About MOF
About FACD
About NDF
        - NDF 2000
        - NDF 2002
        - NDF 2004

Events / Venues
Pre-Consultations
Bikas Bazaar 2004
News / Views
Links
Nepal Gateway
Feedback
Contact Details
Home
 


NDF 2004 Photo Gallery

 

About NDF 2000

Background Papers

MEASURING DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS AND PERFORMANCE :
SOCIAL SECTORS AND SOCIAL INDICATORS AS AN EXAMPLE
A Paper Prepared by the Donor Community in Nepal for Purposes of the Nepal Development Forum (NDF) April 17 - 19, 2000 (Paris)

Executive Summary
  1. This paper has been prepared to inform discussions about development performance at the Nepal Development Forum in March 2000. Using the social sectors and social indicators as an example, it asks: 'How would HMGN, donors and other stakeholders know if development was effective?'.
  2. The paper argues that the central test of development effectiveness is whether ordinary people's lives have improved : an outcomes approach. The key question over a 10-15 year period is 'Are Nepal's poverty reduction and social objectives being met?'. However, poverty and social indicators alone are not always meaningful or accurate measures of progress over the short term.
  3. Instead, HMGN and its development partners need to have a clear framework for assessing whether Nepal is doing the kinds of things that will lead to poverty reduction and better social outcomes : a 'means' approach. The paper looks at three questions which could provide this framework :

    1. Are public resources and public action focused on activities likely to have the greatest impact on poverty reduction and social indicators?
    2. Are priority services accessible, equitable, good quality and accountable?
    3. Are there effective strategies for identifying and tackling the needs of hard-to-reach groups?
  4. Under each question, the paper briefly reviews available evidence and discusses some of the methodological issues involved in measuring progress.
  5. Answering the question 'Is development effective in Nepal?' requires clear objectives and standards, and good evidence. Inevitably, it also involves some judgment. It is important that members of Nepali society have a chance to put their views across, so that 'development performance' is not judged by government or donors alone. A joint assessment can help to build a common view about what needs to be done to reduce poverty, and to sustain public confidence in the development effort. The question for the Nepal Development Forum is : 'What steps can we agree together to help donors, government and other stakeholders to measure development effectiveness in a way which is more rigorous, inclusive and transparent?'
Measuring Development Effectiveness and Performance : Social Sectors and Social Indicators as an example
  1. Context

    1.1 Background : Since the last Aid Consultative Group Meeting in April 1996, an increasingly lively debate about the impact of external assistance in Nepal has taken place. Donors, government, media and the Nepali public have all asked why Nepal, with the highest level external assistance per capita in South Asia, remains one of the poorest countries of the world. Internationally, some donors are beginning to redirect aid towards poor countries with sound policy and institutional frameworks, where 'development effectiveness' and therefore the opportunities for sustainable poverty reduction are high. In this context, it is important that there is a transparent debate between HMGN, donors and Nepali society about what might constitute 'effective development' in Nepal, and how it might be measured.

    1.2 Aim : This paper tries to answer the question 'How would HMGN, donors and other stakeholders know if development was effective?'. It uses the social sectors and social indicators as an example, because there is broad consensus that better health and education outcomes are important goals in their own right, but also an important ingredient for economic growth and for a cohesive society with opportunities for all. Social sectors are defined here as education, health and water and sanitation, with particular emphasis on 'priority' or primary services. However, we recognise that many factors contribute to social outcomes : significantly, broad-based economic growth.

    1.3 Underlying assertions : The analysis uses several assertions as its starting point : (i) no single question or indicator is likely to capture the complexity of 'development effectiveness'; (ii) looking at evidence about past performance gives a more realistic picture of policies and institutions than studying formal plans and policies; (iii) that HMGN is ultimately responsible for development performance, but that some responsibility for past successes and failures may also lie with donors and others; and (iv) judgments about effectiveness are unavoidable, but these should be joint judgments, based on available evidence and debated as openly as possible.

