Senegal%20review by Werner Schneider

United Nations Development Programme

G lo b a l P r o g r a m m e e o n d e m o c r at i c g o v e r n a n c e A s s e s s m e n t s

Project Review Project for capacity building for good governance in senegal

Introduction

Introduction This review has been undertaken to inform the Mid-term Review of the Global Programme on Governance Assessments run by UNDP’s Oslo Governance Centre (OGC). This exercise therefore is limited to an assessment of the relevance, quality, timeliness and outputs of the OGC’s support with a view to improving the next phase. It is not an evaluation of the Programme National de Bonne Gouvernance (PNBG), nor of OGC’s main partner, the Projet de Renforcement des Capacités de Bonne Gouvernance (PRECABG).

Methods: Review of documents (Annex 1) and semi-struPctured interviews with key informants to obtain their opinions, assessments and suggestions for improvement (Annex 2).

Limitations: It was difficult in the time allocated for this review – nine working days – to do full justice to this complex and dynamic project. Although this review examines the work of the GAP-OGC, it has been necessary to make some comments about the PRECABG as well as the wider governance programming context of the PNBG, since these are major determinants of the ultimate effectiveness of the OGC’s support. This is quite a hazardous task, especially in view of the limited time, and the complex and dynamic programme environment of governance, peopled by a multiplicity of actors, structures and programme interventions. The author therefore apologises if he has not done full justice to the efforts of the committed actors who have generously shared their time with him, and to whom he conveys his warmest thanks. The timing and duration of the review limited the number of interviews. For example, it was not possible to interview the selected development partners (the European Union and Spain) who were on leave or otherwise engaged. In this particular case, the telephone contacts with these partners suggest that the interviews would probably not have changed the main thrust of this report.. .

2 Project Review: Senegal

Project Description

Description of the Project and the Inputs from the Oslo Governance Centre UNDP’s current phase of support to the PNBG is focussed on capacity development and is channelled through the PRECABG, launched initially for 4 years (2008-2011). The support from the Oslo Governance Centre was provided to the PRECABG through the project entitled “Projet de Renforcement des Capacités de Suivi et d’Evaluation de la Gouvernance” (RECASEG). The project is implemented by a Coordination Unit installed in the office of the DREAT (“Délégation pour la Réforme de l’Etat et l’Assistance Technique”) and which operates under the guidance of Steering Committee (“Comité de Pilotage”) that meets twice yearly. The OGC budget for an initial two year period of support (2009-2010) was $100,000, and the expected results identified in the PRECABG/RECASEG Project Document are: -The M&E capacities of the governance actors reinforced -An integrated system for the monitoring and evaluation of the governance strategy established and operational The Project Document (p6) identifies the following five specific objectives, translated by the author from the original French: -support the establishment of coordination and M&E mechanisms for the PNBG -support the design and establishment of an information system on governance -define and inform governance indicators to measure progress -reinforce the capacity of governance actors in the area of M&E -production of an annual report on governance in Senegal This assistance was extended for a year (2011), in order to help operationalise the proposed M&E mechanism for the PNBG and to produce the first annual report on governance. The initial budget for 2011 was $100,000. An additional $50,000 was made available in July, of which $25,000 was from UN Women for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of gender in the government services, and $25,000 was for focus groups with the population for the annual report on governance. This brought the total contribution from OGC for the period 2009-2011 to $250,0001, including the $25,000 from UN Women. A key first step was the Diagnostic Study conducted in mid-2009 that analysed: a) the conceptual framework of governance; b) the information needs of governance stakeholders and existing information systems; c) existing institutional mechanisms for the M&E of governance projects and programmes. An important part of the OGC support was delivered through a number of workshops that have sought in an inclusive and participatory manner to build consensus among the key actors in regard to the main elements of a national M&E system for the PNBG. For the first major workshop in September 2009 OGC provided technical support to help the key actors develop more structured planning and management tools, notably a results framework (with outcomes, outputs, indicators etc.) for the six main programme pillars of the PNBG, namely local governance, judicial 1. This will be virtually all disbursed by 31 December 2011, the closure of the PRECABG/RECASEG.

