ISPE EAG
INTERATIONAL
SOCIETY FOR POVERTY ELIMINATION ECONOMIC
ALLIANCE GROUP
Briefing # 4: AAAA and SDG – Build Bridge between Lessons Learning and
Lessons Forgetting Now?
Global Call to World Leaders, Representatives of 193 UN Member States, 9
Major Groups, other CSOs’ and other Stakeholders.
By Lanre Rotimi and Peter Orawgu. 24 August 2015
As
we race to the 70th UN General Assembly in September 2015 when the
Final Draft SDG agreed on 1 August 2015 after 7th and 8th
Intergovernmental Negotiations, is to be adopted, there is a need to pause,
reflect on answer to hard questions: Is the latest outcome document, “Transforming
our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, despite significant
improvement in language and text, the Best our World can produce? Can this
outcome document deliver optimum Development Impact and Development Results,
given identified gaps and disconnect, particularly the fact improvements where
it matters the most - answer to HOW questions is still missing?
If enough Individuals, Institutions and Governments who feel
strongly that "negotiators
would extend the negotiations rather than rushing to agree on the issues that
will really matter for people in our world, only to make avoidable mistakes
because of this rush" actually raised
their Voices, and mobilize Global Collective Action to persuade and if
necessary Pressure co-Facilitators, 193 Member States and other concerned
Stakeholders to DO the Needful, to produce a revised and reinvigorated AAAA
(Addis Ababa Action Agenda) and SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) that is
Masterplan with ACTION providing real solutions to real problems facing real
people; to replace the current AAAA and SDG that is Vision and Words without
ACTION not providing real solutions to real problems facing real people; there
is no reason why the 70th UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) cannot wait
till November or December 2015 to adopt AAAA and SDG that has filled identified
gaps and linked identified disconnect. And there is precedent - Synthesis
Report was to be released on 17 September 2014 at 69th UNGA but the release was
delayed until 4 December 2014.
In
Briefings #1, #2 and #3, we focused on need to answer HOW Questions now, in the
Finance for Development, FfD and Post 2015 Processes. Let us consider what
Building Bridge between Lessons Learning and Lessons Forgetting now, can make
towards increasing convergence between AAAA and SDG Vision Intention and
Reality:
Chibok Girls
The abduction of Chibok Girls on
14 April 2014 is a scare on the conscience of Nigerian and World Leaders. As we
race to 500 Days of their captivity, we remember Chibok Girls and their
Families as well as Victims and Families of Terror Attacks; Civil Wars and
Inter State Wars across our World.
It is pertinent to note that
Bringing back Chibok Girls has Physical and Spiritual Dimensions. The Physical
Dimension has Joint Military and Non Military Solutions. There is a need to
Stop seeking Spiritual Solutions to Physical Problems and Stop seeking Physical
Solutions to Spiritual Problems. We need to Start seeking Spiritual Solutions
to Spiritual Problems and Start seeking Physical Solutions to Physical
Problems. We need the help of all relevant State Actors and Non State Actors
within and outside Nigeria to Refocus BringBackOurGirls Campaign for success on
sustainable basis that is an Integral Part of Domesticating AAAA and SDG in
each of the 193 UN Member States.
It is pertinent to note further
that the Sultan has been travelling across Nigeria and the World delivering Papers
on Caliphate Leadership Principles, CLP. The latest being at the National
Security Summit, Abuja Nigeria 17 August 2015. Had the Sultan led the way in
the full implementation with effective monitoring and evaluation of the
implementation of CLP with the support of the 3 Arms of the 3 Tiers of
Government in Nigeria; other Traditional Rulers – Emirs, Obas and Obis etc;
Religious Leaders and other relevant Stakeholders there will be No Boko Haram. Stakeholders
need to Demand that Sultan shift focus from CLP that is Vision and Words
without Action to CLP that is Vision and Words with Action.
We urge World Leaders to recognize
that the full implementation with effective monitoring and evaluation of the
implementation of:-
1.
Realigned National Development Plans and
Visions
2.
Domesticated Revised AAAA and SDG
3.
Refocused entire National Reform Program
4.
Refocused entire International Reform
Program
in each of the 193 UN Member States can help End Hunger, Poverty,
Terrorism, Conflict, Injustice and Corruption and related problems Worldwide.
The time to end Bring Back Our Girls Campaign that is simply noise –
calling on Nigerian Government to ensure release of the Girls is Now. The time
to start Refocused Bring Back Our Girls Campaign that is Potent Force Driving
Transformation Society in Nigeria and Worldwide in Now.
It is this type of Refocused Bring Back Our Girls Campaign that can help
ensure Chibok Girls and their Families Blood and Tears have not been shed in
Vain and that what Terrorists have meant for evil has been Transformed for the
Good of Nigeria and World Society.
International Year of Evaluation 2015
UNEG (United Nations Evaluation Group), is excited that Evaluation is
integrated in the follow up and review section of the current SDG document,
with specific provision for country led evaluations and data as well as calls for
strengthening national evaluation capacity. We encourage and congratulate all
who have contributed to achieve this "feat". However care must be
taken not to over celebrate because the "feat" was achieved by UNEG -
the entire Evaluation Group of the United Nations and not a small Network of
Evaluation Professionals.
