Terms of Reference

Evaluation of Danish Uganda Country Programme, 1987-2005

1. Introduction

A Uganda Joint Assistance Strategy (UJAS) between key donors and the Ugandan Government is currently being developed. Denmark is considering these efforts in view to participate at a later stage. A joint evaluation of such a strategy will thus become relevant in the longer-term. However, the current evaluation of the Danish Uganda Country Programme is to be undertaken now, keeping the UJAS in perspective.

Danish bilateral development assistance to Uganda resumed in 1987 after the National Resistance Movement took over power. Uganda was among the first Danish 12 programme cooperation countries identified in 1989, and in 1990 a Danish Embassy was established in Kampala. The Danish assistance (including NGO-support and technical assistance) has grown substantially from a modest contribution of DKK 34 million during the first year reaching a peak in 2001 of DKK 472 million. Since then it has come down to approx. DKK 350 million in 2002 and 2003, and a little higher for 2004. By the beginning of the 1990s Uganda was the second largest receiver of Danish bilateral assistance. The total Danish funded assistance during 1987-2003 has been nearly DKK 5 billion (DKK 4,909 million or USD 700 million).

The Ugandan policies on poverty eradication has been seen by donors as a good example of country-led development – and has been a very good basis for the joint donor/ Ugandan principles of alignment. Many donors have contributed to Uganda’s own development efforts. The Danish development assistance has been a relatively stable part of the international development assistance to Uganda. From an initial level of 4-5 percent of all multilateral and bilateral aid, it reached nearly 10 percent in 2001. It is now again at the level of 5-6 percent of all aid. The total aid Uganda during 1987-2003 is estimated at the level of USD 1 billion equivalent to about DKK 70 billion. The Danish aid contribution thus is at the level of 7 percent of all aid to Uganda during the last 15 years.

The achievements of Uganda’s national political, social and economic development since 1986 have been remarkable, and are well documented:

• Adoption of a new democratic Constitution after a constitutional referendum in 1995.
• Presidential and Parliamentary elections in 1996 and in 2001; national elections (both presidential and for parliament) to be held in 2006.
• A national referendum concerning the introduction of a multi-party system took place in 2005.
• Decentralisation reform initiated in 1993; Local Government Act in 1997 devolving functions and resources to local authorities; local council elections held regularly.
• Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) adopted in 1997 to become Uganda’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, releasing HIPIC-funds to Uganda as the first country, revised poverty reduction strategy in PEAP 2004.
• Economic growth rates of 6-7 percent over the period.
• Reduction of HIV prevalence rate from 20 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2003.
• Abolishment of primary school fees for up to four children in 1996 to encourage universal primary education, doubling the primary school enrolment.

Many challenges still need to be addressed:

• As a result of the newly held national referendum (28 July 2005), the Constitution needs to be amended to allow for a multi-party system; other issues like a third term for the President, introduction of regions, etc. are also pending.
• Although the absolute poverty rate fell from 56 percent in 1992 to approx. 35 percent in 2001 it has again increased to 38% in 2004. At the same time disparity in income distribution has increased.
• The country has not yet implemented a land reform.
• A civil service reform is pending
• Widespread corruption must be addressed more systematically.
• The 19-year-long armed conflict in the northern part of the country has in particular enhanced poverty and resulted in internal displacement of 1½ million people.
• Uganda is still one of the poorest countries in the world, with an average per capita income of USD 240 in 2003. At the same time, the country has very considerable defence expenditures. Moreover, the 2002 Population Census revealed that the population growth of 3,3% p.a. puts pressure on the millennium goals of poverty reduction and environmental improvement. Soon 60% of all Ugandans will be under the age of 18.

The Ugandan-Danish co-operation has followed the international changes in aid approaches. The evaluation will assess achievements in the context of these changing approaches. Three phases can be distinguished:

1. 1986-95: the rehabilitation and reconstruction phase lasting until the constitutional process was completed;
2. 1996-2003: introduction of sector support programmes, linked to the first PRSP-process and the first Danish-Uganda country strategy; and
3. 2004 – onwards: the second Danish-Uganda country strategy, also linked to introduction of the mid-term expenditure framework (including revised PEAP and emerging budget support).

Initially, the Danish support was composed of a multitude of separate projects within many sectors (support to the construction of Entebbe airport, construction and rehabilitation of grain silos, district development, and core support to the establishment of the Ministry of Gender demonstrate some of the diversity). But from 1996 the Danish-Uganda co-operation was based on a five-year strategy focussing on support to four sectors: agriculture, health, water and sanitation, and roads. In addition, private sector development, good governance, decentralisation and human rights were supported. A new strategy for 2004-08 was approved in 2003 by the Board of Danida, sustaining the chosen sector programme support, but linking the Danish assistance much closer to Uganda’s poverty reduction strategy, and introducing budget support (from 2006 and onwards).

The sector support programmes have been regularly reviewed, and Danida’s Quality Assurance Unit undertook a Performance Review of the Uganda programme for the first time in May 2003. The Performance Review recommended that an evaluation of the country programme was to be undertaken within a 2-3 year framework. A recent Performance Review was undertaken in June 2005. Although some sector and thematic evaluations of the long-term Danish development cooperation with Uganda has been undertaken, an evaluation of the substantial country programme in its totality has so far not been carried out.⁷⁰

The Terms of Reference includes the following chapters: Ch. 2 includes the evaluation purpose. Ch. 3 outlines the main users of the evaluation. Ch 4 presents the evaluation approach, and Ch. 5 the evaluation questions. Ch. 6 includes the timetable and Chapter 7 the composition of the evaluation team. Ch. 8 has a description of how the evaluation will be managed, and finally Ch. 9 lists the expected evaluation outputs. There are two annexes to the Terms of Reference: Annex I is the Evaluation Matrix and Annex II the List of references.

