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

Final Report 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

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 8

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 9

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 2011-

2012. 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 10

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 11

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 12

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 co-

operation 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 13

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 14

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 15

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 16

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 17

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 18

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,

WBIF

Full member

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 19

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 co-

operation 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 20

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 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.

(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 21

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 22

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/Regional 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

CzDA 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 -- -- -- --

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 23

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 24

(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.kfw-

entwicklungsbank.de/sektoren/index.html).

Final Report 25

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 26

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

(BTC)

11 31.15 1 0.5

Final Report 27

PN

member

Number of delegation

received

Amount of delegation

received (Mill €)

Number of delegation

transfered

Amount of delegation

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 28

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 29

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 30

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 31

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 practice-

level 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 32

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 33

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 side-

effect 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 well-

recognized 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 34

(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 35

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 36

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 co-

financing 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 on-

going 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 co-

financing. 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 37

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 38

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 39

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 40

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 41

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 42

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 43

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 44

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 45

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 46

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 47

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 48

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 49

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 50

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 Co-

operation 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 51

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 52

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 53

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 54

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 55

Annex 2: List of Institutions and Experts Consulted

Name Function/Unit Contact

ADA

Norbert Bieder Kosovo, Macedonia, Maldova norbert.bieder@ada.gv.at

+43 1 903992543

Robert Zeiner Director Programmes and Projects International robert.zeiner@ada.gv.at

+43 1 903992500

AECID

Nuria Carrero Riolobos Technical Advisor, Department for Cooperation with Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean

nuria.carrero@aecid.es

+34 915 838 508

Mari Cruz del Saso Antuñano Head of Service, Programmatic Support Unit maricruz.delsaso@aecid.es

+34 915 838 574

Blanca Diaz Barral Head of External Structure Division, General Secretariat

blanca.diaz@aecid.es

+34 (91) 535 8127

Christian Freres Expert on Aid Effectiveness, Planning Unit, Efficiency and Quality of Aid

christian.freres@aecid.es

+34 (91) 583 8220

Carmen Fuente Salvador Counselor, Department for FONPRODE Office and Financial Cooperation

carmen.fuente@aecid.es

+34 915 838 423

Juan Ignacio Izuzquiza Rueda

Head of Department, Office of FONPRODE and Financial Cooperation

juan.izuzquiza@aecid.es

+34 915 838 423

Fº Javier Jiménez de Gregorio

Senior Advisor Director’s Office Javier.Jimenez@aecid.es

+34 (91) 583 8250

AFD

Jean-Francois Arnal Head of AFD Liaison Office to the European Union

ARNALJF@afd.fr

+32 2 287 00 ou03

Quentin Berinchy AFD Liaison Officer berinchyq@afd.fr

Ornella d‘Amico AFD Liaison Officer damicoo@afd.fr

Géraldine Kannengiesser Juriste, Départment Juridique et d‘Ingénierie Financiére

kannengiesserg@afd.fr

+33 1 53443039

Final Report 56

Name Function/Unit Contact

Niels Meyer Policy Advisor, External Relations Division REL MEYERN@afd.fr

+33 1 53443977

BTC

Régine Debrabandere Coordinator, International Services regine.debrabandere@btcctb.org

+32 2 505 37 57

Laurence Gathy Administrative Assistant, International Services laurence.gathy@btcctb.org

Mario Goethals Operations Manager mario.goethals@btcctb.org

+32 2 505 37 61

CzDA

Hynek Ciboch ciboch@czda.cz

+420 251 108 115

Andrea Mikova mikova@czda.cz

Martin Náprstek Deputy Director naprstek@czda.cz

+420 251 108 117

Michal Pastvinský Director pastvinsky@czda.cz

+420 251108130

DEVCO/EuropeAID

Francesco Billeci Head, Legal Affairs francesco.billeci@ec.europa.eu

+32 2 2969198

Karen De-Jonghe Administrator/Policy Officer, Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing

Karen.De-Jonghe@ec.europa.eu

+32 2 296 39 56

Cornelius Hacking Policy Officer, Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing

cornelius.hacking@ec.europa.eu

+32 2 298 78 29

Jost Kadel Seconded National Expert / Policy Officer, EU Aid Effectiveness

jost.kadel@ec.europa.eu

+32 2 299 79 38

Michael Kirosingh Administrator, Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing

michael.kirosingh@ec.europa.eu

+32 2 295 10 96

Christoforos Korakas Quality of Delivery Systems christophe.korakas@ec.europa.eu

Lino Molteni Policy Officer, Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing

lino.molteni@ec.europa.eu

+32 2 295 00 76

Final Report 57

Name Function/Unit Contact

Paul Riembault Head of Section,Quality of Delivery Systems paul.riembault@ec.europa.eu

