Udenrigsudvalget 2015-16
URU Alm.del Bilag 98
Offentligt
1592242_0001.png
Unclassified
Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
DCD/DAC(2014)52
23-Oct-2014
___________________________________________________________________________________________
English - Or. English
DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION DIRECTORATE
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
DCD/DAC(2014)52
Unclassified
DAC PEER REVIEW REFERENCE GUIDE 2015-2016
The substance of the DAC peer review reference guide adopted by the DAC on 12 July 2012
(DCD/DAC(2012)23/FINAL) and slightly adjusted in 2013 (DCD/DAC(2013)19 continues to apply in the
biennium 2015-16 so that it covers a full cycle of peer reviews. This version of the reference guide incorporates a
few changes approved by the DAC at the peer review methodology meeting on 25th September 2014 with the
view to streamline its structure, avoid overlap and clarify content when needed.
This document replaces the former reference guide and will apply to peer reviews conducted in 2015 and 2016.
Contacts:
Karen Jorgensen - Tel: 33 (0)1 45 24 94 61 - Email: [email protected]
Chantal Verger - Tel: 33 (0)1 45 24 15 11 - Email: [email protected]
English - Or. English
JT03364657
Complete document available on OLIS in its original format
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of
international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0002.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
DAC PEER REVIEW REFERENCE GUIDE 2015-2016
1.
Background
1.
The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD conducts reviews of the
development co-operation efforts of each Committee member every 4-5 years. The Development
Co-operation Directorate (DCD) provides analytical support, and develops and maintains, in close
consultation with the Committee, the methodology and analytical framework within which the peer
reviews are undertaken.
2.
The objectives of DAC peer reviews are to improve the quality and effectiveness of development
co-operation policies and systems, and to promote good development partnerships for better impact on
poverty reduction and sustainable development in developing countries. DAC peer reviews therefore
promote individual and collective behaviour change of DAC members to ensure their development co-
operation policy framework and systems are fit for purpose. This is achieved through:
I.
holding DAC members accountable for the commitments they have made, and reviewing their
performance against key dimensions of development co-operation and other domestic policies with
an impact on developing countries; and
learning and sharing good practice.
II.
3.
DAC peer reviews assess the performance of a given member, not just that of its development co-
operation agency, and examine both policy and implementation. They take an integrated, system-wide
perspective on the development co-operation and humanitarian assistance activities of the member under
review.
2.
Purpose of the DAC peer review reference guide
4.
The reference guide provides a solid, explicit and transparent analytical framework for reviewing
performance of DAC members. In setting components and indicators, it refers to internationally agreed
benchmarks
1
, DAC good practice papers and guidelines, criteria for the admission of new DAC members
and nationally selected reference points, wherever possible. It takes into account the changing development
landscape, including new international commitments (e.g. Busan Outcome Document) and emerging issues
(e.g. aid as a catalyst, resilience).
5.
While the reference guide provides benchmarks and conditions that define a good and effective
development co-operation actor, there is no “one size fits all” model. Therefore, each peer review is
situated in its own context – which is presented at the beginning of the peer review report, and the
reference guide applies in a flexible manner. Recommendations are adjusted to each specific situation with
the view to support efforts made by the reviewed member to build quality development co-operation and
humanitarian assistance policies and systems.
1.
Some of which apply to EU members only.
2
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0003.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
6.
The two objectives of accountability and learning continue to apply equally to peer reviews. The
reference guide provides a baseline for identifying good practices to enable the sharing of lessons among
DAC members. The framework should allow tagging specific aspects in the report (e.g. fragile states) so
that these can be pulled out into separate notes for targeted audiences. This responds to the need to tailor
communication to specific audiences for greater impact.
7.
The reference guide should be read in conjunction with the
Information Note on the DAC Peer
Review Process
[DCD(2013)6] which describes the review process and the roles and responsibilities of
participants.
8.
I.
II.
III.
The purpose of the reference guide is, therefore:
to serve as a reference for the preparation of the memorandum preceding a review (see the
Guidance on DAC country memorandum” [DCD(2013)6/ANN])
to prepare both the examining team and the reviewed member for discussions at
headquarters and in the field; and
to facilitate the identification of lessons after individual reviews, and thematic or issue
synthesis following a series of reviews.
Content and structure of the reference guide
3.
9.
The reference guide is organised according to seven key dimensions essential for delivering
effective development co-operation and humanitarian assistance in various development contexts.
