Docstoc

20080821_Presentation EUWI-CD Ve

Document Sample
20080821_Presentation EUWI-CD Ve Powered By Docstoc
					Evaluation of the EUWI Country
           Dialogue



              Stockholm International Water Institute
                  Manfred MATZ / Team leader
                Rebecca LÖFGREN / Desk officer
                         Preface
• The country dialogue was created based on a proposal
  from IRC in 2004 as a task of the AWG that was later on
  adopted by other WG
• After 3 years on several occasions discussion inside the
  EUWI / AWG were held where controversial opinions
  about the benefit of the CD were raised
• In the 2007 evaluation report of EUWI, CD was specifically
  treated in Annex G ( = modest results, little support from
  EU commissions, ignorance of ongoing processes)
• In 2006 multi stake holder forum agreed on an
  independant evaluation of the CD
• SIWI was selected to do the evaluation under a contract
  with IRC / financing came from the EU Water Facility
  through the application by the AWF
                                  Preface II
•   In 2007 a new strategy of the EUWI, including the CD, was proposed and
    agreed upon, embarking on the following points with regard to the CD:
     – Ongoing country dialogues which have shown progress will continue if the
        partner country wishes to do so. Support to these country dialogues should
        continue to be given by in-country delegations of the EU MS and COM
     – Country dialogues with no progress or where progress has stalled should be
        discontinued. Lead EU MS are requested to communicate the new strategy to the
        respective decision makers in the pilot countries.
     – Country dialogues should be based on the explicit demand of a partner country.
        They have a role in countries where donor coordination is not well developed and
        in countries with weak national institutions. In order to ensure close
        harmonisation with cooperation programmes on the ground, European
        participation in Country Dialogues needs to be led internally by the operational
        units of EC and EU Member States and to be part of joint programming where it
        is in place.
     – Pilot country dialogues need to be adjusted to the new strategy. The planned
        evaluation of the country dialogues will be carried out and the findings should be
        used to assist in modifying the approach on country dialogues.
     AWG Log frame extraction (oct. 2007)
                                          Indicators
Result 3.                                 • 3 pilot countries continue the implementation of their
The AWG actively initiates                  dialogues (in a modified way, following the CD
and promotes country                        evaluation)
                                          • Specific reporting from EU MS and partners in
dialogues to help improve                   African countries
coordination between                      • 3 countries get support from FWG on financing
donors                                      strategies
                                          • 6 pilot countries surveyed during the evaluation
                                            process
Means of verification:
                                          • 1 final report of the evaluation of country dialogues
• Monitoring documents provided
                                            conducted so far
  by EU MS
                                          • 1 CD toolkit disseminated among all EU MS and
• Presentations delivered during the
                                            AMCOW countries
  AWG meetings
• Finalized financing strategies          Assumptions:
  documents                               • Some pilot countries are still interested in
• List of countries and results of          continuing the dialogue that already started
  the surveys
                                          • Evaluation is conducted in an totally
• Final evaluation report Toolkit; list
  of countries                              independent manner
                                 What was done?
        •     Documents reviewed (EUWI review 2007, new strategy of the EUWI
              covering the CD(2007),
        •     Interviews with key resource persons (5 up to date)
        •     African consultants reviews done in the following countries: Congo /
              Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Zambia
        •     Analysis of combined experiences and drafting this presentation
        •     A scoring system was established to through light on to which degree a
              result of the CD process in the country is going on (A) and to which
              degree they or any other national processes with similar aspects in a
              country are being addressed (B)

A EuWI
  Country
                  – EuWI
                    Country
                                 – EuWI – CD
                                   FORUM/ROA
                                                     EuWI – Country EuWI – Country Total
                                                     Dialogue Working Dialogue      working
    Dialogue        Dialogue ROAD D MAP              Group      exists group     is   active
    started         MAP elaborated                   formally          (Number            of
                                                                       Meetings)
            0/1            0/1           0/1               0/1                     0/1
    Existence        Quality        Range       of   National Scale of   Sustainability   Total
B                                   involvement      implementation
            0/1            0/1           0/1               0/1                     0/1
             Country case: Congo / Republic
    •     started with support from EUWI and got stuck after a short period
          mainly for the following reasons:
           – The lack of resources for the facilitation of the dialogue process
           – The time needed to extend dissemination of the objectives of dialogue
              through institutional networks and the civil society
           – A low capacity of various actors to describe and justify their proposals and to
              identify the conditions necessary for the sustainability of actions they
              propose.
    •     A framework for a national multi stakeholder dialogue has however
          been proposed and awaits financing from donor side

