First Annual Meeting Report by African Community of Practice

First AfCoP Annual Meeting Report Uganda, December 2007 African Community of Practice

Table of Contents Introduction and Context 3 Purpose of the Meeting 3 Participants Expectations 3 Opening of the Meeting 3 Opening Plenary Discussion 6 Country Experiences and Context for MfDR 6 Tanzania: MfDR Context in Tanzania 6 Kenya: Performance Contracts 7 Mauritius 8 Ethiopia: Providing Socio-‐Economic and Demographic Data in a User Friendly Format 8 Uganda: Annual Policy Implementation Review 9 Benin: La reforme budgétaire axée sur les résultants: Le CDMT et les budgets programmes 10 Sénégal: Cadre de dépenses moyen terme (CDMT) au Sngal : Un exemple de MfDR 11 Observations from Country Experiences 12 Case Study: Performance Budgeting in Malaysia 12 Environment for the MfDR in Africa 14 Future Picture of Public Service in Africa 15 Mapping Circle of Influence for MfDR in Countries 15 Case Study: The Experience of Kenya in Rapid Results 16 Six Month Plan 26

Introduction and Context This report gives an overview of the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (MfDR) held in Mukono, Uganda from the 11th 14th December 2007. At the meeting members of the AfCoP were able to discuss and appreciate the concept of MfDR and its relevance to the development trends in Africa, developed an action plan that will guide the CoPs interventions and activities as well as built consensus on a management structure. Details on the proceedings are provided in the following sections. Purpose of the Meeting The meeting was aimed at bringing together key people for the first live meeting of the AfCoP on MfDR to: • • • •

Strengthen trust, envision and build commitment for better development results through AfCoP, Sharing and learning from successes and challenges in MfDR, Collectively generate action plans and Clarifying the roles and structure to succeed.

Participants Expectations • • • • • • • • • • •

To Improve the knowledge and the performance of CoP MfDR To share experience on MfDR and how it can be practical in an organization, To understand what is a reasonable expectations for the community of practice in Africa, To witness the emergence of a coherent and committed CoP movement, Develop a good strategic plan for the CoP, Create a CoP that is an active reference point for RBM, Meeting colleagues from other countries working on same issues (MfDR), Improve resource optimisation using the existing capacity, Cooperation between Asia and Africa experiences in development, Better understanding the role of African CoP in promoting African Development, and What is the value added by the CoP MfDR to policy work?

Opening of the Meeting Remarks from Peter Ssentongo, Interim Chair AfCoP The African Community of Practice (AfCoP) has been a journey that started in 2006 at the Mutual Learning Initiative in Uganda attended by Members of the African Community of Practice, Asian CoP and the World Bank. The AfCoP should be based on and guided by a number of principles;

• • •

Harmonization in approach to make processes simpler, Managing for development results to ensure that development goals and objectives are achieved, Accountability for all-‐ all stakeholders are accountable for results,

The first African CoP workshop held in Jinja provided an opportunity for us to be introduced to the MfDR concept and to reflect on our countries situation. This time round we are meeting as a continental community of practice to plan for the future of MfDR in Africa. The current AfCoP membership though still small, is committed to achieving results. We need to get solutions to the African development challenges and set a continent wide development agenda. The AfCoP therefore offers us an opportunity to influence decisions; exchange information and direct/ drive the African development process. This meeting should help us to come up with a strategic plan that will guide our process of engagement in the next few years. Opening Remarks by Martin Odwedo, Permanent Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister Mr. Martin Odwedo warmly welcomed Members of the African Community of Practice (CoP) in Managing for Development Results for African, Members of the Asian Community of Practice and representatives from the Development Partners to the meeting. He observed that Uganda was proud to host the first annual meeting of the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results. Hosting this annual meeting is relevant to Uganda based on our experience in public sector reform. Uganda has engaged in a continuous process that has sought to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of government in delivering services to the public, keeping law and order and providing the conditions for investment. Uganda has registered success and failures in this process. Through the implementation of the Poverty Eradication Action (PEAP) since 1997, poverty headcount has fallen from 56 percent in 1995 to 31 percent in 2005. The country has managed to maintain respective economic growth rates averaging 6 percent per annum over the last decade. Positive results are also noticeable in education with the implementation of the Universal Primary Education and decreases in infant and maternal mortality. However, eradicating poverty is still a challenge. Poverty remains a rural concern and lifting the remaining 31 percent out of poverty requires new approaches, in particular controlling spending on public administration, enhancing the performance and accountability of public institutions and reducing the cost of doing business.

