ILO

Back to index

Shan State: Peace reconciliation and development through community empowerment - Final evaluation

eval_number:

2377

eval_url:

https://webapps.ilo.org/ievaldiscovery/eval/2377

location:

country:

Myanmar

region:

Asia and the Pacific

---

eval_title:

Shan State: Peace reconciliation and development through community empowerment - Final evaluation

recommendations:

date:

2020-07-22 00:00:00.0

themes:

theme:

Organizational issues

category:

Planning and programme design

---

comments:

R 1.1 - this seems reasonable, but the luxury of eight years of funding was not afforded to the programme. It is noted that despite ceasefire, conflicts broke off very easily still, but yet the communities demanded a longer term commitment from the project. It is noted also that conflicts had shaped the landscape of engagement and delivery of the works. The programmed entailed capacity and confidence building for communities to take part in peace process, and institutional strengthening for the EAOs to bring along people into peace making, this indeed takes time to happening and it is noted that conflict in Myanmar have been ongoing for over 7 decades. R 1.2 - the level of 'convergence' was determined by political and conflict relations at a local level, in the areas of implementation there were often no other international actors and co-ordination by say, UNDP, would not have been feasible nor necessarily desirable on the part of partners. It is to note that many reports at high level, such as Rosenthal report suggested the rather poor performance of the UN in term of its mandate to uphold principle of human rights. UNDP was not a desired partners to any ethnic communities and ceasefire armed organization. The other points also seem reasonable, but we should note they were ones we conscientiously invested in, always wishing to maximise participation and support and seeking to do more for partners if time and resources allowed. R.1.3 The feasibility studies prior to project implementation helped the Programme to develop a robust plan, design, and execution of the projects. All the interventions of the Programme were completed in the stipulated time, which was only possible because of regular risk assessment. The Programme had given high priority to political cultures and local perception and the dynamics of peace and conflict at the site of the project for a better understanding of the conflict-affected areas. R.1.4 The inclusive participatory approach was practiced to make any decisions. Developed the implementation plan with more emphasis on flexible approaches to support that fit with local context. The programme was vigilant to any social, political, environmental changes to able to respond quickly through the consultations with stakeholders and communities. A series of community consultations were conducted at the several stages of the project cycle – planning, execution, monitoring etc. Evidence demonstrates that all the community participatory approach projects have been completed in time. R.1.5 Exit strategies are not common among partners, as the technical areas of interventions are varied, and geographic areas of coverage are large across the largest state in Myanmar (Shan). However, the exit strategy was designed in coherent manner, but it never was easily able to implemented at the end as there were some important incidents that took place outside of the project control. That is the investigation on fraudulent practices by One partner, and that in itself had delayed the approval of the report and plan of the project by Donor, and at last caused some delays to the implementation as the funding from donors were not approved in time. The plan for exit strategy therefore was not implemented in full. R.1.6 - the project consistently made such efforts.

action_plan:

This is peace support project, and therefore sustainability the project was anticipating to see is 1) Peace is more solid, 2) the space to provide technical inputs to the people on the ground is increasingly less threatened. FOr the community to be able to 1) demand more of activities of this type, 2) see that their lives are not entirely about running away from bullets any longer, and there are more hopes to live m=normal life, and 3) their voice matters in all works designed and implemented for and by them. The 3rd point is very critical as in Myanmar - the whole society is heavily top down, and people voice was never counted.

management_response:

Completed

progress:

Achieved

admin_units:

ILO-Yangon

title:

Recommendation 1 (from conclusions 1, 2, 4 and 5) proposes to ILO and Consortium members to adopt a “less is more” approach that is more holistic when designing a similar intervention to provide more in-depth and sustainable technical assistance to beneficiaries – setting up synergies among Consortium members and with other existing programs, supported by key leaders. Priority: High / Importance: High  R.1.1. Ensure programme design includes less but more in-depth technical assistance based on viable business models (for example for schools), community development strategies (tackling priority needs in a holistic way) and post-training follow-up allowing to concretely link training to income-generating activities. Such programmes conducted in conflict-affected areas should at least last 8 years.  R.1.2. Adopt a systems approach to the intervention providing a coordinated package of assistance (i) within the programme through convergence activities and joint planning, (ii) at the local level with local partners, and (iii) among similar or complementary interventions (for example, to be coordinated by UNDP).  R.1.3. Conduct feasibility studies prior to project implementation and regular risk assessment.  R.1.4. Involve partner organizations and beneficiaries in the project design at an early stage allowing sufficient time for decision making. Information should be accessible to all and participants brought together in different groups (i.e. schoolgirls). Plan sufficient time to implement a fully participatory approach – taking into account risks of delays or of short deadlines due to possible roadblocks.  R.1.5. Support systematically all partner organizations in defining an exit strategy and ensure they have full capacity to implement.  R.1.6. Continue efforts in involving consistently key leaders in the PRD programme.

project_symbols:

MMR/14/01/EEC

url:

https://webapps.ilo.org/ievaldiscovery/recommendations/13820

information_source:

Country Office

---