APC

oP August 2013

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

http://cop-mfdr.adb.org

Community of Practice on

Managing for Development Results

Developing CapacitiesDelivering Results

APCoP BriefWhat is APCoP?The Asia-Pacific of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP) is a regional community network of senior government officials from ADB developing member countries (DMCs). Members share the common objective of introducing and institutionalizing managing for development results (MfDR) in public sector management (PSM). The network also includes members from academia and public policy institutes, as well as development practitioners. In addition, APCoP also engages with similar regional networks such as the Community of Practice of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the African Community of Practice on MfDR.

What APCoP doesAPCoP develops the capacity of DMC government officials as change agents for mainstreaming MfDR at the country level. Working through a common framework that identifies the key features and principles of results-based PSM, members participate in capacity-building and knowledge sharing events to engage with a wider community of development practitioners to:

•learn about best practice results-based principles and techniques

•engage in South-South dialogue

•produce and disseminate knowledge products

•formulate demand-driven initiatives on promoting MfDR at the country level

•present the DMC voice to development partners on delivering results on the ground

LeadershipAPCoP is guided by a Coordinating Committee. ADB, through the Results Management Unit of its Strategy and Policy Department, serves as the Secretariat. The Secretariat provides technical support, organizes activities, and administers the budget.

The Coordinating Committee is composed of:

Koshy ThomasMalaysiaChair

Teertha Raj Dhakal Nepal

Velayuthan SivagnanasothySri LankaVice Chair

Jargalsaikhan DambadarjaaMongolia

Juanita AmatongPhilippines

Rolando Tungpalan Philippines

Tuon ThavrakCambodia

ADB President Takehiko Nakao

Statement by ADB President Takehiko Nakao

ADB’s commitment to a poverty-free Asia-Pacific region is elaborated in our Strategy 2020 with three distinct and complementary agendas of: inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth and regional integration. In implementing Strategy 2020, ADB puts considerable emphasis on listening to and empowering our developing member countries (DMCs) to deliver on their national aspirations. The DMC voice is critical to ensure that we are responsive to their needs. Our support for the DMC-driven Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP) and its focus on results-based public sector management is consistent with Strategy 2020’s drivers of change, including good governance and capacity development, knowledge solutions, and partnerships. It is also consistent with the commitments by the international development community to deliver results, promote South-South dialogue, and share and disseminate knowledge as reaffirmed at the Fourth High Level Forum on Development Effectiveness in Busan, Korea. Following the creation of the APCoP in 2006, regional communities of practice established in Latin America and the Caribbean and in Africa have further facilitated interregional dialogue on key development issues such as public-private partnerships, the Millennium Development Goals, and decentralization.

The APCoP is now a growing and maturing community of practice that is owned and guided by our DMC representatives. We take pride in our support and the COP’s role in ensuring sustained and inclusive growth for the Asia-Pacific region.

1

From the Coordinating CommitteeSince the establishment of our Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP) in March 2006, it has emerged as an important and innovative initiative in helping developing countries build and strengthen their MfDR capacity in the Asia and Pacific region. Many APCoP members have been devoting a great deal of valuable time and effort to activities, both online and face-to-face. This has certainly added value and benefited APCoP members themselves, as well as their organizations and countries.

APCoP is a path in our collective journey to mainstream results based approaches, based on international best practice, in to our own country systems i.e., establishing results-based planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation systems at both the national and sector levels. APCoP members are increasingly leveraging the capacity development support given by development partners to refocus efforts into strengthening our own country public sector management systems. This is consistent with the International Aid Effectiveness agenda that reflects the growing demand from developing nations that host country systems should not be bypassed but strengthened in the delivery of development support.

We strongly believe that APCoP can help connect practitioners; gather useful ideas, good practice, and knowledge; cultivate and disseminate innovation; and build capacity on the ground.

Though it has been operating successfully so far, this new endeavor is still very fragile and leaves no room for complacency. So let us all continue to work together for better results—we are, after all, a results-oriented community!

From the SecretariatThe APCoP Secretariat works closely with the APCoP Coordinating Committee in finalizing the annual work plan. The past seven years has seen APCoP grow from just over 25 in 2006 to almost 900 active members in 2013. In addition, APCoP‘s agenda is now elucidated in its ‘Framework for Results –Based Public Sector Management’. This Framework has enabled APCoP to have a focused agenda and has provided a common platform for discussion and knowledge sharing. Other regional CoPs in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean agreed to pursue the Framework’s agenda through the joint “Seoul Statement on Results” in November 2011.

