Half-year Progress ReportUNDP Ukraine

Programme for Democratisation, Human Rights and Civil Society Development in

Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus

Date:

This reporting template is adjusted the "General guidelines for grant administration through Danish NGO’s (Annex 2)."Please complete the form electronically in Word using Calibri 12 font.The completed form should not exceed 15 pages, excluding annexes. The status report may be forwarded in English.

Does this status report contain any information requiring specific decisions? (e.g. changes in the project’s objectives, expected output or budgets?)

YES In which point is it described?

NO

1. File no. 403.A.20-1-1 (UNDP Ukraine)2. International organisation United Nations Development Programme in UkraineAddress: City and country; Tel. 1, Klovsky Uzviz St., Kyiv, 01021, Ukraine; +380 44 253 93 63Contact person and e-mail Mr. Vasyl Romanyuk – Project Coordinator

(Vasyl.romanyuk@undp.org)3. Component title Democratization, Human Rights and Civil Society Development

Programme in Ukraine (DHRP)4. Total budget (DKK) and accumulated expenditures in the end of reporting period.

Budget: DKK 23,000,000.00

Accumulated expenditures: DKK 4 999 306 (USD 889 398)5. Location of project activities Ukraine6. Project period

Start (day/month/year)1 January 2013

Completion (day/month/year)31 December 2016

7. Reporting periodFrom (day/month/year)

1 January 2013To (day/month/year)31 December 2014

8. Monitoring and project reviewsGive an account of the main monitoring activities during the period, e.g. steering committee meeting, project visits, review etc. (Please describe the findings in the following sections.)

Visits of Process and Monitoring Expert:o 4-6 December 2013: conduct a workshop dedicated to the review of the piloted OA

Methodology, conduct summary discussions, hold OD Change Process discussions, and conduct planning for 2014 country-specific and regional activities;

o 27-30 August 2013: conduct OA Methodology Workshop and participate in the first Project Board Meeting;

o 15-16 April 2013: get to know the team, meet some of the core stakeholders, and advise on core programmatic areas;

Board meeting on 30 August 2013; Kick-off meeting between the DMFA team and UNDP Ukraine team on 28 January 2013 to discuss

priorities and overall strategy of the Programme;

1

9. Brief description of external context relevant to the Component

The overall situation in 2013 in Ukraine can be symbolically divided into two time-periods: before 21 November (when the course for Euro-integration seemed robust), and after it (when the Cabinet of Ministers announced its decree to cease preparations for the Vilnius summit’s scheduled signature of the Association Agreement and the Euromaidan protests erupted).

BEFORE EUROMAIDANThe first 10 months of the year were characterized by relative stability in areas of democratic governance and human rights, with Government declaring special attention to spheres of election and corruption prevention legislation, reform of justice, as well as alternations in prosecutorial and state penitentiary systems through its Plan of Immediate Action for Integration into the EU.

With regards to democratic governance, this period witnessed proactive work of the Coordination Council for Civil Society Development under the President, including the launch of its “virtual info-desk” for issues related to CSO registration and functioning. In the same time-span, the implementation of the Law on Public Associations was kicked-off, demonstrating initially positive results. Thus, the first quarter of 2013 saw twice as many CSOs registered compared to the same period of 2012. Whereas the Ministry of Justice offices refused about 50% of registrations in 2012, this indicator did not exceed 10% at the beginning of 2013. Civic monitoring of the Law’s implementation, being conducted by a coalition of 27 CSOs, started in October 2013.

To further state-CSO interaction, new consultative bodies and advisory commissions were established (for instance, the UPR follow-up thematic working groups under the Ministry of Justice, Civic Expert Council under the Parliamentary Committee on Fighting Organized Crime and Corruption, Civic Councils under the State Border Protection Service and the Ministry of Revenue and Duties of Ukraine, etc.). A regular meeting of the Constitutional Assembly – an advisory body to propose changes to the Constitution and shape these into a draft law - was also held as scheduled.

Despite outwardly positive dynamics, trends for centralization of powers in the country have continued. Corruption has remained a persistent problem. In 2013 Ukraine occupied 144th place amongst 177 states in TI Corruption Perceptions Index, meaning Ukraine performed worse than any state in Europe. Judiciary, police, public officials and civil servants are placed well beyond the threshold of a non-confidence vote (with over 80% of perceived corruption) in TI Global Corruption Barometer .

Vis-à-vis Ukraine’s international commitments on democratization, the country continued implementation of its National Action Plan for the Open Government Partnership initiative. Assessment of implementation results made in the middle of 2013 (one year after the Plan’s adoption) shows accomplishment of 55% of commitments with highest scores registered for the area of e-governance (66% completion) and corruption prevention (64% completion). Access to information remained the most problematic area (38% completion), while improved administrative services and citizen inclusion into policy-making remained mediocre (50% and 55% respectively).

Before the beginning of Euromaidan, the area of human rights was characterized by debates on regulations regarding peaceful assembly, antidiscrimination, access to information, domestic violence and gender quotas. At the same time, freedom of speech came under increased pressure throughout the whole year with two large media holdings purchased by businesses allegedly closely associated with the President or his family and resulting changes in editorial policy, which are progressing.

