Fourth AfCoP Annual Meeting by African Community of Practice

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORDS ........................................................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 6 I.

II.

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 7 A.

Context

AfCoP Overview

Fourth Annual Meeting Acknowledgements

Achieving the Annual Meeting Objectives

MFDR IN PRACTICE: EXAMPLES FROM ACROSS AFRICA..................................................... 9 A. Providing Incentives for Public Sector Performance

III.

IV.

Overcoming Challenges in Planning for Outcomes

Moving from Line-Item to Performance Budgeting

Citizens‟ Engagement in Public Sector Management

Creating A Results Culture at the Sub-National Levels

RBM and M&E in Kenya

AFCOP GOVERNANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS ....................................................................... 17 A.

AfCoP Retrospective Evaluation

Transitioning Toward a New AfCoP Governance

Targeting Sustained and Effective National Chapters

CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD ........................................................................................ 20 A.

Meeting Achievements

Implementing the Meeting‟s Decisions

ANNEXES I. AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting Agenda

II. AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting Participants

III. Results of AfCoP Annual Meeting Evaluation

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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 countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x; 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 countryâ&#x20AC;&#x;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

Nairobi, Kenya â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 23-25 May, 2011

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

Executive Summary th

The African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results‟ (AfCoP-MfDR) 4 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-toface 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 st the upcoming High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness taking place from November 29 – December 1 , 2011 in Busan, South Korea.

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

I. A.

Background and Introduction 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 Africanbased 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.

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.

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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).

Achieving the Annual Meeting Objectives

The three-day meeting was organized along the following themes: 1) AfCoP governance and strategic 1 missions, 2) South-South knowledge exchange on MfDR, and 3) Results on the ground site visit. 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.

See Annex 1 for the complete agenda. 8

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

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. 9

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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.

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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.

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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. 12

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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.

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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 14

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

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.

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. 15

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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 20032007 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.

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

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.

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.

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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 18

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

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.

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.

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

IV. A.

Conclusion and Way Forward 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.

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.

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

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

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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

19:30

Reception & Dinner

AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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

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

Nairobi, Kenya – 23-25 May, 2011

Annex 2: AfCoP Fourth Annual Meeting Participants Burkina Faso

Kenya

Samson Machuka

Kabre Evence Eymard

Obuya Bagaka

CoP Burkina Faso President afcop_burkina@yahoo.fr

Kenya Institute Administration Lecturer obuya.bagaka@kia.ac.ke

Aymar Tiendrebeogo Ministry of Finance Director of the Permanent Secretariat for Financial Program and Policy Monitoring tiaymar@yahoo.fr

Congo, Democratic Republic Benjamin Bonge CoP DRC Permanent Secretary benjaminbonge@yahoo.fr

Théo Kanene

Lucy Gaithi Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Senior Economist gaithi@yahoo.com

Mary Kerema Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 Info. and Com. Technologies Director mkerema@planning.go.ke

Ministry of Planning Director of the External Assistance Directorate kanenetheo@yahoo.fr

Patrick Kokonya

Cote d'Ivoire

Emmanuel Lubembe

Stéphane Side Ministry for Planning and Development Planning Directorate Senior Planning Specialist sidestephane2008@yahoo.fr

Pratical Heritage Techniques Founder and Director kokonyap@gmail.com

Office of the Prime Minister, Public Service Transformation Department Director emmanuellubembe@gmail.com

Charles Mulingi

Ghana

Consultant charles.mulingi@gmail.com

Charles Amoatey

Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo

Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration Lecturer charlesamoatey@yahoo.com

UN-Habitat Program Review Committee Secretary rosa@koobiconsult.biz

Patrick Donkor

Joshua N. Mwiranga

National Development Planning Commission Director for Monitoring and Evaluation patrickdonkor@hotmail.com

Office of the Prime Minister Public Service Transformation Department Principal Programme Officer jnmwiranga@yahoo.com

Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate, Director smachuka@planning.go.ke

Gemma Mbaya Office of the Prime Minister, Public Service Transformation Department Results-Based Mgmt Advisor lemkii@yahoo.com

James Mwanzia Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Chief Economist mwanziajm@gmail.com

Mary Ndeto Office of the Prime Minister, Public Service Transformation Department, Institutional Capacity Building and Strategic Partnership Director ndetomary@yahoo.com

Dr William Ogara University of Nairobi Department of Public Health Director williamogara@yahoo.com

Mbera Orwoba Office of the Prime Minister Public Service Transformation Department Technical Advisor orwoba@yahoo.com

Alloyce Ratemo Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Senior Economist ratemo@yahoo.com

Rekha Shori Evaluation Society of Kenya M&E Expert rekhashor@hotmail.com

AFCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

Viviane Simwa

Mamadou Zibo Maïga

Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 Senior Public Communications Officer vcawino@yahoo.com

Ministry of Finance Program to Strengthen Capacity for Development Management National Coordinator Mali CoP, President mahamadouzibo@yahoo.fr

Stephen Wainaina Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 Economic Planning Secretary swainaina@planning.go.ke

