CONCEPTUALIZING AN ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK ... - cgiar

CONCEPTUALIZING AN ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK FOR THE CGIAR A Discussion Paper Prepared for: The CGIAR Donors’ Meeting April 29-30, 2009 Draft prepared by: Steve Rochlin Senior Partner, AccountAbility

1

ABSTRACT CGIAR’s Reform Design process will change the terms of accountability that undergirds the system’s approach to governance and strategy. At a high level, a new “accountability framework” will capture these modified terms of accountability. This discussion paper provides information and guidance to enable participants at the Donors’ Meeting to feed into the design of the accountability framework. The discussion paper presents a “straw-dog” outline for the accountability framework. It proposes that the framework help tie together the various parts of the CGIAR system and enable it to meet strategic opportunities whilst mitigating system-level threats. It proposes the framework align system participants around a clearly articulated vision of excellent performance. The paper then proposes principles of performance excellence against which the framework would hold system participants accountable. BACKGROUND As part of the change management process, the CGIAR has committed to establish an “accountability framework.” This paper is designed to generate discussion that guides the design of the accountability framework. The paper poses questions, suggests “hypotheses,” and provides “straw-dog” outline for the accountability framework. The rest of the paper discusses the following: • What is accountability? • What objectives has the CGIAR set related to accountability as part of the change management process? • What is the purpose of an accountability framework? • What accountabilities would the framework define? • An outline sketch of the accountability framework • What are next steps? WHAT IS ACCOUNTABILITY? For reference figure 1 provides definitions of accountability. Typically accountability focuses on transparency, liability, responsiveness, controllability, and responsibilities dictated to an organisation and its staff by some defined authority. When considering initiatives that are collaboratively formed and governed by multiple parties – each with its own set of accountabilities to unique stakeholders – AccountAbility along with One World Trust (2008), Koppell (2005), and UNDP (2006) find this definition of accountability becomes limited. Figure 1: Definitions of Accountability The processes through which an organisation makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of stakeholders in its decision-making processes and activities, and delivers against this commitment. (One World Trust, “Pathways to

2

Accountability”, 2008, 20) Accountability is a condition in which individuals who exercise power are constrained by external means and by internal norms.” (Chandler and Plano 1988). The means by which individuals and organizations report to a recognized authority (or authorities) and are held responsible for their actions. (Edwards and Hulme, 1996) Key Principles of Accountability • •

Participation, evaluation, transparency and feedback [One World Trust, 2008] Transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility, and responsiveness. [Koppell, 2005] Principles of Mutual Accountability

•

Partner to Partner: Commitment, participation, delegation, representation, exit [AccountAbility, 2008]

WHAT OBJECTIVES HAS THE CGIAR SET RELATED TO ACCOUNTABILITY AS PART OF THE CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS? Several papers and meetings – most recently the March 4, 2009 accountability workshop – have established the need for the CGIAR to enhance its accountability through a variety of mechanisms, summarized as objectives to: • Develop a coherent accountability framework for the new CGIAR that simplifies both management and evaluation and provides clarity on how true accountability will be achieved in the System. • Ensure that best practice accountability principles are present and meet certain minimum standards. • Assist workstreams to be mindful of and understand how they can best build those principles into their work and provide advice and support as necessary. • Support the workstreams to orchestrate dialogue and collaboration amongst each other as needed. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AN ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK? No standard definition or design of an “accountability framework” exists. Therefore it is up to the CGIAR system to specify the best purpose for an accountability framework and then design the framework to meet this purpose.

3

Consider the purpose of the accountability framework as expressed by the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 1: An accountability framework will help tie together the various parts of the CGIAR System and enable it to meet strategic opportunities whilst mitigating system-level threats (such as mission creep, increased complexity and overlap in mandates, stagnating resources and lack of donor coordination amidst a changing landscape in agricultural research). Stated another way, the accountability framework could function to make the CGIAR Reform Design work. To perform this role, one would envision an accountability framework that enables every participant in the CGIAR system as well as key stakeholders to understand: • What the CGIAR seeks to achieve in the medium-to-long term • The major organisational values and principles that will underpin its ability to meet its goals • How the CGIAR will interact with system participants and key stakeholders Figure 2 suggests that this vision ties well with emerging views for the role of accountability mechanisms in global development partnerships and other institutions. Figure 2: The role of accountability in global development partnerships Research conducted by organisations such as AccountAbility, One World Trust, UNDP, and Jonathan Koppell and reinforced at the Accra Summit coalesces around a common view of the role of accountability mechanisms (such as an “accountability framework”) for global development partnerships. AccountAbility summarizes this as the view that an accountability framework must help participants align to deliver a clearly articulated vision of excellent performance. Common elements of excellence include: • specific goals for impact and outcomes • defined strategic pathways to deliver impacts • targets for operational effectiveness and efficiency • elements of formal accountability to laws, funding requirements, and related compliance guidelines • normative considerations of how the initiative builds accountability to and engages with stakeholders (including end-user beneficiaries) among other considerations. From the discussion in figure 2 we propose the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 1a: Basing the accountability framework around a clearly articulated vision of excellent performance will help CGIAR meet both formal and informal performance expectations of its stakeholders.

