2006 年 6 月 19 日
JPO 村田あす香

国際開発援助動向研究会
第 53 回 議事録
１．日時：平成 18 年 5 月 26 日（金）12：00～13：30

２．場

所：千代田会館 4 階

セミナールーム

３．発表者：Richard Manning 氏（DAC Chair）
４．議

題：New Challenges in ODA

５．出席者：52 名
６．議
6.1

事：

開発援助情報システム「DAKIS」（http://dakis.fasid.or.jp）


開発援助の新しい潮流：文献紹介

・ No.59 坂本寿太郎（FASID ジュニア・プログラム・オフィサー）
David Bloom, David Canning, and Kevin Chan (2006) Higher Education andEconomic Development in Africa, World Bank(AFTHD)
Discussion Paper

・ No.9林薫氏（文教大学国際学部）「公共財政管理と日本の開発援助」
・ No.10 近藤正規氏（国際基督教大学）「長期的な対印経済協力のあり方―インド・モデルの構築―」
Journal Express

・ Journal Express 創刊号


開発援助動向シリーズ(http://www.fasid.or.jp/shuppan/hokokusho/enjo/view.html)

・ 国際援助動向シリーズ 4 秋山孝允・笹岡雄一編著(2006)『日本の開発援助の新しい展望を求めて』

6.2

本日のプレゼンテーション

I would like to talk about 4 major issues, and the linking theme is about how real thethings donors have been saying are likely to turn out to be. The four questions are thefollowing;

Issue1: Are donors serious about scaling up ODA?
In 2005, many commitments were made. The most significant one is probably by the EUcountries which require members to reach the aid target of 0.7 % of the GNI by 2015,
but there are doubts and questions about the credibility of some of the Europeanfigures.
On the Japanese side, last year the Prime Minister announced the $10 billion extra overa 5 year period, which we have taken as 2006-10. The simulation takes the view that
this $10 billion will be slightly back loaded. We know that Japan, as many European
countries, the budgets are tight and the public debt is very high, and it will be very
interesting to see whether Japan is able to deliver this $ 10 billion. In the U.S., thesituation is different from other DAC members. The U.S. has been the largest single
source of increase over last few years. Of course, this is significantly driven by the majorcommitment in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the aid in Sub-Saharan Africa also increased
very rapidly. The US has made no formal commitments for its aid volume beyond 2006.
All in all, I think we will see a significant increase in aid even if it does not achieve
this particular rate.
Finally, the very important question is, “Are the donors planning to spend this large
amount?” We engaged with the World Bank to ask donors what plans they have over thenext 3-4 years. We do not have the result of this exercise yet, but it is very interesting tosee how far the plans have actually been made.

Issue2: Are donors serious about making aid effective?
DAC played a major role in the so-called “Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness” which
was built around the main pillars of taking the issue of country ownerships seriously,aligning aid behind these priorities, harmonizing aid procedures, strengthening thefocus on results, and mutual accountability where both sides of the donor-recipient
relationship understand responsibilities. But the question is whose ownership, andwhat to do if it appears that the recipient government is out of touch with its own
public? This has been tested in very interesting way in Ethiopia which has a history ofquite a cooperative donor-recipient relationship. However, the election last year
resulted in disorder. Some of the key donors who were providing general budget support,such as the World Bank and the U.K., have pulled back from what had been their plansof delivering of general budget support in the last Ethiopian fiscal year. Instead, thedonors are trying to remain engaged through different channels, not the central
government but the devolved government down to the district level. However, it isalready gone against one of the Paris Declaration principles; that of predictability,
therefore, it is interesting to watch cases like Ethiopia to see how the issue of ownership
can in fact work when the difficulty arises in the donor-recipient relationship.
On harmonization, my question is how willing are the donors to change procedures to do
this, and I have been working on this agenda for about five years. At the top level, they
are much in favor of harmonization to reduce transaction costs, some field staffs are
keen to see change, but at middle levels in headquarters some are extremely reluctant
to change procedures. In my opinion, we have a long way to go in sharing analysis andto trust each other to deliver things on behalf of others at the sector and project level.

Issue 3: Are donors really “managing for results”?
Here in Japan, very important strategic aid reform has been announced. As aid becomes
more important to most of developed countries, many donors have looked at more
carefully how they manage aid and what kind of policy rationale they put to the public.
That raises the question how good are donors to manage their own systems to achieve
results, how effective are developing countries to manage the results. I think at theproject level evaluation is relatively straightforward, but at the programme level, it ismuch harder. One area that interests me is better evaluation of impact of these
programmes, and the Center for Global Development in Washington started aninitiative, rather controversial one, to see if we can build an international coalition for
better quality impact evaluation particularly for social programmes. I think we need tostrengthen capacity of developing countries to carry out impact evaluations and to see
what is the value of the programmes they and you are financing. The emphasis of next
February’s international roundtable on results is particularly on capacity developmenton this aspect of developing countries as well as developed countries, so it is regarded asa major unfinished important agenda.

Issue 4: Will “Emerging Donors” change the face of development cooperation?
We are now going to see a big expansion of aid from Korea, Turkey and Eastern andCentral European countries, and a big increase in DAC membership. Therefore, DAC
are required to reshape itself accordingly.
China announced a 10 billion programme at the UN general assembly last year, but we
do not know how much that programme is concessional. China also announced a newpolicy for Africa. At the same time, China has been very cautious about engaging with
DAC and with other donors. I think that one useful way of building engagement withcountries like India and China is to make use of the new process that was agreed at theUN General Assembly to have a development cooperation forum every two years. In myview, it could provide more consistent reporting of contributions which have been madeoutside of DAC, and all donors should regard MDGs as a core objective to achieve.
Q & A and Comments:

1. Issue of scaling up aid
Question:
There are some econometrical studies that show diminishing returns to aid, and also weneed to avoid aid dependency. Do we not need some special strategies which should beaccompanied with scaling up of aid?
Answer:I am very interested in the issue of aid dependency, and academic research shows fairly
clearly that there are diminishing returns to aid. What the academic research usually
fails to show is exactly at what level that sets in with different circumstances. We need
to bear in mind that it is not a static situation. The expansion of ODA from $80 billion in2004 to $130 billion in 2010 is certainly a big increase, but the developing world isitself growing. My position would be that scaling up of aid, if properly planned, should

be compatible with more progress while avoiding aid dependency, but we need tomonitor very carefully. We now have a common objective in the development community,
and it is time to have a common strategy. Development is not something that is going tobe achieved by one donor but achieved collectively with the developing countries playing
the major role. So we need to play that supporting role in much more intelligent way
than before in order to achieve the results.

2. Emerging donors
Question:
There is a potential that those emerging donors can provide their recent experiences ofdevelopment. So in this regard, does DAC have some opportunities to share theirperspectives and experiences?
Answer:
Koreans think that one of the things that they have to offer to the rest of the world is tosay how they achieved what they have achieved. It was interesting when I was in
Nigeria, the president of Nigeria himself drew the comparison between Nigeria andKorea whose per capital income had been very similar when Nigeria became
independent in 1960s, and there is a lot of interest in how a country like Korea andChina had made progress. I think what Japan has done in the TICAD process to try to
encourage interaction between Asia and Africa is a very constructive.

3. Aid and National Interests
Comments from the floor:
The reform of the JICA is a major event in ODA policy for the future. I would like topoint out that a major political motive for this reorganization is coming from the feelingthat Japanese ODA is lacking a strategic objective, in the sense of clear correlation
between foreign policies and development strategies. This became very clear, especiallywith the failure of UN reform in the Security Council. It is very important to recognize
especially in Japan that the public support for scaling up ODA is still quite fragile, andthis also is affected by the media report primarily on the role of China as a donor. The
report goes as far as to say that Chinese assistance programme is being utilized for thepolitical motives and has been done more effectively compared to Japanese programmes.
Right or wrong, certainly this comes from a lack of accountability and transparency ofChinese assistance programmes; therefore, I hope DAC will be able to play aconstructive role in making their programmes more transparent.
Comments by Mr. Manning:
It is a very good point, but my experience would be that if you define your national
interest rather narrowly, you end up doing bad development, and if you do bad
development, you lose the public support. There is much evidence where countries allow
their aid programmes to be driven by the short term political objectives; on the whole,money used in this way is not very effective in contributing to long term sustainable
development. Every country supports national interest for aid programmes, but you
have to start with a very professional approach to make it sure that all your aid

interventions are consistence with promoting the long term sustainable development.
After all, Japan’s biggest interest and China’s biggest interest is the long term
sustainability. One of my major concerns about Chinese policies would be; “Is Chinese
policy weakening the long term prosperity of sustainable development in certain
countries because of over- aggressive emphasis on natural resources?” There areconcerns that they are effectively encouraging some countries to pursue poor
governance, so we need to have a conversation with China about that.