Evaluation of the EUWI Country Dialogue

1. Evaluation of the EUWI Country Dialogue Stockholm International Water Institute Manfred MATZ / Team leader Rebecca LÖFGREN / Desk officer

2. Preface • The country dialogue was created based on a proposal from IRC in 2004 as a task of the AWG that was later on adopted by other WG • After 3 years on several occasions discussion inside the EUWI / AWG were held where controversial opinions about the benefit of the CD were raised • In the 2007 evaluation report of EUWI, CD was specifically treated in Annex G ( = modest results, little support from EU commissions, ignorance of ongoing processes) • In 2006 multi stake holder forum agreed on an independant evaluation of the CD • SIWI was selected to do the evaluation under a contract with IRC / financing came from the EU Water Facility through the application by the AWF

3. Preface II • In 2007 a new strategy of the EUWI, including the CD, was proposed and agreed upon, embarking on the following points with regard to the CD: • Ongoing country dialogues which have shown progress will continue if the partner country wishes to do so. Support to these country dialogues should continue to be given by in-country delegations of the EU MS and COM • Country dialogues with no progress or where progress has stalled should be discontinued. Lead EU MS are requested to communicate the new strategy to the respective decision makers in the pilot countries. • Country dialogues should be based on the explicit demand of a partner country. They have a role in countries where donor coordination is not well developed and in countries with weak national institutions. In order to ensure close harmonisation with cooperation programmes on the ground, European participation in Country Dialogues needs to be led internally by the operational units of EC and EU Member States and to be part of joint programming where it is in place. • Pilot country dialogues need to be adjusted to the new strategy. The planned evaluation of the country dialogues will be carried out and the findings should be used to assist in modifying the approach on country dialogues.

4. AWG Log frame extraction (oct. 2007) • Indicators • 3 pilot countries continue the implementation of their dialogues (in a modified way, following the CD evaluation) • Specific reporting from EU MS and partners in African countries • 3 countries get support from FWG on financing strategies • 6 pilot countries surveyed during the evaluation process • 1 final report of the evaluation of country dialogues conducted so far • 1 CD toolkit disseminated among all EU MS and AMCOW countries Result 3. The AWG actively initiates and promotes country dialogues to help improve coordination between donors • Means of verification: • Monitoring documents provided by EU MS • Presentations delivered during the AWG meetings • Finalized financing strategies documents • List of countries and results of the surveys • Final evaluation report Toolkit; list of countries • Assumptions: • Some pilot countries are still interested in continuing the dialogue that already started • Evaluation is conducted in an totally independent manner

5. What was done? • Documents reviewed (EUWI review 2007, new strategy of the EUWI covering the CD(2007), • Interviews with key resource persons (5 up to date) • African consultants reviews done in the following countries: Congo / Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Zambia • Analysis of combined experiences and drafting this presentation • A scoring system was established to through light on to which degree a result of the CD process in the country is going on (A) and to which degree they or any other national processes with similar aspects in a country are being addressed (B)

6. Country case: Congo / Republic • started with support from EUWI and got stuck after a short period mainly for the following reasons: • The lack of resources for the facilitation of the dialogue process • The time needed to extend dissemination of the objectives of dialogue through institutional networks and the civil society • A low capacity of various actors to describe and justify their proposals and to identify the conditions necessary for the sustainability of actions they propose. • A framework for a national multi stakeholder dialogue has however been proposed and awaits financing from donor side

7. Country case: Ethiopia • “Excellent leadership” by Italian Cooperation and the Ministry of Water Resources. MWR has been the driving force. • All other partners felt involved and played a vital role in sector coordination • The CD linked up with ongoing processes in the country. • Situations where involved actors had different agendas with the CD • CD was by some misunderstood as a way of raising financing for the sector • Ministry of Finance was not onboard – has created issues after the WASH takeover Result • CD integrated into government WASH programme. A weak structure makes it difficult to survive without the donor support. CD has moved the water sector forward and strengthened its coordination and efficiency. Donors transparency and accountability increased, but not the government’s.

8. Country case: Ghana • A strong understanding of a link between the CD and EWF interfered continuously in the process which lead to discouragement as this proved not be the case • However a process started (and continues) that helped building up a multi stakeholder dialogue but not exactly in the way the CD was initially conceived • There is however an noticeable impact on the National water policy through the discussion in the sub-working group WS • The working group got very ‘practical’ in concentrating on looking for funds and meet regularly with participation of NGO CONIWAS (Coalition of NGO in water and sanitation sector)

9. Country case: Mozambique • 3 similar process at the same time – GWP, EUWI CD & WSP • No preparations before the launch and handed to a reluctant donor to lead (Dutch Embassy). No country-specific adjustments to the process • No lead ministry was identified. The process was not anchored in any institutions • Expectations were not met because of the CD lack of resources. The EUWI was mistaken for EUWF • Results The CD process is not perceived to have even started in Mozambique

10. Country case: Rwanda • The CD in Rwanda did not start because of a quite successful national SWAP process already in place

11. Country case: Zambia • National competition between two ministries as being responsible for the water sector • Strong donor coordination already existing in the country • The presence of an external facilitator was limited • The government had no apparent role in the CD • The roles of all actors, the lead donor incl., was unclear • The objective was unclear to all stakeholders • Lack of capacity with the involved actors Result: • An existing dialogue process was in place and the CD was felt to be competing with the national structure • The dialogue died down after little time

12. Overview results all countries

13. Preliminary analysis I • The idea of assisting in improving coordination of all kinds of stakeholders in partner countries is a good initiative (+) • Planning process (e.g. log frame etc.) and wording of AWG plan LF not sufficiently clear (-) • Implementation in most countries was lacking sufficient time and financial means ( all except Ethiopia) (-) • Perception of the CD as a foreign driven process (EUWI CD !) common (-) • Perception as a competition to other donor policy advisory processes possible (other donors) (n) • Understanding of what the CD is, varies between donor coordination and a multi stakeholder participatory process (-)

14. Preliminary analysis II • The presentation of the concept of CD was weak so that the understanding of what it was took either long time or was never achieved, (-) • Misinterpretation of the CD as being a part or preparatory instrument of the EWF discouraged many partner countries (-) , (applies as well to the EUWI in general and as well to other countries than the surveyed ones) • There is only one country with a fully successful process close to the initial conception of the CD (Ethiopia) (-)

15. Points of discussion / reflection from the audience • Ownership • How to improve / guarantee it ? • How to manifest interest / which country is ready ? • Complementarily to other processes • how to guarantee complementarities to existing processes in the partner countries ? • Financial instrument • to which extent should the CD level the playing field for future investments ? • Conceptualisation • How should the concept be developed ?

16. Next steps & finalization of study: to explain what will be done and when ready etc • Collect comments from the ground on the key questions (reactions from partner countries are crucial) • Write the draft report delivered by end of September embarking on • Analysis of the process (planning, implementation, outcome) according to the DAC criteria for evaluation (pertinence, efficiency, effectiveness, Impact, sustainability). • general recommendation on whether and how to continue the CD • discuss the report in the next AWG meeting in Nov. 2008 and decide on conclusion

17. Thank you for your attention email addresses for your comments Deadline 5th of September: Manfred MATZ : manfred.matz@siwi.org Rebecca LÖFGREN: rebecca.lofgren@siwi.org