INTEGRATING GLOBAL PROGRAMS AT COUNTRY LEVEL

1
INTEGRATING GLOBAL PROGRAMS AT COUNTRY LEVEL

• WORKSHOP ON DEVELOPMENT FINANCE ARCHITECTURE
• OECD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
• 3-4 JULY 2006
• Paul Isenman, Consultant, on behalf of the
  Alignment Project Team
• World Bank, Department of Global Programs and
  Partnerships

2
Aligning Global Programs at Country Level
3
P A R I S D E C L ARA T I ON O N A I D E F F
E C T I V E N E S S O w n e r s h i p , H a r m o
n i s a t i o n , A l i g n m e n t , R e s u l t
s a n d M u t u a l A c c o u n t a b i l i t y 2
March 2005
iv. Insufficient integration of global programmes
and initiatives into partner countries broader
development agendas, including in critical areas
such as HIV/AIDS.
4
. . . but studies concerns about

• poor coordination and duplication
• high transaction costs
• variable country ownership
• lack of alignment with country processes
• health system capacity/human resources problems
  limiting GHP potential
• Sustainability___________________________
• Additional points not in the Gates, McKinsey
  slide
• predictability and variability
• drain from the overall sector program to GPs
  best staff, multi-purpose and management
  capacity, and both donor and partner-country
  financing.

Note Diversity in nature, scope, scale,
operation of GHPs
5
Examples of proposed best practice principles
for GHPs

• Alignment
• To use country systems to the maximum extent
  possible. Where use of country systems is not
  feasible, to establish safeguards and measures in
  ways that strengthen rather than undermine
  country systems and procedures
• Harmonization
• To implement, where feasible, simplified and
  common arrangements at country level for
  planning, funding, disbursement, monitoring,
  evaluating and reporting to government on GHP
  activities and resource flows
• Accountability
• To ensure timely, clear and comprehensive
  information on GHP assistance, processes, and
  decisions (especially decisions on unsuccessful
  applications) to partner countries requiring GHP
  support

6
ROLE OF DONORS IN ADRESSING PROBLEMS?

• Who?
• Global funds themselves? Rather they have
  talented staff responding to the mandates,
  processes and incentives set by their donors.
• Bilateral signatories of PD fund most global
  programs, with recent major role of Gates and
  other foundations. They determine division of
  labor GP-country, including governance, and
  e.g. bilat.-multilat.
• Why have global funds?
• Substantive reasons harmonized approach to
  producing GPGs and near GPGs, cutting edge,
  piloting, spread global best practice, support
  international conventions. Some GPs for GPGs,
  e.g. early stages vaccine research, do not raise
  alignment issues.
• Political and public support reasons
• Imagine Bono campaigning for HA.
  Bureaucrat-to-bureaucrat aid sells very badly,
  and branding as specific programmes helps.
• Tendency to launch new funds is an issue of
  policy coherence Problem and solution are both
  all-of-government matters.

7
ROLE OF DONORS IN ADRESSING PROBLEMS?

• When? Need for selectivity.
• Is there really need for collective global
  action?
• Subsidiarity what is additionality of proposed
  fund to what can be done at country level ?
• Collective global action not global fund
  (CGAP model.)
• What kind of fund re HA cost? To oversimplify
• High fungibility Africa Catalytic Fund regional
  rather than sectoral, -with hopefully - broad
  coverage, fungible and not too big at country
  level, aligned/harmonized procedures.
• Medium fungibility FTI catalytic fund - broad
  sectoral and not too big at country level,
  aligned/harmonized procedures.
• Low fungibility narrow mandate, big at country
  level, mostly own procedures (GFATM).
• Donors should aim for highest fungibility through
  mandate, procedures, and fund size at country
  level..
• Applies particularly to funds or innovative
  financing mechanisms aimed primarily building
  support for more aid -- IFF or tax on air
  travel). Also applies design of funds addressing
  specific problems.

8
ROLE OF DONORS IN ADRESSING PROBLEMS?

• How?
• Use of governance and incentive structure to
  address alignment.
• Role partner central Ministries in setting
  priorities processes.
• Need separate fund or use existing delivery
  channels?
• Predictability-sustainability
• Need performance/project approach, or can it be
  sectoral?
• Making performance/challenge funds more
  predictable sustainable -- e.g. concentrated
  5-year grants with flexible submission dates.
• Build in Paris Declaration from the start
• Alignment with existing partner country processes
  (e.g. budget, PRSP).
• Harmonization with existing donor programmes and
  coordination processes (working around issue of
  low field presence).
• ME, and capacity and expectation of adaptation
  from the start. (GFATM, GAVI as examples good
  practice in doing early evaluation and taking it
  seriously).
• Ensure that donor staff -- particularly at
  country level
• help align and harmonize GPs
• work collaboratively with GPs, governments and
  other donors.

9

• THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION, AND, IN
  ADVANCE, FOR YOUR IDEAS IN THE DISCUSSION.