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 COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS   Enhancing EU Accountability on Financing for Development towards the EU Official Development Assistance Peer Review   VOL III
Date: 2011-04-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: climate change, developing countries, development aid, development plan, development policy, distribution of EU funding, international cooperation

EN 

EN 

   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 COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE 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 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5 

Third  Monitoring  Report  and  Progress  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 Initiative on Division of Labour 

Prepared  by  Sondra  Wentzel,  Urs  Buercky,  Gesellschaft  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  participants  of  the  EU 
Technical Seminar on Aid Effectiveness for their 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  Division  of  Labour  and  Complementarity  (FTI 
DoL)  which  involves  the  European  Commission  and  currently  14  Member  States  as 
facilitators has supported DoL processes in approximately 30 partner countries.  

This  3rd  Monitoring  Survey  as  well  as  trends  since  2008  show  that  especially  in  the  19 
countries involved since the beginning, there has been encouraging progress. 

There  is  widespread  use  and  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,  these  are  increasingly  positive  with  regard  to  the 
quality of sector dialogue and, at a lower level, the rationalization of aid allocations. Finally, 
the responses show an increasing expectation of positive contributions to aid and development 
effectiveness.  

Nevertheless,  the  DoL  approach  is  demanding  and  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.  interests  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 aid effectiveness agenda. 
At  EU  level,  ongoing  discussions  on  Joint  Programming  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 global aid and development architecture and thus 
presents new challenges for the DoL and broader aid effectiveness agendas. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
2. Background 

The EU Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour and Complementarity (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  development  effectiveness.  In  the 
context  of  this  initiative,  since  2008  EU  Member  States  and  the  European  Commission  as 
facilitating  and  supporting  donors  have  been  systematically  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  effectiveness  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  coordination  is  about  dealing  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 situation per se. DoL in contrast is about changing 
the  situation  by  systematically  reducing  the  number  of  donors  in  overcrowded  sectors  and 
increasing support for orphan sectors, making use of donors’ comparative advantages in the 
process to ensure the complementarity of their contributions. Nevertheless, in most countries 
donor coordination and DoL happen 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 second in October 2009 (responses from 28 partner 
countries). Results were widely shared and perceived as a valuable input for discussions on 
DoL  at  EU  level  and  beyond,  e.g.  in  the  context  of  the  OECD  Working  Party  on  Aid 
its  Task  Team  on  Division  of  Labour  and 
Effectiveness  (WP-EFF),  especially 
Complementarity (TT DoL).  

As was recommended in the 2009 FTI DoL Monitoring Report, in 2010, beyond ongoing in-
country facilitation of DoL processes, five DoL country cases were presented and discussed at 
DG Meetings and Technical Seminars in Brussels. 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 from at total of 20 partner countries.1 A workshop for 
Latin America will take place in Honduras in April 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  also  provides  a  broader 
progress review on the FTI DoL by assessing trends since the first monitoring in 2008.  

This time, the questionnaire2
 was sent out to the 31 partner countries on the current FTI DoL 
list  (see  Table  1  and  Annex  3).3  Responses  received  from  the  facilitating  donors  in  the 

1   The workshop reports 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  Operational  Framework  on  Aid  Effectiveness  (2009)  (18239/10)  
http://www.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/ensure-aid-effectiveness/eu-approach_en.htm. This list is updated in 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
following 30 partner countries4 could be integrated in this report (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),  Madagascar  (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  representatives  answered  jointly5,  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  monitoring  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)  indicator  of  fragmentation  -  the  core  problem  the  DoL  approach 
seeks  to  address.  The  numbers  vary  considerably  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  two  groups.  The  table  also  marks  the  countries 
covered by presentations in Brussels at the meetings 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 Countries (LDCs). But even within this group 
there  are  considerable  differences  between  Anglophone  (including  Mozambique)  and 
Francophone  countries,  and  again  within  each  category,  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  effectiveness  and  DoL  processes  are  much  more 
recent, and the list includes more Lower Middle Income Countries (LMICs) and, in Europe, 
even  Upper  Middle  Income  Countries  (UMICs)  with  a  much  stronger  potential  for  country 
ownership in aid management, but also with 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  Framework  forms  the  basis  for  Table  1, 
naming those included in the present survey. In this and 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 Member States are currently 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 facilitating 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  until  March  7,  2011  could  be  integrated  into  the  quantitative  analysis  and 
graphs of this final report (information from the Central 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 considerably 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 requested but not received in time.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Table 21 - Partner Countries Addressed in the EU FTI Monitoring Survey 2011 

Middle Income Country 

Lower 
Middle 
Income 
Country 

--- 

Upper 
Middle 
Income 
Country 

--- 

Low Income 
Country 

Ethiopia 
(35)*+ 
Ghana (31)+ 
Kenya (36)+ 
Malawi (24)+
Rwanda (34)+
Sierra Leone 
(26)+ 
Tanzania 
(35)+ 
Uganda (30)+
Zambia (31)+

Mozambique 
(35)+ 

Benin (26)+ 
Burkina Faso 
(30)+ 
Burundi (30) 
CAR (19)+ 
Madagascar 
(25)+ 
Mali (29)*+ 

Bangladesh 
(28) 
Laos (28) 
Kyrgyz Rep. 
(19) 

Haiti (23)+ 

--- 

Continent 

Subcategories 

Anglophone 

Africa 

Lusophone 

Francophone 

Asia 

Latin America 

Europe 

Total  

--- 

Cameroon 
(26)+ 
Senegal 
(31)+ 

Mongolia 
(24) 
Vietnam 
(32)* 

Bolivia (29)*
Honduras 
(27) 

Moldova 
(22)* 
Ukraine (21)

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Albania 
(27) 
FYROM 
(22) 
Serbia 
(30) 

3 

20 

8 

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 

5 

   EN 

 
3. Progress in Division of Labour Processes  

As was already described  in  the  previous monitoring  reports, “ideal-type” DoL  processes at 
partner country level go through three stages (independent of who takes 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  articulate  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 countries implement an improved 
DoL regime by reprogramming aid at sector level or using delegated cooperation.  

Figure 38 shows the current status 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  continue  to  be  the  instruments  of  the  DoL 
approach  most  widely  used.  Information  from  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 all 19 General Budget Support donors are involved. 
Lead donor arrangements, usually in the context of Sector Working 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  definitions  and  actual  reprogramming,  but  also  the 
integration  of  cross-cutting  issues  and  comparative  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 

6 

   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 significant 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  assessments  has  picked  up  again  after  a  slight 
decline in 2009. Comments in the questionnaires show that they are already institutionalized 
in Ghana or Mozambique but continue to be a challenge in many other countries. They often 
seem  to  happen  rather  informally.  Cross-cutting  issues  like  human  rights,  gender  and 
environment  were  said  to  be  systematically  addressed  in  the  context  of  lead  donor 
arrangements in about two thirds of the countries in 2009 but now show a downward trend. 
However,  these  issues  are  sometimes  also  treated  as  separate  sectors  or  by  specialized 
working groups.  

Reprogramming as a consequence of DoL processes shows a decline after a peak in 2009 but 
is  still  above  50%.  Progress  at  least  among  EU  donors  is  reported  from  Joint  Assistance 
Strategy or other review processes e.g. in Ghana, Mozambique and Zambia. However, as was 
noted already in 2009, in several countries (even 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 level remains a challenge. Delegated cooperation is 
reported  from  several  countries,  mainly  in  Anglophone  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-income country (MIC) status. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Nine  responses  (31%)10  report  Action  Plans  which  were  proposed  in  the  November  2009 
Council Conclusions11 as an additional support for DoL processes. In the case of Ghana, the 
Action Plan states:  

“To mitigate the risk of proliferation of processes 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 first 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 Harmonization 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 consider the elaboration of separate DoL Action 
Plans  advisable.  In  Zambia,  a  DoL  action  plan  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  responded  negatively  to  the  question  since  DoL  is  already  an 
integral part of government-donor dialogue (e.g. Sierra Leone). Given this feedback, it seems 
advisable to leave it to facilitating donors at country level to decide and report if a special FTI 
DoL Action Plan can add value in the 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  relationship  to  the  changing  mix  of  aid  modalities.  The 
response  from  Burkina  Faso  argues  that  a  donor  providing  Sector  Budget  Support  to  five 
sectors may have a better impact on aid effectiveness than one focusing on only three sectors 
but utilizing a project approach. Similarly, the response from Ghana compares the impact of 
sector  concentration  via  PBA  favorably  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  countries  involved  in  the  FTI  DoL  already  before 
receiving  the  questionnaires12,  in  2011,  50%  (of  24)  respondents  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 role 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  both  the  Paris  Declaration  (PD)  and  the  Accra 
Agenda for Action (AAA), donors should strive for 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 International Good Practice Principles for Country-Led Division of Labour. 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 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
countries’  priorities  and  strengthens  their  leadership.  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 regional workshop series on “Country-Led DoL.” 
However, in comparison to previous years, many more countries are now not only approving 
DoL processes but are reported to be involved in facilitating them (see Figure 40).  

