Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the working methods of public institutions. The urgency to respond in real time loosened institutional constraints and forced public agencies to be more agile and to experiment with alternative ways to operate, accelerating innovation. Beyond the implementation of buffer measures to maintain essential public services, the crisis provided opportunities for transformations in public administration that would have been challenging to pursue in “normal” times. Although this urgency presented risks of weakening the checks and balances essential for accountability, it also led to the discovery of more efficient and effective ways to deliver public services, and many of these may become the “new normal”. Nevertheless, it is not clear that the agile decision-making, experimentation and innovation observed during the pandemic will persist. This raises the question of how to foster innovation in public institutions in the absence of crises. To retain public trust, governments must demonstrate they can effectively handle systemic shocks; they must demonstrate capacity to foresee problems and address them proactively before they become crises. Governments can tap into the innovations developed during the pandemic to better serve their constituents and accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

In a context marked by declining trust in public institutions and reduced fiscal space in many countries, supreme audit institutions (SAIs) play a key role in strengthening transparency and accountability in public institutions. The mandates of SAIs are generally aimed at promoting the transparency, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the public sector and improving the performance of government institutions. Initially focused on government compliance and financial auditing, SAIs’ mandates have been expanded to assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of public spending and government performance. SAIs can use their mandate to assess government efforts to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), complementing other accountability institutions and actors (such as parliaments, civil society and the media) and governments’ internal monitoring and evaluation systems. Before the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the engagement of SAIs with internationally agreed development goals was limited. Since 2016, this has changed significantly. Individual SAIs at the national level and groups of SAIs working under the umbrella of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) have engaged in supporting the implementation of the SDGs in various ways, including through conducting audits of progress on SDG targets or their national equivalents, as well as audits of national programmes supporting SDG implementation. This work has resulted in tangible impacts on national policies, programmes and institutional arrangements in support of the SDGs. This brief highlights how the work of SAIs is informing SDG implementation, follow up and review. It provides a brief overview of SAIs’ engagement with the SDGs. This is followed by a snapshot of the current work of SAIs on SDGs and of their impacts. Finally, it reflects on the role of SAIs in national SDG follow-up and review systems.

The immediate humanitarian assistance to the people of Ukraine is of utmost importance and at the center of global attention. Early estimates by the Humanitarian Country Team indicate that nearly 30 percent of the population are likely to require life-saving humanitarian assistance. In its current scale and direction, 18 million people are projected to become affected and more than 7 million people internally displaced. The development impacts of the war in Ukraine remain too much below the waterline of public visibility, in Ukraine, regionally and globally. Early UNDP projections suggest that already in the short- to medium term, the development setbacks for Ukraine will be significant. Poverty and inequalities will rise; the country’s economy, its social fabric, and the environment will suffer.

The 2024 war on Lebanon inflicted severe damage and left deep, long-lasting consequences. This report presents a comprehensive analysis of its immediate impacts, and is intended to outline a clear path for immediate recovery and guide medium- and long-term reform efforts. It examines the war’s direct impacts on infrastructure and economic systems, and exposes the heavy human and social toll it has taken. The report also assesses the macroeconomic implications, highlighting the worsening structural challenges and the resulting economic and social risks. It concludes with a set of public policy recommendations that serve as a solid foundation for comprehensive recovery and future-oriented reconstruction.

The post-electoral survey presents the most important facts and results about 2021 Parliamentary Elections. The main purpose of the survey was to measure the impact of civic education campaigns of voters aimed at changes in voters’ perception of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) and the Centre for Continuous Electoral Training (CCET) activity. The data are analyzed in comparison with three other poste-electoral surveys: Presidential Elections held in November 2020, Parliamentary Elections held in February 2019 and Local General Elections held in October 2019. The research was conducted on the basis of a nationally representative sample, covering both rural and urban areas. The target group included the population with the right to vote aged 18 years and over, residing in 314 localities across the country. 70% of questionnaires were developed in Romanian, and 30% in Russian. The sampling error is ± 2.6%. The data were collected in August – September 2021. The opinion survey has been conducted in the framework of the “Enhancing Democracy in Moldova through Inclusive and Transparent Elections” project implemented by UNDP Moldova, with the financial support from the American people provided through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The expressed points of view belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the UNDP, financing institution or Government of the Republic of Moldova.