afcop newsletter - dec. 2008

Dec

embe

r 20

08, I

ssue

No7

A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results

African Community of PracticeManaging for Development Results

December 2008

In this issue:Update……1

AfCoP 2nd Annual Meeting: Highlights……2

Forum ~ Experiencesfrom across the Continent……4

Asian CoP-MfDR……15

Upcoming Events……15

Announcements…15

E-discussions……16

CoP Library……16

Join Us……16

Contact Us……16

This ONLINE is a monthly newsletter that provides a forum for members of theAfrican Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (AfCoP-MfDR) and other interested parties to share experiences, discuss issues, and post up-coming events. ONLINE is available in English and French on the African CoPwebsite, www.cop-mfdr-africa.org.

Update

The AfCoP’s management has been very active in the past few months, working to

shape the way forward after the Second Annual meeting held in Mauritius, 27-30

October 2008. We are grateful to all participants at the AfCoP Annual meeting for

their engagement in moving the AfCoP MfDR agenda forward. Special thanks to our

Interim Bilingual Co-Chair, Dev Ruhee, for hosting the meeting in his home country

and providing participants with such a wonderful experience. We would also like to

express our appreciation to the Secretariat team for the general coordination and

organization of the meeting.

Since the Second Annual meeting, the newly confirmed Core Management Team

(CMT) members, the Secretariat team, and the online experts have been busy

formulating and implementing some of the major outputs of the meeting. Several

meetings and discussions were also organized to address the feedback and

suggestions of meeting participants.

The collective efforts of the CMT and Secretariat have led to the creation of two

important documents which are currently in the last stages of being finalized: the

AfCoP 2009 workplan and the AfCoP guidelines. These two important documents

were created to reflect the AfCoP mission and vision and to chart the best way to

achieve these in the near future. The report from the Second Annual Meeting provides

substantial details relating to the proceedings of the meeting. This report will soon be

published and available online. Below are some highlights from this report.

Online: A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results2

December 2008, Issue No. 7

W W W . C O P - M F D R - A F R I C A . O R G

AfCoP Second Annual Meeting: Highlights – Port Louis, Mauritius – October 27 – 30, 2008

Background

The second annual meeting of the AfCoP provided an opportunity for members of the community to meet face-to-face, get to know each other, discuss the community’s progress since the last meeting and contribute to defining its future priorities and activities. The second annual meeting was also a chance for the community to discuss the AfCoP’s response to this year’s MfDR events and the development of policies in the international MfDR arena that affect the AfCoP’s agenda such as the Accra Agenda for Action.

The annual meeting’s objectives were to build on the success of this past year, deepen and develop AfCoP relationships, strengthen the MfDR capacity of the AfCoP, renew its vision and mission and, promote strong leadership and ownership by the community’s members. The meeting’s informal and collaborative setting aimed to contribute to mutual understanding and potential future exchanges and collaboration on MfDR issues.

Members of the AfCoP were sponsored to attend the annual meeting based on their leadership and technical expertise as well as their active and continued involvement in the community’s activities and discussions. In all, there were 42 participants at the second annual meeting, representing 18 African countries and 4 development agencies. The detailed participant list and other relevant documents are available on the AfCoP website at www.cop-mfdr-africa.org.

Proceedings

Goals and Priorities

The majority of the annual meeting business days were dedicated to considering new directions, setting new priorities and activities, and developing a new workplan. Participants did this by spending almost two full days working in thematic groups and coming back into plenary to discuss their findings. Discussions continued after the meeting to reach consensus on a final plan of action. Some of the new priorities include raising the profile of the AfCoP nationally and internationally, developing a communication strategy for the AfCoP, and exploring new modes of communication and e-discussion structures. Some of the commitments in this workplan are shared by several teams such as networking with relevant national and international organizations and collecting and sharing information on best practices. Several previously existing priorities were reiterated with new activities including support of national CoPs, reaching out to potential members in a wider range of fields and the development of an e-library and a resource person database

During the business days of the annual meeting, participants discussed how the AfCoP should respond and link to the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). Participants agreed that the AfCoP should be more aggressive in sharing information across countries and between actors to influence the strengthening and setting up of sound frameworks for MfDR. Participants felt that one of the greatest strengths of the AfCoP is the incredible knowledge and expertise it encompasses and that this should be shared and disseminated in a more high-profile manner. Participants also suggested that the AfCoP should support progress on the PD and the AAA by working closely with the Joint Venture (JV) on MfDR. There was also consensus that the community should strive to establish strategic partnerships with relevant African groups and organizations. Some participants underlined that establishing these




relationships would require that the AfCoP make the benefits of such partnerships very clear to these potential partners.

