republic of mozambique rapid donor data...

Republic of Mozambique

Rapid Donor Data Collection and Donor Coordination

Mechanisms Report

April 2017

Public Sector and Governance

AFRICA

Document of the World Bank

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Standard Disclaimer:

This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The

findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors

of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in

this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any

judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such

boundaries.

Copyright Statement:

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may

be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages

dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright

Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470,

http://www.copyright.com/.

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The

World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail [email protected].

http://www.copyright.com/

mailto:[email protected]

Acknowledgements

This assessment was prepared by Furqan Saleem, Dionísio Nombora, Daniel Nogueira-Budny,

Sally Torbert, and Gisella Guambe and overseen by Chiara Bronchi (GGODR). The team would

like to express its gratitude to Geert Anckaert (EU), Akari Aoyama (JICA), Yayoi Arima (JICA),

Els Berghmans (EU), Humberto Cossa (GHN01), Elizabeth Dodds (Gates Foundation), Carolin

Geginat (AFCS2), Keith McLean (GGODR), Jan Joost Nijhoff (GFA07), Anouk Rutter (DFID),

and Evelin Stettler (Embassy of Switzerland) for their helpful comments.

MZ: Rapid Donor Data Collection and Donor Coordination Mechanisms Report

i

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AFD French Development Agency

AfDB African Development Bank

AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

AgRED Development Partners Group for Agriculture and Rural Development

AIMS Aid Information Management System

ANAC National Administration for Conservation Areas (Administração Nacional

das Áreas de Conservação)

ANE National Roads Administration (Administração Nacional de Estradas)

BACG Beira Agricultural Growth Corridor

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program

CHAI Clinton Health Access Initiative

CNCS

National Council to Combat HIV/AIDS (Conselho Nacional de Combate ao

HIV/SIDA)

CONDES National Council for Sustainable Development (Conselho Nacional de

Desenvolvimento Sustentável)

CONFAM National Committee for Food Fortification in Mozambique (Comité

Nacional para a Fortificação de Alimentos Moçambique)

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency

DFID U.K. Development for International Development

DNA National Directorate for Water Affairs (Direcção Nacional de Águas)

DNAT National Directorate of Land (Direcção Nacional de Terras)

DP Development Partner

DPO Development Policy Operation

DUATs Right of Use and Tenure (Direito do Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra)

EC European Commission

ECCWG Environment and Climate Change Working Group

ENSSB National Strategy for Basic Social Security

e-SISTAFE

State Electronic System of Financial Administration (e-Sistema de

Administração Financeira do Estado)

EU European Union

EWG Environment Working Group

EXIM Export-Import Bank

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FASE Support Fund for the Education Sector (Fundo de Apoio ao Sector de

Educação)

FIP Forest Investment Program

GAS Water and Sanitation Working Group (Grupo de Água e Saneamento)

GBS General Budget Support

GEF Global Environment Facility

GIS Geographic Information System

GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur

Internationale Zusammenarbeit)


ii

GoM Government of Mozambique

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center

IFE External Funds Survey (Inquérito dos Fundos Externo)

IFMIS Integrated Financial and Information Management System

IIAM Institute of Agricultural Research of Mozambique (Instituto de Investigação

Agrária de Moçambique)

ILO International Labor Organization

INAS National Institute for Social Action (Instituto Nacional de Acção Social)

INATUR National Institute for Tourism (Instituto Nacional do Turismo)

INGC National Institute of Disaster Management (Instituto Nacional de Gestão de

Calamidades)

IMF International Monetary Fund

IsDB

JICA

Islamic Development Bank

Japan International Cooperation Agency

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

MASA Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (Ministério da Agricultura e

Segurança Alimentar) (as of January 1, 2015)

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation

MEF

MIC

MICOA

Ministry of Economy and Finances (Ministério da Economia e Finanças)

Ministry of Industry and Commerce (Ministério da Indústria e Comércio)

Ministry of Coordination of Environmental Affairs (Ministério para a

Coordenação da Acção Ambiental)

MIMAIP

MINEDH

Ministry of Sea, Internal Waterways, and Fisheries (Ministério do Mar,

Aguas Interiores e Pescas)

Ministry of Education and Human Development (Ministério da Educação e

Desenvolvimento Humano)

MIREME Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy (Ministério dos Recursos

Minerais e Energia)

MISAU

MITADER

Ministry of Health (Ministério da Saúde)

Ministry of Land, Environment, and Rural Development (Ministério da

Terra, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural)

MOPH Ministry of Public Works and Housing (Ministério da Obras Públicas e

Habitação)

MoU

MSU

Memorandum of Understanding

Michigan State University

NGO

NWDP

Nongovernmental Organization

National Water Development Program

ODA Official Development Assistance

ODAmoz Mozambique AIMS

OECD

PAP

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Program Aid Partner

PAF Performance Assessment Framework

PARPA Action Plan for the Production of Absolute Poverty (Plano de Acção para a

Redução da Pobreza Absoluta)


iii

PEDSA Strategy and Plan for Agro-Development (Plano Estratégico de

Desenvolvimento Agrário)

PES

PESS

PFM

PNISA

Economic and Social Plan (Plano Económico e Social)

Health Sector Strategic Plan (Plano Estratégico do Sector da Saúde)

Public Financial Management

National Agriculture Investment Plan (Plano Nacional de Investimentos no

Sector Agrário)

PPP

PQG

Public-Private Partnership

Five-Year Plan (Plano Quinquenal do Governo)

PRISE Integrated Road Sector Program (Programa Integrado do Sector de

Estradas)

PROAGRI Agricultural Sector Strategy and Expenditure Program (Programa de

Desenvolvimento Agrícola)

PRONASAR

ProSAVANA

RSS

RSWG

National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program (Programa Nacional

de Abastecimento de Água e Saneamento)

Triangular Co-operation Program for Agricultural Development of the

Tropical Savannah in Mozambique (Programa de Cooperação Tripartida

para o Desenvolvimento Agrícola da Savana Tropical em Moçambique)

Road Sector Strategy

Roads Sector Working Group

SDAE

SDC

District Services of Economic Affairs (Serviços Distritais das Atividades

Económicas)

Swiss Development Corporation

SETSAN Technical Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition (Secretariado Técnico

de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional)

SAWG

SWAp

ToR

Social Action Working Group

Sectorwide Approach

Terms of Reference

UN United Nations

UNAC National Peasant's Union (União Nacional de Camponeses)

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNESCO

UNFPA

UNICEF

USAID

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

United Nations Population Fund

United Nations Children's Fund

United States Agency for International Development

WHO

WWF

World Health Organization

World Wildlife Fund


Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................................... i

Executive Summary and Findings .................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Aid Effectiveness and General Budget Support ............................................................................. 5

I: Agriculture ................................................................................................................................... 9

II: Conservation ............................................................................................................................ 13

III: Education ................................................................................................................................ 16

IV: Environment and Climate Change .......................................................................................... 19

V: Fisheries ................................................................................................................................... 22

VI: Health...................................................................................................................................... 24

VII: Infrastructure (Roads) ........................................................................................................... 29

VIII: Public Financial Management.............................................................................................. 32

IX: Social Protection ..................................................................................................................... 34

X: Water and Sanitation ................................................................................................................ 36

Annex I: List of DPs Interviewed and Consulted ......................................................................... 39

Annex II: Overview of Sector Working Group Data Collection Fields ....................................... 40

Annex III: Comparison of Aid Data Collection Tools.................................................................. 41

Annex IV: Disaggregated Totals of Projects by Sector ................................................................ 42


Tables and Figures

Table 1: Summary of Total Commitments by Sectora .................................................................... 5

Table 2: PAP General Budget Support Commitments, 2013–2015 ............................................... 8

Table 3: Agriculture Projects ........................................................................................................ 11

Table 4: Conservation Projects ..................................................................................................... 14

Table 5: Education Projects .......................................................................................................... 17

Table 6: Environment and Climate Change Projects .................................................................... 21

Table 7: Fisheries Projects ............................................................................................................ 23

Table 8: Health Projects ................................................................................................................ 26

Table 9: Road Projects .................................................................................................................. 30

Table 10: PFM Projects ................................................................................................................ 33

Table 11: Social Protection Projects ............................................................................................. 35

Table 12: Water and Sanitation Projects ....................................................................................... 37

Table 13: Data Collection Fields by Sector Projects .................................................................... 40

Table 14: Total Commitments by Sector by Donor (Active and Pipeline)................................... 42

Figure 1: Aid Data Totals for Donor Commitments in 2015 ........................................................ 41


1

Executive Summary and Findings

1. This report presents the findings of an internal World Bank rapid assessment of

donor assistance and coordination mechanisms in Mozambique. Along with a parallel review

of Mozambique’s aid data information system, ODAmoz, this report aims to inform development

partner (DP) dialogue on aid coordination and information systems. The report presents data

collected from existing donor coordination mechanism in key aid sectors, along with findings

from interviews with sector specialists at the World Bank and other DPs about sector

coordination and policy dialogue. The report documents the type of information gathered by each

sector coordination group and identifies data gaps and coordination challenges created by the

current system.

2. The main findings from this assessment are as follows:

(a) Mozambique has no central data collection tool that is adequately collecting aid

data. ODAmoz—the Government of Mozambique’s (GoM) aid information

management system (AIMS), whose objective is exactly this—is neither well

utilized nor seen as a functional platform for collecting and accessing information on

sector projects and investments. In sector groups that have tried to adopt ODAmoz

as a platform, such as the Health Working Group, DPs resisted adoption due to low

awareness about ODAmoz’s purpose and fears that a parallel data collection system

would interfere or overlap with other mechanisms, such as data entry into the GoM’s

integrated financial and information management system (IFMIS), the State

Electronic System of Financial Administration (e-Sistema de Administração

Financeira do Estado, e-SISTAFE).1

(b) The quality and quantity of data collected by sector coordination groups on

projects and financing are highly variable. Not all sector coordination groups are

active in tracking project or funding data. In sectors that do keep records, most

collect data only on annual commitments; some simply note the total budget and

expected time frame. Fewer sectors—that is, agriculture, health, and education—

also collect data on actual disbursements, geographic location, specific subsector

support, or expected outputs of projects. In addition, most sectors collect data in

U.S. dollars, while others collect data in Mozambican meticais. These large

variations between data collection methods limit the accuracy of cross-sector

comparisons, as well as the compatibility of the data collected within ODAmoz.

Table 13 demonstrates the wide variety of fields captured as well as the non-

comprehensive nature of countrywide collection efforts, respectively.

(c) Sectorwide approaches (SWAps), which provide a formal framework for DP

coordination and DP-GoM policy dialogue, have been very successful in

collecting aid data, particularly for the education and health sectors. In some

cases, these coordination mechanisms have high transaction costs for DPs; however,

where the GoM takes strong leadership and direction for the sector, they can

1 These findings were corroborated by the parallel functional and technical assessment of ODAmoz conducted by

the task team. See the World Bank’s non-lending technical assistance (NLTA) on Aid Data Management (2017).


2

facilitate the adoption of common strategies, national systems, and reporting

frameworks that can limit transaction costs across all stakeholders. Unsurprisingly,

SWAps appear to be most successful when the line ministries take a strong,

proactive role in promoting DP alignment to sector priorities and encouraging DPs

to use common funding mechanisms. The establishment of new SWAps and the

strengthening of existing ones appear to be the surest ways of improving donor

coordination and aid data management.

3. Based on these findings, this report suggests the following three broad recommendations:

(a) Improved guidance for sector working groups on best practices for data

collection and use in sector coordination groups should be provided. If

ODAmoz continues to operate as the central repository for on-budget and off-budget

DP projects and funding, DP representatives should receive regular training and

support on its use and functions. This should include clear explanations about the

relationship between ODAmoz and other reporting requirements, such as e-

SISTAFE.

(b) Expectations of donor coordination working groups should be clarified as part

of the Program Aid Partner (PAP) process, by ODAmoz or by the Ministry of

Economy and Finances (Ministério da Economia e Finanças, MEF). Without a

centralized body to monitor and standardize data collection across sectors,

information is likely to continue to be ad hoc, incomplete, and of little use for

monitoring overall progress on aid effectiveness.

(c) Standard templates for further data collection should be developed to include a

core set of basic fields and standard guidelines that sector coordination groups

could then customize based on the additional, sector-specific information they

needed. Such templates could pull basic aid information from ODAmoz, limiting

double reporting from DPs while also ensuring buy-in for a centralized database of

core data.

