The Evaluation of the
Paris Declaration
Summary presentation of the
Synthesis Report
June, 2011
Structure of presentation
1. The central message
2. Evaluation questions
3. Main findings in the 3 evidence chapters
• Aid and aid reform in the bigger picture
• Aid effectiveness since 2000-2005
• Contributions to development results
4. Conclusions
5. Main recommendations to policy-makers
6. The background, process and limits of the
Evaluation
2
The central message
• The global campaign to make international aid
programmes more effective is showing results.
• But the improvements are slow and uneven in most
developing countries and even more so among
most donor agencies, although the changes
expected of them are less demanding.
3
The Key Evaluation Questions
1. “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)
2. “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)
3. “Has the implementation of the Paris Declaration
strengthened the contribution of aid to sustainable
development results? How?” (Development outcomes)
4
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: The Evaluation highlights the
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. 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.
5
Context: Aid reform in perspective
Overall development processes
The Aid Partnership
Aid influenced by Declaration commitments
Other
international
& national
influences &
forces
6
The aid reform campaign
7
Contributions to aid effectiveness
•
Pulled together and focused global attention on ambitious,
experience-based measures to improve development
cooperation and aid for better development results
•
Clarified the roles of ‘aid’ and ‘better aid’
•
Strengthened global norms of good practice
•
Helped progress toward 11 key outcomes set in 2005 (Fig. 3)
•
Improved the quality of aid partnerships and supported
rising aid volumes and expectations for improved “NorthSouth” relations at a global level
•
Better progress among partner countries than among
donors, who (with some striking exceptions) have been too
uncoordinated and risk averse to play their full part
8
Implementation of the 5 Paris Principles
• Country ownership has advanced farthest
• Alignment and harmonisation have improved
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
9
The 11 intended improvements for effective aid
1. Stronger national strategies and operational frameworks
2. Increased alignment of aid with country systems
3. Meeting defined measures and standards, e.g. in financial
mgt.
4. Reduced duplication of donor effort, more cooperation
5. Reformed and simplified donor policies and procedures
6. Increased predictability of aid
7. Sufficient delegation to donor field staff
8. Sufficient integration of global initiatives
9. Increased capacity
10. Enhanced accountability
11. Reduced corruption and increased transparency
10
Examples of the range of performance
against each intended improvement (From Fig. 5)
11
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 a better quality of aid overall
Most 2010 timeframes were unrealistic
12
Contributions to Development Results 1
Assessed in four key areas, 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?
• 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
striking exceptions, donors have been risk-averse and slow to
make the less demanding changes expected of them. Peer
pressure and collective action are not yet embedded in donor
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 – succeeded as an international “compact” for
reform
Compared with 20 to 25 years ago, aid is 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 aid management
A platform for the future – applying and adapting the
disciplines of aid reform to forms of development cooperation 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
A. 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:
1. Take full leadership and responsibility at home for further aid
reforms
2. Set strategies and priorities for strengthening capacities
3. Intensify the political priority and concrete actions to combat
poverty, exclusion and corruption
C. For policymakers in donor countries and agencies:
1. Match the crucial global stakes in aid and reform with better
delivery on promises made
2. Face up to and manage risks honestly, admit failures
3. Apply peer pressure to ‘free-riders’ for more balanced donor
efforts
A dozen key areas are identified for work beyond the
Evaluation*
20
Background, process and limits for the Evaluation
Background
• The Declaration itself pledged an independent evaluation
- itself a tool for mutual accountability
• A fully joint evaluation conducted over 4 years (Phase 1:
2007-8; 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
21
Evaluation components
22
Process for Phase 2
• Evaluation Matrix developed for country studies, applying 11
outcomes of PD and AAA agreements.
• Integrated evaluation quality assurance and peer review
• Recognised the limits of aid in development and applied
“contribution analysis.”
• A targeted process of guidance & support, recognising the
primacy of country studies.
• Good governance of the Evaluation at national and
international levels ( with 52 member International Reference
Group) ensured joint process and independence and
validated the framework and findings at key stages.
23
Key limitations
• Evaluating the effects of a political Declaration traditional ‘linear’ approaches were not relevant
• Limited time elapsed since 2005
• No comprehensive data from country studies on
multilaterals and donors
• Different methodology for donors (carried over from
Phase 1)
• Self-selection of participating countries / agencies –
but still reasonably representative “sample”
24
Country Evaluations & Donor Studies
25
25
Full reports and supporting materials
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
26