Fourth AfCoP Annual Meeting

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

1


2

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORDS ........................................................................................................................................ 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 6

I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 7

A. Context 7

B. AfCoP Overview 7

C. Fourth Annual Meeting Acknowledgements 8

D. Achieving the Annual Meeting Objectives 8

II. MFDR IN PRACTICE: EXAMPLES FROM ACROSS AFRICA ..................................................... 9

A. Providing Incentives for Public Sector Performance 9

B. Overcoming Challenges in Planning for Outcomes 11

C. Moving from Line-Item to Performance Budgeting 12

D. Citizens‟ Engagement in Public Sector Management 13

E. Creating A Results Culture at the Sub-National Levels 14

F. RBM and M&E in Kenya 15

III. AFCOP GOVERNANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS ....................................................................... 17

A. AfCoP Retrospective Evaluation 17

B. Transitioning Toward a New AfCoP Governance 18

C. Targeting Sustained and Effective National Chapters 19

IV. CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD ........................................................................................ 20

A. Meeting Achievements 20

B. Implementing the Meeting‟s Decisions 20

ANNEXES

I. AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting Agenda 21

II. AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting Participants 25

III. Results of AfCoP Annual Meeting Evaluation 28


4

Foreword For the last four years, the African Community of Practice (AfCoP) has

been at the forefront of institutionalizing Managing for Development

Results (MfDR) in Africa. This is demonstrated by a wide- range of

reforms taking place in the public and private sectors of member

countries. AfCoP national chapters and individual AfCoP members

have helped spearhead these reforms. The Fourth AfCoP Annual

Meeting that I had the honor to co-host, as the Chairman of the

Kenyan CoP, provided a chance to closely look at what works and

what does not in managing for results.

The gains realized so far, need to be pursued and adapted by other implementing agencies to

achieve maximum gains from the amounts spent by governments and private institutions. This calls

for mainstreaming results-based methods, such as performance-based budgeting, a fundamental

MfDR component, and robust Monitoring and Evaluation frameworks which bring about desirable

development outcomes.

Kenya and other countries‟ experiences highlighted in this publication, demonstrate that building an

effective system grounded on MfDR practices is a long-hall effort requiring patience and persistence.

Most countries with well-performing systems have not developed them in a linear manner according to

a set plan. Instead, incremental and even piecemeal approaches have been adopted.

This publication provides some useful insights and information on how practitioners have applied the

MfDR tools at country level and will allow readers to draw on and adapt lessons learnt in their

respective countries. It also provides useful information on implementation strategies, challenges,

risks, successes and impacts, as well as helps us appreciate the uniqueness of each country‟s

situation.

In conclusion, it is our sincere wish that this publication will enlighten practitioners in Africa and elicit

more responsive and focused actions. Let us safeguard our achievements and continue to look ahead

with confidence by building on our strengths and address areas of concern by working harder and

smarter, as we all strive to attain a better future for our people.

Samson M. Machuka AfCoP Co-Chair Director for Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 Chairman of the Kenyan Community of Practice on MfDR Kenya


5

Foreword

Meetings of the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development

Results (AfCoP-MfDR) occur on a yearly basis. Yet, they are never similar. The

2010 Dakar annual meeting was marked by a celebration of 1,000 AfCoP

members, the publication of the AfCoP Casebook entitled "A Focus on Africa",

and the launch of a national CoP strategy. The 2011 Annual Meeting in Nairobi

provided an opportunity to review the decisions made in Dakar and to identify

new opportunities for the management of the AfCoP.

This meeting was a great success: the relevance of MfDR practices shared were particularly notable,

as was the remarkable progress made by the newly established eight national CoPs and their

burgeoning influence on national processes.

The AfCoP Annual Meeting also saw the participation of key strategic partners. These include the

World Bank, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the African Development Bank – who have

supported the AfCoP since its inception in 2007. The presence of the Regional Center for Learning on

Evaluation and Results (CLEAR) at this meeting was also appreciated. They provided a two day

workshop on results-based budgeting which was well received by AfCoP participants.

The success of the Nairobi meeting was also due to the strong support of Kenyan CoP members and

Kenyan Government, in particular the Minister of Development Planning and Vision 2030, who was

kind enough to preside over the opening ceremony in the presence of his supporting staff. The AfCoP

Core Management Team was very grateful for the warm welcome to their beautiful country that they

extended to AfCoP participants.

This is also an opportune time to congratulate Mr. Samson Machuka, head of the Kenyan CoP, who

was selected as Co-Chair of the AfCoP Core Management Team, replacing Mr Devendra Parsad

Ruhee of Mauritius, who served with great commitment and sacrifice as AfCoP Co-Chair during the

last four years. The experience and professionalism of Mr Machuka, will be, I am sure, a major asset

in promoting the sustainable development ideals brought forth by the AfCoP.

The Nairobi meeting was also an important moment in confirming the legitimacy and the importance

of the AfCoP as an important mechanism in knowledge sharing and capacity building for MfDR

practitioners. This meeting also provided an opportunity for the AfCoP to reaffirm its advocacy role

with African governments, who need to focus on results-based management policy formulation,

implementation and evaluation of public policy.

Finally, the strategic choices made in Nairobi established a new phase in the AfCoP management.

After exemplary support provided by the Secretariat based in Washington from 2007 to 2011, it was

decided to transfer it to Africa, from 2012 and to have it fully supported by the African Development

Bank (AfDB). We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the AfDB for their commitment and

continued support to the AfCoP in general and to the national CoPs in particular. The African Capacity

Building Foundation (ACBF) has been selected by the AfDB to be the new executing agency for the

AfCoP. The AfCoP has high hopes for this change in institution and urges the new Secretariat to be

an effective mechanism for advocating and communicating the importance of results in Africa.

Minister Abdou Karim Lo AfCoP Co-Chair Delegate for State Reform & Technical Assistance Senegal


6

Executive Summary

The African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results‟ (AfCoP-MfDR) 4th Annual

Meeting was jointly organized with the Government of Kenya and the Kenyan Community of Practice

(CoP) on MfDR in Nairobi, Kenya, from May 23-25, 2011. It highlighted some of the most innovative

MfDR practices taking place currently in Africa. Participants from over 20 countries, both Francophone

and Anglophone, had frank exchanges and debates on issues ranging from how best to motivate civil

servants to linking resources directly to measurable results. The Annual Meeting provided a face-to-

face forum for active AfCoP members to meet, for the first time in over a year, and share good

practices in MfDR, assess progress made, and set targets and deliverables for the AfCoP. In addition,

the Annual Meeting provided an opportunity to discuss the transition of the AfCoP Secretariat to an

African-based organization and for the Core Management Team – a volunteer group from

governments and a range of sectors across Africa – to strengthen its role and contribution to MfDR.

This meeting stood out in terms of the high quality and thought-provoking nature of the substantive

exchanges. The discussion panels and participants‟ inputs helped to highlight the emerging issues in

the African MfDR Agenda.

Objectives

The 2011 Annual Meeting focused on further building and strengthening the AfCoP‟s dynamic

community which is based on generating lively exchanges on MfDR leading to better development

results. The following meeting objectives were achieved:

Taking stock of the AfCoP‟s contribution to Managing for Development Results (MfDR) in

Africa since 2007;

Identifying ways to increase national chapters‟ sustainability and effectiveness;

Agreeing on the AfCoP governance and strategic management going forward; and

Sharing good MfDR practices in Africa through panel discussions and results stories.

Outcomes

Throughout the Annual Meeting, participants exchanged unique and practical MfDR approaches. In

fact, most participants stated in the meeting evaluation, that they wished for more time devoted to

discussing and sharing good practices. A significant section of the Annual Meeting was dedicated to

the AfCoP governance. Participants discussed a proposal presented by the African Development

Bank (AfDB) on transitioning AfCoP management and its Secretariat to the AfDB and the African

Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) as of July 1, 2011. Following an in-depth discussion, it was

decided that this transition period should be extended to December 31, 2011, allowing for a more

comprehensive transition. National Chapters were also discussed. Members who are considering

launching their own National Chapter were able to seek advice from other members on ensuring

success and sustainability. A new Core Management Team was also established with a slightly

modified structure, aiming to ensure continuity during management transition.

Next Steps

The AfCoP‟s 2011-2012 work plan will be anchored in ensuring a seamless transition of the AfCoP

Secretariat from the World Bank to the AfDB and the ACBF. The work plan will take into account that

transition will occur half way through the year. Further focus will be given to sharing good African

MfDR practices through both the web platform and face-to-face meetings, with an initial emphasis on

the upcoming High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness taking place from November 29 – December 1st,

2011 in Busan, South Korea.


7

I. Background and Introduction

A. Fourth Annual Meeting Context

The Fourth Annual Meeting of the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development

Results (AfCoP-MfDR) took place against a backdrop of change, both in terms of the management of

the community itself and in its capacity to strengthen its impact in Africa. Participants agreed to fully

enter into the Phase II of the community starting January 2012 under the stewardship of an African-

based institution. The meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, provided an opportunity to discuss the details of the

transition for better knowledge sharing on results in Africa.

This report showcases the main findings of the discussions held on various MfDR-related themes and

describes the details of the AfCoP transition. To that effect, the following sections discuss the meeting

objectives; the key takeaways of MfDR focused sessions;, and outlines the next steps for the AfCoP

Secretariat as well as its relation with the AfCoP Core Management Team, National Chapters and

members.

B. AfCoP Overview

The AfCoP was established in 2007 and is now made up of over 2000 members from 41 African

countries. Since its last Annual Meeting in Dakar, Senegal, the number of National Chapters has

increased from two to eight. AfCoP champions are spearheading MfDR approaches in their

organizations, making them more results-oriented, effective and accountable; enhancing service

delivery and ensuring that citizens‟ lives are improved.

More than a third of AfCoP members work for African governments. The rest of the members works

for development agencies, civil society organizations, academia, the private sector, and independent

results experts. The AfCoP‟s mission is to build African capacity to manage for development results

through sharing experiences, networking, and building strong learning relationships between

practitioners in Africa and around the world. Government representatives who are members of the

AfCoP most often work in planning and budgeting, or in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). A Core

Management Team of members from more than 15 African countries guides the community and

makes strategic decisions.


8

C. Fourth Annual Meeting Acknowledgements

AfCoP members are extremely grateful to the Kenyan government for hosting the meeting in Nairobi

from May 23-25, 2011. The participation of the Minister of State Wycliffe Ambetsa Oparanya, Minister

of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, provided an invaluable contribution to

the event. Finally, the AfCoP would like to thank the Kenyan Community of Practice on MfDR for its

leadership and welcome in providing an opportunity for participants to learn from Kenya‟s experience

in Results-Based Management (RBM).

D. Achieving the Annual Meeting Objectives

The three-day meeting was organized along the following themes: 1) AfCoP governance and strategic

missions, 2) South-South knowledge exchange on MfDR, and 3) Results on the ground site visit.1 The

sessions – panel discussions and roundtables – were facilitated by AfCoP members themselves and

centered around inputs from participants with the aim of achieving the following goals:

Taking stock of the AfCoP‟s contribution to MfDR in Africa since 2007;

Identifying ways to increase national chapters‟ sustainability and effectiveness;

Agreeing on the AfCoP governance and strategic management going forward; and

Sharing good MfDR practices in Africa through panel discussions.

About 60 MfDR leaders, representing a wide range of expertise and geographic locations, from both

Anglophone and Francophone countries contributed to the discussions. Senior civil servants from

countries who expressed interest in establishing a National Chapter also participated.

1 See Annex 1 for the complete agenda.


9

II. MfDR in Practice: Examples from Across Africa This Annual Meeting highlighted innovative MfDR practices currently taking place across Africa.

AfCoP members are continually asking for increased knowledge sharing of MfDR practices, as they

believe that this is the best way to understand how MfDR works on the ground. To respond to this

demand, the Annual Meeting was structured around a series of discussion panels moderated by

members with presentations by leading African government representatives. The main takeaways of

those sessions are outlined below. The discussion panels also provided a good opportunity to take

stock of the many good practices now occurring in Africa. It was particularly striking to see the

progress made since the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, given that we are now in the

months leading up to the Fourth High Level on Aid Effectiveness to be held in Busan, South Korea, in

late November 2011.

A. Providing Incentives for Public Sector Performance

Incentives can be a powerful tool for changing behavior. Various incentive schemes have been

introduced to motivate teams and employees with the aim of increasing organizational effectiveness.

But many African countries and organizations struggle to stimulate workers and find it difficult to

establish relevant incentive systems. This discussion panel provided an overview of incentives that

can lead to better results and generated (or attempted to answer) the following key questions: Are

setting targets and providing feedback enough to enhance employee effectiveness? How do

monetary incentives increase or on the contrary decrease workers‟ motivation? Are there other

valuable rewards which are likely to have an effect on an individual‟s or a group‟s effort? What are the

impacts of longer-term incentives such as meritocracy and promotion? AfCoP participants highlighted

three different perspectives: managing the human resources in the civil service of a post-conflict

country – Sierra Leone; successfully motivating workers to implement the Senegalese State reforms;

and ensuring a sound public financial management system in Uganda.

Ernest Surrur, Director General of the Sierra Leone Human Resources

Management Office, detailed his ongoing efforts to motivate civil servants,

in a country which lost its talented public service staff before and during

the war. Due to several factors, including low salaries, the public service

fails to attract and retain young graduates who are absorbed in the private

sector. In the civil service, a culture of absenteeism, callousness,

alternative employment, rent-seeking, and low productivity exists.

Additionally, the lack of benefits discourages rather than encourages

performance.

