The Afghan Government and the International Community reaffirm their partnership in the economic growth and development

of Afghanistan
through a process of mutual accountability in achieving mutually decided goals as laid out in this document, hereafter the Tokyo Framework.
The International Communitys ability to sustain support for Afghanistan depends upon the Afghan Government delivering on its commitments
described in the Tokyo Framework. This document establishes an approach based on mutual commitments of the Afghan Government and the
International Community to help Afghanistan achieve its development and governance goals based on the International Communitys
commitments in the Tokyo Framework. The Tokyo Framework establishes a mechanism to monitor and review commitments on a regular basis.
Good governance is essential for strong and sustainable economic development and improved livelihoods of the Afghan people. Recognizing
this fact, this accountability framework concretizes the mutual commitments decided in the Kabul Process and reaffirmed at the Bonn
Conference by stipulating shared development and governance goals and a mechanism as described in this document to hold parties
accountable for achieving them. The goals are consistent with the Afghan Governments economic and development strategy presented in
Towards Self-Reliance. At the December 2011 Bonn Conference, the International Community affirmed the special status of Afghanistan to
receive donor assistance from Transition through Transformation in greater measure than similarly situated nations. The Afghan Government and
the International Community are bound by their citizens expectations for the effective and transparent stewardship of resources. The Afghan
Government reaffirms its solemn commitment to strengthen governance, grounded in human rights, the rule of law, and adherence to the
Afghan Constitution, and holds it as integral to sustained economic growth and development. Working in partnership with the International
Community, the Afghan Government seeks sustained development, economic growth and fiscal sustainability with declining reliance on donor
financing as articulated in Towards Self-Reliance. To fulfill this vision, the Afghan Government has put together the National Priority Programs
(NPPs), and, in consultation with International Community, is developing an Aid Management Policy to be endorsed by the Joint Coordination
and Monitoring Board (JCMB) by December 2012 to ensure optimal execution and effectiveness of international assistance aligned with national
priorities. As Afghanistan enters the Transformation Decade, progress from the past decade in areas that underpin sustained economic growth
and development,
especially
for women and girls, such as education, health and other basic services, as well as strengthened respect for human
AID MANAGEMENT
DIRECTORATE
rights, must continue. Challenges such as vulnerability to natural disasters and humanitarian needs must also be addressed jointly in an effective
and appropriate manner in Transition and the Transformation Decade. Successful transition will lead to a decade of Transformation where
Afghanistan will build on the benefits of Transition to become an effectively governed and economically, socially progressing country driven by
its own national priorities. This requires a paradigm shift in the nature of partnership between the Afghan Government and the International
Community, from that of being recipient and donors to owner and partners. The realization of this shift necessitates re-defining the principle,
reciprocal commitments and modalities of partnership, which is the purpose of the Tokyo Framework. The Tokyo Conference is the turning point
to begin this re-definition in our partnership. Principles The Tokyo Framework is based on broadly accepted principles of inclusive and sustainable
economic growth and development: Governance has a direct bearing on development performance; International assistance aligned with
national priority programs enhances efficiency and sustainability of development assistance; International assistance through national budgets
can IMPLEMENTATION
improve national institutional
capacities,
performance, and accountability to its citizens; Monitoring of development and
GUIDANCE
NOTEdevelopment
#5
governance benchmarks in a transparent manner is a powerful means to enable accountability to the Afghan people, and reinforce reciprocal
commitments of donors; Private investment both domestic and foreign is key to sustainable economic growth; and Regional cooperation
facilitates the integration of regional economies, thus contributing to the sustainability of development efforts in Afghanistan. Mutual
Commitments The Participants emphasize the importance of the delivery of assistance through adhering to the principles of aid effectiveness,
that they cannot continue business as usual, and must move from promise to practice. The Tokyo Framework sets out a new reinvigorated
development partnership between the Afghan Government and the International Community. The Afghan Government and the International
Community affirm that a functional democracy based on credible and inclusive elections, a professional and efficient civil service, access to justice
and the rule of law are essential to a secure, just, stable and prosperous Afghanistan. Strengthened governance and institutions with a particular
focus on the rights of women are prerequisites for strong and sustainable economic growth, employment generation and prosperity for the
Afghan people. Afghanistan Governance and Development Commitments The Afghan Government and the International Community are to
monitor performance for five major areas of development and governance according to the modalities described below. A timeline for these
indicators is to be developed by the Afghan Government for the next JCMB meeting. The desired goals and initial indicators for each area are
stated below. Representational Democracy and Equitable Elections Goal: Conduct credible, inclusive and transparent Presidential and
Parliamentary elections in 2014 and 2015 according to the Afghan Constitution, in which eligible Afghan citizens, men and women, have the
opportunity to participate freely without internal or external interference in accordance with the law. Develop, by early 2013, a comprehensive
election timeline through 2015 for electoral preparations and polling dates; and Ensure that a robust electoral architecture is developed in a
secure, participatory and transparent manner to enable successful and timely elections. Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights Goal:
Improve access to justice for all, in particular women, by ensuring that the Constitution and other fundamental laws are enforced expeditiously,
fairly and transparently; ensure that women can fully enjoy their economic, social, civil, political and cultural rights; fight against corruption,
including strengthening counter-narcotics efforts; and improve the capacity of state institutions. Indicators: Ensure respect for human rights for
all citizens, in particular for women and children, and allow the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and civil society
organizations to perform their appropriate functions; Demonstrated implementation, with civil society engagement, of both the Elimination of
Violence Against Women Law (EVAW), including through services to victims as well as law enforcement, and the implementation of the National
Action Plan for Women (NAPWA) on an annual basis; and Enact and enforce the legal framework for fighting corruption including, for example,
annual asset declarations of senior public officials including the executive, legislative and judiciary. Integrity of Public Finance and Commercial
Banking Goal: Improved integrity of public financial management and the commercial banking sector. Implement the government program
supported by the International Monetary Fund on schedule; continue to enforce asset recovery and accountability for those responsible for the
Kabul Bank crisis; and strengthen banking supervision and reforms through Da Afghanistan Bank; Implement Public Financial Management
Action Plan and improve the management of public funds as measured by Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment by
20 percent and raise the transparency of public funds measured by the Open Budget Initiative (OBI) to more than 40 percent; and
Implement the recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force Asia Pacific Group regarding anti-money laundering and combating
terrorist financing. Government Revenues, Budget Execution and Sub-National Governance Goal: Improve the Afghan Governments revenue
collection and capacity of line Ministries to develop and execute budgets accountable to, and incorporating, local needs and preferences.
Indicators: Through more efficient, transparent and accountable customs and tax systems, raise the ratio of revenue collection to GDP from 11
percent to 15 percent by 2016, and to 19 percent by 2025; Improve budget execution to 75 percent by 2017; Enact a legal framework to clarify
roles, and responsibilities
of government agencies at national, provincial and district levels, in line with the 2010 Sub-National Governance Policy;
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT budgeting
OF THE ISLAMICprocess
REPUBLIC OF
AFGHANISTAN
and Develop a provincial
that
includes provincial input into the relevant Ministries formulation of budget requests, linked to
a provincial planning process in which Provincial Councils have their consultative roles. Inclusive and Sustained Growth and Development
Goal: Achieve inclusive and sustained growth through a focus on human development, food security, private investment, and decent work and

