CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT IN LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND PROGRAMMING by UNDP Independent Evaluation Office

LESSONS FROM EVALUATIONS: CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT IN LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND PROGRAMMING Lead author: Ben Murphy Research associate: Anna Kunová

INTRODUCTION The Leave No One Behind (LNOB) principle is a political commitment by all UN Member States to eradicate poverty, discrimination, and exclusion, and to reduce the inequalities and vulnerabilities that undermine the potential of individuals and humanity. UNDP’s framework for the implementation of the principle states that leaving no one behind ‘’does not imply a separate course of action but is intrinsic to the action required to achieve the SDGs.”1 The guidance puts forward activities for bringing the principle into development programming, including a more intentional focus on identifying who is at risk of being left behind, and then tailoring support to ensure it is accessible to these groups and improves their social, political and economic status. Civil society organizations (CSOs) have been described as important actors in ensuring that no one is left behind,2 valued for their connection to people who otherwise may not be reached by the public and private sector, and recognized for drawing attention to neglected people and issues.3 The examples in this paper show many CSOs fulfilling this role, whether through services for people displaced by conflict, in promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, campaigning against gender-based violence, or supporting vocational training for youth who have been excluded from their education system since childhood. This paper has been conducted as part of the UNDP Independent Office of Evaluation’s (IEO) Reflections Series and provides a rapid assessment of UNDP and external evaluative evidence. In 2022, the series aims to contribute to knowledge about the “enablers” and “directions of change” of UNDP’s strategic plan. This paper focuses on implementation of the LNOB principle and covers the particular features of CSO status and organization models that may enhance or detract from their ability to: 1) reach the furthest behind, and 2) work as partners with UNDP.4 The 1

paper aims to inform UNDP engagement strategy for CSOs and its broader partnerships with government and market stakeholders.

METHODOLOGY This is a rapid evidence assessment,5 designed to provide a balanced synthesis of evaluative evidence posted to the UNDP Evaluation Resource Centre over the past decade. Country-level and thematic evaluations conducted by the IEO were an important source, given their independence and credibility, as were high-quality decentralized evaluations commissioned by country offices. In total, the paper covers 41 evaluations from UNDP’s Evaluation Resourse Centre. The paper also draws on 15 external studies, including evaluations of non-UNDP civil society programmes and academic research, in order to situate the lessons in the context of broader learning about CSOs and LNOB programming.6 The emphasis of the rapid evidence assessment was on identifying consistent findings, conclusions and recommendations that capture relevant lessons for UNDP. The analysis seeks to offer practical and timely insights to support effective UNDP decision-making. It is not a comprehensive study of the general and scientific literature. The paper was quality reviewed by IEO staff and by an external expert specialized in civil society programming and governance.

CONTEXT UNDP uses a broad definition of CSOs, recognizing the full range of formal and informal organizations that are outside the state and market. This includes social movements, volunteer organizations, indigenous peoples’ organizations, mass-based membership organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and community-based organizations (CBOs), as well as communities and citizens acting individually and collectively. At the country level, CSOs are engaged to provide basic services in the areas of health, education, water delivery, agricultural extension and microcredit provision. In addition, UNDP recognizes that CSOs often serve as both a driving force in guiding development policies and as a watchdog to make sure that policies are implemented, and also facilitate civil society participation in poverty- reduction strategy processes, in advocacy, and in advancing gender equality. UNDP identifies five intersecting factors that contribute to the risk of people being left behind: discrimination based on assumed or ascribed identity or status; geographic location; vulnerability to shocks; governance; and socioeconomic status.7 As the factors suggest, in certain contexts people are at risk of being left behind because they are neglected by economic growth and development planning, and in others because they are pushed to exclusion by prejudice and even violence, by society or the state. These contexts create fundamentally different operating environments for CSOs, though in certain situations the freedom to operate is ambiguous, with a level of CSO activity tolerated but without clear boundaries. It is acknowledged that civic space is shrinking in many countries8 and that CSOs have been subject to backlash for speaking out against marginalization.9 The COVID-19 pandemic has also aggravated the closure of civic space, especially in fragile states,10 constraining the role of CSOs in the drive to achieve the SDGs, where achievements have been eroding.

AT A GLANCE – LESSONS LEARNED

CSOs can provide essential services where public and private options are absent or limited. This support, however, rarely changes the root causes or longer-term effects of exclusion.

People at risk of being left behind often form their own community organizations, and international organizations have been encouraged to become familiar with the attributes of their informality.

Elite capture contradicts the LNOB principle, but not enough is understood about the ways to promote representative CSO governance models.

CSOs often face constraints in demanding and monitoring the fulfilment of rights for those left behind, but this function can be enhanced when international partners promote its use. Enhancing CSO networks allows local and national organizations to link excluded groups to high-level advocacy and limit the negative effects of competition.

CSOs can facilitate access to local development planning for those at risk of being left behind. Bottom-up planning is more effective when coordinated and met by topdown support and social change.

Tailored grant mechanisms for CSOs can be an effective way to translate international goals to local contexts.

CSOs are often taken as a proxy when donors seek to identify those at risk of being left behind. This is a good way to reach people who face discrimination until data safeguards are advanced.

LESSONS LEARNED

CSOs can provide essential services where public and private options are absent or limited. This support, however, rarely changes the root causes or longer-term effects of exclusion.

UNDP initiatives in Iraq,11 Maldives,12 Nepal,13 the Philippines,14 South Sudan,15 Sierra Leonne,16 Sri Lanka,17 Tajikistan,18 Thailand,19 Tunisia,20 and Zimbabwe,21 show that CSO service delivery can be the most viable option for providing support to people at risk of being left behind, especially where accessing public services through official means may create risks for certain populations.22 Across these examples, CSOs offer geographic proximity to those who may need support, operate in local languages (Albania23, Eswatini,24 Maldives, Myanmar25), and are often praised for their reach through the use of decentralized media that is inexpensive for the audience, such as door-to-door information campaigns, local events, and community radio broadcasts. Certain evaluations also recognize the ability of CSOs to navigate conflict (Iraq, 3

