Putting results first

Transcription

1 African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (AfCoP-MfDR) Putting results first inzimbabwe Changing the lives of people MANAGING FOR DEVELOPMENT RESULTS COUNTRY ASSESSMENT [VALIDATED] May 2014

2 Table of Content I. Overview... 8 A. MfDR Context... 8 B. Regional Integration Context... 9 C. Assessment Framework and Scope II. MfDR Assessment Results A. Overall MfDR Country Performance B. Leadership for Results C. Planning for Results D. Results-Based Budgeting E. Institutional Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services F. Information System, Statistical Capacity and M&E G. Accountability and Partnership III. Regional Integration Assessment Results A. Overall Regional Integration Performance B. Leadership for Results C. Results-Based Planning for Regional Integration D. Results-Based Budgeting E. Institutional Capacity to Implement Regional Policies / Programmes F. Information System, Statistical Capacity and M&E G. Accountability and Partnership IV. Action Plan A. Managing for Development Results Action Plan B. Regional Integration Action Plan V. Bibliography The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 2

3 List of Figures Figure 1: Results by MFDR Pillar Figure 2: Leadership 4 Results Figure 3: Planning 4 Results Figure 4: Results Based Budgeting Figure 5: Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services Figure 6: Information Systems, M & E, Stats Figure 7: Accountability 4 Results Figure 8: Regional Integration Results by MfDR Pillar Figure 9: Regional Integration Leadership 4 Results Figure 10: Regional Integration Planning 4 Results Figure 11: Regional Integration Results Based Budgeting Figure 12: Regional Integration Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services Figure 13: Regional Integration Information Systems, Statistics and M & E Figure 14: Regional Integration Accountability 4 Results List of Tables Table 1: Key Interviews Conducted Table 2: MfDR Action Plan Table 3: Regional Integration Action Plan The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 3

4 List of Acronyms AG CFC COMESA EAC FTA GSP GSTP ICO ISO M&E MfDR MFN MHCC MIS MoFA MoFED MoHA MoIC MoJLPA MoTID MoYIE MHTESTD MPSE OPC PTA RBM RECs SADC ZimCHE ZimCoP ZIMRA ZIMSTAT ZUNDAF Auditor General Common Fund for Commodities Common Market for East and Southern Africa East African Community Free Trade Area Government Strategic Plan Global System of Trade Preferences International Coffee Commodity International Sugar Organisation Monitoring and Evaluation Managing for Development Results Most Favoured Nation Ministry of Health and Child Care Management Information System Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Industry and Commerce Ministry of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development Ministry of Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education Office of the President and Cabinet Preferential Trade Agreements Results Based Management Regional Economic Communities Southern African Development Community Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education Zimbabwe Community of Practice Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency Zimbabwe United Nations Development Assistance Framework The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 4

5 Summary Zimbabwe has been implementing a Results-Based Framework for Government since This process has seen all senior civil servants undergoing training as well as development of numerous national plans with a results bias. The Managing for Development Results (MfDR) initiative has been placed under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC). In 2011, over 30 management consultants from 23 different organisations were trained by OPC to support their office and to assist Government Ministries and agencies to develop results-based plans. This period also saw the signing of performance contracts for all but one Permanent Secretary (who was ill disposed) in line with the RBM approach. In 2013, a new strategic plan for Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (ZIMASSET) was adopted. In addition, the Zimbabwe Community of Practice for MfDR (ZimCoP) was also reactivated in Zimbabwe is a signatory to a number of bilateral, regional and multilateral trading agreements which include Southern African Development Community (SADC), Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) African Caribbean Pacific Group States, World Trade Organisation,among others. Zimbabwe is participating in the COMESA-EAC-SADC tripartite negotiations. One of the significant outcomes of this arrangement is the first One-Stop Border Post in Africa between Zambia and Zimbabwe at Chirundu Border Post established in Zimbabwe is one among thefounders of the COMESA Free Trade Area (FTA) established in October This assessment report assesses the level of readiness for MfDR full application in Zimbabwe. The assessment is based on a standard methodology and tools that have been developed through the Africa for Results (AfriK4R) initiative for all African countries. This methodology was applied with local adaptation by the nominated country coaches to ensure relevance and contextualization. The assessment considered two levels: (1) the MfDR state of readiness in the country, and(2) the national efforts for regional Integration within COMESA Regional Economic Community (REC). The country readiness assessment conducted for Zimbabwe reflects overall scores ranging between 1.6 and 3.5on the different MfDR pillars as defined in the Afrik4R methodology. These results indicate and highlight a few key points: A strong focus on institutional capacity for managing for results is beginning to show results and is now well into the work in progress range. Everything rises and falls on Leadership (Pillar I) and between the existence of a Government of National Unity divided the focus of leadership but after the 31 July 2013 harmonised elections, the leadership has been promoting the need and urgency of implementing MfDR in Government. Results-Based Budgeting (Pillar II) has not been fully integrated into the nation's budgeting processes and as such the funding process is definitely limiting the MfDR process and this needs to be addressed urgently. It is evident that Planning for Results (Pillar III) is not as strong as it should be but this is reflective of the fact that a new plan (ZIMASSET) has recently been put in place and it is in its early days of implementation. Challenges exist in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems (Pillar V) and this has impacted on Accountability for Results (Pillar VI). To drive improved success in the rest of the MfDR pillars, funding from different development partners needs to be aligned to the countries national priorities as espoused in ZIMASSET. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 5