AfCoP Core Management Team

On the last day of the meeting, CMT members and participants reconfirmed the AfCoP co-chairs Devendra Parsad Ruhee (Mauritius) and Abdou Karim Lo (Senegal). At this time, a new CMT was also confirmed including several new members who had expressed an interest in getting involved in particular thematic groups. The CMT expressed their openness to welcoming new members on an ongoing basis. Below is the AfCoP’s new Core Management Team.

Core Management Team

Thematic Team Team Leader Membership

Membership Zaam Ssali (Uganda)

Jared Ichwara (Kenya) Sheka Bangura (Sierra Leone)Mamadou Abdou Gaoh Sani (Niger)Hicham Syabri (Morocco)

Capacity BuildingSolomon Mhlangga (Zimbabwe)

Mayacine Camara (Senegal)Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo (Kenya)Goaba Mosienyane (Botswana)Seydou Yaye (Niger)

Monitoring and Evaluation

Claude Kakule (DRC)

Tamirat Yacob (Ethiopia)Ashveen Kissoonah (Mauritius) Pindai Sithole (Zimbabwe)Ledule Bosch (South Africa)Abdel Aziz Ould Dahi (Mauritania)

Networking, Knowledge Management and Publicity

Sylvester Obongo (Kenya) and Ali Doungou Boubacar (Niger)

Abdou Karim Lo (Senegal)Captain P. Donkor (Ghana) Richard Ssewakiryanga (Uganda)Dev Ruhee (Mauritius)Pamela Lakidi (Uganda)

MfDR Clinic

Throughout the year, AfCoP members had expressed the need for a training activity in addition to the business days of the annual meeting. In response to this request, two days of the second annual meeting were dedicated to an MfDR Clinic which provided a review of the concepts and principles of MfDR with subsequent application of the tools through case studies and group exercises. The objectives of the MfDR clinic were to help participants:

Better understand different Results Based Management concepts; Better define MfDR and be able to apply this management approach to their own work; Develop a common baseline of MfDR knowledge across AfCoP membership Learn from other MfDR experiences in Africa (in terms of new ideas, lessons, challenges and

lessons learned).

The MfDR Clinic was very closely linked to the subsequent two business days of the annual meeting. Sessions were led by Aru Rasappan (AfCoP e-discussion expert), Dick Van Blitterswijk (AfCoP e-discussion expert) and Mohamed Khatouri (World Bank Africa Region). As part of this MfDR Clinic, an important focus was placed on sharing different experiences in MfDR in Africa. As part of their




preparation for the annual meeting, participants were asked to draft brief case studies on their country’s MfDR experiences. These cases were incredibly valuable and were shared in the participant binders (they are available on the AfCoP website www.cop-mfdr-africa.org). A few of these participant case studies were chosen for further study along with other best practice cases from the continent. Special attention was given to Performance Based Budgeting. Highlights from these case studies will be available in the full report.

Moving Forward

The major output of the second annual meeting is the AfCoP workplan. The draft consolidated workplan divided by thematic group which was created at the annual meeting was subsequently revised and finalized through discussions with the CMT. Some of the thematic teams have already begun working on their activities. The e-discussion facilitators, the webmaster, and the WB-based secretariat are also already working on taking into account the feedback received through the survey and throughout the annual meeting regarding the online forum.

Two years after its establishment, the African Community of Practice is still in its infancy. In this short time, the community has made some great strides in achieving its goals. The AfCoP is becoming increasingly recognized internationally, receiving many invitations to participate in international events and provide input on international policy. This meeting has enabled the community to reaffirm its vision and mission, to assess its progress to date and to define some new priorities and activities. The community is grateful for the engaged participation of those who attended the second annual meeting and for their renewed commitment to the African Community of Practice on MfDR. In the past year, several challenges have emerged including the need to engage members more actively, to promote the MfDR agenda with a wider audience, and to make clear the value added of the community. These are challenges that the AfCoP must still address. The newly confirmed CMT will take leadership in surmounting these challenges and in ensuring that the AfCoP continues to serve its members in the coming year.

Forum ~ Experiences from across the Continent

This section offers an opportunity for CoP members to share their experiences. For this issue, we are grateful to Zaam Ssali, Solomon Mhlanga, Tamirat Yacob, Agnes Musunga, and Abdou Karim Lo for preparing these articles. We encourage you to contact us at [email protected] if you are interested in submitting a story for an upcoming newsletter. We welcome and look forward to additional contributions from all members.

