Ownership, dialogue, conditionality and indicators

1
Ownership, dialogue, conditionality and indicators

• GBS Evaluation

Gilles Hervio DG DEV Paris May 2006
2
Objectives

• Identify key themes arising from the
  recommendations 7, 8 and 9, and parts of 12
• Raise some questions on some assessments
• Draw conclusions on how to take this forward

3
Ownership (1)

• Questionable message (1)
• Focus conditionality on when and how not on what?
  S49, 5.60
• Dont we have to focus on what, and leave the
  how and when to governments ? (Uganda
  example)
• More modesty on our part will mean more ownership
  but it is legitimate to expect results

4
Ownership (2)

• Questionable message (2) poverty reduction is a
  higher priority for donors than for partner
  governments (S48, 6.35)
• Really?

5
Performance and Results

• Medium-term assessments of overall performance
  (recommendation 7) yes but danger of vagueness,
  imprecision, and subjectivity
• We believe that we need clear indicators
  including MDG, outcome/service delivery
  indicators
• Need for clarity, reality check what is really
  happening in areas that countresults help go
  beyond subjective statements
• Weaknesses in data are a call to maintain a focus
  on results and to improve statistical systems not
  to stop using indicators nor ignore results
• European consensus calls EC to maintain an
  approach based on results and performance
  indicators

6
Accountability and transparency

• Important message donors ability to explain
  and justify GBS involvement to home
  constituencies is the crucial determinant of
  sustainability (S 57, 6.67)
• Most constituencies understand better the idea of
  changes in service delivery rather than broad
  assessment
• Virtual (notional) earmarking? (recommendation
  8)
• May be useful vis-à-vis certain constituencies
  certainly not for others
• But a statistical fudge - risk of degrading
  quality and integrity of information
• And worse not transparent about what we are
  doing, nor accountable
• We dont share recommendation 8

7
Diversity

• Paris Declaration endorses view that
  alignment does not mean that all donors have
  identical conditions
• Diversity within an harmonised framework (eg
  Mozambique or Burkina Faso) is useful
• Coordination and harmonisation is not unanimity
  or monopoly
• Diversity helps donors respond to their different
  constituencies
• Diversity helps reduce unpredictability for
  beneficiaries it helps ensure a graduated
  response

8
Long-term

• A useful message from the report
• Budget support is unpredictable real danger for
  the beneficiaries countries
• We believe that donors should seek to develop
  genuinely long-term funding instruments
  (recommendation 12).
• EC non-paper May 2005 meeting with Member
  States, February 2006 but limited follow up
• First step for next 10th European Development
  Fund?

9
Conclusion

• On the whole the recommendations can be supported
  with one exception (virtual earmarking)
• We need to recall in the way forward certain
  basic principles
• Use OWNERSHIP to limit donor involvement in the
  how of reform
• More focus on PERFORMANCE and RESULTS
• Ensure ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCE in what we
  do
• Accept DIVERSITY amongst donors
• pay more attention to the LONG TERM