ISPE EAG
INTERATIONAL
SOCIETY FOR POVERTY ELIMINATION ECONOMIC
ALLIANCE GROUP
Briefing # 5: How to Implement AAAA and SDG Sustainable Solutions?
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. 30 August 2015
The
SDG is set to be endorsed at the 70th UN General Assembly, UNGA in
September 2015. Yet the latest outcome document, “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development”, that will be adopted, despite significant improvement
in language and text, did not answer AAAA (Addis Ababa Action Agenda) and SDG
(Sustainable Development Goals) How questions.
It appears the relevant authorities
have resolved that the flaws and failures in the AAAA and SDG Processes should
be addressed, hence the Six Interactive Dialogue Sessions during the UN
Sustainable Development Summit, UNSDS, New York, 25 – 27 September 2015 will
focus on answer to outstanding (even at this eleventh hour) AAAA and SDG What
and How questions. This is commendable
and underlines the willingness of relevant authorities to respond to calls for
urgent need to correct all flaws and failures in the Finance for Development,
FfD and Post 2015 Development Agenda Processes before final endorsement of SDG
by 70th UNGA.
It will be recalled that a First
and Final Draft UN Secretary General’s Synthesis Report was released on 4
December 2014 with translation to 6 UN Official language copies released on 31
December 2014.
ISPE / EAG drew the attention of
relevant authorities to the need to answer all Synthesis Report How questions
before the copies in 6 UN Official languages were released, even if release
date had to be extended by 2 weeks to 15 January 2015. This suggestion was ignored on the excuse
that comments and edits would be taken even after the release of copies in 6 UN
Official languages.
We are not aware if comments / edits
were submitted, but the World is aware that 9 months after, Synthesis Report
Recommendations were not implemented and so issues that could have been easily
resolved or need not have come up at all during the FfD and Post 2015 Processes,
have become reoccurring decimals up till now; leading to the endorsement of flawed
AAAA in July 2015 by the 69th UNGA and the expected endorsement of flawed
SDG in September by the 70th UNGA. This is regrettable.
The 69th UNGA has
scheduled meetings for 1 September and 15 September 2015 to prepare ground for
endorsement of SDG by 70th UNGA during the 25 – 27 September 2015 United
Nations Sustainable Development Summit, UNSDS.
The Big Question is: if in over one year of intense negotiations, AAAA
and SDG How questions were not answered or considered, what is the probability
that in just 3 days of intense negotiations during the 2015 UNSDS, correct answer will be found to this
all important AAAA and SDG How question and in ways that help achieve
increasing convergence between AAAA and SDG Vision Intention and Reality, on
schedule dates, in each of the 193 UN Member States? The 1 and 15 September 2015 69th UNGA meetings need to
clearly answer this Big Question in the Common Interest and Common Future of
Global Citizens, particularly the over 2 Billion Poor Worldwide.
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 and
SDG 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 cannot wait till November or
December 2015 to adopt revised AAAA and revised SDG that has filled identified gaps and linked
identified disconnect in current AAAA and SDG. 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 #3 and #4, we focused on need to answer HOW Questions now, in
the FfD and Post 2015 Processes. Let us consider How to Implement revised AAAA
and revised SDG Sustainable Solutions whose Design and Delivery is based on
sound answer to revised AAAA and revised SDG What and How questions in ways
that help achieve increasing convergence between revised AAAA and revised SDG
Vision Intention and Reality in each of the 193 UN Member States:
UNSDS Six Interactive Dialogue
Sessions
Interactive
Dialogue 1 – Ending Poverty and Hunger
The Introduction says “MDG Goal 1
– Eradicate extreme Poverty and Hunger. Globally the Poverty Target was
achieved 5 years ahead of schedule in 2000”. The fact that Poverty is worse in 2015 than in 2000, in many African
Countries and many Developed Countries suggest strongly that the Data
underlining this Scorecard is at best Not Credible. This underlines need for
Data Revolution that delivers revised AAAA and revised SDG Credible Data on
timely basis in each of the 193 UN Member Countries.