the Philippines, South Sudan), which raises questions about the protection offered to these organizations by governments and international partners.26 Although essential in certain contexts, many of these CSO services are short-term and dependent on project funding or are activities that do not bring material benefits unless follow-up action is taken by duty bearers (such as civil registration, electoral education, human rights information, legal aid services). More substantive programmes use the outreach capacities of national CSOs to refer people into a larger system of support (Sri Lanka, Uganda27, Western Balkans,28), and in some cases capacitate local CSOs to offer an improved level of service during the outreach (Montenegro29). In TimorLeste,30 for example, a CSO partner organized an extensive schedule of sub-district events to raise awareness about judicial processes and provided people who could not travel to a court the opportunity to register a case. NGO staff travelled to remote areas to provide initial mediation, which was considered the limit of legal expertise that CSOs could offer at the time. Several evaluations show that those at risk of being left behind because of a shock or long-term social marginalization require more substantive support than project-funded CSOs can provide (Albania,31 Bosnia and Herzegovina,32 Iraq,33 Sri Lanka,34 South Sudan,35 Uganda). UNDP’s work in Albania highlights the longer-term effects of discrimination: staff from vocational training centres stated that local NGOs were essential to their ability to tailor training programmes to the needs of Roma and Egyptian youth, but the evaluation identified prejudice against employing these graduates in private companies, in employment offices and even in the training centres themselves. In South Sudan, the short-term nature of CSO engagements was considered insufficient to build the trust of communities in conflict-affected areas. An evaluation of the EU’s global support to CSOs notes that there are technical and administrative challenges that prevent humanitarian-response organizations switching to longer term and broader support,36 and examples from UNDP projects show that converting CSO-delivered initiatives into routine services requires a handover strategy to ensure the government has the capacity to maintain the support (Iraq,37 South Sudan,38 Uganda).

CSOs often face constraints in demanding and monitoring the fulfilment of rights for those left behind, but this function can be enhanced when international partners promote its use.

UNDP recognizes that CSOs play a substantive role beyond service provision and are key in advocating for and monitoring government provision and the upholding of rights. Several evaluations show that confining CSOs to a service delivery role can limit the ability of a project to hold duty bearers to account for providing substantive support to those at risk of being left behind (Nepal,39 Kazakhstan,40 Rwanda,41 Sierra Leone,42 Pakistan43). A UN joint programme in Uganda44 built a successful model of psychosocial, health, security and legal assistance framed around the immediate and long-term needs of gender-based violence survivors, organizing UN agency, CSO, and government services into an integrated support package. By contrast with other initiatives reviewed, it also enabled CSOs to secure high-level policy changes for women’s rights and gender-responsive planning. However, this focus precluded the project from capacitating CSOs to hold local governments to account for service delivery, and approximately 80 percent of project resources focused on national rather than local capacities. Despite demonstrating a successful support model for gender-based violence, the evaluation noted a very high risk that gains would be reversed because local government provided minimal and only inkind budgets.

Examples show that the role of the official project partner can influence whether top-down initiatives are open to a substantive engagement with CSOs. In these cases, UNDP partners with at least one national commission with a relevant mandate for the respective population at risk of being left behind. In Nepal,45 the partnership limited the number of CSOs the project engaged and confined them to acting as short-term contractual service providers for legal aid and psychosocial support. The evaluation described this as a missed opportunity to engage the expertise of these organizations in human rights protection and support for gender-based violence, and also limited the project’s geographic coverage and ability to work with certain castes. In Kazakhstan, the lack of fully independent CSOs was found to be a detriment to the project’s ability to focus on gender issues, as the national commission was considered to have an unrealistic view of women’s position in society and to have limited awareness of the prevalence of gender-based violence. An access to justice initiative in Tanzania provides a positive example, in which UNDP strengthened the national human rights institution’s ability to fulfil the rights of women, children and marginalized groups through a well-planned engagement strategy for CSO expertise, and the project was encouraged to map all CSOs that could support legal aid services at sub-regional levels.46 The evaluation of UNDP global human rights strengthening programme spanning 2008-2015 suggests that many country offices perceived CSO partnerships to be a potential risk to their relationship with governments.47 The programme worked with 90 national human rights institutions as a “middle ground”, but the limited engagement of national and local CSOs meant the programme missed that objective and was considered a blind spot for the sustainability of the initiatives. The evaluation also draws attention to the perceived role of the private sector in human rights programmes, which others have highlighted as a risk because ostensibly neutral market approaches can invalidate the political engagement of CSOs’ advocacy functions.48,49

CSOs can facilitate access to local development planning for those at risk of being left behind. Bottom-up planning is more effective when coordinated and met by top-down support and social change.

Where local government is present, UNDP has sought to empower people by supporting their engagement in district and sub-district development planning (Bosnia and Herzegovina,50 Kenya,51 Montenegro,52 Mozambique,53 Palestine,54 Rwanda,55 Tunisia56). In these initiatives, CSOs support the engagement by educating their members and the local population on the participation processes and by mobilizing a collective input on topics or decisions. The results are consistent with the findings of a macro-level evaluation of DFID’s Policy Frame in Empowerment and Accountability57 and academic research in Uganda, 58 which notes that this approach did not challenge broader power structures, “ but […] did help excluded communities to challenge categorical inequalities and encourage political and economic engagement’, proving the value of CSOs ‘in making democratic developmental advances.” UNDP’s project in Palestine shows that such an approach offers people a connection to local decision makers and practical experience in managing complex planning processes and mediating disputes.59 It contrasts with a project with similar objectives in Jordan,60 which worked with new youth organizations to develop a local governance app, but had limited, technological benefit and was isolated from real-world local governance decisions, in part because the wider CSO sector was too immature to support youth in this role, as established CSOs had done in Palestine. The evaluation found that the approach in Palestine acted as a “gateway” for youth to tackle larger policy and political issues.61 5

The potential to empower excluded groups by opening local planning to CSO engagement can be undermined. Kenya’s devolved governance system began in 2013, but the participation of local populations has been low because engagement processes are overly complex and public participation meetings have been viewed as legitimation exercises for budgets, rather than a chance to develop them.62 Despite UNDP partnering with democracy CSOs in Mozambique, the local level identification of priorities reverted to a focus on basic service provision and not on the intended steps toward economic transformation and poverty reduction. The engagement reduced after the project closed. Even successful engagement presents practical problems as uncoordinated CSO efforts can overwhelm authorities with multiple and high-risk demands from different sources (Palestine, Montenegro), a concern noted in the World Development Report 2017.63 Local engagement can reach a limit if community and district development planning are not allocated funding from higher authorities and if policy or social discrimination weakens the decision-making power of people at risk of being left behind. In Bosnia and Herzegovina,64 UNDP’s support to partnerships between CSOs and local authorities had a positive local impact but faced “a serious lack of understanding among citizens and local government officials” about who is socially excluded and the drivers and effects of exclusion. The project was “less successful in introducing systemic change […] in particular [the] legislative and policy reform and the full integration of gender-sensitive and socially inclusive approaches at the local level.” Even the local services remained dependent on local government financial and operational support, which was susceptible to political influence and change. Similarly, in Eswatini,65 UNDP and its CSO project partners achieved localized success in familiarizing women, elderly and disabled persons with their human rights, which had recently been codified in a national constitution. Despite these communities expressing enthusiasm to participate further in democratic processes, the local initiatives encountered resistance from traditional authorities and received limited national commitment.66 This suggests that, despite participation in public affairs being a human right, it can be contained and limited, requiring further forms of collective action to overcome the constraints in ostensibly open settings.

People at risk of being left behind often form their own community organizations, and international organizations have been encouraged to become familiar with the attributes of their informality.

The evaluations and wider research show that locally organized self-help and solidarity groups are often the primary means of support for people at risk of being left behind. Although these informal groups do not provide specialist services, they can offer regular and emergency support from their pooled resources and can organize to request and feed into services from government or larger CSOs. The value of these actors is recognized in UNDP projects in Azerbaijan,67 Bosnia and Herzegovina,68 Cambodia,69 Kenya,70 the Philippines,71 Sri Lanka,72 and Tajikistan,73 and supported by wider research.74 Projects sampled in an evaluation of the EU’s programme75 for civil society organizations and local authorities reached very poor populations in remote areas by “working directly both with individuals and through small associations.”76 An evaluation of UNDP’s support to people with disabilities in Cambodia suggests that self-help groups can grow into significant advocates and technical providers over time. Conventional project partnership arrangements offered by UNDP do not appear to be conducive to the effectiveness of national CSOs and are even less so for third-party local and informal entities. Several UNDP evaluations (Albania,77 Maldives,78 Solomon Islands,79 South Sudan,80 Thailand,81) emphasize that contractual, reporting, and on-granting processes were time-consuming, and sometimes created a mismatch in how results are valued (Kenya,82 Palestine,83 Tunisia84). These challenges are also noted in non-UNDP CSO programmes and are sometimes described as the product of “asymmetrical” relationships between donors and CSOs. An evaluation of the Norwegian Agency for Development 6

Cooperation’s (NORAD’s) CSO strategy noted that donor emphasis on official processes risked “crowding out intangible results”, suggesting it was becoming difficult for NORAD to support transformational approaches, including civil society strengthening, because reporting requirements lead partners to “opt for quantifiable, easy-to-measure results.” UNDP projects have partially responded to this challenge by offering a closer partnership with national CSOs and providing capacity--building support linked to CSO ambitions (Azerbaijan,85, Kenya, Rwanda,86 Tunisia) to strengthen their fundraising, programme management and accountability capacities. In other projects UNDP organizational support is reactive to troubleshooting administrative problems, such as in the Solomon Islands, when funds were delayed because local CSOs could not provide sufficient reporting, and sometimes challenged by under-resourcing in UNDP (Rwanda). Although the examples demonstrate that CSOs often have a demand for organizational improvement, other CSOs and academic research have noted that “professionalization” and ambitions for fundraising and policy success can undermine CSO linkages to the grassroots.87,88 The UNDP evaluations do not address this issue directly, but do highlight basic challenges that disproportionately effect local CSOs, such as the time and cost required to travel to capital cities for meetings (Keyna, Tanzania89), or to communicate in the same language as UNDP staff (Myanmar). Several studies recommend that international organizations should seek to understand informal support networks as a means to reduce potential engagement risks. In-depth research with marginalized groups in conflict areas of Mozambique, Pakistan and Myanmar suggests that donor-funded projects can expose or delegitimize initiatives that communities have set up in response to the risks and perceived futility of engaging with official public support.90 An evaluation of Sida’s support to CSOs recommends that the organization increase its ability to fund informal actors because CSOs can be deregistered when civic space shrinks, removing their ability to fundraise and work with international partners.91 Similar to an issue raised in the evaluation of NORAD’s CSO programme, the evaluation recommends clarity on who bears the financial risk if informal actors fail.

Enhancing CSO networks allows local and national organizations to link excluded groups to high-level advocacy, and limit the negative effects of competition

Supporting the cohesion of civil society stakeholders is generally considered a positive means of promoting the perspectives of excluded groups92 and increasing the coherence of civil society action, which can be fragmented and even conflicted.93 That civil society is both a site of partnership and contestation is recognized by UNDP evaluations in Honduras94 and Rwanda,95 and also illustrated by a Sida project in Kenya.96 In the latter, larger human rights CSOs built the capacity of community-based organizations to mobilize and manage funding, enabling a local human rights network in Mombasa to operate independently. As partners to the network, the CSOs were able to draw on the community-based organizations’ grassroots experience for their national advocacy work. In other regions, however, the relationship was not positive, and the community-based organizations accused the CSOs of using and dividing them and of derailing their objectives for the purposes of meeting donor requirements. UNDP initiatives have been commended for their ability to enhance supportive CSO networks (Haiti,97 the Philippines,98 Sri Lanka,99 Uganda,100 Viet Nam101). A UN joint programme on gender equality and women’s empowerment was considered innovative because, having created a “hand-holding” arrangement between national CSOs and the local women’s collectives, it enabled their combined engagement directly into the development of Uganda’s second National Development Plan.102 In Viet Nam the LGBT leadership programme, ViLEAD, was commended for an initiative that gave 7

smaller and disparate lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) groups the opportunity to design, manage and evaluate their own activities under the mentorship of experienced LGBTI campaigners, and using modest financial support from the project. The evaluation described the approach as a welcome departure from the traditional capacitybuilding model, in which CSOs receive training but limited support for the application of new capacities. This broader view of civil society is often combined with a better understanding of the time required to ensure harderto-reach groups can participate. In the Western Balkans, UNDP recognized that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic threatened their intention to go beyond the “usual suspects” and work with CSOs representing rural youth. As part of its application process, UNDP formed a first pool of youth groups that showed willingness to work with other youth groups and capacitated them on the basis that they would train other groups within their regions at a later stage. A NORAD funded international NGO applies an even longer-term approach; by partnering with the weakest organizations in districts with the highest levels of poverty and fewest donors, it intentionally supports the growth of smaller CSOs through the relationship. These approaches contrast with a shorter-term focus on delivering project objectives, where CSO organizations are selected for their ability to deliver, often having met application and compliance requirements. In Jamaica, for example, a UNDP project on local safety and crime prevention succeeded in most of its project outputs because it selected well-established parish councils and other implementation partners. Although successful at the output level, the project has limited success in encouraging the CSOs to expand their focus on gender equality, despite having courses and a manual on gender issues.103

Tailored grant mechanisms for CSOs can be an effective way to translate international goals to local contexts, if the application process is managed to ensure smaller organizations can participate.

The EU’s civil society and local authorities programme developed national roadmaps to tailor the global programme to the needs of national civil societies in 118 developing countries.104 The roadmaps were created with umbrella or apex CSOs, with limited participation of groups beyond capital cities. However, the programme was commended for reaching remote, vulnerable and marginalized groups through separate calls for project proposals and on-granting to smaller CSOs. Over successive iterations, the programme improved the gender focus of the national programme, first by launching a call for gender-specific initiatives and later by requiring gender to be mainstreamed in all applications. The same approach, however, did not improve a focus on climate vulnerabilities in grant applications. The Climate Investment Funds’ Forest Investment Program set up a dedicated grant mechanism to channel resources to initiatives designed by indigenous peoples and local communities. In each country, the mechanism comprises a national steering committee of indigenous and local representatives which is supported administratively by an international NGO. The national committees found that local groups can be excluded or co-opted by organizations that are more able to apply for project funds and therefore modified their granting approach to include a capacity-building component for project design at the community level, a grievance redress mechanism, and, in some countries, partially restricting the application process.105 Similar to the GEF Small Grants Programme, the Forest Investment Program’s mechanism was found to be a successful means of channelling resources to poorer groups, but required greater and extended emphasis to ensure funded projects reflect gender needs and socially excluded groups.106

Elite capture contradicts the LNOB principle, but not enough is understood about the ways to promote representative CSO governance models.

The United National Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) operational guidance on LNOB recognizes the value of working with women’s groups, minority communities, human rights defenders and other groups and associations that directly engage those at risk of being left behind, but notes that UN country teams should be mindful of elite capture “where only a small, privileged part of the group has a voice [, which] is likely not representative of everyone.”107 None of the UNDP evaluations reviewed focus on whether CSOs have appropriate governance or consultation mechanisms to ensure that they represent and address the perspectives of people at risk of being left behind. Certain reports note that individual CSOs can dominate associations, or that particular households or groups are more able to benefit from CSO activities than others (Kenya,108 Zimbabwe109). However, large-scale quantitative research in Indonesia suggests there can be marginal economic difference between the people that are considered elite and non-elite at the local level, and demonstrates that the amounts diverted away from the poorest groups are minimal compared with the cost of administrative delays.110 It also draws attention to the role of local leaders in arranging support for the poorest, an area highlighted by research in conflict areas of Mozambique, Pakistan, and Myanmar.111 The latter suggests marginalized groups that are wary of engagement with official processes can maintain a level of service access and voice via “intermediaries”, often people with a strong connection to the locality and social standing conferred by current or past engagement in politics or civic activities. Both pieces of research note that these intermediaries have long been considered as “gate keepers” by development organizations, but they call for a reassessment on a case-by-case basis. In this vein, an evaluation of a UNDP project in Cambodia notes the strong role played by an individual CSO leader in promoting disability rights and accessing provincial political forums. Rather than suggesting personalized approaches be limited, it recommends the lessons about leadership be transferred to other local organizations. CSO funders have recognised weaknesses in CSO legitimacy and internal governance112 and research has drawn attention to the long-term failure of CSOs with “internal structures and external relationships that encouraged elite capture, cooption and personalised leadership.”113 However, what constitutes a representative CSO is not clearly defined. The evaluation of Sida’s programme found that the criterion that CSOs be membership-based was insufficient, noting that the donor relied on international CSO partners to assess accountability, transparency, representation, legitimacy and internal democracy.114

CSOs are often taken as a proxy when donors seek to identify those risk of being left behind. This is a good way to reach people who face discrimination until data safeguards are advanced.

The UNSDG operational guide for LNOB notes that CSOs can offer “people-centred” data that highlight the challenges faced by people at risk of being left behind and can be integrated with deeper socio-economic analysis to improve national statistics and development planning, where these groups are often invisible. The 2017-2018 SDG voluntary national review processes in Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Nepal, and Viet Nam, were seen as positive examples of integration between LNOB analysis and CSO perspectives, though with an acknowledged need to improve the inclusion of marginalized perspectives and for official recognition of the data contribution that communities and volunteers can make. 115 In a few contexts, emerging CSO projects focus on understanding data value chains, from generation to use, 9

and the role of CSOs as potential intermediaries, “infomediaries” or advocates to attract government interest in such data and influence SDG programming.116 At the programming level, however, there remains a disconnect between SDGs and CSO data, and without a standard protocol, practice varies by country and organizations.117 The evaluations reviewed provide few positive examples of integrating CSO data into SDG or other national planning. A mid-term evaluation of UNDP’s SDGs accelerator project in Pakistan118 recognized the gap and recommended the replication of good practice from one region, where provincial statistics departments identified the furthest-behind districts, and local SDG committees worked with CSOs and communities to offer appropriate services and monitor discrimination. In Somalia,119 UNDP was recommended to improve its targeting of vulnerable groups through consultations with CSOs, and to use a citizens score card as a means of tracking progress and identifying government capacity needs. The evaluations reviewed highlight several challenges with CSO data (Bosnia and Herzegovina,120 Fiji,121 Maldives122, Sri Lanka,123 Tanzania124). An evaluation of NORAD’s support to civil society notes that “data [from national CSO partners] are weak in terms of the numbers of people assisted by projects, because it has not been a priority for the organisations to gather such data.” In some UNDP evaluations the deprioritizing of data is attributed to the project management unit rather than exclusively the CSOs (Sri Lanka,125 Tanzania126). In Georgia, a rural development project intentionally did not ask CSOs for data on the participation of vulnerable groups because of the sensitivities surrounding conflict-affected people and ethnic minorities.127 However, CSO processes for targeting and monitoring are underexplored in the evaluations reviewed, which often report that CSOs are reaching those at risk of being left behind when the organization operates in neglected geographic areas and has a focus on poverty or on disability, youth, ethnicity or gender rights (Kenya,128 Montenegro,129 Palestine,130 Timor Leste131). Concerns are raised when whole and visible sections of society are excluded by a project (China132), and deeper consideration is occasionally given to how CSOs target and report on gender. Whilst data limitations reduce the ability to understand whether CSOs (and local governments) reach the furthest behind first, the examples throughout this paper show that CSOs are playing visible roles on behalf of key groups. Furthermore, the potential to use CSO data to understand whether all people at risk of being left behind are being reached should be balanced against the administrative expense (See Reflections 4 above) and safeguarding risks. Certain evaluations highlight that excluded groups may have reservations about using processes that capture their data (Rwanda,133 Jordan134), which reinforces wider concerns raised by civil society actors.135

