building capacities for monitoring and evaluating...

Introduction In the context of the democratisationmovements of the late 1980s, many Africancountries launched a new generation ofdecentralisation policies aimed to build orstrengthen more democratic, participatoryand accountable forms of governance. In theyears since, these reform efforts haveattracted substantial developmentassistance provided by the internationalcommunity.

Implementation of decentralisationprogrammes, particularly the creation orstrengthening of local government, withelected councils, legal persona and ownresources, has changed these countries’institutional landscape and governance atthe central and local levels. Discourse on theadvantages of decentralisation has alsoraised hopes that local governance willbecome more responsible and responsive tocitizens’ needs and thus contribute toimproving their living conditions. However,the commitment and pace of reform hasvaried considerably from one country to thenext.

InBriefInBriefNo. 19 - December 2007

This InBrief is aimed to stimulate the debate on developing local capacities to monitor and evaluate decentralisation and localgovernance processes. It draws on the results of action research jointly conducted by the Malian Ministry of TerritorialAdministration and Local Government (MATCL) and the Réseau de Réflexion et d’Échanges sur le Développement Local (REDL), aBamako-based network of development organisations. The SNV Netherlands Development Organisation-Mali and ECDPM wereasked to facilitate this process of joint stock-taking and analysis, which resulted, among other outputs, in the publication of elevencase studies presenting experiences and study results from six West African countries.

Building capacities for monitoring andevaluating decentralisation and localgovernance Experiences, challenges, perspectives

Christiane Loquai and Sonia Le Bay

European Centre for Development Policy ManagementCentre européen de gestion des politiques de développement

MALI

BURKINAFASO

CAMEROON

GH

ANA

BEN

IN

NIGER

MAURITANIA

ALGERIA

NIGERIA

TOG

O

IVORY COAST

GUINEA

LIBERIA

SIERRA LEONE

SENEGAL CHAD

GABON

Case

study countries in West-Africa

For their part, donors and developmentagencies have shown increasing interest inassessing the results, outcomes and impactsof decentralisation, including the relateddevelopment assistance (Steinich 2000,Sebahara 2004, Hutchinson and La Fond2004). This tendency, and donors’ search forappropriate assessment methods, is in linewith the present concern for aideffectiveness and a more general interest ingauging governance in developing countries.Donors and development organisations arenow also displaying increasing willingnessto invest in strengthening monitoring andevaluation (M&E) capacities of localstakeholders in decentralisation processesand citizen control with a view to buildinglocal accountability systems (Hilhorst andGuijt 2006, Massuangahe 2005). At thesame time, many donors are seeking ways torender their own M&E systems moreparticipatory .

The African governments involved indemocratic decentralisation alsoacknowledge the need to invest in nationaland local capacity to monitor and evaluatesome of the changes these reform processeshave induced.

This InBrief examines a number of initiativesto build the capacity of local stakeholders tomonitor and evaluate decentralisation andlocal governance processes. It builds on theresults of case studies done in six WestAfrican countries, as well as discussions ofthese studies at a regional seminar inBamako, 17–18 May 2006. This eventprovided an opportunity for structuredexchange and learning from the cases andexperiences presented.

The context of decentralisationand local governance in WestAfrica Decentralisation and local government inWest Africa are anchored in differenttraditions, spanning pre-colonial authorities,colonial administrations (mainly French andBritish) and post-independencedecentralisation and local governmentreform efforts. Since the early 1990s mostcountries in this region have formulated newdecentralisation policies aimed explicitly topromote democratic and more participatoryforms of local governance.

Yet for many of these countries, the road ofreform has been bumpy. Decentralisation

processes have been stop-and-go ratherthan following a linear path. This wasperhaps to be expected, in view of thecomplexity and multidimensional characterof decentralisation reforms. The francophonecountries of West Africa had particularlymajor reforms to undergo. Uponindependence, local government in thesecountries was confined to a small number ofurban municipalities, while most of thepredominantly rural population wasadministered by state delegates. These ruralresidents had no right to vote and littleaccess to basic public services.

Since the early 1990s the situation haschanged. Democratic decentralisation hasbeen anchored in constitutional laws andcreation of hundreds of new localgovernments. For example, Mali aloneestablished more than 680 new ruralmunicipalities. Free and pluralist localelections have been held and localgovernments have been made responsiblefor planning, implementing, monitoring andassessing progress in development at thesub-national level. The hope is that electedlocal governments will be more accountableto citizens and more easily controlled thancentral state administrators.

Table 1 presents some basic informationabout decentralisation and the nature oflocal government in the six West Africancountries in which case studies wereconducted.

Why invest in building localcapacities for M&E of decentralisation? Why are donors thinking about M&E ofdecentralisation? Why should they invest inexercises aiming to build capacities inpartner countries to monitor and evaluatedecentralisation? Should national and localactors in decentralising states be interestedin developing systems and tools forassessing the results, outcomes and impactsof reform processes?

In answer to these questions, with referenceto the case studies, literature and discussionon the subject, the following can be said:

• Donor agencies and developmentorganisations supporting decentralisationprocesses want to know to what extentand under what conditions their supportto these reforms can contribute to

development goals, such as povertyreduction, economic development andgood governance (Reyes and Valencia2004: 69).

However, as the recently publishedreference document of the EuropeanCommission rightly states, assessments ofoutcomes and impacts of assistance todecentralisation are still ‘works inprogress’ (European Commission/EuropeAid 2007: 68).

Moreover, until recently, M&E practicestended to emphasise the informationneeds of donor agencies and centralgovernments more than enhancement oflocal stakeholders’ capacity to make theirown evaluations. This approach has hadlimited success as far as ownership andutilisation of evaluation results areconcerned. It relies more on externalexperts than on local knowledge and hasfailed to contribute enough tostrengthening local systems ofaccountability (Watson 2006: VIII, Simon2004: 91). These latter, however, are highlydesirable in the context of projects andprogrammes to promote democraticdecentralisation and local governance.

• National authorities dealing withdecentralisation are sometimes portrayedas reluctant to invest in M&E. However,this image has been countered by thereadiness of Mali’s Ministry of TerritorialAdministration and Local Government(MATCL) to promote a process of stock-taking and exchange of experiences withM&E tools for local government actors, aswell as by the interest expressed by otherAfrican countries in the results of thisexercise.

It is important to note that nationalauthorities often have differentexpectations of M&E systems than donorrepresentatives and local-level actors. Theformer tend to be interested ininstruments that can help them tocoordinate and centralise information onlocal government performance, asmanaging data from a variety of locationsand providing feedback requires specificcapacities.

• Mayors committed to democratic localgovernance increasingly realise their needfor tools with which to show citizens howthey are performing and why themunicipality has difficulty dealing withcertain issues that citizens might view as

Monitoring and evaluating decentralisation and local governance December 2007 InBrief 19

www.ecdpm.org/inbrief19 www.snvmali.org

www.snvmali.org www.ecdpm.org/inbrief19

InBrief 19 December 2007 Monitoring and evaluating decentralisation and local governance

Table 1. Decentralisation and local government in West Africa

Country

Benin

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Ghana

Mali

Niger

Main legal foundations of democraticdecentralisation

•Constitution of 1990 •Decentralisation laws (1993, enacted

in 1999 and 2000)

•Constitution of 1991•Five decentralisation laws and nine

related decrees (1993)•Laws orienting decentralisation (1998)

modifying the 1993 legislation •General on local government (2004)•Presidential decree on the strategic

framework of the implementation ofthe national decentralisation policy

•Law on municipal organisation (1974)•Law on conditions for the election of

municipal councillors (1992)•Constitutional law of 1996•Laws defining guidelines for future

decentralisation policy and rulesgoverning the municipalities andregions (2004)

•Law on local government (1998)•Fourth Constitution of the Republic

(1992)•Local Government Act (1993)

•Constitution of the Third Republic(1991)

•Law on local government (1993)•Local government Act (1996)

•Constitution of 1999•Decentralisation law (2001)

establishing local government andadministrative territorial entities

•Law on local government (2002)defining fundamental principles oflocal government

Entities of local government

•One tier of local government with 77rural and urban municipalities

•Special status for three large cities:Parakou, Porto Novo, Cotonou

•Two tiers of local government: 351municipalities (49 urban and 302rural), 13 regions

•Special status for two large cities,Bobo-Dioulasso and the capitalOuagadougou.

