Promoting Results through Country Based Communities of ......Promoting Results through Country Based...

Promoting Results through Country Based Communities of Practice A Perspective from the Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP)

Developing Capacities Delivering Results

November 2013

This report was prepared by consultants supported by the technical assistance project RETA 7744: Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing Development Results - From Concept to Practice funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use.

By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

ContentsForeword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Shared Concept: What is APCoP’s Focus?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Membership: Who belongs to APCoP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Programs: What does APCoP do?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Financing: How is APCoP funded? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Results: What has APCoP achieved?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Design and Monitoring Framework for APCoP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Country Application: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Bhutan: Incorporating Results-Based Approaches in the Bhutan Transport 2040 Integrated Strategic Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cambodia: Developing Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System for Cambodia’s Rural Development Ministries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Cambodia: Using Results-Based Approaches in Planning for the Sustainability of Technical Vocational Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

India: Using Results-Based Public Sector Management Assessment in Identifying Areas of Interventions for the West Bengal Development Finance Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Malaysia: Delivering Results and Gender: Mainstreaming Gender in Planning, Budgeting, and Monitoring Using Results-Based Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

APCoP Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

APCoP Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

ii Promoting Results through Country Based Communities of Practice

Coordinating CommitteeKoshy Thomas ChairCoordinating Committee of APCoP and Head of the Outcome-based Budgeting Project Team Ministry of Finance, Malaysia

More than ever, countries are taking the lead in forging their unique paths toward development. Under the Paris Declaration, the international development community committed to country ownership over the development process. Through communities of practice (CoPs), colleagues from developing countries can join together to promote a common understanding and collectively express our commitment to drive development results and the improvement of our institutions.

As the first regional community of practice on managing for development results (MfDR), the Asia-Pacific Community of Practice (APCoP) allows members to engage in South-South dialogue, learn about best practices in results-based management, address common challenges, and exchange valuable experiences in applying MfDR in their country contexts. APCoP also promotes North-South dialogue. As countries in the region progress to middle-income status, members can study their journey and learn from their experiences along with lessons from developed countries.

Through our membership in APCoP, our collective efforts have helped present the country voice to development partners on delivering results. The invaluable support and engagement with our APCoP colleagues—from fellow public officials to experts in academia and donor partners—continue to educate, empower, and enable us in our work to deliver results in public services.

The possibilities are endless on what partner countries can do to improve their own systems while learning from the experiences of similarly situated countries. We appreciate and look forward to the continued collaboration between development partners and partner countries.

Foreword

Foreword iii

Asian Development BankKazu Sakai Director General Strategy and Policy Department, Asian Development Bank

In line with the rapid changes in the Asia and Pacific region and shifts in the international development architecture, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been responsive in aligning itself with the evolving demands of developing member countries (DMCs). ADB’s support for the Asia-Pacific Community of Practice (APCoP) on Managing for Development Results and its agenda to promote results-based public sector management is consistent with ADB’s long term strategic vision set out in ADB’s Strategy 2020 and ADB’s commitments to deliver results and promote knowledge sharing. It enables mutual learning among member countries, between ADB and DMCs, and between Asia and the Pacific and other regions. Through these, it reinforces the importance that ADB places on effective and efficient management of the public sector to the delivery of results. Further, by strengthening the capacity of its members to act as change agents in their DMCs, APCoP helps ADB align its support with countries’ demand-driven initiatives.

ADB takes pride in its role in supporting APCoP and remains committed to empowering DMCs to set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions, and deliver on their national aspirations.

APCoP Secretariat Farzana Ahmed Principal Coordinator, APCoP and Lead Results Management Specialist (Public Sector Management), Asian Development Bank Ma. Rosario Baxa, Cristina Bonoan, Mylene Buerano, Catherine Clarin, and Sheryl Nazaret-Casas.

Communities of practice (COPs) are useful vehicles to share and create knowledge, promote dialogue, and empower its members. In the six years since its establishment, APCoP continues to grow and mature as a DMC-driven community. As this review of APCoP’s progress in the past 7 years illustrates, building a country-based CoP requires long-term commitments from all parties and the journey faces challenges. However every challenge provides opportunities to improve and grow. APCoP has achieved significant success in supporting members to promote the managing for development results agenda. APCoP’s continued success depends on everyone’s continued efforts. We hope that this review can serve as a guide for others looking to establish similar country-based CoPs.

The Secretariat acknowledges the contribution of all the individuals who make up this thriving community: our DMC members; the APCoP Coordinating Committee; experts from academia and think tanks; specialists from within ADB, the ADB Institute, the other multilateral banks, bilateral organizations, and other development partners. In helping us extend our community outside the Asia and Pacific region, we would also like to acknowledge other regional CoPs, particularly the African Community of Practice (AfCoP) and the Latin American and the Caribbean Community of Practice (CoPLAC).

Introduction 1

IntroductionManaging for Development Results The international development community has increasingly emphasized the need for development effectiveness. Defining development results is important but even more critical is managing the process through which results are delivered. Implicit in this is the view that growth should benefit all citizens, which would require robust management of the development process. Strong management enables development to be targeted where necessary, such as ensuring inclusiveness or directed at disadvantaged groups or regions.

Managing for development results (MfDR) emerged out of the 2005 Paris Declaration as one of the key pillars for development effectiveness. It emphasizes the importance of orientating the five core functions of management—planning, allocation of resources, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation —to deliver on intended results. It is focused on using results information to steer development efforts towards clearly defined goals.

MfDR and the Results ChainMfDR incorporates:

i. Intended results. These are traditionally categorized as outputs (controllable results), outcomes (achievable results), and impacts (aspirational results). These three levels of results are linked together in a causal relationship called a results chain.

The Results Chain

ii. The management process: This integrates a results-focus across the 5 mutually reinforcing management functions in to deliver on the intended results. The five functions of management are orientated as follows:

• Planning cascades the results chain to identify the inputs and define the required activities to deliver on the outputs. It identifies measurable indicators and targets for each level of results.

• Budgeting allocates resources for the inputs that are aligned to the activities.

2 Promoting Results through Country Based Communities of Practice

• Implementation uses inputs, conducts activities to deliver the outputs.

• Monitoring measures the use of the inputs and the progress toward the outputs and outcomes through established indicators.

• Evaluation assesses (i) the efficiency of the utilization of inputs to the delivery of outputs; (ii) the effectiveness of the outputs in contributing to intended outcomes; (iii) the sustainability of the outcomes to the desired impacts and (iv) the relevance of the intended result chain. The information from these assessments feeds into future policy making.

The linkages between the defined results chain and the five functions of management can be summarized as follows

MfDR in the Asian Development Bank (ADB)ADB’s efforts to promote MfDR focus on three pillars:

i. embedding a results-driven approach across ADB operations,

ii. expanding collaboration with development partners on initiatives promoting MfDR, and

iii. supporting MfDR capacity development in developing member countries (DMCs).

To reinforce support to DMCs as they take their own initiatives to adopt MfDR, ADB established the first regional learning network to promote MfDR at a country level—the Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on MfDR.

