e5 (25 Sep - 11 Oct): Progress Since Busan

You are now in e-discussion 5, "Progress Since Busan". You can make your contribution from the 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.

The Busan High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness marked a significant step forward in development cooperation dialogue– a shift from aid effectiveness to effective development cooperation, recognizing the diversity and complementarity of various types of development cooperation and partnership. The first ministerial-level meeting of the Global Partnership provides an opportunity to look back what progress has been made since Busan, where challenges remain, and what other multi-stakeholder actions needed to make funding, time and knowledge produce maximum impact for development. The Busan Partnership monitoring framework is well underway in more than 50 countries, which would tell us some stories about the progress since Busan, but we want to also hear your thoughts, and want to learn from your experiences and expertise.

1) What are the concrete achievements in implementing Busan commitments  in  your country or organization? Can you share any tangible facts indicating how such achievements translate into development outcomes?

2) What are the main drivers of success or failure of Busan commitments on the ground?  What more can be done to ensure successful implementation?

3)   In the changed global context of post-2015, what does development effectiveness mean?


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

Development
Finance

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 /
    Partnerships
  • Implementing the
    Busan Commitments

9 Sep - 20 Sep

16 Sep - 27 Sep16 Sep - 27 Sep

25 Sep - 11 Oct

25 Sep - 11 Oct

Archive

Archive

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

 

Moderators

Marjolaine Nicod

Senior Policy
Advisor 

UNDP-OECD Joint Support
Team to the Global Partnership

 

Yuko Suzuki

Policy
Advisor

UNDP-OECD Joint Support
Team to the Global Partnership 

 

 


Anna Byhovskaya

CPDE Liaison
Officer and Policy
Associate

CPDE

Ellen Kelly

Policy Officer, Development
Effectiveness, European
Commission

DG for Development and
Cooperation

Timo Wilkki

Policy Officer, Development 
Effectiveness, European
Commission

DG for Development
and Cooperation

  

Comments

Yuko NAAB Tue, October 22,2013

Thank you very much for substantive and rich-dialogue on Progress since Busan. We have received 25 contributions from various stakeholders in the responses to the three broad discussion questions. A variety of themes emerged from the two-week discussions. The discussion also reveals very concrete country-level examples on how countries are taking
forward the implementation of the Busan commitments. In summarizing the rich dialogue, we may not be able to cover comprehensively each of the concrete contributions below. However, this dialogue, coupled with the outcomes of on-going Global Partnership monitoring exercise, will inform the further preparation of the High-Level Meeting in Mexico, with particular reference to the Session on the Progress on Implementation of Busan and its Impact on Inclusive Development.

 

Below find overview and key messages emerging from the e-discussion on Progress since Busan.

 

We heard through a number of experiences and case studies at country level that many countries have indeed established and/or strengthened national institutional framework as well as institutions to increase the transparency, coordination, harmonization and alignment of development effort, ranging from an action plan for the Joint Cooperation Strategy, Development Cooperation and Partnership Strategy, National Plan for Cooperation Effectiveness among others. Many of these institutional frameworks focus on results-based approach in promoting mutual accountability; forging and sustaining multi-actors/stakeholders and inclusive partnership; and strengthening capacities and effective institutions/national systems, including promoting policy coherency and wider and deeper reform programmes as well as strengthening information management systems such as Aid Management Information System. In the context of forging inclusive development partnership, a number of countries have also enhanced the functioning/effectiveness of policy dialogue.

 

We also heard that many organisations and providers of development cooperation at HQs level have taken initiatives to advance their implementation of the Busan commitments. These include the Trade Union Development Effectiveness Profile and the African Development Bank’s annual aid effectiveness survey. In addition, a number of OECD/DAC countries are now reporting on their forward spending plans through the OECD Survey on Forward Spending Plans (FSS). A number of countries and organisations have also
advanced publishing of their data to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).

 

A repeated theme of debate in the e-discussion was the question of mutual accountability, in particular whether development partners are being held equally accountable for the implementation of their Busan commitments as developing countries are. For instance, with respect to commitments on the predictability of development funding, a number of countries
noted that there are still significant challenges at country level, including the difficulties in having development partners provide funding information for even the next 18 months.

 

There are other commitments where more concerted efforts are needed to make further progress. These include aid on budget and use of country systems for implementation and monitoring and evaluation of project aid.  Increased aid transparency at global level has also not yet impacted adequately at country level to inform strategic budget planning.

 

Whilst at global level initiatives have been taken and achievements made, we heard that HQ discussion is not being translated into behaviour change at country level. The e-discussion in this context poses a question as to how Development Partners can rise to these
challenges and adapt their own working practices, noting that effective development cooperation for Development Partners will mean making their support more coherent, more flexible and more results-focused in line with both national and regional development objectives of partner countries.

 

There was also a suggestion to establish/enhance a single inclusive local forum for account ability that allows progress to be tracked, providing mutual accountability for commitments.
The Global Partnership monitoring framework currently undertaken in over 50 countries can inform this process, but the dialogue and accountability at country level should also look further than the 10 monitoring indicators, calling for additional evidence and wider policy dialogue on effective development cooperation. In this regard, partner countries also called for high-level political leadership to increase engagement at country level on the monitoring and implementation of the Busan.

 

We heard that the main driver of success will ultimately be the leadership of the Government. More specifically, this leadership must ensure the translation of plans into actions regarding implementing public service reforms and convening multi-stakeholder dialogue to ensure that the individual and combined efforts of all development actors are
producing the desired results. In this context, the critical importance of capacity development was also been noted. Regional platforms such as Africa Platform for Development Effectiveness and Asia-Pacific Development Effectiveness Facility supports national capacity and potential ways forward in managing the increasing complexity of domestic and international sources of finance for development.

 

In responding to what development effectiveness means in the context of the Post-2015 development agenda, we also heard recurrent messages from various contributors in the following:

  • Strengthening and operationalizing country-led results and accountability framework,
    entailing much more stronger focus on results-based approaches and focusing on poverty reduction and improvement in quality of life through reducing inequality and increasing access to employment opportunities;
  • capacity development and strengthening of national systems  as well as for development effectiveness;
  • Addressing unfinished aid effectiveness agenda;
  • Importance of regional dimensions of development effectiveness;
  • Situating ODA within a broader development finance landscape and moving beyond aid and towards a new development cooperation architecture
  • Scaling up of successful South-South and Triangular Cooperation; and
  • Forming and sustaining effective multi-actor development partnerships, engaging civil
    society, the private sector, and parliamentarians.

 

Thank you very much for informative and constructive discussions!

Yuko Suzuki and Marjolaine Nicod

UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

 

 

Marjolaine Nicod
Tue, October 08,2013

Summary of the discussion to date

Dear colleagues,

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

There are five more days for you to contribute to the discussion and make your voice heard at the high-level meeting in Mexico in 2014! Jump in and share your thoughts, opinions and experiences. We hope to gather more concrete examples, so please do share your experiences. And do not hesitate to invite your colleagues and contacts to join us before October 11!

We have summarized below the discussions so far for those of you who are just joining us now. We have tried to distil some key themes and included some follow-up questions to keep the debate going on.

On the question of success or failure of Busan commitments on the ground, an emerging theme has been around the question of mutual accountability and transparency. For instance, are development partners being held equally accountable for delivering on Busan commitments? We heard from Emily in Ethiopia that the predictability of development assistance continues to be challenging. In response to this, Frederik from the OECD pointed us to www.oecd.org/dac/aidoutlook which provides information on the forward spending plans of 29 development partners until 2016. Amy from the UK pointed out to transparency as an area where progress is happening. In particular, greater transparency, in particularly through IATI , has helped civil society in the UK to engage with and better understand what the government does on aid and development.

One of the examples of progress since Busan that we highlighted was transparency. I know here in the UK that the commitments and work at and leading up to Busan were helpful in promoting real, substantive changes - including DFID making publishing to IATI compulsory for their contractors so that, eventually, aid can be tracked from the UK all the way to the government or programme. It's not just in our development department either - we're seeing real progress and change in the Foreign Office which has helped us as civil society engage with and better understand what the FCO does on aid and development. It seems like an area that has some very useful lessons and possibly blueprints for future work and progress

On this same theme, we have heard concerns from both from Emily and an anonymous contributor in France that discussions at headquarters are not translating into patterns of behaviour change on the ground. The contributor from France suggested that solutions might include having a local champion for Busan commitments, possibly the UN Resident Coordinator, and a simple tool that allows for transparent monitoring of different actors' adherence to the commitments.

