%)
Source: Questionnaire results
102 4.2.3.4 Managing for Results
The elements in managing for results are anchored in the following: the partners have their own model to allocate development resources which is clearly linked to the development needs of the municipality. This model has to be backed up by strong management tools in the key areas of finance, planning and reporting. In addition, capacitation of the individual and organisation must be prioritised by ensuring that shortcomings are mitigated by effective capacitation and retraining programmes.
From Figure 4.22, it can be seen that 79% of the Partners were of the view that the municipalities had a development model to allocate resources (Q251), 75% believed that this model did indeed provide a strong linkage between the available ODA resources and the expected development results (Q252). Seventy percent of the development partners agreed that this linkage existed but they are not convinced that it is this model which is being used entirely in their dealings in their municipalities (50%).
It is very interesting to note at this juncture that, although both parties agreed on the presence of this important linkage between resources and development, they said that in spite of this they were still a range of constraints which were preventing the actors within the municipalities, both developing partners and partners, to focus on the development results (Q257), as shown by the two high percentages of 100% and 79% respectively.
From Figure 4.22 it is clear that the development partners were of the view that the municipalities had a system to manage for results (Q258), 75% but the question arose, as discussed in alignment, why these systems are not being used. The answer could well lie in the response from both the developing partners and the partners who indicated by their 50% and 47% responses respectively to the same issues that the system could be there but was perhaps not optimally functional.
Staff capacitation (Q254) is an issue about which the partners had very strong feelings and Figure 4.20 shows that only 26% of the respondents felt that the staff in these two municipalities was capacitated enough to drive ODA projects forward. This is in contrast to the development partners who thought (75%) that partner staff was indeed capacitated to do this. But both development partners and partners conceded that there were no effective systems or plans to train or retrain staff in ODA programmes as reflected in
103
their 33% and 53% responses respectively. The response from the partners was very optimistic in view of what really obtains on the ground.
104 Figure 4.22 (2.5.1-2.5.10)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Q251 Q252 Q253 Q254 Q255 Q256 Q257 Q258 Q259 Q2510
DevPartner_AGREE 50 75 75 75 33 50 100 50 75 0
DevPartner_DISagree 50 25 25 25 67 50 0 50 25 100
Partner_AGREE 79 75 55 26 53 56 79 47 53 38
Partner_DISagree 21 25 45 74 47 44 21 53 47 63
50 75 75 75 33 50 100 50 75 0
50 25 25 25 67 50 0 50 25 100
79 75 55 26 53 56 79 47 53 38
21 25 45 74 47 44 21 53 47 63
Percentage
"Managing for Results" Elements in the Paris Declaration implemented (in %)
Source: Questionnaire results
105
Ideally the results emanating from aid should be feeding into policy planning implementation and improvements (Q258). In this study the developing partners and partners concurred that this was not happening as it should be by 50% and 47%
respectively. This is an indictment on ODA, because if this is not happening how is improvement expected to be achieved? But it also goes on to confirm the lack of M&E in these programmes as outlined and discussed in the elements of alignment. Again gender (Q2510) did not seem to be playing a major role in ODA as reflected by the 100% of development partners saying that no sex data was disaggregated and analysed for decision making and 63% of the partners also agreeing. On results-orientated reporting (Q259) 100% of the development partners and 63% of the partners said that this was happening. The principal of Managing for results presents a bag of mixed responses from the two parties but the feeling is that the process has still a long way to go and if the principle of “distance travelled” as applied in evaluation of development processes to measure achievement is used, the researcher feels that this principle is still at the lower end and has a long way to go.
4.2.3.5 Mutual Accountability
Mutual accountability refers to both the development partners and partners being equally responsible for the development process in respect of their own constituency as well as to each other. This reciprocity stretches from the use of development resources (2.6.1) and the preparation of aid project documentation (2.6.3), including implementation dossiers, to reports ensuring that these processes are built into the municipal IDPs and are freely available to all stakeholders.
The results in Figure 4.23 show no significant challenges with mutual accountability between the two groups, the development partners and partners. The two groups alleged that ODA implementation was built into the municipal budgets and IDPs (Q261) by 100% and 70% respectively. This could unfortunately not be confirmed in the qualitative results. The partners were skeptical in answering this question by 70% which might support the qualitative finding in this area, as will be discussed later. The quality of the project documentation including structure, content and presentation is rated relatively low compared to the other elements in this principle. The development partners agreed that this quality can be tagged at about 75% and the partners at 63%. The issue of gender (Q265) again did not seem to be very important in ODA activities. The development
106
partners said that women were part of the periodic reviews at 67% but the differed with this view, as indicated by 33% who agreed. So the gender issues here were again in the balance and they did not seem to elicit any direct and specific significance in this element either.