One of the key stakeholders in the human rights realm in Ukraine, the Office of the Ombudsperson,

2

sought to position itself in the course of 2013 as a CSO-friendly institution that involved civic experts into its activities. Throughout the year, it served as an inclusive platform for the civic experts and other relevant stakeholders to discuss human-rights related issues, including prevention of torture and discrimination, peaceful assembly, and domestic violence. In 2013 the Ombudsperson did not articulate her clear-cut position in the case of Yuliya Tymoshenko.

One of the areas, in which the Office of the Ombudsman was most active and effective in 2013, was the work of the National Preventive Mechanism. This machinery, created in accordance with the Optional Protocol to Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), celebrated its first year of existence in the format of “Ombudsman +” as a result of the relevant amendments in the Law “On the Parliamentary Commissioner on Human Rights”. Throughout its year’s functioning, the NPM conducted over 200 monitoring visits to places of deprivation of freedom (including monitoring of pre-trial detention, temporary detention facilities, boarding schools, specialized schools, psychiatric hospitals, etc.). All of these visits were undertaken in collaboration with 135 properly trained civic monitors, who had developed the necessary skills and abilities to define issues within such places of deprivation of freedom.

EUROMAIDANThe overall situation in the areas of democratization and human rights changed after the brutal dispersion of the peaceful demonstration in Maidan Nezalezhnosti in the early morning of 30 November 2013. The public responded by a large-scale mobilization. As a result, Ukraine saw the largest popular protest since its Independence. The vast majority (91.8%) of the initial protesters declared that they did not belong to any political party or civic movement and were under 55 years of age (77%).

Major civil society and human-rights organizations withdrew from consultative / cooperative bodies with the government with the demands of due and comprehensive investigation of the events of 30 November and 1 December, release of the individuals that were arrested for alleged attacks on the riot police near the Presidential Administration as well as resignation of the Cabinet of Ministers and Presidential impeachment.

Throughout the popular protests, the Ombudsperson attempted to keep impartiality by both denouncing forceful acts by the police and criticizing civic protests tactics as not fully meeting criteria of legitimate and peaceful demonstrations on several occasions.

As time passed after the initial popular protest eruption, CSOs reported an increased volume of retaliatory activities against individuals affiliated with the Euromaidan protests. Numerous cases of retaliation and pressure - most at the regional level - ranged from aggravated physical assault to attacks on cars or property of individuals actively supporting the Euromaidan protests.

Events of 30 November connected to the forceful dispersion of the peaceful demonstration, once more accentuated a debate on protection of peaceful assembly through legal means, which had been on the table for some time. Ukraine has two main large coalitions of CSOs that have opposite views on freedom of assembly. The first group supports the view that a separate law regulating peaceful assembly would be needed in order to prevent authorities from banning peaceful protests and demonstrations based on invented, artificial grounds. The second one, relying on provisions of the Constitution (art. 39) notes that no such legislation is required and any additional regulation of this issue could potentially enable the authorities to restrict peaceful assembly. Given the fact that issues surrounding peaceful protest are likely to continue as Euromaidan protests go on, the discussions could be taken up again as events settle down.

The situation with freedom of speech deteriorated much more in the second half of December 2013 with observed pressure on journalists to avoid covering issues of protest and retaliation and physical

3

attacks on journalists, of which the case of Tetiana Chornovil remains most well-known. In response, Reporters Without Borders noted that Ukraine had become one of the worst places in Europe to work in and the Institute of Mass Information noted in its report that 2013 was the worst year for freedom of speech in the last decade.

In summary, the first ten months of 2013 could be characterized as stagnation with positive features in certain areas. In contrast, the last two months have seen large-scale popular protests, political turmoil and no definitive resolution in sight as of now.

10. Development in important assumptions and risksCritical assumptions and risks (from component document)

Assessment of the situation Assessment of the effect on the component's implementation and description of any counteractive measures.

Apart from the assumptions and risks that had been mentioned in the preceding half-year report, the new developments are summarized here

Risk: The current political clash resulting from the failure to sign the EU Association Agreement, forceful dispersal of a peaceful demonstration on 30 November, caused a severe setback of government – CSO cooperation.Eroded trust between human-rights CSOs and the existing government will be hard to restore.

At present, the tensions are still high and no definite resolution is in sight. The Project is closely monitoring the situation and is reacting as new information becomes available.

Effect on implementation (1 – low, 5 - high):Impact = 5; Probability = 4Counteractive measures:Support pragmatic dialogue at the national and regional level where possible. Serve as a mitigator-intermediary in cases where direct cooperation is unlikely, while keeping impartiality and balance.

Risk: The currently selected hubs may not be fully ready to embrace the change process charted by themselves through facilitated assessments (manifesting resistance to change), which may, in turn, revert the organizations to “business as usual” instead of progress in the OD sphere;

Field visits, interviews and results of assessments (reports) show that at least 3 organizations may have significant “internal barriers” in their mentality that could hinder the change process.

Impact = 4; Probability = 2Counteractive measures:The plans to counteract such manifestations include: conducting a 2-day

“immersion” workshop on change process in February;

conduct at least one webinar in April on the benefits of change process;

conduct ongoing consultations for hubs that are facing difficulties in embracing change;

conduct quarterly monitoring visits to hubs to encourage the hubs to stay on track;

institutional grant tied to quarterly progress of change process;

11. Status – Contribution to Programme's objectives (briefly)

4

Development objective (at MFA programme level): Civil society and human rights organisations strengthened in the three countries, leading to more inclusive, democratic and rights based governance.Immediate objective (at MFA programme level):

IO 1. Civil society has increased capacity and contributes to the democratic processes.By the end of 2013 all 9 CSOs to become hubs in the future were selected out of 44 applications that had passed initial pre-screening. The 9-strong body of the Consultative Council, comprising advisers from the donor and expert community, assessed the submitted proposals and made recommendations as to the finalists. The recommended 9 CSO hubs focus their work on human rights and / or democratization (aspects of citizen participation in the decision-making process, corruption prevention work, transparency and accountability). The overall location of the hubs is as follows:

Location of CSO Hubs in Ukraine

Hubs operating in Chernihiv, Lviv, and Kirovhrad oblasts work on issues of human rights protection. Six other hubs (Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kherson, Crimea, Zakarpattya, and Rivne) are working on democratization issues.

