1. Page 1
Proposals for improvement
Regional Development and
RBM:
Implemented by

2. Page 2
Main objective of the mission:
company presentation 201221/01/2015
• To provide support to MRDC in wider improvement/establishment of
integrated RBM system in RD area at the national and regional level,
• taking into consideration:
 international good practices and lessons learned in RBM application
 the specifics of the national M&E system, mechanisms and applied
methods and tools.
Implemented by

3. Page 3
What are RESULTS?
company presentation 201221/01/2015
• “results” are defined by GIZ as:
“changes in a situation or in behaviour that occur
due to an intervention”
Implemented by

4. Page 4
GIZ results model:
RD M&E: Proposals21/01/2015
Implemented by

5. Page 5
Things to keep in mind (1):
company presentation 201221/01/2015
• “Results should reflect not just what will change but who will benefit;
• Measurable results indicators need to be developed with baselines,
target values and appropriate milestones;
• Robust data is needed to measure indicators, so thought needs to
be given as to where this will come from, and how frequently it will be
available;
• Data should be disaggregated by sex where possible;
• RBM can be costly so the available human and financial resources
need to be taken into account;
Implemented by

6. Page 6
Things to keep in mind (2):
• Risks for the model need to be formulated and a framework for
monitoring and managing these risks needs to be developed;
• The reporting and feedback loop into management, steering, and
knowledge managment needs careful consideration;
• The management structure and responsibilities for the various
monitoring activities need to be agreed and set out in the monitoring
plan.
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

7. Page 7
What guidance is there at present from the State
Chancellery?
• The State Chancellery wants to introduce a results focus across
government
• There is not yet a final framework for this although they have two
“guidelines” (on ex-ante impact analysis and ex-post evaluation of public
policies)
• Also Government Decision 33 which says public policies need to have
an M&E chapter check
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

8. Page 8
What do these guidelines say with respect to
results?
The ex-ante impact analysis says that:
• public policies need “measurable objectives” ie “Increasing literacy
by 5% by 2020”
• There should be four levels of indicator:
• input indicators (money for school buildings)
• output indicators (building schools)
• public policy outcome indicators (increased school enrolment),
• impact indicators (increased literacy)
Nb impact indicators should so whether general objectives have been
achieved
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

9. Page 9
What do these guidelines say with respect to
evaluation?
The ex-post guidelines say that:
• Evaluation of completed strategies should be undertaken (like sector
development strategies)
• They should look at the actual results
• The aim is to draw conclusions that can be applied to future policy
• The guidelines lay out the methodology to be applied
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

10. Page 10
National Strategy for Regional Development – is it
results focused?
Not really…
• Some NSRD objectives are not results, like “improve the legal and
regulatory framework” or “consolidate capacities of regional
development institutions”.
• There is no indicator framework to monitor progress against several
of the objectives (like the one set out in the guidelines)
• A few do have quantified targets, but they do not directly relate to the
objective.
• There are no annual milestones or identification of risks.
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

11. Page 11
How could the results focus of the NSRD be
improved?
• Evaluate the current NSRD (and RDSs) before work on the new
strategy begins and draw conclusions for the new NSRD;
• Set up a framework and process to develop the new NSRD
• Clarify the relationship between the NSRD and the RDSs
• Develop a results model ie indicators framework for the strategy,
aligned with the vision
• Identify data gaps for monitoring the NSRD and communicate data
needs to the NBS
• Identifying risks and formulate mitigation strategies; and,
• Develop system of monitoring, evaluation, and reporting against the
new results framework
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

12. Page 12
Regional Development Strategies: are they results-
focused?
• Not easy to monitor and evaluate the RDSs with respect to “results”
• Priorities are not all phrased as results ie “private sector development
support” is not a result statement.
• Although each priority has a number of supporting “measures”, not all of
these are expressed as results eg “provision of business advisory
services and field consulting”
• The RDSs do not include time-bound measurable indicators with
baselines, milestones and targets for priorities or measures (ie like the
guidelines suggest).
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

13. Page 13
How could the results focus of the RDSs be
improved (1) ?
• Evaluate the RDSs (with the NSRD) before new strategies developed;
• Think through what the scope of the RDS will be and their links to the
NSRD;
• Develop guidelines on how the RDSs should be developed, including a
general approach to introducing RBM (consistent with the SC guidelines
and with training for RDA staff);
• Develop a clear set of results with measurable indicators;
• Engage with the NBS so that they can provide indicators that are
currently missing;
• Integrate regional sector programmes and their results fully into the new
RDSs.
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

14. Page 14
How good is the results focus in NFRD projects?
Current system is quite good
• There are sector specific indicators are standardised, they can be
aggregated by the MRDC to summarise the impact of projects
• The MRDC has a project monitoring system that is operational and does
provide timely information on project financing, progress with
implementation, and the status of agreed indicators.
• The system is well-understood by RDA staff and forms and templates
are available
• RDAs do submit regular project reports to the MRDC.
• MRDC does regularly evaluate projects
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

15. Page 15
What are the weaknesses in the results focus of
NFRD projects?
• Quality of the logframes is mixed
• Project level indicators are not very results focussed ie is not easy to
see what has changed as a result of the investment ie the indicators
are often at output rather than the result level.
• Baselines and targets for the indicators are sometimes missing
• Link between the project indicators and the RDS indicators is not clear.
• There is no system for managing risks with respect to the project
achieving its results.
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

16. Page 16
How could the results focus of projects be
improved?
• Review project logframe format and list of standardised project
indicators and/or clarify the measuring methodology
• RDAs need to ensure that each new project has a better logframe with a
complete set of indicators
• There should be better quality control of the logframes at the RDAs and
logframe training for RDA staff (should be “signed off”)
• Review quality of reporting against these indicators ie more analytical
• A short guideline or manual on logframe preparation should be
produced
• Improve quality of evaluation
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

17. Page 17
How could the evaluation system be improved?
• Making budgetary provision for evaluations;
• Hiring of at least one external evaluator to join the MRDC team;
• For larger projects, the evaluation could be contracted out to an
external organisation;
• For larger projects, the use of low-cost qualitative surveys to gain
insights from beneficiaries would significantly add to the findings of the
evaluations; and,
• A review of the logframe indicators and achievement of targets as
part of the evaluation. Although this is included in the project
completion report, it should be verified in the evaluation report.
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

18. Page 18
STATE CHANCELLERY PRESENTATION
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

19. Page 19
Next steps?
• Evaluation of the NSRD and RDS: which approach we would like to
apply? (Who? When? What? How?)
• Development of the new NSRD: how should we approach this?
• Development of the new RDS: how should we approach this?
• RBM and RD Projects: what support is required in this sense at MRDC
and RDA levels, respectively?
• Regional statistics: how we are going to identify the data needs (in
relation to NSRD, RDS, RSPs) and communicate them to NBS?
Type presentation title here21/01/2015
Implemented by

20. Page 20XXX21/01/2015
As a federal enterprise, GIZ supports the German Government in
achieving its objectives in the field of international cooperation for
sustainable development.
Published by
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered offices, Bonn and Eschborn, Germany
‘Modernization of Local Public Services in th Republic of Moldova’
Project
Chișinău, 66 Bernardazzi str
T + 373 22 22-83-19
F + 373 22 00-02-38
I www.giz.de, www.serviciilocale.md
Author(s)
Martin Rimmer, International Expert
Angela Dumitrasco, RBM National Consultant
Project cofinanced by
Implemented by
In cooperation with