1. Country-led Evaluation Capacity Development Marco Segone, Regional Monitoring & Evaluation Advisor, UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Workshop on Country-led Evaluations and Systems Prague, June 2006

2. Learning to trust country-led evaluation: Let’s discuss two challenges (among others)

3. How to reshape the Evaluation function accordingly? The first challenge: The Paris Declaration on Aid effectiveness is reshaping Development strategies and priorities

4. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Strengthened development results Managing for results

5. Managing resources and improving decision-making for results Partners countries establish results-oriented reporting and assessment frameworks to monitor and evaluate national and sector development strategies ●focus of evaluation shifting from small projects to national programmes and policies ●systemic approach to evaluation. Policy decisions informed by knowledge streams that are the result of continuous analysis Paris Declaration Commitment Implications to the Evaluation Function

6. Mutual accounta bility Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Strengthened development results Managing for results

7. Donors and Country partners are accountable for development results Partner countries reinforce participatory approaches by systematically involving a broad range of development partners when formulating and assessing progress in implementing national development strategies foster democratic approaches to evaluation, providing a forum for greater dialogue among civil society, academia, governments and donors; and reporting to Parliaments Implications to the Evaluation Function Paris Declaration Commitment

8. Mutual accounta bility Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Strengthened development results Managing for results Harmoni zation

9. Donors implement, where feasible, common arrangements for monitoring and evaluation Donors’ actions are more harmonised, transparent and collectively effective UN Evaluation Group UN Development Assistance Framework and Integrated M&E Plan Joint Evaluations Implications to the Evaluation Function Paris Declaration Commitment

10. Mutual accounta bility Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Strengthened development results Managing for results Harmoni zation Alignment

11. Donors base their overall support on partner countries’ national development strategies Using a country’s own institutions and systems, where these provide assurance that aid will be used for agreed purposes, increases aid effectiveness ●Use country M&E systems and procedures to the maximum extent possible ●Institutionalize M&E system ●Quality Standards Implications to the Evaluation Function Paris Declaration Commitment

12. Mutual accounta bility Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Strengthened development results Managing for results Harmoni zation Alignment Ownership

13. Partner countries exercise effective leadership over their development policies and strategies ●Partner countries exercise leadership in developing and implementing their national development strategies ●Donors respect partner country leadership and help strengthen their capacity to exercise it. Implications to the Evaluation Function ●Evaluation capacity development Paris Declaration Commitment

14. The second challenge: How to strengthen Evaluation Capacity Development? Capacity development as a technical process (simple transfer of knowledge or organisational models from North to South) Not enough thought to the broader political and social context (overemphasis on “right answers”, as opposed to approaches that best fit the country circumstances and the needs of the particular situation Capacity development as: 2005 Paris Declaration Strongly led from within a country With donors playing a supporting role Endogenous process

15. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Country-led Evaluation Capacity development Understand country context (Weak evaluation culture and political will) Identify and support sources of country- owned change (Incl. CSO) Deliver support (cost- effective, local suppliers) Learn from experience and share lessons

16. 11 International Organisation for Cooperation in Evaluation – IOCE (Organisational membership) International Development Evaluation Association – IDEAS (Individual membership) Adapted from: Quesnel, Forthcoming Locally-led Evaluation Organizations: From few to 40+ in a decade

17. Reported Services Selected Evaluation Organizations Adapted from: Kriel, Forthcoming

18. Learning from experience : CIS (IPEN), Brazil (ReBraMA) and Niger (ReNSE) ReBraMA Rede Brasileira de Monitoramento e Avaliação ReNSE Reseau nigerien de Suivi Evaluation International Programme Evaluation Network

19. IPEN, ReNSE and ReBraMA

20. General objective To support a national sustainable process of M&E Capacity Development through the implementation of a forum that will contribute to the strengthening of an evaluation culture, definition and the promotion of norms, methodologies and professional practices.

21. … organized in effective structures for accountability, management, and collective voice...

22. … carried out by appropriate stakeholders...

23. … are supported in doing so by “rules” or norms...

24. … establishing effective processes

25. Let’s go back to the two challenges …. Challenge 1: Is our region (both Partners countries and donors) politically ready and technically equipped to reshape the evaluation function to better serve changing Development strategies and priorities? Challenge 2: Locally-led Evaluation organizations have the potential to be a major stakeholder for sustainable country-led Evaluation Capacity Development. In our region:  Are Government and Civil Society ready to dialogue?  Does local demand for evaluation in general, and locally-led evaluation in particular, exist? If not, why? What could be the role of professional evaluation organizations in strengthening both the demand and the supply side of the evaluation function? And the role of IDEAS?

26. See you in … Tbilisi, Georgia, Sept 28-30, 2006 5th IPEN Conference on “Evaluation and Development” with Jean Quesnel, Mike Bamberger, Robert Stake, Ray Rist, IDEAS and IOCE