Review of UNDP's Partnership With Lithuania (1992-2005)

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME REVIEW OF UNDPS PARTNERSHIP WITH LITHUANIA (1992-2005)
2005 December
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME REVIEW OF UNDPS PARTNERSHIP WITH LITHUANIA (1992-2005)
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Gostauto str. 40A, LT-2001, Vilnius Lithuania www.undp.lt ISBN 9986-639-30-1
Mr. Arnoldas Puikis has done the layout, and cover.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Review of UNDPs Partnership with Lithuania (1992-2005) was prepared by: Mr. Michael Reynolds, International Independent Development Consultant. The Preparion Phase for the Review was carried by: BDA Lietuva and the Bradley Dunbar Group. The Review has benefited from a contentful input by Ms. Cihan Sultanoglu, United Nations Resident Coordinator, UNDP Resident Representative and UNFPA Representative. Contributions were provided by national counterparts and project partners. UNDP Country Office team facilitated the Review preparation process. Ms. Ruta Svarinskaite, Programme Officer, was the focal point for the Review.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations EXeCUTIVe SUMMaRY CHaPTeR 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE REVIEW
1.1 Overview of the UNDP Presence in Lithuania 1.2 Objectives and Scope 1.3 Methodology and Process
6 7
13
14 15 16
CHaPTeR 2 naTIonaL deVeLoPMenT ConTeXT (1992-2005)

2.1 The Enabling Environment for Human Development 2.2 The State of Human Development 2.3 The EU Accession Process
19
20 21 22
CHaPTeR 3 undps STRATEGIC POSITIONING

3.1 The Evolution of the UNDP Country Programme 3.2 UNDP and the EU Accession Process 3.3 Development of Partnerships and Resource Mobilisation 3.4 Programming and Implementation Approaches 3.5 UNDP on the Eve of Closing its Country Office
25
26 31 33 37 40
CHaPTeR 4 UNDPS CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

4.1 Poverty Reduction 4.2 Governance 4.3 Environment 4.4 Cross Cutting Issues 4.5 Emerging Issues
43
44 48 52 57 61
CHaPTeR 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CHaPTeR 6 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Lessons Learned 6.2 Recommendations
67
73
73 74
REVIEW OF UNDPS PARTNERSHIP WITH LITHUANIA (1992-2005)
ANNEXES
1. Terms of Reference 2. Persons Interviewed 3. Documentation Reviewed 4. UNDP Programme Resources by Theme 5. UNDP Programme Resources (1993-2005) 6. Map of Lithuania 7. Lithuania Basic Indicators 8. Overview of Official Aid (1992-2005) 9. Lithuania as an Emerging Donor 10. UNDP Projects (1992-2005) 11. UNDP Supported Reports (1992-2005) 12. UNDP Staff Members (1992-2005)
77 86 88 89 90 92 93 94 95 96 99 102
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 UNDP Country Programmes in Lithuania (1993-2005) 2.1 Evolution of Lithuanias HDI ranking (Human Development Reports 1995-2005) 3.1 Basic Resource Mobilisation Indicators 3.2 Resource Mobilisation (1993-2005) 3.3 Recognition of UNDPs MDG Advertisements (percentage of total) 3.4 Some Key Results from the 2004 UNDP Partners Survey 4.1 TI Perception of Corruption Index 4.2 Participation of Lithuania in Key Environmental Conventions 4.3 GEF SGP Projects by Theme
14 23 35 35 39 40 49 54 55
LIST OF BOXES
1.1 Triangulation 2.1 Membership of Major International Organizations (1991-2003) 3.1 UNDP Cooperation Frameworks 3.2 Examples of Inter-agency Partnerships 3.3 Key Partner the Global Environmental Facility 3.4 Key Partner The UNDP Baltic Trust Fund 3.5 Partnership with Microsoft 3.6 National Strategies, Programmes and Action Plans developed with UNDP Support 3.7 Millennium Development Goals 3.8 MDGs Awareness Campaign in 2003 4.1 Some of the Key Outputs of UNDPs Support to Poverty Reduction Planning and Policy 4.2 Other GEF Interventions 4.3 Broad partnership in the SGP 4.4 Lithuanian Human Development Reports 4.5 Bridges without Barriers 4.6 The UN Global Compact 17 22 26 34 35 35 36 37 38 39 44 53 55 57 62 64
LIST OF CHARTS
3.1 Thematic Allocation CP-1 (1993-96) 3.2 Thematic Allocation CP-2 (1997-2000) 3.3 Thematic Allocation CP-3 (2001-2003) 3.4 Thematic Allocation CP-4 (2004-2005) 27 28 30 30
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACP ADR BTF BWI CBO CCA CCF CIDA CO CP CPD CPI EEA EBRD EO EOO EU GCF GDP GBV GEF GLOC GNI HDI HDR HRAP HURIST ICTD ILO IT LEO LHDR LOGIN MDG NATO NEX NGO NHDR NISC
Africa, Caribbean, Pacific Assessment of Development Results Baltic Trust Fund Bretton Woods institution Community Based Organisation Common Country Assessment Country Cooperation Framework Canadian International Development Agency Country Office County Programme Country Programme Document Corruption Perceptions Index European Economic Area European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Evaluation Office Equal Opportunities Ombudsman European Union Global Cooperation Framework Gross Domestic Product Gender Based Violence Global Environment Facility Government Contribution to Local Office Costs Gross National Income Human Development Index Human Development Report Human Rights Action Plan Human Rights Strengthening Information and Communication Technologies for Development International Labour Organisation Information Technology Law on Equal Opportunities Lithuanian Human Development Report Local Government Information Network Millennium Development Goals North Atlantic Treaty Organisation National Execution Non-Governmental Organisation National Human Development Report NGO Information and Support Centre
NAPs/incl NPRS OA ODA OECD OHCHR OSCE POP PRSIP RBEC RBM RC RR RCF SGP SHD ToR UNAIDS UNCT UNDESA UNDP UNEG UNEP UNESCO UNFCCC UNFPA UNHCR UNICEF UNODC UNTG WHO YFSL
National Action Plan on Social Inclusion National Poverty Reduction Strategy Official Aid Official Development Assistance Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Persistent Organic Pollutant Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Programme for 2002-2004 Regional Bureau for Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States Results-based Management Resident Coordinator Resident Representative Regional Cooperation Framework Small Grants Programme Sustainable Human Development Terms of Reference The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS United Nations Country team United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations Development Programme United Nations Evaluation Group United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United Nations Population Fund United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Childrens Fund United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UN Theme Group World Health Organisation Youth-friendly Services in Lithuania
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW OF UNDPS PARTNERSHIP WITH LITHUANIA 1992-2005
Since regaining independence in 1990 Lithuania has made remarkable progress in terms of both its transformation to a democratic market economy and its advancement towards greater human development. External assistance to Lithuanias transformation has been limited but important, especially in the early years of the transition process. In the run-up to European Union (EU) accession, it is not surprising that the EU became by far the most important donor and most external assistance agencies closed their offices and ended their programmes in Lithuania. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been supporting this process since 1992, but will close its representative office at the end of 2005 coinciding with Lithuanias transition from a recipient of aid to a donor in its own right and its membership of the EU since 1 May 2004. From a UNDP perspective, the country has reached a high level of Human Development with a ranking of 39 in the 2005 UNDP Human Development Report. Problems remain, however, most notably the issues of rural poverty and inequality, low life expectancy and high rates of suicide. Other problems are still emerging, such as HIV/AIDS. Since 1992 UNDP has responded to Lithuanias priority needs with four country programmes as illustrated by the table below. Each of these has been financed by a combination of core UNDP resources, third party cost-sharing and a variety of trust fund mechanisms. Over the period being examined, UNDP has provided US$20 million in support of the Lithuanian development process.
THE PARTNERSHIP REVIEW

The main purpose of this review is to examine the experience of UNDP in Lithuania. Specifically, it has three objectives: (a) First, as a retrospective study, to identify lessons learned to be used not only at national, at UNDP corporate levels but also in the frame of development cooperation (b) Second, a forward-looking perspective in the sense that it establishes solid reasoning for the discussions on the added-value for Lithuania of continued activities of UNDP beyond 2005 (c) Finally, the review will also act as a record of UNDPs presence in Lithuania since opening an office in Vilnius in 1992. Regarding the scope of the review, it will cover the following:
Strategic Positioning: An analysis of how UNDP has

positioned itself strategically to bring added value to the development process and respond effectively to national development needs and priorities as well as to changes in the national development situation.
Development Results: An overall assessment

of the results achieved through UNDP support and in partnership with other key development actors during 1992-2005 with specific in-depth assessments within poverty, governance and environment taking into account cross-cutting issues such as gender equality and Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICTD).
UNDP Country Programmes in Lithuania (1993-2005)*

Country Priority Areas/ Programme Resources Programme Strategic lines of intervention (US$ mill.)
CP I: 1993-1996 CP II: 1997-2000 CP III: 2001-2003 CP IV: 2004-2005 - the development of democracy and civil society - public administration reform - the development of human resources for the market economy - the alleviation of the social impact of the transition - the promotion of sustainable livelihoods - democratic governance and citizen participation - human security - environment protection - as well as on the advancement of women, the promotion of NGOs and the prevention of HIV/AIDS - the promotion of civil rights and good governance - the promotion of economic and social rights - the promotion of environmental rights - crosscutting themes of HIV/AIDS prevention, gender mainstreaming and the strengthening of civil society. - Strengthening capacities for social inclusion - Strengthening capacities for sustainable development - Strengthening capacities as an emerging donor Total Programme Resources (1993-2005) 3.51
7.96
4.54
3.63
19.64
*Note: Resources include estimates for 2005 **Note: Approved resources from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) go beyond 2005. GEF allocation amounts to 1.64 US$ million for 2006-2008
Lessons Learned and Good Practices: The Review

will identify the key lessons from the thematic areas of focus both for the period that Lithuania was considered a transitional economy andlater as an EU pre-accession country and a member of the EU.
KEY FINDINGS AND BEST PRACTICES

The main findings and conclusions are as follows: (a) UNDP has been an important partner in the development process in the past 13 years. (b) While UNDPs assistance has been broadly aligned with national priorities and international commitments as well as the UNDP global mandate and corporate frameworks, there are a number of issues related to its positioning:
The country programmes (apart from the first) were heavily skewed toward the environment largely because of the success in mobilising resources from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). This does not necessarily reflect UNDPs comparative advantage in the country, the area of most potential value-added or even where the national priorities lie. Poverty was an important concern throughout the period being examined and is an area where a relatively small proportion of resources were used. Poverty reduction, especially in the rural areas where poverty is most prevalent in Lithuania, is an area of potential comparative advantage for UNDP. (C) There are a number of other factors that have been behind UNDPs successful contribution to Lithuanias national development results: The high quality of the staff (national and international) of the UNDP Country Office.
UNDP administrative procedures are nonetheless considered to be relatively simple. The neutrality of UNDP: it does not play games with the government and other stakeholders/ partners. UNDP projects always designed with partners through a process of genuine partnership. The fact that UNDP takes a holistic approach. The ability to have a broad overview of the development situation above allows UNDP to identify gaps which it then is able to take to the government. The role of UNDP is catalytic, engaging with the government on existing or emerging issues, helping develop national strategies and then opening the way for other supporters with larger programmes to take the process further and assist implementation. UNDP has also pushed for cost-sharing to encourage/ illustrate greater commitment to the project and ensure more effective use of resources. Another key factor has been the effective utilisation of national expertise and appropriate balance between international and national expertise. (d) Best practices include: The preparation of the Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Programme for 2002-2004 (PRSIP) using the format of the EU National Action Plans on Social Inclusion (NAPs/incl) and specifically, the example of Ireland. The Disaggregated Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Report, not because of the report itself which is well produced and well received as any UNDP report should be. Rather, it is because it represents a good example of using the MDG reporting process to identify and address important gaps in the knowledge and understating of the country in MDG-related areas: In this case, there was limited disaggregated information. The best practice was to identify this gap and address it. The Human Rights Action Plan has been exemplary in bringing the work being done in the governance
area under a common theme and is already being emulated in other countries (Moldova, Nepal, Mongolia) both in substance and methodology (the consultative approach to the preparation of the Plan, its implementation by the Parliament). (e) Without UNDP, a number of areas would remain underdeveloped or would have been addressed later on in the development process, at a stage when addressing the issue would be far harder. This is largely due to UNDPs ability to identify issues as they emerge or even before they do. Such interventions include: The fundamental area of poverty reduction where UNDPs contribution to getting the issue on the policy agenda, promoting a greater understanding of the issue and developing the tools to address the issues was extremely important. In the area of HIV/AIDS, UNDP was instrumental in bringing together its international partners to work with government on addressing the emerging problem at an early stage.
The areas of ombudsman institutions and NGO support are the other ones that are most often mentioned in this respect. In addition, UNDP has provided other significant support to sustainable institutional building in Lithuania as indicated in the main text. A second area where UNDP added value concerns the flexibility of UNDPs approach and the speed with which it could respond to priority government needs. There are numerous examples where, without UNDPs support either as a catalyst to attract resources to new issues or as a partner filling in gaps as they emerge, implementation of programmes and other interventions would have been slower. (f) Resource mobilisation has been good in the context of declining resources from traditional bilateral partners. Mobilisation of the resources from EU preaccession funds in the mid-1990s was not necessarily opportunity for UNDP because of the EUs prevailing attitude that there existed sufficient national capacities to implement the pre-accession instruments which are by default designated at the national actors. Resource mobilisation efforts have been successful in the context of small aid flows from traditional suppliers of resources (i.e. certain bilateral donors). The GEF has been the major source of cost-sharing resources and this had skewed the allocation of country programme resources heavily towards environmental issues in the last three country programmes. (g) Partnership development has been good with civil society and across government including at the local level. Working with the private sector has been limited but has intensified during the last country programme. International partnerships have been good especially in the context of declining representation and a small UN Country Team. (H) Sustainability is an issue in terms of UNDPs support to specific organisations but one that UNDP has made efforts to address in collaboration with these partner organisations. (I) UNDP has adopted a programming approach that has a number of key features: The issue of focus was raised in the 2000 Country Review, but needs careful examination. What there has been is an approach of supporting the
development of national strategies and then implementing certain parts of them that UNDP thinks it has a comparative advantage. This programmatic approach has meant that the themes in the UNDP Country Programmes have been focussed within a national framework. There has been little interest in using the MDGs as tools for development and their relevance as such has not been high in Lithuania. As a High Human Development Country the MDGs were largely perceived as not so relevant by the government. MDG-8 is seen as more useful especially in relation to Lithuanias new role as a donor. Visibility seems to have increased over time reflecting greater and more effective efforts in this respect by the UNDP Country Office. (J) Lithuania has developed significant capacity in the last decade or more. There is clear recognition in the country among government, civil society and the donor community that this expertise is of great potential use in other countries, specifically other former Soviet republics and of these, the neighbouring countries. (K) UNDP faces a number of remaining challenges, the first and most important one being the issue of a programmatic presence in Lithuania and what it should look like. If a decision is taken by the Government to support such continuity, the office will face a number of additional challenges that are already well understood by the Country Office staff including sources of funding and the nature of its organisation and role in Lithuania. (L) People interviewed across government and civil society will be sorry to see the UNDP Country Office close its representative office but the vast majority recognise that this is the right course of action. Nonetheless UNDP will be missed by many. As one government official summed up UNDPs contribution: The experience remains, the foundations have been built, and there are aspirations for greater progress. From the interviews undertaken, it seems it is well known among government and civil society partners that UNDP will be closing its representative office at the end of 2005. Less clear are the viable options for a new stage in terms of a continuing physical presence. In any case, UNDP will continue its partnership with
10
Lithuania in the future, as a UN member state and a new donor. (M) UNDP has been exploring different options for its future in Lithuania, in a situation without core funding or representation. The Governments decision regarding its contribution to cover the costs of maintaining a programme presence in the country is critical in this respect. Three broad areas are being examined: Mobilising of resources through the private sector. Mobilising resources from Government sources and other national partners, including through the EU. Further supporting the development of Lithuania as a donor and facilitating the integration of Lithuanians into the international aid system, especially, but not only, with respect to supporting former Soviet republics and countries on the path to EU accession. A trust fund option would be a useful facility to help the Government while keeping a UNDP presence in Lithuania. (n) While EU membership doesnt mean an end to UNDPs presence in a country, in the circumstances described above it is challenging to have programme continuity. Rather a new form of engagement might be necessary to allow continued partnership between UNDP and Lithuania with a country presence.
(C) It is important to get involved early in the process of pre-accession entering dialogue with government and the EU on the potential role of UNDP in the effective utilisation of EU funds for the country. (d) At the same time resource mobilisation ambitions need to be realistic in the context of declining bilateral resources as the accession process proceeds. (e) Once a member of the EU the Country Office will close and the country programme end. Preparation is essential and a decision on any future of UNDP in the country needs to be made well in advance. In most reviews of country programmes a set of recommendations will be prepared to help support future programming efforts in the country. Given the nature of the situation in Lithuania and the forthcoming closure of the representative office, such a comprehensive set of recommendations is not appropriate. As already noted, Lithuanias membership of the EU does not mean the end of UNDPs partnership with Lithuania but rather the start of a different partnership that is no longer based on a country programme. (a) There is still a need for UNDP to engage with the new EU member states on the issue of human development. (b) The country programme review is a very good practice on the eve of closing a country programme. The idea needs to be replicated after the methodology has been improved and adjusted to the specific situation.
LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The review has revealed some important lessons learned, defined here as learning from experience that is applicable to a generic situation rather than to a specific circumstance. (a) The partnership approach really does work and can lead to better results. (b) Once a country is committed to joining the EU and it is invited to do so, it starts on a clear path or reforms. It is possible to engage with the EU accession process through moving towards use of the various instruments some years before necessary.
11
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE REVIEW

Since regaining independence in 1990 Lithuania has made remarkable progress in terms of both its transformation to a democratic market economy and its advancement towards greater human development. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been supporting this process since 1992, but will close its representative office at the end of 2005 coinciding with Lithuanias transition from a recipient of aid to a donor in its own right and its membership of the European Union (EU) since 1 May 2004. The closure of the UNDP Country Office (CO) is a mark of the success of Lithuania. Moreover, it is an unusual situation in a world where increasing levels of external assistance are being called for. It therefore represents a rare opportunity for examining the factors behind this success and the contribution UNDP has made to it over the past thirteen years. Through this process, lessons can be learned for other countries that are undertaking similar transformation process whether or not in the context of joining the EU. In 2001 the Evaluation Office (EO) of UNDP launched a series of country evaluations in order to capture and demonstrate evaluative evidence of UNDPs contributions to development results at the country level. Called Assessments of Development Results (ADR), they have been undertaken in selected countries with a focus on assessing UNDPs added value and the difference its contributions make in addressing a partner countrys development challenges. This review of UNDPs partnership with Lithuania between 1992 and 2005 (further referred to as the Review) is a modified version of an ADR, but uses the basic principles, approaches and methodologies. It will, however, cover a longer period than is usual in such exercises, examining the UNDP country programmes from the first until the present day.
13
1.1
OVERVIEW OF THE UNDP PRESENCE IN LITHUANIA
Since 1992 UNDP has responded to Lithuanias priority needs with four country programmes as illustrated by Table 1.1 below. Each of these has been financed by a combination of core UNDP resources, third party costsharing and a variety of trust fund mechanisms. Over
Table 1.1
the period being examined, UNDP has provided US$20 million1 in support of the Lithuanian development process. Further details of the country programmes, their results and evolution are found in Chapters 3 and 4. A more detailed breakdown of the sources of finance can be found in Annex 5. Agreement was reached with the government that the fourth country programme would be the last and that UNDP representation in Lithuania would close at the end of 2005. At this stage core UNDP funds would no longer be available to finance activities in the country. This does not necessarily mean the end of UNDPs relationship with Lithuania but indicates a change in this relationship consistent with Lithuanias state of development and degree of integration in the
UNDP Country Programmes in Lithuania (1993-2005)*

Country Programme Priority Areas/Strategic lines of intervention Programme Resources (US$ million)
CP I: 1993-1996 CP II: 1997-2000 CP III: 2001-2003 CP IV: 2004-2005** - the development of democracy and civil society - public administration reform - the development of human resources for the market economy - the alleviation of the social impact of the transition - the promotion of sustainable livelihoods - democratic governance and citizen participation - human security - environment protection - cross-cutting themes of the advancement of women, the promotion of NGOs and the prevention of HIV/AIDS - the promotion of civil rights and good governance - the promotion of economic and social rights - the promotion of environmental rights - cross-cutting themes of HIV/AIDS prevention, gender mainstreaming and the strengthening of civil society. - strengthening capacities for social inclusion - strengthening capacities for good governance - strengthening capacities for sustainable development - strengthening capacities as an emerging donor Total Programme Resources (1993-2005) 3.51
7.96
4.54
3.63
19.64
*Note: Resources include estimates for 2005 **Note: Approved resources from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) go beyond 2005. GEF allocation amounts to 1.64 US$ million for 2006-2008
It should be noted that the approved allocations go beyond 2005
14
global community. Issues related to Lithuanias future partnership with UNDP are raised in later chapters. The UNDP Resident Representative also serves as the UN Resident Coordinator and UNFPA Representative and UNDP operates as a member of the UN Country Team (UNCT) which, in the case of Lithuania, is relatively small. Apart from UNDP, none of the other members of the team has a representative office. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is represented by the SecretaryGeneral of the National Commission; the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) by the Director of its National Commission Office; the World Health Organization (WHO) by its National Liaison Officer; and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) by a National Liaison Officer. The Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) are also part of the UNCT: The World Bank is represented by the Country Manager for Lithuania; and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) closed its office (with a shared Resident Representative between Lithuania and Belarus) in December 2004. Interagency collaboration is further examined in Chapter 3.
To act as a record of UNDPs presence in Lithuania since opening an office in Vilnius in 1992. Regarding the scope of the review, it will cover the following: (a) Strategic Positioning: An analysis of how UNDP has positioned itself strategically to bring added value to the development process and respond effectively to national development needs and priorities as well as to changes in the national development situation. Special attention has been paid to: The entry points and strategy selected by UNDP in support of the national development agenda, especially within its areas of focus, with special attention paid to the overarching elements of poverty reduction and practical implementation of the human rights agenda. The key current strategies: developing national capacities of Lithuania as an emerging donor, engaging the private sector, assisting local partners to access the resources available under various EU related mechanisms, including the EU/European Economic Area (EEA) financing mechanisms. The nature and level of cooperation with different development partners. (b) Development Results: An overall assessment of the results achieved through UNDP support and in partnership with other key development actors during 1992-2005 with specific in-depth assessments within poverty, governance and environment taking into account cross-cutting issues such as gender equality and Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICTD). The analysis focuses on how the results were achieved, identifies the factors that accounted for success or failure and draw lessons, with particular attention to examining: How UNDP support was used to leverage the legal reform process in the area of governance. How effective UNDP support was in assisting vulnerable groups at risk of poverty; and providing advisory support in preparing strategic poverty programming and reporting documents.
1.2
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The main purpose of this review is to examine the experience of UNDP in Lithuania. Specifically it has three objectives: To undertake a retrospective study, drawing lessons learned to be used not only at national and UNDP corporate levels but also in the frame of development cooperation. The study will also assess, to the extent possible, UNDPs role vis-a ` -vis Lithuanias European Union (EU) accession process. To include a forward-looking perspective regarding the continuing partnership between UNDP and Lithuania beyond 2005.
15
The contribution of UNDP support to meeting the requirements of United Nations (UN) conventions in the area of environment. How effective UNDP was in accompanying Lithuanias EU integration processes and addressing development areas not covered by EU pre-accession policies. The effectiveness of UNDP support to policy advice and dialogue, national capacity building and engaging partners in delivering development results. How effective UNDP was in engaging the private sector in the development process. (C) Lessons Learned and Good Practices: The review will identify the key lessons from the thematic areas of focus both for the period that Lithuania was considered a transitional economy, andlater as an EU preaccession country and EU member state. These lessons will be useful in the context of possible future EU accession/candidate countries or transitional economies in the region. Through in-depth thematic assessment, the review aims to identify good practices for learning and replication and draw lessons from intended and unintended results where possible. Based on the analysis of key achievements and overall findings, it draws key lessons to be used at national level as well as in the regional context, and provides clear and forward-looking recommendations regarding UNDPs positioning and the added value for Lithuania of UNDPs programmatic presence in the country beyond 2005 in specific areas.
1.3
METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS
The Review of UNDPs Partnership with Lithuania consists of a three-stage process: (a) Preparation Phase: Preparatory work was carried out in advance to provide substantive background for the second phase and was conducted by a local research company. It included a preliminary desk review, programme mapping, development of Terms of Reference (ToR), preparation of standardised questions for different stakeholders, interviews of stakeholders, the information retrieved from the interviews systematised and reported, and the programme for the mission of international expert prepared. (b) Conducting the Country Programme Review: the mission of the international evaluation specialist including methodology briefing, meetings with key stakeholders and UNDP Country Office, field visits and finalisation of the Review. (C) Use of the Country Programme Review: presentation for discussions of the Review at an international conference on the occasion of the closing of UNDPs Country Office (CO) in Lithuania and during other learning events, sharing it with national and international stakeholders and wide dissemination. The assessment employed a variety of methodologies including desk reviews, stakeholder meetings, client surveys, and selected site visits. The International Evaluation Specialist reviewed national policy documents including national strategies and action plans, Lithuanian Human Development Reports, Common Country Assessment (CCA), and Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Reports which give an overall picture of the country context. The Specialist also considered thematic studies/papers, selected project documents, reports from monitoring and evaluation at the country level, as well as available documentation and studies from other development partners. The Country Review
16
undertaken in 2000 was especially useful in this respect. All documents reviewed are listed in Annex 3. A wide stakeholder consultation and involvement was undertaken. The evaluators, local and international, met with Government Ministries/institutions at central and province level, research institutions, civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private sector representatives, bilateral donors, and beneficiaries. The International Evaluation Specialist visited field/project sites selected in consultation with the UNDP CO and national stakeholders. All persons met are listed in Annex 2. The review has also incorporated some of the key methodologies and principles of the ADR, including the following: (a) In assessing results at the country programme level, the review will largely follow a top-down approach. This involves looking at the overall achievements in the country, within a sector or thematic area, and then attempting to explain which parts of the national successes and failures are linked to the efforts of a particular donor. This approach is basically subtractive; starting from the top and drilling down results to the donor level, but not to a detailed project level. (b) The empirical evidence, on which the Review will be based, will be gathered through three major sources of information: perception, validation and documentation
Box 1.1
(according to the concept of triangulation which is illustrated in Box 1.1 below). This Review is divided into five further sections: Chapter 2: National Development Context (19922005). Sets out the development context in Lithuania and in so doing establishes the platform for analysis in the next two chapters. Chapter 3: UNDPs Strategic Positioning. This section examines how UNDP has positioned itself within the context described above. Chapter 4: Contribution to National Development Results. Examines UNDPs contribution focussing on Poverty, Governance and the Environment. Chapter 5: Findings and Best Practices. Sets out the major findings and conclusions from the review as well as best practices Chapter 6: Lessons Learned and Recommendations. Identifies lessons learned that could be useful for other UNDP offices, UNDP at the corporate level or indeed aid policy in general. Similarly, best practices that could be replicated elsewhere are identified. Finally recommendations for UNDP are made.
Triangulation
- -
Interviews with stakeholders (project and government staff, donors, CO beneficiaries, public, NGOs, etc.) Surveys, polls, questionnaires
- - - - - -
Statistical analysis of national data and indicators Field visits, direct observation In-depth thematic studies Opinion polls Stakeholder meetings, focus group interviews Qualitative assessment of trends using secondary data sources
Perception
- - - - -
Basic documentation (programming documents) Monitoring and evaluation reports, progress reports Documentation on perceived success in reports, news, media Programme maps/analysis Existing documentation from external resources
Validation
Documentation
17
CHAPTER 2
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT (1992-2005)

