United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Overview

MOPAN released its most recent assessment of UNEP in 2021.

Founded in 1972, the UNEP plays a strategically important role in the UN Development System (UNDS), being charged with leading both the UNDS and its 193 member states in addressing “a planetary crisis” and interrelated “climate, biodiversity, and pollution emergencies” urgently and effectively. Towards achieving its dual mandate, UNEP provides global leadership for the implementation of the environmental dimensions of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and direct support to public and private stakeholders in developing countries to promote innovative solutions.

While UNEP is delivering on its ambitious dual mandate, which has become even more difficult during a global pandemic, UNEP faces several changes. Given the limited overall size and flexibility of its resource base, particular focus is required on effective alignment of donor resources with its own priorities, as well as the clarification of UNEP’s operating model and identifying results of UNEP’s direct actions and outputs, both for the UN system and its member states. While UNEP’s resources will always be limited, its task is to use these resources strategically and efficiently to achieve its ambitious objectives and priorities by leveraging strong partnerships.

Performance rating summary

UNEP organisational performance wheel — Organisational performance

Key findings

Organisational architecture and operating model are supportive of the broader mandate.

– Institution is guided and overseen by a periodic assembly (UNEA), consisting of 193 member states, and its Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR).

– UNEP possesses competent and dedicated managers and staff.

– Strategic plans are based on a long-term vision and align with the corporate mission and mandate as well as the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

– Projects and strategic plans are adaptable and adjustable based on consultation with and participation of external stakeholders.

– Wide varieties of collaborative arrangements and partnerships exist based on comparative advantage.

Newly revised policies and frameworks appear to be strengthening the organisation across the performance areas.

– UNEP’s Environmental and Social Sustainability Framework, Resource Mobilisation Strategy, Partnership Policy and Procedures, Delegation of Authority Policy and Framework, and Anti-fraud and Anticorruption Guidelines, and other key policies and guidance documents, have been updated and revised during the current assessment period.

– The first Strategy for Private Sector Engagement was issued in 2019, and application of this strategy has begun.

– UNEP is successfully applying the UNDS reforms.

– Organisational response to COVID-19 demonstrates adaptive management and substantive relevance.

– Knowledge products are perceived as timely, useful, of good quality and are appreciated by partners and other stakeholders.

Operational versus normative role is not clearly understood or universally implemented across the organisation.

– Senior management is clear on UNEP’s overarching normative nature, but application across the organisation is not universally observed.

– Continued reliance on donor funding influences project selection and complicates an internal and external understanding, and appreciation of, the normative versus operational roles and thus UNEP’s ability to deliver on its broader mandate.

Results-based management remains a work in progress.

– Improvements to results-based budgeting continue, despite the constraints of the current UN cost accounting systems.

– Sub-programme results indicators and targets could be more outcome-oriented and clearly and explicitly linked to those at the contributing project level.

Resource structures to support operations and organisational effectiveness.

– UNEP’s ability to deliver its PoW based on approved strategies and its comparative advantages could be strengthened through an increase in its unrestricted financial resources and greater internal control over budget allocation and use.

– Resources for evaluation could be increased and made less dependent on donor-funded project budgets, allowing greater capacity to focus on sub-programme and special initiative performance and results, whose lessons may be more useful.

Project-level monitoring, oversight, efficiency and replicability.

– Up-front analysis of institutional capacity, reputational risk and sustainability could strengthen project design and initial quality.

– Monitoring and oversight of implementation could be improved, including of the newly revised Environmental Social Sustainability Framework.

– Poor recent project evaluation results show that effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability need to be improved.

– Ex-post evaluation of project success factors, scale-up and replicability could be enhanced and an assessment added of the performance of the executing agency or agencies and of UNEP itself as the implementing agency.