4. This report also documented a number of sector-specific recommendations based on

consultations with sector stakeholders. In general, recommendations focused on the need for

stronger ministerial ownership of sector strategies, a broadening of working group mandates to

leverage existing institutions for heightened impact, and systematization and standardization of

data collection mechanisms.

Sector Recommendations

Agriculture Establish a multistakeholder coordination mechanism led by the GoM and MASA to

mobilize funding, monitor progress, and lead policy dialogue.

Strengthen coordination between AgRED and other sector coordination groups to

coordinate on cross-cutting policy areas, including agri-business, seeds, or food security.

Conservation Expand the mandate of the Conservation Working Group to discuss policy issues, such as

the creation of an independent institution, and joint objectives, such as raising the profile

of conservation issues.

Education Ensure greater ministerial coordination with FASE at the technical levels.

MINEDH seeks to leverage DPs’ experience more upstream of the policy formulation

process.


3

Sector Recommendations

Environment

and Climate

Change

Expand the mandate of the ECCWG to allow for policy dialogue, particularly around

forest management and climate change, that would help direct policy discussions and

expand engagement with Government partners.

MICOA takes a more proactive role in guiding the agenda of the working group to

address sector priorities and discuss a pooled funding mechanism.

Fisheries Hold more regular, structured meetings of the Fisheries Donor Coordination Group to

improve sector organization and engage partners on policy issues.

The Fisheries Donor Coordination Group establishes stronger connections to other groups,

including agriculture and conservation.

Health Adjust or expand IFE categories to use more than just PESS fields, to better allow for

reporting of provincial and district activities.

Link IFE data to government accounting systems to facilitate its use by MISAU during

annual planning and budgeting processes.

Strengthen monitoring and evaluation capacity in the sector.

Infrastructure

(Roads) ANE encourages nontraditional donors to coordinate with the SWAp.

ANE and DPs collaborate to channel more funding into the common fund.

PFM PFM Coordination Group to establish expectations of more timely and disaggregated

financial data on ongoing and pipeline projects.

Social

Protection The GoM exerts stronger leadership to ensure that differences among DPs no longer

stymie the potential for the SAWG to play an effective role in sector policy dialogue.

The SAWG encourages INAS and DPs to collaborate in collecting and managing key

missing data needed to establish social protection systems.

Water and

Sanitation DNA provides clearer guidance and leadership to ensure that DPs do not pursue their own

agendas instead of aligning with Government priorities.

GAS encourages better data reporting by DPs, as well as by provincial and district offices,

on water supply, coverage, and completed works.

GAS seeks out additional support to strengthen the Government’s information collection

and use.


4

Introduction

1. This report is the output of a rapid assessment of donor assistance and coordination

mechanisms in Mozambique. The objectives of the assessment were to review and compile the

donor coordination mechanisms and sources of information on ongoing and planned projects and

financing collected by donor coordination working groups in key sectors. The findings also

helped inform—and were informed by—the World Bank’s parallel review of the systemic issues

hampering effective aid data management and the functioning of ODAmoz, Mozambique’s aid

information management system (AIMS), as part of the World Bank’s broader non-lending

technical assistance to the sector.

2. Aid coordination mechanisms in Mozambique have historically been robust;

however, recent years have seen declining donor participation rates. Previously, donor

coordination was conducted through the framework of the Program Aid Partners (PAPs), which

was established in early 2000. Participation in the PAP mechanism has declined since 2007,

however, and information on development partner (DP) activities has become more limited. The

Government of Mozambique (GoM) previously used ODAmoz to coordinate and manage aid

information; however, ODAmoz has faced technical challenges since 2015 and is not currently

used by DPs. Instead, aid data information is now coordinated through sector working groups

using varied data collection methods and procedures.2 This fragmented system, along with

limited administrative capacity within some working groups, has resulted in significant data

gaps.

3. The assessment was conducted by a research team within the Governance Global

Practice from August to November 2016. An initial desk review of policy documents and

existing reports was done to confirm the current role and function of aid effectiveness systems

and sector coordination structures in Mozambique. The team then interviewed technical

specialists at the World Bank Office in Maputo and consulted with representatives from other DP

participants in the working groups (see Annex I for a list of interviewees).

4. This report is structured to present the results of this desk review and interview

process by sector. The first chapter provides a brief overview of the aid effectiveness

framework in Mozambique. The remaining chapters present sector overview summaries on

Agriculture, Conservation, Education, Environment and Climate Change, Fisheries, Health,

Infrastructure (Roads), Public Financial Management, Social Protection, and Water and

Sanitation, with seven sections: background, objective, structure, financing coordination,

additional coordination mechanisms, conclusions, and recommendations for improved donor

coordination and aid data collection. Recommendations are based on the direct feedback from

sector stakeholders.

5. Each section includes a snapshot of projects over US$1 million.3 Data was collected

from sector spreadsheets, which are developed by each working group and circulated among DPs

2 An overview of the different data fields collected within each sector is provided in Annex III, Table 13.

3 Throughout this report, data on project commitments is presented in US$, millions. Calculations between

Mozambican meticais (MZN) and US$ use moving annual exchange rates from the World Bank. As Environment

and Climate Change did not have any projects over US$1 million, projects over US$100,000 were included. While


5

for inputs. Spreadsheet formats are non-standard, with varying fields and data formats—an

overview of these fields is presented in Annex II as a way of identifying which data fields are

universally applicable and which are sector specific. Data was collected for eight sectors, which

covers US$4.7 billion of donor funding (active and pipeline, for 2014 and 2015), summarized in

Table 1; to put this in perspective, gross total official development assistance (ODA) for 2014

and 2015 was US$4.2 billion.4 Data collected in the project spreadsheets includes off-budget

projects that are not captured by other aid data platforms, including ODAmoz or the State

Electronic System of Financial Administration (e-Sistema de Administração Financeira do

Estado, e-SISTAFE) (see Annex III for a comparison of platforms). Data was then compared to

ODAmoz data and the World Bank’s BOOST data for validation. The resulting project

information is presented in tables for each sector in the report.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF TOTAL COMMITMENTS BY SECTORa

Sectorb Active Project Budgets Pipeline Project Budgets

c

Agriculture 253.9 0.0

Conservation 96.6 137.4

Education 876.7 0.0

Environment and Climate Changed 12.3 0.0

Fisheries 95.2 47.9

Health 2,057.2 58.1

PFM 113.2 0.0

Roadsd 660.2 0.0

Social Protection 108.3 92.3

Water and Sanitationd 243.5 0.0

Total 4,517.1 335.7

Note: a. This summary table includes all project commitments, including those under US$1 million; therefore, the

totals for each sector will be slightly larger than the totals for individual sector tables, which include only projects

over US$1 million (with the exception of Environment and Climate Change, explained later).

b. Aggregate donor contributions per sector can be found in Annex IV, Table 14.

c. Pipeline project data is based on limited data available (as of December 19, 2016); as such, these numbers are

expected to fluctuate. Pipeline projects are defined as projects that are in development and have pledged funding but

have not yet begun disbursements or activities.

d. Summary of 2014 and 2015 Budgets.

Aid Effectiveness and General Budget Support

6. The PAPs group is the main mechanism for donor coordination in Mozambique.5

The PAP is a group of 16 DPs6 that promote better donor coordination and serve as a platform

data was collected for all projects in each sector, only projects over US$1 million are presented in the tables, as they

capture the most significant DP investments in each sector and streamline the report for readability. 4 This includes neither pipeline project funds nor nontraditional donor funds, which are not counted in ODA figures.

5 Most donors participate in the Development Partners Group (DPG), which includes donors who are not formal

members of the PAP.


6

for negotiations with the Government. The PAP group also coordinated General Budget Support

(GBS) 7

for the Government’s five-year development plan (plano quinquenal do governo, PQG)

with a specific focus on poverty reduction. In 2015, the GoM and DPs defined the terms for GBS

in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The MoU specifies the structure for policy dialogue

through two annual meetings, the Annual Review and the Planning Meeting, as well as through a

common Performance Assessment Framework (PAF).8

Mozambique was often cited as a leader in donor coordination, having started the PAP

PAP process in early 2000. The GoM and DPs established the PAP in line with the Paris Aid

Effectiveness Principles and DP commitments to strengthen harmonization and the use of

country systems. The PAP grew quickly from a group of 4 participating DPs to 19 by 2009.9

Despite strong early progress and DP support, however, GBS reached a peak of 34 percent of

total aid in 2007, then declined 24 percent by 2012, due to low levels of control over aid funding,

governance issues, and slow progress on poverty reduction goals.10

Total donor contributions to

GBS have also stagnated in the last few years (see

6 Donors include African Development Bank (AfDB), Austria, Canada, the European Union (EU), Finland, France,

Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank. See

Table 2 for details. 7 General Budget Support (GBS) is a type of aid modality which is defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD) as “unearmarked contributions to the government budget [… that] are managed

in accordance with the recipient’s budgetary procedures.” GBS, which provides external financing that is both on-

budget and on-treasury, is considered a key tool in promoting country ownership of development, in line with the

aid effectiveness principles established in the Paris Declaration and the Busan Partnership. See the OECD’s

classifications of types of aid: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/44479737.pdf. 8 The PAP includes several key non-sector working groups such as the Poverty Analysis/Monitoring Systems

(PAMS) and the Budget Analysis Group (BAG) that support the monitoring of PAP progress. 9 See the EU’s National Indicative Program for 2013–2020. Available at

https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/20151130_uemozambiquenipeng.pdf. 10

European Commission. 2014. Independent Evaluation of Budget Support in Mozambique - Volume 1 Final

Report. www.oecd.org/derec/ec/Mz-BS-Eval-Final-Report-Vol-1.pdf.

http://www.oecd.org/derec/ec/Mz-BS-Eval-Final-Report-Vol-1.pdf


7

7. Table 2 for an overview of donor participation and commitments from 2013 to 2015).

Reports on the performance of the GoM and DPs through the PAF document indicate declining

participation rates in the GBS mechanism.11

The rising importance of nontraditional DPs—

particularly China and Brazil, which have yet to join the PAP process—add to this trend.

8. The PAP has been supported by 29 thematic and sector-specific working groups

since 2009, including working groups on cross-cutting themes, which include active

engagement from partners outside of the PAP process. Sector working groups were

established as the central coordination mechanism for policy dialogue to guide the PAP process.

The most recent review of the PAP process concluded, however, that this policy dialogue is

fragmented; overly complicated; and does not adequately link research, debate, and policy

development.12

Starting in 2016, under the new GBS MoU, donor contributions will be

coordinated through 16 subgroups within four working groups: National Systems, Inclusive

Growth, Governance and Accountability, and Effective Service Delivery.

9. In addition to the PAP process, many donors have collaborated to strengthen

specific sectors through sector budget support or common funds. Common funds provide

donors with an opportunity to channel on-budget support that makes use of country systems and

allows for additional control in ensuring that aid funding is spent effectively.13

Common funds

have been established in education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, roads, social

protection, fisheries, public financial management (PFM), and statistics. Use of common fund

systems has also been in decline, however, as has on-budget project support.14

In the last review

of PAPs’ targets for 2014, for example, only 34 percent of aid provided to Mozambique was

channeled through the national budget, capturing only a small subset of overall donor

engagement.

10. Sector working groups play an important role leading policy dialogue and technical

collaboration between the Government and DPs, both for PAP donors and other aid

modalities. DPs that provide aid external to the GBS, either through common funds or project

interventions, also engage sector working groups to coordinate activities, ensuring alignment

with government plans and priorities and avoiding duplication with other sector donors. These

working groups, however, often lack the administrative capacity to maintain records of sector-

specific projects and funding, and they vary greatly in their level of institutionalization,

cooperation, and engagement in policy dialogue.

11. In 2016, support for GBS, common funding, and on-budget funding modalities has

fallen sharply, a direct result of concerns about budget transparency associated with the

discovery in April of previously undisclosed loans and the lack of an agreement with the

11

European Commission 2014. 12

European Commission 2014. 13

Common funds, or basket funds, are accounts for sector-specific or program-specific purposes, which are jointly

managed by DPs and the Government. Common funds are often associated with sectorwide approaches (SWAps),

which have shared project documents, funding contracts, and reporting procedures. Common funds use country

budget systems but may be channeled externally to the treasury using separate accounts. See the OECD’s definitions

of aid modalities in footnote 8. 14

Project interventions are donor interventions that are channeled outside of government systems, and they may be

reported on- or off-budget, depending on the donor.


8

International Monetary Fund (IMF). While the GoM has taken steps toward restoring

confidence among DPs, there is little expectation that this will change in the near future. As

such, going forward, GBS funding and common funding mechanisms may see a decline in use

unless the GoM takes measures of paramount importance in addressing fiduciary risks.