4

WHAT ACCOUNTABILITIES WOULD THE FRAMEWORK DEFINE? AccountAbility – among other research institutions (see Koppell) – finds that the problem global development partnerships experience is not that they possess too little accountability. Instead, the problem is they possess too much of the wrong kinds of accountability. One typically finds three examples of the wrong kind of accountability: • Burdensome legalistic compliance. This creates too much bureaucracy and a punitive culture that stifles risk-taking and creativity that underpin innovation. • Multiple accountability disorder (Koppell 2005). This creates debilitating competition among stakeholders governing accountability mechanisms and among participants who compete to meet accountabilities to similar stakeholders. • Over-emphasis on the wrong purpose for accountability. AccountAbility finds that it is vital to specify the right priorities for accountability. For example, development partnerships often use mechanisms to demonstrate they are widely accountable to principles of engagement of many voices as an end in itself. In another example, a development partnership becomes too rigidly accountable to the terms of strategy without allowing flexibility for input and guidance. This can create an “accountability trap” (AccountAbility, 2008) where the terms of accountability prevent the development body from making decisions effectively and swiftly. One symptom of a development partnership caught in an accountability trap is an active Secretariat that begins to make decisions on its own without engaging broader governance systems. In this context, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) can behave like a double-edged sword. M&E that reinforce the wrong kinds of accountability distorts every aspect of performance. It helps explain all too familiar cases where global development institutions that possess an agenda to innovate become bogged down with onerous reporting and compliance systems. It helps explain cases of mission creep caused by M&E incentives to increase the size and growth of funding. It explains cases of highly complex, bureaucratic organisational structures caused by compliance with a diverse array of stakeholder M&E requirements. Of course M&E is a sin qua non of high performing organisations. The question therefore is what kind of M&E should the accountability framework help reinforce? M&E designed to support continuous improvement and learning should help strengthen CGIAR’s performance, while also meeting the specific requirements stakeholders possess for the CGIAR. In this regard, it will be useful to embed M&E as one of the guiding principles (or sub-principles) of the accountability framework. These guiding principles should help drive the CGIAR to deliver excellent performance. In this regard, consider the following hypothesis.

5

Hypothesis 2: Building the accountability framework around principles for CGIAR performance excellence will create powerful drivers for the system to deliver excellent performance. AN OUTLINE SKETCH OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK Consider the following “straw-dog” proposal for the CGIAR’s accountability framework. The purpose of the framework would be to define system-wide accountability for principles of performance excellence. The framework would specify major principles, and provide guiding sub-principles that in turn point to potential accountability mechanisms. The accountability framework would apply across the system, and across the main reform elements (figure 3). Each CGIAR element would use the framework to define its own accountability. The framework would work as a standard template that would adjust to suit the element that it applies to. Those individuals leading each element would be responsible to adjust the framework template to their context. There would need to be a body to review and approve customized framework templates. Figure 3: Key system elements developed through the Reform Design Consortium elements Cross-cutting elements Fund elements • The Consortium • 6 Year Strategy and • The Fund Results Framework • Consortium Board • Funders Summit • Mega-Programs • Consortium CEO • Fund Council • Independent Science • Consortium Office • Fund Office & Partnership Council • Centers (and Center • Program Performance Boards) Contracts • Center Performance • System Wide Review Agreements • Performance Management System The Reform Design process has not yet specifically articulated what constitutes performance excellence for the whole system. Starting at a high level, what are the principles of performance excellence participants in the CGIAR system believe it should be held accountable to? Principles can be: • Outcome related. E.g., “CGIAR should be accountable for delivering specific outcomes such as X, Y, and Z.” Outcome-related principles will generally link to strategies and their goals and objectives, and to ambitious impact targets. • Process-related. These principles relate to the kinds of implementation processes that CGIAR believes will necessarily deliver target outcomes. In addition, these principles articulate what CGIAR must do to be in compliance with the expectations of key stakeholders and authorities.

