Archive

This policy brief discusses findings from a case study conducted to illustrate how evidence from an evaluation informed decision- and policymaking of a major
reform, the amendment of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act in Uganda. The evaluation was managed by the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (PPDA) to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation of public procurement. This evaluation sought to address important knowledge gaps in the implementation of the procurement act before it was gazetted. The evaluation findings specifically informed the following provisions in the procurement act:

• Revisions of procurement thresholds for different bidding methods and implementing a system to address these;

• Flexibility for sectors that need specialised procurement roads, electricity and health

• Approval of the solicitor general (SG) was required for all procurement above USh 50 million and this was revised to above USh 200 million; and

• The evaluation has continued to inform how evaluations are conducted in different government MDAs including PPDA.

This learning brief is largely based on the findings of a recently completed tracer study (2020) aimed at better understanding the effectiveness of the capacity strengthening initiatives jointly implemented by CLEAR-AA and Twende Mbele since 2017 including:

■ Training workshops for parliamentarians on monitoring and evaluation for oversight organised with the national chapters of the African Parliamentarians’
Network on Development Evaluation (APNODE) in Benin, Uganda and Tanzania.

■ Training of Trainers (Tot) workshops for potential facilitators of training workshops for parliamentarians and staff on M&E for oversight with the aim of
increasing the cohort of trainers in the different regions to deliver and further develop the oversight monitoring and evaluation course for parliamentarians.

■ The Regional Peer Learning Programme to strengthen evidence use for legislative oversight in African Parliaments implemented in collaboration with key
partner organizations working to strengthen capacity in parliaments. The programme was implemented through a series of peer learning workshops bringing together representatives from 10 parliaments and partner organisations in the East, Southern and West African regions1. The approach included a series of facilitated platforms for representatives to share and learn from each other’s experiences on evidence generation and use.

This policy brief describes the experiences and lessons emerging from the revision of Kenya’s Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (2013) through the use of public participation. The Act was reviewed with a parliamentary body, the Departmental Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (DCENR), playing a direct role in facilitating the public engagement. The Committee was supported by the Parliamentary Research Services (PRS), that played a critical role as a knowledge broker.

After multiple attempts over the course of 16 years, the Act was successfully reviewed and with a strong sense of ownership across a diverse and somewhat fragmented group of stakeholders. However, the shortcomings and challenges in the process are recognised and give rise to a number of lessons for the country in going forward. These include:

• The value and opportunities offered by the direct engagement of Parliament in facilitating public participation
• The significance of the role of the PRS as a knowledge broker
• The importance of good leadership; and
• Ensuring that the necessary resources, including time, budget and skills is critical to successful public engagement

The research highlighted in this policy brief was carried out with, and through the perspective of, policy makers, rather than researchers. It explored how African policy makers, researchers and development practitioners can apply interventions to promote the use of evidence to improve development outcomes and practice. The case study research was guided by a common analytical framework that combines two different frameworks: i) the Science of Using Science’s framework that looks at evidence interventions and outcomes from a behaviour change perspective (Langer et al., 2016) and the Context Matters framework that serves as a tool to better understand contextual factors affecting the use of evidence (Weyrauch et al., 2016). The framework takes into account contextual influencers and the demand from policy makers. It breaks the evidence journey into the ways in which evidence is generated (evaluations, research etc), the interventions taken in order to ensure evidence use (such as training), the changes in capability, motivation or opportunities to use evidence which arise, and how these eventually translate into evidence being used. We take a nuanced view of use, to include instrumental, conceptual, process and symbolic use.