Donor coordination in anti-corruption

Practicalities of donor anti-corruption collaboration

"We are fed-up with coordination meetings", has been expressed by donor staff. However, there is little hope for effective and efficient AC policies with long-term effects without donor coordination.

The below section brings out lessons from the Birmingham report and sources directly stating to the U4. During the coming months, U4 will continuously bring forward experience and practical advice so as to avoid more 'dull' meetings.

Content

AC working group issues? | Essentials for successful working groups | Routines and leadership

AC working group issues?

Effective coordination mechanisms among donors and government are essential for collaborative AC work at the country level.

Working groups of donors and government are the principal forum for policy dialogue, and also facilitate joint funding and collaboration of subgroups of like-minded donors. Hence, practical issues in managing donor collaboration on AC affect its progress.

There are several practical issues for a donor community to consider when starting up collaborative efforts or improving on current arrangements:

• whether or not to form a separate AC group. Would AC work be more effectively coordinated by a general governance reform group, or within policy/ sector groups
  
• which routines and procedures for group work,
  
• who should lead it,
  
• whether there is scope for division of labour among its members, and
  
• how to draw on the experience of AC collaboration elsewhere.

There are no definite rules on where and how donors should address AC within working groups. The appropriate way forward will vary by the country context, and the important issues to consider are:

• the level of political will,
  
• the type, level and location of corruption (grand versus petty; sector-specific or cross sectoral),
  
• the degree of in-country dialogue/coordination in-between the donors and donors to the partner government.

Even with such considerations for country context taken onboard some country experience can serve as guidance. Corruption is a concern in governance, financial management, public sector reform and general sector work. It is often being tackled through a range of reforms and therefore by a range of working groups in many countries.

If corruption is just one issue in the remit of a 'general governance' group, there may be insufficient time and resources to address AC in detail. However, several practitioners surveyed in the Birmingham report also believed that a separate AC working group may be unhelpful, cumbersome, could hinder cross-sectoral working (unlike tackling corruption within a 'governance group') and could adversely affect relations with government.

It is doubtful whether a single governance group can deal with both general/cross-sector corruption as well as sector specific corruption.

Governance and wider public sector reform groups may address issues of systemic and general corruption characterised by "state capture". But this may leave 'point of service' corruption unattended, which may be better addressed by sector groups more familiar with the specific issues involved.

Some donor staff believe there is a greater risk that relations with government will be jeopardised if the issue of corruption is raised by sector working groups rather than a specific AC/ governance working group. Also some sectors are not covered by sector working groups; in such instances governance working groups should necessarily address point of service corruption.

Experience shows that competence on corruption issues is most present in the governance/financial management or larger public sector reform groups. It is therefore important that when the sector groups working on core reform areas - such as financial management, legal issues, and local government - are taking initiatives on corruption that they are given access to the best competence. Inputs specifically on AC are needed when designing and monitoring reform interventions or when corruption-related issues have been identified.

[top]

Essentials for successful working groups

Fundamental is that they are proactive and strategic. This requires that:

• meetings are regular, relevant and effective,
  
• there is an important work programme and significant ongoing work between meetings,
  
• there is clear and committed leadership of the group, ideally jointly by government with a lead donor,
  
• donors display a level of flexibility in their operations which allows their own interest come second to the prospect of an appropriate development outcome.

In the last years we have seen that motivation to engage in working groups wanes over time because:

• the group being just a 'talking shop',
  
• they are too time consuming,
  
• there are too many, agency staff from smaller agencies may have to attend the meetings of several groups,
  
• capacity within the groups vary over time and between countries as expert staff relocate,
  
• double standards - donors discuss corruption during AC working group meetings but are unwilling to, for example, examine case of potentially corrupt activities by their national companies,
  
• free riding - where several donors are members of the group but only a few contribute significantly.

[top]

Routines and leadership

The regularity and effectiveness of meetings may depend on specific country contexts and individual group members' expertise, commitment and other responsibilities. In many (PRSP/CDF) countries, in-country consultative group governance sub-groups (e.g. on specific issues like procurement, other-AC related work) tend to meet regularly, for example weekly or bi-weekly, and are coordinated by one donor. Thus there has to be a driver for donors to coordinate.

• Many successful donor driven groups are led by individuals or smaller groups of individuals "who decide that something should be done, and eventually things start to happen". But this leaves the group vulnerable for rotation of staff. Responsibility should therefore be given to agencies, not individuals.

• Transaction costs in donor-government relationships can also be reduced if the government has only to deal with one organisation, representing all other donors in dialogue/negotiations.

• The chair of the groups could be rotated with fixed intervals allowing for forward planning. The lead donor may vary in each initiative and perhaps according to country, but will reflect an agency's suitability, in particular contexts. Some agencies appear to have a reputation for being the traditional coordinator and possess the relevant characteristics to lead/coordinate donor support.

• An advisor at World Bank noted that successful examples of coordination are "often where the government leads the process and assists in the logistics, timing and setting the overall objectives of the meetings". This is of course the best case scenario.

The World Bank is often centrally placed and is the natural interlocutor for the government. But the Bank has not always been effective in pushing the AC agenda, so bilateral donors should therefore make sure that their comparative advantages of being able to raise contentious issues like corruption is used, and to make sure that their interest are represented.

• Finally, Heads of Mission (HoM) can provide vital support to donor working groups. This is however not the norm. In many instances we find that members of working groups on governance, and even more so for sector specific groups, who want to raise AC are not given sufficient backing by the HoM.