+32 2 296 76 03

Maria Sancho-Hidalga Quality of Delivery Systems Maria.SANCHO-HIDALGA@ec.europa.eu

Jan Sempels Deputy Head, Legal Afairs jan.sempels@ec.europa.eu

+32 2 2956825

DFID

James Alawi Policy Officer, Europe Department J-Alawi@dfid.gov.uk

Simon Dennison Policy Adviser, Bilateral Relations, Global Partnerships Department

s-dennison@dfid.gov.uk

Kevin Gardner Team Leader, Global Partnership for Effective Development Coop.., Finance, Performance & Impact Department, Aid Impact team and Global Partnership Division

k-gardner@dfid.gov.uk

Carol Jenkins Head of EU Delivery & Results Team, Europe Department

c-jenkins@dfid.gov.uk

+44 20 7023 0474

Pam Jenkins Head of West and South Africa Directorate Office, Africa Directorate

p-jenkins@dfid.gov.uk

Regis Lopez Policy Officer, Europe Department r-lopez@dfid.gov.uk

Hannah Ryder Team Leader, Global Partnership for Effective Development Coop.., Finance, Performance & Impact Department, Aid Impact team and Global Partnership Division

h-ryder@dfid.gov.uk

GIZ

Jörg Freiberg Senior Policy Advisor, Strategic Corporate Development Department

joerg.freiberg@giz.de

+49 (6196) 79 1699

Cosima Glahn Junior Policy Advisor, Strategic Alliances and Partnerships

cosima.glahn@giz.de

Arved Greiner Coordinator, Recht und Versicherung arved.greiner@giz.de

Helmut Irle (KoFi-B2) helmut.irle@giz.de

+49 (6196) 79 2479

Martina Kampmann Gruppenleiterin, Strategische Allianzen und Partnerschaften

Martina.Kampmann@giz.de

Final Report 58

Name Function/Unit Contact

Roland Reich Senior-Fachkonzeptionist (KoFi-B1) roland.reich@giz.de

Sabine Trommershäuser Gruppenleiterin, Strategische Allianzen und Partnerschaften

sabine.trommershaeuser@giz.de

Christian Tschirschwitz Policy Advisor, GIZ Representation Brussels christian.tschirschwitz@giz.de

+32 (2) 8949 355

Tassilo von Droste Policy Advisor tassilo.droste@giz.de

KfW

Hr. Drillisch Principal Energy Economist Jens.Drillisch@kfw.de

Nicolas Hertkorn Senior Project Manager, Promotional Policy, EU and int. Development

nicolas.hertkorn_extern@kfw.de

+49 (69) 7431 3796

Daniel Mierow Promotional Policy, EU and international Development Cooperation (LGc1)

Daniel.Mierow@kfw.de

+49 (69) 74 31 4881

Dr. Günter Roos Head of Division, Promotional Policy, EU and int. Development

guenter.roos@kfw.de

+49 (69) 7431 9704

Ms. Susanne Schroth Liaison Officer KfW Brussels susanne.schroth@kfw.de

Lioba Sekinger Principal Manager, COC for General Principles and Procedures

lioba.sekinger@kfw.de

+49 (69) 7431 4504

LuxDev

Francois Bary Director, Expertise et Quality bary@luxdev.lu

+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

Final Report 59

Name Function/Unit Contact

Gaston Schwartz Managing Director schwartz@ luxdev.lu

+352 295858203

SlovakAid/SAIDC

Lucia Lackova Director Lucia.Lackova@slovakaid.sk

+421268205015

Peter Tomasek Peter.Tomasek@slovakaid.sk

Practitioners‘ Network

Katja Legien Coordinator, Practitioners‘ Network for European Development Cooperation

katja.legien@dev-practitioners.eu

+421 902 470 824

EUNIDA

Carlos Hernandez Ferreiro Chief Executive carlos.hernandez@eunida.eu

+32 2 229 24 55

Final Report 60

Annex 3: Indicative Application of a Network Functions Approach to PN

Function of PN Purpose of PN How does the PN carry out this

function?

How does the PN

coordinator/secretariat

support this function?