Project Review: Senegal 3

Project description

governance, public service improvement, economic and financial governance, improving parliamentary work, and the develoment of information and communication technology (ICT). The next major workshop in June 2010 focussed on the review and selection of methodologies and the development of data collection and reporting instruments that would be the basis for the national M&E system designed to measure and analyse progress in the six main programme components of the PNBG. Technical support was provided mainly through Abdul Malik from Kenitraam, a leading Indonesian NGO with rich experience in measuring progress at the sub-national level, and Jean-Michel Wachsberger from Développement Institutions et Mondialisation (DIAL) a French initiative to partner national statistical offices in the collection of governance related data, mainly through surveys.2 Further technical support was provided for a third workshop in June 2011 that reviewed the proposed monitoring system and modified and validated the survey tools for the pilot phase of data collection and analysis. The system is structured around the main outputs (“extrants”) of the six programme components of the PNBG and is based on a list of almost 80 indicators. The fourth workshop in September 2011 reviewed the feedback from the pilot data collection in the field and reinforced the planning and preparatory work for the governance report that is scheduled to be launched in December.

Assessment of the results Strategic Relevance There was a strong degree of consensus among the informants that the project is highly relevant and the emphasis on the national M&E system and the production of a governance report are most appropriate and timely. The design seems to be an innovative and relevant response to the shortcomings revealed by the evaluation of the first phase of the PNBG. There appear to be no significant changes in the context or the basic assumptions since the outset. The OCG support remains highly relevant, and is perceived to be constructive and technically sound. The scope was questioned by one informant who felt that the PNBG and the related M&E system developed with the PRECABEG and the OGC was mainly about the “governance of the public administration” rather than governance in a broader sense. To an extent this is true as the system is focused on the six programme pillars that constitute the PNBG, but it is equally true that the proposed tools touch upon a relatively broad spectrum of governance concerns and they also allow for systematic and wide ranging feedback from the public. It should also be noted that the system can be expanded as credibility and confidence are established and increased resources become available. The ability to meet project targets fully and on time have been negatively affected by mainly external factors, including: a) the need to proceed cautiously during this period of intense public debate and political competition; b) lengthy bureaucratic processes when establishing new structures and/or procedures; c) the heavy workload of the committed key actors; d) delays in satisfying certain technical support needs; e) a tendency to be over ambitious in project planning. These points are explored below.

Validity of the Strategic Principles of the Global Programme of Governance The three principles – national ownership, alignment and capacity development - are highly valid in the Senegalese context, even if there are gaps between the intention and reality as indicated below. National ownership – This seems strong among government technocrats and civil society actors and to an extent in the legislative branch as result of the involvement of parliamentarians. This ownership has been fostered by the adoption of inclusive and participatory processes at 2. A previous DIAL mission to Senegal in February 2010 had initiated this collaboration.

4 Project Review: Senegal

Assessment of Results

each critical stage, even though this is usually more demanding of the time and energy of the project staff. However, in regard to the highest levels of government this admittedly rapid review did not reveal formal evidence of an active “buy-in” to the M&E system. The fact that the “Comité Interministériel” has not yet been established might be related to this issue of ownership at the higher political level, and draws attention to the need to find alternative channels for communication and consultation with political leaders. This will be especially important when releasing the results of the field assessments and the annual governance report, as they will certainly show a mixed picture that will not please everybody.3 In the meantime one can probably assume that the concerned Ministers are taking some degree of ownership of the six programmes within the PNBG for which they are responsible, as these programmes bring them resources and visibility. One can also take some encouragement from the fact that the strengthening of governance and human rights is one of the three components of the “Document de Politique Economique et Sociale, 2011-2015”, which is the successor of the DSRP 2006-2010.

Alignment with national development plans and political vision – There is very strong internal alignment between the proposed M&E system and the indicators and outputs of the six programme components of the PNBG. An informant at the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that the judicial reform component of the PNBG (which is implemented in the form of a complex multi-donor multi-project sector programme) has benefitted significantly from the OGC supplied expertise which has helped them to refine and adapt aspects of their monitoring in the spirit of alignment. There appears to be weaker alignment with the “Document de Politique Economique et Sociale, 2011-2015” (DPES) which has three components, of which the third is “Reinforcing the fundamental principles of good governance and the promotion of human rights”. Among the core list of 56 indicators retained for the DPES there are around 13 which relate to the programme pillars of the PNBG, of which only four indicators are to be found with a comparable formulation among the 78 retained for the proposed governance M&E system. This indicates there is further work to be done at the level of the alignment of PNBG programme components with the relevant components of the DPES and at the level of their respective monitoring systems.

