Duplicate

Briefing Paper 12/2013
50 Years of Peer Reviews by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee:
an Instrument of Quality Assurance and Mutual Learning
Summary
In December 2012, the OECD's Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) celebrated 50 years of reviewing its
members' development cooperation. The reviews form
part of the DAC's initial mandate, which called for an
increase in resources for development, an improvement
in their effectiveness and periodic reviews of the mem-bers'
aid programmes. Although the DAC mandate has
been repeatedly updated (most recently for the period
2011–2015), it has remained basically unchanged.
In fulfilling its mandate, the DAC performs four tasks: (i) It
records all resource and official development assistance
(ODA) flows to developing countries in line with common
criteria. (ii) It sets ODA standards (e.g. definition and terms
of ODA; list of ODA recipients; rules on aid-tying; evalua-tion
principles; anti-corruption proposals). (iii) It develops
principles and guidelines for important areas of ODA (policy
coordination). (iv) It reviews the application of the com-mon
standards, principles and guidelines (referred to as
DAC standards in the following) and of other international
and national commitments made by its members in rela-tion
to development cooperation.
The DAC has 25 members from the ranks of the OECD plus
the European Commission representing the EU's ODA. The
work of the DAC is largely done by the members and sup-ported
by the DAC Secretariat (a directorate of the OECD
Secretariat). The DAC takes decisions by consensus, i.e. all
agreements reflect the consent of all members.
The aim of the Peer Reviews is to improve the quality and
effectiveness of ODA through the DAC members' individu-al
and collective learning. They assess the entire ODA sys-tem
and are unrivalled in this respect. Each member is
reviewed every four to five years by the DAC Secretariat and
one or two examiners from each of two other members.
The team's main findings and proposed recommendations
are submitted to the DAC for discussion and approval,
whereupon they gain DAC status. The implementation of
the recommendations is checked 18 to 24 months later at
a mid-term review and at the next Peer Review.
The Peer Reviews are meant to be critical and construc-tive.
In an evaluation of the DAC, more than three-quar-ters
of its members assessed the quality of the Peer Re-view
reports as high or very high. The Peer Reviews have
an impact: over 90 percent of DAC members rated their
policy impact as "medium to very high". According to the
DAC Secretariat, 88 percent of recommendations have
been partly or fully implemented in the last two years.
The DAC has repeatedly adjusted the Peer Reviews. In do-ing
so, it has not always been able to avoid trade-offs. The
Peer Reviews have also met with interest outside the DAC
and OECD (requests from non-DAC OECD donors for
special reviews, participation of non-DAC and even non-
OECD countries and institutions as observers).
International development cooperation is experiencing
changes which not only require adjustments to the Peer
Reviews but also affect the basic role of the DAC and its
Reviews. But, as long as there are no equivalent alter-natives,
the DAC should retain its Peer Reviews, since they
have proved their worth as a quality assurance and mutu-al
learning instrument.

