With the decline in available resources, UNDP will be obliged to devote far greater attention to how it intends to implement its SHD and poverty eradication mandates. Worthwhile and effective large-scale projects, such as the interregional UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme considered here, which stand up well as model efforts to implement SHD, will simply be beyond the means of UNDP in the future. Imaginative programmes such as the national human development reports (HDRs) and the Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SNDP), along with the "Beijing Express" (a very rapid programming response to an issue requiring immediate attention) show what can be done with limited resources. In this regard, non-project activities, such as the HDR itself, as well as the new "Money Mattress" programme focusing on actively redefining relationships between private-sector finance and development, are also worthy of note. However, if the intercountry programmes constitute one of the principal channels through which UNDP will demonstrate its ability to put new ideas and approaches into practice, the organization must devote careful thought to bridging the gaps between conceptual thinking and practical programming.
Few of the projects considered here stand up well as examples of what SHD can mean in practice. As noted above, many of the projects are weak in building linkages between conceptual thinking about development problems and practical programming. Those closest to the downstream end of confronting poverty and basic SHD issues appear most likely to be deficient in this regard.
Some projects stand out as exemplary in demonstrating what can be done. The Alternatives to Slash-and-burn Agriculture (ASB) project is an excellent example of a multi-disciplinary initiative that is entirely consistent with SHD principles, linking policy and implementation levels and using a learning strategy to inform and redirect policy on national conservation, sustainable agriculture, participatory planning and community-based economic development.
The Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) and SDNP are other obvious examples of projects that demonstrate what UNDP can do in making its contribution to SHD practical. Both projects operate on a broad front, involving countries across the globe. Both are entirely committed to using programme funds to support country-based operations. With a properly developed and adequately financed learning strategy, these projects could also contribute to broader development thinking in UNDP and elsewhere as well as help to inform country programme formation.
There seem to be major problems in making the "matrix organization" work, linking and blending specialist divisions with operations. MDGD appears to have gone the furthest in developing a viable approach to providing effective support to country programmes through intercountry funding mechanisms. On the evidence of this evaluation, Capacity 21 is also to be commended in this regard. Regional bureaux, too, will be obliged to think through more clearly what kinds of services and forms of support they will require from BPPS and its divisions, such as the Sustainable Energy and Environment Division (SEED).
There is little evidence of the use of policy papers or guidelines on substantive programming fields in project planning and preparation. The role of specialist divisions in drawing lessons learned and identifying best practices will also be an area that requires attention.
As has been noted in internal documents within BPPS in recent months, there will be an increasing need for the organization to structure itself to enhance its capability to support multi-disciplinary activities. In this regard, greater attention must be given to providing both practical guidelines on implementation in key thematic areas and better professional support to multi-sectoral activities, increasingly characteristic of inter-country programming.
Implementing SHD - itself a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary concept - will not be easy. The evidence of this evaluation also suggests the need for devoting additional resources to strengthening practical design skills to ensure more effective SHD programming. Many of these skills are generic and cut across thematic and disciplinary categories. In particular, more careful attention to capacity development will be critical.
Capacity development is the theme that is central to all of UNDP programming. It is not central to every one of the projects considered here, but it is an important component of most of them and the focus of several. A few projects have developed well-articulated capacity development strategies, appropriate to the context and the resources available and conceived with sustainability in mind. The UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme, the Special Programme for Research and Training on Tropical Diseases (TDR), and the Alternatives to Slash-and-burn Agriculture (ASB) project are probably the most effective in this regard. The Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) project (see box 4), RBEC's External Resources Management project and the Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) are also worthy of mention. Generally speaking, capacity development - and the articulation of coherent strategies to address it - is a weak area across the set of projects considered. There is a tendency to call anything to do with institutions,
management and training "capacity development". There is a need for projects to be clear and quite specific about the following:
- Which kinds of capacities are to be built?
- Where, when and how is the building to take place?
Capacity development must also be clearly linked with efforts to address sustainability concerns.
The problems with capacity development are linked to weakly stated objectives and poorly defined, inadequately focused activities. Generally, project designs do not take into account to a sufficient degree the particular requirements necessary for an effective capacity-development project. It is beyond the means of many projects to undertake serious capacity development. As noted above, there is a tendency for projects to attempt to do too much with inadequate resources. There is no need for all projects to claim that they are doing capacity development when obviously they cannot. There are other purposes for project initiatives.
