The Strategic Setting: MTSIP, the Strategic Framework, Work Programme and Budgets

1. The Strategic Setting: MTSIP, the Strategic Framework, Work Programme and Budgets

2. Today’s Presentation on RBM • Session Purpose: • To provide HPMs with an overview of the GC-mandated MTSIP Refinement process, within an RBM context and incorporating the role of country programmes in achieving MTSIP / FA results • Session Objectives: • Brief review of RBM context and fundamental principles • The MTSIP Refinement Process: Making It SMARTER and More Results Focused and Strategic • RBM Key Components: M&E is NOT an Isolated Action • Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement (M&E) • The Results Framework: Best RBM Practice • The MTSIP: UN-HABITAT’s Corporate Strategy • The Focus Areas: the Strategy Components • The Role of Country Programs in Delivering MTSIP / FA results • The Fit / Retro-fit with MTSIP / FA Results Framework • Alignment: Strategic and Institutional • Your Thoughts / Questions

4. The Context: Why RBM in UN-H? The Global Context: • RBM is now international best practice and policy—MDGs and Paris Declaration • MDGs Reintroduce and Reinforce RBM Principles: Meta-level results providing global context • Aid Effectiveness: Noble Aspirations are no longer enough • More Resources require Achievable Results—evidence-based and measurable

5. The Principal Elements of the Paris Declaration • The Paris Declaration rests on five common-sense tenets, that aid is more likely to promote development when: • Developing countries exercise leadership over their development policies and plans (ownership). • Donors base their support on countries’ development strategies and systems (alignment). • Donors co-ordinate their activities and minimize the cost of delivering aid (harmonization). • Developing countries and donors orient their activities to achieve desired results (managing for results). • Donors and developing countries are accountable to each other for progress in managing aid better and in achieving development results (mutual accountability)

6. The Context: Why RBM in UN-H? From Global to UN-HABITAT • OIOS Evaluation of UN-H MTSIP: • Broad mandate / limited resources • Energy is dissipated / little impact achieved • Focus on outputs not results: “So What!” • Too many development players chasing too few dollars • Compete or perish … become, at best, a marginal player • Many reasons why it cannot work: culture & structure • More reasons why it must (UN-H Survival / Urban poverty) • UN-H is NOT alone in grappling with RBM issues • RBM is here to stay … be the RBM!

7. What the OIOS Thinks About Outputs as Results • Results-based management involves focus on what occurs beyond the process of translating inputs into outputs, namely outcomes – or expected accomplishments – to which it seeks to bring accountability … • With its focus on outcomes, RBM involves a paradigmatic shift away from a culture of compliance on rules and regulations pertaining to processes and activities Review of RBM at the UN Secretariat Report on the Activities of the Office of Internal Oversight, 2008

8. Some RBM Definitions • RBM Defined at the UN Secretariat (OIOS 2008) • A management strategy by which the Secretariat ensures Programme processes, outputs and services contribute to the achievement of clearly stated expected accomplishments (outcomes). • UNDG/OECD(Harmonized Terminology, 2007): • RBM rests on clearly defined accountability for results, and requires monitoring and self-assessment of progress towards results, and reporting on performance. • Howard White(International Initiative for Impact Evaluation) • The creation of an incentive structure, including the allocation of budgetary resources, reflecting achievements as measured by outcomes …

10. Types of Results: All Results are not Equal Programme Goal – Impacts: • Goals are not results and are not measured in a RBM PMP. • Rather, goals are aspirational, a desired end state but beyond the immediate reach of a relevant or concerned strategic planning period. • A given results framework contributes, along-side, many other initiatives and most likely over several strategic planning periods to the achievement of a program goal. Strategic Objective / MTSIP Highest Result: • The highest level result that a program strategy believes it can materially affect through its direct actions or performance; • Takes responsibility for achieving with the resources at its disposal; and, • Agrees to be held accountable for attaining the results that it formulated. Outcomes or Expected Accomplishments: • Lower or intermediate results required to achieve the program strategic objective. • There can be several levels of outcomes, including those that correspond to Focus Area strategic objectives Outputs – Activities – Inputs: • Outputs are NOT results! They are the outcome of inputs and activities … So What! • These are largely what are measured in your biennial work programmes and AWPs • RBM performance measurement systems do not care about outputs • They are a management tool at best

11. Attribution & Accountability Attribution: A Real Who Done-it • The ascription of a causal link between observed (or expected to be observed) changes and a specific intervention … • … Attribution refers to that which is to be credited for the observed changes or results achieved. It represents the extent to which observed development effects can be attributed to a specific intervention or to the performance of one or more partner taking account of other interventions, (anticipated or unanticipated) confounding factors, or external shocks UNDG / OECD 2007 Harmonizing RBM Terminology