2. Purpose of the Evaluation

2.1 Main evaluation objective⁷¹

The main purpose is to evaluate achievements against the overall development objective of poverty reduction in Uganda (as formulated in the Uganda PEAP of 1997 and 2004, and in the Danish Strategy ’Partnership 2000’). Still, the efforts and achievements will also be assessed against the contemporary context and standards prevailing at the time, when decisions were made. The evaluation will provide answers to the two overall evaluation questions concerning accountability and learning (see Danida Evaluation Guidelines).

2.2 Specific evaluation objectives

Specifically, the evaluation will answer if – and to which degree – Danish assistance to Uganda

• Adhere to overall Danish and Ugandan policy goals concerning poverty
• Adhere to cross-cutting issues (gender, environment, popular participation) and themes (children and HIV/AIDS), as stipulated in the partners’ policies
• Was relevant in relation to country poverty needs as expressed in national poverty reduction strategies and sector policies and strategies?
• Was effective in making contributions to the overall political, economical and human development of Uganda – both at the national and local level – and in specific sectors
• Was efficient, i.e. compared to different ways of delivering assistance, and efficiently aligned with national policies and harmonised with assistance of other donors
• Was sustainable in relation to its choice of modalities, i.e. whether it was developed and undertaken in co-operation with relevant national and local authorities and in different sectors?
• And was sustainable in the sense that it strengthened the organisational capacity of relevant national and local authorities or organisations.

Danish assistance⁷² will be evaluated in light of Ugandan national policies, and in the context of activities of other donors. Achievements will, to the extent necessary, be assessed against contemporary goals and standards. Assessment of impact will generally be restricted to the overall level of achievements of the combined support from donors to Uganda and the country’s own efforts.

Finally, the evaluation should review the progress against the specific indicators of the Danish 2004 country strategy – and make recommendations to possible adjustments of the strategy.

3. Intended Users of the Evaluation

The main users as concerns the accountability aspects of the evaluation are: the Prime Ministers Office, the Board of Danida and Danish and Ugandan parliamentarians. Concerning the learning aspects, users are primarily: relevant Ugandan authorities, Royal Danish Embassy, Kampala, and the country desk in Copenhagen. Overall, the public and civil society in Denmark and Uganda will be target groups of the evaluation.

4. Approach and Methodology

The evaluation must be carried out in accordance with the Danida “Evaluation Guidelines” (February 1999). There are three main components of the evaluation:

1. Danida has initiated a pre-study of all available documentation at Danida Copenhagen headquarters as well as at the Danish Embassy in Kampala, and the Uganda offices. The pre-study will identify key issues for the evaluation; establish a documentary-based overview of sectors, programmes and projects; identify significant changes over the period covered by the evaluation; establish an overview of the financial resources involved, the key resource persons involved; and of the agreements and policy dialogue between Denmark and Ugandan authorities. The pre-study will be conducted during October-November, 2005 and a final report will be submitted in January 2006. The pre-study result will provide an input to the main evaluation team. The pre-study consultants will be commissioned by a separate contract, and the consultants are to be available for briefing the evaluation consultant during the inception phase.

2. District poverty profiles will form an integral part of the evaluation. The Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, Makerere University is currently conducting such studies in co-operation with the Agriculture Sector Programme Support. The profiles will be ready in time for the actual evaluation exercise, and will be made available to the consultant. It will also be possible for the Consultant to define specific data requirements that they wish to extract from the database at Makerere.

3. The main evaluation will be carried out by external independent consultants cotracted through international tendering. The evaluation team will commence working in March 2006, and comprise desk and field studies, including a perception study based on interviews of Ugandan and other partners. Based on the input from the desk-study major key issues of debate, implementation modalities and observed results of the Danish assistance will be empirically founded and analysed through the perception study, which is to be carried out in the field by local consultants. The evaluator will propose a tentative methodology (including outline of questionnaire) of the perception study in the tender. The detailed methodology will be included in the Inception Report for final approval. Other elements of the main evaluation will be focus-group discussions, analysis of international trends, etc. The draft findings of the evaluation will be commented upon at workshops before being finalised.

The approach to the Uganda Country Programme Evaluation is inspired by the current debate among partners in the DAC Network on Development Evaluation. As noted by the DAC⁷³, country programme evaluations are mainly concerned with the activities of individual donor agencies at project, sector and programme levels. Evaluations that are limited to the perspective of a single donor agency leave out important aspects of the interaction or incoherence of the contributions of different actors to the same process.

In general, programme objectives of donor agencies increasingly become identical with the goals that the governments of developing countries set for themselves. Furthermore, since the effectiveness of ODA depends on the efforts of a wide variety of actors, it is impossible, and often even irrelevant, to attribute specific outcomes to individual agencies. In order to establish to what extent ODA has contributed to the achievement of national development goals it is necessary to review the performance of all development actors – donors and partner country agencies – collectively.

5. Evaluation Questions

Inspired by the DAC, the evaluation questions are structured under four headings:

1. Context and framework conditions. Questions concern changes in the context and the framework conditions for the Danish financed efforts. And the developments achieved as a result of the combined Government and donor efforts. In particular the national poverty reduction plan, good governance, general reforms of public institutions, including decentralisation of the administration, the legal system and control bodies and reform of legislation will constitute a significant point of focus in the evaluation.

2. Combined donor efforts. Questions concern the effects of the combined donor effort. The focus will be on questions concerning partnership, alignment of support, harmonisation (e.g. comparison without the ODA-inputs), government revenues, remittances, and possible negative effect of ODA.

3. The contribution⁷⁴ of Danish financed activities to Uganda’s development. Questions concern relevance and effectiveness of the assistance. The evaluation will document the processes and concrete results achieved through Danish efforts and assess the long-term effects of Danish support, not least as regards cross-cutting issues.

4. Implementation modalities and follow-up of Danish development assistance, Questions include exit strategies, and the efficiency and sustainability of the assistance. This includes the utilisation of parallel systems, adviser assistance, NGO assistance, accounting procedures, cost-efficiency and monitoring systems.