Introduction 3

MfDR and the Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP)The Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP) is a regional knowledge network primarily comprising senior government officials from ADB DMCs. Members share the common objective of introducing and institutionalizing MfDR in the public sector.

APCoP develops the capacity of members as change agents for mainstreaming MfDR at the country level. Members participate in capacity building and knowledge-sharing events to engage with a wider community of development practitioners to:

• share knowledge on best practice on results-based principles and techniques,

• engage in South-South dialogue,

• produce and disseminate knowledge products, and

• present the DMC voice

This review looks at the progress of APCoP in promoting MfDR in the seven years since it was established.


OverviewAPCoP has evolved in three distinct phases: Phase 1, the pilot phase; Phase 2, the development phase; And Phase 3, the expansion phase. The Way Forward identifies opportunities for the sustainability of APCoP. This review traces APCoP’s progress in each phase according to the common factors of a successful community of practice:

Shared Concept: What is APCoP’s focus?

Membership: Who belongs to APCoP?

Programs: What does APCoP do?

Financing: How is APCoP funded?

Results: What has APCoP achieved?

Shared concept

■ Network of results management practitioners from developing member countries established

■ Improved demand and capacity for MfDR in developing member countries

■ Demonstrated effectiveness of APCoP to promote MfDR

■ Increased application of MfDR by APCoP members in their country contexts

■ MfDR advanced regionally and in developing member countries

Results

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 WAY FORWARD

2007-2010 2011-20132006

■ Identifying the concept ■ Maturing the concept ■ Applying the concept ■ Mainstreaming the concept

Membership ■ Membership opened ■ Membership expanded ■ Membership diversified ■ Membership matured

Programs ■ Interactions piloted ■ Interactions matured ■ Interactions expanded and deepened ■ Interactions intensified

Financing ■ Internal ADB Fund Source ■ Increased ADB Financing with Limited External Cofinancing

■ Increased ADB Financing from Special Funds and Expanded External Cofinancing

■ Financing sustained

Overview 5

OverviewAPCoP has evolved in three distinct phases: Phase 1, the pilot phase; Phase 2, the development phase; And Phase 3, the expansion phase. The Way Forward identifies opportunities for the sustainability of APCoP. This review traces APCoP’s progress in each phase according to the common factors of a successful community of practice:

Shared Concept: What is APCoP’s focus?

Membership: Who belongs to APCoP?

Programs: What does APCoP do?

Financing: How is APCoP funded?

Results: What has APCoP achieved?

Shared concept

■ Network of results management practitioners from developing member countries established

■ Improved demand and capacity for MfDR in developing member countries

■ Demonstrated effectiveness of APCoP to promote MfDR

■ Increased application of MfDR by APCoP members in their country contexts

■ MfDR advanced regionally and in developing member countries

Results

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 WAY FORWARD

2007-2010 2011-20132006

■ Identifying the concept ■ Maturing the concept ■ Applying the concept ■ Mainstreaming the concept

Membership ■ Membership opened ■ Membership expanded ■ Membership diversified ■ Membership matured

Programs ■ Interactions piloted ■ Interactions matured ■ Interactions expanded and deepened ■ Interactions intensified

Financing ■ Internal ADB Fund Source ■ Increased ADB Financing with Limited External Cofinancing

■ Increased ADB Financing from Special Funds and Expanded External Cofinancing

■ Financing sustained


Shared Concept:What is APCoP’s Focus?

Identifying the Concept2006

Linked MfDR to public sector management ■ The public sector recognized as the key player in delivering results at the country level.

■ PSM and its functions of planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation targeted for strengthening.

PHASE 1

Maturing the Concept2007-2010

Results-based PSM framework developedA framework was developed recognizing that, at the country level, PSM functions are embedded into different ministries and levels of government. The framework highlights four key features to ensure the results orientation of PSM.

Each PSM function should be:

■ Results-oriented.

■ Focused on common results.

■ Interdependent.

■ Linked horizontally across ministries and sectors and vertically along national and subnational governments.

PHASE 2

Applying the Concept2011-2013

The Framework was applied to public sector management inSectors

■ Health, Education, Transport

Thematic areas

■ Gender, Disaster Risk Management, Decentralization, Public–Private Partnership

At the country level

■ For national, sector, and subnational PSM systems

■ In particular PSM functions

PHASE 3

Mainstreaming the Concept

■ Expand application of the results-based PSM principles in countries, sectors, and themes.

■ Strengthen the Results-Based PSM Framework through continued application.

WAY FORWARD

The phases show the maturing of APCoP’s focus on public sector management (PSM), the development of the results-based framework for PSM, and its emerging application.

Themes

Sectors

Particular functions

Country systems

Planfor results

NationalDevelopment

Goals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results

Implementfor results

Monitorfor results

Strengthening Country Systems

✔

✔

✔

✔

Develop capacity

Apply framework

Identify constraints

Assess gaps

Planfor results

NationalDevelopment

Goals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

Planfor results

Planfor results

NationalDevelopmentGoals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

Planfor results

Sub-nationalDevelopmentGoals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

Planfor results

SectorDevelopmentGoals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

National

Subnational

SectorPrivate sector, civil societies,

others

Development effectiveness

Plan

BudgetEvaluate

ImplementMonitor

Public sector

Public sector management

Shared Concept 7

Shared Concept:What is APCoP’s Focus?

Identifying the Concept2006

Linked MfDR to public sector management ■ The public sector recognized as the key player in delivering results at the country level.

■ PSM and its functions of planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation targeted for strengthening.

PHASE 1

Maturing the Concept2007-2010

Results-based PSM framework developedA framework was developed recognizing that, at the country level, PSM functions are embedded into different ministries and levels of government. The framework highlights four key features to ensure the results orientation of PSM.

Each PSM function should be:

■ Results-oriented.

■ Focused on common results.

■ Interdependent.

■ Linked horizontally across ministries and sectors and vertically along national and subnational governments.

PHASE 2

Applying the Concept2011-2013

The Framework was applied to public sector management inSectors

■ Health, Education, Transport

Thematic areas

■ Gender, Disaster Risk Management, Decentralization, Public–Private Partnership

At the country level

■ For national, sector, and subnational PSM systems

■ In particular PSM functions

PHASE 3

Mainstreaming the Concept

■ Expand application of the results-based PSM principles in countries, sectors, and themes.

■ Strengthen the Results-Based PSM Framework through continued application.

WAY FORWARD

The phases show the maturing of APCoP’s focus on public sector management (PSM), the development of the results-based framework for PSM, and its emerging application.

Themes

Sectors

Particular functions

Country systems

Planfor results

NationalDevelopment

Goals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

Strengthening Country Systems

✔

✔

✔

✔

Develop capacity

Apply framework

Identify constraints

Assess gaps

Planfor results

NationalDevelopment

Goals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

Planfor results

Planfor results

NationalDevelopmentGoals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

Planfor results

Sub-nationalDevelopmentGoals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

Planfor results

SectorDevelopmentGoals

Budgetfor results

Evaluatefor results


Monitorfor results

National

Subnational

SectorPrivate sector, civil societies,

others

Development effectiveness

Plan

BudgetEvaluate

ImplementMonitor

Public sector

Public sector management


Number of members

0

500

1000

1500

2000

20132012201120102006

Active members**

Totalmembers*

Membership:Who belongs to APCoP?