Situated on the Eastern shore of the Baltic Sea, Lithuania is the southernmost and largest of the three Baltic countries and shares borders with Belarus, Latvia, Poland and Russia. It has a predominantly urban population of 3.435 million (2004) of which over 80 percent is of Lithuanian origin. In 2003, the per capita income (PPP) was estimated at approximately US$11,700 and Lithuania is firmly established in the group of countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) being ranked 39 in the 2005 Human Development Report (HDR) of UNDP. a forced and radical transformation of its economy and its complete incorporation into the Soviet centrallyplanned command system. The countrys movement towards economic and political independence gained momentum during late 1980s and on 11 March 1990 Lithuania declared the re-establishment of its independence. This was internationally recognized in August-September 1990 and in 1991 Lithuania joined the United Nations. Some 14 years later, less than ten years after formally applying, Lithuania became a full member of the EU and, also in 2004, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
19
2.1
CREATING THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
On the eve of regaining independence Lithuania was integrated into the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, with exports highly concentrated in a few products (machine tools, dairy products). Reorienting trade to the West, restructuring productive assets, privatization, and price adjustments were all huge tasks. On the positive side, the population was highly educated and per capita incomes were among the highest in the Soviet Union, estimated at US$2,710. There was widespread support for economic reforms and, with its largely homogeneous population, Lithuania was not subjected to the kinds of demographic stresses found in other countries. Closely balanced political parties have, however, resulted in thirteen governments since 1990 due to shifts in voter preferences. In 1991-1992 Lithuania started implementing a comprehensive and far-reaching economic reform program within an adverse macroeconomic environment (declining output, deteriorating terms of trade and high rates of inflation). At the same time, Lithuania took significant steps in developing democratic institutions, establishing the rule of law and reforming the structure and administration of inherited social programs. During the first five years of the decade the focus was on stabilization and trade reform, and a start was made on privatization and restructuring. Economic growth after 1994 has been, on the whole, satisfactory, although marred by two episodes. A banking crisis in 1995/96 and the Russia crisis of 1998 when exports lost competitiveness due to the depreciation of the Russian ruble and the strength of the US dollar to which the national currency, the litas, was fixed. GDP fell by 3.9 percent in 1999. While recent economic growth has been impressive (growing at 6.8 and 10.5 percent in 2002 and 2003 respectively), according to
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) by 2003 Lithuania had only reached 84% of its 1989 level of real GDP. As a result of these reforms, the Governments role in the economy is now modest. Total government expenditure accounts for 34 percent of GDP, the smallest among the new EU member countries (where government, on average, accounts for 41 percent of GDP), and well below the average for other countries of the EU which stands at 46 percent. While the privatization agenda is nearly completed (aside from some energy and transportation enterprises) the business environment has improved: the World Bank reports that Lithuania is ranked 15 in the world for ease of doing business2, a remarkable achievement given the transformation this has required. Agricultures contribution to GDP declined from 27.6 percent in 1990 to 7 percent in 2001. Land privatization and restitution were implemented rapidly, but the result was a large number of smallscale landholders with nonviable holdings. There is an ineffective land market so that consolidation is blocked contributing to high levels of rural poverty. Labour adjustment has lagged the sectoral declines in output, and the agricultural sector still employs 18.7 percent of the labour force (28 percent if agro-processing is included). Both labour and land productivity are low not only by EU standards, but also in comparison to the other new EU member states. The causes of this are small farm size, pervasive uncertainty about support programs, and low levels of capital investment and complementary recurrent expenditures. The country has maderemarkable progress in developing democratic institutions and establishing the rule of law. The reform of the judiciary has been at the centre of these developments. The establishment of a four-tier system of courts of general competence contributed to building a more elaborate and competent structure for the defence of human rights and rightful interests. Lithuania is the only one of the new EU member states that has fully established the institutional structures dealing with equal opportunity issues. The country has steadily accumulatedknowledge in preparing policy strategies and action plans on priority issues such as human rights (National Human
2
World Bank (2005) Doing Business in 2006
20
Rights Action Plan adopted in November 2002) and poverty reduction, whichcreated the foundation for the strategic papers on social inclusion required by the EU.Significant strategic documents have been prepared in the area of public health and have stimulated the development of health care prevention, primary health care, preventative medicine and high quality preparation of health professionals. Lithuania has also showed notable success in developing HIV/ AIDS prevention and control measures, especially in comparison with the other Baltic States. According to the Transparency International corruption perception index (CPI) in 2005, Lithuania with score of 4.8 out of 10, occupies 44th place among 159 countries. Since the Lithuanian CPI is still lower than the average 5, it cannot formally be recognized as a country where corruption is sufficiently contained. According to the Map of Corruption in Lithuania 2004, the highest corruption prevalence is witnessed in the public sector institutions. Local municipalities, traffic police, tax administration, customs, hospitals and primary health care centers are mentioned as being among the most corrupt. With regards to womens share in the democratic governance process, Lithuania has made much progress since independence. In 1992 the share of Parliamentary seats held by women was only 9%, but by 2004 it had increased to 22%. Nonetheless, the under-
representation of women is obvious on all the levels of governance, from Parliament to municipal councils. The environment has seen substantial progress, but much remains to be done. GDP per unit of energy use (PPP$ per kg oil equivalent) has increased by 35 percent from 1990 to 1999 while CO 2 emissions have fallen by more than 25 percent during this period. Some environmental standards are now more restrictive than in the EU, including provisions on evaluating the impact of planned industrial activities on the environment, recycling of waste, and defining dangerous manufacturing objects. Water supply issues at the municipal level are being addressed through investment.
2.2
THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
Lithuanias EU accession process started in 1995 with the Europe Agreement which established a formal association between the European Community and Lithuania. In 1997 the European Commission undertook an analysis of Lithuanias ability to join the EU. This Agenda 2000 report stated that Lithuania demonstrated characteristics of a democracy with stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. Political criteria were not considered to pose a significant problem and citizens fundamental rights were in order. However, economic criteria were noted as problematic, particularly difficulties associated with market forces and competition within the EU. Agriculture and the banking sectors needed modernising. Substantial efforts also were needed in the Environment and Energy sector to strengthen administrative capacities and enforce compliance with EU standards. Other problem areas included reform of administrative and legal capacities.
21
Box 2.1
Membership of Major International Organizations (1991-2003)

Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) United Nations Organization (UN) North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Council of the Baltic Sea States International Monetary Fund (IMF) Intl Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) International Financial Corporation (IFC) Council of Europe (COE) Partnership for Peace Programme (PFP) Baltic Council of Ministers World Trade Organization (WTO) 10 September 1991 17 September 1991 20 December 1991 30 January 1992 March 1992 29 April 1992 6 July 1992 1993 14 May 1993 27 January 1994 13 June 1994 31 May 2001
By 2000 the EU accession work covered a range of priorities including efforts to improve the judiciary and the administrative capacity of civil servants, and to pay further attention to regional policy. The preaccession period involved not only coordination of Lithuanian legislation with that of the EU but also the reorganization of the system of administration and changes in many spheres of political and economical life. It has been realized that reorganization required huge administrative and financial means. However, all the required adoptions were made in the relatively short time span. In 2002 Lithuania successfully completed negotiations and was invited to join the NATO and the EU. Significant political and economic changes contributed to this political achievement. A growth rate of 6.7 per cent was reached, the currency was successfully re-pegged to the Euro, and unemployment declined to around 10 per cent. Lithuania officially joined NATO on the 2 April 2004 and the EU on 1 May the same year. Box 2.1 sets out Lithuanias membership of major international organisations since 1991. Aid flows began after Lithuania regained independence and a large number of bilateral donors and multilateral organisations began programmes in the country. The EU has been by far the most important donor, especially since 2001 when it began to provide more than half
3
total assistance, reaching 90% of it in 2003 and 2004 as bilateral donors began to close their programmes in advance of EU accession. The aid regime has never been very resource intensive with Official Aid 3 (OA) as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI) reaching 2.45% in 1995, but for most years that aid has been received the figure has been considerably lower. Annex 10 sets out the development assistance flows to Lithuania 1991-2004.
2.3
PROGRESS TOWARDS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
As already noted, Lithuania is a high human development country and has been in this category since the 2001 HDR. The country has made steady progress since measurement of the index began for Lithuania in 1995, moving from a low position of 81 in the 1996 HDR to a rank of 39 in the 2005 report. Strong economic growth has played a major role in this progression.
The term Official Aid is used by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) rather than the usual term Official Development Assistance (ODA) as Lithuania is on Part II of the DAC List of Recipients.
22
Table 2.1
Evolution of Lithuanias HDI ranking (Human Development Reports 1995-2005)

1995 71 1996 81 1997 76 1998 79 1999 62 2000 52 2001 47 2002 49 2003 45 2004 41 2005 39
Education is virtually universal, with 99.7 percent of all pupils continuing beyond basic education (defined as 10 years). Expenditures are, however, inefficient. The student/teacher ratio was only 11.3 in 1997, well below the OECD average of 17.1. The school age population has been shrinking and is projected to shrink by 1.5-2.0 percent per year for some time. There is also an urban bias, as fewer rural students continue beyond primary school than students in urban areas. In the Health Sector, despite improvements, Lithuania is still behind EU countries, with infant mortality substantially higher and life expectancy lower (related in part to alcohol and tobacco usage, but also to the higher incidence of tuberculosis and other diseases). Lithuania introduced substantial pension reforms in 1994/95, well ahead of many of its neighbours and highly regarded at the time, although further reforms are warranted. Overall social protection expenditures are relatively low, however, at 15.2% of GDP in 2001 versus 27% average for EU members. Life expectancy is low (66.3 for men and 77.5 form women in 2002). The suicide indicator is one of the highest in the world
(more than 40 people per 100,000) and has grown significantly between 1991 and 2001. 4 Despite strong GDP growth, unemployment is high, estimated at 13.8 percent of the labour force in 2002, and currently at 11.4 5 percent, an increase from the very low (though likely underreported) rates of about 1 percent at the beginning of the transition. Poverty reduction needs to be a continuing priority. Poverty rates were measured at 1 percent under the US$1 per day criteria in 1995, but, more relevantly, at about 3.3 percent for the more widely accepted cut-off level of US$2.15 PPP per day in 2000 (equivalent to a minimum standard of living as calculated by the Government). Using the US$4.30 PPP per day measure (a minimum standard of living as calculated for OECD countries) the figure was 25.5 percent in 2000. Households headed by women and those with education of less than secondary school level have the highest concentrations of poverty. 16,1% lived below relative poverty line (50% of averange consumption expenditures) in 2004 according to Household Budget Surveys. Rural poverty rates are much higher than urban poverty rates.
4 5
EU (2005) Report on Social Inclusion in the 10 New Member States Data from Labour Force Survey in 2004, IV quarter
23
CHAPTER 3
UNDPS STRATEGIC POSITIONING

This chapter examines UNDPs strategic positioning in Lithuania within the national development context set out in the previous chapter. It ascertains the strategic focus of UNDP support and its relevance to national development priorities, including relevance and linkages with UNDPs overarching goal of reducing poverty and achieving the MDGs. The aim is to identify the added value of UNDP support in effectively contributing to, and influencing, national development through strategic priority setting and intervening at optimal entry points. It assesses how UNDP has anticipated and responded to significant changes in the national development context within the core areas of focus (poverty, governance and the environment). In this regard, the Review considers key events at national and political level that influenced and affected the development environment; the risk management of UNDP; any missed opportunities for UNDP involvement and contribution; its efforts at advocacy and policy advice, and; UNDPs responsiveness. The Review attempts to bring out the choices made by UNDP in response to government reforms and explain the rationale behind these choices. It also reviews the synergies and alignment of UNDP support with other initiatives and partners, including the Global Cooperation Framework (GCF) and the Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF). This includes examining how UNDP has leveraged its resources and that of others towards the achievement of results, the balance between upstream and downstream initiatives and the work on MDGs.
25
Finally, the Review considers the influence of systemic issues: policy and administrative constraints affecting the programme, on both the donor and programme country sides, as well as how the development results achieved and the partnerships established have contributed to ensure the relevant and strategic positioning of UNDP support.
3.1
THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNDP PROGRAMME
The First Country Programme (1993-1996)
The UNDP Lithuania CO opened in the capital Vilnius in October 1992 with the arrival of the first Resident Representative. He initiated discussions with the government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on a broad range of technical co-operations options available within the UN support system. A set of
Box 3.1
preliminary programme priorities and objectives were agreed in late 1993 which then led to the development of the first UNDP Country Programme (CP) for Lithuania. The content of the programme reflected the main aims of the national transitional policy agenda and focused support at four key areas of intervention: Democratisation and civil society with a particular focus on institutional building. Public administration reform with special emphasis on capacity building for improved public sector efficiency. Human resource development for the market economy with training for better economic management as a priority. Alleviation of the social impact of transition with primary attention on policy formulation and monitoring of quality of life indicators. Work on these four areas of UNDP development support continued throughout the first Country Programme period from 1994 to 1996 supporting over 20 projects
UNDP Cooperation Frameworks

Two Global Cooperation Frameworks (GCF) have been prepared: - GCF I (1997-2000) - GCF II (2001-2003 - extended to December 2004) Two Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF) were also prepared for the Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS (RBEC): - RCF I (1997-1999 - extended to 2001) - RCF II (2002-2005) By promoting regional programmes to sustain human development in the region, the RCF acts as a bridge between the global cooperation framework and the country programmes of the region.
26
(often during the critical start-up phase) worth more than $3 million. From Chart 3.1 it is clear that the vast majority of the resources were allocated to governance issues with poverty and cross-cutting issues being allocated similar smaller shares of the total. From the very beginning UNDP supported institution building and formed partnerships with national and international entities to help establish democratic organisations. Many organizations such as the Public Servants Language Centre, the Public Administration Training Centre, the Lithuanian Innovation Centre, the International Business School, the Human Rights Centre, the NGO Information and Support Centre, the Judicial Training Centre, and the Womens Issues Information Centre were established during that period with UNDP support. Environmental issues did not feature at this stage and no resources were allocated for this theme. UNDP was able to establish itself as a useful development partner for the new government during the early years of transition due to its ability to provide upstream policy-based and downstream projectrelated support on a wide range of activities. It was particularly useful because it had the capacity to play a constructive and politically neutral role concerning sensitive topics. It had the ability to mobilize and leverage resources in many different forms and its decentralised budget and operational arrangements allowed it to respond rapidly and flexibly to changing circumstances. UNDP interventions adopted the national execution (NEX) modality which was seen to be strategically
Chart 3.1
beneficial and add value in supporting the governments national programme. Occasionally during the first Country Programme provide temporary direct support was required by UNDP but in general NEX has continued to be the standard modality for UNDP assistance in Lithuania.
The Second Country Programme (1997-2000)

A second programming period extended the activities of the initial Country Programme throughout the first Country Co-operation Framework (CCF) for Lithuania. This first CCF provided assistance during the 1997 to 1999 period supporting over US$8m of projects which included important financial contributions and knowledge-based partnerships. Lithuanias first CCF further developed the initial Country Programme activities and in consultation with government remodelled them into four new programme areas covering: Promotion of sustainable livelihoods. Democratic governance and citizen participation. Human security. Environmental protection. In addition, the first CCF also introduced and stressed the importance of cross-cutting themes relating to: Advancement of women. Promotion of NGOs.
Thematic Allocation CP-1 (1993-1996)
Prevention of HIV/AIDS. Like the first GCF (1997-2001), the first Lithuania CCF was based within the Sustainable Human Development (SHD) paradigm. The RCF also focussed on the same themes: governance (creating an enabling environment for SHD), poverty, gender and the environment (although the language used to describe the themes is slightly different). From Chart 3.2 it is clear that the environment had become the most important theme in terms of financial resource allocation, accounting for more than half of total resources during the programme
Cross-cutting Poverty Governance Environment
27
period with virtually all of it from non-core resources. Approximately one quarter of resources went to Governance down from about 82% in the previous programme. In absolute terms, however, resources for governance fell only by about one third since the second CP was more than twice the size of the first. UNDP continued to work on institution building, and public organizations such as the Crime Prevention Centre, Information Centre for Sustainable Development, and a network of Citizen Advice Bureaux came into being at this time. Moreover, it was during this period that the national Lithuanian
Chart 3.2
Human Development Report started to be published as an aid to help the general public, academia and decision-makers to focus on specific development issues facing the country. To supplement these efforts, and to develop capacities in the concepts of human development, UNDP initiated Human Development courses in three universities in different parts of the country, together with an accompanying textbook. Socio-economic difficulties linked to the economic crisis of the late 1990s were compounded by changes in the levels and type of development assistance from bilateral sources. More European countries were now directing their aid through the EU mechanisms, USAID was preparing to close its operations and the Open Society Fund Lithuania shifted its priorities from grant funding of projects to advising on policy. Changing international priorities and the view that national NGOs should by now be able to support themselves were quoted as reasons for the reductions in development aid from bilateral donors. The UNDP Resident Representative considered the rationale to reduce aid to Lithuanias NGOs a serious and unfortunate misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the situation since the prevailing legal climate for Charities and Volunteerism stands in the way of developing an as-yet-limited tradition of volunteerism and charity. At the same time, severe budgetary constraints more than halved the contributions which the government made to civil society organisations in 1999, just at a time when these groups were still considered by UNDP to be most
Poverty Governance Environment Cross-cutting
28
in need of extra resources to deal with a worsening socio-economic situation. It was within this socio-economic climate that UNDP carried out a country review (April 2000) to assess the previous development work and formulate policies for the second CCF. Policy and project related findings from the assessment are included in later sections of this Review, but in summary the country review identified a number of lessons learned during the support period and endorsed the four main programme areas stressing their continued relevance. Recommendations in the report included: Place priority on consolidating the capacity building efforts and encourage the conversion of research on policy formation into results based follow-up action. Strengthen activities outside the capital, particularly working with and through NGOs. Explore possibilities for further co-operation and cost-recovery from United Nations specialized agencies, funds and programmes. Ensure that clusters of projects which are closely linked are designed programmatically. Restructure staff roles and responsibilities to strengthen team capacity. These recommendations were taken into consideration during the design of the third country programme (second CCF) which built on the original set of development priorities and added a new emphasis on human rights, linking sustainable human development with the protection and promotion of human rights, and supporting and creating relevant institutions such the Human Rights Centre and the Ombudsman for Equal Opportunities.
Promotion of civil rights and good governance. Promotion of economic and social rights. Promotion of environmental rights. Work also continued on the cross cutting themes of HIV/AIDS prevention, gender mainstreaming and strengthening of civil society. Progress achieved in these thematic areas is highlighted later in the report within detailed reviews of UNDP activities in the fields of governance, poverty and environment. One key piece of work worth noting covering all three themes was the Common Country Assessment (CCA) which was completed early in the second CCF period. The preparation of the first Lithuanian CCA was considered a pivotal event in 2001 in the context of the wider UN Country Teams (UNCT) progress towards an integral evaluation of Lithuanias progress against international development goals during the decade of transition following independence.
The Third Country Programme (2001-2003)

The second CCF was one of the very first in the UNDP which adopted a rights-based approach to development. It was also the first one that looked at UNDPs interventions in Lithuania within the framework of Lithuanias status as a candidate country for the EU. The CCF ran from 2001 to 2003 and focused on three inter-linked priority areas:
29
Chart 3.3
percent. National action plans for poverty reduction and the promotion of human rights were approved and programmes against corruption, trafficking in women and drug abuse were established. A strategic plan for the development of an information society was also launched.
Poverty Governance Environment Cross-cutting
The Fourth Country Programme (2004-2005)

By the end of the second CCF Lithuania ranked 45th in the UNDP 2003 Human Development Report, placing in the high human development category. These development gains led to a realignment of UNDP activities during 2004 with the new status of Lithuania as a member of the EU resulting in a shorter two-year Country Programme Document (CPD) running from 2004 to 2005, replacing the previous CCF approach to development support. Following the established practice, the new Country Programme was designed in consultation with government, civil society and other partners, including donors. It has a two-pronged approach in recognition of Lithuanias new status as an EU member. These dual objectives are to: Assist the government in closing the gaps and refining the EU integration process in areas in which UNDP has comparative advantages Help strengthen Lithuanias role as a donor of development assistance.
The CCA included contributions from the IMF and the World Bank and its completion marked an important step towards the implementation of UN reforms at the country level. Chart 3.3 hows that, as in the previous CP, environment accounted for approximately half of total resources disbursed during the programme period. Analysis was provided in relation to internationally agreed goals set by UN Global Conference Action Plans or Programmes. Trends were identified against relevant indicators and priority areas were suggested including: Fight against corruption and continued reform of judiciary. Prioritisation of regional development with a focus on a partnership approach. Strengthening the capacity of local government through civil servant training and improved municipal finances. UNDP provided support to help public, private and voluntary sector organisations tackle these topics during the second CCF period which saw the country pull out of recession and make significant social, economic and political gains. Lithuania successfully completed negotiations and was invited to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. A growth rate of 10.5 percent was reached in 2003, the currency was re-pegged to the Euro and unemployment declined to around 10
Chart 3.4
Cross-cutting Governance Environment Poverty
30
Chart 3.4 shows again the importance of the environment in resources allocated but also a large increase in governance at the expense of poverty. To fulfil the first objective, the Country Programme is helping the government focus on the Euro-integration agenda via strengthening national capacities in social inclusion, good governance and sustainable development. On-going project and policy activities in these fields are highlighted in the following thematic sections of this report. To fulfil the second objective UNDP is assisting Lithuania, as a European Union member and an emerging donor, to become an active contributor to international development cooperation. Lithuania is already contributing to UNDPs regional activities and participating in the Wider Europe initiative of the European Union. The Lithuanian foreign policy principle of good neighbourly relations has resulted in an increasing number of requests from Eastern European and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries for sharing the experience of successful transition, demonstrated by one of the highest GDP growth rates in Europe. Progress towards its development cooperation outcomes are described the next chapter as well as UNDPs contribution to them. It should be noted, however, that the decision to support Lithuania as an emerging donor was an important strategic one that changed the direction of the CP, reflecting the rapidly changing context in which it would be implemented. The following examines how the issue of EU accession has evolved through the four country programmes:
3.2
UNDP AND THE EU ACCESSION PROCESS
As already noted, Lithuanias application to join the EU was made in 1995. In 1999 the official invitation was made and a new stage in the accession process started. The question is: was UNDP support for EU accession strategic and, if so, did the strategy work?
CP I (1993-1996): At the stage of programme formulation the accession process had not begun and Lithuanias aspiration in respect of joining the EU was unclear. CP II (1997-2000): Although the programme document refers to the importance of the accession process and Lithuanias aspirations to join the EU it is not built on in a strategic manner. The document states: The principle goal for UNDP assistance to Lithuania during the next cycle will be promoting SHD and building capacity No further mention is made of the accession process or the possibility of positioning UNDPs county programme to support it. The programme was originally to be implemented between 1997-1999 but was extended by one
31
CP IV (2004-2005): The country programme document is inevitably far more explicit in its relationship with the EU accession process since from 1 May 2004 Lithuania became a full member of the Union. As noted earlier, UNDPs overall strategy involves (a) closing the gaps and refining the integration process in areas where UNDP has a comparative advantage, and (b) helping Lithuania in its role as an emerging donor (also part of the responsibilities taken on by Lithuania as an EU member). It is also inevitable that most, if not all, of the interventions UNDP supported in Lithuania were also contributing to the accession process. This may reflect the shared values of the UN and the EU. It also reflects the degree of cooperation between UNDP and its national and international partners, as well as the degree of national ownership of the UNDP programmes, whereby these programmes helped supporting the overarching national priority of EU accession. So even if it may not have been explicit in the first two CPs, UNDPs interventions have largely been in line with the accession process and supportive of it. There are cases where UNDP may have accelerated the process or at least facilitated governments efforts to comply with EU accession requirements, for example, interventions in the areas of gender, human rights and anti-corruption. There are also cases where UNDP has directly supported the early development of EU-type strategies. The best example of this is the preparation of the Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Programme for 2002-2004 (PRSIP) which was designed using the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion (NAPs/incl) of existing member states. This meant that when Lithuania had to prepare its own NAP the process was quite familiar (UNDPs contribution to the PRSIP is described in the next chapter). A key part of UNDPs strategy has been to provide capacity building support to the government, local municipalities and NGOs to absorb EU funds, both the pre-accession funds and the new funding modalities that Lithuania will be able to access as a member state. For example, UNDP work in strengthening municipal capacities aims to facilitate access of local partners to larger funds under various EU and related mechanisms.
year to include 2000. The UNDP Executive Board note requesting the extension does not mention the accession process and notes that national development priorities have not changed. It also notes that The continued relevance of the CCF has been confirmed through consultations with the Government and other development partners possibly indicating that they too may not have recognised a greater role or niche for UNDP in the accession process or the need for UNDP to be more strategic in this respect. CP III (2001-2003): The situation changed significantly in the third country programme where linkages between the UNDP programme and the EU accession process are explicitly made. In the light of the invitation in December 1999 to the Government of Lithuania to start negotiations for accession to the European Union (EU), an important consideration for the programming of UNDP assistance is the need to provide support inter alia, in those areas which would help Lithuania to comply with EU accession requirements.
32
3.3
DEVELOPMENT OF PARTNERSHIPS AND RESOURCE MOBILISATION
The Development of Partnerships
UNDP has successfully developed a variety of partnerships across a broad range of development partners. The main partnerships since the start of UNDPs programmes in Lithuania have been with the central government, it ministries and agencies. This has extended to the Office of the President. At the central level, UNDP has also been an important part of the international community in Lithuania, working with its members in undertaking development activities but also, when appropriate, in lobbying the government for important policy reforms and action (for example the lead role taken by UNDP in bringing together major donors with regard to the expanding HIV/AIDS issue in 2002). Partnerships with a broad range of civil society organisations have been developed including development NGOs, media and academia. There has been some development of partnerships at the local level, specifically in selected municipalities. Partnership with the private sector has been more limited and is something that has really only developed in recent years largely through the UN Global Compact initiative (this is further examined in Chapter 4).
joint projects/programmes. The RC arrangements are still much appreciated by resident members of the UNCT. The RC also makes a considerable and conscious effort to reach out to those United Nations entities that are not present in the country, particularly the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Except for UNDP and UNHCR, each United Nations entity is in separate premises. The United Nations in Lithuania web site (www.un.lt) is funded through the Resident Coordinator System and managed by UNDP using written contributions from the above-mentioned United Nations agencies. The web site also includes entities without their own in-country representation. UNDP is the only United Nations entity with a multiyear cooperation framework in Lithuania. The issues of harmonized programming periods and the preparation of a United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), therefore, do not arise. A Common Country Assessment (CCA) was initiated in 2000 and finally produced as a joint CCA/MDG Report for Lithuania in 2002. It has served as the focus for the formulation of projects/programmes in the last two country programmes. It is also of use to the other United Nations entities active in the country for similar purposes.
The Specific Case of the UN Country Team