A       EuWI        –   EuWI         –   EuWI – CD        EuWI – Country      EuWI – Country          Total
        Country         Country          FORUM/ROA        Dialogue Working    Dialogue     working
        Dialogue        Dialogue ROAD    D MAP            Group      exists   group     is   active
        started         MAP elaborated                    formally            (Number            of
                                                                              Meetings)
              1                   1            1                  0                      0               3

B       Existence       Quality          Range       of   National Scale of   Sustainability          Total
                                         involvement      implementation
              0                   0            0                  0                      0               0
                      Country case: Ethiopia
•  “Excellent leadership” by Italian Cooperation and the Ministry of Water Resources.
   MWR has been the driving force.
• All other partners felt involved and played a vital role in sector coordination
• The CD linked up with ongoing processes in the country.
• Situations where involved actors had different agendas with the CD
• CD was by some misunderstood as a way of raising financing for the sector
• Ministry of Finance was not onboard – has created issues after the WASH takeover
Result
• CD integrated into government WASH programme. A weak structure makes it
   difficult to survive without the donor support. CD has moved the water sector forward
   and strengthened its coordination and efficiency. Donors transparency and
   accountability increased, but not the government‟s.


A   EuWI        –   EuWI – Country   EuWI – CD        EuWI – Country      EuWI – Country         Total
    Country         Dialogue ROAD    FORUM/ROA        Dialogue Working    Dialogue    working
    Dialogue        MAP elaborated   D MAP            Group      exists   group    is   active
    started                                           formally            (Number of Meetings)
          1                   1            1                  1                      1               5

B   Existence       Quality          Range       of   National Scale of   Sustainability         Total
                                     involvement      implementation
          1                   1            1                  0                      0               3
                             Country case: Ghana
•   A strong understanding of a link between the CD and EWF interfered
    continuously in the process which lead to discouragement as this proved not be
    the case
•   However a process started (and continues) that helped building up a multi
    stakeholder dialogue but not exactly in the way the CD was initially conceived
•   There is however an noticeable impact on the National water policy through the
    discussion in the sub-working group WS
•   The working group got very „practical‟ in concentrating on looking for funds
    and meet regularly with participation of NGO CONIWAS (Coalition of NGO
    in water and sanitation sector)


    A   EuWI        –   EuWI         –   EuWI – CD        EuWI – Country      EuWI – Country          Total
        Country         Country          FORUM/ROA        Dialogue Working    Dialogue     working
        Dialogue        Dialogue         D MAP            Group      exists   group     is   active
        started         ROAD       MAP                    formally            (Number            of
                        elaborated                                            Meetings)
              1                   1            1                  1                      1               5

    B   Existence       Quality          Range       of   National Scale of   Sustainability          Total
                                         involvement      implementation
              1                   1            1                  1                      1               5
                        Country case: Mozambique
    •      3 similar process at the same time – GWP, EUWI CD & WSP
    •      No preparations before the launch and handed to a reluctant donor to lead
           (Dutch Embassy). No country-specific adjustments to the process
    •      No lead ministry was identified. The process was not anchored in any
           institutions
    •      Expectations were not met because of the CD lack of resources. The EUWI
           was mistaken for EUWF

    • Results
    The CD process is not perceived to have even started in Mozambique

A       EuWI        –   EuWI – Country   EuWI – CD        EuWI – Country      EuWI – Country         Total
        Country         Dialogue ROAD    FORUM/ROA        Dialogue Working    Dialogue    working
        Dialogue        MAP elaborated   D MAP            Group      exists   group    is   active
        started                                           formally            (Number of Meetings)
              0                   0            1                  0                      0             1