10.
The reference guide reflects the changing development landscape and emerging topics, as
expressed in the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, the OECD development
3
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
DCD/DAC(2014)52
strategy and the DAC PWB 2015-16. It also takes into account consequences of the global financial crisis
on development work, for example an increased demand for accountability. These aspects are translated
into a strengthened focus on:
•
comprehensive development efforts, looking across government at the members’ efforts to
promote development beyond their ODA programme, i.e. the way they engage in the global
development landscape; their efforts to ensure that their policies are development friendly; and
their approach regarding development finance, including engaging the private sector;
capabilities and risks management to meet the challenges of delivering the policy framework and
providing quality development co-operation;
delivery modalities and partnerships; and
results, value for money and accountability.
•
•
•
11.
Meanwhile the content of the development co-operation policy framework and the extent to
which it is delivered remains the starting point to review DAC members’ development co-operation
policies and systems. Humanitarian assistance is kept separate.
12.
For each dimension, a series of components of analysis is proposed with corresponding
indicators. Each chapter considers both sets of issues from the perspective of headquarters and the field.
The peer review process consults a wide variety of stakeholders. Questions to partner countries will
continue to be part of the process (in particular for dimensions related to development co-operation
delivery, partnerships, results, and development finance).The examining team should bear in mind that all
information gathered should be cross referenced across these stakeholders to strengthen the evidence base
of the review. To appreciate changes in the system, it is also important to know what steps have been taken
to implement the DAC recommendations from the previous peer review.
13.
For practical reasons, the DAC member being reviewed is referred to as the “member”. The lead
development co-operation institution is referred to as the “agency” whatever its status (e.g. ministry, semi-
autonomous agency).
4
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0005.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
DAC peer review reference guide
Components of analysis
Dimension
1. Towards a comprehensive development effort
The member has a broad, strategic approach to
development and financing for development
additional to ODA. This is reflected in overall policies,
coordination within its government system; and
engagement with the private sector.
2. Policy vision and strategic orientations
Clear political directives, policies and strategies
shape the member’s development co-operation and
are in line with international commitments and
guidance.
3. ODA allocations
The member’s state of intent and international
commitments drive aid volume and allocations.
4. Organisation fit for delivering the development
co-operation programme effectively
The member’s approach to how it organises and
manages its development co-operation is fit for
purpose with appropriate capabilities.
5. Delivery modalities and partnerships help deliver
quality aid
The member’s approach to how it delivers its
programme lead to quality assistance in partner
countries, maximising the impact of its support, as
defined in Paris, Accra and Busan.
6. Results management, transparency and
accountability
The member plans and manages for results, learning,
transparency and accountability.
Components of analysis
1.1. Global development issues
1.2. Policy coherence for development
1.3. Financing for development
2.1. Policies, strategies and commitments
2.2. Approach to allocating bilateral and multilateral aid
2.3. Policy focus
3.1. Overall ODA volume
3.2. Bilateral ODA allocations
3.3. Multilateral ODA channel
4.1. Institutional system
4.2. Adaptation to change
4.3. Human resources
5.1. Budgeting and programming processes
5.2. Partnerships
5.3. Fragile states
6.1. Results-based management system
6.2. Evaluation system
6.3. Institutional learning
6.4. Communication, accountability, and development
awareness
7.1. Strategic Framework
7.2. Effective programme design
7.3. Effective delivery, partnerships and instruments
7.4. Organisation fit for purpose
7.5. Results, learning and accountability
7. Humanitarian assistance
The member contributes to minimising the impact of
shocks and crises, saves lives, alleviates suffering and
maintains human dignity in crisis and disaster
settings.
5
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0006.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
1. Towards a comprehensive development effort
Purpose:
This chapter looks at DAC members’ efforts to promote development beyond their aid programme, i.e. the
way they engage in the global development landscape; their efforts to ensure that their domestic and international
policies support – or at least do not undermine – partner countries’ development efforts; and their strategy,
financial instruments and coordination for financing for development in addition to official development assistance
(ODA), including engaging the private sector.
The member has a broad, strategic approach to development and financing for development beyond aid. This is
reflected in overall policies, coordination within its government system; and operations.
Components of analysis
1.1. Global development issues
Relation to the global
development landscape
The member has a strategic approach to contributing to addressing global
public risks and processes that affect development. It promotes the
implementation of development-relevant global public policies.
