Assizes of the Belgian Development cooperation Aid concentration
![Assizes of the Belgian Development cooperation: Aid concentration Hubert de MILLY OECD – DCD/aid Assizes of the Belgian Development cooperation: Aid concentration Hubert de MILLY OECD – DCD/aid](https://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-1.jpg)
Assizes of the Belgian Development cooperation: Aid concentration Hubert de MILLY OECD – DCD/aid effectiveness
![Aid Fragmentation • Fragmentation is an issue for both donors and partners – For Aid Fragmentation • Fragmentation is an issue for both donors and partners – For](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-2.jpg)
Aid Fragmentation • Fragmentation is an issue for both donors and partners – For donors – managing programmes in many countries (Canada, EC, France, Germany, Japan, and US give aid to over 100 countries; Portugal in just 19 and New Zealand in just 21. ) – For partners – having to deal with a large number of small donors (37 countries have more than 24 DAC and major multilateral donors; in two thirds of these more than 15 of those donors account for just 10% of their aid. )
![Concentration: Partners’ fears • Overall volume decrease (donor phasing out without offsetting) • Donor Concentration: Partners’ fears • Overall volume decrease (donor phasing out without offsetting) • Donor](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-3.jpg)
Concentration: Partners’ fears • Overall volume decrease (donor phasing out without offsetting) • Donor quartel • Loss of flexibility • Increased risk (if donor failure) • Internal opposition : minefi vs lineministries (loss of like-minded donor at sector level)
![Concentration: donors’ fears • Phasing out (how to announce bad news? ) • Low Concentration: donors’ fears • Phasing out (how to announce bad news? ) • Low](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-4.jpg)
Concentration: donors’ fears • Phasing out (how to announce bad news? ) • Low control on existing aid • Increased responsability, need of greater predictability • Loss of flexibility • Increased risk for disbursment
![• Note on measurement: – Fragmentation measured for country programmable aid (CPA) which • Note on measurement: – Fragmentation measured for country programmable aid (CPA) which](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-5.jpg)
• Note on measurement: – Fragmentation measured for country programmable aid (CPA) which excludes debt relief, humanitarian aid, imputed student and administrative costs, etc. – CPA is aid that is susceptible to programming at recipient country level – Excludes small bilateral programmes of under $250, 000, as not imposing the same coordination burdens as larger projects and programmes.
![Fragmentation – Partners’ perspective Quartile distribution of number of DAC and major multilateral donors Fragmentation – Partners’ perspective Quartile distribution of number of DAC and major multilateral donors](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-6.jpg)
Fragmentation – Partners’ perspective Quartile distribution of number of DAC and major multilateral donors by country
![Number of donors together accounting for less than 10% of aid In 33 partner Number of donors together accounting for less than 10% of aid In 33 partner](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-7.jpg)
Number of donors together accounting for less than 10% of aid In 33 partner countries fragmentation is a major issue – each has more than 15 donors providing just 10% of their CPA
![Sectoral analysis • If donors concentrate their aid at the sectoral level, the effect Sectoral analysis • If donors concentrate their aid at the sectoral level, the effect](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-8.jpg)
Sectoral analysis • If donors concentrate their aid at the sectoral level, the effect of fragmentation can be reduced, while still allowing space for smaller donors • Analysis of fragmentation in two sectors: Health and Economic Infrastructure
![Significant fragmentation in the Health sector In 21 countries, in the health sector, more Significant fragmentation in the Health sector In 21 countries, in the health sector, more](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-9.jpg)
Significant fragmentation in the Health sector In 21 countries, in the health sector, more than 15 donors combined provide just 10% of their health CPA
![Less fragmentation in the Economic infrastructures Only 5 countries have 18 to 23 donors Less fragmentation in the Economic infrastructures Only 5 countries have 18 to 23 donors](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-10.jpg)
Less fragmentation in the Economic infrastructures Only 5 countries have 18 to 23 donors active in infrastructure (with more than 15 donors providing just 10% of their infrastructure CPA)
![Country case studies • Review of Cambodia, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam shows: – On Country case studies • Review of Cambodia, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam shows: – On](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-11.jpg)
Country case studies • Review of Cambodia, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam shows: – On average approx. 1/3 of donors represent 90% of aid (9 to 12 donors) – In health on average ¼ of donors (4 to 8 donors) and in Economic infrastructure sector 17% (1 to 4) • Case of Vietnam: Yet two small donors , Austria (with 0. 2% of global CPA) and Finland (0. 4%) can manage fifth (8. 0% share) and sixth (2. 8%) position in aid to health in Viet Nam • So there is scope for greater concentration at sectoral, country and global level
![Vietnam: CPA in total Donor Japan IDA As. DF France United Kingdom Denmark Germany Vietnam: CPA in total Donor Japan IDA As. DF France United Kingdom Denmark Germany](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-12.jpg)
Vietnam: CPA in total Donor Japan IDA As. DF France United Kingdom Denmark Germany Netherlands Canada Australia Sweden EC United States Finland Belgium Switzerland …. . Austria CPA share 34. 5% 18. 3% 10. 0% 5. 8% 4. 2% 3. 5% 3. 0% 2. 9% 2. 6% 2. 4% 2. 1% 1. 6% 0. 9% Cumulative% 34% 53% 69% 73% 76% 79% 82% 85% 87% 89% 91% 93% 94% 95% 96% 0. 0% 100%
![Vietnam: health Donor Japan United States Austria France EC Germany The Global Fund Luxembourg Vietnam: health Donor Japan United States Austria France EC Germany The Global Fund Luxembourg](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-13.jpg)
Vietnam: health Donor Japan United States Austria France EC Germany The Global Fund Luxembourg United Kingdom Finland Belgium UNICEF IDA CPA share 22. 9% 18. 6% 9. 3% 6. 7% 6. 1% 5. 8% 5. 4% 4. 1% 3. 0% 2. 5% 2. 4% 2. 2% Cumulative% 23% 41% 57% 64% 69% 75% 79% 82% 84% 87% 89% 91%
![Vietnam: economic infrastructures Donor France Japan Germany Denmark Belgium Netherlands EC Sweden Switzerland Norway Vietnam: economic infrastructures Donor France Japan Germany Denmark Belgium Netherlands EC Sweden Switzerland Norway](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-14.jpg)
Vietnam: economic infrastructures Donor France Japan Germany Denmark Belgium Netherlands EC Sweden Switzerland Norway Australia Canada United Kingdom CPA share 22. 8% 21. 8% 15. 3% 6. 4% 6. 1% 5. 4% 4. 2% 3. 9% 3. 8% 2. 5% 1. 9% 1. 6% 1. 4% Cumulative% 23% 45% 60% 66% 72% 78% 82% 86% 90% 92% 94% 96% 97%
![Sub-fragmentation • Intra-donor proliferation – Various state agencies – Decentralised coop (cities, regions…) – Sub-fragmentation • Intra-donor proliferation – Various state agencies – Decentralised coop (cities, regions…) –](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-15.jpg)
Sub-fragmentation • Intra-donor proliferation – Various state agencies – Decentralised coop (cities, regions…) – ODA funded NGOs • Budget lines proliferation – With different regulations – Without fungibility
![Points for discussion • What “concentrated” means ? Donor view vs partner view. LDCs Points for discussion • What “concentrated” means ? Donor view vs partner view. LDCs](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-16.jpg)
Points for discussion • What “concentrated” means ? Donor view vs partner view. LDCs vs MICs. • Cost of partnership • Partnerships : how many is too many, how many is too little ? • Country strategy vs global strategies (sectors or cci) • “Niche” vs “full high level partnership”
![Donors: a dual strategy ? • Countries of « niche » – Localised or Donors: a dual strategy ? • Countries of « niche » – Localised or](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-17.jpg)
Donors: a dual strategy ? • Countries of « niche » – Localised or sectoral partneship – Great number of countries – Small volumes • Countries of concentration – Full partnership, Paris principles – 1 or 2% of local GDP (in medium LDCs) – Small number of countries
![Thank you Thank you](http://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/a05414a41d7ab0bfee6531b70da07986/image-18.jpg)
Thank you
- Slides: 18