B       Existence       Quality          Range       of   National Scale of   Sustainability         Total
                                         involvement      implementation
              1                   1            0                  1                      0             3
                        Country case: Rwanda

    • The CD in Rwanda did not start because of a quite
      successful national SWAP process already in place




A   EuWI        – EuWI       – EuWI – CD      EuWI            –   EuWI – Country Total
    Country       Country      FORUM/RO       Country             Dialogue working
    Dialogue      Dialogue     AD MAP         Dialogue            group is active
    started       ROAD MAP                    Working Group       (Number       of
                  elaborated                  exists formally     Meetings)
         0              0           0                0                  0             0

B   Existence     Quality     Range      of   National Scale Sustainability       Total
                              involvement     of
                                              implementation
         1              1           1                1                  1             5
                          Country case: Zambia
    •  National competition between two ministries as being responsible for the
       water sector
    • Strong donor coordination already existing in the country
    • The presence of an external facilitator was limited
    • The government had no apparent role in the CD
    • The roles of all actors, the lead donor incl., was unclear
    • The objective was unclear to all stakeholders
    • Lack of capacity with the involved actors
    Result:
    • An existing dialogue process was in place and the CD was felt to be
       competing with the national structure
    • The dialogue died down after little time

A   EuWI           –   EuWI – Country   EuWI – CD        EuWI – Country      EuWI – Country         Total
    Country            Dialogue ROAD    FORUM/ROA        Dialogue Working    Dialogue    working
    Dialogue started   MAP elaborated   D MAP            Group      exists   group    is   active
                                                         formally            (Number of Meetings)
           1                     0            1                  0                      0               2

B   Existence          Quality          Range       of   National Scale of   Sustainability         Total
                                        involvement      implementation
           1                     1            1                  1                      1               5
        Overview results all countries



    Congo Ghana Ethiopia Mozam- Rwanda   Zambia
A   /                    bique
    Repu-
    blic
       3    5      5         1     0       2
       0    5      3         3     5       5
B
                Preliminary analysis I

• The idea of assisting in improving coordination of all kinds of
  stakeholders in partner countries is a good initiative (+)
• Planning process (e.g. log frame etc.) and wording of AWG plan LF
  not sufficiently clear (-)
• Implementation in most countries was lacking sufficient time and
  financial means ( all except Ethiopia) (-)
• Perception of the CD as a foreign driven process (EUWI CD !)
  common (-)
• Perception as a competition to other donor policy advisory processes
  possible (other donors) (n)
• Understanding of what the CD is, varies between donor coordination
  and a multi stakeholder participatory process (-)
               Preliminary analysis II

• The presentation of the concept of CD was weak so that the
  understanding of what it was took either long time or was never
  achieved, (-)
• Misinterpretation of the CD as being a part or preparatory
  instrument of the EWF discouraged many partner countries (-) ,
  (applies as well to the EUWI in general and as well to other
  countries than the surveyed ones)
• There is only one country with a fully successful process close to the
  initial conception of the CD (Ethiopia) (-)
Points of discussion / reflection from the audience
• Ownership
   – How to improve / guarantee it ?
   – How to manifest interest / which country is ready ?
• Complementarily to other processes
   – how to guarantee complementarities to existing
     processes in the partner countries ?
• Financial instrument
   – to which extent should the CD level the playing field
     for future investments ?
• Conceptualisation
   – How should the concept be developed ?
  Next steps & finalization of study: to explain
    what will be done and when ready etc
• Collect comments from the ground on the key questions
  (reactions from partner countries are crucial)
• Write the draft report delivered by end of September
  embarking on
   – Analysis of the process (planning, implementation, outcome)
     according to the DAC criteria for evaluation (pertinence,
     efficiency, effectiveness, Impact, sustainability).
   – general recommendation on whether and how to continue the
     CD
• discuss the report in the next AWG meeting in Nov. 2008
  and decide on conclusion
Thank you for your
    attention

    email addresses for your comments
        Deadline 5th of September:
  Manfred MATZ : manfred.matz@siwi.org
Rebecca LÖFGREN: rebecca.lofgren@siwi.org

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:8/2/2010
language:English
pages:17