1. PARIS21 Light Evaluation Report to the Steering Committee meeting in April 2006 on the evaluation and with recommendations on the future of PARIS21, including its orientation, objectives, and priority activities

2. PARIS21 Light Evaluation : Background A sub-group of Steering Committee members (Review Sub- Group) carry out a review of PARIS21 for the years 2004-2005 provide recommendations on the future of PARIS21, its orientation, objectives, and priority activities report back to the Steering Committee meeting in April 2006 on the evaluation and with recommendations on the future of PARIS21

3. PARIS21 Light Evaluation : Methodology Main steps in procedure followed by the Review Sub-Group Propose evaluation questions to facilitator Evaluator/Facilitator to submit an inception report Answer the evaluation questions Approve the report analysis of answers on evaluation questions Report back to the Steering Committee Recommendations on the future of PARIS21

4. PARIS21 Light Evaluation Conclusions 1 A desk research oriented analysis of the outputs and inputs 2004- 2006 of PARIS21 1. The NSDS approach can be considered as successful. 2 a. The funding of the priorities for the PARIS21 secretariat appear to be consistent with the Consortium. b. PARIS21 secretariat has also built on network synergies with specific partner /consortium agencies.

5. PARIS21 Light Evaluation Conclusions 2 PARIS21 Relevance and Effectiveness in general satisfactory, some nuances. The activities and work programme of PARIS21 are appropriate to the purpose of PARIS21. The programme has met stakeholders’ requests however to the extent possible given the number and diversity of the requests, that work plan and activities were consistent with the priorities of major stakeholders. PARIS21 has demonstrated a high adaptability to the new situation created by NSDS development.

6. PARIS21 Light Evaluation Conclusions 3 Effectiveness : overall opinion that this has to be given also a positive mark, however, based on a wide diversity of remarks with strong and weaker nuances of this positive outcome.

7. The impact of actions is seen globally on the positive side; points where critical remarks were set are elements still to be appraised in more detail when this is feasible after a longer time period. Therefore, conclusions on the effectiveness are positive, however with a cautious approach on pinpointing the steps still to be made and possible future pitfalls. PARIS21 Light Evaluation Conclusions 4

8. PARIS21 Light Evaluation: Recommendation 1 To consolidate this direction, the high priority on the NSDS as it has developed in the last years, and to make it more visible in the objectives of PARIS21, in such a form that it is recommended to expand the mandate of PARIS21, to better facilitate NSDS development.

9. PARIS21 Light Evaluation: Recommendation 2 The emphasis on NSDS should not limit the advocacy work. The advocacy work should be considered an essential element in the NSDS and prioritised as being a part of it.

10. PARIS21 Light Evaluation: Recommendation 3 To improve the conditions for better cooperation between the secretariat of PARIS21 and the involved partners. To reach a better level of cooperation the coordination role of PARIS21 in this context has to be expanded.

11. PARIS21 Light Evaluation: Recommendation 4 To ask a small drafting group – focussed around the founding fathers of PARIS21 – to draft a new version of the mandate for the coming period and to provide advice on possible changes in the institutional setting of the PARIS21 secretariat.

12. Thank you for your attention