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)

3

Agenda

Key elements of the complexity

Proposed answer

Link with OECD DAC guidance

Next steps

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

8

Agenda

Key elements of the complexity

The proposed answer

Link with OECD DAC guidance

Next steps

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

15

Agenda

Key elements of the complexity

The proposed answer

Link with OECD DAC guidance

Next steps

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)

18

Agenda

Key elements of the complexity

The proposed answer

Link with OECD DAC guidance

Next steps

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