1 Evaluation of the Paris Declaration Presentation by Niels Dabelstein Head, PD Evaluation Secretariat At IDEAS Global Assembly Amman, 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 outcomes 2. Process and intermediate outcomes 1. Context COUNTRY STUDIES DONOR STUDIES SUPPLEMENTARY STUDIES

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 Studies Phase 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 2006MarchOptions Paper 2007March1st Reference Group meeting, Paris – Eval. Framework agreed June2nd Ref. Group meeting, Copenhagen – Launch of Phase Feb.3rd. Ref. Group Meeting, South Africa – Emerging Findings March4th Ref. Group Meeting, Paris - draft Synthesis report JunePhase 1 Synthesis Report Sept.3rd HLF in Accra, Ghana – Completion Phase Feb.1st Ref. Group meeting, Auckland – Phase 2 Approach Approved Dec. 2nd Ref. Group Meeting, Paris – Launch of Phase Dec.3rd Ref. Group Meeting, Bali – Emerging Findings 2011April4th Ref. Group Meeting, Copenhagen - Phase 2 Draft Synthesis Report June Phase 2 Synthesis Report Nov.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