Rwanda - Promoting Accountability and encouraging sustainability through Imihigo tool
Imihigo was launched in April 2006. It is used to design a series of performance management contracts signed between the president of the republic and all 30 district mayors on behalf of their constituents (from a family to the district). It identifies a set of priorities and it presents a set of specific targets backed by measurable performance indicators.
Challenge
It was remarked that there were a number of challenges in the imihigo planning process that required a revision of the planning process to ensure that these were adequately addressed. These included: low quality of some imihigo which did not adequately reflect national and local priorities and lack of quality assurance at the different stages of preparation/planning. For instance, some donors can’t honor to the pledges in terms of funding and this may delay the implementation of that particular activity and then affect the whole process. Another challenge which does not much exist frequently is that some local leaders are too ambitious when they enumerate pledges in the performance contract. To address these issues, the approach to the planning of the 2010/11 imihigo was revisited.
Approach
The process from the planning to the evaluation phase was developed, discussed and adopted by all stakeholders. It highlighted the need for more focus on results/outputs in the performance contracts and moving away from routine activities. These were selected as they show more clearly the impact they would have on the population. It was also clearly communicated and understood that the imihigo would show priority programs whilst the remaining routine actions would still be considered in the individual District action plans. The revised steps were:
Step 1: Identification of local priorities: consultative meetings at District level with different stakeholders were held and discussed local government priorities in the fiscal year 2010/2011.
Step 2: Identification of national priorities by central Government: Each key line ministry identified national priorities (MDGs, Vision 2020, EDPRS, GoR programmes and policies, Leadership retreat resolutions, National Dialogue, Cabinet resolutions) to be implemented at local levels for which they have earmarked resources that they would transfer to local governments.
Step 3: Validation and Approval of Imihigo: Local government presented and discussed the priorities targets based on national priorities communicated to them and the revised targets were validated by District councils.
Results
1) Enhanced creativity and innovation leading to good performance in various socio-economical and political sectors mainly unity and reconciliation, infrastructure development countrywide, agriculture and livestock productivity, environment protection through terracing and re-afforestattion, education by reducing dropouts, increasing enrolment, construction of classrooms for 9YBE, resolved communal conflicts and reduced unnecessary court backlogs to mention a few. This has been achieved because officials at all levels are specifically thinking about imihigo with the focus on results and whereby ordinary citizens are given a greater role in policy formulation and evaluation.
2) Remarkable improvement in food security (according to ActionAid 2010 Hunger FREE scorecard report – Rwanda jumped some 6 positions to rank 11), improved competitiveness and innovations by (Global Price Index), environmental management, doing business, to mention but a few. This has been possible because of competitive atmosphere and all-inclusive participation of all actors in local governments through Imihigo approach.
3) Stronger focus on results orientation has been fostered where citizens priority activities depending on their level of importance and available resources to implement them. These priorities were derived from the Rwanda long-term development vision of 2020, the MDGs, the long-term investment plan, Rwanda poverty reduction strategy etc...
4) Strengthens accountability as demonstrated through Councils and Public Accountability days. This is locally held in spirit of presenting exemplary performance for Imihigo locally called “Kurata Ibigwi’’.
5) Increased participation and ownership by citizens and other stakeholders since priorities are developed from grassroots level and monitor implementation. The 7 year sectors from 2006 are: good governance, economic development, social affairs and justice etc…
Partners
Based on sectors of interventions, these partners apply their interventions into the existing mechanisms. For example: Common Development Fund (CDF), International and Local NGOs etc… The process from the planning to the evaluation phase was developed, discussed and adopted by all partners.
My organization, Strengthening Civic Partipation Project provides Technical Assistance to the districts and sectors to have a citizen awareness campaign regarding using suggestion boxes, Community scorecards, citizen report, analyze citizen concerns, and report back to citizens.
Lessons
Imihigo is proving to be a mechanism for ensuring better accountability and service delivery by increasing understanding of roles and responsibilities, increasing citizens’ voice and participation, getting results through contracting for specific indicators and prioritizing service delivery assignments and accountability by sector.
Additionally, Imihigo helps districts match responsibilities with resources. It improves planning and budgeting, monitoring and implementation.
Furthermore, Imihigo has allowed for rapid increase in meeting several key sectors (education, health and services) indicators.
Finally, Imihigo requires that Mayors and civil servants become much more focused on all sector activities, in an equitable way.
Mugunga Matabaro, Rwanda
Governance Capacity Building Specialist, Millennium Challenge Corporation
Views: 184
Comment
-
Comment by Fred Tabung on July 1, 2011 at 2:13am -
Mugunga, thanks for providing these clarifications. I appreciate it.
-
Comment by Mugunga Matabaro on June 30, 2011 at 11:57pm -
The mechanism for ensuring that the development projects proposed by the primary stakeholders are integrated into district plans is not single, they are many existing mechanisms and they are complementing each other. Yes, it is the case where community representatives validate the district plans through elected councilor’s participation.
Another important mechanism used to make it happen in Rwanda is an interesting approach known as Joint Action Development Forums (JADF) al local level. The most important impact of the JADF mechanism seen so far is the growing team spirit among organizations, through improved participation and coordination in planning, monitoring and evaluation of development activities in the districts. Improved dialogue and exchange on development issues is viewed as a valuable asset that has led to greater efficiency and effectiveness of interventions. A JADF is a powerful instrument for leaders who cultivate good relations with citizens, promote participation and know how to value the viewpoints and inputs of different actors. This participation makes a real balance between the aspirations of the primary stakeholders and the national plans communicated to the district.
