Development Cooperation Report 2012 - UNDP Afghanistan

This finding demonstrates the over abundance of donors in some sectors. When a
sector is over-crowded by donors, coordination among donors and between donors
and government becomes a tedious and expensive task. It not only increases
transaction costs and results in duplication of interventions, but also undermines and
overstretches the capacity of the government to effectively exercise leadership over
the allocation of resources.
37
Disaggregating the data at donor level, a correlation emerges between the size of a
donor portfolio and its sectoral engagement. Among the top 10 donors presented in
table 5 below, except the Asian Development Bank and European Union, donors are
involved in all eight or more than three sectors of the ANDS.
Table 5: DPs Engagement in ANDS Sectors
Ranked
Donors
Commitments
($Million)
Disbursements
($Million)
ANDS sectors
engagement
1 United States 13,027 10,406 8 1,628
2 Japan 670 670 7 96
3 Germany 305 216 6 51
4 World Bank 241 152 7 34
5 United Kingdom 352 357 7 51
6 Australia 209 150 6 35
7 European Union 194 221 6 32
8 Asian Dev. Bank 131 123 2 66
9 Canada 116 116 6 19
10 Netherlands 94 95 7 13
Average Commitment
per
sector ($Millions)
For those outside the top 10, as shown in table 6 below, donors with the smallest aid
portfolio have the tendency to be involved in many sectors. For instance, donors with
an average per sector funding portfolio of USD 15 million or less are participating in
all eight (8) or fewer sectors of the ANDS. Czech Republic is the extreme case (USD 0.5
million/sector, 6 sectors) followed by Poland (USD 2.25 million/sector, 4 sectors) and
Finland (USD 2.47 million/sector, 7 sectors).
DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION REPORT