Asia-Pacific Regional Conference onPublic Sector Management

in Support of theMillennium Development Goals

Conference Report

13–15 June 2012Bangkok, Thailand

Asia-Pacific Regional Conference onPublic Sector Management

in Support of theMillennium Development Goals

Conference Report

13–15 June 2012Bangkok, Thailand

iii

Contents

Foreword and Executive Summary iv

Message from the Secretariat vi

Opening Address 1

Welcome Remarks 3

Conference Outline 5

Asia and the Pacific MDG Progress Report 8

Results-Based Public Sector Management: A Strategic Framework 9

Planning and Budgeting for the MDGs 10

Parallel Sessions on Planning and Budgeting 11

Implementation of the Millennium Development Goals 12

Parallel Sessions on Implementation 13

Delivering Services at the Local Level 14

Parallel Sessions on Delivering Services at the Local Level 15

Monitoring and Evaluation of the MDGs 16

Parallel Sessions on Monitoring and Evaluation of the MDGs 17

Closing Session: Lessons for the Post-2015 Agenda 18

Appendixes Conference Agenda 19

Profile of Experts 25

List of Participants 35

iv

Foreword and Executive Summary

Koshy ThomasHead, Outcome Based Budgeting Project TeamMinistry of Finance, Malaysia; and Chairman, Coordinating Committee of Asia-Pacific Community of Practice

Velayuthan SivagnanasothySecretary, Ministry of Traditional Industries and Small Enterprise Development, Sri Lanka;Vice Chair, Coordinating Committee of APCoP

When the Millennium Development Goals were initiated by the UN in 1990, the objective was primarily to drive nations towards setting specific goals and targets in critical areas that would have a significant

impact on human development. However, it is clear that with increasing resource constraints that are being faced by governments in developing countries, public sector planners together with development partners had to be more effective in program planning, resourcing and delivery so that best ‘value for money’ can be realised. This coupled with the increasing demands from the public for better quality and more responsive services puts greater demands on them. Managing for Development Results (MfDR) was one such approach towards strengthening Public Sector Management (PSM). The Asia-Pacific Community of Practice (APCoP), the first regional developing country network on MfDR, created in 2006 to help developing partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region meet the challenge of introducing and institutionalizing MfDR, in particular improving Results-based Management (RBM) in the public sector. The integrated approach has rendered the RBM more dynamic and practical with its focus on a common reference point in its usage and as a comprehensive performance management system for government-wide implementation.

The Regional Conference on Public Sector Management in support of the MDGs has successfully brought together regional development partners and member countries under the auspices of the various development partners and the APCoP with a common aim towards achieving the MDG goals within the limited time. The main objective of the conference was to discuss and analyze how results-based PSM contributed to the successes and failures in achieving the MDGs. Participants shared country experiences on meeting challenges related to public sector planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation in pursuit of the MDG targets. More than 100 academics, experts, senior government officials and public sector management and sector specialists from 24 developing member countries discussed the importance of results-based approaches to PSM in achieving results and considered lessons to help prepare for new global targets post 2015.

The Conference participants were selected based on the basis of their seniority, experience and involvement in the implementation of MDGs within their respective countries, to ensure fruitful discussion and experiential sharing. Senior level participation at the Conference was encouraged to ensure policy level intervention could be advocated within member countries.

The opening speech by the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Thailand set out the challenges faced by government and development partners in the light of economic and fiscal constraints faced by developing countries on a global scale. Thematic areas of the integrated RBM for MfDR were comprehensively covered with clear overviews presented at each plenary session by distinguished Professors Allen Schick, Stephen Commins and Paul Smoke. The plenary sessions sets out the context for each thematic component. The subsequent break out sessions based on the various MDGs, focused their discussion on aspects related to the thematic areas presented

Foreword and Executive Summary v

at each plenary session within the context of the goals. The breakout sessions saw in-depth discussions on each MDG with country experiences and lessons learnt being discussed at length. Issues related to planning, resourcing, implementation, monitoring and evaluation within the context of the MDGs were discussed at length and experiences exchanged.

In conclusion against the backdrop of such multi faceted demands, it is indeed critical that public sector planning and implementation is clear and well defined. The focus on improving PSM in the effective delivery of the MDG goals was a timely one given the 2015 timeline. MfDR through RBM incorporates a longer-term macro planning framework through better and more effective national development with clearly defined roles for member countries and development partners and can provide a better planning and implementation framework for the Post 2015 agenda.

vi

Message from the Secretariat

This conference report is presented by the Secretariat of the Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (APCoP) which also acted as the Secretariat for this conference. The APCoP Secretariat sits

in the Strategy and Policy Department of ADB.

APCoP was established in 2006 and comprises over 700 senior government officials from ADB member countries. APCoP is funded through a regional technical assistance, financed through ADB’s Technical Assistance Special Fund, the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, the Cooperation Fund in Support of Managing for Development Results, and the Republic of Korea e-Asia and Knowledge Partnership Fund.

APCoP’s mandate is to promote the results orientation of public sector management (PSM). APCoP members work through a framework that identifies key results-based features to drive results through a country’s PSM. The implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), as an internationally agreed set of indicators and targets, provided perspectives on the importance of results-based PSM to the achievement of results. This was highlighted by the sectoral and country presenters. The issues raised were, in some instances, specific to an MDG indicator, a sector or to a country context. At the same time, there were common issues that cut across indicators, sectors and countries. These insights reinforced the importance of robust and results-oriented PSM to the delivery of national objectives and provided invaluable lessons for the future.

The report was compiled by Cristina Bonoan, with support from other Secretariat members, Mylene Buerano, Sheryl Nazaret, Rio Baxa, and Catherine Clarin. The Secretariat acknowledges the contribution of the APCoP participants, the Regional Partnership in Achieving the MDGs in Asia and the Pacific, the subject matter experts, and the ADB expert staff, whose presentations and comments provided the basis of this report.

Farzana AhmedPrincipal Coordinator, APCoP Secretariat andLead Specialist (Public Sector Management),

Strategy and Policy DepartmentAsian Development Bank

1

Opening Address

D istinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to be here this morning and to give an opening address in this Regional Conference on Public Sector Management in Support of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which many senior government officials, public sector management experts, and social sector specialists from around the world have come to share valuable views.

Today, it is undeniable that we are in the middle of challenging times. The global economic crisis has left many countries with substantially weaker fiscal and external outlooks. Yet the economy of Asia and Pacific region in overall has fared relatively well and Asia has been one of the fastest growing regions of the world over the last decade, leading to a significant drop in income poverty. By some estimates, the number of people living on less than US$1.25 a day has declined by 646 million between 1990 and 2008 and contributed significantly to global poverty reduction.

Performance on the MDGs has varied widely across and within the countries, and severe challenges in the Asia-Pacific region remain. One hundred million children are still undernourished. Two billion people still live without basic sanitation. Infant mortality in some countries is over ten times that in developed nations. A quarter of a million mothers still die each year at childbirth, despite the region’s advances in medicine and science. Women still work mainly in agriculture, and secure few important positions in government or business. Many mothers are forced to leave their children behind with elderly relatives in rural villages, in order to work in the cities to earn sufficient income. Furthermore the region still face declining forest cover, rising greenhouse gas emissions, and increasingly frequent natural disasters.

Therefore, given such large deprivations and inequities, efforts to ensure equitable social development and achieve the MDGs must be urgently scaled up. This is not only intrinsically desirable, but also essential to prevent such inequities from hampering our future progress and these efforts must continue well beyond 2015.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

When looking at MDG-based planning methodology, it is important to identify any missing links in underlying policy design and to assist policy makers in accounting for the gaps so that a framework of issues to measure against can be developed. In addition, empowerment checks should be in place to deal with unequal power relations and sustain pro-poor development outcomes. It is also important to have a strong public sector and sound public financial management. These can contribute to improved allocation of public resources and better service delivery at the local level. Farmers will have a better chance of selling their produce if feeder roads and rural market places

H.E. Kittiratt Na-RanongDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Thailand

2 Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Public Sector Management in Support of the Millennium Development Goals

are well maintained; health workers can provide better services if funds flow efficiently to rural clinics; and villages everywhere are better off if they have access to clean water.

Moreover, financial services for the poor are an important tool to help reaching MDGs, since Microfinance can support entrepreneurship, leading to higher incomes. Improvement in saving, credit and other financial services can empower women and help poor families pay school costs, respond to health concerns, and afford clean water and sanitation technology.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to share with you on Thailand’s progress to meet the MDGs. We have developed our own MDG Plus targets which are going well. The proportion of Thai population with incomes below poverty line has been progressively decreasing, from 20.98 % in 2000 to 7.75 % in 2010, indicating a reduction in national poverty. With the commitment to the MDGs and South-South cooperation, we have become an increasingly active global development partner.

Our current government has had ambitious aims for economic development and decentralization, and has allocated significant resources to be used for social development. We have acknowledged social inequality as a main root cause of many development problems in the country and we did clearly announce our goal to reduce income disparity between the rich and the poor. One of the policies launched is to raise the minimum wage by 40 percent across the country. We believe that an increase in the minimum wage will create a virtuous circle for our economy.

The strength and resilience of the Thai society constitutes an important foundation for further advancement. Our Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has made women’s empowerment as one of the government urgent policies. Therefore, a National Development Fund for Women was set up to serve as a revolving funding source for women to borrow with low interest or without interest. The money will be used to develop their occupations, generate employment and income, promote their welfare, and enhance the potential of women’s networks. In addition, we have already eliminated gender disparity in primary and secondary education.

As a middle-income country, we have transformed ourselves from an aid recipient to a rising development partner and an active member of the international community such as a donor in Asian Development Fund (ADF) under the Asian Development Bank. We now stand ready to extend and increase development cooperation and official development assistance (ODA) to our neighbours and other developing countries through knowledge sharing and technical expertise.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The MDGs have raised the hopes of millions of deprived people in our world, especially in our region where hopes must be fulfilled. Because the MDGs are designed to bring about a fundamental restructuring of the situation of the poor in the contemporary world, if achieved, they will certainly represent one of the most outstanding accomplishments of human kinds.

In addition, without sound governance, no country can expect to make sustained progress in human development and poverty reduction. I would say governance and MDGs are linked in two ways which are (1) indirectly, via the growth of a country and (2) directly through certain elements of governance that affect the attainment of MDGs. Almost every dimension of governance is correlated with income, which is required to finance both public and private investments and recurring outlays to achieve the MDGs.

The end of MDGs target period (Year 2015) almost arrives; thus, there is no time to lose. All MDGs, I believe, are attainable only if and when countries of the world work towards them in cooperation with each other, and necessary progresses or actions should be made with haste and efficacy.

Lastly, I wish you a productive three-day of stimulating discussions.

Thank you very much.

3

Welcome Remarks

Let me begin by thanking our host Government, the Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on MfDR, and the ESCAP/ADB/UNDP Regional Partnership in Achieving MDGs in Asia and the Pacific for helping us organize this conference

on Public Sector Management in Support of the MDGs.

Helped by rapid economic growth, the Asia-Pacific region has made considerable progress in achieving some of the Millennium Development Goals. Our progress in freeing people from income poverty has been impressive. The goal of halving the proportion of the absolute poor from the level in 1990 has already been achieved in our region, ahead of the target year of 2015. There have been successes in other MDGs too. Nearly all the region’s children of primary school age are likely to be in school by 2015. Gender parity has been achieved in education. Targets for providing safe drinking water and halting the spread of deadly diseases such as tuberculosis have also been met.

However, one hundred million children in the region are still undernourished. Two billion people live without basic sanitation. Infant mortality in some countries is over 10 times that in developed ones. Nearly a hundred and fifty thousand mothers still die each year at childbirth—a needless loss given the region’s advances in medicine and science. Women still face difficulties working in sectors other than agriculture, and secure few positions of authority in government, elected bodies and business. The region faces decline in forest cover, a steady rise in greenhouse gas emissions and increasingly frequent natural disasters.

To free our region of these massive deprivations and to achieve all the MDGs, much more needs to be done. We cannot leave the task of achieving the MDGs on economic growth alone. With increasing inequality accompanying growth in recent years, the impact of growth on the MDGs has been weakening. This calls for a much larger role for the state if substantial progress is to be made on the MDGs within the limited time left to us before 2015. The task of providing basic services needed to achieve MDGs, such as health, education, water and sanitation, must primarily be the responsibility of governments.

So, governments must do their work well. And one of the key messages of this conference is that, an efficient public sector supported by appropriate institutions and systems, is a necessary condition for achieving the MDGs. Effective governments also set a stage for the civil society and the private sector to play their roles in the effort to achieve the MDGs.

For the public sector to be effective, key components of planning, budgeting, implementing, monitoring and evaluating public actions must be well coordinated at all levels of the government and be focused on common national goals. For example, despite the huge challenges we face in health-related MDGs, the attention to the health sector in the region is utterly insufficient. As many as 15 out of 39 developing countries in the Asia and Pacific region spend only less than 5% of their GDP on health. Clearly, a better planning targeted at removing severe health deprivations is necessary.

Mr. Kazu SakaiDirector General, Strategy and Policy Department

Asian Development Bank

4 Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Public Sector Management in Support of the Millennium Development Goals

Also needed is an appropriate budgetary process to allocate adequate resources, both financial and human, towards health and other MDG priorities. Strong institutions with adequate human resources are needed to implement necessary measures, backed by the appropriate policies and regulatory frameworks. Finally, it is important to have a solid monitoring system that can track implementation, collect data, and evaluate as to whether the plan and its delivery have been effective in achieving the intended results.

This conference brings together government officials, development practitioners, and experts from the Asia Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results, to share experiences and challenges in pursuing the MDGs. As the target year for achieving MDGs is coming closer, the process to find a successor framework to end human deprivations is under way. Whatever is the final shape of this new framework, there are always lessons to be learned from the pursuit of the MDGs. They will inform us better in pursuing new goals, and that will be one of key outputs of this conference.

Ladies and gentlemen, the task before the region’s governments is immense. We do hope that you will carry the messages you hear in this conference back to your countries and you find discussions in the conference useful for your own work and for the functioning of your agencies and departments. Any improvements that you can make—whether small or big—will help bring the achievement of the MDGs closer and thereby make a positive difference in the lives of the poor and the deprived in our region.

