Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in the context of Changing Aid Modalities: The case of Niger‘s Health Sector

Within the context of the 2005 Paris Declaration (PD) and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) recipient countries have committed themselves to setting up transparent results-oriented reporting and assessment frameworks, while donors are expected to use these frameworks and to collaborate with recipients in order to strengthen recipient countries‘ systems. However, progress in this area is slow: only three out of 54 countries in the 2008 PD Survey had adequate results-oriented frameworks. Donors, from their side, are reluctant to rely on systems which are only partially developed, which simultaneously blocks the further elaboration and maturing of recipient systems. Progress at sector level is generally stronger and particularly within health and education sectors where, in the context of Sector Wide Approaches (SWAps), several initiatives have been taken to strengthen monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems. Prior to strengthening an M&E system it is important to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system, taking both M&E supply and demand sides into account. This working paper analyses the M&E system in the health sector of Niger and focuses on issues of policy, methodology, organisation (structure and linkages), capacity, participation of actors outside government and use of M&E outputs. The assessment of the M&E system in Niger‘s health sector shows a mixed picture of a partially developed system. When taking into account that Niger is one of the least developed countries in the world, with very weak scores on many health indicators, this outcome is more positive than expected. The very prominent role of donors might possibly be related to the scores obtained. The authors of this working document, however, argue that if M&E system strengthening is to a large extent pushed from the outside (donors) and not motivated through an internal M&E demand and supply side (both from within as well as outside government), it is likely that the outputs of the system as well as their use will be weak.

Monitoring and Evaluation at the sector level Experiences from Joint Sector Reviews in the education sectors of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger

Aid policy and practice have been thoroughly shaken up over the past few years. One of the crucial reform areas relates to monitoring and evaluation (M&E). In short, aid recipients are asked to elaborate sound, results-oriented frameworks while donors are expected to harmonise and align their own policies and frameworks. Evidence has revealed that implementation on the ground is slow. This discussion paper examines the extent to which joint sector reviews (JSRs) could take the M&E reform agenda forward. JSRs are M&E exercises at the sector level which have the potential to satisfy the existing M&E needs of various stakeholders while, at the same time, also contributing to the M&E reform agenda. They are increasingly utilised on the ground, yet, so far, there do not exist any systematic stocktakings and/or analyses of them. Our own analysis of a sample of JSRs from the education sectors of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger indicate that JSRs score highly on harmonisation, coordination, leadership and broad-based participation; but poorly on alignment. They generally prioritise accountability over learning needs; focus more on implementation than results; and largely neglect accountability and learning at the level of the sector institutional apparatus (including the M&E system). In this paper, findings from the field are contrasted with insights from evaluation theory and practice so as to provide suggestions for on the ground JSR improvements.

Gender mainstreaming within the context of changing aid modalities: evidence from Tanzania

With the aim to promote aid effectiveness that ultimately contributes to development, changes in aid policies and instruments have been propagated over the last decade. The 2005 Paris Declaration (PD) and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action (AAA), which set out a reform agenda around the principles of ownership, harmonisation, alignment, results-orientation and mutual accountability, are illustrations of the growing consensus in this respect. While the rationale for a gender sensitive PD may easily be built upon equality, effectiveness and efficiency arguments, gender is hardly mainstreamed into the PD and its implementation. In a previous study (see Holvoet and Inberg 2009) we explored how the changing aid architecture unfolds opportunities and challenges for gender mainstreaming policies and gender equality and empowerment objectives. This paper zooms in on the case of Tanzania, one of the donor darlings, and studies how opportunities and challenges materialise on the ground. It analyses how various actors, including government, civil society and donors, are handling gender mainstreaming in the realm of ongoing changes in aid policies and instruments.

Changing Aid Policies through a Gender Lens: an International Perspective and the Case of the Dutch Development Cooperation

Since the turn of the century changes in aid policies and modalities have been proposed with the aim to promote aid effectiveness. This article is a study on the ongoing reform processes within partner and donor countries as seen through a gender lens. It explores more closely how changing aid policies unfold opportunities and challenges for gender mainstreaming policies and gender equality objective. The article analyses in particular how donors are handling gender concerns in the realm of the ongoing changes and zooms into the case of Dutch Development Cooperation, one of change champions. Such a gendered analysis of aid reform processes is of paramount importance as changes in gender and development policies have always largely been influenced by shifts in general aid and development policies

Gender Mainstreaming in Sector Budget Support: The Case of the European Commission\u27s Sector Support to Rwanda\u27s Agriculture Sector

Donors face difficulties when handling gender concerns in the context of ongoing changes in aid modalities. Against this background, the European Union (EU) Member States and the European Commission (EC) adopted the EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development (2010-2015) and launched, in collaboration with the UN Women and the International Training Center of the International Labour Organisation, the ‘Increasing Accountability in Financing for Gender Equality’ programme. Within the framework of this programme, the EU delegation in Rwanda has elaborated a Gender Mainstreaming Strategy for the EC sector budget support to the Agriculture Sector in Rwanda. Given that, so far, experiences with gender mainstreaming in sector budget programmes in the agriculture sector are hardly documented, the review of the current degree of gender-sensitivity and the remedying gender mainstreaming strategy are also the focus of our contribution. Both the EC and Rwanda are interesting cases as the former is an influential actor in development cooperation, while Rwanda’s own commitment to gender equality gives the EC (and other donors) an interesting entry point to further trigger gender mainstreaming through (sector) budget support

Paris Declaration Country Evaluations: How Solid is the Evidence? META-Evaluation of the Country Evaluations of the Phase II Paris Declaration Evaluation

The evaluation of the Paris Declaration (PD) is one of the most important and challenging evaluative undertakings of the past decade in the aid sector. The PD evaluation commissioned by the OECD/DAC Evaluation Network consists of a set of independent crosscountry and donor evaluations which were carried out in two phases. The scope and importance of this evaluation makes it a particularly suitable subject for a meta-evaluation. Our 'evaluation of the evaluation’ complements the official meta-evaluation of the synthesis report in that it assesses all country evaluation reports available in English (15 out of 21 reports) using the OECD/DAC Evaluation Quality Standards. Two research questions are central in our undertaking: Is the quality of the country evaluation reports good enough to be included in the synthesis report? Do the reports properly comply with the evaluation framework to permit comparison of evaluation across countries? The findings of the meta-evaluation demonstrate that comparability of country evaluation reports is satisfactory. The quality of evidence, however, is questionable, due to various limitations and constraints that plagued several country evaluations. Therefore, the inclusion of some of the country reports in the evaluation synthesis report is questionable.