Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris

Declaration in Uganda

Findings on Partnerships

A. Introduction

A1. About the presentation

• Acknowledgements

• Main report

• Full presentation

• Focus on Partnerships– Behaviour changes post-Paris Declaration– Results achieved– Recommendations

B. Main Conclusions

B1. Clarity, relevance and coherence

• PD and PPP not well known in government, private and NGO sectors

• More clarity needed on PD principles and indicators

• Governance-related risks not adequately addressed

B2. Relationship between PD and PEAP Partnership Principles

• The PD added value to PEAP Partnership Principles: – O; A; and H messages in PPP reinforced– Status of PPP elevated - more DPs ratified– More robust coverage of MDR and MA issues

in PD than PPP – but more clarity still needed– Impetus for UJAS, eventually progressing to

DoL exercise

B3. Change in Country Partner Behaviour & Results

• Strong commitment to aid effectiveness - pioneer on partnership principles and SWAp – predates PD

• Commitment to PD - non-uniform and discontinuous across Govt– Mixed feelings on desirability of BS – perceived as risky

• Overlapping policy planning mandates between MFPED, NPA and sectors – mixed messages to DPs?

• Policy and legislative reforms + upgrading of systems (PFAA, PPDA, IFMS, EFTS, FINMAP, etc)

• Despite efforts at CB, capacity to implement reforms/new systems remains inadequate (esp. Loc Govt level) – No single framework for CB in public sector

• No specific incentives to support PD implementation

B3. Change in Country Partner Behaviour & Results -2-

• Results of change in DP Behaviour are mixed– PEAP formulation/review - highly consultative, strong

operational strategy in place – but too broad & reviews irregular

– More consultative strategy formulation –e.g., in JLOS sector; BUT less consultative decisions – e.g., on NAADS, USE; etc

– National systems improving but not air tight – corruption related losses still high

– GoU advocating for reduction in parallel PIUs, multi-year assistance, joint missions, analytical work, DoL (lately)

– Strengthening of national/sectoral M&E systems (NIMES, UBOS, EMIS, HMIS, etc) but weak linkages with decision-making

– Some progress on Mutual A/c – APIR /Paris Surveys

B4. Change in Development Partner Behaviour & Results

• Universal commitment to aid effectiveness, but not necessarily to the PD– PD commitment increasing, but actual level varying – Good practices (aid policy, staff orientation & reward)– Policy rigidity prevents full compliance with the PD

• Commitment to the “use of country systems for PFM and procurement (PD Indicator 5)” not universal

• DPs selective on areas to engage with others on PD

– Political will and reforms are needed at the highest levels to unlock framework for strategy & programming around the PD at country office level

B4. Change in Development Partner Behaviour & Results -2-

• PD strengthened DP respect and support for partner country leadership– Tailored support to strengthen policy/strategy

formulation capacity within Govt – Interpretation of partner country leadership

varies (hands-off or advisory?) – No consensus on how and when DPs should

contribute during policy/strategy formulation

B4. Change in Development Partner Behaviour & Results -3-

• Results of change in DP Behaviour are mixed– Ownership and most alignment indicators show

progress, but “2” (aid predictability); “4” (coordinated support for CD); “5” (use of country systems); and “6” (PIUs) lag behind

• a number of DPs still using own systems, have reservations • substantial aid reported to be still outside Govt systems • aid predictability still a challenge – combination of non-

disclosure and inability to forecast with precision• CB through TA still largely ad-hoc ‘gap-filling’ in nature

B4. Change in Development Partner Behaviour & Results -4-– Harmonisation strengthened but mixed

evidence on direction of transaction costs (lead donor, Govt, etc)

• More responsibility for lead donor, but less meetings with govt for other DPs

• Sector and Thematic Workings Groups multiplied?• Shift from project to programmatic aid

– Benefits of DoL at sector level not yet realised

C. Main Recommendations

C1. Consolidating the Paris Declaration

• New indicators to monitor outstanding critical issues (governance, value-for-money, etc)

• LDPG to discuss and agree on best practices and common approaches for addressing outstanding issues

• Add new indicator - “proportion of aid spent on locally procured goods and services”

• Indicator 6 (PIUs) to capture all donor-funded projects including large NGO projects

• Agree on “appropriate balance” between project versus programme support

C2. Reinforcing Behaviour Change by Country Partner

• Address remaining challenges:– Define boundaries for “country partner leadership &

ownership” and thresholds for “consultative processes)

– Sound dissemination plan on PD and PEAP– Higher level forum for coordination of SWG (LDGP,

Govt & NSAs)– Streamline national planning roles – clear DoL in

Govt, coordination, internal cohesion and complementarity

– Strengthen capacity for M&E and linkages with policy– Governance – esp. zero tolerance for corruption,

political will for swift action needed

C3. Reinforcing Behaviour Change among Development Partners

• All DPs to join UJAS, fully participate in LDPG • Govt to assume DoL leadership role, all DPs to

participate – boldly take process to sector level • Accompany DoL with mechanism to safeguard sector

funding • DPs to provide coordinated support for strengthening

governance and systemic reduction of corruption• Reform DP policies and procedures to permit use of

national systems for PFM and procurement• Reduce number of uncoordinated missions and size of

missions

The End

Thank You!