Talk:E-Discussion DG & MDGs: Phase I

From BDPWiki

Please see below for comments and contributions to Phase I of the e-discussion.

Posting Messages

• You must Log In to post a comment on Wiki. See Posting for details on how to Log In.
• Click here to add your contribution or click on the + on the tabs at the top of this page.
• Alternatively, send your contribution by email to dgp-net@groups.undp.org
• Kindly insert your Name, Title, Organization and Location at the end of your contribution.

---

Contents 1 Guinea Bissau: Celestin Tsassa 2 Zambia: Jeremias Blaser 2.1 Ernest Nyame-Annan 3 Fiji: Ernesto Bautista 4 Kenya: Wanjiku Margaret 5 New York: Daniel Esser 6 Thailand: Amitava Mukherjee 7 Haiti: Djibril Ly 8 Kenya: Angela Reitmaier 9 Turkey: Leyla Sen 10 Paraguay: Ricardo Yorg 11 Indonesia: Owais Parray 12 Moderators' Message: Phase 1 13 Rwanda: Shirley Randell 14 Viet Nam: Tiwari Chiranjibi 15 New York: A.H Monjurul Kabir  16 Uzbekistan: Bakhodur Eshonov 17 Uganda: Srikiran Devara 18 Ethiopia: Girma B. Hailu 19 Bangladesh: Nandita Dutta 20 Mali: Fatimata Traore Ossade 21 Pakistan: Shakeel Ahmad 22 Malaysia: Ramachandran Ramasamy 23 Mozambique: Luke Wasonga 24 Slovakia: Dan Dionisie 25 Closing Note: Noha El-Mikawi 26 Terry Kiragu, New York

Guinea Bissau: Celestin Tsassa

Celestin Tsassa - Economics Adviser; UNDP Guinea-Bissau

Dear Colleagues,

I am pleased to participate at this interesting discussion regarding the strengthening democratic governance engagements with the MDGs achievement process.

Achievement of MDGs at national and local levels needs adequate interventions, policies, resources and the involvement of major decision-makers: government, parliamentarians, local bodies and civil society. Progresses on particular MDGs are made thanks to a combination of all the above but depend significantly on the national context. The availability of qualified human and financial resources, the game between politicians and the stability of the institutions influence significantly ongoing processes undertaken for achieving the MDGs. Objectives, interests and power of each group participating in those processes in a particular context could accelerate or jeopardize the progress toward the MDGs.

The process towards the achievement of MDGs should, among other aspects, strongly consider: the nature and transparency which decision-makers are nominated and empowered; the capability of government to effectively manage resources and to formulate adequate policies; the respect of law in the country by the government and all citizens. The above elements require that the democratic governance be really anchored in the country. The progresses in the democratic governance contribute to the improvement of the quality of the institutions, management, the respect of law and the satisfaction of social needs. For that, strengthening democratic governance engagements with the MDGs achievement process is obviously a solid way for human development.

The optimal situation is when beneficiaries see their needs, which have been expressed in a participatory process, taken into account in national or local programs; required interventions and adequate resources are also used to respond to these needs. In that case, government and parliamentarians are in harmony with the beneficiaries. This convergence of interests between the populations and decision-makers could be interpreted as a sign of accountability. This accountability of decision-makers goes together with the availability of resources and their good understanding of necessary actions to be taken for the achievement of different MDGs. What could be the freedom of action of the decision-makers when the state has a critical financial situation and could just ensure, in the best case, the payment of salaries of civil servants and militaries? The government and the parliamentarians elaborate and adopt budgets only to stabilize the financial situation; all resources go in general to pay salaries and the expectations are founded on the stabilization of the financial situation and support of partners.

Availability of resources alone cannot be enough in the absence of transparency in the public management and the orientation of public investments to prestige expenditures. Countries experiencing oil or mineral booms, unfortunately, suffer from this kind of mismanagement. Objectives and interests of decision-makers are far from those of the population. This creates constantly social frustrations that could undermine peace and stability. Those situations could last when the electoral process is not sufficiently transparent to express the signals of electors through their votes.

Strengthening democratic governance engagements with the MDGs achievement process needs to be anchored to the national context: post conflict situation, context of fragile state; country with low human and financial resources or with satisfactory human capabilities and financial resources; good polices or not. The reality is a combination of cases that require a deep analysis of the causes that explain the size of progress delay in the achievement of different MDGs. A needs assessment, not technocratic, seems to be a good entry point to launch dialogue or sensitization of different decision-makers on situation at national and local levels, and interventions to be implemented following realistic priorization. A frank discussion on the quality of the interventions, availability or not of resources, among other things, could strengthen confidence among all participants to dialogue and the credibility of the national plan (PRSP or other) programme which will contain the choices made for poverty reduction and the achievement of MDGs. Budget formulation and adoption also have to be participatory and contradictory. This could limit the situation of “fait accompli” when the budget elaborated by the ministry of finance with IMF missions’ support is accepted by the government and parliamentarians without prior discussions. In the same way formulation of medium term public expenditures framework should go beyond its technical exercise to become a real commitment to realistic responses to social needs.

Creating an enabling environment for the MDGs achievement involves also capacity building in management, resource mobilization, strong state institutions to help building leadership and empowerment. Interventions in this area need to tackle medium objectives for a strong sustainability of results. At the same time, support for policy formulation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation should be provided to reduce the gap of capabilities. Technical assistance provided for short or medium terms needs should be conceived in the framework of building sustainable capacities.

Respect of law, as a component of democratic governance, influences the achievement of MDGs. This evidence is founded on the fact that respect of law reinforces the respect of human rights. Considering MDGs as a human rights (economic and social rights), it is difficult to imagine that MDGs be considered as an obligation for the take-orders in the situation where law is not respected. The dialogue and sensitization mentioned above have also to be taken into this dimension of MDGs in the strengthening of democratic governance engagements for their achievement, particularly in a fragile situation.

Zambia: Jeremias Blaser

Jeremias Blaser, Assistant Resident Representative, UNDP Zambia

Dear Colleagues.

This is a timely debate and invites us to rethink the quality aspects of governance and how they link up with the MDGs. Having said that I do see the need to look at democratic governance in a holistic way as its complex nature does not lend itself to isolate particular elements. I do believe that democratic governance as an “enabling condition” for achieving the MDGs requires cannot bypass an analysis of its historical conditions of development and the complex interplay between social, cultural and economic structures of a society and its political institutions. We need to re-think the conditions, under which democratic governance in a development context can take root, evolve and create enough legitimacy for decisions to be collectively binding. For instance we can not separate elections from political parties or parliament. What does it mean to have free and fair elections in a country wh ere political parties do not represent social cleavages? What does it mean to have a bi-partisan parliament in a country with a dominating executive? We probably need to measure the effectiveness of democratic governance in achieving the MDGs by its ability to include populations beyond the political elite into decision making processes and by the same sediment such procedures into institutions.

In many countries the history of democracy has been tightly linked to the development of the welfare state. This because achievements such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, security standards at the workplace through labor laws, pensions, universal education etc. were the result of social struggles between capital and labor for instance or between environmental groups and business interests, between the women’s movement and state organs etc.

These social struggles did not only bring about policy change but equally modified decision making processes. As a matter of fact in academia the term “governance” reflects precisely that; namely the fact that political decisions can no longer be taken by the State alone in a “top-down” manner but need to be prepared by engaging concerned stakeholders, relevant societal groups, hence flattening the traditional hierarchical conception of an overly powerful “Leviathan”. Now, more than ever, collectively binding decisions require a complex interplay between state organs and social groups.

Participation has therefore become key in shaping modern democracies and academics have for some years now acknowledged the fact that elections alone will no longer be able to satisfy the need for meaningful participation, hence their call for “discursive democracy”, “deliberative democracy” etc.

Interestingly enough elections are still considered as the only mean of effective participation and rank high in our development agenda. While elections are certainly important we tend to forget other forms of political participation that can bring about as much legitimacy and democracy as elections. A functional election machinery for instance could easily be used to conduct referenda on political issue of national importance or let people vote on propositions supported by a large number of organized interests. The tradition of consensual decision making in Africa has often been commended as an effective way to avoid polarization and appease opposing views, yet most African Parliaments have been elected based on majority rule and institutionalized pre-parliamentary consultation procedures do not really exist.

Participative, transparent and responsive governance can only be achieved if people recognized themselves in their political institutions. Political institutions therefore need to be reflective of any social structure in which they operate and be filled with social meaning accumulated through historical and social processes. Not many democratic institutions in the developing world fulfill these criteria, hence the risk of holding elections with no impact whatsoever on the social and legal exclusion of the population that participated in these elections.

Meaningful participation cannot be superimposed it has to grow incrementally and in sink with a country’s social history and culture. Aid can be instrumental in enabling and discreetly supporting homegrown and ongoing participatory processes that are in line with the above but is detrimental when it comes with suggestions as to how participation has to happen and who has to participate.

Reducing inequities and inclusive decision making processes require social change at a larger scale, broadening the political space in which social groups can constitute meaningful political formations and express themselves in various ways. I would argue that Aid is probably more effective in supporting the enabling conditions for such social change than supporting particular participatory processes. “Enabling condition” in that sense would translate into a holistic view of democratic governance beyond the existence of a parliament, regular elections, separation of powers etc. but looking at how the ability of such institutions to reach and include those categories of the populations that are usually left out in the MDG debate but politically immensely important for their achievements.

Ernest Nyame-Annan

That's a very good presentation from Jeremias and I support the points he raised.
I believe if the Democratic governance and Leadership is well strengthened in a participatory manner it will go a long way in achieving the MDGs.
Thanks,
Best regards.
Ernest.

Fiji: Ernesto Bautista

Ernesto Bautista, Regional Advisor & Project Coordinator; UNDP Pacific Centre 

Dear Colleagues,

This e-discussion provides a timely opportunity for us to reflect both on the challenges and our understanding of how governance interventions are expected to contribute to advancing the achievement of MDGs. During the past several years various empirical researches have contributed in increasing our understanding of the importance of governance. It is now widely recognized that governance synonymously called by some authors as institutions matter. What remains unclear and very much the subject of analytical work is the relationship between governance and growth and development. It is also recognized that replicating or transferring governance institutions from one context does not work. Indeed while it is accepted that governance interventions need to be rooted to specific context. I think the more important challenge that we face is our limited understanding of the underlying political economy consideration and political dynamics that shape the behavior of the various actors / stakeholders within the existing institutional framework and in identifying the entry point(s) that can provide the ‘stepping stone’ to facilitate changes in the institutions that make for equitable and sustainable development in a particular society.

For instance with reference to the first question, participative processes can work more effectively if there is a vibrant civil society that is aware of its rights and a government that is willing to provide space for civic engagement. In many countries, the Pacific Island Countries included, such conditions do not obtain. In many PICs, not only is the CSO sector nascent but the enabling environment (legal & regulatory framework and state-civil society organization relation,) is not conducive for such participative processes. State-CSO relation is oftentimes antagonistic. CSOs also suffer from weak capacity in various areas. Implementing social accountability mechanisms require certain degree of technical competency (i.e. public sector budgeting) by CSOs. But more importantly to recognize that the implementation of these participative processes have political economy considerations. If the existing planning and budgeting processes favor certain interest groups, e.g. investment in large scale capital infrastructure, then introducing these processes may entail changing the existing incentive arrangement and challenging the interest of certain groups which maybe more politically and economically powerful. The same holds for the other questions posed in this e-discussion. The “when and the how” depends very much in our understanding of the local context and its dynamics. There is no specific sequence and the how depends very much on the opportunities and how we create opportunities for reform. As governance reforms are not neutral we need to understand the underlying dynamics that shape how the political economy consideration influence the incentives and behaviors of the various actors, and focus in facilitating changes in those incentives to bring about fundamental institutional change. This is obviously a long-term and complex process.

UNDP has moved forward a long way in understanding the complex governance processes that shape development outcomes. Along the way, we have discovered and developed partnerships with many institutions who share common challenges and commitment to making a difference in the lives of many poor people.

Kenya: Wanjiku Margaret

Wanjiku Margaret, Public Sector Specialist, MDG Centre - SNV ESA/ Kenya 

Dear colleagues,

I agree, this debate is timely, and thanks for setting it off. I wish to make my contributions in the area of local governance and political processes with regards to realization of MDGs.

At just past the midway mark towards the MDGs ‘deadline’, lots of initiatives have been put in place and implemented all geared towards accelerating efforts by countries. Indeed there are lots of good practices out there on how to achieve MDGs. But the question that continuously begs for answers is why countries especially in Africa are still far behind the rest? What are actors in Africa still not doing right? There has been the argument of course that the playing ground was never level to begin with, {see William Easterly’s How the Millennium Development Goals are Unfair to Africa (2007) Global Economy and Development.} But is this an excuse?

