Transcript Linkages and Synergies in Results Oriented Planning and

MfDR Linkages and Synergies in
Results Oriented Planning and
Monitoring - A Case for Uganda
By
Ssentongo Mukisa Peter
Assistant Commissioner for Coordination and Monitoring
Office of the Prime Minister, Government of Uganda
[email protected]
Presented at the
High Level Forum on Managing for Development Results
Hanoi, Vietnam
4th – 8th February, 2007
The Greater Accountability and
Service Delivery Framework
Improving
Uganda’s
development
outcomes requires strengthening the
accountability relationship between:
The Ugandan Citizens and Policy Makers;
The Ugandan Citizens and Service Providers
(public/private);
The Policy makers and Service Providers
(Public/Private)
The Greater Accountability and Service
Delivery Framework
Greater Accountability Framework
Policy
Makers
Government
Executive
Service Delivery Mechanisms
Central
Government
Local
Governments
Citizens
Service
Providers
(Private/Public)
Citizens
Service
Providers
(Private/Public
))
The Greater Accountability and
Service Delivery Framework
Key things which the citizens value are:
Better Outcomes
Better Public Service delivery mechanism
Trust in Government
COMPONENTS OF PUBLIC VALUE
OUTCOMES
SERVICES
Optimal Public
Value that
citizens demand
TRUST
The PEAP/PRSP Key Strategic Results within the
Greater Accountability Framework
GOVERNANCE
Policy
Makers
1. Reduced Income
Poverty and Inequality
Central
Government
Executive
PEAP Key
Strategic
Results
2. Improved Human
Development
Citizens
3. Improved
GDP growth
Service
Providers
Analytical PEAP/PRSP Monitoring and
Review Model
 (a) Strategic Objectives (= Reduced Income
Poverty and Inequality (IPI) + Human
Development (HD) + Increasing GDP Growth
(GDP))
 (b) Outcomes (= Pillars Key Results Areas
(PKRA))
 Therefore: the only acceptable Analytical PEAP
monitoring and review model is:
 {IPI + HD
+ GDP
} is true, if and only if
P1KRAs+P2KRAs+P3KRAs+
P4KRAs+P5KRAs
Indicators move in their desired directions; and if
PKRA moves in the desired direction, then Sector
KRA must have moved in their desired directions
PEAP Monitoring and Review Framework
PEAP Results and
Policy Matrix
PEAP
Annual
Review
Mechanism
PEAP
Annual
Policy
Actions
Matrix
PEAP
Outcome
Indicators
Monitoring
Plan
PEAP Annual
Results & Policy
Model
Linkages and Synergies in the PEAP Review Cycle –
Annual PEAP Implementation Review (APIR)
Two main objectives of the Annual PEAP
Implementation Review are
i) create an understanding of the performance
of Public Policy as defined in PEAP/PRSP and
also trigger a proactive management of its
complexities
ii) rationalize and simplify the multiple streams
of data collection and reporting mechanisms
that currently exist within Government in the
measurement of Public Policy.
Annual PEAP Implementation Review
Feed back Mechanism
Figure 2: Sector Reviews and the Feed-Back Mechanism
Sector
Budgeting
Process
Pillar 1
Pillar 3
Sector
Sector
Sector
Sector
Pillar 4
Pillar 5
Identify gaps
Sector
APIR
Event
GoU – Dev. partners dialogue
and financing
Pillar 2
Review key results areas
Sector
Sector
work
Adjustments of
the
PEAP
Results
Data
Base
Links to the LG Assessments
Figure 3: Links between the sector reviews of LGs and the LG comprehensive
assessments
Pillar
Pillar
Pillar
Sectors e.g.
Education
LG assessments (annual)
1) General Administrative
performance and 2) Sector
performance focusing on service
delivery results drivers
Pillar
Pillar
Conclusion
Mutual Accountability is about the
performance of the Greater accountability
framework.
Mutual Accountability is understanding the
extent of public value creation.
The APIR is the tool for measuring public
value creation;
Therefore the APIR is about Mutual
Accountability.
The End!
Thank you for listening to me!