0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
70 vizualizări6 pagini
Ammar Ali Ayub, Policy Brief Writing,
Monitoring and Evaluation, Strengthening M&E, Planning Commission of Pakistan, Public Management, Lahore University of Management Sciences, LUMS
Ammar Ali Ayub, Policy Brief Writing,
Monitoring and Evaluation, Strengthening M&E, Planning Commission of Pakistan, Public Management, Lahore University of Management Sciences, LUMS
Ammar Ali Ayub, Policy Brief Writing,
Monitoring and Evaluation, Strengthening M&E, Planning Commission of Pakistan, Public Management, Lahore University of Management Sciences, LUMS
Government/Development organisations need to know how effective their efforts have been in order to make their processes efficient and transparent. In order for them to measure their progress, they need to have strong Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems in place that are up to the mark with international standards. It is difficult to expect desired outcomes from implemented policy until effective M&E system is in place. Government of Pakistan has taken steps to place M&E systems but much potential has to be harnessed yet. Institutional, structural, cultural, technical, and capacity reforms are required in order to revitalize the potential of M&E and our projects.
2. Introduction
A government M&E system needs to support effective and cost efficient use of public funds, including the attainment of government development objectives, and it needs increasingly to support the policy making process, particularly in regard to public expenditure. The need for M&E system is in line with the Vision 2025 objective Institutional Reforms and Governance.
The Government of Pakistan recognises the importance of M&E. For example, the Medium Term Development Framework (MTDF1) states that: In-depth monitoring and impact evaluation information is essential to ensure the relevance, efficacy and efficiency of the resources spent for poverty reduction. GoP has also established the Strengthening of Projects Wing of P & D Division project in the Planning Commission, which has a budget of Rs 39.3m. Donor assisted initiatives have also been taken in Pakistan.
However, Governments own assessment of its capacity for in-depth M&E provides a varied picture. In regard to poverty monitoring, the poverty monitoring framework in the MTDF focuses on regular tracking of input, output and outcome indicators. However, the MTDF assesses that: the present capacity for poverty monitoring and reporting progress is by and large inadequate. The quality and regularity of survey information are weak. The capacity to analyse statistical information is marginally better. Hence, Achieving poverty reduction targets of MTDF would require an effective monitoring system that regularly measures their implementation and impact.
It has been assumed that readers know what functions do a government M&E system needs to perform. Therefore, the focus of this policy paper would be to present approaches and
results of current M&E system and will provide some recommendations in order to address those weaknesses discovered through analysis.
3. Approaches and Results in current M&E systems in Pakistan- evaluation of strengths and weaknesses
GoP has approached to address the problems of M&E in different ways which has resulted in its strengths. These include:
in the Planning Commission, the newly strengthened Projects Wing, which in 2006/07 undertook implementation monitoring of 500 development projects representing 92% of the PSDP, and ex-post evaluation of 20 projects the establishment of M&E Cells in a number of Line Ministries the PRSP monitoring system, which has a structure of input, intermediate and outcome indicators, and for most of the life of the PRSP-I published regular monitoring reports on the internet the publication of an Medium Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF) blueprint and new Budget Call Circular which pave the way for output-based budgeting and create the demand for better outcome monitoring across key Ministries enthusiasm for managing for development Results (MfDR) and Results based management (RBM) amongst a group high level officials in the Planning Commission, Ministry of Finance and EAD, who are part of ADBs MfDR initiative for south Asia
These strengths/past efforts offer the basis for further development of the M&E system. However, there is need to analyse the Results of these efforts in order to identify weaknesses so that we can address them later. There are Weaknesses in the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) monitoring system as well. Apart from the recent hiatus in PRSP reporting, and the delay in publishing the PRSP II, there are gaps in both approach, data availability, and institutional environment 2,3 . Critically, although PRSP monitoring covers an indicative results chain of input, intermediate indicators and outcome indicators, there is no impact evaluation of the effect of inputs and progress on intermediate indicators on output indicators. There is a need to better link inputs to outcomes. A range of organisations are involved in different poverty monitoring and assessment aspects of the PRSP, including Ministry of Finance, CRPRID, Federal Bureau of Statistics and PIDE. However, coordination between them is poor. The sources of data for some indicators are yet to be established, for example, governance Progress has been slow, in spite of the Decentralisation Act, to develop the PRSP monitoring mechanism at the district level. The PRSP Secretariat has not developed the follow-up mechanisms - this requires that results of intermediate and outcome indicators are disseminated among stakeholders in order to have regular feedback to policy makers for appropriate adjustment in policies. The Federal PRSP Secretariat is challenged in monitoring intermediate input and output indicators because of issues concerned with availability, timeliness and quality of data.