Reflections on performance of a few countries in Africa give some clues to where energies could shift to. Three key possibilities include;

• Capacity enhancement utilizing untapped human resource; MDG needs and capacity assessments done at the meso level reveal shortage of personnel and equipment at district and community levels. This can be attributed to lack of incentives to work in rural areas as well as government restriction on hiring of more staff. However it has been noted in some Asian countries that the unemployed and inexperienced young graduates can be deployed to the district levels in the various sectors working and learning under the supervision of the senior government sector heads at that level. Learning from this, a group of CSO practitioners in Kenya have come together and developed a concept through which to engage with the government and deploy staff at a modest package in 9 pilot districts as strategy to boost efforts on MDGs at the district level. The concept has not been implemented yet but is currently under discussion. This is designed as a ‘win win’ scenario where the young graduates get to learn on the job and at the same time add value as ‘an extra hand’ at the district level. After a 24 month contract, the graduates can either be absorbed into the civil service or progress to other sectors. An international organization backstopping this process is in place to ensure quality out put from both parties.
• Engagement of Members of Parliament on MDGs; It is noted that MPs are still well placed to influence policy. Being patrons in the devolved funds in their constituencies, and also being at the helm of policy formulation, they are still an ‘untapped’ resource in matters MDG! Uganda has had an experience with an MDG parliamentary forum and other countries in the Eastern African region are developing a concept document to replicate similar initiatives in their countries. This would be a good development to watch.
• Organization of Local governance; The decentralization models are largely inadequate and can hardly provide structures for harmonized development. This has led to duplication of projects, including government-led projects, and wastage of badly needed resources. While governments are responsible for putting in place policies for devolution, non government actors cannot escape the blame. With little sharing of information and respective strategies amongst them and inadequate consultations with communities before installation of new projects, the situation can only get worse. There is definitely need for a coordinated approach to development at local levels and largely building on what communities already have.

The above is really not any new knowledge but perhaps an attempt to draw our collective attention to these three areas.

New York: Daniel Esser

Daniel Esser,PhD; Research Analyst - Democratic Governance Group; UNDP New York

Dear colleagues,

This e-discussion has already generated many interesting insights and country examples. I would like to seize the opportunity to add a couple of more conceptual thoughts in response to guiding questions one and three.

(1) How and when do participative processes (i.e. budgeting, participatory planning etc.) and/or monitoring influence sustainable pro poor policy and reduce inequities?

I believe that the problem analysis guiding this question is highly pertinent, in fact not only to developing countries but also to those with thriving economic sectors and well consolidated democracies. And this is precisely the crux. Ever growing calls to make democracy deliver are an understandable reaction to the frustration of the democratization agenda for developing and transition countries of the past decade. But as a global organization, UNDP also needs to look at the experience of now highly developed countries and try to learn lessons - not only from the past but also the present, and especially from the challenges that these countries are facing. Indeed, rising inequality is not only a central concern in MDG target countries, but crucially also in OECD nations.

What, then, has proven effective in the latter to tackle inequality? The short answer is: very little. So sometimes one is stunned by the continuous propagation of a now well defined set of “tools” (such as participatory budgeting and planning or “bottom-up” approaches) as golden paths for those countries whose progress towards the MDGs we are monitoring with such passionate affection.

What is more, success cases are usually excitingly well documented; yet cases in which these approaches failed or even exacerbated the situation seem to be slightly less en vogue [a fascinating exception, for instance, is Benjamin A. Olken’s recent article in the 'Journal of Political Economy' (2007, vol. 15., no. 2, pp. 200-249) in which he presents evidence of how a top-down anti-corruption scheme in Indonesia yielded much better results than a participatory bottom-up approach].

Why is this? And can UNDP play a role in reassessing common wisdoms based on hard evidence? I very much believe it can - and it should. A key component of such an approach, I believe, would be to strengthen the analytical component of both programming and measurement and evaluation. Organizational incentive structures that we all know well get sometimes get into the way of reporting accurately, which includes sharing stories of failures as openly as examples of glaring successes. Of course UNDP's endorsement of knowledge sharing and continuous learning is a vital platform to move forward in this regard. Yet especially in the area and context of democratic governance, I am not sure that there is always enough time, opportunity and dedication to take a step back and question critically what we are doing on the ground, together with the people who trust UNDP as the main facilitator of human development.

(3) How and when does institutional capacity development ensure responsiveness to vulnerable and marginalized groups when political rules of operation reduce incentives for responsiveness or windfall of natural resource revenue deform such incentives?

When political rules of operation determine the effectiveness of institutional capacity development, our chief concern should probably be to understand these political rules. Parliaments, political parties, social movements - these are three proven catalysts of gains in human development that are achieved via democratic governance (in addition to democratic governance being a normative end in itself). But they are not the only ones. Recent events not only in East Africa but also in Southeast Asia and Central America are stark reminders that our key concern about the effectiveness of our interventions necessitates a more proactive, open, and creative engagement with those who, in less democratic settings, are determining the "political rules of operation" at the present day.

Put differently, I argue that we need to better understand--and come to terms with--the spoilers, power brokers and entrenched powerful interests. It is here where the ambivalence of UNDP's full commitment to 'national ownership' becomes most visible. National ownership is essential to ensure buy-in and sustainability. But national ownership also implies that we may be hard pressed to nod at pseudo-democratic institutions in the interest of maintaining our relationship with the "rulers of operation."

If the ultimate objective within the assistance process is improved accountability as the glue that makes democratic governance work, I believe the aforementioned dilemma needs to be addressed. Doing so may require a change in approach. This change as I imagine it might have to be fourfold.

First, as much as we know that few national governments enjoy or even allow being ranked, measured or assessed, UNDP still needs to call a spade a spade - not to name, blame and shame national counterparts, but to accomplish the opposite: to begin or continue already existing work on strengthening democratic governance on a realistic and valid basis. This is why, for instance, the evolving Global Programme on Governance Assessments and Measurements managed by the Oslo Governance Center is an endeavor that deserves our full attention.

Second and related to my remarks in response to the first guiding question (see above), I feel strongly that as an organization, we may have to strike a 'finer balance' between saying yes and saying no when it comes to working with smokescreen democracies – and saying what exactly we are in for. Enlarging the democratic governance portfolio makes sense if our work is likely to produce results. Of course, it also makes sense when it is guided mainly by the intrinsic value of democratic governance. (As highlighted by the moderators' second question, human rights provide a prime example.) But as much as we should strive to demonstrate more compellingly how our work on democratic governance has really made a difference, we should equally have the courage to resist pressure to "deliver" in environments where this is--tragically but necessarily--a secondary objective given prevalent "rules of operations."

Third and consequentially, I believe that it is high time for UNDP to institutionalize informal exchanges into a learning exercise that focuses on distilling effective approaches of dealing with not-so-democratic counterparts. What worked, where, and--most of all--under which specific conditions? Quickly reaching for our magic weapons of 'civil society strengthening' or 'community empowerment' may eventually not always have the intended impact. On the contrary, I believe that in certain settings it is necessary to admit--to ourselves, the donors and our non-state partners--that change is unlikely and that symptomatic treatment is all UNDP can offer in the short and medium term.

Fourth and finally, I would argue that it is high time to rethink our corporate stance towards our own propaganda. This applies to democratic governance as much as to the MDGs. Sometimes the latter seem to function as our ten commandments, even though the scope and profundity of conceptual critique deserve to be taken very seriously [personally I was struck and inspired by Ashwani Saith's "From Universal Values to Millennium Development Goals: Lost in Translation" in 'Development and Change' (2006, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1167–1199), which can be accessed for free here]. The same applies to democratic governance. It is vital to translate UNDP's early insight that different countries can be "differently democratic" (cf. HDR 2002) into the practice of our work. This could indeed mean that taking one step back may in fact be timelier than jumping two steps forward.

Thailand: Amitava Mukherjee

Dr. Amitava Mukherjee, Poverty and Development Division, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok

Dear Colleagues,

The issues revolving around democratic governance and leadership for achieving MDGs are very important.

Wanjiku Margaret's lament on many countries lagging behind achieving MDGs is understandable. There seems to be ne pattern on achievement of MDGs and he kind of Government countries have in the Asia Pacific region. The impact that interventions and projects from the UN family had as yet not clear except to raise the profile of the MDGs.

One of the reasons for overall failure to achieve the MDGs is that many of those who matter (policy makers at the top and the powerful decsion makers) like Members of the Parliament and Permanent Secretaries to Government are either unaware of the MDGs or are not cognizant of the MDGs in their economic decision making. The MDGs have not been integrated into the national planning, development strategy making and budgeting processes. And then many at the other end of the "Governance Spectrum", those at the cutting edge level of implementing policies and programmes of Government are not even aware of anything called the MDGs.
Take the case of India. The officials in the Block Development Offices and in the Panchayats (village level elected bpdies) have scant idea of the MDGs.

In fine the MDGs have not got into the development psychology of Governance in many of these countries, in a way that other national objectives like for example growth targets or harneshing FDI have entered. When a Finance Minister presents his budget or the Planning Minister unveils the National Development Plans, we rarely see questions being asked of what impact it will have on MDGS as we ask about what impact it will have on achieving a certain percentage of growth in GDP or on the Stock Market or on Investment. Just pick up Newspapers on the morning after the Budget presentation and or unveiling the National Development Plans, and it is there for you so see.

This is sad but true. These are my personal views.

Haiti: Djibril Ly

Djibril Ly, Rule of Law Project Coordinator, UNDP Haiti
Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much for introducing relevant and timely issues on the MDGs when the International Community will have to assess progress made and constraints encountered in achieving the 8 MDG goals come 2015. When leaders of the International Community set the MDG goals few years back most of them were optimistic in achieving the MDGs. In the meantime the international and national contexts have drastically changed (high cost of fuel transnational crimes corruption xenophobia and nationalism personalization of power here and there etc.  This evolution can undermine progress and achievements so far registered.
A wide number of governments have embarked during the last decade on Poverty Reduction Strategies based on a prerequisite: these policies have to be designed through participative approaches. What is participatory and what is not? Governments used to drop paragraphs in their Poverty Reduction Strategies Papers explaining the participatory process during the drafting stage. When participants are selected; debates oriented and canalized through official interest; is there a participatory process? One can seriously doubt. In addition Parliamentarians and local officials elected are not necessarily prepared to provide positive contribution both during the preparatory phase and while implementing PRSP. This is a very serious handicap as far as developing pro poor policies is concerned. If Parliaments are to counterbalance the executive power, NAMs have to be prepared to develop, discuss and make budget proposals that are pro poor oriented.

The civil society that has also to play a vital role towards establishing pro poor budget is very often weak in many developing countries. Youth and women movements are so often sidelined that they cannot effectively contribute to the debates. Finally, the executive bodies are generally in a position to define what is pro poor and sustainable and what is not. UNDP has supported international (LIFE initiative for instance) regional and national strategies to boost National Assemblies, Decentralized institutions, women's and children's groups to partake to initiatives that can reduce inequalities. More specifically, UNDP has to facilitate the regionalization and localization of PRSPs. We know that there are large disparities within a country and therefore it is important to have a clear picture of all levels of developments in each country.

To make sure that pro poor policies are implemented properly at all levels, it is important that capacities of the judiciary and national institutions promoting and sustaining human rights are strengthened. But how can we make sure that courts and watch dog institutions promote and contribute to the achievement of MGDs? 

In various countries the judiciary is not an independent body that should say the law and contribute to the promotion and progressive development of the rule of law. In parallel, national watch dogs institutions are not always strong enough to limit the superpower of the executive. When judges are promoted by Minister of Justice and have a mandate can we expect them to deliver without fear? In addition when judges are not well trained to better consider the MDGs achievement, It's challenging to see courts enhancing MDGs. An independent and fair judicial system open to poor and marginalized parts of the population is essential.

The other key issue to consider is the nature of the PRSPs. Are they biding documents that can be brought to courts? Are PRSPs and MDGs policies obligations to achieve results or simply obligations of means (obligations de moyen)? I believe that National Assembly bodies have to develop mandatory legislative provisions on the achievement of MDGs and PRSPs in order to clarify this issue.The UNDP initiative world wide to empower the poor through a holistic and comprehensive approach is timely. It's also a challenge: empowering the poor and marginalized people in focusing on their rights and obligations is very politically sensitive. Needless to say those national consultancies that took place in pilot countries like Mauritania have shown how difficult it might be to gather in the same place decisions makers, opinion leaders, women and children. It seems however that there is need to facilitate dialogue between all the main components that exist in a society. This dialogue has also to be decentralized and conducted in all divisions and villages in order to  reach the poor where they are.

Kenya: Angela Reitmaier

Angela Reitmaier, PhD, MDG Advisor - NEPAD Kenya

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to comment on the topic of democratic governance and leadership for achieving the MDGs from the perspective of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).

African Peer Review Mechanism

According to the APRM Base Document, the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is “an instrument voluntarily acceded to by Member States of the African Union as an African self–monitoring mechanism”. Its purpose is “to foster the adoption of policies, standards and practices that lead to political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development and accelerated sub-regional and continental economic integration through sharing of experiences and reinforcement of successful and best practices, including identifying deficiencies and assessing the needs for capacity building.”