REFERENCES

UNDP, ‘What Does It Mean to Leave No One Behind?’, A UNDP discussion paper and framework for implementation, 2018, https://www1.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Sustainable%20Development/2030%20Agenda/Discussion_Paper _LNOB_EN_lres.pdf. 2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Co-operation Report 2018, Joining Forces to Leave No One Behind, OECD Publishing, Paris 2018, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2018-en 3 The UNSDG LNOB Operational Guide for UN county teams states that governments remain the duty bearers for ensuring all people benefit but that CSOs play a key role in identifying people at risk of being left behind and reaching them with services. 4 The paper does not directly cover the effectiveness or impact of specific CSO services, given the multitude of support they provide in nearly all development sectors. 5 Rapid evidence assessment (REA) is a process of bringing together information and knowledge from a range of sources to inform debates and urgent policy decisions on specific issues. Like better-known systematic reviews, REAs synthesize the findings of single studies following a standard protocol but do not analyse the full literature on a topic: REAs make concessions in relation to the breadth, depth and comprehensiveness of the search to produce a quicker result. 6 External literature was sourced through: 1) a keyword search of online academic journals and the evaluation repositories of bilateral donor agencies with significant civil society programmes since 2012; and 2) expert guidance for additional material during a review of the draft paper. All external sources used as evidence were screened for their thematic relevance and against the following quality criteria: clarity of evaluation questions; inclusion of context analysis; strength of study design; link between findings, conclusion, recommendations; treatment of gender consideration; and transparency on design weaknesses. 7 UNDP, ‘What Does It Mean to Leave No One Behind?’, A UNDP discussion paper and framework for implementation, 2018, https://www1.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Sustainable%20Development/2030%20Agenda/Discussion_Paper _LNOB_EN_lres.pdf 8 CIVICUS, ‘2021 State of Civil Society Report, 2021’, Johannesburg 2022, https://civicus.org/state-of-civil-societyreport-2021/ 9 Iffat Idris, ‘LGBT rights and inclusion in Small Island Developing States (SIDS)’, K4D Helpdesk Report 970, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton 2021, https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/16572 10 Colin Anderson and others, ‘Against the odds: Action for empowerment and accountability in challenging contexts’, A4EA Policy and Practice Paper, Brighton, Institute of Development Studies, 2022, https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/17189/A4EA_Against_the_Odds_Sm.pdf?sequ ence=7&isAllowed=y 11 UNDP Iraq, ‘Outcome Evaluation of Country Programme Outcome 2, Enhanced rule of law, protection and respect for human rights in line with international standards’, UNDP 2013, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6217

Mallika R. Samaranayake and Shaufa A. Saeed, ‘Outcome Evaluation on UNDP’s Engagement with Civil Society Actors and Mechanisms, Including Small Grant Schemes, between 2008 – 2021’, UNDP Maldives, 2012, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5808 13 Nisar Ahmad Khan, Rishikesh Wagle and Sarmila Shrestha, ‘Final Evaluation of Enabling Access to Justice through Institutional Reform in Nepal, (A2J Project: 2018-2020)’, UNDP Nepal, 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12422 14 UNDP Philippines, ‘Terminal Evaluation Report, Accelerating the BUB through Inclusive and Effective Governance, 2020’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/10059. 15 Craig Naumann and Geoffrey Batali, ‘Final Report, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Country Programme Document (CDP)’, UNDP South Sudan, 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19372 16 Cliff Bernard Nuwakora, ´Rule of Law and Access to Justice Programme Evaluation, Final Evaluation Report´, UNDP UNDP Sierra Leon, 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12312 17 UNDP Sri Lanka, ‘Final Evaluation of Promoting Reconciliation’, 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13076 18 NIRAS ‘Mid-term evaluation of Strengthening Rule of Law and Human Rights to Empower People in Tajikistan’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland,2016, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8254 19 Nisar Ahmad Khan and Kusumal Rachawong, ‘Evaluation Report of UNDP Thailand Country Programme Document (2017-2021)’, UNDP Thailand, 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8799 20 M. Selim Kharat, UNDP Tunisia: ‘Evaluation à mi-parcours du projet: Tamkeen pour la promotion de la citoyenneté, le renforcement de la cohésion sociale et de la société civile’, UNDP Tunisia, 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8931 21 Oliver Chapeyama and Lilian Goredema, ‘Scaling Up Adaptation in Zimbabwe with a Focus on Rural Livelihoods, Terminal Evaluation’, UNDP Zimbabwe 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/13707 22 UNDP and International Civil Society Action Network, ‘Invisible Women: Gendered Dimension of Return, Rehabilitation and Reintegration from Violent Extremism’, UNDP 2019, https://www1.undp.org/content/oslogovernance-centre/en/home/library/undp-ican-report.html 23 Elida Metaj, ‘Final Evaluation Report of the UN Joint Programme “Empowering Vulnerable Local Communities in Albania’’’, UNDP Albania 2013, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5984 24 Mazingira Consultants, ‘End of Project Evaluation “Towards a Greater Citizenry Participation in Swaziland, Final Report’ UNDP Eswatini, 2012, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5692 25 UNDP Myanmar, ‘Mid-term External Evaluation of UNDP ́s Country Programme Document (2018-2022) in Myanmar’, UNDP 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/18828 26 UNDP Independent Evaluation Office, ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation, South Sudan’, UNDP South Sudan, 2022, http://web.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/adr/south_sudan.shtml 27 UNDP Uganda, ‘Final Evaluation of the United Nations Joint Programme for Gender Equality in Uganda’, 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7241 28 UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovnia, Final Evaluation of the Regional Programme on Local Democracy in the Western Balkans, UNDP 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8529 29 Tomislav Novivic and Olivera Komar, ‘Final Evaluation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for Montenegro 2017-2021’, UNDP Montenegro 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9254 30 UNDP Timor Leste, ‘Final Evaluation Report, JSP lV, 2020’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12338

