Learner’s Submission: Potential Users of RBME System in Ethipoia


“Currently I am not working for any organization starting from January, 01 2014. So, it is hard for me to answer this question in the way it is presented above. I will use general idea to answer the question. Or use my past organization project without naming the organization. For me the potential users of Results Based Monitoring and Evaluation system in any organization are all stakeholder’s involved in the programme or project.

1. Beneficiaries of the project are the one best benefited from RBME system. If there is good Monitoring and Evaluation system in any organization, resources planned for the project will be delivered for the intended activities. This is through tracking activities routinely whether they are going as planned and identifying gaps. If gaps are identified early, corrective measures will be taken and beneficiaries receive good quality services. Beneficiaries also used the service in timely manner if there is results based monitoring system.

2. Implementing Agency: – Results Based Monitoring and Evaluation system is useful for implementing agency. The result obtained from RBME can reveal how far and we the project is on progress. If there are deviations from initial planning, corrective measures will be taken before it further negatively affects the results that are expected from the project. It also can show the quality of the project staffs. If the staffs have no good quality or expertise in areas of the project, good quality deliverables will not be expected. So, after evaluation knowledge gaps can be identified and capacity building training can be given for staffs.

3. Government Bodies: – RBME system will also useful for government bodies. Policy makers can use to design policy options for real problems existed in community by using the results as input after monitoring and evaluation. They also use it for panning human resource. For instance the project in which I was worked constructed preparatory school at district level. After RBME the education sector planned to deploy teachers for the coming year in which they have no plan to employ teachers.

4. Donors: – Donors use RBME for a number of reasons. The result can show donor agency how well their money is used for the intended activities. They use the best learned for similar project implementing elsewhere. Furthermore, they can use as reason to increase future funds for the implementing agency for project extension or other projects to be implemented in the area. In the same project I worked before, the donor increased the amount of money from 8 million in ETB to 68 million after RBME.

5. Other Agencies: – Other agencies who are working in similar projects can use best earned from the project. The school that is constructed in my past organization has quality and to the standard set by the education sector. So, the government and other nongovernmental organizations who are working on construction can use it as mode.” – Bari Oljira Hunde – Batu, Oromia, Ethiopia

Learner’s Submission: Achievement of the MDGs through Active Participation of NGOs in Serbia


“Active work in the NGO sector, in the past 10 years, gave me competence in the study of mechanisms for citizen involvement in decision-making in the democratic changes in Serbia. I gained my experience within CeSID – Center for free elections and democracy – http://www.cesid.org, which is a non-partisan and non-profit organization, composed of citizens to contribute to the establishment and promotion of democratic values ​​and institutions in Serbia, I worked as a member of many observation missions in Serbia, than Kosovo voter registration, and as an instructor in training observers, which was designed for 2000 elections. CeSID was established primarily in order to organize an impartial observation of elections in Serbia, including media monitoring and research, observation and parallel vote counts, analysis of the electoral process and procedures, training of observers and voters, and turnout campaign in the elections.

Citizen’s participation in public life of the community is considered one of the main prerequisites for the establishment of full democracy and an important mark of quality of life. In transition countries, like Serbia, it is far more important for citizen participation to educate them in order to empower them to comprehend, promote and ‘‘consume’’ citizen’s participation in the decision-making processes.

One of the major concerns of modern democracy, including democracy in Serbia is the alienation of citizens from political processes. In this context, as in many others, civil society is an important element in democratic processes. Civil society offers to the people of Serbia an alternative way, besides the one offered by political parties and lobbies, so that they are able to channel a different view of things and at the same time it provides a diversity of interests in decision-making processes. Increasing awareness should be the foundation of the national policy of Serbia and requires development of formal education (civic education), creating programs for education, particularly the elderly population, through seminars, educational campaigns, internet online free education, social networks and other communication with citizens, and wilder cooperation with the organizational forms of civic activism, such as NGOs.

Non-governmental organizations in Serbia are to support avoiding the existence of passive citizens and to give them the prospect to say what they consider important for the development of local communities. In addition, non-governmental organizations are also noteworthy for the general education of citizens and intensifying their awareness of the importance of their participation in public life, as well as informing them about important issues in the local community.

Besides the legal framework for direct citizen participation, which is presented in the Serbian Constitution, the Law on Local Self-Government Act, the Referendum and Initiative, the Law on Free Access to Information, Statutes of cities and municipalities, NGOs and organized civil society are important contributors development and civic participation, realization of democracy and respect of  human rights.