Quite apart from the fundamental
issue of Scorecard Data Credibility, is another fundamental issue of Scorecard
Benchmark. To claim that Poverty Target
has been met Globally when several Developed and Developing Countries are
recording incidence of increasing Poverty is Denial or Deception. It is
like saying that Ebola has been eradicated Worldwide but still present in
remote corners of a few Countries. The revised AAAA and revised SDG should not
allow this type of Scorecard.
Interactive Dialogue 2 – Tackling
Inequalities, Empowering Women and Girls etc
The Introduction says that “Focusing only on national and global
averages and aggregates makes it easier to miss uneven progress and even
growing inequalities at the subnational or community level – including between
women and men and girls and boys, or among specific ethnic, age, income,
minority or other social and population groups. In many cases, the most remote,
marginalized and vulnerable people in the world are the most difficult to
reach. This is why the new SDG agenda is underpinned by a strong commitment to
reduce inequalities within and between countries, to eliminate all forms of
discrimination and to review disaggregated data to ‘reach the furthest behind
first’. This is why the new Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development makes a
pledge that “no one will be left behind”.
We fully endorse this point. It underlines
point made in Interactive Dialogue 1 – first the Data used to calculate the
Global MDG Scorecard is not likely to be credible and second, disaggregating MDG
Data at Regional, Sub-regional, National and Sub-national levels gives clearer
and more correct Scorecard. Again this underlines need for Reforms that help to
fully implement each revised AAAA and revised SDG Action Agenda Item in a way
that is integrated to the full implementation of all UN Secretary General’s
Data Revolution Report Recommendations in each of the 193 UN Member States and
with effective monitoring and evaluation of this implementation within
effective and efficient Country Led
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems.
Interactive Dialogue 3 – Fostering
Sustainable Economic Growth etc
Our World today is too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich. There is more than enough for over 7 Billion Peoples Needs but not
enough for over 7 Billion Peoples Greed. The SDGs’ must Design and Deliver
a truly Transformative Agenda that help achieve each of the SDG Goals and
Targets as domesticated in each of the 193 UN Member States and must help
achieve shift from Globalization as
Force for Evil to Globalization as Force for Good. If Village to Global
Stakeholders are to JOINTLY achieve revised AAAA and revised SDG Vision
Ambitions then to unlock needed Trillions of Dollars; all issues of Mistrust within and between Stakeholders that are
within and between Countries must be effectively and efficiently addressed.
Interactive Dialogue 4 – Protecting
our Planet and Combating Climate Change
The Introduction says that “Humanity’s central challenge for the 21st
century is to develop economic, social and governance systems capable of ending
hunger and poverty, achieving sustainable levels of production and consumption
while living in harmony with our natural environment. In this regard, the new
2030 Agenda recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of
our time and its adverse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to
achieve sustainable development.1 The environment is one of the primary
determinants of individual and community health, and exposure to physical,
chemical and biological risk factors in the environment can harm human health
in various ways. Compounded by climate change, the pressures on terrestrial and
marine ecosystems and resources are major threats to the Earth’s biological
life support systems, human well-being and human development. In addition,
disasters pose a significant challenge for sustainable development. The annual
losses from natural disasters now average US$250 billion to US$300 billion.
Mortality and economic loss associated with extensive risks in low and
middle-income countries are rising, driven by increasing exposure to hazards,
high levels of inequality, rapid urban development and environmental
degradation. Sustainable and equitable management of natural resources is
indispensable”.
We fully endorse this point. The SDG Design
and Delivery must find a way to address fundamental issues of Natural Hazards, Unnatural Hazards (Man
Made), Natural Disasters and Unnatural Disasters. We must find a way to
live in better harmony with Nature. We must find a way to address damage done
to our fragile Planet by past and present generations so that this generation
can pass on a more environmentally sustainable Planet to future generations. It
is in our enlightened self interest to do this.
