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:+46 8 698 50 00.Fax:+46 8 20 88 64. 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:(+46)(0)8506 42 380 Telefax:(+46)(0)8506 42 352 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:+46 (0)8-698 50 00.Telefax:+46 (0)8-20 88 64 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’.