Evaluation of synthesis of country programme evaluations conducted in fragile states

14 July 2010

Background

DFID’s Evaluation Department (EvD) commissions a series of Country Programme Evaluations (CPEs) each year. The studies are intended to assess the relevance and effectiveness of the country programme, contribute to lesson-learning and inform the development of future country assistance strategies.

This synthesis report brings together findings from nine CPEs, focusing on countries that may be termed ‘fragile states’. Building peaceful states and societies is a key strategic objective for DFID’s work, as explained in the White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty – Building our Common Future. The countries covered are Afghanistan, Cambodia, Nepal, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan and Yemen.

The timeframe over which they’ve been evaluated is also longer than a typical CPE, collectively covering an eight year period, from 2002 – 2009.

This evaluation report was completed prior to the UK 2010 election.

DFID’s policy approach to engagement in fragile states.

The synthesis covers the following five areas:

• Delivering more and better aid: covering issues of scaling up aid, use of different aid instruments and aid effectiveness.
• Linking security with development: support for inclusive political settlements, security sector reform and conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
• State-building: support to core state functions, civil society and democratic institutions
• Partnerships: covering host governments, other donors and working across Whitehall
• Operational efficiency and monitoring and evaluation: balancing devolution of country offices, the challenges and costs of working in insecure environments and of working through others and the challenge of reporting on and evaluating results.

Major Recommendations

• DFID’s regional directors should renew their commitment to have more realistic expectations of what can be achieved within a 5-10 year timeframe. Identifying government weakness as a main risk within programmes, only to express this again as a reason for weak programme performance should be avoided.
• DFID should act as a bridge between partners who exhibit different levels of alignment to the principles of engagement in fragile states as well as the principles of aid effectiveness. DFID should be better prepared to address sensitive issues such as human rights abuse, corruption and injustice.

See the evaluation report and evaluation summary for all of the findings and lessons learned.