The Framework has been utilized as a tool to assess PSM at national, sector, and subnational level. However the results orientation of PSM is more than a technical exercise. The Framework is principle based and must be considered in the context of each country’s existing systems, its history and development, and in particular the political economy of the country. There is a clear message to development partners that there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to capacity development. Further, APCoP has repeatedly highlighted the importance of strengthening country PSM systems at international events, such as the Fourth High Level Forum, and in the discussions on the post 2015 agenda for the Millennium Development Goals.

All of the above have been supported by the publication of knowledge products and their dissemination through the APCoP website and through newsletters. APCoP has also developed close co-financing relations with centers of excellence in Singapore, China, and Korea as well as receiving support from well renowned development practitioners.

2

“The knowledge and experiences we obtained from the APCoP seminar are very important and well-timed as we conduct functional review of government ministries, including the Ministry of Economy. Optimization plans for ministries will be prepared, and our recommendations from what we have learned on PSM will be taken into account.”

Tojiddin JurazodaOffice of the PresidentTajikistan

• Afghanistan• Armenia• Azerbaijan • Bangladesh• Bhutan • Cambodia • China, People’s Republic of• Cook Islands • Fiji Islands• Georgia • India • Indonesia• Kazakhstan• Kiribati• Korea, Republic of

The Asia and Pacific Countries Represented in APCoP• Kyrgyz Republic• Lao PDR• Malaysia • Maldives• Marshall Islands,

Republic of• Micronesia Federated

States• Mongolia • Myanmar• Nauru• Nepal• Niue • Pakistan• Palau

• Papua New Guinea • Philippines• Samoa • Singapore• Solomon Islands • Sri Lanka • Tajikistan • Thailand• Timor-Leste• Tonga• Tuvalu • Uzbekistan• Vanuatu • Viet Nam

MembershipAPCoP’s launch in Manila in March 2006 brought together 26 leading results management practitioners from 11 countries in Asia and the Pacific. By June 2013, the number of registered members has increased, with about 890 active members from 42 countries participating in online discussions and face-to-face events (Figure 1).

“The Joint Forum provided an excellent opportunity for the Communities of Practice to find the best way for managing for development results, and I believe that the Seoul Statement was a significant contribution to the HLF-4 in Busan.”

Huck-Ju KwonProfessorSeoul National University, Korea

“The conference has been a great opportunity for learning and sharing of experiences in PSM. The role of PSM in achieving the MDGs and closing the gaps through concerted efforts was a clear way forward.”

Allah Bakhsh Malik Secretary to the GovernmentPunjab, Pakistan

Figure 1: APCoP Memberships

3

Country-based CoP ActivitiesWorking with APCoP, MfDR capacity building activities were implemented in selected countries, namely, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Malaysia, and Mongolia.

Bangladesh Linking national and sector ministries’ monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems. Bangladesh was the first country to pilot demand-driven MfDR initiatives for public sector management using a country-based CoP modality. The “M&E Workshop for Public Sector Development Projects” in May 2010, attended by senior officials from the planning and sector ministries, established a consensus on the key attributes of a results-based M&E system and on improving the linkage between the national and sector ministries’ monitoring systems.

BhutanIncorporating results-based approaches in transport strategy. APCoP worked with the Bhutan Government on incorporating results-based approaches to transport planning, budgeting, monitoring, and evaluation in Bhutan Transport 2040 Integrated Strategic Vision (TISV). The TISV contains the results framework for transport strategies and is one of the significant outputs of the workshops and consultations engaged by the Bhutan CoP.

Cambodia• Development of M&E Framework for rural development ministries. APCoP supported the development of M&E framework for Cambodia’s three rural development sector ministries: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Ministry of Rural Development; and Ministry of Water Resources and Management. Three workshops were implemented between 2010-2011 focusing on the review of indicators for the rural development sector, and how these can be effectively used in monitoring the progress of the rural sector taking into account the indicators in the National Plan• Incorporating results-based approaches in TVET Sustainability Framework. APCoP supported the design of the technical assistance on strengthening regional technical centers for the TVET by introducing results based approaches in the financing mechanisms and sustainability framework for regional training centers.

