3rd Interim report September 2011- March 2012.pdf - Renanetwork.org

Interim Report, No 3, 19 September 2011 – 18 March 2012
implement the project.
Commitment of the project
beneficiaries and partner
institutions to apply the results
A high level of involvement,
cooperation and participation
of all the stakeholders,
including CSOs and IFIs
Willingness of sectors within
the public administrations of
partner countries to cooperate
with their colleagues in other
sectors, like environment
High level of institutional
stability without major shifts in
responsibilities of ministries
and other institutes, or shifts of
key staff involved in the
project implementation
previously established with REReP and ECENA. Altogether no relevant
problems concerning participation are to be reported.
Commitment to work with the project results is equally important as
producing them. The reports produced are further used in the beneficiary
countries for generation of further outcomes.
RENA to a high extent continues the paths of REReP and ECENA. Both
have operated as successful networks for many years with a high level of
involvement of all stakeholders.
So far, the involvement of CSOs in all the activities of the project and the
involvement of IFIs, mainly in the activities of the WG1 are being
established to the high extent and it is expected that this level will be
maintained during the lifetime of the project.
The will to cooperate between different sectors of public administration is a
crucial success factor for most government action around the globe. The
sectors covered by the RENA working groups are in most beneficiary
countries shared by several ministries. In most of the cases different sectors
in the public administration are willing to cooperate. This has been
demonstrated especially with the implementation of Activity 1.5 Progress
Monitoring and Activities implemented under WG 2.
Project implementation has been conducted so far in more or less stable
environment. Continuity has been established and enable building up
ownership and the use of the project results. In some of the countries
(Turkey and Montenegro), changes of Focal Points and WG Coordinators
have occurred, however without strong impact on the project
implementation.
4.2 Risks
The main risks of this contract are the following:
• Lack of co-operation by stakeholders;
• Carrying out activities with little added value with regard to what has already been done, in
particular by REReP;
• Lack of effective coordination and interaction with on-going activities related to the subject
matter of the contract resulting in overlaps, confusion and wasting of valuable resources; in
order to minimise this risk, an effective coordination with related programmes and other
donor activities must be implemented during the contract (see section 1.5);
• Lack of political commitment;
• Involved stakeholders are not sufficiently stable;
• Partner countries have insufficient interest and institutional capacity to provide (proper) data
or delegate qualified staff to the network activities;
• Partner countries have insufficient capacity to make use of the project results;
• Lack of will of sectors in the public administrations to cooperate with their colleagues in
other sectors, like environment;
• Different levels or speeds of involved countries in their approximation to the environmental
acquis;
• Language barriers.
Human Dynamics Consortium 69