a presentation at the
ESCWA regional consultation on finance for development
by Talaat Abdel-Malek
Doha, 29th April 2008




ESCWA has been a major recipient as well as a
major source of ODA for the past 30 years
Without referring to many figures, ODA flows
have been characterized by the following:
Substantial variability of flows over time:$16
b in 1977 > $6 b in 2000 > $12 b+ in 2004
Wide differences among recipient countries
by all indicators (per capita, etc)
2




Sharp differences in ODA management
Main reasons for variability of flows:
From Arab sources: oil revenues – geopolitical
factors (Peace Treaty with Israel, Palestine,
Iraq, etc) – recent tendency to focus on
domestic infrastructure
From non-Arab sources: shifting priorities to
LDCs vs. middle income countries, increased
influence of human rights, governance &
gender in ODA allocations
3




Positive: support of physical infrastructure,
education, health and (to a lesser extent,
environment)
Contribution to improved life expectancy and
growth rates
Negative: persistent weak national capacities,
dominant role of donors and geopolitical
factors, threats of Dutch disease
Overall: a very mixed outcome, with variances
among countries
4






ESCWA member countries face enormous
challenges (again, noting country variances):
Out-of-date education system (Including
vocational education)
Inadequate public health system
Increasingly polluted environment, and scarce
water resources
Ailing civil service bureaucracy
Loss of qualified talents “Brain Drain”
5




Slow (regressed?) gender development
Widening gap in science & technology in the
knowledge Century
High unemployment and youth exclusion
Risk of failing to meet MDG targets
6






Are we making progress?
Yes, definitely:
But at what pace?
How sustainable? and
What role should ODA play in addressing our
challenges?
Once again, country differences must be
noted
7




Issues arising from Monterrey Consensus,
Paris Declaration and forthcoming Accra
Summit
1. How well does ESCWA countries MANAGE
ODA flows (donors and recipients)?
2. What is the status of “national ownership”?
3. Do we have sound national development
plans/strategies? How are they implemented?
8






4. How many countries have an “ODA policy”
with clear priorities?
5. To what extent are these aligned with
development plans?
6. Are we making good use of South-South
cooperation?
6. What mechanisms exist for M&E of aid?
7. What to do about ODA variability and the
failure of donors to meet Monterrey pledges?
8. Is it time to consider aid exit strategies?
9




Twin pillars of development:
Capacity building/development at various
levels, and
National (not merely government) ownership
of development and ODA management
Without these two prerequisites, ODA will
continue to be far less effective and overall
national development less sustainable than
otherwise
10



Money (national or foreign) does not BUY
development .. It is a lubricant.. Not a cause
of development
What does capacity building mean/require?:
The three sides of the Capacity Pyramid:
◦ Institutions
◦ Human resource skills & knowledge
◦ Operating systems
11
HUMAN
RESOURCES
OPERATING
SYSTEMS
INSTITUTIONS
12
Within the Institution:
 Sound management/leadership

Right person in the right job – no room for
nepotism

Adequate incentives based on performance

Flexibility to cope with changes
13
External Setting:
 Rule of law
 Efficient judicial system
 Dynamic, competitive, environment
 Rewards for innovation & achievements
 De-politicization of decision-making
The enabling environment is a national
responsibility – donors can provide “best
practice” & policy advice & training, but
cannot/should not manage it.
14

What has been ODA’s contribution?
Training, training, and more training
Donor-driven and donor incentives
Little institutional development
Little interest/action by national authorities to
sustain and strengthen “capacities” built through
ODA
◦ False notion of “Technical assistance” in donorfunded projects (cost of consultants, lack of
counterpart involvement and “ownership”)
◦
◦
◦
◦
15





What position should we take at the Summit?
1. Try to reverse the donor-driven process, or
at least get more involved as equal partners
2. Put our house in order (ODA policy, serious
attention to building capacities)
3. Think ahead: trade more than aid. The time
for this has come. We must not be left behind
4. Adopt the “participatory approach” to
development. Our goal is sustainable
development, not merely growth.
16
THANK YOU
17