Skip to main content

Lessons

LESSON

Lesson Learned: Electoral Justice Principles for Trust in the Electoral Process in Ghana, Kenya, Sierra Leone

Integrity Action was able to find and use experienced electoral and judicial sector experts through its connections with members of the JIG and CEG. This was an excellent use of resources as they were senior level persons whose expertise was extremely valuable
Project Partner
Tiri-Making Integrity Work
Project Description
The Electoral Justice Principles for Trust in the Electoral Process project sought to raise the integrity standard of the electoral processes in Africa by addressing the relations between the key electoral justice institutions and their relevance and accessibility to the electorate. Its main objectives were to: produce a set of electoral justice principles drafted by a group of chief justices and senior electoral and political leaders from Africa and other continents; and support the implementation of these principles in two African countries. Its intended outcomes were to increase trust in electoral justice authorities; reduce violence related to electoral dispute settlements, and to have political parties, candidates and civil society organizations (CSOs) in the pilot implementation country able to claim, advocate and defend rights for public integrity consultations. The project undertook minimal consultations with the large and dynamic electoral assistance sector and missed opportunities to tap its experience, explore collaboration and develop synergies with other efforts, such as the Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security that promote the integrity of elections. The norms themselves were not disseminated as planned so awareness of them is extremely limited and they were not endorsed by any international organization as anticipated. Most of those interviewed felt the principles needed wider consultations and did not have the weight required to make significant changes. The project was not Africa-specific and African involvement was limited primarily to the launch in Ghana and the APEJ-SL. The principles and guidelines were global in scope, and were not tailored to Sierra Leone for the pilot. It also focused on general electoral integrity issues and lacked a clear focus on electoral justice and how specifically this could be achieved through the creation of a steering committee.
Evaluation Date
September 2012
Theme
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Electoral Justice Principles for Trust in the Electoral Process in Ghana, Kenya, Sierra Leone

The reliability and usefulness of this survey was questioned by several of those interviewed outside of this steering group. They felt the focus groups were not representative, the questions too generic to be useful, and that it was not adapted to the national context.
Project Partner
Tiri-Making Integrity Work
Project Description
The Electoral Justice Principles for Trust in the Electoral Process project sought to raise the integrity standard of the electoral processes in Africa by addressing the relations between the key electoral justice institutions and their relevance and accessibility to the electorate. Its main objectives were to: produce a set of electoral justice principles drafted by a group of chief justices and senior electoral and political leaders from Africa and other continents; and support the implementation of these principles in two African countries. Its intended outcomes were to increase trust in electoral justice authorities; reduce violence related to electoral dispute settlements, and to have political parties, candidates and civil society organizations (CSOs) in the pilot implementation country able to claim, advocate and defend rights for public integrity consultations. The project undertook minimal consultations with the large and dynamic electoral assistance sector and missed opportunities to tap its experience, explore collaboration and develop synergies with other efforts, such as the Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security that promote the integrity of elections. The norms themselves were not disseminated as planned so awareness of them is extremely limited and they were not endorsed by any international organization as anticipated. Most of those interviewed felt the principles needed wider consultations and did not have the weight required to make significant changes. The project was not Africa-specific and African involvement was limited primarily to the launch in Ghana and the APEJ-SL. The principles and guidelines were global in scope, and were not tailored to Sierra Leone for the pilot. It also focused on general electoral integrity issues and lacked a clear focus on electoral justice and how specifically this could be achieved through the creation of a steering committee.
Evaluation Date
September 2012
Theme
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Democratizing governance for development: LDC civil society engagement