9

TABLE 2: PAP GENERAL BUDGET SUPPORT COMMITMENTS, 2013–2015

Donor 2013 2014 2015 Total

World Bank 110.0 110.0 100.0 320.0

European Union 72.8 76.6 15.9 165.3

United Kingdom 71.1 65.5 33.4 170.0

Sweden 47.3 47.3 47.3 141.9

AfDB 27.6 29.8 14.7 72.1

Ireland 11.5 11.6 11.1 34.2

Canada 14.7 9.7 9.1 33.5

Denmark 9.6 10.1 10.7 30.4

Finland 9.0 7.7 8.3 25.0

Switzerland 8.5 7.5 8.2 24.2

Germany 11.5 9.0 — 20.5

Italy 6.4 6.5 6.9 19.8

Norway 17.0 — — 17.0

France 2.6 2.6 2.8 8.0

Austria 1.9 1.9 2.1 5.9

Portugal 1.9 0.5 0.6 3.0

Spain — — — 0

Total 423.3 396.3 270.9 1,090.8

Source: Author summary from data available on the Program Aid Partners web page: http://pap.org.mz/.

Note: Donor commitments in US$, millions.


10

I: Agriculture

12. Background. The main coordination mechanism for agriculture investments is the

donor-led Development Partners Group for Agriculture and Rural Development (AgRED)

Group. AgRED was created in 2011 to replace the donor harmonization arrangements supporting

the prior SWAp, post-Agricultural Sector Strategy and Expenditure Program (Programa de

Desenvolvimento Agrícola, PROAGRI). PROAGRI I and II had been the primary coordination

mechanisms since 1998 and included a common fund to pool resources in support of

Government programs. PROAGRI I, which was completed in 2005, was seen as having

strengthened agricultural institutions, but it was criticized for having had limited efforts on direct

service delivery. PROAGRI II, which was developed in 2006, addressed these concerns;

however, only 8 of the original 15 DPs signed on. The PROAGRI approach was officially

disbanded in May 2011. It was then that the Government developed a new strategic plan for

agriculture in alignment with the regional Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Program (CAADP) approach.15

The Strategy and Plan for Agro-Development (Plano Estratégico

de Desenvolvimento Agrário, PEDSA) and National Agriculture Investment Plan (Plano

Nacional de Investimentos no Sector Agrário, PNISA) were developed as multi-institutional

frameworks to mobilize investments for agriculture and agriculture-supporting activities such as

roads, nutrition, and agricultural education.

13. Objective. The objective of AgRED is to strengthen the overall development

effectiveness of support provided to the agriculture sector by harmonizing DPs’ interventions

and by promoting coordinated and efficient policy dialogue with the GoM. AgRED’s priorities

include joint dialogue with the Government on operationalizing the CAADP agenda, specifically

implementing the PEDSA and PNISA, exploring co-funding modalities, and improving the PFM

systems in the sector.

14. Structure. The AgRED group includes approximately 30 agencies and is chaired on a

rotational basis between the World Bank (the current chair), EU, and United States Agency for

International Development (USAID). The group meets monthly and communicates joint

messages to the GoM on a regular basis through heads of mission and the official G-14 dialogue.

The main government counterpart for the group is the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

(Ministério da Agricultura e Segurança Alimentar, MASA), which attends some meetings when

invited to discuss particular topics. AgRED is a single body without any subgroups; however,

such an organizational disaggregation has been proposed by the World Bank as a potential way

to increase technical engagement on issues such as seeds, food security, and agri-business.

15. Financing coordination. Sector investments are tracked through an MS Excel

spreadsheet, external to ODAmoz, that are categorized by PNISA programs. MASA also has the

mandate to track PNISA implementation, including contributions from DPs and the private

sector, through a multistakeholder coordination mechanism; however, such a group is yet to be

established.

15

The CAADP is coordinated and driven by the African Union and supported by donors, and it provides a

continent-wide harmonized agriculture development approach. PNISA is the agriculture sector investment plan that

is based on the CAADP program and the policy/strategy PEDSA. Both PEDSA and PNISA are up for review in

2017.


11

16. Additional coordination mechanisms. Within the agriculture sector, additional

coordination mechanisms have been established for donor coordination, separate from AgRED,

for the seed subsector, food security, nutrition, land tenure, and growth corridors.16

These

groups, while operating independently, share many common members with AgRED and have a

stronger focus on technical policy issues rather than donor coordination.

Seeds. The National Seed Committee coordinates with the Institute of Agricultural

Research of Mozambique (Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique, IIAM)

within MASA and serves as a platform to meet with DPs and solicit support for their

government programs for seed research and development.

Food security and nutrition. Coordination on food security and nutrition is done

through the Technical Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition (Secretariado

Técnico de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, SETSAN), a coordinating body

within MASA. Food fortification, a key component of the nutrition agenda, is also

coordinated by the GoM through the National Committee for Food Fortification in

Mozambique (Comité Nacional para a Fortificação de Alimentos Moçambique,

CONFAM), which is co-chaired by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce

(Ministério da Indústria e Comércio, MIC) and the Ministry of Health (Ministério

da Saúde, MISAU).

Land tenure. The Land Tenure Working Group is a DP-led working group, currently

chaired by the Netherlands, which convenes ad hoc meetings to share information on

programs. The working group also coordinates with the National Directorate of

Land (Direcção Nacional de Terras, DNAT) of the Ministry of Land, Environment,

and Rural Development (Ministério da Terra, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural,

MITADER) to discuss options and recommendations on certifying community land

and transferable land rights (right of use and tenure [Direito do Uso e

Aproveitamento da Terra, DUATs]).

Growth corridors. The GoM strongly supports a growth corridor model to facilitate

private sector agriculture investments. Growth corridors vary in their coordination

strategy, with some, such as the Beira Agricultural Growth Corridor (BACG) and

the Zambezi Valley, operating as public-private partnerships (PPPs), and others,

such as the Triangular Co-operation Program for Agricultural Development of the

Tropical Savannah in Mozambique (Programa de Cooperação Tripartida para o

Desenvolvimento Agrícola da Savana Tropical em Moçambique, ProSAVANA), as

joint Government and DP initiatives. These groups are active in coordinating and

monitoring regional investments from both DPs and private sector partners.

17. Conclusions. The agriculture sector faces significant coordination challenges because of

the wide range of coordinating stakeholders, often spanning multiple sectors, which need to

collaborate to support development efforts in agriculture. Stakeholders interviewed deemed the

AgRED group as being effective at coordinating projects among DPs; however, the current

16

A coordination body on agri-business had previously been coordinated by SNV Mozambique, a local affiliate of a

Dutch nongovernmental organization (NGO); however, it stopped being active in 2015.


12

working group structure does not allow for the cross-sectoral collaboration that is needed to

pursue reforms.

18. Recommendations

(a) Operationalize the multistakeholder coordination mechanism, which was defined by

PNISA within MASA but has yet to be operationalized, which will mobilize

funding, monitor progress, and lead policy dialogue.17

(b) The GoM and MASA should lead this process and coordination mechanism, as

AgRED is not a substitute for government leadership on multistakeholder

coordination with DPs and the private sector on PNISA implementation.

(c) Strengthen cross-sectoral coordination between agriculture and key partner sectors,

such as transportation, trade and commerce, and the financial sector, especially on

specific policy areas, such as agri-business, seeds, or food security, to identify the

reforms needed to develop the sector.

TABLE 3: AGRICULTURE PROJECTS

Donor Project Title Timeline Total

Budget

Alliance for a

Green

Revolution in

Africa (AGRA)

Agro-Dealer Development 2013–2016 1.0

Agro-Dealer Development Project 2012–2016 1.2

Beira Corridor Small-Scale Farmers Support and Market Linkages 2014–2017 1.3

Building the Capacity of Smallholder Farmers and Farmer

Organizations to Engage in Agriculture Value Chain in Sofala and

Manica

2013–2016 3.2

AGRA/SSPT Up-Scaling the Cassava Value Chain in Mozambique 2014–2017 1.5

Sweden ARENA 2013–2016 3.6

Capacity Building Cluster Program, UNAC 2014–2017 5.5

Community Land Initiative iTC 2015–2017 3.0

PRODEL 2012–2019 3.6

Rural Development in Northern Mozambique 2015–2017 2.0

Austrian

Development

Cooperation

PASF Sofala - Project Support for Agricultural Production of

Family Sector in the Province of Sofala

2012–2015 3.0

Support implementation of PNISA 2013–2015 1.0

EU Delegation Local Economic Development in the Provinces of Sofala,

Inhambane, Gaza (Public Services, Local Economic Infrastructures,

Value Chain Development)

2013–2019 27.5

Support to Accelerate Progress Towards MDG 1c in Mozambique 2013–2018 71.6

Food and

Agriculture

Organization of

the United

Nations (FAO)

UTF/MOZ/107/MOZ - Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete

Pesticides and Associated Wastes in Mozambique

2012–2016 1.8

GCP/MOZ/116/BEL - Food Security and Nutrition Program

(FSNP)

2013–2018 2.5

GCP/MOZ/100GFF - Disposal of POPS Waste and Obsolete

Pesticides in Mozambique - (FSP)

2010–2016 1.4

17

PNISA envisioned a multisectoral coordination group to implement the investment plan, established by MASA

with representation from key stakeholders with the Government, DPs, and the private sector. This planned body is

yet to be operationalized, however, and DPs continue to discuss this mechanism with MASA and other GoM

stakeholders.


13


Budget

GCP/MOZ/111/EC - Support to Accelerate Progress Towards

MDG 1c in Mozambique

2013–2018 24.8

GCP/MOZ/112/LDF - Strengthening Capacities of Agricultural

Producers to Cope with Climate Change for Increased Food

Security through the Farmers Field School Approach

2015–2019 3.4

OSRO/MOZ/501/CHA - Emergency Assistance for Flood-Affected

Households in Zambezia Province

2015–2015 3.3

Finland ADPP Farmers Clubs for Wealth Creation 2014–2018 7.8

Forestry Research Capacity Strengthening, Phase II 2012–2018 1.7

PRODEZA II 2010–2015 5.5

International

Fertilizer

Development

Center (IFDC)

2SCALE (Toward Sustainable Clusters in Agribusiness through

Learning in Entrepreneurship)

2012–2017 3.1

Scaling Cassava in Mozambique 2014–2017 1.4

Italian

Development

Agency

Program to Support Rural Development 2009–2018 6.5

SOMICA 2015–2017 1.2

Strengthening Cereals’ and Oilseeds’ Value Chains in Nhamatanda

District

2015–2017 1.2

Japan

International

Cooperation

Agency (JICA)

Support of Agricultural Development Master Plan for the Nacala

Corridor

2012– 4.4

Sustainable Production of Biodiesel from Jatropha in Mozambique 2011–2016 2.9

Project for Establishment of Development Model at Communities’

Level with Improvement of Rural Extension Service under Nacala

Corridor Agricultural Development

2013–2019 10.9

The Project for Improving Research and Technology Transfer

Capacity for Nacala Corridor Agriculture Development

2011–2017 5.5

Michigan State

University

MOZACAPN 2012–2017 3.9

Mundulide/

AECID

Economic Opportunities with Base in the Promotion of the

Agricultural Capacity of Rural Families

2010–2020 2.4

Agriculture Total 223.1

Note: Total investments over US$1 million, in US$, millions.

UNAC = National Peasant's Union (União Nacional de Camponeses).


14

II: Conservation

19. Background. The donor coordination group on conservation issues was formed in

response to the GoM’s drafting of the Conservation Areas Law, which was approved in 2014.

DPs formed a platform first to discuss policy issues related to the law and then to present a

united platform to the GoM for discussion, instead of more fragmented forums. Following

passage of the law, this group of DPs has continued to meet informally as a forum to discuss

planned and ongoing projects.

20. Objective. The original objective of the Conservation Working Group was to allow for a

DP-Government policy dialogue around conservation. However, the group has since taken on a

coordination role for DPs to share research and discuss new and ongoing activities and, instead

of using the working group forum, policy dialogue is often conducted bilaterally between DPs

and the Government.

21. Structure. The Conservation Working Group is an informal, albeit highly active,

working group. It plays a key role in coordinating sector programs and policy dialogue with the

Government. The EU has taken the coordination lead for the group, although there is no formal

chair appointed, and USAID is also active in supporting coordination efforts. The working group

was not formally established as part of the GBS process, but it coordinates with relevant GoM

institutions, including MITADER’s National Administration for Conservation Areas

(Administração Nacional das Áreas de Conservação, ANAC), the lead institution for

conservation, as well as the National Institute for Tourism (Instituto Nacional do Turismo,

INATUR), which collects data on tourism in protected areas. As many members of the working

group have expressed support for the creation of an independent institution for conservation

issues, there may be the potential for policy dialogue on specific issues through the working

group forum.

22. Financing coordination. The main financing mechanism for conservation is the

Foundation for the Conservation of Biodiversity trust fund (BioFund), an endowment funding

mechanism established in 2014 and launched in 2015 as part of MozBio, the World Bank’s

Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development project. BioFund was established through

the broad support of stakeholders, including bilateral DPs such as Germany, France, and the

United States, as well as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Global

Environment Facility (GEF), the World Bank, Conservation International, and the World

Wildlife Fund (WWF).

23. Additional coordination mechanisms

Biodiversity and parks. A related donor coordination working group on biodiversity

and parks coordinates with MITADER. It has not been active of late.

24. Conclusions. Current informal arrangements for the Conservation Working Group

appear to meet donor coordination objectives as a useful forum for exchanging information.

Nevertheless, the group could potentially be more active on policy dialogue issues.


15

25. Recommendations

(a) Expand the mandate of the Conservation Working Group to discuss policy issues,

such as the creation of an independent institution, and joint objectives, such as

raising the profile of conservation issues within the country.

(b) Secure additional resources and administrative support to ensure success of the

expanded working group.

TABLE 4: CONSERVATION PROJECTS


Budget

Active Projects

French

Development

Agency (AFD)

Consolidating the Development of the Quirimbas National Park 2010–2013 4.4

AFD/FFEM Climate Change Adaptation in the Quirimbas National Park 2011–2014 1.1

Miombo Pilot Project to Combat Deforestation and Forest

Degradation in the Gilé National Reserve and its Surroundings

Area

2012–2014 2.2

Conservation

International/Global

Conservation Fund

BioFund Endowment Fund 2015–2024 1.0

Italian Cooperation Protection of Coastal and Marine Habitats of the Quirimbas

National Park for Food Security and Economic Development 2017–2020 2.8

Conservation of Natural Resources in the National Reserve of

Gilé and its Peripheral Areas through the Strengthening of

Economic and Productive Activities of Rural Communities

2017–2020 1.6

Japan (JICA) The Project for Establishment of Sustainable Forest Resource

Information Platform for Monitoring REDD+ in Mozambique 2013–2018 7.8

UNDP Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas Systems in

Mozambique 2011–2015 5.1

USAID Alliance for Ecosystem Conservation Systems, Markets, and

Tourism (ECO-SMART) 2015–2019 9.8

Integrated Gorongosa Buffer Zone (IGBZ) 2015–2019 10.0

World Bank Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project

(MozBio) 2014–2017 46.0

REDD+ Readiness 2013–2017 3.5

Active Total

95.2

Pipeline Projects

AFD BioFund

2.2

Project to Support Conservation Areas, in Synergy with MozBio Program,

with a Special Focus on Anti-Poaching 4.4

AfDB, International

Finance

Corporation, World

Bank

Forest Investment Program

25.0

UNDP Strengthening the Conservation of Globally Threatened Species in

Mozambique through Improving Biodiversity Enforcement and Expanding

Community Conservancies around Protected Areas

15.8

World Bank Agriculture and Natural Resources Landscape Management Project (Phase 1) 40.0

World Bank Zambezia Integrated Landscape Initiative 50.0


16


Budget

(possibly others)

Pipeline Total

137.4

Conservation Total 232.6


REDD+ = Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.


17

III: Education

26. Background. Donor coordination in the education sector is done through a formalized,

structured working group and SWAp that receives strong leadership and direction from the

Ministry of Education and Human Development (Ministério da Educação e Desenvolvimento

Humano, MINEDH). DP coordination in education has a strong history, starting with an informal

SWAp in 1998. In 2012, DPs signed the first MoU for FASE to support the GoM’s Education

Strategic Plan. A formalized integrated SWAp was established in 2006, along with the second

phase of FASE. In 2012, the Government also established the Terms of Reference (ToR) for

dialogue between the MINEDH and DPs, along with the third phase of FASE, which is now

ongoing. With each iteration of FASE, the MINEDH has emphasized streamlining funding

through FASE, expanding technical dialogue and capacity building, and strengthening financial

monitoring.

27. Objective. The primary objective of FASE is to provide funding support to the Education

Sector Strategic Plan, which has been extended until 2019. This plan supports primary education,

secondary education, technical and vocational training, and literacy and adult education. Another

objective of FASE is to advance the aid effectiveness agenda: solidifying the MINEDH’s

leadership; ensuring donor alignment with Government priorities; and harmonizing procedures,

information sharing, and common reporting arrangements.

28. Structure. FASE has a clear and organized structure of working groups and high-level

meetings to facilitate policy and technical dialogue. Partners agree to the responsibility of an

annual rotating chair position, to facilitate coordination within FASE.18

FASE’s dialogue and

coordination system is extensive and inclusive, and it involves FASE partners,19

non-FASE

DPs,20

MINEDH and Provincial Education Directorates, and civil society. Working groups are

the main forum for discussion between the Government and DPs, meeting monthly and chaired

by the MINEDH National Directors, with separate groups established based on subsectors21

and

thematic issues.22

Inputs from these groups are raised at Joint Coordination Committee meetings,

which are also held monthly. They focus on policy dialogue; are chaired by MINEDH’s

Permanent Secretary; and include the DP Chair, National and Provincial Directors, and

representatives from other ministries.23

Annual Review Meetings, chaired by the Minister of

Education and including all relevant DPs and GoM officials, jointly assess progress from the

previous year and make plans for the following year. FASE also includes a system for parallel

coordination meetings between DPs, separate from the Government, including weekly

coordination meetings to monitor implementation, monthly thematic meetings, and cooperating

18

For example, in 2015, Finland was the chair, sharing responsibilities with the outgoing chair, United Nations

Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the incoming chair for the following year, Germany. 19

FASE partners include Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, UNICEF, and the World Bank. 20

Non-FASE partners are DFID; USAID; JICA; International Labor Organization (ILO); United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and

Deutscher Volkshochschul-Verband (DVV) International. 21

Sector Working Groups include Primary Education, Secondary Education, Higher Education, Technical and

Vocational Education, Literacy and Adult Education, and Administrative and Institutional Development. 22

Thematic Working Groups include Planning and Financial Management, Human Resources Development,

Teacher Training, School Construction, and Cross-cutting Issues. 23

Twice a year, an Extended Joint Coordination Committee meeting is held to include all DPs, which is also chaired

by the Permanent Secretary.


18

partners’ meetings to strengthen donor harmonization. FASE’s system of working groups and

coordination meetings, along with on-budget support and common reporting mechanisms, has

met all of its established objectives to date.

29. Financing coordination. FASE provides the core framework for DP financing in the

education sector, with 86 percent of DP funding channeled through this on-budget SWAp

financing mechanism in 2016. Internal Government funding accounts for 87 percent of total

spending, along with 2 percent that is financed through off-budget bilateral projects. Total FASE

investment levels had been increasing over the last decade, reaching almost US$140 million in

2014; however, this dropped in 2015 to only US$45 million. The World Bank has been the

largest financing partner for FASE, contributing 47 percent of all external financing since 2013.

In addition to the on-budget contributions of FASE partners, FASE is also beginning to pilot

results-based financing mechanisms, with targets linked to disbursements.24

30. Additional coordination mechanisms. FASE requires close coordination with other line

ministries, and the FASE coordination structure was developed to include partner ministries as

part of the dialogue process. In practice, however, some ministries have been less active in

coordinating on technical levels, which raises challenges for DPs trying to implement programs

and policies in these areas.

31. Conclusions. Overall, FASE appears to be a well-defined, effective, and inclusive

mechanism for donor coordination, policy dialogue, and pooled financing. FASE does face

challenges, many of which have been identified as part of its own monitoring and evaluation

process.

32. Recommendations

(a) Ensure greater ministerial coordination with FASE at the technical levels.

(b) The MINEDH seeks to leverage DPs’ experience more upstream of the policy

formulation process. Despite the robust system for policy coordination, in some

cases, DPs have only limited consultation with the MINEDH during the policy

development process. Policies are often presented to DPs only when they are

approved, which is often too late to provide substantive feedback.

TABLE 5: EDUCATION PROJECTS


Budget

Multi-Donor

Common Fund

Support Fund for the Education Sector (FASE) — 585.8

Canada BETTER Project 2015–2022 13.7

PAQE Project 2015–2017 1.4

School Feeding 2014–2016 4.4

STEM Project 2014–2020 13.7

U.K. Citizens’ Engagement Program (CEP) 2012–2017 15.4

24

Targets include number of completed schools, performance audits and program evaluations, on-time construction,

and hiring for construction. See the FASE Desk Review, 2015.


19


Budget

Development

for International

Development

(DFID)

Promoting Girls' Advancement in Education - Mozambique (PAGE-

M) 2012–2017 8.7

Skills for Employment (S4E) 2015–2021 24.5

The Business of Girls’ Education (BGE) 2013–2017 2.3

EU Opportunities for Youth Employment in the Beira Corridor: Linking

informal and formal economies 2015–2019 1.7

Germany/Kredit

anstalt für

Wiederaufbau

(KfW)

Management Consultant for the Education Sector Support Fund

(School Construction) 2015–2018 2.2

Support to the Mozambican Technical and Vocational Education and

Training Sector (TVET) 2016–2019 16.7

Irish Aid Improving Quality 2014–2016 2.0

Italy NGO AVSI - Promotion of Primary Education and Communitarian

Development in the District of Nhalamankulu. 2015–2018 1.2

PRETEP - PLUS - Support to Technical and Professional Training

Reform System in Mozambique 2016–2019 40.6

Support the University Eduardo Mondlane for Academic Reform,

Technological Innovation and Scientific Research 2011–2017 5.6

JICA Project for Expansion of New Curriculum of IFP 2014–2020 4.2

Project for the Construction of Secondary Schools in Nampula

Province 2013–2015 10.6

Project for the Construction of Monapo Primary Teacher Training

Institute in Nampula Province 2014–2015 10.2

Sweden Institutional Research Capacity Building at University Eduardo

Mondlane 2011–2016 29.0

USAID ApaL 2012–2016 24.4

Engaging Communities to Improve Early Grade Reading 2015–2018 1.6

I Read 2014–2019 4.4

Food for Knowledge 2015–2019 50.0

Nikhalamo 2014–2018 1.1

Strengthening School Councils 2013–2016 1.2

Education Total 876.8



20

IV: Environment and Climate Change

33. Background. The Environment and Climate Change Working Group (ECCWG) is the

donor coordination group established as part of the GBS process to coordinate support to

Mozambique’s efforts to address climate change and environmental policy. Mozambique’s key

strategy document guiding policy is the National Strategy for Gender, Environment, and Climate

Change, approved in 2010.25

Environmental and climate change issues are cross-cutting, with

important policy and implementation roles for other sector line ministries, such as agriculture,

energy, infrastructure/roads, and the management of coastal areas. Donor coordination in these

areas originally began as part of GBS, when an Environmental Working Group (EWG) was

established in 2007 to be chaired by the Ministry of Coordination of Environmental Affairs

(Ministério para a Coordenação da Acção Ambiental, MICOA) and include cross-sector

representation, including DPs, civil society, and the private sector. While the EWG was slow to

institutionalize, a parallel DP working group was established to harmonize policy dialogue

between DPs and the GoM, which by 2010 had become more active than the original EWG.26

The World Bank coordinates prior actions for its ongoing Development Policy Operation (DPO)

with the working group members. Members also coordinate on the development of local

adaption plans that have been developed in 35–40 districts.

34. Objective. The objective of the ECCWG is to facilitate discussion among DPs on

ongoing and planned programs. The ECCWG plays a limited role for sector policy dialogue,

however, and coordination takes place predominantly between DPs, with only limited

coordination with the Government. Much of the sector coordination on policy issues and strategy

takes place informally, outside of the ECCWG meetings.

35. Structure. The ECCWG is a formalized working group of approximately 20 DPs. The

working group was previously supported by the Netherlands and then the Danish International

Development Agency (DANIDA), and it is currently chaired by UNDP, which also provides

administrative support. Meetings are held every 2–3 months. The main Government counterpart

is MICOA. However, representatives from MITADER; MASA; Ministry of Public Works and

Housing (Ministério da Obras Públicas e Habitação, MOPH); Ministry of Mineral Resources

and Energy (Ministério dos Recursos Minerais e Energia, MIREME); Ministry of Fisheries; and

the National Institute of Disaster Management (Instituto Nacional de Gestão de Calamidades,

INGC) also attend.

36. Financing coordination. Budget support dialogue was the main coordination mechanism

for DPs; however, in recent years, as budget support has declined, this is now changing. UNDP

requests that DPs submit data on their budget support and off-budget projects and maintains this

database for the working group. On-budget support is managed through the Ministry of Economy

and Finances (Ministério da Economia e Finanças, MEF); however, it is not clear whether the

MEF is also collecting data on off-budget project investments. The World Bank is currently

supporting a Public Expenditure and Institutional Review of Climate Change with MITADER,

25

Climate change is also a key component of Component V in the Government’s PQG, which focuses on disaster

risk reduction and climate change adaptation. 26

ODI Case Study on Environmental Institutions 2008. Available at https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-

assets/publications-opinion-files/4657.pdf.


21

which will draw on ODAmoz and, when completed, will be circulated with the ECCWG. There

have yet to be any discussions among DPs on the possibility of pooled funding mechanisms.


Forestry. A donor coordination group on forestry used to meet regularly, but it has

not been active in recent years. USAID and Sweden have previously been active in

sector coordination, and the World Bank is currently exploring options to provide

technical support to the WWF for strengthening sector coordination. A Forest

Investment Program (FIP) is being developed by the World Bank and other DPs,

including DFID; a coordination mechanism would be essential in starting policy

dialogue with the Government on this initiative. The main institutional partner for

the forestry sector is MITADER, which was previously part of MASA; some areas

of responsibility, such as forestry plantations, have yet to be clearly delegated.

Public sector inter-ministerial coordination. Concerns have been raised about the

effectiveness of public sector inter-ministerial coordination on climate change. The

National Council for Sustainable Development (Conselho Nacional de

Desenvolvimento Sustentável, CONDES) is the institution within the GoM that

should be coordinating cross-sector dialogue on environmental policy, including

climate change, conservation, and reforestation. Previous assessments, however,

have concluded that it has yet to fulfil this mandate.27

38. Conclusions. The current structure and functions of the ECCWG appear to be fulfilling

its core mandate for donor coordination. There may be untapped potential, however, in

expanding the role of the working group to include policy dialogue with the GoM.

39. Recommendations

(a) Expand the mandate of the ECCWG to allow for policy dialogue, particularly

around forest management and climate change, that would help direct policy

discussions and expand engagement with Government partners.

(b) MICOA should take a more proactive role in guiding the agenda of the working

group to address sector priorities, as well as discuss the possibility of pooled funding

mechanisms. Strengthened leadership from the Government could help ensure that

donor investments are aligned with the GoM’s planning and priorities.

27

BTI 2016. Available at

https://www.bti-project.org/fileadmin/files/BTI/Downloads/Reports/2016/pdf/BTI_2016_Mozambique.pdf.


22

TABLE 6: ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECTSa

Donor Name Project Title Total

Budget

DANIDA Administration and Finance 0.2

Cooperation 0.2

Environmental Impact Assessment 0.2

Environmental Management 0.7

Human Resources 0.2

Planning and Studies 0.4

Planning and Territorial Planning 0.3

Promoting Mechanisms of Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change 0.1

Japan (JICA) Project for the Capacity Enhancement of Meteorological Observation,

Weather Forecasting and Warning

1.4

Assistance for Enhancement of Institutional Capacity to Manage Water

Related Disaster Risks in Mozambique

1.4

The Project for Promotion of Sustainable 3R Activities in Maputo 3.8

World Bank Technical Assistance for Climate Change 0.6

Grand Total 9.4

Note: Total investments over US$100,000, in US$, millions.

a. As no projects over US$1 million were found for this sector, table presents projects over US$100,000.

Total budget calculated as the sum of 2014 and 2015 budgets, retrieved from e-SISTAFE and the BOOST database

(project dates unknown). These may be lower than overall project budgets. US$ calculated based on yearly

exchange rate from original MZN.


23

V: Fisheries

40. Background. Mozambique has a long history of donor support in the fisheries sector,

with cooperation with Norway starting after independence in 1975. The fisheries sector had a

predominant role after independence until the end of the civil war, as a major contributor to

public revenues and source of subsistence for scattered coastal populations. The sector’s relative

socioeconomic importance decreased as the economy took off following the formal end of

hostilities; however, it remains important for coastal populations, while the industry’s

contribution to economic growth remains somewhat untapped. That being said, the small number

of DPs operating in the sector simplifies coordination between DPs and the GoM.

41. Objective. The objective of the Fisheries Donor Coordination Meetings is to share

information on DP projects and activities. DPs have also explored questions on how to improve

the results of programs during such meetings.

42. Structure. The Ministry of Fisheries,28

which manages departments and institutes on

policy, fisheries management, and the promotion and development of fisheries, was responsible

for coordinating alignment of DP projects with Government priorities. Activities within the

fisheries sector are made in alignment with the Fisheries Master Plan II 2010–2019. Donor

coordination in the fisheries sector was until recently done through two main groups: National

Fishery Coordination, a donor-government coordination body, and the Fishery Donor

Coordination Meetings, which are organized by DPs. Norway chairs the donor coordination

efforts within the sector, which has 16 participating DPs. Other key DPs include Iceland, JICA,

the European Commission (EC), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),

Belgium, and AfDB. The ToR for the coordination group was developed, providing guidance for

three working group meetings per year with the Ministry of Fisheries’ Permanent Secretary;

annual meetings to review the Economic and Social Plan (Plano Económico e Social, PES); joint

missions; and ad hoc task forces. In practice, meetings have not been regular and are called

usually on an ad hoc basis during DP missions.

43. Financing coordination. In 2013, DPs had 16 projects with a total of US$105 million in

support of the sector.29

Norway is a lead DP in the fisheries sector, leading the Support to the

Fisheries Sector of Mozambique project (2013–2017), with joint funding from Iceland and the

GoM. Norway and Iceland had previously managed a common fund; however, there are no

overall SWAp coordinating efforts in the sector. Individual DP projects are tracked through the

donor coordination group with a spreadsheet that is circulated in the group. The Fisheries

Development Fund, a financial institution to provide credit to fisheries, had previously collected

information on external partner investments, but it has not been active in this role in recent years.

44. Additional coordination mechanisms. As part of decentralization, the responsibility for

implementing fisheries activities has devolved to district administrations and the District

Services of Economic Affairs (Serviços Distritais das Atividades Económicas, SDAE). The

28

The Ministry of Sea, Internal Waters, and Fisheries (Ministério do Mar, Aguas Interiores e Pescas, MIMAIP)

replaced the Ministry of Fisheries; however, these arrangements have yet to be confirmed. 29

Program Document Common Fund, Support to the Fisheries Sector of Mozambique 2013–2017. Available at

http://www.iceida.is/media/verkefnagagnabanki/Support-to-the-Fisheries-Sector-of-Mozambique-2013-2017---

Programme-Document-Common-Fund.pdf.


24

Ministry of Fisheries had been active in trying to strengthen SDAE capacity on fisheries, and

recent years have seen increasing coordination taking place between partners and the

Government at the district level.

45. Conclusions. Public sector leadership in the fisheries sector, which is linked to

institutional capacity, is limited. DPs agree that this needs to be strengthened; however, it is

unclear what they can do without a more general commitment from the GoM.

46. Recommendations

(a) Hold more regular, structured meetings of the Fisheries Donor Coordination Group

to improve organization of the sector and better engage partners on policy issues,

addressing the limited engagement of DPs on policy issues.

(b) The Fisheries Donor Coordination Group should establish stronger connections to

other groups, including agriculture and conservation, given the important role of

fisheries in the strategies of other sectors (such as PNISA for agriculture).

TABLE 7: FISHERIES PROJECTS


Budget

Active Projects

IFAD/EU Aquaculture Promotion Project (PROAQUA) 2013–2017 3.3

IFAD/OFID/EU Artisanal Fisheries Promotion Project (PROPESCA) 2011–2018 57.9

The Norwegian Ministry

of Foreign Affairs

Support to the Fisheries Sector of Mozambique 2013–

2017

2013–2017 30.2

World Bank/DGF Global Partnership for Oceans (South West Indian Ocean) 2013–2016 1.1

World Bank/Japan

Social Development

Fund (JSDF)

Community-Based Coastal Resource Management and

Sustainable Livelihoods (PPACG)

2010–2015 1.9

Active Total 94.4

Pipeline Projects

World Bank/GEF First South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and

Shared Growth (SWIOFish1)

2015–2021 37.0

World Bank/JSDF Aquaculture and Climate Change Tentatively

2015–2020

3.0

World Bank/Nordic

Development Fund

(NDF)

Aquaculture and Climate Change Tentatively

2015–2020

4.7

Artisanal Fisheries and Climate Change 2015–2018 3.2

Pipeline Total 47.9

Fisheries Total 142.2



25

VI: Health

47. Background. DP coordination in Mozambique’s health sector is mainly focused around

the Health SWAp. The health sector receives high levels of external assistance, as well as a large

variety of DP and NGO implementers of health programs. Despite this coordination challenge,

the Health SWAp is a well-defined, organized system to coordinate among DPs and between

DPs and the Government. The SWAp includes 26 DPs, 14 of which also originally joined in the

common funding mechanism, ProSAUDE. Annual partner contributions to the Health SWAp are

tracked in the External Funds Survey (Inquérito dos Fundos Externo, IFE), an annual data

collection effort by MISAU to capture DP financial commitments and disbursements in the

health sector; the IFE has been ongoing since 2007. Commitments, investments, and projects are

tracked annually and reported as part of an Annual Joint Evaluation.

48. Objective. The objective of the Health SWAp is to support coordination across

Government, DPs, and NGOs to implement the Health Sector Strategic Plan (Plano Estratégico

do Sector da Saúde, PESS) 2014–2019, which aims to gradually transition to universal health

coverage. The SWAp also aims to reduce donor fragmentation and off-budget spending,

although recent worries about the integrity of the Government’s PFM system and procurement

processes have led several DPs to pull out of the common fund mechanism.30

49. Structure. The key partner institution for health sector coordination is MISAU. The

Health Partners Coordination Framework provides the basic framework for formal DP

coordination in the health sector. Meetings are held at three levels: (a) working groups and ad

hoc task groups, which are chaired by MISAU Directors and Department Heads;31

(b) Joint

Coordination Committee meetings that meet every 1–2 months, chaired by MISAU’s Permanent

Secretary;32

and (c) a Sector Coordination Committee, which meets biannually, is chaired by the

Minister of Health, and co-chaired by a representative from the DPs’ working group. The sector

also has a Health Partners Group, specifically for intra-donor coordination, which is currently

chaired by USAID and co-chaired by the UNFPA. The Health Partners Group chair position

rotates every two years.

50. Financing coordination. Health sector funding is either channeled through PROSAUDE

or into vertical projects (on-budget and off-budget). Harmonizing procedures has been a

challenge within the sector; despite donor commitments, the common fund has declined from

US$100 million, at the start of the program, to US$35 million currently, with more funding now

channeled through vertical projects. In 2013, 33 percent of external health financing was off-

30

Of the original 14 members of PROSAUDE, the SWAp’s common funding mechanism, only 5 are currently

contributing to the common fund. 31

Working group meetings provide forums to discuss thematic and policy issues within the health sector. Current

working groups include (a) Human Resources for Health (co-chaired by DFID); (b) Medicines; (c) Administration

and Financing Framework (co-chaired by Canada); and (d) Planning, Infrastructure, and Monitoring and Evaluation

(co-chaired by the World Health Organization [WHO] with support from Canada). Co-chairing roles at the working

group level have no set time limit or schedule for rotation. 32

This group includes the Heads of Directorates and Departments, as well as representatives from the DP working

groups. Issues discussed include human resources, administration, planning, monitoring and evaluation, and

endemic diseases.


26

budget.33

Despite the challenges of the common funding mechanism, however, the SWAp has

provided a strong policy coordination mechanism for DPs. PROSAUDE partners are currently

working on a manual to provide guidance on sector investments for partners. IFE is the central

data collection mechanism for all health partners, both those contributing to PROSAUDE and

external projects, although some challenges to the data coverage and quality remain. The system

allows for the alignment of expenditures to specific health categories (defined in PESS),

provision of information on current and future investments, and management of data quality,

such as the potential for project duplicates. An effort was made among PROSAUDE partners to

encourage the use of ODAmoz to collect and share data on DP commitments and investments;

however, many DPs resisted this effort. Concerns were raised about the purpose of the database,

technical details about entering information, and potential overlap with existing reporting

requirements for including projects in the Government’s e-SISTAFE.


HIV/AIDS. As an important subsector for health, HIV/AIDS has a separate

coordination mechanism that links to the Health SWAp. The Pre-Partners Forum is a

partners group for bilateral and multilateral DPs, civil society, and the private sector.

The Forum has three levels of coordination, with similar engagement on policy and

technical discussions as the overall health sector. The National Council for

Sustainable Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentável,

CNCS) leads coordination in this area, which is included in the overall framework of

the Health SWAp.

Nutrition. A separate working group on nutrition issues coordinates closely with

health sector partners, along with the agriculture and other sectors. This working

group is also mentioned under the Agriculture section of this report.

NAIMA+. Many international NGOs and local NGOs coordinate activities in the

health sector through the network of NGOs working on health and HIV. This

network is a coordination and lobbying body and does not implement programs.

52. Conclusions. While the Health SWAp is highly developed, harmonizing donor

procedures and activities remains a challenge. Additionally, the current system for tracking

health investments, IFE, functions effectively, but there are limitations to the data collected.

53. Recommendations

(a) Adjust or expand IFE categories to use more than just PESS fields, to better allow

for reporting of provincial and district activities. As is, IFE data cannot distinguish

funding channeled through NGOs to subnational levels or direct funding provided to

subnational spending units.

(b) Link IFE data to government accounting systems to facilitate its use by MISAU

during annual planning and budgeting processes.

33

Health Financing Profile for Mozambique 2016. Available at

http://www.healthpolicyproject.com/pubs/7887/Mozambique_HFP.pdf.


27

(c) Strengthen monitoring and evaluation capacity in the sector, as approximately 70

percent of all spending is implemented directly by DPs.

TABLE 8: HEALTH PROJECTS


Budget

Active Projects

Canada AA-PROSAUDE 2007–2017 134.3

Health Service Delivery Project 2010–2016 11.1

Improving Integrated Local Services MNCH 2013–2017 4.5

Maternity Center of Excellency 2014–2016 3.0

Clinton Health

Access Initiative

(CHAI)

Point of Care: Improving Diagnosis 2013–2019 5.6

Supply Chain 2008–2016 1.6

Denmark AA-PROSAUDE 2007–2017 58.4

RNH-SPS Phase V - Capacity Building Central Level 2012–2017 23.6

RNH-SPS Phase V - Citizens’ Engagement Fund 2012–2017 11.9

H_HSPS IV - Support of Infrastructure Development 2006–2016 10.4

RNH-SPS Phase V - Capacity Building Provincial Level 2012–2017 10.1

RNH-SPS Phase V - Multisectoral Support to Health 2012–2017 2.7

RNH-SPS Phase V - Support to Nutritionist Capacity 2012–2017 1.3

EU Institutional Development to the CNCS (Phase 2) 2014–2016 7.6

Upgrading Infrastructure in Manhiça (Gaza) and Gile (Zambezia) 2014–2016 6.0

Support to Development of Human Resources in the Areas of

Health Management and Administration 2012–2016 3.7

Flanders AA-PROSAUDE 2007–2020 28.2

Focused Contribution to Health System Strengthening 2013–2016 2.1

Building Knowledge for Improved Quality of Services and

Community Involvement to Increase Use of Family Planning 2013–2017 1.9

Building Institutional Capacity at INS to Strengthen the Evidence

Base of Public Health System in Mozambique II 2014–2016 1.5

Innovations in Maternal and Neonatal Health 2016–2018 1.3

Accelerated Detection of TB 2014–2017 1.1

France Project to Reinforce Capacity in the Anesthetic and Resuscitation

Sector 2012–2016 1.3

Germany (GIZ) HIV Mozambique 2014–2016 5.8

The Global Fund

to Fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis and

Malaria

(GFTAM)

Reinforcing the Collaboration for a Better HIV and TB Response

in Mozambique 2015–2017 436.6

Accelerating and Strengthening Malaria Control in Mozambique 2015–2017 263.0

Reinforcing the Collaboration for a Better Response to HIV and

TB in Mozambique 2015–2017 27.5

Strengthening Health Systems and Communities through

Government-Civil Society Partnership R8 2010–2017 21.2

Irish Aid AA-PROSAUDE 2007–2016 141.0

Niassa PES Support (HEAMONIASSA) 2012–2016 2.0

Italy 2009–2016 1.9


28


Budget

Support to Development of Health Human Resources 2009–2019 18.7

Intervention to Contribute to Training, Research, and Health Care

in Beira MDG 4, 5 e 6 2015–2017 3.3

Every Newborn - Protection of Maternal and Newborn Health in

the Province of CD 2015–2017 2.5

Japan (JICA) Construction of Infulene Health Training Institute 2013–2016 27.4

Construction of Nacala Health Training Institute 2015–2018 27.3

Project for Strengthening Pedagogical and Technical Skills Health

Personnel in Mozambique (ProFORSA II) 2016–2019 3.1

Netherlands

(DGIS)

AA-PROSAUDE 2012–2016 57.6

Social Mobilization Youth 2013–2016 8.8

Spain (AECID) AA-PROSAUDE 2007–2017 25.4

Multiannual Convention – Support for CISM in the Generation of

Scientific Evidence 2014–2017 2.9

Multi-Year Agreement for the Promotion and Strengthening of

Primary Health Care 2014–2017 2.9

Bilateral Multi-Annual Grant – Support for Research 2015–2018 2.3

Switzerland

(SDC)

AA-PROSAUDE 2007–2016 47.6

Health Service Delivery Program (HSDP) 2009–2016 3.4

Citizens Demand for Better Public Health Service Delivery 2013–2017 1.0

DFID AA-PROSAUDE 2012–2016 21.1

Support to PSI Mozambique to Implement its Main Activities 2014–2016 4.9

UNFPA MOZ08MOH/FPRHCMOZ 2012–2016 10.4

MOZ08CDL 2015–2018 10.1

MOZ08PSI 2012–2016 1.7

UNICEF Children’s Health and Nutrition 2012–2016 98.6

United States

(DOD)

Support the Mozambican Armed Forces in the Fight Against

HIV/AIDS — 5.3

United States

(HHS/CDC)

Rapid Expansion of ART for HIV Infected Persons in

Mozambique for PEPFAR 2018–2011 61.5

Technical Assistance to the MOH 2011–2016 50.6

Supporting to Implement and Expand Comprehensive HIV/AIDS

Care 2011–2016 29.6

Support Indigenous Organizations to Implement and Expand

HIV/AIDS Prevention 2011–2016 28.8

Avante Zambézia: Technical Assistance to the MOH for HIV 2012–2017 27.3

ICAP TA 2011–2016 25.2

Strengthening the National Institute of Heath in Mozambique 2011–2016 9.3

UCSF SI HQ 2014–2015 1.7

UCSF SI Technical Assistance 2015–2016 1.4

Improving Implementation of Programs for Care and Treatment

on HIV/AIDS in the Republic of Mozambique 2012–2017 2.5

ICAP Capacity Building Zambezia — 23.1

National Public Health Reference Library — 3.4

United States TWINNING Center — 1.5


29


Budget

(HHS/HRSA)

United States

(USAID)

Central Contraceptive Procurement 1993–2018 17.2

Health and Social Welfare Systems Strengthening Program

(HSWSS) 2012–2017 11.2

Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III (FANTA II and III) 2010–2017 3.5

Construction of 11 Rural Health Centers — 6.2

Construction of Rural Health Centers — 4.8

World Food Program — 2.4

REPSSI PSS Course — 2.3

Construction Oversight 16 HC Centers and 3 Warehouses — 1.6

Systems for Improved Access to Pharmaceuticals and Services

(SIAPS)

— 1.3

Promoting the Quality of Medicines (PQM) — 1.1

Strengthening Health and Social Services System — 1.0

Health Service Delivery Pilot Project (HSDP) — 1.4

World Bank Health Service Delivery Pilot Project (HSDP) 2013–2016 62.6

Health Service Delivery Pilot Project (HSDP) — 1.4

World Food

Programme

Initiative for the Prevention of Chronic Malnutrition 2013–2017 19.0

Prevention of Chronic Malnutrition 2013–2017 6.4

WHO (UNFPA/

KIMCHI/Republ

ic of Korea)

Health System Strengthening

2015–2018 1.1

WHO (UNICEF/

DFATD/Canada)

Civil Registration and Vital Statistics (CVRS) 2016–2020 1.6

Active Total — — 2,029.0

Pipeline Projects —

UNICEF Children’s Health 2017–2020 38.2

Nutrition 2017–2020 19.9

Pipeline Total

58.1

Health Total 2,087.2


GIZ = German Agency for International Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit);

SDC = Swiss Development Corporation.


30

VII: Infrastructure (Roads)

54. Background. Donor coordination on transportation issues is conducted through two main

coordination mechanisms: a donor coordination group and the coordination for the road sector

SWAp. While there is no overall transportation strategy for the country, coordination on roads is

more structured and institutionalized. The Integrated Road Sector Program (Programa Integrado

do Sector de Estradas, PRISE) was established in 2006 as a SWAp to develop the road network,

including capital investments and maintenance operations.34

PRISE’s first three-year rolling

investment program (2007–2009) had more than US$1 billion in commitments from the 19

DPs.35

PRISE functions as a critical coordination mechanism for DPs to discuss sector activities,

as well as a forum to discuss plans with Government representatives at the provincial level. A

review of the Road Sector Strategy (RSS) in 2014 showed the program meeting targets for

capital investments on the primary road network. In addition to PRISE coordination, DPs also

have a separate coordination group, the Road Sector Working Group (RSWG), which was

established as part of the GBS process.36

55. Objective. The objective of PRISE is to support the implementation of priorities in the

RSS.

56. Structure. PRISE’s main coordination mechanism is biannual meetings of DPs and

Government representatives to review plans, progress, and sector challenges. PRISE is

implemented by the National Roads Administration (Administração Nacional de Estradas,

ANE), a semiautonomous institution within the MOPH. ANE takes an active leadership role in

ensuring DPs are aligned with sector priorities. As part of Mozambique’s overall decentralization

strategy, ANE has established provincial offices that have development provincial road

strategies, which can also be the basis for DP support.37

Reporting on PRISE investments is

coordinated by an independent state-owned enterprise, Maputo Sud. In addition to PRISE

coordination, the RSWG also holds 1–2 additional annual meetings, with comments from DPs

consolidated by the Chair and presented during PRISE coordination meetings. The EU currently

chairs the donor group, which has also been previously chaired by the World Bank and AfDB.38

Nontraditional donors have also made significant investments in the sector, such as the US$1.2

billion invested in the sector by China; however, these investments are less coordinated with

PRISE or the donor coordination group.

57. Financing coordination. The Road Fund within the MOPH is responsible for PRISE

resource allocation and financial management. It tracks all commitments and investments

34

PRISE had commitments from DPs on a common sector policy, strategy, and investment plan; common financing

arrangements for overhead and maintenance, common financial management, and procurement procedures; and a

common reporting and monitoring system with joint supervision missions. 35

PID, Roads and Bridges Management and Maintenance Project. Available at

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/367031468321282582/text/Project0Inform1isal0Stage0April1207.txt. 36

This working group is sometimes called the Transportation Sector Working Group. 37

EU’s Terms of Reference for the 11th EDF, 2014. Available at

http://www.taseuro.com/images/joomcareer/attachment/165/151201_TOR_Pre-

F_Study_for_11th_EDF_Rural_Roads.pdf. 38

DP members of the RSWG include the World Bank, AfDB, the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), Millennium

Challenge Corporation (MCC), DFID, EC, JICA, Republic of Korea’s Export-Import (EXIM) Bank, the United

Nations (UN), USAID, and bilateral agencies such as Sweden and Portugal.


31

through e-SISTAFE. For DPs, the PRISE SWAp is the main financial coordination mechanism.

Since establishment, however, actual investments have been below commitments, and many

programs are implemented through tradition project arrangements: as of 2010, only 5 percent of

funding for PRISE is through the common fund.39

The PRISE financial mechanisms faced some

challenges in 2012, especially in procurement, that caused implementation delays. These

arrangements were restructured, and the scope narrowed, which allowed the PRISE process to

continue. Some DPs have also failed to meet their financing commitments to PRISE, forcing the

Government to turn to alternatives and private sector funding to fill gaps.

58. Additional coordination mechanisms. PRISE has strong coordination with the MOPH

and the MEF, both of which sit on the board of the Road Fund. Connections to other line

ministry sectors are more limited, however, even in sectors that have important links to

transportation development, such as rural development, agriculture, and conservation.

59. Conclusions. Challenges exist related to the coordination of investments with

nontraditional donors, as well as increasing PPPs and whether PRISE is capturing contingent

liabilities related to these investments.

