e4 (25 Sep - 11 Oct): Inclusive Development/Partnerships

You are now in e-discussion 4, "Inclusive Development/Partnerships". Make your contribution from 25th of September by responding to the questions or other contributions at the bottom of the page!

Please Note: We would like to encourage an open practitioners’ exchange. Please feel free to express your individual views. This means that you are not necessarily bound to represent the official position of your organizations in this space, but to share your own, professional views on the questions you find below.

1) Next year, a ministerial level meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation will be held in Mexico. What kind of decision would you like to see from this meeting that really contributes to making development more inclusive? What kind of practical and feasible actions could be considered?

2) What are your own experiences or observations on how civil society organizations, local governments, parliaments and/or citizens are increasing (or diminishing) their participation in development processes?

3)  What are the drivers of success or the main obstacles in this engaging these stakeholders in development processes?

4)  What is, or could be, the role of development cooperation in promoting more inclusiveness on development?

Post a Response

e-discussion 1

e-discussion 2

e-discussion 3

e-discussion 4 

e-discussion 5

Development Cooperation with
Actors from the
Global South


Private Sector Engagement

Inclusive Development

  Progress Since Busan

  • Knowledge Sharing
  • South South and triangular cooperation
  • Development in middle income countries
  • Domestic resource
    mobilization / Tax reform / Illicit flows

  • Engaging the private sector
  • Inclusive Development /
  •  Implementing the
    Busan Commitments

9 Sep - 20 Sep

16 Sep - 27 Sep

16 Sep - 27 Sep

25 Sep - 11 Oct

25 Sep - 11 Oct





Post a response or go back to the home page of "e-discussion on Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation". 



Steven Pierce

Special Coordinator for Development Effectiveness


United States


Eduardo Gonzalez

Governance Advisor, Global Parternships and Policies Division




Anna Byhovskaya

CPDE Liaison Officer and Policy Associate



Eduardo Gonzalez from France Tue, October 08,2013

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for an enriching week and a half of debate! We've had a wide range of engaging comments. 

There are five more days for you to make your contribution and have your voice heard at the Ministerial-level meeting in Mexico in 2014! Jump in and share your thoughts, opinions and experiences. We would love to gather more case studies, so please do share your experiences. Invited your colleagues and contacts to join us before October 11!

I have summarized the last days of discussion below for those of you that are just joining us now. I have tried to distill some key themes and draw out tensions in the debate, including some follow-up questions.

Phillip has argued that coalitions among civil society organizations (CSOs), parliamentarians and local government could push for inclusive development and democratic ownership. Meanwhile, parliamentary stakeholders from the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa (AWEPA) have called for recognition of parliamentarians as significant partners in the question of inclusive development, arguing that current approaches to inclusive development betray a bias towards civil society over parliamentarians. 

Follow up question: Can we have coalitions of actors calling for more inclusive development while still recognizing the individual significance of parliamentarians, CSOs and local government actors?

There has been a call from the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation for greater commitment to monitoring frameworks on inclusive development, including the possibility of a framework with global indicators.

Follow up question: As I pointed out, the Busan declaration called for the creation of national and international frameworks, but it would be great to hear of some experiences with these frameworks. Do colleagues have case studies of what has worked and what hasn't with these monitoring frameworks?

We heard from the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation that development cooperation can help to build capacity at local levels in order to allow for inclusiveness.

Allyn argued that approaches to development that exclusively emphasize economic growth risk marginalizing inclusive goals around pro-poor development.

Follow-up question: What can be the role of development cooperation and the Global Partnership in helping to build local capacity? And in helping to advance approaches to development that are inclusive and pro-poor?

Fri, October 11,2013

Effective Development Cooperation should focus on making development more inclusive. In order to do so, it is important to keep in mind that development should create an inclusive society and foster equitable economic growth.

 An important decision that could contribute to inclusive development is establishing a clear plan of action that could be incorporated in the countries’ National Development Plans. In order to do so, countries should identify the areas (women’s empowerment, poverty reduction, disability services, access to health services and education, etc) and demands that require further strengthening and prioritize accordingly. A monitoring framework could then be established, based on the needs of each country, and this system could determine clear objectives, an evaluation plan that will promote accountability among members, as well as defining the link between inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes.

 A clear and inclusive plan of action, which is specifically designed and shaped for the needs of each country, could encourage knowledge exchange among those countries that have overlapping priorities. 

Cornelius Hacking a Senior Policy Officer, Civil Society Division from Netherlands
Fri, October 11,2013

Dear colleagues,

Please allow me to respond to the challenging post by AWEPA of 25 September, doing so on behalf of the three co-chairs of the Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment (Marion Dercks, Brian Tomlinson, Modibo Makalou):

"We thank AWEPA for opening up the debate on the involvement of parliamentarians in the development effectiveness agenda. We do of course recognise the importance of the legislature and would support the strengthening of links between CSOs and parliamentarians, not only for reasons of country ownership, but especially because of the "accountability-role" that both share vis-à-vis country executives, as you rightly point out in your 2011 document that you attached to your post. However, while some of their "tasks" may overlap, the sources of their mandates are quite different: from elected representation in formal political institutions to informal representation via civil society institutions. As such, their approaches and the objectives they pursue may also be in tension at times. For instance, when AWEPA mentions the scrutiny of all development expenditures, including via CSO channels, by partner country governments and executive bodies: a link with the shrinking enabling environment for CSOs is quickly made.

That said, the merit of an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach is that it allows participants to better understand each other and to reconcile such tensions as much as possible. Alexandra from the US mentions in the Cooperation for Inclusive Development proposal the idea of seeking a new mandate for the Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment to take up specific inclusive development issues. Following Busan, in April 2012, members of the Task Team renewed its mandate with an eye to the GPEDC and its Ministerial as well as other global processes such as development of the post-2015 agenda. We don't see that there is a need for a new mandate per se, however the possibility of widening the existing one could be discussed in the Task Team's upcoming Vienna meeting. Indeed our note posted by Jacqueline on September 25th stresses inclusiveness time and again, and we welcome the suggestion for us to re-open the discussion on the inclusiveness of our own Task Team."

Gregory Adams a Director of Aid Effectiveness from United States
Wed, October 09,2013

Oxfam wishes to express our concern with the de-prioritization of Inclusive Development as a theme for the 2014 GPEDC Mexico Ministerial meeting.  We believe strongly that Inclusive Development should be restored to the agenda of the Mexico Ministerial as a plenary item equal to the other high-level plenary session topics (i.e. Tax & Domestic Resource Mobilization, Middle Income Countries, South-South Cooperation & Knowledge Sharing, and the Private Sector).   Furthermore, it is crucial that there be specific, measurable outcomes for progress towards inclusive development on a par with the deliverables for these other sessions.

Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations networked together in more than 90 countries, as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty.  We work directly with communities and we seek to influence the powerful to ensure that poor people can improve their lives and livelihoods and have a say in decisions that affect them.  Oxfam is a supporter and partner of the Civil Society Partnership for Development Effectiveness.

The Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) in Busan in 2011 was designed to bring new stakeholders and realities into a broad, inclusive consensus on effective development cooperation.  The most significant win coming out of Busan in furtherance of this goal was the “popularization” of the Paris declaration; i.e. that “country ownership” meant that development was a process driven by people, not only governments.   For years, Oxfam has argued that ODA cannot bypass partner country governments.  But the intent of that effort was not to argue that governments should have sole ownership over development.  Rather, it was to argue that when donors bypass partner country governments, those governments are impaired from acting accountably to their own people.  Oxfam argues that development rests on supporting a compact between active citizens and effective states.  In order to work properly, development cooperation efforts must support both citizens to be more active and states to be more effective.

At Busan, the outcome document made progress in reflecting this reality.  The specific language read:

“Openness, trust, and mutual respect and learning lie at the core of effective partnerships in support of development goals, recognising the different and complementary roles of all actors . . . As we focus on implementing our commitments at the country level, we will form a new, inclusive Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation to support implementation at the political level.”

Busan was an effort to adapt the Paris Declaration to the more complex realities of inclusive development.  The development space is in fact more crowded than it was just a few years ago, with numerous new actors in this space.  Busan sought to acknowledge three particular new sets of actors: Emerging middle income development actors such as the BRICS countries; the private sector; and civil society at large.  While progress was made on all three, the most significant tangible progress was made on including civil society.  In fact, civil society, as organized through BetterAid, demonstrated that civil society was the class of actors best organized and most enthused to fully participate in the Busan process and the follow-up.

By subsuming the Inclusive Development conversation into others, rather than highlighting it as a priority worthy of a full position on the agenda, the Steering Committee is foreclosing on a serious opportunity to create mechanisms for accountability to deliver on making development cooperation truly inclusive.  If the GPEDC fails to follow up on this key outcome of Busan, it will essentially be repudiating the most significant achievement of that meeting.  

We reiterate the position of the CPDE: “The principle of inclusive development was both the key commitment and promise of the Busan Partnership Agreement. This has marked it distinctively from previous HLFs. The recognition given to inclusive development is an important element of effective development cooperation. This principle is fundamentally linked to other commitments enshrined in Busan such as democratic ownership, transparency, and accountability. It is therefore critical that inclusive development be given the prominence in the Ministerial meeting in Mexico.”

The most important reason to elevate inclusive development as a full plenary session on the agenda is to ensure that all GPEDC stakeholders have full ownership over a set of measurable deliverables for ensuring development activities are truly inclusive.  The United States and CPDE, as the sponsors of an Inclusive Development plenary session, have outlined a number of specific, measurable deliverables as candidates for the Mexico summit (listed below).  This menu of measurable deliverables for the summit provides a range of possible substantive outcomes for the summit, refuting the argument that a plenary session on inclusive development would lack specific, measurable outcomes.

One argument for eliminating a plenary session on inclusive development is that “inclusive development should be a cross-cutting theme in all other subjects.”  Indeed, Oxfam supports bringing the theme of inclusiveness into all other sessions.  However, this format assumes that inclusivity is simply a method, rather than an objective of the Busan Partnership and the GPEDC in and of itself.  In order to stakeholders accountable to deliver on the Busan commitment to build a “new and more inclusive development agenda,” that goal of promoting inclusivity must be elevated at least to the level of other priorities.

Inclusive Development deliverables proposed for the Mexico Ministerial include:

Transparent, inclusive development

1. CSO enabling environment ‘road map’ – Ministers start  by agreeing to reverse the current trend of shrinking space for civil society by committing to establish an enabling environment for CSOs (on the basis on the findings of Busan Monitoring Framework indicator on enabling environment) and reinforcing technical assistance in this field under the current standards based frameworks (ILO and UN). This would also include a tool for CSO self-assessment of CSO development effectiveness.

2. Compact (tbc) – Ministers agree to a “compact” or set of guidelines which, if adhered to, will help ensure the democratic ownership of development process, based on the existing universally adopted and accepted screening and supervisory mechanisms on human rights, including, for example, on freedom of association and assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, among other human rights and fundamental freedoms. The compact should also include guidelines on access to information on development flows, using a common standard as noted in the Busan Global Partnership and as provided by IATI

3. Establishment of inclusive, multi-stakeholder mutual accountability platforms at the country level as mandated by the Busan Partnership aimed at ensuring inclusive development and democratic ownership in development cooperation practices.

Improve engagement with Parliaments:

4. Guidelines on how different stakeholders can engage with (donor and partner) parliaments to ensure better and more effective development cooperation.

5. Guidelines and Rapid Assessment Tool for parliamentary scrutiny of development expenditures and aid effectiveness.

6. Compendium of good practice on parliamentary engagement in development cooperation and ways in which it promotes inclusiveness.

Improve Transparency

7. Improved statistical reporting of the OECD-DAC.

8. Complementary efforts of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and others.

9. The BB on Transparency with the BB of Results and Accountability should become a platform for regional/inter-regional knowledge sharing in support of implementation of the agenda at country level and working towards standards with examples of good practice.

