African Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Workshop Report

Submitted by jyuan@worldbank.org on Tue, 04/12/2016 - 14:37
Image
ws

The workshop, case studies and the synthesis paper were sponsored by the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in the South African Presidency, the CLEAR Center for Anglophone Africa, and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).

The individual case studies detail learning from the specific country contexts, while the accompanying synthesis paper, The Growing Demand for Monitoring and Evaluation in Africa, captures some of the broader trends and issues that are emerging across the cases.

The case study exercise itself grew out of cooperation at Ministerial level between Burundi and South Africa. Minister Collins Chabane of the South Africa Presidency subsequently tasked the DPME in the South African Presidency to undertake a learning event on M&E systems across a range of African countries. In partnership with the CLEAR Center for Anglophone Africa , the DPME hosted the workshop to which four senior officials from each of the six participating countries were invited. Using open dialogue techniques, delegates were able to reflect on the case studies, analyse M&E within their own country in terms of what was working well, and identify potential areas for learning and improvement. The event concluded with a call for further exchange opportunities, and a deepening and widening of cross-country learning. The workshop in Pretoria was attended by senior monitoring and evaluation officials from seven African case countries, as well as by experts from Colombia, Malaysia, the World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the African Evaluation Association (AfrEA) and the German Development Cooperation (GIZ). The workshop was facilitated by professional process consultants (Indigenous Peoples Knowledge).

Download File
Pdf as plain
FEBRUARY 2013
The African Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Workshop was held from the 26th to 29th
March 2012, in Pretoria, South Africa. See the workshop report and associated country case
studies. Click here for more information.
The CLEAR Center for Anglophone Africa , housed at the Graduate School of Public and
Development Management at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
announced its co-publication of six monitoring and evaluation (M&E) case studies from Benin,
Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda. Together these case studies formed the basis of discussion at an
African M&E Systems Workshop held March 2012, in Pretoria, South Africa.
The workshop, case studies and the synthesis paper were sponsored by the Department of Performance
Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in the South African Presidency, the CLEAR Center for Anglophone Africa, and
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).
The individual case studies detail learning from the specific country contexts, while the accompanying synthesis
paper, The Growing Demand for Monitoring and Evaluation in Africa, captures some of the broader trends and
issues that are emerging across the cases.
The case study exercise itself grew out of cooperation at Ministerial level between Burundi and South Africa.
Minister Collins Chabane of the South Africa Presidency subsequently tasked the DPME in the South African
Presidency to undertake a learning event on M&E systems across a range of African countries. In partnership with
the CLEAR Center for Anglophone Africa , the DPME hosted the workshop to which four senior officials from each
of the six participating countries were invited. Using open dialogue techniques, delegates were able to reflect on
the case studies, analyse M&E within their own country in terms of what was working well, and identify potential
areas for learning and improvement. The event concluded with a call for further exchange opportunities, and a
deepening and widening of cross-country learning. The workshop in Pretoria was attended by senior monitoring
and evaluation officials from seven African case countries, as well as by experts from Colombia, Malaysia, the
World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the African Evaluation Association (AfrEA) and the German
Development Cooperation (GIZ). The workshop was facilitated by professional process consultants (Indigenous
Peoples Knowledge).
African Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Workshop Report
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION
AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS
PREMIER HOTEL PRETORIA, 26-29 MARCH 2012
AFRICAN
MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS
WORKSHOP REPORT
THE PRESIDENCY
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
DEPARTMENT: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results (CLEAR)
Graduate School of Public and Development Management,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
September 2012
Entire publication © Graduate School of Public and
Development Management, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg
Design and layout: Quba Design and Motion
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION
AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS
PREMIER HOTEL PRETORIA, 26-29 MARCH 2012
AFRICAN
MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS
WORKSHOP REPORT
THE PRESIDENCY
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
DEPARTMENT: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION

COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 1
TABLE OF Contents
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................................1
1 INTRODUCTION AND WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY .....................................................2
1.1 Background................................................................................................................2
1.2 Welcome and opening remarks ................................................................................2
2 SETTING THE SCENE..............................................................................................................3
2.1 Perspectives on monitoring and evaluation .............................................................3
2.2 Expert overview on M&E systems worldwide ............................................................5
3 LEARNING FROM AFRICAN CASE STUDIES......................................................................9
3.1 Benin...........................................................................................................................9
3.2 Ghana.......................................................................................................................10
3.3 Burundi .....................................................................................................................10
3.4 Kenya........................................................................................................................10
3.5 Uganda.....................................................................................................................10
3.6 South Africa..............................................................................................................11
3.7 Senegal ....................................................................................................................11
4 EXTRACTING KEY INSIGHTS AND GOOD PRACTICES..................................................13
5 LEARNING FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE..........................................................14
5.1 The Colombian experience of M&E .........................................................................14
5.2 Learning from the Malaysian experience of
promoting priority outcomes ..................................................................................16
6 IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR M&E IN AFRICA ...............18
7 REFLECTING ON IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES IN COUNTRY CONTEXTS ........19
8 DEBATE ON TAKING IMPLEMENTATION FORWARD.....................................................21
9 OPEN SPACE SESSIONS: EXPLORATION OF TOPICS FOR FURTHER EXCHANGE....23
10 FORMULATING COUNTRY NOTES OF INTENT ...............................................................24
11 ENVISAGING THE CONTINUATION
OF THE EXCHANGE ..............................................................................................................25
12 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................26
ANNEXURE A: PARTICIPANT LIST....................................................................................................27
ANNEXURE B: STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP.............................................................................29
ANNEXURE C: WORKSHOP EVALUATION........................................................................................30
1 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
DREAT Delegation for the Reform of the State and for Technical Assistance (Senegal)
DPME Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (South Africa)
GIZ German Development Cooperation
MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MPAT Management Performance Assessment Tool
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NIMES National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (Kenya)
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
PM Prime Minister
PPMED Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Department (Ghana)
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (Burundi)
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 2
1 INTRODUCTION AND WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY
1.1 Background
The African Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Workshop was held from the 26th to 29th March 2012, at
the Premier Hotel, Pretoria, South Africa. The event was attended by senior monitoring and evaluation officials
from seven African countries (Benin, Burundi, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Senegal and South Africa) and
resource persons from Colombia, Malaysia, the World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the African
Evaluation Association (AfrEA) and the German Development Cooperation, GIZ. A full list of attendees is attached
as Annexure A.
The workshop was facilitated by professional process consultants (IngeniousPeoples Knowledge). The methodology
used was highly interactive and deliberations took place within small groups and in ‘open space’ discussion
formats. Substantive attention was focused on ensuring that there was space for comprehensive engagement
and in-depth interactions.
The workshop was conducted through numerous small group sessions and guided intensive discussions. The
sequence of the workshop was structured and pre-defined, whilst the content was largely shaped by the participants’
contributions. Attention was focused on peer-to-peer exchange and exploration of areas of exchange
between countries. Annexure B provides a process map which broadly captures the overall workshop structure
and these elements are used as the introductory heading to each of the sections in this report.
This report provides a summary of all content inputs and the feedback received from discussion groups during
plenary sessions. To facilitate future oriented action, the report also captures highlights that can serves as
triggers for future oriented action.
1.2 Welcome and opening remarks
Dr Sean Phillips, the Director-General of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME)
presided over the welcoming session. Mr Obed Baphela, the Deputy Minister for Performance Monitoring and
Evaluation, presented the Opening Remarks on behalf of Minister Ohm Collins Chabane.
