Next steps in implementing the
Paris agenda
[Paragraph 61] We have focused in this Report
on ownership and division of labour as the most important components
of the Paris Declaration. We agree with many of our witnesses
that not enough is being done in these areas. We are therefore
pleased to see that key actors at the Accra Forum, such as the
International Civil Society Steering Group and the European Commission,
have emphasised the importance of making progress on these two
issues and will propose ways to do so at the Forum. We are also
pleased to see these topics among DFID's several priorities for
the Forum. We would, however, recommend that the Government prioritise
its efforts for the Forum on taking forward these two particular
strands. We believe meaningful progress in these areas could provide
renewed impetus for progress on the rest of the Paris Declaration
commitments.
We agree on the importance of these two issues for
the High Level Forum. DFID's priorities for the Accra HLF were
developed in response to those of partner countries: predictability,
country-led division of labour, incentives for agency effectiveness,
untying aid, and accountability between donors and partner countries
and their citizens. We agree on the need to make faster progress
on country ownership. At the High Level Forum, donors and partner
countries reaffirmed that country ownership is key and agreed
new commitments to support country ownership. DFID played a prominent
role in securing ambitious agreements to increase donor use of
partner country financial systems, given the evidence that even
where partner countries have good-quality country systems, donors
often do not use them. Donors agreed to use country systems as
the first option for aid programmes, to share transparent plans
on how they will meet their Paris Declaration commitments on using
country systems, and to channel 50% or more of government-to-government
assistance through country systems.[10]
14 donors signed up to the UK-led International Aid Transparency
Initiative in Accra. More transparency by donors about what they
are funding will support partner country efforts to take greater
ownership of aid.
We supported a stronger voice for partner countries
in the Accra negotiations eg through DFID support for the creation
of the Partner Country Contact Group, and we supported the involvement
of Northern and Southern civil society to produce independent
analysis and proposals for action. For example, we funded the
EURODAD report Turning the tables: Aid and accountability under
the Paris framework, 2008.
[Paragraph 62] We believe that the Accra Forum
is an opportunity to affirm high-level buy-in to core international
standards for effective, high quality aid. The Forum must also
address the role of parliaments and civil society in making aid
more effective. But practical steps towards better harmonisation
and alignment are needed to move from a technocratic to a more
practical approach to making aid more effective.
We agree it was important that the HLF should result
in practical steps to make aid more effective. The UK believes
that a major effort is needed to build an aid system with recipient
countries in the lead. We played a prominent role in ensuring
the Accra Agenda for Action had practical and monitorable international
commitments with deadlines for implementation. For example, we
were successful, working with the EU, in getting international
agreement that, beginning now, donors will publish information
on their forward three- to-five-year spending plans; that in 2009
we will evaluate progress in implementing good practice principles
on division of labour; and that we will review proposals for strengthening
mutual accountability mechanisms at the international level by
the end of 2009. These commitments help turn Paris Declaration
principles into practical action.
DFID is supporting partner countries to develop aid
management strategies in a number of countries. For example, in
Ethiopia, DFID helped finance an Aid Management Platform for the
Ministry of Finance, which provides a database of all donor activities.
In Vietnam, through our role as the first co-chair of the Donor
Government Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness, DFID has worked
with the government and other donors to adapt the Paris Declaration
to local circumstances and agreed a Hanoi Core Statement on Aid
Effectiveness in 2005. In Cambodia, DFID, together with UNDP,
is the co-facilitator of the Government & Donor Partnership
and Harmonisation Technical Working Group, to strengthen aid co-ordination.
[Paragraph 64] We agree that donor coordination
and division of labour is ancillary to developing country ownership
of the development process. Yet ambitious forms of coordination
and division of labour, whereby DFID works through others whose
approach and safeguards are compatible, are a way of making concrete
progress against a Paris Declaration principle which is in need
of strong leadership. We recommend that DFID develop a set of
criteria for such arrangements and undertake a survey to assess
where such arrangements might be used effectively.
DFID has supported the international process to develop
principles for country-led division of labour for agreement at
the Accra High Level Forum. Donors and partner countries have
agreed in the Accra Agenda for Action that the Working Party on
Aid Effectiveness will complete these and evaluate progress in
implementation, starting in 2009.[11]
DFID has a strong track record on implementing division of labour.
For example we have delegated cooperation arrangements where we
delegate to another donor responsibility for our support to a
particular sector or vice versa in Malawi, Uganda, Ghana, Tanzania
and Yemen. We are committed to taking forward country-led division
of labour on a case by case basis taking account of country circumstances,
particularly partner country preferences and the comparative advantages
of different donors in each country. We are working with the EU
in their current initiative to identify countries to fast track
division of labour, based on country leadership of the process.
We have produced a survey documenting examples from almost thirty
countries of DFID experience on joint strategic planning, pooled
funding and improved division of labour. This helps DFID country
office staff take forward coordination and division of labour
by learning from experience and good practice elsewhere.
[Paragraph 67] The UK is acknowledged internationally
as a leading advocate of direct budget support. This is a tool
we have previously welcomed in certain contexts, such as in Vietnam
and through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, although
we have also raised concerns that it should not be seen as the
easy option for spending a rising aid budget. We believe that
aid effectiveness arguments are persuasive in making a case for
greater use of this instrument where the conditions are right.
We recommend that the Government ensure that any decision to support
national budgets in partner countries is accompanied by thorough
assessment and planning to include parliaments, civil society
and other stakeholders in the budget discussions. Funding to build
capacity within parliaments and civil society to manage the technical
detail involved in such discussions should be included in the
relevant DFID programmes.
The National Audit Office report on DFID's use of
budget support (February 2008) found that DFID and other donors
have recognised an important role for civil society organisations
in holding developing country governments to account for implementation
of Poverty Reduction Strategies. The NAO found that a higher proportion
of countries where DFID uses budget support receive technical
assistance for domestic institutions (civil society, parliaments
and state audit institutions) than in non-budget support countries
(NAO, 2008, para 3.15). The NAO found examples where DFID is specifically
encouraging civil society to engage in debates on the national
budget. For example, in India, DFID had argued for inclusion of
civil society groups in dialogue with government on policy and
programme implementation. DFID's £130 million Governance
and Transparency Fund supports civil society to engage with governments
about the way they plan, prioritise and allocate resources.
DFID's updated policy on budget support (February
2008) recognises the importance of supporting parliaments and
civil society. The policy states that DFID will work with partner
governments and other donors through multi-donor budget support
groups, joint assistance strategies and division of labour arrangements
to maximise the combined impact of budget support and complementary
support to parliament and civil society. In the Accra Agenda for
Action, partner countries agreed to work more closely with parliaments
and local authorities in preparing, implementing and monitoring
national development policies and plans. DFID, along with other
donors, agreed to support all development actors, including parliaments
and civil society, to take an active role in dialogue on development
policy and the role of aid in contributing to countries' development
objectives.[12]
[Paragraph 69] Implementing the Paris Declaration
requires some changes in the way DFID operates. Staff buy-in is
crucial to the success of any change programme. We are therefore
encouraged to hear that DFID's country performance frameworks
include aid effectiveness objectives. We are not clear, however,
whether: a) all individual staff objectives take account of the
Paris Declaration principles; and b) such objectives are deemed
as important as other performance assessment measurements, for
example in terms of securing bonuses and promotion. We invite
the Government to provide examples of these objectives in its
response and to clarify the relative importance of them to individual
staff.
DFID staff objectives flow
from DFID's overall corporate objectives as they cascade through
line management. All members of staff can
therefore establish a clear line of sight from their own work
objectives to DFID's Departmental Strategic Objectives and the
Cross-Government Public Service Agreements. DFID's Departmental
Strategic Objectives now entrench aid effectiveness as a corporate
priority. Two of DFID's seven departmental strategic objectives
are about aid effectiveness: to make all bilateral and multilateral
donors more effective, and to deliver high quality and effective
bilateral development assistance.
