Project ID
[pic]
United Nations Development Programme Malawi
Malawi Electoral Cycle Support Project
(ID: 00071929)
Quarterly Progress Report
Fourth Quarter
2013
|Project Title: |Malawi Electoral Cycle Support Project |
|UNDP Project #: |00071929 |
|Project Duration: |2013 – 2016 |
|Project Resources: |Basket Fund |
|UNDP Focal Point: |Sean Dunne, Senior Election Advisor |
|UNDAF Output |4.1.4: National Electoral processes and capacities in Malawi Electoral Commission, Civil Society and|
| |different arms of Government strengthened to ensure peaceful, free and credible National and |
| |by-Elections |
|CP Output: |Governance SWAP, national investment & capacity development plan; Strategic and capacity development|
| |plans for Parliament, Ombudsman, MHRC and MEC. |
|Project Specific Outcome: |MEC is able to sustainably deliver free, fair and credible election processes that reflect the will |
| |of the people in Malawi. |
|Output(s): |Electoral policy and regulatory environment is harmonized and stabilized. |
| |Technical and institutional capacity of MEC strengthened. |
| |Organization and management of elections enhanced. |
| |Effective and efficient management, partnership formation and monitoring and evaluation of the |
| |Project. |
|Project Location(s): |Blantyre and Lilongwe, Malawi |
Project Donors
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary 4
2. Implementation Progress 5
Output 1. 5
Output 2 6
Output 3 9
Output 4 10
3. Challenges 11
Issues Addressed 11
4. Lessons Learned 12
5. Future Plans 13
6. Financial Section 13
Table 1: Funding Overview and Expenditure Status 14
Annexes 15
Annex I: Performance Tracking Matrix 15
Annex II: Risk Log: 17
Executive Summary
In the reporting period of October to December 2013 the Project focused on support to the MEC for the completion of the voter registration exercise as well as preparatory activities for the nomination process, inspection exercise, polling operation and results management. Emergency procurement support was also provided to purchase and install additional high speed scanners to accelerate the scanning of registration forms in a timely manner. The specification of sensitive materials for polling operations was also finalized and UNDP related procurement processes initiated.
The progress of the election preparations has met the election calendar benchmarks to date and was able to advance the period of voter registration to avoid the risk of operations in the wet season. At the same time, the Project has focused policy level attention towards the MEC’s management of the complaints process, encouraging and providing tools for a more methodological approach. In particular, efforts have focused toward preparing for the start of the campaign period, when the MEC receives its authority to impose punitive measures. A proposal to recruit and deploy local lawyers under the Project to establish a legal unit to support the complaint process in Q1, 2014 was adopted.
As the election process has progressed the political climate has becoming increasingly charged, which has also been exacerbated by a speculative media environment as well as weak internal processes within political parties. Nevertheless, the MEC has continued to hold regular meetings of the National Electoral Consultative Forum (NECOF) to maintain a transparent and open forum of national engagement with stakeholders, while Multiparty Liaison Committees (MPLCs) in the Districts have provided a forum for resolving disputes at the local level. Nevertheless, the role of Chiefs and Traditional Authorities is of increasing concern.
Against the backdrop of the recent financial crisis, the MEC has had to deal with a range of financial issues, including the interim adoption of manual financial procedures, regional ceilings and extra layers of government bureaucracy for the release of funds. While the MEC has remained funded, sister institutions upon which the MEC also depends have faced increasing challenges, which may translate into additional pressure on election operations as they progress. The Project has assisted the MEC in preparing for a detailed review of the election budget to the end of 2013 and a revision of the budget moving forward, which will be presented in Q1, 2014.
Brief Background
The MEC will conduct constitutionally mandated inaugural tripartite (presidential, parliamentary and local) elections in May 2014. The MEC was suspended in 2010 for a forensic audit following allegations of fiscal impropriety in the 2009 elections, and a new Board of Commissioners (BoC) was appointed in May 2012. As Malawi’s fifth round of elections since the introduction of multi-party elections in 1994, these elections will introduce new technical and political challenges for the administration of elections. While past concurrent presidential and parliamentary elections have involved 194 elections, tripartite elections will require 656 simultaneous elections to be administered. Further, the elections are occurring in a unique political context for Malawi where executive power transitioned in April 2012, following the death of the incumbent, to Vice President Joyce Banda in April 2012, who had earlier split from the ruling majority party to form her own political party.
