Evaluation report 2014:5 Peace and Development in Finland´s Development Cooperation: Synthesis

Evaluation report 2014:5 Peace and Development in Finland´s Development Cooperation: Synthesis

By:

Jon Bennett
David Fleming

ISBN 978-952-281-259-9 (pdf)
ISSN 1235-7618

 Evaluation Peace and Development in Finland´s Development Cooperation: Synthesis

Annex 5 A Case Study on Peace and Development in Finlands Country Programme in Afghanistan

Annex 6 A Case Study on Peace and Development in Finlands Country Programme in Ethiopia

Annex 7 A Case Study on Peace and Development in Finlands Country Programme in Palestinian Territories

The purpose of the evaluation is to draw lessons on how Finnish development cooperation supports peace and development in fragile states, how these relate to Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (MFA)’s 2014 Fragile States Guidelines, and how these Guidelines might be applied in the future. Four case studies (Western
Balkans, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Palestinian Territories) informed the findings, with reference also to a previous evaluation of Nepal. Many substantive findings are context specific with details found in the accompanying case study reports.

The methodology focused on four key evaluative themes: relevance of support to the drivers of peace and development; policy coherence and resource allocation; cross-cutting objectives; and aid effectiveness and development results.

Finland has been strong on coordination and predictability of funding, with an appropriate mix of multilateral pooled funding, and the pursuit of advocacy around key issues such as gender and human rights. This has not been backed by clearly outlined country strategies with measurable outcomes and the result has sometimes
been an overambitious and fragmented portfolio. In Ethiopia, impact has been achieved through longer-term involvement in specific sectors, but elsewhere greater investment in economic programmes and capacity development of civil society institutions is needed. The liberal statebuilding model in Afghanistan, and to a lesser
extent in the Palestinian Territories, is problematic, but project-specific interventions here and in Western Balkans show positive results. Staff numbers and continuity need improving in fragile states and a strategy for remote management in deteriorating security environments is needed.

Keywords: Finland, evaluation, fragile states, peace, security, development.