A Word with Mr. Abdel-Hameed M. Bashir (Senior Evaluator/Economist at

the Islamic Development Bank – IsDB)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a) What is your position and role in the IsDB?

I am a Senior Evaluator/Economist at the IsDB. I work in the Evaluation Office of the bank; this is not an independent arm of the bank like the IEG at the World Bank. The major role of this office is to evaluate performance and developmental impact of programs/projects funded by IsDB.




b) What are the MfDR initiatives/strategies in IsDB?

The IsDB does not at the moment have a specific policy or program specifically on MfDR. However, when a program or project is funded it is aligned to the country strategy. At the beginning of all projects/programs, a result-oriented logical framework is defined; such frameworks guide evaluations of the projects/programs, capacity building and technical assistance provided.

c) What are your thoughts on the African Community Practice on Managing for Development Results (AfCoP-MfDR)?

I consider the AfCoP as an emerging community that brings together practitioners of MfDR. The members can call on colleagues for assistance, support and expertise when challenges arise at their places of work. In addition, the community should advocate for MfDR in their countries of origin to advance the culture of achieving results in the development process. This is an initiative that I will recommend and advocate for at IsDB so that it could be introduced in the region covered by the bank.

d) What advice would you give to the Communities of Practice (CoPs) and take home points for the AfCoP?

It is important for the CoPs to remain focused on their objectives. Identification of stakeholders and partners is paramount to aid advocacy for the MfDR agenda. Accountability and M&E should be considered key cornerstones to the CoPs.

The AfCoP should maintain momentum and continue the activeness exhibited at this meeting. But most important is that the people who need the results on the ground most is the common man who is not as fortunate as we are to attend these meetings. The AfCoP should therefore rise to the challenge and take the message home.

e) Give your thoughts on the Paris Declaration and the Accra Action Agenda (AAA)

The Paris Declaration and AAA are key guidelines for both partner countries and development partners. In fact, the IsDB is signatory to both initiatives and is trying to adopt them in its policies and procedures. However, at this stage, the Bank has not done enough to take the initiative into perspective. I think more understanding of AAA is required before implementation.

Interview conducted by Zaam Ssali N.K Programme Officer, Uganda National Academy of Social Sciences

Measuring, Managing and Evaluating Progress in Gender Equality: the Role of Statistics and Indicators, Stockholm, Sweden, 20th November 2008--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Background

As part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), gender equality has become a key policy objective in developing countries. It is increasingly seen as key to boosting economic growth as well as providing a fundamental right. With the increased interest in gender equality there has also been an increased focus on gender statistics and their indicators.

The workshop focused on practical experiences, with the first session presenting international initiatives of gender statistics and the second session featuring national case studies. The seminar concluded with an expert panel which addressed the seminar’s overall question of how gender statistics can be applied to create better policies.




Opening remarksThe State Secretary of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Mr. Joakim Stymne, formally opened the seminar. In his address, he referred to the political context of the seminar: the severe financial crisis and rising food and fuel costs. He presented his ministry’s aims at promoting sustainable global development and an effective use of international aid and financial flows, and affirmed the need for measurements and results. He insisted on the need for reliable statistics and qualitative data, sharing knowledge to track performance and measure the gender gap in areas such as gender based violence or sexually reproductive rights. He concluded by saying that statistics played a key role in shaping policies.

Keynote: Monitoring Poverty Reduction and Equality: Using Statistics to Assess ResultsMs. Ana Revenga (Director of the Poverty Reduction and Development Effectiveness Group, the World Bank) brought forward the central role of monitoring tools, in the context of assessing progress and the global fight against poverty. She started with an overview of how the process of measuring, managing and evaluating can enhance development outcomes, and argued that non-income dimensions of poverty were particularly difficult to capture. She presented several World Bank initiatives as solutions to address those challenges: the Human Opportunity Index, a tool to measure inequality of opportunities among children, and the Poverty Maps. Referring to Sri Lanka, Ms. Revenga explained how poverty maps can improve the design of policies. By overlaying poverty maps spatial patterns of poverty can more easily be detected, which allows to target programmes and funding, and to monitor progress and communicate results. Poverty maps can be used in areas as diverse as malnourished children, access to education, primary completion, gender equality in education, and women in wage employment.

