to evaluate in a credible and meaningful way : between ... · effectiviteit efficiëntie impact...

To eva

luate in

a cred

ible an

d m

ean

ingfu

l way

: betw

een d

rea

m a

nd

rea

lity

To evaluate in a credible and meaningful way : between dream and reality

A study of the evaluability of (co)-financed interventions of the Belgian Cooperation

KINGDOM OF BELGIUM

Federal Public Service

Foreign Affairs,Foreign Trade andDevelopment Cooperation

Egmont • rue des Petits Carmes 15, B-1000 Bruxelles • + 32 2 (0) 501 38 34 • www.diplomatie.belgium.be • www.dg-d.be • [email protected]

Legal registration : 0218/2016/019

The Special Evaluationoffice of the Belgian Development Cooperation

KINGDOM OF BELGIUM



The Special Evaluation office of the Belgian Development Cooperation

Evaluability Study – final report: Annexes 1

FPS Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Special Evaluation Office of the Belgian Development Cooperation

Study of the Evaluability of (co-) financed interventions of the Belgian

Cooperation

Nathalie HOLVOET - Liesbeth INBERG - Bob PEETERS - Lisa POPELIER -Dirk VAN ESBROECK - Ellen VERHOFSTADT

Final Report: Annexes

February 2016

This Study was executed by a partnership between South Research and IOB (University of Antwerp), and supported by a steering committee. The opinions expressed in this document represent the evidenced view of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the FPS Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation.


© FPS Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation

February 2016

Graphic design: Sandra Fernandez Bernardo, FPS Communications Unit Printed by: FPS Printing Office

Evaluation no. S4/2014/03

Legal Deposit: 0218/2016/012

This document is also available on the website http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/development_cooperation/how_we_work/special

_evaluation_officeand at the Special Evaluation Office of the Belgian Development Cooperation. This report should be cited as follows: Special Evaluation Office of the Belgian Development Cooperation/ SEO (2016), To

evaluate in a credible and meaningful way: between dream and reality, a study of the

evaluability of (co)-financed interventions of the Belgian Cooperation, FPS Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Brussels.


List of Annexes

Annex 1: Evaluability Review Framework ........................................................... 5 Annex 2: List of the 40 interventions ................................................................. 9 Annex 3: Literature List .................................................................................... 11 Annex 4: List of key persons contacted ............................................................ 13


Annex 1: Evaluability Review Framework

This review framework has been developed in the context of the

assignment ‘Practical Evaluability of development interventions’

commissioned by the Office of the Special Evaluator of Belgian

Development Cooperation. The framework has been elaborated on

the basis of existing literature and insights of the different study

team members (drawing upon practice and evaluation theory). So

far, there does not exist a standardized framework or methodology

to assess evaluability and also this framework is work in progress.

The review itself will test the framework’s practical applicability and

feed into its further refinement. The OECD/DAC definitions of the different criteria are used. For some items the

scores on the different criteria can be the same, while for others they will differ.

rele

va

nce

eff

ect

ive

ne

ss

eff

icie

ncy

Imp

act

sust

ain

ab

ilit

y

1. Analysis of the intervention design

(Part 1 is similar to what is labelled ‘theoretical evaluability in the TOR)

