1. The Evaluation of the Paris Declaration Summary presentation of the Synthesis Report June, 2011

2. 2 Structure of presentation 1.The central message 2.Evaluation questions 3.Main findings in the 3 evidence chapters Aid and aid reform in the bigger picture Aid effectiveness since 2000-2005 Contributions to development results 4.Conclusions 5.Main recommendations to policy-makers 6.The background, process and limits of the Evaluation

3. 3 The central message The global campaign to make international aid programmes more effective is showing results. But the improvements are slow and uneven in most developing countries and even more so among most donor agencies, although the changes expected of them are less demanding.

4. 4 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?” (Outcomes for aid effectiveness) 3.“Has the implementation of the Paris Declaration strengthened the contribution of aid to sustainable development results? How?” (Development outcomes)

5. 5 Context: Aid and aid reform in the bigger picture Diversity is the rule: The Declaration campaign proved relevant to many countries and agencies, but differently. All were engaged in aid reforms before 2005, some were far more advanced than others. Limits of aid and aid reform: The Evaluation highlights the other powerful influences at work in development and the realistic limits on the role of aid. Key political, economic and bureaucratic influences and events – e.g. food and fuel crises, global recession and natural disasters - have shaped and limited the reform process in partner and donor countries, as well as aid and development. The effects of different contexts come out repeatedly. So do questions about the changing nature and the roles of aid alongside other resource flows and relationships. But the basic lessons of decades about aid itself are still valid.

6. 6 Context: Aid reform in perspective Aid influenced by Declaration commitments The Aid Partnership Overall development processes Other international & national influences & forces

7. 7 The aid reform campaign

8. 8 Contributions to aid effectiveness Pulled together and focused global attention on ambitious, experience-based measures to improve development cooperation and aid for better development results Clarified the roles of ‘aid’ and ‘better aid’ Strengthened global norms of good practice Helped progress toward 11 key outcomes set in 2005 (Fig. 3) Improved the quality of aid partnerships and supported rising aid volumes and expectations for improved “North- South” relations at a global level Better progress among partner countries than among donors, who (with some striking exceptions) have been too uncoordinated and risk averse to play their full part

9. 9 Implementation of the 5 Paris Principles Country ownership has advanced farthest Alignment and harmonisation have improved unevenly. Mutual accountability and managing for results lagging most Action on mutual accountability is now the most important need - backed by transparency as the indispensable foundation and a realistic acceptance & management of risks as an additional guiding principle

10. 10 1.Stronger national strategies and operational frameworks 2.Increased alignment of aid with country systems 3.Meeting defined measures and standards, e.g. in financial mgt. 4.Reduced duplication of donor effort, more cooperation 5.Reformed and simplified donor policies and procedures 6.Increased predictability of aid 7.Sufficient delegation to donor field staff 8.Sufficient integration of global initiatives 9.Increased capacity 10.Enhanced accountability 11.Reduced corruption and increased transparency The 11 intended improvements for effective aid

11. 11 Examples of the range of performance against each intended improvement (From Fig. 5)

12. 12 Conclusions: Aid Effectiveness Uneven progress towards the 11 outcomes set in 2005 (clustered under Accra priorities): Improving the management and use of aid Improving the quality of aid partnerships Supporting rising aid volumes No reduction of aid burdens / improvements in efficiencies - but a better quality of aid overall Most 2010 timeframes were unrealistic

13. 13 Contributions to Development Results 1 Assessed in four key areas, through a three-question sequence: – First, were development results achieved? – Second, did aid contribute? – Third, did aid reforms plausibly strengthen the aid contribution?

14. 14 Contributions to Development Results 2 1. Results in specific sectors (health was the main case-study) Declaration type measures have contributed to more focused, efficient and collaborative aid efforts in health. These efforts have already contributed to better development results since 2000-05, and should be sustainable. The pathways of improvement are indirect but clear. Not wide enough coverage of other sectors to draw strong conclusions. 2. Priority to the needs of the poorest (especially women and girls) Little progress in most countries in delivering on these commitments. But evidence of some positive contributions by aid and some value-added by Declaration reforms. A powerful national commitment to change is a pre-requisite if aid is to help overcome entrenched inequalities.

