[CLOSED] e-discussion: Leveraging EDC to mobilise existing resources for development & enhance private finance for sustainable development

Please note that this e-discussion was held 9-27 March, 2015 and has now closed. Please check back the week of 6 April, 2015 for a final synthesis of inputs.

Dear Colleagues,

Building on commitments made at the Monterrey Consensus, that increases in volumes of financing for development must be coupled with more effective actions, international efforts have sought to improve the quality and effectiveness of development co-operation, strengthening standards of partnerships and supported demand from developing countries that commitments and good practice be observed by development partners.

In line with these international efforts, the principles of effective development co-operation– country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and accountability – have contributed to strengthening the ability of developing countries to manage the diversity of finance, resources and partners required to deliver the MDGs, and will remain critical to achieving sustainable development beyond 2015.

The international community is currently working towards an ambitious global development framework that will call for the mobilisation of a broad array of resources to finance different dimensions of the post-2015 agenda. With the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, 13-16 July 2015) approaching, Malawi on behalf of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), will host a side event of the GPEDC in the margins of the World Bank/IMF Spring Meeting (17-19 April 2015). This high-level Global Partnership side event will examine how principles of effective development co-operation can further strengthen the use and management of existing resources, as well as help leverage new and diverse sources of public, private and innovative finance for sustainable development. Participants will share their insights with the objective of producing a set of Key messages as concrete inputs for the Financing for Development negotiations in Addis in July 2015.

To support this important side event, and as an integral part of the global conversation on Financing for Development and the Post-2015 development agenda, the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation are co-convening an e-discussion dialogue: “Leveraging EDC to mobilise existing resources for development & enhance private finance for sustainable development”.

Recognising the wealth of expertise within the wider Global Partnership community, GPEDC Co-Chairs invite interested development practitioners and stakeholders to generate discussion on development finance and provide their inputs to the Washington GPEDC Side Event through contribution to this timely e-discussion (hosted on the GPEDC Community Teamworks Space from 9-27 March at: https://www.unteamworks.org/node/483160). Please note that commenters will be required to log in or sign up to the teamworks site. Directions on how to sign up can be found here: https://www.unteamworks.org/node/483166.

A synthesis of the e-discussion will be developed by the JST and circulated as a room document two weeks prior to the World Bank side event in order to provide a basis for discussion during the meeting.

Timeline of the e-discussion

Phase 1: Discussion of EDC to mobilise existing resources for development & enhance private finance for sustainable development (9 - 27 March)

This phase will open the e-discussion in an effort to capture perspectives from a broad range of development stakeholders to further advance commitments on effective development co-operation. The overall guiding questions of this phase are as follows: 

1.       How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

 2.       How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

 3.       How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?

 

FRANCAIS:

1. De quelle manière la Conférence sur le financement du développement et les négociations connexes font-elles progresser les efforts des pays dans la gestion des diverses modalités de financement et des partenaires impliqués dans la mise en œuvre de l’agenda post-2015, tout en assurant l’appropriation au niveau des pays ?

2. De quelle manière les pays peuvent-ils au mieux utiliser les engagements existants pour gérer l’APD, la mobilisation des ressources intérieures et la coopération avec d’autres acteurs ? Y a-t-il des engagements particuliers qui nécessitent une attention politique revitalisée ?

3, De quelle manière le Partenariat mondial pour une coopération efficace au service du développement, de par sa nature multi-parties, peut-il au mieux soutenir les pays dans les domaines cités ci-dessus ?

 

ESPANGOL

1. ¿Cómo pueden la Conferencia sobre la Financiación para el Desarrollo y demás negociaciones relativas avanzar los esfuerzos de los países para manejar las diferentes modalidades de financiamiento y los múltiples actores envueltos en implementar la agenda post-2015, asegurando la apropiación a nivel de país?

2. ¿Cómo pueden los países utilizar mejor los compromisos sobre la eficacia existentes para manejar la ayuda oficial al desarrollo, la movilización de recursos nacionales, y la cooperación con otros actores? ¿Algunos de los compromisos requieren más atención política?

3. ¿Cómo puede la Alianza Global para la Cooperación Eficaz al Desarrollo, a través de su característica integradora de múltiples partes interesadas, apoyar mejor a los países en desarrollo en las áreas mencionadas más arriba?


Phase 2: Consolidation of 1st week responses to feed into a synthesis to draw out common themes and guide discussion

Phase 3: Conclusion of the e-discussion and consolidation of all responses to feed into a synthesis for the high level GPEDC side event at the World Bank/IMF Spring Meeting.

You are invited to take part in this global online dialogue to help us shape the future development agenda.

The success of a new development framework is contingent on the inclusiveness of the process by which it was designed and agreed upon. We encourage you to contribute to this discussion and influence the future development agenda by sharing your views and experiences, or those of the people or communities you represent. Feel free to also encourage your colleagues, networks and constituencies to participate.  

We look forward to further collaborating with you on this very important endeavor. 

Best wishes,

Betty Ngoma, Assistant Director, Debt and Aid Division, Ministry of Finance of Malawi and the UNDP-OECD Global Partnership Joint Support Team 

 

 

Comments

GPEDC Moderator Wed, April 08,2015

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached here a final synthesis of this e-discussion, which will be used at the upcoming GPEDC Side Event at the World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings.

Many thanks to all who contributed!

Best,

The UNDP-OECD Global Partnership Joint Support Team

Attachment(s) Final Key Takeaways E-discussion World Bank.pdf
GPEDC Moderator
Mon, March 30,2015

Please note that the following e-discussion post is published on behalf of Publish What You Fund.

How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

Development financing is becoming an increasingly complex landscape. It encompasses international and domestic resources from a wide range of public and private sources. Furthermore, international public finance has been expanding beyond traditional mechanisms, such as grants and concessional loans, to include newer ones such as public and private blended finance, non-concessional loans and South-South cooperation. There is also work to be done on how best to account for climate finance within financing for development and integrate the different dimensions of sustainable development. Official Development Assistance (ODA) continues to be a highly valuable funding flow for the least developed and most vulnerable countries.[1] It is therefore increasingly important to be able to track the totality of traditional and newer types of financing from all actors, in order to help identify gaps and overlaps.

While the availability of data and information on development flows have increased, it is still difficult to compile a complete picture of all the resources going to a particular country, locality or sector and link them with their development impact. Even where information is publicly accessible, it is often not useful for coordination, budgeting, planning and monitoring. Often, information is historical — sometimes years out of date — and lacks a sufficient level of detail and quality. At best, the lack of open, timely, comprehensive and comparable information about development activities reduces efficiency and limits effectiveness hindering progress towards the common goal of achieving sustainable development by 2030. At worst, it is leading to efforts that reduce and fragment accountability, affecting some of the poorest people on the planet.

Better data on all development finance flows – public and private, domestic and international – is essential for building a complete picture of the resources available for sustainable development, and to mobilise and monitor these resources effectively at national and international levels.

 

All development actors should commit to publishing timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on their activities in a common, open, electronic format, based on existing open data standards by 2020. These efforts should build upon progress made by the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).

 

How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

Transparency initiatives in sectors such as aid, extractives and construction, as well as government budgets, are leading to a step change in the amount of data being published on different resource flows and how they are being spent. Networks and platforms such as OGP, GIFT, IATI, Open Contracting and EITI are demonstrating the potential of multi-stakeholder partnerships and open data standards for greater accountability. Comparability across sectors is key if the data is to be truly transformative. When data is published to agreed standards it makes it easier to link, meaning the data is interoperable.

Being able to readily compare information across different flows is a pre-requisite for better predictability and planning. When country governments can see the totality of external development financing in a timely way, they can take more informed decisions in the context of country budgeting and allocation. Comparability is therefore what transforms more information into better information, providing the ability to view all flows alongside one another.