Figure 40 - Commitment of partner government (2010) 

As Figure 41 shows (again based on a comparison 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  assertive  aid  coordination  and  management.  This 
experience  provided  a  stimulating  input  for  other  Anglophone  countries  at  the  regional 
workshop  in  Uganda  (see  Footnote  1).  Three  other  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 facilitating 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  immediately  –  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. Zambia is the only country which has assumed a 
strong  facilitating  role  for  the  last  three  years  but  continues  to  suffer  from  shortages  in 
personnel  that  limit  its  leadership  in  aid  management.  An  additional  considerable  but 
declining  number  of  partner  governments  continue  to  approve  DoL  progress  triggered  by 
donors.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 41 – Trends in Partner Country Commitment to DoL 

The number of partner countries reported to have 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,  although  aid  management  in  a  post-
conflict situation has its own challenges. The response 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  considers  the  DoL  Agenda  less  relevant 
for  this  country  which  has  a  rapidly  decreasing  number  of  donors  due  to  its  upper  middle-
income country (UMIC) status.  

Well-known  reasons  for  weak  ownership  of  partner  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  consideration  in  every  DoL  process.  Some  responses 
also refer to some partner governments‘ different priorities in the context of the broader Aid 
Effectiveness Agenda14, but also to other partner governments‘ frustration with the limited or 
mixed results of previous DoL or harmonization initiatives (e.g. Ethiopia, Kenya). 

The  inclusiveness  of  DoL  processes  with  regard  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 challenges (see Table 22; data from 19 countries).   

13   According  to  the  most  recent  OECD  DAC  statistics  (see  Table  1),  CAR  indeed  has  “only”  19  donors,  but 
Burundi has 30, the same number as Uganda. As was already 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 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table 22 – Trends in Donor Participation 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  increasing,  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  questionnaires  continue  to  demonstrate  strong 
commitment by the EU donors. Other donors mentioned as participating in DoL processes are 
Switzerland (in 7 countries), Canada (5), Norway (4) and USAID (3). Much seems to depend 
on the way the DoL approach is introduced: the 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 reports from Kenya and Mozambique, 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 are 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  incipient  (with  the  apparent 
exception  of  Moldova  and  the  Kyrgyz  Republic).  However,  several  reports  stress  the 
increasing  importance  of  China  and  to  a  lesser  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  from  information  exchange  and 
coordination. In this context, the questionnaire from Sierra Leone recommends to also include 
NGOs whose presence is important in this post-conflict country. With a view towards HLF 4 
and beyond, strategies to deal with the rapidly increasing complexity of the Global Aid and 
Development  Architecture,  both  at  the  international  and  the  country  levels,  certainly  merit 
close attention. 

5. Results of DoL Processes 

As was already explained in the previous report, differentiating between the effects of donor 
coordination,  DoL  and  other  aid  effectiveness  activities  is  rather  difficult.  In  addition,  the 
results presented here are based on the perceptions of donor field and, in some cases, partner 
government staff, not on any objective measurement. 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.  Therefore,  the  evidence  in  this  part  needs  to  be 
interpreted with caution. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 42 - Impact of Division of Labour (2010) 

Figure 43 - Contribution to Aid and 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 allocation across sectors or 
the  reduction  of  transaction  costs,  the  uncertainty  in  responses  is  significant.  More 
rationalized  aid  allocation  is  claimed  in  more  than  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  responses  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  effectiveness  in  the  sense  of  “broad  based 
employment and poverty reduction.” 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
With regard to these more immediate results of DoL processes, it is again 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  processes,  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  approaches  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 since 2008). The responses show that there 
is increasing insecurity about these issues and also about the rationalization of aid allocation, 
pointing at the need to provide better definitions and measurements 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 

Aid 
Effectiveness 

Development 
Effectiveness 

None 
Small 
Medium 
High 
No data

None 
Small 
Medium
High 
No data 

21%
47%
32%
0%
0%

32%
47%
21%
0%
0%

11% 
37% 
47% 
0% 
5% 

11% 
63% 
16% 
0% 
11% 

6. Obstacles and Enabling Factors for Division of Labour  

Based  on  responses  in  the  first  two  monitoring  surveys,  the  2011  questionnaire  provided  a 
number of options to allow for a quantification of responses.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
6.1 Obstacles  