The focus – and hence the major part of resources – will be allocated to heading three and four, i.e. on the contribution of Danish financed activities to the effectiveness of the larger development co-operation effort and implementation modalities. Headings one and two will also be covered in the evaluation, but it will be limited and based almost exclusively on existing data and knowledge, and performed mainly as a desk study. A separate perception study of effects, issues and modalities of the Danish assistance will provide a major input to the headings three and four. The evaluation approach is outlined in the appended Evaluation Matrix for guidance. In the following, questions are further detailed under each of the four headings:

5.1. Context and framework conditions

The evaluation will (primarily as a desk study) at a macro provide an overview of the general development of Uganda since 1986 in broad terms as concerns economic, political, social and human as well as institutional aspects of development. The combined government and donor efforts have contributed to development under each of these aspects.

5.1.1. Overall economic and political development and context

Evaluation questions concerning economic aspects: What level of development has Uganda achieved? In absolute terms and relative to that of comparable countries? And compared to the post-war starting point in 1986?

To understand the conditions for providing development assistance, it will be important to describe the overall macro-economic development of the country – and compare it to similar countries that have received similar levels of development assistance. Also, we can assume a relationship between sound economic policies of governments/donors and positive economic results, and vice versa. Although, obviously combined government and donor efforts can be overtaken by international events (marginalisation of the African continent, international oil crisis, international financial crisis, etc.).

The section should be based on general indicators of economic development available from known sources (PEAP’s review, World Bank, African Development Bank, UNDP, Bureau of Statistics, Makerere University). And the figures could, if possible, be compared to 2-3 similar African and Asian countries. The figures should include i.a.:

• Government revenue
• GDP, GNI, etc
• Multiplicator effect, and hence expected effect of development investment
• Investment climate, Participation in “globalisation”, FDI
• Trade – import/export, including variations of international coffee prices
• Debt and debt ratios over the period
• Credit ratings from IBRD, IMF and international credit institutions
• Trade quotas under the Cotonou and Lomé conventions
• Overall aid levels compared to Government expenditure and per capita.

Evaluation questions concerning political aspects: How does the foreign policy condition of the country affect political choices made and the development climate in general? Which economic policy has been followed by the Ugandan Government, 1986-2005? And which general sig-nificant reforms/policies have been implemented? In which way has the dialogue with donors developed during the period, and has the dialogue influenced overall political choices made?

Danish assistance to Uganda resumed in a post-conflict situation. Internal (especially in regions bordering the Sudan where LRA has been active throughout the period) as well as external (Uganda has throughout the period been a significant foreign policy actor in regional conflicts, e.g. in the Congo) peace and stability have been major issues throughout the period of Danish assistance. Hence, compared to other Danish Programme countries, political stability and security has played and continues to play a very important role on the agenda of the Ugandan nation.

It is important to go back to policy statements and plans that were launched and discussed at the beginning of the period and to recall what were the risks and opportunities that could be seen at that time. Reconstructions done without sufficient sensitivity to the political process and to the historical contexts in which goals and strategies were formulated may misjudge the original hopes and intentions of important political actors and hence distort the picture of what was really achieved. The evaluation should:

• Consider the government/donor policy dialogue and efforts concerning state building, including poverty reduction strategy process, public sector reform, civil service, etc.
• Consider the democratisation process, multiparty system, role of Parliament, etc.
• Consider progress and outcomes of the decentralisation reform
• Consider the progress in people’s security in light of the post-war situation and the country as a key regional player
• Military expenditure compared to overall public expenditure
• Corruption levels

At the same time the political economy of Uganda plays a significant role for development potentials. The evaluation should describe national policies followed – and consider the Government/donor policy dialogue concerning these policies. Comparisons could be made, if possible, with 2-3 similar African and Asian countries. The evaluation should consider i.a.:

• Policies of establishing/reducing trade barriers
• Policies of establishing/reducing investment barriers
• Policies characterised as either “open-or-closed economy” policy
• Privatisation policies and practices (e.g. related to grain marketing board)
• “Liberal” or state-controlled enterprise and investment policy
• Progress in land reform, and access to other factors of production,
• Taxation policies, in particular seen from an equity perspective

5.1.2. Overall human and social context and development

Evaluation question: Is overall economic development reflected in actual poverty reduction, human and social development in absolute and relative terms?

Human and social development – poverty reduction – is the ultimate goal of government efforts and international development assistance. Many countries experience impressive growth rates, increased investment, and greater participation in globalisation without this necessarily having any effect on the majority of the population. This is often the case for middle income countries, and not the case for countries like Uganda but should nevertheless be assessed.

The evaluation should provide answers to the general development concerning key Uganda indicators like:

• Human Development Index
• Poverty reduction
• Indicators on health, social status, education
• Equity of income, property and access to land and capital
• District poverty profiles (updating by Makerere University of 2000-profiles in cooperation with Danish-funded Agriculture Sector Programme Support)
• Cross-cutting issues, incl. gender and environment
• HIV/AIDS

5.1.3. Overall organisational capacity context and development

Evaluation question: How has the capacity of organisations and authorities developed during the period of investigation, how has service delivery developed and is the institutional context in general facilitative for development?

The organisational capacity context in Uganda provides an important framework for the provision of international development assistance. Hence, it is important to describe the context – and assess organisational development during the period under investigation, including both public (national and local authorities) and private organisations. Changes in the organisations’ outputs, i.e. their service delivery and products, should be indicators of development in capacity of the organisations.

Specific data sources of this aspect would be service delivery tracking studies, reports from the local governments, reviews of individual organisations and institutions, client’s surveys, etc. If possible, studies of the development of employment conditions and salaries of public and private employees should be included.

5.2. Contribution of the combined donor efforts

Evaluation questions: How did the international donor community as a whole contribute to Uganda’s development, to which degree was the support aligned with the national strategies and delivered in partnership with the Government and other partners, to which degree were the donors harmonising their support, and how can the dialogue between the international community and the Government be described?