Rationale
The tripartite elections represent a pivotal test for Malawi’s democratic progress. Occurring during the 50 year anniversary of independence and the 20th anniversary since multi-party democracy, the elections are symbolic. With the introduction of simultaneous local elections they also offer a significant step towards the decentralization of government through 35 elected local councils. The technical challenges of transitioning from 194 simultaneous elections (presidential and parliamentary) to 656 elections (with the inclusion of 462 ward races for local councilors) poses significant technical, legal, financial and logistical challenges; all occurring with a newly appointed Board of Commissioners. Meanwhile, considerate of the financial legacies of the MEC, the Project provides a mechanism for Development Partners to be able to confidently channel their support to the electoral process.
Objective
The Project will support the MEC to conduct tripartite elections through the delivery of technical assistance and the international procurement of essential materials, and provides a UNDP Basket Fund for the coordination of Development Partners’ financial support to the election process. In the post-election period, the Project will provide support for institutional development and capacity building of the MEC to minimize the need for future technical assistance.
Beneficiaries, Stakeholders, Implementing Arrangements
The MEC is the principal institutional beneficiary of the Project with the Malawian electorate as the downstream beneficiary of support. The main Project stakeholders are the MEC, Government of Malawi and Development Partners. The Project is implemented under UNDP’s Direct Implementation Modality (DIM).
Implementation Progress
Output 1.
Electoral policy and regulatory environment is harmonized and stabilized
Background
The requirement to reform policies and regulations has been emphasised by the MECs past institutional challenges and to address the unique demands of supervising and conducting inaugural tripartite elections. The Constitution was amended in late 2012 to introduce tripartite elections, which also necessitated legal amendments to harmonize the electoral laws. Vital amendments (such as, the term of councillors, nomination periods, appeal periods and penalties for electoral offences) harmonizing the electoral laws were enacted in the May and June 2013 session of Parliament, but several beneficial amendments (a change to polling hours, restriction of candidates from running for both parliamentary and local races, and the period after the election in which the President may be sworn in) while pending for the November 2013 session of Parliament, were overtaken in the agenda by the financial scandal of Cashgate. The likelihood that these legislative amendments will be made in first quarter 2014 is now low. However, the regulatory and procedural environment requires ongoing development to adjust to the demands of tripartite elections, and offers opportunities for improvement in the conduct of the process, in particular, in the area of complaint management.
Progress
Continuous technical assistance has been provided to the MEC to refine and develop its policies and processes in-line with its Strategic Plan goals. A range of amendments have been proposed to the MEC to assist in the refinement of procedures, illustratively, the Project recommended that the traditional procedures for candidate nomination fees be amended to allow for the payment of fees via banks rather than the receipt of cash by electoral staff. The approach was adopted by the MEC and will offer several benefits for the nomination process: streamlining the transaction-time required to process nominations, reduce the security (and staff) requirements for cash management, enhance accountability and auditability, and to minimize any allegations of corruption against electoral staff.
The Project has also provided ongoing ad hoc advice to MEC management on issues as they have arisen in the course of the ongoing voter registration exercise. For example, several tertiary education facilities requested supplementary registration to be conducted as their students were away on semester break when registration was conducted in their areas. The Project recommended to allow for the supplementary registration in-line with the principle of inclusivity but also to ensure that those being registered through this mechanism be required to produce student identification as a supra-criteria, to deter any fraudulent registration. As well, to strengthen the MEC’s ability to manage and track complaints and enquiries from political parties, the Project developed a complaint form that was adopted by the MEC for recording and tracking complaints and enquiries made by political parties.
In this period, the Project proposed that it would expand the capacity of the MEC through the retention of three local lawyers to establish a dedicated legal support and complaints management unit. The proposal was agreed, with the unit to be supervised by the UNDP Legal Specialist under the guidance of the MEC Chairperson. Preliminary terms of reference were consulted and drafted, and will be finalized and advertised in the first quarter of 2014 to staff the unit, which will operate from the start of the campaign period until after the election.