1.1 The underlying analysis X X

1.1.1 The beneficiaries (target groups) are clearly identified (demarcated) and described X X

1.1.2 The rationale of the intervention and the (problem) situation of the beneficiaries is

clearly described

X

1.1.3 The role of the beneficiaries is clearly described X X

1.1.4 The role of the most important actors (exclusive of beneficiaries) is clearly

described

X X

1.1.5 Gender analysis is integrated in the analysis X X

1.1.6 The link between analysis and intervention objectives is clearly described X

1.1.7 The linkage between the rationale of the intervention and the sector policy of the

partner country is clearly described

X

1.2 The intervention logic and the theory of change (TOC) X X X X

1.2.1 A clear and correct distinction is made between outputs, outcomes and impact X X

1.2.2 The ToC from outputs to outcomes and impacts is clearly elaborated X X

1.2.3 The ToC is logic and realistic X X X

1.2.4 Critical and crucial links/ingredients in the ToC are identified and can be tested X X X

1.2.5 The ToC includes concrete measures (input, activity and output level) which

guarantee the sustainability of the intervention results

X

1.2.6 The internal risks are clearly identified and explored/estimated X X X

1.2.7 The external assumptions are clearly identified and explored/estimated X X X X X

1.2.8 The allocation of the resources foreseen (investments, personnel and operational

costs, inputs from other stakeholders) to the outputs is clear

X


1.3 The proposed M&E system X X X X X

1.3.1 The most important results envisaged are made operational in an adequate way X X X X

1.3.2 Where necessary/relevant indicators are disaggregated by sex or other relevant

characteristics

X X X X

1.3.3 The proposed M&E system includes a consistent translation of the proposed

intervention logic and ToC

X X X X X

1.3.4 The method for monitoring and evaluating the intervention results and their

sustainability is clearly described

X X X X X

1.3.5 The method to monitor the assumptions is clearly described X X X X X

1.3.6 The method to follow up the internal risks is clearly described X X X X X

1.3.7 The human and financial resources involved in the M&E system are clearly

described

X

1.3.8 The proposed MIS allows an allocation of expenditures to specific outputs and

intervention components

X

1.3.9 The way in which the M&E system of the intervention is aligned/related to the

national/local M&E system is clearly described

X X X X X

1.4 Consistency and adaptation of the intervention logic and ToC X X X X X

1.4.1 Changes in the intervention logic and the ToC are clearly reported and justified X X X X X

1.4.2 Information is available about the vision and the opinions of the most important

stakeholders regarding changes in the intervention logic and ToC

X X X X X

1.4.3 Changes in the intervention logic and ToC are adequately integrated in the M&E

system

X X X X X

Re

lev

an

ce

Eff

ect

ive

ne

ss

Eff

icie

ncy

Imp

act

Su

sta

ina

bil

ity

2. Practice regarding intervention implementation, intervention management and context

(Information is gathered through documents and field visits)

2.1 Basic information regarding intervention implementation X X X X X

2.1.1 The basic documents (that could reasonably be expected) are available. X X X X X

2.1.2 Baseline information (consistent with the intervention logic) relating to the target

group (beneficiaries) is available.

X X X X

2.1.3 Baseline information (consistent with the intervention logic) relating to the

counterfactual is available.

X X X

2.1.4 Disaggregated baseline information according to gender (or other relevant

parameters) is available on relevant indicators.

X X X

2.1.5 There is information (that could reasonably be expected) available regarding to

the progress of the implementation of the intervention goals.

X X X

2.1.6 There is information available regarding the participation of the initial target

group (beneficiaries).

X X X X X

2.1.7 There is information available regarding the data collection process for the

indicators.

X X X X X


2.1.8 The proposal regarding data collection allows in principle reliable data collection

of the indicators

X X X X X

2.1.9 The information regarding the monitoring of internal risks is available and

potential consequences for the intervention logic and intervention

implementation are indicated.

X X X X

2.1.10 The information regarding the monitoring of (external) assumptions is available

and potential consequences for the intervention logic and intervention

implementation are indicated.

X X X X X

2.1.11 Intervention expenditures are well documented/ recorded and linked to the

outputs

X

2.2 The M&E system (in practice) X X X X X

2.2.1 The vison on and the role of monitoring and evaluation (both M&E and

independent evaluation) are clear.

X X X X

2.2.2. The most important stakeholders agreed upon the proposed M&E system X X X X X

2.2.3 There are sufficient resources (time, financial resources, human resources)

provided to allow for the adequate functioning of the M&E system.

X X X X X

2.2.4 The responsibilities and procedures regarding the collection and analysis of M&E

information are clearly defined.

X X X X X

2.2.5 The responsibilities and procedures regarding decision-making based on the

analysis of M&E information are clearly defined.

X X X X X

2.2.6 The staff responsible for M&E is competent and independent X X X X X

2.2.7 The M&E system of the intervention is aligned/related to the national/local M&E

system

X X X X X

2.2.8 There is an internal drive for strategic management and learning

X X X X X

2.2.9 The M&E results are being used for learning X X X X X

2.2.10 The M&E results are being used for accountability

X X X X X

2.2.11 Evaluations/studies have been conducted which are of good quality and these

provide useful information (relative to what could have been expected)

X X X X X

2.2.12 The M&E system is regularly reviewed on its quality and adjusted accordingly X X X X X

3. The evaluation-context

The reference situation is independent evaluation

Key actors: North & South partners, governments (Belgium and partner country),

target groups

(This part is based on information from desk study, interviews and field visits)

Re

lev

an

ce

Eff

ect

ive

ne

ss

Eff

icie

ncy

Imp

act

Su

sta

ina

bil

ity

3.1 Attitude of the key players X X X X X

3.1.1 The principal users of the evaluation and their expectations/interests with respect

to the evaluation are clearly defined.