Fred, both steps (1 & 2) are complementing each other, whereby step 2 is focused at National level lead by MDG, Vision 2020, EDPRS etc… while step 1 is district development plan. District priorities reflect the long term vision of the country. It is a chain.
First of all we can remind ourselves that Rwanda is guided by MDG through Vision 2020, since this vision is too huge and long term, Rwanda has developed a five year plan known as District Development Plan(DDP), again this plan seems to be general even if it captures the district priorities but still the feasibility is not easy, Here comes in MTEF (Medium-Term Expenditure Framework) it covers 3 years, but every year the proposed amount of every institution it is adjusted according to the budget available.
Proposed badgets in Rwanda for all institutions in MTEF system must integrate the programmes related to:
- Rwanda Vision 2020
- Poverty eradication strategy
- MDGs Programmes.This is three year plan is long, then comes in Annual Plan. From this one year pan, Imihigo are set for 6 months. All the entire process had included citizen’s representative’s participation. So, it is not top-bottom nor bottom-up but two ways communication. Briefly, it is results- oriented approach lead by a strong political will and support.
The implementation plan in twice a year. The challenges faced are all mentioned in the story.
Feel free for further clarification if any.
-
Comment by Fred Tabung on June 30, 2011 at 11:24am
-
Mugunga, thanks for sharing this very interesting results story. It is truly an example to emulate in other African countries. I find the initiative very interesting in ensuring accountability. I do have a few concerns:
1)When I was reading the story, I had the same concerns as Dr Mandebvu which you have addressed but I did not fully understand the mechanism for ensuring that the development projects proposed by the primary stakeholders are integrated into dsitrict plans. If there is a vetting process whereby community representatives validate the district plans how do they find a balance between the aspirations of the primary stakeholders and the national plans communicated to the district (as indicated in step 3 above).
2) Steps 1 and 2 seem to be carried out independently of each other (do let me know if this is not the case) and step 3 gives an impression of a top-down rather than a bottom-up approach.
3)What was the implementation time for the results listed? (I must say they are very impressive)
4) Lastly I would like to know the challenges (if any) you've encountered in achieving these results.
Thank you
-
Comment by Mugunga Matabaro on June 28, 2011 at 4:09am
-
Thank you Dr. Samwel, you are right, because of the limitation of words for our stories, I didn't go beyond the maximum.These district priorities are normally started from village's level where each family(household) set its priorities to be sent to the upper local level (cell level) which will be also presented to the sector level and finally reviewed by district team for compiling district priorities(It down-top approach).
Additionally, the issue of power and influence managed to ensure equitable access to discussion platforms for all stakeholders is basically found into the existing mechanisms such as community works, accountability days at local level, different local commissions ( social, economic, justice, etc... are all in place), Imihigo. I don't have now the percentage of access to that platforms, but the majority participate whereby the CSOs stand for their constituents. Rwanda is on the right way to increase the level of partnerships between CSOs and Local government officials, so that the long term vision 2020 can smoothly be achieved in all sectors.
-
Comment by Dr. Onward Samuel Mandebvu on June 28, 2011 at 3:11am -
Perhaps due to space limitations Mugunga did not elaborate whether there is no risk of local district priorities being set aside when national priorities are announced. Or is it that national guidelines precede local priority listing? I am also curious to hear to what extent the voice of the villager finds its way into the district priorities. How are issues of power and influence managed to ensure equitable acess to discussion platforms for all stakeholders?
-
Comment by Mugunga Matabaro on June 28, 2011 at 2:50am
-
People could think why this tool was successful in Rwanda; two main reasons are behind this interesting result-story:
1) Political will: Because there is a high level of political will which is focused on the results/deliverable.
2) Existing mechanisms and structures which consider all stakeholders (Government, Civil Society Organizations and Private Sector) to work closely with the same understanding for the way to go.
-
Comment by Mugunga Matabaro on June 27, 2011 at 1:42pm
-
Thank you all for your important feedback. Let all work and change our beautiful Africa.
-
Comment by Disalice Kunaka on June 23, 2011 at 2:44pm -
A positive move that encourages community participation. The integration of local and national priorities is a powerful technique for the success of MfDR and works against duplication, isolated and infeasible efforts as well as overlaps in service delivery.
-
Comment by Sithole Humbe on June 22, 2011 at 10:29am -
Its a sign of a positive change towards MfDR success in Africa. Anyway can more be discussed on how the mayors go about false promises from Donor Funding on project implementation
-
Comment by Solomon Mhlanga on June 22, 2011 at 5:49am -
The fact that these contracts are signed between the Mayors and the President himself shows great commitment from the leadership which is a key ingredient for MfDR to be successful. This should be emulated by other countries.
Get Involved
Latest Activity
Nuha left a comment for Sylvestor Obong’o"Hi Sylvestor..
Thanks for checking on me. I am very busy these days and jumping between North and South of my country. I hope that things will be better for our Sudans"
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Nuha"Nuha,
Hallo how have you been! You are lost, how is Sudan and work!
"
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Benjamin Mlimbila"Benjamin,
Karibu African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results"
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Salima Madhany"Hi Salima,
Can see you have joined the community! Karibu sana and I hope you will enjoy it!
"
© 2012 Created by copafrica.
You need to be a member of CoP-MfDR-Africa to add comments!
Join CoP-MfDR-Africa