Confidence Building through Cultural Protection in Kosovo

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Kosovo
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
07/2017
Completion Date:
05/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
11,173

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR.pdf tor English 568.23 KB Posted 718
Download document Final Evaluation Report CBTC Project.pdf report English 1223.54 KB Posted 1008
Title Confidence Building through Cultural Protection in Kosovo
Atlas Project Number: 00089987 ,00095982
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Kosovo
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 05/2017
Planned End Date: 07/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Democratic Governance
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 2.1. Parliaments, constitution making bodies and electoral institutions enabled to perform core functions for improved accountability, participation and representation, including for peaceful transitions
Evaluation Budget(US $): 11,173
Source of Funding: 10159 - EU COM
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 11,521
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: EULEX, EUOK, Kosovo Police, EUSR, UNMIK, Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport/ Department of Cultural Heritage Protection
Countries: KOSOVO
Lessons
1.

Lessons learnt

  • The design phase should be done in line with corporate practice using the recommended PME and UNDG handbook tools and with people with previous subject matter experience
  • The project manager (PM) needs to be recruited before the start of the project and participate in the selection of the project team (project officers)
  • It is important to incorporate a proper budget line for the M&E function to be able to present credible evidence of results beyond the actual activities completed
  • The Project Board is a mechanism to help project management and should be used strategically as such
  • It is necessary, when dealing with concepts, to share the same vocabulary and terminology with all project stakeholders to avoid unfulfilled expectations

Good practice

The project also carried out several good practices that should be replicated:

  • Good and inclusive consultation process for the site selection
  • Establishing clear and transparent criteria (5) for the selection of sites
  • Extensive efforts to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness on CH through various means (workshops, media, schools, etc.)
  • Transparent process vis-à-vis the municipalities in terms of project information
  • Using the KP and the municipality as facilitators with religious communities
  • School awareness raising on CH amongst youth
  • Municipalities have now allocated budget lines for maintenance of public spaces such as cemeteries and parks
  • Attitudinal change evident amongst the key stakeholders in municipalities, with variations depending on the municipality
  • Impact of the religious leaders exchanging visits to their places of worship in public is sending a constructive message for cooperation and cohabitation
  • High visibility of the donor (EU) and each site has a plate linked to the project and the donor, as well as all materials produced under the project
  • Obtaining a commitment through a Joint Declaration is an initial step towards developing a formal network of project supporters throughout the municipalities

Good practice

The project also carried out several good practices that should be replicated:

  • Good and inclusive consultation process for the site selection
  • Establishing clear and transparent criteria (5) for the selection of sites
  • Extensive efforts to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness on CH through various means (workshops, media, schools, etc.)
  • Transparent process vis-à-vis the municipalities in terms of project information
  • Using the KP and the municipality as facilitators with religious communities
  • School awareness raising on CH amongst youth
  • Municipalities have now allocated budget lines for maintenance of public spaces such as cemeteries and parks
  • Attitudinal change evident amongst the key stakeholders in municipalities, with variations depending on the municipality
  • Impact of the religious leaders exchanging visits to their places of worship in public is sending a constructive message for cooperation and cohabitation
  • High visibility of the donor (EU) and each site has a plate linked to the project and the donor, as well as all materials produced under the project
  • Obtaining a commitment through a Joint Declaration is an initial step towards developing a formal network of project supporters throughout the municipalities

 


Findings
1.

Relevance

Based on the documentary analysis and the various interviews undertaken, the project is certainly responding to the needs of the population and is in line with the priorities of the Kosovo institutions. The project deals with two components: a) confidence building and b) protection of cultural heritage (CH). It was clear from interviews that efforts that support confidence building between communities are welcome and fruitful, as well as needed in many cases. In the various municipalities covered by the project, social dynamics differ from place to place in line with the different history and social fabrics amongst the population, but there is an overarching agreement by all stakeholders, that measures that contribute to building confidence are welcome and create a positive enabling environment for cohabitation. From the donor perspective, involvement in funding confidence building projects is done through the recent Instrument for Stability and Peace (IcSP) under the Foreign Policy Instrument (FPI) for peacebuilding activities (article 4).


Tag: Relevance National Programme/Project Design Social cohesion

2.