Having said this, even relatively small and modestly funded projects can support capacity development if the design is right and the focus is clear. This has been demonstrated effectively, for example, with strengthening NGOs in the Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) project in Brazil (see box 5) and with the Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP).
At a very different level, the contribution of the Urban Management Programme (UMP) (interregional) has been extremely disappointing. During the second phase, UMP indicated in its project document that it would focus on improving the policy-making capacity of cities and national governments. However, the project failed to establish appropriate linkages to the policy level and between the policy level and specific activities geared to support implementation. The project has lacked a clear strategy on how to assist governments in setting up the appropriate institutional framework for implementing new policies as well as acting on the recommendations resulting from the city/country consultations supported by the project. Had the project design included a coherent capacity-development strategy, these issues would surely have been addressed.
By contrast, the interregional UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme has been highly participatory and demand-driven, with greater emphasis on capacity-building of community groups in the management, maintenance and funding of water systems. The programme in Africa has assisted several governments in the development of national water-sector policy and institutional reforms, including decentralization and private-sector involvement. The training of decision-makers and sector planners in water supply and sanitation, community management, and training in PROWWES participatory techniques have proved to be useful in supporting effective sector management. Of the two global projects, the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) probably has the most elaborate strategy for capacity-building. The programme has evolved from a primary emphasis on academic, knowledge-based research to a phase of product development and now to emphasis on applications of research. It has created a global network of 5,000 cooperating scientists in 135 countries. The programme has helped to develop the capacities of developing countries’ research institutions to undertake research in critical areas of tropical diseases by building human resources through training and by providing the necessary equipment and financial support to make the research institutions viable.
The Alternatives to Slash-and-burn Agriculture project employs a multi-disciplinary approach in a field that has traditionally been dominated by agricultural scientists. As a highly innovative project, its capacity-development strategy still requires attention to ensure sustainability. While the project is conceptually very strong - taking into account gender issues and the perspectives of poor peasants - the participating CGIAR research centres and the national research institutions involved do not possess the necessary skills required for the interdisciplinary research and applications. Many of the scientists are specialists and have difficulty in fitting into a multi-disciplinary team. Until the capacities of the national research centres are built up, the project's capacity-development strategy may fall short of expectations.
Among regional projects considered, special mention should be given to one extremely unusual and innovative approach. The "Beijing Express" project is an example of a "one-shot" capacity-development experience. It proved to be cost-effective and efficient and it produced a long-term effect.
The project ensured that women delegates from the Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States and Eastern Europe region went to the Fourth World Conference on Women well prepared. Without the just-in-time training provided, they would have attended only as observers. The training allowed them to participate actively in all elements of the Conference. What was most important about the project was that the rapid training created a niche and a forum for UNDP in the region as a special supporter of women and the gender dimension of development. As a result, judging by interviews with participants, it seems very probable that the trainees will remain loyal to UNDP on a long-term basis. The project also created, quite spontaneously, a regional network linking all the women who participated. Post-Conference activities are continuing and there is a strong basis for their doing so for a long time to come.
A much more conventional project in the same region is the External Resources Management (ERM) project where capacity development is at the core of the programme. The project is designed to strengthen the capacity of national governments and other in-country organizations to manage and plan foreign assistance. The principal input to the project is intensive training in-country and overseas as well as on-the-job training to expand and apply what was learned through practical work. Various international seminars and fellowships are associated with the training. While the project is relatively conventional, its focus on support to strengthening a specific function in government, allied with the priority attached to the programme by participating governments, matched to an appropriate design, has ensured the project’s success.
In Africa, all of the regional projects evaluated can be classified as capacity-development initiatives. The National Long-term Perspective Study is a particularly complex example of this kind. The long-term objective of the project is the revitalization of African economies by strengthening national capacities to plan for the future and have a broad vision of national priorities. The strategy involves training of national and regional teams to undertake prospective studies through broader involvement of different constituencies in the society. Although it is still too early to judge the impact of the project, it has already contributed to the realization among the various stakeholders, including the Government, that development is a broad-based process and that the process is as important as the end result. At the same time, the project has contributed to opening up space in the policy arena to facilitate dialogue among the Government, the private sector and civil society.