During the reporting period organizational assessments (OA) were conducted in 8 out of 9 CSO. OA process was based on moderated self-assessment methodology and Appreciative Inquiry approaches developed with support of INTRAC (Great Britain). First two pilot organizational assessments were conducted (Crimea and Donetsk) with the participation of INTRAC experts. The subsequent 6 assessments were organized by DHRP in collaboration with local experts based on the same methodology and principles.

On 21 November 2013 the OA methodology was showcased at the 2nd Capacity Building Forum in Kyiv. In the course of participant voting, the master-class on implementation of the OA methodology held by DHRP was recognized as the best one amongst 26 master-classes conducted at the Forum.

Next steps within the framework of organizational development include action planning by each hub and institutional support from DHRP in mentoring and nurturing the action plan implementation process by the hubs.

5

On a different note, responding to Ukrainian society’s need for legal aid (estimated at 11 million individuals or almost ¼ of the population), the Project selected 6 CSOs in different areas of Ukraine to pilot innovative models of legal aid provision in collaboration with their respective municipalities, thus working on probing and institutionalization of such models with the city councils. As a result of this intervention no less than 7000 individuals are to benefit from free primary legal aid in one year. The contest for CSOs was conducted in collaboration with the International Renaissance Foundation, Ukraine, one of the core donors in the sphere of legal aid in the country.

In addition to this, UNDP proceeded with its re-granting modality for both the areas of democratization and human rights, having supported 18 CSOs for issues linked to democratization and 11 CSOs in their human rights initiatives (data presented below for both thematic areas for comparison purposes.)

Democratization Human RightsImplementer CCC Creative Center ISAR YednanniaContract value USD 256,722.83 USD 145,302.51# of proposals 230 proposals total (208 “Mature”, 22 “Young”) 103 proposals total (92 “Mature, 11 “Young”)# of proposals selected

18 CSOs 11 CSOs

“Mature” (Lot 1) 15 CSOs 9 CSOs“Young” (Lot 2) 3 CSOs 2 CSOsAvg. amt. Lot 1 USD 12,000.00 USD 11,000.00Avg. amt. Lot 2 USD 4,000.00 USD 5,000.00Main areas Public involvement in local decision- and

budgetary-making process; Public monitoring of administrative

services, target programmes, and reform implementation;

Promotion of local initiatives and government accountability mechanisms;

Creation of innovative electronic tools to foster citizen engagement and voice.

Monitoring of torture prevention and other degrading treatment in the penitentiary and law enforcement;

Monitoring of environmental rights (Aarhus Convention), rights of women with disabilities (CRPD and CEDAW), access to public information;

Creation of innovative electronic tools to host human rights information and foster access to it

Geo-location

Location of projects on issues of democratization (http://bit.ly/1jlky2c)

Location of projects on issues of human rights(http://bit.ly/1cCszXz)

IO 2. Civil Society and human rights actors have increased capacity and contribute actively to respect for international human rights standards.

Apart from work on human rights conducted through the re-granting mechanism ran by ISAR Ednannia (as presented in the table above), the project continued its attention to Ukraine’s international human rights commitments, including the Universal Periodic Review. Following up on the results of the 14 March 2013 Geneva session for the country’s UPR, the Ministry of Justice set up 6 thematic working groups on such themes as antidiscrimination, the National Preventive Mechanism, gender equality and prevention of violence against women and children, right of people with disabilities, issues of criminal

6

justice and fulfilment of ECHR decisions, fundamental rights and freedoms. All of the groups have included broad participation of CSOs and two of the meetings were held in autumn of 2013 prior to the events following 30 November. Human rights defenders through the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union have indefinitely suspended their cooperation with any civic or advisory councils with the government bodies. To this end, the Ministry of Justice postponed the meetings of the working groups, subject to return of the civil society experts to cooperation.

Answering the need expressed by the human rights organizations to become more consolidated in their efforts to achieve broader systemic change through strategic cases (strategic litigation), the project nurtured the country’s first National Strategic Litigation Platform. Established at the end of October 2013 and overarched by the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, this platform comprised 7 members. At its constituent meeting, the Platform developed and presented its communications component and strategy to boost visibility and raise awareness of the strategic litigation as an effective instrument in human rights protection and promotion. The second planned meeting of the Platform was postponed due to the events connected to the events of 30 November / 1 December 2013, when due to human rights violations the Platform members concentrated on providing free legal aid to victims of rights abuse.

In parallel, UNDP worked with the civil society on guaranteeing the right to participation of citizens in decision-making on environmental protection in line with the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (aka the Aarhus Convention ratified by Ukraine in 1999). Currently there is no clear mechanism for public participation in decision-making process which would provide reasonable time frames and procedures for public consultations, commenting and ensures access to the environmental information as required by the Convention. At the same time, there seems to be little if any political will from the side of the Ministry of Ecology of Ukraine to lead the change in this area.