    1.4 Two Approaches : The paper starts by trying to assess development through looking at social outcomes : an 'outcomes' approach. It then seeks to make an assessment based on how government and other stakeholders are trying to achieve the outcomes : a 'means' approach.

    The 'Outcomes' Approach
  2. 'Are Nepal's poverty reduction and social objectives being met?'

    Evidence

    Overall, the answer to this question seems to be 'no', but it is difficult to say with certainty since the data is patchy. Nepalis have seen slow but steady gains in some aspects of their lives, despite a recent start and geographical constraints. Enrollment at primary school has increased significantly. Infant and child mortality have declined. Maternal mortality may have declined. Information on poverty trends is difficult to interpret, but there is no evidence of significant poverty reduction over the last 20 years, and the absolute number of poor people has risen.

    2.1 The table below compares Ninth Plan targets to the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) targets. These are drawn from key international conference commitments, to which Nepal is signatory. They are highly selective, but they do represent a mix of real-life outcomes for people (such as reduced poverty), with institutional performance (access to reproductive health services) and composite indicators (maternal mortality, which depends on a range of social, institutional and economic factors).

    2.2 The table suggests that, on paper at least, Nepal and its development partners agree on poverty reduction and social goals. Over a 10-15 year period, progress against these targets is a key test of development effectiveness.

    Table 1 : Ninth Plan and International Development Targets

    Past figure Most recent figure Ninth Plan Target (2002) DAC International Development Target(starting year 1990) Reduction of absolute poverty Not compar-able 42% (1996) below national poverty line 32% Reduction by one half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 Access to quality primary Education 69% (1996 MoE)(net enrolment) 100% Achieving universal primary education by 2015. Gender Balance in Primary and secondary education 58% girls : 79% boys(net primary enrol.)secondary Equal Eliminating disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005. Infant mortality 105 per 1000 live births (1987) 74.7 per 1000 live births (1997) 61.5 Reducing by two-thirds the infant mortality rate by 2015 Under-5 mortality 118 (1996) per 100,000 live births 102.3 Reducing by two-thirds the U-5 mortality rate by 2015 Maternal Mortality 850 per 100,000 lb (1987) 475 per 100,000 live births (1997) 400 per 100,000 live births Reducing by three-quarters the maternal mortality rates by 2015 Access to reproductive health services for women/girls 8.1% of deliveries conducted by trained person (1998)34.0 Contraceptive prevalence rate (1999) n/a36.6 Attain universal access to reproductive health services before 2015 HIV/AIDS n/a n/a n/a 25% reduction in HIV infection rates among 15-24 year olds in worse affected countries by 2005, and globally by 2010 Sustainable Development N/a N/a N/a Implementing National Strategies for Sustainable Development by 2005

    2.3 In Nepal, a lot of data on poverty and social indicators is available. But limitations remain in the coverage, consistency and comparability of data across time. Comparability of poverty data is a particular problem. Data on maternal mortality, in particular, needs to be treated with caution : some experts have suggested it may be as high as 1500 deaths per 100,000 live births. Although donors have supported individual surveys, these efforts have not necessarily contributed towards a coordinated or rigorous programme of data collection. As a result, the statistical system in Nepal has limited capacity to generate information on Ninth Plan/ international targets on a sustainable basis.

    2.4 There are other reasons why these particular indicators do not necessarily produce conclusive answers about development effectiveness :

    Firstly, it is not meaningful to track all social outcomes on a yearly basis;

    Secondly, social outcome data does not tell us whether different choices by government (or others) could have produced better outcomes;

    Thirdly, Some of the Ninth Plan targets are very ambitious. It might not be fair to conclude that development had been ineffective just because one or two of them had not been met. The DAC targets are global : they are not meant to apply rigidly to each country. More work would be needed if feasible 2015 targets were to be established for Nepal.

    Fourthly, social outcomes are influenced by many different players and factors. It is difficult to isolate any particular aspect of government's performance from these indicators alone;

    Fifthly, aggregate data tells us little about the position of those who suffer multiple deprivation. In Nepal, many occupational caste and ethnic minority groups, and those living in remote areas, are more likely to be poor and uneducated and unhealthy. Women within these groups are additionally disadvantaged.