The 2000 Country Review noted that the role of the Resident Coordinator (RC) is well accepted and the opportunity for information gathering and sharing is welcomed by all. This situation has evolved towards more coordinated action and, to the extent possible,
33
Box 3.2
Examples of inter-agency partnerships

- Joint and parallel work was completed by UNDP, World Bank and UNDESA during discussions on poverty reporting and monitoring which facilitated political support at the highest levels - Strong cooperation between UNDP, the World Bank and ILO occurred during reforms of the social security system and support for poverty elimination initiatives. This led to the preparation of the National Poverty Reduction Strategy and its transformation into the Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Programme for 2002-2004; jointly supported by UNDP and UNDESA - UNDP and OHCHR provided joint assistance to the preparation of the Human Rights Action Plan which was the first in the Central and Eastern Europe within the global HURIST (a joint UNDP and OHCHR Human Rights Strengthening Programme) framework - Activities supported by UNDP, the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) and UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) on biodiversity conservation, climate change and linkages with FAO regional activities contributed to integration of global environmental concerns into the national policy agenda - UNDP collaboration with the UNFPA has brought about substantial support for population issues, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS prevention - Through direct UNAIDS support and interagency collaboration, Lithuania has benefited from assistance in HIV/AIDS programming, as well as technical and financial support - Memorandum of Understanding between GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) and World Bank for cooperation and cofinancing the implementation of small grant projects by NGOs and community-based organizations - An inter-agency framework developed by UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO and UNODC on the application of a youth friendly approach to health services in responding to HIV/ AIDS in Central and Eastern Europe, led to a joint project Youth Friendly Services in Lithuania (YSFL); funded by UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA with technical assistance from WHO - The World Bank, UNDP and the GEF SGP cooperated on the organization and preparation of a Development Market Place and selected nominees to benefit from joint funding
Two theme groups have been established: one on HIV/ AIDS, which in essence constitutes the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) in Lithuania, and the other on curriculum development and teacher support. There have been significant examples of UN agency cooperation and collaboration including some joint programming over the past decade, including those examples listed in Box 3.2. This is a significant achievement given the very limited UN presence in Lithuania. The UNCT has also been successful in joint advocacy on international priorities and UN goals, bringing in other donors and the private sector on occasion. These advocacy events and campaigns have covered environmental and health (HIV/AIDS) concerns, human rights and poverty reduction, and focused on the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs after 2000.
Resource Mobilisation
Resources mobilised in addition to core resources represent 76% of total resources over the period 19932005. This represents a ratio of approximately 3.2:1 (non-core: core) compared to the UNDP global ratio of 6.5:1 respectively 6 . If the first country programme is removed then the ratio increases to approximately 4:1 for the remaining three country programmes. In the context of declining bilateral assistance to Lithuania, the UNDP CO prepared a Resource Mobilisation Strategy in 2001. The first strategy focused on the development of partnerships,
UNDP Atlas system
34
the development of a client-oriented culture and increased effectiveness. It tried to address the very large expectations for cost sharing in the third CP (2001-2003), specifically resources from the Global Environment Facility that were then not forthcoming. A second strategy was prepared in 2004 to examine opportunities for mobilising resources once core funding finished at the end of 2005 (issues related to the future of UNDPs partnership with Lithuania are discussed in later parts of this Review).
In the context of the declining levels of external assistance, especially from UNDPs traditional bilateral partners, the degree of resource mobilisation is high. The GEF has been the major provider of resources representing approximately 58% of total non-core resources. The Netherlands has been the major bilateral partner in terms of resources followed by Canada and
Box 3.3
Key Partner the Global Environment Facility

The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, helps developing countries and countries with economies in transition fund projects and programs that protect the global environment. GEF grants support projects related to six complex global environmental issues: biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. Since 1991, the GEF has provided $4.5 billion in grants and generated $14.5 billion in co-financing from other partners for more than 1,300 projects in 140 countries. The largest GEF supported projects in Lithuania include Conservation of Inland Wetland Biodiversity (US$3.26 million), Lithuania Phase out of Ozone Depleting Substances (US$4.41 million), Elimination of Green House Gases in the Manufacturing of Domestic Refrigerators and Freezers at Snaige (US$0.99 million), and Small Grants Programme (SGP has committed US$1,66 million of grants, and has leveraged over US$3,74 million since 2001)
Table 3.1
Basic Resource Mobilisation Indicators (percentage of total funds)

CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 Total
Core 41 Non-core 59 21 79 18 80 20 80 24 76
Table 3.2
Resource Mobilisation 1993-20057

Donor US$
GEF Netherlands Baltic Trust Fund Finland Canada Gov. of Lithuania Japan Norway UNAIDS Denmark Sweden Soros Foundation/ Open Society Fund Lithuania UNDP Governance Thematic Trust Fund Other 8,283,642 1,557,273 1,247,036 746,457 696,000 456,840 280,207 259,556 197,506 168,747 149,829 118,610 70,000 45,037
% Total
58.00% 10.90% 8.70% 5.20% 4.90% 3.20% 2.00% 1.80% 1.40% 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 0.49% 0.31%
Box 3.4
Key partner the UNDP Baltic Trust Fund

The UNDP Trust Fund for the Baltic Republics (BTF) was established by the UNDP Administrator in October 1992. The stated purpose of the BTF was to assist in the capacity building and training in economic and social areas, in operating a democratic society, an in achieving sustainable development. It was envisaged that the BTF would be used both for national projects in each of the Baltic countries and for regional projects requested by all three or any two of the Baltic States. Resources for the BTF were provided by the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden and contributions totalled US$3.18 million over the period 1993-1999. In Lithuania the BTF resources were used to support strengthening of the ombudsman institution, social policy reform, foreign aid management, NGO sector development and to strengthen the NGO Womens Issues Information Centre.
Total
14,276,740
100.00%
These totals include estimates of 2005 disbursements
35
Finland. The Baltic Trust Fund (BTF) has also been an important source of funds. Table 3.2 sets out the share of bilateral and multilateral partners in cost-sharing with UNDP in Lithuania over the period 1993-2005. Boxes 3.3 and 3.4 described the two major trust funds used by UNDP in Lithuania.
examined. For the period 1993-2000 GLOC payments totalled US$ 123,000 or about 37% of the amount requested. Since then they have been over US$ 100,000 per year reaching nearly US$ 124,000 for the year 2003 alone. As already noted the EU has provided a large proportion of external assistance to Lithuania since 1991. Annex 10 sets out the flows of EU assistance during the period 1991-2004 indicating that it reached US$ 329 million in 2003. Some UNDP COs in the region have been successful in establishing cost-sharing with government using resources from EU programmes. However, in Lithuania this has proved more difficult, partly because of the relatively high level of capacity within government and therefore limited value in utilising UNDP to help absorb funds. When initial discussions took place between Government and the EU during the mid-1990s on using the funds, and there was no obvious role for UNDP at this crucial stage.
Cost Sharing with the Government

There has been successful cost-sharing with government but this has been a strategic approach of the CO only in recent years and was not foreseen as significant in the first three country programmes. For the whole period under review (1993-2005) government cost sharing represents only 2.1% of total resources and 2.7% of non-core resources. But government cost sharing only became significant after 2002 since before this time government contribution to project interventions was largely in-kind. In 2002 government cost sharing represented about 1% of total resources but increased rapidly to 7.5 % in 2003 then 8.4% in 2004. It is estimated that the level will be maintained in 2005 with government cost sharing expected to represent about 8% of total resources. For these three years the share of government cost sharing among non-core resources has been constant at around 10%. Full information can be found in Annex 5 UNDP Programme Resources (1993-2005). Government contributions to local office costs (GLOC) have varied considerably over the period being
Resources from the Private Sector

As noted above, until recently the CO has had limited partnerships with private sector companies. It has, however, successfully worked with Microsoft (Box 3.5 below) in the context of a project funded by the Japan Women in Development Fund to support ICT capacities among women. Alliances with the private sector have also been made in the area of anti-corruption and raising awareness about the MDGs. The further role of the private sector in supporting development is discussed more in next chapter.
Box 3.5
Partnership with Microsoft

The regional office of Microsoft in the Baltic region and Kaunas Womens Employment Information Centre signed an agreement in May 2003 within the framework of the UNDP project Capacity Building of Lithuanian Women by Networking and ICT. Microsoft provided software worth approximately US$ 56,000 free of charge. This software was installed in the training facilities of five womens NGOs, where women learned how to use the new technologies. After signing the agreement, the Managing Director of Microsoft in the Baltics said that Microsoft had decided to support the project because it fully reflects the companys values and corporate mission, and that software is a tool for people to realise their full potential.
36
3.4
PROGRAMMING AND IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
A True Partnership Approach
The previous section examined the development of partnerships between UNDP, the state, civil society and the private sector in Lithuania. This was partly in the context of resource mobilisation but also in terms of more effective programming and results through working together. In addition, UNDP in Lithuania has adopted or developed a strong partnership approach. In this context partnership is about the relationship between UNDP and the organisations with which it interacts, specifically a relationship where the partners have common values and goals and where power does not rest only with one side of the relationship. The partnership approach in this context is complex and the meanings are contested in academic discourse and among development practitioners. In Lithuania, however, the illusive meaning has been grasped. The vast majority of people interviewed during the review mission stated with conviction that the UNDP has adopted a partnership approach in Lithuania and was not considered a donor in the same way as other organisations providing assistance to the country. It is difficult to assess if the approach was a deliberate development from the start of UNDPs engagement with Lithuania or if it simply developed and was then encouraged or nurtured by management and programme staff. That it exists is not in doubt and its existence was also raised as one of the key factors of success for UNDP in Lithuania.
programmes have been aligned to changing corporate fashions gives the impression that the programme has changed direction over time. In reality there has been relatively steady support to the three main themes of poverty, governance and, after the first country programme, environment. Within these areas the focus has been on several clearly defined sub-themes. The extent to which interventions lying outside a focussed framework have been developed due to pressure to mobilise resources is unclear. Similarly, it is to some extent inevitable that the GEF portfolio will be singularly focussed (thus skewing the focus of the country programme) given the nature of the funds and the limited amount of core resources to compliment them. It should also be noted that UNDP has been operating in a rapidly changing environment not only in terms of Lithuanias transition but also in terms of the external assistance environment which was also fluid and made UNDPs strategic positioning more difficult.
Box 3.6
National Strategies, Programmes and Action Plans developed with UNDP Support
Poverty
- National Poverty Reduction Strategy (NPRS) - Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Programme for 2002-2004 (PRSIP)
Governance
- National Human Rights Action Plan 2003-2005 - Juvenile Justice Programme 2004-2008
Environment
- National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2003-2020
Other
- National Action Plan for the Advancement of Women 1998-2000 - National Programme for Equal Opportunities of Men and Women 2003-2004 - Policy Paper of Lithuania for the Provisions of Development Assistance for 2003-2005 - National HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Programme 2003-2008
Programme Focus
The 2000 Country Programme Review criticised the then current country programme for its lack of focus. It could be stated that, to some extent, this has been true across the whole programme, but the issue needs to be examined further. The fact that country
37
There are many examples where UNDP has followed a programmatic approach helping government to develop national strategies with limited resources that it then helps implement within areas of its comparative advantage. Box 3.6 lists some of the most important ones where UNDP has played this vital role. Support to national development strategies, programmes and plans has meant that the UNDP CPs have been more focussed on upstream interventions such as policy support and advice, although there have been important down-stream initiatives as well, most notably the GEF-supported Small Grants Programme. A number of areas have been identified as crosscutting in the various CPs and these have been noted above. Support to CSOs has been the most obvious with such activities in all three of the major themes
Box 3.7
Millennium Development Goals

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; 2. Achieve universal primary education; 3. Promote gender equality and empower women; 4. Reduce child mortality; 5. Improve maternal health; 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; 7. Ensure environmental sustainability; and 8. Develop a global partnership for development.
(although there do not appear to be linkages between them). There has also been more generic assistance to supporting NGOs through organisational strengthening and creating the right legal environment. Although it has a cross-cutting nature, gender has largely been treated as a stand-alone issue and gender concerns do not appear to have been mainstreamed into all areas of intervention. Issues related to ICTD are also crosscutting but has been mainstreamed only through use of internet technologies in projects where appropriate.
Using the Millennium Development Goals

Lithuania participated in the Millennium Summit of World Leaders in 2000 where the Millennium Declaration and, subsequently, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were agreed. The MDGs present a particular challenge in a country like Lithuania which has been classified in the High Human Development category of countries in UNDPs Human Development Reports. Many of the MDG targets have been achieved in terms of quantitative indicators although they are likely to remain lower than other developed countries. Lithuanias mission has therefore focused on making progress in qualitative terms against the MDGs which has been achieved by adapting and interpreting the most appropriate goals and linking them to the EUs Laeken indicators, the social inclusion indicators in support of the implementation of the EU Lisbon strategy (an ambitious strategy to promote growth and jobs throughout Europe). A three-pronged approach has been employed by the UNCT/UNDP since 2001 to assist Lithuanias efforts in this direction. This involves:
38
Table 3.3
Recognition of UNDPs MDG Advertisements (percentage of total)

Total Male
49 42
Female
55
15-29
66
30-49
47
50-74 Lithuanian
35 50
Other
43
Box 3.8
MDG awareness campaign in 2003

In 2003, on the occasion of United Nations Week that was dedicated to the MDGs, UNDP Lithuania together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania organized an outdoor MDG awareness campaign in the five biggest cities of Lithuania. A poster, specially designed by the Lithuanian artist Mr. Rimantas Rolia, was symbolically grounded on the legend of the Creation of the World coming from Baltic mythology. The campaign was supported by the private sector company ClearChannel that has advertised the poster free of charge for the period of five months. The campaign was aimed at informing Lithuanian society about the Millennium Development Goals and reminding that each of us contributes to the creation of better world.The campaign was also presented throughout national media.
Accession Countries in the Context of Millennium Development Goals took place in Lithuania. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together the EU accession countries to facilitate their efforts in the field of poverty reduction and social inclusion and provide more information on the MDGs, also from the emerging donor perspective.In April 2004 the UNDP CO hosted a regional workshop on Aligningthe European Union Social Inclusion Process and the Millennium Development Goals. The model for this workshop was copied in a similar event for the Western Balkans in 2005. Also in 2004, a Disaggregated MDG Report for Lithuania was prepared and released. This continued the strategy of supporting social statistical development in the context of EU accession. MDG advocacy work undertaken with a private sector partner ClearChannel has also been successful in raising recognition through an advertising campaign. This allowed the placement of a specially designed poster in outdoor advertising panels free of charge for a period of five months (see the box 3.8). Together the partners undertook analysis of success of the campaign and the recognition of UNDP/MDGs. Table 3.3 sets out the percentage of positive responses in answer to the question: Have you noticed the [UNDP] advertisements on the street? The nature of the MDGs in terms of Lithuanias development context means that they have not been fully adopted by the Government within its national development planning framework. The MDGs are not mentioned, in the National of Action Plan on Social Inclusion for 2004-2006 (a document prepared to an EU format) nor in the Programme of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for 2004-2008. Rather, Lithuania sees the MDGs as being useful tools in its new role as a donor. The overall objectives of Lithuanian development cooperation policy as framed in the Policy Paper of Lithuania for the Provisions of Development Assistance for 2003-2005 are the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs.
Joint advocacy for the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs. Joint advocacy around common themes (including around the Millennium Project Report Investing in Development). Launching of major UN and UNDP reports, including the global Human Development Reports and organizing public debates. Support to Lithuanias participation in global UN conferences. Leveraging existing UN and government programmes to build partnerships and mobilise resources for common priorities. The UNCTs 2002 Common Country Assessment for Lithuania was developed around the MDGs with the objective of providing a baseline analysis of the countrys situation. In January 2003, an Intercountry Workshop on Social Inclusion in the EU
39
NEX Ownership and Capacity Building

The National Execution (NEX) modality was introduced at a very early stage during UNDPs activities. By adopting this collaborative approach UNDP passes direct responsibility for the management of projects and the technical choices being made during delivery of activities, to national authorities, regional and local partners. UNDPs role concentrates on assisting the national executing and implementing bodies in making the right choices and so can be seen to have more of an influencing and advisory role rather than actual day to day decision making responsibility on projects. The role of the UNDP, and thus its direct legal liability, is therefore more limited than in other aid programmes where direct control of intervention measures are retained. This NEX approach has generated synergy between UNDP and Lithuanian partners resulting in the mobilisation of considerable combined resources and a focus on results at the local level. NEX can be judged a higher risk approach than other more centralised intervention methods but the COs ability to sustain such an approach during its thirteen years of operations demonstrates its appropriateness to Lithuania. The CO staff has remain vigilant in monitoring its aid work and direct intervention has been required on occasions, but in general the NEX approach has been highly successful in delivering a wide range of development outputs. In addition and noteworthy, the approach has also facilitated substantial amounts of added value in terms of empowerment, confidence, competence and capacity
Table 3.4
building across all levels of development work from national government to local authorities, NGOs and community groups. Other benefits of NEX include the management efficiencies that it offers by freeing up UNDP resources from intensive project management. These savings improve the COs ability to operate flexibly in response to changing national development needs but more importantly allow extra staff time to be allocated to strengthening UNDPs strategic position. NEX has therefore helped UNDP to concentrate its efforts on shaping the structure of, and providing direction to, Lithuanias national development agenda.
3.5
UNDP ON THE EVE OF CLOSING ITS COUNTRY OFFICE
On the eve of closing its representation in Lithuania, how is UNDP doing? What do its partners think? Nearly 30 national and international partners responded to the
Some Key Results from the 2004 UNDP Partners Survey (% of total responses that are favourable)
Questions
Overall, UNDPs image in this country is favourable UNDP is a valued partner to my organisation I am very familiar with the work that UNDP does in my country UNDP is perceived as a valuable partner by the government of this country UNDPs projects and programmes reflect national priorities UNDP is flexible in accommodating changing needs during the course of a project or programme UNDP is effective in integrating programmes/projects in to Government systems UNDPs operational performance is satisfactory Source: 2004 UNDP Lithuania Partners Survey
Lithuania
96 96 81 100 100 79 86 88
Region
92 91 83 87 82 71 70 79
Global
90 89 83 89 82 66 71 76
40
2004 UNDP Partnership Survey, an exercise undertaken by all UNDP CO on a regular basis since 2002, usually every two years. Table 3.4 reveals a very positive perception on UNDP in Lithuania not only in absolute terms but also in comparison with the region and UNDP as a whole. Unfortunately the surveys do not go back far enough to see how these perceptions evolve over time but nonetheless it gives valuable insight into where UNDP is today. In only one of the nine indicators is the percentage of favourable responses lower than either the regional or global figure, and even so only very slightly. In all others perceptions about UNDP Lithuania are significantly more favourable that either the regional or global averages. Another example of the esteem in which UNDP is held in Lithuania is the conferment of the Cross of Commander of the Order for Merits to Lithuania to the UNDP Resident Representative and UN Resident Coordinator, Ms. Cihan Sultanoglu, by the President of Lithuania, H.E. Mr. Valdas Adamkus on 6 July 2005, the State Day of Lithuania.
no longer be core UN resources allocated for Lithuania after 2005, UNDP in Lithuania has been examining ways in which it can continue to support these important areas of work, particularly in areas which to a large extent are not covered by the EU funds. Through on-going activities it has aimed to develop new partnerships which help fill these gaps and increase the access of those regions and communities which are especially needy but lack capacities. The scope of on-going UNDP activity in Lithuania has been covered in consultations on the UNDP Regional Programme for 2006-2010. This took place with national counterparts at the end of 2004 and showed a continued interest from Lithuanias government in working further with UNDP at the country level as well as at the regional level. Almost all persons interviewed during the review recognise the need for a transformation of the relationship with UNDP now that Lithuania has entered a new stage in its development although some will miss the financial resources and the advantage of UNDPs relatively simple procedures. Three areas have been identified through which engagement could continue: Further support to building national capacity for utilising EU funds. Further support to strengthening the partnership with the private sector including through the UN Global Compact. Further support to facilitating Lithuanias effective role as a donor in the context of (a) current limited capacity to manage effectively the increases in assistance that is being proposed (b) limited awareness of this new role and limited public support for undertaking it. UNDPs ongoing work in each of these three areas and its contribution to national development results will be examined in the next section.
UNDPs Future Contribution/Positioning

Despite the tremendous and noteworthy progress made by Lithuania since its Independence, disparities between regions and between rural and urban areas remain. Furthermore, UNDP recognizes that the sustainability of civil society organizations needs to be secured and that more people still need to be empowered to actively engage in decision-making for the betterment of their lives and for the future of their country. Challenges also remain for Lithuania in terms of limited national capacities for full application of new laws, the growing needs of new institutions and the coordination and effective use of European Union funds. Poverty continues to be a problem and risks becoming structural in rural areas where the agricultural sector lags behind in competitiveness and productivity and usage of new technologies is relatively low. UNDP remains committed to supporting development in Lithuania and has acknowledged that its shifting remit should concentrate remaining and declining resources in areas where it has most experience and where it can draw on international knowledge in activities linked to global UN conferences. Given the fact that there will
41
CHAPTER 4
UNDPS CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

