The superposition of three operational approaches, contributing to a diversification of beneficiaries
The number of beneficiaries of France's multilateral contributions has increased in three main historical phases. Before 1945, there were just 19 recipients. After the Second World War, the ‘Washington consensus’ led to the creation of the UN and the institutions that emerged from the Bretton Woods agreements. From 1960 onwards, decolonisation promoted official development assistance (ODA) and led to the creation of new multilateral mechanisms. In 1992, the Rio Summit introduced a third phase, focusing on environmental protection. Over the recent period, between 2017 and 2023, the total amount of French public contributions to multilateral organisations and mechanisms has increased by 46 %. The Court's analysis highlights a certain specialisation of instruments. For example, French contributions to the ‘UN system’ are mainly directed towards peacekeeping operations and crisis management. Despite this relative specialisation, the overall proliferation of available instruments is such that a streamlining of French contributions is desirable.
An increase in earmarked contributions, though overall spending flexibility remains somewhat limited
France's “voluntary” international contributions come on top of its compulsory contributions to multilateral organisations. Between 2017 and 2022, the amount of voluntary contributions paid by France almost doubled. In the scope taken into account for the review, their share of total contributions rose from 50 % in 2020 to 72 % in 2022. The welcome development of this earmarking mechanism, also known as “targeted allocation”, is bringing France's practices closer to those of its major partners, even though countries such as the United States and Germany continue to earmark a larger proportion of their contributions than France. “Targeted allocation” gives France greater freedom in determining the direction of French public funding. But once the political choices have been made, spending becomes rigid. Multilateral funds are
created through international treaties or agreements. Their periodic replenishment is then generally decided at summits organised for this purpose. The decision taken by the government then commits France to appropriations that are often substantial over a multi-year period.
The need for a strategy for using France's international contributions
At the Presidential Development Council on 5 May 2023, the relevant central government departments were asked to define a more effective strategy for coordinating bilateral and multilateral channels in the allocation of France's solidarity funding. This timely request remains unfulfilled, even though two-fifths of France's official development assistance is now provided through multilateral contributions. Bilateral and multilateral channels are partly complementary, but this complementarity varies from sector to sector. The environment sector shows a difference in scale between bilateral and multilateral channels. The French Global Environment Fund (FFEM) implements local cooperation, the broader application of which is undertaken by the Global Environment Fund (GEF). In the area of climate change, the bilateral channel directs aid to the least developed countries (LDCs), while the multilateral channel directly implements international obligations, such as those under the Paris Agreement. In health and education, cooperation between bilateral and multilateral donors remains essential for financing sector budget support and major projects, while more recent vertical funds such as the GFATM, GAVI and the GPE facilitate donor coordination.
A need to strengthen monitoring, assessment and management
The management of France's main international contributions is divided between several administrations, mainly the Directorate for the United Nations and International Organisations (NUOI), the Directorate General for Globalisation (DGM) and the Directorate General for the Treasury (DGT). The evaluation of major contributions is satisfactory, but an additional effort is needed for more modest contributions. Greater involvement of diplomatic posts in monitoring multilateral actions is also desirable. Internal coordination within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is inadequate. On the other hand, the Ministry's collaboration with the Treasury Department works in a pragmatic way. However, there is a lack of cross-functional tools for monitoring contributions. Better management would require monitoring of fund replenishments and planning of upcoming decisions regarding allocation. At present, there is no body responsible for this overall coordination, which is partly carried out by the diplomatic service of the Office of the President of the Republic. The Court recommends improving this coordination, in particular through regular meetings of the CICID, under the aegis of the Prime Minister, by extending its remit to all multilateral contributions and by opening up its secretariat to the Budget Directorate.