Engendering RBM At UN-HABITAT

1. Engendering RBM At UN-HABITAT Presentation to Expert Group Meeting on the Gender Equality Action Plan Leslie M. Fox Consultant to the RBM-KM Task Force January 12, 2009

2. Today’s Presentation on RBM • Session Purpose: • To provide EGM with an overview of the GC-mandated MTSIP Refinement process, within an RBM context and ensuring its engenderedness • Session Objectives: • Brief review of RBM context and fundamental principles • Discussion of the MTSIP refinement Process: Making It More Results Focused and Strategic • The Results Framework: Best RBM Practice • The MTSIP: UN-HABITAT’s Corporate Strategy • The Focus Areas: the Strategy Components • The Gender Equality Action Plan • The Fit / Retro-fit with MTSIP / FA Results Framework • Comments on the draft GAD: Is it RBM Compliant? • Your Thoughts / Questions

3. The Context: Why RBM in UN-H • Global Context: RBM is now international best practice and policy—MDGs and Paris Declaration • MDGs Reintroduce and Reinforce RBM Principles: Meta-level results providing global context • Aid Effectiveness: Noble Aspirations are no longer enough • More Resources require Achievable Results—evidence-based and measurable • OIOS on MTSIP: Broad mandate / limited resources • Energy is dissipated / little impact achieved • Focus on outputs not results: “So What!” • Too many development players chasing too few dollars • Compete or perish … become, at best, a marginal player • Many reasons why it cannot work: culture & structure • More reasons why it must (UN-H Survival / Urban poverty) • UN-H is NOT alone in grappling with RBM issues • RBM is here to stay … be the RBM!

4. Some RBM Definitions • RBM Defined at the UN Secretariat (OIOS 2008) • A management strategy by which the Secretariat ensures Programme processes, outputs and services contribute to the achievement of clearly stated expected accomplishments (outcomes). • UNDG/OECD (Harmonized Terminology, 2007): • RBM rests on clearly defined accountability for results, and requires monitoring and self-assessment of progress towards results, and reporting on performance. • Howard White(International Initiative for Impact Evaluation) • The creation of an incentive structure, including the allocation of budgetary resources, reflecting achievements as measured by outcomes …

5. The Yin & Yang of Results-based Management Accountability Empowerment

6. The Fundamentals: The ABCs of RBM • Core Principle: RBM represents harmony of accountability and empowerment in pursuit of effectiveness • Without both you cannot obtain RBM • Performers (individuals - organizations) are expected to perform & will be held accountable for achieving expected results • But must be empowered: capacity (skills / expertise), resources and enabling policy environment with the right governance / institutional / management structure & rules promoting RBM • Delegation of authority and resources as low as possible is key • RBM brings order out of chaos: being strategic • Making hard choices about your mandate—what is doable • What does being flexible really mean? Survival mode • If it is not measured then it did not happen • Many good deeds not recorded because no result formulated; or poorly formulated, that is, not SMART • Single most important factor in successful RBM approach is LEADERSHIP

7. More on RBM Fundamentals • A Strategic Plan like the MTSIP is both an RBM-oriented Framework and corporate marketing strategy • An expression of corporate vision and commitment … especially to results • Transcends the interests of individuals, divisions, etc. • RBM embodies best practice: the MDG paradigm • Strategic planning & performance measurement are the core principles and good practice of RBM • Managing for results – outcomes and impacts – not outputs (activities and inputs): the “So What Test” • A Results Framework (best practice) is a graphic presentation of the MTSIP • It shows causal relationships between: • Levels of results both horizontally and vertically • Results to the mandate and to outputs

8. Defining a SMART Result • Specific: the result is clearly stated and described in change language: 20 % increase in access to affordable housing; • Measurable / Monitorable: the ability to assess and determine whether achievement of a result – a specific change – has occurred; requires a baseline (percent in year 1) and target (a 20 % increase). • Achievable: the result correlates to a target that can be feasibly attained by the program partners with UN-Habitat support. All necessary resources are identified and budgeted for; • Relevant: the planned result represents a milestone in the results chain, leading to the achievement of commitments related to the Habitat Agenda, Millennium Declaration, and national priorities; • Time-bound: the achievement of the result(s) is likely to happen within the MTSIP (strategic plan) period.

9. SMARTENING-UP the MTSIP • Governing Council Resolution 21/2: MTSIP: 3. Endorses the six focus areas and the ENOF of the MTSIP and requests Executive Director, in consultation with the CPR, to elaborate a process for the improvement of the Plan, including the agreement of specific “SMART” indicators, targets and priorities in order to further refine each of the focus areas and for reflection in the UN-HABITAT Programme’s Strategic Framework and Work programme and budget

10. Get SMART: Refining the MTSIP • MTSIP: a good first cut at UN-H strategy, but not SMART • Principal Problem: From FA Objectives to FA Indicator—Objectives are not focused / SMART / more aspirational • By-passed Results: Measurable Changes in Condition or State • Results include: Expected Accomplishments or Outcomes • Overarching Results at levels of MTSIP and Focus Areas • It needs to better demonstrate causal relationships between: • Different levels of results; and • between results and corresponding outputs • It requires reformulation of results and performance indicators a la SMARTness • Common problems: confusion between outputs and results; indicators with result and vice-versa • SMART Results lead to SMART Indicators:

11. The RBM Process: Making a SMARTER MTSIP • Moving from the UN-H Mandate & Aspirations: • Vision, Mission, Goals & broad Objectives • To defining the MTSIP Results Chain • An overarching MTSIP Strategic Objective • Focus Area Strategic Objectives, Outcomes / Expected Accomplishments and sub-Outcomes • To developing the “results’ packages” that takes inputs, transforms them into activities which then generate outputs • The products and services that contribute to the achievement of results (outcomes & sub-outcomes) • The Results Framework is the tool of choice in developing results chains, including mandates and outputs

12. Results Frameworks: Strategic Planning Best Practice • Strategic planning is a process of logical sequences of results and outputs (and inputs) • It is based on developing a hierarchical set of causal relationships both vertically and horizontal that show how change takes place • Lower level results must be achieved for higher level results to be achieved • If this change or series of changes are achieved … then it will lead to a corresponding change(s) • Results Frameworks are the tool that is best able to help us define these causal relationships • Most UN-H SP has used LogFrame methodology. • It is linear and does not show causal relationships and thus help us to better understand the logic of change

13. UN-HABITAT MANDATE: HABITAT AGENDA / MDG 7 : TARGETS 10 & 11 / INT’L CONFERENCE PRIORITIES UN-H GOAL SU created by cities & regions that provide citizens with adequate services, security & employment opportunities MTSIP Vision To help create, by 2013, the conditions for international & national efforts to stabilize growth of slums and to set the stage for the reduction of urban poverty and the number of slum dwellers MTSIP Strategic Objective Sustainable Urbanization in targeted countries is a fundamental principle driving the making and implementation of development policy at the national and local levels in an engendered and youth sensitive way MTSIP EA / Outcomes Focus Area 1: Effective normative work informs SU policy making in … Focus Area 2: Participatory processes strengthen SU Partners to … Focus Area 3: Enabling policy / legal environment promotes PP land … Focus Area 4: Expanded access to environmentally sound urban services Focus Area 5: Increased access by the poor to innovative financing systems Focus Area 6: UN-H staff are empowered to achieve planned results MTSIP Sub-EAs / Outcomes Sub EA 1.1 Sub-EA 1.2 Sub-EA 2.1 Sub-EA 2.2 Sub-EA 3.1 Sub-EA 3.2 Sub-EA 4.1 Sub-EA 4.2 Sub-EA 5.1 Sub-EA 5.2 Sub-EA 6.1 Sub-EA 6.2 MTSIP Outputs MTSIP Activities / Projects • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D MTSIP Inputs Regular Resources = 10 percent / Non-Earmarked Project = 10 percent / Earmarked Project = 80 percent UN-HABITAT Medium-Term Strategic & Institutional Plan (MTSIP) Results Framework

14. Developing an FA Results Framework • The first step is to articulate the MTSIP strategic objective – The highest Level MTSIP Achievable Result which UN-H holds itself accountable for achieving • Second step is formulating the Focus Area strategic result – Highest Level FA / Division / Program Result • Third step is to formulate the outcomes or expected accomplishments – several levels of outcomes are possible • Fourth step is to develop corresponding outputs and activities for each of the lowest level results/outcomes/EAs • For every Result/outcome EA formulated for the FA there should be at least two performance indicators

15. FOCUS AREA 4: Environmentally Sound Basic Urban Infrastructure and Services FA 4 Goal Sustainable Urbanization in targeted countries is a fundamental principle driving the making and implementation of development policy at the national and local levels in an engendered youth sensitive way FA 4 Strategic Result Expanded Access To Environmentally Sound Urban Services With A Special Focus On The Un- And Underserved Populations EAs / Outcomes-level Results EA 1: Improved / Increased Efficiency in Urban Service Delivery EA 2: Enhanced Environmental Sustainability in Urban Infrastructure and Services EA 3: An Enabling Policy and Institutional Environment Promotes Expanded Access to Environmentally Sound Urban Services Sub-EAs / Sub-Outcomes Sub-EA 1.1 Sub-EA 1.2 Sub-EA 1.3 Sub-EA 1.4 Sub-EA 1.4 Sub-EA 1.4 Sub-EA 2.1 Sub-EA 2.2 Sub-EA 2.3 Sub-EA 2.4 Sub-EA 2.5 Sub-EA 2.6 Sub-EA 3.1 Sub-EA 3.2 Sub-EA 3.2 Sub-EA 3.3 FA Outputs Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Out-put Output Output Output Output FA Activities • Illustrative Activities • Illustrative Activities • Illustrative Activities

16. FA 4: Environmentally sound basic urban infrastructure and services • Focus Area Objective • To expand access to and sustain provision of adequate clean drinking water, improved sanitation and waste management, ecologically sound energy-saving transport and power supply technologies in urban and peri-urban areas, with due regard to small secondary towns. • FA Indicators of Achievement • An agreed number of countries and cities adopting improved infrastructure governance frameworks ensuring the involvement of local authorities, communities and vulnerable groups; • (b) An agreed number of urban centres, including secondary and small towns, adopting environmentally sound and energy-efficient technologies in the construction and provision of services and basic infrastructure; • (c) An agreed number of countries demonstrating increased and sustainable access by the urban poor to adequate clean water, improved sanitation and waste management • An agreed number of cities with strategies to minimize and deal with climate change effects.