To operationalize the Convention and ensure access to environmental justice, UNDP supported the formation of the Environmental Strategic Litigation Platform Launched in October, it brought together 22 civil society activists, developed its operational bylaws, agreed strategic case selection criteria, and established internal communication systems between platform members. It also selected its first strategic case to work on. This has to do with the much debated deal between the government of Ukraine and Shell Company as to extraction of shale gas through fracking and the absence of public involvement in the decision-making process or information openness of the process as a whole.

In 2013, UNDP built the capacities of the Office of the Ombudsperson through civil society initiatives themed on three priorities: functioning of the National Preventive Mechanism, access to public information as well as anti-discrimination.

In terms of functioning of the National Preventive Mechanism, the aim lies in developing the minimum standards for fair treatment of persons in the places of deprivation of freedom in the social sphere. The law on access to public information is currently monitored through sampling the types of data classified by 100 government entities throughout the country and demonstrating legitimacy of such classification or absence thereof. In terms of anti-discrimination initiatives, firsthand information regarding human rights violations within the Roma communities is being obtained from 3 oblasts of Ukraine, necessary legal counsel is offered, and the most recent snapshot of bottlenecks with human rights for the Roma is underway for the Ombudsperson for necessary, evidence-based action.

Apart from these initiatives, focus is kept on nurturing cooperation of the Office of the Ombudsperson and the civil society at the regional level. In 7 different oblasts of Ukraine, with the support of the project, locally-involved civic experts have come to serve as “eyes and ears” of the Office for monitoring the human rights situation and bringing the institution of the Ombudsperson closer to its sub-national

7

constituencies. 148 personal consultations at the regional level have been provided so far, and 18 places of deprivation of freedom were checked through monitoring visits. All of the collected information is being transferred to the Office, thus exercising bottom-up civic pressure to address the identified challenges at regional level. In parallel, in order to keep the Office accountable to its mandate, commitments and mission, a 360o civic monitoring is currently conducted to provide the Ombudsman with impartial and comprehensive feedback on the entity’s performance.

IO 3. An improved enabling environment contribute to the realization of democratic rights and dialogue between civil society and authorities.

In order to measure whether provisions of the new Law on Public Associations are applied duly, and whether implementation mechanisms need to be streamlined, UNDP supported a 27-strong monitoring coalition of CSOs. This group, being led by two potent expert organizations, covers all territory of Ukraine in order to track practical application of the Law’s regulations. In the course of the reporting period, a methodology for monitoring the Law’s application was developed, and the members of the monitoring coalition were trained to apply this methodology in the field and to duly summarize the monitoring results. The monitoring itself is to be completed by March 2014.

The same coalition is called to track the progress achieved throughout implementation of the regional programmes for fostering civil society development and/or advocate for their adoption. Regional programmes are envisioned support local civic initiatives, foster dialogue between the regional authorities and civil society as well as to offer capacity-building opportunities at the regional level. At the beginning of 2013, such policy instruments were absent in four oblasts of Ukraine (Cherkasy, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Donetsk oblasts). In order to stimulate adoption of the programmes, the coalition conducted 4 lobbying round tables resulting in adaption of the programmes in Ivano-Frankivsk and Donetsk oblasts. Two others were supposed to be considered in early December 2013 (currently postponed in consideration). In those regions where the programmes were in place, several systemic concerns were identified, including irrelevant programmatic activities, absence of funding, and lack of transparent and competition-based procedures to support civic initiatives coupled with absence of effective oversight to track progress. The full-fledged nation-wide monitoring of the programmes was launched by the coalition in November and results are to appear in the first quarter of 2014.

One of the instruments that could allow the civil society and its expert community to effectively interact with and impact the work of government bodies is the mechanism of civic expert assessment of executive government bodies and oblast-level authorities launched in 2008. Yet, this mechanism had been underutilized up until recently. In order to understand the root causes for that and promote use of civic expert assessment, the project supported analysis of practical implementation of this instrument in Ukraine with special attention to the regional level. Results of comprehensive review have been shaped as a package of recommendations, which deal with setting clear deadlines for stakeholders, mandating civic expert inclusion at all stages of the process, preventing ungrounded refusals and setting up efficient follow-up systems to address expert assessment findings. This package is to be submitted to the Ministry of Justice in order to amend the existing procedure for civic expert assessment utilization and make it more result-oriented.

In the area of anti-corruption, recent amendments to the anticorruption legislation have widened the scope for civic anticorruption assessment, now including draft laws entered by Parliamentarians which intensified UNDP work with the Parliamentary Committee on Fighting Organized Crime and Corruption. The Committee established a proactive Civic Expert Council under its auspices and incorporated UNDP-supported anticorruption expert assessment methodology into its practices. Over 80 draft laws have gone through the Expert council and 25 of them were identified as having corruption risks. This was presented by the Committee to the wider parliamentary community and recommended for reconsideration. Most of such risks related to unduly wide discretion authority delegated to an

8

implementing body.

At the same time, the project has supported a group of 10 anti-corruption civic experts, who are preparing the shadow report on Ukraine’s progress against the milestones of the OECD Istanbul Anticorruption Action Plan. The shadow report will be delivered at the beginning of 2014 and presented to OECD assessment panel alongside Ukraine’s official report. The shadow report findings will also be proactively lobbied with OECD for inclusion into the final country progress report.

