Annex C. Profiles of OECD DAC Network on Development Evaluation Members

This section provides descriptions of the individual evaluation systems for OECD DAC Network on Development Evaluation (EvalNet) members that responded to the data collection questionnaire in 2022.

Kindly note:

Human resources – in terms of full time equivalent (FTE) staff – and their reported gender identification are represented by the icons below.

1 FTE female staff	1 FTE male staff	In cases where staff work part time the figure is indicated in a lighter colour (and will sum to more than the total)

Financial resources are shown in Euros (converted using average 2022 conversion rates from local currencies).

Australia

Within the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Development Evaluation and Assurance Section of the Development Effectiveness and Enabling Division is responsible for international development evaluation activities. DFAT has the overall responsibility for development co-operation policy and provision.

The Director of the Development Evaluation and Assurance Section reports to the Assistant Secretary, Development Risk, Implementation and Evaluation Branch within the Development Effectiveness and Enabling Division. DFAT has an independent oversight committee – the Aid Governance Board.

Purpose

DFAT highlights that evaluations provide evidence and lessons to underpin development spending, support an organisational culture focused on innovation and continuous learning, and strengthen programme management while reinforcing public confidence in government by credibly demonstrating the achievements of the development programme.

Principles

DFAT evaluations are informed by the following principles: utility, prioritisation, independence and quality.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Australia’s DFAT Evaluation Policy, approved in 2020, guides evaluation efforts.	Australia’s DFAT has an annual development evaluation plan.	Australia’s DFAT guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Australia’s DFAT requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Austria

The Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs (BMEIA) and the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) share responsibility for strategically evaluating Austrian development co-operation and humanitarian assistance. In 2018, BMEIA established a Unit for Evaluation and Quality Management within the Department for Three Year Programme, Target Group Support and Evaluation of its Directorate General for Development Cooperation. ADA has a separate Evaluation Unit situated within the Executive Unit of Evaluation and Statistics which reports directly to the Managing Director of ADA.

ADA’s Evaluation Unit serves as the centre of competence for development evaluation within Austrian development co-operation (ADC). Together with BMEIA’s Evaluation Unit, it develops and implements the ADC strategic evaluation plan in line with national and international standards. In addition to strategic evaluations, the ADA Evaluation Unit also manages meta-evaluations and impact studies and provides technical guidance and support to programme and project evaluations which are commissioned by project managers or implementing partners.

Purpose

In Austria, evaluations fulfil a learning, steering, and accountability/communication function. This means that evaluations (i) support institutional learning and ongoing improvement of development co-operation; (ii) contribute to evidence-informed decision making; and (iii) inform accountability and communication to partners and the public.

Principles

Austria’s evaluations are informed by the following principles: independence, impartiality, credibility, transparency, utility, feasibility, fairness, accuracy, participation, and partnership.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Austria’s Evaluation Policy, approved in 2019, guides evaluation efforts.	Austria has a two-year evaluation plan.	BMEIA and ADA guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Data not available

Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs (BMEIA)

Austrian Development Agency (ADA)

Belgium

The Directorate-General for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid (DGD) is integrated into the Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (FPS Foreign Affairs). DGD looks after various aspects of development co-operation (governmental, multilaterals, non-governmental, private sector, etc.) and humanitarian aid. Within FPS Foreign Affairs, the Special Evaluation Office (SEO) leads evaluations of activities funded by Belgian development co-operation.

The Head of the SEO – the Special Evaluator – is under the administrative authority of the President of the Management Committee of FPS Foreign Affairs, and reports to parliament annually. A committee made up of major stakeholders of Belgium development co-operation provides oversight.

The Belgium Development Agency (ENABEL) implements the government’s development co-operation priorities. ENABEL has its own Evaluation Office that is responsible for conducting strategic evaluations of its programmes. The Evaluation Office reports directly to ENABEL’s management board. In addition, since 2021, the Operational Unit for Planning-Accountability-Learning-Monitoring has been responsible for organising and managing the evaluation of co-operation programmes and projects.

Purpose

In FPS Foreign Affairs, evaluations support decision making, drawing out lessons to improve Belgian development co-operation, while also ensuring proper accountability for the use of public funds. In ENABEL, evaluations of projects and programmes aim to gauge the performance of the agency’s work, as well as to generate evidence for learning within each intervention, and overall, within the organisation.

Principles

FPS Foreign Affairs and ENABEL draw on the OECD DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance of impartiality, independence, credibility, usefulness, and participation.