Interactive Dialogue 5 – Building
Effective, Accountable and Inclusive Institutions
The Introduction says that “Effective, accountable and inclusive institutions
are essential to achieving the SDGs. Thus the new 2030 Agenda recognizes the
need to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies that provide equal access
to justice and that are based on respect for human rights (including the right
to development), on effective rule of law and good governance at all levels and
on transparent, effective and accountable institutions.1 Institutions –formal
and informal – determine how decisions are made, how resources are allocated,
how well markets function, how natural resources are governed, how conflicts
are managed and how violence and crime are prevented and addressed”.
We fully endorse this point. Its
operationalization in practice calls for “Changing
Attitude and Behaviour” on the part of Individuals, Institutions and
Governments in each of the 193 UN Member States.
Interactive Dialogue 6 – A
Strengthened Global Partnership etc
The Introduction says that “Both the 2030 agenda for sustainable
development that will be adopted at this Summit and the Addis Ababa Action
Agenda adopted in July 2015 underline the utmost importance of mobilizing the
means to implement the Agenda through a revitalised Global Partnership for
Sustainable Development, bearing in mind that the Agenda is global in nature
and universally applicable to all countries while respecting different national
circumstances”.
We
call for caution on this point. That the authorities have designed UNSDS 2015 to help answer several
revised AAAA and SDG What and How questions in each of the Six Interactive
Dialogues, is admission that there are flaws and failures in current AAAA and
SDG that need to be addressed so that they will not be putting the cart before the horse thus endorsing AAAA and SDG that
is each Vision and Words without ACTION.
Endorsing
SDG at this UNSDS should ONLY be considered if satisfactory answers to all the
What and How questions set out for discussion, acceptable to all 193 Member
States can be found. To force endorsement of SDG where many of
the What and How questions remain contentious, is to start building the SDG Superstructure on Shaky Foundation. Allowed
to occur in reality the ultimate consequences for Citizens in both Developed
and Developing Countries could be catastrophic.
The answer to all the What and How
questions that UNSDS Delegates participating in the Six Interactive Dialogue
Sessions seek to collectively find is beyond the Competences of these Delegates.
They cannot effectively speak for over 7
Billion People without fully involving them. The Delegates are Agents. The People
in each Community in each Local Government in each of the 193 UN Member States
are the Principals. The Agents cannot
ACT without the full CONSENT of the Principals. Can all required Consent of
each Community in each of 193 UN Member States be obtained by each Agent from
his / her Principal in the 3 Days of UNSDS Negotiations? Certainly Not. This underlines need for Operation Reach 7
Billion in 7 Days to start from first reaching 7 Billion to participate
meaningfully in answer to revised AAAA and SDG How questions.
Moving forward, what is required is another
round of more effective Global Consultations that Actually Learn Lessons from flaws and failures in the Global Consultations
leading to production of Synthesis Report first and final Draft; that is a revised and reinvigorated Global Consultation
that Actually CONNECT each Community in each Local Government in each of 193 UN
Member States with UN Headquarters New York, effectively and efficiently.
This is not as Difficult as it seems, if
there is genuine determination on
the part of UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and UN Family Organization,
including World Bank Group and IMF Executives and Staff to effectively deploy UN DaO (Delivery as One) to help DRIVE effective and efficient Global
Consultations that would lead to negotiating and establishing all necessary
arrangements for answering all revised AAAA and revised SDG What and Why
Questions in ways that ensure all revised AAAA and revised SDG Action Agenda
Items in each of the 17 / 21 Goals are achieved on schedule thus ensuring that increasing
convergence between revised AAAA and revised
SDG Vision Intention and Reality is achieved and seen to be achieved in
each Community in each Local Government in each of 193 UN Member States by
2030.
Mr.
Moon should CHAMPION this reinvigorated and reinforced Global Consultation to match his August 2015 Nigeria Visit;
Words with ACTION and to also leave revised AAAA and SDG that is Vision and
Words with ACTION as part of his Lasting Legacies. Will Mr Moon fail Chibok Girls and their Families? Will Mr Moon fail the
over 2 Billion Poor Worldwide?
