Uganda Development Partner Division of Labour Exercise

July 2006
Status: 
Complete
Leaders: 
Karin Christiansen
Team: 
David Booth, Tim Williamson, Andrew Clarke, Charles Mugerwa, Susan Juuko, Dinah McLeod
This exercise aimed to improve Development Partner Selectivity and ultimately achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of aid in Uganda. Agreed by the Local Development Partners Group (LDPG), the exercise intended to help promote key partnership principles; in particular: that DPs should work in fewer sectors, in line with areas of comparative advantage; and that transaction costs can be reduced by employing a lead development partners approach.
Overview

The Development Partner Division of Labour exercise aims to improve Development Partner (DP) selectivity and ultimately achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of aid in Uganda. the exercise is intended to provide the Government and development partners with a more accurate picture of development assistance to Uganda. This is designed to facilitate an increase in transaction benefits associated with aid balancing and to streamline financial support and policy dialogue in relation to the Poverty Eradication Action (PEAP) and Uganda's budget systems. The exercise, which was agreed by the Local Development Partners Group (LDPG), is intended to help promote key partnership principles; in particular, that:

  • DPs should work in fewer sectors, in line with areas of comparative advantage;
  • Transaction costs can be reduced by employing a lead development partners approach.

The ODI team was appointed to produce recommendations for the Uganda DP division of labour exercise. It provided progress reports to DPs and Government on this website and via emailed information notes.

This exercise ran simultaneously with the OECD/DAC Harmonisation & Alignment survey on the 12 Paris Declaration indicators. The two exercises are complementary; by their nature there was some overlap (e.g. some headline aid data for FY05). However, the OECD/DAC work is more generalised, asking for baselines figures in relation to the Paris Declaration indicators, and it will feed into a more general mutual accountability exercise at the global level. The DP division of labour exercise started with an Aid Information Map (see below), which generated more detailed and Uganda-specific information that was subjected to peer review by other DPs. This in turn fed into a report by ODI that will make recommendations for the rationalisation of the division of labour amongst DPs in Uganda through the PEAP (Poverty Eradication Action Plan) implementation review process and a round of discussions in Sector Working Groups (SWGs).

Recent experiences in Zambia and Tanzania, both of which have undertaken DP self-assessment exercises, were used, in addition to extensive ODI work and experience on aid effectiveness, harmonisation and alignment and DP behaviour issues.

Aid Information Map (AIM)
The purpose of the AIM was to provide a baseline for the Division of Labour exercise as a whole, supplying data that will help rationalise Development Partner (DP) engagement across the whole spectrum of the PEAP. The AIM is intended to assist the Government and DPs, primarily through SWGs, to agree a better division of labour. The Aid Information Map (AIM) had two components: the Development Partner (DP) Questionnaire and the Financial Data Tool (FDT). Additional material, such as the OECD/DAC survey and other recent evaluations (e.g. evaluation of general budget support, ongoing EU work, assessment of individual performance), were also used.

Development Partner Questionnaire
The questionnaire collected information on current and possible future DP activities. It was divided into four sections:

A. Present Activities. This section mapped DP activities onto PEAP pillars in terms of financial support and dialogue processes. This section was supplemented by information from the Financial Data Tool (FDT), which was distributed alongside the DP Questionnaire.

B. Division of Labour and Lead Development Partnership. This section asked for each institution's opinions on the characteristics that are likely to be important for the different roles DPs can take in a given sector. These roles and responsibilities range from taking a leading role in all or some particular aspects, remaining actively engaged, delegating specific tasks and functions to other DPs or disengaging from a sector. The results from this section were collated to provide the basis for recommendations by the ODI team on how SWGs could approach a division of labour. There is no ideal model or blueprint that can be applied across the board; these specific roles, responsibilities and functions need to be adapted sector by sector.

C. Future Plans. This section asked for initial opinions on DPs' future plans for engagement. It explored the sectors/areas in which each DPs might potentially consider taking on leadership functions, devolving dialogue or financial responsibility to another DP or withdrawing. This was refined by DPs on the basis of the peer review and other material and analysis provided later in the exercise.

D. Other Comments. DPs were given the opportunity here to provide extra information or opinions that were not covered elsewhere in the survey.

Financial Data Tool (FDT)
The FDT contains detailed financial information from the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) and the Economist Group on aid instruments and relates them to PEAP pillars and Uganda Budget/MTEF classifications. The existing data for each DP was sent to them for verification, correction and completion, in the form of a MS Access database.

Peer Review process

The aim was for reviewers to assess and comment on the future plans of a Development Partner (DP) peer. The GoU will also review the balance of DP presence in each sector and provide feedback. Discussion of the plans of all DPs or the division of labour as a whole will take place within the SWG discussions in 2007.

The selection criteria for peer reviewers were as follows:

  • Sectoral overlap - DPs should review plans from peers who are working in sectors with which they are familiar and are engaged themselves;
  • Workload - the work should be fairly distributed amongst all participating Development Partners, so as not to overload any one DP;
  • Size - some attention should be paid to ensuring that "like-for-like" (i.e. similarly sized) DPs are matched.