Belgium Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (FPS Foreign Affairs)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Belgium’s Evaluation Policy, approved in 2014, guides evaluation efforts.	Belgium’s FPS Foreign Affairs develops a two-year evaluation plan.	Belgium’s FPS Foreign Affairs has published evaluation guidance.	Belgium’s FPS Foreign Affairs requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

The Belgium Development Agency (ENABEL)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Belgium’s Evaluation Policy, approved in 2014, guides evaluation efforts.	Belgium’s ENABEL develops a two-year evaluation plan.	Belgium’s ENABEL has published evaluation guidance.	Belgium’s ENABEL requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Canada

Global Affairs Canada (GAC) leads Canada’s development co-operation efforts. Within GAC, the Evaluation and Results Bureau (PRD) is responsible for evaluating international development co-operation, humanitarian assistance and other foreign policy activities, as applicable.

The Director General of PRD reports to the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Strategic Policy Branch on administrative matters and to the Deputy Minister of International Affairs on functional matters. GAC has an independent oversight committee – the Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee (PMEC).

Purpose

GAC highlights that evaluations support evidence-based decision making and continuous policy and programme improvement, while contributing to accountability obligations by keeping citizens informed on results achieved and resources used to achieve them.

Principles

GAC evaluations are informed by the following principles: do no harm, gender equality, feminist evaluation approaches, independence, neutrality, international humanitarian assistance principles, principles for engaging in fragile states, human rights principles, and learning from evaluation.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Canada’s GAC Evaluation Policy, approved in 2016, guides evaluation efforts.	Canada’s GAC has five-year evaluation plan.	Canada’s GAC guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Canada’s GAC requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Czechia

In Czechia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) leads, oversees, and coordinates the delivery of the country’s ODA. The Czech Development Agency is a state organisation under the authority of the MFA, and implements bilateral country development initiatives.

Within the MFA, the evaluation function of development co-operation is embedded in the Department of Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid (DCD). The DCD reports on its evaluation activities to, and consults with, the Council of Czech Development Co-operation – an interdepartmental co-ordination body. In addition, the DCD holds a dialogue with the Czech Evaluation Society, which associates evaluators and evaluating companies, conducts training and workshops, and disseminates the code of conduct for evaluators.

Purpose

MFA highlights that evaluations provide a systematic and objective assessment of the success of development interventions in terms of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. Evaluations also provide recommendations for improving future development interventions and contributing to innovation.

Principles

MFA evaluations are informed by the following principles: sustainability and common benefit, balanced learning, and accountability goals.

✘ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Czechia does not have an Evaluation Policy but is currently considering adopting one.	Czechia has an annual evaluation plan.	Czechia’s guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Czechia requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Denmark

Under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Danish International Development Agency (Danida) is responsible for providing development co-operation. Danida’s Department for Evaluation, Learning and Quality designs and manages development evaluations.

The head of the evaluation unit reports to the Minister of Foreign Affairs through the State Secretary for Development Policy. Both the Danida Programme Committee and the Council for Development Policy share the independent oversight role.

Purpose

The MFA highlights that evaluations support learning with a view to improving the quality and results of development co-operation, while contributing to accountability through reporting and communicating results to stakeholders, including both the public in Denmark and within partner countries.

Principles

MFA evaluations are informed by the following principles: independence, transparency, quality, utility, ethics, partnership, and capacity development and participation.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Denmark’s Evaluation Policy for Danish Development Cooperation, approved in 2020, guides evaluation efforts.	Denmark’s Danida develops a two-year rolling evaluation plan.	Denmark’s guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Denmark’s Danida requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

European Commission

Within the European Union (EU) institutions, the European Commission’s unit Performance, Results and Evaluation; Internal Communication, Knowledge Management and Collaborative Methods in Directorate General International Partnerships (DG INTPA) is responsible for evaluating the EU’s development co-operation. The Head of Monitoring and Evaluations reports to the Head of Unit, who then reports to the relevant Director at DG INTPA.

Purpose

The European Commission (EC) highlights that evaluations generate knowledge, facilitate evidence-based decision making, and policy and programme improvement, while contributing to accountability obligations.

Principles

EC evaluations are informed by the following principles: transparency, independence, ethics, quality, and utility for EC interventions.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
The European Commission’s Evaluation Matters: The Evaluation Policy for European Union Development Co-operation, approved in 2014, guides evaluation efforts.	The European Commission has a three-year evaluation plan.	The European Commission’s guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	The European Commission’s requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Finland

Within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the Department for Development Policy is responsible for Finland’s international development policy, development co-operation policy, and development and humanitarian financing. Different departments and units in the MFA manage development co-operation. The Development Evaluation unit is responsible for evaluating development co-operation, humanitarian assistance, and other foreign policy activities, as applicable.

The Development Evaluation unit reports directly to the Under-Secretary of State responsible for development policy and development co-operation. The MFA does not have a committee that provides oversight of evaluation.

Purpose

The MFA highlights that evaluations ensure high-quality development co-operation by contributing to learning and accountability through independent and impartial evidence-based knowledge. It also highlights their role for transparency and openness of development policies and for decision making related to the use of development and humanitarian funding.

