The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), through its Development Assistance Committee (DAC), has recommended the following definitions to its member countries:
“An evaluation is an assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of on-going or completed aid activities, their design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, developmental efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.” [Evaluation Guidelines. Ministry of Foreign Affairs: DANIDA. Feb. 1999]
“Evaluation is an independent examination of a programme or component. It partly aims to determine its results, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance, and sustainability, and partly to draw lessons that may be more widely applicable.” [Evaluation Guidelines. Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Danida. Feb. 1999].

Principles of Project Evaluation
Project evaluation is a demanding task technically, professionally and politically. Based on its experience, PEMA has identified a set of principles constituting a de facto code of professional behaviour to guide its staff in the process of evaluating foreign aid projects. The principles listed below are drawn from a variety of sources, especially those of international organisations heavily involved in providing foreign aid and evaluating the impact of foreign aid projects (particular reference is made to the work of the World Bank, UNDP and the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD):

1. Careful application of internationally-accepted methodologies and procedures throughout the evaluation process.
2. Objectivity in analysing information and assessing results.
3. Consistency in approach and in conclusions drawn.
4. Adoption of a holistic approach (versus partial evaluation) to avoid lopsided conclusions.
5. Emphasis on impact evaluation – going beyond financial and individual task-based evaluations.
6. Focus on sustainability prospects and capacity building.
7. Participation of beneficiaries as partners in the evaluation process.
8. Transparency in explaining approach and sharing results with various parties.
9. Respect for confidentiality whenever requested, provided it does not constrain evaluation work or bias its outcome; and
10. Cost-effectiveness of evaluation, without undermining quality.

Project Cycle
To view project evaluation in its proper context, the following diagram depicts the full project cycle. Each component or stage of the cycle has its own requirements if the project is to be well planned, implemented, and evaluated.

Evaluation differs from research in its purpose, its concern with the possibility of generalization, its involvement of stakeholders, and the required breadth of training of those undertaking it. For instance, whereas research seeks to contribute to knowledge in a field, evaluation results may lead to knowledge development, which helps the various stakeholders concerned make informed decisions. In other words, “research seeks conclusions; evaluation leads to judgments.” As for the possibility of generalization of results, evaluation is usually specific to the object that is being evaluated, while research’s findings can be generalised to other settings. The preparation of researchers and evaluators also differs. Researchers are trained “in-depth” in a certain discipline, since in most cases, researchers’ work will be within that single field. On the other hand, evaluators’ training is interdisciplinary since they have to deal with different stakeholders and settings, and have to be knowledgeable about the various evaluation methods and techniques.

Review is “an assessment of the performance of a project or programme, periodically or on an as-needed basis.” It is “more extensive than monitoring, but less so than evaluation.”

It is the “regular collection and analysis of information to assist timely decision-making, ensure accountability and provide the basis for evaluation and learning. It is a continuing function that uses methodical collection of data to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing project or programme with early indications of progress and achievement of objectives.”

The Development Partners Group (DAG), formerly Donors Assistance Group (DAG), was created in 2001 as an initiative of the UN Resident Coordinator. It constitutes an informal network of bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, providing a forum for policy dialogue and facilitating the coordination of policy and programme activities among donors.

The DPG is composed of a plenary forum and eight thematic sub-groups (Health and Population, Gender and Development, Natural Renewable Resources, Governance, Environment and Energy, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Poverty and Information and Communication Technology). One of the current main functions of the DPG is to extend support to the Government of Egypt according to the Paris Declaration on Aid Harmonisation and Effectiveness.

The chairmanship of the DPG is rotated. The current chair is Mr. James W. Rawley, UN Resident Coordinator.

The Paris Declaration, endorsed on 2 March 2005, is an international agreement to which over one hundred Ministers, Heads of Agencies and other Senior Officials adhered. It aims at increasing the aid harmonization and effectiveness. This is achieved based on five pillars that countries and organisations are committed to: ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results and mutual accountability, with a set of monitorable actions and indicators.

The Five Pillars are:

• Ownership - Developing countries set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions and tackle corruption.
• Alignment - Donor countries align behind these objectives and use local systems.
• Harmonization - Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures and share information to avoid duplication.
• Results - Developing countries and donors shift focus to development results and results get measured.
• Mutual Accountability - Donors and partners are accountable for development results.

The Twelve Indicators are:

1. Adopting an Operational Development Strategy.
2. Building Reliable Country Systems.
3. Aligning Aid Flows on National Priorities.
4. Coordinating Support to Strengthen Capacity.
5. Using Country Systems for Public Financial Management and Procurement .
6. Avoiding Parallel Implementation Structures .
7. Providing More Predictable Aid.
8. Untying Aid.
9. Using Common Arrangements.
10. Conducting Joint Missions and Sharing Analysis.
11. Results-oriented frameworks .
12. Mutual accountability.
    

“The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, target the date of 2015 to be achieved. They form a blueprint agreed to by all the world’s countries and the entire world’s leading development institutions. They have galvanized unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest.”

GOAL 1 – Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger
GOAL 2 – Achieve Universal Primary Education
GOAL 3 – Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
GOAL 4 – Reduce Child Mortality
GOAL 5 – Improve Maternal Health
GOAL 6 – Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases
GOAL 7 – Ensure Environmental Sustainability
GOAL 8 – Develop a Global Partnership for Development