DRAFT
Core Evaluation Team
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

• Broad acceptance of the Framework and Country ToRs derived from Approach Paper and regional workshops
• Several refinements and clarifications to Framework and country ToRs needed and possible by 7 December, as outlined. Recommend Mgt. Gp. Sign-off
• Specified understandings outlined on more detailed methodologies/methods to be incorporated after regional workshops. For IRG review in Inception report (April)
• Specified additional work on Donor/Agency HQ ToRs by 7
December
• Several steps on enlisting additional countries and clarifying governance/ accountabilities
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

1.
Agreed on importance of detailed standard methodologies and guidance
• Clear and precise “interview ready”
• To be worked through at second Regional Workshops and captured in Country
Inception Report/s
• Operational questions on the application of PD principles/
AAA commitments to be included
• Need for reasonable balance of volunteer countries – last effort to reinforce in Latin
America
• See also country ToRs
• Core Team: April 2010
• Core Team: April 2010
• Secretariat with
Colombia, OAS and
Core Team: 15 th January
2010
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

2.
Concerns from Draft Generic ToRs, not yet handled in revised version. Immediate refinements:
•
Clear questions needed on changes
(long-term/ short-term) in the costs and benefits to partners and donors of pre-PD and post-PD partnerships
• Advancing the “mutual” in mutual accountability and transparency – add question assessing implementation of PD para 50 and AAA para 24
• Include new summative question on the relevance of the Paris Declaration and the ways it has been implemented implementation to the challenges of aid effectiveness (in country x)?”
• Assess effects of PD on different aid modalities (Refine Question 3c)
• Include service delivery in assessments of capacity increases (Question 3d)
• Core Team:
7 th December 2009
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

3.
Agreed on importance of multi-faceted communication strategies (national and international)
4.
Some concern to clarify governance and final accountabilities for Country and Donor/Agency HQ studies
5.
Quality Assurance: peer review arrangements (for draft country reports) to be considered (apart from Core
Team quality support and assurance) following team workshops
• Management Group and
National Reference Groups:
April 2010
• Management Group: 7 th
December 2009
• Management Group: April 2010
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

1.
Country Evaluations are the primary vehicle for Phase 2, including donor performance. Donor HQ Studies are a supplement.
2.
Methodology guidance needs to interpret/ clarify
• Flexibility of common Core Questions
– not detailed where not relevant
• Mutual accountability more focused question/s as above
• “Less corruption and more transparency” – specify applying to both sides of partnerships
• “Increased alignment” not just to priorities and strategies but specify to systems, procedures and communication channels
• Core Team: April 2010
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

• “Sufficient delegation of authority and incentives” – further guidance needed to assess
• Build in “degree of confidence” measures with each assessment of achievement against expected outcomes
• Specify key common questions/methods for treatment of health sector and other sectors
• Design of appropriate informed respondents sample for Question 2
• Capture growth dimensions as possible in
Question 3 in relation to poverty as well as through sectors (e.g. infrastructure)
• Include assessment of PD burdens under relevant 11 points and under unintended consequences
• Core Team: April
2010
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

3.
Specific briefing and request for cooperation to donor embassies/ field offices
4.
Consider inviting political reviewers to supplement contractual requirements and
IRG responsibility for quality assurance of eventual synthesis
5.
Special study of “non-PD sources” should include impartial assessment of Trust
Funds, Global Funds and “nontraditional” donors/ partners
6.
Extract useful inputs from other
WPEFF activities
• Donor HQ (IRG members):
January 2010
• Management Group: October
2010
• Core Team/ Management Group:
January 2010
• Core Team: February 2010
(specific suggestions invited from
IRG members)
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

• Auckland/ Approach Paper agreement to additional round of donor studies using the same focus/ approach as Phase 1, with 7 donors/agencies volunteering. In London EMG agreed to offer the possibility of updates to Phase 1 studies. Limited initial interest – donors expect to be evaluated in country evaluations for Phase 2.
• Key parameters: studies not full evaluations, studies and any possible updates are voluntary, limited primary data collection, mainly formative studies ( process focus ) with the evaluative element ( effects focus ) to be covered through the country evaluations.
• Overall agreement to the questions and agreement to the new deepening and the mirror questions but with clearer links with the country evaluations (shared sub-questions and methods?).
• Studies are useful internally as a stand-alone product for the volunteering Donor/ Agency with additional benefit to the global evaluation.
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

• Possible Updates to include: Management responses – any follow-up action to:
 PD Phase 1 Study conclusions and recommendations
 AAA Action Plans
• “Transaction costs” and benefits

3-5 suggested questions to be prepared drawing on Concept Paper
(possibly address separately to HQ Policy, HQ operations, front line decentralised operations) by Dec 7 th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Sign-off
• “Mirror questions” to 7/11 expected outcomes should be confirmed in line with Country Terms of Reference, by Dec 7 th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Sign-off
• Consider suggestion that some mirror examination of health tracer sector be included in Donor/Agency HQ studies Dec 7 th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Signoff
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team

• Use fast-moving country studies as “informal pilots” for testing and refining approach
• Extranet: importance of human dimension – IRG and teams must use it
• Importance of : “being there” – maximising face-toface support role of Core Team at key points
• Onus for quality control of Country Evaluations is with the country set-up
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team