Country Evaluations Generic Terms of Reference

1
Country Evaluations Generic Terms of Reference
Common Evaluation Matrix

• Presentation to International Reference Group
• 30 November, 2009

2
Presentation Outline

• What are the Generic ToRs, and where do they come
  from?
• What is the Common Evaluation Matrix?
• Why do we need it?
• How is it to be used?
• Working through the Matrix

3
What are the Generic ToRs, and where do they come
from?

• They set out agreed purposes and objectives,
  design, management and governance arrangements,
  support, staffing, quality assurance, and
  timelines. They include a common evaluation
  matrix and a proposed draft outline for the
  eventual evaluation reports.
• The draft was built on the Approach Paper
  approved by the International Reference Group.
  After major inputs from the 4 regional workshops
  and other IRG members, a consolidated set is
  presented for adoption.

4
IRG Approval
Consolidated Overall TORs
Other IRG Members input
Asia-Pacific Workshop
Anglophone Africa Workshop
Francophone Africa Workshop
Latin America Workshop
Draft Generic TORs Evaluation Framework
Phase 2 Approach Paper
IRG Consultations
Thematic (Linkages) Study
Phase 1 Evaluation
5
The Common Evaluation Matrix What is it?

• A set of proposals in line with accepted
  evaluation practice, to guide the conduct and
  implementation of the core comparative parts of
  the Phase 2 Evaluation exercise and the eventual
  Synthesis

6
Why do we need it?

• Wide and diverse coverage in the Evaluation
• This Evaluation will cover implementation in
  20 partner countries, 6 donor countries/agencies
  and 1 regional development bank
• Rigour and consistency
• A common matrix will promote a rigorous
  common approach and make possible meaningful
  comparisons, mutual learning, and the eventual
  synthesis of the overall Evaluation results

7
Using the Common Matrix

• The Common Matrix will be an agreed evaluation
  plan - to guide and inform the process of the
  evaluation in each country, as well as the
  eventual synthesis.
• For the agreed Core Evaluation Questions and
  sub-questions which will be answered in all
  country evaluations, the Common Matrix will need
  to be strictly followed.
• If supplementary, country-specific questions are
  added, they may follow the same Common Matrix
  format.

8
Why these Core Questions
Other international national influences forces
Q1 PD in context
Q1
Q2 Effects of PD on aid effectiveness
Q3
Q2
Q3 Effects of PD on development results
Q4
Conclusions Compared against pre-PD or
alternative approaches
Overall development processes
The Aid Partnership
Aid influenced by PD commitments
9
Breaking It Down

• The Common Matrix identifies
• - the proposed Core Evaluation Questions
• - the sub questions that operationalise
  these Core Questions
• and, to be finalized in the Inception report
• - types of evidence to be sought and
  possible
  
  indicators
• - likely data sources
• - methods and techniques for data
  collection

10
Evaluation Matrix
11
Q1 The context for PD (scope, limits and dynamics)

• a) What are the key characteristics of the
  country that have been most relevant to the
  implementation of the PD?
• b) What is the sphere of influence of the Paris
  Declaration on the overall mobilisation of
  finance and other resources for development?
• c) Which are the key actors, in the country and
  among its development partners, who can take
  major decisions on aid? What influence do the
  Paris Declaration and AAA commitments have on
  them, in relation to their other priorities and
  incentives?
• d) What are the most important national and
  international events that have affected the
  implementation of the Paris Declaration and Accra
  priorities, and how?
• e) To what extent and where has the PD been
  implemented?

12
Q2. Effects of the PD on aid effectiveness

• To what extent have the original expected aid
  effectiveness outcomes in the Paris Declaration
  (list of eleven) been met?
• Country ownership over development
• i. Stronger national strategies and
  frameworks?
• ii. Increased alignment of aid with partner
  countries priorities, systems and procedures,
  help to strengthen capacities?
• iii. Defined measures and standards of
  performance and accountability of partner country
  systems in public financial management,
  procurement, fiduciary standards and
  environmental assessments, in line with broadly
  accepted good practices and their quick and
  widespread application?

13
B. Building more inclusive and effective
partnerships for development

• v. Reformed and simplified donor policies and
  procedures, more collaborative behaviour
• vi. More predictable and multi-year commitments
  on aid flows to committed partner countries Has
  the nature of conditionalities been changed to
  support ownership in line with the AAA commitment
  (para. 25)
• vii. Sufficient delegation of authority to
  donors field staff, and adequate attention to
  incentives for effective partnerships between
  donors and partner countries
• viii. Sufficient integration of global
  programmes and initiatives into partner
  countries broader development agendas

14
C. Delivering and accounting for development
results

• ix. Stronger partner countries capacities to
  develop and implement results-driven national
  strategies
• x. Enhanced respective accountability of
  countries and donors to citizens and parliaments
• xi. Less corruption and more transparency,
  strengthening public support and effective
  resource mobilisation and allocation.
• D. Have there been unintended consequences,
  negative or positive, for aid effectiveness from
  the Paris Declaration?

15
Q3. Has PD strengthened the contribution of aid
to development results

• a) Were results in specific sectors enhanced
  through the application of the PD principles?
• (Health to be used as a tracer sector across
  all country evaluations, and one other,
  non-social sector to be selected by each
  country)
• b) Did the implementation of the PD help
  countries to improve the prioritisation of the
  needs of the poorest people, including women and
  girls, and reduce social exclusion
• c) How and why has the mix of aid modalities
  (including general or sector-specific budget
  support) evolved and what have been the
  development results?

16
Q3. Continued

• d) Has PD implementation led to sustainable
  increases in institutional capacities and social
  capital at all levels to respond to development
  challenges? Why, how and where, and what are the
  effects?
• e) Has the implementation of the PD had
  unintended consequences for development results,
  negative or positive?
• f) Has the PD enhanced ODAs impact on achieving
  the goals of the national development strategy
  and the MDGs?

17
Framework for Conclusions

• To what extent has each of the five principles of
  the Paris Declaration been observed and
  implemented, and the Accra Agenda priorities
  reflected? Why? Have there been conflicts or
  trade-offs between them?
• What has the Paris Declaration achieved for aid
  effectiveness and development results? How
  significant are these contributions? How
  sustainable?
• What has been the added value of Paris
  Declaration-style development cooperation
  compared with the pre-PD situation, and seen
  alongside other drivers of development in the
  country, other sources of development finance and
  development cooperation partners beyond those so
  far endorsing the Declaration?
• What are the key messages for a) national
  stakeholders, and b) donor countries and
  agencies?
• What are the key implications for aid
  effectiveness in the future?