Post on 02-Jan-2016
description
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
Use of the DAC guidance in this respect
Presenting how we arrived to a limited set of evaluation questions to cover a subject with specifically complex
features
It concerns the ongoing global evaluation of the EC’s support to conflict prevention and peace building (CPPB)
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
A substantial amount of funding that has grown over the years to reach around €1bn/year as of 2004
Source: CRIS (EC database) and ADE analysis
Funds contracted by the EC to CPPB (2001-2008)
1.142
1.045992
951
387
998
538
128
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1.000
1.100
1.200
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total amount contracted 2001-2008
€6.2bn
From the ECGeneral Budget€4.6bn
From the EDF€1.6bn
5
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
Moving target
• Strategies need to be responsive to specific and often changing situations
• Difficult to reflect sensitive, rather implicit, political objectives
A specific challenge for multi-country evaluations
A strategic focus combined with country case studies
But how to evaluate the “integrated approach”?
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
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
9
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
How?
10
Coverage of the dimensions of the Integrated Approach by Evaluation Questions
Different time dimensions
(when?)
Different types of activities
(what?)
Different geographical dimensions
(where?)
Activities of different actors
(who/with whom?)
EQ 4
EQ 1 EQ 2
EQ 5
EQ 3
EQ 6
EQ1 Mainstreaming
EQ2 Root causes
EQ3Short term prevention
EQ4Geographical aspects
EQ5Coordination & complementarity
EQ6 Commission VA
EQ7 Means
EQ8Timeliness and cost-effectiveness
EQ 7
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
While embedding this assessment in concrete (country-specific) situations
An evaluation that provides conclusions and recommendations at a strategic and transversal level
And taking into account transversal aspects
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)
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:
Additional information? edwin.clerckx@ade.eu
www.ade.eu
Ongoing - Evaluation of the European Commission support to conflict prevention and peace building
Draft final report: May 2011
Dissemination seminar: to be determined