This chapter presents the evaluation conclusions on UNDP performance and contributions to development results in Moldova, recommendations and the management response.
3.1 Conclusions Conclusion 1. UNDP is strategically positioned to support development in Moldova and is trusted by the Government of Moldova and international partners. Its value proposition lies in both its responsiveness to government development priorities and its ability to address cross-sectoral capacity gaps. UNDP work in Moldova has been well aligned and responsive to national priorities, and UNDP has served as a strategic and trusted partner in the fulfilment of international and national commitments in the areas of human rights, environment, social cohesion and human development. The UNDP value proposition has been its ability to respond fairly quickly to the needs and demands of the Government and partners (including from the private sector). UNDP technical expertise, policy and legislative-level actions, outreach and resource mobilization capacity are particularly appreciated, as well as its wide-ranging, cross-sectoral, institutional capacity-building interventions. While UNDP is recognized for its support to address development challenges in Moldova, the continuity and scale-up of strategic reforms and initiatives by the Government depends on strong and broad multi-stakeholder coalitions and dialogue platforms to enable decision-makers to listen to, understand and act on the needs of citizens, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups. Some of the broader challenges that UNDP has and will continue to face include the COVID-19 recovery, political instability, inconsistent and insufficient government commitment and capacity to advance systemic reforms, economic hardship, migration and uncertain development in Transnistria. Such complexities will influence shifts or changes in government priorities, which calls for stronger collaboration among United Nations agencies using the UNPFSD as a mechanism for prioritizing work in Moldova so that all agencies can best add value working together. Conclusion 2. UNDP was successful in advancing technical and capacity-building solutions to promote good governance, but more systemic reforms were constrained by the frequently changing political landscape and limited political commitment. Continued UNDP support in the area of good governance has contributed to the capacity-strengthening of core institutions, but these efforts have been constrained by a frequently changing and unstable political environment and did not fully contribute to addressing systemic issues in sensitive areas such as anticorruption and justice reform. The systemic reform of institutions can range from improving the policy cycle, use of data for decision-making, advancement of digital solutions and strengthening the technical capacity of line ministries. Without this type of intervention it may be difficult to achieve rapid economic and social recovery, or long-term human development. There is momentum for advancing accountability, transparency and participation through digitalization to ensure that no one is left behind. In addition, capitalizing on extensive UNDP experience, there are opportunities to get more deeply involved in decentralization policy and local capacity-building in the country. Conclusion 3. UNDP has played a significant role in multiple aspects of confidence-building in Transnistria. Some solutions that were effectively introduced have considerable potential for broader scale-up and nationwide implementation. UNDP has developed a highly successful model of confidence-building across both banks of the Nistru River. UNDP had continuous local presence and ensured the systematic buy-in of key actors on both riverbanks from the earliest stages, to define common priorities and development needs and implement practical win-win and conflict-sensitive solutions. In this way, UNDP ensured the success of its measures in
Chpater 3. Conclusions, Recommendations and Management Response
47