•Two tiers of local government: 10regions and 360 municipalities

•Special status for the urbancommunities of Douala and Yaoundé

•One tier of local government with 138rural and urban districts, including 124district assemblies, 10 municipalassemblies and 4 metropolitan areas(Accra, Koumasi, Tamale and ShamaAshanta East)

•Three tiers of local government: 703rural and urban municipalities, 49districts (‘cercles’) and 8 regions

•Special status for the capital Bamako(similar to a region)

•Three tiers of local government(foreseen): 8 regions (including thecapital Niamey considered a regionwith a special status), 36 departments,and 265 rural and urbanmunicipalities

Local elections

•First municipal elections held in2002/03

•Local government first limited tourban municipalities, extended torural areas only in 2007

•First municipal elections held in 1995in 33 urban municipalities

•Second municipal elections held in2000 in 49 urban municipalities

•Third local elections held in 2006leading to the establishment of ruralmunicipalities

•First pluralist local elections held in1996

•Second pluralist municipal electionsheld in 2002

•Third pluralist municipal electionsheld in 2007

•All mayors are elected, but some bigtowns are managed by a nominated‘government delegate’ working underthe authority of the elected council(i.e. the council’s president)

•First local elections held in 1993,followed by further elections in 1997,2002 and 2006

•Members of the district, municipal ormetropolitan assembly directlyelected. They elect an executivecommittee from their ranks. A districtchief executive appointed for a termof two years coordinates theexecutive

•First local elections held in 1998/99•Second local elections conducted in

2004•Direct election of municipal

councillors, who elect the mayors.Indirect election of councillors ofhigher tiers

•First local elections held in 2004,municipal level only

Note: Only those countries are featured in which case studies were conducted. Source: Le Bay and Loquai (forthcoming)

high priority. In this regard, M&E toolscould help them to make progress andconstraints visible to citizens and donorsalike.

• To citizens, decentralisation reforms andlocal government will be credible only ifthey have sustained positive impacts onpeople’s lives and provide them with moreopportunities to participate in decision-making or to exert influence in localaffairs. Elections provide opportunities forpolitical participation, but only every fewyears. Nonetheless, other channels ofparticipation and citizen control of localgovernment have tended to be neglected.

Experiences from the casestudies Today more than in the 1990s, developmentorganisations are willing to experiment withmethodological approaches and tools aimedto reinforce local actors’ capacities to monitorand evaluate decentralisation and localaccountability structures. Recent enquiries inthe West African region have uncoverednoteworthy initiatives that involve localstakeholders of decentralisation in designingand testing such tools. However, as many ofthese efforts have gone undocumented for awider audience, they have been largelyunnoticed in the regional and internationaldebate. Moreover, there has been littlediscussion of these experiences, even amongdevelopment organisations and theirpartners within the region.

The Réseau de Réflexion et d’Echanges sur leDéveloppement Local (REDL), a Bamako-based network of development

organisations, MATCL, SNV and ECDPMtherefore considered it worthwhile tofacilitate a process of identification, analysisand exchange of such experiences in WestAfrica, to promote mutual learning.

Case studies and the stock-takingexerciseThe experiences chosen for the stock-takingexercise all meet three criteria that wereused to identify the cases to be studied:

• They were jointly designed with multiplestakeholders at the local level with a viewto integrating different perspectives.

• They aim to develop or strengthen theM&E capacities of local government andinvolve different actors in the process ofmonitoring and evaluatingdecentralisation of local governanceprocesses. These actors might include



Box 1. What kinds of capacities need to be developed? The authors of the case studies do not define what exactly they understand by strengthening the capacities of local actors to monitor andevaluate decentralisation and local governance processes. Perhaps this is because the guidelines for the joint stock-taking and analysis ofexperiences provided them with definitions of terms such as evaluation, self-evaluation, performance evaluation, monitoring and capacitybuilding (see Loquai and Le Bay 2005).

Seminar participants mentioned that these concepts as they are used by donor agencies tend to be too abstract, vague and theoretical forlocal actors at the municipal level, also because they are difficult to translate into local languages. At the same time, local actors have ratherconcrete ideas on what kind of capacity building they require and how the different tools respond to these needs.

In the case studies, capacity building for M&E of decentralisation refers mainly to the following elements:

- stimulating interest in M&E tools, as instruments for adaptive management of municipal development, more informed decision-makingand learning;

- enhancing statistical literacy, i.e. the capacity to analyse and interpret statistical data that can help municipalities and their local-levelpartners to plan, monitor and assess development and poverty reduction at their level;

- enabling municipal actors to access, collect, stock and update relevant information in collaboration with other local actors (e.g. de-concentrated services, civil society, private sector);

- helping local actors to jointly design and test methods and tools for M&E of decentralisation and local governance processes that areadapted to their specific needs and the local context (including commonly agreed performance criteria and indicators);

- developing procedures and systems for exchange of information and statistical data on the implications, outcomes and impacts ofdifferent aspects of decentralisation and local governance;

- strengthening citizens’ capacities to monitor local government’s actions, to voice criticism and to demand accountability from theirelected representatives.

Source: Le Bay and Loquai (forthcoming).

various levels of local government, de-concentrated technical service providers ofthe central state, communities, the privatesector, supervisory authorities of localgovernments, local associations,traditional leaders and civil society non-government organisations (NGOs).

• They aim to promote more transparentand accountable forms of localgovernance and make local governmentmore responsive to citizens.

Furthermore, all of these experiences wereexternally assisted by donor agencies orNGOs. Some, however, were replicated at alater stage by national or local decentrali -

sation actors to other regions or countrieswithout support of the initial sponsor.In line with a common methodologysuggested by the case study facilitators,teams were formed and asked to documentand analyse their experiences in designing,fine-tuning, implementing and using therelevant assessment tools. The team leaderswere asked to involve in the stock-taking andanalysis process all of the differentcategories of local stakeholders who hadcontributed to and used the tools (Loquaiand Le Bay 2005).

Four months later, in May 2006, a regionalseminar to share experiences was organisedin Bamako under the auspices of the MATCL.

The event was attended by more than 100participants from six West African countries,including many mayors, civil societyrepresentatives, private sector representativesand various authorities responsible fordecentralisation at the national and locallevel. Representatives from donor agencieswere also in attendance, as well as those fromthe development organisations supportingthe decentralisation processes.

Table 2 overviews the case studies andclassifies them according to the types ofcapacity-building tools and approachesinvolved in each.