    Sixthly, there may be development objectives which are not reflected in the targets above. Examples might be literacy, nutrition, water and sanitation, or dignity and self-respect. The international targets are best seen as a tool to focus the collective attention of government and donors on the well-being of the poorest women and men. This focus is useful in Nepal, where competing political agendas and an excess of donor innovation have spread the development effort thin and wide. But there is still great scope for national targets which are firmly based on priorities in Nepal, for efforts to secure the full range of internationally agreed rights, and for trying to understand more about poor people's own goals and priorities.

    2.5 Because of these questions about the accuracy and appropriateness of poverty and social indicators as a measure of development performance in the short term, HMGN and donor partners also need to look at whether the means for achieving development targets are in place. The rest of the paper looks at three questions that might tell us this.

    The 'Means' Approach
  3. Question One 'Are public resources and public action focused on activities likely to have the greatest impact on poverty reduction and social indicators?'

    Evidence

    Overall, the answer seems to be 'not really'.

    The Public Expenditure Review suggests that inter and intra sector allocations do not favour the social services that matter most for the poor : basic health, primary education, and water and sanitation. Too much priority is given to tertiary, urban services in all three sectors. The PER also points to inefficiencies in the use of public resources : donor-driven projects which may not match national development priorities; a large number of under-resourced projects within the budget; and continuing public expenditure in areas of little immediate relevance for poverty reduction and where the private sector has a strong potential role.

    What are the indicators? How good is the evidence?

    3.1 This is an important question for Nepal's development partners because it is the overall development effort that matters for poverty and social outcomes. The performance of a particular project, of a single sector, or even of the total volume of external assistance, is difficult to isolate.

    3.2 To answer this question with confidence, we need to have a good understanding of the right ingredients for improved social indicators. Some of these are well understood, if difficult to implement. They include : Reduced vulnerability to ill-health and poor education : through policies or interventions designed to increase incomes, improve water and sanitation, provide basic preventative health services and health awareness, and improving nutrition amongst the most vulnerable groups;

    Relevant, accessible, good quality basic services : through focusing resources on the major causes of ill-health and basic education achievement, improved institutional performance in key identified areas, and flexible design which meets the needs of disadvantaged groups (for example, timing services to meet the needs of farmers, migrants or of working children or young mothers);

    Helping the most vulnerable to access services : through targeted initiatives such as out of school programmes, advocacy on women's education and health rights;

    Reducing the losses for those who miss out : helping poor households to manage the costs of ill-health through opportunities to build up their assets and savings, or to credit; literacy classes for those who never went to school.

    3.3 Making a judgment about the overall balance of public action should therefore be a relatively simple matter of finding out whether the key activities for better social outcomes in Nepal are understood and reflected in plans, and whether resource allocations follow these plans. But in practice, this is difficult :

    firstly, the Ninth Plan - despite its poverty elimination focus - is ambitious and extremely broad : it does not distinguish between essential and non-essential ingredients for better social indicators. It is therefore difficult to use the Ninth Plan as a baseline for measuring whether public resources have focused on achieving development goals.

    secondly, improving incomes is central to better social indicators. But despite some individual programmes for remote areas there is no clear strategy for improving incomes in marginal areas of Nepal. Without this strategy, priority-setting and monitoring of achievements becomes difficult.

    thirdly, there are many wider governance challenges. Although the intention of resource allocations and public action plans may be clear, the impact is much less clear, since the governance arrangements for implementing plans are problematic. The most important examples in this context are low levels of professionalism and motivation amongst public employees, and corruption. However, these issues are well-covered in the Public Expenditure Review and Governance background papers, and will not be discussed further here.

    3.4 So to better focus public resources and action to impact on poverty reduction and social indicators, Nepal needs (i) a good overall plan which sets out priority areas for government action in improving social indicators, and (ii) further analysis and action to address poverty reduction in the most vulnerable groups and areas, (iii) indicators for assessing macroeconomic management, governance, institutional performance and efficiency of expenditure within the public sector, so that efforts can be better targetted, and (iv) better mechanisms for addressing the challenges of governance.