Where were IDEAS (International Development Evaluation Association) and
IOCE (International Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation) the Global
Evaluation Platforms? Where were the Regional Evaluation Platforms such as EEA
(European Evaluation Association), AfREA (African Evaluation Association) etc?
Where were the Major National Evaluation Platforms such as UKES (UK Evaluation
Society), AEA (American Evaluation Association), CES (Canadian Evaluation
Society)? - particularly in 2015 the International Year of Evaluation!!!
Yes "Giant Strides" have been made but much more remains to be
done. This is because there are many gaps that need to be filled and
disconnects that need to be linked in AAAA and SDG. These Global, Regional and
National Evaluation Platforms (which all need to be strengthened and where no
Regional / National Evaluation Platforms exist – to be properly established; to
in turn strengthen National Evaluation Capacity in each of the 193 UN Member
States) have Central Role to Play in correcting these flaws and failures and on
time before the Documents are adopted by UNGA, even if adoption has to be
delayed till November or December 2015 to fill gaps and link disconnect thus
putting Our World in better position to achieve AAAA and SDG Vision Ambitions
rather than go ahead to adopt the AAAA and SDG with its flaws and failures in
September 2015 with high probability of many Countries failing to achieve AAAA
and SDG Vision Ambitions in 2030, just as many Countries have been unable to
achieve MDG Vision Ambitions in 2015. Clearly Evaluation has Central Role to
play if AAAA and SDG Vision Ambitions are to be achieved and on schedule dates.
Current AAAA and SDG documents which are essentially Vision and Words without
ACTION avoid or evade these issues.
It is in filling gaps and linking disconnect that AAAA and SDG can
become Vision and Words with Action. As long as this is not done, celebrating
the inclusion of Evaluation, Country Led Evaluation and Data and Strengthening
National Evaluation Capacity in SDG (while being silent on Evaluation Component
of AAAA) is meaningless, if Stakeholders continue with Business as Usual
instead of adopting One Worldwide Approach to Evaluation and moving forward
with Business Unusual Driven by Universal Evaluation - Evaluation Innovation,
Evaluation Politics, Evaluation Promotion and Evaluation Protection as One from
Village to Global levels in both AAAA and SDG.
These Global, Regional and National Platforms need to do better,
participating in the implementation as well as the monitoring and evaluation of
the implementation of realigned National Development Plans that is integral
part of domestication of AAAA and SDG at Country level in each of the 193 UN
Member States.
It is in the interest of the over 2 billion World Poor - Children, Youth,
Women, Men and Elders on both Developed and Developing Countries sides that
Evaluation Professionals claim to serve that these Global, Regional and
National Platforms do not shriek their responsibility. The Bright Prospects of
success implementing Evaluation and Non Evaluation Components of AAAA and SDG
should not be squandered.
What we absolutely need now is a comprehensive
evaluation framework that allows for continuous country-owned, equity-focused
evaluation, providing information for mid-course corrections, so that we don’t
wait another fifteen years to find out how we haven’t achieved our goals. This calls
for answer to AAAA and SDG How questions.
Re-establishing
existing Professional Bodies and Establishing New Professional Bodies
The UK Government poor experience
creating Evaluation Cadre in DFID is similar to the Nigeria Government poor experience
creating Procurement Cadre in its Ministries, Departments and Agencies. The
weakness in UK Universities with respect to New Disciplines such as Public
Policy and Public Administration is worse in many Developed and Developing
Countries Universities. Also these New Disciplines do not have structured
Professional Bodies and Statutory Regulatory Institutions as exist in
Disciplines such as Medicine, Accountancy etc.
If National and International
Development Cooperation Goals and Targets are to be met and on time, there is a
need to establish New Discipline Cadres in Public Service and Civil Service in
Developed Countries and Developing Countries as well as in International
Institutions; establish Professional Bodies supporting New Discipline Professionals
from Neighborhood to Global levels and establish Statutory Regulatory
Institutions guiding the activities of these Professionals from Neighborhood to
Global levels. To help in this regard ISPE / EAG is promoting the establishment
of Multidisciplinary Professionals Community of Practice on Poverty Elimination
and Environmental Sustainability, MPCOP-PE&ES, present in all 193 UN Member
Countries and with Members speaking 6 UN Official languages; for Grassroots
Professionals and Technical Professionals in the following Disciplines:-
1 1. Knowledge and Communication
2 2. Analytics
3 3. Entrepreneurship
4 4. Citizenship
5 5. Cooperation
6 6. Public Policy
7 7. Public Administration
8 8. Development
9 9. Diplomacy
1 10. Defense
and Security
1 11. Democracy
and Elections
1 12. Service
Delivery
13. Geodesign
1 14. Risk
Management
1 15. Agriculture
Sociology
1 16. Agriculture
Extension
17. Agriculture
Chemistry
18. Agriculture
Biology
1 19. Agriculture
Engineering
2 20. Food
Technology
2 21. Value
Chain Development
2 22. Development
Communication – COMBI / CABS (Communication for Development Impact / Changing
Attitude and Behavior at Scale)
2 23. Research
Utilization
2 24. Development
Impact
2 25. Conflict
Resolution
2 26. Anti
Corruption
2 27. Procurement
2 28. Monitoring
and Evaluation
2 29. Human
Rights - PESCR (Political, Economic, Social, Cultural and Religious)
3 30. Data
Management
There is a need to create 30
Professional Cadres, 30 Professional Bodies, 30 Statutory Regulatory
Institutions and 23 University Departments in each of these Disciplines in all
Developed Countries, Developing Countries and International Institutions. There
is a need to develop curriculum for the 30 Disciplines in all Universities
focused on Teaching, Research and Community Service, in each of the 193 UN
Member States that would better equip Professionals in each Discipline to face
real World situations on the ground today in Communities, Countries, Regions
where these Universities are located.