Domestic policies support or do not harm developing countries
Indicators
1.2. Policy coherence for development
1.2.1. Political commitment and policy statements
Public commitments
The member’s government makes public commitments to development
friendly and coherent policies, endorsed at the highest political level, with
clear links made to poverty reduction and internationally agreed development
goals. For European Union members, clear reference to the EU framework on
policy coherence for development is made.
The member identifies priority issues of coherence or incoherence and has a
time-bound plan for addressing these issues.
Priority issues
1.2.2. Policy coordination mechanisms
Inter-ministerial co-ordination
Mechanisms for inter-ministerial co-ordination and policy arbitration,
involving all relevant ministries, address domestic policies harmful or
supportive towards developing countries. A lead institution is identified with a
clear mandate.
There is awareness of and capacity to analyse issues related to domestic policy
impact on developing countries among relevant ministries of the member’s
government.
Capacity and awareness of
government departments
1.2.3. Systems for analysis, monitoring and reporting
Analysis of policy coherence for
development issues
The member carries out analysis of policy coherence for development issues,
drawing on their dialogue with partner governments at country level as well as
the expertise of domestic or international civil society and research institutes.
The member has a system of screening domestic policies or positions in
international forums that could impact developing countries.
The member monitors and reports regularly to its parliament progress made
to make policies development friendly.
Monitoring and reporting on
policy coherence
6
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0007.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
Components of analysis
Indicators
1.2.4. Illustrations of policy coherence for development in specific areas
Analysis on specific issues
Action on specific issues
1.3. Financing for development
ODA as a catalyst
The member has analysed the benefits of coherence in the priority issues.
There is observable policy change or enforcement of supportive policies towards
developing countries on the specific issues identified by the member.
The member engages in development finance in addition to ODA
The member states in its overall strategy the need for development finance
additional to ODA and promotes the role of aid as a catalyst to bring private
investment to support development efforts in partner countries (e.g. help
improve the enabling environment or support public-private partnerships).
The
member’s ODA and non-ODA development related actors coordinate to
maximise private investment for sustainable development.
The member has official financial instruments to leverage private investments
for developing countries, such as guarantees, export credits, equities and other
subsidies, and innovative measures.
The trend and composition of official
development flows (ODA, other official flows) reflect the member’s approach to
development finance.
The member tracks the totality of its resource flows for development, including
investment, commercial loans and aid by private bodies, and makes
this
information available to all key stakeholders.
Development official finance
instruments and flows
Tracking and reporting non-ODA
flows
Key references
Recommendation of the Council on good institutional practices in promoting policy coherence for development
(2010).
OECD Ministerial Declaration on Policy Coherence for Development (2008).
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2011).
Promoting Private Investment for Development: The Role of ODA (2006).
Trade for Growth and Poverty Reduction: How Aid for Trade Can Help (2011).
Joint Statement on expanding and enhancing public private co-operation for broad based, inclusive and
sustainable growth, 2011.
Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development (2002).
OECD Recommendation of the Council for further combating bribery of foreign public officials in international
business transactions, 29 November 2009, amended on 18 February 2010.
The FATF Recommendations – International standards on combating money laundering and the financing of
terrorism and proliferation, FATF-OCDE (2012).
References to findings from peer reviews of the member by other OECD policy communities such as trade,
agriculture, anti-corruption, anti-bribery, anti-money laundering, environment, tax, migration, investment, that
impact developing countries, and to
established OECD standards, as
relevant.
7
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0008.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
2. Policy vision and strategic orientations
Purpose:
This chapter looks at the political directives, policies and strategies that shape the members’ development
co-operation, including the legal basis, political commitment and current vision.
Clear political directives, policies and strategies shape the member’s development co-operation
and are in line with international commitments and guidance.
Components of analysis
2.1. Policies, strategies and commitments
Overall framework
2.2. Decision-making
Approach to allocating bilateral
ODA
Indicators
Clear policy vision and solid strategies guide the programme
The member has a clear, top-level statement of the purpose of development
co-operation that has wide ownership.
The rationale for allocating aid and other resources is clear and evidence-based
Member’s bilateral strategy builds on transparent evidence-base and has a
clear sector and geographic focus. Poverty, fragility and/or conflict are
formally or informally incorporated in the selection criteria for partner
countries. The strategy offers rationale for deciding upon the instruments to
be used.
