An Assessment of the First Three Years Consultative Group meeting Brussels 8 October 2002

1. An Assessment of the First Three Years Consultative Group meeting Brussels 8 October 2002 Development Planning Unit

2. Problems of method • premature judgement in terms of impact • need to develop robust indicators for evaluation in the process of evaluating, turning aims into what can be assessed • using these indicators to test: • relevance • efficacy • efficiency in achieving the aims

3. Context and development • CA developed very swiftly as: • a successful mechanism to change the climate of opinion on urban poverty through • slum upgrading • city development strategies • a vehicle for the funding of innovative proposals in these two fields • recruitment of a multiplicity of partners (CG) which became the governing council of the CA

4. Raised problems • CG could not properly fulfil its original role as a public policy forum, nor was it equipped to supervise the Secretariat • the role of the learning alliance was as a result neglected

5. Remedies were • spin off the “external” role of public policy forum to the PAB • create a Steering Committee to supervise the work of the Secretariat

6. Allowed the CG to concentrate on the central tasks of creating a learning alliance, an “internal” public policy forum, through: • pooling the experience of all the partners in urban development on the two priority themes • expanding and aligning, in a complementary fashion, the programmes and experience of all the partners • seeking to further enhance collaboration between the partners • evaluating the lessons of this multi-agency experience, particularly that of cities in developing countries • disseminating the lessons of best practice, and supporting the appropriate capacity-building to strengthen cities

7. Current challenge • Target audience and the source of learning are the cities of the developing countries with a focus on the poorest cities (who show a capacity to change) • city managers • NGOs and slum dwellers associations • slum-dwellers themselves • The style of the CA has to be transformed for this much larger task

8. The central tasks of the CG become • evaluation combining the respective capacities of all the partners to identify best practice in SU and CDSs • dissemination on a mass basis and an ‘indigenised’ form (cheap publications; web sites) • capacity building move from funding projects to financing the capacity for cities to undertake projects – i.e. major programme in training

9. Local Government Associations are central to this shift of direction • great experience and expertise among their members • direct links to the cities • LGAs have other central responsibilities so special efforts are required e.g. • exchange of staff • joint-evaluation of LGA experience • creation of registers of experts from the LGAs • strengthening of in-country LGAs. • Importance of supporting in-country CAs as the base for local evaluation, dissemination and capacity building. • key role of strengthened in-country LGA. • in-country donor offices vital part of national CAs to encourage alignment of urban development programmes, collaboration and mutual support. • NGOs also a valuable part of local CAs.

10. The Secretariat should be less concerned with the volume of projects funded, more emphasis on: • quality • innovation in the context of the urban development programs of all the partners • prioritising cities – e.g. the poorest • facilitating the preparation of applications

11. Other points • A detailed review of the projects undertaken is presented. • Need for a review of the range of CDSs (not only CA supported) to identify what has been useful and sustainable