Thank you.

5

Conference Outline

The working sessions were structured into plenary and parallel sessions. The plenary sessions focused

on the region’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) status report and the public sector management functions of planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. The plenary sessions were followed by smaller parallel sessions illustrating how these key functions are necessary to achieve specific MDG targets. This report summarizes the key issues and lessons learned from the conference plenary and parallel sessions

The conference working sessions commenced with a look at the Asia and the Pacific MDG Progress Report.1 The status report illustrated the unfinished agenda of the MDGs in the region. Major challenges include: (i) inequality and disparities; (ii) lagging performance, particularly in health and nutrition; and (iii) empowering women. Recognizing that the delivery of the MDGs falls mainly on the public sector, addressing these challenges have significant implications on the region’s public sector management.

To help frame the discussion on the public sector’s role in achieving the MDGs, the second working session discussed the Public Sector Management (PSM) Framework as a tool for delivering results. The results-based PSM approach identifies four key features: (i) the PSM components of planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation exhibits key results attributes; (ii) the PSM components focus on common results, being aligned to the same set of national priorities and results (impact, outcomes, and outputs); (iii) the PSM components work interdependently to deliver and measure the achievement of national and sector objectives; and (iv) PSM efforts are integrated horizontally across sector ministries and vertically through all levels of government. Horizontal and vertical linkages enable better attribution and contribution to defined results and ensure complementary initiatives. Integrating a results focus throughout the PSM cycle is critical to accelerate development in the face of fiscal constraints.

The plenary session on results-based planning and budgeting discussed the two processes that

1 ADB and UN. 2012. Accelerating Equitable Achievement of the MDGs: Closing Gaps in Health and Nutrition Outcomes. Bangkok.

set in motion achievement of results. The purpose of results-based planning and budgeting processes is to create a future that is different from the past, which is the exact same purpose of the MDGs. Planning is the means by which a country puts its own imprimatur on the MDGs, takes ownership of them, and re-targets them to the country’s own circumstances. Budgeting is the means of annual down payment to buy the targets of the national plan. For plans to be realistic, they must be linked to budgeting.

The planning and budgeting plenary session was followed by four parallel sessions that illustrated the importance of results-based planning and budgeting to prioritize and allocate resources for identified development targets:

(i) Better Sharing, Bigger Pie: Planning for Inclusive Growth—This session discussed the benefits and challenges of targeting economic growth that reaches traditionally excluded sectors of the population.

(ii) Getting What We Pay For: Impact Evaluation for Better Planning and Budgeting—This session discussed the logic, benefits, challenges and limitations of impact evaluation to inform decision making.

(iii) Sharing the Purse Strings: Budgeting for Gender Equality—This session discussed the need for addressing gender inequality through prioritization of gender issues and broader participation in the budgetary process.

(iv) Are the MDG Indicators SMART: A Perspective from the Urban Sector on MDG Target 7.D—This session discussed the importance of specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound indictors through an analysis of actual progress in addressing the issue of slum dwellers.

The plenary session on implementation discussed the challenges to effective service delivery, including rapid growth, demographic changes, issues of exclusion and disparities, and ever-increasing demands that create competing needs for limited resources and capacities. Addressing the cross-sectoral dimensions of human development entails multiple approaches and actors in service delivery. Policies, processes, human resources and capacities should be oriented to deliver common results. This requires horizontal integration

6 Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Public Sector Management in Support of the Millennium Development Goals

through coordination across central and sector agencies as well as vertical integration along all levels of government.

The implementation plenary session was followed by four parallel sessions that illustrated the necessity for multiple approaches that consider horizontal and vertical integration to deliver the cross-sectoral goals of the MDGs:

(i) Many Hurdles, One Leap: How Conditional Cash Transfer Programs Target Multiple Development Goals—This session discussed the benefits and limitation of conditional cash transfer programs in delivering multiple development goals and the challenges of coordinating implementation across agencies.

(ii) Lowering the Barriers: Innovative Solutions to Increase Access to Health Services for Women and Children—This session discussed innovative local solutions to address financial and other barriers to provide increased access to better health services for women and children.

(iii) Closing the Gaps: Good Practices in Improving Nutrition and Reducing Maternal and Child Mortality—This session discussed good practices and successes in delivering the interrelated goals of improving nutrition and reducing child and maternal mortality.

(iv) Best Practice or Basic Capacity: Popularity versus Success—This session discussed two PSM strategies. The “best practice” PSM modernization strategy favored by development specialists introduces the advanced practices of highly developed countries to accelerate progress; while the “basic first” strategy argues that countries that lack basic managerial capacity cannot make use of best practices and should forego state-of-the-art reforms.

The plenary session on delivering services at the local level discussed how local governments have the ability to break down sector and institutional silos toward a more coherent PSM cycle at the local level. However, local governments can only deliver services effectively and sustainably if systems, procedures, and capacities are adequately developed. Decentralization requires a delicate balancing of central control and local autonomy to promote local accountability while maintaining service delivery standards.

This plenary session was followed by three parallel sessions that illustrated that many actors, mechanisms, and modes of delivery exist to respond to development

needs at the local level; however, central and subnational PSM systems and processes need to be in place to ensure that results are met in a sustainable manner:

(i) Voting With Your Feet: Alternative Financing for Delivery of Education Services—This session discussed alternative education financing, including voucher systems, and how these relate to the supply and demand for educational services and access, quality, and responsiveness to local needs.

(ii) Prioritization of MDG Targets within the Resource Envelope of Subnational Governments: A Model from the Urban Sector—This session discussed good practices in planning and budgeting for targeted investments through prioritization and project programming for subnational governments.

(iii) Community-Driven Development and Local Government: Building Accountable and Sustainable Local Service Delivery—This session discussed the dynamics between subnational governments and community driven development (CDD) projects and how CDDs can be better integrated into local accountability mechanisms to address local needs.

The plenary session on monitoring and evaluation discussed how lessons from the MDGs have highlighted the need for strengthening statistical systems and use of timely and reliable statistics for planning, monitoring, and evaluation of policies. Looking forward to the post-2015 development agenda, the importance of data and monitoring systems should be recognized as critical for improved policy making and the ability of citizens to hold the public sector accountable for delivery of services.

This plenary session was followed by three parallel sessions that illustrated the importance of data and monitoring systems in decision making and policy formulation toward the achievement of development goals:

(i) Numbers Tell HERstory: Why Gender Statistics Is Important to Monitor the Progress in Achieving MDGs—This session discussed the benefits and challenges of collecting, analyzing, and reporting gender disaggregated data.

(ii) Lack of Accountability for Budget Execution at Local Level Due to Poor Health Information Systems—This session discussed the challenges of establishing health information systems, and how they affect delivery of local health services.

Conference Outline 7

(iii) Responsible Monitoring: Balancing Regular Reporting and Rights in HIV AIDS—This session discussed the particular challenges of monitoring to inform HIV AIDS policies. Issues include difficulties in monitoring incidence, information access and social behaviors, availability and quality of health services as well as balancing patient rights with the need for information.

The closing session summed up the essential role of the public sector to accelerate development. Moreover, the systems, institutions, and processes of a results-based PSM would be necessary to deliver and sustain not just the MDGs but any goals that countries choose to pursue or may commit to in

the future. The conference highlighted key lessons from the MDGs that would apply to the post-2015 development agenda:

(i) A results-based PSM is critical to address the multiple dimensions of development and achieve interrelated goals in a sustainable manner.

(ii) Regional cooperation, knowledge sharing, and South-South dialogues around PSM issues allow countries and development partners to collectively address development goals.

(iii) The importance of redefining the role of donor partners and donor harmonization to respond to country demands and context by strengthening country systems.

8

Asia and the Pacific MDG Progress Report

The Asia and Pacific region’s status and progress on the MDGs have been mixed and remain an

unfinished agenda in the region. Since 1990, targets on several goals have been reached or nearly reached, such as income poverty, education and gender equality in education targets, and rural water supply. On the other hand, targets will not be reached on hunger, health indicators, and sanitation. Moreover, little progress is being made on women’s empowerment given by their participation in nonagricultural wage employment.

MDGs in Asia Pacific: An Unfinished Agenda

Major challenges in the region include:

(i) Inequality and disparities � Wide disparities in MDG outcomes among

countries in the region � In many cases, widening disparities over time � Significantly large disparities within countries

(ii) Lagging performance in health, nutrition, and sanitation

� Insufficient spending despite the critical link between health spending and health outcomes

� Ineffective health spending, including corruption � Lack of healthcare subsidies for the poor and

expansion in the production of generic drugs � Lack of basic infrastructure to social outcomes,

such as roads that provide better access to health services, water and sanitation

(iii) Empowering women and social inclusiveness � Addressing the critical link between women’s

education and empowerment and reduction of maternal and child mortality, improved family nutrition and reproductive health

� Targeting socially marginalized segments of the population that continue to be deprived is critical to the region’s MDG progress

Addressing these challenges have significant implications on the region’s public sector management since delivery of the MDGs (or any future goals post-MDGs) falls mainly on the public sector. It is critical to adopt proper strategies and policies that are backed by adequate provision of financial and human resources and infrastructure. In addition, efficient implementation and strengthened statistical systems and capacity to promote timely and adequate data monitoring are essential. Looking at the political economy as well as policy bottlenecks in the public sector management cycle—be it misallocation of resources, specific inefficiencies, or ineffective planning—allow countries to translate the basic political commitment to translate into achievement of the MDGs. Finally, Goal 8 should be considered to include a strengthening of South–South dialogue and regional cooperation to help address common PSM constraints. Improving public sector management cycle is critical given that the role of the public sector in achieving the MDGs and future development goals will continue for decades.

—From the presentation of Shiladitya Chatterjee, Regional Advisor on the MDGs, ADB.

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2200 20

Income poverty

Underweight childrenPrimary enrollment ratePrimary completion rate

Gender parity, primary

Gender parity, secondary

Gender parity, tertiaryWomen in non-agricultural

wage employmentMaternal mortality rate

Child mortality rate

Access to clean water, urban

Access to clean water, ruralAccess to improved sanitation, urban

Access to improved sanitation, rural

Distance to goal achieved by ADB developing member countries since 1990, %

Latest2015 Forecast2015 Target

Mixed progress since 1990

9

Results-Based Public Sector Management: A Strategic Framework

Public sector management (PSM) refers to how governments manage the different components or

functions of the public sector to deliver national results. While there are many actors that help deliver results, the public sector is a key driver of development as it tends to be the largest and most influential sector in most developing countries. Weaknesses in PSM systems are often key factors in constraining the delivery of development objectives, such as the MDGs.

A results-oriented PSM considers the strengths and weaknesses of the five core management components of planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. These functions are carried out simultaneously at various levels of government—the central level, line agencies, and subnational levels.

The results-oriented PSM approach recognizes that planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation must be coordinated for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Development results must be planned for; resources need to be allocated; and the intended activities must be implemented. Monitoring implementation and evaluating the final outputs are vital to ensure that the results are delivered and lessons are learned for future improvement of the cycle. Integrating a results focus throughout the PSM cycle is critical to accelerated development in the face of fiscal constraints. Identifying gaps and constraints in public sector capacities, systems, and processes is the basis for formulating initiatives, actions, and mitigation measures to improve results delivery.

The results-oriented PSM approach identifies fours key features:

(i) Core results attributes—This feature relates to the relative strength of the systems, institutions, and processes involved in each PSM component to enable the delivery of results. Thus, requiring results-based planning, to involve rigorous analysis of intended results cascaded down from macro-level impacts to specific sector outcomes. These results must be clearly defined within the given budget, with indicators and targets, and relevant monitoring and evaluation frameworks;

(ii) Focus on common results—Each PSM component should be aligned to the same set of national priorities and results (impact, outcomes, and outputs). The focus on common results should link all components through the PSM cycle;

(iii) Interdependence—Collectively, components work together in an integrated way to deliver and measure the achievement of national and sector objectives; and

(iv) Horizontal and vertical integration—PSM efforts are integrated horizontally across sector ministries and vertically through all levels of government. National development priorities are translated into specific agency priorities, making all of these institutions responsible for achieving part of the national results. Similarly, results-oriented efforts at the national level must be linked with subnational levels. These horizontal and vertical linkages enable better attribution and contribution to nationally defined results, and ensure that initiatives complement each other.

—From the presentation of Farzana Ahmed, Lead Results Management Specialist, ADB.

10

Planning and Budgeting for the MDGs

Public officials and policymakers face a difficult but critical task in achieving the connection between

the MDGs and PSM. The MDGs deal with results, while PSM deals with processes. Good processes should never be mistaken for good results and unless actual results are considered, good processes might mistakenly be deemed sufficient. The real challenge with the MDGs is to take internationally set goals and make it the country’s own. Sound national planning is the important means by which a country puts its own imprimatur on the MDGs, takes ownership of them, and re-targets them to the country’s own circumstances.

Planning is synonymous with change and the whole purpose of national planning is to create a future that does not look like the past. National planning is appropriate for certain countries, depending on its stage of development. Planning is not specifically appropriate for developed countries that do not seek change—the last thing a developed country wants. On the other extreme, planning is escapist for countries that are fragile. Fragile countries do not have significant capacity to mobilize its resources—financial, human, institutions, and bureaucracy—to implement the plan and move ahead. In these cases, planning does not make much sense.

However, for countries in the middle—where most countries in the Asia and Pacific region are situated—planning is appropriate. The current circumstances of this region speak to the appropriateness and timeliness of national planning to achieve results.

Planning and Budgeting: Separate but Linked

Plans that do not take into consideration government capacity and resources are unrealistic. For plans to be realistic, they must be linked to budgeting, which is the means of annual down payment to buy the targets of the national plan. In reality, however, linking planning and budgeting is quite difficult because:

(i) the two processes are managed by different organizations;

(ii) planning and budgeting operate with different time horizons;

(iii) planners and budget officials tend to have different values and perspectives; and

(iv) planning is change oriented and looks forward while budgeting is incremental and looks backward.

The challenge is to link the two processes while still benefiting from the different and sometimes clashing perspectives of planning and budgeting. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage consistency by integrating plans and budgets by making planning more budget-friendly and making the budget more plan-friendly.

Creating a better link between planning and budgeting is the concept behind reforms, such as the medium-term expenditure framework and the performance-based budgeting. The basic idea of performance budgeting is that government can purchase results by spending public money. The results expected from expenditures can be identified and measured by constructing a baseline, and helps determine performance targets for proposed policy initiatives.

However, instituting these public financial management reforms off-the-shelf do not guarantee effective allocation. In adopting reforms, countries should avoid complex and multiple processes by studying their particular needs and developing interconnected systems.

The purpose of results-based planning and budgeting processes is to create a future that is different of the past, which is the exact same purpose of the MDGs. Thus, if planning and budgeting are transformed to be results-oriented processes, then these set in motion the heavy lifting that achieving the MDGs demand.

—From the presentation of Allen Schick, University of Maryland.

11

Parallel Sessions on Planning and Budgeting

Better Sharing, Bigger Pie: Planning for Inclusive Growth

This session discussed the benefits and challenges of targeting economic growth that reaches traditionally excluded sectors of the population. Higher GDP correlates with improved social outcomes but, by itself, growth tends to widen inequality and disadvantage those left behind. The targeted results strategy focuses on pre-selected social indicators in an effort to change behavior, management, and facilitate monitoring toward results. The targeted growth strategy works best when accompanied by inclusive economic growth. An inclusive growth strategy

(i) takes place in sectors in which the poor work (e.g., agriculture);(ii) occurs in areas where the poor live—relatively neglected regions, such as the backward region grant fund and border area

development programs implemented in India;(iii) uses factors of production that the poor possess (e.g., less skilled labor); and(iv) keeps prices of what poor buy relatively low, such as food and other basic necessities.

PSM modernization enables a targeted results strategy as PSM mobilizes the policy and administrative processes of government to produce targeted results.

Getting What We Pay For: Impact Evaluation for Better Planning and Budgeting

This session discussed the logic, benefits, challenges, and limitations of impact evaluations to inform decision making. Impact evaluation seeks to answer the question “to what extent the intervention being evaluated altered the state of the world,” thus telling us whether we are achieving results. Key messages on impact evaluation include:

(i) Impact evaluation requires a valid comparison group; baseline data really help, so ex ante design is ideal;(ii) Randomized control trials are possible in a large range of settings although it is not the only way to conduct impact

evaluation; and(iii) Impact evaluation is not just about what works, but why, where and at what cost, and offers insights on intervention

design.

In principle, impact evaluation can identify priority outcomes and what interventions are most cost effective in achieving these outcomes. Thus allocating resources to things that work.

Sharing the Purse Strings: Budgeting for Gender Equality

This session discussed the need for addressing gender inequality through prioritization of gender issues and broader participation in the budgetary process. International experience, including country examples from the region, underscore that gender-based budgeting:

(i) is a useful tool for gender mainstreaming and efficient PSM by helping to prioritize and direct the allocation of resources toward areas of greatest inequity (which has a multiplier effect on all other MDGs);

(ii) is a good tool for awareness-raising and transparency, particularly if civil society is engaged in holding governments accountable to gender equality commitments;

(iii) has been introduced in many Asia and Pacific countries in various forms, with a range of tools available that may serve as entry points in various country contexts;

(iv) requires long-term commitment, planning, and investment in capacity development; and (v) should be integrated within wider PSM reforms.

Are the MDG Indicators SMART: A Perspective from the Urban Sector on MDG Target 7.D

This session discussed the importance of specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound indicators through an analysis of actual progress in addressing the issue of slum dwellers. There are significant challenges related to defining slum dwellers and the cross-sectoral dimensions of related to slums. The MDG target is poorly defined—with the questions “What is a slum?” and “What constitutes improvement?” remaining unanswered. Budgeting is not addressed. Implementation institutions, while clearly the responsibility of national governments, need to be benchmarked to potential performance if realistic targets are to be set. The failure to benchmark resulted in the targets being set too low. Monitoring systems are often under-resourced and not linked to national systems. Evaluation systems are often absent or inadequate. Effective slum-upgrading programs would require:

(i) careful planning with clearly defined market segments to be addressed; (ii) explicit and sustainable budgeting with clear accountability that can be applied flexibly by the implementing agency;(iii) defined implementation processes and clear lines of responsibility; and(iv) rigorous monitoring and independent evaluation of results.

12

Implementation of the Millennium Development Goals

The foremost challenge in achieving the MDGs is in service provision. Implementation is about effective

delivery of services, wherein citizens primarily encounter and experience their state.

Better implementation entails certain public sector management principles, including:

(i) horizontal linkages � planned priorities, budget support, and

monitoring and evaluation systems and processes are effectively linked between central and sector agencies with multisectoral coordination;

(ii) institutional priorities are aligned to budget deliverables;

(iii) policies, people, and processes are oriented to deliver intended results;

(iv) service delivery standards are established;(v) service delivery is aligned to budget with

measurable performance indicators to facilitate results monitoring; and

(vi) vertical linkages � planned priorities, budget support, and

monitoring and evaluation processes are effectively linked from national to the subnational government with options and flexibility for local implementation.

Effective Service Delivery: Emerging Challenges

Rapid growth, demographic changes and ever-increasing demands create competing needs for limited resources and capacities. One of the emerging challenges for effective implementation is addressing the cross-sectoral dimensions of development goals. Issues of exclusion and disparities in access to services must also be addressed to enable achievement of the MDGs. This highlights regional disparities in resource and capacities to provide services to the local population. Finally, rapid urbanization shifts demand for services, often creating ever-increasing demands on limited geographic, budgetary, human, and other resources.

Vertical and Horizontal Linkages: Integrating Approaches to Local Implementation

Addressing the emerging challenges for service delivery entails multiple approaches and involves different

actors. The cross-sectoral nature of most public services and programs require horizontal integration through coordination among various central, sector and line agencies. In addition, given that all services are delivered locally, effective implementation requires coordination among all levels of government. The different models and mechanisms for implementation carry with it different trade offs. Thus, countries should adopt mechanisms that take into consideration circumstances relevant to their country and sector

In reality, however, integrating the different approaches to local service delivery is difficult because implementation must consider:

(i) the management of complex processes across institutional boundaries at both local and national levels;

(ii) the realignment of power relations among central-local, state-society, and donor-client and reconciling the different interests and values; and

(iii) adapting to changing attitudes and practices among the donor, national and local communities.

In adopting development initiatives, countries should consider PSM reforms in institutional frameworks, policies, procedures and financial instruments that support multi-sector tasks and programs to better integrate service delivery to achieve common results.

—From the presentation of Stephen Commins, University of California Los Angeles

Integrating Approaches to Local Implementation

LocalGovernmentApproaches

CommunitySupport

Approaches

CommunitySupport

Approaches

LinkedApproaches

13

Parallel Sessions on Implementation

Many Hurdles, One Leap: How Conditional Cash Transfer Programs Target Multiple Development Goals

This session discussed the benefits and limitations of conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs in delivering multiple development goals and the challenges of coordinating implementation across different agencies. CCTs address transitory poverty as well as chronic poverty by leveraging gains in human development outcomes. However, effective interventions involve several agencies of the national government with at least some participation from subnational governments. International experience on CCTs have shown that

(i) structure should follow functions and responsibilities;(ii) institutional responsibilities may shift over time;(iii) strong coordinative mechanisms, governance systems, and addressing capacity gaps are essential to effective

implementations;(iv) decentralization enables the system to reflect local preferences and situations but must consider issues of financing; and(v) centralization can provide support to a variety of efficiencies and economies.

There is no one best management model. It depends on the country context and circumstances with simpler transfer programs requiring less complicated processes. Thus, responsibilities should be assigned based on relative strength and capacities.

Lowering the Barriers: Innovative Solutions to Increase Access to Health Services for Women and Children

This session discussed innovative local solutions to address financial and other barriers to provide increased access to better health services for women and children. Addressing health-related targets of the MDGs in Asia and the Pacific is an unfinished agenda. On the one hand, health systems are growing and becoming better funded. Social determinants of health are emphasized. On the other hand, there is a need for stronger public healthcare and health systems. Improved access to health services for women and children would require

(i) addressing service, financial, and sociocultural barriers together, not in isolation;(ii) addressing both supply and demand side of healthcare provision;(iii) allowing time for capacity building;(iv) improving resource allocation to match needs and target excluded groups;(v) increasing public transparency and accountability and participation;(vi) expanding capacities at decentralized levels;(vii) improving data collection, monitoring, and evaluation;(viii) setting standards of delivery; and (ix) encouraging greater involvement of private sector, civil society, and communities.

Closing the Gaps: Good Practices in Improving Nutrition and Reducing Maternal and Child Mortality

This session discussed good practices and successes in delivering the interrelated goals of improving nutrition and reducing child and maternal mortality. Addressing inequities in nutrition and maternal and child mortality requires knowing where the most deprived children are, understanding why we are not reaching them, and developing strategies to do so. This requires improved country capacity, quality of data, and stronger partnerships between governments and donors. In addition, monitoring helps determine whether strategies actually make a difference. Using health coverage determinants from both the supply and demand side help identify the weakest links in the service delivery chain. Thus, mapping inequities

(i) improves the ability to target, (ii) improves the design of relevant strategic options, and(iii) contributes to better planning and evidence-based budget development.

Best Practice or Basic Capacity: Popularity versus Success

This session discussed two PSM strategies. The “best practice” PSM modernization strategy favored by development specialists introduces the advanced practices of highly developed countries to accelerate progress. On the other hand, the “basic first” strategy argues that countries that lack basic managerial capacity cannot make effective use of best practices and should forego state-of-the-art reforms. The difference between basic and best practice is speaks to the preparedness of countries for advanced methods and practices. Across the full spectrum of PSM processes, there is a logical progression from simple to complex systems. This sequence is as relevant to the management of human resources and information systems as to the management of financial resources. In countries where informality is widespread in the management of public programs and agencies, best practice is not best. In these situations, best practice means building capacity to carry out responsibilities in a prudent reliable manner by strengthening the basic institutions of public administration as a foundation for more modern PSM techniques.

14

Delivering Services at the Local Level

Decentralization is only one avenue for delivering local public services. If local governments function

well, they have the advantage of a more holistic perspective based on their territory that allows the breaking down of sector silos towards a more coherent planning, budgeting, and implementation. However, local governments can only deliver services effectively and sustainably if systems, procedures, and capacities are adequately developed.

Context Defines the Starting Point

International experience has shown that decentralization happens in different ways with different degrees of success and using different approaches. As a complex PSM reform taking different forms, appropriate design depends on priority objectives and country context and would require different policies based on the strengths and weaknesses in existing systems. Thus, the search for “best practice” is elusive and can be damaging in the context of country diversity. Countries can adapt but rarely directly replicate what another country has done.

Given the diversity of possible services that may be delivered, the kinds of services that local governments ought to deliver should consider their capacities. Moreover, the clarity of functional assignment among levels of government is essential to avoid overlapping and sometimes conflicting delivery channels. When anybody is accountable, there is no accountability.

Integrated System Design Elements

The use of local governments to improve service delivery requires and understanding of the systems and processes, where the constraints are, and how to get around them. Certain design elements need to be in place before local governments can reasonably be expected to deliver services:

(i) an enabling national framework;(ii) structural features that would define the number

of levels of government, their roles, and degrees of hierarchy and independence;

(iii) fiscal dimensions;(iv) political dimensions; and (v) administrative and managerial dimensions.

Without all of these immensely demanding set of integrated elements in place, the alleged benefits of

decentralization for better service delivery and resource allocation would not work. However, the challenge is to design reforms that balance between overwhelming comprehensive reforms and piecemeal reforms that fail to consider these integrated elements. In addition, behavioral changes at every level must be considered in the reform process.

Strategic Implementation

Much of the policy around developing decentralization frameworks are about designing ideal systems and fail to consider country realities and constraints. Design is important but effective implementation cannot be neglected. In implementing decentralization and other reforms in a decentralized setting, countries should consider a more strategic approach by:

(i) building on the positive aspects of the system where successes are more likely;

(ii) using a clearly defined starting point consistent with the capacities and/or performance of subnational governments;

(iii) integrating aspects of reform, including fiscal, political, and administrative;

(iv) linking technical reforms to specific functions that are to be undertaken;

(v) building progressively with clear criteria;(vi) working with willing partners, particularly in the

early stages of reform;(vii) partially negotiating with local government and

other actors to build ownership and accountability;(viii) establishing a high level coordinating body to

manage the implementation process; (ix) creating incentives to achieve desired goals; and (x) building longer-term capacities that are linked

to the decentralization implementation strategy, including technical training as well as governance capacity building.

Decentralization requires a delicate balancing of central control and local autonomy to promote local accountability while maintaining service delivery standards. Local governments cannot do everything but they can do some things effectively. The key is to let local governments deliver services—however small—that will allow them to succeed and create a foundation to build on further reforms.

—From the presentation of Paul Smoke, NYU Wagner School of Public Service.

15

Parallel Sessions on Delivering Services at the Local Level

Voting With Your Feet: Alternative Financing for Delivery of Education Services

This session discussed alternative education financing, including voucher systems, and how these relate to the supply and demand for educational services and access, quality, and responsiveness to local needs. Educational reforms have focused on making education more flexible and responsive to societal needs by giving local authorities, schools, educators, and parents more say in decision making. While not a panacea to issues related to education, public–private partnerships can help increase access; provide more relevant skills development; increase spending transparency; overcome public service operating restrictions; and improve the quality, flexibility, and efficiency of delivering education. Reforms should depend on context, including governance, financial management and administrative capacity, size and nature of the private sector, and nature of the service to be contracted. PSM issues include:

(i) clearly defined goals and objectives of programs, including targets for access and quality;(ii) program objectives matched by appropriate government prioritization and budgets;(iii) policy instruments that support the goals and objectives—provision, regulation, funding;(iv) effectiveness of program implementation—incentives, capacity, institutional arrangements;(v) accountability measures; and(vi) effective monitoring and evaluation of quality of delivery and education performance.