IndiaResults based PSM Assessment for the West Bengal Development Finance Program. The APCoP Framework was used in assessing India’s public sector management in terms of opportunities, government strategies, and current assistance program. The sector assessment informed the rationale for India’s West Bengal Development Finance Program that will improve expenditure efficiency, revenue efforts, and debt management.

MalaysiaIncorporating the Gender Dimension in Outcome-Based Budgeting. APCoP supported the Government of Malaysia in putting the gender dimension in its planning, budgeting, and monitoring systems as the government introduced Outcome-based Budgeting. The exercise produced a knowledge product on Malaysia’s experience on gender responsive budgeting. A parallel and separate effort was undertaken by the government to produce a detailed GRB toolkit which ministries can use in the formulation of their budgets with respect to OBB.

MongoliaRefocusing the technical assistance on MfDR using results based PSM approaches. APCoP supported the government workshop that refocused an existing technical assistance project on MfDR. The workshop defined the institutional arrangement for implementation, the specific outputs of relevant agencies, and the linkages of agency outputs.

4

Online and Face-to-Face Activities

2006 - Singapore2007 - PRC 2008 - Sri Lanka 2009 - Malaysia2010 - Cambodia 2011 - Korea2012 - Thailand 2013 - Japan

APCoP Annual Meetings

Annual APCoP Events

Training on Results-based Planning, Budgeting, Monitoring and Evaluation in People’s Republic of China (PRC) APCoP has co-sponsored since 2007 the Shanghai International Program for Development Evaluation Training (SHIPDET) on results-based monitoring and evaluation with the PRC Ministry of Finance, ADB Independent Evaluation Department, and the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. In 2012, APCoP expanded the training to include planning and budgeting, which it jointly organized with the PRC Asia-Pacific Finance and Development Center. The training is held thrice a year in various locations in China with the participation of the local finance bureaus.

MfDR Training Program in SingaporeWorkshops are held at the Civil Service College, Singapore, under a program jointly financed by ADB through APCoP and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore. More than 200 participants from the Asia-Pacific region have participated. A combination of lectures, case studies, and sharing of real life experiences provided lessons on results-based policy-making process. Themes included performance based budgeting, results-based management in the education and transport sectors, results-based PSM for disaster risk management and public-private partnerships.

2007 - Shanghai 2010 - Shanghai2011 - Shanghai 2012 - Shanghai, Kunming, Urumqi 2013 - Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu

2008-2013 - Singapore

Since 2006, APCoP has held eight annual meetings, co-organized with selected DMCs and development partners (UNESCAP, and ADBI). Government officials from 33 DMCs as well as representatives of regional MfDR CoPs of Africa and Latin America, multilateral and bilateral institutions, and non-government organizations had participated. Themes of the meetings included results-based planning, budgeting, monitoring, evaluation, aid effectiveness, MfDR country experiences, and application of results-based approaches to public-private partnerships and the MDGs.

5

Online and Face-to-Face ActivitiesRegional and Interregional Dialogues

PSM and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) for Development Results 2013, Tokyo. The Roundtable focused on the important role of public sector management in ensuring that PPPs deliver development outcomes. As the primary actor accountable for the delivery of public goods and services, the public sector must develop the capacity to effectively mobilize public and private resources, create the enabling environment, minimize risks, manage the implementation, and maximize the benefits of PPPs.

Decentralization and the Changing Role of Central Finance Agencies2013, Mexico City, and 2012, Manila. Two interregional forums on Decentralization and the Changing Role of Central Finance Agencies were held in Manila and Mexico. The forums brought together academics, experts, and senior government officials to share their experiences in promoting results and delivering services in a decentralized context. It offered a unique opportunity to engage and learn from the diverse decentralization experiences in Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean regions.

Regional Conference on Public Sector Management in Support of the MDGs2012, Bangkok. More than 100 academics, experts, senior government officials and public sector management and sector specialists from 24 developing member countries discussed the importance of results-based approaches to PSM in achieving the MDG results and considered lessons to help prepare for new global targets post 2015. The conference discussed and analyzed the relevance of results-based PSM to the successes and failures in achieving the MDGs.

High-Level Forums on Aid Effectiveness (HLF) 2011, Busan; 2008, Accra; and 2007, Ha Noi. APCoP participated in the 2011 Forum that adopted the “Busan Outcome Document,” which included commitments for strengthening public institutions and polices using country systems and making them more results focused. APCoP along with Africa and the Latin America and the Caribbean CoP MfDR members took part in the preparatory meetings of Cluster E on MfDR in OECD Paris to consolidate their inputs to the HLF-4 outcome document. This followed earlier engagements at the 2008 HLF3 and the 2007 Third International Roundtable on MfDR, as part of the ongoing engagement of APCoP at the international level.

