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 • Don’t 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 count…results 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 don’t 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