Prioritization of Millennium Development Goal Targets within the Resource Envelope of Subnational Governments: A model from the Urban Sector

This session discussed good practices in planning and budgeting for targeted investments through prioritization and project programming for subnational governments. On average, cities provide 80% of the economic base but large disparities have emerged as poverty has urbanized and many more are vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks. Thus, addressing the needs of the poor requires new forms of engagement, new forms of finance, and flexibility to adapt to the circumstances of each community. Question that should be considered in prioritization of MDG targets include:

(i) Are the MDG indicators and targets prioritized efficiently and effectively in resource allocations of the local government budget?

(ii) Do the local governments in Asia have the capacity and tools to assess and prioritize for planning results and set priorities?(iii) What decision-making tools can help them choose urban projects in the face of conflicting political priorities?

In the region, top-down planning and budgeting is common and local governments rely heavily on budget allocations from national governments. Governance should be linked to the capacity of local governments by supporting bottom-up prioritization; developing clear policies and incentives to push the MDGs among local governments; strengthening the linkages among planning, budgeting, and implementation; and building the capacity of local governments for programming and prioritization of urban projects.

Community-Driven Development and Local Government: Building Accountable and Sustainable Local Service Delivery

This session discussed the dynamics between subnational governments and community-driven development (CDD) projects and how CDDs can be better integrated into local accountability mechanisms to address local needs. Starting from social funds designed to mitigate the effects of structural adjustment and economic downturns, CDDs have evolved and rapidly spread across the developing world. CDDs have the potential to increase equity, efficiency, and local empowerment. Despite their potential, however, CDDs:

(i) rarely provide large network services that link local communities to the larger economy;(ii) are rarely governed by formal democratic institutions and pose a danger of elite capture;(iii) typically lack the ability to tap into the formal powers and resources of the state;(iv) may be more difficult to monitor, supervise, and sustain;(v) may crowd out other initiatives; and(vi) may create parallel structures that undermine local government accountability.

CDDs and local governments can be complementary or competitive. While CDDs often play an important role in many contexts, however, effective local governments are still generally needed to provide accountable and sustainable service delivery to citizens. Where local governments are weak or non-existent, CDDs can lay some aspects of institutional and governance foundation for decentralization. And where local governments exists and have some capacity to deliver services, appropriately structured CDDs can complement by providing small-scale services that may not be a priority for local governments.

16

Monitoring and Evaluation of the MDGs

One of the particular strengths of the MDGs is the focus on results. It has helped set national

and international development priorities. The MDGs’ limited set of concrete, time-bound, common human development goals and targets provides a set of indicators to track progress. This, in turn, has highlighted the need for strengthening statistical systems and use of timely and reliable statistics for planning, monitoring, and evaluation of policies.

Millennium Development Goals Progress Tracking: How We do It and Why

Tracking the progress of MDGs in the region gauges those left behind by answering a series of questions that may be useful for decision makers and the international development community. The Asia and Pacific progress reports look at how countries in the region do vis-à-vis each other, compare across subregions, and compare with the rest of the world.

Based on progress tracking results, main targets of concern are identified. Tracking teams identify where progress has been particularly slow and determine the speed required for these countries to catch up to achieve the targets. In addition, tracking helps estimate the number of people who would benefit and be lifted out of deprivation if progress were achieved. Progress tracking also addresses the issue of which segments of the population within countries are more vulnerable than others. Finally, tracking identifies areas where data is lacking that would consequently require statistical capacity strengthening. To accomplish these, monitoring and evaluation would require a set of tools that include:

(i) Selection criteria for indicators—This would limit the number of indicators, determine country, subregion and country-grouping focus to allow for more concise and relevant analysis;

(ii) Data—This includes data for the MDG indicators, such as the MDG targets and other indicators considered as determining factors to achieve the targets, reference population data and survey microdata to allow for analysis on within country disparities;

(iii) Models and classification rules—This classifies country progress towards the MDGs according

to early achievers, on-track, off-track slow, and off-track or regressing countries. Another set of models and classification rules gauge whether within country disparities are being reduced; and

(iv) communication tools—These help visualize results for easy communication of messages for policy makers in a simple and meaningful manner.

Lessons Learned for the Post-2015 Agenda

Monitoring and evaluating the progress of the MDGs have illustrated some of its strengths and weaknesses as a development framework. This is not easy to do since a counterfactual is missing: we do not know what would have happened without the MDGs. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that no previous development agenda has provided a common worldwide cause to address poverty and put human progress at the forefront.

Experience with the MDGs have shown that a development agenda that focuses on a set of concrete and time-bound goals and targets helps rally broad support towards achieving common results. While the realistic targets made the MDGs credible, this realism should be balanced by the need to be ambitious in formulating future global goals. The focus on ends rather than policies and processes allow for diversity in country geography, demography, urbanization rates and unique country circumstances. To avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, future targets need to be tailored to regional, national, and subnational realities. Finally, broad consultations would help translate global commitments at the regional and country levels.

The MDGs’ emphasis on results has increased demand for data and the recognition of the need to develop statistical capacity. The underlying data needed to measure progress towards MDGs and any other post-2015 development framework is derived largely from reliable statistical systems. In formulating the post-2015 agenda, the importance of data and monitoring systems should be recognized as critical for the ability of citizens to hold their governments and institutions accountable for delivery of services and the achievement of their political commitments.

—From the presentation of Jan Smit, Chief of the Statistics Development and Analysis Section, ESCAP.

17

Parallel Sessions on Monitoring and Evaluation of the MDGs

Numbers Tell HERstory: Why Gender Statistics Is Important to Monitor the Progress in Achieving MDGs

This session discussed the benefits and challenges of collecting, analyzing and reporting gender disaggregated data. Gender statistics are an important tool in achieving the MDGs by helping to identify gender gaps, informing and focusing policy actions, and developing actionable measures. Gender statistics also raise awareness on gender issues, which need to be addressed in national development plans. A standard set of verifiable sex-disaggregated indicators enables monitoring and evaluation. Nevertheless, current gender statistical systems and MDG 3 indicators are often inadequate to measure the breadth and depth of prevailing gender inequalities. Many countries lack policy directions on the collection of sex-disaggregated data and the methodology for collection is often weak. Even in cases where data is collected, they are often not analyzed, disseminated, or used for planning and resource allocation. Countries would benefit from policy directions on sex-disaggregated data collection, analysis, and dissemination. In addition, collaboration and communication among planning agencies, line ministries and statistical agencies need to be strengthened to ensure that relevant gender statistics are produced and used.

Lack of Accountability for Budget Execution at Local Level Due to Poor Health Information Systems

This session discussed the challenges of establishing health information systems, and how they affect delivery of local health services. Timely, reliable and accessible health information is critical for accountability. Having solid information at the country level is essential to measuring and monitoring results. The key features of a good health information system include:

(i) a strong monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan that outlines a framework for indicators, data sources and analysis;(ii) a framework that defines health indicators with baselines and targets used to monitor progress;(iii) a functioning data collection system for all data sources (surveys, facility data, civil registration, etc.);(iv) monitoring on equity issues, such as disaggregated health survey and facility data on core indicators;(v) developing capacity for analysis, reviews, and evaluations; and(vi) data sharing with data transparency and access to information.

Producing annual reports of progress and performance reports inform reviews at central and local levels. National institutional capacity and supporting mechanisms from central to local levels are essential for an integrated system approach.

Responsible Monitoring: Balancing Regular Reporting and Rights in HIV AIDS

This session discussed the particular challenges of monitoring to inform HIV AIDS policies. Issues include difficulties in monitoring incidence, information access and social behaviors, availability and quality of health services as well as balancing patient rights with the need for information. There is an increased understanding of HIV AIDS in Asia supported by improved research, reporting, monitoring, and analysis of select indicators and trends. Better M&E promotes evidence-based planning and response—both national and local. While generic challenges exist in developing any M&E framework, issues particular to the monitoring and evaluation of HIV AIDS relate to:

(i) prevention, including quality and difficulties in reporting of sensitive behaviors and identifying the size of most-at-risk population;

(ii) voluntary counseling and testing that measuring impact, access, and quality of services;(iii) care and support, including minimum care standards, integration with tuberculosis-tracking referrals, and antiretroviral

patient-level tracking and adherence;(iv) stigma and discrimination that may hinder reporting through selection bias;(v) ethical and methodological issues in data collection.

M&E helps identify effective interventions, which can bring down new infections and provide necessary services for persons living with AIDS. While countries understand the need for information and are adopting specific interventions that address HIV AIDS-related issues to help fill data gaps, information dissemination and changes in public perception remain necessary for more effective national programs.

18

Closing Session: Lessons for the Post-2015 Agenda

The progress of the region in achieving the MDGs highlights the shared consensus of the need for strong

country systems. To achieve and sustain development results, PSM would require a strategic framework that follows results-oriented planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. PSM processes and functions must be interconnected to deliver common results. In addition, the multisectoral approach of development goals requires central and line ministries and subnational governments to be vertically and horizontally integrated. These lessons should be considered in formulating the post-2015 global development agenda.

Planning and Budgeting

Among the struggles of meeting the targets of the MDGs is the fragmented, complex, diverse, and siloed world of development with various stakeholders, agencies, and modes of delivery. This diversity accommodates many interests but also creates additional challenges for traditional planning and budgeting. The MDGs have spurred the trend for redistributive planning and budgeting. For example, as countries recognize the inequalities generated by economic growth, many embark on CCTs; regional disparities are addressed through geographic planning and budgeting; and countries are moving toward engendered budgets. These goals require effective and integrated public sectors to balance multiple interests by prioritizing where resources are allocated and delivering on policy commitments.

Implementation

There are no static delivery systems. Effective implementation is a dynamic process that requires constant need for support in capacity development, budgeting, and monitoring. In addition, political realities and country context must be considered to allow for flexibilities in implementing initiatives, together with consistent monitoring that provides a rapid feedback loop for course correction. Finally, building capacity to deliver results requires progressive incremental support to the different agencies and levels of the public sector.

Local Governments and Service Delivery

Local governments play a key role in delivering the MDGs but it is difficult to strike the balance between central control and local autonomy. In addition, realism must be balanced with ambition in constraints and political realities. Finally, while results such as the MDGs are critical,

understanding the systems, institutions, and processes that need to be in place to achieve them are necessary to ensure that results are met in a sustainable manner.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Countries in the Asia and Pacific region have incorporated the MDGs in varying degrees into their planning, budgeting, and implementation processes. Monitoring and evaluation are necessary to determine whether things are being done right by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the systems and processes. Unfortunately, a lot of data are not being used effectively because of (i) lack of trust in the data, (ii) methodological reasons, (iii) inability to meet the requirements of policy-making, (iv) and inaccessibility for end users. Increasingly, evaluation is also being used not only to look back to ask whether things were done right but also to look forward to answer whether the right things are being done. This process provides continuous feedback into planning, budgeting, and the rest of the PSM cycle.

Public Sector Management, the Millennium Development Goals, and the Post-2015 Agenda

Improved human development through improved service delivery is the primary importance of PSM. Moreover, the systems, institutions and processes of a results-based PSM would be necessary to deliver and sustain not just the MDGs but also any goals that countries choose to pursue or may commit to in the future. The conference highlighted key lessons from the MDGs that would equally apply to the post-2015 development agenda:

(i) To deliver and sustain results, country systems must be strengthened through results-based PSM that involves:(a) results-oriented PSM components of planning,

budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;

(b) a focus on common results; (c) interdependency of PSM components; (d) vertical and horizontal integration across public

sector central and line agencies and throughout all levels of government;

(ii) Regional cooperation, knowledge sharing, and South–South dialogues around PSM issues are impor-tant to collectively address development goals; and

(iii) The role of donor partners and donor harmonization are important to respond to country demands and context by strengthening country systems.

19

APPE

NDI

X 1

Conf

eren

ce A

gend

a

Day

1, W

edne

sday

, 13

June

201

2

Tim

eSe

ssio

n

No

.

OPE

NIN

G S

ESSI

ON

(C

onfe

renc

e Ro

om 4

)C

hair

: Rat

hin

Ro

yM

anag

er, A

sia

Paci

fic R

egio

nal C

entr

e, U

ND

P

8:30

–9:0

0Re

gist

rati

on

9:00

–9:1

5

9:15

–9:2

5

9:25

–9:4

0

Wel

com

e re

mar

ks o

n be

half

of t

he A

sia-

Paci

fic C

omm

unit

y of

Pr

acti

ce o

n M

fDR

Wel

com

e re

mar

ks o

n be

half

of t

he A

DB/

ESC

AP/

UN

DP

Regi

onal

Pa

rtne

rshi

p in

Ach

ievi

ng t

he M

DG

s in

Asi

a an

d th

e Pa

cific

Op

enin

g a

dd

ress

Ko

shy

Tho

mas

Hea

d, O

utco

me

Base

d Bu

dget

ing

Team

Min

istr

y of

Fin

ance

, Mal

aysi

a,

Cha

ir, A

PCoP

Coo

rdin

atin

g C

omm

itte

e

Kaz

u S

akai

Dir

ecto

r G

ener

al, S

trat

egy

and

Polic

y D

epar

tmen

tA

sian

Dev

elop

men

t Ba

nk (

AD

B)

H.E

. Mr.

Kit

tira

tt N

a-R

ano

ng

Dep

uty

Prim

e M

inis

ter

and

Min

iste

r of

Fin

ance

Ro

yal G

over

nmen

t of

Tha

iland

9:40

–10:

30Te

a Br

eak

and

Phot

o Se

ssio

n

10:3

0–11

:30

1M

DG

Pro

gre

ss R

epo

rt

Shila

dit

ya C

hat

terj

ee, R

egio

nal A

dvis

or o

n th

e M

DG

s, A

DB

Jan

Sm

it, C

hief

, Sta

tist

ics

Dev

elop

men

t an

d A

naly

sis

Sect

ion,

ESC

AP

Rat

hin

Ro

y, M

anag

er, A

sia

Paci

fic R

egio

nal C

entr

e, U

ND

PK

osh

y Th

om

as, M

inis

try

of F

inan

ce, M

alay

sia

(Mod

erat

or)

11:3

0–12

:30

2

Res

ult

s-B

ased

Pu

blic

Sec

tor

Man

agem

ent:

A S

trat

egic

Fr

amew

ork

This

ses

sion

wou

ld p

rese

nt t

he f

ram

ewor

k th

at d

escr

ibes

the

bas

ic

feat

ures

of

a re

sult

s-ba

sed

publ

ic s

ecto

r m

anag

emen

t.

