Download Evaluation of the Sustainability Dimension in addressing Poverty

Evaluation of the Sustainability Dimension in
addressing Poverty Reduction
Selected Highlights from the Synthesis Evaluation
Julian Caldecott (team leader), Sukhjargalmaa Dugersuren, Svend Erik Sørensen, Paula Tommila,
Alina Pathan & Mikko Halonen,
Development Evaluation Day 2010
Helsinki, Finland
17.12.2010
Selected highlights
Evaluation of the Sustainability Dimension in addressing Poverty Reduction
Design and Monitoring
•
“The typical Finnish activity is not well-enough
designed to be able to deliver much in the way of
short-term results or longer-term and broader
impacts, or to adapt to external pressures that may
arise”
Sustainability of poverty reduction impacts
•
“Interventions received only a mediocre score on
sustainability”
Sustainable Poverty Reduction
“Despite the clear overall objective of all development aid interventions,
relevant data on poverty reduction impacts remain scarce.”
Coherence
•
“MFA does not fully exploit its opportunities to
promote coherence either internally, or externally in
the EU and UN…”
Finnish distinctiveness and strengths
•
•
“Finnish added value can be characterized in several
different ways: as a set of values; as a set of technical
competencies; as a set of ways of relating to others;
and as a set of performance attributes
Finnish interventions typically meet the priorities both
of Finland and of her partner countries…”
Selected highlights
Design and Monitoring & Evaluation
“The typical Finnish activity is not well-enough designed to be able to
deliver much in the way of short-term results or longer-term and broader
impacts, or to adapt to external pressures that may arise”
train officials in activity design, which requires a diverse range of key issues to be
considered in formulating logframes, M&E systems, management strategies for
knowledge, risk, conflict and stakeholder expectations and involvement.
review regularly the implementation of recommendations from evaluations and
systematically disseminate lessons learned and best practices.
3
Despite the clear overall
relevant data on p
Selected highlights
Sustainability of poverty reduction impacts
“Poverty reduction is a key aim of all activities, yet is vague, indistinctly
measurable and little measured, so is often assumed to be delivered even
when it may not be, or when it occurs for other reasons.
Interventions received only a mediocre score on sustainability, mainly due
to weak design."
Strengthen participatory poverty reduction analysis and establish sufficient
baseline data on root causes of poverty and suitable indicators to ensure that these
are expressly endorsed as desirable features of intervention design and outcomes of
implementation, and routinely assessed during appraisal and monitoring.
As sustainability remains hard to define, and relevant data are very scarce, we
suggest paying closer attention to proxies of sustainability - arrangements that
should usually favour wealth creation, equitability, peace-building and improving
the health of people and the ecosystems that support livelihoods.
4
Selected highlights
Coherence
“More than 90 000 aid projects were running worldwide in 2007, an average of
around 600 in each developing country that was receiving aid, and 2 000 or more
in some of them …….Meanwhile, several previous aid recipients (including Brazil,
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela) have become major aid donors and
investors in developing countries…. “
“MFA does not fully exploit its opportunities to promote coherence either
internally, or externally in the EU and UN…”
Due to emerging challenges, strategic priorities may need to change to accommodate
new needs (including changes in aid architecture), and strengthen policy coherence and
coordination, while continuing to pay special attention to the excluded and the vulnerable
who need support more urgently and in greater numbers than ever previously.
Improved awareness and understanding is a precondition for public support for aid
appropriations and contributes to improved policy coherence between key policy sectors
(foreign policy, trade, security, agriculture, fisheries, migration, energy, environment etc.)
5
Selected highlights
Finnish distinctiveness and strengths
Distinctiveness
The evaluation suggests that Finnish added value can be characterized in several different ways:
•
•
•
•
•
Values - e.g. human rights, equality and democracy, volunteerism, egalitarian forms of social
organisation
Technical competencies - e.g. water sector, sustainable land use, meteorology, education,
health care, information technology, governance, research, renewable energy
Relating to others - e.g. core funding, inclusive consultations, mutual learning, civil society
capacity building and networking, constructive relations with local partners, the donor
community and governments
Priorities - e.g. human rights, social and gender equality, sexual and reproductive health,
support for vulnerable groups
Performance attributes - e.g. honesty, inoffensiveness, neutrality, flexibility, focus,
effectiveness and efficiency
Finland also sometimes adds value by going to places or doing things that other donors will
not or cannot, or in leveraging new and additional resources. Finally, there is the distinctive
courage with which the MFA commissions and publishes independent reviews of its
activities, for which it is to be commended.