Elida Metaj, ‘Final Evaluation Report of the UN Joint Programme “Empowering Vulnerable Local Communities in Albania”’, UNDP Albania 2013, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5984 32 Marika Djolai and Samra Suskic-Basic, ‘External Evaluation Report Project, “Evaluation Report Project: “Strengthening the Role of Local Communities/Mjesne Zajednice in Bosnia and Herzegovina 2015–2019”’, UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7878 33 UNDP Iraq: ‘UNDP Outcome Evaluation on: Enhanced rule of law, protection and respect for human rights in line with international standards’, UNDP 2013, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6217 34 UNDP Sri Lanka, ‘Mid-term Evaluation cum Strategic Direction Setting of UNDP’s Portfolio on SDG 16- Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’, 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12680 35 Craig Naumann and Batali Geoffrey, ‘Final Report, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Country Programme Document (CDP), UNDP South Sudan’, 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19372 36 Eric Buhl-Nielsen and others, ‘Evaluation of the Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities thematic programme (2014-2019), Main Report – volume 1’, Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/system/files/evaluationcso-la-thematic-programme-2014-2019-main-report_en.pdf 37 UNDP Iraq, ‘Outcome Evaluation of Country Programme Outcome 2, Enhanced rule of law, protection and respect for human rights in line with international standards’, UNDP 2013, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6217 38 UNDP Independent Evaluation Office, ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation, South Sudan’, UNDP South Sudan, 2022, http://web.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/adr/south_sudan.shtml 39 UNDP Nepal: Evaluation of Strengthening the Rule of law and Human Rights Protection System in Nepal’, UNDP Nepal 2015 https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/9470 40 UNDP Kazakhstan, ‘Outcome Evaluation in Civic Engagement’, 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/4705 41 P. Madhava Rao, ‘Final Evaluation of the Programme “Strengthening Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) for Responsive and Accountable Governance in Rwanda’’’, UNDP Rwanda 2017, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6911 42 Cliff Bernard Nuwakora, ´Rule of Law and Access to Justice Programme Evaluation, Final Evaluation Report´, UNDP UNDP Sierra Leone, 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12312 43 Robeela Bangash and Ahmed Hussain Naqav, ‘Sustainable Development through Peace Building, Governance and Economic Recovery in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Mid-Term Review Report’, UNDP Pakistan 2011, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5252 . 44 UNDP Uganda, ‘Final Evaluation of the United Nations Joint Programme for Gender Equality in Uganda’, 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7241 45 Richard H. Langan ll and others, ‘UNDP Nepal: Evaluation of Strengthening the Rule of law and Human Rights Protection System in Nepal’, UNDP Nepal 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/9470 46 James Jesse and Evelyn Mwaipopo, ‘Mid-term Evaluation Report on Strengthening Access to Justice and Human Rights Protection Project in Tanzania’, UNDP Tanzania 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12720 47 UNDP Bureau for Policy and Programme Support: ‘Evaluation of the UNDP Global Human Rights Strengthening Programme’, UNDP 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7741

Annika Nilsson and others, ‘Evaluation of IBON International and the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) Project’, Sida 2019, https://csopartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Sida-DecentralisedEvaluation.pdf 49 David Lewis, ‘Organising and Representing the Poor in a Clientelistic Democracy: the Decline of Radical NGOs in Bangladesh’, Journal of Development Studies, 2017, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220388.2017.1279732 50 Marika Djolai and Samra Suskic-Basic, ‘External Evaluation Report Project, “Evaluation Report Project: “Strengthening the Role of Local Communities/Mjesne Zajednice in Bosnia and Herzegovina 2015–2019”’, UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7878 51 UNDP Kenya: ‘Mid -Term Evaluation of the Amkeni Wakenya Project 2015-2020’, UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13283 52 Tomislav Novivic and Olivera Komar, ‘Final Evaluation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for Montenegro 2017-2021’, UNDP Montenegro 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9254 53 John Mugabe, ‘UNDP's Decentralization and Local Development Programme in Mozambique, Evaluation Report‘, UNDP Mozambique 2012, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/4508 54 Riyada Consulting and Training, ‘Support to the Role of Civil Society Organization and Youth in Local Public Oversight’, UNDP Programme Assistance to the Palestinian People: 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7903 55 P. Madhava Rao, ‘Final Evaluation of the Programme “Strengthening Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) for Responsive and Accountable Governance in Rwanda’’’, UNDP Rwanda 2017, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6911. 56 M. Selim Kharat, UNDP Tunisia: ‘Evaluation à mi-parcours du projet: Tamkeen pour la promotion de la citoyenneté, le renforcement de la cohésion sociale et de la société civile’, UNDP Tunisia, 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8931 57 e-Pact, ‘Macro Evaluation of DFID’s Policy Frame for Empowerment and Accountability’, 2016, https://itad.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/EA-Macro-Evaluation-Technical-report-Dec16-FINAL.pdf 58 Sophie King & Sam Hickey: ‘Building Democracy from Below: Lessons from Western Uganda’, The Journal of Development Studies , Vol. 53, No.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1214719 59 Riyada Consulting and Training, ‘Support to the Role of Civil Society Organization and Youth in Local Public Oversight’, UNDP Programme Assistance to the Palestinian People, 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7903 60 Ryan Knox, ‘Evaluation of Project on Youth Participation in Local Governance’, UNDP Jordan,2014, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6331 61 Riyada Consulting and Training, ‘Support to the Role of Civil Society Organization and Youth in Local Public Oversight’, UNDP Programme Assistance to the Palestinian People: 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7903 62 UNDP Kenya: ‘Mid -Term Evaluation of the Amkeni Wakenya Project 2015-2020’, UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13283 63 World Bank, World Development Report 2017, Governance and the Law, 2018, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017

