The document summarizes the impact of development cooperation based on a presentation given in Helsinki, Finland in 2015. It notes that development cooperation has contributed to reductions in global poverty and mortality rates. However, concerns remain regarding issues like conflict, disease, climate change, and human rights. The presentation discusses strategic choices that donor countries face regarding thematic and geographic focus, and engaging other actors through partnerships. It recommends that Finnish aid continue its selective approach while further emphasizing results and evaluation.

1. IMPACT OF
DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION
WHAT DO WE KNOW?
4th JUNE 2015
HELSINKI, FINLAND
#kehityskeskustelu2015

2. Strategic Choices for Development
Cooperation in a Post-2015 world
Tony Addison @TonysAngle

3. Overview
• Development Co-operation in its broadest sense
• Official aid is just one arm of development finance
• Many players: big to small
• Countries vary in the size & ambition of their official
aid, their business engagement, NGOs,
philanthropy, diaspora remittances etc
• Geopolitical baggage v poverty/humanitarian focus
• Keep Calm. Less ideology please!

4. Celebrate success, but worry too

5. 5
00001
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
Otherconditi
Intrapartum
relatedevents
Pretermbirth
complications
Measles
Diarrhoea
Pneumonia
2000
Meningitis
NeonatalTet
Malaria
Neonatal
Pneumonia
Otherconditi
neonatal
Neonatalseps
meningitis
Neonatal
diarrhea
injury
Congenital
abnormalities
AIDS
2010
73
570
<20% decline from 2000 to 2010
20-30% decline from 2000 to 2010
>30% decline from 2000 to 2010
~50% of the reduction
comes from pneumonia,
diarrhea, and measles
Reduction in global U5MR by disease, 2000 to 2010
Deaths per 1,000 births
SOURCE: CHERG 2012, Lancet 2012
2.6-3.0 million fewer under 5 child deaths annually

6. Celebrate & worry about:
• Reduction in global poverty
• Reduced infant & maternal mortality
• Helped (some) countries out of conflict
Success has many parents: communities, civil society,
governments, NGOs, official donors (aid helped via:
restoring growth, human development, maybe
peace)
Worries: war, refugees + IDPs, disease (Ebola),
climate, human rights, corruption, democracy

7. Climate change could overwhelm
development

8. Strategic Lens – what should rich
countries do?
Fundamental questions: how much focus on:
•climate change (& how)?
•fragility & conflict? (& how)?
•existing country partners?
•poorest people & the poorest countries? (Low-income v
Middle-Income countries, poor in MICs v poor in LICs)
•In making their choices, donor countries need to think
about:
•uncertainty & risk; achieving more impact via leverage;
engaging more of their citizens in action

9. Private action can do much. Remittances
help build this:

10. But we also need to build this:

11. Areas of Strategic Choice:
For donor country:
•Thematic specialization (breadth v depth;
experience)
•Bilateral v multilateral action (ownership of results,
tail wags the multilateral dog?)
•Which countries (LICs v MICs) : MIC poverty
•Beyond aid? “All of Government” approaches
3 theme ideas: gender equality / economic
transformation / fiscal system

12. Gender Equality
• No inclusive growth if it does not fully incorporate
ability of citizens, regardless of gender
• DAC monitors commitments to gender equality – about
15% of all screened aid has this objective
• 15% is too low (see
www.recom.wider.unu.edu/gender)
• Highest in education: 30% of all screened aid. Health:
maternal health a priority but family planning too low
• Aid for gender equality languishes in productive sectors
e.g. women farmers
• Small livelihood projects; little at scale

13. To conclude: future of development
partnership
• Depending on a country’s level of ambition:
• Small & medium-sized players can develop technical &
area specialisms that greatly enhance their impact
• Position the development agency as a global leader in
analysis & practice on a limited number of themes
• Engage in helping partner countries use knowledge
networks to achieve social & economic transformation
• Aid works – when well-designed & implemented – but
avoid the trap of ideology

14. Creating knowledge by, and for,
communities, businesses, states

15. www.wider.unu.edu
Helsinki, Finland

16. IMPACT OF
DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION
WHAT DO WE KNOW?
4th JUNE 2015
HELSINKI, FINLAND
#kehityskeskustelu2015

17. Results on the
Ground
An Independent Review of Finnish Aid
Ritva Reinikka
June 4, 2015

18. Two “lost decades” have been
reversed in Sub-Sahara Africa
as economies are growing

19. How does Finnish aid rank
globally?
Center for Global Development and Brookings Institution
Donor
Maximizing
efficiency
Fostering
institutions
Reducing
burden
Transparency and
learning
Denmark 15 2 5 12
Finland 17 7 17 13
France 14 8 26 25
Germany 30 11 22 16
Ireland 4 1 3 2
Norway 23 16 27 6
Sweden 22 5 12 8
UK 10 6 10 18
USA 24 20 31 15
AfDF 2 9 15 3
AsDF 5 22 13 10
EU institutions 18 13 7 21
IDA 7 3 2 9
UN select agencies 19 30 23 20

20. Bilateral Government-to-
Government aid

21. Civil society
organizations

22. Private sector
participation

23. Performance of multilateral
agencies
Note: Scale: 1 – weak; 2 – satisfactory; 3 – good; 4 – excellent

24. Humanitarian Assistance

25. Development data, evaluation
and research

26. Conclusions: Finnish aid has many
strengths
• Selective but active participant in supporting economic
reforms
• Poverty focus
• Serious and systematic on gender
• Country strategy approach and country program
evaluations
• Important role in “new deal” for fragile states
• Many “best practices” in areas of comparative advantage
• Assessment of multilateral organizations
• Strong humanitarian aid program
• Transparent evaluation
• Constructive relationships with recipients and other donors

27. 10 Recommendations for even
higher impact
1. Make results a central focus across Finnish aid.
2. A longer term statement of principles and objectives of Finnish aid,
endorsed by Parliament.
3. Continue results-based country strategies, with a few sectors and
programs. Consider carefully how many fragile states can be supported at
any given time.
4. Evaluate CSO support which comes across fragmented. Consider whether
it should be more closely integrated with other Finnish aid at country
level.
5. Increase Finnfund’s capital. Redesign concessional credits and drastically
improve their administration.
6. Reduce fragmentation in multilateral aid, using organizational efficiency
as an important criteria.
7. Re-introduce a (modest) program of operationally relevant empirical
research.
8. Delegate more financial responsibility to embassies.
9. Ensure incentives to strong technical staff -- critical for good-quality aid.
10. Let Finns know what they tax euros deliver, what they don’t, and why.

28. IMPACT OF
DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION
WHAT DO WE KNOW?
4th JUNE 2015
HELSINKI, FINLAND
#kehityskeskustelu2015