new directions in the quality of aids debate, revised.5.18.11

8/6/2019 New Directions in the Quality of Aids Debate, Revised.5.18.11

1/33

New directions in the quality of aiddebate:

Implications for support to Public FinancialManagement

tephen Groffeputy Director-Development Co operation Directorate


2/33

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


3/33

3

Change .? Why Change?

It s about making aid work better where it is needed


4/33

A Day in the Life of

Source Don De Savi n & COHRED


5/33

Cc e p

C o m m o d i t y

T y p e( c o l o u r c o d e d )

C o m m o d i t

Ministry of Health: Kenya

( )Kinzett 2004


6/33

The Aid Quality

Journey

ome eclarationnHarmonisation

ccra ActionAgenda

usan 9 NovDec 2011

2002

onterreyonsensus2003 2005 2008 2010 2011

HLF-1

HLF-2

ariseclarationn AidEffectiveness

ogota eclaration onSSC

ili eclaration onragile States

stanbulrinciples onSO effectivenessHLF-3

HLF-4


7/33

The aris Declaration yramid


8/33

:aris Declaration what makes itdifferent?

;Unprecedented consensus

-56 action oriented commitmentsfor bothDonors 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


9/33

P k


10/33

1 Operational DStrategies

2

Reliable Public

Management

Progress on track2005-2008

%6

%9

%8

T i i ff


11/33

Targets requiring effortsbut within reach (2005-2008))

1 OperationalStrategies

2

Reliable Publi

Mana ement

49%

1483

45%

36%

59%

88%


12/33

very special efforts (2005-

2008))


2

Reliable Public

Mana ement

9%

22% (No progress)

49%

1483

45%

36%

59%

88%

43%

42%

42% (slippage)

20%

44%

22%


13/33

Outline



III.Paris Declaration Commitmentson PFM: Key Messages




14/33

Total donor PFM support, 1995-2008

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


15/33

Paris Declaration and PFM

DONORS committed to:

Provide reliable commitments of aid over a multi-year framework

Disburse aid in a timely and predictable way

Rely on transparent partner government budget and accountingmechanisms

Adopt harmonised performance assessment frameworks

PARTNER COUNTRIES committed to:

Publish timely, transparent and reliable reporting on budgetexecution

Ensure that national systems are effective, accountable, andtransparent

Take leadership of the public financial management reform process

Mobilise domestic resources, strengthen fiscal sustainability

Create an enabling environment for public and private investments


16/33

Evidence on PFM: Mixed


2Reliable Public

%9

1483%5

%6

%9

%8

%5%3

%7%1%4

%%6

%4

ACCRA AGENDA FOR ACTION


17/33

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 dont 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 theirbudget planning processes

- Facilitate parliamentary oversight including through more transparency in PFM

PARTNERS & DONORS willjointly assess quality of country systems.

Wh t th diff t


18/33

What are the differentcomponents of the

PFM system that aid can use?

: ( )Source Mokoro 2010


19/33

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 ofpartner country systems

Shifting transaction costs from partnergovernment to donor


20/33

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 ofnational systems

They might be, but this is more aboutharmonisation

Technical co-operation cannot make use ofcountry systems


21/33

Working Party on Aid Effectivenesssupport to PFM

Assessing progress (Quality and Use ofPFM 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


22/33

Outline







23/33

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


24/33

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)


25/33

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


26/33

Outline





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


27/33

27

Where are we now?

onterreyonsensus( )002

ome HLF onHarmonisati( )n 2003

ccra Agendaor Action( )008ogotaStatemenon SSC( )010

aris eclarationn AidEffectivene( )s 2005

iliDeclarationn fragile( )tates 2010 orea(LF 29. ov 1.ec )011

g eve orum on


28/33

g eve orum onEffectiveness: A Unique

OpportunityForging a new consensus on aid anddevelopment?

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


29/33


30/33

HLF-4- Main Objectives

Stocktaking from the Paris / Accraprocess

Agreeing on features ofhigh quality aid

and its monitoring frameworktowards2015

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


31/33

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)


32/33

Key milestones in 2011

orking Party on AidEffectiveness eetings and Key Events LF4 Evidence ountry SystemsQ1

Q2

Q3

Q4

4th igh Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness , ,9 November 1st December Busan Korea

1st draft outcomedocument

onitoring:urveycountry level data

collectionEvidenceforProgress Since

Paris:Deadlines 31

March :valuationSynthesis report

( )April 2011 onitoringSurvey:preliminary

results 1st draftProgress since

( )Paris July 2011

Reportfinalisation( )September 2011

hemes for Busan:Deadline JanuaryPreliminary enuf Options - ( - WP EFF EXCOM 9 10)March

- + ( - WP EFF ExCOM 7 9)July

- + ( - WP EFF ExCOM 5 7)Oct

2nddraft utcomeocument

( - )DAC SLM 6 7 April/ WB IMF Spring

( -Meeting 16 17

)April- - WP EFF co chairsirst Narrative

Outline for Outcome(Document comments)by 3 April lobal artnershipn Country( -ystems 9 10)une

ask Force onrocurement( )ayask Force on( - )FM 6 7 June

:TBC Meeting onEffective

( ,States Paris)October


33/33

www.oecd.org/dac/effectivene

WWW.BUSANHLF4.ORG
http://www.busanhlf4.org/http://www.busanhlf4.org/http://www.busanhlf4.org/http://www.busanhlf4.org/

new directions in the quality of aids debate, revised.5.18.11

Documents