To promote innovative forms of citizen engagement and civic participation through electronic democracy tools, the project experimented – for the first time in Ukraine – with an new format of building ties between municipality authorities and their civil society counterparts. The “Smart City Municipal E-nnovation Lab” gathered 7 teams composed of municipality authorities, civil society activists and IT specialists to produce prototypes (detailed visions) of the government-community interaction tools. These were selected out of 21 initial applicants. The winning proposal to be implemented in close collaboration by Lviv municipality and its civil society counterparts envisages collaborative design and deployment of a system of mapping and implementing the most popular initiatives by the civil society in collaboration with the local authorities.

12. Status – Component objectives and indicators (outcomes) (briefly)Give an account of the achievement of the project objectives in the reporting period (related to the defined indicators).Please see tables below

13. Status – Component outputsComponent description with outputs, indicators and status in the reporting period.Please refer to ANNEX A: Status in Logical Framework

14. Deviations from planning in the original project documentGive an account of significant differences in implementation compared with the approved project document.n/a

15. Proposed adjustments to Component documentDescribe and justify the proposed adjustments to the component document (compared with the version presented in October 2012).Within the first year of project implementation the need for an updated Logical Framework and its indicators emerged. The proposed amended framework is under construction.

16. Sustainability and exit strategyDescribe which activities have been undertaken in the reporting period that contributes to organisational and/or financial sustainability of Ukrainian CSO partners. Describe if exit strategy has been discussed in the reporting period.At this point of time no discussions have been held regarding the exit strategy, while all efforts have been concentrated on project launch and initial operations. At the same time, exit strategy considerations have been routinely included in all requests for project proposals to ensure early thinking of CSO counterparts on the activities after the initial support is withdrawn.

17. Gender equalityGive an account of activities that has been undertaken in the reporting period for promoting gender equality.

The current gender-equality related work of the project follows a two-pronged approach: Targeted gender equality support

In the course of the year the work on gender equality was conducted with a focus on monitoring gender 9

discrimination, as well as effectively responding to domestic violence. Upon the request of the Office of the Ombudsperson, an international study on monitoring mechanisms for gender discrimination and a comprehensive analysis of court cases dealing with domestic violence were conducted. In addition, five monitoring visits were undertaken to assess the regional situation with offering services to the victims of domestic violence. While the first initiative will allow the Office of the Ombudsperson to build a more effective model to monitor gender discrimination, the other two initiatives are feeding into the preparatory work for CEDAW reporting in 2014.

Preparatory work for CEDAW reporting has been launched with involvement of the government and non-governmental stakeholders as well as the UN system in the country. 21 November 2013 saw a two-day event fostered by the UN system in Ukraine aiming at elaborating approaches to formation of the national report (including necessary coordination between state entities) as well as alternative reports of the civil society.

Gender mainstreamingGender mainstreaming is undertaken in all UNDP operations under the Programme, and is guaranteed by ensuring that all activities, fora, and training events provide for equal access and participation of men and women. Gender disaggregated statistics is being collected throughout grantees’ projects where feasible and applicable.

18. 'Added value'Provide examples of how the UNDP has provided "added value" to Ukrainian partners. Including advisory on capacity building and other issues.

10

19. Coordination and harmonisation/alignmentDescribe activities undertaken by UNDP for coordination with other international agencies (including possible harmonisation of support and alignment to partners' own strategy/planning system).

UNDP actively participates in donor coordination by inviting representatives of the donor community to all major events, and by attending such events organized by fellow-development institutions. Some of the examples of such coordination are presented herewith:

In coordination with other donors (including USAID, Embassy of Sweden, Mott Foundation, IRF), the project supported the 2nd Capacity Development Forum, which gathered over 650 participants representing the civil society in Ukraine to share their experiences and knowledge on organizational development.

In 2013 the project has worked closely with the International Renaissance Foundation (Open Society Foundation), one of the core donors in the sphere of legal aid in the country. A coordinated call for proposals was devised and joint selection of candidate CSOs to be supported was conducted.

The project also extends invitations to take part in internal deliberations regarding projects to be supported or methodologies to be utilized. For instance, all grant selection committees include other donors working in the area. The wider donor community representatives have been offered participation in the Consultative Council which, amongst other things, reviewed and recommended candidate organizations to become Regional CSO hubs. In addition, the review workshop on Organization Assessment methodology and OD Change Process in early December 2013 featured the presentation of a Team Leader of EU-funded project "Strengthening non-State actors' Capacities to Promote Reform and increase Public Accountability".

UNDP has taken part in donor coordination meetings which were called together in 2013. Thus, for instance, in July 2013, UNDP took part in a coordination meeting called by the Council of Europe Office for the donor and expert community on issues of access to public information in order to share information on existing and future projects in this sphere. In November 2013 UNDP along with SIDA, PACT, Internews and the International Renaissance Foundation (OSF) conducted a coordination meeting to discuss issues of organizational development in Ukraine. In December another donor meeting was conducted in response to Euromaidan protests in order to shape a coherent vision and discuss options for response.

20. Component management by UNDPDescribe activities for the function of the component's management.The project team (Project Manager, Knowledge Management Expert, Administrative and Finance Associate) was set up in March 2013. It was further reinforced by a CSO Capacity Development Expert and a Junior Human Rights Expert.An office facility and well-established workplaces for the DHRP Team were available from the first day of its commencement.21. Lessons learnedMention possible lesson learned that the project partners have gained during the reporting period.

22. Ideas for regional activitiesList ideas for regional activities that could benefit project partners from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.In line with DANIDA focus areas of i) CSO internal democratic governance; ii) CSO constituency; iii) financial stability; and iv) lobbying and advocacy, a variety of knowledge-sharing events (fora, conferences, and “future search” events) could be organized.

11

23. Comments on the financial reportingGive an assessment of the expenditures on the various budget lines, in particular when different from the planned budget.Refer to ANNEX B: Financial status.

AnnexesAnnexes (e.g. financial status, studies, review etc., where applicable).

Annex A. Status in Logical FrameworkAnnex B. Financial status.

12

ANNEX A: Status in Logical Framework

Description Indicative activities Indicatorsand baseline data

Status for achievements of planned outputs Problems & possible solutions

Development objective:Immediate Objective 1Civil society has increased capacity and contributes to the democratic processes.(DHRP Component: Strengthening CSOs capacities as democracy and good governance guardians)Output 1.1Selected regional civil society organisations have increased organisational capacities to serve as regional capacity-building hubs

Institutional support to the selected regional CSOs through individually tailored capacity development programme (first 18 months)

- regional CSOs organizational capacity cumulative score

Development of the hub system Strategic vision of Regional CSO hubs system developed Call for Interest for the potential Hubs designed and

announced 9-member strong Coordination Council set up 79 applications received (30 for democratization, 8 – human

rights, 34 – both democratization and human rights, 7 - undefined);

9 CSO hubs focusing their work on human rights (3) and / or democratization (6) selected to cover all territory of Ukraine;

Organizational Assessment methodology developed with support of international consultants, refined and piloted;

8 organizational assessments conducted in collaboration with experts on OD; reports finalized and shared with hubs;

Output 1.2Advocacy, monitoring and networking activities of CSOs in the area of democratisation supported

Grants scheme to support CSOs projects in two thematic areas (implemented through 1-2 national re-granters):

Good governance (participation, accountability, transparency); advocacy and communication initiatives with a particular focus on the use of the new/social media

- # successfully implemented projects- # of persons who benefited from the grant projects (received primary legal aid / disaggregated by sex)- # of public decisions made with citizen input- # of networking events (international. national, local)

Re-granting projects - democratization: Re-granting organization selected and contract signed (CCC); Call for Proposals for grant competition (democratization)

developed and announced; 230 CSO applications received, out of which 22 are “young”

CSOs that have not had previous granting experience; 18 CSOs projects selected—15 “mature” CSOs and 3 “young”

CSOs—with an average grant amount of USD 12,000 for the experienced organizations and USD 4000 for the new ones;

Project implementation under re-granting modality kicked off.

Primary legal aid provision:

13

Primary legal aid provision Grants scheme to support

CSOs projects in two thematic areas (implemented through 6 regional re-granters/expert hubs Good governance

(participation, accountability, transparency); advocacy and communication initiatives with a particular focus on the use of the new/social media

Primary legal aid provision Networking events (seminars

and training) for partner CSOs inside the country and with the CSOs from Moldova and Belarus

- # of networks / coalitions established- # of male / female participants in the networking / training events

Collaborative call for proposals in the area of legal aid developed in partnership with IRF;

6 CSOs to pilot models of legal aid provision selected.

Networks and coalitions: Networking events:

- networking and kick off seminar for 8 Hubs on issues of OD (one hub selected at later stage; participants – 8 male and 8 female);- kick-off seminar for grantees under the “democratization” theme conducted (18 CSOs);- kick-off seminar for free legal aid provision CSO grantees;- OD methodology training workshop for hubs’ representatives (16 participants: 8 male and 8 female);- 2nd OD Forum supported;

Immediate Objective 2Civil Society and human rights actors have increased capacity and contribute actively to respect for international human rights standards.(DHRP Component: Supporting human rights actors to promote and defend human rights in Ukraine)Output 2.1Selected regional civil society organisations have increased organisational capacities to serve as regional capacity-building hubs

Institutional support to the selected regional CSOs through individually tailored capacity development programme (first 18 months)

- regional CSOs organizational capacity cumulative score

Development of the hub system Strategic vision of Regional CSO Hubs system developed Call for Interest for the potential Hubs designed and

announced; 9-member strong Coordination Council set up; 79 applications received (30 for democratization, 8 – human

rights, 34 – both democratization and human rights, 7 - undefined);

9 CSO hubs focusing their work on human rights (3) and / or democratization (6) selected to cover all territory of Ukraine;

Organizational Assessment methodology developed with support of international consultants, refined and piloted;

8 organizational assessments conducted in collaboration with

14

experts on OD; reports finalized and shared with hubs;

Output 2.2Advocacy, monitoring and networking activities of CSOs in the area of human rights supported

Grants scheme to support CSOs projects in two thematic areas (implemented through a national re-granter):

support to the monitoring of international commitments taken by the Government of Ukraine in the area of human rights (special focus on the 2nd cycle of the UPR, CEDAW, CRPWD and CAT)

support to strategic litigation efforts

Grants scheme to support CSOs projects in two thematic areas (implemented through 3 regional re-granters/expert hubs

support to the monitoring of international commitments taken by the Government of Ukraine in the area of human rights (special focus on the 2nd cycle of the UPR, CEDAW, CRPWD and CAT)

support to strategic litigation efforts

Networking events (seminars and training) for partner CSOs inside the country and with the CSOs from Moldova and Belarus

- # successfully implemented projects- # of persons who benefited from the grant projects (disaggregated by sex)- # of strategic litigation cases pursued by CSOs- # of networking events (international. national, local)- # of networks / coalitions established- # of male / female participants in the networking / training events

Re-granting projects – human rights: Re-granting organization selected and contract signed (ISAR); Call for Proposals (human rights) developed and announced; 103 CSO applications received, out of which 11 are “young”

CSOs that have not had granting experience before; 11 CSOs projects selected—9 “mature” CSOs and 2 “young”

CSOs—with an average grant amount of USD 11,000 for the experienced organizations and USD 5000 for the new ones.