 

To avoid data silos and allow data from different sources to be joined up and compared, governments should ensure that open data standards are interoperable. They should also support existing transparency initiatives, such as the Open Government Partnership (OGP), the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT), the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), Open Contracting and the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in these efforts.

 

 

How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?

Data does not deliver transformational change on its own. It has to be used, and for that to happen, it has to be usable. Technology can and is helping increase the usability of data through the growth of visualisations and other user-friendly tools. Initiatives to track financing for development flows are already underway.  Visualisations such as the d-portal provide country-based information platforms that can be used by ministers, elected officials, civil society and the media to know what activities are both planned and underway in a particular country.[2]

However, information needs to reach beyond online publication. This means that all development providers should proactively publish information in formats and forums that allow them to reach different stakeholders at national and sub-national levels. This includes allowing and encouraging intermediaries such as journalists, NGOs, academics, and research institutions to use data for multiple purposes. It also means empowering civil society and citizen groups by building awareness, skills and capacity around open data, thus encouraging their participation in policy-making processes and their ability to hold institutions and governments to account.[3]

Governments themselves also need to use development data and information for coordination, planning and decision making. Developing countries and emerging economies require forward-looking information that can be aligned with domestic budgets, thus enabling a better and more informed allocation of their own resources and greater ownership and accountability. Pilots are being conducted in DRC, Nepal, Senegal and Tanzania to align development finance flows published to IATI with different country budget classifications.[4] Furthermore, partner country governments are using IATI data in their Aid Information Management Systems (AIMS) to facilitate better planning and coordination.

Governments should commit to promoting and building capacity for data use by all actors engaged in the policy-making process, including national and sub-national decision-makers and those who hold them to account. In addition, governments should promote the alignment of information on international public finance with country budget systems to foster greater harmonisation and accountability, and to increase country ownership.  

[1] Although there has been an increase in non-ODA flows, this does not mean that the importance of aid transparency has reduced. For some countries, particularly the poorest and those experiencing conflict, ODA can be a significant portion of gross national income and a large percentage of total government expenditure. See Investments to End Poverty, Development Initiatives, chapter 10:  http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Investments_to_End_Poverty_full_report.pdf

[2] The d-portal is an online tool, set up by Development Initiatives and IATI, which tracks resource flows into countries. It is aimed at providing line ministries, parliamentarians and civil society in developing countries with information that can assist with the planning and monitoring of development activities: http://d-portal.org/

[3] For example, a recent study by Freedom Forum exploring the use and impact of open budget and aid data in Nepal concluded that although the open data movement in Nepal is thriving, there is a gap between open data efforts and the information needs of civil society and journalists. The study recommends that open data be integrated with the Right to Information “...along with networking, capacity building and a focus on common issues, including proactive transparency around public resources focused on budget and aid.” See http://www.opendataresearch.org/content/2014/724/exploring-emerging-impacts-open-aid-data-and-budget-data-nepal, p.6

[4] The Senegal pilot found that 96% of the aid from Canada and UNDP could be mapped to the country’s budget:  http://aidonbudget.org/#home

GPEDC Moderator
Fri, March 27,2015

Posted on behalf of Betty Ngoma, Assistant Director - Debt and Aid Division, Ministry of Finance of Malawi and the UNDP-OECD Global Partnership Joint Support Team 

As we reach the conclusion of our e-discussion on leveraging EDC to mobilise existing resources for development and enhance private finance for sustainable development, which will end today at 5pm EST, several themes have emerged from the lively discussion. Contributions have included parliamentarians and development practitioners from Cambodia, Fiji, Rwanda, Senegal, and Zambia. An overview of the discussion generated is outlined below.

1) How can the Financing for Development Conference (FfD) and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

Contributors highlight the need for strong country ownership in order to prioritise development goals, allocate resources as per national development plans and strategy, and to translate and manage the implementation of international development agenda such as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The need for cohesive elaboration of policies, financing strategies and action plans at the national level was further stressed. In addition, contributors emphasise the importance of drawing on lessons learned and, inclusive multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) to effectively engage diverse stakeholders, including the private sector. A number of contributors called for global cooperation to address illicit flows and tax evasion, and accountability within development partnerships.

Strong Country ownership -

  • Ownership can provide greater freedom and flexibility for countries to define development goals within their specific country context as well as ensure consistency with national development priorities, and allocation of resources, including funding to national goals and local context, in order to mitigate rigidity in corresponding resource allocation, and ensure efficient public expenditure with results - (Cambodia, Senegal). In addition, it was noted that country ownership can be exercised through political engagement and participation, in international forums such as FfD for post 2015 - (Zambia).

Increased capacity to manage development finance at the national, regional and global level –

  • As countries explore new modalities in development financing (such as DRM, effective engagement of the private sector), there is a need to ensure alignment with national development priorities. Interest was also expressed in utilising dialogue and exchange of lessons learned to promote alignment with national priorities, particularly in the context of the SDGs – (Cambodia). Contributors also advocated for the development of national policies and strategies for financing (resource mobilisation) - (Senegal, Fiji, Cambodia). Specific policy recommendations included: 1) capturing private sector participation through review of policy and regulatory framework, including private sector’s licensing, registration, and tax payments; and 2) ensuring requisite access to finance by countries at diverse stages of the development spectrum, including less concessional and non-concessional finance by LICs and LMICs - (Rwanda).
  • Contributors remarked on the need for targeted efforts to strengthen the capacity of state and regional groupings to deal with illicit financial flows including corruption, tax fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and tax havens through enhanced global cooperation - (Senegal, Rwanda).

2.       How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

Contributors expressed a concern on maintaining momentum in the development effectiveness agenda, particularly in relation to existing effectiveness agreements, unfinished businesses of MDGs, and reform agendas around aid and development cooperation. Contributors stressed the importance of reaffirming existing global commitments to strengthen and realign commitments with developing countries’ priorities, and the need to revitalise political commitment to assist developing countries to manage ODA and DRM from increasingly complex resource streams - (Zambia). Some of these commitments include predictability, alignment with national priorities and the strengthening/use of national systems, untying aid and reducing fragmentation - (Cambodia, Rwanda, Zambia, Fiji).

Contributors further offered several recommendations on ways in which to strengthen inclusivity in development effectiveness commitments, and on leveraging existing development cooperation mechanisms including:

  • establishing working groups on development effectiveness to ensure more inclusive development of effectiveness commitments such as Donor Forum meetings linked aligned to countries priorities; leveraging existing resources for peer review to further cooperation with other emerging actors; strengthening/use of national systems; further research and analysis on explicit and implicit strategies for financing for development called for to examine existing components and methods to identify improvements - (Fiji, Senegal, Cambodia).

3.       How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above?

Given the changing economic environment of development financing, contributors highlighted a number of ways to strengthen the coherence between the Effective Development Cooperation and the post-2015 development agenda, including: 1) acting as a platform for examination of past practices to support countries in development financing; 2) utilising GPEDC global convening power to coordinate multiple stakeholders and advocate for EDC policy coherence; 3) promoting inclusive partnerships; and finally, building capacity of development partners to manage MSPs. Contributors provided these recommendations as a way forward for GPEDC engagement:

  • foster open dialogue on past practices to support countries in development financing (necessitating coordination of various stakeholders in an evolving global policy environment), these lessons should also inform functioning of GPEDC itself - (Zambia, Fiji, Cambodia). It can also act as repository for lessons learned and a space exchanging of country-level experience on partnerships for development financing and related modalities/options, including identification of key elements which enable strong country ownership in the context of multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) and financing for national development - (Cambodia);
  • provide a platform for advocacy drawing on its global convening power to coordinate multiple stakeholders to streamline and increase coherence of development cooperation policy, and provide empirical evidence for policy dialogue concerning development cooperation - (Zambia, Cambodia);
  • promote inclusive partnerships and set standards, applicable to all, for the purposes of monitoring mechanisms, and building capacity of development partners to navigate divergent views and interests in multi-stakeholder approaches to development, such as effective engagement of diverse actors within partnerships to effectively manage diverse stakeholder interests - (Zambia, Rwanda);
  • follow up on unfinished businesses of MDGs and reform agendas around aid and development cooperation to, and ensure decisions made in regards to ODA and other financial flows reflect views on the demand side of the relationship - (Rwanda, Fiji). It may also assist in strengthening institutional capacity of recipient countries and providing technical support to absorb emerging and complex financial portfolios and partnerships, including through continental or sub-regional level workshops or HLMs, or inclusion of indicators financing aspects, with a greater focus to monitoring issues of financing for development - (Senegal, Fiji);
  • strengthen institutional capacity of recipient countries, and providing technical support to absorb emerging and complex financial portfolios and partnerships, including through continental or sub-regional level workshops or HLMs - (Senegal, Fiji). Strengthening institutional capacity should also include tracking or monitoring of resource mobilisation/commitment measurement as an indicator of GP global monitoring framework. In addition, GPEDC indicators should incorporate financing aspects, with a greater focus to monitoring issues of financing for development - (Senegal).
Many thanks also to those of you who have contributed in the past several days. Please be sure that we will reflect your inputs in the forthcoming synthesis document, which will be posted to this online community the week of 9 April.
Best,
Betty Ngoma, Assistant Director, Debt and Aid Division -Ministry of Finance of Malawi and the UNDP-OECD Global Partnership Joint Support Team 
Modibo Mao MAKALOU a Development Cooperation Expert from Mali
Fri, March 27,2015

1.       How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

Development priorities include improving economic and social infrastructure, building productive capacity, exploiting opportunities to diversify key exports and identifying sectors with value and supply-chain potential in Africa. Industrialization is costly to finance and Africa’s economic transformation requires it to mobilize domestic resources to meet the associated financing costs given that external capital inflows, especially official development assistance (ODA), are  not only unpredictable but also likely to decline over time due to donor countries budget deficits and also donor fatigue. As government revenues and private savings are the main domestic financial resources in most  partner countries, governments need to improve their tax systems’ efficiency, minimize illicit capital flight abroad, better capture the informal sector, reduce contracts with multinational corporations tax preferences, and improve transparency and fairness in contract negociations.

 2.       How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

Making the financial system accessible to the public is critical for mobilizing domestic savings to finance Africa’s investment needs. Using natural resource and extractive industries' wealth can help to boost government financing for the transformation of african economies. Governments should also continue progressively reducing their dependence on aid, reinforce policy formulation and country ownership as well as stopping the illicit flight of capital. Beyond improving its trade and finance, Africa needs to provide job opportunities to a large and growing young population. These should be decent jobs, which it can achieve by enhancing productivity and competitiveness, strengthening domestic demand, diversifying into higher value added tradable goods and services, strengthening social capabilities, reforming labour market institutions and transforming social protection.

Curtailing illicit financial outflows  and mobilising domestic resources  in Africa can produce the largest source of new funds for  poverty alleviation and economic growth in the near future. The key to achieving success is adopting laws, regulations and policies that encourage transparent financial transactions. 


 3.       How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation can help address factors underlying governance issues including illicit financial outflows and also impress upon Development partners  the need for better transparency and tighter oversight of international banks and offshore financial centers that absorb these flows. Furthermore, it must seek to mobilize political will amongst  governments, regional and international organizations, civil society, business and other stakeholders in support of adopting the necessary policies to curtail illicit financial outflows and improve governance policies so that adequate financial resources are re-directed towards the efforts to alleviate poverty and bring about sustainable development.

 


 


GPEDC Moderator
Fri, March 27,2015

Dear Mr. Modibo Makalou,

Many thanks for your salient comments on key priorities for development - we will make sure to include your inputs to our final synthesis document, which will be available here on the community space the week of 6 April.

Best,

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

Yuko NAAB from Philippines
Fri, March 27,2015

This post is made on behalf of Undersecretary Rolando Tungpalan, National Economic and Development Authority, Government of the Philippines. 

 

Thank you very much for this interesting discussion, which is very timely in our view. The Government of Philippines is currently hosting the Asia-Pacific regional workshop on strengthening coherence between the effective development cooperation and financing for development agendas in Asia-Pacific (26-27 March, Makati City, the Philippines. This workshop is co-chaired by the governments of Bangladesh and Palau. Key takeaways from this meeting respond very much to the questions being asked in this discussion, and I would like to share some of these key messages.

  • In the Financing for Development context as well as the implementation of the post-2015, country leadership is the most important aspect in managing diverse and complex financing and partnership for maximizing development impacts. With this context, the financing of the Means of implementation of the SDGs will need to emphasize on strengthening and using country systems. Significant investments are needed to enable country systems to manage complex development finance, and commitments to use those system should be made by those providing development finance.
  • Inclusive partnership is a key aspect that needs to be embraced strongly. In this context, there is need for strengthening an enabling environment and creating space for different actors (civil society, the private sector) to fully participate in the development process at country level.
  • Linked to country leadership, country-level integrated national financing frameworks will need to be based on better data and analysis and management strategies to maximize the complementarity between different flows.
  • Monitoring and accountability for effective financing for implementation of the sustainable development goals will need to build on existing country approaches with clear links to regional and global processes.
  • Country-led regional platforms can help align international commitments with national priorities and in turn strengthen the international process based on country evidence.
  • Strengthening south-south cooperation as part of integrated national financing frameworks can exploit economic, social, technical and other knowledge resources from Southern countries. Learning from GPEDC on development cooperation effectiveness can be considered in the design and provision of SSC.

 

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) offers a useful multi-stakeholder platform for mutual learning, policy dialogue and knowledge sharing, drawing on country-level progress and evidence. In this context, regional platforms such as the Asia-Pacific Forum for Development Effectiveness can offer a very useful contribution to the GPEDC. 

***

GPEDC Moderator
Fri, March 27,2015

Dear Mr. Rolando Tungpalan,

Many thanks for providing inputs to our e-discussion from the Asia-Pacific regional workshop on strengthening coherence between the effective development cooperation and financing for development agendas in Asia-Pacific - your responses are timely and much appreciated! We will be sure to include your comments in the synthesis document, which will be available here on the community space the week of 6 April.

Best,

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

Jeroen Kwakkenbos a Jeroen Kwakkenbos, Policy and Advocacy Manager at the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) from Belgium
Thu, March 26,2015

Country level ownership is critical for effective management of international and domestic development finance and is central to the Busan partnership agreement. As stated in the document “partnerships for development can only succeed if they are led by developing countries, implementing approaches that are tailored to country-specific situations and needs[i].” In terms of commitments to development effectiveness relevant to this discussion two that stand out are those related to country systems and tied aid. Both of these commitments are crucial to ensuring country level ownership of development finance and both require revitalised political attention. A third area that is glaringly omitted from the effectiveness agenda is that of economic policy conditionality. If not dealt with these issues bind the hands of partner countries and challenge their ability to use development finance to its greatest ability and efficiency.

Progress on untying aid has slowed in recent years despite wide acknowledgement that tied aid increases costs by 15 to 30% and undermines country ownership as spending decisions are made by donor countries[ii]. Even where aid is untied in principle (de jure) it remains tied in practice (de facto). On average over 60% of contracts for development projects funded by member states of the European Union go to European businesses and consultants[iii]. This boomerang effect limits the ability of aid to build capacities and create decent jobs for people in partner countries that is needed to reduce aid dependency. In order to enable effective management of development finance the first step is to remove the constraints that limit the ability to do so.  

