Archive

Representatives from Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, The East African Legislative Assembly, South Africa, Malawi, and Ghana have called for improved research and evidence use in African Parliaments. They were hosted by the Parliament of Uganda for a workshop on research and evidence use in the Parliament Context.

In June 2007, the President of Benin, in an effort to make the Government’s interventions effective to the benefit of the population, awarded the public action evaluation mission to the Ministry of Forecasting, Development and Evaluation. of Public Action (MPDEAP), which became the Ministry of Forecasting, Development, Evaluation of Public Policies and Coordination of Government Action (MPDEPP-CAG) in June 2009. While the MPDEPP- CAG has become the Ministry of Development, Economic Analysis and Prospective (MDAEP), the evaluation of public policies is now the remit of the Primature (Prime Minister’s office). Development of evaluative practice in Benin has been recognized as a necessity by all stakeholders in the development process, the Government intends to develop in coherence with the continuation of the reform of results-based management, a genuine national system of development, evaluation that will help improve public action and strengthen the evaluation culture within the Public Administration. The present national evaluation policy constitutes a unifying tool for the realization of this ambition.

Teams of national experts were commissioned in Benin, Uganda and South Africa to carry out a country diagnostic of the gender responsiveness of National Monitoring and evaluation system which aims to:

(i) Use the AGDEN gender diagnostic tool to review National Monitoring and Evaluation System (NMES) including : a) the National M&E policy, b) institutional arrangements and capacities, and c) processes and procedures;

(ii)Identify potential barriers and enablers to having a well-functioning gender responsive M&E system at the country level

(iii)Identifying and developing concrete strategies (or recommendations) to strengthen the gender responsiveness of country’s Monitoring and Evaluation system.

Although progress has been made by governments to drive change by fostering gender equality and the rights of women, the extent of gender responsiveness of national monitoring and evaluation systems is still a subject of investigation. It is against this background that the study seeks to:

(i) Review Uganda’s National Evaluation system;

(ii) Use the AGDEN diagnostic tool to review a) broad National M&E policy, b) Institutional Arrangements and Capacities, and c) Processes and Procedures ; 

(iii) Identified potential barriers and enablers to having a well-functioning gender responsive M&E system; 

(iv) Identifying and developing concrete strategies (or recommendations) for strengthening Uganda country’s system. 

The study used mixed methods mainly involving four steps. 

• Step 1 involved review of status reports, policies and strategies related to Uganda national monitoring and evaluation system. 
• Step 2 was the stakeholders’ consultations that were guided by AGDEN diagnostic tools. The respondents were mostly representatives from Prime Minister’s Office, line ministries; gender related government offices, CSOs / Champions as well as donor community. 
• Step 3 was the processing and analysis of collected data using content analysis; while step 4 was the drafting of the report which was done in close support from AGDEN focal supervisor. 

Despite a legal and institutional framework favorable to the promotion of gender equality, gender mainstreaming in Benin’s monitoring and evaluation system remains room for improvement in many respects. The national evaluation policy adopted in 2012 makes almost no provision for integrating gender equality issues in the evaluation of national public policies. However, efforts are made by the actors of the national monitoring and evaluation system for the integration of gender issues in national evaluations, even if this is not systematic and generalized to all sectors. The lack of a regulatory framework and binding guidelines.