An overview of the Istanbul Principles: Improving our development effectiveness as CSOs

Canadian Council for International Co-operation – January 2014

Overview•Aid effectiveness and civil society•The response:•From aid effectiveness to development effectiveness•Principles for independent development actors in their own right

•The Open Forum process•Key outcomes•The Istanbul Principles

•So what?

Paris & the aid effectiveness journey

Korea HLF-4 (2011)

Monterrey Consensus (2002)

Rome Declaration on Harmonisation

– HLF-1 (2003)

Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness –

HLF-2 (2005)

Accra Agenda for Action – HLF-3

(2008)

Bogota Statement on SSC (2010)

Dili Declaration on fragile states

(2010)

“Civil society as independent development actors in their own right”

BUT

“reflect on how [to] apply the Paris principles of aid effectiveness from a CSO perspective“

Evolution of CSOs and the AE agendaTwo principal tracks• Substance: CSO critiques of Aid Effectiveness (AE) agenda• Role: Efforts to fit CSOs within AE agenda

Responses and push-back• Substance: Shift from AE to development effectiveness agenda (CSOs then donors)•Role: Recognition by CSOs of multiple roles and need to develop own principles

Substance: CSOs and DE

“…[DE] addresses the causes as well as the symptoms of poverty, inequality and marginalization, through the diversity and complementarity of instruments, policies and actors […and] deepen[s] the impact of aid and development cooperation on the capacities of poor and marginalized people to realize their rights […] ”

Aid vs. Dev’t. EffectivenessCharity

Symptoms of povertyHuman needsShort term resultsPeople as objectsWomen’s equalityExternal inputsTrickle-downJobsDonor drivenA-political delivery

JusticeRoot causesHuman rightsLong-term outcomesPeople as subjectsGender equalityExisting assetsEquitable distributionDecent workAll development actorsPolitics and power

Development and aid effectiveness

“Conditions for realizing development effectiveness goals must include measureable commitments to improve the effectiveness of aid.”

So still need aid effectiveness AND development effectiveness

Development effectiveness

Aid effectiveness

Rejecting Paris…what next?

•Response to external criticisms of CSOs:•Aid effectiveness (implementing PD)•Legitimacy (impacts, representation, credibility)•Transparency (to constituencies)•Accountability (volunteerism)

•And internal criticisms•Power in North-South relationships •Int’l NGOs competing with local CSOs •Real solidarity ?•Multiplicity of actors and duplication

Open Forum: CSO PrinciplesObjectives1. Create an open process, through country-

based, sectoral/thematic, regional and global consultations and multi-stakeholder dialogue.

2. Develop a common CSO vision on DE .3. Agree on common principles of CSO DE. 4. Provide guidance on how to apply the

principles.5. Articulate the minimum standards for an

enabling environment for CSOs.

The Open Forum

70 NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS

6 THEMATIC PROCESSES

11 REGIONAL WORKSHOPS

2 GLOBAL ASSEMBLIES

INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR CSO DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness

Statement on CSO Accountability

Minimum standards for Enabling Environment

Two toolkits:

Implementation and

Advocacy

So what are the eight Istanbul Principles?

So what? • “We’re already doing this…this is nothing new”

• The global process matters• These are CSO owned• This is a political statement as much about rejecting

Paris, as promoting Istanbul• Endorsed at the Fourth High Level Forum on AE• This is about evaluating and constantly improving our

own development practice and effectiveness

• Now from norms to practice

Socializing/implementing the IPFrom Principles to Practice – Canada / global

Socializing the IP – workshops, learning forums, icons, podcasts, calendar, code of ethics

Implementing the IP – Case studies, test pilot Practitioner’s Guide and…now the HRBA and partnership workshops