Evaluation of the Implementation of Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness In Sri Lanka

1. V.Sivagnanasothy Director General Department of Foreign Aid & Budget Monitoring Ministry of Plan Implementation sivagnanasothy@hotmail.com Evaluation of the Implementation of Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness In Sri Lanka

2. ROAD MAP The Purpose of the Evaluation Scope and Methodology Findings Key Issues Lessons and Recommendations

3. The Purpose of the Evaluation MPI is mandated with National M&E responsibility in the government Need to know the Aid Effectiveness Status Government strongly believe ownership, alignment, harmonization, results and accountability as important ingredients for aid effectiveness. Evaluation complements the monitoring with more comprehensive and qualitative understanding on what work? What does not work? And why it work? and why it does not work? questions.

4. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Generic Evaluation Questions – localized to Country/donor context. 3 Central Evaluation Questions - important trends or events - major influences affecting donors and partners behaviour (5PD principles & commitments) - How and Why this is working or not working Perception Surveys, Monitoring data, Secondary studies

5. National Ownership • Adoption of the 10 year National Development Framework • Sector Plans (e.g Road Sector Master Plan, Education, Health, Environment) • Medium Term Expenditure Framework for resources allocation

6. EVALUATION FINDINGS : OWNERSHIP(Overarching & Guiding Principles) Ownership is strong but remains narrow in countries. Deepening and broadening (Central players Vs Sectoral, sub national and CSOs)- Democratic Ownership (inclusive process) Broad Consultative process – Govt. + Private Sector +CSOs is important. Democratic Ownership is important than just Government Ownership. Policy conditionality undermines ownership Serious Capacity Constraints in partner countries to fulfill ownership. “PD has given strong hand to govt. in dealing with Development Partners” – helped to take leadership in Aid.

7. EVALUATION FINDINGS : OWNERSHIP(Overarching & Guiding Principles) Donor-driven project formulation prevails in weak institutions and when incentives are inadequate in the government – influence of foreign policy, commercial/institutional interest of development partners undermine national ownership. Lack of Development Partner Delegation of Authority from HQ to field level is seen as a constraint for ownership

8. Alignment • ODA – 77.6% channelled through the government. • 65% of Aid disbursements using Country Public Financial Management System. • 50% of procurements in foreign aid follows national procurement procedures.

9. EVALUATION FINDINGS : ALIGNMENT(Donor support on NDS, Institutions, systems and procedures) Progress is visiblein aligning aid flows with national priorities. - donors aligned to National Development Strategy, Sector strategy, MTEF and Budget Progress is slow in - building reliable country system - Using country systems (PFM,NPS, Budget, M&E, Audit, EIA/SIA) - Coordinated support to strengthen capacity (demand – driven TA) - Reducing parallel PIUs (large share of aid unaligned to country systems)

10. EVALUATION FINDINGS : ALIGNMENT(Donor support on NDS, Institutions, systems and procedures) • Reducing Parallel PIUs - Mixed results – debated - All PIUs not parallel (some appointed and accountable to donors – outside mainstream) undermines ownership - Ministries where capacities are weak PIUs may be needed (Professional staff) - Mega infrastructure projects may justify PIUs when capacity is weak. • Need to be phased out gradually. Mainstream existing PIUs into Ministries.

11. Harmonization • Limited Joint Country Analytic Work (e.g tsunami, disaster, post-conflict rehabilitation) • General Budget support and sector wide approach are good for National Ownership. However, for Mega infrastructure type projects the project approach may be useful. • PIUs are generally appointed by and accountable to govt. Hence partly in the mainstream • PIUs need to be viewed on an interim arrangement when capacities of Ministries are weak.

12. challenges • Inadequate Commonality in orientation on the part of Donors (e.g In some case feasibility study done by one donor is not acceptable to other) • Absence of Joint Development Partner Country Assistance Strategy • Limited delegation by donor HQ to Country Offices and lack of sensitivity of Country offices to respond to local situation. • Bilateral tend to emphasize on tied aid. (tied to their own technology, consultancy, products and systems) • PIUs need to be mainstreamed into the Ministerial arrangements.

13. Managing for Development Results • MfDR initiatives in place. (Piloting and mainstreaming) • Provision of capacity building support on MfDR UNDP/ADB • Introduce MfDR principle at Ministry – government wide • MfDR at Project level. (Cascading web based e-PMS) • Quarterly Progress Reports on FA Projects to Cabinet • INGO Development work – web based e DIMS / DAD • Evaluation Systems are being introduced in government. • Evaluation Information system is being established to disseminate evaluation lessons widely. • Online “Readiness Assessment Tool” of the ADB is helps to develop capacity building plan on MfDR.

14. Managing for Development Results(Focus on Results and use of evidence based information for decision making) • More work remains to be done • Monitorable Results Framework to assess National Development Strategies and Sector Strategies is progressing. • Countries are still attempting to improve results focused MTEF, Performance based budgets, Performance Audits and Performance appraisal (Performance contracts) • Disbursement imperatives still prevail with donors and Partner Countries ( as against results imperatives) • MfDR needs Political will, Policy environment, Commitment, Leadership/Champions, Mission driven Culture, Change Agents, Capacity, Institutional strengths, information systems, and incentives.

15. Managing for Development Results(Focus on Results and use of evidence based information for decision making) • Demand for MfDR need to created by involving Parliament, Cabinet, Citizens, CSOs and Media • Donors continue to rely on their own parallel M&E system. Hence weak Country owned systems. Joint Evaluations need to be encouraged as against donor driven evaluations to enhance ownership, lesson learning and mutual accountability. • National Statistical Capacity Strengthening is a pre-requisite for MfDR • Donors continue to rely on their own parallel M&E system. Hence weak Country owned systems. Joint Evaluations need to be encouraged as against donor driven evaluations to enhance ownership, lesson learning and mutual accountability.

16. Challenges: • Disbursement imperatives are still emphasized by both Govt. and Development Partners. • Lack of knowledge, skills and experiences on MfDR at national and international level • Reluctance to use MfDR and Performance Assessment Practices which are challenging. • Donors tend to emphasize on procedures rather than results. • Weak capacity, institutional support, legislature and policy support.

17. Evaluation Findings: Mutual Accountability(for development results) • Slow progress than MfDR • Exchange of information is the minimum threshold in mutual accountability (SL Evaluation Association) • Strengthen Parliamentary role in strategies and budget; Participatory approach in strategy formulation and progress assessment; Donors report aid on budget • joint review platforms need to be further strengthened • Increasing Joint Evaluations • MDG Monitoring, PD Evaluation, Joint evaluations are steps towards mutual accountability.

18. Key Issues and Challenges • Donor interest to maintain visibility and attribution to contribution and non developmental objectives. • Disbursement culture among donor and partner countries. • Donor HQ need to decentralize decision making authority to country office field staff • Bilateral need more change in behaviour (untying aid) • Multi year planning and budgeting framework is important for partner countries and donors but appropriations are annual • Need to ensure thematic aspects such as gender, environment, governance for aid effectiveness. • Non DAC donors and emerging new donors need to comply with PD Principles (other motives –trade, political etc.)

19. Conclusions and Recommendations • Sustain high level Political engagement PD is apolitical agenda and should not be considered as mere “dialogue among technocrats” • PD should deal with different context Not be a statement of intent but adoptable to country situation (not “one size fits all” )- Localized PD for SL • Strengthen Partner Country system and capacity and accept country leadership • Create trust in country systems and enhance usage. • Beyond 12 Monitoring Indicators – broad in focus- complement evaluations. • Leadership and commitment, capacity and incentives are fundamental for change behaviour – both donors and country.

20. Thank you