EO_JanCovers_titlePages2_Layout 1 12/24/10 3:37 PM Page 2

EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION TO STRENGTHENING LOCAL GOVERNANCE PARTICIPATION

Evaluation Office, December 2010 United Nations Development Programme EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION TO STRENGthENING LOCAL GOVERNANCE

Copyright © UNDP 2010, all rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on recycled paper.

The analysis and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or the United Nations Member States. This is an independent publication by UNDP Evaluation Office.

Editing: Louise Daniel Graphic design: Cover – Suazion, Inc. (NY, suazion.com) Layout – Laurie Douglas Graphic Design (www.lauriedouglas.com) Printing: A.K. Office Supplies, Ltd. Acknowledgements

The evaluation was conducted by the Evaluation All independent evaluations conducted by the Office with an independent evaluation team. Evaluation Office go through rigorous internal and The members of the team included A. K. Shiva external quality assurance. From the Evaluation Kumar, who led the evaluation, and Urs Nagel Office, Michael Reynolds and Juha Uitto who task-managed the exercise for the Evaluation supported internal quality assurance. The report Office. Together they were able to ground the benefited greatly from the review and advice of evaluation conceptually and methodologically the members of our external independent advisory in human development. Other members of the panel that provided guidance and input throughout team included Elsa Bardalez, Catherine Lowery the evaluation. I would like to express our deep and Hans Olsen. In conducting the country gratitude to the members of the advisory panel: case studies, the evaluation benefitted from German Correa (Director, Masters Programme the knowledge and work of additional experts on Politics and Governance, Latin American including Diego Ayo (Bolivia), Alphonse Gelu School of Social Sciences Santiago); Cheryl Gray (Papua New Guinea), Ibrahima Maiga (Mali), (Director, Independent Evaluation Group, World Hindowa Momoh (Sierra Leone), Assoumani Bank); and George Mathew (Director, Institute of Saandi (Comoros) and Igor Shevliakov Social Sciences, New Delhi). (Ukraine). During the early stages of the evalua- tion, substantial contributions were received from The complex scope of this evaluation could not James Manor and Rajeev Pillay. We are grateful have been addressed without the engagement of a to all of them. wide range of stakeholders. The Evaluation Office is very grateful to the Executive Board members, Administrative and research support is critical to governments and civil society representatives in the successful completion of all evaluations. Thuy the case study countries who very generously Hang To oversaw the management support of shared their time and ideas. I would like, in the evaluation and Caroline Monyi handled particular, to express our gratitude to the resident administrative support. Research support was representatives, UNDP staff and members of the provided by Valeria Carou Jones, Elizabeth de UN country teams in the countries visited, as well Leon Jones and Jona Repishti, and Evelyn Wong as to our colleagues in New York and Geneva assisted in the finalization of the draft report. in the regional and policy bureaux and regional Marina Blinova and Anish Pradhan provided service centres, who provided extensive informa- support to the publication process. tion and comments.

Acknowledgements i i i Foreword

Strengthening local governance can play a critical The evaluation concludes that UNDP has not role in human development. Decentralizing fully capitalized on the comparative advantage power from the centre to the provinces, districts it has in strengthening local governance. It and villages enables women and men to partici- suggests, in part, that this relates to the absence pate in decision-making directly, and to hold within UNDP of a common understanding of, local officials and politicians more account- and sufficient corporate guidance on, strength- able to the communities and individuals they ening local governance. There are numerous are meant to serve. Local governments can be examples of support to local governance that more responsive to local needs, make better use have been innovative and effective and that have of resources and direct them towards providing benefited many local communities. However, basic social services. other initiatives have had limited impact and some have tended to be ad hoc and isolated, The demands on UNDP to assist countries with rather than systematic and strategic. UNDP local governance reforms are rapidly growing. has paid insufficient attention to establishing This is because of the increasing realization entitlements for women and men, especially for that such reforms are critical in bringing about the poor and marginalized, to ensure effective transformations in the lives of women and responsiveness from subnational governments men, especially among poor, discriminated to demands made by communities or to engage and disadvantaged communities. This report with non-state actors. UNDP has also been presents the results of an independent evaluation unable to tap the extensive knowledge on local of the contribution of UNDP to strength- governance that exists within the organiza- ening local governance. The report sets out tion to improve programming. The absence the findings of the evaluation and assesses of a strategic framework of cooperation with the relevance, responsiveness, effectiveness, its associated funds and programmes at the efficiency and sustainability of UNDP work in corporate level as well as at the country level has local governance. limited the potential to maximize results.

Local governance means different things to The evaluation recommends that UNDP should different people. Some see it largely as processes more explicitly and effectively mainstream local of decentralization, while others regard it as governance into all its programmatic areas of a catch-all for everything that happens at the support by developing a coherent framework community level. There is insufficient clarity that is firmly grounded in the practice of human and agreement on the outcomes of local development. In developing new pilot initia- governance initiatives, making evaluation tives on local governance, UNDP should be difficult. The scope of the evaluation has thus more rigorous in ensuring that initiatives can be, been limited to examining two critical functions and are, upscaled in support of broader policy of local governance that cut across the UNDP and programmatic development results. UNDP focus areas of democratic governance, poverty should more pro-actively and systematically reduction, energy and environment, as well as collate, codify, analyse, distil and disseminate crisis prevention and recovery: local governance the lessons learned from the extensive experi- for promoting democratic representation and ence it has in the field of local governance. The establishing entitlements, and local governance evaluation also recommends that UNDP should for improved provision of goods and services. strengthen its partnerships with its associated

i v F o r e w o r d funds and programmes in order to enhance the knowledge of ways in which human develop- effectiveness of its initiatives in local governance. ment can be advanced through local governance.

I hope that this evaluation will be useful for UNDP to strengthen its country, regional and global-level support to programme countries in local governance. I also hope that as countries continue to experiment with local governance, Saraswathi Menon this evaluation contributes to strengthening their Director, UNDP Evaluation Office

F o r e w o r d v Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations vii Executive Summary viii Chapter 1. Rationale, Scope and Approach 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives and Scope 2 1.3 Evaluation Criteria 3 1.4 Evaluability and Limitations 3 1.5 Evaluation Approach 4

Chapter 2. Context and UNDP Response 7 2.1 Context 7 2.2 Policy Framework and Partners 8 2.3 Local Governance in UNDP Focus Areas and Regions 12 2.4 Financial Resources 18

Chapter 3. Assessment of UNDP Contribution 19 3.1 Relevance and Responsiveness 19 3.2 Effectiveness 21 3.3 Efficiency 28 3.4 Sustainability 30 3.5 Partnerships 32

Chapter 4. Conclusions and Recommendations 41 4.1 Conclusions 41 4.2 Recommendations 43

Annexes 45 Annex 1. Terms of Reference 45 Annex 2. Evaluation Matrix 51 Annex 3. Countries Reviewed 55 Annex 4. People Consulted 57 Annex 5. Documents Consulted 67

Figures Figure 1. Framework of Analysis 2

v i c o n t e n t s Acronyms and Abbreviations

ART Support to Thematic and Territorial Networks for Human Development ADR Assessment of Development Results BCPR Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery BDP Bureau for Development Policy CBO Community-based organization CSO Civil society organization FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GEF Global Environment Facility IDP Internally displaced person IEA International Energy Agency ILO International Labour Organization LDC Least developed country MDG Millennium Development Goal MYFF Multi-Year Funding Framework NGO Non-governmental organization NRG4SD Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development ODA Official development assistance PB Partnerships Bureau PDR People’s Democratic Republic RBA Regional Bureau for Africa RBAP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific RBEC Regional Bureau for Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States RBLAC Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean ROAR Results-Oriented Annual Report SGP Small Grants Programme SNV Netherlands Development Organization UNCDF United Nations Capital Development Fund UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women UNV United Nations Volunteers

A c r o n y m s a n d A b b r e v i a t i o n s v i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The demands on the United Nations Develop­ (line 2.6) under the core goal of ‘fostering ment Programme to assist countries with local democratic governance’, together with decentral- governance reforms are rapidly growing given ization and ‘urban/rural development’. The the increasing realization that such reforms are UNDP Strategic Plan (2008-2013) internalizes critical for bringing about transformations in local governance priorities and, in its section the lives of men and women, especially among 1, underscores the importance of civic engage- the poor, those who are discriminated against, ment and using local government ‘capacity and and disadvantaged communities. Recognizing resources to deliver effective economic and social the growing importance of local governance policies that promote human development and reforms, the Executive Board in September 2008 manage the public services that citizens expect’. approved the present thematic evaluation of It identifies several priority areas for UNDP the contribution of UNDP to strengthening support, including capacity strengthening local governance. of national and local authorities to undertake participatory planning processes, assessment and From a human development perspective, adoption of effective service delivery systems. It promoting local governance is intrinsically also affirms the need to restore the foundations important as it enhances people’s capabilities for local capacities for development, planning, to participate in decision-making. It is also management, and conflict resolution. instrumentally significant because of the contri- bution that improved local governance can The evaluation assesses local governance interven- make to service delivery and standards of living. tions using the following criteria: (a) relevance UNDP, through the focus areas of democratic of UNDP outcomes, outputs and activities; governance, poverty reduction, environment (b) responsiveness of UNDP to changing and energy, and crisis prevention and recovery, conditions and needs; (c) effectiveness of UNDP supports local governance reforms that: (a) create in achieving stated results; (d) efficiency of and establish entitlements, especially for the poor UNDP regarding use of human and financial and marginalized through enhanced democratic resources; and (e) sustainability of the results participation and representation; and (b) improve to which UNDP contributes. In addition, the public provision of goods and services to ensure evaluation assesses the extent to which UNDP that, at a minimum, citizens enjoy universal, cooperation in the implementation of local equitable and non-discriminatory access. The governance has affected the role and economic scope of the evaluation has been limited to and social status of women. It also reviews the examining these two dimensions of UNDP way in which UNDP has been able to forge support to local governance. partnerships to promote local governance.

UNDP has supported local governance and active The evaluation has carried out a meta-analysis of decentralization processes for the best part of 30 37 Assessment of Development Results reports, an years, and more intensively since 2000. While analysis of close to 80 outcome and project evalua- the first multi-year funding framework, (MYFF tions that have a local governance component, 1) for 2000-2003, mentions three relevant and an in-depth scrutiny of country programme corporate objectives relating to local governance, and project documents, progress and comple- the second, MYFF 2, for 2004-2007, identifies tion reports and national strategy documents. In local governance as one of seven service lines addition, three types of country-level analyses

v i i i E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y have been carried out. The first is a desk review raise revenue and deliver high-quality services. It of available local governance-related documents works to help strengthen and deepen democratic for 50 countries—in 30 of which, during the representation by engaging with marginalized period 2004-2007, more than 10 per cent of groups and local leaders to promote account- the total programme budget was devoted to ability, inclusion and participation, and the local governance-related activities, and another representation of citizens. 20 were suggested by regional bureaux and others as having significant interventions in UNDP supports MDG localization. It helps local governance. A subset of 11 countries of develop the capacities of local governments the 50 were randomly identified for a more to formulate, plan, monitor and implement in-depth examination; and telephone interviews participatory local development plans, working have been conducted with key personnel from together with civil society and other local within and outside UNDP to validate the organizations. UNDP also promotes efforts to findings emerging from the desk review. Lastly, include marginalized groups and communities six countries, namely, Bolivia, Comoros, Mali, whose voices are too often unheard. It works Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone and Ukraine, with national Governments to prepare reliable were purposively selected (to represent different statistics on poverty and MDGs disaggregated regions, different levels of human develop- by region and to provide policy advice on, for ment and different settings) in order to gain a example, how to develop and implement fiscal better on-the-ground understanding of local transfer schemes and socio-economic policies governance reforms. Detailed interviews with that would benefit the poorest regions. UNDP stakeholders and partners within and outside helps countries strengthen their capacity to UNDP were conducted to further validate the address environmental challenges at the global, overall findings of the assessment. national and community levels where the poor are disproportionately affected by environ- UNDP supports a wide range of interven- mental degradation and lack of access to clean, tions to promote local governance, including affordable energy services. UNDP activities local governance for improved service delivery have been aimed at improving access to sustain- and acceleration of the achievement of the able energy services, effective water governance, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); for sustainable land management to combat desert- State-building and peacebuilding; for enhanced ification and land degradation, conservation democratic representation; and for ensuring and sustainable use of biodiversity, including environmental sustainability. Many local through the Global Environment Facility Small governance initiatives focus on women and Grants Programme. indigenous peoples, often in places where local governance is still taking shape. An important As a co-sponsor of UNAIDS, UNDP helps emphasis is placed on strengthening the countries put HIV/AIDS at the centre of inclusiveness and accountability of subnational national development and poverty reduction governments, ensuring they have the capacity strategies; build national capacity to mobilize to manage the opportunities and responsibili- all levels of government and civil society for ties created by decentralization and devolution. a coordinated and effective response to the At the subnational level, local institutions reflect epidemic; and protect the rights of people living great differences in history, culture, capacity, with AIDS, women, and vulnerable populations. infrastructure, styles and practices. Responsive UNDP supports countries to create an enabling to this diversity, UNDP emphasizes local human rights environment, promote gender governance for improved service delivery in equality, and address HIV-related vulnerabili- order to improve the ability and capacity of local ties and needs of women and girls. In the area governments to become better administrators, of crisis prevention and recovery, UNDP helps

E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y i x address the causes of violent conflict through projects or programmes in support of local development programmes that promote partici- governance. For example, in Bhutan, UNDP has pation, consensus-building and the non-violent contributed to the country’s successful transi- management of conflict. It advocates for early tion to a democratic constitutional monarchy recovery through the strengthening of post-crisis by consistently responding to requests from the governance, facilitating effective local-level Royal Government of Bhutan. However, UNDP early recovery, and supporting coordinated early has not always been sufficiently pro-active, in recovery planning. In post-conflict recovery and part, because of the absence, in many settings, disaster recovery phases, UNDP assists countries of a longer-term strategic plan or road map that have experienced severe disruptions in critical drawn up (in consultation with government and national or local capacities, by strengthening non-state stakeholders) for UNDP support to post-crisis or post-disaster governance functions strengthen local governance. Notwithstanding and restoring the foundations for development at the frequent absence of such plans, there are the local level. numerous instances where UNDP has been able to respond swiftly and effectively to emerging or changing circumstances, such as Georgia’s MAIN FINDINGS fast-moving reform agenda, to national requests for extending support to local governments and Regional Programme communities by setting up regional offices, as in UNDP support for local governance reforms Peru, and area offices, as in Uzbekistan. has been highly relevant. UNDP country programme documents, which include support The absence of a unifying framework for local to local governance reforms, have typically governance and guidance notes drawing on been drawn up in partnership with national UNDP cumulative experience in different Governments. This has ensured both government political settings has tended to limit the ownership and alignment with national priorities organization’s capacity to adequately respond and national development and poverty reduction to the requirements of strengthening local plans. The correspondence with national priori- governance. Many of the commonly used ties has been further ensured by the United terms in the context of local governance— Nations Development Assistance Framework local governments, local authorities, subnational process, in which UNDP plays an active and governments, local development, local economic central role, and which has provided a strategic development, local area development, local framework of cooperation between the overall human development—have meant different activities of all United Nations agencies. Beyond things to different people within and outside broader programmatic relevance, UNDP activi- UNDP. Similarly, the dynamics of decentral- ties have frequently been relevant in addressing ization and local governance processes have specific development concerns, both at the policy not always been fully understood. In the and operational levels, relating to strengthening absence of a unifying framework and common democratic representation and participation as understanding, UNDP has not been able to fully well as the delivery of services. leverage its potential comparative advantage. UNDP relevance has been further diminished UNDP has responded positively to national by the failure to develop adequate knowledge Governments in extending support for local products that distil experiences of strengthening governance reforms; however, since that is local governance in different settings to inform demand-driven, it has at times resulted in an policymakers and practitioners in governments ad hoc rather than strategic approach. UNDP and communities. has often responded positively to specific requests from national Governments and formulated

x E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y UNDP support for local governance has UNDP-supported local governance initiatives effectively created entitlements through being regarded as innovative and scaled up, as in increased democratic representation and Cambodia, Mozambique and Nepal. However, it contributed to improved service delivery. There has not been atypical for local governance initia- have been numerous instances where UNDP has tives to be set up as ‘boutique projects’ upon the effectively generated numerous positive benefits. strong initiative of one or several individuals In many countries, UNDP has helped build within UNDP, external experts or government capacities of state and non-state actors, empower officials and politicians. Such projects have not local communities, given voice and representation been scaled up, partly because they tended to be to the socially disadvantaged, built trust between cost-ineffective and there has been little national government and people, promoted dialogue ownership. Interventions have remained pilots on local governance, improved service delivery or one-time-only demonstration projects when and developed different models of community they have not been backed by sufficient advocacy contribution, financing and participation. Several and stakeholders’ involvement during the design, interventions for the inclusion of indigenous planning and implementation stages; and have and marginalized groups have been effective, as not necessarily tied in with larger efforts at have interventions extending support to local reforming legal and policy frameworks and public governance under conditions of conflict recovery administration, or with resource mobilization and prevention. and management efforts. Moreover, UNDP has tended to view its interventions in local There have been instances in several countries governance as ends rather than as necessary means of UNDP successes in promoting gender issues to an end. In Ecuador, for instance, the UNDP in local governance; however, a strategic and and UN-HABITAT programme for enhancing systematic effort at mainstreaming gender institutional capacities for urban development concerns into local governance has been management by linking land survey maps with missing. UNDP has been actively promoting land registers made a ‘significant contribution’ gender issues in local governance in a number by creating certainty regarding land property, of countries, but systematic gender analysis of legalizing properties in urban areas and increasing local governance interventions has not regularly municipal revenues from property tax. However, been conducted. Though there has been recogni- it is not clear whether or not this led to increased tion that women’s empowerment has meant social investments, reduced urban poverty and more than their participation in electoral politics, improved service delivery for the poor. Overall, a appropriate indicators for assessing improve- focus on activities, processes and outputs without ments in gender relations and greater equality in a long-term vision and strategy has led to UNDP the benefits flowing to women and men have not often losing sight of people and their human been worked out for most local governance initia- development. tives. Similarly, capacity-building initiatives have targeted women but adequate data have not been Context-specific factors have played a critical gathered to assess whether or not women have role in achieving the effectiveness of local benefited from greater awareness and training. governance initiatives. Political stability, the dynamics of political parties, the presence and UNDP-supported local governance projects engagement of non-state actors, the degree of have, on occasion, been innovative and scaled local ownership, the extent of trust between local up; however, in other instances, UNDP initia- institutions and the public, and people’s access tives have remained high profile ‘boutique to local governments and other institutions have projects’, pilots or one-time-only localized been among key context-specific factors that initiatives and have not made a broader develop- have directly affected local governance projects. ment contribution. There are several instances of Effectiveness has been boosted by strong support

E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y x i of the political leadership and the existence of and where UNDP has played a (more) substan- the right incentives for central and provincial tive programmatic role—has added to UNDP governments to decentralize and empower local credibility in the field. Project partners, by and governments. Interventions to improve service large, have agreed that UNDP procedures and delivery have been more effective when UNDP processes have been ‘rather agile and unencum- has simultaneously extended support for capacity- bered’ compared with those of the Government. building, improving accessibility of service users, At the same time, there have been frequent raising awareness and promoting outreach, and complaints that UNDP procedures have been when local governance reforms have had the lengthy, especially those linked to procurement, backing of strong national governance legislative causing delays and adversely affecting the ability and policy frameworks as well as government of UNDP to deliver against results. In some resources, both financial and human. In conflict cases, a mismatch of funding and programme situations, factors positively influencing outcomes needs—i.e., country offices having spread their have included the presence of a strong peace resources too thin across an ambitious country infrastructure made up of networks, communi- programme—has adversely affected the efficiency ties, and highly trained human resources for of operations. UNDP has also often not been peacebuilding, the strategic engagement by present at the subnational level and UNDP UNDP of various people’s groups, govern- staff has therefore frequently been overstretched ment agencies and local government units, the when it has come to dealing with local govern- existence of peace agreements and active civil ments. Moreover, UNDP has not always had society participation. the capacity to provide the robust, professional responses necessary to handle complicated and Deficiencies in the results framework developed deep-rooted challenges of local governance. by UNDP have been a common factor affecting Finally, inflexibility in modifying projects to accountability of local governance initia- changing circumstances as well as the lack of tives. Many UNDP-supported projects in local synergy between similar projects within a country governance have not had clear statements of and across thematic clusters have also constituted results backed by corresponding indicators and factors limiting efficiency. markers of progress. Outcome statements have frequently been too general and unclear or not Insufficient attention to key design, advocacy meaningful and measurable. Indicators at the and implementation elements have contrib- outcome and output levels have not been clear and uted to a weak record of sustainability. UNDP have lacked baselines and targets. These deficien- initiatives in local governance have been more cies have compounded weak monitoring in the sustainable when the organization has worked area of local governance and have hampered a simultaneously on legislative frameworks for systematic impact and outcome evaluation of decentralization, nurtured effective partnerships the UNDP contribution to strengthening local with the Government, community-based organi- governance. zations (CBOs) and communities, and developed appropriate methodologies and approaches that While UNDP has delivered goods and services could be replicated. On the other hand, several in line with administrative procedures, its factors have adversely affected sustainability. efficiency in supporting local governance initia- Weak risk analysis (political, administra- tives has been adversely affected by cumbersome tive, social, corruption, etc.), poor advocacy procurement processes, a weak field presence to promote broad-based ownership, insufficient and rigid project management. The transpar- micro-macro linkages and unrealistic timelines ency of UNDP procedures across projects—where have prevented adoption of projects for scaling- UNDP support has been restricted to administra- up nationwide. Sustainability has been adversely tion of funds or to management of procurement affected when resource implications have not been

x i i E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y fully factored in and this has resulted in insuffi- proximity to government has most often been cient capacity-building efforts within government seen as an advantage, there have been times and among non-state actors. The limited transfer when it adversely affected the image of UNDP, of in-house knowledge on local governance to especially in the eyes of non-state actors. UNDP other units within UNDP and to partners has has not always made the most of its proximity contributed to this. In addition, the withdrawal with the Government to push the agenda of of funds and staff at the end of the project as well local governance, particularly with line ministries as the high turnover of staff both in government other than the one dealing with local governance. (at all levels), within partner non-governmental For instance, a formal consideration of energy organizations (NGOs) and within UNDP have has been largely missing from the decentraliza- adversely affected sustainability. tion and sector-specific policies of several least developed and sub-Saharan African countries Sustainability of local governance initiatives in which UNDP has worked. UNDP has also has been more difficult to achieve in conflict not capitalized on the potential linkages it could situations. Political instability in contexts of have built with other United Nations agencies to conflict, emergency and recovery has jeopar- promote decentralization and local governance dized sustainability. Strengthening the policy within different line ministries. Although environment for peacebuilding has often required improvements have been seen with the drive for efforts to address key conflict issues, such as One UN reforms, modalities of joint funding natural resource extraction, equitable distribu- and programming for local governance have tion of resources, injustice, and marginalization still been in an experimental phase. Although of disadvantaged sectors. At the national level, country offices have experimented with a variety peace and development efforts have failed to take of different modalities to improve effectiveness root when local governance reforms have not been of operations at the subnational and local levels, accompanied by sufficient allocation of resources; UNDP has not been successful in developing and at the local level, service delivery, capacity- appropriate modalities for working with provin- building for peace, and confidence-building cial, district and local governments. among groups and sectors have not always taken place on a continuing basis. Sustainability has UNDP has not played a sufficiently pro-active also been hindered by a weak policy environ- role in engaging with civil society, thus ment for peacebuilding at the national level, the distracting from efforts to strengthen local inconclusive status of peace negotiations with governance. The volume of partnerships with rebel groups, episodes of armed conflict that civil society has been high, there have been set back the gains of peace on the ground, and many levels of engagement, and partnerships leadership shifts among partners resulting from have, in many cases, been strong. UNDP has elections, political appointments and institutional created effective platforms for exchange of ideas changes that cause delays or adjustments in and experiences, helped to instill trust between programme implementation. government and communities, and contributed to enhancing the legitimacy of governments in UNDP has built good working relations the eyes of non-state actors. UNDP support has with central Governments on issues of local assumed a special relevance in conflict-affected governance; however, it has been less successful countries, when it has contributed to supporting in establishing strong linkages with sectoral line infrastructure repair and building or creating ministries and subnational levels of government, relationships between different levels of govern- thereby undermining the potential contribution ment and civil society. However, UNDP has yet of UNDP. Links with central Governments to work out effective mechanisms for partnering have been particularly strong, based on a long with non-state actors. Most country offices have history of cooperation in many countries. While lacked a long-term strategic focus and plan for

E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y x i i i engagement with civil society organizations, and been able to leverage respective expertise and downstream service delivery efforts have been resources in support of local governance reforms greater than upstream policy participation. This particularly because of their perceived political has limited the impact that local governance neutrality and the long-standing trust built with reforms could have had on enhancing human national Governments. At the country level, development. the UNCDF local governance portfolio has generally been well aligned and integrated with UNDP has cooperated well with other develop- that of UNDP. Nonetheless, there have been ment partners in strengthening local governance instances where UNCDF and UNDP have not initiatives and has often assumed a leadership been able to make the most of the opportuni- role in supporting donor coordination; however, ties for supporting local governance. This has opportunities for closer integration of partner occurred largely because roles and responsibili- efforts have been missed. The role of UNDP ties of the two agencies have not been clarified, vis-à-vis other donors and development partners understood and communicated. Other gaps have has varied from country to country. It has, in some been evident. The failure to jointly develop instances, assisted Governments with aid coordi- strategic plans for local governance at the country nation. In many countries, UNDP has partnered level (based on an assessment of the historical with other United Nations agencies such as the and political background, the presence and role United Nations Children’s Fund, the International of other donors supporting local governance, and Labour Organization, the World Health of risks), the neglect of advocacy and lobbying Organization and the United Nations Population functions (both within the United Nations and Fund to promote local governance reforms. Often also outside), insufficient attention to analysis, being the first to have initiated work in support of documentation and dissemination of lessons local governance, UNDP has assumed a natural learned have limited the impact on capacity- leadership role, and in many countries, has been building and sustainability. There has usually instrumental in bringing in other donors and been strong evidence of cooperation between helping Governments coordinate donor assistance UNCDF and UNDP at the country level, and pooling resources. In Cambodia, for instance, based on an understanding of the comparative UNDP has established partnerships with United advantages and mutual benefits. But that has not Nations agencies, multilateral development banks, necessarily been the case at other levels of the bilateral donors and international NGOs. While organization. the coordination role of UNDP has often been appreciated, it has not necessarily meant that There have been several examples of effective UNDP subnational and local initiatives have been partnerships between UNDP and UNIFEM meaningfully coordinated or integrated with other in the area of local governance; however, such projects or activities supported by other agencies, partnerships have been opportunistic and have or even more substantially integrated with UNDP not been well defined or strategic. Owing to the action at other levels. complementary nature of support that UNDP and the United Nations Development Fund for UNDP and the United Nations Capital Women (UNIFEM) have offered, the two organi- Development Fund (UNCDF) have worked zations have worked side-by-side in many countries together effectively on local governance issues and, in some instances, such as in Barbados and in least developed countries; however, respec- the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, tive roles and responsibilities have not always have been involved in successful joint initia- been clear, which has led to inefficiencies. tives. Despite this close proximity at the country The strategic and results agendas of UNDP level, cooperation arrangements have not usually and UNCDF have been integrated within the been strategic or well defined. At the corporate Strategic Plan. Working together, they have level, cooperation between UNDP and UNIFEM

x i v E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y has been somewhat lacking. Competition, at Despite the credibility and trust it enjoys with times, between UNDP and UNIFEM for limited national Governments, UNDP has not system- resources, as well as confusion among both staff atically attempted to engage in dialogue with and stakeholders about the division of responsi- all the ministries with which it partners to more bilities between UNDP and UNIFEM, has been broadly promote the practice of local governance. responsible for this. In most instances, UNDP interactions have been confined to the particular ministry promoting UNDP and the United Nations Volunteers local governance. (UNV) have worked together closely on local governance initiatives, although the benefits Although virtually all bureaux and programme of volunteerism have remained unclear and units deal with issues of local governance, UNDP controversial in UNDP. UNDP and UNV have has not been able to establish systems that promote had a long tradition of working as partners in better communication and exchange of ideas and local governance. There has been considerable experience across its various bureaux and their overlap between UNV work and the activities sub-units. As a result, mainstreaming and integra- of UNDP in local governance. However, while tion of the idea of local governance across practice UNV has been a part of UNDP, the promotion areas have been uneven, limited and deficient. of volunteerism has not figured in the UNDP That has been particularly so at headquarters, strategic results framework. There have been where the work of the various bureaux and their other deficiencies in the UNDP-UNV working sub-units remains compartmentalized. arrangements. Projects have been affected by a lack of clarity and common understanding Conclusion 2: The contribution of UNDP between UNDP and UNV of their respective has been limited by the absence of a common roles and responsibilities. In some projects, UNVs understanding and sufficient corporate have been unclear about reporting lines. Other guidance on strengthening local governance. projects have suffered from a lack of sufficient commitment from and engagement by UNDP. There has been little consistency and common understanding of local governance within CONCLUSIONS UNDP. Ambiguity has surrounded the usage of terms such as local development, local economic Conclusion 1: UNDP has not fully capital- development, local area development, local ized on the comparative advantage it has in territorial development, regional development, strengthening local governance. local human development, and local sustainable development, and local governments, subnational The analytical framework of human develop- governments and local authorities. Similarly, ment and human security as well as human rights whereas decentralization and local governance developed and championed by UNDP (that are different processes, the dynamics of both draws attention to enhancing people’s capabili- processes have not always been fully understood. ties) gives the organization a distinct advantage Available toolkits and briefing notes have offered in advocating and promoting the practice of limited guidance on a few topics, but have local governance and is a powerful context for not provided the overarching framework within local governance reforms. However, UNDP has which to address issues of local governance. not always used human development as an organizing frame for strengthening and assessing Conclusion 3: Outcomes from UNDP support the outcomes of local governance initiatives. to local governance have been mixed. Whereas Nor have these perspectives been systemati- some initiatives have had a significant national cally integrated into efforts at promoting local impact, others have tended to be ad hoc and governance reforms. isolated, not systematic and strategic.

