Final Evaluation of the Governance Capacity Building Programme in Seychelles

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2016, Seychelles
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
09/2013
Completion Date:
01/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000
Conclusion and Lessons Learned

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Terms of Reference.docx tor English 48.18 KB Posted 727
Download document PAI_Seychelles_Final-Evaluation_FinalReport.pdf report English 1411.91 KB Posted 801
Download document Conclusions.docx summary English 34.55 KB Posted 523
Download document Management response for EU terminal Evaluation.pdf related-document English 130.45 KB Posted 393
Title Final Evaluation of the Governance Capacity Building Programme in Seychelles
Atlas Project Number: 00072176
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2016, Seychelles
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 01/2014
Planned End Date: 09/2013
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.1. National and sub-national systems and institutions enabled to achieve structural transformation of productive capacities that are sustainable and employment - and livelihoods- intensive
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: EU Funds
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with EU
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Peter Reed Senior Expert preedwecp@aol.com
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: EU and UNDP and Government
Countries: SEYCHELLES
Comments: EU has confirmed that mid term evaluation will not be undertaken but only a final evaluation will be undertaken before end of 2013
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Impact (i.e. likely achievement of wider effects) and Sustainability (i.e. the likelihood that results that have been achieved will continue to be apparent ? or give rise to further positive effects, are at this stage more difficult to confirm with certainty. In the personal opinion of the Evaluator, the chances are good that this will be the case in both contexts. Government (particularly through the MOFA and the SAs that have been directly involved in programme implementation) has been sufficiently engaged to make it likely that ?governance? in its widest sense, can only benefit as a result of the programme?s interventions. Furthermore, although outputs achievement in itself does not guarantee that achievement of the desired higher level outcomes (e.g. new policies and acts actually being implemented) will necessarily follow (as the logic model might imply), there has been such a significant degree of outputs achievement across the board of the programme?s activities, that it does seem likely that enough momentum has been established for this to be the case.
2 The evident lack of capacity and consequent lack of credibility of the National Human Rights Commission is a matter of grave concern (with the reported concern of donor country diplomats clearly evidencing this). This situation requires the immediate attention of the GoS as the existence of such a body would be a clear signal that the Government takes the whole HR agenda seriously. Failure to address this can only have an unfortunate and unnecessarily adverse effect on donor perceptions about this seriousness. The establishment of a CAB could prove to be a useful ?stop-gap? in terms of service provision for advice and advocacy, and could help to ensure the sustainability of a number of the programme?s outcomes
3 The evident lack of capacity and consequent lack of credibility of the National Human Rights Commission is a matter of grave concern (with the reported concern of donor country diplomats clearly evidencing this). This situation requires the immediate attention of the GoS as the existence of such a body would be a clear signal that the Government takes the whole HR agenda seriously. Failure to address this can only have an unfortunate and unnecessarily adverse effect on donor perceptions about this seriousness. The establishment of a CAB could prove to be a useful ?stop-gap? in terms of service provision for advice and advocacy, and could help to ensure the sustainability of a number of the programme?s outcomes.
4 The programme could have been more visible, and could both have benefitted from better publicity and more attention to communications in itself. It is likely that it could also have increased the chances of sustainability and impact by so doing, or by helping the GoS to do this and to appreciate the potential political benefits of so doing. There are strict guidelines concerning the ways in which the managing partner (in this case UNDP) is required to ensure the visibility of EU funding for programmes like this (see footnote 7 above). More awareness of this (by UNDP and also across Government as opposed simply to the MOFA) could help to generate a sense of responsibility for engagement to be effective and sustainable on the part of SAs in particular.
5 Although some of the added value provided by the programme has been almost coincidental, in that concurrence of timing has led to synergies and complementarity (e.g. with UNODC operations), the result has nevertheless been very positive. The programme has clearly been coherent with other initiatives and has not conflicted with or duplicated the efforts of any others.