Membership OpenedMembership opened to a limited number of central government officials.

Formalized APCoP structure to consist of

■ Members interested in learning about results-based management

■ a Coordinating Committee comprising representatives from ADB developing member countries to guide the management and direction of programming; and

■ a Secretariat at ADB to provide technical and logistical support and budget administration.

PHASE 1

Membership ExpandedMembership expanded to include change agents with a focus on

■ Senior public officials from central planning and finance agencies.

■ Experts, academics, and development partners.

PHASE 2

Membership diversified to include

■ Senior officials from various sector agencies.

■ Other regional CoPs in Africa and Latin America.

Membership Diversified

PHASE 3

■ Create thematic clusters of members.

■ Create more country-level CoPs on MfDR.

Membership Matured

WAY FORWARD

* Total Members include those who registered as members from DMCs, other regional CoPs, experts, and development partners.

** Active Members include participants from DMCs who have attended at least one APCoP funded activity.

*** Others include experts, other regional CoPs, ADB, and other development partners.

Thematic clusters

Regional Communities of Practice on MfDR

APCoP-MfDR

AfCoP-MfDR CoPLAC-MfDR

CoC unu trrryy-babaseeed oro theh mamm tiic CoC P

AfCoP-MfDR = African Community of Practice on Managing for Development ResultsAPCoP-MfDR = Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development ResultsCoPLAC-MfDR = Latin American and the Caribbean Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results

Others***: 23%

Total members by ADB subregion

Southeast Asia: 33%

South Asia: 15%

Pacific: 7%

East Asia: 11%

Central and West Asia: 11%

Broader membership

Active members

CoordinatingCommittee

ADB(Secretariat)

Partners

Membership 9

Number of members

0

500

1000

1500

2000

20132012201120102006

Active members**

Totalmembers*

Membership:Who belongs to APCoP?

Membership OpenedMembership opened to a limited number of central government officials.

Formalized APCoP structure to consist of

■ Members interested in learning about results-based management

■ a Coordinating Committee comprising representatives from ADB developing member countries to guide the management and direction of programming; and

■ a Secretariat at ADB to provide technical and logistical support and budget administration.

PHASE 1

Membership ExpandedMembership expanded to include change agents with a focus on

■ Senior public officials from central planning and finance agencies.

■ Experts, academics, and development partners.

PHASE 2

Membership diversified to include

■ Senior officials from various sector agencies.

■ Other regional CoPs in Africa and Latin America.

Membership Diversified

PHASE 3

■ Create thematic clusters of members.

■ Create more country-level CoPs on MfDR.

Membership Matured

WAY FORWARD

* Total Members include those who registered as members from DMCs, other regional CoPs, experts, and development partners.

** Active Members include participants from DMCs who have attended at least one APCoP funded activity.

*** Others include experts, other regional CoPs, ADB, and other development partners.

Thematic clusters

Regional Communities of Practice on MfDR

APCoP-MfDR

AfCoP-MfDR CoPLAC-MfDR

CoC unu trrryy-babaseeed oro theh mamm tiic CoC P

AfCoP-MfDR = African Community of Practice on Managing for Development ResultsAPCoP-MfDR = Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development ResultsCoPLAC-MfDR = Latin American and the Caribbean Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results

Others***: 23%

Total members by ADB subregion

Southeast Asia: 33%

South Asia: 15%

Pacific: 7%

East Asia: 11%

Central and West Asia: 11%

Broader membership

Active members

CoordinatingCommittee

ADB(Secretariat)

Partners


Programs:What Does APCoP Do?

Interactions Piloted■ Online discussions piloted.

■ MfDR experiences gathered.

PHASE 1

Interactions Matured■ Face to face activities conducted.

■ Results-based PSM Framework produced.

■ Regional centers of excellence identified.

■ Communications tools developed (website, brochures, newsletters, mailing lists).

PHASE 2

Interactions Expanded and DeepenedFace-to-face interactions

■ Increased in frequency and variety.

■ Expanded to interregional and country level.

■ Institutionalized with regional centers of excellence through: (i) increased number of events and (ii) development of curricula.

Knowledge products

■ Developed for country, sector, and thematic areas.

■ Translated into different languages.

■ Disseminated through print and online.

Website used as knowledge repository.

Partnerships with development partners and ADB internal CoPs initiated.

PHASE 3

Interactions Intensified■ Expand engagement with regional centers of excellence and promote replication of APCoP training curricula.

■ Increase number and range of knowledge products and translations into different languages.

■ Deepen partnerships with development partners and ADB internal CoPs.

WAY FORWARD

Centers of Excellence

ADB internal CoPs

Other regional CoPs

Development partners

http://cop-mfdr.adb.org

ADB internal CoPs

Programs 11

Programs:What Does APCoP Do?

Interactions Piloted■ Online discussions piloted.

■ MfDR experiences gathered.

PHASE 1

Interactions Matured■ Face to face activities conducted.

■ Results-based PSM Framework produced.

■ Regional centers of excellence identified.

■ Communications tools developed (website, brochures, newsletters, mailing lists).

PHASE 2

Interactions Expanded and DeepenedFace-to-face interactions

■ Increased in frequency and variety.

■ Expanded to interregional and country level.

■ Institutionalized with regional centers of excellence through: (i) increased number of events and (ii) development of curricula.

Knowledge products

■ Developed for country, sector, and thematic areas.

■ Translated into different languages.

■ Disseminated through print and online.

Website used as knowledge repository.

Partnerships with development partners and ADB internal CoPs initiated.

PHASE 3

Interactions Intensified■ Expand engagement with regional centers of excellence and promote replication of APCoP training curricula.

■ Increase number and range of knowledge products and translations into different languages.

■ Deepen partnerships with development partners and ADB internal CoPs.

WAY FORWARD

Centers of Excellence

ADB internal CoPs

Other regional CoPs

Development partners

http://cop-mfdr.adb.org

ADB internal CoPs


Financing:How is APCoP funded?

Internal ADB Fund Source■ Small scale technical assistance from general purpose technical assistance resources.

PHASE 1

Increased ADB Financing with Limited External Cofinancing■ Regional technical assistance through general purpose technical assistance resources.

■ External cofinancing initiated (e.g., Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore).

PHASE 2

Increased ADB Financing from Special Funds and Expanded External CofinancingADB Financing

■ Reduced financing from general purpose technical assistance resources.

■ Increased financing from special funds (e.g., Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, the MfDR Cooperation Fund, and the e-Asia Knowledge Partnership Fund).

■ Increased cofinancing from other technical assistance and internal CoPs (e.g., Technical Assistance on Enhancing Knowledge Sharing and South-South Cooperation between Asia and Latin America, Technical Assistance on Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, and the Governance Community of Practice).

Expanded External Financing

■ Increased number of events cofinanced by centers of excellence (e.g., Singapore Civil Service College and the Asia-Pacific Finance and Development Center).

■ Expanded number of cofinancing partners (e.g., Asian Development Bank Institute, UNESCAP).

■ Increased number of participants and experts who were self-funded.

PHASE 3

Financing Sustained■ Continued support from ADB internal financing would be necessary to support regional activities and the daily operations of the Secretariat.

■ Expand internal cofinancing with ADB internal CoPs.

■ Expand external cofinancing partnerships with centers of excellence and donor partners.

■ Increase collaboration with ADB operations to finance country-level programs.

WAY FORWARD

ADB Special Funds

ADB general purpose technical assistance

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

$3,000,000

External cofinancing*

Cofinancing from other ADB technical assistance

2011-20132006

TOTAL: $150,000

TOTAL: $2,810,000

2007-2010

TOTAL: $786,000

* Amounts are based on estimated costs of experts, venue, travel, and other expenses financed by APCoP partners.

Financing 13

Financing:How is APCoP funded?

Internal ADB Fund Source■ Small scale technical assistance from general purpose technical assistance resources.

PHASE 1

Increased ADB Financing with Limited External Cofinancing■ Regional technical assistance through general purpose technical assistance resources.

■ External cofinancing initiated (e.g., Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore).

PHASE 2

Increased ADB Financing from Special Funds and Expanded External CofinancingADB Financing

■ Reduced financing from general purpose technical assistance resources.

■ Increased financing from special funds (e.g., Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, the MfDR Cooperation Fund, and the e-Asia Knowledge Partnership Fund).

■ Increased cofinancing from other technical assistance and internal CoPs (e.g., Technical Assistance on Enhancing Knowledge Sharing and South-South Cooperation between Asia and Latin America, Technical Assistance on Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, and the Governance Community of Practice).

Expanded External Financing

■ Increased number of events cofinanced by centers of excellence (e.g., Singapore Civil Service College and the Asia-Pacific Finance and Development Center).

■ Expanded number of cofinancing partners (e.g., Asian Development Bank Institute, UNESCAP).

■ Increased number of participants and experts who were self-funded.

PHASE 3

Financing Sustained■ Continued support from ADB internal financing would be necessary to support regional activities and the daily operations of the Secretariat.

■ Expand internal cofinancing with ADB internal CoPs.

■ Expand external cofinancing partnerships with centers of excellence and donor partners.

■ Increase collaboration with ADB operations to finance country-level programs.

WAY FORWARD

ADB Special Funds

ADB general purpose technical assistance

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

$3,000,000

External cofinancing*

Cofinancing from other ADB technical assistance

2011-20132006

TOTAL: $150,000

TOTAL: $2,810,000

2007-2010

TOTAL: $786,000

* Amounts are based on estimated costs of experts, venue, travel, and other expenses financed by APCoP partners.


Results:What has APCoP Achieved?

Network of results management practitioners from DMCs established.

PHASE 1

Improved demand and capacity for MfDR in developing member countries.

Demonstrated effectiveness of APCoP to promote MfDR.

PHASE 2

MfDR advanced regionally and in DMCs

WAY FORWARD

Each phase identified intended results related to the funding source through a project results framework. The results identified below relate to the intended outcomes for each funding phase of APCoP. These outcomes were supported by outputs described in the previous chapters. Page 16 provides a more detailed account of the results achieved under Phase 3.

Increased application of MfDR by members in their country contexts.

PHASE 3

Unintended Outcomes■ Improved dialogue between ADB and DMCs through (i) engagement of ADB staff as experts in APCoP events and (ii) participation of ADB staff in APCoP trainings.

■ Influenced ADB operations through the publication of “Results-Based Public Sector Management: A Rapid Assessment Guide.”

■ Influenced Dialogue on Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (e.g., “Asia-Pacific Aspirations: Perspectives for a Post-2015 Development Agenda,” August 2013).

■ Engaged Development Partners in APCoP events (OECD, IMF, World Bank, JBIC, JICA).

= Changeagents

Country-levelCoPs

Results 15

Results:What has APCoP Achieved?

Network of results management practitioners from DMCs established.

PHASE 1

Improved demand and capacity for MfDR in developing member countries.

Demonstrated effectiveness of APCoP to promote MfDR.

PHASE 2

MfDR advanced regionally and in DMCs

WAY FORWARD

Each phase identified intended results related to the funding source through a project results framework. The results identified below relate to the intended outcomes for each funding phase of APCoP. These outcomes were supported by outputs described in the previous chapters. Page 16 provides a more detailed account of the results achieved under Phase 3.

Increased application of MfDR by members in their country contexts.

PHASE 3

Unintended Outcomes■ Improved dialogue between ADB and DMCs through (i) engagement of ADB staff as experts in APCoP events and (ii) participation of ADB staff in APCoP trainings.

■ Influenced ADB operations through the publication of “Results-Based Public Sector Management: A Rapid Assessment Guide.”

■ Influenced Dialogue on Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (e.g., “Asia-Pacific Aspirations: Perspectives for a Post-2015 Development Agenda,” August 2013).

■ Engaged Development Partners in APCoP events (OECD, IMF, World Bank, JBIC, JICA).

= Changeagents

Country-levelCoPs


Design and Monitoring Framework—Phase 3This table shows the results framework for the technical assistance that supports Phase 3 of APCoP and sets out the indicators and targets to monitor results.

Regional Technical Assistance 7744: Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results - From Concept to Practice

Indicators and Targets Achievements

Impact

MfDR approach further advanced in participating countries

Replication/expansion of plans for MfDR approaches in PSM in other sectors, ministries, and departments

Early evidence of achieving impact through members reporting expansion of plans for MfDR approaches in PSM in sectors, ministries, and departments (e.g., launching of the Philippine National Evaluation Policy, conduct of national and regional forums on results-based monitoring and evaluation systems).

Outcome

Increased application of MfDR by regional MfDR CoP members in their country contexts.

10% increase in the number of members who joined since 2010 reporting additional application of MfDR principles and approaches

Based on an online survey, there was a 19% increase in the number of members who joined since 2010 reporting additional incorporation of MfDR approaches in their work.

1. MfDR principles applied by APCoP members ini. National/sector development plans or frameworks (target: 4

plans)ii. Knowledge products (target: 4 knowledge products)iii. Workshops/seminars/training conferences (target: 4 workshops)

i. At least four DMCs reported MfDR principles having been applied to various national and sector development plans and frameworks (Bangladesh, Malaysia, Philippines, and Sri Lanka).

ii. At least four DMCs have reported on developing knowledge products applying MfDR principles (Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and the Philippines).

iii. At least four DMCs have reported on conducting workshops, trainings and seminars applying principles of MfDR (Indonesia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Sri Lanka).

Outputs

1. Knowledge products on MfDR created and disseminated

Number/type/subject area of knowledge products created and disseminated (target: 15 per year)

The following number and types of knowledge products were developed and disseminated:2011: 28 knowledge products (e.g., presentations, country cases, newsletters, brochures)2012: 17 knowledge products (e.g., presentations, reports, expert papers, brochures) 2013: 22 knowledge products (e.g., presentations, reports, videos, expert papers, audio presentations, brochures)

2. Increased MfDR capacity of APCoP members.

Number of CoP participants reporting increased MfDR knowledge and skills (target: 50 per year)

Based on post-event evaluations, the following number of participants reported increased MfDR knowledge and skills:2011: 140 participants2012: 161 participants2013: 135 participants (January – August 2013)

3. Expanded regional MfDR CoP. 1. Number of total members (target: 20% increase)2. Cofinancing for CoP activities (target: 10% increase from base year of

2010)3. Level of participant satisfaction with CoP (target: at least 70%

satisfaction with CoP)

1. Total DMC membership: 600 members in 2010 to 1,320 members in 2013 or an increase of 120% Active DMC membership: 140 members in 2010 to 840 members in 2013 or an increase of 580%

2. Cofinancing events: increase of 1,000% 2010: 2 events 2011-2013: 20 events Cofinancing amounts: increase of 1,400% 2010: US$36,000 2011–2013: US$538,000

3. Based on post-event evaluations, 98% of participants reported satisfaction with objectives, content, and engagement with CoP colleagues. More than 95% of participants consider themselves as part of APCoP. Based on an online survey of active members from DMCs, 93% of respondents who joined from 2011 to June 2013 reported that APCoP has contributed to, influenced, or helped them incorporate more results-based PSM in their work.

4. Plans for MfDR approaches in PSM developed and approved by relevant DMC authority.

Number of plans developed and approved by relevant DMC authorities (target: 6 plans)

APCoP supported the development of 7 plans approved by DMC authorities (Cambodia-monitoring and evaluation in rural ministries, Cambodia-technical and vocational education training, India, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, and the Kyrgyz Republic).

Design and Monitoring Framework for APCoP 17

Indicators and Targets Achievements

Impact

MfDR approach further advanced in participating countries

Replication/expansion of plans for MfDR approaches in PSM in other sectors, ministries, and departments

Early evidence of achieving impact through members reporting expansion of plans for MfDR approaches in PSM in sectors, ministries, and departments (e.g., launching of the Philippine National Evaluation Policy, conduct of national and regional forums on results-based monitoring and evaluation systems).

Outcome

Increased application of MfDR by regional MfDR CoP members in their country contexts.

10% increase in the number of members who joined since 2010 reporting additional application of MfDR principles and approaches

Based on an online survey, there was a 19% increase in the number of members who joined since 2010 reporting additional incorporation of MfDR approaches in their work.

1. MfDR principles applied by APCoP members ini. National/sector development plans or frameworks (target: 4

plans)ii. Knowledge products (target: 4 knowledge products)iii. Workshops/seminars/training conferences (target: 4 workshops)

i. At least four DMCs reported MfDR principles having been applied to various national and sector development plans and frameworks (Bangladesh, Malaysia, Philippines, and Sri Lanka).

ii. At least four DMCs have reported on developing knowledge products applying MfDR principles (Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and the Philippines).

iii. At least four DMCs have reported on conducting workshops, trainings and seminars applying principles of MfDR (Indonesia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Sri Lanka).

Outputs

1. Knowledge products on MfDR created and disseminated

Number/type/subject area of knowledge products created and disseminated (target: 15 per year)

The following number and types of knowledge products were developed and disseminated:2011: 28 knowledge products (e.g., presentations, country cases, newsletters, brochures)2012: 17 knowledge products (e.g., presentations, reports, expert papers, brochures) 2013: 22 knowledge products (e.g., presentations, reports, videos, expert papers, audio presentations, brochures)

2. Increased MfDR capacity of APCoP members.

Number of CoP participants reporting increased MfDR knowledge and skills (target: 50 per year)

Based on post-event evaluations, the following number of participants reported increased MfDR knowledge and skills:2011: 140 participants2012: 161 participants2013: 135 participants (January – August 2013)

3. Expanded regional MfDR CoP. 1. Number of total members (target: 20% increase)2. Cofinancing for CoP activities (target: 10% increase from base year of

2010)3. Level of participant satisfaction with CoP (target: at least 70%

satisfaction with CoP)

1. Total DMC membership: 600 members in 2010 to 1,320 members in 2013 or an increase of 120% Active DMC membership: 140 members in 2010 to 840 members in 2013 or an increase of 580%

2. Cofinancing events: increase of 1,000% 2010: 2 events 2011-2013: 20 events Cofinancing amounts: increase of 1,400% 2010: US$36,000 2011–2013: US$538,000

3. Based on post-event evaluations, 98% of participants reported satisfaction with objectives, content, and engagement with CoP colleagues. More than 95% of participants consider themselves as part of APCoP. Based on an online survey of active members from DMCs, 93% of respondents who joined from 2011 to June 2013 reported that APCoP has contributed to, influenced, or helped them incorporate more results-based PSM in their work.

4. Plans for MfDR approaches in PSM developed and approved by relevant DMC authority.

Number of plans developed and approved by relevant DMC authorities (target: 6 plans)

APCoP supported the development of 7 plans approved by DMC authorities (Cambodia-monitoring and evaluation in rural ministries, Cambodia-technical and vocational education training, India, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, and the Kyrgyz Republic).


Country ApplicationBhutan

Incorporating Results-Based Approaches in the Bhutan Transport 2040 Integrated Strategic Vision

1. Area of MfDR implementation

The Asia-Pacific CoP on MfDR (APCoP) from September 2010 to August 2011 collaborated with the ADB South Asia Department (SARD) and the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) in formulating the Bhutan Transport 2040 Integrated Strategic Vision (TISV). The South Asia Department provided consultant services to help the RGOB formulate the vision while APCoP provided the conceptual basis for a results-based transport sector strategy.1

Bhutan is becoming a rapidly emerging economy with its growth for the next 30 years to be driven by a number of economic factors such as increased electricity exports, industrial development, new population centers and growth of cities, and increased trade, which all impact on the future of the transport sector. These require a new vision for the transport sector.

The RGOB believes that the TISV will enable it to achieve its vision for transport; and that a results oriented vision will make it more robust and appealing to investors.

2. The MfDR mainstreaming process

An interministerial transport taskforce (TTF) comprising eight transport sector-related ministries formulated the vision, with all relevant government agencies and private sector stakeholders consulted.2

The workshops and consultations among government agencies and stakeholders were held from the drafting to the approval of the TISV. The resulting vision document features a results and monitoring framework for all the nine transport strategies. Each of the nine strategies is defined in terms of an overall goal, supporting objectives and a series of time-bound activities with estimated costs. Implementation of the strategies will be measured using a results-based monitoring framework. The framework spells out for each strategy clear and monitorable outcomes, outputs, and time-bound, measurable indicators.

In addition, RGOB officials were sent to the 2011 training on road safety and results-based transport management in APCoP’s center of excellence in Singapore.

1 The South Asia Transport and Communications Division (SATC), through RETA 6337-Development Partnership Program for South Asia, and the SPD Results Management Unit (SPRU), through RETA 6337-APCoP Phase 2, supported the RGOB in formulating the “Bhutan Transport 2040 Integrated Strategic Vision”.

2 The transport taskforce (TTF) comprises eight transport-related ministries that include: (i) Ministry of Information and Communications (MOIC, implementing agency), (ii) Ministry of Works and Human Settlements, (iii) Ministry of Economic Affairs, (iv) Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, and (v) Gross National Happiness Commission (GNHC).

Country Application 19

3. Outputs of MfDR mainstreaming

The outputs were:

i. Results-based Bhutan Transport 2040 Integrated Transport Vision that is more robust and appealing to investors.

ii. Increased government capacity on results-based transport sector planning and monitoring. Government officials gained knowledge and skills on innovative transport, rural and urban transport planning, and results-based management of the transport sector.

iii. Knowledge product (including dissemination). The exercise enabled the RGOB to inform regional governments, donor agencies, private financing institutions, and nongovernment organizations of the transport sector vision and strategies to generate interest in its implementation. The TISV is now posted in the Ministry of Information and Communications website and received wide attention from the public.

4. Lessons Learned

i. Results-based approaches are best introduced by focusing on a specific PSM dimension (i.e., planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation). In the case of Bhutan, MfDR was introduced through results-based planning of the transport sector.

ii. PSM initiatives must be demand-driven and built on existing country system to sustain outcomes. The RGOB used the existing Bhutan Planning and Monitoring System (PLAMS) developed to monitor the National Development Plan, wherein transport-related agencies will feed their data for monitoring of the vision. The government emphasized that ADB or development partner projects could strengthen a core national system, and should use country systems in identifying opportunities for capacity development.

iii. PSM issues are best analyzed in sector assessments. In this exercise, support for PSM in Bhutan has been delivered at the project level (i.e., through ADB technical assistance projects), hence assessment of PSM constraints are confined at the project level causing PSM support to be short term and unsustainable. ADB’s support can be strengthened if PSM constraints are discussed in sector assessments. Project initiatives can thus be consistently analyzed at a single sector level that can also be used in coordinated capacity development.

iv. Strengthening RBPSM should be integrated into ADB operations. APCoP’s support to introduce international best practice and encourage exchange of ideas on MfDR can only be effective if it is demand driven and supported by country operations, such as SARD’s project on the Bhutan transport sector strategy.


Cambodia

Developing Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System for Cambodia’s Rural Development Ministries


The Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP) collaborated with the Southeast Asia Public Management, Financial Sector, and Trade Division (SEPF) in assisting the Government of Cambodia to establish a results-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system in the three rural development ministries—Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF); Ministry of Rural Development (MRD); and Ministry of Water Resources and Management (MOWRAM).

APCoP supported SEPF’s Public Financial Management for Rural Development Program (PFMRDP) Subprogram I, which developed the MAFF’s M&E system that will be rolled out in MOWRAM and MRD; and Subprogram II that will implement a capacity development, plan for the M&E system for the three rural development ministries (RDMs).3

APCoP, through international results management and M&E expert support, developed a results-based monitoring framework for the RDMs, and a capacity development plan to implement this.

2. MfDR mainstreaming process

From December 2010 to June 2011, three APCoP-sponsored workshops (with support from the PFMRDP Team in Phnom Penh) were held to incorporate results-based approaches in the M&E system of the three RDMs. About 30 government officials from the 3 RDMs, Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), and Ministry of Planning (MOP) participated in each workshop.4

The three workshops covered:

i. Introduction of government officials to the principles of results-based public sector management and M&E that included the cascading down of indicators from the National Strategic Development Plan to the rural development sector using the SMART5 criteria, and data collection methodology.

ii. Introducing results-based features to the RDMs’ monitoring system. The international M&E expert guided government officials on the attributes of a results-based M&E system as they prepared a results-based M&E framework for RDMs.

3 This initiative was supported by TAs 6378 and 7744-REG: Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results; and, Grants 0132, 0133, and Loan 2674-CAM on Public Financial Management for Rural Development Program Subprograms 1 and 2.

4 R. Polestico. 2011. 2nd and 3rd M&E Workshops in Cambodia. Consultant’s reports. Manila. (TA 7744-REG). https://cop-mfdr.adb.org.

5 SMART= Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.


iii. Identifying capacity gaps and plan of actions in implementing a results-based M&E system. Government officials benchmarked their current skills with the attributes of a results-based M&E system to arrive at the capacity needs to implement it. Among the common gaps identified included the lack of technical competence on M&E, limited resources available for M&E development, and the need for capacity-building assistance and short- and long-term strategies on capacity development.

3. Outputs of the MfDR mainstreaming

i. A results-based M&E framework was developed based on the key attributes of a results based M&E system. This informed efforts to strengthen the RDM’s M&E system.

ii. M&E capacity development action plan, which contained the critical issues and gaps in developing an M&E system and the plan of action to address them.

iii. Agencies’ declaration of commitment to implement M&E capacity development plan. Senior officials of MEF, MAFF, MRD, MOWRAM, and the ADB PFMRDP Officer signed a declaration of commitment to support the implementation of a harmonized capacity development plan leading to the establishment of a unified M&E system for RDMs.

iv. Strengthened capacity of government officials on results-based M&E system, including indicator and target setting, effective data collection, and institutional coordination.

4. Lessons learned

i. Cross dependency between and within ministries is vital for the success of M&E as monitoring and achieving sector indicators and targets are responsibilities shared by several ministries.

ii. CoP generates demand-driven initiatives, promotes interministerial consensus, and hastens implementation of reform initiatives. Government officials’ participation in the MfDR country-level work enabled them to sort out PSM issues, reach consensus required to strengthen the M&E system, and elicit commitment to support it.

iii. Strengthening RBPSM is best achieved if integrated into ADB operations. APCoP’s initiative complemented PFMRDP’s support to the government of Cambodia by advancing the M&E system it developed for MAFF to a unified and results-oriented system.

iv. The joint workshops were useful for building government capacity particularly of the RDMs project implementation units and ministry officials.


Cambodia

Using Results-Based Approaches in Planning for the Sustainability of Technical Vocational Education and Training


The Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP) from April to June 2013 collaborated with the ADB Southeast Asia Department in strengthening the technical vocational education and training (TVET) in Cambodia. APCoP funded the TVET policy and institutional specialist to support the Southeast Asia Public Management, Financial Sector, and Trade Division project preparatory technical assistance for the Strengthening of Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project II (STVET II).6

The work supported the Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training (MLVT) and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MoEYS) in conducting an institutional analysis using results-based approaches. This will help inform future interventions for the two ministries and the design of STVET II. This focused on assessing the sustainability of the Regional Training Centers (RTCs) within MLVT and the Secondary Resource Centers (SRCs) in MoEYS using the results-based public sector management framework (RBPSM).

ADB has been supporting the transition of the TVET system in Cambodia toward a coordinated, competency-based and demand-driven provision, through the Basic Skills project, the STVET I, and the STVET II. The SRCs and RTCs are among the major areas of TVET reform.


Through expert support, pre-workshop activities were undertaken. These included desk research of policy orientated documents, field visits and discussions with officials and stakeholders on the issues and concerns of the TVET subsector.

Two workshops (one workshop each for MLVT and MoEYS) on planning for sustainability and financing mechanism (e.g., levy grant) were conducted. The sustainability of RTCs and SRCs were discussed based on the five components of the TVET management—planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation—and the constraints and interventions required to move forward. The head of MLVT opened the first workshop, attended by 70 participants from the Ministry of Economic and Finance, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Social Affairs Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation, Ministry of Industry Mines and Energy, Employer and Union representatives, non-government organization, development partners and the private sector.

Two case studies on SRCs and RTCs were conducted, specifically on how the MLVT and MoEYS can sustain operations. Each case study provides evidence on the degree of planning for sustainability, funding for sustainability, implementation for sustainability, and monitoring and evaluation for sustainability. They also discussed the constraints that the SRCs and the RTCs may face and the strategies (short-, medium-, and long-term) required to address sustainability.

6 TA 7744-REG APCoP- From Concept to Practice funded SEPF’s international policy expert under TA 8281 –CAM: Strengthening TVET in Cambodia (STVET II).



i. Case studies on SRCs and RTCs sustainability using results-based approaches

ii. Knowledge products, including concept notes on RTCs and SRCs, and the consultant’s report available at https://cop-mfdr.adb.org

iii. Increased capacity of government officials on RBPSM, particularly on results-based planning and budgeting

Items (i) and (ii) form part of the TVET sustainability assessment that will inform the STVET II.

4. Lessons learned

i. Results-based PSM provides complementary, deepened ADB support to country operations. In the case of the TVET subsector, this enabled government to respond to the increased demand for provision, and identify the most suitable options for sustainability and financing expansion through a results-based approach. For ADB, the exercise provided an opportunity to bring the issue of sustainability onto the government agenda. It highlighted how future projects, such as STVET II, could help move government institutions and partners to plan for sustainability, including the move toward a results-based management of the subsector over the longer term.

ii. RBPSM framework could fill in knowledge gaps. Countries need tools for analysis and the role of development partners is to offer them acceptable options.

iii. CoP modality provides an effective forum for DMC officials to discuss specific sector issues.


India

Using Results-Based Public Sector Management Assessment in Identifying Areas of Interventions for the West Bengal Development Finance Program


The Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP) from May to August 2012 assisted the Southeast Asia Department in drafting the West Bengal Development Finance Program (WBDFP) loan.7 APCoP provided the conceptual framework on results-based public sector management (RBPSM) in analyzing the government of West Bengal’s PSM system, including planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation processes. The government of West Bengal’s PSM assessment identified the strengths and challenges in each of the components.

The assessment informed the WBDFP loan in proposed intervention areas aimed at addressing the weaknesses across PSM components that were identified in the sector assessment.

West Bengal’s public sector continues to define and play a significant role in its development. One major issue facing the state is the deteriorating fiscal situation that has placed added pressures on public resources and constrains the delivery of public goods and services. WBDFP aims to initiate key reforms to stabilize the government’s finances. The West Bengal loan will improve expenditure efficiency, revenue efforts, and debt management. Once public finances are placed on a sustainable path, the government of West Bengal will be in a stronger position to pursue economic growth and development.


The APCoP secretariat provided expert support in the drafting of the WBDFP loan document. APCoP presented the RBPSM framework as a principles-based analytic tool to highlight the components and linkage issues in the government of West Bengal’s PSM that needs further support and identified areas where future reforms are required. The PSM assessment for the state of West Bengal informed the rationale for the WBDFP loan.


i. PSM assessment for WBDFP that informed the program loan.

ii. Results-based WBDFP loan document, ensuring that West Bengal PSM issues are analyzed in a holistic and results-oriented manner and will be addressed by the loan program.

iii. Increased knowledge on the application of the RBPSM Framework in ADB operation departments.

7 Loan 2926 on the West Bengal Development Finance Program was approved on 30 October 2012.


4. Lessons learned

i. The RBPSM Framework has significant application in ADB country operations. The results-based PSM framework can have a significant impact on ADB operations by informing and strengthening the design of loans.

ii. There is a strong rationale for using the RBPSM Framework in sector assessments in ADB country partnership strategies. APCoP’s partner in this initiative—the South Asia Department—agreed that the current assessment for the country partnership strategy needs to focus more on results in PSM assessments, starting from planning. Governance assessments should start with identifying the results that ADB or the DMC seeks to achieve with a robust PSM system in place. This will aid in the assessment of problem areas in other PSM components, such as budgeting.


Malaysia

Delivering Results and Gender: Mainstreaming Gender in Planning, Budgeting, and Monitoring Using Results-Based Approaches


The Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP), through funding support from the Gender and Development Cooperation Fund of the Regional Sustainable Development Department from October 2012–June 2013 assisted the Government of Malaysia in mainstreaming gender into Malaysia’s public sector management (PSM). In particular, APCoP supported the strengthening of results orientation through building linkages between gender budgeting, planning, and monitoring.8

Through an international gender and PSM expert, APCoP helped the government adopt gender responsive budgeting (GRB) as it launched the outcome-based budgeting (OBB). This exercise also covered planning as GRB required a policy statement and monitoring for gender-specific data.

GRB was first introduced in Malaysia in 2004 under a UNDP pilot project that provided initial training and produced a GRB manual. Policies on gender, including putting the gender dimension in budget circulars, were likewise initiated. These efforts however had limited success due to low capacity on gender analysis, gender data collection, and understanding of gender concepts and GRB application. As Malaysia gears toward a developed nation status by 2020, the government envisages to address the lag in gender equality and to consider women and gender concerns in economic growth.


APCoP’s initiative in Malaysia came following the attendance of the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development (MWFCD) senior officials at the Regional Conference on PSM in support of the MDGs held in Bangkok in June 2012, where there was a panel on gender responsive budgeting. The officials requested APCoP to help the government on GRB and results-based PSM (RBPSM).

An international gender and PSM expert facilitated the scoping mission, workshops, consultation meetings, and capacity-building sessions. Nine sector ministries (including MOF and Economic Planning Unit), academe, parliament, gender specialists, UNDP, and ADB participated in the activities. These activities benefitted from the leadership of the head of the MOF OBB team, MWFCD director general and resource persons from India and Bangladesh who provided comparative GRB experience and lessons learned. The ADB team delivered sessions on RBPSM and gender monitoring and evaluation.9

8 TA 7744-APCoP-From Concept to Practice was a subproject and granted funding under TA 6143-REG Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment.