The member has a multilateral development policy/strategy that is evidence-
based and provides a rationale for allocating aid to different organisations.
Performance assessments of multilateral organisations and potential synergies
between multilateral and bilateral assistance are factored into the decision
making process. The member participates in joint efforts to make the
multilateral system as well as individual multilateral agencies more effective.
Fighting poverty, especially in LDCs and fragile states, is prioritised
Member’s policies and strategies are prioritised with a clear focus on where
development cooperation is needed most. They are in line with DAC guidelines
and spell out the member’s commitment to poverty reduction, the MDGs, aid
effectiveness and other international promises. There is specific policy
guidance on poverty reduction in line with the MDGs and DAC guidance.
The member’s strategic orientations, practices and timeframes support
holistic responses between development and humanitarian programmes,
including in transition situations and in reducing risk and building resilience.
The member has cross-government policy for engagement in fragile states and
situations, respecting the Fragile States principles, the New Deal and OECD-
DAC guidance, anchored in relevant legislation and accompanied by a realistic
implementation plan.
There is specific policy guidance on integrating cross-cutting issues, such as
capacity development, gender equality and women’s empowerment and
environment and climate change, into the programme in accordance with
Busan commitments.
Approach to multilateral ODA
2.3. Policy focus
Focus on poverty reduction
Relationship between
development and humanitarian
programmes
Fragile states and situations
Cross-cutting issues
8
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
DCD/DAC(2014)52
Key references
Millennium Development Goals and Millennium Declaration (2000) and the Outcome Document of the 2010
MDG HLPM.
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2011).
Poverty Reduction, DAC Guidelines (2001).
Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Policy Guidance for Donors, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series (2006).
Multilateral Aid Report, OECD (2012).
OECD/DAC Principles for good international engagement in fragile states and situations (2007).
A New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States (2011).
Supporting Statebuilding in Situations of Conflict and Fragility: Policy Guidance (2011).
DAC guidelines for gender equality and women’s empowerment in development co-operation (1999).
DAC Guidelines on Integrating the Rio Conventions into Development Co-operation (2002).
Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation: Policy Guidance (2009).
9
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0010.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
3. Aid allocations
Purpose:
This chapter looks at the official development assistance (ODA) figures, including the overall level and
components of aid, the level of bilateral and multilateral aid, and geographic and sector allocations of bilateral aid.
Governments set targets and undertake international commitments for the level of their aid. While national targets
sometimes differ from international ones, it is important to examine whether, and how, the DAC member is meeting
its stated goal. This chapter will therefore: i) use data to track members’ performance against national and
international commitments; ii) review significant changes in aid levels as well as plans for meeting, or staying on, the
set target; iii) assess how closely allocations reflect stated policy; and iv) look at how the member promotes an
effective global aid architecture.
The member’s international and national commitments drive aid volume and allocations.
Components of analysis
3.1. Overall ODA volume
ODA targets
Indicators
The member makes every effort to meet ODA domestic and international targets
The member has a clear statement of the ODA levels that it wants to achieve
(total ODA, ODA/GNI, ODA to specific regions, country income groups, sectors or
objectives). The statement is in line with the international commitments it has
endorsed.
The actual volume of ODA reflects the statement of intent. Member has a clearly
defined plan and timeline to meet its targets, and regularly evaluates its overall
performance.
The member complies with all DAC Recommendations on aid, and its statistical
reports are in conformity with ODA rules. The member regularly provides
available three- to five-year indicative forward expenditure to its partner
countries on a rolling basis, as committed in Busan (§24a).
ODA trends and plans to meet
targets
ODA reporting and forward
looking information
3.2. Bilateral ODA allocations
Aid is allocated according to the statement of intent and international commitments
Geographic allocations
The member’s policy commitments and strategic priorities are reflected in
geographic allocations at a global level. The member promotes, internally and
internationally, effective division of labour, based on an assessment of its
comparative advantages and considerations regarding countries that receive
insufficient assistance and measures required to curb fragmentation of aid.
Sector and thematic priorities (including cross cutting issues) are reflected into
sector allocations at partner country level. These take into account partner
countries’ priorities, other partners’ involvement, and the need for sector
concentration based on actors’ comparative advantages.
The member uses the multilateral aid channel effectively
The member allocates multilateral aid in accordance with its strategy for this
channel and good practice principles.
Sector allocations
3.3. Multilateral ODA channel
Multilateral channel
10
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0011.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
Key references
DAC
Recommendation
on Terms and Conditions of
Aid
(1978).
