EN    EN EN 
 
EN 1   EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 19.4.2011 
SEC(2011) 502 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
EU Accountability Report 2011 on Financing for Development 
  
Review of progress of the EU and its Member States 
  
Accompanying document to the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS  
 
Enhancing EU Accountability on Financing for Development 
towards the EU Official Development Assistance Peer Review 
  
VOL III 
{COM(2011) 218 final} 
{SEC(2011) 500 final} {SEC(2011) 501 final} {SEC(2011) 503 final} {SEC(2011) 504 final} {SEC(2011) 505 final} 
 
EN 2   EN Annex 5 Third Monitoring Report and Pr ogress Review of the EU Fast Track 
Initiative on Division of Labour 
Annex 5.1 .  
Third Monitoring Report and Progress Review  
of the EU Fast Track In itiative on Division of Labour  
 
Prepared by Sondra Wentzel, Urs Buercky, Ge sellschaft fürInternationale Zusammenarbeit, 
and Philipp Knill, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development 
Special thanks to all country facilitators of the Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour for 
their often very comprehensive answers to the questionnaire, to the pa rticipants of the EU 
Technical Seminar on Aid Effectiveness for th eir valuable comments and to Sibylle Tepper for 
steering the communication process of the survey. 
1.Key Messages  
Since 2008, the EU Fast Track Initiative on Di vision of Labour and Complementarity (FTI 
DoL) which involves the European Commissi on and currently 14 Member States as 
facilitators has supported DoL processes in  approximately 30 partner countries.  
This 3rd Monitoring Survey as well as trends si nce 2008 show that especially in the 19 
countries involved since the beginning, there has been encouraging progress. 
There is widespread use and institutionaliza tion of donor mappings as an aid management 
instrument, an upward trend in country-level ag reement on sector definitions as an important 
precondition for DoL and solid use of lead d onor arrangements that can generate more 
momentum for DoL. Perceived partner count ry commitment to DoL processes has also 
somewhat improved.  
Considering the results of DoL processes, thes e are increasingly positiv e with regard to the 
quality of sector dialogue and, at  a lower level, the rationaliza tion of aid allocations. Finally, 
the responses show an increasing expectation of  positive contributions to aid and development 
effectiveness.  
Nevertheless, the DoL approach is demanding a nd takes time to yield measurable results. 
Also, some methodological issues  still need to be resolved. Questions related to country 
ownership and donor commitment – i.e. interest s and incentives - will remain permanent 
challenges. Finally, to show its full potential, the DoL approach should be better adapted to 
specific country conditions and integrated with other aspects of the ai d effectiveness agenda. 
At EU level, ongoing discussions on Joint Prog ramming provide a framework to deal with 
these challenges.  
An emerging issue of relevance with regard to explain HLF 4 is the rapidly increasing 
importance of “new donors” and “new funding lines” reported from country level. This 
phenomenon adds to the complexity of the glob al aid and development architecture and thus 
presents new challenges for the DoL and broader aid effectiveness agendas. 
 
EN 3   EN 2. Background  
The EU Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour and Compleme ntarity (FTI DoL) aims to 
support a selected group of partner countries  in the process of implementing In-Country 
Division of Labour (DoL) as a contribution to aid and devel opment effectiveness. In the 
context of this initiative, since 2008 EU Me mber States and the European Commission as 
facilitating and supporting donors have been syst ematically cooperating  with approximately 
30 partner countries, using the principles of  the May 2007 EU Code of Conduct on DoL as 
their main point of reference. Improved DoL is to increase the complementarity of donor 
contributions and the efficiency and effectiv eness of aid delivery, thus contributing to 
improved development results.  
DoL can be understood as an integral part of  the harmonization agenda but should not be 
confused with donor coordination. Donor coor dination is about deal ing with the given 
situation of (too) many donors working in the same  country and sector (i.e. fragmentation of 
donor contributions) but not changing this situati on per se. DoL in contrast is about changing 
the situation by systematically reducing the nu mber of donors in overcrowded sectors and 
increasing support for orphan sectors, making us e of donors’ comparative advantages in the 
process to ensure the complementarity of their contributions. Neverthele ss, in most countries 
donor coordination and DoL happe n at the same time and complement each other.  
A first monitoring of the status quo of DoL implementation was conducted in December 2008 
(responses from 22 partner countries), the seco nd in October 2009 (responses from 28 partner 
countries). Results were widely shared and pe rceived as a valuable input for discussions on 
DoL at EU level and beyond, e.g. in the co ntext of the OECD Working Party on Aid 
Effectiveness (WP-EFF), especially its Task Team on Division of Labour and 
Complementarity (TT DoL).  
As was recommended in the 2009 FTI DoL M onitoring Report, in 2010, beyond ongoing in-
country facilitation of DoL proce sses, five DoL country cases were presented and discussed at 
DG Meetings and Technical Seminars in Brusse ls. Also, FTI DoL and TT DoL co-organized 
two Regional Workshops on Country-Led DoL for Anglophone Africa in Uganda (Sept. 
2010) and for Francophone Africa in Tunis (Nov. 2010) with participants among government, 
civil society and donor representatives fr om at total of 20 partner countries.1 A workshop for 
Latin America will take place in Honduras in Apr il 2011, the feasibility of one in Asia in the 
first half of 2011 is still being discussed. 
Members of the FTI DoL agreed to continue the monitoring on a regular basis. This paper 
presents the findings of the third monitoring round which took place until February 2011, reporting on the situation in 2010 (see Annex 1 for an overview of  the results). With a view 
towards contributing to ongoing discussions on how to insert DoL into the preparation 
process and the agenda of HLF 4 in Busan in  late 2011, this paper al so provides a broader 
progress review on the FTI DoL by assessing tr ends since the first monitoring in 2008.  
This time, the questionnaire
2 was sent out to the 31 partner c ountries on the current FTI DoL 
list (see Table 1 and Annex 3).3 Responses received from the facilitating donors in the 
                                                 