6 The programme has been generally well managed by UNDP, particularly in so far as it has consisted of many disparate elements that must have taken a lot of coordination and attention to detail. Some criticism has been levelled at the low visibility ? particularly of the Programme Manager who has the difficult task of managing the programme from a distance as he is based in Mauritius. UNDP does not feel that this is an issue. It is also open to question whether contracting of more international TA (particularly perhaps senior consultants who might have enough credibility to influence the GoS at senior or Ministerial level, as well as bringing experience of international best practices) might have added even more value, in addition to the possibility of their transferring valuable knowledge and skills to local national consultants.
7 It was pointed out by UNDP that the EU Delegation programme management have never actually requested nor visited the PMU during any missions and that the only times the PMU have met with the EU PM has been during the SC meetings
8 Despite Seychelles being a middle income country and a tourist destination that many who have never been there probably perceive as a ?paradise in the sun?, it does have many problems ranging from its well?documented struggle to get fiscal discipline under control (which the Ministry of Finance has done admirably), to a range of social ills that, if anything, are becoming more apparent and more of a concern. The causes of criminality ? such as drug abuse, unemployment, cyber-crime and trafficking are issues of very real concern. As a result the sheer number of prosecutions is on the rise, and with it the prisons population (as reported with concern by the prison service management). This may be unsustainable.
9 Furthermore, there is significant discontent, now beginning to manifest itself through social media and growing public confidence in people?s right to a ?voice to be heard? (one of the objectives of this programme). This discontent ranges across a number of issues with one of the most prominent being the very obvious foreign direct investment (principally from Russia and the Gulf States) in large and some would say obtrusive hotel and resort developments on some of the islands? best beaches. Inward investment must be seen as desirable and will no doubt contribute positively to the economy in a number of ways. But when citizens, who for generations have enjoyed a cultural tradition of free access to these same beaches for barbeques with their families where they enjoy their music and their heritage, can no longer do this because the beaches are fenced off, they feel that their rights (civil and cultural) have been infringed. There is further significant discontent among those who have lived or retired for years near these same beaches, and who now find their view or even their light obliterated by a huge concrete hotel. People feel powerless in the face of these developments and this groundswell of discontent translates into a very real lack of confidence in ?good governance? which appears more evident to anyone who actually converses with local people than the opposite perception which was the aim of this programme.
10 The Government should take immediate steps to strengthen the organisational capacity and credibility of the Human Rights Commission, separating its functions from that of the Ombudsman?s Office and supporting it in particular with its communications and advocacy functions.
11 The Government should support and approve the establishment of a Citizens? Advice Bureau that among other services could provide free signposting, advice and advocacy on HR issues. It could publish a range of leaflets to promote further awareness in this regard.
12 The Cabinet and AG?s Office (and Parliament) should take all possible steps to speed up the validation, endorsement and enactment of the new HR legislation, treaties, conventions and the NHRAP.
13 Further attention should be given (and if necessary funds sought) to make the training curricula for both police and prisons more practical; breaking the accredited qualification courses down further into ?lesson plans and manuals? for officers that have not necessarily been trained as trainers. Such trainers should, however, be given ?Methods of Instruction? courses
14 Perception surveys should be commissioned (ideally by Government contracting an independent contractor), and if necessary with further donor funding (or possibly a contract variation allowing use of remaining unspent programme funds for this). These should address in particular the SOV for the Programme?s DO to provide ?a broadly undertaken survey on public perceptions of Good Governance and substantial Human Rights including vulnerable groups (using the 2008 survey as a baseline)?. A further survey of public perceptions of police behaviour and the extent of trust in their knowledge and application of HR principles (i.e. whether or not there is evidence of the new training having the desired effect) would also be beneficial.
