Ownership, Results &
Accountability
DevCo Quality and Results (Unit 06)
Objectives of this session
• Provide background on current discussion about
Ownership, Results and Accountability
• Key messages from Busan
• Results - The way forward
The Paris Declaration Pyramid
Ownership
1) Agreeing on a shared agenda
Ownership
• Development strategies and results: what needs to
be done to address development problems?
• National Development Strategies
• Programme and Sector Specific Strategies
• Inclusive country-led process
• Aid effectiveness principles: how will development aid
be delivered?
• Aid Policies
• Donor harmonisation and alignment to action plans
• Joint Assistance Strategies
• Donor and sector specific Aid Effectiveness agreements
Focus on Results
2) Monitoring progress
Results
• Performance assessment frameworks
• Joint monitoring
• Domestic accountability and international peer
reviews
3) Debate, dialogue, negotiation
• Dialogue at technical and political level
• Incentives and sanctions
Accountability & Mutual Accountability
Accountability can be understood as a process
through which people entrusted with responsibilities
are being held to account.
3
•
•
•
models of accountabilty relationships
-Representative accountability
-Principal-agent accountability
-Collaborative or Mutual accountability
Accountability Relationships
Mutual Accountability Mechansims at
International Level
Ineraction between Ownership,
Mutual Accountability & Results
Paris - Measuring Progress against 2010 Goals
Targets
Paris performance-Ownership
( State of Play in 2010)
•
Paris performance - Mutual
Accountability
(State of Play in 2010)
Paris performance - Mutual
Accountability
Paris performance -Results
(State of Play in 2010)
Ownership, Results & Accountability
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation
Common Principles from the Busan Outcome
Document:
• Ownership of development priorities by
developing countries
• Focus on Results
• Inclusive development partnerships
• Transparency and accountability to each other
Ownership & Accountability Relationships
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation
-Mutual accountability and accountability to the intended
beneficiaries of our co-operation, as well as to our respective
citizens, organisations, constituents and shareholders, is
critical to delivering results.
-Parliaments and local governments play critical roles in
linking citizens with government, and in ensuring broad-based
and democratic ownership of countries’ development agendas.
-Civil society organisations play a vital role in enabling
people to claim their rights, in promoting rights based
approaches, in shaping development policies and
partnerships, and in overseeing their implementation.
-We must accelerate our efforts to achieve gender equality
and the empowerment of women […], recognising that [they]
are critical to achieving development results.
Busan Global Partnership Monitoring Framework
2014 Report for Global Partnership Meeting, April 2014
Indicator
2015 target
State of implementation
Indicator 1. Co-operation is
focused on
results that meet developing
countries’ priorities
All providers of development
co-operation use country results
frameworks
Too early to assess progress – indicator
piloted in eight countries.
Preliminary feedback suggests great variation
in use between providers but consistent
provider behaviour across countries.
Indicator 6. Aid is on
budgets which are subject
to parliamentary scrutiny
reported on budget.
Halve the gap – halve the proportion of
development co-operation flows to the
government sector not reported on
government’s budget(s). By 2015: 85%
Some progress – 64% of scheduled funding is
reported on government’s budgets. Only 7
countries have reached or are close to reaching
the 85% target. 57% of funding uses country
systems.
Indicator 9. Developing
countries’ systems are
strengthened and used
Half of developing countries move
up at least one measure
(i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIA
scale of performance.
Reduce the gap in the use of PFM and
procurement systems (by two-thirds
where CPIA score ≥ 5; or by one third
where between 3.5 and 4.5). By 2015:
Previous achievements sustained but
more progress is needed.
No overall change in the quality of countries’
public financial management systems.
No change in use of country systems:
Development co-operation funding using PFM
and procurement systems stayed at its 2010
level (about 49%).
Indicator 7. Mutual accountability
among co-operation actors is
strengthened through inclusive
reviews
All developing countries have
inclusive mutual assessment reviews
in place
Some progress - 59% of countries have
mutual assessment reviews in place.
Encouraging efforts are underway to mutually
track progress, but more is needed to make
reviews inclusive and transparent.
Mutual Accountability
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation
Busan Outcome Document:
Together, we will increase our focus on
development results.
• As we deepen our efforts to ensure that mutual
assessment reviews are in place in all developing
countries, we encourage the active participation
of all development co-operation actors in these
processes.
