WORKING GROUP 1 CLGF Conference 16 September 2008

1. WORKING GROUP 1CLGF Conference16 September 2008 Jan Vanheukelom ECDPM (Maastricht)

2. Local governments and aid effectiveness Evaluation findings of the Paris Declaration

3. CONTENT • Rationale and focus • The PD process and interim evaluation findings • General findings of the interim evaluation • Findings on the five Paris Principles • Local Governments and the Accra Agenda for Action • Points for further discussion and action

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 4. Findings on the five ‘Paris Principles’ • Ownership • The principle: partner countries exercise effective leadership over their development policies and strategies and coordinate development actions

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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’

15. 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)

16. 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..

17. “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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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)