Aid effectiveness
Global vertical programmes: a tale of too many funds
Vertical funds: good for aid?
Authors:
E. Delph
Publisher:
Reality of Aid, 2008
Are the current plethora of vertical funds damaging the aid environment? Vertical fund programmes, such as the Global Fund and PEPFAR, which focus a large amount of aid on a particular development topic have been accused of side-stepping country systems and encouraging donor proliferation – hardly in line with the Paris Declaration’s 'required' harmonisation and alignment. However, they have provided large amounts of funds and proved to be an effective vehicle in providing services that the existing country systems do not have the capacity to provide.
This article, which forms part of a larger brief on vertical funds, considers the merits of vertical funds and asks if they are " truly the best way to support important causes, or are they simply the path of least resistance which avoid some of the more difficult complexities of sustainable development?'
The article offers a number of conclusions, including:
- donor proliferation, to which vertical programmes contribute, create high transaction costs in country, including different reporting requirements by donor and additional tracking and management commitments for the developing country government
- the Global Fund and the GAVI Alliance have both signed the Paris Declaration. However, too many global programmes operate in a vacuum. Furthermore, the tendency to add more programmes, without fixing what already exists, is still too prevalent
- the vertical approach has proven effective in certain areas and has provided us with valuable lessons, one of which is that the global role is inflated, and it is time to let developing countries own their own development
- we should push the thinking toward a shift in the planning, coordination and implementation roles to the country level, and leave the fundraising at the global level.
