Transcript Busan, 29 nov – 1 Dec 2011
HLF-4
Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (Busan, 29 nov – 1 Dec 2011)
From Paris to Busan, for effective aid
Hubert de Milly OECD DCD/EFF UNRIC, Bruxelles, 04 03 2011
An effective menu…
STARTER
Monterrey Consensus………………..(2000) Rome HLF1- Harmonization …….(2003)
MAIN COURSE
Paris Declaration …………… (2005) Accra Agenda for Action ………….(2008)
SIDE DISHES
…..
(All 2010) • Bogotá Statement on South South C.
• Dili Declaration on Fragile states • Istanbul CSO principles
DESSERT
Busan HLF4 ……………… (2011)
What about tomorrow’s dinner?
How it started 10 years ago
2000-2002, a diagnostic: to reach MDGs, ODA is: – – Part of the solution (and must be increased) But also part of the problem (doing harm?) 2003-2005, a mutual commitment (or “trade off”): to increase aid effectiveness: – – – Donors relax constraints (using country syst.) Recipients improve policies and management Both reconvene in 2008 and 2011
2005-2010: building a compre hensive aid effectiveness agenda
Paris Declaration: 5 pillars, 56 commitments, 12 indicators Accra Agenda for Action: aid effective. everything that every stakeholders must do to make
24 8 31 9 6
Behind the scene: The WP-EFF
Countries receiving ODA Countries both receiving and providing assistance Donor countries Multilateral organisations International Civil institutions: CSOs, foundations, local governments, parliaments
6
WP-EFF: a partnership to work together CHAIRS
Vice Chairs
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (26 members)
WORKING PARTY PLENARY (80 participants)
A Ownership & Accountability
Broad-based Ownership Donor support to domestic Accountability (Govnet) Mutual Accountability at country level and international Accountability CSO and aid effectiveness
B Use of Country Systems
Support implementation of commitments.
Strengthen capacity & performance.
Improve transparency on use of country systems
C Transparent & Responsible aid
Aid transparency Predictability In-country division of labour International division of labour Conditionality
D Assessing Progress
Monitor implementation of PD & AAA.
Evaluate implementation Document progress Monitoring the fragile states principles
E Managing for Development Results Workstreams: TT-SSC, TT Health as a Tracer Sector, Capacity Development…
Does it work?
The Monitoring Survey
The major strength of the PD 12 indicators, 3 surveys • • 2006 baseline (2005 data)
33
2008 mid-term (2007 data)
54
participant countries participant countries • 2011 final survey (2010 data)
91
participant countries Donors and government complete a
short questionnaire
in each country, supplemented by
qualitative reporting
Results in June 2011.
Does it work?
The PD independent evaluations
Phase 1 (2008) on implementation Phase 2 (2010-2011) on impact, showing (?) – – – – Positive impact at sector level: catalysing, strengthening legitimizing coordination for greater investment, efficiency and results Better prioritisation of country needs Improved enabling environment for CSOs No move to budget support,
no pressure to do so
2011: a 4
th
HLF to do what?
Stocktaking from the Paris / Accra process Agreeing on features of high quality aid and its monitoring framework towards 2015 Situating aid in its broader development
context:
– – – – More actors Diversified approach: MICs, LICs, FS, regions Catalyst dimension: trade, security, climate… Results and right-based approaches
Who? Where? When?
A political event that attracts ministerial attendance, with decisive outcomes Busan, Bexco. Host: Government of Korea At the end of this year: 29 November to 1 December 2011.
Stocktaking of progress Presenting findings to HLF4
Key Messages and Recommendations Progress since Paris (PDMS+other evidence) + Country Chapters and statistical annexes Evaluation of implementation
Format and Approach for HLF-4
Process
– Multi-stakeholder, open and transparent – Evidence-based inputs on what really matters (drawing on monitoring and evaluation)
To be decided (by mid 2011):
– Type of outcome document – Main issues
Format
– Plenary sessions – – – Showcasing sessions Interactive/political debates on a few issues… … to complete the Busan Outcome Document.
Busan HLF 4: Preliminary format
Morning Session Day 1:Progress Since Paris Plenary 1:
“Progress Since Paris: What lessons have we learned?”
Review evidence from PD Monitoring & Evaluation
Interactive sessions (themes)
: Recommendations to Outcome Document
Day 2: New Development Challenges Day 3: Actions for the Future Plenary 2:
“Looking Forward – How can aid address emerging development challenges?”
Political Debate 3:
“What actions will we take now?”
Interactive sessions
:
(themes):
Recommendations to Outcome Document •
Ministers review outcome document
•
Combined with Tidewater meeting ?
IS IS IS IS Afternoon Session Political Debate 1:
“Unfinished business: What we still need to do” •
Recommendations to Outcome Document
IS IS IS IS Political Debate 2:
“Making development effective: What can aid do to leverage progress in development?” •
Recommendations to Outcome Document
Closing Plenary
: Endorse Outcome Document
On-
13
going Negotiation of Outcome Document Thematic Events (showcasing)
Timeline
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Deadline for submission of proposed themes
Menu of Options
– identifies themes for events, of any kind, at HLF 4 (incl. potential organisers based on expressed interest) and of the outcome doc. Start of negotiation process. Decision on major themes for the outcome doc; attribution of responsibilities for related events [
depending on state of negotiation process
] Decision on interactive sessions & political debates
*
On-site negotiation of the Busan Outcome Document
: The format and link with the Political Debates will be defined in due course.
Paris-Busan, what a nice story!
Aid works Aid decided by itself to overcome coordination difficulties (Paris)… … and to check the results 6 years later!
What do you want Busan to bring?
– – – A new/revised framework for aid effectiveness?
Some new reforms, within and outside aid?
Already: post 2015 (post-MDGs) ideas ?