Assessment of development results (ADR) in Croatia

1. EVALUATIO
N
Date: 20/01/2014
ASSESSMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT RESULTS
(ADR) IN CROATIA
STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP, ZAGREB
Indran A. Naidoo, Director
Fumika Ouchi, Evaluation Advisor
Evaluation Office

2. Purpose of the Workshop
The Stakeholder Workshop serves two purposes:


2
For national stakeholders to provide feedback to the
draft report
Promote national dialogue on key issues from the
evaluation and discuss ways forward
Evaluation

3. Objectives of the ADR




3
Support greater UNDP accountability to national
stakeholders and partners in the programme country.
Serve as a means of quality assurance for UNDP
interventions at the country level.
Contribute to learning at corporate, regional and country
levels.
Provide substantive support to the Administrator‟s
accountability function in reporting to the Executive
Board.
Evaluation

4. Context
• 1991-1995 War
• 2003 Applied for EU
membership
• 2005 Started accession
negotiations (35 Chapters)
• 2011 Signed Accession
Treaty
• July 2013 Joined EU
4
Evaluation

5. Scope & Methodology

Coverage: Country programme 2007-2011/2013
2007-2011:
Extension (2012-2013):
I. Social Inclusion
I. Social Inclusion
II. Regional Development
II. Sustainable Local Development
and Regional Disparities
III. Environmental Governance
IV. Business Competitiveness
V. Transitional Justice and Human
Rights
5
VI. Support to National
Development Priorities
III. Environmental Governance and
Climate Change
IV. Justice and Human Security
V. Dev. Cooperation and Knowledge
Sharing on European Integration
Evaluation

6. Scope & Methodology

ADR examined two issues:
1. UNDP‟s contribution to development results by
programme outcome by focusing on:




Relevance
Effectiveness (CPD/CPAP Outcomes)
Efficiency
Sustainability
2. Strategic position in the country by focusing on:
Relevance/ Responsiveness to national challenges
 Use of comparative strengths & partnerships
 Promotion of UN values from human development perspectives

6
Evaluation

7. Scope & Methodology (cont‟d)

7
Employed a mixed method approach, including:
• Desk reviews of reference material
• Interviews (government, CSOs, development
partners, donors, beneficiaries, UNDP staff)
• Field work / site visits
Evaluation

8. Scope & Methodology (cont‟d)

ADR was conducted by EO with support of:


Svend Sorensen (Team Leader / Local Dev)
David Todd (Environmental Governance)
National experts
 Sandra Bencic (Justice and Human Security)
 Ivana Novoselec (Social Inclusion/Local Dev)
8
Evaluation

9. Conclusions and
Recommendations
9
Evaluation

10. Conclusions
1. UNDP‟s relevance and efficiency over the programme
period provide a foundation for continued work in Croatia.
While effectiveness and sustainability have varied, sturdy
building blocks have been put in place. UNDP has
positioned itself well in the country, with some weaknesses
in national policy impact, measurement of capacity building
performance and gender mainstreaming.
10
Evaluation

11. Conclusions (cont‟d)
2. The Social Inclusion portfolio has played a significant
role in the development of informed and participatory
approaches to strategic planning and a systematic
approach to monitoring the implementation of social
inclusion policies in Croatia
11
3. The Local Development portfolio has successfully
responded to the urgent needs of less developed areas.
UNDP‟s overall effects on the development of a long-term
strategy and capacity building were more evident during
the second half of the programme, when support to
preparing rural areas for EU accession became the focus
of the portfolio.
Evaluation

12. Conclusion (con‟td)
4. The Environmental Governance portfolio has provided
valuable and effective support to the Government and
other partners to address important issues in the fields of
biodiversity and climate change.
5. While the Business Competitiveness portfolio provided
moderate effectiveness and sustainability, the CSR Index it
created, along with the Regional Competitiveness Index,
provided important tools towards measuring development
progress and meeting outcomes.
12
Evaluation

13. Conclusions (cont‟d)
6. The Justice and HS portfolio has made a substantial
contribution to the creation of national capacities in fulfilling
Croatia's obligations deriving from the negotiation process
with EU in Chapters 23, 24, and 31. It has also addressed
national priorities in the post-conflict transition and the EU
accession process in areas of judiciary, fundamental rights
and security.
13
Evaluation

14. Conclusions (cont‟d)
7. The change of focus from a nationally oriented capacity
development in the early programme period to a more
regional based knowledge sharing focus in the later
programme was appropriate for the National Development
Priorities portfolio – and in compliance with UNDP‟s
regional policies, national needs and needs of
neighbouring countries.
14
Evaluation