Kenya has been among the first group of countries to accede to the APRM in Abuja, Nigeria in April, 2003, and Kenya was also among the first group of countries to have completed the peer review process. This is why I would like to comment on democratic governance and leadership for achieving the MDGs from the Kenyan experience with the APRM. Ghana, Rwanda, Algeria, Benin, South Africa have also completed the peer review and Uganda, Nigeria and Burkina Faso will be peer reviewed by the African Peer Review (APR) Forum in Egypt on June 29, 2008.

Country Review

According to the principles of the APRM, every review exercise must be “technically competent, credible and free of political manipulation”. The review process is based on a questionnaire drafted by the continental APR Secretariat. In Kenya, the review process has been praised as having been open and candid. Four reputable Technical Research Institutions were chosen to lead the review process, using a four-stage methodology comprising desk research; national sample surveys; focus group discussions, and expert panels. The process culminated in a self-assessment report and the development of a national programme of action designed to remedy the gaps in governance. A Country Review Team under the leadership of Graca Machel as Eminent Person conducted the subsequent country review mission. The mission interacted with a diverse range of stakeholders and noted the visible commitment of Kenya’s citizenry and leadership to the institutionalization of democracy in the country.
The mission finalized the Country Review Report, which President Kibaki presented to his peers at the APR Forum in Gambia in June 2006. Since then, progress reports on the implementation of the National Programme of Action have been prepared, using the methodology developed for the initial country review, i.e. desk research and discussions of focus groups, including sector groups. National surveys and expert panels could not be repeated in Kenya because of financial constraints.

Socio-Economic Development

The National Programme of Action follows the structure of the APRM, which is based on the four pillars of democratic, economic, and corporate governance as well as socio-economic development. For the latter, achievement of six objectives is being sought:

1. Promotion of self-reliance in development and build capacity for self-sustaining development;

2. Acceleration of socio-economic development to achieve sustainable development and poverty eradication;

3. Strengthening of policies, delivery mechanisms and outputs in key social development areas;

4. Ensuring affordable access to water, energy, finance, markets and ICT to all citizens, especially the rural poor;

5. Ensuring progress towards gender equality, particularly equal access to education for girls at all levels; and

6. Encouraging broad based participation in development by all stakeholders at all levels.

The objectives define the essential elements of the overall goal that must be achieved in a measurable way. The measuring tools are standards and codes approved by African countries, which for socio-economic development include the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs.

Voices of the People
Collecting the voices of the people on the broader issues of development has given valuable insights to government, civil society, development partners and, last not least, the Peers, the other African Presidents. The APR is a monitoring tool which complements the statistical information compiled for the MDG Status Reports, and brings out the real concerns of the people. In Kenya, the review uncovered that the dominance of “tribal” or “ethnic” interests was a constant threat to national unity, and that differences over religion, gender and ethnicity have fed into the vulnerability and marginalization of certain social groupings. A related aspect that emerged as an underlying, or overarching, issue was the high level of inequality in Kenya and the more pronounced incidences of poverty in some provinces. The APR Forum in Gambia recommended that Kenya be assisted in dealing with the underlying issues through establishment of an African high-level panel of eminent persons, but this offer was not taken up. The post-election crisis of 2007 has demonstrated that the warning about ethnic tensions should have been taken more seriously, and that a high-level panel of eminent persons was in fact successful in bringing about peace. It is worth noting that Graca Machel, the eminent person for the Kenyan review process, was part of the mediation team led by Kofi Annan.

Similarly, the country review report of South Africa warned that “xenophobia against other Africans was currently on the rise”. So the APR has proven to be a valuable tool of monitoring and uncovering problems. It is also a tool that strengthens the voice of the people. They are being heard during the country review process and the periodic progress reports afterwards. The national secretariat brings these voices to the attention of government all the way up to the President, who in turn has to discuss the challenges facing the country with his peer African Heads of State in a spirit of sharing best practices. In this regard, the APR is an important tool of governance that Africa can be proud of and that should garner more recognition from civil society, the private sector, and development partners, so that it can become more successful where it needs improvement: actually addressing the gaps identified, so that the MDGs can be achieved.

Turkey: Leyla Sen

Leyla Sen, Programme Manager - Democratic Governance; UNDP Turkey

Dear colleagues,

Thanks to all who prepare, facilitate and contribute to this very important debate. My contributions are as follows:

1. Participative, transparent and responsive governance: As seen in many lesons learned cases from the unsustaining participative processes, it seems that there are two conditions for sustainable pro-poor policy processes: the first is to create/facilitate participatory processes which are inclusive in the real sense, representing all segments of the society - not only the society but also all different segments of the vulnerable groups since these groups are not homogenous. One of the main challanges in these participative processes is the local elite capture. I am using "elite" in bracelets since it is relative in each context despite some "universally" accepted criteria.

In my opinion the second very important condition is the community empowerment: with all good will and faith participative processes can be facilitated by inclusiveness. But, again as seen in many cases, if the the participants are not capable of participating, contributing and being active in the preparation, implementation and monitoring & evaluation of the policy responses these processes are not very meanıngful and functional. Community empowerment, to make the individual and communities active actors of their own lives and destinies seems to be crucial. An important means for community empowerment is the community-based organizations- the value of being together for the objective of a life in dignity.

2. Implementing Economic and Social Rights: When the courts, national human rights institutions and/or ombdusperson offices have legitimacy and institutional capacities for creating a more enabling environment for their own functioning it seems that they are enhancing progress towards equitable delivery on the MDGs. As shared in previous e-discussions, when the institutions are established for the sake of establishment without required human resources, infrastructure, even the vision and mandate, they are far from the expected benefit from them.

In my opinion, when the institutional capacities of these organizations are enhanced by a holistic approach, including education/training, leadership, accountability and voice mechanisms, and when their efficiency increased by these endeavours then it can be expected that they enhance progress for equitable delivery on the MDGs. Again an important factor in this is the community empowerment on legal and human rights issues-having active citizenry who are aware of their own rights and responsibilities.

3. Political Process and Social Movements: What is tricky in the question related to this heading is "incentives". If we accept this as tricky then the challange we are facing is how to sensitize the public at large, particularly the vulnerable and marginalized groups, on the "incentiveness" of having a responsive, egalitarian and inclusive system. Again my humble response will be investing for an active citizenry along with lobbying/advocating at all levels for such an order.

Paraguay: Ricardo Yorg

Ricardo Yorg, Programme Officer - Governance; UNDP Paraguay

Dear colleagues,

This is an important issue to address now more than ever, considering the role of democratic governance to the achievement of MDGs and the challenges that Governments confront with high food prices and the increase of extreme poverty in our countries. Some thoughts about the issue:

1. Participative, transparent and responsive governance: Real democratic governance must, as main principles, include participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, equity, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. Participatory processes are easier to say than to practice and carry out in an inclusive way (especially hearing the voices of minorities, women and those more vulnerable groups). This participation should not be a sort of validation of a process that will not change or the decision makers have no intention to change. This is especially true for those cases of high expectation of the citizens who participate (ex. budgeting and participatory planning). Transparency and responsiveness are key elements to ensure credibility of the society in the use of public resources. The capacity of civil society organizations should be developed to ensure monitoring and promoting public services delivery.

2. Implementing Economic and Social Rights: Courts, national human rights institutions or ombudsperson offices are important for implementing economic and social rights when they are credible and are guaranteed, for instance, access to justice of the poor and the most vulnerable. When we advocate for more funds to reach the MDGs indicators and targets, we are not focusing on how much money really goes to combat hunger, to healthcare, child and mother mortality, etc. This is the case for public bureaucracy and corruption that erode public funds and reach a small amount at the end of the chain.

3. Political Process and Social Movements: institutional capacity development could ensure responsiveness and marginalized groups if there is a strong commitment of technical and political actors to implement reforms and measures required to achieve the goals. Another important factor is coordination, among different government institutions related to social issues, in order to prioritize programs and projects and focused to those more vulnerable groups (extreme poverty). The participation of all actors and sectors, in an organized manner, is key to ensure that the needs of those groups are heard and the political will of political actors be reflected in national budgets and implemented with efficiency and efficacy.

Indonesia: Owais Parray

Owais Parray, Technical Advisor; UNDP Indonesia

Here are few thoughts on the governance and the MDGs nexus with a bit of focus on participation.

I think it is useful to distinguish between various elements that usually underpin democratic governance: e.g. participation, transparency, and responsiveness. There are cases where the governance may be transparent and accountable but it may not necessarily be participatory. You can have a case where a government behaves like an efficient corporation and is able to allocate public resources and provide good services but decisions making is limited to a few, usually at the very top. In non-normative context that may not be necessarily bad as long as decisions being made are good and create greater benefit for people.

Having said that, I feel even the most top down governments do undertake some assessment of what people's perspectives and views are. They may not do it so openly or there may not be a well structured mechanism for it. Participation in development processes is therefore very much relative. In a state that subscribes to democracy that degree of space provided to the people is largely determined by institutional capacities. Our experience in Indonesia is that governments at different tiers would like give room to people to participate, but often the process is constrained because of lack of organizational management. The more I think about it, more I feel we need to draw upon management discipline to provide us the tools to counter deficits in governance. But I do acknowledge that this clinically management approach cannot be possible without taking account of political consideration. However, I feel that there is too focus on political considerations thus leading to fuzzy efforts to seek commitments and political will. And, when attempts are made to operationalize participation in governance we do little to understand the local mechanics of these processes.

Moderators' Message: Phase 1

Dear Colleagues,

This discussion has been producing some valuable insights, most importantly a call for candid self assessment, scrutinizing and celebrating success and failure alike. This is most appropriate a call for an organization with wide field presence and pride in having long term commitment to development.

Firstly, Ernesto Bautista reminds us that the relationship between growth, development and governance is not neutral. Long term, growth, development and democratic governance are a matter of interests, incentives and power relations which change in a non-sequential manner. Short term, growth, development and democratic governance are constrained by capacity weaknesses on the part of state and society, as well as by regulatory frameworks that disempower a number of stakeholders. We would like to ask you to relate your experience in addressing / confronting the political economy in your country/region; you may want to be parsimonious and focus on one MDG sector (education, health, sanitation, etc.) while acknowledging that there is a wider context that impacts development in the sector.

Secondly, Jeremias Blaser brings the discussion back to social change which is at the heart of development. For policy and policy processes to be inclusive, equitable and collectively binding, there need be social struggle; social change rarely comes through neat and well-matrixed development projects. This is a formidable challenge against which Jeremias offers some quick tips: 1) aim not only at changing policies to make them more equitable, but also at policy making processes to make them more inclusive; 2) be modest; participation cannot be superimposed (Daniel Esser provides an article that provokes us to consider top down approaches at least in certain contexts); 3) enhance inclusive participation (e.g. election assistance, parliamentary strengthening) with home grown participative and consensus building traditions; and finally 4) work on the enabling conditions which enhance the likelihood of inclusion of those categories of the population that our pre-packaged interventions often miss. In this regard, Leyla Sen cautions us if the participants are not capable of participating, processes like contributing and being active in the preparation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the policy responses may not be very meaningful and functional. We urge you to share country experiences on any or all of the four tips. What challenges and which opportunities do you encounter to contribute to the enabling conditions for social change and can UNDP supported MDG efforts contribute to social change and a struggle for a functioning welfare state.

Thirdly, technical fixes alone will not do it, be that a needs assessment, or assistance to budget processes or to the formulation of PRSPs and MTEFs. Celestin Tsassa wants technical assistance to “become a real commitment to realistic responses to social needs.” It is suggested that participative processes, transparent and fair elections as well as respect for laws and rights be the solution. It would be good to know from your field experience if we have been able to do that, linking these intervention areas to MDG achievement.

Fourthly, the contributions of Margaret Wanjiku and Dr. Amitava Mukherjee point towards advocacy for the MDGs; they provide evidence of failure to do that. This is a serious lesson because it means that we may need to work harder to help expand the constituency that can scrutinize public policy and anchor government commitments to goals beyond growth and FDI. We may need to engage parliamentarians, young professionals, local authorities, indigenous and vulnerable groups in wider discussions on aspirations for socio economic and political reform, policy trade offs, opportunity cost, and drivers/spoilers of change. But are we offered the space? Are we creating the space?

Fifthly, Djibril Ly, Leyla Sen, and Ricardo Yorg bring the critical issue of judicial and NHRIs sensitization towards MDG agenda. They also underscore the importance of judicial independence in the implementation of economic and social rights. Community empowerment on legal and human rights issues-having active citizenry who are aware of their own rights and responsibilities-can make a significant impact on judicial process, particularly in accommodating economic and social rights as part of development agenda.