Against the target indicators for the Project and the progress under the 2013 Annual Work Plan (AWP) the revision and updating of Codes of Conduct has thus far achieved 75%. The other target indicators of policy instruments and inter-institutional arrangements are progressing with the electoral process as it evolves.
Output 2
Technical and institutional capacity of MEC strengthened.
Background
In the pre-election period the MEC has focused its attention on the delivery of the election, but has also made efforts to implement priority institutional actions under the Strategic Plan. In this phase, these efforts have emphasised reforms to strengthen the MECs internal control framework as well as transparent and inclusive consultative processes with stakeholders. Technical assistance has also been provided to the MEC in several focus areas, including planning and design of activities in operations and logistics, ICT, CVE and procurement, with an emphasis towards strengthening staff capacity for risk management and contingency planning.
Progress
The technical and institutional capacity of the MEC to respond to emerging challenges has been an area of continuous support from the Project. An emphasis toward risk management has increasingly permeated the MEC’s approach toward the process and is reinforced by the monthly review of the project risk log in the Technical and Steering Committee respectively, as a means of identifying risks and raising awareness among stakeholders. Illustratively, the management of the voter registration exercise – completed in this quarter – strove to reduce the number of pre-planned phases from ten to nine, to ensure field operations were completed prior to the onset of the wet season that would have compounded several challenges.
Completing the registration exercise in nine phases, preliminary data indicates that the MEC was able to register approximately 94.1% of the projected 8 million eligible voters. Figure 1 below reflects the distribution of preliminary registered voters by District, while Figure 2 compares the 2013 preliminary registration data against the historic registration data of 1999, 2004 and 2009. The analytical patterns appear to reflect a high level of participation and consistency in the pattern of registration, which would suggest that the MEC has not compromised coverage or participation in the acceleration of the process.
During the ongoing operations the transfer of technical skills is being undertaken through on the job-mentoring and short trainings on focused issues where necessary. For example, a training was conducted with operations staff to demonstrate the enhanced use of tools and features in Excel for the management and analysis of preliminary voter registration data. As well, the MEC’s capacity to respond to emerging concerns through orchestrated partnership arrangements is progressing. Illustratively, concerns were raised in regard to HIV awareness and transmission among registration teams as they travelled throughout the country. In response, the MEC and UNDP arranged for the distribution of prophylactics and HIV awareness trainings for voter registration teams during the transitions between phases of the registration exercise. Prophylactic supplies and trainers were coordinated through local District Council AIDS advisors at minimal cost.
Institutional capacity development of the MEC’s financial management systems has posed significant challenges in light of the broader measures undertaken in response to the government’s financial scandal that broke during this quarter. The suspension of IFMIS (the government financial management system) led to the adoption of manual accounting processes and commensurate challenges in the lead and lag time for payments, and the ability to track financial data. As well, planned recruitments for additional MEC managerial posts have been brought into uncertainty by the financial constraints being imposed across government. The arrival of the Project’s Basket Fund Manager and Financial Advisor in this quarter has allowed the Project to provide targeted support in the area of financial management to assist in addressing these challenges.
As noted in the past Quarterly Report a proposal to replace the deployment of a procurement specialist by the delivery of dedicated training sessions was adopted. The training was targeted as two packages, one for technical staff and another for Commissioners and senior staff. The training, to be conducted by the UNDP Procurement Support Office, has been scheduled for late January 2014. Against the target indicators for the Project and the progress under the 2013 Annual Work Plan (AWP) Strategic Plan principles and related actions have been integrated and implemented. The amalgamation of risk management and contingency planning tools has been undertaken and has demonstrated an effective impact at both the policy and operational level of decision-making. The formalisation of these approaches into key planning documents is ongoing.
Figure 1. Distribution of Registered Voters (Preliminary Data)
[pic]
Figure 2. Historic Registration Data Pattern Analysis
[pic]
Output 3
Organization and management of elections enhanced.