15. 15 Contributions to Development Results 3 3. Strengthening institutional capacities and social capital Insufficient capacity still a central obstacle to development - and aid could help more with this than it does. Modest contributions by aid and reforms to the long-term strengthening of institutional capacities. Clearer evidence for contributions to modest improvements in social capital. 4. Improving the mix of aid modalities Evidence that employing a wider range of (especially joint) modalities, has improved contributions to development results in half the countries – especially at sector level. A mix of aid modalities has continued to make sense for all actors.

16. 16 Overall Conclusions 1 Relevance of the Declaration and its implementation? Proven relevant to all the diverse countries and agencies involved, but in different ways and to different degrees. All started reforms before 2005. For partner countries - Slow and varied implementation but overall reforms have now generally taken hold. Reforms serve wider national needs than aid alone, and momentum has held up through political changes and crises. For donors – Much more uneven implementation. With striking exceptions, donors have been risk-averse and slow to make the less demanding changes expected of them. Peer pressure and collective action are not yet embedded in donor systems. The nature and place of aid itself is changing. Aid actors, forms of co-operation and partnerships not yet covered also need greater transparency and proven good practices.

17. 17 Overall Conclusions 2 What has the aid reform campaign achieved? Now more focused global attention on relevant problems and remedies – succeeded as an international “compact” for reform Compared with 20 to 25 years ago, aid is now far more transparent and less “donor-driven.” Since 2005 scattered reforms have become widespread norms Raised expectations for change, strengthened agreed norms and standards of better practice and partnership. Legitimised demands for norms of good practice to be observed Sustainability – Paris reform agenda now seen to serve more important needs than aid management A platform for the future – applying and adapting the disciplines of aid reform to forms of development co- operation not yet covered by the Declaration

18. 18 Main Recommendations Some are not new – they may be familiar and seemingly obvious. But key political actions must be pressed again – simply and starkly – because they are so important and they are firm Paris and Accra commitments that have not yet been met.

19. 19 Main Recommendations I A.For decision-makers in both partner and donor countries and agencies (at Busan and beyond): 1. Make the hard political choices and follow through 2. Focus on transparency, mutual accountability and shared risk management 3. Centre and reinforce the aid effectiveness effort in countries 4. Work to extend the aid reform gains to all forms of development cooperation 5. Reinforce the improved international partnerships in the next phase of reforms

20. 20 Main Recommendations 2 B. For policymakers in partner countries: 1.Take full leadership and responsibility at home for further aid reforms 2.Set strategies and priorities for strengthening capacities 3.Intensify the political priority and concrete actions to combat poverty, exclusion and corruption C. For policymakers in donor countries and agencies: 1.Match the crucial global stakes in aid and reform with better delivery on promises made 2.Face up to and manage risks honestly, admit failures 3.Apply peer pressure to ‘free-riders’ for more balanced donor efforts A dozen key areas are identified for work beyond the Evaluation*

21. 21 Background, process and limits for the Evaluation Background The Declaration itself pledged an independent evaluation - itself a tool for mutual accountability A fully joint evaluation conducted over 4 years (Phase 1: 2007-8; Phase 2: 2009-11) Evidence base 22 Country-level evaluations led by partner countries and managed in-country 18 Donor/agency HQ studies 7 Supplementary studies on key topics plus review of the most significant global literature

22. 22 Evaluation components

23. 23 Process for Phase 2 Evaluation Matrix developed for country studies, applying 11 outcomes of PD and AAA agreements. Integrated evaluation quality assurance and peer review Recognised the limits of aid in development and applied “contribution analysis.” A targeted process of guidance & support, recognising the primacy of country studies. Good governance of the Evaluation at national and international levels ( with 52 member International Reference Group) ensured joint process and independence and validated the framework and findings at key stages.

24. 24 Key limitations Evaluating the effects of a political Declaration - traditional ‘linear’ approaches were not relevant Limited time elapsed since 2005 No comprehensive data from country studies on multilaterals and donors Different methodology for donors (carried over from Phase 1) Self-selection of participating countries / agencies – but still reasonably representative “sample”

25. 25 Country Evaluations & Donor Studies

26. 26 Full reports and supporting materials All documents from the Evaluation, including the full country evaluations and donor studies, can be found - in English, French and Spanish - on www.busanhlf4.org and www.oecd.org/dac/evaluationnetwork/pde Thank you for your attention