What are the key Issues and Lessons? • • •

Leadership and sustained commitment are key for determining the effectiveness of some reforms, Enhanced coordination of national statistical systems and coordination of results data stimulates informed demand for information on results, Accountability for change; it is not efficient enough in managing a bureaucracy but also responding adequately to the needs of the people.

What are the opportunities? • • •

•

Clarifying and redefining the role of the public sector based on African perspectives, Developing a clear roadmap to change that addresses the underlying constraints to increased efficiency and effectiveness. Public service must recognize and respond to the rapidity of global change and ensure that the gains of these changes are felt across the nations, and ICTs have a key role to play MfDR should provide the basis for evidence-‐based performance that will guide decision-‐making. I hope the community of practice will provide an environment for learning and sharing across continents.

Remarks by Susan Stout, Manager, Results Secretariat, World Bank on the History & Frontiers of MfDR MfDR is rooted in the cost-‐benefit requirements of the 1980s and1990s. Earlier donor focus was on donor money measurement. At the Monterrey Conference in 2002, donors agreed to double donor money going out but required that this money be accompanied by doubled results. Three pillars were established: country capacity, institutions, and the global agenda. In 2002, at the Washington meeting, donors strove to see how they could enhance their contributions through: • • •

Strengthening country capacity Increasing donor focus Harmonising the two efforts

At the 2nd round table conference in Marrekech participants went a few steps further and • • •

Outlined 5 principles for MfDR, Emphasised how donors can get better results, and Called for improvement to donor coordination.

Donors were concerned about how to provide information on donor projects if the projects cannot collect and provide such information internally. These issues were discussed at the 3rd Round table on MfDR in Hanoi, Feb 2007 and the HRT Conference,

specifically dealing with issues of how countries themselves are deriving value from donor projects. Five major themes were identified: • • • • •

Leadership & Accountability Evaluation and Monitoring Mutual accountability and partnership Planning and budgeting Statistics

Discussion There is a need for change among donor agencies themselves, to integrate planning, RBB, and PPS within donor agencies and to get citizens to engage in the process. Opening Plenary Discussion During the discussion, several issues were raised; • • •

The need to focus on tangible results, more on outcomes as opposed to outputs was emphasized, Need to redefine the concept of leadership in context of managing development results, As we discuss strengthening country statistical systems and institutions, it is important to focus on providing an enabling environment for citizens to participate and in particular giving them access to relevant information that will enable them to demand accountability from their leaders.

Country Experiences and Context for MfDR Several countries presented their experiences focusing on why, who, what and how, struggles, innovation and results of the initiatives. These included Zimbabwe, Morocco, Benin, Senegal, Mozambique, Niger, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya, Mauritius, Ethiopia, and Uganda. The experiences of select Anglophone and Francophone countries are outlined below in English and French respectively: Tanzania: MfDR Context in Tanzania Tanzania’s medium development and poverty reduction goals are articulated in a 5-‐year strategy known as National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (2005/06 2009/10) MKUKUTA. Progress made is measured through MMS (Proxy for MfDR).