Finally, Angela Reitmaier and Daniel Esser pick up on the issue of defining progress and linking measurements of and findings on socio economic progress to political reform. The pioneering African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is a process that increases democratic and national ownership of methods to measure socio economic and political progress. UNDP’s global program to enhance national democratic capacity for country led -not donor led- governance assessments is promising to be a pioneering contribution from UNDP. The challenge is to know how to strengthen democratic ownership of definitions, of indicators, and of collected evidence as well as how to strengthen the linkage between political and socio-economic progress. This is no technical exercise especially when country action plans are donor driven or when political economies lock countries onto exclusionary outcomes in the name of growth and investment.

We look forward to your further contributions in the coming days.

With best wishes-

E-discussion Moderation Team (First Phase)

Noha El-Mikawy, Policy Advisor for Governance and Poverty, UNDP Oslo Governance Center, Democratic Governance Group, and

Ernest Rwamucyo, Policy Adviser, Governance, MDG Support Team, Poverty Group, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP

Rwanda: Shirley Randell

Randell Shirley, Senior Adviser, Education and Governance for Empowerment - SNV East and Southern Africa Region

Colleagues
In Rwanda, UNDP and SNV Rwanda have been working together on a project called “Reinforcing Capacities of Local Governments to integrate Gender in Decentralized Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) Planning in line with the National EDPRS”. The project aims to implement the following objectives:

Objective 1: Improved baseline information on gender in five representative districts;
Objective 2: Improved integration of gender-based analysis into the EDPRS district policies and plans;
Objective 3: Improved implementation and monitoring of gender sensitive EDPRS district plans;
Objective 4: Increased understanding of gender issues amongst the population in districts.
The project is being implemented in five districts, in which SNV Rwanda already operates in four (Ngororero, Nyamagabe, Musanze and Nyarugenge) and UNDP operates through the Millennium Village Project in one (Bugesera).

The cooperation between SNV and UNDP is focused on project implementation and technical advice. By establishing a close collaboration between the focal points and technical advisors in both organizations, all processes and activities are implemented and organized with input and participation from SNV and UNDP. The Country Directors of both organizations have been kept fully informed about all activities.

Steering committee meetings are organized jointly by the two organizations For each meeting all five participating districts, national gender institutions and government institutions are called and involved, making the project highly participatory. Subsequently the elaboration of survey instruments and questionnaires for the district Gender Survey was a highly consultative process. SNV district focal points have also become fully engaged in the Gender Survey work, by collaborating closely with the Gender Survey consultants in their work in each district, facilitating contacts and organizing meetings with local governments. Their feedback to SNV and UNDP assists the survey overview and progress monitoring. SNV and UNDP liaison officers in Nairobi and New York have been kept informed about progress and have provided advice to technical advisors of SNV and UNDP.

The Minister for Local Government invited mayors, vice- mayors, and planning staff from the five districts to a workshop last week to review their district development plans to include gender based outputs, outcomes and indicators. Each of the objectives in the DDPs being undertaken to achieve the MDGs was examined. We will shortly be holding train the trainers meetings on gender awareness in the districts and these will be rolled out in training to the general population.

UNDP, UNIFEM and UNCDF’s GELD program will shortly provide gender budgeting training to the five district mayors and planning officers involved in the UNDP/SNV project.

The UNDP/SNV Rwanda project is building capacity in key players at district government level to provide leadership in achieving the MDGs.

Viet Nam: Tiwari Chiranjibi

Tiwari Chiranjibi, Senior Advisor Local Governance - Sector Leader Water, Sanitation and Hygiene; SNV Viet Nam

Dear Colleagues,

Very interesting discussions on a very pertinent issue! I would like to share my views and experience from Vietnam, where a stable and very strong government dominates the development politics, and has demonstrated success in linking growth with poverty reduction in the country.

1) How and when do participative processes (i.e. budgeting, participatory planning etc.) and/or monitoring influence sustainable pro poor policy and reduce inequities?

It is generally agreed that participatory processes create institutional channels for the poor and underprivileged groups to influence polices in their favour; the budget allocation and use becomes more transparent and responsive to their priorities and the overall MDG process becomes more equitable, effective and efficient. Participatory processes are most effective when there is a clear mechanism to link up ‘people’s voices’ with the ‘policy processes’ in the country. A widely accepted mechanism to ensure people’s voice in the policy processes is the elected parliament; and thus, the democratic governance becomes an enabling pre-condition for participatory processes to influence pro-poor policies.

Different countries practice different mechanisms to make their policies pro-poor and equitable. An analysis of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) sector policy in Vietnam shows that government’s commitment to provide basic services to the poor at affordable costs are reflected into various national targeted programmes. These programmes are designed with different forms of subsidies targeted to ethnic minorities and underprivileged groups so that these groups are not denied of their right to basic services. Efforts are underway to decentralize the ownership of RWSS facilities to the lowest level of governance, i.e. at the Commune level as and when possible.

However, there has been a varying level of success at the sub-national level. Inequality is growing; only 22% of the poorest 20% have access to safe water supply compared to 78% of the richest 20%. Similarly, only 2% among the poorest 20% have access to sanitary latrines compared to 20% of the richest 20% (2005 statistics). At the same time, the lack of local participation and transparency in the planning and construction of RWSS facilities has resulted into a weak local ownership; only around 41% of constructed RWSS facilities are functioning properly (2005).

This situation entails that a very good growth and national commitment is necessary but insufficient to achieve an equitable and sustainable development. Vietnam’s ongoing efforts in the promotion of democracy at the grassroots level and in the engagement of citizenry in the development process need further strengthening to sustain the gains made on the MDGs so far. In other words, capacity development (both institutional and organizational) for inclusive participation might be the key to achieving pro-poor and equitable development in such context.

2) How and when does work with courts, national human rights institutions or ombudsperson offices enhance progress towards equitable delivery on the MDGs?

The social, economic and cultural rights of citizenry cannot be separated from the MDGs; MDG achievement means better space for the underprivileged people to exercise their social, economic and cultural rights. Looking from this perspective, working with and for independent judiciary and human rights institutions is crucial in achieving the progress towards achievement of MDGs.

There are many documented cases of civil society being instrumental in the establishment and strengthening of an equitable society. Whenever the rulers tend to be autocratic, the civil society and human rights institutions become active and bring the ruling parties on the right track.

The human rights institutions create and safeguard the political space for the participation of underprivileged and minorities groups in policy process; and they play the role of the ‘watch dog’ in the implementation of the MDG based national development strategies. However, certain conditions are necessary for this to happen. They need an independent space; if human rights institutions and courts are constrained by the state mechanism, there is limited space for the people to exercise their rights in a fair and free manner.

In Vietnam, the civil society is developing, with mass-media increasingly involved in documenting and sharing corruption cases in the country. What is needed is the institutional capacity development support so that these institutions can function more effectively in the local contexts.

3) How and when does institutional capacity development ensure responsiveness to vulnerable and marginalized groups when political rules of operation reduce incentives for responsiveness or windfall of natural resource revenue deform such incentives?

As discussed in the previous paragraphs, MDG progress in one way or another should enlarge the political space for the underprivileged groups in the society so that they can enjoy their social, economic and cultural rights. The institutional capacity development, in a genuine sense, can enlarge this political space for the poor, at least, in two ways:

First (strengthening the supply capacity), the institutional capacity development enables committed politicians and administrators in preparing, implementing and monitoring their MDG based pro-poor policies at all levels.

Second (strengthening the demand side), it empowers local populations and strengthens the collective practices and/or ‘negotiation power’ of the underprivileged groups against the autocratic decision makers; this in turn re-shapes the existing power balance in the society. Therefore, even if the existing political rules of operation provides disincentive for the rules to be more responsive to their populace, concerted efforts in institutional capacity development can only be useful.

In the case of democratic politics, the parties or individuals who are less responsive to the needs of the population are overthrown by the people through the election. In the countries, where election and multi-party politics is not in place, they practice other forms of ‘check and balance’ system in place. For example, RWSS sector strategy of Vietnam aims to promote privatization and local ownership of RWSS services. This focus on administrative decentralization provides space for the institutional development of water users associations (WUA), which in turn could be a mechanism to influence sector policies at the local and national level. This can be an example of how the administrative decentralization can be useful in promoting democratic norms at the local level. What is necessary here is the institutional capacity development of WUAs.

Having said all this, it might be important to note that all policy processes are incremental, need to be contextualized and be done with great care and with the ownership of the country concerned. Therefore, institutional capacity development can be an important and useful tool to achieve MDG progress in all country contexts.

New York: A.H Monjurul Kabir 

A.H.Monjurul Kabir, Democratic Governance Group, BDP/UNDP New York

Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much for the exciting e-discussion which I’m following with great interest. The phase 1 discussion on ‘Strengthening democratic governance engagements with the MDGs achievement process’ is intricately linked to the next stage (phase two) discussion related to ‘Promoting inclusive leadership and innovation for implementing MDGs based national development agenda’. I would like to bring the perspective of legal empowerment in the context of this phase. The UN sponsored Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor in its global report -‘Making the Law work for Everyone (hereinafter legal empowerment report)’- raised several critical issues including some alarming information: Two in every three people on the planet—some 4 billion in total—are “excluded from the rule of law.” In many cases, this begins with the lack of official recognition of their birth: around 40% of the developing world's five-year-old children are not registered as even existing.

After listening to commission co-chairs Madeleine Albright and Hernando de Soto on June 3rd at the United Nations in New York during the first official launch of the report, I do agree that the inextricable link between pervasive poverty and the absence of legal protections for the poor has been overlooked in the policy discourse for too long. Of course, there might be dissenting views on some of the assertions made in the report i.e., whether there could be legally binding business rights, whether the total number of people without protection of law could be effectively measured etc. However, nobody denies the critical need of the legal empowerment in promoting a inclusive development agenda. Full recognition of legal identity, assured access to the courts, basic labour protection, the right to own property and the rule of law to prevent exploitation by the powerful are vital tools to enable the poor to realize their full potential.

Noha and Ernest raised three critical questions in their launch messages of the discussion regarding strengthening democratic governance engagements with the MDGs achievement process:

Participative, transparent and responsive governance: In the absence of adequate framework of legal empowerment and protection both at national and sub-national levels, chances are high that existing participative processes and monitoring may not be successful to influence sustainable pro poor policy and reduce inequities. As reiterated in the legal empowerment report, there are no technical fixes for development. For states to guarantee their citizens’ right to protection, systems can and have to be changed, and changed systemically. Legal empowerment is one of the central forces in such a reform process. It involves states delivering on their duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and the poor realising more and more of their rights, and reaping the opportunities that flow from them, through their own efforts as well as through those of their supporters, wider networks and governments. However, the legal empowerment report does not suggest how to measure the progress towards legal empowerment. Therefore, any initiative to strengthen such framework and legal protection will vary considerably.

Implementing Economic and Social Rights: The record of national courts and NHRIs, although not very encouraging, are not short of innovation and potential. Take the example of the Mid-day Meal Scheme in India which involves provision of lunch free of cost to school-children on all working days. The scheme has a long history especially in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, and has been expanded to all parts of India after a landmark direction by the Supreme Court of India on November 28, 2001. The success of this scheme is illustrated by the tremendous increase in the school participation and completion rates in the state of Tamilnadu. 12 crore (120 million) children are so far covered under the Mid-day Meal Scheme, which is the largest school lunch programme in the world. Allocation for this programme has been enhanced from Rs 3010 crore to Rs 4813 crore (Rs 48 billion, $1.2 billion) in 2006-2007.

The right to adequate housing in the context of forced evictions of slums was claimed in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (1999) without much success. However, the court granted relief on separate ground. Young lawyers and activists are trying to use law, often innovatively (i.e., applying public interest litigation, encouraging judges to invoke judicial activism, etc.) , to promote economic and social rights agenda. In fact, the MDG agenda are broader part of economic, social, and cultural rights movement, and, it is important to establish stronger linkages between the two initiatives. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteurs on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights endorse that human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights help to realize any strategy to meet the MDGs for example by:
• providing a compelling normative framework, underpinned by universally recognized human values and reinforced by legal obligations, for the formulation of national and international development policies towards achieving the MDGs ;
• raising the level of empowerment and participation of individuals;
• Affirming the accountability of various stakeholders, including international organizations and NGOs, donors and transnational corporations, vis-à-vis people affected by problems related to poverty, hunger, education, gender inequality, health, housing and safe drinking water; and
• reinforcing the twin principles of global equity and shared responsibility which are the very foundation for the Millennium Declaration.
(Source: A Joint Statement by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteurs on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 29 November 2002).

The elements of Legal Empowerment are all grounded in the spirit and letter of international human rights law, and particularly in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares: ―All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. In fact, the first two above-mentioned examples also point to the same directions.