The contribution of the NGO sector for public participation in decision-making processes is reflected in public advocacy. Triggered issues are related to interests and needs of specific user groups, diverse viewpoints or general public interest, which are not covered by legislation or other policy documents, mechanisms or measures.

Informing and increasing awareness on the Millennium Development Goals, belong compatibly to NGOs and public authorities in order to share information, together with representing members, users and key groups of citizens and more to act as channels through which citizens are accessible, and can respond,  be heard, listened, and informed.

In competence and education, there are experts with knowledge of particular issues who play crucial roles in determining the political agenda. Their analysis and research identified the current and future needs of society and provide important perspectives in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

In innovation, there is the development of new solutions and approaches, along with revealing how they can come in into the political agenda.

In distributing services, they are key players in shaping policy, also in creating alternative services, or those that do not exist for certain groups of users.

On the other hand the responsibility of public services include: sharing information with others, which must be updated, truthful and well-timed information in a format that is accessible to all interested parties.

Develop and follow procedures, which must be transparent decision-making processes, so as to afford clear, open and accessible procedures for participation.

Afford funds that will be empowering the active participation of civil society through, for example: budget allocations, supported in the form of tangible aid and administrative services.

To provide rapid response and active involvement of representatives of relevant public authorities, in order to listen, respond and deliver feedback.

Poverty and low living standards, honestly speaking everywhere, accordingly in Serbia, lead people generally, but then again especially youth, to unenviable position and situation, where they are not able to go on face to face seminars and other courses outside  Serbia. They cannot travel without money. They are also deprived of e-learning, which is very suitable kind of education, and so common in developed countries. I must admit that I belong to privileged minority to have the opportunity to attend oniline trainig course Citizen Engagement and the Millennium Development Goals.” – Dragana Sreckov Djakovic – Novi Sad, Serbia

Learner’s Submission: Introduction to Aboriginals


“520,000 Aboriginal Indigenous Australians, 2.5% of the population, are living mostly in New South Wales and Queensland [1]. AlthoughAustralia is a developed country and MDGs do not target this country, Aboriginals score lower in all of the MDGs targets than their non-aboriginal citizens. For example:

MDG1: In 2006, approximately 45% of all Indigenous people were in the lowest income group [2].

DDG2:39% of indigenous students stayed on to year 12 at high school, compared with 75% for the Australian population as a whole [3].

MDG3: Less than 10 % of Indigenous women have a post-school qualification.Indigenous women sought refuge from family violence at a rate of 45 per 1000 population, compared with 3 per 1000 population of non-Indigenous women.

MDG5:In 2007 18% of Indigenous births were to teenage mothers compared to 3% of non-Indigenous births to teenage mothers.


One of the problems in engaging aboriginal communities is gaining their trust. Over the past decades, many NGOs and government initiatives had started in aboriginal communities. Many of them had been either terminated before time or showed to be ineffective. Aboriginal communities have been continually asked to have their say of different matters, without any results being delivered [4& 5]. The result is a great suspicion among aboriginal communities about new initiatives. The community is left disappointed, exhausted, and frustrated. There is a vibe among Indigenous communities that these initiatives are not worth to get involve in. Building trust is an essential in closing gap in any area including healthcare [6].


Usually NGOs and Government initiatives start an Aboriginal engaging project by specific agenda and timetable and targets. In many case, they conduct a survey or establish a reference group of local representatives and inform them about their agenda and targets. I believe some steps are missing.

Never approach the communities with your own agenda and beliefs. Changeyour mind set. You are there to work with them, not for them. Aboriginal community must feel that is in control of the program. The feeling of self-determination will build trust between community and NGOs and will spark a greater and stronger involvement.

Provide the communities with your facilities and support their efforts. The community should see that the NGO has the capacity and capability. This method may take longer than common form of engagement, but it will have a better chance success.

Establish a community focus group to revise the program performance and change where they suggest. The focus group should include representatives from the community, NGO, and NGO staff who work in the community.” – Javad Jazaeri -Victoria, Australia


  1. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/DDAB99776D7ABDC7CA25762A001CC066?opendocument
  2. http://www.ncca.org.au/departments/natsiec/advocacy/indigenous-pover
  3. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/A03CAD8F1C3F813BCA256E7D00002641
  4. http://www.yapa.org.au/youthwork/facts/aboriginalyoungpeople.php
  5. http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/assets/main/documents/working_with_aboriginal.pdf
  6. http://www.racp.edu.au, Indigenous health and trust – hard to win, easy to lose

%d bloggers like this: