PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 RD MEETING OF THE COMCEC POVERTY ALLEVIATION WORKING GROUP

Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC) PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 RD MEETING OF THE COMCEC POVERTY ALLEVIATION WORKING GROUP Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes in the COMCEC Region COMCEC COORDINATION OFFICE April 2014

Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC) PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 RD MEETING OF THE COMCEC POVERTY ALLEVIATION WORKING GROUP ON MONITORING MECHANISMS OF THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET PROGRAMMES IN THE COMCEC REGION (April 10 th, 2014, Ankara, Turkey) COMCEC COORDINATION OFFICE April 2014

For further information please contact: Mr. Mehmet Fidan Expert Mr. Mehmet Akif Alanbay Expert COMCEC Coordination Office Necatibey Caddesi No: 110/A 06100 Yücetepe Ankara/TURKEY Phone : 90 312 294 57 10 Fax : 90 312 294 57 77 Web : www.comcec.org e-mail : comcec@comcec.org mfidan@comcec.org malanbay@comcec.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 1 1. Opening Session... 2 2. The COMCEC Poverty Outlook 2014... 4 3. The Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes in the COMCEC Region... 7 3.1. The Conceptual Framework of Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes and the General Overview of the COMCEC Region... 7 3.2. Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes in the Selected Case Studies from the COMCEC Member Countries, Lessons Learned and Recommendations... 10 4. Member State Presentations... 14 4.1. Cameroon... 14 4.2. Palestine... 15 4.3. Turkey... 16 4.4. Uganda... 17 4.5. Suriname... 18 5. Experiences of International Institutions/NGOs/Local Authorities in Monitoring the Social Safety Net Programmes... 19 5.1. UNDP... 19 5.2. Metropolitan Municipality of İstanbul... 20 5.3. Deniz Feneri Association... 22 6. The Way Forward: Utilizing the COMCEC Project Cycle Management (PCM)... 24 7. Closing Remarks... 26 ANNEXES... 27 Annex 1: Agenda of the Meeting... 27 Annex 2: Programme of the Meeting... 28 Annex 3: List of Participants... 31

Introduction The 3 rd Meeting of was held on April 10 th, 2014 in Ankara, Turkey with the theme of Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Systems in the COMCEC Region. The Meeting was attended by the representatives of 19 Member States, which have notified their focal points for the Poverty Alleviation Cooperation Working Group namely, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Suriname, Tunisia, Turkey and Uganda. Representatives of COMCEC Coordination Office, IDB, SESRIC, UNDP, İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Deniz Feneri Association have also attended the Meeting. 1 After the opening remarks of Mr. Mehmet Metin EKER, the Director General of the COMCEC Coordination Office (CCO), and Mr. Khaled AL-BARGHOUTHI, Deputy Director General to Combat Poverty, Ministry of Social Affairs of Palestine and the Chairman of the Meeting, the representatives of the CCO made presentations on COMCEC Poverty Outlook 2014. During the presentation of the COMCEC Poverty Outlook 2014, the participants were informed about the state of poverty and efforts on poverty alleviation in the world and the COMCEC Region. The Meeting considered the social safety nets and their monitoring mechanisms in the COMCEC Member States and the analytical study titled Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes in the COMCEC Region commissioned by the COMCEC Coordination Office especially for the Meeting with a view to enriching the discussions. The Representatives of the Member States have shared their experiences, achievements and challenges in monitoring the social safety net programmes in the COMCEC Region particularly in their respective countries. The Meeting also provided the opportunity for the participants to get the experience of international institutions, local authorities and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) on monitoring mechanisms of the social safety net programmes. 1 The list of participants is attached as Annex 3. 1

