PEACE AND GOVERNANCE PROGRAM (USAID/PGP) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT April 2015 Evaluation team Hillary Thomas-Lake, PhD, General Coordinator Ousmane Sané, JD, Team Leader Ibrahima Dia, Field Coordinator Mamour Ngalane, Evaluator Gnambi Sonko, Evaluator Babacar Buuba Diop, PhD, Evaluator LTL  Strategies 4545  42nd  Street  NW  -­‐ Suite  306  – Washington,  DC  20016 Tel  (202)  362-­‐6800  -­‐ Fax  (202) 362-­‐6881 -­‐ www.ltlstrategies.com 2 Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 15 1. BACKGROUND OF THE PEACE AND GOVERNANCE PROGRAM............................................ 15 2. MISSION GOAL, QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 16 2.1 MISSION GOAL.......................................................................................................................................................16 2.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.......................................................................................................................................17 2.3 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................................18 2.3.1 Methodological Approach ....................................................................................................................... 18 2.3.2 Data collection method and tools ................................................................................................... 18 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................20 3.2 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................24 3.3 PARTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................25 4. COMPONENT 1: TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.................................................... 25 4.1 OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................25 4.1.1 Status of component 1 indicators................................................................................................... 25 4.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits...................................................................... 26 4.2 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................27 4.3 PARTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................27 5. COMPONENT 2: STRENGTHENING FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION..................................... 27 5.1 OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................27 5.1.1 Status of component 2 indicators................................................................................................... 27 5.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits...................................................................... 28 5.2 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................34 5.3 PARTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................34 6. COMPONENT 3 : FREE AND TRANSPARENT 2012 ELECTIONS ........................................... 35 6.1 OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................35 6.1.1 Status of component 3 indicators................................................................................................... 35 6.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits...................................................................... 35 6.2 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................40 6.3 PARTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................41 7. COMPONENT 4 : DIALOGUE AND SOCIAL STABILITY IN CASAMANCE ........................ 41 3 7.1 OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................41 7.1.1 Status of component 4 indicators................................................................................................... 41 7.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits...................................................................... 42 7.2 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................43 7.3 PARTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................44 8. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES: SYNERGY, GENDER AND COMMUNICATION....................... 45 8.1 SYNERGY ...................................................................................................................................................................45 8.1.1 Observations ..................................................................................................................................................... 45 8.1.2 Partial Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 47 8.1.3 Partial Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 47 8.2 GENDER .....................................................................................................................................................................48 8.2.1 Gender mainstreaming ............................................................................................................................ 48 8.2.2 Partial Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 50 8.2.3 Partial Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 50 8.2.4 Integration of Young People................................................................................................................ 50 8.2.5 Partial Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 51 8.2.6 Partial Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 51 8.3 COMMUNICATION...................................................................................................................................................52 8.3.1 Observations ..................................................................................................................................................... 52 8.3.2 Partial Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 53 8.3.3 Partial Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 53 9. GENERAL EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................... 53 9.1 CONCLUSIONS ON NATIONAL PERFORMANCE...........................................................................................53 9.2 CONCLUSIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ..................................................54 10. GENERAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 55 11. ANNEXES....................................................................................................................................................... 57 11.1 ANNEX 1: USAID/PGP ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ..............................................................................57 11.2 ANNEX 2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................................................................57 4 Table of figures Table 1: Component 1 indicators ...................................................................................................25 Table 2: Component 2 indicators ...................................................................................................27 Table 3: Trends of the Good Governance Index within beneficiary local governments................33 Figure 1: Examples of the trends of good governance indices.......................................................34 Table 4 : Component 3 indicators: .................................................................................................35 Table 5: Behavior of Outcome 3.1 relating to Outcome 3: Strengthened Capacity of Institutions to Supervise and Control Electoral Operations..............................................................................36 Table 6 : Distribution of Beneficiaries of the Political Leadership Training Program ..................37 Table 7 : Trends of Indicators of Component 4 .............................................................................41 Table 8 : Trends of indicators on gender mainstreaming ...............................................................48 Table 9 : Indicators on youth integration ......................................................................................50 Figure 2 : Mo Ibrahim Indicator Trends.........................................................................................53 Figure 3 : Trends of the Corruption Perception Index (CPI).........................................................54 Table 10 : Trends of tax revenue in local governments ................................................................54 Table 11 : Trends of good governance indices in local governments............................................54 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACA Association Conseil pour l’Action ANRAC National Agency for the Reconstruction of Casamance ASR Association des Régions du Sénégal ARD Regional Development Agency AST Alliance Sopi pour Toujours BBG Local Government Barometer CEDA Independent District Electoral Commission CENA Independent National Electoral Commission CNLCC Commission against non-transparency, corruption and embezzlement COAG Cooperative Agreement DGID Directorate General for Taxes and Lands DREAT Delegation for State Reform and Technical Assistance EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative GTE Elections Technical Group GTS Working and Monitoring Technical Group GTZ German Cooperation Agency MATCL Ministry of Physical Planning and Local Government MFDC Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance OFNAC National Anti-Corruption Office PDC Partners for Democratic Change PDC/Sn Partners for Democratic Change/ Senegal USAID/PGP Governance and Peace Program UEMOA West Africa Economic and Monetary Union USA United States of America USAID United States Agency for International Development UAEL Union of Associations of Locally-Elected Officers WEI World Education Inc. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mission goal: Evaluate performance to date of the USAID Peace and Governance Program (USAID/PGP). Specifically, the evaluation team was tasked with examining and assessing the suitability of project components, the rationale for project approaches adopted, the quality of overall project management, the relevance and efficiency of services rendered by Family Health International (FHI360, the USAID/PGP implementing partner), management of the needs of beneficiaries and the response provided, and overall prospects for project sustainability, upon completion. This is a performance evaluation and not an impact assessment, which operates quite differently, based on a comparison of the findings between the control group and that of the intervention group by way of counterfactual analysis. It is rather a mid-term evaluation to measure progress made towards achieving expected outcomes. In addition to evaluation outcomes, USAID/Senegal is expecting that useful knowledge may be gained from best practices, lessons learned and recommendations formulated, with the purpose of replicating quality outputs produced and designing future programs. Background of the Peace and Governance Program: USAID/PGP was launched in May 2010 at a time when all governance indices (such as the Mo Ibrahim index (give 2009 and 2010 results to show the decline), Transparency International (ditto) and others) were trending downwards. Freedom House’s Freedom in the World ratings reclassified Senegal’s ranking from “free” to “partly free”. Likewise, Senegal slid down Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index from 70th place in 2006 to 112th in 2011, confirming the country’s continuous decline in terms of these key global indicators. Equally of concern, was the situation in Casamance and the faltering peace process. It is against this backdrop that USAID initially designed the USAID/PGP project to encourage greater transparency and accountability, consolidate local governance and fiscal decentralization, support citizen participation in the 2012 electoral process, and promote dialogue for social stability in the Casamance. The project commenced with four components that ultimately had to undergo some formulation changes owing, in particular, to deep-seated differences with government authorities about the project goals, flaws in the formulation of objectives considered to be overly ambitious, and the sheer lack of synergy between the various components. The four project components are as follows: − Transparency and accountability in the mining sector, in particular; − Strengthening the local governance and fiscal decentralization process; − Strengthening the 2012 electoral process; and − Strengthening social dialogue for peace in the Casamance. Evaluation or research questions: For the purposes of this mission, the USAID/PGP evaluation team used the USAID/PGP results framework, which is based on key USAID/Senegal and country indicators adopted for this project. These same indicators are distributed among the project components. 7 The evaluators also had to answer seven (7) research questions developed by USAID/Senegal for performance evaluation of the USAID/PGP project. Each of the seven questions had sub￾questions, examples of indicators or evaluation criteria, an appropriate data source and the relevant data collection method, sampling and selection criteria, as well as an adapted data analysis method.  Question 1: To what extent can the project approach contribute to the achievement of the objectives and how suited is it to the operational environment?  Question 2: Has support for capacity strengthening produced positive outcomes at the level of local governments, national monitoring organs and community-based organizations (CBOs)?  Question 3: To what extent has the involvement of USAID/PGP in coordination and collaborative efforts with other donors or implementing partners been effective and contributed to the achievement of the expected outcomes?  Question 4: What added value has the project brought to beneficiary governance institutions?  Question 5: To what extent did the project contribute to improving the legal framework for the fight against corruption?  Question 6: To what extent has USAID/PGP developed an integrated approach for progress towards peace and the local governance components in the Casamance conflict?  