Type of tool or approach

Developing capacity toanalyse and monitor localdevelopment at themunicipal level

Performance self-evaluationtools for local government

Strengthening citizens’control and local stake -holders’ capacity to monitordecentralized service delivery

Opening external M&Esystems to local perceptions

Abbreviations: ANCB = National Association of Benin Municipalities, DNCT = National Directorate for Local Government (Mali), FIDESPRA =International Forum for Development and Exchange of Knowledge and Expertise Promoting Self-Sustained Rural Development, GPRD/SIF= Ghana Poverty Reduction Programme of the Social Investment Fund, GTZ = German Technical Cooperation Agency, Helvetas= Swiss Association for International Cooperation, KIT = Royal Tropical Institute (Netherlands), MLGRDE= Ministry of Local Government,Rural Development and the Environment (Ghana), MATCL = Ministry of Territorial Administration and Local Government (Mali), MATD=Ministry for Territorial Administration and Decentralisation (Burkina Faso), NCA = Norwegian Church Aid, NDPC= National DevelopmentPlanning Commission of Ghana, SNV = Netherlands Development Organisation, UNCDF = United Nations Capital Development Fund.

Source: Classification based on presentations and written cases discussed at the regional seminar in Bamako, 17–18 May 2006.

Supporting agency or organisation

Helvetas

SNV, UNDP, GTZ

GTZ, NDCP, GPRP/SIF, MLGRDE

SNV, GTZ

SNV, GTZ

SNV, GTZ, Helvetas, MATCL/DNCT

SNV, UNDP, GTZ

SNV, UNDP, GTZ, Helvetas, ANCB

GTZ, MATD

SNV, KIT

GTZ, FIDESPRA

CARE

NCAUNCDF

Experiences

•Cameroon and Mali: Strategic planning and monitoring of municipaldevelopment

•Niger: Planning and M&E in municipalities, focusing on povertyreduction

•Ghana: District-based poverty profiling, mapping and pro-poorplanning as an M&E tool

•Mali: Geographical information systems (GIS) for the developmentof rural municipalities

•Mali: Municipalities in figures: needs and realities

•Mali: Assessment of local government performance, experienceswith a self-evaluation tool

•Niger: Planning and M&E in municipalities, focusing on povertyreduction

•Benin: Assessment of local government performance: Experienceswith a self-evaluation tool

•Burkina Faso: The role of self-evaluation in a new national system forevaluation of decentralisation

•Mali: Towards a basic health-sector information system formunicipal actors (SIEC-S)

•Benin: Public control in the education sector, pilot phase of theparticipatory local impact monitoring methodology (SILP)

•Mali: Participatory monitoring and evaluation as a means ofempowering local government in the region of Mopti

•Mali: Public perceptions as a barometer of local governance •Mali: Evaluating the impact of decentralisation

Table 2. Classification of tools and approaches in case studies

Developing capacity to analyseand monitor local developmentat the municipal levelIn many francophone West African countries,newly established local governments arelearning to formulate and implementmunicipal or regional development plans. Acommon problem they experience is the lackof baseline data and statistical informationto draw upon to analyse the social, economicand cultural situation in the territory. Often,national statistical systems have not beenadapted to decentralisation. They might notproduce sufficiently disaggregated data forlocal planning, or municipal level plannersmight lack easy access to the informationthat is available. Moreover, municipalitiesand districts often lack specialised staff tocollect background data and diagnosedevelopment issues before engaging in theplanning process.

The case studies from Mali, Cameroon andNiger1 all deal with participatory approachesto establishing municipal baselineinformation with a view to improvingplanning, monitoring and evaluation of localdevelopment. With the assistance ofexternal facilitators, the municipalitiesemployed participatory approaches toassemble and analyse data jointly with otherlocal development stakeholders (e.g. de-concentrated technical services, community-based organisations, village chiefs and theprivate sector) and to construct a baselinethat could be used for strategic planning andeventually adapted for M&E purposes.

In Mali, this baseline exercise wascomplemented by the design and testing ofgeographic information systems (GIS) forrural municipalities. As feeding andmanipulating a GIS requires computerliteracy and basic cartography skills, primaryresponsibility for system updating andmaintenance lies with municipal advisory

centres. These are based at the district leveland provide various capacity-buildingservices to the municipalities of a givendistrict (Dumont and Samaké 2007).

In Ghana, where districts have their ownstatistical services, the challenge was slightlydifferent: development of a newmethodology for poverty profiling andmapping. Enhanced information was neededon the level, causes and geographicaldistribution of poverty at the district level inorder to facilitate pro-poor planning, M&E ofdistrict plans and pro-poor targeting ofnational development programmes. Heretoo, an important element of the approachwas participation of a spectrum of localdevelopment stakeholders, such ascommunity-based organisations, villageassociations, traditional leaders and NGOs, inconstituting databases and district povertymaps (Dery and Dorway 2007).

Experiences with these different toolsprovide a number of lessons:

• The process of constructing baselines andconducting monographic studiesenhances knowledge of the localgovernments’ economic, geographic andsocio-cultural potential and thus allows itto be used more fully.

• The tools give decision-makers moreclarity about the constraints that localgovernments face and about populations’needs, thus providing a more realisticbasis for planning.

• Such tools can help bring municipalplanning better in line with national-levelpoverty reduction policies and with sectorpolicies.

• In the course of the exercise, the municipalcouncil usually assumes increasingresponsibility for steering and owning theprocess.

• The participatory approach oftencontributes to development of team spiritwithin the municipal council, whichenhances initiative.

These exercises all showed positive effectson the capacities of local governments andmunicipal advisory centres to collect andselect relevant statistics. They also resultedin stepped-up collaboration betweentechnical services, supervisory authorities,local governments, civil society and privatesector agents at the local level.



Figure 1. The dynamics of multi-stakeholder approaches to M&E at the municipal level

Local government

Supervisory authority (local

representative of the central state)

De-concentratedand technical

services

Civil society

Private sector

Local communities

Assessment and feedback Data and information Communication collaboration

Information, communication and collaboration

Financial and technical support (development organisations and programmes

Source: By authors based on experiences from case studies.

So far, most of the baselines have been usedfor planning and less as tool for M&E of localdevelopment and governance. For that latterpurpose, they need to be adapted, mademore selective, indicator-focused andconverted into a database that can beregularly updated. A step in this direction isthe effort in Mali to feed data into a GIS.Plans to establish similar electronicdatabases were under way in Cameroon andGhana at the time of the stock-takingexercise.

Performance self-evaluationtools for local government In 2004, the National Directorate for LocalGovernment of the MATCL of Mali issued apublication explaining a tool forperformance self-evaluation of localgovernments. These guidelines were laterincluded in a toolkit for mayors distributedto all 703 municipalities of the country.2

The tool was the result of a long process ofdesign, testing and fine-tuning aparticipatory approach to performance self-evaluation, an exercise assisted by a numberof development organisations, in particular,SNV, Helvetas and GTZ. These organisationsall took active part in helping their partnersat the local level (municipalities) to develop,test and use the approach and providedfeedback to stimulate the tool’s gradualimprovement and adaptation for use indifferent contexts.

The proposed methodology puts themunicipality in the driver’s seat of anevaluation of its own performance, which isrepeated at regular intervals (figure 2).Members of the local council compare theirself-evaluation with evaluation resultsprovided by various groups of other localactors, such as community-basedassociations, local interest groups, privatesector representatives, staff of de-concentrated technical services andsupervisory authorities (Le Bay et al. 2007).