1. Opening Session In line with the tradition of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Meeting started with the recitation from the Holy Quran. At the outset, Mr. M. Metin EKER, Director General of the COMCEC Coordination Office briefed the participants on the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC), which has been working towards enhancing economic and commercial cooperation among the 57 Member States for 30 years and the COMCEC Working Group Mechanism. COMCEC meets annually, at ministerial level under the chairmanship of the Turkish President in İstanbul to discuss the development challenges of the Member Countries and review the cooperation efforts. In his opening remarks Mr. EKER informed the participants regarding the new vision document of the COMCEC, namely the COMCEC Strategy, which was adopted by the 4th Extraordinary Session of the Summit Conference, held in 2012, in order to give a new impetus and to add new dimensions to the ongoing cooperation among the Member States. The mission of the COMCEC was defined to make this organization as a platform where knowledge is produced and disseminated, experiences are shared, common understanding and language are built and policy approximation is achieved in the long term among the member countries. He stated that in order to fulfill its mission, the Strategy brought new instruments to further activate cooperation under the COMCEC. One of these instruments is the Working Group mechanism, which was established in six cooperation areas, namely trade, transport and communications, tourism, agriculture, financial cooperation and poverty alleviation. He expressed that the Working Group Meetings are held twice a year in Ankara in each cooperation area defined by the Strategy. They aim at bringing together experts of the member countries having required knowledge and expertise to discuss common issues of the member countries at the relevant field, regularly to produce knowledge, share experience and best practices and develop a common understanding in the respective cooperation areas. Mr. EKER also stated that the Secretariat of the COMCEC has been preparing for each Working Group meeting important background reports and research documents in order to give guidance to the discussions and deliberations in the meetings. Afterwards, he introduced the analytical study entitled Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes in the COMCEC Region which was prepared for the Meeting. He underlined the importance of having feedbacks on the studies submitted to the Meeting to improve the quality of such works. Mr. EKER highlighted that the second operational instrument initiated by the COMCEC Strategy is the Project Cycle Management (PCM) which enables the Member States, which are willing to contribute to multilateral cooperation under the COMCEC, to propose multilateral projects in the cooperation areas defined by the Strategy. Mr. EKER informed participants about the first project call within the PCM which was made in September 2013. Mr. EKER underlined that the Member Countries and the relevant OIC institutions have shown great interest to the Project Call. The project proposals were evaluated and shortlisted by the CCO. It was expressed that the main purpose of the PCM is to more actively involve the member states human resources and institutional expertise in the cooperation endeavors under the COMCEC with a view to improve human capital and institutional capacity by technical cooperation, scientific researches and knowledge sharing in the member countries. He pointed out that the signing ceremony for successful projects of 10 member countries and 2 OIC institutions, which were declared by the CCO, was held on April 2 nd 2014. He also expressed that 2 of the successful projects are related to poverty alleviation. Mr. EKER underlined that the next project call will be made in September. He 2

underlined that all required documents related to project submission are available on the COMCEC website (www.comcec.org) and the CCO is always ready to provide assistance to the project owners regarding PCM. Mr. EKER mentioned that poverty alleviation is a permanent agenda item of the annual COMCEC Ministerial Meetings for many years. He stated that the COMCEC Region has one fifth of the world population, however, it receives only 8 percent of the total world output. The number of people in the COMCEC Region who live under 1.25 USD a day is 350 million. 21 COMCEC Member Countries are in the group of the Least Developed Countries according to the UN definition. Therefore, he emphasized that poverty alleviation is a crucial cooperation domain for the member countries and exerting all the required efforts and bringing together the resources and experiences of the member countries is a necessity to produce a solution for this common challenge. After that Mr. Khaled AL-BARGHOUTHI, chairman of the Meeting, thanked all participants for electing him as the Chairman and welcomed them all to the 3 rd Meeting of the Poverty Alleviation Working Group. Mr. BARGHOUTHI mentioned that there are many diversified projects, programs implemented throughout the world and they have different level of impacts on several aspects of poverty. Therefore, he underlined the importance of studying multidimensional poverty with regard to reveal various reasons behind the poverty. He introduced the programme of the Meeting to the participants. 3

2. The COMCEC Poverty Outlook 2014 Ms. Sırma DEMİR ŞEKER and Ms. Hande HACIMAHMUTOĞLU Experts from the COMCEC Coordination Office presented Poverty Outlook 2014: Multidimensional Poverty jointly. Ms. DEMİR ŞEKER focused on the non-monetary poverty, especially Human Development Index (HDI) and multidimensional poverty index (MPI) of UNDP. With regards to poverty, Ms. DEMİR ŞEKER stated two important aspects about poverty, namely monetary and non-monetary poverty. She mentioned that although income/consumption is an important factor for well-being and, low income/consumption is typically correlated with other non-monetary indicators of well-being; it is not the only way to measure well being. With regards to MPI, she stated that the index considers multiple deprivations of the population and their overlap by utilizing the dimensions of health, education and standard of living. She mentioned that while the health and education dimensions are similar to the dimensions of HDI, the standard of living is a different dimension that consists of six indicators related to basic living standards. On the other hand, income is not included in the calculation of MPI. Within this context, she briefly explained indicators related to these three dimensions and the calculation methodology of MPI. In her presentation, Ms. DEMİR shared some figures to reveal the multidimensional poverty and human development in the COMCEC Member Countries in general, then for each income group in detail. In this regard, she stated that the 57 member states are distributed across four groupings based on human development indicators and also various income categories are observed as experiencing multidimensional poverty. She added that the deprivation degree in multidimensional poverty dimensions differ across the COMCEC Member Countries. As for monetary poverty, since non-monetary poverty situation differs according to the income level of the country, in her presentation, she also provided detailed figures of HDI, MPI and achievements on the Millennium Development Goals for high and upper-middle income COMCEC Member Countries. Ms. DEMİR ŞEKER stated that high income countries are either in very high human development category or high human development category. On the other hand, among high income COMCEC Member Countries, data for multidimensional poverty index is available only for United Arab Emirates and the MPI value is very low for this country. In terms of MDG efforts, high income COMCEC Member Countries have already achieved Goal 1, namely eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. She also demonstrated that despite the improvements in Goal 2, 4 and 5, some high income COMCEC Member Countries could not achieve the Goals on time. Lastly, she provided HDI, MPI and MDG efforts in upper-middle income COMCEC Member Countries. She stated that the per capita GDP in upper-middle COMCEC Member Countries has a diverse pattern. In terms of HDI, while 10 out of 16 upper-middle income countries are in high human development category, the rest is in medium human development category. She added that the population living in multidimensional poverty in these countries exceeds the population living in income poverty. In the second part of the presentation, Ms. Hande HACIMAHMUTOĞLU, Expert of the COMCEC Coordination Office presented some of the key findings of the COMCEC Poverty Outlook 2014: 4

