Seite 1 GTZ Independent Evaluation in the Thematic Priority Area “Decentralization” (2008) Overview of Results and Recommendations Implications for Our Work Annual Meeting of the Informal Development Partners Working Group on Decentralization and Local Governance Brussels, May 2011 Rainer Rohdewohld (GIZ)

Seite 2 Page 2 Content  The instrument of „Independent Evaluation“  The 2008 evaluation (decentralization)  Main findings and results  Main recommendations  Reflections:  Implications for our (GIZ) work…  …and for the work of this group!

Seite 3 Page 3 The instrument of Independent Evaluation  Managed by GIZ Evaluation Unit  Conducted by independent institutes/firms  Complements other forms of evaluation & impact assessments  Each year, 1-2 thematic areas selected  So far: Interim & ex-post evaluations  Based on DAC evaluation criteria  Full cycle of implementation: 2-3 years

Seite 4 Page 4 The 2008 Exercise  Two thematic areas: Decentralization, Water  14 projects included under decentralization  Latin America: 5  Africa: 6  Asia: 1  Southern Europe/Central Asia: 2 Out of which  Interim evaluation: 12  Final (ex-post):

Seite 5 Page 5 Main findings and results  Against DAC criteria DAC CriteriaAverage Value Relevance2 Effectiveness2.3 Impact2.7 Efficiency2.6 Sustainablity2.5 Total2.4

Seite 6 Page 6  Success factors:  Multi-level approach  Unambiguous mandate by and close coordination with partner organisation(s)  Focus on capacity development  Promotion of civil society involvement & facilitation of stakeholder interaction  Strengthening of action-oriented local capacity  Preparation of handbooks/guidelines for dissemination beyond project boundaries  Commitment and capacity of partner organisation(s)

Seite 7 Page 7  Constraints/Reasons for failure  Lack of comprehension/analysis of policy context and its underlying dynamics  External events (like elections…)  Weak resource base of partner organisation(s)  Lack of capacity of civil society organisations  Failure to recognise role of sub-national governments in local economic development

Seite 8 Page 8  Other observations  Poverty impacts more noticeable in interventions that include local economic development as a topic  Weakness of analytical preparation (like lack of poverty analysis & gender analysis and the formulation of respective strategies)

Seite 9 Page 9 Main Recommendations  More attention to context analysis in order to understand partner perspective & policy context (Tools? Instruments?)  Scaling-up strategies according to resource capacity of the partner organisation(s)  More intense „policy dialogue“ by BMZ  Improved quantitative values for indicators  More capacity development for intermediaries & local service providers  Stronger focus on CSOs (financing, business model)  If active at local level, include local economic development as a topic

Seite 10 Page 10 Implications for our (GIZ) work…  Overall, satisfactory results….  …but also identification of weaknesses: analytical preparation, harmonization with partner, interaction within German DC system  Dec 2010: senior management decision on action programme until 12/2012 with focus on  Improved impact orientation of interventions  Decentralization & Sector Reform  Political aspects/social & political inclusion  Capacity Development Systems

Seite 11 Page 11 …and for this group?  Issue of political country & context analysis  Design of an analytical frame for connecting governance standards + status of decentralization process + modes of delivery => realistic impact indicators  Dialogue and increased interaction with the sectors („sector decentralization“)

Seite 12 Page 12 Thank you for your attention Rainer Rohdewohld, Planning Advisor Decentralization Deutsche Gesellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)