Minister Baphela began by warmly welcoming all delegates. He explained that the idea of the workshop
emanated from discussions that were held during a ministerial visit to Burundi that culminated in a commitment
to building monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems through the active documentation of crosscountry
experiences. He emphasised the linkages that need to be established between M&E and the needs
of citizens. He also highlighted the immense opportunities and development that were unfolding across the
African continent and the importance of establishing and sustaining African-specific approaches to M&E.
“ There is a need for the emergence of an African monitoring and evaluation tradition which is
both sensitive to African development imperatives and which can also work with African traditions
so that advances can be achieved by working with local realities and frames of reference.”
In the statement, Minister Baphela also provided a broad political overview of the evolution of M&E in South
Africa and the imperatives that drove the establishment of the outcomes approach in South Africa. To encourage
a more open and honest discussion of M&E in participating countries, Minister Baphela also outlined
some of the varied challenges confronting South Africa. The Minister concluded by officially opening the
workshop and wishing all well with the deliberations.
The full text of the speech is available online.
3 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
2 SETTING THE SCENE
2.1 Perspectives on monitoring and evaluation
Topics Purpose Approach
Compiling
perspectives on M&E
To build a better and more common
understanding of the many different
perspectives on M&E systems within the
room.
Participants expressed their views on M&E issues
and challenges and moved between different
groups to establish a set of common questions
for exploration.
This session began with a “World Café discussion” in mixed groups about what participants believed to be the
most critical issues that needed to be addressed by the workshop. The World Café discussion process involves
participants sharing then moving between different perspectives in order to generate a shared set of issues.
This process helped create a shared understanding of what would be the most critical areas for engagements
within the workshop space and helped to ensure that the participants establish and work towards fulfilling
their own learning objectives. The key questions that arose were as follows:
• How do we embark on establishing M&E as integral to public management practice and culture?
• What are the most effective ways of developing evaluation capacity in Africa?
• How are M&E systems integrated with planning and budgeting across countries?
• How do we institutionalise M&E in government and ensure M&E information is utilised effectively?
• What are the similarities and differences in M&E systems across countries and what successes and
common challenges are there amongst countries?
• What are the different structural roles and partnerships in the design of an effective M&E system?
• How do we ensure that M&E is focused on results and what methods are there for ensuring that
data feeds into decision-making processes?
The questions formed the backdrop of discussion during the deliberations and a constant reminder of the
important issues during group reflections. The mind map in Figure 1 below represents the flow of discussion
around these issues.
2.2 Expert overview on M&E systems worldwide
Topics Purpose Approach
Expert overview of M&E
systems worldwide
To gain an overview of M&E systems
worldwide with a view to developing
a common understanding of different
models and terminology
Following content presentations from experts,
participants expressed their perspectives on
critical issues and generated a mind–map of
issues to consider
This session focused on establishing a conceptual and information backdrop to the deliberations. To
assist the process, three experts provided an overview of different M&E systems and models worldwide.
• Mr Manuel Castro - former Director of Public Policy Evaluation, Department of National Planning,
Colombia, outlined the elements which define different systems across the world.
• Dr Sulley Gariba, Development Policy Advisor in the Office of the Vice-President in Ghana, provided
an overview of critical issues for African M&E systems.
• Dr Ian Goldman, Deputy-Director General Evaluation and Research, Department of Performance
Monitoring and Evaluation, South Africa, focused on building an understanding of the different
participating countries’ governance systems.
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 4
How in a decentralized s ys tem?
P res ident
minister
Inform
managerial is s ue
Ins titutionalis e
in management
budget item
public s ector reform
capacities
s tructures
s tick to it℀ needs a plan
requires bas ic
link with other agencies embed
planning
budgeting
with
P ractice
Integration
does what it wants initially G overnment
when s ys tem s hines there is rais ed interes t champions
C S Os
identify individuals managers
W ho takes the lead?
R oles
conductors
s hape demand
commis s ion evaluation
managerial s ys tem
more actors focus on
training needs analys is building
C apac ity
S ys tems over c omplexity as a ris k
similarities
s ucces s es
challenges
rules
principles
commonalities
other countries C omparis on
own forms of communicating
Us e
S haring
ens ure
information
W hy offer when ignored?
while us eful Us age
accountability outs trips s upply demand
R es ults
∀s chool∀ donor impos ition perception
Different℀
T hink about tools Not eas y Don✀t do harm
s ong
dance
other ways of communicating
Africa✀s own culture and values
beliefs and practice
how to create
ens ure
compliance
natural des ire from
Culture
K ey Q ues tions
Figure 1: Mind map arising from discussion of key questions
5 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
Mr Manuel Castro: Components of a government-wide M&E system
Mr Castro highlighted common patterns in approach in a selection of OECD and middle income countries and
the factors that contribute to success. He noted that approaches vary amongst countries, but in most cases
M&E had been established as a top-down initiative. Some country systems emerge incrementally while others
attempt cross-government systemic changes (big bang).
The introduction of systems is often linked to public service reform initiatives in budgeting and accountability.
Of particular importance to the different systems are the structures that serve to drive M&E. He noted that success
often depends on the direct use of information within the decision-making process.
In concluding, Mr Castro noted that:
1) There is no single model of success. Countries have developed different configurations, in accordance
with their capacities, culture and reform strategies;
2) The institutional setting is a key element defining the level of success achieved;
3) The most visible element of success is the linkages created with decision making and, in particular,
the budget process;
4) Success is dependent on technical strength and political support;
5) Implementation is not linear; and
6) Structures generally change over time.
Table 1: Comparison of OECD and middle income countries’ M&E systems
Country Year Reform Purpose
Australia 2009 New Outcomes and Programmes
Reporting Framework
Improved specification of outcomes, to make them
more measurable and tangible
Canada 2009 New Policy on Evaluation Requires 100% evaluation coverage every 5 years of all
programs with Direct Programme Spending
Chile 2010
Abolish Mideplan, Review DIPRES
M&E/Performance Budgeting
functions
Discussing creation of an independent evaluation
agency
Colombia 2005 Medium-Term Expenditure
Framework Improve budget planning
Mexico 2011 New Ministry of Finance Performance
Evaluation Unit
Creates a technical unit within the Ministry of Finance
to coordinate and integrate performance information to
inform the budget
South Africa 2011 Government-wide M&E
improvement
National Evaluation Policy Framework, management
performance assessment tool (MPAT), frontline service
delivery monitoring, outcomes monitoring
United
Kingdom 2010 Review of the System Expands mid-term spending reviews, abandons public
service agreements and PM Delivery Unit
United
States 2011 Evaluation Initiative Reconfigure programme assessment rating tool,
increase impact evaluations
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 6
Dr Sulley Gariba: African M&E systems - Opportunities for scaling up
Dr Gariba noted that donor-driven supply-side interventions have dominated evaluation in much of Africa.
Consulting entities and institutions have responded to this demand from development assistance agencies
leading to very specific project and programme evaluations. He noted that as a consequence of the dominance
of donor requirements, the content of many evaluations has been heavily influenced by external demand; the
commissioners of such evaluations have tended to be externally motivated and the systems they have applied
have been strongly influenced by values external to Africa.
Dr Gariba’s presentation highlighted a new and growing impetus for increased evaluations within Africa, triggered
by three factors:
1) Growing demand for accountability by citizens, dissatisfied with service delivery by the state;
2) An increase in the range and diversity of democratic institutions which have constitutional mandates
to demand accountability and use evaluations for this purpose; and
3) The increasing acceptance of evaluation as good practice, both nationally and continentally.
Dr Gariba concluded by suggesting that this pattern of increased demand also challenges Africa’s capacity
to match growing demand with more systematic supply and use of evaluation; and suggested ways in which
demand and supply can be appropriately matched, if Africa is to capitalise on the growing opportunities for
scaling up.
Figure 2: The evaluation gap
7 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
Dr Ian Goldman: Comparing contexts
Dr Goldman’s presentation was directed at building a common understanding of the contexts, systems and
structures of the different countries participating in the workshop in order to facilitate discussion in the workshop.
The presentation summarised the different approaches and structures of government in each of the
participating countries. The information presented included basic demographics, the differential structures of
government, the structure and role of local institutions, the location of the planning department and its role,
the manner in which budgeting was approached and the broader location of the M&E function.
South Africa (Ian Goldman) and Burundi (Saidi Kibeya) generate new directions
David Himbara (CLEAR) and John Toh (Malaysia) exchange ideas
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 8
Table 2: Comparing the participating countries
SA Kenya Uganda Ghana Burundi Benin Senegal
Population (m) 48.8 43 35.8 25.2 8.4 9.6 13.0
Area (‘000 km2) 1 218 580 241 238 28 113 196
GDP/capita (US$) 7 275 775 509 1 283 192 750 1 042
Life expectancy
(female) 52 57 54 64 51 57 60
Regional units 9 provincial
governments
7 provincial
administrations
10 regional
councils - admin 17 provinces 12 departments 14 regions
Local
government
283 local
governments
(metro, district
and local levels)
Later 47 counties
and 280 district
administrations
112 districts
>1000
sub-counties
170 assemblies
(metropolitan,
municipal and
district levels)
129 communes 77 communes
Local services (in
addition to waste
and amenities)
Water, electricity,
local roads.
Metros have
wider powers.
Districts –
administrative
units, not gov.
M&E committees
Districts manage
services,
hospitals.
Subcounty
provides local
services
Provided by
district offices of
national gov
Planning, local
roads
Local dev
planning
Local roads
Decentralisation
planned
Long-term
national plan
2030 national
plan Vision 2030 Vision 2030 Vision 2020 Vision 2025 Vision 2025
Medium-term
national plan
No medium
term plan –
Med-term
strategic
framework
5 Year mediumterm
national
plan (ex PRSP)
National
development
plan
4 year Shared
Growth and
Dev Agenda,
(GSGDA) not a
plan
5 year poverty
reduction
strategy (CSLP)
5 year poverty
reduction
strategy (SCRP)
Econ and
Social Dev Plan
(PODES) Poverty
reduction
strategy (SRP)
Dept/ sector
5 year outcome
/sector plans
5 year dept
plans
5 year sector
plans (1+ depts)
5 yr sector plans
1 yr Min Policy
5 year dept
multi-year
rolling plans
3-5 year dept
plans
5-10 yr sector
plans (1+ depts)
5 year sectoral
progs
Regional Provincial
plan
Dev Plan RCC Plan
Local District plan
Local plan
District Dev Plan District plan
Sub-County plan District plan Local dev plans Local dev plan
National
responsibility
DPME in
Presidency PM’s Office Office of PM Presidency Finance – M&E
of PRSP
OPM
– evaluation
Economy and
Finance – but
no overall
responsibility
Presidency/ OPM
DPME– main
focus term of
office outcomes,
policy,
evaluation
M&E Directorate
in PM’s office
Office of PM
– standards,
reviews gov
perf 2/year. Gov
Evaluation Facility
Policy Eval and
Oversight Unit –
main focus term
of office plans
M&E of annual
plans of
govern-ment
OPM - Evaluation
Sectoral
Accelerated
Growth
Public Sector
reform (DREAT)
– develops
strategies
+ monitors
policies
9 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
3.1 Benin
The national M&E system is organised around a
chain of parties which carry out planning, programming,
budgeting (PPBS), and monitoring and evaluation.
The powers of the different bodies of the PPBS
chain, as well as the way they operate, vary in terms
of the area to which the M&E system is applied.
This variation is more evident on the macro level
of the strategic and policy area of the institutional
framework.
The M&E mechanism of Benin relies on the national
statistics system for measurement and data.
Capacity building is needed in order for staff to keep
up to date and to promote the adoption of new tools.
Access to data and information remains a great challenge,
particularly access to data to be collected, but
also with regard to data already processed.
The low level of professionalism in the M&E system
contrasts with the relatively high level of its
organisation. The system has employees who
have considerable basic training, but there are not
many of them and their knowledge is not regularly
updated.
Information gathered through the M&E system is
not sufficiently taken into account. However, it can
be noted that there is positive development thanks
to the adoption of results-based management.
The institutionalisation of public policy evaluation in
Benin has included the development of a National
Evaluation Policy (NEP) for public policies which
constitutes good practice in the M&E system in
Benin. Local Participative Impact Monitoring (LPIM)
is a second example of good practice. LPIM still faces
major challenges, including the adoption of the approach
by different structures involved in its implementation,
and the challenge of creating functional
mechanisms for circulating information on three
levels (local, departmental and national).
3 LEARNING FROM AFRICAN CASE STUDIES
Topics Purpose Approach
Learning from
African case studies
To learn from other African M&E systems
with a view to extracting key insights and
sharing lessons learned.
Participants attended a minimum of four of the six
country case studies to learn from others’ experiences
and to gain insights for future sharing.
To facilitate more in-depth engagement and learning from each of the country case studies, each
case was presented in a small group format. The case study focused on the following information and
questions:
• An overview of the country’s structure, including the degree of decentralisation;
• An overview of the M&E system, identifying the key roles, key things happening in monitoring and
what is happening in terms of evaluation;
• The “example of good practice” case study, explaining what it is, how it works and what has been
achieved through it;
• What works well in the overall M&E system?
• What works well in the case study example of good practice?
• Key challenges for the M&E system overall?
• Key challenges for the case study of good practice?
• Key things the country would like to learn from others?
The presentations were accompanied by detailed draft case studies and executive summaries translated into
the two working languages of the workshop. Given the small group approach, participants were given the opportunity
and space to interact concerning details of the case study experiences and, in particular, the good
practices that have emerged in each instance. These executive summaries are available online. The following
provides a brief synopsis of each of the case studies.
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 10
3.2 Ghana
M&E has in the past decade become an integral
part of the policy formulation and implementation
process in Ghana. The output of the M&E process is
used for, amongst others, informing national development
planning as well as policy dialogue within
government and with civil society organisations and
development partners.
The institutional arrangements for both sector and
district M&E processes have been designed to facilitate
the active participation of stakeholders to
ensure that policy recommendations are relevant
and actually contribute to policy formulation and efficient
resource allocation and use.
In order to strengthen capacity in sectors, regions,
and districts to respond to M&E needs at national,
sector and district levels, M&E guidelines have
been developed to assist sectors and districts with
developing M&E plans.
After several years of implementing the national
M&E system, significant progress has been made.
However, challenges include severe financial constraints;
institutional, operational and technical capacity
constraints; and fragmented and uncoordinated
information, particularly at the sector level.
To address these challenges, the current institutional
arrangements will have to be reinforced with
adequate capacity to support and sustain effective
monitoring and evaluation, and existing M&E mechanisms
must be strengthened, harmonized and effectively
coordinated.
3.3 Burundi
In Burundi, M&E is rooted in the 2025 Vision for the
country, whereas in the past it was located in the
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). It is also
reflected in the three year and annual implementation
plans. The main actors in the process are the
Ministries of Finance and Planning and the Offices of
the President and Deputy President.
Monitoring is across sector and programme plans.
There is regular and ongoing direct monitoring of
local implementation through established performance
indicators. Linked to this is close review of the
plans and commitments developed at a local level.
The system in Burundi is still evolving, but good
practices are emerging in the terrain of localised
monitoring and in the synergies that are being established
between different institutional structures
within the system.
3.4 Kenya
Historically, integrated M&E in Kenya spans less than
a decade, although project and programme-based
M&E has featured in Kenya since the 1980s. Early
attempts at government-wide M&E are associated
with the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
(I-PRSP) introduced by the IMF and World Bank in
2000. This was followed by the establishment of
the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation
System (NIMES), and the creation of the Monitoring
and Evaluation Directorate.
NIMES has a three-tier institutional structure for
generating M&E information. At the national level
is the Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate. The
Directorate provides leadership and coordination
by ensuring that two vital sources of M&E information,
namely Annual Progress Reports (APR) on the
Medium Term Plan of Vision 2030 and the Annual
Public Expenditure Review (PER) are produced satisfactorily
and on time.
Kenya’s M&E system has had some influence on the
budget process. M&E information is drawn from
Kenya’s line ministries and synthesised into the
Public Expenditure Review that is now an important
input in achieving better value for the Kenyan public’s
taxes. These improvements are realised through
extensive budget deliberations in which sector
working groups and line ministries review proposals,
consider trade-offs and bid for budget allocations.
Despite the numerous achievements that have been
made under NIMES, Kenya’s M&E system still faces
challenges in the implementation i.e. human capital,
financial and infrastructural challenges. Kenya’s
Constitution 2010 has fundamentally changed central
and devolved governance structures and provides
an opportunity for strengthening the country’s
M&E system as well as posing a risk for its continued
existence in that there is uncertainty over political
direction.
3.5 Uganda
Uganda’s development of M&E is closely woven with
the need to demonstrate government performance
11 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
and responsiveness to citizens’ demands as an indicator
of good governance. A motivating factor for
raised interest in M&E was the need to measure the
achievements of the country’s premier planning
framework, the Plan for the Eradication of Poverty
(PEAP), which was introduced in 1997.
M&E in Uganda is coordinated by a unit in the Office
of the Prime Minister (OPM). The OPM is mandated
to review the performance of all ministries, departments
and agencies (MDAs) against stipulated targets
semi-annually and annually.
Alongside the government M&E structure is a small
but growing arm of evaluative practice by civil society,
including national and international NGOs operating
in Uganda.
The primary challenge at sector level is to harmonise
data from all the M&E systems before onward transmission
to the OPM. Secondly, OPM has to harmonise
all the data from the different sectors and make
it available for use. The evaluation tools presently
used by government include ministerial policy statements
and budget framework papers, half-annual
and annual cabinet retreats to review government
performance, the community information system,
the annual budget performance report and Barazas.
Three major sources of data for M&E in the country
include: programme performance information,
social, economic and demographic statistics and
evaluations. Social, economic and demographic statistics
are available from routine surveys and decennial
censuses. Professional capacity in terms of skills
and experience in M&E is dispersed throughout various
MDAs.
Policy-level demand for M&E products to inform
decision-making is still low and a culture of managers
seeking M&E data to improve performance
is still evolving. The incentive framework to drive
M&E practices in public service systems is also still
weak. Limited use is attributed to poor information
dissemination and the inability of the institution to
build capacity for the timely generation and distribution
of information.
The Baraza is a community participation approach
for M&E in Uganda. It is one of the most recent initiatives
of the Government of Uganda (GoU) that was
initiated by the President and launched in 2009 by
OPM. Barazas are leading to improved and open
accountability and a sense of ownership of government
programs by local communities.
An important step in improving the country’s M&E
would be to create greater convergence and wider
integration between the public service and civil
society.
3.6 South Africa
In 2005 the South African Government introduced
a government-wide M&E policy framework. This
framework served to establish the initial momentum
for a structured approach to M&E, which gained
added commitment after the national elections in
May 2009.
A number of transversal institutions are involved
in the implementation of the overall M&E system.
These include: The Department of Performance
Monitoring and Evaluation, located in the Presidency,
National Treasury, the Department of Public Service
and Administration, the Auditor-General, the
Department of Cooperative Governance, Statistics
SA and the Public Service Commission.
M&E is closely associated with the planning process
in government. In addition to recent processes
directed at affirming long-term plans for the country,
South Africa has a five year overarching Medium
Term Strategic Framework, five year departmental
strategic plans and annual performance plans
(APPs). National Treasury monitors quarterly reporting
against APPs.
In order to focus government’s work, the ‘outcomes
approach’ was introduced in 2009, focusing on 12
strategic priorities. The 12 priorities are translated
into performance agreements for ministers, crossgovernment
plans for each outcome and quarterly
monitoring with reporting to Cabinet. The outcomes
approach is becoming embedded. Reports are now
taken seriously by the President and Cabinet, and
are being made public. This makes it easier for the
public to hold the executive to account. However,
there are still challenges with respect to data quality
and coordination.
A management performance assessment tool
(MPAT) has been introduced by DPME which is being
taken up by departments. The process involves selfassessment
by national and provincial departments.
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 12
Key challenges include a culture of compliance but
not actually using M&E to reflect on and improve
performance. Another challenge is duplication of reporting.
There are also weaknesses in the planning
system, which is fragmented with different institutions
playing different roles, and a lack of effective
theories of change.
3.7 Senegal
The 2001 Constitution is the legal mechanism which
set M&E in motion in Senegal. In its preamble, the
Constitution demands adherence to transparency in
the conducting and management of public business
and to the principle of good governance. The constitutional
demand for transparency was translated
into a series of related laws and decrees.
Planning, monitoring and evaluation functions fall
mainly under the Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Finance, which, in its organisational structure, provides
for several bodies concerned with aspects of
the M&E function.
The evaluation tools used in the project evaluation
framework are essentially the ‘results method’ and
cost-benefit analysis. Medium-term sector-based
expenditure frameworks are progressively being introduced
into sector ministries. The completion of
implementation of this approach will give rise to a
results-based management system across Senegal.
Performance contracts are starting to develop in
some departments, with the objective of evaluating
personnel rather than grading them.
The types of evaluation carried out include: midterm
evaluation, followed by pre-evaluation, process
evaluation and final evaluation. Impact and exante
assessments are less frequent. An M&E system
requires reliable, quality data to be effective. For
this purpoe, Senegal has set up the Department
for Forecasting and Economic Research and the
National Agency for Statistics and Demography.
The Annual Report on the Absorption of External
Resources (RARE) has been recognised as good M&E
practice for project and programme implementation.
This instrument has contributed to an improved
performance culture through the issuing of financial
reports and reports on activities.
Interpretation was provided throughout the workshop
13 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
4 EXTRACTING KEY INSIGHTS AND GOOD PRACTICES
Topics Purpose Approach
Extracting key insights and
examples of good practice
To extract key insights and
identify good practice from the
African case studies
Within mixed groups, participants reflected on key
insights and practices and recorded these as a basis
for encouraging further and more detailed exchange.
Following participation in the case study presentations, participants gathered in small, mixed groups
to discuss their key insights from attending the various case studies. During their discussions they also
focused on identifying good practice in the field of M&E, discussed their strengths and weaknesses and
agreed on the three most significant examples of good practice. The following are some of the initially
identifiable examples of good practice that emerged from the deliberations:
Kenya: Reporting systems based on their medium and long-term plans
Evolving policy framework
Ghana: Web-based data capturing and monitoring system
Tracking of delivery and linkage with planning
Uganda: Community based monitoring systems
Evaluation coordination
Benin: Political championing and policy framework
Senegal: Linkages between budgeting and planning
South Africa: The outcomes system
Frontline service delivery assessments
The practices that emerged continued to feature in all deliberations and served to enhance interaction
amongst the participating country representatives. They also served to inform perspectives on future learning
opportunities and approaches that could be replicated in other situations and contexts.
Left: Facilitators Marc Steinlin and
Catherine Widrig Jenkins
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 14
5 LEARNING FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
Topics Purpose Approach
Learning from the Colombian and
Malaysian experiences
To learn from the Colombian
and Malaysian experiences of
M&E
Following plenary presentations,
participants focused on the key
insights that would be relevant for
their own context.
5.1 The Colombian experience of M&E
Mr Manuel Castro presented the focus of the institution responsible for M&E in Colombia, called SINERGIA. He
gave an overview of the context in Colombia and the realities that created a wider momentum for M&E. He
noted that SINERGIA was established as part of wider public sector reform initiatives.
SINERGIA was specifically set up to help improve the effectiveness of public policies. SINERGIA does this by
helping to enhance the supply, quality and credibility of performance information (robust methodologies,
standards), facilitating access (integrated IT systems, reporting, etc.) and fostering demand (the use of performance
information in policy decision-making and accountability).
Figure 3: M&E in SINERGIA
Inputs Outputs Outcomes Impacts
Results Chain
In Colombia leadership is exercised through a range of participating government institutions.
In the SINERGIA model, the “M” & the “E” functions are thought to be
complementary and balanced. Monitoring helps identify what to evaluate.
Evaluation emphasises what to monitor.
15 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
Figure 4: Levels of monitoring
Financial monitoring… based on PFMIS and budgetary indicators
Agencies lagging
on budget
Ten lessons from experience of Colombia’s M&E system are:
1) When there are multiple players, leadership roles and responsibilities must be sorted out and clear.
Coordination is needed.
2) There is no one best way. Never simply adopt another’s evaluation model.
3) Change never stops. Although we have a long history we are still trying to improve.
4) Performance reporting is important and helps build trust. Public access to performance information
is a powerful driver of change.
5) Good knowledge of the program base is essential.
6) Information quality and credibility depend on robust methodologies for M&E work.
7) Incentives are key to achieve utilisation and foster cultural change.
8) Need to influence budget and planning processes to be relevant. Should go hand in hand with public
sector reform.
9) Continuous development of evaluation capacity is required.
10) Avoid complex systems. (Keep it simple).
5.2 Learning from the Malaysian experience of
promoting priority outcomes
The presentation on the Malaysian experience was made by Mr John Toh, head of the Performance Management
and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) in the Office of the Prime Minister in the Government of Malaysia. Malaysia implements
an approach that focuses on national priority areas and a limited range of outcomes.
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 16
Figure 5: Priority outcomes in Malaysia
National Priority Areas (Focus)
Urban Public Transport
Crime Reduction
Rural Basic Infrastructure
Education
Low Income Household
Fighting Corruption
Overall Performance 2010 Results
107%
168%
91%
156%
79%
120%
Overall Composite Scoring 121%
12x Economic Sectors, e.g.
 Oil, Gas & Energy
 Palm Oil
 Agriculture
 Financial Services
 Etc…
6x Strategic Reforms
 Human Capital
Development
 Liberalisation of service
sectors
 Etc…
Ministerial Scorecards are developed, tied to the overall planning process in Malaysia and is characterised by
a high level of commitment from the Prime Minister, and a Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister. He outlined
the manner in which the system functioned and simplicity by which scores are calculated and delivered
to Ministers through a single interface in a Blackberry Phone provided to each of the Ministers.
Figure 6: Ministerial scorecard annual cycle
In addition to the simple structure for reporting, there is a high level of political support and action where there
is a low level of performance. Malaysia has introduced an approach to managing the consequences of nonperformance
called ‘consequence management’. Toh also detailed the tracking system and a system that ranks
ministers according to performance which, in practice, enhances competition amongst the different ministries.
Operationally the system is linked to performance meetings between the Prime Minister and ministers – within
which scores are mediated (re: self-evaluation and the evaluation conducted by the unit).
Performance Management Framework
Minister Scorecard Annual Cycle
Target Setting
1
Oct – Dec ‘10 Jan ‘11 Jun’ 11 Dec ‘11 Jan ‘12 March ‘12
PM-Minister
Performance Review
(Mid Year)
PM-Minister
Performance Review
(Year-End)
Cabinet
Peer Review
4
Consequence
Management
5
Implementation/
Action Plan
2
Weekly, Monthly and Quarterly Performance
Monitoring
3
Feedback loop
PM’s feedback to his
Minister
Annual target settings are tied to the
5-years National Economic Development Plan, and
10-year Government Transformation Programme
17 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
Figure 7: Ongoing reporting of results
Rigorous tracking & reporting of results
(All Ministers and Heads are assigned a Blackberry) #1
The system in Malaysia also includes a ministerial peer review process which is carried out in a systematic manner,
with ministers commenting directly on the performance of their peers. As part of consequence management
there have been instances where officials are put in ‘cold storage’ (another post until departure from the
public service), and ministers have been removed. The idea of cold storage is not only to shame the individual
for lack of performance, but also to establish a channel for the eventual departure or movement of the person
to a post that is more appropriate to their skills level. Malaysia has also set up a system of annual reviews of
their M&E work and results by an International Review Panel.
Some key challenges and ongoing measures to address these are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Challenges and mitigation measures
Challenge Mitigation
Ministries/departments may “game the system” i.e.
lobby for lower or easy targets Need to constantly check and challenge
Ensuring the results are real and accurate We use the Auditor-General’s Office & external audit firms to
verify the figures submitted by ministries/departments
Communication to the public (which are getting more
sophisticated and inquisitive)
Endorsement from Independent Performance Review
Committee
Publish all ministers’ results (Annual Report)
Ensuring the improvements/changes are sustainable Institutionalise some of the changes (policies & procedures)
Civil service workshop and courses - continuous learning
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 18
6 IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR M&E IN AFRICA
Topics Purpose Approach
Identifying opportunities and
challenges for M&E in Africa.
To establish a set of opportunities
and challenges that would be most
appropriate for M&E in Africa
In self-selected groups, participants worked on
establishing and prioritising opportunities and
challenges for M&E in Africa.
While reflecting on participating countries’ experiences and the experiences of Colombia and Malaysia,
participants focused on identifying the opportunities and challenges for M&E in Africa. These were captured,
tabulated and ranked in order of importance. As per the discussion, the following topics were
deemed priority areas for further learning and engagement by governments.
1) Effective models for community based monitoring;
2) Monitoring and evaluation competencies, standards and capacity development initiatives;
3) Experience of evaluations;
4) How to make M&E systems credible;
5) Institutional and management capacity for M&E;
6) Rapid skills audit and capacity building;
7) Inculcating a culture of M&E across government to improve performance;
8) Developing models and tools for effective communication about M&E;
9) An approach that strengthens the coordination structures of the M&E champion within the highest
level of state;
10) Appropriate policies to guide M&E strategy and actions across government.
Using a voting system, the participants ranked the topics in terms of which ones should be prioritised for deliberation.
As part of this process, a series of small group discussions was initiated and hosted by the participants.
These discussions were directed at building approaches to particular topics of interest and planning for further
engagements. Report-backs on the topic discussions were formalised and each host produced a brief written
report on the discussion, and on objectives and activities that could be planned for the future. The reports, as
generated by each host, are available separately. Interpretations of the guiding framework for the discussions
varied across groups.
Vivienne Simwa notes links with
other countries
19 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
7 REFLECTING ON IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
IN COUNTRY CONTEXTS
Topics Purpose Approach
Reflecting on
implementation challenges
in country contexts.
To reflect on what issues we
need to address most urgently
in our respective national
contexts.
Within country groups participants reflected on
the challenges that need to be addressed and the
opportunities that could be pursued as a result of the
exchange
Country groups reflected on the key opportunities and challenges for the future. The approach to identifying
the opportunities and challenges varied and hence is captured in broad terms in table 4 below.
These opportunities and challenges were generated within country groups and hence were based on a
combination of prior reflection and future oriented perspectives that emerged as a result of the learning
that unfolded during the workshop.
Table 4: Opportunities and challenges identified by country teams
Benin Burundi
Opportunities Challenges Opportunities Challenges
• The availability of
adequate capacity for M&E
• A high level of political
support for M&E
• Existence of the necessary
structures for M&E
• Roles clarified for M&E
• The availability of good
quality statistical data
• Reinforcement of
capacities for the work
• The legal mandate for
M&E
• Linkages with the public
• Planning of detailed
activities for M&E
• Structure within the
presidency
• Past volatility and now
stability for new system
• All parties can be involved
in M&E
• M&E management
is fragmented in
government
• Capacity for the collection
of statistics is limited
• Lack of finances for M&E
• The commitment of
sector ministers and from
services that have been
decentralised
Ghana Kenya
Opportunities Challenges Opportunities Challenges
• Widening M&E beyond
the executive arm of
government
• Activate the PPMED at
the national level and its
equivalent at the local
level to perform their M&E
function
• Develop national
consensus on
communication model
of M&E linked to centrally
accepted theory of
change
• Linking M&E to national
development planning
with M&E at the level of
public administration
• Constitutional constraints
and the principle of the
separation of powers
• Financial and technical
resources to strengthen
capacity and motivate
personnel to commit
to performing their
functions
• Reconciliation of group
interest and sectorial
aspirations
• Public institutions
focusing on their core
functions
• Grading system for
performance
• Consequence
management
• Linking M&E to budgeting
• More focus on evaluation
• Baraza system
• Leadership championing
M&E at the top
• Simple reliable and
frequent assessments
• Legal mandate
• Human and financial
capacity
• Championship at the top
level
• Reconciling evidence with
reports
• Resistance to M&E
• Cultural barriers to sharing
M&E and results
• Non-confrontational
culture
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 20
Uganda Senegal
Opportunities Challenges Opportunities Challenges
• Approval of the M&E
policy
• Strong political will and
support
• Good will from DPs.
• Strong M&E and Technical
Working Group
• Strong institutional
arrangement
• Targeting setting
• Barazas – citizen based
monitoring
• Increased demand for
evaluations
• Political will and
sustainability
• Human resources and
capacity gap
• Failure to appreciate the
role of M&E
• Lack of adequate finances
• Affirmation of M&E in the
Constitution
• Existence of research
institutions
• Reforms underway of a
number of institutions
• The system has
demonstrated capacity
• Coherence of the system
• Institutional framework
for M&E
• Financing of M&E
• Utilisation of evaluation
methodologies
• Systemisation of ex-ante
evaluations
• Computer systems for
evaluation
• Diffused manner in which
evaluations are utilised
South Africa
Opportunities Challenges
• Political commitment
• An enabling environment
• Opportunity to influence public sector reform
• M&E is on national agenda
• Link with National Productivity Institute
• Develop the concept of programmes
• Learn from others
• Rationalise reporting roles and responsibilities
• Practical technical mechanism to build alliances and strong
work relationships
• Lack of hands-on political leadership
• Sustainability across political cycles
• Stakeholders not clear about what we are trying to
achieve
• Fragmented and poor data systems
• Lack of coherence and consistency across national
government
• High expectations for M&E to deliver quickly
• Lack of M&E culture and skills
• We need to be strategic
• Increased working together might create tensions
• Strengthen M&E in local government
• Little public communication


23 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
8 DEBATE ON TAKING IMPLEMENTATION FORWARD
Topics Purpose Approach
Debate on Taking
Implementation forward
To establish how the respective
African countries intend to take M&E
implementation forward
Country groups worked on a strategy for
taking the process forward.
A debate/panel discussion was arranged which began with inputs from the heads of the delegations
from each of the participating countries. The heads of the delegations offered some initial thoughts on
implementation challenges and then engaged with participants on the essential issues embedded in
implementing an M&E system. Key questions that needed further exploration were identified as follows:
• How do we embark on evaluation as an integral part of public management (belief and practice)?
• What are the most effective ways of developing evaluation capacity in Africa?
• How are M&E systems integrated with planning and budgeting?
• How do other countries do it: similarities/uniqueness/use in different systems?
• What are the successes and challenges in other countries in relation to M&E? Are there common
principles/roles that exist across the African continent? (Can what works in Asia/Europe work in
Africa?)
• How do we institutionalise M&E in government and ensure that M&E information is utilised
effectively?
• How do we ensure results are shared and used at all levels of governance?
• How do we ensure a culture of M&E and move beyond compliance?
• How do we ensure that the decisions taken after an evaluation are implemented?
• How does one champion and promote national ownership of M&E systems?
• What is the role of civil society organisations in M&E?
• M&E is a useful tool for improvement but why is it not used?
• How do you integrate M&E in a decentralised (diverse) system of government?
During the debate, various issues were identified as critical for implementation, as follows:
• Building political commitment;
• Creating a policy framework to ensure sustainability into the future, and development of the technical
capacities required for introducing systems;
• Coordination of the work of varied departments and institutions;
• Allocation of dedicated resources for M&E;
• Centralised structures for M&E;
• Public engagement in an M&E system.
In addition to exploring a range of issues and engaging in debate on the contextual differences across the continent,
the heads of the delegations also interacted with questions and comments that were submitted by cell
phone to an internet-based system which enabled live interaction between the participants and the panellists.
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 24
The comments and additions are captured in Table 5.
Table 5: Selected comments and questions from participants, received by SMS
How could we collectively influence fragmented institutional arrangements for M&E?
Considering the culture of Kenya how do you plan to sell the idea of consequence management?
Monitoring and evaluation is functional for dictatorships as it gives dictators a sense of control and facilitates the process
of ensuring patronage is distributed from the centre of government....
We may learn a lot but how do we build capacity to address the demand we are creating?
I think capacity in Africa exists to manage M and E! Are we just not committed to making it happen?
Can an undemocratic, corrupt government run an M&E system?
Are computer systems a resource or a trap?
M&E systems should be long term. Governments often think short-term (next election!) How do we bridge the gap?
..à moins que M&E pratique s’améliore, il sera un luxe que nous ne pouvons pas afford..
I agree that at the centre, capacity in Uganda is good but it needs to improve in the sectors and in local government.
M&E is based on the presumption of an intelligent centre - what happens if the centre is not so intelligent?
A lot of the systems still focus on activity information... How do you move to truly results-based management?
essayer de faire du système de SE un outil de prise de décisions et orientations de politiques de long terme et non pas
un outil de gestion au quotidien de court terme
le système de SE est-il quelque chose de dynamique ou de fige
....we need a deeper motivation for an M&E Charter...we cannot say that we need a Charter because other Charters
exist....
Even as the heads of the delegations noted variation in context and in approaches across the continent,
they all expressed support for a more coordinated approach to M&E and for a fixed policy framework to
ensure future sustainability. As a collective, they also noted the importance of establishing the required
capacities for the future, of ensuring that the system is simple so that it has the requisite impact, and of
securing wider buy-in to M&E.
25 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
9 OPEN SPACE SESSIONS: EXPLORATION OF TOPICS FOR FURTHER EXCHANGE
Topics Purpose Approach
Exploration of topics and areas for
further exchange
To explore the ideas emerging from
the workshop and develop ways to
take them forward
Within groups participants reflected on
topics that merit being taken forward into
the future.
Through discussion in ‘open space’ sessions, people identified a number of topics that they would like
to further explore in the future. Open space sessions are self-organising spaces where particular issues
can be unpacked. The open space sessions that arose are broadly summarised as follows:
• Good policy and practice in M&E and the use of executive/presidential authority to achieve this;
• Establishing the distinction between monitoring and evaluation;
• Computerised systems and related processes for results;
• Good evaluation systems and the related structures that sustain institutionalisation;
• Systems for the overall management of performance;
• Building and sustaining political commitment for M&E;
• Systems and methodologies for sustaining priority objectives;
• Frameworks and approaches for the integration of planning and budgeting;
• Systems and processes for data collection and monitoring;
• Approaches directed at ensuring that there is a focus on the measurement of results;
• Frameworks and approaches for participatory monitoring and evaluation and the general inclusion
of communities;
• Methodologies and approaches for the monitoring of frontline service delivery.
It is anticipated that these topics will feature in bilateral and multilateral engagements that unfold in the future.
The reports from these open space sessions can be found online.
Left: A facilitator works with country groups to develop action plans
Above: Sulley Gariba encourages partcipants to be self critical
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 26
10 FORMULATING COUNTRY NOTES OF INTENT
Topics Purpose Approach
Formulating country
notes of intent
Each country to elaborate
on how they will take M&E
implementation forward in their
specific country
Country groups were given the opportunity to establish
how they would take issues forward in their particular
context and how responsibilities would be distributed
Country teams engaged in detailed discussions about their intentions for the future influenced by the
learning that had unfolded within the workshop. Each country approached the discussion about ‘future
intention’ in different ways. Whilst some documented their future plans in relative detail, others broadly
captured the areas of exchange they would want to engage upon in the future. It is anticipated that the
participating countries will use the discussions to shape their own internal strategies. In each instance,
the countries provided brief report-backs on their priority issues for follow-up. These are briefly captured
as follows:
• Benin: Benin felt it was important to introduce monitoring of frontline service delivery. The country
would look at structural and capacity issues in M&E, including the management of consequences as in
Malaysia. It would also focus attention on a strategy for the mobilisation of resources for M&E.
• Burundi: Burundi felt it was particularly important to operationalise an M&E structure within the
Presidency. Burundi will also develop a guide for M&E and for the assessment of delivery in accordance
with annual plans. It was also considered essential that there be an action plan for the communication
of results to the wider public.
• Kenya: The immediate focus would be approval of the legal framework for M&E and conducting of
a capacity audit for M&E. Kenya would also look at introducing a participatory M&E methodology. In
terms of future interactions with others, Kenya would like to learn more about evaluation tools such as
those used in Malaysia. A study visit to Malaysia will be arranged to look at the ‘consequence management’
approach that has been introduced.
• Senegal: Senegal will focus some its attention on the development of a national policy on M&E. This
will include looking at ways in which M&E findings can feed into the decision-making process and
would be linked to the national good governance programme. This programme would be updated to
reflect the strategic role of M&E. Enhanced capacity building in line ministries will also be prioritised.
• South Africa: In the initial period, substantive attention will be focused on ensuring that approaches
are simplified and that all stakeholders understand what is being done. The country will also look at introducing
a legal framework to sustain M&E work and ensure that authority is appropriately located. As
part of the process, South Africa would also look towards managing cultural change, linked to a system
of consequence management. Attention will also be given to introducing innovative methods and a
system for citizen participation in M&E.
• Uganda: As an immediate step forward, Uganda intends to arrange a study tour to Malaysia. It would
be keen to introduce a system for monitoring frontline service delivery. Of particular importance
would be a system for performance assessment, linked to a data capturing system and changed
institutional arrangements. Of particular interest would be using/adapting the tools developed in
Malaysia. Attention in the immediate future will also be focused on capacity building for the conduct of
evaluations.
• Ghana: A number of priorities have been established and the general starting point would be to look
at the structural arrangements for M&E and how these can be optimised. As part of this process, there
would be a review of the Constitutional and policy elements that facilitate M&E. A further area that
would be explored is the misalignment between budgeting and priorities established within plans.
Ghana is interested in pursuing citizen participation and their inclusion in monitoring frontline delivery.
Ghana would also look to a framework for the proper costing of sector and district plans.
27 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
11 ENVISAGING THE CONTINUATION
OF THE EXCHANGE
Topics Purpose Approach
Envisaging the continuation
of the exchange
To discuss and share ideas with
regard to continuing the peer
exchange about M&E systems
Within a small representative groups participants
focused on how the initiative could be taken
forward.
To facilitate dialogue about the next steps countries continued to work on their notes of intent while, in
parallel, a group was established to define the next steps in the wider process.
Various ideas were put forward with regard to facilitating further exchange. Contact points and champions
would need to be identified to facilitate agreement on bilateral projects. Of particular importance for exchange
would be the establishment of an appropriately modelled ICT forum. A declaration should be developed, perhaps
linked to a ministerial communication. It was noted that the country case studies needed to move towards
publication, subject to an international review. The opportunity afforded by Benin’s ‘evaluation week’
could be used for the presentation of the case studies. Additional countries could be invited to contribute to
the process and the products should, where appropriate, be linked to knowledge institutions.
To facilitate further learning, it was deemed imperative that one page summaries of key processes be developed.
These should include some information on what is needed, what can be shared and the nature of possible
bilateral cooperation. It was considered imperative that the process be linked to the work of existing institutions
and forums. The group identified the following institutions, as a starting point: the African Evaluation
Association (AfrEA), the South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association (SAMEA), the International
Development Evaluation Association (IDEAS), the Conference of African Ministers of Public Service (CAMPS)
and the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development results (APCoP – MfDR). As appropriate,
resources that can be used will be identified.
As a key step forward, the overall process should be reviewed, under the guidance of CLEAR. This would include
a review of what has emerged to date and what should frame the exchange into the future. This review
could be released to coincide with the release of the publications.
In addition it should be noted that the following areas of overlap exist between countries’ areas of interest.
Table 6: Areas of common interest
Action Countries
Frontline service delivery Benin, Uganda, Ghana
Consequence management Benin, Kenya, South Africa
Resource mobilization Benin, Ghana
Reviewing the position of M&E in government Burundi, Kenya, Ghana
Improving delivery through M&E Burundi, Uganda
Citizen participation Burundi, Kenya, South Africa, Ghana
Communication South Africa
Implementation of an updated policy and legal
framework
Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, Ghana
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 28
12 CLOSURE
During the closing session, participants expressed their appreciation for the hosting of the workshop and the
energetic work of CLEAR and DPME. Participants also urged that CLEAR continue to champion the initiative to
ensure that future exchange opportunities are made available and that there be deeper and wider learning
from country experiences. Participants evaluated the workshop and a post event feedback session was arranged
with the facilitators. The evaluation results are captured in Annexure C.
The workshop was closed by Dr Sean Phillips, Director General of the Department of Performance Monitoring
and Evaluation in South Africa. In addition to expressing the Minister’s and his own commitment to sustaining
the linkages established and fostering cross-country learning, he thanked participants for accepting the invitation
to participate, and for their contribution to making the workshop a success.
In conclusion, Dr Phillips thanked the DPME organisers and CLEAR for their immense support and efforts towards
making the workshop successful. He further thanked the partners, especially GIZ, for the support provided
for this particular initiative and their on-going support for M&E in Africa.