Background
The Project makes provision for the procurement of sensitive and essential electoral materials that need to be purchased internationally. Monitoring of operational progress is conducted through a monthly Technical Committee with issues being escalated to the Steering Committee as required. Stakeholder development through a number of periodic meetings has also been established and implemented.
Progress
The preparation of material specifications for items to be procured through the Basket Fund were finalized in this quarter and submitted to UNDP PSO for procurement action. The advance procurement of materials (such as, ballot boxes, voting screens, ballots, ICT equipment and indelible ink) will permit for potential savings on some item’s transportation cost options. The advance procurement of these items has also afforded opportunities to introduce enhancements to the electoral process, such as accommodating the procurement of tamper evident envelopes for the transportation of results and reconciliation records from polling centres to District Councils.
Equipment breakdowns encountered with the MEC’s existing high speed scanners (used to digitize the Optical Mark Recognition registration forms) led to a UNDP recommendation that two additional scanners be procured through the Basket Fund. The recommendation was approved by the Technical Committee and the scanners subsequently procured and installed at the MEC HQ within a month to ensure the scanning operation would be completed on schedule. The deployment of the new scanners more than doubled the MEC’s capacity to process the forms arriving from the field operations and is expected to allow the scanning operation to be completed by the end of the first week of February 2014, ahead of the candidate nomination process (where candidates and ten of their supporters must be verifiable as registered voters).
Stakeholder engagement has been promoted and facilitated in several areas through the Project. Monitoring of progress for Development Partners has been conducted in monthly Technical Committee meetings convened in Lilongwe. Review and monitoring of risks has also been conducted and issues escalated to the Steering Committee as appropriate. Several other coordination meetings have also been maintained including the CVE Working Group (for the coordination of CSO’s receiving bilateral funding) and the National Electoral Consultative Forum (NECOF, for political parties). The Project has also made recommendations to the MEC to cement a link between the Multi-Party Liaison Committees (MPLCs) and a sub-group of NECOF for the monitoring and resolution of electoral disputes.
Against the target indicators for the Project and the progress under the 2013 Annual Work Plan (AWP) the preliminary registration has exceeded the target indicator of 90%. In this reporting period, the MEC has met or pre-empted the delivery milestones of the electoral calendar and is well positioned to remain on schedule for the first quarter of 2014.
Output 4
Effective and Efficient Management, Partnership Formation, Monitoring and Evaluation of the Project.
Background
The Project Document was formally signed by the MEC, Government and UNDP in mid-June 2013, following extensive deliberations on the election budget. The formalization of the Project allowed for the continuation of preparatory assistance work and the transition to the Project Steering and Technical Committee structures to monitor progress and provide strategic guidance.
Progress
Reporting on quarterly funding is to be made to all partners, including the Government of Malawi and MEC, via the Steering Committee in January 2014. Monitoring of cash flow is being undertaken by UNDP to identify any funding gaps while monitoring and analysis is also ongoing to identify any emerging critical areas that may require support. In particular, potential savings that may stem from the advance procurement of materials is a consideration for potential reinvestment of savings into the election budget.
As part of the project management the electoral process and priorities of the project are reviewed on a monthly basis by the Technical Committee and where appropriate, matters are referred to the Steering Committee for guidance. As part of these discussions, a risk log is maintained for the Project and is reviewed on a monthly basis by the Technical Committee and further reviewed in the Steering Committee. The Project Steering and Technical Committees are supported by UNDP for the preparation of agendas and minutes.
Against the target indicators for the Project and the progress under the 2013 Annual Work Plan (AWP) contribution agreements have been put in place. Further, a Memorandum of Understanding between UNDP and Development Partners was also signed into effect in this quarter. The delivery rates for this quarter have proceeded according to procurement planning, with most delivery of expenditures however due to occur in the first and second quarter of 2014 with the arrival of materials.
Challenges
A significant challenge in this reporting period emerged from the government’s financial crisis in September. The freezing of foreign aid pending the results of a Forensic Audit Report and the broad measures taken by government have impacted the MEC’s financial management processes. In particular, the suspension of the computer financial system and the adoption of manual processes, establishment of regional expenditure ceilings and additional steps for the clearance of government checks has impacted on the ability of the MEC to provide timely management of transactions and to track expenditures. As well, the impact of budget cut-backs on other ministries with roles in the electoral process may jeopardize the performance of counterpart activities. Finally, the crisis also adversely impacted on the exchange rate value of the Malawi currency (exceeding the budgeted assumption of an exchange rate of MWK415:USD1) while also having a cascading effect on the price of fuel, which depends heavily on foreign exchange values.