Principles

MFA evaluations are informed by the following principles: utility, independence, impartiality, credibility, honesty, integrity, accountability, participatory approaches, partnerships, and working jointly.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Finland’s Development Evaluation Norm, approved in 2015, guides evaluation efforts.	Finland has a three-year evaluation plan.	Finland’s guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Finland requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

France

French development co-operation is provided by a variety of government entities, including the Ministere de l’Europe et des Affaires Étrangères (MEAE), Direction Générale du Trésor (DG Treasury), and Agence Française de Développement (AFD).

Within MEAE, the evaluation unit is situated in the Delegation of Programmes and Operators (DPO) of the Directorate General for Globalisation (DGM). It carries out strategic evaluations of MEAE development initiatives, as well as providing support to other government entities undertaking evaluations.

Within DG Treasury, the Development Evaluation Unit (UEAD) is attached to the Multilateral Affairs and Development Department. UEAD is responsible for evaluating development co-operation provided by DG Treasury. Within AFD, the evaluation unit is part of the Innovation, Strategy and Research Department. It is responsible for evaluating development co-operation provided by AFD.

In 2021, a commission was established within the Court of Auditors to conduct evaluations of development co-operation activities undertaken though other French ministries.

Purpose

The MEAE evaluation highlights that evaluation is a tool to increase accountability, support decision making, and promote continuous learning.

DG Treasury highlights that evaluations improve decision making and serve the dual purposes of accountability and learning.

AFD highlights that evaluations support accountability, effectiveness, and continuous learning.

Principles

All French evaluations are informed by the OECD DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance: impartiality, independence, credibility, usefulness, and participation.

Ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires Étrangères (MEAE)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
France’s MEAE Development Evaluation Policy guides evaluation efforts.	France’s MEAE has a three-year evaluation plan.	France’s MEAE guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	France’s MEAE requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Direction Générale du Trésor (DG Treasury)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
France’s DG Treasury Development Evaluation Policy approved in 2017, guides evaluation efforts.	France’s DG Treasury has a three-year evaluation plan.	France’s DG Treasury guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	France’s DG Treasury requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Agence Française de Développement (AFD)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
France’s AFD Development Evaluation Policy, approved in 2013, guides evaluation efforts.	France’s AFD has a three-year evaluation plan in place.	Guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	France’s AFD Requires a management response to evaluations. The evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Germany

Overall responsibility for development evaluation in Germany falls under the remit of the Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ). Under the direction of BMZ, other larger actors in this system are the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval), the German Corporation for International Co-operation (GIZ) and the KfW Development Bank (KfW).

Within BMZ, the BMZ Evaluation Unit provides direction to the evaluation system as a whole, and has a key role as an interface between the BMZ and DEval. BMZ has largely delegated evaluation work to other actors. In the very few cases where BMZ conducts (commissions) evaluations itself, the Head of the Evaluation and Research Division reports to the State Secretary via the Director of Directorate GS2 “Data and Effectiveness”. As a Federal Ministry the BMZ does not have an independent oversight committee. It is controlled by the German Bundestag.

DEval is mandated by BMZ to independently conduct scientifically sound, strategic and policy-relevant evaluations of German development co-operation. Other tasks include evaluation capacity development and conducting research on evaluation methods and standards. The Director of DEval reports to the BMZ State Secretary and, through them, to relevant committees of the German Bundestag. The institute also reports to its own independent oversight committee – the Advisory Board.

GIZ implements German (“technical”) development co-operation, under the purview of BMZ. As part of this, its Corporate Evaluation Unit conducts organisation-specific project and strategic evaluations. The Director of the Evaluation Unit reports to the GIZ Management Board, and for project evaluations, the unit also reports to BMZ. GIZ also has a supervisory board.

Similarly, KfW is an implementing agency of BMZ (for “financial co-operation”) and conducts ex-post and impact evaluations of projects that it implements on behalf of BMZ. The Director of the Financial Co-operation Evaluation Department reports to the member of the independent Board of Supervisory Directors responsible for development cooperation. For project evaluations, KfW’s evaluation department also reports to BMZ.

Evaluation work done by civil society organisations (CSOs) complements the government’s evaluation system and are also guided by the BMZ Evaluation Policy, mentioned below.

Purpose

BMZ’s system-wide evaluation policy describes the evaluation system’s overarching goal to be improving development effectiveness and the legitimacy of interventions. In addition, evaluations support knowledge and learning and hence decision making, as well as accountability. Evaluations can also promote an informed, evidence-based dialogue with development professionals and the interested public.

DEval highlights that its research-based evaluation enhances the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of development co-operation. By conducting transparent and independent evaluative work, DEval aims at fulfilling the learning and accountability function of evaluation and contributing to the legitimacy of development policy.

GIZ outlines that evaluations generate evidence-based results and recommendations for decision making, as well as providing credible proof of effectiveness and increasing the transparency of results.

