Transcript INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT …
INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH GENDER RESPONSIVE PLANNING AND BUDGETING 26-28 JULY 2011,KIGALI, RWANDA PARTNER COUNTRIES’ VISION AND PRIORITY ISSUES FOR HLF 4
Presented by HELEN ALLOTEY DIRECTOR EXTERNAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMIC PLANNING ACCRA-GHANA
1
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION
Changing Context of Development Co‐operation
PCs Achievements from Paris and Accra
Identified Challenges
PCs VISION for Busan
Conclusion
2
INTRODUCTION
PC Vision and Priority paper was put together between 12 and 13 th May 11,by drafting team from Egypt, Ghana, Honduras, Colombia, Timor Leste, Vietnam, Mali & Pacific Islands Forum Countries.
Inputs were received from 19 partner countries, in addition to feedback from 15 countries on the draft position paper Other inputs include, findings of the independent evaluation of the results of implementing Paris Declaration and online surveys carried out by the Capacity Development for Development Effectiveness Facility (CDDE) to identify priority issues as viewed by partner countries. 3
INTRODUCTION cont.
Drafting Team members include Talaat Abdel‐Malek (Egypt), Helen Allotey (Ghana), Lidia Fromm Cea (Honduras), Sandra Alzate Cifuentes (Colombia), Helder da Costa (Timor Leste), Cao Manh Cuong (Vietnam), Modibo Makalou (Mali), and Alfred Shuster (Pacific Islands Forum Countries).
4
INTRODUCTION Cont.
PCs vision, drew from the Changing Context of Development Co‐operation; It highlighted main achievements since Paris and particularly since Accra, based on concrete evidence, and pointed out persisting challenges; It identified priority needs, to take forward for discussion with DPs and other stakeholders in Busan 5
CHANGING CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT CO‐OPERATION
Involve: (i)The persisting question of the effectiveness of ODA flows, despite its increased volume over the past decade.
(ii) Increased volume and delivery of aid flows from Non‐DAC aid providers, global funds and private foundations, and continued use of own rules outside PCs country systems and attendant high transaction costs. (iii) Continued proliferation of multilateral and bilateral Aid delivery agencies, involving complexities in aid management . 6
CHANGING CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT CO‐OPERATION CONT
.
(iv) Series of HLF: in Rome (2003), Paris (2005) and Accra (2008), which are expressions of persisting dissatisfaction with ODA performance and desire to improve quality/outcome of aid.
(v)The evolving relevance of SSC as a tangible source of development co‐operation, requiring more learning on its modalities/practices.
(vi) Negative impact of recent global crises (food, financial crises, economic slowdown) on the pace and quality of development outcomes.
7
CHANGING CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT CO‐OPERATION CONT.
(vii) Other global challenges like climate change, other forms of development co‐operation besides ODA (trade, foreign direct investment, technology transfer, and development finance) which are affecting the pace and pattern of future development.
(viii) Evolving architecture for international development co‐operation, with inclusion of non‐DAC aid providers (public and private) and various delivery modalities. 8
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA
Accurate measurement of PCs achievement of the PD Principles and impact of development co‐operation, was methodologically difficult to assess. PCs acknowledge the positive influence and support of the aid effectiveness agenda towards some achievements so far made.
Progress though, remains inadequate in meeting PC commitments and insufficient in contributing to sustainable outcomes.
9
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA Cont.
Visible positive influence of A/EFF agenda, was traced from the monitoring surveys/evaluation reports, including the 2011 Monitoring Survey, which pointed to some progress made as follows: PCs are now assuming ownership by developing/refining national development strategies and plans, and broadening the participation of non‐government stakeholders to achieve more inclusive ownership.
Drafted national aid strategies and policies, linking aid to development plans; strengthening their organization structure/capacity for managing aid . 10
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA Cont.
ALIGNMENT: some improvement reported as a result of open and transparent dialogue with DPs through joint consultative groups, mixed commissions, performance‐based evaluations, high level development forums, and similar mechanisms to highlight priorities and promote responsive actions by DPs. HARMONISATION: limited progress has been made in harmonizing aid, as aid fragmentation continue.