Capacity Development – More needs to be done in this regard to build on the achievements of this current phase. There seems to be a wide recognition that the international expertise has helped to expand capacity, and it is also observed that the OGC counterparts have encouraged the use of local capacities whose expertise was hitherto unknown to many of the government actors. However, a more comprehensive strategy for capacity development is required, in view of the complexities of the tasks ahead and the need for M&E training expressed by many informants. Upon the basis of a comprehensive needs assessment, a plan should be developed to meet the most pressing needs within a longer term strategy that could eventually embrace issues of job profiles, incentives, professional standards etc. The results framework in the 2009-2010 project document already included the development of a training plan. It still does not exist, but nevertheless, some useful training activities have already been undertaken.

3. Much will depend on the very extensive network, impressive advocacy skills and good political sense of the Délégué in charge of DREAT and coordinator of the PNBG.

Project Review: Senegal 5

Assessment of Results

Strategic Relevance There was a strong degree of consensus among the informants that the project is highly relevant and the emphasis on the national M&E system and the production of a governance report are most appropriate and timely. The design seems to be an innovative and relevant response to the shortcomings revealed by the evaluation of the first phase of the PNBG. There appear to be no significant changes in the context or the basic assumptions since the outset. The OCG support remains highly relevant, and is perceived to be constructive and technically sound. The scope was questioned by one informant who felt that the PNBG and the related M&E system developed with the PRECABEG and the OGC was mainly about the “governance of the public administration” rather than governance in a broader sense. To an extent this is true as the system is focused on the six programme pillars that constitute the PNBG, but it is equally true that the proposed tools touch upon a relatively broad spectrum of governance concerns and they also allow for systematic and wide ranging feedback from the public. It should also be noted that the system can be expanded as credibility and confidence are established and increased resources become available. The ability to meet project targets fully and on time have been negatively affected by mainly external factors, including: a) the need to proceed cautiously during this period of intense public debate and political competition; b) lengthy bureaucratic processes when establishing new structures and/or procedures; c) the heavy workload of the committed key actors; d) delays in satisfying certain technical support needs; e) a tendency to be over ambitious in project planning. These points are explored below.

4. “..un mauvais pilotage du système de suivi des programmes, une absence d’outils d’évaluation de la gouvernance” Etude Diagnostique, 2009 : p19.

6 Project Review: Senegal

Assessment of Results

patory processes at each critical stage, even though this is usually more demanding of the time and energy of the project staff. However, in regard to the highest levels of government this admittedly rapid review did not reveal formal evidence of an active “buy-in” to the M&E system. The fact that the “Comité Interministériel” has not yet been established might be related to this issue of ownership at the higher political level, and draws attention to the need to find alternative channels for communication and consultation with political leaders. This will be especially important when releasing the results of the field assessments and the annual governance report, as they will certainly show a mixed picture that will not please everybody.3 In the meantime one can probably assume that the concerned Ministers are taking some degree of ownership of the six programmes within the PNBG for which they are responsible, as these programmes bring them resources and visibility. One can also take some encouragement from the fact that the strengthening of governance and human rights is one of the three components of the “Document de Politique Economique et Sociale, 2011-2015”, which is the successor of the DSRP 2006-2010. Alignment with national development plans and political vision – There is very strong internal alignment between the proposed M&E system and the indicators and outputs of the six programme components of the PNBG. An informant at the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that the judicial reform component of the PNBG (which is implemented in the form of a complex multi-donor multi-project sector programme) has benefitted significantly from the OGC supplied expertise which has helped them to refine and adapt aspects of their monitoring in the spirit of alignment. There appears to be weaker alignment with the “Document de Politique Economique et Sociale, 2011-2015” (DPES) which has three components, of which the third is “Reinforcing the fundamental principles of good governance and the promotion of human rights”. Among the core list of 56 indicators retained for the DPES there are around 13 which relate to the programme pillars of the PNBG, of which only four indicators are to be found with a comparable formulation among the 78 retained for the proposed governance M&E system. This indicates there is further work to be done at the level of the alignment of PNBG programme components with the relevant components of the DPES and at the level of their respective monitoring systems. Capacity Development – More needs to be done in this regard to build on the achievements of this current phase. There seems to be a wide recognition that the international expertise has helped to expand capacity, and it is also observed that the OGC counterparts have encouraged the use of local capacities whose expertise was hitherto unknown to many of the government actors. However, a more comprehensive strategy for capacity development is required, in view of the complexities of the tasks ahead and the need for M&E training expressed by many informants. Upon the basis of a comprehensive needs assessment, a plan should be developed to meet the most pressing needs within a longer term strategy that could eventually embrace issues of job profiles, incentives, professional standards etc. The results framework in the 2009-2010 project document already included the development of a training plan. It still does not exist, but nevertheless, some useful training activities have already been undertaken.