The value of the grantee as a coordinating body is not in dispute, however its members do not pay fees and it has no way to raise funds other than through projects submitted to donors.
Project Partner
LDC Watch
Project Description
The project was timed to coincide with UN processes related to follow-up of the outcome document of the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-III) in Brussels in 2001, known as the Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) and preparations for the Fourth UN Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV) held in Istanbul in May 2011. The project aimed to build the capacity of civil society organizations in Least Developed Countries to mobilize and consolidate their energy, expertise and commitment to achieving quality inputs to the Comprehensive Review Summit in 2010, and strengthening democratic decision making in international development processes. It had three intended outcomes: Enhanced capacity of CSOs and CBOs; Increased awareness and coverage of LDC issues; Progress and setbacks on MDGs and BPoA reviewed. The project aimed to undertake activities in 20 countries: 13 in Africa, 2 in South Asia, 2 in South-East Asia and 3 in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). However planned activities changed throughout the project.
Evaluation Date
August 2012
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Democratizing governance for development: LDC civil society engagement

The impact of the project activities on the LDC-IV outcome document is questionable. Few respondents considered that CSO efforts had translated into impact on the outcome of LDC-IV (the IP0A), which is essentially a political outcome decided by governments.
Project Partner
LDC Watch
Project Description
The project was timed to coincide with UN processes related to follow-up of the outcome document of the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-III) in Brussels in 2001, known as the Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) and preparations for the Fourth UN Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV) held in Istanbul in May 2011. The project aimed to build the capacity of civil society organizations in Least Developed Countries to mobilize and consolidate their energy, expertise and commitment to achieving quality inputs to the Comprehensive Review Summit in 2010, and strengthening democratic decision making in international development processes. It had three intended outcomes: Enhanced capacity of CSOs and CBOs; Increased awareness and coverage of LDC issues; Progress and setbacks on MDGs and BPoA reviewed. The project aimed to undertake activities in 20 countries: 13 in Africa, 2 in South Asia, 2 in South-East Asia and 3 in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). However planned activities changed throughout the project.
Evaluation Date
August 2012
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Democratizing governance for development: LDC civil society engagement

The evaluators believed that the grantee cannot simply continue advocacy actions but must put in place a strategy and work plan that reflect the needs of its members and that might include actions – like training and information processes – that donors would consider funding.
Project Partner
LDC Watch
Project Description
The project was timed to coincide with UN processes related to follow-up of the outcome document of the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-III) in Brussels in 2001, known as the Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) and preparations for the Fourth UN Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV) held in Istanbul in May 2011. The project aimed to build the capacity of civil society organizations in Least Developed Countries to mobilize and consolidate their energy, expertise and commitment to achieving quality inputs to the Comprehensive Review Summit in 2010, and strengthening democratic decision making in international development processes. It had three intended outcomes: Enhanced capacity of CSOs and CBOs; Increased awareness and coverage of LDC issues; Progress and setbacks on MDGs and BPoA reviewed. The project aimed to undertake activities in 20 countries: 13 in Africa, 2 in South Asia, 2 in South-East Asia and 3 in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). However planned activities changed throughout the project.
Evaluation Date
August 2012
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Democratizing governance for development: LDC civil society engagement

There is no doubt that organized contributions from coalitions of CSOs and NGOS to UN processes carry more weight than individual participation. In the case of CSOs from the LDCs, the cost of attending UN conferences or even the preparatory regional meetings is likely to exclude most organizations from attending, so some mechanism for capturing their views and representing them in the meetings is essential.
Project Partner
LDC Watch
Project Description
The project was timed to coincide with UN processes related to follow-up of the outcome document of the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-III) in Brussels in 2001, known as the Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) and preparations for the Fourth UN Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV) held in Istanbul in May 2011. The project aimed to build the capacity of civil society organizations in Least Developed Countries to mobilize and consolidate their energy, expertise and commitment to achieving quality inputs to the Comprehensive Review Summit in 2010, and strengthening democratic decision making in international development processes. It had three intended outcomes: Enhanced capacity of CSOs and CBOs; Increased awareness and coverage of LDC issues; Progress and setbacks on MDGs and BPoA reviewed. The project aimed to undertake activities in 20 countries: 13 in Africa, 2 in South Asia, 2 in South-East Asia and 3 in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). However planned activities changed throughout the project.
Evaluation Date
August 2012
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Democratizing governance for development: LDC civil society engagement