Multidimensional Poverty related to the state of poverty in the lower-middle and low income COMCEC Member Countries and efforts on poverty alleviation in the COMCEC Region. With regards to the state of poverty in the lower-middle income COMCEC Member Countries, Ms. HACIMAHMUTOĞLU briefly explained the monetary poverty in those countries. In this regard, she pointed out that there is a high diversity in GDP per capita levels and poverty headcount ratios among the lower-middle income COMCEC Member Countries where GDP per capita levels vary USD1,908 and USD6,614, and poverty headcount ratios vary between 0.04 and 69 percent. Afterwards, she shared some of the main indicators related to non-monetary poverty in the lower-middle income COMCEC Member Countries, namely the Global Hunger Index values, Human Development Index values, multidimensional poverty rates, intensity of deprivation among the multi-dimensionally poor, and contributions of the three dimensions of Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). Next, she presented the share of population who are poor and deprived in education, health and living conditions indicators of the MPI. In this section, as a final issue, she explained achievements in the four Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which are found to be directly related goals with poverty situation of the member countries, namely the goals 1, 2, 4 and 5. Regarding the state of poverty in the low income COMCEC Member Countries, Ms. HACIMAHMUTOĞLU pointed out that there is a very high poverty headcount ratio in the COMCEC Member Countries. Afterwards, she shared the figures related to non-monetary poverty. In this regard, nearly all of the Member Countries have a GHI value that points to an alarming hunger situation. Apart from two countries all the countries in the low human development group and the rates of the population that are multi-dimensionally poor are higher than 50. In the Member Countries an average poor person is deprived in between 38.8 and 69.4 percent of the weighted indicators of multidimensional poverty index, and the highest contribution on the MPI values comes from living conditions dimension. Next, she explained the share of populations who are poor and deprived in education, health and living conditions indicators of MPI. Finally, in this part she explicated achievements in the four Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which are found to be the most directly related. Ms. HACIMAHMUTOĞLU explicated the efforts on poverty alleviation both in global and in the COMCEC Region. In this regard, regarding the global efforts she explained the major programs and strategies related to poverty, which are MDGs, Poverty Reduction Strategies of the World Bank and the IMF, Official Development Assistance. Regarding the strategies and the programmes on poverty alleviation in the COMCEC Region, she briefly explained the COMCEC Strategy, Islamic Solidarity Fund for Development (ISFD) and Special Programme for Development of Africa (SPDA), OIC-Cotton Programme and Vocational Education and Training Programme (OIC-VET). Underlining the gradually increasing efforts on poverty alleviation in the COMCEC Region, Ms. HACIMAHMUTOĞLU summarized some important remarks related to poverty alleviation in the region as follows: - Monetary poverty is relevant - Non-monetary poverty is devastating - 32 percent of the COMCEC population live under multidimensional poverty - Highest deprivations are in cooking fuel, electricity and improved sanitation - Deprivations in school attendance and child mortality are more than 20 percent for the one-third of the member countries 5

To conclude, Ms. HACIMAHMUTOĞLU stated that, education and health services should be improved in all the member countries, and efforts towards reducing poverty in the COMCEC Region should focus on the regional and national disparities. Questions and Remarks Q: As an important part of the poverty why productivity is not included into the calculations in the Outlook? A: Ms. DEMİR ŞEKER stated that first of all the methodology that they used in the Outlook belongs to the UNDP and they started to calculate the MPI in 2010. She added that they have used the values and method of the UNDP in the Outlook. Although the productivity is an important side of the multidimensional poverty, when it comes to the calculation it becomes hard to find accurate data for all countries and combine them. She also touched upon that the productivity is deeply related to the education and even if the productivity is not included directly to the calculation, the MPI in fact contains it. Therefore, she mentioned that they had to rely on three indicators, namely education, health and living standards. Q: Do you find any valuable reason to explain why education, health and living standards etc. are differentiating from country to country as the main contributors to their MPI index? A: Ms. HACIMAHMUTOĞLU expressed that the reason behind such differentiation is mostly related to the income level of the country and whether they are in transition or not. Furthermore, conflict situations in some countries, sociocultural factors can be the reasons. For detailed information, she stated that it is necessary to make country specific studies to reveal what the reason is. Q: Why the food security is not included as a dimension of the MPI while it presents an important agenda item of many COMCEC Member Countries? A: UNDP representative Mr. Ben SLAY had some remarks on the questions about the indicators used in the calculation of the MPI. He admitted that it would be better for countries to study more indicators in a detailed manner in order to get better analysis for each country. However, Mr. SLAY explained that as they include more and more dimensions into the calculation, incidences or possibilities for confusion and misunderstandings and potential inconsistencies necessarily arise as well and it becomes distant to give a general outlook. As a worldwide institution, he mentioned that they have to draw a general picture and reveal some main outcomes from the studies. He underlined that there is a tradeoff between the two methods since they both have some advantages. Therefore, Mr. SLAY argued that it is not useful to bring together a large number of indicators that would not ensure them to reach a meaningful result. 6

