Transcript The Evaluation of the Paris Declaration Summary presentation June, 2011 Niels Dabelstein Background for the Evaluation • The Declaration itself pledged an independent evaluation - itself.

The Evaluation of the
Paris Declaration
Summary presentation
June, 2011
Niels Dabelstein
1
Background for the Evaluation
• The Declaration itself pledged an independent evaluation
- itself a tool for mutual accountability
• Fully joint evaluation conducted over 4 years (Phase 1:
2007-08; 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
2
Evaluation components
3
PD Evaluation Milestones
•
•
•
•
•
•
2006 March
Options Paper by DAC EvalNet
Mar.- Dec. Consultations with partner countries
2007 March
1st Reference Group meeting, Paris –
Evaluation 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, Indonesia – Emerging Findings
2011 April
4th Ref. Group Meeting, Copenhagen –
Phase 2 Draft Synthesis Report
24 June
Phase 2 Synthesis Report
Nov.
4th HLF in Busan, Korea – Completion Phase 2
4
The aid reform campaign
5
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)
6
Phase 2 Key Findings:
• The Paris Declaration has contributed to change of
behaviour – but unevenly so. Partner countries have
moved further and faster than donors. Some donors
more than others and some very little.
• The Paris Declaration has contributed to improve aid
effectiveness – but much remains to be done.
• The Paris Declaration has contributed to better
development results – but not across the board.
• The PD and AAA “campaign” remains relevant and
has gained momentum – but needs nurturing to
continue.
7
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: Evaluation highlights 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, and
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.
8
Implementation of the 5 Paris Principles
• Country ownership has advanced farthest
• Alignment and harmonisation 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
9
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 better quality of aid overall
Most 2010 timeframes were unrealistic
10
Examples of the range of performance
against each intended improvement (From Fig. 5)
11
Contributions to Development Results 1
Assessed through a three-question sequence:
– First, were development results achieved?
– Second, did aid contribute?
– Third, did aid reforms plausibly strengthen the aid
contribution?
12
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.
13
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.
14
Overall Conclusions 1
Relevance of the Declaration and its implementation?
• Has 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 some
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
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.
15
Overall Conclusions 2
What has the aid reform campaign achieved?
•
•
•
•
•
Now more focused global attention on relevant problems and
remedies – PD succeeded as an international “compact” for
reform
Compared with 20 to 25 years ago, aid 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 only aid management
A platform for the future – applying and adapting the
disciplines of aid reform to forms of development cooperation not yet covered by the Declaration
16
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.
17
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
18
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*
19
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
20