Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$CQE=U]^\]Z: KAZAKHSTAN - 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
OECD 1999 Country Programme Planning and Country Programme Evaluation within SDC Different practices can be found concerning the involvement of partner governments. These vary from non-involvement (e.g. Romania) to simple information (e.g. Pakistan, Nepal) and regular consultation meetings (e.g. Bolivia, Peru, Central America) to consultation/involvement in the different crucial stages of the country programme elaboration (e.g. Kirgistan). A privileged position is granted to the Swiss executing agencies as partner organisations. They are generally well integrated into the process since at times they have the operational responsibility for an entire specific sector in a given country or region. However, sometimes their interests are felt as too influential (problem of acquisition). Local partners are involved to differing degrees. Generally, they participate in the workshops. The most outstanding example of involvement can be found in Burkina Faso and Benin where the partner organisations from all the sectors were invited to formulate their programme and the expected SDC contribution. These inputs are considered in the formulation of the country programme. Beneficiaries (understood as beneficiaries at project or sectoral level) have never been included directly in the process since the country programme is at a strategic level and is used as a steering document. Nevertheless, the information of the ultimate beneficiaries at grassroots level enters the CP through the inputs by the project leaders (e.g. Peru), the partner institutions (e.g. Burkina Faso, Benin), or through inputs of sectoral papers prepared by SDC staff at programme level (e.g. Central America). If the concept of beneficiary is extended to the local, regional or central authorities and counterpart organisations of the civil society, then these were integrated in some cases (see chapter 4). Linkage with strategic documents (S-21) SDC’s development philosophy and its strategic documents are in line with the S-21. However, differences between the SDC strategic documents and the S-21 can be noted. The S-21 lists goals with quantifiable indicators, while the SDC strategic documents have a more conceptual approach. SDC strategic documents are consulted for the elaboration of the country programme. Coherence is also safeguarded by the Divisional strategies (e.g. Latin America, Asia I, Asia II) and the Sectoral strategies. In more recent CPs, the link to the S-21 is also established (e.g. Tanzania). In summary, the country programme is an agreement between the Geographical Division and the Board of Directors on the implementation of certain SDC principles, cross-sectional themes and strategic thrusts in the specific partner country, which take into consideration international dialogue on development aid and its principles. 223
Page 1 and 2:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 3 and 4:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluating Country Programmes 4 The
Page 7 and 8:
Evaluating Country Programmes 6 SDC
Page 9 and 10:
OECD 1999 Glossary of Acronyms and
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 1 Co
Page 13 and 14:
Rationale, purpose and use OECD 199
Page 15 and 16:
OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluat
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
DONOR INFLUENCES Evaluation skills
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
13.00-14.30 Lunch break 14.30-15.30
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
OECD 1999 FINLANDE/FINLAND Ms. Eeva
Page 47 and 48:
OECD 1999 PORTUGAL Mr. Mario Mendes
Page 49 and 50:
Mr. Wolfgang GRUBER Director, Proje
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Evaluating Country Programmes 54 It
Page 55 and 56:
OECD 1999 56 Mali . . . . . . . . .
Page 57 and 58:
Evaluating Country Programmes 58 -
Page 59 and 60:
Evaluating Country Programmes 60 po
Page 61 and 62:
Evaluating Country Programmes 62 Bo
Page 63 and 64:
Evaluating Country Programmes 64 -
Page 65 and 66:
Evaluating Country Programmes 66 In
Page 67 and 68:
Evaluating Country Programmes 68 Ti
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Evaluating Country Programmes 72 Re
Page 73 and 74:
Evaluating Country Programmes 74 pe
Page 75 and 76:
Evaluating Country Programmes 76 va
Page 77 and 78:
Evaluating Country Programmes 78 (e
Page 79 and 80:
Evaluating Country Programmes 80 Th
Page 81 and 82:
Evaluating Country Programmes 82 ou
Page 83 and 84:
Evaluating Country Programmes 84 Wi
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Evaluating Country Programmes 88 Ap
Page 89 and 90:
OECD 1999 Appendix 2.3 Complete Lis
Page 91 and 92:
OECD 1999 93 Complete list of known
Page 93 and 94:
OECD 1999 95 Complete list of known
Page 95 and 96:
OECD 1999 The CPE review instrument
Page 97 and 98:
OECD 1999 Appendix 2.5 List of Dono
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
OECD 1999 Checklist of questions (c
Page 103 and 104:
Country programme evaluations - See
Page 105 and 106:
Summary OECD 1999 Chapter 3 Country
Page 107 and 108:
Background OECD 1999 CPE in the Net
Page 109 and 110:
CPE in the Netherland’s Developme
Page 111 and 112:
OECD 1999 CPE in the Netherland’s
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Methodology OECD 1999 CPE in the Ne
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Evaluating Country Programmes 124 P
Page 123 and 124:
Evaluating Country Programmes 126 G
Page 125 and 126:
Evaluating Country Programmes 128 R
Page 127 and 128:
Evaluating Country Programmes 130 3
Page 129 and 130:
Evaluating Country Programmes 132 P
Page 131 and 132:
Evaluating Country Programmes 134 Y
Page 133 and 134:
Evaluating Country Programmes 136 N
Page 135 and 136:
Evaluating Country Programmes 138 O
Page 137 and 138:
Evaluating Country Programmes 140 p
Page 139 and 140:
Evaluating Country Programmes 142 R
Page 141 and 142:
Chapter 5 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 143 and 144:
Country Assistance Evaluation in th
Page 145 and 146:
OECD 1999 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Traditional tools: relevance, effic
Page 155 and 156:
Measuring sustainability OECD 1999
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Rating country strategies and assis
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 169 and 170: OECD 1999 Chapter 6 French Experien
Page 171 and 172: OECD 1999 French Experience with Co
Page 173 and 174: OECD 1999 French Experience with Co
Page 175 and 176: French Experience with Country Prog
Page 177 and 178: OECD 1999 Chapter 7 Issues for Coun
Page 179 and 180: Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 181 and 182: Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 183 and 184: OECD 1999 Issues for Country Evalua
Page 185 and 186: Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 8 Co
Page 187 and 188: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Strate
Page 191 and 192: Country Assistance Strategies as a
Page 203 and 204: Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 9 Th
Page 211 and 212: Executive summary OECD 1999 Chapter
Page 213 and 214: OECD 1999 Country Programme Plannin
Page 217: OECD 1999 Country Programme Plannin
Page 227 and 228: OECD 1999 Chapter 11 Real Progress:
Page 229 and 230: Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
Page 233 and 234: OECD 1999 Real Progress: Fifty Year
Page 249 and 250: Assessment OECD 1999 Real Progress:
Page 255 and 256: Sectoral successes: activities with
Page 257 and 258: Evaluation of macro-level performan
Page 269 and 270:
OECD 1999 Appendix 11.1 Sectoral an
Page 271 and 272:
OECD 1999 Bibliography Real Progres
show all

Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?