15. Recommendations
1. UNDP should prepare for transitioning its development
activities in Croatia during 2013.
2. UNDP activities in Croatia beyond 2013 should continue
only in areas where Government, central, local or regional,
or other relevant partners (i) demonstrate their strong
endorsement and active engagement for sustainable
results through institutional and/or financial commitments;
and (ii) request UNDP‟s technical assistance to carry our
agreed activities within a time-bound framework. “EastEast” knowledge-sharing and supporting absorption
capacity for EU funds should be a priority.
15
Evaluation

16. Recommendations (cont‟d)
3. UNDP should strengthen its capacity to effectively apply
performance monitoring and results-based frameworks,
and, when embarking on new projects, encourage
Croatian partners to embrace robust performance
monitoring and results-based frameworks.
4. Following this ADR, UNDP should undertake an analysis
of its capacity building strategy for the country programme,
with a view to strengthening its portfolio outputs and
outcomes for the remainder of the programme period.
16
Evaluation

17. Recommendations (cont‟d)
5. With regard to the Social Inclusion portfolio, UNDP
should increase the sustainability of its activities by
focusing on the strengthening of capacity building among
national institutions for the implementation of planned
reforms in social policies.
17
6. UNDP should promote the work done so far in waraffected and less-developed areas under the Local
Development portfolio, and focus further on advocating at
the central political level of the need to prepare those
areas to make use of the challenges and opportunities that
await after EU accession through, for example, casestudies, absorption capacity analysis, and public debates.
Evaluation

18. Recommendations (cont‟d)
7. UNDP should find a way to promote the model of longterm local support in the area of Local Development by its
field offices that have been successfully developed during
the programme and encourage the Government to treat
the model as a pilot for areas where local needs for
support are specific.
8. The Environmental Governance and Climate Change
team should build upon its current portfolio, by taking
appropriate measures to help ensure the sustainability of
its results.
18
Evaluation

19. Recommendations (cont‟d)
9. The Corporate Social Responsibility Index and Regional
Competitiveness Index produced as outputs in the country
programme should be made continuous use of and promoted
across portfolio activities and beyond.
10. The Justice and Human Security portfolio should focus on
ensuring the sustainability and „irreversibility‟ of finalised reforms
and those in progress. This should be done through: (i) further
capacity building of key national stakeholder institutions; (ii)
strengthening of the partnerships with and transfer of UNDP
legacy to civil society organisations active in this sector; and (iii)
by involving national partners in the dissemination of good
practices to other countries in the region.
19
Evaluation

20. 11. Continued support should be provided to the “centre of
excellence” established by the Ministry of Foreign and
European Affairs as well as to other Croatian institutions
seeking to share best practices.
20
Evaluation

21. Thank you.
21
Evaluation

22. Programmes & Outcomes

2007-2011:

Extension (2012-2013):
I. Social Inclusion
•The Joint Inclusion Memorandum (JIM) and future social
policies are developed with broad participation and target
vulnerable social groups.
I. Social Inclusion
•The JIM and future social policies are developed with broad
participation and target vulnerable social groups.
II. Regional Development
•Socio-economic recovery in Areas of Special State
Concern and under-developed regions of Croatia.
II. Sustainable Local Development and Regional Disparities
•Socio-economic recovery in ASSC and under-developed
regions of Croatia.
III. Environmental Governance
•Institutional barriers that prevent the use of energy
efficiency (EE) technologies and practices in the
residential and service sectors are reduced.
III. Environmental Governance and Climate Change
•Institutional barriers that prevent the use of energy efficient and
renewable energy technologies and practices in the residential
and public service sectors are reduced, thereby reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and promoting low-carbon
development models.
•Support “green” models for small business on the Dalmatian
coast and encourage investment decisions and business
practices that protect the environment and biodiversity.
IV. Business Competitiveness
•The private sector is tangibly involved in sustainable
development.
V. Transitional Justice and Human Rights
•Increased level of human and state security.
VI. Support to National Development Priorities
•Government and other central level national institutions
in Croatia improve their capacity to plan, develop and
22 implement development policies and measures,
internally and as part of international development
IV. Justice and Human Security
•Increased level of human and state security.
V. Development Cooperation and Knowledge Sharing on
European Integration
•Improved capacity of Croatia‟s institutions to provide
international development
Evaluation