KfW notes that evaluations aim to determine the impact of its co-operation efforts, as well as improve effectiveness, accountability, transparency, and institutional learning.

Principles

Evaluations conducted under BMZ’s remit are informed by the following principles: usefulness of the results, and credibility of the findings, independence of assessments, partnership, and ethical standards that incorporate human right principles. These evaluation principles, and the associated standards and application of the criteria, are closely aligned with the principles of the Aid Effectiveness agenda agreed in Paris (2005), Accra (2008) and Busan (2011), as well as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Deval’s evaluations are informed by the following principles: utility, evaluability, fairness, independence, accuracy, and comparability.

GIZ’s evaluations are informed by usefulness, credibility, independence, partnerships and ethical standards, as well as taking into account human rights principles.

KfW’s evaluations are informed by the principles of independence, efficiency, innovation, learning and ethics, as well as the OECD DAC’s Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance.

Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Germany’s BMZ Evaluation Policy, approved in 2021, guides evaluation efforts.	Germany’s BMZ follows Deval’s three-year evaluation plan.	Germany’s BMZ guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Germany’s BMZ requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Germany’s DEval Evaluation efforts are guided by the institute’s strategy, renewed every five years.	Germany’s DEval has a three-year evaluation plan.	Germany’s DEval guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Germany’s DEval monitors the implementation of its recommendations based on the implementation plan provided by BMZ. A synthesis report of this monitoring is published every two years.

German Corporation for International Co-operation (GIZ)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Germany’s GIZ Evaluation Policy, approved in 2018, guides evaluation efforts.	Germany’s GIZ has an annual evaluation plan.	Data not available	Germany’s BMZ requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

German KfW Development Bank (KfW)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Germany’s KfW Evaluation Policy, approved in 2021, guides evaluation efforts.	Germany’s KfW has an annual evaluation plan.	Germany’s KfW guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Germany’s KfW does not requires a management response to evaluations. However, the Evaluation unit reports the results of each evaluation to management and operational units.

Iceland

Within the Government of Iceland, the Directorate of International Development, Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) is responsible for development co-operation, including allocating and overseeing the implementation of nearly all of the country’s official development assistance (ODA) budget. Within the MFA, the Directorate for Internal Affairs is responsible for the evaluation of development co-operation and humanitarian assistance initiatives. It is responsible for managing a wide range of evaluations and reviews, supervising and revising evaluation methodology, and participating in international co-operation on related issues.

The Director of Internal Affairs reports to the Permanent Secretary of State of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. While no committee formally provides oversight of evaluations, the Development Cooperation Committee carries out some oversight functions.

Purpose

The MFA highlights that evaluations support evidence-based policymaking, effectiveness, and institutional learning, while enhancing accountability to Icelandic taxpayers and other stakeholders. In addition, they support monitoring and results-based management for strategic planning and intervention design.

Principles

The MFA evaluations are informed by the following principles: impartiality, independence, transparency, credibility, and usefulness.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Iceland’s MFA Evaluation Policy approved in 2020, guides evaluation efforts.	Iceland’s MFA has an annual evaluation plan.	Iceland’s MFA guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Iceland’s MFA requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Ireland

Within the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Evaluation and Audit Unit is responsible for evaluation across the full range of the DFA’s activities, including development and humanitarian assistance. Responsibility for development co-operation and humanitarian assistance is fully integrated within DFA and has its own division, the Development Co-operation and Africa Division.

The Director of Evaluation and Audit reports to the Secretary General of the DFA. The DFA’s Audit Committee, which is formally appointed by and advises the Secretary General, provides independent appraisal of the audit and evaluation arrangements, with a view to strengthening governance, risk management and internal controls, as well as helping to enhance the effective operation of the audit and evaluation functions within the department.

Purpose

Evaluation in the DFA serves two main purposes: accountability to show and share the results of investment with key stakeholders; and learning to support decision making and improvements in policy, strategy, programme, and project implementation.

Principles

DFA evaluations are informed by the following principles: utility, credibility, independence, inclusion, and participation.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Ireland’s DFA Evaluation Policy approved in 2022, guides evaluation efforts.	Ireland’s DFA has a three-year rolling evaluation plan.	Ireland’s DFA guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Ireland’s DFA requires a management response recommendations in its evaluation and review reports, setting out agreed actions, timelines and responsible persons. The Evaluation and Audit Unit plays a lead role in tracking implementation of the agreed actions, and providing progress updates to the Audit Committee.

Italy

Italian development co-operation is primarily channelled through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (ESTERI) and the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (AICS).

Within ESTERI, the Directorate General for Development Co-operation (DGDC), Office III is responsible for evaluating the impact of development co-operation initiatives. The Head of Office III reports to the Director-General of Development Cooperation. Office III is supported by the Evaluation Advisory Committee – an independent oversight committee – appointed by the Director-General of the Development Cooperation Directorate General.

