Dr. Thania Paffenholz Oslo 14 February 2011 Evaluation: The German Civil Peace Service Presentation of Key Policy Lessons Welcome, Thanks for opportunity, Explain: Relevance of CPS for CPPB field: 1. Civil Society Support important pillar of international peacebuilding 2. The German CPS shows many strengths and weaknesses of characteristic civil society peacebuilding support 3. Evaluation conducted in 8 countries in different phases of conflict/peacebuilding 3. Interesting + innovative combination of evaluation approaches Dr. Thania Paffenholz Oslo 14 February 2011

Content What is the German Civil Peace Service? Evaluation Information Key findings/conclusions Policy Lessons

1. The German Civil Peace Service Focus: Civil Society Peacebuilding Institutional set-up: Instrument of BMZ (Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany) Joint programme executed by German GO + NGOs Started in 1999 Modus: Deployment of European Experts to national and local CSOs Funding of local experts and project activities Operational in 50 countries 583 experts deployed Overall budget 194 Mio Euros

2. Evaluation Information I. Programme evaluation in Germany and 8 countries of operations commissioned by BMZ Period under evaluation: 1999-2010 Evaluation duration: June 2009-April 2011 Goal: Learning + Accountability Process/Phases reflects 2 goals: Inception Self-evaluation Pilot case study Case studies Syntheses Quality control Follow up

3.Evaluation Information II Combination of Evaluation Approaches Overall: Utilisation-focus + Real World Effectiveness assessment (key challenge): Results-based Outcome-oriented Theory/Research based Criteria Used: DAC Eval criteria + Policy Coherence, Complementarity, Coordination NOT found useful as additional criteria: Linkages, Coverage, Values => is part of Relevance or/and Effectiveness ‘Big picture’, because is covered under Policy Coherence

3. Key findings/conclusions Strategy CPS programme to be continued as it is a relevant complementary instrument BUT substantial changes required Overall Profile of Instrument weak Strategic gap needs to be closed (e.g. Country Strategies) Operational Better Mix of cooperation modalities + flexibility in way Expert Deployment is conducted Many localised results not sufficiently impacting on broader CPPB Effective Programmes and projects showed high level of horizontal and vertical linkages Mainstreaming of Gender and sustainability weak Management and Admin Results-based monitoring and implementation weak but started Admin procedures not fully supportive of programme goals Steering capacity in Ministry needs to be strengthened

4. Policy Lessons I Civil Society Peacebuilding necessary but not sufficient -> part of coherent strategy CPPB work needs to be Context-specific Conflict Analysis not enough Understanding of peacebuilding needs key Analysis MUST be linked with implementation! Integrating future scenarios/trends essential Ongoing conflict monitoring a must BASELINE studies for specific focus/sector of intervention required

4. Policy Lessons II Programme designs for REACH Clear focus + Linking grass-roots, national and int. level (ex. Cambodia) Working with established institutions + key CS actors that can take over + have power to socialise people Work with innovative groups and organisations Combining project activities with dissemination strategies Strategic partnering between peace and dev orgs Results-based management

4. Policy Lessons EVAL Evaluating Effectiveness of CPPB under data constraints remains a key Challenge Pressure to produce concrete eval results besides weak data set remains high Reconstructing baselines is often a myth Reconstructing theories of change is possible BUT .. Innovative combination of eval approaches needed (results, outcome + theory and /research) Forget about Impact Assessment for CPPB??? 3C: Policy Coherence, Complementarity, Coordination are essential Criteria for CPPB work in all levels