Agency Approaches to Managing for Development Results

1. Agency Approaches to Managing for Development Results • Why Results? • What Results? • Key Challenges, lessons learnt • Core principles and draft action plan

2. Why Do We Need a Results Agenda? • So that partner countries and cooperation partners can learn what is likely to lead to better results, and adapt strategies to improve our development effectiveness • So that citizens can hold governments accountable for delivering results • To enable key stakeholders to understand the contributions of cooperation agencies, thereby building support for development • So that we broaden our focus on results beyond the project level to reflect our country business model and global programs

3. What Do We Mean by “Results?” Sustained improvements in development outcomes at the country level • Families lifted out of poverty • Improved literacy • Increased youth employment • Greater child survival

4. Whose Results? • Monterrey agreement results are delivered in country by Governments • Cooperation partners contribute to country led results.

5. Challenges/Lessons Learnt (1) • Aligning with partner countries own priorities, objectives and results • PRS targets may be over-stated • Focus on high-level outcomes that remain constant overtime (MDGs, PRS outcomes) • Agreeing limited set of proxy indicators at the right level, measurable and country owned.

6. Challenges/Lessons Learnt (2) • Attribution and aggregation • Fungibility of aid • Complexity of credible logic-mapping quality assured • Respecting country ownership with need to be able to aggregate results within countries and across regions • Time lag between interventions and impact on outcomes

7. Challenges/Lessons Learnt (3) • Simplicity/Complexity • Harmonize agency demands for results information to avoid over-burdening country systems • Fewer high quality indicators that are credible and rigorous • Danger of focusing on what is easy to measure rather than what needs to be measured

8. Challenges/Lessons Learnt (4) • Data quality • Strengthen partners countries own systems rather than establishing parallel systems • Lack of donor coordination in country to support strengthening of M&E systems • Poor quality of international data bases and time lag

9. Challenges/Lessons Learnt (5) • Budget issues • Application of RBM to resource allocation • Dangers of managing by results – penalizing poor performance without adequate analysis of under-lying factors

10. Internal Bilateral Agency Concerns (1) • Coherent approach between different Government ministries • Establishing meaningful targets for global actions such as policy coherence • Harmonising approach with other implementing agencies, such as NGOs, Academics etc. • Retaining public support for development when attribution is weakened and “results” shared

11. Internal Bilateral Agency Concerns (2) • Top level leadership essential for embedding • Significant training demands • Shift to focus on outcomes can create tension with sector specialists • Ensuring timely reporting to meet accountability requirements • Distinguishing between accounting for development effectiveness and organisational effectiveness.

12. Core Principles (1) • Rome declaration • Start from partner countries priorities, objectives and results • Coordinated approach at all levels • Strengthen partner countries capacity to measure, monitor and manage for results.

13. Core Principles (2) • Focus on results at all stages from planning through implementation to completion • Align programming, monitoring and evaluation with agreed country owned results framework • Keep it simple! • Manage for not by results • Use RBM for learning and evidence based policy making.

14. Last Words • Don’t over complicate it • Beware of the process becoming and end in itself! • Focus on actions that will make a difference to progress in poverty reduction • Remember the Monterrey principles – whose Results!