50 Years of Peer Reviews of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee
Standards, aims and status of the Peer Reviews
The Peer Reviews assess the performance of DAC members
against DAC standards and other international and national
commitments made in relation to development cooperation
and make recommendations, whose implementation is
similarly reviewed. The international commitments include
the Millennium Development Goals and the Paris (2005),
Accra (2008) and Busan (2011) commitments to enhance
the effectiveness of international development cooperation.
The Peer Reviews seek to improve the quality and effective-ness
of development cooperation through individual and
collective learning. They are meant to help members im-prove
their ODA policies and systems as well as their mutual
learning and coordination through exchanges of experience
and the identification of good practices. A further aim is to
provide credible analyses of members' ODA that can be used
by the public and the international community.
The mutuality of the process is achieved through the in-volvement
of two other members in each review and the
discussion of the findings in the DAC. Once approved by the
DAC, the main findings and recommendations of the re-views
have DAC status. Membership of the DAC entails the
obligation to apply the jointly agreed standards, to undergo
Peer Reviews, to implement the recommendations derived
from them and to serve as examiners in reviews of other
members.
The DAC standards and recommendations are international
"soft law", i.e. they are politically rather than legally binding
and lack any legal sanctions. They are politically binding be-cause
of the members' obligation to respect the rights and
duties they assume on joining the DAC. Furthermore, each
member has agreed to observe the joint standards. As a
consequence, other members and the Committee can call
for compliance and so exert political pressure, known as peer
pressure because all members have equal status. In the aca-demic
debate, the Peer Reviews have sometimes been re-ferred
to as an instrument of global governance.
Peer Review reference guide
The DAC's Peer Reviews are the only international mecha-nism
to assess the whole development cooperation system
of its members. The reviews are conducted on the basis of a
reference guide drafted by the DAC Secretariat and adopted
by the DAC. Box 1 gives an overview of the areas to be ana-lysed.
This applies to all reviews undertaken in 2013–2014
to ensure comparability and to enhance collective learning.
The areas are specified by (mostly non-quantitative) indica-tors
in the reference guide and, after the two-year review
cycle, are adapted to changes in international development
cooperation, if necessary.
Each review takes account of the circumstances of the
member under review, and the reference guide is used flexi-bly.
The assessment criteria are applied to the extent that the
members are able to fulfil them. A member who joined the
DAC only a few years ago, for instance, cannot be expected
to perform in the same way as long-standing members.
However, the criteria contained in the reference guide indi-cate
the direction in which members are to move.
Box 1: DAC Peer Review reference guide (2013–2014)
1. Towards a comprehensive development effort: (i) Global devel-opment
issues; (ii) Policy coherence for development; (iii) Engaging in
partner countries: coordinated government approach at country lev-el;
(iv) Other development finance
2. Policy vision and strategic orientations: (i) Policies, strategies and
commitments; (ii) Decision-making: rationale for allocating aid and
other resources; (iii) Policy focus: prioritisation of fighting poverty,
especially in least developed countries and fragile states; (iv) Main-streaming
cross-cutting issues
3. ODA allocations: (i) Overall ODA volume; (ii) ODA geographic and
sector allocations; (iii) ODA channels (bilateral/multilateral channel,
international aid architecture)
4. Organisation fit for delivering the aid programme effectively: (i)
Institutional system (leadership and management, internal coordina-tion,
structure and systems, administrative system); (ii) Innovation
and behaviour change; (iii) Human resources
5. Delivery modalities and partnerships help deliver quality aid: (i)
Budgeting and programming processes; (ii) Partnerships (use of
country-led coordination, division of labour, programme-based ap-proaches,
delegated cooperation, partnerships with CSOs, founda-tions
and the private sector, triangular cooperation); (iii) Fragile states
6. Results, transparency, accountability: (i) Results-based manage-ment
system; (ii) Evaluation system; (iii) Institutional learning; (iv)
Communication, accountability and development awareness
7. Humanitarian assistance: (i) Strategic framework; (ii) Effective
programme design; (iii) Effective delivery, partnerships and instru-ments;
(iv) Organisation fit for purpose; (v) Results, learning and ac-countability
Source: OECD, DAC Peer Review Reference Guide, DCD/DAC(2012)23
FINAL, 10 September 2012
Peer Review process
The DAC Secretariat plays a crucial role in the Peer Review
process (Box 2). This may be surprising since the reviews
are assumed to be mutual: DAC members are reviewed by
their peers. Yet the representatives of the two examining
members do not have the capacity to conduct the reviews
on their own, let alone draft the review report. Further-more,
someone is needed to ensure that the reviews are
comparable and meet the same quality standards.
Box 2: DAC Peer Review process
Peer Review team: It consists of one or two representatives of each
examining country (acting on behalf of the DAC as a whole) and three
or four Secretariat staff members. The DAC Secretariat's Peer Review
division is responsible for the review process, providing for overall
guidance and quality assurance.
Peer Review missions: The review team discusses all relevant areas of
the aid system of the country under review in its capital and how pol-icies
are implemented on field missions to one or two partner coun-tries.
These discussions are held with the key institutions of the mem-ber
and its partner countries and also involve other donors in the field.
Draft report: In consultation with the examiners, the Secretariat drafts
the two parts of the report. Part 1 contains the review team's main
findings and proposed recommendations and is submitted to the DAC
for discussion and approval. Part 2 is the detailed report, for whose
subsequent publication the Secretariat takes responsibility.
Peer Review meeting: The review process culminates in a one-day
DAC meeting at which the draft of the main findings and the proposed
recommendations are presented and discussed.
Approval and publication of the report: The agreed results of the
meeting are incorporated in Part 1 of the report, which is then sent to
the DAC delegates for their final approval and published with Part 2.
Mid-term review: 18 to 24 months after the Peer Review meeting, the
DAC Secretariat discusses the implementation of the recommenda-tions
with the reviewed member and submits a report to the DAC.
Source: OECD, Information Note on the DAC Peer Review Process, DCD
(2012)4, 24 July 2012

