Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

OECD 1999
Country Programme Evaluation: Synthesis Report from the Workshop
A donor’s reasons for carrying out CPEs may also change over time to reflect
changes in agency-wide interest and policy:
– The second set of CPEs carried out by the Netherlands differed from the first,
in that more attention was paid to the broader context of bilateral relationships;
there was specific focus on the Dutch priority themes of the environment
and women; and the dynamics of the programme during the period
under review were explored in more detail.
– The approach adopted by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
(SDC) to the evaluation of aid to Tanzania has changed over time.
An initial self-evaluation exercise had the advantage of being more intimately
embedded in country programme practice: it was faster and contributed
to learning and the formulation of the new country programme. A
subsequent external evaluation was more participatory and provided
accountability. SDC concludes that the best insights are obtained by a combination
of self-evaluation and external evaluation (SDC, 1999b: 7): this combination
helped to build capacity, solidarity and commitment among
programme staff and partners, with the result that the findings were more
readily “owned” and incorporated by the programme. It was however timeconsuming
and relatively expensive.
It should be noted that differences in rationale can also be seen even within
the course of a single CPE (when donor headquarters, country programme actors
and evaluators may have different expectations of the process and outcome).
Sometimes the differences between the CPEs conducted by a single donor
reflect the particular needs of particular country programmes rather than a secular
change in donor evaluation policy. The case for a CPE is most compelling and the
process of Country Programme Evaluation easiest if i) the country programme has
well-defined goals and strategy; ii) the elements of this country programme are
coherent; and iii) the country programme represents a major part of the donor’s global
operations and/or of total aid flows to the partner country in question. The case
is less self-evident and the process harder if the country programme is in reality little
more than a collection of diverse projects which answer directly to the donor
headquarters rather than to a country programme office. 4
This led some participants to argue that evaluation, at least in conventional
logical framework terms, is extremely difficult if there are not clear (country) programme
goals against which to evaluate performance. Country Programme Evaluation
is undoubtedly harder when there is not a coherent country programme, when
the goals of the country programme are implicit rather than explicit (as in the case
of EU aid to Russia), or when the evaluation will assess aid on criteria that differ
from those conceived in the original design. There is a convincing argument however
that, while difficult, Country Programme Evaluation can still take place and can
15