3.1 Conclusions Conclusion 1. The country office achieved mixed results, with strong variation between programmatic areas, which reflects the inherent challenges of operating in a highly volatile environment. While UNDP was relatively successful in delivering many of its desired products and outputs, higher-level results were less often achieved. Limited national capacity and ownership hampered the likelihood of sustainability, and UNDP approaches often had a relatively limited prospect of contributing to more transformational results. UNDP operated in an extremely challenging context, characterized by chronic insecurity, poor or non-existent infrastructure, the absence of a banking system outside of the three main cities, a lack of reliable goods and service providers, and limited or non-existent State authority and presence in large portions of the country. With the additional issue of the landlocked nature of the country, procurement processes were costly and lengthy, and this was exacerbated by disruptions in global value chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. The cost of reaching a beneficiary or achieving an objective in such a context is significantly higher in CAR than in any other country. This partly explains why UNDP was more effective when operating at upstream level (working with government institutions in the capital) than downstream (at community level outside the capital). UNDP institutional support was often oriented towards infrastructure rehabilitation, construction and the provision of equipment, an approach that is aligned to UNDP capacity to support administrative and procurement processes. The limited absorptive capacity of government counterparts also led the country office to resort to capacity substitution in order to provide support to the immediate needs of key government institutions and move initiatives forward. While the relevance of this type of support cannot be questioned in this specific context, it did not address the root causes of State inefficiencies. While UNDP alone is not accountable for strengthening State authority and the rule of law in a sustainable manner, there is scope for a wider reflection on State-building and peacebuilding strategies, in coordination with the Government, civil society and the international community. At downstream level, UNDP resilience-building work was hampered by the short-term, small-scale, geographically and programmatically fragmented nature of its interventions. Resilience-building is a transformative process that encompasses more than short-term emergency employment, but requires “strengthening the capacity of people, communities and countries to anticipate, manage, recover and transform from shocks.” As such, it calls for a systemic and multisectoral approach to development. Attempts to tie together these downstream interventions with decentralization and local governance efforts yielded limited results, as progress on RESA were hampered by the recurrence of armed violence, and the inherent challenges of operating in remote locations that lack basic transport, security and financial infrastructure. This context, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, significantly delayed the implementation of projects related to energy and climate change. Furthermore, UNDP did not capitalize on vertical funds to catalyse livelihoods outcomes while also tackling environment, energy and climate change adaptation. Conclusion 2. The UNDP presence and operations in CAR constitute an essential part of the recovery, peacebuilding and development efforts of the international community in support to the CAR Government. The UNDP contribution was most appreciated in facilitating the 2021 electoral process and supporting the rule of law, where its role in strengthening the justice and security sectors in coordination with MINUSCA has been critical. The evaluation concludes that the UNDP country programme was aligned with the national priorities laid out in the RCPCA, and clearly responded to the needs of Central Africans.
Chapter 3. Conclusions and recommendations
48