15 Despite the conclusion of the programme, consideration should be given (if regulations permit or flexibility could be granted) to use some of the unexpended portion of the programme budget for contracting of ?a broadly undertaken survey on public perceptions on Good Governance and substantial Human Rights including vulnerable groups, with the Rosalie 2008 perception survey as a baseline? (in line with the SOV for the Impact level Development Objective of the programme as expressed in the Logframe).
16 Despite the conclusion of the programme, consideration should be given (if regulations permit or flexibility could be granted) to use some of the unexpended portion of the programme budget for contracting of ?a broadly undertaken survey on public perceptions on Good Governance and substantial Human Rights including vulnerable groups, with the Rosalie 2008 perception survey as a baseline? (in line with the SOV for the Impact level Development Objective of the programme as expressed in the Logframe).
17 Failing the possibility of such a variation or reallocation of programme funds, the Delegation could usefully consider future support for such potentially valuable and relevant follow-on activities as: a. Support for the organizational and institutional capacity building of the NHRC (provided that genuine support for and commitment to the principles of this is demonstrated by GoS); b. Training for the staff of Commission and the Ombudsman?s Office (provided that GoS demonstrates its political will to give such bodies the ?teeth? they need to do their jobs; c. Support for a strategic communications strategy to help GoS publicise its support for and activities in the arena of HR ? and perhaps the positive benefits of inward investment in tourism development; d. Pragmatic support for simplification of the accredited training curricula for the police and prisons to create practical manuals for lesson plans to be delivered by non-professional trainers; e. Possible support for the establishment of a CAB.
18 In addition to considerations of future funding, the EU should consider how best to maximize the potential value that this could have through a combination of more effective diplomatic pressure and greater attention to public information to increase the visibility of its support when provided
19 If there is a reasonable hope or prospect of future development assistance for Seychelles continuing to be implemented with UNDP as the implementing partner or ?managing agent?, UNDP should consider whether it is good enough, or to put it another way ? whether they can completely justify - having a senior manager who needs to act in the role of Programme Manager for such partnership projects, who is not based full time in Seychelles. (As stated previously UNDP themselves dispute that this is an issue of concern). The UNDP local office staff have done a first class job of PCM for this programme but they could not have been expected to tackle some of the more sensitive political issues arising, or to be the most appropriate interlocutors for such development partners as EU member states? Ambassadors on the one hand, or Government Ministers on the other. The present situation puts UNDP staff at all levels at something of a disadvantage
20 DPs should continue to exert diplomatic pressure on the GoS, not only to fulfil obligations to treaties and conventions, and to pass the new Act and implement the new NHRAP, but also to espouse these concerns with more evident enthusiasm and commitment.
21 Where possible, they should draw the attention of their own governments to some of the concerns expressed in this report in order that donor agencies should not desert Seychelles at this critical juncture in its economic and social development; but rather continue to encourage and support the GoS in the work that still needs to be done to ensure real sustainability of the benefits of this programme.
22 Although ?conditionality? for development assistance is now considered by many to be unhelpful, ?payment on results? with some part of assistance being contingent on evident progress, or possibly on matched funding that shows seriousness of intent, could be considered as a modality.
1. Recommendation: Impact (i.e. likely achievement of wider effects) and Sustainability (i.e. the likelihood that results that have been achieved will continue to be apparent ? or give rise to further positive effects, are at this stage more difficult to confirm with certainty. In the personal opinion of the Evaluator, the chances are good that this will be the case in both contexts. Government (particularly through the MOFA and the SAs that have been directly involved in programme implementation) has been sufficiently engaged to make it likely that ?governance? in its widest sense, can only benefit as a result of the programme?s interventions. Furthermore, although outputs achievement in itself does not guarantee that achievement of the desired higher level outcomes (e.g. new policies and acts actually being implemented) will necessarily follow (as the logic model might imply), there has been such a significant degree of outputs achievement across the board of the programme?s activities, that it does seem likely that enough momentum has been established for this to be the case.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