X X X X X

3.1.2 The key actors express demand for (or are at least interested in) the evaluation. X X X X X

3.1.3 The expectations of the key actors with respect to the evaluation (process and

results) are mutually compatible.

X X X X X

3.1.4 The expectations of the key stakeholders regarding the evaluation are realistic (in

relation to the available resources).

X X X X X

3.1.5 The principal users were/will be involved in the evaluation process. X X X X X


3.1.6 The most important stakeholders (inclusive of the beneficiaries) were involved/will

be involved in the evaluation process

X X X X X

3.1.6 The relationships amongst stakeholders are “healthy” X X X X X

3.1.7 It is possible to contact all stakeholders without risking reciprocal influence X X X X X

3.1.8 There is a positive attitude towards independent evaluation amongst all

stakeholders.

X X X X X

3.2 The broader context

Re

lev

an

tie

Eff

ect

ivit

eit

Eff

icië

nti

e

Imp

act

Du

urz

aa

mh

eid

3.2.1 The broader institutional and political context is positive with respect to

independent evaluation.

X X X X X

3.2.2 The socio-cultural context at the level of the beneficiaries allows for the adequate

collection of information.

X X X X X

3.2.3 Local expertise with the required profile for evaluation is available. X X X X X

4. Suggestions to increase the evaluability and the usefulness of evaluations in the future.

The aim is to provide a number of suggestions for each intervention which follow from the analysis conducted

and which may increase the evaluability and the usefulness of evaluations in the future. The presented table

will form the basis through which the suggestions will be formulated during the feedback moment.

5. Feedback from involved actors on the conducted analysis and provided suggestions.

Feedback from the involved actors on the conducted analysis and the provided suggestions will be registered

and will be incorporated accordingly in the synthesis report.


Annex 2: List of the 40 interventions

Country Title Organisation

1 Belgium Programme ''Trade for Development Centre'' 2014-2017

BTC

2 Belgium Programmes pluri-annuels 2014-2016 : Distance and blended learning

ITG

3 Belgium Olie drijft boven. Leerlingen tonen scholen de weg naar duurzaamheid

Bos+

4 Belgium NGO Geneeskunde voor de Derde Wereld - programma 2014-2016

NGO Médecine pour le Tiers Monde

5 Belgium Autre Terre - prog. 2014-2016: Volet Nord - Education au développement

NGO Autre Terre

6 Belgium ONG OXFAM WERELDWINKELS - programme 2014-2016 - België

NGO Oxfam Wereldwinkels

7 Belgium ITECO Programme 2014-2016 NGO ITECO

8 Belgium NGO Rode Kruis-Vlaanderen Internationaal - programma 2014-2016 / België

NGO Rode Kruis-Vlaanderen Internationaal

9 Belgium UNICEF Belgique Programme 2014-2016/ Volet Nord Belgique

NGO UNICEF - Belgique

10 Belgium Noordactiviteiten - sensibilisering - Reisbeurzen studenten (REI)

VLIR-UOS

1 Benin Projet d'appui au renforcement des zones et départements sanitaires du Mono-Couffo et de l'Atacora-Donga - PARZS (opvolging in PASS)

BTC

2 Benin Facilité d'appui aux investissements agricoles dans les départements du Mono, du Couffo, de l'Atacora et de la Donga – FAIA

BTC

3 Benin Fonds d'études et de consultances BTC

4 Benin Le renforcement du système de santé périphérique au Bénin dans le contexte de la lutte contre la pauvreté (Programme 2014-2016)

Memisa

5 Benin Programme d'amélioration du revenu et de la sécurité alimentaire des familles de Cobly, Matéri et Boukoumbé (PARSA-CMB) (Programme triennal 2014-2016)

Iles de Paix

6 Benin Echange et diffusion de technologies durablement appropriables pour une Sud plus entrepreneurial et moins dépendant (programme 2011-2014)

CODEART

7 Benin Renforcer l’économie locale à travers l’aménagement du marché (Dogbo) (VVSG 2014-2016)

VVSG/Roeselare

8 Benin Syndicaal Programma 2012-2014 IFSI/ISVI Benin ISVI

9 Benin Programma 2014-2016 (Benin) Vredeseilanden

10 Benin PACCTE MONO en PACCTE CORRIDOR Plan België


Country Title Organisation

1 Congo Projet d'appui institutionnel à la Direction d'Etudes et Planification du Ministère de la Santé en République Démocratique du Congo : Phase de consolidation des acquis (DEP III)

BTC

2 Congo Programme de soutien au secteur de l¿Enseignement Technique et Formation Professionnelle (ETFP) dans le bassin d'emploi Mutshatsha - Lubudi - Kolwezi - Likasi - Lubumbashi - Sakania (Pro-EFTP-Katanga). (EDUKAT)

BTC

3 Congo ONG Artsen Zonder Vakantie/Médecins sans vacances - Programme 2014-2016 /RD Congo

NGO Médecins Sans Vacances

4 Congo ONG RCN - 2014-2016 - RDC - Projet ''Pour une meilleure sécurité juridique en République Démocratique du Congo''

NGO RCN Justice & Démocratie

5 Congo Renforcement des capacités d'action politique des Organisations de Producteurs Agricoles et de leurs fédérations nationale et provinciales en RD Congo

NGO TRIAS

6 Congo Le Monde selon les Femmes M/F Programme 2014-2016 / République Démocratique du Congo - Objectif 1

NGO Le Monde Selon lesFfemmes

7 Congo APEFE - Programme 2014-2016 / République Démocratique du Congo - Objectif 1 (Education 1)

APEFE

8 Congo IIAV Syndicaat -Sociale dialoog voor waardig werk - Institut d'Education Ouvrière Internationale - programme 2012-2014

Syndicat IEOI - vakbond IIAV

9 Congo Advance Banque RDC BIO

10 Congo Projet Interuniversitaire Cible (PIC) 2011 Consolidation de la première école de criminologie en RDC et création de partenariats dans la région des Grands Lacs

CIUF

1 Rwanda Support to the SPAT II: Market oriented advisory services and quality seeds

BTC

2 Rwanda Projet d'Appui à la Reforestation dans les provinces de l'Est et du Nord (PAREF - 2è phase)

BTC

3 Rwanda Appui Institutionnel au Ministère de la Santé - Phase IV

BTC

4 Rwanda Support to the Public Sector Capacity Building Secretariat (PSCBS)- Support to Strategic Approach to Capacity Building

BTC

5 Rwanda ARES-CCD COOPERATION UNIVERSITAIRE INSTITUTIONNELLE 2014 Rwanda

CIUF

6 Rwanda VVOB Education for development 2014-2016 - Rwanda

VVOB

7 Rwanda Projet d'appui a la sécurité alimentaire au Bugesera, PASAB II

NGO Caritas Belgique Secours International

8 Rwanda NGO Protos - Programma 2014-2016 - RWANDA NGO PROTOS

9 Rwanda ONG Lumière pour le Monde - 2014-2015 - Rwanda - Projet ''Rendre la vue au Rwanda : prévention et traitements des problèmes de vues''

NGO Lumière pour le Monde

10 Rwanda BIO - Expertise Fund - Rwanda Mountain Tea - Rwanda

BIO


Annex 3: Literature List

General literature

• Dahler-Larsen, P., Evaluation as a situational or a universal good? Why evaluability assessment for evaluation systems is a good idea, what it might look like in practice, and why it is not fashionable, Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 16 (3); 29-46.

• Davies, R., Payne, L., Evaluability Assessments: Reflections on a review of the literature, Sage Journals, Evaluation, April 2015 21(2): 216-231.

• Davies, R., Planning Evaluability Assessments, A synthesis of the literature with recommendations, Report of a Study commissioned by the Department for International Development, DFED Working Paper 40, October 2013, 48 p.

• DG Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en Humanitaire Hulp, Strategienota Ontwikkelings-resultaten, 17 p.

• D’Ostie-Racine L., Dagenais C., Ridde V., An evaluability assessment of a West Africa based Non-Governmental Organisation’s (NGO) progressive evaluation strategy, Evaluation and Program Planning 36 (2013), p. 71-79.

• Juvenile Justice Evaluation Centre, Justic Research and Statistics Association, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Evaluability Assessment: Examining the Readiness of a Program for Evaluation, Program Evaluation Briefing Series # 6, May 2003, 15 p.

• OECD/DAC (2002). Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. Paris: OECD/DAC.

• Peersman G., Guijt I., Pasanen T., Evaluability Assessment for Impact Evaluation, Guidance, checklists and decision support, Methods Lab, Publication, ODI, August 2015.

• Pritchett, L., Samji, S., Hammer, j., It’s All About MeE: Using Structured Experiental Learning (“e”) to Crawl the Desing Space, Center for Globao Development, Working Paper 322, april 2013, 52 p.

• Rossi P.H., Lipsey M.W. and H.E. Freeman (2004). Evaluation: a systematic

approach, 7th edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage, Bamberger M., J. Rugh, M. Church and L. Fort (2004). “Shoestring evaluation: designing impact evaluations under budget, time and data constraints”, American Journal of Evaluation 25 (1): 5-37.

• Trevisan, M.S., Evaluability Assessment from 1986 to 2006, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 28 No. 3, September 2007, p. 290-303.

• UN Women, Guidance Note on Coarrying Out an Evaluability Assessment, Evaluation Guindance Note Series, December 2009, No. 4, 5 p.

Intervention related documents

For each of the 40 interventions, following documents were consulted: • The intervention proposal; • The baseline • Implementation reports • Evaluation reports • Documents related to the M&E policy and practice


Annex 4: List of key persons contacted

Interventions in Belgium

BOS+ • Thibaut Joris, Projectmedewerker BOS+

Autre Terre

• Anne-Sophie Reynders, responsable du S&E

Oxfam Wereldwinkels • Arne Schollaert, dienst politiek beleid, Zuid- en jongerenwerking

RK-Vlaanderen Internationaal

• Linde Mues, PMER verantwoordelijke • Bie Van Giel, medewerker AIS • Laura De Grève, medewerker IHR

VLIR-UOS

• Koen De Koster, Programme Officer South • Stijn De Roover, Programme Officer North

Unicef Belgium

• Pascale Recht

ITG/IMT • Jan Coenen • Maria Zolfo

Trade Development Centre (BTC)

• Samuel Poos • Steven De Craen

M3M

• Géraldine Malaise

ITECO • Vincent Stevaux

Interventions in Benin

Embassy of Belgium • Azandjeme Annick, CP • Heuts Marie, Attaché CI • Pont Jean-Louis, Head of Coopération

BTC

• Francoys Michel, Représentant


CSA Bénin • Yavohedje Robert, Coordonnateur Principal du projet • Choupa Wilfird, Coordonnateur projet • Amoussou Anselme

ESAM

• Kpade Firmine Seth, Experte en Droits de l’Enfant • Adanhode Sylvie-Flore, Chargé de Programme • N’ledji Gbedji Damine, Coordonnateur PACCTE Corridor

VECO

• Azagnandji Herman, CP VECOWA Bénin • Etekpo Fautin, Président UNIRIZ-C • Adippeto Thierry, Coordonnateur UNIRIZ-C • Mouansou Emile, Secritarie Général CCR-B • Batcho Léontine, Présidente URFER-C • Iwikotan Mathuri, Président CCR-B

Plan Bénin

• Glele Dobossou, Directrice Adjointe des Programmes • Abibou Mamadou • François Godonou • Sylvain Ogoudele • Vincentia Glele

Roeselare/Mairie de Dogbo

• Acakpo Codjo, VVSG Association des oeuvres flamandes • N’Bouke S.T. Borgia, SG, Coordonnateur Coopération décentralisée • Sodjinou, Chef service Mobilisation des ressources

Iles de Paix/PARSA

• Soulemane Mamadou, CP • Jean Christophe Menard, Directeur Résident • Pascal Gbai, responsable programme transversal

Memisia/AMCES

• Pascal Dossou Togbe, Directeur BEC/AMCES • Camille D. Houessou, Comptable BEC/AMCES • Mama Djibril Issa, Coordonnateur URAMA/AMCES

CODEART/LAMS

• Agohoui Valérie, animateur • Agbohoui Eusèbe, animateur • Dahou Jocelyn, RAF/LAMS • Abbé Gatien Amouzou, responsable projet

FAIA/BTC

• Tossavi Joseph, UFAI/CONAFIL • Wilma Baas, UAC/FAIA.MAEP • Edwin, Chargé de programmes, BCT • CARDER Mono Couffo (plusieurs personnes) • Unité Régionale des producteurs du Mono et du Couffo (plusieurs personnes)

PARDZS/BTC • Dr. René Pare, CTR • Raphaël Maldague, AT Junior • Kashala Ilunga Jean-Pierre, CTI • Dr. Goundote S. Aimé, C/SPIRS DDS Mono Couffo


FEC/BTC • Sybille, AT CTB, FEC • Virgilie Worou, DAPP-MFASSNHPTA

Interventions in the DRC

Ambassy of Belgium • Annelies De Backer, Ministre-Conseiller, Coopération au Développement • Koen Van Acoleyen, Attaché de Coopération au Développement

BTC

• Bart Uytendaele CSC/IEOI

• Josée Shimbi Umba, Vice-Présidente CSC • Adolphe Nsombi Nzuzi, responsable bureau d’études cellule économique CSC • Dieudonné Bonzele Sozinya, responsable formation CSC • Jean Bedel Nundula Ndamb-Ya-Tshite, Vice Président CSC • Pierre Emmanuel Monsengo N’Gankoy, Vice-Président CSC • Marcel K., secrétaire de la fédération provinciale du Bas-Congo (centrales

professionnelles) • Samy Ngatu Ntanini, secrétaire Provincial Professionnel du Bas-Congo

(interprofessionnel) APEFE

• David Gaquere, coordinateur RDC • Guylain Mbuku, Assistant Technique, Programme d’appui à l’insertion socio-

professionnelle des jeunes issus de l’ETFP, Matadi • Richard Kasale, Assistant Technique, Programme d’appui à l’insertion socio-

professionnelle des jeunes issus de l’ETFP, Lubumbashi TRIAS

• Albert Matanga Muntu, Directeur Pays a.i. • Jean-Loïc Guièze, Directeur Pays adjoint a.i., Coordinateur “Synergies et

Complémentarités” • Bruno Kalondji, chargé de programmes • Thomas Yobila, Secrétaire Exécutif a.i., FOPAKO (Force Paysanne du Congo

Central) • Jean Pierre Mangovo, chargé de projet, FOPAKO • Donation Malonda, vice-président, chargé du plaidoyer, FOPAKO

DEP

• Alain Mboko Iyeti, Directeur ad intérim • Jean Bertin Epumba Epondo, Directeur Adjoint

MSV

• Kash Karubara Marcellin, Représentant Régional Région des Grands Lacs • Dolores Nembunzu, Médecin Directeur, Hôpital Saint-Joseph, Kinshasa • Nestor Letumu, Directeur Financier, Hôpital Saint-Joseph, Kinshasa • Sr. Marie-Josée Mayinga, Directeur Administratif, Hôpital Saint-Joseph, Kinshasa • Sœur Solange, infirmière, centre Wote Pamoja, Lubumbashi, • Laurent Kabili, responsable atelier, centre Wote Pamoja, Lubumbashi

RCN

• Gaëlle Vandeputte, Chef de mission RDC • Participants à l’atelier préparatoire des formations sur les mécanismes de

protection des libertés fondamentales


CONAFED/REFED • Jeanne Nzuzi, Secrétaire Permanente, CONAFED • Eugène Minga, Comptable, CONAFED • Rodin Muvuyu, Chargé de programme, CONAFED • Françoise Kat Kambol, ADIF/REFED Katanga

• Baudouin Nkwambi, ADIF/REFED Katanga

• Magy Mavula, REFED Kinshasa

• Sébastien Biandji, Chargé de programmes Advans Banque DRC

• Yvonnick Peyraud, Administrateur Directeur Général Advvans Banque ECOCRIM

• Kyungu Shimbi, gestionnaire local AREC-CC UNILU • Nkuku Khonde, Coordinateur ARES CCD/UNILU • Ildephonse Tshinyama Kadima, Directeur ECOCRIM • Boäz Kaumba Kahosa, Coordinateur local du PIC2/ECOCRIM • Norbert Lupitshi Wa-Numbi, Prof. Directeur Adjoint ECOCRIM

Edukat

• Patrick Fillion, Co-responsable international, UCAG, MEPSP • Lorenzo Giacomin, fonctionnaire execution CTB • Deogratias Rukeba, Program Officer Katanga • Angela Epaye, AT insertion socio-professionnelle • Léonie Muyombe Kaosha, Co-responsable National du projet Edukat