Commitments to using partner country systems has also stalled in recent years yet is a central component for partner countries to utilise international and domestic sources of finance to the greatest effect[iv]. To ensure ownership partner countries need to be in the driving seat in order to align these flows to their national development strategies. Using these systems also increases their effectiveness and serves to identify potential gaps and weaknesses. For partner countries to manage domestic and international financial resources they require strong public institutions with clear lines of accountability and oversight. Through utilising parallel systems donors undermine the ability of partner country governments to develop these institutions. It is unrealistic to assume that sustainable development can be achieved through bypassing the institutions that are responsible for achieving it.

The issue of conditionality, while not an existing development effectiveness commitment, is a further element that undermines national ownership. In many cases partner country governments must adhere to donor conditions to receive development finance. While fiduciary conditions are necessary to ensure transparency and accountability, donors also impose economic policy conditions which go as far as determining fiscal and monetary choices, push for the privatisation of essential services, and haphazard trade liberalisation. These conditions undermine democratic ownership and deprive poor nations and people of choosing their own development path. All too often they end up having a harmful impact on the poor. Despite an encouraging decrease in the number of conditions attached to aid, indirect conditions such as aid allocation systems based on performance against policy reforms, informal influence of IFIs in negotiations prior to financing agreements behind closed doors, non-legally binding benchmarks and donor-driven technical assistance are still common place. This practice of “conditionality through the back door” reduces transparency and constrains partner country policy space in conducting inclusive national debates on the policy choices that respond to their people’s needs and aspirations. They also have the perverse effect of making partner country governments accountable to donors rather than their citizens.

Two of these issues represent the unfinished business of existing commitments and the third is indicative of the challenges in ensuring democratic ownership of both international and domestic development finance. Addressing these challenges will require more than lip service. What the Financing for Development conference can achieve is to go beyond acknowledging voluntary commitments to untying aid and promoting partner country policy space, make them time bound and binding, and put in place a mechanism to monitor progress and to assess challenges to their implementation. The conference should also commit to convening a commission of experts for the purpose of producing a report which assesses why aid that is untied in principle remains tied in practice. Through its experience and broad constituency the GPEDC has a supporting role to play in implementing this mechanism through its monitoring framework and its consensus building and knowledge sharing activities.

[i] The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation

[ii] Clay, E. J. et al (2008) Thematic Study, The Developmental Effectiveness of Untied Aid: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration and of the 2001 DAC Recommendation on Untying ODA To The LDCs, Phase I Report. Copenhagen, December 2008

[iii] Clay, Edward J., Matthew Geddes and Luisa Natali (2009) Untying Aid: Is it working? An Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration and of the 2001 DAC Recommendation of Untying ODA to the LDCs. Copenhagen, December 2009.

[iv] See the 2014 Global Partnership Monitoring Report, “Making Development Co-operation More Effective,” which show sno increase in use of country systems between 2010 and 2013. 

GPEDC Moderator
Fri, March 27,2015

Dear Mr. Jeroen Kwakkenbos,

Many thanks for providing these interesting inputs on the "Unfinished Business" of existing development commitments and related challenges. We very much appreciate your response! Please be assured that we will include your perspective in our final e-discussion synthesis, which will be available here on the Global Partnership community space the week of 6 April.

Best,

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

Eleanor Maeresera a POlicy Officer -AFRODAD development aid and Research assistant- Taurai Chiraerae from Zimbabwe
Thu, March 26,2015

1 How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

The rhetoric that no one size fit all approach towards the post 2015 development agenda should be taken cognisant of. Before tackling the new SDG there is need to take reflections to relook at the unfinished aid agenda. This has to do with issues of untied aid, use of country systems and the meeting of the 0.7% GNI Gleneagles commitments by the donor community.

The financing for development summit should ensure that country ownership of development priorities should be strengthened. Within recipient government there is need to ensure that key institutions such as parliament, auditor general’s office and the ministry of finance are capacitated so that they can effectively engage on the post 2015 development agenda. The providers of development assistance should continue to be encouraged to use of country systems in their delivery of aid in line with the Busan partnership agreement.

Within governments there is need to ensure that democratic space for all stakeholders should be created. This can be done by encouraging governments to come up with dialogue structure such as observatories to enhance all stakeholder participation. This should be done in line with the unique country specifications.

There is need to ensure the training in policy analysis and the budget process. The training should also include the leadership at political level. In line with this governments ought to take issues of transparency and accountability. Aid from diverse sources of funders including emerging lenders such as MINTS and BRICS should also be delivered as budget support. This will allow parliament to scrutinise its effectiveness.  

There is need for the summit to deal directly with the issue of illicit financial flows and work on the Mbeki panel recommendations.

2. How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors ? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

ODA should be used as a means to exit the dependency syndrome. This can be done to ensure that aid is used to improve country level revenue collection. It can be used to ensure tax reforms.

Political will to ensure that the global partnership remains inclusive. These partnerships even between countries will ensure achievement of continental commitments such as 2063.

Aid commitments that require revitalisation includes untying tied aid, meeting the Gleneagles 0.7 commitments and the predictability of aid. ODA will remain an important source of development finance despite other sources of development finance taking prominence.

There is need for serious discussions round climate financing for Africa since it is the least emitter yet carries the heaviest burden of its impacts. This also calls for the revamp of the laws and regulations for climate change.

3.  How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?

The Global partnership for effective development cooperation should accelerate its efforts to continue monitoring issues through a monitoring and evaluation exercises. This can include updates, reports from surveys and researches it will have carried out. The monitoring effort should be broad to address the SDGs.

The GPEDC should also continue to improve the role of partnerships, south south and triangular cooperation, knowledge sharing and innovation in development

Capacity building will be important to ensure the implementation of the results framework. The Mbeki panel results also needs to be taken serious and recommendations be implemented.

The GPEDC building blocks model of working should be revived and supported

GPEDC Moderator
Fri, March 27,2015

Dear Ms. Eleanor Maeresera,

Many thanks to you for providing these important comments on the "unfinished aid agenda" and its ties to the SDGs/post-2015 development framework. We will include your perspective in the final synthesis of the e-discussions, which will be posted here on the Global Partnership community space the week of 6 April.

Best,

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

GPEDC Moderator
Wed, March 25,2015

Dear members of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community Space,

A kind reminder that our Global Partnership e-discussion on Leveraging EDC to mobilize existing resources for development and enhance private finance for sustainable development will close at 5pm EST on Friday, 27 March.

In addition, please note that, due to popular demand, we have translated the e-discussion questions into French and Spanish (please see below). Please feel free to provide inputs to the e-discussion in English, French, or Spanish and these inputs will be incorporated into the final synthesis document in support of the Global Partnership Side Event at the World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings (17-19 April).

Many thanks in advance to those of you who have already provided inputs to this important discussion!

Best,

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

 ____________________

Chers membres du Partenariat mondial pour une coopération efficace au service du développement,

Veuillez noter que l’e-discussion du Partenariat mondial sur l’ “Utilisation de la coopération au développement efficace afin de mobiliser les ressources existantes pour le développement et afin de renforcer le financement privé pour le développement durable" fermera le vendredi 27 mars à 17 heures (New York).               

En outre, veuillez noter que, suite à de nombreuses demandes, nous avons traduit les questions de la discussion en français (voir ci-dessous). Libre à vous de faire vos commentaires sur l’e-discussion en anglais ou en français. Ceux-ci seront incorporés dans le document final de synthèse.

Merci d'avance à ceux d'entre vous qui ont déjà apporté leur contribution à cette discussion importante!

Cordialement,

L'équipe conjointe de l’OCDE et du PNUD qui soutient le Partenariat mondial pour une coopération efficace au service du développement

Les questions pour l’e-discussion sont ci-dessous:

1. De quelle manière la Conférence sur le financement du développement et les négociations connexes font-elles progresser les efforts des pays dans la gestion des diverses modalités de financement et des partenaires impliqués dans la mise en œuvre de l’agenda post-2015, tout en assurant l’appropriation au niveau des pays ?