This section provides an assessment of UNDPs contribution to Lithuanias national development results over the period 1993-2005. Three areas will be focussed on, namely poverty, governance and the environment. In addition, cross-cutting issues such as gender, and ICTD will be examined. The review provides an examination of the effectiveness and sustainability of the UNDP programme, by: Highlighting main achievements (outcomes) at national level during UNDPs presence in Lithuania and UNDPs contribution to these in terms of key outputs. Ascertaining current progress made in achieving outcomes in the given thematic areas of UNDPs support. The review qualifies the UNDP contribution to the outcomes with a fair degree of plausibility, and considers anticipated and unanticipated, positive and negative outcomes. It also gauges the contribution to capacity development at the national level as well as the degree of national ownership and sustainability of these results.
43
4.1
POVERTY
Poverty emerged as a significant threat in Lithuania after the end of the Soviet regime and has continued to pose considerable structural problems for the country. Living standards and prosperity have improved in some areas, notably the main cities, but unemployment and deprivation remain serious issues across the country and rural poverty is particularly problematic. Vulnerable groups include large families, the elderly, small farmers, single parents and residents with low levels of education. UNDP in Lithuania has made important contributions to reducing poverty and assisting vulnerable groups. This work has been based on a partnership approach and involved bringing partners together to work on policy advice and development projects that have helped raise awareness about poverty issues, improve the social assistance system, translate the national poverty reduction strategy into action plans and improved legislation, develop community self-help activities, strengthen womens NGOs and develop strategic planning on national response to HIV/AIDS epidemic.
chapter) are acknowledged as providing an important development function, informing and motivating research into critical issues over the years as well as contributing to the quality of national debate on development issues. Other research has also been commissioned to improve understanding of poverty reduction requirements. The Disaggregated MDGs Report for Lithuania prepared in 2004 and mentioned earlier in the Review should also be highlighted in this context. It has contributed to a better understanding of poverty in a broad sense in the country and especially of the regional dimensions of the issue. Many of the persons interviewed during the review mission from government and civil society raised the example of the Disaggregated MDGs Report as an extremely useful tool that was much appreciated. The Ministry of Social Security and Labour has been instrumental in applying the findings of UNDP supported social inclusion and poverty research. Close working relations have been secured between the Ministry and UNDP who have acted in partnership on many different projects. These include the establishment of a Social Policy Unit (which operates as a think tank tasked to improve the efficiency of social policy) and preparation and publishing of the Ministry of Social Security and Labours annual Social Report that covers the social policy pursued during the year, the course of its implementation and future challenges.
Box 4.1
Raising Awareness and Poverty Analysis

One of the first poverty reduction goals for UNDP was to raise awareness about the poverty issue and ensure that the policy makers focus their attention on it. This required a systematic approach involving the collection of data as a first step. Very little useful information was available in the early days of UNDPs activities and so initial poverty reduction support focused on providing support to help make improvements in social research and analysis of specific social problems. Box 4.1 sets out some of the key outputs from UNDPs interventions in this area. UNDPs assistance in preparation of social research data and policy building analysis has continued during its operations in Lithuania and this aspect of the UNCTs work can be highlighted as a key output of its development work. The annual Lithuanian Human Development Reports (described later in this
Some key outputs of UNDPs support to poverty reduction planning and policy
- Expanded Household Budget Survey - Labour Survey - Survey of Social Beneficiaries - Poverty Levels in Lithuania: Results of Studies of Household Budgets and Living Conditions - Poverty and Employment Report - Living Conditions of Social Benefit Recipients Survey - Poverty Monitoring Report - Assessing Poverty and Pre-conditions for Reducing It - World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)+5 Follow-up Report the Lithuanian Government document presented at the WSSD+5 conference held in Geneva in June 2000 - National Poverty Reduction Strategy - Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Programme for 2002-2004
44
UNDP support for the Unit has covered methodological advice, policy guidance, the promotion of NGO involvement and public participation. The Ministry continues to produce the annual Social Report following the end of UNDPs support. The impact of the project has been considerable, placing poverty issues on the national agenda and assisting the government in developing a national strategy approved by the President to reduce poverty. The strategy has set a platform for the development of pro-poor policies as well as for poverty reduction interventions to take place. Evaluation of the UNDP Poverty Assessment and Reduction Project (July 2000)
Limitations to, and passive nature of, poverty reduction measures. High levels of unemployment leading to persistent poverty. Low agricultural productivity. Limited availability of state assistance to rural areas. Growth of social exclusion. Slow pace of implementing poverty prevention measures.
The National Poverty Reduction Strategy

In early 1997, the Government of Lithuania and UNDP started working together with the ultimate aim of formulating and implementing a National Poverty Reduction Strategy (NPRS). By 1999 the President of Lithuania had set up a National Social Committee to report on the follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) in Copenhagen. The Committee was chaired by Ministry of Social Security and Labour and included representatives from government institutions and NGOs who were given responsibilities to prepare the NPRS. UNDP and the International Labour Organization (ILO) provided technical and financial support during the NPRS preparation. In February 2000 a special Baltic conference was organised by UNDP and Latvias Ministry of Welfare to discuss the formulation of the anti-poverty strategies in the three Baltic countries. The conference proved useful in exchanging ideas and experiences and led to the finalisation of Lithuanias NPRS in June 2000. The Strategy presented a concept of poverty that was adapted to the situation in Lithuania. It defined measures of poverty, described the spread and nature of poverty and classified vulnerable population groups. On the basis of NPRS data analysis, two kinds of poverty reduction targets were presented: an overall reduction of poverty and more specific support to the most vulnerable groups in society. Ten high priority policy areas were outlined where solutions could be formulated to reduce and alleviate poverty. Issues requiring urgent action included:
45
The principles of subsidiary and solidarity were promoted in the NPRS with the roles of NGOs and social partners stressed in solving poverty problems. Targets were set that relative poverty should be reduced from 16% in 1998 to less than 10% in 2005 and that absolute poverty (0.8% of the population in 1998) should be eliminated by 2005. To achieve these goals, the strategy recommended new directions in various areas of public policy varying from employment and education policies to taxation and social security measures with particular emphasis on rural residents, where the poverty incidence rate was almost twice the national average. UNDP made a significant contribution to the development of this strategy. It was formulated using the other key outputs described in the previous section, namely the surveys and the associated reports, and included a process of consultation with major stakeholders including civil society. Few other donors or international organisations were supporting the development of poverty reduction policies, programmes and knowledge at this time. Policies addressing the rural and regional dimension of poverty were prioritised with UNDP, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and Lithuanian partners undertaking a detailed assessment of the rural poverty situation in Lithuania. Results of this exercise offered a deeper insight into living standards in rural areas and made specific policy recommendations. In accordance with the NPRS, a Poverty Monitoring Commission (PMC) was set up in 2001 by the President of Lithuania to act as an independent watchdog body charged with the task of monitoring Lithuanias progress towards the implementation of its social development goals. The members of PMC were empowered to analyse the status of poverty, the effectiveness of measures to reduce poverty and also publish an annual report on poverty in Lithuania. UNDP resources were harnessed to assist the PMC monitor progress and make recommendations for adjustments to the poverty reduction policies. The realisation of the NPRS was assisted by the governments preparation of the Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Programme for 2002-2004 (PRSIP) which also received considerable support from UNDP and UNDESA. The core aims of PRSIP were to:
Strengthen attention of civil society to the problems of poverty. Create conditions for public institutions and civil society organisations to communicate and cooperate with reference to the poverty reduction issue thus promoting civil societys participation in general. Transform the aspirations of poverty reduction to the discourse on practical measures. Force the participants of this process to assess actual poverty reduction possibilities and estimate the necessary resources as well as look into their potential sources. Allow evaluation of other poverty related programmes implemented by the government. Revisit the legal acts both in force and under preparation to assess their possible impact on poverty situation. The document listed poverty reduction measures, the organisations responsible for implementing the measures, completion date targets and results expected for seventeen areas of activity split between four main headings: Strengthening the Activation and Participation of Individuals. Positive Economic Developments. Development of Social Services. Income Guarantees. It has been noted by a number of observers that the implementation of the National Poverty Reduction Strategy was somewhat diluted once it had been transferred from the Presidents administration (where it was prepared) to the various government agencies responsible for implementation. This was, however, only a stage in the poverty reduction process that inevitably will continue for some time. Importantly, the NPRS was developed using the examples of similar documents prepared by EU member states, especially the example
46
of Ireland, which had been very successful in addressing its social problems in the 1990s. The use of these existing instruments that had been prepared according to EU norms facilitated the development of Lithuanias next round of instruments related to reducing poverty and strengthening social inclusion. Specifically, this process facilitated the development of the Joint Inclusion Memorandum (JIM) and the subsequent national plans. All countries that acceded to the EU in 2004 had, prior to their accession, to draft, with the European Commission, a JIM, with the purpose of preparing the country for full participation in the open method of coordination on social inclusion upon accession. The JIM outlines the principal challenges in relation to tackling poverty and social exclusion, presents the major policy measures taken in the light of the agreement to start translating the European Unions common objectives into national policies and identifies the key policy issues for monitoring and further review It therefore provided the basis for the new Member States to prepare their first National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2004-2006 after accession.
Prior to the launch of NISC there were no sources of information for the NGO sector, no organization that could represent the sector or promote its collective interests and no contact point for overseas donors to turn to if they wanted to work with Lithuanian NGOs. The opening of the NISC acted as a catalyst for a major transformation of the NGO sector. It established a networking function organising seminars, conferences, an annual NGO Forum and its Third Sector Newsletter is now published bi-monthly. This information sharing helps the sector to develop its identity, learn about common issues and how they can be better addressed. The quotations below from both government and independent evaluators attest to the contribution this has made. Agreements signed in late 2002 between UNDP and the Ministry of Social Security and Labour and between UNDP and Non-Governmental Organization Information and Support Centre (NISC) concerning the implementation of project on Strengthening of NGO Abilities in Pursuit of Poverty Reduction in Lithuania are of utmost importance for cooperation between the state and NGOs on the efforts to reduce poverty and social exclusion. National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2004-06 The NISC has had a major impact on the growth and strengthening of the NGO sector in Lithuania.NGO
Civil Society Organisations and Public Participation in the Poverty Reduction Process
Public participation has been encouraged and achieved through many different UNDP projects. NGOs, volunteers and informal service providers have all been actively involved in projects which contribute to the NPRS objectives and on-going work includes improving co-operation between municipalities and NGOs. A range of other UNDP projects have been established which help contribute to the NPRS objectives including employment support initiatives, equality and health related investments. These equality and employment measures supported by UNDP have been complemented by a considerable amount of poverty reduction work on health related issues, particularly in area of HIV/AIDS (discussed later in the chapter). One early intervention that can be highlighted was UNDPs support for the establishment of the NGO Information and Support Centre (NISC) in 1995 in partnership with the Open Society Fund Lithuania with a mission to develop Lithuanias embryonic non-governmental sector through the provision of information, technical assistance, consultations and training.
47
voices are being heard in government although change is slow and uneven Action Program for NGO Sector Development: Report of an Evaluation Mission for UNDP (April 1999) K. McLaren, K. Kovaite Financing is one of the main challenges facing Lithuanian NGOs and the NISC provides important guidance and training on fund raising, project development and management topics as well as other relevant issues including organisational management, advocacy and public relations/outreach. Another challenge for Lithuanian NGOs is the legal framework which complicates economic activities, volunteering, and the payment of taxes. The NISC has helped build NGO capacities in these issues through provision of legal counselling and the NISC representatives have also engaged in regular advocacy with government officials to help improve both the laws and their implementation. Communication channels have been opened and government officials now interact with NGOs at NISC seminars dealing with specific legal topics. The issues of the sustainability of the centre were raised by one government partner who noted that such interventions are more successful when they result from the aspirations of the NGOs themselves rather than through a project. UNDP has also contributed to increased public participation in the decision making process at the local level through support to school self-help activities in 26 rural communities. In addition there is emerging evidence that communities have strengthened their autonomy, their feeling of shared responsibility for local living conditions and that the cooperative spirit within the community has also improved. Knowledge, skills and experience gained by the most successful communities are replicable and shared at the regional level. Through the relationships and networks developed with UNDP assistance, self-help schemes are promoted for their application at a wider scale.
4.2
GOVERNANCE
The process of legal reform has been critical for countries like Lithuania during the transition from Soviet republic to market-oriented democratic nation. Legal reform is necessary to reinforce national identity, promote the rule of law and allow fully functioning democratic institutions. In partnership with other donors UNDP has played a key role in assisting state and civil institutions develop upstream and downstream activities which promote participation, accountability and effectiveness at all levels of governance and civil society. This has included translating human rights commitments from law to practice, improving juvenile justice legislation, rationalizing and modernizing state and regional administration functions, supporting the Third Sector, addressing domestic violence and facilitating gender mainstreaming in national policy.
Legal Reforms
One of the first tasks that UNDP support was directed towards in the early 1990s involved helping Lithuanias new government rebuild the legal system and restore peoples trust in the countrys laws and legal institutions. Extensive support was provided to reform public administrative systems and strengthen the competence of government officials (national and local) responsible for drafting and implementing legislation. During the decade after independence, Lithuania was able to substantially reform its legal system and replace many of the previous Soviet laws. However, the development of a new legal system sometimes lacked consistency and the rapid pace of changes during the 1990s did not always allow time for a comprehensive review of law-making procedures. As a result, UNDP assisted a Government Commission to undertake a comprehensive scientific study of law making to help develop a new model of law making to facilitate integration within the EU legal system. Several other important restructuring projects were also supported during the reform process which continues to date.
48
Table 4.1
TI Perceptions of Corruption Index

Lithuania (rank) Finland Estonia Bulgaria Albania
1999
3.8 (50) 9.8 5.7 3.3 2.3
2003
4.7 (41) 9.7 5.5 3.9 2.5
2004
4.6 (44) 9.7 6.0 4.1 2.5
Information concerning problems to be addressed in the context of child rights, children in difficult circumstances and children in conflict with the law has been launched on a broad scale and the goal to inform and interest the public at large was reached. Training and skill improvement seminars for the police force, and to a certain extent for judicial personnel, were conducted. The need for special legislation, special youth/family courts and specialised personnel was introduced and discussed. Problems of the deficient institutional system were defined and awareness was raised for the need of improvement and restructuring of the system. The evaluation confirmed that the benefits should be sustained and strengthened with recommendations regarding: Advocating for a coherent legal system. Ongoing training of professionals working with children. A quick and complete reform of institutions, especially the creation of aftercare homes. The legal and practical development of diversion and alternatives to punishment. These recommendations have been taken up in the newly adopted Programme which involves partnership working with stakeholders throughout the judiciary and the community.
Note: the PCI ranges form 10 (honest) to 0 (most corrupt)
The Government is aware that an important part of the legal reform process during transition involves building citizens trust in the new laws and legal institutions. UNDP has targeted funds and assistance towards this priority process within a number of different strategic projects. Other strategic interventions in citizen security have also featured strongly on the support agendas for UNDP and its government partners. A Crime Prevention Centre was established in 1997 to formulate a scientific approach to developing crime policy, as well as significant efforts have been invested in the judiciary, court system, and in particular into juvenile justice which has been a key priority for UNDP. UNDP initiated and supported the Juvenile Justice Programme for the period of 1999-2002 which was prepared with the assistance of UNICEF and bilateral donors such as the Netherlands and Open Society Fund Lithuania. The Programme created a basis for strategic reforms in the country which led to the adoption of the Governments Juvenile Justice Programme for the period of 2004-2008 being approved in May 2004. An independent evaluation of the UNDP Juvenile Justice Programme was undertaken in 2002 which reported the following conclusions: The Programme had an extremely positive impact on the development of a modern juvenile justice system due to the involvement of all ministries/ departments/research institutes concerned in elaborating strategies to cope with the problem of youth criminality.
The Fight against Corruption

Lithuania has made progress in fighting corruption since the start of its transition process. As Table 4.1 illustrates the trend of the Transparency International (TI) Perceptions of Corruption Index (CPI) is in the right direction but there is still much work to be done. In relative terms, it is clear that Lithuania has much to do to reach the levels of freedom of corruption of Finland, the least corrupt European country or even
49
Estonia, the least corrupt of the group of countries that joined the EU in 2004. In response to the level of corruption in the country in 2002 the Lithuanian Seimas (Parliament) adopted a comprehensive National Anti-Corruption Programme which includes an Anti-Corruption Strategy and Measures to implement it. The Government and the independent Special Investigation Service are responsible for the organisation and enforcement of the Implementation Measures of the National Anti-Corruption Programme. The Lithuanian Chapter of Transparency International is responsible for the realization of different sections of the same programme. UNDP is one of a number of donors providing support to the implementation of the national programme. Interventions are focussed on increasing national understanding about the state of corruption and raising awareness about corruption issues. Specifically the former was facilitated by the development of a map of current hot-spots and the spread of corruption in Lithuania using an institutional and geographical profile. It was followed by the identification of responsive measures for corruption prevention through a consultative process and an awareness raising campaign to present the report contents and proposed preventive measures (such as ethics training), to national and local authorities, business community, NGOs, academia, and the media. Additional efforts were then undertaken aimed at increased anti-corruption awareness and strengthened public education in the area of anti-corruption. These included preparation of an anti-corruption education course, TV campaign on anti-corruption, public opinion surveys and a round-table discussion by policy makers and other stakeholders.
UNDP has worked closely with different government and non-governmental institutions during its Human Rights activities, including: the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Interior, the Chancellery of Parliament, Human Rights Centre, Association for Human Rights and others. Together with the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights these organisations used UNDP and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights support to develop a National Human Rights Action Plan (HRAP). It should be noted that Lithuanias HRAP was the first in the UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States (RBEC) region approved by Parliament, and the first developed globally within the global HURIST8 programme. Expert inputs from Denmark and Sweden played important roles during the Action Plans development process which took place between 2001 and 2002 and was divided into two stages. During the first stage a national working group (a HURIST Country Team) was set up and an initial situation assessment mission carried out including a public opinion survey. UNDP project support was then approved for the development of the Action Plan which was implemented in three phases.
Human Rights
Equality and Human Rights remain interlinked concepts but, as in many other developed and developing countries, Lithuanian political and civil rights still remain more advanced in statute than in practice. Imbalances still exist in society between men, women, children, rural and urban residents and UNDPs work on Human Development and Human Rights continue to play important roles in strengthening the abilities of government and civil society to redress these fundamental development issues.
HURIST (HUman RIghts STrengthening), a joint programme of UNDP and OHCHR, supports the implementation of UNDPs policy on human rights
50
Priority issues were identified in the first phase through a participatory process. A baseline study on human rights in Lithuania was also developed and validated at the expert level. During the second phase the baseline study on human rights in Lithuania was verified and corrected involving broad participation of the public, including five regional workshops and a national conference. In the third phase the National Human Rights Action Plan was drafted on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the baseline study on human rights in Lithuania as well as the results of the regional workshops and the national conference. The National Human Rights Action Plan was approved by Parliament in November 2002 and covers the following issues: Increasing protection of the rights of elderly persons. Increasing protection of the rights of disabled persons. Increasing quality of services and better guarantees to consumers. Increased consumers awareness of their rights. Improving legal instruments for protection of womens rights. Increasing protection of the rights of the child. Increasing protection of vulnerable groups against discrimination. Increasing effectiveness of the protection of rights of sexual and ethnic minorities. Increasing possibilities for the public for obtaining information from state and municipal institutions. Increasing awareness of citizens on possibilities to participate in state governance. Increasing effectiveness of institutional system of human rights protection, including the Seimas. Establishment of a continuous system of monitoring human rights situation in Lithuania.
Introduction of the Action Plan has led to a more consistent system for monitoring human rights in Lithuania, which in turn has resulted in better awareness, better protection and greater exercise of human rights. The Plan provides an official vehicle to strengthen public institutions accountability for implementation of human rights policies and requires public institutions to raise awareness about human rights policies and promote dissemination of actions across the country. As mentioned earlier, the Country Cooperation Framework for Lithuania 2001-2003 applied a human rights perspective to the work of UNDP in Lithuania which led to the above mentioned Human Rights Action Plan. Earlier work on human rights has included significant amounts of practical and research-based activity in the field of Human Development.
Ombudsman
In addition to strengthening the status and capacity of strategic civic institutions, UNDPs democratic reform programme has also included assistance to the establishment of Ombudsman institutions which play valuable roles in the nations institutional framework for human rights protection. Partnership has been an important part of this process with Government Ministries, UNDP, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden all contributing to found Lithuanias Parliamentary Ombudsman Office in 1995. This was the first Office of its type in Central and Eastern Europe.
51
Subsequent UNDP input in the development of the democratic institutions led to the establishment of an Equal Opportunities Ombudsman (EOO) in 1999. UNDPs start-up assistance included capacity building for EOO officers, development of procedures for processing appeals and helping enforce the Law on Equal Opportunities by raising public awareness and sharing of experience internationally. The EOO office has become an important part of the national machinery and one of the main partners for UNDP in addressing equality issues, not only gender but also on other grounds of discrimination such as race, age, and disability. The Government has since extended the Ombudsman concept through establishing a Childrens Ombudsman in 2000 and expanding the mandate of Equal Opportunities Ombudsman to include other forms of discrimination, such as race and age.
4.3
THE ENVIRONMENT
Environmental issues were generally neglected during the Soviet era when industrial development was considered a higher priority. This situation was similar to elsewhere in the world prior to the 1990s when global environmental awareness began to climb political and personal agendas. UNDP has been actively involved in supporting these agendas through a variety of projects since it started operations in Lithuania. In addition, the UNDP CO has been very successful in mobilising resources for addressing priority environment issues identified by the Government. Some of these are listed in Box 4.2 below.
Institutional Strengthening
Community Based Organisations (CBOs) provide a vital role in every democratic society. They enable citizens to influence government decisions, support weaker members of society and raise public awareness on important issues. UNDP activities have provided an effective mix of different support to strengthen these Third Sector institutions across Lithuania. Lithuanian society lacked a voice under its former Soviet regime and so considerable effort and resources have been invested by UNDP and its partners to help local and national NGOs and CBOs help themselves to fill the civic void. By 2004 over 7,000 different organisations were registered as active and the sector continues to grow and mature in many different social, economic and environmental fields. UNDP published the countrys first Directory of Lithuanian NGOs in 1995 and much of its subsequent work has focused on establishing and building the capacities of strategic umbrella institutions which in turn cascade their support down to a wide range of smaller NGOs and CBOs. These important agencies have become active agents of change in their own areas and include: the NGO Information and Support Centre, Human Rights Centre, Citizens Advice Bureaux, Civil Servants Language Centre, Lithuanian Innovation Centre, and the Womens Issues Information Centre, Mens Crisis and Information Centre.
National Planning and the Lithuanian Strategy for Sustainable Development

Sustainable development goals first emerged after independence with the drafting of a National Environmental Protection Programme in 1992 which linked into the UNs Rio International Summit on environmental issues of the same year. Further developments occurred in 1993 when the Government launched a pilot programme to counteract climate
52
Box 4.2
Other GEF interventions

- Conservation of Inland Wetland Biodiversity - Enabling Lithuania to Prepare its Initial National Communication in Response to its Commitments to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - Elimination of Green House Gases in the Manufacturing of Domestic Refrigerators and Freezers at the Snaige corporation - National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management - Lithuania Phase out of Ozone Depleting Substances - Preparation of the POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) National Implementation Plan under the Stockholm Convention - Marine Biodiversity Protection
Ensure a clean and healthy environment, effective use of natural resources, overall economic welfare of the society and strong social guarantees. It notes the main challenge of sustainable development in Lithuania is to achieve the present development level of EU countries by 2020, according to the indicators of economic and social development as well as the efficiency in consumption of resources and not to exceed allowable EU standards, according to indicators of environmental pollution while meeting the requirements of international conventions in the field of environmental pollution and input into global climate change. The Strategy recognises that implementation of sustainable development actions requires a holistic and integrated approach such as: Reduction on fossils fuels requiring investment in production and distribution systems for alternatives including bio fuels or wind energy. Reduction of waste requires increase in recycling facilities and development of market for recycled products. Success and efficiency of actions requires public support and ownership of the process hence promotion of public participation is fundamental across the actions.
change and then in 1996 a national strategy was prepared to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. Work continued on a number of environmental fronts during the 1990s and culminated in the National Report on Sustainable Development which was approved by Government in 2002. The UNDP played important advisory and financial roles throughout the preparation of this document by the Ministry of Environment, which provided a baseline report assessing progress made in the previous decade and highlighting important environmental issues that still needed to be addressed. Recommendations from the report were then converted into the Lithuanian Strategy for Sustainable Development for 2003-2020 which was approved in 2003 and acknowledges the important input provided by UNDP into this national strategy. The Strategy is relevant for many different public, private and voluntary sector development organisations with objectives that aim to: Balance environmental protection, economic and social development concerns.
53
Table 4.2
Participation of Lithuania in key environmental conventions

No.
1. 1.1. 2. 2.1 3. 4. 4.1 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 11.1 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
Name of the document Ratified / signed

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (Vienna Convention) Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) UN Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Convention on Biological Diversity Cartagen Protocol on Biosafety Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitat (Bern convention) UN Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention) Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention) UN Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. UN Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (ESPOO Convention) Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention). Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) European Landscape Convention UN Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) UN Convention to Combat Desertification Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade R 1995 R 2002 R 1994 R 1994 R 1993 R 1995 R 2003 R 1993 R 1996 R 1998 R 1997 R 2000 S 2003 R 1999
S 2003 R 2001 R 2001 R 2001 R 2002 S 2002 R 2003 R 2003
Key informants raised the issue of the implementation of the strategy and the difficulty this presents when it is not fully integrated into the national development planning framework. Rather than developing a separate sustainable development strategy it was suggested that sustainable development principles should be integrated into the instruments of the mainstream national development planning system. This would ensure that pro-sustainable policies and activities are implemented as clear linkages would be made between them and the budget process.
International Conventions
Lithuania has joined a number of key international environmental conventions with the support of UNDP. Air quality has been prioritised by government who ratified the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances in 1998 and adherence to the Kyoto protocol on climate change was acknowledged as an important step for Lithuania. UNDP support has often been upstream in support for the preparation of
54
Table 4.3
GEF project by theme

Theme No. of Projects
Biodiversity Climate Change International Water Integrated Projects TOTAL 34 12 16 11 73
Budget (US dollars)

