Intensifying Cooperation between European Implementing Agencies

Intensifying Cooperation between European Implementing Agencies
Commissioned by GIZ on behalf of
Practitioners‘ Network for European Development Cooperation
Prepared by
Andreas Obser
12. Juli 2013
List of Contents
1. Acronyms and abbreviations
Fehler! Textmarke nicht definiert.
2. Executive Summary
6
3. Introduction
7
4. Trends: proliferation and management of strategic partnerships and international networks
9
5. Mapping: common and unique features of PN members
12
5.1.
Domestic legislation, overall policy statements, and institutional organisation
12
5.2.
Cooperation instruments and modes of delivery
16
5.3.
Other forms of implementation: delegated cooperation, blending, private sector and trilateral
cooperation
16
5.4.
Implementation management: project planning, RBA, knowledge sharing and decentralisation
19
5.5.
Focused approach: Region/Country and Sector/Theme
22
6. Taking stock: cooperation and coordination of PN members
24
6.1.
Motivation to cooperate with bilateral member agencies, EU or other partners
24
6.2.
Existing cooperation with other PN members
25
7. Lessons learned: intensifying cooperation and coordination
28
7.1.
Obstacles for cooperation and coordination
28
7.2.
Life cycle and main functions of the PN
29
7.3.
Effectiveness and efficiency of the PN
33
8. Way forward: tools and strategies to mitigate legal and administrative obstacles
35
8.1.
Widen and combine the range of PN member agencies‘ cooperation mechanisms
35
8.2.
Use more flexible cooperation mechanisms: Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRA)
38
9. Preliminary conclusions and recommendations
39
Annex 1: Documentation
45
Annex 2: List of institutions and experts consulted
55
Annex 3: Indicative application of a network functions approach to PN
60
Annex 4: PN Member Fact Sheets
62
Annex 4.1.: ADA
63
Annex 4.2.: AECID
69
Annex 4.3.: AFD
76
Annex 4.4.: BTC
83
Annex 4.5.: CzDA
92
Annex 4.6.: DFID
98
Annex 4.7.: EuropeAid
102
Annex 4.8.: GIZ
119
Annex 4.9.: KfW
129
Annex 4.10.: LuxDev
137
Annex 4.11.: SAIDC
143
Final Report
2
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADA
Austrian Development Agency
Adetef
Assistance Technique France
AECID
Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo
AEI
Agency for European Integration and Economic Development (Austria)
AFD
Agence Française de Développement
AIF
Asia Investment Facility
AusAID
Australian Agency for International Development
BAR
Bilateral Aid Review (of DFID)
BIO
Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries
BMI
Belgian Corporation for International Investment
BMZ
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
BSTDB
The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank
BTC
Belgian Development Agency
CDC
CDC Group plc (UK)
CDR
Congo Democratic Republic
CIF
Climate Investment Fund
COFIDES
Compañía Española de Financiación del Desarrollo (Spain)
Camões
Instituto da Cooperação e da Língua (Portugal)
CPVA
Central Project Management Agency (Lithuania)
CzDA
Czech Development Agency
DEG
DEG - Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (Germany)
DEVCO DG
Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid
DFID
UK Department for International Development
EDFI
Association of European Development Finance Institutions
EEAS
European External Action Service
EFQM
European Foundation for Quality Management
EFP
European Financing Partners S.A.
EPLC
European Public Law Centre (Greece)
EnDev
Energising Development
Final Report
3
EUBEC
EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation
EU COM
European Commission
EUNIDA
European Network of Implementing Development Agencies
FCI
France Coopération Internationale (France)
FEI
France Expertise Internationale (France)
FIIAPP
Fundación Internacional y para Iberoamérica de Administración y Políticas Públicas (Spain)
FINNFUND
Finnish Fund for Industrial Cooperation Ltd (Finland)
FMO
Netherlands Development Finance Company
GIZ
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
GPEDC
Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation
GPLG
Global Programs Learning Group
HUN-IDA
Hungarian International Development Assistance (Hungary)
ICCF
Interact Climate Change Facility S.A.
IFU
The Investment Fund for Developing Countries
IPAD
Instituto Português de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento (Portugal)
ITF
Infrastructure Trust Fund
JDF
Joint Framework Document (EU)
JFA
Joint-Financing Arrangements (of Nordic+)
KfW
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
LAIF
Latin America Investment Facility
LHI
Legal Harmonization Initiative
LuxDev
Luxembourg Agency for Development Cooperation
MAR
Multilateral Aid Review (of DFID)
MFA IT
(Directorate-General for Development Cooperation of the) Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MFA NL
(Directorate-General for International Cooperation of the) Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MFA NO
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MFF
Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2010
MRA
Mutual Reliance Arrangement
MRI
Mutual Reliance Initiative
NFA
network functions approach
Final Report
4
NIF
Neighbourhood Investment Facility
NLA
Dutch NL Agency (division of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs)
Norfund
Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries
OeEB
The Development Bank of Austria
PN
Practitioners‘ Network for European Development Cooperation
PROPARCO
Société de Promotion et de Participation pour la Coopération Economique (France)
ROM
Results-Oriented Monitoring (EuropeAid)
SAIDC
Slovak Agency for International Development Cooperation
SDC
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SIFEM
Swiss Investment Fund for Emerging Markets
SIMEST
Società Italiana per le Imprese all'Estero (Italy)
SNV
Netherlands Development Organisation
SOFID
Sociedade para o Financiamento do Desenvolvimento (Portugal)
SWEDFUND
Swedfund International AB (Sweden)
TCX
The Currency Exchange Fund (Netherlands)
VNG
VNG International (Netherlands)
Final Report
5
2. Executive Summary
The Practitioners‘ Network (PN) is an essential tool to improve development services and
outcomes. Two network roles make the PN particularly valuable: first, learning among the
members and secondly, amplifying the voice of the members. In the wake of the European
,Agenda for Change‘ and the post-Busan Global Partnership for Effective Development
Cooperation, the three key themes of the PN - (i) division of labour, (ii) sustainable energy, and
(iii) results-based management - remain most relevant. New themes like blending of grants and
loans‘ or ,knowledge sharing‘ receive increasing interest inside and outside of the PN.
PN member agencies have adopted different approaches to cooperate and coordinate,
reflecting their mandates, domestic policy frameworks, and different modes of delivery.
Challenges relate to members‘ different practices of operational forward planning and
implementation or different systems for quality assurance. Domestic requirements for
accountability also affect member agencies‘ choice to cooperate. Good practices refer to the
mutual recognition of procedures, partnership agreements on professional training, staff
exchange or benchmarking missions among PN member agencies.
The report recommends focusing on concrete, practical and innovative solutions; relying on
light, agile and informal practices of cooperation and coordination; do not duplicating efforts of
other initiatives already underway, yet coordinating with other networks working on similar
topics; so focus on the specific value added that the operational planning and management
expertise of the PN can provide.
Recommended tools to mitigate legal- and administrative obstacles are derived from two
strategies: (i) to widen and combine the PN member agencies‘ cooperation mechanisms and
(ii) to use new and more flexible cooperation mechanisms, such as Mutual Recognition
Arrangements (MRA).
Final Report
6
3. Introduction
This study responds to the request of the EU Practitioners‘ Network to take stock of the
cooperation of the member agencies. It provides an overview of recent trends, the range of
existing cooperation mechanisms and preliminary lessons learnt from a vast number of
experiences: Austrian Development Agency (ADA); Agencia Española de Cooperación
Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID); Agence Française de Développement (AFD); Belgian
Development Agency (BTC); Czech Development Agency (CzDA); DG Development and
Cooperation (DEVCO/EuropeAid); UK Department for International Development (DFID);
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
(KfW); Luxembourg Agency for Development Cooperation (LuxDev); and Slovak Agency for
International Development Cooperation (SAIDC). Adetef, the French public technical assistance
agency joined the network in April 2013.
(i) Background. The Practitioners’ Network (PN) is composed of European public institutions and
public agencies in charge of the implementation of bilateral Official Development Assistance, and
joined by the European Commission (COM). It offers a unique platform for knowledge exchange
(for example experiences and good practices) and offers the European Commission a contact
point to communicate with (and get feedback from) different bilateral EU implementing agencies.
There have recently been a lot of changes in the field of development cooperation with the setup of
the EEAS, the merger of DG DEV and AIDCO to DG DEVCO, the preparation of the Multiannual
Financial Framework 2014-20, and the three communications of the European Commission on
how to increase the impact of EU development policy ("Agenda for Change"), the "Future
Approach to EU Budget Support", and "Trade, Growth and Development". In addition, the UN
Conference on Climate Change in Durban, and the 4th HLF on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, held in
2011. The Arab Spring challenged European cooperation with the MENA-region.
The European implementing agencies take part in the efforts to adapt to the new European and
global context for aid and international cooperation, and collaboration between them is of utmost
importance, especially in a context of strong budgetary constraints. The role of the Network is to
foster collaboration, to support individual initiatives, to collect/aggregate and voice out European
agency opinions on recent topics, and to supply the smaller among European actors with
information they do not otherwise have easy access to.
(ii) Approach. The overall objective of the study is to contribute towards further intensifying the PN
members’ cooperation and coordination (COM-PN agency and PN agency-agency). This was done
by presenting and analyzing the PN members’ implementing modalities and mechanisms as well
as existing forms of cooperation and coordination (based on the preparatory work of the Network).
Final Report
7
The study should explicitly elaborate on the question of how the PN members could intensify
cooperation and coordination amongst each other, and give practical recommendations to the
agencies and to the Network. The target audience of the report will be the PN members, including
the European Commission, at headquarter and local level.
The study has been commissioned by GIZ on behalf of the Practitioners’ Network. The
assessment has been performed by the consultant Andreas Obser, senior advisor and associate
fellow of the Potsdam Centre for Policy and Management (PCPM). It should be noted that the
study does not represent a scientifically rigorous analysis. The provided drafts of fact sheet and
respondents‘ inputs from the headquarters give some valuable complementary information. The
ambition of the study as a whole is to take stock of and analyse current practice of cooperation and
coordination in the network and identify the perceptions of headquarters‘ staff involved in network
activities. There are limitations to the assessment due to the very short time frame (3 weeks) to
arrange and conduct interviews in person with key staff of all eleven PN member agencies before
the Annual Meeting at directors’ level, in Berlin (April 16, 2013) as well as difficulties encountered
by some members in providing (comparable) data in the fact sheets.
After the discussion of the inception report during a regular meeting of the PN‘s Steering
Committee, it has been agreed that the study shall focus on mapping and stocktaking of PN
members‘ lessons learned with regard to the key criteria used in the fact sheets, while the
proposed network functional approach should be kept brief. After presentation and joint discussion
of the draft report during the PN‘s Annual Meeting, several participants asked to analyse in more
detail the obstacles and success factors of cooperation.
The study is complemented by 11 PN Member Fact Sheets (including the revision of 9 drafts of
fact sheet provided by the focal points of the member agencies, and 2 fact sheets researched and
drafted by the consultant). The fact sheets are sought to capture the main characteristics of PN
members and follow a common structure to ensure comparability.
Final Report
8
4. Trends: Proliferation and Management of Strategic Partnerships and
International Networks
The PN and its member agencies are embedded in webs of collaborative partnerships and
networks (Box 1, below). Networks and networking activities are a key practice in international
development cooperation. As with many concepts in the development sector, some networks have
become a one-size-fits-all solution for the delivery of aid and development effectiveness. Indeed,
some experts foresee that networks will become the pre-eminent collaboration mechanism.
However, they are not magic bullets. Networks can do what they have been designed or
developed to do. The PN is an important cooperation mechanism for its member agencies trying to
influence implementation practice.
AFD and KfW are probably the two PN member agencies with the longest history of bilateral
strategic partnership. They signed a MoU on deepening cooperation through co-financing already
in 1998. This was further strengthened with the Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI) signed between
AFD, KfW and EIB. LuxDev has invested heavily in international knowledge dissemination
networks. Networks are highly valued - for example in the agencies‘ „Vision 2020“ - not only to
strengthen the agency‘s operational capacity by linking sector-based partnerships in the various
countries but also to provide an ideal framework for joint learning and forward planning. LuxDev is
highlighting its active membership in the following international networks: the Practitioners‘
Network, learn4dev, EUNIDA, and the OECD Development Communicators‘ network. It took on
the presidency of the Learn4Dev network in 2010-2011 and of the Practitioners' Network in 20112012. GIZ has a special unit on „Strategic Alliances and Partnerships“ and plays a leading role often in combination of hosting and/or managing network secretariats - in some of the above
mentioned and many more international cooperation arrangements. BTC hosts the EUNIDA
secretariat.
BTC would like to see more linkage between the PN and EUNIDA. A BTC respondent voiced
regrets that under the simultaneous GIZ-presidency of both, the PN and EUNIDA no substantive
dialogues have been arranged between the two networks. LuxDev also tends to ask for a more
structured exchange and collaboration between the PN and EUNIDA. Respondents from GIZ and
AECID, on the other side, emphasise the comparative strengths of both networks and concerns
that different mandates and missions of the two networks get mixed up. EUNIDA has a much
stronger secretariat and focuses on joint acquisition and joint implementation of members. The PN
on the other side, has a lean coordination function and emphasis on joint knowledge capitalisation
and mutual learning only as a means to an end of intensified cooperation co-financing or joint
Final Report
9
implementation. AECID emphasises the comparative strength of the PN having big financial
agencies, such as AFD and KfW, as members on board.
Box 1: Proliferation of strategic partnerships and international networks of PN member agencies
The European Network of Implementing Development Agencies (EUNIDA) was established in 2000 as a
grouping of EU Member State implementing agencies with a public mandate to develop, manage and
implement sustainable development programmes on behalf of the European Union. The purpose of the
network is: (i) promoting the exchange of information between EU implementing agencies, (ii) devising
common strategies in the field of international development activities, especially on behalf of the
European Union; and (iii) implementing programmes and projects of the highest quality on behalf of the
European Union. Implementing projects through EUNIDA means delegating activities to a pan-European
grouping of Member State agencies rather than to single Member State organisations. The network
carries out innovative and complex technical cooperation and post-conflict programmes, with combined
resources and expertise of over 250 Members' offices operating in 118 countries and based on over 40
years of experience in the field.
Energising Development (EnDev) is an impact-oriented initiative between the Netherlands, Germany,
Norway, Australia, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. EnDev promotes the supply of modern energy
Final Report
10
technologies to households and small-scale businesses. The Partnership cooperates with 18 countries in
Africa, Latin America and Asia. Since its start in 2005, EnDev has taken a leading role in promoting
access to sustainable energy for all. GIZ acts as lead agency for the implementation of EnDev.
Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI). Discussions on increasing aid effectiveness and division of labour,
especially the EU Code of Conduct, at an operational level have facilitated concrete action among
European development financing institutions. AfD, EIB and KfW have set up a mechanism to broaden
and deepen their co-operation and coordination, particularly focusing on the co-financing of development
projects. The three European Financing Institutions have jointly elaborated a model for a better division
of labour in the framework of the so-called Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI). The objective of the MRI is to
delegate central tasks in project preparation, implementation and monitoring to the maximum possible
extent to the institution which is subsequently resuming the responsibility as Lead Financier.
The Association of European Development Finance Institutions (EDFI) is a group of 15 bilateral
institutions which provide long-term finance for private sector enterprises in developing and reforming
economies. Since its foundation in Brussels in 1992, EDFI's mission has been to foster co-operation
among its members and to strengthen links with institutions of the European Union. Since its foundation
in Brussels in 1992, EDFI has fostered financial and technical co-operation among its diverse members
and cooperation with the European and multilateral institutions. Although very different in size, the EDFI
members cooperate on equal footing and in many different ways by complementing each other with
country and sector specific expertise and by jointly financing projects. The Interact Climate Change
Facility (ICCF) S.A. is a private limited liability company established under the laws of the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg, and is owned by 13 shareholders. The ICCF-EDFI finances renewable energy and
energy efficiency projects in the private sector in developing countries and emerging markets. The
funding capacity is provided by Agence Française de Développement, the European Investment Bank
(EIB) and by the following 11 EDFI members: BIO (Belgium), CDC (United Kingdom), COFIDES (Spain),
DEG (Germany), FINNFUND (Finland), FMO (the Netherlands), NORFUND (Norway), OeEB (Austria),
PROPARCO (France), Sifem (Switzerland) and SWEDFUND (Sweden).
PN member agencies recognise that flexible mechanisms are needed to
address implementation challenges and to anticipate forthcoming issues.
There is a widening range of international partnerships, networks and
organisations - formal and informal, broad and specific - that PN members
should use and combine to cooperate.
Final Report
11
5. Mapping: Common and Unique Features of PN Members
Implementing development programmes is a complex business. The national context does
constrain the PN member agencies‘ flexibility to adapt and, thus, affect the pace and extent for
example of co-financing or joint implementation. Historical origins, institutional mandates,
governance structures, and authorising environments vary among member agencies. Furthermore,
organizational structures for managing development programmes in each PN member agency are
unique and dynamic. Understanding the national context and organizational structures of any
particular PN member agency requires an awareness of these influences.
The following compilation of PN members‘ practices of cooperation and coordination will give an
idea of the many approaches PN members are applying to deal with the complexity. The major
objective is to map and take stock of members‘ practices of cooperation and coordination.
5.1 Domestic legislation, overall policy statements, and institutional organisation
(i) Domestic legislation
Domestic legislation and political contexts create opportunities and challenges for PN member
agencies to cooperate. Legislation is an effective framework for establishing responsibilities,
priorities and objectives for the PN members. It makes PN members accountable and can also
protect them from competing interests that may work against development objectives, including
development effectiveness or co-financing and delegated cooperation. At the same time,
exhaustive legislation can hinder efficiency, especially if laws are not updated regularly. Moreover,
legal safeguards can unintentionally pose problems for PN members and constrain moves towards
the harmonisation, alignment and accountability called for in the Paris Declaration and the Global
Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation.
Legislation related to PN member agencies largely reflects their national legal traditions. About half
of the PN member agencies act on the basis of development priorities and main objectives
specified in passed legislations. For example, for DFID the „International Development Act“ (2002)
provides a clear legislative mandate around poverty reduction and gives national development cooperation its current strategic orientation on issues of development. As it has been designated the
lead ministry for carrying out this legal mandate, DFID enjoys an unambiguous relationship with
other ministries, which allows it to influence cross government thinking on development policy.
CzDA has just successfully finalized the OECD/DAC accession process. This process as well as
CzDA‘s membership in the PN is considered as an important input to inform the Czech Republic‘s
current reform efforts of legislation on development cooperation, i.e. the „Law on Development
Final Report
12
Cooperation and Humanitarian Assistance“ (2010). BTC acts on the basis of development priorities
and main objectives formulated in the „Law on Belgian International Cooperation“ (1998), AECID
on the basis of Spain‘s „Law 23/1998 on International Development Cooperation“, and SAIDC on
the basis of the Slovak Republic‘s „Law on Official Development Aid (no. 617/2007). The
foundations of the EU development policy lie in the „Lisbon Treaty: article 21 TEU and article 208
TFEU“.
PN members without related legislation - such as ADA, AFD, GIZ, KfW or LuxDev - may be more
vulnerable to changing domestic political priorities. But these member agencies may, at the same
time, have more flexibility in adapting to rapidly evolving development effectiveness issues at the
European and international level.
Not all PN member agencies have a national legal environment conducive to engaging in
international co-financing and joint implementation. National legislations do not always explicitly
provide for the delegation of funds and management responsibilities from/to other member
agencies or their respective donors. This poses an obstacle for some PN member agencies to
engage in such activities. An example in case is CzDA, which cannot, under current national
legislation, give/receive money to/from other bilateral donors/agencies. BTC and GIZ formally
cannot receive/delegate either, but only on behalf or through their political superiors, the
responsible ministries MFA and BMZ, respectively.
Box 2: „Legal Harmonisation Initiative“ (LHI)
The „Legal Harmonisation Initiative“ (LHI) was launched at a Roundtable hosted by the World Bank at its
headquarters in Washington, DC on 19-20 February, 2008. The Roundtable brought together General
Counsels, directors, senior advisers and other high level legal and policy representatives from IFIs, major
bilateral aid agencies and UN agencies.
The LHI is a joint undertaking of several international financial institutions (IFI), including the World Bank,
bilateral aid agencies and United Nations agencies in support of the implementation of commitments
expressed in the Paris Declaration to improve aid effectiveness through harmonization and alignment.
The LHI is aimed at harmonizing and streamlining legal tools among donors and partner countries,
including the removal of key legal impediments to harmonized approaches, towards aid effective
operations at the country level. The LHI will also provide an ongoing forum for legal, operational and
policy advisers to discuss and share knowledge across institutions on legal and policy issues relevant to
the harmonization and alignment agenda.
The LHI Guiding Principles are: Focus on concrete, practical and innovative solutions; Rely on light, agile
and informal mechanisms; work virtually whenever possible; Do not duplicate efforts already underway;
Coordinate with other fora working on similar topics. Focus on the specific value added that the legal
perspective can provide.
Final Report
13
The PN should follow up on the current status of the Legal Harmonisation
Initiative (LHI) , involvement of PN member agencies, major outcomes,
organizational strengths and weaknesses, and potential relevance for PN
strategy building.
(ii) Overall policy statement
Irrespective of legislation, some policy guidance may be provided to PN member agencies through
an overarching policy statement that outlines the main purpose and objectives of development
cooperation.
Individual PN members referred to a lack of political leadership and guidance for policy
implementation, also leading to lower levels of participation in the PN itself. Overarching policy
statements may signify a government-wide commitment to development but also help manage
competing national interests and secure a shared long-term interest in effective development.
Such statements can be the basis for monitoring progress towards commitments to specific targets
that do not lend themselves to being set in legislation. They are especially useful in setting out a
common purpose in countries that have several agencies implementing development policy, as is
the case in Germany and Spain.
The overall policy statement „Minds of Change - Enhancing Opportunities“ (2011) of the Federal
Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), for example, is of relevance to PN
members GIZ and KfW. Most well known in the PN is the European Commission‘s „Agenda for
Change“ setting the policy direction for EuropeAid.
(iii) Institutional organisation (compare, PN Member Fact Sheets, para 1.1.). Within the
PN there are three main organisational models of how the member agencies are embedded into
their national development policy systems, while EuropeAid as supranational institution is a special
case (see, Box 1). Agreeing on or even extending the core functions of the PN towards more policy
advice and dialogue requires an awareness of these three models, incl. related restraints of
individual members.
Box 3: Three models of institutional organisation of PN members
Final Report
14
Model 1: the PN member is a separate executing agency responsible for implementation, while a
ministry of foreign affairs has overall responsibility for development policy.
ADA is responsible for implementing bilateral projects. The Department for Development Co-operation
and Co-operation with Eastern Europe of the Foreign Ministry has overall responsibility for Austrian
development policy.
AECID is the executing agency of the Spanish State Secretariat for International Co-operation and
Latin America within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation.
AFD is the principal executing agency for France’s bilateral activities, while the Directorate-General for
International Co-operation and Development in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Treasury in the
Ministry of Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry are responsible for policy.
BTC is the implementing agency of the Belgian Directorate-General for Development Co-operation of
the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Co-operation.
CzDA is the implementing body of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
LuxDev is the Development Agency of the Luxembourg Government
Model 2: the PN member is a separate executing agency responsible for implementation, while a
ministry of development cooperation has overall responsibility for development policy.
GIZ is commissioned to implement German technical co-operation programmes, human resource
development and training. The Ministry of Economic Co-operation and Development has overall
responsibility for German development policy.
KfW is responsible for implementing financial co-operation
Model 3: the PN member is a ministry of development cooperation responsible for policy and
implementation
DFID is responsible for policy and implementation
Among responding PN members there are different perceptions about the border between
development policy and implementation (e.g. between joint programming and joint implementation)
as well as varying ambitions if at all or how policy and implementation should be effectively
connected in the work of the PN. In the case of GIZ and KfW, there is a strict division of labor
between the two implementing agencies and the exclusive policy responsibility of the BMZ. At
DFID and EuropeAid policy and implementation is integrated due to mandate. BTC or LuxDev refer
to short communication lines with their political superiors and encounter therefore less sensitivities
in this respect.
Final Report
15
PN members‘ management structures are dynamic and evolve over time. AECID, DFID,
EuropeAid and GIZ underwent major organisational reforms and some adaptation of
responsibilities most recently. For example, GIZ was created by the merger of the three
government-owned development agencies GTZ, DED and InWEnt, on January 1, 2011. The
merger is seen as an important element of reforming the development policy structures in
Germany that had been agreed in the coalition agreement of the current German government.
Among others, efficiency gains and the elimination of structural duplication are expected from the
reform.
The PN-members should be aware about and how the three different
organizational models affect the scale and scope for intensified cooperation.
More prominence should also be given to inform each other about legislative
and policy conditions/changes as well as comprehensive organisational
reforms of individual members.
5.2 Cooperation Instruments and Modes of Delivery
PN member agencies commonly mix a variety of modalities and instruments to deliver aid to
partner countries. The mix depends on, among other things: i) the size of the development
cooperation programme in the partner country; ii) the history and type of actors involved (e.g.
public, private or civil society organisation); and iii) the local context, including the extent to which
the partner country is able to coordinate and manage aid in a transparent and efficient way
(compare for more details PN Member Fact Sheets, in Annex 3).
5.3 Other forms of implementation: delegated cooperation, blending, private sector and
trilateral cooperation
(i) Delegated cooperation and blending
Cofinancing and blending have gained in recent years a great momentum. In 2012, about 40% of
AFD‘s newly committed projects (number and volumes) are cofinanced by other donor agencies.
The European Commission, via its financing instruments (blending, delegated cooperation), and
the EIB are the cofinancier number 1 for AFD, followed by the World Bank Group, the Asian
Final Report
16
Development Bank and KfW. The most far-reaching form of delegated cooperation is the Mutual
Reliance Intitiative (MRI) between AfD, EIB and KfW with legally binding operational guidelines for
mutual recognition of each other‘s procedures throughout the whole project cycle (lead financier
arrangement). KfW is active in all eight regional EU blending mechanisms (compare table 1) and
until 2013, although formally present in 7, AECID has been active in 3 (LAIF, CIF, NIF), and
foresees to also participate in the ITF and AIF in the near future.
AECID began to carry out delegated cooperation in 2009. Between 2009 and 2011 it mainly
delegated to other bilaterals such as Netherlands and GIZ. In 2011 BTC and LuxDEV decided to
delegate operations to AECID in Peru and Nicaragua, respectively. In July 2011 the European
Commission accredited AECID. As a result, in 2012 six operations in Latin America were approved
(one of which began already).
Belgium has a distinctive approach to delegated cooperation, both active and passive. BTC is not
involved yet in any blending activity, but intends to strengthen its ties with the Belgian Investment
Company for Developing Countries (BIO). Delegated cooperation is an important form of
cooperation between EU and GIZ. So far, 36 EU-GIZ delegation agreements for 151 million EUR
have been signed. More generally, GIZ is one of the leading implementing agencies for delegated
cooperation in Europe. GIZ is assessing options to tender for technical assistance components in
blended lending. Due to CzDA‘s limited field representation and lack of staff, preconditions for
delegated cooperation are not fulfilled.
Box 4: EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation (EUBEC)
In accordance with Decision No. 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
October 2011 on the EU guarantee for European Investment Bank (EIB) external lending, the Council
and the European Parliament requested the Commission to study and subsequently report upon, the
development of an "EU Platform for External Cooperation and Development" with a view to optimising
the functioning of mechanisms for the blending of grants and loans in the field of external action.
"EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation" (EUBEC) has started working in 2012. The overall
objective of the Platform will be to improve the quality and efficiency of EU development and external
cooperation blending mechanisms, taking due account of the policy frameworks that govern the EU
relations with the different partner countries, notably EU Development, Neighbourhood and Enlargement
policies. This includes promoting cooperation and coordination between the EU, EIB and other relevant
financial institutions (Fis) and other stakeholders, thereby increasing the impact and visibility of EU
external cooperation.
The Platform should engage, in one form or another, all relevant actors in the field of blending in external
cooperation. The Platform should be slim and pragmatic. It would be established as a Commission
Group of Experts, respecting the rules governing such groups. This approach is aimed at getting the
Final Report
17
Platform working in 2012, in order to be able to give relevant guidance regarding the use of financial
instruments outside the EU under the new EU financial framework 2014-2020 (EC 2012; EC 2012).
Table 1: Participation of PN (-IFIs) in existing Regional Blending Mechanisms
PN member
Regional Blending Mechanisms involved
in
Role (full member allowed to present and
lead projects / observer )
AECID
NIF, IFCA, AIF, IFP, LAIF , CIF
Full member
AFD
AITF, NIF, IFCA, AIF, IFP, LAIF, CIF
Full member
KfW
AITF, NIF, IFCA, AIF, IFP, LAIF, CIF, Full member
WBIF
Source: (Group of Experts 2012:21)
EU-Africa Infrastructure trust fund (ITF) – 2007; Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF) – 2008; Latin America
Investment Facility (LAIF) – 2010; Investment Facility for Central Asia (IFCA) – 2010; Asia Investment Facility (AIF) –
2011Western Balkan Investment Fund (WBIF); Pacific Investment Facility (IFP)
(ii) Private sector cooperation
AECID set up a special unit to promote working more closely with the private sector. It has signed
agreements with some companies and foundations and has initiated several pilot public-private
partnerships. AFD has a number of partnerships and private public relations with the private
sector, just to name a few of them: the Network IMS Entreprendre pour la cité (Federation of 230
enterprises committed to social business), Care France (partner for developing PPP towards BoP
« bottom of the pyramid »), the Fund Danone.communities, ESSEC business school and others.
GIZ works closely with the private sector and promotes synergies between the development and
foreign trade sectors. Intensive cooperation is facilitated by BMZ’s “develoPPP.de” programme
which offers financial support for public-private partnerships for development projects. Since the
programme’s inception in 1999, over 1500 development partnerships with companies of varying
size and areas of operation have been implemented. In terms of cooperation with the private
sector there is a division of labour between KfW and DEG. The main responsibility is with DEG
except for Microfinance and Structured Funds. BTC is also engaging more in private sector modes.
(iii) Triangular cooperation
Final Report
18
GIZ accompanies triangular cooperation projects, to date predominantly in Latin America with
Brazil, Mexico, and Chile being the main contributors. However, triangular cooperation also exists
in Asia and Africa. In 2012, the attention was focused on preparing a new five-year management
contract. Since many factors in the international context are changing, new modalities also become
important for BTC, such as triangular cooperation (example with MLI - AFD). AECID is the third
most important donor involved in triangular cooperation in Latin America. It began its triangular
operations in 2005 with a strong focus on Latin America although several initiatives link countries
in this region with others in Africa.
5.4 Implementation Management: Project Planning, RBA, Knowledge Sharing and
Decentralisation
International and national demands on implementing agencies‘ accountability as well as new
developments in performance and knowledge management have broadened the range of activities
carried out by PN members.
(i) Project planning
PN members use a wide variety of assessment tools and processes for legitimate internal
purposes including aid allocation; due diligence and risk management; preparing for dialogue;
designing operations to take account of country context; and to avoid over-ambitious programmes
and projects. Some members emphasize that own procedures have to be applied strictly even if
impeding joint implementation. Different approaches to country analysis, for example, may lead to
different bases of understanding programme contexts among the member agencies. The growth of
diagnostic tools and products (compare PEA, Capacity WORKS, etc.), and lack of
coordination in how they are applied, does result in a proliferation of overlapping tools without
adequate coordination among PN members.
Box 5: Inter-agency forum on diagnostic tools and products
A good practice example to the PN could be an annual forum led by the World Bank on Country Analytic
Work (CAW) that commenced in 2001 but obviously concluded cooperation after its fifth meeting in 2005.
Each forum took an overview of the analytic tools used by a number of member organizations - including
the PN members AFD, DFID, EU, GIZ, and KfW - in certain diagnostic areas and considers progress in
rationalisation.
The Forum has been underpinned by a Website launched in 2002 to facilitate co-ordination and cooperation on country analytic work among participating organizations with goals toward improving
development impact and cost effectiveness for both capacity building and knowledge sharing. The
Final Report
19
Website enabled an exchange of information on completed and future CAW produced by the
organizations involved with the Website. Documents have been listed by country, theme of CAW, agency
and operational status. It also has provided information on each member organization‘s procedures for
conducting CAW; toolkits to assist in the preparation and production of CAW; and examples of best
practice in analytic work. Details of the relevant person to contact for each organization‘s CAW are
provided.
The PN should follow up on the current status of the World Bank-led interagency forum on „Country Analytic Work (CAW)“ or in how far the
„learn4dev“-platform perhaps took over and could provide respective services
to interested PN member agencies.
(ii) Results-based approaches
Public sector management practices, such as results-based approaches (RBA) and issues of
transparency, have a profound impact on PN members‘ programme implementation. There are
differences in the nature of the results that the PN member agencies are accountable for achieving
as well as in the level of detail they have to report to their ministries or parliaments as well as what
programme managers of PN member agencies have to report from the field to headquarters.
Intensifying cooperation and coordination among PN members requires an awareness of these
influences. PN members recently agreed to establish a third Thematic Group on RBA.
One GIZ respondent stated, when comparing GIZ and EU, the former is focusing more on impact
and results on the ground, while the latter is more attentive to inputs and procedures. The DAC
Peer Review (2009) on Austria states: While there is a detailed Checklist for the Country
Programming Process, programme documents — including their logical frameworks — have
remained process-oriented and do not focus on results. The introduction, since the last peer
review, of logical frameworks and training in project cycle management for ADA staff is a positive
move towards a results-based approach. Ongoing work at the MFA to finalise guidelines on results
indicators for country programmes is also welcome. These guidelines should be translated into
country specific results frameworks as a matter of priority. Such a framework should be aligned
with partner governments‘ results frameworks.
The economic crisis and the tough budget situation of many of the European donor countries do
have an impact on the PN members. There is a general trend among PN members for “value for
Final Report
20
money”, a greater emphasis on transparency and the fight against corruption and fraud, and a
more critical attitude towards budget support. These trends have an impact on PN members‘
implementation management. Demands for transparency about details of costs of vary among PN
members, with DFID probably setting the highest standards in comparison to other PN members.
DFID‘s focus on value for money, for example, affects not only the allocation of development
resources to countries and sectors; it also requires management performance reports on
interdepartmental directives and standards.
The PN thematic group on RBA should take stock of PN members‘
application and design of RBA
(iii) Decentralisation
There are differences among the PN member agencies in the powers and controls that have been
decentralised. Some member agencies, like AECID or LuxDev maintained significant planning and
approval responsibilities at headquarters. In the case of GIZ, significant approval, review, and
quality assurance responsibilities have been decentralised to the country offices and programmes.
The variation in the degree of decentralisation is due to many factors: political will, the previous
degree of centralisation, the complexity of management (the number of ministries and
implementing agencies involved), the volume of aid and the number of main partner countries.
The majority of PN members - except for CzDA and SAIDC - have posted staff in-country and
country or regional offices that oversee programme implementation. The degree of decentralisation
varies considerably from PN member to PN member (compare, table 2). Country offices usually do
participate in monitoring, contracting and financial management relevant to joint arrangements by
PN members. The distribution of staff between headquarters and the field also varies widely
among PN members, as does the license to formulate and approve joint strategies or programmes
with other PN members.
The strong position of GIZ with regard to delegated cooperated has been attributed by several
respondents to its high degree of decentralisation and large number of representations. In its 2012
DAC peer review, Luxembourg by the same token has been recommended to „consider the
consequences of having no permanent representation in certain priority partner countries and
should plan steps to remedy the situation, for example by establishing a local presence, delegating
the programme to bilateral or multilateral partners, or reducing the number of priority countries“.
Final Report
21
Table 2: Distribution of PN members’ development staff between
headquarters and field offices in 2011
Total Staff
HQ
Field
Expats.
Local Staff
Number of
Country/Regi
onal Offices
ADA
190
112
78
22
56
18
AFD
1681
983
698
n.a.
n.a.
70
AECID
1260
552
708
301
407
43
BTC
1421
210
1211
272
939
18
24 (tbc)
24 (tbc)
--
--
--
--
EuropeAid
3311
996
n.a.
1214
1101
141
DFID
2694
1394
1300
434
443
36
GIZ
17185
3241
11929
1887
10042
92
KfW
913
610
303
80
223
60
LuxDev
115
54
61
9
37
6
SAIDC
11
11
--
--
--
--
CzDA
Source: compiled from annual reports and other documents of agencies, staff interviews during the study, feedback on draft report, and from international
sources like OECD, EU etc.
5.5 Focused Approach: Region/Country and Sector/Theme
There are differences in the detailed thematic priorities, cross-cutting issues and geographic focus
of the PN members. Lack of clarity between PN members on the meaning and choice of thematic
priorities make it difficult to intensify cooperation. No clear patterns emerge in terms of some PN
member agencies specialising in giving or receiving funds to/from other PN member agencies in
certain sectors or countries.
(i) Region/Country
A regional focus can be linked to AECID in Latin America, BTC in Central Africa due to a mix of
factors, including history, culture, language, and relatively strong representation of the member
agencies in the respective regions. Not necessarily a regional focus, but comparative regional
strengths might be referred to CzDA‘s or SAIDC‘s operations or contacts in Eastern European
transition countries based on the PN member agencies‘ own transition expertise.
Differences are seen between the PN member agencies in their country focus. A number of
member agencies (ADA, CzDA, DFID, LuxDev, SAIDC) follow a country focused approach where
in a limited number of priority countries development programmes are implemented. Even among
these country-focused PN members, the number of priority countries varies significantly (from 3
Final Report
22
programme countries at SAIDC, and 9 privileged countries at LuxDev, to 28 priority countries at
DFID) and when including the non-priority countries the actual list of countries where programme
activities of the three member agencies take place is much longer. The big network members, like
AFD, GIZ or KfW do not follow a country-focused approach and operate in 60-130 countries
(compare, table 3).
Table 3: Geographic focus and number of partner countries
Partner Countries
ADA
Top ten: Congo D.R. (50.8), Bosnia and Herzegovina (23.1), Turkey (20.8), Kosovo (14.6), China (11.5),
Uganda (10), Serbia, (10), Ethiopia, (8.5), Cote d‘Ivoire (8.5), Chad (7.7)
AFD
more than 90 countries
AECID
Geographic Priorities Master Plan of cooperation 2013/2016. Concentrated in 23 countries
Latin America: Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Paraguay Peru and the Dominican Republic.
North Africa and the middle –East: Mauritania, Morocco, The Saharawi Population and the Palestinian
territories.
West Africa: Mali, Niger and Senegal
Central Africa: Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea and Mozambique
Asia: The Philippines
BTC
18 countries (54% in Central Africa)
CzDA
5 programme countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ethopia, Moldova, and Mongolia;
5 project countries: Georgia, Cambodia, Kosovo, Palestinian Autonomous Territories, and Serbia;
4 phase-out countries: Angola, Yemen, Vietnam, and Zambia;
EuropeAid
Top ten (2010): West Bank & Gaza Strip, Turkey, Afghanistan, Serbia, Ethopia, Marocco, CDR, Sudan,
Kosovo, Ukraine
DFID
28 priority countries
GIZ
more than 130 countries
KfW
about 60 countries
LuxDev
9 privileged partner countries
5 other countries
SAIDC
3 Programme countries: Afghanistan, Kenya, Serbia.
15 Project countries: Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Ethiopia, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia (FYR), Moldova, Mongolia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,
Vietnam.
Source: compiled from annual reports and other documents of agencies, staff interviews during the study, feedback on draft report, and from international
sources like OECD, EU etc.
Final Report
23
(ii) Sector/Theme
There is a clear overlap of PN member agencies‘ priorities in certain sectors/themes. Some PN
members define priority sectors while others do not. There is neither internationally, nor within the
PN is a clear agreement on what is defined as a sector.
For example, ADA is active in poverty reduction; peace building & conflict prevention; environment
& natural resources; gender; water supply & sanitation; rural development; energy; private sector
development; Education and science; governance and human rights; public finance management;
and Health. AFD’s work focuses on improving access to education and maternal and infant
healthcare, supporting farmers and small businesses, building infrastructure, supplying water,
preserving tropical forests, and fighting climate change, among other challenges.
BTC is somewhat more focused due to priority sectors which take up 81% of the total amount of
expenditure. It also intervenes in 17 sectors, but six of which are priority sectors, namely health,
agriculture, water, good governance, energy and education. Sector concentration is decided in
close consultation with the partner countries. As a general rule, two or three sectors are selected
per country in applying the division of labour principle adopted under the Paris Declaration.
A heavy geographic and sectoral focus is most clearly seen with LuxDev. According to OECD the
focused approach makes LuxDev a sector leader in several countries despite the relatively modest
size of its cooperation programme. It is seen as leader in the tourism sector in Nicaragua, in health
in Kosovo and in vocational training in Senegal, Cape Verde and Burkina Faso. In Laos, LuxDev
has successfully implemented a coordinated sector approach in health, which enjoys cooperation
with several agencies.
PN members should use - at least in their PN fact sheets - common or
internationally agreed sectoral and geographic criteria (e.g. OECD-DAC) to
support comparability and coordination among members (compare,
EuropeAid or KfW at http://transparenz.kfwentwicklungsbank.de/sektoren/index.html).
Final Report
24
6. Taking stock: cooperation and coordination of PN members
6.1 Motivation to Cooperate with Bilateral Member Agencies, EU or Other Partners
The prevailing mindset among respondents from PN member agencies is that the membership in
the PN is supporting the international development effectiveness agenda. The vast majority of
respondents agreed that PN membership facilitates access to knowledge and expertise, and
fosters mutual learning.
For one BTC respondent, the „benchmarking and capitalization of experience“ (e.g. on cooperation
with MICs) is the more important part, rather than the cooperation and coordination part of the PN.
An AECID respondent valued „to learn from others in a more structured way“. Resource
mobilisation mainly drives member agencies to engage in co-financing and for this purpose
become engaged in the PN. Early efforts by frontrunners like AfD, GIZ or KfW to secure direct EC
co-financing, for example, have been attributed to the declining bilateral development budgets in
France and Germany during the 1990s. The same applies to AECID‘s intensified endeavors at the
EU in response to major cuts in the development budget of Spain in recent years.
A strong interest prevails among bilateral PN member agencies to cooperate with other bilateral
member agencies in general and with EuropeAid in particular (although the latter is frequently said
to be the more complicated to work with). The EU has an interest to disburse growing programme
volumes through PN member agencies and to receive strategic advice on technical details of
programme implementation from PN member agencies.
Very close cooperation is reported between BTC and LuxDev, and also referred to the formal
strategic partnership between AFD and KfW, while GIZ is considered AECID‘s main
implementation partner. GIZ states close ties to AusAid, and CzDA values its cooperation with
USAID.
6.2 Existing Cooperation with Other PN Members
Significant progress has been made concerning the understanding of new practices such as
,delegated cooperation‘ between the EU and the Member States. In 2011, the PN Thematic Group
on the „Implementation of European Division of Labour“ put the spotlight on the practice of bilateral
delegated cooperation, a practice that seemed to be more developed within the Nordic Plus‘s
Group. The AFD Liaison Office to the EU commissioned and facilitated the respective data
collection and analysis in March 2012. Some of the key messages have been:
Final Report
25
although the cooperation between bilateral donors does not directly benefit from the
legal and administrative framework put in place by the EC to implement the Division of
Labour (e.g., no 6-pillar assessment or template used) this modality seems to be
strongly influenced by the concept of Delegated Cooperation elaborated by the EC in
2007
Some PN members implement on behalf of others, some delegate and some do both.
Some entities only operate as delegatee authority. This is mainly explained by the
different mandates of the agencies.
The PN members most involved between 2000 and 2011 in the implementation
(delegatee entity or lead) are GIZ (18), BTC (12), KfW (8), and AFD (6). The PN
members most involved in the transfer (delegating entity) are DFID (16), AFD (6), and
ADA (6).
The use of bilateral delegated cooperation has been rapidly increasing from 2007,
primarily encouraged by the implementation of the EU code of conduct.
According to the figures provided by the PN members 60 delegation agreements have
been signed between bilateral donor during the period of 2000-2011 for an approx. total
amount of 195 mill. EUR.
Geographic/sectoral focus: a large scope of sectors is covered, however, priority is
given to human development (health, education, gender), water supply & sanitation,
and energy and environment. Bilateral delegated agreements are primarily used in
Africa (48%), then Asia (20%), and South America (15%).
Table 4: Results of the data collection on bilateral delegation agreements
by the AFD Liaison offices to the EU
PN
member
Number of delegation
received
Amount of delegation
received (Mill €)
Number of delegation
transfered
Amount of delegation
transferred (Mill €)
ADA
3
3.08
6
3.20
AFD
6
25.86
6
32.30
AECID
3
1.20
3
3.90
Belgium
11
31.15
1
0.5
(BTC)
Final Report
26
PN
Number of delegation
Amount of delegation
Number of delegation
Amount of delegation
member
received
received (Mill €)
transfered
transferred (Mill €)
CzDA
ND
ND
ND
ND
DFID
ND
ND
16
33.91
GIZ
18
29.15
1 (BMZ)
0.56
KfW
8
78.60
2
9.75
LuxDev
0
0
2
1.35
SAIDC
ND
ND
ND
ND
TOTAL
60
195.97
37
85.47
ND = no data
Final Report
27
7. Lessons learned: intensifying cooperation and coordination
7.1 Obstacles for Cooperation and Coordination
Legal and administrative obstacles remain in the way to intensify cooperation and coordination
between PN member agencies (compare, para. 5. for more details). ADA and AECID face legal
obstacles that prevent or restrict their engagement in delegating programmes to other PN member
agencies. Formally, also BTC or GIZ cannot receive or delegate funds/mandates. It is only their
government or responsible ministry. On the other side, EU prefers to transfer funds rather to
agencies not to governments hampered by worries of re-nationalisation. An insurmountable
obstacle is that legal requirements in general are steadily adapted and changed both at the
European level or national level of PN members.
In addition to legal obstacles, practical obstacles at times prevented PN member agencies from
efficient cooperation. GIZ refers to its own technical-administrative challenges of acting only as a
sort of agent between the EU and the BMZ. This is a difficult role which other PN members have a
hard time understanding. Among others, special form sheets had to be developed between BMZ
and GIZ to reduce transaction costs and avoid exhausting communication loops.
Differences over the practice of charging administrative fees when managing programmes on
behalf of others, poses an obstacle. GIZ for example, has to charge fees because it has to finance
itself fully through the contracts it receives for projects and services. It does not receive any core or
base funding from the BMZ’s annual budget or others. The EU does not recognize full
administrative costs applied by GIZ.
Too flexible and informal check-ups and ad-hoc procedures may entail sub-optimal practices as
indicated by AECID with reference to a request by LuxDev to rewrite an already jointly formulated
delegation agreement in Nicaragua. Time consuming set-up processes, are stated from LuxDev
with regard to a VET programme with AFD and ADA in Burkina Faso. The responsible ministries
signed the MoU in 2009, the actual implementation however started only in 2012.
The VET sector in Kosovo involves a number of active cooperation partners - amongst which GIZ
and LuxDev. The implementation of the support to the sector has been suffering from a lack of
harmonised views on the sector policies and associated operational approaches, this situation
being reinforced by the weakness on the side of the Ministry to ensure its role of leadership and
sector pilot / coordinator. Many of the bilateral cooperation activities of PN member agencies occur
on an ad hoc basis outside of a formalised framework. A formal cooperation framework based on
mutual recognition of operating procedures is established only between AFD and KfW through the
MRI.
Final Report
28
AECID respondents emphasised the ,oxymoron‘ of delegated cooperation, which is also reflected
in a comment of BTC about the issue of EU ,visibility‘ when the EU COM delegates. The BTC
respondent states, if BTC implements, they implement only on behalf of Belgium (not the EU
COM) according to their institutional responsibilities. Respondents from several member agencies
mentioned EU‘s lack of margin for administrative discretion, extreme implementation deadlines
(N+1- and D+3- rules), and not always well informed EU Delegations in partner countries.
For several respondents of bilateral PN member agencies, one key to overcome the operational
obstacles is seen in the flexibility of operating procedures. Engaging in joint implementation is
rendered much easier when accounting, procurement and reporting rules are easily adaptable, and
regulations recognise the need for greater flexibility on the ground. However, this varies among PN
members: small, technical member agencies tend to be more flexible (e.g. BTC, LuxDev), than big
technical agencies (e.g. GIZ), development banks (e.g. AFD, KfW) or a ministry (e.g. DFID).
7.2 Life Cycle and Main Functions of the PN
There is a growing awareness that the basics of the PN need to be thought through, especially as
the network has diverse membership and complex goals. How is the PN performing in comparison
to other networks at similar stages in development: what is the continuum of growth of the
network? It is useful to assess the PN from a life cycle perspective. After initial excitement and 5
years of existence the PN needs to maintain interest and build commitment through introducing
new and challenging perspectives and building wider support and relevance. Throughout the
lifecycle of the PN, it is important to ask the question: how can the PN maintain and sustain
relevance for its member agencies?
Formative Period: During the first 1-3 years, PN member agencies got to know each other; the
majority still worked independently with little collaboration. There has been some protection of turf
and visibility; individual agency priorities take precedence over network “friendships.” A great deal
of individual work has been accomplished – new “knowledge” is created, although not always
“jointly” with all other members: members are productive if not interactive.
Time and money has been invested at this stage in setting up the coordination systems (i.e.,
opening the PN coordination office at the KfW-representation in Brussels and recruiting a part-time
coordinator) and procedures to support collaboration. Through effective coordination, the work of
individual members is aggregated into “network” successes - probably best illustrated in AFD‘s
coordination of the PN‘s thematic group on DoL.
Final Report
29
Status quo/growth: After 4-6 years, some of the benefits of investing in better cooperation and
coordination are apparent: funding, contracts and work plans are in place; PN members have met
several times; it is possible to assess the effectiveness of the network with respect to its
knowledge contributions, communications and relationships.
Fig 2: Status quo or growth and
transition period towards either renewal or decline
It is especially useful to analyse the functions performed by the PN, how well it performs them, and
how it should adapt to external changes and internal dynamics. It is vital to keep asking this
question throughout the lifecycle of the PN. The PN enables its members to coalesce around
themes of common interest, and enables the sharing and dissemination of information and
knowledge. The PN brings together implementing agencies and individual experts that remain
geographically and institutionally distinct. With a membership as diverse as PN, there is always a
challenge in providing a range of activities to keep all members satisfied, while maintaining a
coherent focus.
Box 6: Critical reflections at BTC
2011 has been a year of transition. Many IS services were nearing their conclusion. In comparison to
previous years, BTC has signed fewer new IS contracts. It has been a strategic choice to first strengthen
the execution of the bilateral portfolio before adding new acquisitions. Moreover, lessons learned from
interventions for other donors in DRC have brought BTC to be more careful in managing multi-donor
services, which often are more complex.
Final Report
30
Between PN member agencies different interpretations about the main objectives of the PN have
been voiced. A KfW respondent states that the PN has never been intended to be a political forum
for agenda-setting at the EU COM. The emphasis has always been to be a network of
,practitioners‘. Concerns have been voiced about tendencies during the last 1-2 years, within and
outside of the PN to become politically more active. Director-level representation and chair at PN
Annual Meetings is seen as two levels too high and not practitioner-level (the MRI among others, is
referred to as a success story due to its explicit focus on the project-level and procedural
harmonization).
AECID, until now, is indecisive if and to what degree the PN should become more active at the
political level. Reflecting AECID‘s own position in-between the policy-level Ministry and practicelevel implementation in the field, respondents would like to see the PN to provide space for both
dimensions.
Capacity building objectives for emerging donors/agencies (e.g. CzDA and SAIDC) have been
mentioned by respondents from ADA, GIZ and KfW as a major objective of the PN too. Yet, neither
demand nor supply of respective services materialized.
Different perceptions exist with regard to the relationship between PN member agencies and
EuropeAid. The majority of respondents see EuropeAid as equal member agency of the PN, while
few respondents refer to EuropeAid more as an addressee of interventions by member agencies of
the PN. This may also relate to different characteristics, origins and comparative strengths of the
three Thematic Groups of the PN. In the TG on DoL, EuropeAid is indeed a ,special member‘,
while probably equal to other member agencies in the other two TGs.
Comparative network studies suggest there are six overlapping functions that networks like the PN
perform in varying mixtures (compare, Annex 3 for more details) : (i) knowledge management
(e.g., to help PN members to find their way through often unmanageable amounts of information);
(ii) amplification and advocacy (e.g., to make little-known or little-understood ideas in
Thematic Groups more widely understood); (iii) community-building (e.g., to promote and
sustain PN members as a cohesive group); (iv) convening (to bring together members from
different communities, e.g. of technical and financial agencies, or bilateral and European
agencies); and (v) resource mobilisation (to provide resources, capacities and skills).
There are sensible differences when comparing the main functions referred to in the PN Charta of
2008 and on the PN Website this year (see, fig. 3). All but two functions (framed in red), remained
more or less the same. This (un-)intended functional shift could be interpreted as a replacement of
Final Report
31
the original „amplifying“ and „convening“ functions (in 2008) by a „learning“ function. Or the PN
may not have performed up to the expectations.
Fig. 3: (Un-)intended transformation of main functions of the PN, from 2008 to 2013?
One (very common) mistake other networks made in the past is to try to cover too many activities
and functions in their workplans and programmes. For an established network such as PN, a
network functions approach (NFA) is a valuable tool in determining its current and/or evolving
strategic direction. The PN member agencies should reflect and agree on a coherent framework
which illustrates the differences and complementarities between each network function and how
they fit together within the context of PN‘s strategic vision and mission (compare, Annex 2).
Since PN‘s creation in 2008, there might have been a transformation of
functions
member agencies expected the network to play. Respective
implications for PN‘s strategic development and management should be given
attention.
Final Report
32
7.3 Effectiveness and Efficiency of the PN
Several respondents see an important positive trend that the PN and its member agencies are on
a level playing field with the EU. A major indicator is the invitation to the PN to comment on the
draft templates of the EU. The first time obviously the EU is approaching the PN.
(i) Effectiveness of the PN
According to the vast majority of respondents, participation in the PN - in particular, in one or more
of the three thematic groups of the PN - increased understanding and identification of priority
issues relevant to the network agencies. Having influence on national or European policy agenda
has been of mixed interest. Few respondents mentioned and appreciated (and perhaps would like
to see more) influence of PN processes and outcomes on national and European policy. Another
few explicitly emphasized the comparative advantage of a ,practitioners‘ network detached from
national and European ,policy‘.
Gaining access to other agencies‘ experts and information has consistently been valued high.
Increasing influence and reputation of the member agency nationally or internationally has been of
minor interest, although several member agencies distinctively emphasise and advertise their
membership in the PN (e.g., in their annual reports and websites). It is obviously a positive sideeffect of the PN membership and international networking is essentially a must-do in this field.
Positive impact has frequently been reported with regard to higher levels of awareness and
understanding - nationally and at the European level - of the issues the network is addressing,
stronger relationships with other network members and better understanding of European
processes and institutions.
The network has identified an appropriate niche for itself vis-a-vis other actors or networks in the
field. A small number of respondents questioned the strategic relevance of the thematic group on
sustainable energy due to its high level of sector-technical expertise and/or overlap with other wellrecognized expert networks in this field. The issues of ,blending‘ and ,knowledge sharing‘ received
increasing interest inside and outside of the network. Yet, there are already other prominent
networks (e.g. EUBEC, learn4dev) addressing these issues. There is some overlap in membership
and topical themes between PN and EUNIDA. Few respondents would like to see closer
cooperation with EUNIDA to increase synergies; few other respondents see the comparative
advantage and strengths of the PN at risk.
Final Report
33
(ii) Efficiency of the PN
Interaction among members (internal communication) worked by and large well. Irritations or
interruptions have been mentioned by few respondents in the course (or perhaps as a result) of
rotation and shift of annual presidency according to the ,Troika‘-steering model of the PN. The use
and usefulness of the networks‘ website (external communication) has been esteemed by smaller
members not always able to participate in meetings due to limited resources.
External
communication with non members or the broader public is not targeted by the networks‘ website,
although it makes all documentation public, including internal minutes of Steering Committee
meetings etc..
Support from member agencies for the work of their focal points and technical experts in the PN
has been largely good. Financial constraints hindered some member agencies to fully participate
and actively engage in the work of the network. The systems and procedures of the PN (contracts,
financial support, correspondence, meetings and interaction with the coordinator) were
predominantly satisfactory. The positive role and support by the coordinator has been emphasized
by several members. Lack of office space and no local presence of the coordinator in Brussels
have been criticised by some members. The issues have been taken up by the steering
committee. Different options are checked and presumably proposed for decision at the upcoming
annual meeting of the PN.
The network‘s knowledge is timely. The information provided is relevant to issues of immediate
importance to its member agencies. The connectors or PN‘s focal points are without exception
either part of or at least close to their agency‘s hierarchy and corporate strategy. All of them have a
good understanding of who the key people in their headquarters are and who should receive the
information provided by the network. In the wake of the Global Partnership and its emphasis on
country-focused approaches, a debate started with some member agencies, how key people from
the agencies‘ field structures can be incorporated into the work of the PN.
The network products and format - for the main part workshops - have been useful to the majority
of interviewed experts. The content has been valued as predominantly credible and reliable.
Final Report
34
8. Way Forward: Tools and Strategies to Mitigate Legal and
Administrative Obstacles
8.1 Widen and Combine the Range of PN Member Agencies‘ Cooperation Mechanisms
The findings of the study suggest that PN member agencies combine several modes of
cooperation to improve implementation practice. Experience of PN member agencies - in
particular, of AFD and KfW - suggest that several cooperation mechanisms can co-exist and
involve a variety of instruments. The various good practices of PN members identified in the study
are not always clearly separated, but do overlap in their features and form continuums from least
to most harmonised modes of cooperation (Fig. 4.).
Fig. 4: Continuum of PN cooperation arrangements from least to most harmonised
(i) Staff exchange and agency visits
AFD and KfW, for instance, have several years ago established a system of permanent staff
exchange and secondments. AFD is also regularly conducting visits of staff teams to other PN
member agencies. AECID, for example, has been visited twice by AFD in the last 7-8 years. A
team of 2-3 staff members has been sent for 2 days, arranged by a special office and well
prepared through a questionnaire that has been sent to AECID in advance. The Director of AECID
has been visiting AFD and GIZ recently. Another example is the invitation of a BTC manager for
peer learning at GIZ IS. All these modes of cooperation involve notions of knowledge sharing and
Final Report
35
peer learning. These horizontal dialogues have both learning (exchange of good practice) and
facilitative aspects (reducing cooperation obstacles), they support greater administrative
transparency between PN member agencies. Staff exchanges and agency visits may also provide
opportunities for more efficient administrative relations with other PN member agencies, for
instance, through simplification and harmonisation of administrative procedures regarding cofinancing or joint implementation.
(ii) Sectoral, trilateral MoU
The MoU of AFD, GIZ, and LuxDev on trilateral cooperation in the sector of vocational education
and training (VET) is a valuable low-cost mode of cooperation, allowing the sharing of practices
and establishing a common understanding and language on (e.g. sectoral) implementation issues
between the three PN member agencies. Feedback from one involved respondent indicate,
however, a risk that the cooperation remains a headquarter cooperation.
(iii) Inter-agency Network
The centerpiece is the Practitioners‘ Network. It allows for the organic adaptation of the
cooperation to new developments by providing platforms for dialogue (3 Thematic Groups) on ongoing and forthcoming implementation issues of the PN member agencies. The advantage of the
PN is that it also is low-cost, flexible and adaptable, and has scalable structures (e.g. thematic
groups, technical workshops etc.) which foster experimentation and innovation. The network
cooperation supports trust building, technical approaches and may help avoid race to the bottom
issues. Known disadvantages of inter-agency networks are: (a) enforcement and monitoring of
implementation cooperation is limited owing to a lack of legal basis - mainly based on reputational
aspects; (b) the informal nature of inter-agency networks is likely to mask unequal weight of
member agencies and strengthen the already powerful agencies in the PN; and (c) it may facilitate
exclusion and make monitoring and participation by other agency staff (e.g. in the field) difficult.
(iv) Implementation partnership
The implementation partnership between AFD and KfW (signed in 1998) is a forward looking joint
commitment by the two PN member agencies to develop a permanent and lasting approach to cofinancing. The mode of cooperation is a formal, umbrella-type, broad strategic agreement between
the two implementing agencies that they will cooperate to promote better quality of co-financing.
Final Report
36
Implementation partnerships represent forward looking joint commitments by the agencies‘
hierarchy to develop permanent and lasting approaches to greater coordination of implementation
practices, processes, and activities.
(v) Mutual recognition agreements (MRA)
AFD, EIB, and KfW have set up a mechanism to broaden and deepen their cooperation and
coordination, particularly focusing on the co-financing of development projects in the framework of
the so-called Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI, Box 7). The cooperation mode of an MRA has the
advantage that it preserves the implementing agencies‘ autonomy in operational rule making and
induces minimal adjustment costs, it reduces duplication efforts, and may constitute a useful
precursor to harmonisation. The disadvantages are, that the time and costs required to negotiate a
MRA can be high. MRAs require broadly similar types of member agencies (e.g. financial or
technical), extensive trust between agencies and discussions every time changes occur in
operational rules in one of the cooperating agencies. Robust mechanisms need to be established
and maintained to deal with disputes.
(v) Harmonisation
The new EU templates and linked 6-pillar assessment reflect the most harmonised form of
cooperation of PN member agencies on implementation issues. The advantage is: the rules are
exactly the same for all accredited implementing agencies. Disadvantages are the long process
and costs of the structure and enforcement.
There is a widening range of cooperation mechanisms - formal and
informal, broad and specific - that PN member agencies already use and
which they should combine.
Final Report
37
8.2 Use more flexible cooperation mechanisms: Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRA)
In the international cooperation there is a general shift away from complete harmonisation of
implementation rules (as illustrated in the EU templates or the Nordic Plus JFA) and the use of
more flexible options - such as mutual recognition agreements (as illustrated in the MRI).
At the outset of the study, the Nordic Plus coordination has been mentioned by few respondents as
international good practice and potential benchmark for PN member agencies. Other respondents
qualified these statements by referring to only limited implementation and impact of the Nordic Plus
Initiative and Joint-Financing Arrangements (JFA). The debate in the PN may move over the next
years from those ideal models of complete harmonisation to more flexible cooperation
mechanisms.
MRAs achieve inter-agency cooperation with little agreement on common rules and procedures,
since they rely on the competence of the different PN member agencies to regulate and enforce
operating rules. At the heart of MRAs lies the recognition that PN member agencies operate
differently to achieve equivalent aims. Rather than agreeing on common rules and templates, they
agree to mutually recognise planning and appraisals standards, which are based on the rules of
their national legislation, administrative traditions and practices of forward planning. MRAs
preserve the operational discretion and national accountability of PN member agencies.
Box 7: Good Practice of the Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI)
AFD, EIB and KfW have created the "Mutual Reliance Initiative" (MRI), which refers to common
principles and also structures how tasks are allocated in co-financed projects. The objective of the MRI is
to delegate central tasks in project preparation, implementation and monitoring to the maximum possible
extent to the institution which is subsequently resuming the responsibility as Lead Financier. As a
principle, this delegation of tasks and responsibilities is based on mutual recognition, not on
harmonization of procedures.
Although there are many overlaps in terms of structure and operations, each of the three partners takes
into account its different legal, institutional and governmental circumstances. A detailed framework for
operational financing in the field of European development cooperation, suitable for all the partners, has
been jointly determined. These "Operational Guidelines" were signed in Brussels, in February 2013.
The MRI guidelines were developed in a pilot phase covering 14 co-financed projects in Africa and the
Middle East. For each of these projects there was a "lead financier" that had already been active locally
in the area which is receiving support. For example KfW, because of its many years of activity in the
Ugandan water sector and its existing cooperation with the National Water and Sewerage Corporation
(NWSC), is taking the "lead financier" role in the "Kampala Water Watson Project". KfW is coordinating
activities being undertaken locally by KfW, EIB and AfD who are working together to improve the supply
Final Report
38
of drinking water to the people of the greater Kampala area. The project objectives are to build new
water treatment plants, expand existing treatment facilities, and to rehabilitate and extend the existing
water supply network.
All the participants agreed that in the long term this initiative will lead to greater effectiveness, visibility
and impact for European foreign policy. In this process, the inclusion of other European financial
institutions within the initiative has not been ruled out. Furthermore, it is planned in future to broaden this
support to include projects in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe.
However, MRAs are not necessarily an easier or low-cost option. The recognition of the
simultaneous relevance of different member agencies‘ operational rules and procedures generates
important transaction costs, as experience has shown. This concern has been emphasized by
respondents from AFD and KfW with regard to their (at certain points of time ,painful adaptation‘)
experience with multiple years of preparing and piloting before signing the MRI with the EIB.
9. Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations
The Practitioners‘ Network (PN) is an essential tool to improve development services and
outcomes. Two network roles make the PN particularly valuable: learning among the members and
amplifying the voice of the members. In the wake of the European ,Agenda for Change‘ and the
post-Busan Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, the three key themes of the
PN - (i) division of labour, (ii) sustainable energy, and (iii) results-based management - remain
most relevant. New themes like ,blending of grants and loans‘ or ,knowledge sharing‘ receive
increasing interests inside and outside of the PN.
Emerging practices of PN members. PN members have adopted different approaches to cooperate
and coordinate, reflecting their mandates, domestic policy frameworks, and different modes of
delivery. Challenges relate to members‘ different practices of operational forward planning and
implementation or different systems for quality assurance. Domestic requirements for
accountability also affect member agencies‘ choice to cooperate.
Domestic legislation and political contexts create opportunities and challenges for PN member
agencies to cooperate. Legal safeguards posed unintentionally problems for PN members and
constrained moves towards intensified cooperation (para., 5.1.).
The PN should follow up on the current status of the Legal
Harmonisation Initiative (LHI) involvement of PN member agencies, major
Final Report
39
outcomes, organizational strengths and weaknesses, and potential
relevance for PN strategy building.
The PN members‘ Fact Sheets should (in addition to the information on
budgetary evolution and apportioning) provide information about the
members ,practices of forward planning‘ (compare, respective revisions of
draft fact sheets, Annex 2)
Within the PN there are three main organisational models how the PN member agencies are
embedded into their national development policy systems.
Contingent on the organisational
model, there are varying/conflicting ambitions of individual member agencies if at all or how policy
and implementation should be effectively connected in the work of the PN (para., 5.1.).
The PN member agencies should be aware about and how the three
different organizational models affect the scale and scope for intensified
cooperation. More prominence should also be given to inform each other
about legislative and policy conditions/changes as well as comprehensive
organisational reforms of individual members.
PN member agencies commonly mix a variety of modalities and instruments to deliver aid to
partner countries. ,Cofinancing‘ and ,blending‘ as well as ,triangular cooperation‘ and and ,private
sector cooperation‘ have gained in recent years a great momentum (para., 5.2. and 5.3.).
PN member agencies should intensify exchange of experience in
implementing the new modes of delivery.
Public sector management practices, such as results-based management, have a profound impact
on development programmes. PN members‘ internal systems and procedures are often complex
and inflexible and work against collaborative approaches (para., 5.4.).
There is scope to make implementation procedures simpler and more
flexible while introducing incentives for staff that emphasise working
more closely with other PN members. PN members should ensure that
Final Report
40
programme managers are aware of the flexibility permitted in applying
internal procedures.
The growth of diagnostic tools and products (e.g. EuropeAid‘s ,Political Economy Analysis‘, or
GIZ‘s ,Capacity WORKS‘), and lack of coordination in how they are applied, does result in a
proliferation of overlapping tools without adequate coordination among PN members (para., 5.4.).
The PN should follow up on the current status of the World Bank-led
inter-agency forum on „Country Analytic Work (CAW)“ or in how far the
„learn4dev“-platform perhaps took over and could provide respective
services to interested PN member agencies.
There are differences in the nature of the results that the PN member agencies are accountable for
achieving as well as in the level of detail they have to report to their ministries or parliaments as
well as what programme managers of PN member agencies have to report from the field to
headquarters (5.4.).
PN‘s Thematic Group on RBA should take stock of PN members
approaches and draft key categories for comparison of RBA.
There are differences in the detailed thematic priorities, cross-cutting issues and geographic focus
of the PN members. Lack of clarity between PN members on the meaning and choice of thematic
priorities make it difficult to intensify cooperation. No clear patterns emerge in terms of some PN
member agencies specialising in giving or receiving funds to/from other PN member agencies in
certain sectors or countries (para., 5.5.).
PN members should use - at least in their PN fact sheets - common or
internationally agreed sectoral and geographic criteria (e.g. OECD-DAC) to
support comparability and coordination among members
There is a tension and a balance to be struck for PN members, between
running field offices to fulfill a country focused approach versus the
development effectiveness requirements of prioritisation and geographical
concentration. A country focused approach does not necessarily imply
that all field offices need to be maintained or new offices even be
Final Report
41
established (although the competition for delegated agreements etc. may
exercise some pressure on PN members to do so) as the focus may be on
decentralising activities to existing field offices of any or all PN members.
The PN‘s Thematic Group on the „Implementation of European Division
of Labour“ unquestionably contributed considerably to the better
understanding and use of new practices such as ,delegated cooperation‘
between the EU and the Member States as well as rapid increase in
,bilateral delegated cooperation‘ between PN members.
Good practices of cooperation between PN members refer to the mutual recognition of procedures,
partnership agreements on professional training, staff exchange or benchmarking missions among
PN member agencies.
AFD, EIB and KfW are jointly elaborating a model for a better division of labour in the framework of
the so-called Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI). The objective of the MRI is to delegate central tasks
in project preparation, implementation and monitoring to the maximum possible extent to the
institution which is subsequently resuming the responsibility as Lead Financier. As a principle, this
delegation of tasks and responsibilities is based on mutual recognition, not on harmonization of
procedures.
In line with the EU code of conduct, LuxDev has selected vocational training as a priority sector for
action and signed a trilateral MoU with AFD and GIZ on an effective partnership in TVET, leading
to a series of joint conferences and cooperation in the three pilot countries Kosovo, Namibia, and
Vietnam.
AFD and KfW display a strong history and continuous practice of staff exchange.
Benchmarking missions, e.g. of an AFD team to GIZ HQ or invitation of a BTC manager for peer
learning at GIZ IS.
The PN brings together implementing agencies and individual experts that remain geographically
and institutionally distinct. With a membership as diverse as PN, there is always a challenge in
providing a range of activities to keep all members satisfied, while maintaining a coherent focus
(para., 7.3).
Final Report
42
Several respondents see an important positive trend that the PN and its member agencies are on
a level playing field with the EU. A major indicator is the invitation to the PN to comment on the
draft templates of the EU. The first time the EU is approaching the PN for active input.
Network effectiveness: According to the vast majority of respondents, participation in the PN - in
particular, in one or more of the three thematic groups of the PN - increased understanding and
identification of priority issues relevant to the network agencies. Gaining access to other agencies‘
experts and information has consistently been valued high. Positive impact has frequently been
reported with regard to higher levels of awareness and understanding of European processes and
institutions. The network has identified an appropriate niche for itself vis-a-vis other actors or
networks in the field.
Network efficiency: Interaction among members (internal communication) worked by and large
well. Support from member agencies for the work of their focal points and technical experts in the
PN has been largely good. Financial constraints hindered some member agencies to fully
participate and actively engage in the work of the network. The network‘s knowledge is timely. The
information provided is relevant to issues of immediate importance to its member agencies.
The PN should focus on concrete, practical and innovative solutions; rely
on light, agile and informal practices of cooperation and coordination; do
not duplicate efforts of other initiatives already underway, yet coordinate
with other networks working on similar topics; focus on the specific value
added that the operational planning and management expertise of the PN
can provide.
The PN should internally use the „network functions approach“ (NFA) to
(re)assess the strategic priorities of the network. The NFA process may at
the same time be used as a model that can be part of an overall approach
to evaluate the effectiveness of the network and unveil the value for
money the PN provides to its current or potential new members.
The PN should establish an office and assign a coordinator, in Brussels.
The PN should preserve its basic organisational model where the human
Final Report
43
capital and expertise is hosted by its member agencies and managed by a
practice-focused and management-light secretariat.
Representatives or coordinators of overlapping networks like, MRI,
EUNIDA, EnDev or the trilateral TVET partnership of PN members should
be invited for a collaborative learning sessions to discuss common
problems and solutions.
The PN should actively broaden its member base.
The PN should further develop the key criteria for PN members‘ fact
sheets, support a common language and understanding (e.g. a glossary of
PN members‘ instruments and modes of delivery) and collect good
practices (e.g. of MoUs between PN members)
Legal- and administrative obstacles remain in the way to intensify cooperation and coordination
between PN member agencies. In the international cooperation there is a general shift away from
complete harmonisation of implementation rules and the use of more flexible options - such as
mutual recognition agreements (as illustrated in the MRI) to mitigate obstacles for intensified
cooperation and coordination.
Final Report
44
Annex 1: Documentation
ADA (2010). Geschäftsbericht 2009. Wien, Austrian Development Agency.
ADA (2011). Geschäftsbericht 2010. Wien, Austrian Development Agency.
ADA (2012). Walk the Talk? Implementing Division of Labour - Austrian Experience (PowerPoint
presentation by Robert Zeiner and Michael Schieder). Vienna, ADA.
ADA (2012). Austrian Official Development Assistance: Report 2010. Vienna, ADA.
ADA (2012). Geschäftsbericht 2011. Wien, Austrian Development Agency.
ADB (2009). Building Networks of Practice. Manila, ADB.
AECID (2012). AECID: Overview of experience in Delegated Cooperation/ Belgium-Defensoria del Pueblo
(Peru) case. Brussels, Practitioners' Network.
AECID (2013). OPERACIONES DE AYUDA PROGRAMÁTICA (APOYOS PPTARIOS Y FONDOS
COMUNES) (16/01/2013). Madrid, AECID.
AECID (2013). Executive Summary: Evaluation on AECID management of Programmatic Aid 2005-2010.
Madrid, AECID.
AECID (2013). The Master Plan of the Spanish Cooperation 2013-2016: Executive Summary. Madrid,
AECID.
AFD (2009). Mutual Reliance Initiative: AFD – KfW – EIB (PowerPoint Presentation by Philippe Chedanne,
AFD). Paris, AFD.
AFD (2012). Annual Report 2011. Paris, Agence Française de Développement.
AFD (2012). AFD Overview 2012-2013. Paris, Agence Française de Développement.
AFD (2012). Organization Chart, Agence Française de Développement.
AFD (2012). The “Bilateral Delegated Cooperation”: A State of play (2000-2011) (Work in progress). Paris,
AFD.
AFD (2012). Strategic Orientation Plan 2012-2016. Paris, Agence Française de Développement.
AFD, EIB, et al. (2013). Luncheon Debate - The Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI): Effective partnering for
growth and development. Brussels.
AFD, GTZ, et al. (2009). Absichtserklärung zwischen GTZ, LuxDev und AFD über eine Partnerschaft im
operativen Bereich der Berufsbildungszusammenarbeit mit Entwicklungsländern. Paris.
Atlan, L. (2011). Delegated cooperation: State of Play (PowerPoint Presentation). Brussels, EuropeAid.
Bezes, P., A. L. Fimreite, et al. (2013). "Understanding Organizational Reforms in the Modern State:
Specialization and Integration in Norway and France." Governance 26(1): 147-175.
Final Report
45
British Council (2012). Human Resources Development in EU External Aid Programmes: A British Council
Perspective. London, British Council.
BTC (2012). Annual Report 2011. Brussels, BTC.
CEF (2012). The Case of Slovenia. Development cooperation practices: Engagement with different
stakeholders – contracting out development assistance projects to third parties (PowerPoint
Presentation by Urška Zrinski), Center of Excellence in Finance.
Concord (2012). Reader on the 2010 Practical Guide (PRAG) to contract procedures for EU external actions
(March 2011 update).
CzDA (2013). Annual Report 2012. Prague, Czech Development Agency.
DEVCO (2012). Delegation Agreement - Provisions on the central exclusion database (annex IV). Brussels,
European Commission.
DEVCO (2012). Budget Support Guidelines 2012. Brussels.
DEVCO (2013). DEVCO Companion to Financial and Contractual Procedures applicable to external actions
financed from the general budget of the EU and from the 10th EDF. Brussels, European Commission.
DEVCO (2013). Practical guide to procedures for programme estimates (project approach). Brussels,
European Commission.
DEVCO (2013). Indirect centralised Management: Eligible entities of EU Member States (Annex C7h of
Companion). Brussels, European Commission.
DEVCO (2013). Delegation Agreement - General conditions to the European Union Delegation Agreement
for Indirect Centralised Method of Implementation (Annex II to the European Union Delegation
Agreement). Brussels, European Commission.
DEVCO (2013). Delegation Agreement - Communication of information to the central exclusion database
(annex V). Brussels, European Commission.
DEVCO (2013). Delegation Agreement - Financial identification fiche (annex VI). Brussels, European
Commission.
DEVCO (2013). List of liaison points communicated by Member States on the Central Exclusion Database.
Brussels, European Commission.
DEVCO (2013). Practical Guide (PRAG) to contract procedures for European Union external actions.
Brussels, European Commission.
DFID (2011). DFID’s Approach to Value for Money (VfM). London, DFID.
DFID (2011). Multilateral Aid Review: Assessment of European Commission Budget. London, DFID.
DFID (2011). Multilateral Aid Review: Ensuring maximum value for money for UK aid through multilateral
organisations. London, DFID.
DFID (2012). Annual Report and Accounts 2011–12. London, Department for International Development.
Final Report
46
DFID (2013). Progress Update DFID Management Response to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact
recommendations on: The Effectiveness of DFID’s Engagement with the Asian Development Bank.
London, DFID.
DH (2009). Designing networks for collaborative advantage: Practice-based evidence on how to set up
networks to improve partnership working and achieve positive outcomes. London, Department of
Health.
Drucker Society. (2008). "Collaborative Networks are the Organization: An Innovation in Organization Design
and Management." Retrieved March 10, 2013.
EC (2002). Commission Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002, laying down
detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the
Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. Brussels,
European Commission.
EC (2007). Co-financing: Support document from the Commission services. Brussels, European
Commission.
EC (2007). Joint Co-Financing: Working for and through others (PowerPoint Presentation). Brussels,
European Commission.
EC (2009). Guidance on joint co-financing with Member states and other bilateral donors. Brussels, EC.
EC (2009). EU Toolkit for the implementation of complementarity and division of labour in development
policy. Brussels, European Commission.
EC (2010). Joint Multi-annual Programming: Final Report. Brussels, European Commission.
EC (2010). Review of the EU’s financial rules: Q&As (MEMO/10/222). Brussels, European Commission.
EC (2010). Press release on the proposal for the Financial Regulation 2010 (IP/10/629). Brussels, European
Commission.
EC (2011). Meeting between Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, and President of the European
Commission, José Manuel Barroso (MEMO/11/579). Brussels, European Commission.
EC (2011). Communication on EU Budget Support. Brussels.
EC (2012). Annual Report 2012 on the European Community's Development and External Assistance
Policies and their Implementation in 2011. Brussels, European Commission.
EC (2012). EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation. Brussels, European Commission.
EC (2012). Launch of the new EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation (EUBEC). Brussels,
European Commission.
EC (2012?). ANNEX V. Communication of Information by implementing authorities or bodies.
EC (2013). Register of Commission Expert Groups: EUBEC. Brussels.
Final Report
47
ECDPM (2011). The future of EU budget support to third countries? Report of the consultation with experts
from Civil Society Organisations on the EU Green Paper on Budget Support (Brussels, 13 December
2010). Maastricht, ECDPM.
ECDPM (2011). Can the EU effectively “blend” external assistance grants and loans? Maastricht, ECDPM.
ECDPM (2012). Facing up to realities: DG DEVCO introduces new organigram for 2013. Maastricht,
ECDPM.
ECDPM (2013). Development Policy on the Edge: Towards a post-2015 global development agenda.
Maastricht, ECDPM.
EDFI (2012). Brochure, EDFI. Brussels.
EDFI (2012). Annual Report 2011. Brussels, EDFI.
EEAS and EuropeAid (2012). Instructions for the Programming of the 11th European Development Fund
(EDF) and the Development Coooperation Instrument (DCI) - 2014-2020. Brussels.
EIB, AFD, et al. (2005). Letter of Intent between EIB, AFD and KfW. Luxemburg, EIB.
ESO (2003). Precooking in the European Union: the World of Expert Groups. Stockholm, Expert Group on
Public Finance (Expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi).
EU (2009). Council conclusions on an Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness. Brussels, EU.
EU (2009). EU Toolkit for the implementation of complementarity and division of labour in development
policy. Brussels, European Union.
EU (2012). Budget Support Guidelines Programming, Design and Management: A Modern Approach to
Budget Support. Brussels, European Union.
EuropeAid (2009). Status of Delegated Cooperation (PowerPoint presentation by Mehtab Currey). Brussels,
EuropeAid.
EuropeAid (2012). 2012 Annual Report on the European Union’s development and external assistance
policies and their implementation in 2011. Brussels, European Union.
EuropeAid (2012). Main missions of DEVCO Directorates & Units. Brussels, EuropeAid.
EuropeAid (2012). Delegated Cooperation: State of Play (PowerPoint Presentation). Brussels, EuropeAid.
EuropeAid (2013). Methodological Training Develops Capacities for Improved Outcomes. Brussels,
EuropeAid.
European Think-Tanks Group (2011). EU Blending Facilities: Implications for Future Governance Options.
London, ODI.
GIZ (2012). Company Report 2011. Bonn, GIZ.
GIZ (2013). New templates for Delegated Cooperation: Feedback from GIZ to the European Commission
(COM), January 25, 2013. Eschborn, GIZ.
GPLG (2008). Actions for Aid Effectiveness. Paris, Global Programs Learning Group.
Final Report
48
GPLG (2010). Flyer for HLF4. Paris, Global Programs Learning Group.
GPLG (2011). Brochure. Global Programs Learning Group.
Group of Experts (2012). Conclusions Paper. Brussels, Group of Experts on EU Platform for External
Cooperation and Development.
GTAI (2012). Mehr Mischfinanzierung bei EU-Außenhilfeprogrammen: EU-Kommission bereitet Plattform für
Blending von Zuschüssen und Darlehen vor. Bonn, GTAI.
Hearn, S. and E. Mendizabal (2011). Not everything that connects is a network. London, ODI.
HLF3 (2008). Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). Paris.
HLF3 (2008). Mutual Accountability: Donors and partners are accountable for development results. Accra,
3rd High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness,.
HLF4 (2011). Concept Note: Building Block on Managing Diversity and Reducing Fragmentation. Paris.
Hubbard, M. E. V. (2002). Inception Report. Study on Partner Governments' Priorities and Perspectives on
Harmonising Donor Practices (Package One). Birmingham, School of Public Policy, the University of
Birmingham.
ICAI (2011). ICAI’s Approach to Effectiveness and Value for Money. London, ICAI.
ICAI (2012). The Effectiveness of DFID’s Engagement with the Asian Development Bank. London, ICAI.
ICAI (2012). DFID’s Oversight of the EU’s Aid to Low-Income Countries. London, ICAI.
ICAI (2012). The Management of UK Budget Support Operations. London, ICAI.
IISD (2004). Knowledge Networks: Guidelines for Assessment (Working Paper). Winnipeg, International
Institute for Sustainable Development.
KfW (2012). MRI Pilot Project: Kampala Water Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation Project (PowerPoint
presentation by Amayo Johnson). Frankfurt a.M., KfW.
King, K. and S. McGrath (2003). Knowledge Sharing in Development Agencies: Lessons from Four Cases.
Washington, D.C., World Bank.
Kitt, F. (2010). EU Aid Architecture: Recent Trends and Policy Directions. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Leach, W. D., C. M. Weible, et al. (2013). "Fostering Learning through Collaboration: Knowledge Acquisition
and Belief Change in Marine Aquaculture Partnerships." Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory.
LHI (2008). Working Group on Shared Model Documentation in Joint Operations. Washington, D.C., Legal
Harmonization Initiative, World Bank.
LHI (2008). Action Plan. Washington, D.C., Legal Harmonization Initiative, World Bank.
LHI (2008). Matrix: Comparison of the key policies and instruments of development partners relevant to joint
financing operations. Washington, D.C., Legal Harmonization Initiative, World Bank.
Final Report
49
LHI (2008). About LHI. Washington, D.C., Legal Harmonization Initiative, World Bank.
LuxDev (2011). Agency booklet 2011. Luxembourg, Luxembourg Agency for Development Cooperation.
LuxDev (2012). Annual Report 2010. Luxembourg, Luxembourg Agency for Development Cooperation.
Maxwell, S. (2011). Looking behind the headlines of DFID’s bilateral and multilateral aid reviews.
MDF (2012). Guidelines on participation in EU External Assistance Programmes. Brussels, MDF.
Mendizabal, E. (2006). Building Effective Research Policy Networks: Linking Function and Form. London,
ODI.
Mendizabal, E. (2008). Supporting networks: Ten principles. London, ODI.
Mendizabal, E. and S. Yeo (2010). From think tank to think net: The virtues of virtuality. The broker.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic (2009). The Development Cooperation Strategy of the
Czech Republic 2010-2017. Prague, MFA.
Norad (2006). Nordic Plus: Practical Guide to Delegated Cooperation. Oslo, Norad.
Norad (2006). Barriers to delegated cooperation: Joint assessments of policies and administrative practices
of the Nordic Plus donors. Oslo, Norad.
Norad (2006). Part 10: Arrangement on Delegated Cooperation (negotiated template). The Agreement
Manual. Oslo, Norad.
Norad (2008). Summary of “Nordic Plus: Barriers to delegated cooperation Revision 1”. Oslo, Norad.
ODI (2008). Supporting networks: Ten principles. London, ODI.
ODI (2009). Mutual Accountability at the Country level: A Concept and Emerging Good Practice Paper.
London, ODI.
ODI (2011). Inquiry on “EU development assistance”. London, ODI.
ODI (2011). Unpicking the Bilateral Aid Review. London, ODI.
ODI (2011). A guide to DFID's Bilateral and Multilateral Aid reviews – the key questions and what we know
so far. London, ODI.
OECD (2003). Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. DAC Guidelines and Reference
Series. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2007). DAC Special Review of the Czech Republic. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2009). Survey on the Levels of Decentralisation to the Field in DAC Members' Development Cooperation Systems. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2010). Inventory of Donor Approaches to Capacity Development: What we are Learning. Paris, DAC.
OECD (2010). DAC Peer Review of Austria. OECD Journal on Development, Vol. 10/3. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2010). Belgium: Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Peer Review. Paris.
Final Report
50
OECD (2010). The United Kingdom: Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Peer Review. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2010). Development Evaluation Resources and Systems: A Study of Network Members. Paris,
OECD.
OECD (2011). Austria. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2011). Belgium. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2011). European Union. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris,
OECD.
OECD (2011). France. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2011). Germany. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2011). Luxembourg. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris,
OECD.
OECD (2011). Spain. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2011). United Kingdom. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris,
OECD.
OECD (2011). Czech Republic. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris,
OECD.
OECD (2011). Slovak Republic. Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris,
OECD.
OECD (2011). Development Co-operation Report 2011: 50th Anniversary Edition. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2011). OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews: Belgium 2010. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2011). Spain: Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Peer Review. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2012). Development Co-operation Report 2012: Lessons in Linking Sustainability and Development.
OECD, Paris.
OECD (2012). European Union: Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Peer Review. Paris, OECD.
OED (2003). Sharing Knowledge: Innovations and Remaining Challenges (OED Evaluation). Washington,
D.C., World Bank.
PN (2009). 4th Annual meeting of the Practitioners’ Network for European Development Cooperation, May
12–13, Prague.
PN (2009). The principles of delegated cooperation with the Commission (PowerPoint presentation by Alex
Gerbrandij). Brussels, Practitioners' Network.
PN (2009). Delegated Cooperation in Practice (PowerPoint presentation). Brussels, Practitioners' Network.
PN (2009). Revision of the EC financial regulations: Remarks and proposals by the Practitioners’ Network for
European Development Cooperation. Brussels, Practitioners' Network.
Final Report
51
PN (2009). Memorandum of Understanding (between KfW and DFID). Frankfurt a.M., KfW.
PN (2010). Workshop: The European Union’s Triangular Cooperation in the context of aid effectiveness.
Madrid, AECID.
PN (2011). Conclusions from the Enlarged Core Group Meeting Held in Brussels on 8 March 2011. Brussels,
Practitioners' Network.
PN (2011). Report of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Practitioners’ Network for European Development
Cooperation, London, 19 to 20 May.
PN (2011). Conclusions from the Core Group Meeting on 22 November 2011 in Brussels.
PN (2011). Conclusions from the Core Group Meeting on 14 June 2011 in Brussels.
PN (2012). Participants of the Workshop on Post-Busan Implications for Practitioners 20 March 2012,
Brussels. Brussels, Practitioners' Network for European Development Cooperation.
PN (2012). Programme of the 5th Annual Meeting.
PN (2012). Report of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Practitioners’ Network for European Development
Cooperation, Luxembourg, 19 - 20 April.
PN (2012). Annual Report 2012 of the Practitioners' Network for European Development Cooperation.
Brussels, Practitioners' Network.
PN (2012). Network Members.
PN (2012). Conclusions from the Core Group Meeting on 30 August 2012 in Eschborn near Frankfurt.
Brussels, Practitioners' Network.
PN (2012). Conclusions from the Core Group Meeting on 29 March 2012 (1 hour phone conference).
PN (2012). Conclusions from the Core Group Meeting on 9 February 2012 (1,5 hours phone conference).
PN (2013). Contact Points' Addresses. Brussels, Practitioners' Network for European Development
Cooperation.
PN (2013). Fact Sheet: BTC (draft). Brussels, Practitioners' Network for European Development
Cooperation.
PN (2013). Thematic Group: Results-Based Approaches.
PN (2013). Thematic Group: Implementation of European Division of Labour.
PN (2013). Thematic Group: Sustainable Energy.
PN (2013). ANNUAL MEETINGS.
PN (2013). THEMATIC GROUPS.
PN (2013). STEERING COMMITTTEE.
Final Report
52
PN (2013). Conclusions from the Steering Committee Meeting of the Practitioners' Network on 15 January
2013 in Brussels. Brussels, Practitioners' Network.
PN (2013). Steering Committee Meeting, 15.01.2013 Brussels. Brussels, Practitioners' Network.
PN (2013). Fact Sheet: KfW (draft). Frankfurt a.M., KfW.
PN (2013). Fact Sheet: AFD (1st draft). Brussels, Practitioners' Network for European Development
Cooperation.
PN (2013). Fact Sheet: SlovakAid (draft). Brussels, Practitioners' Network for European Development
Cooperation.
PN (2013). Fact Sheet: AFD (2nd draft). Brussels, Practitioners' Network for European Development
Cooperation.
PN (2013). Fact Sheet: GIZ (draft). Brussels, Practitioners' Network for European Development Cooperation.
PN (2013). Fact Sheet: AECID (draft). Brussels, Practitioners' Network for European Development
Cooperation.
Ramalingam, B., E. Mendizabal, et al. (2008). Strengthening humanitarian networks: Applying the network
functions approach. London, ODI.
Rechnungshof (2009). Beurteilung der Zielerreichung bei der Ausgliederung der operativen Agenden der
Entwick- lungszusammenarbeit in die Austrian Development Agency (ADA). Wien.
Richelle, K. (2009). European Development Cooperation: Challenges and possible respective answers from
an EC’s point of view. Brussels, EuropeAid.
Richelle, K. (2010). EuropeAid: overview of aid programmes & their implementation (PowerPoint
presentation). Brussels, EuropeAid.
Rudischhauser, K. (2011). Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020: Heading IV - External relations:
“The EU as a global player” (PowerPoint Presentation). Brussels, DEVCO.
Rudischhauser, K. (2013). Developing Capacity for improving the quality of EU development and
cooperation. Brussels, DEVCO.
SADEV (2008). Challenges, Opportunities and Approaches for Increasing Joint Donor Programming of
Evaluations. Karstad, SADEV.
SADEV (2008). Organisational learning at Sida – a twenty-year perspective.
SAIDC (2012). SlovakAid (PowerPoint Presentation).
Saz-Carranza, A. (2012). Uniting Diverse Organizations: Managing Goal-Oriented Advocacy Networks.
London, Routledge.
WBI (2012). Summary Note: Building Capacity of Emerging European Donors: Assessing Existing Practices
and Needs (Technical workshop).
Final Report
53
Whitehall (2012). Business Plan 2012-2015 Department for International Development, 31 May 2012.
London, Whitehall.
Wilson-Grau, R. (2007). Evaluating the Effects of International Advocacy Networks. Advocacy Impact
Evaluation Workshop, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Evans School for Public
Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Final Report
54
Annex 2: List of Institutions and Experts Consulted
Name
Function/Unit
Contact
ADA
Norbert Bieder
Kosovo, Macedonia, Maldova
[email protected]
+43 1 903992543
Robert Zeiner
Director Programmes and Projects International
[email protected]
+43 1 903992500
Nuria Carrero Riolobos
Technical Advisor, Department for Cooperation
with Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean
[email protected]
+34 915 838 508
Mari Cruz del Saso Antuñano
Head of Service, Programmatic Support Unit
[email protected]
+34 915 838 574
Blanca Diaz Barral
Head of External Structure Division, General
Secretariat
[email protected]
+34 (91) 535 8127
Christian Freres
Expert on Aid Effectiveness, Planning Unit,
Efficiency and Quality of Aid
[email protected]
+34 (91) 583 8220
Carmen Fuente Salvador
Counselor, Department for FONPRODE Office
and Financial Cooperation
[email protected]
+34 915 838 423
Juan Ignacio Izuzquiza
Rueda
Head of Department, Office of FONPRODE and
Financial Cooperation
[email protected]
+34 915 838 423
Fº Javier Jiménez de
Gregorio
Senior Advisor Director’s Office
[email protected]
+34 (91) 583 8250
Jean-Francois Arnal
Head of AFD Liaison Office to the European
Union
[email protected]
+32 2 287 00 ou03
Quentin Berinchy
AFD Liaison Officer
[email protected]
Ornella d‘Amico
AFD Liaison Officer
[email protected]
Géraldine Kannengiesser
Juriste, Départment Juridique et d‘Ingénierie
Financiére
[email protected]
+33 1 53443039
AECID
AFD
Final Report
55
Name
Niels Meyer
Function/Unit
Contact
Policy Advisor, External Relations Division REL
[email protected]
+33 1 53443977
Régine Debrabandere
Coordinator, International Services
[email protected]
+32 2 505 37 57
Laurence Gathy
Administrative Assistant, International Services
[email protected]
Mario Goethals
Operations Manager
[email protected]
+32 2 505 37 61
BTC
CzDA
Hynek Ciboch
[email protected]
+420 251 108 115
Andrea Mikova
[email protected]
Martin Náprstek
Deputy Director
[email protected]
+420 251 108 117
Michal Pastvinský
Director
[email protected]
+420 251108130
Francesco Billeci
Head, Legal Affairs
[email protected]
+32 2 2969198
Karen De-Jonghe
Administrator/Policy Officer, Aid and
Development Effectiveness and Financing
[email protected]
+32 2 296 39 56
Cornelius Hacking
Policy Officer, Aid and Development
Effectiveness and Financing
[email protected]
+32 2 298 78 29
Jost Kadel
Seconded National Expert / Policy Officer, EU Aid [email protected]
Effectiveness
+32 2 299 79 38
Michael Kirosingh
Administrator, Aid and Development
Effectiveness and Financing
[email protected]
+32 2 295 10 96
Christoforos Korakas
Quality of Delivery Systems
[email protected]
Lino Molteni
Policy Officer, Aid and Development
Effectiveness and Financing
[email protected]
+32 2 295 00 76
DEVCO/EuropeAID
Final Report
56
Name
Function/Unit
Contact
Paul Riembault
Head of Section,Quality of Delivery Systems
[email protected]
+32 2 296 76 03
Maria Sancho-Hidalga
Quality of Delivery Systems
[email protected]
Jan Sempels
Deputy Head, Legal Afairs
[email protected]
+32 2 2956825
James Alawi
Policy Officer, Europe Department
[email protected]
Simon Dennison
Policy Adviser, Bilateral Relations, Global
Partnerships Department
[email protected]
Kevin Gardner
Team Leader, Global Partnership for Effective
Development Coop.., Finance, Performance &
Impact Department, Aid Impact team and Global
Partnership Division
[email protected]
Carol Jenkins
Head of EU Delivery & Results Team, Europe
Department
[email protected]
+44 20 7023 0474
Pam Jenkins
Head of West and South Africa Directorate
Office, Africa Directorate
[email protected]
Regis Lopez
Policy Officer, Europe Department
[email protected]
Hannah Ryder
Team Leader, Global Partnership for Effective
Development Coop.., Finance, Performance &
Impact Department, Aid Impact team and Global
Partnership Division
[email protected]
Jörg Freiberg
Senior Policy Advisor, Strategic Corporate
Development Department
[email protected]
+49 (6196) 79 1699
Cosima Glahn
Junior Policy Advisor, Strategic Alliances and
Partnerships
[email protected]
Arved Greiner
Coordinator, Recht und Versicherung
[email protected]
Helmut Irle
(KoFi-B2)
[email protected]
+49 (6196) 79 2479
Martina Kampmann
Gruppenleiterin, Strategische Allianzen und
Partnerschaften
[email protected]
DFID
GIZ
Final Report
57
Name
Function/Unit
Contact
Roland Reich
Senior-Fachkonzeptionist (KoFi-B1)
[email protected]
Sabine Trommershäuser
Gruppenleiterin, Strategische Allianzen und
Partnerschaften
[email protected]
Christian Tschirschwitz
Policy Advisor, GIZ Representation Brussels
[email protected]
+32 (2) 8949 355
Tassilo von Droste
Policy Advisor
[email protected]
Hr. Drillisch
Principal Energy Economist
[email protected]
Nicolas Hertkorn
Senior Project Manager, Promotional Policy, EU
and int. Development
[email protected]
+49 (69) 7431 3796
Daniel Mierow
Promotional Policy, EU and international
Development Cooperation (LGc1)
[email protected]
+49 (69) 74 31 4881
Dr. Günter Roos
Head of Division, Promotional Policy, EU and int.
Development
[email protected]
+49 (69) 7431 9704
Ms. Susanne Schroth
Liaison Officer KfW Brussels
[email protected]
Lioba Sekinger
Principal Manager, COC for General Principles
and Procedures
[email protected]
+49 (69) 7431 4504
Francois Bary
Director, Expertise et Quality
[email protected]
+352 295858224
Nathalie Davila-Levy
Geographical Adviser, Burkina Faso - Niger
levy@ luxdev.lu
+352 295858257
Alexis Hoyaux
Expert - Technical and Vocational Training
hoyaux@ luxdev.lu
+352 295858265
Dimitri Mayaux
European Affairs’ Officer
mayaux@ luxdev.lu
+352 295858244
Dzeneta Ramic
Geographical Adviser, The Balkans
ramic@ luxdev.lu
+352 295858236
Alice Risch
Quality Manager – Gender Expert
risch@ luxdev.lu
+352 295858233
KfW
LuxDev
Final Report
58
Name
Gaston Schwartz
Function/Unit
Contact
Managing Director
schwartz@ luxdev.lu
+352 295858203
Director
[email protected]
+421268205015
SlovakAid/SAIDC
Lucia Lackova
Peter Tomasek
[email protected]
Practitioners‘ Network
Katja Legien
Coordinator, Practitioners‘ Network for European
Development Cooperation
[email protected]
+421 902 470 824
Chief Executive
[email protected]
+32 2 229 24 55
EUNIDA
Carlos Hernandez Ferreiro
Final Report
59
Annex 3: Indicative Application of a Network Functions Approach to PN
Function of PN
Knowledge
management
Purpose of PN
How does the PN carry out this
function?
How does the PN
coordinator/secretariat
support this function?
to help PN members find their way
Sharing information through PN‘s
Editing PN website,
through often unmanageable
website; contributing to and editing
publications and
amounts of information (Identify,
a newsletters; formulating PN Fact
newsletters; moderating
filter and share important people,
Sheets of each member;
mailing lists; passing on
events, facts and stimulate
mentoring of younger/smaller
relevant/useful
learning)
through bigger/more experienced
information
members
Amplification
to make little-known or little-
Hosting conferences (e.g. high-
Disseminating
and advocacy
understood implementation issues
level workshop), publishing
publications, newsletters;
of DoL more widely understood
targeted material (joint positions),
coordinating workshops;
(extending the reach and influence
providing extension services
(representing the
of members, in particular, its small
network)
agencies)
Community
to promote and sustain PN
Hosting learning, networking or
Organising Steering
building
members as a cohesive group
social events; providing space for
Committee and Annual
(building of social capital through
open discussions through PN‘s
Meetings, facilitating
bonding, building relationships of
thematic groups, steering
internal introductions,
trust; consensus and coherence;
committee and annual meetings
coordinating thematic
groups‘ initiatives
collective learning and joint action
among members)
Convening
Final Report
to bring together members of the
Hosting formal multi- stakeholder
Organising PN events,
PN, the EU COM and other
meetings or discussion/decision-
maintaining contacts,
interested actors (building social
making events (e.g. DG/DDG-
facilitating external
capital through bridging; stimulating
meetings side-to-side with EDD),
introductions;
discourse, collective learning and
enabling reputation by association,
(representing the
action among heterogeneous
identifying and connecting new or
network)
actors)
emerging ideas
60
Function of PN
Resource
mobilisation
Purpose of PN
How does the PN carry out this
How does the PN
function?
coordinator/secretariat
support this function?
to provide resources, capacities
Offering research, consultancy,
Brokering research,
and skills to PN members
advice and training/twinning;
consultancies/advice,
(increasing the capacity and
providing access to EU COM and
administering database
effectiveness of members,
members‘ databases
stimulating knowledge creation and
innovation)
Final Report
61
Annex 4: PN Member Fact Sheets
Final Report
62
Annex 4.1.:
ADA
Final Report
63
ADA
ADA is responsible for implementing bilateral projects. The Department for Development Cooperation and Co-operation with Eastern Europe of the Foreign Ministry has overall responsibility
for Austrian development policy.
The Austrian Development Agency is a limited liability company. Sole founder and owner is the
Austrian Federal Government. The Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs (MFA)
represents the owner in dealings with ADA as stipulated in an amendment to the Federal
Development Cooperation Act in 2003.
PN member contact point : Luitgard Hammerer [email protected]
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation
Since 2004, the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) is the operational unit of the Austrian
Development Cooperation and Cooperation with Eastern Europe (ADC), which is part of Austria’s
Federal Ministry of European and International Affairs. It is a limited liability company, fully owned
by the state. The ADA is responsible for the implementation of all bilateral programmes and
projects in the ADC partner countries and administrates the corresponding budget for development
finance. Also, it provides multilateral assistance through international organizations (especially the
UN, World Bank Group, OECD and EU) by direct contributions and joint programmes. Finally, ADA
is proactive in its collaboration with NGOs and private sector and industry partners.
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
In 2011, Austria’s net ODA amounted to € 795 million. Compared to 2010 – the year when Austrian
ODA recovered after dipping significantly in 2008 and 2009 – the 2011 ODA level represents a
drop in real terms of 14.3%. Despite rising to 0.32% in 2010, the Austrian ODA to GNI ratio fell
short of the EU intermediate target of 0.51% for that year, and contracted to 0.27% in 2011. Austria
has reaffirmed its commitment to reach the EU target of 0.7% ODA/GNI, but recognises that it will
not be able to do so by the deadline of 2015 as domestic budget cuts have been announced that
will run until 2014.
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: Austria’s development co-operation policy and thematic priorities are
outlined in a 3-year programme, revised every year on a rolling basis. The programme is endorsed
by the Council of Ministers and communicated to parliament for information. A large number of
ministries, agencies and institutions (as well as the federal provinces and municipalities) budget
funds for development co-operation. The development co-operation budget, contained in the
Final Report
64
ministerial budgets, is approved once a year in the Federal Finance Act. The core bilateral
programme is included in the budget of the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.
Planning at operational level: ADA is responsible for administering and contracting out the core
bilateral programme which represents a relatively small share of Austria’s total ODA. Bilateral
cooperation agreements with partner countries are multi-year and in some cases include a level of
funding over a 3-4 year period.
Availability of forward information:
The overall budget for development co-operation is available in the Federal Finance Act and is
submitted to parliament each year in November, in advance of the fiscal year which begins on 1
January.
Allocations to focus countries are planned over 3-4years.
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
ADA annually implements 550 programmes and projects. Beyond that ADA obtained the
qualification to implement EU financed projects with partners. Such funds are channeled through
Indirect Centralised Management (ICM) or twinnings. Through a cooperation with the
Oesterreichischen Entwicklungsbank (OeEB) existing since 2012 ADA is also receiving further
capital to strengthen the instrument of business partnerships and feasibility studies.
A major task of ADA is conducting a dialogue with the public to communicate the aims and
achievements of Austrian Development Cooperation (ADC). This is done through public relations,
but also through development communication and education, ADA seeks to elicit broad support for
Austria's development-policy efforts.
In 2010, 17% of Austria’s gross bilateral ODA was country programmable. General budget support
– which classifies as country programmable aid – amounted to EUR 3.26 million, equivalent to
0.7% of bilateral ODA.
2.2. Implementation management
The DAC Peer Review of 2009 states: while there is a detailed Checklist for the Country
Programming Process, programme documents — including their logical frameworks — have
remained process-oriented and do not focus on results. The introduction, since the last peer
review, of logical frameworks and training in project cycle management for ADA staff is a positive
move towards a results-based approach. Ongoing work at the MFA to finalise guidelines on results
indicators for country programmes is also welcome. These guidelines should be translated into
country specific results frameworks as a matter of priority. Such a framework should be aligned
with partner governments’ results frameworks. Currently, some of Austria’s country programmes
are being implemented by ADA despite not having been signed off by the MFA. Accountability
would be strengthened if the present monitoring system that accounts mainly for expenses and
outputs were clearly linked with the results-based monitoring systems agreed upon by the partner
Final Report
65
countries and the donor community. ADA and the MFA could also strengthen individual
accountability through staff performance assessments that link individual objectives and results
within the staff member’s sphere of influence to the goals in the annual work plan or country
strategies.
The MFA and ADA take an informal approach to knowledge management, relying mainly on
learning from evaluations and through the training programme. MFA and ADA staff would benefit
from a more systematic approach to collecting and exchanging good practice and lessons among
co-operation offices and development partners. The MFA and ADA also need to find ways, such as
a shared interactive intranet site, to strengthen communication between both institutions across
thematic and country lines, and especially between MFA and ADA headquarters and the cooperation offices. The yearly heads of co operation meeting, currently organised by ADA, could
serve this need for exchange and institutional learning.
The Managing Director of ADA is Ambassador Brigitte Öppinger-Walchshofer. She heads a team
of about 130 staff in Vienna and spread across the ADC offices abroad. ADA's supervisory board
consists of 12 members with a four-year term of office. It advises the management and oversees
the strategic and operational alignment of the enterprise. Chairperson is Ambassador Michael
Linhart, Head of the Section for Development Cooperation at the MFA.
Twelve regional ADA offices ensure that ADA operations are based on collaborative partnership
and geared towards local conditions to maximize its effectiveness.
2.3 Other forms of implementation
n.a.
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: Main objectives/focus
In 2011, the total number of Austria’s recipient countries decreased between 2007 and 2010, from
117 to 111. Despite this, bilateral ODA is now more thinly spread throughout its recipients: the
share of Austria’s ODA allocated to its top ten recipients fell from 78% in 2007 to 45% in 2010, and
the share to its top 20 recipients dropped from 83% to 57% over the same period (OECD 2012).
Final Report
66
In line with its aim to concentrate its aid on fewer partner countries, Austria has identified seven
countries, mainly in South-East Europe, where it will phase out. Given the significant share of debt
relief in Austria’s development assistance since 2005 and notably to Iraq in 2009, few of Austria’s
priority countries make it to the list of top ten aid recipient countries, with the exception of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Serbia, Ethiopia and Uganda.
In the context of its recent ODA cuts, Austria has narrowed the number of its partner countries and
is concentrating its development co-operation on LDCs in Africa. The share of gross ODA
allocated to LDCs strongly increased between 2007 and 2010, from 6% to 33%. Austria’s gross
ODA to LDCs amounted to USD 206 million in 2010. When we consider the allocation of country
programmable aid, Austria has “signifi- cant relations” with all of its priority countries, meaning that
it provides them with more than its global share of CPA and/or is among the top donors that
cumulatively provide 90% of CPA to those countries. In addition, from 2007 to 2010 Austria was a
“significant partner” for around 79% of the countries that received its country programmable aid
(OECD 2012).
ADA concentrates on following themes:
water and sanitation
rural development
energy
private-sector development
education and science
governance
Final Report
67
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
The European Union is a major partner. In priority countries where programmes by the European
Commission and ADA complement each other, ADA administers EU-financed measures. In SouthEastern Europe, ADA takes part in administrative partnerships (twinnings) to build and develop
modern, efficient public capacities.
Final Report
68
Annex 4.2.:
AECID
Final Report
69
AGENCIA ESPAÑOLA DE COOPERACIÓN INTERNACIONAL
PARA EL DESARROLLO/SPANISH AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION/AECID
Avda. Reyes Católicos, 4
Madrid 28040 SPAIN
www.aecid.es
Type of organisation: Implementing Agency (Presided by Secretary of State for International
Cooperation and for Ibero-America/SECIPI, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation)
PN member contact points:
Javier Jiménez de Gregorio
Email: [email protected]
Tel. +34-91-583 82 50
Christian Freres
Email: [email protected]
Tel. +34-91-583-8220
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation
AECID is the main public sector organization for aid management in Spain. It is linked with the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (MAEC) through the Secretary of State for International
Cooperation and for Ibero-America (SECIPI). It has a staff of 1200 based in the HQ and in
overseas technical cooperation offices, training and cultural centres in Latin America, Africa,
Middle East and Asia. In 2011 AECID managed some 35% of Spain’s ODA (the second largest
source, after the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness which channels ODA to EU institutions,
and IFIs).
Spain’s Law 23/1998 on International Development Cooperation provides the main legal
framework for Spanish aid. The Master Plan, updated every four years, sets a comprehensive
framework for development policy, including strategic objectives, geographic and sectoral
priorities, and the roles of various players and instruments. The Parliament provides oversight,
particularly through the International Cooperation for Development Commission, a permanent body
in the Congress and - since the last legislature - also in the Senate.
The Secretariat of State for International Cooperation and Ibero-America (SECIPI) – which sits
within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (MAEC) - has the primary responsibility for
Spanish aid policy and implementation. Within SECIPI, the General Secretariat for International
Development Cooperation sets the policy, engages in strategic planning and evaluation. SECIPI
also hosts the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) that manages
Spanish Aid. As a semi-autonomous aid agency attached to MAEC it is Spain‘s principle provider
of technical cooperation, humanitarian aid, and also development loans (ODA) and the main
implementing agency for bilateral assistance; the agency has been undergoing a reform since
2009 in view of increasing its capacity for bilateral aid delivery, which is essential for
implementation of the on-going scaling up of aid.
Final Report
70
In 2011, Spain has created a new funding structure - the Fund for the Promotion of Development
(FONPRODE) – to protect development cooperation from being co-opted by other interests.
However, this fund covers only cooperation implemented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. Within the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO), the Secretary of State
of Economy manages Spanish contributions to international financial institutions and the European
Union,
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
This is an overview of the funds which AECID manages over the last few years. It not only
manages its own budget (grants) but also other Funds for loans and microcredits and a special,
grant-based Fund for Water and Sanitation in Latin America.
Euros, million
Type
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012**
AECID Budget, net ODA
Grants
921.5
906.4
861.7
850.6
366.0
FAD financial co-operation*
Loans
378.7
FONPRODE equity investments Fin. Coop.
148.5
FONPRODE grants
Grants
286.9
Microcredit Fund,
disbursements
Loans
Water and Sanitation Fund
(FCAS)
Grants
Total Managed by AECID
92.5
1,014.0
51.4
66.7
27.0
289.8
150.0
20.1
1,247.5
1,457.1
1,333.2
285.0
651.0
*FAD was substituted by FONPRODE as of 2011
** Estimates
AECID is responsible for the implementation of Spain’s development policy. It manages and
supervises approximately one-third of Spain’s bilateral ODA. AECID designs and manages
bilateral development programs and Spain’s humanitarian aid. Its budget tripled between 2004 and
in 2011 when it reached €862 million, but will sharply decrease by 56% to €379 million in 2012.
After four years of development budget increases, Spain started to cut its ODA in 2008 due to the
economic crisis. The central government’s 2012 ODA budget has been further cut by 44%
compared to 2011. Since assistance provided by Spain’s regional and local governments is also to
sharply decline, the government estimated that total net ODA in 2012 will drop to €2.4 bilion or
approximately 0.23% of GNI.
In an effort to untie ODA from Spanish commercial interests, Spain restructured its financial
cooperation and set up the Fund for Development Promotion (Fondo para la Promoción del
Desarrollo, FONPRODE) in 2010, which will channel most financial ODA flows. The FONPRODE
Act created the FONPRODE Office under the auspices of AECID and the strategic administration
of the Secretary of State for International Cooperation (SECI) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Cooperation (MAECC). FONPRODE shall ensure that no loans are given to heavily indebted poor
Final Report
71
countries (HIPC) or to basic social services sectors in least developed countries, and that only 5%
of total Spanish ODA can be channeled as loans (until 2012).6 However, in contrast to the limit,
the share of loans (as opposed to grant) disbursements sharply increased from 7% in 2007 to 16%
in 2010 due to the current budgetary pressures.
Based on the strategic regional and thematic priorities established in the 4-year Master Plan, the
distribution of ODA is determined on an annual basis (Annual Plans). First, the MAEC decides on
the amount of assistance to be channelled multilaterally and bilaterally. AECID’s Governing
Council, which includes representatives from the MAEC and AECID’s regional and sectoral
divisions, decides on allocation by region and country, but not by sectors. To increase ODA
predictability, in 2010, Spain introduced multi-annual Country Partnership Frameworks (Marcos de
Asociación País, MAP) for its priority countries, in which sector priorities and estimated annual
budget allocations are specified in coordination with partner country governments. The MAP is
implemented via non-public Annual Operational Programming Plans for each country.
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: Within the General State Administration, two ministries mainly manage
ODA. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation is responsible for development policy. It
oversees the AECID and administers contributions to non-financial international organisations, and
development aid loans. The Ministry of Economy and Finance is responsible for international and
national financial institutions An important share of Spanish ODA is provided by regional
governments and local authorities in the 17 autonomous regions, some of which have their own aid
agencies. There are three co-ordination bodies: the Inter-Territorial Development Cooperation
Commission, the Inter-ministerial Commission for International Co-operation, and the Development
Co-operation Council.
The ministries and their related bodies obtain their annual allocations in the general state budget,
which is usually presented to the parliament in October, at latest, for approval at the end of
December. The budget proposal includes a three-year income and expenditure scenario.
Planning at operational level: Planning tools include the Master Plan, the Yearly International
Cooperation Plan (PACI), policy/sector strategy papers and country strategy papers. The Master
Plan is a 4-year indicative plan that sets the general guidelines for strategy and aid allocations.
The PACI develops the strategic goals and intervention criteria of the Master Plan and specifies
the horizontal, sectoral and geographic priorities as well as the intervention channels. Final
versions of the country strategies are presented in the parliament once they have been reviewed
by co-ordinating bodies. Once the strategic planning process is completed, AECID prepares
annual operational plans and determines projects, programmes and their estimated budgets in
Joint Commissions with recipient countries.
Within the legal framework of the new Law 28/2006, AECID has greater autonomy in the planning
and allocation of resources. The regulatory framework sets out a 4-year management agreement
between AECID and the public administration which includes a multi-annual results-based budget.
Availability of forward information:
Final Report
72
In October, information on the budget for the following fiscal year becomes publicly available.
A system of multi-annual financial envelopes has been implemented in 2009.
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
Data from 2010 (% of AECID’s own budget)
Via International Organizations.
19.3%
Via NGDOs
31.4%
Budget support
Others (scholarships, projects, programs, technical cooperation)
7.1%
42.2%
2.2. Implementation management
Almost all interventions are identified in the field office through dialogue with partner countries
(both governmental and non-governmental actors), except for NGDO grants (proposed by Spanish
NGDOs in collaboration with local partners), multi-bilateral aid (negotiated between AECID and
International Organization, often with inputs from field offices, with varying levels of dialogue with
partner countries). The decisions for interventions are taken at HQ level, given the fact that AECID
is relatively centralized.
AECID supervises some 42 technical cooperation offices in partner countries, 19 cultural centres
and four training centres. To date, AECID has increased the powers of offices in partner countries
so that they can better respond to partner demands.
2.3. Other forms of implementation
In 2011, with the creation of FONPRODE which provided it with an important financial cooperation
instrument, AECID has started to use blending, primarily through EU financial facilities in Latin
America. In 2011, one operation with LAIF was approved in El Salvador (rural roads) and in 2012
two LAIF operations were approved in Nicaragua and Central America (water and sanitation).
These operations involve collaboration with other entities such as the IDB, EIB and the BCIE.
AECID set up a special unit to promote working more closely with the private sector. It has signed
agreements with some companies and foundations and has initiated several pilot public-private
partnerships.
With regards to triangular cooperation, AECID is the third most important donor involved in this
modality in Latin America. It began its triangular operations in 2005 with a strong focus on Latin
America although several initiatives link countries in this region with others in Africa.
Delegated cooperation: AECID began to carry out delegated cooperation in 2009. Between 2009
and 2011 it mainly delegated to other bilaterals such as Netherlands and GIZ. In 2011 BTC and
LuxDev decided to delegate operations to AECID in Peru and Nicaragua, respectively. In July
Final Report
73
2011 the Commission accredited AECID. As a result, in 2012 six operations in Latin America were
approved (one of which began already).
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: Main objectives/focus
Spain traditionally has a bilateral focus on Latin America, as well as on North Africa and the Middle
East (MENA). Although Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has become more relevant over the past years,
the current government is reprioritizing Latin America to align development cooperation more
strongly with Spain’s foreign policy and economic interests.
AECID follows the main sector priorities defined in the Master Plans. In the latest Plan (the 4th), the
approach has changed from a sector focus to one based on broader development objectives which
are often multi- or trans-sectorial in nature. In its practice AECID has stressed social sectors and
governance, with special attention to gender equality and cultural diversity.
With regards to geographical priorities the IV Master Plan for 2013-2016 indicates 23 partnership
countries. 12 in Latin America and the Caribbean (Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay Peru and the Dominican Republic); 4 in North
Africa and Middle East (Mauritania, Morocco, The Saharawi Population and the Palestinian
Territories); 6 in Sub Saharan Africa (, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Mozambique, Niger and
Senegal) and 1 in Asia (Philippines). AECID will close offices in over 20 countries over the next 4
years although it will continue to work with several key partners in Latin America and North Africa
through various means. AECID also coordinates several regional cooperation programmes in
Central America, Andean region, Mercosur and Western Africa.
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
See table in Annex
4.2. Selected examples of successes/failure of joint cooperation, main obstacles of
the “joint implementation”
AECID has not carried out a systematic analysis of its joint implementation so we cannot speak of
clear examples of successes or failures. With regards to obstacles, from our experience two
aspects can be highlighted: different procedures and variations in timing for decision-making. In
the first case, this has come out in several delegated cooperation operations with PN member
agencies; although these tend to be much more flexible than the European Commission, this may
end up being a problem since administrative and legal requirements on both sides may make it
hard to carry out the activity in the original period agreed to. Second, we have found that the
decision cycles differ so that important delays are incurred.
Final Report
74
ANNEX:
List of projects in which AECID collaborates with other PN members
Country
Aument
delegated/
transferred
Sectors
Existing cooperation with other PN
members (PN name and sector), type of
cooperation
Africa
Cape Verde
Environment
ADA delegated to AECID for technical
cooperation related to national strategy
(2010-2011)
500,000 euro
Governance; support to
civil society
Project approved for AECID to delegate to
European Commission (has not begun yet)
Bangladesh
1 M euro
Gender/access to justice
AECID delegated to GIZ (2011-12)
Cambodia
3 M euro
Gender/access to justice
AECID delegated to GIZ (2011-13)
900,000 euro
Decentralization
AECID delegated to GIZ (2011-13)
Peru
2 M euro
Governance/human
rights
BTC delegated to AECID (2011-13), within
a donor basket fund
Nicaragua
575,000 euro
Water and sanitation
LuxDev delegated to AECID (2011-13)
Bolivia
450,000 euro
Administration of Justice
European Commission delegated to AECID
(2012-2013), Stability Instrument
Cuba
1.3 M euro
Food security
European Commission delegated to AECID
(2013-), DCI
Nicaragua
8 M euro
Governance (security)
European Commission delegated to AECID
(2013-), DCI
Nicaragua
12 Meuro
Education
European Commission delegated to AECID
(2013-), DCI
SICA (Cent.
12.7 M euro
Amer. Integration
System)
Governance (security)
European Commission delegated to AECID
(2013-), DCI
Dominican
Republic
2.3 M euro
Education
European Commission delegated to AECID
(2013-), DCI-budget support
El Salvador
4.16 Meuro
Transportation: rural road LAIF (loan component: 50 M euro), with coconstruction
financing by IADB (2012- )
Nicaragua
50 M euro
Water and Sanitation
LAIF (loan component: 125 M euro; AECID
provides 74 M euro in grants), with cofinancing by BCIE and EIB (2013- )
LAC region
15 M euro
Water and Sanitation
LAIF (loan component: 300 M euro by
IADC; AECID provides 300 M euro in
grants), (2013- )
Angola
Asia
Middle East
Jordan
Latin America
and Caribbean
Final Report
75
Annex 4.3.:
AFD
Final Report
76
Agence Française de Développement
AFD is a public finance institution and the main implementing agency for France’s official
development assistance to developing countries and overseas territories. AFD works with central
and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and public and private enterprises to
finance and implement development projects. A subsidiary, Proparco, is dedicated to private sector
development.
Contact point: Nils Meyer: +33 1 53 44 39 77, [email protected]
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation
AFD is the main implementing agency for France’s official development assistance (“acteur pivot”
de la cooperation française). AFD’s contribution makes up 31% of France’s development
assistance (ODA).
The strategic orientation board was created in June 2009. It oversees both preparation and
execution of the “means and objectives” contract that binds AFD to the French state. The board
prepares the state’s guidelines before they are presented to AFD’s board of governors, in
accordance with decisions made by the Interministerial Council for Cooperation and Development.
The Minister of Cooperation presides over the strategic orientation board, which includes
representatives from those supervisory ministries that also hold seats on AFD’s board of
governors.
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
AFD Approval by types of funding in 2011 (total: 6.883 M € commitments, including Overseas and
Proparco):
Loans: 5.789 M €
Guarantees: 325.7 M €
HIPC Initiative and Budget support: 319.3 M €
Grants and Subsidies: 311.3 M €
Equity: 138.2 M €
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: The Inter-ministerial Committee for International Cooperation and
Development (CICID) defines development cooperation policies and identifies the area of
concentration (“zone de solidarité prioritaire”, ZSP). The CICID is chaired by the Prime Minister
Final Report
77
and embraces the 12 ministries most directly concerned with development issues. CICID is
supported by the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs (MAEE) and the Ministry for Economy,
Finance and Employment (MINEFE) and, from January 2008, the Ministry for Immigration,
Integration, National Identity and Co-operative Development.
All programmes involving ODA covered by the budget law are grouped together in a
comprehensive policy document. The draft budget law is submitted in September to the National
Assembly, which has 70 days to adopt it. The two main programmes that constitute ODA
(programmes 110 and 209) and, since 2007 programme 301 (development for solidarity and
migrations), represent an inter-ministerial mission’ that is presented in an integrated format in the
budget law. Programme 110 (economic and financial aid to development) is managed by the
MINEFE, programme 209 (solidarity with developing countries) by the MAEE, and programme 301
by the Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Co-operative Development. These
programmes include bilateral and multilateral financing. The fiscal year begins on 1 January.
Planning at operational level: AFD is the pivotal operator for bilateral assistance in sectors related
directly to the Millennium Development Goals and for implementing global budgetary assistance.
AFD reports jointly to MINEFE and MAEE. Programme implementation also involves France’s
representatives in the partner countries (diplomatic offices, co-operation and cultural action
services, research centres). The main instrument for programming assistance to the ZSP countries
is the Partnership Framework Document (DCP). The framework presents the indicative financing
envelope for French support, by sector of intervention, and spells out agreed activities over a fiveyear period. The frameworks are negotiated with the partner countries and confirmed in the
“Strategic Orientation and Programming Conference”. The DCP is the key tool of the French Action
Plan for aid effectiveness.
Availability of forward information:
Information on the ODA budget is available in the draft budget law submitted in September. France
has adopted a three-year finance law (2009-2011) that gives medium- term indicative ODA
volumes.
At partner country level, multiyear ODA forecasts are contained in the indicative five- year
Partnership Framework Document including a mid-term review of results.
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of
AFD finances development projects and programmes through a specialized range of financial
instruments, tailored to the needs of aid recipients. The principal funding tools of the AFD Group
(AFD and Proparco) include:
Loans: AFD provides (1) “sovereign” loans to national governments and to state-guaranteed public
entities and (2) “non-sovereign” loans to private sector companies and public or private sector
entities without state backing.
Final Report
78
Grants and Subsidies: AFD provides grants and subsidies for high-impact projects – particularly in
healthcare and education – that do not generate sufficient profit over the short or medium term to
pay back market-rate loans. AFD prioritizes grants to the poorest African countries. AFD also
provides grants and subsidies to nongovernmental organizations to fund their projects.
Guarantees: AFD provides credit guarantees that can motivate commercial bank lending to third
parties – especially small and medium-size businesses – for capital investment, job creation and
projects with positive environmental impacts.
Private Equity: A specialized investment capital team at Proparco manages most of the AFD
Group’s equity stakes. These investments provide companies and financial institutions with the
funding they require for their long-term growth.
AFD also offers technical assistance to aid recipients to ensure that funded projects perform as
well as possible. Such assistance takes many forms: transferring knowledge and building local
capacities, helping institutions arrange financing and manage projects, improving administrative
and management functions, and paying for experts and consultants, among other contributions.
2.2. Implementation management
Local project owner presents a funding application to the nearest AFD’s field office (or bureau).
Degree of decentralisation: High. The AFD office identifies projects and verifies that they fall under
the agency’s intervention strategy. No matter who – or what – the project owner or the type of
funding requested, AFD follows exactly the same project selection and approval process.
Final Report
79
2.3. Other forms of implementation
Cofinancing and blending (« mixage prêt don ») have gained in recent years a great momentum.
They demonstrate the degree of cooperation and coordination of donors and donor agencies, and
AFD has greatly taken part in this dynamic. In 2012, about 40% of newly committed projects
(number and volumes) are co-financed by other donor agencies. Major infrastructure investments
are at the core of this exercise, as they require significant funding that a single financier will not be
able to cover alone. SSA is accounting for more than half of the co-financing projects. The
European Commission, via its financing instruments (blending, delegated cooperation), and the
EIB are the co-financier number 1 for AFD, followed by the Word Bank Group, the Asian
Development Bank and KfW.
AFD has a number of partnerships and private public relations with the private sector, just to name
a few of them: the Network IMS Entreprendre pour la cité (Federation of 230 enterprises
committed to social business), Care France (partner for developing PPP towards BoP « bottom of
the pyramid »), the Fund Danone.communities, ESSEC business school and others.
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: Main objectives/focus :
According to the “Contrat d’objectifs et de moyens Etat/AFD 2011-2013” and “Projet d’orientations
stratégiques 2012-2016 » , AFD deploys France’s aid monies as grants and loan subsidies,
concentrating :
60% of it in sub- Saharan African countries – prioritizing the poorest nations (target: 80 % of the
French Foreign Aid allocated to AFD must be delivered in the 14 Africans poorest countries1)
20% in North African and Middle Eastern countries bordering the Mediterranean.
max. 10% of the “budgetary effort”: Middle-income and emerging countries benefit from large loans
that use few or no public aid monies.
Fragile States: 10 % of the French grant.
Sectoral Concentration by geography:
Africa: Agriculture and Food security, Infrastructures and Urban Development, Private Sector and
Inclusive Growth, Basic Services (Health, Education, W/S).
Mediterranean Countries: Inclusive Growth – Employment (SME support, microfinance, Financial
sector promotion, agriculture, Vocational Training); Urban and Social Cohesion; Well-being/Quality
of Life (Water, Food Security, Energy).
1
Bénin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Comores, Djibouti, Ghana, Guinée Conakry, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritanie,
Niger, République Démocratique du Congo, République Centrafricaine, Rwanda, Sénégal, Tchad, Togo.
Final Report
80
Asia: Climate Change; Renewable Energy; Energy Efficiency; Sustainable Management of Forests
and Soils; Adaptation and Reduction of Vulnerabilities.
Latin America: Sustainable Development (national and regional levels); Management of Natural
Resources and conservation of Biodiversity; Climate Change; Urban policies (Inclusiveness).
Objective:
50 % of the annual approvals are dedicated to Climate Change. (30% Proparco).
Data 2011 (approvals):
Final Report
81
3.2. Activities per country/sector
Not available
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
KfW: through blending mechanisms (Infrastructures Trust Fund for Africa, Neighbourhood
Investment Facility and other regional facilities); The Mutual Reliance Initiative (donor alignment
via mutual recognition of procedures); within the European Platform EUBEC; staff exchange;
IDFC.
AECID: Blending (Latin America Investment Facility – Mexico). Morocco: Co-financing
arrangements in the sectors of Health and Education. AECID: Contribution to the African
Agriculture Fund.
GIZ: Mainly through “Delegated Cooperation”: GIZ is delegatee in Pakistan and South Sudan, and
a Partnership agreement on professional training (in 2009 enlarged to become tripartite with
LuxDev); in April 2012, a benchmarking mission undertaken by AFD.
DFID: institutional partnership DfID-MAE-AFD; delegated cooperation in Indonesia and the Sahel.
LuxDev: see above at GIZ on professional training.
European Commission: see above chapter 2.3 on blending and delegated cooperation.
Final Report
82
Annex 4.4.:
Belgian Development Agency - BTC
Final Report
83
BTC Belgian Development Agency
PN member contact point: Régine Debrabandere, Manager International Services:
[email protected], Tel: +32 2 505 37 57; +32 496 590100
PN member contact point for the study on improved cooperation: Mario Goethals, OPS Manager:
[email protected], Tel: +32 2 505 3761
BTC is a public-law company with social purposes and the Belgian development agency for
technical cooperation.
Ministry in charge for the Belgian development cooperation: Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs,
Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation - Directorate General for Development Cooperation.
The Minister of Development Cooperation is BTC’s General Assembly.
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation
BTC supports and provides guidance to development programmes. The main commissioner of
BTC is the Belgian State (87% of its turnover). Duties and rights of both parties are put down in a
management contract. The 4th management contract is under final negotiation. The Directorate
General for Development Cooperation of the Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade
and Development Cooperation and BTC collaborate closely, among others via a joint management
committee at HQ level that meets regularly and coordination meetings in the partner countries. In
the 18 partner countries they are respectively represented by the Attaché for Development
Cooperation and by the Resident Representative of BTC.
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
2011: € 253 Million turnover, of which: € 218 million direct bilateral cooperation, € 22 million from
delegated cooperation and co-financing of third parties (rest for transport, logistic, etc.)
1421 employees (in total, international + local, Headquarter and Field
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: The General Directorate for Development Cooperation (DGDC), which
is part of the Federal Public Service of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Development Cooperation, manages the bulk (around 55%) of Belgium’s ODA. The Federal Public Service Finance
manages about 11% of ODA, including government-to-government loans, while the National
Ducroire Office (the official trade and investment insurance agency) handles debt issues. The
Final Report
84
regions, the communities, the provinces and a great number of communes account for an
additional 4% of ODA. Belgium prepares an integrated development co-operation budget. It
includes budgetary items that formerly appeared in the budgets of other departments. However,
the budget for co-operation loans is still organisationally distinct.
Planning at operational level: Belgium’s bilateral assistance is provided through both direct and
indirect cooperation channels. Direct assistance is governed by specific cooperation agreements
between governments. The programmes are prepared and financed by the DGDC, but are carried
out by the public corporation, BTC. Indirect aid consists of programmes co-financed by the DGDC,
but prepared and implemented by NGOs, universities and scientific institutions, trade unions, etc..
The law of 25 May 1999 instituted the principle of geographic and sectoral concentration for
government-to-government bilateral aid. Belgium has 18 partner countries and concentrates its aid
within each country on a limited number of sectors.
The cooperative relations between Belgium and its bilateral cooperation partner countries are
governed by joint commissions, which adopt the Indicative Cooperation Programmes (PICs/ISPs).
The joint commissions meet normally every three or four years. At the end of each session, a
financial envelope is determined as the basis for preparing cooperation programmes, leading to
the signing of specific cooperation agreements.
From 2009, multilateral support will only be planned and disbursed as core/non-earmarked
contributions to multilateral organisations. Via the bilateral envelope, multilateral organisations can
still receive funds for specific programmes in partner countries.
Availability of forward information:
Multi-year country envelopes are available in the Indicative Co-operation Programmes.
Belgium’s budget is presented to the parliament by the end of October for approval no later than
31 December.
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
Projects and programmes:
Belgium provides mainly project and programme support, following a reduced set of execution
modalities. In the spirit of the Paris Declaration, the challenge for Belgium is to evolve towards a
more flexible mix of modalities and meanwhile using the whole range of tools, including a larger
share of budget support and NEX national execution. The fact that Belgium allocates an important
part of its aid to vulnerable states forms a special challenge with respect to alignment.
Scholarships:
Belgium integrates scholarships and traineeship grants for partner country nationals in its
development cooperation. These grants offer the possibility to different actors to increase their
professional competencies and capacities through university (master and doctorate) studies or
through internships and travel trips. These opportunities are offered in the country of origin, in
other partner countries or in Belgium. In 2011, the budget for the Scholarships and Traineeship
Grants programme amounted to 19.2 million euros. In 2010, the Belgian Development Cooperation
Final Report
85
decided to change the strategy of the grants programme and to move away from individual grants
to focus on the organisational capacity development of institutions benefiting of bilateral
cooperation. The new programme is called ‘Training grants for institutional capacity development’.
2.2. Implementation management
Even though Belgium fully subscribes to the principles of the Paris Declaration, a considerable part
of development aid still is in the form of project / programme support. Projects follow a four-phase
cycle: identification, formulation, execution and evaluation.
The identification describes the general context of the project, the location, the needs and the form
of cooperation, as well as the budget and the duration of the project. The partner country is
politically and legally responsible for identification.
The formulation is the detailed project description. It verifies the conclusions of the identification,
describes the technical and financial feasibility of the project and the quantitative and qualitative
data that are needed to execute the project. BTC has the exclusive competence to formulate
projects in consultation with the partner country.
The execution is performed by BTC and the partner country.
The evaluation usually is conducted two to three years after the end of the project by the Special
Evaluation Office of the Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development
Cooperation.
BTC no longer executes the micro-projects programme
In 2011, BTC had country offices in the following countries: Algeria, Benin, Bolivia, Burundi, DR
Congo, Ecuador, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Palestine, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, South
Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Vietnam.
In 2011, BTC also was active in Cambodia, Tunisia and Lebanon.
There are 210 staff employed at the head office and 272 expats, in 2011. The increase since 2010
can be partially attributed to the higher number of Junior Assistants. On 31 December 2011, a total
of 939 local BTC staff members work in the partner countries, of which 200 work in BTC Country
offices.
2.3. Other forms of implementation
Example of triangular cooperation MLI - AFD exist
BTC is not involved yet in any blending activity, but intends to strengthen its ties with the Belgian
Investment Company for Developing Countries (BIO) http://www.bio-invest.be/
Belgium has distinct approach towards delegated cooperation, both passive as active.
Final Report
86
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: Main objectives/focus
Belgian development cooperation aims to achieve sustainable human development. This aim is to
be achieved by fighting poverty and strengthening democracy and the constitutional state. The
partner countries are chosen because they rank among the poorest countries in the world or
because Belgium has many years’ experience in the field of development cooperation there.
2011 Sector distribution:
20% health
19% water and sanitation
18 % agriculture and rural development
11% governance
8% energy
6% education
BTC intervenes in 17 sectors, six of which are priority sectors, namely health, agriculture, water,
good governance, energy and education. These six sectors take up 81% of the total amount of
expenditure.
45% of BTC budget is spent in vulnerably countries and fragile states.
X % of BTC budget is spent in MIC middle income countries
18 countries, 54% in Central Africa
Central Africa, 54%
West Africa 16%
North Africa & Palestinian territories 14%
Latin America 6%
Asia 4%
East Africa 3%
Southern Africa 3%
Grand total 199,072,919
3.2. Activities per country/sector
€ 200 million in 2011, see BTC Annual Report 2011 page 23 (total and %)
Final Report
87
Agriculture and rural development = ARD
Health care= H
Climate and environment = CE
Water & sanitation = WS
Education = E
Governance and Decentralisation = GD
Gender = G
Social and solidarity economy = SSE
Country
Total expenditure per
country in €
Sectors (see BTC country Existing cooperation with other PN
website)
members (PN name and sector),
type of cooperation (see AR p. 31)
Algeria
4,453 million = 2%
CE, ARD
Benin
10,657 million = 5%
ARD, H
Bolivia
6,357 million = 3%
H, WS
Burundi
22 million = 11%
ARD, WS, E, H, GD, SSE Delegation Agreement with NL
DR Congo
53,73 million = 27%
ARD, H, E GD, SSE, WS In the past years cooperation with
EU, NL, UK
Ecuador
2,263 million = 1%
ARD, E, H, WS
cooperation with LUX
Mali
7,511 million = 4%
ARD, GD
EU: regional development, € 6
million
Morocco
14,5 million = 7%
ARD, WS
Mozambique
4,89 million = 2%
CE, ARD, GD
Niger
6,37 million = 3%
ARD, H, WS, G, GD
Palestinian
Territories
6,73 million = 3%
E, GD, H
Peru
2,94 million = 1%
SSE, CE, ARD
Rwanda
33,147 million = 17%
ARD, E, H, CE, G
Senegal
7,3 million = 4%
ARD, WS, H, GD
South Africa
??
H, ARD
Cooperation phasing out by 2015
Tanzania
3,5 million = 2%
ARD, SSE, CE, WS, H,
GD
Delegation Agreement with EU in
preparation
Uganda
2,77 million = 1%
H, E, CE, GD
EU Water & sanitation (ended 2012)
Vietnam
6,49 million = 3%
WS, E, GD
Final Report
Delegation Agreement with EU
Delegation Agreement with NL
Delegation Agreement with EU in
preparation
Delegation Agreement with EU
88
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
Our mission clearly states that we support and provide guidance to development programmes for
the Belgian state but also for other commissioners, other bilateral or multilateral donors. We work
together with our partners by making available expertise, personnel and financial resources.
BTC has a specific department that is to fulfil its mission for donors other than the Belgian State:
International Services (IS). IS is part of the Operations directorate since 2011. BTC‘s mission
clearly states that it supports and provides guidance to development programmes for the Belgian
state but also for other commissioners, other bilateral or multilateral donors. BTC makes available
expertise, personnel and financial resources. IS establishes strategic alliances to strengthen the
Belgian bilateral development cooperation in a multi-donor setting in the partner countries and the
concentration sectors of the Belgian Development Cooperation. By offering BTC's expertise to its
partners, the IS approach meets the demands of the international agenda on aid effectiveness and
division of labour. Development cooperation tasks that are entrusted to BTC by third parties (e.g.
European Union, World Bank, DFID) amounted to 12 Mio EUR in 2008, 18 Mio EUR in 2009, 23
Mio EUR in 2010, and 22 Mio EUR in 2011.
2011 has been a year of transition. Many IS services were nearing their conclusion. In comparison
to previous years, BTC has signed fewer new IS contracts. It has been a strategic choice to first
strengthen the execution of the bilateral portfolio before adding new acquisitions. Moreover,
lessons learned from interventions for other donors in DRC have brought BTC to be more careful
in managing multi-donor services, which often are more complex. With opportunities developed in
Benin under implementation contracts to be signed in 2012, IS has achieved its objective of
developing an interventions portfolio for others that amounts to 10% of the bilateral budget. A total
of 56 IS opportunities were registered in 2011. About half of these opportunities were brought to a
good end and a few opportunities were reported 'highly likely' for 2012.
The European Commission remains the major donor. For 2012 diversification of donors, targeted
acquisitions and a smoother start-up of projects are needed. Also, on the long term, the acquisition
of active delegated cooperation interventions (directly through DGD or indirectly through BTC)
must be planned.
4.2. Selected examples of successes/failure of joint cooperation, main obstacles of
the “joint implementation”
Selected examples of successes/failure of joint cooperation:
Ad hoc
Joint Programming is under leadership of our political authorities, the role for BTC still to be
specified.
Synchronization with project cycle of the partner country
Administrative burden
Final Report
89
More work, yet we want more results
DGD director P.Moors confirmed on 12/12/12 EU DG's meeting, the participation of BEL in Joint
Programming Algeria, Bolivia, Burundi, Senegal and Tanzania.
Belgium is and remains an active participant and supporter of joint programming. This commitment
was, amongst others, confirmed in the new (draft) law on development cooperation.
However, the added value of the joint programming exercise needs to be evaluated thoroughly on
a country-by-country basis, taking into account the interest and capacities of the partner country,
the existing EU / non-EU coordination structures and mechanisms and the commitment by the
other EU MS. Alignment on the national development plans and cycles and the active participation
of the partner country must remain the precondition for launching JP in a country.
Belgium confirms its participation to the JP exercise in the proposed list of countries when the
possibility and opportunity exists.
Belgium commits itself to participate in the process of aligning the programme cycles to the ones of
the partner countries so as to synchronize with the EU.
Belgium also reconfirms its commitment to sectoral concentration in partner countries, as agreed in
the Code of Conduct.
Belgium proposes to establish a link between the JP process and the progress made on joint
results frameworks. Joint programming should not be limited to the development of a joint analysis
and response, but also include a joint results framework and joint evaluations.
Main obstacles of the “joint implementation”:
Political commitment?
Only for non-core projects?
More easy to work among bilaterals without EU COM
Example positif de mutualisation des efforts au Maroc :
MOR1104111 « Appui au programme national d’assainissement liquide (APNA)»
Dans le cadre de l'harmonisation de l'aide au Maroc, il est prévu une mutualisation de l'assistance
technique avec le financement des bailleurs européens (AFD, KfW, BEI, UE). L'assistance
technique à maîtrise d'œuvre, financé dans le cadre du cofinancement des bailleurs européens
concerne également les centres pour lesquels les travaux sont financés par la Coopération belge
dans le cadre de l'APNA. En contrepartie, l'API\JA prend en charge les campagnes de
sensibilisation/communication pour les centres financés dans le cadre du cofinancement des
bailleurs européens. Les responsabilités de l'assistance technique à maîtrise d'œuvre sont
décrites dans le Manuel de Procédures AFD/ONEP et dans les TdR sur base desquels l'AT/MO
est contractualisée par l'ONEP dans le cadre du cofinancement des bailleurs européens.
Une série de mesures d'accompagnement est prévue dans le cadre du cofinancement des
bailleurs européens. Celles-ci concernent des appuis ponctuels relatifs aux besoins de centres
particuliers, des appuis pilotes ou à caractère plus général sur des problématiques techniques.
Dans le cadre de la mutualisation de l'Assistance technique, l'APNA prendra en charge les
activités d'animation et de communication requises dans les centres financés par le cofinancement
Final Report
90
des bailleurs européens. Ces activités sont mises en œuvre selon la modalité" régie belge» et sont
décrites dans le DTF annexé à la Convention spécifique. Dans le cadre du cofinancement des
bailleurs européens l'ONEP a désigné un coordinateur pour l'ensemble du Programme, cette
désignation a été approuvée par l'AFD. La responsabilité de ce Coordinateur sera étendue au
programme financé par la Belgique dans le cadre de l'APNA.
Final Report
91
Annex 4.5.:
CzDA
Final Report
92
Czech Development Agency - CzDA
PN contact point: Martin Naprstek ([email protected]), phone: +420251108130
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation
The Czech Development Agency is an implementing body of the Czech Development Cooperation
primarily focused on design and execution of bilateral development projects. The Czech
development Agency (CzDA) was established by a decision of the Czech Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (MFA) and has been in operation since January 1, 2008. The agency reports to the MFA.
The MFA formulates the principles and strategies of Czech development policy and gives opinions
on development aspects of other government policies. Since 2008, development projects are
planned and implemented through the Czech Development Agency. A crucial role vis-à-vis policy
coherence for development is fulfilled by the inter-ministerial Council for Development
Cooperation. In cooperation with the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also
coordinates the Czech Republic’s foreign humanitarian aid.
The main tasks of CzDA are to identify, formulate, implement and monitor projects in priority
partner countries, to award grants to NGOs and to conduct professional training for Czech ODA
staff.
Final Report
93
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
The Czech Republic’s bilateral ODA in 2011 stood at CZK 1.36 billion; the volume of multilateral
ODA was CZK 3.09 billion. Overall, the Czech Republic spent a total of CZK 4.42 billion (ca. €175
million). In 2012, the total ODA reached CZK 4.27 billion.
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
Programms, projects, scholarships
Overview of criteria among priority countries with a cooperation programme: Priority country,
Intensity of bilateral relations, Country category (OECD/DAC), Human Development index (UNDP)
ranking among 182 countries, Existence of a poverty reduction strategy paper, Corruption
Perceptions Index (Transparency International) ranking among 180 countries, Respect for human
rights and freedoms (Freedom House), The Czech Republic’s position among other donors in the
country, ODA per capita
CzDA provided partner countries with 56 public tenders (53%), 54 bilateral donation programs
(41%) and 7 budgetary measures (6%) in 2012. The Czech Republic does not use any financial
tools to support private sector.
Bilateral development projects are a pivotal form of Czech development cooperation. The Czech
Republic is keen to focus on technical cooperation, where it can put its comparative advantages to
better use. In some cases, investment (infrastructure) projects may be more appropriate, but
bearing in mind the resources at the Czech Republic’s disposal, the focus always be on the
development of local communities and their needs. Projects will be awarded through public
procurement and grants.
Trilateral development projects or project co-financing with other donors, including the European
Commission, is a beneficial form of development cooperation. The co-financing of development
activities allows Czech entities to strengthen their capacities and exercise their comparative
advantages in new territories and sectors. Trilateral projects will continue to be supported under
the MFA/CDA grant scheme.
The Czech Government is legally restricted from engaging in budget support. The Czech Republic
prefers other forms of assistance, which, in view of its position as a smaller donor, it believes to be
more efficient and more beneficial. It is also keen to provide development cooperation through its
own practitioners, thus improving their skills and increasing their prospects of involvement in future
development activities at an international level, including development projects financed by EU
funds. The Czech Republic’s position on delegated cooperation is currently similar to its position
on budget support: it prefers other forms of development assistance.
Final Report
94
2.2. Implementation management
Projects are designed in accordance with results based management principles and the standard
project cycle.
Projects are identified and formulated in close cooperation with institutions of the partner countries.
Implementation is tendered through companies, NGOs and academia. The Czech Government is
legally restricted from using partner countries’ procurement systems. Employees of Czech
missions will also work in favour of Czech entities seeking to implement EU development projects.
The presence of Czech missions in a particular country has been shown to be essential: in the
absence of resident diplomatic representation, the effectiveness of development cooperation is
severely diminished.
2.3. Other forms of implementation
Officially supported Export Credits, direct budget support, delegated cooperation: not in practice,
other forms of development assistance are preferred
Businesses as well as other non-state entities can take part in CzDA tenders to become
contractors in Czech bilateral ODA projects
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: Main objectives/focus
Czech Development Agency realizes development projects in selected partner countries in
accordance with the Development cooperation strategy 2010 – 2017 and also with the Plan of
Development cooperation for 2013 which determine the budgets allocated to each topic and each
project.
Priority countries of Czech development cooperation are divided into three categories: programme
countries (5 countries with the specific program of cooperation), project countries (5 countries with
single cooperation projects) and 3 so called „phase-out“ countries in which the Czech
Development Cooperation ends gradually.
The precise division of countries to the three groups is as follows:
Programme countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Moldova, Mongolia
Project countries: Cambodia, Georgia, Kosovo, Palestine, Serbia
Other countries (phasing out): Vietnam, Zambia, Yemen
General CzDA priority sectors: The Promotion of democracy, human rights and social
transformation; Economic development (including energy), Social development (including
education, social and health services), Agriculture, Environment.
Final Report
95
3.2. In 2013 still ongoing or upcoming activities (starting in 2013) per country/sector
Country
Total ODA Sectors
Volume per
country
Afghanistan
education, agriculture, business and other
services
Bosnia &
Herzegovina
agriculture, energy, water supply/sanitation,
health, environment, government and civil
society
Cambodia
health , energy, other social infrastructure
and services
Ethiopia
education, health, water supply and
sanitation, agriculture, disaster prevention
and preparedness
Georgia
environment, health, energy, other social
infrastructure and services, agriculture,
government and civil society
Kosovo
education, water supply /sanitation, other
social infrastructure and services
Moldova
environment, other social infrastructure and
services, government and civil society,
education, water supply and sanitation,
agriculture
Mongolia
energy, water supply and sanitation,
agriculture, social infrastructure and
services, education, business and other
Palestine
energy, water supply and sanitation,
agriculture
Serbia
business and other, energy, water
supply/sanitation, health
Vietnam
other social infrastructure and services,
industry, energy, water supply/sanitation
Yemen
education
Zambia
other social infrastructure and services,
education, health, agriculture
Final Report
Existing cooperation with other
PN members (PN name and
sector), type of cooperation
ADA/EU/SDC - water and
sanitation supply
GIZ – water and sanitation
supply
96
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
4.2. Selected examples of successes/failure of joint cooperation, main obstacles of
the “joint implementation”
Within the EU and on a broader international scale, the Czech Republic will actively promote the
integration of development cooperation into political dialogue with other major donors (most
notably the US, as well as Japan and other OECD countries). An important task will be the
ongoing, systemic promotion of the greater participation of Czech entities in development
cooperation financed from EU external assistance funds, especially the ENPI, DCI and EDF.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, together with other departments (the Ministry of Industry and Trade
and Ministry of Finance), CzDA, CzechTrade, business federations and the non-profit sectors, will
take part in the preparation and implementation of actions related to the provision of information
and practical guides for Czech entities that are interested in implementing EU development
projects. CzDA aims at being engaged in more joint interventions with other donors, ready to fulfil
Czech Republic‘s role of becoming the supporting facilitator of EU development cooperation in
Moldova and Mongolia.
Final Report
97
Annex 4.6.:
UK Department for International Development
DFID
Final Report
98
UK Department for International Development - DFID
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation (role of the member in the bilateral cooperation system of the
member state)
DFID is responsible for policy and implementation.
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
According to OECD figures, the UK was the 2nd largest European donor in 2011, spending £8.1
billion in net official development assistance (ODA), or 0.56% of UK Gross National Income (GNI).
UK ODA is primarily channelled through DFID. The UK has made a strong commitment to meet
the 0.7% target by 2013 and its budget projections are in line with this target, even despite a recent
announcement that the overall development budget will be cut by £1.16 billion for 2012—2015,
compared to original projections.
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: The UK has an annual development cooperation budget with a financial
year running from April to March. The Chancellor of the Exchequer usually presents the budget in
March for parliamentary approval before the beginning of the financial year. Forward planning is
based on the Treasury’s Spending Reviews and the Public Service Agreements (PSA). The former
defines the limits for government departments’ expenditures and the latter the key results of the
expenditure, over a period of three years. Spending Reviews are usually carried out every third
year, and a Comprehensive Spending Review every ten years.
Planning at operational level: DFID’s operational plans, which include internal divisional plans as
well as regional and country operational plans which are developed in 5-year cycles. At country
level, operational plans are developed by country office staff in negotiation with national ministries,
to reflect local needs and priorities as well as high-level DFID objectives. The country operational
plans articulate a strategy for DFID’s bilateral programming and what intended results will be
achieved. Within these plans, country offices are then able to determine an appropriate funding
approach, whether through projects and partnerships with international or local organisations, or
through general budget support to governments.
Availability of forward information:
Next year’s overall budget for development co-operation is available usually in March, when the
Chancellor of the Exchequer presents the budget.
Forward information of the budget framework over the medium term is contained in the Spending
Reviews
UK is an initiator and major supporter of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).
Final Report
99
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
DFID’s statistics for the fiscal year 2010/11 show that bilateral cooperation is delivered mostly
through country programs (67% in 2010/11). Country programs manage direct funding to
governments through Poverty Reduction Budget Support (PRBS) classified as either general or
sector specific. PRBS accounts for about 15% of country program budgets. Country programs also
manage “other financial cooperation” channeled through Sector Wide Approaches (SWAps) not
classified as PRBS, humanitarian assistance and technical cooperation.
The remainder of DFID’s bilateral assistance is managed by its policy and international program
which includes contributions to international and domestic non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), multilateral organizations or multi-donor funds earmarked for a specific project, purpose
(including policy work and research) or geography.
DFID has three regional programmes in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. In 2010, 49% of DFID’s
bilateral cooperation was considered Country programmable Aid (CPA), which is a measure of
ODA that is programmable at country level according to national needs (excludes debt relief,
humanitarian aid, administrative costs, core NGO fund- ing and research). This is above the
average of European DAC countries (46%).
2.2. Implementation management
DFID is seen as innovative and strong on delivery. The BAR (Bilateral Aid Review) and MAR
(Multilateral Aid Review) processes are seen as innovative best practice, and the focus on value
for money is now beginning to influence other agencies.
UK international development priorities are shaped and implemented at several levels. High-level
policies and broad goals are first articulated at the level of government. For example, the coalition
government has emphasized a focus on five broad areas including wealth creation, conflict and
stabilization, gender equality, climate change and the MDGs. Within this broad framework, sector
specific and topical policies are generated at DFID headquarter level, e.g. for malaria or RMNH.
Such policies are often informed by a consultative process, which incorporates guidance from
external experts, academia and development NGOs. DFIDs operational plans, which include
internal divisional plans as well as regional and country operational plans are developed in 5-year
cycles. At country level, operational plans are developed by country office staff in negotiation with
national ministries, to reflect local needs and priorities as well as high-level DFID objectives. The
country operational plans articulate a strategy for DFID’s bilateral programming and what intended
results will be achieved. Within these plans, country offices are then able to determine an
appropriate funding approach, whether through projects and partnerships with international or local
organisations, or through general budget support to governments.
Final Report
100
2.3 Other forms of implementation n.a.
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: Main objectives/focus
In March 2011, DFID released reviews of its bilateral and multilateral assistance. DFID will be
phasing out bilateral programs in 16 countries over the next five years and will be focusing
resources on 28 countries.
As a result of the Bilateral Aid Review commissioned in May 2010, the number of countries DFID
focuses on has been reduced by a third from 43 to 28. These priority countries are: Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Burma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya,
Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Occupied Palestinian Territories,
Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Tajikistan,
Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. DFID also has regional programmes in Africa,
Asia and the Caribbean, and development relationships with the Overseas Territories. DFID has
moved out of an aid relationship with a number of countries during 2011 and 2012: Angola, Bosnia,
Burundi, Cambodia, China, Iraq, Kosovo, Lesotho, Moldova, Niger, Russia and Serbia.
The UK spent £1.12 billion on global health in 2009 and was the largest European donor to global
health. The UK’s focus within global health is evolving, and the recently articulated headline
priorities are reproductive, maternal and newborn health (RMNH) and malaria. Recently released
country operational plans have shown a decrease in the UK’s bilateral spending for HIV/AIDS over
the next four years, though it is yet unknown how other UK investments through multi- laterals or
for health systems strengthening may offset this decrease.
Agricultural development has been relatively under-prioritized, constituting only about 1.4% of total
development spending (at £229 Million in 2009). However, agriculture is a fast moving picture
within DFID at present and a review of DFID’s approach and priorities is currently underway with
the International Development Committee. Attention to agriculture, food security and nutrition are
increasing in the context of the food price crisis and a growing population, and DFID aims to take
an inte- grated approach across these three areas.
3.2. Activities per country/sector
n/a
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
n/a
Final Report
101
Annex 4.7.:
EuropeAid
Final Report
102
European Commission - EuropeAid
European Commission, Directorate General for Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid: an
European institution = “sui generis” organisation (not national, nor multilateral) in charge of policy
as well as implementation;
PN member contact point:
Karen De Jonghe, European Commission, EuropeAid, DEVCO/A5: administrator/policy advisor,
Rue de la Science 15, office 3/162, B-1040 Brussels; Direct Phone: 02/296.39.56; General number
European Commission: 02/299.11.11; Email: [email protected]
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation:
European institution (the foundations of the EU development policy lie in the Lisbon Treaty: article
21 TEU and article 208 TFEU2).
The Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid was established on 3
January 2011, as part of the European Commission. It was formed by merging the DirectorateGeneral for Development and Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific States with the
EuropeAid Cooperation Office. It is responsible for defining and implementing development policy.
Mission of EuropeAid:
Within the European Commission, EuropeAid is the Directorate-General responsible for
formulating EU development policy and defining sectoral policies in the field of external aid, in
order to reduce poverty in the world, to ensure sustainable development and to promote
democracy, peace and security.
EuropeAid is responsible (either on its own or together with the European External Action Service)
for the multiannual programming of the external aid instruments which it implements.
2
The foundations of the EU development policy lie in the Lisbon Treaty: article 21 TEU and article 208 TFEU.

Art 2098 TFEU: Article 208: “1. Union policy in the field of development cooperation shall be conducted within the framework of the
principles and objectives of the Union’s external action. The Union’s development cooperation policy and that of the Member
States complement and reinforce each other. Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the
reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. The Union shall take account of the objectives of development
cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.
2. The Union and the Member States shall comply with the commitments and take account of the objectives they have approved in
the context of the United Nations and other competent international organisations.”

Article 22 of the TEU: “1. On the basis of the principles and objectives set out in Article 21, the European Council shall identify the
strategic interests and objectives of the Union. Decisions of the European Council on the strategic interests and objectives of the
Union shall relate to the common foreign and security policy and to other areas of the external action of the Union. Such decisions
may concern the relations of the Union with a specific country or region or may be thematic in approach. They shall define their
duration, and the means to be made available by the Union and the Member States. The European Council shall act unanimously
on a recommendation from the Council, adopted by the latter under the arrangements laid down for each area. Decisions of the
European Council shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Treaties. The High Representative
of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, for the area of common foreign and security policy, and the Commission, for
other areas of external action, may submit joint proposals to the Council”. (EN 30.3.2010 Official Journal of the European Union C
83/29 2).
Final Report
103
EuropeAid is responsible for implementing the European Union’s external aid instruments3 which
are financed by the European Budget and the European Development Fund. In this context, it
ensures a high quality and impact of aid, the swift implementation of projects and the visibility of
European aid.
Role of EuropeAid:
EuropeAid is the single reference point in the Commission for the design of the European Union’s
development policy (based on the relevant provisions of the Treaties) and of the “European
Consensus on Development” bringing the EU, the Member States and other European Union
stakeholders together with shared values, goals and priorities.
Within the European Commission, EuropeAid promotes coherence between the European Union’s
development policy and its other policies.
EuropeAid coordinates dialogue on development with non-EU bilateral donors, emerging
economies and with international organisations in order to present united European positions as
well as ensuring the contribution of the Commission to negotiations at international development
forums. Moreover, it enters into dialogue on development issues with non-state actors and defines
and implements cooperation measures with them.
EuropeAid establishes sectoral development strategies and instruments in coordination with the
Member States. In this field, it works closely with the Commission’s other Directorates-General to
ensure that the external dimension of internal policies is taken into account.
EuropeAid works towards the objectives set out by the external aid instruments adopted by the
Council and the European Parliament. For this purpose, it is responsible for all phases of the
operations cycle: programming, identification, appraisal, preparation of financing decisions,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Under the authority of the Commissioner for Development Policy or the Commissioner for
Neighbourhood Policy, EuropeAid works together with the European External Action Service to set
multiannual programming, in particular: financial allocations and strategy papers by country and by
region, as well as national and regional indicative programmes.
EuropeAid defines and implements external aid programmes in accordance with the principles on
aid effectiveness and, in particular, the partner States’ central role in defining and implementing
development policies and activities.
EuropeAid coordinates its work with all the EU Member States to enhance the complementarity of
its programmes with those of the Member States. EuropeAid implements cooperation policy in a
devolved way through EU Delegations. For this purpose, it defines, establishes and runs the
management, supervision, support and control systems required to ensure the highest levels of
regularity, quality, impact and visibility for the programmes implemented.
3
The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), the Financing Instrument for Development
Cooperation (DCI), the financial instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (EIDHR), the
Instrument for Stability “2nd component” (IfS) and the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC), but excluding
humanitarian aid, the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), the Financing instrument for cooperation with
industrialised and other high-income countries and territories (ICI), macro-financial assistance, CFSP and the Instrument
for Stability “1st component”.
Final Report
104
EuropeAid implements an information and communication policy in order to raise awareness
among EU citizens and partner countries regarding the action taken by the EU to support
development.
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
More detailed info: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1
Final Report
105
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: Following a reform of the European Community’s financial instruments
in 2006, the majority of EC ODA is funded through the European Development Fund (EDF), the
Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI) and the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENPI).
Other EC funding programmes include the Instrument for Pre- Accession, the Instrument for
Stability and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights.
Planning at operational level: EU development budget comes from two different sources: the
general EU budget and the European Development Fund (EDF). With the new MFF (2014-2020)
the programming of the external aid instruments and the flexibilities are expected to change. The
Commission aims to introduce Joint Framework Documents (JFD) with EU member states, to
integrate the relations with a partner country. The (joint) programming process might become
simpler and more flexible according to the respective proposals contained in the „Agenda for
Change“.
Availability of forward information:
Country allocation processes for EDF ,DCI and ENPI are finalised as part of the CSPs.
For each partner country annual action programmes are adopted in the last quarter of the
preceding year.
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
EuropeAid implements the external aid instruments of the European Commission and seeks to
deliver aid quickly and efficiently to where it is most needed. We carry out a careful analysis before
committing funding. Rigorous checks ensure that money is spent effectively, and actions are
monitored to ensure they meet quality standards.
2.1.1 How EuropeAid delivers aid:
Overview- aid delivery methods:
Development aid must be delivered in an efficient and effective way if it is to benefit those who are
most in need. The Commission carries out careful analysis and consultations before committing
funding. Aid can be distributed in a number of ways – through specific projects, via a sector
approach or by budget support to recipient governments.
The Commission follows the project approach in particular to support initiatives outside the public
sector, such as through civil society and the private sectors. Projects are also implemented where
conditions do not yet permit the adoption a sector approach or a budget support.
EuropeAid manages projects in a way that guarantees convergence with EU and partner country
policy objectives. In line with aid effectiveness principles, projects must support country-owned
policies, must be sustainable and have realistic objectives.
Final Report
106
For full details about EuropeAid’s use of the projects see: ‘Project approach, the Commission way’
(http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/delivering-aid/project-approach/index_en.htm).
Making aid work better
The Commission promotes the sector approach to work with partner countries, other donors and
stakeholders. This method of aid delivery has become increasingly important in recent years.
The sector approach gives partner governments greater ownership of development policy and
financing compared to the project approach. The end result is greater coherence between the
allocation of internal and external resources, spending and expected results.
For more information, see ‘A sector approach to working with developing countries’.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/delivering-aid/sector-approach/index_en.htm
Where the conditions are right, the Commission is committed to providing budget support as a
means to strengthening country ownership, financing national development strategies (including
poverty reduction strategies) and promoting sound and transparent public finances. Budget
support involves the direct transfer of funds to a partner country’s budget where they can be
managed using national systems. Those receiving aid in this way must display sound macroeconomic policies, and take steps to improve public financial management.
The way EuropeAid transfers funds to recipient governments – and the types of budget support on
offer – is further explained in: ‘How the Commission provides budget support’.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/delivering-aid/budget-support/index_en.htm
How EuropeAid finances:
The Commission's EuropeAid cooperation office implements the funding instruments for external
assistance in the frame of the 2007 to 2013 financial perspectives. The overall goal of these
instruments is the eradication of poverty in partner countries and regions in the context of
sustainable development. Based on strategy papers and annual action programmes, EU funding is
delivered through budget support, grants and contracts.
A How EuropeAid programmes:
Programming is an essential decision-making process aimed at defining the European
Commission strategy, budget and priorities for spending aid in non-EU countries. EC assistance
priorities identified in:
General Strategy Papers covering the period 2007-2013, e.g Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) or
Regional Strategy Papers (RSPs), for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) and
other non- EU countries with Regional Strategy Papers.
More detailed Indicative Programmes which cover 2007-2009 and 2010-2013, e.g. National
Indicative Programmes (NIP) and Regional indicative Programmes (RIP).
Detailed Annual Action Programmes(AAP) for each year of the programming period.
Final Report
107
B Geographic funding instruments :
For the 2007 to 2013 financial perspective, the EU has adopted a package of instruments for the
implementation of external assistance. External action is mainly based on three “geographical”
instruments: Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), European Neighbourhood and
Partnership Instrument (ENPI), European Development Fund (EDF).
C Thematic funding instruments:
The EU’s thematic development programmes and instruments seek to help developing countries
meet the relevant Millennium Development Goals by focussing on specific themes. They
supplement other EU aid, which is geographically-based.
D Funding
Grants are awarded as donations to third parties that are engaged in external aid activities.
Procurement procedures are launched when the Contracting Authority wants to purchase a
service, goods or work in exchange for remuneration. Procedures for grants and contracts under
the relevant EU external aid programmes are consolidated in the Practical Guide.
Grants
Grants are direct financial contributions from the EU budget or from the European Development
Fund. They are awarded as donations to third parties that are engaged in external aid activities.
The Contracting Authority awards grants that are used to implement projects or activities that
relate to the EU’s external aid programmes.
Grants fall into two categories:
Grants for actions: aim to achieve an objective that forms part of an external aid programme.
Operating grants: finance the operating expenditure of an EU body that is pursuing an aim of
general European interest or an objective that forms part of an EU policy.
Grants are based on the reimbursement of the eligible costs, in other words, costs effectively
incurred by the beneficiaries that are deemed necessary for carrying out the activities in question.
The results of the action remain the property of the beneficiaries.
Grants are subject to a written agreement signed by the two parties and, as a general rule, require
co-financing by the grant beneficiary. Since grants cover a very diverse range of fields, the specific
conditions that need to be fulfilled may vary from one area of activity to another.
To know more: calls for proposals.
Contracts
Procurement procedures are launched when the Contracting Authority wants to purchase a
service, goods or work in exchange for remuneration. A procurement procedure leads to the
conclusion of a public contract.
The difference between a public contract and a grant is clear:
in the case of a contract, the Contracting Authority receives the product or service it needs in
return for payment.
Final Report
108
in the case of a grant, it makes a contribution either to a project carried out by an external
organisation or directly to that organisation because its activities contribute to EU policy aims.
Procurement procedures are governed by specific rules which vary depending on the nature of the
contract (service, supplies, work) and the threshold.
Those intending to apply for a contract should consult the procurement notices.id
More info on: “EuropeAid: how we work” http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/index_en.htm
2.2. Implementation management:
Cycle of operations
EuropeAid works towards the objectives set out by the external aid instruments adopted by the
Council and the European Parliament. For this purpose, it is responsible for all phases of the
operations cycle: programming, identification, appraisal, preparation of financing decisions,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
The EU cycle of operations should attempt to harmonise with the efforts of other donors working in
the same sectors or areas of cooperation. This is best achieved by through the country led
coordination of all external support arrangements. So that that all efforts are aligned closely with
the country cycle of policy and reforms and the country cycle of annual operations.
Programming – during this phase, cooperation objectives and sectors are chosen and confirmed.
During programming, EU staff deepen their understanding of the country and sector context and
analyse the country’s national development plan. Through policy dialogue and partnership the
programming phase will determine where EU development cooperation will have the greatest
impact on poverty reduction results and advances towards democracy, rule of law and respect for
human rights. A multi-annual indicative programme (MIP) is prepared which provides the
foundation on which future actions are designed. The MIP indicates: the sectors that will be
supported; the indicative amount allocated to each sector; the overall and specific objectives; for
each specific objective the main results expected together with indicators and where possible
targets.
Identification - during this phase, country and sector context analysis is carried out to validate and
confirm the programme orientations. The identification phase provides an opportunity to follow up
on promising new opportunities and to deepen the policy dialogue and partnership. The EU
Delegation working closely with national partners, based on the context analysis and using a set of
criteria select the partners and main modalities of cooperation. The identification leads to the
selection of a proposed action and the preparation of an identification fiche.
Formulation – during this phase, the feasibility of the proposed action is fully analysed and the
design elaborated to produce a draft financing agreement complemented by a Technical and
Administrative Provision (TAP). An action fiche is prepared for peer review and the decision
process. At the end of the formulation phase a financial agreement endorsing the proposed
modalities and allocating resources for implementation is concluded and signed. The intervention
logic is set out as are the management, coordination, monitoring and risk management framework
and measures.
Final Report
109
Implementation – this phase starts with an inception phase to validate the design and ensure that
supportive infrastructure, management and contracting arrangements are put into place. During
implementation, policy dialogue, monitoring and risk management are continuous activities. Where
appropriate, further context assessment and analysis may be undertaken.
Closure and follow up – in the closure phase the action is administratively closed. A final
evaluation and technical audit can be made that quantifies what was achieved and reflects on the
lessons learnt. The final evaluation focusses on outcomes and outputs produced. The audit
provides an authoritative opinion on compliance with the administrative and financial rules and
regulations that governed the action. The audit also provides information on value for money
achieved.
The role of Headquarters/degree of decentralisation:
EuropeAid implements cooperation policy in a devolved way through EU Delegations. For this
purpose, it defines, establishes and runs the management, supervision, support and control
systems required to ensure the highest levels of regularity, quality, impact and visibility for the
programmes implemented.
The Commission Decision of 10.10.2012 on the management of Commission resources in unions
delegations (Brussels, 10.10.2012 C(2012) 7200 final) gives more information. Article 10 stipulates
the “principles Governing Delegation Postings”4.
1. All AD officials assigned to an External Relations DG are under the obligation to serve abroad.
2. The text of all vacancy notices published by External Relations DGs for AD posts in their DGs at headquarters shall
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
contain a reference to the obligation to serve abroad and mention the possibility of future postings to Delegations for
each AD official. Newly-appointed AD officials to these DGs shall also be informed of this provision.
The career of officials in the External Relations DGs required to serve abroad shall include at least one posting to a
Delegation. Officials shall be entitled to return to Headquarters after a posting to a Delegation. After two consecutive
postings to Delegations, officials must return to Headquarters.
In order to ensure that the obligation to serve abroad is fairly applied, the successive postings of the officials referred
to in paragraph 1 to Delegations shall be governed by the principle of alternating postings according to living
conditions. Unless they request otherwise, officials previously posted to a Delegation of category 3 in the living
conditions classification must next be posted to a category 1 or category 2 Delegation. Officials previously posted to
a category 1 Delegation must next be posted to a category 2 or category 3 Delegation. However, an official
previously posted to a category 2 Delegation can next be posted to a Delegation belonging to any category.
A posting to a Delegation may not be longer than four years. Where the Commission has special difficulty filling
posts in a given place of employment, the home DGs may decide that the postings concerned shall be limited to two
years. In the latter case, officials may, at the end of the first period of two years, request an extension of their
posting for a second period of no more than two years.
No derogations shall be allowed from paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this Article unless by special decision of the home
DG, backed by a positive COMDEL opinion. In no case may such derogations result in consecutive postings to a
Delegation being authorised for a cumulative period of more than twelve years.
A Delegation posting shall normally start on 1 September of the rotation year (year n). However, where several
Commission officials from a given Delegation articipate in the same rotation exercise, the home DGs concerned may
decide, after consultation of the Head of Delegation and a positive COMDEL opinion, that transfer dates be
staggered in the interest of the service.
Assignments of Commission staff to Delegation postings shall be subject to the agreement of the Commission’s
Medical Service. Officials shall communicate immediately any medical constraints concerning themselves or their
family which may have an effect on their assignment.
Depending on the duties to be performed or the security conditions in the place of assignment, a posting to a
Delegation shall require security clearance and/or appropriate training in field security. This shall be included in the
job description. The vacancy notice shall state if security clearance and/or such training are needed at the moment
of posting or might be required later.
Final Report
110
2.3. Other forms of implementation
Delegated Cooperation:
The European Commission introduced delegated cooperation as a form of collaboration with
(typically) Member States public bodies (or private bodies with a public service mission) in 2007.
The objective of delegated cooperation is to increase the aid effectiveness by making use of
comparative advantages and through enhanced division of labour within and across sectors.
Harmonising monitoring, evaluation and accounting procedures reduces transaction costs for the
partner country and the donors.
Delegated cooperation features among the priorities in the final declaration of the Busan
Partnership for Effective Development Co‐Operation, together with programme-based approaches,
joint programming and division of labour (2011). The Agenda for Change (2012) reinstates the joint
responsibility for the EU and its Member States to reduce aid fragmentation, improve coordination
and deliver concrete development results effectively and efficiently. Delegated cooperation should
be considered in this respect one of the possible available tools.
With new guidelines in 2013, the EC has strengthened operational criteria to assess potential
agreements. Among the criteria there is now a cost/benefít/efficiency/impact analysis; ownership,
leadership and agreement to this form of cooperation by the partner country is requested. Larger
and more cost-effective programs are targeted: a minimum contribution to Delegation Agreements
of 3 million euro is introduced to limit the current level of fragmentation. Co-financing by the body is
also needed.
Delegated cooperation is not one-way; it includes the transfer of resources from MS bodies to the
European Commission, where the EC is better placed to carry out a more effective action. A
reasonably balanced approach is expected in the cooperation between EU donors.
Further information is available in the guidance paper
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/companion/annexes.do?annexId=77&id =
Blending:
The EU increasingly uses blending as one of its instruments to deliver development aid to its
partner countries. The blending mechanisms combine EU grants with additional non-grant
resources for important investments in EU partner countries. By using grants strategically via
blending, substantial additional public and private financing can be unlocked, supporting the
development policy objectives of the EU and its partner countries. Blending has sparked great
interest in partner countries as a way to meet their investment needs. The Commission has
responded by gradually establishing blending in all regions of EU external action and steadily
10. Officials are deemed to be fully informed of the living conditions prevailing in the places of assignment for which they
11.
apply as well as of all security provisions, including those relating to security clearance covered by the Commission
provisions on security and those relating to the requirement for appropriate training in field security.
Officials who, after one or more postings to a Delegation, have been reassigned to Headquarters in an External
Relations DG or have been granted access to the rotation after having been reassigned to any other DG, may be readmitted to apply to the rotation exercise after a minimum of two years. The decision assigning them to
Headquarters will specify that Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations is applicable to them.
Final Report
111
increasing blending volumes. Since 2007, a total of €1.2 billion in grants from the EU budget, the
EDF and Member States have been blended with additional non-grant financing such as loans and
risk capital; catalysing €32 billion worth of total public and private investments in line with EU policy
objectives. The EU is using blending as a key deliverable to important policy initiatives and is
working to extend the role blending can play as a catalyser of private investments. In December
2012, a new EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation was launched to further increase
the effectiveness of aid delivered by the European Union through blending by providing
recommendations and guidance.
Private Sector Development
The EU provides substantial grant funding in the area of Private sector development, over the
period 2004-2010, the Commission contracted, on behalf of the EU, €2.4bn of direct support to
PSD. The support covers a wide range of areas contributing to the development of competitive
local private sectors including by building local institutional and business capacity, promoting
SMEs and cooperatives, supporting legislative and regulatory framework reforms and their
enforcement, facilitating access to business and financial services and promoting agricultural,
industrial and innovation policies. By recognising the substantial impact that private sector actors
can have on development, and to enhance the effectiveness of our support to private sector
development, the European Commission is considering new ways to engaging closer with the
international and local private sector for achieving inclusive and sustainable growth. Such
partnerships are possible at various levels, for instance by involving the private sector in policy
dialogue, by working providing an enabling environment for the private sector to implement
inclusive business models that can improve the livelihood of the poor, by promoting responsible
business practices, and, also not least, by using blending instruments to mobilise private sector
funding for development.
Triangular cooperation:
The European Commission and the European Member States recognise "the growing importance
of SS and Triangular Cooperation for development” (as already in Council Conclusions of 2010
and 2011). The EU shares “the need to move beyond the traditional North-South perspective” (of if
you want donor-recipient),”which no longer captures accurately the current and prospective aid
architecture". South-South and Triangular Cooperation enrich or complement “traditional”
development cooperation (but does not replace it). "South-South and Triangular Cooperation can
transform developing countries' policies to service delivery by bringing cost-effective, locally owned
solutions that are appropriate to country contexts" (Busan Outcome doc).
The EU institutions have only been involved in a limited number of activities of this kind. For the
Commission it is important that Triangular Cooperation and South-South Cooperation is demand
driven, i.e. partner country driven. The current and also future EU financial instruments 2014-2020
for EU external actions (at least DCI) allow and have already been designed to allow – when
appropriate – triangular cooperation, bearing in mind the priorities assigned to the EU
Development policy in the Agenda for Change and the possible advantages and drawbacks of this
type of SSC/TRC. TrC is possible under the 10th EDF and the 11 EDF is still in preparation, but a
Final Report
112
priori the same provisions foreseen for the future financial instruments for EU external action,
should be foreseen for the 11th EDF.
The role of the South-South Cooperation and the specific role of emerging economies within
South-South Cooperation are also recognised in Busan (in November 2011) with the creation of an
inclusive “Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation”. This Partnership reflects the
dynamic changes in the global development architecture with the involvement of a broad range of
stakeholders to foster development, including emerging donors, civil society and private sector. A
shift from “aid” for development to a “partnership for development” took place.
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: Main objectives/focus
“EuropeAid: what we do”: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/index_en.htm
EuropeAid Development and Cooperation is responsible for designing European development
policy and delivering aid throughout the world. EuropeAid delivers aid through a set of financial
instruments with a focus on ensuring the quality of EU aid and its effectiveness. An active and
proactive player in the development field, we promote good governance, human and economic
development and tackle universal issues, such as fighting hunger and preserving natural
resources.
Development Policies:
Development is at the heart of the EU’s external action, along with its foreign, security and trade
policies. The primary and overarching objective of EU development policy is the eradication of
poverty in the context of sustainable development, including the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs).
On 13th October 2011 the Commission presented its 'Agenda for Change'
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/documents/agenda_for_change_en.pdf and
reform proposals for EU budget support, setting out a more strategic EU approach to reducing
poverty, including a more targeted allocation of funding.EU action in the field of development is
based on the European Consensus on Development, signed on 20 December 2005, whereby EU
Member States, the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission agreed to a
common EU vision of development.
EU partnerships and dialogue with developing countries promote respect for human rights,
fundamental freedoms, peace, democracy, good governance, and gender equality, the rule of law,
solidarity and justice. European Community's contribution is focused in certain areas of
intervention, responding to the needs of partner countries.
As the world's largest donor of official development assistance, the EU has, in the last years been
strongly committed to improve aid effectiveness. The adoption of an ambitious Paris Declaration
on Aid Effectiveness in 2005 was due, in no small measure, to the strong input provided by the EU.
Final Report
113
Policy Coherence for Development plays a central role in reinforcing the EU contribution to
developing countries progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. The aim is to maximise
the positive impact of these policies on partner countries and to correct incoherence.
The European Consensus on Development:
The European Consensus on Development 2005 is a policy statement that reflects the EU's
willingness to eradicate poverty and build a more stable and equitable world. The European
Consensus on Development identifies shared values, goals, principles and commitments which the
European Commission and EU Member States will implement in their development policies, in
particular:
reducing poverty - particularly focusing on the Millennium Development Goals. This will
help meet other challenges such as sustainable development, HIV/AIDS, security, conflict
prevention, forced migration, etc., to bring about equitable globalisation.
development based on Europe's democratic values - respect for human rights, democracy,
fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, good governance, gender equality, solidarity, social
justice and effective multilateral action, particularly through the UN.
developing countries are mainly responsible for their own development - based on national
strategies developed in collaboration with non-government bodies, and mobilising domestic
resources. EU aid will be aligned with these national strategies and procedures.
More and better EU aid
The EU (which already provides over 50% of all development aid worldwide) has agreed to
increase its official development assistance to 0.56% of its gross national income by 2010 (on the
way to achieving the UN target of 0.7% by 2015).
Half the additional aid will go to Africa - with special attention to fragile states, countries with
low numbers of donors and poor people in middle-income countries.
The EU and its member countries are committed to making the aid they provide more
effective, particularly through better coordination and ensuring it complements other development
support and work in the beneficiary country.
The Commission and the member states will also coordinate their positions in the UN and
international financial institutions, to speak more often with a single voice.
Policy coherence on development : The EU seeks to take into account development cooperation
objectives in non-development policies. The EU recognizes that some of its policies can have a
significant impact outside of the EU and that either contributes to or undermines its development
policy. The EU therefore seeks to minimise contradictions and to build synergies between policies
other than development cooperation that have an impact on developing countries, for the benefit of
overseas development ("policy coherence for development").
Intervention areas : The European Consensus on Development reflects the European Union
willingness to make a decisive contribution to the eradication of poverty in the world and to help
build a more peaceful and equitable world. It was agreed that the EU will be primarily active in nine
areas.
Nine intervention areas:
Final Report
114
1. Trade and regional integration http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/interventionareas/trade/index_en.htm
2. Environment and the sustainable management of natural resources.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-areas/environment/index_en.htm
3. Infrastructure, communications and transport. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/developmentpolicies/intervention-areas/infrastructure/index_en.htm
4. Energy http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-areas/waterenergy/energy_en.htm
5. Rural development (territorial planning, agriculture and food security)
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-areas/ruraldev/index_en.htm
6. Governance, democracy and human rights. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/developmentpolicies/intervention-areas/governance/index_en.htm
7. Peace and security http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/interventionareas/peace-and-security/index_en.htm
8. Human development. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/interventionareas/humandev/index_en.htm
9. Social cohesion and employment. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/developmentpolicies/intervention-areas/humandev/socialdim_en.htm
Cross-cutting issues: The European development consensus identifies four “cross-cutting issues”
of major importance for development:
1. Democracy and human rights, the rights of children and indigenous people.
2. Gender equality.
3. Environmental sustainability
4. HIV/AIDS
Financing for Development: Financing for Development promotes an integrated approach to
development finance, including mobilising domestic and international resources for development,
increasing trade capacity and investment, Official Development Assistance, innovative financing
sources and mechanisms, aid and development effectiveness, debt sustainability, financing
climate and biodiversity actions.
European Research for Development Policies: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/developmentpolicies/research-development/index_en.htm
3.2. Activities per country/sector

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/acp/country-cooperation/index_en.htm

on www.oecd.org/dac/stats or

EU Donor atlas: http://development.donoratlas.eu/
Final Report
115
Where we work?
EuropeAid implements programmes and projects around the world, wherever assistance is
needed. We tailor our support to fit the region or country being helped. Programmes with a global
reach allow the EU to provide similar support to countries facing similar problems.
Africa, Caribbean & Pacific: Since 1990, Commission funding for ACP countries has risen steadily
each year in real terms – and now it is spending more than ever before on aid for trade. Since
2001, more than €850 million of Commission funds have been used to help ACP regions to boost
trade and integrate into the world economy. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/acp/index_en.htm
Asia & Central Asia: Asia and Central Asia are crucial partners for the European Union,
economically, politically and culturally. The region accounts for more than half of the world’s
population, a quarter of the global economic wealth created every year, and it holds key energy
resources. Poverty remains a significant challenge as this region remains home to two-thirds of the
world’s poorest people. Other challenges, such as climate change, environmental degradation,
avian flu, and illicit trade, exist in many countries but have also become regional issues.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/overview/index_en.htm
Latin America: The Commission provides support to Latin American countries through the
Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI), which came into force in January 2007. The main
priorities for co-operation with the region are fostering social cohesion and strengthening regional
integration. The development co-operation with Latin America is organised as follows:
With the countries, through bilateral co-operation agreements.
With the sub-regions, which are: Central America, the Andean Community and Mercosur.
With the region as a whole through regional programmes
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/latin-america/index_en.htm
Gulf region: The Commission provides support to Iran, Iraq and Yemen through the new
Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI), which came into force in January 2007.
Commission support is tailored to reflect the political, economic and social circumstances of each
country, as well as the state of their relations with the European Union. Co-operative activities
cover a broad range of issues including human rights, good governance, capacity building and
economic development. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/gulf-region/index_en.htm
EU neighbourhood and Russia: The EU has a coherent European Neighbourhood Policy to direct
relations with its eastern and southern neighbours. A Strategic Partnership based on four Common
Spaces is the framework for relations with Russia, which is not part of the ENP. Since January
2007, Commission programmes that run under the ENP and the Strategic Partnership have been
implemented mainly through a common financial instrument: the ENPI (European Neighbourhood
and Partnership Instrument). Cooperation with countries of the Eastern Neighbourhood and Russia
will focus on: transport; energy; sustainable management of natural resources; border/migration
control; socio-cultural relations; and dealing with abandoned munitions and landmines.
Cooperation with neighbouring Mediterranean countries will prioritise the spheres of justice,
Final Report
116
security and migration; sustainable economic development; and socio-cultural exchanges.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/index_en.htm
EU relations with Overseas Countries and Territories: The OCTs – numbering 26 countries and
territories – have constitutional ties with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom. Although their nationals are in principle EU citizens, the territories are not part of the EU
or directly subject to EU law. A special 'associate' status with the EU is designed to help the OCTs'
economic and social development. Many are small islands and face particular challenges:
remoteness, vulnerability to economic shocks and climate change and difficulties in building and
maintaining infrastructure, or sustainable energy supply.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/octs_and_greenland/index_en.htm
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
- on delegated cooperation: Since 2007, 71 Delegation Agreements have been signed, mostly with
EU entities, to a value of 363 million euros. In the same time 31 Transfer Agreements have been
signed, to a value of 151 million euros.
(Commission data updated until November 2012: DA= delegation agreements; TA = transfer
agreements)
Final Report
117
(Commission data updated unit November 2012)
(Commission data updated unit November 2012)
http://www.devpractitioners.eu/fileadmin/Redaktion/Documents/TG_DoL/Delegated_Coop_SoP_.pptx?PHPSESSID=3
1aaf43bf0d422c106e7b663c778b9a4
Final Report
118
Annex 4.8.:
GIZ
Final Report
119
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
Implementing Agency
Contact:
Claudia Garman
GIZ Brussels Office
Rue du Trône 108
1050 Brussels
Belgium
[email protected]
www.giz.de
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation
GIZ is the German government’s main implementing agency for technical cooperation. It is
primarily commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
(BMZ). GIZ also operates on behalf of other German ministries – including the Federal Foreign
Office, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, the
Federal Ministry of Defence, the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology and the Federal
Ministry of Education and Research – as well as German states and municipalities, and public and
private sector clients in Germany and abroad. These include the governments of other countries,
the European Commission, the United Nations and the World Bank. GIZ is a public-benefit
corporation with the Federal Republic of Germany being the only shareholder.
German development cooperation is characterized by a division of labour: While the governance is
enacted by BMZ and other relevant ministries the operational execution is mainly carried out by the
implementing organisations. Financial aid and cooperation is the responsibility of KfW and
technical cooperation and development is implemented primarily by the GIZ as well as smaller
public and private implementing organisations such as government agencies, NGOs, political
foundations, churches and scientific and training institutions.
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
GIZ’s business volume was continuously expanded over the last years leading to the 2 billion EUR
budget in 2011. About three quarters of this budget is funded by BMZ.
Final Report
120
GIZ’s public-benefit sector is forecast to have fewer funds available in 2012. However, its budget is
projected to recover until 2014.
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: The budget for development cooperation of the federal government is
established on the basis of the annual federal budget and a rolling financial plan covering a 4-year
period ahead. Germany’s aid allocation policy is debated in the parliament’s Committee for
Economic Cooperation and Development and the Budget Committee. The ODA budget is
administered for the most part by the Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and
Development (BMZ). Other Ministries include the Federal Ministry of Finance (EU budget, debt
relief), the Federal Foreign Office (mainly humanitarian aid) and the Federal Environment Ministry
(climate protection in developing countries). Part of German ODA is provided by the federal states
(Bundesländer).
Planning at operational level: The BMZ budget for bilateral co-operation is, in turn, allocated to
KfW (financial co-operation), GIZ (technical co-operation). In addition, funds are channelled
through non-governmental organisations, including churches and political foundations. The multiyear framework for the BMZ aid budget is broken down by country and by sector. Country
Final Report
121
strategies, a requirement for partner countries, are generally valid for three to five years. They are
binding for financial and technical co-operation agencies and serve as guidance for other
agencies. In addition, allocation targets are set to meet Germany’s international sectoral
commitments (e.g. education, HIV/AIDS). Germany negotiates aid levels with partner countries
and informs them of multi-year commitment plans with regard to financial and technical cooperation projects and programmes. Commitments are made up to three years ahead.
Availability of forward information:
Within the BMZ budget, the main part of the bilateral funds (being implemented by GIZ and KfW)
are committed to partner countries for a fixed multi-year period. New commitments are made at the
end of the fixed period.
BMZ examines how to provide partner countries with regular and timely information on rolling
three- to five-year forward expenditure and/or implementation plans, with at least indicative
resource allocations that partner countries can integrate into their medium-term planning and
micro-economic frameworks. As of 2010, BMZ makes the respective information available
Germany supports international efforts to improve availability of forward information, such as the
International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
GIZ appraises plans and implements its projects and programmes independently, efficiently,
effectively and on a partner-oriented basis. Sustainable development is the guiding concept of GIZ
and implies the achievement of an economic, social and environmental balance in reaching
development goals. GIZ is guided by the notion that development is an evolutionary process that
cannot be planned in detail in advance. Hence, GIZ’s business model is process-oriented and
geared towards the achievement of development results. This approach makes GIZ’s work much
more flexible and allows for constantly re-adjusting of its activities to its clients’ and beneficiaries’
needs as well as to changes in the environment.
Aside from providing management and logistics services, one of GIZ’s core competences is the
support of capacity development. GIZ supports partners on the individual, organisational and
societal level to improve their functionality and to develop the means necessary for development
(multi-level approach). In this context, GIZ considers the political and social framework to be
crucial for reforms’ effectiveness and sustainability. Moreover, the involvement of all relevant
stakeholders is imperative in order to engender sustainable results (multi-actor approach). In sum,
GIZ is guided by the conviction that without an inclusive and enabling environment, changes
remain superficial and have no real impact in the medium term.
Aside from GIZ’s expertise and experience in a wide variety of areas, its efforts in terms of
coordination and stakeholder inclusion make sure that activities have impact in the long run. GIZ’s
goal is to empower partners to take charge of their own destiny and to enable them to organise
complex processes as well as foster an enabling environment without external assistance.
Final Report
122
Against this backdrop, GIZ conducts advisory projects and programmes all over the world.
2.2. Implementation management
GIZ operates on behalf of a large variety of bilateral and multilateral donors including the EU.
However, most of GIZ activities are commissioned by BMZ as part of German bilateral
development cooperation (incl. co-financing agreements this amounts to roughly 75% of GIZ
business): The political programming for German development cooperation is done by BMZ in
“Country Strategies” and “Priority Area Strategies” (identification of one to four sectors focused on
in cooperation with the respective partner). Based on these political priorities, intergovernmental
negotiations determine partner countries’ specific needs. GIZ issues a brief assessment of all new
project proposals and formulates offers based on agreed-upon guidelines for the respective
project. In most cases, GIZ’s offers are part of a larger development cooperation programme which
covers one of the partner country’s focus sectors and involves other German implementing
agencies (i.e. KfW, BGR, PTB). Together, they formulate joint programme proposals in which GIZ
contributes operatively as implementer of technical cooperation measures.
In order to develop a close relationship with beneficiaries, GIZ has a highly decentralised operative
structure with field offices sharing responsibility for successful project completion with local
partners. Headquarters is primarily in charge of quality assurance and technical support, both in
terms of conceptual work in Germany and expert trips to the field.
GIZ operates in more than 130 countries worldwide and has its own offices in 87 countries – both
in the national capitals as well as in the field at the regional and local level.
On 31 December 2011 GIZ had a total of 17,185 staff, of whom 3,241 were employed in Germany
and 1,887 as field staff. Some 69% of the workforce, or 11,929 individuals, were working as
national personnel on the ground. As of the same date, 994 development advisors (including Civil
Peace Service experts, 51 junior development advisors and 13 development advisors undergoing
preparatory courses inside Germany) were working for GIZ. The Centre for International Migration
and Development (CIM) – which is jointly run by GIZ and the Federal Employment Agency –
places experts with local employers: at the end of 2011 a total of 599 integrated experts had
employment contracts with organisations and businesses in the field, while 453 returning experts
were receiving financial support and advice from CIM. In 2011, 493 young people were assigned
abroad through the »weltwärts with GIZ« programme.
2.3. Other forms of implementation
GIZ works closely with the private sector and promotes synergies between the development and
foreign trade sectors. Intensive cooperation is facilitated by BMZ’s “develoPPP.de” programme
which offers financial support for public-private partnerships for development projects. Since the
programme’s inception in 1999, over 1500 development partnerships with companies of varying
size and area of operation have been implemented.
Final Report
123
GIZ also accompanies triangular cooperation projects, to date predominantly in Latin America with
Brazil, Mexico, and Chile being the main contributors. However, triangular cooperation also exists
in Asia and Africa.
Delegated cooperation is an important form of cooperation between EU and GIZ. So far, 36 EUGIZ delegation agreements for 151 million EUR have been signed. More generally, GIZ is one of
the leading implementing agencies for delegated cooperation in Europe.
Besides the public-benefit division GIZ also has a small for-profit arm - GIZ International Services
(GIZ IS). GIZ IS is a separate international cooperation instrument used to deliver GIZ’s services to
other international clients in line with the provisions of the General Agreement with the German
Government. However, any profit made has to be spent for public benefit projects and
programmes. GIZ IS acquires commission on the basis of direct competitive bidding on the
national and private development markets as well as on the international cooperation market. In
2011 GIZ IS reached a business volume of 277 million EUR.
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: sectoral/geographic focus
The German government has established bilateral development relations with 50 partner countries.
GIZ operates in more than 130 countries worldwide and has its own offices in 87 countries – both
in the national capitals as well as in the field at the regional and local level.
3.2. In 2013 still ongoing or upcoming activities (starting in 2013) per country/sector,
incl. regional programs
Country
Sectors (no need to
give precise projects)
Existing cooperation with other PN members (PN
name and sector), type of cooperation, if possible
amount contributed
Country Level
EU: undetermined, co-financing, € 1,99 mio
Afghanistan
undetermined
Albania
Public Governance
EU: Public Governance and Finances (€ 3 mio); Private
and Finances; Private Sector Development (€ 12,05 mio), co-financing
Sector Development
Algeria
Democracy, Rule of
Law & Gender
EU: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender, co-financing, €
0,1 mio
Bangladesh
Democracy, Rule of
Law & Gender;
Private Sector
Development;
Economic Policy
DFID: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender, co-financing,
€ 22,78 mio
EU: Private Sector Development (€ 1,48); Economic
Policy (0,87 mio), co-financing
Final Report
124
Country
Sectors (no need to
give precise projects)
Existing cooperation with other PN members (PN
name and sector), type of cooperation, if possible
amount contributed
Benin
Agriculture & Rural
Development;
Regionalisation,
Decentralisation &
Urban Development
EU: Agriculture & Rural Development (€ 0,7 mio);
Regionalisation, Decentralisation & Urban Development
(€ 5,98 mio), co-financing
Burkina Faso
Regionalisation,
Decentralisation &
Urban Development
EU:
Regionalisation, Decentralisation
Development, co-financing, € 2,05 mio
Burundi
Water
DFID: Water, co-financing, € 0,89 mio
Cambodia
Democracy, Rule of
Law & Gender;
Regionalisation,
Decentralisation &
Urban Development
AECID: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender, co-financing,
€ 2 mio
EU:
Regionalisation, Decentralisation & Urban
Development, co-financing, € 1,5 mio
Caucasus
Forest, Biodiversity &
Management of
Natural Resources
ADA: Forest, Biodiversity & Management of Natural
Resources, co-financing, € 1,5 mio
Chad
Environment, Waste,
Resource Efficiency
EU: Environment, Waste, Resource Efficiency, cofinaning, € 0,62 mio
China
Forest, Biodiversity &
Management of
Natural Resources
EU: Forest, Biodiversity & Management of Natural
Resources, co-financing, € 1,05 mio
Côte d’Ivoire
Forest, Biodiversity &
Management of
Natural Resources
EU: Forest, Biodiversity & Management of Natural
Resources, co-financing, € 3,5 mio
Dem. Rep.
Congo
Forest, Biodiversity &
Management of
Natural Resources
DFID: Forest, Biodiversity & Management of Natural
Resources, co-financing, € 3,23 mio
Ecuador
Democracy, Rule of
Law & Gender;
Regionalisation,
Decentralisation &
Urban Development
EU: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender (€ 2 mio);
Regionalisation, Decentralisation & Urban Development
(€ 3 mio), co-financing
Egypt
Regionalisation,
Decentralisation &
Urban Development
EU: Regionalisation, Decentralisation & Urban
Development, co-financing, € 19,7 mio
Ethiopia
Agriculture & Rural
EU: Agriculture & Rural Development (€ 8,5 mio); Private
Development; Private Sector Development (€ 5,73 mio); Water (€ 1,5 mio), coSector Development; financing
Water
Final Report
125
&
Urban
Country
Sectors (no need to
give precise projects)
Existing cooperation with other PN members (PN
name and sector), type of cooperation, if possible
amount contributed
India
Undetermined;
Environment, Waste,
Resource Efficiency
EU: undetermined (€ 0,44 mio); Environment, Waste,
Resource Efficiency (€ 2,57 mio), co-financing
Jordan
Public Governance
and Finances;
undetermined; Water
AECID: Public Governance and Finances, co-financing,
€ 0,9 mio
EU: undetermined (€ 1,85 mio); Water (€ 4,82), cofinancing
Kenya
Health; Agriculture &
Rural Development
DFID: Health, co-financing, € 1,43 mio
EU: Agriculture & Rural Development, co-financing, €
4,33 mio
Laos
Agriculture & Rural
Development
EU: Agriculture & Rural Development, cofinancing, € 2
mio
Liberia
Crisis, Conflict &
Catastrophes
EU: Crisis, Conflict & Catastrophes, cofinancing, € 2 mio
Mali
Regionalisation,
Decentralisation &
Urban Development
EU: Regionalisation, Decentralisation & Urban
Development, cofinancing, € 6 mio
Montenegro
Private Sector
Development; Public
Governance and
Finances;
Cooperation with the
Private Sector
ADA: Private Sector Development, co-financing, € 0,6
mio
EU: Public Governance and Finances (€ 0,8 mio);
Private Sector Development (€ 0,8 mio); Cooperation
with the Private Sector (€ 0,05 mio), cofinancing
Mozambique
Health
EU: Health, co-financing, € 2,35 mio
Namibia
Water
EU: Water, co-financing, € 3,18 mio
Nigeria
Financial Systems
Development
DFID: Financial Systems Development, cofinancing, €
0,82 mio
Pakistan
Crisis, Conflict &
Catastrophes;
Training & Labour
Market; Education,
Knowledge, Youth
Policy
AFD: Crisis, Conflict & Catastrophes, cofinancing, € 0,93
mio
EU: Training & Labour Market (€ 24,15 mio);
undetermined (€ 5,18 mio); Education, Knowledge,
Youth Policy (€ 1,6 mio), cofinancing
Palestinian
Territories
Training & Labour
Market
EU: Training & Labour Market, cofinancing, € 4 mio
Philippines
Forest, Biodiversity &
Management of
Natural Resources
EU: Forest, Biodiversity & Management of Natural
Resources, cofinancing, € 2,06 mio
Final Report
126
Country
Sectors (no need to
give precise projects)
Existing cooperation with other PN members (PN
name and sector), type of cooperation, if possible
amount contributed
Zambia
Democracy, Rule of
Law & Gender; Public
Governance and
Finances
DFID: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender (€ 0,24 mio);
Public Governance and Finances (€ 1,22 mio), cofinancing
EU: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender (€ 2,7 mio);
Public Governance and Finances (€ 3,3 mio),
cofinancing
Senegal
Private Sector
Development
EU: Private Sector Development, co-financing, € 1,5 mio
Serbia
Regionalisation,
Decentralisation &
Urban Development
EU: Regionalisation, Decentralisation & Urban
Development, cofinancing, € 0,02 mio
Somalia
Crisis, Conflict &
Catastrophes
DFID: Crisis, Conflict & Catastrophes, cofinancing, €
0,77 mio
EU: Crisis, Conflict & Catastrophes, cofinancing, € 1 mio
South Africa
Education,
Knowledge, Youth
Policy
EU: Education, Knowledge, Youth Policy, cofinancing, €
6 mio
South Sudan
Crisis, Conflict &
Catastrophes; Water
DFID: Crisis, Conflict & Catastrophes, cofinancing, € 1,2
mio
AFD: Water, cofinancing, € 6 mio
Tajikistan
Private Sector
Development
DFID: Private Sector Development, co-financing, € 7,25
mio
EU: Private Sector Development, co-financing, € 0,005
mio
Tanzania
Water
EU: Water, co-financing, € 3,56 mio
Thailand
Energy; Forest,
Biodiversity &
Management of
Natural Resources
EU: Energy (€ 1,59 mio); Forest, Biodiversity &
Management of Natural Resources (€ 1,34 mio), cofinancing
Timor-Leste
Agriculture & Rural
Development
EU: Agriculture & Rural Development, co-financing, €
14,4 mio
Tunisia
Private Sector
Development
EU: Private Sector Development, co-financing, € 2 mio
Uganda
Energy
EU: Energy, co-financing, € 1,92 mio
Vietnam
Health
EU: Health, co-financing, € 1,51 mio
Zimbabwe
Crisis, Conflict &
Catastrophes
EU: Crisis, Conflict & Catastrophes, co-financing, € 3,2
mio
Regional/Global Level
CARICOM
Final Report
127
Energy
EU: Energy, co-financing, € 1,5 mio
Country
Different
regions
Sectors (no need to
give precise projects)
Energy; Agriculture &
Rural Development
Existing cooperation with other PN members (PN
name and sector), type of cooperation, if possible
amount contributed
EU: Energy (€ 4,5 mio); Agriculture & Rural Development
(€ 1,3 mio), co-financing
Middle East Law
EU: Law, co-financing, € 5 mio
Caribbean
and others
Energy
ADA: Energy, co-financing, € 0,7 mio
SDAC
Democracy, Rule of
Law & Gender; Water
DFID: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender (€ 2,06 mio);
Water (€ 19,2 mio), co-financing
Global
Health; Energy;
undetermined;
Environment, Waste,
Resource Efficiency;
Forest, Biodiversity &
Management of Natural
Resources
EU: Health (€ 2 mio); Energy (€ 0,46 mio); undetermined
(€ 4,41 mio); Environment, Waste, Resource Efficiency
(€ 0,67 mio); Forest, Biodiversity & Management of
Natural Resources (€ 3,5), co-financing
Central Asia Democracy, Rule of
Law & Gender; Human
Capacity Development;
Water
Final Report
128
EU: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender (€ 2,54 mio);
Human Capacity Development (€ 0,26 mio); Water (€ 2
mio), co-financing
Annex 4.9.:
KfW
Final Report
129
KfW Entwicklungsbank
Type of organisation
Financial Institution
PN member contact point
Stefan Hirche
Promotional Policy, EU and international Development Cooperation
(LGc1)
KfW Bankengruppe
Palmengartenstraße 5-9
60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
[email protected]
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation
KfW Development Bank implements Development Cooperation measures on behalf of various
clients. The main client is the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ),
which mandated KfW with the implementation of the German bilateral Financial Cooperation with
developing countries. Within the scope of Development Cooperation, KfW Development Bank
finances investments in infrastructure, financial systems and environmental protection in
developing countries.
KfW’s mandate, tasks, responsibilities and general procedures are lined out in a General
Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and KfW (“Generalvertrag”, not publicly
available). Detailed rules and procedures are set out in administrative guidelines drawn up the
German Government (Guidelines for bilateral Financial and Technical Cooperation with
cooperation partners of German development cooperation)
KfW is Germany’s main promotional bank. It is a public law institution and is owned by the Federal
Republic of Germany (80%) and the Federal States (20%). KfW is governed by a specific law
(“Law concerning KfW”). It has its principal office in Frankfurt am Main and branch offices in Berlin
and Bonn. The KfW law lists Development Cooperation as one of the promotional tasks of the
Bank (Law concerning KfW, §2). Within KfW, the development cooperation activities are carried
out by a specific business area, the KfW Development Bank.
Please see also:
Law on KfW
Guidelines for bilateral Financial and Technical Cooperation with cooperation partners of German
development cooperation
Overview on KfW local offices: http://www.kfwentwicklungsbank.de/ebank/EN_Home/About_Us/Local_Presence/index.jsp
http://www.kfw.de/kfw/de/I/II/Download_Center/Fachthemen/Rolle_und_Aufgaben_der_KfW_Bank
engruppe.jsp
Final Report
130
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
In 2012, German budget funds amounted to 1.565 Mio. Euro. While total commitments were 4.9
billion Euro. 3.149 Mio.Euro therof are KfW funds raised on the capital market. 186 Mio. Euro were
mandates from other federal ministries or the EU.
Main source: German federal budget funds, administered by the Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development (BMZ).
In addition: German budget funds administered by the Federal Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety for climate actions in developing countries.
Funds raised in the capital market.
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: The budget for development cooperation of the federal government is
established on the basis of the annual federal budget and a rolling financial plan covering a 4-year
period ahead. Germany’s aid allocation policy is debated in the parliament’s Committee for
Economic Cooperation and Development and the Budget Committee. The ODA budget is
administered for the most part by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
(BMZ). Other Ministries include the Federal Ministry of Finance (EU budget, debt relief), the
Federal Foreign Office (mainly humanitarian aid) and the Federal Environment Ministry (climate
protection in developing countries). Part of German ODA is provided by the federal states
(Bundesländer).
Planning at operational level: The BMZ budget for bilateral co-operation is, in turn, allocated to
KfW (financial co-operation), GIZ (technical co-operation). In addition, funds are channelled
through non-governmental organisations, including churches and political foundations. The multiyear framework for the BMZ aid budget is broken down by country and by sector. Country
strategies, a requirement for partner countries, are generally valid for three to five years. They are
binding for financial and technical co-operation agencies and serve as guidance for other
agencies. In addition, allocation targets are set to meet Germany’s international sectoral
commitments (e.g. education, HIV/AIDS). Germany negotiates aid levels with partner countries
and informs them of multi-year commitment plans with regard to financial and technical cooperation projects and programmes. Commitments are made up to three years ahead.
Availability of forward information:
Within the BMZ budget, the main part of the bilateral funds (being implemented by GIZ and KfW)
are committed to partner countries for a fixed multi-year period. New commitments are made at the
end of the fixed period.
BMZ examines how to provide partner countries with regular and timely information on rolling
three- to five-year forward expenditure and/or implementation plans, with at least indicative
resource allocations that partner countries can integrate into their medium-term planning and
micro-economic frameworks. As of 2010, BMZ makes the respective information available
Final Report
131
Germany supports international efforts to improve availability of forward information, such as the
International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
Financial Cooperation with developing countries is KfW’s mandate for implementation of the
German bilateral Financial Cooperation (whole range of instruments from budget funds to
development loans and promotional loans);
Besides, KfW implements EU mandates (delegation agreements) and supports EU development
policy with loan-grant financing in regional EU investment facilities (Blending);
Budget Support and basket funding. KfW is PGF manager (main responsibility to assess and
monitor fiduciary risks);
Technical Assistance 2011 was 82 million Euro (amounts not only include technical assistance
during project implementation but also funds for supporting our partners in project planning and
preparation).
2.2. Implementation management
See the chapter on „Appraisal of Projects and Programmes in the Guidelines for bilateral Financial
and Technical Cooperation”
The number of foreign representations staffed with expatriates has risen continuously in the past
ten years. Additional locations with local representatives have been added at the same time. The
project partners and clients of KfW Entwicklungsbank benefit from this network of foreign
representations, which now comprises about 60 locations.
GIZ has about 610 employees in head office. About 200 employees are in local offices for project
management, thereof 120 local staff. In addition, there are 103 local staff for administrations in
local offices.
Main tasks in head office (distribution of tasks between head office and local office may vary
according to specific project needs):
Policy and business development.
Project preparation (supported by local offices).
Project appraisal.
Financing agreements.
Project management including annual progress appraisal reports, final project inspection reports
and administration (supported by local offices).
Responsibility for on-site project management (supported/implemented to a variable extent by local
offices)
Final Report
132
Procurement and audits on the application of funds.
Main tasks in local offices (distribution of tasks between head office and local office may vary
according to specific project needs):
KfW key account for the partner country’s government and for the German embassy in the partner
country.
Preparation and organisation of inter-governmental consultations and negotiations between BMZ
and the partner country’s government.
Support to BMZ in conceptualizing its respective country strategies.
Sector monitoring.
Risk monitoring.
Donor harmonisation, networking.
Additional tasks mandated from BMZ.
On-site project identification.
Support in project preparation and project appraisal.
Support in project management including annual progress appraisal reports, final project
inspection reports and administration.
On-site project management (overlooked by central office).
In case of budget support or basket funding, project management lies completely within the
responsibility of project managers in local offices.
2.3 Other forms of implementation
KfW is active in all regional EU investment facilities (Blending), i.e.: ITF, NIF, WBIF, LAIF, IFCA,
AIF, IFP, CIF.
Division of Labour between KfW and DEG in terms of cooperation with private sector. Main
responsibility of DEG except for Microfinance and Structured Funds.
Main Implementation by Promoters. Promoters are representatives of the recipient country’s
government who submit their project proposals/financing requests to BMZ through the German
embassy (see Article 37 of the Guidelines for bilateral Financial and Technical Cooperation on
“brief assessments”,
Most far-reaching form of delegated cooperation is the mutual reliance intitiative (MRI) between
AfD, EIB and KfW with legally binding operational guidelines for mutual recognition of each others
procedures throughout the whole project cycle (lead financier arrangement).
Final Report
133
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
See also our new internet portal on
http://transparenz.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/
transparency
of
KfW
development
finance:
3.1. General: sectoral/geographic focus
Geographical Focus: Developing- und Emerging countries (Commitments 2011 in %):
Subsahara Africa: 39 %
Asia/Ozania: 26 %
North Africa/Middle East: 14 %
Europe/Caucasus: 11 %
Latin America: 8 %
Cross-Region: 2 %
Sectoral Focus (Commitments 2011 in %):
Social Infrastructure: 31 %
Financial Sector: 25 %
Economic Infrastructure: 23 %
Production: 4%
Other: 17%
KfW Entwicklungsbank bank loan commitments for regions 2008-11, in Mio Euros
Sector
Preaccession
MENA
Energy
23
Health/ Education/ Social
69
700
E. Europe &
C. Asia
Africa, Carib,
Pacific
Asia, Latam
326
554
1,494
103
562
652
203
58
Industry/ Agriculture
138
10
Public Admin
168
675
748
987
1,397
50
23
1
148
1,233
769
390
157
572
1,498
78
11
20
134
160
1,295
1,809
1,353
3,160
6,491
Transport
Urban Infra/ Water
Various
Total
Final Report
134
3.2. In 2013 still ongoing activities between AFD-KfW in Subsahara Africa per
country/sector
Land
Project
Contract
year
KfW
amount in
Euros
AFD
amount
Status
1996
10.328.096
3.963.674 On-going
O.M.V.S.
Staudamm Manantali
Mali
Urban dev.+
Decentralisation.
(AGETIPE II)
1997
5.112.919
20.000.000
Burkina
Faso
Water OuagadougouZiga
1999
19.429.091
29.654.929
Benin
Parkmanagement
Pendjari
2000
3.067.751
1.100.000
Tschad
Rural drinking water
Ouaddai-Biltine (Inv)
2000
5.000.000
7.500.000
Mali
Primary education in 5
Region II
2001
4.639.126
5.440.000
Senegal
water Dakar IV,
Langfristlösung
2001
10.225.838
28.820.286
Benin
Parkmanagement
Pendjari
2002
4.601.627
1.100.000
Kamerun
Rehabilitation in Douala
harbour
2003
5.112.919
18.300.000
Kenia
Road Maai Mahiu-Narok
2003
18.000.000
18.000.000
Tschad
Programme commun
CE/AFD/KFW
hydraulique rurale
2003
Remarks
Parallelfinancing
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
Joing
financing
On-going
Parallelfinancing
On-going
On-going
Parallelfinancing
On-going
Joint financing
On-going
10.600.000
10.000.000
Guinea
Harbour Conakry Phase
III
2004
12.475.522
12.000.000
Kamerun
(KV) Decentralisation
2004
7.000.000
20.000.000
Senegal
PEJU I
2005
8.000.000
2.000.000
Ghana
Outgrower Schemes
(Förd. d. Vertragsan.)
2006
6.000.000
Kamerun
(KV) promotion of
Decentralisation
2007
2.000.000
-
Mauritius
Telekomm. / EASSy
2007
8.910.490
9.500.000
Uganda
Water power Bujagali
2007
11.179.013
72.800.000
Guinea
Programm Basic
education Guinea
2007
On-going
Parallelfinancing
On-going
Parallelfinancing
On-going
17.400.000
On-going
Parallelfinancing
On-going
On-going
ITF project
On-going
Final Report
135
18.312.919
12.000.000
On-going
Basket fund
On-going
Afrika NA
Infrastrukturfonds (ITF)
EU-Africa
2008
1.000.000
5.000.000
Namibia
Caprivi Link
2008
4.397.924
35.000.000
Senegal
PEJU II
2008
4.000.000
-
Mozambique
Parc National Limpopo
2008
5.800.000
11.000.000
Projet d'assainissement
urbain (Ouagadougou,
Bobo-Dioulasso et villes
secondaires)
2008
Kamerun
Gesundheitsprogramm
2009
10.000.000
35.000.000
Madagaskar
Appui à la Politique
Sectorielle Santé à
Madagascar
2009
-
12.000.000
Südafrika
Trans Caledon Tunnel
Authority
2009
ITF
On-going
ITF project
On-going
Burkina
Faso
5.570.000
13.500.000
On-going
On-going
50.000.000
70.000.000
S.A.D.C.
Transnationale
Naturschutzgebiete Great
Limpopo
2010
10.000.000
4.381.491
Ouganda
Kampala Water
2010
20.000.000
35.000.000
Regional
SSA
REGMIFA
Check KfW
amount
On-going
On-going
2010
MRI Pilot
Project
multi-donor
basket/progra
m
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
Besides working closely together with project partners in the different recipient countries, KfW
Development Bank is also engaged in close cooperation with other institutions and actors in the
field of development cooperation. At national level the bank cooperates with a wide range of
German Development Cooperation institutions - with the Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) being the main cooperation partner (e.g. DKTI). At European level KfW
Development Bank has close relations to European institutions as well as to development
organisations and development banks of other EU member states (for example the "Mutual
Reliance Initiative" with the French Development Agency (AfD) and EIB).
The homepage provides a good overview of cooperation at the various levels. While this overview
does not cover all cooperative relations, it underlines the bank’s experience in cooperating and
working with other institutions and actors.
http://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/ebank/EN_Home/About_Us/Our_Cooperation/index.jsp
Final Report
136
Annex 4.10.:
LuxDev
Final Report
137
LuxDev – Luxembourg Agency for Development Cooperation
Contact point:
Alice Risch, Quality Manager - Gender Expert
[email protected]
+352 29 58 58 233
1. Basic Information
1.1.
Institutional Organisation
As a state owned Agency, LuxDev can be seen as the operational pillar of the Luxembourg
bilateral development cooperation, mandated by the Directorate for Development Cooperation of
the Luxembourg Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
Disbursements: 74 million EUR (2010); 76 millions EUR (2011); 78 million EUR (2012).
100% bilateral aid.
100% grants.
1.3 Practice on forward planning
Overall budget framework: Luxembourg manages its ODA primarily through the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Immigration, which is responsible for around 80% of total ODA. The co-operation
budget is voted annually by parliament, under sections 01.7 and 31.7, “Development Cooperation
and Humanitarian Action”, allocated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration.
Planning at operational level: Luxembourg’s bilateral ODA is implemented primarily by LuxDev,
which formulates and carries out co-operation projects with partners in partner countries. The
agency handles about 90% of the bilateral programmes financed by the Luxembourg government.
Luxembourg allocates most of its assistance to priority partner countries. For each of these target
countries an indicative five-year cooperation programme is adopted by the governments of
Luxembourg and the partner country. It defines the broad areas of co-operation (sectors,
geographic zones, forms of intervention) as well as the multi-year budget for the programme.
Availability of forward information:
Information on the ODA budget is available in the draft budget law submitted to parliament in
October.
Multi-year ODA forecasts for the target countries are contained in the indicative cooperation
programmes (PICs).
Final Report
138
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
Today a majority of LuxDev’s interventions are implemented under the project approach.
Clear evolution towards the programme approach.
Few examples so far of sector budget support. No general budget support.
100% technical cooperation, no financial cooperation.
2.2. Implementation management
Regarding the project cycle, the MFA is in charge of programming, identification and external
evaluation, whereas LuxDev is responsible for the formulation, implementation and internal
evaluation of projects/programmes.
In terms of organizational structure, LuxDev has six Regional Offices (ROF) in the field. The ROF
share their premises with the Cooperation Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Embassies) and
ensure the overall operational coordination in the partner countries.
The regional offices oversee the bilateral development programs in their area and ensure the
overall operational coordination. A regional office is managed by a Regional Representative with
one or more Programme Officers who supervise the local office staff as well the Chief technical
advisors and Technical assistants assigned to projects / programs in the field.
The Regional Representative represents the Steering Committee of LuxDev towards the local
authorities and national as well as international ODA partners. It participates in the development
and implementation of the formulation mandates and advises on programs during the identification
process.
Decisions regarding joint formulation/implementation or division of labour (delegated cooperation)
are taken at headquarter level.
2.3 Other forms of implementation
No blending.
One triangular cooperation under preparation (Cape Verde and São Tome e Principe).
Six examples of delegated cooperation (see table below).
No specific instruments to work with the private sector (PPP, etc.).
3. Sector and Geographic Focus of the donor
3.1. General: sectoral/geographic focus
LuxDev works in 14 countries on four continents. The bulk of its activity is concentrated on the nine
official partner countries of the Luxembourg ODA, as defined by the Government of the Grand
Final Report
139
Duchy. Apart from Africa (Cape Verde, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Senegal) the Agency it is
also active in Latin America (Nicaragua and El Salvador) and South-East Asia (Laos and Vietnam).
Besides these privileged partner countries, LuxDev also operates in so-called project-countries in
the Balkans (Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo), Asia (Mongolia) and Africa (Rwanda).
Focus sectors (and subsectors):
1. Local Development

Agriculture & Food Security

Decentralisation & Local Governance

Natural Resources Management

Water & Sanitation
2. Education - Vocational Training & Access to Employment

Basic Education & Literacy

Vocational Training & Access to Employment
3. Health
4. Microfinance and Inclusive Finance.
3.2. In 2013 still on-going or upcoming activities (starting in 2013) per
country/sector, incl. regional programmes:
Country
Disburse
ments
2012
Sectors
(million
EUR)
Existing cooperation with other PN
members (PN name and sector), type
of cooperation
AFD: Joint formulation (Vocational
Training) AFD, ADA, SDC*: Joint
Implementation
(Vocational
Training) SIDA*: Joint formulation and
Implementation (Natural Resources
Management)
7.18
Decentralisation
and
Local
Governance,
Natural
Resources
Management, Agriculture and Food
Security, Vocational Training and
Access to Employment
3.07
Agriculture and Food Security,
EC: Delegated Cooperation (Vocational
Vocational Training and Access to
Training) SDC*:
Delegated
Employment, Basic Education and
Cooperation (Basic Education)
Literacy
Senegal
9.99
Vocational Training and Access to
Employment, Health, Water and Belgium:
Delegated
Sanitation,
Decentralisation
and (Vocational Training)
Local Governance
Mali
9.48
Vocational Training and Access to
Employment, Health, Water and
Sanitation
Cape Verde
9.86
Vocational Training and Access to
Employment, Water and Sanitation,
Health
Burkina Faso
Niger
Final Report
140
Cooperation
7.92
Health, Vocational Training and
Belgium:
Access to Employment, Agriculture
(Health)
and Food Security
5.02
Health, Vocational Training and
Access to Employment, Agriculture
and Food Security, Decentralisation
and Local Governance
Nicaragua
5.39
EC: Delegated Cooperation (Local
Health,
Local
Development,
Development/Tourism)
Vocational Training and Access to
ADA, AECID and other donors: Joint
Employment
implementation (Health)
El Salvador
4.44
Local Development
Kosovo
5.71
Health, Vocational Training and
Access to Employment, Water and
Sanitation
Montenegro
2.22
Vocational Training and Access to
EC: Delegated Cooperation (Natural
Employment, Natural Resources
Resources Management)
Management
Laos
Vietnam
Delegated
EC, AECID: Joint
(Local Development)
Cooperation
implementation
* not member of PN
+ Delegated Cooperation from Luxembourg to BTC (Water) in Senegal
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1 Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
LuxDev may, in exceptional circumstances, supply consultancy, assistance, research or
management services for development projects and programmes for other national and
international bodies. This provision of services must be compatible with the principles of
Luxembourg Development Cooperation policy and must not include any item whatsoever likely to
cause damage to Luxembourg development projects and programmes. The acceptance of such
services by the LuxDev is subject to their approval, on a case-by-case basis, by the Minister with
responsibility for development cooperation and by the Board of Directors. Under the same terms
as in the previous paragraph, LuxDev may enter into a relationship with companies, groups or
associations with a similar or related purpose in order to promote the performance of its object.
LuxDev carries out projects on behalf of the European Commission and other bilateral
development Agencies.
Current EC co-funded projects include the Montenegro Support for Capacity building in the
Forestry sector under IPA instrument (1 Millon EUR), the Nicaragua Support to local economic
development via the tourism sector "Route of the Colonial Cities and the Volcanoes" under DCI
instrument (7 Millon EUR) and the Niger Support to the National Professional and Technical
Training Programme under EDF instrument (26.4 Millon EUR of which 3.5 Millon EUR from EDF).
In its role as Financier within the framework of the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund, since 2011
LuxDev has taken the lead on two projects in the ICT sector: the African Internet Exchange
Final Report
141
System (AXIS) and the Satellite-Enhanced Telemedicine and eHealth for Sub-Saharan Africa
(eHSA). Both projects are co-financed by the ITF and the Luxembourg government.
LuxDev is participating in two consortia acting on behalf of the European Union:
firstly, on a project in Mali, which started in 2008 (EUR/107) - Information and migration
management centre (in collaboration with the Belgian development agency) - which is due to end
in April 2012, and
secondly, on a regional project in southern Africa (EUR/106) - Aid for surveillance of SADC
(Southern African Development Community) fishing areas. This project ended on 31 December
2011 but the Agency is still waiting for the European Commission to discharge it.
Final Report
142
Annex 4.11.:
SAIDC
Final Report
143
Slovak Agency for International Development Cooperation
PN member contact point: Lucia Lackova
1. Basic Information
1.1. Institutional Organisation
The Agency is a type of contracting and administrative body, not an implementing body. It is
responsible for bilateral aid only. MFA is in the position of policy maker.
1.2. Budgetary Evolution and Apportioning
The annual budget for 2012 was 5,4 million €. For ODA activities the spending was 5 million €. For
admin costs of the Agency spending was 400.000 €.
The agency only provides grants.
2. Implementation Mechanisms
2.1. Instruments and modes of delivery
Projects only.
National Programme of the Slovak Official Development Aid for 2012:
Development aid: Afghanistan, South Sudan, Kenya.
Technical assistance: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYR), Montenegro, Serbia,
Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Egypt, Tunisia.
Involvement of the enterpreneurial sector into development cooperation: Ukraine, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Montenegro, Moldova, Kenya.
2.2. Implementation management
The Agency is not an implementing body. Regular call for proposals.
2.3 Other forms of implementation
None
Final Report
144
3. Sector and Geographic Focus
3.1. General: Main objectives/focus
The Medium-Term Strategy for ODA of the Slovak Republic for the years 2009-2013 lists these
countries:
Programme countries: Afghanistan, Kenya, Serbia.
Project countries: Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Ethiopia, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia (FYR), Moldova, Mongolia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,
Vietnam.
Geographic focus: Kenya, South Sudan, Afghanistan/Education, Health, Socio-economic
development;
Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova/experience and know how
transfer within the field of integration and reforms
3.2. Activities per country/sector
Country
Total
Volume
country
ODA Sectors
per
Kenya
€ 1,227 million
Education, health
S.Sudan
525 000
Health
Afghanistan
636 000
Health, education,
socio-economic
development
Western
Balkan
600 000
Reforms, integration
Eastern
partnership
600 000
Reforms, integration
Existing cooperation with other PN
members (PN name and sector), type
of cooperation
4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members
4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies
None
Final Report
145