1. 1 UNDP’s Programme on Country- Led Governance Assessments John Samuel UNDP Oslo Governance Centre

2. 908886 82 84969800020492940678 76 1974 Global governance indicators 08 80 CPIA Freedom in the World Commitment to Development Bertelsmann Transformation Index Global Accountability Report Index of Economic Freedom Journalists killed Open Budget Index Polity International Country Risk Guide Corruption Perceptions Index Opacity Index Integrity Index Human Rights Indicators Bribe Payers Index GAPS in Workers’ Rights BEEPS Press Freedom Survey Political Terror Scale Global Competitiveness Index World Governance Assessment World Values Survey State Failure Dataset Weberian Comparative State Project CIRI Human Rights Databse Women in Parliament Governance Matters Gender Empowerment Measure Index of Democracy World Democracy Audit Countries at the Crossroads Failed States Index Press Freedom Index Democracy Index Institutional Profiles Database Governance and Democracy Processes Global Peace Index

3. Plethora of governance indicators used by: governments development agencies/Donors civil society media academic institutions private sector Indicators used for: policy decisions,aid allocation Advocacy research business investment Who Measures Governance and For What Purposes?

4. Global Programme on Governance Assessments 1.Enhance national ownership of governance assessments through multi- stakeholder approaches 2.Support capacity development (including training) for defining, selecting and using governance indicators 3.Increase the policy relevancy of governance indicators (disaggregation) 4.Produce research and knowledge products 5.Establish and maintain a high quality and dynamic depository (portal) of knowledge on governance indicators and governance assessment for access and use by national and international organisations 6.Raise understanding and build support amongst partners for nationally driven governance assessment and measurement initiatives.

5. Principles of Democratic Governance Assessments 1)Agency- and ownership: Who owns the process is important 2)Context specific approach: Priorities, methodology and choice of indicators 3)Multi-stakeholder process 4)Capacity development at the national and local levels 5)Alignment with national policy process and development plans 6)Balance between supply-side( government) and demand-side ( Citizens) 7)Participation of citizens and civil society in the process

6. 6 What are “country-led assessments”? Undertaken by a country on its own initiative Can be initiated by government, civil society, research institutes Range in focus (comprehensive or sectoral) Active participation of state and non-state actors Results feed into policy-making processes

7. Represents a shift in thinking from: –Other assessment to self-assessment Accountability to donors to accountability to citizens Cross-country comparison to a national measure of progress over time Alignment to international measuring needs, to alignment to national policy processes, political issues and country context Using international consultants to being led by national stakeholders and researchers (country-led) –A management tool to being a citizens’ tool A technocratic approach to an approach of political mobilization A focus on measuring government efficiency to a focus on measuring empowerment of citizens Actionable indicators to action-oriented

8. Key steps in conducting a country-led governance assessment Identify key stakeholders Establish a steering committee Identify national institution or civil society organisation as ‘coordinator’ Conduct multi- stakeholder dialogue on governance priorities Raise funds Decide on sampling Decide on indicators Decide on assessment framework Decide on who will do the research Select type of assessment Decide on how to collect data Analyse results Disseminate results Conduct multi- stakeholder consultation Develop policy recommen dations Implement policy reform or advocate for reform Institutionalize the assessment and repeat at regular intervals

9. 9 Ten features of an effective country-led governance assessment 1. Alignment to national political priorities and processes 2. Assessment is country contextualized 3. Methodology is rigorous 4. Selection of indicators is transparent and participatory 5. Results are stored in a public national database 6. Indicators are pro-poor and gender-sensitive 7. Capacity of national stakeholders is developed 8. Cost-effective and timely 9. The results are widely communicated 10. The assessment is repeated UNESCO/Loock F.

10. National governance assessment framework Data collection and sharing What data exists (official vs other)? What data is needed (disaggregation etc)? Can data be shared – interoperable / connecting databases What are the capacity needs esp. the NSO and the bureaucracy? (information systems, resources) Development of indicators and indicator systems Is a survey of existing indicators needed? Qualitative mapping Competing indicators (CSOs vs official indicator system)? Is a rationalisation needed? Are they good i.e. useful and meaningful or bad indicators? (Users Guide) Are they pro-poor, gender sensitive, rights based – what is the framework? What is the method for producing indicators? CSO engagement? Ownership Indicator usage Are indicators being used by policy makers to inform policy? What kind of training / capacity development is needed? Is a survey of ‘indicator usage’ needed? Can / are the indicators being used to track reform over time?

11. Increasing uptake Need to improve dialogue Improving “usability” of evidence Reliable and trustworthy evidence Getting appropriate Buy-in Incentives to use evidence Effective dissemination Wide Access Data Users Policy Makers Parliament Political Parties Civil society Data Producers Statisticians Officials Researchers

12. 12 Follow-up to ICNRD (2003): establish mechanism to monitor progress of democratic development Requested support from UNDP Adapted IDEA’s State of Democracy assessment framework Led by national team of researchers; national consultations throughout Quantitative sources: national survey; MP survey; expert survey; admin stats Qualitative sources: focus groups discussions, ‘free dialogues’, narratives Elicited views of 1200 citizens + + Core (117) vs. satellite indicators (14) Results presented & debated at national conference Nat’l Plan of Action to Consolidate Democracy Mongolia’s experience

13. 2005: Parliament adopted “MDG 9” on Democratic Governance, Human Rights & Zero-Tolerance to Corruption (to facilitate institutionalization of DG assessments) Phase 2: Refining 131 DGIs into a more ‘manageable’ set for annual reporting on MDG 9 to Parliament Consultations btw govt & parliament, NGOs, NSO Public survey component institutionalized via periodic household survey implemented by NSO Advocacy: “Network of NGOs in support of MDG 9” (20 NGOs on gender & assistance to vulnerable groups) Phase 3: Piloting of sector-specific DG assessment tools (mining, education) Mongolia’s experience

14. MDG 9 indicators Table: MDG 9 Goal – targets, indicators and responsible agencies TargetIndicatorsResponsible agency Target 22: Fully respect and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ensure the freedom of media, and provide the public with free access to information 1. Human Development IndexUNDP 2. Expert evaluation of conformity of Mongolian laws and regulations with international human rights treaties and conventions NHRCM 3. Percentage of implementation/enforcement of judicial decisionsMOJHA 4. Number of attorneys that provide services to poor citizensMOJHA 5. Public perception of political, economic, and financial independence of mass media NSO 6. Number of state organizations that regularly place reports of their budgets and expenditures on their websites MOF Target 23: Mainstream democratic principles and practices into life 1. Public perception of activities of state organizationsNSO 2. Number of civil society organizations that have officially participated and expressed their views in the process of developing and approving the state budget MOF 3. Percentage of voters that have participated in nominating governors of soums and baghs Cabinet Secretariat Target 24: Develop a zero-tolerance environment to corruption in all spheres of society 1. Index of corruptionIAAC 2. Perception of corruption in political organizations, judicial and law enforcement institutions IAAC 3. Public perception of corruption in public administration and public servicesNSO

15. M&E mechanism for MDG 9 indicators

16. www.gaportal.or g