Strategic litigation: Strategic Litigation Platform kick-off meeting conducted National Strategic Litigation Platform, Environmental Strategic

Litigation Platforms launched

15

Output 2.3Ombudsperson’s office (OO) has strengthened capacities to monitor human rights situation in the country and catalyse necessary changes

Support to the implementation of the capacity development (CD) plan with a special focus on the cooperation between the OO and civil society in line with the principles of the Ombudsperson+ model (e.g. strengthening CSOs Advisory Council, NPM-associated CSOs etc.)

to strengthen OO capacities (a) to monitor human rights situation, (b) to address efficiently human right violations, (c) cooperate effectively with civil society on educational, awareness-raising and advocacy activities

Advisory and technical support to engage OO actively with the regional and international human rights mechanisms

Facilitation of access to the regional and international human rights networks (e.g. European Group of National Human Rights Institutions)

- CD plan implemented (yes/no)- # of complaints received and addressed- # of joint OO-civil society initiatives implemented- # of regional/international substantial input produced by the OO (reports, presentations etc.) - # of international and regional meetings attended

Joint OO-civil society initiatives implemented: 5 CSO projects launched to strengthen the work of the Office of

the Ombudsperson for:- monitoring efficacy of the Office of the Ombudsperson vis-

à-vis its 2013-2017 Strategic Plan;- supporting Ombudsperson’s outreach to the regional level;- supporting NPM development through introduction of

minimum standards of fair treatment for persons housed in places of freedom deprivation;

- upholding the rights of the Roma communities;- analysing practices regarding access to classified

information and elaboration of guidelines for relevant policy amendment.

Analytical inputs commissioned for OO: International study on models of discrimination monitoring

(focus on gender discrimination) Monitoring of services provided to domestic violence victims Study of court practices for domestic violence cases.

Immediate Objective 3An improved enabling environment contribute to the realization of democratic rights and dialogue between civil society and authorities.(DHRP component: Fostering participatory implementation of the new Law on Public Associations and advocacy for wider and results-driven Government-CSO dialogue)Output 3.1Civil society takes active part in the development of

Support to development and advocacy of the necessary bylaws and implementation

- # of regional presentations for CSOs on the new legislation

27-strong network of CSOs to conduct monitoring the Law on public associations and targeted regional programmes on civil society development established.

16

implementation and monitoring mechanisms of the new legislation on civil associations in accordance with European standards

procedures of the Law on Public Associations through targeted grant-giving to think-tanks and CSOs coalitions

Public awareness campaign through a system of 27 Regional Reference Points

Monitoring of the implementation of the new Law and identification of the possible bottlenecks

- # of secondary bylaws and implementation procedures elaborated and advocated with the government partners- monitoring of the implementation of the new legislation conducted (yes/no)

Monitoring of the implementation of the new Law and its possible bottlenecks started (results to be available after February 2014).

Awareness-raising / practical materials elaborated and distributed to oblasts and the grassroots level.

Output 3.2Wider and results-driven Government-CSO dialogue is promoted through regional and national mechanisms

Support to elaboration and monitoring of targeted programmes on fostering the development of civil society with CSO inputs

Consultations with relevant counterparts (Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, Coordination Council) regarding improved mechanisms of Government-CSO cooperation at national and local level

- # of oblast programmes elaborated with CSO inputs- # of oblast programmes mid-term evaluations conducted- proposed changes to procedures on civic hearings, civic councils and civic expertise incorporated (yes/no)

Oblast programmes elaborated with CSO inputs: 6 regional round tables (Cherkasy, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk,

Donetsk, Crimea, Dnipropetrovsk) on targeted programmes held;

2 out of 4 targeted programmes lacking in 2013 adopted with CSO participation (Ivano-Frankivsk and Donetsk)

Monitoring of implementation of Oblast Programmes to support civil society development launched;

Procedures on civic expertise: Monitoring the effectiveness of the civic expert assessment

implementation supported; recommendations developed; Anticorruption civic expert assessment methodology

supported for use by the Parliamentary Committee on Combating Organized Crime and Corruption through its Civic Expert Committee;

Alternative civil society report for Ukraine’s third round of Istanbul Anticorruption Plan of Action supported;

17

Areas of intervention, indicative outcomes and indicators - Immediate Objective 1: Civil society has increased capacity and contributes to the democratic processes.

