Four Rules of the Art AND SOME POKING AROUND FOR

Transcript:Four Rules of the Art AND SOME POKING AROUND FOR:
Four Rules of the Art AND SOME POKING AROUND FOR PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS TO THE CHALLENGES OF JOINT PEACE INTERVENTION EVALUATIONS Emery Brusset NUPI/IPI Workshop, New York 7 & 8 May 2009 Channel Research 2 Four Theoretical Challenges to the evaluation of conflict interventions 1. Seizing Opportunities Programming requires a response to constraints and opportunities as they arise. These cannot be planned for in advance and plans are not a good evaluation reference 2. Attribution It is particularly difficult to separate the impact of peace-building projects from other impacts on conflict The time required to cover other interventions is limited 3. Data Quandaries Selecting evidence requires prioritisation and demands a good understanding of the nature of the conflict The verification methods must be applicable in a conflict situation 4. End State? Problems in defining terms such as peace and conflict. Usually depends on the identification of an end-state. This may not be explicit or shared by all stakeholders or those within a single programme Options Channel Research 3 The Practical Challenge of Joint Evaluation: Evaluation needs to provide a convincing set of conclusions to a growing diversity and size of audience “Ideal single actor evaluation” TOR enable the evaluator to identify unplanned and unintended effects A way is found to identify comparative weight of intervention Good conflict analysis is possible The nature of “peace” is agreed “Reality of Joint Evaluation” Expectations evolve The questions focus on the management of interventions There is no strategic baseline or agreed assessment Peace is defined generically, or not at all 4 Rules of Good Evaluation: Independence of team to focus on situation as it emerged Team has means to analyse societal interface Team is capable of participatory assessments Conflict objectives are reconstructed to From Channel Research 4 Challenge 1: Capturing unintended and unexpected aspects Rule 1: The team is enabled to define what issues to focus on, and allows for Steering Committee consultation milestones to secure alignment of all stakeholders. Challenge 2: Evaluation questions tend to focus on institutional issues Evaluation, particularly real time evaluation, tends to be linked to decisions and the need to understand and support the management of an intervention. This risks reducing the time available to analyse the impact . Conflict Analysis Channel Research 6 Rule 2: Evaluations are given time to enable an iterative but systematic process (six months to a year?) – scope is contained. There is agreement that