RT MfDR Accra High Level form - CoP contribution

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by AfDB Doug B. on April 3, 2008 at 11:36am

From: sylvester obongo [mailto:soobongo@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 1:29 PM

Doug,

1. The Mfdr agenda is being tackled in different regions (countries) in different ways. However in many countries the nearest these countries have taken is through the public sector reforms. As much as that is the unifying factor it is also marks the point of departure because the focus of PSR reform is not homogeneous. A number of countries Kenya, Uganda and many more have introduced variants of Results Based Management as part of the reforms. Taking on board RBM in different countries have seen move towards different points of emphasis, budget reforms, planning and even decentralization of service delivery. Whereas all these are intended to produce results, rhetoric seemed to outweigh reality on the achievements on the ground.

Secondly, the reform agenda and the new public management seem to directing focus towards managing for results. To date the various reforms programmes on-going makes the best entry point for embedding the MfDR Agenda. Progress has been achieved but more needs to be done.

2. The most unsucessful thing is the 'transfer of concepts without taking into consideration the local contigent issues. E.g. Belief that what worked in country A will work in B. Transfer of policy must be carefully undertaken. Locals given adequate opportunity to make input. In other words ADAPT rather than ADOPT.

3. Key issues emerging from above is that in some instances very good programmes collapsed immediately donors left and others do not take off because of lack of support. Project plans drawn show glaring gaps in local environment.

4. In the past the critical bit was tying of aid where in many instances huge components of assistance was in form of technical assistance. these had to be drawn from donor countries. Blending with the local experts was almost nil. Attitude of developed vs developing country was therefore more pronounced. Consultants earning much more than locals with more or less similar qualification and experince with the local caused resentment and in some cases sabortage.

In addition donors have been operating in isolation leading to duplication of efforts, conflicts in implementation and overstretching of resources (human) in developing countries.

5. Donors should commit to support and fund, one development plan of the countries being assisted and everybody be held accountable for achievement of the plan targets. (Five year, one year and so on). That way in put begins with working on the national development plan, drawing priorities and then working on a joint funding by donors and the host. Then results can be monitored. Expertise can be shared and so is accountability for results.

6. There are high risks primarily of commitment for results. Weak management systems and also transparency. Putting everything on the table for all. Where Soviet Union or Chnia is funding my military expansion and I do not want America to know sources of my funding. Tranparency would be a risk.

Regards,

Sylvester.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AfDB Doug B. on April 14, 2008 at 12:27pm

Tamirat,
You have written a good & useful reply. thanks. It has been posted on the MfDR website (see below)I would hope that a MfDR member from eacj country would submit a brief like this one.

Thanks much.

Doug.


________________________________________
From: Tamirat Yacob
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:23 PM
To: BARNETT, DOUGLAS
Subject: Re: MfDR CoP contribution to Accra High Level Forum

Dear Doug,

I hope this will find you and finds you well. Here are some of my reflections on the issue you have forwarded.

1. What has been achieved, the progress that has been made to-date?


Of course the results so far achieved are different from countries to countries. And also it depends on the country's capacity of implementing agendas and programmes, in my opinion. And each country has tried its best to work on the MfDR agenda, even if there remains a great and challenging job to be done. Actually many of the countries tried to approach the MfDR Agenda through the Public Reform Programmes/ Civil Service Reform Programmes like my country, Ethiopia. But MfDR is not only about Public Reform or Civil Service Reform. It is all about focusing the dialogue on results at all phases; Aligning Programming, Monitoring and Evaluation with results; Keeping Measurement and Reporting Simple; Managing for results; and, Using Results Information for Learning and decision Making. And even it goes beyond these.

In many countries, for example in Ethiopia, The PRSP and MDG processes catalyzed broad-based partnerships and more effective aid, and lead to more sustainable development results. In Ethiopia, both the Government and the UN Country Team leveraged these opportunities successfully to bring diverse stakeholders and donors together around the common PRSP and MDG agenda, and to harmonize aid delivery mechanisms. This has increased the efficacy of development cooperation strategies. United donor positions and actions paved the way for more continuous dialogue and maximize contributions to pro-poor policies. A well coordinated donor platform and work on harmonization helped to deepen the relationship with the Ethiopian Government. This led to routine discussions on policy challenges and solutions, and opened the door for collaboration on MDG-based policy planning. Cooperation between the World Bank and the UN Country Team in Ethiopia and at headquarters contributed to these outcomes, as did maintaining unity in public while sorting out disagreements in private. The creation of a donor consortium with pooled funds enhanced coordination and effective partnerships with government and civil society. The trust that now underlies the donor consortium evolved over time, and was bolstered by proven capabilities, ongoing efforts to encourage inclusiveness, and time-intensive coordination. A pooled fund enabled the donors to extend timely and proactive support. One benefit was the identification of entry points to promote the MDGs. Seeking results through learning is the new emphasis on Evaluation in Ethiopia. Accordingly, efforts have been made and are being made to render the Monitoring and Evaluation System more result-oriented and effective with a sharper focus on outcomes and this led to the designing of MDGs linked/aligned set of indicators as a policy matrix.

