Policy Practice (2009) Carrying out a Joint Governance Assessment: Lessons from Rwanda

This policy brief reflects on the experience of Rwanda, the first country where a joint governance assessment was conducted in 2008. It draws lessons from the advantages and risks of undertaking a joint approach to governance assessments and offers practical guidance on how such a joint approach might be adopted elsewhere.

One key lesson is that the joint governance assessment tool is most effective when focused on certain aspects of the aid relationship which are common to both donors and partner countries. Going beyond the narrow set of ‘’joint concerns’’ below risks undermining the process:  

• Harmonising efforts and knowledge, coordinating action and reducing transaction costs, in line with the Paris Declaration principles;
• Reaching a common understanding of the evidence base for assessments;
• Greater realism on reform priorities and the scope/pace of change;
• Providing a formal channel for communication on governance issues;
• Improving performance monitoring;
• Reducing aid volatility and increasing aid predictability.

Analysing the likely risks and benefits should be an essential step before deciding to undertake a joint assessment. Political economy analysis of the country situation and the donors-partner government relationship can be useful to inform such decision.

A number of guidelines can be considered when conducting a joint governance assessment:

• Set clear objectives for the assessment and realistic expectations;
• Establish oversight arrangements to ensure that outcomes are perceived as credible and of high quality (eg. composition of the committees, confidentiality rules for some proceedings);
• Be realistic that agreement will not be achievable on every issue but that discussions should nonetheless continue;
• The consultant team needs sufficient time and independence to prepare a report which is based on different sources of evidence and highlights the most important issues, even if those are controversial.