sustainability

The project’s principal objectives were to enhance civic participation among Himalayan tribes and empower marginalized groups (women, people with disabilities and nomads); and to engage with governance issues and democratic dialogue. To this end, the project aimed to build a supportive environment for enhanced democratic participation through supporting state and non-state actors. The project consisted of 10 core components creating a continuum of involvement from awareness of rights to access to those rights, supported by the training and mobilization of relevant support actors and those who could make the rights a reality. The project design was logical and very much tuned to the needs of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders in this challenging region. There were no delays in project delivery, since it had been designed with the seasonal obstacles relevant to the target region in mind.

The project sought to strengthen the capacities of civil society to play an active role in shaping public policy and drafting laws. Its intended outcome was for civil society to become an active, informed and key partner in public policy and law making, so as to be able to react instantly on key public policy areas. The grantee capitalized on the government’s willingness for a more engaged and constructive civil society in policy development as well as the need for civil society organizations to have more information.  There was a substantial level of interest and participation in the project from both sides. The project’s strategy was sound as it built on the work already done by both CSOs and government offices. The project increased both the demand for and supply of public consultations.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

At the time the project began, the process of ratifying the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance, adopted by the African Union in January 2007, was moribund and there was no international project activity to invigorate it. The objective of the project was to strengthen civil society actors to build a constituency for the signing and ratification of the Charter. At the time the project was proposed, 15 ratifications were needed to bring the Charter into force, two countries (Ethiopia and Mauritania) had ratified the Charter and twenty-five had signed it, thus indicating their intention to ratify. Assessing the impact of the project was not easy. The intended direct beneficiaries were members of the African democracy community, whose network and ability to advocate for the Charter were strengthened. It is not possible, based on the timetable of ratifications and project activities, to convincingly demonstrate that the project greatly accelerated the coming into force of the Charter. Only three countries in which activities were implemented actually ratified the Charter. The project objective was not ratification itself but rather strengthening the advocacy community and facilitating ratification yet achieving ratification in target countries was an implicit objective of the project Ultimately, the sustainability of the project activity will also be a function of political will. The project was born of policy elites, implemented by policy elites, delivered results of direct relevance only to policy elites, yet promises substantial benefits to all the people of Africa, who will benefit from democracy.

At the time the project began, the process of ratifying the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance, adopted by the African Union in January 2007, was moribund and there was no international project activity to invigorate it. The objective of the project was to strengthen civil society actors to build a constituency for the signing and ratification of the Charter. At the time the project was proposed, 15 ratifications were needed to bring the Charter into force, two countries (Ethiopia and Mauritania) had ratified the Charter and twenty-five had signed it, thus indicating their intention to ratify. Assessing the impact of the project was not easy. The intended direct beneficiaries were members of the African democracy community, whose network and ability to advocate for the Charter were strengthened. It is not possible, based on the timetable of ratifications and project activities, to convincingly demonstrate that the project greatly accelerated the coming into force of the Charter. Only three countries in which activities were implemented actually ratified the Charter. The project objective was not ratification itself but rather strengthening the advocacy community and facilitating ratification yet achieving ratification in target countries was an implicit objective of the project Ultimately, the sustainability of the project activity will also be a function of political will. The project was born of policy elites, implemented by policy elites, delivered results of direct relevance only to policy elites, yet promises substantial benefits to all the people of Africa, who will benefit from democracy.

Aiming to improve human rights protection of citizens in Kazakhstan, the project developed a human rights education course for introduction into the curricula of Kazakh institutions training future police officers. The project involved training staff involved in educating police recruits. Outputs aimed to ensure that graduates from this human rights training programme exercise their functions taking into account international human rights standards. However, the project's ultimate impact - the mandatory introduction of human rights training into the police academies' curriculum - remained unachieved.