Download
enhanced integrated framework n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ENHANCED INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ENHANCED INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK

ENHANCED INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK

143 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

ENHANCED INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. ENHANCED INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK Integrating EIF Programme M&E and National Frameworks Sheelagh O’Reilly sheelagh@iodparc.com June 2010

  2. Linking the EIF Global Programme with County Ownership FOCUS ON RESULTS THEREFORE EIF M&E Framework designed and implemented in accordance with important principles of aid effecctiveness

  3. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness • Reforming the delivery and management of aid • 56 commitments that fall under 5 principles • Ownership • Harmonisation • Alignment • Managing for Results • Mutual Accountability Countries make commitments, Donors make commitments, Countries & Donors make joint commitments

  4. Accra Agenda for Action (Sep 2008) • Accelerate and deepen the implementation of the Paris Declaration • 3 principles: • Country Ownership is key • Building more effective and inclusive partnerships • Achieving development results – and openly accounting for them – must be at the heart of all we do

  5. Responsibility • EIF a multi-national programme • Different stakeholders jointly responsible for achieving overall programme results • Multiple stakeholders responsible for monitoring their contribution to overall results through appropriate indicators (standardised across countries, where possible) • Agreed baselines against which delivery is monitored

  6. Team and Role of IODPARC Contracted, by EIF Programme, through UNOPS, to assist 14 EIF countries and the ES • Annalize Struwig (Vanuatu workshop, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia, ES team) • Sheelagh O’Reilly (Nepal workshop, The Gambia, Liberia, Nepal, Sierra Leone, ES team) • Frank Noij (Cambodia, Lao PDR) • Cathy Butcher (Yemen) • Roger Macconick (Burundi, CAR) • Ronnie MacPherson (ES Team)

  7. Focus: Managing for Results Need to establish robust, but simple M&E systems which are focused on joint responsibility and accountability for programme results: • evidence must be drawn from existing country systems; • strongly aligned with existing / developing national systems, • employ national institutional structures, staff and reporting mechanisms where feasible, • require minimal additional resources for ongoing maintenance

  8. Main Outputs • Countries: Tier 1 project logframes (focusing on results and mechanisms, systems for monitoring and reporting on their implementation • ES (with UNOPS): Systems, mechanisms, tools to monitor and review progress (including country reports) and to provide feedback, guidance and support

  9. Results Framework and NIU workplanning • Results of overall and country programmes should be used for planning, implementation and monitoring of the EIF programme • Plan from the agreed logframe results to develop the activities that will delivery the outputs and outcomes (results) which can be actively monitored from agreed sources; • Regular monitoring of workplan and individual responsibilities;

  10. Context important in how EIF links achieves results • ES developed Programme and “model” Tier 1 logframes which formalise and capture underlying programme logic (“results chain”) in a tiered set of results around: • Programme management • Mainstreaming • Donor coordination • DTIS implementation

  11. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS (1 of 2) • General awareness and knowledge about the EIF M&E Framework still relatively low • Existing Tier 1 project logframes vary considerably in completeness and quality, but for the most part fall short of minimum requirements. • Workplans in Tier 1 Proposals are elaborate and comprehensive on activities (often too much), but these are not clearly linked to results. • In countries will a history of involvement with the IF and residual IF “institutional memory”, it might prove challenging to change established IF “ways of doing” i.e. to the focus on RESULTS.

  12. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS (1 of 2) • M&E in the EIF may only be as good (or as poor) as the frameworks in which it is embedded (Systems often limited and capacity weak) • Relationship of DTIS to national development and sector/ministerial strategic plans, as well as donors/aid programmes in the context of mainstreaming and coordination is not uniformly understood or interpreted; • Catalytic role of Tier 2 projects in mobilizing and “unlocking” aid for trade through mainstreaming and coordination is not uniformly understood and interpreted.

  13. CONCLUSION • M&E “permeates” into many aspects of programme organization and management. • IOD PARC role limited & catalytic. • Will require ongoing commitment of country teams, ES and TFM to become institutionalized as a performance (results) management system. • Not about compliance and control, but good management practice. Success breeds success – demonstrate progress, attract support.