771.619,58 334.317,64 279.803.52 279.135,60 1.664.876,34
Co-financing
54.7% 78.1% 62.0% 56.5% 69.2%
strategies and implementation plans to comply with the conventions. Moreover, UNDP is supporting efforts to create sustainable capacity and ownership in Lithuania to meet the countrys obligations under various conventions of international importance, for instance, preparation of a Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) National Implementation Plan under the UN Stockholm Convention. The National POPs Implementation Plan describes how Lithuania will meet its obligations under the Convention to phase-out POPs sources and remediate POPs-contaminated sites. Table 4.2 illustrates the broad participation of Lithuania in key environmental conventions.
level. Specifically, it played a central role in the design and implementation of Lithuanias GEFs Small Grants Programme (SGP) - executed by UNOPS and implemented by UNDP - which has been operational since 2001 and promotes grass roots action through communities and NGOs. The CO assisted the Ministry of Environment and sixteen major national NGO partners submit a national bid for a GEF SGP which focused on assisting Lithuania in the implementation of international conventions. This is reflected in the overall goal of the SGP which refers to: long term strengthening of NGOs and CBOs that address community-level actions to conserve biodiversity, reduce adverse climate change and protect international waters as an integral component of sustainable development, while securing the implementation of international agreements and the EUs environmental policy. Throughout Lithuania the SGP has gained a reputation for its ability to manage and administer a wide variety of projects, maintain a strong commitment for the development of quality project proposals and successfully manage a strategic portfolio. The SGP has been said to represent the public face of the GEF (and UNDP) in many communities where relatively small scale projects have made significant contributions to environmental protection and community capacity. SGPs reputation as a transparent, country-driven, decentralised and participatory mechanism is well established and the potential of its approach is increasingly being recognised as offering scope for adoption by other programmes. The bottom-up approach to sustainable development, using the environment as an community development catalyst, has had success in helping balance economic, social and environmental demands whilst also helping
Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme

As in the other two major themes, UNDP has played an important role in contributing to the strengthening of civil society organisations, especially at the local
Box 4.3
Broad partnerships in the SGP

UNDP, World Bank, British Council, Baltic American Partnership Programme, UK Rural Partnership Programme, Nordic Council of Ministers and the EC Delegation in Lithuania have all been close partners that cooperate with SGP on information sharing, programming issues and co-financing of SGP projects. Lithuanian SGP has also worked in partnership with the Polish GEF Small Grants Programme in the development of cross-border projects. Such bi-national cooperation at the project level is a new type of SGP collaboration globally, and is especially useful for sharing experiences and know-how, as well as providing grounds for new ideas on joint projects that could be eligible for cross border and transnational EU financing.
55
provide crucial linkages between poverty reduction and environmental protection. The Programme is a good example of how UNDP can provide a mechanism to facilitate better collaborative action between communities, local authorities and NGOs. SGP has highlighted the potential of partnerships, the opportunities from innovative ideas and the value of local environmental solutions in generating wider national and global benefits. An evaluation of the SGP published in 2004 noted that in three and a half years of activities, SGP in Lithuania had funded 48 projects, 25 of which were completed. The report went on to note that GEF Headquarters had regularly increased the annual grant allocation for Lithuania starting from US$ 150,000 to US$ 750 000 in 2005. Since its inception in Lithuania in 2001, SGP has committed US$1,66 million of grants, and has leveraged over US$3,74 million for 73 projects. Total leveraged co-funding has constituted 69%, made up from 52% cash and 17% in-kind contributions. The maximum size of SGP grant was US$ 50,000 and the average size of the SGP grant has been litas 63,000 (US$ 22,000). The evaluation report was designed to act as a capacity building tool to help others learn from the project experiences and replicate the models where appropriate. It observed that the true environmental impact of projects was difficult to assess after such a short period but confirmed that community development impacts were prevalent. These were largely added value and indirect impacts concerning: the empowerment of NGOs and local communities to create a measurable difference at the local level; to bring partners together; to have a policy dialogue with the government; and sustain the results of their activities. Capacity building and awareness raising of NGOs and CBOs has been one of the major goals of SGP in Lithuania. Consequently, the Programmes administration allocates about 60% of its time to comprehensive consultations and technical assistance for NGOs and CBOs in project identification, design and further management. SGP also organizes countrywide capacity building seminars and trainings every third year. Participants have acknowledged the usefulness of these intensive training sessions.
SGP-Lithuania can be considered a UNDP success story and the Programmes staff remain ambitious in their outlook. For the period 2005-2006 the Programme will put more emphasis on strategic project portfolio management by developing projects in certain strategic directions for more tangible direct impacts. SGP will continue to assist the strengthening community organizations, particularly in the marginalized countryside, by presenting transferable examples from neighbouring SGP supported communities and by direct technical assistance to obtain financial support. Equally, SGP will carry on building NGOs capacities so that they can access EU structural funds and EC initiatives with the possibility to merge them with SGP co-financing. SGP will also look for innovative modalities to help NGOs and municipalities to find common goals for the development of projects where their partnership would be key to successful joint financing from EU and SGP simultaneously. In line with partnership promotion goals, SGP is striving to enhance relations among environmental NGOs and the national government by supporting the creation of NGO networks or coalitions that aim to better assist environmental decision making and policy development processes in Lithuania. The Programme will nurture and strengthen collaborative relations with current stakeholders while creating new ones, particularly within the private sector. This multi-sector approach will be integrated within plans to develop strategic cross border projects with Polish and Belarusian SGP country programmes for solving common environmental problems and strengthening international cooperation at a local level.
56
4.4
CROSS CUTTING AND OTHER ISSUES
It was noted in the previous chapter that a number of issues have been treated as cross-cutting in most, if not all, of the UNDP Country Programmes in Lithuania. Gender, ICTD and HIV/AIDS are such issues and here the concept of Human Development as a central theme at the core of all UNDPs work is also examined.
as contributing to the quality of national debate on development issues. Box 4.4. UNDP RBEC and UNDP Lithuania supported the introduction of human development courses during the academic year 1999-2000. The courses are interdisciplinary, theoretically and empirically grounded and developed from an international perspective with explicit contextualization to the situation and policies in Lithuania. They aim at (a) broadening the focus of students of economics and expose other students to the concept, measurement and application of human development, and (b) increasing national capacity for identifying human development priorities and formulating sustainable people-centred policies, both directly and indirectly. The courses were established at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas and Vilnius University (both Faculty of Philosophy and Faculty of Economics) where they continue to be taught today. Universities have the ownership of the courses; it is crucial to their success and strongly support the initiative.
The Promotion of Human Development

UNDP sponsors the holistic concept of Sustainable Human Development which covers the four interconnected development principles of Equality, Empowerment, Productivity and Sustainability. UNDP promotes these principles across its activities in governance and civil society through individual projects, national policy reports and education initiatives. These include a Human Development Textbook, human development university courses and the national Human Development Reports. The Lithuanian Human Development Report (LHDR) has been published annually since 1995 and provides a balance sheet of human resources in the country. This flagship annual publication represents a key output of UNDP work in Lithuania and is acknowledged as playing an important development role over the years informing and motivating research into critical issues as well
Box 4.4
Lithuanian Human Development Reports

2002-03 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Knowledge, Information, Technology and Human Development Opportunities for Youth and Human Development Territorial Disparities in Human Development Globalisation and Human Development State and Human Development Living Standards and Choices Human Development and Habitat Untitled
57
In 2001 UNDP supported the preparation and publication of a Human Development Textbook in Lithuanian. Complementing the Human Development Course project, it builds on past experiences to further strengthen the comprehension by students, coherence of the human development courses and coordination between universities by providing a common understanding and analyses of the SHD concept and related vocabulary in Lithuanian. In the economic faculty of Vilnius University alone, over 300 students have been examined in the human development course just for the years 2003-5. There are also many part time students received a short (seven hour) version of the human development course in the evening. UNDP has recently supported the revision of the human devlopment curricula to add sections on development cooperation especially in relation to CIS. As such, this has been among the most sustainable of UNDPs interventions.
Gender and Equal Opportunities

UNDP has been actively involved in promoting equal opportunities throughout its Lithuanian operations. This has included work on equality issues linked to regional disparities between urban and rural communities, age related concerns and awareness of childrens rights, gender-based violence related concerns, educational opportunities as well as considerable investment into efforts to confront gender imbalances in cooperation with other UN funds concerned, such as UNICEF, UNFPA and UNIFEM. Lithuanias first National Action Plan of Advancement of Women was completed in 1996 as a follow-up from the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. The Action Plan identified several major problem areas including a general failure to perceive womens rights as human rights; the widespread harassment and violence against women and girls in both society and family;a lack of public programmes tackling the elimination and prevention of violence against women; an absence of public awareness about the extent of violence against women; andan absence of shelters for victims of violence. The main objectives of the Action Plan were to: Achieve societys comprehension that rights of women are universal human rights. Draw up laws and create a mechanism for their implementation and control. To achieve equal rights for women and men in the society and family. The guidelines included, but were not limited to, analysing all international conventions and declarations on women and human rights; preparing for ratification of international instruments; developing human rights educational programs with an emphasis on womens rights; and training teachers, police officers, lawyers and civil servants. The government pledged to ensure that harassment and violence against women would be treated as violations of human rights. The Law on Equal Opportunities (LEO) has helped tackle these issues and represents one of UNDPs most successful Lithuanian initiatives in terms of collaboration with the government and NGOs. The LEO was introduced in 1998 after a considerable amount of preparation work including practical outreach projects
58
initiated by the National Action Plan of Advancement of Women. These included pro-active UNDP measures to improve womens educational opportunities in the project Women Confronting New Technologies and other support to tackle elimination of violence against women (supported by the UNDP and UNIFEM). Another UNDP demonstration project Wanted: Women-in-Business was launched in 1999 to help improve participation of women in the business sector. The project involved personal training, a mobile information and counselling service, computer training and mentoring programme as well as a credit line for enterprises run by women. The UNDP project Capacity Building of Lithuanian Women Through ICT & Networking (fully funded by Japanese Women in Development Fund) aimed at improving sustainable human development for women in rural areas and facilitating their increased involvement in social, political and economic spheres of life at both local and regional levels was showcased by UNDP as a successful initiative for ICT for development in the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) that took place in Geneva in 2003. In 2002 UNDP supported the drafting of the countrys second National Action Plan for the Advancement of Women which concentrates efforts on improving womens capabilities for better livelihoods through access to information and communications technology and small and medium enterprise development. Issues geared towards confronting and reducing Gender Based Violence (GBV) feature in the new Action Plan and, in cooperation with the Open Society Fund Lithuania and several mens NGOs, UNDP organised the first White Ribbon Campaign in Lithuania to raise awareness about GBV. These gender equality issues cut across many different development activities supported by UNDP in Lithuania and additional examples of gender related investments are covered in other sections of the report. Kaliningrad region, and Ukraine). Regional cooperation with Belarus, Ukraine, Russian Federation, Poland and the Baltic countries remains an essential element of Lithuanias HIV/AIDS strategy. Such cooperation is actively promoted through a number of UNDP regional cooperation arrangements. The cross-border implications of the epidemic make constant vigilance a priority at the national level. UNDP support at the country level has included work on prevention and care as well as continuing advocacy especially targeted at the groups considered most at risk: intravenous drug users, youth and women. In 1998 UNDP allocated resources to its first country project which aimed to overcome the complacency about HIV/AIDS in Lithuania and also help introduce more humane treatment of HIV positive persons and prevent stigmatization. Further work was progressed in 1999 with the establishment of Peer Education Centres by UNFPA and since then UNDP has been able to support a number of other youth related HIV/AIDS prevention projects. In addition to local projects UNDP has assisted strategic HIV/AIDS initiatives such as the Baltic Sea Initiative and Action Plan on HIV prevention in the
HIV/AIDS
Lithuania is still a low prevalence country but the spread of HIV/AIDS remains a very sensitive issue considering the countrys geographic vulnerability at the cross roads of major regional communication and trade routes. HIV/AIDS cases continue to spread in most developing countries and also in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner states (for example, the Russian Federation, particularly in the
59
Baltic Sea Region (together with USAID and UNAIDS) and Interregional Partnership Against AIDS. UNDP was also a partner in the USAID-supported Network of Excellence initiative. These projects help reduce spread of HIV/AIDS via formulation of multidimensional approaches, building strategic capacities and dissemination of experience and information. In 2002 Lithuania experienced one of its sharpest increases in the number of registered HIV cases (doubling the numbers) through the explosion in the prison system. UNAIDS provided an initial assessment which made recommendations for the appropriate holistic policy options to halt the spread of HIV in prisons and its consequent potential transmission to the general population. UNAIDS Programme Acceleration Funds were also used to help prepare the National HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Programme 2003-2008 which was developed in co-operation with UN Theme Group (UNTG) on HIV/AIDS in Lithuania. Aframework developed by UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNODC, UNAIDS, and WHO on the application of a youth friendly approach to [health] servicesin responding to HIV/AIDS in Central and Eastern Europe led to a joint project Youth Friendly Services in Lithuania (YFSL) that was approved in 2003, with funding from UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA, and the technical support by WHO. A number of key informants in the government and civil society noted the importance of UNDPs role in bringing together the international community to engage with the government on the issue of the emerging aids problem. In 2004 the 2nd Open Europe AIDS Conference Europe and HIV/AIDS: New Challenges, New Opportunities was held in Vilnius where EU Health Ministers and HIV/AIDS experts from across the continent met in Vilnius. The main outcome of the conference was the adoption of a Declaration on Measures to Strengthen Responses to HIV/AIDS in the EU and in Neighbouring Countries, committing all participants to a coordinated, continent-wide effort to fight the disease. Lithuania remains more advanced in HIV/AIDS surveillance, prevention and treatment management then neighbouring non-EU countries (Ukraine, Belarus, the Kaliningrad region of Russian Federation). This allows the Lithuanian AIDS Centre to act as a Regional HIV/AIDS Resource and Competence Centre. The Centre hosts considerable knowledge, experience, modern HIV Diagnostic equipment, and in dept HIV/AIDS
educational expertise enabling it to provide HIV/AIDS related training throughout the region. As with other national institutions, the National AIDS Centre has benefited from UNDP work on HIV/AIDS which has been carefully designed and delivered within the context of a coherent strategy produced in partnership with the key stakeholders. This collaborative approach to the delivery of development aid has predominated throughout UNDPs operations in Lithuania and can be noted as a key contributing factor to the successes achieved by UNDP in the fields of poverty reduction, good governance and environmental protection. UNDP has highlighted the linkages between poverty and HIV/AIDS during its Lithuanian work on the crosscutting theme. Through projects, advocacy and policy dialogue across sectors, UNDP has helped to place HIV/AIDS as a prominent issue on the social agenda and contributed to the development of Lithuanias national strategy on HIV/AIDS prevention.
Information and Communication Technologies for Development

Although access to IT is expanding fast in many countries, in Lithuania it still remains relatively low. According to the Information Society Development Committee under the Lithuanian Government, 33.8% of households possessed personal computers in 2005. According to Statistics Lithuania only 10.6% of Lithuanian inhabitants used internet at home in 2004 while only 2% people living in rural areas used internet at home. Existing and deepening inequalities in acquiring and using IT skills is yet another barriers that might distance women from taking part in the every day economic, political and social life, as well as in the community development. UNDPs contributions to ICTD development in Lithuania have been limited. Only two projects have directly focussed on the issue, one in relation to increasing the engagement of women in ICTD. Research carried out in January 2003 by the Women Issues Information Centre, showed that of the 77 womens organisations in the country only 13 (17%) had their own Internet website and that only 49 (69%) used email. Only the largest of the womens non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have their own websites and communicate regularly via email with international partners. Information
60
technology is often not accessible for smaller womens organisations due to the high costs. Another example of a stand-alone project is support to the Municipal Training Centre at Kaunas University of Technology for a project to support the establishment and operations of the Local Government Information Network (LOGIN) in Lithuania. Through supporting internet-based information systems and traditional methods, such as seminars, publications, conferences and training UNDP has contributed to increased information sharing at the local level. Not only is this important for better strategic planning, improved daily operations and service provision, it is also closely related to the concept of e-government which is high on the national agenda. Moreover it serves not only local governments, but also the broader public, NGOs and private enterprises facilitating NGO and citizens group participation in decision-making at the local level.
4.5
UNDPS SUPPORT TO EMERGING ISSUES
Three issues have emerged that do not fit into either cross-cutting or the traditional categorisation of UNDP programmes. These are key issues that have become important in recent years and where support will be required beyond the closure of the UNDP CO. UNDPs strategic attention to these issues during the last UNDP CP has been significant in shaping the future partnership between the organization and the country.
Lithuania as an Emerging Donor

As noted in the previous chapter, UNDP together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) took an important strategic decision to support Lithuania strengthen its institutions and capacities as an emerging donor. Lithuania has learnt many important lessons during its sixteen years of transition from autocracy to democracy and from a centrally planned to a market economy. It is now a promoter of stable democracy through good relations with neighbouring countries and the development momentum gained over the last two decades allows Lithuania to be in a position from where it can share its experiences with those who are embarking on similar transitional paths. Together with other donor partners, UNDP has played a key role in shaping and building this development momentum over the years and recognises its role in continuing to provide structural direction as Lithuania shifts from a net recipient of UNDP aid to an emerging donor. This redefinition of the countrys role and responsibilities will involve the establishment of new partnerships within the region and beyond. UNDPs main contribution in assisting the country during this emerging donor process has been, and will continue to be, advisory and operational services. The emerging donor process began in 2001 when the MFA set the countrys first budget line for Official Development Assistance (ODA). Only a small amount of funding was allocated but the commitment carried great
61
Box 4.5
Bridges without barriers

The vast majority of people interviewed during the course of the review raised, without prompting, the issue of Lithuanian support to former Soviet Union countries and beyond. Most of these people represented organisations that had already engaged in such activities either on a purely bilateral basis or through an international organisation. All had identified the kind of comparative advantages listed above. Some focused on such activities as commercial opportunities or as simply part of Lithuanias aspirations for a larger role on the international stage. Many had a genuine passion to assist many countries less fortunate than Lithuania. Many had a sense that having received significant international support in the past, it is now Lithuanias turn to provide assistance. The metaphor of Lithuania as a bridge between east and west was raised on a number of occasions. The idea of Lithuania establishing bridges without barriers seems to sum up the idea and was suggested by a womens NGO in Kaunas.
symbolic weight. The following year, in cooperation with the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, UNDP supported the assessment of Lithuanias draft policy on development cooperation and assisted in the preparation of the accompanying communications strategy. The UNCT/UNDP also facilitated an internal policy review of Lithuanias aims in international and regional forums for the medium term with a view to EU and NATO memberships. These contributions to the development of national ODA policies proved valuable in assisting Lithuanias government which today has two parallel challenges to deal with regarding ODA. The first challenge relates to improving the volume and quality of ODA and the second challenge, directly linked to the first, involves gaining public and political support for development cooperation and ODA. To assist Lithuania in this process, as well as provide various alternative mechanisms to successfully manage Lithuanian ODA as it continues to increase, a concept paper on Managing International Technical Cooperation in Lithuania: Proposals for Institutional Arrangements was commissioned by UNDP and presented to the MFA.
Both challenges have proved demanding but involvement of the private sector and NGOs continues to help improve the situation. Nevertheless the underlying prerequisite of such improvements is support by the broader public and awareness that development cooperation is an important national goal. To assist this process, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in partnership with UNDP, introduced a project to help strengthen Lithuanian administrative capacities for progressing towards ODA goals. The project included a public opinion survey and information campaign to promote awareness about international development cooperation. Conclusions from the opinion survey noted the following issues: Emerging from 50 years under soviet rule, Lithuania has no tradition as an aid donor. Little understanding, at all levels of society, of the global context that places Lithuania among the High Human Development category of countries. Popular public attitudes are reflected by the statement: We are a small country. We are a poor country. What can we do?. Media coverage of international issues is focused mainly on European integration issues. Given current levels of understanding and awareness, any significant spending on international cooperation could meet with a negative public reaction. More opinion polling is needed to broaden understanding of public attitudes and to develop strategies and messages that will be effective in raising awareness and support.
62
Responses were developed to tackle these issues and help improve support levels for ODA. The messages included: In joining the EU, Lithuania takes on the responsibility to become an aid donor and operate within the regulations governing the EU aid systems. Lithuania has expertise to share with our neighbours from our successful transition. It is in our interest to help develop stable and prosperous neighbours. Participation as an aid donor in the EU will open up opportunities for Lithuanian NGOs and companies for contracts through EU funds and national budgets. Lithuanias role as an aid donor will help it to be an active and credible player in international organisations. UNDP supported a comprehensive public awareness campaign on Lithuanias new role as an emerging donor that involved the broadcasting of video and radio spots on development cooperation through the main media channels in Lithuania, organisation of radio programmes on the issue and facilitating journalists understanding and future engagement. In addition, the MFA/UNDP project included developing a Knowledge Database to codify Lithuanian knowledge and expertise for future use in development projects. Simultaneously information was also gathered on potential demand for Lithuanian development expertise. UNDP has also supported greater effectiveness and innovation through linking advocacy concerning the Millennium Project Report Investing in Development to Lithuanias emerging donor efforts. The UNDPs Regional Trust Fund for new donor countries in Central Europe and Baltic States has assisted this process. Donor countries will use the fund to finance national consultancy and training services through commercial contracts in Eastern Europe and CIS. Annex 9 provides more information on Lithuanias aid programme and sets out the ODA financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 2002. As already noted, UNDP commissioned and facilitated the preparation and introduction of Development cooperation course in various universities/institutes of Lithuania. It has also provided capacity training
for a large number of government officials, awareness through discussions and workshops to the Parliament, NGOs, private sector (the later however in plans for the end of the year only). UNDP in Lithuania has been well placed to encourage and facilitate East-East co-operation via practical transfers of Lithuanian expertise during design and delivery of cross-border projects co-funded by national budgets, including a trilateral projects in promoting inclusionary democracy. Other cross border co-operations activities have involved employing Lithuanian experts to implement projects and share experiences in the region. Lithuania has also been used as a centre for regional initiatives and other transnational work has been supported on NGO capacity building. UNDP will continue to be well placed to assist Lithuania help its new partners align their development activities with the MDGs and social inclusion principles. The UNDP network can facilitate not only East-East cooperation but also identify new opportunities to work with partners from the accession/candidate countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Croatia. The investments demonstrate Lithuanias commitment to act as an emerging donor and support UNDPs global strategy within the MDG framework. Lithuania (and UNDP in Lithuania) has gained a significant amount of experience over the years of transition and has a considerable amount to offer other countries undergoing transition. Of particular transferable use will be Lithuanias (and UNDPs) experience in successfully translating international development goals into deliverable local actions and embedding the principles of these global strategies within national policy. While Lithuanias commitment to supporting global development has to be lauded there are two issues that need to be examined. First, that the administration and management of an aid programme could draw on a significant amount of resources, both financial and human. The EU has agreed to the levels of aid to which new member should aim: Member states, which have joined the EU after 2002, and that have not reached a level of 0.17% ODA/GNI will strive to increase their ODA to reach, within their respective budget allocation processes, that level by 2010, while those that are already above that level undertake to sustain their efforts. 9 Depending on the rate of growth of GNI in Lithuania this will mean ODA levels of somewhere 130
63
Box 4.6
The UN Global Compact

In an address to the World Economic Forum on 31 January 1999, United Nation Secretary-General Kofi Annan challenged business leaders to join an international initiative the Global Compact that would bring companies together with UN agencies, labour and civil society to support universal environmental and social principles. The Global Compacts operational phase was launched at UN Headquarters in New York on 26 July 2000. Today, many hundreds of companies from all regions of the world, international labour and civil society organizations are engaged in the Global Compact, working to advance ten universal principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. Through the power of collective action, the Global Compact seeks to promote responsible corporate citizenship so that business can be part of the solution to the challenges of globalisation. In this way, the private sector in partnership with other social actors can help realize the Secretary-Generals vision: a more sustainable and inclusive global economy.
million Litas in 2010 (approximately US$ 25-40 million) out of which about 40 million would go for bilateral/ multilateral projects and 230 million in 2015. This will require a significant increase in the capacity of the Lithuanian Government to manage such a programme and to clearly elaborate the government structures to deal with the process. To obtain the required outreach through representation in recipient countries will also require capacity as well as financial resources. Second, and on the other side of the coin, is the situation of the recipient and the trend within the aid business away from small stand-alone technical assistance projects towards budget support and sectoral frameworks. There is plenty to learn from the mistakes of the older donor nations in terms of the burden that their aid programmes place on weak recipient administrations and these should be taken in to account in the context of the Monterrey Declaration as well as the Rome and Paris Declarations on aid harmonisation. In this respect it is important to delink Lithuanias comparative advantage as a supplier of technical assistance to the former Soviet Union and its emerging aid programme. The Trust Fund facility offered by UNDPs Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS to the new donors may also be used by Lithuania to expand their cooperation programmes outside of the immediate area of interest in the region and former Soviet block countries.
Engaging the Private Sector in the Development Framework

