The Reform of the Aid Cooperation Architecture- and the role of Civil Society Aid Effectiveness:...
-
Upload
prosper-patrick -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of The Reform of the Aid Cooperation Architecture- and the role of Civil Society Aid Effectiveness:...
The Reform of the Aid Cooperation Architecture-
and the role of Civil Society
Aid Effectiveness:
From Paris 2005 to Paris 2012
Peter Lanzet, BfdW, for the first Faith Based Develolpment Organisations workshop on 25./27.6.2013 in Geneva
Timeline
Official Process
1999 Marrakesh
2005Paris
2008 AccraHLF III
Busan2011
HLF IV
Civil Society17 NGOs
witnessed Paris
2007 Nairobi:
Better Aid constituted
2008 Ottawa/Paris: Open Forum constituted
BetterAid in Working Party on Aid Effectiveness
Istanbul, Siem Reap, 100 Consultations
CSO voice and vote in Busan
2012 OF/BAmerge to
CPDE
with one CSO
Steering Com
mitt
ee m
ember
CSO- Conference preceding Accra
Paris 2012 Global Partnership
2003 Rom
OwnershipAlignmentHarmonisationManaging for ResultsMutual Accountability
Paris 2005, Accra 2008Aid Effectiveness vs. Development Effectiveness
Development effectivenessAid De-FragmentationValue for money- approachSouth South CooperationPartnership approach CSOsFragile countriesResults and AccountabilityConditionalityPredictability
New Thinking in Accra
Areas of CSO influence in
ACCRA
Civil Society Achievements in Busan?
• Finish Paris/Accra Agenda (2 Speed)
• Human Rights are in the Document but only regarding CSOs
• Enabling Environmnent in the Document but not strong
• CSOs form part of national Domocratic Ownership
• Civil Society is part of the new Global Partnership for Effective Cooperation in Development
What BetterAid/Open Forum wanted What BA/OF achieved
Busan Outcomes•OECD DAC lost, BRICS won, donors happy
• Commitment to “unfinished business”
• Not poverty reduction and MDGs but economic growth, strong results orientation, private sector
•Still focus on development cooperation and not on development as such, despite talking about development effectiveness, pointing out trade, pledging to leverage ODA in the financial markets.
• Recognizing actors as diverse as Civil Society or China as part of one framework of „common principles, shared goals but different commitments“ - therefore weak on Human Rights or on definite indicators and time frames.
•For Civil Society, Busan marks its graduation as a global development actor
…. and Results:
Monitoring Framework and 10 indicators with targets for 20151. Results 2. Civil society 3. Private sector 4. Transparency 5. Predictability6. Aid is on budgets 7. Mutual accountability 8. Gender equality and women’s
empowerment 9. Effective institutions 10. Aid is untied
Narrow or large mandate (i.e. Post 2015)??
The Building Blocks
How Civil Society organizedBetter Aid •Founded at WSF 2007 in Naiorbi, core group of Organisations•Expanded into 32 global networks and organizations til 2011•Worked inside the fence•Contributed numerous policy papers and publications•Organized email participation world wide•Merged the CPDE
Open Forum•Founded 2008 in Ottawa•Worked outside the fence to work on Civil Society Development Effectiveness•Developed Istanbul Principles and Siem Reap Framework, etc.•Maintained website communication•Coordinated over 100 national and regional workshopsMerged with the CPDE
The Structure of the Civil Society Partnership on Development EffectivenessRe
gion
al le
vel
Glo
bal l
evel
Sub-
regi
onal
leve
lN
ation
al le
vel
NGOs FBO Labor
CSOPlat-form
Think Tanks
Multistakeholder Process
Private Sector
Government
Partner-ship
Donors
Subregional/ Sectoral CPDE-Centres
Regional Representatives of Regions
Representatives of Sector Constitutencies
50 Member Global
Council, 4 form FBO
16 Member Coordination Committee
4 Co -Chairs
Independent
Accountability
Committee Secretariat
GPEDC
Central issuesFor Civil Society Partnership on Development Effectiveness
Making CPDE effectctive in GPMaking CPDE effective local to global
Advocating: •Enabling Environment•Human Rights•Development Effectiveness•Post-2015, Sufficiency•Claimate Change
Existence outside Global Partnership?
Challenges for the global Partnership on Effective Development Cooperation
G20 model of development is detrimental to Busan, Busan unnecessary
GP not well established, can be sidelined by donors (see structure)
Not well known, is not a fully respected player in aid arcitecture, yet this is what it was made for
Must find recognition for implementing post 2015, i.e. recognition for larger mandate
Why FBOs should strengthen the Global Partnership Approach
•It is the only global process with CSOs as members (partnership approach)•It is a platform for CSO protest on enabling environment•Has a Building Block links in which Civil Society can get involved•Reference to Busan should protect and advance national Civil Society (democratic accountability/enabling environment)•As long as UN is weak and not giving role to CSOs
CSOs and the implementation of the Busan principles: National Level
CSOs are membership based, adcocacy based or service delivery based. The can perform different roles at their different levels of capacity:
• Building national stakeholder platforms•Participating in and monitoring of Development (Cooperation) Policy Formulation, can be sectoral, at local, district or natioal level• Watchdog role for grants and loans contracting in Official Dev. Coop• Subsidiary program and project implementation• Participating in and monitoring country led results and acoountability frameworks• Country donor coordination platforms• Parliamentary budget and other audit processes
CSOs and the implementation of the Busan priciples, regional, sub-regional
CSOs active at this level need to have the credibility and the authoriy to interact with state and interstate government actors both on partnership as well as on consultative basis.
They need to monitor events at the state level and making wrong developments known (Aid watch, Enabling Environment, Regional initiatives)
Establish connections between national and global levels.
CSOs and the implementation of the Busan priciples: Global
Interact with GPEDE on the basis of the steering committee seat
•Ensure realization of commitments• strengthen GPEDC based on CSO- perspectives•Support and monitor UNDP/OECD-DAC
Implement and monitor CPDE priority plans, i.e. enabling environment, democratic ownership, post 2015, climate finance, etc.