6
Selected highlights
Finnish distinctiveness and strengths
Strengths
“Finnish interventions typically meet the priorities both of Finland and of her
partner countries, respond to some but not all elements of the global development
agenda, and satisfy the needs and wishes of cooperating partners…”
“UNEP would like to highlight the strategic role that Finland has played since 1999 in supporting the
development of new capacity and expertise to assess and address the environmental causes and
consequences of conflicts and disasters as part of UN crisis prevention, early recovery and
reconstruction efforts. … This has been a uniquely Finnish effort reflecting 10 years of sustained and
focused financial and political support. Specifically, within UNEP this support has translated into a
number of important outcomes that Finland can take credit for…”
Evaluation correspondence database: Achim Steiner, Executive Director, UNEP
=> Finland should review its strategic priorities for reducing and preventing poverty
according to simple, clear criteria, i.e.: (a) the greatest benefit for the greatest number
of the most vulnerable people; and (b) the suitability of a partnership-building approach
for delivering these benefits
7
Thank you
Evaluation Report
Back-up/background
Poverty and Development
Poverty reduction depends on peace, good governance and
good health, among other things ...
Including viable ecosystems, and the equitable distribution
of goods and services from them
Hence Finnish policy stresses that:
• “favourable economic development is the best tool
against poverty”, and that
• “Eradicating poverty is possible only if progress made in
developing countries is economically, socially and
ecologically sustainable”, and that
• “Ecologically sustainable development is the foundation
of all development”.
11
Millennium Development Goals
MSOffice12
The MDGs target hunger, education, gender equality,
child mortality, maternal health, major diseases,
environmental sustainability and global partnership.
MSOffice13
Source: ‘Global Monitoring Report 2009: A Development Emergency’, Washington D.C.: World Bank (2009).
12
Slide 12
MSOffice12 While on current trends, many of the MDGs will not be reached by the target dates in many countries – notably in sub-Saharan Africa –
progress is being made, even in some of the
more challenging regions. A number of goals are expected to be achieved globally, including the overarching goal of reducing absolute poverty
by half, thanks to the
historically unprecedented reduction of poverty in India and China made possible by high
growth rates linked to participation in the global economy. But beyond this, the multiple
effects – over many years – of aid-supported policy reforms, and improvements in
governance and investment, have made it possible to reduce poverty in many least
developed countries. In these countries, development assistance has helped mobilise more
foreign and domestic investment by lowering risks, developing economic infrastructure
and financial markets, and by strengthening the capacities of local firms. As well as the
successes, many goals and targets are, however, unlikely to be achieved unless additional,
stronger or corrective action is taken urgently. Goals and targets that are most off track
include child malnutrition and maternal mortality.
; 31.8.2010
MSOffice13 Note that these figures (shares) of what would need to be achieved by 2007 to meet the MDGs are based on the assumption that normal
progress towards the MDGs is linear. This assumption is unrealistic when additional progress is more diffi cult and expensive. For example,
additional progress towards universal primary education is getting more diffi cult and expensive the more the effective enrolment rate
approaches 100% (the last 1 – 5% are always the most diffi cult and expensive to reach).
; 9.9.2010
Aims of the Study
• Objective: assess how the sustainable
development approach has enabled
progress towards poverty reduction.
• Purpose: identify achievements, draw
lessons, identify new solutions, and spot
things that help or hinder Finnish aid
work.
13
Lines of Evidence
1. Analysis and scoring of 22 evaluations commissioned
and published by the MFA since 2008 (200 pages annexed
to the report).
2. Semi-structured interviews with policy makers, desk
officers, consultants, NGOs and officials of relevant public
and private institutions.
3. Questionnaire-based correspondence with international
observers, on the reputation of Finnish aid, new
challenges facing poverty reduction, and what to do
about them.
14
1. Inception phase
Preliminary review of evaluation material and specifying
evaluation method & plan of work (Inception Report)
evaluation through 14 criteria (OECD DAC, EC, Gaia)
scores & narratives on 22 MFA evaluations (Annexes
4 and 6)
3. Analysis and Synthesis Phase
Strengths, Weaknesses, Distinctiveness and
Sustainability of Finnish aid
Emerging challenges and Policy Implications
4. Reporting Phase
Synthesis evaluation findings and conclusions
Recommendations and lessons learned
Global development agenda & big emergent issues
Addressing ten umbrella questions (TOR, Annex 1)
through a comprehensive evaluation matrix (Annex 5)
Literature review, stakeholder workshops, interviews, international
observers questionnaire (Annexes 2 and 3)
2. Desk-study and data collection phase
Main Sections of the Report
• Part 1: Purpose and methods of the evaluation
• Part 2: Goals, modalities and stakeholders of Finnish
aid
• Part 3: Findings on Strengths and Weaknesses, CrossCutting Themes, Sustainability and Distinctive
Features
• Part 4: Challenges, conclusions and
recommendations
16