AICS is responsible for implementing development co-operation activities and its evaluation unit is responsible for ex-ante, in-itinere and ex-post evaluations.

Purpose

In Italy, evaluations serve the purpose of learning and supporting conscious decision making, as well as informing the programming of future initiatives.

Principles

Evaluations are informed by the following principles: utility, credibility, independence, impartiality, transparency, ethics, professionalism, human rights, gender parity, and leave no-one behind.

Italy Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (ESTERI)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Italy’s Evaluation Policy approved in 2014, guides evaluation efforts within both ESTERI and AICS.	Italy’s ESTERI has a three-year evaluation plan.	Italy’s ESTERI guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender and human rights.	Italy’s ESTERI requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Italy AICS

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Italy’s Evaluation Policy approved in 2014, guides evaluation efforts within both ESTERI and AICS.	Italy’s AICS has a three-year evaluation plan.	Italy’s AICS guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender and human rights.	Data not available

Japan

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) is responsible for setting development co-operation policy and priorities, as well as co-ordinating collaboration across ministries. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is responsible for delivering the majority of Japan’s development co-operation, under the strategic guidance of MOFA.

Within MOFA, the ODA Evaluation Division is responsible for policy-level evaluations such as country/regional assistance evaluations and thematic/aid modality evaluations. The Director of the ODA Evaluation Division reports evaluation results to the ministry’s senior officials, including the Deputy Assistant Minister, the Management and Cooperation Division of the Minister’s Secretariat, and the Director-General of MOFA’s International Cooperation Bureau.

Within JICA, the Evaluation Department is responsible for project evaluations and it reports directly to the JICA President. JICA has an oversight committee, the Advisory Committee on Evaluation.

Purpose

MOFA highlights that evaluations improve ODA management and promote public accountability.

JICA notes that its evaluations support accountability as well as learning and taking actions.

Principles

Both MOFA and JICA evaluations are informed by the following principles: independence, competence and capacity building, transparency and participation, co-ordination with donors and partner countries, and quality assurance.

Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Japan’s Development Cooperation Charter, which was approved by the Cabinet in 2015, guides evaluation efforts.	Japan’s MOFA has an annual ODA evaluation plan.	Japan’s MOFA guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Japan’s MOFA requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Japan’s Development Cooperation Charter, which was approved by the Cabinet in 2015, guides evaluation efforts.	Japan’s JICA has an annual ODA evaluation plan.	Japan’s JICA guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Japan’s JICA requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Korea

Development co-operation in Korea is provided by the Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and the Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF). KOICA is responsible for bilateral grants and EDCF is responsible for bilateral loans.

Within KOICA, the Evaluation Department undertakes evaluations of development co-operation projects. The head of the Evaluation Department reports to the President of KOICA. KOICA has an independent oversight committee – the Government Evaluation Committee.

Within EDCF, the Evaluation and Operation Review Department is responsible for evaluating projects. The department is comprised of multiple evaluation teams that each report to the Executive Director. EDCF has an independent oversight committee – the Subcommittee for Integrated Evaluation, under the Committee for International Development Cooperation in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Purpose

KOICA highlights that evaluations support accountability, as well as learning, which in turn guides evidence-based decision making and contributes to continuous policy and programme improvement.

EDCF highlights that evaluations aim to improve future policies, programmes and projects by providing insight into lessons learned. Evaluations also provide a basis for enhanced accountability, including by making development co-operation information publicly available.

Principles

KOICA and EDCF evaluations are informed by the following principles: impartiality, independence, credibility, usefulness, and partnership.

Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Korea’s KOICA Evaluation Policy approved in 2018, guides evaluation efforts.	Korea’s KOICA has an annual evaluation plan.	Korea’s KOICA guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Korea’s KOICA requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Korean Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Korea’s EDCF Evaluation Policy approved in 2020, guides evaluation efforts.	Korea’s EDCF has an annual evaluation plan.	Korea’s EDCF guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Korea’s EDCF requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Luxembourg

The Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MFEA) is responsible for setting out the high-level principles and policy that guide Luxembourg’s development co-operation efforts. Lux-Development (LuxDev) is the country’s lead development co-operation implementation agency.

Within MFEA, the Evaluation Office is responsible for setting evaluation priorities and conducting a small number of evaluations directly. The head of the Evaluation Office reports directly to the Office of the Minister. MFEA does not have an independent evaluation oversight committee.

Within LuxDev, the Evaluation, Quality and Knowledge Management Department is responsible for evaluating its projects. The head of the department reports to the General Directorate of LuxDev. LuxDev does not have an independent oversight committee.

Purpose

MFEA and LuxDev highlight that evaluation aims to improve the quality of programming, provide evidence on effectiveness and enhance transparency and accountability.