  4. Question Two 'Are priority services accessible, equitable, good quality and accountable?' Evidence Overall, and despite significant achievements in expanding coverage, the answer seems to be 'not really'. Equity and quality issues are critical concerns across priority sectors, and low levels of accountability to service users - although difficult to measure - are thought to contribute to poor performance.

    What are the indicators? How good is the evidence?

    4.1 This question relates to sector performance in three areas closely linked with the achievement of social objectives - basic and primary education, primary health care, and water and sanitation. In these three sectors, it is likely that a key role for government will remain, particularly in remote rural areas, although in water and sanitation government's involvement in direct implementation should be minimal. However, the private sector and NGOs are active in each area, so this question covers government's regulatory and facilitating role as well as its capacity as a service provider. As the Local Self Governance Act takes force and the capacity of local government grows, there is an opportunity for central line agencies to strengthen this regulatory role by moving away from monitoring inputs and towards monitoring performance against national standards.

    4.2 HMGN and donors have already discussed performance monitoring in different sector/sub-sector contexts . Approaches to sector monitoring will, quite rightly, vary from sector to sector. Several lessons emerge from past experiences which suggest sector indicators and evaluation systems must not be imposed regardless of their institutional impact: (i) government monitoring systems are already overstretched and unable to produce information for existing core sector indicators; (ii) the working conditions and career incentives for front-line staff and their supervisors do not always encourage accurate reporting; (iii) too much focus on a single indicator sometimes leads to inflated reports of achievement; (iv) during long sectoral reform processes, 'interim' indicators for institutional change are important. This section therefore does not seek to define indicators or approaches to performance assessment, but simply raises some of the current issues and debates.

    4.3 Finally, what is not measured is also important. In sectors where the donor effort is fragmented, such as health, and water and sanitation, the 'measurement burden' is already high. Effective review and measurement of sector outputs cannot happen unless some way is found to reduce the burden of input-focused information being processed at high levels in Kathmandu.

    4.4 Physical access : The evidence * 90% of households live within 30 minutes walk of a primary school (NLSS 1996). * Rural households are on average one and a quarter hours away from the nearest health facility (NLSS 1996). * 63.2% of households have access to safe water and 23% to safe excreta disposal (NFHS 1995/6) .

    What are the indicators? How good is the evidence?

    4.4.1 On the whole, there is enough evidence to assess physical access. This evidence confirms that the geographical coverage of basic services has increased rapidly over the past 30 years, although further coverage is needed - particularly in health, and in water and sanitation. But coverage alone is not an indicator of achievement : in all three sectors, improving equity and quality is the key to better outcomes for the poor. Emphasis on coverage can lead to counter-productive political pressures, producing dispersed and ineffective interventions : one example is the very large number of rural water supply schemes which are started each year with insufficient resources, and which often remain unfinished.

    4.5 Equity in Access to Priority Services :

    The evidence

    • Children in the bottom consumption quartile are only half as likely to be enrolled in school as those in the top consumption quartile, and only 74 girls are enrolled for every 100 boys (NLSS 1996).
    • Out of those that fall sick, more better-off than poor people use public health facilities, although men and women's service use is roughly equal. (NLSS 1996)
    • There is limited information on equity in access to water and sanitation.
    What are the indicators? How good is the evidence?



    4.5.1 Assessing 'equity' is difficult. What the service is often affects how equitable it is : for example, support to TB treatment will benefit the poor more than cancer or heart disease services. Simply looking at who uses public services does not indicate whether they are better of after they have done so : for example, children from poor households are arguably worse off if they sacrifice work opportunities in order to attend schools where they learn little. Richer households may choose to use private rather than public services, but this does not mean there is an equity 'problem'. But some measure of equity in access to services is important as an ingredient of long-term improvements in social indicators.