2. De quelle manière les pays peuvent-ils au mieux utiliser les engagements existants pour gérer l’APD, la mobilisation des ressources intérieures et la coopération avec d’autres acteurs ? Y a-t-il des engagements particuliers qui nécessitent une attention politique revitalisée ?

3. De quelle manière le Partenariat mondial pour une coopération efficace au service du développement, de par sa nature multi-parties, peut-il au mieux soutenir les pays dans les domaines cités ci-dessus?

 --------------------

Estimados miembros del Espacio de la Comunidad en línea de la Alianza Global para la Cooperación Eficaz al Desarrollo,

Nos complace recordarles que la discusión en línea sobre como “Utilizar la cooperación eficaz al desarrollo para movilizar los recursos existentes para el desarrollo y reforzar el financiamiento privado para el desarrollo sostenibleculminará a las 17 horas (Nueva York) del día viernes 27 de marzo.

Nótese que en razón de los números pedidos, hemos traducido las preguntas de la discusión en línea al Español (véase abajo). Sírvase por favor enviarnos sus contribuciones para la discusión en línea en inglés o en español, ya que todas las contribuciones serán incorporadas en el documento final de síntesis que servirá de soporte para el evento de la Alianza Global que tomará lugar durante las reuniones de primavera del Banco Mundial y Fondo Monetario Internacional (17-19 abril).

Muchas gracias de antemano a todos aquellos que ya han contribuido a esta importante discusión en línea.

Saludos cordiales,

El equipo conjunto de apoyo de la Alianza Global para la Cooperación Eficaz al Desarrollo

Las preguntas para la discusión en línea se encuentran a continuación:

1. ¿Cómo pueden la Conferencia sobre la Financiación para el Desarrollo y demás negociaciones relativas avanzar los esfuerzos de los países para manejar las diferentes modalidades de financiamiento y los múltiples actores envueltos en implementar la agenda post-2015, asegurando la apropiación a nivel de país?

2. ¿Cómo pueden los países utilizar mejor los compromisos sobre la eficacia existentes para manejar la ayuda oficial al desarrollo, la movilización de recursos nacionales, y la cooperación con otros actores? ¿Algunos de los compromisos requieren más atención política?

3. ¿Cómo puede la Alianza Global para la Cooperación Eficaz al Desarrollo, a través de su característica integradora de múltiples partes interesadas, apoyar mejor a los países en desarrollo en las áreas mencionadas más arriba?

 

Sorie Lee from Republic of Korea
Wed, March 25,2015

Please see below the comments of the Republic of Korea in response to the e-discussion questions. 

 

1. How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

 

As the ongoing negotiation for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda encompasses a wide range of goals in the economic, social, and environmental areas, it is essential that all types of resources available to countries should be identified and the resources mobilized should be effectively used in the post-2015 development framework where many development actors co-exist. In particular, the ownership of developing countries should be ensured in mobilizing and using resources in order for sustainable development to be achieved.


In this vein, the negotiation on FfD should have its focus on ‘how’ to effectively use mobilized development resources in addition to the issue of mobilizing maximum resources. The negotiations should address the ways to build an environment which enables developing countries to take ownership in mobilizing and using resources for development. Thus, during a series of negotiations, greater emphasis should be placed on the need to build national capacity for designing and implementing development strategies in accordance with the country’s priorities, engaging with a variety of actors, and ensuring mutual accountability.   

 

2. How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalized political attention?


With ever more increasing development actors and resources in the current development finance landscape, the international community needs to maintain its attention around the shared principles of effective development cooperation adopted in Busan. In this regard, it is notable that the shared principles are reflected in the zero draft of the Addis Ababa Accord. As the principles are closely interlinked, they require equal attention and comprehensive pursuit. 


In order for the shared principles to be operationalized at the country level, countries should strive to collect and share best practices which prove the actual impact of complying with the shared principles. 

 

3.      How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?


As the GPEDC aims to be an action-oriented and evidence-based multi-stakeholder partnership at the country-level, it is well positioned to identify a variety of development partners and the resources they bring in at the country level. Once development actors, resources, as well as expertise available to each country are identified, the GPEDC could contribute to finding the appropriate and/or optimal mix of these actors and resources according to the country’s specific circumstances.

 

As a multi-stakeholder partnership, the GPEDC is expected to actively engage with South-South Cooperation (SSC) countries and the private sector and encourage these actors to respect the shared principles of effective development cooperation. It is important that the GPEDC contribute to having a wide range of development actors abide by the common principles when providing development cooperation.      

 

The GPEDC, with its global monitoring function, also has a great potential to contribute to the monitoring framework that is to be established to keep track of the FfD and SDG commitments. To avoid duplication of efforts, it is desirable that the existing GPEDC’s monitoring framework plays a part in the UN’s wider monitoring framework. More discussions are required how to fit the GPEDC’s monitoring framework into the soon-to-be-established monitoring framework.

 

 

GPEDC Moderator
Fri, March 27,2015

Dear Sorie Lee,

Many thanks for your in-depth response to our e-discussion questions! Please be assured that we will incorporate the Republic of Korea's perspectives into our final e-discussion synthesis document, which will be available here on the GPEDC community space the week of 6 April.

Best,

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

GPEDC Moderator from Fiji
Mon, March 23,2015

Posted on behalf of Asif Chida, MDG and Private Sector Specialist - UNDP Fiji

Please note that the below is a synthesis of this response. To see the full note, including background on the perspective of Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS), please click on the article attached below.

A)    How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

For ensuring country level ownership there needs to be a three pronged approach:

  1. 1.      Policy Level
  • As a first step countries should harmonize the DFAP with planning, budgeting, and public investment policies at both national and local levels (provincial, divisional, and local governance level).
  • Prioritize the review and finalization of the MTDP monitoring and evaluation framework and advise Treasury and Finance on how the functions of planning and the DFAP fit into a harmonisation of related policy measures, partnerships, processes, and responsibilities.
  • Strengthen domestic resource mobilization and review the policy and regulatory framework for private sector’s licensing, registration and tax payments.
  • Review external sources of funding by undertaking an in-depth study on Innovative Finance for Development (IF4D)
  • Conduct sectoral level studies with priority sectors so that analysis could help in financing options and transitions.
  • Establish linkages with country’s foreign policy both at regional and international level
  • Establish country-led annual reporting that incorporates both development results, effective and efficient use of development finances and development cooperation.

 

  1. 2.      Legislative Framework

 

  • A law on Development Finance and Aid that requires the harmonisation of the policy, management, implementation and monitoring of the DFAP to planning, budgeting, and public investments, at national and local levels.

 

  1. 3.      Institutional Arrangements

 

  • Simple institutional architecture can be developed (or strengthened if already existing) for the DFAP harmonized planning, budgeting, public investment programme, and monitoring processes and timelines
  • Engagement of Private Sector, FBOs, and CSOs in key areas of the DFAP formulation and implementation, monitoring, dialogue and decision-making process.  Also strengthen the provincial, district, and local level capacity to manage the private sector dynamics and to include private sector  and CSOs players at these levels.
  • Review of the Development Aid Database (DAD) to determine whether it remains an appropriate and feasible information management tool for the proposed DFAP. In particular, how the sources of development finance that would be considered in the DFAP can be captured in the DAD

B)     How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

  • Firstly, establish a working group or committee on development effectiveness to ensure that the process through which any effectiveness commitments are formulated and approved is inclusive.
  • Organize Donor Forum meetings and link with countries priorities that could help in formulating in terms of development partners/co-operators engagement starts/concludes.
  • In the Pacific, the existing mechanisms of Forum Compact and Peer Reviews could be utilized for cooperation with other  emerging actors.

 c) How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?