6 The assessment of the national efforts for regional integration within COMESA reflects overall scores range between 1.33 and 3.11.These results indicate the following: Zimbabwe s institutional capacity with regards to regional integration is not as strong as it should be. There is no regional integration plan in existence, which makes it difficult to measure and track results at this level. Programme-Based Budgeting is not practised and this is also reflected in the country assessment. There is no specific budget for regional integration, which has made this area very weak. Partnerships have been forged with donor agencies particularly on the COMESA related interventions. However, these need to be strengthened. Capacity to deliver goods and services is limited. It should be noted that some restructuring has been done and this presents an opportunity to strengthen capacity to deliver. The following recommendations are made: On the country MfDR readiness Although much has been done in terms of Civil Service reforms and restructuring of public institutions, this area still remains far behind other Governments in the region in terms of truly modernizing the public sector. There is a need to adequately resource the OPC to ensure that that MfDR is fully implemented. There is need to improve participation of all key stakeholders during planning. It is strongly recommended that during the review of the new strategy, all stakeholders -including women and youth -are able to participate fully and actively. It may even be appropriate at this early stage of the new plan to seek stakeholder feedback and incorporate their ideas into the implementation of the plan as it moves forward. The national budget needs to become fully programme-based with clear and transparent mechanisms to assess performance and share results with all stakeholders. This is an urgent issue. In addition to performance agreements for Permanent Secretaries, it is important that similar measures be put in place for all staff, at least those of the higher positions. There is need to fully set up an integrated Management Information System (MIS) for the Government of Zimbabwe. It will be important to strengthen evaluation of the GSP and across all ministries, focusing on programme, performance, and systems and procedures. There is need to inculcate a culture of using information as well as lessons learnt collected from reviews and evaluations for decision-making. This is currently not systematically happening. There is need to strengthen donor coordination particularly with the new GSP, ZIMASSET. It will be important to align all funding based on ZIMASSET priorities, including the funding arrangements with the UN organisations under ZUNDAF and others, such as the Global Fund, Health Transition Fund and the Education Transition Fund, for example. It is proposed that a donor roundtable be held by the government of Zimbabwe to focus on possible areas under ZIMASSET for the donors to come together and fund. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 6

7 On the national efforts for regional integration within COMESA There is need for clarity on roles and responsibilities between Zimbabwe and COMESA as well as with other regional bodies, such as SADC. It is important to develop a national plan for regional integration as the regional issues will certainly impact on the national issues and also need to be considered earlier than later in the move towards a full management for results as a nation. It is important for Zimbabwe to have a specific budget to support regional integration. There is need to financially resource the departments responsible for regional integration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Industry and Commerce. The involvement of civil society organisations will need to be widened and strengthened to ensure that different groups are involved - particularly women and youth - in regional integration processes. Dissemination of regional integration information would need to be improved to ensure a wide dissemination to concerned stakeholders. There is need to capacitate the national statistics agency (ZIMSTAT) to collect relevant regional integration statistics based on agreed-upon indicators. A Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system would need to be put in place to support tracking of results. It will be important to put in place measures to ensure proper accountability in achieving agreed-upon and set targets. A peer review mechanism would need to be put in place at the regional level (COMESA). There exist a good will amongst technical and financial partners and there are examples of how these have worked out between countries for example Trade Mark Southern Africa, Centre for Development Enterprise and USAID Trade Hub. The Chirundu One-Stop Border Post is one example, where in JICA, World Bank, DFID, GIZ collaborated to with support. More such partnerships should be encouraged. To help Government officials address some of the gaps identified in this report, specific action plans have been proposed and are given in Tables 1 and Table 2. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 7

