Final Evaluation of the PRO 2 Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2005-2010, Serbia
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
01/2010
Completion Date:
01/2010
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
47,800

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR_Final_Evaluation_PRO_TL__-_Final.doc tor Posted 776
Download document PRO2 final.pdf report English 1823.19 KB Posted 1404
Title Final Evaluation of the PRO 2 Project
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2005-2010, Serbia
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 01/2010
Planned End Date: 01/2010
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Democratic Governance
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 47,800
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Rupinder Singh, Bill Sterland, Goran Zivkov Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: SERBIA
Comments: Final Evaluation
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Direct implementation Modality (DIM) highlighted as being unnecessary and defying the principles of the Paris Declaration. Existing national entities and capacities should be used for future projects.
2 The final outcome of the project differs significantly from the initially defined outcome and results as given in the LogFrame and RRF. UNDPs role during the project implementation was diminished to the role of a pure contractor.
1. Recommendation: Direct implementation Modality (DIM) highlighted as being unnecessary and defying the principles of the Paris Declaration. Existing national entities and capacities should be used for future projects.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/04/29]

The point is valid and UNDP Serbia is already implementing the majority of its project using National Implementation Modality.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As this was the final evaluation on a project were there will be no immediate succession projects, the recommendation will be used and applied for other future projects of similar nature (ABD, local and/or regional projects). However, this will depend on the extremely limited capacities of local governments in Serbia.
[Added: 2010/04/29]
Dobrivoje Stancic No due date No deadline established
2. Recommendation: The final outcome of the project differs significantly from the initially defined outcome and results as given in the LogFrame and RRF. UNDPs role during the project implementation was diminished to the role of a pure contractor.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/04/29]

The finding is valid to the extent that all decisions that altered the course of the project were made by the PRO2 Steering Committee which had the mandate to make strategic re-directing decisions and approve implementation steps thus ceasing the responsibility for decision making and project alteration.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The UNDP CO will bring more effort into monitoring project implementation and adjusting the RRF / LogFrame more vigorously. In addition, the UNDP CO will ensure that knowledge transfer systems are fully utilized during the upcoming new CPD period.
[Added: 2010/04/29]
UNDP No due date No deadline established

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org