E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y x v Bureaux within UNDP have showcased numerous not pro-actively supported non-state actors by examples of support to local governance that have encouraging establishment of necessary legal and been innovative and effective and have benefited regulatory frameworks, building their capacity, a large number of local communities. There have and creating national and subnational NGO been instances where pilot projects have been platforms for enhancing their contribution to scaled up nationally and the UNDP leadership strengthening local governance. As a result, their role has been widely acknowledged. At the same potential to work closely for the empowerment of time, there have also been projects that have poor and disadvantaged communities and to bring had very limited impact for a variety of reasons. about improved accountability in service delivery UNDP has often failed to ensure national by correcting imbalances and inefficiencies in ownership (not merely government ownership) resource allocations has not been tapped fully. of local government reforms. What has been responsible for the limited impact has been the Conclusion 5: UNDP has not been able to tap failure to develop a strategic plan and vision for the extensive knowledge on local governance countries of UNDP support for local governance within the organization for better programming. for the constructive engagement of governments and non-state actors. Even where such a plan and Few institutions engaged in local governance vision have existed, faulty design, limited buy-in could have the rich experience that UNDP has from Governments, poor advocacy, insufficient in the field. Despite the advantage of working resources for scaling up, and inadequate capacity in over a 150 countries and in very diverse within UNDP and outside have limited the settings, UNDP has not yet established itself as a impact of local governance reforms. knowledge organization where the experience of its managers is systematically captured, analysed, Conclusion 4: UNDP has not paid sufficient organized, distilled into collective intelligence attention to establishing entitlements for men and made available for use within and outside the and women, especially for the poor and margin- organization. Country offices have not been able alized, to ensuring effective responsiveness to tap effectively into the wealth of UNDP experi- from subnational governments to demands ence either through the regional service centres made by communities, and to engaging with or headquarters. Communication between and non-state actors. within bureaux and other programme units has also been limited. Although virtually all bureaux Local governance initiatives have sought to and programme units have dealt with issues of improve the lives of the poor, especially the local governance, the different bureaux (especially marginalized, the socially discriminated and the Bureau for Development Policy, the Bureau disadvantaged groups in society. Such a focus for Crisis Prevention and Recovery and the on men and women and their well-being—the Partnership Bureau) have pursued different essence of the human development approach— approaches and have had only limited coopera- has often been lost in the preoccupation of UNDP tion and contact with each other. Most groups with activities, processes and project objectives. and divisions seem to have been working in their As a result, UNDP local governance initiatives own silos without using local governance as the have often shied away from an explicit focus on common platform to come together and think improving representation and empowerment of strategically. Systems have not been fully in place poor and marginalized groups or service delivery for disseminating and sharing learning within for the disadvantaged. Furthermore, UNDP has the organization and with external partners. yet to crystallize the lessons learned from various Knowledge products have not been produced experiences and work out effective modalities of regularly and systematically to cover the wide support and partnership with subnational govern- range of topics under local governance. Formal ments and non-state actors. Similarly, UNDP has and informal networks have been established, but

x v i E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y they have not been sufficiently servicing managers help UNDP to look beyond processes and within UNDP or policymakers and practitioners projects that promote participation, market-led outside the organization. Failure to tap effectively development, biodiversity, etc., to more tangible into the knowledge base has deeply hindered the outcomes such as political empowerment, greater effectiveness of the organization in its efforts at voice for the disadvantaged, transparency and strengthening local governance. accountability as well as promotion of sustain- able livelihoods for the poor, peace and security, Conclusion 6: The absence of a strategic and conflict prevention. framework of cooperation with its associated funds and programmes at the corporate level Such an overarching framework for local as well as at the country level has limited the governance should be informed by learning from potential to maximize results. the rich and diverse experience of UNDP in this area. While developing such a framework, Joint programming and collaboration have it will be important to keep in mind that not developed into a strategic partnership for a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach may dilute the advancing the respective corporate missions relevance, hamper local ownership and adversely based on a careful assessment of opportuni- affect the sustainability of local governance ties, roles and responsibilities. Despite the long reforms. Guidance notes need to be updated and tradition of partnering with UNCDF and UNV, revised based on the wealth of existing UNDP joint efforts at strengthening local governance knowledge and experience in the field of local have been constrained by the frequent absence governance, and new ones need to be developed of strategic partnerships, particularly at the to address different aspects of local governance country level. Even where such agreements have and decentralization in different contexts. existed, collaboration has often been reduced to a management arrangement for project implemen- Recommendation 2: In developing new pilot tation. At the project level, the absence of a initiatives on local governance, UNDP should mutually agreed upon framework specifying be more rigorous in ensuring that they can be, the roles and responsibilities of the partners at and are, upscaled in support of broader policy the country level has limited the effectiveness of and programmatic development results. the partnership. UNDP should invest more thoroughly in the RECOMMENDATIONS development of pilot initiatives in order to ensure their success. At the outset, that would involve Recommendation 1: UNDP should more conducting in-depth problem analysis and explicitly and effectively mainstream local involving the central Government, subnational governance into all its programmatic areas of governments, local communities, non-state support by developing a coherent framework actors and other development partners in order that is firmly grounded in the practice of human to establish the initiative’s potential for success. development. That approach will facilitate the development of mechanisms that will support the upscaling UNDP should develop a unified framework that of the pilot initiative and the sustainability identifies and establishes the many linkages of the of its benefits. It would imply the establish- essential constituents of local governance with ment of rigorous planning frameworks, including human development. Central to such an exercise meaningful indicators, baselines and targets. will be the articulation of theories of change that It would also require regular monitoring and underscore the different connections between evaluation, including of unintended effects, and various local governance reform measures and involving all stakeholders, in order to learn from an expansion of human capabilities. That should experience as the project is implemented. Finally,

E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y x v i i exit strategies should be clearly defined and the associated funds and programmes. In order implemented and lessons learned documented as to improve the effectiveness of their partner- upscaling, in most cases, will be led by national ship, at the country level, UNDP and UNCDF authorities with the support of other partners. should jointly develop a long-term strategic plan for local governance which is consistent with Recommendation 3: UNDP should more and integral to national development plans and pro-actively and systematically collate, codify, priorities. That would help in more systemati- analyse, distil and disseminate the lessons cally addressing deficiencies in capacity-building learned from the extensive experience it has in and resource mobilization that arise and adversely the field of local governance. affect sustainability. Better understanding and communication of the roles and responsibilities UNDP needs to more systematically produce of UNDP and UNCDF would help to reduce knowledge products that distil the lessons learned inefficiencies in operations. They should work from its vast experience in local governance across on improving advocacy and lobbying functions, diverse and difficult settings. The extensive body both within the United Nations and outside. of knowledge regarding local governance should be properly codified, collated and analysed. The UNDP partnership with UNV at the Where such documentation and analyses exist, country level should move beyond project collab- effective mechanisms should be established for oration and become more strategic, based on bureaux and managers within UNDP and outside a shared long-term vision of strengthening to tap them effectively and systematically. local governance. UNDP needs to make a more explicit commitment to the mandates of Recommendation 4: UNDP should strengthen UNV, and not view the partnership merely as its partnerships with its associated funds and a management arrangement. In other words, programmes in order to enhance the effective- UNDP should commit itself to partnering with ness of its initiatives in local governance. UNV, on mainstreaming volunteerism for the many benefits that such mainstreaming brings UNDP should take measures to further strengthen to people, while ensuring that the deployment and streamline corporate arrangements for of volunteers builds local capacities in a sustain- deepening local governance in partnerships with able manner.

x v i i i E X e c U t i v e S U m m A r y Chapter 1 RATIONALE, SCOPE AND APPROACH

1.1 Background years, and more intensively since 2000. Three corporate objectives of the first Multi-Year The evaluation of the UNDP contribution to Funding Framework (MYFF 1) which spanned strengthening local governance was approved as 2000–2003 related directly or indirectly to part of the programme of work of the UNDP local governance: (i) strengthen capacity of Evaluation Office at the September 2008 session key governance institutions for people-centered of the Executive Board.1 The present report development and foster social cohesion; (ii) promote sets out the findings of the evaluation which decentralization that supports participatory local assesses the relevance, responsiveness, effective- governance, strengthens local organizations ness, efficiency and sustainability of UNDP work and empowers communities; and (iii) promote in the area of local governance. efficiency and accountability in a public sector that serves all citizens. The second Multi-Year Funding Local governance and decentralization are Framework (MYFF 2) for 2004–2007 placed integral to establishing democratic systems that emphasis on: (i) decentralization policies including advance human development of women and fiscal and legal frameworks; (ii) institutions and men. Democratic processes matter for human policies to improve local governance in urban development because people everywhere want and rural areas and improve rural-urban relations; to be free to determine their destinies, express (iii) capacities and partnerships of local their views and participate in the decisions that governance actors in urban and rural areas for shape their lives. These capabilities are just as policy formulation, service delivery and resource important for widening people’s choices as being management; and (iv) women’s participation in able to read or enjoy good health. Even when decentralized governance as decision-makers, democratic institutions are firmly established, implementers and managers. citizens often feel powerless to influence national politics. The solution lies in the widening and deepening of democracy, a key goal of strength- The UNDP Strategic Plan for 2008–2013 2 ening local governance. makes frequent references to local governance. It emphasizes the importance of civic engage- From a human development perspective, ment and using local government ‘capacity and promoting local governance is intrinsically resources to deliver effective economic and social important as it enhances people’s capabilities policies that promote human development and to participate in decision-making. And it is also manage the public services that citizens expect.’ instrumentally significant because of the contri- It commits UNDP to ‘identify policy options, bution improved local governance can make to undertake diagnostic studies and conduct service delivery and standards of living. training to build local and national capacity.’ It affirms the need to restore the foundations UNDP has supported local governance and for local development for crisis prevention and decentralization processes for the best part of 30 recovery by strengthening local capacities for

1 Decision 2008/31 adopted by the Executive Board at its second regular session, 2008. 2 Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, ‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008–2011, Accelerating Global Progress on Human Development’, Updated Pursuant to Decision 2007/32’, June 2008.

C HAP t e r 1 . R A t i o n A l e , s c o P E A n d A P P r o A C H 1 development, management, resolutions and poverty reduction, energy and environment as planning. Similarly, several priority areas for well as crisis prevention and recovery: UNDP support in energy and environment have Local governance for promoting democratic been identified including capacity strengthening representation and establishing entitlements. of national and local authorities to undertake participatory planning processes, assessment and Local governance for improved provision of adoption of effective service delivery systems. goods and services.

Both require a number of initiatives including 1.2 Objectives and Scope civil society engagement, increased engagement of The principal objectives of the evaluation are to: marginalized groups, and capacity building of local (i) ascertain the relevance, efficiency, effective- governments and other partners to organize, finance ness and sustainability of UNDP support to local and ensure equitable delivery of services. It is not governance; (ii) clarify the strategic role of UNDP always the case that UNDP gives equal importance vis-à-vis other development partners in providing to both these dimensions in every country. local governance-related support to programme These interventions could be expected to result countries; and (iii) provide actionable recommen- in increased responsiveness of local institutions, dations on UNDP strategies, polices, approaches increased transparency and accountability, greater and interventions for local governance. The equity and inclusion and access to equitable and evaluation is both retrospective and formative and non-discriminatory services. This could ultimately covers programmes during the period 2000–2009. have an impact on enhancing human capabilities. The evaluation covers relevant programmes at The analytical framework used for the evaluation is the global, regional and country levels, covering schematically presented in Figure 1, below. Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Local governance means different things to different people. Some see it largely as processes of decentralization, while others regard it as a catch-all for everything that happens at the community level. On the other hand, some discount the importance given to community- level outcomes and emphasize the need for national legislation and overall governance and democratic reforms without which local governance cannot improve. As a result, there is insufficient clarity and agreement on the outcomes of local governance initiatives, making evaluation difficult. For disaster-risk reduction, local-govern- ment support depends upon national-level efforts at decentralization, legislation and institutions for disaster-risk management.

Bearing in mind the above challenge, the scope of the evaluation has been limited to examining two critical functions of local governance that cut across the UNDP focus areas of democratic governance,

2 C HAP t e r 1 . R A t i o n A l e , s c o P E A n d A P P r o A C H 1.3 Evaluation Criteria Partnerships: The evaluation has limited itself to assessing key partnerships with The evaluation assesses local governance the associated funds and programmes that interventions using the following criteria: report to the Administrator of UNDP: the Relevance and strategic positioning: The United Nations Capital Development Fund evaluation seeks to draw conclusions as to (UNCDF); the United Nations Development how UNDP has positioned itself vis-à-vis Fund for Women (UNIFEM); and United Governments and their programmes as well as Nations Volunteers (UNV). The evalua- other development agencies and civil society tion also assesses the complementary role of organizations to maximise its relevance and other UNDP units, including the Bureau for leverage within the sphere of local governance. Development Policy (BDP), the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR), the Responsiveness: Local governance is Bureau of Partnership (PB) and the regional as political as it is technical. Adaptability bureaux, in providing support or managing and rapidity of action and responsiveness initiatives in local governance. to changing conditions and needs are as important to achieving lasting results as sound design. The evaluation assesses implementa- 1.4 Evaluability and Limitations tion from this standpoint and draws lessons from different modalities applied. Explaining causality and why an intervention has failed is not easy even if sufficient information is Effectiveness: The evaluation assesses available about design and context. For instance, performance of the programme in terms of increased participation in electoral politics may its achievement of results at the outcome not yield the desired results of correcting existing level. The evaluation also assesses the extent imbalances in allocating resources, ensuring of national ownership, how UNDP has gone benefits flow to the poor or ending corrup- about maximising it and the way in which it tion. Much would depend upon whether a has affected the results achieved. national framework for decentralization exists, Efficiency: The evaluation assesses the and upon the incentives to national level politi- efficiency of operations in terms of timeliness cians, bureaucrats and service providers to devolve in implementation as well as, to the extent power and resources. It would also be contingent possible, of resource utilization. upon the quality of public administration systems and motivating officials to enhance perfor- Sustainability: Local governance pro­grammes mance, eliminate leakage, improve efficiency and involve long-term capacity building. The eliminate corruption. Similarly, citizens may be sustainability of programmes is centrally unwilling to participate in electoral politics even important to the outcomes and impact of when they are educated and aware of their rights such programmes. The evaluation assesses and entitlements. This can happen if people the sustainability of UNDP interventions are disillusioned with their political leaders or if and factors that enhance or undermine they believe that their participation will make no long-term sustainability of institutions and difference to the quality of local governance. of local residents. Local governance-related outcomes depend on In addition, the following two dimensions are the context and design of interventions. Contexts reviewed: vary from country to country, within a country, Gender: The evaluation assesses the extent to from one region to another, from one province which UNDP cooperation in the implemen- to another and from one locality to another. tation of local governance has affected the role The wide variations in context make it extremely and economic and social status of women. difficult to evaluate outcomes in terms of

C HAP t e r 1 . R A t i o n A l e , s c o P E A n d A P P r o A C H 3 effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability across outcome and project evaluations remains poor. locations and over time. For instance, opportuni- Only nine out of the 24 outcome evaluations were ties and limitations of the normative frameworks rated by the Evaluation Office as being satisfac- in each country delineate not only the levels tory in terms of quality. As a result, the evaluation of decentralization (including delegation and has had to rely on interviews and triangulation as deconcentration) and local governance but the a method for verifying evidence. impact and scope of outcomes as well. Similarly, the success of efforts to improve democratic 1.5 Evaluation Approach participation would depend on a number of factors including the nature of local politics, Bearing in mind the evaluability-related challenges, the presence of interest groups, the history of evidence was gathered from a meta-analysis political parties and the degree of competition of UNDP experience with strengthening local among contestants. It would be further affected governance in 69 countries across the different by context-specific factors such as the levels regions (see Annex 3). of education and awareness of the voters, the degree of social and economic inequalities, and The evaluation relies on two main sources of data: the extent of discrimination against minority (i) in-depth country analysis; and (ii) interviews and other disadvantaged communities. Outcomes with key personnel in UNDP and other partner would also depend upon how well even standard agencies (see Annex 4). The team also undertook interventions (such as increasing participation in the following types of country-level analyses. elections) are designed and tailored to address The evaluation draws extensively on informa- the specific cultural, social and historical features tion about local governance initiatives from of the local environment. Evaluation becomes Assessment of Development Results (ADR) difficult in the absence of sufficient knowledge relating to 38 countries undertaken by the about local contexts and design specificities. Evaluation Office since 2000.

The evaluation also faced challenges related to the The evaluation draws on the findings from weaknesses in the results frameworks (in terms 24 countries of outcome evaluations of local of clear outcome statements) and the absence governance programmes. of sufficiently robust measures of outcomes and A desk review of 50 countries from the appropriate indicators that can track progress in different regions was undertaken drawing local governance. Moreover, the evaluation has on relevant country programme and project been limited by the non-availability of special- documents, progress and completion reports, ized data on the evaluation of specific local results-oriented annual reports, national governance initiatives. Obtaining valid and strategy documents and reports, relevant comparable data posed a challenge, partly due reports by partners, as well as evaluation to the complexity of the theme to be evaluated, reports. In 30 of the selected countries, more and partly because a broad theme such as local than 10 percent of the total programme governance is not readily captured by UNDP budget was devoted to local governance- monitoring and evaluation systems. Ideally, a related activities reported under service line thematic evaluation requires a global monitoring 2.6 during the MYFF 2 period. Another 20 framework that collects financial and programme countries were proposed by regional bureaux information from all countries that have relevant and others as having significant interventions programme activities. This was not available. It in local governance that were not reported was not possible to identify and obtain appropriate under service line 2.6, but would have been baseline data to assess outcomes. The evaluation reported under other service lines related to was heavily dependent on secondary sources governance, poverty, environment or crisis and meta-evaluations. However, the quality of prevention and recovery.

4 C HAP t e r 1 . R A t i o n A l e , s c o P E A n d A P P r o A C H A subset of 11 countries out of the 50 personnel in agencies directly collaborating were randomly identified for a more with UNDP on local governance, bilateral in-depth examination: Bangladesh, Bhutan, donors, and non-governmental organisa- Brazil, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, tion or agency counterparts involved with Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Tajikistan the UNDP local governance projects and and Uzbekistan. Detailed reviews of the programmes; and quality of local governance results statements Key personnel at UNDP headquarters, and corresponding indicators contained in regional offices and in other partner organi- the Country Programme Documents were zations were interviewed to validate findings conducted. Moreover, telephone interviews and to gather insights into the operational were conducted with key personnel in and other dimensions of UNDP efforts at many of these countries to validate some of strengthening local governance. the findings emerging from the detailed desk review. In order to ensure consistency and a common Six country case studies for illustration: six approach to qualitative data analysis, relevant countries were selected (to represent different tools were developed, including an evaluation regions, different levels of human develop- matrix with key evaluation questions (see Annex ment and different settings) for gaining a 2), a common understanding of key stakeholders better on-the-ground understanding of the and partners as well as guidelines for approaching way local governance initiatives play out at the them, basic interview protocols, a template country level: Bolivia, Comoros, Mali, Papua for recording and reporting on interviews and New Guinea, Sierra Leone and Ukraine. standard case study report formats, and so on. Data from different sources, including the A series of semi-structured interviews were country case studies, review of outcome and conducted with: project evaluations, headquarters and regional centre interviews, were synthesized with a view Representatives of political parties, think to answering the key questions contained in the tanks, civil society activists, women’s groups, evaluation matrix. independent intellectuals (including journal- ists and academics) and other multilateral This report comprises four chapters. Chapter 2 and bilateral agencies not directly collabo- describes local governance-related development rating with UNDP on local governance with challenges in UNDP programme countries and a view to obtaining broad information on the provides an overview of some of UNDP key performance of local governance efforts in related responses. Chapter 3 analyzes UNDP the country; performance in supporting local governance, Government officials, direct beneficiaries based on the evaluation criteria set out above. of UNDP local governance programmes, Chapter 4 provides the overall conclusions and UNDP project personnel, and UNDP recommendations of the evaluation. Country Office personnel, United Nations

C HAP t e r 1 . R A t i o n A l e , s c o P E A n d A P P r o A C H 5 6 C HAP t e r 1 . R A t i o n A l e , s c o P E A n d A P P r o A C H Chapter 2 CONTEXT AND UNDP RESPONSE

2.1 Context people most when local politics is democratic, with strong structures and open participatory The demands on UNDP to assist countries with practices. But often, political parties are disorga- local governance reforms are rapidly growing. nized; representatives find it difficult to maintain This is because of the increasing realization close contact with their constituencies; oversight that such reforms are critical in bringing about and regulatory agencies lack well-trained staff; transformations in the lives of men and women, and bureaucrats are under-paid, overworked or especially among poor, discriminated and both. Far from strengthening local democracy, 3 disadvantaged communities. local governments can actually reinforce the power and influence of local elites. Local officials Strengthening local governance and decentral- are no less immune to elite capture than officials ization can potentially contribute to enhancing in central Governments. Local democratic human development. Decentralizing power from institutions in many countries are overburdened. the centre to the provinces, districts and villages They lack the resources and competencies to enables people to participate in decision-making function effectively. Even where arrangements directly. Local officials and politicians can be for accountability exist, they do not function well much more open to public scrutiny than national in many democracies. They do not promote the Governments—and more accountable to the interests of most people; and they do an even communities and individuals they are meant to worse job protecting the interests of minority serve. Local governments, being closer to the groups, women and poor people. people, can be more responsive to local needs, make better use of resources and direct them Decentralization does not also automatically towards the provision of basic social services. produce efficiency gains. If poorly planned Local governance can also potentially enhance and executed, decentralization can add to costs efficiency and cut costs. If local communities rather than reduce them. One common danger assume ownership, they are likely to keep a tight is duplicating layers of administration at national lid on expenditures and to use the resources more regional and local levels. Another risk is that the efficiently. With projects monitored locally, lines benefits of decentralization can be offset by the of communication should be shorter, with fewer losses in economy of scale. While decentralization delays due to conflicts between project staff and may in some cases help raise standards of service, the beneficiaries. there is also the danger of letting standards slip especially if appropriately trained and qualified However, as the Human Development Reports staff is not locally available. Decentralization can note, local governance by itself cannot guarantee also aggravate existing inequalities and dispari- human development outcomes. It can help poor ties in society if more of the services are funded

3 This section draws on the following: Pranab Bardhan and Dileep Mookherjee (ed) ‘Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries – A Comparative Perspective’, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2006; World Bank, `Decentralization in Client Countries: An Evaluation of World Bank Support 1990 -2007’, World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, Washington D.C., 2008; OECD, `Lessons Learned on Donors Support to Decentralization and Local Governance’, DAC Evaluation Series, OECD, 2004; UNDP, ‘Why Political Economy Analysis Matters for Development and How it Can be Useful for UNDP’, Draft Presentation, June 2010’, UNDP, New York; UNDP Human Development Reports 1993, 1994 and 2002; several internal UNDP reviews, practice notes, evaluations and other documents.

C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e 7 locally. Passing on more responsibility for resource ‘bad’ in itself, but its ‘success’ needs to be judged mobilization to local governments can benefit in relation to the initiative’s starting point or the rich areas and it can hurt poorer ones unless there context in which it took place. are adequate compensating mechanisms in place.

Effectiveness of interventions to strengthen local 2.2 Policy Framework governance depends on the context. For instance, and Partners the same intervention could have very different The MYFF 1 for 2000–2003 mentions three outcomes in conflict-affected countries, transition relevant corporate objectives relating directly or countries, countries with fragile public institu- indirectly to local governance4: (i) strengthen tions, countries facing a crisis in democratic capacity of key governance institutions for people- governance, disaster-affected countries and centred development and foster social cohesion; countries facing significant challenges in public (ii) promote decentralization that supports accountability and transparency. Outcomes would participatory local governance, strengthens local also depend upon the political commitment to organizations and empowers communities; and decentralization and the existence of national (iii) promote efficiency and accountability in a frameworks for local governance. public sector that serves all citizens.

This has two implications for assessing UNDP The MYFF 2 set the priorities for UNDP support for strengthening local governance programmes and projects for 2004–2007. In reforms. Firstly, the priorities of UNDP support the MYFF 2, local governance figures as one of would have to be carefully tailored to suit the seven service lines (2.6) under the Core Goal of country context. For example, in countries where ‘fostering democratic governance’ together with the national Government is contemplating the decentralization and ‘urban/rural development’ introduction of local governance policies and as follows5: legislation, UNDP intervention might include technical advice on options available, advice on 2.1 Policy support for democratic governance; sequencing, advice on the range of functions that can be delivered by local authorities, as well 2.2 Parliamentary development; as advice on resourcing, representative arrange- 2.3 Electoral systems and processes; ments, elections and participatory processes. In countries where the Government is hostile to 2.4 Justice and human rights; decentralization or is not taking any action, UNDP interventions could include encourage- 2.5 E-governance and access to information; ment (advocacy and lobbying) and piloting of projects to demonstrate that participation at 2.6 Decentralization, local governance and the lower levels is non-threatening and useful urban/rural development; for advancing human development. In countries 2.7 Public administration reform and where local governance structures are in place, anti-corruption. UNDP often supports capacity building and training of elected representatives. Secondly, The substantive text for service line 2.6 addresses evaluation becomes not only important but activities that encompass: the review and reform equally complex. A specific UNDP programme of legislation and policies; capacity develop- for strengthening local governance is not ‘good’ or ment, particularly for local government planning

4 Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, ‘Report on the Multi-Year Funding Framework 2000–2003: Supplementary Information and Revised Integrated Resources’, 2003. 5 Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, ‘Second Multi-Year Funding Framework 2004–2007’, September 2003.

8 C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e and fiscal management; and inclusive systems related to civic engagement and the provision of of consultation with local communities that policy and services, such as using local govern- involve women and ethnic minorities. The ment ‘capacity and resources to deliver effective service line’s relation to the achievement of the economic and social policies that promote human MDGs is also elaborated upon, stating that development and manage the public services for UNDP, ‘this relationship has three aspects: that citizens expect’.6 In reference to poverty participatory planning monitoring and oversight; reduction, though the term local governance is the capacities of local bodies including locally not stated, local governance is invoked under elected representatives and public services that the heading ‘promoting inclusive growth, gender need strengthening to ensure that resources equality and achievement of internationally are used in accordance with intended develop- agreed development goals, including the MDGs’, ment outcomes; and local elections, democratic where, for example, it states, ‘based on national party structures and civil society involvement to requests, UNDP will help identify policy options, improve the responsiveness of local governance undertake diagnostic studies and conduct training for the public good’. to build local and national capacity.’7 In the area of crisis prevention and recovery, the concept The UNDP Strategic Plan for 2008–2013 draws of local governance is brought up directly and attention to the importance of civic engage- indirectly, such as within the context of UNDP ment and using local government ‘capacity and strengthening local capacities for development, resources to deliver effective economic and social management, resolutions and planning. More policies that promote human development and specifically, one of UNDP aims within this manage the public services that citizens expect’. practice area is ‘restoring the foundations for It commits UNDP to ‘identify policy options, local development’, which focuses on direct undertake diagnostic studies and conduct training assistance at the community level.8 to build local and national capacity.’ It affirms the need to restore the foundations for local UNDP in its work relating to energy and development for crisis prevention and recovery by environment invokes local governance through strengthening local capacities for development, local capacity and service delivery. The Strategic management, resolutions and planning. It identi- Plan highlights, for instance, that access to fies several priority areas for UNDP support environmental and energy services is essential including capacity strengthening of national for poverty reduction and economic growth. and local authorities to undertake participatory The scaling-up of environmental (such as planning processes, assessment and adoption of water and other ecosystem services) and energy effective service delivery systems. The Strategic service delivery to ensure nationwide coverage Plan differs in approach from the MYFF, and will require considerable institutional capacity instead of creating service lines corresponding development. This is especially true at the to practice areas, internalizes local governance local level since service delivery is increas- priorities into the aims of each of the four ingly decentralized to local public authorities. practice areas. UNDP will strengthen the capacity of national and local authorities to undertake participa- Under the area of democratic governance, local tory planning processes and to assess and adopt governance is raised in a number of contexts effective service delivery systems, including

6 Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, ‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008–2011, Accelerating Global Progress on Human Development’, Updated Pursuant to Decision 2007/32’, June 2008. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid.

C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e 9 data generation and analysis as a basis for accounting for 70 percent of UNCDF’s overall policy design.9 According to a recent publica- portfolio, is fully integrated with the work of tion by the Energy and Environment Group, UNDP in local governance. All of UNCDF’s local ‘local action, action that reflects the demands, development programmes are joint programmes perspectives, and commitment of local actors, with UNDP. is critical to sustainably managing the environ- ment and energy to reduce poverty and achieve UNCDF local development programmes the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). promote a decentralized, participatory approach Local actors are the chief stewards of the world’s to the provision of basic infrastructure (health, ecosystems.’10 education, transportation, markets, and water systems) and the management of natural resources. The development of partnerships with Associated funds and programmes programme country Governments, local authori- Three major partnerships have been of partic- ties and communities is emphasized to ensure that ular importance for UNDP, those of UNCDF, local investments match local needs, are managed UNV and UNIFEM. All three are expected to efficiently, and are sustainable. The Fund uses undertake their programming in close association seed capital to develop local institutional capaci- with the core UNDP programme and to report ties in planning and financial management by to the Administrator of UNDP. In the case of coupling real resource management responsi- UNCDF and UNIFEM, they also potentially bilities with capacity-building support services.12 constitute a substantive resource available for the UNCDF had Local Development Programmes design and implementation of local governance in 40 of the 49 LDCs.13 Mozambique is one strategies and programmes. example of how a UNCDF-led consortium of five donors (UNDP, UNCDF, the Norwegian UNCDF was founded in 1966 as an independent Agency for Development Cooperation, the instrument of the United Nations. Since 1973, Department of Development Cooperation of it has focused its investments in least developed the Netherlands, and the Swiss Agency for countries (LDCs) and is the only United Nations Development and Cooperation) tested a scaled up entity working exclusively in LDCs.11 UNCDF local governance model that was then replicated works to help reduce poverty by piloting small- by the Government and adopted as official scale investments in two areas of concentration: policy.14 local governance and microfinance. UNV is a United Nations organization that The strategic and results agendas of UNCDF and contributes to peace and development through UNDP are fully integrated within the framework volunteerism worldwide. It is active in 140 of the UNDP Strategic Plan, reflecting the countries. The current UNV business model, complementary nature and added value of the approved by the Executive Board in June 2006, partnership. The local development work, defines three areas of intervention that are

9 Ibid. 10 UNDP, ‘Local Capacity and Action for the Environment and Sustainable Development’, New York, UNDP, 2010 (draft report). 11 UNCDF, ‘Sectoral Report for the Five-Year Mid-term Review of the Brussels Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries 2001–2005’ June 2006. 12 UNCDF, ‘Briefing Note,’ February 2002. 13 UNCDF, `Sectoral Report for the Five-Year Mid-term Review of the Brussels Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries 2001 -2005’ June 2006. 14 Ibid.

1 0 C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e mainstreamed within its programmes: advocacy, for women, and ending violence against women. integration and mobilization.15 UNIFEM also aims to transform institutions to make them more accountable to gender equality UNV helps countries to foster and develop and women’s rights, to strengthen the capacity volunteerism as a force for sustainable develop- and voice of women’s rights advocates, and to ment and provide strategic advice on the role change harmful and discriminatory practices in and contribution of volunteerism and options for society.18 In Madagascar, UNIFEM established civic engagement in development programmes. a mechanism through which civil society can The agency helps countries to improve public collectively engage to monitor laws and action inclusion and participation in social, economic plans and work with the Government to counter and political development, and supports the sexual and gender-based violence.19 growth of volunteerism within communities as a form of mutual self-help. UNV volunteers help to organize and run local and national elections United Nations and other International Agencies and support a large number of peacekeeping and humanitarian projects.16 In India, an ongoing Though UNDP does not have formal corporate UNV project empowers the rural poor to take agreements with other United Nations agencies more ownership over achieving the MDGs to partner in local governance reforms, collabo- through the national UNV volunteers who see ration takes place quite frequently at the country that the project happens according to the wishes level. This is often orchestrated by the Resident of the community who proposed it and also Coordinator and has been encouraged, in recent work with authorities to ensure the project is years, as part of the One United Nations initiative. implemented as effectively as possible.17 At the same time, UNDP has been partnering Established in 1976, UNIFEM is the women’s with a range of bilateral and other interna- fund at the United Nations, dedicated to advancing tional development agencies that are becoming women’s rights and achieving gender equality. It more interested in supporting decentraliza- provides financial and technical assistance to tion and local governance. This is the result innovative programmes and strategies that foster of a growing preoccupation with account- women’s empowerment. UNIFEM works on the ability, and the greater interest in bottom-up premise that it is the fundamental right of every participation as a means to bolster mainstream woman to live a life free from discrimination and Government institutions. It is common to find violence and that gender equality is essential to UNDP partnering with bilateral agencies from achieving development and building just societies. the United States of America, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, France, Active in all regions and at different levels, Germany and the Netherlands. Also actively UNIFEM works with countries to formulate and collaborating with UNDP have been the Irish, implement laws and policies to eliminate discrim- Japanese, Norwegian, Spanish and Swedish ination and promote gender equality in areas agencies. Similarly, a number of multilateral such as land and inheritance rights, decent work agencies including the World Bank, the African

15 Remarks by Flavia Pansieri, Executive Coordinator, UNV, on the occasion of UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board Annual Meeting, Geneva, 30 June 2010. 16 UNV website excerpt from ‘What we do’. See . 17 UNV Empowering grassroots governance 29 June 2010. See . 18 Excerpt from UNIFEM website. See . 19 Excerpt from UNIFEM website, ‘UNIFEM Takes Action Worldwide’. .

C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e 1 1 Development Bank, the Asian Development playing an important role in the climate and Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, environment agenda at subnational levels. These the European Union Aid Agency, and the networks have observer status at United Nations Organization for Economic Cooperation and meetings. Regional blocs such as the European Development, as well as international founda- Union in Europe or the Union Economique tions have partnered with UNDP to promote et Monétaire Ouest Africaine in West Africa local governance. have gone one step further by creating their coordination forum for subnational governments Civil Society Organizations (Committee of Regions for the European Union and Conseil des collectivités territoriales currently UNDP partners with a range of civil society being set up for the Union Economique et organizations including non-governmental Monétaire Ouest Africaine). organizations (NGOs), academic and research institutions, media and advocacy groups, youth Sub-national governments in industrialized organizations, bodies of elected representatives countries have also been active in mobilizing and so on. In some countries, UNDP also partners expertise, funds and private sector investment for with traditional village decision-making bodies, development in the form of decentralized cooper- faith-based NGOs and religious leaders. The ation that is gradually growing in importance nature of partnership and extent of collabora- within Official Development Assistance.20 tion are once again a function of the context in UNDP has been a pioneer in engaging with these which UNDP operates. In some countries and stakeholders to work in a multilateral framework, regions, such non-state actors are quite prominent. by mobilizing their financial resources as well In other regions, especially when it comes to as their expertise for the service of sub-national strengthening local governance, credible NGOs governments in developing countries. and community-based organizations (CBOs) with the requisite competencies are not easy to find. 2.3 Local Governance in UNDP Sub-National and Local Focus Areas and Regions Governments UNDP supports a wide range of interventions Apart from partnering with national to promote local governance. It supports local Governments, UNDP has also nurtured partner- governance for improved service delivery and ships with and among sub-national Governments. MDG acceleration; for state and peacebuilding; Recognizing their development potential, for enhanced democratic representation; and sub-national governments (cities, provinces, for ensuring environmental sustainability. states, regions) have started creating associations Many local governance initiatives focus on worldwide to unify their voices—for example, the women and indigenous peoples, often in places United Cities and Local Governments, founded where local governance is still taking shape. in 2004, and the Forum of Global Association Emphasis is placed on strengthening the of Regions, established in 2007. Thematic inclusiveness and accountability of sub-national networks such as the International Council governments, ensuring they have the capacity for Local Environmental Initiatives for Cities to manage the opportunities and responsibili- and the Network of Regional Governments for ties created by decentralization and devolution. Sustainable Development for Regions have been At the subnational level, local institutions reflect

20 As an example of the greater involvement of European sub-national authorities in decentralized cooperation it is observed that, while the German Länder were responsible for 6.9 percent of ODA in 1996, in 2002–2003 this share reached 11 percent in 2005, according to OECD data: OECD, `Aid Extended by Local and State Governments’, Pre-print of the DAC Journal 2005, Volume 6/4, Development Assistance Committee Secretariat, Statistics and Monitoring Division, 2005.

1 2 C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e great differences in history, culture, capacity, The ‘support to Thematic and Territorial Net- infrastructure, styles and practices. Responsive to works for Human Development’, better known this diversity, UNDP supports local governance as ART, was established in 2005. The ART for improved service delivery in order to improve International Initiative promotes and supports the the ability and capacity of local governments formulation and implementation of framework to become better administrators, raise revenue programmes. Formerly known by the acronym and deliver high-quality services. UNDP ART GOLD (governance and local develop- supports efforts at strengthening and deepening ment), ART offers a joint planning methodology democratic representation by engaging with for local, national and international actors to marginalized groups and local leaders to promote contribute to human development in different accountability, inclusion and participation, and countries and to achieve the MDGs in a coordi- the representation of citizens. nated and complementary way. The ART Initiative has 16 country-specific programmes and one regional programme with seven partici- Democratic governance pating countries in Latin America. UNDP supports local governance in four primary focus areas: i) enhanced democratic representa- UNDP has been active in mobilizing support for tion; ii) improved service delivery and MDG local governance by developing strategic alliances acceleration (including the prevention of the with European regions and local authorities for spread of HIV and reduction of its impact); decentralized cooperation—with and through iii) sustainable development; and iv) state and the United Nations. The aim is to facilitate the peacebuilding. setting up of international, national and local structures for local governance and develop- UNDP supports a wide range of interven- ment and to broker United Nations partnerships tions to promote local governance.21 Many local that help foster United Nations reform. More governance initiatives focus on women and specifically, the objectives of the partnership are indigenous peoples, often in places where local to provide support to regional and local govern- governance is still taking shape. An important ments interested in establishing collaboration. emphasis is placed on strengthening the inclusiveness and accountability of sub-national UNDP focuses its work in local governance on governments, ensuring they have the capacity strengthening the inclusiveness and accountability to manage the opportunities and responsibili- of sub-national governments, ensuring they have ties created by decentralization and devolution. the capacity to manage the opportunities and At the sub-national level, local institutions responsibilities created by decentralization and reflect great differences in history, culture, devolution. At the subnational level, local institu- capacity, infrastructure, styles and practices. tions reflect great differences in history, culture, Responsive to this diversity, UNDP supports capacity, infrastructure, styles and practices. local governance for improved service delivery to improve the ability and capacity of local govern- UNDP work also addresses access to informa- ments to become better administrators, raise tion, integrity, accountability, transparency, revenue and deliver high-quality services. UNDP human rights, gender equality, leadership and supports efforts at strengthening and deepening critical choice capacities, sectoral governance and democratic representation by engaging with knowledge management. Many local governance marginalized groups and local leaders to promote initiatives focus on women and indigenous accountability, inclusion and participation, and peoples, often in places where local governance the representation of citizens. is still taking shape.

21 Excerpt from UNDP website: Local Governance. See .

C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e 1 3 Poverty Reduction skills training and access to microcredit and In supporting poverty reduction efforts by farmers with agricultural extension services, national Governments, UNDP supports the view connecting smaller farmers with large exporters. that achieving the MDGs can only happen through action at the local level—in villages The Human Development Reports have very often and towns, provinces and regions. Also, local emphasized the importance of local governance, development should be embedded in national participation and democracy. For example, the development processes.22 Human Development Report 1993, examines how—and how much—people participate in In supporting MDG localization—translating the events and processes that shape their lives. national MDGs so that they are relevant, applicable Similarly, the Human Development Report and attainable at the local level—UNDP recognizes 2002—‘Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented the key role of sub-national and local govern- World’—carries an extensive discussion on ments in putting plans into action and keeping decentralization and local governance within the national Governments in touch with people’s broader framework of promoting the practice of needs, progress made and challenges ahead. With democracy. In addition to recognizing the intrinsic a few exceptions and irrespective of the constitu- and instrumental role of local governance, broader tional system of a given country, national policy participation in decision-making and more equitable decisions are translated at a more decentralized access to higher quality services, these reports have and deconcentrated level thus making subnational emphasized the importance of strengthening the governments key in implementation and invest- enabling environment to empower individuals, ment decisions. UNDP helps develop the capacities households, and communities beyond participa- of local governments to formulate, plan, monitor tion. Many analyze empowerment and capacity and implement participatory local development building of partners beyond Government, including plans, working together with civil society, the vulnerable groups. Recommendations relate to private sector and other local organizations. the implementation challenges that UNDP faces UNDP also promotes efforts to include marginal- in reaching marginalized groups, in addition to ized groups and communities whose voices are too mainstreaming gender-based analysis, and how to often unheard. Furthermore, UNDP works with empower groups as agents of change. The Human national Governments to prepare reliable statistics Development Report prepared and disseminated on poverty and MDGs disaggregated by region a ‘Guidance Note on Decentralization’ in collabo- and to provide policy advice on, for example, how ration with BDP.23 This note outlines key policy to develop and implement fiscal transfer schemes issues and offers examples of the contributions of and socio-economic policies that would benefit the national Human Development Reports working poorest regions. on local governance and related themes.

Within many countries, some regions lag far UNDP works to prevent the spread of HIV and behind others for reasons such as their geography, reduce its impact. As a development partner and social exclusion, conflict or natural disaster. For co-sponsor of UNAIDS, UNDP helps countries these regions, blanket national economic and to put HIV at the centre of national development social policies to promote development are not and poverty reduction strategies, to build national enough. This is why UNDP works within specific capacity to mobilize all levels of government and areas with the local governments supporting civil society for a coordinated and effective response programmes that provide small businesses with to the epidemic, and to protect the rights of people

22 Excerpt from UNDP website: Participatory Local Development. See . 23 UNDP, ‘Decentralized Governance for Development: A Combined Practice Note on Decentralization, Local Governance and Urban/Rural Development’, UNDP, April 2004.

1 4 C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e women and vulnerable populations and those promoting clean energy technologies to mitigate living with HIV and AIDS. UNDP encourages climate change; and increasing access to invest- the participation of diverse stakeholders, including ment financing for sustainable energy, including civil society and people living with AIDS in the through the Clean Development Mechanism. design and implementation of national strategies, strengthens the governance of response to HIV by UNDP helps countries and communities maintain supporting national and local AIDS authorities to and benefit from the biodiversity and ecosystem increase capacity for coordinating action on HIV, services that underpin human welfare and and also promotes greater involvement of women economic development, and provide the poor with and men living with HIV and civil society in the food security, fuel, shelter, medicines and liveli- design, implementation and evaluation of AIDS hoods—as well as clean water, disease control, and programmes. UNDP supports countries to create reduced vulnerability to natural disasters. UNDP an enabling human rights environment, promote supports the sustainable management of agricul- gender equality, and address the HIV-related ture, fisheries, forests and energy, and a pro-poor vulnerabilities and needs of women and girls. approach to conservation and protected areas, biotechnology and the development of viable, new markets for ecosystem services. UNDP Environment and Sustainable supports the sustainable use of marine, coastal and Development freshwater resources and improved access to water Recognizing that energy and environment are supply and sanitation services by helping national essential for sustainable development and that the Governments develop appropriate local, national poor are disproportionately affected by environ- and regional water governance frameworks, and mental degradation and lack of access to clean, application of integrated water resources manage- affordable energy services, UNDP helps countries ment approaches25. strengthen their capacity to address these challenges at global, national and community UNDP assists countries and communities in land levels, seeking out and sharing best practices, governance, drought preparedness, reform of land providing innovative policy advice and linking tenure and promotion of innovative and alterna- partners through pilot projects that help poor tive sustainable land practices and livelihoods. people build sustainable livelihoods. Areas of Special emphasis is given here to the situation of activity include access to sustainable energy rural women. UNDP supports institutional and service, effective water governance, sustainable systemic capacity building to address deserti- land management to combat desertification and fication and land degradation of rural poverty land degradation, and conservation and sustain- reduction, through local, national and global able use of biodiversity.24 UNDP work focuses multi-stakeholder dialogue and action26. on: strengthening national policy frameworks to support energy for poverty reduction; promoting UNDP is an implementing agency of the Global energy services to support growth and equity Environment Facility (GEF)27 and manages with a specific focus on the situation of women; the GEF Small Grants Programme28. This

24 UNDP Intranet: Practices, Environment and Energy, Access to Sustainable Energy Services. See . 25 UNDP Intranet: Practices, Environment and Energy, Effective Water Governance. See . 26 UNDP Intranet: Practices, Environment and Energy, Sustainable land Management to Combat Desertification and Land Degradation. See . 27 UNDP Intranet: Practices, Environment and Energy, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. See < http:// practices.undp.org/pcb/index.cfm?tab=121680&prac=121518&doc=&src=121680>. 28 Excerpts from GEF Small Grants Programme website. See .

C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e 1 5 supports NGOs and CBO projects in developing Within its local governance interventions in countries demonstrating that community action immediate post crisis contexts, UNDP addresses can maintain the fine balance between human the needs of internally displaced persons as a key needs and environmental imperatives. priority within its early recovery interventions. Support to other local governance mechanisms Crisis Prevention and Recovery including NGOs and CBOs that may exist at the local level, forms a second element of UNDP Through its crisis prevention and recovery work on local governance in early recovery.30 interventions, UNDP works with national and local governments and actors to prevent the UNDP has also been promoting the importance incidence of violent conflict and natural disasters, of local governance to reduce risks with regards to mitigate the consequences when these crises to decision-making (such as public sector occur and to support national recovery efforts investments in health and education), land-use at national and local levels. This involves planning as well as specific areas such as urban engaging with and supporting local governments, risk management. The UNDP programming notably through early recovery interventions, approach in Disaster Risk Reduction acknowl- implemented during humanitarian timeframes edges that risks manifest locally and solutions post-conflict and post-disaster, when local for risk reduction ought to be embedded in local government resources (human, physical, financial) level risk management. In the disaster recovery can be very stretched or severely depleted. As part phase, UNDP works with high-risk countries of this support, UNDP programming includes: to build Government capacity to manage the establishing the foundations for peace and recovery process and to have the necessary security; helping to address the causes of violent institutional, financial and technical capacity in conflict through development programmes place before a disaster occurs so that recovery is promoting participation, consensus-building and quick and effective if disaster strikes. In response non-violent management of conflict; supporting to a disaster, UNDP supports Governments programmes to promote gender equality and in assessing recovery needs and in formulating women’s empowerment; supporting govern- recovery plans and programme implementation ments at all levels with the development of plans, from early to sustained recovery. policies and capacities for disaster risk reduction and recovery; and providing a bridge between the Regional Diversity humanitarian agencies that handle immediate needs and long-term development following The form and substance of local governance disaster through early recovery including specific initiatives varies from one region to another, assistance to local governments to fulfill their within a region, and from one country to another role as service providers. By championing the (depending upon the level of human develop- integration of conflict sensitivity throughout all ment and the nature of the political regime), development programming in crisis settings, giving UNDP different experiences across UNDP facilitates ‘the creation of opportuni- the world. Briefly described below are some ties and the political, economic and social spaces of the main activities for strengthening local within which indigenous actors can identify, governance undertaken by the different bureaux develop and use the resources necessary to build within UNDP. a peaceful, equitable and just society’.29

29 United Nations General Assembly Security Council, `Prevention of Armed Conflict’ A/55/985-S/2001/574, Report of the Secretary-General, 7 June 2001. 30 UNDP Intranet: Practices, Crisis Prevention and Recovery, Post-Conflict Recovery. See .

1 6 C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e The Africa region31 has by far the most UNDP- building for more autonomous local government supported projects in local governance and decen- in the Indonesian province of Aceh. tralization. Projects in Africa are generally concerned with the early stages of decentraliza- In the Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth tion, such as finalizing the legal framework in of Independent States34, UNDP has concentrated Burkina Faso, initiating the consultative process its efforts at re-orienting the state away from for a review of decentralization linked to the central planning, standardization and bureaucratic role of the Government in peacebuilding in dysfunctions of the one-state regimes towards Burundi, assessing local governance capacity in modern management systems appropriate to post-conflict Liberia and supporting the Ministry market economies. This has involved bringing of Decentralization in Madagascar. Training and about radical changes to local governance by promoting partnerships are also central activities providing a variety of inputs—knowledge-based supported by UNDP. advice at central and regional levels in Moldova, transparent local budgetary and financial systems In the Arab States region32, UNDP has been in Kyrgyzstan and a participatory approach to supporting cautious experimentation with local development in Ukraine. Several initiatives decentralization. In Djibouti and Yemen, promote cooperative regional development such UNDP, for instance, is helping with as the establishment of a network of municipali- implementing decentralization laws, while in ties in Kosovo and inter-municipal cooperation Lebanon and Sudan, projects focus on capacity in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. development in particularly needy regions. UNDP also supports efforts at reducing the Where local governance infrastructure is more regional inequalities in many countries such as the developed, as in Morocco and Egypt, UNDP ‘Zeravshan Valley Initiative’ in Tajikistan. supports programmes that strengthen informa- tion systems, e-governance and accountability. In the Latin America and the Caribbean region35, decentralization is a high priority for many The Asia and the Pacific regions33 have different countries. In Bolivia, Colombia, Panama, Peru, projects reflecting the enormous diversity among and Trinidad and Tobago, UNDP supports and within the region’s 24 countries in terms of national institutions to implement and strengthen political regimes, human development indicators decentralization processes. In Brazil, UNDP and degree of decentralization. UNDP projects implements a number of projects that support are tailored to fit the country’s requirements the regionalization process, whereas in Haiti, and include projects ranging from encouraging Honduras, Cuba, Dominican Republic and participation by traditional authorities in Pacific Uruguay, UNDP uses territorial development Island states, supporting decentralization and as an entry point for fostering pro-poor policies, deconcentration in Cambodia, local govern- inclusive development and strengthening local ments in Sri Lanka, decentralizing planning and service delivery. expenditure management in Laos to capacity

31 UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local Governance: An Overview of UNDP Recent and Current Interventions in the Africa Region’, UNDP Bureau for Development Policy: New York, January 2010. 32 UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local Governance: An Overview of UNDP Recent and Current Interventions in the Arab States Region’, UNDP Bureau for Development Policy: New York, January 2010. 33 UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local Governance: An Overview of UNDP Recent and Current Interventions in the Asia Pacific Region’, UNDP Bureau for Development Policy: New York, January 2010. 34 UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local Governance: An Overview of UNDP Recent and Current Interventions in the Eastern Europe and CIS region’, UNDP Bureau for Development Policy: New York, January 2010. 35 UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local Governance: An Overview of UNDP Recent and Current Interventions in the Latin America and the Caribbean Region’, UNDP Bureau for Development Policy: New York, January 2010.

C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e 1 7 2.4 Financial Resources to 17 percent dedicated to Fostering Inclusive Participation and nine percent to Grounding Estimates of the total amount of financial Democratic Governance in International Principles. resources allocated by UNDP for strengthening Within the responsive institutions component, local governance across all the practice areas are 70 percent—or a total of $747 million—was not readily available. An important consideration spent on national, regional and local levels of in this regard is that local governance-related government, representing the service lines of initiatives are conducted in all focus areas of the public administration and local governance.36 Strategic Plan and are thus not necessarily— in the context of UNDP monitoring and Public administration and local governance are reporting systems—accounted for under the high on the agenda in all regional bureaux. Recent rubric of democratic governance, let alone and ongoing public administration and local local governance. Initiatives with sizable local governance-related projects have been reported governance components may thus be reported by 40 countries of the African region (45 country under the poverty, environment and energy or offices), 25 countries in the Asia Pacific (24 crisis prevention and recovery focus areas. While country offices), 22 countries in Eastern Europe an attempt was made, in the context of a scan of and the Commonwealth of Independent States 50 countries conducted under the evaluation, to (28 country offices), and 16 countries in the obtain financial data pertaining to all initiatives Arab states region (18 country offices). Most of with local governance components, it was not UNDP public administration and local possible to reconcile the information received, governance-related projects are implemented or to disaggregate data in a manner that would in the LDCs and Lower Middle Income have provided a reliable picture of the amount of Countries. It should be noted, however, that the financial resources allocated to local governance projects reported were deemed by the respec- across the countries included in the scan. tive programme units to be addressing primarily public administration and local governance- According to a recent report, UNDP effectively related issues and did not, therefore, necessarily delivered $4.1 billion worldwide in 2009, of take into account the plethora of sector-oriented which 35 percent ($1.44 billion) was spent initiatives (addressing issues of poverty, environ- on initiatives classified under Democratic ment and energy, crisis prevention and recovery, Governance. Totalling 74 percent of expenditures, AIDS or gender, for example) which may have Strengthening Responsive Institutions consti- had a significant local governance component. tuted the largest area of intervention, compared

36 UNDP, ‘An Overview of Trends and Developments in Public Administration and Local Governance’, September 2010.

1 8 C HAP t e r 2 . c o n t e X T A n d U n d P r e s P o n s e Chapter 3 ASSESSMENT OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION

This chapter presents the main findings relating relevant in addressing specific developmental to the relevance and responsiveness, effective- concerns, both at the policy and operational level, ness, efficiency and sustainability of UNDP relating to strengthening democratic represen- contribution to promoting and strengthening tation and participation as well the delivery local governance. It also examines the extent of services. Moreover, UNDP support for to which UNDP has made use of partnerships. the ‘localization of the MDGs—an effort at Gender-related issues relating to the promotion strengthening local governance—is consistent of local governance are integrated in all aspects with national commitments towards achieving of the analysis. the MDGs by 2015.

Beyond broader programmatic relevance, 3.1 Relevance and UNDP activities have frequently been relevant Responsiveness in addressing specific developmental concerns, UNDP support for local governance reforms has both at the policy and operational level, relating been highly relevant in a number of countries. to strengthening democratic representation and There are several reasons for this. UNDP Country participation as well the delivery of services. Programme Documents, which include support This has happened especially when support to local governance reforms, are typically drawn for local governance initiatives by UNDP is up in partnership with national Governments. ‘demand driven’ and UNDP formulates a project This has ensured both Government ownership or programme in support of local governance as well as alignment with national priori- in response to a request from the national ties and national development and poverty Government. For example, UNDP has consis- reduction plans. In Cambodia, for instance, tently responded to requests from the Royal both the Royal Government and UNDP regard Government over the course of Bhutan’s governance reforms aimed at democratization successful transition to a democratic consti- and decentralization as being paramount for the tutional monarchy in March 2008. This has country to bury its tragic past and move towards included capacity and institution development promoting peace, harmony and human develop- of constitutional bodies such as the Election ment. Similarly, UNDP in Indonesia supports Commission of Bhutan, Anti-Corruption the democratization process as well as disaster Commission, Parliament, Royal Audit Authority, reconstruction and prevention—both national Royal Court of Justice, Office of the Attorney priorities of the Government. General, and local governments. UNDP has similarly responded to the national demands The correspondence with national priorities has by setting up regional offices (as in Peru) and been further ensured by the United Nations area offices (as in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) Development Assistance Framework process (in to extend support to local governments and which UNDP plays an active and central role), communities. Stakeholders and development which has provided a strategic framework for partners also frequently acknowledge the ability cooperation between the activities of all United of UNDP to respond to resource mobilization Nations agencies. Beyond broader programmatic requirements. relevance, UNDP activities have frequently been

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 1 9 Relevance of UNDP-support is further derived institutions is limited or is perceived as illegiti- from the value-addition to national Governments. mate (as in Iraq or Sudan), outcome evaluations UNDP has assisted national Governments speak of the mitigation benefits of UNDP with effective donor coordination and provided involvement by bridging the trust gap between much-needed support to government institu- citizens and Government institutions. Also, in tions. For instance, in Papua New Guinea, circumstances where it is difficult for traditional there has been close partnership between UNDP governance institutions to deliver programmes and the Australian Government Overseas Aid and in regions where it is difficult for other Programme and also between UNDP and key institutions to work, UNDP has filled vital Papua New Guinea government agencies at governance and service-delivery gaps through the national level as well as in the provinces, service-delivery and community-development districts and local governments. This partner- projects. ship has enabled UNDP to become known as a donor partner responsible for managing and UNDP has done well to ensure the relevance promoting local governance and decentraliza- of its support during post-conflict recovery. tion. In other contexts, the involvement of It has used its goodwill, proximity and trust UNDP in such initiatives has helped to instill with national and local governments to advance trust between Government and communities the agenda of local governance. In Southern and contributed to enhancing the legitimacy of Sudan, UNDP support is within the framework Governments in the eyes of non-state actors. In for democratic transformation—as outlined in Bolivia, UNDP has maintained a good relation- the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in ship with the successive Bolivian Governments January 2005 – which provided the framework and and retained a position of leverage over the platform for UNDP engagement. In Lebanon, years. Upon Eva Morales’s accession, an initial the 2002–2006 UNDP Country Cooperation Government antagonism toward international Framework with the Government of Lebanon cooperation brought a difficult conjuncture to mentions ‘empowerment at the local level’ as a agencies in general, but ever since UNDP has priority area for UNDP programming. Within managed to restore the good terms in its relation- that area, the document emphasizes ‘strength- ship with the Government. UNDP is now a ening of municipalities and local governance valued partner. UNDP support has also helped structures, with the main objective of assisting forge and strengthen partnerships between local the Government in reinforcing the capacities governments and members of civil society. It has of municipalities and considering options for created platforms for the exchange of ideas and stronger local government, rendering develop- experiences, and often a space for non-state actors ment efforts in the peripheral areas more efficient, to interact with policymakers. The involvement responsive and participatory in the long term’. of UNDP in such initiatives has helped to instill trust between Government and communities There are instances where UNDP has responded and to preserve the legitimacy of Governments well to changing circumstances within difficult in the eyes of non-state actors at key moments of and challenging political contexts. For instance, political crisis. in Afghanistan, for at least the first three years following the Bonn Agreement of 2001, UNDP UNDP-support for local government initiatives was relegated to ‘gap filling.’ Thereafter, UNDP assumes a special relevance in conflict-affected claimed a limited niche during the ‘early recovery’ countries when the state is unable to deliver basic phase as the administrator of last resort for donor services. Under these circumstances, UNDP has funds for sensitive tasks. This, according to the focused on building or creating relationships ADR, was ‘at the expense of a more concerted between different levels of Government and civil effort to address key institutional changes society. In cases where the reach of governance required for lasting peace. It also risked branding

2 0 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n UNDP as a non-substantive agency, a legacy its interventions. For instance, political develop- that it has had to work hard to overcome, and ments can easily place local projects at high risk. to some extent has, since 2005.’ However, after 2004, UNDP, at the insistence of the Minister The absence of a unifying framework for local of Finance, was repositioned to strengthen governance and guidance notes drawing on the institutions of state. ‘This mandate was the cumulative experience UNDP in different interpreted strictly by UNDP at the expense political settings has tended to limit the organi- of the broader aspects of governance including zation’s capacity to respond adequately to the the role of civil society. In the past two years, requirements of strengthening local governance. UNDP has begun to reverse this by increasing its Many of the commonly used terms in the involvement with civil society.’37 context of local governance—local governments, local authorities, sub-national governments, local Being demand-driven has at times resulted in development, local economic development, local an ad-hoc rather than strategic approach to area development, territorial development, local local governance. In other words, UNDP has human development—have meant different not always been sufficiently pro-active. Partly things to different people within and outside responsible for this has been the absence, in UNDP. Similarly, the dynamics of decentral- many settings, of a longer-term strategic plan ization and local governance processes have not (based on a political economy analysis) or road always been fully understood. In the absence of a map drawn up (in consultation with Government unifying framework and common understanding, and non-state stakeholders) for UNDP support UNDP has not been able to fully leverage to strengthening local governance. For instance, its potential comparative advantage. UNDP the contribution of UNDP to peace building relevance has been further diminished by the efforts in the Philippines was limited by the failure to develop adequate knowledge products absence of a multi-sectoral peace and conflict that distil experiences to inform policymakers analysis with strong risk assessment components. and practitioners in Governments and communi- Even when strategic analyses are available, the ties. This has led, as in the case of Sierra Leone, absence of a unifying corporate framework, to UNDP ‘losing its voice and importance’, alternative approaches to local governance, or especially when there are other donors offering guidance notes drawing on cumulative experience much larger funds and expertise in support of limits the relevance of UNDP. Notwithstanding local governance. the frequent absence of such plans, there are numerous instances where UNDP has been able 3.2 Effectiveness to respond swiftly and effectively to emerging or changing circumstances—such as Georgia’s There has been evidence of UNDP support for fast-moving reform agenda—and to national local governance effectively creating entitlements requests for extending support to local govern- through increased democratic representation and ments and communities. contributing to improved service delivery. UNDP has helped build capacities of state and non-state The rationale for choosing certain priorities over actors, empower local communities, give ‘voice’ others within local governance is not always and representation to the socially disadvantaged, obvious. For instance, in Mali, the process by build trust between Government and people, which education and AIDS were identified over promote dialogue on local governance, improve many others as priority areas for strengthening service delivery and develop different models of local governance reforms was not clear. Again, community contribution, financing and partici- UNDP does not seem to have exit strategies for pation. Several interventions for the inclusion of

37 UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Afghanistan’, New York, 2009.

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 2 1 indigenous and marginalized groups have been an individual level, community members felt a effective as have interventions extending support sense of empowerment and pride in being able to local governance under conditions of conflict to effect positive change in their community. recovery and prevention. Working together to identify common community needs and raise funds has brought There have been numerous instances where community members together to manage and UNDP has effectively generated many positive monitor community development projects. They benefits. Raising awareness among citizens have set in place systems to track the use of about their rights and entitlements has been public funds and ensure accountability. The an important element of UNDP support for community-based approach has also increased strengthening local governance and improving the overall number of local development initia- service delivery. For instance, UNDP supported tives taking place in the project site. In the case of client-based awareness raising campaigns as a key the Crimea, the creation of community organiza- part of the Albanian Security Sector Reform in tions in multi-ethnic communities has resulted five prefectures (Tirana, Vlora, Lezha, Shkodra, in diverse ethnic groups working on addressing and Kukes) and addressed: (i) police transparency common needs that transcended ethnicity and accountability; and (ii) community safety and and other actual and perceived differences. security. A customer satisfaction survey found that Similarly, the joint Netherlands Development the programme had definitely increased security Organisation (SNV)-UNDP pilot on MDG levels, reduced level of crime, especially in armed localization (2005–2008) was implemented in 15 crimes, enhanced quality of services provided by countries. A review in eight of these countries the police (reduced incidence of police brutality, points out that the partnership has contributed for example), improved citizen-police communi- to improving local and national awareness (in cation and cooperation and increased citizens Niger and Uganda), improved ownership by respect for the police.38 E-governance measures encouraging the inclusion and participation (of employed in Armenia, Macedonia and Ukraine, ‘regulos’—traditional leaders in Guinea Bissau), supported the digitization of all Government strengthened capacities of local governments materials, capacity training for civil servants, and non-state actors in conducting participatory public capacity building for the Internet, setting MDG-oriented planning processes (Viet Nam up Citizen Access Points in communities, and Tanzania), increased participation strength- thereby creating a virtual bridge between citizens ened capacity of civil society actors to monitor and governance structures. Similarly, UNDP has progress on the MDGs (Albania and Niger), formulated the Access to Justice project at the and improved integration of MDGs in policy district level in Afghanistan and a Rule of Law development at the local level (Benin).39 programme in Sudan to educate the public about their human rights and to confer legitimacy to Similarly there are several instances of projects all levels of governance. Both have resulted in an and community-based initiatives in Energy increased number of cases being brought to trial. and Environment that have resulted in tangible benefits. This is especially the case when civil UNDP has pioneered several community-based society participation has been effective in the poverty reduction initiatives that have benefited mobilization and management of local resources. many communities. Stakeholders in Ukraine A recent evaluation of the GEF Small Grants had several observations on the effectiveness of Programme (which allows UNDP to contribute UNDP support for local governance reforms. At to direct global environmental benefits while also

38 UNDP, ‘Public Assessment and Customer Satisfaction Survey – Support to Security Sector Reform’, Final Report, November 2005 (Albania). 39 SNV-UNDP, ‘Going Local to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals – Stories From Eight Countries’, 2010.

2 2 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n addressing the livelihood needs of local popula- (such as the Solid Waste Management Project, tions) rated the overall effectiveness of projects a component of the Sustainable Environmental and found 94 percent of these Small Grants Management Programme). They have also Programme projects to be in the satisfactory range shown the need to integrate local communities (37 percent were highly satisfactory).40 There are in design and implementation and assessment similarly several instances of successful outcomes of their own development initiatives for good at the country level. In Bangladesh, for instance, governance.42 the Sustainable Environmental Management Programme has contributed substantially toward: Formation of outreach groups and forums have ‘establishing community-based approaches to been identified as one of the most effective the management of Ecologically Critical Areas, methods by which UNDP has supported floodplain and wetland areas, upland areas, water inclusion of marginalized groups. For example, supply and sanitation systems, and urban solid Ukraine’s Rayon Youth Policy and Strategy led waste management … the programme added to to creation of a Youth Ombudsman position, the experience and knowledge in mobilizing expansion of the Peer Education course to community involvement in conservation and include a Legal Education Programme for resource management activities and liveli- Youth and a Sub-programme on Violence in hoods. Several of the sub-projects reportedly the Family. This strategy has affected the role led to replication of these approaches in nearby and involvement of youth in local and central communities. In some cases, the programme level policy making which has in turn affected undoubtedly also enhanced access to land and the support and resources (such as Violence in resources for the very poor.’41 Families workshops) delivered to this previously overlooked group.43 Town hall meetings have Other outcomes of the primary community- been used to varying degrees of success to based model included: (i) increased increase citizen participation within the govern- demonstration of the use and effectiveness mental decision making process. For example, of community based approaches to environ- the creation of Moldova’s Orhei Rayon Strategic mental and natural resources management; (ii) Tourism Plan depends upon the participation development of processes, technical guides and of those living near major tourist sites and knowledge products; (iii) strengthened skills has increasingly involved the participation of of Government and NGO staff in the use of Village Councils. This has resulted in entrepre- community based approaches; and (iv) replica- neurial activity by the community involved to tion of these approaches in some areas based create the resources necessary (e.g. pensions) to on the awareness and examples created by some support the burgeoning industry.44 Over 1,000 of the sub-projects. Furthermore, successful communities across Ukraine are engaged in sub-national level initiatives have demonstrated bringing real change in their lives in partner- the viability and effectiveness of promoting the ship with local authorities with support and links between NGOs and the private sector funding from the Community Based Approach

40 GEF-UNDP, ‘Joint Evaluation of the GEF Small Grants Programme’, Evaluation Report 39, Evaluation Office, GEF: Washington D.C., 2008. 41 Ferguson, Alan, ‘Outcome Evaluation of UNDP Bangladesh – Environment and Sustainable Development Programme’, Regional Consulting Ltd., December 2007–January 2008. 42 Ferguson, Alan, `Outcome Evaluation of UNDP Bangladesh – Environment and Sustainable Development Programme’, Regional Consulting Ltd., December 2007–January 2008. 43 Musisi, Christine and Olga Prutsakova, `Outcome Evaluation on Healthy Lifestyles Promotion in Ukraine’ Evaluation Report, UNDP Ukraine, February 2004. 44 Muravschi, Alexandru and Erik Whist, `Evaluation of UNDP Outcome in Moldova of Capacities and Partnerships of Local Governance Actors Developed in Urban/Rural Areas for Transparent and Accountable Policy Formulation, Service Delivery and Resource Management’, UNDP, December 2005.

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 2 3 to Local Development Project—a joint initia- and diversity improved relations among former tive of the European Union and UNDP. All antagonists, and establishment of mechanisms these community organizations are working to for institutionalizing peace building among Local improve local living conditions and solve the Government Units.’46 existing problems through sustaining multilateral partnerships, mutual cooperation and self-help. It has not always been easy to engage construc- tively with the many stakeholders within and Available evidence points to several instances outside Government in local governance reforms where UNDP has been effective in extending at the local and national levels. In Viet Nam, for support to local governance under conditions of example, the process of administrative decentral- conflict recovery and prevention. For instance, ization which was moving relatively rapidly was it financed the first of the Iraq Reconstruction not matched by effective mechanisms for citizen and Employment Programmes—a nationwide involvement and transparency at the local level. programme to create short term employment on Similarly, in Zambia, UNDP partnership with projects to rehabilitate village or town infrastruc- NGOs and CBOs was found to be weak due to ture. Individuals from affected communities were the major focus on Government programmes selected to repair water systems. ‘The material even though Zambia already has a fairly vibrant impact might not have been considerable’ but civil society movement. In Mali, local govern- this is regarded as a ‘bold initiative at a time when ment authorities need to be given greater powers nothing else was available.’45 In Afghanistan, if service delivery is to be improved in a substan- UNDP has contributed to: preparing and passing tive way. However, genuine decentralization that a new constitution; holding presidential, parlia- would allow elected councillors to manage local mentary and provincial elections; establishing development in collaboration with local staff key institutions within the newly formed upper and sector ministries has not yet come about. and lower houses of Parliament; demobilizing Most sector ministries are still implementing and disarming militias and illegally armed development and infrastructural programmes groups; strengthening capacity at the centre of and even preventing the commune authorities Government; creating capacity in state institu- from rapidly taking over their responsibilities tions at the central, provincial and district levels; for local development. This is where genuine and reforming the civil service. Similarly, in negotiation needs to take place between the local Mindanao and other areas affected by conflict in government authorities and Government, despite the Philippines, UNDP-supported peacebuilding all the conflicts of interest that are likely to ensue. and the pursuit of peace benefits at the local This problem comes on top of institutional level have been institutionalized through various difficulties, including the absence of a genuine local Executive Orders, Peace Units created programme of de-concentration and the delays in local executives’ offices, legislative action in adapting the statutory framework and policies and financial allocations which attest to Local for the individual sectors. UNDP and other Government Units’ commitment to continue actors have not been able to effectively iron out the initiatives even after crisis prevention and institutional bottlenecks that prevent efficient recovery programmes phase out. UNDP has been and equitable allocation of resources for local commended for ‘bringing about transformations development. Pilot initiatives within decentral- towards peace at personal, relational and institu- ization and local governance have not always tional levels, indicating among others, changes been linked effectively to sustainable systems that in mindsets, enhanced perspectives on tolerance are inclusive and comprehensive in nature.

45 Freedman, Jim, Eduardo Quiroga, Amal Shlash and John Weeks, ‘Outcome Evaluation of UNDP Governance, Crisis Prevention and Recovery, and Poverty Reduction Initiatives in Iraq’, UNDP, 2009. 46 UNDP, ‘Conflict Prevention and Recovery, Outcome Evaluation’, UNDP Philippines, 2008.

2 4 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n There exist a number of modalities through decentralization. For example, a recent evalua- which UNDP can engage with civil society tion of the Regional Programme for Europe organizations both in policy dialogue as well as and the Commonwealth of Independent States in project implementation. Modalities for formal commends UNDP for the key contributions made partnerships with civil society are included in through ‘research, development and dissemination the comprehensive guidance provided in the of knowledge products, capacity development, and partnerships section of the Programme and policy advice.’ The Report points out: ‘the regional Operations Policies and Procedures, updated programme made a unique, sustainable and very earlier this year. However, many country offices important contribution to development results by have not systematically identified opportunities establishing and enhancing a Regional Centre for for strategic engagement with non-state actors Public Administration Reform to support regional in order to strengthen local governance even cooperation. Since the contribution in the area where the potential exists. As a result, many civil of democratic governance depends, to a great society organization (CSO) partnerships remain extent, on the political context and the level of ‘stand-alone’ initiatives; they are seldom viewed as economic development of the countries involved, strategic initiatives aimed at enhancing democratic this practice had to be very sensitive and flexible to (local) governance and poverty reduction. adjust to the variety of circum¬stances in different countries. Respondents in all the countries spoke Normative frameworks and political commit- highly of the potential of the current democratic ment to local governance reforms are critical governance practice.’47 Similarly, recognizing that for ensuring that UNDP interventions produce more and more Governments in the developing the desired outcomes. However, UNDP has no world look at decentralization as a mechanism for jurisdiction or control over processes as many improving their efficiency and effectiveness will be decisions that need taking are political. Again, important. UNDP worked in close collaboration UNDP can only indirectly influence but not with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on ensure performance monitoring and evaluation a two-year research project to directly contribute to of local governance reforms by the State. Many the process of knowledge generation in this area by countries do not track and assess the perfor- examining the experience of ten countries (Brazil, mance of their own national Governments and Honduras, India, Jordan, Pakistan, Philippines, line ministries, let alone the performance of Poland, Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda). sub-national governments. Despite these limita- The knowledge products emanating from the tions and qualifications, UNDP has met with action research project supported by UNDP on reasonable success in its efforts at strength- ‘The Role of Participation and Partnership in ening local level planning and budgeting. Much Decentralized Governance: A Brief Synthesis of less successful have been attempts to improve Policy Lessons and Recommendations of Nine implementation and accountability. For instance, Country Case Studies on Service Delivery for the in efforts at decentralization, it has been difficult Poor’ is another good example of communicating to achieve, as in India for example, financial and disseminating the lessons learned from the (transfer of funds and proper sharing of funds) experiences of decentralization on poverty allevia- and functional devolution (transfer of functions tion, and particularly the contribution of increased and functionaries, expenditure autonomy). participation in decision-making processes and increased opportunities for partnership between UNDP has documented lessons learned and civil, private and government actors at the supporting research in local governance and local level.48

47 UNDP, ‘Evaluation of the Regional Programme for Europe and the Commonwealth of the Independent States 2006- 2010’. 48 Work, R., ‘The Role of Participation and Partnership in Decentralized Governance: A Brief Synthesis of Policy Lessons and Recommendations of Nine Country Case Studies on Service Delivery for the Poor’, UNDP, 2005.

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 2 5 However, analyses of lessons learned of the Mozambique and Nepal. For instance, the project rich experience of UNDP in the area of local in Southern Sudan has been rated as being governance and decentralization have not been ‘highly innovative’ for its deliberate involve- systematically conducted by all regional bureaux ment of traditional leaders in local governance. and practice areas. A systematic effort has UNDP has encouraged the direct involvement not been made to analyze the outcomes and of traditional authorities in determining state disseminate the findings and lessons learned to legislation and structures—reinforcing the pledge policymakers and other stakeholders operating to promote participatory democracy outlined in different contexts of local governance in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and reforms. The Democratic Governance Group subsequent legal frameworks. However, it has not of the BDP hosts a ‘Democratic Governance been atypical for local governance initiatives to be Practice Network’, a knowledge network that set up as ‘boutique projects’ on the strong initia- has provided a platform for UNDP-wide discus- tive of one or several individuals within UNDP, sions and exchanges of practices and lessons external experts or Government officials and learned related to democratic governance. On politicians. Such projects have not been scaled occasion, DGP-Net has facilitated discussions up partly because they tended to be cost-ineffec- on issues related to local governance and, most tive and there has been little national ownership. notably, initiated an ‘e-discussion’ in 2007 entitled Interventions have remained pilots or one-off ‘Towards a Local Governance and Development demonstration projects when they have not been Agenda: Lessons and Challenges’49, which backed by sufficient advocacy and stakeholders’ elicited a record 153 responses from UNDP staff involvement during the design, planning and and partners. Moreover, BDP has, on occasion, implementation stages; and have not necessarily issued guidance notes on local governance-related tied in with larger efforts at reforming legal and issues, for example: ‘Decentralized Governance policy frameworks and public administration, for Development’;50 ‘Fiscal Decentralization or with resource mobilization and management and Poverty Reduction’;51 and more recently ‘A efforts. For instance, several questions have been Users Guide to Measuring Local Governance’.52 raised about the Millennium Villages projects. However, dissemination has often been limited How costly are the interventions? Can they be to the democratic governance practice area and sustained and replicated? Have the Government guidance notes have not tended to be consid- and regional authorities been sufficiently engaged ered authoritative within, let alone beyond, the and involved so that they can learn lessons from democratic governance practice area. the piloting?

UNDP-supported local governance projects Scaling up of such projects does not occur either have, on occasion, been innovative and scaled up. when sufficient efforts have not been made However, in other instances, UNDP initiatives during the planning and implementation stages have remained high profile ‘boutique projects’, to link such initiatives with national efforts. Local pilots or one-off localized initiatives and have governance interventions need to be viewed as not made a broader developmental contribution. part of a broader system, determined by national There are several instances of UNDP-supported legislation, decentralization and other policies local governance initiatives being regarded and power relations. Interventions targeted only as innovative and scaled up as in Cambodia, at the community or local government level may

49 UNDP, ‘DGP-Net E-Discussion, Local Governance and Development Agenda’, Consolidated Reply, December 2007. 50 UNDP, ‘Decentralized Governance for Development: A combined Practice Note on Decentralization, Local Governance and Urban/Rural Development’, April 2004. 51 UNDP, ‘UNDP Primer: Fiscal Decentralization and Poverty Reduction’, November 2005. 52 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, ‘A Users Guide to Measuring Local Governance’, 2009.

2 6 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n benefit but this will have a limited impact unless exercise their rights and participate in decision- they are tied in with larger efforts at reforming making processes. And to encourage these legal and policy frameworks, public administra- women to register, Preparation of Electoral Roll tion and human resource management. with Photographs worked with Imams and other religious leaders to reassure women that taking UNDP has tended to view its interven- their photos for the electoral list was appropriate. tions in local governance as ends rather than This was part of a clearly stated mandate to as necessary means to an end. In Ecuador, ensure every citizen was reached during the for instance, the UNDP and United Nations voter registration process regardless of his or her Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) location, condition or nature. in enhancing institutional capacities for urban development management, by linking land However, a strategic and systematic effort survey maps with land registers, made a ‘signifi- at mainstreaming gender concerns into local cant contribution’ by creating certainty regarding governance has been missing. A systematic land property, legalizing properties in urban gender analysis of local governance interven- areas and increasing municipal revenues from tions has not been regularly conducted. Though property tax. However, it is not clear whether there is recognition that women’s empowerment or not this led to increased social investments, has amounted to more than their participation reduced urban poverty and improved service in electoral politics, appropriate indicators for delivery for the poor. Overall, a focus on activi- assessing improvements in gender relations and ties, processes and outputs without a long-term greater equality in the benefits flowing to women vision and strategy has led to UNDP often losing and men have not been formulated for most sight of people and their human development. A local governance initiatives. Similarly, capacity recent evaluation of UNDP support in Cambodia building initiatives have targeted women but points out, for instance, that ‘full achievement of adequate data have not been gathered to assess desirable outcomes has often been compromised whether or not women have benefited from a by a lack of focus on the people. In the area of higher awareness and training. democratization and decentralization, people’s participation and empowerment remain limited: In conflict situations, factors positively influencing in the environmental programmes, there is more outcomes would include the presence of a strong emphasis on conservation and less on sustain- peace infrastructure made up of networks, able livelihoods of the poor who depend on communities, and highly trained human resources environmental resources; in the poverty-related for peace building, the strategic engagement by programmes, more success has been achieved in UNDP of people’s groups, government agencies building capacity for market-led development and local government units, the existence of than in creating employment opportunities for peace agreements and active civil society partici- the poor.’53 pation. On the other hand, effectiveness has been hindered by a weak policy environment for UNDP has been actively promoting gender issues peacebuilding at the national level, the inconclu- in local governance in a number of countries. For sive status of peace negotiations with rebel instance, the Bangladesh Election Commission groups, episodes of armed conflict that set back in place since 1996 has sought to ensure that the gains of peace on the ground, and leadership women were comfortable voting and in doing shifts among partners resulting from elections, so ensured that a portion of the election staff political appointments and institutional changes were women in order to appease women’s fears that caused delays or adjustments in programme and to provide a comfortable context for them to implementation.

53 ‘Assessment of Development Results for Cambodia’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Cambodia’, New York, 2010.

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 2 7 Local governance interventions require strong the situation and of the challenges. For example, national governance frameworks within which an evaluation of UNDP projects in the Occupied to plan and implement local governance initia- Palestinian Territory points out that the project tives. In the absence of a national framework for objective was over ambitious given the timeframe decentralization, interventions tend to become and available financial and staff resources, and one-off projects. Outcomes also depend critically the complex and endemic nature of both conflict on the availability of human and financial and corruption in the area. Another limiting resources in support for local governance. A factor has been limited awareness building and shortage of well-trained and knowledgeable staff advocacy. This project was ‘apparently not well to lead, guide, plan and implement at the national publicized among key civil society organizations, as well as local community level very often proves donors or the Association for Palestinian Local to be a major factor limiting the effectiveness Authorities’. There was also little evidence that of interventions. it has triggered more work in this field by other stakeholders or the Government. Context-specific factors have played a critical role in affecting the effectiveness of local governance 3.3 Efficiency initiatives. Political stability, the dynamics of political parties, the presence and engagement of Assessing the efficiency of UNDP support to local non-state actors, the degree of local ownership, governance has not been easy. Most project and the extent of trust between local institutions and other evaluation reports make general comments the public, and people’s access to local govern- relating to features of UNDP operations but ments and other institutions have been among do not provide sufficient evidence that address key context-specific factors that have directly issues of efficiency. Some of the observations influenced local governance projects. For example are positive while others focus on the need in Comoros, effectiveness of UNDP support for improvement. has been limited by the frequent changes in Government, the related difficulty in partnering Stakeholders acknowledge that the transpar- with stakeholders to develop a perspective plan ency of UNDP procedures across projects—both for governance, and the constraints in being where UNDP support has been restricted to able to effectively tap the knowledge within the administration of funds or to management of organization. Effectiveness has been boosted procurement and where UNDP has played a by strong support of the political leadership (more) substantive programmatic role—has and the existence of the right incentives for added to the credibility of UNDP in the field. central and provincial governments to Project partners, by and large, have agreed that decentralize and empower local governments. UNDP procedures and processes have been Interventions to improve service delivery have ‘rather agile and unencumbered’ compared with been more effective when UNDP has simulta- those of the Government in question. A caveat neously extended support for capacity building, is in order. Such a view is typically expressed improving accessibility of service users, raising as a comparative assessment, particularly when awareness and promoting outreach, and when UNDP is compared with the Government in local governance reforms have had the backing of question. In other words, UNDP staff and strong national governance legislative and policy UNDP procedures are often seen as being frameworks as well as Government resources— much better. financial and human. While UNDP has delivered goods and services in Effectiveness at strengthening local governance line with administrative procedures, its efficiency in complex environments has been limited by the in supporting local governance initiatives has been failure to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis of adversely affected by cumbersome procurement

2 8 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n processes, a weak field presence and rigid the preparatory phase for developing appropriate project management. There have been frequent systems of consultations, delegation and coordi- complaints that UNDP procedures have been nation. Moreover, UNDP has not always had long-winded, especially those linked to procure- the capacity to provide the robust, professional ment, causing delays and adversely affecting the responses necessary to handle complicated and ability of UNDP to deliver against results. The deep-rooted challenges of local governance. House of Representatives’ Committee of the Many country offices overstretch themselves and Autonomies in Bolivia, for instance, found the spread their resources too thinly, resulting in procedures to obtain technical assistance too limited impact. lengthy and complicated, and too demanding on them vis-à-vis their capacities and know-how. Despite the assertion in the UNDP Strategic This adversely affected the efficiency of the Plan 2008–2013 that UNDP will not normally project (technical assistance arrived too late or engage in ‘small-scale projects without country- not at all) and its efficacy (the quality of the wide impact’, this continues to be a problem with Committee’s product was impaired and delayed many country programmes. It also implies that which reduced its usefulness and timeliness). local governance interventions remain ad hoc and Similarly, in Sierra Leone UNDP failed to are reduced to projects. It has also meant that deliver efficiently on projects that required direct prioritization tends to be based on funding rather procurement and logistic inputs. Partners felt than on a careful problem analysis. This was the that the bureaucratic nature of procurement situation in Comoros, for instance, where despite affected the ability of UNDP to deliver against the years of long engagement, UNDP does not results. These delays and hold-ups are typically have an internally coherent and comprehen- related to internal procedures as well as to sive approach towards its local governance and difficulties of coordination among partners. By decentralization interventions. contrast, technical support provided by UNDP, which by its nature is more process-orientated, Constraining the formulation of effective strate- was seen as being timely and appropriate. gies is insufficient access to a systematic body of knowledge on local governance. In the absence of In some cases, the shortage of financial resources a systematic review of the experience with these has adversely affected efficiency. For instance, the different modalities, almost every country office evaluation of a UNDP project in the Occupied finds itself in an experimental mode. Palestinian Territory points out that limited project resources may have denied UNDP the The pressure on UNDP capacity relates partly to opportunity to emerge as a strategic actor in the the large number of small projects that country attempt to ensure accountability and transpar- offices are required to support. Capacity (expertise ency. The limited resources were put into the and knowledge) to work on local governance at development of a toolkit—leaving little for the country-office level is often limited, as is the much-needed advocacy and partnership building. ability to tap into (possible) knowledge through Again, a mismatch of funding and programme the regional centres and headquarters. The range needs—country offices having spread their of skills needed is large starting with advocacy, resources too thinly across an ambitious country public administration, project management, programme—has adversely affected the efficiency planning and budgeting to political analysis and of operation. UNDP has often not been present at public finance. It calls for an understanding of the sub-national level. UNDP staff has therefore the local politics, the sociocultural and economic frequently been over-stretched when it has come background of the local communities, the to dealing with local governments. In Southern efficiency of local public administration, the Sudan, for instance, sufficient investments of various forms of discrimination and inequality, time and resources had not been made during the obstacles to participation, the presence and

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 2 9 capacity of NGOs, and so on. This also includes weak monitoring in the area of local governance the capacity of UNDP country offices to manage and hampered a systematic impact and outcome the political processes surrounding decentraliza- evaluation of UNDP contribution to strength- tion ad local governance. ening local governance.

