Focus Areas - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Focus Areas

Mainstreaming SAc in public sector

Environment

Extractive industries

Health

Education

Infrastructure

Social welfareSlide2

MCG member

GOVERNMENT

(Specific Government Agencies on

Envt

., EI, etc.)

MCG

Citizen Groups/MCG members

Citizen Groups

Planning

Budgeting

Exp. Mgt.

Performance Assessment

PUBLIC SECTOR

Environment, EI, Health, Education, Infrastructure, Social Welfare

Develop tools for monitoring

Build the capacity of CGs

Approach: Focus on a specific program or activity per sector per year

Output: An evaluation of specific public sector using scoring – To what extent is SAc practicedSlide3

Public sector

SAc in public service delivery

Monitoring how revenues from EI are used for public service delivery (planning, budgeting, expenditure management, performance/scoring)

Scoring toolSlide4

STRENGTHS

Committed and active

members of CG

CG got organized by law

CG has 3 research orgs (as members)CG

multistakeholder representation: research, EI, health, education, PM, budgetNetwork is well-organized

There are good practices among NGOs

Good capacity of CG to convey SAc messages in the education sector

Good exchange of information thru networks

Network has lots of experience in procurement and budget monitoringParticipation-based action/activity

Champion in health sector (Ualmbayar

from CDHU)Opportunity to engage with govt

thru DemoTechnical & funding support from ANSAConducting SAc mapping study in a participative way

WEAKNESSESGaps in SAc knowledge and information

SAc not clearly defined

Lack of awareness on SAc in other countries

Lack of fundingLack of tools on awareness raising and advocacy of SAc (simple but informative)

Some NGOs lack the capacity and the resources, including technical capacity

Currently no strategic planNo concrete, tangible workNot good understanding between NGOs and

govt at the grassroots level, but good at national level (threat?)

Some problems among NGOs/networks with regards to not taking responsibilities, e.g. time/delaysFeedback and followup

from members are weakSlide5

OPPORTUNITIES

Majority of citizens support

democracy and its values

Representative democracy

There is basic fundamental laws, e.g. constitution

Good cooperation between NGOs/CSOs at grassroots and provincial level

Existing situation livelihood situation as an opportunity to organize community groupsProjects for the implementation of MDG

Govt promised commitment to join international treaties and other commitmentsCS Council engage the govt

towards open hearing (but nothing to do with govt – but transition towards democracy)

Other networks operating aside from MCGOpportunity to learn best practices from other countriesInternational orgs interested to support CSOs

Good literacy levelSome SAc initiatives can be funded by

govtTHREATS

Tendency to look up to the govt

People have welfare orientation/mindLower capacity of taking responsibility at the individual

and institutional levelsWeak human rights education

Govt and citizens do not have clear understanding of SAcGovernance issues, e.g. highly centralized, corruption

Duties of govt public officers re SAc is unclear

Govt

workers working with community: their duties need to be clarified, esp referring to SAc dutiesNo budget allocation for SAc activities

No clear tools and mechanisms of SAc

Unclear govt structures to accommodate SAc

Government’s lack of capacity to evaluate programs and projectsLimited access to information

Weak sharing of SAc experiences from other countries (e.g. study tours, field visits, etc)Slide6

MISSION

Creating the mechanism that facilitates citizens’ engagement, advocacy, monitoring and evaluation to mainstream SAc in governance

VISION

Citizen monitors/oversight – accountable governance

SAc network expanded at the national level

The foundation for the enabling envt. for SAc established

Evaluation mechanism on SAc developed and implementedSlide7

SAc network expanded and capacitated at the national level

By 2010, the capacity bldg training for network members will have been conducted 2 to 3 times

By 2010, the network members will have studied the experiences and best practices of other ANSA member countries (study tours, workshops, experience-sharing trips)

By 2012, the branches of the network shall have been established in 3 provinces.

By 2013, capacity bldg training shall have been conducted 3X in rural areas.By 2013, the database of the SAc shall have been created.Slide8

The foundation for the enabling policy environment for SAc is advocated

By the end of 2010, the legal

envt

for SAc will have been identified and assessed. (the data will mainly come from the SAc mapping exercise)

By the end of 2011, the negotiations for creating favorable legal envt shall be reached based on the cooperation of all stakeholders. (includes govt, donor agencies, etc.)By the end of 2012, the network will have participated in the working group to develop the draft on administrative procedure law to be submitted to parliament for approval.Slide9

Evaluation mechanism on SAc developed and implemented

By 2010, SAc criteria and tools and shall have been developed, revised and approved. (who will approve? – MCG with ANSA assistance)

MCG’s unique criteria – in the long run, involve the

govt

By 2011, 2 to 3 govt agencies shall have been selected and evaluated in terms of SAc according to the criteria (to be discussed by the public) – piloting and benchmarkingBy 2012, 5 to 6 focus areas shall have been selected and monitored on SAc practices on an ongoing basis throughout the year.

(election year – a potential risk?)Social accountability index of Mongolia’s govt agencies shall be produced and publicized. (SAc has 2 actors, govt and CGs. Index to assess performance of the 2 actors, not only govt

– but here the priority for assessment will be govt.) – focus on govt responsiveness also maybe access to information