transformational development planning overview of of the methodology and rationale dr. j. foumbi...
TRANSCRIPT
Transformational Development PlanningOverview of of the Methodology and Rationale
Dr. J. FoumbiWestchester International Development Consulting Group, Inc.
New York, U.S.A.
AID EFFECTIVENESS AGENDAChanging Global Aid Architecture
Development Effectiveness
A development approach that achieves the required
social, political and economic changes to
reduce poverty
Paris declaration - 5 PRINCIPESENGLISH TRADUCTION FRANCAISEOwnershipAlignmentHarmonizationDriving for ResultsMutual Accountability
AppropriationAlignementHarmonisationRecherche RésultatsRedevabilité mutuelle
United Nations System
Five Programming Principles
Results-Based Management
Capacity Development
Underlying Values(1) Accountability(2) Participation, Inclusion(3) Equality ,non-discrimination
Values
Environmental Sustainability
Human Rights
Gender Equality
Normative Principles:(1) Human Rights(2) Environmental Sustainability(3) Gender Equality
Catalytic/Enabling Principles:(4) Capacity Development (5) Results-Based Management
ABOUT THE NATIONAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLE
2 Types of Capacity
Technical
• Specialized knowledge & competencies in, e.g.• Health, • Education, • Agriculture, • ICT,• Green energy, • Economy, • Defense, etc.
Functional
• Crosscutting competencies, E.g.• Management: HR, financial, risk,
etc.; • Programme planning, • coordination, • Evidence base generation &
knowledge building/Management• networking, • Negotiations, • conflicts resolution, • Etc.
OUTCOMES: Improved societal
believes/ practices
and/or institutional
Performance,
OUTPUTS: Development Products and
Services
Driving Changes through reducing capacity gaps
Resources (human, financial, technological,) and skills/knowledge transfer
Leadership
LT Development vision
Knowledge
Education, Vocational trainings
Continuous training
Accountability
Account-giving; Clients-sensitivity;
Respect of commitments.
National Institutions
National Development Goals
PerformanceEffectiveness
Efficiency
AdaptabilityInnovation
Continuous improvement
IMPACT:Improved
people’s living conditions
INPUTS
Capacity Development Framework
Institutional Capacity
Reforms Incentive
mechanisms
SustainabilityInstitutionalized good
practices
12
Capacity Development Group, Bureau for Development Policy
Institutional arrangements: Policies, practices and systems under-pining the performance of an organization or a group, including rules, established procedures, laws, codes of conduct, standards,etc.
Leadership: Ability to influence, mobilize, inspire & guide others toward achieving defined objectives. Good leaders should anticipate responses to foreseeable changes. Leadership is not necessary synonymous of power holding. A leader can be formal or informal
Knowledge: Basis of innovation and creativity; acquired through formal or informal education, practices, experience exchange. A learning environment is one where knowledge generated, preserved and disseminated.
Accountability: expectation of account-giving. (Synonyms: answerability, blameworthiness, liability). Includes systems and mechanisms put in place to hear citizens’ voices, involve them in decision-making and report on performance.
4 Capacity Development Pillars
PLANNING TOOLS ADEQUACY?
Over 40 Years of LFA-Based Development Assistance Planning
Improving the Planning Tools
• Two dominating planning Tools. The Logical Framework Approach (LFA)- By Leon
J. Rosenberg for USAID (1968)
Strong but many limitation
The Outcome Mapping (OM): IDRC (2001);
Potential substitute to LFA, but also with limitations
Towards LFA/OM Synthesis
The Logical Framework Approach
• Logic of direct Causality and Attribution
• Four levels - activities, outputs, outcomes and impact (goal), linked to each other by direct causal relations
• Indicators for all but the activity level, allowing monitoring achievements independently and objectively
• However, as causal relations between the four levels decreases from bottom to top as external influences increase “Attribution gap” issues; .
The logic Model of LFA- direct cause-effect relation between different levels
Goal
Outcome
Goal Indicators(and Sources)
Outcomes Indicators
Output 1
Output 2
Output 3
Indicator Output 1
Indicator Output 2
Indicator Output 3
Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3
Outcome-Level Assumption
Outcome-Level Assumption
Activities Level Assumption
LFA 4x4 Template
Logical Framework: Simplified HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES
VERIFIABLE INDICATORS
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
RISKS & ASSUMPTIONS
Purpose
Outcomes
Outputs
Activities
Risks & Critical Assumptions: The project assumes that provision of clean water and well staffed health facility will improve Health: Examples of Critical assumption from LFA Manual :
• The people will use the new water system
• The government will provide the staff for the HF
People
Government
The Reality:How a Classic LFA Looks Like, Graphically
Results Chain
UNOverall Objective
Specific Objectives
Expected Results
Activities
Inputs
Indic
ator
s
Basel
ines
Targ
ets
MoV
s
Dow
nst
ream
pro
ject
im
plem
enta
tion
Sca
ling
Up
Fu
ndin
g
Donors
Fun
ding
, dr
ivin
g &
dow
nstr
eam
pr
ojec
t im
plem
enta
tion
Critical Assumptions
PeopleCSOGov.
