Impact of development cooperation
-
Upload
ministry-for-foreign-affairs-of-finland -
Category
Documents
-
view
44 -
download
0
Transcript of Impact of development cooperation
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION WHAT DO WE KNOW?
4th JUNE 2015HELSINKI, FINLAND
#kehityskeskustelu2015
Overview
• Development Co-operation in its broadest sense• Official aid is just one arm of development finance• Many players: big to small• Countries vary in the size & ambition of their official
aid, their business engagement, NGOs, philanthropy, diaspora remittances etc
• Geopolitical baggage v poverty/humanitarian focus• Keep Calm. Less ideology please!
5
0000111
11
11
2
3
3
3
Oth
er c
ondi
tions
Intr
apar
tum
rela
ted
even
ts
Pret
erm
birt
hco
mpl
icati
ons
Mea
sles
Dia
rrho
ea
Pneu
mon
ia
2000
Men
ingi
tis
Neo
nata
l Tet
anus
Mal
aria
Neo
nata
lPn
eum
onia
Oth
er c
ondi
tions
neon
atal
Neo
nata
l sep
sis/
men
ingi
tisN
eona
tal
diar
rhea
inju
ry
Cong
enita
lab
norm
aliti
es
AID
S 2010
73
570
<20% decline from 2000 to 2010
20-30% decline from 2000 to 2010
>30% decline from 2000 to 2010
~50% of the reductioncomes from pneumonia, diarrhea, and measles
Reduction in global U5MR by disease, 2000 to 2010Deaths per 1,000 births
SOURCE: CHERG 2012, Lancet 2012
2.6-3.0 million fewer under 5 child deaths annually
Celebrate & worry about:
• Reduction in global poverty• Reduced infant & maternal mortality• Helped (some) countries out of conflictSuccess has many parents: communities, civil society,
governments, NGOs, official donors (aid helped via: restoring growth, human development, maybe peace)
Worries: war, refugees + IDPs, disease (Ebola), climate, human rights, corruption, democracy
Strategic Lens – what should rich countries do?
Fundamental questions: how much focus on:•climate change (& how)?•fragility & conflict? (& how)?•existing country partners?•poorest people & the poorest countries? (Low-income v Middle-Income countries, poor in MICs v poor in LICs)•In making their choices, donor countries need to think about: •uncertainty & risk; achieving more impact via leverage; engaging more of their citizens in action
Areas of Strategic Choice:
For donor country:•Thematic specialization (breadth v depth; experience)•Bilateral v multilateral action (ownership of results, tail wags the multilateral dog?)•Which countries (LICs v MICs) : MIC poverty•Beyond aid? “All of Government” approaches
3 theme ideas: gender equality / economic transformation / fiscal system
Gender Equality
• No inclusive growth if it does not fully incorporate ability of citizens, regardless of gender
• DAC monitors commitments to gender equality – about 15% of all screened aid has this objective
• 15% is too low (see www.recom.wider.unu.edu/gender)• Highest in education: 30% of all screened aid. Health:
maternal health a priority but family planning too low• Aid for gender equality languishes in productive sectors
e.g. women farmers• Small livelihood projects; little at scale
To conclude: future of development partnership
• Depending on a country’s level of ambition:• Small & medium-sized players can develop technical &
area specialisms that greatly enhance their impact• Position the development agency as a global leader in
analysis & practice on a limited number of themes• Engage in helping partner countries use knowledge
networks to achieve social & economic transformation• Aid works – when well-designed & implemented – but
avoid the trap of ideology
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION WHAT DO WE KNOW?
4th JUNE 2015HELSINKI, FINLAND
#kehityskeskustelu2015
How does Finnish aid rank globally?Center for Global Development and Brookings Institution
DonorMaximizing efficiency
Fostering institutions
Reducing burden
Transparency and learning
Denmark 15 2 5 12
Finland 17 7 17 13
France 14 8 26 25
Germany 30 11 22 16
Ireland 4 1 3 2
Norway 23 16 27 6
Sweden 22 5 12 8
UK 10 6 10 18
USA 24 20 31 15
AfDF 2 9 15 3
AsDF 5 22 13 10
EU institutions 18 13 7 21
IDA 7 3 2 9
UN select agencies 19 30 23 20
Performance of multilateral agenciesNote: Scale: 1 – weak; 2 – satisfactory; 3 – good; 4 –
excellent
Conclusions: Finnish aid has many strengths
• Selective but active participant in supporting economic reforms
• Poverty focus• Serious and systematic on gender • Country strategy approach and country program
evaluations• Important role in “new deal” for fragile states• Many “best practices” in areas of comparative advantage• Assessment of multilateral organizations• Strong humanitarian aid program• Transparent evaluation• Constructive relationships with recipients and other donors
10 Recommendations for even higher impact1. Make results a central focus across Finnish aid.2. A longer term statement of principles and objectives of Finnish aid,
endorsed by Parliament.3. Continue results-based country strategies, with a few sectors and
programs. Consider carefully how many fragile states can be supported at any given time.
4. Evaluate CSO support which comes across fragmented. Consider whether it should be more closely integrated with other Finnish aid at country level.
5. Increase Finnfund’s capital. Redesign concessional credits and drastically improve their administration.
6. Reduce fragmentation in multilateral aid, using organizational efficiency as an important criteria.
7. Re-introduce a (modest) program of operationally relevant empirical research.
8. Delegate more financial responsibility to embassies.9. Ensure incentives to strong technical staff -- critical for good-quality aid.10. Let Finns know what they tax euros deliver, what they don’t, and why.