1. MfDR Linkages and Synergies in Results Oriented Planning and Monitoring - A Case for Uganda By Ssentongo Mukisa Peter Assistant Commissioner for Coordination and Monitoring Office of the Prime Minister, Government of Uganda Peter.sentongo@nimes.go.ug Presented at the High Level Forum on Managing for Development Results Hanoi, Vietnam 4 th – 8 th February, 2007

2. The Greater Accountability and Service Delivery Framework Improving Uganda’s development outcomes requires strengthening the accountability relationship between:  The Ugandan Citizens and Policy Makers;  The Ugandan Citizens and Service Providers (public/private);  The Policy makers and Service Providers (Public/Private)

3. Service Delivery Mechanisms Greater Accountability Framework Local Governments Service Providers (Private/Public )) Central Government Citizens Policy Makers Government Executive Service Providers (Private/Public) Citizens The Greater Accountability and Service Delivery Framework

4. Key things which the citizens value are:  Better Outcomes  Better Public Service delivery mechanism  Trust in Government

5. COMPONENTS OF PUBLIC VALUE SERVICES OUTCOMES TRUST Optimal Public Value that citizens demand

6. The PEAP/PRSP Key Strategic Results within the Greater Accountability Framework

7. Analytical PEAP/PRSP Monitoring and Review Model (a) Strategic Objectives (= Reduced Income Poverty and Inequality (IPI) + Human Development (HD) + Increasing GDP Growth (GDP)) (b) Outcomes (= Pillars Key Results Areas (PKRA)) Therefore: the only acceptable Analytical PEAP monitoring and review model is: {IPI + HD + GDP } is true, if and only if P1KRAs+P2KRAs+P3KRAs+ P4KRAs+P5KRAs Indicators move in their desired directions; and if PKRA moves in the desired direction, then Sector KRA must have moved in their desired directions

9. PEAP Results and Policy Matrix PEAP Annual Review Mechanism PEAP Outcome Indicators Monitoring Plan PEAP Annual Results & Policy Model PEAP Annual Policy Actions Matrix PEAP Monitoring and Review Framework

10. Linkages and Synergies in the PEAP Review Cycle – Annual PEAP Implementation Review (APIR) Two main objectives of the Annual PEAP Implementation Review are  i) create an understanding of the performance of Public Policy as defined in PEAP/PRSP and also trigger a proactive management of its complexities  ii) rationalize and simplify the multiple streams of data collection and reporting mechanisms that currently exist within Government in the measurement of Public Policy.

11. Annual PEAP Implementation Review Feed back Mechanism

12. Links to the LG Assessments

13. Conclusion Mutual Accountability is about the performance of the Greater accountability framework. Mutual Accountability is understanding the extent of public value creation. The APIR is the tool for measuring public value creation; Therefore the APIR is about Mutual Accountability.

14. The End! Thank you for listening to me!