En ny evaluering konkluderer, at det tager tid og kræver større risikovillighed i Danida, hvis intentionerne i den såkaldte Paris-erklæring fra 2005 om at højne bistandens effektivitet skal omsættes i praktisk gerning i u-landene.
Ikke mindst når det gælder tesen om at benytte samarbejdslandenes egne forvaltningssystemer. Der kan ligefrem være en modsætning mellem at overføre mere ansvar til samarbejdslandene og at sikre resultater af bistanden på kort sigt.
Det fremgår af en pressemelding fra udenrigsministeriet mandag og et sammendrag af evalueringen (se nedenfor under Executive Summary) .
Begge dele gengiver hovedkonklusionerne i en netop afsluttet evaluering af den danske indsats for at opfylde de 5 principper i Paris-erklæringen fra 2005 (se nedenfor).
Formålet med erklæringen er via bedre bistand at sætte skub i opfyldelsen af 2015 Målene om at halvere verdensfattigdommen om nu senest 7 år. Og dermed sikre at dansk udviklingsbistand bliver til gavn for netop de kvinder, mænd og børn, som vi ønsker at hjælpe.
Den danske evaluering er et bidrag til en større international evaluering af gennemførelsen af Paris-erklæringen, som offentliggøres i Accra primo september på det tredje internationale “højniveaumøde” om øget bistandseffektivitet.
Udviklingsminister Ulla Tørnæs (V) siger (optimistisk) bl.a.:
– Det er vigtigt, at vores indsats for at tilpasse og integrere bistanden går hånd i hånd med en styrkelse af kapaciteten i samarbejdslandene. Det er allerede i høj grad tilfældet med den danske bistand, og evalueringen understreger, at vi også fremover skal være opmærksomme på det store stykke arbejde, der fortsat ligger her.
Evalueringen bygger på studier af retningslinjerne for dansk udviklingsbistand, interviews og en spørgeskemaundersøgelse med ambassaderne i 8 af Danmarks samarbejdslande. Den viser, at såvel medarbejdere som ledelsen i Danida finder erklæringen både relevant og brugbar.
Alle ambassaderne melder således tilbage, at de er i færd med at tilpasse bistanden til de 5 principper i Paris-erklæringen.
At bistanden nu i højere grad tilpasses samarbejdslandenes behov er en del af strategien for at sikre langsigtede og bæredygtige resultater. Formålet er også at mindske belastningen af samarbejdspartnerne ved at få donorerne til at koordinere missioner, besøg og procedurer for bistanden.
Evalueringen finder, at denne omlægning af bistanden har ført til, at arbejdsbyrde og omkostninger på donorside i en overgangsperiode er steget.
Der er også situationer, hvor svaghederne i de nationale systemer gør det vanskeligt at opfylde 2015 Målene samtidig med, at Paris-erklæringens principper følges – simpelt hen fordi kapaciteten i de nationale systemer er for ringe.
Frygten for korruption i samarbejdslandene er ifølge evalueringen en medvirkende forklaring på, hvorfor Danmark i nogle tilfælde har været tilbageholdende med at anvende nationale systemer til forvaltning af bistanden.
Her peger evalueringen på behovet for større risikovillighed, hvis Danmark skal leve fuldt og helt op til Paris-erklæringens intentioner.
Evalueringen fremfører videre, at de mange særlige prioriterede temaer og tværgående hensyn i dansk udviklingsbistand kan være vanskelige at forene med en styrkelse af samarbejdslandenes ejerskab til udviklingsprocessen.
Og at der i mange tilfælde er forskelle i opfattelsen mellem hovedkvarteret på Asiatisk Plads og ambassaderne ude i felten.
Fakta: Paris-erklæringens 5 principper.
1) Ejerskab:
Partnerlandene forpligter sig til at udvise effektivt lederskab i forhold til at koordinere udviklingsindsatsen og udarbejde strategier og politikker på udviklingsområdet.
2) Tilpasning:
Donorer skal tilpasse deres overordnede støtte til partnerlandenes nationale strategier, institutioner og procedurer på udviklingsområdet.
3) Harmonisering:
Donorernes aktiviteter skal i højere grad samordnes, det vil sige gøre brug af samme regler og procedurer i bistanden. Det skal sikre gennemskuelighed og effektivitet for dermed at mindske omkostningerne ved at administrere udviklingshjælpen.
4) Resultatorientering:
Ressourcer skal udnyttes optimalt og beslutningstagningen forbedres, alt sammen for at skabe resultater.