Research agenda and champions:

10. Inventory of successful practice – showcase specific examples (particularly at the country level)

a. Easily accessible information will be made public on results achieved and development cooperation provider performance, using existing information technologies like web-platforms where possible.

b. Case studies of how inclusive practices have strengthened development outcomes to be used for learning.


TCD-UCD MDP Governance, Politics & Development a TCD-UCD Masters in Development Practice - Governance, Politics & Development Students from Ireland
Wed, October 09,2013

We think the challenges facing truly inclusive development governance are heterogeneous.  We hold that inclusive development governance is necessary for sustainable development.  With this understanding, we would propose the following general, actionable, principles:

1.      Identify stakeholder groups. Ministers should agree to identify key community leaders of stakeholder groups with particular focus on marginalized groups with the purpose of creating a steering committee (on a national level) to advise the relevant development actors.  The national community leaders should identify regional or local actors who serve on regional and local authority steering committees.  The national steering committee should be led by an “Inclusivity Officer” to ensure accountability in the process.


2.      (A) Institutionalize inclusiveness in decision-making processes.  Actors at the Ministerial should commit to formal institutionalization of inclusiveness in development processes. At a minimum, actors should commit to formally establishing, through legislation or regulation, consultative roles for stakeholder groups with particular focus on marginalized populations (e.g. Women, Youth, Disability, LGBT).  At an ideal, actors should formally include these groups as full-members in decision-making institutions.    To this end, Donor agencies and international institutions should set an example by formalizing a role for partner actors in their decision-making processes, especially budgetary and project allocations. 


(B) Establish transparent decision making rules.  Development governance actors should adopt decision-making rules that are suitable to their governance context. These rules should be formal, transparent, and applied to all decisions made by the actor.


3.      Develop polycentric governance structures, with a bias towards decentralization.  Development governance structures that fit the scope of the development challenge will promote inclusiveness by bringing governance closer to stakeholders.  Pro-poor trade rules require a global regime. Management of a communal resource may be best achieved at a local level. International development institutions and national governments should review their development governance activities with an eye to devolution and decentralization.

Soledad Bernuy a Director Policy and Programs from Peru
Wed, October 02,2013



  1. 1.    El año que viene se celebrará en México una reunión a nivel ministerial de la Alianza Global para la Cooperación al Desarrollo Eficaz.


¿Qué tipo de decisiones le gustaría ver en este encuentro que realmente contribuya a hacer el desarrollo más inclusivo?


  1. Establecer como un eje de  prioridad para la Cooperación,  el tema del Desarrollo Inclusivo , teniendo en cuenta que este apunta  a la igualdad de oportunidades y de derechos para todas las personas independientemente de su estatus social, género, condiciones físicas, intelectuales o sensoriales y de su raza..


Este Desarrollo Inclusivo a su vez debe ser  complementado con el concepto de sostenibilidad ambiental y de igualdad y equidad de género.

 1. En esta Reunión se debería acordar además un marco de seguimiento exigente con indicadores tanto mundiales como nacionales que permita garantizar que todos los  actores cumplan con los  compromisos de desarrollo inclusivo.

 2. El sector privado tiene un rol importante que cumplir en el marco de esta Alianza, en este contexto, la Reunión Ministerial debería  llamar a los países a establecer  mecanismos eficaces y eficientes  que  posibiliten que las empresas privadas puedan  involucrarse y comprometerse en materia de  cooperación para el desarrollo,  tanto a nivel de los propios países  como en otros países, trasfiriendo experiencias exitosas.


¿Qué tipo de acciones prácticas y factibles podrían ser consideradas?

  1. La Cooperación debería orientar  un porcentaje importante de  los recursos hacia proyectos de desarrollo inclusivo y que además tengan metas e indicadores concretos y medibles y compatibles con los ODMs  o los que los sucedan.


  1. Definir marcos específicos de seguimiento en  cada país y a nivel internacional.


  1. Promover la construcción de agendas consensuadas entre el sector público y privado, para el desarrollo, materializando espacios o mecanismos sostenibles para dicho objetivo.