Question 7: Has USAID/PGP adequately considered cross-cutting issues (in particular, gender equality, youth and communication) in project design and implementation? Methodological approach and limitations: The evaluation team used several evaluation instruments, combining quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, to fine-tune analyses. Evaluation methods used included: document review, in-depth discussions with key informants, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and surveys among informants and focus group participants. The evaluation team used these methods based on their relevance to the nature of research questions and observation units. For some questions, the team used several methods. Combining different methods made for clearing certain biases, improving the reliability of evidence and affording the team the guarantee needed to assess findings appropriately and make recommendations on the database analyzed. While the evaluation team was satisfied that the data and observations in the report were a true reflection of the views of participants, data collection must always be conducted with caution, depending on the method used. The interviewer may guide the key informants. The findings of the focus group depend on the participants and facilitators. The surveys, which used the Likert scale, have their limitations. The evaluation team was well aware of such limitations and had taken them into consideration in its analysis. Observations and conclusions: These are presented in answer to the seven key research questions predetermined by USAID/Senegal and reorganized around the four major components of the Program and cross-cutting issues. • Project management: Meetings with key informants and focus groups pointed the team to the fact that the initial program phase had been fraught with significant disruptions, which had led to delays. While those issues have been addressed, they are still perceived as a major problem by the project as a whole and also by USAID project officers. The evaluation team identified three of the major issues: First and foremost, those delays were caused by a change in the project implementing agency (USAID suspended the project 8 signed with the Academy for Educational Development (AED) two months after its inception) and a reduction in project budget at start-up (no financing for six months). • Secondly, project stakeholders had to wait for unduly lengthy periods for goods and services to be delivered. Such delays were caused by the belief within the institutions that implementation of the project was a guarantee for the delivery of goods and services and meeting the needs expressed by the beneficiaries. • Thirdly, the Senegalese authorities had a poor perception of the project, due mainly to blunders made in the formulation of some project components and deep-seated differences with government authorities about the project goals. The Ziguinchor office was closed by the police on the instruction of national authorities. These disruptions and misunderstandings led to delays in activity implementation and the strategic restructuring of the project to adjust to the new situation at hand. All our contacts, civil society organizations, community-based organizations and State partners in particular, recognized the expertise and professionalism of USAID/PGP project team members and the impact that project resources had. Nowhere was any mention made however, of capacity building sessions for the project implementation team, especially in terms of their ability to work in perfect synergy. Through the four components, the project covered the larger part of sectors targeted (local governments, civil society, State institutions, women, young people, the press, etc.) and the rate of financial implementation reached close to 74% over a period of three and half years. Performance of component 1: Transparency and accountability - The evaluation findings showed that populations and elected officials alike demonstrated a culture of participation, which is the bedrock of transparency and accountability. USAID/PGP made a decisive contribution to the establishment of the National Anti-corruption Office (OFNAC), which has been given broad powers and substantial resources to get it off the ground, and whose declaration of assets is an important element of the transparency code, designed to help improve the fight against corruption. Civil society stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs, women, young people, etc.), journalists and young reporters, and private sector players were trained and empowered to fight corruption. The team noted that in 2012, the Transparency International corruption perceptions index ranked Senegal 94th in the world, 15th in Africa, and 7th in West Africa. In 2014, Senegal leapt by 25 points to 69th place worldwide and 10th in Africa. The USAID/PGP project also contributed to Senegal’s membership to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which, apart from providing a legal and regulatory framework, is a stepping stone to greater transparency in the extractive industry. By enhancing the level of participation by young people and women in governance activities, USAID/PGP has certainly provided them a clearer and more pragmatic perception of governance. Performance of component 2: Strengthening fiscal decentralization - USAID/PGP has put in place an objective and participatory tool called the Good Governance Barometer (BBG) which ensures evaluation of the quality of governance and identification of activities to be implemented to improve it. USAID/ PGP involved all local actors, such as civil society, the public sector, private sector and development partners in the implementation of the Good Governance Barometer. The outcomes noted are quite convincing by and large, as dynamics had been set in motion and behavioral changes taken place. Good public awareness-raising and the establishment of a revenue collection structure ensured a considerable increase in the already remarkable tax 9 revenue levels of the communes (example of Yéne, Bignona and Karthiak), as shown in the table below: Local government Trends of annual tax revenues (in CFAF) 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bignona 125 234 547 141 403 005 144 224 972 160 926 506 Karthiak 13 738 238 18 594 552 21 807 927 Yenn 54 466 917 77 056 576 87 256 341 This component, however, did not perform as well as it should have, owing to: (i) the frequent changes of staff in-charge at the Ministry of Decentralization, which prevents the availability of a stable government intermediary; (ii) ownership gap on the part of the DGID regarding the position of the elected representatives on the tax reform and the risk relating to difficulties for locally-elected officials to adapt to changes in the decentralization policy over the past decade. Performance of component 3: Free, fair and transparent elections - The team stated that, in spite of the highly appreciable outcomes, the major handicap of this component was the fact that it was in the hands of IFES (a practically independent actor) and almost without the control of USAID/PGP. This fact explains why it is the only component that has not been consistently documented, although it is an important stake in the project. Many activities had been carried out, although the team was unable to have quantitative data to help them make an informed opinion. The evaluation team noted that USAID/PGP has contributed to the democratic transition process by particularly supporting the audit of the voters’ register, setting up of the monitoring committee, revision of the electoral code, incorporation of parity into the electoral code, distribution of the electoral code in each of the 45 departmental courts, interviews with presidential candidates by the Casamance women’s platform and the network of youth for peace in Casamance. USAID/PGP worked with the CENA to strengthen the commission’s capacity to supervise and monitor electoral operations, supported the dialogue on civic education which ensured that voters were better informed of their rights and responsibilities in the electoral process (registration, collection of cards and monitoring) and supported civil society organizations to push for a free, transparent and credible electoral process. It was also involved in election observation and coordinated the activities of financial sponsors. USAID/PGP, however, did not reach the number of polling officers initially targeted by the project for capacity building (183/237) Performance of component 4: Dialogue and social stability in the Casamance - The USAID/PGP project contributed to triggering local dynamics for the dialogue on peace in the Casamance, by involving non-governmental organizations, community radios, women’s organizations, young people, local populations, socio-occupational organizations (stockbreeders and farmers), the authorities and security forces of Senegal, The Gambia and Guinea Bissau. It also contributed to the involvement of combatants in helping to find solutions to the smaller local conflicts that were fueling the bigger conflict in the Casamance (conflicts pertaining to land, access to and use of natural resources and cattle rustling). Greater understanding of conflicts between stockbreeders and farmers has been gained since then, and solutions proposed. The approach used by the USAID/PGP project revolves around the concept of “Nitee ak Digëntee”, which involves: (i) messages by traditional chiefs and religious leaders via community radios or at village forums, highlighting generational relationships, traditional rulers and governed communities, regulated by community and religious obligations; (ii) the use 10 of kinship banter relationships as a means of raising awareness among ethnic groups in the Casamance and between the Casamance people and other ethnic groups of Senegal. (For example, Diola-Sérères: the Foundiougne agreements). Cross-cutting issues: Synergy, Gender and Communication - Significant outcomes have been observed in all the components by the USAID/PGP owing to the synergy developed between the project components; first of all between the different USAID projects implemented in Senegal, and then among the donors in order to harmonize and coordinate activities, mobilize additional resources and support the mechanisms towards the consolidation of democracy and good governance. USAID/PGP has taken all the appropriate measures to ensure the active participation of women and young people. The project adopted an approach, which consists of providing direct support to the more enterprising women’s and youth organizations. Some of the processes started, however, were unsuccessful; for instance, in the case of the youth and women in the Casamance. Communication was duly taken into account as part of USAID/PGP, in terms of media coverage of activities, institutional communication, information on USAID/PGP, sharing of knowledge and information. Sustainability of project outcomes: Most of the project partners or beneficiaries interviewed by the evaluation team had taken measures to ensure sustainability of activities supported by the project. However, ensuring the sustainability of new concepts and approaches in transparency and accountability (the Good Governance Barometer), which emerged with the project would require renewed support from the implementing institutions. Relevance of components and feasibility of project goals. The evaluation findings generally showed that the project components were in line with the project goals. Future activities should focus on the specific needs expressed by the beneficiaries, or those identified, as necessary, by the project. Conclusion: The evaluation findings have demonstrated the project’s ability to produce significant results in governance, peace and social stability in the Casamance. Communication and coherence challenges in managing the components, however, thwarted the project’s efforts to achieve its full potential. USAID/PGP should improve communication with its partners in order to realize more significant results. Summary of main recommendations: Project management • During preliminary studies for the project design, systematically improve shared analysis of issues to be addressed, other needs and policy strategies, to forestall any bias or obstacles in project implementation, stemming from differences with the authorities; • Improve communication with institutional partners of the project – first, among the partners themselves, and also between the project partners and USAID, to protect the spirit of trust, credibility and non-partisanship of the project in the eyes of beneficiaries; • Improve approach to synergy prior to implementing this component, taking into account all ongoing projects of USAID and other donors; 11 • Take specific needs and requests of stakeholders into account when making adjustments to the project; and • Enhance project coordination, particularly when project is implemented by several operators (USAID/PGP = FHI360 with three components and IFES with one component), to ensure consistency in project management and implementation, by improving document sharing conditions. Transparency and accountability • Build the capacities of elected officials in targeted communes, in implementing participatory budgets; • Include as best practice, the people’s participation as ex-officio members in meetings of the municipal council; and • Replicate Karthiak and Bignona’s “education for peace” pilot project in schools in the Casamance region. Strengthening fiscal decentralization • Involve the DGID and the association of locally-elected officials in the design process; • Make elected representatives (their association) the permanent institutional intermediaries for purposes of collaboration; • Plan to have a major component for training local government officials and the population in local taxation; • Facilitate synergy of projects by supporting it right from the design stage, and provide precise indicators for all USAID projects; and • Strengthen collaboration between the DGID and the association of locally-elected officials in order to ensure an improvement in local taxation through the initiated reforms, particularly the establishment of revenue collection structures. Free, fair and transparent elections • Redirect support for the electoral process towards consolidation activities, particularly for capacity strengthening of stakeholders to play their roles and assume their responsibilities; andStrengthen overall project monitoring by taking full charge of all components, especially when several operators handle implementation. Dialogue and social stability in the Casamance • To ensure effective future interventions, the mission decided on recommendations structured around two points: • In requests for proposals, the project amounts need to be specified to avoid restrictions as the promoters get confused about their initial offer and the final project selected by USAID/PGP; • Take into account the importance of the two neighboring countries (The Gambia and Guinea Bissau) which share the same cultural values; 12 • Ensure the use of local languages which are unifying factors depending on the zones (Pulaar and Mandingo, Kolda zone), (Mandingo, Sédhiou zone), (Diola, Bignona zone), (Diola, Créole, Mandingo and Wolof); • Develop the “Nitee Ak Digentee” concept (greater clarification of the content, conceptualisation of instruments and approaches as well as translation into local spoken languages in the Casamance); • Extend support to community radio stations other than those belonging to the network; • Strengthen the capacities of youth associations involved in the peace process and provide support for implementation of their plan of action; and • Extend technical support and training in conflict resolution to all the community radio stations broadcasting in the Casamance. Synergy • Consistently mainstream the cross-cutting SYNERGY component into all USAID projects in their design stages for implementation; and • Promote workshops between USAID project implementers and strengthen their capacities to ensure good component linkages among the said projects. Gender Gender mainstreaming should be enhanced in the different USAID/PGP components through increased awareness-raising taking into account certain cultural values and developing indicators that provide more information on activities undertaken. Integration of young people • Support youth organizations to be well structured and remain united; and • Provide greater support for existing groups and associations to ensure that, together with women’s organizations, they play major roles in the social stabilization process in the Casamance and in all development actions in the region. Communication • Take into account the importance of the two neighboring countries (The Gambia and Guinea Bissau) which share the same cultural values; • Ensure the use of local languages which are unifying factors depending on the zones (Pulaar and Mandingo, Kolda zone), (Mandingo, Sédhiou zone), (Diola, Bignona zone), (Diola, Créole, Mandingo and Wolof); and • Extend technical support and training in conflict resolution to all the community radio stations broadcasting in the Casamance. General recommendations At the end of the evaluation, the following recommendations were made: 13 • Support local governments by equipping them with the appropriate services to enable them to conduct transparent and effective governance; and • Support the institutional development and organizational strengthening of civil society enabling them to fully play their role in the different processes and strengthen their autonomy. In order to implement these guidelines, there are two possible options: - Option 1: A five-year project with two components: 1) A governance support component for local governments with Casamance as the focus zone, and 2) A governance component for civil society organizations; and - Option 2: Make each of these components a specific five-year project. The mission proposes option 1, which allows for better linkages and synergy between the two components and enhanced capitalization of achievements. The component on Governance support for local governments is in line with the Government’s current strategy to make Casamance a test zone under Phase 3 of the Decentralization Act. In light of this fact, main risks in terms of governance are related to the capacities of local governments to conduct public procurement processes and ensure effective financial management. Establishment of a local public service, declared so many years ago, is yet to be effective and expected performance and transparency cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, financial management of local budgets could be a major challenge for which stakeholders may not be sufficiently prepared, especially as the contributions from partners could be substantial. To address these challenges, the component on governance support for local governments will focus on the recruitment and availability for the Casamance development center of: 1) a private procurement agency, 2) a private trust agency for resource management, and 3) an external audit office. These different service providers will be at the disposal of local government units in the Casamance and will provide relevant technical services, training and mentoring for the transfer of skills and best practices. Other support activities could be provided in collaboration with ARDs, particularly in the area of planning, support to small and medium-sized enterprises for local economic growth, etc. Finally, tools put in place by USAID/PGP such as the good governance barometer will be enhanced and disseminated in all local government units within the Casamance. With all of these interventions, the project will therefore play an essential role in structuring the Casamance Development Center (PDC). Moreover, results obtained and tested in this zone will be used by the Government in other focus regions. Under the component on governance support for civil society organizations, key tools developed and validated will be widely disseminated throughout the country. This dissemination must be conducted by civil society organizations, which may submit initiatives in this regard for financing by USAID. It must however be noted that most organizations have weaknesses in various areas (organization, management, accountability, renewal etc.) that may diminish the reach of their activities and the sustainability of results in particular. Thus, the project should 14 propose activities in areas such as organizational audit and management as a prerequisite or an accompanying measure. 15 INTRODUCTION This evaluation of the Governance and Peace Program (USAID/USAID/PGP) in Senegal is the outcome of extensive consultations and collaboration with USAID, Government representatives, staff of the USAID/PGP project and international and local partner organizations. As it toured several regions, the team worked together with key stakeholders, to determine the strengths and weaknesses, lessons learned and best practices of the project, after four years of implementation, so as to produce recommendations that would inform future interventions. The present report of the evaluation mission: (a) outlines the background of governance in Senegal and its challenges; (b) determines the goal of the mission as well as research and evaluation questions and the proposed methodology; (c) tackles the issue of project management; (d) reviews activities of each project component; and (e) specifically addresses basic cross-cutting issues such as synergy, gender, youth, communication and grants. 1. BACKGROUND OF THE PEACE AND GOVERNANCE PROGRAM USAID/PGP was launched in May 2010 at a time when all governance indices (such as the Mo Ibrahim index (give 2009 and 2010 results to show the decline), Transparency International (ditto) and others) were trending downwards. Freedom House’s Freedom in the World ratings reclassified Senegal’s ranking from “free” to “partly free”. Likewise, Senegal slid down Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index from 70th place in 2006 to 112th in 2011, confirming the country’s continuous decline in terms of these key global indicators. Equally of concern, was the situation in Casamance and the faltering peace process. It is against this backdrop that USAID initially designed the USAID/PGP project to encourage greater transparency and accountability, consolidate local governance and fiscal decentralization, support citizen participation in the 2012 electoral process, and promote dialogue for social stability in the Casamance. The project commenced with four components that ultimately had to undergo some formulation changes owing, in particular, to deep-seated differences with government authorities about the project goals, flaws in the formulation of objectives considered to be overly ambitious, and the sheer lack of synergy between the various components. The four components of the project were as follows: (a) transparency and accountability; (b) strengthening fiscal decentralization; (c) free, fair and transparent elections; and (d) social 16 stability in the Casamance. There were a few problems with the formulation of project components, owing to: − Difficulties resulting from serious differences with Government authorities about the project goals; − The closing down of the Ziguinchor office by the police, on instructions of the authorities; − The lack of cohesion between the components; − Blunders made in the formulation of the project. Adjustments thus had to be made and project terminology, consistency and indicators reconsidered. Above all, communication had to be enhanced for greater understanding; − USAID’s suspension of the project signed with AED two months after its launch; and − The lack of financing for six months. The situation led to a reassessment of the Cooperative Agreement. The four components, finally reformulated and implemented, were as follows: − Transparency and accountability, especially in the mining sector − Strengthening the local governance and fiscal decentralization process − Strengthening the 2012 electoral process − Enhancing social dialogue for peace in the Casamance 2. MISSION GOAL, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Mission Goal The goal of the mission was to evaluate implementation of the USAID/USAID/PGP project and measure progress made towards achieving expected outcomes. Specifically, the evaluation team was tasked with examining and assessing the suitability of project components indicated above, the rationale for project approaches adopted, the quality of overall project management, the relevance and efficiency of services rendered by FHI360, support provided to beneficiaries and related responses, and overall prospects for project sustainability beyond completion. In addition to evaluation outcomes, USAID/Senegal is expecting that useful knowledge may be obtained 17 from best practices, lessons learned and recommendations formulated, with the purpose of maintaining the quality of results achieved and for guidance during design of future projects. After over four years of implementation (May 2010 to January 2014), a critical look at the elements mentioned above will help identify project successes, strengths, weaknesses, type of services and the efficiency with which the project provided inputs. The team responsible for this evaluation put together a wide range of basic information from USAID/Senegal, USAID/PGP, sub-beneficiaries, civil society leaders, local officers, audit and control officers of State institutions, ministries, etc., to ensure that the conclusions and recommendations were based on a precise understanding of the project, and that the multiple points of view were considered to open the way for relevant use of evaluation findings. The team answered questions prepared by USAID/Senegal and included in the evaluation scope of work (Annex 3). 2.2 Research Questions For the purposes of this evaluation mission, the team utilized the USAID/PGP results framework (based on key USAID/Senegal and country indicators for this project) and the broad outlines of the evaluation review process, with the project indicators distributed among the four components, namely: (a) greater transparency and accountability; (b) strengthening fiscal decentralization; (c) free and credible 2012 elections; and (d) a peace agreement in the Casamance. (Annex) The team also had to answer seven research questions developed by USAID/Senegal for the USAID/PGP performance evaluation. Each of the seven questions had sub-questions, examples of indicators or evaluation criteria, a data source and the relevant data collection method, sampling and selection criteria, as well as a data analysis method. LTL Strategies developed sub-questions, indicators and evaluation criteria, data sources and methods for data collection, sampling or selection criteria, and a method of data analysis for each of the seven questions. The seven USAID/Senegal questions, with LTL sub-questions, indicators and evaluation criteria provided the basis for the design of the strategic questionnaire as follows: (Annex): − Question 1: To what extent can the project approach contribute to the achievement of the objectives and how suited is it to the operational environment? − Question 2: Has support for capacity strengthening produced positive outcomes at the level of local governments, national monitoring organs and community-based organizations? 18 − Question 3: To what extent has the involvement of USAID/PGP in coordination and collaborative efforts with other donors or implementing partners been effective and contributed to the achievement of the expected outcomes? − Question 4: What added value has the project brought to beneficiary governance institutions? − Question 5: To what extent did the project contribute to improving the legal framework for the fight against corruption? − Question 6: To what extent has USAID/PGP developed an integrated approach for progress towards peace and the local governance components in the Casamance conflict? − Question 7: Has USAID/PGP adequately considered cross-cutting issues (in particular, gender equality, youth and communication) in project design and implementation? 2.3 Methodology 2.3.1 Methodological Approach The team adopted a mixed evaluation approach, which is one of our key methods of analysis. This approach relies on different data collection methods, variable sources, and a set of analytical tools including: − Document review: project documents and indicator data from the project’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP, government documents and other sources); − Focus group meetings and interviews with key informants; and − Site visits. The evaluation team succeeded in strengthening the data collection tools by using existing documents and information. All the documents consulted and the information gathered from key informants were analyzed and summarized. The  team  also  acquired  some  basic  information  to   help  in  the  drafting  of  the  interview  guide. 2.3.2 Data collection method and tools Data was collected using an interview guide, which helped to obtain the required information from various categories of stakeholders (representatives of implementing CSOs and representatives of local and decentralized authorities). The following stages were implemented: 19 1. Data collection; 2. Data was collected per the instructions set out in the interview guide, from implementing partners and beneficiaries. Specifically, the team organized: − Individual interviews: conducted on the basis of a previously prepared interview guide, − Focus group meetings: people with similar core interests were brought together for the purpose of gathering information; − Direct  observation:   facilitated  on-­‐site  verification  of  information  and  recording  of   evidence. 