3. The Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes in the COMCEC Region 3.1. The Conceptual Framework of Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes and the General Overview of the COMCEC Region Ms. Valentina BARCA, Consultant, Oxford Policy Management (OPM), has presented Monitoring Mechanisms of Social Safety Net Programmes in the COMCEC Region that explains some of the key findings of the analytic study, which was commissioned by the CCO and carried out by OPM, called Monitoring Mechanisms of Social Safety Net Programmes in the COMCEC Region. At the outset Ms. BARCA gave an overview of methodology that was implemented for the study. She underlined the conceptual framework developed specifically for this study to analyze monitoring mechanisms within the COMCEC Region looking at both issues of supply and demand side. She also underscored the findings from the study which involve all 57 countries. She mentioned that SSN programs have been considered as an effective instrument in tackling poverty including multi-dimensional poverty through cash transfer or cash for work transfer or any other SSN programs. There is a transfer of income towards the poorest part of the country. However, more financial sources can often be spent on health, education, etc. She continued her presentation with informing the participants that impact evaluations are incredible source of knowledge on impact but they don t provide useful knowledge about how to improve program management. There is a lot of literature on impact of programs but very little literature on how to develop-monitor this programs. Therefore, Monitoring should be an essential component of SSN programs. In this respect, Ms. BARCA stated that it is important to make a clear difference between Monitoring and Evaluation. She summarized the differences between M&E as shown in the table below. MONITORING Focus Understanding and fixing programme failures and assessing functioning of key programme processes, for better programme management (note that this can include outcome monitoring) Utility Frequency Aims at continuous program improvement and accountability A continuous, routine activity that should be an integral component of any programme EVALUATION Outcomes and impacts; determining the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of a SSN Provides information for major decisions such as starting, ceasing, expanding, or reducing a program Infrequent undertaking (done at certain key moments in time) Coverage Comprehensive aimed at all aspects of a Less comprehensive specific programme/ across programmes aspects or specific programmes Cost Involves low annual costs Involves high costs for each study 7

She informed the participants that program evaluation has focused on the outcomes. However, lessons from the field show that the program failures are essentially implementation failures. Therefore, monitoring is possibly most useful way to correct these program failures. In this regard, monitoring will be definitely more important than evaluation. On the other hand, the exact mix of monitoring-focused or evaluation-focused activities needed to effectively implement SSNs will depend on the level of maturity of the programme itself. Ms. BARCA continued her presentation with emphasizing the functions of a good monitoring system. She stated functions of a good monitoring system as follows: Improving programme design: in order to learn about the efficiency and effectiveness of a programme to inform decisions to extend, improve, or eliminate them, Solving problems in programme implementation: Monitoring programme execution to detect and correct implementation problems, Accountability within the government: monitoring of programme execution to ensure that agents are doing what they have undertaken to do. Provision of public information for external accountability: providing information to the legislature and the public to: (i) render external accountability; (ii) provide information that legitimises a public action; or (iii) facilitate public choice and voice Prioritising and budgeting: helping to coordinate and prioritise She specifically underlined two sides of monitoring systems. One side is the supply side of monitoring systems which is basically dealing with the quality and availability of the data. On the other side there is demand side. Demand side is often less focused but it is also very important. In this analytical study both supply and demand side of SSN programs are examined. The first big challenge of supply side is to formulate good indicators and targets for the social safety net programs. So these indicators help to monitor progress with respect to programme inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and goals including providing a sense of efficiency and effectiveness. The CREAM criteria indicate that indicators should be clear (precise and unambiguous), relevant (appropriate to the subject at hand), economic (available at a reasonable cost), adequate (provide a sufficient basis to assess performance) and monitorable (amenable to independent validation). In this regard, there are challenges in setting indicators. The indicators could be; Policy or objective-related indicators. These are directly determined by the specific programme s Theory of Change (TOC) and objectives (outward looking) Administrative or process-related indicators. These go one step further and focus on the programme s administration (inward looking) The second big challenge of supply side is selecting data sources. Therefore, how should the institutions collect data. Original data collection for monitoring activities can be an extremely time-consuming and costly activity. Therefore, it is important to identify existing and potential data sources, establish their usefulness for monitoring purposes, and plan them carefully to deliver exactly the indicators needed focus on cost-effectiveness. Ms. BARCA underlined the main data sources as follows; 8