International Initiatives: The Role of Gender Statistics in Managing and Evaluating Results A presentation on the Gender Equity Index (GEI), which was developed by Social Watch was made. The GEI is based on comparable data, classifying countries according to a selection of indicators relevant to gender inequity in three dimensions: education, participation in the economy and empowerment.The OECD emphasized the role it is playing in raising awareness on gender equality through the OECD’s Gender, Institutions and Development Database (GID-DB), a comprehensive database that allows users to identify focus countries and key areas of intervention.The Wikigender, an on online platform to share and exchange information on gender equality was also presented. Wikigender is not only a rich resource of gender-related information, but also invites users to discuss or comment on articles, or post new material. In this way, the site combines a bottom-up with a top-down approach: although open to anyone who wishes to contribute, content is verified to ensure the highest level of quality.The UNDP Oslo Governance Centre presented a new user guide, which links the areas of gender statistics/indicators, governance and service delivery. The focus of the user guide, to be published in 2009, will be on tools to improve data availability. It will look at gender gaps that the MDGs are failing to address, following a notion of basic services and using a human rights perspective.

Evaluating Gender Equality on the Ground: Case StudiesThe second session narrowed the debate to the national level, with a series of case studies. Malawi; Ms. Mercy Kanyuka (National Statistical Office, Malawi) illustrated the use of gender statistics to inform, monitor and evaluate education policy and programs in Malawi. Access to




primary education has been free since 1994, a measure that significantly increased enrolment rates, including those of girls. Gender imbalances were also reduced through the National Education Sector Plan, as illustrated by recent statistics that show an increase of the proportion of girls attending school between 1994 and 2007. Improvements of sanitation facilities as well as the school feeding program have contributed a lot in keeping girls in school. However it was highlighted that more reliable statistics were needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs already put in place, in order to both achieve the set targets and intervene where necessary. India; A representative of the Institute of Social Studies Trust, India made a presentation on the role of gender statistics within the policy process in India, with specific reference to the area of employment and women’s work. Persistent gender gaps in India were noted as well as the need for more gender disaggregated data. For India, more qualitative data were needed to understand realities on the ground and adapt evaluation methods accordingly, especially when one considers the size and diversity of the country. Ethiopia: Mr. Tamirat Yacob Chulta from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development presented the role of social statistics in Managing for Development Results in Ethiopia. He emphasized the importance of collecting and using statistics at the national level to feed into the managing and evaluating system. In the case of Ethiopia, the government has implemented a managing and evaluating system since 1996, which includes the MoFED, the Central Statistical Agency and federal line ministries. Recent achievements in the area of gender and development include the adoption of a new penal code on female genital mutilation, more representation and participation of women in decision-making processes, and new laws against gender-based violence. The need to strengthen national statistical systems was underscored. Zimbabwe: Mr. Solomon Mhlanga focused on the role of social statistics in MfDR in Zimbabwe. A gender policy was launched in 2004 and has since been strengthened by the appointment of gender focal persons, with the ultimate goal to mainstream gender into all policies and ensure that all data produced is gender disaggregated. A results-based management program was launched in 2006, followed by a gender-based budgeting program in 2007. The role of gender statistics in MfDR was seen as critical in identifying areas that require policy action. Weak institutional systems and a lack of resources remained important challenges ahead.

Summing Up The workshop reinforced the increasing importance of gender statistics and indicators, especially as regards the aid effectiveness agenda.Various challenges were identified including:

limitations of conventional approaches to data collection the need to open up a bottom-up dialogue in order to give voice to civil society the need to diversify sources of gender statistics Capacity building remained a central concern, both in north-south and south-south

cooperation.The importance of ownership, which should be strengthened through a national approach to dealing with statistics was also reasserted.

Solomon Mhlangga-Director, Program Manager: Results Based Management Program, Reforms Department: Office of the President and Cabinet (ZIMBABWE)Tamirat Yacob-Development Planning and Research Expert Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, ETHIOPIA




Report on the Fourth Meeting of the Latin American and Caribbean Monitoring and Evaluation: 24TH-25TH November 2008, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The fourth meeting of the Latin America and Caribbean Monitoring and Evaluation Network was held from 24th to 25th November, 2008 in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The meeting was attended by one hundred and eighty (180) participants from Latin America, Caribbean, Africa, Multilateral Financial Institution as well as Non-Governmental Organizations.The deliberations of the meeting were organized in five sessions. A few of these sessions are discussed below.

Situation and Perspectives on the role of Monitoring and Evaluation System in Development PolicesThe meeting discussed the presentations on institutionalization of impact evaluation and on Results Based Management in Latin America.It was observed that society has the right to know low resources are used for them to make informed decisions. This can only be done when there are 9989yefficient Monitoring and Evaluation Systems.Public Policy Evaluation can be done from the design stage of project up to its completion. The meeting discussed different types of evaluation used at each stage of evaluation as reflected in the table below.