DAC Recommendation on Good Pledging Practice (2011).
Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development (2002).
United Nations target of 0.7% of ODA/GNI (re-affirmed in Monterrey in 2002 and Doha in 2008) and/or other
commitments (e.g. the European Council Presidency Conclusions on ODA levels [16-17 June 2005]).
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2011).
2011 Revision to the 1995 Aide Memoire on the Accession of new DAC members and full participants
(DCD/DAC(2011)36/FINAL, annex 1).
Multilateral Aid Report, OECD (2012).
11
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0012.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
4. Organisation fit for purpose
Purpose:
This chapter looks at the institutional structures and management processes that support the effective
implementation of development co-operation policies. While the DAC has not issued guidance in this area of
examination, the Aide-Memoire on the Admission of new DAC members requires DAC members to put in place
sound organisational management principles, including appropriate institutional frameworks with sufficient ability
and operational capacity; and Managing Aid (2009) captures recognized and validated good practice. The chapter
also assesses more broadly whether the member’s aid administration and organisation are appropriate to meet the
goals and objectives set for the programme; whether appropriate capacities are retained; and efforts to ensure the
system is set up to deliver aid effectively.
The member’s approach to how it organises and manages its development co-operation is fit for purpose
Components of analysis
4.1. Institutional system
operation
Leadership and management
Indicators
The institutional structure is conducive to consistent, quality development co-
The member is committed to setting a system able to deliver on the policy priorities
and commitments made, including in Busan. The management provides a clear
vision on how the business model helps to achieve this and anticipates needs.
The development cooperation system is well co-ordinated and led with clear,
complementary mandates, and a whole-of-government approach where needed.
In partner countries, the member has a whole-of-government approach and
objectives which go beyond development cooperation where relevant, exploiting
synergies across the different policy communities.
The structure and systems of the organisations involved support the member to
implement its policies and commitments in an efficient way. This includes reviewing
the delegation of financial and programming authority as agreed in Busan. In fragile
and transition environments, the member ensures the flexibility needed to adjust
programmes and instruments in light of the evolving context and compact
negotiations.
The system is able to reform and innovate to meet evolving needs
The member manages organisational change effectively to minimise the risks
associated with the change process – including through monitoring progress,
communicating the impact of change, and staying open to making adjustments.
The leadership and internal system (rules and procedures) provide appropriate
incentives to encourage understanding of changes in the development landscape
and responsive innovation in the approach to development co-operation.
The member manages its human resources effectively to respond to field imperatives
The member ensures that its system as a whole has appropriate staff levels and
capacity, with the necessary skills in the right places – especially for fragile and
conflict-affected situations - to deliver on objectives at headquarters and in the
field. Based on a medium term vision, it sets annual plans for recruitment and staff
development. The member provides incentives for skilled staff to remain in post for
reasonable lengths of time.
Internal coordination at
headquarters
Internal coordination in
partner countries
Structure and systems
4.2. Adaptation to change
Managing organisational
change
Incentives for innovation
4.3. Human resources
Staffing levels, composition
and location
12
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0013.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
Components of analysis
Staff development
Indicators
The member invests in staff and skills in support of its development co-operation
objectives with appropriate incentives and training opportunities, including for
locally recruited staff.
Key references
2011 Revision to the 1995 Aide Memoire on the Accession of new DAC members and full participants
(DCD/DAC(2011)36/FINAL, annex 1).
Better Aid: Managing Aid – Practices of DAC Member countries (2009).
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2011).
Managing Risks in Fragile and Transitional Contexts: The Price of Success? (2010).
13
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0014.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
5. Delivery modalities and partnerships for quality aid
Purpose:
This chapter looks at efforts made by members to fulfil the commitments set out in the 2011 Busan
outcome documents. It looks at how the budgeting and programming processes support quality aid and how
members engage in coordination arrangements and promote strategic partnerships to develop synergies and
enhance mutual accountability. This chapter also examines how the
Principles for Good International Engagement in
Fragile States and Situations
are applied by donors that engage in countries with problems of weak governance and
conflict, and during situations of fragility.
The member’s approach to how it delivers its programme leads to quality assistance
in partner countries, maximising the impact of its support.