The evaluator reference to impact may be a bit premature given that the longer term impacts of this project will only be felt further down the years. Long term impacts are not immediately measurable and thus would not be relevant to assessing the programme currently. However Management feels that the short term impact of the programme achieved the necessary results and created more awareness on governance related issues that will carry forward in to the medium term foreseeable future. Management agrees with the evaluator with regards to the project delivery- and that the participation of both state and non-state actors was well received.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: The evident lack of capacity and consequent lack of credibility of the National Human Rights Commission is a matter of grave concern (with the reported concern of donor country diplomats clearly evidencing this). This situation requires the immediate attention of the GoS as the existence of such a body would be a clear signal that the Government takes the whole HR agenda seriously. Failure to address this can only have an unfortunate and unnecessarily adverse effect on donor perceptions about this seriousness. The establishment of a CAB could prove to be a useful ?stop-gap? in terms of service provision for advice and advocacy, and could help to ensure the sustainability of a number of the programme?s outcomes
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

The management agrees that the NHRC was institutionally weak and their presence or lack thereof was indeed quite noticeable throughout the process of the NHRAP. The Project team and UNDP raised the issue on several occasion during the PSC as well as during meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the UNDP resident Representative. The recent re-appointment of a new NHRC with 2 new commissioners is a step in the right direction in terms of representation. However, management feels and agrees that the new commission needs to live up to its mandate and oversee the implementation of the NHRAP and sustain the outcome of the project.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: The evident lack of capacity and consequent lack of credibility of the National Human Rights Commission is a matter of grave concern (with the reported concern of donor country diplomats clearly evidencing this). This situation requires the immediate attention of the GoS as the existence of such a body would be a clear signal that the Government takes the whole HR agenda seriously. Failure to address this can only have an unfortunate and unnecessarily adverse effect on donor perceptions about this seriousness. The establishment of a CAB could prove to be a useful ?stop-gap? in terms of service provision for advice and advocacy, and could help to ensure the sustainability of a number of the programme?s outcomes.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

The management agrees that the NHRC was institutionally weak and their presence or lack thereof was indeed quite noticeable throughout the process of the NHRAP. The Project team and UNDP raised the issue on several occasion during the PSC as well as during meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the UNDP resident Representative. The recent re-appointment of a new NHRC with 2 new commissioners is a step in the right direction in terms of representation. However, management feels and agrees that the new commission needs to live up to its mandate and oversee the implementation of the NHRAP and sustain the outcome of the project.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: The programme could have been more visible, and could both have benefitted from better publicity and more attention to communications in itself. It is likely that it could also have increased the chances of sustainability and impact by so doing, or by helping the GoS to do this and to appreciate the potential political benefits of so doing. There are strict guidelines concerning the ways in which the managing partner (in this case UNDP) is required to ensure the visibility of EU funding for programmes like this (see footnote 7 above). More awareness of this (by UNDP and also across Government as opposed simply to the MOFA) could help to generate a sense of responsibility for engagement to be effective and sustainable on the part of SAs in particular.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Comments Noted. UNDP and the Project Management team is of the view that considerable visibility in terms of press releases and media involvement including Television and radio were provided throughout the life of the project. It is difficult to envisage what more could have been undertaken to provide greater visibility within the limited resources that were available to implement this project. All relevant partners were invited to all events /workshops under the project and adequate press coverage provided. The final project closure produced a document which captured the entire Small Grants component as well as the technical assistance components of the project

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: Although some of the added value provided by the programme has been almost coincidental, in that concurrence of timing has led to synergies and complementarity (e.g. with UNODC operations), the result has nevertheless been very positive. The programme has clearly been coherent with other initiatives and has not conflicted with or duplicated the efforts of any others.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Noted/agreed