8 I. Overview A. MfDR Context Zimbabwe has been on the Journey to fully implementing a Results-Based Framework for Government since This process has had numerous ups and downs and has over the years seen all senior civil servants undergoing training as well as development of numerous national plans with a results bias. The Managing for Development Results (MfDR) or Results-Based Management (RBM) initiative, as it is named in Zimbabwe, has been placed under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) in the department for Public Sector Administration and Modernization, headed up by a Deputy Chief Secretary. This highlights the level of strategic importance that the nation has placed on this matter. Over the last years, difficulties in being able to implement all aspects of the RBM approach especially those related to planning (no standard approach), budgeting (inadequate funding challenges) and performance management(lack of incentive mechanisms) led to a reduced level of adoption amongst ministries and, as such, reduced effectiveness of the approach. In 2011, the RBM implementation took on a new impetus and saw the training of over 30 management consultants from 23 different organisations by OPC to support their office and to assist Government ministries and agencies to develop results-based plans. This period also saw the signing of performance contracts for all but one Permanent Secretary (who was ill disposed) in line with the RBM approach. In 2012, all Permanent Secretaries had their performance evaluated under the RBM model and in line with their signed contracts by a selected group of independent consultants. This process led to a greater awareness and appreciation of the need for results in the Government culminating in an increased number of ministries and their related agencies utilizing the results-based approach for their planning. During the same year, handbooks for implementing RBM were also developed for both the Public Service and Local Government to support the full rollout of the framework. The year 2013, saw the development and adoption of a new strategic plan for Zimbabwe, aptly dubbed the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (ZIMASSET), and with it a clarion call by President RG Mugabe for a results-based culture in Government and the nation as well, signalling and reiterating the level of importance given to this process by the nation. To further support this process, the Zimbabwe Community of Practice for MfDR (ZimCOP) recently met to reactivate the committee (with representation from Government, private sector and other non-state actors as well as youth and women) and put in place structures to share best practices and learning from the continued and accelerated rollout of MfDR in Zimbabwe. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 8

9 B. Regional Integration Context Zimbabwe is a signatory to a number of bilateral, regional and multilateral trading agreements, which are as follows: Southern African Development Community (SADC) o Protocol on Trade o Protocol on Services Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) Interim Economic Partnership Agreement Agreement establishing the South Centre African Caribbean Pacific Group of States Global System of Trade Preferences (GSTP) World Trade Organisation Zimbabwe is also a member of other international commodity bodies such as Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), International Coffee Organisation and International Sugar Organisation (ISO). In addition, Zimbabwe has bilateral trade agreements encompassing both Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and Most Favoured Nation (MFN) with over 40 countries across the globe, some of the African countries, including South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Malawi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique. The agreements are aimed at broadening the scope for market access on the basis of reciprocity, with the exception that South Africa agreement is not reciprocal. Zimbabwe is participating in the COMESA-EAC-SADC tripartite negotiations, which aim to harmonize trade regimes, free movement of business persons, joint implementation of regional infrastructure projects and programmes, legal and institutional arrangements for regional cooperation within the RECs. One of the significant outcomes of this arrangement is the first One-Stop Border Post in Africa between Zambia and Zimbabwe at Chirundu Border Post established in Zimbabwe is one of the founders of the COMESA Free Trade Area (FTA) established in October However, there have been a few challenges in respect of areas such as rules of origin and other trade support mechanisms to facilitate trade and foster economic cooperation. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 9

10 C. Assessment Framework and Scope This assessment report assesses the level of readiness for MfDR full application in Zimbabwe. The assessment has been based on a standard methodology and tools that have been developed through the Africa for Results) AfriK4R) initiative for all African Countries. This methodology was applied with local adaptation by the nominated country coaches to ensure relevance and contextualization. The assessment considered two levels: (1) the MfDR state of readiness in the country, and (2) the national efforts for regional Integration within COMESA Regional Economic Community (REC). The work carried out followed three main phases namely: 1. Desk review of previous reports, national plans and other documentation as defined at the planning stage and /or provided by OPC as the coordinating office for MfDR in Zimbabwe; 2. Interviews with key stakeholders in the selected ministries for the two assessments as shown in the table below: Table 1: Key Interviews Conducted Stakeholder Country Assessment Regional Integration Office of President and Cabinet Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning Ministry of Industry & Commerce Ministry of Health and Child Care Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development Auditor General ZIMSTAT Ministry of Transport & Infrastructure Development 3. Consolidation of information and development of the assessment report including going back to documents and key stakeholders to verify any matters arising during the report writing. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 10

11 II. MfDR Assessment Results A. Overall MfDR Country Performance Results by MfDR Pillar I. Leadership 5,0 4,0 VI. Accountability for Results 1,6 3,0 2,4 2,4 II. Planning for Results V. Information Systems, Statistics Capacity and Monitoring and Evaluation 1,8 3,5 2,3 III. Results-Based Budgeting IV. Institutional Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services Figure 1: Results by MFDR Pillar Based on the assessment results, it can be seen that Zimbabwe is reflecting scores ranging between 1.6 and 3.5 for all the MfDR pillars as defined in the Afrik4R methodology. These results indicate and highlight a few key points: A strong focus on institutional capacity for managing for results is beginning to show results and is now well into the work in progress range. Everything rises and falls on Leadership (Pillar I) and in the period , the existence of a Government of National Unity divided the focus of leadership but after the 31 July 2013, harmonised elections, the leadership has been promoting the need and urgency of implementing MfDR in Government. Results-Based Budgeting (Pillar II) has not been fully integrated into the nation's budgeting processes and as such the funding process is definitely limiting the MfDR process and this will need to be addressed urgently. It is evident that Planning for Results (Pillar III) is not as strong as it should be but this is reflective of the fact that a new plan (ZIMASSET) has recently been put in place and it is in its early days of implementation. Challenges exist in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems (Pillar V) and this has impacted on Accountability for Results (Pillar VI). To drive improved success in the rest of the MfDR pillars, funding from different development partners needs to be aligned to the countries national priorities as espoused in ZIMASSET The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 11

