1. Evaluation of the Paris Declaration
Rationale and Governance of the Evaluation
AEA 2011
Niels Dabelstein
&
Ted Kliest

2. Why Evaluate the Paris Declaration?
Focuses on what has been achieved and what has not – and why – the key questions at HLF 4 and for the post-PD era
Evaluation, with Monitoring, is built into the Declaration itself and reflects its principles.
The Accra Agenda for Action called specifically for an evaluation of the implementation and effects of the PD
Adds value to the Monitoring Survey and feeds into the High Level Forums in 2008 (phase 1) and (phase 2 synthesis)

3. The Key Evaluation Questions
“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)
“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?” (Process and intermediate outcomes)
“Has the implementation of the Paris Declaration strengthened the contribution of aid to sustainable development results? How?” (Development outcomes)

4. A joint evaluation
Based on the principles of the Paris Declaration: partner countries and development partners develop the evaluation framework/approach and execute the evaluation jointly
The evaluation itself is a tool for mutual accountability:
22 Country-level evaluations led by partner countries and managed in-country (Phase 1=7, Phase 2=21)
18 Donor/agency HQ studies (phase 1=11, Phase 2=7)

5. Building blocks of the Evaluation
SYNTHESIS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
3. Development outcomes
2. Process and intermediate outcomes
1. Context
DONOR STUDIES
COUNTRY STUDIES
SUPPLEMENTARY
STUDIES
PDE PHASE 1 RESULTS + Monitoring Information

6. Phase 2 Country Evaluations & Donor Studies

7. Supplementary Studies
Support to Statistical Capacity Building
The Applicability of the PD in Fragile and Conflict-affected Situations
Untying of Aid: Is it Working?
The PD, Aid Effectiveness and Development Effectiveness
Development Resources Beyond the Current Reach of the PD

8. PD Evaluation Milestones
2006 March Options Paper
2007 March 1st Reference Group meeting, Paris – Eval Framework agreed
June 2nd Ref. Group meeting, Copenhagen – Launch of Phase 1
2008 Feb. 3rd. Ref. Group Meeting, South Africa – Emerging Findings
March 4th Ref. Group Meeting, Paris - draft Synthesis report
June Phase 1 Synthesis Report
Sept. 3rd HLF in Accra, Ghana – Completion Phase 1
2009 Feb. 1st Ref. Group meeting, Auckland – Phase 2 Approach Approved
Dec. 2nd Ref. Group Meeting, Paris – Launch of Phase 2
2010 Dec. 3rd Ref. Group Meeting, Bali – Emerging Findings
2011 April 4th Ref. Group Meeting, Copenhagen - Phase 2 Draft Synthesis Report
June Phase 2 Synthesis Report
Nov. 4th HLF in Busan, Korea – Completion Phase 2

9. Governance, management and implementation
International Reference Group (40-plus reps. of governments, international Organizations and CSOs. Co-chaired by Malawi and Sweden)
Management Group (Colombia, Malawi, Netherlands, Sweden, US, Vietnam)
Evaluation Secretariat at DIIS
National/Agency Reference Groups and Evaluation Coordinators
National/Agency Evaluation Teams (with specified recruitment criteria, and common generic ToRs)
Core Evaluation Team (7 Members, from Canada, Denmark, Nigeria, Peru, Sri Lanka, Malawi and the UK + resource persons)
High Level Peer Reviewers: Dr. Mary Chinery-Hesse and Mr. Mark Malloch Brown. 9

10. Overseeing the evaluation
International Reference Group, co-chaired by
Malawi and Sweden
Members of the DAC Network on Development Evaluation (who actively support)
Partner countries who conduct country-level evaluations
Multilaterals and CSOs (who actively support)
Tasks:
Endorse overall Evaluation Framework and ToRs for component & supplementary studies
Review draft reports for quality, credibility & clarity 10

11. Members of Int. Ref. Group
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Japan
Luxemburg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
USA
AfDB
AsDB
BACG/Better Aid
Concord
Global Fund/GAVI
OECD/DAC
UNDG
World Bank
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Benin
Bolivia
Cambodia
Cameroun
Columbia
Cook Islands
Indonesia
Ghana
Malawi
Mali
Mozambique
Nepal
Peru
Philippines
Samoa
Senegal
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Uganda
Viet Nam
Zambia

12. Managing the evaluation
Management Group (Colombia, Malawi, Netherlands, Sweden, US, Vietnam) responsible for:
Developing the overall evaluation framework and ToR for the Core Evaluation Team
Coordinating and managing the evaluation process
Guiding the component studies
Developing and managing supplementary studies and synthesis of findings and recommendations
Dissemination
Evaluation Secretariat at the Danish Institute for International Studies 12

13. Country Reference Groups
Include major stakeholders from government, donors, civil society and possibly academia. Its purpose is to ensure stakeholders’ participation and buy-in to the evaluation process and results and to assure the independence of the evaluation. It will
Endorse detailed design of country study
Oversee team selection
Serve as resource for country evaluation teams
Review draft evaluation products for quality, credibility and clarity
The reference/advisory group should include major stakeholders from government, donors, civil society and possibly academia. The purpose of this group is to ensure stakeholders’ participation and buy-in to the evaluation process and results and to assure the independence of the evaluation. Ideally, the reference/advisory group should provide some standing capacity to follow up on the evaluation after completion. 13 13

14. Team Configurations

15. The Core Evaluation Team
Developed detailed methodology and provides support to country teams
Was responsible for the synthesis of country and donor HQ evaluation results, those from Phase 1, and other studies, and for preparing the overall Evaluation Report
Reported and was responsible to the Evaluation Management Group, through the Evaluation Secretariat
Was competitively recruited (by international tender) by the Evaluation Management Group
Comprise six international consultants and a number of associated members for specific tasks

16. Peer Reviewers
The task of the Review Panel was to review the final draft of the synthesis report in order advice the Management Group and Synthesis Team on quality, strategic and policy relevance and the communicative power of the Synthesis report produced by the Independent Evaluation Team

17. Evaluation of the Evaluation
An independent review of
strenghts, weaknesses and lessons
for future international joint evaluations

18. 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
and
These sites also have links to a number of videos illustrating key aspects of the Paris Declaration and the Evaluation
Thank you for your attention

19. Remember Saturday 5th 2:20 PM – 3:50 PM in El Capitan B
Panel Session 968:
The PDE: A Joint Cross National Evaluation