Reflections on the new Aid Architecture: how did we get to where we are

1
Reflections on the new Aid Architecture how did
we get to where we are

• Philip Amis
• International Development Dept at CLGF meeting in
  the Bahamas
• May 2009

2
A brief history

• Since 2000 donors signed up to MDGs
• Increased funds
• Concern with donor coordination
• Concern with projects
• undermine local administration by setting up
  separate authorities
• time bound
• employ the best
• Move to SWAPs and Budget Support

3
OECD study 2002

• To consult .. Partner countries on their
  perceptions of donor practice with a view to
  identifying and analysing
• Those practices that place the highest burden on
  partner governments in terms of ownership, aid
  transactions costs and aid effectiveness Studies
  in eleven partner countries
• In-depth semi-structured interviews with
  Government officials, NGOs and others

4
Donors as a nuisance
Lack of fit with national priorities ???????????
Donor procedures ??????????
Inconsistency amongst donors ???????
Excessive demand on time ??????
Disbursement delays ??????
Lack of information ????
Demands beyond national capacity ??
5
Paris Declaration 2005

• Ownership
• Alignment
• Use local systems and data
• Provide programme aid
• Do not set up parallel structures
• Harmonization
• Managing for results
• Mutual Accountability

6
Paris Declaration 2005 (2)

• Compromise between North Europeans (Scandinavia,
  Canada, Netherlands and UK) keen on Budget
  support
• Go it alone group (USA, France, JapanGermany
  embarrassed in the middle)
• But very important document
• Review in Rwanda for UNDP
• Most donors have signed up to it
• Coordination is slowly taking place

7
General Budget Support 2005/06

• Unearmarked funds to government budget more
  mature aid relationship
• Using and working with Government systems
• Putting more funds on budget
• Complimentary inputs
• Dialogue
• Harmonization
• Focus on Poverty reduction

8
IDD Evaluation

• International team - all donor community involved
  as clients
• Rigorous methodology 1994-2004 with a causality
  map
• Burkina Faso, Malawi, Mozambique, Nicaragua,
  Rwanda, Uganda Vietnam
• All the reports are availabe at
  www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation
• www.gov.uk/aboutdfid/performance/evaluation-news.a
  sp

9
Main Findings mainly positive

• Broadly Positive in 5 out of 7 states
• Improvements in public finance management systems
  and efficient use of funds
• Supports the MoF ability to control and manage
  resource flows
• Increases in donor harmonization and alignment
• evidence of funds getting through on health and
  education but mainly quantity rather than quality
  in service delivery

10
Other Findings some negative

• No evidence of a decline in revenue collection as
  a substitution for external funds
• Little evidence of fiduciary risks/corruption
• Little evidence of the encouragement of
  accountability mechanisms
• But problems of stability of funding
• Political issues
• Sovereign state issues
• Issues with Northern tax payers