There is a need to further to update
curriculum for all remaining Disciplines in all Universities that would similarly
equip Professionals in these Disciplines. These call for re-establishing existing
Professional Bodies and establishing new Professional Bodies if these
Professions are to help achieve increasing convergence between revised AAAA and
SDG Vision Intention and Reality.
From “Development Evaluation Learning” to “Development Implementation
Doing”
1 1. Development
Cooperation Policies, Programmes and Projects (3Ps) in 193 UN Member States,
whether co-financed by International Development Co-operation
Organizations/Departments/Agencies or not, should always support poor people in
Developed / Developing Countries to improve their standard of living. They
should, employing a somewhat more technical language, always (that is without
exception!) serve to create Sustainable Benefits for their Target Groups
(SBTG).
2 2. SBTG
should thus be the Objective all of the 3Ps Actors (Political Leaders,
Organizations involved, the Target Groups themselves, Planners, Implementers,
Monitors and Evaluators, as well as all other supportive stakeholders in
international institutions; developing and developed countries alike) should
unite to realize.
3 3. Development
Evaluation, it has been said, is for (a) Accountability and (b) for Learning.
That is true as far as it goes. But there is a third element missing without
which (a) and (b) above will be entirely useless: (c) Improved 3Ps effectiveness.
That goes without saying? Alas! It doesn’t! There is a Gulf between Learning
and Doing. Why?
3
3 4. Evaluations
of Development Interventions (the 3Ps) are One-Off Affaires: They concern, in
general, a concrete case among the 3Ps: a given Development Policy, Program or
Project. Widening this case-by-case perspective, they can also pertain to
countries, regions, themes, sectors or instruments. But they are always
restricted to the specific development intervention(s) or topic(s) under
review. They serve to improve, each time, that specific development effort and
they are conceived and timed accordingly. What they fail to do, by their very
nature, is to serve the accumulation of Development Evaluation Learning: in
each specific instance, the evaluation may have served to improve the
effectiveness of the case under review, after which that learning tends to be
forgotten again.
5. As a
consequence, the Terms of Reference for each specific P (for its
Identification, its Planning, its Implementation/Monitoring and for all of its
Evaluations) tend to be conceived “ab ovo”: each time again, from scratch. And
even if some of the actors mentioned in point 2 above may fall back on previous
experience or remember a case similar to the one they are dealing with, their
work cannot possibly profit from the accumulated Evaluation Learning that has
been and continues to be produced by Development Evaluators around the world.
And how could this be otherwise, as Lesson Forgetting follows “pari passu”
Lesson Learning, thus preventing Lesson Learning Accumulation and its use in
Operational Development Work Practice to occur in the first place? Such accumulation/use
simply isn’t part of the system in the past and present.
6. The
“Master Assessment Framework” (“MAF”), complete with its Data-Base (still to be
developed!), is the tool designed to make such “accumulation/use” an integral
part of the system. It is a tool in the making, still to be reviewed and
improved systematically by professional wisdom around the world. It is attached
in its present form.
7. We therefore invite International Institutions/Government Entities/Governing
Councils/Executive Boards concerned etc..., as part of Building Sustainable
Solutions to AAAA and SDG from Village to Global levels in each of the 193 UN
Member States to (a) have a critical look at the substance of the MAF, improve
it further and, if they have confidence in its creative potential, to (b)
devise the ways and means to introduce it into their “internal” as well as
“external” Development Work Practice worldwide.
AAAA and SDG
Sustainable Solutions
The ongoing
UNGA Solutions Summit Process is a very commendable initiative aimed at finding
innovative and creative solutions to AAAA and SDG problems on the ground in
each Community in each of the 193 UN Member States. It is being designed and
delivered to mark the beginning of a longer term grassroots effort to lift up
exceptional innovators – technologists, engineers, scientists, who are
developing solutions that address one or more of the 17 / 21 SDGs’. While the
focus is on the 3 specific categories of innovators, a 4th category
for “Others” that is yet to be clarified has been created.
Our Study finding is that “Others” should
include all Innovative Thinkers, Creative Designers, Development Change
Champions and Anti Poverty Campaigners on State Actors and Non State Actors
sides in each of the 193 UN Member States.