  1. 2.    ¿Podría compartir con nosotros las experiencias recientes de cómo las organizaciones de la sociedad, los gobiernos locales, los parlamentos y / o ciudadanos están aumentando (o disminuyendo) su participación en los procesos de desarrollo?



En el Perú, la Mesa de Concertación para la Lucha contra la Pobreza (MCLP) es una experiencia importante en el involucramiento de los organismos de la sociedad civil en los procesos de desarrollo concertado, siendo este mecanismo que data del 2001,  un mecanismo eficaz para definir acciones de lucha eficazmente contra la pobreza  y funcionan en cada departamento, provincia y distrito del Perú.  Dentro de sus objetivos está el servir de:

-      Espacio de coordinación para evitar la superposición de programas de ayuda social, para alcanzar una racional y oportuna utilización de los recursos comprometidos, y definir prioridades geográficas o temáticas para la asignación de los recursos.

-      Instancia de consulta para la formulación de planes nacionales, departamentales y locales referidos a políticas de desarrollo y promoción social, así como en la definición de las prioridades presupuestales.


Es destacable también el rol que cumplen las organizaciones de la sociedad civil, las organizaciones no gubernamentales que de manera individual u organizada para impulsar una agenda de inclusión social, política y cultural, en particular en los temas de derechos personales y colectivos, los derechos humanos,  derechos de las mujeres, derechos de los niños, niñas y adolescentes, derechos de pueblos originarios y derechos ambientales, entre otros.



¿Cuáles son los factores de éxito o los principales obstáculos en este sentido?

Dentro de los principales factores de éxito se pueden mencionar:

-       La sensibilización en la población de sus derechos como ciudadano.


-       Organizaciones de base fortalecidas con liderazgo que les permite tener  voz  y que se manifiesta por ejemplo en la definición de presupuestos participativos.


Los principales obstáculos estarían referidos a:


-       Gobiernos locales, sobre todo de zonas rurales poco fortalecidas para cumplir sus roles y con baja capacidad de gestión, a pesar de contar con recursos financieros importantes.


-       Expectativas de parte de la población que no pueden ser cumplidas por las autoridades locales.


-       Persistencia de un enfoque político en la gestión de los gobiernos subnacionales, que no permite la articulación a nivel horizontal y vertical.



¿Cómo es, o podría ser, el papel de la cooperación al desarrollo en la lucha contra este problema?


El rol de la Cooperación para el Desarrollo se debería orientar al fortalecimiento de capacidades en los niveles locales, para lograr una buena Gobernanza y Gobernabilidad.


Eduardo Gonzalez from France
Thu, October 03,2013

Thanks to our colleagues from Peru for this interesting post. I want to remember for those who do not speak Spanish, that you can use the automatic google translator tool available in the teamworks site.

The Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation called for more engagement from development cooperation and private sector on inclusive development. They suggest the creation of national and international monitoring frameworks to follow this process. Actually, the Busan declaration called (35.a) to agree on frameworks based on national needs and priorities for monitoring progress and promoting mutual accountability. Do you have experiences to share about how these frameworks have been set up? Have these processes been inclusive? Have they generate concrete and measurable commitments and targets for each stakeholders?

Adamu Abdullahi a Monitoring and Evaluation Expert from Nigeria
Mon, September 30,2013

In Nigeria we are promoting a pro-active advocacy for the government to opt-in into the Global partnership for Social Accountability,www.worldbank.org/gpsa.Please,You can introduce me to the Co-Chair of the Steering Committee,Dr Ngozi Okonjo Iweala,during the 4th Meeting of the Steering Committee in Washington Dc.We need to meet with her to streghten GPEDC in Nigeria with support of the private sector as she is equally the co-ordinating minister of the economy.I exhausted six months trying to see her in Ministry of Finance,Abuja to no avail.

Again,Nigeria is implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2011 and Public procurement Act2007 including the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007 which support Public finance management in Nigeria.I think Dr Ngozi Iweala can offer a lot of assistance to us in Nigeria.

Adamu Abdullahi,GACANI NIGERIA.