Luca has argued that there is a need to look beyond just the monitoring framework at the Mexico high-level meeting to ensure that important issues from the Busan Partnership agreement (e.g. diversity and fragmentation) are not neglected.

Follow-up questions:

  • With regard to predictability and other commitments by development partners do you think there is room for greater commitment, as Emily suggests, or a need for more access to information and transparency, as Frederik suggests?
  • What do you think of these suggestions for improving the adherence to Busan commitments? Bringing us back to the initial set of questions for this e-discussion, what do you think are the drivers of success or failure of the Busan commitments on the ground?

In response to the question calling for concrete achievements in implementing Busan commitments, Alain shared case studies from Africa. These showed a strengthening of national leadership in Africa towards effective development cooperation and an improvement in knowledge sharing through the Africa Platform for Development Effectiveness. Overall, case studies of progress since Busan (see here) reveal a great deal of diversity and complexity in country experiences, but a recurrent theme is that the implementation of Busan commitments seems to require stronger and more coherent institutional frameworks at country level.

Follow-up questions:

  • Do others have concrete experiences with the implementation of Busan that they would like to share? These are very important in the lead up to the high-level meeting of the Global Partnership in Mexico?
  • Would you agree that implementation of Busan commitments requires strengthened institutional frameworks?

Finally, we've heard very little about what development effectiveness will mean in the changed global context of post-2015. What do you think?

Follow-up questions:

  • On the basis of experience to date in promoting more effective development co-operation, what kind of commitments will matter in the post-2015 world ? And what does the Global Partnership has to offer to the post-2015 development framework in terms of policies and practices?

 

Yuko Suzuki and Marjolaine Nicod

UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

 

 

Baly OUATTARA from Togo
Sun, October 13,2013

  1. Dans votre pays ou dans votre organisation, quelles sont les
    réalisations concrètes dans la mise en œuvre des engagements de Busan ?

Il faut dire qu’ici au Togo nous sommes dans la dynamique des
effets de la déclaration de Paris. Les progrès sont perceptibles les donateurs
utilisent de plus en plus les cadres de résultats du Togo surtout en ce qui
concerne les stratégies. Mais, il reste toujours quelques départements
ministériels qui n’ont pas encore de politiques et de stratégies ou plans
sectoriels. De plus, avec l’élaboration de la stratégie de croissance accélérée
pour la promotion de l’emploi (SCAPE) il devient impérieux d’élaborer une étude
prospective de longs termes pour le Togo. Ainsi le gouvernement vient de créer
par décret un ministère en charge de la prospective. Par ailleurs, le
gouvernement a chargé le Secrétariat Permanent des politiques de réformes d’accompagner
les sectoriels à l’élaboration de leurs politiques sectorielles, des budgets
programmes et des CDMT. Afin de palier à l’absence de certains outils de
programmation dans certains secteurs le gouvernement des Note des Eléments Stratégiques
Prioritaires pour la mise en œuvre de la SCAPE (NESPS) de 2013 a 2017 dont l’objectif
était de  disposer d’une base systématique et
exhaustive de programmation budgétaire pluri-annuelle sur laquelle la
préparation et l’arbitrage du budget, gestion 2014. Le gouvernement a également
accéléré la mise en œuvre du dispositif institutionnel des départements ministériels,
la mise en place de la chaine de planification programmation budgétisation
exécution et suivi évaluation (PPBSE), de la plateforme de gestion de l’aide et
le dispositif institutionnel de coordination et de suivi évaluation de sa
stratégie.  


  1. Pouvez-vous partager des faits réels indiquant comment de telles
    réalisations sont traduis en résultats de développement ?

Les éléments qui ressortent ont surtout un lien avec la prise en
compte de nouveaux domaines, l’amélioration de la programmation budgétaire, une
meilleure coordination de l’action du gouvernement et des donateurs, une
transparence accrue de l’acheminement et de la gestion de l’aide et une
communication plus accrue sur  les
résultats du développement.


  1. Quels sont les principaux facteurs de succès ou d'échec dans la
    mise en  œuvre des engagements de Busan sur le terrain?

A mon avis, Busan me semble beaucoup dans l’ombre de Paris tant
au niveau de son contenu que sa porté. Busan n’a pas eu toute la communication
dont a bénéficié Paris. Paris comme l’on dit certain était devenu une usine à
gaz mais cela sentait et en plus on voyait le Gaz. Nous avons au niveau des
agences locales un effet de fatigue. Elles ont l’impression avoir réalisé le
contenu de la déclaration de Paris.  Busan ne leur semble pas quelque chose de
nouveau. Il y a une absence de directive venant des sièges. Pour secouer la
ruche il me semble nécessaire de demander au plus  haut niveau aux donateurs des engagements
écrits sur leurs contributions à la mise en œuvre de la Déclaration de Busan.
Les gouvernements ont tout intérêt à ce processus raison pour laquelle ils
devraient renforcer le leadership national et améliorer les systèmes nationaux,
mettre l’accent sur la transparence et la redevabilité mutuelle des acteurs
partie prenante au Partenariat global.

Les principaux facteurs de succès découleront essentiellement de
la redevalité mutuelle et de la transparence des interventions.  Quant aux échecs l’environnement actuel de
crise économique me semble la principale contrainte. Dans un climat d’incertitude
le dictat du cours termes devient la norme l’aide est entrain de devenir une
variable d’ajustement dans le cadre de la recherche de solutions aux
contraintes internes.

 

 

 


  1. Que faut-il faire davantage pour assurer l'exécution réussie des
    engagements de Busan? 

Il faudrait faire porter ce processus par les états au plus au
niveau, faire nommer des coordonateur de Busan au niveau des directeurs
généraux, impliquer les organisations sous régionales à ce processus. Financer
à travers les agences locales chaque année au moins deux activités majeurs à
définir, en lien avec Busan au niveau de chaque pays. Ce qui va être couronné
au niveau régional par une rencontre annuelle sur la redevabilité mutuelle, la
transparence et la prévisibilité de la programmation des actions de
développement.


  1. Dans le contexte global de l’agenda post-2015, que signifie
    l'efficacité de développement ?

Il est dit généralement que l’efficacité du développement repose
sur le renforcement des capacités de développement et la nécessité de rendre
des comptes, l’efficacité de l’aide, la coopération sud-sud et triangulaire.

Il me semble qu’il faut totalement changer d’approche, Il faudra
responsabiliser la société civile, et les secteur privé, renforcer et rendre
capable les institutions nationales (surtout celles chargés de la justice et du
contrôle) donner beaucoup plus de responsabilité aux parlements et axer l’aide
sur la mise en place de bons systèmes de mobilisation de ressources internes leur
exécution et leur suivi, l’aide au commerce avec la possibilité d’accéder à des
marchés porteurs, le renforcement des capacités du secteur privé dans les
secteurs à fort potentiel de croissance, la fin des monopoles privés, des
réformes du secteur financier, l’évaluation permanent des performance des
acteurs, la diminution des encadreurs de l’aide et l’appui au organismes sous
régionaux.   

Jacqueline Beatriz a Directora de Becas, Estudios y Formación en Cooperación y Desarrollo from El Salvador
Fri, October 11,2013
  1. Respecto a la previsibilidad y otros compromisos de los socios para el desarrollo, ¿cree que existe espacio para un mayor compromiso, como Emily sugiere, o la necesidad de un mayor acceso a la información y la transparencia, como sugiere Frederik?

 

En el marco del Plan Nacional para la Eficacia de la Cooperación en El Salvador (PNEC), se insta a los socios para el desarrollo a mejorar la cooperación a través de nueve principios (que incluyen los establecidos en la Declaración de París y la Alianza Global para la Eficacia de la Cooperación), dentro de los cuales se incluyen la previsibilidad y la transparencia.

 

Los socios para el desarrollo han asumido, desde el año 2012, los compromisos establecidos en el PNEC relativos a la eficacia de la ayuda, donde estos compromisos (estructurados de manera conjunta) permitirán generar avances sustanciales hacia 2015. Para lo cual, se ha constituido la Mesa Global de Diálogo, donde participan donantes, instituciones de gobierno y organizaciones de la sociedad civil; que se considera un espacio de diálogo en el que se tratarán temas referentes a la eficacia de la cooperación.

 

Sin embargo, a pesar de la constitución de la Mesa Global de Diálogo y la adopción de los compromisos emanados del PNEC, existen algunos donantes que dadas las políticas de sus respectivas sedes, no pueden realizar mayor previsibilidad, lo cual se debe también a la disparidad en los tiempos fiscales de los países, por lo cual, la previsibilidad de desembolsos es relativamente reducida, a pesar que estén en la disposición de cumplir con los compromisos de la eficacia.

