1. Background and Rationale
“Gender Justice Through Musalihat Anjuman Project (GJTMAP)” (2007-2011) is executed by the Ministry of LG&RD and Provincial LG Departments with financial assistance of UNDP and Government of Pakistan. A pilot phase of the same was run during 2005-06 to explore the feasibility of the MA formation (initiated in eight districts), develop Rules of Business and as provided for under the LGO 2001, operationalizing Alternate Disputes Resolution (ADR) platforms namely Musalihat Anjuman’s (MAs) for providing gender justice, with the following goal:
“To assist women and other vulnerable sections of society in improving their conditions through safeguarding and promoting their rights and lawful entitlements”
The platform of the MA as envisaged under the LGO provides a community based and free of cost ADR system to resolve the disputes at the grass roots level. By March 2006, the Rules of Business (RoBs) for constitution and functioning of MAs were drafted by the Project and duly vetted and notified by all the four Provincial Governments. A total of 1063 MAs have been constituted in twenty selected districts of the country (NWFP: Abbottabad, DI Khan, Mardan, Haripur, Nowshera; Punjab: Attock, Bahawalpur, Jhelum, Multan, Mianwali; Sindh: Dadu, Shikarpur, Sanghar, S. Benazirabad, Jacobabad; Balochistan: Loralai, Gwadar, Quetta, Ziarat & Lasbela). By end of 2009, over twelve thousand disputes had been brought / referred to the MAs (with a 75% disposal rate) by aggrieved communities, with many cases referred by the Police, Judiciary & political representatives at the local level.
Objectives of the Mid-Term Evaluation:
There are three broad objectives of the review:
a. To support the Ministry of Local Government & Rural Development and Provincial Local Government Departments in the performance appraisal of the Gender Justice through Musalihat Anjuman Project (GJTMAP), including a review of its achievements, challenges and opportunities based on a SWOT analysis and in light of the recently approved cost-sharing PC-1 at Federal level.
b. Based on the analysis, as well as the proposed changes envisaged in the emerging Local Government laws, table concrete recommendations to ensure free, fair, efficient and equitable justice to all, particularly the poor and marginalized.
c. To explore & recommend the way ahead for the project reviewing Government’s recommendation for upscaling and transitioning into a programme framework.
Key MTR Focus:
The Mid Term Review will use the following assessment parameters to review, examine and analyse GJTMAP performance. These are as follows:
i. Analyse whether the project’s intervention addresses the needs and demands of the stipulated beneficiaries.
ii. Assess the relevance of the technical assistance (curricula / instruments) applied by the project for dispute resolution.
iii. Analyse the response of the communities to the project and identify any redundant activities/ outputs, synergies with existing/pipeline initiatives and propose any course correction.
i. Assess the overall performance of the GJTMA project. This will require a review of comparing targets (with respect to delivering ADR services, institutional/community capacity building and community advocacy) against implementation and reviewing base line information as available.
ii. Review the management and technical capacity of the Federal and Provincial Departments with respect to advocating, mainstreaming and building ownership of ADR within the district governments and communities.
iii. Examine key issues in the implementation and coordination of GJTMAP, at both policy and institutional levels.
iv. Assess how the project has utilized the project funding to achieve results.
v. Review the Monitoring and Evaluation systems (within the Federal, Provincial, District and Sub-District level offices) in terms of timeliness of reporting, monitoring programme results, inter connectedness and contribution into target setting and course corrections.
vi. Examine the M&E cycle and identify its beneficiaries at different levels. Assess whether the M&E findings feed into policy making or reform on ADR in general and gender equality in particular.
vii. Analyze the the potential cost & time on part of the State (the police & courts) for disputes (similar in nature to those handled by MAs) coupled with the potential time-cost & allied benefits for the beneficiary to contribute towards improved livelihood, poverty reduction, peace, social harmony, reduced case load for police & judiciary,)
viii. Evaluate the institutional arrangements for GJTMAP (involving Federal and Provincial Local Governments, Police, Judiciary, NGOs, etc.) as viable and sustainable platforms for advocating, promoting and up scaling community based ADR.
ix. The appropriateness of the training infrastructure and institutions as well as implementation strategies adopted by the project (including but not limited to the process of selecting MA members, training different stakeholders, appropriateness of training methodologies used, implementation of RoBs and sustainability of the MA);
x. Review the role of MAs/MJs and their comparison to the traditional Jirga or Punchaiyat System. The acceptability of the community to replace MA with Jirga and future perspectives.
xi. Assess GJTMAP in terms of its linkages vis-à-vis other larger justice initiatives of the ADB, EC, UNDP and USAID and relationship with civil society and other relevant networks, including by the Government.
i. Assess the emerging impact of the programme at different levels: legislation, policy and institutions and community. The purpose being to document the contribution to certain trends necessary to sustain efforts beyond the life of the project.
ii. Analyse the systemic changes (in terms of the MA functioning, MA monitoring, support to MAs by Union Councils and MA role w.r.t.. Jirgas and Punchaiyats) stimulated by GJTMAP for facilitating speedy and equitable justice to the poor.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
§ Highlight key conclusions w.r.t. relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact (?)
§ Provide clear recommendations for improving performance in light of identified gaps. Based on the lessons and conclusions of GJTMAP performance, table recommendations for GJTMAP up-scaling and extension in terms of programme focus, scope, management systems, linkages and resources.
The Mission’s findings and recommendations will be thoroughly discussed with the UNDP, project partners, project management, donors and the EAD.
The Mission will complete and submit a draft final report in both hard and soft copy at the end of the mission. The Mission Leader will finalize the report in the light of comments/suggestions of stakeholders. The key outputs of the Review are:
1) Draft Report Template: Submission of a draft report format containing Table of Contents for final report for approval by UNDP.
2) An Aide-Memoire (Executive Summary and Key findings) and Presentation:
The Consultants will present the key findings and executive summary of the report to the project stakeholders (cost-sharing partners, Ministry of LG&RD and GJTMAP) in a consultative workshop.
3) Mid-Term Evaluation Report: The final Review report should be logically structured, contain evidence-based findings, conclusions, lessons and concrete recommendations, and should be free of information that is not relevant to the overall analysis. Any critique should be evidence based. The report should respond in detail to the key focus areas described above. A set of specific recommendations formulated for the project; and, identify the necessary actions required to be undertaken, who should undertake those and possible time-lines (if any);
4) Presentation: For presenting and discussing the draft final report interactively, the consultants will facilitate a one-day concluding workshop in Islamabad for the project stakeholders as well as representatives from other provinces and any other participants invited by the project and UNDP.
A team of three consultants, with one international consultant having at least ten years of experience in Justice/legal background with detailed knowledge of Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanisms, and the other (national consultants) with at ten years of expertise in gender, poverty and gender justice issues. The consultants will accommodate participation of one representative from the Economic Affairs Division (EAD) in meetings in which EAD expresses in writing, its desire to participate.
The Consultants will adopt a consultative and participative approach. This will include field visits to project sites and meetings with federal, provincial, district and sub-district communities/project direct beneficiaries in the selected project districts (at least district one in each province) to collect first hand information. The mission team will select fifty percent of the field visit sites, whereas the remaining will be selected by the project. The mission will attempt to visit approximately up to 2-5% of the MAs (Note: this is about 53 MAs out of total 1063 which is on a high side), subject to security clearance.
The mission will meet with the project team, relevant government agencies/partners at federal, provincial and district. If need be, the mission may also meet other agencies/project engaged in similar interventions. The MTR will start with a meeting at the UNDP Country office and will conclude on a debriefing workshop with UNDP and other project partners.