1 - 17 of 17 result(s)

The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducts periodic reviews of the individual development co-operation efforts of DAC members. The policies and programmes of each member are critically examined approximately once every five years. DAC peer reviews assess the performance of a given member, not just that of its development co-operation agency, and examine both policy and implementation. They take an integrated, system-wide perspective on the development co-operation and humanitarian assistance activities of the member under review.

The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducts periodic reviews of the individual development co-operation efforts of DAC members. The policies and programmes of each member are critically examined approximately once every four or five years. Five members are examined annually. The OECD’s Development Co-operation Directorate provides analytical support, and develops and maintains, in close consultation with the Committee, the methodology and analytical framework – known as the Reference Guide – within which the peer reviews are undertaken.

New Zealand has a clear purpose, policy vision and strategies that guide its development co-operation. Policies and strategies contain a strong commitment to the quality of co-operation.

New Zealand has a reputation for being a good global citizen. This is partly related to its development friendly approach, for example in trade and climate negotiations. New Zealand has used this standing to advance the interests, in particular, of its Pacific neighbours and small island developing countries. Its membership of the United Nations Security Council offers New Zealand further opportunity to apply its “Pacific focus, global reach” outlook at a strategic level.

New Zealand’s progress towards meeting domestic and international ODA targets was affected by the Christchurch earthquakes and financial crisis. With the economy recovering well, New Zealand now has an opportunity to set more ambitious projections for overall ODA volume in line with international commitments. With the focus on the Pacific region, New Zealand is, and should continue to, allocate ODA to countries most in need. New Zealand is providing a good level of predictability and transparency to partner countries thanks to its forward-looking spending plans.

As part of the peer review of New Zealand, a team of examiners and the OECD secretariat visited Kiribati in November 2014. The team met with the High Commissioner, New Zealand development co-operation professionals, the President of Kiribati, partner country ministers and civil servants, other bilateral and multilateral partners, and representatives of partner country civil society organisations.

New Zealand has integrated a strong focus on results in its new operating model, structure and business processes. It has made a concerted effort to build a results culture and to make use of results information across the organisation. New Zealand commits to drawing on partner countries’ own data and systems and to support the development of these systems. However, like other members, New Zealand continues to face some challenges. Country-level results frameworks are not routinely agreed as part of Joint Commitments for Development. There is also a tension between headline and activity-level results approaches.

The re-integration of the International Development Group into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has prompted significant organisational reform. The structure is now aligned to new priorities. Business processes have been streamlined. Integration within the ministry has also facilitated some improved whole-of-government working practices. However, there is room for improvement in the form of whole-ofgovernment strategies in partner countries. Design and decision making have not been further decentralised to the field. Systems have not kept pace with broader organisational changes and management needs.

New Zealand’s aid is focused on the Pacific – the region where New Zealand can clearly add most value – and this also guides its humanitarian policy. New Zealand’s approach to recovery and resilience is also built on its comparative advantage, leveraging domestic experience in reducing disaster and climate risks to help design and implement resilience programmes in the Pacific, and closely linking disaster recovery to existing bilateral programmes. However, New Zealand remains a small humanitarian donor, both in absolute volume and in percentage of total ODA; there is scope for more effort in this area.

New Zealand shows a strong commitment to the development effectiveness agenda agreed at Busan. Budgeting and programming have become more predictable by providing multi-year commitments for bilateral programmes, partner countries and multilateral partners. Budgets can also be carried over, reducing the negative incentives and pressure to disburse funds. Programming is well aligned to national priorities and harmonised with other donors. Risks are actively identified and managed at activity level. There are encouraging efforts to use countries’ own systems, including in difficult contexts. The results-driven approach to conditionality could, once evaluated, provide some useful lessons for other donors. New Zealand could now build on these good practices by creating a clear line of sight between its planning instruments, ensuring that its new country strategies capture and co-ordinate whole-of-government efforts in each partner country, and by being more systematic about building capacity, especially in low-capacity Pacific contexts.