6

•

Normative-related. These principles relate to core values that CGIAR as a system believes it should stand for.

With this in mind, the following presents an accountability framework tied to principles of performance excellence. These principles are derived from a review of recent meetings and related documents produced from the change management process from November, 2008 to the present. Accountability Framework Members, participants, and partners in the CGIAR system will be accountable for: •

Producing high-impact results that: o reinforce the synergy among the elements of the strategic vision and objectives (see figure 4) o effectively support broader “impact pathways” that generate large scale, and grassroots based development results

•

Building processes and management systems that deliver cost-effective: o System-wide ownership and delivery of the high-impact results o System-wide ownership and delivery of the ensuing principles of excellence o Processes to draw on the competencies of the relevant Center and partners to achieve results. o Mechanisms to ensure implementers possess appropriate capacity to deliver results o Strategic planning processes that enable collective design with the Consortium and CGIAR Centres in the lead, but actively supported by partners, independent science and partnership advice, The Fund, and other key stakeholders o Performance contracts that define mutual accountability o Critical performance indicators that release scientists to focus on research while giving them incentives to keep their eye on results o M&E that defines clear indicators to assess the strength of CGIAR’s performance related to these principles of performance excellence o Standards that ensure initiatives maintain:  Simple governance systems  No needless bureaucracy

•

Improving continuously through commitment to: o system-wide evaluation  conducted by independent, credible, and capable “third-parties” 7



o o o

based on indicators that reinforce principles of performance excellence defined in the accountability framework learning innovation communication of  progress towards achieving results  knowledge and knowledge management that supports evaluation, learning, and innovation  stakeholder concerns and priorities

•

Establishing highly participatory processes to engage key stakeholders in efforts to: o Produce high-impact results o build cost-effective processes o improve continuously o ensure key stakeholders are identified and provided voice in  planning activities  feedback and evaluation  two-way communication and reporting o provide open, transparent access to key decisions and information o analyse stakeholder information across national, regional, partners, funders, and others that yields strategic alignment of priorities, risks, and opportunities.

•

Meeting uncompromisingly obligations for fiduciary and legal responsibility o new ‘compact’ between funders and doers will be expressed in performance contracts o the reporting requirements defined by the trustee

•

Building a highly collaborative CGIAR system that: o creates high participant satisfaction through success in partnering to deliver each principle of performance excellence o inspires collective action in line with the Paris Declaration o establishes clear coordination mechanisms (e.g., to allow for plans to implement mega-program through several, diffuse partnerships) o defines the roles of partners clearly o establishes clear enforceable agreements linked to real consequences for all parties o establishes a mutual accountability compact where:  Each system participant commits to support the CGIAR’s vision, objectives, and high-impact targets

8



   

•

Each system participant agrees to participate according to its agreed role in the overall governance and operating systems, and to subject itself to the terms of performance and evaluation defined by the system Each system participant commits to empower the Consortium Board to oversee delivery of strategy (backed by periodic accountability and fine-tuning of direction) Each system participant commits to represent the interests of CGIAR. Each system participant commits to be responsive to the needs of the CGIAR’s intended beneficiaries If a system participant cannot abide by a decision, it agrees to exit the CGIAR system according to contractual terms and in a manner that will not harm or debilitate the CGIAR

Builds a system that empowers its people to: o deliver their best contributions to the CGIAR’s vision and goals o focus the vast majority of their time on innovative and scientific activities o focus a minimum of their time on administration of bureaucratic tasks deemed not related to production of results o build a secure relationship with the CGIAR that allows them to pursue a fulfilling career o ensure opportunities for women and diverse minorities to advance their careers

What would you add, subtract, or change from this list? Figure 4: Vision and Objectives CGIAR Vision: To reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, partnership and leadership. The three Strategic Objectives: Food for People: Create and accelerate sustainable increases in the productivity and production of healthy food by and for the poor. Environment for People: Conserve, enhance and sustainably use natural resources and biodiversity to improve the livelihoods of the poor in response to climate change and other factors. Policies for People: Promote policy and institutional change that will stimulate agricultural growth and equity to benefit the poor, especially rural women and other disadvantaged groups.

9

CGIAR system elements would then be held accountable for taking action to meet the terms of the accountability framework. Figure 4 summarizes key elements. WHAT ARE NEXT STEPS? • • • •

Participants at the April 29-30, 2009 Donors’ Meeting will provide feedback to this document The TMT supported by AccountAbility, will make modifications AccountAbility will conduct interviews with key representatives in the CGIAR system AccountAbility and the TMT will produce a detailed draft of the accountability framework for review.

10