Management Capability The PRECABG/RECASEG can be considered to be strategic in its operations to a considerable extent in that it has adapted and adjusted to the context while adhering to a clear strategy. The project has maintained a focus on the key operational constraints identified in the evaluation of the first phase of the PNBG.4 The project has also adjusted the timing and content of key activities to take account of the national context. The project has also acted strategically in expanding the pool of national expertise to include previously uninvolved civil society groups and researchers, especially those with considerable experience in gover-

Project Review: Senegal 7

Assessment of Results

nance monitoring and assessment (such as the Forum Civil, Afrobarometer, Alliance for Rebuilding Governance in Africa (ARGA), the Laboratory for Research and Study on Governance (LAREG) of the University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar etc.) This inclusive and mutually beneficial approach should be strongly adhered to, in spite of the occasional divergences of perspective and pace that are bound to arise. Nevertheless, the management arrangements probably require some adjustments to handle the expanding workload and expectations. As the OGC is working through the PRECABG to strengthen the M&E of governance, much of the coordination, management and some of the technical work fall on the shoulders of the PRECABG Coordination Unit, notably the Coordinator and the M&E Officer. In the coming months this workload will be particularly heavy. In addition to the significant volume of routine work and the unplanned reactive tasks, it will be necessary to handle all or most of the following: • completing the pilot household survey and incorporating the lessons learned into the planning for the national survey; • organising data collection through the routine reporting by the PNBG stakeholders, and compiling and analysing that data using the new software; • managing the qualitative and quantitative gender studies; • organising planned training events; • coordinating the production of the national governance report; • winding up the current phase of the PRECABG and RECASEG; • negotiating a new phase of UNDP support; • securing additional funding from other donors and/or the Ministry of Finances; • compiling the annual and quarterly project progress reports, and organising a meeting of the Comité de Pilotage of the PRECABG; • organising a meeting of the soon to be operationalised Comité Technique de Coordination du PNBG5 , whose Permanent Secretariat will be temporarily assured by the PRECABG Coordination Unit. In light of the above, it would be judicious to assess the capacity needs of the PRECABG Coordination Unit to ensure there is adequate capacity for the dynamic and hardworking team to assume their key leadership and coordination role in this context of expanding workload and expectations. A constraint to project efficiency identified by the PRECABG was the fact that they did not receive from the OGC a budget figure for the planned support for 2011 in time for the annual project work planning. The stringent procedures governing nationally executed UN projects mean that the PRECABG lost time and implementation momentum when it had to obtain approval for budget revisions in the course of the year in order to incorporate the OGC support. Additional budget contributions received later in the year would have posed a similar problem, but for the fact that the UNDP Senegal Office has been able to hold those funds so that they can be drawn down directly by the PRECABG as needed. UNDP is commended for this flexibility.. Otherwise, there seemed to be general satisfaction with UNDP’s management of the project funds, and the articulation between the various UNDP actors involved. The main change requested is to provide a reliable estimate of the OGC support in time for the annual budget planning, ideally in the framework of a multi-year commitment for the duration of the new project. 5 The draft Arrêtés for the Comité Technique and the Secrétariat Permanent have been submitted to the Prime Minister for signature. Support for the establishment and operation of these structures was envisaged in the 2009-2010 PECABG/RECASEG Project Document so one wonders about the reasons for the delay.

