1

Evaluation of the Paris Declaration

Presentation by Niels Dabelstein

Head, PD Evaluation SecretariatAt

IDEAS Global AssemblyAmman, 11-15 April 2011

2

Why Evaluate the Paris Declaration?

• Focuses on what has been achieved and what has not – and why – the key questions at HLF 4 and for the post-PD era

• Evaluation, with Monitoring, is built into the Declaration itself and reflects its principles.

• The Accra Agenda for Action called specifically for an evaluation of the implementation and effects of the PD

• Adds value to the Monitoring Survey and feeds into the High Level Forums in 2008 (phase 1) and 2011 (phase 2 synthesis)

3

The Key Evaluation Questions

1. “What are the important factors that have affected the relevance and implementation of the Paris Declaration and its potential effects on aid effectiveness and development results?” (The Paris Declaration in context)

2. “To what extent and how has the implementation of the Paris Declaration led to an improvement in the efficiency of aid delivery, the management and use of aid and better partnerships?” (Process and intermediate outcomes)

3. “Has the implementation of the Paris Declaration strengthened the contribution of aid to sustainable development results? How?” (Development outcomes)

4

A joint evaluation

• Based on the principles of the Paris Declaration: partner countries and development partners develop the evaluation framework/approach and execute the evaluation jointly

• The evaluation itself is a tool for mutual accountability:

– 22 Country-level evaluations led by partner countries and managed in-country (Phase 1=7, Phase 2=21)

– 18 Donor/agency HQ studies (phase 1=11, Phase 2=7)

5

Governance, management and implementation

• International Reference Group (50-plus reps. of governments, international Organizations and CSOs. Co-chaired by Malawi and Sweden)

• Management Group (Colombia, Malawi, Netherlands, Sweden, US, Vietnam)

• Evaluation Secretariat at DIIS• National/Agency Reference Groups and Evaluation

Coordinators • National/Agency Evaluation Teams (with specified

recruitment criteria, and common generic ToRs)• Core Evaluation Team (6 Members, from Canada, Denmark,

Nigeria, Peru, Sri Lanka and the UK + resource persons)• High Level Peer Reviewers: Dr. Mary Chinery-Hesse and Mr.

Mark Malloch Brown.

6

Building blocks of the Evaluation

SYNTHESIS

PDE PHASE 1 RESULTS + Monitoring Information

EVALUATION QUESTIONS

3. Development outcomes2. Process and intermediate outcomes1. Context

COUNTRY STUDIES

DONOR STUDIES

SUPPLEMENTARYSTUDIES

7

Phase 2 Country Evaluations & Donor Studies

8

Country level evaluations

• The utility of the Paris Declaration itself as a tool for aid effectiveness

• The change of donors’ behaviour in terms of alignment of their systems and procedures to implement the PD commitments

• The change of partner country behaviour, with ownership as the key entry-point

• Has the implementation of the Paris Declaration strengthened the contribution of aid to sustainable development results? How?

Country Evaluations

• Afghanistan• Bangladesh• Benin• Bolivia • Cambodia• Cameroon • Colombia• Cook Islands• Ghana • Indonesia• Malawi

• Mali• Mozambique• Nepal• Philippines• Samoa• Senegal• South Africa• (Sri Lanka)• Uganda• Vietnam • Zambia

10

Donor HQ level Studies

• Level of leadership and commitment as expressed in policies and strategies

• Capacity development as expressed in guidelines, procedures, staff training, resources and delegation of authority (to field level)

• Conducive incentive systems: RBM, HRD• In country evaluations, questions of interest to a

particular donor can be added or, for some, ‘mirror questions’

Donor Agency HQ StudiesPhase 1• Asian Development Bank • Australia • Denmark • Finland• France • Germany• Luxemburg• Netherlands• New Zealand • UK • UNDP/UNEG

Phase 2• Austria• Japan• Ireland• Spain• Sweden• USA• African Development Bank

12

Supplementary Studies

• Support to Statistical Capacity Building• The Applicability of the PD in Fragile and Conflict-

affected Situations• Untying of Aid: Is it Working?• The PD, Aid Effectiveness and Development

Effectiveness• Development Resources Beyond the Current Reach

of the PD

13

Team Configurations

14

PD Evaluation Milestones• 2006 March Options Paper• 2007 March 1st Reference Group meeting, Paris – Eval.

Framework agreedJune 2nd Ref. Group meeting, Copenhagen –

Launch of Phase 1• 2008 Feb. 3rd. Ref. Group Meeting, South Africa – Emerging Findings

March 4th Ref. Group Meeting, Paris - draft Synthesis reportJune Phase 1 Synthesis ReportSept. 3rd HLF in Accra, Ghana – Completion Phase 1

• 2009 Feb. 1st Ref. Group meeting, Auckland – Phase 2 Approach Approved

Dec. 2nd Ref. Group Meeting, Paris – Launch of Phase 2 • 2010 Dec. 3rd Ref. Group Meeting, Bali – Emerging Findings• 2011 April 4th Ref. Group Meeting, Copenhagen - Phase 2 Draft Synthesis

ReportJune Phase 2 Synthesis ReportNov. 4th HLF in Busan, Korea – Completion Phase 2

15

Phase 1 Key Findings

• A political, not only technical, agenda for action• Context is fundamental• A shared agenda with some divergences and

variation in expectations and use of the Declaration ‘statement of intent’ or ‘non-negotiable decree’?

• Main issue is capacity and confidence in national systems

• Need for clarification and recognition of limits of monitoring indicators

• Need to treat ‘transaction costs’ seriously

16

Phase 1 Key Findings

• Perceived as prescriptive on countries, less on donors• Mainly clear to ‘inner circles’ (ministries of Finance

and Planning): broad engagement needed• Different perceptions on transaction costs and benefits

in the short/long run• The PD is not the answer to pressing substantive

development issues: pressing policy themes not covered

• Faster movement from rhetoric to action needed to retain PD’s credibility

Phase 2• The PD has contributed to increasing aid

effectiveness – but not as much as envisaged – and unevenly across principles, countries and donors.

• The PD has made some contribution to better development results.

• The PD and Accra agendas remain unfinished

• The 4th HLF needs to find innovative ways to secure political engagement and set future directions

18

Further reference

All documents can be found on

www.oecd.org/dac/evaluationnetwork/pde