12. The Yin & Yang of Results-based Management Accountability Empowerment

13. The Fundamentals: The ABCs of RBM • Core Principle: RBM represents harmony of accountability and empowerment in pursuit of effectiveness • Without both you cannot obtain RBM • Performers (individuals - organizations) are expected to perform & will be held accountable for achieving expected results • But must be empowered: capacity (skills / expertise), resources and enabling policy environment with the right governance / institutional / management structure & rules promoting RBM • Delegation of authority and resources as low as possible is key • RBM brings order out of chaos: being strategic • Making hard choices about your mandate—what is doable • What does being flexible really mean? Survival mode • If it is not measured then it did not happen • Many good deeds not recorded because no result formulated; or poorly formulated, that is, not SMART • Single most important factor in successful RBM approach is LEADERSHIP

14. More on RBM Fundamentals • A Strategic Plan like the MTSIP is both an RBM-oriented Framework and corporate marketing strategy • An expression of corporate vision and commitment … especially to results • Transcends the interests of individuals, divisions, etc. • RBM embodies best practice: the MDG paradigm • Strategic planning & performance measurement are the core principles and good practice of RBM • Managing for results – outcomes and impacts – not outputs (activities and inputs): the “So What Test” • A Results Framework (best practice) is a graphic presentation of the MTSIP • It shows causal relationships between: • Levels of results both horizontally and vertically • Results to the mandate and to outputs

15. Defining a SMART Result • Specific: the result is clearly stated and described in change language: 20 % increase in access to affordable housing; • Measurable / Monitorable: the ability to assess and determine whether achievement of a result – a specific change – has occurred; requires a baseline (percent in year 1) and target (a 20 % increase). • Achievable: the result correlates to a target that can be feasibly attained by the program partners with UN-HABITAT support. All necessary resources are identified and budgeted for; • Relevant:the planned result represents a milestone in the results chain, leading to the achievement of commitments related to the Habitat Agenda, Millennium Declaration, and national priorities; • Time-bound: the achievement of the result(s) is likely to happen within the MTSIP (strategic plan) period.

16. The Context for MTSIP Refinement: The Governing Council’s Directive • Governing Council Resolution 21/2: MTSIP: 3. Endorses the six focus areas and the ENOF of the MTSIP and requests Executive Director, in consultation with the CPR, to elaborate a process for the improvement of the Plan, including the agreement of specific “SMART” indicators, targets and priorities in order to further refine each of the focus areas and for reflection in the UN-HABITAT Programme’s Strategic Framework and Work programme and budget

17. Get SMART: Refining the MTSIP • MTSIP: a good first cut at UN-H strategy, but not SMART • Principal Problem: From FA Objectives to FA Indicator—Objectives are not focused / SMART / more aspirational • By-passed Results: Measurable Changes in Condition or State • Results include: Expected Accomplishments or Outcomes • Overarching Results at levels of MTSIP and Focus Areas • It needs to better demonstrate causal relationships between: • Different levels of results; and • between results and corresponding outputs • It requires reformulation of results and performance indicators a la SMARTness • Common problems: confusion between outputs and results; indicators with result and vice-versa • SMART Results lead to SMART Indicators:

18. The RBM Process: Making a SMARTER MTSIP • Moving from the UN-H Mandate & Aspirations: • Vision, Mission, Goals & broad Objectives • To defining the MTSIP Results Chain • An overarching MTSIP Strategic Objective • Focus Area Strategic Objectives, Outcomes / Expected Accomplishments and sub-Outcomes • To developing the “results’ packages” that takes inputs, transforms them into activities which then generate outputs • The products and services that contribute to the achievement of results (outcomes & sub-outcomes) • The Results Framework is the tool of choice in developing results chains, including mandates and outputs

19. Results Frameworks: Strategic Planning Best Practice • Strategic planning is a process of logical sequences of results and outputs (and inputs) • It is based on developing a hierarchical set of causal relationships both vertically and horizontal that show how change takes place • Lower level results must be achieved for higher level results to be achieved • If this change or series of changes are achieved … then it will lead to a corresponding change(s) • Results Frameworks are the tool that is best able to help us define these causal relationships • Most UN-H SP has used LogFrame methodology. • It is linear and does not show causal relationships and thus help us to better understand the logic of change

