Making Public Governance Work for the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Summary of Minutes from the Break-up session I. Tuesday (morning), April 16, 2013

Transcription

1 Making Public Governance Work for the Post-2015 Development Agenda Summary of Minutes from the Break-up session I Tuesday (morning), April 16, 2013 Conference Room 2715/S The meeting was opened by Ms. Saner, who gave the floor to Ms. Bethel to report on the outcomes of the session one. She highlighted 8 important issues that were raised and discussed in the first session as follows: Mr. Aquaro in response to the question raised in the first session, shared with the CEPA members and observers in attendance the UN resolutions as they pertain to the clauses and paragraphs on governance. They included a set of principles endorsed by member countries on several features of governance. The participants found the sharing quite useful and informative. Ms. Saner mentioned that there are a lot of UN Resolutions that address directly or indirectly the PA role in reforms. She called on the group to refer to the outcomes of yesterday s discussion as stated by Rowena and discuss them one by one. Ms. Saner proposed to start with 8 points as provided by Ms. Bethel and use them as guiding issues. Prof. Woodward reiterated the attention to the fact that regional approach should be looked carefully and as Dr. Nashash mentioned that we need to localize the MDGs. Along these lines she proposed that we can have a list of issues to be addressed and following the lessons learned and their sharing during the discussions we can decide which one to keep and which one to drop. Dr. Nashash seconded the point raised by Dr. Kim that we are focused on the governance and achievements of MDGs, while we have evidence that that s not a clear correlation to it. She called upon CEPA members to not use the strict definition of governance but rather a wider perspective on addressing MDGs challenges. Mr. Spearing shared the information that the old perception was that MDGs were linked with economic development and basic service delivery, while the new approach will be directed towards a wider perspective on how countries can reach a sustainable development, he elaborated on the discussions/consultations held in frame of post 2015 few months ago in South Africa.

2 Ms. Bethel referred to Prof. Woodward in problem solving, and she shared the experience on the need for immediate basic services such as electricity and schools, etc. She gave the insights that despite a polite public servant, she raised the concern on how we balance the need of government to reach tangible results that would be confined to electoral terms. Ms. Saner resumed the session after the break and mentioned that the presentation of group will be provided through a power point presentation, to be prepared by Ms. Bethel and Ms. Reci. The group started to address the issues as comprised by Ms. Bethel 1-The localization of implementation in particular was important to success of the MDGs, including necessary consultations; local ownership of development objectives targets and tools. Bottom-up approach to objective setting integrated with national strategic plans was considered important by all The discussion was developed on the notion of local and if the same understanding is shared by everyone (Prof. Woodward). Ms. Williams mentioned that the definition of local in the Caribbean would mean a country rather than a municipality, while in UK (Ms. Saner) is mostly a community taken approach. The need for coordination at the local level is crucial, as Ms. Saner illustrated with examples from Kenya, where the importance of having the school was equally important to having a road that would connect the school with the community houses. It was suggested that localization of implementation was not the right approach (Dr. Nashash) as the localization is expected to first start with the planning rather than just implementation. 2-Citizen Centric Ms. Nashash proposed that this is an important feature of governance and should be the number one. The proposal was agreed by all in attendance. It was proposed that the goals, objectives should be beneficiary oriented/citizens centered from planning stages through the execution. Strengthening trust is issue of transparency. T-government is very important tool to achieve this level of citizens centered services (Mr. Dmitrev) and proposed to add that t-government provides the most widely used framework for achieving this. It was mentioned that gender responsive budgeting is also supporting this idea (Ms. Williams), aging community and youth policies/strategies are also addressing the issue (Sri Lanka mission). The population mobility is reshaping the society (Mr. Dmitrev) and there is a need to address the inclusions of these groups. If local culture should be combined with global challenges, that requires that there be human capital development at the local level. Reference was given to (Ms. Saner, Dr. Nashash, Mr. Dmitrev, Ms. Termini) how the human resource development is perceived at the local levels, and issues of human capital development at the local level, children education, etc were illustrated through a series of examples.

