Colombia Country Program Evaluation

2006-2011

Synthesis Report - April 2013

Acknowledgements

The Evaluation Division would like to acknowledge the excellent support and contributions from Management and staff in Gatineau. Gaétanne Pouliot and other program managers and technical advisers provided comments and assisted the team in getting the appropriate sources.

In Bogotá, Colombia, Geneviève des Rivières, Canadian Ambassador and Joshua Tabah, Head of Aid, offered timely support despite their busy schedules.

We would like to thank the consultant team of Plan:Net Ltd., led by Paul Cox (responsible for Private Sector Development area) and Corin Chater (responsible for the Governance area) for the preparation of this report.

To those individuals who graciously made themselves available for interviews in Canada and in Colombia despite pressures and sometimes limited advance notice, a most grateful thanks. All provided valuable input. All worked to ensure that the mission schedule unfolded according to plan.

We also thank Denis Marcheterre, Muhammad Hussain and Joanne Nowak from the Evaluation Division for their leadership on this evaluation, and James Melanson, Director of Evaluation who oversaw and edited the final product.

Sincerely,
Caroline Leclerc
Head of Development Evaluation

Executive Summary

Country Context and CIDA Program^{Footnote 1}

CIDA adapted its programming in Colombia (2006-2011) to the on-going armed conflict and its economic and social impact on children and women (in particular in the Department of Nariño).

In spite of the fact that it is one of Latin America’s most stable democracies and has well-developed legal and institutional frameworks, Colombia faces a protracted armed conflict that began in the mid-1960s, and has been hard hit by organized criminality since the 1980s. Colombia’s armed conflict has produced over three and a half-million internally displaced persons (IDPs), most of them women and children. This is one of the largest populations of IDPs in the world, and gives rise to a persistent and complex humanitarian situation. Colombia has a relatively stable economy, but it also experiences inequality in the distribution of wealth. Children and youth are particularly vulnerable to situations of poverty and violence. Forced recruitment of children and the worst forms of child labor are growing risks, particularly in impoverished communities. The armed conflict has also exacerbated the vulnerability of women and girls. In particular, their security, dignity and economic well-being are affected by legal and illegal military operations and instances of occupations, displacement and confinement.

The Department of Nariño, where significant CIDA programming is focussed, has a dynamic government, both at the departmental level and in Pasto, its capital. Notwithstanding, the Department is significantly affected by the drug trade and the armed conflict. Regardless of innovative efforts to conduct voluntary substitution of illicit crops and promote productive livelihoods, Nariño’s situation has worsened over the last few years. Donors have coalesced around initiatives related to regional peace and development programs; human rights; the demobilization and reintegration of illegal armed groups; victims’ rights; gender equality; anti-narcotics efforts; forced displacement; and, concerns regarding particular populations.

CIDA currently delivers the majority of its programming in three areas: Securing a Future for Children and Youth, Sustainable Economic Growth, and Increasing Food Security. During the evaluation period, Canada ranked 7th among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development bilateral donor members.

Evaluation Approach

This report synthesizes the evaluation of CIDA’s Colombia Country Program (2006- 2011), and was completed in April 2012. Of 62 CIDA-funded projects and programs in Colombia between 2006 and 2011, the evaluation sampled 20, each having a budget of $250,000 and over. Overall, the sample represented 53% (or $34.7 million) of the program’s total disbursements for 2006-2011 ($64.9 million). The evaluation supports accountability and learning, and has three objectives:

• To take stock of the results achieved by the program over five fiscal years (2006- 2007 to 2010-2011).
• To assess the program’s overall performance in achieving these results.
• To document and disseminate findings and lessons learned, and formulate recommendations to improve performance.

Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on findings and evidence gathered in 2011, and do not reflect changes in the country’s political situation or program since 2011.

Summary of Findings

The evaluation shows that the areas of democratic governance, strengthening basic education, and private sector development coincide with the development needs and priorities of Colombia and its Government. During the review period, a good measure of coherence has been achieved across CIDA programming and with whole-of-government initiatives. CIDA’s Geographic Program Branch and Partnerships with Canadians Branch have successfully focused their programming and policy-dialogue work in Colombia on child and youth protection. This has been strengthened by a well-chosen geographic focus on Nariño Department, a balanced rights-based approach directed toward both rights holders and duty bearers, and ongoing engagement with a range of local and international partners with proven capabilities to successfully operate in areas with the greatest need. Moreover, CIDA has used a blend of programming modalities and investment sizes, including local funds, to effectively deliver assistance to Colombia’s most vulnerable population groups. While continued progress is needed, important advances have been made in gender equality, application of results-based management principles, and policy dialogue.

CIDA distinguished itself in the international cooperation community by the organizational innovations it brought to country-level programming in Colombia - in part because of continuity in staffing; a movement towards decentralization that permitted increased hands-on supervision; clarity of purpose; and an assurance of continued program funding at historically high levels. In addition, CIDA garners recognition within the international community for its role in protecting and promoting child rights.

Weaknesses are recognized in the mainstreaming of gender equality and environmental sustainability. A clear strategy and appropriate mechanisms are needed to achieve effective integration of crosscutting themes in all activities. This applies to CIDA and to its partners.

Refinements are also needed in the Performance Management Framework in securing baseline data and establishing targets for certain indicators. Current indicators do not adequately capture the breadth of progress related to CIDA’s intervention in Colombia. Opportunities to learn lessons may have been missed due to declining attention to project-level evaluations. CIDA’s programs would benefit from determining clear requirements for project-level evaluation.

The CIDA program in Colombia received a highly satisfactory rating for Relevance and Management Principles, and satisfactory for Effectiveness, Sustainability, Coherence and Efficiency. On Crosscutting Issues and Performance Management, the program was moderately satisfactory.

The Agency is acquiring much experience of delivering development programming on conflict-affected regions and countries. The Agency would benefit in capturing this experience and transforming it in policy and program guidance.

Recommendations

The program should:

1. Review its role and its tools, including its policy-dialogue agenda with the Government of Colombia and other donors, on gender equality and environmental sustainability. To ensure mainstreaming of crosscutting themes, an action plan needs to integrate these themes into the design, implementation and monitoring of CIDA’s interventions, and to provide appropriate levels of human and financial resources; and,
2. Renew attention to performance measurement, including the identification of secure baseline data and the establishment of targets for certain indicators.

Introduction

Overview of Country Context and CIDA’s Country Program

Country Context

Readers will find further information about the country context and CIDA’s program in Appendix F.

CIDA adapted its programming in Colombia (2006-2011) to the on-going armed conflict, and to its economic and social impact on children and women (in particular in the Department of Nariño).

Colombia is a country of complex paradoxes. It is one of Latin America’s most stable democracies and it has well-developed legal and institutional frameworks. However, the country faces a protracted armed conflict that began in the mid-1960s and has been hard hit by organized criminality since the 1980s.^{Footnote 2} Colombia’s armed conflict has produced over three and a half-million internally displaced persons (IDPs), most of them women and children; this is one of the largest populations of IDPs in the world. The displacement has given rise to patterns of massive land expropriation and accumulation, the accentuation of poverty, the rise of an urban underclass, modification of the social and economic configurations of rural Colombia, generational conflicts (given the urbanrural divide within families), contentious gender relationships, and a persistent, complex humanitarian situation.

Colombia has a relatively stable economy and good growth performance, but it also experiences inequality in the distribution of wealth.^{Footnote 3} Children and youth are particularly vulnerable to situations of poverty and violence. The youngest age-bracket is particularly affected by malnourishment, domestic violence, lack of proper care and protection, and poor health care. In addition to problems linked to extreme poverty, children and youth in Colombia are exposed to risky environments as a result of the armed conflict, illegal economies, and various sources of violence. Forced recruitment of children and the worst forms of child labor (including sexual exploitation) are becoming greater risks, particularly in impoverished communities.^{Footnote 4} The current administration acknowledges the grave situation of children and prioritizes the issue within its four-year plan of action. The government intends to focus on the first years of life and children exposed to the highest levels of poverty.

The internal armed conflict has also exacerbated the vulnerability of women and girls. In particular, their security, integrity, dignity and economic well-being are affected by legal and illegal military operations, as well as instances of occupation, displacement and confinement.

The Department of Nariño

Nariño is a department rich in economic potential, with natural resources located in diverse terrains along Colombia’s southwest international border with Ecuador and the Pacific Ocean. It has a dynamic government, both at the departmental level and in Pasto, its capital. The Department is, however, significantly affected by the drug trade and the armed conflict. Despite innovative efforts to conduct voluntary substitution of illicit crops and promote productive livelihoods, Nariño’s situation has worsened over the last few years.^{Footnote 5} The conflict at times results in mass violence and displacement. In the last two years, the armed conflict has claimed the lives of seventy-four persons.^{Footnote 6}

International Cooperation in Colombia

The international cooperation climate in Colombia is generally positive in both governmental and non-governmental sectors. The role played by Acción Social, the Government’s agency responsible for coordinating development assistance, has been particularly important. After rounds of consultation with the international community and Colombian civil society organizations, Acción Social adopted a far-reaching strategy that addressed five themes over a four-year period (2007-2010): thematic orientation; improved coordination, alignment and harmonization of cooperation; strengthening the management of international cooperation; developing new sources and modes of cooperation; and strengthening the supply of technical cooperation in Colombia.^{Footnote 7}

International development cooperation in Colombia represents about 0.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. However, the assistance is politically significant, and in particular sectors (such as human rights and peace-building) the international support is substantial. Principal donors include the United States Agency for International Development, the European Union and the Spanish cooperation agency. These are followed by Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands – all of which have a portfolio that is similar to Canada’s in size.

For several years, donor countries that share common policy goals have attempted to share information, and to coordinate and promote multi-party international aid roundtables to address human rights and development concerns. This resulted in an international cooperation platform that allowed governmental authorities to conduct a participatory planning process that included representatives of donor nations and national non-governmental organizations. The process produced Colombia’s International Cooperation Strategy 2007-2010.

Donors have coalesced around initiatives related to regional peace and development programs; human rights; the demobilization and reintegration of illegal armed groups; victims’ rights; gender equality; anti-narcotics efforts; forced displacement; and support to particular populations.

CIDA Program

The deteriorating human rights, humanitarian, and economic situations (as a result of the intensification of the conflict) and the focused aid requirements (human rights and peace building) of the Colombian government both served as catalysts for CIDA to create an interim Country Development Programming Framework (CDPF), approved in 2003. The stated goal of the CDPF (in effect until 2008) was to support Colombia in building peace and enhancing human security. Under the 2003 CDPF, CIDA support also shifted somewhat to include United Nations organizations, hemispheric bodies and nongovernmental organisations involved in human rights, humanitarian imperatives, education, civil society capacity building, and private-sector governance.

Over the next few years, a variety of developments took place that further focused CIDA’s programming strategy. First, in 2006, the decision was made to concentrate more on child rights and protection within the framework of human rights, which culminated in 2007 with the adoption of the Strategic Framework for Child Rights and Protection. This document continues to serve as the core strategic document guiding the majority of CIDA’s programming in the country, and played an important role in the design of the CIDA-wide “safe and secure futures” component of the Agency’s children and youth thematic priority.

Second, the Canadian government’s decision in 2008 to re-engage in Latin America and the subsequent naming of Colombia as a CIDA country of focus in 2009 served to significantly increase development assistance.Third, two additional strategic policy papers for Colombia were approved in 2008 and 2009. The 2008 Country Program Strategy contained clear references to the decision to develop a leadership position in protection of human rights for children and youth (CRP), by targeting 65 percent of the Bilateral Program budget to CRP. The 2008 Country Program Strategy also introduced private sector development as a thematic focus. It was also during this period that the decision was made to geographically focus much of CIDA’s development assistance in the Department of Nariño.

More recently, CIDA has developed a new country strategy for Colombia (including a new Program Logic Model and Performance Management Framework), which encompasses the years 2010-2015.^{Footnote 8} Currently, CIDA’s objective in Colombia is to contribute to the improvement of human rights and the reduction of inequality and poverty of Colombia’s most vulnerable groups (specifically indigenous and Afro-Colombians), with a focus on children and youth. In order to achieve this objective, CIDA currently delivers its programming in three main areas: ^{Footnote 9}

1. Securing a Future for Children and Youth,
2. Sustainable Economic Growth and,
3. Increasing Food Security.

During the evaluation period, Canada ranked 7^th among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development bilateral donors.^{Footnote 10}

Overview of the Evaluation Process and Methodology

This report synthesizes CIDA’s evaluation of the Colombia Country Program 2006-2011 completed in April 2012. It includes recommendations based upon analysis of the program’s results and management record, as evidenced in a representative sample of the program’s activities between 2006 and 2011. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on findings and evidence gathered in 2011, and do not reflect changes in the country’s political situation or program undertakings since 2011.

The evaluators sampled the program’s project portfolio in compliance with Treasury Board standards for assessment coverage. Of 62 CIDA-funded projects and programs in Colombia between 2006 and 2011, the evaluation sampled 20, each having a budget of at least $250,000. Overall, the sample represented 53% (or $34.7 million) of the program’s total disbursements for 2006-2011 ($64.9 million). The sample also assessed a cross-section of the interventions in key programming sectors including ten in Democratic Governance, seven in Private Sector Development and three in Strengthening Basic Education. This evaluation included field-research in Colombia between September and October 2011 and interviews with over sixty representatives of the program’s key stakeholder groups.

The evaluation supports accountability and learning, and has three objectives:

1. To take stock of the results achieved by the program over five fiscal years (2006- 2007 to 2010-2011).
2. To assess the program’s overall performance in achieving these results.
3. To document and disseminate findings and lessons learned, and to formulate recommendations to improve performance.

The projects were given numerical and nominal scores based on a five-point scale, whereas the overall program was rated using only the nominal scale.^{Footnote 11 Footnote 12} The following criteria and sub-criteria were used:

What has been accomplished (Development Results).

• Relevance: Extent to which the development program’s objectives reflect Colombia’s needs and CIDA’s policies and strategies.
• Effectiveness/results: Extent to which the development program’s objectives have been achieved, or are being achieved, considering their relative importance.
• Sustainability: Maintenance of the development program’s benefits after a major development cooperation activity is completed.
• Crosscutting themes: Extent to which gender equality and the environment are integrated into the program framework.

Why and how were the expected results achieved (Management Factors).

• Coherence: External coherence (Complementarity and synergy with the activities of other donor countries). Internal coherence (coordination among CIDA’s various delivery mechanisms) as well as with Canadian development stakeholders, including governmental, non-governmental and private sector.
• Efficiency: Extent to which resources (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are translated into results, based on optimum allocation of resources.
• Management principles: Degree of adherence to the following principles of the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: local ownership, alignment, and harmonization.
• Performance management: Integration of results-based management and the principle of mutual accountability in program management, including mechanisms and tools developed and used.

A significant challenge to the implementation of the evaluation arose in the early stages with respect to obtaining sufficient documentation of the sampled projects to ensure their evaluability. Due to shortcomings of CIDA’s data storage and retrieval system, some project-level documents could not be accessed. There were also some minor challenges in obtaining comprehensive financial data.

A more general limitation arose in connection with the difficulty experienced by the evaluation team in finding Colombia-specific information for projects or programs that were either hemispheric or multi-country in nature (this was the case for the Andean Region Gender Equality Fund and projects funded by the Inter-American Program).

Although the sample is quite comprehensive in its coverage of the program’s disbursements, care must be taken in drawing inferences at the program level based on the project sample. The types of evidence available at the program level are largely qualitative rather than quantitative, and rely upon the review of program documents, past evaluations, studies prepared by development partners, and interviews with counterparts and stakeholders.

Major Findings: Development Results

1.1 Relevance - Highly Satisfactory

Analysis of the program’s relevance focuses on alignment with i) Colombia’s development objectives and priorities, and ii) CIDA’s policies and strategies.^{Footnote 13}

CIDA has adapted its interventions to the context of conflict and has appropriately concentrated on the human rights situation, focusing on populations that are most exposed to poverty and social vulnerability (i.e., children, women, indigenous peoples and internally displaced persons). The Agency’s work has been especially vigorous in protecting the rights of children and youth following the adoption of the Strategic Framework on Children’s Rights and Protection.