Strategic planning is additionally impaired by the 3.4 Sustainability high turnover of staff within UNDP and also in Government. As a result, institutional memory is UNDP results of local governance support lost and many interventions seem to get extended with respect to sustainability are mixed. The or recycled. It has also been pointed out that assessment reveals that insufficient attention to UNDP is often not present at the sub-national important design, advocacy and implementa- level and this adversely affects efficiency of tion elements have contributed to a weak record operations. Finally, inflexibility in modifying of sustainability. UNDP initiatives in local projects to changing circumstances and the lack governance have been more sustainable when of synergy between similar projects within a working simultaneously on legislative frameworks country and across thematic clusters have also for decentralization, nurturing effective partner- limited efficiency. ships with Government, CBOs and communities, and developing appropriate methodologies and Deficiencies in the results framework developed approaches that could be replicated. by UNDP have been a common factor affecting efficiency of local governance initiatives. Many At the same time, several factors have adversely UNDP-supported projects in local governance affected sustainability. Weak risk analysis have not had clear statements of results backed (political, administrative, social, corruption, by corresponding indicators and markers of and so on), poor advocacy to promote broad- progress. Outcome statements have frequently based ownership, insufficient micro-macro been too general and unclear or not meaningful linkages and unrealistic timelines have prevented and measurable. Many relate to outputs and not adoption of projects for scaling up nationwide. to outcomes. Part of the problem arises because Sustainability has been adversely affected when it is not easy to have clear outcome statements resource implications have not been fully factored corresponding to a typical project timeframe for in and this has resulted in insufficient capacity interventions that UNDP supports. As a result, building efforts within Government and among outcome statements are often written as outputs non-state actors. In many cases, concerns of since outcome changes could take longer than sustainability have not been adequately factored the project’s lifespan. into the project at the design stage. Contributing to this has been the limited transfer of in-house There are also gaps in the identification of knowledge on local governance to other units indicators. In some cases, indicators are simply within UNDP and to development partners. not mentioned. In others, there are fundamental Also, the withdrawal of funds and staff at the problems with the appropriateness of the indica- end of the project as well as the high turnover of tors identified. In yet other cases, where outcome staff in Government (at all levels), within partner indicators are mentioned, the absence of baseline NGOs and within UNDP have also adversely data makes it impossible to assess performance affected sustainability. and progress. Moreover, many national statis- tical systems and country offices do not have the UNDP-supported initiatives have not focused required data and monitoring systems that would sufficiently on long term sustainability of local enable the measurement of progress towards governance initiatives that require changes Country Programme Document results in local in the behaviour and attitudes of local and governance. These deficiencies have compounded national stakeholders towards accountability,

3 0 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n decentralization and local governance. UNDP are instances when capacity building initia- supported projects make only an indirect tives linked to local governance have failed due reference to the need for such behavioural to insufficient and poor utilization of funds, and attitudinal changes. Many UNDP project training that is inappropriate to the context, officers focus on immediate activities and outputs raising trainee expectations unrealistically, and of the projects and lose sight of the bigger poor follow-up. challenges of ensuring accountability, people’s empowerment, representation of the marginal- Issues of sustainability have been more difficult ized and systemic changes needed to build the to address in conflict situations. Ensuring scaling foundation of strong local governance. Very few up and replicating local governance interven- mechanisms and methods exist within UNDP tions to become sustainable over the long term is for monitoring behaviour changes and tracking no simple task. Political instability in contexts of improvements. It is also important for local conflict, emergency and recovery tends to jeopar- governance initiatives to be integrated into the dize sustainability. It has not always been easy larger context of promoting democracy, transpar- to strengthen the policy environment for peace ency and accountability. This is not always building that often requires efforts to address key done. For instance, in the Occupied Palestinian conflict issues, such as natural resource extraction, Territory, the UNDP-project was not integrated equitable distribution of resources, injustice, and into a longer-term UNDP anti-corruption and marginalization of disadvantaged sectors. These transparency governance strategy. There was no are not easy to influence. At the national level, provision in the project for measuring the impact peace and development efforts have failed to take on changes in capacity, attitudes, perceptions and root and become self-sustaining because local ultimately performance of Local Government governance reforms have not been accompanied Units over time—measurements that, in any by sufficient allocation of resources; and at the case, go beyond the short-lived cycle of a project. local level, service delivery, capacity-building for As a result, many perceived the effort of UNDP peace, and confidence-building among groups and as a stand-alone project. sectors have not always taken place on a continuing basis. Sustainability has also been hindered by Sustainability is better ensured through a weak policy environment for peace building continued investments in capacity building of at the national level, the inconclusive status of different stakeholders (not just Governments) peace negotiations with rebel groups, episodes of at the local level over a long period of time. armed conflict that set back the gains of peace on In Mali, for instance, various stakeholders, the ground, and leadership shifts among partners especially at local levels, acknowledge the resulting from elections, political appointments positive impact of UNDP supported decentral- and institutional changes that cause delays or ization and local development interventions over adjustments in programme implementation. the past eight last years. The early period was difficult with little administrative or political While playing a catalytic role, UNDP has to be capacity to further the decentralization process. conscious of not creating dependency on UNDP Elected officials were not aware of even terms by local governance stakeholders, especially in like action plan, programme development and conflict-affected countries and some LDCs. This annual planning. UNDP began by investing could happen when UNDP becomes involved in training and awareness creation. Today the with the provision of basic services when situation is different. Investment in the capacity there is a weak or non-existent local govern- building of elected councillors has improved ment structure. These projects then yield only the overall development framework. Investing temporary outcomes in terms of individual and in capacity building of NGOs and CBOs also community empowerment and improvements in contributes to sustainability. However, there access to basic services.

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 3 1 3.5 Partnerships affected the image of UNDP especially in the eyes of non-state actors. Such situations have This section presents an assessment of UNDP arisen when UNDP has to work with authori- partnerships with Government, civil society tarian regimes. While engagement is justified organizations and other international partners. on the grounds of the principle of universality It also comments specifically on UNDP partner- and continuing to promote principles of human ship with other United Nations agencies as well development, there are times when the failure of as with its associated funds and programmes: UNDP to address issues of public accountability UNCDF, UNIFEM and UNV. and transparency reduces its own credibility.

Partnership with Governments UNDP has not always made the most of its UNDP has, over the years, built strong working proximity to Government to push the agenda of relations with central Governments on issues of local governance, particularly with line ministries local governance. This has been the outcome of a other than the one dealing with local governance. long history of cooperation in many countries. The In many countries, responsibility for decentral- trust and credibility that UNDP has established ization and local governance is entrusted to as a catalytic partner has been an important a separate ministry, and UNDP has worked factor enabling UNDP to play an effective role closely with such ministries to usher in useful in introducing essential national legislation for reforms to promote decentralization and local electoral and governance reforms. For instance, governance. However, UNDP has been much less UNDP has played such a role in Southern successful and effective in promoting decentral- Sudan by encouraging the inclusion of traditional ization and local governance across other sectoral authorities in local governance under the Local line ministries—be it health, education, rural Government Act of 2009 and in facilitating development or environment. This is partly collaboration between the Local Governance because the idea of local governance and its Board and other donors as part of the Local importance have not yet got fully internalized Government Recovery Programme that began in within UNDP and therefore in Governments. 2006. In many countries such as Cambodia and For instance, a recent review of whether and Mozambique, UNDP, as the first international how the energy-decentralization nexus is taken agency to support programmes under democratic into consideration within national decentraliza- governance, has played a key role in supporting tion policies and sector-specific policies for the national Governments with the introduction of LDCs and sub-Saharan African countries by legislation for local governance reforms. UNDP concluded that ‘for most of the countries reviewed, formal consideration of energy is UNDP representatives and programme officers largely missing in their decentralization policies. in country offices have, by and large, done well in Sector-specific policies (relating, for example, to terms of handling sensitivities surrounding issues agriculture, forestry and waster, as well as energy) of local governance. Dealing with Governments are more likely to consider energy within the on issues of local governance requires consider- context of decentralization, but they are dispro- able skills. It can become a tight-rope walk in portionately focused on supply-side issues, and many instances, especially during periods of crisis pay only limited attention to energy uses that are and conflict and high political instability. particularly important to the poor.’54 A reason for this could be because the responsibility for While proximity to Government is seen as an promoting local governance within UNDP rests advantage, there are times when this has adversely in the Democratic Governance practice area

54 UNDP, ‘Energy in National Decentralization Policies – A Review Focusing on Least Developed Countries and Sub- Saharan Africa’, Energy and Environment Group, New York, 2009.

3 2 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n and interactions with other practice areas (at the effective forums for exchange of ideas and experi- country level and headquarters) are not regular or ences, helped to instill trust between government formalized. and communities, and contributed to enhancing the legitimacy of Governments in the eyes of UNDP has similarly been less successful in non-state actors. UNDP engagement with civil developing appropriate modalities for working society, however, varies from one country to with sub-national (state or provincial) and local another, within a country, and from one local levels of government. UNDP country offices community to another. Much depends upon the have experimented with different modalities existence and capacity of credible NGOs and the to improve effectiveness of operations at the skills they possess. UNDP support has assumed local community level. There are numerous a special relevance in conflict-affected countries, examples of UNDP starting sub-national offices, when it has contributed to supporting infrastruc- appointing local representatives, hiring technical ture repair, and building or creating relationships and other staff on contract at the level of local between different levels of government and civil governments, engaging CBOs and so on. But society. these have tended to remain tentative and experi- mental. In some instances, they have created While levels of engagement may be high in some dependency of the local government on UNDP countries, they may be low or non-existent in staff, and in other instances, the sustainability of other countries. The strength of UNDP engage- operations is threatened when UNDP withdraws. ment depends on both the commitment of the Many times, technical specialists appointed by or country office to genuinely partner with civil paid for by UNDP are reluctant to join local society organizations, as well as on the strength governments; in other instances, local govern- of national and local civil society. Though ments find it difficult to retain such technical UNDP recognizes the important role of civil experts especially if they have to be absorbed at society organizations—and of non-state actors higher-than-normal salaries. more generally—in the advancement of human development, yet in most cases, UNDP does UNDP has also not capitalized on the potential not play a pro-active role in engaging with civil linkages it could build—especially with other society. There could be several legitimate reasons United Nations agencies—to influence different for not engaging with CSOs in certain contexts. line ministries’ Governments on local governance. They might not enjoy credibility or they might For instance, UNDP could enter into more not have the necessary skills for improving local formal arrangements with the United Nations governance. In certain political contexts, UNDP International Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to offices might have to be circumspect in engaging work with the line ministries that UNICEF deals with CSOs except with the express support of with on a regular basis (health, education, water the national Government. Most country offices and sanitation, etc.) to promote the practices of have lacked a long-term strategic focus and plan local governance. The UNDAF process and the for engagement with civil society organizations. One United Nations effort are enabling such Typically, ‘downstream’ service delivery efforts collaboration to emerge, but there is still a long have been greater than ‘upstream’ policy partici- way to go. pation. This has severely limited the impact that local governance initiatives could have on Partnership with Civil Society enhancing human development. Organizations The volume of UNDP partnerships with civil A recent evaluation study, for instance, comments society has been high, there have been many on the low priority and lack of commitment to levels of engagement, and partnerships have, civil society organizations in Africa: ‘at the end in many cases, been strong. UNDP has created of the day, as inter-governmental organizations,

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 3 3 UNDP and United Nations agencies more Partnership with Development and generally, are state-centric in orientation. Their International Partners mandate is clearly to serve the Member States UNDP has cooperated well with development that compose the United Nations system. The and international partners in strengthening local primary relationship of UNDP has been and governance initiatives and has often assumed a continues to be with partner Governments and leadership role in supporting donor coordina- there seems little incentive for concerned staff tion. Many recognize the positive role played by to change what has become the natural order of UNDP given its explicit mandate to promote things.’55 Ideally, UNDP should engage system- democratic governance in the countries where atically and simultaneously with Governments it operates. The role of UNDP vis-à-vis other and non-state actors. However, in the absence of international development partners, however, a corporate policy directive and explicit mandate varies from country to country as does its to mainstream civil society engagement as an coordination role. In Cambodia, for instance, essential element of achieving overall goals of UNDP has established partnerships with United human development, UNDP tends to ‘projectize’ Nations agencies, multilateral development the nature of its engagement with CSOs. banks, bilateral donors and international NGOs. Often the first to have initiated work supporting UNDP, in most countries, views NGOs as ‘junior’ local governance, UNDP has assumed a natural partners and ‘contractors’ for the implementation leadership role, and in many countries, has been of specific projects. Their capacities are used mainly instrumental in bringing in other donors and for short-term programme implementation. helping Governments coordinate donor assistance Even with these contractual arrangements, there and pooling resources. In Rwanda, for instance, appears to be a degree of unease and discomfort. UNDP plays more than one role: donor, facili- UNDP has yet to tap the full potential of NGOs tator, spokesperson, catalyst, special Government and other CSOs to contribute to improve policy partner, and so on. In some countries, UNDP formulation and implementation. No serious plays the lead role whereas in others, it is effort is being made to evolve long-term partner- relegated to being one among many partners ships or support them with capacity building especially if the funds that UNDP contrib- in advocacy as well as programme implemen- utes to local governance are relatively small. tation. Offering UNDP advisory services to Partners have found UNDP to be enormously NGOs, for instance, is not common practice. helpful in opening opportunities to interact with This is another reason why it has been difficult Governments and reach other partners. UNDP to scale up many UNDP-supported interven- is also credited with helping pool resources and, tions in local governance. With a few exceptions, thereby, adding value to the local governance UNDP has not used its proximity to national process. In countries where there is competition, Governments to develop civil society legislative the failure to strategically position itself among and policy frameworks. These findings reinforce international actors within the national context this assessment of UNDP partnerships with civil or to take the initiative has pushed UNDP society and strengthen the findings of the 2008 into becoming a junior player. For instance, in global inventory conducted to understand the Bolivia, UNDP conducts much of its decentral- magnitude, the challenges and opportunities of ization and local governance work in consultation country office engagement with civil society.56 with the Group of Development Partners in

55 UNDP, `Final Draft Evaluation Report on the Regional Project to Develop the Capacity of CSOs to Participate in Policymaking and to Support Civil Society – Assessments in RBA Countries’, 22 June 2010. 56 UNDP, ‘Country-level Engagement with Civil Society: A Global Snapshot’, 2009.

3 4 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n which the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Partnership with United Nations Zusammenarbeit, the Agencia Suiza para el Agencies and Associated Funds and Desarrollo y la Cooperación and the Agencia Programmes Española de Cooperación Internacional para el UNDP has partnered with other United Nations Desarrollo play more prominent roles. UNDP agencies such as UNICEF, the International does work in partnership, but is sometimes Labour Organization, the World Health perceived as disengaged, pursuing its own path. Organization, UN-Habitat and the United This is attributed to the approach of UNDP of Nations Population Fund in many countries to targeting the national level as its main field of promote local governance reforms. However, action. More recently, UNDP has positioned UNDP has not systematically capitalized on itself as leader on the issue of autonomous the potential linkages it could have built with decentralization, working closely with the central the other United Nations agencies to promote administration. decentralization and local governance. Though improvements have been seen with the push for UNDP has, in some instances, assisted One United Nations reforms, modalities of joint Governments with aid coordination. Though funding and programming for local governance the coordination role of UNDP is often appreci- are still in an experimental phase. In Sierra Leone, ated, it does not necessarily mean that UNDP for instance, UNDP has a coordinating role in sub-national and local initiatives are meaning- the context of UNDAF. The United Nations fully coordinated or integrated with projects Country Team looks to UNDP for leadership on and activities supported by other agencies, or local governance-related issues but it is not always even more substantially conjoined with UNDP forthcoming (Country Team partners are ‘waiting action in different sectors. For instance, even for guidance’). though the various Oruro initiatives in Bolivia (concerning indigenous culture-based planning, The UNCDF-UNDP strategic partnership in training inter-cultural public management LDCs is built on the unique investment mandate and community-oriented fields of practical of UNCDF as being complementary and supple- expertise) are linked together, the interven- mentary to UNDP. UNCDF, for instance, tion seems isolated and removed from other has the mandate to make capital investments; initiatives that UNDP is involved in at the UNDP does not. Both UNCDF and UNDP national level. Similarly, UNDP has not fully support enhanced representation and inclusion capitalised on opportunities for closer integra- as essential for local development. Much like tion with other development partners, essential UNDP, UNCDF seeks to enhance the capacity for advancing human development at local levels. of government institutions for strengthening local Collaborations at the community level with other development, and it advocates for policies that development partners, where they exist, remain, promote decentralization for local development. by and large, confined to information sharing. The UNCDF competitive advantage resides Little effort has been made by UNDP to examine clearly in this role for which it has been widely potential complementarities with other develop- recognized as a ‘laboratory’ of decentralization.57 ment agencies working at the community level as Using carefully documented evidence from pilot a way of further strengthening and sustaining its projects, UNCDF canvasses for scaling up and support to local governance reforms. mobilizes donors to provide funds.

57 ECI Africa, `Senegal: Final Evaluation Rural Decentralization Support Program (Padmir)’, Submitted to UNCDF, Final Report, 6 June 2007.

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 3 5 The relationship between UNDP and UNCDF Joint UNDP-UNCDF interventions vary has evolved over the years. While UNCDF, according to national contexts. In Ethiopia, traditionally, focused primarily on capital invest- Eritrea, Lao PDR, and Timor Leste, for ment, it became increasingly involved in local instance, the focus has been on piloting in a small governance-related issues after the mid-1990s number of districts where joint programmes in order to ensure that its capital investment have helped make the case for the role of local was socially appropriate and sustainable. At government and also established participatory the same time, there was a need to engage planning processes. In contrast, in countries more in up-stream work, which raised the issue such as Bangladesh, Mozambique and Uganda, of its comparative advantage vis-à-vis UNDP pilots have led to national replication of the local in dealing with policy and legal and regula- governments systems involving partners with tory issues pertaining to local governance and deeper pockets such as the World Bank and decentralization – more the traditional domain of the European Union. In other cases (such as in UNDP. Today, the strategic and results agendas Nepal, Tanzania and Yemen), where pilot activi- of UNDP and UNCDF have been integrated ties have helped make the case or where there is within the Strategic Plan. As a result, UNCDF’s strong national commitment to decentralization, local governance portfolio has generally been well joint programmes have worked simultaneously aligned and integrated with that of UNDP. at local and national levels focusing on fiscal decentralization and national systems of public The establishment of joint programmes in local expenditure management. governance as the primary modality for cooper- ation between UNDP and UNCDF at the Working together, UNDP and UNCDF have country level has encouraged joint mobilization been able to leverage respective expertise and of resources as well. The formulation of develop- resources in support of local governance reforms ment outcomes and outcome indicators in the particularly because of their perceived political Strategic Plan enables both organizations to be neutrality and the long-standing trust built with more effective in achieving results. This has also national Governments. There has usually been contributed to rationalizing management and strong evidence of cooperation between UNCDF operational responsibilities at the headquarters, and UNDP at the country level based on an regional and country levels. Joint programmes understanding of the comparative advantages focus on three areas: policy, institutions and and mutual benefits. In Yemen, for instance, investments. UNCDF supports the local where there is a strong, mutually supportive, planning process and makes capital investment relationship based on a division of labour, block grants, which allow local governments to UNCDF manages and disburses funding for all put their development plans immediately into capital investment and international technical action. This helps demonstrate to local citizens advisory support, whereas UNDP manages that given the means their elected officials can and disburses funding for national capacity respond to the need for a new health station, building and policy-related advisory activi- irrigation system, refurbished school or village ties.58 Similarly, in Malawi, UNDP provides water supply. UNDP interventions usually focus funding and technical assistance for capacity on national decentralization policies and on building, including the salaries of Government building the capacity of central Government and staff hired to support the decentralization national NGOs to provide appropriate support to programme, and the UNCDF provides funding local governments. and technical assistance relating to investment

58 UNCDF, ‘Yemen: Decentralization and Local Development Support Programme Report on the Final Evaluation of the UNDP and UNCDF Local Development Programme’, submitted to the UNCDF, June 2008.

3 6 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n capital, its use and management.59 In Lao PDR, communicated. For instance, in Cambodia, while UNCDF support is in the form of financing the ending of the UNCDF Local Development local planning, budgeting and capital investment Fund Project created an opportunity for coopera- in infrastructure and associated service delivery tive effort between UNDP and UNCDF to through a District Development Funds modality continue to support the fiscal decentralization coupled with training and back-up technical efforts initiated by UNCDF and the UNDP within advice. UNDP, on the other hand, finances and its broader Decentralization Support Project, provides technical support and training for the the management arrangements of the project administrative re-organization.60 were confusing. This happened partly because of the turnover of personnel within UNDP and UNCDF tends to support constructive change UNCDF offices during the initial stages of the at the community level, but it often lacks the project (leading to lack of continuity and loss of resources, both human and financial, to work institutional memory) and the absence of a clear with Government actors at higher levels especially Memorandum of Understanding between UNDP for ensuring sustainability and scaling up of the and UNCDF. Other management arrangements local development initiatives. While this is not have also not worked. For instance, UNCDF to say that UNCDF does not support higher- did not have a physical presence in Cambodia level activities, this has been a good part of the during the period of the project and programme focus and investment of UNDP. For instance, in management support was based in the UNCDF Yemen, UNCDF and UNDP helped secure the New York City office. This meant UNDP had positioning of the local governance programme to assume some of the administrative, logistical within the national Government by establishing and financial support requirements not originally contact and dialogue at a politically higher level.61 envisaged. UNCDF and UNDP took an early lead in donor harmonization within and outside the Other gaps are also evident. The failure to United Nations family and persuaded others to develop strategic plans jointly for local governance fund the upscaling of the Decentralization and at the country level, based on an assessment Development Support Programme meant for of the historical and political background, the institutional development and capacity building presence and role of other donors supporting local to more governorates and districts beyond the governance, and of risks. Another common reason piloting phase. for the slow pace of impact and limited experi- ence with replication and scaling up has been the Working together, UNCDF and UNDP have neglect of advocacy and lobbying functions (both been able to support policy changes particu- within the United Nations and also outside) by larly because of their political neutrality and the UNDP and UNCDF. Also, insufficient invest- long-standing trust that they have built with ment was made to document, analyze and draw national Governments. There have, however, lessons from successes and initiatives that have been instances when UNCDF and UNDP have been scaled up. not been able to make the most of the opportuni- ties for supporting local governance. This occurs While there is strong evidence of cooperation largely because roles and responsibilities of the two between UNCDF and UNDP at the country level agencies have not been clarified, understood or based on an understanding of their comparative

59 UNCDF, ‘Malawi: Final Evaluation of the UNDP and UNCDF’s Local Development Programme’, submitted to UNCDF, Final Evaluation Report, 10 January 2008. 60 UNDP, ‘Lao PDR: Final Report of the Mid-term Review: Governance, Public Administration Reform and Decentralized Service Delivery Project’, Saravane Province’, 1 April 2009. 61 UNCDF, ‘Yemen: Decentralization and Local Development Support Programme Report on the Final Evaluation of the UNDP and UNCDF Local Development Programme’, submitted to the UNCDF, June 2008.

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 3 7 advantages and mutual benefits, this has not and that motivates other partners, including necessarily been the case at other levels. The UNDP and, in particular, bilateral and multilat- confusion between the purported emphasis of eral donors including the World Bank, to take UNDP on ‘democratic governance’ and that of the ‘concept’ forward and to scale it up. In the UNCDF on ‘local development’ has lingered meantime, there are signs that while UNDP over the reporting period. This has given rise continues to struggle somewhat to align and to occasional animosity and, in some instances, integrate its different approaches towards local competition for resources and visibility. governance internally, there appears to be an increasing interest in engaging with UNCDF Factoring in the multifaceted approach of UNDP on issues of mutual concern, including on the towards issues of local governance and decentral- ‘scaling up of MDGs at the local level’ and crisis ization, driven, in part, by the mandates and prevention and recovery. development agendas of different UNDP bureaux and programme units, has proved a challenge There are several examples of effective partner- in the evolving relationship between UNDP ships in strengthening local governance between and UNCDF. In some cases, these mandates UNDP and UNIFEM given particularly the and agendas did not, from the perspective of several areas of overlap between advancing human UNCDF, appear to be pursued in a coherent development and enhancing women’s economic or synchronized manner, and did not always security and rights, reducing the prevalence of coexist easily at the country or corporate level. In violence against women and promoting gender some of the LDCs in which UNCDF operates, justice in democratic governance in stable and it might encounter multiple initiatives for local fragile states. There are many examples of solid governance sponsored by UNDP headquarters partnership in the area of local governance. This units and relating to issues of decentralization overlap exists because of the complementary (such as BDP’s democratic governance group), nature of support that UNDP and UNIFEM MDG-localization (for example BDP’s poverty offer. UNDP frequently depends on UNIFEM group), small grants for CSOs involved in climate expertise and experience in substantive areas change and biodiversity protection initiatives involving women whilst UNIFEM needs UNDP (such as BDP’s environment and energy group), to ensure gender concerns are mainstreamed and crisis prevention and recovery or particular scaled up across Governments and in civil society. funding modalities (such as the Art Gold initia- UNIFEM, for instance, leverages its support tive of the PB). While UNCDF has therefore, at to women’s political participation through new times, struggled to clarify its role in the context of efforts to go ‘beyond the numbers’ and to build a particular programme country, it has also faced the political impact of women in politics. It a UNDP that has not always spoken with one invests in the capacity of women and men voters voice, which has complicated programming and to be effective constituencies for gender equality implementation. policies from political parties. It advances women’s leadership and influence in peacebuilding and Overall, there appears to be a continuing need conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, to differentiate more clearly between the roles and truth and reconciliation processes. UNIFEM and responsibilities of UNDP and UNCDF and also works with UNDP to demonstrate the to make the distinctions ‘cleaner and clearer’. In importance of gender-sensitive incentive systems, the meantime, renewed efforts to cooperate are performance measures, and procedures for gender welcomed by all parties. UNCDF appears to be responsive planning, programming and budgeting particularly concerned to establish its role as an at national and local levels, including capacity agency that provides ‘proof of concept’ through development in gender responsive budgeting. an approach that combines capital investment Due to the complementary nature of support that with efforts to strengthen local governance, UNDP and UNIFEM offer each other, the two

3 8 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n organizations have worked side-by-side in many UNDP and that of UNV. Whereas UNDP, as countries and, in some instances, as in Barbados part of capacity development, tends to concen- and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean trate more on Governments, UNV concentrates States, have been involved in successful joint on meso-level institutions such as CSOs, CBOs, initiatives. volunteer-involving organizations and youth and community groups. This focus is followed by a The Gender Equitable Local Development micro-level (community level or grassroots level) project is a UNCDF-UNIFEM-UNDP initia- capacity-development and training focus that tive designed to facilitate the achievement of builds on community mobilization for participa- gender equality and justice through improved tion in specific UNV project activities, including well-being and status of women. The project training and sensitization. is being implemented in five African countries: Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone UNV-UNDP collaboration has: (a) success- and Tanzania. In Albania, UNIFEM has taken fully guided and supported the creation of the lead in the provision of technical expertise councils, committees, groups and organiza- to support implementation and strengthening tions for participation in local development and of institutional mechanisms and systems for the advancement of key issues; (b) increased the Law on ‘Gender Equality in Society’ with networking, exchange activities, cooperation and UNDP providing oversight, coordination and partnerships development; (c) provided a wide services in support of UNIFEM operations and variety of capacity-building, sensitization and administration. training initiatives for stakeholders at all levels; (d) helped increase networking, exchange activi- Despite this close proximity at the country level, ties, cooperation and partnerships development cooperation arrangements have been opportu- among stakeholders; and (e) increased pro-active nistic rather than strategic or well defined. dialogue and trust between CSOs and state Responsible for this has been competition at and local authorities and involvement in local times between UNDP and UNIFEM for limited development decision-making.62 For instance, resources, as well as confusion among both staff UNV and UNDP played an important role when, and stakeholders about the division of responsi- in cooperation with the Government of China, bilities between UNDP and UNIFEM. Country they made a joint effort to promote volunteerism studies show that there is sometimes little or through the 2008 Olympics Games. This initia- ineffective cooperation between UNDP and tive contributed to enhancing the capacity of UNIFEM. national volunteer partners to support the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. It has also opened UNDP and UNV have a long tradition of up opportunities for Olympic volunteers after working as partners in local governance. There is the games to participate in China’s develop- a considerable overlap between UNV’s work and ment. Representatives of the Beijing Volunteer the activities of UNDP in local governance. UNV Association have acknowledged the contribu- projects typically address stakeholder inclusion tion of UNDP, especially in terms of introducing and participation (primarily through the provision international good practices in volunteerism. of awareness raising and coaching and networking With support from UNDP, the Beijing Volunteer support) and community mobilization through Association engaged high-level expertise to train voluntary action (primarily through partnership a group of core Olympic volunteer leaders. They building and leadership development). There has note that without support from UNDP, it would been considerable synergy between the work of be difficult to have such high-quality training.