8 Project Review: Senegal

Assessment of Results

Project Outputs / Outcomes The OGC support has made a very important contribution to the products and outputs detailed in the PRECABG/RECASEG project document, most of which have been accomplished or are currently under way, although some will not be accomplished by the end of the current project on 31 December. The most important output has been the design of a governance M&E system which will require further technical and budgetary support to make it fully operational. For the moment the system is described by one key actor as “experimental”. The system is innovative in that it balances the more traditional supply driven approach with the demand dimension that is a key factor in strengthening accountability between government and citizens. The “demand-side” of governance will be measured mainly through the household survey component that will give a voice to a wide cross section of the Senegalese population. The more traditional “supply-side” information will be measured through coordinated administrative reporting by the relevant services and entities. This will be supported by the computerised system developed by the project to ensure sound data management and the widest possible access. Another important output attributable in part to OGC’s technical support was the formulation of the PNBG results framework, an essential step in the development of the above mentioned system. This reflection on results work may well lead to adjustments in the design of the PNBG. Oslo has also provided important technical input for the planning of the pilot operational phase, principally the plan for the household survey, including the development of the instruments, mainly the questionnaire, the sampling design, the data cleaning, entry and tabulation, etc. This work will be completed before the end of 2011. It is then planned to produce the first annual report on governance which will incorporate the reporting from the six programme pillars of the PNBG – including from a sample of local government entities – and the results of some focus groups with citizens that will partly compensate for the fact that the national household survey has been postponed until after the Presidential elections. In addition to their immediate impact, the annual governance report and related data sets will be used to establish baselines and set targets and benchmarks for a more systematic assessment of performance trends. These substantial achievements have been accomplished through a judicious mix of international and national expertise, and also by capitalising on the experience of NGOs in Senegal. There are other less tangible results that can be in large part attributed to OGC. One has been to “bridge the gap” between government officials and civil society actors by facilitating experience exchange leading to improved mutual understanding and improved collaboration. Hitherto, the pioneering and innovative work of groups such as the Forum Civil, Afrobarometer, and ARGA were not sufficiently known and valued. The collaboration with UN Women wil also give new impetus to the gender dimension. The review also revealed that the full potential of the GAP-OGC’s knowledge base is not being exploited. None of the informants could recall having used either the GAP or OGC websites. Among the factors mentioned were heavy workload, ignorance of the existence of the site, and possibly the disincentive of a website in English. There would appear to be a need for some marketing for these excellent resources.. It is also important for the PRECABG to establish their own website – or to find an acceptable alternative – in order to disseminate the important documentation generated by the PRECABG and the PNBG. Some of this documentation is available through the GAP site. The impressive results of OGC’s support are to a large extent dependent on the technical quality, the communication and interpersonal skills of the providers. The continuity in the support and the resulting mutual trust and confidence have also been important factors, pointing to the need to maintain continuity. The OGC is widely perceived to be a responsive, pro-active and committed partner that is also well connected with other networks. The secondment to the UNDP Regional Centre in Dakar in early 2011 of a highly committed and competent OGC staff member with extensive previous knowledge of the project has further

Project Review: Senegal 9

Assessment of Results

enhanced this very positive perception. The ease of contact and the increased contextual understanding resulting from Marie Laberge’s physical proximity have further enhanced her contribution which will be even more important in the forthcoming period.

Impact It should be noted that the TOR of this review did not ask for conclusions regarding impact. It is indeed difficult to identify causal links between the inputs from the OGC and the outcomes and impact of the PRECABG which depend on many factors over which UNDP has little control. However one can confidently state that much has been accomplished and that there are strong prospects for positive change, if the current momentum can be maintained for a further period of at least another two years. Without the OGC support certain things would not have happened in the way they did, and some might never have happened at all.

Sustainability The PRECABG/RECASEG should make good use of the persuasive powers of the Delegate (head of DREAT) as well as the strategic institutional location of the DREAT in the Presidency and the strong links to the Prime Minister’s Office to ensure the institutionalisation of the system and the allocation of the government funding needed for sustainability. Prospects for sustainability will certainly be enhanced if the M&E system and the annual governance report acquire credibility through their rigour and independence. In this regard, it might be useful to create a small technical working group of experts in policy and M&E to provide strategic advice, and quality assurance if required. Not only could this further motivate support from government and donors, but it should also lead to efficiency gains as a result of a decrease in the number of separate governance reports and assessments that NGOs, donors, foundations for the moment feel the need to conduct. With regard to the sustainability of the planned household surveys and related data collection, the project should aim to get this work incorporated into the national statistical workplan of the ANSD (Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie). Although the ANSD is already a member of the Comité de Pilotage, it was not possible to use their services for the pilot phase because of their existing survey workload and cost structure. It might now be possible to plan for collaboration with the ANSD during the next phase, including a modification of the cost structure, especially as this work is a government priority. The ANSD has the mandate and technical capacity to collect data both through self standing governance surveys and modules added to existing surveys, as well as publishing and disseminating the results. The establishment of this operational collaboration would represent an important step towards institutionalisation. In response to a question as to whether alternative sources of technical support had been considered, informants indicated that the OGC was the obvious choice because of its focus on governance monitoring and assessment. This is a well merited recognition of the distinctive expertise of the Global Programme on Governance Assessment that will hopefully continue. Looking to the future however, it will be necessary to build on the accomplishments in measurement and data systems with additional capacity development for policy and programme evaluation and improved causal analysis of the determinants of governance performance. This will help ensure optimal utilisation of the evidence base provided by the M&E system both for decisions to improve policies and programme and for setting performance benchmarks and targets. These capacity needs require the r OGC to reinforce collaborative links with regional and national research and training institutions such as the Universities of Dakar and St Louis, the African Governance Institute, CODESRIA, IDEP, ECA, IDASA, CDD-Ghana that have expertise in governance related areas, including monitoring and evaluation, in order to broaden the options for technical support and capacity development and enhance synergy with related initiatives such as the ECOWAS Protocol on Good Governance.