Marika Djolai and Samra Suskic-Basic, ‘External Evaluation Report Project, “Evaluation Report Project: “Strengthening the Role of Local Communities/Mjesne Zajednice in Bosnia and Herzegovina 2015–2019”’, UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7878 65 Mazingira Consultants, ‘End of Project Evaluation “Towards a Greater Citizenry Participation in Swaziland”, Final Report’ UNDP Eswatini, 2012, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5692 66 Mazingira Consultants, ‘End of Project Evaluation “Towards a Greater Citizenry Participation in Swaziland”, Final Report’ UNDP Eswatini, 2012, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5692 67 Zehra Kacapor-Dzihic, ‘Evaluation of the UNDP Project “Enabling civil society to play a greater role in advancing gender equality and women’s rights’’’, UNDP Azerbaijan 2018, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8270 68 Marika Djolai and Samra Suskic-Basic, ‘External Evaluation Report Project, “Evaluation Report Project: “Strengthening the Role of Local Communities/Mjesne Zajednice in Bosnia and Herzegovina 2015–2019”’, UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7878 69 Gheorghe Caraseni, ‘Project to Support the Leading the Way for Gender Equality Programme (March 2017September 2019) Mid-Term Evaluation Report’, UNDP Cambodia 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/10009 70 UNDP Kenya: ‘Mid -Term Evaluation of the Amkeni Wakenya Project 2015-2020’, UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13283 71 UNDP Philippines, ‘Terminal Evaluation Report, Accelerating the BUB through Inclusive and Effective Governance, 2020’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/10059 72 UNDP Sri Lanka, ‘Mid-term Evaluation cum Strategic Direction Setting of UNDP’s Portfolio on SDG 16- Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’, 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12680 73 Niras, ‘Mid-term evaluation of Strengthening Rule of Law and Human Rights to Empower People in Tajikistan’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland 2016, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8254 74 UNDP’s research with the International Civil Society Network notes that in crisis contexts ‘locally rooted women-led CSOs are often the first to be alerted […] and are at the front lines of responding to the complex challenges faced by women and girl returnees’. UNDP and International Civil Society Action Network, ‘Invisible Women: Gendered Dimensions of Return, Rehabilitation and Reintegration from Violent Extremism’, UNDP 2019, https://www1.undp.org/content/oslo-governance-centre/en/home/library/undp-ican-report.html 75 The programme operated in 118 developing countries between 2014-2019, with an allocation of approximately Euro 1.9 billion. 76 Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission: ‘Evaluation of the Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities thematic programme (2014-2019), Main Report – volume 1’, European Commission 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/system/files/evaluation-cso-la-thematicprogramme-2014-2019-main-report_en.pdf 77 Elida Metaj, ‘Final Evaluation Report of the UN Joint Programme “Empowering Vulnerable Local Communities in Albania”’, UNDP Albania 2013, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5984 78 Mallika R. Samaranayake and Shaufa A. Saeed, ‘Outcome Evaluation on UNDP’s Engagement with Civil Society Actors and Mechanisms, Including Small Grant Schemes, between 2008 – 2021’, UNDP Maldives, 2012, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5808 79 Lawrence Robertson, ´Independent End Evaluation, Strengthening the Electoral Cycle in the Solomon Islands Project Phase II (SESCIP II)´, UNDP Solomon Islands 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/18818

Craig Naumann and Batali Geoffrey, ‘Final Report, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Country Programme Document (CDP)’, UNDP South Sudan, 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19372 81 Ampai Harakunarak, ´Mid-Term Review, UNDP Country Programme Document for Thailand 2017 – 2021. Final Report´, UNDP Thailand 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/18490. 82 UNDP Kenya: ‘Terminal Evaluation Report for the project Enhancing Wildlife Conservation in the Productive Southern Rangelands through a Landscape Approach, 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/11115 83 Riyada Consulting and Training, ‘Support to the Role of Civil Society Organization and Youth in Local Public Oversight’, UNDP Programme Assistance to the Palestinian People, 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7903 84 M. Selim Kharat, UNDP Tunisia: ‘Evaluation à mi-parcours du projet: Tamkeen pour la promotion de la citoyenneté, le renforcement de la cohésion sociale et de la société civile’, UNDP Tunisia, 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8931 85 Zehra Kacapor-Dzihic, ‘Evaluation of the UNDP Project “Enabling civil society to play a greater role in advancing gender equality and women’s rights’, UNDP Azerbaijan 2018, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8270 86 P. Madhava Rao, ‘Final Evaluation of the Programme ‘Strengthening Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) for Responsive and Accountable Governance in Rwanda’’’, UNDP Rwanda 2017, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6911 87 Nicola Banks, David Hulme, and Michael Edwards, ‘NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited: Still Too Close for Comfort?’, World Development, Vol. 66, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.028. 88 Masooda Bano, ‘Dangerous Correlations: Aid's Impact on NGOs' Performance and Ability to Mobilize Members in Pakistan’, World Development, Vol. 36, No. 11 2008, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X08001009 89 UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Review, Tanzania’, UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12777 90 K. Barnes and others, ‘Understanding Governance from the Margins: What Does it Mean in Practice?’, A4EA Policy and Practice Paper, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2021, DOI: 10.19088/A4EA.2021.003. 91 Annika Nilsson and others, ‘Evaluation of IBON International and the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) Project’, Sida 2019, https://csopartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Sida-DecentralisedEvaluation.pdf 92 Nicola Banks, David Hulme, and Michael Edwards, ‘NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited: Still Too Close for Comfort?’, World Development, Vol. 66, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.028 93 World Bank, World Development Report 2017, Governance and the Law, 2018, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017 94 UNDP Independent Evaluation Office, ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation, Honduras’, UNDP 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12840 . 95 P. Madhava Rao, ‘Final Evaluation of the Programme “Strengthening Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) for Responsive and Accountable Governance in Rwanda’’’, UNDP Rwanda 2017, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6911 96 Sida, ‘Final Evaluation of the UNDP Projects Funded by Sida to Support Human Rights and Civic Education in Kenya, 2007’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/2985 97 UNDP Independent Evaluation Office, ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation, Haiti’, UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12782

UNDP Philippines, ‘Terminal Evaluation Report, Accelerating the BUB through Inclusive and Effective Governance, 2020’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/10059 99 UNDP/UNICEF/WHO, ‘Final Evaluation: Promoting Reconciliation in Sri Lanka’, UNDP 2021 https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13076. 100 UNDP Uganda, ‘Final Evaluation of the United Nations Joint Programme for Gender Equality in Uganda’, 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7241 101 UNDP Viet Nam: ‘Final Evaluation Report: Support to Strengthen Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) CSOs in Viet Nam’, UNDP 2016, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7870 102 UNDP Uganda, ‘Final Evaluation of the United Nations Joint Programme for Gender Equality in Uganda’, 2015, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7241 103 Kevin St Croix Morrison, ‘Evaluation Report for Enhancing Civil Society Participation in Local Governance for Community Safety’, UNDP Jamaica: 2014, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6111 104 Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission: ‘Evaluation of the Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities thematic programme (2014-2019), Main Report – volume 1’, European Commission 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/system/files/evaluation-cso-la-thematicprogramme-2014-2019-main-report_en.pdf 105 Boru Douthwaite and others, ‘A Learning Review of the Dedicated Grant Mechanism (DGM) for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in the Forest Investment Program (FIP) of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF)’, ITAD 2019, https://www.itad.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DGM-Learning-review_Jan26_final_withmanagementstatement1.pdf 106 UNDP Independent Evaluation Office and Global Environment Facility Independent Evaluation Office, ‘Third Joint GEF-UNDP Evaluation of the Small Grants Programme’, UNDP and GEF 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/18857 107 United Nations Sustainable Development Group, ‘Leaving No One Behind: A UNSDG Operational Guide for UN Country Teams, Interim Draft’, UNSDG 2019, https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/Interim-Draft-OperationalGuide-on-LNOB-for-UNCTs.pdf 108 UNDP Kenya: ‘Terminal Evaluation Report for the project “Enhancing Wildlife Conservation in the Productive Southern Rangelands through a Landscape Approach”’, 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/11115 109 Oliver Chapeyama and Lilian Goredema, ‘Scaling Up Adaptation in Zimbabwe with a Focus on Rural Livelihoods, Terminal Evaluation’, UNDP Zimbabwe 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/13707 110 Vivi Alatas and others, ‘Does Elite Capture Matter? Local Elites and Targeted Welfare Programs in Indonesia’, AEA Papers and Proceedings, Vol 109, 2019, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20191047 111 C. Anderson and others, ‘Against the Odds: Action for Empowerment and Accountability in Challenging Contexts’, A4EA Policy and Practice Paper, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2022, https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/against-the-odds-action-for-empowerment-and-accountability-in-challengingcontexts/ 112 Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission: ‘Evaluation of the Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities thematic programme (2014-2019), Main Report – volume 1’, European Commission 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/system/files/evaluation-cso-la-thematicprogramme-2014-2019-main-report_en.pdf 113 E. A. Brett, ‘Representation and exclusion in partial democracies: the role of civil society

organisations’, The Journal of Development Studies, 2017, https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/83208/1/Brett_Representation%20and%20Exclusion_2017.pdf 114 Annika Nilsson and others, ‘Evaluation of IBON International and the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) Project’, Sida 2019, https://csopartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Sida-DecentralisedEvaluation.pdf 115 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ‘Development Co-operation Report 2018, Joining Forces to Leave No One Behind’, OECD 2018, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2018-en 116 See for example: Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data: ´Citizen-generated data in Kenya´, Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data 2021’, https://www.data4sdgs.org/resources/citizen-generated-datakenya-practical-guide 117 For further discussion, see: International Civil Society Center, ‘HLPF Side Event Explores Role of Community-driven Data for Leaving No One Behind’, SDG Knowledge Hub 2020, https://sdg.iisd.org/news/hlpf-side-event-explores-roleof-community-driven-data-for-leaving-no-one-behind/ 118 Tariq Husain, ‘National Initiative and Mainstreaming, Acceleration and Policy Support for Sustainable Development Goals Pakistan’, UNDP Pakistan: 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9573 119 Francesca Del Mese, ‘Joint Rule of Law Programme Evaluation’, UNDP Somalia, 2018, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9060 120 Marika Djolai and Samra Suskic-Basic, ‘External Evaluation Report Project, “Evaluation Report Project: “Strengthening the Role of Local Communities/Mjesne Zajednice in Bosnia and Herzegovina 2015–2019”’, UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7878 121 Cécile Collin and Akuila Masi, ‘Final Evaluation of UNDP Fiji Access to Justice Report’, UNDP Fiji 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9766 122 122 Mallika R. Samaranayake and Shaufa A. Saeed, ‘Outcome Evaluation on UNDP’s Engagement with Civil Society Actors and Mechanisms, Including Small Grant Schemes, between 2008 – 2021’, UNDP Maldives, 2012, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5808 123 UNDP/UNICEF/WHO, ‘Final Evaluation: Promoting Reconciliation in Sri Lanka’, UNDP 2021 https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13076 124 James Jesse and Evelyn Mwaipopo, ‘Mid-term Evaluation Report on Strengthening Access to Justice and Human Rights Protection Project in Tanzania’, UNDP Tanzania 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12720 125 UNDP/UNICEF/WHO, ‘Final Evaluation: Promoting Reconciliation in Sri Lanka’, UNDP 2021 https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13076 126 James Jesse and Evelyn Mwaipopo, ‘Mid-term Evaluation Report on Strengthening Access to Justice and Human Rights Protection Project in Tanzania’, UNDP Tanzania 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12720 127 Hamid R. Chaudhry and Kartlos Gviniashvili, ‘Terminal Evaluation of Support to Rural Development in Georgia’, UNDP 2018, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/12460 128 UNDP Kenya: ‘Mid -Term Evaluation of the Amkeni Wakenya Project 2015-2020’, UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13283 129 Tomislav Novivic and Olivera Komar, ‘Final Evaluation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for Montenegro 2017-2021’ UNDP Montenegro 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12957

130

Riyada Consulting and Training, ‘Support to Education in East Jerusalem’, UNDP 2020, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/11138 131 UNDP Timor Leste, ‘Final Evaluation Report, JSP lV, 2020’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12338 132 Madhav Karki and Rong Dai, ‘Terminal Evaluation Report, Payment for Watershed Services in the Chishui River Basin for the Conservation of Globally Significant Biodiversity’, UNDP China 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/11264 133 UNDP Rwanda: ‘Inclusive Participation in Governance Programme’, UNDP 2013, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6905 134 Ryan Knox, ‘Evaluation of Project on Youth Participation in Local Governance’, UNDP Jordan,2014, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/6331 135 For further discussion, see: International Civil Society Center: ‘HLPF Side Event Explores Role of Community Driven Data for Leaving No One Behind’, SDG Knowledge Hub 2020, https://sdg.iisd.org/news/hlpf-side-event-explores-roleof-community-driven-data-for-leaving-no-one-behind/