The atmosphere of distrust among political parties remains an ongoing concern, especially in an environment of speculative media reporting. The MEC has continued to be proactive in seeking to dispel rumours through the media and various meetings with stakeholders. However, the coordination and flow of information within the political parties continues to pose difficulties where information communicated to parties has evidently not been internally shared. The MEC is therefore often placed in a situation of inter-mediating communications within parties – a challenge that has been compounded by the traditional inter-personal rather than inter-institutional approach of the MEC receiving and managing enquiries and complaints.
The executive-level decision making processes of the MEC has continued to pose difficulties in this quarter. The part-time status of the Commissioners and the field-monitoring duties assumed by them and senior staff, often creates lengthy delays in decision-making. This difficulty is further complicated by the MEC having not yet adopted procedures that offer transparency and accountability over their decisions. While proposed Standing Orders have been drafted for consideration and the Steering Committee has also requested the MEC to provide written advice of their major decisions, the responsiveness of the MEC to these concerns remains problematic.
Issues Addressed
A. Budget monitoring. The cash flow from government to the MEC and Development Partners to the Basket Fund affects the ability to maintain the operational schedule of the operation. The MEC has faced several challenges in this regard due to the interim adoption of manual processes. However, assistance has been rendered to assist the MEC in developing their reports, with a view to a major budget review and revision being undertaken in first quarter 2014.
B. Procurement Progress. The finalization of specifications for polling materials was made in this quarter with a view towards achieving cost savings through the related transportation costs. Specifications for all materials were signed off by the MEC and have been transmitted to PSO for tendering.
C. Procurement Capacity Building. The position of Procurement Specialist was removed from the Programme and replaced with two dedicated training sessions (one for the technical level and another for the managerial level) by UNDP’s Procurement Support Office (PSO) to be conducted in the first quarter of 2014. This approach was deemed more effective in addressing the need for cross sharing of information between the MEC’s operations, procurement, financial, audit and warehouse units; and, offered a more conducive approach to highlighting strategic procurement issues to senior management, such as, supplier relationship management.
D. Complaints Management. The MEC agreed to adopt a standardised enquiry and complaint form for political parties in the ongoing process as a means of strengthening and formalizing the communication and auditability of complaints. As well, the MEC agreed that a legal unit to be supervised by the UNDP Legal Specialist and guided by the MEC Chair would be established and operational by the end of first quarter 2014.
E. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms. The Project provided the MEC with a recommendation that it seeks to establish with the Centre for Multiparty Democracy (CMD) a sub-committee of NECOF to deal with conflict resolution. It was recommended that the MEC pursues the establishment of the sub-committee, which had earlier been proposed in NECOF and that it receives the reports being submitted by the District-level Multiparty Liaison Committees (MPLCs) as a means to engage ownership and raise awareness of national political party secretariats in the localised MPLC processes.
Lessons Learned
As the election process has progressed, the increasingly charged political atmosphere has elicited heightened levels of suspicion among Malawi’s major political contenders. Often, this effect is being compounded by a lack of awareness of the technicalities of the process among political stakeholders. The MEC’s ability to educate political stakeholders through a variety of channels remains a significant challenge for diffusing misperceptions. Focusing some efforts onto customized information for political parties, such as fact sheets, appears necessary to attempt to mitigate against this concern, in particular, addressing areas of fraud prevention around polling.
The high rate of registration (94% of projected eligible voters) in Malawi is not solely attributable to the election process. As the voter identity card is the defacto national identity card (and the only government issued identity card that is free) the high rate of registration can also be attributed to its other uses (i.e. to open bank accounts and to gain access to the fertilizer and seed subsidy programme, FISP). Allegations of preparatory election rigging linked to taking voter’s identity card details or cards appears less likely to be associated with election fraud than potential FISP and financial fraud. Key messaging on such misperceptions will need to be intensified and the role of the inspection exercise further emphasized to the electorate.
