(Part of the) Introduction
The 2005 Paris Declaration (PD) sets outs a reform agenda for donors and recipients with the aim to scale up for more effective aid. Commitments are made around five core principles, including ‗ownership‘, ‗alignment‘, ‗harmonisation‘, ‗managing for results‘ and ‗mutual accountability‘ and have been reaffirmed through the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). Measurement of progress in the implementation of the PD/AAA is based upon 12 indicators (OECD/DAC, 2005).
The indicator for measuring progess in the ‗management for results‘ principle is the ―number of countries with transparent and monitorable performance assessment frameworks to assess progress against (a) the national development strategies and (b) sector programmes‖ (OECD/DAC, 2005: 10). The indicator is composed of three sub-components, i.e. ‗stakeholder access to information‘, ‗quality of information‘ and ‗coordinated country-level M&E‘. While commitments of donors in the area of ‗results-orientation‘ are not captured in an indicator, they promised to ―link country programming and resources to results and align them with effective partner country performance assessment frameworks, and to refrain from requesting the introduction of performance indicators that are not consistent with partners‘ national development strategies‖. Additionally, they committed themselves to ―work with partner countries to rely, as far as possible, on partner countries‘ results-oriented reporting and monitoring frameworks‖ and to ―harmonise their monitoring and reporting requirements, and, until they can rely more extensively on partner countries‘ statistical, monitoring and evaluation systems, [work] with partner countries to the maximum extent possible on joint formats for periodic reporting‖ (OECD/DAC, 2005a: 8). Moreover, donors and partner countries jointly committed to ―work together in a participatory approach to strengthen country capacities and demand for results based management‖ (OECD/DAC, 2005a: 8).
Despite these commitments, progress in the implementation of reforms in this area is slow. The last update of the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) report (World Bank, 2007), on which indicator 11 is based, reveals that only three out of 54 countries surveyed had result-oriented frameworks that were deemed adequate (OECD/DAC, 2008:58-59). While most countries have a number of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities and arrangements in place, there is often a lack of coordination between different components of a system. Donors, from their side, are reluctant to rely on systems which are only partially developed. Their reluctance to align simultaneously blocks the further elaboration and maturing of recipient systems. In order to escape this persistent chicken-and-egg-dilemma, a pragmatic two-track approach could be a possible way forward. It combines the set-up and/or strengthening of recipient M&E systems (long-term) with complementary M&E activities that fulfill the existing M&E needs in the short and middle run (see Holvoet and Renard, 2007; Holvoet and Inberg, 2009).
For a nationally owned and properly functioning performance assessment framework an appropriate organisation of a national M&E system with clear division of responsibilities between different levels and layers of government, with clearly identified information streams and accountability structures between central and line ministries, and between the local and national level, is crucial. This paper focuses on sector M&E arrangements‘ development in the context of the health Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) in Rwanda. The health sector M&E system is assessed on selected criteria of policy,
Specific attention is paid to the place of Joint (Sector) Reviews within the M&E system. The assessment mainly draws upon secondary data (e.g. documents from the government of Rwanda, literature on Rwanda and health information systems). The section on Joint Health Sector Reviews is also based upon primary data collected by one of the authors who participated in the November 2008 Joint Health Sector Review.
Download 2010.11 Nathalie Holvoet and Liesbeth Inberg | Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in the context of Changing Aid Modalities: The Case of Rwanda's Health Sector