20 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 3.1 Observations USAID evaluation question 1: To what extent did the project approach contribute to the achievement of the objectives and how suited was it to the operational environment? The project was launched in May 2010 when all governance indices were down and the trends negative (Mo Ibrahim index, etc.). The situation in the Casamance was also cause for concern. The peace process was faltering. This situation prompted the emergence of ideas which helped in the drafting of the Peace and Governance Program (USAID/PGP). However, the project’s four components were revised due to: − Difficulties resulting from deep-seated differences with Government authorities on the direction of the project; − The lack of cohesion between the components; and − Inappropriate terms used in the original project formulation. This state of affairs led to a review of the Cooperative Agreement, resulting in a reformulation of the four components as follows: − Transparency and accountability in the mining sector, in particular; − Strengthening the local governance process and fiscal decentralization; − Strengthening the 2012 electoral process; and − Enhancing social dialogue for peace in the Casamance. The team succeeded in tailoring project implementation to the unfavorable conditions that prevailed for at least two years. The team thus: − Agreed to keep a low profile in order not to get on the wrong side of the authorities at the time, and not to make any aggressive comments about the project; − Re-drafted the objectives, indicators and other elements whose interpretation posed a problem; and − Reviewed the terminology used in parts of the project document. 21 The team also had to cope with drastic cuts in the project funding due to the global context that the donor had to deal with. This dampened the team’s ambitions, impacted negatively on the components and activities, and limited the area of intervention. Management comprised a country-level team led by a chief of party, based in Dakar and responsible for the four components, and a branch at Ziguinchor. The team evaluated activities, not only at the local and regional levels but also at the national level. Team members included: − Heads of component; − a monitoring-evaluation officer; − a communications officer; − a grants manager; − a finance officer; − an accountant; − administrative and accounting assistants; − a logistics officer; − an IT officer; − a Secretary; − drivers; and − the Ziguinchor team. On the whole, the team members had the requisite qualifications, experience and expertise for their positions. They were obviously recruited with care, but the technical capacity of each team member to tackle rather sensitive and technical issues such as the fight against corruption, good governance, management of the electoral process, conflict management, etc., could not be completely verified. Nowhere was any mention made of capacity building sessions for the project implementation team. The approach was based on the following: 22 − Systematic institutional anchoring for each component and activity. − Cross-cutting functionality in the implementation of all activities. − Inclusion of all stakeholders of the issue being addressed. − Appreciation: do not seek to let heads roll. − Capitalization: never reinvent the wheel, draw on what exists. − Synergy approach: work in synergy with the other components and other initiatives, particularly those supported by USAID (e.g. the work done by the donors group for the Casamance region, the 2012 election donors group, the anti-corruption donors group). Synergy answers the questions of who will do what, who will finance what, who will support what. It allows for better coordination and optimum use of resources and creating a multiplier effect. − Communication and media: USAID/PGP worked in close collaboration with the media and used several communication channels, producing various communication aids including a journal, banners, flyers and articles (some very good articles were published on governance in the mining sector, and on corruption). − A network of champions was created, bringing together personalities from civil society, the private sector, government and local authorities who have a solid knowledge of several issues and can be counted on to develop a consistent advocacy program, especially in the areas that are of interest to USAID/PGP (e.g. support for Senegal’s adhesion to the EITI process). − Partnerships with local and national stakeholders, other projects and other donors. Each partner is expected to contribute something, and all contributions are accounted for. − Teamwork with USAID: USAID involvement, team spirit, consistent support by USAID and the Embassy. It is very important to be abreast with the donor. − Availability of relevant tools and expertise for activities: the Good Governance Barometer provides a performance report on good governance in a local government unit and has been used in the 12 local governments. This approach entails the establishment, first of all, of a steering committee in each community, to take charge of steering the process, which consists of four essential stages. − Collaboration: The USAID/PGP team supervised and undertook Good Governance Barometer training and certification. The team depended on strategic partners to carry out these activities, and the partners in turn made use of consultants. 23 − Team work: this was done with local partners and operators, using four mechanisms, namely: (i) contracts with the Association Conseil pour l’Action (ACA), partners, World Education and consortium members; (ii) grants awarded following calls for projects; (iii) access to the consultants provided for the partners; (iv) supply of equipment and materials to local governments. − Horizontal and vertical integration: a favorable climate was provided at the national level for the implementation of activities at the local level, e.g. amendment of the General Tax Code and mapping of the decentralization process. A global annual planning system was put in place, supported by annual budgets drawn up for each component. The project suffered drastic budget cuts and had to draw up an annual work plan based on the new budget, and implement its activities in line with the resources allocated. The rate of financial implementation was almost 74% over the 3½ years, due to the budget cuts. There was no shortage of materials and logistics. However, a national project which affects distant regions like Kédougou, Ziguinchor, Kolda and Sédhiou must no longer experience a shortage of logistics. The communications policy formulated by USAID was used, although the project has its own communication strategy to support the components. The project objectives, results, activities and indicators were reviewed to make them less confusing, simpler and more realistic. A monitoring-evaluation mechanism was put in place, based on the following reference frameworks: − The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); − The Economic and Social Policy Paper (DPES), which became the National Social and Economic Development Strategy (SNDES), and later the Plan Sénégal Emergent; and − The USAID intervention strategy in Senegal. The operational approach is based on the USAID/PGP structure of results and indicators, most of which (19 out of 27) are USAID indicators. The following tools were used for the PMP: − Attendance sheets confirming number of men, women and young people; − Performance table; 24 − Descriptive sheet for each indicator (Who does the collection? What must be collected? Collection method? How is data to be analyzed?); − Results framework; and − Templates for mission, activity and training reports (training themes, modules, and objectives, practical knowledge). They help the officers in charge of the components to get down to brass tacks. The following functions were carried out: − Monitoring and supervision of project implementation: status of project activities and components; − Results monitoring and measuring of effects and impacts; − Drafting and issuing of reports, publishing of results; and − Participatory monitoring-evaluation. Training programs were organized on the different components, either in the form of training of trainers, or direct training of beneficiaries. Topics included corruption, conflict management, conflict prevention and resolution, communication and advocacy. During its implementation, USAID/PGP formed partnerships with various Government, civil society and private sector stakeholders, who took advantage of the support requested to revitalize and re-position themselves strategically and/or develop approaches, strategies, projects and action plans. 3.2 Partial Conclusions − The approach adopted for the formulation of the project was based more on supply than on demand, and this impinged on the ownership and management of the project by high￾ranking Senegalese political figures. − During implementation, efforts were made to balance out the supply and demands of the various stakeholder groups. − The competence of the team was evidenced by their having been selected for the positions they occupied, by their basic training, by their previous experience and expertise, and most of all, by the results achieved from the project implementation. 25 − The heads of component were competent, evidenced by their ability to adapt to an unfavorable political environment and amid drastic budget cuts. Objectives and terminology were reformulated for better understanding by public authorities. − Management of the “2012 Elections component” by IFES was criticized by the partners. 3.3 Partial Recommendations  During preliminary studies for project design, systematically improve the joint analysis of problems, needs and policy strategies to forestall any bias or obstacles to project implementation, stemming from differences in opinion with the authorities;  Improve communication with institutional partners of the project – first, among the partners themselves, and also between the project partners and USAID, to protect the spirit of trust, credibility and non-partisanship of the project in the eyes of beneficiaries;  Improve approach to synergy prior to implementing this component, taking into account all ongoing projects of USAID and other donors;  Take specific needs and requests of stakeholders into account when making adjustments to the project; and  Enhance project coordination, particularly when project is implemented by several operators (USAID/PGP = FHI360 with three components and IFES with one component), to ensure consistency in project management and implementation, by improving the conditions for sharing documents. 4. Component 1: Transparency and Accountability 4.1 Observations 4.1.1 Status of component 1 indicators The monitoring framework put in place by the project coordinating unit provided the guidelines for measuring progress made by the project against the initial projections. The table below provides information drawn from the monitoring framework for component 1 indicators. Table 1: Component 1 indicators 26 OUTCOME 1: TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY TARGETS OUTCOMES Result 1.1: Enhanced capacity of national supervisory bodies to fight for reforms and good governance in public administration Indicator 1.1.1 (F indicator2.2.4-7) Number of anti-corruption measures implemented with USG support 6 12 Indicator 1.1.2 (F indicator) Number of external control mechanisms on the use of public resources implemented with USG support 30 28 Indicator 1.1.3 (F indicator2.2.4-2) Number of officials who have received anti-corruption training with USG support 225 151 Indicator 1.1.4 (F indicator2.2.4-5) Number of persons associated with non-governmental organizations who have received anti-corruption training with USG support 400 414 Outcome 1.2: Increased civil society capacity to access information and to supervise and influence policies and practices Indicator 1.2.1 (F indicator) Number of CSOs which received advocacy training with USG support 30 23 Indicator 1.2.2 (F indicator2.2.4-9) Number of CSOs involved in advocacy programs and have received USG assistance 10 22 Outcome 1.3: Greater transparency in the management of resources generated by the mining and extractive industries Indicator 1.3.1 Number of groups assisted by the USG to take advantage of the support for Senegal’s membership to EITI 3 3 4.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits USAID evaluation question 5: To what extent did the project contribute to improving the legal framework for the fight against corruption? USAID/PGP contributed greatly to the formation of the National Anti-Corruption and Fraud Office (OFNAC), giving it wide powers and substantial financial means to get it off the ground. Officials of OFNAC maintain that the support from USAID/PGP was significant and timely and helped them launch their activities even before State funds were made available. One important element of the transparency code is the declaration of assets, which has the ability to improve the fight against corruption. Civil society stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs, women, young people, etc.), journalists and young reporters, private sector players were trained and empowered to fight corruption. USAID/PGP contributed to Senegal’s membership to EITI, which, apart from providing a legal and regulatory framework, is a stepping stone to greater transparency in the extractive industry. 27 USAID evaluation question 4: What added value has the project brought to beneficiary governance institutions? USAID/PGP has contributed to enhancing the level of participation by women and young people in governance activities. Indeed, they are stakeholders and members of organizations that are involved in several initiatives such as the Good Governance Barometer process, the fight against corruption, and the promotion of good governance through the establishment of regional good governance units (CRBGs). Women participate in capacity building sessions, and also initiate practical activities through their own umbrella organizations (women in the Casamance). The same goes for young people (young reporters, catholic youth, etc.). By enhancing the level of participation by young people and women in governance activities, USAID/PGP has certainly provided them a clearer and more pragmatic perception of governance. 4.2 Partial Conclusions A culture of participation, transparency and accountability is noticeable among the people and their elected representatives. 4.3 Partial Recommendations  Build the capacities of elected officials in the implementation of participatory budgets in target communes;  Include as best practice, the people’s participation as ex-officio members in meetings of the municipal council; and  Replicate Karthiak and Bignona’s “education for peace” pilot project in schools in the Casamance region. 