Madagascar Jean

Razafindravonona

Ministry of Finance Budget Directorate Director dgbudget@moov.mg

Malawi Chimvano Thawani Ministry of Finance Aid Coordination Unit Economist cthawani@finance.gov.mw

Macleod Muyepa Ministry of Finance Monitoring and Evaluation Division Deputy Director mmuyepa@yahoo.co.uk

Mali Sadio Koly Keïta Ministry of Finance PRSP Unit Analyste sadiokoly@yahoo.fr

Ouatara Mafing GIZ-Mali Technical Advisor mafingkone@yahoo.com

Rwanda William Rukundo Ministry of Finance Budget Directorate Budget Reform Team Leader william.rukundo@minecofin.gov.rw

Mauritius

Senegal

Devendra Parsad Ruhee

Oumar Diakhaté

AfCoP Co-Chair Chairman, Public Officers Welfare Council devruh555@yahoo.com

Abdou Karim Lo

Netherlands Pieter Dorst Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Quality of Aid Director Pieter.Dorst@minbuza.nl

Niger Mamadou Sani

Centre d'Etudes des Politiques de Développement Expert en Dvp. Institutionnel odiakhate2@yahoo.com

AfCoP-Co Chair Office of the President Delegate to State Reform and Technical Assistance abdoukarimlo@gouv.sn

Sierra Leone Sheka Bangura

Abdou

Gaoh

GIZ-Niger M&E and Communication Unit Head Niger CoP coordinator Mamadou.Sani@gtz.de

Seydou Yayé Ministry of Economy Finance Niger CoP President seydou.yaye@yahoo.fr

and

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Deputy Director shekabangs@yahoo.co.uk

Ernest Surrur Human Resources Management Office Director General ea_surrur@yahoo.com

South Africa Ledule Bosch

Nigeria Nazifi Abdullahi Darma National Planning Commission Economic Growth Department Acting Director nazeefdarma@yahoo.com

Alache Odeh Technical Advisor Minister of National Planning alacheodeh@yahoo.com

Department for Public Service and Administration Monitoring and Evaluation Chief Director leduleb@dpsa.gov.za

Stephen Porter University of Witwatersrand, Graduate School of Public and Development Lecturer stephen.porter@wits.ac.za

Nairobi, Kenya â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 23-25 May, 2011

Tunisia Savadogo Boukary AfDB Division of Education Manager B.Savadogo@afdb.org

Lamine Nâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Dongo AfDB Quality Assurance & Results Lead Economist m.ndongo@afdb.org

Uganda

Gisu Mohadjer

Danies Chisenda

World Bank Operations Policy & Country Services Results Unit Manager gmohadjer@worldbank.org

Ministry of Finance and National Planning Budget Directorate Director danies.chisenda@mofnp.gov.zm

Mary Mulusa World Bank Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships Senior Operations Officer mmulusa@worldbank.org

Jacqueline Sibanda

Office of the Prime Minister Principal Economist abdulmuwanika@hotmail.com

World Bank Global Partnership on OutputBased Aid Communications Consultant jsibanda@worldbank.org

USA

Zambia

Cyril Blet

Chola Chabala

AfCoP Secretariat Consultant cblet@worldbank.org

Ministry of Finance and National Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Officer chola.chabala@mofnp.gov.zm

Abdul Muwanika

Hannah Cooper AfCoP Secretariat Consultant hcooper1@worldbank.org

Zimbabwe Solomon Mhlanga Office of the President and Cabinet Modernisation Department Principal Director mhlangasolomon@yahoo.com

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

AFCoP Fourth Annual Meeting

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:

AfCoP Meeting Evaluation Take stock of the Af CoP‟s contribution to Managing f or Development Results (Mf DR) in Af rica: Identif y ways to increase national chapters‟ sustainability and ef f ectiveness;

Evaluation of Day 1 and 2

Agree on the Af CoP governance and strategic management going f orward: Share Mf DR good practices in Af rica through panel and other discussions: Relevance to my work Quality of the knowledge sharing discussions

Balance between presentations/discussions/group work Duration of the sessions Content of the meeting – topics covered, issues discussed Background materials (binder, etc.)

Evaluation of Day 3

General organisation (venue, accommodation, …) Topic of of f-site day visits and presentations Quality of presentations Duration of of f -site visits and presentations General organisation (transportation, logistics, …) 0% Very good

Good

Fair

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Poor

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

Develop network of peers with Active contribution Understanding of whom to discuss to developing and Understanding of Knowledge sharing the National AfCoP activities, and learning from and move forward implementing Chapters and how the Results agenda AfCoP Vision and structure, and MfDR experiences in Africa Work Plan to create one progress to date across Africa

Nairobi, Kenya â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 23-25 May, 2011

Before workshop 17% 83%

After workshop 5%

95%

Before workshop 28%

72%

After workshop

0% 100%

Before workshop 33% 67%

After workshop 10% 90%

Before workshop 26%

74%

After workshop 10%

90%

Before workshop

21% 79%

After workshop 0% 100%

0% 20%

Fair to Poor 40%

Very Good to Good

29 60% 80% 100%