Transition towards SWA
Statement of intent
Collaborative programmes of work
Memorandum of understanding
Codes of practice
Strengthening field monitoring systems
Technical assistance: Roles and management
Partnership principles
There appear to be three broad phases in formulating an education SWA. The first phase is when Government/funding agencies jointly sign up to broad education development targets (e.g. OECD/DAC) as a basis for loosely guiding development assistance. At present, this phase is exemplified by the prevalence of basic education support programmes. The main motivation is to try to make education support more pro-poor and improve the efficiency of education assistance programmes. This loose SWA arrangement may raise few funding agency tensions although, increasingly, Governments express the view that the intense focus on basic education does not always reflect their own overall priorities.
A second phase is broadly when Government and funding agencies jointly agree a broad education policy and strategic framework led by the Government. This SWA framework arrangement allows for different financing modalities, continued funding agency attribution of their activities and a mix of budgetary support and project aid mechanisms. The main difference from the first phase is that the framework confirms a joint Government-funding agency agenda rather than Government and individual funding agencies following their own separate agendas. Tensions and stand-offs can begin to emerge unless differences in priorities can be resolved through effective negotiation mechanisms
The third phase constitutes a SWA operational programme with common agendas, common operational instruments, common management arrangements and jointly agreed strategic negotiation mechanisms. In particular, this third phase is characterised by a jointly agreed common work programme. At this stage, the potential for growing Government/funding agency and inter funding agency tensions increases as funding agency attribution is eliminated and individual funding agencies become obliged to change their ways of working. In particular, issues of control over the use of resources (e.g. earmarking) and lack of trust in Government systems become more prevalent. The critical issue is what actions to take (e.g. negotiate or withdraw) if these difficulties cannot be resolved.
This study has reported that countries moving towards a SWA are at varying phases in developing Government/funding agency partnerships (sometimes overlapping between the three phases). The critical issue will be to formulate mechanisms and processes that make these partnerships more effective. As the health SWA international technical working groups (ITWG) highlight, "it is unlikely they can be accommodated in a single partnership agreement. It is easier to think about several agreements serving a somewhat different purpose" (Cassels, 1997). The type of agreement will necessarily vary according to the phasing of SWA formulation and country situations. Box 23 outlines some of the types currently to be found.
|
BOX 23 DIFFERENT FORMS OF FORMAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS · A Statement of Intent to proceed with sector wide approach (e.g. Ghana, Indonesia; Mozambique) · A Collaborative Programme of Work, which will include annual agreements on performance objectives and milestones for each of ifs main components (e.g. Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda) · A formal Memorandum of Understanding between partners entering into common management arrangements · An agreed Code of Practice to cover more general issues relating to the behaviour of funding agencies and Government, which are not included in the specific memorandum of understanding (e.g. EU Horizon 2000, Draft Ethiopia ESDP/PAP) |
Source: based on Cassels, 1997
In many cases, Government and funding agencies initiate the SWA process by preparing a Statement of Intent, usually at an informal meeting or during round table discussions. Examples include the Tanzania ESDP pre-appraisal exercise (1998), Ethiopia ESDP joint consultations (1998/99), Cambodia ESIP round table (1995) and similar processes in Mozambique, Zambia and Nepal. The purpose is to proceed towards a SWA by providing a high level signal of intent to Government. Surprisingly it appears that only in Tanzania and Cambodia, has a formal signing up to an SWA type approach taken place. To avoid confusion (and/or rumour) and to ensure the inclusion of the major multi-lateral lending banks, it is advisable that a Statement of Intent is completed as a jumping off point for the later phases.
A survey of available literature indicates that the formal preparation of collaborative programmes of work is somewhat patchy. In Tanzania, Uganda and Ghana, work plans have been formally prepared, approved and published. In other cases (e.g. Mozambique, Nepal, Zambia, Cambodia, Thailand), the process appears to have been much more informal with consequent uncertainties over the extent of acceptance. In Ethiopia, a programme of work is implied in the ESDP action plan and agreed joint review missions (JRM) and the annual review mission (ARM) exercises. However, without a publication of a work plan there is always concern that the reality may not match the rhetoric.
