1 - 15 of 15 result(s)

This periodic review (roughly every five years) of the individual development co-operation efforts of Austria assesses the performance of Austria's programme, not just that of its development co-operation agency, and examines both policy and implementation. It takes an integrated, system-wide perspective.

As there are several government institutions involved in Austrian aid, managing the system efficiently around the objectives of the three-year programmes requires strong political will and buy-in from relevant federal ministries. The follow-up to the post-2015 sustainable development agenda offers an opportunity for the government to review the range of competencies needed to address the development challenges linked to that agenda as well as the division of labour among the different institutions involved, and to increase the coherence of the whole aid system with a view to improving the delivery of Austrian aid in partner countries.

Austria has taken a number of positive steps in favour of managing for results. It still lacks a consistent and coherent approach, as well as a vision of how results are used to inform decisions and demonstrate accountability. Results efforts are at different stages of development at the project, country and corporate levels. There are no linkages between them, or with the development objectives of the Three-Year Programme. Neither is there a differentiated approach to setting out, monitoring or reporting expected results in fragile contexts. Austria is beginning to use the country data and results systems of its partner countries. This practice needs to be systematised, as Austria further develops results frameworks for all its country programmes.

Austria is a prosperous and democratic country with a population of 8.5 million. It is a federal, parliamentary, democratic republic with nine states. The grand coalition government comprising the centre-left Social Democratic Party and the centre-right Austrian People’s Party was renewed in December 2013 following the September general election to the National Council (Naionalrat). The two parties have a combined 99 seats in the 183-member National Council, providing a sense of political continuity and stability and keeping Austria firmly on a pro- European Union (EU) course. The next general election is scheduled to take place in 2018.

Austria’s 2003 Federal Act on Development Co-operation and the Three-Year Programme 2013-2015 provide the legal and strategic focus for Austria’s ODA programme, with poverty reduction at the centre. The Three- Year Programme is considered the medium-term policy for Austria’s development co-operation. However, it does not cover the entire Austrian system. Bringing all aid-spending ministries in line with the three-year programmes, and making them accountable for meeting the objectives of the programmes, would contribute to improving the coherence and effectiveness of Austria’s development co-operation. Austria has formulated policies and strategies for most of its priority sectors and themes. When updating these documents, it should take its comparative advantage into account, as well as where Austria’s development co-operation is needed most.

Austria contributes strategically to addressing global public risks and processes that affect development. Its strategy focuses on a few thematic issues such as human rights, peace and security, where it believes it can add value and exert influence on the global stage. Austria’s commitment to tackle critical and challenging global development issues is commendable.

Austria has a strong historical involvement with some themes of humanitarian assistance, especially human rights and the protection of civilians. It can also provide multi-annual funding to NGO partners that allows them to adapt programmes to evolving recovery contexts. There is a commitment to support the “self-help capacities” of vulnerable populations; this is mostly done through the World Bank’s risk reduction facility. Austria could reflect on these achievements and develop a strategic focus for its humanitarian programme in order to increase predictability and raise its profile on the international stage. Commitments to scale up the humanitarian budget – currently suffering from very limited resources – should also be kept.

Austria’s ODA volume declined substantially in 2009, but it has stayed stable since. However, cuts in the ODA budget are foreseen in 2015 and beyond, which risks hampering Austria’s ability to realise the ambitions outlined in its policy documents. The government’s intention to develop a legally binding roadmap to achieve the 0.7% UN target for ODA/GNI is positive step forward. Debt relief should be included in Austria’s ODA projections only after this is agreed by the Paris Club. Austria is also encouraged to resume the longstanding high quality reporting of its statistics to the DAC.

Austria communicates indicative spending plans to only three priority countries. It could extend the provision of similar information to all priority countries. Currently, aid predictability with respect to other partner governments appears to be insufficient.

A team of examiners and the OECD Secretariat visited Moldova in June 2014 as part of the peer review of Austria. The team met Austrian development professionals, partner country civil servants, other bilateral and multilateral partners, and representatives of Austrian and partner country civil society organisations, the private sector, and local and regional authorities as well as parliamentarians.