Making development evaluation more coherent through Country-Led M&E Systems*

1. Marco Segone, Systemic Management, UNICEF Evaluation Office, and former Vice President, IOCE E-mail: msegone@unicef.org Making development evaluation more coherent throughCountry-Led M&E Systems* *: The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors.

2. Based on books published by UNICEF in partnership with key international institutions

3. Available at www.mymande.org Click here

4. Webinars are available at www.mymande.org 1 2

5. Paris Declaration and AAA on Aid Effectiveness National ownership and capacity development: the key ingredients to CLES Managing for results Mutual accounta bility Harmoni zation Alignment Ownership

6. CLES: what • Country (and not donors) leads and owns the evaluation process by determining: • what policy or programme will be evaluated (including donors coordination and alignment) • what evaluation questions will be asked • what methods will be used • what analytical approach will be undertaken • how findings will be communicated • how findings will be used

7. “Country” led? International Organisation for Cooperation in Evaluation – IOCE (Organisational membership) International Development Evaluation Association – IDEAS (Individual membership) 11 Source: Quesnel, 2006 • Not exclusively the Government • Also civil society, including Professional evaluation organizations (from 15 to 118 in a decade)

8. Country-led M&E systems(CLES):a strategy to matchtechnical rigour with policy relevance Technical rigour but no policy relevance Better Policies Better Development Results Policy relevance but no technical rigour Better evidence, technically rigorous and policy relevant

9. CLES: Challenges • drive towards ownership is partly externally-driven • longer time frame • perceived risk by partner countries that independent evaluations of donor support may have political and financial consequences • perceived risk by donors/development agencies of weak national capacities and, in some cases, of weak independence of national M&E systems • Priority for donors/development agencies is its own accountability • Shifts in power relationships

10. CLES: way forward • Middle income, transition and developing countries cooperation to share good practices and lessons learned • National evaluation organizations fostering national demand (and supply) for monitoring & evaluation • International organizations strengthening national capacities to design and implement national M&E systems and facilitating South-South Cooperation

11. National Evaluation Capacity Development

12. A Systemic approach to Capacity Development Individual Level (skills, knowledge, experience)

13. Individual Level • Demand side • Capacity to strategically plan evaluations, and to identify the key evaluation questions • Capacity to manage evaluation for independence and credibility • Capacity to use evaluation • Supply side: • Behavioural independence • Independence of mind & integrity • Knowledge and respect of evaluation standards • Agreed evaluation processes & products • Professional competences • Formal education (Masters) • Specialized training • Professional Conferences and meeting • On the job training (country-led evaluations) • Community of Practices and networking

14. A Systemic approach to Capacity Development Institutional Level (policies, procedures, frameworks) Individual Level (skills, knowledge, experience)

15. Institutional Level • Evaluation culture • Set of values and attitudes supporting evaluative (critical) thinking within an organization • Institutional commitment to learning from evaluation, support evidence-based policy debate and demand for accountability. • Individual more self-directed learners and use information to act; take higher risks but also develop a greater sense of personal accountability and responsibility; consult, coach, and support each other more. • Protective culture (Remove repercussions on careers) • Understanding of the foundations and principles of Monitoring and Evaluation • Institutionalizing independence, credibility and utility • Evaluation policies • Work programme and budget • Independence & adequacy of budget • Conduct of evaluations • Institutional endorsement of standards • In-built Quality Assurance systems

16. A Systemic approach to Capacity Development Institutional Level (policies, procedures, frameworks) Enabling Environment (policies, legislation, power relations, social norms) Individual Level (skills, knowledge, experience)

17. Enabling Environment • Public administration committed to manage for results and accountability • Transparency • Results-based public budgeting • Evidence-based policy making • Strong civil society • rights holders able to demand for and monitor quality of public services • Strong national evaluation association • foster indigenous demand for M&E, and strengthen indigenous supply • set national evaluation standards and norms

18. Lessons learned and Good practices in Capacity Development (1/2) • Capacity development is underpinned by the fundamental characteristic of national ownership • Taking a capacity development response to scale requires linking to national and local plans, processes, budgets and systems • A comprehensive capacity development response must link to and draw from relevant national reforms to be sustained

19. Lessons learned and Good practices in Capacity Development (2/2) • Capacity development is not about a technical fix. It is about transformations and must address how best to manage change • A capacity development response can and often must show both short- and long-term gains, to ensure continued political commitment and resource support • Capacity traps’ more often pertinent to the “soft side” such as power relations, vested interests, access, ethic and attitudes

20. We need a mind shift to do things differently... • We should always aim at strengthening National ownership and leadership, and not undermining it: • Selecting topics of mutual interest • Implement evaluations jointly with Governments, as a first step towards country-led evaluation • Hiring local experts to the maximum extent possible • Not assuming there are weak evaluation capacities, even if none is immediately apparent • Co-ordinating with other UN agencies and key international stakeholders • Invest in the country-led process, even if it may require additional efforts and less control

21. Thank you