“Others” should be a gateway to include anyone who could demonstrate he / she is an Innovator / Creator and has something of value to offer to help enrich AAAA and SDG Implementation Processes within specific Action Agenda Item in a specific location – sub-national, national, sub-regional, regional or global; that is “others” should include Innovators / Creators from Traditional backgrounds on Non Science side - Artists, Actors / Actresses, Musicians, Designers, Filmmakers, Painters, Sculptors, other Artistic Professionals as well as Innovators / Creators from Fields conventional wisdom wouldn't typically label "Creative" - such as Business, Education, Geodesign, Risk Management, Policy Reform, Development Evaluation / Public Evaluation etc, that is, anyone who takes a creative approach to his / her work - solving problems, thinking up new ways of doing things and new ideas and making them happen - that transforms whatever he / she is doing into Creative Enterprise. Therefore AAAA and SDG Sustainable Solutions in each Action Agenda Item in each of the 17 / 21 SDGs’ should be about identifying, empowering, promoting and protecting Creative Enterprise in each Community in each Local Government in each of the 193 UN Member States.
Our Study finding is that:-
1.
Availability of Creative Enterprises that have minimum certain levels of
Hard Competences - Learning and Skills and Soft Competences - Character,
Courage and Mindset required to support Stakeholders in a Community / Country
implement Realigned National Development Plans and Visions that is Integral
Part of Domesticated AAAA and SDG Strategy; is One of the Master Keys to
achieving increasing convergence between AAAA and SDG Vision Intention and
Reality in each of the 193 UN Member States
2.
The idea of AAAA and SDG
Sustainable Solutions, expanding on the UNGA Solutions Summit as conceived, if
fully supported by all entities within UN Family Organization particularly
World Bank Group, IMF, UNDESA, UNNGLS, FfD Office, ECOSOC Office, EOSG, OPGA,
UN Security Council and UNGA can indeed make positive difference in the work
towards achieving AAAA and SDG Vision Ambitions in each of the 193 UN Member
States, each Sub-region, each Region and Worldwide and on schedule dates and
3.
Specific Creative Enterprise
Themes (we have identified 21) need to be aligned with Specific SDG Goals /
Targets and Specific Location – Village to Global.
Paradigm Shifts
It is true that Giant Strides have been made to produce the current SDG
Final Draft that is set for adoption at 70th UNGA in September 2015.
It is also true that the current SDG and AAAA have gaps that need to be filled
and disconnect that need to be linked. The reality is that what we have at the
moment is AAAA and SDG that is Vision and Words without Action but what is
needed, is AAAA and SDG that is Vision and Words with Action. It is AAAA and
SDG Sustainable Solutions that can help achieve revised AAAA and SDG that is
Vision and Words with Action.
The current AAAA and SDG is Vision and Words without Action largely
because of weak conflict resolution, unequal negotiation, promotion of partisan
agenda delivering disproportional benefits etc. To present revised AAAA and SDG
that is Vision and Words with Action to UNGA for adoption will require JOINT
Stakeholders renewed commitment towards: breaking down Stakeholder silos and
walls; eliminating resistance between Business and CSOs'; improving connection
between NY and Communities in each of the 193 UN Member States'; Aligning
Innovative and Broad Range of Creative Enterprise Solutions as applicable to
each Action Agenda Item in AAAA and SDG for specific location - Village to Global
etc within AAAA and SDG Sustainable Solutions that address all fundamental
issues UNGA Solutions Summit has been designed to tackle alongside addressing
also 8 Fundamental Issues and as soon as possible:-
1.
Intellectual Property
2.
Competences Framework - Hard Competences: Learning and Skills and Soft
Competences - Character, Courage and Mindset
3.
Commissioning Framework
4.
3C - Coordination, Collaboration and Cooperation Platforms
5.
Strategic Change Management of Complex Processes
6.
Reforming Institutions - National and International
7.
Reinventing Government - 3 Arms: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary in
each Tier of Government in each of the 193 Member States
8.
One Worldwide Approach to Implementing AAAA and SDG Action Agenda Items.
To achieve these, Village to Global AAAA and SDG Stakeholders within and
outside the UNGA Solutions Summit Initiative need to shift focus away from
problems and talking and shift focus towards solutions and ACTION in the JOINT
work towards achieving increasing convergence between AAAA and SDG Vision Intention
and Reality.
Village to Global AAAA and SDG Stakeholders in each of the 193 Member
States need to also recognize that they need support from Internal Consultants
and External Consultants who themselves have minimum certain levels of
competences, if AAAA and SDG Vision Ambitions are to be achieved on successful
and sustainable basis in each of the 193 UN Member States.
[
It is pertinent to note that failure to achieve AAAA and SDG Vision
Ambitions could have catastrophic consequences for Stakeholders in our Fragile
Planet. This underlines the importance of the Noble Work UN Family Organization
is doing in the design and delivery of AAAA and SDG Visions, as well as the
urgent need for relevant authorities in each of the 193 UN Member States, and
relevant authorities in each of the 193 UN Member States Partners, to
effectively and JOINTLY address all issues we raise in this and earlier Policy
Briefings and as soon as possible.
Global Call
We call on Global Citizens in each of the 193 UN Member States to Vow
that Chibok Girls and their Families Blood and Tears shall not be shed in vain;
that Chibok Girls sacrifice would on the occasion of Day 500 of their
abduction, inspire Refocusing Campaign to Bring Back Chibok Girls Dead or Alive
towards helping to design and deliver World Sustainable Development Strategy
that works to End Hunger, Poverty, Terrorism, Conflicts, Injustice and
Corruption Worldwide.