In response to these stark challenges, Sierra Leone recently:

Introduced a Performance-Based Accountability System (P-BAS) to tie performance to

pay quality, promotion and training opportunities, based on a yearly evaluation;

Undertook a comprehensive pay and grading reform, making recruitment based on a set

of categories, avoiding discretionary appointments;

Started the hiring of specialists – such as human resources, monitoring and evaluation or

procurement officer –, moving away from recruiting generalists.

Launched an award system rewarding the ministry, department or agency of the year;

Provided a conducive working environment with the necessary office supplies and

facilities for civil servants;

Rebranded the civil service, creating a sense of pride, ownership and belonging through

a set of measures aimed at, among others, raising the awareness of individual civil

servants‟ role in achieving organization level targets.


10

Contributions from panelists and participants revolved around two levels of incentives, at the

individual and organizational levels.

Incentives at the individual level:

There was a broad agreement that for incentives to be effective, management systems need

to clearly spell out roles and responsibilities. Logical institutional structures and training

opportunities need to be in place as well as opportunities for promotion.

Issues related to the retirement age and pension, employment security, moral and intellectual

security managerial support, as well as salary security were also raised by participants. It was

emphasized that many African civil servants are not paid on a regular basis. A recent UNDP

study found that 80% of Niger government employees earned less than the basic amount of

$240 per month deemed necessary to lead a life in dignity. In that context, participants noted

the challenges to motivate a workforce to achieve development results. Likewise, this is one

of the main factors hampering the African countries from attracting and retaining skilled civil

servants.

Participants listed a series of non-monetary incentives, which they identified as critical to

ensuring that workers deliver against the expected results. Government employees can be

motivated through being empowered to achieve important tasks, being recognized for the

work accomplished and offered an increased level of responsibility. This provides a sense of

career and purpose instrumental in gearing an organization toward results.

Leadership from senior management can set the pace for an entire organization through

setting an example. Demonstrating a personal commitment to excellence goes a long way to

changing organizational culture and behavior.

Incentives at the institutional level:

Uganda, and most recently Zimbabwe, spearheaded the use of performance contracts (PCs),

passed between sector ministries and central authorities, often at the Prime Minister or

Ministry of Finance level. Every institution is given targets and accountable to achieving them.

Independent regulatory agencies constitute also an incentive to increasing service delivery

with dedicated staff. Those bodies are public authorities responsible for exercising

autonomous authority over some area of public affairs. Those agencies exist due to the need

for rapid action, complexity of issues and to avoid political interference. This type of structures

enables the hiring of staff based on a salary scale and benefits which differs from the ones of

civil servants. The downside is that it doesn‟t permit the civil service to retain its skilled staff

tempted to move to better paid jobs in those agencies.


11

B. Overcoming Challenges in Planning for Outcomes

While the traditional planning design process intends to lay out a set of activities, planning for

outcomes focuses on achieving development results. Practitioners are increasingly realizing the need

to establish linkages with other development plans to avoid duplication of work and promote

integration. Drawing on experiences from Zimbabwe, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the

Congo, this session focused on questions such as: How can administrations keep their plans flexible

in case an emergency arises? What are the key components existing to make a plan successful? To

what extent are budget and M&E directorates involved in the planning design? How are African

planners overcoming constraints such as skills shortages? Are there notable success stories or

development solutions in that area that can be replicated elsewhere?

Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi from the Zimbabwe‟s Office of the President

Modernization Department analyzed the current results-based management

system, which has been in place since 2005. This system focuses on results

rather than inputs for a better use of scarce resources.

Zimbabwe has experienced the following challenges:

Limited resources to move initiatives forward, especially before the

2009 hyperinflation period;

Political polarization leading to short term political benefits rather than long term

developmental focus;

Resistance to change, as some Permanent Secretaries have not seriously embraced RBM

and are still managing based on activities only;

Linkages between departmental and institutional levels of an organization;

Identifying and filling gaps in plans, indicators to measure performance and targets to

achieve.

Zimbabwe is increasing its planning for outcomes work through:

Developing a widely shared National Vision. The Zimbabwe National Vision 2020 is being

revised and publicized with the aim of guiding the implementation of RBM;

A Results-Based Five-Year Medium Term Plan is being developed to guide the budgeting

process starting year 2012;

Developing sectoral, organizational and departmental visions to guide inter-ministerial

programmes and projects, as well as missions and results-based strategic plans to focus

Ministries and Departments on outcomes;

Training Ministers and Parliamentarians in RBM and on the benefits of focusing on outcomes;

Introduced Performance Contracts for Permanent Secretaries;

Re-introduced client service charters;

Implementing results-based budgeting performance agreements for ministries signed with the

Ministry of Finance for budgetary accountability.


12

C. Moving from Line-Item to Performance Budgeting

Citizens and development partners are increasingly demanding greater accountability and

transparency from governments. Dissatisfied with the often lackluster growth and performance in

fighting poverty, development stakeholders are insisting that budgets be more effective and have a

clear link between resources and results. The most direct way to link resources with results is through

results-based budgeting. Results-based budgeting systems are gradually being adopted throughout

Africa, with English-speaking countries leading the way. For the past 10 years or so, more and more

African countries have developed medium-term expenditure frameworks and program budgets. This

means that sector ministries and departments are required to propose public expenditure

programming for several years (generally three or four), broken down into programs and accompanied

by specific goals, as opposed to yearly budgets that focus on activities only. But what does it take to

move from line-item to performance budgeting? Can performance budgeting be implemented as a

revolutionary change or should an incremental approach be adopted? What capacity needs should be

addressed to move in that direction? This panel discussed how performance budgeting can be

implemented and factors to ensure success. The panelists also identified practical lessons on how to

adapt such successful approaches to country and local contexts.

William Rukundo with the Directorate of National Budget of the Rwandan

Ministry of Economy and Finance drew attention to his country‟s recent

achievement in performance-based budgeting, moving away from its initial focus

on inputs and budget line-items.

Rwanda is currently facing the following three main implementation challenges:

Difficulties in reporting on actual expenditures according to plan because

the budget formulation data is not in the same format as the budget execution data;

The non-financial performance information is captured in the budget system but cannot be

automatically monitored within the system.

Costing programs and sub-program based on the desired outputs has not been effective over

the medium-term.

Participants shared the following experiences with Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB). Overall, it

seems that proper training is key to ensuring success:

In Mauritius, PBB was introduced in 2006 with a pilot in 4 ministries. At the beginning, it was

difficult to get immediate support from ministries through the accounting officers due to the

workload involved. The Parliament and the ministry of civil service and administration were

brought on board and a lot of sensitization and training were conducted.

In the case of DRC, MfDR is yet to take root and PBB is still rather a new concept. The major

challenge is how to manage the budget submitted to parliament since parliament has not

been sensitized on PBB and hence tend to add many items with a focus on individual

constituencies.