Status: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) average growth is 6 percent; per capita income in USD 390 and the population living below poverty line is 35.7%. Responsibility: Ministry of Planning Economy and Empowerment (at National level) with information is drawn from MDAs and LGAs at the sectoral level. Approach: Three technical working groups (TWG)-‐ these are survey and routine data, research and analysis and communication. Success factors: MMS produce progress reports on the indicators generated at sector and institution levels ! MKUKUTA Annual implementation report ! Economic survey (annual) ! National statistical surveys ! Status reports on growth and poverty ! Poverty and human development reports Challenges: ! Uneven data quality and gaps in the M&E system. ! Resource allocation bowed on expenditure reporting ! Inadequate cross-‐sector linkages ! Inadequate M&E capacity at all levels ! Weak results based management Lessons: ! Evidence based data for decision-‐making is crucial ! M&E is an important undertaking so are the usage of its findings Kenya: Performance Contracts Objective is to ensure achievement of targeted results from all public sector organizations: What gets measured gets done. A performance contract is freely negotiated contract between the government of Kenya and the relevant public office; performance targets are agreed at the beginning of the financial year and achievements evaluated at the end of the financial year. Monitoring of these targets all done on quarterly basis. Challenges ! Development of measurement indicators ! Managing change ! Culture and practice of public service.

Innovation: ! Cascading performance contracts to individual levels Results ! Improved service delivery to the public. ! Optimisation of resources ! Increased accountability ! Increased internal co-‐ordination Mauritius The Mauritius MfDR Initiative has witnessed a major paradigm shift 2007 2008 characterised by the introduction of performance management and a move to Programme Based Budgeting (PBB) embedded in a Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Its objectives are: ! Rethinking structures and procedures in the public service for improved public service delivery ! Results based management. There are two major strategic reforms underway, namely: ! Performance Management System (PMS) for public officers, ! Program Based Budget (PBB) that has witnessed the creation of dedicated knowledge management and capacity building department. National Efforts are aligned in a South African Initiative collaborative African Budget reform Initiative (CABRI). Partners in SADC and COMESA are embarking on similar reforms with the following interventions: ! IT system to monitor and record both quantitative and qualitative data on government receipts and disbursements. ! National Training Programme on PBB for senior and middle management staff. ! Proposed regional Multi Disciplinary centre for Excellence. ! Regional training plan in collaboration with countries in Southern and Eastern Africa. Ethiopia: Providing Socio-‐Economic and Demographic Data in a User Friendly Format Objectives are: ! To expand dissemination of socio economic and demographic data, ! To provide users with a comprehensive set of indicators,

To avail data to monitor country progress towards achieving National and MDGs targets. The Central Statistical Agency (under the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) has developed the Ethioinfo data base which has incorporated the demographic, population and housing census ((DHS) data, WMS, HICES, Manufacturing surveys, labour force surveys etc. The database provided reports in graphs, tables and maps. Challenges faced: ! IT infrastructure ! Technical personnel, ! Level of use of information from the data base specially in the lower Outcomes: ! Provided insights into the status of poverty and human development of the country for evidence based planning, ! It has allowed planners to strategise in budgeting resources to different levels federal, regional, Woreda and Kebele For more information visit www.csq.gov.et !

Uganda: Annual Policy Implementation Review Why: To be able to comprehensively review progress versus National Outcomes Who: Government, CSOs, development partners, local governments, private sector, academia What: Determine direction of achievement towards PEAP Pillar Targets How: ! Linking sector objectives to pillar outcome ! Multi Disciplinary team to conduct assessment Struggles: ! Taking government as a unit of assessment ! Lifting and linking sector level analysis to pillar level ! Definition of indicators, data gaps and data quality Innovation:

! !