Over-reliance on one person’s credibility and profile is a risk. Succession planning, especially in between major events - like the international conferences on Least Developed Countries -  should be a priority.
Project Partner
LDC Watch
Project Description
The project was timed to coincide with UN processes related to follow-up of the outcome document of the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-III) in Brussels in 2001, known as the Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) and preparations for the Fourth UN Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV) held in Istanbul in May 2011. The project aimed to build the capacity of civil society organizations in Least Developed Countries to mobilize and consolidate their energy, expertise and commitment to achieving quality inputs to the Comprehensive Review Summit in 2010, and strengthening democratic decision making in international development processes. It had three intended outcomes: Enhanced capacity of CSOs and CBOs; Increased awareness and coverage of LDC issues; Progress and setbacks on MDGs and BPoA reviewed. The project aimed to undertake activities in 20 countries: 13 in Africa, 2 in South Asia, 2 in South-East Asia and 3 in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). However planned activities changed throughout the project.
Evaluation Date
August 2012
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Democratizing governance for development: LDC civil society engagement

The relevance of the project is questionable, however, in relation to the capacity building and empowerment of constituent CSOs who participated in the project. Insufficient attention was paid to the capacity-building needs of the CSO partners.
Project Partner
LDC Watch
Project Description
The project was timed to coincide with UN processes related to follow-up of the outcome document of the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-III) in Brussels in 2001, known as the Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) and preparations for the Fourth UN Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV) held in Istanbul in May 2011. The project aimed to build the capacity of civil society organizations in Least Developed Countries to mobilize and consolidate their energy, expertise and commitment to achieving quality inputs to the Comprehensive Review Summit in 2010, and strengthening democratic decision making in international development processes. It had three intended outcomes: Enhanced capacity of CSOs and CBOs; Increased awareness and coverage of LDC issues; Progress and setbacks on MDGs and BPoA reviewed. The project aimed to undertake activities in 20 countries: 13 in Africa, 2 in South Asia, 2 in South-East Asia and 3 in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). However planned activities changed throughout the project.
Evaluation Date
August 2012
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Democratizing governance for development: LDC civil society engagement

The reality is that CSOs/NGOs have more influence on policy and practice at national level, and that their major contribution to international and UN processes most often comes when their advocacy has been effective on their national government whose delegation will then carry this into governmental debate and processes such as outcome documents.
Project Partner
LDC Watch
Project Description
The project was timed to coincide with UN processes related to follow-up of the outcome document of the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-III) in Brussels in 2001, known as the Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) and preparations for the Fourth UN Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV) held in Istanbul in May 2011. The project aimed to build the capacity of civil society organizations in Least Developed Countries to mobilize and consolidate their energy, expertise and commitment to achieving quality inputs to the Comprehensive Review Summit in 2010, and strengthening democratic decision making in international development processes. It had three intended outcomes: Enhanced capacity of CSOs and CBOs; Increased awareness and coverage of LDC issues; Progress and setbacks on MDGs and BPoA reviewed. The project aimed to undertake activities in 20 countries: 13 in Africa, 2 in South Asia, 2 in South-East Asia and 3 in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). However planned activities changed throughout the project.
Evaluation Date
August 2012
Country
LESSON

Lesson Learned: Opening the Doors of Policy Making in Central Asia and South Caucasus

From the institutional point of view, one of the strongest sustainability aspects is that new think tanks undertaking research have been integrated, informally if not yet formally via certification, into a long-established existing think tank network. The project benefited from, a strong internet dissemination strategy.
Project Partner
Policy Association for an Open Society - PASOS
Project Description
The project sought to strengthen policy processes in eight countries -- Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – by improving the capability of independent civil society organizations to engage in policy debates. Activities included two training workshops, two regional networking conferences, and supervised research during the course of which eight policy fellows produced research papers. The project promoted sharing of experiences among CSOs operating in often isolated and difficult settings. The project also allowed NGOs to benefit from the experience of NGOs in countries such as the Baltics and countries in Eastern Europe where CSOs were a positive force for democratic development.
Evaluation Date
July 2012
Country