Farz

ana

Ah

med

Stra

tegy

and

Pol

icy

Dep

artm

ent

AD

B

12:3

0–14

:00

Lunc

h (R

ecep

tion

Hal

l, G

roun

d Le

vel)

PLA

NN

ING

AN

D B

UD

GET

ING

(C

onfe

renc

e Ro

om 4

)

14:0

0–15

:30

3

Plan

nin

g a

nd

Bu

dg

etin

g f

or

the

MD

Gs

(incl

udin

g Q

&A

)

Alle

n S

chic

kD

isti

ngui

shed

Pro

fess

orU

nive

rsit

y of

Mar

ylan

d

Shila

dit

ya C

hat

terj

ee, A

DB

(Cha

ir)

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

how

res

ults

ori

enta

tion

infl

uenc

e th

e tr

adit

iona

l rol

es o

f pl

anni

ng a

nd b

udge

ting

, how

to

achi

eve

MD

Gs

thro

ugh

plan

-bud

get

linka

ge, g

loba

l tre

nds

and

appr

oach

es in

thi

s fi

eld,

and

the

rol

e of

med

ium

-ter

m e

xpen

ditu

re f

ram

ewor

ks.

cont

inue

d on

nex

t pa

ge

20 Appendix 1

Tim

eSe

ssio

n

No

.

15:3

0–16

:00

Tea

Brea

k (C

onfe

renc

e Ro

om F

oyer

)

4Pa

ralle

l Ses

sio

ns:

Pla

nn

ing

an

d B

ud

get

ing

a. M

DG

1b

. M

DG

1c.

MD

G 3

d.

MD

G 7

.D

Bet

ter

shar

ing

, big

ger

pie

: p

lan

nin

g f

or

incl

usi

ve g

row

th(M

eeti

ng R

oom

H1)

Get

tin

g w

hat

we

pay

fo

r: im

pac

t ev

alu

atio

n f

or

bet

ter

pla

nn

ing

an

d b

ud

get

ing

(M

eeti

ng R

oom

H2)

Shar

ing

th

e p

urs

e st

rin

gs:

b

ud

get

ing

fo

r g

end

er e

qu

alit

y(M

eeti

ng R

oom

G)

Are

th

e M

DG

ind

icat

ors

SM

AR

T:

A p

ersp

ecti

ve f

rom

th

e u

rban

se

cto

r o

n M

DG

Tar

get

7.D

(Mee

ting

Roo

m C

&D

)

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

bene

fits

and

cha

lleng

es o

f ta

rget

ing

econ

omic

gro

wth

tha

t re

ache

s tr

adit

iona

lly e

xclu

ded

sect

ors

of t

he p

opul

atio

n.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

logi

c, b

enef

its,

cha

lleng

es a

nd

limit

atio

ns o

f im

pact

eva

luat

ions

to

info

rm d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

need

for

add

ress

ing

gend

er

ineq

ualit

y th

roug

h pr

iori

tiza

tion

of

gen

der

issu

es a

nd b

road

er

part

icip

atio

n in

the

bud

geta

ry

proc

ess.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f sp

ecif

ic,

mea

sura

ble,

ach

ieva

ble,

rel

evan

t an

d ti

me-

boun

d in

dica

tors

th

roug

h an

ana

lysi

s of

act

ual

prog

ress

in a

ddre

ssin

g th

e is

sue

of

slum

dw

elle

rs.

16:0

0–16

:45

16:4

5–17

:00

17:0

0–17

:45

Alle

n S

chic

kU

nive

rsit

y of

Mar

ylan

d

Bip

love

Ch

ou

dh

ary

UN

DP,

Ban

gkok

Nag

esh

Sin

gh

Plan

ning

Com

mis

sion

, Ind

ia

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

p

Shila

dit

ya C

hat

terj

ee, A

DB

(Cha

ir)

Ho

war

d W

hit

eIn

tern

atio

nal I

niti

ativ

e fo

r Im

pact

Ev

alua

tion

(3i

e)

Q &

A

Kosh

y Th

om

as, A

PCoP

(C

hair

)

Sam

anth

a H

un

gRe

gion

al a

nd S

usta

inab

le

Dev

elop

men

t D

epar

tmen

t (R

SDD

),

AD

B

Ern

y M

urn

iasi

hM

inis

try

of F

inan

ce, I

ndon

esia

Har

jeet

Sin

gh

Min

istr

y of

Wom

en, F

amily

an

d C

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent,

M

alay

sia

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pSu

san

n R

oth

, Cen

tral

and

Wes

t A

sia

Dep

artm

ent,

AD

B (C

hair

)

Flo

rian

Ste

inb

erg

Sout

heas

t A

sia

Dep

artm

ent

(SER

D)

AD

B

Thip

par

at N

op

pal

adar

om

Min

istr

y of

Soc

ial D

evel

opm

ent

and

Hum

an S

ecur

ity,

Tha

iland

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pM

ich

ael L

ind

fiel

d, R

SDD

, AD

B (C

hair

)

17:4

5–20

:00

Coc

ktai

ls (

Publ

ic F

oyer

, Gro

und

Leve

l)

Co

nfe

ren

ce A

gen

da

cont

inue

d

cont

inue

d on

nex

t pa

ge

Conference Agenda 21

Day

2, T

hurs

day,

14

June

201

2

Tim

eSe

ssio

n

No

.

IMPL

EMEN

TATI

ON

(C

onfe

renc

e Rm

. 4)

8:45

–10:

155

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e M

DG

s (in

clud

ing

Q&

A)

Step

hen

Co

mm

ins

Prof

esso

rSc

hool

of

Publ

ic A

ffai

rs, U

CLA

Farz

ana

Ah

med

, AD

B (C

hair

)

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

oppo

rtun

itie

s an

d ch

alle

nges

in

the

del

iver

y of

ser

vice

s an

d im

plem

enti

ng M

DG

rel

ated

pr

ogra

ms

and

proj

ects

in d

iffe

rent

set

ting

s, in

clud

ing

inte

rsec

tora

l co

llabo

rati

on o

f lin

e m

inis

trie

s to

del

iver

inte

rrel

ated

goa

ls.

10:1

5–10

:45

Tea

Brea

k (C

onfe

renc

e Ro

om F

oyer

)

6Pa

ralle

l Ses

sio

ns:

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

a. M

DG

1, 2

, 3, 4

, an

d 5

b.

MD

G 4

, 5, a

nd

6c.

MD

G 4

an

d 5

d.

All

MD

Gs

Man

y h

urd

les,

on

e le

ap: H

ow

co

nd

itio

nal

cas

h t

ran

sfer

p

rog

ram

s ta

rget

mu

ltip

le

dev

elo

pm

ent

go

als?

(Mee

ting

Roo

m H

1)

Low

erin

g t

he

bar

rier

s:

Inn

ova

tive

so

luti

on

s to

incr

ease

ac

cess

to

hea

lth

ser

vice

s fo

r w

om

en a

nd

ch

ildre

n

(Mee

ting

Roo

m H

2)

Clo

sin

g t

he

gap

s: G

oo

d p

ract

ices

in

imp

rovi

ng

nu

trit

ion

an

d

red

uci

ng

mat

ern

al a

nd

ch

ild

mo

rtal

ity

(Mee

ting

Roo

m G

)

Bes

t Pr

acti

ce o

r B

asic

Cap

acit

y:

Pop

ula

rity

Ver

sus

Succ

ess

(Mee

ting

Roo

m C

and

D)

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

bene

fits

, and

lim

itat

ions

of

CC

Ts in

de

liver

ing

mul

tipl

e de

velo

pmen

t go

als

and

the

chal

leng

es o

f co

ordi

nati

ng im

plem

enta

tion

ac

ross

dif

fere

nt a

genc

ies.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

inno

vati

ve lo

cal s

olut

ions

to

addr

ess

fina

ncia

l and

oth

er

barr

iers

to

prov

ide

incr

ease

d ac

cess

to

bett

er h

ealt

h se

rvic

es f

or

wom

en a

nd c

hild

ren.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

good

pra

ctic

es a

nd s

ucce

sses

in

deliv

erin

g th

e in

terr

elat

ed g

oals

of

impr

ovin

g nu

trit

ion,

red

ucin

g ch

ild

and

mat

erna

l mor

talit

y.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

two

PSM

str

ateg

ies.

The

“le

apfr

og”

stra

tegy

em

phas

izes

ado

ptin

g be

st p

ract

ices

use

d in

hig

hly

adva

nced

cou

ntri

es t

o ac

cele

rate

pr

ogre

ss. T

he “

basi

cs”

stra

tegy

pr

iori

tize

s ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

to

enab

le e

ffec

tive

use

of

adva

nced

pr

acti

ces.

10:4

5–11

:30

11:3

0–11

:45

11:4

5–12

:30

Joel

Man

gah

asSE

RDA

DB

Ho

no

rita

B. B

ayu

dan

Dep

artm

ent

of S

ocia

l Wel

fare

and

D

evel

opm

ent,

Phi

lippi

nes

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pV.

Siv

agn

anas

oth

y, A

PCoP

(C

hair

)

Sjo

erd

Po

stm

aSE

RD

AD

B

Sou

livan

h P

ho

lsen

aM

inis

try

of H

ealt

h, L

ao P

DR

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pR

oh

ana

Ism

ael,

Min

istr

y of

H

ealt

h, M

alay

sia

(Cha

ir)

Ch

and

er B

adlo

e U

NIC

EF E

ast

Asi

a Pa

cific

Reg

iona

l O

ffic

e-Ba

ngko

k

Son

am P

hu

nts

ho

Min

istr

y of

Hea

lth,

Bhu

tan

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pSt

eph

en C

om

min

s, U

CLA

, (C

hair

)

Alle

n S

chic

k U

nive

rsit

y of

Mar

ylan

dQ

&A

Ko

shy

Tho

mas

, APC

oP (

Cha

ir)

cont

inue

d on

nex

t pa

ge

Co

nfe

ren

ce A

gen

da

cont

inue

d

22 Appendix 1

Tim

eSe

ssio

n

No

.

12:3

0–14

:00

Lunc

h (R

ecep

tion

Hal

l, G

roun

d Le

vel)

DEL

IVER

ING

SER

VIC

ES A

T TH

E LO

CA

L LE

VEL

(C

onfe

renc

e Ro

om 4

)

14:0

0–15

:30

7

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e M

DG

s at

th

e lo

cal l

evel

(incl

udin

g Q

&A

)

Pau

l Sm

oke

Prof

esso

r of

Pub

lic F

inan

ce a

nd P

lann

ing

NYU

Wag

ner

Scho

ol o

f Pu

blic

Ser

vice

An

ura

dh

a R

ajiv

an, U

ND

P-Ba

ngko

k (C

hair

)

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ho

w d

iffe

rent

dec

once

ntra

tion

/de

cent

raliz

atio

n m

odel

s in

flue

nce

the

resu

lts

orie

ntat

ion

of p

ublic

se

ctor

man

agem

ent

and

the

oppo

rtun

itie

s an

d ch

alle

nges

in

effe

ctiv

e lo

cal s

ervi

ce d

eliv

ery

of t

he M

DG

s.

15:3

0–16

:00

Tea

Brea

k (C

onfe

renc

e Ro

om F

oyer

)

8Pa

ralle

l Ses

sio

ns:

Del

iver

ing

Ser

vice

s at

th

e Lo

cal L

evel

a. M

DG

2 a

nd

3b

. M

DG

7.C

an

d D

d.

MD

G 2

, 3, 4

, 5, a

nd

6

Vo

tin

g w

ith

yo

ur

feet

: alt

ern

ativ

e fi

nan

cin

g

for

del

iver

y o

f ed

uca

tio

n s

ervi

ces

(Mee

ting

Roo

m H

1)

Prio

riti

zati

on

of

MD

G t

arg

ets

wit

hin

th

e re

sou

rce

enve

lop

e o

f su

b-n

atio

nal

g

ove

rnm

ents

: A m

od

el f

rom

th

e

urb

an s

ecto

r (M

eeti

ng R

oom

H2)

Co

mm

un

ity

Dri

ven

Dev

elo

pm

ent

and

Lo

cal

Go

vern

men

t: B

uild

ing

Acc

ou

nta

ble

an

d

Sust

ain

able

Lo

cal S

ervi

ce D

eliv

ery

(Mee

ting

Roo

m G

)

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

alte

rnat

ive

educ

atio

n fi

nanc

ing,

incl

udin

g vo

uche

r sy

stem

s, a

nd h

ow t

hese

rel

ate

to t

he s

uppl

y an

d de

man

d fo

r ed

ucat

iona

l ser

vice

s an

d ac

cess

, qua

lity,

and

res

pons

iven

ess

to lo

cal

need

s.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

good

pra

ctic

es

in p

lann

ing

and

budg

etin

g fo

r ta

rget

ed

inve

stm

ents

thr

ough

pri

orit

izat

ion

and

proj

ect

prog

ram

min

g fo

r su

bnat

iona

l gov

ernm

ents

.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

dyna

mic

s of

the

inte

ract

ion

betw

een

subn

atio

nal

gove

rnm

ents

and

com

mun

ity-

driv

en

deve

lopm

ent

proj

ects

and

how

the

se

prog

ram

s ca

n be

bet

ter

inte

grat

ed in

to lo

cal

acco

unta

bilit

y m

echa

nism

s to

add

ress

loca

l ne

eds.