The Trade Development and Promotion Programme (COMESA)(see box 6) takes a pragmatic approach to trade facilitation. Its strategy focuses on strengthening the capacities of the relevant private-sector institutions in the subregion, particularly the Chambers of Commerce and associations of manufacturers. Another important strategic feature of the Programme is the built-in emphasis on using expertise drawn from the subregion, through the principle of networking, subcontracting and technical cooperation arrangements between institutions and enterprises with different levels of operational efficiency. The concept of the project is very good. Unfortunately, however, the geographical coverage of the project is too broad and its limited resources are too thinly spread out for its capacity-development strategy to be truly effective.
The project Assistance to the Africa Capacity-building Foundation (ACBF) (see box 7) has focused its activities on one important area of capacity development: economic policy analysis and development management. It does this by upgrading the capacities of policy units within government agencies, upgrading and rehabilitating national and regional training institutions, providing fellowships for staff from key government ministries and conducting in-service training for government professionals, consulting firms and professional organizations.
In practice, serious questions must be raised about the sustainability of most of the projects funded by the foundation. ACBF is vested with an almost impossible task where other, better-endowed donor institutions with many years of experience in Africa have failed miserably. The Foundation has barely begun its task with respect to meeting the capacity-development needs in economic policy and development management in Africa.
Under pressure from UNDP and other donors, the Foundation has recently strengthened its approach in carrying out detailed capacity-assessment studies as a precursor to identification and funding of projects. This has improved its decision-making on the projects that are to be supported. As with many other projects examined, it needs to develop objectives and an implementation strategy in line with its resources. Thus, if the project can scale down its ambitious goal of building a strong policy analysis unit in each country and instead focus its attention in strengthening a smaller number of regional centres, it will be remembered for laying the foundations for effective management development in Africa.
There is one final case study that is worthy of attention in this short survey of capacity development in the projects assessed. The project Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme (METAP) is now moving into the implementation of the third phase of its operations.
Although it made important contributions in the first two phases, the project cannot be considered a notable success in terms of its capacity-development activities. What is noteworthy is the strong effort made by UNDP (notably RBAS and Capacity 2l) in working hard and long in the preparations for the next phase of project operations on strengthening the conceptualization and strategy for capacity development. As a result, a new capacity-development unit will be established by the project, to be managed by UNDP and not by the World Bank. In other words, as a result of its efforts, UNDP has been recognized by its partners in the project as the focus for expertise in capacity development.
Mention was made earlier of the improvement made by the project Assistance to the Africa Capacity-building Foundation (ACBF) in its capacity-assessment work as a basis for project identification. It must be said that from the projects reviewed here, UNDP has a long way to go in improving its own practice in capacity assessment and the selection of the institutions to be project partners. Proper capacity assessment should be part of project preparations. As noted above, these are often cursory, with inadequate time and effort devoted to gathering information and undertaking analysis. The issue of capacity assessment and selection of partners applies both to the overall constitution of projects and the selection of sub-projects and participating institutions within the broad framework of large projects.
Probably the best case among the projects examined is that of the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR). In this instance, there is a good selection process for institutions involved, based on merit and peer review. In other words, assessment is carried out by informed professionals using objective criteria. Other projects lack such criteria; this appears to be a very weak element in design. In part, this might reflect the lack of involvement of country offices in identifying appropriate institutions in their particular countries and in providing advice on institutional capacities and interests. There is a clear requirement to assess not only the human resources and other capacities that can be mobilized in support of projects but also the commitment of institutional and governmental leadership to make the project effective.
It should be noted that MDGD is developing a set of policy documents and manuals on capacity development and capacity assessment. However, these are not as yet widely known or used. At present, there is no training for staff on capacity development or capacity assessment and thus far, there is little evidence that the currently available documents and policy statements have any impact on staff and project planners.
Generally, projects pay surprisingly little attention to the issue of sustainability. For the most part, the subject is not addressed in project documents or in implementation programmes. The major exceptions to this trend are the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme, Phase III (METAP 3); Urban Management Programme/Arab States Regional (UMP/ASR); and Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP).