Principles

MFEA evaluations are informed by the OECD DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance: impartiality, independence, credibility, usefulness, and participation.

LuxDev evaluations are informed by the following principles: systematisation, impartiality and independence, partnership, feedback, transparency, and capitalisation.

Luxembourg Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MFEA)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Luxembourg’s MFEA Evaluation Policy approved in 2015, guides evaluation efforts.	Luxembourg’s MFEA has a biennial evaluation plan.	Luxembourg’s MFEA guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Luxembourg’s MFEA requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Luxembourg Lux-Development (LuxDev)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Luxembourg’s LuxDev Internal Evaluation Policy approved in 2019, guides evaluation efforts.	Luxembourg’s LuxDev has a biennial evaluation plan.	Luxembourg’s LuxDev guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Luxembourg’s LuxDev requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Netherlands

Within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) is responsible for evaluating the ministry’s entire field of operations: foreign policy, trade, and development co-operation. The IOB is structurally part of the Ministry, but its independence is save-guarded by its formal protocol and its independent director.

The IOB reports are made public and its policy evaluations are actively shared with the relevant Parliamentary commissions and the general public. The ministry has no independent oversight committee but an independent external reference group is composed for each study.

Purpose

The Netherlands highlights that evaluations support both accountability and policy-oriented learning. They aim to use the findings for future policymaking and strategy development.

Principles

Evaluations are informed by the following principles: independence, objectivity, transparency, validity, reliability, partnership, feasibility, correctness, cost effectiveness, usability, gender, anonymity and confidentiality, responsibility, and respect and understanding for other cultures and universal values.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
The Netherlands’ Evaluation Policy follows the national directives of the Ministry of Finance, responsible for the national co-ordination and quality control of policy evaluations. National directives for evaluation were approved in 2003, 2009, and updated in 2021.	Netherlands’ IOB has a five to seven-year evaluation cycle that is updated annually and shared with Parliament and the general public.	Netherlands’ IOB guidance documents includes gender as cross-cutting area.	Netherland’s MFA requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning (MERL) unit based in the Pacific and Development Group (PDG) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFAT) is responsible for evaluating development co-operation. It gives internal technical advice on the commissioning and design of evaluations, builds evaluation capacity, and provides technical quality assurance for evaluations.

The MERL unit manager reports to the Divisional Manager of the Development, Capability and Insights Division who in turn reports to the Deputy Secretary of the Pacific and Development Group. PDG has an independent oversight committee – the Pacific and Development Strategic Governance Group.

Purpose

MFAT highlights that evaluations support evidence-informed design and delivery of development assistance, continuous improvement and adaptation, accountability and transparency.

Principles

MFAT’s evaluations are informed by the following principles: clarity of intent, credibility and rigour, utility, culturally and contextually responsive, partnership and participation, inclusion, resilience, donor co-operation and collaboration, safeguarding and ethical practice as well as a strengths-based approach to capacity building.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
New Zealand’s MFAT Evaluation Policy approved in 2020, guides evaluation efforts.	New Zealand’s MFAT has a three-year evaluation plan.	New Zealand’s MFAT guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	New Zealand’s MFAT requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Norway

The Department for Evaluation located in the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) performs independent evaluations of Norwegian development co-operation, as well as of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative. The department’s work is governed under a separate mandate and associated evaluation strategy and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Climate and Environment.

The head of the Department for Evaluation reports directly to the Secretary Generals of the two ministries. The evaluation department in the Norwegian development aid administration does not have an independent oversight committee.

Purpose

The purpose of Norway’s evaluations is in part to promote a knowledge-based approach to Norwegian development co-operation, and in part to hold Norwegian development policy actors accountable for the management of funds.

Principles

Evaluations are informed by the following principles: credibility, independence, transparency, use, ethical aspects, and participation.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Norway’s Evaluation Department’s work is governed under a dedicated mandate and associated evaluation strategy and guidelines, as issued jointly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Climate and Environment.	Norway’s Norad has a three-year evaluation plan, updated annually.	Norway’s Norad guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Norway’s completed evaluation reports, together with a memo in Norwegian summing up the main findings from the evaluation and the Evaluation Department’s recommendations for follow up, are sent to the concerned ministry i.e., the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and/or the Ministry of Climate and Environment. The ministries assess the need to take any decisions and/or draw up follow-up plans.

Portugal

The Institute for Cooperation and Language (Camões, I.P.) is responsible for monitoring and evaluating Portuguese development co-operation efforts and language and cultural promotion activities. The Office of Evaluation and Audit (Gabinete de Avaliação e Auditoria - GAA) within Camões, I.P. is in charge of evaluating the development co-operation delivered directly and through line ministries, as well as internal audits. 