The tool proposes that the self-evaluationrevolve around five key areas of municipalperformance: (i) internal organisation, (ii)financial and administrative management,(iii) mobilisation of financial and humanresources, (iv) planning and programming oflocal development and (v) services, productsand infrastructure. For each area a number ofindicators was jointly defined against whichperformance could be assessed (using scores).Experience with the tool has illustrated the

important role of external facilitation andmentoring the first time the self-evaluationexercise is conducted. It has also revealedsome potential pitfalls that users of the toolmight encounter, such as cultural barriers toarticulating and dealing with constructivecriticism and being self-critical in public.

Experience has also highlighted problemsthat the various stakeholders may come upagainst if they focus solely on performance-based results and disregard the wealth ofcommunication that takes place before andafter the exercises. In fact, these exchangesmay well pave the way for sharedresponsibility and consensual decisions.Testing and utilisation of the tool has hadmany positive results on the evaluationcapacity of the municipalities and others:

• Municipalities are now able to measuretheir performance (achievements andweaknesses) and to analyse it themselves;they have learned how to developargumentation and mediate betweendifferent viewpoints.

• Understanding has improved of the rolesof the different actors and of the

legislation on decentralisation and localgovernment.

• Municipal councillors, mayors and contractstaff of municipalities now realise thatthey must be more accountable to citizensand supervisory authorities.

• Municipal staff have learned to useevaluation results, adapting decision-making and management in line withfindings.

• Evaluation results have helped localofficials to formulate better targeted andmore complete requests for capacity-building assistance to municipal advisorycentres.

Inspired by publication of the guidelines forthe self-evaluation tool in Mali,neighbouring countries have begun todevise similar tools:

• In Niger, a number of developmentagencies, together with the de-concentrated state services andmunicipalities, started testing andadapting the self-evaluation tool in 2005.



2. Conduct the self-evaluation (3 to 4 days)

3. Feedback from the self-evaluation

(1/2 day)

4. Use of the results of the self-evaluation

(ongoing)

Optimum rate= 1 per year

1. Preparation for the self-evaluation

(1 to 2 days)

Figure 2. Steps of performance self-evaluation of municipalities

Source: Le Bay et al. (2007).

An innovative feature of the adapted toolis its emphasis on encouragingmunicipalities and their partners to thinkat the local level about integrating goalsof the Millennium Declaration. Theadapted tool also allows the nationalpoverty reduction strategy to be takeninto account in municipal planning,monitoring and evaluation. The presentchallenge is to get the tool validated bythe Ministry of the Interior andDecentralisation and used on a muchwider scale throughout the country.

• In Benin, mayors have strongly contestedan external evaluation of the performanceof the municipalities. Instead, they have

mandated the National Association ofMunicipalities (ANCB) to design analternative approach. In collaboration witha number of donors and ANCB branches atthe departmental level, the ANCB ispresently developing a municipalperformance self-evaluation tool inspiredby the one from Mali. The Benin tool is alsoto serve as a means of better targetingexternal support for capacity building forthe country’s young municipalities.

• In Burkina Faso, the Ministry for TerritorialAdministration and Decentralisation(MATD) plans to make systematic use ofself-evaluation at various levels of itsfuture systems for M&E of

decentralisation. The approach proposedfor the municipal level builds on theMalian tool. However, in view of the veryrecent establishment of the ruralmunicipalities, the self-evaluation processwill initially emphasise helping theseentities to reflect on the kinds ofcapacities they need to acquire to becomefunctional and achieve their goals.

More recently, a development programme inSenegal produced a two-step evaluationmethodology for measuring municipalperformance. The first step is an obligatoryexternal performance assessment of localgovernments. The second step is a voluntaryperformance self-evaluation conducted with



Analysis and review- of policies- and public spending

Budget execution- transfer of funds- allocation of staff

Tracing of publicspending

Monitoring of execution- monitoring of activities- monitoring of accounts

Evaluation- of performanceof service qualityAudit

Planning/Formulation- of a strategy- of a budget frameworkEstablishing objectives

Resource mobilisation and allocationPreparation and voteon budget

Independent policyanalysis

Independent auditby civil society

Participatorybudget

Independentbudget analysis

Joint managementof public services

Stages of public monitoringof public spending

Budgetary cycle stages

Evaluation ofpublic-service

performance by users

Key: Budgetary cycle stages

Source: Floquet A. and R. Mongbo (2008)

Budgetary cycle

Diagram 1: Budgetary cycle, public monitoring approaches and the apporoaches developed for the SILP

a view to identifying the different needs oflocal governments. With the programme, thecentral state has shown its interest in theperformance of public action at the locallevel. It would like to see local governmentsand development programmes furtherdevelop this tool so that it can be used toidentify local government capacity-buildingneeds. On the whole, the tool serves topromote good governance and performance-based allocation of resources to localgovernments.

These initiatives show that performanceself-evaluation approaches haveconsiderable potential for replication. This isespecially so because they help to pinpointthe effects of capacity building in terms ofimproved performance of local government.

Strengthening citizens’ control and local stakeholders’capacity to monitor decentra lized service deliveryThe two experiences presented under thisheading differ in terms of their entry points,rationale and approach. Nevertheless, bothhave as their end goal to improve the quality,effectiveness and transparency of delivery ofpublic services at the local government level.To achieve this objective, the case from Beninpromotes citizen control in the primaryeducation sector, while the Malian experienceuses joint monitoring of basic healthindicators.

In Benin, the pilot phase of a participatorylocal impact monitoring methodology (SILP)has involved 15 schools in three municipalitiesof the department of Atakora. Schoolattendance in these in northern territorieshas lagged behind the national average. Thetrial forms part of Benin’s poverty reductionstrategy, which gives priority to education anddecentralisation policy. Use of SILP is aimed at providingsupplementary information for quantitativeevaluations of the barriers blocking theproper operation of decentralised publicservices. It is also intended to facilitateidentification and implementation ofappropriate corrective measures by citizensthemselves (Floquet et al. 2007).

For this purpose, SILP follows an iterativeprocess of consultation and exchange,involving sector actors at a number of levels(municipal, departmental, national) andvarious groups of actors (e.g. pupils,teachers, parents’ associations, citizens, localgovernment, women selling food to pupils,de-concentrated educational departmentsof the central state, central institutions anddevelopment partners). The stress lies ontwo aspects of the public spending cycle:tracing the resources allocated andevaluating service quality. Figure 3 gives anoverview of important steps in thisparticipatory monitoring process.

Both aspects are jointly reviewed by publicand community service users and suppliers,applying national norms and standards and

their own criteria. An external moderatorfacilitates discussion and evaluationaccording to these jointly defined criteria. The evaluation is followed by a debate oncorrective measures, which are thensummarised in a collective action plan.Implementation of the plan is steered byparent associations and school admini-stration, but jointly monitored and reviewedon regular basis with municipal councillors.

Initial results of the pilot phase of the SILPapproach show that the methodology canimprove knowledge on strengths andweaknesses in using financial resourcesdevolved from the central state to thedecentralised level (to the departments,municipalities and schools). Even after only afew months of testing, the method appearedto have helped various local actors to betterassume their respective roles in enhancingpublic scrutiny of the use of public funds. Theact of mobilising their thoughts and energyfor a common cause also improved theefficiency of public spending. Moreover,there is evidence that the SILP approachdisseminates itself, as it is now being used inmunicipalities that were not included in thetest sample.

However, the strategy also has pitfalls. In theabsence of capable moderation, latentconflicts can surface that hamperconstructive discussions. Also, if not properlyprepared and supervised, SILP can lead tocovert tactics and exclusion of actors,instead of self-corrective strategies. Externalsupport is thus essential in the test phaseand probably well beyond.