Main types of evaluation used at each stage of the project cycle

1. During project planning

2. During project Implementation

3.project completion 4.Post completion

a. Exploratory studies b. Project appraisalc. Beneficiary assessment studiesd. Baseline assessmente. Cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis.

a. Program theory and results frameworkb. periodic monitoring reportsc. Beneficiary assessment d. Rapid feedback studiese. Process analysisf. Operational assessmentg. Public expenditure tracking studiesh. Action researchi. Mid-term review

a. Post- test survey and the Completion of preliminaryImpact evaluation b. Implementation completion reportc. Repeated cost-effectivenessAnalysisd. Historical reconstruction

a. Ex-post evaluation report.b. Sustainability assessmentc. Public Expenditure tracking study (repeated)




Closing the gaps: Technical financial and Institutional assistance for Evaluation Capacity Development in Latin America

There was a presentation on the Program for Strengthening Management for Development Results and Effectiveness (PRODEV). PRODEV is a special program by BID whose objective is to build capacity of countries through institutionalization of GPRD for effective development interventions. This is done through technical cooperation, capacity building activities and development of Community of Practice of Latin American and the Caribbean (COPLAC). Participants also discussed the presentation on the program for strengthening Results-based Management and Development effectiveness and the Proposed Development Regional Centers for Evaluation.The proposal by the independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank on the establishment of Regional Centers was aimed at establishing one center in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The program is aimed at filling capacity gaps in: - Building solid Monitoring and Evaluation System (Design, incentive, methods)- Tackling data constraints (data systems, quality, availability, compatibility)- Designing sound institutional arrangements- and building ownership (who conducts and uses evaluations? self –evolutions or independent evaluation? how much monitoring and evaluation is “enough”?- Addressing capacity constraints (evaluators, advisors, skills to use Monitoring and Evaluation information)- Consolidating communities of practice (south-south knowledge building)- Conducting good quality evaluations.

The role of Evaluation: what have we learnt?Participants discussed the role of Evaluation and lessons learnt from presentations by the World Bank and the Inter American Development Bank specialists.Apart from that, the meeting was informed on the Africa Community of Practice whose mission is to build African Capacity in Managing for Development Results through sharing experiences, networking and building linkages among MFDP Practitioners in Africa and beyond.Participants welcomed participation by AFCOP at the LAC Meeting and expressed interest in participating in information exchange and networking as well as the discussions. The AFCOP website was given for further information and contact.

Complementary approaches and alternative methods of Evaluation, Practical EvidenceSession 6 discussed complementary approaches and alternative methods to evaluation. Various presentations were made on different approaches and experiences in Chile, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey,Colombia and Africa. Participants discussed extensively different types of evaluation used at each stage of the project cycle. They also shared practical skills required for managing impact evaluations as well as incentives for the same. Participants were informed of the African Impact Evaluation initiative that brings out the role of impact evaluation in Institutional development. This has been implemented with 8 agencies in 28 countries of Africa. It empowers clients to learn and adopt technologies that work and build knowledge, and work with operations to scale up success.




SALIENT ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNT

1. The majority of the participants came from the various Governments and states of Latin America as well as public institutions. This was a demonstration of Government ownership and leadership on issues of Results Based Management and Results Based Monitoring and Evaluations. This also provides high chances of institutionalization of these concepts and principles.

2. Although the meeting discussed concepts, principles on Results Based Monitoring and Evaluation as well as managing for development Results, the main focus was on impact Evaluation. The meeting discussed best practices and methodologies as well as how to institutionalize them.

The principal foundation for Results Based Management and Development effectiveness includes, strategic development plan, financial management; Results based Budget with an effective Monitoring and Evaluation System. These have to be supported with results indicators and political leadership. Leadership of not only the Ministers, Principal Secretaries but of the other Managers and Civil Society included.

3. The participants also benefited from a variety of researches and implementable approaches studies on Monitoring and Evaluation through practical cases studies by National Government, Local Authorities and Non Government Organizations.

4. Political leadership is cardinal in Management for Development results. Most of the case studies presented registered success due to the involvement of political leadership as systems the demand Monitoring and Evaluation Reports to be presented to congress/participants for consideration before decisions on utilization of resources are made.Ministers and other leaders need to be trained in the process and principles of MFDR and Results based Monitoring and Evaluation training for them to be committed. There is need to sensitize managers that evaluation has value and that it is for their decision making.

5. Participants noted that Monitoring and Evaluation approaches need to have:- A legal basis for plans such as an Acts- Indicators that give a clue on results achieved- Evaluation systems to look at efficiency of plans- Set targets that are achievable and look at the risks involved- Efficient information management is foundation to effective Monitoring and Evaluation.