Interregional Forum on Delivering Results through an Effective Public Sector 2011, Seoul. In a joint forum, the three Regional Communities of Practice on managing for development results (Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa) committed through the ‘Seoul Statement on Results’ to a common platform for future cooperation and provided partner country perspectives on MfDR for HLF-4 held in Busan in November 2011. A follow up two-day workshop in Berlin, Germany built on the Seoul Forum and established a joint partner country/donor consensus on the results agenda for HLF4.

APCoP Launch2006, Manila. Results management practitioners from 11 countries in the region came together on 22–23 March to launch APCoP. Participants identified some key trends that had occurred in Asia and the Pacific that would impact development results. They articulated the need and strategy for such a community over the next few years, and discussed an action plan for its pilot period.

6

Results-based Public Sector Management FrameworkAPCoP has developed a results-based PSM framework, which provides a principles-based analytic tool that countries can use to assess their PSM systems, analyze gaps, and develop capacity initiatives to strengthen those systems. It builds self-sustaining systems that allow for continuous learning and informed decision-making. The PSM Framework starts from the five components of management: planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation within a country context(Figure 2).

It identifies four features of a results-based PSM, as follows:

i. Each component shall exhibit core results attributes. For example, results based planning involves clearly defined results within a budget envelop, with indicators and targets, and with relevant monitoring and evaluation frameworks (Figure 3).

ii. All components shall focus on common results. The same set of national priorities and results (impact, outcomes, and outputs) defined during planning must be the same results that are budgeted, delivered, monitored, and evaluated.

iii. Interdependency of the components. Collectively, these components must work together in an integrated way to deliver and measure the achievement of national objectives (Figure 4).

iv. Horizontal and vertical integration of the five components. Results-oriented PSM efforts at the national level must be linked with the results-oriented efforts of agencies at the national level. Sub national levels of government (regions, districts, provinces, etc.) also play a significant role in achieving country results. For this reason, results-oriented PSM efforts at the national level must be linked with those at subnational levels so that all levels of government contribute to delivering a common set of development results (Figure 5).

Figure 2: PSM Framework

7

Figure 3: Core Results Attributes

Figure 4: Interdependency of Components

Figure 5: Horizontal and Vertical Integration

8

APCoP also works with partners in promoting regional dialogues and knowledge exchange on results-based PSM. Cofinancing partners include: The PRC Asia-Pacific Finance and Development Center; the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction; the Republic of Korea e-Asia and Knowledge Partnership Fund; and the Singapore Cooperation Programme.

APCoP conducts learning and knowledge sharing activities in cooperation with expert support from the: (i) Asian Development Bank Institute, (ii) Korean Development Institute, (iii) Seoul National University, (iv) International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), (v) Singapore Civil Service College, (vi) New York University Wagner School of Public Policy, (vii) University of Maryland School of Public Policy, (viii) University of the Philippines, and (ix) World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. At the interregional level, it engages with the communites of practice from Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa.

APCoP Partners

Asia-Pacific Finance and Development Center

Korea Development Institute

AfricaCoP-MfDR

LATIN-AMERICA ANDTHE CARIBBEAN COMMUNITYOF PRACTICE ON MANAGINGFOR DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

9

Publications

This Framework highlights the key features and principles behind results-based public sector management.

The country case studies represent a high level application of the APCoP results-based PSM framework in six ADB member countries.

This provides a compilation of various first-hand experiences in implementing results based approaches at a country level.

The conference reiterated the importance of results based public sector management to the delivery of international MDG targets.

This unique discussion focussed on the changing role of central finance institutions when countries choose to decentralize service delivery to sub-national entities.

The conference examined the rationale, and various challenges to traditional PSM when embarking on Public-Private Partnerships.

10

Farzana AhmedLead Results Management Specialist fahmed@adb.orgTel +63 2 632 4444 ext. 5224

Catherine ClarinResults Management Assistant cclarin@adb.org

Cristina Regina BonoanTechnical Advisor

Mylene BueranoTechnical Coordinator

Sheryl NazaretProject Analyst

Ma. Rosario Baxa Logistics Coordinator

For more information on APCoP and to access its resources, log on to:

http://cop-mfdr.adb.org

APCoP Secretariat