Ability to construct a measurement framework with government as a unit of assessment. Logic of change of policy review at macro level

Results: ! Methodology available ! Influencing the budget and revision of PEAP, evaluation of the PEAP Benin: La reforme budgétaire axée sur les résultants: Le CDMT et les budgets programmes Progrès/Etat d’avancement: ! Reforme généralisée a tous les ministères sectoriels; ! Expérimentation des sous-‐programmes a gestion axée sur les résultats dans les domaines d’éducation de base; sante; environnement; alphabétisation; finances publiques et recettes fiscales Qui est responsable: Le ministre charge des finances Approche: Globale versus progressive Facteurs de réussite: ! Contexte international, vision concertée des PTFs favorables ! Volonté politique: avènement du gouvernement du changement ! Nécessite de faire du Benin un pays émergent ! Mise en place d’un dispositif institutionnel efficace (Sui, évaluation, rapportage) Défis: ! Meilleur encadrement des dépenses publiques (utilité, impact délation publique, reddition de comptes) ! Généralisation de la culture de la gestion axe sur les résultants toute l’administration ! Refonte de la constitution financière ! Transparence dans la gestion publique et lutte contre la corruption Leçons: ! Meilleure planification et programmation dans le ministre ! Suivi et évaluation ! Rapports de performance ! DRSP (deuxième génération) ! CDMT et meilleure allocation des ressources

Sénégal: Cadre de dépenses moyen terme (CDMT) au Sngal : Un exemple de MfDR Pourquoi? ! Inefficacité de laide au développement ! Manque de liens entre les budgets, les politiques et les dépenses réelles ! Un support financier du DRSP Objectifs ! Donner une vision moyen terme ! Introduire la logique de budgétisation par objectifs ! Permettre une évaluation du rendement ! Rationaliser la dépense publique Comment? ! Détermination des objectifs stratégiques ! Détermination dun cadrage pluriannuel pour indiquer les ressources nécessaires ! Allouer les ressources différentes activités cibles avec une définition claire des objectifs ! La détermination des enveloppes sectorielles ! Détermination Dun système Qui est responsable? ! MEF, Sant, Environnement, Justice, Infrastructures, Développement social, etc. Les succès ! 5 ministres pilotes; élargissement 12 ministres ! Bonne maitrise de évolution du PIB ! Bonne provision des ressources internes et externes ! Disponibilité dun mécanisme de répartition des ressources entre les programmes ! Renforcement des capacités des acteurs Les difficultés : ! Résistance au changement ! Capacité insuffisante en suivi et évaluation (S&E) ! Expérience perdue comme une surcharge de travail Les succès : ! Sensibilisation et implication des plus hautes autorités ! Forte volonté politique ! Leadership efficace ! Renforcement des capacités des acteurs

Observations from Country Experiences !

The MfDR initiative is starting to emerge with new innovations. The AfCoP will need to support these processes and promote shared learning across the continent. The environment for development in Africa is rapidly changing thus offering opportunities for undertaking MfDR.

Case Study: Performance Budgeting in Malaysia Linking Budgeting and Planning by Koshy Thomas To see the power point prepared for this presentation please visit the conference page on the AfCoP website or see conference CD-‐ROM given to all conference participants. Plenary Discussion During the discussion, the focus was put on whether there was flexibility within the Malaysian budgeting process since government undertook such a rigorous planning process. The five year developed plan allows for flexibility especially in the operational budget where there is an allowance of 5% for changes that may emerge with the implementation of the budget. There is also room for changes within the development budget, however limited to an extent that all changes have to be approved by the Central Planning Unit. It was also observed that although the implementation of RBM has challenges, it enables better planning and achievement of development goals. Malaysia The Malaysian experience has been a process that started from 1957. It has witnessed four major phases outlined below; Phase One: 1957 1969 was characterised by line item budgeting and development agendas with the public sector. Phase Two: 1969 1989 show PPBS, development agenda, a focus on development results, program activity structure and implementation weaknesses. The development results were good but there were challenges. Phase Three: during the period 1990-‐2005, Malaysia recognized the need to strengthen MFDR, and refocused on budget as drivers, use of integrated approach and performance plans and refocused on Monitoring and Evaluation. MfDR was institutionalised and the implementation mechanism was strengthened.

