1 / 22

Sector Programs Overview

Sector Programs: Update and Issues Oscar F. Picazo USAID SOTA Course Windsor Hotel, Nairobi June 12, 2002. Sector Programs Overview. Four key SWAp principles Sector program & policy framework Sector expenditure framework (budget) Partnership based on transparency & gov’t leadership

Download Presentation

Sector Programs Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Sector Programs: Update and IssuesOscar F. PicazoUSAID SOTA CourseWindsor Hotel, NairobiJune 12, 2002

  2. Sector Programs Overview • Four key SWAp principles • Sector program & policy framework • Sector expenditure framework (budget) • Partnership based on transparency & gov’t leadership • Increasing use of gov’t systems to disburse • Key clarifications • Participation in “pooled” funds desirable but not required • SWAp is not necessarily HSR, e.g. Bangladesh • Are sub-sectoral SWAps & mini-SWAps “SWAps”? • SWAps as of 2001: 90 programs in all sectors • 85% in Africa, 9% in Asia • 25% in health, 28% in education, 13% in agriculture

  3. Major SWAp Advocates • World Bank • New instrument - Adaptable Program Lending, 10 years • 10 HNP SWAps in Africa, 2 in South Asia; new SWAp requests from Nicaragua, Cambodia, PNG, and Nepal; operations in Bolivia, India, Indonesia have SWAp features • SWAp as “gold standard” in new AFR HD Strategy • Europeans, e.g., DfID, Dutch, NORAD, SDC, EU • Beyond SWAp: endorsement of macro budget support programs • UN Agencies support SWAp “in spirit” • Endorsed by UNDP, WHO, Unicef, UNFPA • But still struggling with institutional earmarking arrangements

  4. Financing Modalities

  5. Advantages “Unties” aid Financiers become “investment partners” Reduces transactions costs? Focuses on strengthening gov’t systems Improves financing transparency & predictability Focuses on performance rather than inputs Disadvantages OK if you can trust the gov’t + its systems, but what if you can’t? Fungibility of funds Requires harmonization of donor procedures Donors lose attribution (activities, outcomes, impact) Pooling of Funds

  6. Countries’ “Teething” Problems • Conceptual confusion & “language barriers” • Recipient countries’ inadequate institutional capacity • Initial “kitchen sink” approach to sector programming • Initial mistaken notion that SWAp is a “silver bullet” to recurrent expenditure problem • Confusing the “direction” with the “detail” • It gets more challenging as the number of SWAp donors increase, bringing own “institutional” baggage • “Learning-by-doing” and “paving the road while getting there” approaches

  7. Donors’ Bones of Contention • Some parties’ obsession with financing modality (basket funding) rather than policy framework and sector program • SWAp financial arrangements greatly diminish donor control and monitoring of how money is spent • Impossibility of attributing outcomes for each donor, especially those operating on legislative “earmarking” • Daunting challenge of harmonizing procedures, especially with a country perceived to have “loose” systems • Challenge of meeting needs of each donor’s “domestic constituencies” (e.g., USAID, CIDA)

  8. Update: “One common sectorwide program, fully costed” • Clear attempts to cost SWAp programs, but in some cases only the development program is fully integrated • Some projects continue to be outside the program • Initial difficulties of reconciling SWAp program with macro budget program (MTEF) • MTEFs are increasingly being used in Ghana, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique • Can SWAp PoW be eventually the MTEF? • Confusion on the meaning of “sectorwide” • The place of the private sector • Are initial, “sub-sectoral” programs allowable?

  9. Update: “Resources will be increasingly channeled through gov’t systems” • SPA pilot survey of 16 SWAps: • More than 80% of aid continues to be given in the form of projects within the SWAp program • Only 17% is given as pooled funds • Common disbursement through government system is being used (e.g., education) in some difficult environments • Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana • World Bank procedures constrain participation in ‘pooling’ • WB budget support limited to SAL and Secal • However, all WB projects are “government earmarks”

  10. Update: “Openness, transparency, consultation, dialogue” • SWAp vulnerability to politics, e.g., Zambia 1997-99 • Interruption due to governance issues & change in priorities, e.g., Ethiopia, Pakistan • Ghana “out-of-SWAp” hospital funding fiasco, 1995-96 • MOUs, SOIs, & Codes of Conduct: • MOUs bet. Gov’t and donors signed in Uganda, Zambia, Ghana & Mozambique, but not in Ethiopia • Bangladesh conditionalities are in the Govt-WB credit agreement • Uganda Poverty Action Fund & education SWAp as models of transparency • Annual SWAp reviews have been generally disappointing

  11. Update: SWAp and the Private Sector • Uganda health SWAp as “good practice” for NGO involvement • Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana & Bangladesh SWAps have specific strategies devoted to private sector role, but such activities continue to be weakly integrated • Donors continue to earmark funds for NGOs as “transitional arrangement”; mixed views on whether NGO financing should be harmonized under SWAp, & whether there should be an “NGO basket” • SWAp resources seen almost exclusively as public funds, continued government skepticism of civil society • Government NGO regulation, accreditation, & contracting still leave much to be desired in all low-income countries • Are NGOs at risk of dying without direct donor support?

  12. Update: SWAp and Procurement • Procurement of TA • Existing donor procurement rules generally not responsive to “low-value, high volume” transactions required in the social sectors • Good examples of pooled TA funds in Bangladesh health; Ethiopia health; Pakistan SAP; and Zambia SWAps • Issue of international competitive procurement of TA • Some success in standardizing local consultant rates and per diems • Procurement of commodities • Too many parallel procurements continue • Scarcity of good models of donor ‘funds-pooling’ for drugs • Contentious issue of ‘drug procurement agent’ (e.g., Tanzania, Zambia, Kenya): seen as “donor imposition”

  13. Update: SWAp and Transactions Costs • Assumption: SWAp reduces transactions costs to government and donors (streamlined meetings, harmonized procedures) • But developing SWAp is process- & time-intensive • Supervision costs for donors larger than normal projects: World Bank Zambia SWAp (50% higher), Mozambique education (100% higher) • Donor staffing implications have been larger than expected: DfID, NORAD • Conclusion: Transactions costs increase with SWAp until the new arrangements replace the old, but indications from Mozambique, Uganda and Tanzania show falling transactions costs

  14. SWAp and Global Health Initiatives • Risk that targeted measures (AIDS, TB, malaria, etc.) will side-step the process of building national capacity, creating local demand, and informing rather than driving national priorities • Risk that Global Initiatives are viewed as relief rather than development support, with serious implications on sustainability • Risk that Global Initiatives are not “additional” resources and displace existing resource commitments from donors • Challenge of coordinating expanding number of private sector partners, which pose risk of undermining rather than strengthening the role of government in sector stewardship • Potential tensions between Global Initiatives & other forms of development assistance at the country level

  15. From Sectorwide to Cross-Sectoral Approaches: Impelling Factors • Aid fungibility within & across sectors • Cross-cutting nature of problems & needed interventions • Civil service reforms & the HR crisis • Decentralization & local participation • AIDS epidemic & multisectoral approaches • Public expenditure management revolution that led to Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs) • Re-emergence of “poverty reduction” as a global goal • Era of debt relief, HIPC, PRSPs, and CDFs

  16. OECD Assessment of Donors’Involvement in Poverty Reduction

  17. Debt Relief Programs • Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative - 41 countries, mostly in Africa • Financial impact of HIPC • Reduces stock of external debt • Reduces debt servicing relative to gov’t revenue • Large magnitude of debt servicing relative to public spending on health and education • Uses of debt relief

  18. African Commitments to Increase Coverageof Essential Interventions Under HIPC • To increase coverage of essential health interventions • Raise child immunization rates (12 countries) • Address HIV/AIDS (9 countries) • Address malaria (3 countries) • Address reproductive health (5 countries) • To deal with specific health systems issues • Address health personnel issues (7 countries) • Address drug procurement and availability (6 countries) • Increase public spending on health (5 countries) • Reallocate spending to essential services and/or rural areas (5 countries)

  19. Human Resource Crisis in Health • Extremely poor population: health worker ratios • Too many workers leaving for other jobs and for abroad • Countries not training enough workers; not training the right kind • Unintended consequences of SAPs, civil service reforms, liberalization of health services, and AIDS epidemic • Program management cadre being “decimated” • Poor working environment and dire employee prospects • Few established mechanisms for contracting and other flexible labor arrangements • Little donor interest in providing “recurrent costs” despite huge in-service training investments • Current “unfashionability” of user fees that at least provided a modicum of health-worker incentives

  20. Health Expenditures: NHA Findings • Are health financing standards outdated? • WHO: 5% of GNP should be devoted to health • BHA: US$12 per capita required for basic health • Larger than expected private health expenditures • Smaller than expected government health expenditures, in the midst of “expanding” health mandates • Smaller than expected NGO expenditures: are data valid? • Wide variability in countries’ donor “reliance”; donors still wedded to “political considerations” rather than health needs • Risk pools and prepayments remain minor sources of financing • Per capita health spending weakly related to health outcomes

  21. Constraints to USAID Participationin Sectorwide and Cross-Sectoral Approaches • Unnecessarily high priority given to short-term outcomes; under-appreciation of necessity of “systems” change • Too much focus on project management leading to the disappearing art of policy dialogue • Low ‘comfort level’ with economics and health systems jargon • Mistaken notion that SWAp, MTEF and PRSP are ‘fait accompli’ • Different loci of strategic responsibility (PHN officers) and technical knowledge (CA’s, projects) • USAID comparative advantage is on technical aspects of service delivery, rather than on systems, organizational and financial policy directions that SWAps require • ‘Narrowly focused’ Congressional earmarks; prohibition of funds commingling

  22. Opportunities for USAID Participation in Sectorwide and Cross-Sectoral Programs • USAID remains the largest bilateral PHN funder globally; need to translate ‘size’ into ‘influence’ • USAID has good tracking systems, e.g., DHS, increasing use of NHA, extensive work on PHN indicators • USAID good practices can be ‘redeployed’ for other uses: NGO contracting, civil society initiatives, disbursement systems • Institutional experience with policy-based programs • Other USAID instruments, e.g., Limited Scope Grant Agreement that provides resources directly to government agencies • USAID resources: mission economists, procurement officers, PHR Plus, POLICY, MEASURE, USAID/Global, etc. • Woody Allen: “All it takes to succeed is to show up.”

More Related