Regarding its work on the protection of children’s rights, CIDA has adequately combined financial assistance to partners with direct policy dialogue with the Colombian Government to further enhance protection measures. More, however, could be done to actively promote gender equality considerations in matters relating to children’s rights, because a majority of partners have often neglected this aspect in their respective projects and programming.^{Footnote 14}

The ongoing conflict in Colombia requires that development initiatives place particular attention on human rights and humanitarian concerns. CIDA has appropriately addressed these tensions by underscoring the Colombian state’s obligations in relation to its vulnerable citizens and its general duties within the rule of law. CIDA has successfully engaged local level institutions in Nariño (Governor’s office and city administration in Tumaco and Pasto). The Agency has also provided well targeted support to United Nations and hemispheric agencies in Colombia that emphasise the protection of internally displaced persons rights (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR)), human rights generally (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)), and children’s rights (United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF and the Organization of American States(OAS)).

The increasing focus on children’s rights and protection has been significant, and in line with the evolution of CIDA’s policy framework documents. CIDA’s focus on human rights and protection began with the 2002-2006 Country Development Programming Framework (CDPF), which aligned closely with the stated requirements of the Colombian government. With the release of the 2007 Strategic Framework for Children’s Rights and Protection (CRP), the decision was taken to concentrate the program on child rights and protection within the framework of human rights. The current CRP forms the key pillar of the current 2010-2015 CDPF.

The program is in line with the Government of Canada’s evolving strategies and policies. It reflects the 2007 Strategy for the Americas with its emphasis on democratic governance, security, and free-trade, and the 2009 CIDA decision to add Colombia to its list of countries of focus.

Finally, the program has aligned itself with the Colombian government’s International Cooperation Strategy, as well as that of the Department of Nariño, specifically in the areas of rights and protection. This complementary approach enhances the relevance of CIDA’s role and programming in the country.

1.2 Effectiveness - Satisfactory

Effectiveness is defined as the measurement of how well development programming objectives have been or are being achieved. Effectiveness analysis is based on two criteria: the program’s contribution to poverty reduction, and results achieved.

Despite the relatively modest size of Canadian disbursements,^{Footnote 15} the program generated far-reaching results. By building on its leadership in child rights, the program built a good reputation and leadership record that strengthened its ability to advocate for and initiate developments in the broader areas of governance and protection. The focus on one department (Nariño) allowed the program to select the best partners, leverage funding, and choose its areas of thematic and geographic interventions. Interviewees reported that Canada “punches well beyond its weight” using this strategy.

Democratic Governance - A multidisciplinary approach allowed the program to take a holistic approach, protecting human rights (in particular child rights) and addressing both the causes and consequences of armed conflict. Some programming aimed to protect child rights by reducing the forced recruitment of children into armed conflict.^{Footnote 16}

The program’s clear focus on child rights and protection allowed the Canadian government to take a welcome lead in Colombia, which generated positive results. For instance, the Government of Colombia implemented policies spearheaded by the program to entrench child and human rights protection. Based on CIDA’s model, the Colombian government has also implemented projects designed to support peacebuilding strategies led by Colombian youths. For example, the Department of Tolima passed legislation to prevent the worst forms of child labour, and the Colombian Ministry of Education promoted peace-building proposals developed by Colombian youths through the PLAN project on Citizen Competency.

CIDA partners (United Nations and hemispheric agencies, international and national non-governmental organisations, local grassroots groups, and governmental counterparts such as the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare and Acción Social) also proved effective. Many CIDA funded projects successfully generated a national and international policy debate on children’s rights and the rights of internally displaced persons.

Local funds used to support women’s groups and indigenous peoples associations facilitated projects that responded to the armed conflict, to human rights concerns, and also encouraged women’s political participation. Such funds also helped the program play an important role in bridging the gap between official and non-official initiatives (particularly in the field of children’s rights), because the non-governmental organizations have established working-relationships with local authorities in the implementation of national policies.

Poverty Reduction: The program appeared to make concrete gains in poverty reduction; however, the gains are difficult to quantify^{Footnote 17} and overall poverty remains endemic. Many CIDA partners suggest that donor programs with limited (four or fiveyear) timeframes might not allow sufficient time to alter living conditions in areas so heavily affected by violence and conflict. Due to a lack of data, the evaluation could not determine whether CIDA has been effective in contributing to the Millennium Development Goals.

The two tables below summarize the Colombia Program’s outcome-level results in the context of the program level Logic Model and Performance Management Framework, accompanying the 2010-2015 CDPF.^{Footnote 18} The first table deals with the intermediate outcome oriented to protection of rights of the most vulnerable groups. The second table addresses the intermediate outcome oriented to environmentally sustainable socioeconomic development.^{Footnote 19}

Table 1: Outcome-Level Results on Intermediate Outcome 1

Intermediate Outcome #1: Enhanced protection of the rights of the most vulnerable groups in Colombia with a sectoral focus on children and youth and a geographic focus on the Department of Nariño

PMF Indicator: Extent to which reports show progress on child rights

Baseline Data: TBD

PMF Target: Clear indication of improvement within the report

Results Evident in the Evaluation

This is a very problematic indicator to assess because there is no baseline data available. However, the majority of projects have shown marked improvements in advancing the child rights and protection agenda by assisting the authorities at the national and Departmental levels to create, enhance, enact, and codify laws on children’s rights in Colombia. UNICEF, UNHCR, the IIN, SCC/NRC, and PLAN have all been instrumental in this undertaking.

PMF Indicator: Net enrolment rate in primary schools

Baseline Data: 87.3% (2007)

PMF Target: 92% (2014-2015)

Results Evident in the Evaluation

Although the number of students (internally displaced and members of marginalized groups) has increased significantly through UNHCR, UNICEF, and SCC/NRC and Plan projects, no figures on enrollment rates relative to baseline have been provided

Immediate Outcome #1: Increased capacity and engagement of state and civil society organizations to fulfill Colombia’s human rights commitments, especially children and youth rights’ commitments, in regions with CIDA projects

PMF Indicator: Number of Colombian Departments incorporating child rights programming with the participation of children and youth, along with appropriate resources, in their development plans

Baseline Data: TBD

PMF Target: TBD

Results Evident in the Evaluation

The evaluation has shown that national and local authorities in a number of Colombian Departments have incorporated child rights programming into their development plans, including Tolima, (in the context of child labour), and four other Departments, which have either incorporated children’s rights into their laws and development plans, or have created working groups with an aim of doing so. Evident in ILO, UNICEF, UNHCR, and IIN initiatives, through training and technical assistance.

PMF Indicator: Number of IDPs receiving services (disaggregated by gender, adults, and children)

Baseline Data: 70,000 IDPs (2007-08)

PMF Target: 280,000 IDPs (2012)(50% female, 50% male)

Results Evident in the Evaluation

UNHCR project has over 84,000 newly enrolled internally displaced children in 2010, along with the rehabilitation of 22 schools. Plan, SCC, and UNICEF projects have also provided a number of services, generally in education, to internally displaced people through Colombian government bodies. No indication of sex-disaggregated data.

Immediate Outcome #2: Increased opportunities for children, youth and women and men (focus on afro-Colombians and indigenous communities) in Colombia to benefit from a non-violent rights protected environment, in regions with CIDA projects

PMF Indicator: Number of young women and young men, and women and men, participating in youth initiatives, decision making, and applying their knowledge of peace-building.

Baseline Data: 9,000 (2008)

PMF Target: 43,000 (2012) (52% female, 48% male)

Results Evident in the Evaluation

Plan project has seen 25 peacebuilding youth organizations created with 1420 members, including the creation of local, regional, and national networks. Youth (especially) are participating in these networks, but there is no clear indication of total numbers that would provide a basis for assessing this indicator.

PMF Indicator: Number of school children and youth reintegrating into non-formal or formal education

Baseline Data: 0 (2009)

PMF Target: 15,000 (40% boys, 60% girls)

Results Evident in the Evaluation

Difficult to assess. Save/NRC has reported 1,022 out-of-school children from marginalized populations accessing education, and another 1,750 in the Department of Tolima were provided access through the ILO project.

PMF Indicator: % of young women and young men demobilized from armed groups that have access to family-based reintegration services

Baseline Data: TBD

PMF Target: 70%

Results Evident in the Evaluation

No baseline makes this indicator difficult to assess. The only project which provides an actual number on demobilized children is UNICEF, which reported that 210 had been demobilized. No indication as to whether they accessed services.

Notes: (i) Based on the “Performance Management Framework (PMF)” in Annex B of the 2010-2015 CDPF (ii) UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ; UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund ; IIN: Inter-American Children’s Institute ; SCC/NRC: Save the Children Canada/Norwegian Refugee Council ; ILO: International Labour Organization ; UNDP: United Nations Development Programme ; CESO: Canadian Executive Service Overseas ; ARPEL: Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean; PMF: Programme Management Framework; TBD: To Be Determined.

Table 2 Outcome-Level Results on LFA Intermediate Outcome 2 Intermediate

Outcome #2. Increased social and economic benefits for the most vulnerable groups from environmentally sustainable social and economic development of their communities, with a focus on the department of Nariño

PMF Indicator: % income increase among participants

Baseline Data: TBD

PMF Target: TBD

Results Evident in the Evaluation

Substantial increases reported for beneficiaries of the ECOFONDO project, with estimates varying by region (in Valle-Norte del Cauca avg. household income doubled from COL$270,000 to COL$500,000 and additional measurable benefits were recorded from a reduction in household expenditures for storebought foods); UNDP project not sufficiently far advanced for measurement of income benefits.

PMF Indicator: Extent to which participants had their quality of life enhanced

Baseline Data: TBD

PMF Target: TBD

Results Evident in the Evaluation

he CESO project 2004-2009 reported that 83% of the monitored assignments were successful in transforming Volunteer Advisordelivered outputs into tangible outcomes, including additional revenue generation and new jobs; the focus of the ECOFONDO project (and expected focus of the UNDP project) was/is on alternative livelihoods to illicit cultivation of coca and associated quality of life improvements (including improved nutrition and security for children)

Immediate Outcome #3. Improved food security and increased capacities of the most vulnerable groups to participate in environmentally sustainable social and economic development of the communities, in regions with CIDA projects

PMF Indicator: Number of participants in environmentally sustainable agricultural projects

Baseline Data: 4,500 (50% male, 50% female)

PMF Target: 12,500 (50% male, 50% female)

Results Evident in the Evaluation

ECOFONDO Project (which ended March 2010) reported 1,000 families (comprising 5,000 persons), as well as some 30,000 indirect beneficiaries; UNDP project is not sufficiently far advanced to provide estimate of participants; CIAT project recorded food security achievements in Colombia but these were not geared to widespread adoption of new practices

PMF Indicator: % of trained young women and young men who have found a job in their area of studies

Baseline Data: 0

PMF Target: 50%

Results Evident in the Evaluation

SCC, SCC/NRC and Plan Canada projects do not appear to have released data on this indicator; rather, their focus has been on improving access to basic education and improving the quality of basic education

Immediate Outcome #4. Increased capacities by state and civil society organizations to support environmentally sustainable social and economic community development, in regions with CIDA projects

PMF Indicator: Number of improved environmentally sustainable development projects delivered by local/ regional governments and companies in extractive sector

Baseline Data: TBD

PMF Target: TBD

Results Evident in the Evaluation

Two community-level projects were successfully delivered under the ARPEL Governance Project through ECOPETROL’s foundation FUNDESCAT; the UNDP project (geared to providing alternative livelihoods to the illicit cultivation of coca) which began in 2010 was largely designed in cooperation with the Nariño Department government.

PMF Indicator:Number of best practices adopted by technical and vocational training institutes

Baseline Data: TBD

PMF Target: TBD

Results Evident in the Evaluation

Under ECOFONDO, it was reported that 47 educational institutions were supported and strengthened in agroecology, organizational processes and environmental conservation; SCC, SCC/NRC and Plan Canada projects do not appear to have released data on this indicator; rather, their focus has been on improving access to basic education and improving the quality of basic education.

Notes: (i) Based on the “Performance Management Framework (PMF)” in Annex B of the 2010-2015 CDPF.

ii) Other outcome-level achievements not easily associated with the existing PMF (perhaps because they are related to projects/programs delivered by the Inter-American Program or the PWCB as opposed to the Geographic Programs Branch Colombia Program, or because they correspond to an earlier programming framework/programming strategy) are: improved arrangements for social dialogue between labour and management (IPPLA project); more widespread appreciation of the principles and implementation processes underlying CSR among extractive sector companies (ARPEL Governance Project); enhanced knowledge among small and medium Colombian companies about how to take advantage of opportunities arising from the FTA with Canada (CATRTA Program); and improved understanding of barriers hindering small farmers/small businesses in moving from production to marketing in a conflict zone (UNDP Project).

(iii) UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ; UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund ; IIN: Inter-American Children’s Institute ; SCC/NRC: Save the Children Canada/Norwegian Refugee Council ; ILO: International Labour Organization ; UNDP: United Nations Development Programme ; CESO: Canadian Executive Service Overseas ; ARPEL: Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean; PMF: Programme Management Framework; TBD: To Be Determined.

1.3 Sustainability - Satisfactory

The evaluation assessed the program’s overall sustainability across three indicators: (1) Colombia’s financial capability; (2) its policy environment and its record of and potential for reform in political, social, economic, administrative and environmental areas; and (3) the predictability of the program’s official development assistance aid according to the 2008 Accra Agenda For Action.

Sustainability of CIDA’s program in Colombia is less dependent on the capacity of the Colombian state to assume financial responsibility for projects or activities than for other CIDA country programs. However, there has been something of an “implementation deficit” when it comes to putting into action evolving legal and policy frameworks designed to serve the interests of vulnerable groups. While the program has made a concerted effort to encourage the Colombian government to entrench its commitments to some human rights reforms, interviewees from most partner organisations agree that Colombia’s policy framework may remain too weak to fully ensure the protection of the most vulnerable groups.

In Nariño Department, CIDA-supported agencies such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the United Nations Development Programme are relied upon to deliver assistance in many areas because of their organizational depth and ability to command respect as neutral bodies. In spite of CIDA partners’ organisational assets, sustainability of operations in the field remains vulnerable because of the extent of violence and conflict in the department.

Many international bilateral and multilateral cooperation agencies have announced reductions in their allocation of development aid to Colombia. In contrast, CIDA’s designation of Colombia as a country of focus has permitted the overall allocation of funds to Colombia country programming to gradually grow to $18-20 million per year, with some predictability.

1.4 Crosscutting Issues - Moderately Satisfactory

The evaluation assessed the program’s attention to gender equality and environmental sustainability. Are they well-developed in the program’s overarching framework and sustained by a framework to guide action? Have resources been allocated to these areas, and has the program encouraged its partner donors to respect them?

Gender Equality

Gender equality is at the core of Canada’s cooperation policy and intervention in Colombia. While CIDA’s proactive promotion of gender equality through policy dialogue decreased over the evaluation period, a strong commitment to gender mainstreaming at the project/program level remains. The consecutive Country Development Programming Frameworks for the country repeatedly identify integrating gender equality as a guiding principle for CIDA’s involvement in the country.^{Footnote 20} Key program documents emphasize equality of women and men as a strategic objective, and violence against women as a thematic priority for interventions.^{Footnote 21} Furthermore, the CIDA Strategic Framework for Children’s Rights and Protection incorporates a crosscutting gender strategy and includes a differential analysis of how the internal armed conflict affects girls and boys.

CIDA has clearly opted to promote gender mainstreaming with its partners and insists on the systematic inclusion of gender equality in the project cycle. With the termination of the Gender Equality Fund, CIDA has opted for a mainstreaming strategy as opposed to specifically supporting gender-focused projects. It is also clear from the sampled projects reviewed that gender equality informs planning and monitoring. ^{Footnote 22}

There are indications that some of CIDA’s partners do have the capacity and willingness to incorporate gender analysis into their work and to support gender equality results. Among the projects sampled for this evaluation, some organizations have, (a) designed and implemented gender equality strategies (e.g. Save the Children Canada, International Labor Office, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean, ARPEL); (b), incorporated gender specialists or specialized resources in their team (e.g., Save the Children Canada, United Nations Development Programme, Children Local Fund, Plan International, Renacer); (c) organized training; and/or (d) assigned special funds (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Organizations such as the International Labour Office (ILO) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have solid institutional gender equality policies that are reflected in the work they have carried out with CIDA funds. In the case of the ILO, work with local authorities on gender equality issues has systematically included tools on gender equality and children’s work, including sexual exploitation of girls and female adolescents, in the materials distributed to project participants. In the case of UNHCR, gender equality and an overall gender focus have been woven into its strategy and action plans, are part of its dialogue, and have been reflected in its field offices’ actions.

