1 / 14

Initial Findings and Debrief on Baseline survey

Initial Findings and Debrief on Baseline survey. Philip Amis October 2005 Paul Jackson Gaspard Ahobamuteze. Approach adopted. Thanks for all the support provided Review existing survey and data currently being collected

irenevinson
Télécharger la présentation

Initial Findings and Debrief on Baseline survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Initial Findings and Debrief on Baseline survey Philip Amis October 2005 Paul Jackson Gaspard Ahobamuteze

  2. Approach adopted • Thanks for all the support provided • Review existing survey and data currently being collected • Focus on the Paris declaration 2005 by operationalising 9 of the 12 indicators as basis for the checklist used • Baseline is therefore an Non-OECD pilot in implementation and using indicators • Donor Portfolio analysis: Some data is difficult to collect, especially disbursement

  3. Review Process • This presentation is intended to provide preliminary feedback at a broad level • The Draft report will be circulated in 2 weeks time for comment • This is important as it is an opportunity for GoR and Donors to check the accuracy of the information • Further Presented at the DPM meeting by the Team

  4. Donor portfolio, 2004

  5. Donor portfolio, 2005 estimates

  6. Preliminary findings: PFM systems Indicator 2 • Broad consensus of system is improving from weak base • Issues of capacity and legal framework but importance of political will • Budget Support uses GoR systems (50%) But projects… • limited use of GoR Audit system • Moderate use of GoR Procurement system

  7. Preliminary findings: Alignment Indicator 3 • All donor express a desire to be aligned (Vision 2020; PRSP and sector policies) • Some have explicit internal guidelines on this; • differences between Multinationals and Bilaterals; • others do it through a process of dialogue; • Easy with clear sector plans but when they are weaker… • Alignment becomes more challenging the more specific and detailed the policy or strategy is

  8. Preliminary findings: Capacity Indicators 5 and 6 • Donors use GoR statistics and documentation to a very high extent • Most donors have varying notions of how they are/will strengthen local capacity • At present capacity building is patchy • HIDA at an early stage but potentially important • Issues of ability to absorb aid and capacity constraints

  9. Preliminary findings: Aid Processes Indicators 7 and 8 • Predictability of aid • Both BS and Projects have problems but for different reasons • But remains an issue especially for GoR • On/off budget • Some funds directly off budget • Most funds are inside the system but are not integrated and/or in the Development budget • Tied aid issue • Generally no longer a major issue but with a few exceptions

  10. Harmonization 1(Indicators 9 and 10) • Generally pretty good but at varying speeds in different sectors (e.g. education most developed, health some progress) • Strategic Sector plan is more important than cluster activity • Harmonization works best when • Coherence of activity of sector • Strong GoR policy leadership • BS or Sector wide support • Lead donor • Time allocated and resources to plan/cluster

  11. Harmonization 2 • The process of harmonization is different in different sectors • BS may be more policy focused while • For Project sectors the process may be more about information sharing but can evolve.. • Harmonization is a process • Social networks/meetings and getting to know and trust people • Joint working is important • Importance of cross-secondments as a mechanism

  12. Issues for consideration in the APD 1 • GoR should take a lead role especially in policy formulation • If necessary to improve this harmonization mechanisms may need to change to facilitate this • Importance of concrete actions but also recognise the importance of the process • Donors need to consider their internal rules that limit harmonization • Increase autonomy of local office

  13. Issues for consideration in the APD2 • Harmonization guidelines should be about finding mechanisms to include and accommodate different aid modalities • Doing things the same way even when they are differently funded • Future issues to watch • Impact of decentralization • Role of mega donors • Improve data collection and transparency (on all sides) • Sectoral lobby groups may undermine Minecofin

  14. A Baseline for the future? • Current survey is mainly qualitative but with a few key indicators • In theory it might be possible to get more hard data but • Donor willingness and time to collect • An exercise worth doing to monitor the Paris Declaration in its own right every 2/3years • Could it be build into the Annual PRSP process?

More Related