2 GM Arif (2005). Pakistan: PRSP Monitoring Indicators and Process. Presentation at ADB National Poverty Reduction Specialists' Exchange, ADB Headquarters, Manila, Philippines: 11-13 October 2005. 3 GoP and UNDP (2007). Strengthening PRS Monitoring, 2008-2012. Project Document. The management information systems developed by administrative departments in the provinces are not integrated nationally and there are major data related discrepancies, with different agencies using different definitions. Other reasons for this poor and delayed response include: (a) the lack of authority of the PRSP Secretariat over reporting agencies to demand submission of information on a timely basis; (b) the absence of formal channels for the flow of information; (c) lack of incentives for staff to make data available; and (d) the limited processing and editing capacity and the poor quality of technology of the management information systems (GoP / UNDP, 2007). Poverty and MDG monitoring is also marred with issues of compatibility 4 , consistency and insufficient level of disaggregation. These issues of inconsistencies are common in administrative data versus survey data, posing a greater challenge for effective monitoring (GoP / UNDP, 2007).. And there are significant institutional issues, identified by UNDP (GoP/UNDP, 2007): The existing statistical system is plagued by issues of limited capacity, fragmentation, weak coordination and reluctance to share data. To date, limited analytical work has been done or capacities created within the government to analyze data and evaluate impact of poverty policies and programs. Problems connected with interagency coordination (between Finance & Planning, for instance) have also prevented capitalizing on what limited in-house capabilities that the GOP has at its disposal to analyze data and survey results. Finally, there is a significant issue, even PRS monitoring systems are improved, of use of the monitoring information. As the UNDP states: Monitoring should not become an end itself. The real issue is effective follow-up and implementing remedial measures and reinforcement of accountability for results. It requires that results of intermediate and outcome indicators may be disseminated among stakeholders in order to have regular feedback to policy makers for appropriate adjustment in policies.
4 E.g. For example, the 1998 Census asks whether respondents did any workin the last year. The Labor Force Survey (LFS), in contrast, asks whether the respondent did any workduring last week and the Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) asks, during the last monthBecause the relevant reference period is different, among other things, labour force data from these three sources are not compatible and cannot usefully be integrated into the same time series to monitor trends over time. 4. Conclusion
Assessment by ADB of the enabling environment for MfDR shows a number of areas for attention:
Figure3: Enabling Environment Map for Pakistan 5
These areas for development may be summarised as follows; there is a need for: a joined-up vision of M&E across government, rather than separate pockets being developed in isolation clear leadership from within Government on M&E improved project monitoring, which needs to become more results-focused redressing the monitoring vs evaluation imbalance to allocate more effort and importance to evaluation closing the loop between planning budgeting results i.e. using evaluation and impact assessment results to inform new cycles of planning and budgeting, thus moving away from iterative and incremental approaches to planning and budgeting wide-spread capacity building for both evaluation and results-focused monitoring stronger accountability
The demand for stronger accountability of government organizations is growing day by day in Pakistan. GoP need to realize that Projects must be monitored through more efficient approach (e.g. RMB) in order to take decisions that are most aligned with MDGs and Vision 2025. Efficient use of resources through strengthening the M&E system can be a viable solution in order to achieve desired targets. Needless to say that all other policies, be it on poverty eradication, food security, education or health, cannot be implemented with desire of efficient results until and unless the root mechanism of running project, i.e. M&E, is not fixed.