 

  1. ¿Qué piensa de estas sugerencias para mejorar la adhesión a los compromisos de Busan? Que nos devuelve a la primera serie de preguntas para este debate electrónico, ¿cuáles cree que son las bases del éxito o del fracaso de los compromisos de Busan sobre el terreno?

 

Esto se evidencia, principalmente, en la forma de trabajo del Gobierno de El Salvador a través del Viceministerio de Cooperación para el Desarrollo, ya que desde la adhesión del país a la Declaración de París, se han generado una serie de actividades y elaboración de planes y propuestas de políticas públicas, que se basan en la participación e inclusión de todos los actores del desarrollo (amplios procesos de consulta), lo cual demuestra un reconocido nivel de apropiación y liderazgo al interior de la comunidad de donantes que ha permitido, estructurar el PNEC, que recoge los compromisos establecidos en París y Busan.

 

Por lo cual, el éxito nacional en la aplicación de los principios y compromisos de Busan, ha sido el fomento de los espacios de diálogo entre el gobierno y la comunidad de donantes, y la decisión política de los actores a adoptar los compromisos. Asimismo, se determina como punto importante la prioridad en la agenda del VMCD, la aplicación de estos compromisos y la inclusión de otros actores como parte importante de los procesos de desarrollo del país (sociedad civil, academia, etc.)

 

Por otra parte, se considera a los compromisos de Busan, como una agenda limitada, ya que los compromisos que asumen no son vinculantes, por lo cual, permite a los donantes su cumplimiento o no; además, que no establece los medios necesarios para fomentar la participación de otros actores como los donantes de cooperación sur-sur o el sector privado.

 

Sin embargo, a pesar de establecer la adopción y cumplimiento de nuevos compromisos en la plataforma de Busan, no se reitera el cumplimiento de otros objetivos de la agenda internacional, sobre todo el relacionado al 0.7% del PIB como cooperación no reembolsable, establecido en Monterrey, México; el cual debía ser adoptado por todos los donantes.

 

  1. Otros países tienen experiencias concretas en la aplicación de los compromisos de Busan, ¿qué le gustaría compartir? Estos son muy importantes en el período previo a la reunión de alto nivel de la Alianza Mundial en México.

 

La experiencia de El Salvador en la aplicación de los compromisos de Busan, se encuentra en el Plan Nacional para la Eficacia de la Cooperación, el cual tiene por objetivo mejorar la cooperación tradicional (Norte-Sur) recibida por el país, donde se establecen una serie de compromisos a cumplir de forma conjunta entre el Gobierno de El Salvador y los Socios para el Desarrollo.

 

La construcción del PNEC, parte de un proceso participativo y de amplia consulta a todos los sectores y actores involucrados, con la finalidad de establecer las bases para el fomento del trabajo coordinado y conjunto entre todos los actores del desarrollo. (Se adjunta PNEC)

 

  1. ¿Está de acuerdo que la implementación de los compromisos de Busán requiere marcos institucionales fortalecidos?

 

Más que el fortalecimiento de los marcos institucionales, se requiere contar con el apoyo de los socios para el desarrollo y el liderazgo del gobierno para implementar los compromisos de Busan, así como la participación de los demás actores del desarrollo, a través del establecimiento de marcos nacionales relacionados a la eficacia de la cooperación, que en el caso de El Salvador se basa en el PNEC, la estructuración de un Sistema Nacional de Cooperación y la Mesa Global de Diálogo, entre otras; donde el papel principal lo establece el diálogo como espacio para la discusión, propuesta e implementación de acciones vinculadas a la mejora de la cooperación.

 

Además, de los aspectos antes mencionados, es necesaria la continuidad del apoyo de los donantes, no solo para a partir del otorgamiento de fondos, sino también por medio de otras modalidades de cooperación que permitan a los países en desarrollo fortalecer sus capacidades nacionales y sentar las bases técnicas que permitan a las instituciones del gobierno la estructuración de políticas públicas que permitan alcanzar el desarrollo socioeconómico sostenible.

 

  1. Sobre la base de la experiencia hasta la fecha en la promoción de una cooperación al desarrollo más eficaz, ¿qué tipo de compromisos son relevantes para el mundo en el 2015? ¿qué ofrece la Alianza Global de Busan a la agenda de desarrollo post-2015 en materia de políticas y prácticas?

 

Los compromisos que se podrían establecer pueden enfocarse en la reducción de la pobreza y la promoción de mejores condiciones de vida en los países en desarrollo a través de la reducción de la desigualdad de ingreso, acceso a básicos y oportunidades de empleo; que permitan no solo la salida de los países de condiciones de subdesarrollo, sino que potencien las capacidades de las personas.

 

En este sentido, los compromisos se deben focalizar en orientar la cooperación hacia la generación de condiciones de desarrollo socioeconómico y otras medidas que posibiliten la inclusión social y sostenibilidad del crecimiento económico en el largo plazo, a través del fortalecimiento de capacidades a nivel gubernamental.

 

La Alianza Global de Busan ofrece a la agenda de desarrollo post-2015, un espacio de diálogo político que permitirá el acercamiento entre actores del desarrollo del mundo, promoviendo el fortalecimiento de capacidades, la inclusión y participación ciudadana.

 

En este sentido, el rol de la Alianza se debe enfocar en ser una especie de intermediario o facilitador de la vinculación de la Agenda de Desarrollo con la Agenda de Eficacia de la Cooperación, ya que esto permitirá no solo la formación de una verdadera alianza global, sino que también, establecerá la base para la generación de una agenda integrada de desarrollo, que convine los objetivos de desarrollo con los objetivos de sostenibilidad del desarrollo, ya que con ello, se constituyen los mecanismos necesarios para abordar los problemas estructurales de los países relativos a la pobreza y generar propuestas para dar sostenibilidad a los beneficios de las acciones realizadas para combatir este problema.

Attachment(s) Plan Nacional de eficacia de la cooperación en ES.pdf
Sébastien Vauzelle
Fri, October 11,2013

Dear Colleagues,

The Salvadorian government has just launched, as a result of a participatory elaboration involving local, national and international actors of cooperation and development, a national decentralized cooperation strategy.

This strategy is aimed at promoting the articulation of efforts in development cooperation between the national and local governments, based on the development of capacities at the local level, advisory and political support which will reinforce the municipal autonomy.  The  national decentralized cooperation strategy aims also at contributing to integrate decentralized cooperation into the government’s Development Cooperation Information System (SICDES) identifying specific indicators. This involves also SSC, which did not use to be taken into account in the system of OECD indicators that is being used.

This initiative is being implemented with support from UNDP through technical assistance of the UNDP ART Program (Articulation of Territorial and Thematic Networks for Human Development).

Best regards,

Sébastien Vauzelle

horia sohir Debbiche from Tunisia
Fri, October 11,2013

1)      What are the concrete achievements in implementing Busan commitments in your country or organization? Can you share any tangible facts indicating how such achievements translate into development outcomes?

 

As part of the commitment to follow-up on the Paris Declaration and the Busan Global Partnership, the African Development Bank undertakes an annual aid effectiveness survey aimed at measuring the institutions performance against a number of key indicators. The indicators, tracked as part of the Bank’s corporate Results Measurement Framework (RMF), are:

 

-          development resources recorded on budget;

-          predictable disbursements; and

-          use of country system and Public Financial Management.

The results of these surveys are published in the Annual Development Effectiveness Review (ADER) of the Bank. The consistent tracking of these indicators ensures the alignment of the Bank with the Paris and Busan commitments. At country level, this results in more effective, efficient and sustainable interventions.

 

2)      What are the main drivers of success or failure of Busan commitments on the ground? What more can be done to ensure successful implementation?

 

The main drivers of success are ownership by African country and capacity to implement the Busan commitments at country level. Two measures can be done to ensure successful implementation. Firstly, some African countries need to strengthen their capacity to implement the Busan commitments, in particular in fragile states. To address this requires capacity building initiatives so that fragile states can successfully implement the Busan commitment and participate effectively in the Global Monitoring Framework. Secondly, multilateral development banks and international organisations can advocate more on the benefits at country level of implementing the Busan commitments.

 

3)      In the changed global context of post-2015, what does development effectiveness/effective development cooperation mean?