  • A stock-take of what has worked and not, should help the future directions of GPEDC. In particular taking into account of unfinished businesses of MDGs and reform agendas around aid and development cooperation. For e.g. In the Pacific significant work has been done through Pacific Forum Island Secretariat, a further dialogue on the issues will certainly help in the PICs.
  •  Need for institutional capacity strengthening of the recipient countries and technical support to absorb emerging and complex financial portfolios and partnerships.
  • As suggested by the contributor from Rwanda that aid should not be supply driven  which results in the credibility of the whole architecture instead provide real time aid data to recipients by an agency like International Aid Transparency.
  • The Global Partnership should ensure that whatever decisions are made with regard to ODA and other financial flows must reflect the views of the demand side of the relationship.
  • The GPEDC’s engagement could be an effective follow-up to the Forum Compact peer review process for Pacific SIDS.  UNDP, been a strong supporter of the Forum Compact from the beginning, is well positioned to develop a partnership with PIFS and individual countries at the national level to support initiatives that help take peer review recommendations to the next level. 
  • A key outcome of the recent Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States held in Samoa in September 2014 (also referred as SAMOA Pathway) is the need for SIDS to gain, on mutually agreed terms, better access to reliable, affordable, modern and environmentally sound technologies and know-how; continued and enhanced investments in education and training; integration into regional, interregional and world markets; and improved data collection and statistical analysis.  The pathway document recognizes that financing from all sources is critical for the sustainable development of SIDS and as such there is a need to strengthen the use of domestic policies and financing; to enhance access to international arrangements for the financing of development; to implement climate change adaptation and mitigation projects and to conclude a global climate change agreement in 2015
  • For UNDP, this means ensuring alignment with its global strategy but with support tailored to SIDS priorities and realities under the three areas of: (i) strengthening sustainable development pathways through analysis and advocacy, development planning and policy reforms, scalable initiatives on sustainable productive capacities and effective risk management; (ii) supporting inclusive and effective democratic governance through enabling major governance processes and strengthening governance and innovation; and (iii) building resilience through peace-building and state-building in post-conflict and transition settings, disaster risk reduction, preparedness, response and recovery and south-south and triangular cooperation.


Attachment(s) Teamworks -From the perspective of Pacific Small Island Development States.doc
GPEDC Moderator
Fri, March 27,2015

Dear Mr. Asif Chida,

Many thanks again for this extremely comprehensive response to the e-discussion from the SIDS perspective - it is greatly appreciated! Please note that we will incorporate your inputs into the final e-discussion synthesis document, which will be posted to the GPEDC community space the week of 6 April.

Best,

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

DIA Amadou Tidiane a Mr Amadou Tidiane DIA, Expert in Cooperation Effectiveness,(Retired from the Ministry of Economy, Finance and Planning /Senegal) from Senegal
Wed, March 18,2015

Mr Amadou Tidiane DIA,

Expert in Cooperation Effectiveness, (Retired from the Ministry of Economy, Finance and Planning /Senegal), in January 2015

This contribution is a personal opinion.

 

1.       How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

 

About this question, I give my opinion on five points:

  • flexible management of the implementation of international development goals and funding at national level,

  • the elaboration of financing strategies and action plans at national level,

  • the involvement of regional institutions (communities of states, regional economic commissions, inter-state financial institutions, etc.) for accelerating the achievement of objectives,

  • appropriate treatment or management of the role of the private sector, particularly national,

  • and remarks on some specific issues.

 

1) Flexible management of the implementation of international development goals and funding at national level

In order to ensuring an appropriate financing for development, a fundamental or basic problem upstream might be solved in the post 2015 Agenda. The final document is to consider a flexible articulation in the implementation of international goals to the realities of developing countries.

Although everyone appreciates the MDGs, we felt the International targets seemed to be constraints. Countries do not seem to have the freedom to articulate, define priorities between these objectives. There was rigidity in the goals and the development partners were often rigid and did not allow flexibility in resource allocation, and this position influenced the allocation of public expenditure. In some countries for example (the mine among them), significant amounts allocated to some sectors could be reduced in favor of other sectors.

This rigidity or this lack of flexibility has led to inefficient public expenditure with poor results.

We must draw an important lesson : more freedom for countries to modulate the development goals in the realities and the need to adapt the funding to national goals.

 

2) The elaboration of financing strategies and action plans at national level

In many developing countries, initiatives have been taken for mobilizing resources in certain areas or sub-areas, including public finance, private domestic resources, international public and private funding (capital market debt strategy) , trade, scientific and technical cooperation, etc.

In Senegal, we have been combining various kinds of financial tools for funding development strategies, particularly the “Plan Senegal Emergent” : public domestic resource policy (taxes and customs), public debt strategies, ODA, PPP, FDI, use of national, regional and international financial markets. There are good practices, but not global framework (except in debt issue). The situation is similar in many countries, but there no financing strategy for development.

It would be desirable to insist on either setting up or developing national policies and strategies for financing (resource mobilization), with national action plans, or improve them where they exist.  The Governments would with all stakeholders.

 

3) The involvement of regional institutions for accelerating the achievement of objectives

On the different continents and regions of the world, there are communities of states and regional economic commissions with medium and long term development programs, particularly in Africa (AUC, RECs, NEPAD, Agenda 2063, etc.). The involvement of these institutions could accelerate the process for achieving the Conference’s goals. The appropriate arrangements could be made by the UN System, the GPEDC, etc. in order to ensure this involvement.

 

4) An appropriate treatment or management of the role of the private sector, particularly national

Everyone agrees on the role of the private sector. However the support to the domestic private sector remains very weak in many countries of Africa and elsewhere. Some governments are either competing with the private sector either spontaneously tend to weaken it, do not sufficiently involve it in the definition of development objectives and resource mobilization strategies. The private sector is often the victim of the Crowding-out Effect, that is to say, the competition of the State could reduce the mobilization of domestic and external resources for private investment. Measures should be identified for enhancing the contribution of this sector, its involvement in all national policies (development strategies and resource mobilization or financing policies).

 

5) Remarks on specific issues

Some areas of financing for development that play significant role deserve special attention, for example, the role of Trade, Science and Technology, Financial markets, the fight against illicit practices (corruption, illicit flows, tax fraud, money laundering, tax havens, etc.).

Efforts should be done to strengthen the capacity of the States and communities of States to deal with these problems . This could play an important role in the process of implementation of the post-2015 agenda, and mobilizing resources.

 

 

2.       How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

 

It would be interesting to encourage developing countries to analyze various aspects of their explicit or implicit strategies for financing development, their components and methods to examine the strengths and weaknesses and suggest improvements. This action must be led by the governments, but with the support of bilateral donors, multilateral and philanthropic, and the involvement of national stakeholders (including private sector).

 

It would be desirable to strongly involve sub-regional communities of states, especially in Africa. They would be effective relay for some actions.

 

In addition, some themes raised in the first question (the role of Trade, Science and Technology, Financial markets, the fight against illicit practices, etc.) could be the object of workshops or high level meetings at continental or subregional levels.

 

 

3.       How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above

 

The Global Partnership is an important tool because it has some experience and an operational framework.

 

It could help in various fields in working jointly with the entities of the UN (and others) in charge of the issue in following up the resolutions of the Conference:

 

1) at the implementation level : (i) participate in the active dissemination of the resolutions of the conference; (ii) encourage and technically support the elaboration and the implementation of national action plans and sub-regional or packages of measures for resource mobilization; (iii) organize workshops at the national and subregional;

 

2) at the monitoring level : (i) add the tracking or the monitoring of resource mobilization measurement to “the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership”, either by disaggregating some of the 10 indicators or by adding a few indicators incorporating financing aspects ; (ii) make some arrangements in the functioning of the GPEDC bodies: a) each year, one of an extended session of the Steering Committee of the GPEDC could be devoted to monitoring issues of financing for development; b) the High Level Meeting of the GPEDC could include this item on the agenda of its midterm monitoring meeting.