5 RETA 6306 Team - McMillan, L., Woods, B., Pokharel, C., Rana, A., Yasmin, F., Rabbani, M., Zia, A.Z., Abeykoon, P. (2007). Assisting the Implementation of MfDR in Government Organizations - Mainstreaming Managing for Development Results (MfDR) in Support of Poverty Reduction in South Asia. Discussion Paper (Draft) for RETA 6306 Regional Forum on Mainstreaming Managing for Development Results (MfDR), 13-14 November 2007, Bangkok.
5. Recommendations
Overall, the recommendations for improving M&E in Pakistan centre around five main areas: 1. Institutional - providing an overarching enabling environment for RBM and results- based M&E This requires leadership from both GoP and donors. Other studies 6 have identified the lack of leadership for aid effectiveness actions with respect to the GoP, as well amongst donors. This is a need for advocates for RBM, and if possible a senior RBM champion in Government Initiation of a change management process to accelerate the shift to results- based management and M&E The Medium Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF) is the main driver for this at present. This range of initiatives will strengthen the demand for better, results-based M&E
2. Structural - establish high level structures for improved M&E / RBM These are all significant institutional changes: The MTBF proposal for a single apex government M&E agency located in the Planning Commission is supported by this study A single government results framework also needs to be in place the perceived in distinction between the MTDF and the PRSP needs to be resolved The link to the outputs in the MTBF need to thence be established Donor targets need to link to a unified Government results framework
3. Cultural - central to strengthening M&E in Pakistan is the need progress from implementation approaches to results approaches. This is true for both the wider approach to project and programme management and for M&E specifically The phrase M&E is very closely equated with the compliance checking aspects of traditional, implementation-focused project M&E for very many people in Government. It is equated to project input monitoring, with a particular bias towards infrastructure investments. It is recommended that in strengthening M&E, that Government and donors attempt to signal the new approach by using new terminology it is proposed that the results-based phraseology is employed to send this signal. Thus strengthened M&E would be part of an RBM initiative.
4. Technical - improving the basic M&E machinery This can be done fairly quickly and cost-effectively Much of this focuses on revision of exist Planning Commission proformae The key areas of attention would include: Developing a single glossary of RBM and M&E terminology Introduction of results frameworks in PC-1
6 Tony Killick and Qaim Shah (2005). Improving Aid Effectiveness in Pakistan. Issues Paper for the Pakistan Development Forum, Islamabad, 10-11 May 2006. D-PRWG. Utilising ex-ante results frameworks in project reviews Improving approaches to evaluation
5. Capacity - Strengthening the supply of professional RBM specialists Develop a single GoP capacity building package for RBM Recognise RBM specialism in the GoP cadre (it is not the same as economics) Explore either establish a Pakistan Evaluation Society (PES), or providing support to the Pakistan Evaluation Network.
These 57 recommendations should not be seen in isolation of each other and must be implemented holistically in order to take full advantage. However, there needs to be some prioritization on the basis of urgency and importance. This needs further input from Government to indicate what are their priorities.
6. Further Readings
1. PAKISTAN: Strengthening and Harmonising Monitoring and Evaluation (Volume 1, 2) by Julian Barr, Dr M.K. Niazi and Safiya Aftab 2. PARTICIPATORY MONITORING & EVALUATION: LEARNING FROM CHANGE by Institute of Development Studies, 1998 ISSN 1360-4724
This policy brief is written and edited by Ammar Ali Ayub. The research material was taken from field study, various reports, inputs from honourable professors of Lahore University of Management Sciences (Dr. Ahsan Rana among others) and M&E specialists at Higher Education Commission, Pakistan. The author can be reached through following contact details. Ammar Ali Ayub BSc Hons Economics and Public Policy Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) Email: ammaraliayub@gmail.com Mobile: 0343-522-1582
Revenue Mobilisation Options For Local Government Administration in Ghana: The Case of Ledzokuku Municipal Assembly (LEKMA) in The Greater Accra Region.