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