However, gender equality mainstreaming still remains a challenge for other partners, such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. CIDA’s gender assessments of projects generally indicate that while the gender focus has been formally incorporated, this may not translate into meaningful results in practice. In some projects (for example in the Local Fund for Governance sub-projects), baseline indicators are not disaggregated. UNICEF formally incorporated gender in the Training for Police and Military Personnel subproject, however, aside from some awareness-raising activities in relation to violence against women and girls, gender issues do not seem to have been fully mainstreamed. The same can be said about the Inter-American Children’s Institute project.

CIDA is no longer identified by partners as being as proactive about gender equality issues as other cooperation agencies. Spain’s AECID, Germany’s GTZ and Sweden’s SIDA) and UN Women have become much more active on gender and women’s rights topics. CIDA participates in the International Cooperation Gender Roundtable, but because of staffing constraints and priority determinations, has not played a prominent role in initiatives.

CIDA’s leadership commitment seems to have varied over the five-year period and depended on personal commitments rather than ongoing adherence to an institutional mandate. The lack of a gender equality advisor was identified as a risk in the CIDA Colombia Gender Equality Strategy, (2009, p.15). Although they are gender-sensitive, current staff members indicated they have little time to provide follow-up to policy dialogue regarding gender equality and the gender initiatives of their counterparts. This is relevant since gender work can, if not adequately oriented, do harm, especially when it comes to working with particular groups, such as indigenous peoples or Afro-Colombians. Nevertheless, advances were evident in the level of attention accorded to gender equality by CIDA staff towards the end of the review period.

Environmental Sustainability

The team found that CIDA’s environment specialists (based at headquarters in Gatineau) had minimal involvement with the design and monitoring of projects included in the evaluation sample. Specialists indicated that their contribution was often limited to reviewing the Project Approval Document and other planning documents early in the project cycle, though they believed they could offer more to the program.

Few partners have an environmental policy or strategy, or if they did have such a document, it is unclear how it was incorporated into day-to-day actions of CIDA-supported projects. There were projects/programs that had a logic model with no environmental sustainability content, and even examples of projects/programs designed without a logic model.

A few examples were found of projects having environmental indicators, against which progress was tracked. However, none of the sampled projects/programs appeared to have generated baseline studies with an environmental focus. Project-level monitoring and evaluation exercises, where they occurred, drew conclusions about changed environmental behaviours but generally were not able to identify an aggregate effect on the environment.

With the exception of the CIDA hemispheric projects in environmental protection and community relations/social responsibility implemented by the Environmental Services Association of Alberta, the Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean, others in the oil and gas industry, and to some extent the work conducted in disaster preparedness with the Colombian Government agency INGEOMINAS, there does not appear to have been a contribution to policy dialogue on the environment in Colombia. In interviews, partners spoke about the generally low level of environmental awareness in Colombia and the difficulty of engaging decision-makers on environmental topics.

Inspection of project documentation showed that none of the sampled projects/programs produced adverse environmental effects that would trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).

CIDA’s 2008 Country Program Strategy followed the Government of Colombia’s 2007- 2010 International Cooperation Strategy by linking protection of the environment with the fight against illicit drugs. The 2010-2015 CDPF includes an Environmental Sustainability Analysis, which concludes that programming in the priority areas of Children and Youth, Economic Growth, and Food Security will result in no significant negative environmental effects.

2.0 Major findings: management factors

2.1 Coherence - Satisfactory

The evaluation assessed the program for its coherence—the coordination of effort and the alignment of strategies—internally at CIDA, and externally with other donors and with the Government of Canada.^{Footnote 23}

Over the course of the review period, the program displayed a notable degree of internal coherence in addressing its programming focuses. In spite of some changes in program emphasis and partners, the program’s strategic direction stabilized and strengthened over the past three years due to: (i) continuity of staffing at headquarters and at the Embassy in Bogotá; (ii) the move to a more defined thematic focus and geographic concentration; and (iii) an increase in funding to historically high levels.

Internal coherence has risen with the protection of children’s rights, becoming a central feature of CIDA’s development assistance work. There are genuine efforts between CIDA branches to link humanitarian and development issues both in policy dialogue and in programming. Externally, CIDA’s initiatives in human and children’s rights in Colombia complement the focus of Foreign Affairs’ Global Peace and Security Fund on peace building, stabilization, and truth and justice. Local funds and Foreign Affairs’ Global Peace and Security Fund support the integration of reconstruction activities and longer-term development initiatives.

Persistent violence in the field leads the program to support projects intimately linked to humanitarian efforts and to the basic protection needs of affected populations. The relationship between humanitarian assistance and longer-term development work is dynamic, interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Nevertheless, several interviewees indicated that further efforts could be directed at vulnerable groups such as AfroColombians and indigenous peoples.^{Footnote 24}

External coherence with programs of other donors has been built around the human rights agenda and peace-building efforts. The main donors have contributed to the drafting of the Government of Colombia’s national cooperation platform, which includes human rights, peace-building and environmental protection. Significantly, Colombia’s adoption of the monitoring and reporting mechanism for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1612 was the result of a long and complex advocacy effort by the international community and civil society, in part led by Canada.^{Footnote 25}

Canada has also been active in the G-24, a group of 24 countries and international institutions that have an ongoing and constructive dialogue with the Colombian government and civil society on issues of development, peace and human rights. Canada has twice chaired the G-24 and presided over the G-24’s Cooperation SubGroup. Finally, Canada was instrumental in encouraging the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to develop a Common Humanitarian Framework based on a Needs Analysis Framework and agreed-on positions on key humanitarian concerns.

Among donors, Canada has been a catalyst in recent efforts to coordinate activities within the country. However, while there appears to be agreement on policy direction, many respondents seem to think that donors could do more to share intelligence and ensure coherence of their programs.

2.2 Efficiency - Satisfactory

Empirical data on the relative cost-effectiveness of CIDA’s work compared to other country programs, or the Colombia programming carried out by other donors, was not found. However, CIDA has assembled a well-qualified multidisciplinary team and much of the programming reviewed appears to be managed efficiently. Decision-making processes that take place in Colombia appear to be swift and taken within set periods.

Consistent with CIDA’s designation of Colombia as a country of focus, plans are in place to decentralize the day-to-day administration of CIDA’s Colombia operations to the embassy in Bogotá.

All of the organizations supported by CIDA are well established, highly respected organizations with considerable networks in their field. Most have operated for a number of years in Nariño Department, and in many respects are the only organizations capable of delivering assistance in the Department, where the security situation precludes the government as well as many non-governmental organizations from operating safely and effectively.

As a country in conflict, Colombia poses special challenges for international donors. This underscores the need to secure minimum operational conditions to ensure the security of both the implementers and beneficiaries of development projects; and to align operations with the “do no harm” principle. Historically, CIDA has taken an appropriately cautious approach when supporting implementing partner institutions (be they international or non-governmental organizations) in Colombia. This approach may best be described as “testing the waters” of the partners’ ability to effectively deliver programming at the project-level before shifting to more general program support for their work. Such an approach explains, in part, the strong relationships CIDA maintains with its current partners. This approach is appropriate given the realities of programming in the country.

2.3 Management Principles – Highly Satisfactory

The evaluation assessed the program in relation to the management principles outlined in the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness which envisages: (1) a partner country exercising ownership by improving their own institutions and setting their own strategies for development; (2) the alignment of the donor countries behind these objectives; and (3) the harmonization of the donors’ activities to simplify coordination, share information and avoid duplication.

The program performed best in the Department of Nariño interventions. CIDA achieved significant gains in harmonization of aid delivery by promoting information-sharing and by conducting joint- assessment exercises.

The Colombian government has strongly asserted its priorities, and its institutions have been able to present their concerns and demands. Alignment has generally been increasing between international cooperation and the Colombian government’s demands. Colombia invokes the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and asks donors to work through the ministries rather than using non-governmental or United Nations organisations. There has been an ongoing dialogue between CIDA and the Colombian government about the feasibility of future CIDA-funded programs/projects being executed directly by a Government ministry or agency. CIDA’s decision to work closely with the Nariño Department governor on the design of the United Nations Development Programme’s Creciendo Juntos Project demonstrated a willingness to support ownership by a departmental government under certain conditions.

Canada spearheaded efforts to organize a Bogotá-based donor coordination committee starting in 2003. It provided the initial leadership for this group and continues to be active under the current leadership of the Netherlands. The committee plays a useful role in sharing intelligence and programming experience, as well as promoting synergy and coordination.

2.4 Performance Management – Moderately Satisfactory

The evaluation assessed the program’s performance management by asking how effectively it applied CIDA’s results-based management and risk-management tools, deployed an exit strategy, integrated lessons learned and recommendations stemming from prior CIDA evaluations, and participated in joint- or mutual- accountability exercises with its partners.

During the review period, CIDA improved the consistency and thoroughness with which it pursued results-based management (RBM) in its programming in Colombia. The Agency earned a reputation among its Colombian partners for promoting RBM principles and using them effectively in project design, implementation, and performance management. Assessments of risk and the incorporation of this analysis into new project designs and arrangements for project implementation rested on appropriate and reliable intelligence gathered and analyzed by CIDA staff. More could be done within CIDA to ensure the systematic identification of all types of risks (operational, development, reputational and financial), and their corresponding mitigation measures, in addition to systematic monitoring of risks and reporting.

The evaluation also established that the program managers were aware of, and consistently used, the following key policy documents: the 2003 Policy on Promoting Sustainable Rural Development through Agriculture; the 2003 Private Sector Development Policy; the 2006 Sustainable Development Strategy; the 1992 and 2010 Gender Equality Policies; the three thematic priority strategies from 2009; the Government of Canada’s 2007 Strategy for the Americas; and the 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector.

The program started implementing the current Logic Model and Performance Management Framework in the last year of the review period (2010-2011). Refinements are still needed in the Performance Management Framework in securing baseline data and establishing targets for certain indicators. A few observations about their implementation can be made.

First, current indicators do not adequately capture the breadth of progress related to CIDA’s intervention in Colombia. Statistical figures (i.e. numbers of internally displaced persons, children enrolled in school, etc.) do not always accurately describe the work being funded by CIDA. The effect on beneficiaries of training school teachers, repairing schools, and providing health and labour services to displaced people is not well captured. Perhaps most significantly, national-level frameworks on child rights and protection are being altered, as a result of projects/programs by the International Labour Office, United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Inter-American Children’s Institute, Save the Children Canada, PLAN, and others, to safeguard conflict and labour-affected children and children in general.

Second, opportunities to learn lessons have been missed as a result of declining attention to project-level evaluations. The scarcity and uneven quality of comprehensive project-level evaluations (6 projects out of 62 over five years) is an obstacle in the satisfactory completion of program-level evaluations such as this one.^{Footnote 26}

Third, in some instances, funds earmarked for evaluations in project budgets were cut or reallocated. The shortage of information for use in performance management may have been partially compensated for by the program managers’ encouragement to executing agencies to strengthen their own monitoring and evaluation arrangements, and by the isolated instances of CIDA contracting external monitors. There is at least one example of an executing agency commissioning an evaluation independently of CIDA.^{Footnote 27}

Finally, the Logic Model presented in the 2010-2015 CDPF clearly recognizes the key importance of the interplay between enhanced protection of the rights of the most vulnerable groups and their social and economic progress. Complementarity between these two themes helps ensure sustainable results.

3.0 Analysis of the Project Sample

Relevance proved to be the highest-rated indicator (4.6 average), followed closely by management principles (4.2 average).^{Footnote 28} These scores indicate that projects across all three thematic areas were well aligned with CIDA and Colombian priorities, and had fairly high degrees of adherence to the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness principles of local ownership and harmonization. Scores for effectiveness, sustainability, coherence, efficiency, and performance management were generally equal across all thematic areas, with a narrow scoring range of 3.8 to 4.1. The scoring suggests that the CIDA Colombia Program has been very consistent in supporting initiatives and partner organizations that have been dependable in delivering development assistance.

Table 3 sets out the average assessment ratings for projects within each thematic sector.

The evaluation sample reviewed twenty initiatives, sixteen managed by Geographic Programs Branch (GPB), and four by the Partnership with Canadians Branch (PWCB). While PWCB initiatives scored lower relative to GPB in terms of relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability (4.0, 3.8, and 3.6 respectively), their interventions were rated more highly in terms of crosscutting themes. PWCB has been more successful in incorporating crosscutting themes into their projects with local non-governmental organisations than is typically the case in working with international or public sector bodies.

Generally speaking, one indicator stands out as being well below the rest. Inclusion of crosscutting issues within projects was uniformly rated poorly by the evaluation team and served to lower overall scores across all three thematic areas. Incorporation of gender equality has been a recurring shortcoming in all three sectors, though projects in strengthening basic education have addressed this issue better than projects in private sector development and democratic governance.

Gender equality as a concept is still misunderstood and programming in gender equality inadequately oriented. Though most partners react positively to CIDA’s requirements on gender equality, many do not have a clear understanding of gender analysis, how to integrate it in programming, and what it implies in terms of resources and work. Most likely, the successful incorporation of a gender-sensitive perspective at the project level is dependent on the internal dynamics of partner organizations and factors such as appropriate supervision. In many situations, further effort is needed to ensure that partner organizations more fully demonstrate their understanding and commitment to gender equality through specific actions.

With respect to the environment, scoring was not possible for many projects. Especially in the Democratic Governance sector, there appear to have been few environmental considerations and little relevant on-the-ground activity. All of the Project Approval Documents for the sampled Governance and Education projects indicated that there were no environmental considerations. In the cases where scoring was feasible, notably in the Private Sector Development area, ratings varied from non-satisfactory to satisfactory.

CIDA has supported a number of democratic governance and education initiatives in Nariño that focus on providing access to education while at the same time promoting peace building and human rights. Two such projects were implemented by United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and Plan Canada, in concert with Colombian nongovernmental organisations and government partners. The UNICEF initiative, while nominally promoting legislation and national development plans to protect children and youth, also acted to assist displaced children at the local level to acquire education where no access was otherwise possible. Plan Canada, for its part, focused on peacebuilding and addressing cultures of violence for disaffected and marginalized youth in Nariño, specifically in the coastal town of Tumaco, by assisting youth to become active participants in peace-building processes and to avoid joining armed groups.

Each of these projects made positive impacts on the lives of children and youth in Nariño. Youth reported that they had a tremendously significant impact on their ability to deal with the grim conflict situation and to give them hope for the future through access to education. Many positive unintended consequences also emerged from the projects such as the spontaneous creation of youth organizations promoting human rights and peace within their families and communities. Ultimately, these projects are about providing tools for children and youth to face and deal with the harsh realities of the conflict, and a safe place within which to do so. These projects highlight the importance of CIDA’s strategic decision to focus development programming on children and youth in the most vulnerable geographical locations. They are good examples of Canada’s wellearned reputation of being at the forefront of child rights and protection in Colombia.

The International Program for the Eradication of Child Labour (IPEC) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) conducted a 24-month project aimed at effectively implementing a national policy on the prevention and elimination of the worst forms of child labour by local authorities in the department of Tolima. At the outset of the project, IPEC-ILO underscored the obligations of local authorities, as established in national law, to help improve the quality of education and to promote programs aimed at the creative use of free time. Local authorities committed to complying with their obligations, and formalized this commitment in official inter-institutional coordination bodies. The initiative is a good example of the joint action of national and local authorities, under a decentralized administrative scheme, and the dynamism that can be injected by the international community at the local level (in this case, ILO) to promote compliance with existing standards. The project has successfully encouraged local authorities to meet goals related to the eradication of the worst forms of child labour.

Additionally, in order to promote sustainability, IPEC-ILO engaged the national authority in charge of executive oversight to conduct both preventive and disciplinary supervision of all authorities with a legal obligation to eradicate the worst forms of child labour (namely the Procuraduría General de la Nación) in the department of Tolima. The Procuraduría serves as a watchdog to ensure compliance with the law and, in turn, contributes to the prevention of child labour in the department, as it warns authorities that they cannot remain passive in the face of the worst forms of child labour.This subproject is a successful experience in using the national legal regime as an incentive for appropriate and diligent action by authorities. It is also representative of a good practice in ensuring sustainability of the intervention beyond the period of the Canadian investment.

Another observation is that the Local Fund for Governance & Children Rights and Protection has been employed effectively by CIDA staff in Bogotá to rapidly provide funding for pertinent initiatives that have generally produced solid results. Ratings were generally lowest for the regional initiatives. This may be attributed partly to the fact that all of the initiatives in the sample were not focused on Colombia exclusively; they operated over a number of countries, both in Latin America and globally. As such, they were not tailored to the Colombian context.

