1 An Assessment of the First Three Years Consultative Group meeting Brussels 8 October 2002 Development Planning Unit

2 Problems of method premature judgement in terms of impact need to develop robust indicators for evaluation in the process of evaluating, turning aims into what can be assessed using these indicators to test: relevance efficacy efficiency in achieving the aims

3 Context and development CA developed very swiftly as: a successful mechanism to change the climate of opinion on urban poverty through slum upgrading city development strategies a vehicle for the funding of innovative proposals in these two fields recruitment of a multiplicity of partners (CG) which became the governing council of the CA

4 Raised problems CG could not properly fulfil its original role as a public policy forum, nor was it equipped to supervise the Secretariat the role of the learning alliance was as a result neglected

5 Remedies were spin off the “external” role of public policy forum to the PAB create a Steering Committee to supervise the work of the Secretariat

6 Allowed the CG to concentrate on the central tasks of creating a learning alliance, an “internal” public policy forum, through: pooling the experience of all the partners in urban development on the two priority themes expanding and aligning, in a complementary fashion, the programmes and experience of all the partners seeking to further enhance collaboration between the partners evaluating the lessons of this multi-agency experience, particularly that of cities in developing countries disseminating the lessons of best practice, and supporting the appropriate capacity-building to strengthen cities

7 Current challenge Target audience and the source of learning are the cities of the developing countries with a focus on the poorest cities (who show a capacity to change) city managers NGOs and slum dwellers associations slum-dwellers themselves The style of the CA has to be transformed for this much larger task

8 The central tasks of the CG become evaluation combining the respective capacities of all the partners to identify best practice in SU and CDSs dissemination on a mass basis and an ‘indigenised’ form (cheap publications; web sites) capacity building move from funding projects to financing the capacity for cities to undertake projects – i.e. major programme in training

9 Local Government Associations are central to this shift of direction great experience and expertise among their members direct links to the cities LGAs have other central responsibilities so special efforts are required e.g. exchange of staff joint-evaluation of LGA experience creation of registers of experts from the LGAs strengthening of in-country LGAs. Importance of supporting in-country CAs as the base for local evaluation, dissemination and capacity building. key role of strengthened in-country LGA. in-country donor offices vital part of national CAs to encourage alignment of urban development programmes, collaboration and mutual support. NGOs also a valuable part of local CAs.

10 The Secretariat should be less concerned with the volume of projects funded, more emphasis on: quality innovation in the context of the urban development programs of all the partners prioritising cities – e.g. the poorest facilitating the preparation of applications

11 Other points A detailed review of the projects undertaken is presented. Need for a review of the range of CDSs (not only CA supported) to identify what has been useful and sustainable