The financial mismanagement crisis has heightened a concern of potential financial misappropriation within government systems while also incurring a freeze on foreign aid through direct budget support. These circumstances are likely to directly impact on the financing and associated capability of MEC’s sister institutions involved in the electoral process, and may also have an impact on ongoing election budget funding.
Future Plans
In the next quarter the Project will focus on the following activities:
• Assist in the analysis of the voter registration exercise.
• Support ongoing operational planning for the implementation of the candidate nomination process, including transportation coordination.
• Ongoing development of operational and contingency plans for the nomination process, inspection exercise, polling operations and results management.
• Continue the procurement of polling materials and management of the ballot printing procurement process.
• Provide support to strengthen the MEC’s complaint management processes, in-line with the institution’s Strategic Plan priorities and the establishment of a Legal Unit.
• Strengthen the MEC’s planning and formulation of CVE activities in preparation for candidate nomination and the inspection exercise.
• Provide assistance to the MEC in conducting its financial reviews and revisions.
• Assist in the development of key messages, coordination of CSOs involved in CVE and related information materials.
Financial Section
All financial data presented in this report is provisional. From UNDP Bureau of Management/Office of Finance and Administration, an annual certified financial statement as of 31 December will be submitted every year no later than 30 June of the following year.
Table 1: Funding Overview and Expenditure Status as at 31st December 2013
[pic]
[pic]
Annexes
Annex I: Performance Tracking Matrix
|Result/Goals |Performance Indicators |Baseline Info |Performance Benchmark and Targets |Progress in Quarter |
|Output 1: |Indicator1: Progress in establishing a|Baseline: No policy |Target: Board of Commissioners issue policy-level |1. Decision on Voter Registration |
|Electoral policy and regulatory|policy framework for tripartite |instruments in place |instruments |2. Decision on nomination fee discount for female |
|environment is harmonized and |elections | |MOV: MEC official records |candidates. |
|stabilized | | | |3. Decision on use of bank deposits for nomination fees. |
| |Indicator2: Number of Codes of Conduct|Baseline: 0 |Target: 4 (Code of Conduct: PP, CSO, EO and Media) |1. CSO |
| |revised and updated | |MOV: MEC official records |2. Media |
| | | | |3. Political Parties |
| |Indicator 3: Progress in MEC using |Baseline: No codified |Target: MEC uses codified instruments to effectively |1. CVE Working Group ToR |
| |formalized inter-institutional |arrangements in place |manage inter-institutional arrangements |2. MoU with NICE |
| |arrangements | |MOV: Number of MoUs or similar instruments | |
|Output 2: |Indicator: Percentage of agreed |Baseline: Not yet started |Target: 60% |1. Voter registration completed on schedule. |
|Technical and institutional |Strategic Plan activities achieved on | |MOV: Records of technical committee; Official reports |2. Conduct of NECOF meetings |
|capacity of MEC strengthened |schedule. | | | |
| |Indicator: Level of MEC’s |Baseline: Low |Target: MEC uses contingency and risk planning tools. |1. Applied in Voter Registration process – reduction of |
| |preparedness in responding to change. | |MOV: MEC operation planning documents. |phases from 10 to 9. |
|Output 3: |Indicator: Percentage of achievement |Baseline: Not available |Target: 90% |1. 94.1% of projected eligible voters registered in |
|Organization and management of |for MEC’s target of registering | |MOV: MEC Official records |preliminary data. |
|elections enhanced |eligible voters. | | | |
| | | | | |
| |Indicator: Number of High Court |Baseline: Not available. |Target: Less than 10. |Not applicable in period. |
| |challenges to MEC’s decisions on | |MOV: MEC official records | |
| |candidate nomination determinations. | | | |
| |Indicator: Percentage of null and void|Baseline: PPE (2009) 4.6% |Target: PPE (2014) 3.5% or less. |Not applicable in period. |
| |ballots. | |MOV: MEC Official records | |
| |Indicator: Percentage of milestones of|Baseline: Calendar not yet |Target: 80% of milestones. |90% |
| |the electoral calendar achieved on |published. | | |
| |schedule. | | | |
| |MOV: Technical Committee minutes. | | | |
