Romania

1
Romanias Competitive Advantage as a Donor of ODA

• Sandra Pralong
• Development Camp, September 2009

2
Romania in the intl aid context

• A re-emerging donor
• prestige in the 1970s from Technical Assistance,
• 340 mil/year, largest East European Donor
• EU donor as of 2007 (target 0.17 of GNI)
• Excellent experience and considerable expertise
  available in state institutions
• MFA Budget too small to accommodate wealth of
  capacities.

3
Positioning

• Most Ministries have plenty of expertise
• EU entry demonstration
• But
• Some are Best Practice (Child, HIV/AIDS, ITC)
• Others are Lessons Learned (Justice,
  Agriculture)
• Political choice
• Where does MAE allocate funds?
• Key objective
• How best to recuperate Euros 54 mil contributed
  to EU via Twinnings and other partnership programs

4
Romanias ODA contribution

• Overall Romanian Contribution
• Total ODA Contribution
• (2007) approx 82 million Euros (0.07 of GNI)
• (2008) estimated 94 million Euros
• Of which, MFA Budget
• (2007, 2008) 5 million/year
• (2009) 2 million Euros

5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Romanias Assistance

• So far, Romanias ODA has been focused on
  neighborhood countries
• Moldova (800,000 Euros)
• Serbia (400,000)
• Georgia (300,000)
• Domains of assistance
• Social development (youth, women)
• Economic Development
• Local Government
• Water Supply
• Civil Society Development
• Rule of Law/Transitional Justice

10
Republica Moldova-2007800,000 Euro
11
Georgia-2007300,000 Euro
12
Serbia-2007400,000 Euro
13
Romanias Signature

• Competitive Advantage in 2 types of markets
• Strategy towards ODA Buyersi.e. recipients
• Strategy towards ODA Sellersi.e. other donors
• Determining Signature means
• Selecting priority areas for limited MFA funds (2
  million in 2009)
• Finding ways to export expertise through
  Twinning and other partnerships with wealthier
  donors
• Strategy
• Select emblematic domains (focus on regaining
  positive image)
• Promote available expertise in trying to
  recapture EU funds through joint programs.

14
Selecting Domains Key Criteria

• In-country performance (best practice/lesson
  learned)
• Responds to local need (in recipient countries)
• Available competency
• Donor Priorities
• Uniqueness (specificity of expertise)
• Emblematic appeal
• Feasibility of implementation
• International credibility
• Positive Image generation
• Limited political risk.

15
Selection

• For partnership w/Traditional Donors
• Positioning/Competitive advantage
• All domains (Best Practice and Lessons Learned)
• Lessons learned is most credible
• For Signature Domain
• Top performers
• Child De-Institutionalization
• HIV/AIDS
• Possibly ITC

16

CRITERIA FOR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE Possible
Domains to form Romanias Signature as a Donor
Criterion Domain Performance/ credibility as donor Relevance/need Available competence Feasibility Best Practice Lesson Learned Policy reason to promote Knowledge is unique/salient Domain is emblematic Political sensitivity limited risk TOTAL
Permanent Consideration
Study Visits X X X X X X X X X X 10
Prop. Signature Domains
Child Protection X X X X X X X X X X 10
HIV/AIDS X X X X X X X X X X 10
ICT X X X X X X X X X 9
Secondary Funding Targets
Phyto-Sanitary X X X X X X X X X 9
Agro-tourism X X X X X X X X X 9
OPCOM X X X X X X X X X 9
Arts and Culture X X X X X X X X X 9
SMURD X X X X X X X X 8
Legal reform (Probation) X X X X X X X 6
Micro-credits X X X X X X 6
For Possible Consideration
Bio Agriculture X X X X X X 6
Early recovery X X X X X X 6
RASDAQStock market X X X X X X 6
Migration Trafficking X X X X X X 6
Cybercrime X X X X X 5
Intellect. Property protect X X X X X 5
Local Admin Consortium X X X 3
Romanian Investment Fund (FRDS) X X 2
Study Visits are especially interesting for
representatives of countries in which the
Romanian state hasnt yet established its aid
priorities, such as countries in attention,
Central Asia, the Middle East, etc., (other than
priority countries). These visits offer potential
recipients the opportunity to familiarize
themselves with the types of expertise available
from Romanian institutions.
17
Key Considered Domains

• Study visits
• Signature
• Child protection
• HIV/AIDS
• Possibly ICT
• Additional Domains
• -Phyto-sanitary
• -Early Recovery
• -Agro-tourism
• -OPCOM
• -Arts and culture
• -SMURD
• -Justice Reform (lesson learned)

18
Why this signature?

• Two proposed domains (ICT and HIV/AIDS) are good
  examples of overcoming the odds
• Publicizing Romanias achievements in these
  domains will eliminate negative stigma of the
  early transition in the 90s
• All former communist countries face similar
  challenges
• Exceptional expertise in other domains can be
  harnessed by partnering with traditional donors.

19
How to match expertise?
20
In conclusion

• Selected domains for signature have inner
  coherence and tell a story (narrative)
• They help undo Romanias image (tarnished in the
  90s with the international donor community in
  Children issues and HIV/AIDS), showing
  performance in key domains
• All other domains can be promoted to potential
  partners in order to get back some of the funds
  contributed and increase Romanias presence.