1. Reflections on the new Aid Architecture: how did we get to where we are Philip Amis International Development Dept at CLGF meeting in the Bahamas May 2009

2. A brief history…  Since 2000 donors signed up to MDGs –Increased funds –Concern with donor coordination  Concern with projects: –undermine local administration by setting up separate authorities: –time bound –employ the best  Move to SWAPs and Budget Support

3. OECD study 2002  “To consult.. Partner countries on their perceptions of donor practice with a view to identifying and analysing:  Those practices that place the highest burden on partner governments in terms of ownership, aid transactions costs and aid effectiveness Studies in eleven partner countries  In-depth semi-structured interviews with Government officials, NGOs and others

4. Donors as a nuisance Lack of fit with national priorities Donor procedures Inconsistency amongst donors Excessive demand on time Disbursement delays Lack of information Demands beyond national capacity

5. Paris Declaration 2005  Ownership  Alignment –Use local systems and data –Provide programme aid* –Do not set up parallel structures  Harmonization  Managing for results  Mutual Accountability

6. Paris Declaration 2005 (2)  Compromise between North Europeans (Scandinavia, Canada, Netherlands and UK) keen on Budget support  Go it alone group (USA, France, Japan…Germany embarrassed in the middle)  But very important document –Review in Rwanda for UNDP –Most donors have signed up to it –Coordination is slowly taking place

7. General Budget Support 2005/06  Unearmarked funds to government budget – more mature aid relationship  Using and working with Government systems  Putting more funds on budget  Complimentary inputs –Dialogue –Harmonization  Focus on Poverty reduction

8. IDD Evaluation  International team - all donor community involved as clients  Rigorous methodology 1994-2004 with a causality map  Burkina Faso, Malawi*, Mozambique*, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Uganda* Vietnam  All the reports are availabe at www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation  www.gov.uk/aboutdfid/performance/evaluati on-news.asp www.gov.uk/aboutdfid/performance/evaluati on-news.asp

9. Main Findings –mainly positive  Broadly Positive in 5 out of 7 states  Improvements in public finance management systems and efficient use of funds  Supports the MoF ability to control and manage resource flows**  Increases in donor harmonization and alignment  evidence of funds getting through on health and education but mainly quantity rather than quality in service delivery

10. Other Findings – some negative  No evidence of a decline in revenue collection as a substitution for external funds**  Little evidence of fiduciary risks/corruption  Little evidence of the encouragement of accountability mechanisms  But problems of stability of funding –Political issues –Sovereign state issues –Issues with Northern tax payers