|Output 4: |Indicator: Number of DP Contribution |Baseline: 0 |Target: At least 3 |3. |
|Effective and efficient |Agreements signed by end of Q2, 2013 | |MOV: Official UNDP records. | |
|management, partnership | | | | |
|formation and monitoring and | | | | |
|evaluation of the Project. | | | | |
| |Indicator: Project delivery rate. |Baseline: Not yet available |Target: 85% |Progressive indicator. |
| | | |MOV: Official UNDP records. |Procurement orders placed with expenditures to occur in |
| | | | |Q1, Q2 (2014) |
| |Indicator: HACT Micro-assessment |Baseline: Significant High |Target: Medium Risk |Progressive. |
| |rating. |Risk |MOV: HACT Assessment rating. | |
Annex II: Risk Log:
|Risk ID |Description |Type |Impact and Probability |Countermeasures |Status |
|9 |Abuse of state resources in |Political |Abuse of state resources in campaigning |MEC disseminates regulations on campaigning and penalizes |Escalated: (Aug 2013) probability has |
| |campaigning | |undermines a level playing field, and |offenders. |increased with the competitiveness of the |
| | | |undermines the legitimacy of the election. |Advocacy by Project and all partners. |election that parties may seek to employ State|
| | | |P = 4; I = 4 |Monitoring by election observers. |resources to support their campaign efforts. |
| | | |Rating: 16 | |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
|10 |Insufficient resources for |Financial |MEC is unable to implement reforms and |Budget management considers strategic plan requirements. |No Change |
| |Strategic Plan and | |institutional development in the |UNDP advocates for GoM and DPs to make long-term |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
| |institutional reforms | |post-election period, undermining its |investments. | |
| | | |sustainability. | | |
| | | |P = 3; I = 5 | | |
| | | |Rating: 15 | | |
|12 |Key election activities are |Operational |Public or private sector industrial action |MEC planning assesses contingencies. |No Change |
| |held hostage by industrial | |cripples or delays key election processes. |Intra and inter-institutional consultation. |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
| |action | |P = 3; I = 5 |Stakeholders and partners are mobilized to free processes.| |
| | | |Rating: 15 | | |
|3 |Lack of funds to support |Financial |Partner institutions of the MEC are unable |MoUs are established between the MEC and other |De-escalated: (Aug 2013) GoM has prioritized |
| |implementation of partner | |to fund their activities in connection with|institutions to establish accountability. |election related activities across |
| |institutions at the required | |the election process. |Budget tracking and operational planning identify |institutions. |
| |level due to financial | |P=3; I = 4 |contingency plans. |Escalated: (Oct 2013) Cash Gate Impact across |
| |fluctuations or constraints. | |Rating: 12 | |GoM institutions and DP funding levels |
| | | | | |reduced. (Probability increased). |
| | | | | |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
|5 |Election related violence |Political |Political competitors and/or voters are |Dispute resolution mechanisms implemented. |Escalated: (Aug 2013) increasing |
| | | |intimidated or suffer violence in the |MoU and communications with security forces. |competitiveness around the election process |
| | | |process, undermining the impacting on the |Monitoring by election observers. |has increased probability. |
| | | |credibility and legitimacy of the results. |UNDP Peace Architecture Programme. |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
| | | |P = 3; I = 4 | | |
| | | |Rating: 12 | | |
|8 |Low capacity of CSOs and Media |Operational |Low voter turnout and an uninformed |MEC disseminates accreditation criteria early in the |De-escalated: (Aug 2013) impact has been |
| |to carry out CVE and | |electorate, undermining legitimacy of the |process. |reduced by demonstration of MEC and NICE to |
| |observation, and impartial | |process and the participation of women, |MEC disseminates regulations and codes of conduct. |collaborate effectively to deliver CVE. |
| |reporting. | |youth and other groups. |Capacity gaps are identified early. |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
| | | |P = 3; I = 4 |Advocacy by the Project and all partners. | |
| | | |Rating: 12 |DPs support CSO and media development. | |
|15 |Suspension of IFMIS |Financial |Continued IFMIS suspension effects budget |MoF fulfils commitment to re-establish IFMIS by 1 Nov |Added. (Oct 2013) Risk introduced. |
