1

An Introduction to a Social Accountability Monitoring

Framework

Budapest

23-25 March 2010

Presented by: Gertrude Mugizi

2

Who is the Centre for Social Accountability?

An affiliated institution of Rhodes University in South Africa. Comprising 3 main programmatic areas.

Monitoring and Applied Research on social accountability monitoring in the Easter Cape Province (Public Service Accountability Monitor-PSAM)

Training of civic actors and oversight bodies on social accountability tools within SADC Region.

Integration of social accountability into the academic curriculum of Rhodes University (still in nascent stage) and potentially elsewhere in the SADC region.

Websites: www.icount.org.za and www.psam.org.za.

3

Today we will talk about…

Accountability and Human Rights

The difference between human rights & human capabilities

The role of the state in realising human rights and capabilities

The role of civic actors in ensuring that the state acts as a social accountability system

The use of social accountability monitoring to strengthen country-level advocacy including a case study on how a group of community-level civic actors

have begun to use this approach to address advocacy issues at that level.

4

The UN Human Rights Framework

The UN defines a human right as:

‘a universal legal guarantee protecting individuals and groups against actions and omissions that interfere with fundamental freedoms, entitlements and human dignity’

The UN framework guarantees the following rights to all human beings: Life, liberty and security Freedom of association, expression, assembly & movement The highest attainable standard of health Adequate food, housing and social security Education Equal protection of the law Freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment Freedom of thought, conscience and religion The right to vote & participate in public affairs

5

Characteristics of Human Rights

Universal – all human beings can claim them by virtue of being human Assert inherent dignity & equality of all human beings All rights equally important – therefore indivisible & interdependent Cannot be ‘given up’ by holders, or taken away Bestow entitlements on rights-holders and impose obligations on duty-

bearers Guaranteed and protected by international law

6

The 7 ‘Core’ UN International Human Rights Treaties

N

7

ICESCR – ratified by 152 states

Commits signatories to the progressive realisation within available resources of the rights to:

Health Education Social security Adequate standard of living (food, clothing, housing) Continuous improvement of living conditions

8

The UN’s Rights-based approach to governance & development

Views rights contained in international treaties & declarations as legally enforceable entitlements, includes civil, political and socio-economic rights

Uses human rights as set of performance standards to hold state & other duty-bearers accountable

Focuses is on obligations of states to establish necessary legislative, administrative and institutional mechanisms to give effect to international framework

Enables range of bodies to monitor the accountability of duty-bearers in meeting their obligations

Limitation - no right to social accountability & no systematic methodology to monitor the accountability of duty-bearers in progressively meeting their obligations (particularly at sub-national level)

9

Difference between Human Rights and Human Capabilities

Having a right does not translate into having the capacity to use it

Example – right to health versus access to healthcare

By emphasising the ability of people to exercise capabilities, the focus shifts to the local context

Are social institutions, political and state processes designed in such a way as to enable the exercise of capabilities?

Have states put in place the necessary legislative, administrative and institutional mechanisms to give effect to the UN human rights framework?

10

The Role of the Democratic State

The State is a system for allocation of entitlements – must ensure the accountable use of public resources in ways that enable people to realise their rights & capabilities

Must act as a mechanism to ensure:

Efficient collection & distribution of public resources Public & private service providers justify their performance in

managing public resources Progressive realisation of all rights & capabilities Corrective action where resources ineffectively used or abused Participation of civic actors on basis of right to social accountability

11

The Right to Social Accountability

All persons have a fundamental right to obtain explanations and justifications for: the allocation and use of public resources from duty-bearers entrusted with

responsibility for these resources, (whether intergovernmental institutions, government officials or private service providers) and

the performance of duty-bearers in progressively realising the human rights of those they serve.

‘Conversely, duty-bearers have a duty to: provide justifications regarding their decisions and performance and to take corrective action in instances where public resources have not been used

effectively to realise human rights and capabilities to prevent this from happening again.