16:0

0–16

:45

16:4

5–17

:00

17:0

0–17

:45

No

rman

LaR

ocq

ue

SERD

, AD

B

Alla

n B

akh

sh M

alik

Secr

etar

y to

the

Gov

ernm

ent,

Pak

ista

n

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pSu

san

n R

oth

, AD

B (C

hair

)

Mic

hae

l Lin

dfi

eld

RSD

D, A

DB

Wilf

red

o P

rille

sC

ity

Gov

ernm

ent

of N

aga,

Phi

lippi

nes

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pFl

ora

nte

Igti

ben

, Nat

iona

l Eco

nom

ic a

nd

Dev

elop

men

t A

utho

rity

, Phi

lippi

nes

(Cha

ir)

Pau

l Sm

oke

NYU

Wag

ner

Scho

ol o

f Pu

blic

Ser

vice

Sup

rayo

ga

Had

i, M

inis

try

of D

isad

vant

age

Regi

on, I

ndon

esia

Ho

no

rita

B. B

ayu

dan

D

epar

tmen

t of

Soc

ial W

elfa

re a

nd

Dev

elop

men

t, P

hilip

pine

s

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pJo

el M

ang

ahas

, AD

B, (

Cha

ir)

Co

nfe

ren

ce A

gen

da

cont

inue

d

cont

inue

d on

nex

t pa

ge

Conference Agenda 23

Day

3 F

riday

, 15

June

201

2

Tim

eSe

ssio

n

No

.

MO

NIT

OR

ING

AN

D E

VA

LUA

TIO

N (

Con

fere

nce

Room

4)

8:45

–10:

159

Mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d E

valu

atio

n o

f th

e M

DG

s at

th

e R

egio

nal

Lev

el(in

clud

ing

Q&

A)

Jan

Sm

itC

hief

, Sta

tist

ics

Dev

elop

men

t an

d A

naly

sis

Sect

ion,

Sta

tist

ics

Div

isio

n, E

SCA

P

Ko

shy

Tho

mas

, APC

oP (

Cha

ir)

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

good

pra

ctic

es o

n m

onit

orin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

of

the

MD

Gs,

the

ir r

ole

in e

nhan

cing

acc

ount

abili

ty a

nd

tran

spar

ency

, and

as

a to

ol f

or m

ore

effe

ctiv

e de

cisi

on-m

akin

g an

d co

ntin

uous

lear

ning

.

10:1

5–10

:45

Tea

Brea

k (C

onfe

renc

e Ro

om F

oyer

)

10Pa

ralle

l Ses

sio

ns:

Mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d E

valu

atio

n

Co

nfe

ren

ce A

gen

da

cont

inue

d

cont

inue

d on

nex

t pa

ge

a. M

DG

3b

. M

DG

4, 5

, an

d 6

d.

MD

G 6

Nu

mb

ers

tell

HER

sto

ry: W

hy

gen

der

sta

tis-

tics

is im

po

rtan

t to

mo

nit

or

the

pro

gre

ss in

ac

hie

vin

g M

DG

s(M

eeti

ng R

oom

H1)

Lack

of

acco

un

tab

ility

fo

r b

ud

get

ex

ecu

tio

n a

t lo

cal l

evel

du

e to

po

or

hea

lth

in

form

atio

n s

yste

ms

(Mee

ting

Roo

m H

2)

Res

po

nsi

ble

mo

nit

ori

ng

: Bal

anci

ng

reg

ula

r re

po

rtin

g a

nd

rig

hts

in H

IV A

IDS

(Mee

ting

Roo

m G

)

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

bene

fits

an

d ch

alle

nges

of

colle

ctin

g, a

naly

zing

and

re

port

ing

gend

er d

isag

greg

ated

dat

a.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

chal

leng

es

of e

stab

lishi

ng h

ealt

h in

form

atio

n sy

stem

s,

and

how

the

y af

fect

del

iver

y of

loca

l hea

lth

serv

ices

.

Part

icip

ants

will

lear

n ab

out

the

part

icul

ar

chal

leng

es o

f m

onit

orin

g to

info

rm H

IV

AID

S po

licie

s. Is

sues

incl

ude

diff

icul

ties

in

mon

itor

ing

inci

denc

e, in

form

atio

n ac

cess

and

so

cial

beh

avio

rs, a

vaila

bilit

y an

d qu

alit

y of

he

alth

ser

vice

s as

wel

l as

bala

ncin

g pa

tien

t ri

ghts

wit

h ne

ed f

or in

form

atio

n.

10:4

5–11

:30

11:3

0–11

:45

11:4

5–12

:30

Susa

nn

Ro

thC

entr

al a

nd W

est

Asi

a D

epar

tmen

tA

DB

Rab

ia A

wan

Bure

au o

f St

atis

tics

, Pak

ista

n

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pK

aush

al J

osh

i, Ec

onom

ics

and

Rese

arch

D

epar

tmen

t, A

DB

(Cha

ir)

Jun

Gao

Hea

lth

Sect

or D

evel

opm

ent

Div

isio

nW

HO

Wes

tern

Pac

ific

Regi

onal

Off

ice

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pSo

uliv

anh

Ph

ols

ena,

Min

istr

y of

Hea

lth,

La

o PD

R (C

hair

)

Step

hen

Co

mm

ins

Prof

esso

rSc

hool

of

Publ

ic A

ffai

rs, U

CLA

Petc

hsr

i Sir

inir

un

dM

inis

try

of H

ealt

h, T

haila

nd

Pan

el d

iscu

ssio

n a

nd

wra

p u

pV.

Siv

agn

anas

oth

y, A

PCoP

(C

hair

)

24 Appendix 1

Tim

eSe

ssio

n

No

.

12:3

0–14

:00

Lunc

h (R

ecep

tion

Hal

l, G

roun

d Le

vel)

CLO

SIN

G S

ESSI

ON

(C

onfe

renc

e Ro

om 4

)C

hair

: Rat

hin

Ro

yM

anag

er, A

sia

Paci

fic R

egio

nal C

entr

e, U

ND

P

14:0

0–14

:45

14:4

5–15

:00

11

•Panelandwrapup

(L

esso

ns le

arne

d)

•Closingremarks

Alle

n S

chic

k, U

nive

rsit

y of

Mar

ylan

dSt

eph

en C

om

min

s, U

CLA

Pau

l Sm

oke

, NYU

Jan

Sm

it, E

SCA

PA

PCoP

An

ura

dh

a R

ajiv

an, U

ND

P-Ba

ngko

k

Vel

ayu

than

Siv

agn

anas

oth

ySe

cret

ary,

Min

istr

y of

Sm

all I

ndus

try

and

Smal

l Ent

erpr

ise

Dev

elop

men

t, S

ri L

anka

; and

Vic

e C

hair,

APC

oP C

oord

inat

ing

Com

mit

tee

Co

nfe

ren

ce A

gen

da

cont

inue

d

25

APPENDIX 2Profile of Experts

Allen SchickDistinguished Professor, Public PolicyUniversity of Maryland

A llen Schick is a Distinguished University Professor of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, where he has taught for 30 years. He previously taught at Tufts University, and was a Senior Fellow at the Brookings

Institution.

As a senior scholar with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, Allen assisted with the development and implementation of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and continues to advise members of Congress and its committees on topical budget issues. He directed a study of budget practices in industrial democracies for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Allen received a B.A. from Brooklyn College and a Ph.D. from Yale University. Allen has worked in more than 50 countries under the auspices of various international organizations including OECD, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Asian Development Bank (ADB), and Inter-American Development Bank. His publications include more than a dozen books and 200 articles and reports, including Congress and Money: Spending, Taxing, and Budgeting (American Society for Public Administration, 1987); Making Economic Policy in Congress (American Enterprise Institute, 1984); The Capacity to Budget (1990); The Budget Puzzle (1993); and The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process (1995). He is founding editor of the professional journal, Public Budgeting and Finance. OECD has compiled some of Schick’s work in “Evolutions in Budgetary Practice”.

Stephen ComminsProfessor School of Public AffairsUniversity of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

S tephen Commins works in areas of regional and international development, with an emphasis on service delivery and governance in fragile states. Commins was Director of the Development Institute at the UCLA African

Studies Center in the 1980s, and then worked as Director of Policy and Planning at World Vision International in the 1990s. Dr. Commins was Senior Human Development Specialist at the World Bank from 1999–2005. His work at the World Bank included “Managing Dimensions of Economic Crisis: Good Practices for Policies and Institutions,” the establishment of the Bank’s children and youth cluster, and a survey of service delivery programs implemented by civil society organizations. Commins was one of the co-authors of the World Bank’s World Development Report 2004, “Making Services Work for Poor People”. Following the Report’s publication in 2003, he managed several initiatives on service delivery in post-conflict countries and the relationships between political reform and improved services.

Since leaving the World Bank in 2005, he has continued to work on service delivery programs, including the major study, “Service Delivery in Fragile States: Good Practice for Donors”, for the Fragile States Group of the OECD Development Assistance Committee in 2006. Currently, he is Strategy Manager, Fragile States, International Medical

26 Appendix 2

Corps, and coordinator for the Health and Fragile States Network. His recent research has included testing the DFID state building framework in Lao PDR and Cambodia, managing studies on disasters and safety nets for the World Bank in Bangladesh, and producing studies on health systems strengthening in fragile states for World Vision Canada and sub-national fragility in India and Pakistan for the HLSP Institute.

At UCLA, Dr. Commins teaches courses in regional and international development, and the role of Non-Governmental Organizations. His current courses are on urbanization in developing countries, NGOs, and disaster management.

Paul SmokeProfessorPublic Finance and PlanningNYU Wagner School of Public Service

Paul Smoke, Professor of Public Finance and Planning and Director of International Programs, teaches courses on public finance, development planning, governance and development assistance in developing countries. His

research and policy interests include urban and regional development and the political economy of fiscal reform and public sector decentralization. He previously taught in the International Development Program and chaired the Master in City Planning Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he worked as a resident policy advisor with the Harvard Institute for International Development in Kenya and Indonesia. Smoke is a visiting scholar with the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF and is an affiliated scholar with the Center on International Development and Governance at the Urban Institute.

His research and policy work has covered several regions and multiple countries, including Cambodia, Uganda, South Africa, Vietnam, India, Ethiopia, Palestine, Yemen, Brazil, Nepal, Egypt, and the USA. He has worked with various international organizations, including the World Bank, various UN agencies, United Cities and Local Governments, IADB, African Development Bank (AfDB), ADB, UK Department for International Development (DFID), the European Commission, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), and the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ). Recent efforts include supporting the Development Partners Working Group on Decentralization and Local Governance (DeLoG) in their work on aid effectiveness, co-coordinating a global report on local government finances for United Cities and Local Governments, co-managing an initiative on the political economy of decentralization at the World Bank, and advising the development of a handbook on democratic decentralization practice for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Smoke has published in numerous journals and authored or co-authored several books on decentralization and local governance. Professor Smoke received his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Jan SmitChief, Statistics Development and Analysis SectionStatistics DivisionUN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

J an Smit is Chief, Statistical Development and Analysis Section, Statistics Division, ESCAP. He manages ESCAP’s work on strengthening national statistical capacity, the development of new measurements and statistical

standards, as well as its statistical analysis. He has been contributing to the ESCAP/ADB/UNDP Asia-Pacific Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Reports since 2005, in particular leading the development of chapters assessing progress, examining within-country disparities, and gauging the impact of the recent economic crisis. He is also leading the work of the tripartite MDG partnership on data issues and statistical capacity building.

Profile of Experts 27

Earlier in his career, Mr. Smit worked on statistical, economic and development issues with various international, government and private sector organizations. He holds master degrees in economics and development economics from the University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

Howard WhiteExecutive Director3ie | International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

Howard White is the Executive Director of 3ie, co-chair of the Campbell International Development Coordinating Group, and Adjunct Professor, Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Geelong University.

His previous experience includes leading the impact evaluation programme of the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group and before that, several multi-country evaluations. Other experience includes leading large projects like the World Bank published report African Poverty at the Millennium, and developing the overall direction of poverty training for 2,000 DFID staff at country offices around the world.

Howard has worked extensively on development-related issues in countries across Africa and Asia and has published over 60 papers in internationally refereed journals and several books, focusing on aid effectiveness and poverty reduction. He is Managing Editor of the Journal of Development Studies and the Journal of Development Effectiveness. He has taught at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague and the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, and continues to engage worldwide via workshops and training opportunities for policymakers on topics related to development effectiveness and impact evaluation.

Samantha Hung Senior Social Development Specialist (Gender & Development)Regional and Sustainable Development Department (RSDD), ADB

S amantha Hung has over 15 years of professional experience working on gender issues at policy, institutional and program/project levels. She is a Senior Social Development Specialist (Gender and Development) in the Poverty

Reduction, Gender, and Social Development Division situated within RSDD, ADB, where she provides technical advice for advancing implementation of the ADB Gender and Development policy across all areas of ADB operations.

Before joining ADB, Samantha was the Gender Advisor for the New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID), responsible for providing leadership for implementation of NZAID’s work on gender equality and the empowerment of women. She has also previously served as Gender Advisor with the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat where she provided support for advancing gender equality across Pacific Island Countries and regional policy; and has worked for Australian Government Office on the Status of Women, UNICEF Vietnam, and BRIDGE (briefings on gender-development) at the Institute of Development Studies, attached to the University of Sussex. Ms. Hung originally commenced her international development career as an Australian Volunteer in Vietnam.

Samantha is of Hong Kong Eurasian heritage and a dual national of Australia and United Kingdom. She holds a Masters in International Development from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology with a gender specialization, and Honors Law and Commerce degrees from the University of Melbourne in Australia.

28 Appendix 2

Florian Steinberg Senior Urban Development SpecialistSoutheast Asia Department (SERD), ADB

F lorian Steinberg, an architect-urban planner and institutional development expert, currently is senior urban development specialist in the Southeast Asia Department of ADB, Manila/Philippines. He has more than thirty

years of professional experience, most of it in developing countries or dealing with developing countries.

Mr. Steinberg is specialist in urban management, urban planning and renewal-rehabilitation, settlement upgrading, urban infrastructure planning, Local Agenda 21 and institutional development. Most of his professional work in the above fields has been related to poverty reduction, institutional development, capacity building and local governments. Mr. Steinberg has demonstrated a wide experience in design and implementation of technical and financial cooperation projects, is an able communicator and team leader (or team worker), and has a positive track record of inter-cultural working relationships with his many local counterparts.

Joel MangahasEducation Specialist SERD, ADB

Joel Mangahas is an education specialist at ADB since March 2012. Prior to this, he was a country specialist at the Philippines Country Office of ADB since 2009.