62 UNV, ‘UNV Synthesis of Evaluations – A Synthesis of UNV Evaluations from 2000 through 2009’, April 2010 [Draft 1.2]

C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n 3 9 Despite the many years of collaboration between There are other gaps in the UNDP-UNV working UNDP and UNV, the benefits of volunteerism arrangements. Projects have been affected by a have remained unclear and controversial in lack of clarity and common understanding among UNDP. A recent report synthesizing the findings UNDP and UNV volunteers of their respective emerging from 73 UNV project and thematic roles and responsibilities. In some projects, UNV evaluations undertaken between 2000 and 2009 volunteers were unclear about reporting lines while suggests that ‘a number of projects benefitted in others, they were assigned project management from a very positive and supportive relationship agencies that lacked the coordination abilities to between UNV and UNDP and other United oversee UNV Volunteer activities in their various Nations agencies.’ However, while UNV is a host organizations. Some projects suffered from a part of UNDP, the promotion of volunteerism lack of commitment from UNDP. In some cases, does not figure in the UNDP strategic results delays in project formulation meant that even framework, or as a practice area. This means all though the project was well-aligned with the local project scenarios in which project documents are UNDP Country Programme, the opportunity to largely defined by UNDP (including monitoring have it reflected in the prevailing UNDAF was and evaluation) leave UNV little room to formally missed; this ultimately influenced the extent and insert volunteer-related objectives, activities and continuity of UNDP support. In others, UNV indicators unless it is proactively engaged in the Volunteer relations with UNDP were minimal. design from early on. Administrative backstopping was often available, but technical assistance and operational follow-up were limited.

4 0 C HAP t e r 3 . A s s e s s m e n t O F U n d P c o n t r i b U t i o n Chapter 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions broadly promote the practice of local governance. In most instances, UNDP interactions have been The conclusions and recommendations provided confined to the particular ministry promoting below are based on the wealth of findings local governance. UNDP has been much less described in Chapter 3. The conclusions should successful and effective in promoting decentral- be seen as mutually reinforcing, conveying an ization and local governance across other sectoral overall sense of UNDP strengths and challenges line ministries, be it health, education, rural in supporting the establishment of entitlements development or the environment. This is partly and improving the delivery of goods and services, because the idea of local governance and its through local governance. The recommenda- importance have not yet been fully internalized tions highlight the most critical areas in which within UNDP, or therefore, within Governments. UNDP could bolster its developmental contribu- tion in this field. Bearing in mind its comparative Although virtually all bureaux and programme advantages in the area of democratic governance, units deal with issues of local governance, UNDP UNDP is presented with significant opportuni- has not been able to establish systems that ties to support the human development of women promote better communication and exchange of and men in programme countries through a more ideas and experience across its various bureaux explicit and integrated focus on local governance. and their sub-units. As a result, mainstreaming and integration of the idea of local governance Conclusion 1: UNDP has not fully capital- across practice areas have been uneven, limited ized on the comparative advantage it has in and deficient. That has been particularly so at strengthening local governance. headquarters, where the work of the various bureaux and their sub-units remains compart- The analytical framework of human develop- mentalized. Analyses of lessons learned of the ment and human security as well as human rights rich experience of UNDP in the area of local developed and championed by UNDP (that governance and decentralization have not been draws attention to enhancing people’s capabili- systematically done by all regional bureaux and ties) gives the organization a distinct advantage practice areas. in advocating and promoting the practice of local governance and is a powerful context for Conclusion 2: The contribution of UNDP local governance reforms. However, UNDP has has been limited by the absence of a common not always used human development as an understanding and sufficient corporate organizing frame for strengthening and assessing guidance on strengthening local governance. the outcomes of local governance initiatives. Nor have these perspectives been systemati- There has been little consistency and common cally integrated into efforts at promoting local understanding of local governance within governance reforms. UNDP has tended to view UNDP. Ambiguity has surrounded the usage of its interventions in local governance as an end terms such as local development, local economic rather than as the necessary means to an end. development, local area development, local territorial development, regional development, Despite the credibility and trust it enjoys with local human development, and local sustainable national Governments, UNDP has not system- development, and local governments, subnational atically attempted to engage in dialogue with governments and local authorities. Similarly, all the ministries with which it partners to more whereas decentralization and local governance

C HAP t e r 4 . c o n c l U s i o n s A n d r e c o m m e n d A t i o n s 4 1 are different processes, the dynamics of both decentralization and other policies and power processes have not always been fully understood. relations. Interventions targeted only at the Available toolkits and briefing notes have offered community or local government level may benefit limited guidance on a few topics, but have but this will have a limited impact unless they are not provided the overarching framework within tied in with larger efforts at reforming legal and which to address issues of local governance. policy frameworks, public administration and UNDP relevance has been further diminished human resource management. by the failure to develop adequate knowledge products that distil experiences to inform policy- Conclusion 4: UNDP has paid insufficient makers and practitioners in Governments and attention to establishing entitlements for men communities. This has led to UNDP ‘losing its and women, especially for the poor and margin- voice and importance’ especially when there are alized, to ensuring effective responsiveness other donors offering much larger funds and from subnational governments to demands expertise in support of local governance. made by communities, and to engaging with non-state actors. Conclusion 3: Outcomes from UNDP support to local governance have been mixed. Whereas Local governance initiatives have sought to some initiatives have had a significant national improve the lives of the poor, especially the impact, others have tended to be ad hoc and marginalized, the socially discriminated and isolated, not systematic and strategic. disadvantaged groups in society. Such a focus on men and women and their well-being—the Bureaux within UNDP have showcased numerous essence of the human development approach— examples of support to local governance that have has often been lost in the preoccupation of UNDP been innovative, effective and have benefited a with activities, processes and project objectives. large number of local communities. There have As a result, UNDP local governance initiatives been instances where pilot projects have been have often shied away from an explicit focus on scaled up nationally and the UNDP leadership improving representation and empowerment of role has been widely acknowledged. At the same poor and marginalized groups or service delivery time, there have also been projects that have for the disadvantaged. Furthermore, UNDP has had very limited impact for a variety of reasons. yet to crystallize the lessons learned from various UNDP has often failed to ensure national experiments and work out effective modalities ownership (not merely government ownership) of support and partnership with subnational of local government reforms. What has been governments and non-state actors. responsible for the limited impact has been the failure to develop a strategic plan and vision for There are a number of modalities through which countries of UNDP support for local governance UNDP can engage with CSOs both in policy for the constructive engagement of Governments dialogue and project implementation. However, and non-state actors. Even where such a plan and many Country Offices have not systematically vision have existed, faulty design, limited buy-in identified opportunities for strategic engagement from Governments, poor advocacy, insufficient with non-state actors in order to strengthen resources for scaling up, and inadequate capacity local governance even where the potential exists. within UNDP and outside have limited the As a result, many CSO partnerships remain impact of local governance reforms. Scaling up ‘stand-alone’ initiatives; they are seldom viewed as of projects does not happen where insufficient strategic initiatives aimed at enhancing democratic efforts have been made during the planning and (local) governance and poverty reduction. Similarly, implementation stages to link such initiatives UNDP has not pro-actively supported non-state with national efforts. Local governance interven- actors by encouraging establishment of necessary tions need to be viewed as part of a broader legal and regulatory frameworks, building their system, determined by national legislation, capacity, and creating national and subnational

4 2 C HAP t e r 4 . c o n c l U s i o n s A n d r e c o m m e n d A t i o n s NGO platforms for enhancing their contribution effectiveness of the organization in its efforts at to strengthening local governance. As a result, strengthening local governance. their potential to work closely for the empower- ment of poor and disadvantaged communities and Conclusion 6: The absence of a strategic to bring about improved accountability in service framework of cooperation with its associated delivery by correcting imbalances and inefficien- funds and programmes at the corporate level cies in resource allocations has not been tapped as well as at the country level has limited the fully. potential to maximize results. Joint programming and collaboration have Conclusion 5: UNDP has not been able to tap not developed into a strategic partnership for the extensive knowledge on local governance advancing the respective corporate missions based within the organization for better programming. on a careful assessment of opportunities, roles Few institutions engaged in local governance and responsibilities. Despite the long tradition of could have the rich experience that UNDP has partnering with UNCDF and UNV, joint efforts in the field. Despite the advantage of working at strengthening local governance have been in over a 150 countries and in very diverse constrained by the frequent absence of strategic settings, UNDP has not yet established itself as a partnerships, particularly at the country level. knowledge organization where the experience of Even where such agreements have existed, collab- its managers is systematically captured, analyzed, oration has often been reduced to a management organized, distilled into collective intelligence arrangement for project implementation. At the and made available for use within and outside the project level, the absence of a mutually agreed organization. Country offices have not been able upon framework specifying the roles and respon- to tap effectively into the wealth of UNDP experi- sibilities of the partners at the country level has ence either through the regional service centres limited the effectiveness of the partnership. or headquarters. Communication between and within bureaux and other programme units has 4.2. Recommendations also been limited. Although virtually all bureaux and programme units have dealt with issues of Recommendation 1: UNDP should more explic- local governance, the different bureaux (especially itly and effectively mainstream local governance the Bureau for Development Policy, the Bureau into all its programmatic areas of support by for Crisis Prevention and Recovery and the developing a coherent framework that is firmly Partnership Bureau) have pursued different grounded in the practice of human development. approaches and have had only limited coopera- UNDP should develop a unified framework that tion and contact with each other. Most groups identifies and establishes the many linkages of and divisions seem to have been working in their the essential constituents of local governance own silos without using local governance as the with human development. Central to such an common platform to come together and think exercise will be the articulation of theories of strategically. Systems have not been fully in place change that underscore the different connec- for disseminating and sharing learning within tions between various local governance reform the organization and with external partners. measures and an expansion of human capabili- Knowledge products have not been produced ties. That should help UNDP to look beyond regularly and systematically to cover the wide processes and projects that promote partici- range of topics under local governance. Formal pation, market-led development, biodiversity, and informal networks have been established, but etc., to more tangible outcomes such as political they have not been sufficiently servicing managers empowerment, greater voice for the disadvan- within UNDP or policymakers and practitioners taged, transparency and accountability as well as outside the organization. Failure to tap effectively promotion of sustainable livelihoods for the poor, into the knowledge base has deeply hindered the peace and security, and conflict prevention.

C HAP t e r 4 . c o n c l U s i o n s A n d r e c o m m e n d A t i o n s 4 3 Such an overarching framework for local UNDP needs to more systematically produce governance should be informed by learning from knowledge products that distil the lessons learned the rich and diverse experience of UNDP in this from its vast experience in local governance across area. While developing such a framework, it will diverse and difficult settings. The extensive body be important to keep in mind that a ‘one-size-fits- of knowledge regarding local governance should all’ approach may dilute the relevance, hamper be properly codified, collated and analysed. local ownership and adversely affect the sustain- Where such documentation and analyses exist, ability of local governance reforms. Guidance effective mechanisms should be established for notes need to be updated and revised based on the bureaux and managers within UNDP and outside wealth of existing UNDP knowledge and experi- to tap them effectively and systematically. ence in the field of local governance, and new ones need to be developed to address different Recommendation 4: UNDP should strengthen aspects of local governance and decentralization its partnerships with its associated funds and in different contexts. programmes in order to enhance the effective- ness of its initiatives in local governance. Recommendation 2: In developing new pilot initiatives on local governance, UNDP should UNDP should take measures to further strengthen be more rigorous in ensuring that they can be, and streamline corporate arrangements for and are, upscaled in support of broader policy deepening local governance in partnerships with and programmatic development results. the associated funds and programmes. In order to improve the effectiveness of their partner- UNDP should invest more thoroughly in the ship, at the country level, UNDP and UNCDF development of pilot initiatives in order to should jointly develop a long-term strategic plan ensure their success. At the outset, that would for local governance which is consistent with involve conducting in-depth problem analysis and and integral to national development plans and involving the central Government, subnational priorities. That would help in more systemati- governments, local communities, non-state actors cally addressing deficiencies in capacity-building and other development partners in order to and resource mobilization that arise and adversely establish the initiative’s potential for success. affect sustainability. Better understanding and That approach will facilitate the development communication of the roles and responsibilities of mechanisms that will support the upscaling of UNDP and UNCDF would help to reduce of the pilot initiative and the sustainability of its benefits. It would imply the establishment inefficiencies in operations. They should work on of rigorous planning frameworks, including improving advocacy and lobbying functions, both meaningful indicators, baselines and targets. within the United Nations and outside. It would also require regular monitoring and evaluation, including of unintended effects, and The UNDP partnership with UNV at the country involving all stakeholders, in order to learn from level should move beyond project collaboration and experience as the project is implemented. Finally, become more strategic based on a shared long-term exit strategies should be clearly defined and vision of strengthening local governance. UNDP implemented and lessons learned documented as needs to make a more explicit commitment to the upscaling, in most cases, will be led by national mandates of UNV, and not view the partnership authorities with the support of other partners. merely as a management arrangement. In other words, UNDP should commit itself to partnering Recommendation 3: UNDP should more with UNV, on mainstreaming volunteerism for proactively and systematically collate, codify, the many benefits that such mainstreaming brings analyze, distil and disseminate the lessons to people, while ensuring that the deployment of learned from the extensive experience it has in volunteers builds local capacities in a sustainable the field of local governance. manner.

4 4 C HAP t e r 4 . c o n c l U s i o n s A n d r e c o m m e n d A t i o n s Annex 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

I. Background and Rationale 2000 and 2007, approximately 1,100 local governance-related projects were implemented Local governance is a key area of UNDP work. in 110 countries. During the period of the second From a UNDP perspective, local governance is MYFF, a budget of $1.4 billion was allocated to supported as a critical mechanism in empowering local governance-related activities at the country sub-national levels of society to ensure that local level, and additional initiatives were conducted at people participate in, and benefit from their the regional and global levels.63 own governance institutions and development services. Institutions of decentralization, local This evaluation will review the work of UNDP governance and urban/rural development aim over the course of the last two MYFFs in to bring policy formulation, service delivery and supporting programme countries in the area of resource management within the purview of men local governance, and will be forward looking and women. with regard to the implementation of the Strategic Plan. The evaluation will assess the contribution Local governance has been an integral theme of other UNDP units, including the BDP, the of the first and second MYFFs, covering the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, the periods 2000–2003 and 2004–2007, respec- Partnership Bureau and the regional bureaux, tively. The new Strategic Plan (2008–2013) in providing support or managing initiatives in takes forward UNDP’s work in local governance. these areas. Moreover, the evaluation will also In particular, in focusing on ‘strengthening be conducted in close cooperation with UNDP’s responsive governing institutions’ (the second partners on local governance-related issues, in key results area of the Strategic Plan’s second particular the UNCDF and UNV. goal, which is dedicated to ‘fostering democratic governance’), the Strategic Plan covers issues of The evaluation was approved as part of the local governance. UNDP’s support in the area programme of work of the UNDP Evaluation of local governance encompasses the review Office at the September 2008 session of the and reform of policies and legislation; capacity Executive Board, in Decision 2008/31. development (especially for local government planning and fiscal management); and inclusive II. Purpose systems of consultation with local communities that involve women and ethnic minorities. The The purpose of the evaluation will be to facili- issue of local governance is given importance tate the Executive Board’s review of UNDP under all four goals of the Strategic Plan. local governance-related activities and achieve- ments over the past decade, and provide strategic Preliminary evidence indicates that UNDP inputs into its deliberations on the role of local support to local governance has increased signif- governance in the future work programme of icantly over the past two decades. Between UNDP.

63 This budgetary figure only refers to UNDP activities explicitly reported in the context of decentralization and local governance. Other decentralization and local governance-type activities have been reported in the context of poverty reduction, crisis prevention and management, and other UNDP areas of work which are more difficult to capture.

A n n e X 1 . t e r m s O F r e F e r e n c e 4 5 The evaluation will also provide UNDP manage- evaluation will be from 2004, the beginning of ment with conclusions and recommendations the second MYFF onwards. that are expected to assist in identifying strategies and operational approaches to further strengthen In evaluating UNDP contribution to local UNDP development effectiveness through its governance since 2000, the conceptual framework support to local governance, in coordination with is provided by the first and second MYFFs. its development partners. However, the Strategic Plan approved by the UNDP Executive Board in 200864 constituted the primary frame of reference for the evalua- III. Objectives tion. Local governance remains an important The principal objectives of the evaluation are to: approach to the achievement of the democratic governance objectives stated therein as follows: Ascertain the relevance, efficiency, effective- ness and sustainability of UNDP support to ‘To consolidate and deepen democracy, local governance; free and fair elections must go hand in hand with efforts to support all people in Clarify the strategic role of UNDP vis-à-vis attaining the opportunity to participate in other development partners in providing local the decisions affecting their lives. Local, governance-related support to programme regional and national Governments must countries; use their capacity and resources to deliver Provide actionable recommendations on effective economic and social policies that UNDP strategies, polices, approaches and promote human development and manage interventions for local governance. the public services that citizens expect. Moreover governance needs to be grounded in the principles of human rights, transpar- IV. Scope and Preliminary ency and honesty, and gender equality Evaluation Questions embodied in the United Nations Charter Thematic evaluations provide an opportunity to and internationally agreed mandates …. evaluate UNDP programmes in a strategically UNDP democratic governance initiatives important thematic area from a global strategic are designed to support the efforts of perspective. The evaluation is, therefore, global, programme countries to enhance partic- covering relevant programmes at the global, ipation in public policy dialogues and 65 regional and country level covering Africa, Arab decision-making.’ States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and the In evaluating UNDP support in local governance, Commonwealth of Independent States, and these expected results will provide an overall Latin America and the Caribbean. orientation for the inquiry. The following are six issue-areas that need to be addressed by this The evaluation covers programmes that were evaluation: ongoing during the period 2000–2009, but because the enterprise management system 1. In a highly decentralized programming environ- (ATLAS) data base of UNDP was rolled out ment, how does UNDP make strategic only in 2004, and due to the limited availability decisions on where, how and to what extent to of specific programme and project-related data engage in decentralization and the strength- prior to that date, the principal focus of the ening of local governance?

64 Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, `UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008 -2011, Accelerating Global Progress on Human Development Updated Pursuant to Decision 2007/32’, June 2008. 65 Ibid, paragraphs 84–87.

4 6 A n n e X 1 . t e r m s O F r e F e r e n c e 2. Is there any evidence of a common approach The contribution of UNDP units, including the or philosophy applied by UNDP to local Bureau for Development Policy, the Bureau for governance? Does the range of programme Crisis Prevention and Recovery, the Partnerships activities lend itself to the greater substantive Bureau and regional bureau in providing support development of product lines and substan- or managing initiatives in these areas will be tive approaches for different economic and reviewed, as well as the contributions resulting developmental environments as well more from key partnerships with other entities centralized substantive technical support and reporting to the Administrator of UNDP, most backstopping. notably UNCDF, UNIFEM and UNV. 3. What value added does engagement with The evaluation will proceed on the understanding UNDP on local governance provide to that all UNDP activities achieve results in partner- Government and civil society? How does ship with other entities including government UNDP deliver this value added and what agencies, multilateral, bilateral and non-govern- can realistically be done to increase the value mental entities. Particular attention will be added that it provides? paid to assessing partnership with other United 4. What partnerships have been forged by UNDP Nations agencies and multilateral organizations in the delivery of local governance assistance? such as UN-HABITAT, FAO, the International What are these partnerships based on and Labour Organization, the World Bank and the what roles do the different partners play? Regional Development Banks.

5. Significant resources have been channelled The evaluation will assess the extent to which through UNDP for local governance over the the programmes have contributed to the period in question. What results have been achievement of strategic objectives as stated in produced? To what extent and how has UNDP the Strategic Plan, the MYFFs and relevant assistance fostered greater decentralization programme frameworks including Country and strengthened local governance? To what Programmes, Regional Programmes and the extent and how has UNDP assistance for local Global Programme. In doing so, the evaluation governance contributed to the achievement will seek to assess the extent to which the UNDP of other corporate objectives such as poverty approach has evolved and to what extent it has reduction, gender equality, and the achieve- drawn on key intellectual products from outside ment of MDGs? the organization as well as from within. 6. How can relevance, effectiveness and efficiency be raised with a view to strengthening the Taking into account the above, the evaluation contribution of UNDP to development results will assess local governance programmes and through local governance? projects based on the following criteria: Relevance and strategic positioning: The Local governance activities are not universal in evaluation will seek to draw conclusions as UNDP country programmes. In order to ensure to how UNDP has positioned itself vis-à-vis that the evaluation can draw conclusions from Governments and their programmes as well programmes that have a degree of critical mass as other development agencies and CSOs to and have significant national ownership, the maximise its relevance and leverage within exercise will focus on country programmes in the sphere of local governance. which UNDP pays particular importance to local governance activities, eliminating only those Responsiveness: Local governance is countries in which local governance interventions as political as it is technical. Adaptability have been sporadic and not a significant corner- and rapidity of action and responsiveness to stone of UNDP support. changing conditions and needs are as important

A n n e X 1 . t e r m s O F r e F e r e n c e 4 7 to the achievement of lasting results as sound surveys and questionnaires, as well as stakeholder design. The evaluation will assess implemen- consultations, interviews and focus groups at tation from this standpoint and seek to draw UNDP headquarters and in a range of programme lessons from different modalities applied. countries, and other relevant institutions or locations. The rationale for using a range of data Effectiveness: The evaluation will assess sources (data, perceptions, evidence) is to triangu- performance of the programme in terms of late findings in a situation where much of the its achievement of results at the outcome data, due to the very nature of UNDP work in level and above. The evaluation will also seek local governance, is qualitative, and its interpre- to assess the extent of national ownership, tation thus critically dependent on the evaluators’ how UNDP has gone about maximizing judgment. Triangulation provides an important it and the way in which it has affected the tool in shoring up evidence by using different data results achieved. sources to inform the analysis of specific issues. Efficiency: The evaluation will assess the modalities applied with a view to assessing Where possible and appropriate, the evaluation efficiencies in terms of timeliness in implemen- should seek to obtain evidence as to what may or tation as well as, to the extent possible, cost may not have occurred in the absence of UNDP efficiencies of the modalities themselves. work in local governance. Some programme countries may not have benefited from UNDP Sustainability: Local governance programmes support in this area for a range of reasons. Such involve long-term capacity building. The programmes may thus serve to provide insights sustainability of programmes is centrally into the relative value added of UNDP work in important to the outcomes and impact of such local governance. programmes. The evaluation will evaluate the sustainability of UNDP interventions and The evaluation will be based on the following factors that enhance or undermine long-term sources of data: (i) in-depth country analysis; and sustainability of institutions and of local (ii) interviews with key personnel in UNDP and residents, other partner agencies. Gender: To what extent and in what way has UNDP cooperation in the implementa- Country-level analyses should include the tion of local governance affected the role and following: economic and social status of women? A review of ADR reports;

Partnership and Coordination: This evalua- Outcome evaluation reports; tion operates on the understanding that all of the intended outcomes of UNDP programmes A scan of local governance programmes are to be achieved in partnership with other and projects. This scan will assist in (i) stakeholders. The evaluation will evaluate determining the availability of data on which the nature, extent and modalities of such to base the evaluation, (ii) obtaining a better partnerships and the way in which UNDP has understanding of the overall profile of local coordinated with key stakeholders. governance programmes and projects, as well as trends in implementation over the past decade, (iii) developing operational catego- V. Preliminary Approach ries for the evaluation, and (iv) defining a sampling methodology for case studies. In view of the complexity of UNDP support to local governance, the evaluation will seek to In-depth studies of programme countries, obtain data from a range of sources, including including desk-based studies and country through desk reviews and document analyses, case studies.

4 8 A n n e X 1 . t e r m s O F r e F e r e n c e Supplementary interviews may include: Board. The Evaluation Office will manage the evaluation process, put in place a quality Semi-structured ‘outsider’ stakeholder group assurance system, provide administrative and or individual interviews with, inter alia, substantive backstopping support, and ensure the representatives of political parties; civil society coordination and liaison with concerned agencies activists; women’s groups; and independent at headquarters as well as the country level. It intellectuals, including journalists, academics will also ensure that evaluations are conducted and think tanks; and other multilateral and in accordance with the Code of Conduct for bilateral agencies not directly collaborating Evaluation in the United Nations System, as with UNDP on local governance with a approved by the members of the United Nations view to obtaining broad information on the Evaluation Group on 19 July 2007. performance of local governance efforts in the country. Operational and Technical Support Semi-structured ‘insider’ stakeholder group or individual interviews with, e.g., govern- A Task Manager will be designated by the ment officials, direct beneficiaries of UNDP Evaluation Office to provide administrative and local governance programmes, UNDP substantive technical support to the Evaluation project personnel, and UNDP Country Team and will work particularly closely with the Office personnel, United Nations personnel Evaluation Team Leader throughout the evalua- in agencies directly collaborating with tion. An Evaluation Associate will be recruited UNDP on local governance, bilateral donors, to work in the Evaluation Office to support and NGO or agency counterparts involved the Task Manager and Team Leader with with UNDP local governance projects and background research and analysis as necessary to programmes. support the work of the Evaluation Team. An Evaluation Office Programme Associate will be Headquarters and other interviews to validate assigned to provide logistical support throughout findings and to gather insights into the the evaluation. operational and other dimensions of UNDP efforts at strengthening local governance. In each country designated as a case study, a substantive focal point will be identified in the Stakeholders will be consulted during different UNDP country office. That person will, in close phases of the evaluation in order to (i) ensure an collaboration with the Task Manager, coordinate adequate understanding of the nature of UNDP and organize meetings and all activities of the local governance work in general terms, as well evaluation within the country. Similarly, relevant as in different countries and circumstances, (ii) UNDP bureaux will nominate a focal point who validate the overall evaluation approach, (iii) will provide support in coordinating queries and ensure that the evaluation report is factually facilitating the collection of information. correct and contains no errors of interpretation, and (iv) facilitate the formulation of conclu- Quality Assurance sions and recommendations that are relevant and utilization-focused. This evaluation and will be undertaken with the close involvement of Evaluation Office Senior Management, comprising the Director and VI. mANAGEment Arrangements Deputy Director of the Evaluation Office. In view In keeping with its basic mandate, the of the complexity and importance of this evalua- Evaluation Office will have overall responsibility tion, Evaluation Office Senior Management will for the content and production of the evalua- review progress on a periodic basis as well as each tion report and its presentation to the Executive of the key designated outputs and provide regular feedback to the evaluation team.

A n n e X 1 . t e r m s O F r e F e r e n c e 4 9 A team of designated Evaluation Office staff will role in shaping the findings, conclusions, and be set up to ensure that Evaluation Office and recommendations of the report. UNEG quality standards, pertaining to both the Up to three Senior Evaluation Consultants process and the evaluation outputs or milestones, with strong development management, are adhered to. governance and/or evaluation backgrounds will be recruited to participate in the An external Advisory Panel will be established, inception workshop, the pilot case study consisting of 3 leading authorities in the field of and the main phase of the evaluation. Each evaluation and local governance. The Advisory Senior Evaluation Consultant will contribute Panel will play an important role in providing to designing the evaluation, will provide strategic, methodological and substantive inputs into the evaluation process as well as a peer review inputs into the inception report, will lead for the key outputs including the main report. The one or more country case studies and be panel members will not be part of the Evaluation responsible for the preparation of country Team, but will collectively support the Evaluation case study reports, based on a standard- Office in assuring the quality of the evaluation. ized approach and format. Each Senior Evaluation Consultant will, under the overall supervision of the Team Leader, contribute The Evaluation Team to the preparation of the final report and The Evaluation Team will consist of externally evaluation brief as necessary. recruited, independent, senior consultants One to two Regional or National Consultants with strong reputations and extensive experi- will be recruited per case study country ence in their fields. The Evaluation Team will and, working closely with the country-office consist of a Team Leader and up to three focal point in consultation with the Task Senior International Consultants and one to two Manager and Team Leader, be responsible Regional or National Consultants per case study. for the collection of all relevant data and The Team Leader will take a lead role during preparation of the case study mission. The all phases of the evaluation and coordinate National Consultant will contribute substan- the work of all other team members. He/ tively to the work of the Senior Evaluation she will ensure the quality of the evaluation Consultant, providing substantive advice and process, outputs, methodology and timely context in the preparation of the county delivery of all products. The Team Leader, in case studies. Under the supervision of the close collaboration with the other Evaluation Senior Evaluation Consultant, the National Team members, leads the conceptualization Consultant will participate in the preparation and designs the evaluation and plays a lead of the country case study report.

