INTEGRATING GLOBAL PROGRAMS AT COUNTRY LEVEL WORKSHOP ON DEVELOPMENT FINANCE ARCHITECTURE OECD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE 3 -4 JULY 2006 Paul Isenman, Consultant, on behalf of the Alignment Project Team World Bank, Department of Global Programs and Partnerships
Aligning Global Programs at Country Level Secondary materials (examples) Outputs GFATM/GAVI country cases Good practice note with draft principles Bangladesh WB EFA-FTI Health studies and principles Catalyzing results beyond health Tunisia WB GEF (tentative) Int’l Task Force GPGs Helping deepen results in health Niger AFD Concept Paper GP- Natl. Links UNDP (Kaul) Lele reviews for Ongoing dialogue & ITF and WB progress on ground Case Study Country Case Study Programs Ghana OECD/DEV CGIAR Nicaragua GTZ Brazil GTZ Kenya UNDP
P A R I S D E C L ARA T I ON O N A I D E F F E C T I V E N E S S Ownership, Harmonisation, Alignment, Results and. Mutual. Accountability 2 March 2005 iv. Insufficient integration of global programmes and initiatives into partner countries’ broader development agendas, including in critical areas such as HIV/AIDS.
. . . but studies’ concerns about • • • poor coordination and duplication high transaction costs variable country ownership lack of alignment with country processes health system capacity/human resources problems limiting GHP potential • Sustainability______________ Additional points not in the Gates, Mc. Kinsey slide: • predictability and variability • drain from the overall sector program to GPs: best staff, multi-purpose and management capacity, and both donor and partner-country financing. Note: Diversity in nature, scope, scale, operation of GHPs
Examples of proposed best practice principles for GHPs Alignment • To use country systems to the maximum extent possible. Where use of country systems is not feasible, to establish safeguards and measures in ways that strengthen rather than undermine country systems and procedures Harmonization • To implement, where feasible, simplified and common arrangements at country level for planning, funding, disbursement, monitoring, evaluating and reporting to government on GHP activities and resource flows Accountability • To ensure timely, clear and comprehensive information on GHP assistance, processes, and decisions (especially decisions on unsuccessful applications) to partner countries requiring GHP support
ROLE OF DONORS IN ADRESSING PROBLEMS? Who? • Global funds themselves? Rather they have talented staff responding to the mandates, processes and incentives set by their donors. • Bilateral signatories of PD fund most global programs, with recent major role of Gates and other foundations. They determine division of labor – GP-country, including governance, and e. g. bilat. -multilat. Why have global funds? • Substantive reasons: “harmonized” approach to producing GPGs and near GPGs, cutting edge, piloting, spread global best practice, support international conventions. Some GPs for GPGs, e. g. early stages vaccine research, do not raise alignment issues. • Political and public support reasons: • Imagine Bono campaigning for H&A. Bureaucrat-to-bureaucrat aid sells very badly, and branding as specific programmes helps. • Tendency to launch new funds is an issue of “policy coherence” Problem and solution are both all-of-government matters.
ROLE OF DONORS IN ADRESSING PROBLEMS? When? Need for selectivity. • Is there really need for collective global action? • Subsidiarity – what is additionality of proposed fund to what can be done at country level ? • Collective global action not = “global fund” (CGAP model. ) What kind of fund re H&A cost? To oversimplify: • High fungibility: Africa Catalytic Fund: regional rather than sectoral, & -with hopefully - broad coverage, fungible and not too big at country level, aligned/harmonized procedures. • Medium fungibility: FTI catalytic fund - broad sectoral and not too big at country level, aligned/harmonized procedures. • Low fungibility: narrow mandate, big at country level, mostly own procedures (GFATM). Donors should aim for highest fungibility through mandate, procedures, and fund size at country level. . – Applies particularly to funds or innovative financing mechanisms aimed primarily building support for more aid -- IFF or tax on air travel). Also applies design of funds addressing specific problems.
ROLE OF DONORS IN ADRESSING PROBLEMS? How? • Use of governance and incentive structure to address alignment. • Role partner central Ministries in setting priorities & processes. • Need separate fund or use existing delivery channels? • Predictability-sustainability: • Need performance/project approach, or can it be sectoral? • Making performance/challenge funds more predictable & sustainable -- e. g. concentrated 5 -year grants with flexible submission dates. • Build in Paris Declaration from the start: • Alignment with existing partner country processes (e. g. budget, PRSP). • Harmonization with existing donor programmes and coordination processes (working around issue of low field presence). • M&E, and capacity and expectation of adaptation from the start. (GFATM, GAVI as examples good practice in doing early evaluation and taking it seriously). • Ensure that donor staff -- particularly at country level • help align and harmonize GPs • work collaboratively with GPs, governments and other donors.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION, AND, IN ADVANCE, FOR YOUR IDEAS IN THE DISCUSSION.
Скачать презентацию INTEGRATING GLOBAL PROGRAMS AT COUNTRY LEVEL WORKSHOP ON
e1dd0744ff5a81550a0ee13aba6b49e5.ppt