The completed peer reviews were sent back to DPs, giving them an opportunity to revise their future sector working preferences. The data and revised preferences have been included in the interim report (step 3) and, more importantly, will form the basis for discussion for changes in the division of labour in SWGs (step 4).

The peer review pack that DP peer reviewers received contained a profile of the pattern of engagement of the DP to be reviewed. Data for each DP was broken down by PEAP Pillars, Objectives and Sectors/Areas and also by MTEF sectors.

The peer review pack contains:

Report 1: Summary of Results from all Development Partners

Part A: Overview of all DPs' Current Engagement and Future Plans

Part B: Results from Survey of Characteristics of Lead and Actively Engaged Development Partners

Part C: Overview of Financial Aid to the PEAP and MTEF
- Summary of Past and Future Share of Funding to PEAP Pillars
- Summary of Planned and Actual Disbursements to PEAP Pillars and Objectives
- Summary of Planned and Actual Disbursements to MTEF Sectors

And for each DP to be reviewed:

Report 2: Overview of Initial Responses from Individual Development Partners

Part A: Information on Current and Future Plans of Engagement across the PEAP as a whole (years engaged, future role)

Part B: Justification for Future Engagement (by Objective)

Part C: Summary of Past Disbursements and Future Funding Plans (2003/04 to 2009/10)
- Summary of Past and Future Share of Funding to PEAP Pillars
- Summary of Planned and Actual Disbursements to PEAP Pillars
- Summary of Planned and Actual Disbursements to MTEF Sectors

Part D: Types of Aid being Provided (grant/loan; modalities; policy alignment)
- Comparing the Type of Instruments - Past and Present vs. Future
- Comparing Policy Alignment and Activities being Supported - Past and Present vs. Future

The PEAP map, which illustrates the structure of the PEAP overall, where the selected DP is engaged, and where they plan to remain

A comments form.

Reviewers were asked to look closely at the DP's future plans for engagement in each Objective and the justifications given for that engagement (Report 2, Part B). Comments were sought on the justifications given for, and realism of, future plans, as well as the suitability and ambition of those plans, in terms of implementing the Uganda Partnership Principles and improving alignment with the PEAP.

DPs were also asked to review their own data (report 2 and the PEAP map).

Timeline

28th July DPs receive DP Questionnaire
Early Aug DPs receive Financial Data Tool (FDT)
29th Sept DP Questionnaire and FDT returned by DPs
October Data collated and processed for Peer Review and draft AIM compiled
Nov Peer review
Late Nov/Early Dec DPs provided with pack of materials, including peer review comments, in order to revisit their future plans
Late Nov/Early Dec ODI Team present initial findings in Kampala
Mid-December ODI Team produce interim report
Jan Government and DPs provide comments on draft
February Finalisation of interim report
Later in 2007 SWG process

Key Steps
The division of labour exercise comprises the following steps:

Step 1: Collecting and processing data for the Aid Information Map (AIM)
In this stage DPs completed the DP Questionnaire and FDT. The ODI team have processed this data for each DP and have prepared a sector/area breakdown of results for the peer review stage (step 2). The ODI team is also compiling a draft Aid Information Map (a synthesis of the DP Questionnaire and FDT results) to feed into step 3.

Step 2: Peer review of DP responses
Representatives from the Government and DPs will be selected to undertake peer reviews of the material produced in step 1. These materials will be accompanied by a guidance note produced by the ODI team. These anonymous reviews will focus on Section C of the Questionnaire, which looks at the future plans of DPs. The peer review and the aid data collection (step 1) will feed into step 3.

Step 3: Analysis to Development Partners for Consideration
The DPs will then receive a pack of materials comprising the draft AIM, including their profile and their peer reviews, along with other relevant materials as agreed with GOU. On the basis of this material, DPs will set out future sector/area working preferences as a basis for the interim report and for discussion by SWGs.

Step 4: ODI interim report and recommendations
The ODI team will prepare a report with recommendations on the division of labour for DPs. This will include a synthesis of the data and other materials. It will also suggest a process for SWGs to approach the finalisation of this exercise and supply synthesis material by sector for them to consider.

Step 5: Consideration by DPs and Government
The ODI report and recommendations will be submitted to the SWGs and Government representatives. This will provide the basis for the SWG process, which will consider and undertake revisions to the overall and sector-specific division of DP labour in Uganda in line with the budget and PEAP. Synthesis material by sector will be provided for the SWG process.

Information Documents

Peer review comments form

Peer review comments form
Peer review comments form

Project process presentation

Project process presentation
Project process presentation

Project update - 2

Project update - 2
Project update - 2

Questionnaire

Questionnaire
Questionnaire

Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions

Project launch letter

Project launch letter
Project launch letter

Introduction and Instructions for the Financial Data Tool

Introduction and Instructions for the Financial Data Tool
Introduction and Instructions for the Financial Data Tool

Project update - 1

Project update - 1
Project update - 1

Questionnaire introduction

Questionnaire introduction
Questionnaire introduction

Project update - 3

Project update - 3
Project update - 3