TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL GEORGIA

20 OCTOBER 2009

ONE YEAR AFTER BRUSSELS DONOR

CONFERENCE

PLEDGED AID (1)

TOTAL AMOUNT 4.55 BLD USD – 1,000 USD PER PERSON

38 COUNTRIES AND 15 INSTITUTIONS

95% PLEDGED BY 13 DONORS – 7 COUNTRIES AND 6 INSTITUTIONS

PLEDGED AID (2)

BIGGEST COUNTRY DONOR US – 1 BLN USD

BIGGEST INSTITUTION DONOR – EBRD 927 MLN USD

MORE THAN ½ LOANS - CONCESSIONAL

PLEDGED AID (3)

SPENDING PRIORITIES:

DIRECT BUDGET SUPPORTENERGYROADSMUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTUREIDPSSOCIAL ASSISTANCEAGRICULTUREENVIRONMENTBANKING SECTOR

PLEDGED AID (4)

COMMITTED IN 2008: 795 MLN USD 403 MLN USD DIRECT BUDGET

SUPPORTMORE THAN HALF GRANTS

COMMITTED IN 2009: OVER 1.850 MLN USD

143 MLN USD DIRECT BUDGET SUPPORT

2/3 LOANS

PLEDGED AID (5)

US FUNDING:250 MLN USD DIRECT BUDGET SUPPORT

60 MLN USD MCC (REGIONAL ROAD)13 MLN USD (GAS STORAGE FACILITY)26 MLN USD (REG. INFRASTRUCTURE)100 MLN USD (STABILIZATION/RECONSTR)1 MLN USD MCC (ADMINISTRATIVE)53.3 MLN USD (ECONOMIC SUPPORT)242 MLN USD (ECONOMY, PEACE, GOVERN)176 MLN USD OPIC (BUSINESS SUPPORT)

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS (1)

ESSENTIAL SUPPORT: POLITICAL, FISCAL AND ECONOMIC (FDI DROP TO 20%)

53% ALREADY COMMITTED

FUNDING HELPED TO MAINTAIN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, REDUCE BUDGET DEFICIT, PAY SALARIES/PENSIONS, STRENGTHEN BANKING SECTOR

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS (2)

TRANSPARENT AID BREAKDOWN (MINISTRY OF FINANCE DATABASES POSTED ON INTERNET)

COOPERATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (REGULAR MEETINGS WITH GEORGIAN NGOS)

TRANSPARENT MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT FUND PROJECTS BREAKDOWN (ONE OF THE CHIEF IMPLEMENTORS)

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS (3)

SOME GOVERNMENT AGENCIES RESPONDING TO CRITICISM

NGOS AND MEDIA MONITORING AID

IDP ASSISTANCE MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND LONG-TERM

CONCERNS TO DATE (1)

DOMINANCE OF POLITICS (OPPOSITION REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN THE ANTI-CRISIS COUNCIL ACTIVITIES)

WEAK DEMOCRACY

LACK OF POLITICAL CONDITIONS

LACK OF PARTICIPATORY PROCESS OF AID DISTRIBUTION DECISION-MAKING

CONCERNS TO DATE (2)

POOR PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF AND UNDERSTANDING OF SPENDING PRIORITIES

SPEEDY PROCESS AND INSUFFICIENT PLANNING

WEAK OVERSIGHT INSTITUTIONS

AID NOT ALWAYS TIED TO CAPACITY BUILDING

CONCERNS TO DATE (3)

NOT ENOUGH EMPHASIS ON QUALITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

INSUFFICIENT SUPPORT OF NGO MONITORING EFFORTS

LACK OF SUFFICIENT DONOR TRANSPARENCY

CONCERNS TO DATE (4)

TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION

PROGRESS ASSESSMENT AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

FORMALIZED PROCESS

RECOMMENDATIONS (1)

POLITICAL CONDITIONS: MEASURABLE AND PUBLIC

TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING DECISION-MAKING / CLEAR JUSTIFICATION

COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES AND OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS

RECOMMENDATIONS (2)

BETTER PLANNING AND COMMUNICATION

MORE EMPHASIS ON QUALITY ASSESSMENT

SUPPORTING MONITORING ACTIVITIES

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS

BETTER DONOR TRANSPARENCY