AID MANAGEMENT POLICY

JOINT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH & ASSESSMENTS

2014

Aid Management Policy

Preamble
This Guidance Note No. 5 is the fifth in a series of guidance notes prepared for both internal use
within the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) and for our Development
Partners (DP). Further guidance notes will be issued in due course to cover other topics to help with
implementation of the GIRoA Aid Management Policy (AMP).
Guidance as set out in this note, allows for exceptions in its implementation and does leave some
scope for innovation and flexibility, otherwise it would not be called guidance. Thus the guidance
is not binding on the GIRoA or DPs, in the sense of being mandatory in every detail. However, the
guidance does have to be followed in the sense of its contents being drawn on for reference and
being regarded as setting out the ideal course to pursue to implement the GIRoAs AMP.
This guidance note is specifically designed to enable the MOF, other government departments, and
donors to influence, participate in and help direct a cost-effective and efficient joint research and
analysis programme that will improve coordination, remove duplication, offer value for money and
be targeted at priority needs.
The government is committed to promoting joint analytical work as a means to improve aid effectiveness and aid coordination on the ground. As an aid tool, joint analytical work is supported, endorsed and promoted by all the high-level forums on aid effectiveness in Afghanistan: Rome, Paris,
Accra, and Busan. Joint analytical work represents an opportunity for both donors and recipient
governments to harmonize their cooperation in a comprehensive manner.
List of Guidance Notes in this Series