Efficiency

The total budget of the project is 1.56 million euros. Financial reports indicate that the budget has been entirely spent. Some accepted reallocation of funds had to be made with donor approval to fund the CCTV of the KP (e.g. increase by EUR 69,748.762), which was not originally foreseen and stemmed from the needs assessment carried out under the project. As a result, other activities were cancelled with the stakeholders’ agreement (for example, second exchange visit to the UK) or the budget was decreased (e.g. budget line 6.2.2.1 Contracts/cleaning, repair, public safety, improvement, and beautification decrease by EUR 52,158.71). The project had to work on a very tight time-frame of 12 months for implementation. Although the EU granted a two-months cost extension, and the UNDP was able to complete its undertaking on time, challenges were underestimated and particularly weather conditions. In addition, UNDP was not able to have the project manager hired before the project’s formal approval and its start, and initially the delivery rate proved slow. Difficulties in agreeing on site identification and the actual works to be done, obtaining the clearance from the different stakeholders, and having the proper contractors to undertake the works were major endeavors which required a longer time than initially planned. As a result,some of the works were done during the winter, which caused unforeseen delays and affected the quality of some of the works (such as in Lipjan, where both religious leaders complained about the quality of the works and showed the evaluator some of the construction problems they encountered).


Tag: Efficiency Donor relations Human and Financial resources Programme/Project Design Project and Programme management

3.

Effectiveness

The project effectiveness should be seen again through different lenses: confidence building and protection of cultural heritage. While the first is the overall objective of the project, the second (CHP) is the entry point and the means to create collaboration between the different project stakeholders by providing a common ground on which to cooperation and interact. The great majority of project stakeholders agreed that the project did contribute to confidence building, because they were working together on issues of common interest. The project also provided a platform from which to start a common cooperation on issues that were not so politically sensitive. The approach to use CH as a common entry point proved to be correct, as it provided favourable grounds on which to build greater interaction within municipalities. Hereunder is the list of comments and observations collected from the 21 KII (26 minus 5 UNDP):


Tag: Effectiveness Promotion of dialogue Social cohesion Coordination

4.

It is particularly interesting to note that while the overall level of satisfaction is quite high, stakeholders did have several remarks to make regarding two categories: 1) the process to work on the sites 2) the work done by the contractors In the first case, several comments, both positive and negative, were received regarding the process used in the project to identify the sites and the consultation and communication that was used throughout the process. Based on KII, three-fourths of the comments reported a clear and transparent and positive process, while one fourth reported negative comments regarding lack of information, knowledge or understanding of the process. This indicates that even greater efforts are warranted to ensure that all stakeholders have the proper understanding. It needs to be explained that the main contact point for each municipality was the municipality, so that the religious communities’ leaders and civil society were informed through the municipality. Evidence suggests that in some cases increased information would have been needed by the communities themselves.


Tag: Effectiveness Local Governance Project and Programme management

5.

Site selection

Sites selection was a difficult and protracted process, probably one of the most sensitive aspects of the project. There was no clear vision driving the outcome of the process in the initial stages, but UNDP rightly identified some selection criteria which contributed to avoiding manipulation and reduce the risk of politicization. In the end, the different sites that were chosen in the project represent a combination of wishes from the various religious communities, the municipalities, and the communities. It was also difficult to address structural rehabilitation of CH sites, which is an expensive and slow process that requires specialized skills that normal construction companies may not have, so the decision that the works undertaken de facto were not structural was rightly motivated from an efficiency, budget and time-line perspective. The list of the sites selected by the project eventually was reduced from an initial number of 47 potential sites through a careful selection and analysis. However, at municipal level stakeholders do not know on what grounds the project committee admitted the interventions on the selected sites, but they are happy they were selected into the project.


Tag: Effectiveness Project and Programme management Promotion of dialogue

6.

Public expenditures

Another important aspect of the project has been to make municipalities more aware and responsible for the maintenance of public spaces. Some of the sites covered by the projects, municipal graveyards that include in some cases various communities and parks, require a minimum of maintenance. The municipalities did not contribute funds to maintaining the cemeteries before the project, and now those municipalities where graveyards were covered by the project interventions have taken the commitment to upkeep the graveyard and have allocated a budget to that effect.


Tag: Effectiveness Local Governance Institutional Strengthening

7.

