Capacity Building for Justice

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Zimbabwe
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
03/2017
Completion Date:
07/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document MoJLPA Evaluation 2017 Final Report.docx report English 133.96 KB Posted 197
Download document UNDPManagement_Response UPR NORWAY clean copy.doc related-document English 92.50 KB Posted 88
Download document UNDP Lessons Learned Report UPR NORWAY EVALUATION.doc related-document English 119.00 KB Posted 90
Title Capacity Building for Justice
Atlas Project Number: 67538
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Zimbabwe
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2017
Planned End Date: 03/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Poverty and MDG
  • 2. Democratic Governance
  • 3. 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 $): 15,000
Source of Funding: UNDP
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 20,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, JLOS, UNDP
Countries: ZIMBABWE
Comments:

The Justice Report has finally been finalised and uploaded is the final version.

Lessons
1.

The theory of change should have been factored in at project design stage and not evaluation.  This would have helped to guide implementation of activities and continuos nmonitoring and evaluation.


2.

There should have been validation of capacities and need of beneficiaries at project design stage or at least at the inceeption of the project.


3.

There is need to ensure in the design of the bproject continued ownership of the project by beneficiaries and there should during this process  regular communication with them especially at the policy and political levels.


4.

Mainstreaming of gender and disability must be prioritised during the design and implementation of projects.


5.

Human Rights appraoch should be factored in at the inception of project design to facilitate proper implementation.


6.

When projects of this nature are formulated they should also ensure there is an exit strategy that is in cooperated at the inception phase, which ensures sustainibility of the project and achievements beyond UNDP support.


Findings
1.

The project was also relevant and in line with UNDP’s mandate to improve service delivery through strengthening the capacity of local authorities as the lowest tier of Government which is closest to the people.

It is important to note that this project was the first of its magnitude and scope after the Rural District Councils Capacity Building Programme (RDCCBP) which ran from 1995 to 2001.


2.

The value that UNDP added to the capacity building discourse in Zimbabwe was to catalyze processes within the Ministry not only through providing resources but also the technical guidance and support.


3.

The programme delivery methodology was effective since it used both national and local structures and built the capacity especially for the Provincial Facilitation Teams (PFT) that were critical in the training and delivery of Integrated Results Based Management (IRBM) and Strategic Planning.


4.

The project was designed as a low input high output intervention focusing more on processes and building the technical capacity of local authorities. This increases its chances of being sustainable in the long run because focus areas such as integrated results based management and strategic planning will always be key components of local authority operations.


5.

In terms of programmatic impact, the greatest achievements of the project included the institutionalisation of IRBM and strategic planning in local government, skills training and development in areas such as financial modelling and ensuring that councillors received the necessary training to allow them to carry out their oversight roles.

 


6.

Capacity building programmes such as this one are important in helping to standardise processes and performance indicators across all local authorities. This makes it easier for the ministry to have a better understanding of where each local authority is in terms of fulfilling its mandate and the type and level of support that is required.


Recommendations
1

Enhance the ownership of project by the Government of Zimbabwe stakeholders.

2

Strengthen programme implementation and monitoring as well as reporting of results.

3

Strengthen Project Management skills of the Implementing Partner.

4

Government must prioritise the work of the UPR Steering Committee. The MoJLPA must work closely with the Office of the President and Cabinet and the Civil Service Commission to ensure that there is full commitment at the level of the policy makers; 

5

Government must start preparing to take over responsibility for funding of the UPR Steering Committee. Ideally, there must be separate vote allocated to fund them.

 

Government and civil society should continuously innovate and mobilize financial resources to ensure that they have the means to carry out their UPR activities.

6

Where training has been conducted for identified target groups, there must be a mechanism to follow up on the application of the acquired knowledge and skills e.g. periodic reports by the participants, follow-up meetings and/or focus group discussions. This will help to avoid training people who never get to use the knowledge and skills acquired and to assess if the knowledge and skills acquired are making a difference;

7

Cooperation between Government, UPR Steering Committee and NGOs should be at all levels, including at the provincial and district levels. This entails extending the cooperation platforms that currently exist at the national level to the lower levels.