4.0 Conclusions, Lessons and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusions

The evaluation describes a program that created a relevant and coherent approach for the vulnerable children and youth of war-torn Colombia. The program’s choice to focus on democratic governance (including human and child rights protection), strengthening basic education, and private sector development, coincided well with the development needs and priorities of Colombia and its government.

Over the program’s life, its strategy evolved to reflect changing priorities at CIDA and within the Government of Canada. The choice to focus geographically on Nariño Department, and to engage with a range of local and international partners with the capacity to operate in areas where the needs are greatest, was successful. Moreover, the Agency used a blend of programming modalities and investment sizes to effectively and efficiently disburse its increased budgetary allocations.

CIDA distinguished itself in the international cooperation community by the organizational innovations it brought to country-level programming in Colombia - in part because of continuity and commitment in staffing; a movement towards decentralization that permitted increased hands-on supervision; clarity of purpose; and an assurance of continued program funding at historically high levels.

CIDA operations are highly regarded by partners, both for the work undertaken on specific projects and for its commitment to supporting institutional processes. In addition, CIDA garners recognition within the international community for its role in protecting and promoting child rights.

Important advances have been made in gender equality, application of results-based management principles and policy dialogue. Policy and leadership commitments for the mainstreaming of gender equality and environmental sustainability are necessary, but not sufficient to guarantee that gender equality and environment are effectively embedded in programs and projects. A clear strategy and appropriate mechanisms need to be established to effectively integrate crosscutting themes in all activities. This applies to CIDA and to its partners.

Coherence with programs of other donors has been maintained on policy grounds as a result of the convergence of many international actors to the human rights agenda and peace-building efforts. CIDA has assembled a well-qualified multidisciplinary team in Colombia in preparation for decentralization, and much of the programming reviewed by the evaluation team is being supervised efficiently. Alignment between international cooperation and the Colombian government’s demands has been generally increasing.

Refinements are still needed in the Performance Management Framework in terms of securing baseline data and establishing targets for certain indicators. Current indicators do not adequately capture the breadth of progress related to CIDA’s intervention in Colombia. Also, opportunities to learn lessons have been missed as a result of declining attention to project-level evaluations. CIDA’s programs would benefit from determining an appropriate approach to project-level evaluations.

As a result of the strategic focus on children’s rights and the worst forms of labour and child recruitment in armed conflict, CIDA has increased its ability to influence policy and programming in the children and youth sector in Colombia. CIDA’s multidisciplinary approach (through joint efforts between the CIDA Program, partners and Canadian embassy) more fully integrates the causes and consequences of armed conflict into programming. This type of approach also takes into account the dynamic relationship between humanitarianism, human rights-governance sector and economic growth, rather than considering each in isolation.

4.2 Lessons

With Colombia’s context of ongoing violence and conflict, the government cannot always guarantee the protection of human rights, particularly in rural areas and marginal urban settlements. Though the government and its armed forces seek to exercise jurisdiction nationwide, the effectiveness of their authority is, at best, uncertain in the areas most affected by conflict. Given the absence of the state in some of these areas, distrust and even antipathy can exist in entire communities. This can make for a challenging context for international cooperation aimed at achieving development goals.

In situations of endemic conflict there are also additional risks for communities and community leaders, as armed actors (both legal and illegal) attempt to engage them in their war effort. Social and community leaders can be vulnerable to coercion or deadly violence. International cooperation agencies need to be very mindful of this situation and ensure that they “do no harm” in the communities in which they work. Before conducting highly visible activities, minimum security and protection guarantees need to be in place. Caution and reflection need to be exercised to ensure that development efforts do not contribute to the war effort and do not put beneficiaries at risk.

The current conflict affects all dimensions of community life, including the provision of basic needs (such as food and water supply) and basic services (such as health care and education). Armed actors regulate social and economic activity, both licit and illicit, across entire territories. In addition to imposing levies on economic activities, armed actors closely monitor and sanction social activities within the communities. Just as individual and collective behaviour is subject to controls by the armed groups, so are activities stemming from international cooperation. This requires concerted effort to evaluate security incidents and potential risks, and makes investment in building relationships with partners crucial.

In conflict settings, it is important to design interventions with a clear understanding of the context, and to allow for adaptability as conditions change. The program has implicitly internalized this reality, but its analytic work could further benefit by including a range of scenarios that would help the Agency to better forecast risks and respond to changing situations in the field. Other bilateral programs active in Colombia have developed, either locally or in the capitals, guidelines to address development programs in the midst of conflict or mass human rights violations. Such guidelines would be useful for CIDA and its partners.

Measuring achievement of long-term results is inherently problematic given the uncertainties of a conflict situation. Violence only permits progress when it abates, usually for reasons and under conditions outside of the program’s control. Sometimes only short-term results can be reliably predicted and measured.

In order to better assess the effectiveness of the program in relation to poverty reduction, CIDA could consider conducting a baseline study on poverty in its area of operation. The program’s effectiveness over time, and the long-term impact of the social intervention, would more easily be determined based on such a study.

CIDA’s general policies for development assistance do not explicitly consider action in a setting where the armed conflict is protracted and national life has stabilized around the conflict. The Colombian context is particular, but not unique. The Government of Canada Policy for CIDA on Human Rights, Democratization and Good Governance includes a brief mention of conflict prevention, but does not foresee situations where development work takes place in the context of conflict. Moreover, current policy documents and guidelines do not make a distinction between fragile states (i.e. those failing to provide basic services) and states with areas in conflict (i.e. those with a strong economy and government, but fragile spaces experiencing conflict).The country program could benefit from guidelines, for example with respect to conflict analysis, which take these realities into account.^{Footnote 29 Footnote 30} CIDA’s Policy Branch might be invited to undertake work in this area.

4.3 Recommendations

Recommendation #1:
The program should review its role and its tools, including its policy dialogue agenda with the Government of Colombia and other donors, on gender equality and environmental sustainability. To ensure mainstreaming of crosscutting themes, an action plan needs to integrate these themes into the design, implementation and monitoring of CIDA’s interventions, and to provide appropriate levels of human and financial resources.

Recommendation #2:
More attention to performance management is needed, including the identification of baseline data and targets for certain indicators.

Appendix A – Evaluation methodology and indicators

The approach and methodology used for the Colombia CPE are designed to reflect CIDA’s experience carrying out country and regional program evaluations, as well as in the application of a growing body of principles aiming to improve the effectiveness of development assistance. In addition to the overarching conceptual framework provided by Results-Based Management (RBM), key influences in the latter area have been international forums such as the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and Accra High Level Forum (2008) and best practice guidance materials such as the quality standards for development evaluation published by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC 2010)^{Footnote 31} .

CIDA’s Evaluation Directorate has provided detailed guidance for evaluation teams preparing to undertake CPEs, namely the July 2011 version of the Evaluation Directorate’s Compendium of Tools for Program Evaluations (CIDA 2011)^{Footnote 32}. CIDA has also specified standard questions recommended by the OECD-DAC for the design of its program evaluations (see Table 1); one key question addresses development results, the other management factors. The four evaluation criteria used to analyze development results are: relevance, effectiveness, sustainability and crosscutting issues. The four evaluation criteria used for analysis of management factors are: coherence, efficiency, management principles, and performance management.

The Colombia CPE was undertaken at three different levels of detail. The first of these, the project level, is implemented through the analysis of a sample of projects chosen from different programming areas and implemented through different delivery mechanisms. While this level of detail is crucial for subsequent steps in the evaluation, it cannot be pursued with the rigour or attention that would be required for a project evaluation. Accordingly, the evaluation team was asked not to formulate recommendations to CIDA with respect to specific projects, with one exception. CIDA’s Colombia Program requested that the team allocate attention to analyzing, and if necessary presenting recommendations about the Local Fund for Children’s Rights and Protection (CRP). The second level of analysis requiring the evaluation team’s attention was the programming area or sector. In the Colombia CPE, these areas are Democratic Governance (including Children’s Rights and Protection), Private Sector Development and Strengthening Basic Education. A representation of each of these sectors is present in the complete listing of CIDA projects/programs undertaken in Colombia, as provided in the Evaluation Background Profile for this assignment.^{Footnote 33} Additionally, two crosscutting issues, Gender Equality and Environmental Sustainability, were reviewed at the project and sector levels, even though there are scarcely any designated gender or environment projects in Colombia.

The third type of analysis occurred at the program level. In this endeavour, the evaluation team considered the key evaluation questions and the various evaluation criteria for the program as a whole. As shown in Table 2, somewhat different evaluation indicators were used at the program-level compared to those employed in assessing the sampled projects.

Table 1 Key Evaluation Questions and Standard Definitions for the Evaluation Criteria

Question 1: Relevance (1)

Development Results: What has been achieved?

The extent to which the objectives of the development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities, and partners’ and donors’ policies, the appropriateness of development interventions in a given sector, region or country.

Question 1: Effectiveness (1)

Development Results: What has been achieved?

The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.

Question 1: Sustainability (1)

Development Results: What has been achieved?

The continuation of the benefits from a development intervention after major development assistance has been completed. The probability of continued long-term benefits. The resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time.

Question 1: Crosscutting Issues

Development Results: What has been achieved?

The treatment of the crosscutting issues the program established, namely gender equality, environment, and governance.

Question 2: Coherence

Management Factors: How and why were the intended results achieved (or not)?

i) External coherence will look at coordination activities and policy dialogue with national and other international actors; ii) internal coherence will examine the role of the CIDA program in coordinating CIDA’s delivery channels and Canada’s whole of government efforts.

Question 2: Efficiency (1)

Management Factors: How and why were the intended results achieved (or not)?

A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc) are converted to results. Given that cost-efficiency and costeffectiveness may be complex and difficult to assess at the program level, the CPE will review the delivery systems (decentralization, Program Support Unit) and mix of resources (local, technical resources) at headquarters and in the field.

Question 2: Management Principles (2)

Management Factors: How and why were the intended results achieved (or not)?

In relation to Paris Declaration principles of ownership (developing countries set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions, tackle corruption), alignment (donor countries align behind these objectives and use local systems), and harmonization (donor coordinate, simplify procedures, share info to avoid duplication).

Question 2: Performance Management

Management Factors: How and why were the intended results achieved (or not)?

A management strategy for assessing the performance of development interventions against stated results (outputs, outcomes, impacts), including results-based management (RBM) and monitoring/evaluation functions, risk management, and timely corrective action to address problems when they arise.

1. OECD-DAC, Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, OECD, 2002
2. OECD-DAC, Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, OECD, Paris, February-March 2005

Source: CIDA, 2011, Draft Terms of Reference (TORs) for the Colombia Country Program Evaluation

Table 2: Rating Key

Range (Qualitative and Quantitative): Highly Satisfactory (4.1 – 5.0)

Assessment Indicators: The project meets all the assessment indicators for the given criteria

Range (Qualitative and Quantitative): Satisfactory (3.1 – 4.0)

Assessment Indicators: The project meets the main assessment indicators for the given criteria

Range (Qualitative and Quantitative): Somewhat Satisfactory (2.1 – 3.0)

Assessment Indicators: The project meets some of the assessment indicators for the given criteria

Range (Qualitative and Quantitative): Unsatisfactory (1.1 – 2.0)

Assessment Indicators: The project does not meet the main assessment indicators for the given criteria

Range (Qualitative and Quantitative): Highly unsatisfactory (0 – 1.0)

Assessment Indicators: The project does not meet any of the assessment indicators for the given criteria

Range (Qualitative and Quantitative): Not Applicable (N/A)

Assessment Indicators: The project does not warrant a score due to its programming nature

Table 3: Program-Level Evaluation Indicators

Evaluation Criteria: 1. Relevance

Project-Level Evaluation Indicators in relation to:
Country needs: Country development plans (PRSP), Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) CIDA policy: Poverty Reduction, Sustainable Development Canada’s priorities: CIDA Country strategy (CDPF), foreign policy objectives (DFAIT)

Evaluation Criteria: 2. Effectiveness

Project-Level Evaluation Indicators in relation to:
Effectiveness in achieving results at the outcome level (and impact if available based on secondary data) in relation to:

Poverty reduction
Project/sector/institutional objectives
Cost-effectiveness per result unit

Evaluation Criteria: 3. Sustainability

Project-Level Evaluation Indicators in relation to:
Time needed to attain the results (life of the project: 3-5 years) Institutional capacity to maintain the results (after the project) Financial capacity to sustain the results (after the project)

Evaluation Criteria: 4. Crosscutting Issues

Project-Level Evaluation Indicators in relation to:
Treatment of each CCI (gender equality and environment, other if applicable) in relation to:

Policy dialogue
Quality of analysis (including existence and appropriateness of baseline – with sex-disaggregated data for gender equality)
Existence, relevance, and implementation of a strategy for the CCI
Existence of, and reporting on explicit CCI indicators, targets and results
Dedicated resources (budget, human resources, etc.) allocated to CCI

Evaluation Criteria: 5. Coherence

Project-Level Evaluation Indicators in relation to:
Internal coherence within CIDA (delivery models/mechanisms and channels)
External coherence in the context of international efforts (donor coordination)
Coherence in the context of Canadian whole-of-government efforts

Evaluation Criteria: 6. Efficiency

Project-Level Evaluation Indicators in relation to:
Efficiency in use of human resources(e.g. staff turn-over)
Efficiency in use of financial resources(e.g. ratio of O&M+PSU to G&Cs)
Time needed to approve, manage, and monitor

Evaluation Criteria: 7. Management Principles

Project-Level Evaluation Indicators in relation to:
Ownership (developing countries set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions, tackle corruption) Alignment (donor countries align behind these objectives and use local systems)
Harmonization (donors coordinate, simplify procedures, share info to avoid duplication)

Evaluation Criteria: 8. Performance Management

Project-Level Evaluation Indicators in relation to:
Results-Based Management (per CIDA guidelines)
Risk management (per CIDA guidelines)
CIDA monitoring & evaluation (M&E)
Branch-led M&E activities at the project/sector/institutional level
Joint M&E activities with other donors (or division of labour between donors)
Mutual accountability mechanisms (or activities to build local M&E capacity)

Source: CIDA, 2011, Draft Terms of Reference (TORs) for the Colombia Country Program Evaluation

Sampling and Data Gathering Methods

The evaluation team sought to answer the evaluation questions by gathering, analyzing and discussing information from a variety of sources, namely:

A review of documentation that is relevant because it supplies background context, information at the program level or information at a project level; Semi-structured interviews with selected individuals (key informants) who are representative of key stakeholder groups and knowledgeable about CIDA’s work in Colombia; On-site visits to a limited number of projects/institutions; and Roundtable discussions among members of the evaluation team with CIDA officials.

Appendix B lists the reference documents which were accessed at the background and program levels, together with a selection of project-level documentation which the team found useful. This material was initially provided by CIDA HQ; supplementary materials were then made available by the implementing partners and/or the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá.

The evaluation team placed particular importance on reviewing completed evaluations which pertain to the sampled projects/programs. The existence of such documents – unfortunately not as widely available as the evaluation team would wish -- greatly aids in the evaluability of projects/programs. When they were available and relevant, completed evaluations prepared for agencies other than CIDA were also reviewed.

Besides document reviews, the evaluation team conducted over sixty interviews in Canada and Colombia, many of them face-to-face, with key informants belonging to a variety of stakeholder groupings. The main stakeholder groups in the evaluation are described in Table 4. A listing of interviewees is provided in Appendix C. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive; in several situations the semi-structured interview took the form of a conversation between an evaluator and a group of individuals (one interview in Tumaco regarding the UNDP project involved 55 persons).

Table 4 Main Stakeholder Groupings Used in Arranging Interviews

Stakeholder Grouping:
Program managers and project officers at CIDA HQ and at the Canadian Embassy

Examples:
Managers and officers-in-charge of Colombia programs in CIDA’s bilateral and partnership branches

Stakeholder Grouping:
Managers and officers-in-charge at executing or implementing agencies

Examples:
Managers and officers-in-charge in Canadian or Colombian NGOs and UN agencies responsible for sampled projects/programs

Stakeholder Grouping:
Local partners/beneficiaries

Examples:
Individuals who have been involved in on-theground implementation of the sampled CIDAfunded Colombia projects/ programs either as implementers or as beneficiaries

Stakeholder Grouping:
Representatives of government or civil society

Examples:
Individuals in a departmental or municipal government who have been exposed to CIDAfunded Colombia projects/programs and/or the sampled projects/programs

Stakeholder Grouping:
Representatives of other organizations active in development cooperation in Colombia

Examples:
Individuals in other development cooperation agencies such as the Spanish agency AECID, DFID, USAID, and Swedish SIDA who are knowledgeable about CIDA-funded activities in Colombia

The program-level and project-level indicators, organized under the DAC evaluation criteria (and shown in Table 2), form the basis for the evaluation team’s interview protocols and assessment grids. These and other methodological details are addressed in the evaluation team’s Work Plan dated September 9, 2011.