The Head of GAA reports directly to the Board of Camões, I.P. Camões, I.P. further reports to the Secretaries of State within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The evaluation function in the Camões, I.P. does not have an independent oversight committee.

Purpose

Camões, I.P. highlights evaluation as an important mechanism for accountability, responsibility and learning, and supporting Portuguese development co-operation's planning and management.

Principles

Evaluations are informed by the following principles: ethics, transparency, credibility and quality, independence and impartiality, competence and capacity, timeliness and usefulness.

EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Data not available	Portugal’s Camões, I.P. has a three-year rolling evaluation plan, which is reviewed annually.	Portugal’s Camões, I.P. guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Portugal’s Camões, I.P. requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Spain

Spain’s Development Policy Evaluation and Knowledge Management Division (DEGCO) within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation (MAEC) is responsible for evaluating international development co-operation policy.

The DEGCO has a dual reporting line. On the one hand it is integrated into the Directorate-General for Sustainable Development Policies (DGPOLDES) (organic level), while on the other it reports directly to the titular head of the Secretary of State for International Cooperation (SECI). MAEC does not have an independent oversight committee.

Purpose

MAEC highlights that evaluations generate learning which improves the effectiveness of co-operation systems. Furthermore, they provide elements for transparency and accountability.

Principles

MAEC’s evaluations are informed by the following principles: independence, impartiality, transparency, credibility, usefulness, efficiency, participation and capacity building, co-ordination and complementarity.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Spain’s MAEC Evaluation Policy approved in 2013, guides evaluation efforts.	Spain’s MAEC has a nine-year evaluation plan.	Spain’s MAEC guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender and human rights.	Spain’s MAEC requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Sweden

Two government institutions are responsible for the evaluation of Swedish international development co-operation: the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the Expert Group for Aid Studies (EBA).

Sida conducts central evaluations on strategic issues, as well as decentralised evaluations, mostly on Sida contributions. Partner-led evaluations are conducted by Sida’s partners. Sida’s evaluation unit is responsible for planning, commissioning, and co-ordinating central evaluations. For decentralised evaluations, the evaluation unit’s role is primarily advisory and supportive. The head of the evaluation unit reports directly to the Sida Director General with regard to central evaluations. The central evaluation plan is suggested by the head of the evaluation unit to the Director General, who makes the final decision on the central evaluation plan.

The EBA is a government committee mandated to evaluate and analyse the direction, governance and implementation of Sweden’s official development assistance with a specific focus on results and effectiveness. EBA focuses primarily on overarching issues within Swedish development assistance, not on individual projects.

The committee reports to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Government Offices of Sweden. EBA does not have an independent oversight committee.

Purpose

Sida sees evaluations as providing an understanding of how and why certain results were (or were not) achieved; if a project or programme led to any unintended effects; and if it was implemented in a cost-efficient manner. Hence, evaluations contribute to well-informed decision making in projects, programmes, and co-operation strategies.

EBA highlights that evaluations contribute to the government’s (and other actors’) development and governance of aid.

Principles

Sida evaluations are informed by the following principles: utility, relevance, fitness for purpose and alignment with the OECD/DAC principles.

EBA evaluations are informed by the following principles: advancement of knowledge (does the project offer something new for actors in development assistance?); policy relevance (will the expected results be of use to policymakers, can they contribute to the development of aid?); current relevance (link to current developments in the aid sector?); share of the development assistance budget or significance of the expected impacts of the phenomenon to be studied; and important questions of principle relating to development assistance (for example, ethical issues in this area).

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)

✘ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Sweden’s Sida does not have a specific evaluation policy. Its evaluation efforts are guided by the operational strategy and quality policy.	Sweden’s Sida has a three-year evaluation plan for central evaluations.	Sweden’s Sida guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender and human rights.	Sweden’s Sida requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Swedish Expert Group for Aid Studies (EBA)

✘ EVALUATION POLICY	✘ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✘ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Sweden’s EBA does not have a specific evaluation policy. Its evaluation efforts are guided by its committee terms of reference, operational strategy and quality policy.	Sweden’s EBA does not have a formal annual plan.	Sweden’s EBA guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	Sweden’s EBA does not requires a management response to evaluations.

Switzerland

Two agencies in the Swiss Government are responsible for development co-operation: the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC) and the Economic Co-operation and Development Division of the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO).

SDC, within the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, is responsible for evaluating technical, humanitarian, and financial co-operation programmes, targeting mostly least developed and fragile countries. The head of evaluation reports directly to the Board of Directors.

SECO, within the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research, is responsible for evaluating the economic and trade programme targeting middle-income countries. The evaluation unit is structurally independent. The head of the evaluation reports directly to the head of policy and quality. SECO has an external evaluation committee which provides independent oversight.

Purpose

SDC highlights that evaluations advance learning with a view to improving the quality and results of development co-operation, and allow for evidence-based decision making and steering, as well as accountability through reporting and communicating the results. In addition, they complement results-based management.