In Rwanda, parliament was involved in the development and production of Vision 2020, the

medium term plans and two generations of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). The

strategic plan is divided into 14 sectors. At sector level, joint sector reviews are conducted

mid and end year. Various partners are brought on board to review performance. The joint

budget support team reviews the budget performance.


13

D. Citizens’ Engagement in Public Sector Management

Engaging citizens in public services and programs has never been easier. As a result, Civil Society

Organizations (CSOs) are putting public administration under greater scrutiny. As such, Government

agencies are expected to be more accountable and increase the availability and quality of information.

What does increased citizens‟ engagement means for development outcomes? Is there a noticeable

difference in the quality, impact, and sustainability of development projects when citizens are

involved? And if so, can this difference be measured? This session discussed current trends and work

in citizens‟ engagement in Africa with a particular focus on citizen engagement approaches for PRSP

development in Senegal as well as initiatives taking place in Mauritius.

Abdou Karim Lo, Delegate for State Reform and Technical Assistance, explained

that the 2010 preparation process for Senegal‟s new national poverty reduction

strategy places citizens and development stakeholders at the center of the

document design and implementation. A strong consensus on the expected results

and main themes was achieved thanks to this increased stakeholder dialogue. The

involvement of development stakeholders is two fold:

Working groups for each theme are composed of representatives from sectors, civil society,

employees‟ organizations, the statistical agency, as well as various directorates and

development partners.

Regional consultations also occur, targeting decentralized services, local elected officials,

youth, seniors, women, disabled people organization, etc.

This process has proven that the participation of all stakeholders in the design process is an enriching

experience, appreciated by all actors.

Participants shared the following thoughts:

Many countries have adopted PRSP approach through participatory process. Mali has ten

years of experience in using a participatory approach in poverty reduction. The country‟s case

is similar to that of Senegal and the development of the economic strategy for 2012 is

underway. The biggest challenge has been that too many stakeholders take part in the

process with diverse interests and priorities, making it difficult to reach a consensus.

Reconciling the participatory approach with technical approaches such as macro-economic

aspects is also challenging due to conflicting interests. In addition, the regional consultations

are costly and do not necessarily meet the expectations of local and development partners.

Representative democracy is not direct democracy. Though parliamentarians represent the

population, youth and women groups also represent parts of the population to ensure broader

representation. It is important to ensure that all groups participate in planning.

PRSP should be participatory, however there is need for structured engagement. Though it is

difficult to consult all citizens, it is important to ensure representation of all social groups. Mali

has a forum that provides „space for democratic appeal‟ where they explain to citizens how,

what and where the Government of Mali is implementing its projects and policies.


14

E. Creating A Results Culture at Sub-National Levels

Most African countries now have a second or third generation PRSP and are in the process of

monitoring its implementation. Skilled professionals understand the need to make these systems

results-oriented at all levels. It is often challenging for decentralized and local entities to respond to

national MfDR needs. To tackle these issues, countries are building and strengthening monitoring and

evaluation systems at the local level. Have Monitoring and Evaluation systems demonstrated a

transformative effect on results culture? How can regional entities bridge the gap with the capital city

to provide reliable and credible data on results? Do countries establish systems to transfer knowledge

and mechanisms at the local level? The Malian example provides an effective way to think on how to

best monitor the PRSP implementation nationally. On the third day of the meeting, the Kenyan

Community of Practice organized a site visit for participants to learn from both the Constituency

Development Fund (CDF) in the Gatanga Constituency, Central Province and the Nairobi City

Council‟s recent results using various RBM approaches.

1. Mali: Local Level

Sadio Koly Keita, an analyst with the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) Unit in Mali, provided an

analysis of how the Government built systems and capacities to ensure effective data collection on

the progress made to achieving the 2007-2011 Malian growth and poverty reduction agenda at the

local level.

Before the introduction of a local poverty database and monitoring system in 2009,

five territorial communities were implementing projects with no linkages to the

national poverty reduction mechanisms and its M&E. Those communities had

limited knowledge of sector policies, of the PRSP and its national M&E poverty

indicators and performed planning exercises with limited statistical information and

use of maps.

To respond to those weaknesses, Mali established an M&E poverty database allowing local

communities to provide an effective contribution to the national development plan and the Millennium

Development Goals. At its core, this approach values existing structures and put stakeholders first, by

providing communities with adequate tools and results-based management capacities, including the

ability to monitor and use data for decision-making.

This led to the following results at the local level:

The PRSP process and its M&E mechanism are better understood.

Stronger production, management, and data analysis capacities.

Stronger M&E capacities.

Modernized work methods and tools.

2. Kenya: Constituency Development Fund in Gatanga

The CDF act was enacted in 2003 and was pegged to 2.5% of Kenya‟s gross

revenue. Fund management of the CDF was established as the direct

responsibility of members of parliament. Prior to the CDF, the entire process

was centralized, which resulted in a lack of interest in devolving funds to regions

and communities. Peter Kenneth, Member of Parliament for the Gatanga

Constituency in Central Province and Assistant Minister in the Ministry of State

for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, highlighted the need for

sound structures to ensure good governance of CDF projects at the local level.

Thanks to this fund, the Gatanga constituency has implemented its strategic plan which aims to

improve health, water, roads and education services. Gatanga chose to have few projects with


15

greater impacts, as opposed to too many with little results. Since the CDF has been implemented in

Gatanga, a record number of achievements have been realized in the targeted sectors.

3. Kenya: Nairobi City Council

Facing an inability to deliver quality services to Nairobi residents, the Nairobi

City Council decided to fast tracking the implementation of RBM approaches in

2005. Targets are now set at the highest level and, cascaded down to the

officer level. They are aligned to the Nairobi City Council‟s strategic plan as

well as the budget. Many of the projects are short term and at the micro-level,

which lead the Council to use the Rapid Results Initiative in many areas. The

Rapid Results Initiative helps leaders improve capacity for diagnosing

institutional constraints, improving project management and increasing the

results-focus of their work in 100 days. Each project is monitored. Some of the results occurred in the

management of the public transport system, the Nairobi river regeneration and the management of

street vendors.

F. RBM and M&E in Kenya

1. From Reforms to a Results-Based Transformation

At Independence in 1963, Kenya inherited a public service designed for colonial rule. It was made of

60,000 employees and was highly centralized and bureaucratic. To improve service delivery and the

living standards, the government embarked on public sector reforms. It attracted graduates from

universities and built capacities, gradually bringing the civil service to 272,000 employees in 1991.

Until 2002, reforms focused on rightsizing the civil service, harmonizing pay and benefits, as well as

equipping staff with necessary skills.

With the election of a new government in 2002, a second generation of reforms were launched,in the

context of poor governance, high unemployment rate, poor service delivery and loss of confidence in

government services. In 2004, Results-Based Management (RBM) was institutionalized to build a

public service that is citizen-focused, transparent and results-oriented, and to deliver on the Economic

Recovery Strategy (ERS) for Wealth and Employment Creation 2003-2007.

RBM tools were implemented in the following areas:

Performance contracting was introduced in 2004 as a means of holding public agencies

accountable for results. This system is currently in place in 546 agencies.

Service charters exist for every public institution as a commitment on how it will serve the

citizens/customers, providing details on the services to be expected. Customer satisfaction

surveys are also used to ensure the services are delivered.

The rapid results initiative has been used since 2007 to fast track the implementation of new

laws and the vision 2030. It breaks down long term goals into sizeable 100 days targets. This

led to transformed service delivery in provincial administration, the fast tracking of child

immunization, an increased provision of water and the transformation of company registry.

These reforms have yielded results, but are facing a series of challenges. Most of them started from

scratch, and did not building on past achievements and lessons learned. This contributed to a lack of

ownership of the reforms. Additionally, too many initiatives focused on “quick wins”, as opposed to

broad and sustainable reforms. With the advent of the new Constitution, the focus on achieving

service excellence is high, providing an enabling legal framework for results.


16

2. Tracking Performance of Kenya’s Development Plan

With the launch of the ERS in 2003, the importance of building a strong M&E system has been

recognized. Arising from this, the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES) was

established in 2004 and has since then been used to track performance in implementing the 2003-

2007 ERS and the medium term of the Kenya Vision 2030 (2008-2012).

The specific objectives of the NIMES are to build an M&E system for reporting at both central

government and the lower devolved levels (the district level). It provides timely and reliable feedback

to the budgetary preparation process; tracks the effectiveness of government programmes and

projects and ensures active participation of the civil society.

National indicators are identified at the start of the country‟s development plan‟s implementation and

are used to report on the progress made. The current Medium Term Plan (MTP) of the Kenya Vision

2030 has: 64 indicators for national reporting, 50 gender indicators; and 16 district indicators:

Performance of the MTP is tracked through the various institutions of NIMES. Each government

Agency is supposed to track and report performance internally which then analyses and prepares

reports for national reporting. The following reports are prepared on a regular basis:

Annual Progress Reports (APR) are prepared on an annual basis in collaboration with

Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to inform policy formulation and budgeting.

Public Expenditure Reviews (PER) are prepared on a yearly basis to provide information on

how public funds are being used and their impact in developmental work.

Mid-Term Reviews are conducted after 2 and half years of implementation of the MTP to

assess whether outcomes are being realized

End Term Reviews are conducted at the end of the five years to provide information on

performance over the whole plan period.

The APR, PER and other national reports are disseminated in a national stakeholders forum and then

forwarded to ministries for informing budgetary and other development processes. The reports are

also posted on websites for wider consumption (www.monitoring.go.ke or www.planning.go.ke).

Challenges faced in tracking performance are that capacities are inadequate and that M&E tools are

still being viewed as a policing/investigation tool for corruption-related issues and not as management

tools. A Capacity Development Program (CDP) has been developed and is addressing some of the

challenges. An M&E Policy is being finalized and will strengthen reporting and adherence to

performance best practices.

http://www.monitoring.go.ke/

http://www.planning.go.ke/


17

III. AfCoP Governance and Effectiveness AfCoP meeting participants took stock of the AfCoP‟s contribution to Managing for Development

Results (MfDR) in Africa four years after it was established and agreed on the AfCoP governance and

strategic management going forward.

A. AfCoP Retrospective Evaluation

The AfCoP Secretariat presented the preliminary findings from the AfCoP retrospective evaluation.

The aim of this session was to review the findings established to date and to conduct a focus group

type of discussion with the participants. The issues discussed during the session will feed into the

final evaluation report. The AfCoP key objectives 2007-2011 were: to provide an interactive online

platform for African MfDR practitioners, policymakers and researchers; to enhance individual MfDR

capacities; to establish a community to build support across Africa for MfDR and to exchange and

disseminate MfDR knowledge and good practices in Africa and beyond. The retrospective evaluation

aimed to answer the following questions:

To what extent has AfCoP contributed to increasing the knowledge of MfDR good practices

among its members?

To what extent has AfCoP contributed to the adoption of MfDR good practices among its

members?

To what extent has AfCoP contributed to community building among its members?

To what extent has AfCoP contributed to strengthening MfDR country processes?

To what extent has AfCoP contributed to generating country ownership of MfDR?

To what extent has AfCoP contributed to strengthening South-South cooperation among its

members, as well as to connecting its member countries to other country processes?

Here are some of the evaluation‟s key findings:

Adoption of MfDR concepts and tools. 52% of respondents (127 out of a total of 242

answering the question) claim that they have adopted MfDR concepts and tools learned

through the AfCoP website, notably in the following main areas: systematic use of logical

frameworks, contribution to PRSP formulation and implementation, and alignment of budget

with plans.

Improvement in national planning processes. According to the 50% of respondents who

claimed that some improvements took place in their country planning processes over the last

three years, AfCoP contributed to these improvements in 60% of the cases. Those

improvements occurred mostly in the institutionalization of MfDR, through enhanced

accountability and the introduction of results-based budgeting systems.

Individual MfDR capacity. Respondents acknowledged an improvement in their understanding

of the five MfDR pillars as a result of their participation in the AfCoP, specifically in the

following areas: Leadership: +59%; Monitoring and Evaluation: +89%; Accountability and

Partnerships: +84%; Planning and Budgeting: +60%; Statistical Capacity: +51%.

Participants welcomed this initiative. Some questioned the time frame of four years, explaining that no

impact can be measured in such a short time. The evaluation is mostly at the outcome level.


18

B. Transitioning Toward a New AfCoP Governance

1. A New Institutional Framework for Increased Impact

With the current financial arrangement coming to an end, the African Development Bank presented its

proposal on transitioning the AfCoP Secretariat and management from the World Bank to the African

Development Bank. The main components of their proposal include: funding AfCoP phase II strategy;

focusing AfCoP efforts on Africa‟s most challenging development issues and proposal for

strengthening MfDR country capacity through AfCoP.

For an integrated MfDR capacity building project for African countries, there is a need to link AfCoP

support to key institutional reforms undertaken by African countries. The reforms could help countries

reduce poverty and accelerate the progress towards achieving the MDGs five years from the target

date of 2015. AfCoP can become a driving force to contribute to accelerating progress towards

achieving the MDGs.

The AfDB‟s proposal aims at increasing the use of MfDR good practices in public sector management

by promoting results culture at country level and improving MfDR systems. Specifically it will support

AfCoP to strengthen the African countries capacity on MfDR and reduce poverty through enhanced

knowledge sharing, improving national development processes and advocating for better results.

Priority will be given to MDG-related institutions where progress towards the MDGs is weak in order to

make their programs more result oriented and focused on achieving MDGs.

The proposal‟s three components are:

1. Strengthening online discussion on MfDR topics with focus on MDGs;

2. Linking MfDR knowledge to national processes;

3. Coordination of AfCoP activities.

Development partners will be invited to contribute to AfCoP activities. Co-financing will be mobilized

with development partners at country level. Partnership will be developed with Regional Economic

communities to support regional CoPs. Collaborative relationship will be developed with the African

Platform for Development Effectiveness under NEPAD Agency. The AfCoP‟s trust fund currently

managed by the World Bank is set to end early 2012. The AfDB proposed that the African Capacity

Building Foundation (ACBF) will bridge funding and managing from July to December, 2011, at which

time, the AfDB should have formalized its funding for the AfCoP.

The discussion‟s main conclusions were that:

Participants expressed concern over the transition plan and stated that they would prefer that

a more comprehensive and consultative process be established. They also stated that the

CMT should be actively involved in the transition to ensure that the quality of Secretariat

support doesn‟t diminish once transition is completed.

The World Bank will continue its support to the AfCoP until early 2012 to allow time for a

proper transition.

ACBF will be in charge of managing the AfCoP Secretariat, with the African Development

Bank being in charge of the National Chapters.

2. A New CMT for Greater Exchanges on African Development Solutions

The AfCoP‟s Core Management Team (CMT) is the driving force of the AfCoP. Representing

volunteer members from across Africa, the CMT sets the AfCoP‟s annual work program, guides its

decision making, and represents the AfCoP at international fora. This annual meeting, the CMT


19

placed the greatest amount of focus on ensuring a continued level of quality during the Secretariat

and fund management transition from the World Bank to the AfDB/ACBF. The work plan will reflect

this emphasis on transition and build on the results focus of last year‟s work plan.

C. Targeting Sustained and Effective National Chapters

The AfCoP has placed national

ownership of MfDR high on its agenda.

At the 2010 AfCoP Annual Meeting, a

dozen countries pledged to establish a

National Community of Practice (CoP).

This session explored ways of spurring

innovation and progress of national

CoPs. Highlights will be presented by

leaders of national CoPs. The following

questions were explored: how have the

objectives set forth in 2010 been

implemented since then? What are the

actions taken by CoPs to achieve

results? Can CoPs be sustainable?

How success can be defined for a

CoP?

An extensive discussion ensued on

how best to develop strong,

sustainable national chapters. A few

suggestions that emerged from the

discussion as well as from the National

Chapters breakout group highlighted

key elements needed for an effective

National Chapter:

Strong management team;

Active members;

Existence of an action plan;

Number of members who contribute to national processes;

Existence of a annual reporting framework with AfCoP;

Number of regional meetings attended by the national CoP;

Capacity building from the AfCoP;

Broad composition;

Interactive website;

Budgetary Contribution from national institutions including government.

So far eight national chapters have been established and additional countries have demonstrated

interest in establishing their own within the upcoming year.


20

IV. Conclusion and Way Forward

A. Meeting Achievements

Participants acknowledged that the meeting achieved its objectives and that the AfCoP is now

prepared to undergo a transition to an African-based institution. Information in the meeting evaluation

forms indicate that participants found that all the planned outcomes of the annual meeting were

achieved.

Around three-third of respondents felt that the meeting was successful in coming to an agreement on

AfCoP governance and strategic management going forward. In addition, 90% of participants felt that

the meeting identified ways to increase the national chapters‟ sustainability and effectiveness. Almost

all participants also recognized that this meeting successfully took stock of the AfCoP‟s contribution to

MfDR in Africa.

As a result of this meeting, participants mentioned significant progress in understanding how to

establish a National Chapter, as well how AfCoP activities are implemented. The experience gained

through the knowledge sharing sessions also proved to be valuable to most participants.

From this meeting, there emerged a strong willingness to transition the AfCoP Secretariat to a new

structure with the aim of increased knowledge exchange and impact on the ground. It is expected that

new AfCoP National Chapters will be established in the coming months, in close linkages with

countries‟ development plans. The knowledge exchanges on the AfCoP platform will also be

strengthened with the aim of increasing the content shared as well as the involvement of members.

B. Implementing the Meeting’s Decisions

A transition plan for the AfCoP

The World Bank, AfDB, and CMT will work toward defining a transition plan to ensure that

both AfDB and ACBF can effectively carry on AfCoP activities starting early 2012.

Strengthened and sustainable AfCoP chapters

New countries committed to create a National Chapter in their countries over the next year.

Actions are already underway to raise awareness on this with their respective Governments.

Concept notes are being developed to that effect.

A new work plan for a new Core Management Team

Participants defined the activities to conduct for the year to come and will track the progress

made.

More than 20 participants volunteered to take part in the AfCoP CMT

The work plan will be divided between mid-year targets, to be achieved just before the AfCoP

transition, and the annual targets.

.


21

Annex 1: AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting Agenda

May 23, 2011 Theme 1: African Managing for Development Results Practices 8:30 Participants Registration 9:00-10:00 Opening Ceremony

Facilitated by Gisu Mohadjer, World Bank, Results Unit, Manager 9:00 Welcome and AfCoP Progress Update

Devendra Parsad Ruhee, Mauritius, AfCoP Co-Chair Minister Abdou Karim Lo, Senegal, AfCoP Co-Chair, Delegate for State

Reform and Technical Assistance

9:30 Opening Remarks Samson Machuka, Kenya, Kenya CoP Chairman, Ministry of State, for Planning

National Development and Vision 2030, Director for Monitoring and Evaluation Johannes Zutt, World Bank, Kenya Country Director Gisu Mohadjer, World Bank, Results Unit, Manager Lamine N‟Dongo, African Development Bank, Quality Assurance and

Results Department, Lead Economist Dr. Mohammed Isahakia, CBS, Kenya, Office of the Prime Minister,

Permanent Secretary Dr. Edward Sambili, CBS, Kenya, Ministry of State for Planning, National

Development and Vision 2030, Permanent Secretary Hon. Wycliffe Ambetsa Oparanya, EGH, MP, Kenya, Minister of State for

Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 10:00-10:30 Tea/Coffee Break 10:30-11:00 Program Overview & Meeting Introduction

AfCoP Secretariat, Cyril Blet 11:00-12:30 Kenya’s MfDR Achievements

Presentations facilitated by Stephen Wainaina, Kenya, Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, Kenya CoP

11:00 Public Service in Kenya: From Reform to Transformation

Emmanuel A. Lubembe, Kenya, Office of the Prime Minister, Public Service Transformation Department, Kenya CoP

11:45 Tracking the Performance of the Kenyan Development Plan

James Mwanzia, Kenya, Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate, Kenya CoP

12:30-13:30 Lunch Break


22

13:30 Afternoon Overview Hannah Cooper, AfCoP Secretariat

13:35 MfDR in Africa: An Introduction to Three Panel Discussions

Panel discussions facilitated by Sheka Bangura, Sierra Leone, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

13:40-14:30 How Do We Provide Incentives for Public Sector Performance? Presentation:

Ernest Surrur, Sierra Leone, Human Resources Management Office Panelists:

Oumar Diakhate, Senegal, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Center for Research and Policy for Development

Abdul Muwanika, Uganda, Office of the Prime Minister 14:30-15:30 What Kind of Practices Create a Results Culture at Sub-National Levels? Presentation:

Sadio Koly Keïta, Mali, Ministry of Economy and Finance Panelists:

Seydou Yayé, Niger, Ministry of Economy and Finance Joshua Mwiranga, Kenya, Office of the Prime Minister

15:30-15:45 Tea/Coffee Break 15:45-17:00 How Can We Overcome Challenges in Planning for Outcomes? Presentation:

Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi, Zimbabwe, Office of the President and Cabinet Panelists:

Théo Kanene, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ministry of Planning Nazifi Abdullahi Darma, Nigeria, National Planning Commission

17:00 Sign up for Day 2 and Announcements

Hannah Cooper, AfCoP Secretariat 19:30 Reception & Dinner


23

May 24, 2011 Theme 2: African Results and AfCoP Governance 9:00- 9:10 Overview of Day 2

AfCoP Secretariat, Cyril Blet 09:10-10:15 AfCoP Retrospective Evaluation: Findings and Discussion

Discussion facilitated by Hannah Cooper, AfCoP Secretariat 10:15-10:30 Tea/Coffee Break 10:30 MfDR in Africa: An Introduction to Two Panel Discussions

Discussions facilitated by Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo, Kenya, UN-Habitat 10:35-11:30 How to Move from Line-Item to Performance Budgeting?

William Rukundo, Rwanda, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Aymar Tiendrebeogo, Burkina Faso, Ministry of Economy and Finance

11:30-12:30 How Is Citizens’ Engagement in Public Sector Management Implemented? Presentation:

Abdou Karim Lo, Senegal, AfCoP Co-Chair, Delegate for State Reform and Technical Assistance

Panelists: Mahamadou Zibo Maïga, Mali, Mali CoP, Ministry of Economy and Finance Devendra Parsad Ruhee, Mauritius, AfCoP Co-Chair

12:30-13:30 Lunch Break 13:30-13:45 Putting Development Results First in Africa

Solomon Mhlanga, Zimbabwe, Office of the President and Cabinet 13:45-15:00 AfCoP Governance Proposal

Lamine N‟Dongo, African Development Bank Discussion facilitated by Abdou Karim Lo, Senegal, AfCoP Co-Chair,

Delegate for State Reform and Technical Assistance, and Dev Ruhee, Mauritius, AfCoP Co-Chair

15:00-15:15 Tea/Coffee Break 15:15-16:00 Group Work on AfCoP Next Steps: (AfCoP Secretariat to facilitate the afternoon)

MfDR Knowledge Exchange Themes to Shape 2011-2012 National Chapters for Increased Linkages with Development Plans Strengthening the AfCoP‟s Impact

16:00-16:45 Report to Plenary and Action Planning

Group Leader of MfDR Knowledge Exchange Themes Group Leader of Strengthening the AfCoP‟s Impact Group Leader of National Chapters to report on May 25 afternoon

16:45-17:00 New AfCoP Core Management Team 17:00 Optional External Activity

AFCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

24

May 25, 2011 Theme 3: Results on the Ground and AfCoP’s In-Country Impact 7:00-8:00 Breakfast 8:00-13:00 Kenya’s Framework for Results Based-Management at the Grassroot Level

Presentation on the National Constituency Development Fund Group 1 to Visit the Gatanga Constituency Group 2 to Visit the City Council of Nairobi

13:00-14:00 Lunch Break at Safari Park Hotel 14:00-14:15 AfCoP National Chapters Results Report

Mamadou Abdou Gaoh Sani, AfCoP National Chapters Team of the Core Management Team, Niger CoP

14:15-14:30 AfCoP National Chapters Report to Plenary and Action Planning

Working Group Leader 14:30-15:15 How Can National Chapters Ensure Their Sustainability and Effectiveness? Moderator:

Sheka Bangura, Sierra Leone, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

Panelists: Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo, Kenya, Kenya CoP Benjamin Bonge, DRC, DRC-CoP Seydou Yayé, Niger, Niger CoP Evence Eymard Kabre, Burkina Faso, Burkina Faso CoP

15:15-15:30 Pledge to Establish National Chapters

AfCoP Secretariat 15:30-15:45 Tea/Coffee Break 15:45-16:45 Closing Remarks and Discussion

Samson Machuka, Kenya, Kenya CoP President, Ministry of State, for Planning Devendra Parsad Ruhee, Mauritius, AfCoP Co-Chair Minister Abdou Karim Lo, Senegal, AfCoP Co-Chair, Delegate for State

Reform and Technical Assistance Gisu Mohadjer, World Bank, Results Unit Lamine N‟Dongo, African Development Bank, Quality Assurance and

Results Department

16:45-17:00 Meeting Evaluation


25

Annex 2: AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting Participants

Burkina Faso

Kabre Evence Eymard CoP Burkina Faso President [email protected]

Aymar Tiendrebeogo Ministry of Finance Director of the Permanent Secretariat for Financial Program and Policy Monitoring [email protected]

Congo, Democratic Republic

Benjamin Bonge CoP DRC Permanent Secretary [email protected]

Théo Kanene Ministry of Planning Director of the External Assis-tance Directorate [email protected]

Cote d'Ivoire

Stéphane Side Ministry for Planning and Development Planning Directorate Senior Planning Specialist [email protected]

Ghana

Charles Amoatey Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration Lecturer [email protected]

Patrick Donkor National Development Planning Commission Director for Monitoring and Evaluation [email protected]

Kenya

Obuya Bagaka Kenya Institute of Administration Lecturer [email protected]

Lucy Gaithi Ministry of State for Planning, Na-tional Development and Vision 2030 Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Senior Economist [email protected]

Mary Kerema Ministry of State for Planning, Na-tional Development and Vision 2030 Info. and Com. Technologies Director [email protected]

Patrick Kokonya Pratical Heritage Techniques Founder and Director [email protected]

Emmanuel Lubembe Office of the Prime Minister, Public Service Transformation Department Director [email protected]

Charles Mulingi Consultant [email protected]

Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo UN-Habitat Program Review Committee Secretary [email protected]

Joshua N. Mwiranga Office of the Prime Minister Public Service Transformation Department Principal Programme Officer [email protected]

Samson Machuka Ministry of State for Planning, Na-tional Development and Vision 2030 Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate, Director [email protected]

Gemma Mbaya Office of the Prime Minister, Public Service Transformation Department Results-Based Mgmt Advisor [email protected]

James Mwanzia Ministry of State for Planning, Na-tional Development and Vision 2030 Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Chief Economist [email protected]

Mary Ndeto Office of the Prime Minister, Public Service Transformation Department, Institutional Capacity Building and Strategic Partnership Director [email protected]

Dr William Ogara University of Nairobi Department of Public Health Director [email protected]

Mbera Orwoba Office of the Prime Minister Public Service Transformation Department Technical Advisor [email protected]

Alloyce Ratemo Ministry of State for Planning, Na-tional Development and Vision 2030 Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Senior Economist [email protected]

Rekha Shori Evaluation Society of Kenya M&E Expert [email protected]


26

Viviane Simwa Ministry of State for Planning, Na-tional Development and Vision 2030 Senior Public Communications Officer [email protected]

Stephen Wainaina Ministry of State for Planning, Na-tional Development and Vision 2030 Economic Planning Secretary [email protected]

Madagascar

Jean Razafindravonona Ministry of Finance Budget Directorate Director [email protected]

Malawi

Chimvano Thawani Ministry of Finance Aid Coordination Unit Economist [email protected]

Macleod Muyepa Ministry of Finance Monitoring and Evaluation Division Deputy Director [email protected]

Mali

Sadio Koly Keïta Ministry of Finance PRSP Unit Analyste [email protected]

Ouatara Mafing GIZ-Mali Technical Advisor [email protected]

Mamadou Zibo Maïga Ministry of Finance Program to Strengthen Capacity for Development Management National Coordinator Mali CoP, President [email protected]

Mauritius

Devendra Parsad Ruhee AfCoP Co-Chair Chairman, Public Officers Welfare Council [email protected]

Netherlands

Pieter Dorst Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Quality of Aid Director [email protected]

Niger

Mamadou Abdou Gaoh Sani GIZ-Niger M&E and Communication Unit Head Niger CoP coordinator [email protected]

Seydou Yayé Ministry of Economy and Finance Niger CoP President [email protected]

Nigeria

Nazifi Abdullahi Darma National Planning Commission Economic Growth Department Acting Director [email protected]

Alache Odeh Technical Advisor Minister of National Planning [email protected]

Rwanda

William Rukundo Ministry of Finance Budget Directorate Budget Reform Team Leader [email protected]

Senegal

Oumar Diakhaté Centre d'Etudes des Politiques de Développement Expert en Dvp. Institutionnel [email protected]

Abdou Karim Lo AfCoP-Co Chair Office of the President Delegate to State Reform and Technical Assistance [email protected]

Sierra Leone

Sheka Bangura Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Deputy Director [email protected]

Ernest Surrur Human Resources Management Office Director General [email protected]

South Africa

Ledule Bosch Department for Public Service and Administration Monitoring and Evaluation Chief Director [email protected]

Stephen Porter University of Witwatersrand, Graduate School of Public and Development Lecturer

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


27

Tunisia

Savadogo Boukary AfDB Division of Education Manager [email protected]

Lamine N’Dongo AfDB Quality Assurance & Results Lead Economist [email protected]

Uganda

Abdul Muwanika Office of the Prime Minister Principal Economist [email protected]

USA

Cyril Blet AfCoP Secretariat Consultant [email protected]

Hannah Cooper AfCoP Secretariat Consultant [email protected]

Gisu Mohadjer World Bank Operations Policy & Country Services Results Unit Manager [email protected]

Mary Mulusa World Bank Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships Senior Operations Officer [email protected]

Jacqueline Sibanda World Bank Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid Communications Consultant [email protected]

Zambia

Chola Chabala Ministry of Finance and National Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Officer [email protected]

Danies Chisenda Ministry of Finance and National Planning Budget Directorate Director [email protected]

Zimbabwe

Solomon Mhlanga Office of the President and Cabinet Modernisation Department Principal Director [email protected]

Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi Office of the President and Cabinet Modernisation Department Deputy Director rm_7451@yahoo


28

Annex 3: Results of AfCoP Annual Meeting Evaluation The following graphically summarizes the results of the meeting evaluation that took place at the end

of the Annual Meeting. The Fourth Annual Meeting of the AfCoP included around fifty participants (not

counting the Secretariat) of which 22 completed the evaluation forms. A balance of Francophone and

Anglophone members responded to the survey reflecting the meeting‟s audience.

The responses indicate that the large majority of respondents felt that all of the planned outputs of the

Annual Meeting were achieved, as shown below. Around three-third of respondents felt that the

meeting participants successfully agreed on the AfCoP governance and strategic management going

forward and 90% of them expressed that the meeting identified ways to increase the national chapters‟

sustainability and effectiveness. Almost all participants also recognized that this meeting successfully

took stock of the AfCoP‟s contribution to MfDR in Africa. As a result of this meeting, participants

mentioned significant progress in the understanding of how to establish a National Chapter, as well in

how AfCoP activities are implemented. The experience gained through the knowledge sharing

sessions also proved to be valuable to most participants. Though participants graded the quality of

sessions high, several of them mentioned that too little time was allocated for knowledge sharing

discussion panels. The site visit on the third day was moderately rated, but this visit met its objectives

in terms of the quality of the presentations and topic discussed.

Below is a graphic view of the evaluation results for the three days of the meeting:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

General organisation (transportation, logistics, …)

Duration of of f -site visits and presentations

Quality of presentations

Topic of of f-site day visits and presentations

General organisation (venue, accommodation, …)

Background materials (binder, etc.)

Content of the meeting – topics covered, issues discussed

Duration of the sessions

Balance between presentations/discussions/group work

Quality of the knowledge sharing discussions

Relevance to my work

Share MfDR good practices in Africa through panel and other discussions:

Agree on the AfCoP governance and strategic management going forward:

Identify ways to increase national chapters‟ sustainability and ef fectiveness;

Take stock of the AfCoP‟s contribution to Managing for Development Results (MfDR) in Africa:

Evalu

atio

n o

f D

ay 3

Evalu

atio

n o

f D

ay 1

and

2

AfCoP Meeting Evaluation

Very good Good Fair Poor

In terms of the knowledge gained and progress made after this annual meeting, the following chart

shows the results of the meeting:


29

100%

79%

90%

74%

90%

67%

100%

72%

95%

83%

0%

21%

10%

26%

10%

33%

0%

28%

5%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

After workshop

Before workshop

After workshop

Before workshop

After workshop

Before workshop

After workshop

Before workshop

After workshop

Before workshop

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

the

Nat

ion

al

Ch

apte

rs a

nd

ho

w

to c

reat

e o

ne

De

velo

p n

etw

ork

o

f pe

ers

wit

h

wh

om

to

dis

cuss

and

mo

ve f

orw

ard

th

e R

esu

lts

age

nd

a in

Afr

ica

Act

ive

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

to d

eve

lop

ing

and

im

ple

me

nti

ng

AfC

oP

Vis

ion

an

d

Wo

rk P

lan

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

AfC

oP

act

ivit

ies,

st

ruct

ure

, an

d

pro

gre

ss to

dat

e

Kn

ow

led

ge s

har

ing

and

lear

nin

g fr

om

M

fDR

exp

eri

en

ces

acro

ss A

fric

a

Fair to Poor Very Good to Good

Fourth AfCoP Annual Meeting

Documents

Transcript of Fourth AfCoP Annual Meeting