10 Project Review: Senegal

Assessment of Results

Project Review: Senegal 11

conclusions Priorities for the next phase

The project has now developed a strong sense of common endeavour and momentum and built a broad consensus around a number of concepts, methods and tools. It is extremely important to consolidate the gains of this first phase and to carry the momentum forward in order to build a robust and sustainable M&E system. The proposed governance M&E system, that is more monitoring and assessment than evaluation for now, requires substantial financial and technical resources for the nationwide household survey and other related data gathering, as well as the production of the national governance report and the strengthening of M&E capacities of key actors. The planning and negotiation of a new phase of UNDP support should be initiated rapidly, as far as possible with an agreed time schedule. In this same perspective, a resource mobilisation strategy should be formulated and implemented, using the project’s achievements and future potential to encourage donors and government to fund a multiyear action plan and budget, as UNDP cannot be expected to cover all the costs. At the same time, the project should prepare a contingency plan to protect the most essential activities as the negotiation of a second phase will almost certainly be delayed by the slowdown in government decision making in the first quarter of 2012, and the usual slow start to the new UNDP country programme, as well as possible institutional requirements such as a final audit and/ or evaluation. Finally, as the annual governance report and the monitoring data will show both progress and shortcomings it is necessary to have a well crafted dissemination strategy and communication plan to enhance utilisation and to minimise the “politicisation” of the findings, especially during the intense political competition in the build up to the Presidential and legislative elections in 2012.

Recommendations a)

Accelerate the planning of the next phase of UNDP and OGC support, as the current project ends in 2011 and it is extremely important to maintain the momentum and strong sense of shared commitment; increased funding will be required for critical activities such as the national household survey for “demand side” data, expanded M&E capacity development, and the establishment of the governance report as an annual exercise;

Formulate a contingency plan to protect the most essential activities, as the negotiation of a second phase might well be delayed by the slowdown in government decision making in the first quarter of 2012, and the slow start of the new UNDP country programme;

Formulate a communication plan to support advocacy and to enhance the utilisation of the annual governance report and the other products of the M&E system while minimising possible misrepresentation and misuse of the content;

Improve the annual financial planning of OGC support to avoid/minimise the problem of budget revisions in the course of the year

Analyse the use of the GAP-OGC website to see what is needed to ensure it reaches the target audience, including more “marketing”

Assess the capacity needs of the PRECABG Coordination Unit to ensure the hardworking and dynamic team dispose of the adequate human and financial means to continue to assume their key leadership and coordination roles in the face of expanding workload and expectations, including the temporary role of the Secretariat Permanent for the PNBG;

12 Project Review: Senegal

conclusions

Upon the basis of a needs assessment, develop and implement an M&E training plan to build the capacity of the key governance actors, both government and civil society; (this was already envisaged in the original project document)

Reinforce OGC collaboration with African research and training institutions that are working in governance generally and monitoring and evaluation in particular;

Mobilise additional financial resources through a targeted resource mobilisation strategy using the positive results so far achieved;

Reinforce the advocacy with development partners to encourage the harmonisation of existing governance monitoring, assessment and reporting processes, and greater alignment with the new country led system and instruments;

Reinforce the methodologies and mechanisms for experience exchange with a wide range of actors within and beyond Senegal, embracing the advocacy and utilisation dimensions as well as the technical ;

Reinforce collaboration with the ANSD in particular to ensure the institutionalisation of the data collection and p rocessing;

m) Improve the alignment of the PNBG programme pillars with the relevant components of the DPES, with particular attention to the respective monitoring systems.

