Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

Evaluating Country Programmes
222
The participants of the internal SDC workshops thought that the efforts
required for the establishment of a country programme were disproportionately
high. The duration of the elaboration of a CP could last from 3 months to 2-3 years.
Much of the time was taken by the long consultation procedures at headquarters. It
was considered useful to invite decision-makers from headquarters to the planning
workshops in order to speed up the later consultation process. The time needed for
the finalisation of the document was, in all cases, underestimated. It was often
thought that too much emphasis was given to the presentation of the document.
Nevertheless, the value added is seen in the elaboration process of the country
programme, since:
– It supports team-building efforts within the co-ordination offices.
– It has a good integrating effect on the National Programme Officers (NPOs)
and, where applicable, on the project leaders.
– It helps to reach agreement on goals as well as on common values (corporate
identity).
– It increases cross-sectoral fertilisation.
– And, finally, it improves the SDC’s ownership of the country programme.
Where partners’ inputs were included, they were considered to be beneficial.
In general, the learning process is considered as more important than the final document
and this, again, leads to the tendency to give preference to self-evaluation
processes.
Consultants and/or facilitators played different roles in all the processes. It was
recommended to maintain continuity in the advisory team in both the evaluation
and planning stages, and to employ a ghost-writer, who, while following the process,
would also act as a feedback partner (to “mirror the process”).
Participation of other donor agencies, the partner government, the civil society
and beneficiaries
With regard to sector programmes, the involvement of other donor agencies is,
but was not found to be, appropriate in the early stages of the country programme.
Once the general direction of the CP is defined, consultation with other donors is
seen as beneficial, mainly with the idea of creating synergies, and assessing jointly
the development context. In this respect, the alliance with like-minded donors, or
exchange within donor co-ordination groups, is sought for. This is seen as a continuous
and necessary co-ordination process. Depending on the relations established,
selected donors may be invited to participate in self-evaluation workshops
(e.g. Peru). It was considered useful to make reciprocal portfolio analyses with the
World Bank (e.g. planned in Nepal, but not executed because of timing problems),
and with other bilateral donor agencies, or to participate actively in the CAR of the
World Bank (e.g. Bolivia).
OECD 1999