quality of aid debate & results - groff

8/6/2019 Quality of Aid Debate & Results - Groff

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/quality-of-aid-debate-results-groff 1/36

New directions in the quality of aiddebate:

Implications for support to Public FinancialManagement

tephen Groff eputy Director

-Development Co operation Directorate



3

Change ….? Why Change?

’

It s about making aid work better where it is needed



A Day in the Life of…

Source Don De Savi n & COHRED



Contra-

ceptives and

RH

equipment

STI

Drugs

Essential

Drugs

Vaccines

and

Vitamin A

TB/Leprosy

Blood

Safety

Reagents

(inc. HIV

tests)

D

F

I

D

K

f

W

UNICEF

J

I

C

A

GOK, WB/

IDA

Source of

funds for

commodities

Commodity

Type(colour coded) MOH

Equip-

ment

Point of first

warehousingKEMSA Central Warehouse

KEMSA

Regional

Depots

Organization

responsible

for d elivery to

district levels

KEMSA and KEMSA Regional Depots

(essential drugs, malaria drugs,

consumable supplies)

Procurement

Agent/BodyCrownAgents

Government

of Kenya

GOK

GTZ(procurement

implementation

unit)

JSI/DELIVER/KEMSA Logistics

Management Unit (contraceptives,

condoms, STI kits, HIV test kits, TBdrugs, RH equipment etc)

E

U

K

f

W

UNICEF

KEPI Cold

Store

KEPI(vaccines

andvitamin A)

Malaria

U

S

A

I

D

U

S

A

I

D

U

N

F

P

A

E

U

R

O

P

A

Condoms

for STI/

HIV/AIDS

prevention

C

I

D

A

U

N

F

P

A

US

Gov

C

D

C

NPHLS store

MEDS(toMission

facilities)

Private

Drug

Source

G

D

F

Government

NGO/Private

Bilateral Donor

Multilateral Donor

World Bank Loan

Organization Key

Japanese

Private

Company

W

H

O

GAVI

S

I

D

A

NLTP(TB/

Leprosydrugs

Commodity Logistics System in Kenya (as of April 2004)Constructed and produced by Steve Kinzett, JS I/Kenya - please communicate

any inaccuracies to [email protected] or telephone 2727210

Anti-

Retro

Virals

(ARVs)

Labor-

atory

supp-

lies

Global

Fund for

AIDS, TB

and Malaria

The

"Consortium"

(Crown Agents,

GTZ, JSI and

KEMSA)

B

T

C

MEDS

DA

NID

A

Mainly District level staff: DPHO, DPHN, DTLP, DASCO, DPHO, etc or staff from the Health Centres,

Dispensaries come up and collect from the District level

MEDS

Provincial andDistrict

HospitalLaboratory

Staff

Organizationresponsible for

delivery to sub-district levels

K

N

C

V

MSF

MSF

Ministry of Health: Kenya

( )Kinzett 2004



The Aid Quality

Journey…

ome eclaration n

Harmonisation

ccra ActionAgenda

usan–9 Nov

Dec 2011

2002

onterrey onsensus

2003 2005 2008 2010 2011

HLF-1

HLF-2

aris

eclaration n AidEffectivenes

s

ogota eclaration on

SSC

ili

eclaration on ragile States

stanbul rinciples on

SO effectivenessHLF-3

HLF-4



The aris Declaration“ ”yramid



:aris Declaration what makes itdifferent?

§§

§ ;Unprecedented consensus

§ -56 action oriented commitments for both Donors and Partners

;countries

§ -Built in mechanism for

monitoring progress at country(and global levels 12

);Indicators and

§ Targets set for 2010 monitored

( -in 3 separate surveys 2005).2011



Outline

I. The Aid Quality Agenda andCommitments

II.Assessing Progress

III.Paris Declaration Commitments onPFM

IV.New Actors and New Themes

V.High Level Forum on AidEffectiveness: Implications for thefuture Aid Quality Agenda

P k



Progress on track 2005-2008

%6

%9

%8

T i i ff



Targets requiring effortsbut within reach (2005-2008))

49%

1483

45%

36%

59%

88%



very special efforts (2005-

2008))

9%

22% (No progress)

49%

1483

45%

36%

59%

88%

43%

42%

42% (slippage)

20%

44%

22%



Outline



III.Paris Declaration Commitmentson PFM: Key Messages





Total donor PFM support, 1995-2008

Evaluation of Donor Support to PFM Reform in Developing Countries,ODI, 2010



Paris Declaration and PFM

DONORS committed to:

ü Provide reliable commitments of aid over a multi-year framework

ü Disburse aid in a timely and predictable way

ü Rely on transparent partner government budget and accountingmechanisms

ü Adopt harmonised performance assessment frameworks

PARTNER COUNTRIES committed to:

ü Publish timely, transparent and reliable reporting on budgetexecution

ü Ensure that national systems are effective, accountable, andtransparent

ü Take leadership of the public financial management reform process

ü Mobilise domestic resources, strengthen fiscal sustainability

ü Create an enabling environment for public and private investments



Evidence on PFM: Mixed

%9

1483

%5

%6

%9

%8

%5

%3

%7

%1

%4

%

%6

%4

ACCRA AGENDA FOR ACTION



ACCRA AGENDA FOR ACTION:Commitments on PFM (2008)

DONORS will:

– Use country systems [including PFM systems] as the first option in the public sector.

– Be transparent when they don’t use them.

– Support country-led reform programmes.

– Develop corporate plans for using country systems.

– Channel 50% (or more) of government-to-government aid through country fiduciarysystems (i.e. PFM + Procurement)

PARTNERS will:

- lead in defining reform programmes.

- Strengthen their budget planning processes

- Facilitate parliamentary oversight including through more transparency in PFM

PARTNERS & DONORS will jointly assess quality of country systems.

Wh t th diff t



What are the differentcomponents of the

PFM system that aid can “use”?

: ( )Source Mokoro 2010



Implementation

§ Many factors lead to donors bypassingcountry PFM systems

§ Varying perceptions of risk

• Emphasis on fiduciary risk

• Developmental risk of not using country systems

§ Incentives and capacities in donororganisations

§ Political constraints: visibility, traceability...

§ Quality of partner country systems

§ Shifting transaction costs from partnergovernment to donor



Some common myths

§ Using country systems means providingbudget support

• Not necessarily: all aid modalities can makeuse of country systems

§ An “all or nothing” approach?• Different components of country systems

can be used

§ Pooled funds are a move towards use of

national systems

• They might be, but this is more aboutharmonisation

§ Technical co-operation cannot make use of country systems



Working Party on Aid Effectivenesssupport to PFM

§ Assessing progress (Quality and Use of PFM Systems)

§ Global Partnership on CountrySystems

• Dedicated Task Forces on PFM andProcurement

• Identifying and disseminating good practice

• Developing and supporting common tools(e.g. procurement assessment)

§ Country Level Work

• Lending political support, monitoring,

sharing experiences



Outline








Broadening the Partnership§ Shaping the global development architecture – i.e. G20

Development Consensus

§ G20 discourse (June 2010) on the need for greatertransparency, accountability and institutionalgovernance including use of country systems

§ Development actors beyond the DAC:

• Non-traditional providers of developmentassistance (i.e. Middle Income Countries,Emerging Economies, Arab donors etc)

• Civil society organisations• For-profit private sector and foundations

§ Bridging the divide: DAC Statement on “NewPartnerships”, Bogota Statement on South South

Cooperation



Objectives of Broadening thePartnership

§ Finding convergence and common ground§ Share lessons on economic growth, poverty

reduction and development co-operation

§ Mutual interest in achieving results whilerespecting diverse ways to reach them

§ Interest in improving all forms of co-operationthrough inclusive dialogue, mutual

learning and knowledge-sharing§ Recall the enduring relevance of the Paris

principles for developing countries (fragile

states, MICs, LDCs)



New Themes

§Climate Change Financing

• Avoid pitfalls of complex funding channels

§ Public Private Partnerships

• Strengthening regulatory and financialenvironments

• Risk Management

§ Innovative Financing Mechanisms• Additionality

• Predictability

§ Aid as Catalyst towards more Effective



Outline





V.High Level Forum on AidEffectiveness: Implications forthe future Aid Quality Agenda



27

Where are we now?

onterrey onsensus

( )002

ome HLF onHarmonisati

( )n 2003

ccra Agenda or Action( )008

ogotaStatemen

on SSC( )010

aris eclaration

n Aid

Effectivene( )s 2005

iliDeclaration

n fragile( )tates 2010

orea(LF 29

. –ov 1

.ec )011

g eve orum on



g eve orum onEffectiveness: A Unique

Opportunity

Forging a new consensus on aid and development?

• Chance to reinvigorate the globalcommitment towards the MDGs;

• Refresh and reaffirm Paris / Accraprinciples;

• Recognise the role of aid as contributorand catalyst for development results

and effectiveness;

• Improve the quality of partnershipsthrough embracing partner countryleadership, diversity and mutual respect;

• Seek convergence based on



Who? Where? When?

§A political event that attractsministerial attendance, with decisiveoutcomes

§ Busan, Korea. Host: Government of Korea

§ 29 November to 1 December 2011.

§



HLF-4- Main Objectives

§ Stocktaking from the Paris / Accraprocess

§ Agreeing on features of high quality aid

and its monitoring framework towards2015

§ Situating aid in its broader

development context:• More actors, development finance

effectiveness

• Diversified approach: MICs, LICs, FS,

E i A f P li i l



Emerging Areas for PoliticalOutcomes

qResults and transparency for betteraccountability

qOwnership and Leadership

qEffective States and Alignment(Country Systems)

qDiversity at country level – fragilestates, middle income countries,

LDCsqClimate Change Financing

qRecognise all forms of partnerships

(SSC, PPPs…)



www.oecd.org/dac/effectivene

WWW.BUSANHLF4.ORG

http://www.busanhlf4.org/






Do donors use yourcountry systems?

1 2 3

31

44

25

1. Yes

2.No3.Sometimes



Does your country refuseaid because of complexdonor requirements?

1 2 3

4

4749

.1 Ye s

.2 N o

.3 S o m e tim e s



Is aid effective in yourcountry?

1 2 3

19

48

33

1. Yes

2.No

3.Sometimes

quality of aid debate & results - groff

Documents