Transcript HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON AID EFFECTIVENESS, BUSAN How to ensure wide and active participation of different stakeholders?

HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON AID
EFFECTIVENESS, BUSAN
How to ensure wide and active
participation of different stakeholders?
WHO IS INVOLVED IN ENHANCING AID
EFFECTIVENESS?
•
Paris Declaration addressed partner countries and
traditional DAC donors.
•
AAA recognised wide range of partnerships and
actors including South-South cooperation, middleincome countries, CSOs and global funds.
•
Wide participation is not new: objective in Busan
is to deepen the engagement of different actors
involved in enhancing development results.
NON-TRADITIONAL DAC DONORS
•
Particular focus is on deeper engagement of China, India
and Brazil.
•
Increasingly important partners, but critical on labels such
as ‘donor’ or ‘aid’. Also recipients of ODA.
•
Possible contributions in Busan: Champions of SouthSouth cooperation. Pragmatic experience on transition to
Middle-Income-Country (MIC) status.
PRIVATE SECTOR
•
Divided into non-profit and for-profit private sector.
•
Non-profit (global funds) are addressed in AAA (par 19c)
•
For-profit private sector has experience on how to work
with aid (aid as a catalyst, public-private partnerships).
•
Possible contribution in Busan: deepened commitment to
AE (non-profit) and participation in discussion and
consensus-building on development partnerships (forprofit).
HOW TO OPERATIONALISE WIDE
PARTICIPATION IN BUSAN OUTCOME?
•
Challenge in Busan: how to combine inclusiveness and
ambition.
•
Ways to operationalise participation: taking part in
preparations, taking part in the event, adherence to Busan
outcome and commitments.
•
One solution is to agree on global principles and
differentiated responsibilities expressed in the outcome
document.
•
View of partner countries is important but so far partner
countries have not been vocal on the wide participation in
Busan.
SESSION III: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
•
How to combine ambition and inclusiveness in
Busan outcome?
•
Should Busan outcome differentiate
responsibilities and commitments between
different stakeholders?
•
What could be the specific contributions of the
non-traditional donors and private sector for
Busan?
HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON AID
EFFECTIVENESS, BUSAN
Themes for wider agenda: climate
change finance and
countries in fragile situations
ADDRESSING AID EFFECTIVENESS IN WIDER
DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
•
Consensus on addressing aid effectiveness in wider
development context in an operational manner.
•
We have to selective in the themes to be included.
Criteria to be used:
added-value
feasibility
political relevance
linkages with ODA
•
Views of partner countries important but not yet
clear.
CLIMATE CHANGE FINANCE
•
Climate change finance represents significant and growing
development finance with complex aid architecture.
•
EU Council Conclusions on Climate Change (2009) calls
special attention to the application of PD and AAA.
•
‘Bangkok Call for Action’ (2010) lists aid effectiveness
commitments in climate change finance.
•
Follow-up to Copenhagen/Cancun takes place at the same
time as Busan. Cooperation with UNFCCC is important.
COUNTRIES IN FRAGILE SITUATIONS
• Countries in fragile situations showcase
differentiated country contexts.
• Several international inputs:
OECD Principles for Good International
Engagement (2007) and their monitoring.
Dili Declaration (2010)
International Dialogue on peacebuilding and
statebuilding
• EU Council Conclusions on situations of fragility
(2007) emphasises division of labour.
CLIMATE CHANGE FINANCE AND
SITUATIONS OF FRAGILITY
IN BUSAN OUTCOME
• Climate Change Finance
Aid Effectiveness principles and commitments for
climate change
Agreement on monitoring framework
Providing input to Durban negotiations and beyond
• Countries in fragile situations
International objectives on peacebuilding and
statebuilding
Agreement on commitments
Agreement on monitoring framework
SESSION III: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
•
Should specific principles and commitments on climate
change finance and countries in fragile situations be
included in the Busan outcome?
•
How to organise the monitoring of differentiated
commitments on climate change finance and countries in
fragility?
•
What else should be included in Busan outcome on the
wider development agenda? How could it be addressed in
an operational manner?