Bhutan

1
(No Transcript)
2
Bhutan

1) Supporting National Planning and ME
Framework 2) Supporting Partnership for enhance
d Aid Effectiveness and Efficiency
3) UNDP Bhutans Experiences in Evaluations
3
I. Supporting National Planning and ME Framework
Development Concept Gross National Happiness
?GNH Indicator Framework/International GNH
Conference Long Term Vision ? Vision 2020 MDGs ?
MDGs Reporting Costing, Mid Term Plan ? Five Y
ear Plan (Results Based Management/IPF-Medium
Term Expenditure Framework) Poverty Assessment?P
overty Analysis, Rural Appraisal, Bhutan living
standards survey

4
Gross National Happiness
GNH is more important than GNP
Happiness is the ultimate desire of all human be
ings and that all else is a means for achieving
happiness. Challenge is to find the balance betwe
en material and non-material dimensions of
development The State shall strive to promote
those conditions that will enable the pursuit of
Gross National Happiness draft Constitution -

5
Operationalizing and Monitoring of Development
Concept

2020 A Vision for Peace, Prosperity and
Happiness Balanced and Equitable Development Pr
eservation of Culture Environmental Conservation
Good Governance
6
Developing GNH Indicators

• Emotional well-being
• Time-use and balance
• Community vitality and resilience,
• Eco-system diversity
• Education
• Health
• Cultural resilience and capacity
• Living standard
• Governance

7
National 10th Five Year Plan

• GNH as the guide
• Poverty Reduction as the overarching goal
  (Target 31.7 to 20?MDG)
  
• Participatory approach to development
• Results-Based Management?Programme Results
  Matrix?Set clear Outcome goals and targets
  
• ME Framework (Objectives-Targets-Indicators/Basel
  ine?End targets)
  
• IPF-MTFF(Indicative Planning Figure-Medium Term
  Fiscal Framework)
  
• Poverty Assessment, MDG Reports

8
II. Supporting Partnership for Aid Effectiveness

Common Country Assessment/UN Development
Assistance Framework Round-Table Meeting (every 2
-3 years) Donor Coordination Meetings One stop s
hop approach for ODA management (DADM)
Joint Outcome Evaluation (Increased Joint
Programming ? Joint Programme Evaluation)
Importance of the governments understanding on
UN Reform and enhanced capacity in donor
coordination
9
UNDP BhutanExperiences in Evaluation

• What should be evaluated?
• Who should be involved?
• When should the evaluation take place?
• Who should be the owner of the evaluation report,
  and the implementer of the recommendations?
  
• How to facilitate and ensure follow ups?

10
What to Evaluate? Who to be involved When?

• Outcomes to be evaluated (from MYFF/SRF)
  ?Evaluation Plan/Implementation
  
• Energy and Environment (April, 04)
• Poverty Reduction (Oct, 05)
• Mid-term Rural Enterprise Development project
  evaluation (Oct.05/SNV-UNDP)
  
• Decentralization (UNCDF, Danida, SNV, JICA,
  Helvetas, SDC/Nov.05)
  
• Mid-term Decentralization Support project
  evaluation (UNCDF/Nov. 2005).
  
• Mid-term GEF Linking and enhancing protected
  areas (LINPA) project evaluation (WWF-UNDP,
  Aug.06)
  
• ICT for Development (2006-2007?)
• (Optimal timing In the middle of the
  projects/programmes)
  

11
Ownership and Follow Ups

• Owners of Outcome Evaluation
• The Royal Government (ideally mainly)
• Development partners (hopefully)
• UNDP (mandatory)
• Follow Ups
• Stakeholders consultation meeting/Presentation
• Steering Committee Meeting
• Revised Workplan?Project Revisions
• Donor coordination meeting

12
Beyond thematic areas and UNDP

• Poverty Outcome Evaluation
• Poverty-Environment Linkage
• Environmentally sustainable lemon glass oil
  production
  
• Follow up study undertaken and new methods
  proposed
  
• Poverty-Governance Linkage
• Financial decentralization ??? Poverty reduction
• Use of community labour contribution
• Direct targeted approach for rural enterprise
  development
  
• Donor coordination meeting on Private Sector
  Development

13
Joint Outcome Evaluation

• Decentralization
• Look at Outcome at the National Level
• High level political commitment and National
  Ownership
  
• Beyond UNDP and more than donor coordination
  (UNCDF, DANIDA, SNV, JICA, Helvetas, SDC)
  
• Combined with Mid-Term Evaluation (UNCDF)

14
Lessons Learned (1)

• Supporting capacity building on national planning
  and ME
  
• can be a better way to enhance development
  effectiveness (with or without linkage with UNDP
  programme)
  
• Enhances quality standards and internationally
  comparable data/information analysis
  
• Strengthens donor harmonization and coordination
  through better monitoring of MDGs and national
  development goals
  
• helps speak/use the same language (RBM, etc.)
  with an increased level of common understanding

15
Lessons Learned (2)

• Supporting partnership and donor coordination
• can enhance governments role in coordinating
  aid monitoring and evaluation
  
• Strengthens transparency and objectivity of the
  ME
  
• Strengthens accountability at all levels
• Enhances better alignment of resources according
  to the priorities
  
• Helps the wider utilization of the results
• Enhances cost- and time-effectiveness both for
  the government and development partners
  

16
Lessons Learned (3)

• Combined/Integrated evaluations (project
  evaluation as an integral part of, and
  contributing to, outcome evaluation) enhance
  effectiveness and efficiency.
• Timing of the evaluation can be effective if it
  is done in the middle of project/programme (or if
  the continuation of UNDP support is expected)
  
• Joint evaluation with development partners
  enhance the governments engagement, ownership
  and coordination/aid effectiveness.
  
• Political commitment of the government is the key
  factor to ensure follow ups.

17
Lessons Learned (3)

• Involvement of the government counterpart in
  every stage of evaluation strengthens national
  ownership and acceptance of recommendations.
  
• Number, timing, and scope of Evaluation missions
  should take into account the national capacity to
  be meaningful and productive.