Public Sector M&E in PNG: Development and Challenges

Public Sector M&E in PNG: Development and Challenges

Paper presented to the Australasia Evaluation Society

September 2013

Gachugu, Mukii1; Kapa, Joe3; Lesa,Kenny2; Miranda, Diego2

1AusAID, Papua New Guinea

2Departmentof Implementation and Rural Development, Papua New Guinea

3Department of National Planning and Monitoring, Papua New Guinea

Disclaimer: The views in this paper are those of the Authors and not the Government of PNG or AusAID. The paper presents the informed opinions and observations of the Authors, all of whom are development practitioners currently living and working in Papua New Guinea.

Abbreviations

AG&FI 2013-1 / Administrative Guidelines and Financial Instructions 2013-1
PAoPE / PNG Association of Professional Evaluators
CACC / Central Agencies Coordination Committee
DCI / Department of Communication and Information
DIMS / District Information Management System
DIRD / Department of Implementation and Rural Development
DNPM / Department of National Planning and Monitoring
DoF / Department of Finance
DoT / Department of Treasury
DPLGA / Department for Provincial and Local Government Affairs
DSIP / District Service Improvement Program
GoPNG / Government of PNG
IGIS / Integrated Government Information System
LLG / Local Level Government
M&E / Monitoring and Evaluation
MTDP / Medium Term Development Plan 2010 – 2015
NEFC / National Economic and Fiscal Commission
NMA / National Monitoring Authority (now PLLSMA)
PCMC / Provincial Coordination and Monitoring Committees
PGAS / Provincial Government Accounting System
PIMS / Population Information Management System
PIP / Public Investment Program
PLLSMA / Provincial and Local-Level Service Monitoring Authority
PM&NEC / Department of Prime Minister and National Executive Council
PNG / Papua New Guinea
RIGFA / Reform of Intergovernmental Financial Arrangements
SDP / Strategic Development Plan 2010 – 2030
SIP / Service Improvement Program

Introduction

In the last 10 years, PNG has made significant developments in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), laying a sound base for future improvements in the practice of collection and use of evidence. PNG has developed an elaborate platform for the development and implementation of good monitoring and evaluation. Good legal and institutional frameworks are in place to oversight, implement and drive fiscal and results monitoring and reporting.

This paper provides a broad overview of the current legal and institutional arrangements that underpin M&E in PNG. It highlights key initiatives undertaken by the Government of PNG (GoPNG)with support from AusAID and explores how these initiatives are contributing to M&E improvements; and the expected flow-on effects on accountability, service delivery, learning and improvement.

The paper highlights that a fundamental challenge has been and remains inculcating a culture and practice of good monitoring and evaluation for accountability, decision making and learning – especially within public institutions. Moreover it acknowledges the inherent challenges of weak coordination between the GoPNGagencies and more broadly, the low M&E capacity.

Context

Starting from a low base

How effective have various GoPNGinterventions beenin improving service delivery? Does the GoPNGhave the information required to ensure proper oversight, appropriately supportallocation of scarce resources and account for the results fromits investments? Ten years ago, the answer to the first question would have been categorical: we don’t know. The answer to the second question would have been equally disappointing – the GoPNGdid not have sufficient information to support decisions on allocation of and account for public resources, nor the systems to systematically and consistently collect it.

This scarcity of basic information for informed policymaking has long been noted in the country and in the development literature, and has often been identified as one of the key contributors to PNG’s disappointing development performance.[1]Lack of objective information notwithstanding, there was a widely shared perception that development in PNG, far from improving, wasin fact deteriorating.[2] Equally worrisome,wasthe impression among many informed observers that there were no means to improve performance becausenoinformation wasavailable to support the design of suitable development strategies. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) observed that PNG had “reached the point at which its institutions are too weak themselves to undertake and sustain the kind of major reforms needed to turn the country around”.[3] In this context, many found it worthwhile to explore the idea of simply giving up supportingGoPNG,characterising PNG as a failedstate.[4]

Today by comparison, there is cautious optimism within the GoPNG and by other observers that PNG is trending in the right direction[5]. The answer to the two questions posed above would not be as categorically negative today as it was a decade ago. While accepting that the capacity of PNG to allocate and assess the effectiveness of its public investments throughout its territory is still very weak, the Authors of this paperargue thatPNG has today a stronger platform for monitoring and evaluation, as compared to 10 years ago. This platform, though still at a nascent stage, is improving and is starting to produceresults in terms of collecting and supplyingobjective information, particularly at the subnational level. For example, ProvincialandDistrict Administrations are now seeking information to inform the design of their 5-years Development Plans. This will be explored further below.

This change has occurred under GoPNGleadershipwith support from key development partners such as the Australian government. Three initiatives have been particularly important incrystallising this change:the enactment of the Reform of Intergovernmental Financial Arrangements (RIGFA), the establishment of the Provincial and Local-level Service Monitoring Authority (PLLSMA), and the design and implementation of the District Information Management System (DIMS). These will be explored later in the paper.