Group Work
• Assessing the Zambia Mutual Accountability
Framework based on:
• i) your in-country experience; and/or
• ii) some emerging good practice principles
• Discuss with your neighbours – positive features;
missing areas…
Focus on Results
Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation
Busan Outcome Document:
• Together, we will increase our focus on development
results. Where initiated by the developing country,
transparent, country-led and country-level results
frameworks and platforms will be adopted as a
common tool among all concerned actors.
• We will partner to implement a global Action Plan to
enhance capacity for statistics to monitor progress,
evaluate impact, ensure sound, results-focused public
sector management and highlight strategic issues for
policy decisions.
How is the EU responding?
« The Council calls on the EU and its Member
States to promote a common results-based
approach, including through the use of
strengthened results based frameworks at country
level, and to strengthen their capacities to monitor
and evaluate results. This will also provide a basis
for improving mutal accountability and
transparency ¹. »
1. Council Conclusion on Agenda for Change, May 2012
Results-based Approaches –
Why is a common EU approach needed?
• Increased demand for information about the
results of development cooperation requires shift
from input to output and outcome focus
• To improve aid transparency
• To ensure better coordination in defining and
implementing development policies
Common EU Results-based
Approaches - How will the EU (EC) achieve
this?
• At country level - drawing on country frameworks;
Joint Programming
• At EU level - Establishment of an EU technical
Experts Group on Results;
• At EuropeAid level- establishment of a corporate
results measurement framework to provide stronger
results focus throughout the project cycle from
Multi-annual Programming Documents to projects
EU Development & Cooperation
Results Framework – Steps underway
• Programming Guidelines (May 2012) explicitly request
Delegations to set out expected results and indicators with
which to measure progress in the 2014-20 Programming
Documents; Programming Documents have been checked
against this requirement
• Sector Indicator Guidance was sent to Delegations to support
the focus on results in the programming process (summer
2013)
• Results Study analysing approaches taken by other donors
already implementing a results framework has been finalised
(October 2013)
• Staff Working Document setting out the structure of the EU
Development & Cooperation Results Framework issued in
December 2013
• A list of indicators (and linked methodological notes) for the
Results Framework is being finalised (October 2014)
EU Development and Cooperation
Results Framework – Possible Structure
Four - level Structure
EU Development and Cooperation Results
Framework – Purpose
• Accountability: Communicate to stakeholders (e.g.
tax payers, EU Institutions) the results that have
been achieved.
• Management: Provide performance data which will
inform management decisions, such as the
allocation of human and financial resources.
EU Development and Cooperation
Results Framework – Focus
Level 1 and 2- Focus
• The EU Results framework will be linked to the
2014-20 programming cycle;
• Number of indicators: approximately 30 for each
level in order to remain manageable
• Level 1 and 2 will focus on the pillars of the
Agenda for Change eg Sustainable and inclusive
growth; Democracy, rule of law and human rights
• Baselines for each indicator will have to be
constructed
• Whether or not to set targets is still under
discussion
EU Development and Cooperation
Results Framework – Results calculation
Level 2: calculating results
• At Level 2 of the EU Results framework the
Commission services envisage to report results as
"country results supported"; thus opting for a
contribution approach
• Final decision on calculation approach yet to be
agreed
EU Development and Cooperation
Results Framework – Focus
Level 3 and 4: focus
• Level 3 tracks issues such as quality of design of
operations (quality at entry), disbursement rates,
portfolio performance (e.g. quality assessment of
on-going operations), quality at completion
• Level 4 includes information on budget efficiency
(e.g. costs per amount disbursed), human
resources (e.g. staff diversity, skills distribution,
training), compliance with audit principles
• For both Levels existing internal monitoring
systems (e.g. KPIs) will be drawn on
EU Development and Cooperation Results
Framework – Reporting and Data Collection
• Data to report against level 2 of the framework
will come from projects and programmes using
data provided by linked M& E systems, drawing
on national statistics authorities to the extent
possible.
• Frequency of collection: still to be decided
whether at completion or on-going
• Reporting to external audience: once a year
EU Development and Cooperation
Results Framework – State of Play
• List of indicators (and methodological notes) for
Level 1 and 2 is being peer reviewed by Eurostat
• Alignment between Results framework indicators
and indicators selected in the programming
documents (MIPs, NIPs) 2014/2020 is being
addressed through the use of "matching tables"
• Indicators (including methodologies) and
reporting templates have been tested in around
20 Delegations over the summer
EU Development and Cooperation
Results Framework – Next Steps
• Finalisation of Results Framework and associated
documentation: final quarter of 2014
• First publication of results achieved over 2014
(Annual Development and Cooperation Report):
first semester 2015
•Thank you for your
attention