Making development evaluation more coherent through

Country-Led M&E Systems*

Marco Segone, Systemic Management, UNICEF Evaluation Office,

and former Vice President, IOCEE-mail: msegone@unicef.org

*: The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors.

Based on books published by UNICEF in partnership with key international institutions

Available at www.mymande.org

Click here

Webinars are available at www.mymande.org

1

2

Mutual

accounta

bility

Paris Declaration and AAA on Aid Effectiveness

Managing for

results

Harmoni

zation

Alignment Ownership

National ownership and capacity development: National ownership and capacity development: the key ingredients to CLESthe key ingredients to CLES

CLES: what

Country (and not donors) leads and owns the evaluation process by determining:

what policy or programme will be evaluated (including donors coordination and alignment)

what evaluation questions will be asked

what methods will be used

what analytical approach will be undertaken

how findings will be communicated

how findings will be used

Year 2005Evaluation Associations and Networks

International Level

Regional Level

Sub-Regional Level

National Level

International Organisation for Cooperation in Evaluation – IOCE (organisational membership)

International Development Evaluation Association – IDEAS

(individual membership)

ReLAC IPEN AFrEA AES EES

ACE

AEA CES

13

Countries

36

Countries

7

Countries

10

Countries

5

Countries

Sub-National SWEPNWEA,SEA, WREN, SQEP

11

International Organisation for Cooperation in Evaluation – IOCE

(Organisational membership)

International Development Evaluation Association – IDEAS

(Individual membership)

Source: Quesnel, 2006

“Country” led?• Not exclusively the Government

• Also civil society, including Professional evaluation organizations (from 15 to 118 in a decade)

Country-led M&E systems (CLES):

a strategy to matcha strategy to match technical rigour with policy relevancetechnical rigour with policy relevance

Technical rigourTechnical rigour

but no policy relevancebut no policy relevance

Policy relevance

Policy relevance

but no technical rigour

but no technical rigour

Better evidence,

technically rigorous

and policy relevant

Better Better PoliciesPolicies

Better Better Development Development

ResultsResults

CLES: Challenges

•drive towards ownership is partly externally-driven

•longer time frame

•perceived risk by partner countries that independent evaluations of donor support may have political and financial consequences

•perceived risk by donors/development agencies of weak national capacities and, in some cases, of weak independence of national M&E systems

• Priority for donors/development agencies is its own accountability

• Shifts in power relationships

CLES: way forward

•Middle income, transition and developing countries cooperation to share good practices and lessons learned

•National evaluation organizations fostering national demand (and supply) for monitoring & evaluation

•International organizations strengthening national capacities to design and implement national M&E systems and facilitating South-South Cooperation

National Evaluation Capacity Development

UNICEF

A Systemic approach to Capacity Development

Individual Level(skills, knowledge, experience)

Demand side• Capacity to strategically plan evaluations, and to identify the key evaluation

questions • Capacity to manage evaluation for independence and credibility• Capacity to use evaluation

Supply side:• Behavioural independence

• Independence of mind & integrity• Knowledge and respect of evaluation standards • Agreed evaluation processes & products

• Professional competences• Formal education (Masters)• Specialized training • Professional Conferences and meeting• On the job training (country-led evaluations)• Community of Practices and networking

Individual Level

UNICEF

Individual Level(skills, knowledge, experience)

Institutional Level(policies, procedures, frameworks)

A Systemic approach to Capacity Development

• Evaluation culture• Set of values and attitudes supporting evaluative (critical) thinking within an

organization• Institutional commitment to learning from evaluation, support evidence-based

policy debate and demand for accountability. • Individual more self-directed learners and use information to act; take higher risks

but also develop a greater sense of personal accountability and responsibility; consult, coach, and support each other more.

• Protective culture (Remove repercussions on careers)• Understanding of the foundations and principles of Monitoring and Evaluation

• Institutionalizing independence, credibility and utility• Evaluation policies

• Work programme and budget• Independence & adequacy of budget

• Conduct of evaluations• Institutional endorsement of standards• In-built Quality Assurance systems

Institutional Level

UNICEF

Individual Level(skills, knowledge, experience)

Institutional Level(policies, procedures, frameworks) Enabling

Environment(policies, legislation, power relations, social norms)

A Systemic approach to Capacity Development

• Public administration committed to manage for results and accountability

• Transparency• Results-based public budgeting• Evidence-based policy making

• Strong civil society • rights holders able to demand for and monitor quality of public services

• Strong national evaluation association• foster indigenous demand for M&E, and strengthen indigenous supply• set national evaluation standards and norms

Enabling Environment

UNICEF

Lessons learned and Good practices in Capacity Development (1/2)

Capacity development is underpinned by the fundamental characteristic of national ownership

• Taking a capacity development response to scale requires linking to national and local plans, processes, budgets and systems

• A comprehensive capacity development response must link to and draw from relevant national reforms to be sustained

UNICEF

Lessons learned and Good practices in Capacity Development (2/2)

Capacity development is not about a technical fix. It is about transformations and must address how best to manage change

• A capacity development response can and often must show both short- and long-term gains, to ensure continued political commitment and resource support

• Capacity traps’ more often pertinent to the “soft side” such as power relations, vested interests, access, ethic and attitudes

We should always aim at strengthening National ownership and leadership, and not undermining it:

• Selecting topics of mutual interest• Implement evaluations jointly with Governments, as a

first step towards country-led evaluation• Hiring local experts to the maximum extent possible• Not assuming there are weak evaluation capacities,

even if none is immediately apparent• Co-ordinating with other UN agencies and key

international stakeholders

Invest in the country-led process, even if it may require additional efforts and less control

We need a mind shift to do things differently...

Thank you