All divisions in DFID have
divisional performance frameworks showing how they will help DFID
achieve its Departmental Strategic Objectives, including the two
objectives on aid effectiveness. As staff objectives flow from
the divisional performance frameworks and Departmental Strategic
Objectives, they include aid effectiveness and the Paris Declaration
where relevant. For example, Head of DFID Ghana's annual objectives
from March 2008 to April 2009 include the following:
Fully engage to ensure successful participation
by Ghana in HLF. Harmonisation Action plan for Ghana fully implemented
in respect of Paris declaration and DFID's policy agendas. Specifically,
mutual accountability process commenced, Division of labour process
commenced, Aid management policy produced and Heads of Agencies
reformed and revitalised.
The extent to which individual members of staff achieve
their objectives forms a fundamental part of DFID's performance
management arrangements, and progress is monitored on a regular
basis. The end of year performance review has a direct impact
on the level of any salary bonuses, and managers are required
to take into account an individual's overall level of performance
when endorsing applications for promotion.
DFID is taking steps to ensure that the Paris Declaration
principles are fully incorporated into our policies, procedures
and strategies. In addition to including aid effectiveness in
Departmental Strategic Objectives:
- All country assistance plans are expected to
include an assessment of aid effectiveness
- A new Results Action Plan was published in January
2008, setting out how we will embed results into our own and our
partners' culture and systems.
- Progress against Paris Declaration targets is
included in our Institutional Strategy Papers for key multilateral
organisations.
[Paragraph 73] Credible monitoring and evaluation
of development impact is needed to show objectively that aid can
make a difference. Such assessments both increase public confidence
in the development effort and enable agencies such as DFID to
tailor their programmes to use budgets most effectively. The credibility
of these assessments stems in part from their independence. Self-assessment
and donors assessing other donors, as happens under the Development
Assistance Committee's Peer Review system, have a role to play
but should be complemented by other initiatives. We recommend
that DFID actively support such initiatives, especially those
led by developing countries, and submit to—and encourage
other OECD donors to submit to—reviews conducted other than
by peers.
We agree on the importance of independent rigorous
monitoring and evaluation of both development impact and of donor
performance in relation to aid effectiveness commitments. DFID
actively supports independent reviews of donor performance on
aid effectiveness. For example, in Mozambique, DFID, along with
all the budget support donors, is reviewed annually by independent
consultants acting on behalf of the Government of Mozambique to
assess how far we are meeting our aid effectiveness commitments.
DFID volunteered to be reviewed by independent consultants acting
on behalf of the DAC as part of the DAC evaluation of the Paris
Declaration, published before the third High Level Forum.
At the Accra High Level Forum, DFID worked closely
with the EU and partner countries to secure a new agreement on
accountability for development results. This now requires donors
and partner governments to account to each other for mutually
agreed results at the international level, as well as at country
level. This review process will include 'peer review with the
participation of developing countries'. Donors and partner
countries have signed up to be more transparent about how much
aid they give and what it achieves, to include more independent
evidence and analysis when reviewing progress against mutually
agreed results, and to enable greater scrutiny by parliaments
and civil society.[13]
The UK-led International Aid Transparency Initiative, launched
at the High Level Forum, will help donors meet these commitments.
On independent evaluation of development impact,
DFID is working to ensure a stronger focus on rigorous evidence
of impact, and better coordination of evaluation across donors
to reduce the burden on partner countries. We are a founder member
of two important new joint donor institutions to support impact
evaluation: the International Initiative on Impact evaluation
a (3IE) and the Network of Networks for Impact Evaluation (NONIE).
[Paragraph 74] The credibility of impact evaluations
is also drawn in part from their methodology. We recommend that
DFID consider funding more robust impact assessments, such as
counterfactual ones carried out by independent development economists,
to bolster its evidence base.
We recognise there is an international "evaluation
gap" ie insufficient high quality, rigorous and policy-relevant
impact evaluations funded by the international development agencies
as a whole[14]. DFID
is playing a key role internationally to fill that gap, through
a number of complementary activities. Firstly, DFID has sought to
enhance the rigour and quality of its own evaluations, through
the establishment of the Independent Advisory Committee on
Development Impact (IACDI). Additionally, we undertake a strong
role in international networking, and are contributing
funding to a number of new initiatives. Foremost among these is a
major new initiative, the International Initiative on Impact Evaluation
(3IE). 3IE will fund new high quality impact evaluations, and will
promote both the development of capacity to conduct rigorous impact
evaluations, and the use of evidence in policymaking in low and
middle income countries. DFID also contributes to a
joint international training network with the World Bank (the
'Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund'), and chairs the international 'Network
of Networks on Impact Evaluation ' (NONIE), which brings
together representatives from donors and developing countries
to share information and develop standards and guidance on impact
evaluation. Over the next 4 years DFID plans to invest £9-10
million in supporting impact evaluation through 3IE and other
routes such as the Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation and
the World Bank's joint fund (with the Spanish Ministry) on impact
evaluation of human development.
Conclusion
[Paragraph 76] DFID must ensure that it is not
simply joining a well-meaning consensus on aid effectiveness but
has done the research to prove to us and, equally importantly,
the taxpayer that its approach delivers more effective aid.
DFID's approach to aid effectiveness is based on
the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), which was informed
by a large body of research spanning more than two decades. We
recognise the importance of gathering and using evidence more
effectively, both in order to demonstrate that our aid works,
and to ensure that it is achieving the maximum impact for poor
people. The second phase of the DAC evaluation of the Paris Declaration,
expected to be completed by 2010, will provide further evidence
on the impact of effective aid on poverty outcomes. The creation
of the Independent Advisory Committee on Development Impact is
helping DFID further strengthen the rigour of its evaluations.
Our Results Action Plan (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/results-action-plan08.pdf)
sets out how we will improve the way we use information in our
decision making and in our focus on poverty outcomes.
[Paragraph 77] Joint working between DFID and
other donors, and indeed DFID working through other donors, is
likely to become a more frequent occurrence and this has implications
for the scrutiny performed by this Committee. DFID must work proactively
to ensure that we have meaningful oversight of all of its work,
however the budget is spent.
We agree that joint working between DFID, partner
countries and other donors is likely to become more frequent.
Closer working with partner countries and other donors enables
us to influence them so that all aid, not just the UK's, and all
partner country resources are used more effectively to reduce
poverty. This is critical to achieve the MDGs. But it is important
that these relationships operate in the public interest and in
a way that satisfies parliamentary and Treasury requirements.
A key requirement is that public funds are used in a way
that gives reasonable assurance that resources are used to deliver
the intended objectives. DFID has considerable experience
of different kinds of partnerships and has practical
documented arrangements in place with other organisations.
Partnership frameworks set out the purpose, governance and
accountability, decision making and financial management arrangements.
This means there is no doubt about responsibilities and helps
ensure there is no weakening of accountability for the use of
public funds, including reporting to Parliament.
1 Robert Fox, Oxfam International head of delegation Back
2
Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn't and Why, D Dollar and
L Pritchett, 1998, World Bank Policy Research paper Back
3
Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support 1994 -2004, IDD and
Associates, Synthesis report, May 2006, p S5. Back
4
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, paras 12 - 15 Back
5
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, paras 24 a and b, Back
6
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, para 13b, Back
7
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, para 21 Back
8
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, para 15. Back
9
Accra agenda for Action, September 2008, Para 19 c Back
10
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, para 15, and DAC Monitoring
Survey of the Paris Declaration, 2008. Back
11
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, para 17. Back
12
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, para 12 Back
13
Accra Agenda for Action, September 2008, para 24 Back
14
When will we ever Learn? Improving lives through Impact Evaluation,
Evaluation Gap Working Group, Centre for Global Development, May
2006 Back