Mali’s testing of a basic health-sectorinformation system similarly renderedservice delivery more effective andtransparent. However, for this exercise theinitial objective was a different one. Becausethe transfer of resources and capacities formunicipal-level health service provision isadvancing only slowly in Mali, the idea wasto test a tool that could contribute to theprocess of devolution (Toonen et al. 2007).

A basic package of information wasdeveloped for key public health actors at thelocal government level, including electedofficers, community health associations andtechnical departments. The information kit,called ‘SIEC-S’,3 had been produced jointly bythe Dutch Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), SNV,the Malian Ministry of Health and thecommunity-based health associations thatrun many of the local health centres. Actionresearch was then conducted on how to use



Box 2. Comments of local actors’ on basic health indicators and information‘We thought the pictures on the wall were meant to make the community health centrelook nicer. We didn’t realise they were technical figures that we could understand.’

Comment of a participant at a working meeting on basic health indicators organised in thecontext of SIEC action research.

‘This is great. It’s just what we needed. Now we can get a better idea of the state of healthin our municipality. Before we thought we were making good progress because we weren’tanalysing the figures properly, but now we can also find out where the problems lie.’

Comment by the chairperson of a local mayor’s association after a working meeting onhealth indicators.

Source: Toonen et al. (2007): 11

this package for monitoring and managingbasic information on public health at themunicipal level, involving municipalcouncillors, the de-concentrated healthservices of the central state andrepresentatives of local community heathassociations (ASACOs).

The strength of the SIEC-S approach is itsenabling non-specialists on health, includingthe illiterate, to take part in discussions onhealth system results, progress in publichealth and reasons for failures and success.As participants’ comments illustrate (see box 2), use of SIEC-S improved localstakeholders’ understanding of key healthstatistics and of indicators directly relevantto their daily work. This, in turn,strengthened municipal councillors’ abilityto discern top priorities for action, to takeinformed decisions on health matters and tonegotiate with the Ministry of Health. Thejoint collection, sharing and analysis ofhealth-related indicators and informationenhanced cooperation between the actorsconcerned. For this reason, the project hasconstituted a very practical experience thatpaves the way for the transfer of health-sector powers to local governments.

Opening external M&Esystems to local perceptions In 2004, CARE Mali made the design andimplementation of participatory M&Esystems for its programmes a priority of itsnew long-term strategic plan. As the testcase for a new integrated participatory M&Esystem it chose the Support Programme forMunicipalities and Grassroots Organisations,co-financed by the Norwegian Agency forDevelopment Cooperation (NORAD). Thefocus of the programme, which was based inthe region of Mopti, was natural resourcemanagement and local governance. At thattime, it was still in its initial stages ofimplementation (Coulibaly et al. 2007).

Design and testing of the new participatoryM&E system brought together a range ofactors involved in resource management andnew governance structures. Participantsspanned the village, municipal, district(cercle) and regional levels and were drawnfrom both civil society and the de-concentrated technical departments of thecentral state. All had been intensely involvedin designing the programme.These actors were later to take on roles inthe newly emerging M&E system, intended

to meet both CARE’s internal needs formonitoring data and Mali’s need for betterinformation and accountability systems forits new local governance structures. Although the M&E system had been runningfor barely a year at the time of the stock-taking exercise, the authors of the case studycould already point to several lessonslearned:

• Participatory M&E is an effective way oftransferring skills to local actors, but timeand patience are required to put such anapproach into practice. Especially in a poorregion like Mopti, where educationalstandards tend to be low, participantsneed to be given plenty of time to absorbthe information they receive.

• It is vital to choose able participants with abasic level of capacity from among the‘beneficiaries’ if the process is to besuccessful. Illiteracy, for instance, hasproven to be an obstacle to participantstaking ownership of some of the M&Etools.

• The commitment of the steering team is akey success factor of participatory M&E. Itis important that the team clearlydistinguish this method from earlier, lessparticipatory methods of managingprojects.

Problems encountered during the test phasewere, among others, related to the diversityof languages and dialects spoken in theregion and differences in educational levelsof the participants. As a solution, allimportant documents were translated intothe three main languages (Dogon, Peulh andBambara) spoken in the region. Moreover, atmeetings the participants were divided intogroups according to language spoken andeducational background. This made theprocess time-intensive, but ensured that thepeople involved could communicate andmake their points.

In a similar vein, to open strategic planningand M&E to the perspectives of localgovernance stakeholders, Norwegian ChurchAid (NCA) conducted an assessment of thestate of decentralisation and localgovernance in three regions of northern Mali(Gao, Timbuktu and Kidal) in 2005. Theassessment was less anchored in aparticipatory M&E approach, but morefocused on capturing and analysing citizens’perceptions by means of a traditional surveyapproach. To get a differentiated picture ofcitizens’ perceptions on the state of

decentralisation and local governance in thethree regions and to ensure that the views ofmarginalised and vulnerable groups weretaken on board, the researchers interviewedofficers of civil society organisations workingwith these groups and representatives ofcitizens directly (Cissé et al. 2007).

The evaluation concluded that integratingan analysis of citizens’ perceptions canimprove tools and current systems formonitoring and evaluating local governance.A greater emphasis on citizens’ perceptions,opinions and assessments would also betterequip elected councillors and supervisoryauthorities to ensure that approachesadopted for governance and developmentare relevant, viable and sustainable.

Bearing in mind the lack of opinion polls andthe very few surveys on local governancethemes among electors that have beenconducted in West Africa, the survey ofperceptions commissioned by the NCAmakes an interesting contribution to currentthinking about barometers of governance.4The last experience, in Mali, is from theUnited Nations Capital Development Fund(UNCDF), which has been active inpromoting local governance in northern Malisince the latter 1990s (Sylla and Ongoïba2007). In the context of a broader UNCDFinitiative, UNCDF-Mali started an evaluationof the poverty reduction impacts of itsSupport Programme for Rural Municipalitiesin Timbuktu (PACR-T).

Data collection proved a real challenge. Themain constraint was the mediocre quality ofthe information available on the referencesituation. Baseline figures were meagre anda lot of statistical information was unusablebecause it was not broken down to themunicipal level. To remedy the situation, theproject team and external evaluatorsdecided to try a new qualitative surveyingapproach drawing largely on the perceptionsof local communities and a participatoryassessment method.

Hence, a conceptual framework for analysingthe impact of decentralisation on variousdimensions of poverty was jointly designedwith partners, and local perceptions wereused to rank the villages and wards of eachmunicipality in three categories, frompoorest to least poor. Communityparticipation in the planning process anduse of municipal investment funds in eachcommunity were then analysed in order toidentify which of the three categories hadreceived the most investment.





A clear advantage of this method is itsallowing ‘poverty’ to be defined andassessed from the viewpoint of thebeneficiaries of the programme’s activities.In this case, this led to a focus on the impactof socio-economic investment, because thedimension of poverty most widelyexperienced in the Timbuktu region is thatof gaining access to basic socio-economicservices.

As this case study concludes, it is regrettablethat monitoring and evaluating the impactof decentralisation on poverty reduction isoften regarded as only a concern ofresearchers and donors. The authors arguethat decision-makers in developingcountries should make M&E a moresystematic management practice. Thiswould allow a counter-checking of theunderlying hypotheses of developmentapproaches. It would also contribute toimproving the living conditions of poorpopulations and enable populations tobetter analyse and understand their rightsand options as citizens.

Implications of the shifttowards budget supportFor a number of years, some donors haveshown a strong tendency to shift towardsbudget support as a new instrument forassisting processes of decentralisation andstate reform in developing countries. This isparticularly true of the European Union,which is one of the largest donors, but it alsoapplies to bilateral donors such as theNetherlands, Belgium and the UnitedKingdom.