12 B. Leadership for Results Leadership 1.1. Policy Leadership 5,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 2,5 1, Change Management 1.2. Openness and Transparency Figure 2: Leadership 4 Results The Leadership for Results Pillar has three key components with scores ranging from 1.8 to 3.0 all within the initiated work in progress range. Key points to note from the assessment are: In terms of Policy leadership, policy-makers are not using performance information as much as they should to institute and modify policy, and this relates to the need for improved and more up-to-date information systems and M&E tools so as to provide relevant and recent information to policy-makers. The rating for openness and transparency speaks a great deal to the need within Government for greater and all-encompassing stakeholder involvement in the decisionmaking processes. Currently only some policies are well consulted because of availability of resources. The new constitution of Zimbabwe will invariably provide a framework for this in the future. Although much has been done in terms of Civil Service reforms and restructuring of public institutions, this area still remains far behind other Governments in the region in terms of truly modernizing the public sector. A department exists in OPC to support this but lack of funding and acceptable investors has limited its ability to implement lasting change and adopt appropriate and excellent practices across Government. This area will continue to limit Government ability to function well and achieve real results as such. Leadership is required to prioritize and fund the full restructuring of key public institutions. The limited use of technology in the public sector has also hindered civil service reform. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 12

13 C. Planning for Results Planning for Results 2.1. Government Strategic Plan (GSP) 5,0 4,0 3,0 2, Sector Planning Capacity 2, Operational Planning 2, Participatory Planning Figure 3: Planning 4 Results Zimbabwe s ability to "plan for results" has been strong over the years and is certainly sitting in the work in progress range with scores from 2.0 to 3.0.The key points to mention are: Government planning is fully in place and although the rating in this area is somewhat low, this is reflective of the fact that the plan under implementation is less than a month old at the time of writing this assessment. What is lacking are clear legislative guidelines to guide all planning and more regular evaluations of strategy implementation which should improve with the introduction of a department for implementation, monitoring and evaluation under OPC. The current plan and even the previous one speak well to specific clusters which then translate to the different sectors (ministries) which all have well-laid out results-based plans and these may require more stakeholder participation in the future. However, these are well aligned with all national priorities and are to a large extent more specific and clear in terms of programmes to be implemented. The operational planning for the country has suffered from a difficulty to fully cascade the plan to all levels and articulate the roles to be played by different players especially from an annual perspective. There is a need to improve the cascading process to lower levels. It is expected that this and other operational planning concerns would be better addressed by the new department for implementation, monitoring and evaluation under OPC. The area of participatory planning is also still quite weak and this is a result of planning within limited timeframes (rushed) and limited funding, thus reducing the level of stakeholder participation. This is an area that certainly requires improvement. It will be critical that during the review of the new strategy, all stakeholders including women and youth are able to participate fully and actively. The Sector plans all speak to the national plan but also have minimal stakeholder involvement. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 13

14 D. Results-Based Budgeting Results-based budgeting 3.6. Financial Controls 3.5. Budget Transparency and Information Dissemination 3.1. Program-based budgeting 5,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 0,8 1,3 2,7 3, Resource Mobilization 2, Medium-Term Budgetary Perspective 3.3. Fiscal discipline and credibility Figure 4: Results Based Budgeting Looking at Zimbabwe s ability to budget utilising the MfDR framework, some areas score very poorly and are close to only planned for or non-existent, the ratings in this area ranging from 0.8 to 3.5.The key points to note are detailed below: On a positive note, the financial controls in the country are well-designed and implemented. This is reflective of the Cash Budgeting policy that is in place, which by its very nature makes controls easier. There are, however, Instances of budget implementation not being consistent with appropriated budgets due to inescapable expenditures. Although controls are good, the capacity of the office of the Auditor General is of concern as audits especially in local government are very behind and this can lead to a false sense of control when some areas are not in a good state but have just not been discovered yet. The audit backlog needs to be urgently addressed and any gaps from it in terms of controls, improved. The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), the Government tax agency, has consistently surpassed targets for resource mobilisation and the country s tax regime compares favourably with other countries in the region. This area is still affected by lack of harmonisation of tax systems and revenue leakages as such the question is whether or not the country is mobilizing as much as it could or only enough to meet the targets.there may be a need to review these targets more regularly and also stretch them further to see what the actual limits would be. The key areas of concern within Results-Based Budgeting relate to the absence of programme-based budgeting within the current budgeting framework (which is still utilizing line items and not programmes).this is really limiting the country s ability to fully implement MfDR and is definitely one of the biggest if not "the" biggest challenges at the level of MfDR country readiness. The national budget needs to become fully programme-based with clear transparent mechanisms to assess performance and share results with all stakeholders. This is an urgent issue. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 14