5) Gensidig ansvarlighed:
Donorer og partnerne skal stå til regnskab for resultaterne i udviklingsarbejdet – eller manglen på samme.
Evalueringen af den danske indsats i forhold til Paris-erklæringen er bestilt af Udenrigsministeriet og udført af 4 internationale eksperter, ledet af danskeren Jørgen Billetoft.
Hele den engelske rapport med bilag findes på www.evaluation.dk og på www.evaluering.dk. Rapporten kan også bestilles hos DBK, tlf. 32 69 77 88 eller via Danidas Evalueringskontor, tlf. 33 92 10 83.
Yderligere oplysninger hos chefen for Danidas Evalueringskontor, Ole Winckler Andersen eller souschef Margrethe Holm Andersen, tlf. 33 92 02 36/33 92 10 41, e-mail [email protected]/[email protected].
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Paris Declaration agenda has become an important feature of Danish development administration as a means of improving the effectiveness of aid. Many of its features appear prominently in policy documents and guidelines issued to Embassies.
Decentralisation of the management of the Danish development cooperation has meant that the Embassies are engaged in greater “field-based management” and decision making very much in line with the key features of the Paris Declaration.
This study was commissioned by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) as part of a wider evaluation of the Paris Declaration supported by the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness and the DAC Evaluation Network in order to:
1) Provide an insight in the ways in which the PD is being interpreted at HQ level;
how it is being implemented; and to assess how the underlying assumptions of the
Declaration are dealt with in the implementation process.
2) Inform the synthesis study which is to be compiled at the end of phase one of the overall evaluation of the PD for presentation at the third HLF in Accra in September 2008, and
3) Provide information and, if appropriate, suggestions on how MFA/Danida can
facilitate more effective and efficient implementation of the PD.
The study focussed upon three main areas: commitment to and ownership of the PD by Danida; capacity and capacity building issues as indicated by process-level issues, human resource capacity considerations, structural challenges, financial resource constraints and policy focus; and incentives to apply the principle of the PD, including staff performance and career pathways.
This evaluation is in the main carried out following the approach and methodology
stated in the ToR, which in turn are a reflection of the methodology recommended by the management group for the overall evaluation of the implementation of the Paris Declaration.
In one key respect however the evaluation deviates from and goes beyond the recommended questionnaire method by interviewing a selection of staff working at
the Danish Embassies in Zambia and Uganda, respectively.
The evaluation draws on the following sources of information:
(i) MFA/Danida policy documents, guidelines, instructions etc. Most of these are
available at www.um.dk and www.amg.um.dk.
(ii) Interviews with MFA/Danida staff: Approx. 18 persons of the Danida were interviewed, representing all departments directly or indirectly dealing with issues
related to implementation of the PD. The interviews were conducted as open-ended
interviews tailor-made to suit the position and tasks of the interview.
(iii) Interviews with non-MFA persons: Two civil society representatives, one politician and the chairman of the Danida Board were interviewed. Furthermore, the evaluation consulted documents forming part of the deliberations of the Foreign
Affairs Committee of the Parliament.
(iv) A questionnaire circulated to ten Embassies. Eight Embassies responded to the
questionnaire (Bangladesh, Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mali, South Africa, Vietnam
and Bolivia).
(v) Interviews with selected posted and national staff at the Embassies in Uganda and Zambia. The interviews were conducted as open-ended interviews on the basis of an interview guide.
(vi) Telephone interviews specifically on cross-cutting issues (tværgående hensyn i bistanden) with two Embassies, and
(vii) Other written sources of information.
The team did not encounter any significant difficulties while undertaking the evaluation.
It should be noted, however, that to a large extent the evaluation builds on the subjective perceptions of interviewees concerning the way in which the MFA/Danida thinks and operates.
Wherever possible, “counter-intuitive” statements have been verified either by confronting other respondents with the statement made or, if possible, through crossreference to other sources. In order to illustrate the studys findings, quotations from questionnaires or references to interviews have been made as and when relevant.
Evaluation findings
The findings are clustered around the three themes of the evaluation, viz. leadership/commitment, capacity and incentives, as seen from the perspective of the MFA/Danida system.
The perspective of the partner countries and actual behaviour of development
partners is supposed to be addressed as part of the country evaluations.
KEY FINDING 1: Assessing leadership/commitment
All respondents at HQ as well as Embassy level found the Paris Declaration and the
instruments proposed for improving the effectiveness and sustainability of aid relevant and useful.
As a reflection of this, the Embassies without exception reported that major
efforts are being made to adapt existing and upcoming programmes to the Paris principles, i.e. to align to government priorities and to intensify the division of work among development partners.
But the circumstances under which this takes place vary considerably between the countries. According to several Embassies, capacity constraints on the side of the partner governments, at times combined with a lack of interest in the Paris agenda, are holding back the alignment effort.
This occasionally leads to situations where the wish to promote achievement of the MDGs has to be balanced against the desire to strengthen partner country responsibility and ownership.
The team discussed this challenge with the MFA/ Danida management. The response was rather clear: in instances where there is no political readiness to address the causes of the dysfunction of a partner organisation and the prospects for improvement are minimal, it should be reassessed whether at all to continue the collaboration; also if this may jeopardise achievement of the MDGs.
With few exceptions, there is widespread political consensus as regards the present priorities and practice of Danish development cooperation, including the effort to improve aid effectiveness as indicated in the PD.
At the same time, however, the “zero tolerance” on fraud and mismanagement, which at times hampers alignment to national financial management systems, and the practice of earmarking funds for prioritised themes and cross-cutting issues, both practices criticised by some observers for impeding alignment to national systems and policies, are features of Danish development cooperation commonly
accepted by the Parliament.
There are no indications that the development policy will undergo significant changes in the near future, but the tendency to further concentration and focusing is expected to continue.
The NGO representatives interviewed expressed concern that the PD may lead to centralisation of the development cooperation at the expense of the effort to create a dynamic and vivid civil society. However, as pointed out, this depends very much on the way in which the PDs principle of mutual accountability is being interpreted by donors and partner governments.
The NGO representatives regretted that so far rather little attention has been paid to this aspect of the declaration.
Neither the MFA/Danida management nor the non-MFA informants anticipated a
marked increase in the Danish provision of General Budget Support (GBS), but several respondents expected that the use of sector-budget support and basket funds based on Sector Wide Approaches (SWAps) will increase markedly, as it is considered a more conducive platform for sector policy dialogue and targeting of the assistance than GBS.
Several Embassy respondents found that the practice of earmarking funds for special thematic interventions and cross-cutting initiatives tends to temper or complicate alignment to partner country policies and strategies and thus jeopardise country ownership and leadership.
The MFA/Danida management, on the other hand, while admitting that the Embassies have to deal with a large number of “priority issues”, argued that the demands are manageable if addressed as an integral part of the mainstream activities.
Reporting separately on these issues remains necessary for accountability to the political constituencies in Denmark, and various initiatives have been initiated to improve this reporting, including an input-based reporting.
Whereas the focus on harmonisation and alignment may have reduced the transaction costs for the partner governments, the responses to questionnaires and interviews at embassy level conducted as part of this evaluation indicate that this is not (yet) the case for the development partners.
All Embassies reported that the workload has increased substantially in the wake of the PD. Donor coordination was reported to be especially time-consuming, among other things as a result of the proliferation of coordination forums.
The MFA/Danida management suggested that this is a temporary phenomenon
that will vanish once the full effect of the Joint Assistance Strategies (JASs) and the corresponding donor concentration has been realised.
The Aid Management Guidelines (AMG) is viewed as excellent by nearly all respondents. Several respondents expressed, however, that over the last few years the guidelines have become too long, covering too much, with the result that they tend to be too detailed for the new aid reality.
It was suggested that the AMG need further adjustment especially by focussing more on learning through problem-solving as a means to create the necessary knowledge to move towards making the PD operational in different settings and to help with “implementation on the ground”.
It was furthermore suggested that a “second generation” AMG should be developed, focusing more on applications or operational processes and the creation of new knowledge gained from context and management based on autonomy and self-organisation at the Embassies.
This will require a shift from utilisation of already existing knowledge to the creation of new knowledge, including “process” applications experienced by the Embassies.
When partner country leadership is weak and absorption capacity moderate, donors tend to pursue their own bilateral agendas.
Some of the Embassies facing this problem stated that there is a tendency among the donor HQs to push the Paris agenda too hard, underestimating the time required to build up the necessary capacity of the partner organisations to assume full responsibility for implementation of the often quite complex sector (reform) programmes.
Many respondents, both at HQ and Embassy level, found that more attention should be paid to capacity development, especially in the areas of policy development and public financial management.
Several Embassies called attention to a potential conflict between achievement of the MDGs and the desire to encourage execution of programmes and projects through national systems. Under circumstances where the national structures are incapable of undertaking their mandate, achievement of the MDG may be jeopardised.