6. Need to note that evaluations help to make decisions but do not substitute institutions for political priorities. Evaluation is an essential tool for decision making regarding prioritization of programs and allocation of resources.

7. A lot of information has been gathered on what works in Monitoring and Evaluation and MFDR-there is need to foster collaboration and exchange of information through south to south co-operation within Latin America and with Asia and Africa.

8. The Latin America Monitoring and Evaluation Network meets annually to share knowledge, new innovations and experiences on Monitoring and Evaluation and results based Development




Management. The group has had 4 Meetings so far and the next meeting is scheduled for July 2009 in Colombia.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AFCOP

The meeting was successful given the large number of participants and high/good quality presentations. From the meeting, the possible areas of collaboration with AFCOP are:

- Networking –information exchange and participation in e. discussions- Exchange of experiences at institutional, national and regional levels- Capacity building on MFDR and M&E through south to south Cooperation- Representation at Regional Meetings of communities in Practice- Joint research and promotion of MFDR and results M&E- Twinning arrangements- AFCOP can promote specialized meetings such as in M&E to enable experts and professional practitioners to exchange experiences and new approaches as well as best practices.

Agnes Musunga- DIRECTOR‐ Monitoring and Evaluation Department MINISTRY OF FINANCE and

NATIONAL PLANNING, Planning and Economic Management Division (Zambia)

Summary of the Report on the Diagnostic Study on National Evaluation Capacities in Senegal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INTRODUCTION

The diagnostic study on national evaluation capacities was conducted as a joint effort between the Senegalese State, the United Nations System, the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie(OIF), and the Senegalese Evaluation Network [Réseau Sénégalais de l’Evaluation SENEVAL].

The initiative was taken by UNDP, UNICEF, and the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie at a Monitoring and Evaluation regional workshop held in Nouakchott, Mauritania, from October 23-25, 2004. The general objective of the diagnostic study on evaluation capacities in Senegal is to conduct, at the national level, as thorough an assessment as possible of the actors, practices, and human expertise in the area of evaluation, with a view to proposing various scenarios for a more effective institutionalization of this practice in the public management context.

Specifically, this entails:

- Analyzing the practice of evaluation and assessing the quality of a sample selection of evaluations conducted;

- Highlighting strengths and weaknesses in the area of evaluation capacities; and

- Identifying scenarios to institutionalize the evaluation function.

The analysis of evaluation practices covered the following areas:

- The current institutional and legal evaluation system;

- The scope of the practice of evaluation, in terms of both supply and demand;




- The perception held by actors of current evaluation practices; and

- Their vision regarding the future of evaluation in Senegal.

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEM

Analysis of the institutional evaluation system in Senegal revealed the following:

- Weak institutionalization of the evaluation function at the public administration level, reflected, inter alia, by the virtual non-existence of institutional entities with a clear evaluation mandate, poorly developed relations among actors, and heavy emphasis on the oversight function (internal and external);

- No evaluation entity, whether independent or otherwise, is responsible for spearheading, organizing, or carrying out activities aimed at the overall assessment of the public policies implemented;

- Lack of representation of local governments and deconcentrated units in the institutional evaluation system (the evaluation function is virtually non-existent at the decentralized level, at least insofar as the State is concerned);

- Demand for evaluation by the State is weak, a situation largely attributable to the paucity of human resources (expertise) as well as financial resources, the perception of actors of the utility and utilization of evaluations, the lack of political will or even the heavy emphasis placed on the oversight function);

- Strong demand by donors and growing demand by civil society organizations (demand for accountability with respect to public actions);

- Fairly strong supply, in particular in the area of human resources (consulting firms, consultants), alongside a sector with inadequate organization and professionalism (failure to apply norms and standards, for example);

- Several opportunities in the national context could foster stronger institutionalization of the evaluation function (public reforms, decentralization, and changes in official development assistance procedures); and

- Despite these opportunities, a number of factors run the risk of continuing to constrain progression of the practice of evaluation toward a culture of evaluation (lack of political will by the State and some donors, inadequate dissemination of information, and resistance to institutional reforms).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATION CAPACITIES

In light of the findings of the analysis of evaluation capacities in Senegal, the following conclusions were drawn and recommendations made:

A Relatively Well-Developed Practice of Evaluation

This is characterized by:

- A fairly high number of evaluations conducted in recent years (the study identified approximately 90 conducted by questionnaire respondents);

- The importance accorded by actors to the evaluation function and its development;




- The routine nature of evaluations among the actors responding to the questionnaire (three-quarters indicate that they always or often conduct evaluations);

- The initiative taken by actors themselves to conduct evaluations (despite the fact that two-thirds of evaluations are conducted in order to comply with donor or regulatory requirements);

- The preponderance of formative evaluations (focusing on both implementation and effects of the project/program/policies in question); and

- Great diversity in the methodological approach which, as the meta-evaluation findings indicate, do, however, point to a number of shortcomings in the management of evaluations relative to international norms and standards.