As a matter of course, and in an effort to best utilize the limited amount of time available in many interview situations, team members sought to customize their interview protocols as much as possible. The team took full advantage of the offers made by program managers at CIDA and staff at the Canadian Embassy to introduce the team and the purpose of the evaluation. In some situations in Colombia, a Canadian Embassy representative sat in on the interview in order to provide necessary background information to both the informant and the evaluators.

The selection of projects for analysis was achieved following a review of the data provided by CIDA on the overall Colombia investment portfolio during the review period (i.e. the evaluation background profile), and consultations with managers in CIDA’s Evaluation Directorate, Colombia Program, and PWCB.

The Evaluation Directorate identified 62 Colombia CIDA-funded projects/programs that were operating during the period of 2006-20077 to 2010-2011 (or during a portion of that period), and had a budget of at least $250,000. The total value of these projects was approximately $64.9 million.

The terms of reference stipulate that:

• the sample should represent at least half (50%) of the total budget of CIDA disbursements in Colombia;
• the project sample within each of the three sectors amount to at least 50% of the sectoral value within the sampling pool;
• the sample include projects/programs from bilateral (Colombia Country Program), and Partnership Branches; and
• the sample include directive and responsive delivery modalities, as well as Local Funds.

A characterization of the projects/programs selected by the evaluation team and their relationship to the above-specified criteria is shown below in Table 5 and its associated text.

The project sample includes a diverse variety of partners, among them UN and international bodies (ILO, UNICEF, UNHCR, OHCHR, IIN), Colombian and regional entities (ECOFONDO, CIAT and ARPEL), and Canadian organizations (Save the Children, Plan Canada, CESO, Development and Peace and HRSDC).

The project sample consisted of 20 projects; this number includes one Local Fund and 19 responsive projects. There are no instances of a directive project within the sample.

It should be noted that the Local Fund for Governance and Children’s Rights and Protection (LFG&CRP) contains a total of eleven sub-projects, two of which (ILO/Prevention Worst Forms of Child Labour and UNICEF/Training Police and Military) are specifically listed in the sample. In order to assess the performance and effectiveness of the Local Fund, six sub-projects in total were examined in summary fashion (including the two in the sample list).

In addition to the project sample, the evaluators were asked to briefly review a CIDAsupported UNDP project which commenced in 2010. Although few results have been reported on it to date, this project is closer to being directive than responsive in nature, especially considering the contribution of both CIDA and the local authorities in the project design. The new UNDP project is expected to be illustrative of CIDA’s changing programming priorities in Colombia as the program evolves in the future.

Appendix B – Sources reviewed

Table 1 Main Stakeholder Groupings Used in Arranging Interviews

Stakeholder Grouping:
Program managers and project officers at CIDA HQ and at the Canadian Embassy

Examples:
Managers and officers-in-charge of Colombia programs in CIDA’s bilateral and partnership branches

Stakeholder Grouping:
Managers and officers-in-charge at executing or implementing agencies

Examples:
Managers and officers-in-charge in Canadian or Colombian NGOs and UN agencies responsible for sampled projects/programs

Stakeholder Grouping:
Local partners/beneficiaries

Examples:
Individuals who have been involved in on-theground implementation of the sampled CIDA-funded Colombia projects/ programs either as implementers or as beneficiaries

Stakeholder Grouping:
Representatives of government or civil society

Examples:
Individuals in a departmental or municipal government who have been exposed to CIDAfunded Colombia projects/programs and/or the sampled projects/programs

Stakeholder Grouping:
Representatives of other organizations active in development cooperation in Colombia

Examples:
Individuals in other development cooperation agencies such as the Spanish agency AECID, DFID, USAID, and Swedish SIDA who are knowledgeable about CIDA-funded activities in Colombia

Appendix C – List of key informants

Over the duration of the evaluation, a variety of informants provided invaluable information for the Evaluation Team both in Canada and in the field. Crucial details on Colombia and CIDA’s Colombia Program greatly assisted the Review Team in the production of this report. The following is a truncated version of the key informants divided over three areas: Program-Level (CIDA), Project-Level, and Others. The evaluators acknowledge that many other stakeholders and project beneficiaries participated in the process of this evaluation.

Program-Level in Canada:

Gateane Pouliot, Program Manager, Colombia Program, Americas Branch, CIDA (Gatineau)
Susan Learoyd, Program Manager, Partnership with Canadians Branch, CIDA (Gatineau)
Jane Touzel, Retired, formerly Program Manager, Colombia Program, Americas Branch, CIDA (Gatineau)
Alain Grenier, Director, International Labour Program, HRSDC, formerly Program Manager – Development Assistance, Canadian Embassy in Bogotá (Gatineau)
Denis Marcheterre, Evaluation Manager (Gatineau)

Program-Level in Colombia:

Joshua Tabah, Program Manager – Development Assistance, Canadian Embassy (Bogotá)
Development Assistance Staff of the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá: Francesca Bellone, Diana Muñoz and Maria Paula Martínez,
Sara Cohen, Head, Political Section, Canadian Embassy (Bogotá)
Jean-Pierre Hamel, Trade Commissioner, Canadian Embassy (Bogotá)

Project-Level in Canada:

CIDA Project Officers and Senior Project Officers:
Susanne Trachsel of the Americas Branch (Gatineau)
Frances Cosstick, Claude Landry, and Kati Lion-Villager of Partnership with Canadians Branch (Gatineau)
Dean Moser and Annick Amyot of the Inter-American Program (Gatineau)

CIDA Sector Specialists

Paul Ragusa, Oil and Gas Specialist, Geographic Programs Branch (Gatineau)
David Johnstone, Agriculture, Geographic Programs Branch (Gatineau)

CIDA Gender Specialists

Claire Fishlock, Americas Branch (Gatineau)
Joelle Barbot, formerly with Americas Branch (Gatineau)
Elisabeth Anctil, Partnership with Canadians Branch (Gatineau)

CIDA Environment Specialists

Moreno Padilla, Americas Branch (Gatineau)
Sheila Riordon, Partnership with Canadians Branch (Gatineau)

CIDA Education Specialist

Odette Langlais, Geographic Programs Branch (Gatineau)

Save the Children Canada

Patricia Erb, President & CEO (Toronto)
Marlen Mondaca, Technical Advisor, Child Protection and Gender (Toronto)

Plan Canada

Julie Thompson, Senior Program Manager (Toronto)

Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP)

Anne-Catherine Kennedy, Program Officer – Latin America (Montreal)

Canadian Executive Service Organization (CESO)

Gale Lee, VP International Services (Toronto)
Beatriz Munarriz, Program Manager (Toronto)
Flavia Barandiaran, Evaluation Officer (Toronto)
Alexa Carson, Program Officer (Toronto)

International Program for Professional Labour Administration (IPPLA):

Alain Grenier, Director, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (Gatineau)
Anique Bruce, Analyst, International Labour Program, HRSDC (Gatineau)

Project-Level in Colombia

ILO – Worst Forms of Child Labour (Local Fund sub-project)

Liliana Obregón, National Coordinador, IPEC Program (Bogotá)
Claudia Robayo, Project External Consultant (Bogotá)
Mario Castañeda, IPEC Technical and Financial Assistant (Bogotá)
Ana María Cabra Cortés, External Political Consultant (Bogotá)

OCHCR

Jaun Carlos Monge, Deputy Representative (Bogotá)
Auro Fraser, Coordinator, Security Sector Reforms (Bogotá)
Ines Margarita Uprimny, Protection Coordinator (Bogotá)
Satya Jennings, Human Rights Officer, Pasto Satellite OHCHR Office (Pasto)
Helena Ambrosi, Human Rights Office Director, International Humanitarian Law, Ministry of National Defense (Bogotá)

UNHCR

Terry Morel, Representative (Bogotá)
Manuel Oviendo Harrera, Bureau Chief (Bogotá)
Saskia Loochkart, Communications Officer (Bogotá)
Andrés Celis, Legal Officer (Bogotá)
Luiz Sztorch, South-West Bureau Chief (Pasto)
Rafael Navarro, Analyst, Early Warning System (Pasto)

UNICEF

Miriam de Figueroa, Representative (Bogotá)
Eduardo Gallardo, Child Protection Officer (Bogotá)

CCODP

Gustavo Hincapie, Communications Manager, Campesino Association (Medellín)
Carlos Alberto Otalvaro, Communications Officer, Campesino Association (Medellín)
Luz Estela Cifuentes, Legal Representative, Campesino Association (Medellín)
William Yafue, CRIC Representative (Medellín)
Gilberto Yafue, CRIC Representative (Medellín)
Nuri Yaguarí, OIA Representative (Medellín)

Andean Region Gender Fund

María Elisa Díaz, former Coordinator of the Gender Fund (Bogotá)
Janeth Lozano, CODACOP and Adviser to ONIC (Bogotá)
Ligia Galvis, External Evaluator (Bogotá)

IIN

Carolina Turiego, IIN Representative, Colombia (Bogotá)
Marco Moselli, International Cooperation Coordinator (Costa Rica)
Diana María Saenz, Child Liaison, Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (Bogotá)
Janeth Alemán Sánchez, Technical Liaison, Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (Bogotá)

ECOFONDO

Ligia Arregocés, Executive Director (Bogotá)
Javier Márquez, V-P of the Governing Board (Bogotá)
Patricia Gutiérrez, Administrative Coordinator (Bogotá)
Juan Camilo Mira, Technical Unit Coordinator (Bogotá)
Jules Audet, External Monitor (Ottawa)

Personnel of ADC (ECOFONDO local partner)

José Vicente Revelo, Director (Pasto)
Carmen Villota, Coordinator, (Pasto)
Personnel of the Minga Gualmatán (ADC local partner) including Rosio Rivera,
Coordinator of the Minga, and Raquel Maigual, Minga Member/Farmer (Gualmatán)

CESO

Personnel with local responsibilities for CESO cooperation
Katherine Frost, Executive Director FICITEC and CESO Representative in Colombia
(Bogotá)
Pilar Lozano Ramirez, Director of Cooperation, PROEXPORT (Bogotá)

IPPLA

Italo Cardona, Senior Specialist in Labour Relations, ILO Regional Office (Bogotá)
Melba Díaz, Director of Labour Protection, Ministry of Social Protection (Bogotá)
Gloria Gaviria, Head of International Relations, Ministry of Social Protection (Bogotá)

CIAT

Helena Pachón, Coordinator of the CIAT AgroSalud Project and Bernardo Ospina,
Executive Director, CLAYUCA (AgroSalud partner)(Cali)

Save the Children/Norwegian Refugee Council

Peter Laraus, Country Director – SCC (Bogotá)
Tim Murray, Education Coordinator – SCC (Bogotá)
Alejandra Bravo, Education Officer – SCC (Bogotá)
María Inés Cuadros Ferré, Program Coordinator – SCC (Bogotá)
Carmen Helena Chaves Acosta, Education Officer – SCC (Bogotá)
Paula Uribe, Education Officer – SCC (Tumaco, El Diviso and Pasto)
Atle Solberg, Country Director – NRC (Bogotá)
Manuel Rojas, Officer (Bogotá)
Staff of CEDECIS (Save the Children local partner) including Sonia Góez Orrego, Executive Director, and Carmen Alicia Rave Gonzalez (Medellín)

Plan

Eliana Restrepo, Deputy Director (Bogotá)
Gabriela Luna, National Project Manager (Bogotá)
Martha Espinoza, Director, Nariño Department (Tumaco)
Jamie Reina, Youth Advisor (Tumaco)

UNDP

Staff of the UNDP responsible for Creciendo Juntos Project:
Silvia Rucks, Country Director, UNDP (Bogotá)
James Fabian Ibarra, Technical Coordinator (Bogotá)
Carolina Naranjo, Program Officer (Bogotá)
María Elena Ordoñez, Gender Specialist Bogotá)
Carolina Hernao, Financial Administration (Tumaco)
Carlos Alberto Ayala, Monitoring & Evaluation (Tumaco)

Other Key Relevant Stakeholder Meetings

Roundtable Meeting of International Cooperation Representatives (Bogotá)
Miguel González, AECID (Spanish Cooperation)
Emma Nilenfors, ASDI (Swedish Cooperation)
Harman Idema, Netherlands
Adiano Küpfer, COSUDE (Swiss Cooperation)
Nadereh Lee, USAID
José Luis de Francisco, EU

Staff of the Colombia Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Bogotá)

María Andrea Albán, Director of International Cooperation
Daniela Mutis, Advisor
Diana Guarín, Consultant
Enrique Maruri, former Director of International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Bogotá)

Staff of Acción Social (Bogotá)

Jorge Prieto, Deputy Director for ODA
María Alejandra Mateus, Canada Desk Officer
Sandra Alzate, former Director of International Cooperation, Acción Social (Bogotá)
Lucia Vásquez, Coordinator of the Canadian Fund for Local Initiatives – CFLI (Bogotá)
Patricia Sanchez Jaramillo, Coordinator, Fondo Candiense para la Niñez (Bogotá)

Personnel in the Department of Nariño Administration (Pasto)

Fabio Trujillo, Secretary of the Department Government
Lilian Rodríguez, Head, Political and Social Affairs Office

Personnel in the City of Pasto Administration (Pasto)

Eduardo Alvarado, Mayor
Carmen Amalia Coral, Head of International Affairs
Diana de los Ríos Hidalgo, Administrative Director for Youth
Ana Isabel Obando, Psychologist, UAO – (Pasto)

Personnel in the Department of Nariño Education Secretariat (Pasto)

Jaime Rodríguez, Sub-Secretary for Educational Quality and Culture
Marcia Yepez, Sub-Secretary for Educational Coverage
Luís Ulpiano Tatamués García, Coordinator of Indigenous Education

Personnel in the Tumaco Education Secretariat (Tumaco)

Anibal Obando, Advisor, Education Secretariat
Yenith Solis, Education Coordinator
Edwin Correo, Education Coordinator

Appendix D – List of reference documents

The following list contains a selection of documents that the Evaluation Team reviewed for the Colombia CPE review. It is divided into three sections, CIDA documents, which correspond to 1) Program-level and background records; 2) Project-level, which highlight relevant documents reviewed for the twenty-one individual project and program initiatives (including UNDP), and 3) Others, which included additional documents of relevance. It should be noted that this is a truncated list, as the evaluators, especially during the field visit to Colombia, were provided with a multitude of additional materials by Colombia Program partner organizations. A selection of the most pertinent are provided below.

CIDA Documents

Evaluation tools for the Colombia CPE

CIDA. 2012. Evaluation of CIDA’s International Humanitarian Assistance: Draft Colombia Case Study. March 22, 2012, 8 pp.

CIDA. 2011. Colombia Program Overview of Country Program Performance 2009-2010. April 14, 2011, 4 pp.

CIDA. 2011. Colombia Program Annual Country Report 2010-2011. Geographic Programs Branch. December 2011, 6 pp.

CIDA. 2011. Draft Colombia Terms of Reference (TORs) for Country Program Evaluations (CPEs). Evaluation Directorate, Strategic Policy and Performance Branch, CIDA, May 2011, 23 pp.

CIDA. 2011. Compendium of Tools for Program Evaluations. Evaluation Directorate, Strategic Policy and Performance Branch, CIDA, Revised Version, July 2011, 39 pp.

CIDA. 2011. Evaluation Background Profile - Colombia Program FY 2006-07 to FY 2010-11. Prepared by Muhammad Akber Hussain, May 26, 2011, 22 pp.

CIDA. 2010. Country Select Data for PWCB Partners in Colombia. Excel file prepared November 2010, 2 pp.

CIDA. 2010. PWCB Programming in Colombia Overview. 13 December 2010. 4 pp.

CIDA. 2011. Civil Society Programming Questions for Colombia Evaluation. Prepared by PWCB. Draft of 14 July 2011, 2 pp.

CIDA. 2002. Country Development Programming Framework for Colombia 2002-2006 (“Brief CDPF”). 7 pp.

CIDA. 2003. Country Development Programming Framework for Colombia 2004-2008 (Interim CDPF”). Prepared by J. Touzel, August 2003. 27 pp.

CIDA. 2009. Country Development Programming Framework (CDPF) for Colombia 2010-2015: Final Version for President’s Approval. Prepared by J. Tabah, Colombia Program, Americas Directorate, December 2009, 26 pp. with annexes.

CIDA. 2007. CIDA Colombia Program 2008-2013 Strategic Framework on Children’s Rights & Protection. December 2007, 36 pp.

