Aid harmonisation and alignment indicators .1 Measuring progress

How was progress in harmonisation to be monitored? The World Bank outlined a proposal on how it intended to proceed. This followed the setting-up of the OECD/DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness and Donor Practices to support implementation of the Rome agreement. A Task Team on harmonisation and alignment launched a survey of harmonisation at the country level, which was carried out in the 14 partner countries participating in Rome. Survey questions sought responses about aid providers’ actions, recipient governments’ actions and common actions, using 13 indicators.

The survey concluded that some progress had been made to achieve better aid alignment with partner countries’ development priorities and that

“about 60 partner countries and 40 bilateral aid agencies and multilateral institutions are engaged in these efforts” (International Development Association [IDA], 2004). The report pointed out that:

 further work was required but that it was costly and unfunded;

 effective institutional mechanisms were needed to encourage staff to pursue harmonisation actions; and

 existing policies and practices discouraged the change of behaviour necessary to make progress.

The WB, which chaired the Task Team under the WP-EFF, made the following observations:

a) the list of indicators was too long, with questions requiring information on 118 items;

b) some indicators were not relevant, and work was needed to focus on more pertinent indicators; and

c) there was a need for a scoreboard on aid providers’ performance to focus on certain indicators, as follows:

i. percentage of aid support linked to explicit priorities ii. percentage of disbursements that are untied

iii. percentage of projected commitments / disbursements recorded in the government budget

iv. percentage of actions such as analytic work and portfolio reviews that are conducted jointly with other aid providers in the same sectors

In conclusion, the report called for a “culture of collective self-discipline”

as being critical for further progress.

2.4.2 WP-EFF Task Team on harmonisation and alignment

The WP-EFF Task Team on Harmonisation issued guiding principles to promote top-level advocacy of harmonisation, engage in demand-driven actions and build on existing work. Support required clarification of what harmonisation meant in operational terms, the limits to the flexibility of action, and where to turn to address problems without adding costs to field offices and local authorities. As an initial step, the Team planned to identify “lead players” of harmonisation in different countries and sectors.

A global web-based information facility was planned for exchanging experiences. A detailed set of good practices was to be developed illus-trating where guidance would be most helpful. Tracking progress was to be supported through a stocktaking exercise to monitor progress and report results to a DAC Senior Level meeting and to the second HLF in Paris.

The Team was also to prepare a report documenting achievements, identifying bottlenecks and making recommendations for the Paris HLF.

The Team undertook to:

a) prepare a “framework of indicators” on harmonisation, relying on quantitative indicators; and

b) enhance mechanisms for maintaining peer pressure and mainstreaming harmonisation in peer reviews.

A joint country-learning and assessment exercise was planned for two partner countries to provide assessment of progress at the country level.

The 14 partner countries present in Rome were invited to participate in the Team’s meetings.

2.4.3 Incentives for harmonisation and alignment

Lack of incentives was one of the main stumbling blocks to real change in policy and behaviour by both aid providers and partner countries. A working paper by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in 2005 examined these issues (de Renzio, Booth, Rogerson, & Curran, 2005). It based its analysis on six case studies done by the DAC Task Force on Harmonisation and Alignment, including the United Kingdom, Switzer-land, Sweden, Spain as well as the World Bank and the EU.

The paper argued that the behaviour of aid agencies’ staff was influenced by political, institutional and individual factors; it added that there was “a certain degree of ‘disconnection’ between the high level declarations and commitments” (de Renzio, Booth, Rogerson, & Curran, 2005). The initia-tives taken did not amount to a coherent strategy to ensure that inceninitia-tives were adequate to meet harmonisation challenges.

Of the political factors, the issue of visibility was significant for politicians who felt that harmonising with other aid providers subdued such visibility.

NGOs and private-sector contractors lobbied to ensure they did not lose funding under harmonisation. Partner countries did not show the leadership and ownership of harmonisation initiatives necessary to take meaningful actions.

Institutionally, decentralisation to country offices in managing aid activities was not supported by the Head Office. This was the famous

“disconnect” between the Head Office and country offices. Where harmonisation focal points had been established, they were not given sufficient resources to carry out their mandates. In a nutshell, there was a lack of a coherent institutional framework to guide, promote and monitor progress.

No less important was the question of incentives to individual staff members. Where harmonisation requirements were not duly considered in

recruiting, training and assessing their performance, harmonisation responsibilities were not likely to be taken seriously.

The paper concluded by arguing that organisations with innovative cultures – rather than those requiring compliance with existing rules – were more likely to proceed with harmonisation work, which often required changes in policies and practices. Positive incentives – coupled with stronger link between the Head Office and country offices – as well as more interactions between aid agencies at the international level were essential for achieving better results. It also underlined the role of personalities and individual characteristics as “fundamental factors” in success.

It was clear in Rome that harmonisation issues were critical to improve aid effectiveness, and that efforts and actions to meet these challenges were costly, in resources and time. Even then, these factors were underestimated in their impact on progress, as later evidence would show.