Norway is seen to have been constructive in helping Serbia coordinate its foreign aid. Serbia established an aid coordination unit, DACU, in 2001, within its Ministry of International Economic Relations (MIER). This unit has since changed departmental affiliation three times. Today it lies within the Ministry of Finance. It has also changed its name, but is still usually referred to as “DACU”, the acronym used in this document for the sake of convenience. Norway supported the establishment of the unit with a resident adviser, who supposedly played a much-appreciated role in formulating strategic plans and systems for assisting reconstruction and development. The unit became fully operational in the period 2001-2004. DACU is the Serbian government’s focal point for donor support. This unit drafts government strategy and coordinates foreign assistance to ministries and other executive bodies (recently also to the ombudsman and anti-corruption agency). DACU has led the process of formulating Serbia’s first strategy document for international assistance, “Serbia On The Move” (2003) and its successors. DACU invites ministries and other public institutions to come up with two project proposals for Norwegian funding, assesses them and provides recommendations to donor countries. It liaises with the donors, notes their priorities and allocations, and seeks to match donor priorities with the needs of Serbia’s ministries. Norway has increasingly been channelling its support to public-sector strengthening in Serbia through the DACU mechanism (so-called “bilateral package”). Approximately half of the annual Norwegian assistance is said to go through the DACU system today. Norway’s priorities for the “bilateral package” have been the environment, employment, vulnerable groups, energy and justice. DACU finds these are “very broad concepts” and that the exact strategy is difficult to pin down at times. This vagueness is said to allow for much-appreciated flexibility: whereas other donors might prioritise certain ministries, Norway would focus on thematic areas and accept what it considers thematically relevant proposals from any ministry. But the loosely formulated priorities have at times also smacked of a lack of focus or consistency. In the end, this has not been a big problem to DACU, because its staff and MFA’s Western Balkans section have a joint “advisory board” that agrees on concrete projects to prioritise. DACU officials consider Norway an important30 bilateral donor, and Norway is praised for being flexible and quick compared to other (and bigger) donors. Moreover, Norway is appreciated for addressing important gaps – for “funding a lot of crucial but small projects that other donors would not bother with” – and for being “less obsessed with visibility” than certain others. With regard to the Norwegian practice of only providing annual allocations, DACU officials have said they do not consider it a problem; that on the contrary, it can perhaps even be good because it allows for annual re-evaluation. The small-grants projects financed by the Norwegian embassy in Belgrade (Embassy Projects) are highly appreciated by DACU, and Norway is lauded for building local capacities.
30 The Evaluation Team has even – on multiple occasions – heard Serbian officials say they consider Norway ”the most important” donor country. This is certainly incorrect in terms of funding, and impossible to verify; but the frequency and strength of such statements suggest that the Norwegian engagement has been much appreciated.
Evaluation of Norwegian Development Cooperation with the Western Balkans
75