Programme s MIS, or equivalent database Household survey data Other administrative sources Qualitative studies Standard reports by implementing bodies at the decentralised level Spot checks Community based monitoring: beneficiary surveys and Citizen Perception Surveys The third challenge of supply side is defining institutional arrangements. Institutional arrangements are the formal and informal processes, procedures, rules, and mechanisms that bring monitoring activities into a coherent framework and define the actors and processes that make monitoring actually happen in practice. Therefore, it is important to identify how the information will be collected, analysed and transformed into the required indicators and interpreted correctly. Ms. BARCA informed the participants that it is important to make sure information used by intended users. She stated that the main factors affecting demand side of monitoring data are; Policy framework, Agency s capacity, political freedom and budget autonomy Background and objectives of monitoring system Individuals capacity and commitment Incentives carrots, sticks and sermons With respect to enabling policy framework Ms. BARCA emphasized that a fully enabling policy was only found in around one quarter of the countries analysed, many of which were countries in Sub Saharan Africa that have been recently developing Social Protection frameworks. In several countries, donor influence was cited as a driving factor that was pushing a culture of accountability, while in others these broad policy processes were due to local push-factors. She mentioned that where performance-based and result-oriented management and budgeting are clearly stated as objectives, more likely to have use of monitoring data. In her presentation Ms. BARCA expressed that agency s capacity, and budget autonomy is another factor. In this connection she briefed that in many cases, SSN programmes were not being implemented through independent agencies, but through branches or departments within Ministries. In these cases, budget autonomy was very low leading to strong competition for limited resources within the Ministry. Cases where the implementing body had an independent status generally faced less issues when it came to implementing monitoring activities. She mentioned that background and objectives of monitoring systems is another crucial aspect of demand side. In this regard, she mentioned that just over a third of the countries analysed received donor support to set up M&E systems these were countries with most focus on monitoring. Furthermore, in countries with programmes that were long established and had strong institutional ownership, monitoring was sometimes less of a concern. Regarding individuals capacity and commitment, a focus on capacity-building and training was often at its strongest when donor money or support allowed it. Large part of the problem was that many monitoring systems are not given enough priority to have an independent budget and allocated staff. 9

Lastly, Ms. BARCA mentioned on incentives (carrots, sticks and sermons). She stated that though not widespread, specific incentives for monitoring or M&E more widely were created within some country SSN programmes. These were all focused around salary boosts, promotions and letters of motivation (carrots), rather than sticks or sermons. Questions and Remarks Q: In terms of impact evaluation or measuring outcomes it is hard to put them in monitoring process. The outcomes should be analyzed in terms of who is using them and how they are beneficial. In this respect, how the outcomes should be put in monitoring framework in a project? A: It is true that there is elements of evaluation that can be done on monitoring bases. For example, some countries adding one or two questions to household budget survey. With this methodology they understand who their recipients are. So they can actually look at impact of SSNs on those people. They can estimate impact of SSNs in this regard. Q: It is mentioned that in some countries it is founded that some policies are enabling policies. What are your criteria in defining this kind of policies as enabling policy? A: Basically a policy that pushes actors to share their findings with other institutions or actors can be classified as enabling policy. Moreover, any policy that actively supports SSN can be included in this category. Q: In some cases the growing middle classes oppose the cash transfer to the poor. They think there should not be income transfer through taxes. What are the most appropriate ways of engaging the middle classes accepting the advantages of these policies as well involving them? A: These kinds of challenges are mostly tackled by communication strategies for SSN programs. In this regard, major issues are how to convince the middle class that these programs are beneficial? How to involve citizenship more widely not only the program beneficiaries? In this respect, every country develops its own strategies and tries to find solutions to this issue. Therefore, communication strategies play key role in convincing the middle classes. 3.2. Monitoring Mechanisms of the Social Safety Net Programmes in the Selected Case Studies from the COMCEC Member Countries, Lessons Learned and Recommendations In her second presentation, Ms. BARCA informed the participants that 5 member countries namely, Indonesia, Pakistan, Mozambique, Tunisia and Uganda were anlayzed in a detailed manner. In this regard, three main criterias namely level of monitoring systems, the OIC s regional classification and income levels were adopted to choose countries for case studies. She expressed that Indonesia has the Raskin Programme. It was introduced as an emergency food security programme in 1998 under the name of OPK and renamed Raskin in 2002. Raskin programme has been evaluated from three aspects. From supply side Raskin s Guidelines indicate that there are six indicators to judge the programme s effectiveness: correct targeting, amount, price, time, quality, and administration. Regarding data sources No Management Information System, some visits arranged, and no community monitoring. In terms of Institutional 10