SECO identifies learning, accountability, and steering of future decisions as the purposes of its evaluations.

Principles

SDC’s evaluations are informed by the following principles: usefulness, feasibility, correctness, quality and reliability, participation, impartiality and independence, transparency and partnership.

SECO’s evaluations are informed by the following principles: clear governance, a sound system of independent evaluations, an integration of evaluation results in knowledge management processes, and transparency about evaluation results.

Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Switzerland’s SDC Evaluation Policy approved in 2018, guides evaluation efforts.	Switzerland’s SDC has an annual evaluation plan.	Switzerland’s SDC guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender and human rights.	Switzerland’s SDC requires a management response to evaluations. The Evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

Swiss Economic Co-operation and Development Division of the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO)

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Switzerland’s SECO Evaluation Policy approved in 2021, guides evaluation efforts.	Switzerland’s SECO has a four-year evaluation plan.	Switzerland’s SECO guidance documents include inclusion, gender and human rights.	Switzerland’s SECO requires a management response to evaluations. The evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

United Kingdom

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) operates a blended centralised/decentralised evaluation system, in which the majority of evaluation activity is devolved to spending units across the global network and delivered by a network of 65 embedded Evaluation Advisers. This is complemented and supported by the central Evaluation Unit and the Head of Profession for Evaluation and Government Social Research, which work to support evaluation across the FCDO by implementing the FCDO’s Evaluation Strategy and ensuring, through the FCDO’s Evaluation Policy, that there is a common understanding of evaluation principles and the minimum standards that support those principles. The Head of the Evaluation Unit and Head of Profession for Evaluation and Government Social Research report to the Chief Economist.

The FCDO has specific scrutiny and accountability obligations as an official development assistance (ODA) spending department. The 2015 International Development Act includes the following clause: “the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the extent to which ODA provided by the United Kingdom represents value.”

In addition, the International Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) scrutinises UK aid spending, including approaches to monitoring, evaluation, and learning. ICAI’s formal remit is to provide independent evaluation and scrutiny of the impact and value for money of all UK development co-operation. ICAI operates independently of government and reports to Parliament through the House of Commons’ International Development Committee (IDC) or their ICAI Sub-Committee.

Purpose

FCDO highlights that evaluations serve both a learning and accountability function, and help to enhance resource efficiency.

The purpose of ICAI’s evaluations is to ensure both value for money and scrutiny of impact.

Principles

Both the FCDO’s and ICAI’s evaluations are informed by the following principles: usefulness, credibility, robustness, proportionate budget to expected outcomes, as well as safe and ethical practice.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
United Kingdom’s FCDO Evaluation Policy approved in 2022, guides evaluation efforts.	United Kingdom’s FCDO has an evaluation strategy in place, covering the period from 2022 to 2025.	United Kingdom’s FCDO guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender and human rights.	United Kingdom’s FCDO requires a management response to evaluations. Programme teams play a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.

United States of America

Four US government agencies – the US Department of State, USAID, the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) – manage and evaluate a significant share of US foreign assistance, each with a dedicated service overseeing and supporting implementation.

Within the Department of State (State), the Office of Foreign Assistance and Resources is tasked with providing technical assistance and overviewing the implementation of the Evaluation Policy. The head of evaluation reports to the Assistant to the Administrator.

Within USAID, the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning’s Office of Learning, Evaluation and Research is responsible for evaluation. The head of evaluations reports to the Assistant to the Administrator. The US General Accounting Office performs an oversight function.

The Development Finance Corporation (DFC) conducts portfolio performance evaluations, which are deep dives into select portfolios of projects with a sectoral, thematic, or country-level focus. The learnings gleaned from performance evaluations help inform changes to DFC policies, procedures, project structuring, and/or strategy. They also contribute to the learnings of the wider impact investing community.

The MCC outsources evaluations to third-party independent experts. Evaluations are reported to the Vice President of the Department of Policy and Evaluation. MCC has an oversight committee – the MCC Evaluation Management Committee.

Purpose

USAID highlights that evaluations support accountability to stakeholders and learning to improve development outcomes/

Principles

USAID evaluations are informed by the following principles: integration into design of strategies, projects, and activities; unbiasedness; relevance; methodological excellence; transparency; local ownership; and utilisation of findings.

✓ EVALUATION POLICY	✓ EVALUATION PLAN	✓ EVALUATION GUIDANCE	✓ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
United States’ USAID Evaluation Policy approved in 2020, guides evaluation efforts.	United States’ USAID has an annual evaluation plan.	United States’ USAID guidance documents include cross-cutting areas: inclusion, gender, human rights, and climate/environment.	United States’ USAID requires a management response to evaluations. The evaluation unit plays a role in monitoring the implementation of management response recommendations.