Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy

Mr Bernard Bot (President of the Board): ‘The conclusions and challenges of this report confirm our belief in NIMDs approach and enable us to move forward in developing a long term vision.‘

The evaluation focused on answering 2 questions:

1. What are the effects of capacity building activities financed by Dutch funds?
2. What are the added value of NIMDs mandate, the appropriateness of NIMDs methodology and the effectiveness and efficiency of the institutional framework within which the mandate is implemented?

Added value of NIMD

The report concludes that especially NIMDs methodology and also its mandate ‘adds value to the sector of democracy support’ and that ‘with its concept of multiparty dialogue, NIMD has helped to innovate the sector’.

Conclusions of the report:

• NIMD is capable of delivering results that are visible and appreciated both in the field and by external stakeholders;
• NIMD is genuinely demand driven, dares to take risks, is flexible and respectful of its partners and its approach leaves space for local actors to manage the change processes;
• The results have allowed for the development of a home-grown agenda for change in each of the countries NIMD is active in.

Challenges

It also mentions a number of main findings, lessons learned and challenges. In recent months, these recommendations were included in the formulation of a reorganization plan, which was implemented on 1 March 2011. They will also be incorporated in a new multi-annual plan for 2012-2015.

Challenges according to the report:

• More focus on deepening existing initiatives, maintaining quality control and building up its knowledge base;
• Clearer and more consistent guidelines for program management and a framework for monitoring and evaluation, strengthening links between the various divisions and more strategic leadership;
• A closer connection of decision making processes by streamlining information and communication;
• A clear "theory of change", serving as a foundation for making consistent decisions and formulating starting points for the initiation and implementation of the programs;
• A stronger promotion of NIMDs methodology and tools as a conduit for financing multiparty dialogues (although it must be underlined that it’s difficult to have donors finance programs that strengthen political parties, as it is seen to be risky);
• Although the usefulness and necessity of the ‘hybrid’ structure of NIMD is seen as relevant, there is room for improvement in the alignment of the roles of party coordinator and policy officer as well as in the effectiveness of the use of party experts.

In the coming years NIMD aims to further deepen en improve its programs, while continuing to invest in the strengthening of the organization itself.