This trend places new demands on theevaluation capacities of donor agencies anddecentralisation actors in developingcountries. Disbursement of budget supportusually takes place in tranches, with thefunding level depending on specificconditions being put in place and progressachieved in relation to performanceindicators. The government of the partnercountry usually has to propose andnegotiate the performance indicators withthe donor. It also has to design an adequateM&E system and report on progress.Progress is then jointly reviewed withdonors.

Implementing and monitoring budgetsupport thus requires capacity to identifyand systematically track key indicators oflocal governance. Ideally this process shouldinvolve actors of decentralisation at thenational and local level, includingrepresentatives of users of decentralisedpublic services and countervailing forceswithin civil society. Moreover, as mentionedabove, the government of the recipientcountry must put in place systems formonitoring indicators and compilinginformation.

In 2006, the European Commission launcheda pilot project providing sector budgetsupport in Mali. This was the Support

Programme to Administrative Reform andDecentralisation (PARAD). Indicators wereidentified in a participatory process,involving national and local-level actors ofdecentralisation, sector ministries and thedonor community. Table 3 lists theprogramme’s 12 performance indicators.

Information on these indicators is providedvia the monitoring system for the country’spoverty reduction strategy paper and acomputerised M&E tool related to theNational Programme in Support of LocalGovernment.

The Malian experience shows that years maybe required to develop and operationalise a

Table 3. PARAD’s 12 indicators of decentralisation and de-concentration

Group 1

(1)

(2)

(3)

Group 2

(4)

(5)

(6)

Group 3

(7)

(8)

(9)

Group 4

(10)

(11)

(12)

Indicators measuring the population’s access to public services at the localgovernment level

Villages having at least one water point producing drinking water

Percentage of women having at least one pre-natal consultation duringpregnancy and the average number of ante-natal consultations per woman

School enrolment of girls

Indicators on the link between decentralisation and de-concentration

Quality of local governance (three indicators)

Own resources of local government per inhabitant

Transfers of human and financial resources from the central to localgovernment (in different sectors)

Indicators relating to de-concentration and the role of supervisory authorities

Assistance provided to empower local governments

Level of fiscal de-concentration of ministries

Level of de-concentration of human resources from ministries

Indicators concerning the reform of state

Establishment and operationality of 31 additional tax offices at thedecentralised level

Computerisation of the administration

Time required for tendering

Source: European Commission (2005): Annex 2.

nationwide M&E tool that involves the localgovernment level in collecting and analysingbasic indicators. Moreover, the success ofsuch an effort will depend on existing(statistical) capacities and technical supportstructures for municipalities, as well as onthe capacities of the central state togradually improve its own systems of datacollection and analysis. In this regard, theannual performance reviews with donors ofindicators for budget support should be seenas an opportunity for mutual learning.

The first annual review of the PARADprogramme indicates that it may benecessary to strengthen the capacities of theactors involved and to adapt the indicatorsjointly in a timely fashion, as problems ofdata interpretation and significanceinvariably arise. Moreover, it may benecessary to build capacities to verify datasources at the local level, becauseperformance-based disbursement of budget support can introduce new biases. Hence, itmakes sense to develop techniques oftriangulation and cross-checking of datagenerated by an M&E system conceived forthe review of budget support.

One way to do this is to draw on informationproduced by other M&E systems, such asthose of bilateral donors operating at thelocal level. Another way is to enable theresponsible central and supervisoryauthorities to conduct surveys of citizenperceptions. In this regard, agreements onverification of data reliability and provisionof capacity-building support for central andsupervisory authorities appear particularlyimportant, because the focus on a fewperformance indicators can introduceprejudice and incentives for manipulation ofdata.

Lessons learned The case studies and exchange ofexperiences brought forward a wealth of lessons learned. The following were particularly in evidence:

• Joint design and testing of tools needstime. Designing and testing M&E toolsthat involve different actors indecentralisation at the national, regionaland local levels takes time. When workingwith councillors and local civil societyactors who have little or no experiencewith M&E tools, they need to be allowedtime to learn how to identify, discuss andinterpret indicators and statistics. This is akey aspect of capacity building for M&E ofdecentralisation and local governance.Furthermore, many cases show that trustamong actors and working procedures arenot built overnight. In multi-ethnic andmulti-lingual contexts, time fortranslations is also required. Otherwisethe various stakeholders involved indesigning and testing a tool could feeluncomfortable interacting andarticulating their viewpoints.

• Identification and fine-tuning of indicatorsis a process. This holds true to some extentfor most M&E exercises. But it isparticularly relevant for the experiencesdescribed in this brief. Decentralisationand local governance have a processdimension. It is therefore unrealistic to tryto define too many indicators at the startof a test-run of a specific M&E tool. Evenonce formalised, it is important that a toolretain some flexibility for fine-tuning, ifnecessary even changing indicators toreflect the dynamic nature of reformprocesses. For instance, a newlyestablished municipality may initiallychoose to focus performance self-evaluation on key functions, financial andresource management, running theregistry office and mastering the processof development planning. Later, as moreresponsibilities and resources aredevolved, performance self-evaluationmay come to include active fields as well,such as natural resource management,promotion of local economic developmentand provisioning of basic services (e.g.health, education, water). New indicatorswould then need to be defined and testedfor assessing performance in these fields.

• Strategic alliances have benefits. A numberof our case studies emphasise theimportance of strategic alliances betweendonors, development agencies, localgovernance actors and central authoritiesin testing and replicating M&E tools forlocal governments. Undoubtedly, anapproach that is jointly tested, used in avariety of local contexts and validated bythe central government will be bettersuited for broad, nationwide disseminationand institutionalisation than a smallinitiative tested in just a few localities byonly one actor. Strategic alliances can payoff in terms of time as well, as they allowtesting a tool simultaneously in differentparts of a country and pooling of financialand human resources of different agenciesand institutions.

• There are challenges involved in managingthe dynamics of multi-stakeholderprocesses. As the case study on theperformance self-evaluation tool in Maliillustrates, those engaging in multi-stakeholder exercises and strategicalliances when designing and testingM&E tools should be cautioned: the pathfrom design to widespread use may belong and fraught with problems. If anapproach is to be participatory and drawon the support of a wide range ofrepresentative actors, with different viewsand opinions, contributions have to becarefully managed. The assistance of anexternal consultant or resource personexperienced in applying such an approachis a valuable, if not necessary, asset.

• M&E results need to be followed up. Mostof the approaches and tools describedprovide participants of the M&E exerciseswith new insights on the performance andeffects of local governance. These includenot only information on positive changesand good performance, but also on thingsthat went wrong, were only moderatelyproductive or which need to be changed.Care has to be taken that correctivemeasures are firmly agreed and followedup. Otherwise, local actors’ interest andincentive to engage in M&E will fade.Besides, all of the stakeholder groups willbe challenged to adapt their attitudes andways of working so as to dissolve anysources of misunderstandings or distrustidentified during M&E exercises.





Challenges M&E tools for use by stakeholders of localgovernance and decentralisation are boundto face many challenges. For instance,participants might not be used to workingtogether and might therefore lack clarity ontheir respective roles, rights and duties. Thefollowing are – amongst others – areas ofchallenges highlighted in the case studiesdrawn upon in this brief.