E-mail   abduladamu2006@yahoo.com    +2348134797768

Allyn Alda a Policy Officer from Philippines
Fri, September 27,2013

The next ministerial meeting of the GPEDC is an opportune time and prime avenue for pushing inclusive development into the mainstream development agenda. Coming from the perspective of a Southern-based NGO, we experience in a first hand basis the gaps in conceptualization and the implementation of inclusive development in the country-level. Democratic ownership of the development agenda is at a standstill when there is little or no attempt by the government to engage in multi-stakeholder dialogues especially with CSOs.


Development is still largely measured in economic growth alone which does not necessarily translate into stable and quality employment for people nor does it ensure adherence to human rights and labour laws. This technocratic framework pushes a pro-poor development agenda into the sidelines and effectively excludes the participation of the poor and the marginalized from the national development processes.


There is therefore a need to push for an enabling environment within countries to ensure a multi-stakeholder participation in policy-making and the creation of national development strategies through a renewed commitment in the multi-stakeholder mutual accountability platforms. Implementation of a human rights based approach according to the international framework and standards in development cooperation should also become a priority agenda.


Domestic resource mobilization and a taxation system that meets the needs for social services provision has a huge potential to facilitate improved socio-economic outcomes in developing countries and is an important development tool that could be further honed and utilized. Moreover, there is a need to push for fairer international trade agreements within or outside of the WTO to address trade inequalities that lead to domestic socio-economic problems such as deindustrialization, price volatility, and worsening unemployment.


An inclusive development approach in development cooperation is needed to make sure that financing and efforts produce real relevant development outcomes for the general population.

Anna Byhovskaya a Anna Byhovskaya from France
Mon, September 30,2013

Thanks a lot for your contribution, Allyn. I think that we can all agree with you that economic growth is not enough and that there is need to strengthen multi-stakeholder involvement in future policy making, as well as an enabling environment and a human-rights based approach for inclusive development.

What are your direct experiences at the local level regarding challenges to inclusive development, also in view of the creation of enabling environments or domestic resource mobilization that you both mentioned?

Your inputs in identifying concrete challenges and/ or solutions to fostering inclusive development would be very helpful. I’m looking forward to your comments.

Eduardo Gonzalez from France
Thu, September 26,2013

Thanks Jacqueline, Philippe and our colleagues from AWEPA for your contributions. In quite practical terms, and looking for the ministerial meeting, it has been suggested that “non-executive” actors should build coalitions, to ensure that debates and decisions will not be monopolized by national governments. It would be great if some ideas could be posted on how this coalitions could be build and for what practical purpose. In addition, we would like also to see what concrete outcomes could we expect from the Ministerial meeting that will promote the dialogue at the national level.

I am looking forward for your inputs.

Jeff Balch a Director from Netherlands
Wed, September 25,2013

Dear Colleagues,

As one of the parliamentary stakeholders who has participated in the GP Steering Committee and the discussion around the Concept Note on Inclusive Development, I can only applaud you for the first steps that have been taken to break through the dominant focus in development debates on the executive branch of government and on civil society. Your opening toward parliamentary stakeholders is warmly welcomed by those concerned about deficits in democratic ownership and accountability. This is no small achievement.

Despite the progress made, however, the Concept Note betrays a lingering inertia and bias toward civil society over parliamentary stakeholders. This is seen in the very first sentence, in the mention of the former ten times vs the latter only twice, and in the higher priority concern for an enabling environment for civil society than for parliamentary democratic practice. While the GP has defined indicators for monitoring the space for civil society and even the private sector, it has refused to engage parliamentarians on an equal footing of inclusiveness.

I can highly recommend that this e-discussion take cognizance of the attached document, Legislative Principles for Development Effectiveness, which resulted from cooperation among IPU, ACP-EU JPA, PAP, PNoWB and AWEPA. In it you will see that an inclusive development partnership requires recognizing the role of parliamentary stakeholders, attending to their capacity challenges, and monitoring their effectiveness in terms of country ownership and accountability, including the quality of their linkages with other stakeholders. See attached.