arrangements Ms. BARCA mentioned that it is unclear and it is a formality for staff. From demand side there is a low focus on Monitoring and & Evaluation at national level, decentralised context, and long-running programme. M&E activities are generally considered as only compliance tasks and often assigned to lower-level employees. Monitoring does not contribute to any outcome and existing feedback not taken up to improve implementation. Ms. BARCA stressed that Citizen s Damage Compensation Programme (CDCP) is a nationwide temporary SSN put in place by the government of Pakistan following severe floods in late July 2010. It is one of the world s largest emergency SSNs. With respect to Supply side CDCP has a result based monitoring framework and defining key indicators at all levels (input to outcome). The main data source is MIS programme, but also visits, mystery customer approach, bank s payment database, and household survey were realized for beneficiary satisfaction. CDC programme has a clearly defined operational manual. From demand side the programme receives support from World Bank and is externally driven, but consultations with all stakeholders provides a high level of capacity (good recruitment and training). Monitoring has extensively helped improving programme implementation and design as well as accountability. She continued her presentation with informing the participants about the Uganda s SAGE Programme. SAGE is an unconditional cash transfer that targets labour-constrained individuals and households. Regarding supply side there is a very high level of tailoring and flexibility to SAGE programme needs. Moreover, it has a detailed plan outlining how each indicator is assembled in practice and a strong link to the programme MIS. In terms of data sources the range is varied and well-triangulated, including MIS, Beneficiary Assessment reports, Service provider data, Internal reviews & other administrative data, national household survey and Census, Pay-point monitoring form/exit survey. The institutional arrangements are clearly spelt out in the programme manual and Performance Data Management Plan. From the demand side national policy framework is very favourable for M&E. it is both internally and externally driven process. Monitoring has extensively helped improving programme implementation (e.g. complaints handling) and design (e.g. targeting senior citizens through CBT) as well as accountability (e.g. campaign webpage), including meeting with CSOs etc. Afterwards, she shared the findings regarding the case study on Tunisia s National Assistance Programme for Needy Families which provides monetary aid and health insurance. Regarding supply side new framework is being developed, but old system with few basic indicators in place. Furthermore, new Single Registry has been developed, previously only reports that were often not collected and compiled. Project Implementation Unit (PIU) set up under auspices of the Ministry of Finance in 2012 will carry out M&E functions. In terms of demand side there is a national commitment to improve the effectiveness of SSNs. However, reformed system requires administrative capacity which to date has been problematic especially at the local level. Ms. BARCA stated that Basic Social Subsidy Program (PSSB) Programme is one of the oldest noncontributory transfers in Africa and the largest in Mozambique. The Food Subsidy Programme (PSA), now called the Basic Social Subsidy Program, is currently being reformed. In terms of supply side indicators are clearly linked to the main components of the Programme, mapped back to its data source and aimed at detecting constraints or delays in implementation based on extensive consultations with staff. MIS, national survey and community surveys (triangulated) are the main data sources. INAS is an independent agency with delegations nationwide and have MoUs with other partners. From demand side, both UNICEF and World Bank have been involved. The program has an expanded coverage and budget and stronger focus on training and capacity building. 11

Ms. BARCA concluded her presentation with overall recommendations both for supply and demand side of SSN programmes in the COMCEC Region. In this framework, she mentioned different aspects of supply side as follows: Improve design of indicators through Developing a consultative process that incorporates all levels of SSN management; Having a strong focus on how data will actually be collected and used; Clearly mapping back to their data sources (including how each piece of data will be collected in practice and then aggregated and used); Following CREAM criteria; Clearly linking to the programme s objectives and theory of change, and its administrative structure. Improving access to and triangulation between different data sources through National Surveys especially if adding questions on SSNs specifically; Ad-hoc qualitative studies cheaply answers why and how; Beneficiary feedback surveys and scorecard methods the satisfaction of citizens within the communities where programmes operate is the ultimate indication of good programme functioning (beneficiaries are often the ones who know programme malfunctioning best). Other admin databases linked through a unique ID civil registration as side target Improving use of Programme MIS Where possible. Making sure the logical design of the information system is developed by those in charge of the programme rather than delegated to IT experts; Making sure data used for monitoring purposes is simply generated as a by-product of the administration process itself; Differentiating reports depending on target audience; Ensuring flexibility in the query and reporting functions of the MIS. Improving institutional arrangements for implementation of monitoring activities through: Defining roles and responsibilities of different actors; Strong and detailed programme manuals used in conjunction with capacity building and training; Creation of programme Steering Committees; Memorandum of Understandings (MoU) between different agencies/ministries etc. Regarding the demand side Ms. BARCA emphasized the following recommendations. Linking the wider policy framework. One strategy for example, is to get buy-in from key decision makers and stakeholders with decisional power. Increasing the implementing agency s capacity and political freedom and releasing budget constraints. Clarify the objectives of the monitoring system. Invest in individuals capacity and commitment through training and strong incentives. Capacity building and training should be a continuous exercise that evolves as the SSN evolves; 12

The practical importance of monitoring information for tailoring of programme implementation and design should be continuously stressed through practical examples; M&E officers should be involved in all strategic programme meetings and have daily interactions with programme managers; Questions and Remarks Q: Is there any relationship between monitoring, and level of income and geographical characteristics? A: Definitely there is a relationship between monitoring, and income level and geographical characteristics. However, sometimes countries with higher level income falling into the category that giving less importance to the monitoring. Geographical characteristics influence the monitoring. Because, geographically large countries which have huge segments of population living in rural areas could face more difficulties in implementing certain types of monitoring effectively. In that case the level of institutional development play critical role in efficiency of monitoring programs. Q: Malaysia wants to have an integrated monitoring system thus the duplication as well as exclusion and inclusion issues will be prevented. In this respect, could you evaluate the centralized and decentralized monitoring systems? A: There are many efforts to around the globe to create an integrated management systems but monitoring mostly underestimated. It is important to have a monitoring system both at central and local level. Having a monitoring system at the local level provides more accountability. 13