| | | |management, transaction delays and timely |2013. |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review, *as IFMIS is |
| | | |reporting. |Manual systems employed as interim solution. |only partially at time of review risk was |
| | | |P = 2; I = 5 | |maintained). |
| | | |Rating: 10 | | |
|4 |Critical path decision making |Operational |Delays in critical decision making |Project management structures put in place. Impact |De-escalated: (Aug 2013) Steering and |
| |is delayed. | |jeopardize normative operational planning |analysis on critical path delays. Ensure staffing in key |Technical Committees in place. |
| | | |schedules and procurement activities. |areas. Fast tracking of key components. |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
| | | |P = 2; I = 4 |Liaison with DPs and stakeholders. | |
| | | |Rating: 8 | | |
|7 |Lack of political will to |Political |Political actors do not engage or support |Maintain and encourage an open dialogue at all levels. |Escalated: (Aug 2013) increased |
| |ensure credible and genuine | |the electoral process. |UNDP Political Party Development Programme. |competitiveness of elections has increased the|
| |elections. | |P = 2; I = 4 | |probability of risk. |
| | | |Rating: 8 | |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review, *Reassess post|
| | | | | |primaries) |
|13 |Funding shortfalls affect the |Financial |Funding gaps affect the ability of UNDP to |Discussions with donors to prioritize funding |No Change |
| |ability to deliver outputs. | |deliver Project outputs and activities. |requirements. Recalibration of outputs and activities |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
| | | |P=2; I=4 |against available resources. | |
| | | |Rating: 8 | | |
|6 |MEC’s planned organizational |Operational |Affects operational assumptions and |Dedicated and continued technical assistance to the MEC. |De-escalated: (Aug 2013) progress on internal |
| |changes are delayed or internal| |commensurate planning, impacting on |MEC’s leadership and management. |changes has reduced impact. |
| |resistance to change arises. | |implementation timelines. |Regular assessment and tracking of operational benchmarks,|No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
| | | |P = 2; I = 3 |as early warning. | |
| | | |Rating: 6 | | |
|2 |Election budget and operation |Financial |DP funding to support the election process |DPs urge GoM to disseminate documents. |De-escalated: (Aug 2013) Steering and |
| |plan is not shared with DPs in | |is delayed, adversely affecting planning, |DPs expedite process to review and assess |Technical Committee structures have reduced |
| |a timely manner | |procurement and implementation. | |probability of occurrence. |
| | | |P =1; I = 4 | |No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review) |
| | | |Rating: 4 | | |
16Multiple Registration.OperationalMultiple registrants in the voter registration exercise undermine credibility of the process.
P=2; I=2
Rating: 4MEC refers cases for prosecution.
MoJ encouraged to impose harsh penalties.
Media management.
Inspection exercise.
Anti-fraud protocols at polling.Added: (Oct 2013) Risk introduced.
No Change (Nov 2013, TC Review)1Legal reforms to the election framework for tripartite elections are not enacted in May/June 2013Political The legal framework does not support tripartite elections, or is delayed and adversely affects operational planning.
P = 3; I = 2
Rating: 6MEC provides inputs to parliamentary discussions. MEC regulations used.
Development Partners communicate with national actors.De-escalated: (Aug 2013) several critical amendments were passed. Amendments remain for November session of the National Assembly, which will improve the process but impact is reduced.
Risk Retired (Nov 2013, TC Review)11Section 65 by-elections are requiredOperational MEC’s preparations to conduct tripartite elections are severely disrupted by by-elections and limited resources are expended
P=1; I = 5
Rating: 5MEC operational planning is able to explain the impact of the decision on the preparations for tripartite elections.
Advocacy by Project and all stakeholders to ensure an informed decision is made.De-escalated: (Aug 2013) Probability that Section 65 by-elections is reduced as general elections draw closer.
Risk Retired: (Nov 2013) Feasibility and cost of S65 by-elections makes execution untenable.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.