Interventions in Rwanda

Belgian Embassy • Astrid de Laminne de Bex

BTC

• Anne Pierre Mingelbier, Director of Program VVOB

• Jef Peeraer • Angélique Ekirabo • Leon Mugenzi • Christian Karasira • Alex Mukizwa Mahe • Alfred Otara (VVOB-URCE) • Alphonse Uworwabayeho (VVOB-URCE) • Genevieve Ayinkamiye

SACB/BTC-SCAB

• Anna-Maria Schreven • Gratien Gasaba • Richard Niwenshuti • Judith Kayitesi

BTC-MiniSanté

• Vincent Tihon • Dr Achour Ait Mohand • Dr. Daniel Ngamije • Bob Mugisha • Dr. Vincent Tihon • Nancy Misago


• Gervais Baziga • Didier Nishimwe

BTC-SPAT II

• Raf Somers • Sylvia Salama Gata • Consolata Nakure • Christian Nbazigarire

BTC-PAREF II

• Johan Nieuwenhuis • Jean Damascene • Gad Sibomana • Jean-Claude Sebahire • Claude Niyigena • Jean Claude Nsengiyumva • Jacques Peeters

PROTOS

• Philippe Daout • Carinie Masumbuko • Joseph Uwizeye • Philbert Hakizimana • Claver Hagumintwali • Callixte Habyarimana • Célestin Kanyamugenge • Joseph Sibomana • Chantal Umulisa • François Uhagaze • Védaste Mpagaritswenimana • Jean Marie Abizeye • Etienne Nzajyibwami • Jean Damascene Ndahimana • Marie Claire Providence Abizeye • Callixte Twagirayezu • Malachie Habanabashaka • Liliose Umurerwa

Rwanda Moutain Tea (BIO)

• Jotham Mujyalibu • Jean Damascene Gasarabwe • Innocent Ndayishimiye • Augustine Okea • Japhet Kwizera • Jotham Majyalibu • Patrick Tuyisenge

Caritas:

• Félix Byamungu • Prosper Sebagenzi • Abbé Donatien Twizeyumuremyi • Abbé Anaclet Mwumvaneza • Louis Rwagaju • Eprhem Sebarundi • Berthilde Mukantwari • Aimable Gasinzingwa • Drocela Umupfasoni • Felix Habincuti • Tharcisse Mucunguyinka


Light for the World

• Pierre-Claver Ndahayo • Jean Muhayimana • Patrick Shyaka • Jean Baptiste Karibuhunde • Dr. Piet Noe • Dr. Leon Kagabo Hakizimana • Dominique Nsabiyaremye • Anita Ahayo • Dr Mumena Legis

ARES

• Magnus Kirori • Laetitia Nyinawamwiza • Vivien Munyaburanga

BTC

• Damien Jonckers • Steven de Craen • Laurence Janssens • Joelle Pireaux • Hugo Smars • Mario Goethals • Koen … • Hertsen Juliette

DGD

• Karel Cools • Ivo Hooghe • Hilde Herssens • Sofie Dirkx

Non governmental actors

• Simon Hemptinne (ARES) • Vincent Stevaux (Iteco) • Stefania Zotto (Le Monde Selon les Femmes), • Florence Liégeois (RCN Justice) • Annemie Demedts (NGO Federatie) • Jan Coenen (ITG)

BTC

• Laurence Janssens, Chargée de Missions Special Evaluation Office

• Dominique de Crombrugghe, Special Evaluator • Ivo Hooghe • Jacqueline Lienard

To eva

luate in

a cred

ible an

d m

ean

ingfu

l way

: betw

een d

rea

m a

nd

rea

lity

To evaluate in a credible and meaningful way : between dream and reality

A study of the evaluability of (co)-financed interventions of the Belgian Cooperation

KINGDOM OF BELGIUM



Egmont • rue des Petits Carmes 15, B-1000 Bruxelles • + 32 2 (0) 501 38 34 • www.diplomatie.belgium.be • www.dg-d.be • [email protected]

Legal registration : 0218/2016/019

The Special Evaluationoffice of the Belgian Development Cooperation

KINGDOM OF BELGIUM



The Special Evaluation office of the Belgian Development Cooperation