Attachment(s) Legislative Principles for Development Effectiveness.pdf
Steven Pierce a Moderator from United States
Fri, September 27,2013

Dear AWEPA Colleagues -

Thanks much for the comments and for sharing the "Principles" document.  I think we would agree with your basic premise--we do have far more on CSO and other inclusivity points than we do on parliamentarian issues.  We would very much appreciate your concrete substantive input on the concept, along with your help in identifying instances in which parliamentary participation led to better development outcomes.  This would help us prepare a much more compelling session on inclusive development for the Mexico ministerial-level meeting in 2014.

Alexandra Zeitz a Global Partnership e-discussion facilitator from United States
Wed, September 25,2013

Hello all,

Attached please find the draft concept note referenced above. We felt this might act as helpful background material that you could respond to and provide your thoughts on. 

Attachment(s) Draft Concept Note on Inclusive Development- updated.pdf
Eduardo Gonzalez from France
Wed, September 25,2013

Dear Colleagues -

We're pleased to welcome you to this virtual dialogue on Inclusive Development (25 September - 11 October) and look forward to the upcoming exchange. We're hopeful that the discussion will contribute to laying the foundation for a productive dialogue on inclusive development at next year's ministerial-level meeting in Mexico.

As experts, researchers, policy-makers and practitioners in this field, your opinion on these topics are essential. We want to hear your thoughts, want to learn from your experiences and expertise. Feel free to share your opinion openly in this discussion, and please encourage your colleagues or contacts from other networks to join. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us moderators at any time.

To post responses, register below (Hit "reply" and you'll be prompted to log in or sign up). Complete your profile with your information so that we can recognize you for your contributions.

As background and to facilitate the discussion and your responses to the guiding questions, we have attached a draft concept note for your review. Please feel free to use it a point of departure, take issue, help us sharpen the concept, or ignore it completely.

We thank you in advance for taking time to share your thoughts, and we are hoping for a constructive, stimulating and informative discussion - let the debate begin!

Philippe Besson from France
Thu, September 26,2013

Re Mexico and the GP Ministerial, it seems to me that what we need is a more solid lobby amongst members ready to push inclusive development. We need providers to be more vocal on their expectations and to show more practical readiness to engage, even in contexts that are difficult; we also need recipient champions, ready to open up and take the risk of inclusiveness. We have to complement the emphasis on mobilising resources: what's the use of raising taxes if it is to fund bad, non democratic and exclusive governance and or infrastructures that are no use to people, especially the poor and discriminated?

Also I would advise non-executive stakeholders, especially parliamentarians and CSOs to build coalitions to promote inclusive and democratic ownership: they don't have to agree on everything and of course they are different types of actors, but I believe they share common interests and agendas, and hopefully some values. And they both can do with a little boost in terms of empowerment. Common action sounds to me like a good proposition in such a context.

Finally, indeed we need to go for really inclusive pilots when it comes to in-country and domestic mutual accountability systems: independent assessments, feedback from think tanks, inclusive round-tables, careful evidence-based analysis, sound monitoring, creating space for open and frank conversations amongst stakeholders in a protected and conducive  environment would be means to enhance democratic ownership and accountability, and thus inclusive development. Providers of development cooperaiton should actively promote such spaces and mechanisms and accept constructive criticism from domestic actors.

In other words, it is a culture of inclusiveness, openness and fairness we must promote, step by step, towards accountability all across the development cooperation system and for democratic ownership.

Jacqueline Wood
Wed, September 25,2013

With respect and appreciation for the inputs provided by AWEPA regarding the role of parliamentarians in Inclusive Development, I attach a contribution on the necessity of multi-stakeholder dialogue for Inclusive Development, with reference to the GPEDC and to the Post-2015 process and content. This posting is made on behalf of the Co-chairs of the Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment: Marion Derckx (Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Brian Tomlinson (CSO Platform for Development Effectivenes), and Modibo Makalou (Government of Mali, Office of the President).

Attachment(s) TT for GPEDC e-discussion Inclusive Partnerships.doc
Type forum
Date Created Mon, September 23,2013
Created By Reinout van Santen
Original Space Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community
Cross posted in Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community
# of Teamworks Views 5166
# of Teamworks Recommendations 0
Visibility Public
Domain of origin Teamworks