A strong M&E platform

Increasing awareness of and demand for better M&E

It has been conventionally accepted that there is little pressure coming from PNG society for the state to perform better,especially in terms of the delivery of essential services. Among the reasons for this, it is often argued, is a “dysfunctional political system, characterised by poor links between: voters and elected politicians, political parties and governments, and ministers and public servants”.[6] Additionally, extreme cultural diversity, rugged geography, difficult access to most subnational settings, traditional forms of social organisation and political authority (the “big man” culture), and customary forms of societal aggregation (the “wantok” system), are also often seen as major impediments to governance accountability and transparency in the implementation of government interventions.[7]

Notwithstanding these constraints, it is important toacknowledge that due to a variety of factors including advances in communication and transport infrastructure over the last decade, there is todayan increasing awareness of and demand for improved services. Consequently, a growing number of public officials areseekingreliable information to informdecision making,demonstrate results,and improve accountability.[8] Current GoPNGM&E systems are not able to demonstratewith certainty the contribution of development funds to national development impacts, such as improved livelihoods, better health, and improved education outcomes.

Strong legal and institutional arrangements are in place

Over the years, the GoPNG has put in place strong legal and institutional arrangements for monitoring and evaluating public investments and delivery of services. The PNG Constitutionenshrinesthe principles of equality and participation, basic rights, and basic social obligations. It states “that our national wealth, won by honest, hard work be equitablyshared by all”[9] and “equalisation of services in all parts of the country, and for everycitizen to have equal access to legal processes and all services,governmental and otherwise, that are required for the fulfilment of hisor her real needs and aspirations”.[10] The Constitutionrecognises the roles of the National government and those of the provincial and local level governments in the financing and delivery of services.[11]

The Organic Law on Provincial Governments and Local-Level Governments (hereinafter referred to as the Organic Law) provides the overarching platform for delivering and accounting for public investments and services at the subnational level. It identifies the need for “efficient and effective government” and “accountability in the use of public finances [and] properties”.[12] The intent of the Organic Law is to improve service delivery through decentralisation. It underpins the institutional framework and processes for coordination, delivery and monitoring of services, as described hereunder.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) notes that while the Organic Law “established decentralised responsibilities and authority”[13] across the three levels of government in a more equitable arrangement, it did not adequately address implementation issues. Central, line, provincial and local-level government agencies were left to determine their respective administrative functions and responsibilities with respect to other government agencies. For instance, each level of government develops its own plans and M&E arrangements. Inadequate guidance and management of this process has resulted in incomplete and open-ended arrangements, with responsibilities poorly matched to authority.[14] The problem has been that the Organic Law superimposed additional structures of governance over previous structures without first voiding these arrangements, thus adding to funding and implementation complexities and fuelling institutional rivalries, confusion, and administrative burdens. Consequently, the Organic Law has led to often conflicting interpretations and understandings of the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies and levels of governments involved in planning, budgeting, funding, implementing and monitoring the delivery of services. Service delivery has suffered as a result.

A number of interventions have over the years attempted to resolve these implementation issues, paramount among them arethe 2007 Review of Intergovernmental Financing Arrangements(RIGFA), and the 2008 Determination Assigning Service Delivery Functions and Responsibilities, which aimed to clarify roles between levels of government. Further, with the dramatic increase of subnational level funding through the Service Improvement Program (SIP) in 2013, reforms are underway to deal with many of these jurisdictional issues. The Organic Law is currently under review to strengthen alignment and reduce role ambiguities between national and subnational levels of government and between national level agencies.

The SIP accountsfor about 50 per cent of the 2013 GoPNGcontribution to the Development Budget. This funding has been devolved to subnational levels of government and is now managed under a single set of policy instruments: the SIPAdministrative Guidelines and Financial Instructions 2013-1(AG&FI 2013-1).[15]The guidelines and instructions outline processes and procedures, includingmonitoring and implementation responsibilities of SIP interventions. It is acknowledged that the SIP is devolved funding to the subnational levels of government with limited conditionality and ex-ante mechanisms to control expenditure decisions by national agencies. The only requirements are documents to account for expenditure (not results). This will require further attention if SIP is to be successful. DIRD has documented the minimum requirements for the establishment of a functional M&E framework for SIP.[16]

An increasingly aligned national planning and M&E framework

Diagram 1 below is a representation of PNG’s M&E landscape. At the macro level, the Department of Prime Minister and National Executive Council (PM&NEC) has oversight over all GoPNG agencies. The Vision 2050 Development Centre, embedded within the PM&NEC,coordinates the implementation and monitoring of Vision 2050, the long term government development strategy. The 2013 PNG Budget notes thatV2050 will “track agencies’ performance in the implementation of their plans and assess results and impacts of key priority areas, at each level of implementation, against each agency’s targets”.[17]The Central Agencies Coordination Committee (CACC) supports the PM&NEC to coordinate and guide whole of government investments for service delivery through sector agencies, provinces, districts and local level governments.