As already noted the private sector in Lithuania has grown rapidly since independence was regained in 1990 reflecting both domestic growth as well as foreign investment. The private sector has started playing a role in the social and environmental development of the country as well as contributing to its economic development. It has done so through taking on board many of the principles of corporate social responsibility
9
Millennium Development Goals: EU Contribution to the Review of the MDGs at UN 2005 High Level Forum
64
(CSR). UNDP has sought and managed to collaborate with the private sector in HIV/AIDS prevention, womens issues advancement, anti-corruption, and MDGs advocacy. Through GEF, important cooperation has taken place between UNDP, SPG and the private sector in the elimination of green house gases. However, UNDP has supported this process of engaging the private sector in the development framework in a more focused manner during the fourth country programme largely through the introduction and facilitation of the use of the UN Global Compact in Lithuania (Box 4.7 sets out the basic principles of the compact). The process of launching the Global Compact in Lithuania was initiated by UNDP in mid-2004 in cooperation with the Lithuanian association Investors Forum while a national network of over a dozen socially responsible companies of Lithuania was established in April 2005. Along with the objectives of Global Compact, companies of the national network mainstream the Global Compacts ten principles in their business activities, exchange information, organise joint trainings and discussions and promote the idea of socially responsible business in Lithuania. In June 2005, the official Global Compact launch event took place in the office of the President of the Republic of Lithuania. A total of 40 Lithuanian businesses expressed their willingness to join the Global Compact. These companies and organizations officially declared that in the strategies of the companies, relations with partners and employees, and everyday activities they would embrace, support and enact a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment and anti-corruption. In his greeting speech President V. Adamkus expressed his belief that the initiative would certainly influence the states economic and social development, stating: The process that has been started a couple of years ago as an idea, today transforms into a concrete actions. I truly believe that these actions will have an important effect for the people of Lithuania. However, to sustain these developments in Lithuania it is essential to ensure further strengthening of the recently established Lithuanian CSR network through building capacities of local partners, promoting their networking within and outside Lithuania and raising awareness in order to motivate more companies to adapt Global Compact principles and practices. The challenge lies in obtaining a deeper commitment
and concrete actions from the private sector in development issues, which can materialize only when necessary awareness and capacity is built. Together with local partners (for example, the Lithuanian Investors Forum and businesses) UNDP fosters creation of stable structures/forums for responsible business in the country, so that it could gradually transfer the driving force and competence to local partners who are expected to become strong enough in a short time span. Until then, UNDP involvement as catalyst and coordinator is necessary to stimulate the progress.
Facilitating more Effective Absorption of EU and European Economic Area (EEA) Funds
In 2004, UNDP began to provide support for strengthening the administrative capacities of Lithuanian municipalities, focusing on municipalities from disadvantaged and economically stagnant areas. The overall emphasis of these efforts is to prepare local authorities to meet successfully EU membership standards as well as create conditions for efficient, responsive and transparent local governance. While the earlier project focused on building capacity for long-term planning, including the preparation and implementation of the local development strategies, currently, the main focus of current efforts is on strengthening of administrative and management skills. In particular, the UNDP-sponsored project facilitates the transition to programming budgeting within selected municipalities as well as encourages more regional cooperation in the area of public services and joint project management. In combination, these efforts should enable participating municipalities to overcome constraints stemming from a relatively small size of municipal units and their limited financial resources thus paving the way for a more effective absorption of available EU assistance. UNDP support for NGO capacity building in Lithuania includes extensive efforts for raising awareness and strengthening capacities of NGOs and NGO coalitions not only to propose policy reforms on poverty reduction but also for effective absorption of EU funds. Capacities of NGOs were built through various workshops and seminars aimed at promoting easier access EU funds for poverty reduction and development projects.
65
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the context of an evaluation, UNDP defines a finding as a factual statement about the programme or project based on empirical evidence gathered through monitoring and evaluation activities and conclusions as a reasoned judgment based on a synthesis of empirical findings or factual statements corresponding to a specific circumstance 10. Before setting out the findings and conclusions, it is worth examining some of the methodological problems presented by the length of the period being examined. For example, people interviewed would refer to factors that relate to specific periods of UNDPs engagement and it may not be clear which one. Some of the information also conflicts, for example the 2000 Country Review refer to the way the CO practices NEX as a best practice while a project evaluation the following year found the NEX modality to be problematic in the project. It was also clear that persons being interviewed often found it difficult to remember the early days on UNDPs involvement even if they were in a position to do so. More often than not, the people dealing with UNDP in its early days were no longer in the same position and not always easy to find.
10
UNDP Evaluation Office Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results
67
It is also useful to start with some generic findings that although readily available elsewhere summarise earlier parts of the document and set the context for the more specific UNDP related findings and conclusions: The people of Lithuania have made remarkable progress since regaining independence in 1990. The difficult economic, social and political transformation has been undertaken rapidly and Lithuania is now fully entrenched in European and Trans-Atlantic alliances. From a UNDP perspective, the country has reached a high level of Human Development with a ranking of 39 in the 2005 HDR. Problems remain, however, most notably the issues of rural poverty and inequality, low life expectancy and high rates of suicide. Other problems are still emerging, such as HIV/AIDS. Once committed to joining in the EU/NATO the path of development became clear. In sensitive cases where political will may not be easily forthcoming (e.g. anti-corruption or gender equality) the path has ensured that appropriate efforts were made. External assistance has been limited but important, especially in the early years of the transition process. In the run-up to EU accession it is not surprising that the EU became by far the most important donor. Most external assistance agencies have closed their offices and have ended their programmes in Lithuania.
being examined and the limited knowledge of what priorities were being articulated by government and what other donors were doing. While UNDPs assistance has been broadly aligned with national priorities and international commitments as well as the UNDP global mandate and corporate frameworks there are a number of issues related to its positioning: The overall CP was heavily skewed toward the environment largely because of the success in mobilising resources from the GEF. This does not necessarily reflect UNDPs comparative advantage in the country, the area of most potential value-added or even where the national priorities lie. Poverty was an important concern throughout the period being examined and is an area where a relatively small proportion of resources were used. Poverty reduction, especially in the rural areas where poverty is most prevalent in Lithuania, is an area of potential comparative advantage for UNDP. (C) There are a number of other factors that have been behind UNDPs successful contribution to Lithuanias national development results: The vast majority of partners interviewed pointed to the importance of the quality of the staff (national and international) of the UNDP Country Office. This was especially appreciated in the context of providing timely backstopping and technical support to project implementation. Although considered by some to be complex, UNDP administrative procedures are nonetheless considered to be relatively simple compared to other donors such as the EU. While use of the NEX procedures has not been without its problems it is good that the CO persevered when necessary and in general the impact on national ownership and capacity building has been very positive. The neutrality of UNDP was raised as a factor. Although this is often an abused term and one that is not appropriate to an organisation that has its own human development agenda and supports the MDGs, it is used in Lithuania in the sense that UNDP avoids politics: it does not play games with the government and other stakeholders/partners.
The main findings and conclusions are as follows:

(a) In brief, UNDP has been an important partner in the development process in the past 13 years. This was noted by virtually all persons interviewed during the review mission. It has made a significant contribution to Lithuanias national development results since 1992 in all three of its areas of focus: poverty, governance and environment. It has also made significant contribution in cross-cutting areas, especially gender with a smaller contribution in the area of ITCD. It is impossible to say where the impact was the strongest over the 13 years of UNDPs engagement with Lithuania. (b) In terms of its strategic position and specifically assessing if it did the right things at the right time, analysis is made very difficult by the long period
68
UNDP projects always designed with partners through a process of genuine partnership. It has not been afraid to raise issues that it felt were important and that the government was in danger of ignoring. The lead role UNDP played in bringing together international partners to engage the government in the issue of HIV/AIDS is an example of such an approach. The fact that UNDP takes a holistic approach was also raised as a factor by some informants. Its broad mandate and country programmes mean that it is able to look at the bigger picture and not be too focussed on very specific issues. The ability to have a broad overview of the development situation allows UNDP to identify gaps which it then is able to take to the government. UNDP has been able to balance being reactive to government priorities with being pro-active in raising sometimes sensitive issues that need to be addressed. Again, raising the issue of poverty reduction and HIV/AIDS is an example of this approach. The role of UNDP is catalytic, engaging with the government on existing or emerging issues, helping develop national strategies and then opening the way for other supporters with larger programmes to take the process further and assist implementation. UNDP has also pushed for Government cost-sharing to encourage/illustrate greater commitment to the project and ensure more effective use of resources. The slow disbursement of project funds often reflects the cautious nature of a government ministry spending its own funds. Another key factor has been the effective utilisation of national expertise and appropriate balance between international and national expertise. Local expertise is identified as a first step and then internationals recruited only where necessary. This has probably led to greater capacity building and more appropriate outputs and has certainly been a more cost effective approach. Support to poverty reduction planning is a good example of this approach.
(d) Best practices are defined by UNDP as Planning and/or operational practices that have proven successful in particular circumstances. Best practices are used to demonstrate what works and what does not and to accumulate and apply knowledge about how and why they work in different situations and contexts. Each of the above can be identified as best practice in this respect. In addition there are some specific interventions that should be noted in this respect: The preparation of the Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Programme for 2002-2004 (PRSIP) using the format of the EU National Action Plans on Social Inclusion (NAPs/incl) and specifically the example of Ireland. The Human Rights Action Plan has been exemplary in bringing the work being done in the governance area under a common theme and is already being emulated in other countries (Moldova, Nepal, Mongolia) both in substance and methodology (the consultative approach to the preparation of the Plan, its implementation by the Parliament). The Disaggregated MDGs Report can be considered a best practise. This is not because of the report itself which is well produced and well received as any UNDP report should be. Rather it is because it represents a good example of using the MDG reporting process to identify and address important gaps in the knowledge and understating of the country in MDG-related areas: In this case there was limited disaggregated information. The best practice was to identify this gap and address it. (e) It is difficult to examine the counterfactual: What if UNDP had not been in Lithuania? While UNDP made contributions, could these have been undertaken by others? Would they have been undertaken? What was the value-added by UNDP compared to other organisations supplying assistance? The main findings in this respect are that without UNDP a number of areas would remain underdeveloped or would have been addressed later on in the development process, at a stage when addressing the issue would be far harder. This is largely due to UNDPs ability to identify issues as they emerge or even before they do. This is clearest in the fundamental area of poverty reduction where UNDPs contribution to getting the issue on the policy agenda, promoting a greater
69
understanding of the issue and developing the tools to address the issues was extremely important. In the area of HIV/AIDS, UNDP was instrumental in bringing together its international partners to work with government on addressing the emerging problem at an early stage. The areas of ombudsman institutions and NGO support are the other ones that are most often mentioned in this respect. In addition, UNDP has provided other significant support to sustainable institutional building in Lithuania as indicated in the main text. A second area where UNDP added value concerns the flexibility of UNDPs approach and the speed with which it could respond to priority government needs. There are numerous examples where without UNDPs support, either as a catalyst to attract resources to new issues or as a partner filling in gaps as they emerge, implementation of programmes and other interventions would have been significantly slower. (f) Resource mobilisation has been good in the context of declining resources from traditional bilateral partners. An opportunity to position UNDP to mobilise resources from EU pre-accession funds in areas of common priority was not necessarily an opportunity in the mid-1990s in the specific context of Lithuania. Resource mobilisation efforts have been successful in the context of small aid flows from traditional suppliers of resources (i.e. certain bilateral donors). The GEF has been the major source of cost-sharing resources and this had skewed the allocation of country programme resources heavily towards environmental issues in the last three country programmes. (g) Partnership development has been good with civil society and across government including at the local level. Working with the private sector has been limited but has intensified during the last CP. International partnerships have been good especially in the context of declining representation and a small UNCT. (H) Sustainability is an issue in terms of UNDPs support to specific organisations but one that UNDP has made efforts to address in collaboration with these partner organisations.
(I) UNDP has adopted a programming approach that has a number of key features: The issue of focus was raised in the 2000 Country Review but needs careful examination. What there has been is an approach of supporting the development of national strategies and then implementing certain parts of them that UNDP thinks it has a comparative advantage. This programmatic approach has meant that the themes in the CPs have been focussed within a national framework. There has been little interest in using the MDGs as tools for development and their relevance as such has not been high in Lithuania. As a High Human Development Country the MDGs were largely perceived as not so relevant by the government. MDG-8 is seen as more useful especially in relation to Lithuanias new role as a donor. Visibility seems to have increased over time reflecting greater and more effective efforts in this respect by the CO. (J) Lithuania has developed significant capacity in the last decade or more. There is clear recognition in the country among government, civil society and the donor community that this expertise is of great potential use in other countries, specifically other former Soviet republics and of these the neighbouring countries. (K) UNDP faces a number of remaining challenges, the first and most important one being the decision about maintaining a presence in Lithuania and what it should look like. If a decision is taken to support it operationally it will face a number of additional challenges that are already well understood by the CO staff including sources of funding for programmes and the nature of the organisation in Lithuania. (L) People interviewed across government and civil society will be sorry to see the UNDP CO close its representative office but the vast majority recognise that this is the right course of action. Nonetheless UNDP will be missed by many. As one government official summed up UNDPs contribution: The experience remains, the foundations have been built, and there are aspirations for greater progress. From the interviews undertaken, it seems it is well known among government and civil society partners that UNDP will
70
be closing its representative office at the end of 2005. Less clear are the viable options for a new stage in terms of a continuing physical presence. In any case, UNDP will continue its partnership with Lithuania in the future, as a member state and a new donor. (M) UNDP has been exploring different options for its future in Lithuania, in a situation without core funding or representation. It is expected that the Government will provide increased Government Local Office Contribution (GLOC) contribution to cover the costs of maintaining a programme presence in the country although financial picture remains unclear. Three broad areas are being examined: Mobilising of resources through the private sector. This has met with limited success and even though potential partnerships could be developed through the Global Compact it will probably be difficult to get commitment for core funding although maybe on a project by project basis. Mobilising resources from Government sources and other national partners, including through the EU. UNDP has many advantages in this respect (e.g. administration and thematic experience accumulated under one office, catalytic role and partnership building experience, good practices like the SGP mechanism, flexible procedures, capacity to attract funds, transparency of procedures, etc). As a close partner the Government is well aware of these advantages and will decide whether to use UNDP in this manner. Where the government does need help in utilizing funds, it will also have to examine not only UNDPs absolute advantage but also its comparative advantage, especially in relation to private sector organizations. Further supporting the development of Lithuania as a donor and facilitating the integration of Lithuanians into the international aid system, especially, but not only, with respect to supporting CIS countries and countries on the path to EU accession. Related to this would be UNDPs role in facilitating effectiveness of Lithuanias contribution and reducing the burden both in Lithuania and the recipients of Lithuanian assistance. In this respect support to compliance with agreements made in Rome, Paris and Monterrey would be important. It is in this area that the greatest potential for future UNDP engagement with Lithuania lies and where
UNDP has a comparative advantage (in many but not all) aspects of this issue. In the area of institutional strengthening and capacity building for Lithuania as a bilateral donor, the comparative advantage for this kind of support may lie with another bilateral donor. (n) While EU membership doesnt mean an end to UNDPs presence in a country, in the circumstances described above it is challenging to have programme continuity. Rather a new form of engagement might be necessary to allow continued partnership between UNDP and Lithuania with a country presence.
71
CHAPTER 6
LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
LESSONS LEARNED
The review has revealed some important lessons learned, defined here as learning from experience that is applicable to a generic situation rather than to a specific circumstance. (a) The partnership approach really does work and can lead to better results. It needs to be distinguished from the concept of broad partnership which refers to engagement with a wide range of partners across government (central and local), the broad range of civil society organisation (beyond simply development NGOs) and the private sector. The idea that the partnership approach is effective is not new but is rarely implemented. It is also clear that the extent that the approach can be used may vary according to context. In the case of countries on the path to EU accession the shared values will be in place to facilitate use of the approach.
73
(b) Once a country is committed to joining the EU and it is invited to do so, it starts on a clear path or reforms. It is possible to engage with the EU accession process through moving towards use of the various instruments some years before necessary. UNDPs support to the development of poverty reduction and social inclusion planning is a good example of this. In such a way the transition to the instruments required by the EU will be less painful and will be completed in a timely manner. It is also important to use the language, concepts and approaches of the EU. UNDPs support to identifying links between the MDGs and the EUs Social Inclusion agenda is a good example of such an approach. (C) It is important to get involved early in the process of pre-accession entering dialogue with government and the EU on the potential role of UNDP in the effective utilisation of EU funds for the country. The lesson here is that where you dont get involved at the early states of negotiations between the government and the EU it is extremely difficult to become involved at a later stage. (d) At the same time resource mobilisation ambitions need to be realistic in the context of declining bilateral resources as the accession process proceeds. A resource mobilisation strategy needs to take into account increasing EU funds, declining funds from traditional sources of bilateral cost-sharing and increased possibilities for government cost-sharing. (e) Once a member of the EU the CO will close and the country programme end. Preparation is essential and a decision on any future of UNDP in the country needs to be made well in advance.
6.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
In most reviews of country programmes a set of recommendations will be prepared to help support future programming efforts in the country. Given the nature of the situation in Lithuania and the forthcoming closure of the representative office, such a comprehensive set of recommendations is not appropriate. As already noted, Lithuanias membership of the EU does not mean the end of UNDPs partnership with Lithuania but rather the start of a different partnership that is no longer based on a country programme. (a) There is still a need for UNDP to engage with the new members states on the issue of human development. EU membership alone will not ensure adequate progress towards even higher human development. The World Bank for example continues to produce quarterly economic reports for 8 of the 10 new members of the EU (the EU-8). UNDP could continue to monitor the state of Human Development in the region and provide technical support as required. Continued engagement at the regional level may also be through regional networks for example or through support to developing their people as a technical assistance resource. Facilitating more National Human Development Reports could be another example of continued support to academic organisations offering training in human development. Lithuanians will engage with the developing world and poorer transition countries not only through aid programmes but as citizens, consumers, tourists, investors and traders, and the implications of this engagement need to be clearly understood.
74
(b) The country programme review is a very good practice on the eve of closing a country programme. The idea needs to be replicated and the methodology based on the ADR improved and adjusted to the specific situation. UNDP will close many more offices in the future. This is not a reflection of a lack of commitment to the region but the reasonable assumption that if UNDP and its partners are successful this will be the natural course of events. The final review is an idea that should be replicated across all accession countries as their representative offices close. It would be interesting in years to come to have a study of the role UNDP played in the transition process. In this context it is also recommended that record keeping systems are improved to facilitate such a process.
75
ANNEX
1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
LITHUANIA COUNTRY PROGRAMME REVIEW 1. Background
The Evaluation Office (EO) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) launched a series of country evaluations, called Assessments of Development Results (ADRs), in order to capture and demonstrate evaluative evidence of UNDPs contributions to development results at the country level. Undertaken in selected countries, the ADRs focus on assessing UNDPs added value and the difference its contributions make to the countrys development challenges with a view to enhancing performance and strategically positioning the organizations support within national development priorities and emerging corporate policy directions. The overall objectives of the Assessments of Development Results are:
77
Support the Administrators substantive accountability function to the Executive Board and serve as a vehicle for quality assurance of UNDP interventions at the country level. Generate lessons from experience to inform current and future programming at the country and corporate levels. Provide to the stakeholders in the programme country an objective assessment of results (specifically development outcomes) that have been achieved through UNDP support and in partnerships with other key actors in a given period. Lithuania Country Programme Review that is a modified version of ADRs will be more based on a retrospective study and drawing lessons learnt to be used not only at national, at UNDP corporate levels but also in the frame of development cooperation. The study will also assess at the extent possible UNDPs role vis--vis EU accession processes (playing a catalyst role, assisting the Government to meet the EU requirements timely and building national capacities, focusing on niche development areas not covered by EU policies). The study will entail a forward-looking perspective in a sense that the study should build a solid reasoning for the discussions on an added value for Lithuania of the continued activities of UNDP beyond 2005, UNDPs comparative advantages in continuing its activities in Lithuania during the first years of EU membership, UNDPs experience in managing development and their relevance to the present Lithuanian context. Lithuania Country Programme Review is planned for the beginning of July 2005. it will cover the whole period of UNDP presence in Lithuania starting from 1992 to mid-2005.
Basic data of Lithuania

HDI rank (2004*) Life Expectancy at Birth (2002) Adult Literacy Rate (2002) GDP per Capita (PPP US$ 2002) Real GDP growth (2003-2004) 41 72.5 years 99.6 (%) 10.320 6.7%
affects the population of Lithuania (more that 15000 citizens have left Lithuania in 2004 while comparing with 7000 in 2002). Lithuania is firmly established in the group of countries with a high HDI (41 HDI rank as for 20041) for the few consecutive years. Lithuanias annexation by the Soviet Union resulted in a forced and radical transformation of its economy. Lithuania was fully incorporated in the Soviet centrally planned command system. Countrys movement towards economic and political independence gained momentum during late 1980s. On March 11, 1990 Lithuania declared the re-establishment of its independence, which was internationally recognized in AugustSeptember 1990. In 1991-1992 Lithuania has been implementing a comprehensive and far-reaching economic reform program under an adverse macroeconomic environment (declining output, deteriorating terms of trade, and high rates of inflation). At the same period Lithuania took significant steps in developing democratic institutions, establishing rule of law and reforming the structure and administration of inherited social programs. The decision to become the member of the EU was officially expressed and formalized by Lithuanian Government in 1995. The transformation from centralized economy to the liberal pro-market system as well as carrying out the reforms in all spheres of life (fulfilling Copenhagen criteria) was not an easy transition towards the EU. At the beginning Lithuanias relations with the EU were very dynamic nevertheless the integration process dragged. It happened that the integration process was much more complicated as it was expected. Pre-accession period involved not only coordination of Lithuanian legislation with the EU
* Statistical data from year 2002
2. National Context
Lithuania is the southernmost and largest Baltic country, with a territory of 65,200 square kilometers and a population of 3.43 million as it was estimated in 2004 (the populations peak was in 1992 with 3.7 million people). More than 80 percent of the population is of Lithuanian origin. Lithuania is divided into 10 counties, eight of which are predominantly urban (over 50 % urban); the remaining two (Taurage and Marijampole) are predominantly rural. Increasing international migration is an important factor that
78
legislation but also the reorganization of the system of administration and the changes in many spheres of political and economical life. It has been realized that reorganization required huge administrative and financial means. The increasing skepticism of Lithuanian citizens and radical politicians was another obstacle for the integration. However, all the required adoptions were maid in the relatively short time span. In 2002 Lithuania successfully completed negotiations and was invited to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. Significant political and economic changes contributed to this political achievement. A growth rate of 6.7 per cent was reached, the currency was successfully re-pegged to the Euro, and unemployment declined to around 10 per cent. Lithuania has made a remarkable progress not only in eurontegration processes but also in economic development, democratic governance, justice, environmental protection, social security and health protection. Lithuanian Governments policies for impressive economic development, low inflation and fast integration in the euro zone placed the country into a position of the fastest growing economy in Europe. The country maderemarkable progress in developing democratic institutions and establishing the rule of law. The reform of the judiciary has been at the centre of these developments. The establishment of a four-tier system of courts of general competence contributed to building a more elaborate and competent structure for the defense of human rights and rightful interests. Lithuania is the only one of the new EU member states that fully set up institutional structures dealing with equal opportunities issues. The country has steadily accumulatedknowledge in preparing policy strategies and action plans on priority issues such as human rights (National Human Rights Action Plan adopted in November 2002) and poverty reduction, whichcreated the foundation for the strategic papers on social inclusion required by the European Union (EU).Significant strategic documents prepared in public health area stimulate the developments in health care prevention, primary health care, preventative medicine and high quality preparation of health professionals. Lithuania has also showed a notable progress in developing HIV/AIDS prevention and control measures. With the EU membership Lithuanias status has changed and it assumed new obligations. Lithuania joined other
EU Member States in the implementation of the EU Development policy and in pursuing commitment to the UN Millennium Development Goals. For the past two years, Lithuania has been preparing itself for this role by developing its strategies, defining its objectives and tasks and specifying the target countries it wishes to work with, in the near term, and transfer its experience as a successful transition economy. Above mentioned developments indicate that Lithuania has made steady reform progress in the past years that was mainly driven by the prospect of EU membership. However, the years of rapid economic growth have not brought about substantially improved living conditions; nor significantly reduced unemployment in Lithuania. Lithuania is still experiencing high income inequality (Income quintile share ratio was 4.7 in 2002 according to Eurostat data). Regional disparities increased in virtue of past transitional reforms. Every sixth Lithuanian falls below relative poverty line (17 percent) when absolute poverty remains is close to 1 percent. In 2003, the poverty level in rural areas (27.4%) was over two times that in urban areas (10.3%). Societal groups having multiple poverty risks (such as living in rural area/unemployment/having three and more children) are particularly exposed to social exclusion. Unemployment level was still high (11.8%) in 2004 (according to the data of Statistics Lithuania). Increasing regional disparities widens the gap between urban and rural areas flagging few counties lagging behind the countrys average on a number of socioeconomic indicators. As it regards women share in the democratic governance process, Lithuania has not made much progress since independence on promoting women share in the governance of their democratic country. The under-representation of women is obvious on all the levels of governance, starting with the parliament and ending up with municipal councils. The non-existence of gender equality institutions on the regional or local level makes gender equality mechanism only partially functioning and widens the regional gap. Already high regional disparities may be even more sharpened by the centralized application of EU structural and related funds that might increase regional inequalities even further instead of buffering or reducing them.
79
According to Transparency International corruption perception index (CPI) in 2004, Lithuania with score 4.6 out of 10, occupies 44th place among 146 countries. Since Lithuanian CPI is still lower that the average 5, it cannot formally be recognized as a country where corruption is sufficiently contained. According to the Map of Corruption in Lithuania 2004, prepared under one of the UNDP projects, the highest corruption prevalence is witnessed in the public sector institutions. Local municipalities, traffic police, tax administration, customs, hospitals and primary health care centers are mentioned as being the most corrupt. Despite a comparatively low HIV prevalence in Lithuania, the growing rates in new HIV infections in the close neighbourhood and in Lithuania itself call for prompt relevant actions.
promotion of young peoples health and development in the country. However, it should be taken into account that in Lithuania, UNDP is the only UN organization with a multi-year programme. UNDPs RR in Lithuania also acts as UN RC and undertakes the leading role in UN country teams work. UNDP cooperation in Lithuania. Having been a partner of Lithuanian Government since 1992, the UNDP has served both as a catalyst for policy development, governmental and institutional reforms and as a strategic partner for governmental and nongovernmental initiatives. During the first framework of cooperation (19931996), in close partnership with the Government of Lithuania, UNDP activities covered four major areas: the development of democracy and civil society, public administration reform, the development of human resources for the market economy, and the alleviation of the social impact of the transition. Some 20 projects worth more than 3 million US$ were carried out, which resulted in the establishment of institutions, giving assistance when most needed. In the second framework of cooperation (1997-2000) the UNDP focused on the promotion of sustainable livelihoods, democratic governance and citizen participation, human security and environment protection, as well as on the advancement of women, the promotion of NGOs and the prevention of HIV/AIDS. In terms of results, building on its trusted partnerships with the Government of Lithuania and the donor community, the UNDP realized individual technical cooperation projects worth more than 8 million US$. Besides, material assistance, global knowledge and practical thinking were brought to the country through these activities. Building on Lithuanias achievements since independence, the UNDP has adopted a human rights approach within the third framework of cooperation for the period 2001-2003, following consultations with national and international partners. In the period of 2001-2003 the UNDP focussed on three inter-linked priority areas: the promotion of civil rights and good governance; the promotion of economic and social rights; and the promotion of environmental rights
3. UN System Cooperation in Lithuania