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: The programme has been generally well managed by UNDP, particularly in so far as it has consisted of many disparate elements that must have taken a lot of coordination and attention to detail. Some criticism has been levelled at the low visibility ? particularly of the Programme Manager who has the difficult task of managing the programme from a distance as he is based in Mauritius. UNDP does not feel that this is an issue. It is also open to question whether contracting of more international TA (particularly perhaps senior consultants who might have enough credibility to influence the GoS at senior or Ministerial level, as well as bringing experience of international best practices) might have added even more value, in addition to the possibility of their transferring valuable knowledge and skills to local national consultants.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Management agrees with the evaluator with regards to the project delivery- and that the participation of both state and non-state actors was well received. In terms of visibility this has been addressed above. However, the comment regarding the low visibility of the Programme Manager is not correct as the incumbent has been involved with the project from the start and has been at the forefront throughout. This comment was brought about as the UNDP Programme Manager could not participate at the last Steering Committee meeting due to commitment in Mauritius. UNDP was amply represented nevertheless by the Project Officer who has been following the project closely as she is based in the Seychelles Office. With regards to contracting of more Technical Assistance at a higher level, management feels that while this may have had more impact, the limited funds did not permit recruitment of TA for longer periods and the ones recruited were of the right calibre both locally and internationally. There is little evidence to suggest that a different set of consultants would have produced different overall results.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: It was pointed out by UNDP that the EU Delegation programme management have never actually requested nor visited the PMU during any missions and that the only times the PMU have met with the EU PM has been during the SC meetings
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Agreed. Proper monitoring by the EU Programme Officer would have also improved efficiency as a number of issues could have been ironed out in such meeting such as new reporting requirements which cased significant delays in release of funds.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: Despite Seychelles being a middle income country and a tourist destination that many who have never been there probably perceive as a ?paradise in the sun?, it does have many problems ranging from its well?documented struggle to get fiscal discipline under control (which the Ministry of Finance has done admirably), to a range of social ills that, if anything, are becoming more apparent and more of a concern. The causes of criminality ? such as drug abuse, unemployment, cyber-crime and trafficking are issues of very real concern. As a result the sheer number of prosecutions is on the rise, and with it the prisons population (as reported with concern by the prison service management). This may be unsustainable.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Observation noted although this was beyond the scope of the project and the TOR of the evaluation and not completely relevant to the Final Evaluation.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: Furthermore, there is significant discontent, now beginning to manifest itself through social media and growing public confidence in people?s right to a ?voice to be heard? (one of the objectives of this programme). This discontent ranges across a number of issues with one of the most prominent being the very obvious foreign direct investment (principally from Russia and the Gulf States) in large and some would say obtrusive hotel and resort developments on some of the islands? best beaches. Inward investment must be seen as desirable and will no doubt contribute positively to the economy in a number of ways. But when citizens, who for generations have enjoyed a cultural tradition of free access to these same beaches for barbeques with their families where they enjoy their music and their heritage, can no longer do this because the beaches are fenced off, they feel that their rights (civil and cultural) have been infringed. There is further significant discontent among those who have lived or retired for years near these same beaches, and who now find their view or even their light obliterated by a huge concrete hotel. People feel powerless in the face of these developments and this groundswell of discontent translates into a very real lack of confidence in ?good governance? which appears more evident to anyone who actually converses with local people than the opposite perception which was the aim of this programme.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Observation noted. While management agrees with this observation, UNDP had to respect the project log frame and ensure that it implements within that framework. Such issues for example could well have been picked up by any of the SGP proposals, but was not. It remains to be seen how the empowered NSA fares beyond the project to tackle more sensitive issues, which can also be addressed within the implementation of the new NHRAP.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: The Government should take immediate steps to strengthen the organisational capacity and credibility of the Human Rights Commission, separating its functions from that of the Ombudsman?s Office and supporting it in particular with its communications and advocacy functions.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Agreed. The Government has been lobbied at every opportunity to address this by the UNDP RR and also the PM. UNDP will continue to engage with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to engage the NHRC in the process of implementation of the NHRAP