17. Governance / Institutional Constraints: Structure driving RBM integration • Biennium versus MTSIP programming • 2 year S-Frameworks vs. 6 year strategy • 4 subprogrammes versus 5/6 focus areas • 2 year work programmes / budgets vs. 6 year MTSIP Action Plan but no separate MTSIP budget • Work programme results delivered through divisions vs. no dedicated MTSIP structure: MTSIP results delivered through same divisional structures • IMDIS and IMIS reporting on work programmes vs. no MTSIP reporting format • There is no MTSIP monitoring & evaluation plan yet

18. Aligning the MTSP with the BiennialSubprogrammes General Assembly / Secretariat Committee of Permanent Representatives UN-HABITAT Governing Council UN-HABITAT Executive Director OED Deputy Executive Director Biennial Subprogrammes UN-HABITAT Divisions MTSIP Focus Areas Subprogramme 1: S&SHSD Global Division Focus Area 2: Participatory Processes Focus Area 3: Pro-Poor Land/Housing Subprogramme 2: Monitoring the HA M & R Division Focus Area 1: Effective Advocacy Subprogramme 3: Regional & TC R & TC Division Focus Area 4: Basic Infrastructure Human Settlements Financing Division Subprogramme 4: Sustainable Financing Focus Area 5: Sustainable Financing OED / Programme Support Division Focus Area 6: Excellence in Management

19. Governance / Institutional Constraints (cont.) • Principal question: can the biennium governance / institutional system and the management structure from which it derives: • Deliver MTSIP results? • Promote RBM principles of empowerment and accountability? • Does the fact that UN-H is a Secretariat programme subject to GA/GC requirements inhibit RBM approach • Acknowledgement but not recognition of MTSIP • SPs are aligned with Divisions which are intended to deliver both Work programme & MTSIP results

20. The GEAC FIT /Retro-Fit with the MTSIP • Develop a specific gender equality action plan for 2008−2013, concerning the policies, programmes and activities of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme together with performance indicators so as to ensure tangible and measurable gains for the realization of gender equality—RESULTS FIRST • Ideally, GEAC would have informed the development of the MTSIP and ENOF rather than now retro-fit it to them • Results define what will be pursued and what will not • Fortunately, we are now in the refinement phase of MTSIP, thus an opportunity to ensure fundamental principles of gender equality drive the results and indicators that are formulated

21. GEAP Analysis-The Issues • No Results and No Indicators yet • Who, how and when will Results and Indicators be formulated? • Who, how and when will the GEAP Performance Measurement Plan (M&E PLAN) be implemented.  • Gender is a cross-cutting principle in MTSIP • Does this mean that results and corresponding indicators will also only be cross-cutting as pertains to Focus Areas? • Or will they also include some discrete / specific results and / or indicators that address only GEAP principles and achievements • Put differently: Whether there will be "STAND-ALONE" GEAP result(s) / corresponding indicators AND/OR Cross-cutting Results / Indicators for each of the six FAs?

22. ENGENDERIZING THE MTSIP • FAs / DIVISIONS DEVELOP RESULTS / INDICATORS AND IMPLEMENT THE PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN • GEAP MUST PROVIDE GUIDELINES / SET PARAMETERS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ENGENDERED RESULTS AND INDICATORS • GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF GENDER TO UN-H THERE MAY BE JUSTIFICATION OF A SINGLE RESULT(S), IF NOT AT THE LEVEL OF THE MTSIP, AT LEAST IN ONE OR MORE FAs ... EXCELLENCE IN MANAGEMENT COMES TO MIND.  • OTHERWISE THE CHOICE IS ENGENDERIZING EXISTING MTSIP RESULTS INCLUDING THE OVERALL AN OVERARCHING MTSIP STRATEGIC-LEVEL RESULT AND THEIR CORRESPONDING INDICATORS, MAINLY THROUGH DISSAGGREGATION; AND/OR DEVELOPING SEPARATE INDICATORS FOR SELECTED RESULTS IN EACH FA. • THE NEW RESULTS FRAMEWORKS, BOTH MTSIP AND FAs, LINK RESULTS (STRATEGIC LEVEL, OUTCOMES / SUB-OUTCOMES) AND OUTPUTS TO A CORRESPONDING SET OF ACTIVITIES.  • ONCE RESULTS HAVE BEEN FORMULATED, BEGIN ADDING SOME ACTIVITIES TO EACH OF THE FAs AS APPROPRIATE.