Inadequate Institutionalization of the Evaluation Function

The observations in this area are as follows:

- Heavy emphasis is placed on oversight and financial responsibility;

- Institutions have inadequately defined mandates and their roles and responsibilities in the area of evaluation are either not clearly defined or not defined at all;

- Weak relations among institutions affected by evaluations, either potentially or from a regulatory standpoint;

- Weak internal demand for evaluations from State and public administration institutions, in contrast to strong demand from donors and a number of civil society organizations; and

- A pool of evaluation expertise that is not well organized/structured and is found more in the private sector and among development partners than in State circles.

Real Opportunities for the Development of Evaluation in a Senegalese Context

The opportunities listed below are likely to foster the institutionalization and development of evaluations. They include, among others:

- A desire to broaden the evaluation mandate of such institutions as the Audit Office, the National Planning Directorate, and the Office for State Reform and Technical Assistance;

- A growing demand for evaluation by civil society organizations;

- Available human resources in the private sector. However, these resources are not well-organized from a professional standpoint (lack of professional standards);

- Decentralization and gradual change in development assistance procedures (greater emphasis on the use of national systems in the context of the Paris Declaration);

- Civil society organizations and development partners with significant experience with the evaluation function as a learning tool.

The likelihood that these opportunities may be seized is largely dependent on the adoption of a number of measures that foster suitable conditions for the evaluation function to become more firmly entrenched, such as the adoption of a national policy or strategy. However, the study also shed light on a number of risks that could prevent the evaluation function from becoming firmly established. The main factors are the lack of political will and inadequate exchange of and accessibility to information in general, and evaluation results and management information in particular.




In light of the main findings of the study and the opportunities and risks identified in the current context, a number of recommendations can be made. These recommendations are not a "plan for strengthening evaluation capacities," as envisioned at the start of the study. At this juncture, we prefer to limit ourselves to these recommendations, which are so disparate in nature that they cannot be included in one plan (and whose institutional framework for implementation cannot be clarified at this point either). Consequently, the recommendations are aimed at different actors whose common ground is their commitment to evaluation.

Outline of a Plan of Action for the Development of Evaluation Capacities

Regardless of the preferred scenarios of the various political/administrative actors in Senegal, it seems appropriate to begin a policy-related discussion on the procedure for the institutionalization of the evaluation process to be undertaken. Indeed, evaluations do not represent uncharted territory in Senegal. Evaluations have been done there for a very long time and actors are emerging and embracing the evaluation issue. However, the quality of the practice of evaluation can be improved upon, in particular through an institutional framework that takes into account stakeholder concerns. To this end, the following ten recommendations can serve as a basis for discussion and dialogue:

Recommendation 1: Organize a high-level seminar (senior officials, lawmakers, persons working in the field of evaluation, civil society, etc.) on the issue of the evaluation of public policies (it is against this backdrop that Senegalese Evaluation Days were started);

Recommendation 2: Develop various forms of local training in the field of evaluation aimed at improving the expertise of key actors;

Recommendation 3: Incorporate the evaluation function into documents that contain the operating rules of institutions, including local governments;

Recommendation 4: Establish or strengthen planning and monitoring and evaluation units in technical ministries;

Recommendation 5: Identify or establish an entity in the administration to spearhead the practice of evaluation at the State level;

Recommendation 6: Support initiatives aimed at fostering a culture of evaluation (Senegalese Evaluation Network and other professional evaluation associations), through the organization of symposiums, conferences, etc;

Recommendation 7: Encourage the use of international and African evaluation norms and standards;

Recommendation 8: Engage in advocacy work aimed at the passage of a law on public policies or the incorporation of new provisions into existing laws on this subject;

Recommendation 9: Spearhead policy-related advocacy work aimed at increasing the size of evaluation budgets; and

Recommendation 10: Formulate a national evaluation policy or strategy using a multi-pronged approach targeting action on several levels, with the aim of achieving three goals: institutionalization of the evaluation function, improvement of the quality and scope of the practice of evaluation, and promotion of a culture of evaluation.

