EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARIS DECLARATION ON AID EFFECTIVENESS

1. EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARIS DECLARATION ON AID EFFECTIVENESS Presentation prepared for DAC Network on Aid Evaluation Paris, 27 June 2007 by Niels Dabelstein

2. Key elements of the evaluation • The commitments entered into by the signatories of the Paris Declaration pose a very important challenge for the evaluation community which needs to be addressed in a joint fashion. • Four track approach suggested: • Development of a common evaluation framework • Country-led country level evaluations • Donor –led HQ level evaluations evaluations • A medium to long term programme of analytical work. • Intermediate results should feed into the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2008. Outcome evaluation should feed into HLF 2010.

3. Steps taken until now • June - October 2005: Preliminary consultations with the DAC Network on Development Evaluation and the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness and its Joint Venture on Monitoring of the Paris Declaration (JV-MPD). • November 2005 – March 2006 : An options paper and a literature review was developed. • March – June 2006: The DAC Network and the WP-EFF and JV-MPD discussed the draft options paper and endorsed steps to move forward. • September – October 2006: Consultations at Sub-Saharan, Latin American and Asian Workshop, on Aid Effectiveness • March 2007 First meeting of the Reference Group for the Evaluation discussed Framework ToR for the evaluation • April – May 2007 Framework TOR and Generic TOR approved • June 2007 Inception Workshop in Copenhagen

4. A joint evaluation • Partner countries and donors develop evaluation framework jointly • Country level evaluations led by partner countries and managed in-country • Partner countries participate in evaluation of donors • Joint Reference Group and overall management

5. Country-led country evaluations Building directly on the joint monitoring activities already undertaken and other knowledge readily available asses changes in behaviour of all partners. To be designed within the common evaluation framework to ensure comparability and aggregation of findings, but with sufficient flexibility to allow for country specificities and interests. Each evaluation should be managed in-country, led by the government, or an independent body, supported by a reference group comprising interested donors and other stakeholders. Bangladesh ,Bolivia, Mali, Philippines, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Viet Nam, Zambia

6. Country level evaluations • the utility of the Paris Declaration itself as a tool for aid effectiveness; • the change of donor behaviour in terms of alignment of their systems and procedures to implement the PD commitments; • the change of partner behaviour, with ownership as the key entry-point; and • emerging results

7. Donor HQ level evaluations Looking at the way in which the Paris Declaration is finding expression in policies, strategies and incentives across a sample of donor organisations. To be designed within the common evaluation framework to ensure comparability and aggregation of findings, but with sufficient flexibility to allow for country specificities and interests. Each evaluation should be managed by the donor, or an independent body, supported by a reference group comprising relevant stakeholders including partner countries. Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, UNDP, (Spain, Sweden)

8. Donor HQ level evaluations • Level of leadership and commitment as expressed in policies and strategies; • Development of capacities as expressed in guidelines, procedures, staff training, resources and delegation of authority (to field level); • Conducive incentive systems: RBM, HRD.and disincentives (transaction costs)

9. A medium to long term programme of thematic Studies Drawing together and critically evaluatefindings from a variety of sources with a bearing upon the common framework. This work to be coordinated with the work of the JV-MPD and the Medium Term Monitoring Plan to avoid any risk of duplication and to ensure value added. • Links between aid effectiveness and development effectiveness • Technical Cooperation • (Untying of aid) • (Fragile states) • (Cross Cutting Issues) • (Civil society)

10. A Synthesis report Drawing together findings and lessons from the country and donor level evaluations as well as the thematic studies. To be presented to the 2008 HLF in Accra

11. Managing the evaluation Reference Group: • Members of the DAC Network on Development Evaluation, • Partner country members of the WP-EFF/JV-MPD, • Multilaterals and CSOs Co-chaired by Vietnam and Denmark The Reference Group will: • Endorse the evaluation framework and selection of thematic studies • Comment on Terms of Reference for component studies and on the draft synthesis report

12. Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Ireland Japan The Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden United Kingdom UNDP World Bank OECD/DAC EURODAD Bangladesh Bolivia Cambodia Mali Morocco Nicaragua Philippines Senegal South Africa Sri Lanka Uganda Viet Nam Zambia Reality of Aid AFREA Reference Group

13. Managing the evaluation Management Group: Denmark, Netherlands, South Africa, UNDP, Vietnam, Responsible for: • Developing the overall evaluation framework and generic ToR • Coordinating and managing the joint evaluation process • Guiding the component studies, • Developing and managing the thematic Studies and the synthesis of findings and recommendations. The Reference Group and Management Group is supported by a small secretariat (Danida).

14. Funding the evaluation Funding The cost of developing of the evaluation framework, the medium to long term programme of thematic studies, the synthesis report as well as meetings, workshops, reporting, dissemination etc. will be financed from a central pool or trust fund (app. $ 2 Mil). The cost of country (max $ 180.000) and donor (max $ 100.000) evaluations should be borne by the donors and partner countries involved. All country studies are now supported be one or two donors:

15. 2007 Jan – Mar Agree Evaluation Framework Mar – Apr Develop specific terms of reference for country level and donor evaluations. Apr - May Develop programme of thematic studies June - Aug Contract evaluators Sept – Nov Country and Donor evaluations Nov – Dec Preliminary Synthesis of C and D evaluations 2008 Jan Workshop on initial findings Jan – Apr Synthesis of component evaluations and other material September 3rd High Level Forum in Accra Aug – Sep Develop follow up study programme 2008 – 2010 Nov – Follow up summative studies – to be decided Timetable

16. Bangladesh Bolivia Mali Philippines Senegal South Africa Sri Lanka Uganda Viet Nam Zambia Japan Spain Belgium Japan Canada US UNDP Austria Denmark & UK Netherlands and Ireland Partners