Accountability for Results:
National and Sectoral Challenges
What works and what does not work
and why?
Lessons from Tanzania MA
L.Rutasitara 06MAY2011
1. Background
• Country context for (why) Mutual Accountability: as
one of key factors for enhancing aid delivery and
development impact.
• Key highlights:
– National development framework (medium term
NSGRP/ZSGRP since end of 1990s), with implementation
plans and M&E arrangements, role of actors specified
– taking part in aid management initiatives:
• National: (assistance strategies, TAS 2000-2005/JAST 2005-2005)
for both G and DP as basis for dialogue on devt cooperation;
• IMG
• International (pre- and post-Paris)
• Structure of dialogue on national devt
strategies
– Sectoral/thematic WGs– govt MDAs with DPs
– PER/PRSP progress reports/CG
– Annual National Policy Dialogue (stressing
widened participation, holding Govt to account for
use of domestic and external resources (incl aid
and technical cooperation); asking/querying about
results
– Not all perfect of MA but a few lessons (+,-)
2. Lessons (enabling factors)
i.
Govt and DP jointly defining MA agenda basing
on national development policy framework
(with underlying of ownership/leadership,
transparency, accountability, good governance
…)
ii. Joint agreement on monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms / indicators
iii. Independent Monitoring Group (IMG)
recommendations to be agreed, translated into
agreed actions, and/or basis for constructive
dialogue
v. Establishing channels for technical and highlevel dialogue
vi. Involvement of other stakeholders –
Parliamentarians, CSOs, media (also
inclusion, widening participation) – in design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation)
Entailing favourable environment entailing:



Provision of information to all stakeholders on the basics
of national systems (e.g. public finance mangt or
procurement systems, dom. accountability institutions)
Enhancing their capacity to analyse information
Political openness
v. Strengthening institutional memory of DPs in
the field
vi. Confidence, commitment and trust moderated
through dialogue (e.g. iv)
3. Lessons (challenges)
• Power imbalance btn Govts and PDs: Gvts
have little influence on DPs policies, decisions
• Few mechanisms for monitoring DPs
performance
• Capacity gaps esp. at sub-national level
impairing dom. accountability part
• Handling of aid flows data/information
• Handling technical cooperation
4. Forward to:
– Fostering environment for expanded, deeper
,engaging partnerships under govt leadership
– Streamlining performance assessment and
monitoring frameworks
– strengthening domestic capacity in monitoring
and evaluation (indicators/data)
– Further improvements of dom accountabilty
institutions and systems w.r.t PD/AAA
– Joint reviews of aid relationship
(policies/strategies) in light of changing
development cooperation outlook
– Continued space for independent reviews of MA
on all PD commitments
• Thank you for your attention