 

African defined development effectiveness in the African consensus and position on development effectiveness document, which was negotiated prior to the 4th High level forum on aid effectiveness in Busan. This states that Africa’s overarching objective is to attain development effectiveness by optimizing the management and utilization of all policies, resources and processes. The key priorities for development effectiveness for Africa are respectively, the unfinished aid effectiveness agenda, capacity for development effectiveness, regional dimensions of development effectiveness, south-south cooperation, beyond aid and towards a new development cooperation architecture. 

Annet Baingana a IATI PROJECT SPECIALIST from United States
Fri, October 11,2013

UNFPA Comments on Global Partnership e - Discussion on Progress since
Busan

1) What are the concrete achievements in implementing Busan commitments in your
country or organization? Can you share any tangible facts indicating how such
achievements translate into development outcomes? 

UNFPA endorsed the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) in April 2012 and published its first IATI compliant data set in June 2013. As UNFPA moves forward in improving transparency, improvements are planned in both the frequency and quality of the information published to the IATI registry. In addition to joining the registry, UNFPA also launched data.unfpa.org, a platform that presents users with information about UNFPA's ongoing projects around the world in an open and easy-to-view menu format. The portal/platform will continue to develop in the coming months to include maps and info graphics and additional information aimed at further improving transparency UNFPA for the benefit of our partners, the public and the development community at large.


UNFPA is in the very initial stages of its IATI commitment.  However, the disclosure and
publication of information thus far on its own data portal as well as what has
been shared with IATI demonstrates to its donors and stakeholders the value
that UNFPA is placing on transparency. 

The effect of these actions on development outcomes, at this initial stage, stems more from the increase in trust and accountability between UNFPA and its stakeholders.

2) What are the main drivers of success or failure of Busan commitments on the
ground? What more can be done to ensure successful implementation?  

Main drivers of success:  Belief in the role that transparency plays in promoting mutual accountability and effective partnerships; commitment from senior management to promote transparency in theory and practice.

Main drivers of failure: Limitations and complexities found in data sharing between systems of IATI and Country Partners; user-friendliness of data and data analysis tools.

What more can be done: More support can be provided in the areas of data
sharing between systems of IATI and Country Partners.

3) In the changed global context of post-2015, what does development effectiveness
mean?

Development effectiveness in global context of post-2015 means that development funds are managed in the most efficient way possible while still delivering the best results for the
issues of importance identified by UNFPA.


 

Matt Simonds
Fri, October 11,2013

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for this space to share reflections on progress since Busan.  I'd like to respond on behalf of the trade union movement to share some brief updates on our own commitments to the Busan outcomes, and then briefly some quick comments on the process as a whole.

1) What are the concrete achievements in implementing Busan commitments  in  your country or organization? Can you share any tangible facts indicating how such achievements translate into development outcomes?

Since well before the 4th High Level Forum in Busan, trade unions have endeavored to improve the effectiveness of their own development cooperation.  “Trade Union Partnerships for Development” is a major priority for the International Trade Union Cconfederation, namely within the Trade Union Development Cooperation Network – TUs Development Cooperation Network where a specific work-stream on effectiveness was initiated in 2009.

Since then TUs actively participated in the international debates and processes around CSOs development effectiveness, contributing to the elaboration of the “Istanbul Principles”/”Siam Reap Consensus” ultimately articulating a set ofTrade Union Principles and Guidelines on Development effectiveness. These have been elaborated in the framework of the CSOs effectiveness process, further contextualising the Istanbul Principles within the TUs sector. 

The principles represent the vision and values of trade union organizations on development, and are designed to serve as a common reference for development cooperation initiatives, strengthening internal working methodologies among trade union partners. The Principles have been endorsed by the highest political body of the ITUC (General Council in February 2011) and they have been conceived thanks to a wide consultation process including trade unions actors from the south and also including Global union Federations – GUFs (international union federations organized on the basis of industry sector/occupational trade).

The Principles were followed, in a second stage, by the Trade Union Development effectiveness Profile- TUDEP. The TUDEP is meant to be a learning tool to support trade union development actors in putting the Principles in practice, as well as, facilitating the monitoring and evaluation of their implementation. TUDEP was also conceived and endorsed by TUDCN by the end of 2011.

In general, TUDCN members have highlighted the usefulness of this instrument as being: 1) learning oriented (concerning roles and tasks of both supporting and receiving partners, putting them on equal footing, and giving immediate an direct feedbacks); 2) favouring processes in support of capacity development (as it gives baselines that can be used to address possible needs concerning organisational/political capacity of the partners). These are very important elements entailing many times an actual ‘cultural approach shift’ within organisations.

Some TUDCN members have already started using TUDEP in the context of their own development projects, incorporating it in their institutional practices on monitoring and evaluation. This is indeed an encouraging signal. However, the promotion of TUDEP will need to be further supported (at its initial stage) most of all at regional level in the South. This will allow putting all trade union actors on the same level of know-how in order to effectively use the instrument.

These processes triggered new challenges within the TU movement, particularly concerning the issue of measurement of outcomes and impacts of TU development cooperation initiatives. Indeed, the issue of “measuring progress” towards development objectives is high on the international development agenda. This is also the case for the TU movement, translating itself in serious efforts to strengthen its capacity to monitor and evaluate its contribution to development processes.

Difficulties for TUs to undertake such a challenge are important, linked to the very complex nature of TUs work in development: i.e. interaction with different players, irregular political and power dynamics; benefits beyond target groups etc...

Furthermore, this brings along possible dichotomies on the very objectives of Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E), which might be sometimes driven exclusively by donors’ requirements and expectations on one hand and by actual learning organizational needs on the other.

Strengthening and sharing M&E practices is a priority expressed in the TUs Principles and referred to by the TUDEP itself. 

The need to strengthen TUs capacity on the methodological level is now to be addressed more systematically. A guidance note for trade unions on M&E of development programs (2013) builds up on this and it is conceived to give a first response in this direction. The guide highlights TUs specificities in relation to M&E methodologies and it is aimed at improving analysis capacity of TUs on M&E and providing orientation for shared practices. The guide focuses on alternative methodological approaches on M&E, specifically on the so called ‘Theory of Change’, to better support outcomes and impact measurement in practice. Finally, the guide can also be utilised as a practical tool vis-à-vis the donor governments to make them aware of TUs needs and dynamics when it comes to M&E.

During the elaboration of the M&E guide some specific aspects emerged related to TUs existing modalities. Especially in the field of organisational capacity assessment (OCA), it was registered that TUs are currently using different methodologies and instruments. OCA criteria, as well as, baselines gathering methodologies are fundamental to build up a coherent approach in supporting organisations in the South, and also a useful tool to strengthen development processes’ ownership.

Therefore, further analysis will need to be carried out, involving TUs partners both in the North and in the South. A number of ‘joint analyses’ will be done involving country based experiences,  so to include different projects implemented by different organisations. This exercise will increase coordination among TUs partners in development initiatives also in the light of strengthening shared planning. 

2) What are the main drivers of success or failure of Busan commitments on the ground?  What more can be done to ensure successful implementation?
While recognizing the notion that the Global Partnership is intended to be country heavy and global light, we are a bit disappointed with how some of the supposed istruments for implementation have evolved since the HLF.  By this I am referring especially to the "Building Blocks".  Noting that some of the Building Blocks are more active than others I think it is fair to say that on the whole they have largely failed to live up to pre-Busan expectations.  This is in large part due to their institutional "delinking" from the Global Partnership.  Regretfully, we believe that this delinking has also meant that some Building Blocks have not functioned in the spirit of Busan, have become very donor driven and not entirely inclusive.   

Yuko NAAB
Thu, October 10,2013

Dear colleagues, please find below the contribution made from the Government of Tanzania.

 

Inputs to the Global Partnership e-consultations from the Government of Tanzania:

 

Busan translated to a Tanzanian context

Tanzania has for many years been actively pursuing a harmonized and coordinated approach to development cooperation. The Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania (2006-2011) as such built on both Paris and Accra principles of strengthening national ownership of the aid cooperation in multiple ways.

 

Tanzania is currently in the process of finishing the new instrument called the Development Cooperation Framework. Please read more on this and new initiatives building on the Busan agreement: Tanzania - Building Partnerships for Development Cooperation

 

Predictability of aid and aid fragmentation

Even though much has improved on predictability of aid, there are still significant challenges at country level related to:

  • Multi-year predictability where the recent Global Partnership monitoring figures indicate app. 50% predictability for outer years;
  • Although in-year predictability has improved, large variations still exist when comparing DPs.
  • Some modalities of aid also have inbuilt accountability systems which hamper predictable flows of funds and thus reduces the scope for strategic planning.