Even having the limited presence of the UN system agencies in Lithuania, the collaboration among them was successful in several key areas of economic and social development. Important results were achieved through interagency collaboration in poverty reduction and human rights. Joint and parallel work has done by UNDP, World Bank and UNDESA have opened discussions on poverty reporting and monitoring and facilitated political support at the highest levels. That led to the preparation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy and its transformation into the Implementation Plan of the Strategy. UNDP and UNHCHR have provided assistance to the preparation of a human rights action plan which was the first in the Central and Eastern Europe. Activities supported by UNDP, GEF and UNEP on biodiversity conservation , climate change and linkages with FAO regional activities contributed to integration of global environmental concerns into the national policy agenda. Collaboration with the UNFPA has brought about a significant support for population issues, reproductive health, HIV/AIDS prevention in adolescent health and finally for building national statistical capacities for meeting UN recommendations for holding censuses. Through direct UNAIDS support and in interagency collaboration, Lithuania has benefited from a solid assistance in HIV/ AIDS programming, as well as technical and financial support. UNICEF contributed highly to Lithuanians efforts in protecting childrens rights, strengthened
80
with crosscutting themes of HIV/AIDS prevention, gender mainstreaming and the strengthening of civil society. In the first area, the mounting challenge was to translate human rights commitments from law to practise through a concerted focus on implementation. In the area of social and economic rights, the UNDP provided a significant support transforming the national poverty reduction strategy and social research into action plans and improved legislation as well as on self-help assistance for vulnerable groups in Lithuanian society. In the environmental sector, support was provided for alternative energy, biodiversity conservation, environmental education and sustainable development. Against this background, UNDP embarked upon its last Country Programme 2004-2005, focusing on four strategic lines of intervention: Strengthening capacities for social inclusion; Strengthening capacities for good governance; Strengthening capacities for sustainable development; Strengthening capacities as an emerging donor. Given the fact that there will no longer be core resources allocated for Lithuania after 2005 the UNDP in Lithuania promptly get into an accelerated learning process about the EU financing mechanisms available to the EU member states to understand how UNDP can legally and managerially be a partner to Lithuania to increase access of those regions and communities which are especially needy but lacking in capacities. Assisting the country in building its capacities as an Emerging Donor, the UNDP and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has signed and started to implement An Emerging Donor project aimed at supporting the Government of Lithuania to develop national capacities for the design and implementation of development cooperation activities throughout the implementation of major components: Awareness building to help the government to publicize and explain its development cooperation activities to the decision makers, the media and the citizens of Lithuania;
Establishment of a Knowledge database to codify the existing Lithuanian knowledge and expertise, as well as experts in different areas for later use in development projects of Lithuania; Identification of existing and possible future demand for expertise available in Lithuania and possibly few concrete development cooperation projects. An increasingly significant intervention emerged in the area of engaging a private sector in development. UNDP approached the private sector, sensing that the private sector has reached a certain maturity to be able to launch the Global Compact in Lithuania. UNDP has played a catalytic role in this area, consolidating the efforts to promote Corporate Social Responsibility and introducing the Global Compact (GC), thus bringing all related stakeholders together: private companies, business and related associations, trade unions, government, local authorities, NGOs, local communities, international organizations, the EU. Having been present in Lithuania since 1992, UNDP continues to be a partner to Lithuania in fulfilling its socio-economic goals, effectively absorbing EU and European Economic Area (EEA)/Norwegian Government funds and focusing on strengthening its role as an active partner in development cooperation in the region and worldwide. As a member of the European Union, Lithuania attaches a great importance to the strengthening of democratic processes and stability in its eastern neighbours. Through development of closer relations with its neighbours and other countries Lithuania aims to strengthen its position as an expert of the European New Neighbourhood Policy (ENNP) and enhance its strategic role in the region. UNDP in Lithuania has been well placed to encourage and facilitate practical transfer of Lithuanian expertise through design and implementation of cross-border projects co-funded by Lithuania, local governance regional project in Belarus and other countries, project in Belarus on inclusionary democracy; sending Lithuanian experts to implement the projects and share experiences in the region; using Lithuania as a centre for regional initiatives and events; as well NGO capacity strengthening through provision of quality expertise to the neighbours. UNDP in Lithuania is well placed not only at promoting EastEast cooperation but also at aligning MDGs and Social
81
Inclusion (the lessons learnt in developing strategic poverty papers) in the context of possible future accession/candidate countries such as Turkey, Croatia and FYROM. The Lithuania Country Programme Review evaluation will look at all the results achieved for the period of 1992 to mid-2005. The evaluation will consider all the key results, as described in Annex 1 and the main intended objectives described in the various planning instruments of UNDP.
How effective was UNDP support to policy advice and dialogue, national capacities building and engaging partners in delivering development results. How effective was UNDP in engaging private sector into development processes. Provide an analysis of how UNDP has positioned itself strategically to bring added value and responded effectively to national development needs and priorities to changes in the national development situation with special attention to: The entry points and strategy selected by UNDP in support of the national development agenda, especially within its areas of focus, with the special focus on the overarching the elements of poverty reporting and practical implementation of human rights; The key current strategies: developing national capacities of Lithuania as an emerging donor, engaging private sector, assisting local partners to mobilise resources attempting to access the EU/EEA financing mechanisms; The nature and level of cooperation with different development partners. Based on the analysis of key achievements and overall findings; draw key lessons to be used at national level as well as in regional context, and provide clear and forward-looking recommendations in order to suggest UNDPs positioning (the added value for Lithuania of UNDPs presence in the country beyond 2005).
4. Objectives of the Assessment

The purpose of the evaluation is to review the experience of UNDP in Lithuania; draw lessons learned and their applicability in the regional context; to learn the added value for Lithuania of UNDPs continuity beyond 2005; make recommendations for continuing UNDPs activities in Lithuania during the first years of EU membership. The Lithuania Country Programme Review will: Provide an overall assessment of the results achieved through UNDP support and in partnership with other key development actors during 19922004 with specific in-depth assessments within poverty, governance and environment taking into account cross-cutting issues such as gender equality and ICTD. The analysis should focus on how the results were achieved, identify the factors that accounted for success or failure and draw lessons, with particular attention to: How UNDP support was used to leverage the legal reform process in the area of governance; How effective UNDP support was in assisting vulnerable groups at risk of poverty; and advisory support in preparing strategic poverty reporting documents; The contribution of UNDP support to meeting the requirement of UN conventions in the area of environment. How effective was UNDP in facilitating Lithuanias eurointegration processes and addressing development areas not covered by EU pre-accession policies.
5. Scope of the Assessment

The evaluation will undertake a comprehensive review of the UNDP programme portfolio and activities during the period under review, with a more in-depth focus on governance, poverty and environment. Specifically, the Country Review Programme will cover the following: a. Strategic Positioning Ascertain the strategic focus of UNDP support and its relevance to national development priorities, including relevance and linkages with the overarching goal of reducing poverty and the
82
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This may include an analysis of the perceived comparative strengths of the programme and a review of the major national challenges to development. The evaluation will assess UNDP support in relation to helping the government to implement actions aimed at reducing poverty and assisting vulnerable groups (especially the ones heavily exposed to poverty due to regional development challenges) and UNDPs assistance in poverty reporting, monitoring and strategy papers setting. The aim is to ascertain the added value of UNDP support in effectively contributing to and influencing the national development through strategic priority setting and intervening at optimal entry points. Assess how UNDP has anticipated and responded to significant changes in the national development context within the core areas of focus. In this regard, the Country Programme Review may, for example, consider key events at national and political level that influenced and affected the development environment; the risk management of UNDP; any missed opportunities for UNDP involvement and contribution; its efforts at advocacy and policy advice and UNDPs responsiveness. The evaluation should bring out the choices made by UNDP in response to government reforms and explain the rationale behind these choices. Review the synergies and alignment of UNDP support with other initiatives and partners, including the Global Cooperation Framework (GCF) and the Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF). This may include examining how UNDP has leveraged its resources and that of others towards the achievement of results, the balance between upstream and downstream initiatives and the work on MDGs. The Evaluation should consider the influence of systemic issues, i.e. policy and administrative constraints affecting the programme, on both the donor and programme country sides, as well as how the development results achieved and the partnerships established have contributed to ensure a relevant and strategic positioning of UNDP support.
b. Development Results Provide an examination of the effectiveness and sustainability of the UNDP programme, by: (a) highlighting main achievements (outcomes) at national level during UNDPs presence in Lithuania and UNDPs contribution to these in terms of key outputs; (b) ascertaining current progress made in achieving outcomes in the given thematic areas of UNDPs support. The evaluation should qualify the UNDP contribution to the outcomes with a fair degree of plausibility, and consider anticipated and unanticipated, positive and negative outcomes. It should also gauge the contribution to capacity development at the national level as well as the degree of national ownership and sustainability of these results. The assessment will cover the key results and support in all thematic areas (governance, poverty, environment, gender, HIV/ AIDS, ICT, and any other areas as appropriate). Provide an in-depth analysis of UNDPs involvement in building national capacity of Lithuania as an emerging donor and engaging private sector into development framework assessing the anticipated progress in achieving intended outcomes. Identify and analyze the main factors influencing results, including the range and quality of development partnerships forged and their contribution to outcomes Provide an in-depth analysis of the two thematic areas governance, poverty and environment and identify the best Lithuanian practices accumulated during the transitional period that might be successfully brought into regional as well as global development cooperation framework. C. Lessons Learned and Good Practices Identify key lessons in the thematic areas of focus while operating ina transitional economy, andlater in an EU pre-accession country that can provide a useful basis for applying them in the context of possible future EU accession/candidate countries or transitional economies in the Region. Through indepth thematic assessment, identify good practices for learning and replication and draw lessons from intended and unintended results where possible.
83
6. Methodology
The assessment will employ a variety of methodologies including desk reviews, stakeholder meetings, client surveys, and selected site visits. (See Annex for a range of evaluation techniques) The International Expert will review national policy documents (including national strategies, CCAs, MDG reports) which give an overall picture of the country context. The Expert will also consider any thematic studies/papers, select project documents and programme support documents as well as any reports from monitoring and evaluation at country level, as well as available documentation and studies from other development partners. Statistical data will be assessed where useful. A wide stakeholder consultation and involvement is envisaged. The Evaluation Team will meet with Government Ministries/institutions at central and province level, research institutions, civil society organizations, NGOs and private sector representatives, bilateral donors, and beneficiaries. The Expert will visit field/project sites selected in consultation with the country office and national stakeholders. In terms of methodology, the Country Programme Review will follow the guidance issued by the Evaluation Office, and consist of: Preparation Phase - with preliminary desk review, programme mapping, TOR proposal, preparation of standardised questioners for different stakeholders and interviews of stakeholders carried, the information retrieved from the interviews systematised and reported, the programme for the mission of international expert prepared) Conducting the Country Programme Review the mission of international expert including methodology briefing, meetings with key stakeholders and CO, field visits and finalisation of the Review. Use of the Country Programme Review - presentation for discussions the Review at the International Conference on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the UN UN role in Lithuanias development and during other learning events, sharing it with national and international stakeholders and wide dissemination.
Preparatory work at the local level will be carried out in advance to provide substantive background for the International Expert. Preparatory works will be conducted by local research institute or companies. The Lithuanian company will also be charged with conducting selected surveys of key partners through questionnaires. The in-depth study work may entail the review of available reports, collecting additional documentation, conducting interviews, field visits and analysis. This work will be based on specific TOR in addendum to these generic terms of reference.
7. Expected Outputs
The main expected output is the comprehensive final report on Lithuania Country Programme Review, including relevant annexes with detailed data. The final report by the International Expert, should at the very least contain: Executive Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations Background, with analysis of country context Strategic Positioning and Programme Relevance Programme Performance Lessons Learned and good practices Findings and Recommendations (including the findings on remaining development challenges to be possibly addressed by UNDP based on its comparative advantages in development field and accumulated experiences work as trusted counterpart of the Government) Annexes (TOR, abbreviations, persons met, documentation reviewed or references, statistics/ national development indicators etc., details on the programme portfolio, overview of official development assistance, and overview of intended results for UNDP, MDG indicators and status, country map).
84
Timeline/key milestones for Lithuania Country Programme Review

Milestones
First draft TOR circulated for comments Revised TOR finalized and distributed Identification/selection of local research entity/national consultants Start of desk reviews, programme mapping, preparation of standardised questioners for different stakeholders and interviews of stakeholders carried; The information retrieved from the interviews systematised and reported, the programme for the mission of international expert prepared; Mission of an international expert Submission of draft report by an international expert Circulation of draft report for feedback Submission of final report Presentation for discussions of the Review at the International Conference on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the UN UN role in Lithuanias development
Dates
June 2005 Beginning of July 2005 Beginning of July 2005 July 2005 mid August, 2005 End of August, 2005 3 first weeks of September 2005 Beginning of October 2005 Mid-October 2005 End of October 2005 November 2005
Towards the end of the mission, and prior to leaving the country, the International Expert will discuss his/her preliminary findings and recommendations with the Resident Representative and the Country Office staff and present these to the Government and partners at a meeting of key stakeholders. The Expert will use this feedback to finalize the report.
9. Management Arrangements
The Evaluation Office will manage the evaluation and ensure coordination and liaison with concerned units at Headquarters level. The general timeframe and responsibilities for the evaluation process is given in Annex 2. The Country Office will take a lead role in dialogue and interaction with stakeholders on the findings and recommendations, support the International Expert in liaison with the key partners and discussions with the Team, and make available to the Team all relevant materials. The country office will provide overall administrative support to logistics and planning. The Evaluation will be financed mainly from RC funds with the possibly expected financial contribution from the Evaluation Office.
8. Evaluators
The Country Review Programme will be carried by an international expert. He/She will base the work on preparatory work done by local research institutes, and questionnaire and survey results. The local research partners will also work in close collaboration with the international expert during the main evaluation mission. The CO will also assist the international expert and local researches engaged.
85
2
PERSONS INTERVIEWED
1. PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY LOCAL CONSULTANTS (formal questionnaire)
Telephone Interviews Raminta Geceviciene Antanas Jatkevicius Kestutis Zaborskas Jurate Tumoniene Rytis Juozapavicius Paulius Skardzius Migle Bernotiene Dainius Radzevicius Rimante Salaseviciute Romas Valentukevicius Ausrine Burneikiene Jolanta Rimkute Dalia Ambrozaitiene Romas Lazutka Esmeralda Kuliesyte Marija Teriosina Face to Face Interviews Aleksandras Dobryninas Andrejus Piliavecas Jolanta Vaiciuniene Kastytis Gecas Ruta Skyriene Vaidotas Ilgius Rasa Laiconiene Gediminas Rascius Kestutis Navickas Vytautas Toleikis Jurate Puidiene Guoda Burokiene
Seimas, Human Rights Committee Seimas, Law Department Special Investigation Service Special Investigation Service Transparency International Ministry of Interior Ministry of Interior Ministry of Justice Childrens Ombudsperson Seimas Ombudsmen Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson Social Policy Unit Statistics Lithuania Vilnius University, Faculty of Philosophy Family Planning and Sexual Health Association Ministry of Environment
Vilnius University, Faculty of Philosophy Crime Prevention Centre Municipal Training Centre Lithuanian Innovation Centre Investors Forum Non-Governmental Organization Information & Support Centre Vilnius City Municipality, Social Protection Department Nature Heritage Fund Regional Environmental Centre Foundation for Educational Change Women Employment and Information Centre Lithuanian Farm Womens Association
86
2. PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANT (semi-structured)

GOVERNMENT OF LITHUANIA
Ministry of Justice
Elvyra Baltutyte, Agent of the Government of Lithuania before the European Court of Human Rights
LITHUANIAN CIVIL SOCIETY

Regional Environmental Center
Kestutis Navickas, Country Office Director
Special Investigation Service

Povilas Malakauskas, Director Jurate Tumoniene, Head International Relations Department
Social Policy Unit

Jolanta Rimkute, Director
Vilnius University
Vita Karpuskiene, Lecturer, Faculty of Economics
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Rokas Bernotas, Director, Department of Multilateral Relations Rasa Kairiene, Director, Europe Department Erika Griesiuviene, Second Secretary, Department of Multilateral Relations
Women Issues Information Center

Jurgita Peciuriene, Director
Lithuanian AIDS Centre

Saulius Caplinskas, Director
UNITED NATIONS COUNTRY TEAM IN LITHUANIA

UNDP Country Office
Cihan Sultanoglu, UNDP Resident Representative and UN Resident Coordinator Dalia Bagdziuviene, Finance Examiner Vilma Bucaite, ProgrammeManager Lyra Jakuleviciene, RC/RR Advisor Lina Jankauskiene, ProgrammeOfficer Darius Juozas Kontvainis,Operations Manager Ruta Svarinskaite, ProgrammeOfficer Ieva Burneikaite, Communications Associate Giedre Balcytyte (former Comunications Associate)
Ministry of Health
Viktoras Meizis, Head, International Relations Division
Ministry of Social Security and Labour Protection

Grazina Jalinskiene, Deputy Head, Department of Social Policy and Forecasting
Institution of the President of Lithuania

Skirmante Kondrotien,Adviser Violeta Toleikien,Deputy Adviser
Kaunas University of Medicine

Ruta Nadisauskiene, Head of Department, Clinics of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kaunas University of Medicine Rosita Anuliene, Administrator of Outpatient Department, Clinics of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kaunas University of Medicine
World Health Organization (WHO)

Robertas Petkevicius, Liaison Officer Raimunda Sadauskiene, Administrative Assistant
UNICEF National Committee

Jovita Majauskaite, Head of Unicef Committee in Lithuania
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS

Canada
Egle Jurkeviciene, Programs Officer
Lithuanian National Commission for UNESCO

Asta Dirmaite, Secretary General
World Bank
Mantas Nocius, Country Manager for Lithuania
US Embassy
Randolph Flay, Attache, Cultural and Scientific Affairs Giedra Gureviciute-Demereckiene, Pol/Econ Section Egle Viluniene, Program Assistant, Public Affairs Section
International Organisation for Migration (IOM)

Audra Sipaviciene, Head of Vilnius Office
87
3
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
UNDP Lithuania Programming
A Decade of Partnership. United Nations Development Programme in Lithuania (October 2002) Country Review Report (April 2000) CP 1 1993-1996 CCF 1 1997-2000 CCF 2 2001-2003 CPO 2004-05
Lithuania Government
Administrative Justice in Lithuania: An Assessment. Daniel A. Bilak (November 2003) Technical Assistance to Lithuania 1991-1999. Ministry of Foreign Affairs
UNDP Headquarters
Global Cooperation Framework I (1997-2000) Global Cooperation Framework II (2001-2004) Regional Cooperation Framework I (1997-2001) Regional Cooperation Framework II (2002-2005)
UNDP Lithuania
Lithuanian Human Development Reports (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002-2003) Development of a national human rights action plan: The experience of Lithuania. Tomas Baranovas, (December 2002) UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (The Democratic Governance Fellowship Programme)
UN Methodology
UNDP ADR Framework Paper (First Draft July 2002)
UN System Lithuania
Progress for All. Common Country Assessment for Lithuania (September 2001) Report on the Millennium Development Goals: A Baseline Study. Common Country Assessment for Lithuania (December 2002) Disaggregated Millennium Development Goals. Report for Lithuania (April 2004) Annual Resident Coordinator Reports (1999 - 2004) Microsoft software for womens non-governmental organisations. The UN Bulletin in Lithuania No 35. July 2003
UNDP Lithuania Evaluations/Assessments

Project Performance Assessment Report for the UNDP Project No. LIT99/Q12/72 Wanted: Women in Business. Arunas Gricius (2004) Evaluation of the UNDP Poverty Assessment and Reduction Project 1997-2000 (LIT/96/551/A99;LIT/96/G51/A99; LIT/97/551/A11) and Recommendations for a Second Phase. Michael Reynolds (July 2000) External Evaluation Report on UNDP Juvenile Justice Programme LIT/99/005 Lithuanian Judicial Training Centre Evaluation Report (November 2000) Support to International Business School at Vilnius University (LIT/97/004). Report of the Evaluation Mission. J-P Larcon, Viniaus Gedimino (January 1999) Action Programme for NGO Sector Development (LIT/94/006/ A/01/99; LIT/94/Q06/A/1Q/99) Report of the Evaluation Mission. K. McLaren, K. Kovaite. (April 1999) Linking the Interests of Environment and Society. GEF SGP Three Years in Lithuania (2004)
Other Donor Programme Evaluations

World Bank OED Lithuania Country Assistance Evaluation (2004) DfiD Review of DfID/ODAs Programmes in Accession Countries (2004) CIDA Canada and the Baltics: Partners in Transition (2004) Other EBRD Transition report 2004 World Bank Lithuania: CEM Converging to Europe (2002) Statistical data from year 2002.
88
4
UNDP PROGRAMME RESOURCES BY THEME
THEME SOURCE COUNTRY PROGRAMME (US$) CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 TOTAL
Poverty Governance Environment civil society HDR Gender HIVAIDS ICTD TOTAL total core non-core total core non-core Total core non-core total core non-core total core noncore total core noncore total core noncore Total core noncore Total core noncore
1993-96
340.582 122.935 217.647 2.892.339 1.202.148 1.690.191 - - - 223.044 72.112 150.932 40.391 40.391 - 15.263 15.263 - - - - - - - 3.511.619 1.452.849 2.058.770
1997-00
765.494 399.292 366.202 1.926.191 865.036 1.061.155 4.571.956 25.579 4.546.377 98.590 22.320 76.270 255.012 214.291 40.721 321.286 129.281 192.005 25.000 - 25.000 - - - 7.963.529 1.655.799 6.307.730
2001-03
681.680 282.637 399.043 1.216.379 330.788 885.591 2.082.032 63.421 2.018.611 50.667 30.300 20.367 178.458 65.302 113.156 138.500 32.882 105.618 52.953 2.953 50.000 134.867 - 134.867 4.535.536 808.283 3.727.253
2004-05
29.845 2.438 27.407 1.115.055 586.711 528.344 1.628.247 - 1.628.247 60.700 28.500 32.200 2.745 2.745 - 63.391 25.287 38.104 267.785 79.838 187.947 145.341 - 145.341 3.313.109 725.519 2.587.590
1993-05
1.817.601 807.302 1.010.299 7.149.964 2.984.683 4.165.281 8.282.235 89.000 8.193.235 433.001 153.232 279.769 476.606 322.729 153.877 538.440 202.713 335.727 345.738 82.791 262.947 280.208 280.208 19.323.793 4.642.450 14.681.343
89
5
UNDP PROGRAMME RESOURCES (1993-2005)
Sources of Assistance
UNDP CORE RESOURCES of which:
IPF/TRAC (Indicative Planing Figure / Target for Resource Assignment from the Core)
1993
131.628
131.628
1994
378.645
378.645
1995
748.103
748.103
1996
194.473
194.473
1997
242.348
162.077 80.271
1998
592.501
579.793 12.708
SPPD/STS (Support for Policy and Programme Development / Support for Technical Services)
NON-CORE RESOURCES of which:

Government Cost Sharing Third Party Cost Sharing (from the donor countries etc.) BTF (Baltic Trust Fund) GEF (Global Environment Facility) Other Trust Funds
-
- - - - -
-
- - - - -
577.955
- 391.747 186.208 - -
1.480.815
- 1.089.202 391.613 - -
775.574 4.054.986
- 552.329 178.245 - 45.000 - 191.294 56.325 3.800.833 6.534
TOTAL PROGRAMME RESOURCES

As a % of Total resources % Core % non-Core
131.628
378.645
1.326.058
1.675.288
1.017.922
4.647.487
100% 0%
100% 0%
56% 44%
12% 88%
24% 76%
13% 87%
As a % of Total resources
% Government Cost Sharing % Third Party Cost Sharing % BTF % GEF 0,0% 0% 0% 0% 0,0% 0% 0% 0% 0,0% 30% 14% 0% 0,0% 65% 23% 0% 0,0% 54% 18% 0% 0,0% 4% 1% 82%
As a % of non-core resources
% Government Cost Sharing % Third Party Cost Sharing % BTF % GEF 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 68% 32% 0% 0% 74% 26% 0% 0% 71% 23% 0% 0% 5% 1% 94%
90
1999
451.950
384.232 67.718
2000
369.000
315.000 54.000
2001
255.000
243.000 12.000
2002
235.904
209.726 26.178
2003
317.379
292.798 24.581
2004 Plan for 2005 Total for 1993-2005