We call on Women holding High Office: Serving or Retired – Heads of
Government Executive Arm; Heads of Government Legislative Arm; Heads of
Government Judiciary Arm and Heads of International Institutions to raise their
Voices in support of 193 UN Member States and Regions across the World
domesticating revised AAAA and SDG as viable Instrument for Ending Hunger,
Poverty, Terrorism, Conflicts, Injustice and Corruption Worldwide. Can Liberian
President be the first to pick up the gauntlet at the International level? Can the
first Female Nigeria Chief Justice of the Federation be the first to pick up
the gauntlet at the National level?
We call on Women that are Wives of High Office Holders: Serving or
Retired – Heads of Government Executive Arm; Heads of Government Legislative
Arm; Heads of Government Judiciary Arm and Heads of International Institutions
to raise their Voices in support of 193 UN Member States and Regions across the
World domesticating revised AAAA and SDG as viable Instrument for Ending
Hunger, Poverty, Terrorism, Conflicts, Injustice and Corruption Worldwide. Can US
First Lady, Mrs Obama be the first to pick up the gauntlet at the International
level? Can Mrs Buhari, Wife of the Nigeria President be the first to pick up
the gauntlet at the National level?
We call on the General Public in each of the 193 UN Member States to
raise their Voices: to demand for the filling of all identified gaps and
linking of all identified disconnect in current AAAA and SDG; in support of
full implementation with effective monitoring and evaluation of the
implementation of revised AAAA and SDG that is truly Transformative Action
Agenda Worldwide and that help End Hunger, Poverty, Terrorism, Conflicts, Injustice
and Corruption Worldwide; to demand for haste to be made slowly in the adoption
of AAAA and SDG to avoid mistake even if adoption of revised AAAA and SDG by 70th
UN General Assembly has to wait till November or December 2015.
Conclusion
The 70th UN General Assembly is opportunity to review the past 70 years of UN work towards building Global Collective Action for Political Stability, identify areas of successes and how it could be improved as well as areas of flaws and failures and how it could be corrected.
At present Lessons are not being Learnt
from Lessons Learnt so UN Family Organization, 193 Member States and their
Partners continue to repeat the mistake of history. Systems and Infrastructure
are so decayed in many Developed and Developing Countries that hope for
survival of our fragile Planet lies in achieving increasing convergence between
revised and reinvigorated AAAA and 17 / 21 SDG Vision Intention and Reality.
The gaps and disconnect in AAAA and
SDG due to flaws and failures in FfD and Post 2015 Processes can still be
corrected before AAAA and SDG are adopted by UNGA, even if this adoption has to
wait till November or December 2015. What is there to gain in rushing to adopt
AAAA and SDG in September 2015, thus putting the cart before the horse and
making avoidable mistake? - when a little bit more of give and take; of seeking
to understand rather than to be understood; of seeking to love rather than to
be loved, can be in the enlightened self interest of those who think that they
are the Big Winners in the AAAA and SDG as is; because in reality the
probability is high they may end up as Big Loses in the longer term.
If UN Executives and Staff as well as
Developed Countries Leaders and Bureaucrats continue to over celebrate the
successes of FfD and Post 2015 Processes thus far while Developing Countries
Leaders and Bureaucrats and CSO – particularly NGOs’ and CBOs’ Executives and
Staff continue to bemoan or overlook their disappointments, the probability is
that Village to Global Stakeholders will continue with Business as Usual while
taking chance that World problems will fizzle out or accept our lot should
catastrophe occur – starting with Global Recession that could make that of
1930s’ Child’s play.
If UN Executives and Staff as well as
Developed Countries Leaders and Bureaucrats decide to put the horse before the
cart and change to Business Unusual as recommended in the Synthesis Report, the
probability is high that bright prospects of success implementing AAAA and SDG
that has all is’ doted and all t’s crossed would become reality unleashing
unprecedented Prosperity on successful and sustainable basis in our World.
UN Executive and Staff; Developed
Countries Leaders and Bureaucrats; Developing Countries Leaders and Bureaucrats
and CSO Executives and Staff have a choice to make from the above options. No
choice is a choice.
Our Suggestion: UN Executives and Staff can help 193 Member States; CSOs’ and
other Stakeholders make the Right Choice if UNDESA, FfD Office, ECOSOC Office,
EOSG and OPGA accept to jointly nudge all remaining Stakeholders to address all
issues raised in this Policy Briefings and on time. The Time to raise Voices is NOW. Delay is Dangerous.
God Bless UN.
God Bless our World.
Contact:
Lanre Rotimi
Director General
International Society for Poverty
Elimination /
Economic Alliance Group
Akure – Nigeria, West Africa.
Email: nehap.initiative@yahoo.co.uk
M: +234-8162469805
“Master
Assessment Framework”
Foreword
MAF
is for Researchers, Planners, Statisticians, Implementers, Monitors, Evaluators
and Assessors. Work on the Evaluation side – Monitors, Evaluators and Assessors
has been done. Work on Implementation side – Implementers and Planning side –
Researchers, Planners and Statisticians would be done as part of MAF testing.
