Omslag AB 02-33

100 Pages·2003·3.29 MB·English

Supporting Ownership
Supporting Ownership –SwedishDevelopment
Cooperation withKenya, Tanzania, and Uganda
SwedishDevelopment Cooperation withKenya, Tanzania, and Uganda
Looking at Swedishdevelopment cooperation with three countries
inEast Africa, Kenya, TanzaniaandUganda, this study tries tofind
Volume I: Synthesis Report
out how alongstanding Swedishpolicy of facilitating and
promotingpartner country ownership ofdevelopment aid has been
John Weeks
translated intopractice. Ineachcountry,half adozen projects and
David Andersson
programs areexamined indepth.
Chris Cramer
Alemayehu Geda
The conclusions of the study are relevant todevelopment
cooperation generally.With the shift fromprojects toprograms Degol Hailu
and the increasing needfor coordination between donors, the Frank Muhereza
contextualparameters for implementing apro-ownership policy Matteo Rizzi
arechanging. While program support canfacilitateownership, the Eric Ronge
linkis by no means automatic.Owne rship canbe und ermined by HowardStein
policy conditionalities orby lacko fadministrativeand techni cal
capacity in the partner country.
The shift toprogramaid alsoaff ects the ability of donors to
promotepopular participation and broader stakeholder ownership
of the activities that they support.In the context ofprogram
assistance, the government is responsible toprogram
beneficiaries and other citizens through the generaldemocratic
processes rather thanthrough r epresentation by donors.Popular
ownership canonly beassessed through anevaluation of the
functioning ofdemocraticinstitutions.
SWEDISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION AGENCY
Department for EvaluationandInternalAudit
Address:SE-105 25Stockholm,Sweden.
Visitingaddress:Sveavägen 20,Stockholm.
Tel:[phone].Fax:[phone]. SidaEVALUATION 02/33
E-mail:[email protected] www .sida.se
Supporting Ownership:
SwedishDevelopment
Cooperation withKenya,
Tanzania, and Uganda
Volume I: Synthesis Report
John Weeks
David Andersson
Chris Cramer
Alemayehu Geda
Degol Hailu
Frank Muhereza
Matteo Rizzo
Eric Ronge
HowardStein
Sida EVALUATION 02/33
This report is partof SidaEvaluations,a series comprisingevaluations of Swedishdevelopment assistance.
Sida’s other series concerned with evaluations, Sida Studies in Evaluation, concerns methodologically
oriented studies commissionedby Sida.Both s eries areadministered by theDepartment for Evaluation
andInternalAudit,a nindependent department reportingdirectly toSida’s Boardo fDirectors .
Reports may beorderedfrom:
Infocenter,Sida
S-105 25Stockholm
Telephone:[phone]
Telefax:([phone]
E-mail:[email protected]
Reports arealsoavailab le todownloadat:
http://www.sida.se
Authors:DavidAndersson,Chris Cramer,Alemayehu Geda,DegolHailu,FrankMuhereza,MatteoRizzi,
EricRonge,HowardStein andJohnWeeks
The views and interpretations expressed in this report are the authors’and do not necessarily reflect
thoseof the SwedishInternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency,Sida.
SidaEvaluation 02/33
Commissionedby Sida,Department for EvaluationandInternalAudit
Copyright:Sidaandtheauthors
RegistrationNo.:1998-01840
DateofFin alReport:December 2002
Printedby ElandersNovum
Art.no.SIDA2066en
ISBN91-586-8737-8
ISSN1401-0402
SWEDISHINTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENTCOOPERATIONAGENCY
Address:S-105 25Stockh olm,Sweden.Office:Sveavägen 20,Stockholm
Telephone:[phone].Telefax:[phone]
Telegram: sida stockholm. Postgiro:156 34–9
E-mail:[email protected].
Homepage:http://www.sida.se
Foreword
Looking at Swedish development cooperation with three countries in
East Africa, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, this evaluation tries to find
out how alongstanding Swedish policy of facilitating and promoting
partner country ownership has been translated into practice. In each
country,half adozenprojects andprograms areexaminedindepth.
The study finds that ownership is heavily influenced by the quality of
government-to-government partnerships.Most notably, the strained rela-
tions between thegovernments of KenyaandSwedenhaveadversely af-
fected the prospects for Kenyan ownership.Str ained partnerships often
give rise topolicy conditionalities that weaken recipient ownership.Even
in the Kenya case,ho wever, thereare e xamples of strong ownership at
thelevelof individualprojects andprograms.
Theoverallconclusions of the study are relevant todevelopment cooper-
ationgenerally.With the shift fromprojects toprograms and theincreas-
ingneedfor coordinationbetweendonors, thecontextualparametersfor
implementingapro-ownershippolicy arechanging.Whileprogram sup-
portcanfacilitateownership, thelinkis by nomeans automatic.Owner-
ship canbe u ndermined by policy conditionalites or by lack of
administrativeand t echnicalca pacity in the partner country.Conse-
quently Sida and other donors who are shifting to programaid have
found that they need to support institution building at central govern-
ment as wellas at district level.
The shift to programaid alsoaff ects the ability of donors to promote
popular participation and broader stakeholder ownership of the activi-
ties that they support.In thecontext of programassistance, thegovern-
ment is responsible to programbeneficiaries and other citizens through
thegeneraldemocraticprocesses rather than through representations by
donors.In t his perspective popular ownership can only beassessed
throughanevaluationof thefunctioningof democraticinstitutions.
The study was doneby a teamfrom theSchoolof Orientaland African
Studies (SOAS), London University, under the leadership of Professor
JohnWeeks.It consists of two volumes,one containing thecountry case
studies, theother beinga synthesis study on thebasis of thecases.
EvaLithman
Director
Department of Evaluation andInternalAudit

Authors’Preface
TheCDPRevaluation team thanks all those whoprovided theinforma-
tion to make this evaluationpossible.Many government officials, repre-
sentatives of civil society groups, and individuals generously gave their
time.Special t hanks go toSida s taff in Stockholm and in the countries
studied, whosehelpandopenness was key toour work.
The latter group will find in this report anumber of suggestions for
changes inSidapractice. Thecritical subtext of these suggestions reflects
thegapbetweenpracticeand thelofty anddifficult goals that Sidaprofes-
sionals have set themselves.Promoting recipient ‘ownership’ of projects
and programs is a radicalage nda, which involves adif ficult process of
reflection upon theagency’s past work.The willingness of staff toengage
in this process reflects the resilienceand adaptability of theagency.
Sida’s ability tofoster ownershipineachof thecountries is facilitatedby
afundamentalcharacteristicof the organisation:its institutional self-in-
terest is moreconsistent witha b roadand deep ownership agenda than
for any other significant donor inEast Africa.
Transferring control of projects and programs has profound implica-
tions,for the relationshipbetweenSwedenandits development partners,
for theinternaloperations of Sida,andfor theday-to-day workofSida
professionals in Stockholm and in the field. The evaluation team was
acutely awareof the seriousness of theevaluation taskand thepotentially
important role this report might play in futureSwedishaid policy.Our
hopeis that thecare wehave takeninpreparing the reportmatches the
seriousness of theendeavour.

Table of Contents
Ownership by Country......................................................................iii
1Intr oduction................................................................................1
A.The Purposeof the Evaluation...............................................1
B.Terms of Reference.................................................................1
C.Owners hipandthePRSPProcess...........................................3
2Sida’s Mission............................................................................4
3Evaluating Ownership.............................................................6
4FundamentalConcepts in SwedishAid Policy ..............9
A.Owners hip...............................................................................9
B.Owners hipandMultipleOwners..........................................12
C.Dialogue . ...............................................................................15
D.Na tionalOwnership..............................................................22
E.Dialogueand Conditionality.................................................29
F.Pa rtnershipand‘TakingSides’..............................................36
5Ownership and Multiple Donors........................................38
6Practiceand Implications for the Future.......................44
A.Sida’s Operations in East Africa:Practiceand Change........44
1. Projects toPrograms......................................................... 44
2.Relationships among Donors............................................48
3.Countr y Strategy Process..................................................48
4. Popular Ownership...........................................................48
5. TheActivity CycleandAssistanceModalities.................. 49
B.Avoiding BasicMistakes........................................................ 51
C.Recommendations fo r GoodPractice ...................................55
1. Intra-SidaConsistency onOwnership..............................55
2.SidaS taff Training ...........................................................56
i
3.PublicD ebateinSweden ..................................................57
4. Specifying thePartner Dialogue.......................................57
Annexes
Annex 1: Sidaon Ownership......................................................59
Annex 2: AnalyticalTreatments of Ownership..........................61
Annex 3: EvaluationMethodology............................................. 63
Annex 4: Vehicles for FosteringOwnership:
theCDF,PRSPandSWAps........................................ 69
Annex 5: Terms of Reference.....................................................76
References...........................................................................................84
ii
Ownership by Country
Below, weprovideanencapsulationof nationalownershipof Sidaassist-
anceineachcountry.These statements seek to summarise the situationin
eachcountry at the timeof theevaluation.They areelaboratedfurther in
this reportand thecountry reports.
Kenya
Kenyandonorsarefaced with thecontradictionof attempting toconvey
ownershipintheabsenceof partnership.Low donor trust of theKenyan
government’s commitment to transparency and openness in budgetary
mattersimplies that dialogue with thegovernment is preventedfrommak-
ingprogress onownershipissues.It is not clear whether ownershipby oth-
er stakeholderscanbe sustained in theabsenceof partnership.
Tanzania
Donor operations in Tanzania are in transition,from donorship (where
thedonor controls theaidprocess) toownership-basedpartnership.Sida
is one of the leaders in this transition. The process is driven by donors’
assessment of abuses associated withdonorshipin thepast,andpressure
fromgovernment andcivil society for amoreownership-baseddialogue.
Obstacles to thetransitioninclude:
1) lackof reformby major donors in theirapproach todialogue;
2)weaknesses in government and donors in their capacity tocope w ith
new challenges and aid modalities, withasymmetries of capacity be-
tweengovernment anddonors;
3)contin ued lack of trust among donors in the government’s commit-
ment to transparency andpoverty reduction.
Uganda
iii
TheUgandangovernment seeks ownershipof development assistanceof
allforms,and would subsume this assistance within the statebudget.This
facilitates ownershipof expenditureand of specificactivities,but does not
necessarily result in suchownership.Donor views on transparency,effec-
tive implementation, and stakeholder ownership are excessively positive,
perhaps due to their wish to support a‘success case’.