20. UN-HABITAT MANDATE: HABITAT AGENDA / MDG 7 : TARGETS 10 & 11 / INT’L CONFERENCE PRIORITIES UN-H GOAL SU created by cities & regions that provide citizens with adequate services, security & employment opportunities MTSIP Vision To help create, by 2013, the conditions for international & national efforts to stabilize growth of slums and to set the stage for the reduction of urban poverty and the number of slum dwellers MTSIP Strategic Objective Sustainable Urbanization in targeted countries is a fundamental principle driving the making and implementation of development policy at the national and local levels in an engendered and youth sensitive way MTSIP EA / Outcomes Focus Area 1: Effective normative work informs SU policy making in … Focus Area 2: Participatory processes strengthen SU Partners to … Focus Area 3: Enabling policy / legal environment promotes PP land … Focus Area 4: Expanded access to environmentally sound urban services Focus Area 5: Increased access by the poor to innovative financing systems Focus Area 6: UN-H staff are empowered to achieve planned results MTSIP Sub-EAs / Outcomes Sub EA 1.1 Sub-EA 1.2 Sub-EA 2.1 Sub-EA 2.2 Sub-EA 3.1 Sub-EA 3.2 Sub-EA 4.1 Sub-EA 4.2 Sub-EA 5.1 Sub-EA 5.2 Sub-EA 6.1 Sub-EA 6.2 MTSIP Outputs MTSIP Activities / Projects • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D • A • B • C • D MTSIP Inputs Regular Resources = 10 percent / Non-Earmarked Project = 10 percent / Earmarked Project = 80 percent UN-HABITAT Medium-Term Strategic & Institutional Plan (MTSIP) Results Framework

21. Developing an FA Results Framework • The first step is to articulate the MTSIP strategic objective – The highest Level MTSIP Achievable Result which UN-H holds itself accountable for achieving • Second step is formulating the Focus Area strategic result – Highest Level FA / Division / Program Result • Third step is to formulate the outcomes or expected accomplishments – several levels of outcomes are possible • Fourth step is to develop corresponding outputs and activities for each of the lowest level results/outcomes/EAs • For every Result/outcome EA formulated for the FA there should be at least two performance indicators

22. FOCUS AREA 3: Promote Pro-Poor Land and Housing FA 3 Goal Sustainable Urbanization in targeted countries is a fundamental principle driving the making and implementation of development policy at the national & local levels in an engendered and youth sensitive way FA 3 Strategic Result National governments and Habitat Agenda Partners implement improved land and housing policies, with a particular focus on the demands of the poor EAs / Level EA 1: Increased security of tenure for the Poor EA 2: Enabling housing policies, laws, regulations EA 3: Improved informal settlements policies implemented EA 4: Increased utilization of sustainable building materials technology Sub-EAs / Sub-EA1.1: Sub-EA 1.2: Sub-EA 1.3: Sub-EA 2.1: Sub-EA 2.2: Sub-EA 2.3: Sub-EA 3.1: Sub-EA 3.2: Sub-EA 3.3: Sub-EA 4.1 Sub-EA 4.2: Sub-EA 4.3: FA / EA Outputs Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output Output FA 3 Illustrative Activities • Illustrative Results • Illustrative Results

23. Governance / Institutional Issues: Aligning the Biennium with the MTSIP • BienniumversusMTSIP programming • 2 year Strategic Frameworksvs. 6 year MTSIP or Corporate strategy • 4 subprogrammesversus 6MTSIP focus areas • 2 year work programmes / budgetsvs. 6 year MTSIP Action Plan but no separate MTSIP budget • Work programme results delivered through divisionsvs. no dedicated MTSIP structure: MTSIP results delivered through same divisional structures • IMDIS and IMIS reporting on work programmesvs. no MTSIP reporting format • There is no MTSIP monitoring & evaluation plan yet—this is what we are developing now with results formulation and indicator development

24. Aligning the MTSP with the BiennialSubprogrammes General Assembly / Secretariat Committee of Permanent Representatives UN-HABITAT Governing Council UN-HABITAT Executive Director OED Deputy Executive Director Biennial Subprogrammes UN-HABITAT Divisions MTSIP Focus Areas Subprogramme 1: S&SHSD Global Division Focus Area 2: Participatory Processes Focus Area 3: Pro-Poor Land/Housing Subprogramme 2: Monitoring the HA M & R Division Focus Area 1: Effective Advocacy Subprogramme 3: Regional & TC R & TC Division Focus Area 4: Basic Infrastructure Human Settlements Financing Division Subprogramme 4: Sustainable Financing Focus Area 5: Sustainable Financing OED / Programme Support Division Focus Area 6: Excellence in Management

25. Governance / Institutional Issues (Cont.) • Principal Question: Can the biennium governance / institutional system and the management structure from which it derives: • Deliver MTSIP results? • Promote RBM principles of empowerment and accountability? • Does the fact that UN-H is a Secretariat programme subject to GA/GC requirements inhibit RBM approach • Acknowledgement but not recognition of MTSIP • SPs are aligned with Divisions which are intended to deliver both Work Programme & MTSIP Results

