Monitoring implementation of commitments Since the Monterrey Consensus was adopted, efforts have been made by both developed and developing countries to hold donors accountable for the pledges and commitments made to developing countries. In this section, we examine the extent to which donors have lived up to their promises and pledges to Africa in three key areas: scaling-up of aid; improving aid effectiveness; and debt relief or debt cancellation.
Due to data limitations, some parts of our analysis will focus on commitments made by the G-8 countries.
Compliance with regard to aid quantity The key target that donors have set for themselves on aid is to attain an ODA to GNI ratio of 0.7 per cent. Since this target was set in 1969, only a few countries have met it. In 2004, the average ratio for DAC members was 0.26 per cent. That said, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden have met the target. Countries such as Belgium, France, Portugal, and Switzerland have also made significant progress although they are yet to meet the target. Among DAC members, Japan, the USA, and Italy have the lowest ODA/GNI ratios - below 0.20 per cent in 2004.
The G-8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, Canada, has developed a very useful methodology for assessing the extent to which G-8 countries comply with the commitments made at their annual summits. The assessment uses a three-category scoring method: Full or near full compliance with commitment results in a score of +1; Complete or nearly complete failure to implement a commitment results in a score of -1; and an “inability to commit” or “work-in-progress” leads to a score of 0.
An inability to commit refers to factors outside the executive branch that impedes the implementation of a commitment while “work-in-progress” refers to an initiative that has been launched by a government but is not yet near completion.
Using this scoring methodology, the performance of the G-8 countries in terms of meeting the commitments made to Africa and the developing world on scaling-up aid falls into the category “work-in-progress.” This is because the G-8 countries have only met part of the commitments made on scaling-up aid to developing countries and to Africa in particular. One of the reasons why these G-8 countries as a group have not fully complied with their commitments to scale-up aid to Africa is that some of them have not made much progress in following through on their commitments to double ODA to Africa. The USA, one of the big donors, has made some progress in complying with its commitments although it is not enough to double aid to Africa by 2010. In contrast, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and EU have all fully complied with their commitments in this area and so have a score of +1.
Compliance with regard to aid effectiveness The quantity of aid is important but the overall effectiveness of any form of aid depends to a large extent on its quality. Consequently, in discussions on aid, it is now popular to talk about the quality of aid and aid effectiveness in recipient countries.
There are various factors that determine the overall quality of aid and hence its effectiveness.
These include the proportion of aid that is tied, the extent to which aid is in the form of grants or concessional loans, the proportion of aid that goes to poor as opposed to relatively rich countries, the state of governance in recipient countries, and the administrative or transactions costs associated with aid.
Table 3.4 presents the percentage of bilateral ODA from DAC member countries to LDCs that is untied. To the extent that more than half of the LDCs are in Africa, the table captures the region’s experience with tied aid as well. It is clear from the table that there has been a reduction in the percentage of aid from DAC member countries that is tied. Over the period 1999-2001, 55 per cent of total DAC aid to LDCs was untied. In 2004, the figure rose to 68 per cent.
Looking at individual DAC countries, however, there are wide differences in performance.
Countries such as Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway and the United Kingdom have successfully moved away from tied to untied aid. The USA, New Zealand, and Greece have a very low ratio of untied aid to total aid and so are at the bottom of the list. More progress needs to be made by these countries, especially the USA, if the DAC average is to improve significantly.
Regarding the composition of aid, there has also been progress in this area. The share of grants in total ODA has increased over the years. For DAC countries, the average was roughly 49 per cent over the period 1980-1984 (Gupta, Pattillo, and Wagh 2006). For the 2003-2004 period, the average was 90 per cent. In DAC countries such as Australia, Austria, Canada, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and New Zealand, grants represent 100 per cent of ODA. At 60 per cent, Japan has the lowest ratio of grant to total ODA. An improvement is needed in this area if Japan is to catch up with the other donors. The increasing share of grants in total ODA is a welcome development in African countries. Several countries are already heavily indebted and are looking for ways to reduce their debt burden. Reducing their proportion of loans in total ODA prevents further accumulation of debts.
Compliance with regard to debt relief Debt relief is one area in which G-8 countries and other donors have made significant progress in meeting their commitments. At Gleneagles, donors promised that all debts owed by eligible HIPC to IMF, IDA, and the African Development Fund would be cancelled. The G-8 Research Group has also examined the extent to which member countries have honoured the commitments made in Gleneagles on debt relief and found that they have fully complied with all commitments in this area.
The outstanding performance of the G-8 in the area of debt relief is due in part to their commitment and support to the HIPC initiative and to the MDRI. The HIPC initiative was established in 1996 to reduce the debt burden of eligible countries. As a result of slow progress in attaining the debt reduction objective of the initiative, an enhanced version was launched in 1999 with relatively less restrictive eligibility criteria. As of July 2006, 40 countries had either qualified or were currently under consideration or were potentially eligible for debt relief under the initiative. Of the 40 countries, 19 have reached the completion point, 10 have reached the decision point and 11 are pre-decision point countries. In addition, of the 19 countries that have reached the completion point, 15 are in Africa.
In addition to supporting debt relief under the HIPC initiative, G-8 countries were also behind the launching of MDRI in 2005 to reduce the debt burden of eligible HIPC countries and provide additional resources to help them meet the MDGs.
Under the MDRI, the IDA, IMF and AfDB would provide 100 per cent debt relief on eligible debt to countries that had completed the HIPC process. Although these three institutions are responsible for delivery of debt relief under MDRI, each institution has its own guidelines on how it will implement the agreements. For example, while only HIPC countries are eligible for MDRI provided by IDA and AfDB, the IMF also considers non-HIPC countries with per capita income of $380 or less.
Furthermore, for IMF and AfDB, eligible debt is outstanding debt as of end-2004.
For IDA, it is outstanding debt as of end-2003. As of mid-July 2006, committed assistance to African countries under the HIPC initiative and assistance delivered or expected to be delivered under MDRI was $50 billion (IDA and IMF 2006). Of this amount, $34 billion was committed under the HIPC initiative and $15.9 billion under MDRI. Within the HIPC allocation, $21.6 billion represented assistance to the 15 African countries that reached the completion point as at mid-July 2006, while $12.5 billion represented assistance to 10 African countries that have reached the decision point.
In summary, while donors have made significant progress in meeting commitments on debt relief, they have made relatively less effort in fulfilling the pledges made on scaling-up aid and improving aid effectiveness. Urgent actions need to be taken in these areas to enable African countries obtain the pledged resources needed to attain the MDGs.
To learn more about this author, visit United Nations Economic Commission for Africa's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
 |
Related Businesses - Evan Elite Authors |
|
The Evan Elite Authors program is currently in beta phase. For details please contact us.
|
|
|
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa's
Complete
List Of
African-Accounts
Articles
|
|
If you enjoyed this article, get United Nations Economic Commission for Africa's Complete List of African-Accounts Articles For FREE!
|
|
|
|
![[Get Copyright Permissions]](http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif){kind=small}