284.000
284.000 -
435.792
435.792 -
4.636.723
4.359.267 277.456
900.047
- 260.769 15.123 615.438 8.717
577.123
- 343.000 157.000 70.000 7.123
714.609
- 300.000 66.000 348.609 -
2.079.272
23.544 507.087 52.950 1.374.297 121.394
933.372
93.569 158.617 99.146 466.218 115.822
1.377.319
140.089 234.964 29.426 872.824 100.016
1.575.949
155.064 225.574 13.000 1.132.311 50.000
15.047.021
412.266 4.254.583 1.245.036 8.680.530 454.606
1.351.997
946.123
969.609
2.315.176
1.250.751
1.661.319
2.011.741
19.683.744
33% 67%
39% 61%
26% 74%
10% 90%
25% 75%
17% 83%
22% 78%
24% 76%
0,0% 19% 1% 46%
0,0% 36% 17% 7%
0,0% 31% 7% 36%
1,0% 22% 2% 59%
7,5% 13% 8% 37%
8,4% 14% 2% 53%
7,7% 11% 1% 56%
2,1% 22% 6% 44%
0% 29% 2% 68%
0% 59% 27% 12%
0% 42% 9% 49%
1,1% 24% 3% 66%
10,0% 17% 11% 50%
10,2% 17% 2% 63%
9,8% 14% 1% 72%
2,7% 28% 8% 58%
91
6
MAP OF LITHUANIA
92
7
LITHUANIA BASIC INDICATORS
POVERTY and SOCIAL Lithuania Europe& Upper-middle- INDICATORS Central Asia Income
2004 Average annual growth, 1998-04 Most recent estimate [latest year available, 1998-04]
Population, mid-year (millions) GNI per capita (Atias method, USS) GNI (Atias method, USS billions) Population (%) Labor force (%) Poverty (% of population below national poverty line) Urban population (% of total population) Life expectancy at birth (years) Infant mortality (per 1.000 live births) Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) Access to an improved water source (% of population) Literacy (% of population age 15+) Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population) Male 3.4 5.740 19.7 -0.6 -0.1 67 72 8 100 98 99 472 3.290 1.553 -0.1 -0.5 64 68 29 91 97 101 103 576 4.770 2.748 0.8 -0.9 72 69 24 93 91 106 108
Female
98
101
106
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS GDP (USS billions) and LONG-TERM TRENDS

Gross capital formation/GDP Exports of goods and services/GDP Gross domestic savings/GDP Gross national savings/GDP Current account balance/GDP Interest payments/GDP Total debt/GDP Total debt service/exports Present value of debt/GDP Present value of debt/exports
1994
7.0 18.4 55.4 12.4 16.3 -1.4 0.3 7.2 2.9
2003
18.4 21.7 51.4 16.3 15.2 -5.6 1.3 45.6 68.5 45.7 85.4
2004
22.3 23.5 54.3 16.5 14.9 -5.9 0.7 40.7 13.4
(average annual growth)
1994-04
5.1 5.8
2003
9.7 10.2
2004
6.7 7.1
2004-08
6.0 6.4
GDP GDP per capita Exports of goods and services
8.5
6.0
11.7
6.7
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY

1994
11.1 35.5 25.1 53.4 68.0 19.5 61.4
2003
6.3 32.0 19.8 61.7 65.0 18.7 55.8
2004
6.2 33.6 20.8 60.3 67.4 16.1 61.3
(% of GDP)
Agriculture Industry Manufacturing Services Household final consumption expenditure General govt final consumption expenditure Imports of goods and services
(average annual growth)

Agriculture Industry Manufacturing Services Household final consumption expenditure General govt final consumption expenditure Gross capital formation Imports of goods and services
1994-04
0.0 5.7 7.5 5.7 5.6 2.2 9.7 9.1
2003
2.1 16.0 14.1 7.4 12.2 5.7 12.8 8.8
2004
3.0 7.0 7.0 5.7 2.8 9.9 17.1 12.1
Note: 2004 data are preliminary estimates Source: The World Bank Group
93
8
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FLOWS TO LITHUANIA 1991-2004
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 TOTAL % TOTAL
AID FLOWS (net disbursements US$ million)

OA (2003 prices) 4,69 OA of which EU EU as a percentage of total OA Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Japan Netherlands Norway Sweden United States Poland - - - - 20,86 11,37 16,24 63,25 28,92 41,72 50,61 65,28 45,74 76,45 92,07 329,45 217,86 1.059,82 57,3% 22% - 0,21 1,02 0,02 18% - 23% 35% 32% 40% 38% 49% 0,83 46% 59% 70% 89% 90% - - - 3,16 10,44 129,45 21,06 26,72 170,75 14,79 9,92 21,61 104,83 0,6% 7,0% 1,1% 1,4% 9,2% 0,8% 0,5% 1,2% 9,6% 5,7% 0,9% 3,96 100,92 72,77 80,95 173,82 91,49 113,53 147,98 152,54 125,29 170,48 161,12 370,98 216,74 1.983,30 93,89 62,25 71,51 179,25 91,05 103,8 133,69 134,02 99,08 130,26 132,21 370,98 242,42 1.848,37 100,0%
1,29 1,32 1,04 0,14 4,24
1,15 0,71 1,95
0,80 0,15 0,12 1,45 2,01 1,28 1,73 1,89 1,34 1,79 0,57
0,79 0,41 1,96 2,35 2,03 2,67 1,48 2,51
1,17 5,83
6,36 11,22 14,09 26,83 17,45 19,68 8,93 12,07 1,44
0,17 0,92 2,40 0,75 2,14 6,01 2,14 1,32 1,65 2,90 3,00 1,29 6,20 1,85 14,39 11,06 65,59 11,47 8,24 8,32 0,08 0,12 0,16 0,29 0,27 1,21 1,46 - 1,44 - - 1,34 3,25 2,20 2,15 2,78 3,19 7,42 1,69 1,81
1,70 5,30 0,10 1,20 0,52 0,44 - -
4,00 6,84
6,87 9,80 9,75 0,94 -
0,80 -
2,02 0,68
1,00 0,63 -
0,34 24,60 2,85 11,32 17,75 17,36 21,10 13,51 10,04 14,72 14,84 13,26 8,79 25,00 24,00 15,00 11,00 14,00 1,00 9,26 7,81 - - - - - - 1,71 2,42 1,61 2,70 2,20 ,22
6,99 177,47 1,06 15,92
2,04 -1,19 -1,51 -1,58 -
AID INTENSITY
OA/Capita (US$) OA as % GNI 25 17 0,86 20 1,05 49 2,45 25 1,17 29 1,08 38 1,23 38 1,27 28 0,89 37 1,09 38 0,95 107 2,07 70 0,04 1,12
Note: 2004 figures are provisional Source: OECD Development Assisstance Committee (DAC)
94
9
LITHUANIA AS AN EMERGING DONOR
Lithuanias main opportunities for current overseas development co-operations are with the former soviet countries who are particularly interested in gaining experience of transition from post-soviet regimes to democratic structures. These countries remain priority areas for Lithuanian development cooperation policy and Lithuanias geopolitical position, historical and cultural ties help strengthen cooperation opportunities with these countries.
Whilst African, Asian, American and Caribbean regions remain the main beneficiaries from other EU Member States assistance, these have yet to play a prominent role in Lithuanias bilateral cooperation policies. Nevertheless, Lithuanias international commitments and growing economy provide possibilities that the Africa, Carribbean and Pacific (ACP) region could become a future partner area in development cooperation on bilateral basis. This process has been accelerated through consultations with other EU Member States, particularly Scandinavian countries, regarding criteria and possibilities to identify partners in the ACP region. However Lithuanias main short-term partners for development co-operation continue to be the former soviet republics and EU candidate countries through East-East co-operation. Through development of closer relations with its neighbours and other countries Lithuania aims to
Lithuanian Development Assistance Projects Financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

2002
Belarus: European Integration: Challenges and Opportunities Kaliningrad: Development of Critical Thinking Kaliningrad: Localizing Sustainable Development (trilateral project: Lithuania, UNDP and Kaliningrad)
2003
Kaliningrad: Women on the rise (trilateral project: Finland, Lithuania, Kaliningrad) South Caucasus: Training of civil servants South Caucasus: Strengthening of NGOs
2004
Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe
Armenia: Training of Civil Servants Ukraine: Training of Civil Servants - 3
Ukraine: Ukraine: Training on EU Policies Training on EU Policies 2 Ukraine: Ukraine Institute Ukraine: Economic Management Training (trilateral project: Canada, Baltic countries and Ukraine) Belarus/Ukraine/Moldova: Strengthening of Youth NGO Regional: Northern.e-dimention.net Regional: Know Your Neighbors Ukraine: Relationship between EU Ukraine Ukraine: Economic Management Training (trilateral project: Canada, Baltic countries and Ukraine)
Kaliningrad: Women on the rise (trilateral project: Finland, Lithuania, Kaliningrad) Belarus: Study visit of youth affected by Chernobyl catastrophe Iraq: Training of civil servants on the elections procedures
Source: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
95
strengthen its position as an expert of the European New Neighbourhood Policy (ENNP) and enhance its strategic role in the region. Responsibilities of an emerging donor, however, are not limited to commercial consultancy opportunities and require a financial commitment from the public and their representatives to help fund overseas development projects in less developed countries through multilateral assistance programmes. Multilateral assistance consists mainly of compulsory contributions and payments to international organizations. Lithuania provided aid in 2004 to Georgia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Russian Federation and South Asia (Tsunami). This multilateral assistance demonstrates Lithuanias intention to contribute to the achievement of MDGs and, due to the absence of bilateral relations with other continents, multilateral assistance through international organisations will likely continue to represent the main form of donor aid until government increases its commitment to participate in multi-lateral activities. Lithuanias main areas of bilateral aid are expected to remain based on strengthening democratic processes and stability in its eastern neighbours. Lithuanias short-term priority regions are Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, Afghanistan and Iraq. Medium and longer term support is anticipated for other regions, particularly in South Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia) and the Balkans.
10
UNDP LITHUANIA PROJECTS (1993-2005)
A. POVERTY
Ongoing
PROJECT NAME
NGO Capacity Building for Poverty Reduction in Lithuania Promoting Innovation and Employment in Lithuania
Completed
PROJECT NAME
Social Exclusion and Poverty during Transition Project Partnership Against AIDS Support to the Implementation of the National Poverty reduction strategy: Preparation of the Action Plan Umbrella Project UNFPA Population and Housing Census in Lithuania: Support to Data Dissemination and Analysis Assessment of the Implementation of Poverty Reduction Policies in Lithuania Social Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Social Safety Net Poverty Assessment and Reduction Support for Social Policy Development Assessment of Rural Living Standards Assessment of the Implementation of Poverty Reduction Strategies School Self-help Activities to Increase Participation of Local Communities
96
B. GOVERNANCE
Ongoing Projects
PROJECT NAME
Facilitation of the Delivery of Effective Juvenile Justice System in Lithuania Implementing Local Development Strategies in Lithuania: Improving Public Service Delivery through Strengthening the Capacity for Partnerships and Sound Financial Management Strengthening Human Rights Through Legal Education of the Public Creating Conditions for Successful Local Development through Strengthening the Administrative Capacities of Municipalities Promoting Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration Support to Implementation of the National Human Rights Action Plan Preventing Corruption through Education, Information and Consciousness-raising
Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Juvenile Justice Programme Lithuanian Human Development Textbook Lithuanian Human Development Courses Support for the Establishment of Citizen Advice Bureaus System in Lithuania Preparatory Assistance for the Public Administration Reform Support for Public Administration Reform in Lithuania Establishment of a Judicial Training Centre Action programme for NGO sector development Support to establishment of Crime Prevention Centre Support to International Business School Marketing of Hi-tech Scientific Know-how Advancement of Citizen Security Programme Strengthening of the Ombudsman Institution Support to Establishment of Language Training Centre Foreign Aid Management
Completed Projects
PROJECT NAME
Support for Local Government Information Network Lithuanian Human Development Report Lithuanian Human Development Report 2002 - 2003 Human Development Strategies Human Development Textbook HD course for Universities Support to National Human Development Report Umbrella Project for Short-Term Advisory Services and Human Resource Development in Priority Sectors Support to the expansion of mandate of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman Support to the legislative (law-making) reform Support to development of National action plan for the promotion and protection of human rights Support for the initial activities of the Ombudsman of
Support to Establishment of a Human Rights Centre UNDP and UNESCO Support for Vilnius Old Town Regional Public Awareness Campaign on Womens Rights to a Life Free of Violence Against Women
C. ENVIRONMENT
Ongoing
PROJECT NAME
National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management Marine Protected Area System for the Eastern Baltic Sea: Assessment and Implementation Development of two MSPs in priority areas identified during the formulation of Lithuanias NIP Conservation of Inland Wetland Biodiversity in Lithuania Preparation of the POPs National Implementation Plan under the Stockholm Convention The GEF Small Grants Programme
97
Completed
PROJECT NAME
Regional Baltic Wind Energy Programme Education for sustainable development Elimination of Green House Gases in the Manufacturing of Domestic Refrigerators and Freezers at Snaige Info Centre on the Environment and Sustainable Development Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building: Establishment of An Ozone Office Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances at Vilnius Buitine Chemija, Snaige, Oruva Recovery and Recycling of Refrigerants
Completed
PROJECT NAME
Mens Crisis and Information Centres Institutional Capacity Building Wanted: Women in Business Gender Mainstreaming into Lithuanian Policies Project Partnership Against AIDS Strategic Planning to strengthen the Multisectoral response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic at the national and Sub-National Levels in Lithuania Regional project Social, Economic and Governance Dimensions of the HIV epidemic in Eastern Europe, CIS and Baltic States IEC Activities to Overcome Complacency about HIV/AIDS Situation in Lithuania
D. CROSS CUTTING THEMES

Ongoing
PROJECT NAME
Strengthening National Capacity of Lithuania as an Emerging Donor Youth Friendly Services for Lithuania Youth Debate Tour to Improve Awareness on HIV/AIDS at the Local Level HIV/AIDS and STI prevention among Uniformed Services in Lithuania Capacity Building of Lithuanian Women through ICT and Networking UNFPA global pilot INT/01/PB2 Strengthening the capacity of the health sector to address gender based violence.
Action Programme for the Advancement of Women Peer education centres Health Care Reform Policy Development Womens Issues Information Center Equal Opportunities Expansion of Equal Opportunities Assessing Gender Mainstreaming Approaches
98
11
UNDP SUPPORTED REPORTS (1993-2005)
Selection of publications, reports and other informational materials prepared by UNDP in Lithuania or with their significant support and involvement.
to the Ministry of Social Security and Labour and the Social Policy and Employment Committee of the Parliament of Lithuania, 1999. In Lithuanian. Social Policy Unit. Social Policy Unit, Analysis of Pension Replacement Rates, Report to the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, 2000. In Lithuanian. Social Policy Unit. National poverty reduction Strategy (in English and Lithuanian, June 2000). Ministry of Social Security and Labour and UNDP National Report on the Implementation of the Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development. Republic of Lithuania 1999. Government of Lithuania. Poverty Reduction in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, 2000 (in English also available on the website) Katsiaouni, O., Gorniak, J., Lazutka, R., Poverty in Lithuania: Capacity Building for Rural Poverty Reduction, 2000 (in English and Lithuanian) Gediminas Cerniauskas, Monitoring Poverty, Paper for Conference on Poverty and Policy, UNDP Lithuania, February 1999 (also in Lithuanian and available on the website) Romas Lazutka, Assessing Poverty and Preconditions for Reducing it, Paper for Conference on Poverty and Policy, UNDP Lithuania, February 1999 (also in Lithuanian and available on the website) UNDP Lithuania and Social Policy Unit, Human Development: concept and trends, April 1999 (also in Lithuanian) Corinne Elsing, Regional Policy and Development in Lithuania, UNDP Lithuania, July 1999 (available on the website) Ernst van Koesveld, Human Development across Regions in Lithuania, UNDP Lithuania, August 1999 (available on the website) Republic of Lithuania, National Report on the Implementation of the Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development, UNDP Lithuania, September 1999 (also available in Lithuania and on the website)
General Development:
Progress for All. Common Country Assessment for Lithuania. United Nations. September 2001.Vilnius (in English and in Lithuanian) Report on the Millennium Development Goals: a Baseline Study. Common Country Assessment for Lithuania. United Nations. December 2002. Vilnius (in English and in Lithuanian) Disaggregated Millennium Development Goals Report for Lithuania. United Nations. April 2004. Vilnius. (in English and in Lithuanian)
Poverty and Social Security:

UNDP Lithuania and Social Policy Unit, Lithuanian Human Development Reports (also in Lithuanian and available on the website) Social Policy Unit, The Reform of Cash Benefits Granted according to the Principle of Means-Testing, Report to the Ministry of Social Security and Labour and Tripartite Council, 1999. In Lithuanian. Social Policy Unit. Social Policy Unit, Analysis of Possibilities for Transforming Social Insurance Contributions, Report to the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, 1999. In Lithuanian. Social Policy Unit. Social Policy Unit, The Concepts of Pension Reforms, Report to the Government of Lithuania, 1999. In Lithuanian. Social Policy Unit. Social Policy Unit, Evaluation of Economic Efficiency of Social Assistance for Families with Children, Report
99
Ministry of Social Security and Labour, Annual Social Report 1998, October 1999, 2000 (in English and Lithuanian; available on the website www.socmin.lt) National Poverty Monitoring Commission Report 2001, 2001 (in Lithuanian) Lithuanian Republic Poverty Reduction Strategys Implementation Programme for 2002-2004, Ministry of Social Security and Labour and UNDP, 2003 (in English and Lithuanian)
Sexual Harassment: an innocent flirt or contravention of human rights. L.Vaiciuniene. Chancellery of the Lithuanian Parliament, 2003. Vilnius. Problems with preventing human rights in international and Lithuanian. D.Jociene and K.C ilinskas. Chancellery of the Lithuanian Parliament, 2003. Vilnius. Is the Lithuanian Society Safe? V.Gaidys and A.Dobryninas. Chancellery of the Lithuanian Parliament, 2003. Vilnius Constitutional Values for Youth. Ministry of Educiation and Science. (to be published in 2005) Sciential Studies of Career Education for Disabled People in Lithuania. Ministry of Education and Science. 2004. Quality and Evaluation of Social Work for the Elderly. Ministry od Social Security and Labour.(to be published in 2005) Human rights in Lithuania: comparative situation assessment and progress review. (to be published in 2005). Chancellery of the Lithuanian Parliament.
Governance:
Study State Government and Governing Institutions in Lithuania in 1998 prepared by A. Astrauskas, Presidential advisor (in English and Lithuanian) Study Strategic Directions for the year 2000-2003 of Association of Local Authorities prepared by A. Astrauskas and Z. Svetikas (in Lithuanian) Study Models of Subordination of Government Institutions. Evaluation of Functions and Accountability prepared by Prof. A. Marcinskas and A. Sakocius (in English and Lithuanian) A handbook for teachers and schoolchildren of higher grades on legal education Law for Everyone 2003 (in Lithuanian) Administrative Justice in Lithuania. An assessment. 2003 A publication Fight against corruption: practical examples, 2002 Corruption in Institutions of Higher Education: Viewpoints, Challenges, Solutions, 2005 (in Lithuanian) A series of 5 CDs, Ethics training for Civil Servants, 2004 (in Lithuanian) A publication Transparency and Corruption in Lithuania, 2005 (in Lithuanian) A study Map of Corruption in Lithuania, 2004 Human rights in Lithuania: situation assessment. Chancellery of the Lithuanian Parliament, 2002. Vilnius.
Environment:
Development of lake and wetland ecosystems. Rimvydas Kunskas. 2005. (in Lithuanian) Cultivation of large-cranberries in plantations. Remigijus Daubaras. 2005 (in Lithuanian) National Biosafety system in Lithuania. 2004. Vilnius. (in Lithuanian) The Kartachena bio-safety protocol for biological diversity convention. 2004. Vilnius. (in Lithuanian) Genetically modified organisms. A. Paulauskas. 2004. (in Lithuanian) A National Report on Sustainable Development, 2002 The Lithuanian Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2003 Linking the Interests of the Environment and Society. GEF SGP Three Years in Lithuania, 2004 Gender issues and Human Rights:
100
Monthly newsletter - Womans World (in Lithuanian, quarterly in English) The Report for Beijing+5 review Women in Lithuania, 1999 (in English) Statistical pocket book Women and Men in Lithuania, 1999 (in Lithuanian and English) Leaflet of Lithuania Equal Opportunities Ombudsman institution, (in Lithuanian) Collection of scientific articles Womens Self Identification (in Lithuanian) UN Resolution on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Measures to Eliminate Violence against Women (in Lithuanian) Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Equal Opportunities (in Lithuanian) Report of the 1998 survey Rural Women in Lithuania (in Lithuanian) Collection of scientific articles, including the victim survey report Violence against Women (in Lithuanian and English) Politics Towards Women and Women in Politics (in English) Women in Lithuania, Women Issues Information Centre, prepared for the UN General Assembly on Beijing+5. Gender in Transition: Five Years of UNDP Projects in Eastern and Central Europe and CIS. UNDP/RBEC, UNOPS. Prepared by the Women Issues Information Centre for the UNECE regional preparatory meeting of the Beijing+5 review in 2000. Quarterly issues of the European Electronic Bulletin on Gender related developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Issued by the Lithuania based Women Issues Information Centre. Kaunas Municipality Council on the Protection of Child Rights, Assistance to Children and their Families (including the Convention on Childrens Rights, in Lithuanian), December 1999.
The NGO Elderly Womens Activities Centre was provided with support for whole-year information campaign on the International Year of Older Persons in the Mass Media. Woman in Lithuanian Society: Comparative Research Analysis .Womens Issues Information Centre (in Lithuanian), Womens Issues Information Centre. 2001 Sexuality and Education: Surveys of Approaches, Stereotypes and Education Substance. 2001. (in Lithuanian) Women Handcrafts. Womens Employment Information Center. 2002. Kaunas. (in Lithuanian) 2003-2004 National Programme for Equal Opportunities of Men and Women. Womens Issues Information Centre. 2003. Vilnius. (in Lithuanian) Digest of Women NGOs. Womens Issues Information Centre. 2003. Vilnius. (in Lithuanian) Internet for You. Womens Employment Information Center. 2004. Kaunas. (in Lithuanian) Our Right is to Live without Violence. Womens Issues Information Centre and UNFPA 2003.
Health and Education, HIVAIDS, Drug Use:

Publication of bulletin Vilnius against drugs for the First Lithuanian Mayors Conference on HIV/AIDS and Drugs Issues, jointly organized by Vilnius Municipality, UNDP, and European Cities against Drugs (ECAD). Informational brochure Viral Sexually Transmitted Infections. Diagnostic and Treatment. (in Lithuanian) Information brochures on Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance and Prevention. (in Lithuanian) National HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Programme 2003-2008, 2003, Ministry of Health and UNDP, 2003. (in English and Lithuanian) Peer Education Kit for Uniformed Services, 2005. (in Lithuanian) Womens Issues Information Centre and UNFPA, GenderBased Violence: A Practical Guide for the Staff and Administrations of the Health Care Institutions, 2002. (in Lithuanian)
101
12
UNDP STAFF MEMBERS (1992-2005)
UNDP RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE/ UN RESIDENT COORDINATOR
Mr. Jorgen Lissner, (1992-1995) Mr. Cornelis Klein, (1995-2000) Ms. Cihan Sultanoglu, (2000-2005)
Kornelija Jurgaitiene, Programme Officer (1993-1994) Remigijus Tranas, Programme Assistant (1993-1996) Philip Tanner, Junior Professional Officer (1992-1993) Rita Bureikaite, Programme Assistant (1993-1994) Michael Rymek, Junior Professional Officer (1993-1995) Neringa Kranauskiene, Public Relations Associate (1993-2002) Birute Jatautaite, Programme Officer (1994-1999) Virginija Poskute, Programme Assistant (1994-1997) Ingrida Sidlauskiene, Programme Assistant (1995-1997) Toshiaki Tanabe, Junior Professional Officer (1995-1997) Jolanta Taruskiene, Programme Assistant (1996-1999) Vilma Bucaite, ProgrammeManager (1998-present) Giedre Purvaneckiene, Project Coordinator (1998-2000) Mika Sulkinoja (1998-1999) Ernst van Koesveld, Junior Professional Officer (1998-2000) Lina Jankauskiene, Programme Officer (1999-present) Tomas Baranovas, Programme Officer (1999-2003) Asse Fosshaug, Junior Professional Officer (2000-2001) Mathieu Ryckewart, Programme Assistant (2001-2003)
Giedre Balcytyte, Communications Associate (2002-2005) Ruta Svarinskaite, ProgrammeOfficer (2003 - present) Agne Bajoriniene, National Project Coordinator (2003- present) Lyra Jakuleviciene, Adviser to RC/RR (2004-present) Arturas Dudoitis, Programme Assistant (2005-present) Ingrida Stankeviciene, Programme Assistant (2005-present) Ieva Burneikaite, Communications Associate (2005-present) Darius Juozas Kontvainis,Operations Manager(1992-present) Vidas Motieka, Clerk-Driver (1994-2004) Jurga Brazaityte, Secretary (1994-1996) Rima Maneikaite, Finance Assistant (1994-1996) Egidijus Damulis, Administrative Assistant (1996-1998) Beatrice Malaiskiene, Assistant to the RC/RR (1996 present) Tomas Pauliukonis, Administrative Assistant (1996-1997) Jurate Geciene, Finance Assistant ( 1996-1999) Tomas Masaitis, Finance Associate (1998-2003) Dalia Bagdziuviene, Finance Examiner (1998-present) Saulius Seskus, Administrative Assistant (1997-2000) Algirdas Dargis, Clerk-Driver (2004-present)
102

Review of UNDP&#39;s Partnership With Lithuania (1992-2005)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of UNDP&#39;s Partnership With Lithuania (1992-2005)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME REVIEW OF UNDPS PARTNERSHIP WITH LITHUANIA (1992-2005)

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Arnoldas Puikis has done the layout, and cover.

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

CHaPTeR 2 naTIonaL deVeLoPMenT ConTeXT (1992-2005)

CHaPTeR 3 undps STRATEGIC POSITIONING

CHaPTeR 4 UNDPS CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

CHaPTeR 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CHaPTeR 6 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS