Systematic Search for Publications

Sommaire
I. Présentation de l'évaluation
II. Les stratégies d'intervention dans les deux pays
III. Activités au Congo: les élections et le PADH
IV. Activités en Tanzania: le soutien au processus de paix d'Arusha
V. Les risques, analyse des ressources employées pour y faire face
VI. Recommandations
ANNEXE 1: Personnes rencontrées
ANNEXE 2: Chronologie des évènements au Congo Zaïre

Following various pan-African initiatives, a new pioneering survey was undertaken to document the current status of working conditions in selected sectors in Tanzania and to draw attention to related policy gaps. The survey was carried out based on the global version of the European Working Conditions Survey which had been developed jointly by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound). A similar survey was also implemented in Mozambique. [Author vide Copyright]

The first Zanzibar Working Conditions Survey, 2010, found that the incidence of physical risks, namely exposure to vibrations, noise and high temperatures, is high. The survey was based on the Global Module for Working Conditions Survey, developed jointly by the ILO and Eurofound to provide a comprehensive and systematic review of changes in quality of working life in developing countries. The Zanzibar study is presented as a follow-up and completion of the study on Working conditions in Tanzania in 2009, Zanzibar being a semi-autonomous part United Republic of Tanzania.[Author vide Copyright]

1. This Report has been prepared by Fiscus, UK for the Evaluation Unit of Europe Aid. It presents a synthesis of the seven evaluations of General and Sector Budget Support, undertaken in Tunisia, Mali, Zambia, Tanzania, South Africa, Mozambique and Morocco over 2010 -2014. These represent the full set of evaluations completed to date, following the revised methodological approach for evaluation of budget support, adopted by the OECD-DAC Network on development evaluation in 2012. The study builds on preliminary findings reported in 2011 in OECD-DAC’s Evaluation Insights, based on the Tunisia, Mali and Zambia cases.2.The principal goal has been to draw up a summary of the lessons from recent experience with budget support and to develop a corresponding set of recommendations. A central question addressed is how far Budget Support has contributed towards the achievement of targeted development results and how far it has had positive or negative unintended effects. General and Sectoral Budget Support operations have been compared and an analysis has been made of the relative contributions and roles of the different components of Budget Support.3. An additional objective has been to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the “3 step approach” to the evaluation of Budget Support, which has been adopted by the OECD-DAC Network on Development Evaluation and applied in each ofthese cases. The specific tools and evaluation techniques used by each evaluation team have been compared and assessed so as to develop recommendations on possible improvements to evaluation practice. The results of this assessment are presented in a separate volume. (Volume II.)[Author vide copyright]

Executive summary
Summary of key findings
Lessons learned
Recommendations
1. Introduction: Background, objectives and methodology
1.1 Objectives and scope of synthesis
1.2 The definition of budget support, its modus operandi and the logic of the 3 step approach
1.3 Approach to the synthesis task and its potential limitations
1.4 Structure of the report
2. Budget support to low income countries
2.1 The context for budget support
2.2 The mechanisms for implementation of budget support
2.3 Outcomes achieved: induced outputs, outcomes & impacts
2.4 Conclusions on the experience of budget support in LICS
3. Budget support to middle income countries
3.1 The context for budget support in the MICS
3.2 The mechanisms for implementation of budget support
3.3 Outcomes achieved: induced outputs, outcomes and impacts
3.4 Overall conclusions on budget support in MICS
4. Lessons learned and final recommendations
4.1 Achievements to date and challenges for the future
4.2 Lessons learned on the requirements for effective budget support
4.3 The choice of general or sector support
4.4 Recommendations for the way forward
Bibliography
Annex I: Listing of country evaluations of budget support undertaken to date
Annex II: Overview of the "3-Step" approach
Annex III: Suspensions of budget support due to suspected breaches of underlying principles
Annex IV: Effects of variable/performance tranches: the case of Mozambique
Annex V: Comparing budget support with other modalities: Evidence from Mozambique

This study has evaluated the General and Sector Budget Support operations undertaken in Tanzania from 2005/06 to 2011/12. These operations amount to a resource transfer of almost US$5,000 million - an annual average disbursement of US$ 694 million, some $16 per annum per head of the Tanzanian population, provided by 14 Development Partners. In evaluating these operations, our study has addressed three questions: i. How successful have GBS and SBS been in providing the means to the Government of Tanzania to implement its national and sectoral strategies? (EQ. 1.1–2.3)ii. How successful have GBS and SBS been in facilitating improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of these national and sectoral strategies? (EQ. 3.1 –3.5)iii. As a consequence, how successful have GBS and SBS been in attaining successful outcomes and impacts on growth and poverty reduction? (EQ. 4.1 & 4.2.)[Author vide copyright]

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANNEX ONE: TERMS OF REFERENCE
ANNEX TWO: MATRIX OF RESPONSES TO EVALUATION QUESTIONS
ANNEX THREE: STATISTICAL APPENDIX
ANNEX FOUR: BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANNEX FIVE: LIST OF PERSONS MET
ANNEX SIX: SUMMARY OF GBS/ SBS PROGRAMMEAGREEMENTS
ANNEX SEVEN: ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF EDUCATION SECTOR
| LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
1.2. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR BUDGET SUPPORT IN TANZANIA
1.3. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK & PROCESS
1.4. METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
1.5. REPORT STRUCTURE
2. PROVIDING THE MEANS TO IMPLEMENT POLICY: BUDGET SUPPORT INPUTS AND DIRECT OUTPUTS
2.1. SCALE & PREDICTABILITY OF BUDGET SUPPORT, AND ITS EFFECTS ON AGGREGATE AID FLOWS
2.2. THE DESIGN OF BUDGET SUPPORT IN TANZANIA
2.3. THE PROCESSES AND MECHANISMS FOR POLICY DIALOGUE
2.4. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAPACITY BUILDING
2.5. HOW THE BUDGET SUPPORT DESIGN HAS CHANGED AND WHY
3. FACILITATING IMPROVEMENTS IN GOVERNMENT POLICIES: THE INDUCED OUTPUTS OF BUDGET SUPPORT
3.1. MACROECONOMIC MANAGEMENT & REVENUE GENERATION
3.2. PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
3.3. THE BUDGET AND THE COMPOSITION OF SPENDING
3.4. GOVERNANCE AND THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION
3.5. MECHANISMS FOR SERVICE DELIVERY
4. CHANGES AT OUTCOME AND IMPACT LEVELS
4.1. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
4.2. POVERTY REDUCTION & SOCIAL WELFARE
4.3. PERFORMANCE OF THE EDUCATION SECTOR
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. OVERALL FINDINGS
5.2. STEP THREE: CONCLUSIONS ON IMPACT OF BUDGET SUPPORT
5.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

This Final Report presents the outcome of the “Thematic global evaluation of the Commission support to decentralisation processes”. The Evaluation was commissioned by the DG DEVCO Evaluation Unit and was implemented between January 2010 and February 2012.The purpose of the evaluation is to identify key relevant lessons and to provide recommendations to help ensure opportune and timely support to decentralisation processes.The evaluation covers EC aid delivery over the period 2000-2009 (within the context of the programmes managed by DG DEVCO).The evaluation aims to assess to what extent the EC assistance has been relevant, coherent, effective, efficient and sustainable in providing the expected impacts in the support of decentralisation processes, along with the EU added value. Moreover, it aims to analyse the coherence with the relevant EU policies and the partner governments' priorities and activities.In terms of geographical scope, the evaluation covers all regions where EC cooperation has been implemented ? including countries where the partnership between the government and the EU has been difficult ? but does not include regions and countries under the mandate of DG Enlargement, the OECD countries, and activities that fall under the responsibility of the EC Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department.[Author vide copyright]

Executive Summary
1 Introduction
1.1 Synthesis of the EC strategy and programmes
1.2 The Evaluation Questions
2 Methodology
2.1 Key steps of the evaluation process
2.2 Developing the methodological framework (structuring phase)
2.3 Collecting data (Desk Study and Field Phase): Overview of process and tools
2.4 Analysing and judging: Synthesis Phase
2.5 Dissemination
2.6 Challenges and limits of the evaluation
3 Answers to the Evaluation Questions
3.1 EQ1: Policy framework
3.2 EQ2: Institutional capacity
3.3 EQ3: National context
3.4 EQ4: 3Cs
3.5 EQ5: Transfer of functions and resources
3.6 EQ6: Stakeholders? capacities
3.7 EQ7: Local governance
3.8 EQ8: Service delivery
3.9 Overall assessment of the EC Strategy
4 Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
4.2 Recommendations
List of tables
List of figures
List of boxes
List of acronyms
| VOLUME IIA: ANNEX 1 - DETAILED INFORMATION MATRIX
1. EQ1: Policy framework
2. EQ2: Institutional capacity
3. EQ3: National context
4. EQ4: 3Cs
5. EQ5: Transfer of functions & resources
6. EQ6: Stakeholders’ capacities
7. EQ7: Local governance
8. EQ8: Service delivery
VOLUME IIB: ANNEX 2 TO 10
1. Annex 2: Terms of Reference
2. Annex 3: Inventory
3. Annex 4: Results of the survey to EU Delegations
4. Annex 5: MTRs & JARs analysis
5. Annex 6: CSP analysis
6. Annex 7: CSE analysis
7. Annex 8: ROM analysis
8. Annex 9: Evaluation Matrix
9. Annex 10: List of People Interviewed
VOLUME IIC: ANNEXE 11 - COUNTRY NOTES
1. Benin
2. Honduras
3. Lebanon
4. Mali
5. Peru
6. The Philippines
7. Rwanda
8. Sierra Leone
9. South Africa
10. Tanzania

This evaluation aims to assess the extent to which the European Commission’s (EC) assistance has been relevant, efficient, effective and sustainable in producing the expected impacts in the education sector. Moreover, the evaluation also assesses co-ordination and complementarity with other donors and actors, coherence with the relevant EC policies and partner Governments’ priorities and activities, and with international legal commitments in education. The evaluation covers basic and secondary education, including the relevant sub-sectors, all regions where EC co-operation is implemented, and aid implementation over the period 2000-2007.[Author vide copyright]

Executive Summary
Purpose and scope of the evaluation
Background to the evaluation
Methodology
Analysis and main findings for each Evaluation Question
Main conclusions
Main recommendations
1 Introduction
1.1 Synthesis of the European Commission’s strategy and programmes
1.1.1 ...
1.2 Intervention logic
1.3 Context of EC support to education : International policy framework for basic and secondary education – and how the EC supports it
1.3.1 ...
1.4 The Evaluation Questions (EQs)
2 Methodology
2.1 Key steps of the evaluation process
2.2 Describing the object of the evaluation (structuring phase ? inventory)
2.3 Developing the methodological framework (structuring phase)
2.4 Collecting data (Desk Study and Field Phase): Overview of process and tools
2.4.1...
2.5 Collecting data: Details
2.6 Analysing and judging: Synthesis Phase
2.7 Dissemination
2.8 Challenges and limits of the evaluation
2.8.1...
3 Inventory: Overview on EC resources to support basic and secondary education
3.1 EC funding towards the education sector
3.1.1...
3.2 EC response to basic and secondary education needs
3.2.1...
3.3 Global financing gaps in basic education
4 Answers to the Evaluation Questions
| 4.1 EQ1-relevance: To what extent is EC support aligned to education development objectives in national development plans, such as PRSPs, and ensures coherence between EC development co-operation policies on education and other EC policies affecting education?
4.1.1...
4.2 EQ2-access: To what extent has EC support to education contributed to improving access to basic education?
4.2.1...
4.3 EQ3-secondary: To what extent has EC support to education contributed to improving transition to secondary level (both lower and upper)?
4.3.1...
4.4 EQ4-quality: To what extent has EC support to education contributed toimproving the quality of education?
4.4.1...
4.5 EQ5-skills: To what extent has EC support to education contributed to enhancing basic education skills, especially literacy and numeracy?
4.5.1...
4.6 EQ6-delivery: To what extent has EC support to education helped in improving education system service delivery and resourcing?
4.6.1...
4.7 EQ7?transparency: To what extent has EC support to education helped in strengthening transparency and accountability of the management of education service delivery?
4.7.1...
4.8 EQ8-co-ordination & complementarity: To what extent, and how, has the EC contributed to improving co-ordination, complementarity and synergies with Member States and other donors to the education sector, in line with the Paris Declaration?
4.8.1...
4.9 EQ9-modalities: To what extent have the various aid modalities and funding channels and their combinations, in particular GBS/SBS/SSP/projects, been appropriate and contributed to improving access, equity and policy-based resource allocation in education?
4.9.1...
4.10Overall assessment of the EC Strategy
5Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 Cluster 1: ...
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 Cluster 1:...
| Annex 26: Analysis of EC Country Strategy Papers (CSPs)
Annex 27: List of people interviewed/met
Annex 28: Documents consulted
| VOLUME II: ANNEXES
VOLUME IIa: DETAILED ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Annex 1: Detailed answers to the Evaluation Questions
VOLUME IIb: MAIN INDVIDUAL ANALYSES
Annex 2: Inventory and typology of EC support to basic and secondary education
Annex 3: EC Support to the education sector in partner countries: Results of the survey to EUDs
Annex 4: Analysis of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) reports on education and GBS in Africa (Niger, Liberia, Namibia, Tanzania, Uganda and Burkina Faso)
Annex 5: Focus Group Analysis (Results of video-conferences with a sample of EU Delegations)
VOLUME IIc: COUNTRY NOTES
Annex 6: Bangladesh
Annex 7: Pakistan
Annex 8: Dominican Republic
Annex 9: Niger
Annex 10: South Africa
Annex 11: Tunisia
VOLUME IId: ToR,SOME DEFINITIONS, FURTHERINDIVIDUAL ANALYSES, REFERENCES
Annex 12: Terms of Reference
Annex 13: Evaluation methodology
Annex 14: Subsector definitions for the education sector
Annex 15: Definitions of major education-related indicators
Annex 16: Final set of evaluation questions, judgment criteria and indicators
Annex 17: Test of EC Guidance for evaluations related to education
Annex 18: International policy framework for basic and secondary education – and how the EC sup-ports it
Annex 19: EC policy related to support to education
Annex 20: EC intervention logic related to basic and secondary education and the process of selecting Evaluation Questions
Annex 21: Support to basic and secondary education: Global financing needs versus relative importance in EC support and humanresources allocated
Annex 22: Note on international education indicators: Overview of EFA goals and indicators, MDGs, MDG targets and indicators, and FTI indicators
Annex 23: Detailed statistical tables related to the desk study countries
Annex 24: Details about compulsory education in the desk study countries
Annex 25: Overview of international and regional surveys related to learning achievements

This evaluation studies the European Union (EU) aid delivery mechanism of delegated cooperation (DC) with EU Member States and third donor countries during the period 2007-2014. The main objectives of the evaluation are to provide an overall independent assessment of DC and to formulate recommendations to improve DC in the future.There are two types of delegated cooperation, namely:Delegation Agreements (DAs): funds entrusted by the European Commission to development cooperation entities from EU Member States or other donors; andTransfer Agreements (TAs): funds entrusted to the Commission by EU Member States, other governments, organisations or public donors.This evaluation covers DAs and TAs signed by the Commission during the years 2007-2014, except DAs which are part of financial blending arrangements and DAs funded with resources from the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), the Instrument for Stability (IfS) and the Rapid reaction Mechanism. All regions where DAs and TAs have been or are being implemented -except pre-accession countries- are part of the geographical scope of this evaluation. Contribution agreements concluded with international organisations are not covered in this evaluation.[Author vide copyright]

Annexes
List of abbreviations
Executive summary
Résumé exécutif
Resumen ejecutivo
1 Introduction
1.1 Objectives and scope of the evaluation
1.2 Overview of the evaluation process
1.3 Formulation of the Evaluation Questions
1.4 Methodological approach and challenges
1.5 Structure of the report
2 Evolution of the Delegated Cooperation mechanism
2.1 The evolving aid effectiveness context for Delegated Cooperation
2.2 Origins of Delegated Cooperation
2.3 Analysis of Delegated Cooperation Guidance from 2007 onwards
2.4 Evolution of DAs and TAs and the main motives of DC partners
2.5 The relation between DC and new aid approaches and tools
3 Answers to Evaluation Questions
3.1 Transaction costs (EQ1)
3.2 Country ownership and leadership (EQ2)
3.3 Complementarity and added value (EQ3)
3.4 Aid fragmentation (EQ4)
3.5 Strengthened policy and systems alignment (EQ5)
3.6 EU Visibility (EQ6)
3.7 DA/TA ratio (EQ7)
3.8 Assessment of DC proposals (EQ8)
3.9 Quality of DC Cooperation (EQ9)
4 Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
4.2 Recommendations
| Volume 2: Context to Information and Methodology
2.1. Terms of references
2.2. Definitions of specific terms used in this evaluation
2.3. Pillar assessed organisations
2.4. List of documents consulted
2.5 List of persons consulted at headquarters
2.6. Methodological approach case studies
2.7. Additional information on policy and legal framework
2.8. Portfolio analysis
2.9. Dynamics of Delegated Cooperation
2.10. Quality of Evidence for Judgement Criteria
Volume 3
3.1 EQ 1: Transaction costs
3.1.1 Definition and scope of the EQ3.1.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.1.3 Methodological observations and challenges
3.1.4 Improved division of labour (JC 1.1)
3.1.5 More co-financing (JC 1.2)
3.1.6 Larger programmes (JC 1.3)
3.1.7 Use of single management systems (JC 1.4)
3.1.8 Reduction of number of active donors (JC 1.5)
3.1.9 Limited additional transaction costs (JC 1.6)
3.2 EQ 2: Ownership and leadership
3.2.1 Definition and scope
3.2.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.2.3 Methodological observations
3.2.4 Formulation of policies and strategies (JC 2.1)
3.2.5 Implementation & monitoring of policies (JC 2.2 & 2.3)
3.2.6 Reduction of number of active donors (JC 2.4)
3.3 EQ 3: Complementarity and Added Value
3.3.1 Definition and scope of the EQ
3.3.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.3.3 Methodological observations
3.3.4 Improved division of labour (JC 3.1)
3.3.5 Increased use of comparative advantages (JC 3.2)
3.3.6 Improved donor coordination and harmonisation (JC 3.3)
3.4 EQ 4: Aid Fragmentation
3.4.1 Definition and scope of the EQ
3.4.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.4.3 Methodological observations and challenges
3.4.4 Improved division of labour (JC 4.1)
3.4.5 More co-financing (JC 4.2)
3.4.6 Larger programmes (JC 4.3)
3.4.7 Improved donor coordination and harmonisation (JC 4.4)
3.5 EQ 5: Alignment
3.5.1 Definition and scope of the EQ
3.5.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.5.3 Methodological observations
| 3.5.4 Embedded in policies and strategies of partner country (JC 5.1)
3.5.5 Based on national procedures and systems (JC 5.2)
3.6 EQ 6: Visibility
3.6.1 Definition and scope of the EQ
3.6.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.6.3 Methodological observations
3.6.4 Visibility of the EU in Delegation Agreements (JC 6.1)
3.6.5 Visibility of the delegating donors in Transfer Agreements (JC 6.2)
3.7 EQ 7: Balance of DAs and TAs
3.7.1 Definition and scope of the EQ
3.7.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.7.3 Methodological observations
3.7.4 Inventory of TA/DA ratios
3.7.5 Constraints at the level of the EU (JC 7.1)
3.7.6 Constraints at the level of the (potential) TA partners (JC 7.2)
3.7.7 DAs are much more attractive than TAs (JC 7.3)
3.8 EQ 8: Assessment of DC proposals
3.8.1 Definition and scope of the EQ
3.8.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.8.3 Methodological observations
3.8.4 Motivation of EUD to enter into DC agreements (JC 8.1)
3.8.5 Appropriate format of Assessment Fiches (JC 8.2)
3.8.6 Quality of DA Assessment and Action Fiches (JC 8.3)
3.8.7 Quality of TA Assessment Fiches (JC 8.4)
3.9 EQ 9: Quality of cooperation
3.9.1 Definition and scope of the EQ
3.9.2 Rationale of the EQ
3.9.3 Methodological observations
3.9.4 Cooperation on the basis of clear rules and procedures (JC 9.1)
3.9.5 Provision of timely and adequate information (JC 9.2)
3.9.6 Quality of the coordination between the partners (JC 9.3, 9.4 & 9.5)
| Volume 4
4.1 Case study notes Benin
Executive Summary
Résumé exécutif
List of abbreviations
1 Introduction
2 Country context
3 Analysis of output-level indicators
4 Analysis of outcome-level indicators (EQ1-5)
5 Analysis of process and implementation aspects (EQ 5-9)
6 Conclusions
Annex A. List of people interviewed
Annex B. List of documents consulted
4.2 Case study notes Ghana
...
4.3 Case study notes on Mali
...
4.4 Case study notes on Mozambique
...
4.5 Case study notes on Nicaragua
...
Resumen ejecutivo
...
4.6 Case study notes on Palestine
...
4.7 Case study notes on Tanzania
...
4.8 Case study notes on Timor-Leste
...
4.9 Case study notes on Haiti
...
4.10 Case study notes Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA)
...
4.11 Questionnaire
List of abbreviations
1 Introduction
2 Decision making process
3 Implementation process
4 Direct results (outputs) of Delegated Cooperation
5 Outcomes of Delegated Cooperation
6 Impact of Delegated Cooperation on aid effectiveness
7 The Future of Delegated Cooperation
8 Final remarks