While theformal role of DNPM isoverall responsibility for national planning and supporting whole of government monitoring at the national level[18], over the years, it has taken on an implementation role.[19] DNPM’s planning role includes the development and monitoring of the Strategic Development Plan 2010 – 2030 (SDP) and the Medium Term Development Plan 2010 – 2015 (MTDP), which together set specific incremental targets to achieve the goals of Vision 2050. Based on these arrangements, the V2050 Development Centre is supposed to evaluate the outcomes and performance of departments while the DNPM makes sure sector departments provide the information required to measure performance against the MTDP and SDP. In addition to various national level strategies and plans (Vision 2050; DSP; MTDP; sector plans), the PNG Commitment on Aid Effectiveness adapted the Paris declaration and committed to working with development partners to improve aid effectiveness.[20] These principles have been embedded into the national departments’ sectoral plans and strategies. DNPM monitors the performance of GoPNG agencies and donors against the Aid Effectiveness targets.The national planning system aligns the global Millennium Development, medium and long term development goals. It providesa clearer vision and has set up the necessary foundation for strong M&Esystems, as discussed later in this paper. While the plans are in place, implementation has proved to be a challenge, a result of poor coordination andfragmented implementation[21], low capacity in all national department, and weak accountabilities, among other constrains.

At the subnational level, the DPLGA has oversight over the Organic Law, including “to coordinate and monitor the implementation of the national policies at the provincial and local-level” and “to establish minimum development standards and to monitor maintenance of those standards in the overall development of the rural and urban communities”.[22] Of particular importance, the DPLGA coordinate the monitoring of provincial Minimum Priority Areas, a set of results indicators defined under Section 119, and provincial financial reporting indicators set under Section 114 of the Organic Law.

1

1

To fulfil this responsibility, the DPLGA relies on the Provincial and Local-level Service Monitoring Authority (PLLSMA), established under Section 110 of the Organic Law. PLLSMA is the national body with responsibility for coordinating and monitoring the implementation of national policies at the provincial and local levels and for regularly assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of sub-national governments. In addition, PLLSMA is supposed to support capacity building of the national public service at the sub-national level, providing advice to the Minister responsible for Provincial and Local-Level Governments. PLLSMA, discussed in more detail later in the paper, has had mixed results.

It is worth highlighting, the National Economic and Fiscal Commission (NEFC), is established under the Organic Law to assist PLLSMA with assessing and reviewing planning and implementation systems of the Provincial Governments and Local-Level Governments.[23] While PLLSMA is supposed to coordinate and monitor national policies at the provincial and local-level, the Provincial Coordination and Monitoring Committees (PCMC), also established under the Organic Law, are meant to coordinate service delivery and monitoring at the provincial level.These arrangements whilst in place, have had mixed successes, in different provinces.

In addition, the Department for Implementation and Rural Development – DIRD (formerly the Office of Rural Development) has responsibility for coordinating and monitoring the Service Improvement Program (SIP) funds at the provincial, district and local level government (LLG). The DIRD’sM&E role and responsibilities, defined in the SIP Administrative Guidelines and Financial Instructions 2013-1 have as the backbone, the information collected under the District Information Management System (DIMS). See below on challenges to implementing a functional M&E system.

PNG information architecture

Corresponding to the institutional arrangementsoutlined above, GoPNG has set up an information management infrastructure to support the planning and M&E frameworks mandated in the statutory and policy instruments described previously. The Integrated Government Information System (IGIS), under the Department of Communication Information (DCI)is intended to provide the communications infrastructure for the transmission of data, voice communication and information between the Provinces, District and LLGs to National headquarters. It is envisaged that IGIS will be rolled out in 2014, including the establishment of provincial offices. IGIS when fully operational will be the main repository of health, education, agriculture, infrastructure, socio-economic and other relevant data and will support storage, the timely and efficient extraction, and analysis of performance monitoring data for the whole GoPNG.

The National Statistical Office (NSO) is designing a Population Information Management System (PIMS) that will systematically and periodically collect population information throughout the country. The first phase of PIMS will be the implementation of the National e-ID Card System to collect and register all living persons/citizens of PNG. Key sector agencies have also established their information systems, for instance, the Education Management Information System and the Health Management Information System. At the provincial level, the DPLGA has developed and is now engaged in rolling out a Provincial Performance Management and Reporting Tool (PMRT) to report on Minimum Priority Areas. Separately, the DIRD has developed DIMS, currently holdinginformation for 84 of the 89 districts of PNG. Though promising, most of the M&E and information systems outlined above are still at early stages of development and implementation. DIMS, PLSSMA and NEFC are described in more detail later in the paper.Currently, the information systems are not linked and all stand alone with limited integration capabilities.[24]