Believe
it. What Gets Measured Gets Done. It is Possible to Get all Countries lagging behind to meet MDGs’ Goals
and Targets within the next 3 years; and accelerate to make up for lost time so
as to achieve SDG by 2030. It is easier to get all Countries that have met MDG to
press forward to meet SDG by 2030. It is possible for Developed Countries who
were not part of executing MDG but are part of executing SDG to meet SDG by
2030 – if all Stakeholders adopt Common
Measures of Success Framework.
There is more than enough Resources – Influence, Science, Technology,
Innovation, Manpower, Funding, Spiritual, Land and Water for each of the
193 UN Members States and remaining Non UN Member States in our World today, to
meet all 17 / 21 SDGs’ (Once need to
add specific Goals of Corruption,
Conflict, Data and Religion and unbundling Goal 16 to focus on Governance Goal only is recognized as Key to effectively answering
all What and Why questions), if there is genuine DESIRE on the part of Powerful and Weak Nations; Large and
Small Countries to JOINTLY
Operationalize in Practice all the Ps in the SDG.
The future of our fragile Planet greatly
depends on Design and Delivery of revised AAAA and revised SDG to be successful
on sustainable basis. In today’s interconnected
Global Village, what happens or does not happen in the weakest or smallest
Countries / Nations can have very grievous / adverse effect on what happens in
the largest or most Powerful Countries / Nations. Therefore each of the 193 UN
Member States must answer all What and How questions in ways that promote and protect the UN Family
Organization as Effective and Efficient Platforms for Global Collective Action
for Political Stability; Economic Stability; Financial Stability; Peace and Security
and Fighting Corruption. Anything less and we could have Global Recession
that make that of 1930’ Child’s Play which is bad or World War 3 which is
worse.
From “Development Evaluation Learning” to “Development Implementation
Doing”
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.
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.
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?
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.
UNGA Solutions
Summit
The UNGA
Solutions Summit was initially scheduled as a side event during UNSDS 2015. It
is not clear at this time whether this important side event will still hold.
Whether it holds during UNSDS 2015 or not there is need to redesign the UNGA
Solutions Summit Process, if it is to help achieve increasing convergence
between its Vision Intention and Reality that is Integral part of work towards
achieving revised AAAA and revised SDG Vision Intention and Reality in each of
the 193 UN Member States.
The intention of UNGA Solutions Summit 2015 as expressed on its
website is:-
1. To make visible, and lift-up exceptional innovators -- technologists,
engineers, scientists, and others -- who are developing solutions that address
one or more of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and
2. To catalyze a grassroots effort, where communities scout and convene
resources around solution-makers. And intended its Expected Outcome:-
A group of 17-20 global innovators will be invited to give a
well-rehearsed ‘lightning talk’ outlining their breakthrough efforts to a juxtaposed audience
of senior policymakers who have the means to pave solid regulatory foundations, investors who care deeply
about long-term change and impact, and industry leaders who are
able to deploy
quickly and at scale. The physical gathering will serve as a catalyst for a longer-term,
locally-led and globally-supported effort to activate the world’s most forward
thinking technologists, scientists, & engineers and to convene the
resources and talent to apply their work in addressing the Sustainable Development
Goals.
The type and quality of responses being submitted do not outline
breakthrough efforts, are unlikely to attract the interest of senior
policymakers and or Investors and industry leaders and do not demonstrate
potential to develop quickly and at scale.
The UNGA Solutions Summit 2015 is not a Charity Event. It is Serious
Business. Therefore key issues such as:-
1. Design of
Application Form for Innovators / Creators to allow for uniform Development
Analysis, Economic Viability Analysis, Financial Viability Analysis, Risk Assessment,
Financial Monitoring Assessment etc thus giving each Applicant equal
opportunity for selection of Best Projects / Enterprises.
2. Definition of the 4th Category of Creators - “Others” to
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. That is clarification to ensure that
“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 revised
AAAA and revised 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 revised AAAA and revised 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 to help design and
deliver sustainable solutions to revised AAAA and SDG.
3. Design of Judges Application Form to allow for selection of Judges with
the Competences to help select the Best Applicants in each Category.
4. Design of Platforms for effective Interactions between Innovators /
Creators and relevant Stakeholders within Network Partnership for Sustainable
Solutions:-
a)
Inter-governmental
and Inter-ministerial Policymakers Network
b)
Angel
Investors Network
c)
Creative
Enterprise Promoters Network
d)
Multidisciplinary
Consultants Network
e)
Service Providers Network
f)
Anti
Poverty Campaigners Network
g)
Development
Change Champions Network
h)
Network
of Networks (a) – (g)
5.
Other relevant Matters.
should be speedily addressed. The UNGA
Solutions Summit is a Seed that has been planted and needs to be nurtured. Our fear is that flaws and failures in Design
and Delivery, may stunt growth which is bad or kill the plant which is worse.
It is not helpful to see this as another Grant Finance Program for 17 - 20
Beneficiaries. It is helpful to see this as a Business Development Finance
Program to promote and protect Innovation and Entrepreneurship within each
Action Agenda Item in revised AAAA and revised SDG.
It is not helpful to get the UNGA
Solutions Summit Wrong through acts of omission or commission knowingly or
unknowingly committed. To avoid this urgent Action Steps need to be taken to
better align responses to the website stated Intention and Outcome and Help is
available, if the Team ask.
Should relevant authorities genuinely
desire to help achieve increasing convergence between UNGA Solutions Summit
2015 Intention and Reality, there is urgent need to review priorities,
direction, sequence and pace in the UNGA Solutions Summit Design and Delivery
Processes for Improving Revised AAAA and SDG Sustainable Solutions through
finding practical answers Solutions Summit that help find answer to all What
and How questions that the Interactive Dialogue Sessions have been scheduled to
address.
International Development Cooperation
Scorecard
ISPE / EAG
Study finding on first 50 years of Development Cooperation 1960 - 2009,
coincide with EC Study finding with the following Scorecard:-
Policy,
Program, Project Evaluation
1/3 Good; 1/3 Flawed and 1/3 Failed
Policy, Program, Project Implementation
1/3 Good; 1/3 Flawed and 1/3 Failed
Regretfully because Lessons have
not been Learnt, in the first 6 years of the second 50 years of Development
Cooperation 2010 - 2059, the Scorecard is the same. Thus although Synthesis Report called for CHANGE in
December 2014, there is no difference in 2015 Scorecard and there is likely to
be no difference in 2030 Scorecard after SDG end or 2059 after second 50 years
of Development Cooperation unless Village
to Global Stakeholders Jointly agree to face new direction and adopt new
priorities.
Should Village to Global Stakeholders accept Transformation Change through addressing all fundamental issues we
consistently raise; a new Scorecard
can be recorded in 2030 and 2059:-
Policy, Program, Project Evaluation
90% Good; 5% Flawed and 5% Failed
Policy, Program, Project Implementation
90% Good; 5% Flawed and 5% Failed
The work towards achieving this new scorecard could start from Reviewing
Design and Delivery of UNGA Solutions Summit and the 2 Track Approach to
endorsing AAAA and SDG that we have suggested.
Two Track Approach to Endorsing AAAA
and SDG
We
have consistently raised serious issues of serious business that deserve
serious attention of relevant UN and 193 Member States authorities with
responsibility for AAAA and SDG in this and earlier Policy Briefings.
It
is clear that there are flaws and failures in the AAAA and SDG Processes. Evidence
is UNSDS Interactive Dialogue structured to answer What and How questions that
ought to have been asked and answered before AAAA was endorsed in July 2015 by
69th UNGA and should be answered before SDG is endorsed in September
or before the end of 2015 by 70th UNGA.
The Big Questions are:-
1.
Can fundamental issues we consistently
raise be wished away and can all necessary arrangements we call for be left to
happen on its own? Certainly Not, if there is no Denial or Deception; that is if we face Reality.
2.
Should SDG be endorsed if answer to
UNSDS Interactive Dialogue What and How questions agreeable to all 193 and that
is capable of supporting Village to Global Stakeholders in the Joint work
towards achieving increasing convergence between AAAA and SDG Vision Intention
and Reality cannot be found in the 3 Days: 25 – 27 September 2015? Again Certainly
Not, if Stakeholders are Serious.
We accept that these fundamental
issues we consistently raise are especially difficult but not impossible to
solve. We accept that the UN System is guided by Rules. But can these Rules not be amended where
necessary to give a UN System fit for the 21st Century? Is UN System Fit
for the 21st Century not one of the Deliverables in AAAA and SDG
Vision? – Second How Question in Interactive Dialogue Session 3.
A review meeting has been scheduled
for 1 September 2015 and on 15 September 2015 69th UNGA will give
final consideration to the SDG and recommend its adoption to 70th UNGA.
70th UNGA will endorse SDG with its flaws and failures on 25
September 2015. Is it not in Global Interest to adopt a Two Track Approach
towards endorsing SDG:-
Track 1 - The ongoing Process to
endorse SDG as is by 25 September 2015
Track 2 - A new Process to correct all
flaws and failures in current AAAA and SDG that will merge with Track 1 by
November or December 2015 when 70th UNGA endorse revised AAAA and revised SDG that is Vision
and Words with ACTION.
Our view is that whatever has been
gained in the short term under current Win - Lose arrangement, that produced the
endorsed AAAA and the to be endorsed SDG that is Vision and Words without
Action; could be significantly or totally lost in the long term when
consequences of the flaws and failures manifest in the implementation phase of the
endorsed AAAA and endorsed SDG in 2016 and beyond.
It
is pertinent to note that refusing
ordered change, make disordered change inevitable. There is still time to choose ordered change to produce revised AAAA and
SDG that effectively answer all Interactive Dialogue Session What and How
questions under Win - Win arrangement producing revised AAAA and SDG that
are Vision and Words with ACTION.
The
probability is high that negotiations that will produce lasting agreement
cannot be completed in 3 Days of UNSDS 2015. Time, Money and Effort Invested to
arrive at answer to What and How questions acceptable to all 193 Member States
and that produce revised AAAA and revised SDG that are Vision and Words with
ACTION is Investment that will deliver Value for Money and Fitness for Purpose,
regardless of whether such agreement is reached in November or December 2015.
Answer
to revised AAAA and revised SDG What and How Questions agreeable to all 193
Member States is what is required to find lasting, successful and
sustainable solutions to real and complex World problems of Injustice, Hunger,
Poverty, Inequality, Corruption, Terrorism, Unemployment, Underemployment,
Unemployability etc on the ground from Village to Global levels in each of the
193 UN Member States. To rush an
agreement in the 3 Days of negotiations is to put the entire noble and worthy AAAA
and SDG Vision in jeopardy.
Conclusion
The UNSDS is fresh opportunity to answer
revised AAAA and SDG What and How questions. Stakeholders need to accept
reality that robust answers to these questions acceptable to all 193 Member
States cannot be found in 3 Days. UN and 193 Member States have left undone
what they should have done over 9 months ago. To force any agreement acceptable to Powerful Countries within the 3
Days of UNSDS 2015, is to risk squandering the Bright Prospects of achieving revised
AAAA and revised SDG Vision Ambitions. If this is allowed, the ultimate
consequences for Citizens in both Developed and Developing Countries could be
catastrophic.
The practical
answers to revised AAAA and revised SDG What and How questions that the Six
Interactive Dialogue Sessions are scheduled to address should include full implementation with effective
monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of all recommendations /
provisions / Action Agenda Items in:-
1.
UN Secretary General’s Synthesis Report 2014
2.
UN Secretary General’s Data Revolution Report 2014
3.
Revised AAAA 2015 that is Vision and Words with ACTION
4.
Revised SDG 2015 that is Vision and Words with ACTION
And in ways that are aligned and
harmonized with the full implementation with effective monitoring and
evaluation of the implementation of all recommendations / provisions / Action
Agenda Items in:-
1.
Each Regional Development Plan in each Region in our World today
2.
Each Sub-regional Development Plan in each Sub-region in our World today
3.
Each National Development Plan in each of the 193 UN Member States
4.
Each Sub-national Development Plan in each of the 193 UN Member States
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 Briefing and earlier
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.
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