5. Component 2: Strengthening Fiscal Decentralization 5.1 Observations 5.1.1 Status of component 2 indicators Table 2: Component 2 indicators 28 OUTCOME 2: FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION TARGET S OUTCOMES Outcome 2.1: Enhanced implementation of fiscal decentralization Indicator 2.1.1 Number of events organized to promote dialogue and on fiscal decentralization with USG support 4 8 Indicator 2.1.2 (F indicator) Number of persons who have received training, with USG support, in management and budgetary management to strengthen local government units and/or decentralization 320 1273 Indicator 2.1.1bis Number of fiscal decentralization measures implemented with USG support 4 4 Outcome 2.2: Enhanced performances in local governance by local government units partners of USAID/PGP Indicator 2.2.1 (F indicator2.2.3- 5) Number of local mechanisms supported with USG assistance enabling citizens to engage in local activities 30 36 Indicator 2.2.2 (F indicator) Number of local entities that received USG assistance to enhance their performance 12 12 Indicator 2.2.3 Number of events organized on sharing best practices in local governance with USG assistance 17 14 Indicator 2.2.4 Number of collaborative events organized with USAID projects at the local, regional and national levels on governance and fiscal decentralization with USG assistance 5 3 Indicator 2.2.5 Number of persons who have received training and/or technical assistance on local governance and fiscal decentralization 500 1393 Outcome 2.3: Increased local revenue in local government units partners of USAID/PGP Indicator 2.3.1 Number of local actors who have received training or technical assistance on finance and local taxation 600 1138 Indicator 2.3.2 (F indicator) Number of local government units recipient of USG assistance to increase their own annual revenue sources 12 12 5.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits USAID evaluation question 2: has support for capacity strengthening produced positive outcomes at the level of local communities, national monitoring organs and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)? USAID/PGP has put in place an objective and participatory tool called the Good Governance Barometer (BBG) which ensures evaluation of the quality of governance and identification of activities to be implemented to improve it. A pilot-phase ensured the adaptation of the BBG tool to the Yène rural community on the basis of the experience of Madagascar and East Africa. After the process, tools and the approach have been analyzed, evaluated and validated, 11 local governments were then selected by a commission made up of the UAEL, DREAT, the Civil Forum, Anafa, PDC, ACA, DCL, etc. on the basis of the selection criteria identified by USAID/PGP and shared with its stakeholders. These criteria are broken down as follows: − Legality criteria; − Local government localization criteria; 29 − Local government partnership criteria; − Local government governance criteria, and − Local government performance criteria. As a result, they benefitted from the implementation of this approach which consists of measuring the level of performance in the area of governance or the three phases of sectoral governance: • Initial Phase: Identification of the level of initial performance in the area of governance; • Phase 2 : Support for the formulation of a plan of action for the improvement of the level of performance; • Phase 3: Measurement of the level of final performance of the local government. The following seven (07) local governments were taken through the evaluation process: 1. Rural community of Yène; 2. Rural community of Thiènaba; 3. Rural community of Kartiack; 4. Commune of Bignona; 5. Rural community of Dioulacolon; 6. Rural community of Oudoucar; 7. Rural community of Diendé; 8. Borough of Thies Nord District; 9. Borough of Tivaouane Diacksao; 10. Commune of Diamniadio; 11. Commune of Kedougou, and 12. Rural community of Sabodala. USAID/PGP involved all local stakeholders (civil society, public sector, private sector, development partners…) in the BBG process and monitored various stages which it is worthwhile to restate here: − Sensitization and information of stakeholders in partner local governments; − Identification of expectations of local stakeholders; 30 − Identification of indicators and data in a participatory manner; − Data collection and processing; − Presentation of outcomes (Baseline); − Participatory development of a plan of action; and − 2-3 years: fresh collection of data (Evolution/Impact). The team also stated that as part of the project, several activities were carried out by USAID/PGP in each of the local governments selected for the evaluation. Indeed, all partner local governments benefitted from a set of generic or specific training modules: − Implementation of the BBG (measurement of performance in the area of governance); − Specific training relating to the theme selected for the BBG evaluation; − Training/Finance, taxation and techniques for the collection of own resources; − Technical assistance to the local government in the area of finance and local taxation; − Workshop on sharing and exchanges in the area of local governance; − Establishment of Technical Monitoring Group (GTS); − Technical assistance to the GTS in order to make it functional; − Training on the Participatory Budget; − Participatory budget presentation forum; − Technical assistance for an improvement in the collection of own resources; and − Awareness raising campaign for an improvement in the collection of own resources. At the end of the implementation of these activities, the team noted very satisfactory outcomes and benefits in all the evaluated local governments, both in terms of the activities relating to good governance and those aimed at improving their financial resources. These include, in particular:  The setting up of technical monitoring groups (GTS): since the municipal and rural councils are structures which are representative of all segments of the population, the team found it relevant to set up structures to monitor implementation of the activities. One  of  the  most  significant  successes  chalked  by  USAID/PGP  was  funding  the  GTS  to   carry  out  their  operations. Thus, for the local governments targeted by the evaluation, the team mentioned the following outcomes: 31  For  YENE  : • Qualitative improvement in the area of good governance between 2010 and 2013; thus, over the period, Efficiency/Effectiveness improved from 71/100 to 83/100, Rule of Law improved from 62/100 to 67/100, Accountability improved from 45/100 to 82/100, Participation improved from 76/100 to 85/100 and, finally, Equity improved from 29/100 to 40/100); • Revenue rose from CFAF 54,466,917 in 2009 to CFAF 77,056,576 in 2010 and to CFAF 87,256,341 in 2011; • Improvement in the organization of local stakeholders of the Rural Community and communication between stakeholders and structures through the disclosure of decisions, among others; and  Improvement of services for the people, particularly conditions for the acquisition of birth, marriage and death certificates.  For  THIENABA  : • Acquisition of new knowledge and skills; • Reduction in conflicts and free flow of communication; • Sensitization of the people; • Disclosure of deliberations ; • Improvement in revenue collection; and • Training of stakeholders in the area of health.  For the rural community of DIOULACOLON: • Mastery of the concepts of local taxation; • Participation of the people in local affairs; • Violence-free election campaign; and • Public hearing of candidates in the 2014 local elections.  For the Commune of Bignona: • Strengthening of the capacity of stakeholders in the area of local taxation; • Stakeholder Organization; 32 • Survey of occupants of commercial facilities and the public highway; • Sensitization of the citizenry on local taxation; and • Pre-tax survey.  For  the  rural  community  of  KARTIACK: • Compliance with meeting schedules; • Presence of members of civil society in Council meetings; • Holding of forums in schools; • Budget is participatory; • Holding of a women’s forum; and • Reduction in conflicts between farmers, stockbreeders and other professional organizations.  For the rural community of DIENDE: • Payment of rural tax as a prior condition for access to a farm loan; • Management of civil status; • Payment of demarcation fees for the first time; • Reduction in conflicts between stockbreeders and farmers; and • Presentation of the balance sheet regarding the management process to the people.  For the rural community of Oudoucar: • Strengthening of the capacity of stakeholders for the participation of the citizenry in community affairs; • Improvement in the collection of taxes; • Organization of management review meetings; and • Establishment of social peace between stakeholders and the people of the local community. Generally, the team mentioned the following achievements: − 102 elected representatives and local stakeholders have received training and technical assistance in the participatory budget process; − 172 local stakeholders from the local governments of Thienaba (26), Dioulacolon (25), Yéne (26), Diamniadio (23), Kartiack (21), Diendé (25) and Tivaouane Diacksao (26) received support from USAID/PGP to increase their resources and assess tax collection; − 9 locally-elected representatives, members of women’s groups, administrative authorities, STD agents, etc. participated in the budget guidance meeting (participatory budget) of the Thiénaba rural community with the support of USAID/PGP; 33 − 120 GTS members of 10 partner local governments (except Kédougou and Sabodala) received support from USAID/PGP for the planning of priority activities; and − 24 GTS members of 2 partner local governments (Kédougou and Sabodala) received support from USAID/PGP for the planning of priority activities. These various achievements led to various remarkable effects and impacts through the following aspects: − Involvement of locally-elected representatives in Phase 3 of the Decentralization Act; − Improvement in the financial resources of local governments; − Strengthened leadership of locally-elected officials; and − Progress of the «good governance» indicator of local governments as shown in Table 2 below. Table 3: Trends of the Good Governance Index within beneficiary local governments Local government Situation in 2011 Situation in 2012 Rate of Improvement (%) 2011-2012 CATD 27 74 169 YENE 56 71 26 DIAMNIADIO 44 51 17 CATN 39 65 66 THIENABA 46 68 48 KEDOUGOU 54 57 6 SABADOLA 44 55 23 DIENDE 43 53 24 DIOULACOLON 52 65 25 KARTIACK 38 52 37 BIGNONA 51 66 28 OUDOUCAR 39 56 41 Average 41 62 36% 34 Figure 1: Examples of the trends of good governance indices 5.2 Partial Conclusions − Outcomes are generally convincing: boosted dynamics and behavioral changes were mentioned. − Good public awareness-raising and establishment of a revenue collection structure to ensure a considerable increase in the already remarkable tax revenue levels of the communes (example of Yéne, Bignona and Karthiak). This good practice must be replicated. − Limits : i) Very high turnover at the level of the Ministry of Decentralization which prevents the availability of a stable government intermediary; ii) ownership gap on the part of the DGID regarding the position of the elected representatives on the tax reform. − Risk relating to the difficulties in the adaptation to the changes in the decentralization policy: Need to take into account new challenges brought about by Act III. 5.3 Partial Recommendations  Involve the DGID and the association of locally-elected officials in the design process;  Make elected representatives (their association) the permanent institutional intermediaries for purposes of collaboration;  Consider a consistent training program for the locally-elected representatives in local taxation; 0   10   20   30   40   50   60   70   48   34   49   43   21   39   68   66   68   57   24   56.6   0   50   100   50   45   33   36   26   38   72   53   46   54   39   52.8   phase  1   phase  2   CR Oudoucar CR Karthiak 35  Facilitate synergy among projects through its consideration during the design stage with specific indicators for all USAID projects;  Strengthen collaboration between the DGID and the association of locally-elected officials in order to ensure an improvement in local taxation through the initiated reforms, particularly the establishment of revenue collection structures. 6. Component 3 : Free and Transparent 2012 Elections 6.1 Observations 6.1.1 Status of component 3 indicators Table 4 : Component 3 indicators: OUTCOME 3: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS TARGET OUTCOME Outcome 3.1: Strengthening of the capacity of institutions to supervise and monitor electoral operations Indicator 3.1.1 (F indicator) Number of elected officials trained with USG assistance 237 183 Outcome 3.2: Citizens more conscious of rights and civic responsibilities Indicator 3.2.1 (F indicator) Number of strengthened local CSOs which promote reform and improvement of the electoral system 13 38 Indicator 3.2.2 (F indicator) Number of strengthened local CSOs which promote the participation and education of voters 40 51 Indicator 3.2.3 Number of citizens reached by civic education campaigns 3 300 000 3 672 922 Outcome 3.3: More enhanced capacity of political parties and coalition of political parties Indicator 3.3.1 (F indicator) Number of political parties and political groups receiving assistance from the USG in order to effectively structure the political platforms and agenda 5 Cancelled 6.