Best Practice Report

Index

Monitoring and evaluation / Institutional arrangements / Roles and responsibilities
3.1.

Roles and responsibilities

Greening economies often involves addressing issues which cut across different departmental mandates and jurisdictions. Whether centralized or decentralized, ensuring co-ordination and alignment requires particular clarity on the roles and responsibilities within the M&E framework (Morra-Imas and Rist, 2009; Casas et al., 2012; and Lopez Acevedo et al., 2012). All actors need to know whom to go to for what types of information.

Clear roles and responsibilities can assist in sharing the burden of implementation (Lopez-Acevedo et al., 2012). The Kenyan MRV+ system, although still in its design phase, has outlined clear reporting lines and responsibilities in great detail (Republic of Kenya, 2012). The Australian National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Scheme, which commenced from 1 July 2008, replaced a patchwork of voluntary industry surveys and programs with a set of mandatory reporting requirements under the Clean Energy Regulator (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, 2012; ANAO, 2013).

The institution in charge of M&E for green growth needs to have influence, authority and capacity. For example, South Africa’s government-wide monitoring and evaluation system is implemented by the Ministry of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, and makes quarterly reports to the President. Through this process, it was highlighted that R&D investment targets were being repeatedly missed, forcing the Minister to take action to rectify problems in management. This example suggests that operating M&E systems out of a central agency or office with decision-making authority and from a position of limited operational involvement can be an effective approach.