The evaluation will at a general level assess how the combined donor efforts have contributed to the development of Uganda since 1986 as concerns economic, political, social and human as well as organisational development aspects. Under the four aspects, the combined donor efforts will be described. At this level, the evaluation will for instance describe donors’ share of the combined development and recurrent budget on a sector basis. At this level, the evaluation should also consider

• Contribution to the PEAP-process, and results of the HIPC process
• The Public Expenditure Reviews (PER)
• The IMF assessments
• The content of SWAps
• The use of budget support
• Cooperation with lending institutions and use of loans, mixed credits, etc.⁷⁵

The evaluation should consider the Government – donor policy dialogue, and the strategic choices taken by donors in selecting and supporting the various sectors, as well as how the organisational and capacity development of specific organisations has been supported. Key areas like e.g. the judiciary, land reform, decentralisation, Parliament, specific line ministries, and NGO could be assessed as examples at this level. Describing these aid forms, the proportion of external support in comparison with total budgets, their quantity and quality will provide a framework for comparison with Danish assistance.

5.3. Concrete results of Danish financed assistance⁷⁶

Danish financed activities have been undertaken within the framework of the overall context and conditions. And Danish financed activities have constituted smaller or larger shares of the overall government and donor financed activities in the respective areas and sectors. Results of Danish financed activities cannot be assessed in isolation from overall efforts made and overall results achieved. The key question is: what has been the value-added to Uganda’s development by Danish assistance?⁷⁷

As part of the evaluation, a perception study will be undertaken in which the “voice” of stakeholders (Ugandan and other donor representatives) will be heard. After identification of a number of important issues experienced during the delivery of the Danish assistance key stakeholders from political and administrative positions will be included as well as civil society representatives, academia, other donors and the general public will be questioned of their perception (which by definition is subjective, but none the less important) of the relevance, modalities and performance of the Danish financed assistance.

5.3.1. Contribution of Danish financed activities to overall macro-economic and political achievements

Evaluation questions concerning economic aspects: To which degree has Danish assistance contributed towards the overall macro-economic development of Uganda, 1986-2005? What was the content of the policy dialogue on economic policy – and which impact did it have on the policies followed by the Ugandan Government?

The evaluation will collect information on the following indicators:

• The Danish financed share of total ODA.
• The Danish financed assistance compared to national budgets and other donors.
• Involvement in productive sectors (industry, agriculture, infrastructure, research & development, transfer of knowledge).
• Export/import between Denmark and Uganda.
• FDI from Denmark.
• Private Sector cooperation in general, etc.
• Content of policy dialogue on economic policy, compared to e.g. IBRDs, IMFs. and major bilateral donors.
• Consider relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability.

Evaluation questions concerning political aspects: To which degree has Danish assistance and the policy dialogue with Ugandan authorities contributed towards the country’s political development?

The evaluation should:

• Consider achievements against specific indicators of the current country strategy.
• Consider the contribution to the PEAP-process.
• Consider the role of security for the people and the country as a key regional player.
• Consider the government/Danish policy dialogue concerning democratisation, land reform, multi-party system, decentralisation, etc. in light of the post-war and security situation.
• Consider relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability.

5.3.2. Contribution of Danish financed activities to human and social development achievements

Evaluation questions: Did Danish assistance have any impact on key social and human development indicators? Did Danish assistance pay due consideration to cross-cutting issues? In which way does Danish assistance distinguish itself from that of other donors in terms of poverty orientation? In which way was Danish policy dialogue able to influence policies of the Government in the field of social development and poverty orientation?

The specific Danish contribution towards the overall development in key human, social and poverty indicators should be assessed. Hence, Danish involvement should be described and assessed, its significance (in volume, space – district distribution – and quality) compared to that of other donors should be assessed, and the policy dialogue with the Government described:

• Consider achievements against specific indicators of the current Danish country strategy
• Poverty reduction and gender (including district poverty profiles, updated by Makerere University in co-operation with Agriculture Sector Programme Support)
• The general indicators: health status, social status, education status
• Cross-cutting issues (gender, environment, popular participation) and themes (children and HIV/AIDS, etc.)
• Performance as assessed in the Annual Performance Report of Danida.
• Relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability of Danish priorities and activities

5.3.3. Contribution of Danish financed activities to organisational capacity achievements

Evaluation question: To which degree has Danish assistance contributed to organisational and institutional development in Uganda? And how has the policy dialogue between Danish and Ugandan authorities affected Government priorities and policies? What are the major similarities/differences between Danish assistance and the international assistance in general?

Provision of assistance towards organisational and institutional capacity development may be more difficult than physical. Building roads have significant impact on development potentials – and may be relatively easy compared to supporting the judiciary. Support to the judiciary may, however, be very difficult, but may – although only showing effect in the longer run – prove to be a highly effective way of supporting the overall development of a country. The key indicator of capacity development will be progress in outputs of the organisations (service delivery, policies or plans, production, etc.).

• Consider achievements against specific indicators of the current Danish country strategy.
• Consider the Government – Danish policy dialogue, and the strategic choices made by Danida in supporting key organisations (e.g. within the judiciary, land reform, decentralisation, parliament, etc), in making choices on support to different Ugandan regions (the insurgency in the North), districts, etc.
• Consider changes in outputs of selected Danish-supported organisations, both at central and local government level and within 2-3 sectors
• Consider relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability

5.4. Implementation modalities

Evaluation question: What specific aid modalities characterise the Danish assistance that has affected the economic, political, social & human and institutional development? What effects can be observed from different modalities in terms of organisational capacity development and the sustainability of this development? Which perception of the implementation modalities of the Danish assistance is prevailing among Uganda Government, civil society and development partners?

