Approaches to Improving the Delivery of Social Services in Difficult ...

Approaches to Improving the Delivery of Social Services in Difficult EnvironmentsBox 2: Lessons for the international community in supporting public policy capacityin countries emerging from conflict• In resource-poor environments, in the short to medium term, the state is unlikely tobe able to assume responsibility for recurrent costs associated with service delivery• Donor coordination and alignment behind the government are crucial, but are likelyto be highly problematic (both because of the limitations of government, and theconflict between political interests of international agencies).• Service delivery cannot be restored through the provision of infrastructure alone –human resource development and attention to equitable distribution of resources isalso essential.• There are trade-offs between meeting immediate needs and planning forsustainability – with regards to financing, for example, difficult decisions have to bemade about whether to channel funds through government or to bypassgovernment structures for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness.33. Use non-state mechanisms for policy coordination: in environmentswhere there is unwillingness on the part of government, or where capacityis so weak as to make a sector or sub-sector dysfunctional, then it may benecessary to consider alternative mechanisms for co-ordinating policy, atleast in the short to medium term. Mechanisms may be necessary at thecentral level, at the sectoral orthematic level, and/or at thesub-sectoral level. Box 3gives some indication of thepossible types ofarrangements that may beappropriate depending oncontextual analysis. Theseexamples come fromSomalia 32 , where there is norecognised government and avirtual absence of statestructures; Myanmar 33 , whichsome funding agencies do notrecognise as a legitimategovernment; and Nepal 34 ,where the state is conflictaffected and the legitimacy ofthe government is internallycontested. The first twoexamples highlight thecontribution that UnitedNations agencies can play tocoordinate activities in difficultenvironments. This isBox 3: Non-state mechanisms for policycoordinationSomalia Aid Coordination Body: a voluntary bodythat includes donor, NGO and UN bodies asmembers. Designed to facilitate informationsharing and coordinate programming and policyformulation and ‘avoid the mistakes of large-scale,top down aid programmes. providing unsustainablesocial services until a crisis ends’.Joint programme on HIV/Aids control in Myanmar:includes UN organisations, donors, NGOs and thegovernment. Objective is to maximize cost effectiveuse of funding and resources, including minimisingduplication in geographic and sectoral coverageand reporting mechanisms.Nepal Rural Water Supply and Sanitation FundDevelopment Board: World Bank formed the FundBoard in response to the perceived failure of theNepalese Government to deliver sustainableservices. The Bank also felt that politicalinterference in project selection was leading tomajor distortions in coverage. Fund Board’s majorobjective is to support the construction of watersupply schemes for rural beneficiaries throughlocal support organisations (NGOs and privatesector firms).because of the broad acceptance of the UN as a universal, neutral,politically independent actor. The third example shows the potential ofsocial funds, one of the World Bank’s preferred instruments, in32 http://www.sacb.info/33 Fonsberg, B.C (May 2004).34 Armon, J., Berry, C. Duncan, D. (June 2004).This working paper is intended to stimulate public discussion. It is not necessarily DFID orUK Government policy17