2. What remains to be done?

Official development assistance would need to increase in quality and quantity, at least, for Ethiopia to achieve the MDGs and its development agendas, and with a distinct mutual accountability and transparency system we have to continue and ensure that greater share of expenditure would go to longer-term investments in agriculture, education and health. Besides, countries should focus on mobilizing their potential domestic resources.

3. What has been successful/ unsuccessful?

The foundations of collaboration since the first PRSP including the Government's collaboration with donors, and the PRSP Secretariat's work with stakeholders--the NGO Task Force, and Chamber of Commerce; the emergence of a Donor Consortium on the PRSP (Donors set up a consortium in 2001 under their Development Assistance Group in order to have better influence on the PRSP in Ethiopia), National and Regional Consultations with citizens to review the experience under the first PRS, and identify people's priorities for the second PRS- Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) and enabled to rebuke debate on overall strategic directions and agreed within the Government; Strategy reviewed by the full Cabinet chaired by H.E. the Prime Minister, and endorsed with directions; Parliament debated on the plan and the outcome indicators(Policy matrix- a set of MDG aligned indicators) for two weeks and also further consultations with Civil Society, Development Assistance Group and the Chamber of Commerce carried out. And to enhance the policy dialogue and decision making through the optimal use of statistical data the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) formulated the National Statistical Development Programme which is now being finalized. These are some to highlight that have been successful in terms of MfDR.

Due to capacity, logistics and finance constraints consultations at "woreda" level (lower administration tier) on the development plan-PASDEP has not taken place. And the other thing that has not been successful especially in the past two/three years is that the country (Ethiopia) couldn't get what has been expected in terms of foreign aid flow. Although an external grant, for example, that constitutes the resource envelope has increased from its 2005/06 level by a little over 3%, it still stood at 86% of the total 2006/07 budget. And it has put a challenge on full implementation of the development plan and associated programmes.

4. What are the bottlenecks and key issues emerging from the above?

Emerging and existing issues like lack of sustainability in aid, and extensive work on in-house knowledge capacity building challenges are the main bottlenecks. Accordingly we have to ensure that good governance and democratic administration are in place, which I believe key to achieving the MDGs and realizing the MfDR agenda. In Ethiopia, however, the challenge/obstacle is to match higher ambitions with measures that address limited capacity, policy weaknesses and financing constraints. Ongoing policy reforms combined with demonstrated Ethiopian and international commitment seem poised to move the country in this direction and to break the poverty trap.


5. What should be the achievable commitments for donors and partners?

Donors/partners should work more towards aligning aid behind the National Agenda- coordinated aid approaches with the help of holistic computerized aid management system (Aid Management Platform (AMP) as this is going very well in Ethiopia and could be a good practice to be shared with others). The donor/partner consortium, as this institution exists in Ethiopia, should continue to provide technical and financial support to the Government and civil society on monitoring progress, policy reviews, and programme implementation. Also working towards building strong and consistent M&E system which is aligned to the MDGs and National Development plans and programmes rather than going for fragmented and parallel structures should be one of the achievable commitments by donors/partners. Besides, transparency from both parties (donor and recipient country) on development activities including policies and programmes should be enhanced and together they should ensure mutual accountability for the achievement of development results.

6. What are the risks and obstacles to take into consideration?

The issue of low level of external development finance and its unpredictability which we have experienced during the first two years of implementing the development plan- PASDEP, has still remained a critical challenge/obstacle. No clear methodology or consensus to hold donors/partners accountable for their failure to deliver is also one agenda to take in to consideration.

Regards,


Tamir Yacob

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patrick Elat on April 15, 2008 at 6:03pm

Hi Doug,

Grateful if you could share with us some of the resolution and recommendation taken out of the Paris meeting. Also what was the output from the discussion held on the side of the meeting related to "how the CoP might provide its input to the African voice on issues related to results based management."
These piece of information may probably help some new subcribers to easily fit into the discussion topic. Thanks,

Patrick Elat

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AfDB Doug B. on April 17, 2008 at 11:57am

Patrick,

Thanks for the question. Please see the next entry by Zaam (and reply to her). She starts off with a very succinct summary of the outcome. I recollect (imperfectly) that the CoP Mmgt team had decided to carry on the discussion after Paris about how / whether the CoP was ready to 'come out'. It first needed to be strengthened and identify key areas where it had a message / key services to offer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zaam Ssali on April 16, 2008 at 4:22am

Dear Doug,

In the side meeting that was held in Paris during the MFDR 'week'; if I recall well it was not clear whether it would be possible for the CoP to be represented in Kigali. Has this position changed?

Please receive my contributions:
1. A number of countries have taken initiative to introduce results based management in their public sector planning and budgeting. This is evident by presentations from various members on what is being done in their countries at the CoP meeting in Uganda November 2007 as well as other fora. Specifically, for the case of Uganda the budget framework papers for the next FY 2008/9, all ministries, departments and agencies were directed to make their papers result oriented. This is a good start because previously the talk did not show in the actions. But we all need to appreciate that MfDR in Africa is in its infant stage and varies from one region to another, one country to another and more will have to be done especially support from the political leadership and top management for complete ownership.In addition the donors and partner countries will have to work together for realization of more achievements.

2. There is need to appreciate that countries are unique and therefore the pace of adoption of MfDR will differ from one country to another. There have been instances where donors having realised successful implementation of a concept in country x then they move on to implement the same in country y but this may not work-out. Partner countries need to be given opportunity to adapt what best works for them rather than what may have worked elsewhere. All resources should be guided by the given countries national agenda.

3. There is need to harmonise the way different donors work with a specific partner country; many a time different donors have different procedures which sometimes makes utilisation of resources difficult. Sometimes more importance is attached to the procedures than the actual results to be realised.There is usually contrast between donor views on what constitutes best allocation of scarce resources and the views of the partner countries.
In addition, in some instances sectors in partner countries which receive lots of donor resources listen more to the donors than country systems.

4. Where do we place the role of philanthropic donors, e.g the Gates foundation? How about countries like China who may not attach as much importance on issues of transparency, accountability or good governance when they give aid in this whole landscape of MfDR and MA?

5. I think it would be useful for MfDR and MA to be structured in such a way that they complement one another since one affects the other and a clear separation of the two is sometimes difficult.

regards,

Zaam

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AfDB Doug B. on April 22, 2008 at 10:46am

(I had tried to post this reply last week, but ran into a glitch)

Thanks. Note also Patrick's question: you are right, Zaam, the position has not changed. My sense is not much has been done to discuss this since the Paris meeting. I understand that Peter is coming to Kigali (but not as an invited delegate). I am trusting that he will bring some promotional materials (1st annual meeting report, CDs) and pass them around, etc.
Doug.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sheila Daunt Escandon on April 22, 2008 at 11:54pm

Zaam,

Coming out of the meeting in Paris, I heard two key pieces regarding preparing for Kigali and ensuring that the AfCoP voice was positioned at this table. First, that the CoP would prepare materials to help increase awareness of the work of the AfCoP. Second, that we would work to make the AfCoP voice hear through representatives that were being invited to attend. Unfortunately, although Doug has worked very hard to bring AfCoP members to this table we were unable to gain invitations through this avenue. We all owe Doug a big thanks for following up on this strategy! Therefore, we need to focus on using the voices that will be present and ensuring we are clear on what message we will ask them to present on the AfCoP's behalf.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sheila Daunt Escandon on April 25, 2008 at 3:17pm

From Doug Barnett:

Attached are briefing papers in French and English on MfDR issues in Africa that will be used at the Kigali workshop. The paper was produced by the South Africa co-chair of Roundtable no. 4 (MDR) in a very short time due to deadlines required for translation, building on a JV MfDR draft report, Paris Monitoring Surveys, and previous AfDB-WB seminars on RB M&E systems of PRSPs. Had there been more time, the CoP would have been consulted as to its contents. My apologies that this was not possible.

You may find the document useful for your own work and more importantly, you may find areas in which it could be strengthened. As a briefing paper, it is not a ‘position’ paper and its purpose is primarily to help launch discussions as input to Accra.

Attachments:

• MfDR_Briefing_Paper.doc, 201 KB
• MfDR_Briefing_Paper_FrenchVer2.doc, 213 KB

• ▶ Reply