By Abdou Karim LO, Chairman, National Monitoring Committee for the Senegalese Study




Asian CoP-MfDRAsian CoP-MfDR Holds 2008 Annual Meeting in Sri Lanka

On 11-14 November 2008, more than 20 participants from 15 developing countries in Asia met in Colombo, Sri Lanka for the CoP-MfDR 2008 Annual Meeting. Participants gained collective wisdom by sharing country experiences in MfDR, providing updates on stories that were shared in previous years, and seeing firsthand Sri Lanka's country-led MfDR agenda. Representatives from the Sri Lanka public sector talked about how they have been able to move from piloting MfDR in a few sectors to mainstreaming it in government, emphasizing the importance of champions and commitment. Mr. Patrick Donkor of Ghana attended the event as a representative of the African CoP-MfDR. He talked about the progress of the AfCoP, the ways in which the various communities can work together and generously shared stories from the African region.

The event, co hosted by the Asian Development Bank and the Sri Lanka Ministry of Plan Implementation, was a true showcase of peer-to-peer learning. It provided participants with "a lot of encouragement to work for MfDR even in tight situations of resource constraints," according to Pakistan member Sohail Amjad. "Sri Lanka's experience is an eye opener for neighboring countries specifically and provides a big thrust to further push results management in general in Asia-Pacific." Wahid Waissi adds: "In the case of Afghanistan, [the event] was very much helpful for the development of the results-based framework within country's national development strategy. We learned that we don't need to go by traditional ways of the development process while there are opportunities and lessons to learn from other country experiences. This would help to reduce the risks and saves more time to work on and improve the quality."

Up-coming Events

JV Meeting on Managing for Development ResultsA few selected team leaders of the Core Management Team will be attending the OECD-DAC Joint Venture on MfDR meeting on February 5th 2009 to discuss the future of the JV.

Perspectives on Impact Evaluation Conference: March 29-April 02,2009. Cairo, EgyptThis is an International Conference for policymakers, Practitioners, sponsors and others stakeholders in Evaluation and in Development. For more information regarding registration, participation, and conference brochures, please go to http://www.impactevaluation2009.org

If you know of any up-coming MfDR events and would like to have them included in this listing, please

contact us at [email protected].

AnnouncementsNiger dedicated to implement the CAP-Scan early this year

Together with the existing MfDR capacity assessment tools, the CAP-Scan allows countries to conduct assessments that provide a clear view of capacity gaps, develop actions to address them and target donor support. While 20 countries have reviewed the CAP-Scan methodology, contributed to it, and expressed interest in using it, Mauritania was the first country to test and implement the process last summer.




Based on the experiences of Mauritania, Niger has just launched their own CAP-Scan process. They are interested in using the CAP-Scan as a mechanism to assess their overall progress in results management and effectiveness in development planning and implementation. In the coming weeks, the government will review the CAP-Scan tool and adapt the whole methodology and self-assessment matrix to their context. It is anticipated that the actual CAP-Scan workshop - in which high-level government officials will participate to discuss and prioritize MfDR needs and ultimately prepare an action plan - will take place early February 2009.

For more information, please see: www.mfdr.org or contact [email protected]

AfCoP E-discussions New discussion topics are currently being developed and will be proposed to AfCoP members soon. We look forward to receiving member input in order ensure that discussions are concrete and responsive to real cases and challenges facing AfCoP members. New modes of communication are also being explored and will be piloted over the next few months.

African CoP LibraryThe AfCoP Library is a virtual library located on our website. The library has now been established and populated with documents related to the MfDR Sourcebooks, the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, the AfCoP Annual Meetings, and other relevant topics. We are continuing to collect resources that will be posted online for your consideration. If your department, organization, or colleagues have recently written anything that you would like to share with your fellow CoP members, please contact us at [email protected].

Join UsIf you are interested in becoming a member of the African Community of Practice, please visit our website, www.cop-mfdr-africa.org and register.

For more information, please contact us at [email protected].

Contact UsIf you have any questions, comments or suggestions in regards to either this newsletter or the Africa CoP, please feel free to contact us at [email protected] or any team leader within the Core Management Team (CMT):

Membership -- Zaam Ssali, Uganda: [email protected] or [email protected]

Networking, Knowledge Management, and Publicity -- Ali Doungou Boubacar, Niger: [email protected] & Sylvester Obongo, Kenya: [email protected]

Capacity Building -- Solomon Mhlanga, Zimbabwe: [email protected]

Monitoring and Evaluation -- Claude Kakule, Congo: [email protected] or

[email protected]

afcop newsletter - dec. 2008

Documents

afcop annual meeting

afcop mfdr agenda

afcop mission

development results

afcop relationships

afcop guidelines

annual meetings objectives

development resultsdecember