    4.5.2 Equity is central to HMGN sector policies : the Second Long Term Health Plan, the Basic and Primary Education Policy Framework, and the National Water Supply Sector Policy. All recognise the importance of paying specific attention to the needs of women and girls, and to socially disadvantaged groups if targets are to be met. However, neither sectoral plans nor the Ninth Plan include specific baselines or targets for service access by different groups.

    4.5.3 Data on equitable access in the public sector is patchy. While information about girls access to education is available, use of health services is not disaggregated by gender. Reliable information about service use by income status, caste, ethnicity, age or disability is not available.

    4.5.4 Rather than fully disaggregating all data, there is a case for more selective monitoring of equity to inform policy : this approach has been adopted in basic and primary education in Nepal, where periodic social assessments are conducted, and in health sector programmes globally, where sentinel surveillance and sample survey methodologies enable policymakers to track the impact of changes on different geographical areas and social groups. There is a role for high quality research in understanding the very complex equity dimensions of service use and access.

    4.5.5 Disaggregated monitoring of services in the private sector is not feasible or a priority, given all the other challenges involved in regulating private sector activity. However, this should not apply where private organisations or NGOs are working under contract to the government.

    4.5.6 Nationally, the most pressing equity concern in water and sanitation delivery is regional disparity. National data needs to be able to demonstrate that under-served regions are 'catching' up. At a micro level, selective monitoring of provider performance can help to establish whether women and socially disadvantaged groups' needs are being addressed effectively.

    4.6 Service Quality

    The evidence

    Service quality in education and health is generally reported to be very low, but there are few standard baselines or measures for assessing quality. There is little information on which to base an assessment of the quality of water and sanitation delivery.

    What are the indicators? How good is the evidence?

    4.6.1 Although HMGN and donors agree that better quality services are a priority, and essential for achieving Ninth Plan targets, there is little consensus about how to measure quality.

    4.6.2 One relatively straightforward approach to assessing educational quality is gains in learning achievement. This fundamental measure is reflected in the agreed framework for the second Basic and Primary Education Project. Emphasis on a single dimension of quality can be distorting, but the engagement of a range of donors with government at a sub-sectoral level should do much to support well-rounded assessments of quality.

    4.6.3 There are no easy measures of health service quality. Although public providers are governed by a complex regulatory environment, many of these regulations focus on procedures and rules rather than service standards. Regulation of private sector or NGO activity is minimal. At national level, the combination of an effective, implemented quality assurance system, plus an increase in demand for services, could be a proxy of quality improvements. Although there are regular meetings between donors and HMGN, the lack of effective sector-level working makes joint assessment of quality performance difficult.

    4.6.4 In water and sanitation, a snapshot measure of quality is difficult, and the onus lies with core programmes to establish appropriate systems of quality assurance and monitoring. At a sector level, the quality of rural water supply scheme construction is possibly best measured by the functioning of schemes 1 year after construction : whether or not supply is continuous, year-round, and contamination-free. Currently, this information does not appear to be collected alongside routine coverage data. The quality of community mobilization work can be monitored selectively by evaluating how many schemes are maintained and functioning 5-10 years post-construction.

    4.6.5 In all three sectors, a few key indicators are insufficient to capture all the important dimensions of service quality. The presence of trained personnel (including female staff), being treated with respect, a pleasant well-ventilated environment with toilets for men and women and sufficient drugs, instruments or textbooks, may make a considerable difference to service users. The meaning of educational 'quality' extends beyond pass rates alone to encompass the relevance of what is learnt in school, the quality of the learning environment and many areas highlighted in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including freedom from mental and physical violence, privacy, opportunities to acquire skills which are relevant, and to work in an environment and learn values which promote mutual respect and non-discrimination.

    4.6.6 It may not be possible to monitor every dimension of quality, or to burden already overstretched district supervisory staff with additional information collection. However, many individual projects currently engage in extensive but highly selective monitoring. Information on service performance is available, but tends to be based on small or unreliable surveys or evaluations; As sector work becomes more common (as in BPEP II), there is an opportunity to untie resources from project monitoring and redirect them towards well-designed, policy-oriented monitoring and research. There are useful examples of more extensive quality assessment systems : including work within the Nepal Multiple Indicator Surveillance Surveys which looks at user satisfaction with services, and work on quality assurance in family planning services which could be further developed.

    4.6.7 Assessing quality of private sector providers and service delivery NGOs is a particular problem, but an important one. Non-public provision can play an important role in improving social outcomes, but is not always of high quality in either technical or community mobilisation work.

    4.7 Accountability

    The evidence

    Measuring accountability to service users is very difficult. However, limited rights to information, the absence of clear quality standards, low literacy and awareness levels amongst many citizens, patchy functioning of local management committees, and frequent staff transfers managed by the centre, suggest that accountability is very low and the key to poor service outcomes.

    What are the indicators? How good is the evidence?

    4.7.1 Accountability mechanisms are key to sustainable improvements in service quality and efficiency. Financial and reporting arrangements within donor-funded programmes in the social sectors often focus on accountability for the use of donor resources. While it is important to ensure that aid - and all public resources - is used efficiently and transparently, elaborate project-based monitoring eats into the time and resources of overstretched HMGN counterpart institutions. Instead, measures of accountability should focus on accountability of service providers to their real clients : service users and Nepali citizens.

    4.7.2 There is no single way to assess accountability of basic services, and sectoral plans do not usually include accountability indicators. An snapshot view of accountability would probably consider the following criteria : (i) the existence of a professionalised, motivated cadre of public employees who are clear about their roles; (ii) access to information about budgets and expenditure, enforceable by law; (iii) access to information about what basic services are available, costs, quality standards, and about exemptions and special programmes; (iv) opportunities for local government and local stakeholders to take action against poorly performing or corrupt public employees or service providers (in both publicly and privately run services); (v) local mechanisms and legal frameworks which enable local stakeholders to monitor or audit services.

    4.7.3 Internationally and in Nepal, there are a variety of approaches used to both monitor and improve accountability, such as the 'report card' system piloted in urban areas in India, and community auditing initiatives in Nepal. Simple tools such as this could be very effectively used by district bodies as they increase their role in managing and monitoring services.

    4.8.4 As with service quality, accountability is difficult to measure with a 'snapshot' indicator. It is also difficult to look at accountability in one geographical area alone, or within one part of a sector. Shared, open discussions between donors and government are necessary if this sensitive area is to be addressed effectively. There is also an underexplored role for local and community based organisations in supporting this process by informing citizens of their entitlements and providing them with the support they need to approach service providers.

  5. Question Three : 'Are there effective strategies for identifying and tackling the needs of hard-to-reach groups?'

    The evidence

    Continuing gender, social and geographical disparities in social outcomes (with a modest exception in girls' education) indicate current strategies are not effective. However impact information for these strategies is often not available, and marginalised groups' human rights are not effectively monitored.

    What are the indicators? How good is the evidence?

    5.1 This question is important because some groups are particularly disadvantaged : members of occupational castes, some ethnic minority groups, and people living in remote Mid and Far West districts . They are more likely to be poor and uneducated and unhealthy than other people. Without special attention at the core of government policy to the social and economic rights of these groups - and particularly to the women within them - Nepal's long term poverty and social goals are unlikely to be met.

    5.2 This section suggests that development partners and HMGN should look together across the full range of public action to ask the following questions about development effectiveness:
    • Basic social services : Are there well-designed strategies for ensuring access for hard-to-reach groups and are they effective?
    • Targeted national programmes for the most vulnerable : Are they effective, and the best way of improving the lives of the poorest?
    • The rights of the most marginalised people : Are their human rights being realised?
    This paper does not answer these questions. There is not enough evidence to make an assessment.