Areas of Interventions Indicative outcome Indicators

Ukr

aine

Capacity building and institutional support to six Regional CSOs to serve as regional re-granters in governance and democracy

Six selected regional CSOs have organizational capacities so they are able to serve as capacity building/re-granting hubs

Assessment of the CSOs organizational capacity to re-grant and capacity development

CSO projects in good governance advocacy and communication supported Selected small CSOs implement successful projects on good governance Advocacy and communication supported

No of successfully implemented projects

Networking events within Ukraine and with Belarusian and Moldovan CSOs on democratization CSOs have used networks in raising capacity and increasing contacts on democratization

No of m/f participants in networking/training events by country

Areas of intervention, indicative outcomes and indicators - Immediate Objective 2: Civil Society and human rights actors have increased capacity and contribute actively to respect for international human rights standards

Areas of intervention Indicative outcomes Indicators

Ukr

aine

Capacity building and institutional support to regional CSOs can serve as regional re-granters in human rights

Selected regional CSOs have organizational capacity to serve as capacity building/re-granting hubs

Regional CSOs organizational capacity in re-granting and capacity development

CSO projects in human rights in general and monitoring Selected small CSOs implement successful projects on human rights and/or monitoringUkraine periodic reporting on HR conventions

- No of successfully implemented projects- No of HR reports monitored and influenced

CSO projects in legal aid provision supported Selected small CSOs implement successful projects on legal aid No of persons receive and benefit from legal aidSupport to CSOs involved in strategic legislation Selected small CSOs pursue strategic litigation cases No of strategic litigation cases pursued by CSOsNetworking events within Ukraine and with Belarusian and Moldovan CSOs on human rights CSOs have used networks in raising capacity and increasing

contacts on human rights issues- No of coalitions or networks established- No of male/female participants in network /training events

Potential: Support to OI capacity development OI has and applies strengthened capacities to monitor human rights situation

Capacity development plan implemented

Support to engage OI with regional and inter-national HR mechanisms OI provides substantial inputs to international HR mechanisms No of substantive international / regional input by the OI

Areas of intervention, indicative outputs and indicators, Immediate Objective 3: An improved enabling environment contributes to the realization of democratic rights and dialogue between CS and authorities

Areas of intervention Indicative outcomes Indicators

Ukr

aine

Support to CSO coalitions and think tanks to ensure development and advocacy of necessary bylaws and procedures on law on Public Associations

Civil society takes active part in the development of implementation and monitoring mechanisms of new legislation on civil associations and identification of possible bottlenecks

No of secondary bylaws and implementation procedures elaborated and advocated with GoU partners

Support to elaboration and monitoring of targeted programmes on fostering the development of civil society with CSO inputs

Wider and results driven GOU- CSO dialogue promoted through regional and national mechanism

No of oblast programmes elaborated with substantial CSO input

Potential: Support to CSOs to engage critically with OI OI and CSOs establish networks and implement activities jointly No of joint and successful OI – civil society initiatives implemented

18

ANNEX B: Financial statusJanuary - December 2013 (Interim report)DMFA contribution: DKK 6,000,000 (USD 1,067,425.72)UN Exchange rate effective 1 January 2013: 5,621 DKK / 1 USD (contribution receipt date)

OUTPUTS PLANNED ACTIVITIES

Actual expenditures in reporting period

January - December 2013

Total 2013 expenditures

DKK USD DKK USDComponent 1:Strengthening CSOs capacities as democracy guardians

Activity 1.1. Institutional support to the selected mid-size regional CSOs through individually tailored capacity development programme (first 18 months)

126 939 22 583

1 360 271 DKK

241 998 USD

Activity 1.2. Grants scheme to support CSOs projects in two thematic areas (implemented through 2 re-granters):- Good governance- Primary legal aid provision

1 197 256 212 997

Activity 1.3. Networking events (seminars and training) for partner CSOs inside the country and with the CSOs in Belarus and Moldova

36 076 6 418

Subtotal Component 1Component 2:Supporting human rights actors to promote and defend human rights in Ukraine

Activity 2.1. Institutional support to the selected mid-size regional CSOs through individually tailored capacity development programme (first 18 months)

112 780 20 064

1 848 831 DKK

328 915 USD

Activity 2.2. Grants scheme to support to CSOs projects in two thematic area:- monitoring of Ukraine’s international commitment- strategic litigation cases

1 152 918 205 109

Activity 2.3. Networking events (seminars and training) for partner CSOs inside the country and with the CSOs in Belarus and Moldova

143 538 25 536

Activity 2.4. Support to the implementation of the capacity development (CD) plan to strengthen OO capacities (a) to monitor and report on the human rights situation, (b) to address efficiently human right violations, (c) cooperate effectively with civil society on educational, awareness-raising and advocacy activities

439 596 78 206

Subtotal Component 2Component 3: Fostering participatory implementation of the new Law on Public Associations and advocacy for wider and results-driven Government-CSO dialogue

Activity 3.1. Support advocacy and monitoring of implementation of the Law on Public Associations

177 230 31 530

895 571 DKK

159 326 USD

Activity 3.2. Support elaboration and monitoring of targeted programmes on fostering the development of civil society with CSO inputs

229 562 40 840

Activity 3.3. Advocate for wider and results-driven Government-CSO dialogue

488 780 86 956

Subtotal Component 3Component 4: Effective project management

Activity 4.1. Effective Project management

567 575 100 974 567 575 DKK

100 974 USD

19

Subtotal Component 4

General Management Support (GMS) 7% in 2013 327 058 58 185 327 058 DKK

58 185 USD

TOTAL Expenditures* 4 999 306 DKK

889 398 USD

* Final financial data (Combined Delivery Report) will be available at the beginning of the 2nd quarter 2014, upon closure of the 2013 financial year and GMS charges.

20