The Evaluation of the Paris Declaration

1. The Evaluation of the Paris Declaration Summary presentation June, 2011 Niels Dabelstein

2. 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

3. Evaluation components

4. 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

5. The aid reform campaign

6. The Key Evaluation Questions “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) “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) “Has the implementation of the Paris Declaration strengthened the contribution of aid to sustainable development results? How?” (Development outcomes)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Implementation of the 5 Paris Principles Country ownership has advanced farthest Alignment andharmonisationimproved 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

10. 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

11. Examples of the range of performance against each intended improvement (From Fig. 5)

12. 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?

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 makethe 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.

16. 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 co-operation not yet covered by the Declaration

17. 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.

18. Main Recommendations I 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

19. Main Recommendations 2 B. For policymakers in partner countries: Take full leadership and responsibility at home for further aid reforms Set strategies and priorities for strengthening capacities Intensify the political priority and concrete actions to combat poverty, exclusion and corruption C. For policymakers in donor countries and agencies: Match the crucial global stakes in aid and reform with better delivery on promises made Face up to and manage risks honestly, admit failures Apply peer pressure to ‘free-riders’ for more balanced donor efforts A dozen key areas are identified for work beyond the Evaluation*

20. 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