Regional Workshop on the UNDP Evaluation Policy Arab States

Evaluation should strengthen partnerships with governments and key stakeholders. It should
build the capacity of national institutions to implement, monitor and evaluate.
Key issues and implications
The concept of development evaluation is relatively new in the region and is not widely applied.
As a result, there is a lack of understanding of what evaluation means at the national level and
how to improve the capacity of national evaluations systems to design, implement and use
evaluations. The issues raised on capacity development related to both UNDP and national
systems.
A range of issues were highlighted by UNDP staff through the discussions: (i) ensuring
independence of evaluation – in particular roles and responsibilities between those who manage
and commission evaluations (e.g. UNDP COs, government agencies), those who have an interest
in evaluation results at a policy and programme level, as well as those who actually undertake
evaluations, are not always clearly defined; (ii) problem of statistical data in terms of the quality
and availability of data, partly compounded by the fact that data bases are produced by different
agencies without sufficient coordination, which also reflect weakness in relation to sensitive
topics such as violence against women and human rights; (iii) need for a more effective
monitoring and evaluation system in UNDP COs. Without clear indicators, a coherent monitoring
approach and a precise evaluation plan, the identification of what to evaluate and the criteria for
evaluation becomes arbitary and subjective; (iv) high turnover of UNDP staff; (v) lack of
financial and human resources and (vi) need for more sharing of evaluative information and best
practices at national and regional levels.
Key challenges for government included M&E functions not being clearly defined, lack of human
and financial resources, and lack of strategic framework for M&E in most line ministries. Even
high aid recipient countries like Egypt and Jordan (among others) stressed that past efforts to
improve national evaluation system were technically inadequate, of low priority and underresourced,
although things are now changing for the better. They regard the current weak capacity
of national evaluation systems as stemming from (i) the complexity of what must be assessed (i.e.
results at outcome and impact levels); (ii) a major inconsistency between the assumptions of the
aid system and how development actually occurs on the ground; (iii) the limitations of the
different instruments government, UNDP and other UN and donor agencies use to monitor and
evaluate; (iv) government line ministries still focus on projects rather than higher order results at
national level; (v) a culture pervasive throughout the international aid system that values
“reporting” more than reflection; (vi) a lack of benchmarks to compare results. Finally, evaluation
costs can not always be allocated to project budgets and are therefore treated as overheads that
must be kept low. These factors make it particularly difficult for government to significantly
improve national evaluation systems.
The “crisis” countries in the region, including those in transition, also reported special challenges.
Most of these countries rely heavily on DEX and usually manage large amount of resources.
Some of these countries (e.g. Somalia) have no cohesive, universally adopted development
strategy for the entire country. While most initiatives tend to be humanitarian assistance, the
sustainability of such efforts and development results are difficult to assess because of: (i) lack of
national institution for data collection; (ii) lack of reliable population data (census) amidst
recurring population movements; (iii) weak information sharing and documentation among aid
agencies in particular; (iv) weak capacity for policy making on the part of national authorities;
and (vi) weak internal government coordination, cooperation, and coordination. Government
representatives from these countries emphasized the need for better practices for M&E (i.e.tools
9