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits USAID evaluation question 2: has support for capacity strengthening produced positive outcomes at the level of local communities, national monitoring organs and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)? The team stated that, in spite of the highly appreciable outcomes, the huge handicap of this component was the fact that it was in the hands of IFES and almost without the control of 36 USAID/PGP. This fact explains why it is the only component which has not been consistently documented, although it is an important stake in the project. Many activities were carried out, although it was not possible for the team to access quantitative data in order to arrive at a justified opinion. In spite of the multiple successes it has chalked with IFES, the unavailability of a final report on this component in the records of USAID/PGP is sufficient proof that the management process has a lot of shortcomings. USAID/PGP did not get the number of election agents initially targeted by the project. The indicators of OUTCOME 3: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS provides an illustration of this observation in Table 5 below. The security situation in Casamance prevented agents of the CEDA in Kolda from attending the training program. Table 5: Behavior of Outcome 3.1 relating to Outcome 3: Strengthened Capacity of Institutions to Supervise and Control Electoral Operations TARGET Outcome Indicator 3.1.1 (F indicator) Number of election agents trained with USG support 237 183 USAID/PGP identified and supported organs promoting democracy and the consolidation of elections, such as the CENA, the Court of Appeal, political parties, civil society, the youth/women and the Civil Service (DGE). The evaluation team stated that USAID/PGP has contributed to the democratic transition process by particularly supporting the audit of the voters’ register, setting up of the monitoring committee, revision of the electoral code, incorporation of parity into the electoral code, distribution of the electoral code in each of the 45 departmental courts, interviews with presidential candidates by the Casamance women’s platform and the network of youth for peace in Casamance. USAID/PGP worked with the CENA to strengthen the commission’s capacity to supervise and monitor electoral operations. USAID/PGP also supported the dialogue on civic education which ensured that voters were better informed of their rights and responsibilities in the electoral process (registration, collection of cards and monitoring). USAID/PGP was involved in the observation of the elections and coordinated the activities of the financial sponsors. USAID/PGP supported civil society organizations to push for a free, transparent and credible electoral process. USAID/PGP provided assistance to civil society groups: This assistance focused on the ANAFA and the CSO Group since the electoral component could not benefit from the subsidy 37 procedures at the time. USAID/PGP assisted ANAFA and the Group to finalize their work plan and to prepare their budget to be submitted to the AED / FHI360. USAID/PGP/IFES provided the necessary technical assistance and logistics to the Monitoring Committee during the revision of the electoral code. This assistance enabled the CV to submit to the National Assembly, draft amendments to the electoral code whose passage was one of the major achievements of this body. The Monitoring Committee also got IFES/USAID/PGP to bear the expenses of an administrative and financial assistant throughout the electoral process. USAID/PGP supported State and civil society monitoring organs, while USAID/PGP provided Assistance to the CENA: initially, the team tasked with the elections could not provide any support to the CENA because of the refusal by the Senegalese authorities to accept assistance from the American government for this body. Later, USAID/PGP and the CENA signed a partnership agreement to develop a package of training modules for agents of the electoral bodies in Dakar, Thiès, Kaolack, Saint-Louis, Tambacounda and Ziguinchor. The package led to the BRIDGE certification of three Senegalese and Guinean coordinators. Owing to these training programs, the Elections component of USAID/PGP achieved tremendous results. The 2012 elections were perceived as free and credible at both national and international levels. The contribution of USAID/PGP is illustrated by the following achievements: − 178 members of the national and departmental electoral commissions attended capacity building workshops which significantly improved their skills and helped them to better discharge their everyday responsibilities as election agents. − The Dakar Appeals’ Court made a request for a training workshop for magistrates in voter registration disputes. The election team was put together and a consultant appointed for this purpose. However, it could not be held as a result of troubles relating to a union strike called by the Judiciary. USAID/PGP did not get the number of election agents initially targeted by the project. Indeed, the indicators of OUTCOME 3, i.e. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS, provide an illustration of this observation in Table 6. Table 6 : Distribution of Beneficiaries of the Political Leadership Training Program 38 Thus, as part of the assistance package to the political parties, IFES/USAID/PGP held two regional training sessions on political leadership for the young people and women in Thiès and Ziguinchor. The two three-day training sessions were attended by 72 young people and female members of the five main political party coalitions, including the ruling party. Furthermore, a discussion and brainstorming session on how to be an exemplary and effective political leader in the Senegalese context was facilitated by USAID/PGP. During the training sessions on political leadership, a regional dialogue committee (Regional Political Dialogue Committee) was set up to serve as a platform for dialogue and a mechanism to examine issues relating to the political process and the potential incidence of electoral violence which could occur as a result of the electoral process in Thiès and Ziguinchor – the two regions which are most exposed to violence after Dakar. The coalitions of political parties represented in these training sessions are as follows: − Alliance Sopi pour toujours (AST / FAL) – made up of 8 political parties, including the ruling party; − Bennoo Siggil Sénégal (BSS) – made up of eight political parties ; − Bennoo Taxawal Sénégal (BTS) - made up of four political parties; − Coalition of Non-Aligned Parties (AIAC) - made up of three political parties; − Coalition of Independent Parties (IPC) - made up of five political parties; − Yakaar (New political party, does not yet belong to a coalition); and − FEDES (New political party, does not yet belong to a coalition). On the whole, it is acknowledged that there must be a sound targeting of the partner bodies of USAID/PGP for all the components. However, it was also observed that bodies representative of civil society, like the CONGAD, could not collaborate with USAID/PGP because the requests made by the CONGAD did correspond to the package offered by the project. However, the developed approach established a relationship between various stakeholders with regard to many processes: State organs, private sector, civil society stakeholders, the media, women and youth organizations, local governments, etc. Region Dates Number of Participants Young people Women Total Thiès November 21, 22 and 23, 2011 20 10 30 Ziguinchor November 29, 30 and December 1 26 16 42 Total 72 39 From the point of view of the fight against corruption and the promotion of good governance, USAID/PGP contributed to the following: − emergence of behavioral and attitudinal changes: bodies which were inward-looking and hardly collaborated with the outside world opened up to the public (example of the General State Inspectorate); − taking of important reform measures: the authorities accept to take reform measures in the area of the fight against corruption (establishment of the OFNAC with considerable powers and resources, declaration of assets, etc.),, good governance, commitment (ITIE process); − important documents have been prepared: study reports, strategy documents and sensitization tools and aids; − fresh boost to the national anti-corruption commission; − participation of civil society stakeholders (ANE platforms) as well as journalists and reporters (networks and associations of journalists and reporters) in the fight against corruption; − formulation of a transparency code which encouraged the advent of the law on the declaration of assets; − formulation of an initial national anti-corruption plan; − establishment of a good governance ministry; − concerted and participatory formulation of the good governance strategy at the national level; − structuring and involvement of all stakeholders in the adaptation of rules to the UEMOA Directives; − establishment of the OFNAC to replace the CNLCC; and vested with wide powers, including the power to initiate action; − acceptance of the candidacy of Senegal with regard to the ITIE process: accept and apply international rules relating to transparency in the extractive industries; and − setting up of regional good governance units (CRBG). With regard to local governance, the BBG has been replicated in the 12 targeted communities. This ensured improved performance in the area of good governance which improved from 30% to 40% and improved resource allocation which also rose from 30% to 40%. 40 The targeted local communities are more receptive to the participation of the other stakeholders in the management of local affairs (participation mechanisms put in place), are better managed (transparent management tools and mechanisms introduced) and generated resources are invested into social demand. USAID/PGP ensured the setting up of Technical Monitoring Groups (GTS) which brought together various stakeholders in the local communities targeted for the implementation of action plans formulated in a concerted and participatory manner. USAID/PGP contributed to the democratic transition by particularly supporting an audit of the voters’ register (setting up of a monitoring committee), revision of the electoral code, incorporation of parity into the electoral code and interviews with candidates in the presidential elections by the Casamance women’s platform and the Youth Network for Peace in Casamance. USAID/PGP collaborated with the CENA, the Court of Appeal, civil society and the Civil Service. USAID/PGP also supported dialogue on civic education. USAID/PGP was involved in the observation of the elections. USAID/PGP ensured the coordination of the activities of donors. As part of the process on the dialogue for peace, various intermediaries were registered: women’s platform for peace in Casamance, Youth Network for Peace in Casamance, Group of Facilitators for Peace in Casamance, World Education, community radio stations, elected local representatives, religious leaders, socio-professional groups, the Civil Service, the Police of various countries (Senegal, The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau), NGOs and CBOs. The following issues are justifiably regrettable: − limited number of targeted local governments (12 out of about 500); − inconsistent and irrelevant plans of action (BBG) and low rate of implementation; − lack of practicality of the established frameworks (case of the GTS and the CRBGs) ; − inadequate resource mobilization for the implementation of plans of action formulated as part of the BBG processes; and − inadequate budget of the Small Grant beneficiary NGOs with regard to their declared ambitions. 6.2 Partial Conclusions − the significant advances mentioned are the result of the leverage of the project’s interventions on both the electoral process and the improvement in the quality of tools (voters’ register); 41 − today, the country has really mastered the electoral process and its related tools, and − lack of information on the part of beneficiaries with regard to the real costs of activities financed on their behalf by the project. This limits their appraisal of the efforts the project made on their behalf and their ownership of its outcomes. 6.3 Partial Recommendations  Redirect support for the electoral process towards consolidation activities, particularly for capacity strengthening of stakeholders to play their roles and assume their responsibilities;  Strengthen the overall monitoring of the project by effectively taking charge of all components, particularly when the implementation is driven by several operators. 7. Component 4 : Dialogue and Social Stability in Casamance 7.1 Observations 7.1.1 Status of component 4 indicators Table 7 : Trends of Indicators of Component 4 OUTCOME 4: DIALOGUE AND SOCIAL STABILITY IN CASAMANCE TARGET OUTCOME Outcome 4.1: Reconciliation proposed by way of response to the local causes Indicator 4.1.1 (F indicator) Number of community reconciliation projects wholly implemented with USG assistance 10 10 Indicator 4.1.2 (F indicator) Number of persons reached by fully implemented community reconciliation projects with USG support 15 000 15 247 Outcome 4.2: Capacity of key stakeholders to promote and strengthen reconciliation Indicator 4.2.1 (F indicator) Number of persons whose skills in conflict management/resolution were enhanced with USG assistance 300 301 Indicator 4.2.2 (F indicator) Number of persons participating in facilitation events directed at enhancing understanding between groups affected by conflicts which have been taken on board with the assistance of USG 12 000 16 111 Indicator 4.2.3 (F indicator) Number of key negotiators/facilitators involved in dialogues supported by activities in the area of preventive diplomacy with USG assistance 8 8 Outcome 4.1: Strengthened initiatives for dialogue between the main stakeholders in the conflict Indicator 4.1.1bis Number of events, training sessions or activities funded by USG 30 47 42 OUTCOME 4: DIALOGUE AND SOCIAL STABILITY IN CASAMANCE TARGET OUTCOME (F indicator1.6.2-12) and aimed at strengthening the support for peace or reconciliation on a massive scale Outcome 4.2: Capacity and initiatives of key stakeholders strengthened in the peace process Indicator 4.2.1bis (F indicator 1.6.2-14) Number of persons participating in events, training sessions or activities supported by USG and aimed at strengthening massive support for peace and reconciliation 35 000 58 827 Outcome 4.3: Population informed about activities and initiatives aimed at promoting reconciliation Indicator 4.3.1 (F indicator) Number of persons affected by public information campaigns with the assistance of USG to support the peaceful resolution of conflicts 235 000 588 000 Indicator 4.3.2 (F indicator) Number of media reports carried with the support of USG in order to support the advancement of peace and reconciliation processes 2 000 2 937 Indicator 4.3.3 Number of broadcasts facilitating the promotion of reconciliation or the peace process shared by the public on media projects supported by USG 5 000 6 434 7.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits USAID evaluation question 6: To what extent has USAID/PGP developed an integrated approach for progress towards peace and the local governance components in the Casamance conflict? USAID/PGP has mostly sought to set in motion, local dialogue processes on peace in Casamance by involving NGOs, community radio stations, women’s organizations, young people, the local population and socio-professional organizations (stockbreeders and peasant farmers). Moreover, USAID/PGP has helped to find solutions to the small local conflicts which tend to fuel the big conflict in Casamance. Thus, land conflicts, conflicts relating to the access and use of natural resources, conflicts relating to cattle rustling and conflicts between stockbreeders and peasant farmers have been properly defined and solutions have also been put forward for them. As part of the strengthening of social dialogue for peace, women, the youth, peasant farmers, stockbreeders, the local people and those living on the other side of the borders (Guinea-Bissau and The Gambia), the authorities and the Police in Senegal, The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau, community and local radio stations as well as the combatants are actively involved. The floor is given to all stakeholders for them to be able to express themselves freely and to do away with their resentments and frustrations. 43 Beyond actions aimed at preventing, analyzing and resolving the conflict in Casamance, the USAID/PGP wanted to get involved in development issues by using the collaborative approach. The limitations are related to the ad hoc approach. The peace process in Casamance is a mixed one: « Neither peace nor War ». No agreements have yet been signed between the factions. The MFDC is still sticking to their positions, by keeping their arms. On the contrary, fighting has become a rare phenomenon. It may be noted that for the past twelve years, movement of persons and goods is more secure within the territories and local government units. Furthermore, relationships among individuals and groups have improved. Community initiatives supported by the various partners have been implemented in the form of peace-building and peace-promoting actions. Within the context of the USAID/PGP implementation approach, highly interconnected components relating to the concept of « Nitee and Digëntee » have been observed. These components can be identified in the: − Use of messages pronounced by traditional chiefs and religious leaders in the community radio stations and at villages forums (6 434 living accounts and peace messages were disseminated on the radio stations, thus providing for free speech) highlighting both generational relationships (between young and elderly persons, governed by generational responsibilities and rights) and the traditional rulers and the governed communities (between traditional rulers and the governed communities, regulated by religious and community obligations); − Use of kinship banter relationships as a means of self-conscientisation between ethnic Casamance groups and some ethnic groups from the rest of Senegal (examples of Diola-Sérères : Foundiougne Agreements on the Casamance Peace Process and Sofaniama conflict resolution between the indigenous population and occupants from the North of Senegal). 7.2 Partial Conclusions As part of the interventions for the improvement of the peace process in Casamance, the following conclusions can be drawn: − Effective targeting of stakeholders and partners; − Considerable support offered to partners: advocacy (16 111), radio broadcasts (1236), training workshops in CAR (11), Grants targeted at « minor conflicts » which trigger the 44 « major conflict » ; Discussions» (6), Dialogue (23); Studies, (5), production and dissemination of tools on peace, and (5). − Significant results: The intervention of the USAID/PGP made it possible to make progress (women’s participation in meetings with the MFDC), even though unfinished tasks remain (at the level of women and young Catholics platform). − Communication was the key axis of this component by essentially using community radio stations and the establishment of a radio program dubbed « Carrefour de la Paix en Casamance » aired by Zig FM (96). − The USAID/PGP intervention was a complementary initiative to others such as the ProCas, funded by the Senegalo-German Cooperation which was discontinued in 2012, the Propaix, funded by the World Bank which has been operating since 2013, etc. − Uncompleted and unfinished actions have been noted and are regrettable (projects presented were drastically reduced due to budgetary constraints, scheduled actions were not implemented). − Use of home-grown mechanisms, governing relationships within groups and between groups is an important leveraging factor in conflict resolution. This option is the expression of the concept of « Nitee ak Digentee » the contents of which need to be clarified and the instruments and the operational approach conceptualized to make it a truly recognized instrument for peacebuilding processes within the context of similar future interventions. 7.3 Partial Recommendations To ensure effective future interventions, the mission decided on recommendations structured around two points:  In the requests for proposals, the project amounts for submission need to be specified to avoid restrictions as the promoters get confused about their initial offer and the final project selected by USAID/PGP;  Take into account the importance of the two neighboring countries (The Gambia and Guinea Bissau) which share the same cultural values;  Ensure the use of local languages which are unifying factors depending on the zones; (Pulaar and Mandingo, Kolda zone), (Mandingo, Sédhiou zone), (Diola, Bignona zone), (Diola, Créole, Mandingo and Wolof); 45  Develop the “Nitee Ak Digentee” Concept (greater clarification of the content, conceptualisation of instruments and approaches as well as translation into local spoken languages in the Casamance);  Extend support to community radio stations other than those belonging to the network;  Strengthen the capacities of youth associations involved in the peace process and provide support for implementation of their plan of action; and  Extend technical support and training in conflict resolution to all the community radio stations broadcasting in the Casamance. 8. Cross-cutting Issues: Synergy, Gender and Communication 8.1 Synergy 8.1.1 Observations USAID evaluation question 3: To what extent has the involvement of the USAID/PGP in the coordination and collaborative efforts with the other donors or implementing partners been effective and contributed to the achievement of the expected outcomes ? USAID/PGP has ensured coordination of actions of the SCBF as part of the 2012 presidential elections, promotion of the fight against corruption, good governance, strengthened dialogue regarding the peace process in Casamance and consolidated decentralization. The work carried out in this area has served to forge a unifying dynamic of actions around a common vision and common objectives. Huge financial resources have been mobilized to support a lot of processes and dynamics and appropriate tools have been used. The work of coordinating the SCBF in any framework helps the USAID/PGP team to forge a leadership role in the area of investment, knowledge sharing, tools, learning from others, ensuring a certain amount of visibility, pooling of resources, etc. Significant outcomes have been observed in all the components by the USAID/PGP thanks to the synergy developed between the project components; first of all between the different USAID projects implemented in Senegal, and then among the donors in order to harmonize and coordinate the activities, mobilize additional resources and support the mechanisms towards the consolidation of democracy and good governance. 46 These observations on synergy are perceptible through: − Synergy and coordination between the project components: The evaluation team has identified obvious linkages between component 1 (transparency and acceptability) and component 2 (Decentralization and Local Governance), as the two are implemented at both the local and national levels, particularly on issues relating to transparency and accountability. That is how the budgets allocated by the State to its health departments and local governments are implemented by these entities under the same conditions of transparency and accountability just like the budget execution at the national level. The same observation can be found in the fight against corruption where information often flows in a bottom-up approach until it reaches the National Anti-Corruption Observatory. The evaluation team has also identified synergistic ties between local governance activities (component 2 - Decentralization and Local Governance) and conflict (Component 4 - Dialogue for Stability in Casamance). A good and transparent management of local resources is likely to minimize the troubles which fuel the conflict and therefore reduce tensions. Finally, the team has observed that the greater the level of participation of the population in the electoral process (Component 3), the greater the progress in the peace process becomes noticeable (Component 4), as attested to by the huge mobilization of civil society organizations (Women’s Platform for Peace in Casamance and youth organizations), the ultimate effect being the commitment made by the presidential election candidates to make peace in Casamance a national priority. − Synergy and coordination between USAID projects : The evaluation team has noted the formation of a group comprising the USAID/PGP/USAID, ANRAC and other USAID projects (EDB, VIH-TB, EPQ, PEPAM, Wula Nafa and Yajeende) have agreed to collaborate and work together to improve coordination and collaboration between USAID projects through a pilot project targeted at fiscal decentralization and related services. It is in this context that the Good Governance Barometer (BBG) was put into effect in Oudoucar and coordinated by PGG. It is within the same spirit and concern for information sharing between the USAID projects that brought about the establishment of « SYNERGY », a quarterly newsletter which all the USAID project communication agents have worked on to make it a reality ; it is coordinated by USAID/PGP and it has succeeded in coming out with 2 editions. Finally, it must be indicated that a BBG plan of action in Oudoucar has come consolidate the synergy between USAID projects. Furthermore, in collaboration with the FHI360 360 Education Project and World Education, USAID/PGP has implemented a pilot Education for Peace Project in the EDB partner schools in EDB in Casamance. 47 − Synergy and coordination among donors : The team has observed that USAID/PGP has fully put into effect the synergy and coordination among donors in each of the four components. In fact, in the course of the project implementation, USAID/PGP initiated and supported the Anti-Corruption Practices Community comprising national and international NGOs, bilateral and multilateral development agencies such as the French Cooperation and Agencies of the United Nations system (Component 1 – Transparency and Acceptability). Thus USAID/PGP has continued with the coordination of the entity in order to share experiences and best practices in the fight against corruption. The team also found out that USAID/PGP has worked closely with the Donors’ Sub-Committee on Decentralization (Component 2 - Decentralization and Local Governance), chaired by the USAID and its objective is to strengthen the Senegalese government in formulating the Decentralization and Local Development Sectoral Policy Letter. This support by USAID/PGP has been continued for the finalization and implementation of the new policy (Act III) designed to deepen accountability in local communities and to consolidate their financial sustainability. It has also noted that USAID/PGP, on behalf of the USAID, organized and supported the Elections Technical Group (GTE) which is the receptacle for the coordination of donor efforts regarding the electoral process. Finally, USAID/PGP provided technical and operational support to the USAID which was chairing the Casamance Component of the Donor Sub-Committee, whose remit is to share information and coordinate donor interventions in Casamance. 8.1.2 Partial Conclusions − Synergy can be an excellent economic tool for the effective management of financial and human resources including time management. 8.1.3 Partial Recommendations − Consistently mainstream the cross-cutting SYNERGY component into all USAID projects in their design stages for implementation; and − Promote workshops between USAID project implementers and strengthen their capacities to ensure good component linkages among the said projects. 48 8.2 Gender 8.2.1 Gender mainstreaming 8.2.1.1 Observations 8.2.1.1.1 Trends of indicators on gender mainstreaming Table 8 : Trends of indicators on gender mainstreaming CROSS-CUTTING YOUTH AND GENDER OUTCOMES TARGET OUTCOME Indicator 1: Percentage of CSOs which benefitted from projects targeted at the youth 20% 46% Indicator 2: Percentage of women’s CSOs which benefitted from projects targeted at women 20% 44% Indicator 3: Number of women leaders consulted to support peacebuilding activities. 20 64 8.2.1.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits USAID evaluation question 7: Has the USAID / USAID/PGP adequately considered cross￾cutting issues (in particular, gender equality, youth and communication) in project design and implementation? On the whole, women and the young people are stakeholders in governance activities. The USAID/PGP has taken all the appropriate measures to ensure the active participation of women and young people. The monitoring system instituted towards this end has helped to ensure participation in the activities. In the area of indicators, the number of young persons and women can reliably be ascertained, but this form of participation can obscure weaknesses in the project approach. USAID/PGP developed an approach which consists of providing direct support to women and youth organizations which will distinguish themselves in their capacity to undertake and get involved in current issues by taking them up in order to come out with points of view and take specific positions. In fact, USAID/PGP successfully implemented this approach to achieve results, even though, somehow, it must be admitted that many of the processes initiated have not been fully achieved (the example of youth for peace in Casamance, the case of the women’s platform for peace in Casamance) 49 Communication was duly taken into account as part of USAID/PGP, in terms of media coverage of activities, institutional communication, information on USAID/PGP, sharing of knowledge and information. The main problem raised was the lack of interactivity with the institutional partners especially at the end of the project. The gender dimension was incorporated and developed during the implementation of each of the four project components. The objective of USAID/PGP was to ensure that 20% of the grants be devolved on women’s organizations and that there would be effective participation of women in the training and activities funded by the project. On the other hand, the USAID/PGP encouraged its partners to involve women and women-related issues in their plans of action and decisions. To achieve this objective, the USAID disaggregated all the data on men/women. In the implementation of component 1, USAID/PGP laid much emphasis on the participation of women and women’s civil society organizations that were beneficiaries of grants for monitoring the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Plan. The women’s organizations are members of the local observatories and are involved in the supervision of public expenditure and social responsibility tools for the evaluation of transparency in the area of health. Several members of the Non-State Platform are women’s organizations and they have played a major role in the sensitization campaigns against corruption. In the implementation of Component 2, USAID/PGP ensured a massive participation of women’s organizations in the BBG process in order to assess and improve performance at the local governance level. They became key elements in the formulation of the budget of local governments. The same applies to the electoral process segment (component 3) where USAID/PGP provided training, support and sensitization to women’s organizations involved in the process. Thus, girls who are members of political parties received training in policy leadership and women’s organizations became the major target for electoral registration and civic participation campaigns. The USAID/PGP/IFES team developed the capacity of a new generation of political leaders by specifically targeting women and young members of political parties for training and special workshops. Thus, USAID/PGP organized two training sessions at the decentralized level (in Thiès and Ziguinchor regions) involving the five main political party coalitions (including the ruling party) and the two new political parties, Yakaar and FEDES. Furthermore, the sessions helped to foster constructive political dialogue between the youth and women from the main political parties to discuss burning political issues. 