• Consider to which degree Danish assistance policies and strategies and Ugandan Government’s strategies have been aligned
• Consider the policy dialogue on aid modalities.
• Consider to which degree Danish assistance is harmonised with the assistance provided by other development partners.
• Consider choices made between general budget support, sector programme support (central government), support at local government level and support to civil society/ NGOs.
• Consider choices made concerning modalities: bilateral, multilateral, EU and NGO support.
• Consider whether exit strategies have been formulated, how they have been implemented, and which are the sustainable effects?
• Consider the post-conflict starting point after the civil war that ended in 1986. What lessons can be learned in moving from providing support to demobilisation, over the provision of “transitional” assistance – and to actual development assistance.
• Consider whether TA (technical assistance) has been implemented in accordance with contemporary requirements of Denmark and Uganda

The perception study will be a major source of data for the assessment of the implementation modalities of the Danish assistance. Prior to the fielding of the evaluation team, a pre-study will be conducted of the archives of Danish-funded projects and programmes should i.a. provide data and documentation on preparation, implementation, reviews and evaluation of completed (and current) projects and support programmes, and involved desk officers, advisers and counterparts. Time lines of major events and decisions (by Danish or Ugandan offices) should established, and key documents like appropriation, minutes of annual consultations, programme document, appraisal, review and evaluation should be availed in electronic format. Based on the pre-study identification of key issues, the perception study will assess how Danish assistance has been perceived among the Uganda and other development partners.

As Danish assistance has had particular focus on for instance capacity development of the judiciary, the Parliament and decentralisation and strengthening of local government organisational capacity within these sectors are of particular interest. However, capacity development within other key areas, not receiving substantial support from Denmark like the education sector, could be included for purpose of comparison.

6. Timetable

It is anticipated that the evaluation will be completed by November 2006, as indicated below. The tentative time schedule of the evaluation is as follows:

Pre-study of archives		Sept 05-Jan 06
District Poverty profiles – main results (Makerere)		Nov 05-Jan 06
Tendering and contracting of evaluation		September 05-February 06
Mobilisation of Consultant		March 06
Phase 1:	Briefing, desk-studies, drafting Inception Report incl. work plan for field-work	April 06
Workshop in Kampala on Inception Report		8 May 06
Phase 2:	Field-studies, perception study	May-June 06
Phase 3	Analysis, drafting of Draft Report	July-August 06
Phase 4:	Discussion of draft report, Workshop in Kampala on Draft Report	September-October 06 20 September 06
Phase 5:	Final report,	10 October 06
Workshop in Copenhagen on Final Report		15 November 06

7. Composition of evaluation team

An evaluation consultant team, selected through global tendering, will carry out the evaluation. The organisation of the team’s work is the responsibility of the consultant and should be specified and explained clearly in the proposal. The evaluation team should possess the following qualifications:

General qualifications:

• Higher relevant academic degree.
• At least 10 years of experience (15 years for the Team Leader).
• At least 3 references as team leader for multi disciplinary teams (for the Team Leader).
• At least 3 references as team member in multi disciplinary teams.
• Permanent employee of the Tenderer (for the Team Leader).
• Fluent in English.

Specific qualifications for all team members:

• Experience in evaluation of development assistance
• Knowledge of development assistance policies, strategies and aid management

Specific qualifications to be covered by at least one of the team members:

• Experience with harmonisation, alignment and different aid modalities.
• Experience related to public sector management.
• Knowledge of organisational capacity development, including experience with technical assistance at country, programme and sector levels.
• Experience with cross-cutting issues such as gender, human rights, democratisation, environment, and issues of HIV/AIDS, land reform, and legal aspects.
• Ability to read Danish.

Experience from the Country/Region:

• Experience from Uganda.
• Experience from other countries in Eastern and Southern Africa.

The evaluation team should be composed of international as well as local Ugandan (or regional) consultants. International consultants are defined as persons with an international background, e.g. a degree from an internationally recognised university and with a major part of professional experience from assignments within several developing countries as well as developed countries and working for recognised international consultants.

The individual team members should not have been involved in preparation, implementation or review of Danish funded programmes in Uganda, apart from minor assignments of a total duration of less than six person-months over the evaluation period.

8. Input

While the evaluators will have significant latitude in the design and organisation of their work, it is estimated that phase one will require four person-months’ work, phase two eight person months’ work, phase three six person-months’ work, and phases four and five two person months’ work. In addition, funds will be allocated to cover the reimbursable costs of logistics. A total input of 12 PM of international consultants and 8 PM of local Ugandan/regional is foreseen.

The consultant will propose the detailed methodology of the evaluation, including the specific methodology of the perception study, taking as point of departure the stipulated approach (as outlined in section four), and the Evaluation Matrix (Annex 1).

9. Evaluation principles, management and support

The basic DAC-evaluation principles of independence of those responsible for the design and implementation of the development intervention, and of utilisation of evaluators external to the donor and implementing organisations will be applied.

Responsibility for the content and presentation of the findings and recommendations of the evaluation rests with the evaluation team. The views and opinions expressed in the report will not necessarily correspond to the views of the Danish Government, the Uganda Government, or the implementing organisations. The report of the evaluation will be available to all relevant stakeholders and submitted to the Board of Danida, and to the Office of the Prime Minister.

Three sets of roles are contained in the evaluation process: the Evaluation Management, the Evaluation Team (Consultant), and the Evaluation Reference Groups:

Role of the Evaluation Management:

The Danish Uganda Programme Evaluation will be undertaken as a joint collaborative exercise of Danida’s Evaluation Department (EVAL) and Uganda’s Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), the latter being responsible for coordination and the strategy for monitoring and evaluation in Uganda. EVAL and OPM will each designate an officer and an alternate officer responsible for the evaluation. Together, the designated officers will form the Management of the evaluation.

Danida’s Evaluation Department will take a lead role as regards funding, contracting and implementation management. At the same time, participation in the evaluation will enhance the evaluation capacity of OPM, and the experience could be useful for future country programme assessment, in particular for future evaluation of joint strategies (UJAS). The OPM-officer will participate in the tender committee’s work.

The Evaluation Management will:

• Approve the ToR of the evaluation, and approve the tender process documents;
• Participate in the tender committee’s selection of the evaluation team;
• Ensure quality throughout the evaluation process;
• Comment on and approve the draft version of Inception, Perception Study and Evaluation reports;
• Advise their own agencies and staff on the evaluation as well as coordinate internal agency contributions;
• Provide feed-back to the Evaluation Team and the Reference Groups;
• Ensure local offices are aware of the evaluation and fully involved and available to contribute to the evaluation;
• Chair meetings of the Reference Groups, and organise, facilitate and participate in evaluation workshops as per need;
• Organise the presentation of the evaluation results, and assist with necessary follow-up of the evaluation.

Role of the Evaluation Team (Consultant):

The evaluation is carried out through a contract with a consulting company/research institution by a team composed of external international and Ugandan consultants lead by an Evaluation Team leader. The team will:

• Carry out the evaluation as per ToR; and
• Be responsible for the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation;
• Report to the Evaluation Management, be in regular contact, coordinate mission timing and key events with the Management and seek its advice when needed;
• The Team Leader is responsible for the team’s reports, and for the organisation of the work of the team;
• The Team Leader will participate in workshops and Reference Groups’ meetings as required.

Role of the Evaluation Reference Groups:

Two Reference Groups, one in Uganda and one in Denmark, composed of individual resource persons, researchers, and representatives of relevant offices, will be established. Representatives of other development partners may join the reference groups as observers. OPM will chair the Uganda Reference Group, while EVAL will chair the Danish Reference Group. The Danish Embassy in Kampala, and the Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development, representing the Danish and the Uganda Governments, respectively, is responsible for the implementation of the Danish assistance to Uganda. As such, they are key stakeholders to the evaluation process, and will be participating in the work of the reference groups, but will not be responsible for the evaluation process or the results.

The task of the members of the reference groups are:

• Advise on methodological issues, provide input to the draft evaluation approach and the evaluation ToR;
• Provide comments to the draft versions of reports, and participate in workshops and meetings as required; if brief written comments are specifically requested, the Evaluation Management will agree with the reference group member of the terms of the request;
• In general, support the implementation of the evaluation, and facilitate the work of the evaluation team, and the follow-up of the evaluation.

10. Evaluation output

The main outputs from the evaluation will be:

1. Pre-study of documentation (to be provided by another Danida-contracted consultant); (by end January 2006).
2. Draft Inception Report, max. 20 pages, excluding annexes, to be delivered in Word and pdf-files; a final Inception Report will be produced after receiving comments from the evaluation management; (by 28 April 2006).
3. Perception Study (as a separate report), max. 50 pages, excluding annexes, questionnaire, etc., to be delivered in Word, Excel and pdf-files; (by 31 August 2006).
4. Draft Evaluation Report, max. 80 pages, excluding annexes, to be delivered in Word and pdf-files, with cover photo proposals; the draft report will be adjusted by the evaluator after receiving comments from the evaluation management; (by 31 August 2006).
5. Final Evaluation Report, max. 80 pages, excluding annexes, with attached CD-ROM (of all major evaluation documents), to be delivered in Word and pdf-files. (by 10 October 2006)
6. Two workshops in Uganda and one in Copenhagen, respectively where key evaluation methodologies, conclusions and recommendations are presented and discussed among stakeholders. With focus on i.a. issues of alignment, policy dialogue and aid modalities.
7. Draft evaluation summary, 3-4 pages, for production of a pamphlet aimed at public audiences.
8. The evaluation team will also be required to deliver a ’post-mortem’ brief report (max. 5 pages) of their evaluation process experiences.

11. Requirements for the Consultant’s Home Office Intervention

The Consultants home office shall provide the following, to be covered by the Consultant’s fees:

• General home office administration and professional back-up. The back-up activities shall be specified.
• Quality assurance (QA) of the consultancy services in accordance with the Consultant’s quality management and quality assurance system, as described in the Consultant’s application for qualification. Special emphasis will be given to quality assurance of draft reports prior to the submission of such reports.

The Tenderer should select a QA Team, envisaged to consist of minimum two persons, to be responsible for Head Office QA. The members of the QA should not be directly involved in the implementation of the Component and their CV should be included in the Tender. The QA team should have the same competence and professional experience as the Evaluation Team.

All QA activities should be properly documented.

The Tenders shall comprise a detailed description of the proposed QA, in order to document that the Tenderer has fully internalised how to implement the QA and in order to enable a subsequent verification that the QA has actually been carried out as agreed.

• Implementation of the business integrity management plan, as described in the Consultant’s application for qualification, in relation to the present evaluation. This implementation shall be specified.

12. Information and Data provided by the Client

Reference is made to: i) Practical Guide to Tendering and Award of Larger Contracts by Danida, January 2004, ii) Users’ Guide to Sample Standard Tender Document for Larger Consultancy Contracts, January 2004 (http://www.um.dk), and iii) Evaluation guidelines, Danida, February 1999, Revised 2001 (http://www.um.dk/danida/evalueringsrap-porter/eval-gui/index.asp) .

13. Alternative Tenders

Alternative tenders will not be permitted.

14. Agreement of Exclusivity

The Consultant is not allowed to impose agreement of exclusivity on national sub-consultants.

Annex 1

Uganda Country Programme Evaluation. Evaluation Matrix. (version 16 September 2005)

---

The Approach

The Country Programme will be evaluated in its larger context, i.e. the contribution of Danida financed activities to the effectiveness of the larger development co-operation effort. Including whether – and to which degree – Danida operates in a supportive manner vis-à-vis the overall national (alignment) and international (harmonisation) development efforts? And with which resulting contribution to the development results, specifically concerning poverty reduction?