Knowledge

management

to help PN members find their way

through often unmanageable

amounts of information (Identify,

filter and share important people,

events, facts and stimulate

learning)

Sharing information through PN‘s

website; contributing to and editing

a newsletters; formulating PN Fact

Sheets of each member;

mentoring of younger/smaller

through bigger/more experienced

members

Editing PN website,

publications and

newsletters; moderating

mailing lists; passing on

relevant/useful

information

Amplification

and advocacy

to make little-known or little-

understood implementation issues

of DoL more widely understood

(extending the reach and influence

of members, in particular, its small

agencies)

Hosting conferences (e.g. high-

level workshop), publishing

targeted material (joint positions),

providing extension services

Disseminating

publications, newsletters;

coordinating workshops;

(representing the

network)

Community

building

to promote and sustain PN

members as a cohesive group

(building of social capital through

bonding, building relationships of

trust; consensus and coherence;

collective learning and joint action

among members)

Hosting learning, networking or

social events; providing space for

open discussions through PN‘s

thematic groups, steering

committee and annual meetings

Organising Steering

Committee and Annual

Meetings, facilitating

internal introductions,

coordinating thematic

groups‘ initiatives

Convening to bring together members of the

PN, the EU COM and other

interested actors (building social

capital through bridging; stimulating

discourse, collective learning and

action among heterogeneous

actors)

Hosting formal multi- stakeholder

meetings or discussion/decision-

making events (e.g. DG/DDG-

meetings side-to-side with EDD),

enabling reputation by association,

identifying and connecting new or

emerging ideas

Organising PN events,

maintaining contacts,

facilitating external

introductions;

(representing the

network)

Final Report 61

Function of PN Purpose of PN How does the PN carry out this

function?

How does the PN

coordinator/secretariat

support this function?

Resource

mobilisation

to provide resources, capacities

and skills to PN members

(increasing the capacity and

effectiveness of members,

stimulating knowledge creation and

innovation)

Offering research, consultancy,

advice and training/twinning;

providing access to EU COM and

members‘ databases

Brokering research,

consultancies/advice,

administering database

Final Report 62

Annex 4: PN Member Fact Sheets

Final Report 63

Annex 4.1.:

ADA

Final Report 64

ADA

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. 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 Luitgard.Hammerer@ada.gv.at

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 65

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 66

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 co-

operation 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 67

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 68

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 South-

Eastern Europe, ADA takes part in administrative partnerships (twinnings) to build and develop

modern, efficient public capacities.

Final Report 69

Annex 4.2.:

AECID

Final Report 70

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: Javier.Jimenez@aecid.es Tel. +34-91-583 82 50

Christian Freres Email: christian.freres@aecid.es 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 71

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 Co-

operation. 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 286.9 285.0

Microcredit Fund, disbursements

Loans 92.5 51.4 66.7 27.0

Water and Sanitation Fund (FCAS)

Grants 289.8 150.0 20.1

Total Managed by AECID 1,014.0 1,247.5 1,457.1 1,333.2 651.0

*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 72

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 73

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 7.1%

Others (scholarships, projects, programs, technical cooperation) 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 74

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 75

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)

Angola 500,000 euro Governance; support to civil society

Project approved for AECID to delegate to European Commission (has not begun yet)

Asia

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)

Middle East

Jordan 900,000 euro Decentralization AECID delegated to GIZ (2011-13)

Latin America and Caribbean

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. Amer. Integration System)

12.7 M euro 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 construction

LAIF (loan component: 50 M euro), with co-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 co-financing 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- )

Final Report 76

Annex 4.3.:

AFD

Final Report 77

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, MEYERN@afd.fr

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 78

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 five-

year 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 79

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 80

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 81

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 82

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 83

Annex 4.4.:

Belgian Development Agency - BTC

Final Report 84

BTC Belgian Development Agency PN member contact point: Régine Debrabandere, Manager International Services:

regine.debrabandere@btcctb.org, Tel: +32 2 505 37 57; +32 496 590100

PN member contact point for the study on improved cooperation: Mario Goethals, OPS Manager:

mario.goethals@btcctb.org, 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 Co-

operation, 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 85

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 86

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 87

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 88

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 website)

Existing cooperation with other PN 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 Delegation Agreement with EU

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 Delegation Agreement with NL

Niger 6,37 million = 3% ARD, H, WS, G, GD

Palestinian Territories

6,73 million = 3% E, GD, H Delegation Agreement with EU in preparation

Peru 2,94 million = 1% SSE, CE, ARD

Rwanda 33,147 million = 17% ARD, E, H, CE, G Delegation Agreement with EU

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 89

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 90

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 91

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 92

Annex 4.5.:

CzDA

Final Report 93

Czech Development Agency - CzDA PN contact point: Martin Naprstek (naprstek@czda.cz), 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 94

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 95

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 96

3.2. In 2013 still ongoing or upcoming activities (starting in 2013) per country/sector

Country Total ODA Volume per country

Sectors Existing cooperation with other PN members (PN name and sector), type of cooperation

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

ADA/EU/SDC - water and sanitation supply GIZ – water and sanitation supply

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 97

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 98

Annex 4.6.:

UK Department for International Development

DFID

Final Report 99

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

100

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

101

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

102

Annex 4.7.:

EuropeAid

Final Report

103

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: karen.de-jonghe@ec.europa.eu

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 Directorate-

General 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 Un ion C 83/29 2).

Final Report

104

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

105

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

106

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

107

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 macro-

economic 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

108

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

109

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

110

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 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

111

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

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.

11. 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 re-admitted 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

112

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

113

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

114

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

115

1. Trade and regional integration http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-areas/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/development-policies/intervention-areas/infrastructure/index_en.htm

4. Energy http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-areas/water-

energy/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/development-

policies/intervention-areas/governance/index_en.htm

7. Peace and security http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-

areas/peace-and-security/index_en.htm

8. Human development. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-areas/humandev/index_en.htm

9. Social cohesion and employment. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/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/development-

policies/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

116

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

117

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

118

(Commission data updated unit November 2012)

(Commission data updated unit November 2012)

http://www.dev-

practitioners.eu/fileadmin/Redaktion/Documents/TG_DoL/Delegated_Coop_SoP_.pptx?PHPSESSID=31aaf43bf0d422c106e7b663c778b9a4

Final Report

119

Annex 4.8.:

GIZ

Final Report

120

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Implementing Agency Contact: Claudia Garman GIZ Brussels Office Rue du Trône 108 1050 Brussels Belgium claudia.garman@giz.de 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

121

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 multi-

year framework for the BMZ aid budget is broken down by country and by sector. Country

Final Report

122

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 co-

operation 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

123

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

124

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 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.

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

Afghanistan undetermined EU: undetermined, co-financing, € 1,99 mio

Albania Public Governance and Finances; Private Sector Development

EU: Public Governance and Finances (€ 3 mio); Private Sector Development (€ 12,05 mio), co-financing

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

125

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 & Urban 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, co-finaning, € 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 Development; Private Sector Development; Water

EU: Agriculture & Rural Development (€ 8,5 mio); Private Sector Development (€ 5,73 mio); Water (€ 1,5 mio), co-financing

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

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), co-financing

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

127

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), co-financing 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), co-financing

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 Energy EU: Energy, co-financing, € 1,5 mio

Final Report

128

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

Different regions

Energy; Agriculture & Rural Development

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

EU: Democracy, Rule of Law & Gender (€ 2,54 mio); Human Capacity Development (€ 0,26 mio); Water (€ 2 mio), co-financing

Final Report

129

Annex 4.9.:

KfW

Final Report

130

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 Stefan.Hirche@kfw.de

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.kfw-

entwicklungsbank.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

131

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 multi-

year 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 co-

operation 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

132

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

133

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

134

3. Sector and Geographic Focus See also our new internet portal on transparency of KfW development finance: http://transparenz.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/

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 MENA Pre-accession

E. Europe & C. Asia

Africa, Carib, Pacific Asia, Latam

Energy 23 700 326 554 1,494

Health/ Education/ Social 69 103 562 652

Industry/ Agriculture 138 10 203 58

Public Admin 168 675 748 987 1,397

Transport 50 23 1 148 1,233

Urban Infra/ Water 769 390 157 572 1,498

Various 78 11 20 134 160

Total 1,295 1,809 1,353 3,160 6,491

Final Report

135

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 Remarks

O.M.V.S. Staudamm Manantali 1996

10.328.096 3.963.674 On-going Parallel-financing

Mali

Urban dev.+ Decentralisation. (AGETIPE II) 1997

5.112.919 20.000.000

On-going

Burkina Faso

Water Ouagadougou-Ziga 1999

19.429.091 29.654.929

On-going

Benin Parkmanagement Pendjari 2000

3.067.751 1.100.000

On-going

Tschad Rural drinking water Ouaddai-Biltine (Inv) 2000

5.000.000 7.500.000

On-going

Mali Primary education in 5 Region II 2001

4.639.126 5.440.000

On-going Joing financing

Senegal water Dakar IV, Langfristlösung 2001

10.225.838 28.820.286

On-going Parallel-financing

Benin Parkmanagement Pendjari 2002

4.601.627 1.100.000

On-going

Kamerun Rehabilitation in Douala harbour 2003

5.112.919 18.300.000

On-going Parallel-financing

Kenia Road Maai Mahiu-Narok 2003

18.000.000 18.000.000 On-going

Joint financing

Tschad Programme commun CE/AFD/KFW hydraulique rurale

2003

10.600.000 10.000.000

On-going

Guinea Harbour Conakry Phase III 2004

12.475.522 12.000.000

On-going Parallel-financing

Kamerun (KV) Decentralisation 2004

7.000.000 20.000.000 On-going Parallel-

financing

Senegal PEJU I 2005

8.000.000 2.000.000 On-going

Ghana Outgrower Schemes (Förd. d. Vertragsan.) 2006

6.000.000

17.400.000 On-going Parallel-

financing

Kamerun (KV) promotion of Decentralisation 2007

2.000.000 -

On-going

Mauritius Telekomm. / EASSy 2007

8.910.490 9.500.000 On-going

ITF project

Uganda Water power Bujagali 2007

11.179.013 72.800.000 On-going

Guinea Programm Basic education Guinea

2007

18.312.919 12.000.000

On-going Basket fund

Final Report

136

Afrika NA Infrastrukturfonds (ITF) EU-Africa 2008

1.000.000 5.000.000

On-going ITF

Namibia Caprivi Link 2008

4.397.924 35.000.000 On-going

ITF project

Senegal PEJU II 2008

4.000.000 - On-going

Mozam-bique Parc National Limpopo 2008

5.800.000 11.000.000

Check KfW amount

Burkina Faso

Projet d'assainissement urbain (Ouagadougou, Bobo-Dioulasso et villes secondaires)

2008

5.570.000 13.500.000

On-going

Kamerun Gesundheitsprogramm 2009

10.000.000 35.000.000

Mada-gaskar

Appui à la Politique Sectorielle Santé à Madagascar

2009 - 12.000.000 On-going

Südafrika Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority

2009

50.000.000 70.000.000

On-going

S.A.D.C.

Transnationale Naturschutzgebiete Great Limpopo 2010

10.000.000 4.381.491

On-going

Ouganda Kampala Water 2010

20.000.000 35.000.000 MRI Pilot Project

Regional SSA REGMIFA 2010

multi-donor basket/program

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

137

Annex 4.10.:

LuxDev

Final Report

138

LuxDev – Luxembourg Agency for Development Cooperation Contact point: Alice Risch, Quality Manager - Gender Expert risch@luxdev.lu +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

139

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

140

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

Disbursements 2012 (million EUR)

Sectors Existing cooperation with other PN members (PN name and sector), type of cooperation

Burkina Faso 7.18

Decentralisation and Local Governance, Natural Resources Management, Agriculture and Food Security, Vocational Training and Access to Employment

AFD: Joint formulation (Vocational Training) AFD, ADA, SDC*: Joint Implementation (Vocational Training) SIDA*: Joint formulation and Implementation (Natural Resources Management)

Niger 3.07

Agriculture and Food Security, Vocational Training and Access to Employment, Basic Education and Literacy

EC: Delegated Cooperation (Vocational Training) SDC*: Delegated Cooperation (Basic Education)

Senegal 9.99

Vocational Training and Access to Employment, Health, Water and Sanitation, Decentralisation and Local Governance

Belgium: Delegated Cooperation (Vocational Training)

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

Final Report

141

Laos 7.92 Health, Vocational Training and Access to Employment, Agriculture and Food Security

Belgium: Delegated Cooperation (Health)

Vietnam 5.02

Health, Vocational Training and Access to Employment, Agriculture and Food Security, Decentralisation and Local Governance

Nicaragua 5.39 Health, Local Development, Vocational Training and Access to Employment

EC: Delegated Cooperation (Local Development/Tourism) ADA, AECID and other donors: Joint implementation (Health)

El Salvador 4.44 Local Development EC, AECID: Joint implementation (Local Development)

Kosovo 5.71 Health, Vocational Training and Access to Employment, Water and Sanitation

Montenegro 2.22 Vocational Training and Access to Employment, Natural Resources Management

EC: Delegated Cooperation (Natural Resources Management)

* 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

142

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

143

Annex 4.11.:

SAIDC

Final Report

144

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

145

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 ODA Volume per country

Sectors Existing cooperation with other PN members (PN name and sector), type of cooperation

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

4. Cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the PN Members 4.1. Existing cooperation with other European PN member agencies None