Political Process and Social Movements: In my personal view, this is one of the most critical issues of the ongoing e-discussion. The MDGs and the fight against poverty will certainly require, as raised in the launch message (a) increasing involvement by parliaments, political parties, social movements and (b) enhanced accountability that is sensitive to disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and to institutional histories of marginalization. On all these fronts, MDG agenda could have achieved more. As rightly pointed out by earlier e-discussion participants, recent development in East Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Central America are stark reminders that our interventions requires an informed, proactive, and innovative engagement with political actors.
Engagement of international community in developing and/or promoting capacity of leadership at all levels of governments including elected local governments. Sadly, many of our existing political governance programmes are of technical capacity development type, often without addressing into deeper socio-political issues and realities. Political parties can take the MDG agenda closer to the people, and parliamentarians can bring back the people’s feedback and insights to the floors of the parliaments, also to establish and/or strengthen accountability mechanism and combat corruption.

The UNDP Asia-Pacific Human Development Report 2008, titled Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives, concludes that corruption undermines human development and efforts at poverty alleviation by diverting goods and services targeted for the poor to well-off and well-connected households who can bribe officials. The action-oriented report examines a spectrum of corruption in the Asia-Pacific region and recommends a seven-point action plan, including concerted international efforts to implement the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, setting benchmarks for the quality of institutions, strengthening civil services, promoting codes of conduct in the private sector, establishing the right to information and supporting citizen action. The report also recommends that police, social services and natural resources be targeted as top priorities for anti-corruption campaigns.

‘Democracy and legal empowerment are kindred spirits, and are better synchronised than sequenced.’ The legal empowerment report asserts that in the absence of empowerment, societies lose the benefits that derive from the free flow of information, open debate, and new ideas. This again can contribute to unchecked corruption. We have already passed the midway point for meeting MDGs, yet remain far from their fulfillment. The UN Secretary General labelled 2008 the year of the ‘bottom billion’. However, if we fail to strengthen democratic governance engagements with the MDGs achievement process, we will not be able to meet their expectations. And the time to act is NOW.

With best wishes.

A.H.Monjurul KABIR
Democratic Governance Group
BDP/UNDP New York

Uzbekistan: Bakhodur Eshonov

Bakhodur Eshonov, Manager - Support to Reform Process; UNDP Uzbekistan

Dear colleagues,

I would agree that the topic proved to be interesting and very much alive.

Let me add another dimension related to participative, transparent and responsive governance – the issues related to Data and Information – Quality, Access, and Relevance.

Participative, transparent and responsive governance requires information, both for situational analysis, and at the later stages - for monitoring and evaluation, at different levels, for/by different participants/actors.

Therefore logically - capacities of respective government agencies, first of all national statistical authorities, should be strengthened both in collection, processing and dissemination of data.

Still, information (statistical or some other types of data and information) should not be considered as the monopoly of state - collected and provided by national statistical authorities only. Research institutions, NGOs, various associations and chambers – at national and sub-national levels - should collect data, conduct or commission surveys. Such kind of research groups/teams should not only provide alternative independent assessments, but should be more flexible in terms of coming with ad hoc studies, surveys, focusing at some more specific issues or providing some more disaggregated data.

In case of Uzbekistan, UNDP supported Government in subcontracting independent research teams for conducting several surveys which were used later in consultations/formulation of such documents like PRSP:

• “Family Assets Mobilization” – assessment of assets available with households (disaggregated by rural/urban families, families with women as a head, etc.) was complementing official household budget survey.
• “Portrait of an Uzbek Entrepreneur” – was important one since the entire private sector emerged in the country only recently with the transition from plan to market, and it still remains infant.

Importantly that with such kind of interventions we both:

• received essential information for situational analysis and formulation of respective programs;
• strengthened capacities of independent national institutions in data collection and processing;
• raised demand for data and information with various stakeholders both at the national and regional levels.

The latter has a particular importance. In most of developing countries we complain about the problem of availability of data. And we often try to address the issue from the supply side. Instead, we should approach the issue from the demand side. Trustful data appear when there is effective demand from different stakeholders to use appropriate data and information.

Let me also refer to a Policy Brief, which was a kind of milestone in the efforts of UNDP in Uzbekistan in raising the issue of importance of data and information - Official Statistics in Uzbekistan: Institutional Basis, Quality and Access: www.cer.uz/index.phphttp://www.cer.uz/index.php?&lang=1&menu=7&report=list&year=2006

Uganda: Srikiran Devara

Srikiran Devara, Programme Analyst; UNDP Uganda

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for this very exciting discussion surrounding governance issues. I wish to contribute from mostly economic institutions perspective and share some ideas from this angle.

Governance and MDGs have a very fundamental link. In achieving the MDGs, governments should definitely concentrate energies on two important areas: achieving economic growth and institution building for good and democratic governance.

In my view, economic growth is fundamental for the achievement of MDGs and governance helps in ensuring long term sustainability of this growth and also contributes heavily in making it pro-poor. Growth without appropriate governance systems is either useless (as it can only increase inequality) or causes conflict. Both growth and governance are necessary to ensure long term development of a country.

Economic development stops when the governments do not respect the institutions as expected. This involves, at a minimum - respect for rule of law, equal space for three arms of government, protection of rights particularly civil liberties and political freedom, transparent and accountable public administration. This also involves sound pro-poor macroeconomic policies that facilitate growth and inclusion of all sections of society.

In my view the issues raised by the moderator are connected and interlinked with each supporting the effective working of the other.

Pro-poor policy

Developing appropriate policy environment in the country depends on the nature and depth of the economic and political institutions in the country. Within the realm of economic institutions, for instance, the basic macroeconomic policies – fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, exchange rate policy – should all focus on growth and poverty reduction rather than limit to stability as a centre piece. After the experiences of the 1990s, it is very clear that these key economic policies/institutions need to be pro-poor and in order to make them pro-poor, the critical step is to ensure bottom up process of policy making. Most often these are considered as too technical and limited to a certain level of governance i.e. Ministry of Finance and Central Bank level. However, in order to really make macroeconomic policies look beyond stability, participation of the different stakeholders that are ultimately impacted by these policies is essential. Lack of participation of the public would result in a narrow focus only capturing the views of a select ‘elite’ population.

An important facet of pro-poor policy goes beyond formulation to also include implementation. Role of independent bodies like the Parliament, anticorruption agencies, ombudsman etc combined with CSOs and citizens themselves comes into play in such cases. A participatory pro-poor policy framework would facilitate a clear role for these different entities and allow for reforms on a continual basis depending on the need of the situation.

Equitable Delivery

In developing equitable systems of delivery, irrespective of nature of institutions and organizations, public spending coupled with appropriate accountability and transparency systems form the centerpiece. In the case of Uganda, while there is a policy for universal primary education and increased public spending in the sector there are cases of lack of effective accountability systems. This has translated as challenges in terms of teacher availability in rural schools, infrastructure facilities etc – thus slowing down the expected results. In the case of Nepal, according to WDR 2004, 46 per cent of education spending accrues to the richest fifth and only 11 percent to the poorest. These examples identify the need for focused public spending with appropriate accountability systems.

Pro-poor policies and equitable delivery systems supported by appropriate public administration systems, economic policies and political structures and institutions would contribute significantly for making governance reforms work for the poor and achievement of MDGs.

Ethiopia: Girma B. Hailu

Girma B. Hailu, MDG Support Country Advisor; UNDP-Ethiopia

Dear Colleagues,

I am very happy to be part of this e-discussion. I very much agree with the conceptualization that poverty and injustice are the results of structures and processes of human made social, economic and political systems, and how decisions and choices are made by individuals, communities, institutions and nations.

I understand that governance refers to systems and institutions in a society that determine allocation, distribution and exercise of power, as well as the institutional mechanisms that determine resource sharing, interest mediations, negotiations and policy formulation. In this context, governance is a process of aggregation and articulation of public demand and subsequent conversion into deliverable policies and programmes which again inherently underpins accountability, transparency and responsiveness towards actions that affect the lives of poor people, and citizens at large. Without much reference to conceptual frameworks on the relationship between governance and poverty alleviation, we have evidences that countries like India, Vietnam, Uganda and others which run political and economic reforms have helped large number of their people to climb out of poverty.

The effectiveness of the fight against poverty and its root causes depends on the extent we understand and respond to the interdependence and interaction of national and global forces that impact on the policy choices. Power imbalances, i.e. access and control over material, human, intellectual and financial resources and the way they are used for by different individuals, groups and institutions lie at the heart of poverty and injustice. It is hard to think that poverty can be substantially reduced and the rights of poor people can be realized without changes in the structure and relationship of power. I believe this theoretical underpinning is the basis for UN and other development actors consider and adopt the human rights-based development approach in their normative framework.

A rights-based and people-centered approach to governance emphasizes the participation of citizens and the ability of poor and excluded people to ask questions, claim rights, make decisions and hold institutions accountable. These are the foundations for deepening democratic processes where people can shape the state and the state, in turn, creates the social, political, economic and legal conditions in which people can exercise their rights and be free from poverty at large. Mechanisms to ensure downward accountability, government/any entity to be accountable to the people or their constituency, is important to effectively enable the system perform the best interest of the people.

As many agree, democratic governments can act in favor of the poor and citizen at large, upholding social and economic rights and the principle of justice for poor and excluded people. It gives us hope that more nations than ever before are committed to the principles of representative democracy.

A real participation is central in the whole concept of governance. This is more than consulting or involving people to become involved in the process. Rather participation implies a radical rethinking of who undertakes processes, who makes choice and decision, and who learns and benefits from the process and outcome. Robert Chambers describes it as “a process whereby local people are given the capacity and power to make their own analysis, direct the process, grow in confidence and their own decisions…” Participation is a key mechanism promoting good governance and the direct involvement of poor and excluded people and other stakeholders.

I strongly believe that as the space for the participation of grass root actors, CSOs, media and other stakeholders in the governance system increases, the chance of addressing poverty and meeting MDGs will be much better than any other alternatives.

Bangladesh: Nandita Dutta

Nandita Dutta, Programme Analyst; UNDP Bangladesh

Dear Colleagues,
We would like to thank the DGP Net for initiating this e-discussion topic which is timely and creating much interest among colleagues to participate. I would like to take the opportunity of sharing following views with my colleagues keeping their eyes on this e discussion screen.

Participative, transparent and responsive governance: How and when do participative processes (i.e. budgeting, participatory planning etc.) and/or monitoring influence sustainable pro poor policy and reduce inequities?

Participation of stakeholders is important in ensuring responsiveness of a state’s functions. It has always been a part of policy discourse that government is no more one single entity or institution – rather it is a combination of other institutions: civil society/communities, business/private entities and the state. One of the major benefits of this participation is that it eases the state’s functions through which it delivers services to its citizens, facilitates pro-poor policy formulation and reduces inequities. However, the most critical part is to have the right platform for all stakeholders to contribute to the policy formulation, planning and development, resource allocation and utilization. It is important to see whether voices are being heard and reflected in budgeting, planning or in policy formulation.

Our experiences say that the best possible way to ensure participatory processes more effectively is strengthening the local government institutions. It does not only mean giving them financial authority but essentially curtailing the undue influences by both the political and administrative institutions. In addition to this, local government institutions need to have control over local resources. This will, on one hand, ensure the local government institutions’ accountability for utilization of resources and on the other, it would enable them to plan realistically for resource mobilization. Recently one Municipality in Bangladesh prepared the Budget without imposing any new tax. It was justified, when questioned by the media, by the Municipality official that without increasing/improving public service delivery, tax imposition is not logical. It clearly establishes a link between the institution’s responsibilities towards communities’ needs. This is how the process should continue.

In Bangladesh, development assistance to Union Parishads (Councils) is one of the best examples of strengthening local government institutions. Block Grant is now being disbursed directly to the UPs (without any bureaucratic channel at the local level). UPs are to prepare their own budget, community people are participating in planning and budgeting. I would like to request our colleagues working on local governance to provide more information on this.

However, the process will not be complete without involving the community in the whole mechanism. In a case of low literacy rate and poverty-stricken communities, there might be some risks that people do not show interests to participate or may not have adequate understanding of the benefits that their participation would bring to their lives. Thus community development is also vitally important to ensure effective participation. At the top of everything we need to keep in mind “why” we are talking about participation – it is for pro-poor growth, pro-poor development and finally for achieving MDGs.

Now the question is “when” – it should be a continuous process. Putting the process in a timeframe may not suit always. If people are not involved in the whole process, getting their participation only in the time of budgeting may not give us the expected results.

Implementing Economic and Social Rights: How and when does work with courts, national human rights institutions or ombudsperson offices enhance progress towards equitable delivery on the MDGs?

This is a question of quality and not quantity only, which is extremely important to ensure achievement of MDGs. All the goals and more specifically those are related to education and health services, gender equality and empowerment, ensuring environmental sustainability cannot be measured only by number, the quality has to be ensured from a social justice point of view. When deprivation and inequality are evident, working through courts, Human Rights Commission and Ombudsperson may enhance progress towards equitable delivery on the MDGs. Many other issues have been associated with these – empowerment of ethnic minority community, access to justice, impartiality in delivering justice, access to justice by poor and vulnerable, human rights, income generation, social acceptability of HIV/AIDS patients and many other economic and social issues. However, there must be a strong base to start. Qualitative assessment needs to be conducted on each of the goals along with statistical data analysis. The research and situational analysis could give us that base on which we can start working with courts, HR Commission and other institutions.

