1. Methodological Lessons Joint Evaluation of Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building in DRC, 2002-2010 Day 2, Presentation in Oslo ‘What Have We learnt From the Application Phase?’ 17 February 2011

2. The General Feedback On the Draft Working Guidance 1.Feedback received from the Congo evaluation team, but also from recent work with USAID-OTI, Ausaid, and training given by Channel on evaluation of CPPB. 2.The Guidance is useful introduction, especially for practitioners with limited experience of evaluation. Particularly useful are the overview of key steps and the development of the evaluation questions. 3.Intrigued by Theories of Change and importance of conflict analysis. Find Theories of Change better for project level. 4.However the Guidance does not tackle the “how to” questions: conflict analysis (which, when, how), testing theories of change, baselines. Channel Research2

3. The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation Effects on the Conflict 1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria 2. Sample of Projects 3. Conflict Analysis 4. Research Hypotheses and Themes Outcomes Mandate & Steering

4. The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation Effects on the Conflict 1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria 2. Sample of Projects 3. Conflict Analysis 4. Research Hypotheses and Themes Outcomes Mandate & Steering Good to have simple questions but tricky to analyse by “results”.

5. The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation Effects on the Conflict 1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria 2. Sample of Projects 3. Conflict Analysis 4. Research Hypotheses and Themes Outcomes Mandate & Steering Issue N° 1: No Theories of Change Confused Strategies

6. Channel Research6 Reasons for the Weakening of Theories of Change & Strategies as Reference 1. Seizing Opportunities Implementation requires a response to constraints and opportunities as they arise. These cannot be planned for in advance so plans and objectives are not a good evaluation point of reference 1. Seizing Opportunities Implementation requires a response to constraints and opportunities as they arise. These cannot be planned for in advance so plans and objectives are not a good evaluation point of reference 2. Compartmentalisation Too many levels and too many instruments to carry out an analysis Severe lack of documentation, issues of disclosure, many “indirect” effects. 2. Compartmentalisation Too many levels and too many instruments to carry out an analysis Severe lack of documentation, issues of disclosure, many “indirect” effects. 3. Problems of Reconstruction Theories of Change conceived as an elicitive tool in planning Retrospective interpretation opens up real chances of contested findings, with no clear data sets 3. Problems of Reconstruction Theories of Change conceived as an elicitive tool in planning Retrospective interpretation opens up real chances of contested findings, with no clear data sets 4. End State? Problems in defining terms such as peace and conflict. Usually depends on the identification of an end-state. This may not be explicit or shared by all stakeholders or those within a single programme 4. End State? Problems in defining terms such as peace and conflict. Usually depends on the identification of an end-state. This may not be explicit or shared by all stakeholders or those within a single programme

7. The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation Effects on the Conflict 1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria 2. Sample of Projects 3. Conflict Analysis 4. Research Hypotheses and Themes Outcomes Mandate & Steering Issue N° 2: No Conflict Analyses Used, and No Conflict Sensitivity Analysis

8. Our understanding of peace depends on where we are

9. The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation Effects on the Conflict 1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria 2. Sample of Projects 3. Conflict Analysis 4. Research Hypotheses and Themes Outcomes Mandate & Steering Issue N° 3: Finding the right balance in the sample is not easy

10. An excessive number of projects. A database selected before the evaluation and a great difficulty in accessing information for these projects. Consequence: Time spent to obtain information: 80% (to avoid focus on + transparent) Sample may not represent the full range of interventions Strategic dimensions were lost. Case study approach weakened. The Question of Sampling

11. Are We on the Right Track? Channel Research

12. 12 Evaluation Communities Must Become More Closely Engaged - Desk Bound Donors only - Theories of Change Results reporting 0 Simple Eval Questions Good consultation + Many field visits Regular reporting ++ Drivers based Public workshops Key factor A Key factor B Negative / Positive Change A Strong Steering Committee willing to arbitrate between approaches and to track the evaluation team in country(ies) A highly structured approach with detailed phasing and willingness to communicate Internal & Static Conflict Analysis Resource Conscious Steering Committee - ++ 1 5 Engagement Public Uptake

13. Channel Research13 Specific Recommendation for the Final Guidance: Recommend Care in 3 Key Stages and Outline Unique Nature of Conflict Interventions Optimal scenario Drawing Conclusions Sequencing Conflict Analysis Case Studies Outcome to Factors

14. Channel Research14 Specific Recommendation for the Final Guidance: Recommend Care in 3 Key Stages and Outline Unique Nature of Conflict Interventions ToRPreparationCollectionAnalysis Optimal scenario Drawing Conclusions Sequencing Conflict Analysis Case Studies Outcome to Factors Conflict analysis must precede sampling