15 E. Institutional Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services 4.1. Institutional Planning 5,0 4,0 4,2 3, Goods and Services Delivery and Client Satisfaction 3,0 3, Human Resources Capacity Figure 5: Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services The scores reflect that Zimbabwe has a relative strength in institutional capacity to deliver goods and services with scores ranging from 3.0 (goods and service delivery) to 4.2 (institutional planning). The following observations are made: The greatest strength lies in institutional planning and this is to be commended. Line Ministries have planning frameworks in place but integration of the plans across Ministries is still problematic since it is characterized by a silo mentality where each Ministry considers itself as a stand-alone Institution. There is a need to strengthen human resources capacity by focusing on human resource capacity building efforts to strengthen results focused delivery on the job and also at induction level. The main challenge in this area has been financial resources; the ministries have manpower development plans, which are not fully implemented because of lack of funding and critical skills shortages in technical areas such as Architecture and Engineering due to the same. Human resources capacity building efforts and placement should focus on MfDR and should ensure a balance in access among male and female staff. In addition to performance agreements for Permanent Secretaries, it is important that similar measures be put in place for all staff, especially those at higher positions. Currently staff submit a work plan but systematic performance assessment is not in place. It was noted that there is a challenge with procurement through the State Procurement Board (SPB). It was noted that procurement takes longer than necessary due to bureaucratic processes and in addition the Government may not be getting value for money as the SPB only deals with companies registered in their database which may not be giving value for money in terms of pricing. There has been limited implementation of Client Service Charters that ought to guide service delivery by Institutions as no mechanisms have yet been put in place to measure results as such the focus on them remains limited. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 15

16 F. Information System, Statistical Capacity and M&E Information System, M&E, Stats 5.4. Evaluation Results Framework 5.1. Statistics Framework and Capacity Building 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,7 1,8 1,7 1, Management Information Systems (MIS) 5.3. Monitoring Results Framework Figure 6: Information Systems, M & E, Stats The scores under this pillar are low, ranging from 1.2 for Evaluation Results Framework to 2.7 for Statistics Framework and Capacity Building and the following key issues are noted: The national statistics agency, ZIMSTAT, has inadequate capacity (skills, transport, equipment) to generate statistics broad enough due to limited funding. It would be important to fully resource this agency to ensure that statistics collected are broad enough to cover government needs, particularly regional integration data. Monitoring is generally weak. However, in the new restructured Government, there is a Department of Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation under the Office of the President and Cabinet. This department would need to put systems in place to ensure systematic monitoring. There is need to fully set up an integrated Management Information System (MIS) for the Government of Zimbabwe to reduce the collection of pockets of data in silos that limits effectiveness. It will be important to strengthen evaluation of the GSP and across all ministries, focusing on programme, performance, and systems and procedures. There is currently no policy to guide national M & E activities and this would be needed to support any framework in place. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 16

17 G. Accountability and Partnership Accountability for Results 6.1. Participation 5,0 4,0 3,0 2, Partnerships 1,3 0,9 1, Effective and accountable institutions 6.3. Feed back to decision making Figure 7: Accountability 4 Results The scores under Accountability for Results range from 0.9 (Feedback to decision-making) to 2.8 (Participation) and it should be noted as follows: There is a need to strengthen participation of various stakeholders ensuring reach to women and youth. It is noted that consultations took place during the formulation of MTP and ZIMASSET but it is important to strengthen participation, especially at grassroots levels including dissemination and promotion of ZIMASSET to the public. Public Protector s Office was abolished following the adoption of the New constitution and now have the Human Rights Commission (HRC) The HRC, The Anti Corruption Commission (all commissions) and the police force must be given more independence so that they will not lose their credibility These institutions must also be monitored and held accountable by the Parliament Although there exist a strong judiciary system, it is not entirely apolitical.there is need to follow the provisions provided by the constitution with regards to the appointment of senior members of the judiciary. There is a need to inculcate a culture of using information collected from reviews and evaluations as well as lessons learnt for decision-making. This is currently not systematically happening. There is need to establish feedback modalities through Zimstats, MPs periodically visiting their constituencies and also use media platforms to get feedback from people. There is need to strengthen donor coordination particularly with the new GSP, ZIMASSET, it will be important to align all funding based on ZIMASSET priorities including the funding arrangements with the UN organisations under ZUNDAF and others, such as the Global Fund, Health Transition Fund and the Education Transition Fund, for example. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 17