CIDA. 2008. Short Web-Version of Strategic Framework on Children’s Rights & Protection CIDA Colombia Program 2008-2013. February 2008, 7 pp.

CIDA. 2008. Colombia Country Programming Strategy (CPS). 9 pp.

CIDA. 2009. Colombia Country Programming Strategy (CPS). May 2009, 4 pp.

CIDA. Undated. Colombia Country Programming Strategy (Brief Version). 3 pp.

CIDA. 2010. Securing the Future of Children and Youth: CIDA’s Children and Youth Strategy. Complete version, 7 pp. Available at: http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Youth-and-Children/$file/children-youth-strategy-e.pdf

CIDA. 2011. Regional Program Evaluation of CIDA’s Inter-American Program. Technical reports prepared by PLAN:NET Limited and synthesis document prepared jointly by PLAN:NET and CIDA’s Evaluation Directorate.

CIDA. 2011. Evaluation of CIDA’s International Humanitarian Assistance - Final Work Plan. Evaluation Directorate, Strategic Policy and Performance Branch, CIDA, 24 June 2011, 95 pp.

Community Action Services Alliance. 2010. Breaking the Cycle of Violence: A Country Program Assessment of CIDA’s Thematic Focus on Children and Adolescents in Colombia. Prepared for CIDA by Virginia Thomas, Community Action Services Alliance, 6 January 2010, 88 ppCIDA. 2010. Gender Equality Policy and Tools:
CIDA’s Policy on Gender Equality. 11 pp. Available at: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Policy/$file/Policy-on-Gender-Equality-EN.pdf

CIDA. 2010. CIDA’s Gender Equality Action Plan 2010-2013. Available at http://acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NAD-101311435-KPF

Treasury Board. 2009. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Policy on Evaluation. April
2009. Available at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=15024

Government of Canada

DFAIT, 2009. Canada and the Americas: Priorities & Progress. Describes the 2007 “Canada’s Engagement in the Americas” Strategy, 22 pp.

Project/Partner Documents

Canada Local Fund for Governance

CIDA. 2006. Memorandum for the Vice President of the Americas Branch, Approval of a project valued at C$2 million over 5 years to support governance, human rights and human security efforts in Colombia: Local Fund for Governance and Security (2), signed 20 January 2006, 5pp.

CIDA. 2008. Memorandum for the Vice President of the Americas Branch, Decision – Program/Project Authority, South America/Colombia – Local Fund on Governance and Children’s Rights and Protection, signed 7 May 2008, 5pp. (including budget).

CIDA. 2009. 2008/2009 Program Performance Report for the Local Fund for Governance and CRP. 6 pp.

Gender Equality Assessments for the Local Fund for Governance sub-projects: RET (May 2009); Fundación Renacer (April 2009); ILO (April 2009); Corporación Encuentro (April 2009)

Project Reports and Summaries for all sub-projects

ILO – Worst Forms of Child Labour (Local Fund sub-project)

ILO, Project Summary “Project to decentralize the Eradication of the Worst Forms of Child Labor National Strategy in the Department of Tolima”, 7 pp.

UNICEF Police and Military Training (Local Fund sub-project)

UNICEF, Project Summary “Training for Police and Military Personnel in International Humanitarian Law and Child Rights”, 6pp.

OCHCR

CIDA. 2006. Project Approval Document (PAD), June 10, 2006, pp.11,includes background information but no annexes, (LFA, risk, gender and environmental assessments, etc.). However, it is noted that as CIDA’s support was general support to the organization, these may not have been present.

CIDA. 2006. Memorandum to the Minister, March 3, 2006, pp.7

CIDA. 2009. Annual Project Performance Report (APPR), 2009, pp.12

OCHCR. 2009. Annual Report of the OCHCR to the Secretary-General on Human Rights in Colombia, 2009, pp. 24

CIDA. 2010. Memorandum for the Minister. Project Authority Including Selection of Americas/Colombia/Protection of Internally Displaced Children and Youth (IDCY) in Colombia, 17 March 2010. 6 pp.

UNHCR. 2009-2010 (?). Project Summary “Protection of Internally Displaced Children and Youth in Colombia”, 10 pp; Annex B Backgrounder (including children rights analysis and gender), pp. 6; Annex C. Logic Model, 1 p.; Annex D Performance Measurement Framework, pp. 6; Annex E, Investment Risk Register, pp. 2; and Annex H, Gender Equality Assessment, pp.3.

UNHCR. 2011. UNHCR Global Report 2010. Americas. Colombia. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4dfdbf5b16.html, pp. 5.

Ursula Mendoza and Virginia Thomas (external evaluators), UNHCR’s AGDM Evaluation. A Participatory Evaluation of AGDM results and impacts in Four Colombian Communities, pp. 51.

UNICEF (Realization of Rights of Children and Adolescents)

CIDA. 2009. Memorandum to the Minister, May 12, 2009, pp.6.

CIDA. 2009. Project Approval Document Including all Annexes (LFA, PMF, Gender and Environmental Assessments, and Risk Analysis, Project description), May 14, 2009, 39pp.

UNICEF, First Progress Report for “Achieving the Realization of the Rights of Colombian Children and Adolescents”, June 2010, pp 45.

UNICEF, Power Point Presentation outlining planned activities for 2011-2012.

CIDA/UNICEF, Two excel files listing project results (similar to the First Progress Report).

UNICEF (Protection of Children and Adolescents in Armed Conflict)

CIDA. 2007. Memorandum to the Vice-President for Project Approval, March 28, 2007, 5pp.

CIDA. 2007. Project Approval Document Including all Annexes (LFA, PMF, Gender and Environmental Assessments, and Risk Analysis), March 27, 2007, 42pp.

UNICEF. 2007. Project Report: Protection of Children Affected by Armed Conflict, December 2007, 16pp.

CIDA, APPR for Project, 2008/2009, 6pp.

CCODP

CCODP. 2006. Corporate-Level LFA for the entire Program, 2006, pp.4

CCODP. 2006. Individual LFA for Colombia, 2006, pp.4

CCODP. 2005. Written narrative of Colombian Component, October, 2005, pp.10

CCODP. 2007. Colombia Results Narrative Report, 2007, pp.3

CCODP. 2010. Colombia Results Narrative Report, 2010, pp.23

Andean Region Gender Fund

CIDA. 2004. Andean Region Gender Equality Fund Phase 3: Project Approval Document (PAD) Project No. A-032298. Includes Form, Memorandum to VP Americas Branch and various Annexes (Note: Annex C “LFA” is missing).

Author Unknown. Undated. Gender Equality Project Evaluation Report. 40 pp.

Ligia Galvis O. and Luz Margoth Pulido B. (Consultants). Undated. Gender Equality Fund Phase III – Evaluation Executive Summary. 4 pp.

CIDA. 2008. Memorandum to Director, South America/Cuba re: Time Extension for Andean Region Gender Equality Funds Project Phase III (to 31 March 2010). Signed 16 December 2008. 2 pp with attachments.

IIN

CIDA. 2008. PAD for the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Children and Adolescents in the Inter-American System Project, pp.2

IIN. 2009. Initial Work Plan for the Project, October 30, 2009, 16pp.

IIN. 2010. Semi-Annual Progress Report (April-September 2010), October 23, 2010, 14pp.

IIN. 2010. Logic Model (Final Version), August 23, 2010, pp.5

IIN. 2010. Final Performance Measurement Framework, August 23, 2010, pp.9

Unknown Author, Brief IIN Project Description, Date unknown, pp.2

CIDA. 2011. Investment Profile Report, June 28, 2011, pp.47

ECOFONDO

2003. ECOFONDO. Ficha de Resultados del Proyecto Gestión Ambiental Participativa como Aporte a la Construcción de Paz y Desarrollo Humano Sostenible en las Regiones Colombianos. December 1, 2003, 4 pp. (excerpted from the Project Implementation Plan document)

CIDA. 2003. Memorandum for the Minister re Approval of ECOFONDO Rural Recovery. October 2003, 3 pp. with attachments including Annex A (Project Summary).

CIDA. 2004. Project Approval Document (PAD) ECOFONDO Rural Recovery CIDA Project No. A-032187. January 2004, 2 pp plus attachments including Annex A (Project Summary). (NOTE: Annex D LFA is missing)

CIDA. 2008. 2007/2008 Program Performance Report A-032187 ECOFONDO Rural Recovery Program, 11 pp.

2009. Jules Audet. Proyecto Nacional ACDI-ECOFONDO Programa de Gestión Ambiental Participativa como Aporte a la Construcción de Paz y Desarrollo Humano Sostenible en las Regiones Colombianos. Informe de la Misión de Monitoreo, 24-30 de Mayo de 2009. 5 pp. plus accompanying Anexo 1b “Resumen Logros Consolidados.”

La Corporación ECOFONDO. 2010. 10 Experiencias, us solo propósito: Gestión Ambiental Participativa para la Paz y el Desarrollo Sostenible en Colombia -- Proyecto Nacional ECOFONDO-ACDI 2004-2009. 48 pp. with CD-ROM. (Polished summary of the entire CIDA-funded project)

La Corporación ECOFONDO. 2010. Gestión Ambiental Participativa para la Paz y el Desarrollo Sostenible en Colombia -- Proyecto Nacional ECOFONDO-ACDI 2004-2009. (Ten separate booklets summarizing the work in different regions, each with an accompanying CD-ROM. One of these is titled: “Centro y Sur del Cauca - Nariño - Putumayo: Agroecología y Comercio Justo Para el Bienvivir.”)

CESO (2009-2014)

CESO. 2011. Letter to Claude Landry of CIDA requesting extension of Colombia country program from 3 to 5 years. 24 June 2011, 2 pp.

CESO. 2011. CPB7 Annual Workplan 2011-2012 Volunteer Co-operation Program (VCP) Program No. S64520. June 2011, 49 pp. plus annex.

CESO. 2010. CPB7 Annual Workplan 2010-2011 Volunteer Co-operation Program (VCP). Program No. S64520. June 2010, 54 pp. plus annexes.

CESO. 2010. CPB7 Annual Report Appendices July 2009 – March 2010. August 2010, 75 pp.

CESO. 2010. CESO Program – Sustainable Economic Development and Governance through Volunteer Advisory Support to the Private and Public Sectors Annual Narrative and Financial Report July 2009 – March 2010. 87 pp.

CESO. 2011. Gender Policy on Gender Equality. March 2011.

CESO (2004-2009)

CESO. 2009. CESO Volunteer Cooperation Program 2004-2009 End of Contract Report October 2004 – March 2009. June 2009, 103 pp. (Appendices 3-10 were supplied separately)

CESO. 2008. CESO Volunteer Cooperation Program 2004-2009 Annual Report April 1, 2007 – March 31, 2008. June 2008, 74 pp.

CESO. 2005. Volunteer Cooperation Program (VCP) Annual Work Plan April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006. May 2005, 28 pp. plus appendices.

CESO. 2006. Volunteer Cooperation Program (VCP) Annual Work Plan April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. May 2006, 46 pp. plus appendices. (contains a separate annual work plan for Colombia on pp. 61-64 and a separate LFA for Colombia on pp. 101-106)

CESO. 2007. Volunteer Cooperation Program (VCP) Annual Work Plan April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. May 2007, 36 pp. plus appendices.

CESO. 2008. Volunteer Cooperation Program (VCP) Annual Work Plan April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. May 2008, 125 pp. plus appendices. (contains Terms of Reference for a Gender Audit)

CIAT

CIDA, Project Approval Document

CIDA, Project Officer’s Report on Monitoring Mission March 12-16, 2007

CIDA, Annual Project Performance Report for 2007/2008

CIAT, Project Annual Reports 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008

CIAT, Early Draft of Annual Report for 2009-2010 dated March 31, 2010

CGIAR Science Council, Report of the Sixth External Program and Management Review (EPMR) of CIAT dated August 2007

ARPEL Governance Project

CIDA, Annual Project Performance Report for 2007-2008

ESAA/ARPEL, Project Implementation Plan dated September 2007

ESAA/ARPEL, ARPEL Governance Project 2009 Project Summary Report

ARPEL, ARPEL Governance Project Brochure

ARPEL Environment Project

CIDA, Project Approval Document

CIDA, Annual Project Performance Report for 2007-2008

ESAA/ARPEL, ARPEL Environmental Project Phase 3 Closing Report dated 30 September 2005

John A. Carter, ARPEL Environmental Project Phase 3 End-of-Project Review dated 5 December 2005

CD containing technical documents produced during ARPEL Environmental Project Phase 3

IPPLA

CIDA. 2007. Project Approval Document (PAD) Form plus Annex A (Project Summary)

HRSDC. 2008. Overall Project Work Plan and Initial Annual Work Plan (July 2008 –June 2009)

HRSDC. 2010. Annual Work Plan #2 (April 2010 – March 2011)

CIDA. 2011. Management Summary Report

CIDA. 2009. Updated Annex I Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)

IPPLA. 2010. Annual Narrative Report

IPPLA. 2010. Semi-Annual Narrative Report (April 1 – September 30, 2010)

IPPLA. 2009. Semi-Annual Narrative Report (January 14 – September 30, 2009)

HRSDC. Undated. Various Project Summaries for Initiatives funded under the International Program for Professional Labour Administration (IPPLA).

Save the Children/Norwegian Refugee Council

CIDA. 2008. Project Approval Document (PAD) CIDA Project No. A-033951. Form with annexes including Annex A (Project Summary). February 2008, 3 pp. plus annexes.

SCC/NRC. 2011. Promotion and Protection of the Right to Education and Participation of Children and Youth in the Department of Nariño, Colombia: Aprendiendo Crecimos. Annual Report Year 3. May 2011, 21 pp.

Le Groupe-conseil baastel ltée. 2011. Reporte Final de la Segunda Misión de Monitoreo: Informe de Seguimiento al proyecto “Aprendiendo Crecemos”. Prepared by Maryvonne Arnould, Loius-Pierre Michaud and Paola Ortiz. July 2011, 28 pp plus annexes.

CIDA. 2008. Memorandum to the Minister re Right to Education and Participation for Children and Youth in Nariño, Colombia CIDA Project A-033951. 4 pp with attachments.

SCC. 2011. Promotion and Protection of the Right to Education and Participation of Children and Youth in the Department of Nariño: Logic Model Updated April 2011. 3 pp.

Plan Canada

CIDA. 2004. Memorandum to the Minister for approval of the Conflict Resolution for Adolescents II Project, November 2, 2004, 5pp.

CIDA. 2004. Project Approval Document (PAD), Conflict Resolution for Adolescents II, November 22, 2004, 53pp.

Plan Canada. 2005. Project Implementation Plan (PIP), Conflcit Resolution for Adolescents, 2005, 47pp.

CIDA. 2007. Logical Framework Analysis, Conflict Resolution for Adolescents II, December 2007, 6pp.

Plan Canada. 2010. Annual and Project Closure Report, Conflict Resolution for Adolescents II, July, 2010, 43pp.

CIDA. 2009. 2008/2009 Annual Program Performance Report, 13pp.

Save the Children (5 Year Program)

SCC. 2009. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of “Realizing the Rights of the Socially Excluded Children Worldwide.” Prepared by Gabriela Byron, 30 June 2009, 52 pp. (Annex D contains country-specific program assessments and Annex F has program achievements by country).

SCC. 2007. Providing Education and Protection to Children Affected by Urban Violence in Haiti and Colombia: An Addendum to Save the Children Canada’s Five Year Program: Realizing the Rights of Socially Excluded Children Worldwide 2007-2011. Submitted to Canadian Partnership Branch, 10 July 2007, 34 pp.

SCC. 2011. Realizing the Rights of Socially Excluded Children Worldwide: Final Program Report 2006-2011 CIDA Project No. S-062525. 62 pp. with Appendices.

UNDP

CIDA. 2011. Management Summary Report 2010-2011 Creciendo Juntos: Sustainable Development for Youth in Rural Nariño. Project No. A-034843-001. July 2011, 3 pp.

CIDA. 2010. Memorandum for the Minister re Creciendo Juntos: Sustainable Development for Youth in Rural Nariño. Project No. A-034843-001. March 2010, 7 pp.

CIDA. 2011. Investment Performance Report (IPR) re Creciendo Juntos: Sustainable Development for Youth in Rural Nariño. Project No. A-034843-001. July 2011, 34 pp.

CIDA. 2010. Project Approval Document re Creciendo Juntos: Sustainable Development for Youth in Rural Nariño. Project No. A-034843-001. July 2011, Annexes A-F, 34 pp.