Dealing with historical experiencesand administrative tradition After a long history of authoritarian rule,citizens of many West African countries areunused to posing questions aboutgovernance. In particular, the rural majorityof the population still tends to be barelyinformed of their rights and duties ascitizens. They are not aware of or arehesitant to make use of options for holdingtheir elected local representativesaccountable. Even those who are informedabout their rights, for example, to attendcouncil sessions which are open to thepublic, may not dare to attend or speak up ifnot explicitly encouraged to do so. Thisreality has to be taken into account whenjointly designing M&E tools withstakeholders of local governance.

Reducing cultural barriers toconstructive criticism The case studies illustrate that culturalbarriers have to be overcome when testingM&E tools. Initially, the participants of (self-)evaluation exercises in Mali were reluctantto voice criticism directly. At public meetingsin particular, open criticism was notconsidered culturally appropriate. The designand use of M&E tools should gradually helpactors to deal with such hesitations,anchored as they are in culture and localcustom.

This also means that a tool successfullytested in one municipality may not be usedin exactly the same way in another. In thisregard, the assistance of a facilitator orexperienced user can help address culturalbarriers and create an atmosphere of trust.

Ensuring that design and utilisation ofM&E tools is affordableAll of the methodological approaches andtools presented in this brief have beenpromoted by development organisations ordeveloped with their active support.Development organisations have providedmethodological advice and (co-)financedfacilitators, meetings and necessarymaterials. In many cases, it is difficult to geta fair idea of the cost of the design andutilisation of the proposed M&E tools,including the ‘cost of participation’. From thediscussions at the regional seminar itbecame clear that when designing a tool toolittle attention has generally been given tothe cost of its continued utilisation by thelocal government and other participatingactors. The challenge is therefore to devisemethodologies that can help localgovernments to upgrade their M&Ecapacities and produce information at a costcommensurate to their financial capacitiesand the availability of local stakeholders toengage in a joint M&E process.

Achieving sustainability of capacity-building efforts Sustainability has different dimensions inthe context referred to here. One dimensionis certainly the abovementioned financialone. Another is more institutional and linkedto the complexity of the proposedmethodologies and tools. Simple tools thatare easily understood and applied by actorswith diverse educational and professionalbackgrounds lend themselves to moresustainable use than complex tools. This is aclear lesson from the stock-taking exerciseand related discussions. Another factor toenhance the institutional sustainability ofan M&E tool – apart from ownership of themethodology by local actors – is validationand efforts by central authorities to spreadthe use of a tool throughout a country. Thiscan help to institutionalise an M&Eapproach that has proven successful andensure that local governments set aside orreceive the resources necessary forcontinued capacity building and use of thetool.

Avoiding instrumentalisation of localM&E tools and capacity After an M&E tool has been successfullyused at the local level, attention must bepaid to making certain that utilisationcontinues to strengthen the M&E capacitiesof local governments and contributes tolocal self-governance. As the case studiesshow, a participatory process of M&E tooldesign and testing enables localgovernments to gradually move towardsconducting M&E exercises on their own in afirst phase. Then, in a second phase, whenlocal governments and other stakeholdersare employing the tool successfully, thecentral state, donors and developmentorganisations may become interested instandardising the information generated inlocally conducted M&E exercises with a viewto comparing data from different locations.Yet this can run counter to the objectives ofstrengthening autonomous local M&Ecapacity and empowering actors at the locallevel.



Conclusions and recommendationsThe experiences described in this brief, leaveno doubt that it is worthwhile to invest inthe capacities of different local actors tomonitor and evaluate the outcomes ofdemocratic decentralisation processes, localgovernance and municipal development.

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving aspectrum of local actors – such as localgovernment, civil society, the private sectorand de-concentrated departments of thecentral state – in designing and testinginnovative M&E tools, can have a number ofpositive effects beyond strengthening M&Ecapacity. These include among others:

• building trust among local stakeholderswith different interests, thus reducingresistance to devolution;

• making local governance and serviceprovision more efficient by improvingprocedures and mobilising citizeninitiative and local resources;

• improving information flows betweendifferent actors and levels of localgovernment;

• sensitising citizens to their rights andtheir duty to hold local representativesaccountable.

The attentive reader will find a wealth ofadvice in the case studies. For their part, theauthors would like to indicate fourrecommendations:

• There is a lot of scope for donors and theirpartners to learn from existing tools forbuilding M&E capacity at the local level.Moreover, those tools often lendthemselves to scaling-up and replicationin other country contexts. More effortsshould be made to document anddisseminate these tools, includingchallenges encountered in the process oftesting and utilisation.

• Too often, design of systems to monitorand evaluate decentralisation is led largelyby the national level, with insufficientaccount taken of the information needs oflocal government and other local-levelstakeholders. Donors and nationalauthorities committed to democraticdecentralisation should invest more in thecapacities of stakeholders of the new localgovernment systems. This would enablethem to assess the effectiveness of thenew local governance systems, to learnabout their respective roles and to analysethe impacts of decentralisation andpolitical reform processes on their lives.

• Efforts to develop M&E capacity in aparticipatory way with local-levelstakeholders of decentralisation processesare necessary and laudable. Nevertheless,it is wise to involve national authoritiestoo in such initiatives, as they can help toinstitutionalise approaches. Moreover,they can follow up on the many problemsemerging from local-level M&E exercisesthat must be addressed by national-leveldecisions.

• Development partners can achieve a lotthrough strategic alliances. Such alliancesand coordination of M&E approaches isimportant to prevent a proliferation ofdifferent tools. Too many tools anddisparate initiatives could result inconfusion among stakeholders who haveas yet limited experience in localgovernance and put the homogeneity ofthe political system at risk.

Notes1 For more details see Lodenstein et al. (2007),

Sène and Ouédraogo (2007) and Tamini et al.(2007).

2 The guide is MATCL/DNCT et al. (2004).3 SIEC-S stands for ‘Système d’Information

Essentielle pour la Commune dans le secteurde Santé’, i.e. ‘System of Basic Health-SectorInformation for Municipalities’.

4 See, in particular, the current work of theAfrobarometer (Bratton et al. 2000) and theImpact Alliance’s Local GovernanceBarometer project, which is intended to beused as a tool for measuring the performanceof local government throughout Africa(www.impactalliance.org).



ReferencesBratton, M., M. Coulibaly and F. Machado.2000. Popular perceptions of goodgovernance in Mali. AfrobarometerWorking Papers No. 9 (March).http://www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfropaperNo9.pdf

Cissé, F. in collaboration with S. Diakitéand H. Sidibé. 2007. Mali, Publicperceptions as a barometer of localgovernance. Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV,ECDPM.

Coulibaly, A.K., R. Diarra Konaré, M.Y. Keitaand A. Ag Aboubacrine. 2007. Mali:Participatory monitoring and evaluation asa means of empowering local governmentin the region of Mopti. Bamako: MATCL,REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

Dery, B. and A. Dorway. 2007. Ghana:District-based poverty profiling, mappingand pro-poor planning as a monitoringand evaluation tool. Bamako: MATCL,REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

Dumont, F. and B. Samaké. 2007. Mali,Geographical information systems (GIS) forthe development of rural municipalities.Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

European Commission. 2005. Draftfinancial proposal ‘Programme d’appui àla politique réforme administrative et à ladécentralisation (PARAD)’ (12 September).

Commission/EuropeAid. 2007. Supportingdecentralisation and local governance inthird countries. (Tools and Methods Series,Reference Document No. 2). Luxemburg:Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities.

