By Mohamed Salah

Throughout my 25 years of experience in the development and humanitarian sectors, I have dealt with and observed a variety of models in building the capacities of LDCs like Somalia which are either recovering or grappling with ongoing crises. I have seen these models from both the host government side and that of international organizations.

One recurring issue that has consistently drawn my attention is the impact — either disruptive or constructive —that external consultants can have on the internal dynamics and regular functioning of government ministries where they are housed.

In my observation, consultants do not always necessarily contribute to capacity building. Depending on the tasks and scope of work assigned by the host ministries, they can either strengthen established systems and contribute to capacity-building efforts of the host government or weaken and even disrupt the very system.

A few years ago, when Somalia was experiencing one of the worst droughts in its history, several consultants were hired and deployed to key ministries, fully funded by international development partners. Many were appointed under titles such as “Chief Planning Advisor” or “Strategic Advisor” — positions that, at times, overlapped with existing civil service roles like “Head of Planning” or “Department Head.”

In some instances, these consultants reported directly to ministers, rather than through established administrative lines. This led to parallel reporting channels, unintentionally excluding key officials such as Director Generals and department heads from decision-making forums. While such arrangements may have been driven by urgent needs for technical expertise, they also created information asymmetries and blurred lines of accountability.

The crucial access the consultants gained to strategic-level discussions gave them exclusive insights into key government and donor priorities. While this can be an asset when well managed, it also risks shifting focus toward personal gains — such as contract extensions — over the timely delivery of project results. In contexts like Somalia, where projects must remain adaptable to a fluid political and security landscape, it is critical to ensure the host institution has full ownership and command over the course of its actions.

When consultants are embedded in ways that sidestep core ministry structures, there is a risk of eroding the institutional capacity that these partnerships aim to build.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated challenge. In various cases, advisory roles have evolved beyond their intended scope, with consultancies extended for several years and gradually overlapping with permanent civil service functions.

What makes consultants catalytic

Over the years, I have observed that external consultants tend to be more effective when a few conditions are met.

First, they are more effective when they report to the heads of relevant departments, rather than directly to the Minister or the Director General. This organizational structure prevents consultants from being involved in the decision-making processes and power politics.

Second, consultants get more effective when they are recruited through an open, competitive process, for their specialized skills and knowledge. For the Ministry to achieve its program objectives, it is essential to have consultants with specialized expertise, rather than to treat them as ordinary staff. The duration of the consultancy should be kept relatively short, ideally between 3 and 12 months.

And third, consultants are most useful when they provide technical support to the Ministry by addressing queries and preparing reports needed by donors and other government entities. However, it is the responsibility of the section heads or the director general of the ministry, not the consultant, to submit these reports and manage any follow-up communications.

Good practices

UNDP’s Strengthening Institutional Performance (SIP) project in 2015 aimed to assist governments in addressing critical capacity gaps within their civil service and to enhance the capabilities of key ministries and agencies in performing essential government functions. One of the project’s notable successes was establishing a clear division of responsibilities among consultants for specific, short-term technical tasks, as opposed to the conventional hiring approach that relied on long-term and highly generic tasks. Instead of being linked to ministers and director generals under longer-term contracts, the consultants recruited for specific technical roles provided adequate support to various government ministries within short, time-bound assignments, thereby contributing to achieving the project’s objectives.

For instance, they supported the Ministries of Planning at both the federal and state levels for the development of standards and a framework for a five-year development plan. Subsequently, each ministry was responsible for creating content that aligned with this framework and met the established standards. Additionally, consultants engaged by the ministries of labor and the civil service commissions at federal and state levels established an overarching framework for Human Resource Management. At the same time, individual line ministries focused on specific components of this framework. The consultants also aimed to assist key government entities in formulating strategies to enhance essential government functions. The overall outcome of the project was measurable.

The primary reason for this success was that the consultants collaborated closely with sectoral technical departments, instead of reporting directly to the high-level officials such as ministers, director generals or head of departments. This helped improve efficiency in the functioning of the ministry staff, while keeping the organizational reporting lines intact.

Recommendations:

Based on these observations, here are a few recommendations to strengthen the role and responsibilities of the government ministries and their staff:

1. Define the role of external consultants within the ministry: This applies particularly to the federal-level ministries that handle a high volume of project deliveries and have a significant need to recruit external consultants. These ministries should establish a clear role description for technical advisors and consultants. It is essential to ensure that these roles complement, rather than replace, the duties of regular ministry staff.
2. Promote the involvement of the ministry’s regular staff in project implementations. Federal and state governments should evaluate the choice of employing many external project personnel for initiatives financed by donors and international development partners. Instead, the ministries should use their existing personnel already on the government payroll to oversee projects covered by the letters of agreement signed with the ministries.
3. Reporting lines: Ministries at the federal and state levels should develop a distinct organizational structure that clarifies the reporting lines for consultants and technical advisors. If necessary, the ministry can create an internal guideline policy that dictates when and how to engage a consultant within the ministry’s work. A reporting protocol should be included to ensure that all advisory roles report to the relevant departmental heads, reinforcing the existing management hierarchy within the ministry.
4. Regular training for staff: Ministries should have capacity development programs that empower their regular staff to enhance their skills and capacities. This will help the ministries carry out their work more effectively with consultants, leveraging their expertise without overly relying on them.
5. Internal coordination forums: Government ministries should introduce a modus operandi of regular events that enhance information sharing within the departments in a particular ministry. This is to ensure that knowledge is widely shared among relevant staff members, and not just between the consultants and their supervisors. A collaborative space that encourages continuous communication and feedback between technical advisors, consultants, and department heads can facilitate knowledge and information sharing while ensuring internal staff remain engaged and empowered.
6. Performance evaluation: At both the federal and state levels, the Human Resources department, in collaboration with the department head, should establish performance metrics to evaluate the contributions of consultants based on the outcomes they achieve. While most international development partners who fund these consultants have their own internal mechanisms to evaluate the performance of their consultants, it is often missing on the government side. This approach will promote accountability and ensure that consultants meet the required performance standards agreed to in their contracts.

Salah is National Coordinator for UNDP’s Stabilization Initiative in Somalia. Views expressed here are author’s and do not necessarily represent that of UNDP.