WORKING GROUP 1CLGF Conference

16 September 2008

Jan VanheukelomECDPM (Maastricht)

Local governments and aid effectiveness

Evaluation findings of the Paris Declaration

CONTENT

1. Rationale and focus2. The PD process and interim evaluation

findings3. General findings of the interim evaluation4. Findings on the five Paris Principles5. Local Governments and the Accra Agenda for

Action6. Points for further discussion and action

1. Rationale and focus• From ‘donor funding’ to ‘development funding’• What are handles for change?• New aid modalities as such are not such

handles…• … but maybe the broader process for improving

effectiveness of aid offers a few.• Therefore, • A focus on Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (PD) • A focus on the mid term evaluation of its

implementation• And a brief look at the Accra Agenda for Action

I will: • Present some findings* with relevance for

local governance on how the five PD principles were implemented

• Present a few action points of the Accra Agenda for Action of relevance to local governance* ‘Evaluation of the implementation of the Paris Declaration. Synthesis Report’, July 2008

2. The PD process and interim evaluation findings

• The PD process:– Not merely a talk shop: on principles and

commitments– The review process: monitoring on indicators,

evaluation of the implementation, ..– And a High Level Conference in Accra with an

‘Accra Agenda for Action’

• Nothing is for free: some findings and opportunities for levering change

3. General findings of the interim evaluation include:

• Problems with indicators• Lack of ‘broader engagement’ with PD • Clarity is missing to wider circles of officials (line

ministries, sub-national bodies,..)• Current limits to the PD: it is not necessarily designed

or able to offer any tailored solutions to development preoccupations such as ‘the management of devolution and decentralization’

• Danger of mechanical, doctrinaire implementation• The evaluation offers some insights into reasons for

action and inaction on most of past commitments

4. Findings on the five ‘Paris Principles’A. Ownership

• The principle: partner countries exercise effective leadership over their development policies and strategies and coordinate development actions

Findings:some hindrances to ownership

Development partners:– The problem of ‘Letting go’– Donor concern with visibility and attribution of agency

contributions– Concern with own fiduciary and accountability

requirements– Interference of foreign policy, commercial and institutional

interests– Over focus on ‘results’– Capacity constraints (turn-over of staff, lack of sufficient

learning loops, lack of incentives …)– Capitals vs. ‘the field’ (the lack of delegation of authority)

Developing partners:– Ownership ‘narrowly shared’ – or limited to central

governments – “ownership remains heavily weighted in favor of central players rather than sector or sub-national players”

– Varying degrees of commitment at various levels (MoF, treasury, line departments, sub national govts., CSOs)

– Capacity constraints: • in setting and implementing operational strategies• In working at sub-national levels• In coordinating development partners

B. alignment

• The principle: donors base their overall support on partner countries’ development strategies, institutions and procedures

• Trends: Alignment with partners’ strategies:– Increasingly reliant on countries’ Poverty Reduction-type strategies

and national sector or thematic strategies (SWAPs)– Gaps with this high level agreements and operational level especially

when sub-national and local level governments are involved – Inadequate participation of a range of stakeholders (including sub-

national, local and non-governmental levels)

C. Harmonization

• Principle: donors’ actions are more harmonized, transparent and collectively effective

• Trends:– On budget support: as such not promoted by the Paris

Declaration– Questions over when to use it and how– Debates about budget support run the risk of

overshadowing the broader harmonization needs and commitments spelt out in the Declaration

– Examples of basket funds for support to civil society

D. Managing for results

• Principle: to manage and implement aid in a way that focuses on the desired results and uses information to improve decision making

• Trends: – Donors under pressure to report on outcomes, yet– … partner country systems and statistics are not able

to reliably report– Donors report on those result areas or issues for

which there is demand or pressure (by interest groups in the donor, or from parliament,..)

– Danger of fixating on available data at the cost of dialogue – and monitoring on genuine policy priorities

E. Mutual accountability

• Principle: priority for both donors and partner countries is to enhance mutual accountability

• Trends: – Area with least progress– Confusion, even controversy: accountability to

whom and for what?– Positive example: the Netherlands – in JAS

countries – commitment to provide full information to the ‘relevant authorities’

• Yet… some evaluations stressed importance of a number of pre-conditions for accountability– Partner countries’ commitments to strengthen the

parliamentary role in strategies and budgets– Partner countries’ commitment to reinforce participatory

approaches in formulating and assessing progress in strategies

– Donors’ commitments to provide timely, transparent and comprehensive information on aid flows, approaches, strategies,…

• ‘This basic contribution by donors to mutual accountability is widely found to be missing or inadequate’ (25)

5. The Accra Agenda for Actionand Local Government – two examples

“We will broaden country-level policy dialogue on development”

• Developing country governments will work more closely with parliaments and local authorities…

• Donors will support efforts to increase capacity of all development actors – parliaments, central and local governments..

“Developing countries will strengthen their capacity to lead and manage development”

• Developing countries will systematically identify areas where there is need to strengthen the capacity to perform and deliver services at all levels – national, sub-national,…

• Donors will strengthen their own capacity and skills to be more responsive

6. Pointers for further discussion and action

• Question: does the Paris process offer levers for change?

• Some opportunities for leverage :• at international and pan African level international

level, • At

Within the international context:

• The African Union – in its relation with the Joint Africa EU Strategy (work on Local Government)

• To begin with… use the access to Ministers of Finance and Heads of State within the context of the Commonwealth

• The PD framework - Working Party on Aid Effectiveness:– Active engagement in the further PD review process (the 2010 window)– Feed the findings of this conference into that process – Feed the process with other strong examples of good practices, for

instance on South-South cooperation

With development partners

– Reminder: Paris is so much more than money and new aid modalities – balancing and delivering on 5 principles – and the renewed commitments

– Initiate a process of country specific dialogue…– based on the findings of the review process…– And the commitment to downward accountability

and transparency – … with a view of developing country specific

commitments and targets

Annex:some more findings from the interim evaluation• ‘the pressure to show ‘maximum development for the

money’ is likely to run counter to partner country ownership (11)

• ‘failure to explicitly recognize, accept and manage the risks in promoting greater country ownership’

• Pressure to get things done quickly• Unresolved questions about the legitimacy of ownership in

a partner country• Danger of ‘mechanical implementation’ of Paris• In practice, ownership remains heavily weighted in favor of

central players rather than sector or sub-national players• The concept of ownership needs to be approached not as

an absolute condition, but as a continuum or process

• A number of more ‘searching reflections and questions’ about clarity and ‘of its assumptions about how change would occur and lead to its intended results’ (29) –

• ‘in the difficult processes of change required for implementation, real issues of politics and political economy come into play, in many cases requiring political solutions’ (33)

• The chicken and egg problem is that ‘partner country capacities and systems will mainly become stronger and more trusted through use, ..’ (34)