Components of analysis
5.1. Budgeting and programming processes
Budgeting process / predictability and
flexibility
Programming process / context-based
and supporting alignment to national
strategies
Indicators
These processes support quality aid as defined in Busan
The budgeting process allows for multi-year predictability, while keeping
some flexibility to reallocate aid when needed.
The programming processes support alignment and are streamlined,
efficient and coherent. The member tailors its support to country
contexts. Its strategies are aligned to national strategies, and evidence-
based to respond effectively to partner country needs. They incorporate
cross-cutting issues, such as gender equality and environment.
The member uses partner country systems as the default approach for
co-operation in support of activities managed by the public sector, with a
mix of aid instruments adjusted to match partner countries’ needs and
capacity.
The member assesses contextual, programmatic and institutional risks in
relation to opportunities. Analysis of risks such as corruption and
fiduciary risks feeds into planning and programming to inform the
programme delivery design and control mechanisms; there is increased
joint analysis of contextual risks and efforts to manage - rather than
avoid – risks; there is a policy supporting joint corruption assessments,
improved coordination among donors, and joint and graduated
responses to corruption.
The member accelerates its efforts to untie aid as agreed in Busan.
Conditionalities are agreed with the partner country, based on its
national development strategy, and transparent (publically available).
Conditions are used strategically to improve development outcomes.
Use of country systems
Analysis of risks and opportunities
informs planning and programming
Untying
Conditionality
5.2. Partnerships
The member makes appropriate use of coordination arrangements, promotes
strategic partnerships to develop synergies, and enhances mutual accountability
The member makes maximal use of country-led co-ordination
arrangements, including division of labour, as well as programme-based
approaches, joint programming and delegated co-operation (Busan).
Division of labour and joint approaches
14
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0015.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
Components of analysis
Accountability
Partnerships
Indicators
Member engages actively in mutual accountability mechanisms at the
country (regional and global) level(s).
The member engages in partnerships with a wide range of government
and non-government actors (e.g. UN, triangular co-operation, CSOs,
foundations, private sector) to generate synergies and increase impact.
The member has a clear CSO policy, which includes strengthening
southern civil society as a key objective. It engages with CSOs both at
strategic and delivery levels, and partners with CSOs to promote
development education. Criteria for funding are clear and transparent.
Various funding mechanisms are available to suit the different types of
NGOs. Transaction costs are minimised, and monitoring focuses on
results, balancing financial accountability and learning.
Delivery modalities and partnerships help deliver quality
Member’s country strategy focuses on peacebuilding and statebuilding
objectives and the reduction of crisis, disaster and conflict risks. The
strategy is focused on a limited number of priorities, and identifies and
analyses trade-offs and dilemmas, weighs short vs. long-term effects and
is realistic about what can be achieved in a given timeframe.
The member strengthens, funds and engages with government led
coordination mechanisms, including compacts, in fragile states. Member
coordinates actively with other development partners and supports
programme based approaches and multi-donor trust funds to increase
coherence.
The member has a strategy for the gradual implementation of the aid
effectiveness principles in each fragile state; but uses simplified
procurement and financial management procedures to support delivery
in the initial stages of the transition, while ensuring that the way aid is
delivered does not undermine statebuilding processes.
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
5.3. Fragile states
Country strategies address conflict and
fragility and focus on essential
peacebuilding and statebuilding
priorities
Coordination with government and
other donors
Programme delivery modalities in
fragile contexts
Key references
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2011).
Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States & Situations (2007).
A New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States (2011).
OECD Guidance on Statebuilding (2011) and on International Support to Post-conflict Transitions (2011).
DAC
Recommendation
on Untying ODA to the
Least Developed Countries
and
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
(2001, amended 2006 and 2008).
International Good Practice Principles for Country-Led Division of Labour and Complementarity (2009).
DAC Policy and Principles on Anti-Corruption (2007).
DAC Guiding Principles for Aid Effectiveness, Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment (2008).
15
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0016.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
6. Results management, learning and accountability
Purpose:
This chapter looks at DAC members’ efforts to manage for development results, while strengthening
national capacities and drawing on partner countries’ own data and systems wherever possible. It also looks at how
members use evaluations’ results and lessons for knowledge sharing and management purposes; and disseminate
development results for communication, accountability, and public awareness in support of development co-
operation.
The member plans and manages for results, learning, transparency and accountability
Components of analysis
Indicators
6.1. Policies, strategies, plans, monitoring and reporting
A results-based management system is in place to assess
performance on the basis of development priorities, objectives and systems of partner countries.
Development co-operation
policies, strategies, plans,
budget and programmes
The member states the objectives of its development co-operation
policies and programmes in terms that can be measured and makes explicit
reference to the achievement of development results with a clearly articulated
chain of expected results from activities to impacts. Its planning, budgeting and
monitoring processes support the focus on results.
The member’s measurement of development results provides useful
information for improving programme management and for communicating
transparently and credibly about the results of aid. It draws both on evaluations
and on partner countries’ own data and systems, minimising the introduction of
additional indicators, separate data collection and parallel reporting
requirements.
The member monitors the conflict sensitivity of activities and country strategies,
including effects on conflict drivers and unintended outcomes, and adapts as
required to ensure a “do-no-harm” approach and support collective
accountability.
The evaluation system is in line with the DAC evaluation principles
An evaluation policy is in place. There is an appropriately staffed evaluation unit
with clearly defined role and responsibilities.
The evaluation process is impartial and independent from the process
concerned with policy-making and the delivery of development assistance.
An overall plan and a dedicated budget for the evaluation of development
assistance activities is in place to ensure coverage and strategic selection of
topics with appropriate evaluation methods used to meet different needs.(e.g.
project evaluation, thematic evaluation, impact evaluation).
The member completes evaluations in partnership with aid recipients and other
development partners and promotes capacity development and partner country
led efforts in this area.
Evaluations and appropriate knowledge management systems are used as
management tools
There is systematic and transparent dissemination of evaluation results and
lessons. The member has adequately resourced evaluation feedback
Approach to results
measurement
Monitoring individual
programme results in fragile
contexts
6.2. Evaluation system
Evaluation policy and evaluation
unit
Independence of evaluations
Planning and budgeting for the
evaluation of development
assistance activities
Evaluation partnerships and
strengthening capacity
6.3. Institutional learning
Learning from and using
16
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0017.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
Components of analysis
evaluation findings
Indicators
mechanisms in place and these involve all parties concerned and link to the
overall programme management and accountability systems to ensure follow up
on recommendations, use of findings and learning from evaluation.
The member has a knowledge management system and uses it as a forward
looking management tool, building on results and evidence (including research
whenever possible) for learning and analysis.
The member communicates development
results transparently and honestly
Knowledge management
6.4. Communication, accountability, and development awareness
Transparency and accountability
The member is transparent and credible to stakeholders about how it is working
and what it is achieving - including implementing transparency commitments.
The member has plans to implement the standard for electronic publication of
timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information by December 2015, and
a process to ensure that implementation proceeds on track in accordance with
the deadline (§23c). Systems are in place to provide adequate oversight of the
development co-operation programme and accountability for the results
The member invests in and plans for communicating the results of its
development co-operation to major stakeholders (including taxpayers,
lawmakers, partners and beneficiaries), relying on partner country’s results
frameworks where possible. Development results are used as a basis for the
member’s communication to the greater public with equal balance between
success and failure. The member builds awareness about the range of risks
involved in development co-operation and how it manages these risks.
The member works with civil society, the education sector and research
organisations with the view to raise public awareness of development issues.
Communicating results and risks
Raising development awareness
Key references
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2011).
Evaluating development co-operation – Summary of key norms and standards (2010).
OECD Guidance on International Support to Post-conflict Transitions (2011).
OECD/DAC Guidance on evaluating peacebuilding activities (2012).
17
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0018.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
7. Humanitarian assistance
Purpose:
This chapter looks at efforts made by members to fulfil the Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian
Donorship (GHD), initially endorsed by 17 donors in Stockholm in June 2003, and now endorsed by all members of
the DAC. The objectives of humanitarian action, as set out in the GHD principles are to save lives, alleviate
suffering and maintain human dignity during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters, as well
as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for the occurrence of such situations. In 2004, the DAC decided to
engage actively in pursuing Good Humanitarian Donorship, and began to include the GHD dimension in peer reviews
later that year.
The member contributes to minimising the impact of shocks and crises; and saves lives, alleviates suffering and
maintains human dignity in crisis and disaster settings
Components of analysis
7.1. Strategic Framework
Humanitarian policy and/or
strategic framework
Indicators
Clear political directives and strategies for resilience, response and recovery
The member has cross-government policy for humanitarian assistance,
respecting the GHD principles, anchored in relevant legislation and accompanied
by a realistic implementation plan. Wide consultation of all key stakeholders.
