Resource Mobilisation and Programme Delivery in Ukraine

Planning RM and Delivery target of $90 million set in the Country Programme Action Plan Partnership and RM Strategy prepared and Strategic Positioning Team began to work (coordinated by JPO) Tactics: scaling-up of ongoing high profile / high impact projects such as Blue Ribbon Commission, gender, social mobilisation and ABD and offering implementation services in areas of donors’ interest (consumer rights, border management, rehabilitationm of municipal infrastructure) Every-day attention and presence in donor consultations, clear and proactive expression of UNDP priorities and proposals for cooperation

External factors Large number of organisations competing for donor funding, but few organisations with capacity to propose and implement multi-million $ programmes High volumes of donor funding for Ukraine after the Orange Revolution (USAID $70 million/ year, EC Euro 120 million/ year, Canada $20 million/ year, SIDA $10 million) Vibrant indigenous philanthropy: Rinat Ahmetov Foundation ‘Development of Ukraine’’ spending $10 million in 4 years for TB prevention and care Victor Pinchuk and Elena Franchuk Foundations (support to civil society, democratisation, policy debates, HIV prevention with participation of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Koffi Annan, Muhamed Younus, Richard Holbrook) Although government institutions are rarely interested in project implementation and funds management, donors are still promoting sector-wide approaches and direct budget support Donwsizing of assistance as Ukraine joined the group of MICs (DFID, USAID)

Results Good head-start in 2005 when major breakthrough with the EC was achieved (closing troubled projects, signing new multi-million dollar agreements in the area of border management) In 2007, 22 cost-sharing agreements signed of a total value of $35 million Increasing cost-sharing from national counterparts Unusual suspects: USAID, Intel Delivery jumped from $10 million in 2005 to $25 million per year in 2006, 2007 and 2008 (in 3 years the office achieved 83% delivery planned for ) Large contracts with EC in areas of core UNDP competence: community development – the single largest cost-sharing agreement in Ukraine of Euro 13 million signed in 2007; empowerment of women - contract of Euro 5 million signed in 2008, the only EC funded gender project implemented by UNDP in CIS; macroeconomic policy project Blue Ribbon Commission funded at $1 million per year Good project implementation record and likely extension of signed agreements (including upcoming EC funding for CIDP in Crimea)

Lessons Transaction costs are high when working with private sector and small one-time contributors (village councils) EC - the best international partner to work with (large resources, clear procedures, extra project assurance tools (participation of EC staff, through EC project monitoring and verification of accounts, high visibility) Municipalities - the best national partner to work with (independent resources, funds for development projects, quick decision making process) Further increase in RM and delivery on core development projects is possible (Global Fund, GEF, ….., municipalities), but in some cases RM will be constraint by availability of UNDP our co- financing Project implementation capacity or our hidden management practice has to be recognised and properly promoted. Need for ‘surge’ support to CO’s that are facing major RM opportunities RM and Delivery cannot be the ultimate criteria for success – it’s very easy to prioritise RM and Delivery at the expense of quality. On the other hand donors are also under delivery pressure and by working with UNDP they are probably maximizing the rate of return, compared with delivery of assistance through international project consortia Keep in mind that often less is more -- we continue to fully TRAC-finance important small scale projects (MDGs, AIDS)