MAF
is a Master Toolbox – Single Agenda Implementation Framework (SAIF). MAF
consists of a set of Interlinked, Interconnected and Interdependent Frameworks
within 3PCM (Policy, Program, Project Cycle Management) Approach. MAF is the 4th
Instrument / Tool in 3PCM. The Instruments in SAIF are:-
1.
Standard Budget Framework, SBF
2.
Standard Changing Attitude and Behavior at
Scale Framework, SCABS
3.
Standard Commissioning Framework, SCmF
4.
Standard Competencies Framework, SCpF
5.
Standard Knowledge and Communications
Framework, SKCF
6.
Standard Lessons Learning Framework, SLLF
7.
Standard Marketing Communications Framework,
SMCF
8.
Standard Measures of Success Framework, SMSF
Work
on SBF, SCABS, SCmF, SCpF, SKCF, SLLF, SMCF and SMSF would also be done as part
of MAF Testing.
This
MAF is built upon 3PCM Benefits Focused Approach to Trade / Development;
Monitoring, Evaluation and Assessment; Service Delivery / Performance
Management; Elections and Democracy; Diplomacy; Defense / Security;
Procurement; Human Rights in all its Ramifications – Political, Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, HR-PESCR; Environment / Climate Change; Management;
Governance; Corruption, Capacity Building; Competencies Assessment / Testing
and Hunger and Poverty etc
This
MAF assumes a Community of Practice (COP) whose members are Professionals
genuinely committed to deploying the Art and Science of Practice of a known
Approach, such as 3PCM in their daily work. The COP will have responsibility
for Professional Regulation and Control, Professional Ethics and Sanctions
Enforcement, Continuing Professional Education and related matters. For
Professionals on both Service Users and Service Providers sides adopting MAF
built upon 3PCM Approach, the COP is MPCOP-PE&ES (Multidisciplinary
Professionals Community of Practice on Poverty Elimination and Environmental
Sustainability) with Several Professional Societies: Trade / Development; Monitoring,
Evaluation and Assessment; Service Delivery / Performance Management; HR-PESCR,
Management etc. When fully operational MPCOP-PE&ES would be present in 8
Regions Worldwide – US, Canada and Western Europe; West and central Africa,
Eastern and Southern Africa, North Africa and Middle East; Latin America and
Caribbean; South Asia, East Asia and Pacific; Central and Eastern Europe and
CIS and speak 6 Official Languages – Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian
and Spanish.
MAF
is generic. It could be adapted to suit the unique and specific needs of any
Developed Country; Developing Country or International Institution.
Preamble (extract from Paris Declaration,
2005):
“We reaffirm the commitments made at Rome
to harmonize and align aid delivery. We are encouraged that many donors and
partner countries are making aid effectiveness a high priority, and we reaffirm
our commitment to accelerate progress in implementation, especially in the
following areas:
i. Strengthening partner
countries’ national development strategies and associated operational
frameworks (e.g. planning, budget and performance assessment frameworks);
ii. Increasing alignment of aid
with partner countries’ priorities, systems and procedures and helping to
strengthen their capacities;
iii. Enhancing donors’ and
partner countries’ respective accountability to their citizens and parliaments
for their development policies, strategies and performance;
iv. Eliminating duplication of
efforts and rationalizing donor activities to make them as cost-effective as
possible.
v. Reforming and simplifying donor
policies and procedures to encourage collaborative behavior and progressive
alignment with partner countries’ priorities, systems and procedures…
Indicator 11: Results-oriented frameworks – Number
of countries with transparent and monitorable performance assessment frameworks
to assess progress against (a) the national development strategies and (b)
sector programs.”
PART A: Introduction
1.
The “Paris Declaration” (PD) underlines the need
for the establishment, by developing countries, of “Assessment Frameworks”
(AFs) designed to guide and structure their involvement in International
Development Cooperation. However, the PD does not define the nature of such
AFs, a fact that must be considered a serious gap. The present proposal is
designed to contribute to fill in this gap.
2.
Traditionally, an “Assessment”, in International
Development Cooperation, is the analysis of a Development Intervention (Policy,
Program or Project) Proposal. It is designed to judge the quality of that
proposal in terms of its completeness and its justification. In judging the
proposal, donor priorities and procedures have sometimes weighed too heavily in
negotiations between partners, negotiations which should lead to a version of
the proposal mutually acceptable. The present draft of a “Master Assessment
Framework” (MAF) is designed to be acceptable to ALL actors concerned and to
facilitate such negotiations in an atmosphere of mutual respect among equal
partners.
3.
The MAF agreed among all partners and used to
guide and structure the establishment of any proposal for any development
intervention within any developing country, could go a long way to render the
above mentioned negotiations superfluous or, at least, to seriously limit their
length and importance. The probability of rapidly arriving at an agreement
between the partners will, indeed, be greatly enhanced if the partners have
arrived, prior to the establishment of a country specific “Assessment
Framework” or “National Assessment Framework” (NAF), as advocated by the Paris
Declaration, at a common understanding of the nature of any Assessment
Framework (AF). Such understanding can thus be greatly facilitated by the
establishment, in common agreement among ALL partners involved in International
Development Cooperation, of such “Master Assessment Framework” (MAF)
incorporating the essential features of any AF. What can be said about those
“essential features”?