Phase Four: Current initiatives include: • Knowledge Economy Master Plan, ! Learning organizational approach, ! Internalised self evaluation, ! Strengthening and linking organizational performance (HRPERF), ! Strengthening policy framework through monitoring and evaluation, ! Management Information Systems (MIS) enabling MfDR. Planning for Development Results in Malaysia is reflected in several policy documents: Vision Plan (Vision 2020), Outline Perspective Plan (OPP), the Five Year Plan for goal setting as well as the Annual/ Budget Year Plan. Malaysia’s national mission has five thrusts namely: ! To move the economy up the value chain, ! To raise the capacity for knowledge and innovation and nurture first class mentality, ! To address persistent socio-‐economic inequalities constructively and productively, ! To improve the standard and sustainability of quality of life, and ! To strengthen the institutions and implementation capacity. Malaysia undertakes a participatory development planning process that takes place at three main levels, National by the National Government Ministries and Institutions under the leadership of the National Planning Council, Federal level by the Federal Government and at the Local Levels. The programmes planning process allows horizontal linkages involving the participation of different institutions at different levels. Focus is put on results based budgeting, personnel performance, administrative efficiency, monitoring of results and internalised self-‐evaluation. A number of strategies have been adopted during implementation. Some of these include getting the necessary policy support, intensive capacity building, change management, phased roll-‐out, continuous review and strengthening, strategic alliance and e-‐enabling. Future Plans ! Strengthening Monitoring and evaluation at all levels, ! E-‐ enabling/ strengthening policy formulation, ! Strengthening decentralisation of MfDR.

Environment for the MfDR in Africa Through a brainstorming session, participants discussed emerging trends and changes in Africa that are of importance to the MfDR. These are outlined below: ! Increase in the Peer Review ! Introduction of open performance review mechanism ! Increase in decentralization (4) ! Increased visible role and participation of CSOs (1) ! Increasing ownership of the development by countries (6) ! Questioning of the old public sector models ! Shift from the old management models to new models-‐ asking the questions ! Increased dialogue with development partners (5) ! Increased use of information performance (3) ! Deepening economic integration ! Increased transparency (7) ! Demand for democracy from the citizens ! Increase of a globalised public sector (1) ! Increase in public private partnership (5) ! Moving from the private to the public sector ! Positive economic trends with more information on Africa (3) ! Investments in human resources -‐ increasing capacity (7) ! Improvement in community participation (5) ! Increase in the need for defense institutions to be accountable ! Reducing conflicts in Africa ! Rapid increase in technology (4) ! Diversity of donors and their influence (2) ! Influence of rapidly increasing populations ! Global shift in power-‐ increasing influence of China ! The emergence of economic and political blocks that are becoming more instrumental in development -‐ SADC, EAC remerging ! Increasing concern for the environment ! Improving ICTs infrastructure which allows for linkages for organizations of similar interests ! Empowerment of women ! Emergence of new financing actors Bill Gates, China, Brazil and India (2)

! !

Less emphasizes and attention on environment issues Armed conflicts (1)

Future Picture of Public Service in Africa When asked to describe a future picture of a public sector that is not only result oriented but also where results are well managed-‐ public sector, participant responded with the following: ! Decision making processes much faster, ! Better coordinated public sector in the management of resources and results, ! Better and faster delivery of services, ! Public Service that is bench making with the development partners, ! Happy citizens, more trust in government, valuable education, services and facilities in the health sector, ! Influencing policies and decision-‐makers for socio-‐economic development, ensure efficient management, ! Better life -‐ reduction in infant and maternal mortality, ! Rational allocation of resources based on proven models or clear performance results, ! Public Sector where efficiency is measured based on the needs and requirements of the people, a public sector that is expanding, ! Managing for results is not for the experts but a norm of doing business. Mapping Circle of Influence for MfDR in Countries Participants were engaged in a process aimed at understanding the different stakeholders and their influence in undertaking MfDR in their respective countries. They responded to several questions that included: ! Who is important in undertaking MfDR? ! Who is likely to support MfDR work, ! Who is likely to resist MfDR work? ! What are the factors that influence the success of MfDR? ! Country specific circles of influence are presented below:

Case Study: The Experience of Kenya in Rapid Results

The Experience of Kenya in Rapid Results Approach by Mr. Obongo Sylvester Odhiambo, Public Service Reform and Development

In his presentation Mr. Obongo observed that almost all governments, Kenya inclusive, are struggling to reshape their public service in order to achieve greater efficiency, responsiveness and flexibility and focusing more on tangible results. Rapid Results Approach (RRA) then offers a result focused learning process aimed at jump starting organizational change efforts and enhancing implementation capacity. It also tackles large-‐scale medium and long-‐term change efforts through a series of small-‐scale results producing and momentum-‐building initiatives implemented within 100 days. The premise of RRA is to create an environment of learning and for enhancing implementation capacity by enabling institutions to work on sharply defined 100-‐day initiatives that dovetail into annual work plans and strategic plans. RRA as a tool therefore has several advantages: ! Accelerates implementation of strategic plans and priorities, ! Builds support for large scale change efforts by overcoming inertia and resistance to change, ! Helps leaders adapt and refine implementation strategies, ! Accelerates learning and discovery, ! Reduces hidden risks inherent in long-‐term strategies, ! Promotes cross-‐section/departmental team-‐work orientation to implementation of plans and strategies, ! Strengthens accountability and commitment for results. The RRA has registered results in Kenya in institutions where it has been implemented. To see the power point prepared for this presentation please visit the conference page or see conference CD-‐ROM given to all conference participants. NOT ON CD Plenary Discussion Following the presentation, several issues and observations were raised: ! RRA is a good tool especially if there are many challenges and problems to solve, since it enables institutions to initiate and work on reforms within 100 days and doing things differently from the traditional ways. It also involves evaluating the impact of the reforms in a short time and this encourages learning.

It also enhances working across sectors and institutions and at different levels creating vertical and horizontal linkages. Stakeholder mapping facilitates the identification of stakeholders including their roles and responsibilities. In RRA, there are no failures, the challenges are many but with the right stakeholders buying-‐in especially top managers synergies for cooperation and networking are built. RRA does not call for allocation of additional resources instead stakeholders make personal commitments to deliver better results more effectively and efficiently. In other words, there value addition. Effective leadership was emphasized as one of the cornerstone for the successful implementation of RRA.

Action Plan and Implementation Framework for the AfCoP

Participants engaged a participatory process of defining a vision, setting goals, activities and defining the institutional arrangement for the AfCoP. This section provides the details. The vision and mission statements developed by the Interim Management Team and early members of the AfCoP-‐MfDR were posted and participants were invited to post suggested changes. Vision To facilitate good MfDR practices through information exchange and to provide capacity development opportunities for results management among countries on the African continent. Three proposals for change were made; • Sustainable practice of managing for development results deeply rooted in public sector service of the populations in African countries. ! Good MfDR practices through information exchange and provision of capacity development opportunities for results management among countries in the African continent. ! A community of practitioners with sound knowledge, skills and information flow ability to enable partner countries to manage effectively the achievement o development results.

Mission To provide a platform for the exchange of experience and knowledge among practitioners who seek to develop and expand their capacity to manage for development results (MfDR). One proposal for change was made: ! To provide a platform for exchange of experience and knowledge among practitioners to manage for development results Action Plan for the African Community of Practice for Managing for Development Results

