A ripple in development? - Channel Research

the style of the text in the evaluative chapters 2 to 6. More specific approaches
have also been applied to each theme of investigation within the same data collection
and case study framework, as is reflected in each thematic chapter. We have
preserved this variation between the chapters to preserve the inquiry
within each theme, while taking care that the different chapters yielded
generic findings.
Some questions cited in the ToR were not dealt with in depth.
There were four dimensions for this:
• Breadth of subject: to discuss findings with sufficient evidence for all
areas of questioning would have required an inordinate amount of
time, consequently requiring that some prioritization be given to
questions. We have given slightly less importance to the shift in roles of
aid agencies from implementer to facilitator (which we do not find has
taken place, or possibly do not have specific evidence on), and to
island-specific questions described in the ToR. We recognize that it
would have been of interest (although not in the ToR) to obtain figures
of funding volumes that make a difference between relief, rehabilitation
and development, but this would require addressing programming
distinctions which are unique to various donors, whose
own reporting does not always differentiate between donations made
for reconstruction in a province from the country wide development
cooperation.
• Private sector: the ToR alluded to the possibility of covering the private
sector contribution to LRRD. This can be divided into small
and medium enterprise, which is covered here, and then larger investors,
which are more problematic to include, and have hence not
been covered. It was found that for the interventions of larger multinational
corporations, such as an oil and gas major in Aceh and an
oil services company in the region, the community outreach projects
after the tsunami made a strict difference between press releases and
internal evaluation. In the latter case disclosure would have required
considerable consultation. For the public/private partnerships and
for development bank loans, such as for the German, French and
Japanese interventions, it was found that the particular constraints
of country indebtedness and conditionalities meant that projects
were only getting under way at the end of 2008. This meant that our
primary focus on the role of the private sector was placed on macroeconomic
development and small and medium enterprises.
• Capacity development: this theme included in the evaluation is a new
field for international development, which is affected by the double
risk of ill-defined concepts and terminology, and of a severe lack of
outcome/impact evidence. Agencies whose primary purpose is
capacity building tend to report on outputs, while at the policy level
there is very little guidance on the broad limits of this field (does
22