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Engage in renewed dialogue with Government during mission of the RR.
[Added: 2014/07/02]
UNDP, GoS No due date No deadline established The Government has recently appointed a Judge and member of the judiciary to strengthen the NHRC. Although the Ombudsman still wears a dual hat of being Commissioner as well, the increased capacity will likely mean more action from the NHRC
11. Recommendation: The Government should support and approve the establishment of a Citizens? Advice Bureau that among other services could provide free signposting, advice and advocacy on HR issues. It could publish a range of leaflets to promote further awareness in this regard.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

The Management is in agreement with this recommendation. However, it is not Government but LUNGOS as the civil society platform taking lead on this

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
LUNGOS to be encouraged to undertake with Govt to establish the CAB
[Added: 2014/07/02]
LUNGOS, GoS, NHRC No due date No deadline established
12. Recommendation: The Cabinet and AG?s Office (and Parliament) should take all possible steps to speed up the validation, endorsement and enactment of the new HR legislation, treaties, conventions and the NHRAP.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

The Management agrees- but notes that the constant capacity constraints and backlog of work may mean that this will be realized only in the medium term

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continue dialogue with the Government and engage the UN-OHCHR
[Added: 2014/07/02]
AG's, MFA, GoS No due date No deadline established
13. Recommendation: Further attention should be given (and if necessary funds sought) to make the training curricula for both police and prisons more practical; breaking the accredited qualification courses down further into ?lesson plans and manuals? for officers that have not necessarily been trained as trainers. Such trainers should, however, be given ?Methods of Instruction? courses
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Noted. The training curriculum was already developed under this project. Manuals become obsolete with time and each instructor has their own methods of imparting the requisite lesson through their own discourse

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No further actions required
[Added: 2014/07/02]
No due date No deadline established
14. Recommendation: Perception surveys should be commissioned (ideally by Government contracting an independent contractor), and if necessary with further donor funding (or possibly a contract variation allowing use of remaining unspent programme funds for this). These should address in particular the SOV for the Programme?s DO to provide ?a broadly undertaken survey on public perceptions of Good Governance and substantial Human Rights including vulnerable groups (using the 2008 survey as a baseline)?. A further survey of public perceptions of police behaviour and the extent of trust in their knowledge and application of HR principles (i.e. whether or not there is evidence of the new training having the desired effect) would also be beneficial.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02] [Last Updated: 2014/07/02]

The Management agrees with this recommendation too and it is likely that once funds are secured they will be used for the perception survey

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No further action as EU wil work directly with LUNGOS and not through UNDP under 11th EDF
[Added: 2014/07/02] [Last Updated: 2014/12/15]
GoS, LUNGOS, NHRC No due date No deadline established Project completed and EU will work directly with LUNGOS and NSA under 11th EDF.
15. Recommendation: Despite the conclusion of the programme, consideration should be given (if regulations permit or flexibility could be granted) to use some of the unexpended portion of the programme budget for contracting of ?a broadly undertaken survey on public perceptions on Good Governance and substantial Human Rights including vulnerable groups, with the Rosalie 2008 perception survey as a baseline? (in line with the SOV for the Impact level Development Objective of the programme as expressed in the Logframe).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

The management acknowledges that a perception study needs to be carried out- but this project was executed successfully with little or no remaining funds from the project for such an undertaking. Secondly EU rules are strict and would not permit an extension to carry out a survey- so this would have to be a separate task in itself.