Guido Ashoff
However, the role of the examiners is by no means margin-al.
They lead all the discussions during the missions to the
country under review and its partners. The Peer Review
report is drafted in consultation with the examiners, who
present the team's main findings and proposed recom-mendations
at the Peer Review meeting.
This procedure strikes an interesting balance. The DAC (and
the OECD as a whole) is an intergovernmental organisation
whose members coordinate and review their policies and
decide by consensus. Decision-making competence rests
with the members. To ensure the effectiveness of their
joint work (in this case, the Peer Reviews), however, the
DAC Secretariat performs functions that go beyond merely
supporting the members and in practice (though not in
law) constitute an element of supranationality. The in-volvement
of the examiners and the DAC's seal on the
main findings and recommendations then restore the
balance in favour of the DAC members.
How critical are the DAC Peer Reviews?
According to the DAC Secretariat, the Peer Reviews are
meant to be critical, helpful and respectful, characteristics
derived from the aim of the reviews of both acknowledging
achievements and recommending improvements rather
than encouraging any general questioning of development
cooperation. The critical faculty of the reviews depends on
how clearly they spell out weaknesses.
In this context, it might be presumed that the reciprocal
nature of the reviews would result in the statements they
made always being very benign: after all, "birds of a feather
stick together". Yet this concern is not justified. According to
an evaluation of the DAC conducted in 2007, more than
three-quarters of its members rated the quality of the Peer
Review reports high or very high (OECD: In-Depth Evaluation
of the Development Assistance Committee, C(2007)99, 30
October 2007, 50). In the interests of quality assurance and
credibility, careful reviewing and reporting are required of
the DAC Secretariat and the examiners. Furthermore, an
examining and a reviewed member do not follow each other
(i.e. when member A examines member B, member B will
not examine member A in the next round).
German development cooperation can be taken to illustrate
the critical faculty of the Peer Reviews. Among the weak-nesses
highlighted by the DAC in 2010 were the following:
fragmented institutional system, need for further decentrali-sation
of responsibilities to the field, still wide geographical
and sectoral range of operations lacking a clear strategic
purpose, no more than modest progress in monitoring, ana-lysing
and reporting on policy coherence for development,
failure to meet several targets set in the Paris Declaration on
Aid Effectiveness. While commending some progress, the
DAC Secretariat's report of 23 November 2012 on the mid-term
review of Germany's implementation of the 2010
recommendations similarly referred to shortcomings.
What impact have the Peer Reviews had?
According to the aforementioned evaluation of the DAC
(p. 53), the Peer Reviews have had a "medium to very high"
policy impact in more than 90 percent of DAC members.
The DAC Secretariat reports that in the last two years 88
percent of DAC Peer Review recommendations have been
partly or fully implemented. How far this is true of individ-ual
DAC members can be seen from the Peer Review re-ports,
which document in an annex the implementation of
the recommendations made in the previous review. The
German Government, for instance, repeatedly referred to
DAC recommendations when reforming its aid system, as
when it merged three technical cooperation organisations.
There is evidence, then, that the Peer Reviews have an im-pact.
How great that impact is depends on whether the
recommendations address specific or fundamental aspects
of a member's development cooperation. The extent to
which DAC recommendations alone have prompted re-forms
or were just another factor can be determined only
in the individual case. Conversely, there have been cases of
partial or complete failure to implement DAC recommen-dations
for various reasons (e.g. the government's unwill-ingness,
insufficient parliamentary support, change of gov-ernment).
It is here that the Peer Reviews reach their limits,
but such cases are not the rule.
Spill-over effects of the Peer Reviews
The DAC Peer Reviews have met with increasing interest
outside the DAC and the OECD. (i) Quite a number of OECD
members who do not (yet) belong to the DAC, and such
non-OECD countries as Bulgaria, Romania, China, Indonesia,
South Africa and Tanzania have participated in Peer Reviews
as observers. (ii) In the last few years, several non-DAC OECD
members have asked the DAC to conduct special reviews of
their aid policies and systems (Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia as
well as the Czech Republic and Korea before they joined the
DAC). (iii) Countries engaged in the growing South-South
cooperation are considering the introduction of peer reviews.
Changes to the Peer Reviews
Content: The thematic range of the Peer Reviews has wid-ened
considerably with the growing number of DAC stand-ards
and other international commitments related to devel-opment
cooperation. The Peer Reviews have long since gone
beyond development cooperation in the narrow sense in
that they also assess DAC members' approaches to global
issues, the impact of non-aid policies on development (poli-cy
coherence for development) and the promotion of non-
ODA financing for development (aid as a catalyst; see Box 1,
point 1). In doing so, the Peer Reviews recognise that sup-porting
the development of partner countries requires more
than just ODA ("beyond aid").
Frequency: The interval at which DAC members are reviewed
has increased from one year (1960s and 1970s) to two or
three years (1980s and 1990s) and to the current four or five
years. There are three reasons for this: the enlarged member-ship
of the DAC (initially 11 members, now 26), the wider
thematic range of the reviews and the capacity of the DAC
Secretariat, which has not kept pace with this twofold en-largement.
Publication: Since 1994 the Peer Review reports have been
published and thus made accessible to other governments,
the public and partner countries as a reference.