18 III. Regional Integration Assessment Results A. Overall Regional Integration Performance Results by MfDR Pillars I. Leadership 5,0 4,0 VI. Accountability and Partnership 3,2 3,0 2,3 II. Results-based Planning for Regional integration Results 1,3 0,9 1,5 V. Monitoring and Evaluation, Information System, Statistics 2,6 III. Results-Based Budgeting IV. Institutional Capacity to Implement Regional Policies and Programs Figure 8: Regional Integration Results by MfDR Pillar The assessment scores are focused on the national efforts to implement regional integration within COMESA although the notes may include other regional bodies. The assessment reflects that Zimbabwe scores range between 0.9 (Results-Based Budgeting) and 3.2 (Accountability and Partnership).These results indicate the following: Although there is no clear regional integration framework, Zimbabwe has displayed leadership in the region on regional integration matters. Zimbabwe s institutional capacity with regards to regional integration is not as strong as it should be. There is no regional integration plan in existence which makes it difficult to measure and track results. Programme-Based Budgeting is not practised and this is also reflected in the country assessment. This has meant that there is no specific budget for regional integration, which has made this area very weak. Partnerships have been forged with donor agencies particularly on the COMESA related interventions. However, these need to be strengthened. Capacity to deliver goods and services is limited and this presents an opportunity to strengthen delivery capacity. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 18

19 B. Leadership for Results Leadership 1.1. Policy Leadership 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,3 2, Change Management 1.2. Openness and Transparency Figure 9: Regional Integration Leadership 4 Results Looking at the country s ability to "lead for results" in terms of regional integration, the findings are quite different from the country although the issues around policy become more apparent. The scores range from 2.0 to 2.5 and the following points should be noted: A number of policy documents including the National constitution refer to Regional Integration, however these polices are disjointed and as such may not be as effective as required. The lack of a coordinated focus on regional integration and external factors such as sanctions has limited the level of funding, stakeholder engagement and attention given to this area. This will need a dedicated leadership with a clear results framework and self-sustaining strategies in the future, and this has to be driven by the national leadership. There will also be a need for clarity on roles and responsibilities between Zimbabwe and COMESA as well as other regional bodies. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 19

20 C. Results-Based Planning for Regional Integration Planning for Results 2.1. Government Strategic Plan (GSP) 5,0 4,0 3,0 2, Participatory Planning 2.2. Operational Planning Figure 10: Regional Integration Planning 4 Results Planning for Regional Integration has a wide range of results for the three key areas with a range from 0 to 2.5.The key points to note include: Although a national plan is in place, it is not specific to regional integration but does reflect alignment of regional outcomes and outputs in certain areas. This limited focus on regional integration in the planning process is reflective of where the country is coming from and as such focus is very much on building national systems than operating at the regional level. The regional integration issues that are planned for at sector level are too segmented with elements covered by Foreign Affairs, Industry and Commerce, Transport, Finance, etc. Since regional integration has not been specifically planned for, there are no operational plans and stakeholder involvement is limited in this area. Although the country has urgent national issues, it will still be vital moving forward that regional integration is considered more in the planning processes, and that a coordinated regional integration strategy is developed, given that the regional issues will invariably have a impact on the national issues and also need to be considered earlier than later in the move towards a full management for results as a nation. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 20

21 D. Results-Based Budgeting Results-based budgeting 3.1. Program-based budgeting 5,0 4, Budget Transparency and Information Dissemination 1,3 3,0 0,7 0, Medium-Term Budgetary Perspective 3.4. Resource Mobilization 3.3. Fiscal discipline and credibility Figure 11: Regional Integration Results Based Budgeting The budgeting pillar has the greatest number of weak areas with scores ranging from 0.7 to 1.3, key points to note include: The lack of programme-based budgeting at national level means that there is no specific budgeting for regional integration. This is also affected by the absence of a specific plan for regional integration issues. Without a programme-based budget, the medium-term budgeting framework is also not programme based. The absence of compliance measures at the regional level has reduced the country s rating on resource mobilisation, as there are no external targets that are used to assess compliance. This is something that will need to be adopted at a regional level and then Zimbabwe will consider these. This will also help drive improved resource mobilisation within the country. The current debt overhang could also have a bearing on the resource mobilisation at the regional level. In terms of fiscal discipline, Zimbabwe has been engaged in all available regional fora and has complied with the key indicators. These however are not legislated at the regional level and are not all encompassing as such. There is need for improvement at the regional level so as to drive Zimbabwe to achieve greater results. The limited interaction on budget aspects with regional counterparts and the uncoordinated budgeting systems at the regional level hinder budget transparency and information dissemination. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 21