Floquet, A., R. Mongbo and S. Woltermann.2007. Benin: Public control in the educationsector, the pilot phase of the participatorylocal impact monitoring methodology(SILP). Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

Hilhorst, T. and I. Guijt. 2006. Participatorymonitoring and evaluation: A process tosupport governance and empowerment atthe local level. A guidance paper.Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.

Hutchinson, P. and A. La Fond. 2004.Monitoring and evaluation ofdecentralization reforms in developingcountry health sectors: Conceptualframework and careful study design willimprove decentralisation evaluations,Partners for Health Reform Plus. http://www.phrplus.org/Pubs/Tech054_fin.pdf

Le Bay, S. in collaboration with M. Y. Maïgaand O. Tiénou. 2007. Mali: Assessment oflocal government performance,experiences with a self-evaluation tool.Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

Le Bay, S. and C. Loquai (ed.). Renforcementde capacités pour le suivi et l'évaluationde la décentralisation et de lagouvernance locale en AfriqueOccidentale. Echanges et apprentissages.Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV, ECDPM,(forthcoming).

Lodenstein, E., U. Caspari, F. Dumont. 2007.Mali municipalities in figures: Needs andrealities. Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV,ECDPM.

Loquai, C. and S. Le Bay. 2005. Buildingcapacities for monitoring and evaluatingdecentralisation and local governance in WestAfrica. Facilitating capitalisation andlearning. Methodological guidance for thepreparation of case studies. Bamako: MATCL,REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

Massuangahe, I.J. 2005. Participatorymonitoring & evaluation at district andlocal level: Mechanisms, evidences andpractice (MEP). Consolidated review ofcase studies, best practices and regionalexperiences launched on GovNet, PovNet,Evalnet and Net. Maputo: UNDPMozambique.http://www.uncdf.org/english/countries/mozambique/local_governance/technical_review_reports/WP4_ParticipatoryME.pdf

MATCL/DNCT, SNV, Helvetas, PACT/GTZ-DED 2004. Outil d’auto évaluation desperformances des collectivitésterritoriales. Bamako.

Reyes, C.M. and L.E. Valencia. 2004. Povertyreduction, decentralization andcommunity-based monitoring systems. In:The evolving roles of CBMS amidstchanging environments. Proceedings of the2004 CBMS Network Meeting, June 16-24,2004, Senegal and Burkina Faso edited byCBMS Network Coordinating Team. http://www.pep-net.org/NEW-PEP/Group/CBMS/Proceedings/PEP_CBMS_June2004.pdf

Sébahara, P. 2004. Monitoring andevaluation of support for decentralisationand local governance: A case study onBurkina Faso. (Inbrief No. 7). Maastricht:European Centre for Development PolicyManagement.Maastricht: ECDPM.www.ecdpm.org/inbrief7

Sène, G. and Z. Ouédraogo. 2007. Niger:Planning and M&E in municipalities,focusing on poverty reduction. Bamako:MATCL, REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

Sere, K. and E. Champagne. 2006. Réformesde la décentralisation au Burkina Faso, àMadagascar et au Rwanda : Vers denouveaux instruments de gestion par laperformance. Proposition de présentation,Senior Policy Workshop on LocalGovernance and Pro-Poor Outcomes inAfrica, Kigali, 31 October to 2 November2006. Mimeo.

Simon, K. 2004. Theoretische Gründe fürpartizipative und Selbst-evaluierung vonVerwaltungszusammenarbeit:Demokratietheorie, Policy-Analyse undInstitutionenökonomie. In: Verwaltungen,Experten und Bürger im Reformprozess.Wirkungen und Evaluierung vonVerwaltungszusammenarbeit mitEntwicklungsländern edited by K. Simon.Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft(pp. 87-105).

Steinich, M. 2000. Monitoring andevaluating support to decentralisation:Challenges and dilemmas. (DiscussionPaper No. 19). Maastricht: ECDPM.www.ecdpm.org/dp19

Sylla, D. and H. Ongoïba. 2007. Mali:Evaluating the impact of decentralisation.Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

Tamini, J., I. Sylla, M. Ischer and C. Asanga.2007. Cameroon: Strategic planning andmonitoring of municipal development.Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV, ECDPM.

Toonen, J., D. Dao and T. Hilhorst. 2007.Mali: Towards a basic health-sectorinformation system for municipal actors(SIEC-S). Bamako: MATCL, REDL, SNV,ECDPM.

Watson, D. 2006. Monitoring andEvaluation of Capacity and CapacityDevelopment. A case study prepared forthe project ‘Capacity, Change andPerformance’. (Discussion Paper No. 58b).Maastricht: ECDPM. www.ecdpm.org/dp58b

European Centre for Development Policy ManagementOnze Lieve Vrouweplein 21NL-6211 HE MaastrichtThe Netherlands

Tel +31 (0)43 350 29 00 Fax +31 (0)43 350 29 [email protected] www.ecdpm.org

ISSN 1571-7437

'InBrief' provides summarised background information on the main policy debates and activities in ACP-EC cooperation. These complementary summaries are drawn from consultative

processes in which the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) engages withnumerous state and non-state actors in the ACP and EU countries. The Centre is a non-partisan organisa-tion that seeks to facilitate international cooperation between the ACP and the EC. Information may be

reproduced as long as the source is quoted.

The ECDPM acknowledges the support it receives for the InBrief from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs inFinland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands and Sweden, the Directorate-General for Development Cooperation inBelgium, Irish Aid, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the Instituto Português de Apoio aoDesenvolvimento in Portugal, and the Department for International Development in the United Kingdom.


www.snvmali.orgSNV Netherlands Development Organisation-Malihelps people overcome poverty in developingcountries worldwide. With a global presence of1,600 professionals in 33 countries, we build localcapacity to generate employment and incomeopportunities for people, and improve access tobasic services.

SNV MaliRue 17 Porte 305 Badalabougou EstBP 2220 Bamako - MaliTel +223 223 33 47/ 223 33 48Fax +223 223 10 84

Contact: [email protected]

www.ecdpm.org/M&EcasestudiesThe Centre is an independent foundation, whosecapacity building activities aim to improvecooperation between Europe and countries inAfrica, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.

ECDPMOnze Lieve Vrouweplein 21NL-6211 HE Maastricht The Netherlands Pays-BasTel +31 (0)43 350 29 00Fax +31 (0)43 350 29 02

Contact: [email protected]

For an overview of ECDPM resourcesincluding information on our

publications and e-newsletters, pleasevisit our InfoCentre:

www. ecdpm.org/infocentre

Acknowledgements The authors thank all those who contributed to the jointprocess of stock-taking, analysis and exchange ofexperiences described in this document. In particular wethank the authors and members of the teams that preparedthe case studies. We also express our gratitude to IbrahimaSylla, Decentralisation Advisor at the Malian Ministry ofTerritorial Administration and Local Government (MATCL) forhis indefatigable commitment to the process. We also thankJan de Witte (SNV) and Jan Vanheukelom (ECDPM) for theircontinued support during the publication and disseminationprocess of the case studies and this paper. Last but not least,we thank those organisations that generously supported thejoint stock-taking exercise and production of this InBrief.

Readers’ comments and suggestions are most welcome. Please address them to Christiane Loquai (e-mail: [email protected]) or Sonia Le Bay (e-mail: [email protected]). To order a printed copy of thispublication in English or French, please contact ECDPM’s Information Officer, Jacquie Dias (e-mail:[email protected]).

Electronic versions of the case studies and other documents produced in the course of the joint stock-taking and analysis of the instruments and approaches described in this brief can be found on thefollowing websites:

building capacities for monitoring and evaluating...

Documents