 

Aid on budget is also an area of challenge:

  • Improvements noted in the Global Partnership monitoring of 92% (total levels) should be compared with an average per DP of 56%. Challenges lie with both GoT and DPs and more concerted efforts are needed to address this issue.

 

Use of country systems:

  • Continuous challenges in integrating the largest modality of all – project aid – remain a stumbling block for strengthening national systems despite good progress (e.g. recent
    PEFA ratings of Tanzania point to many sound development and a number of areas
    where improvements would need to go further; all of this is imbedded in the
    ongoing Public Finance Management reform implemented by GoT with DP support).

 

Beyond these “traditional” challenges are also the fact that the aid environment is rapidly changing, and not because of Busan but most likely more due to new DP HQ priorities and changing agendas. This impacts on predictability both directly and indirectly, and introduces an uncertainty in the cooperation. Many partner countries have struggled to generate tangible results out of the Paris and now Busan agenda with their development partners, but a question remains on whether sufficient time has been given to allow these reforms to grow. The drive for a clearer results-agenda has at times pushed development cooperation
away from the agreed principles, and in an environment of less predictable budget and basket support and where variable/performance tranches are increasingly tied to policy changes, predictability suffers.

 

Busan opens for a more comprehensive but also more complex approach to strengthening development effectiveness. Coupled with an increasing fragmentation among DAC providers, country-led implementation is faced with greater challenges than before. This also means that concrete results from Busan will take time to generate. Tanzania is however currently generating home-grown experiences through the Big Results Now-initiative which brings all relevant stakeholders to the table.

 

It is evident however, that with the global light-country focused approach and with multiple
stakeholders it is a real challenge for partner countries to generate the sufficient momentum needed to drive the process at national level, including peer-support/pressure, incentive systems and champions.

 

Aid Coordination mechanisms

Tanzania has since the early 2000’s facilitated an improved coordination and harmonization among DPs. Support mechanisms to the Development Partners Group have ensured a common and constant DP focus on the harmonization agenda. But progress can only be made insofar as DPs are willing to continue working towards common goals in a coordinated manner. In recent years DPs coordination has become more complex and there is increasingly trend of demands shifting towards other agendas in recent years.

Aid Information Management Systems

Tanzania has similarly to many other countries implemented an aid information management system called the AMP. The system intends to capture aid flows through MTEFs and disbursements.

 

While it is clear that longer term aid flows can be generated from overall country agreements or indeed IATI-compliant data at global level, the usefulness from a partner country perspective of such data in terms of budget planning is relative.  The fact that no
automated feeds exist between IATI or e.g. the OECD/DAC CRS and then country AIMS speak to this fact; only when partner country budget planning and execution can build on ODA data of sufficient quality and detail (e.g. at project level, capturing funds transfers, TA and direct procurement for instance) will transaction costs reduce and predictability and transparency truly increase. To this end, there is a clear need for partner countries as well as DPs to urgently support further piloting of the automated IATI-AIMS feeds.

Clare Battle a Policy Analyst, WaterAid from United Kingdom
Thu, October 10,2013

An interesting example in the water, sanitation and hygiene sector has been the Liberia WASH Compact.

The Liberia WASH Compact was developed as a result of a Joint Mission held in Monrovia in April 2011, supported by the Government of Liberia and the Sanitation and Water for All Partnership (http://www.sanitationandwaterforall.org/). Through the Compact the Government, with the support of development partners and civil society, outlined a series of commitments to ensure equitable and sustainable delivery of water and sanitation services for all Liberians. Commitments were arranged around four key thematic areas: establishing and strengthening institutional capacity; ensuring equity and prioritised service provision; developing a system for information management; and improving sector financing mechanisms.

There have been a number of successes: to date the Compact has increased coordination and provided a focus for the work of sector stakeholders. As a result it has been seen as a forerunner in terms of development effectiveness in the sector, and is often cited as good example.

However, progress in other areas remains disappointing. Whilst the Government of Liberia has taken steps to put in place the necessary building blocks (and recognising that considerable challenges remain), this has not been matched by the expected response from donors.  This has led to frustration and caused government staff to question the assumed ‘theory of change’ – i.e. that government efforts to put key systems in place would be reciprocated with more and ‘better’ funding on the part of donors, to support and strengthen these systems.

Donors must take responsibility for ensuring their endorsement of the Busan principles is backed up by the way they engage on the ground, in this case by aligning behind the priorities laid out in the Compact and the Sector Strategic Plan. Without such reciprocal efforts, there will be wide ramifications for the WASH sector at the country level, and a risk that developing country partners will lose faith in the idea of a ‘Global Partnership’.

Marjolaine Nicod from France
Wed, October 09,2013

Thanks for the contributions from colleagues in  Bangladesh and Cambodia. It’s important to get more feedback from developing countries’ own experience and efforts in promoting effective development co-operation and more inclusive partnerships, particularly through stronger focus on results and accountability.

Going one step further, it would be useful to get concrete examples of how more effective development practices translate into better development outcomes. I am sharing with you an interesting example from the Ministry of Health in Zambia, which has assessed  the impact of  funding modalities on maternal and child health coverage in Zambia. They found that: “a 60% increase in funding channelled through the government would lead to the achievement of overall intervention coverage of 85% for key maternal and child health interventions within a 6 year period while a similar effect would take 9 years if the funding was disbursed directly by donors.” Such examples could be powerful to make a strong case to world leaders in Mexico next year that actual behaviour change makes a difference for development.

Here is the link to the website of the International Health Partnership+ for more information on The case for using government funding channels: a closer look at funding modalities in Zambia.

 

Monowar Ahmed a National Project Manager from Bangladesh
Wed, October 09,2013

 

GLOBAL E-DISCUSSION ON ‘PROGRESS SINCE BUSAN’

CONTRIBUTION FROM BANGLADESH

 

 

Bangladesh is firmly committed to implementing the Busan Partnership agreement and has made considerable progress in this regard over the past 2 years. We would like to highlight a few achievements in particular.

 

Stronger partnership and development dialogue

 

The Government of Bangladesh (GoB) and 18 Development Partners (DPs) had already signed a Joint Cooperation Strategy (JCS) in 2010, localizing commitments made in Paris and Accra. After Busan, a revised action plan 2012-2014 for implementation of the JCS was agreed. The new JCS action plan spells out a series of tangible commitments, relating to effective government institutions, use of country systems, rationalizing sector support, stronger results monitoring and regular institutional dialogue. These commitments have a set timeline with action points, milestones and responsible parties, allowing for consistent monitoring of the JCS.

 

Bangladesh has well institutionalized its dialogue with DPs through the Bangladesh Development Forum (BDF) and the Local Consultative Group (LCG) Mechanism. The BDF is a high level political forum which takes places every two years and includes not only government and DPs, but also parliament, civil society, academia and private sector. The LCG is chaired by the Secretary of the Economic Relations Division (Ministry of Finance) and co-chaired by one DP, at present the UNRC. It includes 18 working groups, each comprised of a GoB chair and a DP co-chair and focused on a specific national development priority. Each group is a forum to facilitate discussion and collaboration, to take decisions and move results in the priority sectors. The regular LCG meetings have led to a more constructive and substantive development dialogue and coordination. LCG mechanism has significantly improved the partnership between DPs and GoB.

 

Focus on results

 

Bangladesh developed a joint Development Results Framework (DRF) which has been incorporated in the Sixth Five Year Plan (the National Development Strategy). The DRF provides a joint monitoring and evaluation system, to promote mutual accountability for country-specific development results.

 

DPs are gradually aligning to the reporting in line with the DRF. For example, the UN in its side has innovated its results framework by anchoring it in the government system. The UN Development Assistance Framework, UNDAF, comes with a joint action plan, results framework and M&E system that is linked to the government’s framework and uses indicators linked to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

 

Transparency

 

Bangladeshi is establishing an Aid Information Management System (AIMS) to ensure full transparency and effective management of incoming aid flows. Following the example of Cambodia, Bangladesh is developing its own, home grown system, fully adapted to the needs of government and local development partners.

 

Furthermore, Bangladesh is very recently elected as a vice-chair of the Steering Committee of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). At the last IATI Steering Committee, Bangladesh expressed its wish to see IATI fully taking up the Busan agenda by diversifying its membership. Bangladesh also encouraged IATI to consider including non-ODA forms of development financing in its standards.

 

Bringing Asia together to Ensure Busan implementation

 

As a member of the Steering Committee for the Global Partnership, Bangladesh (ERD, M/o Finance) hosted a regional workshop on ‘the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation: Links to the Post-2015 Development Agenda’. The event took place in August 2013 and was supported by UNDP. The workshop was particularly inclusive, with participations from 13 governments, members of the GPEDC steering committee, CSO platforms, DPs from home & abroad and private sector.