22 E. Institutional Capacity to Implement Regional Policies / Programmes Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services 4.1. Departmental Work Planning 5,0 4,0 3,0 3, Implementing Regional Policies and Programs 1,7 2, Human Resources Capacity Figure 12: Regional Integration Capacity to Deliver Goods and Services The score for capacity to deliver goods and services ranges from 1.7 (Implementing regional policies and programmes) to3.3 (Departmental work planning). The following issues are noted: Regional policies, programmes and projects are neither clear, nor logical, nor planned on the basis of cause and effect. The former ministry for Regional Integration has been restructured to a department in Ministry of Foreign Affairs but the responsibilities for regional integration now fall under the Ministries of Industry and Commerce and Foreign Affairs There is a need to financially resource the department responsible for regional integration. In other ministries there is currently no full time staff responsible for regional integration. The level of implementation of regional policies is very low and this is because of lack of a coordinated plan on regional integration. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 22

23 F. Information System, Statistical Capacity and M&E Information System, M&E, Stats 5.1. Statistics Framework and Capacity Building 5,0 4,0 3,0 1, Monitoring and Evaluation Results Framework 2, Management Information Systems (MIS) Figure 13: Regional Integration Information Systems, Statistical Capacity and M & E Information system, M&E and Statistics scores are low ranging from 0.0 to 2.7. The following key issues should be noted: The COMESA reporting indicators and template are adhered to and this is to be commended. There is need to strengthen formulation and reporting of other regional integration commitments. Although some statistics on regional integration are collected by different stakeholders, these Statistics are limited. There is a need to capacitate ZIMSTAT, the national statistics agency, to collect relevant regional integration statistics based on agreed-upon indicators. Outside of the reporting and monitoring through COMESA, a monitoring system does not exist. This would need to be put in place. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 23

24 G. Accountability and Partnership Accountability for Results 6.1. Participation 5,0 4,0 3,0 3, Partnerships 3,5 2, Mutually accountable institutions Figure 14: Regional Integration Accountability 4 Results The scores for Accountability for Results range from 2.5 (Mutually accountable institutions) to 3.5 (Participation) and the following is noted: The strengths lie in the involvement of key civil society organisations in the formulation of regional integration programmes. The involvement of civil society organisations will need to be widened and strengthened to ensure that different groups are involved, particularly women and youth. Dissemination of regional integration information would need to be improved to ensure wide dissemination to concerned stakeholders. COMESA and SADC secretariats have provided platforms for mutual assessment of regional integration performance but it will be important to put in place measures to ensure a proper policy framework and accountability in achieving set targets, given that assessment by COMESA secretariat may not necessarily bring accountability. The Regional Integration department would need to be empowered to collect all the Agreements from all Ministries and be effective to deal with all Regional issues (SADC, COMESA). A peer review mechanism would need to be put in place at the regional level (COMESA). There exists good will amongst technical and financial partners and there are examples of how these have worked out between countries for example Trade Mark Southern Africa, Centre for Development Enterprise and USAID Trade Hub. The Chirundu One Stop Border Post is one example, wherein JICA, World Bank, DFID, GIZ collaborated to support. More such partnerships should be encouraged. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 24

25 IV. Action Plan A. Managing for Development Results Action Plan Pillars I - Leadership for Results II Planning for Results Objectives / Expected Results Changed Mindsets for Development and results Improved Stakeholder participation Improved coordination and Implementation of National Plan Activities Identify and equip change focal persons across all institutions Reskill Institutional leaders on RBM Develop and implement consultative Policy Formulation Frameworks for all ministries Produce planning guidelines Conduct regular plan reviews Align clusters, ministries and agencies plans to national plan Indicators No of leaders and officers trained Increased attainment of set development targets No of officers trained Quality of Consultative framework Guidelines No of plan review meetings No of stakeholder meetings Number of plans aligned to clusters Baseline Annual Targets Responsible Partners Estimated Cost % - OPC (PSA & Parent ministries USD40000 Modernisation) Consultants CSC - 25% 50% OPC (PSA & Modernisation) 1 OPC (PSA & Modernisation) 4 4 OPC (Policy & Planning) 4 4 OPC (Policy & Planning) Parent ministries Consultants OPC (Impl. & M&E) CSC Parent ministries OPC (Impl. & M&E) CSC OPC (Implement., M&E) OPC (Implement., M&E) USD20000 USD USD USD2000 Nil Sources of Funding Change management for Permanent secretaries to be funded by ESAMI in June Change management for all directors in Gvt: source not yet identified Already in progress through Gvt funding Source not yet identified Can be done inhouse in Gvt Can be done inhouse 100% Nil Already in progress through Gvt funding The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 25