4. Member State Presentations 4.1. Cameroon Mr. Francis BATOMEN, Monitoring and Evaluation Expert from Technical Follow up Committee for Economic Programs of Cameroon presented the monitoring and evaluation system of the Safety Nets Project of Cameroon. Mr. BATOMEN began his presentation with a brief description of the Safety Nets Project of Cameroon. As he stated, the main objective of this Project is to improve the living conditions of poor and vulnerable people. This objective fits very well with the Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (GESP) drawn up by the Government since 2010. Specifically, the Government aims to (i) put in place an effective and functional targeting system, (ii) improve the behavior of beneficiary households with respect to the health, nutrition and education and (iii) enhance the capacity of beneficiary households to manage their resources and to increase their productive assets. Thus, in order to improve its safety nets system, the Government is implementing a Safety Nets Project in two stages, namely: (i) a pilot cash transfer project self-funded of 24 months, with 2 beneficiary municipalities and 2000 beneficiary household, (ii) a 5 years project funded by the International Development Association with 40,000 beneficiary households of cash transfer 30,000 and beneficiary households of cash for work. The project is implemented by a unit created for this purpose, termed Project Management Unit (PMU). As regard the conditionalities of the cash transfer, they are soft, meaning that even if they are not respected by a beneficiary household, that household will not be excluded from the project. However, sensitization and training sessions will be organized regularly, in the framework of accompanying measures, to help the beneficiary to respect those conditionalities. The conditionalities cover education, health, nutrition, income generating activities, public interest works, etc. Regarding the monitoring and evaluation system of that Safety Net Project, as Mr. BATOMEN stated that it has been developed to allow the PMU to identify problems that might hinder the good running of the project and to take decision on time, and also for impact evaluation of the project on living conditions of beneficiaries. This system cover (i) monitoring of inputs, activities, process and outputs, (ii) internal evaluation of the process, (iii) external evaluation of the process and impact, (iv) annual audit of the finance of the Project by the Ministry of Finance. Mr. BATOMEN also described the monitoring system that consist of (i) the monitoring and evaluation expert at the central level, (ii) field operators at the municipal level (local) and (iii) local citizen control groups (GLCC) at the village level. The monitoring is based on indicators that are clear, with well-defined responsibilities and data sources. The most important indicators are related with the monitoring of payment and the accompanying measures. Mr. BATOMEN also mentioned that the Safety Nets Project of Cameroon has a Management Information System (MIS) that is used for the selection and registration beneficiaries, the production of beneficiary lists for payments and the monitoring payments. 14

It was expressed that so far, the monitoring and evaluation system has allowed the PMU to: adjust the implementation steps of the Project (especially targeting and registration), to design a useful MIS, produce activity reports that have been submitted to the steering committee, develop an operational strategy for accompanying measures, identify weakness of the Payment Agency and to make it accurate and helpful suggestions and to easily plan and budget activities. Mr. BATOMEN emphasized that the main difficulties have been related to the lack of training, infrastructure and logistics (motorcycle, internet connection, phone, etc.) for a proper monitoring. To conclude, Mr. BATOMEN said that the challenge is to improve the MIS, the monitoring and evaluation system based on lessons learned from the Pilot Project and also to train monitoring personal. Questions and Remarks Q: Afghan delegate raised two questions. Firstly, he asked the targeting mechanism and secondly, conditionality of the SSN programmes in Cameroon. He added that conditions of these programmes sometimes cause corruption. Especially the implementing team may consider the existing beneficiary does not carry out the condition and decide a new beneficiary. A: Mr. BATOMEN stated that community based targeting is used in the SSNs programmes in Cameroon. He explained that poverty data of the national institute of statistics is used to select the beneficiary region, after that the local authority decides which village will be beneficiary. Then, authority of the community selects potential beneficiaries. Afterwards, Proxy means test (PMT) is applied among these potential beneficiaries in order to determine the real needy. Regarding the second question, Mr. BATOMEN agreed with the Afghan delegate that hard conditions may cause some corruptions. Therefore, he underlined that the conditions they apply are soft and even if a beneficiary does not respect the conditions he/she is not excluded from the project. 4.2. Palestine Mr. Khaled BARGHOUTI, Deputy Director General to Combat Poverty from ministry of Social Affairs of Palestine made a presentation on the Cash Transfer Program (CTP) and monitoring system on CTP in his country. In his presentation Mr. BARGHOUTI briefed the participants that Palestine has started to work on Social Safety Net (SSN) programs recently. The main program is the CTP and it based on income level of beneficiaries. Two cash assistance programs, the special Hardship Case Programs (SHC) and the Social Safety Net Reform Program (SSNRP), merged and a new program namely CTP was developed with the contribution of the World Bank. CTP program intends to mitigate poverty level in Palestine and it provides regular cash transfers to the poor Palestinians. He stated that beneficiaries have the right to benefit from the program 1-2 years based on the score of Proxy Means Test (PMT). The program funded by donors like European Union (EU) and World Bank. 60 percent of the budget of the program is provided by Palestinian government. 15

Mr. BARGHOUTI stressed that Palestine does not have a well-defined impact evaluation to consider the impacts of the above-mentioned SSN programs. Moreover, Palestine does not have a monitoring and evaluation system but the functions of M&E realized by the Steering Committee which is located under the ministry of Social Affairs. 4.3. Turkey Mr. Mustafa Sencer KİREMİTÇİ, Expert from the Ministry of Family and Social Affairs of Republic of Turkey made a presentation on the Management Information Systems (MIS) and Turkey s Social Assistance System. At the outset, Mr. KİREMİTÇİ informed the participants about the organizational structure of public authorities responsible from the implementation of SSN programs. He continued his presentation with emphasizing the main social assistance programs in Turkey. These programs are as follows; Conditional Cash Transfer Program Payments for Disabled People Cash Transfers for Vulnerable Groups Cash Transfers Education Project Supports Family Assistances Payments for Elderly People Mr. KİREMİTÇİ continued his presentation with informing the participants of the Management Information Systems (MIS) used in the field of social assistances. He stated that there are two mechanisms namely, Social Assistance Information System (SAIS) and Integrated Social Assistance Services Project (ISAS). He stressed that Social Assistance Information System (SAIS) is an e-government application carried out by general directorate of social assistances in 2009 (only national sources used). It is an examination system for users that enables online access to 15 different government institutions 28 data which provides social assistance applicant s personal information. The main goals of the system are to enable data sharing with local authorities and create a common data base which includes all information about social assistances provided by other government institutions. With respect to Integrated Social Assistance Services Project (ISAS) Mr. KİREMİTÇİ briefed the participants that it enables all social assistance process such as application, investigation, payments, monitoring, accounting and audit. The project still continues in collaboration with the scientific and technological council of Turkey. The main goals of the project are to create a common data base (poverty database) in the field of social assistances and transfer all workflows of general directorate of social assistances and social assistance and solidarity foundations into electronic platform. Furthermore, the project enables data sharing with local authorities and Turkish Red Crescent. It also creates a common data base which includes all information about social assistances provided by other government institutions. Mr. KİREMİTÇİ concluded his presentation with underscoring the acquisitions Social Assistance Information System (SAIS) and Integrated Social Assistance Services Project (ISAS) of Turkey. The acquisitions are mentioned as follows: 16

Social assistance application process shortened Documents needed from the beneficiary citizens became only 1 (Only Identity card with Id number) Misuses blocked and duplications prevented Other government intuitions workload decreased and public resources saved Database established for development of new effective socıal assistance programs General directorate of social assistance adds its own contribution to e-transformation of Turkey 4.4. Uganda Ms. Tonia ALADO, Economist, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development of Uganda, made a presentation on the Social safety net programmes in Uganda. She informed the participants that Uganda has two major social Safety net work programs. These programs are Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF) and Social Assistance Grants for Empowerment (SAGE). Ms. ALADO stated that NUSAF is a five- year programme that is aimed at improving the livelihoods of the Northern population of Uganda. During the first five-year period (2002-2008) it included a component titled Community Development Initiatives. It was implemented through public works employment of community members. During its second implementation period NUSAF retained the community development initiative (now called the Public Works Programme). However the orientation and objectives of the programmes are more explicitly on social protection. In both phases of the programme, it operates in all of the wider North districts of Uganda. She mentioned that expanding social protection (ESP) was designed in 2009 as a five-year programme under the Ministry of gender, labour and social development. ESP was designed to reduce chronic poverty and improve life chances for poor men, women and children in Uganda. Moreover, the purpose was to provide a National Social protection system in Uganda that benefits the poorest as a core element of Uganda s national policy planning and budgeting process. She continued to the presentation with explaining the Social Assistance Grants for Empowerment (SAGE) which was designed as a piloting cash transfer programme as one of the component of expanding social protection. SAGE is implemented in 14 districts of Uganda. Ms. ALADO explained that implementation and monitoring process of SAGE. Within the implementation of SAGE two main targeting groups were defined. Firstly, regarding the aged citizens it aims; To reduce old age poverty by providing a minimum level of income security Increase access to health and education among old persons and their families This grant is invested back into the community to boost local business and support local economic growth Secondly, with respect to vulnerable family, it targets households that are below the poverty line and reaches mainly to old persons, children and people with disabilities. Ms. ALADO concluded her presentation with mentioning the challenges faced during the implementation of the above-mentioned SSN programs and lessons learned. The challenges faced are emphasized as follows: 17