Fragile states: Perspectives from evaluationsAFDB Evaluation Week, 5th December 2012.Presentation by Beate BullEvaluation Department, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Norad.

Norwegian development aid budget

Side/Page 221.04.23

Ten largest recipients of aid

Side/Page 321.04.23

Perspectives from peacebuilding /fragile states evaluations based on:

•Evaluations done for and by the Norwegian development cooperation Agency, and reviewing others

•A meta-review of evaluations of support to state building by Gravingholt, J. og Leininger, J. 2012

•OECD/DAC Guidance on evaluating peacebuilding activities in settings of conflict and fragility

Side/Page 421.04.23

Side/Page 521.04.23

List of recent Norad(supported) evaluations of support to peace-building in settings of conflict and fragility

- “Evaluation of Norwegian Development Cooperation with Afghanistan 2001-2011”, (2012), http://www.norad.no/no/s%C3%B8k?q=aiding+the+peace;-«Pawns of Peace. Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts on Sri Lanka 1997-2009 (2011)”, http://www.norad.no/no/resultater/publikasjoner/evalueringer/publikasjon?key=386346(2011)-“Aiding the Peace”: A Multi-donor Evaluation of Support to Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities in Southern Sudan 2005-2010. ITAD Ltd., United Kingdom. http://www.norad.no/no/s%C3%B8k?q=aiding+the+peace-Evaluation of Norwegian Peace efforts in Haiti 1998-2009 (2009).

(See also one-page summaries in - Norad Evaluation Department’s Annual Reports (2011,2010,2009)) http://www.norad.no/en/evaluation or contact us on post-eval@norad.no

Findings across the evaluations

1) That there are weaknesses in the analysis of the situation and of the conflict in both the planning and implementation phase –

– Implications: - limit relevance of the intervention/support/

- limit the evaluation’s possibility to say something bout about relevance (Afghanistan/ South Sudan)

- reduces the likelihood of conflict sensitivity analysis being conducted

- More…

Side/Page 621.04.23

Findings from the evaluations cont.

• 2) Not enough resources are set aside to follow up and assess progress, during implementation (South Sudan, Afhganistan, Haiti and Sri Lanka). – At times, the staffing in embassies were far from adequate

(Afganistan- in particular, South Sudan, Haiti)Implications:– Not enough resources to quality assure programmes – are they on

the right track (do we do what we say we shall do): (Afghanistan-50 % of scools not adapted to girls needs (latrines/protective walls)).

– Delays – The danger of aid not being relevant/not adapted to changing

context or maybe contribute to aggraving the conflict(s)– Not enough resources to monitor whether aid becomes a stake in

the conflict

Side/cccPage

721.04.23

Findings from evaluations cont.

• 3) Too much emphasis from donors are put on harmonisation and coordination at the capital level in the partner country at the cost of sharing knowledge about local context, adapting activities to local conditions an presence in the field.

• Example: South Sudan: Donor Coordination meetings did not revolve around sharing conflict analyses, and discussing how to coordinate aid to address local conflicts, but bigger diplomatic issues: referendum 2010.

• Example: Afghanistan: the Norwegian funding to the ARTF remained remarkably consistent over the years despite important changes in the context

Side/Page 821.04.23

Some key challenges to peacebuilding evaluations

•The threat of violent conflict•The reality is often complex, stakes are high, everything becomes political,– ‘all voices to be heard’? How to be perceived as impartial and balanced-key to the credibility of the evaluation?•Theory-poor field•Evaluations can do harm (evaluators leave, others stay behind)

Side/Page 921.04.23

Side/Page 1021.04.23

How to deal with a challenging context…

•How to conduct conflict analysis•How to conduct conflict sensitive evaluations (do no harm)•How to analyse theories of change and their underlyingassumptions•Surprises that are expected and those unexpected

http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluationofdevelopmentprogrammes/dcdndep/evaluatingconflictpreventionandpeacebuilding.htm.

Findings from a (2012) meta review of evaluations of support to state building in fragile states:

Side/Page 1121.04.23

Few evaluations are concerned with:

- explicating a theory of change;

- constructing a credible counterfactual;

- and making use of quantitative methods where possible.

Which leads to:-An inbuilt tendency to reproduce the conventional wisdom -instead of testing implicitly assumed causality chains-or exploring what the alternatives would have been.

What do the evaluations of peacebuilding-field look at?

• Peace building evaluations conducted by many donors and mulitlateral organisations seem to have focused on understanding and mapping the terrain and their own internal organisation,

• They are concerned with:– Coordination between different actors, planning, – whether a conflict analysis is used or not for programming (most

often it is not), – types of interventions, (socio-economic, humanitarian, peace

building, governance) – conflict sensitivity, – Inputs, activities, and outputs

Rather than• results, what works and what does not work (what do we base our

knowledge on/ which assumptions do we base the interventions on?

Side/Page 1221.04.23

Side/Page 1321.04.23

Findings from other evaluationssupport to state building

1) A mixed methods repeated survey (2007-2009) in north- eastern Afghanistan (2000 respondents in 80 villages ) commissioned by the German MFA found that development aid had a small positive effect on the populations’s attitudes towards foreign forces and the Afghan state. But, this effect dissappeared when the population experienced a deterioration in the security situation. Moreover, the small positive effect from aid on attitudes depended on the perception of aid as useful. The study also found that it is not the amount of projects that impact the afghan attitudes, but their perceived usefulness. Böhnke, J. R., J. Koehler, and Ch. Zuercher. 2010. “Assessing the Impact of Development Cooperation in North East Afghanistan 2005 – 2009. Final Report.” BMZ)

Side/Page 1421.04.23

State building continued

2) Statebuilding with emphasis on capacity building seem to be more relevant in post conflict situations, rather than in situations of ongoing conflict. This is based on findings from a Danish evaluation and a UNDP evaluation (2013) of statebuilding support to Somalia. The latter evaluation concludes: if objectives of strengthened governance systems shall be achieved, a minimum of stability is required.(“Evaluation of the Danish engagement in and around Somalia 2006-10”, 2011 http://www.netpublikationer.dk/um/11094/

“Evaluation of UNDP support to conflict-affected countries in the context of UN Peace Operations”, Draft final (not to be quoted), Evaluation Office, UNDP, Forthcoming January 2013.)

Side/Page 1521.04.23