Political Process and Social Movements: How and when does institutional capacity development ensure responsiveness to vulnerable and marginalized groups when political rules of operation reduce incentives for responsiveness or windfall of natural resource revenue deform such incentives?

Having political commitment for achievement of development results is now a very good topic for debate, currently experiencing many developing countries and LDCs. The main point of this debate is that without political commitment, development is not possible. However, by putting all or much responsibilities on the politicians or political institutions, other stakeholders are perhaps shifting their own responsibilities and accountabilities to the politicians and thus minimizing their own roles in the development agenda. In addition, it gives the political institutions a blank cheque for influencing or controlling all kinds of development challenges. When politicians or political rules go wrong, what could be the expected role of the CSOs? What could be the role of private entities or public institutions? The responsibility of building public confidence and trust is everybody’s business. Taking the development agenda forward is also everybody’s business. The political institution cannot be the “sole distributor” of rules here.

I would like to emphasize more on the importance of policy interventions than institutional development as it creates an enabling environment for institutions to be responsive towards needs of vulnerable and marginalized groups. Policy interventions make the institutions responsible for delivering services to the citizens. When policies are responsive in nature, transforming the institutions into capable service providers should not take much time. There needs to have ‘watchdogs’ in the society and creating platforms for vulnerable groups to raise their voices. People must be aware that public representatives are not the only institution who will bring their needs to the Parliament for discussion and policy formulation but the society itself could be the platform. This is where social movements, political process and the institutional capacity can merge together to deliver better results.

Look forward to having more discussions.

Mali: Fatimata Traore Ossade

Fatimata Traore Ossade, Assistant Resident Representative – Governance; UNDP Mali 

English | French

Dear Colleagues,
It is a real pleasure for us to take part in this e-discussion on such an important issue that concerns us all. We hope that the various thoughts will contribute to rethink our approaches to development, the quality of our democratic governance and to set up a better strategy in order to meet the MDGs.

Joint contribution of the UNDP / UNIDO / UNV Mali team to E-discussions

Background: The issue in discussion "Rethinking Democratic Governance and the commitments of the process in order to meet the MDGs" is a very interesting debate, in the extent that it concerns a topical problematic in most of our countries. Governance is a theme which is in the center of the concerns of Malian government, of all its technical and financial partners and a requirement of its citizens. The promotion of a real democracy and of a good governance is crucial in order to achieve sustainable human development and a lasting peace. Hence, it enables the creation of an environment conducive to the achievement of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs).

Since the advent of political pluralism and freedom of expression, the Government of Mali is committed to making of Mali an example of good governance in the sub-region. To this end, significant progress has been observed through a series of major reforms aiming at a improved power sharing among which, decentralization, the gradual disengagement of the State from certain economic functions for the benefit of private sector actors, the emergence of the associative movement and a political and union pluralism, the involvement and accountability of the other actors (Organizations of the Civil Society, Private Sector, etc.) in the management of public affairs. Currently, Mali numbers more than 100 political parties and opposition has a legal status.

Considerations on the status of democratic governance and the link: In Mali, as in many African countries, the advent of democracy is relatively recent; it ocurred in a context of strong demand from the populations tired of a single party regime with all its corollaries. Democracy was gained in 1991, without the achievement of all the necessary conditions. Since then, it is being built little by little with highs and lows.

The democratic governance of the electoral process (formerly managed by the executive, through the Ministry of Interior alone or the Territorial Administration). In increasingly involving several actors (political parties, the government, the General Delegation for the elections, the Independent National Commission, the courts and the Constitutional Court), it bolstered a climate of peace in the country, and that is essential to any development.

Elections are regularly organized and conducted in a pacified climate. On the national budget, political parties enjoy an annual grant based on well-defined eligibility criteria. We feel it is important to make this link with the achievement of the MDGs, because we know that most conflicts in Africa are the result of poor organization of elections.

Democratic institutions: According to the Constitution of February 25, 1992 that establishes the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, efforts are being made for the creation of democratic institutions of the Republic, and of advisory bodies, including: the High Council of Communities, the Economic, Social and Cultural Council, the Ombudsman of the Republic, the Auditor’s Office, etc.

The Parliament or the National Assembly that enjoys legislative power and power to call on the government for actions that are proposed, should benefit from good information and adequate training in order to vote laws in favor of the millennium development goals. This is the case of the law passed on non discrimination of people suffering from VHI/AIDS, and on the adoption of the decree on the free Anti Retro Viral (ARVs), etc.

Moreover, on the national plan, many other initiatives have been taken and other are ongoing, at the level of the highest levels of decision, in order to strengthen governance in Mali, specifically in the fields of health (example: free cesarean), of Education (debates on the status of teachers and the Malian school) and of the restructuring of public finances and of development assistance (organization of general states on corruption by the end of the year 2008).

The decentralization/deconcentration which constitutes the basis and the expression of local governance has, in a certain extent, promoted the local participation of communities to the life of their Communities. It is an important part of the public administration reform, designed to provide health, education services, access to water and to economic infrastructures. Decentralization in Mali has recorded significant progress, never recorded during the 30 years of single party government, particularly in the field of socio educational and health infrastructures.

The promotion of Private Sector: The democratic governance has contributed to a favourable environment for the Promotion of Private Sector, which represents the engine of economic growth. The conditions for the creation of private enterprises have become more attractive to national and foreign investors due to the existence of an incentive investors’ code and of a Single window to the level of the Agency for the Promotion of Investments recently created. Efforts are yet to be made to improve the business environment, with regard to the World Bank survey results of "Doing Business". As providers of jobs, therefore of wealth, the promotion of Private sector is essential for growth and poverty reduction, including monetary poverty which represents the #1 objective of the MDGs. The Government of Mali is convinced of this and is working to put in place incentives namely within the framework of the strategy of accelerated growth for 2008-2012.

Moreover, despite some shortcomings, the government, through notably the President’s Investment (PIC) and the Council for the Coordination of the Development of Private Sector, is making efforts to strengthen the inclusive dialogue intra private sector and public-private sector guarantee of peace, serenity and attractiveness for domestic and foreign investors.

Challenges: Despite these substantial accomplishments, significant challenges still lie ahead in order to improve democratic governance in Mali. To this end, many initiatives are undertaken to find more appropriate strategies for a better performance. Among them, we can cite the current thinking in the Alliance for the "Restructuring of Governance in Africa".

It is clear that there is a very close link between the quality of democratic governance and the achievement of the MDGs, to the extent that the first creates favorable conditions for the achievement of the second. Achieving the MDGs will also depend on the degree of commitment of authorities, strategies and on the leadership that each country will develop to this effect. By the way, Mali, with the support of the UNDP-Mali’s office, just organized on June 12 and 13 last, the 6th Conference of the Roundtable with all of its Technical and Financial Partners where one of the objectives was to identify ways and means to speed up the growth and progress toward the MDGs.

Regarding the democratic institutions, it appears necessary to develop the capacity necessary to exercise their warrants and ensure their autonomy.

The independence of the parliament in most of our countries is still relative, with sometimes a dose of dependence of the executive especially when the majority falls under the presidential influence. It is also valid for justice, which unfortunately does not always exercise its function in complete freedom. It is important that these institutions and Structures enjoy complete independence and infrastructures necessary to work properly and contribute to the achievement of the MDGs by adopting and initiating laws militating in favor of areas affected by the MDGs, in exercising true control government action, and by dealing out justice in a fair way.

They must benefit from the necessary training in relation to the issues of the MDGs in order to lead real pleas and to ensure the achievement of results. We note nevertheless that parliamentarians are sometimes facing the weight of socio-cultural sluggishness (challenges of society) exercised by their bases, and that prevent them from voting certain laws (it is currently the case with the bill on the new Code of family which in its contents balance in a certain extent the Man – Woman relations.

The decentralization/deconcentration which constitutes the basis and the expression of the local governance should encourage the local participation of communities to the life of their Communities. It is an important part of the reform of public administrations, designed to provide health, education services, access to water and to economic infrastructures. Decentralization in Mali has recorded significant progress, but still faces many challenges, including the tough question of transfer of financial and human resources and other skills to enable decentralized communities to correctly fulfill the mission and prerogatives which are transferred to them.

So, despite decentralization, certain decisions falling even under the Communities continue to be taken at central level and passed on the regional and local levels. Involving in a responsible way the decentralized Communities in the search for solutions to problems that concern them, could undoubtedly prove more effective than to enforce, as it is the case sometimes, the decisions taken at central level. Therefore, capacity building of communities in planning proves necessary for a better management of the MDGs in their Social, Economic and Cultural Development Plan (SECDP).

The challenge of poverty and illiteracy which is a vicious circle, will only be defeated when the MDGs are achieved, and for that, it is necessary to create a favorable environment through the culture of good governance in different areas.

In a context where the State and the decentralized Communities have limited financial resources to recruit skills necessary for animation of its different structures, Information/Education/Communication and the achievement of certain types of training, a well- organized Volunteerism System could relieve this deficit. Unfortunately, there is not a very coherent national policy. At the local level, with the phenomenon of monetization and democratization poorly understood, volunteerism which was one of the values of villages tends to show its limits.

The mobility of parliamentarians, because of their elect status, does not favor the capitalization of experiences and training received.

The challenge of the restructuring of the management of public funds and development aid must be taken up and for that, the government must show a strong political will at all levels.

Conclusion: The democratic governance in Mali, despite its shortcomings, could be cited as an example of good practice in Africa. A few thoughts by some practitioners conclude that it would be better, if the traditional legitimacy would cohabit (in which most citizens recognize themselves) with the constitutional one.

The UNDP, because of its vocation and its traditional mission of capacity building, continues to support the political will of the government by accompanying it in the implementation of its initiatives of consolidation of good governance. In order to strengthen the link between the MDGs and the Democratic Governance, the UNDP must now ensure that the various programmes of democratic governance that it supports, include a Section on information, the sensibilization and issues related to MDGs. From now on, UNDP will have to ensure that the terms of reference of the assessment of its supports incorporate performance indicators related to initiatives developed in favor of the achievement of the MDGs.

French

Chers Collègues,

C’est avec un réel plaisir que nous avons bien voulu prendre part à ces discussions sur un thème aussi important et qui nous interpelle tous. Nous espérons que les différentes réflexions menées contribueront à repenser nos approches de développement, la qualité de notre gouvernance démocratique et à asseoir une meilleure stratégie en vue de l’atteinte des OMD.

Contribution conjointe de l’équipe PNUD/ONUDI/VNU - Mali aux E- discussions

Contexte : Le thème en discussion « Repenser la gouvernance démocratique et les engagements du processus pour l’atteinte des OMD » est un débat très intéressant, dans la mesure où il concerne une problématique d’actualité dans la plupart de nos pays. La Gouvernance est un thème qui se trouve au centre des préoccupations du gouvernement malien, de l'ensemble de ses partenaires techniques et financiers et une exigence des citoyens. La promotion d’une véritable démocratie et d’une bonne gouvernance est un élément déterminant pour parvenir à un développement humain viable et à une paix durable. Elle favorise donc la création d’un environnement favorable à l’atteinte des Objectifs du Millénaire pour le Développement (OMD).

Depuis l’avènement du pluralisme politique et de la liberté d’expression, le gouvernement malien est engagé à faire du Mali un exemple de bonne gouvernance dans la sous région. A cet effet, des progrès notables ont été observés à travers une série de réformes majeures visant un meilleur partage du pouvoir parmi lesquelles, la décentralisation, le désengagement progressif de l’Etat de certaines fonctions économique au profit des acteurs du secteur privé, l’émergence du mouvement associatif et d’un pluralisme politique et syndical, l’implication et la responsabilisation des autres acteurs (Organisations de la Société Civile, Secteur privé, etc.) dans la gestion des affaires publiques. Actuellement, le Mali compte plus de cent partis politiques et l’opposition est dotée d’un statut juridique.

Réflexions sur l’état des lieux de la gouvernance démocratique et le lien : Au Mali, tout comme dans beaucoup de pays africains, l’avènement de la démocratie est relativement très récent ; il est intervenu dans un contexte de forte demande des populations essoufflées d’un régime de parti unique avec tout son corollaire. La démocratie s’est ainsi acquise en 1991, sans pour autant que toutes les conditions nécessaires ne soient forcement réunies. Depuis, elle se construit petit à petit avec ses hauts et ses bas.

