|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
ANNEX 2
NPI INVENTORY
Introduction and Summary
The nature of NPI entails two distinct tracks to count: first, progress toward the Vice President's announced target of 40% of development assistance funding being channelled through PVOs and NGOs; and second, the degree to which USAID is already engaged and planning for NPI-type activities in NGO empower-ment, small business partnership, and democratic local governance.
In Copenhagen, Vice President Gore committed the U.S. foreign aid program to channelling 40% of its development assistance funds through U.S.-based and local PVOs and NGOs within five years. Using FY 1994 as a base, 27.7% of USAID's development assistance was through PVOs and NGOs (including Cooperating Agencies). In dollar terms, this equates to $590 million out of $2,127 million.
Information on NPI activities in NGO empowerment, small business partnership, and democratic local governance is not readily retrievable from Agency systems. Thus, the NPI team asked missions and bureaus to examine their current and planned portfolios, and report on NPI activities in each of the three areas. The balance of this annex analyzes the mission responses.
With the caveat that problems associated with the timing of the inventory request and some initial confusion over the definitions make the results highly preliminary, we can offer the following summary results from the inventory.
Considerable activity was reported in all three NPI areas. Worldwide, local governance averaged $168 million per year over the three year period FY 1995-FY 1997; small business, $288 million; and NGO empowerment $334 million. Because we opted to use, where available, FY 1997 levels at a 25% cut from FY 1996, the planning levels for FY 1997 are generally less than FY 1995 or FY 1996.
By Bureau, ENI and AFR had the most in local governance; ENI, followed by AFR, planned the most in the small business partnership area; and AFR and LAC predominated in NGO empowerment planned obligations.
The Inventory
The inventory was essentially a questionnaire sent to all missions and offices, through the bureaus. Definitions for each NPI activity were developed by the respective NPI task force. Basically, missions were asked to report on obliga-tions planned for FY 1995 through FY 1997 for each of the three NPI components. Information was requested regardless of funding source, i.e., Development Assistance (DA), Development Fund for Africa (DFA), SEED, FREEDOM, and Economic Support Fund (ESF). Information is available by mission, by strategic objective and target of opportunity. In some cases, missions provided information on the implementing agents for their programs, i.e. contractor, university, NGO.
Although a response by mid-June was called for, data was late in arriving. Exercises such as this rarely achieve a 100% response, and, as of mid-July, we still lack data from several key missions and AID/W Bureaus. We are continuing to follow up.
The Results
By Bureau, missions reported the following plans for the three NPI com-ponents ($ millions). Where appropriate, we have also identified data collection or definitional problems.
1. NGO Empowerment
Several missions apparently responded to the NGO empowerment category with general data on programming through NGOs, rather than that which was targeted at local capacity-building (as requested). This is somewhat understand-able, given the still widely held perception that NPI is simply a programming target for channelling 40% of USAID assistance through PVOs/NGOs.
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 AFR 142.9 150.3 105.9 ANE 41.8 47.9 43.0 ENI 34.2 23.2 26.7 LAC 115.6 115.9 111.2 Total 334.5 337.2 286.72. Small Business Partnership
For the small business partnership, initial confusion over the definition of "small business" (enterprises with 11-50 employees) was resolved. However, some of the respondents may still have included microenterprise data (eg: in Africa).
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 AFR 76.0 76.2 59.0 ANE 25.3 38.4 48.6 ENI 150.8 110.9 103.1 LAC 30.4 22.7 25.3 Total 282.5 248.2 235.93. Democratic Local Governance
Information provided about local governance activities may not in some cases reflect the NPI focus upon democratic local governance. Similarly, data regarding expenditures on the enabling environment (i.e., policy reform data) may not adequately reflect the intention to measure resources expended on creating an enabling environment conducive to local capacity-building.
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 AFR 44.5 71.4 47.7 ANE 19.9 45.6 19.9 ENI 67.8 36.0 38.3 LAC 38.8 41.8 33.5 Total 170.9 194.8 139.4Missions with significant programs in one or more NPI areas include: Russia (all three), Ukraine (DLG, SBP), Egypt (all three), India (SBP, NGOE), Bolivia (NGOE), El Salvador (all three), Honduras (NGOE), Madagascar (NGOE), Uganda (SBP), and South Africa (DLG, NGOE).
Some final methodological notes: Where available (mostly AFR Missions), information on FY 1997 at the 25% cut level was used, and some missions provided data for only one year. In those cases, nothing was used. Finally, the information provided does not indicate whether these are partnership activities.
Next Steps on the Inventory
The data needs considerable review in order to return and have corrected obvious inconsistencies. Also, a concerted effort needs to be made to receive data from the missions and bureaus that have not responded.
 |
|||
Last Updated on: December 22, 2000 |