 

At this workshop, Asia-Pacific adopted a number of recommendations on how to implement Busan. These recommendations serve as the input from Asia-Pacific for the first Global Partnership Ministerial Meeting. In brief, Asian countries committed to:

1.      Strengthen and operationalise country-led results and accountability frameworks

2.      Situate ODA in a broader development finance landscape. This will be done in particular through medium term comprehensive development financing strategies, country-led development finance and aid policies and by strengthening the capacities required for a wider and more complex development finance envelope.

3.      Upscale successful South-South Cooperation and Triangular Cooperation in the region

Asia-Pacific Development Effectiveness Facility

The Asia-Pacific Development Effectiveness Facility (AP—DEF) was launched during the workshop. Building on the experience from the CDDE, AP-DEF offers advisory support to countries and facilitates knowledge exchanges. It is responding to the growing demand from countries in the Asia-Pacific region to establish evidence and analysis, and potential ways forward in managing the increasing complexity of domestic and international sources of finance for development. AP-DEF is supported by AusAid and UNDP and is led by an inclusive Steering Committee comprised of two country Governments, one Civil Society Organization, and one development partner. Bangladesh has the honour of being its first chair.

Philip COURTNADGE from Cambodia
Tue, October 08,2013

1)       What are the concrete achievements in implementing Busan commitments in your country or organization?

 

Cambodia has an excellent track record in realizing progress towards the MDGs and in promoting human development. This is a major achievement that demonstrates how Cambodia’s work on promoting effective development practices pre-dates Busan and is based on efforts to establish effective partnerships with all development actors under the leadership of Government.

 

To the extent that it complements the approach to national development, Busan has therefore been warmly received by the Royal Government and its development partners. The results focus of Busan is particularly welcome as it focuses on getting things done rather than on the mechanics of aid delivery, which had resulted in the Paris Declaration being associated with high levels of donor fatigue (as highlighted in the Paris Declaration country study for Cambodia as well as at global level).

 

The partnership focus of the Busan framework also resonates strongly in Cambodia. As Cambodia approaches graduation from low-income to lower middle-income country status, it is increasingly looking beyond traditional aid to form partnerships that support the Government’s development plans. This translates into increased collaboration with Southern partners, a greater emphasis on promoting private sector development (including to encourage development partners to make investments that complement and reinforce private sector activity), and an increased appreciation of the role played by civil society. In this regard Busan adds additional momentum to the country’s own development trajectory as ODA is seen as one of the many factors in accelerating national development.

 

A further achievement is therefore the adaptation of the Busan framework to take account of national context and forward-looking development opportunities and challenges. The Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy (2014-2018) is now being finalised by Government, setting out monitorable goals as well as specifying tools and institutional arrangements for promoting development effectiveness through a multi-partner approach. In this Strategy, Government will set out plans to continue to strengthen national leadership and to address challenges associated with the use of country systems, managing multi-stakeholder processes that foster transparency and accountability for results and promoting the use of results-based approaches that offer accountability to providers and recipients of aid.

 

“From aid effectiveness to development effectiveness” is the theme of the Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy. This focuses on: (i) results-based approaches; (ii) capacities and national systems development; (iii) forming and sustaining effective multi-actor development partnerships. Priorities include: (a) making increased use of results frameworks as a tool for coordination, planning and budgeting; (b) promoting policy coherency around the government’s public service reform programme to ensure more effective institutions and sustainable capacity development; and (c) broader and more coordinated partnerships that engage with the private sector, civil society and regional actors as a complement to the existing machinery of “donor coordination.

 

Busan is therefore felt to represent a relevant and effective response to Cambodia’s development priorities and to its efforts to build broad-based and effective partnership with donors, civil society, the private sector and with regional and emerging partners through increased use of South-South Cooperation.

 

2)       What are the main drivers of success or failure of Busan commitments on the ground? What more can be done to ensure successful implementation?

 

The main challenge is to reconcile the demand for lighter and leaner national processes while at the same time engaging with a wider range of actors and interests. Improved knowledge management and communication procedures will provide at least part of the solution to meeting this challenge. The foundation for this is more trust and effective communication, which can then be translated, first, into improved information sharing and subsequently into stronger implementation and results.

 

A second – and related - challenge concerns more effective institutions. This includes promoting policy coherency between and within sectors as well as in the consistent and effective implementation of major reform programmes in public administration, PFM and decentralization. One of the tools proposed in the Development Cooperation & Partnerships Strategy is the strengthening/adoption of relatively simple results frameworks that focus on specific and actionable priority themes that can be programmed, financed, implemented and monitored in a more transparent manner. To provide some focus for both Government and donors, a set of Joint Monitoring Indicators will be established covering the 5-year period 2014-2018. These Indicators (about 20 addressing priority sector and cross-cutting themes) will identify desired outcomes (as per the national development plan) and respective roles, responsibilities and resources. Annual partnership dialogue will therefore become more results-focused by discussing interim goals and progress towards these medium-term targets. Related objectives of mutual accountability and transparency should also be well-served by the use of these of Joint Monitoring Indicators.

 

The main driver of success will ultimately be the leadership of the Government. More specifically, this leadership must ensure the translation of plans into actions regarding implementing public service reforms and convening multi-stakeholder dialogue to ensure that the individual and combined efforts of all development actors are producing the desired results. For development partners, a practical first step is to ensure that they have formulated results frameworks that show (and monitor) how their resources are aligned with, and contributing to, national development priorities.  Improved sector dialogue and management arrangements, for example in the use of programme-based approaches, are also part of the approach being taken in Cambodia. In addition to their technical advantages related to improved efficiency, they are also intended to build trust and effective working relationships, which is a major factor in making sure that development projects have the desired impact at sector/thematic and national level.

 

3)       In the changed global context of post-2015, what does development effectiveness/effective development cooperation mean?

 

A good deal of thought was dedicated to defining development effectiveness in the national context; this was set out in the Cambodia Development Effectiveness Report 2011. In short, it translates to: (i) results-based approaches; (ii) capacities and national systems development; (iii) forming and sustaining effective multi-actor development partnerships. The over-arching goal is to accelerate progress towards national development goals (including the MDGs) as well as to position Cambodia as a strong and resilient regional and global actor (for example, taking account of regional integration and trade initiatives, especially the ASEAN economic community expected end-2015).

 

Effective development cooperation for donors will mean making their support more coherent, more flexible and more results-focused in line with both national and regional development objectives of partner countries. Noting the comments by others that HQ discussion is not being translated into behaviour change at country level, it will be interesting o see if donors can rise to these challenges and adapt their own working practices. 

Amy Dodd from United Kingdom
Tue, October 08,2013

I would certainly share the concerns raised in the previous post and more generally around an apparent loss of focus since Busan.  If we're asking what's missing, I would argue it is perhaps also at a higher level, that is that what is needed is a clearer sense of what the GPEDC is trying to achieve - we pulled together some arguments and ideas around this in the UK here http://www.ukan.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/4th-GPEDC-SC-meeting-UK-NGO-paper-10.13.pdf

One of the examples of progress since Busan that we highlighted was transparency.  I know here in the UK that the commitments and work at and leading up to Busan were helpful in promoting real, substantive changes - including DFID making publishing to IATI compulsory for their contractors so that, eventually, aid can be tracked from the UK all the way to the government or programme. It's not just in our development department either - we're seeing real progress and change in the Foreign Office which has helped us as civil society engage with and better understand what the FCO does on aid and development.  It seems like an area that has some very useful lessons and possibly blueprints for future work and progress


Fredrik Ericsson a OECD
Mon, October 07,2013

It is interesting to read about the lack of transparency on forward spending plans in Ethiopia, especially while a lot of information on providers’ future aid plans are already publicly available on the OECD website.

The annual OECD Survey on Forward Spending Plans (FSS) collects future aid receipts from development providers to developing countries over the coming 3-4 years. The latest Survey was sent to 56 countries and multilateral agencies, and most provided information on their forward plans. The data mostly come as an aggregated figure of future annual disbursements to each country; however, several DAC members have over the past years also started to provide activity level spending plans to the Survey.

In 2010, an OECD study done jointly with the government of Rwanda confirmed that survey data collected directly from donor headquarters were not necessarily available to the government of Rwanda. By simply making these figures available to countries, country-level dialogue on accuracy and comprehensiveness of providers' forward spending plans at country-level could easily be improved. The FSS provide a good source to triangulate information on country envelopes as part of the dialogue between governments and providers. Together with other initiatives, this study was instrumental in pushing providers for more transparency on their future aid plans.

