Transcript Document

ASSESSING AGENCY
EFFECTIVENESS AND
BUILDING CAPACITY FOR
MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Matthew Martin
Debt Relief International
3rd MfDR Roundtable
Hanoi, 7 February 2007
DRI, February 2007
1
STRUCTURE




Introduction and Context
Assessing Agencies: the Views of
36 HIPCs
Using the Assessments to Build
National Aid Strategies
Using the Assessments at the
International Level
(donors/groups)
DRI, February 2007
2
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT






HIPC Capacity-Building Programme works at
demand of 36 HIPCs to build (unleash) capacity to
manage government financing (orig. debt relief)
Funded by six DAC donors (Austria, Canada, Ireland,
Sweden, Switzerland, UK)
Capacity-building organised in country by
sustainable regional organisations run by developing
countries – “working out of job”
Presentation based on country results/views
Earlier summaries prepared for UNDP and UK CFA,
currently updating for ECOSOC
For more details see www.development-finance.org
and www.hipc-cbp.org.
DRI, February 2007
3
METHODOLOGY - PROCESS







Designed through consultative process with all government
aid managers and Ministers lasting 12 months, to ensure
all key concerns of countries included
Clearly benchmarked setting quantifiable targets against
donor best practices and Paris commitments
Evaluations continually updated since 2002 – 1/3 of
countries each year now moving to 1/2
Evaluations conducted in country by 20-30 aid
management officials and based on examining data and
documents, not opinions – simultaneously builds capacity
Can be/is being applied to all funders (incl multilateral,
bilateral, vertical funds/NGOs/ECAs, commercial)
Constantly developing at country request – currently adding
in new criteria on quality of results, cost-effectiveness
Also analyse effectiveness of own policies/procedures
DRI, February 2007
4
METHODOLOGY - CONTENT





Based on 34 criteria under 22 groups relating to policies and procedures
Includes detailed evaluation of progress against Paris, but goes beyond
to include eg conditionality, flexibility to finance against shocks, coverage
of all key sectors of PRS
Policies: concessionality, types of aid, channels (on-budget), sectors
(PRSP and all priorities), TA (country-led and genuinely capacitybuilding), flexibility (against shocks or for new country priorities),
predictability (multiyear, aligned disbursement calendar, disbursed on
schedule), conditionality (number/enforcement/delay), policy dialogue
(activism and alignment with country or BWIs)
Procedures: conditions precedent (PIUs, CPF, appraisal, financial and
legal), disbt methods, disbt procedures separate from government (PSI,
accounts, reports, audits), procurement procedures (untying, local
sourcing), harmonisation (joint missions, analytical work), alignment with
partner PFM and procurement - and delays at all stages
Advocacy of and responsiveness to genuine mutual accountability
DRI, February 2007
5
RESULTS


Overall priorities different from Paris – worst areas
are flexibility against shocks and excessive
conditionality
MULTILATERALS VS BILATERALS



Multilaterals better at: on-budget, untying
Bilaterals better at: concessionality, less conditionality,
fewer conditions precedent, more advance
disbursements
INDIVIDUAL DONORS



Best performing multilaterals: IDA, some UN, EDF,
IFAD, IMF
Some non-traditionals perform better>some DAC
But high degree of variation across partners due to
different performance by donors
DRI, February 2007
6
DONOR/CREDITOR POLICIES
DRI, February 2007
7
DONOR/CREDITOR PROCEDURES
DRI, February 2007
8
WHAT FOR ? USING RESULTS FOR
NATIONAL AID STRATEGY





Vital to design own strategy principles (eg including nonParis aspects)
Then discuss further with donors – not abandon but clarify
policies
Do own monitoring of donors from data/documents – not
rely on self-reporting, validate vs budget
Build sustainable government capacity not use consultants
National Compendia of Donor Practices


Complement Paris Surveys (or sole source) to set baselines
Global Compendium of Donor Best Practices


Through exchange among 36 HIPCs
Compare National and Best Practices to plan further
potential/planned improvements
DRI, February 2007
9
WHAT FOR ? USING RESULTS FOR
NATIONAL AID STRATEGY









Design donor-by-donor strategies to accelerate alignment,
spread best practice and set donor-by-donor annual targets
Aggregate to work out seriously prospects for Paris and
other improvement
Diversify (the issue for most LICs) using knowledge of good
performers in other countries
Or rationalise donors if cant improve, to make aid effective
Negotiate constantly to improve donor performance on
each project
Refuse offers of bad funding (“free riders”) in order to
enhance aid effectiveness
Publicise donor performance to accountable to targets
Improve own performance of government
Use independent monitoring to resolve tricky issues
DRI, February 2007
10
USING RESULTS AT THE
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL (1)

FOR EACH DONOR/CREDITOR:






Should organise annual partner consultations where HQ can
be told by group (less retaliation risk) about strong/weak
points and discuss how to spread best practices and reduce
variability (except where justified by partner performance)
Needs to go beyond performance at country level to assess
global issues eg allocation criteria, scaling up, orphans
Can also be informed of partner views about eg relative
performance of multilaterals, NGOs, vertical funds
Should be assessed under Paris by degree to which sign up
to bilateral targets at national level and organise annual
partner consultations
Self-evaluations/independent evaluations should include
strong, comprehensive partner evaluation
Also vital partners understand Paris and have frank
discussions with donors about progress on partner indicators
DRI, February 2007
11
USING RESULTS AT THE
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL (2)

REGIONAL DISCUSSIONS



Meetings of regional recipient governments with regional
donors and regional organisations to express views
Key role of regional organisations in assembling and
expressing views (but who is independent ?)
GLOBAL DISCUSSIONS



Africa Partnership Forum needs to be more Africa-led in
assessing Monterrey/Gleneagles commitments
Why Africa so privileged in G8 ? Why not similar discussions
with Asia and Latin America groups ?
Division of labour to play to strengths: DAC (at least to collect
Paris info through normal data and report in Peer Reviews),
Independent 3rd party to write global report, IMF/World Bank
to disseminate through GMR ? ECOSOC to discuss at highDRI, February 2007
12
level ?
WHAT IS NEEDED ?
1. DONOR POLITICAL OPENING
a. Clear demonstration that countries can go beyond
Paris both in breadth and ambition
b. Opening to bilateral targets (Mozambique?, Rwanda)
c. Not all donors will move – use best practice
d. Not all partners will achieve ? (like-minded, capacity)
2. PARTNER SELF-CONFIDENCE
a. Being prepared to discuss honestly with partners
b. Moving from paper-pushing to accountability
c. Learn best practices in choosing best aid for results
3. CAPACITY-BUILDING
a. Massive needs of technical officials in evaluating,
forecasting and negotiating aid alignment
b. Vital role of parliamentarians, AGs, civil society in
assessing not just execution of spending but results
 Major shift in all three or
chance
of Paris/MDGs 13
DRI,little
February
2007