11
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA cont.
MANAGING FOR DEVELOPMENT RESULTS: limited progress, despite significant progress in reforming country systems (e.g.. procurement, public financial management, and auditing systems) towards supporting alignment of aid with PCs national priorities. MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Much progress made. MA mechanisms including many “work in progress” initiatives being developed and negotiated b/n PCs& DPs.
12
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA Cont.
Associated with these, are the parallel development of Aid Management Platforms and M&E systems to monitor and evaluate progress of aid‐funded projects and programmes to improve the reporting of results.
SOUTH‐SOUTH CO‐OPERATION, is also gradually evolving.
13
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES
14
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES
PCs recognize that all areas of challenges affect all PCs alike, be it (Fragile States, L/ MICs, Small Island
Developing States (SIDS).
Aid predictability, transparency, and aid fragmentation continue to be a problem as a result of mode of administration of Development Assistance and PCs call for more joint consultations, for improvement.
Aid allocation and decisions are not properly aligned, to contribute tangibly, to outcomes . Aid sometimes, are not completely consistent with, and squarely embedded in national ownership and national priorities.
15
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES cont
DPs continue to fund NGOs, without adequate information to PCs governments on the volume and purpose of the funding.
PCs envision that alignment to national goals and priorities has to apply to all aid regardless of
whether it is destined to the central government or to local administration and non‐government entities.
Improved Harmonization not effectively in place.
Assumption of greater leadership role by PCs lagging. 16
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES Cont.
Provision of own vision and guidance lagging. Comparing advantages of various DPs in‐country, not yet tried out.
DPs responsiveness to PCs vision limited.
agreement on time‐bound action plans to tackle aid fragmentation not yet in view. Burden of meeting diverse reporting and management expectations of DPs, unabated.
MfDR principle yet to be translated, into a set of actions with supporting techniques, to deliver results .
17
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES Cont.
Lack of minimum set of indicators to monitor progress in achieving more aligned, more
harmonized, more predictable and more transparent aid.
PCs desire that the call for “value for money” should translate into concrete contributions to enhance development effectiveness. Pragmatic and effective mechanisms to represent Mutual accountability, yet to materialize.
18
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES Cont.
Aid management systems, to capture information on all aid flows (official or private sources), not comprehensive.
transparently Capacity deficiencies exist in both PCs and DPs to make better use of available information for operational and policy decisions and in monitoring the implementation of agreed commitments.
TAs sometimes are not demand‐driven and consistent with development priorities 19
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES Cont .
Trend of declining ODA, & threat of aid exit, are compelling some of PCs to seek other bilateral and multilateral debt, and may lead to debt distress.
(NB: gleaned from literature that, the ODA flows in 2010 from DAC members was a 0.32% of their combined GNI, which is less than 0.7% of their GNI pledged as ODA many years. It has been estimated that if the pledge had been delivered , 282billion dollars would have been available and which would have facilitated the attainment of all the MDGs which are in effect Gender embedded and would have ensured sustainability of Gender responsive development.
) Mutual trust has been lacking and therefore a challenge, since it undermines the establishment of more productive and mutually beneficial relationships b/n PCs and DPs. 20
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN
PCs envisage that Busan deals with the following: (i) Unfinished aid effectiveness agenda (ii) Adoption of common but differentiated approach for development assistance between fragile states, L/MICs, consistent with PCs respective contexts, given their peculiarities. (e.g.For MIC largest number of the world’s poor live
in MICs, for fragile states, consideration of coordinated package of both short and longer term assistance to move from fragility to agility are of relevance.)etc.
21
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(iii) Firm DPs political commitment and delegation of authority to country level representatives as well as granting more flexibility in addressing the specifics of the country context and needs.
PCs welcomes a more decentralized approach by HQ to allow country offices to exercise more flexibility of more relevance to local conditions.
Need to strengthen DPs own capacities, at headquarters (HQ) and the country level, to deliver more responsive capacity development support.