5 0 A n n e X 1 . t e r m s O F r e F e r e n c e Annex 2 EVALUATION MATRIX

KEY Evaluative Questions by Performance Dimension Performance Dimension Relevance and Strategic Positioning

Overall Evaluative Questions 1. In a highly decentralized programming environment, how does UNDP make strategic decisions on where, how and to what extent to engage in strengthening of local governance (local governance)? 2. Is there any evidence of a common approach or philosophy applied by UNDP to local governance? Does the range of programme activities lend itself to the greater substantive development of product lines and substantive approaches for different economic and developmental environments as well as more centralized substantive technical support and backstopping? 3. To what extent do UNDP local governance programmes benefit from and promote national ownership?

Sub Questions 1. What are the factors that have determined UNDP strategic positioning and are there common features within country types? 2. What process is followed in the development of country strategy and what key factors have influenced the selection and prioritization process? 3. What evidence is there that products developed by UNDP have been applied? 4. Are there significant differences in approaches and programmes between the categories of countries identified? 5. To what extent are Government actors and agencies committed to local governance? 6. Is UNDP thematic work in local governance anchored in national objectives and does it contribute to a larger national plan? To what extent is Government commitment reflected in national plans, policies and resource allocations? 7. To what degree is local governance a national priority as well as a UNDP corporate priority? 8. Do the UNDP programmes contribute to addressing key developmental bottlenecks? 9. Do UNDP interventions address national policy as well as downstream programmes?

Sources of Information Political, social and economic analyses prepared by UNDP, other agencies, think tanks or independent academic sources. UNDP strategy and concept notes. UNDP Country Programme Action Plans/Country Programme Document. Interviews with UNDP senior management Government, political parties, and other stakeholders, programmes and agencies and bilateral institutions and national CSOs. Media analyses.

Method of Assessment

Desk review; meta-evaluation; semi-structured interviews in case studies; survey.

A n n e X 2 . e v A L UA t i o n M A t r i X 5 1 KEY Evaluative Questions by Performance Dimension Performance Dimension Responsiveness Overall Evaluative Questions 1. Is UNDP programme responsive to changing needs? Sub Questions 1. What needs have changed over the evaluation period and how did the UNDP programme respond? 2. What evidence is there of UNDP agility/nimbleness? Sources of Information Programme documentation. Third party political and economic analyses. Interviews with key Government and UNDP personnel. Method of Assessment Desk review. Meta-evaluation. Semi-structured interviews in case studies.

Performance Dimension Effectiveness Overall Evaluative Questions 1. To what degree has UNDP succeeded in strengthening local governance? Sub Questions 1. To what extent did UNDP achieve its stated objectives? 2. What are the major factors that have influenced the achievement? Sources of Information Interviews with beneficiaries, partners. Programme monitoring and evaluation data. Method of Assessment Desk review; meta-evaluation; semi-structured interviews in case studies.

Performance Dimension Efficiency Overall Evaluative Questions 1. Are UNDP local governance programmes efficient? Sub Questions 1. How efficiently have UNDP internal communications and knowledge management systems on local governance related issues supported programme development and delivery? 2. Did the programme maximize the use of national capacities? Sources of Information Programme documentation, programme monitoring data, key partners. Delivery data. Method of Assessment Review of aggregate programme data, interviews with partners.

5 2 A n n e X 2 . e v A L UA t i o n M A t r i X KEY Evaluative Questions by Performance Dimension Performance Dimension Sustainability Overall Evaluative Questions 1. Has UNDP assistance resulted in the establishment of capacity on a sustainable basis? Sub Questions 1. Are the changes introduced durable and are they likely to endure beyond the duration of UNDP assistance? 2. Is there evidence of greater ownership of local governance initiatives at national and lower levels? 3. What factors undermine the retention of capacity? 4. Has UNDP clearly defined an exit strategy for its activities and has it been implemented/is it implementable? Sources of Information Programme documentation. Key partners and stakeholders. Government budget information and national plans. Method of Assessment Review of programme documentation, semi-structured interviews in case studies.

Performance Dimension Gender Overall Evaluative Questions 1. How has UNDP support for local governance affected the status and role of women in development? Sub Questions 1. To what extent and in what way have women been empowered as a result of UNDP support for local governance? 2. How and to what degree have local governance programmes affected the socio-economic role and standing of women? Sources of Information Programme documentation. Key partners and stakeholders. Service delivery data. Method of Assessment Third party evaluations. Semi-structured interviews.

A n n e X 2 . e v A L UA t i o n M A t r i X 5 3 KEY Evaluative Questions by Performance Dimension Performance Dimension Intellectual leadership/substantive credibility. Overall Evaluative Questions 1. Has the UNDP been able to provide credible intellectual and substantive leadership in the area of local governance? Sub Questions 1. How effective has UNDP advocacy been in generating change in the achievement of MDGs, poverty reduction, social empowerment, gender, equity and the other cross-cutting themes in the context of local governance? 2. How are the substantive products used by stakeholders and counterparts? 3. What is the quality of UNDP substantive programme support capacity and what are its shortcomings? Sources of Information Review of issues papers, country assessments, country reviews, national or regional human development reports. Review of MDG documentation. Interviews with United Nations senior management, World Bank, bilateral and other multilateral donors. Interviews with civil society actors and Government. Method of Assessment Desk review; semi-structured interviews.

Performance Dimension Partnership and Coordination Overall Evaluative Questions 1. What is the nature of the partnerships established between UNDP and other stakeholders in its support for local governance? Sub Questions 1. How were UNDP ‘comparative advantages’ perceived/interpreted and were these reflected in the division of responsibilities? Sources of Information Review of project documents, progress reports, Resident Coordinator reports, minutes of coordination meetings, review of substantive documentation. Interviews with all relevant national and international partners. Interview with key counterpart government agencies responsible for coordination. Method of Assessment Semi-structured group and individual interviews; survey; desk review.

5 4 A n n e X 2 . e v A L UA t i o n M A t r i X Annex 3 COUNTRIES REVIEWED

Countries Scan Assessment of Outcome In-depth Illustrative Countries Development Evaluations Review Case Studies Results Regional Bureau for Africa 1 Benin X 2 Botswana X 3 Burkina Faso X 4 Cote d’Ivoire X X 5 Comoros X X X 6 Ethiopia X X 7 Mali X X 8 Mozambique X X X X 9 Sao Tome et Principe X 10 Republic of Congo X 11 Rwanda X 12 Seychelles X 13 Sierra Leone X X 14 South Africa X 15 Uganda X Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific 16 Afghanistan X X X 17 Bangladesh X X X X 18 Bhutan X X X X 19 Cambodia X X X 20 China X 21 India X X 22 Indonesia X X X 23 Kiribati X 24 Lao PDR X X 25 Maldives X X 26 Nepal X X X 27 Pakistan X 28 Philippines X X X 29 Papua New Guinea X X 30 Solomon Islands X 31 Sri Lanka X 32 Thailand X 33 Tuvalu X

A n n e X 3 . c o U n t r i e s r e v i e w e d 5 5 Countries Scan Assessment of Outcome In-depth Illustrative Countries Development Evaluations Review Case Studies Results Regional Bureau for Arab States 34 Algeria X 35 Iraq X 36 Jordan X 37 Morocco X X X 38 Sudan X X 39 Yemen X X X Regional Bureau for Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States 40 Albania X 41 Armenia X 42 Bosnia Herzegovina X X 43 Croatia X 44 Georgia X 45 Kosovo X 46 Kyrgyzstan X X X 47 Macedonia X X 48 Moldova X X 49 Montenegro X 50 Serbia X X X 51 Tajikistan X X X X 52 Turkey X X X 53 Uzbekistan X X X 54 Ukraine X X X X Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean 55 Argentina X 56 Barbados X 57 Bolivia X X X 58 Brazil X 59 Chile X 60 Colombia X X X 61 Ecuador X X X 62 El Salvador X 63 Guatemala X 64 Guyana X 65 Honduras X X 66 Jamaica X 67 Nicaragua X X X X 68 Peru X 69 Venezuela X All regions Total 50 38 24 11 6

5 6 A n n e X 3 . c o U n t r i e s r e v i e w e d Annex 4 PEOPLE CONSULTED

UNDP New York Albana Gjuzi, Programme Specialist, Regional Bureau for Europe and Commonwealth of Mohammed Al-Sharif, Assistant Resident Independent States Representative, Regional Bureau for Arab Juliette Hage, Senior Programme Adviser, States Regional Bureau for Arab States Tuya Altangerel, Policy Specialist, Poverty Selim Jahan, Director, Poverty Reduction Reduction Group, Bureau for Development Group, Bureau for Development Policy Policy Monjurul Kabir, Knowledge Network Fabrizio Andreuzzi, Programme Specialist, Facilitator, Democratic Governance Group, Disaster Reduction, Regional Bureau for Bureau for Development Policy Latin America and the Caribbean Judith Karl, Director, Operations Support Niloy Banerjee, Senior Policy Adviser, Group, Office of the Administrator, Capacity Development Group, Bureau for Executive Office Development Policy Patrick Keuleers, Senior Adviser, Democratic José M. Bendito, Donor Relations Adviser, Governance Group, Bureau for Division for Resources Mobilization, Development Policy Bureau of Partnership Terry Kiragu, Policy Adviser, Poverty Reduction Edwine Carrie, Programme Analyst, Regional Group, Bureau for Development Policy Bureau for Arab States Radhika Lal, Policy Adviser, Poverty Reduction Alessandra Castazza, Policy Specialist, Group, Bureau for Development Policy Capacity Development Group, Bureau for Development Policy Dania Marzouki, Regional Programme Specialist, Division for Regional Programme, David Clapp, Programme Adviser, Iraq Trust Regional Bureau for Arab States Fund, Regional Bureau for Arab States Mendez Montalvo, Policy Adviser, Democratic Garry Conille, Chief of Staff, Poverty Governance Group, Bureau for Reduction Group, Bureau for Development Development Policy Policy Joseph L. M. Mugore, Senior Adviser, Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, Director, Governance, Regional Bureau for Africa Democratic Governance Group, Bureau for Development Policy Romesh Muttukumaru, Deputy Assistant Administrator and Deputy Director (Special Delfin Ganapin, Global Manager, Energy Adviser, Initiatives on United Nations Group, Bureau for Development Policy Reform), Bureau of Partnership Dafina Gercheva, Capacity Development, Chitose Noguchi, Capacity Measurement Practice Leader, Regional Bureau for Specialist, Capacity Development Group, Europe and the Commonwealth of Bureau for Development Policy Independent States

A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d 5 7 Gerardo Noto, Programme Specialist, Regional UNDP Regional Service Centres Bureau for Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States Gerardo Berthin, Policy Adviser, Governance & Decentralization, Panama Yulia Oleinik, Programme Associate, Regional Bureau for Europe and Commonwealth of Noha El-Mikawy, Governance Practice Leader Independent States for the Arab States Region, Cairo, Egypt Sujala Pant, Governance Specialist, Freddy Justiniano, Coordinator of Operations Democratic Governance Group, Bureau for and Project Implementation, Panama Development Policy Henrik Fredborg Larsen, Policy Adviser, Stephen Rodriguez, Adviser, Operations Decentralization and Local Governance, Support Group, Office of the Bangkok Administrator, Executive Office Clava Ines Luna, Consultant-Democratic Bharati Sadasivam, Deputy Director, Civil Governance, Panama Society Division, Bureau of Partnership Clare Romanik, Policy Specialist for Amin Sharkawi, Senior Programme Adviser, Decentralization and Local Governance, Regional Bureau for Arab States Bratislava Moustapha Soumaré, Deputy Regional Director Juan Manuel Salazar, Team Leader, Knowledge and Deputy Assistant Administrator, Management Unit Coordinator, Panama Regional Bureau for Africa Remco van Wijngaarden, Policy Adviser, Associated Funds and Central Strategy and Policy Cluster, Bureau Programmes, New York and Bonn for Crisis Prevention and Recovery Moises Venancio, Programme Specialist, Anne-Marie Goetz, Chief Adviser Governance Regional Bureau for Europe and Peace and Security, UNIFEM, New York Commonwealth of Independent States Chandi Kadirgamar, Evaluation Adviser, UNCDF, New York UNDP Geneva Tapiwa Kamuruko, Portfolio Manager, UNV, Bonn Awa Dabo, Reintegration and Recovery Ana Cristina Matos, Evaluation Specialist, Specialist, Early Recovery Team, Bureau for UNV, Bonn Crisis Prevention and Recovery David Morrisson, Executive Secretary, Fenella Frost, Project Coordinator Specialist, UNCDF, New York Natural Disaster, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery Nyambura Ngugi, Programme Specialist Gender and Governance, UNIFEM, Christophe Nuttall, Director, Bureau for Crisis New York Prevention and Recovery Kadmiel Wekwete, Director Local Eugenia Piza-Lopez, Senior Programme Development Practice Area, UNCDF, Adviser, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and New York Recovery

5 8 A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d Country Case Studies Santiago Daroca, Programme Analyst, Social Cohesion Specialist – Governance Cluster, Bolivia UNDP Attilio Angelo Aleotti, Asesor Técnico Martín del Castillo, Former Project Principal, Programa Art Gold Bolivia Co-manager, Jóvenes con la Participación Popular, Ministry of Popular Participation Jorge Amantegui, UNDP Project Coordinating Officer, Santa Cruz Prefecture Omar Encinas, Director, Oruro Communal Economic Development Agency Vladimir Ameller, Advisor on Autonomy Affairs, (ADECO), Oruro Departmental Governance Unit, Deutsche Gesellschaft Government/Art Gold Project, Oruro für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German development cooperation agency) Erik Bernardo Murillo Fernandez, Director General de Producción Agropecuaria y Atilio Andreotti, Art Gold Coordinator, Soberania Alimentaria, Ministerio de Governance Cluster, UNDP Desarollo Rural Agropecuario y Medio Iván Arias, Political Consultant/Former Vice Ambiente Viceministerio de Desarrollo Minister of Popular Participation, Tarija Rural y Agropecuario Vivian Arteaga, Project Coordinator Analyst, Gabriela Gómez García, Indigenous Peoples Poverty Cluster Coordinator, UNDP Project Coordinating Officer, Social Victor Hugo Bacarreza, Director, Millennium Movement Specialist – Governance Cluster, Development Goals Area – Poverty Cluster, UNDP UNDP Eliana Quiroz Gutiérrez, Gestión de Gustavo Bejarano, Advisor Officer, Municipal Conocimiento, Equipo de Gobernabilidad Government, La Paz Democrática, UNDP Teodoro Blaco, Project Coordinating Officer, Javier Guzmán, Former Project Coordinator, Oruro Departmental Government Jóvenes con la Participación Popular, Strengthening Project, Oruro, UNDP Ministry of Popular Participation Edgar Cala, Former Secretary of Planning Christian Jetté, Project Manager, Head of the and Projects Manager, Focal Point for Governance Cluster, UNDP Millennium Development Goals and Art Espinoza Magaly, General Advisor, Ministry of Gold projects – Departmental Government, Autonomy La Paz Javier Maraza, Art Gold Volunteer, Oruro Gonzalo Calderón, Programme Manager, Departmental Government/UNIK UNDP Indigenous University Carlos Caraffa, Director of Local Development; Javier Guzmán Medina, Jefe de La Unidad Swiss Agency for Development and de Produccion Agropecuaria Agroforestal Cooperation y Pesca, Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia Rocío Chaín, Project Officer, Head of the Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras Natural Disasters and Risk Reduction Mabel Miranda, Advisor, Autonomy Affairs, Cluster, UNDP Committee on Territorial Organisation and Roberto Coarite, President, National Unitary Autonomies, Chamber of Representatives, Confederation of Peasant Workers of Pluri-national Legislative Assembly Bolivia (Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia, CSUTCB)

A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d 5 9 Carlos Hugo,Molina, Governance and Betty Tejada, President, Committee on Decentralisation Expert/Former Vice Territorial Organisation and Autonomies, Minister of Popular Participation; Chamber of Representatives, Pluri-national President, CEPAD, Santa Cruz Legislative Assembly Oscar Montes, Mayor, Tarija City Municipal Román Vaca, Union Representative, Union of Government the Guaraní People of Bajo Isoso Cielo Morales, Deputy Resident Representative, Hernán Velasco, Project Coordinating Officer, UNDP MDG Global Fund Semilla Project, Oruro Freddy Ordóñez, Art Gold Volunteer/Oruro Yoriko Yasukawa, Resident Representative, Departmental Government; Art Gold UNDP Project Oruro Regional Liaison Oscar Ortiz, Former Senator (2004-2010) and Comoros Former President of the Senate (2008– Damir Ben Ali, Senior Expert, Decentralization 2010), Director of Planning, Departmental and Local Governance Issues Government of Santa Cruz Said Ahmed Said Ali, Mayor, Moroni Eva Otero, Coordinator of Democracy and Governance, Agencia Española Yves Chunleu, Project Director, European de Cooperación Internacional para el Union Decentralization Project Desarrollo (Spanish International Agency for Hassan Hamadi, Chairman, Island Council of International Cooperation Against Poverty) Great Comoro Gustavo Pedraza, Political Analyst/Consultant, Opia Kumah, Resident Representative, UNDP Santa Cruz Eric Lay, Head of Cooperation, European Eliana Quiroz, Knowledge Management Union Coordinating Officer – Governance Cluster, UNDP Aboubacar Mchangama, Publication Director, Comoros Newspapers Rubén Salas, National Coordinator, Small Grants Program, UNDP Mohamed S.A.Mchangama, President, Local Government Association Virginio Sandi, Director, UNIK Indigenous University, Departmental Government of Aliloifa Mohamed, Communication Officer, Oruro’ Focal Point for UNDP projects on Monitoring and Evaluation, Cellule Institutional Strengthening of the Prefectural d’Appui à l’Ordonnateur National Government of the Oruro Department, Ali Moindjie, Publication Director, Comoros Millenium Development Goals and UNVs Newspapers Filemón Suárez, President, Aboriginal Said Omar El-had, Publication Director, Peoples Legislative-Assembly Group and Comoros Newspapers Representativ of the Guaraní People of Joseph Pihi, Deputy Resident Representative, Santa Cruz – Santa Cruz Assembly of UNDP RepresentativesTaborga, Celia, Deputy Representative, UNFPA and Former Abdou-Salam Saadi, Programme Specialist, UNICEF Local Development Specialist UNDP Lizet Tarqui, UNV, UNIK and MDG M. Swali, General Secretary, Commissariat au activities, Oruro Plan Mbae Toiminou, Adviser, Ministry of Home Affairs and Decentralization

6 0 A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d Mali Cherif Hamidou Ndiaye, Regional Director of Planning, Governorate Mopti Hariatou Diane Asso, Member, Association of Municipalities Philippe Poinsot, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP Dr. Myriam Bacquelaine, Bureau de la Cooperation au Develloppement, BTC Luc Risch, Conseiller d’Ambassde, Belgium Embassy in Mali Abraham Bengaly, Director, Office of the Ombudsman of the Republic Mali Kalfa Sanogo, Assistant Resident Representative, UNDP Boubacar Boli, City Councillor, Commune of Fatoma Sekou Sidibe, Programme Officer, UNCDF Bocari Cisse, Mayor, Commune of Bassiro Boubacar Sow, General Secretary, Ministry of Territorial Administration and Local Idrissa Diallo, Project Coordinator, Support Government Rural Communities in Mopti, Chamber of Commerce Kola Sow, Technical Advisor, Office of the Regional Assembly of Mopti Bouare Fanta Dienta, Coordinator, Women’s Associations and NGOs Macki Tall, Expert on Local Governance and Decentralization, UNDP Florence Duvieusart, Premier Secretaire, Belgium Embassy in Mali Bouba Tamboura, Acting Coordinator, Project Local Authorities and Local Development, Mohamed Ag Erlaf, General Manager, Agency Mopti of Territorial Authorities Boureima Toure, Chairman, National Council Mbaranga Gasarabwe, Resident Representative, of Civil Society UNDP Ibrahima Traore, Leader, National Youth Mamadou Geimbayara, Second Assistant of the Council Mayor, Commune of Bassiro M. Traore, City Councillor, Commune of Mama Kaikoumana, City Councilor, Commune Fatoma of Bassiro Mamadou Gaoussou Traore, Advisor to the Issa Kante, Head of the Antenna, Agence Governor, Governorate Mopti Nationale de l’Investissement des Collectivités Territoriales Papua New Guinea Bayon Kasambara, First Assistant of the Mayor, Commune of Bassiro Jennifer Adema, Policy Officer, Department of Provincial and Local Level Government Allouseini Keita, City Councillor, Commune of Affairs Fatoma Daniel Aloi, Lecturer in Public Policy Mahamadou Zibo,Maiga, Coordinator, Management, School of Business Capacity Building Programme for National Administration, University of Papua New Strategic Management of Development Guinea Mamadou Maiga, Prefect, Mopti Marjorie Andrew, Executive Officer, Mankan Maiga, Mayor, Commune of Fatoma Consultative Implementation and Mariama Maiga, Vice Chairman, National Monitoring Council Council of Civil Society

A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d 6 1 Freddy Austli, Assistant Resident Levi Mano, Acting Deputy Provincial Representative, UNDP Administrator, Department of East New Nao Badu, CEO and Chairman, National Britain Economic and Fiscal Commission David McLachlan-Karr, Resident Alphonse Bera, Budget and Expenditure Representative, UNDP Advisor, Provincial Performance Dominic Mellor, Country Economist, Asian Improvement Initiative Development Bank Leo Bualia, Policy Development Advisor, Office Matalau Nakikus, Acting Provincial of Rural Development Administrator, Department of East New Roberto Cecutti, Governance Advisor, Britain European Union Dr. Lekshmi N. Pillai, Senior Lecturer Sophie Collette, Governance and Capacity in Accounting, School of Business Building, European Union Administration, University of Papua New Guinea Eddy Galele, Programme Manager, Department of Finance, Vulupindi Akuila Tubal, Provincial Administrator, East New Britain Province Martin Gele, Provincial Support Advisor, Financial Management Improvement Joe Turia, Director, Aid Coordination Program Directorate, Department of National Planning and Monitoring Dickson Guina, Capacity Building Division Director, Prime Minister’s Department Colin Wiltshire, Development Specialist Health, Papua New Guinea-AusAId Sub Steven Ilave, Senior Program Officer National Strategy Governance, AusAID Margaret James, Programme Officer, Office of Sierra Leone Rural Development Princess Allieu, Member, Ward 31, Ward Geoffrey Kedeke, Provincial Support Advisor, Development Committee, Kenema City Financial Management Improvement Council Program William Alpha, Chief Administrator, Bo City James Kerwin, Deputy Programme Manager, Council Department of Finance, Vulupindi Augustine B. Amara, Deputy Agriculture Chief Rosa Isana, Adviser, Budget and Expenditure, Administrator, Kenema District Council Central Provincial Administration Silva Siango Apreku, Programme Officer, Iva Kola, Policy Advisor, Department of Public Sector Reform, UNDP Provincial and Local Level Government Affairs Pious Bockarie, Team Leader, UNDCF Pim Kunipi, District and Local Level Solomon G. Brima, Political Parties Government Support Advisor Registration Committee Officer Freddy Lemeki, Urban Manager, Rabaul R.A. Caesar, Chairperson, Political Parties District, Local Level Government Affairs Registration Committee Andrew Lepani, Programme Associate, UNDP Mohamed N’fah-Alie Conteh, Electoral Commissioner, Northern Region, National Steven Llave, Programme Manager Economic Electoral Commission and Public Sector Governance Unit, USAID

6 2 A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d Sophie Conteh, Programme Manager Specialist, Brima Mandor, Civil Society Activist, CC UNDP Youth Association Paul Damba, District Election Officer, National Edward Massaquoi, National Election Watch, Electoral Commission Council of Civil Youth Association Floyd Alex Davies, Manager, Legal and Abdul Morray, Member, Ward 31, Development Governance Decentralization Secretariat Committee Kenema City Council Emy Demby, ICT Associate, UNDP Stehen Aiah Matria, Electoral Commissioner, Augustine Fallah, Assistant District Election National Elections CommitteeSafula Officer, National Electoral Commission E Moijueh, Elected Parliamentary Representative, Kenema District Kevin D. Gallagher, Representative, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Safula E. Moijueh, Elected Parliamentary Nations Representative, Kenema District Vidhya Ganesh, Deputy Representative, Jonh J. Morris, Programme Manager, UNDCF UNICEF Julius Roberts, Member, Ward 32, Development Brendan Glynn, Governance Consultant, World Committee, Kenema City Council Bank Harbor Samuel, Deputy Resident Abubakarr Javombo, District Election Officer, Representative, UNDP National Electoral Commission Emmanuel M Sartie, Monitoring and Ibrahim Kaikai, Councilor, Pujehun District Evaluation Officer, Kenema City Council Council Mia Sepo, Country Director, UNDP Asumane Kamara, Member, Ward 32, Susan Sesay, Regional Gender Desk Officer, Development Committee, Kenema City Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Council Children Edward Kamara, Head of Governance Unit, Margaret Adama Shiaptee, Deputy Mayor, UNDP Kenema City Council Joseph Manking Kamara, Monitoring and Sadique Sillah, Chairman, Pujehun District Evaluations Expert, UNDCF Council Mohamed Momoh Kamara, Coordinator, Celia Taborga, Deputy Representative, UNFPA Arms for Development and Community William A. Taylor, Executive Assistant to the Empowerment and Development Projects, Chair, National Electoral Commission UNDP Christiana A. M. Thorpe, Chief Electoral Tanzilla Konneh, Governance Unit, UNDP Commissioner, Chair Person, National Anders Raaf, PBF Project Coordinating Electoral Commission Officer, UNDP Mohamed Timbo, Mid-Term Evaluator, Kakpama Lansana, Youth Activist, CC Youth UNDCF Association, Pujehun District Council Lucie Vandy-Lamin, Officer, Political Parties Josephine P. M. Lebbie, Political Parties Registration Committee Registration Committee Officer Oju Wilson, Legal Researcher, Decentralization Daniel P. B. Losie, Statistician, Monitoring and Secretariat Evaluation Officer, Kenema District Council Keith Wright, Principal Technical Adviser, BCPR, UNDP

A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d 6 3 Michael Andrew Yambo, Research Officer, Mykhailo Minakov, Senior Programme Ministry of Internal Affairs, Local Manager, Democratic Governance, UNDP Government and Rural Development Adam Olivier, Resident Coordinator, UNDP Peter Zetterli, Programme Specialist, Economic Victor Rachkevych, Project Management Programme Development Unit, UNDP Specialist, Municipal Development, USAID

Ukraine Oksana Remiga, Senior Programme Manager, UNDP Olivier Adam, Resident Representative, UNDP Paul Richardson, Deputy Director, Office of Adeline Gonay, Coordinator, UNDP Crimea Economic Growth, USAID Integration and Development Programme Katerina Rybalchenko, Senior Programme Viktor Anushkevychus, City Mayor, Manager, UNDP Ivano-Frankivsk Jaysingh Sah, Project Manager, UNDP Bogdan Bilyk, Municipal Project Coordinator, Iryna Scherbinina, Institute for Budgetary and UNDP/Municipal Governance and Socio-Economic Research Sustainable Development Programme, Ivano-Frankivsk Ayder Seytosmanov, Regional Development Adviser, UNDP/Crimea Integration and Myroslava Didukh, Sector Manager, Regional Development Programme, Sovetskyy and Local Development, European District Commission Delegation to Ukraine Igor Shevliakov, Senior Analyst, Yuriy Dzhygyr, Director, FISCO id LLC Democratization and Good Governance Maria Garastovskaya, USAID Program, International Centre for Policy Studies (ICPS) Adeline Gonay, UNDP/Crimea Integration and Development Programme Tetiana Sukoterina, Deputy Minister of Economy, Autonomous Republic of Crimea Johanna Kazana-Wisniowlecka, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP Marchin Swiecicki, Blue Ribbon Commission for Ukraine Oleg Kluy, City Mayor, Saky Mykola Traydyk, Head of the Subcommittee on Tatyana Kovtun, Director of School of Civil Local Self-Governance, Kyiv Servants, Kyiv Olena Ursu, Governance and Sustainable Victoria Kravchuk, Programme Associate, UNDP Development Expert, UNDP Tatyana Kudina, Programme Associate, UNDP Negoda Vjacheslav, Head of the, Secretariat, Valery Kuzin, Municipal Project Coordinator, Ukrainian Association of Local and UNDP/Municipal Governance and Regional Authorities Sustainable Development Programme, Saky Anzhela Volodymyrivna, Head of Secretariat, Angela Malyuga, Head of the Secretariat Committee on State Development and of Parliamentary Committee on Local Local Self Governance Self-Governance Ganna Yatsuk, Communication Specialist, Ibragim Mamutov, Deputy Representative of UNDP the President, Crimea Katya Mayuzyuk, FISCO id LLC