3 There was a remark that while we are dealing with simplified view why we use the human capital development (Dr. Kim) There is a need to ensure that the basic needs are clearly highlighted (Ms. Bethel) and that addressing the needs of local communities remains a priority as shown by the success of community environmental programs in Bosnia (Prof. Woodward), this issue was considered very important by all. 3. Political will is necessary to ensure not only effective implementation but also continuing of the development agenda of MDGs. The points of view were exchanged by several members (Ms. Bethel, Prof. Termini, Dr Kim, Mr. Dmitrev, Prof. Woodward, Ms Sander, Ms. Williams) on how we should address the political will. Ideas were shared on extending the electoral cycles to ensure the sustainability (Ms. Dmitrevv), partnership with all stakeholders through social compact to do the broad-based objective settings takes place and the partnership is maintained throughout the implementation through the reached consensus. The public institutions have also made an effort to measure the economic impacts of changing drastically the programs in line with electoral changes (Ms. Williams). Discussions were raised on the role of international agreements, through the monitoring tools and progress report, aiming to utilize the leverage on politicians and force them to stick with the reforms. 4-Effective partnership. The CEPA members proposed to utilize the other CEPA presentations such as Mr. Fust s presentation on stakeholders approach. The wordings were provided on the effective partnerships; achieving meaningful results; multistakeholders approach and collaboration and cooperation with development partners. 5-Revision of relevant indicators (data quality and meaningful reports) 6-Capacity building for implementation The proposals were provided on developing (reskilling and retooling) people for innovation and collaboration (Ms. Bethel), recognizes the need to build capacities in people, it was proposed that capacity building should take place at the individual, system and organizational/institutional levels, and there is a need to equipping people for leading and managing change 7-Meaningful Reports (Ms. Sander) should be based in detail assessments (Dr. Nashash); pockets of poverty need to be addressed in developed and developing countries; and we should acknowledge that post conflict countries are overlooked in this respect (Prof. Woodward), while appreciable results in countries not traditionally regarded should be considered.

4 8-Ensuring space for innovation. Many CEPA members proposed that space for innovation should be ensured allowing for countries specific responses at least this is what makes public governance work? (Prof. Woodward, Ms. Bethel). The recognition should be given to the need for policy development and problem solving and strengthening the necessary skills. (Ms. Sander, Prof. Woodward, Ms. Bethel) Comments from Driss Kutani from Morocco on a methodological observation, referring to the title of making public administration work in the post 2015 agenda. He mentioned that the different recommendations already outlined through the discussions today are not new to us, and as we are looking forward to find new approaches for the next stage, the recommendations should include areas that are new. He concluded that the technology should be used as a tool to promote good governance, such as t-government. Comments from Mexico mission, mentioned that it would be very interesting to introduce the peer review for public administration based on a set of standards. This is an experience that we should develop such mechanisms, agreed by most members. Comments from Sri Lanka mission in addressing the governance issues should be well emphasis in every other indicator settings. Egovernment should be used as effective communication channels to be introduced. Dr. Termini seconded the idea of peer review of public administration and selfassessment. Ms. Bethel added on the peer review as being perceived by the Bahamas as a stick used by the big countries and there is a risk that such reviews might not be perceived very well. Mr. Dmitrev added that the various stages of development should be reflected in the adoption of indicators. Ms. Williams shared a peer review and self assessment effort by one the Caribbean island s government which seemed to be working well, where the government assesses itself and provides each citizens through score cards to assess the government, therefore the results can be used as a guiding reference to where and what should be improved. Ms. Sander concluded the session by mentioning that the results of discussions will be reflected into a power point presentation. It was expressed that the set of indicators cannot be developed in three hours, but a work ahead should be designed to be undertaken either by the Secretariat or CEPA members can take it over and do it over the year. The final presentation included all the discussions and points raised and is provided below:

5 Presentation as provided in the plenary session with notes During its deliberations Breakout Group I focused on identifying specific practices/approaches that have demonstrably supported good public governance. There was consensus that there is no one Model of Governance, but rather characteristics that were found to be present where successful implementation of the MDGs have been realized. Breakout Group 1 took note of: the UN Millenium Declaration adopted in 2000, enumerates a set of values and principles such as freedom, equality, tolerance, solidarity and shared responsibility and incorporates a number of objectives, including in the area of human rights, democracy and good governance. The International Convention on Civil and Political rights; and The UN Convention against Corruption The main indicia for effective implementation of the MDGs fell broadly into nine categories: 1. Beneficiary/citizen focused goals and objectives. Goals and objectives should be beneficiary oriented/citizen centred from planning stages through to execution. This is supported also by ensuring that trust is strengthened between stakeholders through t-government provides the most widely used framework for achieving these aims. Examples where this approach is in relation to gender responsive budgeting; and population dynamics and mobility. 2. Localization. Localization of planning and implementation in particular, ensuring basic needs, was important to the success of the MDGs, inclusive of necessary consultations. Thinking globally and regionally while acting locally. More specifically identifying what needs to be done to ensure aspirations are realized on the ground. Look at the way we do things, interact, e.g. due to budgetary constraints between donors and beneficiary countries. Local creation of development objectives, targets, and tools. Bottom up approach to objective setting integrated with national strategic plans; (local communities) Human capital development at the local level Children s education Example: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) environmental programmes in the early peace implementation in Bosnia.

6 3. Political Will. Political will was considered crucial to ensure sustainability of reforms in the long term. Different approaches were shared by experts on how to address for example a stakeholders partnership through a broad-based objectives setting and implementation processes provides for the much needed consensus of all parties involved ensuring in a way a long-term political commitment on a multi party basis beyond the electoral cycle. Another approach would be to leverage the internationally bound commitments such as the MDGs through the monitoring and progress reports to ensure that the political will and commitment remains there throughout the long-term reforms. Political commitment Broad based and inclusive strategy with quick wins Impact assessment of changes in policy direction 4. Effective partnerships. These partnerships should achieve meaningful results, include a multi-stakeholder approach and ensure the cooperation and collaboration of development partners. It was proposed that on this topic utilisation should be made of other CEPA papers/presentations such as Walter Fust Public/Private Partnerships in Sustainable Development and for Social Networking. 5. Revision of relevant indicators. This would also include ensuring data quality and meaningful reporting. Several CEPA experts raised concern on the availability and reliability of data/statistics. The data quality and meaningful reports are a pre-condition for the revision of any relevant indicator, and the introduction of new ones. At the same time CEPA members expressed concerns that the evolution of social and economic factors in different stages of development should be reflected accordingly in such indicators; i.e. dynamic adaptation of indicators to various stages of development. It was also mentioned that qualitative indicators be introduced such as indicators on the quality of life. 6. Capacity building for implementation. The need was recognized to build and developed (re-skill and re-tool) people s capacities for collaboration and innovation. It was widely agreed that capacity building should take place at the individual, system and organization/institutional levels. Recognising the important rle of the leadership, it was considered paramount equipping people for leading and managing change. 7. Meaningful reporting based in detailed assessment. The group recognized that while poverty, including the extreme one remains still at the heart of global agendas and is considered a developing country phenomenon; the pockets of poverty do exist in developed countries as well. Therefore meaningful reports based on detailed assessments are very important when

7 dealing with global challenges as such. It was acknowledged that post conflict countries are also overlooked in that respect It was recognised that appreciable results in achieving MDGs were reported by countries not traditionally regarded as western style democracies, leaving room to look at the correlation between forms of governance and achievement of internationally agreed goals. 8. Ensuring space for innovation. While setting up international development goals it is important to ensure that flexibility is allowed for countries to innovatively utilize new approaches as well as technology that would lead to country-specific responses. Different recommendations outlined the need to move from e-government into transformative government (t-government) and use the technology as a tool to promote good governance.