50 Years of Peer Reviews of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee
Process: To improve the substance and impact of the Peer
Reviews, a number of changes have been introduced. They
include a memorandum to be submitted by a member under
review before the review team's missions, field visits, the use
of the same reference guide throughout a review cycle, and
mid-term reviews.
Collective learning: An independent review of the Peer Re-view
mechanism conducted in 2002 revealed, among other
things, that DAC members had not fully tapped the poten-tial
for collective learning. The DAC Secretariat has since dis-tilled
key lessons from Peer Reviews in a number of areas,
such as capacity-building, effective aid management, hu-manitarian
aid, policy coherence for development, and part-nering
with civil society.
Trade-offs in the Peer Review process
To some extent, the changes made to the review process
reflect trade-offs between competing goals. Such goal con-flicts
exist, for example, between the thematic breadth and
depth of a review (consideration of all or selected DAC stan-dards
and international commitments), between continuous
quality assurance and longer intervals between reviews of
individual members, and between the principle of peer re-views
and the strong role played by the DAC Secretariat as a
result of the examining countries' limited capacities.
The future of the DAC Peer Reviews
The international aid system is undergoing changes which
the DAC and its Peer Reviews must take into account.
 The "beyond aid" dimension is gaining in importance, as
the OECD, too, emphasised in its 2012 Strategy on De-velopment.
The DAC should step up its exchange of ex-perience
in this regard with a view to identifying good
practices, using the findings of the Peer Reviews (Box 1,
point 1), which should be distilled to that end into com-parative
lessons learnt.
 Replacing the international Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) with Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) or integrating MDGs and SDGs post-2015 will
change an important reference point for the Peer Re-views.
Although the DAC does not analyse its members'
contributions to the achievement of the MDGs in detail,
it does assess their MDG orientation. When reviewing
the SDG or MDG/SDG orientation of its members in the
future, the DAC must take advantage of the expertise of
other relevant OECD committees and international or-ganisations.
 The Peer Reviews need more precise criteria to enable
them better to assess the implementation of various
commitments made by the DAC members. An example
is policy coherence for development (PCD), which has
been a feature of the Peer Reviews for quite some time,
without their having indicators to measure incoherencies
and progress towards PCD. The Paris, Accra and Busan
Declarations contain numerous commitments without
any monitoring indicators. In some respects, such indica-tors
have yet to be developed. In others, think tanks and
private initiatives have developed indicators which have
not, however, (yet) been officially endorsed by the DAC
or in the post-Busan process. The DAC should assess ex-isting
indicators to see if they can be used in the Peer Re-views
and/or develop its own indicators.
 The Global Partnership for Effective Development Coopera-tion
established in Busan in 2011 may have a major im-pact
on the DAC. The DAC was founded as a "club" in
which the OECD donors were to coordinate and review
their aid policies. In practice, however, the weight of its
members and its standard-setting have resulted in the
DAC having a growing influence on the international aid
system, particularly in the Paris-Accra-Busan process.
Although the commitments made in this process have
been almost universally endorsed, the DAC has often
been criticised for its lack of universal legitimacy. As a
consequence, the Global Partnership was created as the
new forum for all stakeholders in the international aid
system. Its mandate is to maintain and strengthen the
political momentum for more effective development co-operation,
to ensure that the Busan commitments are
honoured and to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and
lessons learnt. This resembles the DAC mandate. If the
Global Partnership is thought through to its logical con-clusion,
setting standards for international development
cooperation and ensuring compliance with them is a
task for all concerned. The DAC's functions and its Peer
Reviews would then have to pass to the Global Partner-ship.
This would bring global governance to the interna-tional
aid system. Whether this comes to pass depends
not only on the political support for and acceptance of
the new forum, but also on its institutional capacities.
The last of these prospects is, of course, highly ambitious.
But until there is an equivalent alternative to the DAC Peer
Reviews, the DAC should not abandon them, since they have
proved their worth as an instrument of quality assurance and
collective learning.
Dr. Guido Ashoff
is a head of department at the DIE, where he is currently engaged in a research project on aid effectiveness
© German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)
Tulpenfeld 6 · 53113 Bonn · Germany · Tel.: +49 (0)228 94927-0 · Fax: +49 (0)228 94927-130
E-mail: die@die-gdi.de · URL: www.die-gdi.de
ISSN 1615-5483
The DIE is a multidisciplinary research, consultancy and training institute for Germany’s bilateral and for multilateral development co-operation. On the basis of in-dependent
research, it acts as consultant to public institutions in Germany and abroad on current issues of co-operation between developed and developing countries.

Duplicate

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Duplicate (20)

Duplicate