22
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(iv) Embracing a development partnership approach in line with MDG8 (strengthening global partnerships, which translates into DPs behavioural change, and moving away from the traditional and outmoded donor-recipient approach.
(v) Increase in development co‐operation delivered through SSC and triangular co‐operation modalities as a relevant and cost‐effective approach with great potentials, side by side with, and complementing North‐South co‐operation. 23
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(vi) DPs to refrain from pushing supply-driven technical assistance (despite good intentions) and to respond to demand-driven and need-based initiatives.
(vii) Use of Country Systems tops the list of PCs vision.
PCs call for increased pace of mutually supportive change in reforming systems and policies by DPs and PCs.
Evidence from various evaluations and reforms of Country Systems, shows that PCs have done more to meet commitments required of them compared to what DPs have demonstrated so far.
24
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
PCs desire DPs to jointly collaborate and make fuller use of the reformed systems, including the delivery of aid on budget. Call for more political commitments and ACTIONS and translation of these into implementation plans and monitoring mechanisms to assess progress.
(viii)Complete phasing out of parallel implementation units (PIUs) which continue to undermine whatever limited national capacities exist.
(xi) Continued support for capacity development (of
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(x) PCs envisage showing and playing greater leadership role in the following: in articulating needs and invite DPs to join in implementing agreed plans.
in development of short and longer term action plans to achieve capable institutions, as well as use aid as a catalyst to leverage innovation and best practices. in alleviating sector congestion and negotiating for pooling of resources, to ensure reduction of resource wastage and transaction costs. 26
(x) PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
Developing transparent information system which will Accountability purposes.
aid management serve the Mutual PCs envision a Mechanism which deals with policy and removal of operational bottlenecks, to improve on outcomes.
PCs call for replacement of general statements which affirm joint accountability but lacking in practical arrangements and real impact.
27
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(xi) DPs to make a more concerted effort to apply a multi-year time frame provisioning of ODA commitments.
(xii) DPs fulfillment of the outstanding commitments 0.7% GNI delivery of ODA, as aid quality has become more pressing.
(xiii) PCs envisage further discussion on Aid exit policy options.
(xiv) Increased involvement non-DAC aid providers to become active participants in the design and functioning of the new aid architecture. 28
PCs VISION for Busan Cont.
(xv) Build on the experiences gained through existing mechanisms to evolve Universal principles governing future development co-operation to replace the Paris principles and others in use. (xvi) Identify other issues such as aid of trade, development financing and climate change which call for more coordinated actions which the new architecture should address.
xvii) Consideration of trade, investment and other policies (beyond aid) which influence outcomes of PCs development efforts.
29
CONCLUSION
I t is envisaged that at Busan a new paradigm shift and new partnerships in development co-operation will unfold.
Gender issues should take a central stage in the new development paradigm as PCs envisage a development partnership approach in line with MDG8
(of strengthening global partnership,
which translates into DPs behavioural change, and moving away from the traditional and outmoded donor-recipient approach.)
Indeed Gender issues cut across all the MDG targets and these targets are now squarely embedded in most PCs National/Sectoral Development Frameworks, including Budgetary resource allocation frameworks.
Gender Advocates should be able to canvas that Aid flows in the new aid architecture should be delivered through the Country Systems to ensure that Gender issues are appropriately resourced in Budgets for Gender responsive development effectiveness.
30
CONCLUSION
Cont .
In this connection, Use of Country Systems have toped the list of the PCs vision, to jointly collaborate and make fuller use of the reformed systems and delivery of aid on budget.
Currently, substantial proportion of ODA inflows in many PCs continue to fall outside the budget and PFM framework , making monitoring of the financial inflows and Gender targets difficult, and impacting negatively on achievement of gender development results .
It also undermines capacity to manage gender sensitive and Gender result based, national development agenda . 31
CONCLUSION
Cont.
PCs desire to stay the course beyond Busan, to agree with DPs on actions to accelerate the achievement of the MDGs by 2015 of which
Gender issues are integral part of.
Gender issues should therefore occupy a central stage and be made an integral part for the USE OF COUNTRY SYSTEMS in the new paradigm shift of development partnership framework after Busan.
32