Joint Programming enlarged – and five questions from a newcomer
Discussion details
As a staff member of Eurostat, each year I am involved in updating a site, run by PARIS21 from the OECD, which gathers global information on support being given to Statistical Capacity Building around the world. An annual report is produced e.g. http://www.paris21.org/PRESS2013 which outlines who is doing what, where in the field of SCB.
We PRESS reporters for the EU rely heavily on the Delegations to help us pinpoint the statistical actions that often fall under headings such as "Good Governance", "Technical Cooperation Facility" or "State Building" and that are usually part of much larger, multimillion programmes and projects. Therefore, first of all, a big thanks to the delegations for their help (and a small reminder that DAC code 16062 is available to pin-point SCB actions in CRIS - oops!).
But the point of this writing is not only to raise awareness of this type of data gathering effort which aims to inform Joint Programming activities for statistics but also to ask some questions.
In statistics, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, there are many big players - World Bank, IMF, UN agencies and other national development agencies and banks. If we were to ignore these other players, we would be foolish - they have the money, the know-how, often the infrastructure, to make things move. What is often missing however is the coordinative effort to ensure that duplication of effort by donors is avoided, country burden is reduced but ownership of the results is ensured.
Question 1: How do EU Joint Programming efforts ensure that the activities of other extra-EU agencies are known and taken into account so as to avoid duplication?
Question 2: What is the role of the country’s national policy-makers in the programming efforts?
It is satisfying to note that increasingly basket funds or other forms of joint or parallel financing are being used to finance SCB but pulling of money is only one area of coordination. In discussions with PARIS21 partners we have often tried to work out how holistic coordination should take place.
Question 3: Should on-going coordination take place at meetings of all in-country donors with national and regional policy-makers? How often: what experience do you have?
Question 4: Should such discussions take place at sector level – how can horizontal activities such as statistics be integrated?
Finally, many countries have made great efforts to draw up National Strategies for the Development of Statistics which cover all statistical providers not only the statistical offices.These are often linked to PRSPs but there are huge problems trying to find in-country and donor financing to implement these strategies.Statistics is not a sexy topic and although it can show where lives need to be saved it doesn’t have the same high profile of actually claiming to save lives.The World Bank has some Trust Funds to finance NSDSs but there seems to be reticence to use them.
Question 5: How can Joint Programming be used to finance effectively less visible/sexy/difficult-to explain sectors such as statistics?
Any constructive comments are welcome.Please note these are my personal questions posed to learn from those more knowledgeable and experienced than I.
(5)
Log in with your EU Login account to post or comment on the platform.
Dear Ottens
Your emphasis on visibility is most opportune because at the heart of joint programming is the intention to make the EU more visible in the partner country both to the end beneficiaries and to the government and its elected officials. By working better together, joint programming allows the EU to better communicate how its programming is of value to the country's citizens. The cornerstone of joint programming, though, is pooling analytic capacities so as to better support the partner country's own national development plans. So in response to your second question, dialogue with the partner country's policy makers is the foundation of all EU joint programming.
Your question on statistics is very interesting because there are real world examples although they may still need to be implemented. In Ethiopia and South Sudan, for example, by bringing more EU donors together under joint programming, they recognised that the need to strengthen the partner government's own statistical capacities is a priority for all concerned. When the EU or member states programme on their own, they can perceive investing in partner country statistical systems expensive. However, when working jointly, the cost of investing in statistics no longer seems significant compared to the volume of programming activities and policy dialogue it will improve.
I look forward to seeing what others have to say particularly about your other questions.
Alexander O'Riordan
Thanks Alexander for taking the time to answer some points.
Concerning the dialogue with the partner country, yes, this is of the utmost importance not only that the countries themselves influence donor decisions but also head donors meetings. It would also be useful if donors would actively search out existing national strategies which are often waiting on implementation help.
Where I am a full-fan of joint programming I do still worry a little about "competition" between donors for visibility and hence, while EU joint programming is certainly to be welcomed, I would hope that it doesn't create another form of "club" which excludes "competitor" donors (other large organisations for example). I do not know if this "competition" issue is a figment of my imagination, but I do think I have heard of instances of toe-stepping.
I am so glad you mentioned the cases of Ethiopia and South Sudan and positive experiences of working together. Perhaps this could be flagged up as best practice.
Thank you again for your help.
You are correct about the risk of competition. However, this is mitigated somewhat by inviting other donors to participate. So in Rwanda, with the support of the government, even the US, Canada, etc. were invited. In most cases though it tends to be so-called 'like-minded' donors such as Switzerland or Norway joining.
When it comes to joint programming supporting the partner government's national development plans it is a pity there are misperceptions about this because this is always the priority.
Anyway, it is nice to exchange views on this.
Hi,
Some excellent points! I'm a consultant working for the EU on joint programming so thought that maybe I could help answer some of your questions:
- It's absolutely true that what we need is coordination of strategies between all the donors working in a country, not just the Europeans. Coordinating the EU players is a good start but we always try and hook in with what others are doing too. If they can also sign up to the Joint EU Strategy then great but it may not always be the case given that they can have different outlooks and ways of doing business from us - so then what we seek to do is ensure there's a good 'division of labour' between all, i.e. get all the bases covered and avoid gaps and overlaps. This means that we can help make sure no issues are overlooked.
- Getting good data on what donors are doing is essential for the above - not always easy, however the International Aid Transparency Inititiave (a standard way of reporting on aid) and improving online aid information management systems in country are helping on that front.
- Ownership, i.e. letting the country decide on national strategies and then getting behind them, is key. So we try to support the development of a robust national development plan and then liaise with government and other stakeholders about how we can best jointly support it through our work.
- Joint programming actually means having a joint overall approach to the country in terms of a strategy and saying who works in which sector. The next level down is looking at actual implementation - by having such a joint strategy and planning at the same time and for the same period, it does make it much easier to then work together on implementation and set up joint programmes, pool funds etc. in cases where more than one donor is working in the same area.
- In any country where donors are working we'd hope to see a decent coordination structure, including government, all donors, civil society and the private sector that meets regularly and trys to ensure a joined up approach by all of these actors. Normally a top level structure + beneath it a series of sector groups, meeting regularly. These vary in their efficacy from country-to-county but I think we have some great examples these days, like in Myanmar where I am based. So here for example we have a dedicated working group on statistics, chaired by Government and with all the donors working in that area present, joining up efforts to support national statistical capacity building, etc.
Finally I share your opinion that statistics is a super important area, and actually a very interesting one, maybe even sexy sometimes!
All the Best,
Andy
Thanks Andy for this feedback.
I completely agree with the coordination of strategies and division of labour and was very happy to hear from Alexander that there can indeed be outreach to other non-EU donors to get them on board.
There are lots of initiatives to promote donor activities transparently. Many questionnaires are filled such as the one I am on now, PRESS for statistics, which itself was based quite heavily on the UNECE's DISA. However how can we enforce the use of this knowledge of on-going or pipeline activities in order to better coordinate and jointly programme and fund activities? Should multi-donor projects be the only way to fund with single donor projects completely prohibited?
In terms of ownership, good to know you look at development strategies. However the development of a plan is easier than the implementation - a long slog of a job with little short-term benefits to the donor.
Thanks for the coordination remarks. I have actually heard of the good coordination in Myanmar! Mali was also an excellent example but so often these coordination efforts are dependent on skilful individuals and when they leave/are transferred too often things can fall apart. But it is lovely to see that someone can get excited about Statistical Capacity Building - long may you continue!
Thanks for all this food for thought.