(GHD 1,2,3.)
Member’s strategic orientations, practices and timeframes support holistic
responses between development and humanitarian programmes in protracted
crises and transition situations. Member coordinates engagement and funding
with other actors through compacts, where applicable.
(GHD 9, ND, TF.)
The member works to actively reduce disaster risks, anticipating disasters,
reducing risk exposure, strengthening the resilience of vulnerable communities,
and strengthens national and international response capacity and leadership.
(GHD 5, 8 and Hyogo Framework.)
The member provides sufficient financial resources to match its strategic
objectives in humanitarian assistance programming.
(GHD 6, 11.)
Programmes target the highest risk to life and livelihood
The member bases its humanitarian funding on an objective determination of
the severity of each crisis, and/or focuses on crises where it can clearly add
value, addresses the highest risk to life and livelihood first, and takes into
account the capacity of potential partners to deliver results. Decision making
processes and criteria are transparent, and match the priorities set out in
country strategies.
(GHD 6,11,12.)
The member has a clear link between early warning and early response.
(GHD
17,18.)
The member actively promotes beneficiary participation throughout the
programme cycle, including allocating sufficient resources to allow for
participatory approaches and providing programmatic flexibility to adapt to
feedback.
(GHD 7.)
Delivery modalities and partnerships help deliver
quality assistance
Approach towards recovery
and transition
Approach towards disaster risk
reduction and resilience
Overall humanitarian budget
and trends
7.2. Effective programme design
Criteria for who, what and
where to fund
Role of early warning
Approach towards participation
of beneficiaries
7.3. Effective delivery, partnerships and instruments
Tools available for protracted
crises and recovery
The member has the appropriate mix of instruments, including development
funding, to save lives, support community recovery and resilience building, and
residual humanitarian needs in recovery contexts.
(GHD 9.)
18
 URU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 98: Invitation til møde den 11. februar 2016 om OECD DACs Peer Review af Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde
1592242_0019.png
DCD/DAC(2014)52
Components of analysis
Rapid response tools and
mechanisms
Partnerships with the
humanitarian community
Co-ordination with other
donors
7.4. Organisation fit for purpose
Co-ordination across
government
Approach to civil-military co-
ordination
Indicators
The member has appropriate mechanisms for rapid and appropriate crisis
response, including early deployment of recovery funding.
(GHD 5,17,18.)
The member streamlines procedures, aligns funding streams, improves
predictability and flexibility of humanitarian funding, and works to reduce the
administrative burden on partners, including NGO partners.
(GHD 10,12,13,14.)
The member coordinates actively with other donors.
(GHD 10.)
Systems, structures, processes and people work together effectively
and efficiently
The member has a functioning whole of government mechanism to ensure
coherence between humanitarian (including civil protection), development and
security policy and operations, with a clear lead entity.
(All.)
The member has a cross-government civil-military policy that outlines clear
criteria for enforcing the ‘last resort’ principle. Member works to increase
awareness of humanitarian and fragile states principles amongst key military
personnel.
(GHD 1,2,17,19,20.)
The member has sufficient skilled staff in headquarters and in the field to cope
with workload expectations throughout the programme cycle, provides
incentives for skilled staff to remain in post for reasonable lengths of time, and
provides staff with training on how to work effectively in fragile and conflict-
affected situations. Administrative systems allow for timely, efficient and
effective implementation of programmes and deployment of funding tools
(All.)
Results are measured and communicated, and lessons learnt
Humanitarian staff and systems
7.5. Results, learning and accountability
Monitoring own performance
Monitoring the impact of
programmes
Communicating results
The member has verifiable indicators to monitor and report on their own
objectives and strategies, and regularly evaluates own overall performance
(All.)
The member monitors the impact of programmes, themes and country
strategies (joint monitoring where appropriate) disseminates lessons and adapts
programmes as required. (GHD
15,16,22.)
The member communicates objectives and results to major stakeholders
(including taxpayers, lawmakers, partners and beneficiaries).
(GHD 21,23.)
Key references
Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian Donorship - GHD (2003).
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015.
OECD/DAC Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States & Situations (2007).
A New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States - ND (2011).
OECD Guidance on International Support to Post-conflict Transitions - TF (2011).
Guidelines on the Use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief – Oslo Guidelines (2007).
Guidelines on the use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to Support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in
Complex Emergencies (2006).
19