Assessment of UNDP?s contributions towards Good Governance in Serbia (2011-2015)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Serbia
Evaluation Type:
Outcome
Planned End Date:
03/2015
Completion Date:
03/2015
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
35,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Outcome evaluation ToR final.docx tor English 60.86 KB Posted 307
Download document Good Governance Outcome Evaluation (Final Report).pdf report English 8602.45 KB Posted 500
Title Assessment of UNDP?s contributions towards Good Governance in Serbia (2011-2015)
Atlas Project Number: 62090
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Serbia
Evaluation Type: Outcome
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2015
Planned End Date: 03/2015
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 7.7 Mechanisms in place to generate and share knowledge about development solutions
Evaluation Budget(US $): 35,000
Source of Funding: TRAC
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 47,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Thomas Kercher International expert
Mladen Momcilovic national expert SERBIA
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Countries: SERBIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 UNDP should continue to expose stakeholders, with its governance programmes, to opportunities to come together to deal with reform efforts that are intrinsically complex, nonlinear, and interconnected.
2 UNDP should remain fully conscious of its strengths and cultivate them by integrating them it its strategic and operational plans, and day-to-day management. The development of an explicit partnership strategy, which commits not only UNDP but also its partners, would be recommendable. UNDP should continue supporting its project personnel housed in government agencies and in institutions such as in the Public Procurement Office, National Assembly, and others. Given its experience and partnerships, UNDP should consider supporting closer coordination and cooperation between the central government bodies its has established working relationships with.
3 UNDP should ensure that its profile is perceived as clear and unique among potential donors, in order to succeed on an increasingly competitive market. UNDP should make clear each time it approaches a partner, which objective (mission or revenue) it pursues in the specific interaction. UNDP should consider bidding for projects where those qualities are required and represent a significant advantage over other organizations.
4 UNDP Serbia should revisit its strategic orientation in the subject matter areas currently covered by SEESAC, such as the police and the military. Similarly, UNDP should ensure that its support in the area of human rights strengthening becomes better integrated into it strategic frameworks.
5 UNDP should make the most of genuine UN agendas, such as in the areas of human rights and anti-corruption, and assist Serbia in dealing with its integration into the global economy. In order to strengthen its role, UNDP should contribute keenly to improving the integration of ODA efforts, via more systemic co-ordination, towards generating synergies and cost savings in the times of scarcer none-EU ODA financial presence.
6 UNDP should make greater efforts to define and agree indicators that meet common quality standards. Where planning cycles are too long to agree on results that are sufficiently specific, UNDP should reduce those cycles or provide possibilities and incentives for revising results and indicators (e.g. at mid-term) in consultation with partners and stakeholders.
7 UNDP should consider making the monitoring of CPD country outputs obligatory. UNDP Serbia should find ways to increase external feedback received on the success of its programmes.
8 In line with the provisions of the Paris Declaration, UNDP should ensure that government processes and procedures are used wherever possible and legally required. Where external factors, such as temporary austerity measures to stabilize the economy, are used to justify resorting to substitute government capacity, exit strategies should be agreed with government.
1. Recommendation: UNDP should continue to expose stakeholders, with its governance programmes, to opportunities to come together to deal with reform efforts that are intrinsically complex, nonlinear, and interconnected.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/06] [Last Updated: 2016/01/14]

Within the new CPD 2016-2020 UNDP will continue pursuing governance related programmes focusing on public finance management and parliamentary development

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
develop new public finance and parliamentary development projects
[Added: 2016/01/14]
Jelena Manic 2015/12 Completed
2. Recommendation: UNDP should remain fully conscious of its strengths and cultivate them by integrating them it its strategic and operational plans, and day-to-day management. The development of an explicit partnership strategy, which commits not only UNDP but also its partners, would be recommendable. UNDP should continue supporting its project personnel housed in government agencies and in institutions such as in the Public Procurement Office, National Assembly, and others. Given its experience and partnerships, UNDP should consider supporting closer coordination and cooperation between the central government bodies its has established working relationships with.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/06] [Last Updated: 2016/01/14]

Discuss partnership strategy development

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Incorporate partnership strategy within the new CPD
[Added: 2016/01/14]
Steliana Nedera 2015/12 Completed
3. Recommendation: UNDP should ensure that its profile is perceived as clear and unique among potential donors, in order to succeed on an increasingly competitive market. UNDP should make clear each time it approaches a partner, which objective (mission or revenue) it pursues in the specific interaction. UNDP should consider bidding for projects where those qualities are required and represent a significant advantage over other organizations.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/06] [Last Updated: 2016/01/14]

UNDP will concentrate its efforts to scale up successful past initiatives

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
scale up public finance and parliamentary development interventions
[Added: 2016/01/14]
Jelena Manic 2015/12 Completed
4. Recommendation: UNDP Serbia should revisit its strategic orientation in the subject matter areas currently covered by SEESAC, such as the police and the military. Similarly, UNDP should ensure that its support in the area of human rights strengthening becomes better integrated into it strategic frameworks.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/06] [Last Updated: 2016/01/14]

Management of SEESAC has been transferred to IRH.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
finalise the transfer of managerial SEESAC responsibilities to regional hub
[Added: 2016/01/14]
Steliana Nedera 2015/12 Completed
5. Recommendation: UNDP should make the most of genuine UN agendas, such as in the areas of human rights and anti-corruption, and assist Serbia in dealing with its integration into the global economy. In order to strengthen its role, UNDP should contribute keenly to improving the integration of ODA efforts, via more systemic co-ordination, towards generating synergies and cost savings in the times of scarcer none-EU ODA financial presence.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/06] [Last Updated: 2016/01/14]

Strive for better development aid coordination among Gvt and donors

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
organize meeting with EU Delegation
[Added: 2016/01/14]
Steliana Nedera 2015/12 Completed
6. Recommendation: UNDP should make greater efforts to define and agree indicators that meet common quality standards. Where planning cycles are too long to agree on results that are sufficiently specific, UNDP should reduce those cycles or provide possibilities and incentives for revising results and indicators (e.g. at mid-term) in consultation with partners and stakeholders.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/06] [Last Updated: 2016/01/14]

Improve outcome level monitoring

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
introduce new monitoring procedures and formats
[Added: 2016/01/14]
Daniel Varga 2015/12 Completed
7. Recommendation: UNDP should consider making the monitoring of CPD country outputs obligatory. UNDP Serbia should find ways to increase external feedback received on the success of its programmes.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/06] [Last Updated: 2016/01/14]

Plan better outreach for communicating achieved results

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
make CPD outputs and related indicators more realistic
[Added: 2016/01/14]
Steliana Nedera 2015/07 Completed
8. Recommendation: In line with the provisions of the Paris Declaration, UNDP should ensure that government processes and procedures are used wherever possible and legally required. Where external factors, such as temporary austerity measures to stabilize the economy, are used to justify resorting to substitute government capacity, exit strategies should be agreed with government.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/06] [Last Updated: 2016/01/14]

Continue using NIM and DIM modalities, as apparopriate

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
ensure that each project has signed LOA
[Added: 2016/01/14]
Steliana Nedera 2015/12 Completed

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org