 

Attachment(s) ATDia-Senegal-Contribution to e-discussion 9-27 March 2015.docx
GPEDC Moderator
Fri, March 27,2015

Dear Mr. Amadou Tidiane Dia,

Many thanks again for providing these important inputs to our e-discussion! Please note that we will incorporate your comments into the final synthesis for this e-discussion, which will be posted here on the GPEDC community space the week of 6 April.

Best,

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

Lauren Smith a Mr Paul Lupunga, Ministry of Finance and National Planning from Zambia
Tue, March 10,2015

Reponse submitted on behalf of: Mr Paul Lupunga , Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Zambia

Recognising that the GPECD is unprecedented in its global convening power and in its ambition to attend to international relations, institutional arrangements and dependence on empirical evidence for policy dialogue, concerning development cooperation,

noting also that the Global Partnership provides significant pointers as to how to redress deficiencies in both international as well as national understanding, egagement and policy considerations and inclusion, in fulfilling globally shared perspectives on the benefits of international cooperation,

With respect to question one -

1.         How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?
On the whole the Financing for Development Conference is meant to provide a platform where global leaders, policy makers, analysts and stakeholders, exchange understanding and learn from country experiences as well as agency practice. This year's themes build on multiple global resolutions of the MDG's through the series of High Level Forums to date. The question of how the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advancing country efforts and ownership of the post 2015 agenda presumes a pre-existing lack of ownership. Ownership is about political engagement of the agenda.

The agenda itself therefore needs to be well defined. Within this mix there is a question of the fact that development financing is about  coordinating various stakeholders within a global policy environment that is evolving. Added to this mix is the reality of increasing competitiveness, options and sophistication leading to access to finance. Considering this the strategies and approaches to financing for development therefore need to evolve as well.

It should be recognised that the outcome statement of the last HLF ie the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation,  drew together resolves from various strands that provided stakeholders of interest opportunity to deepen their cooperation and appreciation of opportunities from more inclusive approaches to development financing. With more clarity on the contents of the post 2015 MDG agenda, clearer mappings of localized as well as global developmental needs, availabilty of resource, and deepened understanding and use of Results from development interventions provide a clear model of the type of concentration that will provide for effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

With respect to question two -

2.         How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

The discussion therefore needs to revisit the global commitments of yesteryear. This is so that such commitments be reviewed and where desired the commitments are reaffirmed and deepened and where they are found redundant or off-centre with respect to priority needs of developing countries, that they are minimised in terms of country prioritisation.

The underlying issues facing developing countries therefore in relation to ODA and Domestic Resource Mobilisation are but a restatement of the Exit from Aid agenda. Whilst considerable progress has been measured with respect to improving the culture of managing development cooperation government to government amongst developing country stakeholders assessed in the light of increased and improved development planning by developing countries.

To say that commitments require revitalised political attention may be an understatement for many countries, as the GPECD may not have been domesticated to the degree that it has actually seen the national policy horizon in much the same way the PD did. Consequently what may be true is that the GPECD may need to be deepened in terms of the defined scope of the work by the building blocks, which if I recall well are now called by a new name.

In the broad perspective of increasing alignment and harmonisation there has however been considerable stagnation by ODA providers. This is the legacy of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. The legacy issues being added by the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation appears to be the considerable number of stakeholders of somewhat heterogenous orientation meant to be at table in discussing the developement  agenda.

In the matter of domestic resource mobilisation the GPEDC approach of inclusiveness that draws in the private sector as a party interested in national development immediately presents an oxymoron challenging the cross between its interest in promoting nationally planned poverty eradication interventions and the sectors propensity to avoid contributing taxes to developing nation states - after all taxes are the private sector's means of alignment to national programmes.

Similarly challenging is the facilitation by government of coordination with civil society. This is particularly with regard to reconciling the distinction between the various parts of civil society ie the so called northern civil society, and that which is developing country based, with itself divided in the advocacy versus development programming type which present considerable challenges in collaboration with the various entities in view of their power relations with each other and the perceived cultural and capacity differences that prevail particularly in relation to allowing developing country governments act as dialogue facilitators.

With respect to question three -

3.         How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?
What is note able to a growing measure in the development arena is that there is a significant proliferation of supporters, initiatives and issues facing developing cooperation 'absorbers'. Learning from the reasons of the current global drive for the delivering as one in the UN, the left over and hardly attended to unfinished business from the PD, failure in G20 meeting its much hyped GDP percentage contributions to ODA, the unsatifactory progress and the unfulfilled elements of the MDGs and the challenge in providing an overarching framework for the international community's multiple stakeholders to anchor into and find commonality in the GPECD show need to rationalize. This rationalisation would seek to have less scope resulting in more developing country benefits. Currently the agenda is overstretched, inadequately defined, inadequately capacitated and highly fragmented.

Beyond making the agenda briefer, there should be recognition that the more developed countries do have a greater role to play and depending on the level of conscientiousness greater responsibility in dealing with the influx of foreign resources they mobilise (FRM) from developing country territories. FRM is the inverse of domestic resources mobilised (DRM) in developing countries. This one move would reduce considerably the need for any ODA at an almost global level.

GPEDC Moderator
Tue, March 17,2015

Dear Mr. Lupunga,

We welcome your observation on the centrality of coordination and inclusive multi-stakeholder partnerships to development financing, also noting that strategies and approaches to financing for development will need to keep pace with an evolving and competitive global policy environment.

Your call for a review of existing global commitments to reaffirm, strengthen and realign them with developing countries’ priorities and needs is timely, especially in the lead-up to the FfD discussions. Revitalised political commitment to help developing countries tackle underlying issues regarding development co-operation (including managing ODA and DRM from increasingly complex resource streams) and deepening GPEDC engagement at country-level through the work undertaken by the Global Partnership Initiatives are especially important to this process. You have also highlighted the need for the principles of effective development cooperation/GPEDC to be “domesticated”, echoing one of the key messages to emerge from the pre-High Level Meeting workshop, “Unfinished Business: Moving forward to meet the Busan Commitments” held in Mexico in April, 2014. Beyond the Global Partnership Initiatives, what efforts should be made by all development stakeholders to ground global commitments in a country’s reality?  

Thank you for also drawing attention to the difficulties inherent in navigating divergent views and interests in multi-stakeholder approaches to development, such as effectively engaging diverse actors including heterogeneous civil society groups, and raising the importance of building capacity within partnerships to effectively manage diverse stakeholder interests. To this end, we would like to raise the following question:

How can the GPEDC work to support development stakeholders in mitigating differences in capacity, particularly by facilitating dialogue among partners in a multi-stakeholder partnership framework?

Many thanks again for your excellent comments!

Best,

Yuko Suzuki and Hanna-Mari Kilpelainen (UNDP-OECD Global Partnership Joint Support Team)

Danila Boneva a Aid Effectiveness Advisor from Rwanda
Tue, March 10,2015

1. How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

1) The single most significant improvement could be made by agreeing targets for cutting illicit financial flows and laying the ground for a global cooperation mechanism on taxation, tax evasion and avoidance. 2) Another one could be directed at ensuring access to less concessional and non-concessional finance by LICs and aspiring LMICs as they move along the development continuum and concessional resources become less easily available while non-concessional ones remain hard to get due to debt sustainability limitations, international ratings, stage of development of domestic and regional financial markets, etc.

3) Other improvements can address issues of governance of global public goods and institutions as existing fora are either perceived to have imbalanced governance bodies or have such a large representation that they become unwieldy. The recent trend of establishing global (by the BRICS) or regional banks to finance large investment projects in Latin America or Asia speak for an urgent need of reform of the multilateral institutions.

4) The Addis FfD should also have a robust monitoring framework, which is the only way to give some teeth to aspirational documents.  