Project Review: Senegal 13

annexes Annex 1 - Documents consulted DREAT/PNBG/PNUD/PRECABG. PRECABG: Les réalisations à mi-parcours. Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances. Document de Politique Economique et Sociale 2011-2015 Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances (UCSPE). 2010. Bilan diagnostic du DSRP-II Programme National de Bonne Gouvernance (PNBG), 2011. Termes de Référence de l’Etude sur le Genre: la place des femmes et des hommes dans l’administration (aspects qualitatifs) PNBG, 2011. Termes de Référence de l’Etude sur la place des femmes et des hommes dans l’administration (aspects quantitatifs) PNBG, 2011. Système de Suivi de la Stratégie de Gouvernance : les composantes du PNBG, les produits, les indicateurs et les questions-clés pour la collecte des données PNBG, 2011. Termes de référence de l’atelier de partage des modules de collecte de données pour le suivi du Programme National de Bonne Gouvernance PNBG, 2011. Suivi de la Gouvernance au Sénégal (Plan d’utilisation des fonds OGC pour 2011) Projet de renforcement des capacités de bonne gouvernance (PRECABG). Notes relatives à la mission d’appui de DIAL au Sénégal PRECABG. Appui du Centre d’Oslo Pour la Gouvernance (OGC) : Eléments de bilan et perspectives pour l’opérationnalisation du système de suivi de la Gouvernance (PNBG) PRECABG, 2010. Bilan Annuel PRECABG, 2009. Système de Suivi et Evaluation de la Stratégie de Gouvernance : Etude diagnostique PNUD/Gouvernement du Sénégal, 2009. Projet du Gouvernement du Sénégal. Projet de Renforcement des Capacité de la Bonne Gouvernance (PRECABG) (This project document covers the OGC support channelled through the PRECABG/RECASEG) Primature 2011. Two draft Arrêtés for the establishment of the “Comité Technique de Coordination du PNBG” and the “Secrétariat Permanent auprès de la Coordination du PNBG” UNDP Governance Assessment Portal (GAP). Senegal: Workshop on Data Collection. Downloaded 14/10/2011 UNDP 2011. Senegal: Design of a national monitoring system for the National Programme on Good Governance (mid-2009 until now). Power point presentation made by Marie Laberge at the Oslo Governance Centre Conference, October 2011 UNDP, 2011. Project Facts. Senegal: Monitoring the National Programme on Good Governance Wachsberger, Jean-Michel. Rapport de mission au Sénégal pour le compte de l’Oslo Gouvernance center du PNUD. Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation (DIAL) Questionnaire Collectivité Locale (non rempli). Received from Mr Ndiapp Ndiaye, September 2011

14 Project Review: Senegal

Annexes annex 2 - persons consulted Abdou Karim Lo, Délégue, la Délégation pour la Réforme de l’Etat et l’Assistance Technique (DREAT) Ibrahima Ndiaye, Coordonnateur, Projet de Renforcement des Capacités de Bonne Gouvernance (PRECABG) Waly Faye, Expert Suivi-Evaluation, PRECABG Ndiappe Ndiaye, Directeur Général, Cabinet INEF SAGEP, Baye Niasse Cisse, Secrétaire Général Adjoint à l’Assemblée Nationale Cheikhou Ly, Directeur des Rélations Extérieures et de la Comunication, Agence de l’Informatique de l’Etat (ADIE) Souleymane Barry, Cellule d’Exécution Administrative et Financière (CEDAF), Programme Sectoriel Justice Momar Lissa Dieng, responsible de Centre de Ressources, Alliance for Rebuilding Governance in Africa (ARGA) Fatou Jupiter Sarr, Secrétaire Général, Forum Civil, Dakar Abdoul Wahab Ba, Team Leader, Unité Gouvernance, PNUD, Sénégal Oumar Diakhate, Analyste de Programme Gouvernance, PNUD, Sénégal Marie Laberge, Spécialiste de Programme, Evaluations de la Gouvernance, PNUD, Centre Régional de Dakar

Prepared by: Ian Hopwood Dakar, 23 October 2011 Final revision incorporating comments received: 14 February 2012t ighopwood@gmail.com

Project Review: Senegal 15

United Nations Development Programme Bureau for Development Policy Oslo Governance Centre United Nations Development Programme Democratic Governance Group, BDP Inkognitogata 37, 0256 Oslo, Norway For more information: www.undp.org/oslocentre Copyright 2010, UNDP.