6 4 A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d Others Teresa Benito Lopez, Programme Officer, UNCDF, Bangladesh Chafika Affaq, Programme Associate, UNDP, Jose Macamo, Governor Programme Manager, Morocco UNDP, Mozambique Ali Alwarti, Urban Specialist, World Bank, Sydur Rahman Molla, Programme Analyst, Mozambique UNCDF, Bangladesh Sophie Banares, Deputy Country Director, Lenni Montiel, Resident Representative, UNDP, Cambodia UNDP, Turkmenistan Bakhodir Burkhanov, Deputy Resident Sharad Neupane, Assistant Resident Representative, UNDP, Bhutan Representative, UNDP, Nepal Chencho Gyalmo, Programme Officer, Kunzang Norbu, Associate Resident UNCDF, Bhutan Representative, UNDP, Bhutan Alexander Kashkarev, Programme Analyst, Roy Rathin, Director, International Policy UNDP, Kyrgyzstan Centre for Inclusive Growth, Poverty Erkinbek Kasybekov, Programme Management Practice, Bureau for Development Policy, Adviser, UNDP, Kyrgyzstan UNDP, Brazil Naomi Kitahara, Deputy Resident Programme Neil Webster, Adviser on Decentralization and Representative, UNDP, Mozambique Local Governance, UNDP, Nepal Hem Raj Lamichhane, Executive Secretary General, Association of District Development Committees, Civil Society, Nepal

A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d 6 5 6 6 A n n e X 4 . P e o P l e c o n s U l t e d Annex 5 DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

MAIN REPORT REFERENCES García, Linera Alvaro et al, ‘Horizontes y Límites del Estado y el Poder’, 2005. Alderson, Dallas, ‘Capacity Development for Quality Public Service Delivery at the Local IDEA International, ‘Autonomías en la Level in the Western Balkans’, UNDP/ Constitución’ (15 Working Documents), SNV, May 2009. 2010. Amawi, Abla, Kanni Wignaraja, Henriette Lullies, Veronika, ‘Capacity Building Keizer, Lara Yocarini, and Joe Hooper, Facilitation Evaluation Report, ‘Supporting Capacities for Integrated Local Organisational Development and Development Practice Note’, UNDP/ Consulting’, December 2005. UNCDF, November 2007. Medinaceli, Mauricio, ‘Impuesto Directo a los Berghof Peace Support and SERAPAZ, Hidrocarburos, Origen, Destino y Usos’, ‘Informe, Exploración acerca del Diálogo International IDEA, 2005. y Negociación del 2008’, sus Lecciones y OECD, ‘Aid Extended by Local and State Alcances, y Recomendaciones para el Apoyo Governments’, Pre-print of the DAC de la Comunidad Internacional, Resultados Journal 2005, Volume 6/4, Development de la Misión 2008–2009, 2009. Assistance Committee Secretariat, Statistics Bird, Kate, Stefanie Busse and Enrique and Monitoring Division, 2005. Mendizabal, ‘Civil Society Engagement OECD, ‘Lessons Learned on Donors Support to in PSIA Processes: A Review’, Overseas Decentralization and Local Governance’, DAC Development Institute, February 2007. Evaluation Series, OECD, 2004. Centro de Análisis Político e Investigación Pranab Bardhan and Dileep Mookherjee (ed) Aplicada, ‘Informes Mensuales de ‘Decentralization and Local Governance Coyuntura Política (2008–2009)’, in Developing Countries – A Comparative Centro de Análisis Político e Investigación Perspective’, MIT Press, Cambridge, Aplicada, 2009. Massachusetts, USA, 2006. Communal Economic Development Agency, Ryan, Jordan, Assistant Administrator and ‘Promoviendo el Desarrollo Local en Director, ‘The Hope Agenda for Countries Oruro’, Agencia de Desarrollo Económico in Crisis’, UNDP BCPR, May 2009 Comunitario de Oruro, 2010. Shah, Anwar and Theresa Thompson, Crisis International Group, ‘Informes de ‘Implementing Decentralized Local Coyuntura, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008’, Governance: A Treacherous Road with Crisis International Group, 2007. Potholes Detours and Road Closures’, European Commission, ‘Supporting World Bank, June 2004. Decentralization and Local Governance in SNV-UNDP, ‘Going Local to Achieve the Third Countries’, January 2007. Millennium Development Goals, Stories European Commission, ‘Thematic Evaluation From Eight Countries’, 2010. of the Support to Good Governance’, Final UNCDF, ‘Briefing Note on the United Nations Report Volume 1, June 2006. Capital Development Fund’, February 2002. FAM / GESPRO, ‘Movilizando la Inversión UNCDF, ‘Sectoral Report for the Five-Year Municipal’, Boletín de Información del Mid-term Review of the Brussels Programme Programa de Apoyo a la Gestión de la of Action for the Least Developed Countries Inversión Municipal, October 2007. 2001–2005’, June 2006.

A n n e X 5 . d o c U m e n t s c o n s U l t e d 6 7 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, ‘A Users Guide UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local to Measuring Local Governance’, 2009. Governance: An Overview of UNDP UNDP, ‘An Overview of Trends and Recent and Current Interventions in Developments in Public Administration and the Arab States Region’, Bureau for Local Governance’, Bureau for Development Development Policy, New York, January Policy, New York, September 2010. 2010. UNDP, ‘Building Bridges between the State UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local and the People: An Overview of Trends Governance: An Overview of UNDP Recent and Developments in Public Administration and Current Interventions in the Asia Pacific and Local Governance’, Bureau for Region’, Bureau for Development Policy, Development Policy, Democratic New York, January 2010. Governance Group, April 2010. UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local UNDP, ‘Building Bridges Between the State Governance: An Overview of UNDP and the People: An Overview of UNDP Recent and Current Interventions in the Recent and Current Intervention in Public Eastern Europe and CIS region’, Bureau Administration and Local Governance: for Development Policy, New York, January Africa, Asia Pacific, Arab States, Eastern 2010. Europe and CIS Region, Latin America UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local and the Caribbean Region’, Bureau Governance: An Overview of UNDP for Development Policy, Democratic Recent and Current Interventions in the Governance Group, 2010. Latin America and the Caribbean Region’, UNDP, ‘Country-level Engagement with Civil Bureau for Development Policy, New York, Society: A Global Snapshot’, 2009. January 2010. UNDP, ‘Decentralized Governance for UNDP, ‘UNDP Primer: Fiscal Decentralization Development: A combined Practice Note and Poverty Reduction’, November 2005. on Decentralization, Local Governance and UNDP, ‘Why Political Economy Analysis Urban/Rural Development’, April 2004. Matters for Development and How it Can UNDP, ‘DGP-Net E-Discussion: Local be Useful for UNDP’, Draft Presentation, Governance and Development Agenda’, UNDP, New York, June 2010. Consolidated Reply, December 2007. UNDP, Democracy in Latin America, ‘Towards UNDP, ‘Energy in National Decentralization a Citizens’ Democracy’, 2004. Policies’, A Review Focusing on Least UNDP/European Commission/Agence cana- Developed Countries and Sub-Saharan dienne de développement international, Africa, UNDP Energy and Environment ‘Municipal Improvement and Revival Group, New York, 2009. Programme MIR2’, Quarterly Report 1 UNDP, ‘Local Capacity and Action for March 2006, May 2006. the Environment and Sustainable UNDP/European Commission/Agence cana- Development’, Bureau for Development dienne de développement international, Policy, Environment and Energy Group, ‘Municipal Improvement and Revival March 2010. Program MIR2’, Quarterly Report 1 UNDP, ‘Millennium Development Goals: A September 2006, November 2006. Compact among Nations to End Human UNDP/European Commission/Agence cana- Poverty’, Human Development Report, dienne de développement international, 2003. ‘Municipal Improvement and Revival UNDP, ‘Public Administration and Local Programme’, MIR2 Quarterly Report 1 Governance: An Overview of UNDP December 2006, February 2008. Recent and Current Interventions in the UNDP/United Nations Economic Commission Africa Region’, Bureau for Development for Africa, ‘Local Governance for Poverty Policy, New York, January 2010. Reduction in Africa Post-Maputo Follow-up Framework’, October 2002.

6 8 A n n e X 5 . d o c U m e n t s c o n s U l t e d United Nations General Assembly Security Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, Council, ‘Prevention of Armed Conflict’ ‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008–2011, A/55/985-S/2001/574, Report of the Accelerating Global Progress on Human Secretary-General, 7 June 2001. Development Updated Pursuant to Decision UNV, ‘UNV Synthesis of Evaluations, A 2007/32’, June 2008. Synthesis of UNV Evaluations from 2000 Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, through 2009’, April 2010. ‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008–2011, Urenda, Juan Carlos, ‘Autonomías Addendum 1 Development and Institutional Departamentales’, Amigos del Libro, 1987. Results Frameworks’, June 2008. Wickramasinghe, Anoja, ‘Capacity Development Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, for Decentralized Poverty Reduction in Uva ‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008–2011, Wellassa Dry Zone’, Impact Evaluation Addendum 2 Implications on the UNDP Micro Credit Programme, University of Strategic Plan, 2008–2011, of General Peradeniya, June 2008. Assembly Resolution 62/208 on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Work, Robertson, ‘The Role of Participation Operational Activities for Development of and Partnership in Decentralised the United Nations System’, June 2008. Governance: A Brief Synthesis of Policy Lessons and Recommendations of Nine Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, Country Case Studies on Service Delivery ‘Update on the Multi-Year Funding for the Poor’, UNDP, 2005. Framework and Revised Integrated Resources’, September 2001. World Bank, ‘Decentralization in Client Countries: An Evaluation of World Bank Support 1990–2007’, World UNDP EVALUATIONS Bank Independent Evaluation Group, Washington D.C., 2008. GEF-UNDP, ‘Joint Evaluation of the GEF World Bank, ‘Development and Climate Small Grants Programme’, Evaluation Change’, World Development Report, 2010. Report 39, Evaluation Office, GEF: Washington D.C., 2008. World Bank, ‘Informe Sobre Desarrollo Mundial 2006’, Equidad y Desarrollo, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Evaluation of the World Bank, 2005. Regional Programme for Europe and the Commonwealth of the Independent States, 2006–2010’, 2009. UNDP PLANNING AND UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘The UNDP Role STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS in Decentralization and Local Governance: A Joint UNDP-Government of Germany Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, Evaluation’, 28 February 2000. ‘Financial Budgetary and Administrative Matters Multi-Year Funding Framework UNDP, ‘Final Draft Evaluation Report on the 2000–2003’, Report of the Administrator, Regional Project to Develop the Capacity September 1999. of CSOs to Participate in Policymaking and to Support Civil Society – Assessments in Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, RBA Countries’, 22 June 2010. ‘Report on the Multi-Year Funding Framework 2000–2003: Supplementary UNDP, ‘National Civil Society Advisory Information and Revised Integrated Committees to United Nations Country Resources’, June 2003. Teams: Assessment Report’, Final Report, UNDP Civil Society Division Partnerships Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA, Bureau, November 2009. ‘Second Multi-Year Funding Framework 2004–2007’, September 2003.

A n n e X 5 . d o c U m e n t s c o n s U l t e d 6 9 Witschi, Alfredo Cestari, Glen Dunkley, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Sladjan Ilic and Besnik Tahiri, ‘Internally Development Results for Republic of the Displaced Persons and Refugees, Returns Congo’, New York, 2008. to Kosovo (2005–2009)’, An Evaluation UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of of Past and Current Processes and Future Development Results for Ecuador’, Return Perspectives: UNDP in a Changing New York, 2008. Environment, UNDP, UNHCR, June 2009. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Ethiopia’, ASSESSMENT OF New York, 2006. DEVELOPMENT RESULTS UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Georgia’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2010. Development Results for Afghanistan’, New York, 2009. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Guatemala’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2009. Development Results for Bangladesh’, New York, 2005. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Guyana’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2010. Development Results for Barbados and Countries of the Organization of Eastern UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Caribbean States’, New York, 2009. Development Results for Bosnia Herzegovina’, New York, 2009. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Benin’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2008. Development Results for Honduras’, New York, 2006. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Bhutan’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2007. Development Results for Indonesia’, New York, 2010. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Botswana’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2009. Development Results for Jamaica’, New York, 2004. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Burkina Faso’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2009. Development Results for Jordan’, New York, 2007. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Cambodia’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2010. Development Results for Lao PDR’, New York, 2006. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Chile’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2009. Development Results for Maldives’, New York, 2010. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for China’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2005. Development Results for Montenegro’, New York, 2006. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for China’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2010. Development Results for Mozambique’, New York, 2004. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Development Results for Colombia’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of New York, 2007. Development Results for Nicaragua’, New York, 2007.

7 0 A n n e X 5 . d o c U m e n t s c o n s U l t e d UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Albania: Hodge, Stephanie, Lirim Selfo, Development Results for Peru’, Dhimiter Haxhimihali and Batkhuyag New York, 2009. Baldangombo, ‘Environment Programme UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Outcome Evaluation in Albania’, UNDP Development Results for Philippines’, Albania, February 2004. New York, 2009. Albania: UNDP, ‘Public Assessment and UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Customer Satisfaction Survey – Support Development Results for Rwanda’, to Security Sector Reform (SSSR)’, Final New York, 2008. Report, November 2005. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Armenia: Sandukhchyan, David and Development Results for Serbia’, Yuri Misnikov, ‘Evaluation Report of New York, 2006. UNDP Armenia ICT-for Development Programme’ (ARM/02/12, ARM/01/001, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of ARM/99/005), UNDP Armenia/Suisse Development Results for Seychelles’, Development Corporation, October 2004. New York, 2009. Bangladesh: Constable, Michael, Luc UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Spyckerelle and Asif Nazrul, ‘UNDP Development Results for Tajikistan’, Midterm Evaluation of Progress Towards New York, 2009. Outcomes in Governance in Bangladesh’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of UNDP, December 2009. Development Results for Turkey’, Bangladesh: Ferguson, Alan, ‘Outcome New York, 2004. Evaluation of UNDP Bangladesh UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Environment and Sustainable Development Development Results for Turkey’, Programme’, UNDP, January 2008. New York, 2010. Bhutan: UNDP, ‘Energy and Environment’, UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Outcome Evaluation, April 2004. Development Results for Uganda’, Bhutan: UNDP/UNCDF/SDV/JICA, ‘Bhutan New York, 2009. Decentralisation Support Programme’ UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of (BHU/02/001), Outcome Evaluation, Development Results for Ukraine’, November 2005. New York, 2004. Bhutan: Phuntsho, Namgay, Hiroko Tanaka and UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Saroj K., Nepal, ‘Lessons Learnt from Block Development Results for Uzbekistan’, Grant Pilot Projects’, Final Report, RGoB, New York, 2009. UNDP/UNCDF/JICA, March 2008. UNDP Evaluation Office, ‘Assessment of Bosnia Herzegovina: Courdesse, Laure- Development Results for Yemen’, Anne, ‘The Rights-Based Municipal New York, 2004. Assessment and Planning Project in Bosnia Herzegovina’, UNOHCHR, BRC Workshop, October 2004. * COUNTRY STUDIES Bosnia Herzegovina: Grebo, Ognjen Ešref Kenan Rašidagi and Marko Koščak, ‘Project Afghanistan: Zaidi, Mosharraf, ‘CPAP Outcome SUTRA III Sustainable Transfer to Evaluation – Outcome 2 (Statebuilding)’, Return – Related Authorities Report of the UNDP Afghanistan, August 2008. External Evaluation’, Final Report, UNDP, September 2008.

* Documents consulted for the six country case studies (Bolivia, Mali, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone and Ukraine) are posted on the Evaluation Office website.

A n n e X 5 . d o c U m e n t s c o n s U l t e d 7 1 Bosnia Herzegovina: Government of Bosnia and India: UNDP India, ‘Energy Environment Herzegovina/UNDP, ‘Srebrenica Regional and Disaster Risk Management’, Outcome Recovery Programme, External Evaluation’, Evaluation, October 2007. November 2005. India: UNDP India, ‘Governance and Bosnia Herzegovina: UNDP Bosnia and Livelihoods Programme’, October 2007. Herzegovina, ‘Upper Drina Regional Indonesia: Bansgrove, Ashley J. and May Development Programme, External Hendarmini, ‘UNDP Indonesian Evaluation Final Report’, June 2008. Environmental Management Programme Brazil: UNDP, ‘UNDP Country Programme Strategic Results Framework 2001–2003 Document for Brazil 2007–2011’. and 2004–2005’, UNDP Indonesia, Columbia: UNDP Colombia, ‘Programa December 2004. REDES Programme, Reconciliación y Indonesia: Lankester, Tim, ‘Indonesia: Desarrollo’, Outcome Evaluation, 2004. Outcome Evaluation of UNDP Governance Ecuador: Benalcázar, Patricio Carpio, Activities 2001–2005’, UNDP, February ‘Capacidades Mejoradas De Las 2007. Autoridades Locales, Los Grupos Iraq: Freedman, Jim, Eduardo Quiroga, Comunitarios De Base Y El Sector Privado Amal Shlash and John Weeks, ‘Outcome En La Gestión De Recursos Naturales Evaluation of UNDP Governance, Crisis Y Del Medio Ambiente’, Consultoría Prevention and Recovery, and Poverty Evaluación del Resultado, UNDP, 2008. Reduction Initiatives in Iraq’, UNDP, 2009. Ecuador: Orduz, Daniel F., ‘Evaluación Global Kyrgyzstan: Boase, Bob, ‘Mid-term Outcome De La Contribución De Los Proyectos Evaluation of the UNDP Kyrgyzstan Local Seleccionados Con Relación Al Efecto: Self-Governance Programme’, UNDP, 2009. Evaluación Del Resultado ‘Reforma De Kyrgyzstan: Bradley, Patrick, ‘Programme La Administración Pública’ 2004 – 2009’, Evaluation of Support to Democratic UNDP, January 2010. Elections in the Kyrgyz Republic’ (January Ecuador: Velásquez, Antonio Beltrán, 2004–June 2006), UNDP, 2005. Fortalecimiento de la Capacidad de Gestión Kyrgyzstan: Galperim, Alexandra, ‘Disaster Risk de los Gobiernos Locales’, Evaluación del Management Program Kyrgyzstan 2005– Logro, UNDP, November 2004. 2010’, Midterm Review, UNDP, August El Salvador: Becker, Alejandro and Jairo 2007. Libreros, ‘Misión de Evaluación de Logro Kyrgyzstan: Gzirishvili, David and Batma del Programa Hacia una Sociedad sin Estebesova, ‘Outcome Evaluation of the Violencia’, UNDP, March 2006. Support to the Government to Respond Ethiopia: ECIAFRICA Consulting, ‘Mid- to HIV/AIDS in the Kyrgyz Republic Term Evaluation of UNCDF’s Local Programme’ (Country Programme Action Development Programme’, Final Evaluation Plan 2005–2010), UNDP, November 2007. Report, UNCDF, July 2007. Kyrgyzstan: Tortell, Philip and Rafkat Hasanov, Eritrea: Kevin Curnow, Richard Chiwara, ‘Outcome Evaluation of the Environmental Yohannes Debretsion and Dawit Protection for Sustainable Development Ghebrehiwet Kassa, ‘Independent Component within the UNDP Kyrgyzstan Final Evaluation of the Anseba Local Country Programme Action Plan’, UNDP, Development Project, Eritrea’, Submitted to July 2007. UNCDF, 2009. Kyrgyzstan: Saltmarshe, Douglas, ‘Evaluation India: Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, of UNDP Kyrgyzstan’s Conflict Prevention ‘Evaluation and Lessons Learning Review: Programme’, UNDP, August 2006. GoL-UNDP, Disaster Risk Management Programme 2002–2008’, UNDP India 2009.

7 2 A n n e X 5 . d o c U m e n t s c o n s U l t e d Kyrgyzstan: Slater, Richard and Ricardo Moldova: Lempert, David H., and Constantin Pinto, ‘External Evaluation of the Poverty Enciu, ‘Human Rights in Moldova, Reduction Programme (1998–2004) and Outcome Evaluation’, UNDP, July 2006. Recommendations for the 2005–2010 Moldova: Woel, Birgitte and Lurie Goti, Cycle’, UNDP, 2004. ‘Outcome Evaluation on Engaging with the Kyrgyzstan: UNDP Kyrgyzstan, ‘Mid- Private Sector: New Businesses and Jobs are term Evaluation of Poverty Reduction Created in Targeted, Poor Rural and Urban (Local Initiatives and Pro-Poor Policy Areas’, UNDP, December 2009. Development) Outcomes’, December 2008. Nepal: Mukherjee, Neela, Bikash Sharma, Lao PDR: Balakrishnan, Suresh and Nick Binod Kumar Bhattarai and Deepak Russell, ‘Evaluation of Governance and Timsina, ‘Poor Communities Exercise their Public Administration Reform Project Right to Self-organisation and to Build (Phase I) Luang Prabang Lao PDR’, Alliances in Nepal, Outcome Evaluation UNDP, July 2004. Report’, UNDP, May 2004 Lao PDR: Holford, Bryan, Joep Slaats and Nepal: Lee, Lynn F., Krishna B. Bhattachan, Vanna Boupha, ‘Mid-Term Evaluation Yuoba Raj Luintel, Roma Bhattacharjea GPAR Xiengkhouang Project’, Draft and Laxman Bhattarai, ‘Report for UNDP Evaluation Report, UNDP, October 2007. Nepal of the Outcome Evaluation Mission on Gender in Nepal’, 2004. Lao PDR: ‘Final Report of the Mid-term Review: Governance, Public Administration Nepal: Suryanarayana, M. H., Jadadish C. Reform and Decentralized Service Delivery Pokarel, Parthibeshwar P. Timilsina, Project’, Submitted to UNCDF, April 2009. Bishwambher Pyakuryal and Bishwa Prakash Subedi, ‘Institutional Capacities for Macedonia: Gercheva, Dafina, Hechemi Effective Poverty Monitoring and Pro-Poor Bahloul and Vladimir Mikhalev, ‘Review Policy Design Established, Outcome of UNDP Activities Related to Promoting Evaluation Report’, UNDP, November Decentralization in Macedonia’, Mission 2005. Report, UNDP, October 2006. Nepal: Lee, Lynn F., Krishna B. Bhattachan, Macedonia: Jackman, Richard and Valli Yuoba Raj Luintel, Roma Bhattacharjea Corbanese, ‘Evaluation of Active Labour and Laxman Bhattarai, ‘Report for UNDP Market Measures and Employment Nepal of the Outcome Evaluation Mission Programme in Macedonia’, UNDP, August on Gender’, UNDP, 2004. 2007. Nepal: Mukherjee, Neela, Bikash Sharma, Malawi: UNCDF, ‘Malawi: Final Evaluation Binod Kumar Chattarai and Deepak of the UNDP and UNCDF’s Local Timsina, ‘Poor Communities Exercise their Development Programme’, Final Evaluation Right to Self Organization and to Build Report, 10 January 2008. Alliances’, Outcome Evaluation Report, Moldova: Muravschi, Alexandru and Erik UNDP, May 2004. Whist, ‘Evaluation of UNDP Outcome in Pakistan: UNDP Pakistan, ‘National Action Moldova of Capacities and Partnerships Plan for the Advancement of Women of Local Governance Actors Developed in Jointly Adopted Implemented and Urban/Rural Areas for Transparent and Monitored by the Government’, March Accountable Policy Formulation, Service 2009. Delivery and Resource Management’, Pakistan: Zaidi, S. Akbar and Rashida Dohad, UNDP, December 2005. ‘Governance Outcome Evaluation 2004–10, Moldova: Ashwith, Michael, ‘Report of the UNDP, March 2009. Outcome Evaluation Mission of Capacity Pakistan: Waseem, Mohammad and Building for Poverty Monitoring and Shandana Khan Mohmand, ‘Outcome Programme Evaluation (MOL/00/005)’, Evaluation 2002 Decentralization Policies’, UNDP, 2004. Report Submitted to UNDP Pakistan, February 2003.

A n n e X 5 . d o c U m e n t s c o n s U l t e d 7 3 Pakistan: UNDP and Government of Tajikistan: Kannangara, Arjuna, Nozir Pakistan, ‘A Snapshot of Early Recovery Solijonov and Sukhrob Khoshmukhamedov, Initiatives in Pakistan, Early Recovery and ‘Sustainable Disarmament, Demobilization Reconstruction Cluster’, Islamabad, March and Reintegration of Ex-Combatants and 2006. Conversion of Military Assets to Civilian Philippines: UNDP Philippines, ‘Conflict Use, Outcome Evaluation Report’, UNDP, Prevention and Recovery, Outcome January 2004. Evaluation’, 2008. Tajikistan: Klerk, Ton de and Elena Krylova- Philippines: Dominguez, Maria Teresa C., Mueller, ‘UNDP Communities Programme Teresita V. Barrameda and Thelma in Tajikistan’, Outcomes Evaluation Report, B. Magcuro, ‘Outcome Evaluation of UNDP, July 2009. the Fostering Democratic Governance Turkey: Tokman, Yildiz and Aksu Bora, Portfolio’, UNDP, September 2008. ‘Evaluation of Turkey’s Local Agenda 21 Senegal: ECI Africa, ‘Senegal: Final Evaluation Programme Within the Context of Gender Rural Decentralization Support Program Equality and Women’s Participation in (Padmir)’, Submitted to UNCDF, Final Local Decision Making’, UNDP, March Report, 6 June 2007. 2006. Serbia: Gustaffson, Håkan and Ryan Knox, Ukraine: Musisi, Christine and Olga ‘Monitoring the Implementation of Prutsakova, ‘Outcome Evaluation on Capacity Development of Standing Healthy Lifestyles Promotion in Ukraine’ Conference of Towns and Municipalities’, Evaluation Report, UNDP Ukraine, (SCTM) II, UNDP, 2009. February 2004. Serbia: Dietrich, Mark, Djordje Djurisic, Arild Venezuela: Vallejo, Ricardo García and Hellen Hauge and Sandra E. Oxner, ‘Efficient Méndez de Martín-Caro, ‘Procesos De Administration and Access to Justice Planificación Y Presupuesto A Nivel in Serbia and Montenegro’, Outcome Regional Reformado Para Incorporar Mas Evaluation, UNDP, January 2004. Eficientemente Las Perspectivas A Nivel Local’, Evaluación Del Resultado, UNDP, South Africa: SGS Consulting, ‘Mid- April 2006. term Rapid Review of the Programme: Enhancing an Integrated Response to HIV/ Venezuela: UNDP Venezuela, ‘Evaluacion AIDS and Poverty to Reduce the Impact on del Resultados Mecanismos Nacionales Human Development in KwaZulu Natal, de Resolucion Pacifica de Disputas Eastern Cape and the Northern Province’, Fortalecidos’, March 2005. UNDP, March 2005. Venezuela: Garcia, Ricardo Vallejo and Sri Lanka: UNDP Sri Lanka, ‘Evaluation of Hellen Caro Martín-Méndez, ‘Result the MDG-Country Support Programme’, of Assessment Process of Planning and UNDP, 2009. Budgeting at the Regional Level: Renovated with More Efficient Prospects at the Local Sudan: Abu-Hasabo, Afaf, Abraham Matoc Level’, UNDP, April 2006. Dhal and Eduardo Quiroga, ‘Evaluation of the Second Country Cooperation Yemen: UNDP Yemen, ‘Yemen: Framework [2002–2006] and the Bridging Decentralization and Local Development Programme for [2007–2008]’, UNDP, Support Programme Report on the Final August 2009. Evaluation of the UNDP and UNCDF Local Development Programme’, Sudan: Langan, Richard H., Noha Ibrahim, submitted to the UNCDF, June 2008. Hoth G. Chan and Mohamed Ibrahim Eltahir. ‘Outcome Evaluation of the Country Cooperation Framework 2002– 2006/Bridging Programme 2007/08 for Suda Rules of Law’, UNDP, January 2009.

7 4 ANNEX 5. DOCUMENTS CONSULTED Sales number: E.10.III.B.35 ISBN: 978-921-126309-1 United Nations Development Programme Evaluation Office One United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017, USA Tel. (212) 906 5059, Fax (212) 906 6008 Internet: http://www.undp.org/evaluation