2.         How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

1) From developing countries perspective the unfinished business from Paris and Accra still remains such. Use of country systems, better mid-term predictability, untying aid and reducing fragmentation are still top priority for governments. 2) What remains more elusive is how to capture and measure the volume and quality of new partnerships (SSC providers, foundations, private sector) and ensure that these serve national development objectives. There is still no single framework for monitoring and reporting on SSC flows from undertaking basic analysis to more in-depth research into models and innovations and value added of these types of partnerships for developing countries.  

 3. How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?

1) Firstly, the Global Partnership should ensure that whatever decisions are made with regard to ODA and other financial flows these reflect the views of the demand side of the relationship.

2) Secondly, it has to live up to the expectation of being truly global by encompassing all developing actors and setting standards that are applicable to all and creating monitoring mechanisms of the same comprehensiveness.  

3) Thirdly, it has to be able to lead transformation of development aid by accepting in its fold initiatives that have the potential to “disrupt” the current script of aid provision. One example is the International Aid Transparency Initiative and its potential to deliver real-time aid data to recipients. As long as aid, which is still at the core of the GPEDC, continues to be perceived to be supply driven, the credibility of the whole architecture around it is put into question by many in developed and developing countries alike. If we consider Rome, Paris, Accra and Busan to be the reform agenda around aid and development cooperation, then largely the reform from the perspective of recipient countries is taking too long and doesn’t bring the transformation(s) that are much needed. This leads to deep-seated disinterest in the development effectiveness agenda among senior government officials and also on a more positive note, to concerted efforts to move away from aid dependency to self-sustained development and more cooperation with a wide range of new development actors. The latter isn’t free from its own complications and complexities as the country level systems for aid and development cooperation management are still too tied to the old narrative and architecture. Benefits will reap those countries that manage to adapt to the new dynamics and have institutional systems ready to absorb more complex financing models and partnerships. These, however, require scalable capacities (political, legal, managerial, policy related), which are in high demand in LICs and do not necessarily easily available.   

GPEDC Moderator
Tue, March 17,2015

Dear Ms. Boneva,

Many thanks for providing timely and comprehensive inputs to these important topics. Many of your comments discuss the overwhelmingly supply-driven nature of aid relationships in the past, and the need to “transform” or “disrupt” the current script of aid provision. You note that the Global Partnership should advocate that the Financing for Development process reflects the priorities of the demand side of the relationship - how can the Global Partnership better position itself to do so in the evolving post-2015 landscape?

Your identification of the need for a sustained focus on country ownership in the implementation of the SDGs also drives to the heart of the Global Partnership’s statement of purpose. However, you highlighted the prevalence of disinterest by national officials in the development effectiveness agenda, due to a perception that the process is lengthy and can be characterized by “unfinished business.” How can the Global Partnership better support the communication of progress in implementing the Busan Principles and strengthen its advocacy in signaling the need for progress? Does the Global Partnership have a comparative advantage in this process, given its multi-stakeholder approach?

 We greatly appreciate your thoughtful responses and look forward to further contributions! 

Best,

Yuko Suzuki and Hanna-Mari Kilpelainen (UNDP-OECD Global Partnership Joint Support Team)

Philip COURTNADGE from Cambodia
Tue, March 10,2015

1.         How can the Financing for Development Conference and related negotiations advance country efforts to manage the wide range of development finance modalities and partners entailed in implementing the post-2015 agenda, ensuring country-level ownership?

 

For Cambodia the interest in FfD is threefold: (a) building an improved understanding of the scope of current and potential resource mobilisation opportunities; (b) dialogue and exchange of lessons that promote alignment of external resources with national priorities, particularly in the context of the SDGs; and (c) to seek lessons and exposure to good practices concerning domestic resource mobilization in the context of on-going PFM reform.

 

As Cambodia prepares for the ASEAN economic community at the end of this year, liberalizing investment and capital flows, there is a trend towards looking beyond development assistance towards a focus on FDI and private sector partnerships. For ODA and other aid-like flows, the Government’s recently recently-approved Industrial Strategy clarifies their role and provides a roadmap for partnerships that can strengthen the business environment and promote domestic and foreign investment, for example by focusing on infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, green technologies and human capital development.

 

Cambodia will therefore be looking for the FfD meeting to bring together the public and private financing sides of the discussion in a way that complements and informs its own development vision.

 

 

2.         How can countries best leverage existing effectiveness commitments to manage ODA, DRM, and co-operation with other actors? Do any particular commitments require revitalised political attention?

 

National priorities, processes and partnerships matter more. FfD and Paris/Busan, while useful as normative frameworks, are subordinate to national imperatives and the Government’s practical focus on solving specific development challenges (e.g. improving public services, creating a business-friendly environment) that have been set out in the national plan.

 

That said, DRM capacity in Cambodia has been prioritized and there is scope for learning and transfer of knowledge and experience. Global tax reforms and the control of illicit flows are of relevance and can complement national efforts. Similarly, the issue of inequality is a significant challenge for the Government and global learning on how tax policy can be a tool to promote equality to complement the expenditure side of fiscal policy is of interest.

 

On the ODA side, predictability, alignment with national priorities and the strengthening/use of national systems remain the most important development effectiveness challenges.

 

3.         How can the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, through its multi-stakeholder nature, best support developing countries in the above areas?

 

The Global Partnership serves as a useful mechanism for generating and sharing knowledge. It could be a more effective platform for advocacy (e.g. from Cambodia’s perspective, as a prospective Lower-Middle Income Country with LDC status, the issue of maintaining ODA levels is pertinent). The GP also has a facilitation, brokering and advocacy role to play in finalising the SDGs, then building their legitimacy to serve as a roadmap that can guide global and national development partnerships. 

GPEDC Moderator
Tue, March 17,2015

Dear Mr. Courtnadge,

Thank you for your pertinent contribution to this important dialogue. You have highlighted the role of development co-operation in supporting country ownership and processes in addressing specific development challenges as per national plans. It seems that Cambodia has strong ownership of its own national development priorities and processes and that the government takes the lead in exploring financing for development beyond ODA, tapping into private sector partnerships. What are the elements that enable strong country ownership (such as policy or institutional arrangements) in the context of multi-stakeholder partnerships and financing for national development? There are lessons we can learn by exchanging country-level experience around partnership for development financing and related modalities/options.

You also raised the issue of the “unfinished business” of development co-operation, namely, the issues of predictability, alignment with national priorities and the strengthening/use of national systems. To your point, shoring up DRM and limiting illicit financial flows will also be crucial to support country ownership in the post-2015 development landscape. To this end, the Global Partnership Initiatives can play a role in country-level implementation through commitments such as:

  • Belgium, the Netherlands, the OECD Task Force on Tax and Development and the World Bank’s commitment to the development of a tool for proper risk assessments in developing countries by the time of the next GPEDC HLM, which would help countries assess the prevalence of one or another type of economic crimes, and determine appropriate responses, targeted on priority areas.  They also commit to report back on their own actions at home to stem the tide of illicit financial flows from developing countries; and
  • “Tax Inspectors Without Borders”: Belgium, France, the OECD Task Force on Tax and Development, the Netherlands and the UK have launched the Tax Inspectors Without Borders initiative, and agree to identify and provide expert tax auditors to respond to concrete demands by developing countries for building audit capacity by early 2015.

Many thanks again for your reflection!

Best,

Yuko Suzuki and Hanna-Mari Kilpelainen (UNDP-OECD Global Partnership Joint Support Team)

Type forum
Date Created Mon, March 09,2015
Created By Anna Whitson
Original Space Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community
Cross posted in Development Effectiveness for Africa
Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community
# of Teamworks Views 4509
# of Teamworks Recommendations 3
Visibility Public
Domain of origin Teamworks
User Tags development, Environment, environmental social science, Sustainability, Mexico, Monterrey Consensus, International Development, Sustainable Development, Business Finance, Finance, Addis Ababa,Ethiopia
Topics Sustainability, Finance, Finance
Regions Malawi, Mexico, Malawi, Mexico, Malawi, Mexico
Countries Malawi, Mexico