Today, most development providers participating in the survey have agreed to make their spending plans publicly available. Information on 29 development providers’ spending plans up to 2016 is therefore available for all countries at www.oecd.org/dac/aidoutlook. For example, the data covers aggregate spending plans from 13 development providers for Ethiopia up to 2015, However, since this source of information may not be well-known to governments or to donor country offices, the OECD also have plans to in the future also share these directly with governments.

Luca DE FRAIA
Thu, October 03,2013

I’d like to add my words of thanks for this space; as we’ve been invited to share reflections freely, I’ll allow myself to raise some concerns candidly. From where I sit – in a donor country, not even one of the best performers ‑, one of the most urgent areas to shed some light on is the extent to which donors will be held accountable for turning Busan commitments into reality. When taking stock of the Paris declaration in 2011, one of the findings was that the Partner countries’ pace of implementation was far better than Donors’; the first GPEDC progress report will test whether or not this imbalance has been overcome at last. At the moment, I’d find very hard to say that the donor countries are feeling the heat from the monitoring exercise now underway.

 

As this discussion is also a opportunity to look at what the Ministerial meeting can actually deliver on, I’d say that the first real GPEDC summit will have to look beyond the domain covered through the global light monitoring framework of ten indicators. There are important issues from the Busan declaration that may be otherwise neglected; fragmentation and diversity is just the first that springs to my mind. So, the Ministerial meeting may also be the opportunity to value what development partners have been working on within the different Building Blocks stemming from Busan. More importantly, the ambitions for the Ministerial meeting should be high: the political leaders that will gather in 2014 will have to agree to quicken the pace of the realization of the effectiveness principles so as to prevent that the whole Busan and GPEDC agenda further lose momentum.

 

The need to place implementation on a safe track speaks also to the actual role that the Busan declaration can have in a post 2015 agenda. In the past few weeks, European NGOs have put together a position paper – “Financing for development negotiations” by CONCORD, Eurodad and CAN, http://bit.ly/GAB3VP  – which talks about what the European Union should push for in the forthcoming discussions for a new financial framework. One of the key messages is that the effectiveness principles should apply to all sorts of development flows. However peculiar this position may sound, it underlines the need to have a profound debate within the global partnership, namely on the principles a post-2015 financial framework for sustainable development will have to respond to. The Busan declaration should be valued as a pivotal starting point at hand, which the international community should build the effectiveness framework for the future on.

--- end ---

 

Ellen Kelly
Wed, October 09,2013

Luca and others,

 

Thanks for your useful comments.  We certainly agree from the European Commission that the Mexico High Level Meeting needs to be an opportunity for all partners to demonstrate their action against Busan commitments.  This is not just the case for DAC donors, but also for the whole range of actors who were involved in Busan and who committed to action on a voluntary basis.  It will be an important opportunity to take stock of progress, highlight areas where improvements have been made, and revitalise other areas which have lagged behind.

 

We see the implementation of the Busan commitments and the development effectiveness agenda as being at the heart of the Global Partnership.  We shouldn't lose sight of the core principles of development effectiveness, and the need to demonstrate action in these areas.  As you say, this is important for accountability and also to demonstrate the added value of the partnership.  For instance, we have been very active in the development of joint programming on the ground amongst European Union donors, and in improving the transparency of our aid data.  Steps like this are fundamental to improving value for money, achieving development results, and demonstrating why development effectiveness matters.

 

On your suggestion that we look further than the 10 monitoring indicators, I think this is very welcome.  While the monitoring framework was designed to be light touch, and driven by the information that partner countries consider the most important and relevant, we will need additional evidence to complement the results of this process.  Again, the process of gathering this additional information should be a collaborative process involving a range of partners.  In many of the pilot monitoring countries where EU Delegations have been involved, the dialogue between partner governments and development partners has in fact gone further than the 10 core indicators – these can be used as a starting point, but should not constrain wider discussions.

 

Your idea that effectiveness principles should apply to all financial flows for development is interesting and would be worthwhile to explore further.  How would you envisage this working in practice, in particular when it comes to domestic resources and private flows of finance?  What kind of monitoring and accountability mechanisms could be applied in this case?  These are exactly the kind of questions that the Global Partnership needs to address if it is to implement its commitments on the ground, and harness the full potential of the unique coalition of actors involved. 

Luca DE FRAIA
Fri, October 11,2013

Thank you very much for picking up my comments. I agree that applying effectiveness principles to all sorts of development flows may just an ambition for now; it is very likely that domestic resources and external financial inputs will have to be dealt with through different approaches. But I would also add that your observations speak to the very definition of development flows, or financing for development. If we could come to a clear conclusion on when and how a private investment, for instance, could be put in the FFD basket, it is likely we would find a way to implemented the effectiveness principles across the board. ldf

Alain AKPADJI from Ethiopia
Wed, October 02,2013

Dear colleagues

Thank you for this interesting e-discussion on Post Busan implementation. I would like to provide my contribution at 2 levels: regional and country level.

  1. In 2012 after the HLF4, at regional level, UNDP, GIZ the Government of DR Congo and the Government of Senegal have supported the NEPAD to facilitate two regional consultations on the Post Busan implementation linked to Post MDG Agenda (one for Central Africa countries and the second for the West Africa countries). 

The regional consultation gathered about 30 countries from the continents and allowed to inform and sensitized stakeholders about the shift from Aid Effectiveness to Development Effectiveness and the possible implication at country level.

I think the Busan Partnership represents a big shift for these countries and the NEPAD/AU engagement in this Agenda has contributed to develop the National Leadership on the new partnership for effective development cooperation. I can summarize the progress noticed since Busan at 3 levels: 

  • Strengthening the national leadership on the partnership management to achieve development results. 
  • Opportunity to use the partnership to develop African Potential at country and regional level ; Domestic Resource Mobilization, effective institution, private sector,
  • Improvement of knowledge sharing and South South Cooperation through the Africa Platform for development effective

 

  1. In 2013 at country level, the UNDP Regional Service Center in Addis Ababa has supported 4 countries that requested advices to implement the Global Monitoring principles: Cote d’Ivoire, Sao Tome Principe, Madagascar and DR Congo.  The 4 countries after their participation in the HLF4 and the regional Post Busan workshop of NEPAD, they have a strong will to implement the GP principles and to use this new Agenda as opportunity to advance some initiatives that they already have before.  Some progress that we have noticed at country level are:

 

  • Sao Tome Principe: In the framework of the implementation of Post Busan principles, the Government is very interesting to improve the coordination framework by clarifying the aid management channel and the role and responsibilities. UNDP jointly with Portuguese Cooperation are supporting the implantation of the Aid Management Platform to improve transparency and emerging donors and SSC providers and CSO are very engaged in the national dialogue around partnership.

Contact persons: Ms. Nadia Maquisa Pinheiro, Ministry of Finance (maquidia@hotmail.com), Idrassa Sanoussi (Idrissa.sanoussi@undp.org)   

 

 

  • Cote d’Ivoire: After the war, the Government has elaborated the new development vision called NDP (National Development Plan) and UNDP jointly with the others partners are supporting the Prime Minister office on aid coordination. The Government jointly with DPs are engaged in the implementation of the aid management platform to improve the previsibility of external resource linked to the Public Management System. The country has also initiated South South learning exercise with the Government of Mali on development cooperation management particularly the implementation of common framework to support national coordination. The country has accepted to host in the future regional exchange learning consultation on lesson learned from the implementation of Busan Monitoring Framework linked to the New Deal.

Contact persons: Mr. Adama SALL, Special Advisor for Prime Minister (salladama@yahoo.fr),

Mr Mr. Vassiriki SOUMAHORO, Advisor of the Ministry of Planning (soumahoro_vassiriki@yahoo.fr )

 

 

  • Madagascar: In Madagascar, the Government has installed a Post Busan National Committee and the aid transparency is a top priority for the Government and the DPs. The effective use of the AMP is a good practice in Madagascar and AMP is used to produce the National Report on Development Cooperation and to enhance exchange between DP (at technical level) and the national Committee for Busan implementation.  The country is also member of the BB on Reducing Fragmentation and took part on the assessment of the aid fragmentation as a case study for under-aided country at global level. The country is engaged in the formulation of new development strategic plan and the GP principles will be mainstreaming in the new Interim Strategy Plan.

