Lessons

The project aimed to build capacity of local media in Sierra Leone to facilitate a national dialogue among civil society, government and citizens. It targeted primary beneficiaries that included: journalists from radio and print media who were awarded fellowships and trained in investigative journalism through production and publishing human right stories; NGO grantees; and local communities targeted through forums and workshops to increase public knowledge on the role of the media in human rights protection and promotion. The project responded to a need for improved democratic dialogue, and correctly identified the need for enhanced democratic debate as a precondition for entrenching democratic values and policies in post-war Sierra Leone. It also correctly identified the media as a key player, both as a space to “host” that debate and as a provider of substantive information. However the project's relevance was reduced by its failure formally to engage with editors/publishers and with relevant high-level institutional actors. The project document lacked a complete analysis of the stakeholders, their respective needs and the various messages that should be addressed to them. Nevertheless, the project contributed to establishing a critical mass of journalists aware of human rights reporting and of the challenges of balanced political reporting.

The project aimed to bring together a diverse group of civil society organizations in Egypt and to work towards building a consensus among them on the principles and contents of a “democratic agenda”. It also sought to strengthen the knowledge base of those civil society groups committed to building a democratic society and state, while also enhancing public awareness of the need for, and character of, democracy. Instead of identifying a number of critical beneficiary and/or stakeholder groups and working with them throughout, the grantee worked with groups (Parliamentarians; Political Parties; Political and Social Movements; Trade Unions and Professional Syndicates; and, Youth Organizations, other civil society groups and the media) separately through one-off activities. The project then failed to adopt an approach to enable it to work systematically to bring these same groups together around a common agenda.

The project sought to strengthen university students and youth Civil Society Organization (CSO) leaders for active and democratic citizenship and community development. It aimed to do this by: improving their capacity and raising their awareness of participation in democratic processes and community development; increasing emerging leader (EL) representation in existing political and civil society institutions; and developing and strengthening existing networks to build alliances of youth-led and youth-directed CSOs for more effective programming and sustained participation. The project also intended to increase the awareness of CSO and local leaders on the value of youth involvement. The project reached youth across Jordan and from very different socio-economic conditions and the activities reflected the needs and interests of its participants and their locality. Addressing both the supply and demand side of the youth issue seemed to be effective. Participating youth seemed empowered by their training and the use of sub-grants to CSOs opened the door for youth participation.

The project aimed to build capacity of local media in Sierra Leone to facilitate a national dialogue among civil society, government and citizens. It targeted primary beneficiaries that included: journalists from radio and print media who were awarded fellowships and trained in investigative journalism through production and publishing human right stories; NGO grantees; and local communities targeted through forums and workshops to increase public knowledge on the role of the media in human rights protection and promotion. The project responded to a need for improved democratic dialogue, and correctly identified the need for enhanced democratic debate as a precondition for entrenching democratic values and policies in post-war Sierra Leone. It also correctly identified the media as a key player, both as a space to “host” that debate and as a provider of substantive information. However the project's relevance was reduced by its failure formally to engage with editors/publishers and with relevant high-level institutional actors. The project document lacked a complete analysis of the stakeholders, their respective needs and the various messages that should be addressed to them. Nevertheless, the project contributed to establishing a critical mass of journalists aware of human rights reporting and of the challenges of balanced political reporting.

The project’s objective was to build the capacity at the grassroots level regarding democracy. This objective was pursued through training the population about citizen rights and freedoms, including establishing a permanent observatory for national and local electoral consultations, and the communication of information supporting the construction of a democratic state. The intervention directly targeted vulnerable groups, farmers (both women and men); and on a wider level also reached out to development actors, trainers of trainers and local facilitators; and employees of local, administrative and communal authorities. The project aimed to provide appropriate responses to the needs and difficulties faced by target beneficiary groups - women and vulnerable groups who were unable to take part in the electoral process. The method and the content of the training sessions as well as the message communicated via the educational media adopted were consistent with the project's objectives. It was also in line with the priorities set out in the country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.

Aiming to empower young government and civil society leaders from southern Africa to catalyze transformative change in their home institutions and communities, the project had indeed a positive impact on some participants, both professionally and personally. It comprised of four principal components: training, support to “personal reform” projects developed by the trainees, integration of the trainees into an existing network, and evaluation of the reform projects with a view to identifying good practice and replicable initiatives. Overall, however, it represented poor value for money for UNDEF taking into account the high cost (US$350,000), relatively small number of participants, lack of strategies for broader engagement and inadequate outcomes.

The project’s objective was to build the capacity at the grassroots level regarding democracy. This objective was pursued through training the population about citizen rights and freedoms, including establishing a permanent observatory for national and local electoral consultations, and the communication of information supporting the construction of a democratic state. The intervention directly targeted vulnerable groups, farmers (both women and men); and on a wider level also reached out to development actors, trainers of trainers and local facilitators; and employees of local, administrative and communal authorities. The project aimed to provide appropriate responses to the needs and difficulties faced by target beneficiary groups - women and vulnerable groups who were unable to take part in the electoral process. The method and the content of the training sessions as well as the message communicated via the educational media adopted were consistent with the project's objectives. It was also in line with the priorities set out in the country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.

Aiming to empower young government and civil society leaders from southern Africa to catalyze transformative change in their home institutions and communities, the project had indeed a positive impact on some participants, both professionally and personally. It comprised of four principal components: training, support to “personal reform” projects developed by the trainees, integration of the trainees into an existing network, and evaluation of the reform projects with a view to identifying good practice and replicable initiatives. Overall, however, it represented poor value for money for UNDEF taking into account the high cost (US$350,000), relatively small number of participants, lack of strategies for broader engagement and inadequate outcomes.

The project’s objective was to build the capacity at the grassroots level regarding democracy. This objective was pursued through training the population about citizen rights and freedoms, including establishing a permanent observatory for national and local electoral consultations, and the communication of information supporting the construction of a democratic state. The intervention directly targeted vulnerable groups, farmers (both women and men); and on a wider level also reached out to development actors, trainers of trainers and local facilitators; and employees of local, administrative and communal authorities. The project aimed to provide appropriate responses to the needs and difficulties faced by target beneficiary groups - women and vulnerable groups who were unable to take part in the electoral process. The method and the content of the training sessions as well as the message communicated via the educational media adopted were consistent with the project's objectives. It was also in line with the priorities set out in the country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.

Aiming to empower young government and civil society leaders from southern Africa to catalyze transformative change in their home institutions and communities, the project had indeed a positive impact on some participants, both professionally and personally. It comprised of four principal components: training, support to “personal reform” projects developed by the trainees, integration of the trainees into an existing network, and evaluation of the reform projects with a view to identifying good practice and replicable initiatives. Overall, however, it represented poor value for money for UNDEF taking into account the high cost (US$350,000), relatively small number of participants, lack of strategies for broader engagement and inadequate outcomes.