| General Information |
Project/Program |
Project |
| Project Name |
Access to Justice in Cambodia |
| Duration |
01-April.-2006-31.Mar.-2010 (4 years) |
| Donor |
UNDP, Spanish Government (AECID) |
| Implementiong Organization |
the Ministry of Interior (MOI), the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), the Supreme Court, the Project Management Unit of the Council for Legal and Judicial Reform (PMU/CLJR) and the Department of Official Gazette of the Council of Ministers, two local NGOs- Legal Aid of Cambodia (LAC) and Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Justice |
| Region |
Phenom Penh, and six provinces (Kampong Speu, Kampong Chhnang, Siem Reap, Mondulkiri, Ratanakiri and Battambang) |
| Financing |
2985040 |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
Project focal points in the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Women Affairs at the district level, Maison staff, CDRC members and judges of the provincial courts, Local authorities (district, commune and village levels), Community Legal Education Centre (CLEC) and Legal Aid Cambodia (LAC) staff, CCE trainers and village facilitators, ADR trainers, Traditional Authorities, Participants in Peace Tables held in Mondulkiri and Rattanakiri provinces, Access to Justice project staff |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
|
| Gender |
|
| Impact Analysis |
The evaluation report considered the project a success since it resulted in increased access to justice by the poor, women and indigenous people at the village, commune and district level. The project may be seen as highly relevant with Cambodia’s legal and judicial reforms to promote good democratic governance and to reduce poverty. |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
National ownership of the Project has been problematic since the very beginning of the Project, including during the design phase and through its implementation. The lack of national ownership itself caused a large number of management problems. Also, there were communication difficulties and a clash of organizational culture between UNDP staff and Cambodian government employess due to different preferred communication tools. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
There were not frequent changes in policy, but UNDP changed the rates of per diems over the course of the Project without clear notice. In some cases, misunderstandings caused a lot of negative impressions and the blame mostly was put on UNDP. In order to ensure coherence with the overall project goals of access to justice for women and indigenous people, all target areas should have been the same as those selected for Maisons and CDRCs, but they were not. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The evaluation team consisted of one international consultant (44 days) and one national consultant (41 days). The period of the evaluation was from 28 February – 15 May 2010. The scope of this evaluation included: review of UNDP and partner reports on the immediate objectives and their actions, indicators and outputs, including the results of the surveys; design of question guides to be used as the basis for interviews; interviews and focus group discussions with donors, project staff, counterparts, local partners, beneficiaries, government/ministries and other stakeholders; and the preparation and presentation of the report to UNDP and key stakeholders. The evaluators went to all six study provinces (though Mondulkiri and Ratanakiri were divided between the national and international consultant) but could not visit all 20 Maisons and 56 CDRCs due to the limited timeframe. |
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
The findings on the sustainability of this project were mixed. It remains questionable at the national level because of poor coordination and administrative difficulties. However, at village level, the goal to decrease domestic violence was achieved so that the results would be sustainable. When it comes to finance issue of this project, there were significant under-expenditures of the project. The reasons for the under-expenditures included delayed staff appointments and a resultant delay in implementation of activities. |
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Other Remarks |
This project sought to realize that improving access to justice and judicial services for the poor was essential to tackle feeling of social injustice and vulnerability. In this way, this project could increase access to justice by the poor, women and indigenous people. In particular, there were a decrease in domestic violence at the village level and increased number of cases conciliated at the commune and district level. |