1  The workshop repo rts are available at: 
http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3746,en_2649_3236398_45464009_1_1_1_1,00.html 
2  A copy of the questionnaire is attached in Annex 2.  
3  The FTI DoL List was attached to the Operationa l Framework on Aid Effectiveness (2009) (18239/10)  
http://www.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/ensur e-aid-effectiveness/eu-approach_en.htm . This list is updated in 
 
EN 4   EN following 30 partner countries4 could be integrated in this repor t (numbers in brackets indicate 
how many times the country participated in  the monitoring since 2008): Albania (2), 
Bangladesh (3), Benin (3) Bolivia (3), Burkina Faso (3), Burundi (3), Cameroon (3), Central African Republic (2), Ethiopia (3), Ghana (3),  Haiti (1), Honduras (2), Kenya (2), Kyrgyz 
Republic (3), Laos (1), Madagasc ar (3), Malawi (2), Mali (3 ), Moldova (1), Mongolia (3), 
Mozambique (3), Rwanda (3), Senegal (2), Serbia (1), Sierra Leone (1), Tanzania (3), Uganda 
(3), Ukraine (3), Vietnam (3) and Zambia (3). Despite the rather tight deadline, in 11 countries (38%), donors and the partner country repres entatives answered jointly
5, in 20 
countries (69%) was the answer coordinated with other donors (in 9 countries or 31%, both 
consultations happened); the remaining questionnaires were filled in only by the facilitating donors.  
For the purpose of contextualizing the monito ring results, the countries  covered by the FTI 
DoL are classified in Table 1 with regard to regions and country types; the table also shows 
the number of bilateral and multilateral donors reporting to the OECD-DAC per country as a 
first (though rather crude) indi cator of fragmentation - the co re problem the DoL approach 
seeks to address. The numbers vary consider ably within the Low Income Country (LIC) 
group (from 19 to 35) but also in the Middle Income Country (MIC) group (from 21 to 32), 
whereas numbers are similar comparing the tw o groups. The table also marks the countries 
covered by presentations in Brussels at the mee tings of the EU Directors General as well as 
those participating in the two Regional DoL Workshops in 2010.  
The FTI monitoring list includes “core countries”  of the Aid Effectiveness Agenda, most of 
which are African LICs and Least Developed Co untries (LDCs). But ev en within this group 
there are considerable differences be tween Anglophone (including Mozambique) and 
Francophone countries, and again within each cat egory, in terms of their capacities for aid 
coordination and management and their priorities  within the broad aid effectiveness agenda. 
Beyond Africa, with few exceptions, aid effect iveness and DoL processes are much more 
recent, and the list includes more Lower Middl e Income Countries (LMICs) and, in Europe, 
even Upper Middle Income C ountries (UMICs) with a much stronger potential for country 
ownership in aid management, but also w ith different priorities and challenges.  
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Annex 3 of this document, as there have been some changes in the choice of countries and in the facilitator 
roles among EU donors.  The FTI DoL List of the Operational Fr amework forms the ba sis for Table 1, 
naming those included in the present survey. In this a nd previous surveys, choice was made to include some 
countries in the monitoring that do not feature on the FTI DoL List, but have interesting processes to report on. In the previous surveys, a total of 32 partner countries (2008) and 36 countries (2009) were included. 
Besides European Commission, 14 Me mber States are curren tly involved in the FTI-DoL: BE, CZ, DE, DK, 
ES, FR, IE, IT, LUX, NL, PT, SE, SI and UK (see Annex 3). With the exception of Laos,  Malawi, Mongolia and Uganda which are without facilita ting donors, there are one or two facilitating and up to seven supporting 
EU donors per partner country covered in the 2011 FTI DoL monitoring.  
4  Twenty-nine responses received un til March 7, 2011 could be integrated  into the quantita tive analysis and 
graphs of this final report (information from the Cent ral African Republic which arrived later was integrated 
qualitatively). These 29 responses represent 94% of the countries on the current FTI DoL List (69% in 2008, 
78% in 2009). Responses vary cons iderably in the amount of additional comments and documents provided 
which facilitate understanding of the situation at country level.  
5  These countries are: Albania, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra 
Leone, Ukraine and Vietnam (in the case of the Ukraine, the EU facilitator actually passed on the 
questionnaire filled in by the government with some comments). In several other countries, partner 
government responses were request ed but not received in time.  
 
EN 5   EN Table 21 - Partner Countries Addressed in  the EU FTI Monitoring Survey 2011 
Middle Income Country 
Continent Subcategories Low Income 
Country Lower 
Middle 
Income 
Country Upper 
Middle 
Income 
Country 
Anglophone Ethiopia 
(35)*+ 
Ghana (31)+ 
Kenya (36)+ 
Malawi (24)+
Rwanda (34)+
Sierra Leone 
(26)+ Tanzania 
(35)+ 
Uganda (30)+Zambia (31)+--- --- 
Lusophone Mozambique 
(35)+ --- --- Africa 
Francophone Benin (26)+ 
Burkina Faso (30)+ 
Burundi (30) 
CAR (19)+ Madagascar 
(25)+ 
Mali (29)*+ Cameroon 
(26)+ 
Senegal 
(31)+ --- 
Asia Bangladesh 
(28) 
Laos (28) 
Kyrgyz Rep. 
(19) Mongolia 
(24) 
Vietnam 
(32)* --- 
Latin America Haiti (23)+ Bolivia (29)*
Honduras 
(27) --- 
Europe --- Moldova 
(22)* 
Ukraine (21)Albania 
(27) 
FYROM 
(22) 
Serbia 
(30) 
Total  20 8 3 
Sources of country classifications:   
World Bank 1/2011 ( http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications );  
UN 1/2011 ( http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/related/59/ )  
Notes:   
red: no response; bold:  Least Developed Country (LDC);  
(…) number in brackets: numbers of donors (OECD DAC 2011, based on 2009 CPA data); 
*) country case presented at 2010 DG Meetings and/or Technical Seminars;  +) country participation in one of the two regional DoL workshops in Africa 2010 (by government 
and/or donor and/or civil society representatives).  
 
