Burundi– The programme office implementing EC support to decentralisation in Burundi produces a descriptive and evaluative progress report which is submitted to the support programme’s steering committee. In addition, the office produces an annual review jointly with the EC Delegation and Burundian authorities. This review analyses activity and performance indicators, discusses possible performance bottlenecks and makes suggestions on how to adapt the programme, if necessary. A mid-term review will also be realised after two years of operations, as well as an annual audit executed by an external audit firm. All of this reporting facilitates the steering committee’s deci- sions on a continual basis (as planned), in modifying, prolonging or terminating the support.
Niger– The limitations in the collection of data and in the functioning of local government structures have made it difficult to appraise the evolution of the decentralisation process in Niger.
Various EC Delegations– Overall, few impact studies have been carried out (as yet) on the effects of support to the decentralisation process. There is recognition, however, that lessons need to be drawn and documented with regard to assessing the impact of EC support to decentralisation.
65 • There is general agreement that effective support to
decentralisation can be provided only if there are long- term commitments and financing horizons. How can this be dealt with given current EC strategies, programming arrangements and procedures? • The Commission’s new policy is to move away from
using PIUs. What lessons can be learnt from other development partners for avoiding this type of
management arrangement and what (new) role does this bring for EC Delegation staff, technical assistance personnel and their partners?
• The Paris Declaration aims to provide support to capacity development and the creation of endogenous change processes at different levels within the host government. This requires a willingness of the partner to take on ownership of the process and more
responsibility. How to deal with partners, particularly at lower levels of government, who are not responsive to these new policies?
• Coordination, harmonisation and alignment require the European Commission to be flexible and adaptive to the needs and demands of partners. What experiences are there in the area of decentralisation of being responsive and innovative given existing EC instruments and procedures?
• Steering committees are important instruments to ensure that there is accountability for the results of the interventions towards both the financing partner and the host government. What operational experiences exist with regard to the functioning of these steering groups or committees and to what extent do they help make the interventions responsive to the needs of the partner?
• Monitoring of decentralisation processes is in its infancy everywhere. However, some promising approaches have emerged. What experiences have the Commission and other development partners had in different parts of the world in using the results of monitoring for effective political dialogue and support for decentralisation? (Chapter 6 elaborates on this point further.)
EuropeAid
This Chapter:
•
examines the difficulties involved in measuring results,
•
reviews lessons from experience and innovative approaches,
•
identifies future strategic and operational challenges.
6.1
Getting evidence:
A complex job
Earlier we looked at performance indicators for both project and SPSP approaches (section 4.3) as well as (innovative) approaches to monitoring decentralisation processes, including the critical importance of investing in local capacities for ongoing (joint) monitoring of progress achieved (section 5.3). Now it is time to examine how donor agencies cope with the challenge of providing evidence of outcomes and impact of their support. In light of the current enthusiasm about decentralisation as a strategy for pro-poor political transformation process, one might expect pronounced interest in the matter. However, the discourse so far on the advantages and benefits of decentralisation is a rather normative one. The D-group consultations suggest that the outcomes and impact of EC support programmes have not yet been analysed in a comprehensive and systematic manner. Admittedly, it is not easy to get solid evidence of progress achieved with the decentralisation process itself and with related support programmes. There is no shortage of thorny questions to be addressed:
• Why carry out assessments?Donor agencies need to be clear on the ultimate purposes of the impact
assessments they undertake. Experience suggests that prevailing practices tend to prioritise the information needs of donor agencies and central governments rather than paying attention to enhancing the capacity of local stakeholders to assess progress achieved and the effectiveness of external assistance programmes. • What do you want to measure?Decentralisation often
has a myriad of motives and objectives. So what should be assessed? The immediate (tangible and intangible) effects of support programmes? Or their impact on the decentralisation ‘system’ (e.g. on administrative reform, public finance management, the quality of local governance and service delivery). The task at hand becomes even more daunting if the purpose is to measure the impact of decentralisation on
multidimensional processes such as poverty reduction or on institutional changes of local government structures.
• How to assess outcomes and impacts?There is not yet a toolbox of well-tested methodologies for assessing the outcomes and impacts of decentralisation processes. It is also rather difficult to demonstrate ‘causality’ links between support provided and the evolution of the decentralisation process (partly because a good baseline analysis is generally missing). • The overall national environment is a pervasive influence.
There are limits to what external interventions can
achieve in fragile states and in countries where the development process is disrupted by conflict. But also in more stable environments, the decentralisation process can be subjected to major ups and downs (e.g. after a change in government), affecting the implementation of donor support programmes. In short, assessing the outcomes and impact of decentralisation support programmes is clearly ‘a site under construction’.
6.2
Lessons from experience and
innovative approaches
Yet results also matter in governance (decentralisation) programmes. This puts a pressure on donor agencies (i) to assess outcomes and impact in ways that respect the (political) nature of the support provided, (ii) to ensure that results are owned by the country or the programme and (iii) to better understand why results were or were not achieved. Two sorts of operational guidance can be relevant related to: • some initial lessons learnt with assessing outcomes and
impact;
• innovative approaches and tools