La gouvernance démocratique du processus électoral (auparavant géré par l’exécutif, à travers le seul Ministère de l’Intérieur ou de l’Administration Territoriale). En faisant intervenir de plus en plus plusieurs acteurs (les partis politiques, le gouvernement, la Délégation générale des élections, la Commission Nationale Indépendante, les tribunaux et la Cour constitutionnelle), elle a permis d’asseoir dans le pays un climat de paix, indispensable à tout développement. Les élections sont régulièrement organisées et se déroulent dans un climat apaisé. Sur budget national, les partis politiques bénéficient d’une subvention annuelle suivant des critères d’éligibilité bien déterminés. Nous estimons, qu’il est important de faire ce lien avec l’atteinte des OMD, quand on sait que la plupart des conflits en Afrique résultent de la mauvaise organisation des élections.

Institutions démocratiques : Conformément à la Constitution du 25 février 1992 qui consacre la séparation des pouvoirs exécutif, législatif et judiciaire, des efforts sont déployés pour la création de certaines Institutions démocratiques de la République, et des Organes consultatifs, notamment : le Haut Conseil des Collectivités, le Conseil Economique, Social et Culturel, le Médiateur de la République, le Bureau du Vérificateur, etc.

Le Parlement ou l’Assemblée nationale qui jouit du pouvoir législatif et d’interpellation du gouvernement sur les actions qu’il pose, doit bénéficier de bonnes informations et de formations adéquates pour voter des lois en faveur des objectifs de développement du millénaire. C’est le cas de la loi votée sur la non discrimination des personnes atteintes du VHI/SIDA, de l’adoption du décret sur la gratuité des Anti Rétro Viraux (ARV), etc.

Par ailleurs, sur le plan national, beaucoup d’autres initiatives ont été entreprises et d’autres en cours, au niveau des plus hautes instances de décision, en vue de conforter la gouvernance au Mali, spécifiquement dans les domaines de la santé (exemple : la gratuité de la césarienne), de l’éducation (débats sur le statut des enseignants et l’école malienne) et de l’assainissement des finances publiques et de l’aide au développement (organisation des états généraux sur la corruption d’ici la fin de l’année 2008).

La décentralisation / déconcentration qui constitue la base et l’expression de la gouvernance locale a, dans une certaine mesure, favorisé la participation locale des communautés à la vie de leurs Collectivités. Elle constitue un volet important de la réforme des administrations publiques, destinée à fournir des services de santé, d’éducation, d’accès à l'eau et aux infrastructures économiques. La décentralisation au Mali a enregistré des progrès notoires, non enregistrés durant 30 ans de régime à parti unique, particulièrement dans le domaine des infrastructures socio éducatives et sanitaires.

La promotion du Secteur privé : La gouvernance démocratique a contribué à un environnement favorable pour la promotion du Secteur Privé, qui représente le moteur de la croissance économique. Les conditions de création des entreprises privées sont devenues plus attrayantes pour les investisseurs nationaux et étrangers en raison de l’existence d’un code des investisseurs incitatif et d’un Guichet unique au niveau de l’Agence de Promotion des Investissements récemment créées. Des efforts sont encore à faire pour améliorer l’environnement des affaires ce, au regard des résultats d’enquête de « Doing Business » de la Banque Mondiale. En tant que pourvoyeurs d’emplois, donc de richesses, la promotion du Secteur privé est indispensable pour la croissance et la réduction de la pauvreté, notamment monétaire qui représente l’objectif n°1 des OMD. Le gouvernement malien en est convaincu et œuvre à mettre en place à cet effet des mesures incitatives notamment dans le cadre de la Stratégie de croissance accélérée 2008-2012.

Par ailleurs, en dépit de certaines insuffisances, le gouvernement à travers notamment le Conseil Présidentiel de l’Investissement (CPI) et le Conseil de Coordination du Développement du Secteur Privé, déploie des efforts en vue de renforcer le dialogue inclusif intra secteur privé et secteur public-privé gage de paix, de sérénité et d’attrait des investisseurs nationaux et étrangers.

Défis / Enjeux : Malgré ces acquis appréciables, d’importants défis restent à relever pour parfaire la gouvernance démocratique au Mali. A cet effet, beaucoup d’initiatives visant à trouver des stratégies plus adéquates pour une meilleure performance sont entreprises. Parmi celles-ci, nous pouvons citer les réflexions en cours au sein de l’Alliance pour « Refonder la Gouvernance en Afrique ».

Il est évident qu’il existe un lien très étroit entre la qualité de la gouvernance démocratique et l’atteinte des OMD, dans la mesure où le premier crée des conditions favorables pour la réalisation du second. L’atteinte des OMD dépendra également du degré d’engagement des autorités, des stratégies et du leadership que chacun des pays développera à cet effet. A propos, le Mali avec l’appui du bureau du PNUD-Mali vient d’organiser les 12 et 13 juin dernier, la 6ème Conférence de la Table Ronde avec l’ensemble de ses Partenaires Techniques et Financiers dont l’un des objectifs était d’identifier les voies et moyens d’accélérer la croissance et les progrès vers les OMD.

S’agissant des Institutions démocratiques, il s’avère indispensable de les doter de capacités nécessaires à l’exercice de leurs mandats et d’assurer leur autonomie. L’indépendance du parlement dans la plupart de nos pays reste encore relative, avec quelques fois une dose de dépendance de l’exécutif surtout lorsque la majorité relève de la mouvance présidentielle. Cela est également valable pour la justice, qui malheureusement n’exerce pas toujours sa fonction en toute liberté. Il est important que ces Institutions et Structures bénéficient d’une indépendance totale et des moyens de travail nécessaires pour qu’elles puissent travailler convenablement et contribuer à l’atteinte des OMD en adoptant et en initiant des lois militant en faveur des domaines concernés par les OMD, en exerçant un contrôle digne de nom de l’action gouvernementale, et en rendant une justice de façon équitable.

Elles doivent bénéficier de formations nécessaires par rapport aux enjeux des OMD afin de mener de véritables plaidoyers et de veiller à l’atteinte des résultats. Nous notons tout de même que les parlementaires sont quelques fois confrontés aux poids des pesanteurs socio - culturelles (défis de société) exercés par leurs bases, et qui les empêchent de voter certaines lois (c’est le cas actuellement avec le projet de loi sur le nouveau Code de famille qui dans son contenu équilibre dans une certaine mesure les rapports Homme – Femme).

La décentralisation / déconcentration qui constitue la base et l’expression de la gouvernance locale doit favoriser la participation locale des communautés à la vie de leurs Collectivités. Elle constitue un volet important de la réforme des administrations publiques, destinée à fournir des services de santé, d’éducation, d’accès à l'eau et aux infrastructures économiques. La décentralisation au Mali a enregistré des progrès notoires, mais reste confrontée à de nombreux défis, dont l’épineuse question de transfert des ressources financières et humaines et d’autres compétences permettant aux collectivités décentralisées de remplir correctement la mission et les prérogatives qui leur sont transférées.

Aussi, malgré la décentralisation, certaines décisions relevant même des compétences des Collectivités continuent d’être prises au niveau central et répercutées après sur les niveaux régional et local. Impliquer de façon responsable les Collectivités décentralisées dans la recherche de solutions aux problèmes les concernant, pourrait sans nul doute s’avérer plus efficace que de les faire appliquer comme c’est le cas quelques fois, les décisions prises au niveau central. Aussi, le renforcement des capacités des collectivités en matière de planification s’avère nécessaire pour une meilleure prise en charge des OMD dans leurs Plan de Développement Social Economique et Culturel (PDSEC).

Le défi de la pauvreté et de l’analphabétisme qui est un cercle vicieux, ne saura être vaincu que lorsque les OMD seront atteints, et pour cela, il faudra créer un environnement favorable à travers la culture d’une bonne gouvernance dans différents domaines.

Dans un contexte où l’Etat et les Collectivités décentralisées disposent de peu de ressources financières pour recruter des compétences nécessaires pour l’animation de ses différentes structures, l’Information/Education /Communication et la réalisation de certains types de formation, le Système de Volontariat bien organisé pourrait relayer ce déficit. Malheureusement, il n’existe pas une politique nationale très cohérente en la matière. Au niveau local, avec le phénomène de la monétarisation et la démocratisation mal comprise, le bénévolat qui constituait une des valeurs des terroirs villageois a tendance à montrer ses limites.

La mobilité des parlementaires de par leur statut d’élus, ne favorise pas la capitalisation des expériences et des formations reçues.

Le défi de l’assainissement de la gestion des fonds publics et de l’aide au développement doit être relevé et pour cela, le gouvernement doit faire preuve d’une ferme volonté politique à tout point de vue.

Conclusion : La gouvernance démocratique au Mali, malgré ses insuffisances pourrait être citée comme exemple de bonne pratique en Afrique. Quelques réflexions par certains praticiens concluent qu’elle se porterait mieux, si l’on faisait cohabiter la légitimité traditionnelle (dans laquelle la plupart des citoyens se reconnaissent) avec celle constitutionnelle.

Le PNUD de par sa vocation et sa mission traditionnelle de renforcement des capacités, continue de soutenir la volonté politique du gouvernement en l’accompagnant dans la mise en œuvre de ses initiatives de consolidation d’une bonne gouvernance. Dans le but de renforcer le lien entre les OMD et la Gouvernance Démocratique, le PNUD devra désormais veiller à ce que les différents programmes de gouvernance démocratique du gouvernement qu’il appuie, incluent un Volet sur l’information, la sensibilisation et les enjeux liés aux OMD. En Aval, il devra s’assurer que les termes de référence de l’évaluation de ces appuis intègrent des indicateurs de performances liés aux initiatives développées en faveur de l’atteinte des OMD.

Pakistan: Shakeel Ahmad

Shakeel Ahmad, Programme Officer; UNDP Pakistan

Dear Colleagues,

To supplement your useful contributions, I would like to add the following in response to the question on participatory, transparent and responsive governance for reducing poverty and inequality.

As we all know that growth, though a necessary condition, is not a sufficient condition to reduce poverty and inequalities. We have even seen reduction in head count poverty and increased consumption inequalities occurring at the same time. Therefore for growth to be pro poor depends on the drivers of growth. In other words, it has to be seen as to which sectors of the economy have contributed more to the overall growth. For example, if the growth rate is higher in those sectors that require highly skilled people, the impact of such a growth on poverty and inequality would be less as compared to if the growth is propelled by sectors which employ poor people. Since the government fiscal policies and budgeting making process determine the drivers of growth, such policies and actions always remain skewed in favor of non poor when the governance system is irresponsive and inconsiderate of poor people needs.

Thus for growth and policies to be pro poor, the system of governance should be such that the voices and views of the majority of the population, especially poor, are heard and appropriate actions taken and a robust system of accountability of state to its citizens is available and functional. The first step in the establishment of a responsive governance system and to enable it to carry out participatory planning would be the availability of updated and credible data. Unfortunately, in most of the cases, such data sets are not available especially at the sub national levels. Therefore planning is done using the aggregated national data based on limited samples. Secondly, the forums / institutions that can facilitate the process of participatory planning are almost non existent. Therefore, I believe that the pro poor policy formulation should start right from analysis of issues (based on the availability of data) and planning accordingly.

Monitoring is an important tool in making the state accountable for achieving development results. However its effectiveness depends on who undertakes monitoring and what is its institutional anchorage. As like planning, monitoring needs to involve a wide array of stakeholders especially those in the non state organizations. But at the same, such mechanisms need to be institutionalized in the right places so that monitoring is not considered as a one-off activity.

To address some of the above issues, UNDP Pakistan is following a multi pronged approach covering issues related to data collection and analysis to support in pro poor policy making and results monitoring. We are building the capacity of a research facility within the Government to undertake MDG based pro poor research analysis and input the same into policy formulation. However to ensure that the facility remains unbiased in its work, its advisory board (that approves the work plan and research findings) is consisted of a wide range of state and non state institutions. Additionally, over a period of few years, the facility will be transformed into an autonomous body.

For increased participation of the poor, we are supporting the Government Devolution Plan. As a component of this plan, grassroots community organizations are being formed through which community needs are identified, prioritized and development interventions undertaken on a cost sharing basis. Thus this methodology provides for participatory planning starting at community and village levels which can be integrated at the district level and so on. Therefore if organized in holistic manner, these grassroots organizations can provide effective platforms to input the “voices from the grassroots” into the planning and budgeting and monitoring processes of the national and sub national governments.

On monitoring, UNDP is supporting the establishment of structures in the federal and provincial governments to monitor the implementation of Poverty Reduction Strategies and preparation of sub national PRS reports. To know more about these initiatives, please visit UNDP Pakistan web site.

Malaysia: Ramachandran Ramasamy

Ramachandran Ramasamy; Statistician / Senior Manager Six Sigma; MIMOS Berhad

Dear colleagues,

I would like to give my two cents worth of thoughts on this subject matter, though I am not a subject matter specialist in democracy or governance or leadership. My thoughts are purely based on experiential learning garnered from working as a data producer and data user pertaining to socio-economic programmes mainly population development, housing and Information Communications Technology For Development (ICT4D). Currently, I am also exposed to Six Sigma, both reactive and proactive models as well as Lean Six methodology of solving process problems.