    5.3 Basic services : Within national and sectoral strategies, time-bound, well-resourced objectives are required for improving access. However, in practice, they often do not work as planned, for a number of reasons. Careful impact monitoring is therefore required.
    1. scholarships and other incentives are often not targeted or distributed as planned;
    2. finding out about exemptions such as textbook refunds and taking advantage of them is often time-consuming;
    3. special initiatives may not tackle the real barriers to access : such as over-representation of high status men as service providers, difficulties in staffing services in remote areas; poor attitudes and behaviour of staff towards disadvantaged clients;
    4. many barriers to women's and disadvantaged groups' access are beyond service providers' direct influence : poverty, debt and exploitative labour relationships, gender discrimination, violence and early marriage, perceived 'untouchability', and so on. These barriers are not always well understood or incorporated into policy.
    5.5 Targeted national programmes : The rationale for these programmes is that very disadvantaged women and men require special support to improve their economic and social situation. There are widespread concerns about their effectiveness amongst donors. There seem to be few monitoring or impact assessment mechanisms in individual programmes. Since they absorb significant human and financial resources, donors would welcome the opportunity to support a review of these programmes' impact. This kind of review could help stimulate a broad-based public debate about their value.

    5.4 Rights of the most marginalised : despite a democratic constitution which enshrines the principle of non-discrimination, many groups in society find it difficult to realise the rights recognised in the constitution and in international human rights instruments. The persistence of the Kamaiya and other systems of debt bondage, caste-based discrimination, and very acute gender discrimination, cannot be addressed by civil society actors alone, but requires government to take a strong regulatory role in setting out and enforcing fundamental rights, as well as taking special steps to ensure access to basic services. Good human rights monitoring is a prerequisite for effective action to safeguard rights, but for many marginalised groups the machinery for monitoring or redress is not clear.

    5.5 Standards and monitoring in remote areas : Years of targeted interventions and donor initiatives have not succeeded in significantly reducing regional inequalities. In the short term, it may be difficult for government to ensure parity with more accessible regions, but there is currently no clarity about the level of support that people living in these areas can expect. Donors do not have the answers, but suggest that a process of dialogue about the rights of people living in remote, underserved areas, and the obligations and limitations of government and other players could help in establishing baselines and targets for economic and social indicators in these areas.

  6. Putting 'Measurement' in its place : next steps

    6.1 Facts and figures do not automatically become decisions, and a sound approach to measurement will not in itself produce better services, effective donor coordination, or more predictable donor behaviour. Ultimately, performance measurement makes most sense as one part of a national poverty reduction strategy which is led by government, and which provides an coherent and focused framework for the efforts of government agencies, donors and other actors.

    6.2 In Nepal, such a strategy does not exist in practical terms. While there is such widespread cynicism about the impact of government and donor efforts, it will be difficult for stakeholders to overcome distrust and contribute to a genuinely joint development effort. Transparent, inclusive and rigorous performance measurement offers an opportunity to build a common view on the social and poverty objectives of development, and to rebuild public confidence in the development effort. In this way, 'measurement' can be a potential instrument for enhancing the coherence and effectiveness of development in Nepal. But it is no substitute for tackling the equity and governance problems that lie behind poverty and deprivation.

    6.3 There are many examples of this process happening in other parts of the world : they include countries engaging with the UNDAF process, and some of the Comprehensive Development Framework pilot countries. Within these countries, there are examples of ways to build consensus on development goals, of engaging with civil society and the private sector, of listening to the voices of the most marginalised, work to inform citizens about government's objectives and achievements, and of setting realistic short term indicators of development effectiveness. All of these experiences can be shared with HMGN.

    6.4 But as HMGN is ultimately responsible for development performance, it has to take the lead. Over the next year, many of the larger donor agencies will be engaging with HMGN to develop strategic approaches towards tackling poverty reduction and human rights. These strategic exercises run the risk of duplication, but - brought together effectively - they offer an important opportunity to promote a shared vision and common measurement system between government and donors. The question for the Nepal Development Forum is 'What steps can we agree together to help donors, government and other stakeholders to measure development effectiveness in a way which is more rigorous, inclusive and transparent?'.
<< Back
Top Contact Us Feedback Home
© Copyright by Nepal Development Forum, 2004. Designed and maintained by Yomari Inc.