One of the major criticisms to be leveled at those projects that have capacity-development strategies is the lack of attention to this issue. SDNP probably represents the best practice in this regard. The entire project methodology focuses on supporting the establishment of a network and a service designed to be self-supporting. From the outset, the project indicates the limits of what it can do to provide external support. Pre-investment feasibility studies carried out within the modest means of the project ensure that the situation in a specific country is appropriate to allow the project to begin. For the most part, the strategy has been successful.
Reflecting on the findings of the evaluation, it is apparent that, unless the issue of sustainability is handled in the PRODOC and at the design stage, it will not be addressed in project practice. Once again, care taken in the focusing of projects on modest objectives, manageable tasks and achievable results will also facilitate a realistic approach to sustainability.
To address sustainability effectively, it will be important to link it to project strategies for capacity development and overall implementation. Once again, it is probable that an effective sustainability approach depends on good linkages with country offices in project preparation as well as on involvement of stakeholders.
A number of the projects give attention to gender issues in the PRODOC. However, taking the projects as a group, the articulation of gender-in-development (GID) strategies and mechanisms to facilitate participation by women in project decision-making and activities is weak. Even where strategies are stated, connections to practical implementation are vague. Generally, projects do not deal with the mainstreaming of gender in project activities. As a result, women are often poorly represented in project decision-making processes.
As to best-practice cases, two projects are worthy of mention. In the first one, the interregional UNDP\World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme, gender is incorporated as part of an overall development strategy. Because of the importance attached to beneficiary assessment, careful and detailed attention is given to ensuring proper representation of women and indigenous peoples in project planning and activities. (This finding is based on a review of the project in Bolivia). The second project to be highlighted is the Urban Management Programme/Arab States Regional (UMP/ASR), which has a very high percentage of women in all aspects of its activities. There are women’s panels, women on the National Steering Committee as well as women strongly represented in the leadership of NGOs and sub-projects supported by the project.
The evaluation team also noted the achievement of the Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) project in Egypt in ensuring the involvement of a high percentage of women in its activities at the leadership and other levels. Also in the same region, the project Assistance to the Centre for Environment and Development in the Arab States and Europe (CEDARE) project has taken steps to ensure a high presence of women in its training programmes. The design of the Alternatives to Slash-and-burn Agriculture (ASB) project has successfully integrated gender sensitivity in that it takes as central to its work the particular problems of women farmers, which are addressed at the local level.
Judging by the projects reviewed here, the Gender-in-Development Unit in BPPS has minimal impact. This may not be the fault of the Unit itself. There is a clear need for the training of personnel in UNDP, as well as in executing and implementing agencies, in how to incorporate gender into project design and implementation strategy. Clearly, gender must be addressed in project objectives, in the specification of performance indicators and benchmarks as well as in monitoring.
The importance of the role of civil society and the strengthening of its role in policy, planning and programme delivery are central to both the SHD and poverty-eradication agendas. Similarly, efforts to strengthen the market as a means of supporting sustainable growth inevitably requires greater attention to supporting the private sector as an engine of development.
Given that most of the projects examined here were designed several years ago, perhaps it is unreasonable to expect too much in terms of the role of either civil society or the private sector. In the project sample, there are no cases of private-sector or civil society involvement as principal stakeholders in project preparation or design.
In a number of cases, civil society is involved substantially in project implementation and activities. The following projects are particularly notable in this regard:
The best-practice cases identified are the LIFE project, which involves civil society stakeholders side-by-side with UNDP country offices, and SDNP, which focuses on the strengthening of civil society as a major objective. The NLTPS project in Africa is important because of the opening it provides for dialogue between civil society and the Government.
As for the private sector, the Trade Development and Promotion Programme (COMESA) is of importance in that it addresses the vital role of the private sector in the field of trade promotion in which, traditionally, State agencies have tended to predominate. The UMP/ASR project is executed by a private-sector organization and has encouraged various forms of collaboration between the private sector, on the one hand, and government organizations, NGOs and CBOs on the other. SDNP also facilitates the working-out of new relationships among civil society, State agencies and the private sector. LIFE and CEDARE, too, have pursued links with the private sector. The Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) project also has private-sector involvement in terms of the development and use of vaccines.