4.
First of all, there is one common aspect ALL
development interventions worthy of that name have to present, without any
exception: they should improve the
living conditions of the people at whom they are directed on successful and
sustainable basis. In other words and employing a somewhat more technical
language: In a democratic setting (regardless of the form of government –
capitalist, socialist or communist), all public development interventions:
Policies, Programs and Projects, are / should be designed to realize sustainable benefits for their
target groups. The design of all Public Development Interventions, ODA
co-financed or not, must be conceived on the basis of this principle. All of
the MAF design elements considered below, have to serve this objective.
5.
The MAF will serve as the basis for the
establishment of all National Assessment Frameworks (NAFs). The NAFs, in turn,
can be adapted (i. e. subdivided or “categorized”) to suit more closely any
regional/sector/theme specifics. Ultimately, thus, the MAF/NAFs will guide the
establishment of the Terms of Reference (ToR) that structure all of the
standard documents established along the 3P Cycle, for Planning as well as for
Evaluation, of any specific Development Intervention: Policy, Program or
Project (“3P”) anywhere. Each of these Interventions will thus (a) conserve its
unique individuality while (b) incorporating the common wisdom as enshrined in
the MAF/NAFs. The above mentioned standard documents will comprise: “3P Idea”
documents, pre-feasibility studies, feasibility studies, implementation and
monitoring reports, evaluation reports and assessment reports. If thus applied
in operational practice, the MAF will help development partners to assess the
extent to which development interventions have contributed to poverty
alleviation, wealth creation, reduction of inequalities, capacity building,
governance, all of which will culminate in sustainable benefits for target
groups.
6.
If applied according to points 4. And 5 above,
the MAF will also be extremely useful in coping with some of the great
challenges facing the International Development Community today: It will
facilitate the review of progress made by development partners in:
(a)
achieving the “Sustainable Development Goals”
(MDGs);
(b)
achieving the “Addis Ababa Action Agenda” (AAAA);
(c)
respecting commitments undertaken according to
the “Paris Declaration” (PD) and the “Accra Agenda for Action” (AAA), as well
as other international / national
development cooperation commitments.
7.
The fact that, thus, planning, implementation,
evaluation and assessment should be conceived along the same lines of reasoning
will not be obvious without justification. Evaluators often give the impression
that they want to stay aloof from action, thus keeping their independence, and
conceiving “ad hoc” and for each 3P anew, their own terms of reference for
their evaluations. This stance ignores a vital fact: Evaluators, like planners,
should agree to promote, together and above anything else, the creation of
conditions leading to the realization of sustainable benefits for the target
groups of development interventions. What else could be the purpose of
evaluations? Other than that there’s none: “Benefit focused Planning” should
thus be echoed by ”Benefits focused Implementation” and “Benefit focused Evaluation”.
8.
The ToR for each 3P, as traced by the MAF/NAFs
and then their progressive adaptations to sectors/themes/regions/countries down
to the last specific concrete, unique project, should thus be identical for
planners and for implementers and evaluators. There is just ONE fundamental
difference between the application of these identical ToR by planning on the
one hand and implementation / evaluation on the other: Planning is affirmative
and looks forward, while Evaluation is inquisitive and looks backwards, and
Implementation is constructive and looks at the moment. Planning is intention
driven and considers future possibilities/probabilities, while evaluation looks
exclusively at existing facts and Implementation is action driven and looks at
getting results. But the questions asked in the three cases are on the same
subject, point by point, as contained in the common ToR. Please notice that
Planners, when trying to avoid the errors they committed “last time”, are
engaged in “evaluation”, while evaluators, when making recommendations for
future development interventions, are engaged in “planning”, and implementers
in seeking to get tasks done are engaged in both “planning” and “evaluation”
and so they should be: Planners’, Implementers’ and Evaluators’ minds and
imaginations are ever free to travel between the realms of past and future. It
is only these two realms that are never allowed to touch, forever divided, as
they are, by the fleeting NOW.
9.
Some evaluators may be scandalized by and
violently opposed to such parallel structuring of the ToR, fearing for what
they cherish most of all: their independence. Don’t despair, dear colleagues!
Note that the MAF and ALL its “derivatives”, down to the last specific ToR for
the smallest “Project” in country C, province P, will obligatorily contain one
point that can never be “adapted away”, and that is the point: “Other Aspects”.
That will give you the possibility to argue your case: you can say that the
idea of identical ToR for planning and evaluation is all nonsense, and WHY. You
can invent, under that point, your own ToR and restart the entire evaluation
exercise accordingly. There’s ONLY ONE thing that is NOT permitted by the MAF:
ignoring the ToR planners have used: You MUST use them, “inter alia”, as well!
If you do and if planners have made a serious effort to apply MAF inspired ToR,
then chances are that you will find them sufficient. If not, there’s always
(remember!) the point: “Other Aspects”...
10.Evaluators may
find that the ToR used by planners are insufficient, erroneous or, worst of
all, virtually absent. Then they will have to reconstruct what they think might
have been planners’ ToR and judge them in the light of the MAF/NAF.
