DAC OECD Workshop on Evaluating conflict prevention and peace-building activities

1. DAC OECD Workshop on Evaluating conflict prevention and peace-building activities Oslo, 17 February 2011 Evaluation of overall European Commission support to Conflict Prevention and Peace Building in third countries: Defining a limited set of Evaluation Questions to cover a specifically complex subject Edwin.Clerckx@ade.eu

2. Purpose of today’s presentation It concerns the ongoing global evaluation of the EC’s support to conflict prevention and peace building (CPPB) Presenting how we arrived to a limited set of evaluation questions to cover a subject with specifically complex features Use of the DAC guidance in this respect

3. Agenda • Key elements of the complexity • Proposed answer • Link with OECD DAC guidance • Next steps

4. A “classical” but nonetheless challenging demand Commission support to Conflict Prevention & Peace Building (CPPB) As defined by 2001 Communication on Conflict Prevention In all third countries (non OECD, non DG Enlargement, non ECHO) Over the period 2001-2010 5 DAC evaluation criteria and coherence, EC added value and 3Cs Commissioned by the DEVCO Joint Evaluation Unit

5. A substantial amount of funding that has grown over the years to reach around €1bn/year as of 2004 , Funds contracted by the EC to CPPB (2001-2008) Total amount contracted 2001-2008 €6.2bn From the ECGeneral Budget €4.6bn From the EDF €1.6bn Source: CRIS (EC database) and ADE analysis

6. A subject with a specific complexity in itself • Behind the concept of CPPB are different sub-categories that constitute sectors / themes in their own right, receiving substantial funding, e.g.: • - Rapid intervention: 1 233 €m • Democracy, rule of law and civil society: 911 €m • - Population flows and human trafficking: 898 €m The 2001 Communication from the Commission participates to a “paradigm shift”: a close interaction between CPPB and development cooperation Support to CPPB becomes virtually all encompassing

7. The context is key Conflict context • More so than in other sector evaluations, the importance of the specific context is crucial: “one size fits all” does not work • Strategies need to be responsive to specific and often changing situations • Difficult to reflect sensitive, rather implicit, political objectives Moving target A specific challenge for multi-country evaluations

8. Agenda • Key elements of the complexity • The proposed answer • Link with OECD DAC guidance • Next steps

9. A strategic focus combined with country case studies CHALLENGE: cover complexity and diversity – take into account the context – strive for a limited set of conclusions and recommendations – make sure the exercise remains feasible • Option 1: Cover all thematic dimensions • Not feasible in terms of time and budget • Would end up with diverse thematic conclusions not covering CPPB as such • Option 2: Focus on one specific facet • Would by definition not be an evaluation of support to CPPB as such • Would still be too complex • Option 3: two key features • A strategic focus on the heart of the Commission’s approach to CPPB the “integrated approach” • Build the evaluation around country case studies But how to evaluate the “integrated approach”?

10. Coverage of the dimensions of the Integrated Approach by Evaluation Questions How? EQ 3 EQ 1 EQ 2 Different time dimensions (when?) Different types of activities (what?) EQ 7 EQ 6 EQ 5 EQ 4 Activities of different actors (who/with whom?) Different geographical dimensions (where?) EQ 8

11. Evaluation Questions – EQ1 to EQ3 EQ1 on Mainstreaming To what extent were CP and PB mainstreamed into the Commission’s financial and non-financial support? EQ2 on Root causes of conflicts To what extent has Commission support contributed to tackling the root causes of conflicts? EQ3 on Short-term prevention To what extent has Commission support helped to enhance short-term prevention of conflicts, while ensuring the linkage with long-term prevention?

12. Evaluation Questions – EQ4 & EQ5 EQ4 on Geographical dimensions To what extent has the Commission’s support to CPPB been designed and implemented to take into account different geographical dimensions of (potential) conflicts (international, regional, country and local levels) and to what extent has the support provided at different geographical levels been articulated to foster synergies? EQ5 on Coordination and complementarity To what extent and with what effect has the Commission’s support to CPPB been designed and implemented in coordination and complementarity at different levels both within the EU and with other donors and partners?

13. Evaluation Questions – EQ6 to EQ8 EQ6 on Commission’s value added on CPPB What has been the value added of the Commission’s support in terms of reducing tensions and preventing the outbreak, recurrence or continuation of violent conflict? EQ7 on Means to facilitate IA To what extent have the means of the Commission facilitated the implementation of an integrated approach to CPPB? EQ8 on Timeliness and cost-effectiveness To what extent did the pursuing of an integrated approach towards CPPB allow results to be achieved in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost?

14. Wrap-up: expected outputs of this approach An evaluation of the Commissions’ support to CPPB as such and not only of certain dimensions of it An evaluation that provides conclusions and recommendations at a strategic and transversal level While embedding this assessment in concrete (country-specific) situations And taking into account transversal aspects

15. Agenda • Key elements of the complexity • The proposed answer • Link with OECD DAC guidance • Next steps

16. DAC guidance proved useful for different purposes Providing an overall reference framework (including references to other sources) Conceptual clarification (e.g. on conflict sensitivity) Useful insights to help defining and structuring the evaluation questions (see section 3.3.4 on subquestions for evaluation criteria) For more specific issues (e.g. specific matters to be taken into consideration for selection of countries for field visits)

17. Suggestions for further improvement • More guidance to deal with the specific complexity of evaluating CPPB support, especially in multi-country evaluations • (additional level in section 3.2.2 on the hierarchy of evaluation scopes?) • How to determine the boundaries of the scope? • What type of evaluation questions to ask at strategic / transversal level? • How to combine a strategic / transversal level evaluation with a context specific approach? • Make guidance more operational, for instance by suggesting approaches and tools to deal with specific issues raised, e.g.: • “Look at the bigger picture”, “Look at coordination”: how to deal with it? • How to verify whether conflict prevention is mainstreamed, whether support provided is conflict sensitive? Some issues with specific relevance for conflict prevention and their implications in terms of evaluation could be developed more (e.g.: the geographical dimension, the importance of an institutional impetus, linkages short-term long term, value-added of specific actors)

18. Agenda • Key elements of the complexity • The proposed answer • Link with OECD DAC guidance • Next steps

19. Next Steps Preliminary study to the Evaluation of the European Commission’s support to conflict prevention and peace building : http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2009/1266_docs_en.htm Concept study of the European Commission’s Support to Conflict Prevention and Peace Building : http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2010/1277_docs_en.htm Available material: Ongoing - Evaluation of the European Commission support to conflict prevention and peace building • Draft final report: May 2011 • Dissemination seminar: to be determined Additional information? edwin.clerckx@ade.eu www.ade.eu