Guidance Note #1 - On-budget (OB)

Guidance Note #2 - Aid Alignment (AA)
Guidance Note #3 - Development Framework Agreement (DFA)
Guidance Note #4 - The Finance Agreement (FA)
Guidance Note #5 - Joint Analysis, Research & Assessments (JARA)
Guidance Note #6 - Aid Reporting in the Development Assistance Database

Guidance Note 5: Joint Analysis, Research & Assessments

1.

Introduction
Joint Analysis, Research and Assessments (JARA) are a key policy within the overall AMP.
The collaborative nature of joint analytical efforts requires special consideration, which is outside
the scope of this note. Instead the focus of this guidance note is to serves as a tool to promote joint
analysis, research and assessment work among the donors and highlight general principals for undertaking such works. The guidance note first presents a background to AMP policy in this regard,
followed by an outline of the benefits that can accrue from this policy and the means by which the
GIRoA seeks to make progress on joint assessments.
The AMP contains two key policies on the issue of joint analysis: AMP Policy 4 (Risk Management)
and AMP Policy 15 (Joint Analysis):

GIRoA wish to conduct Joint Risk Assessments and implement reforms to reduce risks
and build confidence of DPs in the PFM capabilities of the government. The Policy states
that DPs will be expected to support Joint Risk Assessments and only carry out additional
assessments where exceptionally justified.
(Policy 4, Aid Management Policy, GIRoA 2013)
Contradictory development prescriptions, divergent development goals, different
administrative and procurement procedures and reporting requirements are all examples
of aid anomalies that render aid less effective. In contrast, where joint action has taken
place, particularly in the form of pooled funding arrangements and joint diagnostic and
research work, cooperation and coordination among actors has increased and duplication
of efforts has been avoided. Consequently it is our aim to promote joint analysis wherever
possible to develop a shared and coherent basis for development dialogue.
(Policy 15, Aid Management Policy, GIRoA 2013)

Joint Analytic work also supports Fragile States Principle (FSP) 81: Agree on Practical Coordination Mechanisms among International Actors, and is supported, endorsed and promoted by all the
high-level forums on aid effectiveness in Afghanistan, including Rome, Paris, Accra, and Busan.
Simply put, both donors and government see joint analytical work as a prerequisite to the effective
use of aid resources, a means to secure greater Value for Money (VFM) for public finances, and as
an essential input to joint planning processes2.
The government is therefore committed to promoting joint analytical work as a means to improve
aid effectiveness and aid coordination on the ground. Joint analytical work represents an opportunity for both donors and recipient governments to harmonize their cooperation in a comprehensive
manner.
The benefits to our development partners (DPs) and the government are obvious. Engaging
in-country stakeholders in the problem identification process in a systematic way will help ensure
a common understanding of the most important issues and local ownership of the problem to be

Ministers participating in the OECD endorsed the FSPs in 2007.

2
Joint Analysis is supported by all GIRoAs development partners. See for example the United Nations Common Programming approach accessed http://toolkit.
undg.org/workstream/1-undaf-or-common-programming-tool.html. See NATO Joint Analysis Handbook, 3rd Edition 2007. See also DFID Political Economy Analysis: How to Note,
July 2009. All these documents are premised upon a joint analytical and consultative approach.

Aid Management Policy

solved. This will help the government work with DPs to develop proposals for collaborating on essential studies. Some of the other benefits of joint analytical efforts are:
Reduces the burden for the Afghan ministries/agencies in supporting DPs analytical
efforts involved in providing information/data, and holding meetings/visits with multiple
donors separately;
Facilitates collaborative approaches and lessons learnt for relevant stakeholders involved in design and implementation of programs/projects;
Reduces the cost of analytical efforts through cost-sharing of monitoring and evaluation expenses;
Fosters a greater consensus among donors and the government on program and
country priorities and needs, thus facilitating improved donor co-ordination of programs;
Helps shift DPs focus away from isolated projects and towards national, sector-wide
programs that stress collaboration and harmonization in line with the government priorities
An immediate Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF) deliverable for development partners and the government is: Joint Assessments, which meets donors and government standards,

of fiduciary risks at major ministries for increased on-budget financing conducted by December
2013. The MOF is therefore seeking to limit the number of fiduciary assessments to a minimum
commensurate with maintaining necessary oversight, and ensure that those that do take place are
a result of joint analysis.

It is also the governments intention to substantially increase the amount of joint analysis undertaken by and with its development partners. As a measure of its own commitment, the government
will, unless exceptionally justified, apply the policies to assessment and research undertaken in the
Trust Funds: ARTF, AITF, LOTFA, and APRP.

2.

Definitions
This section examines a number of key definitions.

2.1

Analysis (noun)3

1. A detailed examination of something in order to interpret or explain it.

2. The process of separating something into its constituent elements.
The OECD has also helpfully provided the following definitions4

2.2

Country Analytic Work

Encompasses the analysis and advice necessary to strengthen policy dialogue, develop
and implement country strategies in support of sound development assistance. It includes
Diagnostic reviews (e.g. Country Procurement Assessment Report, Country Financial
Accountability Assessments etc.); country or sector studies and strategies; country or
sector evaluations; crosscutting analytical work such as gender assessments

Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Ed.

OECD (2011), Survey Guide for Monitoring Implementation of the Fragile States Principles. Paris

Guidance Note 5: Joint Analysis, Research & Assessments

In addition to the examples listed above, other types of joint analysis that the GIRoA undertakes are
economic studies, fiscal analyses, fiduciary risk assessments, counter narcotics reports, research
into government decentralization, and attitudinal surveys.

2.3

Coordinated Country Analytic Work

(i) Country analytic work undertaken by one or more donor jointly; and/or (ii) undertaken
by one donor on behalf of another donor (including work undertaken by one and/or used
by another when it is co-financed and formally acknowledged in official documentation);
and/or (iii) undertaken with substantive involvement from government.
This assumes that members of the international community have one or more mechanisms to work
across sectors, by undertaking multi-sector missions, joint analysis and planning, for example. It
assumes donors are capable and authorized to contribute to pooled funding, that they can pool or
second staff to work jointly across sectors, and that they are willing to participate in joint information
management systems.
Box 1: Approaches for involving government to take part in joint analysis,
research and assessment.
Invite government representatives to participate on the evaluation's management group;
Involve Afghan nationals directly in implementation of these efforts;
Establish advisory structures in which relevant government representatives advise and or review the findings;
Ensure that input from Afghans are collected in the analytical, research and
assessment efforts through processes such as key informant interviews, focus
group members, country expert analysis, etc.; and/or
Make the results of the study available in at least one of the official languages
of the country and ensure the results are accessible.

3.

The Role of the Government

The principal role of government is to decide on partners to be involved in the JARA, and to be
involved in the JARA to the furthest extent possible. In this regard MoF/AMD can play a coordination role by ensuring the government counterparts are aware of any upcoming analytical work
or missions and that representatives from counterpart agencies are nominated. Furthermore, the
relevant ministries could serve an advisory role to guide and review the scope, design and findings
of analytical works.

3.1

Baseline Progress to Date

The GIRoA participated in the Paris Declaration Monitoring Survey in 20105. The results from this
survey are presented below. This represents a baseline from which the government would like to
make significant progress. The 2010 figure for joint missions is particularly disappointing. Data for
2013 and 2014 has been gathered from the current round of DCDs and through an AMD survey of
joint analytical work.

OECD (2011), Aid Effectiveness 200510: Progress in implementing the Paris Declaration, OECD Publishing. ISBN 9789264125490 (PDF)

Aid Management Policy

3.2

Paris Indicators (Baseline 2010)

How many donor missions

to the field were undertaken
2005-10

How many of these were coordinated?

2005

2007

2010

47

26%

37%

6%

2005

2007

2010

34%

32%

35%

786
Table 1: Indicator 10a: Joint missions 2005-2010.

Number of Analyses

Coordinated Donor Analytical Work

200

47

Table 2: Indicator 10b: Joint Country Analytic Work 2005-10.

3.3

2013-14 Indicators

How many donor missions to

the field were undertaken in
calendar year 2012?

How many of these were

coordinated with other development partners?

Remarks (date, description

and list of other donors with
whom the mission was undertaken).

Table 3: Indicator 10a: Joint missions FY 2013-2014.6

How many country analytic

works did you undertake in
calendar year 2013-14?

02

How many of these were

coordinated with other donor
partners?

Remarks (date, description

and list of stakeholders with
whom the analytic work was
considered to be coordinated).

Table 4: Indicator 10b: Joint Country Analytic Work 2013-2014.7

4.

Key Principles for Improving the Amount of Joint Coordinated Analysis

Ministry of Finance (AMD), to request periodic updates about all studies planned or undertaken.
Data can be collected during the DCDs and/or on an ad-hoc basis through questionnaires etc.
Trusts Funds will report all proposed assessments and analyses planned on an annual basis
DPs are requested to act in good faith and provide information promptly to AMD and not just after
the event in annual consultations
DPs are requested to commit to participating in both joint missions and joint analytical work and to
respect the intentions of the AMP and their international commitments. Data provided on upcoming
missions and analysis can be passed to the AMD who can help coordinate missions and studies

AMD Survey (October 2014) and (DCD 2014).

AMD Survey (October 2014) and (DCD 2014).

Guidance Note 5: Joint Analysis, Research & Assessments

Donors will initially provide information on all their diagnostic work undertaken in 2012-2014 and
what they have planned for 2015. This information should be broken down into general assessments
and sector-based work (health, education, elections and political governance studies, support for
civil society, conflict assessments, etc.). The proposed missions and analysis schedule for 2014-15
is particularly important as the government expects a surge in both visits and analytical work
In order to work towards achieving Value for Money (VFM), information will be gathered on the costs
of research and analysis
To achieve maximum impact and usefulness of the background studies it is important to ensure that
results are published in a manner that makes them widely available for future use
Development partners should provide detailed information on all areas of planned fiduciary assessments in the coming 12 months. GIRoA is committed to work with DPs to mitigate fiduciary risks
identified under FR joint assessments.
Development partners are asked to make efforts to engage the relevant government agencies in
analysis, particularly when the work involves the government sector. This govt ownership official
The government wishes to see donors coming together in a collaborative fashion to agree a research framework across a number of key areas. The framework would be based upon a structured
approach to diagnostic work, one that recognizes specific problems we jointly wish to tackle. Donors are invited to specify their interest in a number of areas.

Box 2: Steps in Planning and Conducting Joint Analysis, Research and Assessments
The following is a generic list of steps involved in planning joint analysis, research
and assessment work.
Deciding on a joint multi-donor evaluation: is joint analytical, research and evaluation the most appropriate and useful method in a given situation? Focus, purpose,
cost, timing are some of the factors that can assist the DP in deciding on joint analytical work.
Deciding on evaluation partners: Which other development partner might be most
appropriate and interested to participate in the joint analysis?
Planning the evaluations management structure: what should be the management
structure and what should be the role and responsibility of different development
partners?
Develop a strategy for ongoing coordination with relevant GIRoA bodies and, with
their input, agree on a schedule and method for regular coordination.
Other aspects of planning (preparing the scope of work) such as identifying the
evaluations focus, purpose and audience, clarifying the key evaluation questions to
be answered, identifying the methods, etc.;
Selecting the evaluation team
Preparing the evaluation team
Collecting, analyzing, and reporting results
Reviewing, communicating, and following-up on evaluation results