Framework of Cooperation

1. Using Evaluationto strengthenresults orientation and reportingwith a focus on fragile contexts- from a donor’s perspectiveMathias RickliSwiss Agency for Development and Cooepration

2. Framework of Cooperation International Framework: MDG, Paris Declaration, AAA, MfDR Switzerland: Federal Constitution, Law and Message 2013-16 Partner Country: National Strategies and Priorities • Cooperation Strategies • Time frame: 4 years • Indicative budget according to Federal Council Dispatch • Monitoring Framework • Projects / Programmes • Planning, monitoring and reporting according to PCM, credit proposal • Intenal evaluations • Project / programmeevaluations • Beneficiaryassessments • Intenal evaluations • Peer process Annual Reporting and Planning • Independent evaluation, joint evaluations • Sector program evaluation, reports on effectiveness

3. Framework of Cooperation Message on International Cooperation 2013-16 Humanitarian Aid reduced human suffering (natural disasters, conflicts)/protection of civilians (conflicts/violence) DRR, contributing to national capacities and reduction of future human losses strengthening the humanitarian multilateral system (reform processes, coordination, performance)

4. Framework of Cooperation (continued) Message on International Cooperation 2013-16 ca. 20% increase of resources in fragile contexts Global cooperation: 6. contributing to improved international frameworks for dealing jointly with global issues (clima, water, food security, migration, health) based on innovation and policy influencing 7. supporting the multilateral system regarding improved performance of specific MO and their contribution to MDG and other international goals Regional cooperation: 4. sustainable poverty reduction (basic social services, employment, access to resources and political decision) 5. reducing fragility and its causes, improved living conditions of population based on human rights Cooperation with East of Europe, Central Asia: 8. support to sustainable transition towards democratic and free market systems along specific sector reforms

5. Purpose of evaluation function within SDC steering accountability learning

6. Rolling planning: centralized evaluation function Gouvernanz (BSL) Last update: 12.06.2013 Nothilfe (RVL) gem. roll. Planung Migration joint EDA, BFM, VBS (geplant) Thematic sector program evaluatiosn (1-2 / year) IKRK (offen) gem. roll. Planung M4P (geplant) Berufs- Bildung(RIK) PPDP ( RIK) Case 1 gem. rollender Planung Klima ( EKM) Reports on Effectiveness(biennial) Gesundheit Landwirtschaft ( RIK) Bangladesh Pilot(RVL) Tanzania ( RVL) Mali (geplant) g. roll. Plan. g. roll. Plan. g. roll. Plan. Country programme evaluations (2 / year) Serbien ( RIK/RVL) Naher Osten ( SHE) Zentralasien (geplant) g. roll. Plan. g. roll. Plan. g. roll. Plan. Case 2 institutional evaluations (1 / year) Ressort-forschung (BSL) Fragile Staaten (BSL) Personal (EKM) Kommunik. (offen) Globalprog. (geplant) gem. roll. Planung gem. roll. Planung Nachhaltigkeit EFK (RIK) Netzwerke ( SHE) Case 3 Results report on Message Beobachtungsperiode 2006-10 (SIE) Beobachtungsperiode 2011-15 (SOM/MTD ) + 100 decentralized internal project evaluations / year Time 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 heute Message periods

7. Case 1 • Reports on Effectiveness • Purpose and set-up • Information of the public and member of parliamentfocus on result achievements of Swiss international cooperationpromote Swiss international cooperation as transparent and effective instrument of Swiss foreign policy • Contribute to institutional learning within SDC • Thematic sector programme evaluations-> focus on effectiveness

8. Case 1 Report on Effectiveness Agriculture 2010 Portfolio selection 23 1 14 20 5 21 12 11 17 19 22 15 8 16 4 6 3 18 13 10 9 Random selection of 27 intervention incl. 2 global and 4 multilateral interventions fieldstudy deskstudy

9. Case 1 Report on Effectiveness Agriculture 2010 Ex-post resultsframework (according to Mayne, 1999)

10. Case 1 Report on Effectiveness Agriculture 2010 Source: http://www.deza.admin.ch/de/Home/Wirksamkeit/ressources/resource_en_197093.pdf

11. Case 1 • Use of evaluation Case 1: • Report on Effectiveness Agriculture 2010 • Well received by parliament, however few reactions • ------------------------------------ • Improve quality of and access to project evaluations • Foresee ways to collect and aggregate qualitative and quantitative results meaningfully=> introduce standard indicators for aggregation where feasible • Be clear on your main target audience (public, parliamentarians) • Report on Effectiveness is an accountability tool, do not expect institutional learning • Foresee clear communication concept

12. Case 2 independent evaluation: Lewis Sida (team leader), Frauke de Weijer, William Frej, Ross Mountain, Ben Ramalingam May 2012 Methodology: Interviews including SDC, FDFA, SECO, ICRC, UN, NGOs, national government and other donors Desk reviews for Nepal, Hindu Kush, OPT, Haiti, Global – 20 interviews Case studies Tajikistan and Great Lakes Institutional evaluation

13. Case 2 Main findings • SDC well positioned to work in fragile states • right mixture of approaches, good instincts operationally • can play an important role in the wider international system • individual projects and programmes can perform well, and achieve clear results • little evidence that they make a difference to the root causes of fragility. => to achieve this potential • needs to become more flexible • needs to compliment its technical efforts with political understanding and positioning.

14. Case 2 Measures induced by the evaluationImplementation plan for fragile states • Programming: Country strategies include clear outcomes addressing causes of fragility and conflict, hypothesis of change, scenarios, CSPM, risk management strategy • Cooperation: integrated whole-of-government strategies, coordination with other donors – New Deal. Trust Fund to support joint UN and WB • Human resources: SDCs staffing rules and conditions allow for SDC to have enough and available competent staff • Security: security strategy with clear roles and responsibilities for the whole foreign ministry developed by end of 2013 • Communication: SDC communicates the rationale and goals for engaging in fragile states, how we work with internal and external stakeholders, successes and problems

15. Case 2 • Use of evaluation Case 2:Institutional evaluation • Engaging more in fragile contexts requires institutional fitness to do so • => promote culture of internal evaluation focusing on verifying the theory of change • ----------------------------------- • Timely supporting ongoing internal discussion • High involvement of SDC stakeholders (participative process) • Convincing evaluation team • => Strong influence on institutional steering and learning

16. Case 3 • Monitoring through annual reporting • Cooperation strategy Afghanistan 2012-14 • -> extract from result framework

17. ResultsMonitoringand Reporting Message 2013-16 SDC isreporting.. SDC ismanaging.. Contributesto .. Key sourcefor .. Internal Reports Published Reports

18. Case 3 • Use of evaluation Case 3: • Results Monitoring of cooperation strategies and • Reporting on Message 2013-16 • Result-based Management RBM (log frame) • Link monitoring, internal evaluation and country strategy evaluations to verify the results framework • --------------------------------------- • Focus on Managing for Development Results in-country • Trade-off for accountability purpose by reporting on Message • Challenge:Robustness of Theory of Chain to be strengthened through good quality project evaluation

19. Waysforward • Assure good use of evaluation by considering • timeliness • ownership of evaluee and • necessary robust enough methodology • Introduce theories of changes consequently in fragile context programming • Strengthen evaluation capacities in-country among SDC staff and partners => Continue to support evaluation capacity building facilities such as