Independent Monitoring Establishing Balance in Development Partnerships Philip

Independent Monitoring Establishing Balance in Development Partnerships Philip Courtnadge Kigali July 2005

The Authenticity of Partnership “Ownership exists when they do what we want them to do but they do so voluntarily. ” “We want them to take ownership. Of course, they must do what we want. If not, they should get their money elsewhere. ” (Unidentified) Tanzania development partners, 1995

Benefits of Independent Monitoring v Recognises inherent inequalities in aid relations v Establishes equity in Government-donor partnership v Provides for a safety valve, even where relations are otherwise good v Establishes a concrete framework for dialogue and progress v Provides for informed and impartial perspective on complex issues (e. g. reform, governance, conditionality) v Institutionalised reality check on progress and challenges in harmonisation (e. g. lowering transaction costs)

Independent Monitoring Objectives Place Government and development partners under the same degree of scrutiny v Promote the notion of mutual accountability to national stakeholders v Speaking the ‘unspeakable’ promoting trust v Objective basis for Government-led harmonisation / alignment plan v Identify and remove obstacles to scaling-up for the MDGs (governance, capacity, costs of donor aid) v Meet the global harmonisation & alignment indicators (Paris Declaration) v

Experience of Tanzania Monitoring v v Restored consensus on partnership in 1995 Basis for increased mutual accountability (with Parisinspired objective indicators) Encourages more assertive Government leadership Provides concrete inputs to Joint Assistance Strategy § § § § § Donor ‘division of labour’ Use of Exchequer system Cycle of national processes (PRS, PER, poverty monitoring) Partnership-specific capacity development issues (trust) Technical assistance policy Core reform harmonisation ‘Quiet times’ – reduced missions with Government Establishment of high-level dialogue structure Increased levels and shares of budget support

Replication & Adaptation v Requires commitment on both sides v Need to agree scope and limits of work v Requires independent, trusted and knowledgeable team v Must be undertaken with firm commitment to implement findings v Levels of ‘independence’ can vary in practice v Flexibility and an iterative approach can build confidence

Mechanics of Independent Monitoring “DESIGN IN YOUR OWN IMAGE”… v Institutionalised or less formal? v Terms of Reference and scope of work to be agreed between Government and partners v Size and profile of the team? v Mainly interview-based, with some desk research v Financing & practical arrangements – UNDP as a neutral partner: NGO execution v Dialogue structures for concrete follow-up and implementation

Joint –vs– Independent Monitoring § § Added value of joint monitoring, e. g. in Budget Support, poverty monitoring systems or sector reviews APRM as a complementary process

Conclusion / Discussion v A concrete way to begin establishing balance v Provides clear signposts for future dialogue v An adaptable and flexible tool But… v Must be linked to more systemic monitoring v Re-enforcing Government-donor relations rather than building national accountability? v Terms of Reference can be restrictive – how to maximise credibility and independence?