Evaluation Department Content Foreword
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EVALUATION DEPARTMENT CONTENT FOREWORD .....................................................................3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................5 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................12 REPORT 8/2018 1.1. Background ............................................................12 1.2. Objectives and evaluation questions .........................13 1.3. Definition of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) 15 1.4. Focus and boundaries of the evaluation ....................15 1.5. Ethical considerations .............................................16 1.6. Structure of the report .............................................16 2. METHODOLOGY .........................................................17 2.1. Methodological approach .........................................17 2.4. Limitations .............................................................22 3. ACTORS, DILEMMAS AND INITIATIVES RELATED TO NORWEGIAN PCD ..................................23 3.1. Actors influencing Norwegian PCD .............................23 3.2. Dilemmas ...............................................................28 3.3. Initiatives and mechanisms for ensuring PCD ............31 3.4. Efforts compared to international best practices ........37 4. REFLECTIONS ON THE GROUND: Evaluation of Norwegian Efforts THE CASE OF MYANMAR ...............................................41 4.1. Introduction ............................................................41 4.2. Overview of the Norwegian engagement in Myanmar ..41 to Ensure Policy Coherence 4.3. Dilemmas ...............................................................44 4.4. Norway’s efforts to handle dilemmas and ensuring PCD in Myanmar ..................................48 for Development 4.5. Summary ................................................................53 5. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................55 5.1. Main findings ..........................................................55 5.2. Recommendations ..................................................58 ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference .........................................60 ANNEX 2: List of interviews ............................................66 ANNEX 3: References and document sources ..................69 LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES/BOXES .................................74 ACRONYMS ...................................................................75 FORMER REPORTS FROM THE EVALUATION DEPARTMENT .....................................76 Commissioned by the Evaluation Department Carried out by Fafo Research Foundation in collaboration with the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Written by Svein Erik Stave, Fafo Marte Nilsen, Prio Kristin Dalen, Fafo MAY 2018 This report is the product of its authors, Norad and responsibility for the accuracy of data included Norwegian Agency for in this report rests with the authors alone. The findings, Development Cooperation interpretations, and conclusions presented www.norad.no in this report do not necessarily reflect the views [email protected] of the Evaluation Department. May 2018 Photo: Ken Opprann ISBN: 978-82-8369-055-2 2 EVALUATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 8/2018 // EVALUATION OF NORWEGIAN EFFORTS TO ENSURE POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT Foreword Policy Coherence for Development means The purpose of this evaluation is to contribute The evaluation was carried out by a team from working on wider aspects of development to increased knowledge on initiatives Fafo Research Foundation in collaboration in addition to development aid, such as trade, undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). migration, investments, climate change, and other Norwegian actors to ensure policy We thank the team for a job well done. and security. It goes across government coherence for development, and to shed light departments, and includes coordination on dilemmas emerging from contradictions Oslo, May 2018 with other national and international actors. between international development objectives OECD puts it as “ensuring that policies and other Norwegian objectives, and how these do not harm and where possible contribute have been addressed by Norwegian actors. to international development objectives”. The report calls for more open and transparent discussions on real dilemmas and priorities, Per Øyvind Bastøe Norwegian governments have expressed their as there are some true dilemmas and Director, Evaluation Department commitment to ensuring Policy Coherence choices to be made. Is Policy Coherence for for Development on several occasions, Development possible? If so, how can we move latest in the Jeløya Declaration, which from rhetoric to implementation? constitutes the political platform of present Prime Minister Erna Solberg's government. We believe this evaluation provides an Norway is also committed to achieve the important contribution to the governments sustainable development goals of Agenda 2030 discussions on how to ensure policy coherence where Policy Coherence for Development is for development. a specific target. 3 EVALUATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 8/2018 // EVALUATION OF NORWEGIAN EFFORTS TO ENSURE POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT Acknowledgements This evaluation has been carried out by Fafo Fafo and PRIO would like to thank: the The report is the responsibility of the Research Foundation in collaboration with Norwegian MFA; other Norwegian Ministries evaluation team and does not necessarily the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). and directorates; international, Myanmar reflect the views of Norad’s Evaluation The study team has consisted of Svein Erik and Norwegian CSOs, NGOs and research Department, the Norwegian Ministry Stave and Kristin Dalen from Fafo and Marte institutes; as well as a range of individuals of Foreign Affairs or any of the organizations Nilsen from PRIO. Svein Erik Stave acted in Norway and Myanmar for sharing relevant or individuals interviewed. Any factual errors as head of the research team throughout documents and taking the time to talk to or misinterpretations are the responsibility the project. Kristin Dalen has been the us in meetings and interviews. The evaluation of the evaluation team (Fafo and PRIO). principle researcher for the general part of team is grateful for all the help and support the evaluation, while Marte Nilsen has been provided by various sections within Norad, the principle researcher for the Myanmar including their provision of relevant documents case study. and participation in interviews. The team would also like to express gratitude to The evaluation has benefited greatly from the archive team at the Norwegian MFA for the valuable and constructive inputs from efficient and helpful assistance. the project’s reference group, which has consisted of Stein Tønnesson (PRIO), We would like to extend our appreciation Øyvind Eggen, Jon Pedersen (Fafo) to the Norwegian embassy in Myanmar for and Kristian Stokke (University of Oslo). the sincere and accommodating cooperation, as well as to former and current Myanmar authority representatives. 4 EVALUATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 8/2018 // EVALUATION OF NORWEGIAN EFFORTS TO ENSURE POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT Executive summary INTRODUCTION of Agenda 2030, which Norway has vigorously and other Norwegian objectives, and how these According to the OECD, Policy Coherence promoted. PCD is, moreover defined as have been addressed; and 3) How Norwegian for Development (PCD) can be seen a specific Sustainable Development Target efforts to ensure PCD play out in a developing “as a systematic promotion of mutually (SDG17:14). country prioritized in Norwegian development reinforcing policy actions across government cooperation. Myanmar was selected for a case departments and agencies creating synergies This evaluation reviews Norwegian efforts to study, partly because an increasing number towards achieving the agreed objectives, where ensure PCD, with special attention paid to the of actors, both traditional and non-traditional development policy shall lead and other policy period since the publication of the report from development actors, have become engaged areas should ensure to be coherent with this”. the Policy Coherence Commission in 2008 there in the most recent years, meeting Accordingly, the organization defines PCD (NOU 2008:14). It marked a turning point in the a number of difficult challenges. as “ensuring that policies do not harm and Government's commitment to PCD by outlining where possible contribute to international some key Norwegian policy “dilemmas” and More specifically, the objectives of the development objectives” (OECD 2008). gave a set of recommendations for how to deal evaluation are to: with them in order to ensure PCD. The report Norwegian governments have expressed has served as a key reference and “baseline” > Map and describe initiatives taken by the MFA their commitment to ensuring PCD on several for the present evaluation. to ensure policy coherence for development, occasions, first in the Government White Paper including all Norwegian stakeholders 35 (2003–2004) “Fighting Poverty Together PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES – A coherent Policy for Development”, and OF THE EVALUATION > Identify and analyze dilemmas at the most recently in White Paper 25 (2016–2017) The purpose of this evaluation is to contribute intersection of development policy and other “Common Responsibility for Common Future”. to