Post-crisis Zimbabwe’s innovative financing mechanisms in the social sectors: a practical approach to implementing the new deal for engagement in fragile states

Abstract

BackgroundDonor engagement in transitional settings, complex emergencies and fragile states is increasing. Neither short-term humanitarian aid nor traditional development financing are well adapted for such environments. Multi-donor trust funds, in their current form, can be unwieldy and subject to long delays in initiation and work best when national governments are already strong. We reviewed the aid modalities used in Zimbabwe through the period of crisis, 2008–2012 and their results and implications. Literature review and case experience was utilised.DiscussionBy focusing on working with line ministries in non-contested sectors to determine local priorities rather than following global prescriptions, pooling funds to achieve scale rather than delivering through fragmented projects, and building on national systems and capacities rather than setting up parallel mechanisms, the Transition Fund Model employed in Zimbabwe by UNICEF and partners in partnership with the Inclusive Government was able to achieve important results in health, education, social support and water services in a challenging setting. In addition, forums for collaboration were developed that provided a platform for further action. The initial emphasis on service delivery diffused much of the political delicateness that impeded progress in other sectors. The Zimbabwean experience may provide a model of innovative financing for countries facing similar circumstances.SummarySuch models may represent a new practical application of the Paris Principles, consistent with the major tenets of the 2011 New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States agreed in Busan. As we approach the Millennium Development Goal deadline, an over-arching, mutli-sectoral and independent evaluation of this approach is recommended in order to validate findings and assess broader replicability of this approach.

Introducing a sector-wide pooled fund in a fragile context: mixed-methods evaluation of the health transition fund in Zimbabwe

“…Harmonisation is the basis of the aid effectiveness pyramid; our assessment concludes that the HTF performed well regarding harmonisation 23. As reported by Salama et al , before HTF, there was no forum in Zimbabwe for systematic sectoral level engagement between donors, UN agencies and the Ministry of Health 159 also presented fragmentation of funding at national level in their case study in Tanzania9 as a key barrier to harmonisation and hence to aid effectiveness.…”

“…Prospectively, as the country embarked in the design of a second phase of the fund, the HDF, this approach helped to reduce transaction costs related to multiple and often parallel committees set up by various vertical initiatives or donors as observed in other pooled funds 14. In its review of transition funds as a model of innovative financing in various sectors in Zimbabwe, Salama et al identify accountability mechanisms as a key feature of the transition fund 15. The evaluation findings confirm this assessment.…”

“…Evidence and analysis of pooled funds are abundantly available via reviews and evaluations performed in various contexts 13–17. Yet, pooled funds are still an emerging mechanism,18 and the peer-reviewed literature on this aid modality and on its effectiveness is still insufficient.…”

Health systems research in fragile and conflict affected states: a qualitative study of associated challenges

“…For this reason, HSR may need to formulate its research more often in relation to fragility, not just being research that happens to be conducted in a fragile state. Finally, the fragile states literature [ 36 ] increasingly calls for highly contextualised, flexible approaches for aid in general and for health sector development in particular. This focus demands a highly contextualised and specific evidence base, which may limit research generalisability.…”

Narratives and interpretations of the political economy of Zimbabwe’s development aid trajectory, 1980–2013

“…13 Donor-driven projects have aided vulnerable groups in Zimbabwe, especially orphans who were affected by the hyper-endemic HIV. 11,15 Further to this, Zimbabwe has benefited immensely from technical and capacity-building projects funded by different donors, 10 and this has seen many projects undertaken in areas such as agriculture, power stations and railway services. 16 Often, the government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) has had no capacity to run complex sets of programmes, but the donors on many occasions have turned providers.…”