---

The Purpose

The purpose of the country programme evaluation is to answer if- and to which degree Danida’s assistance to Uganda

• Was relevant in relation to country poverty needs
• Was relevant in relation to national policies and strategies, including the PEAP
• Adhere to overall Danida policy goals concerning poverty as well as cross-cutting issues
• Was effective in making contributions and/or attributions to the overall political, economical and human development of Uganda – both at the national and local level – and in specific sectors
• Was efficient, i.e. compared to different ways of delivering assistance. And efficiently alligned with national policies (e.g. PEAP) and harmonised with assistance of other donors
• Was sustainable in relation to its choice of modalities, i.e. whether it was developed and undertaken in cooperation with relevant national and local authorities and in different sectors?
• And was sustainable in the sense that it strengthened the organisational capacity of relevant national and regional and local authorities

Finally, the evaluation should review the progress against the specific indicators of the Danish 2004 country strategy – and make recommendations to possible adjustments to the strategy. Achievement of impact is only assessed in the context of the overall level of achievements of the combined support from donors to Uganda and the country’s own efforts.

---

The four evaluation headings (focus/priority on headings three and four)
Heading 1 The context and framework conditions
Questions/issues	Indicators and data	Data collection process/ methods and sources
Aspect 1. Overall economic and political context/achievements
Economic
Investment climate, Participation in “globalisation”	Government revenue GDP, GNI, etc Multiplicator effect, and hence expected effect of development investment FDI Trade – import/export Debt and debt ratios over the period Credit ratings from IBRD, IMF and international credit institutions Trade quotas under the Cotonou and Lomé conventions International coffee prices Overall aid levels compared to Government expenditure and per capita	Government, World Bank, African Development Bank, UNDP, Bureau of Statistics, Makerere University). The figures could be compared to 2-3 African/Asian countries
Political:
Consider government policy concerning statebuilding, poverty reduction strategy process, publicsector reform, CSR, etc. Consider the democratisation, role of Parliament, multiparty system, etc. Consider progress and outcomes of the decentralisation reform. Consider the role of security for the people and the country as a key regional player Policies of establishing/reducing trade barriers Policies of establishing/reducing investment barriers Policies characterised as either “open-or-closed economy” policy “Liberal” or statecontrolled enterprise and investment policy Progress in land reform, and access to other factors of production Taxation policies and equity perspectives	Corruption levels (use available indicators from e.g. Transparency International, etc. to describe developments compared to other countries) Military expenditure compared to overall public expenditure	Scrutiny of key policy documents, laws. Interviews with policy makers, law makers, key players on the donor scene. Comparisons may be made with 2-3 similar African and Asian countries Describe policies implemented, and results
Aspect 2. Overall human/social development context/achievement
Is overall economic development reflected in actual poverty reduction, human and social development in absolute and relative terms?	poverty indicators indicators on health, social status, education Indicators on cross-cutting issues, i.e. gender, environment and popular participation	HDI District poverty profiles (done by Makerere in cooperation with Agriculture sector programme)
Aspect 3. Overall institutional context and achievements
Evaluation question: How has the capacity of organisations and authorities developed during the period of investigation, how has service delivery developed and is the institutional context in general facilitative for development?	Use tracking studies of service delivery of specific organisations Use reviews and reports of e.g. local governments’ performance	Analyse the Government’s and other responsible managers’ strategic choices of organisational development, resource allocation, etc. e.g. within the judiciary, land reform, decentralisation, parliament, etc.
Heading 2. Combined donor efforts
Questions/issues	Data and indicators	Data collection process, methods and sources
Aspect 1. Overall economic and political context/achievements
Economic:
The evaluation will at a general macro level assess the development of Uganda since 1986 as concerns economic, political, social and human as well as institutional development aspects. The combined donor efforts have contributed to development under each of these aspects. The evaluation will consider:	Results of the HIPC process Contributions to the PEAP-process The Public Expenditure Reviews The IMF assessments The content of SWAps The use of budget support Cooperation with lending institutions and use of loans, mixed credits, etc.	Describing these aid forms, their quantity and quality will provide a framework for comparison with Danida assistance, since Danida has provided only grants and untied aid.
Political:
Consider government/donor policy dialogue concerning democratisation, land reform, multi-party system, decentralisation in light of the post-war and security situation. Consider the role of security for the people and the country as a key regional player Describe policies followed – and consider the Government/donor policy dialogue concerning these policies.	Minutes of key meetings Minutes from yearly policy dialogues/annual negotations/agreements	Dialogue, focus groups, interviews, seminars with key policy players nationally and internationally.
Aspect 2. Overall human/social development context/achievement
Consider the strategic choices made by the donor community within specific sectors, and their contributions or attributions to results achieved of actual poverty reduction, human and social development.	key development indicators sector studies sector evaluations from key donors	Contributions of donors towards specific social sectors (health & education) and production sectors (agriculture, infrastructure). Poverty profiles. Perception study
Aspect 3. Overall institutional context and achievements
Evaluation question: Has the organisational capacity context developed during the period of investigation, how did the international donor community contribute to its development, how can the dialogue between the international community and the government on institutional development be described, and is the institutional context in general facilitative for development?	assessments of development of institutions	Identify the key organisations or institutions (public & private) which have been supported by donors Consider under which modalities the donor support has been delivered OECD/DAC, World Bank, UN studies on capacity development. Donor/government SWOT workshop
Heading 3. Concrete results of Danish financed activities – PRIMARY EVALUATION FOCUS
Questions/issues	Indicators and data	Data collection process/methods and sources
Aspect 1. Macroeconomic and political development
Economic:
To which degree has Danish assistance contributed to the overall macro-economic development of Uganda, 1986-2005? What was the content of the policy dialogue on economic policy – and which impact did it have on the policies followed by the Ugandan Government?	The Danish financed share of total ODA The Danish financed assistance compared to national budgets and other donors; Danish involvement in productive sectors (industry, agriculture, research & development, transfer of knowledge). export/import btw. DK-Uganda, FDI from Denmark, Private Sector cooperation in general, etc. Content of /Danish/Ugandan policy dialogue on economic policy, compared to e.g. IBRDs, IMFs and major bilateral donors.	Interviews Focus group discussions Perception study Study of policy documents
Political:
To which degree has Danish assistance and the policy dialogue with Ugandan authorities contributed towards the country’s political development?	Consider achievements against specific indicators of the current country strategy Consider the role of security for the people and the country as a key regional player Consider the government/donor policy dialogue concerning democratisation, landreform, multiparty system, decentralisation in light of the post-war and security situation	Perception study SPS and other reviews Seminar/workshop for key players, including SWOT analysis Study of Danish-Uganda consultations
Aspect 2. Human/social development
Did Danish assistance have any impact on key social and human development indicators? Did Danish assistance pay due consideration to cross-cutting i ssues? In which way does Danish assistance distinguish itself from that of other don ors in terms of poverty orientation? In which way was Danish policy dialogue able to influence policies of the Government in the field of social development and poverty orientation?	Consider achievements against specific indicators of the current country strategy Poverty indicators, also district-wise The general indicators: health status, social status, education status Data on cross-cutting issues (gender, environment, popular participation) Data on themes (children and HIV/AIDS)	District poverty profiles (by Makerere and in cooperation with Agriculture sector programme) Perception study Performance as assessed in the Annual Performance Report of Danida. relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability of Danish priorities and activities
Aspect 3. Organisational capacity development
To which degree has Danish assistance contributed to capacity development in general, and to specific organisations in Uganda? And how has the policy dialogue between Danida and Ugandan authorities affected Government priorities and policies? What are the major similarities/differences between Danish assistance and the international assistance in general?	Consider achievements against specific indicators of the current country strategy Consider the Government – Danish policy dialogue, and the strategic choices taken by Danida in supporting, e.g. the judiciary, landreform, decentralisation, parliament, etc. relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability	Round table discussion (SWOT-like) btw. 8-10 key players former heads of the national bank, ministers of finance, permanent secretaries, key business men to discuss development, aid and Danish contributions. Make use of OECDs Donor Assessments. Danida usually get good grades. That can be used to argue for relevance and effect and efficiency of Danish aid.
Heading 4. Implementation modalities and follow-up
Questions/issues	Indicators and Data	Data collection process, methods and sources
What specific aid modalities characterise international and Danish assistance, respectively as it concerns assistance that has affected the economic, political, social & human and institutional development? What effects can be observed from different modalities in terms of organisational capacity development and the sustainability of this development? Which perception of the implementation modalities of the Danish assistance is prevailing among Uganda Government, civil society and development partners?	Consider to which degree Danish assistance is aligned with the Uganda Government’s strategies and modalities. to which degree Danish assistance is harmonised with the assistance provided by other development partners. how capacity development of organisations is addressed by Danish assistance, including use of technical assistance (pooling?), programme implementation units, management of support programmes, etc. choices made between general budget support, sector programme support (central government), support at regional/local level and support to civil society/NGOs how anti-corruption strategies have beenimplemented? choices made concerning modalities: biltateral, multilateral, EU and NGO support whether exit strategies of programmes or sectors have been formulated, how they have been implemented, and which are the sustainable effects? the post-conflict starting point in 1986. What lessons can be learned in moving from providing support to demobilisation, over the provision of “transitional” assistance – and to actual development assistance.	Study of key policy documents Interview with key players Workshop with key players Perception study List of cases of corruption or misuse of Danish funding of Uganda assistance.

