‘ AIDING THE PEACE’ - MULTI-DONOR EVALUATION OF SUPPORT TO CONFLICT PREVENTION AND PEACEBUILDING IN SOUTHERN SUDAN Background on the evaluation: Evaluation commissioned in 2009 by 9 donors, 6 multilateral agencies and the Government of Southern Sudan (Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning – GoSS/MoFEP) Evaluation conducted from November 2009 – July 2010 by a team of independent international, regional and Sudanese evaluators Evaluation results needed to be useful for future policymaking and programming following the outcome of the Referendum on Independence in January 2010 Draft report ready by October 2010 with final report issued in December 2010

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE Governance structure: Needs to be conform with ‘good practices’ for joint evaluation Should allow appropriate involvement, cooperation and ownership of the stakeholders Should safeguard the independence, credibility and quality of the evaluation Should allow an efficient and effective evaluation process Management model: Evaluation Steering Committee (ESC = commissioning agencies) Evaluation Management Group (3 members appointed by ESC) Reference Group Southern Sudan (constituted and chaired by GoSS/MoFEP with field-level donors, government & non- government stakeholders as members)

MANAGEMENT MODEL Functions of Evaluation Steering Committee (ESC): Approves:- Management Group’s membership - ToR and budget for the evaluation Reviews: - draft reports of the evaluation as to quality, credibility and clarity (and adopts when these aspects are satisfied) - NB. evaluation team responsible for report content! Functions of Evaluation Management Group (EMG): Develops ToR and budget for the evaluation and criteria for selection of independent evaluation team (consultants) Selects evaluation team (international competitive bidding) Oversees and guides the work of the evaluation team (control of quality, credibility and clarity) Facilitates evaluation team where needed (through Chair of EMG)

MANAGEMENT MODEL (CONTINUED) Functions of Reference Group in Southern Sudan: Serves as a resource for and provides feedback to evaluation team Facilitates access of evaluation team to documents and personnel Assists in the organisation of kick-off and feedback workshops during the evaluation’s fieldwork Would be engaged in evaluation findings workshop once report was published

WHAT WORKED WELL Responsibilities and tasks of ESC and EMG generally well understood by members and adhered to in practice Good relationship between ESC and EMG with sufficient devolvement of responsibilities to EMG (No micro-management by ESC) No (political) interference by ESC or EMG with independence of evaluation team Interaction between EMG and evaluation team intense but fruitful in guiding and supporting the work of the team Contributing factors: i) ESC & EMG stable composition; ii) ample preparation time for ToR; iii) transparent & frequent communication between EMG-evaluation team and EMG-ESC; iv) clear decision- making; v) useful collaboration between evaluation & policy departments

CHALLENGES: WHAT DID NOT WORK SO WELL Token (no active) engagement of a number of ESC members in the evaluation with one member withdrawing on unsubstantiated grounds Expectations of function to be played by Reference Group in Southern Sudan not fulfilled Lack of interest & participation of GoSS institutions in Reference Group (due to lack of interest in the evaluation, and/or preoccupation with more important issues – prior to Referendum?) Engagement between EMG and evaluation team: no ‘micro management’, but in reality much more intense than expected Evaluation plan resulted in limited time available for desk and especially field investigations Producing an evaluation of sufficient quality in time proved difficult

HOW WERE CHALLENGES OVERCOME? Not all challenges could be overcome by remedial action Reference Group Southern Sudan: EMG and evaluation team stepped-up engagement with Chair of Reference Group. Did not work due to lack of power of Chair to engage other government institutions Engagement of ESC-members: EMG Chair tried to realise more active participation. Did not work. Issues: ESC members providing timely inputs incl. comments. What is a ‘silent partner’ in a joint evaluation? Relation between EMG and evaluation team: Differences in expectations concerning evidence-based evaluation resolved by more intensive interactions leading to high transaction costs on both sides Limited time available for desk and field investigations: was treated as unavoidable, but resulted on pressure on evaluation team and required flexibility in planning the field work making use of a brief window of opportunity (4 weeks prior to elections in March 2010)

THANK YOU