11.Evaluators may
also find that the Objective of the development intervention, even if it is
expressed in terms of the realization of sustainable benefits for the
intervention’s target group (that’s a condition sine qua non, remember!), are
not convincing. Then they will propose a different objective (still expressed
in terms of sustainable benefits for the target group). This case will be rare,
though. In general one can expect that the objective of a development
intervention, if conceived by planners within a democratic setting (that’s an
important point contained in the MAF), will also be acceptable to evaluators.
12.Summing up,
the advantages of the parallel structuring of ToR for (forward-looking)
“Benefit focused Planning”, (current action) “Benefits focused Implementation”
and (backward-looking) “Benefit focused Evaluation”, in the light of the MAF,
appear convincing: This “amalgamated system” will:
(a)
make planners, implementers and evaluators of all
partners agree and concentrate on the ONE topic that matters in the end: the
realization of sustainable benefits for the target groups of development
interventions; this being the way, impact should be expressed;
(b)
make evaluation “Learning” and “Operational
Feed-back” (that remain two important but unresolved problems today) part of an
integrated system and therefore, as the term implies, “systematic”, that’s to
say automatic;
(c)
accumulate lessons from experience while
simultaneously encouraging the necessary attention to the specifics of each
individual development policy, program and project;
(d)
keep lessons learned “up to date”, as new
insights contributed by evaluations will be routinely incorporated into the
MAF/NAF system which will thus acquire and maintain its “dynamic nature”;
(e)
allow the development of a detailed “Data Base”,
containing ample comments on each important aspect presented in the MAF/NAFs,
at the disposal of planners and evaluators, of implementers and monitors, of
target groups and other stakeholders and the interested public (with its
parliamentary representatives) in general: the volume of such data bank may
turn out to be considerable, as the MAF is adapted to country/regional/sector/thematic
NAFs and as these are used as the basis for specific policies, programs and
projects;
(f)
be easy to use (in spite of the considerable
volume of the “Data Base”) as the most important elements will always appear
“up-front” in a highly concentrated form on a minimum of pages, thus allowing
all actors to descend just to the level of information detail they need to make
sure they don’t miss any element, as taught by experience, that they consider
important for the specific “P” of the 3P they are involved with;
(g)
in that way, quite naturally, simplify the
exchange of information, experience and lessons learned among all actors
concerned and spread a “common development language” among stakeholders
everywhere. Such common language might evolve, eventually, into a true
“Communication Strategy” pursued by actors/stakeholders concerned as they learn
together and act accordingly.
PART B: Master Assessment
Framework (Evaluation side)
1. Summary
2. Background
2.1. Government/sectoral and Donor policies,
coherence and complementarity,
Democracy and Human Rights, Good governance
2.2. Features of the sector(s) in the given country (or international)
context
2.3. Problems and opportunities to be addressed (Relevance)
2.4. Beneficiaries and the other stakeholders (interests, role in the
intervention)
2.5. Other related interventions, cooperation/harmonization with other
donors/actors, past best practice
2.6. Documents and data available
2.7. Project/program/policy history, including (a)
the process of its advocacy and preparation, (b) application of 3PCM and (c)
evaluation lessons learned/applied
3. Intervention (intended and unintended
results): Logic Model and Theory of Change (including indicators)
3.1.Objectives/Goals:
Realization of sustainable benefits for target groups; contributions to these
benefits on the (a) Project, (b) Program and (c) Policy levels (Impact)
3.2.Intervention
Outcome/Purpose: Introduction of necessary conditions contributing to the
realization of sustainable benefits for target groups (e.g. improved
governance, better access to basic services, new knowledge and skills applied,
changed attitudes and behavior) (Effectiveness)
3.3. Outputs - tangible and intangible
results needed for achieving the purpose of the intervention: capital goods,
products, knowledge (e.g. infrastructure, equipment installed, new capacities
and skills acquired) (Efficiency)
3.4.Inputs
and activities (Economy)
3.5.
Flexibility mechanisms allowing the Intervention’s periodic adaption
3.6.
Alternative solutions
4. Assumptions
4.1.Assumptions
at different intervention levels
4.2. Risks and risk management
5. Implementation
5.1.
Physical and non physical means
5.2.
Organization: roles and responsibilities, systems, procedures/alignment,
transparency, ethics
5.3.
Timetable
5.4.
Cost estimate and cost-effectiveness (including non-monetary costs), financing
plan
5.5.
Special conditions: accompanying measures taken by Government and/or other
development actors, reliability and predictability of funding, mutual
accountability
6. Quality and Feasibility Factors ensuring
Viability/Sustainability
6.1.
Economic and financial viability
6.2.
Policy support
6.3.
Appropriate technology and “soft” implementation techniques
6.4.
Environmental aspects
6.5
Socio-cultural
aspects (including intercultural dialogue): gender issues,
inclusion/participation, empowerment, ownership
6.6.
Institutional and management capacity, strengthening and use of local
structures (public, voluntary and private), cross-sector cooperation among
actors involved, decentralization of responsibilities: subsidiarity
6.7.
Innovations
7. Monitoring and Evaluation
8.1.
Monitoring and reporting system, milestones
8.2.
Reviews/evaluations (lessons learned and recommendations)
9. Other Aspects
10. Conclusions and proposals
