By Tanu Jalloh
In a forward to a 2010 OECD report titled: ‘Monitoring the Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations: Country Report 5: Sierra Leone,’ finance and economic development minister Dr Samura Kamara underscored the relevant space of aid in the country’s current growth aspiration.
Fully abreast with the contents of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report that was also very critical of his government, the development expert observed that aid was a critical part of the economy, constituting approximately 20% of Sierra Leone’s gross domestic product, GDP. He added that it was therefore imperative that the government and its myriad partners work together to make this aid work as efficiently as possible.
Critics, who have always called for aid independence, would jeer at the effort but those who have studied the steady progress of bilateral and multilateral relationships in recent years would agree with me that any such attempts should not go unrecognised. For once let’s move the debate from aid independence or dependence to aid effectiveness and efficiency. So much has gone into the latter in terms of scrutiny that we could as well make it an issue now. We could even use it as an appropriate barometer to slam the extent of commitment on the part of the government. So far, the scale is, however, dangling in its favour.
According to Dr Kamara, this requirement stems as much from international agreements signed by Sierra Leone and many of its partners, such as the OECD Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations, as well as from the government’s overarching vision for making aid work efficiently for the country’s people, hence, The Agenda for Change.
Adopted from the second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP-II) the Ernest Bai Koroma pioneered concept, on which his All Peoples Congress party won the 2007 elections, provides a valuable framework for alignment. One of its goals would target aid effectiveness by leading the calls for alignment through its aid policy, stating a preference for aid to be directed through country systems and harmonised modalities such as the use of sector wide approaches and multi-donor trust funds. I think this could be a monumentally crucial judgment for a government that was trying to stamp its authority in a donor-driven continent. While it believes that such an alignment needs to go further to allow it greater autonomy to account to donors and citizens, the country risks the harshness of IMF and World Bank conditionalities. Towards aid effective, the country is calling for relative autonomy.
In the words of the government, such resilience reflects Sierra Leone’s commitment to stay the course with its economic and structural reforms, geared towards macroeconomic stability.
Report has shown that budget support to Sierra Leone has also come laden with conditions, opening up the heart of the government to donor influence. In essence, the government must implement complicated policy reforms and achieve certain results like the distribution of a certain number of mosquitoes treated bed nets to the population. Conditions have been decided upon by donors who then present their proposal to the government, whose main room for negotiation lies with how ambitious the condition may be, not with whether the condition is an appropriate priority for the government.
When the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development published its 2008 edition of the Least Developed Countries Report, it recommended that the world’s poorest countries should have greater control and flexibility over how the foreign aid they receive is used so that it has the greatest positive impact. The report stated that rules and conditions attached to this incoming money should not be so stringent - or so tied to meeting economic targets - that governments are hindered from tailoring development plans that meet local and national conditions.
According to Eurodad, a European network on debt and development, donors are funding approximately 265 different aid projects in Sierra Leone, many of which have been implemented without the government being aware of them. Parallel governance structures are regularly established to include the Decentralisation Secretariat, the HIV/AIDs secretariat, and the Governance Reform Secretariat.
The country’s position is justified by the argument of the UN. The world body polity observed that the major challenge facing donors in their efforts to develop the institutions needed to run a viable democracy in Sierra Leone was to avoid imitating the conditions of the past. Meaning, a comprehensive approach to sustainable development was being pursued.
Thus, The Agenda for Change, prioritises economic growth through a strong emphasis on agriculture, energy and the development of road infrastructure, all critically underpinned by human development. The PRSP-II emphasises the importance of good governance, the rule of law, economic stability, reform of the public sector and peace and security.
It is on record that together with its development partners, the government has undertaken a number of activities to improve aid co-ordination and the management of public resources. Partners and government have all committed to carrying out their activities in a more harmonious fashion, giving reason to propagate the country’s new Aid Policy. The resulting policy offers to all stakeholders a practical blueprint to enhance aid effectiveness and monitor progress.
While the mood now is one of upbeat, there is a general feeling that “aid effectiveness”, as a basis for international engagement, needs to be complemented by a deeper concern with the effectiveness, accountability, and responsiveness to the needs of the people.
In his conclusion the minister of finance and economic development was making a case when he said that: “It is this deeper understanding of ownership and capacity development that informs the way in which Sierra Leone’s new [aid] policy is designed, enabling the country to chart a sustainable way forward.” Realistically, it should be towards to aid effectiveness, before aid independence.