29 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
ANNEXURE A: PARTICIPANT LIST
Country Title Name Surname Email address
1 Senegal Mr Momar Aly Ndiaye ndiayem02@gmail
2 Senegal Mr Waly Faye walyfaye40@hotmail.com
3 Senegal Mr Arona Dia diarona@yahoo.fr
4 Senegal Mr Seikhou Diakhabi diafa2000@hotmail.com
5 Senegal Mr Bamba Hanne bhanne@ucspe.sn
6 Senegal Mr Mamadou Faye fayecons@yahoo.fr
7 Ghana Dr Tony Aidoo tonyaidoo14@gmail.com
8 Ghana Dr Charles Amoatey charlesamoatey@yahoo.com
9 Ghana Mr Joshua Opoku Nsiah nsiahopoku@yahoo.com
10 Burundi Dr Saidi Kibeya s_kibeya@yahoo.fr
11 Burundi Mr Cyriaque Miburo cyrimibu@yahoo.fr
12 Burundi Mr Cyriaque Niyihora cyriaque2002@yahoo.fr
13 Burundi Ms Speciose Nahayo spesnah@yahoo.fr
14 Kenya Mr Samson Machuka smmasese@yahoo.com
15 Kenya Mr Francis Muteti francismuteti@yahoo.com
16 Kenya Ms Vivienne Charity Awino Simwa vcawino@yahoo.com
17 Kenya Mr Boscow Odhiambo Okumu kodhis2000@gmail.com
18 Uganda Mr Albert Byamugisha byamugisha@gmail.com
19 Uganda Dr Patrick Birungi pbirungi2000@yahoo.com
20 Uganda Ms Winnie Nabiddo Mukisa mukisawinnie@yahoo.com
21 Uganda Mr Ibrahim Wandera wanderaibrahim@yahoo.com
22 Benin Mr Aristide N. Djidjoho adjidjoho@gmail.com
23 Benin Ms Justine A. Odjoube adekjust41@yahoo.fr
24 Benin Mr Aristide Fiacre Djossou aristid_djos@yahoo.fr
25 Benin Mr Mirianaud O. Agbadome agbadome@gmail.com
26 South Africa Dr Ian Goldman Ian@po.gov.za
27 South Africa Ms Nkamang Tsotetsi nkamang@po.gov.za
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 30
Country Title Name Surname Email address
28 South Africa Dr Sean Phillips sean@po.gov.za
29 South Africa Mr Ismail Akhalwaya nkamang@po.gov.za
30 South Africa Ms Nolwazi Gasa Nolwazi@po.gov.za
31 South Africa Mr Stanley Ntakumba stanley.ntakumba@po.gov.za
32 South Africa Mr Jabu Mathe Jabu@po.gov.za
33 South Africa  Ms Ledule Bosch leduleb@dpsa.gov.za
34 South Africa Ms Malado Kaba Judith-Wanjiku.Khenisa@eeas.europa.eu
35 South Africa Mr Bruno Luthuli nkamang@po.gov.za
36 South Africa Ms Samukelisiwe Mkhatshwa nkamang@po.gov.za
37  South Africa Ms Rosina Maphalla rosina@po.gov.za
38 South Africa Mr Stephen Porter stephen.porter@wits.ac.za
39 South Africa Ms Portia Marks portia.marks@wits.ac.za
40 South Africa Mr Salim Latib salim.latib@wits.ac.za
41 South Africa Dr Kambidima Wotela kambidima.wotela@wits.ac.za
42 South Africa Ms Asha Sekomo ashou8@gmail.com
43 South Africa Mr Kadima wa Kilonji kadima@webmail.co.za
44 South Africa Ms Catherine Widrig Jenkins catherine.widrigjenkins@i-p-k.ch
45 South Africa Mr Marc Steinlin marc.steinlin@i-p-k.ch
46 South Africa Dr David Himbara david.himbara@gmail.com
47 South Africa Mr Ruan Kitshoff ruan.kitshoff@giz.de
48 Argentina Ms Ximena Fernandez Ordonez xfernandezordone@worldbank.org
49 Ghana Dr Sulley Gariba sulley.gariba@gmail.com
50 Niger Mr Boureima Gado boureima_gado@yahoo.fr
51 Tunisia Ms Jessica Kitakule-Mukungu j.kitakule-mukungu@afdb.org
52 Malaysia Mr John Toh John.Toh@pemandu.gov.my
53 Colombia Mr Manuel Fernando Castro Quiroz mcastroq@worldbank.org
54  Senegal Dr El Hadji Gueye elhadji.gueye@cesag.sn
31 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
ANNEXURE B: STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP
No Topics Purpose Approach
1 Compiling
perspectives on M&E
To build a common understanding
of the many different perspectives
on M&E systems within the room.
Participants discussed their views
on M&E issues and challenges and
moved between different groups to
establish a set of common questions for
exploration.
2 Expert overview
of M&E systems
worldwide
To gain an overview of M&E
systems worldwide with a
view to developing a common
understanding of different models
and terminology
Following content presentations from
experts, participants expressed their
perspectives on critical issues and
generated a mind –map of issues that
need to be considered.
3 Learning from
African case studies
To learn from other African M&E
systems with a view to extracting
key insights and lessons learned.
Participants attended a minimum of
four of the six country case studies to
learn from the experience and to extract
insights for future sharing.
4 Extracting key
insights and
examples of good
practice
To extract key insights and identify
good practice from the African case
studies
Within mixed groups, participants
reflected on key insights and practices
and recorded these as a basis for
encouraging further and more detailed
exchange.
5 Learning from
the Colombian
and Malaysian
experiences
To learn from the Colombian and
Malaysian experiences of M&E
Following plenary presentations,
participants focused on the key insights
that would be relevant for their own
context.
6 Identifying
opportunities and
challenges for M&E in
Africa.
To establish a set of opportunities
and challenges that would be most
appropriate for M&E in Africa
In self-selected groups participants
worked on establishing and prioritising
opportunities and challenges for M&E
in Africa.
7 Reflecting on
implementation
challenges in country
contexts.
To reflect on what issues we need
to address most urgently in our
respective national contexts.
Within country groups participants
reflected on the challenges that need
to be addressed and the opportunities
that could be pursued as a result of the
exchange
8 Debate on Taking
Implementation
forward
To establish how the respective
African countries intend to take
M&E implementation forward
Country groups worked on a strategy
for taking the process forward.
9 Exploration of topics
and areas for further
exchange
To explore the ideas emerging from
the workshop and develop ways to
take them forward
Within groups participants reflected on
topics that merit being taken forward
into the future.
10 Formulating country
notes of intent
To elaborate how we intend to
make M&E implementation forward
in our country
Country groups were given the
opportunity of specifying how they
would take issues forward in their
country context and the distribution of
responsibilities.
11 Envisaging the
continuation of the
exchange
To discuss and share ideas with
regard to continuing the peer
exchange about M&E systems
Within a small representative groups
participants focused on how the
initiative could be taken forward.
12 Closure Share feedback on the conference In plenary summarise thoughts and
feeling towards the process
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND LEARNING AMONGST PEERS 32
ANNEXURE C: WORKSHOP EVALUATION
Overall the participants rated the workshop as good (4) to excellent (5) on critical areas that were surveyed.
Males had a slightly more positive view of the objectives met and the overall quality of the workshop. Females
had a slightly more positive view of the relevance, potential for application and the opportunity to develop
networks. The post-workshop survey was completed by 33 of the 48 active participants.
Row Labels
Extent to
which overall
objectives were
met
Overall
quality
Relevance
to work
Potential to
apply the
knowledge/
skills gained
Opportunity
to develop
networks
Male 4.71 4.46 4.48 4.43 4.39
Female 4.11 4.00 4.67 4.63 4.44
Grand Total 4.55 4.33 4.53 4.48 4.41
NOTES

35 AFRICAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP
THE PRESIDENCY
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
DEPARTMENT: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results (CLEAR)
Graduate School of Public and Development Management,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
www.theclearinitiative.org
Date
Topic Tag
Regional Center Tag
Resource Type Tag
Language Type Tag
Image Thumb
w