Kosovo Police

The Kosovo Police has a special unit (KP CHP) that was created for the protection of CH. One of the key questions was to determine the kind of relationship between the KP and communities, and how important is the issue of protection of CH sites today. The KP CHP has been one of the direct project beneficiaries. Originally EULEX was supposed to have a closer relationship in capacity building, but the project did use the resources of the KP CHP for community awareness and education campaigns in the municipalities, and it also benefitted from the CCTV installation in two sites thanks to the funding reallocation agreed upon by the EU. While everyone agrees about the need for community policing, various stakeholders consider that there is no further need for this special unit. However not all communities or religious leaders share this view. As gathered from interviews, it was commonly agreed that the KP played an important facilitation role for the communities and the opportunity to have a direct contact with the KP was seen as a value-added for some stakeholders interviewed.


Tag: Effectiveness National Education Awareness raising Capacity Building

8.

Impact

It is extremely early to talk of impact after a 14 months’ project execution, but in line with the TOR, the evaluation attempted to identify the effect of the project on the various stakeholders. To do so, an adaptation of the Most Significant Change method was used, as stakeholders were asked with an open question: what is the most significant change made by the project. The responses show a variety of understanding and different perspectives, which can be grouped around two themes: confidence building (in italic) and CH restoration/beautification. Interestingly, most the stakeholders (which included UNDP respondents) identified the confidence building as the main change triggered by the project, as show hereunder:


Tag: Impact Promotion of dialogue Social cohesion Coordination

9.

Sustainability

Confidence building is a long-term process. It cannot be achieved over a 12 or 14 months-time frame. It requires a comprehensive and sustained effort in which the social dynamics of the various communities are understood and addressed, by identifying entry points that can foment collaboration and cooperation and contribute to harmonious cohabitation. The project has created an enabling environment and given an impulse to intra and inter community relationships. It needs to be consolidated as it remains a fragile process that has not yet created a critical mass that can continue on its own. Overall rating: Unlikely


Tag: Sustainability

10.

Cross cutting issues

Partnership strategy

The project maintained excellent relations with the institutions in KS at central level. Many meetings and exchanges were undertaken up to the point where the sites were selected. After this, most of the relations were maintained at the municipal level where the works were being undertaken. The project used the municipality as the contact and entry point with the various communities. In fact, the first meeting was systematically called for by the municipality who invited the religious leaders and other community representatives. The inclusion of the religious hierarchy at the higher level proved to be necessary as the project developed and differences in criteria arose between the local religious leader at municipality level and his superiors.


Tag: Local Governance Partnership Coordination

Recommendations
1

The time frame for project implementation should not be 12 months especially considering climate conditions – it should be extended to 18 months to ensure quality implementation of the works

2

A clearer strategy for achieving the project overall objective is needed. It is not clear at times whether the objective is confidence building or CH protection. A stronger theory of change based on a more developed project design is needed.

3

A monitoring plan and a proper M&E system is required for any project, in line with good PCM practice. There was no budget for anything except a final evaluation

4

UNDP should maintain in-house expertise of confidence building if they are to continue working in that field, as it is a long-term process.

5

Use more strategically the Project Board to pass messages and obtain support to address difficulties and shortcoming

6

UNDP should be able to communicate more clearly to stakeholders what is understood by “confidence building” to ensure all stakeholders use the same language with the same understanding and avoid creating expectations

7

Support to the extent possible the continuation of awareness raising on CH

8

The signatories of the Joint Declaration under the CBCPK project should be structured in a formal group, and made responsible for the small grants component of the next project, so ownership, commitment and responsibility should be vested with them.

9

There is a need to develop a full results framework based on some baseline data or informed research to be able to provide credible evidence of results

1. Recommendation:

The time frame for project implementation should not be 12 months especially considering climate conditions – it should be extended to 18 months to ensure quality implementation of the works

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management acknowledges the recommendation and the time frame for project implementation was extended to 18 months for the second phase of the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A project proposal on Confidence Building through Cultural Heritage was submitted to the EU with an extended time-frame.
[Added: 2017/09/14]
Programme 2017/08 Completed History
2. Recommendation:

A clearer strategy for achieving the project overall objective is needed. It is not clear at times whether the objective is confidence building or CH protection. A stronger theory of change based on a more developed project design is needed.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management acknowledges the recommendation and the link between the two is clearly established. The ToC was also developed to acknowledge the link between confidence building through cultural protection