1212

Rights-based approach to service delivery

Citizens are not passive users of public services They are active holders of fundamental rights Obligation on states to effectively deliver public services

which progressively realise people’s rights Failure to deliver services is a violation of these human

rights In order to deliver services efficiently and effectively

states must transform into a social accountability system.

1313

What do states need to be able to realise people’s socio-economic rights?

Act as an efficient public resource management framework Made up of 5 key processes:

1. Resource Allocation and Strategic Planning2. Expenditure Management3. Performance Management4. Public Integrity Management5. Oversight

Documents must be produced for each process to work Rigorous and detailed documents enable public managers to effectively manage

public resources Justify their performance using these documents

If documents not produced, or are of poor quality, then public officials unable to effectively manage public resources or to deliver the public services necessary to realise socio-economic rights

14

The State as Social Acc. System

1515

Public Resource Management Framework

Process 1: Planning and Resource Allocation Identify what resources are available for service delivery Draw up detailed strategic plans

Respond progressively to pressing social and economic needs Plans must be costed and adjusted to final allocations

Final budget and plan approved by the Legislature Management documents:

Draft budgets (or pre-budget statement) Strategic plans Contracts with outsourced service providers Service level agreements Infrastructure and maintenance plans Detailed budget policy statements Estimates of revenue and expenditure Detailed final budgets

1616

Public Resource Management Framework

Process 2: Expenditure management Supreme Audit Institution reports on financial statements

Process 3: Performance management Monitor and report on performance in implementing

strategic plans Performance agreements must be signed by all staff

(based on strategic plan outputs) Management documents:

Annual performance reports Supreme Audit Institution reports (including financial and

performance audits)

1717

Public Resource Management FrameworkProcess 4: Public integrity management Systems to track ineffective use and abuse of resources and potential

conflicts of interest Prompt corrective action in response to breaches of the regulatory

framework Management documents:

Supreme Audit Institution reports Reports on corrective action in response to cases of misconduct and incapacity Registers of private interests

Process 5: Oversight Rigorous and independent audits of financial and performance management Legislature recommendations to improve service delivery

Scrutinise annual reports and Supreme Audit Institution audit findings Management documents:

Supreme Audit Institution reports Oversight committee minutes

1818

How can civic actors strengthen the Social Accountability System?

Demand for social accountability is necessary for supply Who should demand?

Civic actors, Constitutional Oversight Bodies and Supreme Audit Institutions What should they demand?

Justifications, explanations and corrective action In each process

Weak or ineffective demand: Ineffective implementation of 5 social accountability processes One weak process = weak system

Failure to deliver services Failure to be held accountable

19

Monitoring the processes of the SAc System: Tools & Information

20

Three approaches used by civic actors to strengthening the State

1. Policy Monitoring & Analysis - focus on policies, constitutional, legislative, regulatory & institutional provisions Advocacy strategy – civic networking and direct lobbying of policy-makers

2. Monitoring Social Accountability Processes – focus on implementation of five processes making up the social accountability system Advocacy strategy – civic networking & high profile media, engagement with public officials & service providers

3. Local Needs Analysis & Social Auditing – focus on analysis of needs at community, constituency or local level and verification of promised outputs and delivery of goods & services Advocacy strategy – public hearings, direct engagement with political representatives, project managers & local officials

2121

Example: Malaria

Right to Health1. Determine people’s specific needs in relation to malaria control by

facilitating a needs analysis or evaluate the effectiveness of current malaria control initiatives with communities by facilitating a social audit – social audit & needs analysis

2. Analyse laws and policies relating to malaria prevention/treatment and where necessary advocate for amendment. – policy monitoring & analysis

3. Track malaria interventions through the five processes of the public resource management framework and advocate for the improvement of budgets and plans, as well as expenditure and performance management and analyse emerging issues. Demand corrective action on systemic issues not only to address the current problem but to also ensure that it does not reoccur. – social accountability monitoring

4. Demand that legal/disciplinary action be taken against public officials who misuse their powers and advocate for improved oversight of health care delivery. – social accountability monitoring

2222

Monitoring Resource Allocation for malaria control

The Budget is an important management document Should guide strategic planning for the realisation of the right to health Should also be publicly available

After analysing the draft budget, civic actors can demand justifications for the way in which resources were allocated, thus giving effect to the right to social accountability.