Key Actions:

16. Recommendation: Despite the conclusion of the programme, consideration should be given (if regulations permit or flexibility could be granted) to use some of the unexpended portion of the programme budget for contracting of ?a broadly undertaken survey on public perceptions on Good Governance and substantial Human Rights including vulnerable groups, with the Rosalie 2008 perception survey as a baseline? (in line with the SOV for the Impact level Development Objective of the programme as expressed in the Logframe).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

The management acknowledges that a perception study needs to be carried out- but this project was executed successfully with little or no remaining funds from the project for such an undertaking. Secondly EU rules are strict and would not permit an extension to carry out a survey- so this would have to be a separate task in itself.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Same as point 15
[Added: 2014/07/02]
MFA, NHRC, LUNGOS 2014/12 No Longer Applicable
17. Recommendation: Failing the possibility of such a variation or reallocation of programme funds, the Delegation could usefully consider future support for such potentially valuable and relevant follow-on activities as: a. Support for the organizational and institutional capacity building of the NHRC (provided that genuine support for and commitment to the principles of this is demonstrated by GoS); b. Training for the staff of Commission and the Ombudsman?s Office (provided that GoS demonstrates its political will to give such bodies the ?teeth? they need to do their jobs; c. Support for a strategic communications strategy to help GoS publicise its support for and activities in the arena of HR ? and perhaps the positive benefits of inward investment in tourism development; d. Pragmatic support for simplification of the accredited training curricula for the police and prisons to create practical manuals for lesson plans to be delivered by non-professional trainers; e. Possible support for the establishment of a CAB.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

The management agrees that financial and technical support would be welcome by donors to support the capacity building and work of the NHRC The management agrees and will look forward to support such initiatives that can strengthen capacity.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No further actions required at this stage. However if the proposal submitted under the UPR Trust Fund gets approved UNDP will engage further with the Government and follow up on these recommendations of a to e below.
[Added: 2014/07/02]
GoS No due date No deadline established The UNDP is also currently working with the OHCHR Regional Office in SA to gain additional support under the UPR TF
18. Recommendation: In addition to considerations of future funding, the EU should consider how best to maximize the potential value that this could have through a combination of more effective diplomatic pressure and greater attention to public information to increase the visibility of its support when provided
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Agreed.

Key Actions:

19. Recommendation: If there is a reasonable hope or prospect of future development assistance for Seychelles continuing to be implemented with UNDP as the implementing partner or ?managing agent?, UNDP should consider whether it is good enough, or to put it another way ? whether they can completely justify - having a senior manager who needs to act in the role of Programme Manager for such partnership projects, who is not based full time in Seychelles. (As stated previously UNDP themselves dispute that this is an issue of concern). The UNDP local office staff have done a first class job of PCM for this programme but they could not have been expected to tackle some of the more sensitive political issues arising, or to be the most appropriate interlocutors for such development partners as EU member states? Ambassadors on the one hand, or Government Ministers on the other. The present situation puts UNDP staff at all levels at something of a disadvantage
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Noted. Management confirms that sufficient time was allocated by UNDP Programme Manager to the project with daily involvement of the seychelles based Project Officer. The UNDP team have always been able to access various governments and ministries and have a good rapport at all levels. Although the Programme Manager for Seychelles has to devote half his time in Mauritius, he is well acquainted with senior government officials and members of the diplomatic corps.

Key Actions:

20. Recommendation: DPs should continue to exert diplomatic pressure on the GoS, not only to fulfil obligations to treaties and conventions, and to pass the new Act and implement the new NHRAP, but also to espouse these concerns with more evident enthusiasm and commitment.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP will continue its policy dialogue with Government on behalf of the UNDP and the UNCT and engage the OHCHR in the process.
[Added: 2014/07/02]
UNDP, UNCT, OHCHR No due date No deadline established
21. Recommendation: Where possible, they should draw the attention of their own governments to some of the concerns expressed in this report in order that donor agencies should not desert Seychelles at this critical juncture in its economic and social development; but rather continue to encourage and support the GoS in the work that still needs to be done to ensure real sustainability of the benefits of this programme.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Agreed.

Key Actions:

22. Recommendation: Although ?conditionality? for development assistance is now considered by many to be unhelpful, ?payment on results? with some part of assistance being contingent on evident progress, or possibly on matched funding that shows seriousness of intent, could be considered as a modality.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/07/02]

Agreed

Key Actions:

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