1. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team IRG Meeting 30 Nov 2009 Key conclusions & follow-up actions DRAFT Core Evaluation Team

2. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Main Points & Organization of Presentation Broad acceptance of the Framework and Country ToRs derived from Approach Paper and regional workshops Several refinements and clarifications to Framework and country ToRs needed and possible by 7 December, as outlined. Recommend Mgt. Gp. Sign-off Specified understandings outlined on more detailed methodologies/methods to be incorporated after regional workshops. For IRG review in Inception report (April) Specified additional work on Donor/Agency HQ ToRs by 7 December Several steps on enlisting additional countries and clarifying governance/ accountabilities

3. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Evaluation Framework & Workplan 1.Agreed on importance of detailed standard methodologies and guidance Clear and precise - “interview ready” To be worked through at second Regional Workshops and captured in Country Inception Report/s Operational questions on the application of PD principles/ AAA commitments to be included Need for reasonable balance of volunteer countries – last effort to reinforce in Latin America See also country ToRs Core Team: April 2010 Secretariat with Colombia, OAS and Core Team: 15 th January 2010

4. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Evaluation Framework & Workplan (2) 2.Concerns from Draft Generic ToRs, not yet handled in revised version. Immediate refinements: Clear questions needed on changes (long-term/ short-term) in the costs and benefits to partners and donors of pre-PD and post-PD partnerships Advancing the “mutual” in mutual accountability and transparency – add question assessing implementation of PD para 50 and AAA para 24 Include new summative question on the relevance of the Paris Declaration and the ways it has been implemented implementation to the challenges of aid effectiveness (in country x)?” Assess effects of PD on different aid modalities (Refine Question 3c) Include service delivery in assessments of capacity increases (Question 3d) Core Team: 7 th December 2009

5. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Evaluation Framework & Workplan (3) 3.Agreed on importance of multi-faceted communication strategies (national and international) 4.Some concern to clarify governance and final accountabilities for Country and Donor/Agency HQ studies 5.Quality Assurance: peer review arrangements (for draft country reports) to be considered (apart from Core Team quality support and assurance) following team workshops Management Group and National Reference Groups: April 2010 Management Group: 7 th December 2009 Management Group: April 2010

6. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Draft Generic Country ToRs 1.Country Evaluations are the primary vehicle for Phase 2, including donor performance. Donor HQ Studies are a supplement. 2.Methodology guidance needs to interpret/ clarify Flexibility of common Core Questions – not detailed where not relevant Mutual accountability more focused question/s as above “Less corruption and more transparency” – specify applying to both sides of partnerships “Increased alignment” not just to priorities and strategies but specify to systems, procedures and communication channels Core Team: April 2010

7. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Draft Generic Country ToRs (2) “Sufficient delegation of authority and incentives” – further guidance needed to assess Build in “degree of confidence” measures with each assessment of achievement against expected outcomes Specify key common questions/methods for treatment of health sector and other sectors Design of appropriate informed respondents sample for Question 2 Capture growth dimensions as possible in Question 3 in relation to poverty as well as through sectors (e.g. infrastructure) Include assessment of PD burdens under relevant 11 points and under unintended consequences Core Team: April 2010

8. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Draft Generic Country ToRs (3) 3.Specific briefing and request for cooperation to donor embassies/ field offices 4.Consider inviting political reviewers to supplement contractual requirements and IRG responsibility for quality assurance of eventual synthesis 5.Special study of “non-PD sources” should include impartial assessment of Trust Funds, Global Funds and “non- traditional” donors/ partners 6.Extract useful inputs from other WPEFF activities Donor HQ (IRG members): January 2010 Management Group: October 2010 Core Team/ Management Group: January 2010 Core Team: February 2010 (specific suggestions invited from IRG members)

9. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Donor HQ Studies ToRs Auckland/ Approach Paper agreement to additional round of donor studies using the same focus/ approach as Phase 1, with 7 donors/agencies volunteering. In London EMG agreed to offer the possibility of updates to Phase 1 studies. Limited initial interest – donors expect to be evaluated in country evaluations for Phase 2. Key parameters: studies not full evaluations, studies and any possible updates are voluntary, limited primary data collection, mainly formative studies (process focus) with the evaluative element (effects focus) to be covered through the country evaluations. Overall agreement to the questions and agreement to the new deepening and the mirror questions but with clearer links with the country evaluations (shared sub-questions and methods?). Studies are useful internally as a stand-alone product for the volunteering Donor/ Agency with additional benefit to the global evaluation.

10. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team Donor HQ Studies ToRs (2) Possible Updates to include: Management responses – any follow-up action to:  PD Phase 1 Study conclusions and recommendations  AAA Action Plans “Transaction costs” and benefits  3-5 suggested questions to be prepared drawing on Concept Paper (possibly address separately to HQ Policy, HQ operations, front line decentralised operations) by Dec 7 th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Sign-off “Mirror questions” to 7/11 expected outcomes should be confirmed in line with Country Terms of Reference, by Dec 7 th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Sign-off Consider suggestion that some mirror examination of health tracer sector be included in Donor/Agency HQ studies Dec 7 th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Sign- off

11. Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2Core Team External Support Use fast-moving country studies as “informal pilots” for testing and refining approach Extranet: importance of human dimension – IRG and teams must use it Importance of : “being there” – maximising face-to- face support role of Core Team at key points Onus for quality control of Country Evaluations is with the country set-up