Reading time: 5 min
The debate on a new Danish development policy strategy is underway. In Globalnyt on 24 March, Malene Sønderskov and Dorthe Skovgaard Mortensen constructively shared their thoughts on the need for an update to the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of complex development programmes. They highlighted that Danish organisations, their partners and financial donors need to be more open to unplanned results and focus more on learning. A one-sided focus on quantitative indicators oversimplifies our understanding of what works and why.
In line with the principle of community-led development, they emphasised that we must involve the people who are part of the intervention when defining the desired change.
The two authors focus on complex programmes and system change, but I believe their observations and recommendations apply to all development efforts. It is crucial that we can document the value of the development work done for the target group.
The accountability chain under pressure
But what does it mean to monitor and evaluate development efforts? Behind many fine statements about the importance of an effective M&E system lies a legitimate need to document what we get for our money. This ‘we’ exists at different levels and reflects what we could call the ‘accountability chain’ – the chain of who ‘we’ (various actors in development work) are accountable to.
The Danish parliament and government are accountable to taxpayers and voters. Therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Danida and CISU establish a framework and set of rules for managing the aid money. Danish NGOs are accountable to Danida and CISU and must transfer this responsibility to the relationship with partners in the Global South. At a time when funds for development work are under political pressure, it is crucial that we can document that Danida/CISU → Parliament/government → taxpayers/voters get value for money.
Target groups must strengthen the quality of monitoring
But if we are to take the efforts of ‘locally led development’ and the ‘shift the power’ movement seriously, the chain lacks an accountability link: We lack methods to give the ‘target groups of our intended efforts’ the tools to assess whether they are getting what they have been promised and whether they are getting ‘value for money’. Suppose we want to commit to fully locally led development. In that case, an accountability check also belongs in the relationship between the implementing partner in the South and the communities/target groups they work with and for.
Development aid is not given so that CICED and other Danish NGOs or our partners can have better conditions. We are simply competent and effective communicators of everything we assume is needed for ‘target groups’ to have better conditions in areas covered by a specific development effort.
Just as taxpayers and voters in Denmark have a legitimate democratic interest in being able to assess whether they get value for money, ‘target groups’ for development efforts have a similar interest in being able to evaluate whether what they have been involved in formulating is actually what is delivered.
A new link in the accountability chain
We need to establish a link in the accountability chain between the target group and the organisations responsible (us in the North and our partners in the South) for the implementation of development efforts. We need to have effective ways for target groups to monitor the efforts and provide both positive and critical feedback. This is a significant part of the learning that a sound M&E system should contribute to.
Let me give you an example:
In the 1990s, the objectives, planned activities and budget for Danish bilateral assistance to reform Mongolia’s education sector were publicised in all schools involved. The schools had a ‘Danida information board’ where parents and other citizens could see what they could expect from the programme. If the project involved delivering new books or other materials to the school, the notice board indicated when this would occur and what the cost would be.
In 2000, the NGO project “School Development in Rural Areas,” with the author of this article as project manager, replaced bilateral aid. One of the ideas we had was to provide children from low-income families with warm winter clothes, financed by the project. Without warm clothes, they simply couldn’t go to school. Everyone could see on the notice board that this activity was included in the project and what it cost.
After the first winter, people asked if the money could be used to start income-generating activities instead. The local community, school and local authorities thought it was a bit crazy that the project had to buy winter clothes every winter, if the money could be used as an investment to provide winter clothes for all the children whose parents could not afford them. As suggested, so it was done. Over the following 10 years, the project funded 163 different types of income-generating activities. All for the benefit of needy students and eventually for the benefit of the school and local community.
A simple notice board
In this case, a simple notice board with the necessary information was all that was needed for the ‘target group of our intended intervention’ to monitor the intervention, provide constructive feedback, optimise the use of Danish taxpayers’ funds and strengthen local democracy and commitment to the project’s implementation.
In rural Mongolian communities, the school is the institution with which most citizens have regular contact. Therefore, a simple notice board seemed far beyond the scope of the project. In other parts of the world, conditions are different, and tools and methods need to be adapted to the local context. And while the response from the local community in Mongolia was unsolicited, in many cases, a proactive effort is required from the project partnership. In many places, people are not used to the fact that those with money and power are interested in hearing what the people have to say.
Effective monitoring of development efforts by the target groups will contribute to shared learning. Finally, it will strengthen the legitimacy of our performance reporting when we can document satisfaction and criticism with reference to the target groups’ own contributions to monitoring and reporting.
When we who bring the money listen, we can learn something, as we did in the schools in Mongolia. And in this way, we can ensure that the target groups we work with and for get value for money. Because when they do, so do Danida, politicians and ultimately the taxpayers.
(This article was published in a slightly edited version in Globalnyt on 26 April 2025)