One lesson learned is that it is helpful and more effective in the long-term if the design of the work programme is a multi-funding agency financed exercise. There is a danger that if only a small number of funding agencies support the planning process, suspicions may arise among stakeholders (whether Government or other funding agencies) that individual funding agencies are driving their own agendas. Particular examples include Ethiopia ESDP (World Bank), Tanzania ESDP (EU/DFID), and Cambodia BESIP (Asian Development Bank) and Nepal BESIP (DANIDA). The critical issue is not which funding agencies actually finance technical assistance, but that there is seen to be transparent sponsorship of the process by Government and, preferably a large number of funding agencies. Box 24 gives examples of multi-funding agency support.
|
BOX 24 MULTI-FUNDING AGENCY TA FINANCING: TWO EXAMPLES Cambodia: Over 1995-1998 the BESIP management/monitoring unit received multi-funding agency support: | |
|
Management and Organisation |
supported by ADB |
|
Aid Policy and Strategy |
supported by EU |
|
Programme Design/Appraisal |
supported by JICA |
|
Aid Finance/Planning |
supported by AusAid |
|
Sub-Sector Programme Planning |
supported by French Aid |
|
Uganda: Following identification of needs by Government, five full-time TA posts will support ESIP: | |
|
Monitoring and evaluation |
supported by DFID |
|
Financial Planning and Management |
supported by Irish Aid |
|
Statistics and EMIS Preparation |
supported by EU |
|
Institutional Development |
supported by Netherlands |
|
Programme Planning |
supported by JICA |
A critical component of work collaboration is a joint appraisal exercise or review mission by Government and funding agencies. Periodic appraisals/reviews shape the agenda for future programmes of work and the setting of milestones and performance targets. Once again it is important that the terms of reference and anticipated outcomes of appraisal/review missions are shared by all stakeholders to avoid misunderstandings that the exercise is being driven by single or small group funding agency interests and disbursement pressures. A very important signal is that Government is seen to be in the 'driving seat' of these appraisal exercises.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) moves the process forward towards a much tighter operational instrument. Key components of a MoU are outlined in Box 25. Amongst education SWA, there do not appear to be any examples of a tight, commonly agreed operational approach and in many cases (e.g. Ethiopia, Uganda) SWA often move into implementation without a MoU. The best example is probably the health SDP in Zambia. The various forms of SDP appraisal and partnership documents under the ESDPs in Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique and Zambia could quickly be converted into MoUs. Similarly the Programme Action Plan (PAP) and Programme Implementation Manual (PIM) under the Ethiopia ESDP also represents a useful basis for MoU preparation. Nevertheless, a precondition would appear to be formal signing up to a collaborative work programme.
|
BOX 25 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING: KEY COMPONENTS · Education Sector Financing (eligible expenditures, Government/community contributions and budget shares, funding agency commitments, sector policy and spending review mechanisms) · Disbursement Mechanisms (funding agency fund channels, common accounts, frequency of tranching, reporting procedures, proportion of funds through Government channels, audit procedures) · Procurement Systems (country solutions, resolution of tied aid problems, procedures for tender and award of contracts) · Negotiation/Review Mechanisms (negotiation mechanisms when circumstances change, links between annual review and budget process, annual performance review procedures) |
Source: Derived from Country ESDP/ESIP Documents, 1999
Formulating Codes of Practice reaches the heart of effective development partnerships. In the past, the tendency has been for funding agencies to use aid resources as conditionalities and leverage. An effective partnership will involve mutual recognition of each other's limitations and strengths. For example, funding agencies need to recognise the various national influences on sector priorities (especially the influence of well-connected, higher education officials), resource limitations and capacity building gaps. As the health ITWG points out, a key test of funding agency commitment to SWA is a willingness "to achieve their influence through dialogue, negotiation, transparency and, only at the last resort, through financial or political muscle". Box 26 outlines the key components of a Code of Practice. Box 27 is a Code of Conduct designed by EU that is already subscribed to in various forms in a number of countries.
|
BOX 26 TOWARDS A CODE OF PRACTICE: KEY COMPONENTS · Handling disagreements |
Source: Cassels, 1997, Gould. Takala and Nokkala, 1998
|
BOX 27 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EDUCATION SECTOR FUNDING AGENCIES 1. Ensure information on all relevant interventions in the sector (including consultancies, new project and programme initiatives, requests for assistance made fay Government, project appraisals, implementation and progress reports, technical assistance reports, evaluation reports) are made available to Government and other funding agencies. 2. Strictly adhere to agreed maximum national/regional rates regarding remuneration and allowances for civil service employees agreed by funding agencies, remuneration of national consultants, payments for conferences, etc. Avoid 'buying out' civil servants for private funding agency consultancy and work towards eventually decreasing the imbalance between national and expatriate salaries and allowances. 3. Ensure that Technical Assistance: · is driven by Government priorities and absorption capacity, normally in response to the initial draft Terms of Reference that are normally provided by the Ministry of Education (MoE); · reports primarily to Government managers; · supports Government institutional capacity by focusing on skills transfer to civil servants in priority Government functions; · is not restricted to supporting individual funding agency projects or programmes; · gives preferential treatment to national and regional consultants; · ensures that expatriate assistance (when required) is complementary to and develops national and regional capacity and expertise. 4. Actively encourage national consensus building processes and support local co-ordination mechanisms (to encourage Government ownership and use as a means of exploring further options and modalities of support). 5. Work towards: · using the financial, procurement, monitoring and reporting procedures and guidelines which obtain in the MoE; · following the Government fiscal year and procedures for progress reports, financial reports and audits; · pooling resources for specific components of the education sector in anticipation of moving towards general budgetary support, once appropriate mechanisms tor reporting and financial management are in place; · harmonised reporting procedures. 6. Work through existing structures in order to ensure maximum integration in MoE policy. 7. Ensure effective communications between the local funding agency offices and MoE. 8. Work towards joint appraisal missions, joint monitoring, joint auditing and evaluation, in accordance with the Government budget cycle and fiscal planning. 9. In consultation with the Government, schedule missions to fit the Government/MoE timetable and be at a level that is manageable and not intimidating for Government. 10. Secure Integration of gender aspects into any mission, study or related activities and gender expertise where needed. Secure integration of environmental aspects where appropriate into education-related activities. |
Source: EU, 1998
A lesson emerging from education SWA is that it is takes some time for Governments and development partners to come to terms with new forms of negotiations and handling disagreements. In the past, the relationship was largely framed within bilateral conditionalities on Government, whereas a SWA pre-supposes joint undertakings with shared responsibility for achieving outcomes. The main areas of disagreement focus around the linkage between policies and spending plans, especially avoiding unrealistic targets and recurrent budget expectations (e.g. Cambodia ESDP). A second area of disagreement is the viability of common management arrangements (especially financial management/reporting), exemplified by ongoing debates in the Tanzania and Ethiopia ESDP.
There is no easy resolution of these disagreements. One way forward is to allow short-term continuation of parallel managed project assistance against an agreed timeframe for phasing out. Another solution (as adopted under the Nepal BESIP and Ghana ESDP) is to gradually channel increased amounts through Government system, making continuous judgement on the robustness of the system. The three-channel system under the Ethiopia ESDP represents a similar approach. The challenge to funding agencies is to define minimum accepted standards of management/reporting in advance of annual negotiations. Ultimately, if these minimum standards cannot be negotiated and fulfilled, there may be instances where funding agencies may decide to withdraw from ESDP/ESIP developments. Al-Samarrai, Bennell and Colclough clearly spell out the current uncertainty regarding this issue [Box 28].
|
BOX 28 SWA TO EDUCATION: SOME CHALLENGES "... the increased use of sector wide approaches will involve some shift in funding agency transaction costs, away from project administration towards achieving greater aid co-ordination. Since the introduction of joint-financed programmes is presently judged to be desirable [...], it is likely that new uncertainties for programme actively will be generated by the participation of other agencies, each having their separate sets of interests and constraints." "... new challenges are implied for the task of monitoring and evaluation.... [The] task of identifying the impact of contributions from an individual funding agency becomes almost impossible. All the agencies providing system-wide funding must, by implication, become content with system-wide monitoring. Whether this will satisfy the accounting and auditing requirements for the use of aid funds remains for the present, uncertain." |
Source: Al-Samarrai. Bennell and Colclough, 1998
Education SWA are already having significant impact on the structure and outcomes of appraisal and review missions. The frequency of missions by individual funding agencies is declining and being replaced by multi-funding agency annual review processes, exemplified through the JRM/ARM in Ethiopia, pre-appraisal/appraisal exercises in Tanzania, bi-annual reviews in Uganda and annual education roundtable/review exercises in other parts of Africa and Asia. It is becoming clear that these exercises will only be effective if Government/funding agencies agree the anticipated outcomes in advance, especially avoiding perceptions that such meetings are only 'concerned with funding agency pledging'. Secondly there needs to be a common understanding of the information to be presented by Government in advance, highlighting the importance for early strengthening of education performance monitoring systems.
It is becoming clear that the move away from project assistance towards SWA represents significant risk but also substantial opportunity. The partnership arrangements will involve complex and subtle judgements on the macro-economic situation, leadership potential and commitment, capacity assessments and financial and technical progress being made. These negotiations will involve building up trust with key national players and influencing events in subtle ways through sharing of ideas and experiences. This argues for careful building up of in-country capacity and continuity for monitoring ESDP/ESIP progress.
Assessments by the World Bank indicate that SWA staff workloads are far greater than in project support design. It is estimated that a SWA initiative will involve staff in workloads of 25 to 30 weeks per annum compared to half that for project assistance. In addition, the ongoing monitoring workloads are significantly greater, alongside the need for staff continuity and consolidated country experience.
Opportunities for posting technical advisers in education ministries and/or in aid management offices are worthy of examination. There can be advantages and disadvantages in doing this. There is growing evidence that the critical factor is not location but the ability to network effectively with Governments and funding agencies, to build up trust and contribute effectively to the ongoing negotiations and debate. These social/technical skills, especially an understanding of the process of policy/strategy development, need to be central to recruitment/selection policy. There is a danger that appointing personnel with a project management background could be counterproductive. If technical personnel are to be effective, they need to be able to leave some of their old baggage behind and change any mindsets they may have.
The shift away from project assistance has significant implications for the role, skill-mix and management of technical assistance. Project aid created a tendency towards funding agency client centredness, a focus on narrow technical specialisms (as opposed to broader sectoral analysis) and a culture of immediacy where quick-fix inputs took priority over longer-term sectoral development. Another consequence was the absence of a formal reporting and management channel within the Government system. As a result, there sometimes has been a degree of mistrust within Government of technical assistance, perceived to represent the interest of the funding agency rather than the recipient.
Education SWA represent an opportunity to eliminate funding agency attribution of consultancy and technical assistance support, especially foreign consultants. One approach is to set up pooled funds for TA, managed by Government with jointly agreed procurement arrangements. To a degree, this was attempted under the Tanzania ESDP but floundered on continuing suspicions amongst Government and other funding agencies that the process was being driven by one agency's interests. A second concern is the capacity of some Governments to manage TA effectively, especially transparent selection and recruitment of best-qualified personnel.
Growing evidence points to the importance of continuity in any consultancy support programme. Continuity provides an opportunity to reinforce a climate of trust, secure collegiality between Government technical staff and consultants, alongside creating confidence amongst other stakeholders with regards to independence and quality of advice. This can be helped if a number of funding agencies jointly sponsor a consultancy support programme [Box 24].
Government leadership and management of consultancy support programmes have implications for the relationships between consultants, technical advisers in aid management offices and funding agency professional advisers and programme managers. Under project aid, advisers could largely overrule consultancy advice that did not comply with funding agency positions. Under these new arrangements, Government is entitled to accept and use consultancy advice (financed by funding agencies), which may not be consistent with the funding agency position. This situation becomes simply one of transparent dialogue and negotiation. In these situations, it is critical that funding agencies provide the breathing space for consultants to provide independent advice, including avoiding the creation of parallel communication channels between the agency and the consultant.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the shift towards ESDP/ESIP is placing a premium on policy/strategic analysis and capacity building assistance. In the longer-term, as strategic negotiations and performance review exercises consolidate, there will be a further premium on technical assistance that can facilitate this process. These changes have implications for the sourcing of appropriate support for SWA formulation. It is likely that traditional sources of technical support (e.g. university education departments, education authorities, project management firms) will be supplemented by other sources such as specialist consulting firms, international accounting groups and broader development institutes. International accounting firms (most of which have a locally-based management consulting expertise) represent an under-developed resource, with the ability to offset frequent Government anxieties over large numbers of foreign consultants.
Traditionally under British project aid, a large proportion of the consultancy support has been managed by managing agents. Much of these agents' expertise centres around recruitment of narrow, technical skills and project management experience. If pooled TA funds, common procurement arrangements and Government management of TA develop, the need for traditional management agent functions may decline. There is a danger that managing agents (especially those associated with a particular country) may recreate perceptions of control and, as with the funding agencies themselves, this might raise questions about consultant loyalties. Such a situation would call into question the Government as client and the kind of accounting procedures that a SWA seeks to develop.
TA management functions need to be linked to assurances that the Government is the client, alongside transparent recruitment and accounting procedures. In the near future, managing agents could fulfil a significant role in building up Government's capacity to manage and monitor consultancy/TA support programmes, including establishing databases and selection/performance monitoring procedures.
The foregoing pages indicate that partnerships within an education SWA should be based on the following principles:
· A shared vision;· Commitment to the process;
· Mutual confidence based on strong leadership from Government and openness between partners;
· Mutual trust (that may be strengthened by formal signing up agreed procedures);
· The subordination of external agendas to the specific in-country agenda;
· A coming to terms with what strategic negotiation actually means in practice;
· The use of processes that facilitate the transition from a loose agreement to common development agendas, tighter operational instruments and conflict resolution (typically through in-country discussions, Government-funding agency consultative groups, periodic planned reviews and, initially, the use of instruments such as Statement of Intent, Memorandum of Understanding, Collaborative Work Programme, Code of Conduct as in Boxes 25, 26 and 27).
The above list is not exhaustive; it could well be augmented in line with the characteristics listed at the end of Chapter 5.