60. Recommendations

(a) ANE should encourage nontraditional donors to coordinate with the SWAp.

(b) ANE and DPs should collaborate to channel more sector funding through the

common fund. The World Bank transportation team is working with the BOOST

team on conducting a Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of PRISE

financial data, allowing real-time reporting of PRISE investments, which may

strengthen DP awareness and coordination across the sector.

TABLE 9: ROAD PROJECTS

Donor Project Title

Budget

AfDB Asphalting of the National Road N13: Cuamba-Mandimba-Massangulo 34.5

Improvement of Road N14: Lichinga Litunde and the Construction of 7 Bridges in

Troco Litundo and Marrupa 14.1

Improvement of the N13 Road: Nampula - Cuamba 18.4

Improvement of the N14 Road: Montepuez-Ruaca - Lot A 14.1

Preparation of Projects 2.2

EC Road Improvement N11: Milange - Mocuba 37.1

EXIM BANK Improvement of the N13 Road: Nampula - Cuamba 4.9

FCESTRADA Consulting and Studies 1.1

Maintenance of District Roads 9.9

Maintenance of Paved Roads 4.7

Support to the Private Sector 1.3

FED National Road Aspects N11: Mocuba-Milange Faseii 15.4

39

The OECD’s Country Program Review 2010. Available at

https://www.oecd.org/countries/mozambique/46973267.pdf. Initial commitments to the pooled fund were larger—

when established, DP contributions were to be around US$709 million of the total US$1 billion, of which US$114

million would be channeled through a pooled fund and the remaining funding implemented through traditionally

dedicated projects.


32

Donor Project Title

Budget

Road Improvement N11: Milange - Mocuba 9.4

Support to the Private Sector 1.2

FIDA Rehabilitation of Regional Roads 17.2

IND Rehabilitation of N6C Tica-Buzi'Nova Sofala National Highway 33.4

Japan (JICA) Montepuez- Lichinga Road project (co-financed with AfDB) 30

Nampula- Cuamba Road upgrading project (co-financed with AfDB and KEXIM) 57

Mandimba-Lichinga Road upgrading project (co-financed with AfDB) 65

Project for Construction of Bridges on the Road between Ile and Cuamba 48

Republic of

Korea

Asphalting of the National Road N104 Nampula-Namtil 2.4

Improvement of the N13 Road: Nampula - Cuamba 1.9

OPECPRPES Economic Infrastructures-Improvement of Road Accesses-Civil Works 4.4

Portugal Construction of the New Tete Bridge 34.0

Improvement of the N380 Road: Moçmbua Da Praia - Namoto 21.6

Improvement of the Road Magoe - Mucumbura 7.8

Improvement of the Road N221: Canicado - Chicualacuala 14.3

Rehabilitation of Regional Road R601: Estema-Maroeira 10.0

Rehabilitation of the N380 Road: Macomia-Oasse 4.2

Road Improvement N103-R657: Magige - Cuamba 14.6

Road Repair N260: Chimoio - Chipungambera 15.4

UEPRPESCA Economic Infrastructures-Improvement of Road Accesses-Civil Works 3.4

World Bank Consulting and Studies 2.3

Costs and Administrative Support 1.8

Emergency Maintenance 73.6

Formation 2.1

Preparation of Bridge Projects 2.9

Preparation of Projects 11.8

Rehabilitation of Est. Reg. R604: Ulongue-Domue-Furancungo-Poles Cresc. 7.4

Rehabilitation of Road Reg. R702: Crz N12-Nacala Olish-Polos Crec. Integrated 4.3

Rehabilitation of Regional Road R605: Crz N304 (Mphulu) -Tsangano-Ulongue 6.8

Technical Assistance 1.3

Roads Total 660.2


Total budget calculated as the sum of 2014 and 2015 budgets, retrieved from e-SISTAFE and the BOOST database

(project dates unknown). These may be lower than overall project budgets. US$ calculated based on yearly

exchange rate from original MZN.


33

VIII: Public Financial Management

61. Background. Following the approval of the PFM Reform Law (SISTAFE) in 2002,

much of the technical assistance to the sector has been coordinated by DPs to support effective

implementation of the law, including the IFMIS, e-SISTAFE. In 2012, the Government adopted

the PFM Vision 2025, which provides strategic orientation for PFM reform processes. PFM

reforms are also closely linked to the PAP process and the push for increased use of GBS, as

many DPs require strong PFM systems as a prerequisite for engaging in GBS.

62. Objective. The objective of the PFM Coordination Group is to coordinate support for

PFM systems and harmonize donors’ engagement with the GoM.

63. Structure. The PFM Coordination Group is chaired by the GoM’s Treasury and one DP,

currently the SWE. The IMF also currently serves as co-chair. The group meets regularly to

share information, prevent duplication in projects, and coordinate long-term technical assistance.

Eighteen DPs currently participate in the forum. The PFM Coordination Group also has

subgroups on budget analysis, e-SISTAFE, procurement, audits, and decentralization and service

delivery.

64. Financing coordination. Information on ongoing and pipeline projects is collected in an

Excel spreadsheet that is circulated among DPs. The most recent mapping, conducted in 2015,

estimates over US$100 million in funding for 2014–2017.40

65. Additional coordination mechanisms. PFM reforms are linked to line ministries and

service delivery issues. Other sectors, such as health, also have subgroups on sector-specific

PFM issues. Many DPs engaging with PFM issues are also members of relevant sector working

groups to reinforce the links between upstream PFM reforms and downstream service delivery

issues.

66. Conclusions. The PFM Coordination Group appears to fulfil its core function of

coordinating DP activities; however, the financial tracking of projects could be improved.

67. Recommendations

(a) The PFM Coordination Group should establish expectations of more timely and

disaggregated financial data on ongoing and pipeline projects.

40

European Union. 2015. Action Document for “Good Governance and Development Contract for the Republic of

Mozambique.” Available at https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/ad1-annex-1-mozambique-aap-

2015_en.pdf.


34

TABLE 10: PFM PROJECTS

Donor Project Title

Total

Budget

Denmark e-Tax project (GBS-Component 2) 1.8

IMF Technical Assistance to Tax Authority and CEDSIF 1.8

Tax Common Fund 5.3

DFID Support to the National Procurement System 5.8

Public Investment and Fiscal Risks Management 1.0

Tax Common Fund 8.2

EU PFM Support Program 1.9

Rule of Law 4.8

Germany Tax Common Fund 2.7

Tax Authority - Implementation of Corporate Plan 2011 - 2014 (PLACORII) 1.1

Italy SISTAFE Common Fund 1.6

Norway SISTAFE Common Fund 3.9

TA Norwegian Oil Taxation Office 1.1

Tax Common Fund 3.3

Sweden Tax Common Fund 3.1

Switzerland Tax Common Fund 1.5

No title 1.3

World Bank Cities and Climate Change Project 1.5

PFM for Results Program 50.5

World Bank, DFID Mining and Gas Technical Assistance Project - MAGTAP 1.5

PFM Total 103.7

Note: Total investments over US$1 million, in US$, millions. While total project timelines are not captured in the

PFM database, yearly commitments are included, both for prior years and future years.

CEDSIF = Center for the Development of Financial Information Systems.


35

IX: Social Protection

68. Background. Coordination in the social protection sector is conducted through the Social

Action Working Group (SAWG), convened as part of the GBS process. Previously, DPs had

engaged in discussions about a potential common fund for the sector. As they came to an

agreement on the appropriate sector approach, however, no common fund was ever established.

The main government strategy on social protection is the National Strategy for Basic Social

Security (ENSSB), which was developed in 2009. The key government institutions responsible

for social protection are the Ministry of Gender, Children, and Social Welfare (MGCAS),

specifically the National Institute for Social Action (INAS). DPs also have an informal donor

coordination group, chaired by DFID.

69. Objective. The objective of the SAWG is to provide an information-sharing platform for

DP activities. Policy dialogue has also been a strong aspect of previous meetings; however, key

differences emerged between DPs on their policy approaches.

70. Structure. The SAWG meets every 1–2 months, on an ad hoc basis. Main meetings are

held jointly between the Government and DPs, with additional meetings held for coordination

among DPs. Meetings are currently chaired by MGCAS and co-chaired by UNICEF, with plans

for DFID to take on the co-chair role in 2018; the group has a system for rotating the chair

position between organizations every two years. Key DPs include the WFP, DFID, Netherlands,

Sweden, USAID, ILO, EU, Irish Aid, and civil society representatives.

71. Financing coordination. Information on sector projects are coordinated on an annual

basis by the working group chairs. Information is collected on committed, disbursed, and

undisbursed funding. While it is not yet collected, some DPs also see the need to collect

information on the share of operational costs associated with the different DP program models.

Financing coordination also takes place between partners who are part of the UN Joint Program.

MGCAS also plays a role in coordination projects as part of the annual planning process.


UN Joint Program Coordination. Several DPs that participate in the UN Joint

Program also have a separate coordination mechanism specific to that program.

73. Conclusions. Without strong leadership from the Government, many DPs are pursing

separate approaches to social protection programs, for example social assistance subsidies,

employment generation, targeting systems, or transfer systems.

74. Recommendations

(a) The GoM should exert stronger leadership to ensure that differences among DPs no

longer stymie the potential for the SAWG to play an effective role in sector policy

dialogue. Most DPs are increasingly aligning the design of new interventions to the

national priorities set under the ENSSB, as a result of the improved sector

coordination led by MGCAS. However, alignment to Government priorities can


36

have limited benefits if a harmonization in approaches from DPs does not happen.

This has created significant fragmentation and limited sustainability of interventions.

(b) The SAWG should encourage INAS and DPs to collaborate in the collection and

management of key missing data needed to establish social protection systems, such

as consumption measures and other poverty measures, while also considering the

climate vulnerability dimension.

TABLE 11: SOCIAL PROTECTION PROJECTS


Budget

Active Projects

DFID Support to Social Protection Program (Phase 1) 2008–2016 31.2

Irish Aid Contribution to Improved Quality of Social Protection and Social

Welfare Services for the Poorest and Most Marginalized Children in

Mozambique

2012–2016 1.2

Netherlands Support to PSSB and Institutional Capacity 2012–2016 10.5

Sweden Results-Based Financing for Economic Governance 2018–2021 2018–2021 17.4

Social Protection 2011–2016 2011–2016 13.5

Social Protection 2017–2020 2017–2020 5.5

EU Nutritional Support 2017–2021 23.6

Expand Access to Social Protection Program 2015–2019 1.5

Expand Social Protection Program 2016–2019 2.0

Active Total

106.4

Pipeline Projects

DFID Climate Sensitive Public Works 2016–2020 9.8

Contingency Fund 2016–2020 7.5

Support to Social Protection Program (Phase 2) 2016–2020 9.8

EU Starting Identification and Design 2017– 10.7

Supporting Civil Society in Social Protection 2018–2022 2.7

World Bank Social Protection Project (P129524) 2013– 50

Pipeline Total

90.5

Social Protection Total

197.0



37

X: Water and Sanitation

75. Background. Donor coordination in the sector is conducted through multiple

coordination forums. GAS was established as part of the GBS and PAP process, which includes

bilateral donors, multilateral organizations, and large NGOs.41

The sector is divided into two key

subsectors supported by DPs: water supply and sanitation and integrated water resources

management. In 2010, DPs formed a SWAp to address rural water supply and sanitation, the

National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program (Programa Nacional de Abastecimento de

Água e Saneamento, PRONASAR). PRONASAR includes a common fund to pool donor

funding, which initially had commitments from the Netherlands, DFID, UNICEF, Canada, and

SDC.42

PRONASAR also includes Joint Annual Reviews to assess sector performance. In

addition, a sector donor coordination group, chaired by DFID, meets twice a year to discuss

sector policies and budget allocations. Information on the overall functioning of the water and

sanitation system is collected in the Information System for Water and Sanitation (SINAS);

however, this tool is not updated regularly by provincial and district authorities.

76. Objective. The objective of GAS is to align DP support with the Government’s PQG and

the 1995 National Water Policy and the National Water Development Program (NWDP), as well

as to discuss and evaluate sector progress and review key sector issues.

77. Structure. GAS is chaired by the National Directorate of Water Supply and Sanitation

(DNAAS) in the Ministry of Public Works (Ministério das obras Públicas, MOPHRH) and is

currently co-chaired by DFID. The forum meets at least once a month and is a forum for

Government-sector DPs’ discussions around development progress in the sector. GAS has two

subgroups: water supply and sanitation is coordinated by UNICEF and the subgroup for

integrated water management is coordinated by the Netherlands and the South Korea

International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) since 2016.

78. Financing coordination. DP commitments and disbursements are not tracked within

GAS or any other donor coordination mechanism nor are DPs using ODAmoz. The PRONASAR

common fund does provide a coordination mechanism for participating DPs; however, overall

contributions to the common fund have been decreasing. In 2015, only US$3.5 million was

contributed by DPs, a 53 percent decrease from the 2014 levels.43

79. Additional coordination mechanisms. As part of NWDPII, a donor coordination group

was established to conduct a joint analysis of water objectives in Mozambique’s Action Plan for

the Production of Absolute Poverty (Plano de Acção para a Redução da Pobreza Absoluta,

PARPA). A few coordination meetings on this project have been held with the participation of

the World Bank, AfDB, the Netherlands, DFID, and France. An additional group on Hydraulic

41

Key partners include the SDC, Canada, JICA, the Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank, and

UNICEF. International NGOs include CARE, Helvetas, and WaterAid; the private sector company Cowater is also

involved. 42

AfDB and other partners also provided additional funding outside of the common funding mechanism. See

AfDP’s PRONASAR Program Document:

http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/Mozambique_-__NRWSSP_.pdf. 43

UNICEF Annual Report 2013. Available at

https://www.unicef.org/about/annualreport/files/Mozambique_2015_COAR.pdf.


38

Resources (GRH) was established in 2016, which includes bilateral donors (JICA, World Bank,

KOICA, DFID, and GIZ).

80. Conclusions. Current coordination mechanisms do not appear to be sufficient to support

harmonization of DP activities in the water sector.

81. Recommendations

(a) DPs and the DNAAS should coordinate on the potential creation of a SWAp, as

current coordination mechanisms do not appear to be sufficient to support the

harmonization of DP activities.

(b) In the absence of other viable financial coordination mechanisms, DPs should be

encouraged to engage and support the PRONASAR common fund mechanism,

given its success in improving coordination.

(c) The DNA should provide clearer guidance and leadership to ensure that DPs do not

pursue their own agendas instead of aligning with Government priorities.

(d) GAS should encourage better data reporting by DPs, as well as by provincial and

district offices, on water supply, coverage, and completed works, as the sector’s

monitoring and evaluation systems are weak.

(e) Relatedly, GAS should seek out additional support to strengthen the Government’s

information collection and use, to improve the effectiveness of donor engagements.

TABLE 12: WATER AND SANITATION PROJECTS


Budget

AfDB National Development Program of the Water Sector II 15.0

Project of Water Supply and Sanitation the Cities of Lichinga and Cuamba 3.6

Project of Water Supply Sanitation - Nampula and Zambezia 15.0

Rehabilitation of Massingir Dam - Emergency Company 31.2

Rehabilitation of Massingir Dam - Supplementary Company 10.4

Arab Bank for

Economic

Development in Africa

Urban Sanitation 12.2

BID Water Supply and Rural Sanitation for Cabo Delgado and Gaza 7.7

Canada Water and Sanitation - Inhambane 1.0

Dutch Government Institutional Capacitation Project of Aias and Operators Under

Development

1.5

National Development Program of the Water Sector II 2.5

FCPRONASA National Program for Water Supply and Rural Sanitation (Pronasar) 14.4

AFD National Development Program of the Water Sector II 11.0

India Rural Water Development Program 1.4

Italy Environmental Sanitation Program 16.9

Japan (JICA) The Project for Sustainable Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene

Promotion in Niassa Province

7.9

KfW Cities and Climate Change 4.3

National Bank for Construction of Mojba Major Dam 11.9


39


Budget

Economic and Social

Development (Brazil)

UNICEF Sanitation and Hygiene Water Program 3.7

World Bank Cities and Climate Change 18.8

National Development Program of the Water Sector II 27.9

Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Corumana Dam 1.2

Water Supply and Sanitation in Small Cities and Villages (WASIS) 6.7

Water and Sanitation Total 226.3

Note: Total investments over US$1 million, in US$, millions. Total budget calculated as the sum of 2014 and 2015

budgets, retrieved from e-SISTAFE and the BOOST database (project dates unknown). These may be lower than

overall project budgets. US$ calculated based on yearly exchange rate from original MZN.


40

Annex I: List of DPs Interviewed and Consulted

World Bank

Andre Rodrigues Aquino, Senior Natural Resources Management Specialist, World Bank

Eric Zapatero Larrio, Senior Social Protection Specialist, World Bank

Humberto Albino Cossa, Senior Health Specialist, World Bank

Iolanda Fortes, Senior Operations Officer, World Bank

Jan Joost Nijhoff, Senior Agriculture Economist, World Bank

Jordi Jose Gallego-Ayala, Social Protection Specialist, World Bank

Kulwinder Singh Rao, Senior Highway Engineer, World Bank

Odete Duarte Muximpua, Water Supply and Sanitation Specialist, World Bank

Pedro Arlindo, Agriculture Economist, World Bank

Ross Hughes, Senior Natural Resources Management Specialist, World Bank

Xavier F.P. Vincent, Senior Fisheries Specialist, World Bank

Other Development Partners

Akari Aoyama, Economic Cooperation, Embassy of Japan in Mozambique

Alberto Musatti, Health PFM Advisor, Belgium Development Cooperation

Andrea Rossi, Social and Economic Policy Advisor, United Nations Children's Fund

Anouk Rutter, Governance Adviser, Department for International Development (DFID)

Castro Camarada, International Affairs Representative, Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations

Clarisse Barbosa Fernandes, Advisor, Norway

Elizabeth Dodds, Program Officer, Development Policy and Finance, The Gates Foundation

Els Berghmans, Governance and Economic Program Officer, European Union (EU)

Eva Kohl, Senior Agriculture Specialist, Austrian Development Agency

Evelin Stettler, Head of Health Domain, Embassy of Switzerland

Geert Anckaert, Economic Development and Governance, European Union (EU)

Gerson Nombora, National Officer, United Nations Children's Fund

Luca Monge Roffarello, Senior Economic Advisor, United Nations Development Programme

Mamunune Agy, Project Manager, Belgium Development Cooperation

Manuel Felipe, Economic Specialist, United Nations Development Programme

Mayke Huijbregts, Child Protection Chief, United Nations Children's Fund

Paulo Mole, Country Head, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

Silvia Bignamini, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, World Health Organization

Victoria Arboleda, Social Protection Advisor, United Nations Children's Fund

Yayoi Arima, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)


41

Annex II: Overview of Sector Working Group Data Collection

Fields

TABLE 13: DATA COLLECTION FIELDS BY SECTOR PROJECTS

Type Field Ag. Cons. Edu. Fish. Health PFM Roads Soc.

Prot.

Ba

sic

Pro

ject

In

form

ati

on

Donor

Type of Institution

Project Name

Start Year

Signing Date

End Year

Duration

Implementing Partner

Location Col+ List List Col List

Objectives

Status (Active, Pipeline)

Comments

Contact Information

Str

ate

gic

Ali

gn

men

t

PQG Alignment Inc*

Sector Plan Alignment

DAC Alignment

Fin

an

cia

l D

ata

Funding Type (Grant, Credit) One

field Aid Modality (Project, In Kind)

Total Budget (Donor Currency)

Total Budget (US$)

Total Budget (MZN)

Yearly Budget (Donor Currency)

Yearly Budget (US$) Inc

Yearly Budget (MZN)

Yearly Disbursements (Donor

Currency)

Yearly Disbursements (US$)

Yearly Disbursements (MZN)

On/Off Budget Inc

On/Off CUT Inc

Overhead Costs

In-Kind Costs

Res

ult

s

Beneficiaries

Outputs

Note: Core project fields that could be included in a standardized template are highlighted in bold.

* Inc - Field is included in the table but no data entered by donors.

+Col - Project locations are marked in individual columns for each province.


42

Annex III: Comparison of Aid Data Collection Tools

Estimates of total DP commitments vary by the aid data collection tool. Figure 1 presents a

comparison of the four key data collection tools for donor commitments used in Mozambique:

sector spreadsheets, e-SISTAFE,44

PAP donor commitments to sector common funds, and

ODAmoz.45

This comparison is limited to three sectors (agriculture, health, and PFM), as most

sector spreadsheets do not include annual estimates of donor commitments.

FIGURE 1: AID DATA TOTALS FOR DONOR COMMITMENTS IN 2015

Source: Author

44

Data presented is on initial allocations, or budgets, made in e-SISTAFE for external investment in the main

partner ministry (Agriculture, Health, and Economy and Finance) in 2015. 45

Data was extracted from ODAmoz using the related DAC codes: Agriculture (31*), Health (12* and 13*), and

PFM (15120).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Agriculture Health PFM

Tota

l C

om

mit

men

ts i

n U

S$,

mil

lio

ns

Sector Spreadsheets

On-Budget External Investments (e-SISTAFE)

Common Fund Commitments (PAP)

ODAMOZ


43

Annex IV: Disaggregated Totals of Projects by Sector

TABLE 14: TOTAL COMMITMENTS BY SECTOR BY DONOR (ACTIVE AND PIPELINE)46

Sector Donor Total Budget

Agriculture AACID 1.5

AGAR 22.9

Austria 4.0

CESAL/AACID 0.3

Cruz Roja Española/AECID 0.4

European Union 99.1

FAO 43.8

Finland 15.2

Hmana/AECID 0.2

IFDC 4.5

Italy 12.8

JICA 24.0

MSU (Michigan State University) 3.9

Mundulide/AECID 2.4

Spain 1.2

Sweden 17.7

Agriculture Total 253.9

Conservation AFD 14.3

AfDB, International Finance Corporation, World Bank 25.0

Conservation International/Global Conservation Fund 1.0

Italy 5.0

JICA 7.8

Switzerland 0.6

UNDP 20.8

USAID 19.8

World Bank 139.8

Conservation Total 234.1

Education Canada 33.3

DFID 50.9

European Union 1.7

Germany 18.9

Ireland 2.0

Italy 47.4

JICA 25.0

Multi-Donor Common Fund 585.8

Sweden 29.0

USAID 82.7

Education Total 876.7

Environment

and Climate

Changea

DANIDA 5.0

DFID 0.0

JICA 6.6

Spain 0.1

World Bank 0.6

Environment and Climate Change Total 12.3

46

This summary table includes all project commitments, including those under US$1 million. Therefore, the totals

for each sector will be slightly larger than the totals for individual sector tables, which include only projects over

US$1 million.


44


Fisheries IFAD 62.1

The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 30.2

World Bank 50.8

Fisheries Total 143.1

Health Canada 153.0

CHAI 7.2

Denmark 118.4

DFID 26.0

European Union 17.4

Flandres 39.2

France 1.4

Germany 5.8

GFTAM 748.4

Ireland 143.8

Italy 26.9

JICA 58.8

Netherlands 66.4

Spain 34.1

Switzerland 53.3

UNFPA 26.2

UNICEF 157.2

United States (DOD) 5.9

United States (HHS/CDC) 268.0

United States (HHS/HRSA) 1.5

USAID 59.7

World Bank 65.8

WFP 25.4

WHO 5.5

Health Total 2,115.3

Public

Financial

Management

Denmark 10.0

DFID 13.5

DFID/The World Bank 1.0

European Union 9.2

France 0.5

Germany 3.8

Ireland 1.7

Italy 1.6

Norway 8.6

Portugal 0.2

Sweden 3.1

Switzerland 4.2

World Bank 56.1

PFM Total 113.2

Roadsa AfDB 83.3

BID 1.0

European Union 37.6

EXIM BANK 4.9

FCESTRADA 17.3

FED 26.7

FIDA 17.2

FIDAPRPES 0.3

IND 33.4


45


JICA 190

Republic of Korea 4.2

OPECPRPES 4.4

Portugal 121.8

UEPRPESCA 3.4

World Bank 114.7

Roads Total 660.2

Social

Protection

DFID 58.3

EU 41.8

Ireland 1.2

Netherlands 12.0

Sweden 36.4

World Bank 50.9

Social Protection Total 200.7

Water and

Sanitationa

AfDB 78.4

Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa 13.1

BID 7.7

Canada 1.0

DANIDA 0.0

Dutch Government 5.4

FCPRONASA 14.4

French Development Agency 11.0

India 2.1

Ireland 0.7

Italy 17.9

JICA 7.9

KfW 5.0

National Bank for Economic and Social Development (Brazil) 11.9

NDF 0.7

Portugal 0.9

Sweden 1.3

Switzerland 0.2

UNICEF 4.2

World Bank 59.7

Water and Sanitation Total 243.5

Grand Total 4,852.9

Note: Donor commitments or budgets in US$, millions.

a. Summary of 2014 and 2015 Budgets.