OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Japan 2020
The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducts reviews of the individual development co‑operation efforts of DAC members once every five to six years. DAC peer reviews critically examine the overall performance of a given member, not just that of its development co‑operation agency, covering its policy, programmes and systems. They take an integrated, system‑wide perspective on the development co‑operation activities of the member under review and its approach to fragility, crisis and humanitarian assistance.
Japan combines diplomatic, peace and development efforts to achieve sustainable development and implements the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through a whole-of-society approach. It values self-reliant development, country ownership and the mutual benefits of development co-operation for Japan and its partner countries. Japan is recognised as a global champion of disaster risk reduction. Increasing official development assistance could strengthen Japan's leadership and commitment to the SDGs and a mechanism would help ensure coherence between domestic policies and global sustainable development objectives. Whole-of-government country policies would ensure synergies across Japan's portfolio and it could be more explicit about how programmes reduce poverty. More streamlined systems and procedures would make Japan a more agile donor.
Japan’s results, evaluation and learning
This chapter considers the extent to which Japan assesses the results of its development co-operation, uses the findings of evaluations to feed into decision making, accountability and learning, and assists its partner countries to do the same. The chapter begins with a look at Japan’s system for managing development results, i.e. whether the objectives of its development co-operation policies and programmes can be measured and assessed from output to impact. It then reviews the alignment of Japan’s evaluation system to the DAC evaluation principles, looking specifically at whether an evaluation policy is in place, whether roles and responsibilities are clear, and whether the process is impartial and independent. Finally, it explores whether there is systematic and transparent dissemination of results, evaluation findings and lessons and whether Japan learns from both failure and success and communicates what it has achieved and learned.