Remedial Constraints Actions Activities Timeframe Lack of people Set up a and institutions coordinating in countries with secretariat for information on the AfCoP March 2008 MfDR Set-‐up a management Failure to attract team with donors to specific tasks provide financial and support Common responsibilities April 2008 starting ground Start Trying to immediately decentralize Advocacy Recruit & before the members continuously regional CoPs Strengthen Focal points in are strong communication all countries June 2008 strategy September Un supportive Organize general 2008 in political Solicit donor meeting Ghana Regional and environment support country CoPs established for Lack of capable Capacity MfDR practice in leadership for building at place in MfDR country level administrative areas of each Representation Awareness country for the of regions and creation among Establish links benefit of its with relevant Immediately countries leaders citizens. bodies & on-‐going Goals

Person Responsible All AfCoP participants of Mukono meeting

All participants

All participants Secretariat

Secretariat

Unable to Taking stock and identify skills identify capacity expects to gaps of current provide technical CoP members 2 months assistance Identify potential source Technical Monitoring and of Technical assistance needs exchange Assistance are different programs within across countries membership and Exchange of from other No clear good and bad sources of standards and practice knowledge and meaning of expertise 60 days Expert Resource Develop mapping common tools Failure to attract and approaches donors to Good for MfDR 90 days provide financial governance support Financial Capacity created Lack of assistance for within AfCoP to experience technical provide technical assistance assistance and Experts have no develop time or Partnering technical resources to capacity at provide technical Sustainability of Enhancing the country level in assistance membership. MfDR skills of MfDR CoP members 150 days Non involvement Awareness of govt raising Lack of statistical Create reliable data information systems Monitoring and Action plan is evaluation of the not clear and Set up MfDR action specific making it strategies plan. Better difficult to evidence based monitor and Clear definition

Core team

evaluate

of indicators Institutional mobilization Mainstream

Existing national, regional and international need to invest in economic infrastructure Inadequate IT infrastructure Time constraints Limited expertise in African countries Limited documentation A CoP that is on good networked and practices able to coordinate Failure to attract exchange and donor financial Document and information on support disseminate MfDR early results An international recognized representative body of people involved with MfDR across Africa who are able to support A supportive development of political policies and environment

Disseminate examples of success Awareness raising Advocacy

Advocacy and publicity

Membership drive Capacity

Immediate strategy in next 3-‐6 months Core team To be complete after the inventory of MfDR process Core team Next 2 years Core team

programmes.

building Next 6 months

Peer Review Core team Develop strategic linkages with sister 1 yr after organizations formalization Core team Membership to international Next organizations 6months Core team Research &studies (Status Inventory of Thematic MfDR) 1 year teams

A CoP that is knowledge based and learning organization.

Core Identification of January Management other studies Immediately team Involvement in HLF Recording and publishing good How to get good practices from practices across the beginning the continent Capacity Capacity development constraints initiative Theme not Refocus the focused theme

Inadequate Sustainability of Identify the financial membership countries that resources may wish to join End March An expended, Domestic the CoP 2008 Core Team actively CoP wont be revenue participating able to raise mobilization membership funds to support strategies (CoP recruiting activities Marketing the and mobilizing) Advocacy on CoP January 2008 Core Team

Financial constraints Limited human expertise and political commitment Constraints in ICT enabled services and connectivity.

value added (ownership) Member countries to support CoP activities Fundraise with in the region (at country level) Attract donors to invest

Criteria for recruitment Use regional forums for dissemination Publicise the CoP at regional levels Constraints in ICT services and Identify potential connectivity member countries Limited knowledge of MfDR initiative Identify professional An autonomous Lack of association (independent) coordination operative in the CoP that can region mechanisms recommend best practices An supportive Develop flyers towards the on MfDR political achievement of environment dissemination MfDR objectives to political

members Set up web site and link to popular sites

Risques et Activités Groupe Cible Responsabilité chance Hypothèses GVT Parlementaire lus locaux Société civile 1. Informer et Secteur Prive Comite Ad Mars sensibiliser PTF Hoc 2008 Indisponibilité

2. Création du réseau Personnes national contactes 3. Elaboration dune base de donnes Inventaire des compétences et des bonnes pratiques 4. Mobilisation du financement PTT GVT 5. l'élaboration d’une charte et un code de déontologie 6. Atelier de lancement des activités de la CoP Nationale 7. Analyse des