Other Documents

PLAN:NET Limited. 2011. Draft Synthesis Report Regional Program Evaluation of the CIDA Americas Directorate Inter-American Program. January 16, 2011, 73 pp. plus appendices.

OECD DAC. 2010. Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. OECD Development assistance Committee, 2010, 16 pp. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/0/44798177.pdf

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 2011. Evaluation of the Americas Strategy: Final Report. Evaluation Division, Inspector General Office, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, January 2011, 55 pp.

CIDA-World Bank. 2008. Building a New Aid Relationship: The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Prepared jointly by CIDA and the World Bank in conjunction with the OECD on the occasion of the 3rd High Level Forum.

Appendix E – Program logic models

Note: There are two Colombia Program Logic Models presented here. The textual description of the first Colombia Program Logic Model (2002-2006) outlined below was only available in text form. The current Logic Model for the Colombia Program (2010-2015) follows.

Colombia Program Logic Model (2002-2006)

Canada's official development assistance goal is to support Colombia in building peace and enhancing human security. With this aim, the proposed CIDA programming framework for Colombia (2002-2006) is outlined below. CIDA's bilateral IPF for Colombia is $25 million. If disbursement levels from other channels are maintained at current levels, ODA programming resources from all sources will total approximately $60 million over five years. However, it is difficult to predict how other channels will respond to the escalation of the conflict. While this framework has been created in cooperation with and is endorsed by Canadian Partnership and Multilateral Program Branches, the Results Expected below will be met by the CIDA bilateral program.

Program purposes

With the overall goal of working toward peace and enhancing human security, CIDA aims to pursue three main purposes or priorities through its Colombia program.

Purpose 1: To increase Colombian capacity to meet the basic human needs and protect the human rights of people affected by the armed conflict.

While in the long term, addressing the causes and intensifiers of Colombia’s conflict is crucial, Canada has an immediate imperative to assist civilians affected by that conflict. Colombia’s human rights and displacement crises demand increased attention, and addressing the situation by helping to meet the basic human needs and protect the human rights of war-affected people must be CIDA's first priority in Colombia, particularly as the conflict continues to escalate.

Targeting Colombia's vulnerable and war-affected population, effectively its poorest and most marginalized, is in line with CIDA's poverty reduction mandate and renewed focus on basic human needs. With this purpose in mind, CIDA's program will focus on addressing the second challenge envisioned in CIDA's Strategy for the Americas by mitigating the negative impact of political instability on poor households. Two of CIDA's Social Development Priorities will be addressed. Under the Health and Nutrition priority, CIDA will focus on improving the access of war-affected populations to health services, while Child Protection will be the focus of programming targeting war-affected children. Finally, in line with CIDA's Human Rights, Democratic Development and Good Governance Policy, CIDA will aim to strengthen the capacity of human rights organizations to address the human rights and human security crisis, with rights as a crosscutting theme throughout the program.

Expected Results:

Impact:
Increased support to war-affected people, such as the displaced, children, women, and indigenous and afro-Colombian peoples.

Outcomes:
Health and other basic human needs of people affected by the armed conflict supported Improved monitoring and protection of human rights by key international and national organizations Improved capacity of communities affected by the armed conflict to organize themselves and to plan and implement socio-economic development activities

Purpose 2: To support equitable participation in establishing the foundations for peace.

President Uribe has set conditions for peace talks which are not being met under the current circumstances of on-going conflict, however, civil society organizations remain hopeful that a negotiated settlement will eventually occur. At a national level, several coordinating peace building networks bring civil society groups together to plan, advocate and mobilize for peace. At a regional level, there is some collaboration and networking among a mix of social actors, with potential to build regional integrated peace plans and link them into national proposals for peace. A number of research institutions engaged in interdisciplinary research on violence and peace can serve to inform and influence policy and public opinion. The Catholic church has been able to bring together actors from all sectors of society to provide input into negotiations, while Protestant churches have distinguished themselves in the area of alternative justice. And finally, marginalized groups such as children, women, indigenous peoples, and trade unions have organized to develop and voice their own proposals for peaceful alternatives.

Many of these civil society initiatives have achieved important results and provided rays of hope for peace in a bleak setting. They have worked toward creating a space for marginalized voices in the search for a negotiated peace, they have established scenarios for peaceful and sustainable development in the midst of war, and they have built local capacity to resolve conflicts without violence. However their impact has been limited by their fragmentation, lack of integration and short-term focus. International support is important to help protect and strengthen the capacity of these groups and the impact of their initiatives in a hostile environment, and ideally to foster increased coordination and integration within civil society.

International support and accompaniment of these fragile efforts will be crucial to sustaining them in the face of entrenched interests. CIDA has an important role to play in supporting the participation of marginalized groups in politics in order to address the economic, political and social exclusion that underpins the conflict. CIDA also has a role in supporting civil society group efforts to construct peaceful alternatives and resolve conflicts in an increasingly hostile and threatening environment. And finally, CIDA can contribute to improved, effective relations between civil society and all levels of government.

This purpose is fully in line with CIDA's framework for Programming for Results in Peacebuilding. The framework suggests that development programs wishing to contribute to the establishment of peace in a country aim, among other things, to increase domestic capacity and propensity for the peaceful resolution of conflict, to help establish or restore the civil society structures necessary for the establishment of a lasting peace, and to enable women to fully contribute to and benefit from peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction. CIDA's policy on Human Rights, Democratic Development and Good Governance also underlines the importance of strengthening the role and capacity of civil society in order to increase popular participation in decision making, while the Gender Equality policy and Child Protection Action Plan emphasize the political participation of women and children, respectively. By targeting this purpose, CIDA program will focus on the second challenge of Closing the Gap: reducing and mitigating political instability and vulnerability.

Expected Results:

Impacts:
Greater civil society capacity to participate in eventual peace processes and in peacebuilding Improved conflict resolution capacity

Outcomes:
Increased ability of stakeholders --including women, children and indigenous and displaced communities, among others-- to participate meaningfully and effectively in eventual peace processes and in peacebuilding Increased participation of traditionally marginalised groups in political processes Increased capacity of Colombians to resolve conflicts peacefully.

Purpose 3: To improve Colombian capacity to address some of the key causes of violence.

In the current context of escalating humanitarian crisis, the first two program purposes are immediate priorities. However CIDA recognizes the importance for Colombia at the same time to address the deep-rooted causes of the conflict to the extent possible given security conditions and governance constraints. Widespread and deep scepticism about public institutions and a public sector unprepared for transparent and participatory decision-making contribute to the incapacity of Colombia to resolve these issues. The international community can play a modest role through the transfer of appropriate technical assistance for public sector reform, to develop better transparency, regulatory and conflict management capacity within government and national institutions, to strengthen the government's capacity to mediate between competing social and economic forces and to legitimize government's role to operate in pursuit of the public good rather than private interests. Canada has interesting models to offer in a number of areas, including government oversight, decentralization, transparency and accountability, alternative judicial and penal systems, civil society participation in governance and public consultations, among others.

However, significant impact in addressing such daunting issues is more likely if donors pool their resources and know-how. CIDA will encourage policy dialogue around equity and governance issues, while seeking increased knowledge of how to address the longterm challenges of equity and governance in collaboration with other donors. Smallscale or joint programming under this purpose will create a foundation for a return to a focus on long-term development programming as and when local circumstances permit.

Expected Results:

Impacts:
Increased opportunities and capacity for open and participatory governance.

Outcomes:
Enhanced transparency and consultation in public institutions Improved capacity to monitor public sector fiscal and policy management
3. Increased representativeness and participation of citizens / civil society in dialogue forums.

Appendix F – Country context and CIDA program description

Important Contextual Elements for CIDA’s Colombia Program FY2006-2011

The Armed Conflict

Colombia has experienced an internal armed conflict since the mid-1960s. Guerilla warfare is dynamic and the main insurgent groups respond to the State’s military strategy by expanding their influence and hold on territories and communities via coercive means, or withdrawing and conducting symbolic demonstrations of power and generation of terror^{Footnote 34} . As a result of the successful official military campaign, initiated in the late 1990s, guerrillas were hard hit and their territorial influence dwindled. Nevertheless, they continue to alter public order and hold coercive control over segregated populations.

The military response by the Colombian state continues to expand with strengthened intelligence capacity for proactive military engagement. Moreover, military and police authorities have multiplied their manpower, reaching nearly 500,000 troops combined, and having joint command posts with jurisdiction over most of the national territory^{Footnote 35} . Military tactics have been aggressive and now include integral action plans in focalized regions (including the Department of Nariño), involving intelligence activities and civic-military action.

One of the most discouraging elements of the conflict has been the rapid expansion of paramilitary groups throughout the national territory, starting in the mid-1990s^{Footnote 36} . Paramilitaries were previously grounded locally, combining local interests (political and economic) and a national anti-insurgent paradigm. However, they developed into a selfproclaimed national confederation that continued to espouse the anti-insurgent rhetoric, but grew deeply involved in political and economic life, particularly in the illicit drug business. Paramilitaries wreaked havoc throughout the national territory, being the principle cause of victimization through massacres, selective killings, and mass displacement. Starting in 2003, under the Uribe administration, the paramilitary groups housed under the umbrella organization of the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC) began a massive demobilization process. Ending in 2006, official sources reported the demobilization of over 30,000 persons linked to the AUC throughout the national territory^{Footnote 37} .

The demobilization process was plagued by violence and irregularities. Over 2,000 paramilitaries were killed; no record exists of 6,000 of those that demobilized^{Footnote 38} ; and mutual accusations of betrayal—by government officials and paramilitary commanders—continue to be voiced regarding the demobilization process^{Footnote 39} . The legal framework to address the atrocities perpetrated and to regulate the reintegration of the members of the illegal armed groups is under fire and has been largely unsuccessful in achieving the desired outcome; for example, only four convictions have been achieved for the mass violence perpetrated^{Footnote 40} . After the demobilization, reconfiguration of illegal armed groups thrived, particularly linked to the drug business. Though estimates vary, at least 5,000 of those demobilized appear to be re-engaged in organized armed activities^{Footnote 41} . These groups have military apparatuses, control territories (generally linked to illicit economic activities), and display force against authorities and the civilian population.

These elements combined to give way to a complex humanitarian situation that persists. Colombia has one of the largest internally displaced populations in the world. Over three and a half-million persons were forced to abandon their homes over the past decades, most of them women and children, giving rise to patterns of massive land expropriation and accumulation, the accentuation of poverty, the rise of an urban underclass, modification of the social and economic configurations of rural Colombia, generational conflicts (given the urban-rural divide within families), contentious gender relationships and identities, and extreme human suffering^{Footnote 42} . Though displacement rates have subsided, ongoing violations and threats continue to generate the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons per year. Though institutional response to displacement in Colombia is sophisticated, gaps in the emergency response, security threats and killing of leaders, and the inadequacy of durable solutions produce one of the most explosive humanitarian situations that currently exist worldwide.

In addition to displacement, killings and population control (and the consequent loss of freedom) continue to be products of the armed conflict. The conflict also gives rise to situations that particularly affect children, especially forced recruitment by illegal armed groups and their use for military ends by all armed groups. Women are particularly vulnerable to forced forms of labor and sexual exploitation and abuse. Moreover, given their presence in isolated areas of land, indigenous peoples and afro-Colombians are disproportionately affected by the action of armed actors. Lastly, the conflict is also responsible for the proliferation of anti-personnel mines and unexploded ordnances (UXOs) that cause growing human casualties.

Children’s Rights

Children and youth are particularly vulnerable to situations of poverty and violence. The youngest bracket (younger than six years of age) is comprised of 5.1 million children and over half of them (56 percent) are in the lowest socio-economic strata. This group is particularly affected by malnourishment, domestic violence, lack of proper care and protection, and poor healthcare.

In addition to problems deriving from settings of extreme poverty, children and youth in Colombia are exposed to risky environments as a result of the armed conflict, illegal economies, and various sources of violence. Forced recruitment of children and the worst forms of child labor (including sexual exploitation) are growing risks, particularly in impoverished communities. Children 6 to 14 years of age are particularly vulnerable.

The number of children affected by forced recruitment in Colombia is uncertain; various estimates presented by NGOs and UN agencies put the number of affected children at between 6,000 and 14,000. The number of children and adolescents working was officially calculated in 2009 to be 1,050,147, with an additional 718,006 conducting domestic chores over 15 hours per week^{Footnote 43} . The poor quality of information available is part of the official diagnosis of the problem.

The current administration acknowledges the grave situation of children and prioritizes the issue within its four-year plan of action. The government announced it will concentrate on addressing the problems through an inter-institutional response coordinated by the Presidency and oriented at the first years of life and children exposed to highest levels of poverty (called From Zero to Forever). The most important goals in relation to older children and adolescents include: prevention of domestic violence, reduction of physical and sexual abuse, reduction of teen pregnancy, eradication of child labor, and reduction of child recruitment.

Women’s Rights

Gender inequalities and discriminations place women and girls in a situation of particular vulnerability and disadvantage in the economical, political, and social realms. The most serious concerns include economical disparities with men and high levels of poverty among women, under-representation in decision-making spheres, low political participation, genderbased violence, human trafficking, maternal mortality linked to inefficient health attention, primary and secondary school drop-out rates, and discrimination in the educational institutions. Although the legal framework is in place, this situation has been attended by very limited, ineffective, and under-resourced national and local level policies—many of them oriented by a subsidy perspective. Furthermore, the internal armed conflict has exacerbated their conditions of vulnerability. In particular, situations of legal and illegal military operations and occupations, and situations of displacement or of confinement have had serious impacts on their security, integrity, dignity and economic conditions. Women constitute the vast majority of conflict victims placing them in the forefront of truth, justice, and reparations search and initiatives, and often of political violence. This situation is worsened when combined with ethnic, racial, and socio-economic discrimination.

The Department of Nariño^{Footnote 44}

The Department of Nariño, where Canada’s development cooperation is geographically focalized, is representative of Colombia’s paradoxes. It is a department rich in natural resources and has economic potential given its geographic location, both as a national border and a very diverse territory (ranging from coastal lands on the Pacific to high mountainous regions and rich tropical forest). Nariño has also been the site of a dynamic government, both at the departmental level and in Pasto, its capital. Notwithstanding, Nariño is also one of the most impoverished regions in Colombia; it is extremely affected by the drug trade and the armed conflict. Nariño’s population is ethnically very diverse, with a high concentration of Afro-Colombian population (in the Pacific coast) and indigenous peoples, principally the Awa, experiencing high levels of social vulnerability. Regardless of innovative efforts to conduct voluntary substitution of illicit crops and promote productive livelihoods, Nariño’s situation has worsened over the last few years. As of 2009, Nariño is the department that has the greatest area of coca cultivation (16,428 hectares). According to UNODC, together with the department of Antioquia, it is the department where the greatest number of cocaine producing laboratories has been destroyed. This illegal market generates much violence and a risky environment for all communities.

Since the paramilitary demobilization, the armed conflict has worsened. Guerrilla groups, both FARC and ELN, conduct regular operations and reportedly control extensive territories and strategic corridors. Similarly, the groups that reconfigured after the paramilitary demobilization have taken over extensive portions of the territory and wield control over communities in furtherance of the drug trade. These groups include Los Rastrojos and Aguilas Negras. In response, the official military presence in the department has risen to nearly 14,000 troops and is expected to grow to 40,000 troops by the end of the Santos administration.

The presence of illegal armed groups and the illegal economy are causes of very elevated crime rates in the region. For example, the homicide rate in the coastal city of Tumaco is one of the highest in the country. Whereas the departmental homicide rate stands at 30 per 100,000 persons, the rate in Tumaco is 137 homicides per 100,000 persons^{Footnote 45} . Tumaco’s population is primarily made up of Afro-Colombians (89 percent), facing very high levels of unmet basic needs (58 percent).

The conflict gives way to manifestations of mass violence and displacement. In the last two years, massacres have claimed the lives of seventy-four persons^{Footnote 46} . Over 500 persons have been victims of anti-personnel mines in the Department, since 2005. Acción Social, the official entity in charge of the response to the displacement, reports that over 185,000 persons are internally displaced in Nariño. In the last three years, and largely as a consequence of the massacres, mass displacement has taken place. During 2011, nine mass displacements were reported, affecting over 1,000 families. Several communities face severe restrictions to their freedom of movement and UNHCR reports confinement of entire villages in nine municipalities. Regional social organizations and the education community identify forced recruitment of children and youth as one of the principal risks for the youth in the region, particularly in municipalities like Tumaco. In 2009, the Tumaco Mesa Humanitaria de Mujeres Afrocolombianas, an initiative supported by CIDA-Colombia, reported fifty-seven violent killings of women in the town and regularly denounces sexual violence and disappearances of women and girls.

International Cooperation Climate

The international cooperation climate in Colombia is generally positive in relation to both governmental and non-governmental sectors. The polarization of social and political life in Colombia presented some challenges to international cooperation efforts oriented at Colombian civil society. Nonetheless, the overall atmosphere for international cooperation was conducive to its operation in the country. The role played by Acción Social, as a technical counterpart that conducted a thematic coordination effort, was particularly important. After rounds of consultation with the international community and Colombian civil society organizations, Acción Social adopted a far-reaching strategy that addressed five sectors in a four-year period (2007-2010): thematic orientation; improved coordination, alignment and harmonization of cooperation; strengthening the management of international cooperation; developing new sources and modes of cooperation; and strengthening the supply of technical cooperation in Colombia^{Footnote 47} .

Though a second phase to the strategy was amply debated for the 2010-2014 period, it was not adopted and the current Santos administration opted to not continue with this effort. The administration has hinted that the official document that should guide international cooperation is its National Plan for Development (2010-2014): Prosperity for All!

The Santos government is in the process of redesigning the institutional framework for international cooperation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has voiced strong criticism over the role of the UN in Colombia and requested greater involvement in the actions of the specialized agencies. Colombia is also strongly advocating having a greater profile in the international community, including its current membership in the UN Security Council and eventually in the OECD. It is also pushing a technical cooperation agenda based on the South-South paradigm, as a provider of assistance.

CIDA’s Program in the Country

Background

The story of CIDA’s involvement in Colombia may be described as one of “appropriately reactive” to the many shifting realities arising from the country’s historical conflict and successive government responses. Both of these have served to generate realities on the ground that have most often negatively affected a wide variety of population groups and segments. Canada and CIDA have addressed these challenges by focusing on a variety of programming responses, culminating with the current focus on child rights and protection. This section will provide a brief historical overview of CIDA’s role in Colombia to the present day, as well as the key motivations for policy and programming alterations on behalf of the Agency.

CIDA has maintained a development cooperation program in Colombia since 1969, though much of Canadian aid over the following twenty-five years was largely unfocussed. This began to change in the mid-1990s, when CIDA involvement became more concentrated. As of 1995, the Agency’s bilateral assistance program focused on two key objectives: a) increasing equity and respect for human rights through community natural resource management, human rights, and gender equality projects, and b) promoting good governance and environmental management through regulatory reform in key sectors of the economy. Emphasis was placed on supporting the strengthening of Colombian public sector organizations involved in oversight of national policies rather than involving NGOs and civil society bodies in direct programming initiatives.

The period leading up to the election and ascension of the Uribe government in 2002 was a significant development for both CIDA and indeed all international donors to Colombia. Significantly, the Uribe regime required that all development assistance align with the priorities of the Colombian government, namely human rights and the protection of civilians affected by the conflict. Safeguarding the population was, in many ways, the logical parallel outcome of Uribe’s policy, as shown in section 2.1 above, of aggressively pursuing the various armed groups operating in Colombia, for the resulting increased violence would, and did, result in greater threats to the civilian population, especially in remote areas of the country.

Consequently, the twin realities of the deteriorating human rights, humanitarian, and economic situation (as a result of the intensification of the conflict) and the focused aid requirements (human rights and peacebuilding) of the Colombian government both served as catalysts for CIDA to alter its programming focus with the creation of an interim Country Development Programming Framework (CDPF) in 2002 (subsequently adopted in 2003). The stated goal of the CDPF (in effect until 2008) was to support Colombia in building peace and enhancing human security. In order to achieve this goal, three key focal areas for CIDA support were established to:

• increase Colombian capacity to meet the basic human needs and protect human rights of people affected by the armed conflict;
• support equitable participation in establishing the foundations for peace;
• improve Colombian capacity to address some key causes of violence

Under the 2003 CDPF, CIDA support also shifted somewhat to also include international organizations (particularly UN and hemispheric bodies) and NGOs involved in human rights, humanitarian imperatives, education, civil society capacity building, and private sector governance.

Over the next few years, a variety of developments took place that served to further focus CIDA’s Colombian programming strategy.

First, in 2006, the decision was made to concentrate more specifically on child rights and protection within the framework of human rights, which culminated in 2007 with the adoption of the Strategic Framework for Child Rights and Protection (Colombia), developed and based upon both a comprehensive evaluation as well as extensive consultations with a variety of stakeholders in Colombia. This document continues to serve as the core strategic document guiding the majority CIDA’s programming in the country, and indeed played an important role in the design of the CIDA-wide “safe and secure futures” component of the Agency’s children and youth thematic priority.

Second, the Canadian government’s foreign policy decision in 2008 to re-engage in Latin America (as outlined in the DFAIT document Canada’s Engagement in the Americas) and subsequent naming of Colombia as a CIDA country of focus in 2009 both served to significantly increase development assistance and other monetary/programming support.

Third, two additional strategic policy papers (essentially refining the 2002-2006 CDPF, as well as the Child Rights and Protection policy) for Colombia were approved in 2008 and 2009. The 2008 CPS contained very clear references to the decision to develop a leadership position in protection of human rights for children and youth (CRP), following CIDA’s completion of the Colombia-specific CRP. The dominant position of this thematic focus was reinforced by targeting 65 percent of the Bilateral Program budget to CRP. The 2008 CPS also introduced private sector development as a thematic focus with connection to markets/alternative livelihoods, CSR, and TRTA as sub-sectors; this focus has remained in subsequent strategy documents. Earlier work had been continued in each of these subsectors but with little overall coordination at the country program level.

It was also during this period that the decision was made to geographically focus much of CIDA’s development assistance in the Department of Nariño, where the human rights, humanitarian, and economic situation was, and remains, extremely acute.

More recently, CIDA has developed a new country strategy for Colombia (including a new Program Logic Model and Performance Management Framework), which encompasses the years 2010-2015. Currently, CIDA’s objective in Colombia is to contribute to the improvement of human rights and the reduction of inequality and poverty of Colombia’s most vulnerable groups (specifically indigenous and Afro-Colombians), with a focus on children and youth. In order to achieve this objective, CIDA currently delivers its programming under three rubrics, where the vast majority of its Colombian programming rests:

• Securing a Future for Children and Youth, which supports the promotion and protection of children’s and youth’s rights, their increased access to early childhood education, and the prevention of their exposure and involvement in violence, illicit activities, and illegal groups;
• Sustainable Economic Growth, which aims to increase the participation of the most vulnerable groups in the economic development of their communities, and;
• Increasing Food Security, which supports increased agricultural productivity and crop diversification as an alternative to illegal crops, such as coca.

During the period under examination, CIDA’s Colombia program underwent both major and minor changes in thematic and geographic focus. Table 1 summarizes the thematic and geographic priorities stated in five key CIDA strategy documents: the 2002-2006 CDPF whose influence extended at least into 2007; the 2007 Strategic Framework for CRP; the 2008 CPS; the 2009 CPS; and the 2010-2015 CDPF (there was no CDPF in place between 2006 and 2010). Additionally, priorities expressed by the Government of Colombia were noted from: the Joint Declaration of Objectives signed by Colombia and Canada in 2000 (described in the 2002-2006 CDPF, p.17), and the International Cooperation Strategy 2007- 2010 (which has not been replaced by a successor document even though a new National Development Plan has been approved). Table 5 also reveals a switch in geographic focus in or around 2007, with consideration of NE Colombia being replaced by Nariño Department (in SW Colombia) and exploration of a second key Department to be added at a later time.

Table 1 Changes in Sector and Geographic focus in CIDA’s Colombia Program

CIDA Strategy Document: 2002-2006 CDPF

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
2000 Joint Declaration
Focus on Human Rights, Civilian Protection, and Peace Building
Drug demand reduction

CIDA Sector Focus:
Basic Human Needs; Human Rights of Conflict - Affected Peoples

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Support for Basic Human Needs of Conflict-Affected Peoples; Monitoring & Protection of Human Rights; Capacity of Communities to Plan/Implement SocioEconomic Development Actions

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Possibly a focused geographic region in NE Colombia

CIDA Strategy Document: 2002-2006 CDPF

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Non-Governmental Initiatives re Conflict Resolution and Improved Human Rights

CIDA Sector Focus:
Civil Society Capacity to Participate in Peace-building

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Ability of Stakeholders to Participate in Peacebuilding; Participation of Traditionally Marginalized Groups in Political Processes; Conflict Resolution

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Possibly a focused geographic region in NE Colombia

CIDA Strategy Document: 2002-2006 CDPF

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Development Assistance to Women, Children, IDPs, Aboriginal Populations

CIDA Sector Focus:
Governance

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Public Institutions; Public Sector Fiscal and Policy Management; Participation of Citizens/Civil Society in Dialogue

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Possibly a focused geographic region in NE Colombia

CIDA Strategy Document: 2007 Strategic Framework for CRP

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Law on Childhood and Adolescence
National Action Plan for Children and Adolescents
Focus on protection of children in conflict situations

CIDA Sector Focus:
Securing the Future of Children and Youth
Governance
HumanitarianAssistance

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Support for Basic Human Needs of Conflict-Affected Children and Youth; Monitoring & Protection of Child Rights; Education

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Country-Wide

CIDA Strategy Document: 2008 CPS

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
ICS 2007-2010 Reconciliation / Governance

CIDA Sector Focus:
Governance

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Human Rights of Children and Other Vulnerable Groups (CRP gets 65% of Bilateral Program Budget)

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Nariño Department and explore including another key Department

CIDA Strategy Document: 2008 CPS

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Fight Against Drugs / Environmental Protection

CIDA Sector Focus:
Education

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Education in Emergency Conflict, incl. TVET

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Nariño Department and explore including another key Department

CIDA Strategy Document: 2008 CPS

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Millennium Development Goals

CIDA Sector Focus:
Private Sector Development

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Connecting to Markets/Sustainable Alt. Livelihoods; CSR; TRTA

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Nariño Department and explore including another key Department

CIDA Strategy Document: 2009 CPS

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
ICS 2007-2010 Reconciliation / Governance

CIDA Sector Focus:
Children & Youth

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Human/Children and Youth’s Rights (CRP gets 65% of Bilateral Program Budget); Basic Education

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Several critical rural areas incl. Nariño Department

CIDA Strategy Document: 2009 CPS

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Fight Against Drugs/ Environmental Protection

CIDA Sector Focus:
Economic Growth

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Skills for Employment; CSR

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Several critical rural areas incl. Nariño Department

CIDA Strategy Document: 2009 CPS

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Millennium Development Goals

CIDA Sector Focus:
Food Security

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Crop Diversification

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Several critical rural areas incl. Nariño Department

CIDA Strategy Document: 2010-2015 CDPF

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
De Facto Extension of 2007-2010 ICS
Reconciliation/ Governance

CIDA Sector Focus:
Children & Youth

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Rights of Vulnerable Populations with a Focus on Children and Youth (CRP and Access to Education get 65% of Bilateral Program Budget)

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Nariño Department

CIDA Strategy Document: 2010-2015 CDPF

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Fight Against Drugs/ Environmental Protection

CIDA Sector Focus:
Sustainable Economic Growth

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Skills for Employment, CSR, TRTA

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Nariño Department

CIDA Strategy Document: 2010-2015 CDPF

Government of Colombia Statement of Priorities:
Millennium Development Goals

CIDA Sector Focus:
Food Security

CIDA Sub-Sector Focus:
Agricultural Productivity; Crop Diversification

CIDA Geographic Focus:
Nariño Department

Note: It should be noted that the key CIDA strategy documents were prepared by the Bilateral Program in consultation with the Canadian Partnership and Multilateral Program Branches; they contain expected results that are to be met by the Bilateral Program^{Footnote 48} .

Since 2002, there has been a certain continuity in strategic direction for the CIDA’s Colombia Program, although with an increasing focus. The decision in the 2006-2006 CDPF to focus on human rights and civilian protection/peacebuilding has evolved to concentrate more specifically on children and youth within these two rubrics. As shown in both the 2008 and 2009 CPS policy documents, as well as the current 2010-2015 CDPF, human/child rights has remained a common theme, with the CRP Strategic Framework serving as the key bridge linking them together.

It should be noted that the period under review for this evaluation officially coincides with the 2002-2006 CDPF, the two strategic policy papers for Colombia, and the first year of the 2010-2015 CPDF. ^{Footnote 49} However, with a view towards future CIDA programming in the country, the 2010-2015 CDPF will act as a guide for future planning concerns.

Investment Portfolio for the Review Period

This Evaluation assesses CIDA’s Colombia program from a five-year period commencing in 2006-2007 and concluding in 2010-2011. Within CIDA, Colombia programming is divided between three Agency Branches: the Americas (direct bilateral geared towards Colombiaspecific projects), Multilateral and Global Programs, and Partnership with Canadians. The latter two Branches support initiatives that are spread over a variety of countries rather than one in particular. During the review period, a total of sixty-two initiatives involving Colombia were funded by CIDA. Table 2 below illustrates the project breakdown by Branch and monetary distribution.

A total of $64.9 million was allocated to projects involving Colombia. As can be seen from the Table above, two-thirds of ODA expenditures for the Colombia Program were channeled through the Americas Branch, that is to say, exclusively focused on Colombia. In terms of sectoral breakdown, Table 3 illustrates the number and distribution of the sixty-two projects by CIDA sector^{Footnote 50} .

Interestingly, the largest amount of projects by sector (22) were those related to democratic governance, while the greatest average amount spent on each investment was found within the Strengthening Basic Education sector, at $1.75 million. For its part, average monetary distribution to PSD projects was relatively low (at $637K), or approximately one-third of the allocation to Strengthening Basic Education projects and just over one-half of those projects classified as Democratic Governance.

Regarding the investment types of the Colombia Program during the review period, Table 4 below provides the breakdown between programs, projects, and local funds^{Footnote 51} .

Of the sixty-two CIDA investments, forty-three were projects, with an average disbursement of $1.3 million, accounting for some 87 percent of all Colombia disbursements. Eighteen investments were programs with an average disbursement of $327K. The lone Local Fund (within the Democratic Governance sector), administered by the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá, received $2.278 million over the five-year review period. Notably, of the sixty-two projects within the entire Colombia Program sample during the review period, sixty employed a responsive delivery mechanism while only two were classified as directive. There were no investments coded as program-based approaches.

Appendix G – Management Response

Recommendations:
The program should review its role and tools, including its policy dialogue agenda with the Government of Colombia and other donors, on gender equality and environmental sustainability.

Commitments/Measures:

The Colombia Program agrees with this recommendation.

Gender Equality:

The Colombia Program will strengthen its ability to support gender equality results through projects and policy dialogue. It will contract a gender specialist in the field to advise and help monitor gender equality results at the project and program level. Gender equality training will be offered to program officers to support their own monitoring of gender equality performance in projects. The current gender equality results and indicators in the Colombia Program’s Performance Management Framework (PMF) will be reviewed and modified as required.

To maintain policy dialogue and an effective gender equality network with other donors and the Government of Colombia, the Colombia Program will play an active role at the managerial and officer-level in the Gender Equality Donor Group.

Environmental Sustainability:

The Colombia Program will strengthen the involvement of HQ or field-based environmental specialists in the development (concept preparation and project design) of all projects (including in the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act). Particular attention will be paid to future projects in the area of Sustainable Economic Growth, where livelihood activities may have environmental sustainability implications. Training on environmental sustainability and the CEAA will be provided to program staff.

Responsible: Director, Colombia Program, supported by Deputy Director, program officers and Gender and Environment Specialists.

Completion Date:

Gender:

May 15, 2013 for Gender specialist

June 15, 2013 for PMF

December 31, 2013 for training

Environment:
December 31, 2013 for training

Status:

Recommendations:
More attention to performance management is needed, including by securing baseline data and establishing targets for certain indicators.

Commitments/Measures:

The Colombia Program agrees with this recommendation.

The Colombia Program’s Performance Management Framework will be updated to include baseline data and target indicators, where relevant.

Monitoring of project and program performance has already been enhanced as a result of the Colombia Program's decentralization to Bogotá in 2012, allowing for more frequent monitoring missions to field sites in rural Colombia at lower cost than monitoring missions from Canada. An annual monitoring plan will be established to ensure that this is done systematically.

The latest training in CIDA Results-Based Management methodology and tools will be provided to program staff

Responsible: Director, Colombia Program

Completion Date:

June 15, 2013 for PMF

July 30 for Monitoring Plan

December 31, 2013 for training

Status: