Country Evaluations Generic Terms of Reference & Common Evaluation Matrix

1. Country Evaluations Generic Terms of Reference & Common Evaluation Matrix Presentation to International Reference Group 30 November, 2009

2. Presentation Outline • What are the Generic ToRs, and where do they come from? • What is the Common Evaluation Matrix? • Why do we need it? • How is it to be used? • Working through the Matrix

3. What are the Generic ToRs, and where do they come from? • They set out: agreed purposes and objectives, design, management and governance arrangements, support, staffing, quality assurance, and timelines. They include a common evaluation matrix and a proposed draft outline for the eventual evaluation reports. • The draft was built on the Approach Paper approved by the International Reference Group. After major inputs from the 4 regional workshops and other IRG members, a consolidated set is presented for adoption.

4. IRG Approval Consolidated Overall TORs Other IRG Members’ input Asia-Pacific Workshop Anglophone Africa Workshop Francophone Africa Workshop Latin America Workshop Draft Generic TORs Evaluation Framework Phase 2 Approach Paper IRG Consultations Thematic (Linkages) Study Phase 1 Evaluation

5. The Common Evaluation Matrix: What is it? A set of proposals in line with accepted evaluation practice, to guide the conduct and implementation of the core comparative parts of the Phase 2 Evaluation exercise and the eventual Synthesis

6. Why do we need it? Wide and diverse coverage in the Evaluation This Evaluation will cover implementation in 20+ partner countries, 6 donor countries/agencies and 1 regional development bank Rigour and consistency A common matrix will promote a rigorous common approach and make possible meaningful comparisons, mutual learning, and the eventual synthesis of the overall Evaluation results

7. Using the Common Matrix • The Common Matrix will be an agreed evaluation plan - to guide and inform the process of the evaluation in each country, as well as the eventual synthesis. • For the agreed Core Evaluation Questions and sub-questions which will be answered in all country evaluations, the Common Matrix will need to be strictly followed. • If supplementary, country-specific questions are added, they may follow the same Common Matrix format.

8. Why these Core Questions Other international & national influences & forces Q1: PD in context Q1 Q2: Effects of PD on aid effectiveness Q3 Q2 Q3: Effects of PD on development results Q4 Conclusions: Compared against pre-PD or alternative approaches Overall development processes The Aid Partnership Aid influenced by PD commitments

9. Breaking It Down The Common Matrix identifies: - the proposed Core Evaluation Questions - the sub questions that operationalise these Core Questions and, to be finalized in the Inception report: - types of evidence to be sought and possible indicators - likely data sources - methods and techniques for data collection

10. Evaluation Matrix

11. Q1 The context for PD (scope, limits and dynamics) a) What are the key characteristics of the country that have been most relevant to the implementation of the PD? b) What is the sphere of influence of the Paris Declaration on the overall mobilisation of finance and other resources for development? c) Which are the key actors, in the country and among its development partners, who can take major decisions on aid? What influence do the Paris Declaration and AAA commitments have on them, in relation to their other priorities and incentives? d) What are the most important national and international events that have affected the implementation of the Paris Declaration and Accra priorities, and how? e) To what extent and where has the PD been implemented?

12. Q2. Effects of the PD on aid effectiveness To what extent have the original expected aid effectiveness outcomes in the Paris Declaration (list of eleven) been met? • Country ownership over development i. Stronger national strategies and frameworks? ii. Increased alignment of aid with partner countries’ priorities, systems and procedures, help to strengthen capacities? iii. Defined measures and standards of performance and accountability of partner country systems in public financial management, procurement, fiduciary standards and environmental assessments, in line with broadly accepted good practices and their quick and widespread application?

13. B. Building more inclusive and effective partnerships for development v. Reformed and simplified donor policies and procedures, more collaborative behaviour vi. More predictable and multi-year commitments on aid flows to committed partner countries [ Has the nature of conditionalities been changed to support ownership in line with the AAA commitment (para. 25)] vii. Sufficient delegation of authority to donors’ field staff, and adequate attention to incentives for effective partnerships between donors and partner countries viii. Sufficient integration of global programmes and initiatives into partner countries’ broader development agendas

14. C. Delivering and accounting for development results ix. Stronger partner countries’ capacities to develop and implement results-driven national strategies x. Enhanced respective accountability of countries and donors to citizens and parliaments xi. Less corruption and more transparency, strengthening public support and effective resource mobilisation and allocation. D. Have there been unintended consequences, negative or positive, for aid effectiveness from the Paris Declaration?

15. Q3. Has PD strengthened the contribution of aid to development results a) Were results in specific sectors enhanced through the application of the PD principles?” (Health to be used as a “tracer” sector across all country evaluations, and one other, “non-social” sector to be selected by each country) b) Did the implementation of the PD help countries to improve the prioritisation of the needs of the poorest people, including women and girls, and reduce social exclusion c) How and why has the mix of aid modalities (including general or sector-specific budget support) evolved and what have been the development results?”

16. Q3. Continued d) Has PD implementation led to sustainable increases in institutional capacities and social capital at all levels to respond to development challenges? Why, how and where, and what are the effects? e) Has the implementation of the PD had unintended consequences for development results, negative or positive? f) Has the PD enhanced ODA’s impact on achieving [the goals of the national development strategy] and the MDGs?”

17. Framework for Conclusions • To what extent has each of the five principles of the Paris Declaration been observed and implemented, and the Accra Agenda priorities reflected? Why? Have there been conflicts or trade-offs between them? • What has the Paris Declaration achieved for aid effectiveness and development results? How significant are these contributions? How sustainable? • What has been the added value of Paris Declaration-style development cooperation compared with the pre-PD situation, and seen alongside other drivers of development in the country, other sources of development finance and development cooperation partners beyond those so far endorsing the Declaration? • What are the key messages for a) national stakeholders, and b) donor countries and agencies? • What are the key implications for aid effectiveness in the future?