Use of Strategic Positioning Tools for Division of Labor

1. Use of Strategic Positioning Tools for Division of Labor March 2007

2. Context & Objectives • For the Bank, we have to try to be more selective in the context of the CAS: where do we have a comparative advantage? Better selectivity • For the Government, financing gap is not the only problem, who can bring what and in which sector? • Better coordination of development aid

3. Approach Two perspectives… • Country strategy for each development partner • Aid coordination by the Government … which motivate the use of two distinctive tools: • a “multi-sector / mono-donor” tool • a “multi-sector / multi-donor” tool

4. “Multi-sector / Mono-donor” Tools

5. Specific Objectives • For a donor, the tool helps answer three questions: • In which sector should I strengthen my expertise, if I want to be part of the game? • Which sector can I leave, if I lack resources? • Am I present in sectors that really need it? • These are usual questions in the private sector. We found them important but difficult to answer because we lacked a bottom line. The tools we developed try to address this issue.

6. Description • Tool specifically for donors’ use • A donor can visualize its portfolio according to: • The need for a sector, measured according to 4 criteria: Relative financial gap , Analytical gap , Risk not to attain the MDG, Number of development partners present in the sector • The relative added value of a given donor in a given sector, based on an evaluation by the government • Its relative weight in the sector (in terms of financial amount of aid, all donors considered)

7. How to read the diagram • The “bubble” diagram presents: • The sector’s need (Y axis) • The donor’s comparative advantage (X axis) • The donor’s relative weight determines the size of the bubble • The diagram is divided in 4 areas, to help a donor develop its strategic positioning within a given sector

8. Build teams’ capacity or leave it to the most competent ones Strengthen Need Dilemma Should I stay in the sector? Can the least competent leave? Abandon Relative added value

10. Diagram Analysis • The diagram helps us represent: • Operations (current & future) • Sectors in which the donor is absent • Studies (completed & planned) • This tool is meant to trigger a discussion, not to replace a decision • This tool does not provide a pre-cooked answer; it is supposed to feed into the strategic thinking leading to a decision

11. “Multi-sector / Multi-donor” Tools

12. Description • Tool for donors’ and Government’s use • Helps visualize: • Sectors’ needs • Donors’ comparative advantages in each sector • Size of the financial envelop provided by each donor in the different sectors

13. Description • This tool helps a given donor visualize its comparative advantage in the different sectors, compared to other donors • It also helps the Government to get an overview of each sector’s needs and the level of expertise of the donors involved in each sector

14. Specific Objectives • For a donor, this tool answers the following questions: • In which sector should I strengthen my expertise, if I want to be part of the game? • Which sector can I leave, if I lack resources? • Am I present in sectors that really need it? • Should I be present in a given sector? • For the Government, this tool answers the following questions: • Which donor is best positioned to take the lead? • Are we spreading too thin in a given sector? • Are there financial gaps in a given sector?

15. Example • Sectors are organized by level of need • Each donor is identified by a color Sectors, by increasing level of need Comparative advantage

16. Diagram Analysis • Sector # 1: The yellow donor may question the pertinence of its contribution (it is less competent and provides less funding). It can therefore consider to leave the sector – or the Government can suggest it • Sector # 2: The yellow donor is more competent, but does only contribute marginally. The country could therefore consider: • Asking the donor for an increase in its allocation in the sector, or • Setting up a multi-donor program to capitalize on the expertise of the yellow donor and the financial resources of the others, in order to maximize overall impact

17. The Mauritania CO experience Process & Lessons Learned

18. Process & Dialogue • Government • Sector needs have been assessed through government data (MTEF, PRSP) • The tool was presented by the government during itsTransition meeting (March 6) • Development partners • The CAS collaborative process helped define analytical gaps (sector needs) and partners positioning (sector needs / relative weight) • The tool has been designed in collaboration with the UNDP • The EU used the tool to feed into its strategic document (FED)

19. Lessons Learned • Key factors of success: • Shared sense of urgency to change • Shared will to enhance the aid efficiency • Leadership by the government • Transparency and integrity of the information shared among donors and with the government • Governmental assessment of the Bank’s relative added value led to a constructive dialogue on sectors: no ambiguity of expectations, action plans by sector, Results Agreements for next year • Sharing data about sector needs fosters collaboration among partners • Internally, the tool has been used as an input for the Mauritania CAS (e. g. of fisheries, PSD, transport, decentralization)

20. Next Steps

21. Next steps • Ensure full ownership of the tool by the Government and its dissemination to all other partners • Have the expertise of each development partner assessed by all the others • Capitalize on Government feedback to analyze and discuss potential discrepancies between self-assessment and Government perceptions • Internally, feedback will potentially be used in Staffs’ results agreements