From my past experiences I observed that socio-economic programmes that developed by national governments or international bodies on addressing development concerns such as poverty, health, education, housing et cetera are being carried out in a structured way. The structure will basically will include at least five elements: firstly, namely thought leadership providing the vision; secondly, programme policies and strategies indicating the mission on how to achieve the envisaged vision; thirdly, leadership qualities demonstrating the commitments of role players at various levels; fourthly, monitoring and evaluation mechanism ingrained with measurement mechanisms and research elements; and lastly institutional and regulatory framework providing the guiding principles and working culture. Indeed, I would like to commend some national government and international organizations especially UN bodies for having such a comprehensive framework of addressing socio-economic problems and challenges that global society face. Nevertheless, I find one inherent weakness in the current problem solving framework mentioned above especially implementation aspect.

The weakest link in the implementation aspect is monitoring and evaluation mechanism that entails not only collection of beautiful statistical numbers but also lessons learnt. Currently some macro numbers are compiled in development activities but these numbers are not only inadequate in scope and coverage but more often, also not relevant to the issues that are addressed. This is something that warrants the attention of policy formulators and development practitioners in the mainstream.

Allow me to share my recent experiences of Six Sigma methodology of solving problems in software development environment where problems such as reducing defects, shortening cycle-time, expanding market share et cetera are duly addressed. As famously cited in the Six Sigma classes that “what get measured, get done”, meaning a lot of emphases is given on data driven approach. In its essence Six Sigma methodology precisely identifies and measures the problem, addresses root causes and suggests various options and solutions through deploying appropriate tools and problem solving processes. It also engages trainers, mentors and coachers in helping out the problem solvers. The methodology also takes a step beyond to assess the success or impact of the adopted approaches before and after effect. More importantly, the methodology gets buy-in and endorsement from role players at all levels. I am yet to come across such rigorous methodology in public policy environment. I am not suggesting that Six Sigma is the only way of solving development problems which has its own features, characteristics and nuances that differ from factory environment. But, I am thinking aloud that policy formulators and development practitioners need to develop new tools and methodologies as well as approaches in addressing MDG targets.

Mozambique: Luke Wasonga

Luke Wasonga, Governance Advisor; UNDP Mozambique

Dear All,

I would like to bring a dimension of national resource revenue management and leadership in achieving MDGs. National resource revenues from such sources as oil, diamond, agricultural products and extractive sector products can provide significant revenues for the government to accelerate growth for development. This requires a visionary leadership that respond to the long term needs of the citizens in participatory and transparent way. In most countries the share of the revenues that accrue from national resources is not utilized judiciously to improve the welfare of the population. This is related to the fact that the leadership does not link the accrued revenues to the need of the poorer segment of the citizens. As part of the developmental governance, it is important to examine the following issues:

• What the leadership must do to promote sharing resource wealth with the segments of the country that would have impact of the poorer citizens;
• Ways of retaining a larger share of national resource wealth for the sections of the regions that are producing the resources with distributive strategy to respond to the needs of the poor;
• Establishing fiscal method by which the resources can be transferred to sub-national levels to address the local economic interventions that respond to the grassroots population; and
• Determining possible lack of capacity to absorb increased revenue generated from the national resource wealth.

With participatory approach, the role of the citizen in the management of the national resource revenue is fundamental in ensuring that the national resource wealth would lead to positive impact of the population. The role of civil society organizations in ensuring fair utilization of revenue from the national resources is key and can be directed towards:

• Advocating transparency and a fair sharing of national resource revenues. They can put pressure on leadership and governments for transparency and accountability of national resource revenues;
• Raising public awareness through arranging seminars, courses and information meetings in communities;
• Participating in public oversight of national resource revenue management;
  

Slovakia: Dan Dionisie

Dan Dionisie, Policy Specialist - Public Administration Reform and Anti-corruption; UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre

Dear colleagues,

I would like to thank the facilitators for initiating this interesting debate. I think it is very important and timely - for all the talk about about the role of Governance as a key enabler for achieving the MDGs, we still have some way to go in spelling out the linkages. I am referring for instance to the connection that is made on the corporate website between PAR-AC and the MDGs (http://www.undp.org/governance/mdgs.htm), at the bottom), where for instance corruption is looked at only as diverting resources that could be used to advance MDGs, but not as undermining the basic state capabilities to deliver on a pro-poor agenda, which is a far more serious consequence than resource diversion.

To illustrate the latter point, I would propose the following mental experiment: let's imagine that we know that in country C the amount of money lost to corruption is M (accounting for x% of country C's GDP). Let's now imagine that people from country C had the option to pay a special tax (let's call it "corruption tax") that would amount to M and would be transferred directly to the offshore accounts of corrupt oligarchs (or just sunk on the bottom of the ocean, doesn't matter), and in exchange have a corruption-clean state - what would they choose? In which situation is country C more likely to meet its MDG targets?

It may be interesting to note in this context that already for several years UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre has partnered with the Central European University in Budapest for delivering a summer course on human development, which among others looks more closely at the interlinkages between various areas of Governance and the MDGs in the RBEC region (http://www.sun.ceu.hu/02-courses/course-sites/sustainable/index-sustain.php).

From a PAR-AC perspective, I will limit my contribution to the first item of this e-discussion: Participative, transparent and responsive governance.

When it comes to policy-making, it is of course very important to open the policy process and ensure inclusive participation of the poor and vulnerable groups. But, at least in the RBEC region, in order to achieve that there is a significant capacity development need on the side of governments - basically it's about enabling them to genuinely reach out to those whose voice is generally not heard, and integrate their concerns as part of the mainstream policy development. It is also about securing the integrity of the policy process from undue influence or capture by different lobbies and promoting evidence-based policy making. In partnership with Open Society Institute and with four COs (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Moldova, Serbia), the Bratislava Regional Centre is currently implementing a project to enhance capacities for ex-ante Policy Impact Assessment with a particular focus on ensuring equal opportunities for the vulnerable and marginalized groups - more information at http://europeandcis.undp.org/pia.

With respect to budgeting, I would like to highlight the work being done by Russia CO in partnership with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and the Ministry of Regional Development on results-based budgeting: http://www.undp.ru/index.phtml?iso=RU&lid=1&cmd=programs&id=170. This is key for effectively linking resource allocation to policy priorities like MDGs, and also for ensuring policy consistence across the (sub-national) regions. It can also help improve cross-sectoral policy coordination, a persistent weakness in post-communist transition countries from our region.

I look forward to the next stages of this debate.

Closing Note: Noha El-Mikawi

Noha El-Mikawy, Phase I e-Discussion Moderator and Policy Advisor for Governance and Poverty; UNDP/BDP/ DGG/ Oslo Governance Center

A number of contributors to this e-discussion have provided in the past two days valuable contributions on the issue of evidence into policy processes and monitoring the pro poor impact of policy (Shakeel Ahmad; Ramachandran Ramasamy; Luke Wasonga and Dan Dionisie)

Your concerns and the extremely useful links to ongoing activities in Pakistan and the Eastern European region ring a bell with UNDP's approach to enhancing national ownership of and inclusive participation in assessments of governance. The democratic governance group of UNDP sees a geniune participative ownership of evidence on governance trends as a key tool for enhancing performance and domestic accountability by linking data on governance to the policy "problem solving" cycle and making such data - through inclusive participation in its generation and usage- actionalbe because only through inclusive participation in generation and usage of governance data would evidence capture local deficits and needs. However, there are few known examples of how to graft evidence on governance deficits onto evidence on socio economic needs. One such attempt is undertaken by the Paris based DIAL institute which grafts governance modules onto poverty household surveys, an institute with which UNDP partners for capacity development in coutnries.

Of course the world of policy is never that simple and Keynes once said, policy makers dont like evidence because it complicates the policy making process. Yet, the more evidence on governance AND socio economic reflects genuine local disparities and needs and the more we enhance the uptake of such combined evidence in wider communities for policy dialogue the better for pro poor policy outcomes. Of course that needs to be coupled with a systemic capacity for communication on development issues, systemic capacity for peaceful management of conflict of interests and a systemic power balance that is flexible and likely to respond to corrections of anti poor tendencies and to corrections in the dynamics of marginalization.

The Democratic governance group of UNDP is launching a global program to enhance national capacity development for country led democratic governance assessments. The aim is increased ownership of these assessments, increased participation in their design, implementation and regular use and, finally, to enhanced linkage of evidence on governance to development plans and policy making. You can read more about UNDP's knowledge products to enhance capacity development of nationally owned governance assessments under http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/flagship/democratic_governance_assessments.html

The Oslo Governance Centre is also working on a draft template to enhance voice into the monitoring process for service delivery by sector. This template works as an empowerment check on how inclusive participation is and how responsive state institutions can be; the template can be applied to specific sectors of delivery on the MDGs. With IDS (UK), the Oslo Governance Centre is mapping the policy process and the various participative methods which may impact on such policy processes. This is a generic tool that can be applied to sectors of an economy and / or to a specific country context.

Thank you very much to all phase I contributors! We look forward to your participation in the phase II.

Terry Kiragu, New York

Terry Kiragu, Policy Adviser, MDG Localization and UNDP/SNV AA 4 Focal Point; MDG Support Team; Bureau for Development Policy / UNDP New York

Dear  Colleagues

This is very interesting discussions and hopefully the lessons will help us re-think how we are approaching the issue of MDG achievement ?  With less than7 years left perhaps we need to also start to look at leadership from the point of view of our own organizations as champions for MDGs! What kind of innovation are we offering to the countries that we are working with, what kind of Champions are we!  In essence a new kind of leadership from development organizations is required and more essentially to bridge the fragmented approaches!  In this regard I am in support of the partnership approach to MDGs within mutual value of delivering impact and not from the point of proving who has done what….definitely not in line with governance principles.  Partnership to Champion MDGs should not only be looked at from the angle of UN agencies but also the UN agencies partnering with pertinent NGOs and other local stakeholders especially to increase momentum from the local level. The partnership approach is the only way we can be able to scale up impacts as well as become “The Advocates for MDGs” !   To answer this question I will base inputs on the UNDP/SNV partnership for Localization MDGs in over 20 countries in the last three years.    The objective of the UNDP/SNV partnership has been to enhance inclusiveness and ownership at the local Level through capacity development of Local Governments, non state players (particularly CSOs) and Local Business so that they are able to participate and gain better ability to use MDGs for planning and for engaging in local development discourse.  The idea here is to promote the environmental conditions and necessary engagement processes at local level that allow increased  empowerment of local players to understand and start seeing MDGs as relevant to their livelihoods.  Based on the work done so far the following are important lessons for the about to end e- discussions

Strengthening inclusion of non-state players

Up to now there is prove that at local level MDGs are still being seen as far-off  technical goals that are for National and Global Players.  Many of the non-government players particularly at local level do not quite understand MDGs and how they can get constructively engaged.  Hence involvement must start from mapping genuine players as earlier suggested but also engaging in a series of MDG awareness sessions that allow such players understand what MDGs are and how to engage within the mandates of their organizations at one level and then collaboratively at another level

In promoting involvement of non-state players the processes used have to be sensitive to the fact that non-state players often do not have the necessary dialogue space for engagement.  For example in some of the MDG work done there is not enough consideration on how feedback and dialogue processes can be strengthened and continued! 

To bridge the above gap at local level promotion of involvement of non state players has to be done through a multi-stakeholder platform approach.  Ones key stakeholders  that is Local Government, elected leaders like Mayors/MPs, CSO Leaders are brought together MDGs can be used as a framework for bringing all players together within a common agenda. When such discussions are enabled new momentum begins to emerge which is necessary to bring about a broad based inclusiveness and ownership that also engages the communities.  Within this kind of engagement the value added should be reinforced for example in a couple of countries Mayors and other elected local leaders are starting to use participation as a way of gaining popularity for re-elections.

There is also need for a common reference between non state players and the state to help this inclusiveness thrive for example In Uganda MDG awareness and training was used to enable local governments, CSOs and businesses come together to form MDG committees.  The MDG committee’s capacity ware then organized to develop MDG based district progress reports.  The MDG based district progress reports are now being used in the two districts as common framework of reference to discuss district needs.  The Local Government has as a result re-prioritized and started to concentrate more on MDG 1 and 4 as the core investment areas.  The CSOs are also using the results to approach national governments and donors.

Niger MDG awareness and interpretation to local context was used to bring about inclusiveness needed for MDG based local plans.  For the first time Mayors, local councilors in four communes were able to sit together to discuss the problems of their areas using the MDGs as the benchmark with CSOs.  Such discussions have lead to political leaders, Local Government Technocrats and CSO to jointly develop a local development plan and to prioritize MDGs while involving citizens.  Mayors for the first time understood that when communities were involved they were more willing to pay taxes and invest in priorities they have been involved in developing.  Through this initiative local revenues are starting to rise and the political leadership starting to see the value of investing in communities.

Finally going out as partners amplifies the reception and mobilization effect that is needed to draw in critical non state players like big local businesses, re-known local level leaders who have “voice”.