- Evaluation Plan:
- 2013-2017, Myanmar
- Evaluation Type:
- Mid Term Project
- Planned End Date:
- 03/2016
- Completion Date:
- 08/2016
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 50,000
Rule of Law and Access to Justice
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Final Evaluation Report Myanmar RoL-A2J Project.pdf |
report | English | 1199.99 KB | Posted | 1722 |
| Title | Rule of Law and Access to Justice | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00086610 | ||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2013-2017, Myanmar | ||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 08/2016 | ||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 03/2016 | ||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 50,000 | ||||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | |||||||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 50,000 | ||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | |||||||||||||
| Countries: | MYANMAR |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Maintain current focus of programmatic areas/Prioritise support to activities that can be embedded effectively over the remaining output period/Maximise continuity through ongoing support to incomplete activities or activities where sustainability is still seen as fragile to deepen ownership and sustainability |
| 2 | Maximising ‘replicable’ activities: given the significant levels of need across the justice sector, training activities are one area where individual courses can be effectively replicated. |
| 3 | Undertake a results / change assessment of the Rule of Law Centres Project nearer completion of the Output and explore the potential to establish a whole-of-sector steering committee to guide and promote inclusive participation. |
| 4 | Further develop a partnership approach with counterparts at the institution-level and strengthen counterpart ownership by expanding efforts to undertake collaborative forward planning of activities. |
| 5 | Monitoring and evaluation efforts refined to strengthen activity tracking, change and results |
| 6 | Further strengthen the focus on human rights / vulnerable groups issues |
| 7 | To build on existing justice reform dialogue with the aim of further supporting national counterparts to engage in relevant, responsive and coordinated justice sector reforms |
| 8 | Future justice reform support is informed by the assessments made in this Evaluation / That a comprehensive, participatory, and data-driven project design process is undertaken to structure and plan any UNDP support to the justice sector from 2018 onwards/ Initiate a two-step design process taking into account timeframes and available resources including a concept note/design process. |
| 9 | To evolve the strategic rationale or vision for engaging with the justice sector in Myanmar. This can be seen as moving from justice reform as a component, or enabler, of democratic governance and the current more introspective focus of support on “…enabling justice institutions [to] develop and implement frameworks for justice sector reform…”; to be more externally focussed on enabling justice (a ‘fair’ society in Myanmar) as an end in itself. |
| 10 | For any new justice reform support; in light of the assessments made in this evaluation -to refine and strengthen the rigour of the Output management approach, by maximising responsiveness and flexibility of implementation while ensuring strategic focus is maintained, developing a comprehensive design to define proposed support within the parameters set by the new CPAP (as discussed above), define policy direction and provide strategic guidance to all support / activities through a governance or steering committee (analogous to the ‘Output Board’ for the current Output); undertake detailed implementation planning (informed by the previous two points) on an iterative and collaborative basis with individual institutions; introducing more structured phasing of support in light of defined strategic outcomes to take into account institutional constraints and absorption capacity limitations; undertaking more rigorous monitoring and evaluation. |
1. Recommendation:
Maintain current focus of programmatic areas/Prioritise support to activities that can be embedded effectively over the remaining output period/Maximise continuity through ongoing support to incomplete activities or activities where sustainability is still seen as fragile to deepen ownership and sustainability
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
UNDP agrees with this recommendation
Key Actions:
2. Recommendation:
Maximising ‘replicable’ activities: given the significant levels of need across the justice sector, training activities are one area where individual courses can be effectively replicated.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
UNDP agrees with this recommendation, recognizing that replicability is likely to happen through state and region trainings
Key Actions:
3. Recommendation:
Undertake a results / change assessment of the Rule of Law Centres Project nearer completion of the Output and explore the potential to establish a whole-of-sector steering committee to guide and promote inclusive participation.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
UNDP agrees with these recommendations, whilst recognizing that a whole of sector steering committee is subject to the agreement of justice and government actors.
Key Actions:
4. Recommendation:
Further develop a partnership approach with counterparts at the institution-level and strengthen counterpart ownership by expanding efforts to undertake collaborative forward planning of activities.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
UNDP agrees with this recommendation, which is in line with UNDP current practice. UNDP acknowledges the need to take greater efforts to enhance counterparts’ involvement and contribution to individual activity design in the planning and implementation phases
Key Actions:
5. Recommendation:
Monitoring and evaluation efforts refined to strengthen activity tracking, change and results
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
UNDP agrees with this recommendation
Key Actions:
6. Recommendation:
Further strengthen the focus on human rights / vulnerable groups issues
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
UNDP agrees with this recommendation.
Key Actions:
7. Recommendation:
To build on existing justice reform dialogue with the aim of further supporting national counterparts to engage in relevant, responsive and coordinated justice sector reforms
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
UNDP agrees with this recommendation and this is currently being done by the Programme team.
Key Actions:
8. Recommendation:
Future justice reform support is informed by the assessments made in this Evaluation / That a comprehensive, participatory, and data-driven project design process is undertaken to structure and plan any UNDP support to the justice sector from 2018 onwards/ Initiate a two-step design process taking into account timeframes and available resources including a concept note/design process.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
All of these recommendations are process recommendations related to the design of the next Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP). These recommendations will be assessed at the start of the CPAP process to determine their feasibility in line with UNDP corporate guidelines, processes and procedures for development of new CPAPs.
Key Actions:
9. Recommendation:
To evolve the strategic rationale or vision for engaging with the justice sector in Myanmar. This can be seen as moving from justice reform as a component, or enabler, of democratic governance and the current more introspective focus of support on “…enabling justice institutions [to] develop and implement frameworks for justice sector reform…”; to be more externally focussed on enabling justice (a ‘fair’ society in Myanmar) as an end in itself.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
UNDP does not agree with this recommendation. Whilst recognizing justice as an end in itself, this in itself should not preclude a justice project being part of a Democratic Governance Programme which has justice and human right principles and delivery at its core.
Key Actions:
10. Recommendation:
For any new justice reform support; in light of the assessments made in this evaluation -to refine and strengthen the rigour of the Output management approach, by maximising responsiveness and flexibility of implementation while ensuring strategic focus is maintained, developing a comprehensive design to define proposed support within the parameters set by the new CPAP (as discussed above), define policy direction and provide strategic guidance to all support / activities through a governance or steering committee (analogous to the ‘Output Board’ for the current Output); undertake detailed implementation planning (informed by the previous two points) on an iterative and collaborative basis with individual institutions; introducing more structured phasing of support in light of defined strategic outcomes to take into account institutional constraints and absorption capacity limitations; undertaking more rigorous monitoring and evaluation.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]
Detailed responses to the sub-issues for this Country Program Document (CPD) cycle are provided elsewhere in the management response. For the following CPD cycle, these issues will be considered in the CPD design process and by the Management Change Team mission in 2017.
Key Actions: