Development effectiveness through HLM Trialog Study visit 2014
Plan 1. Previous High Level Meeting 2. Paris Declaration and principes 3. Accra Action Agenda 4. Implementation of PD and AAA in Belgium 5. HLM in Busan 6. Global Partnership for effective Cooperation (GPEDC) 7. How to get involved in the GPEDC debate?
From aid effectivness to developpement effectivness Paris (2005) Accra (2008) Busan (2011) Rome (2003) Ownership Alignment Harmonisation Results Mutual accountability Ownership Inclusive Partnership Develering resutlts Capacity for developement Ownership Mutual accountability and transparency Inclusive Partnership Focus on results
What is Paris Declaration about? Consensus around 5 principes 150 adhesions mainly from donors and developing countries Operationnal/ technical discussion Monitoring process Time frame: from 2005 to 2010 Target groups: Donors and developing countries 56 commitments 12 indicators: 2 phases (2008-2011)
What are the PD principes? Ownership: Developing countries set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions and tackle corruption. Alignement: Donor countries align behind developing countries' objectives and use local systems: local institution, local systems: monitory, financial management, accounting Harmonization Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures and share information to avoid duplication Mutual accountability Donors and partners are accountable for development results to the parliaments, citizens and partner/donors. Mutual accountability depends on increasing levels of transparency and promoting the role of citizens in aid relationships Focus on results Developing countries and donors shift focus to development results and results get measured. Growing focus on monitoring and evaluation and the tracking of performance indicators, data collection
12 PD s indicators 1. Countries operationalize their development strategies. 2. Public financial management systems are reliable. 3. Aid flows are accurately recorded in country budgets. 4. Technical co-operation is aligned and coordinated. 5. Donors use country public finance management and public procurement systems. 6. Donors avoid parallel project implementation units. 7. Aid is more predictable within the year it is scheduled. 8. Aid is increasingly untied. 9. Donors use coordinated mechanisms for aid delivery. 10. Donors coordinate their missions and their country studies. 11. Countries develop sound frameworks for monitoring development results. 12. Mechanisms for mutual accountability are established at country level
Some remarks, critics Not enough political, too bureaucratic Not enough positive results Problems of ownership Use of country system, delegate decision-making to local staff, etc. Capacity building Problems of harmonistation Fragmentation Tied Aid Some stakeholders missing Civil society Parliments Others donors: MIC, private sector
Accra Action Agenda CIVIL SOCIETY Civil society organisations (CSOs) should play a dynamic role in making citizens concerns and needs heard. CSOs should help ensure that donors and developing countries fulfil their commitments. COUNTRY SYSTEMS When implementing their aid programmes, donors should use developing countries own fiduciary systems. Developing countries should strengthen their own administrative and fiduciary systems. FRAGMENTATION Donors should improve their co-ordination and avoid duplicated efforts thereby lowering costs. Donors should work together to balance their programmes so that all countries receive enough aid. UNTYING AID Donors should increase the value for money of aid by continuing to untie it giving recipients the option of choosing where and from whom they will contract goods and services and by promoting the use of local and regional procurement.
Accra Action Agenda ACCOUNTABILITY Developing countries should help parliaments keep track of their aid programmes by encouraging greater transparency in public financial management. Donors should disclose regular, detailed information on how much they invest, when they invest it, and where and whenever available, the results of their investments. The International Aid Transparency Initiative CONDITIONALITY Recipient countries should be able to determine the conditions attached to the way aid funds are spent. Donors and developing countries should work from a small set of mutually agreed conditions,and make all these conditions public. PREDICTABILITY Developing countries should strengthen their capacities in budget planning. Donors should provide developing countries with regular information on how much aid they can expect, and when they can expect to receive it
What did Belgium for the PD and AAA? EU Context EU Code of conduct (2007) Focus on specific sectors depending on the partners countries (2 or 3 sectors) BE Context Cooperation law (1999) 18 partners countries + 4-5 thematics Indicative Program for 4 years Alignement and Harmonisation Plan (2007) Secotrial approach; capacity building, transparency Strategic note on specifics thematics
HLM in Busan Paris monitoring process 1 indicator reached Strengthened capacity by coordinated support, and performance has barely improved since 2005 More inclusive: CSO: Better Aid/Open Forum Private sector South South Cooperation Developpment effectiveness Outcome document A lot of commitments: commitments to PD and AAA, MDG, diverse sources of financing, private sector role, fragile state attention, decent work, the use and strengthening of developing countries system, gender equality, transparency, role of parliaments stressed, (CSOs) role, the promotion human-right based approach's,
Global Partnership for effective cooperation All the actors are involved New management (steering committees and UNDP/OEDC for the secretariat) Monitoring 10 indicators Critieria made time to be designed Results published in March 2014. Only 55 countries answerd to the evaluation Thematics 5 sessions: South South Cooperation, DRM, Private sector, MIC, Busan evaluation Timing 14 April: last version of the communique 15-16 April : conferences
How to follow, how to get involved in the GPEDC? State of play National level: What has be done since Busan? What progress need to be made? At the general or more specific level? Communique? Process in general? Thematic sessions? CSO level: which are the organisations, networks involved? What are their position on the GPEDC? CSO Partnership for Effective Development Aidwatch Concord What i could say at the Belgian level?
How to follow, how to get involved in the GPEDC? At the Belgian level General comments on the GPEDC The draft of Mexico communique and the process (monitoring, the role of the steering committees, etc.) Absence of fragile state in the discussion Absence of gender dicussion, sustainable development, environment National advocacy work Evaluation on previous strategic note Alignment and Harmonization plan need to be adapted How to improve country systems?
Thank you for your attention Rachel.deplaen@cncd.be