Serbia
Assessment of development results
Over the period 2001−2005, UNDP programme activity in Serbia has focused on the four main areas of crisis prevention (especially in southern Serbia), poverty and economic development, governance and institutional development (including judicial reform), and human security. The design and effectiveness of UNDP-supported programmes in these areas has relied heavily on development partnerships with Government and especially funding donors. This has required intensive ongoing coordination with donors, Government, other UN agencies, civil society and a range of other stakeholders.
Discussion points on partnerships
As the development situation in Serbia and Montenegro moves from post-crisis to development and EU accession, the two republics’ Governments and their development partners will face an increasingly complex and interdependent set of development issues that can only be tackled by more cooperative, integrated and coordinated dialogue and focused approaches.
Management of UNDP assistance
UNDP’s programme strategies from 2001−2005 identified what was to have been accomplished – the results, outcomes and eventual impacts. Their success or effectiveness depended on how they were implemented: that is, management. An assessment of development results would not be complete without looking at the management dimensions of UNDP assistance, which include financial resources to fund programmes and recover implementation costs, human resources, planning and organization, accountability structures, supporting systems and information, monitoring and evaluation. This chapter examines the nature and effectiveness of UNDP management strategies across these various dimensions.
Introduction
A decade of regional warfare, intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the authoritarian policies of the Milošević regime devastated Serbia, politically and economically. It also led to the suspension of virtually all international cooperation and isolated the country from the international community. The democratic transition since 2000 has been shaped by Serbia’s long-term goal of membership in the European Union (EU). Reforms have been under way over this period, and there have been successes in respect to economic reform, growth and stability, coherent policy evolution, improvements in the legislative framework and social sectors. However, much remains to be done.
National challenges and strategies
Serbia’s democratic transition, which started with the ouster of Slobodan Milošević in 2000, has been shaped by its long-term goal of membership in the European Union. But en route to EU accession, Serbia continues to face challenges rooted in regional instability, the unresolved status of Kosovo, poverty, and the legacy of the recent history of conflict – all of which culminated in the assassination of Serbia’s prime minister in 2003. Political fragmentation and social division continue to impede the republic’s development. Moreover, the recent decision by Montenegro to leave the state union with Serbia will present challenges of another kind.
Executive summary
A decade of regional warfare during the 1990s, intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the authoritarian policies of the Milošević regime left Serbia socially, politically and economically devastated. Virtually all international cooperation ceased and Serbia became isolated from the international community. With the overthrow of the Milošević regime in 2000, the process of democratic reform began, bringing with it a certain degree of success in terms of economic growth and stability. However, the transition brought with it a number of costs, such as increased unemployment and widening inequality.
Foreword
This report presents an Assessment of Development Results (ADR) in Serbia. The ADR is an independent evaluation conducted by the Evaluation Office of UNDP. It assesses the relevance and strategic positioning of UNDP’s support and its contributions to a country’s development over a given period of time. The aim of the ADR is to generate lessons for strengthening country-level programming and contribute to the organization’s effectiveness and substantive accountability.