Contact persons: Isaora Zefania ROMALAHY, Head of Coordination Unit Office of the Prime Minister (rmizef@gmail.com)

 

  • DR Congo:  Following the Busan committeemen and the implementation of the New Deal the country is engaged in the improvement of the mutual accountability. A high level forum will be organized in December after the data collection on the GP and the national action plan will be developed. The assessment of the AMP has started in September 2013 to improve the previsibility and the integration of aid in the national budget. Some good example come from the Belgium Cooperation under the leadership of the Government has changed its implementation modalities from the Direct Execution to Joint Project management (co gestion) process. The Belgium initiative began with the Ministry of planning as pilot sector and they will focus now on 3 specifics development sectors; education, health and agriculture. In line with the Busan committeemen on use of Country system, the World Bank has engaged the assessment to use the national country system for the better use of country system and to support the reinforcement of national system. WB and AfDB will stop the use of PIU at the end of the ongoing project and its decided that they will use the national institutions. In addition, the World Bank and other partners (UE, UNDP, ..) are supporting the reform of the Public Finance Management.  

Contact persons: Théo KANENE MUKWANGA, Director of the Coordination of External Resources, Ministry of Plan (theo_kanene@yahoo.fr)  

     

Experiences from these countries reveal that the implementation of the GP principles is an opportunity to strengthen the national leadership, existing system and to reinforce transparency and mutual accountability mechanisms. DPs, Governement and, CSO, Parliament and Private Sector would like transparency and accountability mechanism to be operational and the effective use of Aid Management Platform is very critical to this end. Without transparency, the dialogue around external resource and national resources could be difficult and different stakeholders may not know who is doing who and how, what commitment they can take and what they should be accountable for.

Progress and challenges at country level should be linked with the regional dimension and the leadership agenda of NEPAD/AUC. At the same time, frequent communication could be established between the country partner and the donors HQ with their representative at country level.

Yuko NAAB
Wed, October 02,2013

We have had great inputs so far on the need to focus at country level – the critical importance of national accountability framework to drive the changes at the country level.
Ethiopia’s contribution also highlighted the fact that while there are some progresses made on predictability at global level– development partners making available the forward-spending information to OECD, it is not always translated into improved predictability at country level.

Several examples on how countries have taken forward the implementation of the Busan commitments (available here) indeed pointed out more complex country situations. With the development architecture evolving rapidly, the flows of development finance and cooperation are increasingly diverse, and the nature of development partnership is becoming equally complex.

This complexity has had significant implications at country level’s institutional framework for
implementing the Busan commitments – enhancing effectiveness of development cooperation. Country examples point out that accelerating the shift from aid effectiveness to effective development cooperation – having the inclusive partnership and
mutual accountability at the heart of the efforts - means in practice policy coherence, more effective integrated planning, budgeting, resource mobilization, partnership processes and mechanisms around key national development planning machinery. This often calls for further strengthened and coherent institutional framework, requiring more profound involvement of key central Government institutions on the Busan agenda. How are the four
principles of the Busan facilitating the country level efforts of enhancing
national mutual accountability framework bringing together broader development
actors on board? What are the global actions needed to address the persisting
challenges of predictability?

Emily BOSCH from Ethiopia
Tue, October 01,2013

To echo the previous comments, one often finds that HQ-level commitments are not translated into rhetoric and action at the country-level. I was recently at a meeting at the Ministry of Finance when a development partner declared it impossible to provide forward-looking information for its development finance even 18 months into the future, saying that this was wholly dependent on bilateral negotiations.

Notwithstanding the peculiarities of Ethiopia and the fact that 2015 coincides with federal elections, the fact is that providing an indication of the future spending is the last "power" many development partners feel they can hold onto. This clearly does not embody the Busan partnership principles and does little to foster constructive dialogue on predictability.While it is of course true that it is difficult to provide this information especially if a cooperation agreement is coming to an end, it is certainly possible to indicate whether the aid will increase, decrease, or remain steady. Furthermore, many development partners already provide disaggregated future information by partner country to the OECD through the future spending survey without necessarily providing this at the country-level.

To translate this into a reality, one needs to be able to offer evidence of how one can hold both development partner and partner country governments accountable while offering a minimum of predictability. What examples (other than the "cash-on-delivery" model) can we highlight and how can we make sure that the political economy dimensions of this Busan commitment are understood and pragmatically applied at the country-level?

Ellen Kelly a Policy Officer from Belgium
Thu, September 26,2013

I'd also like to underline that making progress at country level requires concerted efforts and commitments by all of us (development stakeholders), both in HQ and at country level.  We also heard at Busan that regional organisations can and should play an important role in supporting implementation at the country level, and in linking country priorities with global efforts.  We encourage you and others to also share concrete examples of work your organisation has done.

Marjolaine Nicod from France
Thu, September 26,2013

Thanks for offering constructive suggestions on how to sustain the momentum around the Busan agenda through national leadership, multi-stakeholder dialogue and country-led processes to hold various stakeholders accountable to each other in delivering on their commitments.  As you point out, it is at the country level that development effectiveness really matters.  We need to focus on how Busan commitments can really make a difference to development outcomes on the ground.

It would be great if you and others could share in this discussion concrete examples of initiatives taken to implement Busan commitments, how such initiatives have translated into actual behaviour change and possible benefits of such change.

Marjolaine Nicod

 

Marjolaine Nicod from France
Wed, September 25,2013

WELCOME to this Global Partnership e-discussion on Progress since Busan which will run until 11 October.

This e-discussion aims to complement the on-going Global Partnership monitoring exercise with the view to gather a broader range of views and experiences related to assessing progress since Busan. While the Global Partnership monitoring framework focuses on a set of 10 indicators, this  e-discussion provides an opportunity to gather complementary evidence of a more qualitative nature to enrich the analysis. It also provides an opportunity to identify additional evidence to document progress on Busan commitments not covered by the 10 indicators.

We will use the feedback received through the e-discussion to shape the agenda for the first Ministerial-level meeting in 2014. We would therefore value your inputs to inform the work of the Steering Committee in preparation of the Ministerial-level meeting in the coming months. This political meeting will provide an opportunity to look back at what progress has been made since Busan, where challenges remain, and what multi-stakeholder actions are needed to make funding, time and knowledge produce maximum impact for development.

As experts, researchers, policy-makers and practitioners, your opinion and experiences are essential to shape the discussion in assessing progress since Busan. We are keen to hear your thoughts, and to learn from your experiences and expertise, especially from those of you directly responsible for translating Busan commitments into action. We are particularly interested in country and or/sector specific evidence of a qualitative nature, as well as tangible facts, that can demonstrate that what we are doing matters and that Busan principles contribute to enhance development outcomes.

Please feel free to share your views openly in this discussion, and encourage your colleagues or contacts from other networks to join. Should you have any questions, please reach out to the team of moderators at any time.

To post responses, register below (Hit "reply" and you'll be prompted to log in or sign up). Don’t forget to complete your profile with your information so that we can identify you for your contributions.

Make your voice heard - you have until 11 October! We are looking forward to a constructive, stimulating and informative discussion - let the debate begin!

Yuko Suzuki and Marjolaine Nicod

UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

ExtroSpecteur a Donor from France
Wed, September 25,2013

Frankly, post Busan has seen a collapse of commitment and progress towards effectvie development coordination at coutnry level. Richard Horton captures this well in his recent "Panjandrums" comment on the gulf between Global Commitments and behaviours:

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961533-0/fulltext?rss=yes

The rhetoric and busy-ness at global summit and HQ level is not being matched at country level, which is where it matters.  It is now so long post-Busan that is hard to see the momentum of Paris ever coming back, and the stagnation and backsliding is at stark odds to the positive spin we hear at the summits:

www.bond.org.uk/data/files/publications/Country_Ownership.pdf

So what has been missing?

1.    1) A local champion who has leverage with all partners, and can help government  counterparts broker good-behaviour; given the new role of the UN in the GPEDC this should now be a key deliverable for the UN Resident Coordinator;

2.       2) A single local forum for accountability that allows progress to be tracked, provides mutual accountability for commitments and oversees the reporting back to the global summits;

3.       3) a simple road-map style tool that clearly tracks partners’ adherence to their commitments, provides the focus for the local accountability forum, catalyses a more robust local dialogue on development good-behaviour, and forms the basis of progress reports to summit meetings.

I am aware there is progress towards some of these, but not all - and it has been painfully slow,  and so far we have seen no added value at country level of UN involvment in the GPEDC.

This stuff is too important to be allowed to slip into oblivion as just another development fad.

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 6405
# of Teamworks Recommendations 0
Visibility Public
Domain of origin Teamworks