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Theory of Change was strengthened for the second phase of the project
[Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/19]
Programme Team 2017/11 Completed During design of the second phase the Theory of Change was strengthened History
3. Recommendation:

A monitoring plan and a proper M&E system is required for any project, in line with good PCM practice. There was no budget for anything except a final evaluation

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management acknowledges the recommendation and a budget line for monitoring and evaluation was included in the budget of the second phase of the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A budget line for monitoring and evaluation was included in the new project proposal
[Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/19]
Programme Team 2017/10 Completed for second phase of the project we added a budget line for monitoring and evaluation History
4. Recommendation:

UNDP should maintain in-house expertise of confidence building if they are to continue working in that field, as it is a long-term process.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management takes note of the recommendation and will endeavour to maintain in-house expertise of confidence building.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP will endeavour to engage at least some of the formed project team members, in compliance with rules and regulations on recruitment and procurement
[Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/19]
Programme Team 2017/11 Completed History
5. Recommendation:

Use more strategically the Project Board to pass messages and obtain support to address difficulties and shortcoming

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management takes note of the recommendation and will take the necessary steps to use the Project Board more strategically during the implementation of the second EU-funded project on Cultural Heritage. The project board will meet more often and the ToRs will be more detailed so that every member understands his/her role and the expected results of the meetings.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Drafting of the ToRs for the Project Board
[Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/19]
Project Staff 2017/10 Completed The ToRs for the Project Board is drafted History
Increased frequency of project board meetings
[Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2020/01/03]
Project Staff 2019/12 Completed During the second phase of the project the project board meetings were organized at least semi annually. Depending on the circumstances and requirements they sometimes were organized even on quarterly basis. History
6. Recommendation:

UNDP should be able to communicate more clearly to stakeholders what is understood by “confidence building” to ensure all stakeholders use the same language with the same understanding and avoid creating expectations

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management takes note of the recommendation. Regarding the second phase of the project, several consultations were held with different municipal officials, NGOs as well as religious leaders from pre-identified municipalities and religious sites of intervention to discuss the activities planned as well as the objective of the project, namely, confidence building, in order to ensure that all stakeholders have the same understanding of the purpose of the project. Once the project is approved, a meeting will be held again with the relevant stakeholders to discuss what is expected from them and from the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Consultations with municipal officials, NGOs and religious leaders from pre-identified municipalities and religious sites of intervention to discuss the activities planned and the objective of the project
[Added: 2017/09/14]
Programme Team 2017/08 Completed History
Meetings with relevant stakeholders (municipal officials, religious leaders, etc.) to discuss the interventions and the objective of the project
[Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/19]
Project Staff 2017/12 Completed History
7. Recommendation:

Support to the extent possible the continuation of awareness raising on CH

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management acknowledges the recommendation. The continuation of awareness raising on Cultural Heritage will be done through the second EU-funded project on Cultural Heritage. The second output of the project focuses mainly on the promotion of cultural heritage through youth and community engagement. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Implementation of awareness raising activities on Cultural Heritage during the second phase of the project.
[Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2020/01/03]
Project Staff 2019/12 Completed The second phase of the project was launched and us currently under the implementation. The awareness raising component was fully incorporated in the project in all 3 components, while the second component was completely addressing the issue of awareness raising with a series of activities and actions. History
8. Recommendation:

The signatories of the Joint Declaration under the CBCPK project should be structured in a formal group, and made responsible for the small grants component of the next project, so ownership, commitment and responsibility should be vested with them.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management takes note of the recommendation. The Joint Declaration under the CBCPK second face of the project will be structured in a formal group

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Initiate discussion with signatories of the Joint Declaration on the possibility of creating a structured group
[Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/19]
Project Staff 2017/12 Completed The discussion with signatories of the Joint Declaration are Initiated History
9. Recommendation:

There is a need to develop a full results framework based on some baseline data or informed research to be able to provide credible evidence of results

Management Response: [Added: 2017/09/14] [Last Updated: 2021/01/21]

Management takes note of the recommendation and has used the data generated during the first phase as a baseline for the drafting of the second one.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A logical Matrix Framework, using data and information from the initial project, was developed
[Added: 2017/09/14]
Programme Team 2017/08 Completed

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