Action Plan.

Key Benefits:
 Transparency: Overview of the full extent of the UN activities and resources in the country;
 Accountability: UN agency actions are anchored within the accountability frameworks and legal
agreements concluded between those UN system agencies and the government; which will
increase UN system agency accountabilities for specific results;
 Simplification: The UNDAF Action Plan serves as a single reference document for legal and
financial agreements with the Government; which should significantly reduce transaction costs for
the Government and partners;
 Coherence: Clear link between the UNDAF and UN system agency programmes facilitating
increased synergy and complementarity between UN system agency country programmes and
reduced duplication of interventions; potentially the possibility to identify opportunities for common
working practices and increased harmonization of business practices.
 Enhanced Monitoring: A stronger link between the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of UN
system agency projects and programmes, UNDAF M&E and national M&E processes;
 Predictability: Clearer identification of resource requirements for the UN system agencies’
programme activities through a common budgetary framework; together with a coherent resource
mobilization strategy, this may also make resource mobilization efforts easier.

Issues to consider:
! Seamless process: In order to ensure a coherent results chain and accurate costing of
outcomes, it is better to develop the results matrices for the UNDAF and the UNDAF Action Plan
in the same exercise, which may also reduce transaction costs. It is important to bear in mind,
though, that the UNDAF Action Plan results matrix can only be formally finalized once all
governing bodies have approved the necessary resources through approval of CPDs or
equivalent.
! Commitment to UN coherence: The UNDAF Action Plan has been fully endorsed by all
members of the UNDG. It is voluntary because it may not be feasible in all country contexts.
Strong government and UNCT commitment to UN coherence seem particularly critical for
implementing change initiatives like this one. If the government is reluctant to support an UNDAF
Action Plan, this will not be a viable option. 
!

! Transaction costs: The UNDAF Action Plan is likely to significantly reduce the transaction costs
(measured in time and resources) of government and development partners for dealing with the
UN. However, transaction costs for UNCTs may initially increase, mainly due to the application of
new programming approaches and increased coordination. While these additional efforts are
justified and offset by expected gains in the effectiveness of UNDAF implementation, the UNCT
needs to be mindful of the required capacities.
Scenario 2:
 FINAL DRAFT SEP 2010 Page 3
UNDAF Results Matrix with Outcome Level Only + CPAPs (or equivalent)

This scenario represents the least intensive form of UNCT joint programming. While the above-
mentioned benefits of an outcome-level UNDAF apply, this scenario may further increase the
associated risks.

Issues to consider:
! Risk of disconnected results chain: Developing and effectively monitoring a coherent results
chain between the UNDAF and across a series of agency-specific documents is demanding. This
has traditionally been a key challenge for UNCTs and a central weakness of previous UNDAF
generations. Agency documents (CPDs, CPAPs or equivalent) have not been sufficiently linked to
the results contained in the UNDAF results matrix, which is no longer acceptable given the
requirement to prepare the UNDAF progress report. In this scenario, the risk that UNDAF
outcomes and agency outputs are disconnected is high. If the UNCT decides to pursue this
option, it is strongly recommended to formulate (key) agency outputs at the time of drafting of the
UNDAF outcomes. This allows for ‘a logical link between the outcome and output levels.
! Robust monitoring: Inter-agency groups responsible for M&E have to ensure that the output
level contributions of all agencies to the UNDAF outcomes are captured, monitored and reported
on. It is critical that the UNCT pays particular attention to designing a robust monitoring
mechanism for output-level contributions of all agencies.
! Transaction costs: If the UNCT is committed to ensure a coherent results chain and effective
monitoring, this scenario will likely require significantly more inter-agency coordination than may
seem necessary at first: e.g. a series of joint strategy meetings to ensure that agency results
contained in CPAPs and CPDs logically add up to the achievement of UNDAF outcomes; and
having a more complex monitoring mechanism that draws from a series of agency-specific results
matrices.
 FINAL DRAFT SEP 2010 Page 4
Option 1B: UNDAF Results Matrix with Outcome and Output Levels

This option represents the conventional format of the UNDAF results matrix.

Key Benefits:
 Transparency: Overview of the full extent of UN commitments in the country;
 Accountability: A detailed UNDAF results matrix provides the UNCT with a clear accountability
framework since the division of labour between agencies only becomes apparent at that level:
usually, only one agency is accountable for each output.

Issues to consider:
! Transaction costs: Developing a realistic, coherent and logical results framework that includes
both outcomes and outputs may be a difficult and time-consuming process. Yet, as experience
has shown, this investment in the initial planning stage will greatly facilitate effective
implementation, monitoring and evaluation throughout the programming cycle.
! Prioritization: Previous UNDAF generations had the tendency to contain far too many outputs
and indicators in order to be useful as effective management tools. The UNCT needs to prioritize
its results at every level (outcomes, outputs, activities) in line with its capacities and comparative
advantage and without compromising the flow of the results chain.

Scenario 1:

UNDAF Results Matrix with Outcome and Output Levels + CPAPs (or equivalent)

Issues to consider:
! Risk of disconnected results chain: In the absence of a joint implementation plan for the
UNDAF, it has been a key challenge for UNCTs to operationalize the UNDAF while maintaining
coherence. In particular, it has been challenging to maintain a logical and coherent results chain
between the outcomes and outputs agreed in the UNDAF, and agency results contained in CPDs,
CPAPs, Annual Work Plans or equivalents. In this option, the risk that UNDAF outputs and
agency-level results are disconnected is high. The UNCT would therefore have to ensure that
CPAPs and equivalent documents follow directly from the UNDAF results matrix and are drafted
simultaneously with, rather than, after CPDs.

Scenario 2:

UNDAF Results Matrix with Outcome and Output Levels + UNDAF Action Plan

Issues to consider:
! Duplication: Combining a conventional UNDAF results matrix with an UNDAF Action Plan means
that output-level information will have to be duplicated in both documents. This is why Option 1A
gives UNCTs the opportunity to keep the UNDAF at the strategic outcome level. However, this
scenario is still a valid option if the UNCT decides to develop an UNDAF Action Plan only after the
UNDAF has already been finalized and signed in the conventional format.