Review of the Rule of Law Advisory Mission on Moldova (NORLAM)

All the outputs foreseen in the ToR were achieved and the mandator was overall very happy with the work carried out by the review team. Some outcomes were also achieved (see LI form in annex here below) but some others were only partially achieved such as the clarification on the future scope of NORLAM after 2016, the status of a police component and the length of extension of NORLAM. It was recognised however that the ToR were very ambitious and Norway wanted to achieve too much in one review over a short period of time. Prioritisation of the expected outcomes could have been better and communication between ISSAT and Norway when drafting the ToR could have been more intense. The Oslo mission carried out during the planning phase of this mandate was very useful, but it took place a bit too late in the process. The ToR were already approved. However, amendments were still made to the ToR after the Oslo mission which were considered useful.

To help prioritise the ToR, the review team could have also communicated better and earlier on the methodology to be used for the review.

Norway and NORLAM are using the conclusions and the recommendations of the report. It is considered to be very important for them. The report played a major role in the discussion between the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs to decide whether or not to extend NORLAM. Moreover, the NORLAM team organised an internal seminar in mid-September to review the report. They analysed the findings and conclusions and came up with a list of action points. This exercise was considered to be very useful for discussion and ownership of the report. A second internal seminar should take place soon to discuss more in depth the recommendations. In November, the Norwegian Ministry of Justice will visit Moldova to discuss the post-2016 NORLAM, on the basis, among others, of the conclusions and recommendations of the report.

Some recommendations are however considered to be too vague (e.g. what does it mean concretely to develop NORLAM Theory of Change, cf. Recommendation 4). Some others are difficult to follow such as the one on the legal status of NORLAM, because it needs political agreement and decision that are not easy to obtain. Nevertheless, having such recommendations in a written report, done by an external and international actor such as ISSAT, is considered to be very helpful and can be used as a political leverage for discussion with Moldovan authorities.

Lessons identified on output and outcomes:

• Ensure good communication with the mandator during the drafting of the ToR in order to help prioritise the expected outcomes and the scope of the work.
• Try to undertake a scoping mission earlier in the process so that discussions on the ToR can take place with the mandator. Overall the scoping mission is a very useful step in the planning phase of the mandate.
• Include in the ToR a section on the evaluation methodology to be used during the mandate.
• Develop as much as possible concrete recommendations. General recommendations could be unpacked with concrete actions to be considered by the mandator.
• Continue building ISSAT reputation in terms of being a recognised international actor with strong SSR expertise and evaluation methodology.

Capacity building activities were mainly carried out individually, through the participation to the field mission of one staff from Norad. It was clear from the start that someone on the mandator side had to participate to the mandate and it proved to be very useful. The evaluation methodology was not new to the mandator but applying it made the terms and concepts more understandable. The mandate took a structured and systematic approach in collecting and sharing the information, with day-to-day team briefings, planning the interview questions ahead of time, etc. This was considered to be very good. The involvement of Norad staff was limited to the field mission. It could have been better if he would have been involved also during the planning and reporting phases.

The role of ISSAT in terms of capacity building was not clear. It should have been clarified since the beginning in the ToR. NORLAM staff could have benefitted from capacity building activities on the methodology and the use of terms such as output, outcome, impact, etc. Moreover, they do not have the in-house expertise to implement some of the recommendations on strategic planning, project design, etc.

NORLAM staff considered that the ISSAT field mission was very time consuming in terms of planning interviews and logistics. They did not expect that at all and were very busy with their day-to-day work. The mission added a lot of work on top of everything else. Even though the ToR clarifies that “Overall responsibility for co-ordination of the team’s activities on the ground will be provided by NORLAM. i.e. making appointments, providing transport, etc.”, this investment should have been better communicated and someone should have been dedicated to that. There seems to be some confusion on the role of the local expert, part of the review team, in terms of planning and logistics.

It is recognised that time was a big constraint for this mandate. The field mission was very intense with a lot of interviews and only 10 days in Moldova. But this mandate was very well organised and very well led by the team leader. Team members were impressed by that. An additional 2 days on the ground could have been foreseen in order to collect additional information or meet again with some interlocutors to clarify certain issues.

Lessons identified on capacity building:

• Include a staff member from the mandator side since the beginning of the mandate, from the planning to the reporting phase. Clarify her/his role in the ToR as well as capacity building activities to be undertaken during the mandate.
• Propose a workshop on the evaluation methodology to the mandator staff in the field. This could be done in half a day at the beginning of the field mission.
• Clarify and communicate as much as possible on who should plan interviews and take care of the logistics. Recognise that it takes time and plan that well in advance (3 weeks before the deployment of the team in the field).
• If possible, leave two free days at the end of the field mission in order to be flexible to investigate further certain issues and plan additional interviews.

NORLAM is working across most of the criminal justice chain, including the correctional and rehabilitation aspects. This is not in itself entirely a unique approach, but it is considered as rare for a single development partner to have such a wide reaching programme that aims to adopt a holistic approach across the chain. It is worthwhile to consider broader use of such an approach across the world of SSR. NORLAM has the resources and skill sets to work across the chain, including if necessary using the police prosecutor to work with the police. It understands the linkages between the different elements of the chain and has good relationship with all its partners. Working on only one element of the chain can cause imbalances within the chain that undermine the effectiveness of reform efforts and not yield sustainable results. Working on the entire chain requires more support but has higher potential for sustainability.

NORLAM resource pool of rule of law experts from Norway is an interesting modality. The particularity is that all experts are active practitioners in their field – which is also very rare in development programmes in SSR. It is also noteworthy that these experts come from the same country, knowing the same criminal justice system and speaking the same language. Communication among them is easier, than for example in ESDP mission where experts can come from 27 different EU states, with 27 different systems and languages. Communication and understanding the linkages between the different elements of the criminal justice chain is the key to success. Everyone has to stay informed on the others’ work and understand where the delays/misunderstandings in the chain are. 

The resource pool is, as such, not really an innovative modality, but it is interesting in terms of mapping global good practice in SSR to further study the opportunities and challenges that stem from using such a pool and in particular look at the Norwegian experience – including inter-institutional cooperation in Norway, recruitment and availability of staff, and pre-deployment training and selection.

Lessons identified on innovative approaches:

• Resource pool of experts is an interesting modality to explore in the world of SSR. It is not a unique modality but there are ways to enhance its effectiveness.
• Communication and understanding the linkages in the criminal justice chain are key factors for success.