Before joining ADB, Mr. Mangahas was a Professor of Public Administration and the Director of the Center for Policy and Executive Development at the University of the Philippines. He also served as a consultant for many years to governments in the Asia-Pacific region and international development agencies.

Mr. Mangahas received his degrees in Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Public Administration, and Bachelor of Arts from the University of the Philippines. His other post-graduate degrees include Master of Policy Science from Saitama University, Japan and Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science from Kobe University, Japan. He completed an executive course at the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University.

He was a research fellow of the Japan Foundation and the Institute of Developing Economies in Tokyo, Japan.

Sjoerd PostmaSenior Health SpecialistSERD, ADB

S joerd Postma is a public health services management specialist with double masters in Health Policy and Management, focusing on health systems development as well as health sector development and reform

with a particular emphasis on Primary Health Care and decentralized health sector development. He has 25 years experience (of which sixteen years in leadership positions) in international health sector development and

Profile of Experts 29

management, covering wide areas of policy development, health services management and implementation of health programmes at national, intermediate and operational levels and in public, private and NGO sectors.

His experience on health services and programme management includes programme planning and implementation, budgeting and financing, logistic management, health infrastructure development (hospitals, health centres, training schools, information technology/geographic information system, and equipment maintenance units), recruitment, contracting of programme and consultant services, monitoring and evaluation, dealing with both public and private sector agencies, as well as the donors and programme monitoring and reporting, including the use of appropriate IT and other technologies where necessary. He has extensive experience with (multi) sector wide planning and management approaches particularly integrating cross-cutting issues like gender, community participation, poverty alleviation and environment into general public health activities. Lastly, he has developed health sector programmes for a wide variety of Ethnic Minorities in Ethiopia, Uganda, India, Laos, and Viet Nam.

His specific health technical skills relate to childhood diseases, maternal health, family planning, reproductive and sexual health, essential drugs, Health Management Information System (HMIS), TB, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, health worker training and health education material development. He has wide agency experience having worked for and/or designed/evaluated projects for USAID, Danish International Development Agency, DFID, Dutch Government, World Bank, ADB, UNICEF, WHO and the Luxembourg Government, while working in twelve different countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. He has taught public health service management, childhood and tropical disease subjects at universities and institutions in the Netherlands, the UK, India, Uganda, Indonesia, and South Africa.

Norman LaRocqueSenior Education SpecialistSERD, ADB

Norman LaRocque is a Senior Education Specialist in the Southeast Asia Department of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), based in Manila. Norman’s work at ADB involves processing grants and loans to ADB’s Developing

Member Countries, providing technical assistance and undertaking thematic work. His research focuses on the funding and regulation of higher education, public-private partnerships, student finance and private higher education.

Prior to joining ADB, Norman was an independent consultant, based in Wellington, New Zealand. He has worked in more than 20 countries and has undertaken consulting projects for a range of organizations, including the World Bank/International Finance Corporation, the ADB and CfBT Education Trust. From 2002–2006, Norman was a policy advisor for the New Zealand Business Roundtable/Education Forum. Norman has also had considerable public sector experience in both Canada and New Zealand, including managerial positions with the New Zealand Treasury and Ministry of Education.

Norman is a Research Affiliate with the State University of New York at Albany’s Program on Private Higher Education. He has a number of publications, including Non-state Providers and Public-private Partnerships in Education for the Poor (2011), The Evolving Regulatory Context for Private Education in Emerging Economies (2009) and Public–private Partnerships in Basic Education: An International Review (2008). He has also written a number of articles in the popular press and is a frequent presenter at conferences.

Norman is a New Zealand and Canadian citizen and has an MA and a BA (Honors) in Economics from the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada.

30 Appendix 2

Michael LindfieldChair, Urban Community of Practice, ADB

M ichael Lindfield is an economist/ financial analyst with over twenty years experience in international development. He is currently the Lead Professional (Urban Development) in ADB within the Regional and

Sustainable Development Department, and is Chair of the Urban Community of Practice. He has been involved in several large urban renewal, urban infrastructure and regional development projects in Asia and is currently the program manager for the Cities Development Initiative for Asia and focal point for the development of ADB’s activities in urban infrastructure, including private sector involvement and regional issues such as climate change.

Prior to joining the ADB, he worked as Head of the Housing Department of the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies in the Netherlands and as Deputy Director/ Senior Research Fellow, in the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute at the Queensland University of Technology. He obtained his PhD in Economics, which focused on risk assessment for private sector finance of infrastructure provision, from Erasmus University in the Netherlands.

Susann RothSocial Development Specialist, Gender and DevelopmentCentral and West Asia Department, ADB

Susann Roth is the Social Development Specialist (Gender and Development) of the Central and West Asia Department of ADB. She joined the department in November 2009 and works on gender mainstreaming ADB’s

portfolio in Central and West Asia Developing Member countries (DMCs). She designed and implements a technical assistance, which aims to strengthen DMC’s capacity to collect analyze and disseminate sex-disaggregated data and thus improve the use of gender statistics in monitoring the gender results of development projects and of national development plans.

Before joining ADB, Ms. Susann, worked for research institutes, NGOs, and in various government and private medical institutions in the Philippines, India, Germany and the USA. Susann holds a Medical Doctor degree and a PhD from the University of Heidelberg, Germany and a Master of Public Health from the University of the Philippines.

Jun GaoTeam Leader, Health Information, Evidence and Research, Division Health Sector Development,WHO Western Pacific Regional Office

Jun Gao is the Team Leader in Health Information, Evidence and Research, Division on Health Sector Development, Western Pacific Regional Office (WPRO), WHO, based in Manila, Philippines. He provides advises and technical

supports on health information system improvement in countries in Western Pacific Region and work with other partners to improve country capacity on health information system development plan, improving data collection and data quality, proper use of health information in decision making, and improving information dissemination

Profile of Experts 31

and access. He also works on the development of Western Pacific regional database, Country Health Information Profile (CHIPs), and health related MDG progress analysis for WPRO.

Before he worked with WHO, Mr. Gao was with the health information and statistics department of the Ministry of Health of China for 20 years. He holds master degree in Public Health from the School of Public Health, Beijing University, China.

Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (MfDR)

Koshy ThomasHead, Outcome Based Budgeting Project TeamMinistry of Finance, Malaysia; and Chairman, Coordinating Committee of APCoP

Koshy Thomas heads the Outcome-Based Budgeting Project Team of the Ministry of Finance, Malaysia. He is Deputy Undersecretary in the Ministry of Finance.

Koshy is also the current Chairman of the Coordinating Committee of APCoP. As chair, he oversees implementation of the APCoP work program and represents it in MfDR fora. Koshy is an advocate of MfDR with vast experience in integrated development planning, results-based budgeting, monitoring and evaluation, and fiscal management. He has been working with Malaysia’s Ministry of Finance for the past 26 years in various capacities in finance and loan management, taxation, central budget and program evaluation. He has also worked in monitoring and evaluation with the Ministry of Agriculture.

Koshy holds a Post Graduate Certificate in Human Services (Monitoring and Evaluation) from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia; a Post Graduate Diploma in Public Management from the National Institute of Public Administration in Kuala Lumpur; and a BA Economics major in Public Finance from the University of Malaysia.

Velayuthan SivagnanasothySecretary, Ministry of Traditional Industries and Small EnterpriseDevelopment, Sri Lanka;Vice Chair, Coordinating Committee of APCoP

Velayuthan Sivagnanasothy is the Secretary, Ministry of Traditional Industries and Small Enterprise Development, Sri Lanka. Prior to this, he served as Director General of the Department of Foreign Aid and Budget Monitoring of

the Ministry of Plan Implementation. He has more than 25 years of senior-level public sector experience in development planning, management, and monitoring and evaluation at the national level. He led the institutionalization of MfDR in Sri Lanka, established the national electronic Project Monitoring System, undertook evaluations of national development programmes and established the web based Government Evaluation Information System.

He served as Co-Chair of the International Reference and Management Groups on the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration of the DAC Evaluation Network of the OECD. He represented Asia in the OECD negotiating team that formulated the Accra Action Agenda. He also served as a Keynote Speaker in many MfDR Forums, including the International Roundtable on MfDR held in Accra, Ghana.

He currently serves as a Vice-Chair of the APCoP Coordinating Committee and Co-Chair of the Asia Pacific Capacity Development for Development Effectiveness (CDDE).

32 Appendix 2

Farzana AhmedLead Results Management Specialist Strategy and Policy Department, ADB

Farzana Ahmed is Lead Results Management Specialist of the Strategy and Policy Department of ADB. She joined the department in July 2009.

She is also the Principal Coordinator of the Secretariat of the APCoP. In her current role, Ms. Ahmed coordinates support for APCoP activities at the regional and country level working together with the APCoP coordinating committee and ADB operations.

Ms. Ahmed started her career in ADB in 1998 in the Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department. Following that, she held positions in the Southeast Asia Department of ADB in portfolio management in the office of the Director General and then in financial management at the Indonesia Country office. While in Indonesia, Ms. Ahmed was seconded to the Australian Agency for International Development where she developed programs for the post Tsunami rehabilitation of Aceh and coordinated the Australia-Indonesia country strategy paper.

Before joining ADB, Ms. Ahmed worked in various financial positions in the private sector in UK and Australia. Bangladeshi by origin, Ms. Ahmed holds a Masters degree in Economics and Politics from Oxford University, UK, and is a qualified chartered accountant.

ADB/ESCAP/UNDP Regional Partnership in Achieving MDGs in Asia and the Pacific

Shilatdiya ChatterjeeRegional Advisor on the Millennium Development Goals ADB

Shiladitya Chatterjee obtained his MA from the Delhi School of Economics (1974), and his Ph.D. in economics from Boston University (1987). He has taught economics at Delhi University, Boston University and the University

of Massachusetts. For the first 18 years of his professional career (1976–1994), Dr. Chatterjee was a member of the Indian Administrative Service, where his assignments included Director in the Prime Minister’s Office (helping coordinate the economic reform program during 1991–94), and Secretary, Finance in the Government of Assam. Dr. Chatterjee joined ADB in 1994 and worked initially in ADB’s Southeast Asia operations as Country Economist for the Philippines and as Country Team Leader for Indonesia. His more recent assignments at ADB included Head of the Poverty Unit, ADB’s Practice Leader for Poverty Reduction; and Advisor in ADB’s Strategy and Policy Department (SPD). He is currently Regional Advisor on the Millennium Development Goals.

Profile of Experts 33

Rathin RoyDirector, UNDP Asia-Pacific Regional Centre

Rathin Roy heads the Regional Centre and manages all its activities, ensuring APRC services to Country Offices in the Asia-Pacific region in the area of advisory services, regional programme implementation, provision of

management services, and support to regional partnerships development and coordination.

Since October 2009, he has been the Director of the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth in Brasilia, Brazil. Prior to this, he served in New Delhi for eighteen months as the Economic Advisor to the Thirteenth Finance Commission. Rathin served as the Public Resource Management Advisor (2002–2008) and as the Acting Cluster Leader, Inclusive Development, (September 2007-May 2008) in the Poverty Practice, Bureau for Development Policy (BDP)-UNDP. During his tenure at UNDP Headquarters, he developed a global profile for the organization on fiscal policy issues, including supporting work on fiscal space for the G-20 and G-24 multilateral groupings.

Prior to joining UNDP, Rathin was tenured in the Economics Faculty at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (1995–2002), and was an Economist with the Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester (1993–95).

Anuradha RajivanPractice Leader—Poverty Reduction and MDG, UNDP Asia-Pacific Regional Centre

Anu leads the Asia-Pacific Regional Centre’s work on Poverty Reduction and the Millennium Development Goals. With a Ph.D. in Economics, a background in government and international development experience, she brings

to the work a combination of substantive research on multidimensional poverty, programme management, and policy.

Prior to joining the Poverty Reduction Team, she has been leading the work on Asia-Pacific Human Development Reports, addressing long term regional development challenges from a people-centered perspective. Her areas of interest include poverty and inequality, food and nutrition security, trade, inclusive finance and gender.

Biplove ChoudharyProgramme Specialist, UNDP Asia-Pacific Regional Centre

B iplove is Programme Specialist with the Asia Pacific Trade and Investment Initiative (APTII) under the Poverty Practice. A development economist with over 13 years of experience at the policy, research and grass-roots

levels, he has been working with UNDP since 2007. Prior to joining the Asia-Pacific Regional Centre, he was posted at the Regional Centre in Colombo. Earlier, he headed CENTAD, the Trade and Development arm of Oxfam in South

34 Appendix 2

Asia and had been an advisor to civil society organizations, national governments and international agencies such as Commonwealth Secretariat-DFID, USAID, and UN agencies.

Biplove holds a Ph.D. in international trade and human development from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and was a visiting faculty to the academic institutions in Delhi University. He is a former Fellow of the Cambridge Advanced Programme on Rethinking Development Economics and has published extensively on poverty and inclusive growth in academic journals, books and mainstream media.

Yumiko YamamotoProgramme Specialist, UNDP Asia-Pacific Regional Centre

Yumiko provides technical support on a range of economic policy issues, in particular from a gender perspective. A feminist economist with over 10 years of experience in research, policy advice, and programme management,

she has been working with UNDP since 2005. Before joining the Asia-Pacific Regional Centre, she was based at the Regional Centre in Colombo.

Prior to joining UNDP, Yumiko taught Economics courses at the academic institutions in the USA and Japan. She also brings work experiences at a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting gender equality in Japan. Her current focus areas are capacity development on gender and macroeconomic issues, human development impact assessment of trade, and intellectual property rights and access to knowledge.

35

APPENDIX 3List of Participants

Fiji

11. Ms. Kelera Ravono Principal Economic Planning Officer, Expenditure Management Analysis Unit, Budget Division, Ministry of Finance [Email: KKolivuso@finance.gov.fj]

12. Ms. Lusiana Naimawi Coordinating officer for MDGs, Ministry of Strategic Planning, National Development, and Statistics [Email: lusiana.naimawi@planning.gov.fj]

India

13. Dr. Nagesh Singh Advisor, Planning Commission [Email: nagesh8588@gmail.com]

Indonesia

14. Ms. Erny Murniasih Subdivision Head for Planning, Directorate General Fiscal Balance, Ministry of Finance [Email: emurniasih1976@gmail.com]

15. Dr. Suprayoga Hadi Deputy Minister for Special Region, Ministry of Disadvantaged Region [Email: yogahadi@gmail.com]

Kazakhstan

16. Ms. Ainur Dossanova Head of Gender Statistics and MDG Indicators Division, Social and Demographics Statistics Department, Agency on Statistics [Email: A.Dosanova@stat.kz]

17. Ms. Zhanar Abdullina Chief Expert of Health, Employment and Social Protection of the Population Division, Department of Social Policy and State Bodies Development [Email: abdullina_zh@minplan.kz]

Kyrgyzstan

18. Mr. Khanchoro Murzaliev Expert, Economics and Investment Department, Prime Minister’s Office [Email: khanchoro@gmail.com]

Bangladesh

1. Mr. Md. Rafiquzzaman Joint Secretary, Ministry of Education [Email: rafiq021259@yahoo.com]

2. Ms. Shamima Nargis Joint Secretary, Local Government Division, Bangladesh Secretariat [Email: snargis1961@gmail.com]

3. Ms. Kulsum Begum Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Bangladesh Secretariat [Email: kulsum63@yahoo.com]

4. Ms. Shaheen Akhtar Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare, Bangladesh Secretariat [Email: shaheenakhtar26@yahoo.com]

Bhutan

5. Mr. Pema Tenzin Planning Officer, Gross National Happiness Commission [Email: pematenzin.pt@gmail.com]

6. Mr. Sonam Phuntsho Planning Officer, Ministry of Health [Email: bsonam@health.gov.bt]

Cambodia

7. Mr. Samnang Touch Deputy Director General of Technical Affair, Ministry of Rural Development [Email: samnangmrd@gmail.com]

8. Mr. Pov Dalinna Chief Officer, PDRD, Battambang Province [Email: dalinna_pov@yahoo.com]

9. Ms. Ann-Christine Dellnaes International Policy Advisor, National Committee for Democratic Development Secretariat [Email: Anki.dellnas@ncdd.gov.kh]

China, People’s Republic

10. Mr. Pengcheng Liu Program Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs [Email: liu_pengcheng@mfa.gov.cn]

36 Appendix 3

19. Mr. Bolsubek Kazakov, Director Department on Bankruptcy and Development, Ministry of Economy and Antimonopoly Policy [Email: bolsubbekkazako@mail.ru]

20. Mr. Azamat Sydygaliev Leading Specialist, Main Department on Public Investments and Technical Assistance, Ministry of Finance [Email: aziok@mail.ru]

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

21. Dr. Founkham Rattanavong Deputy Director, Health System Development, Planning Department, Ministry of Health [Email: rfounkham@yahoo.com]

22. Ms. Daovieng Phongsavath Technical Officer, Department of Planning, Ministry of Education and Sport [Email: daovieng@gmail.com]

23. Mr. Phomma Veoravanh Project Director, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Minsitry of Public Work and Transport [Email: pveoravanh@yahoo.com]

24. Dr. Soulivanh Pholsena Secretary to the Minister of Health and Director of Foreign Relations of Ministry of Health, Department of Finance and Planning, Ministry of Health [Email: dr.pholsena@gmail.com]

Malaysia

25. Mr. Koshy Thomas Head, Outcome-Based Budgeting Project Team, Ministry of Finance [Email: koshy.thomas@treasury.gov.my]

26. Mr. Harjeet Singh Deputy Secretary General (Strategic), Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development [Email: harjeet@kpwkm.gov.my]

27. Ms. Rohana binti Ismail Principal Assistant Director, Ministry of Health [Email: rohana.ismail@moh.gov.my]

28. Ms. Juraidah binti Mustar Assistant Director, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department [Email: juraidah@epu.gov.my]

29. Ms. Noor Zaila binti Wahab Senior Principal Assistant Director, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department [Email: rohana.ismail@moh.gov.my]

30. Mr. Nurul Hidayah Abdul Rahman Assistant Secretary, Policy Division, Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development [Email: nurul_hidayah@kpwkm.gov.my]

Maldives

31. Ms. Yasmeen Rasheed Senior Planning Officer, Department of National Planning [Email: yasmine@planning.gov.mv]

Mongolia

32. Ms. Oyuntsetseg Khorloo Senior Officer of Social Policy, Development Policy and Planning Department, National Development and Innovation Committee [Email: okhorloo@yahoo.com; oyuntsetseg@ ndic.gov.mn]

33. Ms. Mijiddorj Bayarmaa Senior Officer, Development Financing and Cooperation Department, Ministry of Finance [Email: bayarmaa_m@mof.gov.mn]

Myanmar

34. Mr. Maung Maung Win Deputy Governor, Central Bank of Myanmar [Email: cbm.dy@mptmail.net.mm]

Nepal

35. Mr. Shankar Prasad Adhikari Joint Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers [Email: lkhatri1@mof.gov.np]

36. Mr. Lal Bahadur Khatri Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance [Email: sadhikari2005@hotmail.com]

37. Mr. Ravi Shanker Sainju Program Director, National Planning Commission Secretariat [Email: ssainju@gmail.com]

38. Mr. Shiva Devi Dahal Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance [Email: dshiva_dahal@yahoo.com]

Pakistan

39. Dr. Allah Bakhsh Malik Secretary to the Government/Chairman BISE, Government of the Punjab [Email: abmmalik@yahoo.com]

List of Participants 37

40. Ms. Rabia Awan Chief Statistical Officer, Pakistan Bureau of Statistics [Email: rabi73@hotmail.com]

41. Mr. Javed Sikander Deputy Chief, Governance Section, Planning and Development Division [Email: javedsikander@yahoo.com]

42. Mr. Muhammad Tahir Orakzai Additional Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, Pakistan [Email: tahir_orakzai@hotmail.com]

43. Mr. Mansoor Ali Section Officer (ADB-III), Economic Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad [Email: mansoor.gop@gmail.com]

Papua New Guinea

44. Mr. Guri Wesley Gumembi Acting Assistant Secretary and Co-Chair of the Working Group on MDGs and Aid Coordination and Population, Policy Division, Department of National Planning and Monitoring [Email: wesley_gumembi@planning.gov.pg]

45. Mr. Alex Ginet Senior Aid Coordinator—UN Branch, Foreign Aid Division [Email: alex_ginet@planning.gov.pg]

Philippines

46. Ms. Honorita B. Bayudan Director and Head of the Poverty Reduction Bureau, Department of Social Welfare and Development [Email: hbbayudan@dswd.gov.ph]

47. Mr. Wilfredo Prilles City Planning Development Officer, City Planning and Development Office, City Government of Naga [Email: cpdo@naga.gov.ph]

48. Mr. Florante Igtiben Assistant Director, Public Investment Staff, National Economic and Development Authority [Email: fgigtiben@neda.gov.ph]

49. Ms. Dolores Aserre Financial Analyst V, Corporate Affairs Group, Department of Finance [Email: dly2021@yahoo.com]

Sri Lanka

50. Mr. Velayuthan Sivagnanasothy Secretary, Ministry of Traditional Industry and Small Enterprises [Email: sivagnanasothy@gotmail.com]

51. Mr. Warnakulasurya Tissera Director, Ministry of Health [Email: tisserawaa@yahoo.co.uk]

52. Mr. Karunasena Hettiarachchi Chairman, National Water Supply and Drainage Board [Email: nwsdbsec@sltnet.lk]

53. Mr. Karunasiri Rathnayakage Deputy Director, Ministry of Education [Email: nwsdbch@sltnet.lk]

Tajikistan

54. Mr. H. Tagoymurudov Head, Antimonopoly Service [Email: hamdamtu@mail.ru]

55. Mr. Odil Sangov Head, Economic Reforms and Investments Division, President’s Office [Email: sangov@mail.ru]

Thailand

56. H.E. Mr. Kittiratt Na-Ranong Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

57. Ms. Nutta Ratanachaichan Community Organization Development Institute (CODI) [Email: nutta.ratanachaichan@gmail.com]

58. Mr. Bharat Dahiya Adjunct Faculty, Urban Environmental Management, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology [Email: bharaturban@gmail.com]

59. Dr. Petchsri Sirinirund National AIDS Management Center, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health [Email: spetchsri@gmail.com]

60. Ms. Aree Wadwongtham Senior Health Policy and Plan Analyst, The Bureau of Policy and Strategy, Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Public Health [Email: aree@health.moph.go.th]

61. Ms. Suchaya Ummaralikit Director, Office of Environmental Fund [Email: suchaya@onep.go.th]

38 Appendix 3

62. Mr. Thanabaht Ruksujarit63. Ms. Phumchai Vitoonkaewsiri64. Ms. Chanya Liawpairoj

Timor-Leste

65. Mr. Pedro Almeida Da Costa DEVINFO Focal Point, National Statistics Office [Email: palmeida@mof.gov.tl]

66. Ms. Ana de Fatima Soares Technical Staff, MDG Secretariat [Email: afsoares@mof.gov.tl]

67. Mr. Martinho Lopes Technical Staff, MDG Secretariat [Email: mlopes@mof.gov.tl]

Uzbekistan

68. Mr. Sarvarkhon Buzrukkhonov Director, Department of Finance and Accountings, Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education [Email: sb@edu.uz]

69. Mr. Shakrukh Sharakmetov Head, Department for Financing Social Sector and Science, Ministry of Finance [Email: ssharakhmetov@mf.uz]

Vietnam

70. Mr. Tran Quoc Phuong Deputy Director General, Culture and Social Affairs Department, Ministry of Planning and Investment [Email: phuongmpi@gmail.com]

71. Mr. Tran Van Ngoi Deputy Director General, Institute for Science and State Organizations, Ministry of Home Affairs [Email: Tranvngoi1@gmail.com]

Resource Persons

72. Dr. Allen Schick Distinguished Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland [Email: aschick@umd.edu]

73. Dr. Stephen Commins Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of California [Email: scommins@gmail.com]

74. Dr. Paul Smoke Professor, New York University Wagner School of Public Service [Email: paul.smoke@nyu.edu]

75. Dr. Howard White Executive Director, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) [Email: hwhite@3ieimpact.org]

Asian Development Bank

76. Mr. Florian Steinberg Senior Urban Development Specialist, Southeast Asia Department [Email: fsteinberg@adb.org]

77. Mr. Joel Mangahas Education Specialist, Human and Social Development Division, Southeast Asia Department [Email: jmangahas@adb.org]

78. Mr. Kaushal Joshi Senior Statistician, Economic Research Department [Email: kjoshi@adb.org]

79. Mr. Kazu Sakai Director General, Strategy and Policy Department [Email: ksakai@adb.org]

80. Mr. Michael Lindfield Lead Urban Development Specialist, Regional Sustainable Development Department [Email: mlindfield@adb.org]

81. Mr. Norman LaRocque Senior Education Specialist, Southeast Asia Department [Email: nlarocque@adb.org]

82. Ms. Rachana Shrestha Public Management Officer, India Resident Mission Office, ADB [Email: rshrestha@adb.org]w

83. Mr. Shiladitya Chatterjee Regional Advisor on the Millennium Development Goals, Strategy and Policy Department [Email: schatterjee.consultant@adb.org]

84. Mr. Sjoerd Postma Senior Health Specialist, Southeast Asia Department [Email: spostma@adb.org]

85. Ms. Susann Roth Social Development Specialist (Gender and Development), Central and West Asia Department [Email: sroth@adb.org]

86. Ms. Linda Arthur Senior Evaluation Specialist, Independent Evaluation Department [Email: larthur@adb.org]

List of Participants 39

87. Ms. Samantha Hung Senior Social Development Specialist (Gender and Development), Regional Sustainable Development Department [Email: shung@adb.org]

88. Ms. Farzana Ahmed Lead Results Management Specialist, Results Management Unit, Strategy and Policy Department [Email: fahmed@adb.org]

APCoP Secretariat

89. Ms. Cristina Regina Bonoan International Technical Coordinator, Results Management Unit, Strategy and Policy Department, ADB [Email: cbonoan.consultant@adb.org]

90. Ms. Mylene Buerano APCoP Research and Evaluation Specialist, Results Management Unit, Strategy and Policy Department, ADB [Email: mbuerano.consultant@adb.org]

91. Ms. Sheryl Nazaret APCoP Finance and Membership Coordinator, Results Management Unit, Strategy and Policy Department, ADB [Email: snazaret.consultant@adb.org]

92. Ms. Ma. Rosario Baxa APCoP Logistics Coordinator, Results Management Unit, Strategy and Policy Department, ADB [Email: mbaxa.consultant@adb.org]

United Nations Body

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)93. Mr. Rathin Roy

Director, UNDP Asia-Pacific Regional Center

94. Mr. Biplove Choudhary Program Specialist Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth Asia Pacific Regional Centre [Email: biplove.choudhary@undp.org]

95. Ms. Yumiko Yamamoto Yumiko Yamamoto, Programme Specialist, Asia-Pacific Regional Centre [Email: yumiko.yamamoto@undp.org]

UNICEF96. Mr. Chander Badloe

Regional WASH Adviser / Senior WASH Specialist, UNICEF East Asia Pacific Regional Office [Email: cbadloe@unicef.org]

WHO97. Mr. Jun Gao

Team Leader Health Services Development, Health Sector Development Office, WHO Western Pacific Regional Office [email:gaoj@wpro.who.int]

ESCAP Secretariat98. Mr. Syed Nuruzzaman

Chief, Countries with Special Needs Section, Macroeconomic Policy and Development Division [Email: nuruzzaman.unescap@un.org]

99. Mr. Jan Smit Chief, Statistical Development and Analysis Section, Statistics Division [Email: stat.unescap@un.org]

40 Appendix 3

From left to right: Rathin Roy, Koshy Thomas, H.E. Mr. Kittiratt Na-Ranong, and Kazu Sakai

Participants of the Regional Conference on Public Sector Management in Support of the Millennium Development Goals

Asia-Pacific Regional Conference onPublic Sector Management

in Support of theMillennium Development Goals

Conference Report

13–15 June 2012Bangkok, Thailand