Ownership, Results & Accountability

DevCo Quality and Results (Unit 06)

Objectives of this session

• Provide background on current discussion about Ownership, Results and Accountability

• Key messages from Busan

• Results - The way forward

The Paris Declaration Pyramid

Ownership

1) Agreeing on a shared agenda Ownership•Development strategies and results: what needs to be done to address development problems?

• National Development Strategies

• Programme and Sector Specific Strategies

• Inclusive country-led process•Aid effectiveness principles: how will development aid be delivered?

• Aid Policies

• Donor harmonisation and alignment to action plans

• Joint Assistance Strategies

• Donor and sector specific Aid Effectiveness agreements

Focus on Results

2) Monitoring progress Results

•Performance assessment frameworks

•Joint monitoring

•Domestic accountability and international peer

reviews

3) Debate, dialogue, negotiation

•Dialogue at technical and political level

•Incentives and sanctions

Accountability & Mutual Accountability

Accountability can be understood as a process through which people entrusted with responsibilities are being held to account.

3 models of accountabilty relationships•-Representative accountability•-Principal-agent accountability•-Collaborative or Mutual accountability

Accountability Relationships

Mutual Accountability Mechansims at International Level

Ineraction between Ownership, Mutual Accountability & Results

Paris - Measuring Progress against 2010 Goals Targets

Paris performance-Ownership ( State of Play in 2010)

•

Paris performance - Mutual Accountability (State of Play in 2010)

Paris performance - Mutual Accountability

Paris performance -Results (State of Play in 2010)

Ownership, Results & Accountability Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation

Common Principles from the Busan Outcome Document:

•Ownership of development priorities by developing countries

•Focus on Results

•Inclusive development partnerships

•Transparency and accountability to each other

Ownership & Accountability RelationshipsBusan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation

-Mutual accountability and accountability to the intended beneficiaries of our co-operation, as well as to our respective citizens, organisations, constituents and shareholders, is critical to delivering results. -Parliaments and local governments play critical roles in linking citizens with government, and in ensuring broad-based and democratic ownership of countries’ development agendas.-Civil society organisations play a vital role in enabling people to claim their rights, in promoting rights based approaches, in shaping development policies and partnerships, and in overseeing their implementation.-We must accelerate our efforts to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women […], recognising that [they] are critical to achieving development results.

Busan Global Partnership Monitoring Framework

2014 Report for Global Partnership Meeting, April 2014

Indicator 2015 target State of implementation

Indicator 1. Co-operation is focused onresults that meet developingcountries’ priorities

All providers of developmentco-operation use country resultsframeworks

Too early to assess progress – indicator piloted in eight countries.Preliminary feedback suggests great variation in use between providers but consistent provider behaviour across countries.

Indicator 6. Aid is onbudgets which are subjectto parliamentary scrutiny reported on budget.

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development co-operation flows to the government sector not reported ongovernment’s budget(s). By 2015: 85%

Some progress – 64% of scheduled funding is reported on government’s budgets. Only 7 countries have reached or are close to reaching the 85% target. 57% of funding uses country systems.

Indicator 9. Developingcountries’ systems arestrengthened and used

Half of developing countries moveup at least one measure(i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIAscale of performance.Reduce the gap in the use of PFM andprocurement systems (by two-thirdswhere CPIA score ≥ 5; or by one thirdwhere between 3.5 and 4.5). By 2015:

Previous achievements sustained but more progress is needed.No overall change in the quality of countries’ public financial management systems. No change in use of country systems: Development co-operation funding using PFM and procurement systems stayed at its 2010 level (about 49%).

Indicator 7. Mutual accountabilityamong co-operation actors isstrengthened through inclusivereviews

All developing countries haveinclusive mutual assessment reviewsin place

Some progress - 59% of countries have mutual assessment reviews in place. Encouraging efforts are underway to mutually track progress, but more is needed to make reviews inclusive and transparent.

Mutual AccountabilityBusan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation

Busan Outcome Document:

Together, we will increase our focus on development results. •As we deepen our efforts to ensure that mutual assessment reviews are in place in all developing countries, we encourage the active participation of all development co-operation actors in these processes.

Group Work

• Assessing the Zambia Mutual Accountability Framework based on:

• i) your in-country experience; and/or • ii) some emerging good practice principles

• Discuss with your neighbours – positive features; missing areas…

Focus on ResultsBusan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation

Busan Outcome Document:

•Together, we will increase our focus on development results. Where initiated by the developing country, transparent, country-led and country-level results frameworks and platforms will be adopted as a common tool among all concerned actors.

•We will partner to implement a global Action Plan to enhance capacity for statistics to monitor progress, evaluate impact, ensure sound, results-focused public sector management and highlight strategic issues for policy decisions.

How is the EU responding?

« The Council calls on the EU and its Member States to promote a common results-based approach, including through the use of strengthened results based frameworks at country level, and to strengthen their capacities to monitor and evaluate results. This will also provide a basis for improving mutal accountability and transparency ¹. »

1. Council Conclusion on Agenda for Change, May 2012

Results-based Approaches – Why is a common EU approach needed?

• Increased demand for information about the

results of development cooperation requires shift

from input to output and outcome focus

• To improve aid transparency

• To ensure better coordination in defining and

implementing development policies

Common EU Results-based Approaches - How will the EU (EC) achieve this?• At country level - drawing on country frameworks; Joint

Programming

• At EU level - Establishment of an EU technical Experts Group on

Results;

• At EuropeAid level- establishment of a corporate results

measurement framework to provide stronger results focus

throughout the project cycle from Multi-annual Programming

Documents to projects

EU Development & Cooperation Results Framework – Steps underway

• Programming Guidelines (May 2012) explicitly request Delegations to set out expected results and indicators with which to measure progress in the 2014-20 Programming Documents; Programming Documents have been checked against this requirement

• Sector Indicator Guidance was sent to Delegations to support the focus on results in the programming process (summer 2013)

• Results Study analysing approaches taken by other donors already implementing a results framework has been finalised (October 2013)

• Staff Working Document setting out the structure of the EU Development & Cooperation Results Framework issued in December 2013

• A list of indicators (and linked methodological notes) for the Results Framework is being finalised (October 2014)

Four - level Structure

EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework – Possible Structure

• Accountability: Communicate to stakeholders (e.g. tax payers, EU Institutions) the results that have been achieved.

• Management: Provide performance data which will inform management decisions, such as the allocation of human and financial resources.

EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework – Purpose

Level 1 and 2- Focus

• The EU Results framework will be linked to the 2014-20 programming cycle;

• Number of indicators: approximately 30 for each level in order to remain manageable

• Level 1 and 2 will focus on the pillars of the Agenda for Change eg Sustainable and inclusive growth; Democracy, rule of law and human rights

• Baselines for each indicator will have to be constructed

• Whether or not to set targets is still under discussion

EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework – Focus

Level 2: calculating results

• At Level 2 of the EU Results framework the Commission services envisage to report results as "country results supported"; thus opting for a contribution approach

• Final decision on calculation approach yet to be agreed

EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework – Results calculation

Level 3 and 4: focus

• Level 3 tracks issues such as quality of design of operations (quality at entry), disbursement rates, portfolio performance (e.g. quality assessment of on-going operations), quality at completion

• Level 4 includes information on budget efficiency (e.g. costs per amount disbursed), human resources (e.g. staff diversity, skills distribution, training), compliance with audit principles

• For both Levels existing internal monitoring systems (e.g. KPIs) will be drawn on

EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework – Focus

• Data to report against level 2 of the framework will come from projects and programmes using data provided by linked M& E systems, drawing on national statistics authorities to the extent possible.

• Frequency of collection: still to be decided whether at completion or on-going

• Reporting to external audience: once a year

EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework – Reporting and Data Collection

• List of indicators (and methodological notes) for Level 1 and 2 is being peer reviewed by Eurostat

• Alignment between Results framework indicators and indicators selected in the programming documents (MIPs, NIPs) 2014/2020 is being addressed through the use of "matching tables"

• Indicators (including methodologies) and reporting templates have been tested in around 20 Delegations over the summer

EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework – State of Play

• Finalisation of Results Framework and associated documentation: final quarter of 2014

• First publication of results achieved over 2014 (Annual Development and Cooperation Report): first semester 2015

EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework – Next Steps

•Thank you for your attention