50 Finally, in implementing component 4, USAID/PGP identified women and women’s organizations as key stakeholders in the initial mapping exercise. They later participated in the mapping of the conflict zones and conflict prevention and resolution projects at the community level. During the 3rd year, USAID/PGP supported the Women’ Platform for Peace in Casamance (PFPC) to monitor compliance by the President with promises he made on the peace process in Casamance during the presidential campaigns. The PFPC was a key actor in promoting and developing an open dialogue environment, a conducive setting for negotiations and a peace agreement. Women have also been strongly represented in the local peace committees which are the main targets for dialogue under community radio station projects. 8.2.2 Partial Conclusions − The gender ratios have been more or less correctly complied with by all USAID/PGP components; − However, the indicators used are quantitative and do not help in taking the qualitative aspects into account. 8.2.3 Partial Recommendations − Gender mainstreaming should be enhanced in the different USAID/PGP components through increased awareness-raising taking into account certain cultural values and developing indicators that provide more information on activities undertaken. 8.2.4 Integration of Young People 8.2.4.1 Observations 8.2.4.1.1 Status of indicators on youth integration Table 9 : Indicators on youth integration CROSS-CUTTING RESULTS ON YOUTH AND GENDER TARGET OUTCOME Indicator 1: Percentage of CSOs beneficiaries of projects targeting the youth 20% 46% Indicator 2: Percentage of CSOs beneficiaries of projects targeting women’s CSOs 20% 44% Indicator 3: Number of women leaders consulted to support peacebuilding activities. 20 64 51 8.2.4.1.2 Observations from interviews and field visits The USAID/PGP laid particular emphasis on training the youth and youth associations and on various activities in each of the four project components. The USAID/PGP particularly developed youth activities in Casamance where the youth constitute a very significant section of the population in this conflict zone. The team noted that the youth and youth associations have been actively involved by the USAID/PGP in activities on the fight against corruption (Component 1). Thus, the association of youth reporters benefitted from several training sessions which were widely reported in the media. These training sessions on public procurement procedures and related surveys were conducted in partnership with the US Embassy and the ARMP. The same applies to the local level where the youth and youth organizations were targeted and involved by the USAID/PGP in the fiscal decentralization process and BBG in order to improve performance in local governance (Component 2). The youth and youth organizations were also the main target in the civic education campaign led by ANAFA and the umbrella civil society organizations which targeted registration on the voters’ register and a broad participation in the electoral process (Component 3). Furthermore, the youth (girls and boys) from political parties also benefitted from the political leadership training. 8.2.5 Partial Conclusions Young people have been greatly involved in all segments of the project, even though the girl/boy ratio cannot be calculated with a certain degree of precision. 8.2.6 Partial Recommendations  Support youth organizations to be well structured and remain united; and  Provide greater support for existing groups and associations to ensure that, together with women’s organizations, they play major roles in the social stabilization process in the Casamance and in all development actions in the region. 52 8.3 Communication 8.3.1 Observations With a view to signing the contract with ANANAFA, USAID/PGP initiated an awareness campaign on the registration of voters on the electoral registers including the following main intervention axes: − Distribution of a "comic strip"/caricature on the electoral registration, awareness-raising among the voters in the four regions covered by USAID/PGP (Dakar, Thiès, Kédougou and Casamance): in schools, universities with copies distributed to NGOs and associations. The strips were developed and published by ASCOD and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. USAID/PGP signed a memorandum of understanding with KAS and ASCODE and reprinted the strips. − Publication of sensitization messages on the registration of voters in three dailies published in Dakar in the month of June. − Broadcasts of pre-recorded messages in French, Wolof, Sérère, Pulaar, Soninké, Diola and Mandingo on 13 community radio stations across the country. The radio stations were paid to broadcast messages within two weeks but at the end of this period, they voluntarily decided to continue with the broadcasts for purposes of « national interest». − Broadcasts of sensitization messages on four private radio stations (Radio Sénégal International, RFM, Walfadjri and Sud FM). Messages were recorded by two celebrities (Sylla Mounia and Tonton Ada) and broadcast at prime time listening hours to encourage voters to register on the electoral registers. USAID/PGP also sponsored a film, Bopou Kong, broadcast five times a week for one month and produced by the same duo on RFM (Radio Futur Média). − Messages on voter registration were posted on Seneweb which is probably the most consulted site in Senegal (a rate of 6.286.000 visitors and 34.239.000 pages read per month). − A Facebook account "Sunugal Je vote" inviting young people to register to vote in 2012. − Assistance to "the Scouts of Senegal» for the improvement of registration in the electoral register using the voters’ brochure for awareness raising campaigns; 10 000 copies were printed with our financial support and distributed in forty (40) of the 46 departments. 53 8.3.2 Partial Conclusions − The community radio stations are in a pivotal position in communication, both internally within the Casamance region, and in the neighboring countries, thus promoting dialogue which goes beyond in situ or interpersonal meetings. 8.3.3 Partial Recommendations  Take into account the importance of the two neighboring countries (The Gambia and Guinea Bissau) which share the same cultural values;  Ensure the use of local languages which are unifying factors depending on the zones ; (Pulaar and Mandingo, Kolda zone), (Mandingo, Sédhiou zone), (Diola, Bignona zone), (Diola, Créole, Mandingo and Wolof); and  Extend technical support and training in conflict resolution to all the community radio stations broadcasting in the Casamance. 9. General Evaluation Conclusions 9.1 Conclusions on National Performance Senegal made a more or less significant progress over the period 2011-2014, corresponding to the implementation of the USAID/PGP. Graphs 1 and 2 illustrate this progress. Figure 2 : Mo Ibrahim Indicator Trends 54 Figure 3 : Trends of the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) By comparing the indices at the start of the project and at the end of the project, one can see the significant progress achieved by Senegal and the encouraging upturn of the Trend. These achievements by the people of Senegal were obtained thanks to the commitments and longstanding battles of the political actors and civil society organizations including the favorable social and historical context in which the PPG played a critical role as leverage through facilitating and accompanying actions. 9.2 Conclusions on the Performance of Local Governments Table 10 : Trends of tax revenue in local governments Local government Trends of annual tax revenues (in CFAF) 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bignona 125 234 547 141 403 005 144 224 972 160 926 506 Karthiak 13 738 238 18 594 552 21 807 927 Thianaba 21 992 280 24 560 139 25 801 140 Yenn 54 466 917 77 056 576 87 256 341 Table 11 : Trends of good governance indices in local governments Local governme nt Trends of Good Governance Indices Efficiency/Effective ness Rule of Law Accountability Participation Equity Beginni ng of Project End of project Beginni ng of Project End of proje ct Beginni ng of Project End of proje ct Beginni ng of Project End of proje ct Beginni ng of Project End of proje ct Bignona 54/100 83/100 55/100 59/10 0 59/100 73/10 0 60/100 69/10 0 30/100 46/10 0 Karthiak 50/100 72/100 45/100 53/10 0 33/100 46/10 0 36/100 54/10 0 26/100 39/10 0 Diende 66/100 75/100 52/100 57/10 0 54/100 91/10 0 17/100 29/10 0 17/100 23/10 0 Oudouca r 48/100 68/100 34/100 66/10 0 49/100 68/10 0 43/100 57/10 0 21/100 24/10 0 55 Dioulacol on 41/100 64/100 83/100 71/10 0 63/100 78/10 0 29/100 54/10 0 45/100 59/10 0 Thanaba 29/100 72/100 60/100 75/10 0 74/100 81/10 0 64/100 68/10 0 4/100 46/10 0 Yenn 71/100 83/100 62/100 67/10 0 45/100 82/10 0 76/100 85/10 0 29/100 40/10 0 These two tables indicate that important progress has been achieved in the local governments which benefitted from USAID/PGP action. Here too, it can be seen that the project made a significant contribution. 10.General Evaluation Recommendations Considering the achievements of Senegal in the area of governance to which the project made a huge contribution, the new generation of good governance support projects should no longer be focused on the issue of electoral processes and promotion of transparency, etc. These issues have now been taken care of by the State and various groups of stakeholders in an irreversible manner: OFNAC, ITIE, declaration of assets, public procurement code, etc. The issue now is to endow the various dynamics of stakeholders with tools and resources to enable them to enhance their performance and effectiveness in governance. The main risk in the current context of challenges towards acceleration of growth leading to the attainment of emergence is to develop a good governance perception which is an obstacle to the performance of institutions. Towards this end, we make the following recommendations:  Support the local governments by providing them with sufficient services to enable them to conduct transparent and effective governance; and  Support the institutional development and organizational strengthening of civil society enabling them to fully play their role in the different processes and strengthen their autonomy. In order to implement these guidelines, there are two possible options: − Option 1: A five-year project with two components: 1) A governance support component for local governments with Casamance as the focus zone, and 2) A governance component for civil society organizations; and − Option 2: Make each of these components a specific project covering a five-year period. The mission proposes option 1, which allows for better coordination and synergy between the two components and to effectively build on achievements. 56 The Governance support component for local governments falls within the current guidelines of the government to make Casamance a test zone under Phase 3 of the Decentralization Act. In light of this fact, main risks in terms of governance are related to the capacities of local governments to implement public procurement processes and ensure effective financial management. The establishment of a local public service announced several years ago, has still not happened, making it difficult to achieve the expected performance and transparency. Furthermore, financial management of local budgets could be a major challenge for which stakeholders may not be sufficiently prepared, especially as the contributions from partners could be substantial. To address these challenges, the component on governance support in local governments will be focused on recruitment and provision for the Casamance component of: 1) a private procurement agency, 2) a private Trust Agency for resource management, and 3) an external audit office. These different service providers will be at the disposal of local government units in the Casamance and will provide relevant technical services, training and mentoring for the transfer of skills and best practices. Other support activities could be provided through the Regional Development Agency (ARD), in areas such as planning and support to small and medium enterprises, in an effort to develop the local economy. Finally, tools put in place by USAID/PGP such as the good governance barometer will be enhanced and disseminated in all local government units within the Casamance. Through all these interventions, the project will play an essential role in structuring development in the Casamance region (PDC). Furthermore, the results obtained and tested in this zone will be used by the Government in other focus regions. Under the component on governance support for civil society organizations, key tools developed and validated will be widely disseminated throughout the country. This dissemination must be conducted by civil society organizations, which may submit initiatives in this regard for financing by USAID. It must however be noted that most organizations have shortcomings in various domains (organization, management, accountability, renewal etc.) that may diminish the reach of their activities and the sustainability of results in particular. Thus, the project should propose activities in areas such as organizational audit and management as a prerequisite or an accompanying measure. 57 11.Annexes 11.1 Annex 1: USAID/PGP Organizational Chart 11.2 Annex 2: Implementation Plan 11.3: SOW Evaluation