Where budgets lack relevant detail, civic actors can conduct advocacy demanding that such detail is included in the final budget and in future draft budgets.

By analysing the draft budget, civic actors are also able to engage in the resource allocation process, making evidence-based recommendations for how resource allocations to malaria control can be improved.

Where draft budgets are unavailable, civic actors can analyse previous budgets and expenditure reports to conduct evidence-based advocacy on future Budgets.

23

In summary

Three key elements of CSA’s social accountability model:

1. Defines Social Accountability as a fundamental human right

2. Defines the state as a Social Accountability System

3. Identifies three complimentary approaches to strengthening the state

4. Demonstrates how civic actors can use this approach to achieve their advocacy objectives

24

Case Study: Mwaloni Fish Market

Association – Mwanza, Tanzania

25

Background

In September 2008, Mwanza City Council raise the Fish Market Levy by 100%

The Mwaloni Fish Market Association was unhappy about this, not only because of the size of the increase but also because of the sanitation problems at the Fish Market that were not being addressed despite regular tax increases.

There had been no prior consultation with the relevant stakeholders to explain the reasoning behind the increase.

The Fish Market Association was not an invited member of the CSO group that regularly participated in the participatory planning and budgeting process within the Council and were therefore unaware of the potential increase until the decision was announced.

26

Opportunity

The Fish Market Association was a member of Mwanza Policy Initiative (MPI), a regional network that conducted social accountability monitoring with technical support from a national governance network, Policy Forum.

The Association raised problem as an area of focus for MPI’s Social Accountability Monitoring and this was taken on by the network.

They began by monitoring Process 1 - resource allocation and strategic planning.

Planning and budgeting documents were collected from the Council and were obtain after considerable follow-up and analysis of the documents was undertaken by MPI and Policy Forum.

While the analysis was generic, the Fish Market Association was able to extract the following relevant information.

27

Revenue allocation – All sources of funding

28

Actual revenue collection 2006/07

29

Actual revenue collection 2007/08Own Source Funding

30

Spending Allocations for Own Source Revenue - Mwanza City Council 2007/08

31

Light Bulb Moment! When the Fish Market Association realised how

substantial their contribution they became much more proactive in claiming their rights.

They demanded to be invited to participate in planning. They discovered that what they were paying was

significantly more than what the Council claimed to collect. They questioned the collection methods used by the Council.

They demanded justifications and explanations for where their taxes were going and why their needs were not being met.

They initiated a civil disobedience action and refused to pay any more taxes until the Council met with them to negotiate an acceptable way forward.

32

The Outcome

After some unrest and a significant loss of revenue (according to the Council), the Council and the Association managed to negotiate a compromise.

The levies reverted to the previous rates prior to the increase.

The Council promised to investigate into more efficient modes of tax collection

The Council Annual Plan 2009/10 has incorporated an allocation to improve the water and sanitation system at the fish market.

33

Lessons learnt There is strength in numbers. Don’t expect a positive result to come

easily or immediately. Change is often subtle and civic actors must build in a strategy to monitor for evidence of this change.

Make use of the different types of expertise.

It is rare that a service delivery problem is solved through one process or solely by addressing one level of government.

Real change comes from consistent and progressively knowledgeable monitoring and advocacy that is evidence based.

Monitoring is most effective when information is used at the point where it is collected to solve local problems.

34

Application to my context

35

Applying the Social Accountability Model

In your assigned groups, complete the Application to My Country exercise on the handout you were given for Process 1: Resource Allocation and Strategic Planning.

Use your analysis to answer the following: To what extent, if at all, is social accountability monitoring

relevant to the work of your organisation?

You may use the analysis tool developed for Tanzania to guide you through the social accountability cycle

36

Thank you!

Questions???