|
INTRODUCTION | ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
INTRODUCTION
Donors do not work in isolation. They undertake activities to support other organisations to implement their own strategies and plans and generally work in areas where other donors are also active. Aid effectiveness is significantly enhanced when there is a good mechanism for aid coordination that builds on shared objectives and set within a framework that reconciles different interests in a constructive way. In this connection, programme-based approaches (PBA) are an effective model for coordinating development assistance. Similarly, aid interventions are more likely to be sustainable when donor aid is provided in support of a strategy or plan that is led by the recipient organisation, when the organisations’ own systems are used to the fullest extent possible, and efforts are made to strengthen those systems so they can be used to a greater extent over time.
PBAs have four features (see under Glossary) and no particular aid modalities automatically qualify as PBAs. A range of aid modalities can be designed to exhibit the features of a PBA. For example, direct budget support (including General and Sector budget support) is likely to respond to the four attributes of a PBA. Similarly project aid that is delivered in the context of a Sector-Wide Approach, or that is pooled through a basket fund or through a pooled arrangement for technical assistance can respond to the required attributes.
In each of the countries where the survey is undertaken, donors should identify which of their programmes are PBAs and be prepared to share the information with the National Coordinator providing information on how the programme meets the four criteria of a PBA. The National Coordinator should establish a list of programmes and projects that qualify as PBAs in close consultation with both donors and the government.
This indicator measures ODA provided in support of programme-based approaches as a percentage of total ODA rather than just ODA for the government sector (as with other indicators). The rationale for this broader based approach is that PBAs are a way of engaging in development assistance that should not be limited to the government sector but also makes sense when applied to the non-government sector (e.g. chambers of commerce, guilds, civil society organisations etc.).
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
Ghana Financial Sector Reform Programme
|
Criterion 1
|
YES. Designated government staff co-lead and coordinate the donor funded activities through the Private Sector Development Working Group and the Financial Sector Sub-Group. Activities (whether project activity or budget support) are detailed and governed in MoUs between the donor community and the Government.
|
|
Criterion 2
|
YES. The Programme has a budget framework that captures the Government and donor input. For PSD and Financial Sector activities, the framework is connected to specific strategic outcomes and is used as a management tool. Majority of the donors provide some project activity support – all of these activities are incorporated in the framework.
|
|
Criterion 3
|
YES. Both the PSD and Financial sector processes fulfill all four functions.
|
|
Criterion 4
|
YES, IT USES 2 SYSTEMS. USAID uses local system for programme design and participate in design of other donor’s activities. USAID activities are implemented with various GoG agencies / ministries / departments (e.g. technical assistance to farmers is designed with and then provided by local GoG agricultural workers). USAID also gives money to local institutions to implement activities. As USAID does not provide pooled funding or sector budget support, USAID do not use local financial management and M & E Systems.
|
Source: USAID
Ghana Food and Agriculture Strategic Development Plan (FASDEP)
|
Criterion 1
|
YES. However, the Government of Ghana is still highly dependent on the Agriculture Donor Group for leadership.
|
|
Criterion 2
|
YES. The programme has a budget framework that captures GOG and donor input, but it is not linked to specific strategic outcomes and is not used as a management tool.
|
|
Criterion 3
|
YES. It uses the two functions: The programme coordinates for reporting and shares information for budgeting. It does not coordinate financial management and procurement functions.
|
|
Criterion 4
|
NO. The on-going programme fit within a broad framework that the Ministry is creating (FASDEP). There is varied use of local systems for implementation.
|
Source: USAID
Tanzania Health SWAp
|
Criterion 1
|
YES. Basket funding is managed by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW) which its Chief Medical Officer chairs the Health SWAp Technical Working Group. The technical working group is comprised of subset of invited partners from government, donors, CSOs and private sector.
|
|
Criterion 2
|
YES. A Mid-Term Economic Framework budgets all health funds at the district and above levels. Funds include government revenue, General Budget Support and the Health Basket. Progress is being made to include projectised donations into the MTEF.
|
|
Criterion 3
|
YES. A very active Donor Partner Group for Health meets monthly and has sub-groups for basket funding, M & E and other topics which cover all four areas.
|
|
Criterion 4
|
YES. Programme implementation uses the SWAp Technical Working Group. Financial management is done through the basket subcommittee of Donor Partner Group on Health reviews and comments on the MTEF. Monitoring and evaluation is done through the Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania Review.
|
Source: USAID
Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF)
|
Criterion 1
|
YES. ARTF funding only goes to public sector activities that have been defined in Government of Afghanistan’s budget, the National Development Framework and its National Priority Programme. It provides funding in support of 11 National Priority Programmes which are based on the NDF.
|
|
Criterion 2
|
YES. The ARTF has one framework and programme consisting of two windows – for recurrent expenditure and investment. This means that there is one source of funding for the recurrent budget. Further, all proposals for activities that are to receive ARTF funding come from the Ministry of Finance. Whilst these can in principle come from any line ministry of the Government, it must be accompanied by a justification in terms of importance to the Government of Afghanistan’s NDF and NPPs.
|
|
Criterion 3
|
YES. The ARTF is overseen by a Management Committee (MC) consisting of repre-sentatives from the Asian Development Bank, the Islamic Development Bank, UNDP and the World Bank. The MC is responsible for reviewing progress and taking key decisions including the approval of investment projects proposed for ARTF financing. Donors participate in a Steering Committee that meets quarterly, focusing on administrative and performance issues.
|
|
Criterion 4
|
YES. By working through reimbursements, which are verified by the Monitoring Agent, the ARTF provides an incentive to improve financial management and accountability. In addition, the World Bank which manages the ARTF is providing technical assistance to the Ministry of Finance to enable increased use of government systems. The recent Public Expenditure Review demonstrated that strong progress has been made in the Government’s fiscal discipline and budget planning and information on budget execution.
|
Source: DFID and Assessment, Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), March 2005.
|