 

Raise awareness of UPR recommendations and government commitment at the national level to close the information gap between the Geneva stages of the UPR and the domestic implementa­tion phase. There is need for a sustained and systematic campaign on UPR recommendations and the Process in general.

 

Parliament should request updates on implementation of UPR recommendations during parliamentary debate sessions to keep the UPR on the government’s agenda throughout and between UPR cycles.    

8

The UPR process is government responsibility, and also a shared responsibility among the UPR stakeholders. Responsible Parties are therefore an integral part of the project and should not consider the project as the sole responsibility of the MoJLPA. They must play their role in the project;

 

In addition to involving all the Responsible Parties at the project design stage, the MoJLPA as the Implementing Partner must ensure that the former are also regularly updated on progress in the implementation of the project at the policy level;

 

The MoJLPA must involve the Office of the President and Cabinet and the Civil Service Commission when convening policy makers’ meetings to maximise attendance at the highest possible level. This will also help to raise the profile of the project within Government and ensure ownership by the relevant Ministries and Departments.

While it is up to the MoJLPA to determine as it sees fit and convenient how and at what stage of the drafting of state party reports it consults stakeholders, for the consultations to be meaningful, it must at least ensure that they are consulted as early as possible and endeavour to broaden the consultations so that as many stakeholders as possible are consulted, including the vulnerable and marginalised groups.

9

UPR work should be considered as an integral part of the duties of members of the Committee so that they are allowed adequate time to attend to the work of the Committee;

 

Capacity building for UPR Secretariat should include gathering, managing and documenting human rights information;

 

The Secretariat must be allowed adequate time to undertake substantive work such as ccoordinating the work of the UPR Steering Committee, developing work plans and preparing project reports, and systematically gathering and documenting information and statistics for UPR and state party reports by engaging non-professional staff to undertake the mundane secretarial and logistical chores; 

Current members of the Secretariat, especially the new ones, must receive training on the process of the UPR and on project management. There must be appropriate arrangements put in place for the induction of new members soon after their appointment.    

1. Recommendation:

Enhance the ownership of project by the Government of Zimbabwe stakeholders.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/17] [Last Updated: 2017/07/18]

The successor Project on “Consolidation of Justice and Human Rights” clearly states that there should be a continuous integration of support to IMC, UPR and JLOS into Government programmes and works.  This is being done by continuously revising the issue of ownership and sustainability in Project Board Meetings.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Two presentations on ownership and sustainability to Project Board Members to build capacity
[Added: 2017/07/17] [Last Updated: 2017/12/19]
GGMU 2017/12 Completed One presentation done during in February 2017 at First Quarter Project Board. The last presentation was done during the last board meeting in the last quarter of 2017, where the Quality Assurance was also shared the project board members for their review and approval. History
Capacity building skills of project secretariat with project management skills on HACT
[Added: 2017/07/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]
GGMU/OPERATIONS 2017/12 Completed 3 Ministry of Justice Secretariat trained on HACT in June 2017, in which a full day training was undertaken. History
Develop sustainability plan
[Added: 2017/07/18] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
GGMU 2018/12 Completed Still Pending History
Timeous preparation of AWP and Progress reports in compliant with Project Document
[Added: 2017/07/18]
GGMU 2020/12 Initiated AWPs and Progress reports are done and approved by the Project Board, for each year of implementation.
2. Recommendation:

Strengthen programme implementation and monitoring as well as reporting of results.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/18] [Last Updated: 2017/07/18]

A comprehensive successor project document was designed and is in in place and in addition the IWP identified key actions on strengthen the IMC, JLOS, UPR to consolidate results.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Capacity Development of IMC members and Secretariat through targeted trainings
[Added: 2017/07/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]
GGMU/OHCHR 2017/09 Completed Refresher training for the IMC undertaken in July Aug 2017, in addition, the TORs for IMC committees have been developed, and further, the IMC secretariat has been appointed. History
Consolidate IMC Outstanding reports to Treaty Bodies
[Added: 2017/07/18]
GGMU 2019/12 Initiated Consolidation on track with review of reports to ACHPR, CERD, CRPD.
Submit revise Policy Document for Cabinet Consideration to review JLOS Committees
[Added: 2017/07/18] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGMU 2018/12 Completed Policy Document revised. Ministry of Justice will submit to Cabinet. History
3. Recommendation:

Strengthen Project Management skills of the Implementing Partner.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/18] [Last Updated: 2017/07/18]

Efforts for AWP to follow the project document have been emphasized through the multi-year plan which guide annual work plan. New templates for project reporting have been introduced to track gender, budgets and other critical imperatives.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation:

Government must prioritise the work of the UPR Steering Committee. The MoJLPA must work closely with the Office of the President and Cabinet and the Civil Service Commission to ensure that there is full commitment at the level of the policy makers; 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/05/02]

This is noted & acknowledged. This has been the practice when inviting policy makers. Management will ensure that this strategy is used, whilst engaging the PS to explore other strategies of ensuring attendance of policy makers. This issue will continue to be raised with the MOJLPA and the UPR National Steering Committee.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Engage the PS on this matter
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGM, MOJLPA and M&E 2018/12 Completed The PS has been engaged on this issue. History
Table this issue at the National Steering Committee Quarterly Meeting
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGM and M&E 2018/09 Completed 2nd UPR National Steering Committee Quarterly meeting is due. This was successfully tabled during the UPR meeting. History
5. Recommendation:

Government must start preparing to take over responsibility for funding of the UPR Steering Committee. Ideally, there must be separate vote allocated to fund them.

 

Government and civil society should continuously innovate and mobilize financial resources to ensure that they have the means to carry out their UPR activities.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/05/02]

Government and civil society should continuously innovate and mobilize financial resources to ensure that they have the means to carry out their UPR activities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Follow up with the PS and include this matter as an agenda item of the Quarterly Steering Committee meeting. Task the UPR National Steering Committee working with the Project Secretariat to mobilize resources for UPR implementation of project activities
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/12/11]
GGM, M&E and MOJLPA, Project Secretariat 2018/12 Completed To be initiated at the first UPR National Steering Committee Meeting History
6. Recommendation:

Where training has been conducted for identified target groups, there must be a mechanism to follow up on the application of the acquired knowledge and skills e.g. periodic reports by the participants, follow-up meetings and/or focus group discussions. This will help to avoid training people who never get to use the knowledge and skills acquired and to assess if the knowledge and skills acquired are making a difference;

Management Response: [Added: 2018/05/02]

This is noted and management will ensure that the UPR National Steering Committee with Project Secretariat develops a follow up mechanism

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project Secretariat to be tasked to develop a follow up mechanism for all the trainings that will be conducted.
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
UPR National Steering Committee/ Project Secretariat /GGM 2018/10 Completed To be initiated at the first UPR National Steering Committee Meeting History
7. Recommendation:

Cooperation between Government, UPR Steering Committee and NGOs should be at all levels, including at the provincial and district levels. This entails extending the cooperation platforms that currently exist at the national level to the lower levels.

 

Raise awareness of UPR recommendations and government commitment at the national level to close the information gap between the Geneva stages of the UPR and the domestic implementa­tion phase. There is need for a sustained and systematic campaign on UPR recommendations and the Process in general.

 

Parliament should request updates on implementation of UPR recommendations during parliamentary debate sessions to keep the UPR on the government’s agenda throughout and between UPR cycles.    

Management Response: [Added: 2018/05/02]

This is noted and acknowledged. Efforts to include stakeholders at Provincial levels have been ongoing but more needs to be done to reach to lower levels. Management will engage the National Steering Committee to explore non- cost strategies of inclusion of stakeholders such as using existing structures on the ground and through email and social media. The 2018 AWP includes activities for raising awareness on the UPR process.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. Engage UPR National Steering Committee and Project Secretariat on ensuring inclusion and participation of all stakeholders at all levels.
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/12/11]
GGM/Project Secretariat 2018/12 Completed 2018 AWP has planned activities to raise awareness on UPR History
1.2. Monitor the 2018 AWP to ensure that activities on raising awareness on UPR are implemented.
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGM/Project Secretariat 2018/10 Completed History
1.3. Engage UNDP PSP to update Parliament on implementation of UPR Recommendations.
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGM/Project Secretariat 2018/10 Completed History
8. Recommendation:

The UPR process is government responsibility, and also a shared responsibility among the UPR stakeholders. Responsible Parties are therefore an integral part of the project and should not consider the project as the sole responsibility of the MoJLPA. They must play their role in the project;

 

In addition to involving all the Responsible Parties at the project design stage, the MoJLPA as the Implementing Partner must ensure that the former are also regularly updated on progress in the implementation of the project at the policy level;

 

The MoJLPA must involve the Office of the President and Cabinet and the Civil Service Commission when convening policy makers’ meetings to maximise attendance at the highest possible level. This will also help to raise the profile of the project within Government and ensure ownership by the relevant Ministries and Departments.

While it is up to the MoJLPA to determine as it sees fit and convenient how and at what stage of the drafting of state party reports it consults stakeholders, for the consultations to be meaningful, it must at least ensure that they are consulted as early as possible and endeavour to broaden the consultations so that as many stakeholders as possible are consulted, including the vulnerable and marginalised groups.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/05/02]

This is noted and acknowledged. The process of involving all stakeholders has been an integral and ongoing principle of the Programme implementation and strategy. Management will ensure that stakeholders are included and participate in the various UPR processes. The 2018 AWP has planned activities such as the Annual Review meeting to include UPR Stakeholders on the UPR process and progress of implementation of activities. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continue regular update and involvement of stakeholders on progress and participation in UPR activities
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGM, M&E and UPR National Steering Committee/ Project Secretariat 2018/11 Completed The UPR NPA outlines the roles of stakeholders in the implementation of UPR Recommendations History
Scale up use of social media in raising awareness and participation of stakeholders in UPR processes.
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGM, M&E and UPR National Steering Committee/ Project Secretariat 2018/10 Completed This was successfully done in 2017 and 2018, where radio was actively used in raising national awareness on the UPR and national processes around it. This will continue to be ongoing. History
9. Recommendation:

UPR work should be considered as an integral part of the duties of members of the Committee so that they are allowed adequate time to attend to the work of the Committee;

 

Capacity building for UPR Secretariat should include gathering, managing and documenting human rights information;

 

The Secretariat must be allowed adequate time to undertake substantive work such as ccoordinating the work of the UPR Steering Committee, developing work plans and preparing project reports, and systematically gathering and documenting information and statistics for UPR and state party reports by engaging non-professional staff to undertake the mundane secretarial and logistical chores; 

Current members of the Secretariat, especially the new ones, must receive training on the process of the UPR and on project management. There must be appropriate arrangements put in place for the induction of new members soon after their appointment.    

Management Response: [Added: 2018/05/02]

There have been ongoing efforts and initiatives to enhance capacities of both the Secretariat and National Steering Committee to enable them to discharge their functions. These have included orientation of new members on the UPR process. A capacity Development plan for UPR Stakeholders was developed and adopted by the National Steering Committee in 2017. The 2018 AWP caters for Capacity enhancement of the Steering Committee and Project Secretariat.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Implement the planned activities on capacity development as planned in the 2018 AWP
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGM, UPR National Steering Committee and Project Secretariat 2018/10 Completed Draft 2018 AWP incorporates activities to enhance capacities of UPR Stakeholders has been developed. History
Ensure that Project Secretariat and National Steering Committee induct new members at their regular meetings
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
GGM, UPR National Steering Committee and Project Secretariat 2018/10 Completed This process has been new and ongoing in 2018. History
Develop a sustainability and exit strategy plan by ensuring that UPR work is an integral part of the relevant Government Ministry work
[Added: 2018/05/02] [Last Updated: 2018/12/11]
GGM, UPR National Steering Committee and Project Secretariat 2018/10 Completed History

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