Démarche Nombre de personnes contactes nombre d’adhérents

Réseau

crée Plan d’action chiffre établit

Avril 2008

indicateurs

Résistance et difficulté de collecte Action d’information continue Manque de : 2010 moyens

Ateliers nationaux Site WEB

Différentes bases de donnes crées

Comite de Juin coordination 2008

Comite de Juin coordination 2008 RAS Comite de Activité

Rapport de synthèse diffus sur le site Création des Votes

compétences et des bonnes pratiques existantes 8. Organiser des rencontres trimestrielles de suivi

coordination continue

A partir Commit de de juin coordination 2008

Team

Decentralization & Membership

Publicity, Knowledge Management

Capacity Building

sites techniques nationaux labours Bulletins semestriels

Activities Identify potential champions (contact persons) in strategic institutions in individual countries and regional bodies, Sensitize the potential champions on the activities of AfCoP on MfDR through regional meetings and website, Contact persons in each member countries to recruit other potential members. Creating greater awareness of role and functions of CoP among African countries Setting up a database for countries already having good practices in RBM (Ali-‐ Doungou Boubacar -‐ Niger) Establish links with regional/continental organizations with a view to CoP having recognition (Richard Ssewakiryanga -‐ Uganda) Collect information on good practice of MfDR in partner countries (Ali-‐ Doungou Boubacar-‐Niger) Set up a database of MfDR professionals (Mohammed Haddad-‐ Morocco) Taking stock of existing expertise and identify capacity gaps of current members (Joy and Solomon) Assemble common tools and approach for MfDR in Africa (Solomon and Saruni) Capacity enhanced within AfCoP to provide TA and build country

level capacity To programme on the website Monitoring & EvaluationSee table below.

Networking African Led Recognition

Setting a coordinating body Identify good practices Organize a meeting Recruitment of members

Institutional and Implementation Mechanism for the African CoP A draft model of the AfCoP was presented for discussion and approval. Five Teams were proposed /approved and their respective members presented below.

Working Team Decentralization and Membership Capacity Building Monitoring and Evaluation Networking Publicity, Knowledge Management and Learning

Team Leader

Membership Jared Ichwara (Kenya) Sephania Mwakipesile Zaam Ssali (Uganda) (Tanzania) Solomon Mhlangga Mayacine Camara (Senegal) Joy Mukaire (Zimbabwe) (Tanzania) Mbayani Yudica Saruni (Tanzania) Claude Kakule (Ethiopia) Seydou Yaye (Niger) Tamirat Yacob (Uganda) Peter Sentongo Sylvester Obongo (Kenya) Abdou Karim Lo (Uganda) (Senegal) Ali Doungou Richard Ssewakiryanga (Uganda) Dev Ruhee Boubacar (Niger) (Mauritius)

Way Forward The following were agreed upon for the team leaders 1. Provide details of their respective contacts to Sheila 2. Produce and submit progress reports on monthly basis 3. Develop and submit an action plan for the team

Six Month Plan

ACTIVITES PRIORITAIRES DELAI

Finaliser le Plan d’action de la Communauté Fin janvier Africaine de MfDR 2008 Fin mars 2008 Elaborer le plan de (Draft) et mai mesure des performances 2008 (version de l’AF CoP finale) Rapportage périodique (semestriel et annuel) sur les activités et résultats de la CoP Annuel

RESPONSABLE

Seydou (Niger)

MECANISMES DE REDDITION DES COMPTES Transmission du draft du plan aux autres membres du groupe via le website -‐ circuler la version finale à tous les autres groupes via le website

-‐ proposer, via le website, un Claude (Ethiopie) premier draft d’ici fin mars -‐ circuler Tamirat (Ethiopie) la version finale en mai.

Seydou Claude

Via le website du AfCOP.