26 Pillars III Results-Based Budgeting IV - Institutional Capacity to Implement Reg. Policies/Programs V Monitoring &Evaluation Objectives / Expected Results Results Based Budgeting implemented Improved financial controls Strengthen capacity in MfDR and RBM Improved Monitoring and Evaluation Systems within government Activities Implement Programme Based Budgeting Conduct all outstanding audits for local Gov. Develop RBM capacity at all levels Fully operationalize the compendium for client service charters Develop in a participatory manner a national M&E policy Strengthen M &E capacity Indicators % of budgeting that is program based % of local authorities up to date on audits Number of staff trained in RBM Quality and effectiveness of performance measurement framework M & E policy No of officers trained in M&E Annual Baseline Sources of Targets Responsible Partners Estimated Cost Funding % 100% MoFEP All Gov. Ministries USD Afrik4R, Government of Zimbabwe and source other funding 59% 0% 0% Auditor General Private Audit Firms, Local Authorities, MoFEP - 50% 50% OPC (Department All Gov. ministries of PSA & Modernisation) 0 - OPC (Department of PSA & Modernisation 1 100% 1 OPC (Department of PSA & Modernisation All Gov. Ministries USD All Gov. Ministries USD 5000 To be determined by Auditor General Work already in progress Funding partners still to be identified Afrik4R and Government of Zimbabwe Will need to mobilise more funding Harmonise and integrate management information systems Quality and effectiveness of information systems VI - Accountability and Partnerships Increased understanding of ZIMASSET among Zimbabwe population Promote ZIMoASSET Number of donors committing to fund ZIMASSET OPC, MFEP, MOFA UN agencies, World Bank, USAID, JICA, GIZ, SDC, SIDA, CIDA, AFDB, AUSAID USD5000 A bigger budget of about USD will be needed to implement the Afrik4R and Government of Zimbabwe The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 26

27 Pillars Objectives / Expected Results Activities Indicators Baseline Annual Targets Responsible Partners Estimated Cost roll out plan Sources of Funding Improved institutional accountability and independence Strengthen accountability institutions e.g. commissions No of institutions fully staffed and operational 100% OPC All Gov. Ministries Work already in progress by Gvt Table 2: MfDR Action Plan B. Regional Integration Action Plan Pillars II - Planning for Regional Integration Objectives / Expected Results Improved Regional Integration Processes Table 3: Regional Integration Action Plan Activities Develop a regional integration plan in a participatory process Implement the regional integration plan (still needs to be developed) Indicators Comprehensive regional integration plan in place Number of regional integration projects implemented Baseline Annual Targets Responsible MoIC, Dept of Regional Integration MoIC and Department of regional integration Partners Other affected ministries MFEP COMESA SADC Estimated Cost USD5000 TBA Sources of Funding Afrik4R and government of Zimbabwe Should be the normal work of the departments to implement The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 27

28 V. Bibliography 1. Constitution Select Committee (COPAC) The Final Draft Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe. January 31, Gordon Somers T and Khosa M Zimbabwe Civil Service Reform and Results Based Management: Lessons Learned. 25 September 16 October Government of Zimbabwe, Auditor General Local Authorities Consolidated Progress Report, October Government of Zimbabwe, Office of the President and Cabinet, Modernisation Department Results Based Management Programme in Zimbabwe. Management and Implementation Process. Harare. 53pp. 5. Government of Zimbabwe Evaluation of the Capacity Building for Local Government and Service Delivery Support Programme for the Ministry of Local Government, Urban and Rural Development. Report Submitted to the Ministry of Local Government, Urban and Rural Development. 6. Government of Zimbabwe, Office of the President and Cabinet and United Nations Development Programme Results-Based Management Preparatory Assistance Programme (PAP), Project ID , Terminal Project Report (TPR), May 2005-June Government of Zimbabwe, Office of the President and Cabinet and United Nations Development Programme Strengthening Government Capacity for the Implementation of the RBM Programme in Zimbabwe: , Draft Report of the Terminal Evaluation, September pp 8. Government of Zimbabwe 2007, Chapter 10:29, Census and Statistics Act, Act 1/ 2007, Harare, Zimbabwe 9. Government of Zimbabwe 2013, Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (ZIM ASSET) Oct 2013 Dec 2018, Harare, Zimbabwe. 102pp 10. Government of Zimbabwe, Office of the President and Cabinet Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the Results Based Management Preparatory Assistance Programme: Programme Management Unit, January Government of Zimbabwe, Office of the President and Cabinet Performance Contracts Evaluation Report (Private & Confidential), pp 12. Government of Zimbabwe, Office of the President and Cabinet Summary of the 2006 First and Second Quarter Progress Reports on the Implementation of the Results Based Management Preparatory Assistance Programme. November Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture, Government of Zimbabwe Education Medium Term Plan Harare, Zimbabwe. 73pp. 14. Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture, Government of Zimbabwe Results Based Management System: Ministry Integrated Performance Agreement, Year Ministry of Economic Planning and Investment Promotion, Government of Zimbabwe 2011, Medium Term Plan , Harare, Zimbabwe. 285pp 16. Ministry of Economic Planning and Investment Promotion, Government of Zimbabwe 2012, Medium Term Plan Implementation Progress Report, Harare, Zimbabwe. 223pp 17. Ministry of Finance, Government of Zimbabwe Five-Year Strategic Plan , Harare, Zimbabwe. 52pp. The Africa for Results Initiative AfriK4R 28