EN 6   EN 3. Progress in Division of Labour Processes  
As was already described in the previous mon itoring reports, “ideal-type” DoL processes at 
partner country level go through thre e stages (independent of who ta kes the lead). First of all, 
an assessment of the status quo takes place e.g. through a mapping of donor  presence at sector 
level. In a second step, partner governments ar ticulate their preferences, donors assess their 
respective comparative advantages (individually and/or through a peer review), and both sides 
negotiate an agreement on DoL.  Finally donors and partner count ries implement an improved 
DoL regime by reprogramming aid at sector level or using delegated cooperation.  
Figure 38 shows the current stat us of six major aspects of DoL implementation in 2010 (29 
responses). As in the previous years, country situations vary considerably, depending e.g. on 
the length of involvement  with the “DoL Agenda.”6 Recent political crises or natural disasters 
in several countries have also  had their impact on aid management, including DoL processes.7  
Figure 38 - Status of the DoL Process (2010) 
 
Donor mappings and lead donor arrangements con tinue to be the inst ruments of the DoL 
approach most widely used. Information fr om the questionnaires shows that many donor 
mappings have been updated and improved in recent years and that in some cases the 
instrument has become an integral part of aid management at country level. Examples are the 
ongoing development of the second Joint Assistance Strategy in Zambia (JASZ II) or the “G19” process in Mozambique in which al l 19 General Budget Suppor t donors are involved. 
Lead donor arrangements, usually in the context of Sector Work ing Groups, can take a variety 
of forms and degrees of formality but are generally described as useful. Other elements of the DoL approach - mutually agreed sector defi nitions and actual repr ogramming, but also the 
integration of cross-cutting issues and comparat ive advantage assessments – continue to be 
less frequent.  
                                                
 
6  In 2011, Haiti, Laos, Moldova, Serbia and Sierra Leone were newcomers to the survey with so far limited 
DoL implementation to report. 
7  For example, in Madagascar due to the application of Art. 96 of the Cotonou Agreement many development 
cooperation programs and activities were interrupted and it was impossible to continue the DoL process.  
 
EN 7   EN Figure 39 shows the trends in  DoL implementation since 2008 only for those 19 countries 
which participated in all three surveys.8 Again, donor mappings and lead donor arrangements 
are the most frequently used instruments. In 2009, the absence of jointly agreed sector 
definitions had been identified as a frequent challenge for In-Country DoL processes. With regard to this aspect, there has been a signifi cant improvement, whereas the frequency of all 
other elements of the DoL approach has fluctuated over time. 
Figure 39 – Trends in the Status of DoL Processes 
 
The frequency of comparative advantage asse ssments has picked up again after a slight 
decline in 2009. Comments in the questionnaires show that they  are already in stitutionalized 
in Ghana or Mozambique but continue to be a challenge in many other countries. They often 
seem to happen rather informally. Cross-cu tting issues like human rights, gender and 
environment were said to be systematical ly addressed in the context of lead donor 
arrangements in about two thirds of the c ountries in 2009 but now show a downward trend. 
However, these issues are sometimes also tr eated as separate sectors or by specialized 
working groups.  
Reprogramming as a consequence of DoL proce sses shows a decline after a peak in 2009 but 
is still above 50%. Progress at least among EU donors is reported fro m Joint Assistance 
Strategy or other review proces ses e.g. in Ghana, Mozambique and Zambia. However, as was 
noted already in 2009, in several countries (eve n those mentioned above ) reprogramming also 
continues to be the result of unilateral portfolio decisions at donor headquarters9, and the 
coordination of exit strategies at country leve l remains a challenge. Delegated cooperation is 
reported from several countries, mainly in A nglophone Africa, but is still only incipient in 
most of Francophone Africa, Asia and Latin America.  
                                                 
8  These countries are: Bangladesh,  Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, 
Kyrgyz Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Zambia.   
9  The response from Vietnam, for example, relates reprogramming to the fact that donors scale down their 
ODA in view of the country’ s recent acquisition of middle-in come country (MIC) status. 
 
EN 8   EN Nine responses (31%)10 report Action Plans which were proposed in the November 2009 
Council Conclusions11 as an additional support for DoL proc esses. In the case of Ghana, the 
Action Plan states:  
“To mitigate the risk of proliferation of pr ocesses and papers, this action plan is based 
on existing processes like the G-JAS review, the mapping and strengthening of Sector 
Working Groups and will be harmonised with  the draft implementation plan for the 
Ghana Aid Policy expected to be presented at  the CG meeting in September 2010. It 
follows a pragmatic approach with the aim of saving resources on all sides and 
identifying/formulating a set of significant and achievable targets.”  
The Mozambique Action Plan, while directed firs t of all at EU donors, is also embedded in 
the “G19” process. Some reports on DoL action plans actually refer to  broader plans already 
developed outside of the FTI DoL (e.g. the Harm onization Action Plan in Albania, the Joint 
Cooperation Strategy in Bangladesh, or the EU Aid Effectiveness Roadmaps in Tanzania and 
Vietnam), and most of these responses do not co nsider the elaboration of separate DoL Action 
Plans advisable. In Zambia, a DoL action pl an was drafted but the process discontinued 
because DoL would be well covered in the new JASZ. Similar comments come from a number of countries which res ponded negatively to the ques tion since DoL is already an 
integral part of government-donor  dialogue (e.g. Sierra Leone). Gi ven this feedback, it seems 
advisable to leave it to facilitating donors at c ountry level to decide a nd report if a special FTI 
DoL Action Plan can add value in th e national aid management context.   
Two questionnaires (Burkina Faso, Ghana) refer to an issue which is so far not explicitly 
addressed by the DoL approach: its relationshi p to the changing mix of aid modalities. The 
response from Burkina Faso argues that a don or providing Sector Budget Support to five 
sectors may have a better impact on aid effec tiveness than one focusing on only three sectors 
but utilizing a project approach. Similarly, th e response from Ghana compares the impact of 
sector concentration via PBA favor ably to that via “small, traditional projects.” This issue 
deserves more attention and also points to the need to better integrate DoL into the broader 
aid effectiveness agenda at country level.  
Finally, feedback from the facilitators themselves on their experiences was as follows: 
considering only responses from those countri es involved in the FTI DoL already before 
receiving the questionnaires
12, in 2011, 50% (of 24) responde nts were satisfied with the 
information they received from their headquarters (down from 63% of 24 respondents in 2009). In 2011, 58% felt well prepared for their ro le as DoL facilitators (also down from 63% 
in 2009), 21% (vs. 29% in 2009) explicitly did not. 
4. Leadership and Promotion of DoL Processes 
 
With ownership being the key principle of bot h the Paris Declaration (PD) and the Accra 
Agenda for Action (AAA), donors should strive fo r engaging in a way that supports partner 
                                                 
10  Albania, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania and Vietnam.  
11  Annex I., A.3.f): “Building on existing work, and additional action in line with measures described above, 
develop, by 31 March 2010, a joint action plan and timeframe per FTI DoL country for the implementation of DoL. The plan is to be based on the Code of Conduct and the Toolkit for Division of Labour, also taking into 
account the Internationa l Good Practice Principles fo r Country-Led Division of La bour. The joint action plan 
should be coordinated with partner countries and other donors with a view to being integrated into Joint Assistance Strategies where these exist.” 
12  In 2011, responses included five countries new to the FTI DoL, in 2009, four (in 2008, no feedback was 
requested from facilitators). 
 
EN 9   EN countries’ priorities and strengthens their lead ership. As noted in the previous two reports, 
DoL still seems to be a process initiated and promoted mainly by donors, in most cases led by European Commission or Member States – despite  considerable efforts to the contrary by EU 
facilitating and supporting donors and the region al workshop series on “Country-Led DoL.” 
However, in comparison to previous years, ma ny more countries are now not only approving 
DoL processes but are reported to be invol ved in facilitating th em (see Figure 40).  
Figure 40 - Commitment of partner government (2010) 
 
As Figure 41 shows (again based on a comparis on of 19 countries over time), only one partner 
country – Rwanda – has continuously been in the lead of its DoL process which is an integral 
part of Rwanda’s much broader and very a ssertive aid coordination and management. This 
experience provided a stimulating input for other Anglophone countri es at the regional 
workshop in Uganda (see Footnote 1). Three ot her countries which were at some point 
classified as “in the lead” (Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi) are now – more realistically, as 
their presentations at the same workshop showed  - described as facil itating or approving DoL 
processes. 
Indeed, given that improvements in DoL and complementarity as part of the broader 
harmonization agenda are first of all a donor responsibility, it may not  be realistic to expect all 
partner countries to immediatel y – or ever - assume a leading role in DoL processes. 
Therefore, it is encouraging to see that the numbers in the category “facilitating role” have 
recently been increasing quite considerably. Za mbia is the only country which has assumed a 
strong facilitating role for the last three year s but continues to suffer from shortages in 
personnel that limit its leadership in aid ma nagement. An additional considerable but 
declining number of partner governments con tinue to approve DoL progress triggered by 
donors.  
 
EN 10   EN Figure 41 – Trends in Partner Country Commitment to DoL 
 
The number of partner countries reported to ha ve no interest at all in DoL remains low and 
fluctuates to some degree as a result of external  events (political changes, natural disasters). 
Countries in fragile situations like Haiti or the Kyrgyz Republic are reported not to be in 
conditions to provide leadership to aid management  in general, let alone in DoL, but the case 
of Sierra Leone shows that this situation can improve, al though aid management in a post-
conflict situation has its own challenges. The re sponse from Burundi stresses that the country 
actually does not have enough donors to cover its financing needs, explaining why DoL is not 
a pressing concern; the response from the Central African Republic contains similar 
observations.13 Similarly, the response from Serbia c onsiders the DoL Agenda less relevant 
for this country which has a rapidly decreas ing number of donors due to its upper middle-
income country (UMIC) status.  
Well-known reasons for weak ownership of part ner governments like the fear of losing 
resources (especially among sector ministries) and low aid management capacities continue to 
be reported and need to be taken into consid eration in every DoL process. Some responses 
also refer to some partner governments‘ different  priorities in the cont ext of the broader Aid 
Effectiveness Agenda14, but also to other partner government s‘ frustration with the limited or 
mixed results of previous DoL or harmoni zation initiatives (e.g. Ethiopia, Kenya). 
The inclusiveness of DoL processes with re gard to EU and other ODA donors, and with a 
view towards eventually including also non-DAC donors and private actors like NGOs or 
foundations shows the following trends and challenge s (see Table 22; data from 19 countries).   
                                                 
13  According to the most recent OE CD DAC statistics (see Table 1), CAR indeed has “only” 19 donors, but 
Burundi has 30, the same number as Uganda. As was alread y stated in the previous report, further statistical 
work on aid fragmentation and proliferation should address the contradictions between numbers like these and local perceptions of fragmentation.  
14  Such different priorities are e.g. ownership and also alignment for Uganda and Bolivia or the implications of 
the new middle-income country (MIC) status in Vietnam.  
 
EN 11   EN Table 22 – Trends in Donor Pa rticipation in DoL Processes 
All ODA Donors 
Participating 
(in 2008, the question 
referred only to “all EU 
donors”) 
Yes 
No 
No Data 
Participation of all ODA donors is slowly incr easing, and while the participation of EU 
donors was no longer asked separately after an  initial high value in 2008, the lists of 
participating donors in some of the questi onnaires continue to demonstrate strong 
commitment by the EU donors. Other donors menti oned as participating in DoL processes are 
Switzerland (in 7 countries), Cana da (5), Norway (4) and USAID (3). Much seems to depend 
on the way the DoL approach is introduced: th e response from Bangladesh relates that DoL 
initially was “quite contentious” among non-EU  donors who thought they would be required 
to submit to the EU Code of Conduct. The re ports from Kenya and Mo zambique, in contrast, 
stress the participation of all KJAS or “G19” donors (in the case of multilaterals in 
Mozambique, taking their “broad  mandate” into consideration)  in processes which started 
before the EU Code of Conduct (as they did in several other Anglophone  African countries). 
Multilaterals are also reported to  be participating in Burkina Faso  and in the context of the Six 
Banks Initiative in Vietnam. Vertical funds ar e not specifically mentioned in any of the 2011 
questionnaires.  
Non-DAC donor participation in DoL processes in contrast is not yet happening, and even 
their participation in general donor coordination is still very incipien t (with the apparent 
exception of Moldova and the Kyrgyz Republic ). However, several reports stress the 
increasing importance of China and to a le sser degree other “new donors” (e.g. in Laos) 
and/or the rapid expansion of  climate change financing (e.g. in Bolivia). From Ghana, 
Mozambique and Zambia, there are reports that discussions have already started on how to 
better involve these new actors at country level, starting fr om information exchange and 
coordination. In this context, the questionnaire from Sierra Leone recommends to also include 
NGOs whose presence is important  in this post-conf lict country. With a view towards HLF 4 
and beyond, strategies to deal with the rapidl y increasing complexity of the Global Aid and 
Development Architecture, both at the internat ional and the country le vels, certainly merit 
close attention. 
5. Results of DoL Processes  
As was already explained in the previous repo rt, differentiating between the effects of donor 
coordination, DoL and other aid effectiveness ac tivities is rather diffi cult. In addition, the 
results presented here are based on the percepti ons of donor field and, in  some cases, partner 
government staff, not on any objective measuremen t. Several of the responses from countries 
new to the FTI DoL monitoring also indicate that it is too early to even assess immediate, let 
alone long-term results of DoL processes. Theref ore, the evidence in this part needs to be 
interpreted with caution. 
 
 
EN 12   EN Figure 42 - Impact of Division of Labour (2010) 
 
Figure 43 - Contribution to Aid an d Development Effectiveness (2010) 
 
As in the last report, feedback regarding the quality of sector dialogue as a result of DoL 
processes is encouraging. With regard to the rationalization of aid allo cation across sectors or 
the reduction of transaction co sts, the uncertainty in res ponses is significant. More 
rationalized aid allocation is claimed in more th an a quarter of the countries, but decreased 
transaction costs are reported  from only few countries.  
Noticeable or at least anticipated impacts of DoL on aid and development effectiveness 
continue to be moderate, but far less respons es are identifying no contribution at all in 
comparison to 2009. While a considerable number of responses see a “medium” contribution 
to aid effectiveness, most see ”small” contributions of DoL to development effectiveness. Some reasons given refer to the early stage of DoL (e.g. in Benin, Ethiopia, Madagascar, 
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Vietnam) , other responses show more general skepticism, e.g. that 
from Ghana which sees no clear linkage between DoL and MDGs or from Zambia on any plausible impact of DoL on development eff ectiveness in the sense of “broad based 
employment and poverty reduction.” 
 
EN 13   EN With regard to these more immediate results of Do L processes, it is agai n interesting to take a 
look at the trends emerging out of the three surveys (see Graph 7, again for 19 countries). 
Among the more immediate results of DoL proce sses, the positive trend with regard to the 
improvement of sector dialogue is confirmed as are, at a much lower level, improvements in 
the rationalization of aid allocation. With regard to the reduction of transaction costs, one of 
the most important ways in which DoL appro aches are expected to contribute to aid 
effectiveness, only 16% of the respondents see improvements for partner countries (a decline 
since 2008), and only 21% for donors (an increase si nce 2008). The responses show that there 
is increasing insecurity about th ese issues and also about the ra tionalization of aid allocation, 
pointing at the need to provide  better definitions and measur ements for these two important 
concepts. 
Figure 44 - Trends in Impact of Division of Labour 
 
Finally, with regard to the perception or rather  expectation of “higher level impacts” on aid 
and development effectiveness (inquired about only since 2009), the overall trend since 2009 
is more optimistic, i.e. towards a “medium” contribution to aid effectiveness and a “small” contribution to development effectiveness (see Table 23). 
Table 23 - Trends in Contribution to  Aid and Development Effectiveness 
Results Year 2009 2011 
None 21% 11% 
Small 47% 37% 
Medium 32% 47% 
High 0% 0% Aid 
Effectiveness 
No data 0% 5% 
None 32% 11% 
Small 47% 63% 
Medium 21% 16% 
High 0% 0% Development 
Effectiveness 
No data 0% 11% 
6. Obstacles and Enabling Factor s for Division of Labour  
Based on responses in the first two monito ring surveys, the 2011 que stionnaire provided a 
number of options to allow for a quantification of responses.  
 
EN 14   EN 6.1 Obstacles  
Most of the obstacles mentioned in the 2008 a nd 2009 monitoring reports remain relevant (see 
Table 24). Limited partner country ownership (6 6% of responses), but also the reluctance by 
donors to leave attract ive sectors (55%) continue  to be the major obst acles in In-Country DoL 
processes. Both issues, as was already discus sed in the previous re ports, have to do with 
interests, incentives and in th e end political will on partner country and donor side. Partner 
country ownership was already dealt with above . With regard to limited donor commitment to 
DoL processes, responses also refer to the problem of conflicting me ssages received from 
donor headquarters, e.g. with rega rd to European Commission’s ve rtical sectoral funding lines 
or bilateral donors’ changing sect oral priorities which complic ate efforts by field staff to 
support DoL at country level. This problem wa s also highlighted at the Regional Workshops 
on DoL in Kampala and Tunis in 2010. 
Table 24 - Major Obstacles in DoL Processes (2010) 
 No. of 
responses 
(total: 29) 
Limited partner country ownership  19 
Reluctance by donors to leave attractive sectors 16 
Lacking clarity of donor roles 8 
Legal and administ rative barriers  8 
Limited capacities on donor side 9 
Growing number of parallel aid effectiveness 
initiatives 6 
Others 8 
In comparison to the two more political obsta cles above, limited donor capacities (e.g. with 
regard to DoL instruments or simply av ailable time) are men tioned by 31% of the 
respondents, lacking clarity of donor roles and legal and administrative barriers by 28%, and 
the growing number of parallel  aid effectiveness activities by 21%. The first three are more 
technical or administrative problems that can be addressed in the preparation and 
implementation of DoL processes. The last issu e, however, is an unintended consequence of 
the broader aid effectiveness agenda which certa inly merits attention since it points towards 
an overload of well-intended act ivities at country level.  
6.2 Enabling factors  As in the previous reports, engagement of EU  Member States and European Commission is 
generally perceived as a major enabling factor for DoL (55% of the responses). The will of 
development partners to implement the Paris De claration and the Accra Agenda for Action as 
well as the growing awareness of  partner governments regarding the significance of strong aid 
management structures are also mentioned by  almost half the respondents (45% each). 
Targeted technical support for DoL processe s, e.g. through the European Commission’s 
“floaters” or organized at country level, is re ported as an enabling fact or from six countries 
(21%). 
 
EN 15   EN  
Table 25 - Enabling Factors for DoL Processes (2010) 
 No. of responses 
(total: 29)  
Strong engagement by EU Members and Commission 16 
General will of development pa rtners to implement PD and 
AAA 13 
Growing awareness of partner government for the need of 
strong aid management structures 13 
Targeted TA-support through FT I DoL or other initiatives 6 
Others 3 
7. Conclusions  
This 3rd FTI DoL Monitoring Survey and the review of trends show improvements since 
2008  in DoL implementation and encouraging results in some important areas. 
There is widespread use a nd institutionalization of donor mappings  as an aid management 
instrument, an upward trend in country-level agreement on sector definitions  as an 
important precondition for DoL and solid use of lead donor arrangements  that can generate 
more momentum for DoL. 
Perceived partner country commitment  to DoL processes has also somewhat improved.  
Considering the results of DoL processes, thes e are increasingly positiv e with regard to the 
quality of sector dialogue  and, at a lower level, the rationalization of aid allocations ; 
however, the attribution of these results to Do L processes seems to be questionable in some 
cases. Finally, the responses point to an incr easing expectation of positive contributions to aid 
and development effectiveness .  
When looking at the obstacles for the impl ementation of DoL , it is clear that the challenge 
of ensuring sufficient political will to implem ent DoL remains: limited country ownership and 
the reluctance of donors to leave at tractive sectors continue to be rated as important obstacles. 
The fact that more than 20% of  the responses consider the numb er of parallel aid effectiveness 
activities at country level as an obstacle for implementation pr ocesses also warrants attention. 
Enabling factors for DoL  continue to be the EU engagement and a shared will to implement 
the PD and AAA. The growing awareness of partner governments to improve aid 
management structures is also considered important.  
Reprogramming  takes time and any results in terms of aid and development effectiveness 
will only be noticeable at country level and in OE CD DAC statistics with some delay, so that 
no overall evaluation of DoL as an  approach or the FTI is possibl e at this point. Nevertheless, 
the three FTI DoL monitoring surveys as we ll as other sources of evidence (e.g. PD 
Evaluation country studies, pres entations and discussions at Regional Workshops) point at a 
number of persistent challenges  of the DoL approach. 
Methodology:  Central concepts of the DoL appro ach like “comparative advantages” and 
“transaction costs” are attractiv e for policy makers since they seem to convey “common sense 
principles.” However, they continue to esca pe clear definition and measurement, making it 
difficult for partner countries and donor field staff to apply them  in DoL processes. And while 
sector definitions are in the process of being agreed-upon at country level, tracing progress on 
 
EN 16   EN the global level will need further efforts to map these definitions to those used by OECD 
DAC.  
Country ownership and role of donors:  DoL as part of the broa der harmonization agenda is 
first of all a donor responsibilit y, and the EU Code of Conduct is  an attempt to ensure “good 
donorship.” On the other hand, without broad country ownership for national development 
processes and, in this context, for the mana gement of aid and other contributions, little 
progress can be expected. Currently, only the Rwandan government shows strong leadership 
for DoL, in the context of its assertive aid coordinati on and management strategy.  
This, however, should not be  an excuse for donors not to  do their own “homework.” 
Insufficient and/or inconsistent fulfillment of basic DoL and other aid effectiveness commitments among donors, even many EU Member  States, may be a much more serious 
obstacle for DoL processes than the lack of  country ownership. For example, most ongoing 
partner country concentration proc esses continue to be unilateral, with only limited and often 
ex-post information of partner countries and ot her donors. Also the choi ce of sectors, even 
though negotiated with the partner government and consulted with other donors, is often 
influenced by nationally predefined  global sector spending targets.  
With a view towards HLF 4, it might help if  donors became more tran sparent about their 
interests and the political proce sses in their own countries with  regard to aid allocation and 
other aid effectiveness commitments. In th e EU context, the ongoing discussions on Joint 
Programming provide a framework for adva ncing with regard to these issues. 
Context:  Table 21 showed the diversity of countries  included in the FTI DoL, including the 
numbers of donors present as a fi rst indicator of fragmentation. There seems to be a need to 
further crosscheck statistical fragmentation anal yses since what matters for country level aid 
effectiveness and DoL processes are perceptions  of fragmentation (i.e. felt aid management 
burdens – the evaluation of which will in turn be influenced by perceived opportunities due to 
donor diversity) and capacities to deal with it. 
As is in principle acknowledged in DoL policy documents but apparently rather difficult to 
implement, DoL should not be applied as a bluepr int to this diversity of  circumstances. Many 
FTI DoL facilitators stress th at there is a need to understand each country’s context, 
development priorities and aid management strategy and to have sufficient flexibility to insert relevant principles and elements of the Do L approach into ongoing local processes (which 
may already go beyond the EU donors) instead of adding new layers of bureaucracy.  
As a consequence, one important  priority should be to con tinue the decentralization of 
decision making on aid effectiveness priorities a nd the avoidance of “vertical” sector targets 
or funding lines. As was discussed during the Regional Workshops, the latter may require a 
change in decision making in donor capitals wh ich often still focus more on the input of 
resources than intended results. 
A final “context issue” is the rapidly incr easing importance of “n ew donors” and “new 
funding lines.” Even though their contribution to development is most welcome, these actors 
further complicate the Global Aid and Developmen t Architecture. They add to the number of 
donors at the country level and are increasingly seen and used as an alternative to “traditional 
donors” but do not adhere to many aid effectiven ess principles. This to pic is already on the 
agenda for HLF 4, and experiences made in the context of the FTI DoL can be an important 
contribution to these discussions.  
 
EN 17   EN Annex 5.2.   Overview Table of Monitoring Results, February 2011  
  Partner Country Dev. Strategy Donor Mapping Comp. Adv. Assess-ment Sector def ine-tions  Lead Donor Arrangements Repro-gram-ming  Action plan Comm. partner govern-ment?
 Participa-tion all donors? Transac-tion costs partner reduc ed? Transac-tion costs donor reduced?  Quality of sector dialogue im pro-ved? Aid across sectors rationa-lised? Contribu-
tion Aid Effectiveness? Contribu-tion Dev. Effectiveness? Lead facil. prepa-red? Satisfied with HQ commu-nication? 
Albania yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Facilitating no don't know don't know don't know don't know small small yes yes 
Bangladesh yes yes no yes no no yes Approving yes don't know no yes don't know none none no yes 
Benin yes yes yes yes yes yes no Approving no no no yes no small small yes 0 
Bolivia yes yes no no no yes no Approving no don't know don't know yes don't know medium small yes no 
Burkina Faso yes yes yes no yes no yes Facilitating no don't know yes yes yes medium medium no yes 
Burundi yes no no yes yes yes no Approving no don't know no don't know don't know small small no 0 
Cameroun yes yes no no yes no no Approving yes 0 0 yes yes medium small yes yes 
CAR no no no no no no no No interest no no no no no small small no yes 
Ethiopia yes yes yes no yes no yes Approving no 0 don't know yes yes small medium no yes 
Ghana yes yes no yes yes yes yes Approving yes don't know  don't know yes don't know medium small yes yes 
Haiti yes 0 no yes yes yes no No interest no don't know don't know don't know don't know small small no   
Honduras yes yes no no yes 0 no Facilitating no 0 don't know yes don't know small none 0 0 
Kenya yes yes no yes yes yes no Facilitating no don't know don't know 0 no medium medium yes yes 
Kyrgyz Rep. yes no no no no no no No interest no don't know don't know yes don't know none none no no 
Laos yes yes no no no no no Approving no no no yes no medium medium no yes 
Madagascar yes yes no no yes no no Facilitating no no no yes don't know medium small no yes 
Malawi yes yes no yes yes no no Approving no 0 0 yes 0 small small yes no 
Mali yes yes yes no 0 yes yes Approving no don't know don't know don't know don't know 0 0 0 0 
Moldova yes yes yes yes yes yes no Facilitating yes don't know no yes yes medium small 0 yes 
Mongolia yes 0 no yes no no no Facilitating no no no no no small small 0 0 
 
EN 18   EN Mozambique no yes yes no yes yes yes No interest yes no no yes don't know small small yes yes 
Rwanda yes yes yes yes yes yes no Leading role yes don't know don't know don't know don't know small small yes yes 
Senegal yes yes yes no no no no Facilitating no don't know don't know no no small small no no 
Serbia no no no yes yes no no Approving no don't know yes yes no 0 0 no 0 
Sierra Leone yes yes no yes yes yes no Facilitating yes no don't know yes yes 0 0 no yes 
Tansania yes yes no yes yes no yes Facilitating yes yes yes yes yes medium small yes yes 
Uganda yes yes yes yes yes yes no Facilitating yes yes yes yes no medium small no no 
Ukraine yes yes no yes yes yes no Facilitating no don't know don't know yes yes medium 0 yes yes 
Vietnam yes yes no yes yes no yes Approving no don't know yes yes don't know small small no yes 
Zambia yes yes yes yes yes yes no Facilitating no yes 0 yes yes medium medium yes yes 
 
 
EN 19   EN Annex 5.3  
Country-Level Questionnaire on the Im plementation of Division of Labour  
3rd Monitoring of the EU Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour  
December 2010  
 
To be completed by the EU facilitating donor of  the EU Fast Track Initiative on Division of 
Labour in coordination with par tner country representatives , EU and non-EU donors present 
in the partner country. 
Headquarters will already have  received a draft version of this questionnaire for their 
information as an annex to the annual M onterrey Questionnaire (now renamed "EU 
Development Accountability and Monitoring Questionnaire"). The results of this year's FTI 
DoL monitoring will be annexed to the overall Monterrey Report that will be published in 
spring 2011. 
Country:          Date:        
 EU facilitating donor:        
   Name of the facilitating donor 
representative:       
E-mail address of the facilitating donor 
representative:       
Partner country institution and  representative responsible:         
Responses approved by partner country:  Yes  No  
Responses coordinated with other donors:  Yes  No  
 
1. Status of the process:  
1.a. Is there a generally accepted national development strategy 
/ plan and / or joint assistance strategies which form or could form the basis for decisions on division of labour? Yes 
 No  
If yes, please 
provide title and validity 
       
1.b. Has a donor mapping taken place?   
(please attach relevant documents or internet link if available) Yes  No  
If yes, when?  
      
1.c. Have comparative advantages been identified in a 
systematic assessment? Yes  No   
1.d. Is there an agreed definition of sectors / cooperation areas 
between the partner country government and donors as a basis for division of labour? Yes 
 No  
1.e. Are lead donor arrangements established? 
(please attach relevant documents or internet links if available) Yes  No   
 Are cross cutting issues  (e.g. human rights, gender, Yes  No  
 
EN 20   EN environment) addressed in these lead donor arrangements (e.g. 
by agreeing on specific lead donors or integrating these issues 
explicitly into other sectors/areas)?  
1.f. Is reprogramming underway (do donors concentrate their aid in focal 
sectors or give higher priority to or phan sectors and in turn move out of 
other sectors or use the modality of delegated cooperation)?   (please attach relevant docume nts or internet links if available)  Yes 
 
No 
 
Comments  on 1.a, b, c, d, e and f:        
 
EN 21   EN  
1.g. What has the partner country government and the donor 
community undertaken to promote the implementation of 
division of labour?  
 Have you elaborated an action plan on division of labour as proposed in the council conclusions of 18
th Nov 2009 
(http://register.consilium.europa .eu/pdf/en/09/st15/st15912.en0
9.pdf)? 
If yes, please attach current version.   
If no, do you intend to elaborate an action plan?       
 
 
Yes  No  
   Yes 
 No  
2. Participation in the division of labour process:  
2.a. Commitment by the partner country (government and parliament) 
(i) Leading role and directing the process: 
(ii) Facilitating the process in close dialogue with donors: 
(iii) Approving progress tri ggered by donor initiative: 
(iv) No interest in division of lab our between donors, not approving progress: 
  
 
 
 
2.b. Participation by donors  
Do all ODA  donors in the partner country participate in 
the division of labour process? Yes  No   
Please name the donors with strong commitment for 
division of labour:       
 
Do non-DAC donors / private donors / foundations 
participate in the process? Please specify.  
      
Comments  on 2.a and b.        
If applicable: What are the reasons for weak commitment 
from donor or partner country side?       
3. Towards measuring impact of division of labour processes:  
If there is no clear evidence on the issues please give an educated guess  
3.a. Have transaction costs diminished through division of 
labour?  
(i)For the partner country:  Yes  No  Don’t 
know    
Educated guess:  
      
(ii)For the donors:  Yes  No  Don’t 
know    
Educated guess:  
      
3.b. Has the quality of sector policy dialogue improved? Yes  No  Don’t 
know    
Educated guess:  
      
3.c. Is aid allocation across sectors more rational (less 
orphan and/or over-crowded sect ors, needs and priorities 
by the partner country are more adequately addressed)? Yes  No  Don’t 
know    
Educated guess:  
      
 
EN 22   EN 3.d. Considering all changes promoted and supported by 
the division of labour process (see questions 3a-d and 
possibly others), how would yo u evaluate its contribution 
to  A more relevant, effective and efficient aid system
 in the 
partner country (Aid Effectiveness)?                           MDG-achievement/poverty reduction
 in and sustainable 
development of the partner country (Development 
Effectiveness)?             
 Comments:         
 
i. None  
   Small    
Medium     High 
 
 ii. None 
   Small 
  
Medium     High 
 
 
      
Justify your answers on 3:       
4. General comments  
4.a. What have been the major obs tacles in the process so far 
and which obstacles do you envisage in the future?  0) None 1) Limited partner country ownership  
2) Reluctance by donors to leave attractive sectors 
3) Lacking clarity of donor roles 4) Limited capacities on donor side 5) Legal and administrative barriers  6) Growing number of parallel aid effectiveness initiatives 7) Others 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
4.b. What have been the enabling factors so far?  
0) None 1) Strong engagement by EU Members and Commission 
2) General will of development partners to implement PD and 
AAA 
3) Targeted TA-support through FTI DoL or other initiatives 4) Growing awareness of partner government for the need of strong aid management structures 5) Others   
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 
4.c. Any other comment:       
5. For lead facilitators only:  
5.a.  Do you feel well prepared for your role as lead facilitator of 
the EU Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour? Yes  No  
 Comments: 
      
5.b.  Are you satisfied with the communication by your HQ in 
regard to the EU Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour? Yes  No  
 Comments:       
6. Suggestions to improve the questionnaire  
      
 
EN 23   EN Please return the completed questionnaire to the Coordinators of the Fa st Track Initiative at 
EU level. by 31 January 2011: 
Please do not forget to attach relevant docum ents on the division of labour process in your 
country if available, e.g. donor mapping, tabl e on lead donor arrangements and/or sectoral 
involvement of donors. 
European Commission (DG Development),  
And  
Germany (BMZ, Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development)  
Thank you for your participation! 
 
EN 24   EN Annex 5.4 .  FTI List as in Operationa l Framework 2009, updated February 2011  
EU donor 
country  Lead Facilitator in:  Supporting Facilitator in:  
BE Burundi - 
CZ - Moldova, Mongolia 
DE Burkina Faso, Ghana, Sierra 
Leone (co-lead with IE), Zambia Cameroon, Mozambique, Tanzania, 
Uganda 
DK Benin, Bolivia (co-lead with ES), 
Kenya Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ghana, 
Mozambique, Tanzania, 
FR Cameroon, Central African 
Republic, Madagascar, Mali (co-lead with NL), Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mozambique, 
Senegal, Vietnam 
IE Sierra Leone (co-lead with DE) Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda, Tanzania, 
Vietnam, 
IT Albania Bolivia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, 
Senegal 
LUX - Burkina Faso,  
NL Bangladesh (co-lead with EC), 
Mali (co-lead with FR), Mozambique Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 
Ghana, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia 
ES Bolivia (co-lead with DK), Haiti - 
PT - Mozambique 
SE Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova   Bangladesh 
SI FYROM - 
UK Kyrgyz Republic, Rwanda Ethiopia,  Kenya, Moldova, Sierra Leone 
EC Bangladesh (co-lead with NL), 
Ethiopia, Tanzania, Vietnam, Rwanda, Senegal Benin, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African 
Republic, Ghana, Haiti, Laos, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Zambia 
Notes:  
• Nicaragua and Cambodia have been taken off th e list until the loca l situation changes. 
They will still be included in the communication of the Network of the Fast Track 
Initiative. 
• Some changes in lead responsibili ties (Moldova, Rwanda, and Senegal). 
•