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.