---

70) Support from the Industrialization Fund for the Developing Countries was evaluated in 2004, Danish assistance to health in 2000, poverty reduction in 1996, etc. The extensive evaluation in 2000 of the Rakai District Development Programme provided valuable insights concerning the support at the decentralised levels. Joint evaluations of sectors, where Denmark has not targeted support, e.g. basic education, are also available for possible comparison and assessment of relevance.

71) The current Strategy for the Danish Development Co-operation with Uganda for 2004-2008 states that impact evaluation of the development assistance to Uganda will be based on the total results of activities supported by the Ugandan government and by developmental partners, and an overall evaluation of the Danish development programme in 2005 or 2006 is foreseen. Meanwhile, it should be stressed, also in line with articles 32 & 45 of the recent Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of April 2005, that all efforts to ensure that common arrangements and harmonisation with the partner country to the maximum possible will be taken for this evaluation, in particular through a close collaboration with Uganda’s Office of the Prime Minister, the designated focal point for monitoring and evaluation.

72) The evaluation will comprise Danish bilateral assistance to Uganda, including NGO assistance and Private Sector Programme. Danish contributions to multilateral organisations and multilateral programmes supporting Uganda (e.g. EU and UNDP) are not included.

73) DAC Room Document 2, 9 November, Paris 2004. The Network suggests a hierarchy of evaluation of aid effectiveness:

1. Evaluation of the impact of the combined support from donors to a particular country and the country’s own efforts – an assessment of development outcomes; based on the policies and priorities of the Government, using the quantitative and qualitative data available as indicators, etc., increased capacity of national institutions, changes in international context.
2. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the development co-operation itself (total ODA contribution) focussing on questions concerning partnership, alignment of support, harmonisation (e.g. comparison without the ODA-inputs), government revenues, remittances, possible negative effect of ODA.
3. Evaluation of the contribution of an individual donor to the effectiveness of the larger development co-operation effort: whether the agency and to what extent it operates in a supportive manner, and which contribution to the development results?
4. Evaluation of the internal effectiveness of a particular donor agency, questions concerning the institutional effectiveness, and of the efficiency of delivery of support.

74) In this part of the evaluation, distinction is made between contribution (results of Danish assistance that was achieved because of a combined effort by Danida, Government and/or other donors), and attribution (results achieved primarily as a direct result of Danish financed activities).

75) Note that Dnida has oly provided grants and untied aid.

76) Note the distinction between contribution and attribution mentioned in note 74.

77) As concerns assessment of impact this will normally be restricted to the first level, and to a lesser degree to the second level. Analysis of contra-factual outcomes (non-intended or non-planned, negative or positive) should, if possible, be most relevant at level three of the contribution of the individual donor.