This may either lead to creation of parallel implementation structures or acceptance of the fact that national execution under such circumstances will cause a slowdown of the pace of implementation.
The MFA/Danida management is of the clear opinion that national execution has precedence over implementation speed, and that under circumstances of extreme
weak leadership and functionality it should be contemplated to terminate the cooperation with the organisation in question.
Internal MFA/Danida performance reviews confirm some of the challenges of Danish development cooperation highlighted by the OECD-DAC 2006 Monitoring Survey.
Examples include a certain reluctance to rely on national financial management systems, insufficient reflection of Danish assistance in national budgets, lack of pooling of international technical assistance and separate Danida monitoring and reporting structures.
The reviews also noted that most Embassies have agreed to take steps to overcome these deficiencies.
Several interviewees found that cross-cutting issues tend to be something primarily
engaging donors – and possibly civil society – indicating the political dimension of aid.
While acknowledging that the cross-cutting issues of course are subjected to PD principles (i.e. there must be alignment to a governments gender policy, for example), only few persons see intuitively how cross-cutting issues reversely can contribute to enhance the PD (i.e. how a focus on gender can enhance ownership).
The possible linkages between the PD and cross-cutting issues are thus still not well developed and understood.
Hence, according to some interviewees, there is need to invest more effort in better understanding the impact of the PD on cross-cutting issues and especially to enhance the capacity to address cross-cutting issues in the new aid scenario.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• The MFA/Danida management should more clearly indicate how the potential
dilemma between the objective of aligning to national policies and systems and the
evenly important desire to achieve the MDGs should be addressed under circumstances of inadequately functioning government structures. This will probably require increased attention to initiatives aimed at strengthening the capacity of partner organisations, especially in the fields of planning and management.
• The MFA/Danida HQ should provide more guidance to the Embassies on how the
thematic and cross-cutting issues prioritised by Danish development cooperation
are most adequately addressed vis-à-vis partner country policies and strategies with a view to enhance mainstreaming of these issues.
• It should be contemplated to shorten and simplify the AMG, especially the
guidelines on programme management, in view of the new aid realities. Furthermore, it should be contemplated to provide specific examples on how to
address challenges posed by implementation of the PD at the AMG website as part
of the toolbox for aid effectiveness.
• More attention should be paid to alignment of Danish development assistance to
partner country systems and procedures, inter alia through increased use of existing public financial management systems and through reflection of Danish aid in the national budgets. Presumably, this will require increased investment in capacity building of partner organisations, especially in the field of planning and financial management. However, a change of the mindset of some Danida administrative staff may also be needed.
• Monitoring and reporting routines should be synchronised with those of the partner country and other development partners to the highest extent possible. This will entail that Danida sector programmes rely more on indicators prepared as part of national programmes and strategies and the reporting routines of these.
• Danida should intensify its efforts to pool its technical assistance with that of other development partners without compromising the quality of Danish development assistance. Furthermore, in order to enhance partner country ownership, these should be allowed more influence on defining the nature and extent of Danish-funded technical assistance.
• The experience obtained from the intensified harmonisation and division of labour
with other development partners should be mapped and used as a basis for a
dialogue with other development partners at HQ level on how to improve the
harmonisation thrust. This may include an assessment of the position of the nonlike-minded donors, which often demonstrate a different view of the Paris agenda.
• MFA/Danida should, when monitoring the Embassies performance, pay more
attention to the issues of “mutual accountability” and “management for results”.
KEY FINDING 2: Assessing capacity
Overall, levels of staff knowledge and understanding of the PD principles are very high both at HQ and Embassy level. There are clear indications that the majority feel comfortable with the Paris principles and feel they have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the PD at this stage.
By and large, the Embassies reported that they find the present degree of autonomy sufficient to allow for an adequate and prompt response to the thrust towards enhanced alignment and harmonisation.
At the same time a considerable number of respondents called for more backstopping and coaching from the HQ and more attention to experience-sharing
among Embassies. Whilst the MFA/Danida Quality Assurance Department (KVA)
and the Technical Advisory Service (TAS) are already providing such services, the feedback given by the Embassies indicates that the demand exceeds what is presently available.
Generally the evidence drawn from the questionnaires and interviews is sufficiently clear:
In nearly all instances the Embassies reported that the human resources available are insufficient compared to the tasks associated with implementation of the PD. The PD changes the daily life of personnel at the Embassies, and approaches embedded in the PD place new, particular and difficult demands on Embassy officials.
As the PD receives increased attention, the type of expertise needed at the Embassy is also changing.
The limited availability of sector specialists to manage the more technical side of development work in accordance with the PD principles was frequently mentioned as a challenge.
An increased need for key competencies such a negotiation and management skills
was also noted, however, and it was suggested that future postings should take account of both the required expertise and the combinations of staff at each Embassy.
The importance of a continuous updating of the organisation manuals at the Embassies was highlighted.
The decentralisation process implies that today Denmark is relying more on local staff for implementing programmes. There is therefore a need for more systematic
competence development for this particular group.
In some important respects, capacity building efforts have generated good knowledge and awareness of the PD principles. PD issues are, in the main, adequately and clearly communicated to Embassy staff, but more needs to be done to relate to operational aspects encountered by the countries.
Although implementation of the PD is still in its early days, there was a marked need to capture practical experience and present good examples (such as case studies) of lessons learned, especially as the Embassies are increasingly seeking to enhance the practical applications of the PD.
As part of this process, there is need for continuous monitoring and evaluation of the practical aspects of the employment of the Paris principles in order to assess development outcomes and impacts rather than expectations of theory.
Thus, as more and more evidence becomes available, the guidelines and training would become more practical-oriented with contributions from the field.
The overall impression from discussions with HQ persons was one of high confidence in the working principles of the PD, but less so when it came to making them operational.
There was a sense that many Embassy persons were not sufficiently skilled to take on the new roles as required, for instance concerning the role as lead donor in a sector.
Some respondents argued that the human resource constraints of some Embassies tends to put additional pressure on few, key members of staff. Some attributed this to increasing and changing demands to Embassy staff and noted that skills required to help implement the PD agenda were markedly different from those required in the past.
In general, the consensus indicates that the contemporary desk officer has to possess a combination of core expertise: personnel and management skills, knowledge of public sector and public financial management issues and technical (sector-relevant) expertise.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• The alignment and harmonisation-related backstopping to Embassies as well as
experience-sharing among Embassies should be intensified. This may take the form
of for instance regional workshops, use of blogs or exchange visits.
• The MFA/Danida should pay more attention to and make use of experiential
learning at Embassy level. A first requirement should be to learn more from the
Embassies – through setting up a platform for sharing information (for example
e-learning and “chat” pages) based on country context and experience of operationalising the PD.
• When staff is recruited (both posted and local) care should be taken to try to match expertise to context and available posts. As an alternative, in cases where particular expertise cannot be found, it should be considered to buy in expertise.
• The impact of the increased attention to alignment and harmonisation issues on the workload of Embassy personnel should be continuously assessed in order to better comprehend the long-term impact on transaction costs of implementation of the PD.
• It should be considered to assign local staff more responsibility for policy dialogue
and implementation of Danish development cooperation as a means to reduce the
workload of posted staff. This may require that local staff is offered more competitive salaries, as pointed out by the Annual Performance Review 2006.
• Allowances should be made for local staff by taking care to use English when HQ
communicates with Embassies.
KEY FINDING 3: Assessing incentives
Staff performance and career pathways seem to be sensitive issues judged by the rather frank comments made by some respondents.
The suggested reason is insufficiently defined performance assessment criteria and thus carreer paths, particularly concerning fulfilment of the Paris principles. This is definitely an area where considerable scope for improvement exists.
Many found that ability to meet stated disbursement targets is valued higher than demonstrating tangible results in areas of capacity building and alignment.
This confirms the impression that although considered important in the view of the MFA/Danida management, fulfilment of the Paris principles is only one of the parametres against which the personnels performance is being evaluated.
As regards the performance management framework there are different perceptions of how useful it actually is to facilitate implementation of the PD. Several mentioned that the system, as a reflection of the prevailing priorities of Danish development cooperation, pays relatively little attention to the Paris agenda compared to other Danish priorities.
On the other hand, the AMG and other instruments such as the Country Programme Assessments and the Performance Reviews all include H&A issues. The KVA Department, on its side, emphasised that alignment and harmonisation issues are actually given considerably more attention in results contracts from 2006 onwards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• The MFA should define more clearly, and in a transparent manner, the career pathways and staff assessment practices, and ensure that these more explicitly take account of parameters related to the aid effectiveness agenda.
• The Performance Management System should be further elaborated to address issues related to “mutual accountability” and “management for results”.
• The results contracts between the MFA/Danida HQ and the Embassies should be
accompanied by clearly defined performance targets for each staff, national and
posted. The targets should include variables related to implementation of the PD.