Most of the obstacles mentioned in the 2008 and 2009 monitoring reports remain relevant (see 
Table 24). Limited partner country ownership (66% of responses), but also the reluctance by 
donors to leave attractive sectors (55%) continue to be the major obstacles in In-Country DoL 
processes.  Both  issues,  as  was  already  discussed  in  the  previous  reports,  have  to  do  with 
interests,  incentives  and  in  the  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  messages  received  from 
donor headquarters, e.g. with regard to European Commission’s vertical sectoral funding lines 
or  bilateral  donors’  changing  sectoral  priorities  which  complicate  efforts  by  field  staff  to 
support DoL at country level. This problem was also highlighted at the Regional Workshops 
on DoL in Kampala and Tunis in 2010. 

Table 24 - Major Obstacles in DoL Processes (2010) 

Limited partner country ownership  

Reluctance by donors to leave attractive sectors 

Lacking clarity of donor roles 

Legal and administrative barriers  

Limited capacities on donor side 

Growing number of parallel aid effectiveness 
initiatives 
Others 

No. of 
responses 
(total: 29) 

19 

16 

8 

8 

9 

6 

8 

In comparison to the two more political obstacles above, limited donor capacities (e.g. with 
regard  to  DoL  instruments  or  simply  available  time)  are  mentioned  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 issue, however, is an unintended consequence of 
the broader aid effectiveness agenda which certainly merits attention since it points towards 
an overload of well-intended activities 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 Declaration 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  processes,  e.g.  through  the  European  Commission’s 
“floaters” or organized at country level, is reported as an enabling factor from six countries 
(21%). 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
Table 25 - Enabling Factors for DoL Processes (2010) 

No. of responses 
(total: 29) 

Strong engagement by EU Members and Commission 

General will of development partners to implement PD and 
AAA 

Growing awareness of partner government for the need of 
strong aid management structures 

Targeted TA-support through FTI DoL or other initiatives 

Others 

7. Conclusions  

16 

13 

13 

6 

3 

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  and  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,  these  are  increasingly  positive  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 DoL processes seems to be questionable in some 
cases. Finally, the responses point to an increasing expectation of positive contributions to aid 
and development effectiveness.  

When looking at the obstacles for the implementation of DoL, it is clear that the challenge 
of ensuring sufficient political will to implement DoL remains: limited country ownership and 
the reluctance of donors to leave attractive sectors continue to be rated as important obstacles. 
The fact that more than 20% of the responses consider the number of parallel aid effectiveness 
activities at country level as an obstacle for implementation processes 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 OECD DAC statistics with some delay, so that 
no overall evaluation of DoL as an approach or the FTI is possible at this point. Nevertheless, 
the  three  FTI  DoL  monitoring  surveys  as  well  as  other  sources  of  evidence  (e.g.  PD 
Evaluation country studies, presentations and discussions at Regional Workshops) point at a 
number of persistent challenges of the DoL approach. 

Methodology:  Central  concepts  of  the  DoL  approach  like  “comparative  advantages”  and 
“transaction costs” are attractive for policy makers since they seem to convey “common sense 
principles.”  However,  they  continue  to  escape  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 

15 

   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 broader harmonization agenda is 
first of all a donor responsibility, 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  management  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 coordination 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 processes continue to be unilateral, with only limited and often 
ex-post  information  of  partner  countries  and  other  donors.  Also  the  choice  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  transparent  about  their 
interests  and  the  political  processes  in  their  own  countries  with  regard  to  aid  allocation  and 
other  aid  effectiveness  commitments.  In  the  EU  context,  the  ongoing  discussions  on  Joint 
Programming provide a framework for advancing 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 first indicator of fragmentation. There seems to be a need to 
further crosscheck statistical fragmentation analyses 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 blueprint to this diversity of circumstances. Many 
FTI  DoL  facilitators  stress  that  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  DoL  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  continue  the  decentralization  of 
decision making on aid effectiveness priorities and 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  which  often  still  focus  more  on  the  input  of 
resources than intended results. 

A  final  “context  issue”  is  the  rapidly  increasing  importance  of  “new  donors”  and  “new 
funding lines.” Even though their contribution to development is most welcome, these actors 
further complicate the Global Aid and Development 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 effectiveness principles. This topic 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 

16 

   EN 

 
Annex 5.2. 

 Overview Table of Monitoring Results, February 2011 

tion Aid Effectiveness? Contribu-tion Dev. Effectiveness? 

Lead facil. prepa-red? 

Transac-tion costs donor reduced? 
Satisfied with HQ commu-nication? 

Partner Country Dev. Strategy Donor Mapping 
Participa-tion all donors? 

Transac-tion costs partner reduced? 

Comp. Adv. Assess-ment 

Sector define-tions  

Lead Donor Arrangements 
Quality of sector dialogue impro-ved? 

Repro-gram-ming Action plan  Comm. partner govern-ment?

Aid across sectors rationa-lised? 

Contribu-

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 

Bangladesh 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

no 

no 

yes 

Approving 

yes 

don't know 

no 

Benin 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

Approving 

Bolivia 

yes 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

yes 

no 

Approving 

Burkina Faso 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

no 

yes 

Facilitating 

Burundi 

yes 

no 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

Approving 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes 

yes 

don't know 

none 

none 

no 

no 

small 

small 

yes 

don't know 

don't know 

yes 

don't know 

medium 

small 

yes 

don't know 

yes 

yes 

yes 

medium  medium 

no 

yes 

don't know 

no 

don't know 

don't know 

small 

small 

no 

0 

Cameroun 

yes 

yes 

no 

CAR 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

Ethiopia 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

no 

yes 

Approving 

Approving 

yes 

0 

No interest 

no 

no 

no 

0 

0 

no 

yes 

no 

don't know 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

medium 

small 

yes 

small 

small 

no 

small 

medium 

no 

Ghana 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

Approving 

yes 

don't know 

don't know 

yes 

don't know 

medium 

small 

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 

Kenya 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

Facilitating 

Kyrgyz Rep. 

yes 

no 

no 

Laos 

yes 

yes 

no 

Madagascar 

yes 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes 

no 

Malawi 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

No interest 

Approving 

Facilitating 

Approving 

Mali 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

0 

yes 

yes 

Approving 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

0 

don't know 

yes 

don't know 

small 

none 

0 

don't know 

don't know 

0 

no 

medium  medium 

yes 

don't know 

don't know 

yes 

don't know 

none 

none 

no 

no 

no 

0 

no 

no 

0 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

medium  medium 

no 

don't know 

medium 

small 

no 

0 

small 

small 

yes 

don't know 

don't know 

don't know 

don't know 

0 

0 

Moldova 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

Facilitating 

yes 

don't know 

no 

Mongolia 

yes 

0 

no 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

Facilitating 

no 

no 

no 

yes 

no 

yes 

no 

medium 

small 

small 

small 

0 

0 

0 

yes 

yes 

0 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

0 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

0 

yes 

0 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
  
 
  
Mozambique 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

No interest 

yes 

no 

no 

yes 

don't know 

small 

small 

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 

Senegal 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

Serbia 

no 

no 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

Facilitating 

Approving 

no 

no 

don't know 

don't know 

no 

don't know 

yes 

yes 

Sierra Leone 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

Facilitating 

yes 

no 

don't know 

yes 

Tansania 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

Facilitating 

yes 

yes 

Uganda 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

Facilitating 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

Ukraine 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

Facilitating 

Vietnam 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

Approving 

Zambia 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

Facilitating 

no 

no 

no 

don't know 

don't know 

yes 

don't know 

yes 

yes 

0 

yes 

yes 

no 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

small 

small 

0 

0 

0 

0 

no 

no 

no 

medium 

small 

yes 

medium 

small 

no 

medium 

0 

yes 

don't know 

small 

small 

no 

yes 

medium  medium 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

0 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
Annex 5.3 

Country-Level Questionnaire on the Implementation 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 partner 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  Monterrey  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:            
 EU facilitating donor:            

Name of the facilitating donor 

Date:            

representative:            

E-mail address of the facilitating donor 

representative:            

Partner country institution and  representative responsible:  
Responses approved by partner country:  
Responses coordinated with other donors:  

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 
Yes 

 No 
 No 

 No 

Yes 
If yes, please 
provide title and 
validity 

1.b. Has a donor mapping taken place?  
(please attach relevant documents or internet link if available) 

 No 

Yes 
If yes, when? 

1.c. Have comparative advantages been identified in a 
systematic assessment? 
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? 
1.e. Are lead donor arrangements established? 
(please attach relevant documents or internet links if available) 
Are cross cutting issues (e.g. human rights, gender, 

Yes 

 No 

Yes 

 No 

Yes 

 No 

Yes 

 No 

EN 

19 

   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 orphan sectors and in turn move out of 
other sectors or use the modality of delegated cooperation)? 

(please attach relevant documents or internet links if available) 

Comments on 1.a, b, c, d, e and f:  

Yes 

No 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
           
1.g. What has the partner country government and the donor 
community undertaken to promote the implementation of 
division of labour?  

Yes 

 No 

Have you elaborated an action plan on division of labour as 
proposed in the council conclusions of 18th 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? 
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 triggered by donor initiative: 
(iv) No interest in division of labour between donors, not approving progress: 

Yes 

 No 

2.b.  Participation by donors 
Do all ODA  donors in the partner country participate in 
the division of labour process? 
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.  

Yes 

 No 

Towards measuring impact of division of labour processes:  

If applicable: What are the reasons for weak commitment 
from donor or partner country side? 
3. 
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: 

 Don’t 

 No 

Yes 
know 
Educated guess: 

(ii)For the donors: 

3.b. Has the quality of sector policy dialogue improved? 

3.c. 
Is aid allocation across sectors more rational (less 
orphan and/or over-crowded sectors, needs and priorities 
by the partner country are more adequately addressed)? 

 Don’t 

 No 

Yes 
know 
Educated guess: 

 Don’t 

 No 

Yes 
know 
Educated guess: 

 Don’t 

 No 

Yes 
know 
Educated guess: 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
           
   
           
   
           
   
           
3.d. Considering all changes promoted and supported by 
the division of labour process (see questions 3a-d and 
possibly others), how would you 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 obstacles 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? 

5.b.  Are you satisfied with the communication by your HQ in 
regard to the EU Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour? 

6. Suggestions to improve the questionnaire 

Yes 

 No 

Comments: 

Yes 

 No 

Comments: 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
   
 
 
  
 
 
           
           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           
 
           
 
 
           
 
 
           
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please return the completed questionnaire to the Coordinators of the Fast Track Initiative at 
EU level. by 31 January 2011: 

Please  do  not  forget  to  attach  relevant  documents  on  the  division  of  labour  process  in  your 
country  if  available,  e.g.  donor  mapping,  table  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 

23 

   EN 

 
Annex 5.4.   FTI List as in Operational Framework 2009, updated February 2011 

donor 

Lead Facilitator in: 

Supporting Facilitator in: 

Burundi 

- 

- 

Moldova, Mongolia 

Burkina  Faso,  Ghana,  Sierra 
Leone (co-lead with IE), Zambia 

Cameroon,  Mozambique, 
Uganda 

Tanzania, 

Benin,  Bolivia  (co-lead  with  ES), 
Kenya 

Bangladesh,  Burkina 
Mozambique, Tanzania, 

Faso,  Ghana, 

Central 

African 
Cameroon, 
Republic,  Madagascar,  Mali 
(co-lead with NL), 
Sierra Leone (co-lead with DE)  Ethiopia,  Mozambique,  Uganda,  Tanzania, 
Vietnam, 

Burkina  Faso,  Ghana,  Mozambique, 
Senegal, Vietnam 

Albania 

- 

Bolivia,  Ethiopia,  Kenya,  Mozambique, 
Senegal 

Burkina Faso,  

Bangladesh  (co-lead  with  EC), 
Mali 
FR), 
(co-lead  with 
Mozambique 
Bolivia (co-lead with DK), Haiti  - 

Benin,  Bolivia,  Burkina  Faso,  Burundi, 
Ghana,  Mozambique,  Nicaragua,  Senegal, 
Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia 

- 

Mozambique 

Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova  

Bangladesh 

FYROM 

- 

Kyrgyz Republic, Rwanda 

Ethiopia, Kenya, Moldova, Sierra Leone 

Bangladesh  (co-lead  with  NL), 
Ethiopia,  Tanzania,  Vietnam, 
Rwanda, Senegal 

Benin,  Bolivia,  Burundi,  Central  African 
Republic,  Ghana,  Haiti,  Laos,  Malawi, 
Mali, Mozambique, Zambia 

EU 
country 
BE 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

FR 

IE 

IT 

LUX 

NL 

ES 

PT 

SE 

SI 

UK 

EC 

Notes:  

•  Nicaragua and Cambodia have been taken off the list until the local situation changes. 
They  will  still  be  included  in  the  communication  of  the  Network  of  the  Fast  Track 
Initiative. 

•  Some changes in lead responsibilities (Moldova, Rwanda, and Senegal). 

• 

EN 

24 

   EN