9 Participants included: (i) sector ministries (MWFCD, MOF, Economic Planning Unit, Department of Social Welfare, Ministry of Rural and Regional Development, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Transport, and Ministry of Science and Technology; (ii) academe (University of Malaya, and Sultan Idris University); (iii) gender specialists from India and Bangladesh; (iv) UNDP, and (v) ADB (MfDR and Gender CoPs).



i. Assessment of the gender situation in Malaysia. Scoping activities and workshop discussions highlighted the gender issues in Malaysia (e.g., high rates of violence against women, low women’s labor force participation) and the need to address them.

ii. Draft strategies on enhancing GRB in PSM including taking the GRB forward, GRB methodology and checklist for selected sectors, and needs assessment of ministries on GRB.

iii. GRB Toolkit prepared by the government coming out from this exercise to guide ministries in conducting OBB.

iv. Knowledge products on gender that include the consultant’s final report on this exercise and three individual workshop reports detailing Malaysia’s experiences in institutionalizing GRB in the budget, plan and monitoring system (available at http://cop-mfdr.adb.org).

v. Capacity development of pilot ministries related to gaining knowledge on RBPSM, GRB, gendered monitoring and evaluation, and OBB. Specific capacity building sessions on GRB conducted for EPU officials.

4. Lessons learned

i. There is an entry point for a thematic focus, such as gender, in RBPSM. To deliver targeted gender-responsive programs, effective and robust PSM is necessary. In this exercise, the focus was on how to effectively mainstream gender issues and indicators into the OBB process that Malaysia was developing. This illustrated how PSM can support specific thematic development issues such as gender equality.

ii. The country-based CoP modality provides opportunities for interagency dialogue to discuss specific development issues. This was exemplified in the case of Malaysia where several findings revealed, that: gender equality is a concern, gender data are not disseminated and widely used; and poor capacity of officials on GRB.

iii. The CoP modality is also a cost-effective mechanism to progress cross-cutting sector level PSM issues. APCoP chair and Malaysia’s OBB project team leader Mr. Koshy Thomas was able to effectively mobilize sector ministries for this exercise to look at the cross-cutting issue of integrating gender concern in the planning and budget submission process.

iv. Demand-driven country initiatives are key to achieving results. This was manifested by the leadership of two senior officials of MOF and MWFCD in this exercise and taking this further to come up with a gender toolkit, which is a more lasting policy instrument that the ministries will use.


APCoP TeamCoordinating Committee

Koshy Thomas

Malaysia

Chair

Teertha Raj Dhakal

Nepal

Jargalsaikhan Dambadarjaa

Mongolia

Velayuthan Sivagnanasothy

Sri Lanka

Vice Chair

Juanita Amatong

Philippines

Tuon Thavrak

Cambodia

Rolando Tungpalan

Philippines

Partners

SecretariatTop row: Ma. Rosario Baxa, Cathy Clarin, Sheryl Nazaret-Casas

Bottom row: Mylene Buerano, Farzana Ahmed, Cristina Regina Bonoan

APCoP Team 29

Experts Allen Schick

Distinguished Professor, Public PolicyUniversity of Maryland

Howard White

Executive Director3ie | International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

Teresa Ter-Minassian

International Expert Economic and Fiscal Policy

Paul Smoke

ProfessorPublic Finance and Planning NYU Wagner School of Public Service

Ehtisham Ahmad

Visiting Senior FellowLondon School of Economics Asia Research Center

Stephen Commins

ProfessorSchool of Public Affairs University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

Other ExpertsAnnette Brown International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)

Nina Blöndal Impact Evaluation Expert

Ronald Downes Budgeting and Public Expenditures Division, OECD

Richard Foster Foster Infrastructure

Ian Hawkesworth Public-Private Partnerships and Capital Budgeting, Budgeting and Public Expenditures Division, OECD

Dongsung Kong Graduate School of Governance, Sungkyunkwan University

Annmaree O’Keeffe Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australia

Soojin Park PIMAC, Korea Development Institute

Arunaselam Rasappan Center for Development and Research in Evaluation (CeDRE) International

Ray Rist President, International Development Evaluation Association

David Rosalky Public Finance and Governance at Australian National University

Jan Smit Statistics Development and Analysis Section, Statistics Division, ESCAP

Mark Sundberg Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank

Wang Yongjun Research Institute of Finance and Economics, Central University of Finance and Economics, China

Linxiu Zhang Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy, People’s Republic of China


Activities

Special Topic Courses on Results-Based Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation2007–2013: People’s Republic of China

Annual Meetings2013: ADB Institute, Japan (Regional Roundtable on PSM and Public–Private Partnerships for Development Results) 2012: Thailand (Regional Conference on PSM in Support of the MDGs) 2011: Republic of Korea (Interregional CoP Forum on MfDR informing HLF-4 in Busan)2010: Cambodia (MfDR Concept in Practice)

2009: Malaysia (Integrated Approach to MfDR)2008: Sri Lanka (Aid Effectiveness at the national and sector levels)2007: People’s Republic of China (MfDR in Asia and the 2008 MfDR action plan)2006: Singapore (Results-based planning, budgeting, and M&E)

Singapore Training on Public Sector Excellence2013: Public-Private Partnership for Development Results 2012: PSM in Disaster Risk Management

2011: PSM in Transport 2009–2010: PSM in Education 2008: Performance-Based Budgeting

Interregional fora/Global outreach2012Asia-Pacific and Latin-America Interregional Forum on MfDR: Decentralization and the Changing Role of Central Finance Agencies, Philippines Subregional Consultations on MDGs and the Post-2015 Development Agenda in the Pacific, Fiji Subregional Workshop on MDGs and the Post-2015 Development Agenda for Central and East Asia, Kazakhstan

2011Republic of Korea: The Fourth High-Level Forum (HLF4) on Aid Effectiveness Germany: Workshop on Achieving Sustainable Results2009 Ghana: The Third High Level Forum (HLF 3) in Accra

Country Pilots (country-initiated and through ADB operations)2013 Kyrgyz Republic: Results-based Monitoring of the Education and Energy SectorsPhilippines: Third Monitoring and Evaluation Network ForumCambodia: Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project2012 Malaysia: Mainstreaming gender in budget and plan India: Application of results-based PSM framework in India’s West Bengal Development Finance Project

2011 Mongolia: Refocusing technical assistance on MfDR Cambodia: Establishing an M&E Framework for Cambodia’s rural development ministries Bhutan: Incorporating results-based approaches in the Transport 2040 Integrated Strategic Vision for Bhutan2010Bangladesh: Linking national and sector monitoring

APCOP Secretariat

Farzana AhmedPrincipal Coordinator, APCoPLead Results Management [email protected] Tel +63 2 632 4444 ext. 5224

Catherine ClarinResults Management [email protected]

Cristina Regina BonoanTechnical Advisor

Mylene BueranoTechnical Coordinator

Sheryl Nazaret-CasasProject Analyst

Ma. Rosario BaxaLogistics Coordinator

For more information on APCoP and to access its resources, visit:http://cop-mfdr.adb.org

Promoting Results through Country Based Communities of ......Promoting Results through Country Based...

Documents

Transcript of Promoting Results through Country Based Communities of ......Promoting Results through Country Based...