26. UN-HABITAT Strategic Planning Processes and Results’ Chains: Role of Country Programmes in Achieving MTSIP Results Millennium Declaration and Development Goals / UN-HABITAT Mandate • Partner Countries • National Development Goals / Priorities • Poverty Reduction Strategies • Sector Wide Programs, etc • UN-HABITAT (Corporate Level) • Medium Term Strategic Institutional Plan • UN-H Agency-wide Strategy • Overarching MTISP Strategic Result (SR) • MTSIP Key Focus Areas • Results, Targets & Indicators • FAs contribute to SR • UN Development Assistance Framework / One UN Country Document • Country Program Outcomes • Country Program Outputs • UN-HABITAT Divisions • Delivers MTSIP FA Results • Delivers Aligned Sub-programme Results • IMDIS / Performance Measurement System • UN-HABITAT (Country Level) • UN-HABITAT Country Program Document • UN-HABITAT Programme Manager • Expected Accomplishments / UNDAF outcomes • Indicators of Accomplishment / UNDAF Indicators • FA Results Achieved through Country Programs?

27. Governance Issues: Findings & Conclusions • Current alignment between Biennium & MTSIP needs improvement relative to: • Programme planning (SF, WP) and reporting process • Results (EAs) and performance indicators / measures • Resources: both finances / staff • Divisions are not yet ready to become effective results-based units of management to deliver MTSIP results—& Country Programmes? • Role of Task Forces in MTSIP implementation • 2008 / 2009 Kick-start phase & quick wins vs. entire MTSIP Period? Conclusion: phase over to a new structure • Who / which division or office is responsible for oversight of implementation of MTSIP? • Corporate vs. division level? Conclusion: corporate level function • OED versus PSD? Many RBM-related functions are allocated to PSD and not OED. This is an Executive not Support function! • Strategic Planning and performance measurement unit? Where? • OED / Corporate Function not Divisions / Decentralized Function • OED: Corporate vision, commitment to achieving results and Accountability • And where do the Country Programmes Fit?

28. 2008 – 2013 MTSP REALIGNMENT: STRUCTURAL - FUNCTIONAL G L O B A L M R D R T C D H S F D E D M / P S D Focus Area 1: Effective advocacy, monitoring and partnerships Focus Area 2: Promotion of planning, management and governance Focus Area 3: Promote pro-poor land and housing Focus Area 4: Environmentally sound basic urban infrastructure and services Focus Area 5: Strengthen human settlements financing systems Focus Area 6: Excellence in management

29. Financing Issues: Projects Driving Results • Nature and type of funding: • Earmarked vs. Non-earmarked: 80% - 20% • Projects are the principal means of funding • Divisions develop projects and manage them • Mainly earmarked from a few donors • PRC is supposed to be review / advisory body recommending project approval • Deemed not effective by some • Result: New Regional PRCs established

30. Financing Issues: Findings and Conclusions • Projects have become an end vs. a means to achieving MTSIP or WP results • Projects focus on outputs (inputs and activities) rather than results • Thus, undercuts rather than supports RBM • Divisions deal bilaterally with donors and negotiate deals that are brought to PRC • Accountability often to donors vs. to UN-H • Donors drive funding decisions not results • Is PRC the Problem: Not really • Is Regional PRC the Answer: Definitely NOT!

31. Organizational Culture: An RBM Challenge • Survival is & has been powerful incentive driving UN-HABITAT at all levels • Securing funding has been overriding force • Projects have been the result • Salaries are tied to project funding • Divisions have become the unit of survival • Strong Allegiance to the division • For both core and project funded staff • Corporate culture is divisional culture • Every division is an island • Competition (for resources) versus cooperation • Normative / Operational divide is the Cure • The existing culture is comfortable but anti-RBM

32. Conclusions and Recommendations Phase 1: Preconditions to implementation • Retrofitting RBM to existing context is difficult • Reforms first: governance, finance, management, institutional • Leadership is the primordial variable in the reform process • Role of Divisions and Country Programmes • Empowering Performers: capacity, resources and Enabling Environment • Radical vs. Incremental change • MTSIP is a six year strategy: from survival to sustainability … not all change in year 1 & 2 • MTSP Action Plan: Getting the Fundamentals right • Lord Keynes: “In the long-term we’re all dead”

33. Conclusions & Recommendations (Cont.) • Getting the fundamentals right • Refining and finalizing the results framework: • causal logic from mandate to outcomes to activities • Focus area strategic plans should be developed • Formulating SMART results & SMART indicators • Organizational structure for delivering results • Results achievement should be through the Focus Areas • IN AN IDEAL WORLD there would be no Divisions, just FA results Teams. • IN THE REAL WORLD all Divisions must be aligned with all FAs • Corporate level strategic planning & performance measurement unit • Using existing resources effectively • Make projects work for results, not the reverse • Aligning Resources (staff and financing) with expected results • Incentives should reward results’ achievement • Emphasize FA Results team accountability and empowerment • Incentives promote joint results achievement / info sharing • Change should be based on the Art of the Possible