Strengths of the LFA
• Simplicity in a situation of complexity. The LFA logic model is based on simple, linear causality excluding explicitly elements of systemic approaches such as feedback loops.
• Simple summary of key elements in a consistent and coherent way. Enables rapid understanding of the broad outline of a project
• Forces people to think through their theory of change, a process which many people find difficult
LFA Limitations: Academicians’ Views
• Attributing Outcomes to outputs under donor-driven approach - more partners, more programmes at micro level
• The principle of causality consideredtoo rigid - Many factors involved: Attribution Gaps
- Can lead to a “planning mentality” that ignores the circumstances and needs of the people concerned.
• Over-focus on End Results/Limited focus on processes limited national ownership, national capacity development and sustainability.
• High Transaction cost for governments: The “Donors Bus Effect” (See image)
Aid can disable the governments by pulling them into different directions
Plus 20-30 UN agencies cacophony from the top
baggage rack???
OUTCOME MAPPING
OM Origin and Rationale
• Criticism of LFAs, particularly their weaknesses in the M&E of development effects, have motivated IDRC to come out with an alternative tool: The Outcome Mapping tool focusing on:➟Behaviors➟Relationships➟People, groups or organizations’ actions
Development Outcomes
• Development programmes claim contributionsto, rather than attribution of, the achievement of outcomes and development impacts.
OM Underlying Principles
• Changes are complex and do not move in a linear way,
• Development is done by and for people, and finally
• Although a programme can influence the achievement of outcomes, it cannot control them because ultimate responsibility rests with the people affected
• Non-causality: Outcomes can be logically linked to a programme’s activities but they are not necessarily directly caused by them.
• Contribution instead of attribution: When applying OM, a programme is not claiming the achievement of development impacts; rather, the focus is on its contributions to outcomes.
• Control of change / development: OM assumes that the boundary partners control change and that, as external agents, development programmes only facilitate the process by providing access to new resources, ideas, or opportunities for a certain period of time.
The OM Framework
OM Added Value
• Clear definition of system borders, roles and responsibilities; clarified exit strategy during the planning phase.
• Milestones that indicate a possible process, a path of change rather than final result; makes it possible to assess development in short time periods and therefore to assess-change- adapt strategies within a short time.
• Concentration on learning and accountability (as opposed to ‘accountability only’)
TRANSFORMATIONAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
• Development through Deep Self-Transformation- People- Groups- Organizations- Nations
• Catalytic roles of external players- Normative- Funding
Background…
• December 2007: TCPR: State members request that UN development
assistance focus on Capacity Developmenthttp:
//www.un.org/esa/coordination/tcpr.htm
• Kampala 2010: African Union adopts a CD framework for Africa, the
“NEPAD Capacity Development Strategic Framework” :
http://www.nepad.org/system/files/CDSF-based%20CD%20Guidance%20for%20Sector%20Work%202011.pdf
• Busan 2012: High Level Forum on Development Effectiveness:
Capacity Development for Transformational Results.
http://www.nepad.org/system/files/THE%20ADDIS%20ABABA%20STATEMENT%20ON%20DEVELOPMENT%20EFFECTIVENESS-1%20.pdf
• Rio 2012+20: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/370The%20Future%20We%20Want%2010Jan%20clean.pdf
Transformational Development Model: Community-National
Self-Concept
Skills
Organizational Development
Infrastructure
Inner Development
Outer Development
Author: Bryant Myers“Walking with the Poor”
Transformational Development Model: Community
Self-Concept
Skills
Organizational Development
Infrastructure
Inner Development
Outer Development
PROCESSParticipationOrganizationEmpowermentOwnership
PROGRAMLogframe
Transformational Development Model: Community
Self-Concept
Skills
Organizational Development
Infrastructure
AwarenessConfidence Participations
Responsibility
Unity
Commitment
TrustVision
Initiative
Inner Development
Outer Development
PROCESSParticipationOrganizationEmpowermentOwnership
PROGRAMLogframe
Transformational Development Model: Community
Self-Concept
Skills
Organizational Development
Infrastructure
AwarenessConfidence Participations
Responsibility
Unity
Commitment
TrustVision
InitiativeAnalysis
Facilitation
Decision-making
Problem solving Conflict Resolution
Leadership
Evaluation
Planning
CoordinationDev. Committees
Local NGOsContact Local Gov. Contact Between Groups.
Rules/Code of Conduct
Cooperation
Irrigation
Drinking Water
School FacilityHealth Facility
Meeting PlaceRoads
Inner Development
Outer Development
PROCESSParticipationOrganizationEmpowermentOwnership
PROGRAMLogframe
Factories
END
COURSE ROADMAP AND DURATION
Principles
HRBA/Gender Capacity Dev
Programming methods
HRBA [LFA; OM; TDA]
Results causality and hierarchy
Result Chains
Strategic Intent
Strategic Choices
Vertical Logic
LogframesHorizontal Logic
Logframes
Responsibilities
Division of Labor
Partnership Arrangment (Gov,
CSOs, Donors)
FinalizedLogrames
Strategic Research, Monitoring and valuation Plan
(IMEP)
1 2 3
456
7 8 9